I am honored, you are a wonderful writer, I kept getting this in my email so I published it. You have a major following, I know I have gotten this one hundred times. If you have problem with my having it up at the Voice and I will take it down.
Carolyn
I'm with Carolyn. This inspired my own post, which you found. I am updating it, and posting and linking to your post. Thanks for stopping by and letting me know!
Thank you Carolyn and Benning:
The post has made it around for certian. I guess on occasion that we all hit upon something that strikes a nerve. I hope that in the least I've been able to bring things into sharp focus and do away with some of the clutter.
Cheers!
Well add me to the group here Paul. So sorry for having posted your writing without attribution. It was not intentional. I've added your link and name to the article. It was so meaningful though, most appreciated. I wasn't ignoring you today. Was just out of pocket.
Wow. I can't believe I haven't discovered this until now, over a year later. If my aunt hadn't forwarded this unattributed writing, I probably would have never seen it. I had to find the author, however, so fortunately, a quick search resulted in your blog.
Great post, Paul. I hope this gets more attention, and that others forward it, in hopes of enlightening some folks before it's too late, once again.
Yeah I got this in my e-mail inbox too. I responded to the person that e-mailed it to me, but decided to look for the source. Not sure if it is you, butif so, I have some issues with your thesis:
"Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late."
Two Thoughts:
1) It is fallacious thinking to say "a" is like "b" if "a" is nothing like "b".
Germans = Nation State
Japanese= Nation State
Chinese= Nation State
Russians = Nation State
Rwandans = Nation State
Serbs= Nation State
Afghans = Nation State
Iraqis= Nation State (past-tense)
Palestinians = Nation State (future tense)
Somalis = Nation State
Nigerians = Nation State
Algerians= Nation State
The "lessons learned" about a fanatical minority with political objectives taking control of a political entity (a nation state) is not applicable when applied to a religion that does not exist as a separate political entity. A religion cannot be controlled by a minority except within the specific application case of individual nation states. It cannot happen here or most countries where Islam is a significant presence, but could happen in some specific nation state examples, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq (the last due specifically because the Bush administration made it possible for it to happen there under our watch and security umbrella).
"Islam" is not a nation state. "Muslims" are not a nation state. It is a religion that exists in many different (most) nation states. Fanatical Muslims cannot take over Islam as suggested in this article in the same sense that a fanatical minority can take over a nation state. In some of those nation states fanatical Muslims do indeed threaten individual states political structures, in other (most) states other they do not.
Fanatical Christians have managed to disrupt and threatened to take over the nation state of Ireland for decades. That same fanatical Christian minority has no possibility of taking over Christianity. That is an appropriate comparison.
Second:
"Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence."
This is simply a false statement. If you propagate this e-mail, you are propagating a lie. A blatant assertion of false propaganda to support a fallacious argument.
A good summary of the counter argument can be found here and here.
BTW - I am not saying that fanatical muslims are not a problem. They are obviously a huge problem that must be fought. But taking the next step (as in this widely distributed unattributable e-mail) of generalizing the problem to the entire religion of Islam is wrong,false and prejudiced.
MW: Actually, the fact that Islam is not a Nation State, but a Religion, makes it even more dangerous than a Nation State because its fanatical element can exist across a much wider distribution than a nation state and be injected into multiple nation states without invading. This essay is about ideology, so don't get hung up on Nation States with physical boundaries. The concept however, of remaining silent while part of a violent group, has the same results.
Furthermore, it is a gross error to view Muslims in terms of states ... ever. Devout Muslims see all of Islam as a unified organ that supercedes states; their loyalty may be to states, but the loyalty of devout Muslims to Islam supercedes state or ever tribal loyalty when it comes to non-Muslims ... again, making fanaticism within Islam potentially more dangerous than any German Nazis ever were.
Since Islam is a religion which its members identify with so keenly, it makes it even more incumbant on the Peaceful Majority to begin counter-acting the fanatics. Islam ... is like a nation ... and in such it's peace-loving majority must act or it will lose control over what is taught, what is written, what is pushed, and what it's children become.
The closest I can come to a comparison is Communism ... which was responsible for the murder of about 100 million of it's own ... not counting it's wars etc. Communism had a unifying ideology that spanned nations. Unchecked, Islamic totalitarianism will dwarf Communism in it's reach and devastation because it ideology is even more openly violent and is "religious" in nature ... making it irrational.
