Morally Neutral (Ignorant) Reporting

[B-Man]

Following up on my comments under a different thread responding to a poster who sees no moral difference between terrorists who target innocent civilians (including babies) and a country which responds to their attacks, the liberal-dominated press has been similarly morally bankrupt. Has the world lost all sense of morality? Are we just supposed to bury our heads in the sand and make no judgments when atrocities are committed around the world? Are we simply to pretend that all terrorists, rioters and others are morally justified in the actions they take?

I don't understand where this line of thinking came from, but it is sickening.

===============================================
Morally neutral reporting is dishonest reporting
By Dennis Prager

Under the guise of "objectivity," virtually every major news agency, newspaper and television news network in the West is feeding its readers and viewers a morally neutral view of world events that is so distorted as to verge on mendacity.

Take this article from The New York Times, which describes the recent Muslim rioting in Nigeria over one sentence written by a Nigerian reporter in an article defending the Miss World pageant ("Muhammad would probably have taken one of the contestants for a wife."):

First, the headline: "Fiery Zealotry Leaves Nigeria in Ashes Again."

Notice that no group is identified as responsible. Reading the headline, one would have no idea that it was Muslims in Kaduna who burned churches, killed Christian bystanders and razed newspaper offices. Putting the moral responsibility on those who actually started the rioting would violate the doctrine of moral neutrality. So, for The New York Times headline writer, the culprit is "fiery zealotry."

It gets worse. The article then begins:

"KADUNA, Nigeria, Nov. 28 -- The beauty queens are gone now, chased from Nigeria by the chaos in Kaduna."

If this is not a direct lie, it surely is an indirect one. The beauty queens were not chased out of Nigeria by "chaos," but by Muslim rioters. One might as well say that between 1939 and 1945, tens of millions of Europeans were killed by chaos, rather than by Nazis.

Lest the reader miss the point that no group is morally responsible, the article's next sentence develops this idea:

"But there are no celebrations in this deeply troubled town, which has become a symbol of the difficulty in Nigeria -- and throughout Africa -- of reconciling people who worship separately."

Aha! The problem, dear Times reader, is not Islamic intolerance and violence in Nigeria, nor is it Nigerian Muslims attempting to violently spread Islamic religious law (as in sentencing a non-Muslim Nigerian woman to be stoned to death for giving birth to a child out of wedlock). No, the Times assures us, what happened in Kaduna is merely another example of Africa's "difficulty in reconciling people who worship separately." Nigeria's and Africa's Christians are just as guilty, as the next sentence makes clear:

"Kaduna is too occupied burying its dead, some of whom followed Jesus and others Muhammad . . . "

Don't blame the Muslim rioters. After all, Muslims, too, are burying their dead.

In the third paragraph, the Times quotes a Christian who wants to leave Nigeria. And in the next paragraph, the paper moves on to the one thing the paper can blame.

Nigeria's population "has shown itself to be devoutly religious but also quick to kill."

Fanatical Muslims are not the killers -- "devoutly religious people" are.

Everyone-is-responsible is, of course, the trademark of virtually all reporting from the Middle East. Israelis and Palestinians are immoral equals. Each kills the other; no one started the violence (or both did); no one terrorizes the other (or both do); no one targets civilians (or both do).

Take this typical Reuters report: "A suspected Palestinian militant tried to ram a car laden with explosives into a crowded Tel Aviv nightclub Friday . . . The apparent suicide attack was the latest in a fresh cycle of tit-for-tat violence . . . " (italics added).

First, Western journalists nearly always use the term "militants," or even the more non-judgmental "gunmen," to describe terrorists. For Reuters, BBC, AP, CNN, and most newspapers, it violates moral neutrality to label a man attempting to smash a bomb-laden car into a nightclub a "terrorist."

Second, just as "chaos" and "fiery zealotry," not rampaging Muslim militants, chased the Miss World pageant from Nigeria, a morally neutral "cycle of violence" causes death in the Middle East, not Palestinian terror.

And, of course, virtually every news source lists the greater number of Palestinians killed in the Palestinian-Israeli war as if to suggest that Israelis are the aggressors and Palestinians the victims. Had this type of reporting taken place during World War II, Germany would have elicited enormous sympathy in the Western press, since they lost far more civilians than America or Britain.

But during World War II, Western reporters did not aim for moral neutrality. They aimed for truth, moral and otherwise.

And, by the way, this is why talk radio and the Internet are increasingly the preferred sources of news for so many Americans. Unlike the mainstream news media, most Americans do not believe that the greatest source of violence in the world today is "chaos" or "tit-for-tat cycles of violence."

[patrick dicaprio]

why would you expect anything less from the Times?

Pat

[ripdog]

Ignorant? Anyone who reads this little gem of an article and can't see that Dennis Prager is pushing his own agenda might be classified as ignorant. Or maybe just plain stupid. I could use the images of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to show that Christianity is a religion for the stupid and pompous. Maybe I should infer that all Catholic priests are pedophiles as well. I am wary of any individual who attempts to paint an entire population with a single broad stroke of the paint brush. You should be too.

[B-Man]

I am wary of any individual who attempts to paint an entire population with a single broad stroke of the paint brush. You should be too.

I think you missed the point of the article. It is dishonest reporting to purposely withhold information relevant to a story, such as the fact that the riots in Nigeria were started by (and largely carried on by) Muslims protesting a comment in a newspaper column. It is the job of the press to report the facts, not to distort them or choose to withhold some of them because it serves their agenda (such as promoting the belief that Islam is a peaceful religion--maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but lets let the facts be known and people can decide for themselves).

[MMMMMM]

In trying to be "morally neutral" or "unbiased," some reporting actually becomes distortive by deliberate omission of important facts. This is bad and culpable journalism. It is the duty of journalists to report the facts.

Regarding the Israeli/Palestinian situation, I agree with you, but some others may see the situation as less clear-cut. Some other sensitive issues may not be entirely clear-cut either, but the facts should still be reported accurately and the public should be left to make up their own minds.

Deliberately omitting important facts from news reports is simply misguided or worse. If Muslims attacked en masse for a specific reason, then say so, and say what the reason was: bad job, Mr. Reporter or Mr. Newspaper Policy Maker...and a bad trend overall--and another example of how "politically correct" is so often conceptually flawed.

[IrishHand]

There's no such thing as "morally neutral" or "unbiased" reporting, in the exact same way that there are no "morally neutral" or "unbiased" people. Everone has morals, and everyone has biases, and if a person's a writer, no amount of effort will ever eliminate those. A person can try and be aware of his/her biases and try to overcome those in his expressions (writtern or otherwise), but there will always be some amount that gets through.

As for the above examples - realistically, there's nothing wrong with either of the primary pieces of news as they were presented either by the Times or the critic. This is because there's nothing innately "wrong" with omitting information or presenting it in the way that you interpret it. Those are at least partly a result of, respectively, economy (inability to present EVERYTHING) and the above-mentioned innate bias in humanity.

There will always be information that's omitted in ANY news piece. I don't recall ever reading or hearing anything that answered all the questions I might have - the answers to which would enable me to form a true accurate assesment of the situation. Perhaps the writer didn't have the information at the time (newspapers are notorious for their deadlines)...perhaps the writer didn't feel that certain facts were as important as the others he did present, and the writer is always operating under a space (number of words in his article) restraint.

Irish

[MMMMMM]

Obviously no news report can be totally complete. That's not the point. And obviously no news report can eliminate all potential traces of bias. That's not the point either.

The point is that the most salient facts in a story should be revealed clearly and prominently: not obscured, not glossed over and not omitted. Anything less is intellectually dishonest and very poor journalism.

[brad]

well gee we have moral and cultural relativism and everything we cant go saying the people who live in mud huts in africa arent civilized now can we?

[ripdog]

Following up on my comments under a different thread responding to a poster who sees no moral difference between terrorists who target innocent civilians (including babies) and a country which responds to their attacks, the liberal-dominated press has been similarly morally bankrupt.

It sure sounds to me like you're insinuating that anyone who doesn't share your world view is morally bankrupt. Apparently this includes one or more of the posters on this forum and the dreaded and evil, liberal dominated press. The strange thing is that I heard about this situation via the liberal dominated press and found that they quite clearly labeled the rioters as Muslims. The article is nothing more than a broad condemnation of all Muslims masquerading as a piece on objectivity in journalism.

[IrishHand]

The point is that the most salient facts in a story should be revealed clearly and prominently: not obscured, not glossed over and not omitted. Anything less is intellectually dishonest and very poor journalism.

Define "salient facts".
Define "clearly and prominently".
Define "obscured" and "glossed over".

