What Muslims Think

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What Muslims Think

By Alex Kingsbury

March 14, 2008

U.S.News & World Report

I caught this link on another forum where Michaes Marotta was in shining shape as an inspiring voice of reason (see here, here and here).

The article above is about the book Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed. Here is the book description from the Amazon sales page:

In a post-9/11 world, many Americans conflate the mainstream Muslim majority with the beliefs and actions of an extremist minority. But what do the world's Muslims think about the West, or about democracy, or about extremism itself? Who Speaks for Islam? spotlights this silenced majority. The book is the product of a mammoth six-year study in which the Gallup Organization conducted tens of thousands of hour-long, face-to-face interviews with residents of more than 35 predominantly Muslim nations — urban and rural, young and old, men and women, educated and illiterate. It asks the questions everyone is curious about: Why is the Muslim world so anti-American? Who are the extremists? Is democracy something Muslims really want? What do Muslim women want? The answers to these and other pertinent, provocative questions are provided not by experts, extremists, or talking heads, but by empirical evidence — the voices of a billion Muslims.

Alex Kingsbury interviewed Dalia Mogahed. I am probably pushing fair use a bit, but I find this so important that I am giving the excerpts from the interview as given in the article.

Have we learned more about Muslims than we knew in 2001?

We did a survey of Americans in 2002, asking what they knew about the beliefs and opinions of Muslims around the world. Fifty-four percent said they knew nothing or not much. We asked that same question in 2007, after we've had two wars and a great deal more media coverage of Muslims, and this time 57 percent said they knew nothing or not much. We are no closer to truly understanding this part of the world, even as we are more engaged with it.

Do Muslims misunderstand the West?

Asked what they most admired and most resented about the West, they answered first technology and second, democracy. People would mention their support for freedom of speech, the rule of law, and the transparency of government. What they most disliked was the perceived moral laxity and libertinism of the West, which, interestingly, is exactly what Americans said when we polled them on those two questions. There is common ground on that issue.

Did anyone admire nothing?

Even in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia, there were only percentages in the single digits that said they admired nothing about the West. When we asked Americans what they admired about the Muslim world, the most frequent response was "nothing."

How are the antiwestern Muslims different?

Compared with the entire population of Muslims, those who don't condemn the 9/11 attacks are no more likely to say that they are religious. But they are much more likely to say that the United States is not serious about promoting democracy in their part of the world and that the United States will not allow them to fashion their own political future. When we asked their greatest fear, while the general population will talk about personal safety, this radicalized group most fears political domination and occupation. They have a heightened sense of being threatened and dominated by the West. But those same people are also far more likely to say that greater democracy will help Muslims progress. So, they have a greater desire for autonomy and a greater sense that freedom is being denied.

What makes a Muslim radical?

We asked how many people condone the 9/11 attacks and found that the vast majority condemn the attacks; only 7 percent thought it was completely justified. We also asked about attacks on civilians in general, the moral justifiability of sacrificing one's life, and about the moral justifiability of attacking civilians as an individual or as a military. We asked those 7 percent about why they felt the attacks were justified and, surprisingly, not a single one offered a religious justification. Instead, the responses sounded like revolutionaries; they talked about American imperialism. Instead of piety motivating their responses, it was politics.

Seven percent is still some 100 million people.

It is a lot of people, and we have to take them seriously. But they are not hardened terrorists; they are more like the cheering section. For example, they are more likely than the general population to say that relations with the West are of personal concern. They are just more likely to be skeptical of the West's goodwill in return. They just don't think that there is much hope in a diplomatic or peaceful means of change. They've lost faith in the peaceful ability to change things.

What's the American correlation to that?

When we asked Americans, we found that 6 percent thought it was completely justifiable to deliberately target civilians and 24 percent said that bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are often or sometimes justified.

How can we bridge these gaps?

Public diplomacy is important. It's not just about Muslims admiring us and respecting us; what's more important to them is that we admire and respect them. Muslims give us a long list of things they admire about the West, yet when asked what we can do to improve things, they want us to respect them and stop looking down on them. Our public diplomacy needs to move from selling America to affirming other cultures for what they are.

