Is it ever justifiable to intentionally target innocent civilians in order to achieve political or military ends? Eighty, 81 and 86 percent of British, Canadian and American citizens say never. But only 46 percent of Iranians say never. A striking 24 percent of Iranians say attacks on civilians are often or sometimes justified, and 6 percent say such attacks are completely justified.
The previous sentences are lies, dangerous lies.
The fact that these lies nestle so easily into our presumed knowledge suggests why we need to reconsider what many of us think we know about Islam””and ourselves. This important new book is a great place to begin such a rethinking.
If Americans who aim to follow the way of Jesus are indeed interested in removing the planks from our own outlook before surgically removing the splinters from the perspectives of others, Who Speaks for Islam? provides a mirror to help us compare our crude stereotypes and rough-cut assumptions with a much more nuanced and surprising reality.
The problem is with thinking in the term of polls and percents. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It is never OK to kill someone because they do not believe what you believe about God. Americans are deluded into thinking that Islam is just going to mellow out. Not true. There is not going to be a big group hug where we all skip off singing some tune like “I’d Like to Teach The World To Sing . . ..” I have lived in the Middle East many years. They are Muslim. Everyone else is an infidel and does not count. Even their own women only count as half of a man. They want to change the world to one world under Islam and Sharia law. They are accomplishing their purpose in Europe as Westerners go to sleep every night in their political correctness. And, oh yes, they all fervently want Barack Obama as the next president. I wonder why?
“They all fervently want Barack Obama as the next president”
So do most Canadians. So do most Poles. So do most South Africans. So do . . . most people outside a dwindling minority in the United States.
“I wonder why?”
The reason is named Bush.
The review seems to me to be simplistic and tendentious. For example, I have bridled sometimes when reading on this website ‘Europeans this’ or ‘Europeans that’. Given our welter of cultures, nations and beliefs this side of the pond (I write from London) it is hard to make sweeping generalisations about what ‘Europeans think’. A European consciousness is only slowly developing. How much more difficult then to say ‘Muslim men believe’ or ‘Muslim women think that …’ Yes, I know that Gallup interviewed in depth, but you cannot easily correlate results across cultures. 1 billion people in what, fifty different countries, from camel herders in the Sahara to urban sophisticates in Dubai? And from this you can extrapolate what ‘they’ think/believe?
And yet America is the only country ever to drop an atomic bomb on a civilian city twice.
I’m sure those dead Japanese civilians didn’t care whether we did it in the name of Christ, Capitalism, or the American way. Splinter. Log. Eye.
Ireneaus, why do you hate Bush so much?
If Obama is elected, and I know many want that sooo badly, it will be a disaster of epic proportions. The forces of OPEC and the Middle East will roll over whatever is left of America like a tank. That is OK by me, as I only care about what my Father in heaven wants, and I wish to be more like Christ every day. I live only to serve Him, so all will be well either way. There will be many to serve. Those who want chaos and disaster, vote for Obama. Just think of all the partial birth abortions. What a glorious day-of death of unborn children. How can anyone, who calls himself a Christian, support an instrument of death?
Once we strip away that brain-dead leftist cartoon image of yours, Hoppy, I think there is a great deal of doubt about George Bush. Bush lied about Iraq? Mr. Clinton believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and so did every other member of his administration.
And speaking of lying to get the country into pointless and brutal wastes of human life, have you or anyone else found Mr. Clinton’s Kosovo “genocide” yet? Me, I think Iraq was a far more noble national endeavor than butchering Serbs for no particular reason could ever hope to be.
You can say one thing about Kendall’s blog: there are more republican talking points cast about here than even the Fox News website!
The problem with that article is that it doesn’t pass the reality smell test. ‘The Muslim World’ is allowing al Qaida, the Taliban, and other violent radical groups serve as their front men. Until the Muslim World disowns these terrorists, or better yet, joins in their elimination, the non-Muslim World will assume they speak for Islam.
Uh – I thought this thread was about a book review, not the upcoming U.S. presidential election and presidential politics.
Since the book review was written by Brian McLaren, his slant on things is exactly what I would expect. I agree that there is no substitue for one on one interaction with people as a way to better understand them, but the Muslim governments and Islamists around the world keep getting in the way of this. I personally find McLaren’s mixing of religion and liberal/socialist politics just as objectionable as what is done by the more strident folks on what is commonly called the “Religious Right.”
We can debate about Bush all we want, but in case nobody has noticed, he’s not up for re-election.
“Irenaeus, why do you hate Bush so much?” —GA/FL [#5]
I don’t, although I think we may well go down as the worst president since James Buchanan.
