oj-

Nice interview. One question. If Islam delivers such 'certainty' to believers, why such intolerance toward other religious points of view? Certainty, it would seem, should result in patience born from confidence. Oppression is the result of internal doubts regarding an omnipresent ideology. All tyrannical systems must control thought and communication because of the fear of it's unravelling. The Islamist shouting out, "God is Great", as he commits some unspeakable act, may simply reflect a conscience in need of being overridden. The idea of invoking God when your conscience tells you, 'you are wrong', seems the height of pathological arrogance in response to normal, human doubt. The same might be said for the general suppression of religious thought since it is really nothing but the suppression of conscience. Confidence would call for a different approach, one would think.

Tom:

Because they lost the clash of civilizations and were colonized. We were as intolerant until we won. They need to become more tolerant and Europe to become less, but the former will happen and the latter won't.

oj-

I'm talking about religion, conscience and 'tolerance'. Not politics. The history of the clash is not as one sided as you pretend. Islamism cannot be looked as somehow isolated from Islam. It's history of conquest and oppression predates western imperialsim.

I'll say it again: a country that has successfuly resisted both the French Measuring System and Metric Football is not going to magically transform it'sentire society in this fashion, especially in a matter of a few years.

As for the colonialism argument, they were just being repaid in kind for Islam's behavior during the millenium of its ascendency. It's the usual victim excuse when all they really long for is a return to the Good Ol' Days when the Dhimmis knew their place.

The point has been made by the commenters and not answered.

This failed barbarism operates as a spiritual jailhouse exactly because of its failure. It cannot stand in the marketplace of ideas so it forbids competition and punishes its inmates who dare to reach outsidse its bars.

Everyone sees these things; none of the facts are in doubt. The mob bosses running the RICO still will not permit you to publically practice a religion other than their own. They will not let you hand out a tract or preach the Bible to one of their inmates, whom they threaten to kill if they dare stray.

The jailors and even the inmates may pretend that they are "certain"; some of them may even believe that they are "certain," but their actions state otherwise.

Reformation is past due. Stop now. What if "reformation" means destruction? The spiritual jailhouse was set up the way it was set up. It is frozen solid, like an insect in amber. It lacks the institutional mechanisms for "reformation."

It is too late for blame. Blame the fools in the West who fought among themselves instead of strangling this beast when it would have been easier. For now, hope that the tactics which brought down the focus of evil in the modern world, the FORMER SOVIET UNION, works one more time: communication to the inmates over the heads of the jailors until the jail falls apart. Another easy victory is possible, but I doubt it.

Tom:

Islamicism is indeed distinct from Islam, which was tolerant.

Lou:

The victory is coming even easier because the basis of a decent society still thrives with only unhealthy bits at the margin.

Non-Islamic Islamism? Where? Who?

Darwin, an assassin and psychopath

I can guess one reason why OJ likes the book....

All Islamicism in non-Islamic.

Islam was never tolerant for any extended period of time when in power. Where do you get this stuff? Pure revisionist fantasy.

In fact Mohammed required tolerance and so the dhimmi were tolerated.

oj the deconstructionist. Who knows what the Islamic world will come up with once they latch on to THAT western 'ism'. Poor, naive souls.

Tom:

The problem is that you use the European definition of tolerance, rather than the Anglo-American:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1264/

It's always struck me that, to the Islamist, Islam is incredibly brittle. They have to kill all the Jews and infidels immediately because Allah, the all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, can't handle it if they're allowed to survive. All lands have to come under sharia because a Moslem living among unbelievers can't maintain his faith. Those who convert from Islam to other faiths have to be hunted down and exterminated because . . . what, Allah can't deal with him in the hereafter?

Mike:

Why would that be surprising given the last hundred fifty years of Islam? The theology requires successful societies as a sign that Allah is pleased, yet in that time they've been thoroughly dominated by Europe and then America-Israel. And the most successful nation on Earth is the most Christian.

oj-

Nonsense. American 'tolerance' entails the freedom to be left alone. Sects and theology beyond faith in and aceptance of the American 'idea' are unimportant. The universalism based on the dignity and God-given right of human beings to find thier way as best as they can in freedom from cant and arbitrary power. The European idea is multi-cultural relativism where the freedom from offended sensibilities seems to have taken the front and center. Hurt feelings are to be taken more seriously than the truth. Safety in the imagination at the expense of all that is truly good. That is not the American idea of tolerance nor is it mine. European Muslims are playing this weakness because they can. The peace of the grave is such 'tolerance'.

No, "the freedom to be left alone" is the cancer destroying Europe. It's multi-culti pabulum.

oj-
Read the entire comment.Tolerance in 'Matters of conscience within the context of the American Idea'.
There is no European 'Idea' other than statism.

Statism requires tolerance.

Euro-style.