It's all relative.

Furthermore, dishonest and poor journalism, especially in this country where we have a TON of alternatives (most of which, in fact, would be only too happy to expose this "dishonest and poor journalism") doesn't sell well to the average newspaper reader, and certainly isn't good business in the long run. (That's not the same as the average tabloid reader, where exclamation points and the revelation that "your neighbor is both Elvis and an alien" are as important as substance.)

So saying, it should also be understood that our media has never and will never be focused on reporting reality. They're interested in reporting something that you, me, and the lad down the way will find interesting enough to give them our ear (or eye, or whatever). It's a business, after all. World environmental problems (global warmind, for example) are insanely more problematic to our existence than the fact that some slapdick on the East Coast went and shot a few people, yet one was the leading news story for weeks, while the other is relegated to the 3rd page of the "World" (or comparable) section.

If you want the facts, go get them yourself. If you want to have a more entertaining version of what's going on, watch the news or read a newspaper. For example, if you want to understand the UN resolution regarding the weapon inspectors in Iraq, read it - relying on the news will only make you aware of the more popular elements.

[B-Man]

Did you even read my response to your previous comment, or just ignore it and go back to the original post? It sure looks like the latter.

[MMMMMM]

The plain fact is that Islam tends to be far more intolerant than other religions today. Obviously that doesn't mean that ALL Musims are intolerant. However these riots, and many other recent worldwide incidents, together with the pronouncements of many Muslim clerics, might just clue the rest of the world in that there is a widespread problem with, yes--we can say it--Muslim intolerance.

Islam itself has the most intolerant, totalitarian teachings of any religion, both as found in the Koran and Hadiths, and as preached in mosques and madrassas worldwide today. Islam also recognizes NO separation of church and state--rather it is all viewed as one great big integrated system which follows the exact literal word of Allah as revealed in the Koran. Islam means submission to the will of God--apparently by force if necessary. And conversion by a Muslim to any other faith is apostasy which is punishable by death.

Muslims started those riots on grounds of religious intolerance.

There is something deeply wrong with Islam, and it is coming to a head in the world soon. Religious fascism--and that is precisely what it is--must either find great fundamental change within itself, or else perish (sadly at a cost of great suffering in the process).

Are you worried about a police state here in the USA? Well, I am too (a bit, although I don't think it is here yet and may never completely arrive). However in the Middle East today, under Islamic law, millions already live under a Religious Police State--on pain of whippings, amputations and death.

Was the article which B-man provided carrying an additional agenda? Maybe so. But the fact is that reporting must first be honest (political correctness be damned). And if there was an additional agenda to criticize Islamic governments or fanatical Muslims following archaic belief systems and waging violence in the name of their religion, maybe they NEED criticism: loud, worldwide, unvarnished criticism.

As Ibn Warraq, director for the Center for Secularization of Islamic Society, puts it: "There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate."



http://www.secularislam.org/Default.htm

[MMMMMM]

It's NOT all relative. You are committing the logical error of assuming that since "much" is relative, "all" is also relative. But that isn't so, either in science or in life.

Certain points are more central to a news report than are others, just as certain points are more central to a science report than are other points. Ignoring this is simply fallacious. Can't you discern the conceptual distinction here?

[MMMMMM]

Sure I read in the press that it was Muslims who began the riots and did most of the rioting--but that doesn't mean that this fact wasn't omitted in the news report cited in the article. If it was omitted, IMO that constitutes a grave "sin," journalistically speaking (provided it was actually an article instead of merely a couple of lines).

[IrishHand]

You are committing the logical error of assuming that since "much" is relative, "all" is also relative.

No I'm not. I'm stating that reporting in the media is an artistic, human funciton that is innately biased and incomplete due to various contraints. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.

[nicky g]

gee and we couldn't go saying it's our fault now either, could we?

[nicky g]

whatever your view of islam, the plain facts are the west and, in the last 50 years the usa in particular, have been responsible for the deaths (and by that i mean "killed", not "could have prevented") of far more people than islam ever has. there are much more pressing problems in the world than islamic fundamentalism, and yet from this forum you'd think it was all that mattered; couldn't be anything to do with a dislike of poor dark-skinned people could it?

[Clarkmeister]

I think "tit for tat cycle of violence" is precisely the correct way to describe the situation between Israel and Palestine.

[brad]

what, the riot?

you would never see something like that outside of a soccer game in europe; even the death camps are orderly.

[B-Man]

Please tell me what is a far more pressing concern to the U.S. than Islamic fundamentalism. The posts on this forum have nothing to do with a dislike for dark-skinned people, and everything to do with a dislike of terrorists and a desire to prevent future terrorist attacks.

People amaze me, it's as if September 11th never happened. There is a war going on; if 9/11 didn't wake you up, I don't know what will.

[B-Man]

And I think that is absurd. But we have had that discussion before...

[Boris]

LMAO! Ouch.

[MMMMMM]

News reports should be done as scientifically as possible.

Journalism isn't supposed to be about an artistic endeavor; it is supposed to be about reporting FACTS.

[MMMMMM]

I happen to have a particular dislike for stupid violently aggressive people no matter what their skin color.

In particular, those who blindly hold moronic beliefs and are eager to back up those beliefs with aggressive violence deserve contempt. This is true whether they are jihad warriors or skinhead neo-KKK-types.

[IrishHand]

It appears I ws mistaken. I thought that journalism was generally grouped under the Arts, and not under the Sciences. It appears most North American colleges share my mistaken belief - I shall write them straightaway and have them reorganize their undergraduate and graduate programs.

Also - if you want facts in a newspaper, read the sports summaries. It's tough to lie about numbers as they relate to a sporting event. The rest of the newspaper is one person or another's interpretation of reality, which may or may not happen to coincide with either your interpretation of reality or mine. /forums/images/icons/ooo.gif

[John Cole]

B-Man,

After a quick search, I found the AP story which quite clearly uses the active voice to show who attacked whom. Of course, the passive voice does have its merits, as Prager points out (remember Reagan's "Mistakes were made" in connection with Iran-Contra).

Reading another piece by Prager, I also found out that the joke about Mohammed selecting a wife from the group was "completely innocuous" and would not have offended "you or me," according to Prager. I'll grant you, though, that he doesn't report, but merely opines, so he can slant whatever story he chooses. Can you find one instance in the article you posted where Prager draws an illogical conclusion, though, from what he quotes? And, is this willful or simply stupid?

John

[DanS]

Clark,
I'd like to think the fact that I'm Jewish plays no bearing in my response, but maybe it does.

I agree that there is a cyclical wave of violence occurring that is hindering the chance of a real resolution, but I don't think calling it 'tit for tat' is truly appropriate. The Palestinians et al attack civilians and widespread targets. The Israelis go after specific objectives: military/terrorist strongholds.

P.S. I think Ariel Sharon is one of the larger war criminals of the latter 20th century (Lebanon, anyone?)

DanS

[ripdog]

I did read your reply. I think you're glomming on to an article that supports your world view. The original article was a glossed over PC piece of crap, but Prager's response to it was just as bad, if not worse. I can understand why a journalist might temper the facts of a story rather than inflame the situation even further. Prager's article would certainly piss me off if I were a Muslim. I wonder if Prager is the stereotypical Jew. If so, he helps give Jews a bad name. I look forward to reading more of his stuff for that reason.

[B-Man]

I'm glad you were able to find a story that reported this matter accurately. I never meant to suggest there were not any such stories, and I don't think Prager did either. The point is that there were many stories that reported this (and other) events which seemed to bend over backwards to be politically correct, and in the process omitted or distorted highly relevant facts.

As for his comment that the comment would not have offended you or me, well, honestly, it didn't offend me. I understand Mohammed had many wives, and some of them he married at ages far younger than 18. What is so offensive about suggesting he would have taken a wife from the beauty pageant? I don't get it.

[B-Man]

I wonder if Prager is the stereotypical Jew. If so, he helps give Jews a bad name. I look forward to reading more of his stuff for that reason.

Now that is offensive. You, apparently, are the bigot.

[MMMMMM]

What does what it's grouped under have to do with how it's supposed to be done? News reports should be, as much as humanly possible, REPORTS not opinions. The broader genre of journalism can also cover opinion, analysis, commentary, etc., but NEWS REPORTS should be as factual as possible. That's why they're called REPORTS.

Also, it's not an "opinion" that Muslims rioted over the beauty contest article: it is a FACT. Don't confuse facts with opinions. This is not merely a perception based on one's personal viewpoint. Even the Muslims who rioted said that was why they rioted.

