By Mike Ghouse & Imam Zia-ul-Haq Shaikh
It is a Muslim response to Geert Wilders documentary called "Fitna".
There are 14 mis-translated verses of Qur'aan in the movie that are listed along with the correct translation.
“Geert Wilders, Dutch conservative lawmaker, has made a sixteen minute film called "Fitna" (trouble) exposing the horrific passages of the Koran. Wilders refers to theses selected verses as “fascist.’” http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/29496.html
First of all, as a Muslim, I want to thank Geert Wilders for making this documentary, the verses, as he has quoted certainly sound fascist.
Continued at: http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2008/03/wilders-fitna-and-muslims_30.html
Showing posts with label Neo-Cons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Neo-Cons. Show all posts
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Esposito at Stanford
Esposito at Stanford
by Cinnamon Stillwell
FrontPageMagazine.com
February 15, 2008
http://www.meforum.org/article/1855
Mike Ghouse: I am yet to read a piece on how to achieve peace by Daniel Pipes, Bernard Lewis, Robert Spencer, Martin Kramer, Fouad Ajami, V.S. Naipaul, Max Boot, and Steven Emerson. Just about every thing they write is geared to manufacturing hate towards Muslims and Islam. Islam bashing is a good money making racket, fortunately there are enough suckers out there to fund their hate propaganda. I pray that these men spend their time in creating peace, they may actually achieve it.
John Esposito's work is focussed on removing the misundertandings about Islam and Muslims that will eventually lead to creating a better world. As peace makers, we have to work on mitigating conflicts and nurturing goodwill. A majority of people of all categories are peace loving and easy going, a few will always be in the dungeon of hate, all we can do is pray for them.
###
Georgetown professor John Esposito, director of the Saudi-financed Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding has a reputation as an apologist for radical Islam. And it's one he lived up to with a Stanford University speech last week titled, "Dying for God? Suicide Terrorism and Militant Islam."
Esposito claimed that Islamic terrorism grows primarily out of a sense of political and economic grievance and, of course, "occupation" on the part of "neo-colonial powers." This spin allowed him to deflect responsibility for Islamic terrorism to the West while negating the need for self-reflection among Muslims.
When an attendee asked him why no other impoverished or oppressed group around the world resorts to suicide bombings, Esposito stonewalled for several minutes before giving one of the few straight answers of the night: "I don't know."
Esposito displayed contempt for anyone calling for the theological and cultural reform of Islam. He described Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes and Princeton professor Bernard Lewis as "among the Darth Vaders of the world," and Pipes and Islam scholar Robert Spencer as "Islamophobes." Others on the receiving end of Esposito's vitriol included Martin Kramer, Fouad Ajami, V.S. Naipaul, Max Boot, and Steven Emerson. Esposito has a penchant for laying into his opponents, but this juvenile behavior fails to answer the substance of his detractors' points.
The Islamic Society of Stanford University and the Muslim Student Awareness Network at Stanford University (MSAN), co-sponsors of the Islamic Awareness Series 2008, seem to share Esposito's views. Despite calling this year's offering, "Our Jihad to Reform: The Struggle to Define Our Faith," MSAN makes clear in an op-ed on the subject that such "reform" has its limits. As they put it:
Our reform will not be dictated by the likes of Daniel Pipes, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and David Horowitz, according to their desires to subvert our tradition, but by Islamic scholars according to the Islamic notion of reform.
Apparently, Esposito fit the bill.
Esposito's leadership of a center dedicated to "Muslim-Christian understanding" failed to mitigate his hostility towards Christians. He referenced the Crusades three times in the first ten minutes, each in the false context of acts of purely Christian aggression. In a relativistic attempt to paint all religions as equally problematic, Esposito compared Islamic terrorists to "Christian militants," and referred repeatedly to "Christians blowing up abortion clinics" and the "Christian Right."
He reserved particular enmity for evangelist Pat Robertson who, according to Esposito, is on par with "Muslim extremists" and should be put "in prison" for publicly expressing a desire to see Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez assassinated. Yet Esposito has no qualms about calling for the release of Sami al-Arian, the former University of South Florida professor currently serving time in prison for terrorism-related charges.
Esposito's treatment of two self-described Arab Christian students in the audience further revealed this bias. When asked about the well-documented violence against Christians in Iraq and the persecution of Christians throughout the Muslim world, Esposito resorted at first to obfuscation and then bullying. After trying to chalk up the violence merely to "primitive" behavior, he cut off one young woman angrily, telling her that it was "an absurd question."
Esposito's standard answer to this line of questioning was that "all religions produce violence," followed by a litany of talking points in which he compared random and universally condemned acts of violence among Christians and Jews to the routine and often sanctioned bloodshed emanating from the Muslim world.
Moreover, he peddled the usual apologist fare on the definition of jihad. Like many of his contemporaries in the world of Middle East studies, Esposito downplayed violent jihad or holy war in favor of the "personal struggle" interpretation.
Esposito spoke hopefully about the results contained in his upcoming book, Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think. Citing statistics from the book, Esposito declared that anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is not based on hatred, but on "disappointment" that the U.S. isn't "living up to its ideals." Furthermore, Muslims, according to Esposito, admire the U.S., but believe that "Islam is denigrated."
It was this denigration that, according to Esposito, somehow justified the outrage in the Muslim world surrounding the Danish cartoon controversy. Esposito decried the current atmosphere in the West whereby, as he sees it, Jews and Christians are protected, but anything "anti-Islam" goes. Somehow Esposito managed to miss the death threats, imprisonment, lawsuits, firings, and condemnation meeting those who dare critique Islam these days.
Thanks to Esposito's equivocation, the Stanford students, both Muslim and otherwise, who came to take part in a series based on "awareness" and "reform" walked away with little prospect for either. But perhaps that was the intention all along.
Cinnamon Stillwell is the Northern California Representative for Campus Watch. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.
by Cinnamon Stillwell
FrontPageMagazine.com
February 15, 2008
http://www.meforum.org/article/1855
Mike Ghouse: I am yet to read a piece on how to achieve peace by Daniel Pipes, Bernard Lewis, Robert Spencer, Martin Kramer, Fouad Ajami, V.S. Naipaul, Max Boot, and Steven Emerson. Just about every thing they write is geared to manufacturing hate towards Muslims and Islam. Islam bashing is a good money making racket, fortunately there are enough suckers out there to fund their hate propaganda. I pray that these men spend their time in creating peace, they may actually achieve it.
John Esposito's work is focussed on removing the misundertandings about Islam and Muslims that will eventually lead to creating a better world. As peace makers, we have to work on mitigating conflicts and nurturing goodwill. A majority of people of all categories are peace loving and easy going, a few will always be in the dungeon of hate, all we can do is pray for them.
###
Georgetown professor John Esposito, director of the Saudi-financed Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding has a reputation as an apologist for radical Islam. And it's one he lived up to with a Stanford University speech last week titled, "Dying for God? Suicide Terrorism and Militant Islam."
Esposito claimed that Islamic terrorism grows primarily out of a sense of political and economic grievance and, of course, "occupation" on the part of "neo-colonial powers." This spin allowed him to deflect responsibility for Islamic terrorism to the West while negating the need for self-reflection among Muslims.
When an attendee asked him why no other impoverished or oppressed group around the world resorts to suicide bombings, Esposito stonewalled for several minutes before giving one of the few straight answers of the night: "I don't know."
Esposito displayed contempt for anyone calling for the theological and cultural reform of Islam. He described Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes and Princeton professor Bernard Lewis as "among the Darth Vaders of the world," and Pipes and Islam scholar Robert Spencer as "Islamophobes." Others on the receiving end of Esposito's vitriol included Martin Kramer, Fouad Ajami, V.S. Naipaul, Max Boot, and Steven Emerson. Esposito has a penchant for laying into his opponents, but this juvenile behavior fails to answer the substance of his detractors' points.
The Islamic Society of Stanford University and the Muslim Student Awareness Network at Stanford University (MSAN), co-sponsors of the Islamic Awareness Series 2008, seem to share Esposito's views. Despite calling this year's offering, "Our Jihad to Reform: The Struggle to Define Our Faith," MSAN makes clear in an op-ed on the subject that such "reform" has its limits. As they put it:
Our reform will not be dictated by the likes of Daniel Pipes, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and David Horowitz, according to their desires to subvert our tradition, but by Islamic scholars according to the Islamic notion of reform.
Apparently, Esposito fit the bill.
Esposito's leadership of a center dedicated to "Muslim-Christian understanding" failed to mitigate his hostility towards Christians. He referenced the Crusades three times in the first ten minutes, each in the false context of acts of purely Christian aggression. In a relativistic attempt to paint all religions as equally problematic, Esposito compared Islamic terrorists to "Christian militants," and referred repeatedly to "Christians blowing up abortion clinics" and the "Christian Right."
He reserved particular enmity for evangelist Pat Robertson who, according to Esposito, is on par with "Muslim extremists" and should be put "in prison" for publicly expressing a desire to see Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez assassinated. Yet Esposito has no qualms about calling for the release of Sami al-Arian, the former University of South Florida professor currently serving time in prison for terrorism-related charges.
Esposito's treatment of two self-described Arab Christian students in the audience further revealed this bias. When asked about the well-documented violence against Christians in Iraq and the persecution of Christians throughout the Muslim world, Esposito resorted at first to obfuscation and then bullying. After trying to chalk up the violence merely to "primitive" behavior, he cut off one young woman angrily, telling her that it was "an absurd question."
Esposito's standard answer to this line of questioning was that "all religions produce violence," followed by a litany of talking points in which he compared random and universally condemned acts of violence among Christians and Jews to the routine and often sanctioned bloodshed emanating from the Muslim world.
Moreover, he peddled the usual apologist fare on the definition of jihad. Like many of his contemporaries in the world of Middle East studies, Esposito downplayed violent jihad or holy war in favor of the "personal struggle" interpretation.
Esposito spoke hopefully about the results contained in his upcoming book, Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think. Citing statistics from the book, Esposito declared that anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is not based on hatred, but on "disappointment" that the U.S. isn't "living up to its ideals." Furthermore, Muslims, according to Esposito, admire the U.S., but believe that "Islam is denigrated."
It was this denigration that, according to Esposito, somehow justified the outrage in the Muslim world surrounding the Danish cartoon controversy. Esposito decried the current atmosphere in the West whereby, as he sees it, Jews and Christians are protected, but anything "anti-Islam" goes. Somehow Esposito managed to miss the death threats, imprisonment, lawsuits, firings, and condemnation meeting those who dare critique Islam these days.
Thanks to Esposito's equivocation, the Stanford students, both Muslim and otherwise, who came to take part in a series based on "awareness" and "reform" walked away with little prospect for either. But perhaps that was the intention all along.
Cinnamon Stillwell is the Northern California Representative for Campus Watch. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Will John McCain Apologize?
Will John McCain have the decency to apologize?
Mike Ghouse, Dallas
I turned the TV off on McCain this afternoon.
Every TV appearance I have watched in the last two months, even if it was for two minutes, Senator McCain unfailingly delivered his vitriol, "The greatest danger facing the world is Islamic Terrorism" and Governor Romney, who is off the radar now, used "Islamic Jihaad" to appease the right wing of the Republican party.
Senator McCain in his lust for power looses the basic American decency and courtesy to show respect for his fellow Americans who number 6 Million and I am one. It is an ironic number to remember.
When I turned the TV off, the words of Edmund Burke's quote came alive as a sad image, which was pointed out by a speaker at the Holocaust Museum recently. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Well my friends, I am doing my part. Indeed the world needs to be informed again and again about the Holocaust and how it began. Martin Niemöller's poem (first they came for the Jews…) resonates with me every day, when I see the eerie silence on the part of Media when a linguistic atrocity is committed right in front of their eyes.
When our President claimed they hate us for our freedom, not one media person asked for the proof or the polls, they consumed it gullibly. They, whoever they might be, do not hate America or Americans. Just as we do not hate any people but their governments, others do the same.
Manufacturing hate and fear to earn the support is shameful, but unfortunately that is the reality concocted by the Bush administration and the rightwing Republicans have imbibed it.
I am a Muslim and I am for America like 6 million other Muslims. We are Republicans and Democrats, we are religious as well as not religious, we are conservatives and liberals but mostly moderate just like most of the Americans.
Each one of us is contributing towards the peace and prosperity of our nation. We are taking the initiatives and putting in our efforts for one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.
On 9/11, I manned a Radio station for eight hours getting the Dallas community on the air, grieving with fellow Americans, organizing blood drives, wrote articles to prove to the enemies like Osama Bin Laden that all Americans are on the same side, irrespective of personal faith.
Since then every year, with the support of the Muslim community, I have dedicated my time on 9/11 to unite people, to bring people of all faiths, races and ethnicities to come together and pray for the safety and security of America, and rededicate our pledge to one nation under God with liberty and justice for all. To call Islam or Muslims as terrorists is offensive to me; I am not one, neither the six million of us are. If there is one, we are going to turn them over to the FBI, safety and security of our nation is as important to the 6 millions of as it is to the 294 Million others.
The fear mongers manufacture enemies to polarize the electorate for crass political advantage; Native Indians, African Americans, Jews, Wicca, Atheists and now Muslims are being targeted by them. Such short term gains are deleterious to peace and long term prosperity. As Americans, we need to stand up for each other for the good of every American.
Our leaders should demonstrate their leadership in building goodwill among all Americans and make America a model nation for coexistence and harmony. We need to make peace and prosperity as our goal and our leaders should take that pledge to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill. Every one will win at the end.
I expect Senator McCain to drop the hate rhetoric and apologize to Muslims in America, or at least have the decency not to use the words "Islamic Terrorism" or "Muslims Terrorism". Call Terrorism for what it is, do not suffix or prefix or hang my religion to the evil acts; fear mongering is also evil. I am a Muslim and all the Muslims that I know in America are working hard to keep us safe and secure. If you do not have moral courage to apologize, the least you can do is restore decency in your language.
Two decades ago, when I chose to become an American, I found myself in tune with the Republican party; liberty, less government, fiscal responsibility, capitalism, security and peace through strength. Today, the party is not the same and it does not reflect those values any more. When the Presidential candidate and a few (or more) Republicans resort to this divisive rhetoric, it puts many Republicans like me to re-evaluate being Republicans.
Additional comments:
I have received a ton of emails today from several clergy men and women who have undertaken it upon themselves to forward this article to many of their friends. However, I have received the following concern from a dear friend "Indeed, Islamic terrorism is one of the greatest dangers facing the world today. I'm mystified if you don't see that and agree with that. You are usually a strong campaigner against Islamic terrorism. You did not suggest that McCain said that Muslims or Islam is the greatest threat. You quote him as saying Islamic extremists are the greatest danger."
Here is the idea behind writing this piece.
My contention is that we must call Terrorism for what it is; a disgraceful evil. Let's not dilute it by suffixing or prefixing with another word like religion, in this case Islam or Muslim. This mistake leads to development of attitudes that are detrimental to peace and co-existence in our nation. A criminal father kills his daughter for not being able to have the animalistic control on them... on the same day there were other similar incidents in the paper... but one becomes Muslim Fascism or Islamic terrorism and others didn't even hit the radar. It is building of these attitudes that we need to guard the public from. This was a malignant attitude and it is not good for social health of our society.
Osama Bin Laden is not only an enemy of America, he is a bigger threat to Islam and Muslims around the world as he has put so many lives on jeopardy and gone completely against the principles of Islam, where saving one life is like saving the whole humanity. His followers or those who subscribe to his criminal mind set are terrorists.
By giving a label of Islam to a criminal like him, we are diluting the strength of the purpose in getting that criminal. Osama is our target and we need to go after him and his gang Al-Qaeda, the specific group. By adding the word Islam or Muslim, we are wrongly implicating the religion and its followers, and impotenting our ability to hit the target, we are not focused any more.
It is our President's escapism and gutlessness to deal with the terrorist that he jumped from Afghanistan to Iraq, and then he wanted to yet jump on Iran. He wanted to get some success some where, by God, go get him. And now, John McCain shamelessly claims that he will get Osama, the question is why did he not get him or put the plan to the President and push for it and save our nation a trillion dollars and 4000 lives and a Million Iraqi lives on our conscience? If you have the time understand our failures in dealing with the terrorism, here is an essay for you. http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2007/05/laser-barking-at-terrorists.html
Let our words mitigate conflicts be it within the family, friends, community or the society at large and that is what it takes to gradually build sustainable peace and attitudes of co-existence.
References:
- http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/Republican-or-Democrat-which-way.asp
- http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/John-Mcain-the-Bush-lite-Neocon.asp
- http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/UnitydayUSA_2007.asp
- http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/Did-Senator-McCain-Betray-America.asp
- http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2007/05/laser-barking-at-terrorists.html
Additional Articles on the subject added on 2/9/08 below:
Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@aol.com or (214) 325-1916
Additional Articles:
Opinion
Islam’s Role in the Elections
Opinion
Islam’s Role in the Elections
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=521544
By Sadia Ahsanuddin and Dilshoda Yergasheva
January 14, 2008
Throughout the 2008 presidential elections, several candidates have sought to utilize anti-Islam prejudices to their advantage.
