At Belmont Club, a description of the contents of a 23 minute tape by Ayman al-Zawahiri, pleading for more “sandals on the ground” ;
Zawahiri reminds his listeners of the establishment of the Caliphate-in-exile “which everybody applauded”; but bitterly notes that some of those who once clapped now opposed the Islamic State of Iraq “because it is not empowered”, which I can only take to mean “in declining fortune”. But never fear, he now claims, the “wind is blowing against Washington”. Then he digresses and excoriates the Saudis, contrasting the way they sent the youth for Jihad into Afghanistan and but now have forbidden young men to go into Iraq; and who Zawahiri accuses of working tirelessly on behalf of the Americans to deliver Muslim lands into the hands of the Jew! He then switches to a audio clip from a commander who asks why he is getting no reinforcements, why Muslim scholars are hanging back from endorsing their struggle. At this point in watching the video, I realized that although the idea of the “moderate Muslim” may be laughed to scorn by conservatives, the concept was real to Zawahiri at least, as a bitter and galling reality. He seemed disappointed that the Ummah was not prepared to go as far as he.
The degree of despair can be gathered from the video’s choice of metaphor. The Al-Qaeda tape compared the Muslim debates over whether or to follow it’s lead in the Jihad to the idle discussions within Constantinople over how many devils could stand on the tip of a pin as the Muslims were battering the walls with catapaults — except this time the roles were reversed. It was the hated Americans were doing the battering and the bickering Muslims who were counting the devils upon the pins. Even allowing for hyperbole, the choice of metaphor does little to convey confidence.
[…]
Zawahiri then goes and declares how pure the al-Qaeda in Iraq is compared to Hamas, how unstained by innocent blood. He says this with a straight face, but his whiskers have me at a disadvantage. Then having denied any misdeeds, he makes the extraordinary offer to submit the Caliphate’s leaders and men to Muslim judicial proceedings — some kind of Islamic International Criminal Court — strange that the Brussel’s ICC’s writ runs so short that Zawahiri doesn’t even consider it from across the Mediterranean Sea. And my guess on hearing these words is that Zawahiri is feeling the heat, despite his disclaimers of innocence and heading off the complaints about al-Qaeda’s bloody tactics in Iraq. He is saying “I promise to cooperate fully with any investigation”. That would be the way it would be phrased in Washington. Then he claims is being wronged by the Mainstream Media, which reserves favorable coverage for those bozos Hamas when they are thugs, while his pure warriors are depicted as baby-killers by ignorant correspondents. (Snicker. – Ed)
Zawahiri’s explains that al-Qaeda’s counterattacked in Iraq was to save it from the defeat which overtook Afghanistan. He says so plainly. He saw it — initially at least — as fundamentally defensive in character; a blocking action to an imminent American threat. And in my opinion, his great fortune lay in that Iraq was so close, to the sources of his Arabian manpower pool that he was able generate a much greater force than has been possible in Afghanistan. And yet despite the advantage of fighting in the heart of the Arab World he was running out of recruits, which is the entire point of his whole video. Maybe the American strategy of turning the Sunnis against the al-Qaeda has had international repercussions on his recruiting. Word is filtering back to other Arab countries that al-Qaeda is the enemy; that it’s not all it was cracked up to be when it could be viewed from the romantic distance of Afghanistan. Up close it was ugly. In an indirect way the battlefield has produced what diplomacy was supposed to and could not. It has alienated al-Qaeda from some of its Sunni base. If I am right, it’s a thunderclap.
The tape can be viewed at Powerline.
At Memri, another summary of the tape’s main themes.
ET – as I am sure you are very well read, clearly evident.
I think you must read different history books than I do. As I am sure Martin Luther had Economies of scale on his mind when he was nailing his thoughts to the door of a church. Sarc/
Remember that was 1517 or so. followed by religious war, Which I assume you think was more about putting bread in their bellies.
I really can’t wrap my head around how you think economics started the reformation! religious wars kinda shrunk that local population a bit didn’t they.
