SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Muslims About Whom Obama Never Speaks

THE SPINE MARCH 9, 2010

Muslims About Whom Obama Never Speaks

BY MARTIN PERETZ

We’ve had more than a few homilies from the president about how Islam is a communion of peace. And I don’t doubt that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who yearn for quiet and productive lives. May Allah be with them, according to their prayers.

If they are a majority in Islam--and I’m not sure they are--they are a silent majority. In any event, the defining strain among many Arab and Muslim states is the reign of violence and the dread fear of it. Or the fear of wishing out loud for the calm of faith and the assurance of plenty.

The fact is that, in Turkey, in Egypt, and here in the United States, Obama has on several occasions spoken about what for many Muslims is a phantom Islam. A fantasy of his imagination and a long-held fantasy of Arabisants who lie--John Esposito, for example, and Juan Cole.

No, there is also the relative peace of Malaysia and Indonesia, very populous Muslim countries where killing is not a staple of ordinary life. 

Then there is the oft-neglected Nigeria (not to speak of other places in Africa), where Muslim killing of Christians is plentiful. I also know that, in benighted Nigeria, Christians do murder Muslims, and the last massacre of Muslims by Christians in the country is said to have happened in January. Alas, there doesn’t seem to be much reportage on it at all. Thus, in an otherwise morbidly brilliant article by Adam Nossiter in Monday’s New York Times, the January bloodletting is said to have precipitated these “apparent reprisal attacks.”

Nossiter’s report actually made me want to puke. Where are the Muslim elders lecturing or hectoring about how Allah’s faithful should not slaughter the faithful of Jesus? (All told, there were as many as 500 Christians in the body count.)

I do not expect anything like this from President Obama either. But perhaps the next time he orates orbi et urbi, to the city and to the world, he will resist rewriting both the past and the present of Islam and ask for Muslim tolerance, for Muslim learning in the sciences and the humanities, for Muslim encouragement of equal status for women, for Muslim revocation of the Satanization of Christians and Jews and Hindus. 

Mr. President, your ignorance of Islam has become a big and monstrous lie, no matter how melodiously your tongue speaks.

Keep up with TNR on Facebook and Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 28 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

28 comments

"...the last massacre of Muslims by Christians in the country is said to have happened in January. Alas, there _doesn’t seem to be much reportage on it at all_. Thus, in an otherwise morbidly brilliant article by Adam Nossiter in Monday’s New York Times, the January bloodletting is said to have precipitated these “apparent reprisal attacks.” Except, of course, for the hyperlink in the Nossiter article, leading to a BBC article (http://tinyurl.com/yhncjyq) about the massacre of Hausa-Fulani Muslims at Kuru Karama. It's not difficult at all to find information on the tit-for-tat massacres that have been going on around Jos for a decade now - but perhaps inconvenient if one's goal is simply demonising Muslims. You'll also - if you wanted to look for it - find both Muslim and Christian leaders in Nigeria speaking out against the violence in Jos, as well as leaders on both sides egging it on.

- SMacEachern2

March 9, 2010 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The State Department is speaking about one Muslim: Gadaffi. The NYTimes just reported that it apologzed to Libya for one its people saying that when he spoke (i.e. ranted) at the U.N. last year he made no sense. Did any of them catalog all the things Libyan officials said about our presidents since Lyndon Johnson? The story is here: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/09/us/politics/AP-US-US-Libya.html?ref=global-home Yeesh! The fecklessness of it all!