This, of course, is not the final word on the subject, but this evidence is so vastly superior to looking at the nasty parts of the Qu'ran or the headlines about terrorists, stating some philosophical or religious principle or other and making a wholesale judgment against Muslims that I am relieved it is available. The same applies to the other side, too, i.e. it applies to those who only bash the USA, whether Muslim, liberal, libertarian or other.

For instance, "all Muslims are this or that" as given by radical conservatives does not hold water according to this study. But neither does the other-side allegation that there is no real threat if we leave them alone. Seven percent is a hundred million people and that's a lot of people. The following quote jumped out at me:

We asked those 7 percent about why they felt the attacks were justified and, surprisingly, not a single one offered a religious justification. Instead, the responses sounded like revolutionaries; they talked about American imperialism. Instead of piety motivating their responses, it was politics.

I have been trying to document the influence of leftover Nazism on Islamist thinking and here is a good indication that this is the real primary field of battle for intellectual warfare, with religion being secondary, and a distant second place at that.

The Gallup Organization has a good reputation for high-quality work and random screenings based on strict controls for demographic facts and figures. Bravo to them for showing us a glimpse of what people really think.

Michael

[Aggrad02]

We asked those 7 percent about why they felt the attacks were justified and, surprisingly, not a single one offered a religious justification. Instead, the responses sounded like revolutionaries; they talked about American imperialism. Instead of piety motivating their responses, it was politics.

I have been trying to document the influence of leftover Nazism on Islamist thinking and here is a good indication that this is the real primary field of battle for intellectual warfare, with religion being secondary, and a distant second place at that.

Where does the Nazism play into the quote from Mogahed? Just because they feel that the US government is exploiting their people through imperialism doesn't mean that it is Nazi related. Or are you just pointing out that religion is not the cause of the anti-Americanism, and that it is just philosophy in general?

--Dustan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dustan,

I have not read the book, so I was not talking about the conclusions of Esposito and Mogahed. I am not sure they even covered differences in Islamic ideology in the Gallup surveys.

I mentioned Nazism in reference to the historical research I have been doing. Normally, I have seen the argument that all Muslims are bad because the Qu'ran says this or that and it says to shoot for world domination through submission. The Gallup figures show clearly that religion is not the main culprit. But something has to be.

I have contended since the beginning that there is something vastly different between the Islamists or fanatics and, at least, the Muslims I have known for years, including a good part of the family of my estranged children (the other part is Catholic).

I don't see the difference as simply being ticked off at imperialism, foreign domination, Western values, etc. Muslims in the Middle East have lived with that for centuries and nowadays Islamic countries enjoy a greater degree of wealth and autonomy than they ever have. And they are saturated with Western values. The tendency is to become more so.

Also there is a strong component of anti-Semitism, an almost hysterical variety, among Islamists that I did not witness among the Muslim people I have known. The Islamists I have looked into are really mean, nasty Jew haters. There is no reasoning with them.

The other Muslims, however, at least the ones I have known, are more into live and let live mode.

I felt there was something causing the divide. However here in the post-9/11 USA, there isn't much awareness of the Muslim world and, with fear running rampant, there are two radical camps basically screaming at each other in the news. It is hard to keep one's independent judgment and look at the facts without being accused of all kinds of things by one side or the other.

Then I came across the Grand Mufti in a documentary on the intellectual roots of Saddam Hussein and started looking deeper. There it was. Hardcore Nazi leftovers in the Muslim Brotherhood, Ba'ath party and so forth. What's worse, we employed them instead of hanging them after WWII. There is also a mix of Communism and Wahhabi-like fundamentalism on the Sunni side peppered in among the Islamists, so it is not pure Nazism. Just the worst parts.

I am not yet familiar enough with the history of the Shi'ite side (Iran) to traced the intellectual influence of the fanatics, but it is definitely there. There are some real nasty hardcore Shi'ite Islamists out there and they are dangerous and anti-Semitic to the core.

I intend to pursue all this over time. Unfortunately other studies have been taking most of my time these days.

Michael

[Aggrad02]

Dustan,

I have not read the book, so I was not talking about the conclusions of Esposito and Mogahed. I am not sure they even covered differences in Islamic ideology in the Gallup surveys.

