Whitewashing Radical Islam

[L@mplighterM]

Whitewashing Radical Islam
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 17, 2003


The Economist this week demonstrated anew just how deeply dhimmitude has penetrated into Western thinking about Islam. Dhimmitude is the institutionalized subservience mandated by Islamic law, the Sharia, for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis must endure inferior status under the Sharia; if they protest, they risk forfeiting the “protection” that they buy with their special high tax rate (jizya) and their humiliation.

The elaborate legal superstructure of dhimmitude in Islamic law is founded on the Qur’an’s Sura 9:29, which calls on Muslims to “fight” against the “People of the Book” (primarily Jews and Christians) “until they pay the Jizya [special tax for non-Muslims] with willing submission, feel themselves subdued.” A vast body of Muslim theology and jurisprudence guaranteed dhimmis relative security as long as the jizya was paid; if payment ceased, jihad would resume.

This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude — a vast, uniquely Islamic institution of religious apartheid, implemented for over a millennium across three continents (Asia, Africa, and Europe) and still influential in Islamic nations’ policies toward non-Muslim populations. The native “infidel” populations of lands conquered by Islamic armies were required to pay the jizya, recognize Islamic ownership of their land and accept laws forbidding them to own weapons, ring church bells, build new places of worship or repair old ones, testify in Muslim courts, or dress like Muslims. If they complained about these inequalities, they risked forfeiting their “protection.”

Through political correctness, multiculturalist myopia, and the politicized pseudo-academic writings of dhimmi scholars such as Edward Said and John Esposito, the silence and subservience of dhimmitude has entered the public debate about Islam in America and Western Europe. It threatens to strangle that debate with whitewashes about the roots of jihad ideology, the reality of dhimmitude, and more.

A notable example appears in the September 13-19 issue of The Economist. In an article entitled “In the name of Islam,” Peter David goes so far as to acknowledge what few other analysts have dared to: that the jihad ideology that gives rise to terrorism “has, or claims to have, connections with some of the fundamental ideas and practices of the religion itself.” However, he never provides readers the smallest glimpse of what these fundamental ideas and practices might be. Instead, he shifts direction and explores the thought of the influential Egyptian Muslim radical, Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), who taught that no (Muslim or non-Muslim) state, ungoverned by Sharia, had any right to exist.

David states that much radical jihadist theory “is modern, as political as it is religious, with origins in the late 20th century.” But his Economist piece offers no hint of the great pains that Qutb took in order to show the foundations of his teachings in traditional Muslim sources. David quotes Qutb as dividing the world into the House of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the House of War (dar al-harb) but makes no mention of the fact that this is an ancient distinction established by some of Islam’s earliest theologians and jurists, or that it remains significant to Islamic law today. Qutb himself was not so circumspect: he completed an immense thirty-volume commentary on the Qur’an, In the Shade of the Qur’an, in which he attempts to demonstrate again and again that the pure Islam of the sacred book is today’s radical Islam of blood and terror.

Qutb’s tradition is not the only one in Islam, and millions of peaceful Muslims would reject his theological and political ideas. But to imply that religious violence and religious terrorism are newly minted elements of Islam with no plausible traditional foundations is to ignore how jihad ideologues read (and use to recruit) the Qur’an, the Muslim Prophet Muhammad’s example, an elaborate body of Islamic theology and jurisprudence, and fourteen centuries of Islamic history.

David underscores his omission by breezily dismissing jihadist justifications for violent jihad, stating, “Islam has a concept of jihad (holy war), which some Muslims think should be added to the five more familiar pillars of faith: the oath of belief, prayer, charity, fasting and pilgrimage. But the Koran also insists that there should be no compulsion in religion.” Had David read Qutb further, he would have found, the great Egyptian radical also insisted that jihad in no way involved forced conversion. However, that is not the same as saying jihad is not violent. As I detail extensively in Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West, Qutb drew on traditional concepts of Islamic law to inveigh against the concept of jihad as a forceful means of converting people to Islam. Rather, he insisted, jihad was an offensive struggle to establish the hegemony of the Sharia and subservient dhimmi status for all non-Muslims — who would then be free, of course, to ease the pain of their inferior condition by converting to Islam if they chose.