- Stuart Wilder

March 9, 2010 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's see. There are several hundred million Muslims who, for one reason or another, are not actively engaged in a War against the West and do not routinely murder non Muslims or each other. (This is objectively verifiable.) A good percentage of these people might - let us give them the benefit of the doubt - might well think that their faith requires them to be decent folk. (As indeed with Jews and Christians. I don't know any Jews, for example, who quote Leviticus as support for marrying their nieces or selling slave girls; nor have I yet come across any Christian who advocates throwing gays off a cliff in strict pursuit of the Pauline Theology.) Not to mention - and, Marty does not, of course - the intense, public and highly visible debate raging within Persian Shi'ism about the appropriate reading of the Kor'an and the emphasis on using Koranic teachings and the Sunnah against violence. It is a rule of advocacy - if you really want people to listen to you and to change their ways - not to piss in their face and kick them in the balls as you are talking to them. And, it is a basic principle of advocacy that the way to persuade people of anything is to speak to them within their specific contexts. If Obama, or the US, is to have any chance of persuading a single Muslim to move away from violence, it has to be done within the Islamic (and not Islamist) context, and not from without. Finally, it is a false and morally monstrous proposition to posit the choice as Dialogue or War. As the corner solution of eliminating all Muslims is not available (Marty is chagrined, I know), the the naked fist and a War of All against All is really not an option. And as you cannot have dialogue if you continually insult, having Martyism as the basic approach to inter-faith dialogue is really not an option either. "Mr. President, your ignorance of Islam has become a big and monstrous lie, no matter how melodiously your tongue speaks." Marty is not melodious; the prejudices are getting tiresome; the idiotic attacks on Obama on this score are simply gross.

- icarusr

March 9, 2010 at 4:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An interesting development here in Ireland, and one more proof that global terrorism can be planned in locations all across the globe: http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0309/waterford_av.html?2715279,null,230 For the slightly baffled, in Ireland the Gaelicization of civic guard -- "Gardai" -- is used as the general name for both the national police force and individual officers.

- ironyroad

March 9, 2010 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I don't know any Jews, for example, who quote Leviticus as support for marrying their nieces or selling slave girls; nor have I yet come across any Christian who advocates throwing gays off a cliff in strict pursuit of the Pauline Theology." Puzzled. What's the allegation here? What's the relevance? Selling slave girls and pushing gays off a cliff (or hanging them in the town squares) are more likely to be practiced in the Islamic theocracies, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, or Dubai. So why cite these examples in connection with Jews and Christians?

- noga1

March 9, 2010 at 5:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga, "Mr. President, your ignorance of Islam has become a big and monstrous lie, no matter how melodiously your tongue speaks." Is absolutely ridiculous. Of course Obama has spoken out many times for Democracy, tolerance, yada yada. And frankly, it doesn't matter. Marty is deluding himself if he thinks that if Obama were to talk like him things would in the slightest improve, in fact, surely they would go far worse. I am not fan of Islam, I long for a Muslim Gandhi, MLK, Dalai Lama, or Mandela (3 religious leaders and one secular, all espousing non-violence). I think the sword of Islam is a mistake, but it is something I have no control over. I can not dictate the terms of their religion to them. It is Marty who seems to have no understanding of Islam if he thinks Western supplication would be effective. "Oh please Muslims, be nice, treat women nice, be tolerant of us..." horseshit. The change from Islam will have to come from within. We only need stand firm for our interests and provide an example of how life can be when the state and religion are not one and the same. Eventually, perhaps when the oil runs out, what will they be left with? Sand and fanaticism? If that is what they want, fine. Let them howl at the sun. But that insanity would pass. In the end they are humans after all. Hope and a longing for a better life will eventually prevail, and Islam itself will evolve in light of this.

- blackton

March 9, 2010 at 9:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1: "Puzzled. What's the allegation here? What's the relevance?" I believe an illustration of the disconnect between Things Enjoined In Holy Books and the ways people of a variety of faiths live their lives. For myself, I just wish that Peretz would pay equal attention to Christian massacres of Muslims in Nigeria as he does to Muslim massacres of Christians. But that would imply that Muslim lives were worth as much as Christian lives in his world-view, I suppose, so perhaps it's too much to expect..

- SMacEachern2

March 9, 2010 at 10:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“For myself, I just wish that Peretz would pay equal attention to Christian massacres of Muslims in Nigeria as he does to Muslim massacres of Christians. But that would imply that Muslim lives were worth as much as Christian lives in his world-view, I suppose, so perhaps it's too much to expect..” This is too cynical even for MacEachern. The issue isn’t just attack and counter attacks in one locality or even country. There are attacks by Muslims on non Muslims on most continents in the world. From Thailand to Africa to South America if one remembers the attacks by Iranian agents on the Jewish Center there that killed almost a hundred people! One could turn Mac’s comment around and say that for him to own up to this “would imply that non Muslims lives were worth as much as Muslim lives in his world-view,…”

- jdyer

March 9, 2010 at 11:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who said this recently: "...There were two issues here as we just heard. The first issue is the substance and veracity of what he (Wilders) said. And the second is the issue of free speech. What he says is extreme, radical, and wrong. He basically is arguing that Islam is the same as Islamism. Islamism is an ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam]. The untruth of that is obvious. If you look at the United States, the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the U.S. are not Islamists. So, it's simply incorrect. Now, in Europe, there is probably a slightly larger minority but, nonetheless, the overwhelming majority are not.... ?