In any event, my comment #2 has a solid factual foundation. A strong majority of Canadians, Poles, South Africans, and others—quite uninfluenced by Islam—take a dim view of Bush. So do a majority of Americans. Rightly or wrongly, he has achieved the lowest approval rating recorded in U.S. history. Bush is the reason Obama is currently on the road to victory. Bush is the reason Democrats stand to widen their congressional majorities. Americans haven’t fallen in love with the Democratic Party so much as they have fallen out of love with Bush.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
If you had eyes to see it, you might notice that I rarely initiate inflammatory political exchanges. But I do respond to secular political jabs. That’s what I did here. CharlesB had smeared Obama as a tool or dupe of radical Islam [#1]. Can you see how that smear was both gratuitous and inflammatory?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
In any event, why do you, like the PC brigade, equate criticism with hatred?
Think about it: when you accuse me of “hating” Bush, you use the same logic as gay activists who equate criticism of their conduct with “hatred” of them as human beings.
“The greatest men are most open to cares and troubles of mind, which disturb their repose in the night, while the sleep of the laboring man is sweet and sound.†–Mathew Henry Commentary on Daniel
Mathew Henry is talking about the troubling dream of Nebuchadnezzar, the strange man with a head of gold, chest of silver, legs of bronze, and feet of clay and iron but his statement rings true today. We “laborers†are quick to second guess our decision makers. George Bush’s approval rating comes to mind. We really don’t know what the last eight years would have brought, had we not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. The 4500 and 500 deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively would easily be justified if they prevented another attack on the scale of the WTC/Pentagon. We will never know. President Bush has to live with those deaths day in and day out. He chose that course of action.
“Hating” bush is probably a mistake.
The problem is that he wasn’t a very good president. Or Leader. The next question, is what are the criteria for leadership? ability to communicate? Ability to manage different views? Change one’s mind? Empathize with people? Stubbornness? Or tenacity?
Part of it will depend on your initial view. Those who already are conservative will find it hard to critique Bush.
Still, the fact is that if he weren’t born into the Bush family, with plenty of prerogatives, he’d never have been president. He’s a frat boy – nice guy, enough, if you think John Belushi in Animals House should have become president.
And I don’t hate John Belushi. He was funny.
The bias of the major news media is nowhere more evident than in the fanning of the Bush-hating flames over the past nine years or so (it began before his election). It is true that many people internationally hate him, or rather, they hate his caricature as presented by the NY times, etc.
Obama’s long-time close friendship with and statements agreeing with Rashid Khalidi do lend some weight to the “dupe of radical Islam” charge. But Obama has denied so many of his long-held associations and principles since he won the nomination that it is hard to say who he is or what he will do.
Muslims around the world know the consequences of denying the Qur’an and the Sunna. It is a sad truth that exhortations to violence and dominance over non-Muslims are there.
Putting aside the off-topic presidential politics debates, do you think McLaren’s poll results are accurate? Or do you think he’s making them up?
An excellent question, Dr. Witt, and it lead me to go read the linked article. He says he’s quoting extensive Gallup surveys, but he doesn’t give links. He claims the percentages are actually the reverse — that it’s Westerners who think it’s okay to target the innocent while Muslims don’t. I don’t believe that either.
A key factor in understanding the attitude of Muslim imams towards this is the definition of the word “innocent.” Hamas and even “moderate” Fatah leaders say that there ARE no innocent Israeli Jews. They are all part of the system and are therefore all fair targets. A Saudi sheikh recently gave a fatwa saying that it is permitted to kill the owners of satellite systems broadcasting “indecent” programs, since they are no longer innocent.
Modern Muslims who are personally very nice people will nonetheless say that the Islamic law allows the beating of disobedient wives, the killing of women who have dishonored the family, and the killing of apostates, because “it’s the law.” To deny it is to deny Islam.
I believe the polling data comes from a University of Maryland project. It appears to me that there’s a significant amount of cognitive dissonance amongst the Iranians. As McLaren points out a larger percentage of Iranians than Americans say that the intentional targeting of civilians is never permitted, however, the same polling indicates majority support for Al Qeada, Hamas and Hezbollah. And a majority of Iranians support Palestinian targeting of Israeli civilians.
Matt #21, we’re all dependent to some extent on the information we have. I didn’t think Bush was the optimum candidate in 2000, and I don’t think it of McCain either then or now. Nonetheless, I do think that much of the negative stuff about Bush since 2000 has been garbage.
Do you seriously have no questions about Obama being either “all hat and no cattle” or deliberately hiding his very radical connections? Have the major news media given you the information you need to make those judgments? I don’t think so.
