As long as the people, Army and government of Lebanon continue to show their determination, and willingness to sacrifice, to not let their country be taken over by Islamic Extremists, I will continue to ask my Congressman and Senators to suppport a free Lebanon.

Phone calls, emails and letters really do matter folks.

Hi -

It really is just the beginning. In one way you're wrong, Michael: al-Qaeda has been in the camps for years, it's just now that they are manifesting themselves.

The question is how it will end: the Lebanese, I think, are taking the hoof-and-mouth approach. If al-Qaeda is using the Palestinian camps as a breeding ground for their "philosophy", then the camps will be destroyed.

Hard on innocent civilians, and there are some. But it stops the spread of the disease.

This is one huge whoop-ass wake-up call for all countries in the region. Either these governments stop ignoring al-Queda and terminate the movement with extreme prejudice, or the movement will destroy the entire region in the name of Allah and the caliphate.

All anyone needs to do to understand this is to simply read what al-Qaeda says. They believe what they say, and it is simply stupidity and folly to deny or belittle it.

Michael,

I suggest you have a look at the front page of Internet Haganah (http://internet-haganah.com/haganah/index.html). Apparently, according to sources unknown and unverified, there are 'dozens' of Americans with the Lebanese Army (good). Also, the army may have lost as many as 130 soldiers (bad). Plus, jihadi groups in other 'camps' have declared their support for Fatah al-Islam (potentially very bad).

I, for one, am surprised it took Al Qaeda so long to move on them.

If recent stories are to be believed, it might have been Syria which prompted the change. It would seem many of the al-Qaeda types operatng in Lebanon are tied to Syria: http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/getstory?openform&120773C093607DD5C22572EA0050C6CA

Why again make the stupid mistake of believing there to be any difference between islam ("repression") and al-qaeda.

The paedophile prophet was himself guilty of genocide, enslavement, rape and worse (he for example ordered his soldiers to rape Jewish women while ordering the men to dig their own graves, they are proud of this btw, you can still visit the trench they dug today. Muslims-only of course).

So let's not pretend fatah-al-islam is any different from al-islam itself. It's counterproductive to say the least. Idiotic and self-destructive would be a more accurate description.

"All muslims fight and kill for allah" (statement supposedly by allah, quran 9:111)

"When muslims went to the profet to ask if they could force the captive women to intercourse, allah sent down that captive women can be used for intercourse" - sahih hadith

This is from the "holy" muslim texts. Anyone who does not agree 100% with these two statements, or any other in the same book, is not a muslim.

...he for example ordered his soldiers to rape Jewish women while ordering the men to dig their own graves, they are proud of this btw, you can still visit the trench they dug today. Muslims-only of course

Links for that story, please? Or at least give us the name of trench so we can look this up for ourselves.

I'm not saying I doubt this, but rather that the attitudes this would engender among believing Muslims are something we're going to find impossible to tame.

So if it's possible to prove that the story is accurate, we need this information, in detail.

There is some mention of trench warfare in Wikipedia's entry on Medina.

But that's different.

Ah this article at faithfreedom.org makes the same claims, though it's less specific about when the women were raped. It does give some references and says that Mohammed himself help dig the trench and that that 700-900 men were beheaded.

A, you are a complete and utter dumb shit. I lived in Sunni Muslim West Beirut for six months where alcohol, pornography, gambling, night clubs, uncovered women, hookers, and...wait for it...mosques proliferate.

Fatah Al Islam is extremely deviant and has almost no constituency there whatsoever.

If you want to say the people of West Beirut aren't Muslims, whatever. They certainly aren't fundamentalists or Koranic literalists, that is for sure. But they will laugh and say you're a buffoon who doesn't know anything if you take it any farther than that.

Put down your Koran and get out in the world where real Muslims live.

I think the question of what Palestinians in the camps believe is much more cogent than that of what Sunnis in West Beirut do.

Anyway how possible is it to be a real believer, the kind who really knows and cares about his religion, without accepting the example of Mohammad?

i guess this is becoming kind of a theme in my comments, but damn A, you're lucky michael didn't ban you. disgusting stuff.

While I agree with your characterization of "A," I think your using West Beirut as an example of how Muslims in the real world live is highly misleading.

In terms of the social behavior of people, Lebanon is a liberal anomaly in the Arab world. The Muslims in other Arab capitals (say Cairo and Amman) are for the most part far more conservative than their counterparts in Beirut.

Then again, being religiously conservative doesn't necessarily mean that these people are keen on beheading infidels, no matter what the texts say. I don't think there have been many radical Islamic movements in the region that arose simply because people took their Koran seriously. It usually took some sort of outside influence (e.g. Iran) to shift their religious zeal towards a terroristic purpose.

Carine,

A is quite likely to be banned as soon he posts again. He went straight to my short list.

Fair warning, A.

I agree with Josh and Edgar, for what it's worth.

I'm not saying West Beirut is typical. I know it is not, which is (to be honest) a major reason why I like it so much.

I'm just quite sick of ignorant fools who think the entire Muslim world is monolithically Al Qaeda. If that were the case, why are nearly all the Sunni Muslims of Lebanon rallying behind the Lebanese Army instead of Fatah al Islam?

"I'm just quite sick of ignorant fools who think the entire Muslim world is monolithically Al Qaeda."

Join the club.

But I think people need to understand that even being a devout Muslim doesn't predispose someone towards violence. Instead of using the example of West Beirut, I would have pointed to the millions of religious Muslims in South Asia who absolutely reject the terrorists' ideology for the same reasons any sane group of people would.

Josh Scholar wrote: "How possible is it to be a real believer, the kind who really knows and cares about his religion, without accepting the example of Mohammad?"

I think people get too caught up in definitions, a good example being the weird preoccupation some Israelis have with denying the "holiness" of the Dome of the Rock to Muslims ("Muhammad never visited Jerusalem, etc.")

If a group of people agree that something is holy to them, it is. Period. Likewise, if the majority of Muslims believe they can be called as such without having to behead infidels and assemble an army to conquer the world, then they're right--and they will be every time you have this kind of argument.

Religion is what people want it to be. Texts are not everything.

mjt,

there are indeed fools like that. there are fools on any subject.

but there are quite a few who are not fools and who understand that the islamists rely on the quran and muhammad tradition to spread violence and, therefore, islam cannot be ignored. not all muslims are jihadis, but all jihadis terrorists are muslims.

the criticism of muhammad is misplaced. he lived in a different era, in which people did not know any better.

the problem is with those who want to emulate muhammad's 7th century behavior in the 21st century. and they are effective recruiting because the quran is the word of god in islam and must be obeyed.

so if you want to understand the global jihad and its local events, you MUST know and UNDERSTAND quran, hadith and all that. and the problem is that almost nobody in the west or westernized communities does. so they look at every event separately and don't see the big picture and the huge dangers to civilized society.

here's an excellent example:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm

But I think people need to understand that even being a devout Muslim doesn't predispose someone towards violence. Instead of using the example of West Beirut, I would have pointed to the millions of religious Muslims in South Asia who absolutely reject the terrorists' ideology for the same reasons any sane group of people would.

Like Thailand, no wait... Indonesia, no... Philippines, no... Pakistan, no... Afghanistan, noooo.

Southern Asia? What an example of Islam's peace!

Anyway, is it really possible to train children to be devout Muslims without predisposing a percentage of them towards violence?

Perhaps it isn't, and maybe that's why we find that moderate Muslims move to the west and have ever more radical children and grandchildren.

Immigrants are self selected to be moderates. But just because religious training had little effect on them doesn't mean their children will necessarily be immune.

edgar,

are you aware that you got it backwards?

the israelis do not deny any holyness. the arabs denie the temple!!!!

when jerusalem was under jordan no jew was allowed to the holy places. after israel took jerusalem, they did not touch the waqf.

so stop talking about things you're ignorant of.

Michael,

How would you break down the numbers? West Beirut Sunni are how many in number? Of these, what percentage now go the new Saudi built mosques dominating the sky line?

Religion is what people want it to be. Texts are not everything.

No. The problem is that the text doesn't go away. It can't be buried and forgotten, so there will always be new people who read it a learn that God wants them to hate and kill.

here's a good description:

don't say we're violent or we'll kill you!!

and these were NOT just the islamists (who are supposed to be "just a minority") but the masses.

which is essentially how they reacted to the cartoons, to the pope (who now learned dhimmitude, by the way) and so on.

Some religious texts in some religions can be forgotten. Some prophets can be forgotten.

