Our good blog-friend, Dean Esmay, will no longer put up with Islamophobes:
You can be an Islamophobe, or you can contribute to Dean's World. You cannot do both.
This is meant for front-page contributors, submitters, or even commenters. It is time for you to make a choice, and to live by that choice. Because I certainly intend to.
Simply put, you must agree with all of the following assertions:
1) Islam does not represent the forces of Satan or the Anti-Christ bent on destruction of the Christian world.
2) There is no 1,400 year old "war with the West/Christianity" being waged by Muslims or anyone else.
3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.
4) Medieval, anachronistic, obscure terms like "dhimmitude" or "taqiyya" are suitable for polite intellectual discussion. They are not and never will be appropriate to slap in the face of everyday Muslims or their friends.
5) Muslims have no more need to prove that they can be good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism than anyone else does.
Is this a test of "ideological purity?"
Why yes. Yes it is.
If you cannot accept, wholeheartedly, all of the above 5 assertions--without exception or weasel-wording--then if you are a front page Dean's World contributor you should turn in your keys and say goodbye.
I'll have to be in agreement with Dean here - too often these days there is too much of a "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" mentality. This in contrast to the other side of the argument which can't see anything wrong with Moslems blowing up innocent people, as long as there's a chance an American soldier will be killed as well.
Make no mistake about it, we are in a war and a war, moreover, which is to the death - one side or the other will survive, the other will die. Period. But this is not a war between Islam and the West, and we dare not think of it as such.
Call the enemy what you will (my preference is the "Islamo-fascist" moniker), but he does have a general worldview and in this worldview not only are non-Moslems at risk, but most Moslems are as well - the enemy being certain that most Moslems are apostates due to the fact that most Moslems don't want to blow up children. While our enemy does base himself upon a singular view of Islam, they are no more representative of the normal run of Islam than obscure, hateful groups who claim to be Christians are representative of the normal run of Christianity.
At bottom, the problem we face is a spiritual one - and we here in the West aren't excused from this basic problem. Here in the West, our fundamental problem is the post-modern (if you will) problem...we've somuch disconnected ourselves from the eternal verities that we are confused and unsure of ourselves. In Islam, their long-term oppression, poverty and disconnect from the main currents of modern times has made them fearful and also unsure of themselves. We need to get back to basics, they need to understand that the basics and modernity are compatible. In our struggle against the common enemy, the Islamo-fascists who pervert the verities and condemn modernity, what we must do is mutually improve each other. In Iraq, with Americans and Iraqis fighting side by side, we see this in action - and the results are encouraging, even if there is very clearly a long way to go.
Blanket condemnations of Islam are as foolish as the blanket condemnations of Judeo-Christian civilization we get not only from our foreign enemies, but from our domestic dimwits. The key to victory - the key to peace - is to understand that we are all human beings, created by the same God. We must set ourselves to the stern task of fighting a cruel enemy, but while we do this we must keep in our hearts and minds the love, charity and justice which we want, and the people of the Moslem world want.
Posted by Mark Noonan at February 28, 2007 01:32 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
do we have more of an enemy in islamo fascists than in judeo christian fascists?
i'd say the latter is more insidious.
Posted by: Jonathan at February 28, 2007 07:40 AM
1. Whether representative of satan or not, there is a sizeable faction of fanatacists willing to interpret Islam as a mandate to subjugate or to destroy all that does not bend to Islam. They publicly advocate murder and other horrific atrocities against non-Muslims with no admonishment from the silent majority of Muslims that you assume exist. After all these years of deafening silence since 9/11, it is sheer folly to believe that this silent majority within Islam exists.
2. The "War with the West/Christianity" issue is nothing more than a quibble over nomenclature. Islam has been in a struggle with everything that is not Islam since its beginnings. It has conquered by the sword or by infiltration and conversion.
3. It is funny that Mr. Esmay should mention "weasel-wording" when he slips "as a religion" into his point #3. Islam differs from what we consider a modern religion because it is a totalitarian ideology. Like the various strains of communism, fascism, and modern leftist progressivism, the central tenet of Islam is that it cannot abide any other way for humans to believe. Ataturk understood this, he established draconian measures to try to subdue Islam's overreach into the secular realm, and even though he failed by any objective standard, Turkey had an impressive run through the last century relative to other Muslim-majority societies.
