The Real War

Final Version of XVI's Regensburg Lecture

2006-10-11T10:37:00.000-04:00

The Pope has released the final version, with footnotes, of his now-famous Regensburg lecture. The bolded section was added to the offending paragraph. You can review all the changes here.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3]

What follows is the text of the third footnote.

[3] Controversy VII, 2 c: Khoury, pp. 142-143; Förstel, vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.5, pp. 240-241. In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation. I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion. In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason. On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic.

"The division of people into military and civilian does not exist in Islamic law"

2006-10-10T15:19:00.000-04:00

No, that's not me speaking: it's Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Qaeda al-Jihad's number 2 man, in the video released on the fifth anniversary of the 911 attacks. You can view it here.

Al-Zawahiri explains in the video that "Jews and the Crusaders everywhere should pay the price for killing our Muslim brothers in Lebanon, Palestine, and other Islamic countries." He also makes his immediate goal clear: "Our fighting should be Jihad for the sake of Allah, until religion is all for the sake of Allah. This Jihad should strive to liberate Palestine in its entirety, and to liberate any land that was once Islamic--from Andalusia to Iraq." This is an Islamic version of the old Brezhnev Doctrine.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term "Andalusia," read it as almost all of Spain and Portugal. Al-Zawahiri, I suppose, wants Sicily and Sardinia back as well. And then you have those areas of Europe that were ruled for centuries by the Ottomans: present-day Hungary, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Maceconian, Albania, Bosnia, Moldavia, and the Crimean peninsula. And, of course, you have Israel.

If you're not prepared to relinquish all these areas, you'd better be prepared to convert, die, fight, or support those who do our fighting. I'm not saying that there cannot be any disagreement about Bush's policies in Iraq or elsewhere. The best way to wage the "Global War on Jihadism," as was the case with all wars, will remain subject to debate. But there should be no debate about the fact that we are engaged in a "Real War." There should be absolutely no doubt about what the jihadists want. It's not as if they are secretive. There's no need to debate their goals, or to struggle to discern what they are after. They come right out and tell us in plain Arabic, for which they provide English subtitles.

Despite what Ted Turner said at his recent talk at the National Press Club, you don't get "to decide" whether or not you want to go to war when someone declares war on you and launches attacks that kill over 3,000 Americans. You are, by definition, at war. And while I can understand that Turner and other Americans legitimately doubt the wisdom of going into Iraq, there should be no reason for anyone to doubt which side of the "Global War on Jihadism" he or she supports. You either support the goals of the jihadists, outlined clearly by Al-Zawahiri, or you oppose them. If you oppose them, the jihadists want you dead.

The abyss beckons, and the disunity of the West serves only to widen and deepen the chasm into which our world will eventually plunge.

The Return of the Bear

2006-10-10T14:41:00.000-04:00

Here’s an interesting article by Caroline Glick that focuses on the return of the Russians to the Middle East, and the less than constructive role they are playing.

The Big Question

2006-10-05T17:17:00.000-04:00

There’s an interesting article by Evelyn Gordon in today’s Jerusalem Post examining the extent to which Western Europeans are, or are not, addressing “the big question: whether the West will awake to the danger facing it in time.” Gordon cautions: “The defeat of both Nazism and communism has created a myth of Western invincibility, but in World War II, the West's awakening came within a hairsbreadth of being too late. And this time, the West could yet oversleep entirely. Nevertheless, slowly, the wind appears to be shifting. And that, at least, offers grounds for hope.”

I agree, and sense that in Europe, and in the United States, the reality of the war against the jihadists is becoming more "real," even if the process appears glacial. My concern is less that the West will lose "the real war," than that the delay in offering a unified response will serve to legitimize the jihadists, allow them to spread their ideology more deeply and broadly throughout the Muslim world, and make the ultimate showdown vastly more destructive than it should have been. The ultimate price for the West's unwillingngess to unite now will, unfortunately, be paid predominantly by Muslims, just as the price of the West's failure to stand up to Hitler insured the ruin of Germany and the death of millions of Germans.

I do hope that the Jews do not find themselves once more paying the price for the West's failure to act. At least this time the Jews will be players and not by-standers. That is what the establishment and continued existence of Israel is all about.

UNIFIL's ROE

2006-10-04T20:48:00.000-04:00

I've read several reports about UNIFIL's new rules of engagement (ROE) but have yet to see the actual document. Since it's only a page long, I thought it worth posting in full.

On paper, the ROE give UNIFIL sufficient authority to take action to prevent the rearming of Hezbollah in the south and raids or rocket attacks into Israel. Likewise, UNIFIL would have the authority to resist an Israeli attack.

Of course, the question remains to be seen if UNIFIL has the will to act. Last week a Hizbollah spokesman bragged that his fighters were armed and deployed in southern Lebanon along the border with Israel. If Hezbollah does fire rockets into Israel and UNIFIL fails to act, the Israelis would face a difficult choice: Do nothing, or strike at an area filled with UN forces.
_______________________________________________________________

UNITED NATIONS INTERIM FORCE IN LEBANON
(UNIFIL)
Naqoura,
3 October 2006
UNIFIL Press Statement

UNIFIL is steadily enhancing its operational capabilities in order to fulfill its responsibilities under Security Council resolution 1701 (2006). More than 3,000 additional troops, for a current total of around 5,200, plus an Interim Maritime Task Force, have been deployed so far. UNIFIL personnel are patrolling the area of operations, monitoring the cessation of the hostilities, and assisting the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), which have already deployed five brigades in the south. Yesterday, UNIFIL confirmed the withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to south of the Blue Line, except in the area around Ghajar, and ensured a seamless and smooth takeover by the LAF.