But Muslims can no more forget Mohammad than Christians can forget Jesus. And they can no more forget the Koran and hadiths than Christians can forget the gospels.

religion can be manipulated for one's purposes. but that's a matter of INTERPRETATION of some sources.

in all religions there are literal interpretations, but in islam the text is the perfect word of god and so literalism much more important

i had an earlier exchange with mjt in which he claimed that people identify themselves in lebanon as secular shia or secular sunni.

i claimed that they are essentially secular arabs, but this is highly disadvantageous and often dangerous an identification to sport in the arab world.

the point is that parts of beirut are secular and westernized, but that does not say much about the people who conduct jihad and, in fact, at least in part lebanon is attacked for the very westrni lifestyle that mjt describes (and no, i don't mean that's the main cause of what's happening now).

Josh -

Are you implying that in the countries you mentioned (and you've curiously included Afghanistan in South Asia) the MAJORITY of Muslims support Al Qaeda?

fp -

The Jewish connection to the Temple Mount is denied a lot more often than is the Muslim connection. But I have seen the latter occur on numerous occasions (I even read something to this effect in a tourist brochure at a Jerusalem hotel). Both arguments are equally asinine, unless you want to fight about who got there first, I suppose. In that case the Jews win.

But the process of interpretation of texts is even more important than the texts themselves. For an example from the Hebrew Bible - the famous "eye for an eye" passages, which seem to say that if someone injured another person, then the culprit has to be injured in exactly the same way - the rabbis consistently interpreted this to mean monetary compensation. I don't know of these retributive measures were put into practice during biblical times, but they certainly were not under rabbinic rules. Muslim fundamentalists claim to be going back to the pure Islam of 7th century Arabia, but they (along with everyone else reading a text) are engaging in a process of interpretation - in this case one that rejects the long tradition of Muslim interpretation of the Qur'an. Muslim feminists today (for example, Professor Asma Barlas of my own college) are engaged in their own interpretation of the Qur'an, in diametric opposition to what Sayyid Qutb (Egypt) or Mawdudi (Pakistan) interpret the Qur'an as saying of women.

what A says is actually very pertinent, although I would not put it quite the way he did.

the fact is that the islamists ARE motivated by these sources and do take them literally and those who point this out -- Robert Spencer is hardly A -- are stifled as islamophobes, fools, etc.

and that is precisely how the west is self-destructing. here is a must read:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/as_europe_selfdestructs.html

fp: so if you want to understand the global jihad and its local events, you MUST know and UNDERSTAND quran, hadith and all that.

I completely agree.

But you can't understand what a typical Muslim believes 1300 years after the text was written when most Muslims never bother to read that text in the first place and don't really care what it says.

Josh: there will always be new people who read it a learn that God wants them to hate and kill.

Maybe. What are you going to do about it? Burn every copy of the Koran on the face of the earth? Kill them all? Round 'em up, ship them off to Dar Al Islam, and build a big fat wall around the place?

There is some nasty stuff in 7th Century Islam, no doubt about it. We need to know what it says so we can (partially) understand people like those in Fatah Al Islam. But those 7th Century passages in the text tell you nothing about the Lebanese soldiers fighting and dying to erase that scourge from Lebanon.

Muslims are humans. They aren't Koran Borg drones with a jihad chip in their heads.

rebecca,

of course. but the bibles are not words of god, but human made. and in fact latest research shows a lot of constant alterations to the originals which don't exist.

the problem with islam is that the text is complete and perfect word of allah, which induces literal interpretations much more than other religions.

there are 4 major interpretations but no major differences in terms of jihad.

A better prophet declaiming

heh

mjt,

you don't seem to understand the core point: those people who don't care and don't read are essentially secularized, or at least in large part.

that's precisely the material on which the islamists pound. they declare them takfir or apostates for which there can be high social and phsyical price to pay. and this is exactly what makes them effective in recruiting.

they look for those who don't care about the text who have some problems and convince them that their problem is due to precisely the fact that they don't care, and that jihad will solve them.

here's an example and there are tons of them.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?&id=9635

those soldiers, however, and those who send them to fight better understand what the islamists are all about, or they will lose. because fighting them separately in every corner of the world and without the ruthlessness and smarts and cooperation it requires, we're doomed.

and there is evidence that the western civilized world is losing big time because they are ignorant of islam.

i urge all to read the article on self-destruction i linked to.

fp: you don't seem to understand the core point: those people who don't care and don't read are essentially secularized, or at least in large part.

I agree. They are more or less like most Christians in the West. They say they believe in God, etc., but they don't follow the rules and don't really care about them.

There are also those who do read -- and this includes people like the cleric Sayyed Husseini I pointed you toward a few days ago -- who are stridently opposed to terrorism, war, and jihad. And they know far more about Islam in their sleep than you do when you are awake.

You write as though these people do not exist. But they do exist, and no one (least of all an ignoramus like A) can tell me they don't.

Maybe. What are you going to do about it? Burn every copy of the Koran on the face of the earth? Kill them all? Round 'em up, ship them off to Dar Al Islam, and build a big fat wall around the place?

"What are you going to do about it?" I don't know. But I think we should, every one of us, be completely aware of the problem so that we can usefully debate what we should do.

And I say that even though all of us knowing Islam will, all by itself bring things to a head:

. On the bad side, educating America about Islam will also educate Muslim about Islam, and suddenly a lot more buses will blow up all over the world - or maybe our newly educated Muslims will take up head chopping as more authentic.

. but it will also place immense social pressure on Muslims to give up on Mohammad's evil. You've got to be able to look at mentally ill psychotic, killing all his critics (and their friends who offended him by mourning), breaking treaties and committing genocide as evil. And the rest of it.

Under the social pressure of everyone actually knowing Mohammad, perhaps, Islam will just dissolve in the west. I don't think it can stand the light of day.

In any case, whether knowledge will kill people or save them, we must have it so that the rest of us can act sanely - and so that our enemies KNOW that we can't be fooled.

We have no deterrence if we look like fools. But if our enemies know that we DO understand the situation then what we say will have great weight.

We may decide to do nothing but at least we will know the situation and will adjust to any changes in the future...

where did i ever say they don't exist? they do, but they per-se will not stop jihad. they will have to fight it. and this means cooperation with the west and with seculars and with other religions' moderates.

and when push come to shove, i dk how many will, and whether they will be enough.

perhaps some in beirut will. but how representative that is i dk.

in another thread i posted a link to an article where an al-qaeda associate in indonesia is considering running for president. if he does and wins we will know what the moderate muslims in indonesia are made of, won't we?

josh,

it depends on HOW you teach about islam.

but you are right. it's not enough. you need to teach them fundamentals of civilization: history, since, classics, logic, etc. then it's possible to put religion in context and apply knowledge and reason to it.

this is precisely what we STOPPED doing altogether. we produce ignorami who can't even reason properly.

and THOSE are exactly the kind that are taken in by radical religion.

Josh,

Instead of (or in adddition to) highlighting the evil parts of the Koran to every American, I suggest promoting people like this guy.

Seriously, Josh, go read that link. I know you have read it before, but I don't think it has sunk in yet as much as it probably should.

Find some liberal Muslims to talk to. I'm talking about people who pray, not the secular Muslims-in-name-only. I know some people I can put you in touch with if you want a dialogue with the sane.

oops, since was supposed to be science.

Michael, he's just a man.

When he has a sect with 100 million followers, call me.

Muslims need to escape Islam - they're not capable of papering it over, even with a Sayyid at the lead.

So it's a question of personality, Michael? Is that what you're trying to tell us?

How nice. The paleostinians have new friends! They sure know how to pick em.

mjt,

josh is exactly right. while i see nothing wrong with promoting people like that, the notion that this is gonna address the problem of global jihad is ridiculous.

have you ever pondered ***why he is unknown and must be promoted***? why do you think that is?

I don't believe there's any alternative to everyone knowing the truth that is going to work. No matter how brutal knowing the truth is going to be. And it is going to be extremely brutal.

btw,

i just read that egypt has released a MB blogger, but not the democracy blogger. what does this tell you?

Well, "extremely" is overstating it.

But truth is definitely risky with Islam.

It's like marching up to Hezbollah thugs and telling them exactly what you think of them.

i just read that egypt has released a MB blogger, but not the democracy blogger. what does this tell you?

Who didn't see that coming? Not even worth mentioning, IMO.

fp: have you ever pondered ***why he is unknown and must be promoted***?

Yes, I know why. Because Hezbollah and Iran have the military and financial power to shut him up.

The Shias of Lebanon didn't support jihad until the Iranians came. Many still don't, including that guy. If the Iranian Revolution wouldn't have happened, we would be talking about a very different South Lebanon now.