What I find peculiar about your rebuttle, is that the proof for my thesis is before us daily. I get proof for my views each day I read news from across the world. Muslim fanatics are on a rampage ... killing their own ... and killing ours.
It's easy for you to say that something is categorically false ... anyone can say that. But, I take pleasure in the fact that the evidance and proof of my thesis lives before our very eyes and grows like a cancer ... again, in broad daylight. You can wish it away and point me to your counter arguements with links, which by the way are very very weak ... but it won't change reality.
PS: Comparing Islam to Christianity in the modern era is like comparing apples to oranges. Christianity has gone through reforms; massive, sweeping, all encompassing reforms ... Islam has not.
No Christian terrorist organization in modern times has ever received formal or subversive support from significant Christian leadership ... Islamic Terror has. No Christian terrorist organization has received the support via media, money, and international infrastructure that Islamic terrorism does ... No Christian terrorist organization of any significance uses Biblical doctrine to justify it's means ... Islamic Terrorism and Totalitarianism does. Christians can't use the bible to justify terrorism ... Muslims have a rich text from which to draw fanaticle teaching ... whether in context or not. You just can't do that with the New Testiment Bible ... you'd have to rewrite it.
For you to compare the IRA to Islamic Terrorism demonstrates that you have no grasp of the broad international support and infrastructure that Islamic Totalitarianism enjoys ... the IRA was a complete pussy-cat in comparison, isolated to a very specific regional conflict ... Islamic terrorism uses regional conflicts but is global in reach and larger by a huge magnitude making comparisons between it and the IRA irrelevant. Terrorists from all over the world did not flock to Ireland.
You are wishing for a September 10th world ... forget it MW, it doesn't exist ... it's gone forever and likely never was.
This statement is by all accounts, is as false as your original post.
"and in such it's peace-loving majority."
Majority? Pffffffft......
The majority all read the same book. That book preaches very loud and clear that any non-muslim is to be hated, killed and subjugated. What is so peaceful about that?
There is no moderate majority.....there may be a small 'pacifist' minority, but the bulk are either radical, or at the very least, enabling. A huge religious following such as islam cannot be controlled by a 'few' without a lot of sympathetic underpinnings. The Koran is what they all follow.....it is their holy book, and the koran is loaded with text that justifies the killing of non-muslims by mohammed himself. It isn't a book readily open to pacifist interpretations.....
You Sir, are propogating the one biggest 'MYTH" of Islam. It is a religion of hate and death, not peace.
Sheesh, when was the last time a Christian or Hindu person blew himself up in the name of those religions? Even the odd Budist would light themselves on fire as a sign of protest...but they sure as hell never took innocent people with them. I've never heard the term Christian fundamentalist suicide martyr. It isn't even a case of apples and oranges.....more like bubonic plague and Micky Mouse
Arctic-Front: Perhaps, there are devout and secular Muslims; which suggests that "devout" Muslims are not Peaceful, but that secular Muslims are. I know it's an awkward suggestion, full of holes, and insulting to truly peaceful and devout Muslims, but for now I'm still waiting for the "devout" "peaceful" group to make noise.
Paul,
I apologise if my last post sounded rude or combative. I do, however, seriously doubt that the secular muslims are a very large percentage of the general population. I suppose that there are more of them in our western sphere of influence and amongst our immigrant populations, but they too are a small portion of the whole.
I believe that the vast majority of the non-violent muslims are at least somewhat supportive or sympathetic to the activities of the radical, violent strain of islam. If you recall some of the polls conducted among the muslim immigrant populations of Britain, in the last year or so, a surprising percentage said they were generally supportive of jihad or jihadist ideology in regards to domestic terrorist plots on British soil against military or political targets. If I'm not mistaken, it was somewhere around 40% who either strongly agreed, or were 'somewhat' sympathetic...The actual percentage who said they very strongly agreed was about 10-15 %. The remainder were less committed, but were generally sympathetic.
Those are very scary numbers, even if my percentage points are off a bit high or low. Also, CAIR in the U.S. has had a large number of their leadership charged or convicted by the FBI for sponsoring terrorist organizations and fundraising for them. CAIR is supposed to be a 'mainstream' muslim group.