Matt, I can quote just as much nonsense and more about Bush coming from sources that ought be a lot more reliable. The whole Hitler-Nazi meme, the foolish movies from Michael Moore, the “Bush lied” business, the 9/11 truthers, and so on. Legitimate criticism of decisions he’s made are one thing. This other stuff was garbage.
I read mainstream conservative sites as well as mainstream liberal sites, both news and commentary. The items you cite in your second paragraph are mostly nonsense, and you’ll find that serious critics on the conservative side aren’t relying on foolishness. Several reputable conservative bloggers have been in lead in debunking the birth certificate argument, for instance. If you’re going to cite all the wild internet rumors going around, then we’re going to have to go include some of the absolute filth from the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground.
Obama voted for a bill which called for, in the bill as its main purpose, comprehensive sex education including HIV prevention for grades K-12. Maybe he voted for something he didn’t understand, but he voted for it. He also killed a bill which would have required Illinois doctors to give medical care to babies born alive when their mothers wanted them dead.
A serious look at Obama’s connections, including his post-college job as an organizer, his political rise in Chicago, his autobiography, his leadership of the Chicago-Annenberg Challenge, his twenty-year membership at a black separatist white-hating liberation-theology church, his steering of grants both from foundations and from Illinois taxpayer funds to groups deeply involved in radical political and educational projects, and his connections with the usual Chicago corrupt Democratic machine politics show a man who is far, far to the left of anybody’s definition of the American mainstream, or at least I devoutly hope it’s far left. He has now disavowed practically everything he did and everyone he was connected to before about March of this year, leaving an empty suit with no record at all other than a liberal voting record in the Senate and $1 billion of earmarks in three years.
It would be nice to have criticisms I have actually made dealt with rather than internet rumor piffle.
And since this all has nothing to do with the topic, having defended my reputation, I’m done.
Stanley Kurtz and read his stuff. I’m done. You can believe what you want to, of course.
I am astounded at how little is being said about the values of the two candidates on the abortion issue. They are so totally opposite, and this issue is of absolute importance from my point of view, which is Christian. I just do not see how anyone who calls themselves Christian could ever support Obama, despite any other issues, values or positions.
CharlesB: Following up at your gratuitous swipe at Obama in comment #1, you might be interested in this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/mccain-transition-chief-a_n_134595.html
Why do you say gratuitous? I make no effort to hide the fact that I think Obama is an abomination. He is sympathetic to the governments in the Middle East that want to destroy Israel and America. He is ashamed of the American flag and will not show token respect to even cover his heart when the National Anthem is sung. Any he wants to be Commander-In-Chief?! I cannot imagine any intelligent person could believe he is a better choice than McCain for president. I truly would like to have had a different Republican than McCain running, but that is the only choice: McCain or Obama. Between these two I cannot see ever choosing Obama.
Katherine, a gracious Christian lady, with whom I have had some email discussions, is in Cairo, where I lived until last May. It is +7 hours from the East Coast, or about midnight as I write this. Like me, she has lived in the Middle East and has more first-hand knowledge of Islam in her little finger than 99 out of 100 other Americans.
On comprehensive sex ed, Matt, did you [i]read the bill?[/i]
I did. It was not going to be age appropriate as it was written.
My observations of Muslims is that truthfulness is defined differently. I loved the story of the British human shield volunteer who was astonished when the Iraqis wanted to deploy him at an air base instead of a hospital – they infomed him that Americans do not attack hospitals and that they needed him to shield their air base. The Brit realizing that he was a dupe – came home instead.
Muslim extremists are willing to sacrifice their own children in order to blow up civilians in crowded restaurants in Israil and even in Egypt (my guess is that the polled Muslims would include huge numbers of civilians outside of the “innocent” category – hence different truths). My guess is that the civilians in the twin towers also did/do not get the “innocent” protection. I had an American collegue of Palestinian christian heritage. Although we are friends objectivity on his part as it relates to Israel was not possible. He would always say the Israelis were blowing up Palestinian schools in order to prevent them from learning to read. I pointed out to him that every school allied soldiers entered in Iraq doubled as an ammo dump (as reported by the mainstream media). The point is that our foes use civilians as cannon fodder in order to derive political and propaganda goals.