You are trying to make it appear as if EVERYTHING is ENTIRELY viewpoint dependent. This is simply not true. Moreover, many things which are viewpoint-influenced are still essentially factual: the degree to which they are viewpoint-influenced is so minimal as to be negligible. Certain other things are more significantly viewpoint-influenced---but the central fact that Muslims rioted in response to the article is not one of them.

[MMMMMM]

I've read that Mohammed's favorite wife he married in his later years. Aesha, whom he took to wife at the age of six, came to live with him at the age of nine.

So maybe the rioting Muslims considered the beauty contestants too old for Mohammed, or perhaps they thought that he already had enough wives.

[MMMMMM]

John,


Many Muslims have the idea that it is OK for them to say whatever they want about other faiths, but that it is also
correct for them to kill those who slander Islam or the Prophet. In fact, quite a few Muslim clerics advocate precisely this and have actually issued murder-warrant fatwas. I suspect that this illogical, one-sided, incompatible, Fascist approach dwarfs any unsupported conclusions Prager may have put forth.

Should we be more worried about offending Muslims (who appear to be mightily easily offended, by the way), or should we be more worried that this fascist attitude, based upon literal interpretation of many passages in the Koran and Hadiths, appears to be gathering momentum worldwide?

Can we hope to reason with such an attitude? Or might it be best to simply tell those who hold such attitudes to go **** themselves.

Just as tyranny cannot be appeased, so neither can Fascism. It must be resisted, loudly and forcefully.

[IrishHand]

Now that is offensive. You, apparently, are the bigot.

Living proof of political correctness being taken to an extreme. What he wrote was perfectly fine, and his arguments perfectly reasonable (not to say that I agree with them - just don't find them remotely offensive or innapropriate). It's like saying "I wonder if Jerry Falwell is the stereotypical white man. If so, he gives white men a bad name." Totally innocuous. If you're getting offended by that sort of thing, you might want to look into your delusions of persecution.

Irish

[IrishHand]

You see...there you go proving my point for me.

You claim the central fact of the report should have been that Muslims rioted in response to the article. That's correct, but it's hardly unbiased or complete. It states that (a) only Muslims rioted, and that (b) the sole reason they rioted was due to an article. Both are wrong.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that stating that Muslims rioted in response to the article is an efficient way of getting across the basics of what transpired, but it's not like it tells the complete story, and it's not like it tells it in a completely objective way. I find it impossible to believe that everyone there was perfectly happy with their day-to-day lives, then this newspaper article comes out and they riot. That's about as likely as the people in LA rioting solely because of the Rodney King verdict (which was correct, by the way, but that's besides the point). I can't speak with any authority about the recent African riots because I know little about them, but I'm confident in stating that the Rodney King riots have a laundry list of reasons, from the verdict itself to the historical oppression of blacks to simple greed and opportunism.

Irish

[sourwhiskystrait]

This is your typical BS from the anti-Semite that you are. I wish that you'd go martyr yourself without hurting anybody else. It would do the world a favor.

[IrishHand]

What is so offensive about suggesting he would have taken a wife from the beauty pageant? I don't get it.

If you were a fervent Catholic and someone wrote that Jesus would have loved to bang one of the chicks onBeverly Hills, 90210, I'm pretty sure you'd have gotten pretty upset. I imagine their response is along similar lines - especially since as I understand it, the parading of a pile of 1/2-naked women on stage and television from their hometown wasn't something they felt was appropriate.

[IrishHand]

Technically, I'm part Jew - but I've never concerned myself with matters of race and religion to the extent that you apparently do.

Irish

PS. I'm also looking forward to bombing a whole pile of Muslims in the middle east in a few months, so I guess I'm anti-Muslim as well. Damn...I've become highly disenfranchised lately.

[The_Baron]

Iran, Iraq, Albania, Chechnya, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, Somalia. Shall we total the number of people killed in these places in the name of Allah, the Righteous and Most Merciful, Lord of Heaven and Master of all on His Earth? Let's go for the million plus in Somalia alone, all by the Islamically pure tribal whackazoids running the nation. Did I mention Afghanistan or should I bother? Those zany Taliban dudes and the executions for failure to grow your hair long enough or to allow a female family member to be seen in public.
Please take the time to prove me wrong. Give us all a brief rundown on the deaths caused by the "west". When you're done with that, define the, "west", if you don't mind.
Poor, dark skinned, light skinned, rich, curly hair, big noses, extra long achilles tendons, supraorbital ridges, what ever you want to list. I don't really care a great deal about how the person is packaged. I don't even particularly care what they believe or decide to worship. It truly wouldn't make a bit of difference to me if the leader of Al Quaeda was a guy named Floyd Smith from Kansas City. He's a sociopathic nut job who needs to be killed. If his understanding of his religion is what drives him to kill innocent people, then that's entirely his decision. This is a world were all of the grown-ups are expected to remember that it's a bad thing to kill people. It doesn't matter diddly squat what religion someone follows, they're still not supposed to kill people. If they break that rule, they need to be dealt with.

[B-Man]

After all, you are good at distorting the truth. The phrase you claim is "like" what Ripdog said is not like it at all; you selectively left off the part which makes it most offensive.

Try reading the entire quote this time:

I wonder if Prager is the stereotypical Jew. If so, he helps give Jews a bad name. I look forward to reading more of his stuff for that reason.

The last sentence (which you purposely left out in your analagy) indicates that he wants Jews to have "a bad name." You can spin that any way you want, but the statement and the attitude behind it are quite clear.

[The_Baron]

I hate to agree with this, but I suspect it holds true for the US as well. When Seattle held the World Trade Organization's meeting, there was a "riot." The Seattle Police launched some teargas into a few people's homes, the Oregon Anarchist Coalition's leaders(there's an oxymoron for you) tried to get full scale unrest in the streets and failed. The majority of the damage was a few USA Today boxes thrown through windows. At least as far as Seattle goes, the good folk of the United States just don't have it in them for a good riot any more. They didn't even learn from the Rodney-Riot in LA. Hell, if you want to build a city that's intended to be destroyed by civil unrest, it would look a great deal like Seattle.
What's the world coming to when we have to go to Nigeria to see a well executed riot...

[B-Man]

I've noticed a trend--when you try to refute a point, you concoct a ridiculous analagy and then try to say the original statement was "like" your absurd statement. Maybe you should try sticking to the actual statement which is being debated instead of the ridiculous one you made up (and which is not "like" the actual statement).

Here is your statement:

If you were a fervent Catholic and someone wrote that Jesus would have loved to bang one of the chicks onBeverly Hills, 90210, I'm pretty sure you'd have gotten pretty upset...

Tell me Irish, where in the article did the writer say that Muhammed would have loved "to bang" one of beauty pageants?

Also, please enlighten me as to how many wives Jesus had. And of those, how many were teenages (and pre-teens)?

Your analagy was poor.

[John Cole]

M,

I'm certainly not defending Muslim fanatics, and I rarely involve myself in these discussions because my knowledge of the facts and concepts are quite limited--but, of course, I have learned considerably from reading your posts, along with those from Chris Alger and many others. (I have, though, listened to Muslims who claim that what has been represented to the world in recent years is not the faith they know or endorse.)

I do, though, see that Prager has his agenda--that's fine; he's a columnist and, as such, makes no claims for objectivity. In the article B-Man posted, I find a number of statements made by Prager simply don't follow from the evidence he cites. And, this seems to be the usual route of the far right conservative types. If rampaging Muslims aren't bad enough, for Prager, let's further implicate the "liberal" press. (Interesting, too, that Prager fails to mention Christians retaliated with automatic weapons against these rock-throwing Muslims.)

I suppose what concerns me most is the attempt by Prager and others of his ilk--and perhaps I'm going to far here--to implicate others (read the "liberal" press) in these atrocities by claiming that anything short of outright condemnation or saber-rattling equals approval or support. I find it irony of the highest order that these writers who so decry lack of objectivity engage in such slanted prose.

John

[John Cole]

You're wrong; Jerry Falwell gives all men a bad name. BTW, he's waiting for The Rapture and claims that only Christians may enter heaven.

John

[ripdog]

What I meant by that comment was that he adds fuel to the proverbial fire by writing trash like that. Anyone who would stoop to Prager's level could point to this article and imply that all Jews are as devious as he is. That is the sterotype--scheming and devious. I wonder if the rest of his writings have the same divisive tone. What really irked me about his article was the unstated underlying message. I found it ironic that I was reading an article as dishonest as the one it was attacking.

[brad]

believe it or not all that stuff was government provocateured to discredit the wto protesters. research it im sure you dont believe me. its the standard mo.