Usually I can follow your reasoning but this time its a bit hard.
if your talking about the new ideas of the age of enlightment where old logics were rejected that didn’t start till the 17th century, and I would hold that that was able to happen because of the reformation!
What was ad hominem about it is that as soon as you even say the word nazi in the same sentence describing someone elses words it can’t help but leave a stench. although I realize it was not your intent to attack the person
Your right Hutus and tutsi, different tribes but when white people were going to step in you bet they all saw it as a different race interfering where they didn’t belong. And when its really looked at maybe tribalism and racism are close to the same things though many tribes can be part of one race.
I would say that peoples inability to define a term coherently does not mean that it doesn’t exist.
In the end the term race is what the people make it to be its in the dictionary see below.
a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
back on topic If there is a reformation in islam in our lifetime I’d be willing to eat my proverbial hat!
I am disappointed in ET, whose posts are usually well thought out.
At every step of this discussion, ET has attached his own meanings to the words of other commenters – putting words in their mouths, so to speak.
Certainly nowhere in this discussion did I see anyone advocate stripping Muslims of their citizenship. The discussion has been about halting Muslim immigration and returning those non-citizens to their country of origin.
Jared’s description of the cause of the Reformation is accurate if perhaps stripped down, as he has pointed out perhaps the main reason but not the only reason.
ET’s claim that the Reformation was largely initiated by increased population is questionable. While I may be guilty of condensing history – certainly the Black Death reduced European populations at this time. It was the economics of a reduced population that added fuel to the economic fire with the resulting labour shortage empowering a new middle class of artisans and merchants.
ET’s references to the lack of an empowered middle class in Muslim countries is exactly my point – Western countries have enticed the middle class out of those countries to come to the West as immigrants.
Many of these people don’t want to be Western, they simply want more money for their efforts than they could get at home. We should not be accepting immigrants who do not want to abide by our laws and join our culture. To do so, is to invite cultural suicide.
Certainly not all Muslims are Islamofacists. However, by halting immigration and ending the escape route of their middle class, we force the Moderate Muslim to face down his Islamofacist bretheren.
kevinb- a dysfunctional tribal system is a political and economic structure. I confine the term ‘culture’ to non-structural expressions.
jared – no, a new ideology doesn’t begin ‘in the clouds’ but on the ground – within the realities of life. That’s economics. The reformation was based on the need for new structures – in the economic and political system to enable a higher productivity of food and, to enable the people to deal with nutrition and disease results of town settlements.
No, the reformation and new ideas didn’t begin in the 16th century; by that time, the process of change was long underway. I put the beginning around the 12th-13th centuries. It took about 400 years to ‘fruition’. The old ideas were being questioned in the 13th century – by such as Abelard and Roger Bacon and the gradual decay of scholasticism. The dev’t of nominalism in the 12th c was an important step away from the stifling of innovation, because it focused on change (Ockham, Abelard’s conceptualism).
Focus on the individual as having the ability and right to examine and describe the env’t – was a major change. That led to such things as the mariner’s compass and windmills, the capacity for increased energy and so on. Marine exploration- the search for new lands – required new technological abilities (sails, compass, storage of foods, etc).
All of this and more – was before the 15thc – long before your 17thc date. By then, the old infrastructure had collapsed.
Your ‘ad hominem’ comment remains, in my view, invalid. You are effectively saying that one cannot use a nazi analogy because to do so is ad hominem. That’s ridiculous. I maintain my point. irwin daisy’s outline of Muslims was comparable to a nazi outline of Jews.
Again, no- there’s no such thing as ‘race’ and tribalism has nothing to do with race. The fact that YOU merge them – doesn’t validate such an error.
sub urban – yes, there was a statement to strip muslims of their citizenship (jared 10.19). And jared’s description of the cause of the reformation is most certainly NOT accurate. Do you think that one person starts a structural change of that immensity?!