- basman

March 10, 2010 at 12:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So this is place in which physical intimidation — it's almost impossible to speak openly about critiques of Islam. I will give you one other example. The cartoons of Mohammed — Yale University [Press] has issued a book on it. There are no cartoons in the book, and you know why. It's not a matter of sensitivity. It's a matter of sheer fear about what could happen if it was published that way." http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTA0YWU2NjQzZTM3YjRmNDA4ZDk2NWNjNzQyYjlmYTY= _______ "I believe an illustration of the disconnect between Things Enjoined In Holy Books and the ways people of a variety of faiths live their lives." Well, I realized this must have been the rationale. My puzzlement arises from the miscongruity between the comparisons and why would anyone want to make them in order to defame Peretz as a bigot. How easily and readily these examples show up whenever someone dares to suggest that Islam is hardly a religion of peace, due to the widespread mayhem that (too many of) its practitioners export or endorse or tacitly accept, around the world in its name. What icarus here seems to suggest is that unless you want the dirty forgotten nuggets of your religion displayed in order to provoke intuitive loathing to that religion, you had better shut up about the Muhamad cartoons! The analogy might be applicable had these "Leviticus"-sanctioned behaviours were being preached and taught and instructed openly or approvingly, by Jewish teachers, rabbis or media and a significant segment of Jewry were to practice them. Since this is not the case, I can only assume this "reminder" of how perverse Judaism is was meant to inflame and silence. In the manner I have already invoked. I found in the past that neither icarusr nor smac are principally averse to inflaming. They seem to derive special pleasure out of baiting Jews. I distinctly recall icasrus once "playfully" mocking the "ugliness' or horrible sound of the Hebrew language. It all fits together. Or, to make it more melodious to iscarurs' ears, "tout se tient"...

- noga1

March 10, 2010 at 8:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1: "They seem to derive special pleasure out of baiting Jews..." Really? Evidence, please? This is the logical culmination of argument on The Spine, I suppose: it's now "Anyone who disagrees with me is an anti-semite'. You and yours do your best to render an important concept meaningless. More generally, I wouldn't argue that Islam is a religion of peace: the idea is nonsensical for any religion that encompasses many millions of people. For the same reason, I wouldn't argue that Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism (see: Sri Lanka) were religions of peace, either: all encompass believers who are quite ready to go to war for their beliefs.

- SMacEachern2

March 10, 2010 at 9:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jdyer: The centrepiece of Peretz's article was a particular case of tit-for-tat killing in central Nigeria: that was what I was respondingto. Your tactic when Muslims are attacked or killed is always to try and deflect attention away from such killing, I realise, because it rather detracts from your assumption that Muslims around teh world are always aggressors, never aggressed-upon.

- SMacEachern2

March 10, 2010 at 9:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I wouldn't argue that Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism (see: Sri Lanka) were religions of peace, either: all encompass believers who are quite ready to go to war for their beliefs." Like I said, the same knee jerk analogies. As if Jews regularly proclaim their religion to be a religion of peace and go on murdering rampages whenever someone dares suggest that theirs is not a religion of peace. I put it to you again, that the only reason to insist on always dragging in and comparing Jews with Muslims where bad behaviour is concerned is that you take delight in getting a rise out of Jews. Whether that qualifies you as an antisemite or just an odious human being with extreme Leftist leanings is entirely your choice. I have long given up on any such nuanced interpretations. They hardly matter. " The old hypocrisy about left-wing totalitarianism irritates many but no longer matters, because communism died in the 1980s. The refusal of 21st-century left-wing and liberal opinion to separate itself from radical Islam is, however, a living disgrace with disastrous consequences for Europe. You can see them everywhere if you are willing to look." http://nickcohen.net/2010/03/02/where-the-far-left-joins-the-far-right/