In January of 2007, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign team deliberately turned the public’s attention to Senator Barack Hussein Obama’s Muslim heritage in order to harm his popularity. Obama, in turn, worked very hard to distance himself from any past or present affiliation with Muslims and Islam, citing the Bible in his speeches and emphasizing his personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Republicans, for their part, haven’t been much better. Formulaic prefaces from candidates about how “the enemy” is radical Islam hardly veil more broad based, antagonistic sentiments they harbor against Muslims generally. The Christian Science Monitor, for example, reported that Mitt Romney discounted out-of-hand the possibility of appointing a Muslim to his cabinet, were he to take office. In a recent speech to Republicans in New Hampshire, Mike Huckabee, speaking about energy reform and US reliance on foreign oil, stated, “We [will] no longer let the Middle Eastern people hold us hostage, wrecking our economy as well our environment.” More to the point, John Deady, co-chair of Veterans for Rudy, said: “[Rudy Giuliani] has got, I believe, the knowledge and the judgment to attack one of the most difficult problems in current history, and that is the rise of the Muslims.
“Make no mistake about it,” he continued, “This hasn’t happened for a thousand years. These people are very, very dedicated. They’re also very smart in their own way, and we need to keep the feet to the fire and keep pressing these people until we defeat them or chase them back to their caves, or, in other words, get rid of them.”
Islam is not antithetical to all things American. Yet, rather than try to build bridges and work towards engagement and understanding, since September 11, 2001 politicians have preferred to exploit people’s insecurities and biases in order to stoke fears about the supposed threat that Muslims pose to free and democratic societies. The ubiquity of anti-Muslim attitudes in American political rhetoric, even if it is only implicit, not only alienates Muslims around the world, but emboldens intolerant sects of American society. So far, this strategy has sadly shown itself to be politically successful. Being perceived as sympathetic towards Islam and Muslims is taken as evidence of spineless foreign policy where intolerance and fiery diatribes are to a candidate’s credit.
Is this the sort of America we want to live in? How can a nation founded on the precepts of equality and tolerance elect leaders in part based on their perceived ability to malign a religion that over one-sixth of the world’s population subscribes to?
Many Americans, as a result, have developed the false sense that Islam and the West are destined to clash. This misconception of a binary opposition that hawkish politicians use to paint the picture of the current balance of world power allows politicians to sell an overly simplistic picture of America’s interaction with the Muslim world. By reducing America’s relationship to the rest of the world to such black and white terms, politicians are able to derive power as crusaders against a perceived sinister force.
One only needs to watch the recent campaign ads to see these themes pandered to the masses. One such ad, approved by Giuliani, depicts a violent, irrational, out of control Muslim world. The voiceover forebodingly declares, “an enemy without borders,” and, “a people perverted,” in sync with footage of crowds of Muslims, fire, and explosions .This is all set to unearthly, frightening background music. The message is quite clear: Muslims are evil and they’re coming to get you. The ad ends with a case for Giuliani as the strong and capable defender of America: “In a world when the next crisis is a moment away, America needs a leader who’s ready.”
Such dramatic presentations create an artificial sense of unquestioned moral authority, where America and its interests constitute the “good guys” and everyone else is the “bad guys,” resulting in a populace that desires leaders who will take strong action against an evil force.
This sort of demonizing, hate-filled rhetoric is discrimination at its worst. Pitting voters against an illusory common enemy both abroad and at home, campaigners are jeopardizing the safety of six to seven million Muslim, who live among other Americans who are increasingly likely to perceive them as a threat. In doing so, campaigners are compromising the values upon which this nation was founded. Wasn’t this country established by individuals who sought refuge from the religious oppression that pervaded their homelands? Are we not a nation that takes pride in its diversity and inclusiveness? By allowing presidential campaigns to antagonize a minority group within our population, we as Americans are not fulfilling our duty to safeguard the values of equality and tolerance our predecessors fought for.
Sadia Ahsanuddin ’09 is administrative editor of “Ascent Magazine: Harvard and MIT Students on Islam and Society,” and is a history concentrator in Dunster House. Dilshoda Yergasheva ’09 is internal chair of the Harvard Islamic Society and is an applied mathematics concentrator in Cabot House.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Livingstone on Muslims
Ken Livingstone on Muslims, Islam and the media.
Moderator Mike Ghouse' note:
Unfortunately the media across the globe is brain washed by the Neocons (war monger extremists) as well. If a father murders his daughter and if he is a Muslim, it is all over the news, across the world and a fodder for talk show hosts for months...until another one comes along. What they deliberately fail to report on the very same day, they can find at least three other fathers killing their daughters for disobedience of some other nonsense... and their religion is never put on the media. This has got to go. Fairness in reporting must come together. There is no doubt about Muslim bias as well.
Cranmer has been emailed a document by ‘Spurius Lartius, London Citizen’ which examines a number of issues about Islam and attitudes towards British Muslims but not in the way the authors intended. It is published by The Greater London Authority and was commissioned by the Mayor of London, and is entitled ‘The search for common ground: Muslims, non-Muslims and the UK media.
Mayor Livingstone gives pride of place to the finding that in a typical week 91 percent of the news articles in the UK press mentioning Muslims or Islam were negative. He means that we now have firm proof that the UK Press is biased against Islam and Muslims. And yet what were these articles about?
A very large proportion of the stories are about terrorism in Britain, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Given that the events taking place in these countries, it is difficult to see how the reporting could possibly be positive, or why Mr Livingstone is insisting that a positive spin should be put on them.
This pattern of perpetual negativity is replicated across all newspapers. Even The Guardian and the Independent convey the same sentiments. One might perhaps expect The Guardian, which was also the only newspaper with journalists on the study team, to be more positively disposed to Islam and Muslims, but it rarely is.
What does this prove?
Should Newspapers carry a Government Health Warning: ‘Whatever you think of this story or this biased newspaper, your Muslim neighbour is really a nice guy’? Have the good stories been missed or purposely omitted, even by The Guardian? Perhaps the UK Press has failed to report the ‘good news’ stories like the following that never made it to their pages:
● Saudi authorities welcome plans to build large church in Riyadh.
● Muhammad Bari, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), says arranged marriages are not a good idea and not practical in a developed country like the UK. He expects both his daughters to go to university in another part of the country. They will make social circles of their own, but he and his wife look forward to being introduced to the first serious boyfriends.
● Girls now surpass boys in numbers in school and exam results in Afghanistan.
● Birmingham will not become a majority Muslim city. The birth rate amongst Muslim women is now at a level comparable with the rest of the population. The rate was double the national rate but has come down as Muslim women have gained equal status with men and stopped believing large families are a cultural-economic necessity.
● East London mosque will do all in its power to terminate the lease of a shop on mosque premises selling literature extolling hatred and jihad against non-Muslims.
● Sir Iqbal Sacranie, former secretary general of the MCB, says there are limits to multiculturalism.
● Pakistan repeals law that requires a female rape victim to have four male witnesses. Iran stops stoning and public executions.
● Dr Al-Qaradawi says Muslim women in the UK should not wear a veil. You only cover your face in the West if you are unwell, cold, or in mourning. Otherwise covering your face means you want to hide your true feelings and it is very rude.
Or there is another grim possibility: the authors of this report believe the persecution, murder and mayhem throughout much of the Islamic world, and events like the London and Glasgow bombings, are nothing to do with Islam(-ism).
The report claims that a theme has developed in the British media the British way of life is under threat, and this is blamed on the pernicious influence of ‘political correctness’. It examines four newspaper stories expressing such views in relation to relatively trivial incidents.
• the alleged banning of piggy banks by a building society in a Lancashire town
• the alleged banning of Christmas by a local council in London
• the use of BP (Before Present) instead of BC (Before Christ) at a museum in the West country
• the Crown Prosecution Service taking a 10-year-old boy to court for playground insults in Salford.
The report makes an effective rebuttal of all these stories. They were either completely false or based on embellishment and twisting of innocent facts. But it goes on to make the most remarkable assertion:
‘…. even though real fears exist. These arise not from so-called political correctness, nor from the presence of Muslims in modern Britain, but from social and economic change, globalisation, and new international relationships.’
The report may have conveyed a degree of objectivity if it had mentioned the many true stories - ranging from the ridiculous to the sinister - that the British people have good cause to perceive as threatening to British customs and tradition> How about:
● Marks & Spencer shop assistant refuses to sell book of Bible stories.
● Imam’s daughter threatened with death because she converted to Christianity.
● British government formally recognises polygamy (but only for Muslims).
● Muslim staff in supermarket refuse to serve alcohol.
● PC forced to resign because he gave Muslim colleague bottle of wine and pack of bacon for a Christmas present.
● Female Muslim students refuse to shake hands with university Chancellor at degree awards ceremony.
● Muslim medical students refuse to treat illness caused by alcohol.
● Three pigs story ruled offensive to Muslims
Cranmer has covered a few of thee stories, and all are true and sourced. He shall remind communicants and readers of a few:
Imam’s daughter threatened: A British imam’s daughter who converted to Christianity has been forced to live under police protection because her family threatened to kill her. Her brother told her that he could not be responsible for his actions if she did not return to Islam. (The Times, 10 December 2007)
Britain recognises polygamy: The Department for Work and Pensions recognises polygamous marriages that are conducted overseas. The department states that claimants in polygamous unions are entitled to ‘additional allowances for each additional partner’. This is an exception solely for Muslims. (The Daily Telegraph, 4 Bruary 2008)
PC forced to resign: The constable gave the gift as part of a ‘Secret Santa’ game at Luton police station during a Christmas day party. The Muslim policeman recipient of the present did not complain, he thought the joke was just a bad joke, not funny, though imam was found said what a crime this was, insulting Islam. (The Daily Telegraph, 15 January 2008)
Three pigs: The remake of the children’s classic, the Three Little Pigs, was criticised by BECTA, the education technology agency, because ‘the use of pigs raises cultural issues’. (The Times and Daily Telegraph, 24 January 2008)
Although this report is commissioned and paid for by the Mayor of London (i.e., London taxpayers) it gives considerable attention to the views of the Muslim Council of Britain, some of which are warped. It is absurd to state that the ‘real causes of anxiety over Islam’ are to do with globalisation, the long-term decline in Britain’s position as a world power, Britain in Europe, devolution, the end of empire, or the rapid advance of social pluralism
The decline of British influence and the end of Empire have little relevance to anyone in Britain under pensionable age. And how devolution, Britain in Europe, or social pluralism could have a bearing on, say, the revulsion Britons feel about the murder of teachers in Afghanistan, hate preaching in British mosques, blowing up tube trains, or death for insults, is a complete mystery.
The truth is much simpler. Certain Islamic beliefs and practices are at variance with political liberalism. Of course, not all Muslims in the UK seek to aggressively assert these beliefs or practices, but very few challenge those who do.
Causes of concern include the undeniable belief that:
● death is a just punishment for apostasy or insulting Islam or the prophet.
● women are viewed as subordinate to men even if they do have rights.
● Islam should be pre-eminent above all other religions.
● Muslims have a duty to impose Islam, by force or deception if necessary.
● Muslims have a duty to usher in Shari’a law.
● Islam is a political movement and should dominate in the public sphere.
Some of the basic tenets of Shari’a law are incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is no equality before the law between men and women and between Muslims and non-Muslims, and there is no freedom to choose and change religion.
‘Common ground’ is important but it is not the answer. It is possible that both you and your Muslim neighbour are both unhappy with binge drinking, underage sex, immodesty, break up of families, or Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but there comes a point where all the common ground in the world will not compensate for the irreconcilable differences. This is what the report fails to address.
The concluding part of the study presents a summary of how the authors believe the West views the problems concerning Muslims in Europe. It identifies:
1 Failure to integrate
2 Unreasonable demands
3 Mixed loyalties
4 Support for extremism
5 Obscurantism
6 Incompatibility of values and interests
7 Lack of Muslim leadership
8 Corroborating evidence from overseas
And some of these are reasoned:
1 Barriers to integration
The vast majority of Muslims in Western Europe would like to be fully integrated – though not culturally assimilated – in the economic and political affairs of west European societies but are prevented from doing so by the factors summarised in points 2 to 5 below.
2 Material disadvantage
Most Muslims in Western Europe are people who came, or are the children or grandchildren of people who came, to meet labour shortages. The jobs they were recruited to fill were poorly-paid, often dirty and in labour intensive heavy industries. Material disadvantage continues, as do discrimination and racist violence.
3 Negativity in the media and the general climate of opinion
Media coverage of Muslims, particularly but not only in the press, is almost entirely negative and hostile – when, that is, there is any coverage at all.
4 Foreign policy
Much of European foreign policy works to the disadvantage of Muslims overseas.
5 Policing
Since September 11th, and even more so since terrorist attacks within Europe, many Muslims have had experiences, either directly themselves or indirectly through their friends, families and acquaintances, of heavy-handed and insensitive policing, often in the full glare of the media.
6 Self-criticism
Muslims accept that some of the criticisms made of them by others are legitimate – the criticisms are not necessarily instances of ‘Islamophobia’. Muslims are ready to debate these, both with others and internally amongst themselves. Appropriate self-criticism is difficult or impossible, however, within the wider context of hostility and suspicion listed in points 2 to 5 above.
It is incredible that points 2-5 are given as reasons why Muslims in Europe are not integrating. If they can be considered barriers to integration they can even better be considered as reasons for integration. To assert such reasons can only be seen as another attempt to shift the debate about Islam on to more comfortable ground. It is saying that we are not going to discuss ‘your’ issues: we don’t recognise them; they are ill-founded.
In the final paragraph, the authors have realised that to slam the door shut looks a little bad, so as an afterthought they say: ‘…some of the criticisms made of them [Muslims] by others are legitimate’, but this is evidently qualified by points 2-5 above.
Yet in an unguarded moment, the report gets to the heart of the matter which no amount of ‘common ground’ is going to solve. It identifies the true nature of the Islamist position as perceived and interpreted by the authors of this report, which is that Muslims want political and economic integration but not cultural integration, and that this should be actively pursued.
This is nonsense.
Culture is at both the foundation and the heart of society, and finds expression both in and from its politics and economics. It is not possible to opt out of one dimension of this intricate fusion, for culture includes such things as attitudes to crime and punishment, law and order, how business is done, freedom of individuals, the status of men and women, acceptable humour, freedom of religion and freedom from religion. It permeates every level of social life.
Yet the authors of this report suggest that Muslims want all the benefits of an advanced economy and liberal society, they want a better life, they want political power and influence, but they should be free to reject and indeed aggressively oppose the very religio-political foundations in which these had their genesis.
This is separatism. There is no separatist committee, no separatist master plan, no separatist party, though there are groupings of the like-minded - like the MCB - who are incrementally taking the UK along that path. ‘Multiculturalism’ is the codeword. The whole basis of this study is that Multiculturalism is essentially a good thing.
Culture is not, of course, in any sense static, and over time both internal and external influences bring about changes which cohere with what preceded. But now we have a new phenomenon: such influences are aggressively challenging what preceded and demanding conformity to the new context. It is no longer an expectation that aliens should adapt to the culture of the host nation, but that the host nation should adapt to the cultural demands of the alien. This is giving rise to the foundation of permanent communities based on a different culture. The operation of Shari’a law in certain areas of the UK is one of the forces creating separate Islamic communities - the ‘no-go areas’ to which the Bishop of Rochester alludes - which will lead inexorably to the balkanisation of Britain, and is sowing the seeds of future conflict and bloodshed which will be borne by future generations. All enthusiastically supported by Mayor Ken Livingstone.
God help us.
posted by Cranmer at 11:58 AM
9 Comments:
najistani said...
Red Ken has recently admitted that the Muslim problem will cost him votes.
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2250379,00.html
"I made clear these outrages were the acts of a group of murderous criminals who did not represent the mainstream views of any major faith, and called on Londoners not to be divided. While the Guardian, and most Londoners, thought this was the right response, it unleashed criticism from many of those who believe in the so-called "clash of civilisations" and the "war on terror".
It is not at all surprising that in the campaign now being waged against me are some former leftwingers, such as Bright and Nick Cohen, whose fear of multiculturalism and Islamism has tipped dangerously towards a paranoid Islamophobia that threatens harmonious community relations in this city. This group wants the mayoral election not to be waged on central issues for Londoners - affordable homes, public transport, investment in policing, radical policies to tackle climate change - but on their own obsessions."
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/02/ken-livingstone-on-muslims-islam-and.html
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Scorekeeping condemnations
Scorekeeping condemnations
Moderator Mike Ghouse comments : The following two articles are a good example of score keeping by any two groups, in this case the Jewish and Muslim Communities.