According to David, “Only a small fraction of [the world’s] 1.5 billion Muslims will have heard of, let alone subscribe to, the ideas of theorists such as Qutb.” These ideas may be more widely diffused than he thinks. A casual look today at the Muslim blogspot www.clearguidance.com, run out of Staten Island, turned up bloggers quoting the writings of Qutb, Osama bin Laden’s mentor Abdullah Azzam, and Osama himself. Maybe there are few people reading such books, but only a few are needed to commit terrorist acts.

David goes on to say that “Islam and Christendom have clashed for centuries. But if there is something in the essence of Islam that predisposes its adherents to violent conflict with the West, it is hard to say what it might be.” The ignorance of this statement is nothing short of breathtaking. According to a traditional source of Islamic law, Muslims must make “war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” This obligation is amply delineated in numerous traditional Islamic sources, and it is the foundation for the institutionalized oppression inflicted by dhimmitude laws, under which Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus and others have suffered for centuries.

Knowingly or not, The Economist whitewashes radical Islam’s sources in Islamic theology and tradition. This plays into terrorists’ hands as clearly and directly as a whitewashed portrait of America’s pre-Civil War South plays into the hands of white supremacists, or a whitewashed picture of Nazi Germany into the hands of anti-Semites. A new organization, Dhimmi Watch, is forming to oppose all such whitewashes — on behalf of human rights victims of jihad and dhimmitude now and throughout Islamic history. Whitewashes have no place in any serious, honest analysis of modern-day terrorism.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...le.asp?ID=9860

[andak01]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude — a vast, uniquely Islamic institution of religious apartheid...

Well, it's SORT of unique. That is, if you want to ignore the Jewish ghettos in every major European city that Jews were allowed to live in.

http://fp.thebeers.f9.co.uk/england_history.htm
The first English "Street of the Jews" was recorded in London in 1128 and by 1229, 17 towns had a Jewry.

Until the time of Stephen (1135-54) the Jews had prospered. He sought to protect them but he also sought to tax them - up to one fourth of their liquid assets.

King John (1167- 1216) imprisoned all Jews, tortured many and extorted 60,000 silver marks. In 1194 English Jewry was called to Northampton to allocate a Tallage of 5000 marks – their contribution to ransom of Richard I. Also in 1194 "The Exchequer of the Jews" was set up to control money lending activities.

http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/...-14-2001.shtml

In outbreaks of anti-Semitism Jews were accused of blood rituals and massacred. Their lending records were conveniently destroyed during these outbreaks. In 1217, they were forced to wear yellow badges. By 1290, they had been taxed so heavily that they were no longer of use to Edward I. Besides, he could do business with the Knights Templars. Edward expelled the Jews from England.

http://www.taxicab.co.uk/journals/pwarren/jews1_2.html

...the truth, distorted in the telling, resulted in several thousand Jews being killed in Norwich and Lincoln. In York more than 500 were slain including women and children whose throats were cut and their bodies thrown over the town walls to the crowds waiting below. The yiddish word ' yok ' is used by British Jews as a reference to English Christians, it owes its origin to the events at York and has connotations similar to Dachau, Aushwitz and Belsen. In 1210 King John commanded that all Jews - men, women and children - were to be imprisoned and punished heavily because he coveted their money.

[ibrodsky]

Once again, andak01--our resident Islamist apologist--tries to whitewash the eternal system of dhimmitude by showing that others did the same hundreds of years ago.

Today, despite the hypocrisy of the Left in its willingness to look the other way, the Muslim world stands alone in promulgating and enforcing its institutionalized racism, apartheid, and race-hate.

* Muslims in North Africa are the last practitioners of slavery.

* In racist Saudi Arabia, they boast that 100% of their citizens are Muslims, and maintain highway signs with lanes labeled "Muslims only" and "all non-Muslims this way" for visitors.

* Arabs and Muslims showed up at the UN's farcical "Conference Against Racism" in Durban South Africa distributing anti-semitic literature that would have made the Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan and Adolph Hitler proud.

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Once again, andak01--our resident Islamist apologist--tries to whitewash the eternal system of dhimmitude by showing that others did the same hundreds of years ago.