[IrishHand]

I wonder if Prager is the stereotypical Jew. If so, he helps give Jews a bad name. I look forward to reading more of his stuff for that reason.

I left the last sentence out because I got the impression that it meant that he was looking forward to reading more of Prager's work in order to get a better impression of him. It didn't occur to me that that was the part you found offensive - my apologies.

[IrishHand]

Your observations regarding my analogy reveal how unfamiliar and intolerant of the Muslim people at issue you are. Many Muslims, and certainly the Muslims in that part of the world, are far more reserved regarding matters of relationships, dating and sex than we enlightened Westerners are. Of course, if you said that a prominent Western figure might take a certain woman for a spouse here in this country, we probably wouldn't care. We practically have porn on network television, so we're not about to get worked up by a simple claim of attraction or marriage. Their culture doesn't share our views. First of all, Muslims tend to be HIGHLY intolerant regarding comments about the Prophet that don't amount to fawning. Combine that with a general backwardness (at least from our view based on their beliefs, actions and laws) in their views on sex and relationships, and it's perfectly understandable that a group of fervent Muslims would take great offense at the suggestion by some journalist that their Prophet would take a wife from among a group of (primarily) unbelievers parading on stage for the enjoyment of men.

That's the reason I amplified the sexual/relationship aspects of it - Americans don't share the same standards. We need a lot more in terms of degree and graphicness (not a word, I know) to generate a comparable response. Of course, the statement that "Jesus might have wanted to take a wife from the women of 90210" isn't that big a deal to most Christians. In order to make a culturally comparable statement, I needed to take some liberties.

I guess you think that Muslims should be looked at the exact same way we look at people in this country - which would explain why your views on them in Africa and elsewhere are so biased.

Irish

[B-Man]

I guess you think that Muslims should be looked at the exact same way we look at people in this country - which would explain why your views on them in Africa and elsewhere are so biased.

Actually, I am not biased, quite the contrary, I think everyone should be treated equally. That means terrorists and criminals should be held accountable and punished regardless of their race or religion--I think Timothy McVeigh was just as evil as Osama Bin Laden, he just was not as powerful and not as successful in his endeavors.

Are Muslims sensitive about statements about Mohammed? Certainly. Does that justify riots and murdering innocent people in response to a newspaper column? Absolutely not. Does that justify the press, in an attempt to be "politically correct," skimming over/downplaying the fact that the riots were started by Muslims (which was the point of the post)? Absolutely not.

[IrishHand]

One article is not the same as "the press." I was perfectly aware of the fact that the majority of the rioters were Muslims, and I made little or no effort prior to this thread to be aware of what happened there. Seems to me the press imparted the facts to me just fine, despite the article which inspired this thread.

[MMMMMM]

John,

I know you're not defending Musim fanatics, and perhaps you'll pardon me for jumping off towards that aspect of the issues rather than responding directly to the points in your post.

John Cole: "I suppose what concerns me most is the attempt by Prager and others of his ilk--and perhaps I'm going to far here--to implicate others (read the "liberal" press) in these atrocities by claiming that anything short of outright condemnation or saber-rattling equals approval or support."

To the extent that this occurs, I agree with you.

[MMMMMM]

It wasn't "THE" (only) central fact; it was "A" central fact (amongst several others), and as such should not be omitted.

Of course the other central facts should be reported too--but omitting THAT central fact would represent very poor reporting.

Also, regarding the Artistic or Scientific approaches to Journalism: Why do newspapers have Opinion sections, with editorials/op-eds? Is this not because that is the section of the newspaper which is set aside specifically for opinion and commentary? My understanding is that the basic news stories, however, are not to be found in the Opinion section: they are supposed to be a summary of pertinent facts--not opinions--to whatever degree is humanly possible.

[nicky g]

Sorry, I've been away for a while. I don't think the post I made was very intelligent or well-expressed, in retrospect. However, I'll defend it to an extent, starting with your examples of countries where people have been killed in the "name of Allah":
"Those zany Taliban dudes and the executions for failure to grow your hair long enough or to allow a female family member to be seen in public"

The Taliban were abhorrent. That said, they executed comparatively few civilians during their regime (fewer on an annual basis than America does). I don't know how many people died in their war with the Northern Alliance (who are also Islamic fundamentalists; I don't recall the Taliban killing any infidels in the name of Allah); atrocities were certainly committed by both sides, including plenty by th Northern Alliance when they were fighting on behalf of the West.

"Iraq" - Saddam Hussein is a secular leader; he has persecuted Islamists. His brutal regime has nothing to do with Islam. He acts in the name of his regime, not that of Allah. The Kurds he massacred were also Muslims. The US vetoed a UN resolution condemning the massacre at the time.

Iran
Who has Iran massacred in the name of Islam? The war with Iraq was not about Islam. Iran also happened to be in the right, but that didn't stop the west supporting and arming Iraq and excusing its many atrocities (see above) because of their anger at their fascist mass-murdering client-dictator (the Shah) being overthrown by a popular revolution.

Albania
Huh? "Albania... Muslims... must have massacred someone or other...." Er, no.

Bosnia
Bosnian Serbs (Christians) massacred tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims. It was the worst episode of genocide in Europe since world war 2 and it was carried out by CHRISTIANS, on MUSLIMS. It wasn't done in the name of Christianity; as with of the conflicts you mention, it wasn't about or in the name of religion. What's your point? Was it the Muslims' fault? Did they deserve it? The war was about Bosnia trying to secede from Yugoslavia. The conflict had little to do with Islam; Serbia also went to war with Croatia, which is a mainly Catholic country. The Croats also committed many atrocities, against Serbs and Bosnians.

Macedonia, Montenegro
Extremely minor conflicts; Montenegro doesn't even have a significant Muslim population as far as I know; it wanted to secede from Yugoslavia because it was being so badly run. There wasn't even a war. Your point?
Macedonia: a minority Muslim population, complaining of racist treatment from ethnic Macedonians, wanted to secede. No Islamic fundamentalism involved. And comparatively few deaths on either side. And solved by some minor concessions to the minority in the constitution. Where does Allah figure?

Chechnya:
A nationalist conflict. The Chechens wanted to leave the Russian Federation; they weren't allowed to. Russia has since reduced Chechnya to rubble. The Russians have committed well-documented human rights abuses on a massive scale; mass rapes, mass executions, the levelling of entire towns, routine, systematic use of torture on civilians. The Chechen rebels have received some support from mad Islamists, who see it as (and would like to turn it into) a religious conflict; it didn't start out that way, and the main Chechen rebel leadership are not Islamic fundamentalists. They are Chechen nationalists. I'm not denying there are Islamic fundametalists in Chechnya or that those Islamic fundamentalists are bad people. But that's not what the conflict's about, and the Russians behave just as badly, worse in my opinion, as anyone else involved.

Somalia:
I don't know of a million people killed in the name of Allah in Somalia. I'd be interested to hear about it. I understood the war ther was about a collapsed state that several warlords are fighting over in the name of their own interests, but I know very little about it. Please tell me more.

Back to my points:
The West: I meant primarily the US and Western Europe (where I'm from).


"Give us all a brief rundown on the deaths caused by the "west" ":

Sanctions on Iraq have killed an estimated 500 000 children alone. Hey-ho, never mind. A little further back (as I said, I was talking about the last 50 years): Try South-east Asia in the 60s and 70s. An estimated 4 million people died, many of them civilans and many of them in Cambodia and Laos, which the US hadn't even declared war on. No apology, plenty of people involved still running the country. I think that more than "covers" the number of people Islamic fundamentalists have killed in the same time span. Throw in the French in Algeria, the 2 million left-wingers murdered in Indonesia by a Western puppet regime, the tens of thousands who died in Latin America by US-installed military dictators and US-trained death squads (Contras anyone? remember? El Salvador?), and I think you have quite a death toll. Many of the people involved in all of those conflicts still hold positions of power. Many thousands of civilains will be killed if the West tries to "liberate" Iraq.

The more pressing problems: do you have any idea how many people die every day from hunger, malnutrition, preventable disease, no access to clean water, etc? While the US spends TRILLIONS of dollars on weapons? The West (by which I mean western governments) could end world hunger at a stroke and massively alleviate global poverty if it wanted to. But it doesn't. It would far rather dump its subsidzied agricultural produce on third world countries, starving local farmers. It would far rather waste its money on guns. It would rather invent entiely spurious wars to waste billions of dollars and thousands of lives on than do ANYTHING to make the world a better place.

Regarding your final paragraph: good! If that's what you believe, great! And yet there is a totally disproportionate focus on the evil things Muslims do on this forum and in the press.