The two articles are:
i) Jews know how to protest and
ii) where are the condemnations
God has blessed me with the friendship of people from all faiths, (friends from every symbol on the foundation for pluralism website and more) and it amazes me the amount of bias that is prevalent among people.
Muslims (a few) tend to paint Jews with a broad brush and certainly the opposite is also true, I have witnessed it and have accounted for it in my writings. One of these days, when I have the funds, I would like to launch research on determining percentages. I believe until I am proven wrong, the same percent of fanatics can be found in every group, religious, civic, ethnic or nationalistic and that I believe is less than 1/50th of 1%. The average Jew or a Muslim when in company of Neocons** instinctively assumes that there is no moderate on the other side. It is a darn shame. But when you reason them, they see that they blurred on the truth.
I know it is bias because when you are with the others as friends, you will develop an understanding and prejudices fade away.
Well, there are two organizations in the US, fairly large ones who oppose the war in Iraq and who are taking action, as much as the Palestinians and Muslims are doing about the Gaza. I had posted that piece by Jewish Alliance for Peace and Justice. This is the same broken record the Neocons play; that Muslims have not condemned 9/11 – there is plenty condemnation, but they don’t even see it, the Media has to bring the truth to the American Public and the world. What does it take?
The truth is there as many Jews as Muslims (percentages) who seek peace; there as many Jews as Muslims who do nothing about anything; either they don't care or too selfish to think about others; there are as many extremists in Jews as in Muslims who would do harm to the other for a selfish short term again.
What we need to do it drop the prejudices first, look for facts and not fiction shoved down our throats by our Neocon* brothers.
* Neocons are extremists in every group be it Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jews or others. These babies are afraid of every little thing that happens around and take advanatage of the opportunity and mint money by frightening the easy prey through books and their talks. I wish the frightened rats don't open their check book until they demand that the necons work for peace, mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill and promise to stay out of the frightening business and building chaos.
The following two articles are a good contrast....
-----------------------------------------
JEWS KNOW HOW TO PROTEST
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/950381.html
Last update - 15:31 02/02/2008
British Jewish group sparks outrage with Gaza blockade criticism
By Saul Sadka
Tags: Israel, British Jewry, Gaza
LONDON - A controversial coalition of prominent Jewish activists and academics has reignited controversy in the British Jewish community after taking out an paid advertisement in The Times this week calling for Israel to lift its economic blockade of the Gaza Strip and accusing the state of breaching international law. "Independent Jewish Voices" was formed a year ago and counts Nobel laureate Harold Pinter and actor Stephen Fry among its prominent signatories. Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm is also a signatory though neither he nor Fry and Pinter - the groups most recognisable names - signed Wednesday's statement.
The group was formed to provide an alternative to the Board of Deputies of British Jews - a cross communal Jewish organisation dating back to 1760 - who the IJV felt were inauthentically presenting themselves as the exclusive voice of Judaism in Britain. IJV members say that the Board of Deputies refuses to allow criticism of Israel and this presents a unrepresentative picture of Jewish opinion in the U.K. The statement which appeared on the inside pages of the paper was signed by 250 of the groups members. Entitled "End the siege of Gaza!", the statement condemned Israel's actions in blockading Gaza as a violation of international law, and also called for a halt to Palestinian rocket attacks. "The collective punishment of the population of Gaza is illegal under international law.
We condemn attacks on all civilians including the rocket attacks on the residents of Southern Israel," said the statement. The statement also called for an end to the blockade and for "both sides to observe a ceasefire." Feminist academic Jacqueline Rose who describes herself as a "critic of Zionism," is one of the groups principle advocates. She said that the motivation for the statement was in response to the current crisis in Gaza. "IJV arose partly in response to our sense that bodies in the U.K. who claim to represent British Jewry make statements as though they were speaking for all British Jews. While many of us have a high profile - we are not claiming that we are excluded from the debate - we formed to make it clear that British Jews do not speak with one voice."
The group has views on everything from th right of Norman Finkelstein to speak at the Oxford Union which they support, to the proposed academic and economic boycotts of Israel which members disagree on. Rose says that while the group disagrees over the boycott they "support it being discussed openly, something which regrettably may be illegal in the UK." She argues that "the battle against antisemitism is weakened by its association with criticism of Israel." Rose says that the network took out the advertisement in The Times rather that what might be seen as its more obvious political home
The Guardian to get its message beyond the left wing readership who would generally approve of the group's credo, to a more mainstream audience. She argues that "Israel must negotiate with the elected Hamas government for there to be any kind of a solution to the rocket fire on the south." The group caused a media storm following its launch, with a full page advertisement in The Times, a week long discussion on The Guardian's Website and extensive media coverage. However, the group does not take a firm position on the proposed academic and economic boycott of Israel, with some of its members supportive while other are in opposition.
One of its signatories, Tony Greenstein is a trade unionist who has publicly called for a boycott of Israeli goods and is also a member of "Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods." A critic of the group, lawyer and academic Anthony Julius, disputed the claim that Israel was in breach of international law. "It is by no means unarguable that Israel is right to treat Gaza as an enemy territory.
It is hard to see on what basis Israel's actions can be seen as a violation and only one or two of the signatories could grapple with issues involved." Julius argues that the group is "fraying at the edges and has lost some of its membership. It is unable to speak with a coherent voice on any issue, such as the academic boycott of Israel." Related articles:
· New group aims to open debate among British Jews on Israel
· British Jewish group strikes back at new left-wing group
· Jonathan Spyer / The anti-Israel lobby
· Richard Silverstein / In praise of the Jewish blogosphere
Where are the Jewish American condemnations?
2/1/2008 - By: Sherri Muzher
For years now, I have heard demands that we Americans Palestinian descent condemn various military actions. And we do because innocents should never pay for the sins of their military forces and government. I'd like to know if the American Jewish community will ever condemn the intentional starvation and collective punishment of an entire Gazan population?
The silence has been deafening at this inhumanity. I've heard that Palestinians have invited these brutal measures after they elected Hamas during internationally-observed elections, since Hamas refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Setting aside that the elections were about corruption, Palestinians said nothing when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert invited Avigdor Leiberman to his cabinet. Leiberman, once praised by Jewish extremists for supporting the deportation of Palestinians inside Israel, is known as an avid racist.
There were no condemnations from the American Jewish community about this repulsive appointment despite their long history of persecution.
I've also heard that 1.5 million Palestinians are to be collectively punished for the acts of a few militants firing homemade rocket into Sderot. If our government believed that, all of us Michiganian's would have been punished for the indirect role of the Michigan Militia during the Oklahoma City bombing in1995. But that is not what America stands for. People are not expected to pay for the acts of others.
What does the American Jewish community believe?
In February 22, 2006, Israel's Gideon Levy of Haaretz reported on a disturbing story, "Everyone agreed on the need to impose an economic siege on the Palestinian Authority, and Weissglas, as usual, provided the punch line: "It's like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won't die," the advisor joked, and the participants reportedly rolled with laughter."
That's supposed to be funny?
And now nearly two years later, their "joke" has become a tragic reality with tens of thousands of Palestinians having to forcibly destroy parts of a wall to stream into Egypt to get food, fuel, and other necessities. Where was the American Jewish condemnation for this siege? When Israel prevents Palestinians from getting vital medical care and preventing dozens of Palestinian university students from returning to their studies in Europe., where are the condemnations from the American Jewish community?
When Gazan children go to school hungry and unable to concentrate, where are the American Jewish condemnations?
According to the Defense for Children International (DCI), there were 385 children doing time in Israeli prisons as of July, 2007. The DCI also notes that, "amongst the denial of many other fundamental rights, children do not have the right to a parent, a responsible adult or a lawyer to be present during the interrogation process. On average, Palestinian children are detained before being taken to court from between 8 and 21 days. As with adults, under Military Order 378, a child can be detained and interrogated for up to 90 days without charge."
Where are the American Jewish condemnations?
The list of human rights violations go on and on, whether they are noted by Amnesty International or Israel's own B'tselem. And with so many people having access to information on the internet, there is little excuse to be unfamiliar with at least some of the eye-opening tragedies on the ground. It's important to point out that The Israeli Coalition Against the Siege at least attempted to send a protest convoy to the Gaza border, on January 26, in coordination with the Palestinian Coalition. Parallel actions inside Gaza and in Ramallah, demanding a complete end to the blockade of Gaza, will also take place. Thankfully, there is more coordination between Palestinians and Israelis abroad. Rarely, here in the States.
I am often reminded of a conversation I observed between an Israeli and an American Jew years ago. The American Jew had expressed incredulity that another Israeli in the forum did something not particularly upstanding. The Israeli person responded that "We're human. We have bad people, too"
I left the forum a short while later but the conversation stayed with me. I was appreciative that the Israeli was more realistic about humanity and utterly disappointed in the star-struck tone of the American Jew. If peace is ever going to prevail, American Jews are going to have to look honestly at the realities on the ground and start speaking up. Staying silent while children starve from an Israeli siege can only be interpreted as approval. Is that the message we're supposed to get?Sherri Muzher is a contributing writer and journalist
Moderator Mike Ghouse comments : The following two articles are a good example of score keeping by any two groups, in this case the Jewish and Muslim Communities.
The two articles are:
i) Jews know how to protest and
ii) where are the condemnations
God has blessed me with the friendship of people from all faiths, (friends from every symbol on the foundation for pluralism website and more) and it amazes me the amount of bias that is prevalent among people.
Muslims (a few) tend to paint Jews with a broad brush and certainly the opposite is also true, I have witnessed it and have accounted for it in my writings. One of these days, when I have the funds, I would like to launch research on determining percentages. I believe until I am proven wrong, the same percent of fanatics can be found in every group, religious, civic, ethnic or nationalistic and that I believe is less than 1/50th of 1%. The average Jew or a Muslim when in company of Neocons** instinctively assumes that there is no moderate on the other side. It is a darn shame. But when you reason them, they see that they blurred on the truth.
I know it is bias because when you are with the others as friends, you will develop an understanding and prejudices fade away.
Well, there are two organizations in the US, fairly large ones who oppose the war in Iraq and who are taking action, as much as the Palestinians and Muslims are doing about the Gaza. I had posted that piece by Jewish Alliance for Peace and Justice. This is the same broken record the Neocons play; that Muslims have not condemned 9/11 – there is plenty condemnation, but they don’t even see it, the Media has to bring the truth to the American Public and the world. What does it take?
The truth is there as many Jews as Muslims (percentages) who seek peace; there as many Jews as Muslims who do nothing about anything; either they don't care or too selfish to think about others; there are as many extremists in Jews as in Muslims who would do harm to the other for a selfish short term again.
What we need to do it drop the prejudices first, look for facts and not fiction shoved down our throats by our Neocon* brothers.
* Neocons are extremists in every group be it Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jews or others. These babies are afraid of every little thing that happens around and take advanatage of the opportunity and mint money by frightening the easy prey through books and their talks. I wish the frightened rats don't open their check book until they demand that the necons work for peace, mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill and promise to stay out of the frightening business and building chaos.
The following two articles are a good contrast....
-----------------------------------------
JEWS KNOW HOW TO PROTEST
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/950381.html
Last update - 15:31 02/02/2008
British Jewish group sparks outrage with Gaza blockade criticism
By Saul Sadka
Tags: Israel, British Jewry, Gaza
LONDON - A controversial coalition of prominent Jewish activists and academics has reignited controversy in the British Jewish community after taking out an paid advertisement in The Times this week calling for Israel to lift its economic blockade of the Gaza Strip and accusing the state of breaching international law. "Independent Jewish Voices" was formed a year ago and counts Nobel laureate Harold Pinter and actor Stephen Fry among its prominent signatories. Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm is also a signatory though neither he nor Fry and Pinter - the groups most recognisable names - signed Wednesday's statement.
The group was formed to provide an alternative to the Board of Deputies of British Jews - a cross communal Jewish organisation dating back to 1760 - who the IJV felt were inauthentically presenting themselves as the exclusive voice of Judaism in Britain. IJV members say that the Board of Deputies refuses to allow criticism of Israel and this presents a unrepresentative picture of Jewish opinion in the U.K. The statement which appeared on the inside pages of the paper was signed by 250 of the groups members. Entitled "End the siege of Gaza!", the statement condemned Israel's actions in blockading Gaza as a violation of international law, and also called for a halt to Palestinian rocket attacks. "The collective punishment of the population of Gaza is illegal under international law.
We condemn attacks on all civilians including the rocket attacks on the residents of Southern Israel," said the statement. The statement also called for an end to the blockade and for "both sides to observe a ceasefire." Feminist academic Jacqueline Rose who describes herself as a "critic of Zionism," is one of the groups principle advocates. She said that the motivation for the statement was in response to the current crisis in Gaza. "IJV arose partly in response to our sense that bodies in the U.K. who claim to represent British Jewry make statements as though they were speaking for all British Jews. While many of us have a high profile - we are not claiming that we are excluded from the debate - we formed to make it clear that British Jews do not speak with one voice."
The group has views on everything from th right of Norman Finkelstein to speak at the Oxford Union which they support, to the proposed academic and economic boycotts of Israel which members disagree on. Rose says that while the group disagrees over the boycott they "support it being discussed openly, something which regrettably may be illegal in the UK." She argues that "the battle against antisemitism is weakened by its association with criticism of Israel." Rose says that the network took out the advertisement in The Times rather that what might be seen as its more obvious political home
The Guardian to get its message beyond the left wing readership who would generally approve of the group's credo, to a more mainstream audience. She argues that "Israel must negotiate with the elected Hamas government for there to be any kind of a solution to the rocket fire on the south." The group caused a media storm following its launch, with a full page advertisement in The Times, a week long discussion on The Guardian's Website and extensive media coverage. However, the group does not take a firm position on the proposed academic and economic boycott of Israel, with some of its members supportive while other are in opposition.
One of its signatories, Tony Greenstein is a trade unionist who has publicly called for a boycott of Israeli goods and is also a member of "Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods." A critic of the group, lawyer and academic Anthony Julius, disputed the claim that Israel was in breach of international law. "It is by no means unarguable that Israel is right to treat Gaza as an enemy territory.
It is hard to see on what basis Israel's actions can be seen as a violation and only one or two of the signatories could grapple with issues involved." Julius argues that the group is "fraying at the edges and has lost some of its membership. It is unable to speak with a coherent voice on any issue, such as the academic boycott of Israel." Related articles:
· New group aims to open debate among British Jews on Israel
· British Jewish group strikes back at new left-wing group
· Jonathan Spyer / The anti-Israel lobby
· Richard Silverstein / In praise of the Jewish blogosphere
Where are the Jewish American condemnations?
2/1/2008 - By: Sherri Muzher
For years now, I have heard demands that we Americans Palestinian descent condemn various military actions. And we do because innocents should never pay for the sins of their military forces and government. I'd like to know if the American Jewish community will ever condemn the intentional starvation and collective punishment of an entire Gazan population?
The silence has been deafening at this inhumanity. I've heard that Palestinians have invited these brutal measures after they elected Hamas during internationally-observed elections, since Hamas refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Setting aside that the elections were about corruption, Palestinians said nothing when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert invited Avigdor Leiberman to his cabinet. Leiberman, once praised by Jewish extremists for supporting the deportation of Palestinians inside Israel, is known as an avid racist.
There were no condemnations from the American Jewish community about this repulsive appointment despite their long history of persecution.
I've also heard that 1.5 million Palestinians are to be collectively punished for the acts of a few militants firing homemade rocket into Sderot. If our government believed that, all of us Michiganian's would have been punished for the indirect role of the Michigan Militia during the Oklahoma City bombing in1995. But that is not what America stands for. People are not expected to pay for the acts of others.
What does the American Jewish community believe?
In February 22, 2006, Israel's Gideon Levy of Haaretz reported on a disturbing story, "Everyone agreed on the need to impose an economic siege on the Palestinian Authority, and Weissglas, as usual, provided the punch line: "It's like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won't die," the advisor joked, and the participants reportedly rolled with laughter."
That's supposed to be funny?
And now nearly two years later, their "joke" has become a tragic reality with tens of thousands of Palestinians having to forcibly destroy parts of a wall to stream into Egypt to get food, fuel, and other necessities. Where was the American Jewish condemnation for this siege? When Israel prevents Palestinians from getting vital medical care and preventing dozens of Palestinian university students from returning to their studies in Europe., where are the condemnations from the American Jewish community?
When Gazan children go to school hungry and unable to concentrate, where are the American Jewish condemnations?
According to the Defense for Children International (DCI), there were 385 children doing time in Israeli prisons as of July, 2007. The DCI also notes that, "amongst the denial of many other fundamental rights, children do not have the right to a parent, a responsible adult or a lawyer to be present during the interrogation process. On average, Palestinian children are detained before being taken to court from between 8 and 21 days. As with adults, under Military Order 378, a child can be detained and interrogated for up to 90 days without charge."
Where are the American Jewish condemnations?
