Guardianophobia
This is an immensely irritating article. Very typical, and symptomatic, and all the more irritating for that.
More than half of Americans believe there are more violent extremists within Islam than in any other religion and that the faith encourages violence against non-Muslims, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll yesterday…Analysts blame the surge on a confluence of factors…above all, the riotous protests across the Muslim world against Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad.
Analysts ‘blame the surge’ on ‘riotous protests’ in which a lot of people were killed – killed dead, over some cartoons, the most ‘offensive’ of which was faked. Well, yes, that probably was a factor. In other words analysts ‘blame the surge’ on real events, and people’s awareness of those real events. Well – is that not allowed? Are people not allowed to observe real events and draw conclusions from them? What are we supposed to do? Observe real events and decide on principle not to draw any unpleasant conclusions from them? Are we supposed to observe Fred Phelps and his followers (one of whom gave an interview on the World Service last night that was quite astonishing) and not draw any conclusions about them?
But nearly half of Americans, 46%, said they held unfavourable attitudes towards Islam – compared with 24% in January 2002. The Post quoted analysts as saying that the demonisation of Islam by politicians and the media during the past four years had led to an erosion of tolerance.
So, there’s our answer: yes, we are supposed to observe real events and not draw particular conclusions from them. There are conclusions we’re not supposed to draw, no matter what the evidence for them. There are certain conclusions that are ruled out in advance. There are certain conclusions that are ‘demonization’ and the opposite of ‘tolerance’ (and, no doubt, ‘respect’), and they are forbidden. The only permitted conclusion, apparently, is that all religions (or ‘faiths’) have exactly, and I mean exactly, the same ratio of good to bad, the same number of faults and virtues, the same moral value. That is simply a revealed truth, and it cannot be gainsaid by any amount of actual real-world actions or speech, any amount of facts and evidence. No number of beheadings of schoolgirls, stonings to death of women buried up to the neck while their children are made to watch, exploded tube trains and buses and pizza restaurants and discos, death threats, ‘honour’ killings, riots, fires – no such number is permitted to be taken into account. No. It is simply Forbidden to think that it might possibly conceivably actually be a mere fact that there are more violent extremists within Islam than in any other religion and that Islam does encourage violence against non-Muslims. But what if it is in fact true? If it is in fact true, don’t we want to be able to take that in? Do we want to be forbidden to take it in by being told it is ‘demonization’? I would say no. Again, consider Fred Phelps. I don’t want to be told to ‘tolerate’ Fred Phelps – I want to reject him and everything he says. That principle applies across the board. We need to be able to judge religions and the ideas that animate them, and to say they are bad and harmful if they are in fact bad and harmful. It’s no good assuming anything is good or harmless without looking first. The use of the word ‘Islamophobia’ in the title of course sets the tone, by right from the outset (‘Islamophobia’ is the first word in the piece) telling us what to think: telling us to equate opinions critical of Islam with the loony-sounding ‘Islamophobia’. It was Islamists who came up with that idea, telling followers to use the word whenever possible; it’s pathetic that the Guardian helps out. It’s worse than pathetic.
James Zogby, president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute, told the Post he was not surprised by the poll’s results. Politicians, authors and media commentators have demonised the Arab world since 2001, he said.
And here we just descend into hopeless confusion and inanity. The survey was about Islam, remember? Not Arabs? Islam? What’s the Arab American Institute got to do with anything? What’s ‘the Arab world’ got to do with anything? What are we talking about? Anything? Everything? Whatever comes to hand? Is this just a none-too-subtle ploy to equate criticism of Islam with racism? Similar to the ‘Islamophobia’ ploy? Either that or hopeless confusion. Anyway, classic.
> A majority, 58%, of those interviewed now believe that Islam has more violent followers than any other religion.< Only 58%? Given the reality to which Ophelia alludes, it seems like a pretty ‘tolerant’ result to me. Over at Harry’s Place they posted a letter that the Muslim Action Committee (the “moderate” umbrella group that organized the second anti-cartoon demo in London) has sent to all British MPs asking they sign up to their campaign for Global Civility:
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/ (Scroll down to Civility 2)
Here are the MAC’s moderate demands:
>We believe that the economic and diplomatic boycott against Denmark will be continued until the following objectives are attained:
1. A proper and complete apology by the Danish Prime Minister, the editor of Jyllands-Posten paper and the all the cartoonists.