I mentioned Nazism in reference to the historical research I have been doing. Normally, I have seen the argument that all Muslims are bad because the Qu'ran says this or that and it says to shoot for world domination through submission. The Gallup figures show clearly that religion is not the main culprit. But something has to be.

I have contended since the beginning that there is something vastly different between the Islamists or fanatics and, at least, the Muslims I have known for years, including a good part of the family of my estranged children (the other part is Catholic).

I don't see the difference as simply being ticked off at imperialism, foreign domination, Western values, etc. Muslims in the Middle East have lived with that for centuries and nowadays Islamic countries enjoy a greater degree of wealth and autonomy than they ever have. And they are saturated with Western values. The tendency is to become more so.

Also there is a strong component of anti-Semitism, an almost hysterical variety, among Islamists that I did not witness among the Muslim people I have known. The Islamists I have looked into are really mean, nasty Jew haters. There is no reasoning with them.

The other Muslims, however, at least the ones I have known, are more into live and let live mode.

I felt there was something causing the divide. However here in the post-9/11 USA, there isn't much awareness of the Muslim world and, with fear running rampant, there are two radical camps basically screaming at each other in the news. It is hard to keep one's independent judgment and look at the facts without being accused of all kinds of things by one side or the other.

Then I came across the Grand Mufti in a documentary on the intellectual roots of Saddam Hussein and started looking deeper. There it was. Hardcore Nazi leftovers in the Muslim Brotherhood, Ba'ath party and so forth. What's worse, we employed them instead of hanging them after WWII. There is also a mix of Communism and Wahhabi-like fundamentalism on the Sunni side peppered in among the Islamists, so it is not pure Nazism. Just the worst parts.

I am not yet familiar enough with the history of the Shi'ite side (Iran) to traced the intellectual influence of the fanatics, but it is definitely there. There are some real nasty hardcore Shi'ite Islamists out there and they are dangerous and anti-Semitic to the core.

I intend to pursue all this over time. Unfortunately other studies have been taking most of my time these days.

Michael

I see. Also I would like to say thank you for doing research into the Muslim/Fanatic/Israel/West issue, I am trying to do the same.

I would also like to add this comment:

Also there is a strong component of anti-Semitism, an almost hysterical variety, among Islamists that I did not witness among the Muslim people I have known. The Islamists I have looked into are really mean, nasty Jew haters. There is no reasoning with them.

I know a lot of Muslims, all of my suppliers are from either Pakistan, India or Iran, as well as have many friends who own businesses in the malls where I also do business. I will say that I agree with you that none of them are anti-Semitic but I would say that about 75% of them are anti-Zionistic. Try talking to the Muslim people you know and see what they feel about Israel and the Israeli's. I bet you will get a different answer than if you asked them how they feel about Jews. None of my Muslim friends have any problems with Jews, they have Jewish friends but they loathe Israel and the way Israel treats the Palestinians.

--Dustan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Try talking to the Muslim people you know and see what they feel about Israel and the Israeli's. I bet you will get a different answer than if you asked them how they feel about Jews. None of my Muslim friends have any problems with Jews, they have Jewish friends but they loathe Israel and the way Israel treats the Palestinians.

Dustan,

In Brazil, which is where the bulk of the Muslims I know live, there was some grumbling about Israel, but not loathing. When it occurred, which was not all that often, it was more or less on the intensity that people nowadays grumble about Hillary Clinton. The few Muslims I know here in the USA have not discussed Israel with me, nor I with them.

Sometimes in Brazil, back when I lived there, I witnessed the kind of loathing you mentioned for Bush (the father), believe it or not. And I witnessed it when on discussing prostitutes. That's about all.

Michael

EDIT: Incidentally, I have no sympathy at all for suicide murderers of innocents, nor their grievances, nor the fate of their causes. I believe the leaders who promote that practice are doubly evil: they are evil against the innocent Jews that are murdered, and they are evil against the poor saps they convince to blow themselves up.

Heil Hitler!

If these people want to be taken seriously for dialog, they have to stop that crap. I for one ain't listening to them. There is a line of decency that is not to be crossed for negotiating and suicide murder is way over it.