The list of human rights violations go on and on, whether they are noted by Amnesty International or Israel's own B'tselem. And with so many people having access to information on the internet, there is little excuse to be unfamiliar with at least some of the eye-opening tragedies on the ground. It's important to point out that The Israeli Coalition Against the Siege at least attempted to send a protest convoy to the Gaza border, on January 26, in coordination with the Palestinian Coalition. Parallel actions inside Gaza and in Ramallah, demanding a complete end to the blockade of Gaza, will also take place. Thankfully, there is more coordination between Palestinians and Israelis abroad. Rarely, here in the States.
I am often reminded of a conversation I observed between an Israeli and an American Jew years ago. The American Jew had expressed incredulity that another Israeli in the forum did something not particularly upstanding. The Israeli person responded that "We're human. We have bad people, too"
I left the forum a short while later but the conversation stayed with me. I was appreciative that the Israeli was more realistic about humanity and utterly disappointed in the star-struck tone of the American Jew. If peace is ever going to prevail, American Jews are going to have to look honestly at the realities on the ground and start speaking up. Staying silent while children starve from an Israeli siege can only be interpreted as approval. Is that the message we're supposed to get?Sherri Muzher is a contributing writer and journalist
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Politics divides religions
Politics divides religions
It is a enligthening to read Karen Armstrong's speech below.
It is the insecurity of individuals that seeks security by controlling, robbing and forcing others to be powerless, as such threat-less. If the moderates of the world can give security to these cranky babies, we probably can mitigate some of the chaos. The Neocons are the extremists wearing different religious robes, and are good in imagining that fear and pre-empting it, facts don’t matter to them.
We need leaders who can work to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill for the good of all humankind, not because it is a noble thing, but because it makes good common sense.
Bush seems to have passed on that Neocons torch to John McCain, the average American is not interested in war and chaos. When I get a chance, I would ask Senator McCain to earn his presidency through giving hope and not frightening us.
We, the moderates can never be like them, reason matters to us, respect for life matters to us, peace matters to us and the truth matters to us.
Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net
www.Foundationforpluralism.com
www.WorldMuslimCongess.com
Karen Armstrong, world-renowned scholar and author of several books on religions, talks to 'The News'
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=94464
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Shahina Maqbool
Islamabad
Politics, coupled with egotism and sectarian attitude, is the evil genius that creates divisions among religions of the world. It is the task of any ideology - be it religious, liberal or secular - to create global understanding and respect. Islam has a very strong pluralistic element in its scriptures. Most of the world religions stress the importance of compassion, not just for your own people, but for everybody. And that is the voice we need today, because any idealism that breeds discord, disdain, or contempt is failing the test of our times.
These views came from Karen Armstrong, world-renowned scholar and author of several best-selling works on religions. Born in 1944, Karen is based in London and is currently visiting Pakistan on an invitation from The Aga Khan Foundation. She is here to deliver a series of lectures as part of the numerous events being organised to commemorate the golden jubilee of the 'imamat' of His Highness The Aga Khan - the spiritual leader of Shia Ismaili Muslims.
In an exclusive interview with 'The News' here on Saturday, Karen, who professes to be a freelance monotheist, shared her views on world politics, democracy, sectarianism, Sufism, the commonalities among religions, and the concept of pluralism in Islam. Although shaken by the news of one of her best friends' diagnosis with cancer, she was gregarious during the tete-a-tete at the Serena lobby. This is what she had to say:
Question: How would you describe your transition from a Roman Catholic nun to a student of modern literature at Oxford, a broadcaster, and eventually a renowned scholar on world religions?
Answer: Basically, I always wanted to be an academic. I wanted to teach English literature in a university, but that didn't work out for a variety of reasons so I found myself in television. It was when I went to Jerusalem to make a documentary series on early Christianity that I encountered Judaism and Islam for the first time. While studying the two religions, I started discovering other resonances that I had not found in my Christian background. There were lot of things about other religions, and from that point onwards, I started developing, what I call 'triple vision,' which is looking at those three monotheisms as one religion that went in three different ways.
Q: In one of your proclaimed television series, 'Varieties of Religious Experience,' you interviewed people subscribing to various beliefs? Could you throw some light on that experience?
A: I hated it. I don't like interviewing people, plus the British public is not interested in religion anyway. However, the experience was important for me because in order to prepare for the interviews, I had to do a lot of study - that is when I developed interest in comparative religions and started my research.
Q: You maintain that polarisation of the world has resulted from mutual suspicion while ground realities have something else to say. We have glaring examples of armed invasions and abuse of human rights in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Kashmir. And now, Iran, Syria and even Pakistan are thought to be next in line.
A: Yes, I fully agree with that statement. Before the 20th century, there has long been a suspicion in the West about Islam; it dates right back to the 12th century - long before 9/11, and long before Iraq and Iran were nations even. It is a long-based prejudice. But certainly there are political factors also, and I would constantly assert that the causes of the trouble are political. On 'The Alliance of Civilizations' - the United Nations initiative that had to diagnose the causes of extremism - we agreed that imbalance of power and bad policies were the root cause of polarisation, which meant that western people had supported bad rulers like Saddam Hussain or the Shah of Iran to get to oil; Israel and Palestine are other examples. I would blame politics to be the key.
Q: The western media is playing a negative role by portraying Islam as a violent religion? Is there any way this can be curtailed?
A: I don't know how it can be curtailed because the press is free. The western media isn't all monolithic - I think in the UK, we have a more balanced media. For example, on the issue of Palestine, some of our major newspapers are very sympathetic to the Palestinians while others like 'The Telegraph' are much more sympathetic towards Israel, so you have a balanced perspective.
But you don't have so much in the United States. And I think that in Europe, there is a much greater understanding of the political situation than there is in the United States. A lot of Americans are not interested in what goes on in the rest of the world. But having said that, Europe isn't perfect because they are obtuse about religious issues - they think religion is rubbish. They regard religious unrest with disdain and Islam is blamed for being religious. They would be equally hostile to Christianity in that respect.
Now what can we do to curtail this? You cannot tell the media what to say - not in the West - and if we did, there would be an absolute uproar and it would be counter-productive. What we are doing at the Alliance for Civilizations is that we have just created a Rapid Response Group so that a team of us is present right across the world in various countries, and when something like the Danish cartoons happens, the United Nations will point to the media so that they know that there is someone who they can talk to and whose view should also be represented.
Q: There is a general tendency to highlight the differences between religions and to conceal their commonalities. What is the most striking commonality between religions of the world and what role have your best-selling books played in bringing these into sharper focus?
A: That has been my major objective in recent years. For example, my last big book, 'The Great Transformation,' which dealt with all world religions - not just Judaism, Islam and Christianity but Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., - explains that, at the core of all religions, is the insistence on compassion as the main virtue; the golden rule: 'Don't do to other people what you would not like them to do to you.' You find that in Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and the Monotheisms. They also say that compassion is not just a test of true religion but is also the way we get to God. By leaving yourself behind and putting another person in the centre of your world, you experience transcendence, and that is the message of the religions.
Unfortunately, compassion is very demanding. It demands that you put yourself to one side, and a lot of religious people don't want to be compassionate - they prefer to be right! They feel puffed up, and pleased with themselves, and pomposity comes into them. This is ego, and ego is what holds us back from the divine. And this is what the great traditions all insist upon, at their best.
Since the 20th century, we have learnt much more about religions of the world than was ever possible. Better communications and improved linguistic skills are also having an effect. It doesn't get the headlines so much as the sectarianism, the violence, the Sunni, the Shia and the Islamophobia, but it is happening. A lot of western Christians - even in America - are very, very enthusiastic about Rumi. They read Rumi and are astonished to hear he is a Muslim. More Christians read the Jewish Philosopher Martin Boober than Jews; and Jesuit Catholic priests are going to study meditation with Buddhist monks. So people are quite naturally and spontaneously reaching out for that nourishment to more than one faith, in a way that was unthinkable before.
This is as big and important a development religiously, as terrorism, that grabs headlines. But it is changing our attitude for it is because of this development that we can never look at either our own, or other peoples' religion, in the same way. And we have learnt the profound unanimity of the religious crest worldwide.
Q: Islam has, among others, two widely practiced sects Sunnis and Shiites, each strictly adhering to its own interpretation. Interestingly, while all of them unite shoulder-to-shoulder during Hajj, they restrain themselves to their own mosques. Why is it so?
A: Egotism. Everyone thinks theirs is the right way. It is natural for there to be different sects; we have them in Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism, because a tradition must - if it is a lively one - be flexible and be able to appeal to people in all kinds of loops and abilities. Until the 16th century, Shiites and Sunnis got along very well. Shiaism was a mystical movement, a private movement, and one that was very close to Sufism in spirit. Politics is the evil genius here. When you have the Safavid Empire and the Ottomon Empire - one Shiite, one Sunni - and they are in competition for territory, that's where sectarianism comes in. Politics also plays a similar role. For instance, in Iraq, Saddam Hussain furthered the divide between Sunnis and Shiites by privileging the Sunni minority. That created antagonism. Politics is usually the course of it, plus the egotism and sectarian attitude which you find in all religions; the concept of 'we are right, you are wrong' is responsible.
Q: You talk about the need for creation of a tolerant global community? How doable is this in a world that has turned into a hotbed of sectarian conflicts?
A: Yes, we have to create a tolerant global society otherwise we are not going to have a viable world to hand over to our children. It has to be doable. Even though the present situation looks hopeless at the moment - I am not a cock-eyed optimist, in fact I am more inclined towards pessimism in my own personal view - but we have to try and make it doable.
It is the task of any ideology, any movement at all - whether it is religious or a secular one - to create global harmony, understanding, and respect, not tolerance. I don't like tolerance because the word suggests putting up with somebody. Appreciation of difference and respect is what religions teach. Islam has a very strong pluralistic element in its scriptures. Most of the world religions stress the importance of compassion, not just for your own people, but for everybody. And that is the voice we need now because any idealism that breeds discord, disdain, or contempt - whether it is secular, liberal or religious - is failing the test of our times.
Q: What role can the Muslim intelligentsia and the civil society play in promoting interfaith harmony? In a city called Antalya in Turkey, you have a mosque, a church and a synagogue located next to each other. Do you consider that to be an effective step in that direction? What practicable measures can be taken to promote religious harmony?
A: I think we all need to look back at our own traditions before we point a finger at other people and say, 'You get your act together.' In the past, Muslims had created pluralistic societies where Jews, Christians and Muslims were able to live together. It wasn't Shangrila but it was much better than anything we have got, say, in Jerusalem, today. It has been done in the past. Look at Spain, for example. Under Islam, it was by far the most tolerant country in Europe, but never been anything like it again. But that was normal in most of the world - people did live together because pluralism is part of the Middle East. But now, because people feel under threat, they are all defensive.
We need to look back into our traditions, and the intelligentsia can play an important role by getting another story out there that religion isn't about hate; look, our tradition does this, and that. And it's all there; you don't have to make it up.
Q: Is the separation of religion from politics practicable in the context of Islam?
A: It has worked very well for us in the west, and one of the reasons for that is that when we did mix religion and politics during our modernisation period, it was a horror. There were terrible wars of religion in the 17th century that left 35 percent of the population dead. This was one of the great catastrophes of European history, and it was that experience which made the enlightenment - people said, 'No, we'll keep politics out of religion.' Now, we had a long time to develop institutions - we didn't have to do it overnight.
In the Muslim world, secularism has been introduced far too rapidly. When Kemal Ataturk secularised Turkey, he closed down all the madrassas and pushed the Sufis underground; the Shah of Iran used to make the soldiers go out with their bayonets, taking off the women's veils and ripping them into pieces in front of them. In this context, secularism seems like an assault upon religion - it is too quick, and this has given it a bad name.
If you look back at the period under the Abbasids, they separated religion and politics. The court lived by different ethos - the 'adaab' - which was an aristocratic ethos and quite different from Islam; much more graded. Look at the number of wives the 'sultans' had; this has no relation to the four allowed in the Quran. Then the ulema and the Shariah began a protest against this.
Politics is a very dirty business - it is very difficult to apply the high ideals, and very often, religion remains in a state of prophetic protest against it. But at the same time, I don't think it is any good forcing secularism or democracy on to people - we in Europe came to it very slowly. We had time to make these new ideas our own, and there was time for these new ideas to trickle slowly down naturally to all levels of the population. It has to be a natural process. You cannot go out and impose democracy with a gun - it would be like going to war for democracy — it’s a complete nonsense. Democracy has to come from the people. They must feel free, and if I were in Iraq, I wouldn’t feel free at the moment.
Q: How do you see Sufism promoting pluralism and tolerance in a society which is diverse in terms of its religious, sectarian and ethnic composition?
A: Sufism, in the past, has been a very outstanding example of appreciation of other world traditions. It started getting a bad name in the 19th, 20th centuries because people got involved in showing that we are as rational as the West. Everybody started downplaying their mystical traditions to show that they were just as philosophical minded and rational as the West; that Islam is a rational religion, etc. But I think not everybody can be a mystic. Mysticism is a talent that some people have; I don’t have it. I have never been able to meditate very well. I am not a mystic. In fact, I am someone who has been trained for ballet dancing, for example, and failed to get into a ballet company. But when I watch a ballet performance, I can understand what they are doing and appreciate it perhaps. We need to look at the ideals of the Sufis — they weren’t just people locked in prayer or whirling around in an ecstasy — most of them were working in the society for justice. There was always a social concern too, and that is very important.
Q: Some schools of thought see Sufis and shrine organisations as civil society organisations providing relief to those oppressed by the state or the society while others consider them as manifesting a spiritual phenomenon only? Do you think shrine organisations have a role that transcends spiritual purification?
A: Sufi outreach usually included a very strong social outreach, always in the past. A sufi became a sufi because he was appalled by the injustice in society. So, it is not just a question of making a few social reforms; it has to come from deep within, and mysticism goes right down into the unconscious, if you can really do it.
Q: How many books do you have to your credit? Are you currently also working on one?
A: I am not sure - they must be about 20. Two of these were biographies of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH); others include ‘Islam, A Short History;’ ‘A History of God; The 4000-year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam;’ ‘The Battle for God;’ ‘Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths;’ ‘Holy War: The Crusades and their Impact on Today’s World;’ and most recently, ‘The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions.’
My next book will be titled ‘The Case for God.’ It looks at some of the modern atheists; the movement of atheism; and how the present-day atheism is due to bad modern theology. The book will be with the publisher by September 2009.
It is a enligthening to read Karen Armstrong's speech below.
It is the insecurity of individuals that seeks security by controlling, robbing and forcing others to be powerless, as such threat-less. If the moderates of the world can give security to these cranky babies, we probably can mitigate some of the chaos. The Neocons are the extremists wearing different religious robes, and are good in imagining that fear and pre-empting it, facts don’t matter to them.
We need leaders who can work to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill for the good of all humankind, not because it is a noble thing, but because it makes good common sense.
Bush seems to have passed on that Neocons torch to John McCain, the average American is not interested in war and chaos. When I get a chance, I would ask Senator McCain to earn his presidency through giving hope and not frightening us.
We, the moderates can never be like them, reason matters to us, respect for life matters to us, peace matters to us and the truth matters to us.
Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net
www.Foundationforpluralism.com
www.WorldMuslimCongess.com
Karen Armstrong, world-renowned scholar and author of several books on religions, talks to 'The News'
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=94464
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Shahina Maqbool
Islamabad
Politics, coupled with egotism and sectarian attitude, is the evil genius that creates divisions among religions of the world. It is the task of any ideology - be it religious, liberal or secular - to create global understanding and respect. Islam has a very strong pluralistic element in its scriptures. Most of the world religions stress the importance of compassion, not just for your own people, but for everybody. And that is the voice we need today, because any idealism that breeds discord, disdain, or contempt is failing the test of our times.
These views came from Karen Armstrong, world-renowned scholar and author of several best-selling works on religions. Born in 1944, Karen is based in London and is currently visiting Pakistan on an invitation from The Aga Khan Foundation. She is here to deliver a series of lectures as part of the numerous events being organised to commemorate the golden jubilee of the 'imamat' of His Highness The Aga Khan - the spiritual leader of Shia Ismaili Muslims.
In an exclusive interview with 'The News' here on Saturday, Karen, who professes to be a freelance monotheist, shared her views on world politics, democracy, sectarianism, Sufism, the commonalities among religions, and the concept of pluralism in Islam. Although shaken by the news of one of her best friends' diagnosis with cancer, she was gregarious during the tete-a-tete at the Serena lobby. This is what she had to say:
Question: How would you describe your transition from a Roman Catholic nun to a student of modern literature at Oxford, a broadcaster, and eventually a renowned scholar on world religions?