I don’t think you know enough of the history of that period – let’s say from 900 to 1500 to make a conclusion that increased population had nothing to do with the reformation. The lowered populations from disease – and think! what caused these infectious diseases – and from war, were rapidly made up and the population would rise, again and again. Finally, the last resort, is ideological change. That took, as I said, 400 years for that ideological change to move into dominance in the political and economic structure.
rubbish- western countries haven’t enticed the ME middle class to come to the West. There isn’t a middle class to entice. (And you sure like to blame the west, don’t you?). The reason there isn’t a middle class is because the political structure in the ME is tribal- that’s two class. No middle class. And that’s the problem.
“You conclude that Islam cannot be modernized; you conclude that it, as a belief system, is incurably violent and murderous. Therefore, you obviously conclude that its followers can’t be permitted to continue in this world. I’m not sure of your ‘ultimate solution’ but you can’t confine them all to the ME and build walls around them! After all, they aren’t ALL living in the ME!”
ET: You continue to project. And this can only be seen as a malicious attempt to injure my reputation. Nowhere did I say “that its (Islams) followers can’t be permitted to continue in this world.” That is an outright lie, along with many other fabrications you’ve created.
My argument was and is that violence is not foundational to Christianity, but that it is to Islam. Therefore reformation along the Christian line is not valid nor possible.
Rather than deal with this argument you have ignored it and rather continued to personally insult me with your “Nazi” comparison.
That is ad hominem. It is also calumny.
Furthermore, others have presented logical rebuttals to your pov, arguing correctly that you are wrong.
Are you ever wrong ET? Obviously, respect for you has diminished.
no, irwin daisy, my comparison of your words on Muslims to the nazi rhetoric on Jews is neither ad hominem nor calumny. Again, the ad hominem tactic is to ‘abuse the person’ rather than the argument. My focus was, and remains, your argument. My rejection of your argument and my comparison of your view of Muslims is not malicious nor an attempt to ‘injure your reputation’. Since I don’t know you – I focus only on your argument.
Your argument is that they cannot be allowed into the West. You said it – No Muslims should be allowed to immigrate. That means that no Muslims should be allowed to live in the West. I see no difference in this notion of purification of the West from that of the Third Reich – Nazism.
Are you actually going to claim that one may never, ever, use the actions and rhetoric of the Third Reich as comparisons to action and rhetoric used by others? That to do so is ‘ad hominem’? That’s ridiculous.
Your view is that Christianity is reformable and Islam is not. I reject this. The Christianity of the medieval period was a development of human beings, as was the original Christianity. Islam, despite its rhetoric of being ‘directly from god’ is obviously the same – a development of human beings and is therefore, amenable to change.
If you reject this, then, you must also accept that the islamic rhetoric IS directly from god – and you’d have to accept that the violence is valid and justified – because, after all, it’s from god. The same god as that of Judaism and Christianity.
Therefore, since this is illogical – that the same god offered both peace and violence, one must understand the religion, all religions and ideologies, as human constructs. That means that the development of these ideologies had a contextual cause. I’ve outlined before my analysis of how and why both Christianity and Islam emerged – and why Christianity emerged as ‘love thy neighbour’ and Islam emerged as ‘fight your neighbour’ and won’t repeat it here.
My point is that Islam, as a contextual belief system is amenable to interpretation- and such actions are ongoing now. There’s a nice site called ‘progressive thinking in contemporary Islam’ that provides articles of Muslims working on modernizing Islam.
You reject this. Your only solution is to reject any immigration. How are you going to do this? How will you test for ‘Islam-ness’ at the border? Will you reject Islam tourists, student visas etc? How will you police this? What about illegal immigration? What will you do- declare that the people of Islam are unacceptable – because of their religion? Unless they renounce their religion? What will you accept from them – a conversion to Judaism? To Christianity? To atheism? What will you require from them at the border?
Again, your insistence that Islam is unreformable is, to me, illogical. All knowledge systems are subject to change. That’s why we have the capacity of reason.
ET,
You directly insulted me, regardless of your claim. Others have mentioned this as well. And yet you beligerently stick to your ridiculous opinion. Get over it.