2. An undertaking that the paper will not print such depictions and stories again.
3. By the rule of civility in the ‘right to reply’ we demand an undertaking by the paper that one Hadith of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) be printed every issue for the next 12 months on civility, as selected by the Muslim Action Committee.
4. The legal copyright of the cartoons to be handed over to the Muslims.
5. The proceeds from the cartoons to be given to European children’s charities.
6. Danish PM and Jyllands-Posten to sign up to the Proclamation of Global Civility.
As MPs it would be a strong statement of solidarity if you would sign the enclosed ‘Proclamation of Global Civility’ and also to endorse the apology criterion for Jyllands Posten as set out above that should begin to resolve the issue.< Yes, that should do it. Just capitulate completely and we’ll call the whole thing off.
I’m relieved to see that article was in the Groan and not the WaPo. The groan is a lost cause. I haven’t bought it for the past five years, or the Independent though unfortunately there is no alternative to the BBC for many things, especially the World Service. But there needs to be. Actually the Beeb needs to be responsibly run as a new gathering org and not a bleeding political party.
OB,
To be fair, what proportion of Americans actually distinguish between arabs and moslems?
My own view, and it may be worth little, is that Islam is going through a period roughly analogous to the religious killing frenzy that we saw in Tudor and early Stuart England. Violent, indiscriminate mobs, public butchery, destruction of art, obsessive fear of the powerful enemy beyond the seas, mutual suspicion, resurgence of superstition and witch killings, endless bloody schisms, power-brokers orchestrating fear and hate. In England reaction against that hysteria led to the fuzzy old CofE and a still resonant horror of religious ‘enthusiasm’.
Of course we have a duty to call this when we see it, and to damn the eyes of those who would silence criticism, but we also need to be aware that not every muslim is a takfredi or Islamist, any more that every methodist whist drive is filled with Phelps wannabes.
When a poll respondent says they are hostile to Islam, is that a considered postion on the ideology of the religion, or something more simplistic?
I know that violent Islamism is a serious problem, maybe even a crisis, but I’ve known too much friendship, courtesy and hospitality (when I was in real need of it) from moslems not to feel uneasy about too broad a brush.
I agree with OB’s themes, while finding Don’s analysis very interesting as well.
However, I disagree with the underlying thesis that Americans dispassionately read news reports and modifty their opinions accordingly. A significant percentage of Americans, for example, fully support George W. Bush and think the War on Iraq is just nifty. Heck, most Americans still believe in American Exceptionalism and a belief that we are a unique and unalloyed force for good in the world. Shoudln’t an understanding of history disabuse people of that notion?
Global civility…hoo-boy…my head hurts.
Don, no, of course not every muslim is a takfredi or Islamist, but it doesn’t follow that Islam itself must necessarily be entirely harmless. A lot of Muslims, fortunately, like a lot of Xians and a lot of Jews, ignore many of the tenets of their own religion, but that doesn’t mean the tenets aren’t there. The one about apostasy for instance.
I strongly hope you’re right about the phase. I also hope it ends very very very soon.
Oh, lordy, a significant percentage of Americans think the sun travels around the earth and that they have a parking angel. Of course what they say to pollsters is not a considered opinion.
The fact that it may be only a very small percentage of Muslims who are violently inclined or support terror ought to be considered completely separately from the issue of what Islam itself preaches. And the race of a particular Muslim is yet a third issue. Mixing any or all of these things together is not helping anyone or anything.
The fact that it may be only a very small percentage of Muslims who are violently inclined or support terror ought to be considered completely separately from the issue of what Islam itself preaches.
Razib at Gene Expression would hardly agree with you. See here.