Destroy the Islamic Republic and Hezbollah will die.

You ignore politics too much and overemphasize ancient texts. You put way more emphasize on the text than Muslims do.

josh,

it's because it's brutal people prefer to not know. denial is much more pleasant, but unfortunately suicidal. here's another example:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016727.php

read about the JFK terror plot and what they planned to do and let's see how the moderates will stop this.

josh,

we saw what the truth gets each time it is exposed about islam. when the clerics regurgitate it is fine, but when infidels bring up the same thing violence and threats erupt.

moreover, there's da'wa and tqiyya in the other direction.

Josh: Muslims need to escape Islam

Some of them will and do. Some of them won't.

I'm an atheist. I would be perfectly happy if the entire universe pitched God over the side.

It isn't going to happen, though, and I'm not going to waste my time and energy expecting the entire human race, or even the adherents of one religion, to come around to my point of view. It will never happen and I will doom myself to eternal frustration if I think they have to or we're dead.

Muslims exist and will continue to do so. People like you can't make them go away unless they are killed off en masse.

Daniel Pipes is correct when he says that extremist Islam is the problem and that moderate Islam is the solution. The elimination of Islam isn't an option. On the other hand, the all but inevitable liberalization of Islam is what drove Sayyid Qutb to madness. Read Terror and Liberalism.

Michael,

There were at least six new Saudi mega mosques constructed in the last 10 years in Lebanon. Any idea why that might be? (Other than some underhanded scheme of keeping Lebanese FreeMasons employed).

Sayyed Mohammad Ali El Husseini's web site

mjt,

you don't understand me. i don't emphasize ancient texts. the islamists do, and theologically speaking they have usually won. otherwise they would not be supported worldwide.

on the contrary, it is you who are focused on lebanon which in many ways is not representative of the arab world.

of course there are politics. but those politics are ABOUT something. and as long as you bring iran, it's the best example of how ancient texts dominate world politics and not the other way around.

and the fact is that neither the moderates in iran nor the west solve the problem, because the former is terrorized and the latter is ignorant and self-destructs.

read about the us-iran talks and what the american says and what the iranians say. it's pathetic.

Daniel Pipes is correct when he says that extremist Islam is the problem and that moderate Islam is the solution.

And if "moderate Islam" never steps up to the plate then what is the solution?

I never forget those former and secular Muslims who seem quite insistent that Islam will not become moderate.

In fact I see a measure of desperation in Irshad Manji these days...

daniel pipes is a very knowledgeable scholar and i agree with most of what he says. but i am not sure he's right about the moderates. i think it's more of a default hope: what else is there, if the west is incapable to defend itself?

i would like very much moderate muslims to solve the islamist problem and i agree that would be the best way to go, but there are reasons inherent in islam which makes this extremely difficult and unlikely.

now, if the west understood the issues and pursued proper policies, there would be a chance.
but the west is giving up the fight and is back to the appeasement of the 1930's. there is a good chance that europe is already doomed.

Instead of (or in adddition to) highlighting the evil parts of the Koran to every American...

I find this "instead of" very disturbing.

There's no difference to split between truth and ignorance.

If someone says that the sun rises in the west, how do you compromise with that?

People have a truthful impression of Mohammad and what his religion means or they don't. In-between is just like driving while looking backwards - you see something but you're still going to crash.

And it's a sign of denial to call the problem "the evil parts of the Koran" as if the problem were a book. For one the Koran paints a less evil picture than that Sunna (and you can't get rid of that either) - no the problem is that the religion is one man and everyone who uses that man in an attempt to get close to God will come to know that man - a brutal, mentally ill, hating, paranoid psychotic who had nothing whatsoever to offer.

So the only way to heaven through Mohammad is to become a paranoid, hating, violent sociopath.

To say anything else is to ignore the truth. Those who seek God through Mohammad will try to be like him. Full stop.

i reiterate: mohammad, while he had many flaws, did not know any better at the time he lived. he is not the problem.

the problem is the god delusion, because it requires to suspend judgment. and when you do that, all bets are off. you put yourself in the hands of those who will manipulate you for their own purposes. the likes of clerics and obl.

it's that suspension of judgment, the disregard for reason, that is the root of the problem. and islam is dangerous because it does have theologically induced violence and requires literal interpretation of the scriptures.
and it punishes almost anything by violence.

Josh: And if "moderate Islam" never steps up to the plate then what is the solution?

Well, it sure as hell "stepped up to the plate" in Kurdistan.

Muslim men who said "excuse me, I need to go pray" helped keep me alive in Kirkuk, Iraq.

The caretakers of the mosque in Biara, Iraq, thanked me because my country bombed it and ousted Zarqawi from it.

For every extemist nut bag you can point at, I can show you people who believe in Allah who have faced them with rifles.

so you lived in beirut and with kurds and from that you project to all the ME?

sure there are people like that. even many of them. but they are not the problem and they are unlikely to solve the jihad problem.

i suggest you don't judge world politics in terms of your personal experience. it's not serious.

Well, it sure as hell "stepped up to the plate" in Kurdistan.
No, Kurds stepped up to the plate with an ethnic and national identity, being Kurds first and Muslims second and could not accept being like Arabs and Persians.

That helps a world full of Muslims not at all. Are Arabs going to be saved by not wanting to be like Arabs?

Josh,

Read Sayyed Husseini's Questions and Answers about Violence and Non-Violence at the Web site you linked to.

Don't tell me how every Muslim must be a violent sociopath, etc. You are libeling some personal friends of mine and you are starting to piss me off.

I like you, Josh, and I mean that sincerely, but you need to step back.

Josh: Kurds first and Muslims second

Well, that's partly what I mean when I say Muslims are human beings, not Koran Borg drones. A person's religion is very very rarely 100 percent of their identity.

Most Kurds have told me Persians as a whole are like them and not like Arabs, by the way. The vast majority of Iranians absolutely detest the government of the Islamic Republic. A fringe and utterly unrepresentative minority has the guns there.

I mention the Kurds a lot because I know them well, not because they are the only moderate Muslims in the world.

How many jihadists come out of Central Asia? Outside Afghanistan and Pakistan, to my knowledge, the number so far is zero. (There might be a few from somewhere, but I have never heard of them.) They are more moderate there than even the Kurds. Kazakhstan (Muslim majority country) has good relations with Israel, etc.

The whole Muslim world isn't Palestine. Ok? Palestine is absolutely microscopic in size.

Josh: Are Arabs going to be saved by not wanting to be like Arabs?

How many terrorists come from Oman? Again, to my knowledge, zero. It's an Arab country, you know, and a conservative one at that.

The answer to your question is "no."

the problem, mjt, is that you project from what you know well -- which is limited -- to the muslim and arab world.

what you describe are EXCEPTIONS not the rule; yet you seem to treat them as if they were the rule.

kurdish experience and history is different than the arabs; and of the persians; and of the indians; and of the south-asians. global jihad does not come from the kurds. neither do the kurds have madrassas instead of schools, kindergartens and universities. therefore you cannot project from them to the global muslims.

do some serious reading on the roots of islamism, radicalization, recruitment, methods of operations, pay attention to the violence spreading in some coordinated way all around the world and maybe you'll have less confidence in the secular society, including secular muslims, to combat it.

Of course the whole Muslim World isn't aligned with Al-Qaida. Neither does it promote or even support it. But Al-Qaida survives because practically the whole Muslim World tolerates their existence. In my opinion, so long as that doesn't change, Al-Qaida will always exist. Al-Qaida, like America, can only be defeated by within. In America we have "The 5th Column". No such thing exists within Al-Qaida. Not yet anyway. Recently, we saw the first glimpse of that happening in some province in Iraq though, where rival factions have begun to war with each other. Is this also called "Civil War" by the American 5th Column? If so, can anyone explain to me why that is a bad thing?

nostra,

correct. as i already said, islamism won't win, the west will lose.

there have been some good analyses of the internal fissures in islam and islamisms, including what's happening in iraq.

the problem is that instead of exploiting those fissures, western policies lead to unification against the west. this is exactly what iraq has done.

the 5th column is already too big in europe to stop and there are clear sign of similar process in the us.

mjt,

here's moderate turkey -- the single example that is used to demonstrate that islam is compatible with democracy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/world/europe/01turkey.html?_r=4&hp&or&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

of course, that argument is false. islam has been stifled politically by iron hand. and yet it did not go away and waited for the right opportunity.

do some reading on the akp, their history and how they practiced what can only be described as takiyya to get power.

now, clearly there are plenty of secular muslims in turkey, we saw the demonstrations. but who do you think will win in the long run given what the article says? i know on whom i bet.