To make matters worse, you continue to put false words into my mouth.
“That means that no Muslims should be allowed to live in the West. I see no difference in this notion of purification of the West from that of the Third Reich – Nazism.”
I said none of this.
“The Christianity of the medieval period was a development of human beings, as was the original Christianity.”
The second part of this statement is merely your opinion, nothing more.
“If you reject this, then, you must also accept that the islamic rhetoric IS directly from god – and you’d have to accept that the violence is valid and justified – because, after all, it’s from god. The same god as that of Judaism and Christianity.”
Once again, merely your opinion and I reject all of it.
“that the same god offered both peace and violence, one must understand the religion, all religions and ideologies, as human constructs.”
Not a valid conclusion. There’s absolutely no proof, other than mohammad’s self-serving claim that both are the same God. Most Christians and Christian Theologists reject this Muslim claim. For one, it’s not logical, or consistent that Mohammad, a gentile, is the last in the line of only Jewish prophets. For Christians, the rejection of Christ as the Son of God, makes Mohammad a conterfeit, or false prophet. Therefore his god is also. If Christians were to accept that Mohammad’s god was the same, then they would have to reject Christ and his message. You cannot have both, therefore they are not the same God.
And still you have no counter argument to the fact that violence is foundational to Islam and not to Christianity – and the implications of this with regards to reform.
Rather than fear mongering, expensive (time and money) security measures and constant threats of death to Canadian citizens in Canada – a moratorium on Muslim immigration is the only rational thing to do. It can be executed quite easily by not allowing any more immigration from majority Islamic countries, as well as due dilligence in researching applicants.
On the present course, this will happen, probably starting in Europe.
ET
I’ll nitpick.
I’m afraid I missed the reference to stripping citizenship – however, my point remains valid as the vast majority of commenters have not ventured that far.
I suggested (perhaps not too clearly) that Jared’s description of the causes of the Reformation was one important strand of many in this event – that the existence of multiple strands suggests that I reject the idea that huge events of this magnitude are the work of an individual. However, I will say that an individual absolutely can trigger existing pent up beliefs and emotions that lead to earthshaking change.
Nor did I suggest that increased population had nothing to do with the Reformation only that with the Black Death it was a little more complicated than that.
There isn’t a middle class in the Muslim ME because everyone who would be in it has immigrated. Instead of holding their ground and forcing change in their home countries so that a middle class might develop, those who would be middle class people there, have walked through the open door here. If I’m blaming the West for encouraging this population shift it is because I want the West to recognize the mistake and put a stop to it. It’s not about assigning blame, it’s about taking responsibility.
Irwin Daisy,
ET wasn’t insulting you personally by criticizing your comments. I too had previously thought that many of them sounded eerily similiar to Nazi commentary about Judaism. It’s not criticizing you – just what you said.
You stated:
There’s absolutely no proof, other than mohammad’s self-serving claim that both are the same God.
Where is your proof that Christ is the son of God? There is no proof in religion.
the rejection of Christ as the Son of God, makes Mohammad a conterfeit, or false prophet. Therefore his god is also.
By this logic, since Jews also reject Christ as the son of God, they too worship a false God.
As ET said, Islam is just as capable of reform as Christianity was. Having Muslims living in North America who experience the benefit of a secular state with freedom of religion cannot help but speed this process of reform.
And who says there isn’t a middle class in the Muslim Middle East? There are millions of people in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and in particular Turkey who would beg to differ.
Belsarius,
It makes no difference if you agree with ET. Her progressively insulting comments, falsely building on the Nazi theme, I reasonably took as just that, insulting and slanderous.
You took the first part of what I said and did not comment on the more important observation following.
“Most Christians and Christian Theologists reject this Muslim claim. For one, it’s not logical, or consistent that Mohammad, a gentile, is the last in the line of only Jewish prophets.”
Also, if it is true that Christ is the Son of God (the cornerstone of the Christian faith), then Mohammad, his revelation and his god are redundant and false. Therefore to Christians mo’s god is false and obviously not the same God. I would wager the Jews don’t believe mo’s god is the same either.