[Aggrad02]

EDIT: Incidentally, I have no sympathy at all for suicide murderers of innocents, nor their grievances, nor the fate of their causes. I believe the leaders who promote that practice are doubly evil: they are evil against the innocent Jews that are murdered, and they are evil against the poor saps they convince to blow themselves up.

Heil Hitler!

If these people want to be taken seriously for dialog, they have to stop that crap. I for one ain't listening to them. There is a line of decency that is not to be crossed for negotiating and suicide murder is way over it.

I totally agree. The problem is that people focus on the evil and the killing done by the fanatics, and use that to do the same in return to innocent Palestinians. There are plenty of peaceful Palestinians and Muslims, but more they are killed and the more land that is taken from them and the more they lose their freedom, the less and less of them you have.

I read a book called Once Upon a Country by Sari Nusseibeh Ph.d. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sari_Nusseibeh.) Dr. Nusseibeh has an undergraduate degree from Oxford in Philosophy and a Ph.d. from Havard in Middle Eastern Studies and now runs the al-Quds University in East Jerusalem. He is also married to an English woman Lucy Austin (Daughter of the Oxford philosopher John L. Austin). They are both nonviolence activist in Palestine and have worked hard to bring peace in Palestine. Once of the problems that he demonstrated over and over again in retelling his history is that every time there was a strong leader for peace inside Fatah the Israelis would either kill them or arrest them, while letting the leader of Hamas (the sheik in the wheelchair) organize and do whatever he pleased. Also peaceful leaders inside Israel where also made irrelevant by expansionist Israeli government. I would highly recommend the book. Not only is it a history, but it has philosophy sprinkled throughout it as Dr. Nusseibeh is a philosopher.

--Dustan

Edit: Here is Dr. Nusseibeh's website, he has several articles that he has written there on this issue: http://sari.alquds.edu/

Edited March 24, 2008 by Aggrad02

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dustan,

I did not have time to look at your link yet, but as a general guideline, I think the policy of recognizing the fact that the fanatics are in the minority applies to both Palistenians and Israelis. So when you say "the Israelis" and mean the right wing ones, this is the same thing as saying "the Palistenians" and meaning the members of Hamas.

Remember that Rabin was possible in Israel and that he was killed by an Israeli right-winger. So Israel is not really one thing only, just as Palestine is not either.

This underbelly of really dirty tricks you mentioned is present in all fanatical groups and, even without reading the book you mentioned, I have no doubt that there are right-wing Israelis hell bent on promoting the policy of killing off the peace advocates and keeping in power Islamist fanatics in order to manipulate public image and justify expansion. If these people were strong enough to kill the Prime Minister of Isreal, they are certainly strong enough to kill others.

We should never forget, though, that these people are in the minority. Since the majority does not engage in such brutality, the fanatics use this as an excuse to deny it. The suicide bomber thing is along the same lines. I have no doubt the majority of Palistenians would not become a suicide bomber if given the opportunity or even approve of the method.

In Brazil there was a very similar occurrence in the military government. There was a small contingency of right-wingers going to the Northeast and killing the Jesuit teachers (teachers!) so the Brazilians would stay ignorant. Northeastern Brazilians are like our old-time cowboys, so if they get education and an idea in their head, they go take care of business. Keeping them ignorant was a manner of keeping them governable. I even once talked to a memeber of the government who supported this policy. He was very paternalistic and even sentimental about how best to care for the "ignorant children" (his term for the common man). He said things like, "You can't let them have too much knowlege at once... yada yada yada." He had a low level position in the government, but it was obvious that he was not alone in his sentiment.

Killing those who struggle for human peace and progress is an ugly business in an ugly world. The best thing we can do is keep exposing the fanatics for what they are.

Michael

[Aggrad02]

Michael,

I don't have any statistics and I certainly could be wrong (and I surely would be pleased to be so), but my guess/intuition is that the majority of Israeli's are expansionist. Their entire history has been almost entirely based on expansion.

--Dustan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dustan,

That's easy to confirm. Do like you did with Muslims. Talk to a few Israelis.