"In short, Hitchens critique of religion come down to four main points: that it misrepresents the origins of humankind and the cosmos, demands unreasonable suppression of human nature, inclines people to violence and blind submission to authority, and expresses hostility to free inquiry."

So you see, it's not muhammad, nor jesus, nor budha. It's superstition.

When people who all call themselves Muslim engage in theological arguments about Jew-hatred, the oppression of women, the necessity of the pursuit of jihad, and the Allah-commanded requirement to establish a global caliphate under which the entire population of the planet is forced to join an ummah subject to sharia law, the jihadist mujaheddin will win every time, because they are supported by the Quran and the hadiths. For those who nevertheless refuse to listen and obey, those selfsame sources prescribe a brutal and violent solution.

Now, I'm not saying that people can't change in spite of their holy texts; the US won a civil war with those who pointed to Biblical justifications for slavery, and now those, such as the Ku Klux Klan, who still espouse such a doctrine, are few, and widely ridiculed and condemned. Also, the hegemony of a brutal medieval and Inquisitional Christian reign was indeed, with the help of the Enlightenment and the Reformation, eventually broken in Europe, but not without the expenditure of many lives over hundreds of bloody years, nd remember that the US still suffered grievous losses on both sides settling the slavery issue.

But then again, the Bible is acknowledged as a human-authored (although divinely inspired) document, while the Quran is considered to be a word for word recitation of the message that Allah communicated, via the angel Gabriel, to Muhammed, so it is much more difficult for the faithful to step away from the more vicious and cruel admonishments contained within it. Plus, there is the fact that Jesus and Muhammed pursued their lives in radically different fashions, and the hadiths, which document his life and sayings, add much fuel to the jihadist, imperialist, supremacist fire.

I'm not saying that the larger Muslim world is incorrigible, irretrievable, or irredeemable on these issues; I AM saying that any evolutionary transition away from them will be exceedingly difficult, involving an extended period of bloodshed and strife. Anyone who does not recognize the profound difficulties that the source scriptures of Islam present to effectuating this change are, in my opinion, living in at least a partial state of denial - and one from which their eventual awakening is likely to be exceedingly, surpassingly rude.

My point is simply that the Muslim world is varied. It is not now and never has been a monolith. Anyone who has traveled around the Muslim world knows this very well. The Koran won't tell you that, but experience and knowledge of the real world does.

In some places the extremists may well be the majority. (Egypt, for example, is a real Islamist horror show.) In other places (in the Arab world as well as the wider Muslim world) they are at times only a microscopic minority.

Even Pakistan, which seems more full of crazies than most places, votes against the Islamist parties overwhelmingly every time they have elections.

I am not uninterested in what the Koran says, but I am more interested in how actual breathing human beings live, think, and behave.

You will learn precious little useful information about Canada, France, and America from reading the Bible. And you will learn just as little about Kurdistan or Lebanon or Tunisia or Uzbekistan or Azerbaijan or Oman or Dubai from reading the Koran.

You won't even learn much about Iran from reading that book, and there's a country governed, supposedly, by Islamic law. The real Iran, the one that exists in 2007, is more like Poland in 1986 than it is like 7th Century Arabia.

sal,

the examples you give of change were achieved in two ways: by coercive defeat and by education.

chances are that the combination of the two is required to change islamism too.

unfortunately, it is exactly these two weapons that are being given up: education has collapsed and islamism is being appeased, not fought.

Salamantis: the jihadist mujaheddin will win every time

But they don't.

The Kurds threw all their mujahideen idiots into Iran. They were conveniently located in one place on the border. It took them two days in 2003, and that was the end of it.

And the Kurds are conservative Muslims. They are nothing at all like the decadent Muslims of Lebanon.

Don't tell me how every Muslim must be a violent sociopath,

You're slipping categories so that you'll have an argument.

I didn't say that every Muslim must be a violent sociopath, I said that Mohammad was a violent sociopath and that if you seek God by getting to know and emulate Mohammad that's what you will be emulating.

You may not want to face what I'm saying, but I don't think you can be honest and still deny that it's the truth.

In my opinion, so long as that doesn't change, Al-Qaida will always exist. Al-Qaida, like America, can only be defeated by within.

I'm convinced that our greatest hidden strength in the war on terror is that Muslim societies must be riddled with sane people who are willing to (secretly) rat on the Islamists.

They must have a very powerful third column.

mjt,

that's a rather silly comparison which shows that you insist in not paying attention to what is being said and you refuse to accept inherent differences between islam and other religions.

the bible is not a political ideology anymore and is not being used as a justification to exterminate or subjugate non-christians. it was once in history and it behaved not unlike islamism. it was tamed, turned into a private rather than public superstition.

it is inherently more difficult for islam to undergo such a process and it is precisely because you don't know and understand islam that you don't see it.

you cling to the variety in the muslim world as some sort of proof that islamism won't win. but in that you blind yourself to global events.

i repeat: if the west understood what's going on and pursued smart policies including to exploit the variety, fine. but it does the opposite and it keeps reinforcing and enhancing the jihadists, causing even the moderates to be cautious in the fear of that win.

mjt,

that's a rather silly comparison which shows that you insist in not paying attention to what is being said and you refuse to accept inherent differences between islam and other religions.

the bible is not a political ideology anymore and is not being used as a justification to exterminate or subjugate non-christians. it was once in history and it behaved not unlike islamism. it was tamed, turned into a private rather than public superstition.

it is inherently more difficult for islam to undergo such a process and it is precisely because you don't know and understand islam that you don't see it.

you cling to the variety in the muslim world as some sort of proof that islamism won't win. but in that you blind yourself to global events.

i repeat: if the west understood what's going on and pursued smart policies including to exploit the variety, fine. but it does the opposite and it keeps reinforcing and enhancing the jihadists, causing even the moderates to be cautious in the fear of that win.

Josh,

I'm not defending Mohammad.

I am defending the real life human beings, some of whom are my friends and have been in my home, who say Peace Be Upon Him, and are not violent sociopaths.

You say people like them don't exist, but I know they do and you cannot edit them out of existence no matter what verses you cite from a text 1300 years old.

They ignore the medieval aspects of Islam and Mohamamad just as Christians and Jews ignore the primitive parts of their own religions.

I of course know very well that fewer Muslims do this right now than Christians and Jews, and there lots of reasons for that. That may be true forever. But many of them do ignore the primitive and embrace the modern. More of them will do this in the future because Islamism destroys itself wherever it succeeds.

Just watch what happens in Iran when the mullahs are thrown out of power.

And look at Algeria now.

You are talking about a book and I am talking about people. That's a big reason why we aren't connecting.

I agree with pretty much everything you say about the book.

What is most important as far as control goes in the Middle East is who have the guns and the will to use them.

This was proven in Saddam's Iraq, where a Sunni minority long dominated the Shia and Kurds, Is the case in Iran, where a brutal minority imposes a cruel religious regime on the majority of iranians who wish nothing more than simply to be rid of it, is a fact on the ground (which the Muslim Brotherhood deplores) in Egypt, is being brutally imposed in Gaza by Hamas even in the face of Gazan residents begging for an Israeli incursion that they hope would restore some semblance of normal life there, and is a major factor in the Hezbollah intimidation in Lebanon.

It's the old cliche (but cliches usually become cliches by virtue of being true); might is right - or at least sucessful. I am buoyed in this instance by the fact that the weapons and numbers are on the Lebanese Army side, and am overjoyed that the Anbar Awakening in Iraq is spreading, and that the sheikhs have thrown their armed sons into the battle against Al Qaeda there.

Our best options, in my opinion, are not only to to close down brainwashing mosques, madrassas and media in Pakistan and Palestine, among other places, by any means necessary, but also to identify those who will stand with us against these zealous fanatics, and for their own autonomy, and spare no efforts to train, arm, and assist them.

I have noticed that Muslims are enamored with (amazingly) arbitrary Islamic legal rulings, and that is somewhat seperate from the Koran and Sunna. These might explain some of the variation.

I theorize that Muslims have to seek escape valves from Islam, and one escape valve comes from the shear random arbitrariness of Mohammad's rulings and from the sloppiness of religious reasoning. One can't derive any humane principles from Mohammad, but one can attempt to defend one's humanity by looking for legalistic loopholes based on arbitrary examples blown out of proportion by irrational argument.

So these laws are important to Muslims, but are complete gobbledygook, and no non-Muslim in his right mind would torture himself by reading them. So outside of the Koran and Sunna, which are monstrous but not dishonest and unreadable, there's this whole realm we can not enter.

fp: you insist in not paying attention to what is being said and you refuse to accept inherent differences between islam and other religions.