Christianity follows from and is grafted to Judaism. As well, at the time of Christ through to today, not all Jews rejected Christ as the Son of God. However, all Muslims do.
“still you have no counter argument to the fact that violence is foundational to Islam and not to Christianity – and the implications of this with regards to reform.”
Neither you or ET have presented a counter argument to the above fact.
It is the opinion of a handful of Christian fundamentalists that the God of the Muslims is not the same as the God of the Christians. However most religious scholars – including the Pope – have stated otherwise. They may not accept Mohammed as a genuine prophet, but they understand that the God is one and the same.
No question that Islam has at its core a tradition of spreading its faith by the sword. This does not negate the possibility of reform, however, nor of existing as the majority religion in a secular state (Turkey).
Reformers will tell you that many of the more violent passages in the Quran relate to specific historic instances as Islam struggled to survive against overwhelming odds, and cannot and should not be used in a contemporary context. In that regard it is very similiar to many passages in the Old Testament relating to the struggles of the Jews.
Christianity was born a religion of love and peace, but despite this developed a tradition of religious war, coercion and bloody violence. All were justified using biblical passages, taken out of context.
“It is the opinion of a handful of Christian fundamentalists that the God of the Muslims is not the same as the God of the Christians. However most religious scholars – including the Pope – have stated otherwise. They may not accept Mohammed as a genuine prophet, but they understand that the God is one and the same.”
Wrong. It is impossible to be a Christian and believe that mo’s god is one and the same. One would necessarily have to deny Christ’s divinity, in which case you are not Christian. Politcal Popes appease, but do not personally believe as such.
The rest is not worth debating. Expecially not your non-argument on foundational violence in Islam and what would be required in reform.
sub-urban – I disagree with your statement that the reason there isn’t a middle class in the ME is because anyone who would be middle class has left.
Do you realize that a middle class is the largest class – and that would mean that, in a population of, let’s say, Iraq with its 27 million, that at least 13 million would have left? In Iran, with its 65 million, at least 30 million would have left. Since that hasn’t happened, I can’t agree with your conclusion.
irwin daisy – no, Christians wouldn’t have to reject the Islamic god; they’d have to reject Mohammed’s interpretation of god.
You specifically stated that ‘if Muslims were no longer allowed to immigrate into the West’ (and into Canada) – I take that to mean that you don’t want any Muslims in the West. After all, you keep saying that Muslims must renounce their religion. That means that no Muslims must be in the West unless they renounce their religion.
That’s ‘purification’. You may be insulted, but, the analogy remains valid.
Again – how are you going to stop this? Are you going to insist that they openly give up their religion at the border? Or lie and hide their religion in ghettoes? Or what?
As for the possibility of Islamic reform, I agree with belisaurius – the violent articles in the koran must be understood as contextual and, as all religions are human constructs, then Islam is capable of being modernized. You disagree; you say it is unreformable.
You ignore the Muslims who are openly speaking out about reform. To you, the only solution is that all Muslims reject their religion and take on another. That won’t happen – but, reform will happen.
ET
First you said – “western countries haven’t enticed the ME middle class to come to the West. There isn’t a middle class to entice.”
Then you said – “Do you realize that a middle class is the largest class” and go on to extrapolate millions of members of the middle class in ME countries.
So which is it? – You apparently want it both ways when ever it suits your purpose.
It is obvious that the truly rich in the ME stay because they own landed businesses which make them rich, while the poor cannot afford to leave, leaving those who would populate the middle class to emigrate to Western countries. I doubt they do it to the last man, but enough leave to punch a big hole in those countries.
“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 9-11).
Obviously the Christian God is not allah. The Christian God also came before the fabrication of allah.
I didn’t say “that (I) don’t want any Muslims in the West” did I? You can’t seem to help yourself from projecting whatever fallacies you want into ‘what I said’.
I did say that until this conflict is ended, it is both rational and practical to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration. It is the right thing for a government to do in order to protect its citizens. Which is the first order of business.
