The Islam reformers vs. the Muslim zealots
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Islam reformers vs. the Muslim zealots
kasapafmonline.com
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a fellow of the Future of Diplomacy Project at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, a visiting fellow of the American Enterprise Institute and founder of the AHA Foundation. She is the author of the newly published book “ Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now .”
The ferment we see in the Muslim world today is not solely due to despotic political systems, and it is not solely due to failing economies and the poverty they breed. Rather, it is also due largely to Islam itself and the incompatibility of certain of that faith’s key tenets with modernity. That is why the most important conflict in the world today is between those who are hell-bent on preserving, and even increasing, these incompatibilities, and those who are bravely prepared to challenge them — not to overthrow Islam but to reform it.
Forget the crude distinction between “extreme” and “moderate” Muslims. Rather, we should distinguish among three groups of Muslims.
The first group is the most problematic. Those in this category envision a regime based on sharia, or Islamic religious law. They aim not just to obey the prophet Muhammad’s teaching but also to emulate his warlike conduct after his move to Medina . Even if they do not themselves engage in violence, the people in this group do not hesitate to condone it.
The second group — which composes the clear majority throughout the Muslim world — is loyal to the core creed of Islam and worship devoutly but is not inclined to practice or preach violence. Like devout Christians or Jews who attend religious services every week and abide by religious rules in what they eat and wear, these “Mecca Muslims” focus on religious observance. Sometimes some members of this group are mistakenly termed “moderate.”
In the third group is the growing number of people who were born into Islam but who have sought to think critically about the faith in which we were raised. These are the Muslim dissidents. A few of us have been forced by experience to conclude that we could not continue as believers yet remain deeply engaged in the debate about Islam’s future. But the majority of dissidents are reformist believers who have come to realize that their religion must change if its followers are not to be condemned to an interminable cycle of violence.
The first group — the Islamist zealots — poses a threat to everyone. In the West, the existence of this group promises not only an increasing risk of terrorism but also a subtle erosion of the hard-won achievements of feminists and campaigners for minority rights: gender equality, religious tolerance and gay rights. And anyone who denies that this threat is growing — not only in Europe but in North America, too — just hasn’t looked at the data on immigration and on Muslim immigrants’ attitudes.
But the zealots’ vision of a violent return to the days of the prophet poses an even bigger threat to their fellow Muslims. They are undermining the position of the majority who simply want to lead a quiet life. Worse, they pose a constant lethal threat to the dissidents and reformers. We are the ones who face ostracism and rejection, who must brave all manner of insults, who must deal with the death threats — or face death itself.
Western policymakers today are so fearful of being accused of Islamophobia that they generally won’t touch Muslim reformers with a 10-foot pole. They would much rather make nice with the self-proclaimed representatives of “moderate Islam,” who on close inspection often turn out but to be anything but moderate. For this reason, our leaders are missing the boat on the Muslim Reformation .
“It is not your job,” Western governments are told, “to help bring about religious change.” So Western leaders stick to their decade-old script: “Islam is a religion of peace.”
But during the Cold War, no American president said: “Communism is an ideology of peace.” None said: “The Soviet Union is not truly communist.” Rather, the West celebrated and supported dissidents such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov and Václav Havel, who had the courage to challenge the Soviet system from within.
Today, there are many dissidents who challenge Islam. Yet the West either ignores them or dismisses them as “not representative.” This is a grave mistake. Reformers such as Asra Nomani , Irshad Manji , Tawfiq Hamid , Maajid Nawaz , Zuhdi Jasser , Saleem Ahmed, Yunis Qandil, Seyran Ates , Bassam Tibi and Abd al-Hamid al-Ansari must be supported and protected. These reformers should be as well known in the West as Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov and Havel were generations earlier.
The reformers’ task will not be easy. Nor was that of the Soviet dissidents. Nor, for that matter, was that of the Protestant reformers. But the Muslim Reformation is the world’s best shot at a solution to the problem President Obama calls “violent extremism.” The time for euphemism is over. The time for reform of Islam is, at long last, now.