Fair enough, the riots in Nigeria happened a couple of weeks ago, while the massacre of Muslims by Hindus in India, and of Bosnians by Serbs, happened several months ago and a good few years ago respectively. But was there much argument about the intrinsic backwardsness of Hinduism at the time? I doubt it. Al-Qaida need to be stopped. They are bad bad people. But because act in the name of a religion, all the people of that religion are being blamed. Every time bad people do bad things in the name of Islam, Islam and Muslims as a whole are blamed on this forum and in the media. That isn't true of other religions. Why not?

[The_Baron]

Sorry for the length, this is going to be a big one. Grab a brew, a couple of slices of pizza and forge ahead. Or just skip over it.

Sorry, I've been away for a while. I don't think the post I made was very intelligent or well-expressed, in retrospect. However, I'll defend it to an extent, starting with your examples of countries where people have been killed in the "name of Allah":
"Those zany Taliban dudes and the executions for failure to grow your hair long enough or to allow a female family member to be seen in public"

The Taliban were abhorrent. That said, they executed comparatively few civilians during their regime (fewer on an annual basis than America does). I don't know how many people died in their war with the Northern Alliance (who are also Islamic fundamentalists; I don't recall the Taliban killing any infidels in the name of Allah); atrocities were certainly committed by both sides, including plenty by th Northern Alliance when they were fighting on behalf of the West.
"Iraq" - Saddam Hussein is a secular leader; he has persecuted Islamists. His brutal regime has nothing to do with Islam. He acts in the name of his regime, not that of Allah. The Kurds he massacred were also Muslims. The US vetoed a UN resolution condemning the massacre at the time.


Okay, I don't have my copy of the Blessed Q'ran at hand. (no houris and rivers of wine for me) But by the word of Allah, no government is secular. They all exist either at the behest of Allah or in direct contravention of his will. While I'll agree completely that Saddam Hussein isn't a religious leader, his leadership exists, by the fundamental tenets of Islam, because he rules a nation wherein one finds Muslims. To become Muslim, one only has to swear that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is his prophet. After that, the rules are all for staying in good graces with Allah and being "good" Muslims. By the word of the Prophet, war conducted by Muslims is war conducted by Islam.
Now, that said. I think it's a crock. I don't believe for a minute that Hussein is appointed by or maintained in office because of the will of Allah. I think he's the child of an illiterate goatherd who lucked into a position of power and has maintained it by being singularly vicious in the history of the Arab peninnsula. The fact remains that the players in this particular party are Muslim. The same holds true for the war between Iraq and Iran. By definition in the Q'ran, this was a war of Islam.

Iran
Who has Iran massacred in the name of Islam? The war with Iraq was not about Islam. Iran also happened to be in the right, but that didn't stop the west supporting and arming Iraq and excusing its many atrocities (see above) because of their anger at their fascist mass-murdering client-dictator (the Shah) being overthrown by a popular revolution.

I'll freely admit I spent Desert Storm stationed in the US, I missed out on the great desert adventure camp. But from what I can remember, there just weren't that many US weapons being used by Iraq. The closest we come is the Roland air defense missile system which was sold to them by France. Iraq has always been a military client of the former Warsaw Pact who's made occasional forays into France and South Africa for their weapon systems. Soviet tanks, artillery based on the South African R4/R5, Soviet air defense ordnance, radar and support equipment. Surface to surface missiles courtesy of the Soviet union with guidance from France as to how to reconfigure them for greater range. Even their current weapon systems are either directly purchased from former Soviet nations (the T-80 and T-80A tanks) or are modified from weapons based on Soviet designs. Small arms are universally Kalashnikov and Degyetarov designs and most are of actual Izhevsk manufacture. Given Saddam's penchant for mass murder, I have trouble picturing him having weapon systems that are more effective in a given tactical situation yet ignoring their use because he wants to hid their western origin. Iraqi aircraft are of Soviet, French and Indian design as are the airborne ordnance. Iraq is simply a non-player when it comes to western military support. Even their tactics are straight out of the Soviet doctrine. The closest Iraq comes to being militarily supported by the US is in the "Super Gun" that was captured by the British. It was based on a specific design by a man named Gerald Bull who was Canadian.

Albania
Huh? "Albania... Muslims... must have massacred someone or other...." Er, no.

Was thinking of incidents outside the timespan you listed, sorry.

Bosnia
Bosnian Serbs (Christians) massacred tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims. It was the worst episode of genocide in Europe since world war 2 and it was carried out by CHRISTIANS, on MUSLIMS. It wasn't done in the name of Christianity; as with of the conflicts you mention, it wasn't about or in the name of religion. What's your point? Was it the Muslims' fault? Did they deserve it? The war was about Bosnia trying to secede from Yugoslavia. The conflict had little to do with Islam; Serbia also went to war with Croatia, which is a mainly Catholic country. The Croats also committed many atrocities, against Serbs and Bosnians.

No, it wasn't the Muslim's fault. It was the fault of the people ordering their troops to pull the triggers. Regardless, if the people want to claim to be Muslim, the Q'ran doesn't give them any options but to be governed by Muslims. Or to rise against their governors and slay them in the name of Allah. From what I've learned from people actually involved in the whole breakup of Yugoslavia, religion had very little to do with the day to day comission of atrocities. But when it came time to be held accountable, Oh the Muslims did it. Oh the Christians did it. Crappola, the people did it.

Macedonia, Montenegro
Extremely minor conflicts; Montenegro doesn't even have a significant Muslim population as far as I know; it wanted to secede from Yugoslavia because it was being so badly run. There wasn't even a war. Your point?
Macedonia: a minority Muslim population, complaining of racist treatment from ethnic Macedonians, wanted to secede. No Islamic fundamentalism involved. And comparatively few deaths on either side. And solved by some minor concessions to the minority in the constitution. Where does Allah figure?

Allah figures in the basic tenets of Islam. A muslim can be governed by god and god alone. That governance can take place through agents such as the imam or mullah but only with the will of Allah. They're either Muslim or they're hypocrites. The Q'ran doesn't allow any middle ground for someone who claims to follow Islam.


Chechnya:
A nationalist conflict. The Chechens wanted to leave the Russian Federation; they weren't allowed to. Russia has since reduced Chechnya to rubble. The Russians have committed well-documented human rights abuses on a massive scale; mass rapes, mass executions, the levelling of entire towns, routine, systematic use of torture on civilians. The Chechen rebels have received some support from mad Islamists, who see it as (and would like to turn it into) a religious conflict; it didn't start out that way, and the main Chechen rebel leadership are not Islamic fundamentalists. They are Chechen nationalists. I'm not denying there are Islamic fundametalists in Chechnya or that those Islamic fundamentalists are bad people. But that's not what the conflict's about, and the Russians behave just as badly, worse in my opinion, as anyone else involved.

I'm not saying the Russians didn't behave just as badly. I'm saying some of the Muslims have used their religion as a basis to cry out to the world that they're being oppressed. They're using the Q'ran as a justification for their actions. I'll re-read it over the next few days but I honestly don't remember anywhere in it where it tells people that it's okay to only claim their Muslim status when they're being bombed. The use of their religion as a stated basis for their acts of violence is a hypocrisy of the worst kind. Either they're "true" Muslims and fighting against everyone who's oppressing them against the will of god, or they're not Muslim at all. The Q'ran doesn't have any provisions for someone being a Jack-Muslim. For whatever it's worth, I hold the hypocritical christions in the same near total lack of esteem.

Somalia:
I don't know of a million people killed in the name of Allah in Somalia. I'd be interested to hear about it. I understood the war ther was about a collapsed state that several warlords are fighting over in the name of their own interests, but I know very little about it. Please tell me more.

Here again we have a situation where the powers that be, the warlords in this case, claim to be good Muslims. Mohammed Aidid claimed to be a true and righteous follower of Allah and His Word as given unto His Prophet, Mohammed. Yet Aidid allowed his clansmen to impound UN imported food supplies in order to starve members of other clans. Which was it, was Aidid a Muslim; in which case he's doomed to hell for violating most of the tenets of Islam by deliberately starving his fellow Muslims; or was he just another pissant leader in a third world shithole who would jump on the word, "Muslim", when he thought it would give him an advantage? Again, I have to state that it's been a while since I've read the Q'ran but I don't remember anywhere that allows for someone to be both a good Muslim and to deliberately starve a million of his fellow Muslims.

Back to my points:
The West: I meant primarily the US and Western Europe (where I'm from).