Also, look at their political representatives (not the PM) and the policies they endorse. There are gobs and gobs of non-expansionist Israelis. What do you think the conflicts are about during voting time?

Also, read books. It won't hurt to read the other side to see what they say. I'll bet you will find strong defenders of Israel who are not expansionist in addition to the ones who are.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dustan,

I have already documented Samson Blinded on the Jewish side as a fanatic organization. So let's look at the Palestinian side. Here is a February 28, 2008 clip I just came across from Al-Aqsa TV (the Palestinian Hamas TV station in the Gaza strip). Unfortunately, it is in Adobe Flash Player and does not come with a code to embed it here on OL. So you have to click on the link to go to Memri to see it. It is not too long (2:42).

Hamas Cleric Wael Al-Zarad Calls for the Annihilation of Jews and States: If Each Arab Spat on the Jews, They Would Drown in Arab Spit

Here is the transcript below.

Following are excerpts from a TV program featuring Palestinian cleric Wael Al-Zarad, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on February 28, 2008: Wael Al-Zarad: In short, these are the Jews. As Muslims, our blood vengeance against them will only subside with their annihilation, Allah willing, because they tried to kill our Prophet several times.

[...]

What should we do with these people? What is the best solution for them? Should it be by shamelessly bestowing kisses, regardless of our religion and our morals, on satellite TV and in clear view of the whole world? Should it be through futile meetings, which are usually conducted on carpets red with the blood of martyrs? Or should it be through an exchange of despicable smiles and ugly handshakes?

[...]

What is the best solution for these people, who have perpetrated every possible thing against us? They have destroyed our homes, killed our children, taken our land, and plundered our resources. They have turned our mosques into pubs and bars, where they drink alcohol and get women drunk. From the dome of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, they proclaim that Ezra the Scribe is the son of God.

[...] By Allah, people, the Jews do not deserve such a fuss. They do not deserve to be feared. The Jews are not a terrorizing bogeyman. The Jews are nothing but human scum, who came as scattered gangs to occupy our land. By Allah, if each and every Arab spat on them, they would drown in Arab spit. By Allah, if each and every Muslim spat on them, they would drown in saliva. By Allah, if the Arabs and Muslims turned into flies, the Jews would die from their buzzing. Therefore, my dear brothers, the Jews do not deserve to be feared so much. Therefore, I ask with pain and sorrow: Isn't there a single reasonable man in any of the Arab air forces? Isn't there a single reasonable man among them, who will break through these aerial borders, and bomb the Jews deep in their own land? Where are all the Arabs and Muslims?

This was broadcast to the world from within the Gaza strip by satellite. Here is a write up on Al Aqsa TV by The Anti-Defamation League. One could say that the write-up is biased since ADL is Jewish, so a different point of view should be examined. Well, here is a much blander one from Al Jazeera: Hamas launches TV station in Gaza. After looking at the above clip, there is no doubt that the ADL report is spot on.

There is no excuse for that and we all know it. That kind of fanatical crap has to stop, not be given a TV station to spread. The guy is even calling on Muslim pilots to bomb Jewish civilians just because they are Jews.

If that ain't a leftover from Nazism, I don't know what is.

I am all for freedom of speech, but it is shameful—disgustingly, hideously contemptible—to see this crap broadcast over satellites built with Western technology. (I would say the same kind of thing if there were a Jewish version and I do say it against the Objectivist nuke 'em all crowd.)

Michael

[tjohnson]

I am all for freedom of speech, but it is shameful—disgustingly, hideously contemptible—to see this crap broadcast over satellites built with Western technology. (I would say the same kind of thing if there were a Jewish version and I do say it against the Objectivist nuke 'em all crowd.)

Michael

I believe you once pointed out the difference between 'freedom of speech' and 'incitement to riot' or 'call to action' ?

[Brant Gaede]

I am all for freedom of speech, but it is shameful—disgustingly, hideously contemptible—to see this crap broadcast over satellites built with Western technology. (I would say the same kind of thing if there were a Jewish version and I do say it against the Objectivist nuke 'em all crowd.)

Michael

I believe you once pointed out the difference between 'freedom of speech' and 'incitement to riot' or 'call to action' ?