Should the situation present any risk of resumption of hostile activities, UNIFIL rules of engagement allow UN forces to respond as required. UNIFIL commanders have sufficient authority to act forcefully when confronted with hostile activity of any kind. UNIFIL has set up temporary checkpoints at key locations within its area of operations. Permanent checkpoints are being established by the LAF to stop and search passing vehicles. In case specific information is available regarding movement of unauthorized weapons or equipment, the LAF will take required action. However, in situations where the LAF are not in a position to do so, UNIFIL will do everything necessary to fulfill its mandate in accordance with Security Council resolution 1701.

In implementing their mandate, all UNIFIL personnel may exercise the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the use of force beyond self-defense may be applied to ensure that UNIFIL’s area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities; to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent UNIFIL from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council; to protect UN personnel, facilities, installations and equipment; to ensure the security and freedom of movement of UN personnel and humanitarian workers; and to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence in its areas of deployment, within its capabilities.

Hamas's Focus on Fatah

2006-10-04T16:10:00.000-04:00

Internet Haganah notes that Hamas has a new website. Their English front page for 4 October 2006 is rather interesting. When I reached the page, the version last edited at 15:02:23, I found fifteen stories covered in the center “Daily News” section. The top story at the time was a critical analysis of Secretary of State Rice’s visit to the region. Her goal is purely to serve Israeli interests. Another story addressed the problems associated with the Israeli “siege” of Gaza. Two stories reported on Israeli strikes that killed Palestinians. Another story covered Palestinian efforts to take their case to the larger Arab audience. But ten of the fifteen stories focused on the shortcomings of Hamas’s Palestinian opponents. The reports accused Fatah of vandalism, disunity, murder, violence, “unfortunate incidents,” attempts to force Arab storeowners to close, and a general failure to keep the peace.

I know that several commentators have suggested that the Palestinians are headed for civil war. A review of the Hamas site suggests that internal discord is a growing problem and the ignition of something approaching a civil war may be close at hand. At the present, Hamas’s immediate concern certainly appears to be Fatah, and not Israel.

New 911 Martyrdom Video

2006-09-30T21:32:00.000-04:00

The Times (London) reports that they have a new video (sans audio) recorded in early 2000 that, among other things, served as the martyrdom video for Mohammad Atta and another of the 911 hijackers. At noon on Sunday (London time) the video will be available for viewing.

I doubt that the release of the video will have any impact on the 911 deniers. But I would suspect that the tape, combined with the fact that bin Laden and company continue to claim responsibility for the attacks, will make the position of the skeptics more difficult to sustain.

Sixteen Beats Bush!

2006-09-28T06:31:00.000-04:00

Falling gas prices have given President Bush a slight uptick in his favorability rating, but even that effect seems to be dissipating. If prices stabilize, the political gain will probably be minimal, at best.

But one person whose favorable numbers are rising is Pope Benedict XVI. “Sixteen,” as I like to call the Pontiff, started out slowly. At the time of his election by the College of Cardinals only 34% of Americans had a favorable opinion of the new Pope. His favorability rating has risen to 54% since, according to a new poll taken in the wake of the dispute following his Regensburg lecture. Interestingly, only a quarter of Americans felt that the Pope needed to apologize. Twice that number didn’t think he should.

These results suggest that the next poll of American attitudes will reflect a further decline in perceptions of Islam. A poll taken in the late winter of 2006 showed that 46% of American held a negative view of Islam, a figure lower than that reported in polls taken in the immediate wake of 911. The number of Americans who believe that there is a connection between Islam and terrorist violence rose from 14% in January 2002 to 33% in March 2006. A poll taken over the summer of 2006 reported that 39% of Americans were willing to admit that they harbored prejudices against Muslims (and how many others wouldn’t admit that to pollsters?); a third believed that Muslims were sympathetic to al-Qaeda; a third thought that Muslims should have to carry special identification; and 22% said they would not want Muslim neighbors. A survey of American Muslims reported that 50% showed some signs of clinical depression—two-and-one-half times the average response for Americans.

What’s amazing is that public opinion about Muslims, which one would expect to be low right after 911, has not only failed to rebound but instead fallen steadily. Of course, the response of Muslim groups and those on the American left is that it’s the fault of our leaders and the media, which portray Muslims and Islam in a negative light.

While I agree that “perceptions” are important, we still have to accept the fact that actual events shape those “perceptions” and are thus, in my opinion, the primary forces driving public opinion. The constant drumbeat in the news—Bali, London, Madrid, foiled plots to kill hundreds or thousands, the savage attacks against Shi’a Muslims and even mosques in Iraq, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the reaction to the Danish cartoons, and occasional outbreaks of what Daniel Pipes has termed “Sudden Jihad Syndrome” in Seattle, San Francisco, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina—does little to improve the image of Islam. Only a fool would argue that American opinion was shaped more by what the Pope said, than by the often violent reaction throughout the Islamic world. Let’s be honest: in the absence of that reaction in the Islamic world, no more than a handful of Americans would have even known that the Pope had spoken in Regensburg. Because of the response of Muslims, 61% of Americans followed the story, and 27% said they followed it “very closely.” Of course what they were actually following wasn’t the Pope, but the reaction of Muslims to the Pope’s remarks.