Read more about this topic:
Fareed Zakaria: Deny the Islamic State the overreaction that it wants
Fareed Zakaria: The limits of the ‘Islamic’ label
Michael Gerson: Step up the war against ISIS, not the rhetoric against Islam
Fareed Zakaria: Let’s be honest, Islam has a problem right now
Andrew J. Bacevich: Even if we defeat the Islamic State, we’ll lose the war
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
40 visitors
Of course SPLC lists her as a HATER. However, anyone who agrees with the SPLC is most likely a supporter of Female Genital Mutilation, honour killing, forced preteen marriages, extremist Islamic terrorism, beheadings, throwing gays off roofs, subjugation of females, etc. Those are things that she opposes, attempting to reform Islam to move it closer to Western civilized behaviour.
Don't worry if you agree with her, your anonymity will protect you from the death threats that she has experienced for speaking out against atrocities. You'll probably just be called an Islamophobe by the bigots on this site, as I will probably be called for seeding this article.
How can anyone call her a hater when she's speaking for reform in the Islamic World. She's right.
Sometimes I think the SPLC needs a mulligan
Buzz is either being misleading or is out of touch. The SPLC admitted its mistake and removed the list. just check out the date on the seeded article. It is from March of 2015. Anyone paying attention knows the SPLC reversed course on this long ago...
Make that MOST of the time.
You make it most of the time. I'm sticking with what I said
THE HARM WAS ALREADY DONE. It's easy to apologize after you've killed someone, but not everyone will take that into consideration.
Good links, but the damage was already done, the SPLC has already influenced so many, and of those It'll be the haters the SPLC created will just say they removed the names and the hate list not because they were wrong and damaging, but because they didn't want to get sued again. What about naming those who post stories about the atrocities that the mainstream media ignores - like Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer (he is NOT Richard Spencer).
In fact I posted the article about Nawaz's successful lawsuit settlement.
Ummmm.... there are are very good reasons that Islamophobes like Pam Gellar and Robert Spencer are on the SPLC's hatewatch list.
LOL. A person has to be a hater to agree with SPLC's unbelievably biased criticism of Robert Spencer. After all, ANYONE who DARES to criticize Islam will be declared by the SPLC as a hater. Just who is BEYOND being criticized? - hey, even GOD is fair game to be criticized, but pointing out ONE thing that isn't praise of the virtues of Islam, the so-called "Religion of Peace", and you become a target. God bless America's Constitution and Amendments - free speech, UNLESS it's about Islam.
I agree that Pamela Geller often goes too far, although she reports actual incidents the mainstream media whitewashes, covers up, or ignores completely - but then as I said above, why is America so hypocritical when it comes to "Free Speech"? Is it a privilege only for some but not all?
Or you have to be someone who has never attended his lectures and doesn't know much about his agenda or his history. The dude is an Islamophobic freak.
We've been hearing about an "Islamic Reformation" for a long time. One Muslim country even convened an assembly of Muslim scholars, with the aim of updating the Koran - distinguishing between God-oriented requirements (like praying five times a day) and socially-based requirements (like not eating pork). The former are intemporal, the latter are contextual.
... and Islam certainly needs to be updated...
Unfortunately, that Muslim country was Turkey... which then elected Erdoğan... and the idea of reform was quickly buried. Now... there's nothing going that way, anywhere in the Muslim world.
There are more than five million Muslims in France, and upward of four million in the US. (I didn't bother to look further.) I don't hear them supporting Hirsi Ali's position. In fact... I don't hear them at all.
Western support for Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov and Havel did not start with governments. It started with concerned people. Governments followed. As long as Western Muslims do not stand up, there is no reason to expect Western governments to get involved.
I will make a bold prediction: Not ever going to happen.
IMO Why?
Unless someone can undo 1300 years of documented historical track record, no secular organization will ever update the Quran. Something synonymous to the Councils at Nicaea has the only possibility of coming close.
The problem with that idea is, the horses are already out of the gate when it comes to Islam. In theory the members participating in the Councils of Nicaea were able to meet together and discuss things.
Only ugly, graphic images come to mind when I think of Sunni vs Shia "discussions" to settle differences in attempts to come to common ground. Of course other factions exist too.
IMO, unless "a miracle occurs here" I don't see the status quo changing.
Let's not forget that Martin Luther started the Reformation in 1515.
So Islam has a couple centuries to go, yet...
Does any other major religion control its adherents with death for apostasy and blasphemy? Things like that make reform a lot less likely.
This reaffirms my earlier statement.
Keep in mind the other term for The Reformation is The Protestant Reformation, which was a clear and deliberate chasm between the "Catholic/Orthodox" church(s) and the new Protestant churches.