"Give us all a brief rundown on the deaths caused by the "west" ":

Sanctions on Iraq have killed an estimated 500 000 children alone. Hey-ho, never mind. A little further back (as I said, I was talking about the last 50 years): Try South-east Asia in the 60s and 70s. An estimated 4 million people died, many of them civilans and many of them in Cambodia and Laos, which the US hadn't even declared war on. No apology, plenty of people involved still running the country. I think that more than "covers" the number of people Islamic fundamentalists have killed in the same time span. Throw in the French in Algeria, the 2 million left- wingers murdered in Indonesia by a Western puppet regime, the tens of thousands who died in Latin America by US-installed military dictators and US-trained death squads (Contras anyone? remember? El Salvador?), and I think you have quite a death toll. Many of the people involved in all of those conflicts still hold positions of power. Many thousands of civilains will be killed if the West tries to "liberate" Iraq.

Okay, I'll concede your point. Most of the deaths on the areas you describe weren't related to religion however. Our old body Pol Pot seemed to do a pretty fair job on an estimated 3.5 million Cambodians. I also don't have the slightest delusion that the west is without blame in the deaths of many, many people. I do believe however, that if it's a choice between their deaths and the deaths of people close to home; they lose every time. The 500k in Iraq, may or may not exist, those figures are frighteningly dependant on documentation obtained by the UN from Iraqi sources. If so, it's a tragedy. If so, Hussein should have quit his job as Dictator for Life and opened his country up for a government that wouldn't have pissed the US off as much. If the Iraqi government is functionally intelligent to any degree whatsoever, they realize that the western world is the single most intensive consumer of the only product Iraq has to offer. What's more, the western world is completely and utterly dependent on that product. If you've got control of a product who's loss to distribution will cause the almost total breakdown of the most militarily capable society in history you want to take steps to make sure they keep getting their fix of your product. It's suicidal to do otherwise.

The more pressing problems: do you have any idea how many people die every day from hunger, malnutrition, preventable disease, no access to clean water, etc? While the US spends TRILLIONS of dollars on weapons? The West (by which I mean western governments) could end world hunger at a stroke and massively alleviate global poverty if it wanted to. But it doesn't. It would far rather dump its subsidzied agricultural produce on third world countries, starving local farmers. It would far rather waste its money on guns. It would rather invent entiely spurious wars to waste billions of dollars and thousands of lives on than do ANYTHING to make the world a better place.

Why does the US owe the world anything? Why does the US have any obligation at all to help people starving in Gabon? Where does the moral obligation arise?
Personally, I think the US needs to spend more money on good quality boots and more effective hand grenades for their soldiers rather than on two billion dollar jets. Regardless of what the US, and the rest of the western world's, governments do for their own nations, where is it decided that they somehow have to spend that money to grow wheat in Zaire rather than defense contract jobs in Idaho? To try to ascribe moral imperatives to a specifically amoral entity such as a government, is an absolute folly. The governments owe absolutely nothing more than is guaranteed to the governed by the documents defining their governments.

Regarding your final paragraph: good! If that's what you believe, great! And yet there is a totally disproportionate focus on the evil things Muslims do on this forum and in the press.

I don't care what Muslims do. I don't care what Christians, Budhists, Jaynists or Taoists do. I don't care right up to the point where they use their religious dogma to direct secular government or to influence public opinion. The fact that Al Qaeda is made up of Muslims is of complete indifference to me as long as they don't attack me. If they do attack me, their being Muslim is only of interest in as much as it influences their strategic base and tactical methods. I'm not interested in becoming Muslim. If they want to try to enforce the strictures in the Q'ran that require everyone to be Muslim, that's the point where I've got a problem with them. They need to be grown-ups and realize that this is a very big world and even if they've got the, "One True and Only Way(tm)", there will be a large number of people who just aren't interested. If they're going to attack those people, common sense dictates that they don't attack the people who can put entire armored corps on the ground in 90 days and have air power enough to literally kill 90% of everything in their country. They can rant, rave and stomp their feet about the Great Satan America. They can piss on the gateposts at US Embassies and flip the finger at cars with US diplomatic license plates. Not a big deal. If they fly our airplanes into our office buildings and kill our people because they're not grown-up enough to understand that we're not interested in them; then they need to be spanked. Unfortunately we now live in a world where spanking in this context consists of things like carpet bombing and cruise missiles. I, on the other hand, am not responsible for the fact they weren't bright enough to think of that ahead of time. If you go up and kick the biggest kid on the block in the shin and get your jaw broken, he probably shouldn't have punched you but you certainly should have had the sense not to kick him in the first place.
The US, the "Western World", isn't in the right or in the wrong here. There are too many disparate individuals involved to try to ascribe a single moral value to them as a collective entity. This isn't a matter of right and wrong any more, it's a matter of smart and stupid. Smart is keeping your religion where it belongs and not using it as a justification for hurting other people. Stupid is flying airplanes into office buildings in the largest city of the most powerful military in human history. Whether they are right, wrong or just confused doesn't matter. They are stupid. They are stupid in an environment where stupidity often can be punished by death and societal devastation. Had they acted in defense of person or natinal boundaries, there might be a case for "right or wrong", but they didn't. They want to expand beyond geography and move into philosophy to define their nation. That's simply stupid. It doesn't matter whether they're right or not. It doesn't matter how much the US spends on its military. The US military expenditures are actually none of their business. They did something profoundly stupid and injurious to US interests.

Fair enough, the riots in Nigeria happened a couple of weeks ago, while the massacre of Muslims by Hindus in India, and of Bosnians by Serbs, happened several months ago and a good few years ago respectively. But was there much argument about the intrinsic backwardsness of Hinduism at the time? I doubt it. Al- Qaida need to be stopped. They are bad bad people. But because act in the name of a religion, all the people of that religion are being blamed. Every time bad people do bad things in the name of Islam, Islam and Muslims as a whole are blamed on this forum and in the media. That isn't true of other religions. Why not?

I don't speak for the media or others in this forum. I don't blame Muslims as a whole for the acts of Al Qaeda. As for the Hindus and Muslims, yes, there actually was a lot of discussion about the inherent backwardness of the Hindu beliefs. Again I have to speak from a point of moral apathy though. I don't care what they believe. Directing an act of aggression against another outside the bounds of self defense is just not to be done. I personally think that religion is one of the more silly reasons to go to war. But I guess that puts me in the position of either believing that the majority of humanity is inherently silly or that their governments have been hypocrites. In either case, I don't care what they believe. Leave me alone, don't ask me to pay for their new well and don't fly airplanes into my office buildings. Once we all agree that we're not going to do those things, then we can decide whether I want to help pay for that well just because it makes me feel better to do it. Don't pretend I owe it to the world. If we want to talk about religion, that's spiffy. You have your's, they have theirs, I have mine. Let's all just wait until we die and see which of us was right, but don't pretend your religion justifies smuggling 150kg of explosives across the Canadian/US border to disrupt the 2000/2001 New Year's celebration in Seattle.
As always, YMMV. I don't pretend to have all the answers. In regards to journalists, I'd much prefer a report that said, "a whole bunch of people were killed during a riot in Nigeria because some other people said that Mohammed would pick a wife from the contestants in a beauty pageant." Their religion isn't justification for attacking other people. If they see that it is, they need to be spanked just like Al Qaeda.

[nicky g]

Mate,

Good post. I don't have time to respond to most of it now, cos I'm going to bed. i'll come back tomorrow. But there are 3 things I'l say quickly:

You can't argue that becasue the Koran does not recognise the possibility of a secular government, no government of a country with a Muslim population can claim to be secular. The only other option may indeed be that they;re hypocrites; I have no argument with that. They're secular hypocitrites, but they're still secular and they aren't killing people in the name of Allah.

2. Your argument isn't with Islam, it's with people who kill people. Mine too. But there are plenty of people on this forum, and who speak out prominently in the media, who blame Islam rather than the particular Islamic individuals who are doing the killing, and who seem to think the West has some majestic respect for life that Muslims don't. THose are the peole I ave an argumetn with, and those are the peple I was targetting previously.

3. don't think any amount of discusiion will change our respective opinions on this, but I think if there are people in dre need and people who are in a position to help the needy without geat cost to themselves, they have a morla obligation to help. i also think a lot of the world's problems arise from the actions of the West both now and in the recent past).

Sorry if I've misrepresented or misunderstood you - I'll write a more cnosidered response tomorrow.

ps sorry, i'm also too tired to correct all the typos above.

[MMMMMM]

"2. Your argument isn't with Islam, it's with people who kill people. Mine too. But there are plenty of people on this forum, and who speak out prominently in the media, who blame Islam rather than the particular Islamic individuals who are doing the killing,..."