It is often asserted that “all publicity is good publicity.” While this may work as a concept in Hollywood, it is definitely not working for Muslims in the United States. And that is a shame, because until 911 the popular perception of Muslims in this country was that they were what they still are: a hard-working, family-oriented, God-fearing people. They ought not to be viewed as they are increasingly being viewed. But American Muslims have to accept the fact that the fundamental problem they face has less to do with the failings of Americans political leaders or a “biased” media, and far more to do with the actions of their co-religionists.

Egypt Demands Immediate Release of Israeli Soldier

2006-09-28T00:45:00.000-04:00

Here’s an interesting report from The Daily Star (Egypt) dated 28 September. According to the report, Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman “has demanded that Hamas immediately release a captured Israeli soldier to avoid a worsening crisis in the violence-battered Gaza Strip. . . .” The Egyptians are also “demanding” that “Hamas cooperate fully with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in forming a national unity government. . . .” Hamas is “studying” the letter.

Pay Each Penny Save Israel!

2006-09-27T14:04:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I posted about the Iranian media’s effort to link Disney to the vast Zionist conspiracy. A friend pointed out that not only was Disney not Jewish, but also that there have long been accusations that Walt was a bit of an anti-Semite. You can find sites yourself by googling “Walt Disney” and “anti-Semitic.”

But the Iranian campaign against American “Zionist-controlled” corporations seems to be gathering steam. MEMRI-TV also has posted an Iranian TV report that goes after Coke, Pepsi, Marlboro (I assume they mean its parent company Altria/Phillip Morris), Sara Lee (Sara’s a give-away, isn’t it?), and a host of other companies. Check out the report here, clip #1277.

For me, living in eastern North Carolinian, the funniest part of the Iranian report concerns Pepsi, which was a concoction invented by New Berne (about thirty-minutes south of where I live) pharmacist Caleb Bradham in 1898. The two main theories about how Pepsi was named, in 1903, are: 1) a play on the word “Pep,” 2) an anagram of the word “Episcopal.”

But here’s the Iranian version of how Pepsi, trademarked in 1903, was named [bolding mine]: “Take, for example, the Pepsi drink. Do you know what Pepsi stands for? ‘Pay Each Penny Save Israel.’” Wow! Not only was Caleb Bradham a creative and marketing genius, he was also, if the Iranian media is to be believed, a pro-Zionist clairvoyant who a half-century before “the Zionist entity” even existed was already raising money to support it.

This is the kind of crap that you expect to see floating around the internet. I do not expect to see it in the state-controlled Iranian media.

No, I take that back: I do expect to see it in the Iranian media. Because the Iranian regime is beginning to do a very good job, thanks to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, of displaying its true nature—that of an anti-Semitic thugocracy. Goebbels at least had the “big lie.” The Iranians only have the “stupid lie”—lies that are easy to reveal as falsehoods, and a world full of useful idiots willing to believe the Iranian line.

Keep in mind, however, that the average Iranian does not have the tools, the time, or the inclination to check the facts he or she receives over their televisions. Ahmadinejad is cracking down on satellite telvision and the internet.

If you’re wondering what the other “Zionist-controlled” corporations are, should you wish to support them, here they are: Coke, Pepsi, Intel, Marks & Spencer, Nestle, MacDonalds, Disney, Timberland, Revlon, Hugo Boss, Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, L'Oreal, Sara Lee, Altria, and Garnier.

Paranoid Delusions: Even Tom & Jerry Are Not Safe!

2006-09-26T18:17:00.000-04:00

Negotiate! Talk! No war! Peace! Fine sentiments, but exactly how do you negotiate with people who: a) can’t get their facts straight; and b) live in a world distorted by government-sponsored conspiracy theories?

MEMRI today published a new report that follows up on an earlier dispatch concerning Iranian claims that Disney is just another tool of the vast Zionist conspiracy. In February, MEMRI reported that Iranian television had claimed that Walt Disney created the characters Tom & Jerry as part of a Zionist plot to counteract Nazi propaganda by making the average American view rodents as warm and cuddly.

There is a cartoon that children like. They like it very much, and so do adults – Tom and Jerry.
Some say that this creation by Walt Disney will be remembered forever. The Jewish Walt Disney Company gained international fame with this cartoon. It is still shown throughout the world. This cartoon maintains its status because of the cute antics of the cat and mouse – especially the mouse.

Some say that the main reason for making this very appealing cartoon was to erase a certain derogatory term that was prevalent in Europe.

Read the history of the Jews in Europe. This ultimately led to Hitler's hatred and resentment. As it turns out, Hitler had behind-the-scene connections with the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion].

Tom and Jerry was made in order to display the exact opposite image. If you happen to watch this cartoon tomorrow, bear in mind the points I have just raised, and watch it from this perspective. The mouse is very clever and smart. Everything he does is so cute. He kicks the poor cat's ass. Yet this cruelty does not make you despise the mouse. He looks so nice, and he is so clever... This is exactly why some say it was meant to erase this image of mice from the minds of European children, and to show that the mouse is not dirty and has these traits.

Tom & Jerry were, of course, created by William Hanna and Joseph Barbera (Hanna-Barbera), not Walt Disney. And before you start thinking that maybe these idiots made a mistake and meant to say Mickey Mouse, Disney created his lovable rodent in 1928, five years before Hitler and his Nazis came to power.

Nor was Disney Jewish. I checked this out once before; his father was of Irish descent, via Canada, and his mother was a German-American. Both of Walt Disney’s parents were Congregationalists.

But the latest Zionist Disney conspiracy apparently involves Johnny Depp’s new “Pirates of the Caribbean” sequel. (You can watch the Iranian TV report here.)