Answer: Basically, I always wanted to be an academic. I wanted to teach English literature in a university, but that didn't work out for a variety of reasons so I found myself in television. It was when I went to Jerusalem to make a documentary series on early Christianity that I encountered Judaism and Islam for the first time. While studying the two religions, I started discovering other resonances that I had not found in my Christian background. There were lot of things about other religions, and from that point onwards, I started developing, what I call 'triple vision,' which is looking at those three monotheisms as one religion that went in three different ways.
Q: In one of your proclaimed television series, 'Varieties of Religious Experience,' you interviewed people subscribing to various beliefs? Could you throw some light on that experience?
A: I hated it. I don't like interviewing people, plus the British public is not interested in religion anyway. However, the experience was important for me because in order to prepare for the interviews, I had to do a lot of study - that is when I developed interest in comparative religions and started my research.
Q: You maintain that polarisation of the world has resulted from mutual suspicion while ground realities have something else to say. We have glaring examples of armed invasions and abuse of human rights in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Kashmir. And now, Iran, Syria and even Pakistan are thought to be next in line.
A: Yes, I fully agree with that statement. Before the 20th century, there has long been a suspicion in the West about Islam; it dates right back to the 12th century - long before 9/11, and long before Iraq and Iran were nations even. It is a long-based prejudice. But certainly there are political factors also, and I would constantly assert that the causes of the trouble are political. On 'The Alliance of Civilizations' - the United Nations initiative that had to diagnose the causes of extremism - we agreed that imbalance of power and bad policies were the root cause of polarisation, which meant that western people had supported bad rulers like Saddam Hussain or the Shah of Iran to get to oil; Israel and Palestine are other examples. I would blame politics to be the key.
Q: The western media is playing a negative role by portraying Islam as a violent religion? Is there any way this can be curtailed?
A: I don't know how it can be curtailed because the press is free. The western media isn't all monolithic - I think in the UK, we have a more balanced media. For example, on the issue of Palestine, some of our major newspapers are very sympathetic to the Palestinians while others like 'The Telegraph' are much more sympathetic towards Israel, so you have a balanced perspective.
But you don't have so much in the United States. And I think that in Europe, there is a much greater understanding of the political situation than there is in the United States. A lot of Americans are not interested in what goes on in the rest of the world. But having said that, Europe isn't perfect because they are obtuse about religious issues - they think religion is rubbish. They regard religious unrest with disdain and Islam is blamed for being religious. They would be equally hostile to Christianity in that respect.
Now what can we do to curtail this? You cannot tell the media what to say - not in the West - and if we did, there would be an absolute uproar and it would be counter-productive. What we are doing at the Alliance for Civilizations is that we have just created a Rapid Response Group so that a team of us is present right across the world in various countries, and when something like the Danish cartoons happens, the United Nations will point to the media so that they know that there is someone who they can talk to and whose view should also be represented.
Q: There is a general tendency to highlight the differences between religions and to conceal their commonalities. What is the most striking commonality between religions of the world and what role have your best-selling books played in bringing these into sharper focus?
A: That has been my major objective in recent years. For example, my last big book, 'The Great Transformation,' which dealt with all world religions - not just Judaism, Islam and Christianity but Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., - explains that, at the core of all religions, is the insistence on compassion as the main virtue; the golden rule: 'Don't do to other people what you would not like them to do to you.' You find that in Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and the Monotheisms. They also say that compassion is not just a test of true religion but is also the way we get to God. By leaving yourself behind and putting another person in the centre of your world, you experience transcendence, and that is the message of the religions.
Unfortunately, compassion is very demanding. It demands that you put yourself to one side, and a lot of religious people don't want to be compassionate - they prefer to be right! They feel puffed up, and pleased with themselves, and pomposity comes into them. This is ego, and ego is what holds us back from the divine. And this is what the great traditions all insist upon, at their best.
Since the 20th century, we have learnt much more about religions of the world than was ever possible. Better communications and improved linguistic skills are also having an effect. It doesn't get the headlines so much as the sectarianism, the violence, the Sunni, the Shia and the Islamophobia, but it is happening. A lot of western Christians - even in America - are very, very enthusiastic about Rumi. They read Rumi and are astonished to hear he is a Muslim. More Christians read the Jewish Philosopher Martin Boober than Jews; and Jesuit Catholic priests are going to study meditation with Buddhist monks. So people are quite naturally and spontaneously reaching out for that nourishment to more than one faith, in a way that was unthinkable before.
This is as big and important a development religiously, as terrorism, that grabs headlines. But it is changing our attitude for it is because of this development that we can never look at either our own, or other peoples' religion, in the same way. And we have learnt the profound unanimity of the religious crest worldwide.
Q: Islam has, among others, two widely practiced sects Sunnis and Shiites, each strictly adhering to its own interpretation. Interestingly, while all of them unite shoulder-to-shoulder during Hajj, they restrain themselves to their own mosques. Why is it so?
A: Egotism. Everyone thinks theirs is the right way. It is natural for there to be different sects; we have them in Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism, because a tradition must - if it is a lively one - be flexible and be able to appeal to people in all kinds of loops and abilities. Until the 16th century, Shiites and Sunnis got along very well. Shiaism was a mystical movement, a private movement, and one that was very close to Sufism in spirit. Politics is the evil genius here. When you have the Safavid Empire and the Ottomon Empire - one Shiite, one Sunni - and they are in competition for territory, that's where sectarianism comes in. Politics also plays a similar role. For instance, in Iraq, Saddam Hussain furthered the divide between Sunnis and Shiites by privileging the Sunni minority. That created antagonism. Politics is usually the course of it, plus the egotism and sectarian attitude which you find in all religions; the concept of 'we are right, you are wrong' is responsible.
Q: You talk about the need for creation of a tolerant global community? How doable is this in a world that has turned into a hotbed of sectarian conflicts?
A: Yes, we have to create a tolerant global society otherwise we are not going to have a viable world to hand over to our children. It has to be doable. Even though the present situation looks hopeless at the moment - I am not a cock-eyed optimist, in fact I am more inclined towards pessimism in my own personal view - but we have to try and make it doable.
It is the task of any ideology, any movement at all - whether it is religious or a secular one - to create global harmony, understanding, and respect, not tolerance. I don't like tolerance because the word suggests putting up with somebody. Appreciation of difference and respect is what religions teach. Islam has a very strong pluralistic element in its scriptures. Most of the world religions stress the importance of compassion, not just for your own people, but for everybody. And that is the voice we need now because any idealism that breeds discord, disdain, or contempt - whether it is secular, liberal or religious - is failing the test of our times.
Q: What role can the Muslim intelligentsia and the civil society play in promoting interfaith harmony? In a city called Antalya in Turkey, you have a mosque, a church and a synagogue located next to each other. Do you consider that to be an effective step in that direction? What practicable measures can be taken to promote religious harmony?
A: I think we all need to look back at our own traditions before we point a finger at other people and say, 'You get your act together.' In the past, Muslims had created pluralistic societies where Jews, Christians and Muslims were able to live together. It wasn't Shangrila but it was much better than anything we have got, say, in Jerusalem, today. It has been done in the past. Look at Spain, for example. Under Islam, it was by far the most tolerant country in Europe, but never been anything like it again. But that was normal in most of the world - people did live together because pluralism is part of the Middle East. But now, because people feel under threat, they are all defensive.
We need to look back into our traditions, and the intelligentsia can play an important role by getting another story out there that religion isn't about hate; look, our tradition does this, and that. And it's all there; you don't have to make it up.
Q: Is the separation of religion from politics practicable in the context of Islam?
A: It has worked very well for us in the west, and one of the reasons for that is that when we did mix religion and politics during our modernisation period, it was a horror. There were terrible wars of religion in the 17th century that left 35 percent of the population dead. This was one of the great catastrophes of European history, and it was that experience which made the enlightenment - people said, 'No, we'll keep politics out of religion.' Now, we had a long time to develop institutions - we didn't have to do it overnight.
In the Muslim world, secularism has been introduced far too rapidly. When Kemal Ataturk secularised Turkey, he closed down all the madrassas and pushed the Sufis underground; the Shah of Iran used to make the soldiers go out with their bayonets, taking off the women's veils and ripping them into pieces in front of them. In this context, secularism seems like an assault upon religion - it is too quick, and this has given it a bad name.
If you look back at the period under the Abbasids, they separated religion and politics. The court lived by different ethos - the 'adaab' - which was an aristocratic ethos and quite different from Islam; much more graded. Look at the number of wives the 'sultans' had; this has no relation to the four allowed in the Quran. Then the ulema and the Shariah began a protest against this.
Politics is a very dirty business - it is very difficult to apply the high ideals, and very often, religion remains in a state of prophetic protest against it. But at the same time, I don't think it is any good forcing secularism or democracy on to people - we in Europe came to it very slowly. We had time to make these new ideas our own, and there was time for these new ideas to trickle slowly down naturally to all levels of the population. It has to be a natural process. You cannot go out and impose democracy with a gun - it would be like going to war for democracy — it’s a complete nonsense. Democracy has to come from the people. They must feel free, and if I were in Iraq, I wouldn’t feel free at the moment.
Q: How do you see Sufism promoting pluralism and tolerance in a society which is diverse in terms of its religious, sectarian and ethnic composition?
A: Sufism, in the past, has been a very outstanding example of appreciation of other world traditions. It started getting a bad name in the 19th, 20th centuries because people got involved in showing that we are as rational as the West. Everybody started downplaying their mystical traditions to show that they were just as philosophical minded and rational as the West; that Islam is a rational religion, etc. But I think not everybody can be a mystic. Mysticism is a talent that some people have; I don’t have it. I have never been able to meditate very well. I am not a mystic. In fact, I am someone who has been trained for ballet dancing, for example, and failed to get into a ballet company. But when I watch a ballet performance, I can understand what they are doing and appreciate it perhaps. We need to look at the ideals of the Sufis — they weren’t just people locked in prayer or whirling around in an ecstasy — most of them were working in the society for justice. There was always a social concern too, and that is very important.
Q: Some schools of thought see Sufis and shrine organisations as civil society organisations providing relief to those oppressed by the state or the society while others consider them as manifesting a spiritual phenomenon only? Do you think shrine organisations have a role that transcends spiritual purification?
A: Sufi outreach usually included a very strong social outreach, always in the past. A sufi became a sufi because he was appalled by the injustice in society. So, it is not just a question of making a few social reforms; it has to come from deep within, and mysticism goes right down into the unconscious, if you can really do it.
Q: How many books do you have to your credit? Are you currently also working on one?
A: I am not sure - they must be about 20. Two of these were biographies of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH); others include ‘Islam, A Short History;’ ‘A History of God; The 4000-year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam;’ ‘The Battle for God;’ ‘Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths;’ ‘Holy War: The Crusades and their Impact on Today’s World;’ and most recently, ‘The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions.’
My next book will be titled ‘The Case for God.’ It looks at some of the modern atheists; the movement of atheism; and how the present-day atheism is due to bad modern theology. The book will be with the publisher by September 2009.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Islamophobic Wilding
Challenge and Response: The Case of Islamophobic Wilding
Posted Jan 24, 2008
Other article on the subject: http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/Quraan/Muslim-response-to-Geert-Wilders-using-Prophet-Muhammads-Model.asp
by Dr. Robert D. Crane*
The Center for Understanding Islam
The challenge posed by Geert Wilders' ten-minute film attacking the Prophet Muhammad, salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam, is political. He is a member of the Dutch parliament and a leader of a far right party that is trying to gain votes by exploiting the growing alienation and hostility between the minority of Muslims in Europe and the majority population.
He hopes to provoke radical responses by Muslims in order to support his party's message that Islam must be purged from Europe and the Qur'an must be banned in public and criminalized even for private reading at home. He knows that some governments and other special interests in the Muslim world will oblige him by using his challenge to the Prophet Muhammad and the religion of Islam in order to consolidate their own power by stealing the thunder from their radical opponents. He has learned from the Danish Cartoons affair how tempting it is for unpopular Muslim governments to prove their legitimacy by facilitating and even provoking well-orchestrated and well-controlled violence against the "enemy". Some Westerners, of course, have been known to do the same, and Geerts is one of them.
The first response that would be natural among Muslims is to fall into Geerts' trap and resort to violent protests. Heavy-handed measures against such protests could merely provoke greater violence.
The second response is to do nothing. Many Muslim leaders are trying to avoid violence simply by urging all Muslims to avoid the trap. Perhaps the leading advocate of the "do nothing" school of thought is Tariq Ramadhan, who knows the situation in Holland and the background of this crisis. In a position paper first published in
"The Dutch government needs to preempt a vicious circle of radical response by making it clear that the government does not support and even condemns the film but that it is not banning it because this would violate freedom of expression. Wilders should not be prevented from speaking or even jailed, as some have suggested. One responds to him only when there is a legitimate basis for argument, but should simply ignore him when he is mounting an orchestrated provocation."
The third response, similar to the second one, is for Muslims around the world to leave the response to the Dutch. Right now, the Dutch seem to be doing a pretty good job without our help in getting popular support for restricting the access of Geert Wilders' film within the Dutch media. The Dutch, however, would no doubt never ban it altogether, simply because the Dutch for decades, if not centuries, have had a reputation of liberality. The Dutch became famous for boldly supporting liberal thought when Cardinal Suenens almost forty years ago led the aggiornimento that led to the Second Vatican Council. In 1972, he became the global Catholic leader of the charismatic movement, otherwise known as Catholic Pentacostalism, which was a somewhat heterodox but much needed reintroduction of spiritual awareness, somewhat resembling the Sufi revival, both orthodox and heterodox, in modern day Islam.
The fourth response would be actually to hope that the Wilders film will gain maximum coverage so that it will backfire from its own extremism. In this way, the phenomenon of "Islamophobic Wilding" might end up with positive results, providing that Muslims do not fall into its trap. I use the phrase "wilding" as a takeoff on the phrase invented to describe the gang that almost fatally beat the woman jogger in Central Park a few years ago, because this is what Geert Wilders is trying to do to the the Prophet Muhammad, salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam, and to the Qur'an.
There is a famous precedent for this fourth response in what might be called the "boomerang" strategy to hang a criminal by his own petard, that is, to exploit his mistakes in order to hang him. This precedent occurred in 1993, when I was contacted as head of the Legal Department of the American Muslim Council. A man from Detroit called me in the middle of the night to say that he would give us any amount of money immediately if we would shut down a radio station in Florida. He happened to listen to it apparently in a hotel room and was beside himself with rage. This station regularly aired the most demonic attacks on Islam and Muslims, which was a trend just then beginning as a professional discipline in a few Evangelical seminaries.
My initial advice was to ignore this radio station, but the caller insisted that he would not go to asleep until I had agreed to shut it down. I told him that the American constitution guarantees freedom of speech, limited only by threat to human life or malicious defamation. I told him that at best he had a weak case, but I would check it out with a leading law firm. I warned him that any decent firm would charge at least $10,000 merely to evaluate the case in order to determine whether to take it. He replied that money was of no consideration.
In the process of checking out the case, so that I would not look too ridiculous in contacting a reputable law firm, I encountered a very similar case involving Yusuf Islam, the famous "Cat Stevens", which occurred only a couple of years earlier, also in Florida. One of the bible belt preachers had attacked Yusuf Islam, as I recall, as a diabolical beast of the Anti-Christ, which is favorite term that I use sometimes myself in referring to the most extremist Muslims.
The result of this case was startling. Instead of trying to sue the station or shut it down, Yusuf Islam asked the radio station to give him equal time to explain what Islam really teaches. He figured that fortuitously through the grace of Allah he now had a great and unique opportunity to reach an audience of millions who otherwise would never hear anything well-informed and objective about Islam. The surprise ending is that the owner of the radio station offered him twice the air time that the Islamophobic preacher had used. One reason was that this boosted the advertising revenue for the station because the controversy attracted a lot of attention and discussion.
It is important to note that Brother Yusuf did not directly debate the rabid preacher, because such a debate would not be conducive to intelligent discussion. This was the reason I backed out of a "debate" on a national hook-up scheduled with Robert Spencer last fall on November 8. On November 6th, I concluded that we were on the same side in warning about and trying to counter the radicals who pose as Muslims, such as Osama bin Laden, who are using religion as a political tool to vent their hatred on everyone who disagrees with them. I told the producer of the show that I would join a two-man panel with Spencer after he had had a chance to read my latest book, which the IIIT is bringing out under the title The Natural Law of Compassionate Justice, more than a hundred pages of which directly expose almost line for line Spencer's biased reliance on extremist Muslims as source material in his current book, The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion.
The Yusuf Islam strategy probably could be followed successfully in the Netherlands, but it would be vital that the responder or responders be nearly of the same calibre as Yusuf Islam. To get the largest possible audience, it might be best to let Wilders speak as widely as possible and then counter his message by providing an enlightened presentation on Islam in every media outlet that Wilders uses, as well as in those he did not try to use or could not use.
The fifth response, which could augment some of the above, would be for the most authoritative Islamic scholars around the world to join in publishing a declaration, or even a fatwa, refuting violence as a civilized means to counter disinformation about Muhammad and Islam. This could be accompanied by a position paper explaining the truth as understood by classical Islam not by the denizens of caves in Afghanistan.