I agree that our main problem is with the people you mention who happen to be the ones doing the terrible, ignorant, violent things. However let's not make the mistake of presuming that their religion has absolutely nothing to do with this. The philosophy of Islam is essentially confrontational with all other belief systems and philosophies. That doesn't mean that all Muslims will necessarily become jihad warriors--of course not--but there are many passages in the Koran advocating the fighting and killing of infidels.

From the statement by Ibn Warraq on the World Trade Center Atrocity:

"Given the stupefying enormity of the acts of barbarism of 11 September, moral outrage is appropriate and justified, as are demands for punishment. But a civilized society cannot permit blind attacks on all those perceived as “Muslims” or Arabs. Not all Muslims or all Arabs are terrorists. Nor are they implicated in the horrendous events of Tuesday. Police protection for individual Muslims, mosques and other institutions must be increased.

However, to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with Terrorist Tuesday is to wilfully ignore the obvious and to forever misinterpret events. Without Islam the long-term strategy and individual acts of violence by Usama bin Laden and his followers make little sense. The West needs to understand them in order to be able to deal with them and avoid past mistakes. We are confronted with Islamic terrorists and must take seriously the Islamic component. Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, do not understand the passionate, religious, and anti-western convictions of Islamic terrorists. These God-intoxicated fanatics blindly throw away their lives in return for the Paradise of Seventy Two Virgins offered Muslim martyrs killed in the Holy War against all infidels.

Jihad is “a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of the Prophet Muhammad [the Prophet]. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur’an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and repelling evil from Muslims”[1].

The world is divided into two spheres, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The latter, the Land of Warfare, is a country belonging to infidels which has not been subdued by Islam. The Dar al-Harb becomes the Dar-al Islam, the Land of Islam, upon the promulgation of the edicts of Islam. Thus the totalitarian nature of Islam is nowhere more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the law of Allah. To Islam alone has been granted the truth: there is no possibility of salvation outside it. Muslims must fight and kill in the name of Allah.

We read (IX. 5-6):“Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them”;

IV.76: “Those who believe fight in the cause of God”;

VIII.39-42: “Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.”

Those who die fighting for the only true religion, Islam, will be amply rewarded in the life to come:

IV.74: “Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.”

What should we make with these further unfortunate verses from the Qur’an:

*Torment to Non-believers->IV.56
*Only Islam Acceptable-> III.85
* No friends from outsiders->III.118
*No friends with Jews, christians->V. 51
* No friends with non believers->IV.144, III.28
* No friends with parents/siblings if not believers->IX.23
* Fight non-believers->IX.123 * Kill non-believers->IV.89
*Anti Jewish verses->V.82
* God a "plotter"->VIII.30
*Killing Idolators->IX.5
* Idolators are unclean just because they are idolator->IX.28
* Forcing non-believers to pay tax->IX.29
* The Torment of Hell->XLIV.43-58
* All except Muslims/Jews/Christians/Sabeans will go to hell->II.62, V.69
* Cast terror in the hearts, smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers->VIII.12
* Smite the neck of unbelievers->XLVII.4
* Severe Punishment for atheists->X.4 ; V.10 ; V.86
* Severe Punishment for non-believers->XXII.19-22 ; LXXII.23, XCVIII.6
*Punishing non-believers of Hereafter->XVII.10
* Punishing for rejecting faith->III.91
* Non believers go to hell->IV.140 ; VII.36 * Partial Believers go to hell too->IV.150-1
* Sadistic punishments->LVI.42-43
* Punishment for apostates->XVI.106 ; III.86-88 ; III.90 ; IV.137.
* Threat of punishement for not going to war->IX.38-39, XLVIII.16
*God making someone more sinful so he can be punished more->III178
*Intentionally preventing unbelievers from knowing the truth->VI.25 ; VI.110
* Intentionally preventing unbelievers from Understanding Quran->XVII.45-46
* It is God who causes people to err and He punishes them for that->XVII.97
* God could guide, if he chose to, but did not->VI.35
* Intentionally misguiding those whom he pleases to->XIV.4
* Willfully misguiding some->XVI.93
* God causes human to err->IV.143 ; VII.178
* God deceiving humans->IV.142

It is surely time for us who live in the West and enjoy freedom of expression to examine unflinchingly and unapologetically the tenets of these fanatics, including the Qur’an which divinely sanctions violence. We should unapologetically examine the life of the Prophet, who was not above political assassinations, and who was responsible for the massacre of the Jews.

“Ah, but you are confusing Islam with Islamic fundamentalism. The Real Islam has nothing to do with violence,” apologists of Islam argue.

There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism: at most there is a difference of degree but not of kind. All the tenets of Islamic fundamentalism are derived from the Qur’an, the Sunna, and the Hadith – Islamic fundamentalism is a totalitarian construct derived by Muslim jurists from the fundamental and defining texts of Islam. The fundamentalists, with greater logic and coherence than so-called moderate or liberal Muslims, have made Islam the basis of a radical utopian ideology that aims to replace capitalism and democracy as the reigning world system. Islamism accounts for the anti-American hatred to be found in places far from the Arab-Israeli conflict, like Nigeria and Afghanistan, demonstrating that the Middle East conflict cannot legitimately be used to explain this phenomenon called Islamism. A Palestinian involved in the WTC bombings would be seen as a martyr to the Palestinian cause, but even more as a martyr to Islam.

“Ah, but Islamic fundamentalism is like any other kind of fundamentalism, one must not demonise it. It is the result of political, social grievances. It must be explained in terms of economics and not religion,” continue the apologists of Islam.

There are enormous differences between Islamic fundamentalism and any other kind of modern fundamentalism. It is true that Hindu, Jewish, and Christian fundamentalists have been responsible for acts of violence, but these have been confined to particular countries and regions. Islamic fundamentalism has global aspirations: the submission of the entire world to the all-embracing Shari’a, Islamic Law, a fascist system of dictates designed to control every single act of all individuals. Nor do Hindus or Jews seek to convert the world to their religion. Christians do indulge in proselytism but no longer use acts of violence or international terrorism to achieve their aims.

Only Islam treats non-believers as inferior beings who are expendable in the drive to world hegemony. Islam justifies any means to achieve the end of establishing an Islamic world.

Islamic fundamentalists recruit among Muslim populations, they appeal to Islamic religious symbols, and they motivate their recruits with Islamic doctrine derived from the Qur’an. Economic poverty alone cannot explain the phenomenon of Islamism. Poverty in Brazil or Mexico has not resulted in Christian fundamentalist acts of international terror. Islamists are against what they see as western materialism itself. Their choice is clear: Islam or jahiliyya. The latter term is redefined to mean modern-style jahiliyya of modern, democratic, industrialised societies of Europe and America, where man is under the dominion of man rather than Allah. They totally reject the values of the West, which they feel are poisoning Islamic culture. So, it is not just a question of economics, but of an entirely different worldview, which they wish to impose on the whole world. Sayyid Qutb, the very influential Egyptian Muslim thinker, said that “dominion should be reverted to Allah alone, namely to Islam, that holistic system He conferred upon men. An all-out offensive, a jihad, should be waged against modernity so that this moral rearmament could take place. The ultimate objective is to re-establish the Kingdom of Allah upon earth...”[2]...(end excerpt)

http://www.secularislam.org/articles/wtc.htm

[nicky g]

Hiya MMMM,

Yeah I read the article when it was posted before, I think it's very interesting. My feeling is that all of the major religious texts are so sprawling, written by so many people at different times, with bits added, taken away and lost in translation through the passage of time, that none of them can be taken too literally, and that they all end up saying a lot of bizarre things and very wrong things. I'm a Christian but there's plenty in the Bible I think is nonsense (which you have to, in the end, because it's also so full of contradictions), and I don't think anyone would seriously want the moral code proposed by the old testament to be forcibly implemented today.
But even if the Qu'ran is particularly aggressive and anti-secular, my argument is that Muslim populations historically have not behaved particularly worse, more violently or aggressively than any other major religion or ideology. If you look at the times of the Khalifat, for example, religious difference was by and large tolerated (except for Muslims deemed heretical); they were far more tolerant of religious difference than Christians were at the time, for instance. Back to recent times, and I think neo-liberal capitalism has been vastly more aggressive, and killed vastly more people, in its forcible conversion of doubting populations. I don't think that the actions of Al-Qaidq have nothing to with religion; of course they do. Most people, however, including Muslims, are sensible enough not to take religious interpretations to their logical extremes, and by and large they haven't.
I'd like to say that my suggestion that the focus on Islam was down to racism was in fact unfair and unjustified; I think there is an element of that in some people, but clearly (blindingly obviously) the focus on the threat of militant Islam rises out of the terrible events of 9/11 and I apologise for what I said.

Best,
NG.