I am well aware of the differences.

You are talking about a text and a religion on paper and in the abstract. I am talking about human beings, some of whom adhere to that religion as you describe it and some of whom don't.

I've received personal death threats from Islamist fanatics, and the ones in Lebanon fired missiles at me. (Not at me personally, but at the ground I was standing on.) I am not one of those politically correct fools who think these people either do not exist or have a "point" or that Islam is no more inherently violent than Christianity.

Islam, in the abstract, is more dangerous than Christianity. That is undeniable.

It is, to be honest, my least favorite religion (if I can put it like that) in the entire world. And yes, I do rank them. They are not equal.

What is most important as far as control goes in the Middle East is who have the guns and the will to use them.

This was proven in Saddam's Iraq, where a Sunni minority long dominated the Shia and Kurds, Is the case in Iran, where a brutal minority imposes a cruel religious regime on the majority of iranians who wish nothing more than simply to be rid of it, is a fact on the ground (which the Muslim Brotherhood deplores) in Egypt, is being brutally imposed in Gaza by Hamas even in the face of Gazan residents begging for an Israeli incursion that they hope would restore some semblance of normal life there, and is a major factor in the Hezbollah intimidation in Lebanon.

It's the old cliche (but cliches usually become cliches by virtue of being true); might is right - or at least sucessful. I am buoyed in this instance by the fact that the weapons and numbers are on the Lebanese Army side, and am overjoyed that the Anbar Awakening in Iraq is spreading, and that the sheikhs have thrown their armed sons into the battle against Al Qaeda there.

Our best options, in my opinion, are not only to to close down brainwashing mosques, madrassas and media in Pakistan and Palestine, among other places, by any means necessary, but also to identify those who will stand with us against these zealous fanatics, and for their own autonomy, and spare no efforts to train, arm, and assist them.

I need to bow out of this argument now. I have an essay the size of a graduate student thesis to work on.

Carry on without me...

Oops I forgot to make it clear just WHY I was talking about Islamic law.

My point is that these schools of law may explain the differences between groups of Muslims.

Islam can be reformed. The basic desire of people to live in safety and security both created religion (or was created by the author of all religion) and has moderated religions over time. The fact that the Koran is believed to be the divine word of G-d is an obstacle, but not irredeemably so. The Torah is considered (at least by the Orthodox and Sephardim) to be the word of G-d, given to Moses at Sinai. Even the oral Torah (reflected in the Talmud) is considered the divine word of G-d passed through the generations. Nevertheless, Judaism, even prior to the birht of Reform Judaism and the rejection of absolute biblical authenticity, Judaism had moderated itself through Orthodox Rabbinic interpretation (often applying a non-literal, allegorical approach to interpretation), that significantly curved the sharper edges of belief and practice. Much of this exegesis occured in the diaspora and under the subjugation of others, which circumstances may have been an impetus to the process, which is one reason I tend to think the reform of Islam is moving so slowly, insofar as it has been manifested in a successful, if often regressive, form.

Michael and others:

What A is referring to is the story in the Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) where Mohammed kills the Banu Kuraizah tribe of Jews. He buries them in a trench up to their necks and lops of their heads with a sword on horseback. He and his men take their widows and daughters to be their sex slaves (concubines). It is frequently cited whenever an enemy (the Jews) are needed in Muslim society to provide some sort of scapegoat/enemy. It is by all Shia and Sunni authorities considered "Sunnah" i.e. a practice of the Prophet considered coequal with the Koran. [I am actually appalled that all commenters are not familiar with this, it is as well known among Muslims as the Last Supper is among Christians. And no, the Prophet was not merely a more colorful Jesus. Quite a different character and so is his religion.]

I for one would be very wary of taking the extreme weakness, division, and lack of a single group dominating Lebanon as "proof" that Muslims or Islam can be in any way considered a tolerant much less modern society as understood in the West. Even before the Mandate, Lebanon's Christians were under various forms of "protection" by European powers as the Ottoman Empire weakened making that place a unique case. More typical I would assert is the regular pogroms in Egypt against the Copts as an example of Islam's attitudes toward minority groups.

I would also be quite careful of projecting Western conceptions to a people who don't share any fundamental precepts (Nationalism as a basis for extended trust groups, Greek-Roman rationalism, Judeo-Christian Pacifism). Sunni Muslims in West Beirut may debase themselves with booze and pornography where Mosques also proliferate, but that doesn't mean they think like a Westerner. Self-evidently they don't: in economics and technology and corporations the record is total failure, and the entire non-petroleum exports of the Arab world in 2000 were equal to that of Finland, population 5 million. Spain translates more books into Spanish last year than the Arab world has ... ever. These are not indicators of a Modern People. Surely you have recognized the vastly differing ideas about time in the Arab world compared to the West (or East for that matter)?

They are people, surely, but so too are other deeply tribal and non-modern folks.

While the people in Beirut or Kurdistan may be nice and friendly towards you Michael, I would not romanticize them which in all fairness I detect a great deal of in your writings. They remain fundamentally non-Western, tribal, and anti-Modern. The murder of the Yazidi girl (while police stood around and others used the cellphones to ... video her brutal death) makes my point ... tribe trumped everything else. They can use the trappings of modernity, but can't actually make them much less act in modern, national and non-tribal ways.

I can confidently predict that the Lebanese Army will largely fail in it's attempt to take on the Fatah-al-Islam, because as de Atkine points out on "Why Arab Armies Lose Wars" the Army is there to prevent coups, not actually fight. The Lebanese Army is not like the Turkish one (analogous to Western, national armies) because there is no Lebanese nation. Over and over in your reporting on Lebanon the tribal, sectarian, and familial divisions that infest Lebanon and the Arab world come clear as does the total lack of Lebanese patriotism and unity. The Lebanese Army is too divided on sectarian lines to do anything useful no matter how much US assistance is given.

Ironically, your reporting on Hezbollah showed them to exist beyond tribe, clan, and nation. I am not surprised in the least that Hezbollah was able to fight Israel to a draw whereas the armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan could not. Hezbollah I would argue is Lebanon's future because they have found a way around the deep tribalistic divisions that plague the Arab world. Hezbollah stands poised like Caesar's legions against the fractious, divided Gauls.

Unless the US intervenes, Hezbollah will own ALL of Lebanon in six years or so. Their unity allows them to fight and win. Who's going to stop them? Disorganized tribes? Clans? West Beirut's Cafe Society?

[I would argue Qutb's reaction was one of tribalism confronting modernity, but perhaps that's a quibble. His type of reaction however is seen over and over again: the Fort Dix, London 7/7-7/21 bombers, 9/11 plotters, bin Laden and Zawahari, the JFK plotters, various "sudden jihad" types in the US too numerous to mention, the Madrid bombers, and so on. Exposure to the West, and globalization, seems to provoke Qutb's reaction. So clearly this is not getting any better at all, but rather worse. It also implies that there is no peace to be had until either tribalism or modernity wins and completely destroys the other, given the violent reaction modernity produces in tribalism. A terrible thing to contemplate but there it is.]

what are you talking about? on paper? they are blowing up everything, beheading, you name it. are you serious?

it's not in the abstract. it's what moves those maniacs to kill, stone, blow up, behead. this is what they are taught in madrassas and mosques. this is what they teach whole generations of kids.

and they will not let those secularized to live in peace. this is a global problem and i don't see it happening.

IMFink'sPa, the reason I disagree is this subjective argument:

Because Islam is one person, it builds a picture of a man. You get to know the gestault of Mohammad's personality and state. You study Islam and get to feel who the man is, you become Mohammad.

The problem is not just that it's the "word of God" but that it's in a form that reaches much deeper into the human heart than concepts do - and that form is the personality, psychology, methods and principles that form a coherent whole. And that whole is an exemplar, and more than an exemplar. You can not be Jesus because "I and the Father are one", but you can be Mohammad.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

And it's worse than it would be for a better man, because Mohammad's phobias and paranoias and hatred and tantrums and greed and lust and manipulativeness and dishonesty and complete disregard for liberty and complete disregard for life are all so extreme. You can't miss the emotion, the hysteria in Mohamed.

You can't hide such an overwhelming personality.

jim,

mainly correct analysis and perception of mjt's perspective. a lot of western projections.

the lebanese reaction to hezbollah is more or less the reaction of the west to islamism.
they are both likely to lose.

Jim, I find your post unconvincing. I think you're making us pessimists look bad. Please stop it :)

josh,

isn't christianity one person -- jesus?

you're too hooked on muhammad and it sort of blinds you.

isn't christianity one person -- jesus?