Crap is self-negating except to the crappers. So hooray to the satellites!

--Brant

[Aggrad02]

There is no excuse for that and we all know it. That kind of fanatical crap has to stop, not be given a TV station to spread. The guy is even calling on Muslim pilots to bomb Jewish civilians just because they are Jews.

If that ain't a leftover from Nazism, I don't know what is.

I am all for freedom of speech, but it is shameful—disgustingly, hideously contemptible—to see this crap broadcast over satellites built with Western technology. (I would say the same kind of thing if there were a Jewish version and I do say it against the Objectivist nuke 'em all crowd.)

Michael

Michael,

You are correct. There is no excuse for it. Anti-Israel sentiment that has been produced by the horrors committed to the innocents in Palestine is being funneled by Hamas for fanatic ends. But where is this sentiment coming from? Not because the Israelis are Jewish, but because they are oppressing the Palestinians.

Just because the Nazi's were rascist and committed the holocaust based soley on race/religion does not mean that everyone who is anti Israel is Nazi. It is a fallaci of logic (I might be wrong). But here is the problem as I see it:

1. Nazi commit unspeakable horrors to the Jews in Europe. (Tribe A (Nazi's) persecute Tribe B (Jews))

2. The Jews flee Europe and start settling in Palestine/Israel (Tribe B (Jews) move to the homeland of Tribe C (Palestinians))

3. The Jews with the help of the UK forcefully take sovereignty and land from the Palestinians to form a homeland using the excuse of being persecuted by the Nazis. (Tribe B takes land from Tribe C using the excuse of being persecuted by Tribe A)

4. The Palestinians fight back, and the Israelis being stronger take even more land (Tribe C fights Tribe B, loses and is persecuted even more)

5. thus the Palestinians who are almost all Muslim hate the Israelis who are almost all Jewish.

In 1. and 5. you have Tribes (A, C) who hate Tribe ( B ). But just because the sentiment is the same does not mean that reasoning is the same.

In case 1. the Nazis hated the Jews based on antisemitism, in case 5. the Palestinians hate the Israelis because the Israelis kill them and take their land.

Also you must consider that since the Muslims do not recognize Israel, they cannot call the Israelis Israelis, they must call them something else so they usually call them Infidels or Jews (since they are). Their anger is not directed at Jews for being Jews, but at Jews who are Israelis because the Israelis are persecuting them. Next time you read one of these pieces by a Palestinian/Muslim every time you read Jew, just replace it with Israeli and see if it does not make better since, sometimes it might, many times it will not because regardless of title you should not target civilians.

You also have to look at how Jews are treated in the Muslim world and how non-Israeli Jews are treated by Muslims around the world. Jews in Muslim countries are not treated much different than other people in those countries. In some countries they are treated worse than the Muslims who are the majority, but no different from the Christians or Druze, which while this is not ethical is not being done soley on the basis of them being Jewish, just that they are different. And Muslims attacking Jews in Europe and America is pretty much unheard of.

Finally as you look at this problem you cannot look at it logically if you are looking through Holocaust tinted glasses. Look at the problem as if the Holocaust never happened. You have a group of people who immigrated to a foreign country and started taking it over, angering the natives and this has started a war that has both sides committing atrocities. If you rationalize it through the Holocaust, which had nothing to do with the Palestinians (they were herding goats at the time side by side with Arab Jews), then you are not treating the problem fairly.

--Dustan

Edited March 26, 2008 by Aggrad02

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dustan,

You left out something extremely important in your analysis: the Islamic intellectuals and leaders who had been working with the Nazis who went on to write works, organize movements and political parties, etc., after WWII.

I agree with you that the root of anti-Semitism in the Islamist world is not solely based on the Nazi influence. It was present in many writers and intellectuals before WWII (especially al-Banna and Husseini, but there are others). What happened was that at the end of WWII, many Nazis were given safe haven in Egypt (and a few other places, but Egypt was the hotbed) and, of course, the Muslim Nazi collaborators were given free reign. These people didn't just go about their business and turn into good guys from one day to the next just because the war was over. They organized and stayed true to their nature.