The hot news of cinema circles worldwide is: The Pirates of the Caribbean attack the silver screen. The example of Pirates of the Caribbean–Hollywood's latest effort to ain control – is all the more striking if we bear in mind the name of its producer: the Walt Disney company. Disney and its productions have been associated, more than anything, with the Zionist lobby in Hollywood. In 1995, when the pro-Zionist Jews were 2.5% of America's population, they made up 7.7% of Disney's board of directors. This clearly influences the content of this large company's productions, as well as its policies and guidelines. The Aladdin animated film series is one example of Disney creations that present Arabs in a negative light.

My God, just look at how those Zionists have gained control of Disney: 7.7% of the board of directors, when Jews only make up 2.5 of the American population! Those Jews must be damned persuasive to be able to control a company whose directors are 92.3% (math corrected 10/01/06) non-Jewish!

Now, I know that many Arabs were unhappy with “Aladdin,” and the Iranian report criticizes Disney for refusing to distribute “Fahrenheit 911.” But I do wish the Iranian reporter had explained exactly how “Pirates of the Caribbean” furthers the Zionist agenda. I have not seen the movie. If someone has, and you have a theory, please let me know.

This is of personal interest to me because I teach at East Carolina University and our mascot is “The Pirate.” Is it possible that our choice of mascot was part of a Zionist conspiracy? Could Blackbeard have been Jewish? Is ECU going to have to come up with a new mascot, lest we offend Muslims? And just who owns the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the Pittsburgh Pirates, and the Oakland Raiders?

What the Deuce! I have it! Moshe Dayan wore an eye patch! That’s it! Disney made the two “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie so that when Americans see pictures of Moshe Dayan they’ll think: “Oh, doesn’t he remind you of Johnny Depp? That Mr. Dayan and his fellow Zionists must be very nice people.”

But I digress. To return to my initial point: we’re talking here about Iran and its state run media, not just a few idiot reporters. Just last week the president of Iran was in the United States and was invited to meet with members of the Council on Foreign Relations. The week before, Iran’s former President, Mohammad Khatami, spoke at the National Cathedral about cultural dialogue. Jimmy “Dhimmi” Carter panted after Khatami, hoping for a meeting. Meanwhile, Iran’s official media broadcasts outright anti-Semitic lies and nonsense to the Iranian people. They also report that Iran has no intention of using its atomic program to manufacture nuclear weapons.

The Twenty-First Century’s Asymmetrical Debate!

2006-09-24T23:29:00.000-04:00

I spent all of my school years living the reality of the Cold War. I will never forget the October 1962 drills that had us crouching under our desks as Kennedy and Khrushchev played at brinksmanship. South Vietnam fell in April 1975 as I completed my first year as a PhD student. When I graduated in May 1981 Reagan was president and the Cold War seemed very real, and very dangerous.

But along the way I had come to recognize the great asymmetry in the Cold War debate. The handful of faculty members and fellow students who were avowed Communists, along with the many who made excuses for the Soviet Union, judged the United States by its actions, but the Communists by their theories. If I mentioned the Gulag, the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia, or any other Marxist-managed atrocity, I would inevitably be told: “Well, yea, but the (fill in the blank with the name of any Communist state) isn’t a ‘true’ Communist state.” I would be assured that a true Marxist polity would be a veritable utopia, if only its leaders were allowed to adhere to Marxist philosophy without Western interference. Of course, these same people condemned the United States for its actual behavior,
and not its philosophical underpinnings. For example, no debating points could be scored by referring to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence with regard to equality; what mattered was the factual as opposed to the theoretical American reality of racial and other inequalities.

We face a comparable philosophical asymmetry today. The United States and the West are judged by their behaviors and imperfections. But political Islam is to be judged only in a theoretical sense. There are, of course, no shortage of existing Islamic states—Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, the PA, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the U.A.E., Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Iraq, just to mention those in the Arab world. But we are assured that none of these states are “really” Muslim. A “true” Muslim state, ruled by Muslims without Western interference and pressure would be, well, a veritable utopia.

I apologize for speaking frankly, but this is total bullshit. And it’s the same kind of bullshit that I heard throughout the Cold War. As I read more of the writings of the Islamists and jihadists, I have to say that I gain respect for them. Why? They are honest. They state for the record that Islam is not only incompatible with democracy, secularism, freedom, western-style human rights, and a liberal capitalist market economy, but also that they quite frankly do not give a rat’s ass about any of these Western concepts. They state for the record exactly what a “true” Muslim polity would look like, and what the second-class but “protected” role of non-Muslims would be in the global Khalifate.

The primary reason the Jihadists have been growing stronger for the past fifty years is not because Bush used the term “crusade,” referred in a speech to “Islamic Fascism,” or that the Pope indirectly spoke ill of the Prophet. The jihadists gain strength because they offer a utopian vision—that Islam is not only the religious, but also the political answer to the problems of the late-twentieth and now the twenty-first centuries. Until the entire planet is Islamized, there can be no peace, no equality, no brotherhood, and no proper relationship among humans and between them and their Lord. If only Muslims ran the world. . . .

I heard this all before during the Cold War. I didn’t find it convincing then; I don’t find it convincing now. And I find it absolutely remarkable that the world’s non-Islamist Muslim majority apparently believes that Islam has absolutely nothing to do with the current state of their world. That’s the equivalent of stating that the United States, because of its secular Constitution, in no way reflects the moral assumptions of its Christian majority. No, the problems of the Islamic world are all the fault of the West, or the Jews, or both.