Maybe I should say it the other way around. It is possible to consider to what extent Islam either commands or condones violence separately from the issue of what most of its adherents do in practice. 100% of all Muslims might be (theoretically) very nice people, which would not at all automatically mean that their religion is a good thing or not an abomination, considered from a standpoint that respects basic universal freedoms.
I daresay lots of people would hardly agree with me and for a myriad different reasons. However, I think I am right, mainly because my opinions follow my knowledge, rather than vice versa.
Sorry, spelling error. I meant takfiri.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri
Ah, well if you meant takfiri, so did I. I ain’t never heard of it before.
They’re not very nice.
In his hatred of Islam, Cathal forgets again that we have our own little nasty side called Christian Reconstructionism/Dominionism-and they are not just a powerless little fringe movement but a big party of the Republican Party’s power structure. I think the overlap may be closer to identical than suggested by this graph. Again, the Salafiists don’t control nuclear bombs and the world’s biggest military. Our Dominionists have the ear of the President of the United States.
I think we lose focus when we try to make this a “Christian Good versus Islam Bad” thing. I’m more in favor of a “Religious Nuts Bad” meme myself. Heck, for that matter, Hindutva scares me, too, because they trhow in the lovely view that their victims are fated by “karma” to be their victims.
This equation of “one set of religious nuts = any other set of religious nuts” might be intellectually comforting in that it allows one to stop thinking but the fact of the matter is that no other set of religious nuts but the Islamist kind are actually killing innocent civilians as a way making their political point.
You may not like the fact that Bush has his finger on the world’s biggest nuclear trigger but he got in that position by following a process which I think we all agree is the best political process we’ve managed to come up with so far.
If it’s one tribe against the other it will be the democracy tribe against the totalitarian tribe. Count me in.
And I hope count us all in. If secular humanists don’t stand up for democracy alongside the Christians and Jews, they will stand up without us. If they win that way, well it doesn’t say much for secular humanism, does it. And if they lose, where do you think that will leave us? It will leave secular humanists where the left was left when the Islamists took power in Iran: dead.
‘it will be the democracy tribe against the totalitarian tribe’
I admire your optimism. But there are too many signs of lines being drawn on more visible criteria. Some people, such as yourself, may choose to make a considered stand on principle; most will go directly to the simplest and most obvious division. A lot of people will find themselves on one or another side of a line they didn’t even know existed.
The problem is that it is democracy that is in play. Christians may stand up as Christians and Jews as Jews, or Israelis, but the name of the game is democracy, and its survival. Let us stand up for secular humanism, we will be on the side of democracy. But let’s just stand the fuck up!
“but he got in that position by following a process which I think we all agree is the best political process we’ve managed to come up with so far.”
No, I don’t agree – unless by ‘process’ you simply mean democracy, democracy plain and simple without qualifying adjectives. But democracy is not the only relevant word to describe the process by which Bush got elected. The process is also intensely corrupt, irrational and anti-rational, carried on via tv advertising via brief emotive irrelevant sales pitches, reported on by a mass media with ever less sense of responsibility to inform and educate the public, voted on by a public that has on average not been well educated either by the mass media or by the school system. I think the US process is badly, tragically, shockingly flawed, and far from the best we’ve come up with so far (by ‘we’ meaning humans).
“the name of the game is democracy, and its survival”
Again – I would name the game differently. Democracy isn’t what’s at risk. Liberal democracy may be, but just plain democracy, not. That’s the problem. If it’s purely a matter of popular will, the name of the game is theocracy, which could win in a lot of places now precariously ruled by generals. I would say the name of the game is secularism, individual rights, liberalism, universalism, equality, autonomy, free thought, reason. Those are under more threat than democracy is.
Juan,
I think we may be at cross purposes here.
As a secular humanist I regard Islam as an outmoded form of myth-based social control which, a thousand years ago, may well have provided a structure and a legal system more conducive to stability, human rights and the development of scholarship and civilisation than that which preceded it or surrounded it. But that was then. Today it often underpins all the social ills we know so well. So, yes, in that sense stand up. Support those who seek to reform it, oppose those who use it to maintain an oppressive social system, recognise that most adherents do neither but are just trying to get by in a hard world.