It could be said, this is where officially with regard to Christianity, the horses were out of the gate with regards to conducting any council similar to those of Nicaea of which the last was some 700+ years prior to the Reformation.
Islam needed their Nicaea like council(s) prior to their Sunni/Shia split. Too late now. JMO.
Christianity had plenty of dark days. IMO Islam needed that discussion prior to the Sunni/Shia split or during, as my understanding that was somewhat of an attempt of reformation. If I am correct, cooler heads did not prevail.
History has lots of examples of religious savagery - the Inquisition is an example, but I'm asking about the present.
I can't speak globally for every religion, how insignificant or significant they might be, but someone would have to have been mars recently not to recognize Islam's track record.
Do you remember the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials and Southern Baptists claiming black people are apes?
I'd like to see all of the Abrahamic religions only known about in museums and libraries, but to hint that the history of Christianity is free of violence while Muslims are savages is extremely intellectually dishonest. The Catholic church is still blaming 7-year-old boys for being molested by priests.
I've noticed that whenever the topic of current Islamic atrocities comes up.... someone inevitably bring up the past evils committed by other groups. This article is about the present. The past is a legitimate topic for discussion-- but here its merely a derail, not relevant to the topic. (If you want to discuss it, why not write an article yourse;f about atrocities committed in the past by various groups-- I'm sure there are at least a few people ere who would be interested in discussing historical events.
That sort of attempting to derail a discussion has become so common lately that someone even invented a name formit (that I've started to see in other Internet forums and on TV news). Its called "Whattaboutism". The goal is to make it next to impossible to discuss any topic.
Example - Topic of discussion: Due to advances in medical Science the average lifespan worldwide is increasing. ( That could be a useful discussion).
So how are the people who want to derail it by using "Whattaboutism" do so? Well, for example, they could mention a particular city where the lifespan is actually decreasing. Using the "Whattaboutism" tactic to derail, someone might say:
The article you seeded claims the lifespan is increasing worldwide. But what about the city of Irkutsk-- there is scientific proof that there lifespan is actually decreasing!!
Apologies to all our friends in Irkutsk--heck, even those in Yakutsk! That was just an example I made up.. And in any event, I don't know much about Irkutsk-- in fact the last time I even heard of it was playing the game of "RISK!" in my college (undergraduate) days . . . yes, RISK! . . .arguably being the best board game ever invented.
(Except for Chess of course)
The problem, Krishna, is that there are some incorrigible "Whataboutism" practitioners on NT, and you've just seen a perfect example of it.
I am not denying that Islam has some violent adherent sects, but they certainly aren't the only ones. Violence is part and parcel of the monotheistic religions, so don't point your finger at one group and say that they are the problem children. If we didn't have the separation of church and state and a government with the will and power to enforce it in the US there would have much of the same violence in the US because the most religious areas are also the poorest and where much of the religious-based violence occurs. The Abrahamic religion at its core is very violent and secular education is the answer.
Oh BS.
There are NO other religions that have significant numbers of followers in the world bent on forcing the entire world to its will and/or are taking crazy measures in an attempt to push such a radical narrative.
Have you been sleeping under a rock for the last few decades or what?
And remember how many conflicts/wars the Protestant Reformation brought about
You just described John Bolton, Erik Prince and Ted Cruz. If you turn off Fox News and watch something more truthful you will know that most Muslims are no more radial and violent than Lutherans and Methodists. The Millenials of Iran are turning against the revolutionary hardliners, as are many Saudis. There are always a few loudmouths that want to make the news and enforce their idiocy but most people want to live in peace. ISIL was crushed by other Muslims who got tired of their violent antics.
Try a source of news that isn't horribly biased.
Yes indeed. Some real doozies.
Buzz,
It is in the Torah, too.
16 And one who blasphemously pronounces the Name of the Lord, shall be put to death; the entire community shall stone him; convert and resident alike if he pronounces the [Divine] Name, he shall be put to death.
People just stop taking the actual word literally. The same can be said for Islam. There are may contradictions in both books.
For instance: In the Koran, killing is said to be forbidden:
Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely.
which is also in the Talmud:
“Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
In these old texts one can find almost anything to justify a POV, which is why I don't think anyone should take them literally.
The problem, Krishna, is that there are some incorrigible "Whataboutism" practitioners on NT, and you've just seen a perfect example of it.