Ignoring or denying that rampant anti-Semitism has been around for centuries even before the birth of Islam is another kind of whitewashing.

* Muslims in North Africa are the last practitioners of slavery.

And in Haiti, and in the Congo, and in Liberia, and wherever children are kidnapped from their parents and forced to fight wars.

* In racist Saudi Arabia, they boast that 100% of their citizens are Muslims, and maintain highway signs with lanes labeled "Muslims only" and "all non-Muslims this way" for visitors.

Every bit as reprehensible as the Whites only signs found all over the South until the sixties. Yes, we have a right to be proud that we got rid of those, and yes, we should pressure the Arabs to get rid of theirs. The mixed population that was good enough for Muhammad (SAW) is good enough for me.

* Arabs and Muslims showed up at the UN's farcical "Conference Against Racism" in Durban South Africa distributing anti-semitic literature that would have made the Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan and Adolph Hitler proud.

They were both Muslims too, right? I didn't think so. If you want to define racism and bigotry are a human problem, I can work with you to fight against it. If you want to define the Muslims as the cause of it all and all Muslims as bigots, I'm afraid I can't help you.

[ibrodsky]

The "moderate" image of some high-profile US Muslim groups continues to collapse as the Senate steps up hearings on Islamist terror networks inside the United States and as federal investigators find increasing alleged connections to terrorism.

As the Center for Security Policy has been warning for more than two years, the connections with these groups to a prominent Republican activist and to White House outreach operations led by Karl Rove, may prove harmful to both President Bush and the nation.

In recent days, former officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have pleaded guilty to terrorism-related charges. Now, the Wall Street Journal reports that senior figure in the American Muslim Council (AMC) - which an FBI spokesman had previously characterized as one of the most "mainstream" Muslim groups in the country - has been held since June as a major player in the financing of international terrorism.

That senior terrorist figure is AMC advisory board member Soliman Biheiri, an Egyptian whom a federal prosecutor says "came here as the Muslim Brotherhood's financial toehold in the US." The goal is to spread a global Islamic theocracy. The Muslim Brotherhood, according prosecutors, spawned both al Qaeda and Hamas.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.o...?section=today://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=today[/QUOTE]

[ibrodsky]

The Fifth Column marches onward.

[cerulean]

It sounds like the Fifth Column has its hooks in both political parties, as well.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by cerulean
It sounds like the Fifth Column has its hooks in both political parties, as well.

No doubt about it, though I think a shift is underway.

Prior to the last Presidential election, many Arab Americans and American Muslims seemed more inclined towards the Republicans because they surmised, correctly, that the Democrats include a very active and vocal Jewish constituency.

But now I think they are swaying the other way because (a) they see most evangelical Christians are Republicans and they often seem more pro-Israel than even American Jews and (b) they see the Democrats' leftist constituency is solidly pro-Palestinian and even downright anti-semitic.

Ironically, this could drive more Jews into the Republican Party which has become dominated by 'big government conservatives' anyway.

[andak01]

Originally posted by cerulean
It sounds like the Fifth Column has its hooks in both political parties, as well.

It sounds like and is exactly like McCarthyism and witch hunting. You can find a Commie around every corner if you look hard enough. Why don't we round up the moderate Muslims and throw them in prison?! That will create an environment of peace. And once you get rid of us, there will be no more war or terrorism or anti-Semitism, right? This place is starting to look more and more like a bizarro world version of Kalifah.com.

Exactly the things intolerant Muslims say about Jews, you are saying about Muslims! You can't trust THEM. THEY are trying to take over the world. Bush is controlled by THEM. All the problems of the world are caused by THEM.

Well THEY are us, just as the commies, like Arthur Miller and Aaron Copeland and a host of others were us. What makes America great is that that can happen and we don't fall apart.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
It sounds like and is exactly like McCarthyism and witch hunting. You can find a Commie around every corner if you look hard enough. Why don't we round up the moderate Muslims and throw them in prison?! That will create an environment of peace. And once you get rid of us, there will be no more war or terrorism or anti-Semitism, right? This place is starting to look more and more like a bizarro world version of Kalifah.com.