The USA and England, in one of the most boneheaded policies I have ever read, hired these Nazi leftovers to fight the Communists as spies. The reasoning was that the Nazis hated the Communists, so logically these people were the best ones to do the job. Our wise leaders gave a blind eye to their organinzing and anti-Semitic stuff because of this. That's how the anti-Semitism grew over there. We helped fund it.

All this is documented and openly provided in links elsewhere here on OL. There is a kind of intellectual marriage between homegrown anti-Semitism and imported Nazi anti-Semitism that is reflected in the writings of major Islamist intellectuals. I have only scratched the surface in reading these works, but they are enlightening.

If that is taken as the context, I fully agree that all Israeli aggression in the region is manipulated by Islamists in power (both Atillas and witch doctors) to fan the flames of bigotry and hatred, while Palestinian aggression—including suicide murder of innocents—is heralded as heroic.

I am not trying to downplay any injustice committed by the Israelis, and there have been many, but facts are facts. There is a strong expansionist movement alive and well in Israel. But laying anti-Semitism in this context at the feet of the Jews is a vast oversimplification and requires ignoring a huge amount of widely popular books in the Islamic part of that region, in addition to other things like ignoring the history of the Muslem Brotherhood and so forth. Anti-Semitism (the vicious violent kind) was present way before Israel came into being—from basically two sources, one homegrown and one imported. Present-day anti-Semitism in the region grew from those roots and I have no doubt it would have grown independently of the founding of the country.

If you think I am defending Israel or Jews in this issue from bias, you should see some of the emails I have from defenders of Israel, basically claiming that I distort matters by not understanding them.

All I know is what I read and what I examine with my own eyes. I shall remain true to that.

When I see crap like Samson Blinded preaching the annex of Saudi Arabia to Israel, or that bonehead in the video above wanting to drown all Jews in the spittle of Arabs and calling on the population to bomb Jewish civilians, I prefer to call it crap rather than say it happened because of the fault of the other side.

I strongly reject that kind of reasoning. These fanatics are fully and independently responsible for their own boneheaded thoughts and acts and they should be held to account as such.

That is the only way out of this mess. Expose them, denounce them and and support those who take them down—one by one. Encourage the peacemakers and get rid of these jerks. The reasonable people left over will find a way to work out the rest. They always do.

Michael

[Mike11]

About Wael Al-Zarad,

The Muslim Resurgence looks back to a past which does not exist. Muhammad's conquests, and those of the first Caliphs created a world civilization fusing Greek Iraqis, Jewish Spaniards and Arabs into a prosperous, open and progressive empire. Mathematics and medicine advanced considerably and the early Ummah was governed by Ijtihad, a process of free thought applied to Islamic knowledge without an entrenched and backward priesthood (later however through the Ash'arites this system gave way to fundamentalism). Jews, far from being spit on, experienced with Islam's blessing a Golden Age surpassing only that experienced in modern Anglo-American society. Sure these flowerings existed in areas where Islam was in a minority position but that Greek culture flourished in Iraq and Jewish culture in Spain for centuries speaks to the underlining openness of the Islamic society.

Khurshid Ahmad writes in "The Nature of Islamic Resurgence" (this is a school text, no link, sorry), from an Islamic perspective, that the current resurgence is based on the structure of Westernization in the Muslim world as much as on Islam itself. As with Rome's European holdings, the Arab elite grew increasingly separate from the people's own beliefs, adopting western values and institutions in a way which represented a clear break from society. The repressive and corrupt nature of the regimes speak to this, as does the quagmire in Iraq and the near perfect fusion of populism and Islam in most of the Muslim world.

I'm not trying to romanticize Islam, I just want to stress just how much though these current psychos are a major departure from the work of Muhammad and the early Ummah.

[Mike11]

brain broken, double posted

Edited March 26, 2008 by Mike11

[Brant Gaede]

brain broken, double posted

We already knew about the brain.

--Brant

[Mike11]

brain broken, double posted

We already knew about the brain.

--Brant

Sigh

[Brant Gaede]

brain broken, double posted

We already knew about the brain.

--Brant

Sigh

Cheer up. What's important is what you've got left. My own brain has been broken so much I've lost count.

--Brant