Further, using the word, "inherently", leads us down the garden path toward debating human nature rather than simply reviewing the best evidence available regarding Islam's compatibility with modernity: Left to themselves, how do majority-Muslim countries organize?
4. The concepts behind dhimmitude are reprehensible, and if "everyday Muslims" do not want to be "slapped" with it, then let's hear some vehement disavowal of the practices from that corner of the world. Of course, given taqiyya, could any such disavowal be accepted on its face?
5. I have no problem with assuming American Muslims to be "good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism". I will not convict a man for his beliefs--that's the left's game. A man's actions, however, are a different story. At this point in history, I believe it is prudent to have a jaundiced eye.
There is no more need to inflict "kill 'em all" on Muslims than there was on the Klan. What is needed is extinction of the behaviors [actions] incompatible with a world growing ever smaller as modernity spreads to every corner of the globe. The fanatics use Islam (as a religion) to justify the evil they inflict on the world. Because we non-Muslim moderns are straitjacketed by our own beliefs with respect to the charitable interpretation of others, it is the Muslims' burden to deny the fanatics this fig leaf today. Denying the nexus of Islam and Islamic fanaticism leaves us wilfully as blind to what tomorrow may bring as we were on 9/10/2001.
Like the Dutch, we are struggling through the paradox of tolerating intolerance as evidenced by the Minneapolis airport cabbies and the Al-Turki crimes.
President Bush leaves office in a scant 33 months. Even though I disagree with his "Religion of Peace" rhetoric, the actions he took on the strength of his convictions prevented an ugly backlash against American Muslims in response to 9/11. Would President Clinton with his broken moral compass, pathetic need to be liked, and addiction to polls have done the same? Maybe David Koresh could tell us.
This is your blog. Dean's World is Mr. Esmay's blog. Ok. While completely accepting that it is your right to set the tone here as you see fit, I must remark that your supposition that charity and justice are what the Muslim world want begs the question (in the original sense of "begging the question", not the bastardized sense so widely in misuse today) of whether the goals of Islam and modernity are compatible. That debate remains open regardless of whether Mr. Esmay disallows discussion at Dean's World.
Posted by: MikeO at February 28, 2007 07:50 AM
How does Dean reconcile #2 with the historical fact that Islam has been spread by conquest, as in northern Africa, the Middle East, Spain, Persia, and the Balkans (under the Ottoman Turks)?
How does Dean reconcile #3 with the facts that:
1) under Islam, a man may marry up to 4 wives, while a woman must limit herself to 1 husband (even when she shares him with up to 3 other women)?
2) in Islamic courts, a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man?
3) in the Islamic world, democracy is the exception (Indonesia, Turkey and the new Iraq, which is a work in progress), not the rule?
4) muslims are allowed to say "peace be upon you" only to other muslims?
5) the practice by some muslims, both historical and modern (in Muaretania and Sudan), of taking slaves? (That's not exactly what I would call "respect for minorities".)
6) that Islam has traditionally divided the world into Dar-al-Islam (house of Islam) and Dar-al-Harb (house of war)?
7) that mosques may be found in Jerusalem and Rome, but synagogues and churches are totally absent, not just from Mecca, but from all of Saudi Arabia?
8) that Saudi Arabia does not permit non-Islamic religious activity, even in private?
9) that non-Catholics may visit the Vatican, non-Jews may visit (and live in) the old city of Jerusalem, but non-muslims can't visit Mecca?
Islam has had its dark side. So has Christianity with its witch-hunts, Inquisition and Crusades (although these were a delayed response to the above-mentioned spread of Islam by conquest). If honest discussion of the negative aspects of Christianity is permissible, and does not constitute Christophobia, then honestly discussing the negative aspects of Islam must also be respected as being legitimate and not Islamophobic.
Posted by: Bigfoot at February 28, 2007 09:17 AM
I have a great deal of respect for Dean Esmay, but I have to agree with Bigfoot. I laughed out loud when I read #3.