The United Nation’s Arab Human Development Report 2002 painted a bleak picture of the state of the Arab world. Some of the supporting statistics cited by the report highlighted abject political, social, and intellectual failures. The “Arab world translates about 330 books annually, one fifth of the number that Greece translates. The cumulative total of translated books since the Caliph Maa’moun’s time (the ninth century) is about 100,000, almost the average that Spain translates in one year.” This statistic is incredible, considering the tradition of scholarship and learning so evident in the early centuries of Islam. Economic productivity, despite the region’s oil wealth, is also low. The GDP of all Arab countries (population c. 270 million) was “$531.2 billion in 1999—less than that of a single European country, [the 40 million people of] Spain ($595.5 billion).” What the report did not say was that the pathetic record of translation was the direct result of the Ottoman Ulema’s early sixteenth-century decision to convince Sultan Beyazid II to forbid the establishment of Muslim printing presses in the empire (Jews and Christians were allowed printing presses), a ban that was not entirely lifted until the Tanzimat reforms of the 1870s. In a review of the report, the Economist identified the unspoken question: “The most delicate issue of all, again carefully skirted by the authors of the report, is the part that Islam plays in delaying and impeding the Arab world’s advance towards the ever-receding renaissance that its intellectuals crave.”

There are very few people in the West, and fewer still in the Muslim world, prepared to state the obvious: politically and socially, Islam is a fourteen-hundred-year-old medieval system that yields . . . guess what? Medieval results! It is as unsuited to the modern world as a 1933 Duesenberg would be at the 2007 Indianapolis 500. Politically, Islam can be made to work, but only by force (as was true of Communism) and only at the expense of the people living under its rule. Politically and socially, I doubt that it can be reformed. Muslims have it in their power to relegate Islam to a continued existence as a mere religion, the tenets of which believers hold privately (as do most Christians) to be expressed through some form of consensual government that would nevertheless reflect to a great degree Islamic morality. There are only two other alternatives: for Islam to disintegrate as a religion, or for Muslims to forcibly Islamize the rest of the world. The former would be unfortunate; I believe the latter would be (and in a sense already is) a very dangerous undertaking.

Do Muslims Have a Monopoly on the Discussion of Jihad?

2006-09-23T20:33:00.000-04:00

There are many sites that I survey, if not daily, fairly often. One of them is that of Ehsan Ahrari, CEO of Strategic Paradigms in Alexandria, Virginia. Ahrari is a respected scholar and commentator who once taught at East Carolina University, where I presently teach. While I often (but not always) disagree with what Dr. Ahrari has to say, I find his usually negative view of Bush’s handling of the GWOT worth consideration. I’ve been waiting to see what his take would be on the Pope’s comments and the subsequent reaction in the Islamic world. On 20 September, Ahrari published his thoughts in Asia Times. Ahrari’s response demonstrates the very problem within Islam that the Pope was addressing.

First, at no point in the piece does Ahrari take notice of the violent Muslim reaction to the Pope’s remarks. If all you knew about the events of the past fortnight was what you read in Ahrari’s article, you would assume that the Muslim world had responded to a Papal demonstration of ill will toward the Islamic world with quiet remorse and peaceful demonstrations with Muslims singing “We shall overcome” and carrying signs reading “Allah, please forgive the Pope!” In fact, the Muslim reaction has, in my mind and I know a good many others, done nothing but demonstrate that the Pope had it right about a reflexive Islamic propensity toward violence. Shooting old nuns in the back, desecrating churches, calling for the conquest of Rome and the crucifixion of the Roman Catholic Pontiff, I am sorry to say, does not advance the argument that Islam is a religion of peace.

Second, Ahrari, citing an atheist internet website, drags out the infamous Spanish Inquisition. (“No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!”) So what? I’m a Roman Catholic. I’m not offended. Am I supposed to be? Yes, the Papacy supported the Inquisition and it was terrible, but what does that have to do with the Pope’s lecture about the state of the world in 2006? The Pope was not attacking Islam for its historical sins, whatever they may or may not be; he was making a point about faith, reason, and violence in the name of God in the contemporary world. I’ll check with my local pastor, but the last I heard the Inquisition was over; jihad is not.

Third, Ahrari takes a position on jihad that is . . . astonishing. He writes (my emphasis):

The issue of Jihad will (and should) be discussed, but only by Muslims and without any condescending presence or supervision of persons of any other faith in that debate. That is the basic requirement of Ijtihad—religious renewal through reinterpretation. Even now, Muslims at large do not share the Islamist perspectives of Jihad that Pope Benedict has so cavalierly stamped on 1.4 billion Muslims. Finally, as a religious scholar, Pope Benedict is expected to check the veracity of the repulsive and obnoxious observation of Paleologus in which he accused the Prophet Mohammed to have commanded his followers to spread Islam by the sword. As a factual matter, there is no command in which the Prophet of Islam enjoined his Ummah to spread Islam by the sword.

Let me state this bluntly: I am not willing to grant Muslims a monopoly on the discussion of jihad. I take that view for the simple reason that jihadists have declared war on me and issued fatwas that make it justifiable for any Muslim to kill me. While I do not view that fatwa as evidence that all 1.4 billion Muslims in the world accept the decree as legitimate, I do note that there are hundreds of thousands who do, and those who are so motivated have made an effort to kill my “crusader and jewish” countrymen, and with some success. (I once worked on the fourth floor of the Pentagon’s “E-Wing,” just above where Flight 77 struck the building on 11 September 2001.) If a radical Catholic organization sprung up in the United States committed to a “Crusade” to force all Muslims to convert or die, and murdered 3,000 American Muslims, I doubt that Dr. Ahrari would accept a comparable statement by an American Catholic spokesperson to the effect that: “The issue of religiously motivated Crusade will (and should) be discussed, but only by Catholics and without any condescending presence or supervision of persons of any other faith in that debate.” If one followed Ahrari’s logic, only Germans would be able to discuss the Holocaust, only Turks the fate of the Armenians during the Great War, only white Americans their history of institutionalized slavery, and only Catholics the Inquisition.