Right, but what sort of man was Jesus? Was he brutal?

And add to this the fact that he was a tad above humanity "I and the father are one".

Mohammad on the other hand was in absolute terror of his delusional God. He said that he wasn't even sure what Allah was going to do to him.

The ways in which the cases were different make the argument rather than destroy it.

Even if Christians became Jesus, what harm would that do? And how would things be different?

jim,

hezbollah is a sect, so it's not exactly a way around sectarianism.

but what it did find as a way to fight and win is exactly what mjt calls a paper and not real. guess what that is.

Josh,

I do understand your point. My point was not really to directly equate Islam with Judaism. While both are based in a literal word of G-d, Judaism is self-limiting. It is not interested in broad conquest or subjugation. It is about establishing one place, for one people to act as a model. Judaism is not a tolerant religion in the sense that it rejects polytheism and lawlessness, but it has a strong ethic of treating monotheists who can create their own laws as equals. In its core writing, the Koran, the Sunnah, the Hadith, and the example of the prophet, Islam is expansionist. As Michael and others have noted, however, it is practiced by individuals, moreover, it is anti-modern. As a consequence, and over the long-term, I am convinced that those elements within Islam who wish to bring it into accord with modernity will succeed in reforming it. Mohammed can be relegated to the role of Joshua instead of the "perfect man" and his exploits confined to his era, his most despicable conduct that cannot be reconciled with modernity can be marginilized or treated in the manner of King David's more shameful behavior. Outside of Mohammed's exmaple, the Quran can be reinterpreted. At the moment, reactionary elements have significant momentum, but their tribalism, isolationism, and opposition to modernity is likely to prevent them from triumphing in the long run. The most successful Islamic imperial triumphs in history grew out of a nationalistic fervor in a pre-modern world. I am concerned by the damage that the jihadis may do in the interim and I view history over the long term so I have no illusions that it will be a short or easy confrontation, but I am unwilling to accept the concept that Islam cannot be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world. The fact is, there are only 4 long term options: 1) Islam reforms and joins the modern world; 2)radical Islam creates an eternal caliphate; 3) Islam itself is eradicated; or 4) tribal conflict degrades modern and wester governments to a more anarchic tribal state of nature. Option 1 is, in my opinion, inevitable (again, however long it may take). Option 2 is a farce. Even on the smaller scale of an Iran, there is no evidence to suggest that purely Islamic state, even one with a predominantly muslim populace, can form a stable, long-term empire in a modern world. Option 3 is too distasteful to contemplate. Religions may die out over time, but none of the modern one (last 2000 years or so) have done so to date and the modern world has no interest in genocide on that scale. Option 4, is reasonable, I suppose, but it is really a transitional state that will ultimately lead to one of the other options.

Of course Lebanese people aren't Western. Some of you guys are describing them as though they are Jihad Robots with the Koran as their software.

If that's the case, why do virtually all the Sunni Muslims of Lebanon staunchly side with the Lebanese Army against the Sunni Muslim jihad?

The majority of Lebanese soldiers carrying rifles against the jihadists are Muslims. What more evidence do you want that you are projecting the text of the Koran onto people you should not be projecting it on?

Get your nose out of that book and look at the world.

well, but a lot of brutality was done in his name nevertheless. and those who did it thought they were the most pious. so emulation is not everything in religion.

at the time when muhammad lived violence was common. and so it was when jesus lived. it is said that he called himself king of the jews and who knows what he would have done against the roman had he not been killed.

assuming there was a jesus, since that is questioned.

no, you're turning what we say into caricature of it.

i was not talking about the lebanese but the jihadis and they are the ones we should focus on. otoh you focus on those who are not dangerous and use them as proof that the jihadis won't win. and that is a sort of denial of reality.

jihadis are robots. that's exactly their strength. and they are able to turn more and more into robots. and the west is helping them.

We must endeavor to resist the tempting tendency to romanticize this sitation a la Rousseau's 'noble savage', and likewise strive to resist the common tendency, following either the conscious or subconscious tendency of an all-too-common, and in this case, Sheherezadan, multiculturalism that tends to permeate contemporary thought, to engage in cultural relativism, and thus to either equate the 'civilization' proferred by Islam in general, and radical Islamists in particular, to modern western secular constitutional democracy, or else to even to romatically prefer it.

We must carefully, comprehensively, and thoroughly peruse both the words and the actions of all competitors concerned, as well as their actual real-world consequences, and engage in dispassionate and abstract analyses of their respective benefits and liabilities, yet consciusly strive to root these analyses in the concrete results obtained when each model is applied in our present and historical world.

The radical disparity between the praxis of the West and of Islamism is quite apodictically self-evident, and all of our decisions as to the existential survival and dominance of one of these models or the other, and what we are and are not willing to do to assure it, must follow, as a logically and rationally mandated exigency, from our clear-eyed recognition of this vast difference, and what the actualization of one side or another of that wide chasm entails in pragmatic terms for both ourselves and our descendents.

sal,

nice. but here's the reality:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25730_Kos_Kidz_React_to_Terror_Plot&only

Mohammed can be relegated to the role of Joshua instead of the "perfect man"...

Mohammad was aware of the possibility of Muslims doing something like this to him and made it impossible.

You can't get to God unless you love Mohammad more than your own children.

Yes I know that Mohammad seemed to contradict his own terror of Allah and uncertainty in his own salvation he said that, but he was nothing if not manipulative.

In fact he only mentioned his own uncertainty of salvation in order to stir up violence. He told the troups that any Muslim who died in battle would go straight to heaven, and that's when he said that he wasn't even sure that he would get get in.

You see? If your only prophet may not make it to heaven, then you fucking better die in battle (or have a family member who dies in battle - that's in there too I think). When Muslims see infidel soldiers they may complain about "oppression" and talk about "resistance", (and there are theological reasons for that) but what they see is pure gold, a road straight to God and heaven. Terror is with us forever because the payoff is heaven, not politics.

Religions may die out over time, but none of the modern one (last 2000 years or so) have done so to date and the modern world has no interest in genocide on that scale.

Zoroastrianism?

so emulation is not everything in religion.

But you can't prevent it from happening and being relatively common.

You're still talking about Mohammad, Josh.

Let's talk about the world for a second.

Why do you suppose the Muslim soldiers in the Lebanese army are killing jihadists instead of joining them? Why do you suppose nearly all the Sunnis of Lebanon support the Christian and Druze amd Shia soldiers in the Lebanese Army who are killing Sunni jihadists?

The Koran has no explanation for this whatsoever. This should tell you something important.

Please think about these questions even if you don't answer them.

fp, I am all-too-well aware that there are significant fifth column elements within our own society that fall victim to the two fallacies that I enumerated; our goal vis-a-vis them is to do our utmost to engage that self-labeled reality based, but in fact reality-challenged, community, and to educate them both on the stark alternatives with which global society and culture is presently presented, and to persuade them to apply the energy they are presently expending in opposition to our present administration to the sustenance and advancement of our own model instead, by inculcating in them an understanding of what each choice ultimately means for us all.

More and more of then will, as time goes on and atrocities proliferate, be mugged by reality, and change their positions and redirect their efforts. We should help them along as best we can.

Josh,

You may be right, but I am unwilling to take a deterministic approach to Islam that presupposes that it is irreformable, because that leaves only one option and that option is inconsistent with any model of humanity that I am willing to accept. If Islam is irreformable and inexorably violent, then it must be eliminated, ie. convert them or kill them. There are far too many legitimately moderate muslims (although all too often frequently cowed or insufficiently moderate for my tastes) for me to accept your premise. Muslims do not have to accept Mohammed as the perfect man and the model for all behavior. They simply don't. Just because an ever more marginalized group of extremists (ideally) and certain entrenched anti-Islamic westerners may consider them apostates does not make it so if they are the majority. The Hareidi may not accept conservative conversions, but the vast majority of Jews do. Ultimately, it is the majority that will prevail. I'd like to hope that that majority will be Sufi, but I will settle for a Reformed Sunni or Shia. In any event, it will take a long time.

Zoroastrianism survives, just not in the country of its birth. Check out the Indian Parsees.

my best guess is that they are foreigners whom they see in the service of syria who kill muslims.
had they been infidels or killed infidels ... remember the marines? don't recall a lot of regret.

The Koran has no explanation for this whatsoever. This should tell you something important.

It doesn't need to.

I never implied that Muslims are unanimous or homogeneous.

My question was whether the violence from Islam can ever end.

So my question is whether the violent strains can ever be completely suppressed or permanently lose all popularity in the societies now enamored with them - and never get it back.