This would help forestall the threat by the Iranian Foreign Ministry to suspend diplomatic relations with the government of the Netherlands if the Islamic Wilding film is publicly shown. The responsible officials in Iran should leave the proper response to people who understand Western culture and who know how to use the boomerang strategy to turn radicalism against itself.
The action now required for this fifth response is to convince the most authoritative Islamic leaders to issue a proclamation to counter Islamophobic Wilding by explaining the classical consensus of Muslim global leaders on all the issues raised.
These should include all the signatories of the response to Pope Benedict XVI's Regensburg Elocution, which response was published on the Eve of the 'Id al Adha, 2007 (1428), in the document, A Common Word Between You and Us: Muslim Scholars Appeal to Catholic Scholars for Dialogue and Peace. The Wilding Declaration should include the 170 scholars of all eight schools of Islamic Law who signed the famous "Amman Statement Against Takfir" in 2005 in Lebanon, as well as those who signed the Religion against Terrorism Conference Statement in Turkey in 2003.
The approach to this end might best be through Professor John Esposito, who is already undertaking an effort along these lines, or additionally by internet outreach through the hundreds of relevant listserves and blogs. The person who may be best equipped for this task is Sheila Musaji, who wrote and published the following articles in her scholarly online journal,
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org
Muslim Scholars Appeal to Christian Scholars for Dialogue and Peace - "A Common Word"
Update on "A Common Word Between Us and You" An Appeal From Muslim Scholars For Dialogue and Peace
How Geert Wilders' anti-Qur'an film can be made to benefit the Muslim community
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Dr. Robert Dickson Crane is the former adviser to the late President of the United States Richard Nixon, and is former Deputy Director (for Planning) of the U.S. National Security Council. He has authored or co-authored more than a dozen books and over 50 professional articles on comparative legal systems, global strategy, and information management. He is a cousin of former Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives Phil Crane and Dan Crane.
From the early 1980s, Dr. Crane has worked full-time as a Muslim activist in America. From 1983 to 1986, he was the Director of Da'wa at the Islamic Center on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C. In 1986 he joined the International Institute of Islamic Thought as its Director of Publications, and then helped to found the American Muslim Council, serving as Director of its Legal Division from 1992 to 1994.
From 1994 until the present time he has headed his own research center, the Center for Policy Research, located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Washington, D.C. Since 1996 he has also been a board member of the United Association for Studies and Research and Managing Editor of its Middle East Affairs Journal. He is also an editor for the online magazine The American Muslim.
Dr. Crane was also the founding President of the American Muslim Bar Association.
Other Article to read:
Posted Jan 24, 2008
Other article on the subject: http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/Quraan/Muslim-response-to-Geert-Wilders-using-Prophet-Muhammads-Model.asp
by Dr. Robert D. Crane*
The Center for Understanding Islam
The challenge posed by Geert Wilders' ten-minute film attacking the Prophet Muhammad, salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam, is political. He is a member of the Dutch parliament and a leader of a far right party that is trying to gain votes by exploiting the growing alienation and hostility between the minority of Muslims in Europe and the majority population.
He hopes to provoke radical responses by Muslims in order to support his party's message that Islam must be purged from Europe and the Qur'an must be banned in public and criminalized even for private reading at home. He knows that some governments and other special interests in the Muslim world will oblige him by using his challenge to the Prophet Muhammad and the religion of Islam in order to consolidate their own power by stealing the thunder from their radical opponents. He has learned from the Danish Cartoons affair how tempting it is for unpopular Muslim governments to prove their legitimacy by facilitating and even provoking well-orchestrated and well-controlled violence against the "enemy". Some Westerners, of course, have been known to do the same, and Geerts is one of them.
The first response that would be natural among Muslims is to fall into Geerts' trap and resort to violent protests. Heavy-handed measures against such protests could merely provoke greater violence.
The second response is to do nothing. Many Muslim leaders are trying to avoid violence simply by urging all Muslims to avoid the trap. Perhaps the leading advocate of the "do nothing" school of thought is Tariq Ramadhan, who knows the situation in Holland and the background of this crisis. In a position paper first published in
"The Dutch government needs to preempt a vicious circle of radical response by making it clear that the government does not support and even condemns the film but that it is not banning it because this would violate freedom of expression. Wilders should not be prevented from speaking or even jailed, as some have suggested. One responds to him only when there is a legitimate basis for argument, but should simply ignore him when he is mounting an orchestrated provocation."
The third response, similar to the second one, is for Muslims around the world to leave the response to the Dutch. Right now, the Dutch seem to be doing a pretty good job without our help in getting popular support for restricting the access of Geert Wilders' film within the Dutch media. The Dutch, however, would no doubt never ban it altogether, simply because the Dutch for decades, if not centuries, have had a reputation of liberality. The Dutch became famous for boldly supporting liberal thought when Cardinal Suenens almost forty years ago led the aggiornimento that led to the Second Vatican Council. In 1972, he became the global Catholic leader of the charismatic movement, otherwise known as Catholic Pentacostalism, which was a somewhat heterodox but much needed reintroduction of spiritual awareness, somewhat resembling the Sufi revival, both orthodox and heterodox, in modern day Islam.
The fourth response would be actually to hope that the Wilders film will gain maximum coverage so that it will backfire from its own extremism. In this way, the phenomenon of "Islamophobic Wilding" might end up with positive results, providing that Muslims do not fall into its trap. I use the phrase "wilding" as a takeoff on the phrase invented to describe the gang that almost fatally beat the woman jogger in Central Park a few years ago, because this is what Geert Wilders is trying to do to the the Prophet Muhammad, salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam, and to the Qur'an.
There is a famous precedent for this fourth response in what might be called the "boomerang" strategy to hang a criminal by his own petard, that is, to exploit his mistakes in order to hang him. This precedent occurred in 1993, when I was contacted as head of the Legal Department of the American Muslim Council. A man from Detroit called me in the middle of the night to say that he would give us any amount of money immediately if we would shut down a radio station in Florida. He happened to listen to it apparently in a hotel room and was beside himself with rage. This station regularly aired the most demonic attacks on Islam and Muslims, which was a trend just then beginning as a professional discipline in a few Evangelical seminaries.
My initial advice was to ignore this radio station, but the caller insisted that he would not go to asleep until I had agreed to shut it down. I told him that the American constitution guarantees freedom of speech, limited only by threat to human life or malicious defamation. I told him that at best he had a weak case, but I would check it out with a leading law firm. I warned him that any decent firm would charge at least $10,000 merely to evaluate the case in order to determine whether to take it. He replied that money was of no consideration.
In the process of checking out the case, so that I would not look too ridiculous in contacting a reputable law firm, I encountered a very similar case involving Yusuf Islam, the famous "Cat Stevens", which occurred only a couple of years earlier, also in Florida. One of the bible belt preachers had attacked Yusuf Islam, as I recall, as a diabolical beast of the Anti-Christ, which is favorite term that I use sometimes myself in referring to the most extremist Muslims.
The result of this case was startling. Instead of trying to sue the station or shut it down, Yusuf Islam asked the radio station to give him equal time to explain what Islam really teaches. He figured that fortuitously through the grace of Allah he now had a great and unique opportunity to reach an audience of millions who otherwise would never hear anything well-informed and objective about Islam. The surprise ending is that the owner of the radio station offered him twice the air time that the Islamophobic preacher had used. One reason was that this boosted the advertising revenue for the station because the controversy attracted a lot of attention and discussion.
It is important to note that Brother Yusuf did not directly debate the rabid preacher, because such a debate would not be conducive to intelligent discussion. This was the reason I backed out of a "debate" on a national hook-up scheduled with Robert Spencer last fall on November 8. On November 6th, I concluded that we were on the same side in warning about and trying to counter the radicals who pose as Muslims, such as Osama bin Laden, who are using religion as a political tool to vent their hatred on everyone who disagrees with them. I told the producer of the show that I would join a two-man panel with Spencer after he had had a chance to read my latest book, which the IIIT is bringing out under the title The Natural Law of Compassionate Justice, more than a hundred pages of which directly expose almost line for line Spencer's biased reliance on extremist Muslims as source material in his current book, The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion.
The Yusuf Islam strategy probably could be followed successfully in the Netherlands, but it would be vital that the responder or responders be nearly of the same calibre as Yusuf Islam. To get the largest possible audience, it might be best to let Wilders speak as widely as possible and then counter his message by providing an enlightened presentation on Islam in every media outlet that Wilders uses, as well as in those he did not try to use or could not use.
The fifth response, which could augment some of the above, would be for the most authoritative Islamic scholars around the world to join in publishing a declaration, or even a fatwa, refuting violence as a civilized means to counter disinformation about Muhammad and Islam. This could be accompanied by a position paper explaining the truth as understood by classical Islam not by the denizens of caves in Afghanistan.
This would help forestall the threat by the Iranian Foreign Ministry to suspend diplomatic relations with the government of the Netherlands if the Islamic Wilding film is publicly shown. The responsible officials in Iran should leave the proper response to people who understand Western culture and who know how to use the boomerang strategy to turn radicalism against itself.
The action now required for this fifth response is to convince the most authoritative Islamic leaders to issue a proclamation to counter Islamophobic Wilding by explaining the classical consensus of Muslim global leaders on all the issues raised.
These should include all the signatories of the response to Pope Benedict XVI's Regensburg Elocution, which response was published on the Eve of the 'Id al Adha, 2007 (1428), in the document, A Common Word Between You and Us: Muslim Scholars Appeal to Catholic Scholars for Dialogue and Peace. The Wilding Declaration should include the 170 scholars of all eight schools of Islamic Law who signed the famous "Amman Statement Against Takfir" in 2005 in Lebanon, as well as those who signed the Religion against Terrorism Conference Statement in Turkey in 2003.
The approach to this end might best be through Professor John Esposito, who is already undertaking an effort along these lines, or additionally by internet outreach through the hundreds of relevant listserves and blogs. The person who may be best equipped for this task is Sheila Musaji, who wrote and published the following articles in her scholarly online journal,
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org
Muslim Scholars Appeal to Christian Scholars for Dialogue and Peace - "A Common Word"
Update on "A Common Word Between Us and You" An Appeal From Muslim Scholars For Dialogue and Peace
How Geert Wilders' anti-Qur'an film can be made to benefit the Muslim community
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Dr. Robert Dickson Crane is the former adviser to the late President of the United States Richard Nixon, and is former Deputy Director (for Planning) of the U.S. National Security Council. He has authored or co-authored more than a dozen books and over 50 professional articles on comparative legal systems, global strategy, and information management. He is a cousin of former Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives Phil Crane and Dan Crane.
From the early 1980s, Dr. Crane has worked full-time as a Muslim activist in America. From 1983 to 1986, he was the Director of Da'wa at the Islamic Center on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C. In 1986 he joined the International Institute of Islamic Thought as its Director of Publications, and then helped to found the American Muslim Council, serving as Director of its Legal Division from 1992 to 1994.
From 1994 until the present time he has headed his own research center, the Center for Policy Research, located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Washington, D.C. Since 1996 he has also been a board member of the United Association for Studies and Research and Managing Editor of its Middle East Affairs Journal. He is also an editor for the online magazine The American Muslim.
Dr. Crane was also the founding President of the American Muslim Bar Association.
Other Article to read:
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Who is the Enemy?
WHO IS THE ENEMY
FrontPageMagazine.com Friday, January 11, 2008
FrontPageMagazine.com Friday, January 11, 2008
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6D92C9A8-2754-489F-8F79-22BF4981401C
Mike Ghouse: The good people, the moderates need to speak up. The extremists keep on attempting to label every one as the Islamists… if we do not speak up, the label starts sticking in the minds of the weak and feeble who cannot think on their own. It is a reality… I urge you to really go to the link… and respond to them in 50 words… give them a reason …. Turn things around. I have been on their site endlessly, it is your turn.
Editorial Note:
The following interview with FrontPage editor-in-chief David Horowitz was recently conducted (Dec. 18) by Jesse Singal, an Associate Editor for Campus Progress. An offshoot of the Center for American Progress -- a leftwing think tank created by George Soros and Hillary Clinton, Campus Progress describes its mission as working to "empower new progressive leaders nationwide." In a wide-ranging exchange, Horowitz discusses Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, the war in Iraq, the nature of the left and whether a dialogue over these issues is possible. FrontPage welcomes the opportunity to begin such a dialogue with Jesse Singal who has shown himself to be a fair-minded interlocutor.
Campus Progress: One of the more common critiques of “Islamo-fascism Awareness Week” is that it sweeps a huge number of groups into one category. Setting aside the question of whether or not these groups can accurately be described as “fascist,” isn’t it dangerous, strategically, to lump together Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas? Since these groups all have different agendas, and some have slightly more moderate wings that have attempted to enter legitimate politics, isn’t there a danger of not “knowing thy enemy”?
Horowitz: Well first, let me say this was not the complaint that was made about Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week by its opponents who labeled it “Islamo-phobic” and attacked it. This is an intelligent question. It actually deals with the issue. Would that the criticisms at the time had been like that. Instead our critics said that we were attacking Islam and the Muslim religion, and all Muslims. And that was a vicious slander and allowed what I would call campus thugs to attack students who were putting on these events as racists and bigots. It is a form of hate speech to call somebody a racist or a bigot if they’re not, and none of the kids who were organizing these events were racists or bigots, so it was really disgusting.
So, to answer your question: All of the groups you mentioned are part of a movement within Islam. First of all, they all either were created by the Muslim Brotherhood or inspired by its doctrines. The Muslim Brotherhood is really the founding organization of this radical movement in Islam. Even though Hezbollah is a Shia organization and Hamas a Sunni organization, they work hand in glove in the attacks on Israel. There is some discussion about whether the Muslim Brotherhood has a moderate wing. I’m not someone who thinks there is.
The utility in calling the radical movement within Islam “Islamo-Fascism” and not just describing our conflict with it as a “war on terror” is that the term “Islamo-Fascism” forces you to look at a total movement and to see that it a religious movement that is a political movement as well. And that’s the big problem. What we were are confronting is a political religion, and therefore a totalitarian force. The Islamo-Fascists want to control every aspect of human life. As a religion, it is concerned with individual morality and social religions. As a political movement its goal is state power; its aim is to have the force of the state behind its religious doctrines, which is a totalitarian project. That’s why, for example, the poster we used for Islamo-fascism Awareness Week was of a Muslim woman having her head blown off by the Taliban because she had allegedly violated some religious law.
If you have a religious movement like this, a political religion, it’s going to have agencies that are specific to its social and political goals, civil liberties organizations and welfare roups. Hezbollah provides social services; the fascists made the trains run on time. What defines Hezbollah, however, are its religious goals, among which is to kill the Jews. This is an explicit agenda. The Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah – a holy man – has said in so many words, their agenda is to kill the Jews. The Nazi agenda. I don’t care if they give free food to poor people; that doesn’t make them any less Nazi. I would say the same about the Muslim Brotherhood. If it really is a moderate organization, it can say that very clearly by denouncing its creation, Hamas, which is a military terrorist organization whose goal is to destroy the only Jewish state.
Campus Progess: Do you think there’s a risk of the “Islamo-fascism Awareness Week” alienating Muslims who would be otherwise sympathetic to the cause of fostering moderation and preventing terrorism?
Horowitz: I think that’s a reasonable question. There is no term that one can use that confronts the issues that doesn’t have this problem. Politically, since people will misunderstand what you say, there’s no way to find a term that is not going to upset some, unless you choose one that’s not going to upset the reigning presumptions. In this life, if you’re going to make a difference, you’re going to cause conflict.
At Columbia members of the Muslim Students Association came to my speech. During the question period, the vice president of the organization made a little speech about how jihad is a spiritual struggle and not a holy war. I had not even referred to jihad in my speech, but I understood what her talking point was driving at. So I asked her, “Will you condemn Hamas, which is a terrorist organization and has sworn to eliminate the Jewish state?” She dodged that three different ways as I repeated the question. Finally I said, “Well, I know your answer.”
If there are moderate Muslims who have a problem with the term “Islamo-fascism” I haven’t met them. I don’t regard this person or that Muslim Student Association as moderate.
Yours is a reasonable question, but there are also reasonable ways to approach it, and giving up the term “Islamo-Fascism” isn’t necessarily one of them. When we announced our Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, we said we were defending Muslims, which we were. Muslim women and others who are oppressed by the Islamo-Fascists. The moderats. Moreover, it would have been perfectly possible, for somebody, on any one of these campuses, to propose a panel to discuss the appropriateness of the term, if their agenda had been dialogue and not obstruction. I instructed all the students who were organizing to welcome panels with diverse views on these issues. Our contention was to stimulate a dialogue, not to ram a conclusion down people’s throats.
Campus Progress: So do you think Islam is a inherently violent religion?