True-- but I really can't blame only people here-- its seems to be the norm throughout all of America. (And being objective here, I must say it happens with people on both sides of the aisle).
OMG-- now everyone will hate me, lol!
We don't normally disagree, but at this time in history, it's the Islamic adherents who are the most violent in the world.
More moderate Muslims need to take a stand and condemn the violence
When they start pushing that strict Christian law MUST BE followed by EVERYONE or you will get stoned to death or worse i'll be the first one there to protect non Christians from them. And i'm Christian.
But since that isn't happening and i don't ever see it happening, i'm not real worried about it.
Honestly, the extremes some of you folks go to to push your narrative never ceases to amaze me.
Simply amazing!
Paging Mike Pence, Neil Gorsuch and Nancy DeVos......................
They usually do but its seldom reported in the American media. The BBC is much better about this. AlJazzera is also good on this. The crackdown against ISIL members has not been widely reported in the west but it has been brutal in the middle east. Life in prison would be a gift for many ex-members because they are being shot in the streets.
Very interesting. Too bad that doesn't make it into American media
It doesn't fit the narrative that most Americans want to believe. The military industrial complex can't scare people into supporting another war in the middle east, possibly in Iran, if they are told the truth that the vast majority of moderate muslims are not much different than Lutherans, Methodists and other white bread Christian sects. There are just as many people who are social Muslims as there are Christians who are part of the religion for social reasons.
You are talking about things that happened centuries ago and Buzz is talking about things that are happening today. The fact everyone has to go back to the 1700's to make a decent comparison pretty much says it all.
Lol, now i see ..... you must be joking. What you are suggesting is so far out in left field it has to be a joke.
Your crackpottery really cracks me up sometimes.
The Klan carries that cross for a reason. I'm not going to back off and give these bigots a chance to rise up and return to their religious idiocy. There are many on the right that would love to weaken the separation of church and state so they can enforce to their draconian religious dominionist fantasies.
What do you think about "In God We Trust" in all public school classrooms?
The Lord's Resistance Army is rather brutal. So is the Eastern Orthodox Church as this video reveals of Eastern Orthodox priests in the Republic of Georgia who recently led a violent mob of 20,000 rabid Christians who were trying to stone to death 50 gay rights activists:
And note that the Georgian government knows who the leaders and many of the perpetrators were but has done nothing to apprehend or charge them:
But Christianity was able to examine its own scriptures (thanks to the development of movable type) and make real reform based on that. Jesus said love your enemy and even as he was dying on the cross, having been brutally tortured, he asked God to forgive the people who put him there. To eliminate the corruption of indulgences, all the reformers had to do was read the words of Jesus, who said "no one comes to the Father except through me." The wars that followed Luther were more about church politics (like who could appoint bishops and such) than doctrine.
I'm not sure Islam is going to be able make progress in that way. Islam, by contrast, has a lot of problematic exhortations to hate and violence in it. Muhammed himself let people into battle and cursed Christians and Jews. He was not a man of peace. A lot of the Islamic terrorists, abusers of women, and persecutors of homosexuals we see in the world can legitimately point to their scripture (Quran and Hadith) for support for their behavior.
I don't understand.
Not having "original" texts, and therefore having to rely on translations of many-times-copied-and perhaps-altered texts, while suspecting that other valuable texts may have been lost... is a major worry for thoughtful Christians.
OTOH, Muslims know that their Koran was compiled just a few decades after the death of their Prophet, well within the limits of eye-witnesses' lifetimes.
AGAIN!!! My comment was about NOW, NOT HISTORY!!!
NOW!!!!!
I cannot believe how many times I have had to post that I am talking about the world today, and not about history. Can you give me as many PRESENT examples of Jews putting people to death for pronounding the [Divine) Name" as I can give you of examples of homosexuals being thrown off of roofs or hung from cranes because they were gay? In fact, can you give me even ONE present example?
Not really. If you study them, they're actually pretty reliable. If there's anything that has been changed in there, it isn't going to be that Jesus was actually a vindictive warmonger who spread his religion with the sword.
It's clear that that applies to the New Testament as well.
I haven't read that they tortured or killed anyone. Can you give me a link?
I blame that on the SPLC and other such orgnizations who will demonize persons like Anan Hirsi Ali who attempt to reform Islam, bring it up to date, and those who demonize and declare to be haters persons and organizations that actually report what is really happening in the world rather than whitewashing or ignoring it or misinforming the public - something the American media is good at doing.