My belief is that the violent strains will always come back and will always have popularity somewhere among Muslims because they come directly from Mohammad.

fink,

in theory you are correct. but not in reality.
in theory islam is reformable, but the conditions for it do not exist. and if it ever reforms it will not be islam, but something else.

and yes, islamism must be fought and defeated. but it isn't. instead it is supported and surrendered to.

Theologically, Islam mandates that infidels should be converted, enslaved, or murdered (and many infidels are not even allowed the enslavement option). I am not against us refusing to oppose the jihadists among them with a similar doctrine, because we are supposed to be better than that, but we should not delude ourselves that we are not collectively and voluntarily tying one hand behind our backs when we confront them on the world stage in a global zero-sum game (Islamofascism or a constitutional-democratic modernity).

And let's not get ahead of ourselves, all happy because it's theoretically possible for radical Islam to lose all popularity in some society or other.

It's still popular in many and not losing ground. It's even growing.

It remains to be seen how well it can be wiped out. But I'm pessimistic that you can get rid of Jihad except by attacking Mohammad and destroying Islam as a social force.

And we all know that Islam's response to criticism of Mohammad will be the same as Mohammad's own response to criticism, murder and more murder and terror too.

sal,

education must be done systematically since childhood. by the time people are ignorant and unable to reason, it's harder to gain access to them. the example i linked to is as lost a cause as the islamists are.

the combination of the two is lethal and i don't see civilization having an answer to them.

a lot of damage must be done before the majority will wake up and it's not clear whether that won't be too late to do something about.

there are clear indicators of the start of a process of suicidal in the us similar to that in europe. and europe is already lost.

IMFink'sPa you do realize that there's no reason to believe that reality will conform itself to what you think is acceptable. The truth can be horrible.

sal,

i repeat: we don't fight them with a hand tied behind our back, we're appeasing them and helping them.

Josh: My belief is that the violent strains will always come back and will always have popularity somewhere among Muslims because they come directly from Mohammad.

That may be true.

If Europe is lost, which I doubt, it will be because of the tactic that islamists have been using upon it: not to attempt to overwhelm it with conquering armies, but instead to peacefully immigrate into it, and only then to rise up and subvert it from within, as Bat Yeor so cogently described in her book Eurabia.

Why I doubt that it will work is that europeans are 1) on the front lines of this suborning, and experiencing it to a much more accelerated degree than is the US, and 2) that they have a historical proclivity of meeting internal threats with sudden and overwhelming violence.

The harbingers of that aggressively self-protective reaction are already beginning to manifest in Europe, with amazing rapidity.

FP, unlike some parts of Europe, the United States has a long time.

I would like to see some immigration slowdown, but there's no emergency here and probably won't be for a long time. But I'm no expert in demographics to be sure of this.

And I'm not at all sure of what will happen in Europe. I expect that democracy may cause some big flips in policy. The European elites seem to have quite the contempt for their public, and that isn't a stable situation when there are social troubles. Take note of France.

I'm not right wing, but I do note that there has been a panic for years of right wing backlash. Maybe what they're afraid of is very real..

that they have a historical proclivity of meeting internal threats with sudden and overwhelming violence.

Yes, whenever I have heard the French calling Israel a Nazi state I've found myself smiling ruefully.

France was a Nazi state once and I can imagine them turning into one overnight and going infinitely further than Israel - killing and expelling their immigrant population.

Hypocrisy isn't morality, but it buys its wardrobe at the same shop.

mjt,

that HAS proven true to date, turkey being a recent candidate.

sal,

you're exactly right about the method, but it has been effective because europeans countries have been self-destructing. i wouldn't bet on the extreme right to save europe, but if it does, i wouldn't want to live there either.

josh,

i recognized that it has a longer time, but it pursues imbecillic policies that speed the process up like iraq and immigartion law. the fact that the US is in serious decline does not help either.

But just because I can imagine something doesn't make it the most likely scenario.

The worst scenarios are what will happen if more rational steps are never taken for too long.

josh,

dream baby dream.

france turned nazi out of cowardice, not courage.
there are areas where the french don't dare going.

there is a lot of wishful thinking applied to sarkozy -- that's all it is.

This isn't my dream. I'm sure the French are still French. And having a more rational government takes the pressure off.

Just to clarify one minor point on the Jesus/Christianity question. Christians almost universally have a triad in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Yes, it says Christ in the title, but the Word of God includes the Old and New Testament. Jews hold an unique position because they were the 'chosen of God.' Christians do not hold the Jews in a bad light for the crucifixion of Christ since he was sent here to die in the first place. That was the salvation process. According to the bible Christ died for your sins, and by accepting him as your Savior, you get a pass to heaven.

I spent a lot of years in several protestant churches and there are slight variations on those themes. Catholics? Ask someone else. But I just wanted to put that out there so you don't equate Jesus and Christianity to Mohammed and Islam. Jesus was merely the human manifestation of God to Christians. Still God, but not God the Father.

And no, I'm not a believer in any God in any way, shape, or form. Just know the bible pretty well for an amateur raised in it.

well, josh, it think it is and we'll live to see who is right.

in the meantime, here is how islamism and jihadism are combatted:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=J41CQO5M12QFVQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2007/06/02/do0201.xml

allan,

you don't know what you're talking about.

christianity is the root of anti-semitism. to this day.

Just wait until the rural French 'peasants' reach their tipping point - and it is close at hand, if violent revolutionary Islamist actions continue there - and commit...their sons and daughters populated a very brutal, courageous, efficient and effective French Resistance, once upon a time.

christians have a really hard time to theorize the triple divinity which gave rise to all sorts of absurdities because, of course, it's nonsense.

Theologically, Islam mandates that infidels should be converted, enslaved, or murdered

Is not true. Eventho I'm jewish and just read some of the most outright lies on islamonline about jews that are written in the quran, the above statement is NOT true. There is sura 9:29 which EXPLICITLY forbids compulsion in religion.

Of course there are always people who can manipulate every religion into what's in their own gain. But the Islam itself does not " mandate that infidels should be converted, enslaved, or murdered"

:)

well, josh, it think it is ...

Too many pronouns. You think what is what?

re telegraph...

Oh yeah, British timidness. One more reason to be pessimistic.

There is sura 9:29 which EXPLICITLY forbids compulsion in religion.

Yes, early Mohammad, completely and thoroughly contradicted by later Mohammad, over and over.

Jesus. I thought everyone knew that by now.

And don't ask what Mohammad said when he was dying!

ah, but why the timidness? THAT's important:

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/05/31/on-western-media-in-cultures-of-intimidation-bbc-vs-wsj-on-alan-johnston/#comments

josh,

good example of the ignorance about islam which support denial of the reality.

good example of the ignorance about islam which support denial of the reality.

Well that quote is the best example of the dishonesty of Muslim when talking to us "enemies of God". They do lie about this one whenever they can get away with it.

And you can't blame someone for not expecting a cleric to lie to him. Christian priests, Jewish rabbis and Buddhist priests never lie about their religion consider lying in general to be a sin (not sure about Buddhism on this one - it never came up). So it just doesn't occur to a westerner that an Imam lies as he breaths.

But I never blame Muslims for lying. I think that in Arab society often the only way a man can be humane is by lying.

When the rules are inhuman and inflexible, lying is the only escape valve.

The Qu'ran is not arranged entirely chronologically. It kind of resembles Kurt Vonnegut's novel Slaughterhouse Five in that respect.

btw, the verse you quote is actually Sura 2, verse 256.

Another (early) verse (18: 29) states that "It is the truth from your Lord; so let whoever wishes have faith and whoever wishes be unbeliever."

The section from which you quote, and the one which I added, were written during the Meccan period, when Muhammed's forces were weak, and found the need to compromise with its enemies. The later Medinan sections, when his forces were stronger, do indeed prescribe such choices, and they are granted theological supercession over the earlier ones.

Try reading 9:29.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [that is, Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya [a special tax levied only on non-Muslims] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Feh.

This comment thread is dominated by standard-issue dehumanization of the "enemy" and fear-mongering.

After liberal democracy wins this battle -- as it has so many others in the past -- we'll look back on tripe like this with embarrassment and shame, just like we do those ridiculous "jap" cartoons from WWII.

Btw, tsedek, did you not misquote 9:29 as saying precisely the opposite of what it indeed states? I wonder whether taqiyyah and kitman abound, even here...

This comment thread is dominated by standard-issue dehumanization of the "enemy" and fear-mongering.

No. You're confusing result with process. Yes what we've written has the same form as some familiar bigotry such as the dishonest "criticisms" that antisemites make of Judaism (as in this thread.