Muslims extremists use civilians as propaganda tools because they know that the west has grown soft and cannot tolerate the imagery – or causalties among its own. We destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima with nuclear weopons in order to end a war. The civiian deaths caused by the destruction of those cities were fewer than the fireboming of Tokyo by conventional bombs. The nation had also witnessed large numbers of civilian suicides by Japanese civiians on Okinawa (they believed that American soldiers would engage in the large scale killing and raping of civilians- as the Japanese civiiians were likely aware of the atrocities commited by their own sons and husbands against civilians and prisoners in China, the Phillipines and Singapore why would they not believe that we would) If such suicides continued throught Japan it would have been a very big number indeed. Estimates of allied casualties (killed or wounded) in an invasion of Japan were pegged at 1 million (my grandfather was in the Phillipines preparing for the invasion at the time.) Thus, the killing of the Civilians at Hiroshima while regretable were justifiable.
#37.
I have read the bill (like Ed the Roman) and I am not swayed by the FactCheck.org article. In my opinion, McCain’s ad (at least the part about comprehensive sex education) is pretty accurate. If you look at the bill [url=http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess;=&Session;=]here[/url], it is clear that the Sex education has been expanded to include grades K through 5. Not only that the bill states quite clearly “[b]All[/b] sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior shall satisfy the following criteria:” only [b]one[/b] of which is what Obama refers to as “possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately”.
What is even more interesting are the parts that have been struck through….
[i] (2) Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.
(3) Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage.
(4) Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of the possible emotional and psychological consequences of preadolescent and adolescent sexual intercourse outside of marriage and the consequences of unwanted adolescent pregnancy.
[/i]
So if Obama is claiming that he does not advocate “explicit” comprehensive sex education for Kindergartners, this bill is a poor example.
[url=http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTQ0YjhlOGVhYjQ0OWRhZjI2MmM4NTQ4NGM5Mjg0MzU=]Here[/url] is Stanley Kurtz’s latest on $200,000 of Obama’s Annenberg Challenge funding going to a group which taught “Afro-centric” studies in Chicago schools. Students are encouraged to think of themselves as Africans in diaspora, not Americans, and they are taught that all civilization originated in Egypt, which they insist was “black,” and that Africans in America should not accept Western civilization.
And [url=http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY=]here[/url] is Byron York’s lengthy examination of the sex-ed issue. He read the bill and tried to interview its authors. He was successful in talking to one of them; she said that the purpose of the bill was indeed to expand comprehensive sex ed to all grades.
What is apparent is that Matt does NOT read mainstream conservative sources, as he claims. These and other criticisms of Obama are well-sourced and no secret.
For those who don’t have time to read Kurtz’s articles, [url=http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021780.php]here[/url] is an executive summary. Obama deliberately and with intent funded the injection of radical racist teaching into the Chicago schools.
The self-evaluation of the CAC project shows that there was no improvement in the educational achievement of students exposed to CAC-funded programs. This should be no surprise, since political indoctrination, not help with schoolwork, was the objective.
Or how about another one? Even [url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/13/fact-check-would-obama-take-away-right-to-secret-ballot-for-unions/]CNN[/url] agrees that McCain is correct when he says Obama favors a bill which would take away the right of workers to vote on unionization by secret ballot. That well-known right-wing extremist [url=http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/07/george-mcgovern-to-fight-card-check-in-debate-ad/]George McGovern[/url] opposes Obama on this one. The link includes links to both McGovern’s WSJ op-ed opposing this legislation and to his one-minute spot opposing this “anti-democratic” measure. Give us a Democratic President or a veto-proof Democratic majority in Congress and American workers will lose rights.
Katherine has done an admirable job highlighting conservative sources. She does not check factcheck.org, because it would force her to change her ideas.
Is Obama a radical racist? Well, most of his advisers are white.
Does he have pollicies which people disagree with? Sure. Is that a problem?
did Obama write the curriculum? Or was he trying to create a curriculum that would try to bring Black kids out of the ghetto?
I did read the bill, and it seems as though there was freedom for teachers to teach what was appropriate.
Kurtz was wrong on several points, Katherine. He’s an ideologue.
I don’t cite factcheck.org because it sometimes fails to check facts.
To CharlesB’s point (# 28) on Obama’s abortion beliefs, [url=http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama’s Abortion Extremism_.xml]here[/url] is a piece by Robert George of Princeton. Among other things, he says[blockquote]But this barely scratches the surface of Obama’s extremism. He has promised that ”the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act” (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed ”fundamental right” to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, ”a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined ‘health’ reasons.” In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would ”sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.” [/blockquote] Read the whole thing.
I read the factcheck.org entry on the sex-ed bill, and, as commenters here have demonstrated by reference to the bill as written, factcheck’s analysis is inadequate. In short, it takes Obama’s statement that he really meant only to have age-appropriate “bad touching” instruction given to kindergartners as a rebuttal, whereas conservatives here have pointed out that the bill as written did call explicitly for comprehensive sex ed for grades K-12.