And then there’s this statement: “As a factual matter, there is no command in which the Prophet of Islam enjoined his Ummah to spread Islam by the sword.” That is simply not true. There are many verses of the Qur’an, most notably the “Verse of the Sword”—Sura 9:5—that jihadists consider a call by Allah to spread Islamic political control by the sword. It would be “factual” to say that not all Muslims interpret the Sura in question as a call to jihad, but it is also a fact that far too many do, and it is those Muslims that pose the problems we face. It is fine for Dr. Ahrari to tell the Pope, George Bush, or me that the “Verse of the Sword” is not a call to jihad; but it is also quite meaningless, and will remain meaningless until the Dr. Ahrari’s of the world convince the Osama bin Laden’s of the world that they have mistakenly interpreted the Sunnah.

Fun with Numbers!

2006-09-22T21:06:00.000-04:00

The Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has issued a report documenting anti-Muslim "incidents" in the United States. Allow me to state for the record: I do not endorse any abuse of civil rights against anyone in this country, or elsewhere. Nevertheless, I cannot resist having a bit of fun with the statistics that appear in the CAIR report.

The report several times mentions the rise of “Islamophobia” in the United States. The problem is that this term has taken on a connotation that exceeds its actual denotation, to the extent that an accusation of “Islamophobia” has become a charge of racism. But the term “Islamophobe” means fear of, not hatred of Islam or Muslims. This raises a question: do non-Muslim Americans not have a right to fear Islam?

Let’s look at the CAIR statistics. According to the report, from 2003 to 2005 the number of anti-Muslim incidents reported to CAIR doubled. I would expect Muslims to be alarmed by this statistic. But if we break down the average number of incidents on a per day basis, they are rather few. In 2003, on average, three Muslims daily (2.73 to be exact) were harassed in some manner because of their faith; in 2004 the number of incidents rose to 4 (4.1) per day, and to 5 (5.4) per day in 2005. Keep in mind that the United States is a huge nation with fifty states and nearly 300,000,000 people. In fact, the number of incidents reported to CAIR is about the same as the number of anti-Semitic incidents reported by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. I suspect that both those numbers would be dwarfed by incidents involving Hispanics or African-Americans.

The report also notes that about a quarter of Americans polled believe that Muslims value life less than non-Muslims. I’m surprised the number is that low. What else would one expect given the fact that Americans every day hear, see, and read accurate reports about Muslim suicide bombers? Osama bin Laden keeps telling us that Muslims are a people who value death more than we in the West value life. Since CAIR finds this statistic troubling, I think that they ought to spend more time worrying about what Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are saying, and less time parsing the words used by President Bush or Pope Benedict.

But there other statistics that CAIR ignores in its report. Unless I missed something, not a single Muslim met his/her death at the hands of a non-Muslim as part of a hate crime during 2003, 2004, or 2005. Conversely, during the current year alone there have been three major incidents that I am aware of (and perhaps others that I am unaware of) in which non-Muslims in this country have been victimized by Muslims committing hate crimes. Omeed Aziz Popal drove his SUV into and over several California pedestrians, killing one and injuring fifteen. A shooting at a Jewish center in Seattle left one dead and five wounded. Nine people were injured in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, when a Muslim drove a vehicle into a crowd of students.

Now, let’s have some fun with stats! There are about six million Muslims (2% of the population) in the United States and 294 million (98% of the population) non-Muslims. On average, the six million Muslims killed two non-Muslims and injured twenty-nine during 2006. If the 294 million non-Muslims in the United States had vented a similar collective degree of rage against Muslims during 2006 they would have killed 98 Muslims and injured 1421. Needless to say, that did not happen, and the fact that it did not demonstrates statistically that non-Muslims, on average, are far less dangerous to their Muslim fellow-citizens than the latter are to the former.

Now, most Americans are not sitting at their computers playing with a calculator. But they garner from news reports that Muslims are killing and seriously injuring non-Muslims far more often than non-Muslims are killing or seriously injuring Muslims. This fact explains the level of Islamophobia—fear, not hatred—on the part of non-Muslim Americans. Add to this: fear of another 911, fear of bombs being placed on civilian airliners, calls for the Pope’s assassination or crucifixion in a country with 65 million Catholics, and threats (hopefully groundless) that jihadists will soon unleash an “American Hiroshima,” and, guess what? Islamophobia!

Islamic Counterattack against the Pope: "The Catholic Street"

2006-09-20T18:20:00.000-04:00

Well, if you read this everything will become very, very clear. The Journal of Turkish Weekly (dont' ask me, I suspect it's a bad auto-translation) reports that Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turk who attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul II, has warned Benedict not to come to Turkey, unless he has a desire to be assassinated. But then the report, again based on Agca's (who was convinced at one point that he was Jesus Christ) story goes downhill. Be forewarned, I suspect this is an auto-translation.