You are missing my point, Buzz. It is not the text, since the texts are the same. It is something else and that is extremism.
No.
Yes, Perrie, and there is probably extremism in every religion, but most religions do not PRACTISE the extremism, or even if they do it is usually only a very small cult within the religion. Even the Haradim, the Ultra-Orthodox Jews may be extremists, but they're not savages. However, even if you're talking about a small "sliver" (Randy's word for this) of 1.5 billion, it's still an awful lot of people. Not every religion has a "sliver" of adherents that practise FGM, throwing gays off rooftops or hanging them from cranes, burying a woman up to her neck and throwing rocks at her head, beheading "blasphemers", making women of a different religion sex slaves, force childhood marriages, etc.
I'm just following the flow of conversation
Yeah, but unfortunately the conversation was going awry. However, your comment 2.1.13 was right on the money.
Thanks, but that was epi's comment
This was the comment I meant, and it has the same number as epi's comment.
There are very good geopolitical reasons for that with some having to do with the history of post-WWII and post-colonial period, but much more having to do with western interests in what's under middle eastern sands and the military occupations which have resulted.
.
They frequently do, you just weren't paying attention.
IF!
IF, iF, iF!!!
There's a wise olde saying:
If my grandmother had a wheel and two handles, she'd be a wheelbarrow.
If.
But of course the actual fact is that my grandmother (Peace Be Upon Her) is not a wheelbarrow...much as anyone would love to spout forth their "IFs" about her!
How many people have to be slaughtered until they "catch up"?
Really? They frequently do? I try to follow the news so why don't I hear about it? The media are pretty good about supporting Muslims, so why don't we hear about the those who complain about the atrocities? We hear about CAIR, that supports Islam, but I haven't much about Dr. Jasser. So other than the reformers listed by Anan Hirsi Ali in the article, can you post a link about that? I certainly read lots about the Imams who preach Jew-hatred to their flocks, but what about the reformers?
Sounds like you need to watch something other than Fox and read something other than Breitbart. Have you checked out the Daily Star in Lebanon, or perhaps Al Jazeera? Even the UK Guardian and the Independent will have better coverage on these issues than what you apparently have been feeding yourself.
I don't read Al Jazeera - it was banned from Canada for good reason, nor am I interested in media from a country controlled by Hezbollah - I know how media can report in a way to influence the public - I was once a newspaper editor myself, and a couple times I explained on NT how they do it - with biased headlines and burying the true facts after a few paragraphs of dishonest reporting - I showed examples of it. I never read Breitbart, sometimes Fox but also Bing and Yahoo leftwing news. I DO read The Guardian - they're pretty good about reporting Muslim atrocities in Europe and the UK. I read Canada's National Post and even the left-wing MacLeans Magazine. It should be obvious that I read the Jerusalem Post but I won't waste my time reading the Israel-bashing Ha'aretz - evidence that at least Israel allows free speech.
Good for you Buzz! That explains why you have no knowledge of the many Muslims who have condemned violence......you're a very ideologically selective reader.
Their propaganda bores me, even if it impresses you.
Is that a serious question, Buzz? Do you expect an answer? Or are you just venting?
Just making the point again and again that this article is about the present, not the past. Krishna explained the derails very clearly - the "whataboutisms" and frankly I just got tired of repeating over and over and over that this is about the present time, not the past.
... so in your Reply to me... you were just venting...
Feel free...
The many must always be wary an extremist few. Time and time again history has taught us that. I've lamented often on the fact that the majority of Muslims sit quietly while the Fundamentalist few work to destroy the world as we know it today. Certainly not the first time in history something like that has happened.
Make no mistake about it. This isn't a debate about if a t-shirt should be sold or not. Its about the survival of many of the hard won liberties of the Western world.
While I am here, I might as well comment on this as well.
Not many years ago PEW Research made some eye opening surveys concerning perceptions within the world of Islam. I don't know the how PEW Research is considered here, but for some wacky reason, I have found many on the internet to consider it as some "InfoWars" type of site. NO, it is not. it is a globally, well respected organization.
Anyhow, one of PEW's stats from a global survey basically said 26% - 28% of Islam is all good with suicide bombing. That's a lot of people. That is very concerning
I'm not an expert, by any means. But.