Islam is not tolerant. I don't recall Jesus organizing armed gangs to wage genocidal war on neighboring cities, or giving detailed instructions as to conducting profitable kidnapping and extortion rackets, but hey, maybe it's in there somewhere.

Also I'm not sure if there's a Christian doctrine of 'kill the infidel, go to heaven and have a sex orgy'. Islam is primitive, barbaric and revolting. Everywhere around the planet, wherever it's ideology gets a grip, intellectual stagnation, fanatical violence and poverty result. It's evil.

As someone who's not religious myself, I have totally come around to the idea that religion is a necessary component of any long term successful society, in balance with a secular state and intellectual freedom.

But not if that religion is Islam. Once Islam gets a grip in any culture it slowly expands to force out everything else. It’s in the process of choking the Turkish secular state.

What kind of religion offers an idea of paradise that is sex in return for murder? The arabs have always been greedy, hateful, violent barbarians. They developed a religion that expressed their culture, and it spread through violence, that’s all.

One final thing, as befits a religion that is based of exploitation and violence, Islam’s victims are overwhelmingly the weak. Not rich, powerful, white westerners, who have armies to protect them. 9-11 was an aberration, overwhelmingly Islam’s victims are the anonymous and defenseless third worlders. Bangladeshi women, Algerian rural peasants, Filipino villagers, and other, weaker muslims.

It’s a disgusting, arab creed. It is not tolerant and never has been.

Amos:

Yes, Christ gave birth to a slave religion, which as soon as it had any power began a world conquest thatr is unmitigated to this day. Muhammed gave birth to a master religion that became psychically dislocated when it hit the wall and started losing to Christians. The required Reform is rather minimal and entirely based on that difference--a healthy society requires some separation between Caesar and God. Christianity was fortunate enough to be the early learner of that lesson, thus its advantage.

oj-

Your relativism and euivocation in this matter is incredible. Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire from within. Islam became the religion of the Mongols after the sack of Baghdad. Within 30years of Mohammad's death, Islamic armies fanned out across North Africa, the Middle East and Egypt imposing themselves on Christian territories. Conversion was forced through various means both violent and economic. How hard is this for you to understand? The Muslim territories of Eastern Europe were conquerd militarily and conversion was an economic neccessity since the alternatives were class discrimination, slavery or death. Missionary operations were not the Islamic way.

Tom:

Yeah, remember how we let the Indians make up their own minds about everything when we got to the New World?

Gee,what would have become of the Indians if the Europeans had never come. Why they'd probably still be hunter-gatherers living in harmony with nature, right? Or maybe they would have colonized Europe? Or killed each other of in their regular tribal wars after their invention of gunpowder and artillery. It's possible that their rudimentary cultures would have simply disapeared like their cousins to the south.

History happens.Learn from it.

Tom;

Bingo! When we do it we civilized the savages.

I've just finished Ferrigno's book. It's not a very good example of genre fiction; willing suspension of disbelief was well-nigh impossible. He actually re-imagines the Fedayeen as effective warriors with quasi-mystical martial-arts like powers. Plus the writing is typical of these kinds of airport books, which is to say, atrocious.

oj-

What the heck? When we do what? Turn Indians into slaves? Threaten them with conversion or death? Or just build settlements in the wilderness? Make overtures to assimilate or stay out of the way? Believe it or not, Indians had choices. As a 10-20% Indian blood myself I feel no lack of freedom to worship the Sun (or Allah, in some corners) if I wished, although simply a boring Roman Catholic by birth and by choice.

Tom:

We did turn them into slaves. Blacks too. And we made both chattel slaves, whereas Islamic slavery was more traditional and non-racist.

He actually re-imagines the Fedayeen as effective warriors with quasi-mystical martial-arts like powers.

You mean like the ones in Dune? (called something like "Fedakin")

oj,
One of the few times I find myself in adamant disagreement with you.
There is nothing in the history of Islam that speaks of tolerance, from Christian Egypt becoming Muslim due to invasion, conquest and forcible conversion to the so-called golden age of Islam commesurate with their invasion of Western Europe and their decline after the forcible expulsion from therein by the Christian Spaniards.
Ferrigno's "Black Robes" represent the true face of historical Islam.
Once again I suggest you read "Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1573922471/qid=1142913432/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-3319297-4812020?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Mike

Mike:

"Christian Spaniards"

Raoul:

At first I thought "Fedayeen Saddam," but I guess he could be referring to the Fedayeen in Iran, who did actually help pull off the Iranian revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedayeen

Oh, and another thing: America converts because of Hollywood stars. If that were plausible, we'd all be Scientoligists by now.

oj-

Indians chattel slaves? Do you make stuff up as you go? How do you think African slaves were attained by the main slaving powers? They were not chattel in Africa merely conquered tribal members sold to the Europeans by their often Muslim conquerers. The world changes oj, at least in the west. Slavery is very contained today. Chattel slavery still exists but only in a few muslim countries.