Agca claims that Pope Benedict XVI had affairs with the nuns in when he was a ardinal. Agca also asserts that these pictures regarding the Pope's love affairs are in the hands of a powerful intelligence services. Agca wrote a letter about the recent discussions on Pope Benedict XVI. In his letter he says 'I learned many things in my life, in last 20 years. I also know many secret information about Vatican. One of these secret information is that the Cardinal Ratzinger had sexual intercourses with some nuns. The captain of Vatican guardians Aloins Esterman, recorded these events secretly and attempted to sell these records to a television company. But due to this attemption, he deserved the punishment and the intelligence servise protecting the Cardinal killed Alois Esterman, his wife and a guardian called Cetric in 1998 in Vatican. Out of necessity Vatican anounced this event that: The guardian Cetric killed his captain an his wife in a madness position and then suicided'

Wow! What can I say? So now we have an accusation in an Turkish weekly claiming that the present Pope slept with nuns and had three people killed to prevent the sex-tapes from becoming public. Move over Paris Hilton!

Now, as a Roman Catholic, I find this offensive. Come on, couldn't they come up with something better than the old standard "priest 'intercourses' nuns"? What about "Pope Secret Jew"! Now there's a headline. And I suspect that most Catholics who read this will be upset to some degree. But would anyone want to bet the farm on the likelihood that outraged Catholics will deface local mosques or physically attack Muslims?

I wonder how long it will take before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad picks up on this?

Footnote posted at 2200 on 20 September:

I found a link to the Agca story in the western press here. Interestingly, the story dropped all of the accusations made by Agca against the Pope. It includes this quote: "In those twenty tears I learnt many things and I came into possession of many classified secrets," but makes no mention of what those secrets are.

I'm certain that the western press wishes to keep passions in check, lest they break into a rage on the "Catholic Street"!

Canterbury Backs Rome?

2006-09-20T17:42:00.000-04:00

The former Archbishop of Canterbury has taken a stand alongside the Roman Catholic Pope against the violent "how-dare-you-call-us-violent" reaction throughout the Islamic world. It would be nice if the current Archbishop did the same, but that's not likely to happen. Ex-Archbishop Lord Carey of Clifton even went further, suggesting that the world is witnessing the "Clash of Civilizations" that Samuel Huntington wrote about more than a decade ago. Lord Carey described (here) the growing "polarised and uncomprehending" friction between the Islamic world and the West as "the most dangerous, most important and potentially cataclysmic issue of our day."

Regensburg in Context

2006-09-20T17:35:00.000-04:00

The "Heretical Librarian" has a post today that places the Islamic reaction to the Pope's Regensburg lecture in a broader European "free speech" context.

Iran Wants More from Pope

2006-09-19T20:20:00.000-04:00

IRNA reports that Iranian spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham told the press on Monday that Pope Benedict XVI has provided an inadequate "explanation" of his Regensburg remarks. Elham told reporters [my bolding]: "Islam is the religion of peace, justice and human dignity and Pope's claims stem from ignorance as a result of unfamiliarity with the rich religion."

If the Pope was truly ignorant about Islam, which I doubt, what has he learned during the past week about Elham's "religion of peace"? Let's see: violent demonstrations, denunciations of free speech, a dead nun, defaced churches, calls for the pontiff's conversion, calls for his arrest and trial for . . . whatever should he visit Turkey, and death threats against the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm sure that Benedict is sitting in the Vatican and saying to himself: "Mea culpa! Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa! Did I have Islam pegged all wrong! What a peaceful religion!"

It's All about (French) Oil

2006-09-19T20:01:00.000-04:00

A few days ago I published this post suggesting that the prospects of French support at the UN for sanctions against Iran were looking increasingly bleak since France and Iran were about to conclude on 20 September (tomorrow) a $2.7 billion oil deal. Well, what can I say other than Jacques Chirac was right on schedule.

The Independent online reports today (19 September) : "President Jacques Chirac has broken ranks with the US and Britain by calling for the suspension of UN Security Council action against Iran during negotiations over its nuclear programme." I suppose I could go on, but what's the point. The Iranians bought off the French; next they'll buy off the Chinese.

Muslims Should Leave US before American Hiroshima

2006-09-18T15:23:00.000-04:00

Last week I posted about a report that Qaeda al-Jihad was planning a major Ramadan attack in the United States. Here's a related report that includes a transcript of the interview that Pakastani journalist Hamid Mir had with al-Qaeda operative Abu Dawood. According to the report, "final preparations have been made for the American Hiroshima, a major attack on the U. S." The interview included the following exchange:

Q: [Mir] But if you attack inside America again, then Muslims living in America will face lot of problems, why would you like to create new problems for your brothers and sisters?

A: [Abu Dawood] Muslims should leave America. We cannot stop our attack just because of the American Muslims; they must realize that American forces are killing innocent Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq; we have the right to respond back, in the same manner, in the enemy's homeland. The American Muslims are like a human shield for our enemy; they must leave New York and Washington.

We'll soon learn if these threats about a looming attack are accurate, or just threats.

[Thanks to Ben]

Priceless!

2006-09-18T15:16:00.000-04:00

Here's a quote that epitomizes the inability of many Muslims to recognize the problem Islam faces in the modern world. A spokeswoman for Musharraf's government in Pakistan had this to say concerning the Pope's Regensburg lecture: "anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence." This reminds me of the kid who beat up a classmate and then adopted the defense: "He called me a bully!"

Write off the French, Again

2006-09-17T20:29:00.000-04:00

The likelihood, probably never very great, that the French would take a hard line on the Iranian nuke program and support meaningful sanctions grew less likely today. The Tehran Times announced that this coming Wednesday Iran and France will sign an agreement for French development of Iranian oil resources worth $2.7 billion. Perhaps the French will claim that they are supporting Iran's oil development to show the Iranians that they really do not need nuclear energy. Right.