As a democrat, I recognise that there is a real and immediate threat from a number of groups who, over the past few decades, have used their interpretation of Islam to wreak mayhem on the world and I am quite prepared to stand up against those twats. But I am concerned that the two are being conflated. These are different issues.
When that bomb went off at the wedding reception in Amman, pretty much everybody involved was a moslem. Only two out of a hundred or so were the enemies of democracy. The rest were having a party. Are they the enemy?
Maybe the bride’s father, blown to pieces in front of her, was a domestic tyrant who cited his religion as justification, maybe he was just a loving father. I have no idea, but I am not inclined to tell that bride that she is my enemy, incompatible with civilisation.
The vast majority of casualties of Islamist violence are moslems. By a massive margin. You directed your anger at Islamists; my point is that many, probably most, will instead just go for moslems because when fear and loathing take hold finer points go by the board. And in the public sphere, in day to day life, that is liable to translate into something ugly for which I will not stand the fuck up.
The argument of the terrorists is that (their perverted form of) Islam is incompatible with democracy. If we buy into that, where does that logic lead? To one or other ceasing to exist. All religions are incompatible with democracy, because all have the Nobodaddy clause. But somehow people manage to rub along.
When Islam is used as a justification for stoning women to death we should be angry and speak out. And make common cause with those within Islam who are working for change. When Christianity is used as a justification for torturing children to drive out demons we should be angry and speak out. And make common cause with those within Christianity who are working for change.That is our duty as secular humanists.
When fascists use religion as a cloak, whip up mobs (and mobs are not exclusive to Islam)and shout the odds we should certainly stand up. That is our duty as democrats. But please, lets be very clear who we are standing up against.
I am not suggesting that you are simplifying the issue to ‘All moslems are my deadly foes’. But that is a growing sentiment and I caution against it.
For many, the next step is ‘ragheads’.
Don, my point is that the game goes to those who stand up and play it. The sentiment which seems unmistakable in “If this gets to be about ‘When two tribes go to war’, count me out.” is that you think you can just sit things out. And I’m saying if you sit it out your side will lose. There are sides and the other one will win.
The sooner we stand up the more influence we can have over how things go. The longer we wait the more time and space we give to the BNPs of this world to set the terms of the confrontation. So long as we don’t say, “Hell no!” to the Islamic chauvinists, we are leaving space for racists to say “Go to hell!” to people simply because they are Muslim or “look” Muslim. I don’t see how refusing to say no to Islamic chauvinism because racists are saying rude things to Muslims will do anybody any good.
OB, I was talking about democracy, not US democracy in particular, but not just elections either – pluralism, checks and balances, due process – yes, OK, liberal democracy, to avoid arguments. But I don’t consider elections on their own to be democracy. I’m not sure one is possible without the other, actually.
Juan, ah, I see. But – surely the process Bush followed to get in the position he’s in was, indeed, an election? I thought that was the process you meant. It seems to me he is much more a product of the US election system than he is of liberal democracy. In fact, now that he’s in a position to, he’s doing a fine job of subverting checks and balances by blithely ignoring legislation he doesn’t want to obey. He’s not much of an advert for liberal democracy, in my view. More like an abortion of it.
The process is also intensely corrupt, irrational and anti-rational, carried on via tv advertising via brief emotive irrelevant sales pitches, reported on by a mass media with ever less sense of responsibility to inform and educate the public, voted on by a public that has on average not been well educated either by the mass media or by the school system.
That’s more or less the same as what the Right tend to say when somebody on the Left wins an election.
‘The sentiment which seems unmistakable in “If this gets to be about ‘When two tribes go to war’, count me out.” is that you think you can just sit things out.’
I have re-read my comments on this topic and can’t see where I have proposed ‘sitting out’ the issue of oppressive practices carried out in the name of religion.
Nor have I proposed ‘sitting out’ the issue of those who would use intimidation and violence to attack free expression of ideas.