A final point, the koran specifically demands muslims to go forth and domminate the un-believers wherever they are; to do the work of Allah through various forms of jihad. As a moderate secular muslim, the words of the koran are pretty clear. Even if they are not prone to violence themselves, they cannot ignore the scriptures. They learn these scriptures from their earliest exposure to the Koran.
arctic_front: I agree with you in that there is no solid way of telling if you are correct or not ... we are left up to our intuition. And, that would suggest strongly that your point is very accurate.
Nevertheless, whether the majority is peaceful or not is irrelevent, that was the point of my essay. Silence means compliance, and that means that like it or not, the silent ones get lumped in with the crazies and they will reap the whirlwind in the end.
Paul, agreed.
your post has grown legs.
there are apparently only about 30 "shooting wars" going on in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ong...ki/
Ongoing_wars
30 total.
are they all authored by islam?
is your source for the "50" more complete or legitimate than the wiki?
i think perhaps the worst effect radical islamic activity creates is the lesson it gives the evangelicals and fundamentalist christians..that that they too can have greater control and influence if they would only intensify their lust for power and continue to marginalize and silence all dissent.
perhaps the even larger lesson to be taken from all of this is that humanity's only salvation is secularism.
religion is the problem...on so many levels.
all religion.
we dont need it anymore.
we know the nature of addiction, we know why the human mind loves patterns, we know why unanswered questions are difficult at first to face.
we dont need the of balm of 'forgiveness' from anyone but our fellow man.
forgiveness and love are not divine, they are very, very human.
give up on your religion, all of you.
collectively you are bringing nothing but pain to the human race.
banjer: There is only one major religion that I know of that specifially teaches the slaughter and subjugation of non-believers ... and that is Islam. Islamic doctrine lends itself to tyranny and totalitarianism ... no other major religion does. It's a doctrinal fact.
all the more reason to abandon it and anything that resembles it - proof that human beings are susceptible to even the most heinous of suggestions, if seemingly sanctioned by a 'god'.
when you envision a crazed muslim zealot in your mind, superimpose your own face over his and think about what it would take to put you where he is.
are they all somehow flawed mentally that they accept murder - a fundamentally/biologically repulsive act? no. they are as brainwashed as all of the other religous people, they just happen to be reading a book that was written by a person/group who choose blood over diplomacy.
humans are becoming a brutal, stupid and greedy species and religion is why.
banjer: I don't agree simply because there is no evidence for what you say. Just because you say it is so; doesn't make it so.
But I will grant you, that historically, there are many examples of religion causing barbarism.
At this point, I think that Islam wins the prize on that account.
It is true that the "culture" of Islam, as wide and varied as it is in the many places it exists, is very different from our own. However, the article presented here is missing a larger point, and is missing the point of "the lessons of history" it propounds- which are NEVER as simple and blunt as this man suggests.
When referring to the Islamic slaughter of Christians, it might be worthwhile to consider the case of Bosnia in the 1990's wherein Christians slaughtered Muslims as well, and interred them in concentration camps. The practice of raping Muslim women was encouraged since according to Islam,a violated woman must be put to death. Now this is a barbarous practice, and I won't argue that, but the exploitation of it was at least as bad. One can argue that this was a sect of Christianity that has little or nothing to do with us in the west, and that's true. Do we believe that Muslims know this? Does this author try to recognize the different factions of Islam? If we read the front pages of major periodicals, we won't find this, but MANY Muslims ARE speaking out against the religious revivalism movement in Islam. It just doesn't sell papers. The animosity IS a two way street.
It might also be well to examine the west's foreign policy in the region, which has been nothing more than shameless. We back corrupt regimes and leaders in Middle Eastern countries who do not represent anything like the will of their peoples, for the sole purpose of exploiting their natural resources. These leaders get lavish lifestyles and military backing for the inevitable uprisings, in exchange for low prices for the west (at least up until recently)on oil products. The only real reason we ousted Saddam Hussein was because he refused to tow the line of western interests any longer. As soon as Saddam began talking of selling the bulk of Iraq's oil to other interests, that was when we found it necessary to get rid of him.
Was he a monster? Undoubtedly. It would be well to look to other Middle Eastern regimes now, and to see that their practices of oppressing their people are no better. The Saudis, Husni Mubarak in Egypt- we could also classify these leaders as monsters, but they are our allies. You can find images on the web of the all too frequent beheadings in Saudi Arabia, and similar practices in all of the illegitimate Middle Eastern countries- which are basically all of them, if you go by the standards that we put in the Constitution of the US.