But what we wrote is entirely different because it is true and relevant. You're capable of seeing that distinction I hope?

Cremy Goodness, screw your straw man and the trojan horse he rode in on. This is not a matter of racism against a people (which would be stupid, anyway, as most muslims are not Arab, or even Middle Eastern), but criticism of some doctrines of a particular faith, as codified and theologically recognized in their holy scriptures.

I shouldn't have written "we"

I was only speaking for myself.

You guys need to talk to some (sane) Muslims instead of each other for a while. You are in one serious echo chamber here and I can't break you out of it. I'm not a Muslim anyway nor will I ever be.

Go talk to this guy for a while before you end up on Jupiter.

Seriously.

And ask questions and listen, don't yell at him. He's a liberal Muslim and knows more about it than you all put together.

Salamantis: criticism of some doctrines of a particular faith, as codified and theologically recognized in their holy scriptures.

There is that, yes. And that's completely okay by me.

There is also a great deal of talk about "Muslims" as a whole being basically Jihad Robots.

Some of 'em basically are. Meanwhile, a Muslim-majority military is sending tanks and artillery and snipers after that sort right as we speak.

There is no talk or even acknowledgement of those kinds of Muslim in this thread except from me.

Man, I tell you, after living in a Muslim part of Lebanon -- the country that spurred this discussion -- this thread reads like total insanity.

No. You're confusing result with process. Yes what we've written has the same form as some familiar bigotry such as the dishonest "criticisms" that antisemites make of Judaism

I appreciate that you appear to have understood my critique and have addressed it forthrightly.

But what we [sic] wrote is entirely different because it is true and relevant.

The assertion that your arguments are "true" does not make them any more persuasive. I find MJT's portrait of Muslim diversity and struggle much more life-like and much more in tune with my own understanding of humankind and this world we all live in.

And yet, my point was not that there are no sane Muslims, but that Islam can not stop creating violence.

Eteraz has a group blog here

Eteraz is liberal and tries to support liberal causes. But to take an interesting example, he tries to make a legal argument that Sharia doesn't support killing apostates. That's a wonderful cause. However the legal and theological support is weak.

So the question is "how many Muslims will support what is morally right over what is Islamic?" And "can Muslims, in general, even see human morality that contradicts Islamic morality"

It's a fascinating play to watch this progress, but not very hopeful I think. Very dark indeed.

Salamantis: I wonder whether taqiyyah and kitman abound, even here..

Oh stop it. Tsedek is an Israeli Jew, not a taqiyyah practicing Muslim.

The paranoia and wingnuttery in here tonight is unbelievable.

There is no talk or even acknowledgement of those kinds of Muslim in this thread except from me.

I've got one for you, MJT.

One of my favorite columnists is a Pakistani who writes for Dawn, Irfan Husain. This week, he returns to a favorite theme of his, the persecution of minorities. Past columns of his that are among my favorites include Beyond the Veil, a virtuoso display of empathy, and Pipedreams and Daydreams, pondering the need for a Muslim Reformation in the wake of 9-11.

He's also one of the only people I know of who correctly assessed the state of Iraqi WMD prior to the American invasion:

I am convinced that after being gutted first by the war with Iran, then the Gulf War and its subsequent sanctions, the Iraqi war machine poses no threat to anybody but the Iraqi people.

Brilliant, humane, entertaining guy. Also the only columnist I read who occasionally sprinkles his prose with "PBUH".

I find MJT's portrait of Muslim diversity and struggle much more life-like and much more in tune with my own understanding of humankind and this world we all live in.

I didn't start out pessimistic either. It took a long time and lots of conversations, arguments and reading to get this hopeless.

But I'm always prepared to be surprised.

The fall of the Berlin wall was the first large happy surprise in my lifetime. I hope there will be others.

Josh: he tries to make a legal argument that Sharia doesn't support killing apostates. That's a wonderful cause. However the legal and theological support is weak.

That's probably true. So what? Don't say Eteraz is wrong and Bin Laden is right just because a 7th Century (!) text supports Bin Laden. Of course a 7th Century text is more likely to support a 7th Century asshole than a 21st Century liberal. How could it be otherwise?

Eteraz is probably theologically wrong. So? Let it be. Let Muslims evolve past the 7th Century by contorting themselves (as Christians, etc, also contort themselves) without trying to argue them back into it. Fuck Osama Bin Laden. Don't enable him and his fascist view of the world.

I support gay rights. I could, if I felt like it, go into the liberal church around the corner from my house and show them Biblical evidence that demonstrates they are bad Christians for also supporting gay rights.

I could do that. And I would be "right" in a literal and Biblical sense.

But that's a politically stupid thing to do, and I am not going to do it.

Religious people who pitch 7th Century (or older) garbage over the side need to be encouraged, not told they are standing on weak theological ground. All modern and liberal religious people stand on weak theological ground whether they are Muslims or not. The Muslims may be on weaker ground, but they are all on weak ground.

This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

You should hear my mother explain her version of Christianity. She's way more out in left field than Eteraz is, but I'm not going to tell her that James Dobson is a better Christian than she is. He isn't. He's an asshole.

Will the world be a better place if you go around telling liberal Muslims that Osama Bin Laden is right?

Moderate Muslims become moderate Muslims by rejecting the text of the Koran as it was written and intended at the time. That's why I keep telling you to get your head out of that book and look at the world as it is instead.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam need "bad Jews," "bad Christians," and "bad Muslims." Otherwise we're all going to kill each other. So I suggest you encourage the "bad Muslims" like Eteraz and quit saying the fundies are right.

Muslims will always be with us. May they all decide to live on weak theological ground as the Christians have.

There is also a great deal of talk about "Muslims" as a whole being basically Jihad Robots.

And yet the entire Muslim world sides with the Palestinians who turn out Jihad robots on an industrial scale. What does that tell you?

I watch Muslims from all over the world apparently jump to support murderous Jihadis in Kashmir for no reason. What does that tell you?

Even good British and American boys run over to Kashmir, knowing nothing about the situation, but eager to help some gang shoot at innocent Hindu and Sikh civilians. What does that tell you?

Yes, Koran irrelevant.

Moderate Muslims become moderate Muslims by rejecting the text of the Koran as it was written and intended at the time. That's why I keep telling you to get your head out of that book and look at the world as it is instead.

Fair point.

I'm just worried that this isn't making headway, that it's too crippled.

I guess the answer is a holding patterns and bandages on the wounds while we wait and hope.

But I keep also worrying that technology has doomed us all, because destruction is becoming trivial.

Eventually eventually technology will enable the tiniest group to destroy the world... How many Jihadis can we afford?

To make that a little clearer, I meant that I'm worried that because of the advance of technology we've run out of time. The Jihadis will be able to do too much damage - to destroy civilization in a shorter time than it will take Islamic culture to modernize.

Josh: And yet the entire Muslim world sides with the Palestinians who turn out Jihad robots on an industrial scale. What does that tell you?

They side with the Palestinians because the Palestinians fit into their "tribe," not because of what the Koran says. Arabs side with them because they are Arabs.

But anyway, don't believe everything you read in the media. Lots of Muslims don't give two shits about the Palestinian cause. Turks, Kurds, Persians, and Kazakhs for instance. (Not talking about the Islamic Republic government, obviously, although I'm sure it's pure cynicism on their part at this point.) There are probably others, but I am not sure. I wonder what the Bosnians and Albanians think of the Palestinians.

The Kurds like the Israelis and are horrified by the Palestinians. The Koran does not get in their way, which is why you should read it but not overvalue its importance. It isn't software wired into people's heads.

Josh: The Jihadis will be able to do too much damage - to destroy civilization in a shorter time than it will take Islamic culture to modernize.

I worry about this as well, although I'm more concerned with losing a city than the planet.

If someone nukes New York, it's all over for the jihadis.

On the one hand, I can't help but sympathize with MJT's frustration with the reductionist and absolutist tenor of many of the posters on this thread. It goes well beyond pessimism, nevermind realism, to paint Islam as a religion that must be eradicated for the the rest of the world and civilization to survive and flourish. Eteraz is only one example of a rising tide of Islamic liberals seeking to reform Islam and perhaps, representing a significant portion of the largely quiet majority of Muslims who would just as soon live their lives in peace.

By the same token, continually pointing to the largely Sunni troops routing out the fundamentalists in Nahr el Bahred is of little comfort to the Israeli's who watched that same group turn a blind eye (or even encourage the same at times) to a different creed of the same extremist last summer. There is simply too much self interest in the current offensive for it to give much succor to others who have been on the receiving end of Islamist aggression and seen the same defenders of freedom either ignore