But when it is claimed, as with Cathal’s assertions, that all moslems are by definition the enemies of civilization, then that leads to tribalism. I am not going to leap to any banner proclaiming ‘Us good, them bad’ unless ‘us’ and ‘them’ are very clearly defined.
Don writes:
when it is claimed, as with Cathal’s assertions, that all moslems are by definition the enemies of civilization, then that leads to tribalism
Perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough. At any rate I made no such claim.
Have a look here at the graphics I copied from Razib’s GNXP site (Razib, incidentally, is a cradle Moslem). The title and subtexts are my own — I red-marked column three for Don’s edification.
I find Razib’s graphic amusing, but it is not actually evidence.
And could you explain what a ‘cradle moslem is?
Bring your own banner, Don, but make sure you’re on the right side of the barricades.
But there’s something else going on here. I mean maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t get it. Cathal has made two comments in this thread:
and
And the comments about this have been:
and
I would like to ask, what, what merits the descriptions “hatred of Islam” and “moslems are by definition enemies of civilization”? It seems like anything other than “Islam is as pure as the driven snow” is going to be called racist. Is that fair?
OB, I wasn’t presenting Bush as a paragon of democracy only a product of it. The deeper point is that the U.S. democratic system, like other liberal democracies is still open and reformable. Just about every president in US history has been criticised for mis-using his power. (Lincoln threw a congressman in a military prison after a secret trial during the Civil War.) But warts and all, the system is still reformable. Liberal democracy is far more representative than the scary mullahs, far less repressive than the scary mullahs, far more reformable than the scary mullahs.
And for all those reasons, it means something quite different when Bush “name-checks his god” than it does when a scary mullah shouts “Allahu Akbar”. That is why I pointed out that Bush was elected.
Agreed, Juan. Although (alas) I would say the US system is less open and reformable than that of some other liberal democracies – simply because the system of bribery is so entrenched and so (therefore) unreformable. It’s depressing to say that, but I think it’s true. But as for less repressive than the scary mullahs, god yes. I have no immediate plans to emigrate to Iran!
“That’s more or less the same as what the Right tend to say when somebody on the Left wins an election.”
It’s not, actually – too ‘elitist’ for the pseudo-populist Right. But I’d have zero problem agreeing with it if it were. My point was about elections in general, not just ones that put Republicans in the maison blanche. I’m very far from thinking everything is just ducky as long as a Democrat wins.
I find Razib’s graphic amusing, but it is not actually evidence.
And could you explain what a ‘cradle moslem is?
(1) It may not be evidence but the fact that I have used it as a reference suggests at least that I do not hate muslims.
(2) cradle Muslim = anyone born to Muslim parents who ‘loses the faith’ during of after childhood (as in ‘cradle Catholic’).
juan,
Point taken. I was referring to comments on previous threads. such as;
‘… what is at stake is the survival of our civilisation – i.e. whether we beat the living daylights out of them or whether they beat the living daylights out of us.’
And assertions that a moslem must necessarily be defined as one who supports the stoning of women.
‘It seems like anything other than “Islam is as pure as the driven snow” is going to be called racist. Is that fair?’
That misrepresents my position. And I believe I put it reasonably clearly. I want ‘them’ and ‘us’ clearly defined, and if ‘them’ equates to ‘moslems’ then I am staying well away from your barricade.
As for Bush ‘name-checking’ his god, my point was that if you are Joe Moslem just trying to make a living and somebody drops a bomb on your family and then cites his god as justification, you are naturally going to regard him in the same way as we regard Islamist terrorists. It might mean something very different to you, it doesn’t to someone on the receiving end. Especially if your media is spinning this story for political advantage. So we get mobs and hate and bloody barricades.
Cathal,
Thanks for the suggestion that you do not hate moslems.
So by ‘cradle moslem’ you mean ‘not a moslem’. In the sense that I am a ‘cradle methodist’, i.e not a methodist. How is that relevant?
Don,
So by ‘cradle moslem’ you mean ‘not a moslem’. In the sense that I am a ‘cradle methodist’, i.e not a methodist. How is that relevant?