As I understand it, the word "Islam" means "submission". The fundamental idea behind the word is that a Believer completely submits to the will of Allah. That's just fine, on two conditions:
- that Allah is good, and
- that the Word of Allah is faithfully transmitted to the Believers.
I am incompetent to have any opinion on the first constraint... and highly dubious about the second. I've had enough discussions with (educated) Muslims to know that they are often lamentably ignorant of their own religion.
(Of course, when we see so many "Christians" calling for violence, we must pose the same questions there... but that is off-topic, here.
)
Heck we have people here who clearly support groups like antifa. That amazes me but its true.
I've found that the 10% rules works pretty well in most things. In that there will always be about 10% of any people out in some fringe crazy place with their views. Many times a 10% of either "extreme" side of an issue.
The fact that poll found nearly three times that number is very disconcerting but it still leaves 72% that are something other that supportive of it.
Where are they? That was really the main point of my post.
Pew is up there with Gallup when it comes to polls - I think very trustworthy.
Afraid to be targeted like Anan Hirsi Ali.
Exactly, i'm sure that is a huge part of it.
Islam clearly states that the Koran is the literal word of Allah-- not one letter has been changed. (To challenge that notion is blasphemy).
FWIW worth, I don't believe them (But Allah will not punish me, because I'm not a believer! I am a committed infidel-- Allah has no power over me!)
But in all seriousness-- that brings up an interesting point. Often people will look at the books of any religion to see what the religion advocates. But that can be misleading. Why?
Because those holy books put forth their religion's laws. And just as with secular laws, ultimately what is actually is effect is not exactly what's written....but rather its how its interpreted!
(Which is why our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, created a government with three branches rather then two. They knew that two branches were not enough: in addition to the Legislative branch which makes the laws, and the Executive which enforces the Laws (or not, depending who the president is)-- they needed a third branch which would interpret what the laws meant -- the Supremes.
Is there a difference in "calling for violence"-- and actually perpetrating an act of violence?
(To take that a step further-- is there a difference between thinking about perpetrating a violent act-- and actually doing it?)
I'm not sure if its true or not, but I believe the Catholic Church has said that even thinking about committing a sin is in itself a sin? (I could be wrong about that...western theology is not my area of expertise)
Yes... It is obviously a problem of interpretation.
The first step must be to obtain that Muslims accept thinking about their religion, rather than passively submitting to the will of... some semi-educated imam who claims to be speaking the Word of Allah.
Since childhood, they've been taught to obey, only...
The numbers vary a lot depending on which country was surveyed, but the one thing missing from your comment is an observation about WHY that support exists. It's not due to religion but to geopolitical issues, primarily that foreign troops still occupy predominantly Muslim countries.
It was a global survery.
IIRC, a drill down was available to give results by country.
Maybe I can find it again.
Again, IIRC, some countries that were not at war had higher acceptance rate than some countries not at war.
I might have some time later tonight to look for it.
While that might be possible the academic research on suicide bombing shows that the motives are overwhelmingly related to foreign military occupation not to religion. See Robert Pape's "Dying to Win."
Also don't forget that IEDs and suicide bombings are a poor man's air force. I find it rather ironic and hypocritical that so many conservatives felt patriotic by Bush's unjust invasion of a Muslim country which had never attacked us, but were outraged when Iraqis used whatever means they had to defend themselves on their own soil. It's a shame they didn't have the means to respond in kind on our soil - we might have learned a valuable lesson if they had been able to obliterate our infrastructure and kill a proportionate percentage of the population.
Right IEDs were aimed at our military.
The suicide bombing was predominantly sectarian violence.
Down at BFs post I provided additional detail as I didn't want to re-post the link he provided.
Good, sometimes I get the oddest reactions to PEW survey results.
Which ones would that be?
Do you know how many Muslim countries there are? (Without googling...)
But of those, how many are occupied by foreign troops?
(Usually the first "occupied" country uninformed people mention is Gaza. But Gaza is not occupied--- it is ruled by Hamas (ruled with an Iron fist-- they are a horrendous theocracy). In fact there isn't a single Jew in the entire place. (Although just the other day I heard a news commentator on TV claim that Gaza was occupied-- by Israel.)
Then there's the so-called "West Bank". But that's not a "Predominantly Muslim country-- in fact its not a country at all. (BTW the West Bank its controlled by Israel, parts jointly controlled by Israel and Palestinians. But do you know who controlled it before Israel did?