Read "A Brutal Friendship:The West and The Arab Elite" by Aburish Said (a westerner in many respects and vocations, respected worldwide- though often not by radical Islam. He's dead now, btw)
Things are ALWAYS MORE COMPLEX THAN THE SOUND-BYTE PHILOSOPHIES PRESENTED IN THIS ARTICLE. ALL OF US HAVE TO CHANGE, NOT JUST ISLAM.
Dave: With all of the West's faults, it's still by far the best system to ever come along ... Islam is, on the other hand, barbaric. It is hyper chauvinist, hyper-ethnocentric, hyper-exclusive and violent far beyond any construct of the modern West.
Although you make some important points about our "allies", I'll stand by the general concept that unless "Peaceful" Muslim change on mass, they will be our enemy. For all of our warts, we are the side of enlightenment ... they are the side of barbarism; we are side of human rights, they are the side that tramples them … even in day to day living.
Your attempt at moral equivalence is the standard we hear all the time …and it has failed the West and endangered us. It’s the line taken by the likes of Noam Chomsky and most “progressives”, and it does nothing but lend power to those who would destroy Western enlightenment.
I hope you don't mind, but i've linked this in my own journal.
The cultural subversion that is happening here in the Philippines has been, to the observant, rather alarming. Where we used not to see headscarves at all, suddenly we see women in headscarves, and many are covered up in loose fitting garments, showing only their hands and faces - something you used to see only on foreigners from the Middle East, in the past five years has suddenly become common sight on Filipino Muslimas. I found out yesterday that we have madrassas here, and last month, my hometown had a 'Qu'ran reading contest' as the main highlight of a cultural display sponsored by the Office on Muslim Affairs.
Where Muslims here in the Philippines were generally viewed as the lazier bunch of people, or, in the South, the lazy but violent lot (as they tend toward a general attitude of sloth, then complain, kill and kidnap for ransom because their Catholic counterparts grow wealthy because those people are industrious and prefer to be educated) and generally seen as sticking to the South of the Philippines and their own little ghetto-parts of the cities, suddenly they have spread, become more visible and vocal about 'asserting' their culture, and subtly evangelizing as well as imposing greater strictness on the behavior of their women (as I've noted by the sudden change of attire).
That's been the most visible, and disturbing change; but one that is not isolated to the Philippines - indeed, it's the most visible symptom of the insiduous change that practicioners of Islam have been imposing on non-Islamic societies and countries worldwide. From Australia to England to the Norwegian north, they are imposing the practice of their own culture, notably the more violent aspects, if not outright denying the laws of the lands in which they live by claiming those practices to be 'part of their culture' and if those practices are against the law of the lands they live in (honor killings being a good example) they rise up and protest saying that they are being 'oppressed' as a culture and a religion - using the sensibilities and attitudes rooted in Western and Christian-based values of equality and fairness against those nations - values which do not exist in the Koran, or in traditional Islamic culture.
It is an uneasy time to live in, and I dread the future. Sadly, unless modern culture and Western attitudes take a stand and deny the subtle, but viral changes that are being made to the social consciousness of people worldwide instead of whitewashing them and buying into the lie that is perpetuated as a 'religion of peace', the future looks bleak for our children. World War II will have had nothing on the war that is likely to happen - especially as it will be fought not only on a global scale, but likely become Islam vs The Rest of the World (which they are already perceiving as such.)
cutelildrow: there is a very direct correlation between female Muslim atire, and the degree of fanaticism within a region. The more "covering", the more extremism.
I agree wholeheartedly with your premise that it is not sufficient for the majority of Muslims to be, or claim to be, peaceful.
The reality is that, no matter in which society they live, most Muslims have a higher allegiance to the Ummah than to the concept of democracy. Consequently, if the fanatics are to be shut down, it must be done sooner rather than later, because if push comes to shove, Muslims will unite in condemnation of the infidel.
Discussion, on fora such as this, will not help to preempt this problem, as, unfortunately, they merely preach to the converted.
It might be preaching to the unconvertible, but if you want employ my own method of trying to do something constructive about the second greatest problem facing the world (after population growth), write directly to the leaders of the Islamic organisations and publications, in your country or in your language. The Internet will tell you who they are!