Yes, strictly speaking, that is what I meant — though there are some ‘cradle moslems’ who for opportunistic or tactical reasons claim that (according to their own definition) they are still ‘moslems’ in much the same way as Al Gore claims that he ‘believes’ in God.
Such as that Canadian woman whose alphabet soup name I’ve forgotten and I’m to damn lazy to google it (‘Canada + lesbian + islam’).
Now it’s off to bed.
Signed
The President,
B$W Fan Club,
Luxembourg
CC
P.S. Well, I did google it after all — fourth hit, Wikipedia.
It’s Irshad Manji.
‘Such as that Canadian woman whose alphabet soup name I’ve forgotten and I’m to damn lazy to google it (‘Canada + lesbian + islam’).’
Thanks. You have made your position clear.
Well, I think different people are defining “them” in different ways, but all of them are relative to Islam, aren’t they?
Some would say our only enemies are the individuals who carry bombs, and their bosses and others who knew about the bombings and didn’t tell anybody.
Others would say the enemy is the totalitarian ideology of Islamism.
Still others would say the enemy, in the UK, is the 32% of Muslims who would answer an opinion survey by saying “Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end”.
And then there are those who would say that Islam is the enemy.
At the complete extreme, I suppose, is someone who would say every single Muslim is the enemy and maybe even those who would say, in the UK, that everybody but indigenous stock English should leave little England.
In response to the violence by some Islamist terrorists, the demonstrations by some Muslims over things like the Mohammed cartoons, and the demands by the politically correct brigades piggy banks to be banned as offensive to Muslims, barricades are being mounted.
It doesn’t look like it’s going to go away.
So where the barricades are placed and how they are done will be defined by the people who put them up.
There are other barricades to go up, too, of course. For example, where the racist right reacts to this situation. So there will be three main areas of barricades at least, it seems.
It seems to me that the more this is done with words and political struggle, the less dangerous it will be for all concerned. I’m afraid that the longer we wait before engaging in these “political barricades” the more chance there is for actual street barricades.
This may not be one of more coherent posts but I’m going to have to leave it there for the night. Good night all!
You know…after reading about Wafa Sultan, I’ve been pondering…I wonder if it will sooner or later occur to Islamists that killing and threatening everyone who doesn’t agree with them is actually not the way to get anyone who’s not already an Islamist to admire Islam. I wonder if it will eventually cross their minds that what they are in fact doing is making people, including a lot of Muslims, loathe Islam – people who didn’t loathe it before. Maybe not, maybe they’ll go on being happy to use force instead of persuasion or example, but…I wonder.
Without meaning to demonise, OB, you’ve got people who don’t think like you and me thinking like you and me. If they think they’re doing what they’re doing because it is obedient to instructions they have received and those instructions say nothing about the need to make anyone else admire Islam, then that consideration may never enter their heads. If they are genuine believers, and not part of a herd dragged ahead despite their fears, they are more likely to be smug and arrogant in their certainty that as long as they do what Allah commands, he will see to it that they don’t lose on the deal. You and I are probably mentally incapable of going there, no matter how hard we try to do so in a thought experiment. Our “understanding” of that kind of adversary will probably never transcend the intellectual to reach a visceral level.
After reading about Wafa Sultan, I’ve been pondering, too.
The title of the NYT article on Wafa Sultan runs: “For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats”.
However, in the MEMRI transcript of the Al Jazeera interview, Wafa Sultan is quoted as saying:
“I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others’ right to believe in it.”
Two questions and answers:
Q. Is Wafa Sultan a Muslim, or isn’t she?
A. Wafa Sultan is not a Muslim.
Q. Since Wafa Sultan is not a Muslim, why does the NYT say that she is a Muslim?
A. The NYT says that Wafa Sultan is a Muslim because the NYT will lie through its teeth in order to avoid stating the obvious on religious issues.
Interesting debate. I, like Don, was responding more to earlier threads by Cathal, especially my favorite, the “every Muslim intellectual is by definition worse than Fred Phelps” argument (gag me, please).