So what about the other predominantly Muslim countries which you believe are occupied by foreign troops? Which ones are "occupied" by foreign troops?
(Offhand the only one I can think of is Syria, which is occupied by foreign troops (Russian and Iranian). Although they are supporting the horrendous current Syrian government of Bashir Assad--a Muslim. (The foreign troops occupying Syria are supporting a Muslim government, so I don't know if you are thinking of SAyria...?)
The independent Muslim nation of Kuwait used to be occupied by foreign troops-- those of Iraq invaded it and illegally seized power (Saddam;s goal was to annex it). But coalition forces liberated the country....
Are Russia and Iran truly considered an occupying force/troops in Syria .. as both were invited in. They are both propping Assad up.
Afghanistan and Syria come to mind, as would Iraq until rather recently. Not that long ago it was Lebanon. The consequences of that foreign military presence doesn't disappear the moment the foreign troops leave. So far the US alone has bombed or occupied at least 14 Muslim countries since 1980 , so that doesn't even count the Muslim countries other western countries have recently had a military presence in. Nor does it count the coups and occupations whose blowback we're still dealing with, like the US coup and quasi-occupation of Iran from 1953-1979.
Here's a short list compiled in 2014 from a highly regarded US military historian:
.
Another way to look at it is to view the overall US military presence abroad. The presence of US troops is often deeply resented by the public even in countries which are our allies and which have a strong security interest in maintaining that presence like Japan and South Korea.
By the way I'd highly recommend the Bacevich article I cited.
I think this is starting to drift somewhat off topic of Anan Hirsi Ali's attempt to reform Islam.
After my many years being interested in-- and frequently being involved in-- politics, I have noticed a few things about the polls:
1. In most cases they try their best to be accurate (because if they had a record of inaccuracy, people wouldn't listen to them!)
2. They are often inaccurate even though they try to be accurate. Why? Because, as a revered guru & famous yog i once said:
It's tough to make predictions-- especially about the future!
3. Another reason why they're often inaccurate: Things change. An unforseen event at the last minute can change the situation dramatically.
4. My experience over the years (decades actually) is that most of the time, most of the major polls are relatively close to each other in their predictions.
5. However, FWIW, over time I have noticed one poll that is pretty consistently biased-- and that's Rasmussen. (They tend to give the Republican candidate-- whomever it is-- several more points than the other polls do).
P.S: For a time I used to work for the Louis Harris organization:
Louis Harris (January 6, 1921 – December 17, 2016) was an American opinion polling entrepreneur, journalist, and author. He ran one of the best-known polling organizations of his time, Louis Harris and Associates, which conducted The Harris Poll.
(If anyone wishes to, they can "Get Even Smarterer HERE").
"But during the Cold War, no American president said: “Communism is an ideology of peace.”
Back in the day...."WE"..... The Government...… weren't worried that someone's "Feelings" might be hurt.
Now .……. "FEELINGS" are "EVERYTHING" !
What a Fucked up mess we weave, when we purposely practice to "Deceive" !
"Back in the day" there was a Senator named Joseph McCarthy:
He is known for alleging that numerous Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers had infiltrated the United States federal government, universities, film industry, and elsewhere. Ultimately, the smear tactics that he used led him to be censured by the U.S. Senate. The term "McCarthyism", coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices.
Today, the term is used in reference to what are considered demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents. [2] [3]
And "Infiltration" was not used by me ONE TIME. These days...."A Spade is actually a Spade"....although the new and improved McCarthyism is that it's ALWAYS racist or some Phobia claim crap to say something like that, or anything else deemed Hurtful to "Feelings" ! Notice I said....to just "Say", not DO !
So far the comments have been pretty civil so I won't lock this tonight (It's 11 p.m. where I am), so hopefully it will remain so.
It's after 10 p.m. where I am, and I will soon be going off line. Since so many comments on this seed are aimed at me I am locking it for the night, but will re-open it in about 10 or 11 hours. In the meantime, why don't you apply some of your innate creativity and movie knowledge, and try "Continuing the Story"?
UNLOCKED and open for comments. Please be civil - you've done well up to now.
This seed has been on the board for 5 days now, and the last comment made on it was 2 days ago, so it has had a pretty good run - 120 comments. I thank everyone for being civil in what some may have felt was a somewhat controversial topic. However, I don't want to have to continue watching it to moderate it so I am locking it now for good.