Posted by: Retired Spook at February 28, 2007 09:30 AM
Good Luck with that, Dean. Just be sure and look for what the world under the control of Islam has produced, to see your future. Name five, or even one major invention, for the good of mankind, by a Moslem. Name one major or even minor, philanthropist Moslem. Name one well stocked Moslem library, currently in popular use. Moslem space program? Moslem charity that extends to non-Moslems? Major consruction instigated, planned, and carried out by Moslems? What is the name of the largest producer of autos, trucks, vehicles of transportation etc., owned and operated by a Moslem? Please name a prominent Moslem scientist, cardiologist, neurosurgeon? Name one prominent female Moslem legislative member, living outside of Iraq. Go ahead and shake hands with the Moslems, it doesn't matter to me. But I would prefer not to, since I have my own culture and religion that I am quite happy with. Unfortunately, the Moslems believe we are all born Moslem, and I would need to revert, as it were, back to my born state, or suffer death. Should you ever feel your gorge one day rising against this cancer on humanity called Islam, remember, you can't leave. And when the battle comes, we will treat you just as the enemy.
Posted by: Sean at February 28, 2007 09:32 AM
Good on you, Mark Noonan. On most issues we fundamentally disagree, but here you earned my respect.
To the comments of Bigfoot:
1) Whats it to ya?
2) The first Islam feminist conference was just hosted in Egypt. You must also differ between sharia-law and secular law.
3) Democracy must come from within. Some dont prefer it.
4) I say salaam to all muslims in my town, oslo, and get great service.
5) Slavery is not accepted except by wackos. Give them 20 years of CNN and those wild corners of the earth will become civilized, at least more than they will by bombing.
6) As do all monotheistic religions. Saved by the blood of Christ, hey?
7) On the other hands, Irans jews have a seat in parlament. Syria is the haven of religious tolerance.
8&9) Yeah, yeah, but really, whats it to ya?
Posted by: MK at February 28, 2007 10:22 AM
Islam MUST undergo its Reformation, like Christianity and Judaism did half a millenium ago, in order to survive the 21st Century. They MUST recognize that not all of Dar=al-Harb will not convert to their religion, especially at the point of the sword.
If they don't do this, it will be destroyed.
Posted by: Macker at February 28, 2007 12:59 PM
We could list atrocities and shameful practices by religion all day. Did Islam spread by the sword? yes. How does tha make it different from Christianity, which did repress other religions when they had power? We speak of our nation being founded in part by people seeking religious freedom, but they weren't fleeing Muslims, they were fleeing other Christians. The native population of the U.S. would probably not describe conversion efforts here as peaceful, or speak highly of Christian fairness. It's a pointless debate.
Posted by: someguy at February 28, 2007 01:07 PM
It's a pointless debate.
Only to you pointy-headed libs. Do Christians go around today, blowing themselves up, and beheading infidels "in the name of God?"
I'm not talking about 300 years ago, or whenever. I'm talking about now. Who's doing the killing, chump?
Posted by: God is Great--Libs I Hate... at February 28, 2007 01:22 PM
Can't say it better than MikeO and Bigfoot. Dean needs to pull the plank from his own eye before pulling the splinter from our eyes. With the plank in his eye he can't see the death, destruction, oppression and intolerance caused by Islam, as it is currently interpretted by a majority of Muslims.
Posted by: patrickb63 at February 28, 2007 03:57 PM
God is Great, why do you insist on calling McCain a pointy headed lib? He's the first person listed as an advisor on the site for Terror Free Tomorrow, whose recent poll concluded that "Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria."
We have a small minority of jews, Buddhists, Muslims, pagans, Bahai's, etc, but are overwhelmingly a nation that professes Christianity. We were also the nation that had the lowest number of people who rejected the premise that "bombing and other attacks aimed at civilians are never justified." and the highest number that said they are "often or sometimes justified." I would not conclude, notr does thie people doing the study, that Christianity causes one to support terrorism (if targetting civilians doesn't count as terrorism, we should just abandon the word). it's more complex.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html
is this part of reality's known liberal bias?
Posted by: someguy at February 28, 2007 06:14 PM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
do we have more of an enemy in islamo fascists than in judeo christian fascists?
i'd say the latter is more insidious.