The usual phony arguments. Communists did not destroy the Twin Towers and attack the Pentagon. Communists did not blow up two US embassies in Africa. Communists did not attack the USS Cole.

Despite your attempted obfuscation, it is quite appropriate for the US to be on the lookout for Islamist mass murderers. The 19 genocide hijackers were Muslim residents of the US. There are clearly more Islamists in the US and we are not going to close our eyes to them just because apologists such as you scream "McCarthyism!"

Exactly the things intolerant Muslims say about Jews, you are saying about Muslims! You can't trust THEM. THEY are trying to take over the world. Bush is controlled by THEM. All the problems of the world are caused by THEM.

This is a Big Fat Lie.

Nobody said Muslims control the US government and media.

No one tries to justify or explain attacks on the US as due to US military aid to Egypt.

The concerns are legitimate: the attacks on the US, US assets and personnel abroad, and US allies are all too real.

Well THEY are us, just as the commies, like Arthur Miller and Aaron Copeland and a host of others were us. What makes America great is that that can happen and we don't fall apart.

Only an Islamist apologist like you would compare Arthur Miller and Aaron Copeland to Islamists. Read the news:

The "moderate" image of some high-profile US Muslim groups continues to collapse as the Senate steps up hearings on Islamist terror networks inside the United States and as federal investigators find increasing alleged connections to terrorism.

As the Center for Security Policy has been warning for more than two years, the connections with these groups to a prominent Republican activist and to White House outreach operations led by Karl Rove, may prove harmful to both President Bush and the nation.

In recent days, former officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have pleaded guilty to terrorism-related charges. Now, the Wall Street Journal reports that senior figure in the American Muslim Council (AMC) - which an FBI spokesman had previously characterized as one of the most "mainstream" Muslim groups in the country - has been held since June as a major player in the financing of international terrorism.

That senior terrorist figure is AMC advisory board member Soliman Biheiri, an Egyptian whom a federal prosecutor says "came here as the Muslim Brotherhood's financial toehold in the US." The goal is to spread a global Islamic theocracy. The Muslim Brotherhood, according prosecutors, spawned both al Qaeda and Hamas.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.o...?section=today

[Canajew]

Originally posted by andak01
It sounds like and is exactly like McCarthyism and witch hunting. You can find a Commie around every corner if you look hard enough. Why don't we round up the moderate Muslims and throw them in prison?! That will create an environment of peace. And once you get rid of us, there will be no more war or terrorism or anti-Semitism, right? This place is starting to look more and more like a bizarro world version of Kalifah.com.

Exactly the things intolerant Muslims say about Jews, you are saying about Muslims! You can't trust THEM. THEY are trying to take over the world. Bush is controlled by THEM. All the problems of the world are caused by THEM.

Well THEY are us, just as the commies, like Arthur Miller and Aaron Copeland and a host of others were us. What makes America great is that that can happen and we don't fall apart.

You seem to have a little bit of a complex. It is understandable, as the language as it is written can be interpreted to imply what you perceive it to, but I think you miss the point.

The fact is that muslim political and academic organizations in the United States, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Students Association the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and others are at most front groups for radical Islamists and at a minimum are apologists for their behaviour. They seem more interested in promoting the Islamists' agendas rather than on fostering true integration and intercommunity undertsanding.

And as organizations dedicated to influincing domestic politics (like CAIR is) are seemingly in the control (from a policy perspective) of the Islamists, while 'moderate' muslims provide unthinking and uncritical support for these groups and their positions, then yes, there is a fifth column that must be taken seriously.

And you seem to have internalized something that the Islamists in CAIR do remarkably well - immediately mischaracterize any valid criticisms as racist and scare mongering while at no point admitting that there may be ANY truth in the statements.

Attacking arguments with buzzwords and ad-hominem attacks may make for good politics, and it may pass for rational discourse in the Islamists' circles, but from the perspective of truly reasoning rational discourse and analysis it fails utterly.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Canajew
The fact is that muslim political and academic organizations in the United States, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Students Association the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and others are at most front groups for radical Islamists and at a minimum are apologists for their behaviour. They seem more interested in promoting the Islamists' agendas rather than on fostering true integration and intercommunity undertsanding.