- noga1

March 10, 2010 at 10:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Radical Islamism poses a threat to European democracy and to Jews in particular. Those who deny this in the name of a misguided "political correctness" are helping to perpetuate a clear and present danger. By now we should all be sadly familiar with the demonstrators carrying placards that say "Europe is the Cancer, Islam is the Answer," "I hate Juice" (meaning "Jews" - a way of getting around the ban on racist signs) and similar manifestations, the people chanting, "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas," the Mullahs preaching Jihad in the mosques and the terrorists who occasionally get caught trying to practice what is preached - or not getting caught before it is too late. The lax attitude of European governments to most of this noxious activity is deplorable. Geert Wilders faces prosecution in Holland in part because his film, Fitna, claims that terror and Jihad are rooted in the Quran. The Quran is a complex and contradictory document, written in archaic Arabic, and is open to different interpretations. Wilders may be right and he may be wrong. But the doctrine that the Quran makes violent Jihad incumbent on Muslims did not originate with Geert Wilders. It originated with radical Islamism as preached by radicals like Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al Banna. Their radical disciples in Europe. like Anjem Choudary, preach the same doctrine, and insist that violent Jihad is a duty commanded by the Quran. Nobody has ever been arrested just for preaching this doctrine, yet Wilders is on trial for making precisely the same claims!" http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000731.html

- noga1

March 10, 2010 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

smac, don't confuse religion with the actions of their practitioners. Mohammed led armies conquering his neighbors, Jesus gave out loaves and fishes, told parables, and healed the sick (purportedly), Buddha sat around in a swamp looking at flowers, all to attain enlightenment. It is utterly ludicrous to say Islam has anywhere near the peaceful foundations of Christianity or Buddhism. As to Judaism, it is a religion of the select and is not expansionistic in the slightest. Buddhism and Christianity are undeniably religions of peace and Islam is a religion of war. I don't say this even as criticism. The peaceful natures of Christianity and Buddhism are claimed by Muslims (and others) as being unrealistic towards man's essential nature. Islam concerns itself with jihad, however it is defined be it the struggle within the world or the body, Christianity concerns itself with grace. Why the horseshit? this is what it is. And again, this is not a criticism of Islam, if jihad consisted of an individual warring within himself to overcome his sinful nature to submit to the will of God, I got no problem with provided he doesn't try to force me to submit to his take on what the will of God is.

- blackton

March 10, 2010 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton: "Buddhism and Christianity are undeniably religions of peace and Islam is a religion of war." Bullshit. Riddle me the number of humans that Christian nations have killed in their wars and that Buddhist nations have killed in their wars, and show me that that's significantly different than the number of humans that Muslim nations have killed in their wars.

- SMacEachern2

March 10, 2010 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton: "Buddhism and Christianity are undeniably religions of peace and Islam is a religion of war." Bullshit. Riddle me the number of humans that Christian nations have killed in their wars and that Buddhist nations have killed in their wars, and show me that that's significantly different than the number of humans that Muslim nations have killed in their wars.

- SMacEachern2

March 10, 2010 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1: The base assumption on The Spine, shared by Peretz, by you and by most of the other posters on the site, is that it's all right to kill, to mistreat, to discriminate against Muslims because Muslims are inherently violent and dangerous, different in kind than Christians, Jews and humans more generally. If I note that Jews (and Christians) can also act in violent ways, in order to contradict that assumption, that does not make me an anti-semite, nor does it make such observations 'Jew-baiting'.