The Pope and the Next 911

2006-09-17T20:18:00.000-04:00

I hope that the next time jihadists pull off a 911, a Madrid, a Bali, or a London, or maybe the next time Al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers (Iraq) blows up a Shi'a mosque and kills scores of Muslim innocents, all the while claiming to act in the name of Islam, the Muslim world will react with as much condemnation and vigor as they did this week when the Pope used a centuries' old quote that Muslims considered offensive. I'm sure we'll see Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri being burned in effigy.

Iran Trots Out Armenian Dhimmis!

2006-09-17T19:26:00.000-04:00

Iran’s Fars news agency carried a story today reporting that the Armenian Caliphate Council of Tehran issued a statement distancing itself from the Pope’s statement. Politically, this is entirely understandable. Nevertheless, the text of the statement is a bit much: “The Armenian Church has always enjoyed stable and constructive relations with the world of Islam and Iranian and Arab Muslim brothers, because we believe from the bottom of our hearts that serving humanity is only possible through friendship, sympathy, respect and dialogue." Was Ottoman massacre/genocide (whichever you prefer) that cost hundreds of thousands of Armenians their lives during the Great War a sign of friendship, sympathy, respect, or dialogue? How about Dhimmitude, however understandable?

Was Paleologos Wrong?

2006-09-17T15:35:00.000-04:00

I have read innumerable denunciations of Pope Benedict’s Regensburg lecture during which he quoted Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologos: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." What I’ve found interesting is that none of the Pope’s critics, be they Muslim or not, have offered evidence to suggest that Manuel was wrong. The Pope did incorrectly describe 2:256 as an early Sura, when in fact it came later, but that has no bearing on the larger issue.

I would argue that Manuel II was wrong in that many of the Islamic embellishments of the existing religious tradition were neither “evil” nor “inhuman.” Islam’s rules on the treatment of captives, divorce, and inheritance, for example, were more progressive than the existing practices of either the Jews or Christians in the seventh century. But these advances, and others I could pinpoint, have more to do with civil life and law than the spiritual, at least as understood by Christians such as Emperor Manuel II and Pope Benedict XVI.

So what did Islam offer in a purely religious sense that did not already exist within Christianity? Islam was monotheistic, but so were Judaism and Christianity. Islam was a religion for all the people of the world. But so was Christianity, which six centuries earlier had taken the parochialism of Judaism and converted it into a universal creed. Christianity expanded the nature of “brother,” from the Judaic co-religionist to any member of the human race. Islam was retrograde in this respect, in that “brother” became limited to a fellow Muslim. Judaism in its early centuries mixed religion and politics. Moses was a religious, political, and military leader, as was true of many early Hebrew leaders. Jesus disassociated himself from the political and military spheres. Islam’s form appears retrograde to the Christian, in that the spiritual and worldly elements (and force) were once again combined in the application of God’s law. Christianity had given mankind a concept of heavenly reward absent in the Mitzvah nature of Judaism. But whereas the Christian heaven was a spiritual abode where the soul became one with God, the Islamic heaven was a mirror of a utopian Earth, complete with bountiful food, rivers of non-intoxicating wines, and youthful virgins. Christianity moved its followers away from religiously sanctioned violence so evident in the Old Testament/Torah, i.e., from an “eye-for-an-eye” to “turn the other cheek.” When Jesus was arrested, he took no action to save himself and healed the ear of a servant that had been cut off by Peter. Islam reintroduced the concept of religiously sanctioned violence, akin to Judaism, but now applied on a universal scale in which the new “promised land” became the entire globe. So the Emperor Manuel’s question remains: in purely religious terms what did Islam add to the monotheistic tradition? Praying five times a day while facing Mecca?

Islam did add many things, but these additions to the Judeo-Christian tradition were related to the physical, rather than the spiritual realm. And it was the mixture of these elements, linked in the jihadist nature of the spread of early Islam, which was the focus of Manuel II‘s dialogue and criticism of Islam.

There can be no doubt that during its later centuries Christianity also expanded by the sword. The best example is the Spanish conquest of, and the concurrent spread of Christianity to, much of the New World.

It is also true that Islam during its later centuries did spread through prosyletization (dawa) in Indonesia and China. But the fact is that whereas Christianity during its early centuries spread by word and example; Islam spread in company with the sword.

To have a religious dialogue, in Benedict’s view, both Islam and Christianity have to renounce violence and embrace reason in an attempt to understand God’s will. This is not a problem for the Pope because Jesus Christ never commanded an army in battle and never led a political entity. The violence associated with the Catholic Church—for example, the conquests of the new world and the Inquisition—can be written off as human misinterpretations of God’s way, and the Church since Aquinas has been willing to embrace reason as a means to approach God. The problem with Islam is that the Prophet Muhammad, unlike Jesus Christ, served as a political leader, led armies in battles, and participated in violence sanctioned by God, as He revealed his will through the Suras that form the Qur’an. And since Muslims’ relationship to the Qur’an, unlike that of Christians to the New Testament, is that it is God’s direct word and law, there is far less need for any reasoned exploration of the Creator’s will. Christianity is a bit like software that comes without a manual, where you have to figure out its inner workings by trial, error, and the often unhelpful “help” function. Islam is software that comes with a very detailed manual from which you dare not deviate, lest the program crash and destroy all your work.

Now, if anyone reading this is a Muslim, or a non-Muslim who has a better understanding of Islam than do I, please comment; enlighten me and the other readers of the web blog where Manuel II was wrong in this regard:
What did Islam offer in a purely religious sense that did not already exist within Christianity?

[Edited 19 September 2006 @ 1655]