Horowitz: Well there’s a billion and a half people in Islam, and many, many divisions among them. As you know, the Quran, just like the Bible, has plenty of contradictory statements. It is my experience that most people are conflict-averse. They may, in their individual lives, get into conflicts but they certainly don’t want to go blowing themselves up. They aren’t eager to go to war. That was true of many Germans in the 1930s. But moderate Germans didn’t make a difference in the end.
Moreover, Islam has problems associated with it that Christianity and Judaism in their modern forms don’t have. The most important is the separation of church and state. If you look at Islam, it’s really been an imperialistic religion since its beginnings. It was created by a warrior not a carpenter; its prophet was directly responsible for genocidal massacres. It is very troubling when a Muslim government which we put in power acts on beliefs which we would otherwise associate with extremists. Our ally in Afhganistan, the Karzai government, sentenced to death a Muslim who had converted to Christianity. They sentenced him to death for leaving the Muslim faith. The United States government had to intervene, to get him out of the country. That was the “solution.” So there is an intolerance in Islam which is much, much greater than in the modern, sort of diluted versions of Christianity and Judaism.
Islam, as it is practiced in the Muslim world, and enforced by Muslim states, presents serious problems that cannot be ignored. I don’t think it’s helpful in discussing these problems to call people who raise them religious bigots. That is merely a bid to stop the discussion all together, which is why it is a constant complaint of organizations like CAIR, which is a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood. Unfortunately there seems to be a united front of the left on campuses which takes precisely this approach. Robert Spencer and I took out an ad in The Emory Wheel, at Emory University, which we titled, “What Every American Needs to Know About Jihad.” The ad quoted Osama Bin Ladin and Hassan Nasrallah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and said: Jihad is a war against Christians, Jews, atheists, gays, and women. Instead of starting a discussion about our ad, the entire religious life faculty, including the rabbi who headed the campus Hillel organization, attacked us as religious bigots. I don’t think that kind of tactic is very helpful.
I’d like to see a discussion of the issues. American Muslims have been very peaceful in these tense times. Is it possible to have a peaceful Islam? Why not? My concern, however, is that the most dynamic movement within Islam is a fascist movement, which I associate with the Muslim Brotherhood and the organizations that can trace either their organizational roots or their spiritual roots to the Brotherhood, and to what is known as Salafism and Wahhabism.
Campus Progress: I do see where you’re coming from here. I think the question is, if you followed the Old Testament to the letter you’d have a pretty brutal system of law…
Horowitz: I think that’s exactly right. But Judaism and Christianity have had a history since their sacred texts were written. If you encountered Christianity in the Middle Ages as a Jew, for example, you could have been burned at the stake. But what Christians are burning Jews now? Or for the last 500 years?
One of the points I made in my speeches during Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week is that during the middle ages a lot of Jews gravitated towards the Muslim world because even though they were treated as dhimmis or second-class citizens—given special taxes, forced to wear a mark that showed that they were Jews and not Muslims—they were treated better than in the Christian world, where their faith put them in mortal jeopardy. But, unfortunately, during the 1930s and the Second World Wa r, Islam in the Middle East was subjected to a huge Nazi influence and absorbed virulent Jew hatred. The Jew hatred expressed by the Arab Muslim World is now worse than in in Nazi Germany before the war. Hitler never announced his plan to exterminate the Jews. Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah shout it from the rooftops, with massive crowds cheering them on and little or no opposition from the rest. “The Protocols of the Elders for Zion ” was serialized on Al Jazeera TV. Mein Kampf is a best seller in the Muslim world. Jew hatred is taught to children in elementary schools. This is much worse than the Hitler Thirties. This is not the Islam of the Middle Ages, hostile as it was to Jews. This is new. That’s why, by the way, the term “Islamo-Fascism” is very important. Because this is not just about Islam; it’s about Islam with a fascist face.
Campus Progress: But there is material on your web site that makes it out as though there is an inherent difference between Islam and other religions. Your website has this description of a film you are promoting: “‘Islam: What the West Needs to Know’ reveals the violent, expansionary ideology of the so called ‘religion…’”
Horowitz: That is the way the film-maker Greg Davis describes his film, which I haven’t seen. I would not use the same phraseology. But I’ve discussed some of the reasons with you why I regard Islam itself as problematic. We have to keep in mind that Islam is a political religion, and that makes it problematic.
Campus Progress: Robert Spencer has a book is called Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t and he is one of the Front Page, major contributors.
Horowitz: I’ve read the book, and it’s a good book. Read the book.
Campus Progress: Do you disagree with the assertion in the title?
Horowitz: I don’t disagree with any of the particulars. I have had my disputes with Spencer over this issue. It’s a large and complicated issue. It’s one that I intended, with Islamo-fascism Awareness Week, to raise. But we haven’t been able to really raise it, because of the storm of hate storm that greeted it. “Is Islam a peaceful religion?” is a good question, but you can’t discuss it. When a Danish paper published some cartoons, Muslim mobs, egged on by Muslim governments, rioted across the world – killed people, burned embassies. I didn’t see a lot of outrage coming from the Muslim community against that. On the contrary, what I have seen is defenses of that behavior from Muslims claiming to be moderates, and from their non-Muslim apologists in the West.
I have never said that the United States should not seek allies in the Muslim world or should not be engaged, supporting Muslim countries, which we do. We support Pakistan. I think Saudi Arabia is really problematic but I haven’t said we should break off relations with Saudi Arabia. As for the intellectual issue, Robert Spencer is an expert in Islam and Greg Davis knows a lot more about it than I do. I’m not going to rule out their points of view and I’m certainly not going to consider them bigoted because both of them are scholars who are raising important issues which need to be discussed, not just attacked.
Campus Progress: What is your stance on France’s law banning the wearing of religiously significant attire in public schools?
Horowitz: I’m not familiar with the French law. There is a well-informed opinion that says hijabs have nothing to do with religion, but are a political statement, although when religion and politics are conflated it’s hard to know the difference. If you have a religion that doesn’t want to assimilate in some way, at least in the public square, you’ve got a serious problem.
I don’t think we should give drivers licenses, which are essentially identity cards, to people who want to be masked. It’s that simple. If you can’t handle that, you need to go to a country which accommodates medieval customs. I am against clitorectomies. I don’t care how religious such a custom it is, I’m against it. I’m against women getting half the inheritance of a man, I believe in that kind of gender equality. And I thought modern-thinking progressives did too. So I’m not willing to make an accommodations to barbaric religious customs. Now I’m sounding like Christopher Hitchens.
Campus Progress: I bet people sometimes compare you guys. You must sometimes get that.
Horowitz: I have a lot of affection for Christopher although we don’t agree on a lot of things.
Campus Progress: One of your major causes has been a state-level Academic Bills of Rights. These initiatives have been rejected in most states. I just wanted to get your thought on why.
Horowitz: I’ve explained this many times, although my powerful opponents choose to ignore my explanations. I never, ever intended or attempted to legislate what teachers should say in the classroom. I was associated with three “academic rights” bills: in Georgia, Ohio and Colorado (I was also associated with legislation creating a committee to look into the state of academic freedom in Pennsylvania.) None of these bills were bills – statutory legislation. They were all resolutions, which means a “sense of the legislature.” They were all of the order of, “We would like you…to support the principle intellectual diversity,” which means to me, exactly this: If an issue is controversial, then students should be made aware that it’s controversial. Or if a point of view is controversial, a matter of controversy, then students should be made aware that there is a controversy, and should be provided materials that would allow them to decide which side of the controversy they want to be on for themselves. I have never found anybody who disagrees with that when I state it that way.
Why did I go to legislatures? Because when I went to universities I got nowhere. I started with the chairman of the trustees of the State University of New York. I wrote the Academic Bill of Rights for him. He was a Pataki appointee, and his name was Tom Egan. He loved the Academic Bill of Rights, and told me exactly how he would implement it. But he never did so, because he could not oppose his faculty which was dominated by leftwing teacher unions.
So my original intention was to get universities to adopt the academic bill of rights. Before I made this attempt, before I published the bill, I showed to to Michael Berube, Todd Gitlin, Stanley Fish and another leftwing academic named [Phil] Klinkner, who is the dean of students now at Hamilton University. I asked them if they objected to anything in the Academic Bill of Rights. They had a couple of objections to the original document. I took out the clause they objected to. I argued with them, and I couldn’t convince them, so I took it out, because I wanted this not to be a partisan campaign. I am an out-spoken conservative, but I wanted to make this a bi-partisan campaign. It should not have been a left-right campaign.
I wanted an ecumenical approach to this problem because as I have written and said many, many times, the students who suffer most from professors who indoctrinate them and from the lack of conservatives on academic faculties are liberal students because they are never challenged intellectually. Their assumptions are shared by their professors and often the majority of their classmates. They can get up in a class and people will agree with them and support their perspective. All the teacher will tell them is that they need to get such and such a source, or “This is a better argument.” What they won’t get is a challenge to their assumptions.
If you’re a conservative student, and you have the gumption to speak up in class, you’ve got to be prepared to defend yourself. So the conservative kids are getting, ironically, a much better education. They are being faced with critical opinions from liberal and leftwing adults whereas the leftist students never even encounter a conservative faculty member.
To go back to my odyssey with the academic bill of rights. I went to Egan, the chairman of the SUNY board of trustees and nothing happened. I kept coming back at him until finally I realized what the problem was, and the problem was the leftist teacher unions, which are run by aggressive activists who are not primarily scholars, but political ideologues, who saw this as a plot contrived by their political enemies. These radicals are a minority on any faculty. In my book, The Professors, I estimate they’re 10 percent of a given faculty. But they dominate all the political instrumentalities of the university. They’re the leaders of the faculty senate; they’re the officers of the AAUP and the American Federation of Teachers. The reason for this is they like politics, while other professors, the scholars, detest academic politics and generally avoid it. I realized that the administrators don’t really run the universities any more. Their business is fundraising and maintaining institutional calm. As far as the curriculum is concerned, the faculty and the faculty left rule the roost.
When I saw this, I also realized that I go to a hundred administrators and while I might get sympathy, nothing would happen and nobody would ever hear of the Academic Bill of Rights. So I realized that what I had to do was to get some leverage. The leverage could just be perceptual. But that was crucial. If a leftist came out with the Academic Bill of Rights, the New York Times would have published it and it would have received the support it needed. But for conservative there would only be silence, as though it didn’t exist. On the other hand, once I went to legislatures, the left became hysterical. When the left gets hysterical, the media pays attention.
So the left put the Academic Bill of rights on the national radar. As you know, the Academic Bill of Rights is now discussed everywhere. And even though it’s completely misrepresented, including on your web site, the fact that it is essentially a liberal document with which no reasonable person could actually disagree, in the minds of most students and professors who’ve heard of it, there’s a receptiveness to its principles. Before my academic freedom campaign, you didn’t hear much about the subject, not in the context of presenting one-sided arguments in the classroom. There was not a link between about traditional academic freedom values and hearing two sides to a question. Now there is. As for the legislation, I haven’t pushed any legislations, not even resolutions for several years.
Campus Progress: And you’re saying that when you did, it was non-binding.
Horowitz: It was completely non-binding. In Texas, the legislature meets every other year. In Missouri, they meet for 40 days. State legislators often have to have day jobs. Moreover, anyone who actually reads the Academic Bill of Rights will see that I have a very high regard for the independence of the university. So I never really pursued binding legislation. It was the American Association of University Professors, a leftwing organization that first mis-characterized my campaign and now has come out and actually endorsed indoctrination in the classroom. The new AAUP statement validates what I’ve said from the beginning, and that is that their attacks on the Academic Bill of Rights have been because the left and the hard left, the feminist left in particular, want to indoctrinate students in their particular political ideology.
The AAUP now says that if a discipline, such as Womens Studies, declares a doctrine, such as the “social construction of gender” to be true, then it can be taught as true, regardless of whether other disciplines, for example biology and neuro-science, contest its claim.
I have no objection to a feminist teaching, so long as she makes clear that her feminist views are opinions not scientific truths. I have never called for the firing of a teacher for their political views. I defended Ward Churchill over his political views. But when it was revealed that he was a fraud and a plagiarist, I couldn’t defend that. I defended Erwin Chemerinsky, who is an ideological leftist whom I’ve dealt with over the years. But I thought it was wrong to withdraw his appointment because his politics. Chemerinsky was defended by many conservatives, whereas I’m not familiar with a case in which leftists have come out to defend conservatives under similar attack.
Campus Progress: I wanted to ask you a couple questions about the troubled relationship between your organization and ours, if that’s all right. A quote from an interview you gave to National Review Online caught our eye: “But the larger agenda is create a national movement to stand up to the coalition between Islamo-fascists and American liberals at home who are running interference for the terrorists. The coalition attacking Islamo-fascism Awareness Week extends from the Iranians and CAIR through the Revolutionary Communist Party to Campus Progress and College Democrats.” Do you actually think we’re running interference for terrorists?
Horowitz: Well, when you look at the coalition to defame Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week and prevent rational discussion of the issue, Campus Progress was prominent in that campaign. [inaudible]. I was appalled though not wholly surprised that College Democrats would get into bed with the forces that attacked us, and of course Campus Progress as an offshoot of the Center for American Progress is part of the coalition that makes up the Democratic Party. Before we held our events, if a student or professor used the term Islamo-fascism in a discussion on campus, whether in a classroom or not – that person would be attacked as a religious bigot, an “Islamo-phobe.” In other words, before we came on the scene with hundreds of people prepared to use the term, there was an effective ban on the term and therefore on the very idea of Islamo-fascism.
Our week was designed to have so many people publicly using the term “Islamo-fascism” that it would be much harder to discredit and intimidate individuals, and a discussion then could take place. I don’t know if you can use the term Islamo-fascism yet on college campuses but that is my agenda. Campus Progress should have been defending us. Instead Campus Progress attacked us.
Campus Progress: Well that’s a difference of opinion and we happen to have different ideas about how to best address terrorism.
Horowitz: You are a political organization. In politics, it’s the practice that counts. The rest is just talk. During the latter phase of the Cold War, the New Left supported the Soviet empire “critically.” New leftists would say “The soviet union is bad but America is worse,”— which is what the left in effect has been saying in the current war, first about Saddam Hussein and now about Ahmadinejad.
If you interviewed the millions of leftists who went out into the streets to try to save Saddam, they would say “Oh, he’s a monster.” But that didn’t stop them from opposing his overthrow. Until 2003, the left would endlessly complain, “America supports dictators if they’re anti-communist or pro-capitalist—we want America to stand up for human rights.” Well, that’s what America did in 2003 in Iraq and the left attacked America anyway. So the left’s real agenda is not human rights; it’s bring down the Great Satan.
Campus Progress: The point of view of organizations like my own is that none of us were arguing that Saddam wasn’t a horrible person; we were arguing that the results of an invasion would be worse than the results of leaving him in place.
Horowitz: Oh but you don’t really believe that. The United States has gone into countries with your approval. Did you go out intp the streets to attack Bill Clinton when he was bombing Belgrade? Leftists complain that America didn’t save the Rwandans, which would have meant invading an African country. America’s invasion of Iraq was undertaken to enforce a U.N. Security Council resolution and a violated truce. It wasn’t even an invasion, but the continuation of a war that began in 1991, when you were a toddler. Saddam violated the terms of the Gulf War truce over and over and over again. The Iraq War was a war that Bill Clinton called for, and the entire Clinton security team, and I’m sure John Podesta, supported. To have the left so unified in attacking such a good war is telling.
Campus Progress: So you think there’s a disingenuousness there?
Horowitz: Yes, what overrode the principles leftists claim to support was the fact that America is the great Satan for the left. When I was a kid, Harry Truman said that it was going to be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who were resisting totalitarians. It was a message to Stalin. There was a civil war in Greece, which Stalin was supporting, and Truman showed that he was going to oppose the Communist takeover which was Stalin’s objective. He sent military and economic aid to Greece. The progressives of the day, who are still the progressives of today, marched out of the Democratic Party in protest to form the Progressive Party, which was run by the communist party, to oppose the Truman policy. They used all the arguments the left uses today, talked about the “liberation” of Greece and of Eastern Europe when the Communists were actually enslaving the region. They split off from the Democratic Party and supported the presidential candidacy of Henry Wallace – against Truman and thankfully lost. Unfortunately, the left returned to the Democratic Party in 1972 to support McGovern, a veteran of the Wallace campaign. I think the left is so entrenched and so powerful in the Democratic Party today that I would be hard to sever them from the party, but I would like to see a Democratic Party freed from their influence—
Campus Progress: But if you’re right, why did the Democrats support the war in Iraq?
Isn’t that a counter argument to your claim that the party is overrun with leftists?
Horowitz: No, because when I say the Democratic Party is a left party, I’m talking about the apparatus. I’m talking about the congressional party. I’m not talking about the voters. The Democrats in congress who voted for the war did so mainly out of fear that if they didn’t the voters would reject them. Leftists look at Democratic legislators as excessively cowardly. In fact what the legislators are doing is listening to their pollsters and saying “My whole constituency may be screaming for this but I can’t do this, because I’m not going to get elected next time if I do it.” That’s what that’s about.