Just curious. What would you think about the Muslim Public Affairs Council? They have conciously refused to accept money from outside of the US so as not to be influenced. Is there even one group of Muslims in the US that you could point to and condone? If so, we could look at why that is and seek to discover what ingredients make such a group more palitable.

And you seem to have internalized something that the Islamists in CAIR do remarkably well - immediately mischaracterize any valid criticisms as racist and scare mongering while at no point admitting that there may be ANY truth in the statements.

I am happy to admit that there is truth to some statements. But I may not agree as zealously as you would have me.

Attacking arguments with buzzwords and ad-hominem attacks may make for good politics, and it may pass for rational discourse in the Islamists' circles, but from the perspective of truly reasoning rational discourse and analysis it fails utterly. [/B]

Which buzzwords??? The buzzword Islamist, used against me IS an ad-hominem attack. I don't happen to travel in Islamist circles and I resent the implication that I do. I don't like the buzzword apologist either. Practicing Islam in the way that I do, I have nothing to apologize for. I'm not going to start hating Jews and plotting to overthrow the west simply because Bin Laden or some Islamophobe says I must. Putting God first in my life is more important that spewing hatred and intolerance at others.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by andak01
[B]Just curious. What would you think about the Muslim Public Affairs Council? They have conciously refused to accept money from outside of the US so as not to be influenced. Is there even one group of Muslims in the US that you could point to and condone? If so, we could look at why that is and seek to discover what ingredients make such a group more palitable.

look at this exchange. It leads me to believe they are just like all the rest.

How Central Is Muslim Anti-Semitism?
Fox News: "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren"
June 24, 2002
VAN SUSTEREN: Tonight, a disturbing message of hate from a source barely out of diapers, a 3-year-old Muslim girl.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BASMALLAH, TODDLER: Allah's mercy and blessing upon you.

DOAA 'AMER, IQRAA-TV HOST: What's your name? BASMALLAH: Basmallah.

'AMER: Basmallah, how old are you?

BASMALLAH: Three and a half.

'AMER: Are you a Muslim?

BASMALLAH: Yes.

'AMER: Basmallah, are you familiar with the Jews?

BASMALLAH: Yes.

'AMER: Do you like them?

BASMALLAH: No.

'AMER: Why don't you like them?

BASMALLAH: Because...

'AMER: Because they are what?

BASMALLAH: They're apes and pigs.

'AMER: Because they are apes and pigs. Who said they are so?

BASMALLAH: Our God.

'AMER: Where did he say this?

BASMALLAH: In the Koran.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: It was part of an interview conducted by a Muslim woman magazine seen on Saudi Arabian television.

Joining us with reaction, from New York, is Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum and columnist for "The Jerusalem Post," and here with me in Washington, Sarah Eltantawi with the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

Welcome, both of you. Sarah, first to you. Your reaction to that tape?

SARAH ELTANTAWI, MUSLIM PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL: I think it's totally despicable. It actually really makes me sick.

The problem, though, that I see is that I think that, as Americans, what we need to not do is give these people the floor, and what we need to not do is to say take these extreme fringe of the Muslim world and, you know, perhaps even, you know, people like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell and put them on a Web site and say that represents Americans or Christianity.

And we could take the right wing from Israel that, you know, prints T- shirts that say, "A good Arab is a dead Arab," and we could let them have a conversation, and they can have the floor and dictate the conversation, or we can marginalize these people, treat them like what they are, which is the fringe, and give the floor and the microphone to the moderates and the people who are interested in making peace.

VAN SUSTEREN: Daniel, your thought? I mean, obviously, this tape is disturbing. The translation that I have says-describes Jews as apes and pigs by a 3-year-old, among other things. Your thought?

DANIEL PIPES, MIDDLE EAST FORUM: Well, I highly endorse, I mean, Ms. Eltantawi's calling it despicable. I would disagree somewhat in that this is not marginal.

As you noted, this was shown on Saudi television, and this had official patronage. This is something that's part of the heart of the culture, unfortunately. This is a reflection of the depths of anti-Semitism now found in the Muslim world.