Conquered and then bought and sold them--it's not like they were white, so no one cared. Yes, African slavery was not immoral--American was.

Madonna single-handedly created the Kabbala craze.

Slavery became a question of morality in the 17th century. Prior to that it simply was and had always been. The fact that it exists in the world today is fascinating.

The difference is simple, When Cortez hacked children to death in the name of Jesus he was flying in the face of everything Jesus taught and he knew it.

When the wahabis cut the throats of hostages and video tape it for the internet, shouting 'allah ahkbar' they are not only following the mohommed's teaching but his example.

Big difference, with big ramifications.

Christ made no bones about the fact he came with a sword. We just approve of what we did and not what Islam did. In reality, both served good ends.

Slavery became a moral issue once it was one--with the advent of chattel slavery. Traditional slavery isn't immoral, but humane and socially desirable.

Okay, the conquest and slavery endorsement is where I get off.

Australians give your land back to the Abos?

In context, biblical slavery was humane and American slavery wasn't, although we do avoid dealing with the self-evident fact that the descendants of the American slaves are better off than the descendants of their African captors.

Yes, slavery, even the immoral variant, worked out rather well. The Islamic conquests did too.

oj-

What flavor's your Kool-Aid?

Poor OJ must utter these insanities in order to maintain his illusions.

Whether there is a meaningful difference between Islam and "Islamicism," or radical Islam, or totaliatarian Islam, or whatever semantic construction you favor, is an open question. What is not an open question is that Islam contains within it something terrible and uncontrollable that Christianity does not: a tradition of mandated aggression, a heritage stretching back to its most primitive foundations that impels war, plunder, subjugation and enslavement and calls it holy. There is nothing like that in Christianity, OJ slanders notwithstanding.

How many 9-11s would it take for the Islamicists to catch up to what we happily did to the Albigensians?

Tom:

Red, like the blood of heretics.

Paul: That's what the Huguenots said.

Sorry, boys. No dice. You cannot construct, out of the sins of Christians, a tradition within Christianity like jihad.

Paul:

Ask an aboriginal what the difference is.

Don't have to ask, because I know the difference.

Paul: How are "Crusade" and "Jihad" not the reverse sides of the same coin?

Paul:

The victims don't.

One was largely provoked and defensive as well as a long time ago, the other is offensive and happening now, David. You're kidding, right?

Also the Crusades failed. Jihad hasn't, yet, though we hope that it will. Shouldn't we wait until it has until we consign them both to the same dustbin?

Tom:

What did the Sioux do to us?

joe:

Yes, the winners get to write history. In fact, by any reasonmable measure what we're doing to Islam now is just continuing the Crusades. Our jihad will win.

OJ,

Sioux is French for "snake in the grass." The Sioux/Lakota/Nakota/Dakota do not like it when you call them Sioux, for their historical behavior graphically illustrates that word. Read about the Minnesota Massacres of 1862 for further information about such "snake in the grass" behavior.

Makes one think that the whites abrogating the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 was an appropriate response, though SCOTUS in 1980 did not think so.

Tom, Paul,

I might be an apologist for the Christian Right, but even I acknowledge that conversion-by-the-sword was a feature of the Bible. A few beatings by the Muslims in the Middle Ages kinda forced the hand of Christendom toward the Renaissance.

Now, now, Brad. oj needs his simplistic views. Indians always noble, white man bad.

Biblical? Where?

Tom:

No, you're missing the point. What we did to the savages was good. So was the jihad.

Brad:

Of course the genocide was appropriate, the Indians were wasting the land and had no civilation. The relentless march of Christendom is good.

oj-

You're missing the point, mired in a weird relativism. Islam's treatment of early Christianity is like the European settllment of the New World? The expansion through force over the oldest outposts of Christian civilization was a good thing because it was reinforced by European slaves? The African slaves sold into bondage by Arab, Islamic slave dealers were better off since the black African captives were not really chattel? Jesus founded a slave religion and Mohammad a conquerors faith? You sound like you learned about Islam from Elijah Mahammad or John Esposito.

Tom:

No, it's the opposite of relativism. We were both good for them.

Tom, the word you are looking for isn't relativist, it's Panglossian:

Master Pangloss taught the metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology. He could prove to admiration that there is no effect without a cause; and, that in this best of all possible worlds, the Baron's castle was the most magnificent of all castles, and My Lady the best of all possible baronesses.

We leave the question of whether Christianity is the Baron, and jihad the Baroness, or vice versa, as an exercise for the reader.

Ah, but this isn't the best of all possible worlds, because the Crusade isn't done yet. When we've conquered and Reformed Islam, Hindustan, and the Confucians it will be as good a world as we're likely to see, though far from the best possible.

Thorazine is also a very fine word.

joe-

You're killing me over here!

-