I would like to see the anti-Islamist liberals come out of the woodwork and form a coalition with people like me, with Republicans to fight the enemy. Then I’d be happy. I haven’t seen in the Democratic Party a will to actually fight the war on terror. What I see is a lot of sabotage of the war on terror. I’ve just written a book about this called The Party of Defeat, which will be out in February.
Campus Progress: When you look at the trajectory of the Iraq war, what’s your stance on how it’s going, how it was executed…
Horowitz: First of all, I think it’s been sabotaged from the outset by the Democratic Party leadership, starting with Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, who attacked the president’s policy on Iraq in September 2002 even as he was attempting to compel Saddam to readmit the weapons inspectors and taking his appeal to the UN General Assembly. This began one of the most disgraceful episodes in American politics – the spectacle of a major political party turning its back on a war it had supported when the war had hardly begun.
I think that Bush has mismanaged the war and failed to explain it well to the American people. But, you know, the Democrats created a situation in which he had very little flexibility. General Shinseki, who I was critical of a the time, was absolutely right when he said there weren’t enough troops. But no Democrats proposed bills to increase the troop numbers. The surge is working, but the Democrats have opposed it. They’ve done it in part for really shortsighted political objectives. It’s opportunistic and disgraceful. It’s embarrassing.
Campus Progress: You don’t think that there are people who genuinely think the war is lost. You think it’s political opportunism?
Horowitz: Oh I think there are always honest people on differing sides of issues such as this. My comments aren’t really about the motives of the Democrats in committing this betrayal. They did it from a mix of motives. It’s about the consequences of what they did. As I said,
I’m sure that most of the leftists who marched to save Saddam Hussein thought he was a bad man, but one has to to evaluate what they did, not their intentions. Do leftists worry about the intentions of Dick Cheney or George Bush? Come on! They look at what they think these two men did and then condemn him for it.
Campus Progress: So you think they’re overly consequentialist?
Horowitz: I didn’t say that. I think they have a double standard. They’re consequentialist when it comes to conservatives. They never allow conservatives good intentions. And they’re intentionalists when it comes to themselves—they never concede that they have bad motives.
Campus Progress: Isn’t everybody guilty of that a little?
Horowitz: It’s a human weakness. Who likes to say they’re wrong? Even 20 years after the fact it’s very hard to get people to admit they made a mistake. I wrote an autobiography which was ruthless with the left in terms of what it had done, but I took special care to also be ruthless about myself, so that my critique would be credible. So I know what it is to actually say I made a mistake; I did something wrong. I know how painful it is. So I’m a vert good judge of of whether people have actually had second thoughts or changed their minds.
Campus Progress: You’ve spoken about receiving death threats from people on the left and needing body guards. Do you think people on the left in the U.S. are more irrational or prone to violence than people on the right?
Horowitz: At the extreme ends no. But along the spectrum, yes. I’ve written a lot about this issue. The left and the right are not parallel formations. These are not people who look at a problem pragmatically and come to different judgments about it. They’re really different human types. The left is a missionary movement, a religious movement. The birth of the modern left coincides with the decline of institutional religion. During the French Revolution, the Jacobins turned Notre Dame into a “Temple of Reason” and slaughtered thousands because they lacked (revolutionary) “virtue.” The Jacobins conducted the first modern genocide, when they went in into the Vendée region and killed every Catholic man, woman, and child, because they represented the reactionary past. It was a fore-runner of Pol Pot.
If you’re on the left, you believe in an earthly redemption of one sort or another. You regard yourself as a social redeemer. You see the problems of the world, social problems, as the result of bad institutions that can be changed, and you believe that there can be a world with no racism, no sexism, no homophobia, no Islamophobia, no poverty, no war, etc. This is really as close to the kingdom of heaven on earth as you can get. That’s conceptually what the left’s revolutionary fantasy – its fantasy of “social justice” – is about. It’s an escape from the existential reality that we all face, which is a world full of misery and suffering. Which is what it has always has been and -- unless we re-engineer mankind genetically -- always will be. So if you’re on the left you see yourself as a member of the Army of the Saints and you see your opponents—conservatives and Republicans who think that you really can’t do what you want to do and who are going to oppose it—you see us as the Party of Satan. So the left is by nature much more intolerant than the right.
Of course there are people on the right who are religious fanatics, who have the same mentality as leftists. People who blow up abortion clinics or people who, you know, think that you can eliminate abortions all together by passing laws. You can’t do that, anymore than you could outlaw alcohol and make that stick. You just can’t. I think abortion is a bad idea but I don’t think it should be completely outlawed. I’m kind of in the middle. When I grew up abortion was illegal after the first trimester, and so I regard that as a reasonable compromise.
Conservatives believe that the root cause of social problems is us -- individuals. We are the problem. We’re greedy, we’re deceptive, capable of evil. Everybody, without exception. It is remarkable, when you think about it, that people on the left can think that government can be the solution to anything. After all, government is responsible for slavery. The people in government have the same protoplasm as the people causing the problems, except that they more power. That’s why limited government seems like a really good idea.
Campus Progress: Well then, don’t you think that if liberals have that tendency to think government can solve everything, isn’t there a similar tendency among conservatives in regard to the free market or Christianity—it seems like they’re easy fixes.
Horowitz: I think that people are always longing for an escape from reality. You’re right about that. When I’m speaking to conservative audiences one of the things that I say is that there is a difference between religion and politics. Religion is about saving your eternal soul, and if you mess with the devil you endanger your eternal soul. In politics it’s about getting into office and you make pacts with the devil all the time. That’s my way of encapsulating the problem. So yes, there is an impulse in all of us to try to find an easy solution, to try to end not only human suffering but our own frustrations; and that just isn’t going to happen.
Campus Progress: You’ve referred to Campus Progress as part of the “gutter left.”
Horowitz: Well, after this conversation, maybe we’ve begun a new day here. We’ll have to wait and see what comes out of this.
Campus Progress: Okay.
Horowitz: On the other hand, until I see a change, I can’t just sweep under the rug the fact that
Campus Progress attacked me from the very beginning. I’ve gone over the profile you’ve posted on me under “Know Your Right Wing Speakers” to show you how many errors and slanders it contains. I have written before to Campus Progress and there has been little result. The best thing I can say about Campus Progress is first that you invited Jacob Laskin to be on a panel at one of your events and his impression was a good one; and second that you’ve initiated this dialogue. So I’m open to the possibility that my judgment needs to be revised as far as Campus Progress is concerned. But I’m not going to apologize about the past because I was attacked and was defending myself. I didn’t attack first. I just responded.
Campus Progress: What I will say in our defense is that I do think it would be unfair to engage in your argument by calling you a bigot, that’s not something that I would do. I think that your argument deserves more nuance than that and a response. But similarly I think that our argument needs to be modified. We’ve been compared to terrorists, we’ve been told we’re anti-American. I think we simply have different opinions on these things.
Horowitz: I don’t think I’ve been guilty of referring to you as terrorists. What exactly did I say?
Campus Progress: You accused us of “running interference for the terrorists…”
Horowitz: Is that unfair, considering the attacks on Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week? Running interference for the terrorists is different from embracing terrorism. It can be inspired by different motives. One is the opportunistic notion that if the war in Iraq goes well it helps Bush. This is where many Democrats are coming from. Actually, that’s an unsophisticated view of politics. The more Bush succeeds, the more the problem that Americans elected him to solve goes away, and the less reason there is for them to elect him. This is what happened with the crime problem. Republicans won a lot of elections because Democrats had a delusional view of criminals. But when the crime problem began to go away, that ceased to be a factor in elections and the Democrats came back.
Interference can also seem like a respectable strategy if you think that American power presents a bigger danger than the terrorist threat. The New York Times has helped actual traitors—that is, people who violated the espionage laws by leaking national security programs like the NSA surveillance program – to reach the general public and thus destroy the program. That’s aiding and abetting the enemy. Why would the Times do that? Does that mean that the editors of the New York Times are Islamists? Does it mean that they have a pathological hatred for America the way, say, Cindy Sheehan does? It doesn’t mean that. But it does mean that they’re will to break the national security laws of this country to change American policy.
In the early 1970s, I was an editor of the largest magazine on the left, Ramparts. I thought I was pretty sophisticated at the time, although in retrospect I had to recognize that I was pretty naïve. I was critical of the Soviet Union and knew it was a dictatorship, but like other New Leftists I though the Soviet Union could reform and America was the real threat. Somebody passed a manuscript in a manila envelope through our office transom and we opened it. The manuscript had a lot of capitalized words. It was about the National Security Agency, the NSA, which at the time was completely unknown, was not public. The author claimed to have been manning one of the NSA stations in Turkey and to have listened in when the Soviet astronaut burned up in space. He claimed that we had broken the Soviet code and our intelligence agencies knew where every Soviet tank and airplane was when it took off because we could intercept and read their electronic communications. My reaction was that this guy was a nut. But one of our editors had been in the 82nd Airborne in intelligence and he was shaking like a leaf because he recognized words with the capital letters. They were code words, and he said “These are real code words, and just by telling you this I could go to jail. Unfortunately, he was wrong about that.
In any case, we contacted the person who had dropped the manuscript through the transom and interviewed him. He was an American serviceman who had defected from the NSA because of the Vietnam War. We decided to run his story in the magazine. But before we ran it, I wanted to contact a lawyer and know what our liability was. I had four children and was living in Berkley and while sabotaging America’s war effort didn’t bother me, I wanted to know what my risks were. I called up a member of the Daniel Ellsberg defense team, because Ellsberg was on trial for leaking classified documents (for which he too was never punished). The lawyer I talked to was Charles Nesson, a constitutional law professor at Harvard to this day. Nesson advised me on how to commit treason and get away with it. He said, “If you publish this guy’s stuff, you will be violating the Espionage Act.” The espionage act had been written in a peculiar way so that if you first destroy and documents you have and then deny having seen any, you can probably avoid prosecution. He said, even if that doesn’t work, we live in a democracy and that means that the government is going to have to prove, in a court of law, that you damaged national security, which means it’s going to have reveal a lot more about our national security apparatus and measures than it’s going to want to reveal. So the likelihood is you won’t be prosecuted. This, by the way, is why the several instances of treason via document leaks that have been abetted by the New York Times during the Iraq war were not prosecuted. This is why trying terrorists in a court of law is so difficult and why it’s important to have military tribunals.
Recall that when I committed these acts (and of course did so along with the Ramparts staff and to the applause of the left generally), I didn’t do so because I thought that the communists were going to bring heaven to Vietnam. I knew that they were Stalinists. But I said to myself, “This will weaken the United States and if the United States loses in Vietnam that will be good, first because America is the defender of the oppressive imperialist system (the “Great Satan”) and second because even if the Vietnamese screw things up, it’s better for them to do it than for America to do it.”
I was wrong on both counts, but that’s why I did it, that was my motive, which is the primary motive of all the leftists running interference for the terrorists now, and most of the Democrats sabotaging America’s war effort. I was wrong because what the communists did was that they executed 100,000 people, and drove a million into exile, 500,000 of whom perished trying to escape. And, of course, because America pulled out of Indo-China – because the Democrats cut off its support of the regimes there -- two and a half million Cambodians who were also slaughtered. I completely wrong. But, from a progressive perspective, my motives for doing it were well-intentioned. I thought there could be peace in the world if everybody knew what everybody was doing and could know it in advance. What I didn’t factor in—and this was my stupidity at the time—was that if the Soviets knew had broken their code they would change it.
Fortuntely, in those days, the New York Times wanted us to win the wars we were fighting, so they ran a frontpage story discounting our claims. Today, the story itself would be leaked by the Times and they would be running interference for the enemy rather than us.
Campus Progress: Who are some of your favorite liberals at the moment?
Horowitz: Joe Lieberman. Among intellectuals, Randall Kennedy, who is a law professor at Harvard. Orlando Patterson, who is a sociologist at the W.E.B. Dubois institute at Harvard. Stanley Fish has written excellent articles on academic freedom, and is writing a book that I’m looking forward to. I like several of Phillip Roth’s novels. Sabbath’s Theater is a work of demented genius and American Pastoral is the best book about the ’60s that anybody has written, including me. Wonderful book.
Campus Progress: I like The Human Stain a lot.
Horowitz: I liked the Human Stain. I thought the Vietnam vet was cliché which spoiled it for me.
Campus Progress: Thanks for your time. This is probably an audience you don’t reach often, so is there anything else you want to say?
Horowitz: I would like to see much more conversation, left and right, conservative/liberal, whatever you want to call it, much less name-calling. I have, one or two occasions, subjected individuals to attacks that were unfounded and afterwards regretted it and said so. I wish there was some of that from the left. I don’t know of anyone on the other side who has attempted to make such amends. I think it’d be better if all of us if we toned the rhetoric down and attempted to be more generous about those aspects of our opponents’ thought that was valuable. I have tried to do this in regard to antagonists of mine such a Paul Berman, Michael Walzer, Todd Gitlin and even Michael Berube. My efforts, gestures if you will, have not been reciprocated. I try make responses in kind and not to initiate polemical attacks, though sometimes I’m sure I have done that. On the other hand, none of my antagonists just mentioned have been given the kind of shabby treatment they have reserved for conservatives like me.
I would look forward to the possibility of doing some kind of joint conference with Campus Progress to discuss these issues. I’m happy to open my websites to a discussion. I’ve already offered you that opportunity to do that in regard to academic freedom and in particular the AAUP’s shocking new defense of indoctrination, which betrays its own historic positions. If I can find common ground with Stanley Fish, who as you know is an academic leftist, I certainly should be able to find common ground with some people at Campus Progress.
For the moment, I’m going to regard you as a kind of unique in your open-mindedness. I may be wrong about that. You’ve already proved me wrong in stepping forward yourself, and I’m happy to be proven wrong that way. I will look at your organizational statements again. I’m suspicious of your sponsors and origins, as a creation of the Center for American Progress, which I regard as a Soros-Clinton operation.
Campus Progress: I think we’re less shadowy than you think. And maybe you’re less shadowy than we think.
Horowitz: In my view, that is generally the rule in politics. It’s the way the game is played on all sides. May I close with an anecdote illuminating this? It concerns my own light bulb moment.
Campus Progress: Sure.
Horowitz: I host a discussion group in Los Angeles called The Wednesday Morning Club. One of the members of my steering committee, a lawyer for DreamWorks and Stephen Spielberg, asked me to invite Leon Panetta to speak. Our audiences tended to be conservative, but I was trying to create a more hospitable atmosphere in the entertainment industry and was eager to seize the ecumenical opportunity. Panetta had been an important congressman and then was Clinton’s chief of staff during the Monica Lewinsky episode and the impeachment business. Now he has an institute for statesmanship in Monterey.
Panetta came and gave a talk on civic virtues, the kind of things we all love to hear about -- civic responsibility, bringing the community together, etc. He was critical of the Republicans and he was critical of Clinton and Gore and our conservative audience loved it. I went up to him afterwards said: “Mr. Panetta, when I used to see you on television I wanted to throw my shoe at the tube, but what you said just now was marvelous. What happened?” And he said, “Oh, that was just the partisan thing.” Suddenly I saw a whole new reality behind the political surfaces that we are used to. In the political arena, you always have to be protecting your flanks because if you show the slightest bit of openness the opposition will jump down your throat and kill you. And nobody escapes this.
I have reached the point where I can hardly watch the talking heads, I don’t care if they’re Republicans or Democrats. They’re all political operatives, they spin everything. It’s never a real conversation. That Panetta moment was so refreshing. It’s why I think the introduction of politics into campus life which came with the Sixties is so destructive to the conversation that should be taking place there. It’s what I would like to see happen on campuses again. It’s tragic that our campuses have been so politicized. When I was in college during the 1950s, I never heard a professor one time in one class express a political point of view. As a Marxist, wholly out of step with the temper of those anti-Communist times, I would have been hyper-sensitive to such an intrusion. My professors, whatever their politics, were about teaching. It was never about trying to persuade their students to adopt their political prejudices. There was very little political activity on campus, which was something we on the left complained about. But we were wrong. The introduction of political agendas is an obstacle to serious reflection. If you’re always fighting political battles you don’t have room to think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
MUSLIM SPEAKER
Email to: SpeakerMikeGhouse@gmail.com
Voice of Moderate Muslims
Voice of Moderate Muslims
SUCCESSFUL NAATIA MUSHAERA ON 2.21.14
Moderate Islam Speaker
Moderate Islam Speaker
CIVIL DIALOGUE
The people in Dallas are making an effort to understand and clean their own hearts first, when we are free from bias, it would be easy to share that with others. Islam teaches us in so many ways to "respect the otherness of others" and it is time we find simple practical ways of doing it.