- SMacEachern2

March 10, 2010 at 11:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The base assumption on The Spine, shared by Peretz, by you and by most of the other posters on the site, is that it's all right to kill, to mistreat, to discriminate against Muslims because Muslims are inherently violent and dangerous, different in kind than Christians, Jews and humans more generally." This, of course, is a slander of the first order, upon the Spine, myself and most of the other posters on the site. I would defy you to cite one statement that says that "it's all right to kill, to mistreat, to discriminate against Muslims". Most of the posters here that provoke such impassioned ire in you are actually insisting on their right and possibly duty to point out the extreme, hair-trigger violence that seems to characterize Islamic reactions to their perceived grievances. Such as: "Europe is the Cancer, Islam is the Answer," "I hate Juice" (meaning "Jews" - a way of getting around the ban on racist signs) "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas," the Mullahs preaching Jihad in the mosques and the terrorists who occasionally get caught trying to practice what is preached ... In Al Akhbar of April 18, 2001, a government sponsored newspaper, columnist Ahmad Ragab wrote: "Thanks to Hitler, blessed memory, who on behalf of the Palestinians, revenged in advance, against the most vile criminals on the face of the earth. Although we do have a complaint against him for his revenge on them was not enough." Or. more anecdotally from my own experience: "No one can claim that land is their "birth right" if they dont exist. I hope that next time, the Muslims who do end up in that situation commit mass genocide to make sure it's the last time. Muslim Arabs should also start killing off christian Arabs in places like Egypt and lebanon... Jordan... It will show it's benefits in the future." http://bujassem.blogspot.com/2009/10/jeff-gates-will-israel-fall-in-five.html?showComment=1254555405225#c4001201476010914695 This comment was not found on some extremist Jihadist blog but on what one might well consider a very mainstream, even upbeat "moderate" kind of blog to be found in the Arab blogosphere. And it was not a solitary example. Such opinions are allowed and discussed. So, smac, Arabs are allowed to have their fits and tantrums, their incessant streams of rants, invective, genocidal hallucinations and what not while Jews ought to pretend that none of these obscenities exist, and if they don't, they should always remember Leviticus and shut up. What can you mean by this campaign, smac? What exactly is your purpose in coming here and demonizing posters who merely shine a light on the darkest large pockets of unrelenting incitement to violence and hatred against Jews? Clearly you cannot stand a Jew like Marty who refuses to fit into that neat category of the supplicant ghetto Jew who should know better than to make waves.

- noga1

March 10, 2010 at 12:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat, thanks. smac, again: don't confuse religion with the actions of their practitioners. If I say "Thou shalt not kill." and you say, hey, I agree with that, and then turn around and kill someone all in the name of not killing, that doesn't make me wrong, it makes you wrong. I mean, wow if you can't get this extremely basic idea down. People commit evil in the name of good. That doesn't mean that good is evil. This is shit I figured out when I was, say, about 10 years old. Smac, this is from a noted Islamic scholar of today: «And Fight those who have not faith in God, nor in the Hereafter, and (who) forbid not what God and His Prophet have forbidden and (who ) are not committed to the religion of truth, of those who have been brought the Book, until they pay tribute by hand, and they are the low.» (9:29) This Quranic verse concerns the People of the Book, meaning those non-Muslims followers of one of the holy books, namely the Jews, Christians and perhaps the Zoroastrians. The verse is one of war with the People of the Book, but at the same time, it does not tell us to fight them; it tells us to fight only those of them who have no faith in God, in the Hereafter, and who do not abide by the rule of God, allowing what He has forbidden - and who are not religious according to the religion of truth. It is these People of the Book whom we are to fight until they pay the Jezyah (tribute). That is, when they are ready to pay the Jezyah and are humble before us, we are to fight them no more. Contrast this with the words of Jesus: Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. Or Love your enemy as yourself. The message of Christ is at the heart of Christianity, just because Christians pervert it doesn't mean the message is perverted. Now if you are happy paying Jezyah to Muslims, go right ahead. I am not going to. And I find it hilarious how you completely avoid doctrine. Look, Scientology is a whackjob religion, the reasons it is a whackjob religion is because its doctrine is crackpot. There is nothing bigoted about acknowledging doctrine. I am not saying Islam is a crackpot religion, but I am saying I have the right to acknowledge its doctrine and where I see fit to disagree with it. If Muslims would be prepared to fight with words alone, then fine. When they actually do that, only then can we have peace.