In many ways, the Muslim world today is comparable to Nazi Germany in the extent to which one finds anti-Semitic themes found pervasively throughout the culture.

So we must fight it, absolutely, as Ms. Eltantawi pointed out, but we must understand that it is not fringe. It's absolutely a central phenomenon.

VAN SUSTEREN: I guess we need to look at it in terms of what context... And, Sarah, maybe you can help me out. Dan, you first. Then you, Sarah.

Was it shown on Saudi television to say, "Look at this here, this fringe group," or was it shown on Saudi television saying, "This is a 3- year-old who is taught something that's not uncommon." I mean, we might put something on television and say, "Look how horrible that is."

ELTANTAWI: Right. I don't know exactly what it was doing on Saudi television, but I do know for a fact that this is the extreme fringe, and, unfortunately, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that it isn't the extreme fringe unless you have a very narrow political agenda which consists of trying to paint all Arabs and Muslims as somehow propagating stuff against Jews.

VAN SUSTEREN: Let me-let me just-I mean, how it's presented-I mean, the way it's positioned on television, the fact that the Saudis put this on television, is disturbing.

ELTANTAWI: Very disturbing. Again, it is disturbing, but it doesn't make any sense from the point of view of our national security or for the long-term goal of trying to forge some sort of understanding between the Muslim world, which, again, the vast majority of which do not hold these views. It doesn't make sense to give these people the floor.

VAN SUSTEREN: Daniel-Daniel, is it the fringe? I mean is it-the vast majority of Muslims, your-what's your view of what they think of Jews?

PIPES: My view is that anti-Semitism of this sort is historically a Christian phenomenon, but, in the course of the past two generations, as a result of propaganda coming out of the Egyptian government, the Iranian government, the Iraqi government, the Saudi government of this sort, it has become pervasive.

Now what's so striking about this particular film clip is that it's a 3 ½-year-old. But you hear the same words coming out of the preachers in the mosques. You'll hear it from the politicians. You'll hear it in the schoolbooks, in the schoolrooms. You'll hear it pervasively. It is...

VAN SUSTEREN: Are there-Daniel, are there moderate Muslims? I mean, like-you know, I see this-I mean, you know-and, frankly, I don't come in contact with a lot of Muslims, so what-you know, I wonder is this like total an anomaly, or is this-I mean, are there moderate Muslims?

PIPES: There are definitely. The regrettable fact is, at this moment, it's an extreme one in Islamic history, where what is an extreme point of view, including this extreme anti-Semitism, has become ascendant. If one looks at someone like bin Laden, one sees that he is enormously popular.

So let's not-we can agree it's repugnant. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it's something marginal and fringe. It is absolutely central.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Let me give 20 seconds-let me give 20 seconds to Sarah, and then we're out.

ELTANTAWI: I really have to disagree with Mr. Pipes, unfortunately. First of all, this is definitely marginal, and, second of all, we can't exactly listen exactly to Mr. Pipes who has made a career of trying to...

PIPES: Now wait a minute. You agreed that I'm not going to be attacked. I'm not going to be attacked.

(CROSSTALK)

PIPES: I'm not going to be attacked. I'm not going to be attacked. I'm not going to be attacked.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Well, with that, let me...

PIPES: This is not on agenda.

VAN SUSTEREN: Let me toss up the white flag.

ELTANTAWI: Somebody is getting defensive because for some...

VAN SUSTEREN: Both of you, thank you. We're out. Daniel, Sarah, thank you for a nice and fascinating discussion. We're out of this, though.

Again, obfuscation, ad-hominem and a pervasive pathology to minimize anything that might be inconsistent with portraying Islam as the 'feel-good movie of the year'. And I have seen some articles on the extremist views of the protagonists of that organization.

But it is my general belief that the general membership of these groups are generally socially conscious good individuals, but that the leadership of these groups is controlled by a different set of people, and these people have jihadi-based objectives in formulating and promoting their agendas, while at the same time trying to appear as innocuous as possible.