So we have dueling fact checking. In this case, it seems reasonable that reference to the actual wording of the bill is reference to “fact,” whereas what Obama may have intended is “opinion.”
You can, of course, choose which opinions to follow.
I think we’ve more than overdone this thread. We don’t agree.
Does anybody have any data on the rates of social pathology of Muslims in the US as opposed to other groups?
Can anyone with experience in the Middle East and, say, the US eastern seaboard tell me which urban areas they felt safer walking through at night?
Byzantine, I don’t have data, and of course it depends on what you mean by “social pathology.” It is true that the streets of Egypt, for instance, are less filled with burglaries and assault for robbery than, say, the bad neighborhoods of East Coast US cities. It is also true that the streets of Egypt are heavily patrolled by armed policemen. This is a police state in which public protests are prohibited and in which strict standards of public behavior are enforced with prison terms for offenders. Fights with injuries and murders happen here as they do elsewhere.
But speaking personally, I don’t feel very comfortable walking alone even in the fairly exclusive area where I live. I have been harassed on the street here and also in tourist districts. This is not only because I am an obviously foreign woman. The newspapers are full right now of reports of disrespect, harassment, and groping and pulling at clothing of women on public transport and on the streets, and this includes Egyptian Muslim women in the full niqab or hijab as well as women with uncovered heads. In addition, both here and in the US there are reports of women subjected to domestic abuse by husbands or fathers or brothers. Of course I know Muslim men who are very nice and treat their female family members with full respect, but in general I would have to say that the culture does not give women the respect which Western women are accustomed to.
Well supposedly Islam is this global monolith that threatens everything the West stands for. Now, I have some sympathy for this view. They do not belong here, and we do not belong there. But at the same time, if we compared the rates of net tax consumption and criminality between Muslims and, say, African-Americans, what would we find? Would we have to declare war on Detroit and Newport News, VA because of the grave threat posed by the very existence of this particular group? I wonder if this broad brush we are willing to paint Muslims with would be so enthusiastically applied elsewhere.
Well, Byzantine, the biggest difference is that being of African ancestry is a biological occurrence. I am not aware of any grand teaching calling upon those of African descent to make all people become African, and while I deplore the separatist teachings of Farrakhan, Wright, et al., in fairness even there I don’t know that they teach that white people should pay a jizya or be killed. You’re talking apples and oranges.
Katherine,
I find Islam repugnant, and I believe it should be banished from the West, but I have met a number of Muslims and my impression so far has been with how clean, hardworking, intelligent and exceptionally friendly they are. Now, undoubtedly their homelands provide a broader data sample but so long as they are there and I am here, it’s not my concern. By contrast, six percent of US citizens are responsible for fifty percent of its violent crime, and there are vast no-go zones for me in every US city–and this is my own country, not Egypt or Pakistan.
Here are data following up on my comment #2:
“Eight leading foreign newspapers conducted a poll that finds overwhelming support for Sen. Barack Obama in the United States presidential election. He would win by a landslide in every country surveyed.
— Canada: Obama 70%, McCain 14%
— France: Obama 68%, McCain 5%
— Switzerland: Obama 83%, McCain 7%
— Poland: Obama 43%, McCain 26%
— Japan: Obama 61%, McCain 13%
— Mexico: Obama 46%, McCain 13%
— Great Britain: Obama 64%, McCain 15%
— Belgium: Obama 62%, McCain 8%”
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/10/17/foreign_poll_favors_obama.html
Ireneaus #52, which one foreigners favor in opinion polls is irrelevant. We might as well insist that Canadians, the French, and so on, choose the candidates we want in their elections.
I, for one, wasn’t disputing your facts. I was disputing their relevance.
Katherine [#53]: As you will see from reading #2, I cite foreign polls for a very narrow and specific reason. CharlesB [#1] had written that radical Islamists “fervently want Barack Obama as the next president”—as though that showed Obama were a tool or dupe of radical Islam. I pointed out that Obama was overwhelmingly more popular than McCain in democratic countries where Islam (much less radical Islam) has little or no influence. The polling data for Canada, Japan, Mexico, Poland, and Switzerland (among others) help substantiate that assertion.
Okay, I see your point. You’re letting this get to you, though. And it is true, actually, that Muslims here in the Middle East overwhelmingly want Obama, based on conversations we’ve had here, and they are explicit in saying it’s because they believe he will pull out of Iraq quickly and because they think he will pull American support away from Israel. And also, although you and I know perfectly well that Obama is NOT Muslim, here they tend to think that his Muslim birth, in their definition, means he will lean their way.