- blackton

March 10, 2010 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SMacEachern2 “jdyer: The centrepiece of Peretz's article was a particular case of tit-for-tat killing in central Nigeria: that was what I was respondingto.” In your first post, yes, which is why I didn’t respond to it. However, I was responding to your attack on Noga’s comment: “For myself, I just wish that Peretz would pay equal attention to Christian massacres of Muslims in Nigeria as he does to Muslim massacres of Christians. But that would imply that Muslim lives were worth as much as Christian lives in his world-view, I suppose, so perhaps it's too much to expect..” 10:49pm EDT | SMacEachern2 Your latest reply is of a kind: “Your tactic when Muslims are attacked or killed is always to try and deflect attention away from such killing, I realise, because it rather detracts from your assumption that Muslims around teh world are always aggressors, never aggressed-upon.” 9:38am EDT | SMacEachern2 I never said that Muslim were “always the aggressors,” and neither did Marty. In fact Muslim were the victims in Bosnia and they were the victims in the 90’s in India were there were horrendous pogroms against them. However, this isn’t the case in most other places and there is such a thing as a world wide jihad being sponsored by powerful forces in the Muslim world. Try coming to grips with the reality of Muslim militancy and not just with the few incidents that suits your polemical purposes. Of course in every conflict there will be tit for tat acts of attacks and counter attacks but this doesn’t mean that both sides are equally at fault. To say so is to falsify reality.

- jdyer

March 10, 2010 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SMacEachern2 “jdyer: The centrepiece of Peretz's article was a particular case of tit-for-tat killing in central Nigeria: that was what I was respondingto.” In your first post, yes, which is why I didn’t respond to it. However, I was responding to your attack on Noga’s comment: “For myself, I just wish that Peretz would pay equal attention to Christian massacres of Muslims in Nigeria as he does to Muslim massacres of Christians. But that would imply that Muslim lives were worth as much as Christian lives in his world-view, I suppose, so perhaps it's too much to expect..” 10:49pm EDT | SMacEachern2 Your latest reply is of a kind: “Your tactic when Muslims are attacked or killed is always to try and deflect attention away from such killing, I realise, because it rather detracts from your assumption that Muslims around teh world are always aggressors, never aggressed-upon.” 9:38am EDT | SMacEachern2 I never said that Muslim were “always the aggressors,” and neither did Marty. In fact Muslim were the victims in Bosnia and they were the victims in the 90’s in India were there were horrendous pogroms against them. However, this isn’t the case in most other places and there is such a thing as a world wide jihad being sponsored by powerful forces in the Muslim world. Try coming to grips with the reality of Muslim militancy and not just with the few incidents that suits your polemical purposes. Of course in every conflict there will be tit for tat acts of attacks and counter attacks but this doesn’t mean that both sides are equally at fault. To say so is to falsify reality.

- jdyer

March 10, 2010 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One more little passage from an Islamic scholar: "Difference between Islam and Christianity It is said about Christianity that it has the distinction of not having any rule governing war. We, on the other hand, say that Islam has the distinction of having the law of jihad. If we look closely, we see that in Christianity there is no jihad because it has nothing at all. By which I mean that there is no Christian structure of society, no Christian legal system, and no Christian rules as to how a society is to be formed, for these to contain a law of jihad. There is no substance in Christianity; it contains no more than a few moral teachings that form a set of advice such as “tell the truth”, “do not tell lies”, “do not gobble up the wealth of others”, and so on. Such things do not call for jihad? Islam however is a religion that sees it its duty and commitment to form an Islamic state. Islam came to reform society and to form a nation and government. Its mandate is the reform of the whole world. Such a religion cannot be indifferent. It cannot be without a law of jihad. In the same way, its government cannot be without an army. While the scope of Christianity is extremely limited, that of Islam is extremely wide. While Christianity does not cross the frontiers of advice, Islam is a religion which covers all the activities of human life. It has laws which govern the society, economic laws, and political laws. It came to organize a state, to organize a government. Once this done, how can it remain without an army? How can it be without a law of jihad?" smac, how the hell can you go on avoiding the tenets of Islam? you cast slurs against us, but you never actually make an affirmative argument that Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity all have foundations in peace. You don't because you can't. Can Islam have its own enlightenment? I don't know. I absolutely ignore the silly bits of the bible, the ones where wankers are put to death, etc. and focus on the good stuff, like the whole sermon on the mount bit. I sure as hell don't want a government based on it though. Keep the two separate. I am sure many Muslims feel the same way, but pointing out the ones who don't is not bigotry.