1. Whether representative of satan or not, there is a sizeable faction of fanatacists willing to interpret Islam as a mandate to subjugate or to destroy all that does not bend to Islam. They publicly advocate murder and other horrific atrocities against non-Muslims with no admonishment from the silent majority of Muslims that you assume exist. After all these years of deafening silence since 9/11, it is sheer folly to believe that this silent majority within Islam exists.
2. The "War with the West/Christianity" issue is nothing more than a quibble over nomenclature. Islam has been in a struggle with everything that is not Islam since its beginnings. It has conquered by the sword or by infiltration and conversion.
3. It is funny that Mr. Esmay should mention "weasel-wording" when he slips "as a religion" into his point #3. Islam differs from what we consider a modern religion because it is a totalitarian ideology. Like the various strains of communism, fascism, and modern leftist progressivism, the central tenet of Islam is that it cannot abide any other way for humans to believe. Ataturk understood this, he established draconian measures to try to subdue Islam's overreach into the secular realm, and even though he failed by any objective standard, Turkey had an impressive run through the last century relative to other Muslim-majority societies.
Further, using the word, "inherently", leads us down the garden path toward debating human nature rather than simply reviewing the best evidence available regarding Islam's compatibility with modernity: Left to themselves, how do majority-Muslim countries organize?
4. The concepts behind dhimmitude are reprehensible, and if "everyday Muslims" do not want to be "slapped" with it, then let's hear some vehement disavowal of the practices from that corner of the world. Of course, given taqiyya, could any such disavowal be accepted on its face?
5. I have no problem with assuming American Muslims to be "good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism". I will not convict a man for his beliefs--that's the left's game. A man's actions, however, are a different story. At this point in history, I believe it is prudent to have a jaundiced eye.
There is no more need to inflict "kill 'em all" on Muslims than there was on the Klan. What is needed is extinction of the behaviors [actions] incompatible with a world growing ever smaller as modernity spreads to every corner of the globe. The fanatics use Islam (as a religion) to justify the evil they inflict on the world. Because we non-Muslim moderns are straitjacketed by our own beliefs with respect to the charitable interpretation of others, it is the Muslims' burden to deny the fanatics this fig leaf today. Denying the nexus of Islam and Islamic fanaticism leaves us wilfully as blind to what tomorrow may bring as we were on 9/10/2001.
Like the Dutch, we are struggling through the paradox of tolerating intolerance as evidenced by the Minneapolis airport cabbies and the Al-Turki crimes.
President Bush leaves office in a scant 33 months. Even though I disagree with his "Religion of Peace" rhetoric, the actions he took on the strength of his convictions prevented an ugly backlash against American Muslims in response to 9/11. Would President Clinton with his broken moral compass, pathetic need to be liked, and addiction to polls have done the same? Maybe David Koresh could tell us.
This is your blog. Dean's World is Mr. Esmay's blog. Ok. While completely accepting that it is your right to set the tone here as you see fit, I must remark that your supposition that charity and justice are what the Muslim world want begs the question (in the original sense of "begging the question", not the bastardized sense so widely in misuse today) of whether the goals of Islam and modernity are compatible. That debate remains open regardless of whether Mr. Esmay disallows discussion at Dean's World.
How does Dean reconcile #2 with the historical fact that Islam has been spread by conquest, as in northern Africa, the Middle East, Spain, Persia, and the Balkans (under the Ottoman Turks)?
How does Dean reconcile #3 with the facts that:
1) under Islam, a man may marry up to 4 wives, while a woman must limit herself to 1 husband (even when she shares him with up to 3 other women)?
2) in Islamic courts, a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man?
3) in the Islamic world, democracy is the exception (Indonesia, Turkey and the new Iraq, which is a work in progress), not the rule?
4) muslims are allowed to say "peace be upon you" only to other muslims?
5) the practice by some muslims, both historical and modern (in Muaretania and Sudan), of taking slaves? (That's not exactly what I would call "respect for minorities".)
6) that Islam has traditionally divided the world into Dar-al-Islam (house of Islam) and Dar-al-Harb (house of war)?
7) that mosques may be found in Jerusalem and Rome, but synagogues and churches are totally absent, not just from Mecca, but from all of Saudi Arabia?
8) that Saudi Arabia does not permit non-Islamic religious activity, even in private?