[John Cole]

M,

Just to add a quick note to Nickyg's comment: Biblical interpretation has often been used to further social and political purposes. For example, the translator of the King James Bible purposely translated passsages to provide support for the ruling monarch. Later translators would vary the translation when the monarchies disappeared or ceased to have the same sort of influence and power they once held. Translation, then, is an ideological tool used to maintain power relations.

John

[MMMMMM]

Nicky,

No need to apologize, but thanks.

Regarding your statement about Capitalism killing more people than Islam, I don't know whether it's true or not. However let's for the moment assume it's true, in order that I can raise the following points:

1) Capitalism is an economic system, whereas Islam is a religion

2) Capitalism is probably just a natural human economic development and cannot be effectively and greatly changed or legislated away. Before currency, there were always stores of value, for instance grain and tools. The material world, inasmuch as we need and use it, will always have stores of value. Capital is just a more easily worked with extension of this principle. As for the poorer peoples, there is charity in varying forms and degrees, whether legislated or private. There is also the chance for some to rise through their own efforts given adequate opportunity. As for the poorest countries, I agree with the concept of some charity for them but it is also imperative that economic opportunities be made available to them. To the extent that their social/religious/governmental systems are closed and restrictive, they will have lesser opportunities for economic growth. Note how certain Far Eastern countries have emerged from occupation and economic tatters to economically surpass the Middle Eastern countries--this despite the great oil wealth of the latter. To the extent that Islamic countries repress freedoms, they will suffer economically as well as socially on the world scale, so there are limited things that can be done.

Capitalism kills? I don't know about that--but nature itself kills too. Emergence of greater opportunities is probably the greatest thing that can be done for many poor countries, and sadly some of them are resisting just this in resisting greater freedoms.

[MMMMMM]

Agreed. Just as a note, though, the original Arabic is supposed to be even more fiery than virtually all English translations. Also, Islam says that the Koran is the exact word of Allah revealed directly to Mohammed.

While Christianity emerged somewhat from its darker side with the advent of the Enlightenment and Age of Reason, Islam has yet to do so--and the absolute nature of Islam suggests that it will have a much harder time doing so than did Christianity. For, as one prominent Muslim cleric recently put it, "Secularism is a Christian invention."

[brad]

well for the record there are similiar things said about jews and the talmud. that according to talmud all oaths they take are invalid etc., that its ok to kill non jews, non jews are same as cattle, etc.

so my point is that im not sure how much credence you can put in such anti islam stuff.

of course there are zionist extremist who openly say stuff like its ok to kill non jews, and islamic extremists, too, but you know 99% jews and muslims dont fall into that category.

[MMMMMM]

It's not the same thing, because today there are HUGE numbers of Muslim clerics openly preaching such things.

Also, I doubt you are right about the figure of 99%. Further I would give you high odds on a bet that there is a much higher percentage of believers in "radical" or "fundamentalist" Islam, than there are believers in equivalently literal/absolutist-type Judaism or literal/absolutist-type Christianity. It's NOT just two faces of the same coin, and the masses of rabid Islamists today should offer some evidence of that.

Also, Wahhabism has been the official state religion of Saudi Arabia since its founding, and I'll give you high odds that you'll find a much, much higher percentage of extremists there than in Israel. The percentage of radical Islamists greatly eclipses the percentage of radical Christians or radical Jews, and its not even close.

[brad]

well youre probably right but talking about americans its probably much much closer to 100%.

also though seriously a lot of israelis openly call for things like extermination of palestinians to solve dispute so i just think a lot of foreigners are just nuts its too bad our country deals with them at all.

[MMMMMM]

brad: " ...i just think a lot of foreigners are just nuts its too bad our country deals with them at all."

(Asssuming you are talking about the nuts not foreigners in general)--that's right, and that's why we need a good missile shield and viable alternate energy sources so we can tell the wacko governments to go to hell.

[ripdog]

The last sentence (which you purposely left out in your analagy) indicates that he wants Jews to have "a bad name." You can spin that any way you want, but the statement and the attitude behind it are quite clear.

That is not at all what I meant by that statement. I've always wondered where Jews got the reputation of being cheap, but who cares about people being extra frugal? Not me. What really bothered me was the implication by some that Jews are inherently evil and devious. I never saw a reason to view a Jewish person as such. Then I read Prager's article. Had he just come out swinging against Muslims, I could have written him off as a whacked out nut job (like I can with Falwell and Robertson). But he didn't do that. No, instead he disguised his attack on Muslims as an attack on the liberal press. That is devious, and it fits the stereotype. Do I want Jews to have a "bad name"? Absolutely not. I think Prager is an extremist and that he should be exposed as one. He is a sorry excuse for a human being and a stain on the Jewish religion, like Robertson and Falwell are a stain on theirs. I'll read his future work to see if he continues to use these shady tactics. I could hold up Prager as the model for the entire Jewish religion and write a scathing piece, bashing Jews with each new paragraph, just like he did with Muslims. There's a problem, though. I know that it'd be a bunch of bulls**t, so I wouldn't write it. He doesn't do his religion any favors by writing inflammatory garbage like this. It was an eye opener for me. You choose to keep the blinders on.

[MMMMMM]

I don't believe in bashing Muslims, but there's nothing wrong with bashing Islamo-fascism.

Recognizing that Islam is inherently an ideology of a fascist nature is simply being informed and realistic.

Bush may believe that Islam is a "religion of peace", but guess what? Thousands of imams and muftis DON'T believe that Islam is a religion of peace. And neither do large segments of the vast masses of Muslim population.

Islam's ideological goal is to subdue the entire world to Islam--by force if necessary--and any "moderate" Muslims who don't believe this can easily be proven wrong based on the Koran and Hadiths--and there are thousands of imams and muftis who would be glad to prove them wrong. Further still, if the lay Muslim should decide to think for himself and somehow decides that Islam is wrong and he leaves Islam (perhaps for another religion, or perhaps for agnosticism or atheism) , he is guilty of apostasy--a crime punishable by death.

So by all means, treat Muslims with respect and courtesy and kindness. They are human beings too. And ask them nicely if they believe it is all right for Muslims to kill infidels.

[MMMMMM]

If Jerry Falwell gives all men a bad name, then what would be your candid assessment of his counterparts in the Islamic world who not only believe and preach as rigidly as he does--but who also happen to believe in issuing FATWAS containing MURDER WARRANTS against their outspoken ideological opponents (at least Jerry Falwell doesn't issue FATWAS). Do these Islamic clerics merely give all men a bad name? Why are there so many of them? And why don't the more "moderate" Muslims ever seem to speak out against such things? We hear a lot about the so-called "moderate Muslim" majority, but their silence is deafening.

I think the answer is that it's fascism...married with religion...but it's fascism nonetheless.

[John Cole]

M,

Falwell is a national disgrace; unfortunately, some networks give this guy air time and seek out his opinion. (Of course, maybe he's right about everything. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif )

I have seen a number of moderate Muslims speaking out in America, but I think it will not be easy to find moderates speaking out from other areas around the world. Certainly, it may be dangerous for them to do so in some places. I freely admit that I don't have many facts at hand to make accurate judgments, so I'm reluctant to speculate too much, but I suspect, somehow, that religion serves to forward a politcal and social agenda rather than politics and terrorism being used to promulgate a religious world view. I haven't said this carefully enough, but I think you're also trying to distinguish between Fascism and religion. Perhaps I'm wrong, though, about the Muslim mindset.

Interestingly, as reported in Harper's Index, the rank of the US and Britain among nations of the world most favored by Muslim youth is 1,2.

John

[MMMMMM]

Yes, it may be dangerous for more moderate Muslims to speak out in other parts of the world. That guy in Iran was sentenced to death for merely asking why should only the clerics be given the authority to interpret the Koran.

I think you are right that religion serves to forward socio/political agendas. I also think that the essential world view of Islam is confrontational, absolutist and perhaps something like that of religious "conquistadores." It's all a very complex equation.

I am differentiating between Islam and Fascism, but it also seems that Islam has very strong fascistic components built into it.

The Muslim mindset must vary widely, of course, but from everything I've read, the themes of conquest by force, absolute rule and authority, dire punishments, and death to apostates and non-believers emerges. Actually, I'm in the process of forming the opinion that jihad is not merely something Islam advocates in special circumstances, but rather as a matter of course, until the entire non-Islamic world is subjugated and assimilated, and the entire world is then at peace under Allah. Of course, that won't be necessary if the world converts to Islam of its own free will.

Interesting about the choice of nations by Muslim youths--I suspect this has most to do with opportunity, but it would be interesting to know more regarding this.