Oh, the Irony... Don't stand so close.
Can't you see how this applies to Zionist/Isreali apologists much better than it does Palestinians?
Dispossessed and oppressed people will never go to their graves quietly.
Why should it be different in this case?
Casting them as irrelevant makes killing them much easier I suppose.
Get back to your echo chamber of self delusion, and writing your 2 minutes of hate.
"makes killing them easier"
Now that's a loony and irrelevant statement.
Hey Paul,
I read your article. It was a really nice piece of writing and quite true. Am writing to you from pakistan. A liberal, a humanist and an atheist I am. Though it is close to impossible to survive here with such thinking but sometimes, even being a slight liberal is difficult(in other words, being a liberal Muslim puts one's life in danger when people are killed right in front of your very own eyes)
As for the silent majority, many of us quite disillusioned on who is right and who is wrong. ofcourse killing is wrong but afterall, killing is killing whether its in name of patriotism (Iraq, Nicaragua, Haiti, Angola, Libanon, Panama etc etc).
When I see so much blood being shed whether in name of organized religion, patriotism or any ideology at all, it simply seems that humans are simply too immature even at present to define a progressive fate of their own. If a religion-follower is willing to shed blood to go to heaven, so is a soldier willing to kill in the name of that 'invisible' national honor.
Afterall, followers of Islam didnot wipe out the indians in north america or aboriginees in australia to create the present welfare states!
Saying this, I would still say that if I have to opt for a lesser necessary evil, I will definitely NOT side with what Islamic teachings to its followers are!!
Somi
Hi Paul
Your essay certainly touches a nerve. It might be of interest to your readers to know when you originally wrote it (1997, according to http://www.jr.co.il/articles/pol...irrelevant.txt)
.
I am seriously bothered by the fact that it does not mention the horrendous exploitation by western "explorers" (and their backers) of huge swathes of the rest of the world. Nor does it look at the obscene amount of money that our governments (especially the US and UK governments) are throwing at the people they claim to "protect" -- not in the form of food, education, infrastructure, health care, but in the form of guns, bombs, destruction, death, rape, murder.
What a waste!
Imagine a world in which the roughly $905,890m the US alone have spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 (see http://costofwar.com/ ) would have been used constructively.
I totally agree with some of your commentators: the worst possible scourge of humanity is religion. The destruction wrought on everything in the name of religion is one of humanity's best-kept "secrets".
The essay was first penned in February of 2006.
As to the West and Armed Conflict: Much of the destruction and weaponizing of poor countries, in the past, has to be viewed in the context of the Cold War. There was a constant proxy war going on. Having said that, almost all the weapons ever given or sold to developing nations came from either China or Russia ... the West’s contribution was tiny.
It's easy to look at the cost of conflicts in an isolation, without geopolitical context, but that's simply a illusion. The cost of war, in blood and cash, is always incredibly expensive when viewed simply as a number ... but all context must be applied in order to see the whole picture.
One must always guard though, against arming regimes and making war simply for profit. I know that pacifists like to believe that war is always based on this, but when geopolitical realities, not fantasies or utopian ideals are considers, the modern West has seldom gone to war for profit motive or for resource acquisition. It makes no sense, because even the worst enemies of the West will sell resources at cheaper rates than when they are democratized or pacified or befriended. Thugs are desperate for cash, so they create great environments for profiteering ... taking them out, as the West has done, doesn’t support profit motive. The cost of oil, for instance, from Saddam's Iraq was a fraction of what it would cost if US war costs were factored in ... the notion that the West goes to war for oil is laughable. It’s much easier to release a Libyan terrorists, at almost no cost, to gain access to cheap oil.
So, while Western greed is oft sited as the reason for Western aggression, it makes no sense to think this, none ... not one little bit. True greed would dictate that the West keep the developed world in poverty, under the thumb of thugs, who in turn would reward the West with cheap resources. Since the Cold War, the West has done nothing to support this theory, in fact, has worked tirelessly to imancipate the people of the world, including those of Iraq and Afghanistan.
One must always consider all context, and not try to justify or criticize armed conflict simply from a view devoid of all mitigating circumstances. Each era comes with context, and ignoring the Cold War context is to ignore the single biggest mitigating fact of the past 50 years.
Commenting by HaloScan