- blackton

March 10, 2010 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SMacEachern2 “blackton: "Buddhism and Christianity are undeniably religions of peace and Islam is a religion of war." Bullshit. Riddle me the number of humans that Christian nations have killed in their wars and that Buddhist nations have killed in their wars, and show me that that's significantly different than the number of humans that Muslim nations have killed in their wars.” I agree with Blackton. In essence he is right. Of course both Muslims and Christians engaged in wars of conquest. Do you think the people of Egypt, India, and Persia, etc woke up one day and decided to become Muslims? How many people did they kill in their wars of conquest? Ironically it was the fact that Buddhists in India would not fight back that made it easier for Muslims to conquer large areas in the Asian subcontinent. Both religious adherents (Muslims and Christians (also fought against themselves for many centuries). Still Christianity gave way to secularization and embraced a form of tolerance that is foreign to Islam. Ask your self this question, MacEachern, why is it that Christians were able to embrace portions of their pagan and Jewish past, (and even celebrate it, thought this too often led to conflict) while Muslims found I t necessary to suppress theirs? How much of the ancient Persian culture survives in Persia, and how much of the ancient Greek and Roman culture survived in the West? By honest, Mac, Islam strives to obliterate the past. In any case, in today’s world it’s Muslims who are carrying on a war against non-Muslim and not vice-versa.

- jdyer

March 10, 2010 at 1:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: “I put it to you again, that the only reason to insist on always dragging in and comparing Jews with Muslims where bad behaviour is concerned is that you take delight in getting a rise out of Jews. Whether that qualifies you as an antisemite or just an odious human being with extreme Leftist leanings is entirely your choice. I have long given up on any such nuanced interpretations. They hardly matter.” I agree with Noga that it’s useless to compare Muslims murderous behavior. This for two reason, Noag covered one of them when he pointed out that Jews don’t “regularly ( I would say hardly ever) proclaim their religion to be a religion of peace and go on murdering rampages whenever someone dares suggest that theirs is not a religion of peace.” The second point is more fundamental since it covers doctrinal issues: the Jewish religion changed radically after the destruction of the second Temple (Beit HaMikdash). For example, Jewish religious courts (not the same thing as the secular courts in Israel which are governed by different legal principles) cannot sentence anyone to death since to do so would require a convening of the ancient Sanhedrin which was an active institution during the Temple period. Since the Beit HaMikdash is no longer in existence. Mac sees Judaism, from a Muslim (or a former Christian’s) perspective and not from a Jewish one. I also don’t think that his views of Buddhism are correct. However, I’ll defer to a Buddhist to answer his charge that Buddhists like Muslims go on murderous rampages sanctioned by their religious leaders.

- jdyer

March 10, 2010 at 2:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jackson is right. Moreover, "The official teachings of Judaism approve the death penalty in principle but the standard of proof required for application of death penalty is extremely stringent, and in practice, it has been abolished by various Talmudic decisions, making the situations in which a death sentence could be passed effectively impossible and hypothetical. "Forty years before the destruction" of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, i.e. in 30 AD, the Sanhedrin effectively abolished capital punishment, making it a hypothetical upper limit on the severity of punishment, fitting in finality for God alone to use, not fallible people.[22] Thus, it can be argued that Judaism is essentially anti-death penalty." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_capital_punishment#Judaism Another parameter by which to judge a religion's moral core would be to look for the importance and prominence of the golden rule within the structure of its ethical thinking. (BTW, jackson, I'm not a "He")

- noga1

March 10, 2010 at 3:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Krauthammer

- basman

March 10, 2010 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "Thus, it can be argued that Judaism is essentially anti-death penalty." Precisely, however, I should point out that I am not anti-death penalty but my reasons are not based on religious law. In any case, as a strong agnostic I don't follow moral religious teachings, though I do admire the give and take of Talmudic and Medieval Aristotelian based disputations on metaphysical and epistemological subjects such as those of Maimonides, Aquinas, etc. "(BTW, jackson, I'm not a "He")" I apologize for typing "he." I know that Noga is a Hebrew female name and it's also one of my favorite Hebrew names. I fell in love with that name when I first read Amos Oz' beautiful novel "Elsewhere, Perhaps” in which a character by that name appears.

- jdyer

March 10, 2010 at 4:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close