9) that non-Catholics may visit the Vatican, non-Jews may visit (and live in) the old city of Jerusalem, but non-muslims can't visit Mecca?
Islam has had its dark side. So has Christianity with its witch-hunts, Inquisition and Crusades (although these were a delayed response to the above-mentioned spread of Islam by conquest). If honest discussion of the negative aspects of Christianity is permissible, and does not constitute Christophobia, then honestly discussing the negative aspects of Islam must also be respected as being legitimate and not Islamophobic.
I have a great deal of respect for Dean Esmay, but I have to agree with Bigfoot. I laughed out loud when I read #3.
Good Luck with that, Dean. Just be sure and look for what the world under the control of Islam has produced, to see your future. Name five, or even one major invention, for the good of mankind, by a Moslem. Name one major or even minor, philanthropist Moslem. Name one well stocked Moslem library, currently in popular use. Moslem space program? Moslem charity that extends to non-Moslems? Major consruction instigated, planned, and carried out by Moslems? What is the name of the largest producer of autos, trucks, vehicles of transportation etc., owned and operated by a Moslem? Please name a prominent Moslem scientist, cardiologist, neurosurgeon? Name one prominent female Moslem legislative member, living outside of Iraq. Go ahead and shake hands with the Moslems, it doesn't matter to me. But I would prefer not to, since I have my own culture and religion that I am quite happy with. Unfortunately, the Moslems believe we are all born Moslem, and I would need to revert, as it were, back to my born state, or suffer death. Should you ever feel your gorge one day rising against this cancer on humanity called Islam, remember, you can't leave. And when the battle comes, we will treat you just as the enemy.
Good on you, Mark Noonan. On most issues we fundamentally disagree, but here you earned my respect.
To the comments of Bigfoot:
1) Whats it to ya?
2) The first Islam feminist conference was just hosted in Egypt. You must also differ between sharia-law and secular law.
3) Democracy must come from within. Some dont prefer it.
4) I say salaam to all muslims in my town, oslo, and get great service.
5) Slavery is not accepted except by wackos. Give them 20 years of CNN and those wild corners of the earth will become civilized, at least more than they will by bombing.
6) As do all monotheistic religions. Saved by the blood of Christ, hey?
7) On the other hands, Irans jews have a seat in parlament. Syria is the haven of religious tolerance.
8&9) Yeah, yeah, but really, whats it to ya?
Islam MUST undergo its Reformation, like Christianity and Judaism did half a millenium ago, in order to survive the 21st Century. They MUST recognize that not all of Dar=al-Harb will not convert to their religion, especially at the point of the sword.
If they don't do this, it will be destroyed.
We could list atrocities and shameful practices by religion all day. Did Islam spread by the sword? yes. How does tha make it different from Christianity, which did repress other religions when they had power? We speak of our nation being founded in part by people seeking religious freedom, but they weren't fleeing Muslims, they were fleeing other Christians. The native population of the U.S. would probably not describe conversion efforts here as peaceful, or speak highly of Christian fairness. It's a pointless debate.
It's a pointless debate.
Only to you pointy-headed libs. Do Christians go around today, blowing themselves up, and beheading infidels "in the name of God?"
I'm not talking about 300 years ago, or whenever. I'm talking about now. Who's doing the killing, chump?
Can't say it better than MikeO and Bigfoot. Dean needs to pull the plank from his own eye before pulling the splinter from our eyes. With the plank in his eye he can't see the death, destruction, oppression and intolerance caused by Islam, as it is currently interpretted by a majority of Muslims.
God is Great, why do you insist on calling McCain a pointy headed lib? He's the first person listed as an advisor on the site for Terror Free Tomorrow, whose recent poll concluded that "Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria."
We have a small minority of jews, Buddhists, Muslims, pagans, Bahai's, etc, but are overwhelmingly a nation that professes Christianity. We were also the nation that had the lowest number of people who rejected the premise that "bombing and other attacks aimed at civilians are never justified." and the highest number that said they are "often or sometimes justified." I would not conclude, notr does thie people doing the study, that Christianity causes one to support terrorism (if targetting civilians doesn't count as terrorism, we should just abandon the word). it's more complex.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html
is this part of reality's known liberal bias?