I don't know any groups I can condone, because all the good ones are (I would assume) fairly small and do not have widespread grassroots support to fight against CAIR and the like. If CAIR is to be the Muslim's primary voice (which it is) then it is the responsibility of other more moderate Muslims to keep them in line, just like it is the jews responsibility to keep B'nai Brith in line. Expunge the racists, the jihadists, the provocateurs and set a policy based on the social goals of domestic muslim.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by andak01
I don't happen to travel in Islamist circles and I resent the implication that I do. I don't like the buzzword apologist either. Practicing Islam in the way that I do, I have nothing to apologize for. I'm not going to start hating Jews and plotting to overthrow the west simply because Bin Laden or some Islamophobe says I must. Putting God first in my life is more important that spewing hatred and intolerance at others. [/B]

Never meant to imply it. Apologies if necessary. But being an apologist for Islamists has, respectfully, nothing to do with practicing Islam. Islamists are only a quasi-religious group of people. While religion may have been part of their initial underpinning, it is the political objectives and views which classify individuals as Islamist. Just because most if not all Islamists are Muslim does not mean that it is Islam as a religion which is impugned by the behaviour ascribed to Islamists. You are not an Islamist. that's great, and good for you. But when all of one's intellectual energies are dedicated to (1) attempting to minimize the role or importance of Islamists and Islamist thinking in domestic or international conflicts (2) providing explanations and justifications for actions which the Islamists have already taken and/or (3) creating non-offensive arguments that are designed to make the Islamists objectives appear more palatable or less untrustworthy by the target population then yes, one would be safely classified as an apologist.

I don't really know if you do any of these things, so I can draw no conclusions, but this seems a pretty solid starting point for conceptualizing an objective definition for the term 'apologist'.

But again, the fact that you worship your god in your own way with your own traditions has nothing to do with being Islamist or an apologist for Islamic terrorism. But were you in Pakistan or Taliban Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia and you stood up and repeatedly shouted, "I'm not going to start hating Jews and plotting to overthrow the west simply because Bin Laden or some Islamophobe says I must," you would regrettably be strung up and killed very quickly. That is the region's fundamental problem, and CAIR and the MPAC can try to minimize the magnitude of the problems over there all they like, but at some point they will learn that the propaganda tricks they learned in Arab dictatorships, where huge proportions of the population are uneducated or, more properly, mis-educated, and have been shown to be quite succeptable to buying into the most preposterous of falsehoods eminating from their governments and media, doesn't really work in terms of objectively winning arguments and proving points.

(and please don;t come back with some US lies. We know they lie, and we know people are succeptable to believing them, but this is of an entirely different magnitude than the succesptability of the Arab world to believing pure and total lies.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Canajew
ELTANTAWI: I really have to disagree with Mr. Pipes, unfortunately. First of all, this is definitely marginal, and, second of all, we can't exactly listen exactly to Mr. Pipes who has made a career of trying to...

PIPES: Now wait a minute. You agreed that I'm not going to be attacked. I'm not going to be attacked.

(CROSSTALK)

PIPES: I'm not going to be attacked. I'm not going to be attacked. I'm not going to be attacked.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Well, with that, let me...

PIPES: This is not on agenda.

Sounds an awful lot like Abu's cartoon in reverse.

Pipes claims that this kind of hate speech is being heard commonly in the mosques. I know I have never heard it. I would storm out or make a scene if I did. In fact, I have corrected colleagues over much more harmless stuff than that.

I don't know any groups I can condone, because all the good ones are (I would assume) fairly small and do not have widespread grassroots support to fight against CAIR and the like.

I'm sure you don't make a point of familiarizing yourself with such groups. Perhaps it wasn't a fair question. I must say that, if I were to lose my job because of anti-Muslim descrimination, CAIR is the only group I know that would provide legal representation.

If CAIR is to be the Muslim's primary voice (which it is) then it is the responsibility of other more moderate Muslims to keep them in line, just like it is the jews responsibility to keep B'nai Brith in line. Expunge the racists, the jihadists, the provocateurs and set a policy based on the social goals of domestic muslim.

That's fair enough. CAIR has a branch in my city. I have spoken to a couple of their representatives. I am a little more familiar with MPAC, the group that I mentioned before. They don't provide legal advice though.

As you probably know, I agree that Pipes has made a career of...