I also said that Islam cannot be reformed the same way as the reformation of the Christian Church.
Given that the foundation and function of Islam is violence, as plainly exhibited in the Quran, Hadiths and Mohammad’s life example – reformers would have to edit out the commands and blessings for violence against others, as well as reject Mohammad as the perfect example and the one to emulate.
That will not happen. Therefore, the only other path is apostacy – ie Hirsi Ali, and most others. (The true and trustworthy ‘reformers’)
Once again, you have no counter argument to this, my main point.
Now for context? Deal with this:
According to the Quran Allah reveals a verse only to have it canceled out a short time later:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar- Knowest thou not that Allah has power over all things? S. 2:106
When We substitute one revelation for another- and Allah knowest best what He reveals (in stages)- They say, “Thou art but a forger”; But most of them understand not. S. 16:101
This leaves us with the difficulty of having to deal with a ‘god’ who does not remain consistent and often changes his revealed purpose. It also creates dualism and taqiyya.
Context? Right.
Irwin Daisy,
Do you really want to get into a discussion of inconsistencies in religion? There are hundreds – perhaps thousands – in the Bible. We could start with the apparently completely different God in the Old and New Testaments, but why don’t we begin with your own passage?
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds (2 John 9-11)
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect. (1 Peter 3-15)
irwin – you don’t directly say that you don’t want Muslims in the West but you do logically say that. Here’s the logical frame you use.
You say that Islam is based in violence and is unreformable. The only way to deal with this is for a Muslim to reject the religion, to become an apostate. Therefore, he would no longer be a Muslim. Therefore, the only ‘Muslim’ you would accept in the West is someone who is NOT a Muslim.
That’s just basic simple logic.
All Islam is violent.
This man is an Islam.
Therefore he is violent.
Therefore you DO say that you do not want any Muslims in the West.
As for inconsistencies in text – that’s found in all religious texts. What’s your point?
Belisarius,
Two different takes on the same message. So what?
ET,
To say is to actually say. Anything else is extrapolation.
Once again:
“Given that the foundation and function of Islam is violence, as plainly exhibited in the Quran, Hadiths and Mohammad’s life example – reformers would have to edit out the commands and blessings for violence against others, as well as reject Mohammad as the perfect example and the one to emulate.
That will not happen. Therefore, the only other path is apostacy – ie Hirsi Ali, and most others. (The true and trustworthy ‘reformers’)
Once again, you have no counter argument to this, my main point.”
You continue to evade this point. That can only mean that you have no counter argument. Therefore, the debate is over.
“As for inconsistencies in text – that’s found in all religious texts. What’s your point?”
With Islam it’s modus operandi.
Two different takes on the same message. So what?
Passage 1 (yours): Don’t talk to unbelievers
Passage 2 (mine): Talk to unbelievers
the foundation and function of Islam is violence The basis of your argument is false. Commands for violence in the Quran refer to specific historic instances, and cannot be applied to contemporary enemies (although they are certainly incorrectly used in this way by Jihadists).
Bible or Quran?
“He that is far off shall die of the pestilence; and he that is near shall fall by the sword; and he that remaineth and is besieged shall die by the famine: thus will I accomplish my fury upon them.
Then shall ye know that I am the LORD, when their slain men shall be among their idols round about their altars, upon every high hill, in all the tops of the mountains, and under every green tree, and under every thick oak, the place where they did offer sweet savour to all their idols.”
Belisarius,
You’re either a fool or a liar. Take your pick.
Well, I’m an optimist, which I suppose qualifies me as a fool. I like to believe moderate Muslims when they tell me their religion can be reformed. Quite frankly, what is the alternative?
Belisarius,
Apostacy, or conversion to something else, as I have said.
Dude, it is not about context. It is about fundamental foundations – or DNA if you’d like.
The MO of Mo and his original companions was power, plunder, and women. Religion served as a very good vehicle to acquire all of that and more.
Now, compare that to the MO of Christ and the apostles and you might start getting somewhere.