Juan and Cathal: I, like Don, am hardly saying that we need to sit out the “War of Civillizations” you seem to be eagerly anticipating. My main concern, however, is that I am not as certain as you are that Fundamentalist Christians-especially the further reaches of Christianity-are in any way, shape, or form allies in any battle to preserve secular, Enlightenment, Western society. Some would argue that folks like Terry Nichols, Randall Terry, the Atlanta Olympics bomber (Rudolph?), the Christian Identity movement, etc. already exhibit a growing toxicity and even terrorism toward the rest of us. Throw in the frightening sight of cooperation with Islamic societies on conservative (oppressive) policies toward, for example birth control, and are you so certain our “allies” are anything but temporary-of-convenience, and that by enabling and encouraging the great tribal conflagration you are merely exacerbating the situation. Looking at history, I’m not quite as certain as you are that absolutist Islam really is worse than Absolutist Christianity. The example of Spain certainly comes to mind (explusions, auto-de-fe, mass mandatory covnersions of minirities). Read sites like patriarchy.com and the like. Listen to Falwell and his ilk. Are you sure about joining them on the barricades? They may lay your infidel ass as soon as the major threat has passed.
Stewart – true. I suppose I was thinking from the angle of ‘wanting to establish a Caliphate’ as opposed to the angle ‘what seems good to Allah.’ Absent-minded of me.
“Since Wafa Sultan is not a Muslim, why does the NYT say that she is a Muslim?”
Yeah, I noticed that too. To be fair, it may also be that the Times wanted to signal that she knows Islam from the inside. That she’s a dissenter from Islam as opposed to a stranger. I sometimes want to signal that when I publish ex-Muslims. I have to stop myself saying something similar to what the Times said.
Brian!
OK STOP I REPENT STOP FRED PHELPS IS A FORKING LUNATIC STOP THERE ARE MUSLIM INTELLECTUALS WHO ARE PREFERABLE TO FRED PHELPS STOP I’D NEVER EVEN HEARD OF THE GUY BEFORE ANYHOW STOP HAVE A LOOK AT MY NEW WEBSITE
Brian, apparently I’ve not managed to convey my thoughts and feelings to you. Or perhaps because I made a comment about Cathal you have decided we think the same way about everything, or even anything. If you are interested you may wish to have another look over the comments I have made in this thread. In particular,
the “War of Civillizations” you seem to be eagerly anticipating
I haven’t talked about any war of civilizations much less any “War of Civilizations” and the idea that I am “eagerly anticipating” any sort of confrontation is gross.
are you so certain our “allies” are anything but temporary-of-convenience,
I haven’t talked about any allies. I have talked about the fact that different people see things different ways.
by enabling and encouraging the great tribal conflagration you are merely exacerbating the situation.
This again is gross, and wrong and insulting.
I’m not quite as certain as you are that absolutist Islam really is worse than Absolutist Christianity.
Here, perhaps by accident, I see something somewhat familiar. The main difference I see between absolutist Islam and absolutist Christianisty is that the former is much, much, much bigger and also more aggressive, though I’m sure that in the right circumstances (the wrong ones, actually) Christian fanatics would be extremely dangerous.
I won’t be reading in this thread any more but if we meet again I hope you will take the above into account.
Juan: I apologize if I exagerated.
Cathal: You are indeed a hoot! Your new website will be my wallpaper.
[mopping eyes]
Well done, Cathal.
Skinchies?
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/necte/appendix2.htm
I might note, Cathal, that being a resident of Europe means that Fred Phelps still hates YOU, too! (LOL) After all, you Euroweenies CODDLE the Sodomites too much, you know. If I buy him plane tickets, maybe Mr. Phelps and his inbred family cult can VISIT Central Europe? (I can see it know. What a hoot!)
How about ally oukin?
That list of Tyneside vocabulary also has clarty, which explains a phrase from a Margaret Drabble novel that has always stuck in my mind – ‘clarty stinking water’ I think it is. I never did know what ‘clarty’ was. Now I do. Cushty!