Letters to the Editor
-
I don't have a problem with America asleep at the wheel
Dream your dreams that the 'real' threat is your fellow citizens.
-
I agree with Roger Simon
But in return I call on my friends on the Left –- straight or gay -– to help defend that real source of liberalism the Enlightenment, because if we lose and fall under religious law, there not only will be no gay marriage, there will be no women's rights, no freedom of the press, no basic human rights, not even – as in the case of Iran – any music.*
Uh huh. That's why we must stop the Christian Right.
* Also, there is definitely music in Iran: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_rock
-
This is just sad
GB: I posted under my real name. However, for Islamic topics, I used the name "Golden Boy", to prevent physical or professional retribution from those I offend by my unwillingness to show deference to Islam.
I've noticed that a lot of the people Greenwald targets in this post (those who are afraid of the imminent Muslim invasion) have a persecution complex.
They usually are from social and ethnic groups that don't have many social or persecution problems problems (there are few Jews and few non-whites in their ranks), so they have invented this strawman bogeyman to be afraid of, they want to feel like they are part of history, at some cusp or tipping point. So they've picked everyone's favorite whipping boy, Muslims and Islam, to scream about.
It's quite sad and boring, actually. And very predictable.
-
The core of the issue part 1
Arma has put together a thoughtful, well-reasoned rebuttal to my basic argument. It penetrates to the heart of what I think about Islam.
Your argument, that we should encourage the moderating influences in Islam, and that pointing out violent and supremacist Islamic doctrine bolsters the extremists, is very popular and pervasive. It is convincing because there are certainly violent and supremacist people from the ranks of all major religions - Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Shintoism, especially - who use that religion to justify their violent and supremacist beliefs. It is also true that the traditional way of dealing with that phenomenon is to do exactly what you propose - bolster a large, moderate, majority and split the small minority of extremists off from it.
I believe that the issue surrounding Islam is different, and it is incumbent on me now to explain why I think that. I distill it down to three basic differentiating characteristics, in which I believe Islam differs from all other major religions: 1) Islamic origins and doctrine; 2) the founder of Islam; and 3) Islamic practice.
1. Islamic doctrine
I have quoted in this thread some of the more extreme, misogynist and violent passages from the Koran. It is quite right to point out that the Old Testament, for example, also has extremely violent and misogynistic passages. In fact, if you read the Koran you will notice that whole portions of it seem to be lifted from the Bible; certainly the concept of sharia law strikes me as being derived in whole from Deuteronomy. This is not remarkable, as Mohammed invented Islam based on the influences of Judeo-Christianity, and the Koran plagarizes shamelessly from its theological parents. I am always amazed by people who throw violent Biblical ideas and passages at me, as though that somehow absolves Islam since Judeo-Christianity has its share of such things too.
The major difference betweeen Islam and Judeo-Christianity (J-C) is that in Islamic doctrine, the Koran is considered to be the absolute, unchanged word of God. The Bible is accepted in J-C as being written by multiple authors, and under divine influence. The Koran is the actual, living word of God to Muslims. I have never seen any serious Muslim, moderate or not, try to say otherwise - to do so is actually to cease to be a Muslim. If anyone can point out an instance of the opposite I would be grateful, but to my knowledge the Koran is accepted by all Muslims as being the immutable, eternal, and final (that is important) word of God.
Now to my cynical view that suits Mohammed just fine. God himself told me these things, says Mohammed, and not only are they the word of God, they are the final and immutable word of God - I am the last prophet. This is self-serving nonsense to all of us who don't submit to Islam, but it gives Islamic doctrine an authoritarian and absolutist cast that I cannot identify in other religions. When the Koran says to wage war against the whole world until it is under Islamic rule, there is no way to attenuate or moderate that message - Mohammed, who invented it, didn't intend for that to be possible.
To be continued....
-
The core of the issue part 2
2. The Founder of Islam
Islam and Mohammed are clearly tightly coupled. What did Mohammed do after his sham of being instructed by God to place all under Islamic - which is to say Mohammedan - rule? Well, he set about doing just that. From the start Islam was a unifying political force, in which the struggle to dominate its neighbors by both actual warfare and by coercion and deceit was the central story. There is a reason why there is no separation of public life from personal life in Islam, and that is because Islam is a political ideology as much as it is a religion.
Another point about Mohammed is the example he sets for his followers. I think we can all agree that even if we do not adhere to the religions these men founded, following the example of Jesus, Buddha, Lao-tze, etc would certainly result in a peaceful and just society. Who can say that about Mohammed? He was demonstrably a pedophile (consummated his marriage with a nine year old girl), pirate, warlord, and torturer. And by what is this demonstrated - the major newspapers that I somehow coerce into publishing anti-Muslim news stories every time I need to write a letter to Salon? No, it is demonstrated by "holy" Islamic scripture itself! The Koran and the hadiths tell us that Mohammed violated a nine year old girl, stole, plundered, murdered, and waged wars of conquest - all because God told him to. Christians who try to genuinely "walk in the Savior's shoes" are models of self-denial and charity; any Muslim who did the same as his founder would be a criminal on the order of .... well, you know.
3. Islamic practice
Inspect the countries in which Islam holds sway, and you will see that the Mohammedan command to mingle the private with the public is in full bloom. We spent most of our time on this thread arguing about Islamic behavior, and I've no interest in rehashing it, only I want to point out that people in the West are aware of how aberrant the norms and doctrine of Islam are compared to those of Western style liberalism. It does absolutely no good to try to lie and say that "Islam is a religion of peace," as does our abnormally dense President. Islam, properly translated, is the religion of submission; submission to the will of Allah, as Muslims would have it; submission to the totalitarian Mohammedan ideology, as I would have it.
That is why, folks, it is very relevant to show where Muslims in the West are trying to instill deference to their norms and taboos upon us, as in these ridiculous Koran desecration stories that you smirk at. To say that Muslims are not wholly successful in forcing us to comply with their demands is to completely miss the point. Islam, as I've shown, is intended to be a religion of conquest and supremacy. It is no good to pretend that it is not.
Now I am perfectly happy to accept that it is possible to have an Islam-lite, where the core doctrines of submission and supremacy have been ripped away, and all that remains is the idiotic bowing and scraping to Mecca and so on. The problem with Islam is that in theory, practice, and by example of its founder, those truly are core doctrines. I wish anyone well who is trying to change the core of 1400 year old religion practiced by 20% of the world, but we must face the unpleasant truth about Islam. The Muslims really do mean what they say, and one course of action we can take - the most important one and the one that I advocate most strongly - is to face up to these facts, and resolve never to give their absurd demands for deference to their norms and taboos any hint of concession.
Oh, and hello LeCastor, it is nice to hear from you again. How are things?