Comments on: From the Pen of David Horowitz: November 11, 2009

By: jhimmi

jhimmi — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:48:08 +0000

I am as aware as anyone the violence and hate that is inherent in Islam. I’m concerned with the reality of the situation and looking for a pragmatic starting point to really address the problem. I think there are alternatives to the two strategies we’ve seen so far: war followed by nation building from Bush, and politically correct appeasement from Clinton and Obama.

We’re not going to kill all Muslims. To ‘quarantine’ Islam to the existing ‘infected’ regions would require banning Islam and Muslims everywhere else, which isn’t going to happen in the relatively free West anytime soon, or not soon enough to prevent mass bloodshed/civil war.

Instead of, or in addition to, military actions against those who, by all accounts, actually DO represent ‘true’ historically traditional Islam, I think it would be helpful to really open up the public debate on Islamic theology. How many Muslims don’t really know everything there is to know about Islam, because they’ve been fed a sanitized version? There are lots of questions, even among the ulema, about the validity of various Hadith – a good starting point would be to discard the Hadith. If nothing else, it would reduce the amount of violent, hate filled dogma that needs to be re-interpreted.

If the Qur’an was understood to be a historical account, rather than eternal instructions for the future, it wouldn’t eliminate its ability to inspire violence, but it would help. Shining a bright light on the ugly, hateful sections of the Qur’an and Hadith that suck in weak minded Muslims couldn’t hurt – it could potentially force billions of people (Muslims included) around the world to the dark underbelly of Islamic theology.

By: john simpson

john simpson — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:05:16 +0000

Futile… – While certain of your individual points are valid, you embrace the sophomoric fallacy of non sequitur when you argue that US opposition to jihad is just one more component of a studied and orchestrated foreign policy dedicated to the suppression of liberty in foreign countries. Like you, I am considerably left of centre (3rd generation), but I must reject your simplistic implication that the United States is the bad guy here.
You are perfectly correct when you argue that CIA sponsorship of Pinochet’s overthrow of the democratically elected government of Salavador Allende was unconscionable and just plain wrong, as has been US support for so many other cruel Latinamerican dictatorships. Still, democratic countries, like human beings, are seldom right or wrong 100% of the time. Fairness dictates that one must balance the good and the bad when assessing the beliefs and conduct of a given country.
I’m just old enough to remember Hitler, and I know that without the commitment and sacrifice of the US armed forces you and I would now be living (if, in fact, we were living) under an unimaginable fascist dictatorship. It was the United States, virtually unaided, which stared down the very real soviet nuclear threat. There is no country on earth which is more committed to freedom of speech and of association than the US, to the point that the harangues of those who are bent on destroying democracy itself are tolerated by virtue of the first amendment. No other country has committed so much to humatinarian aid for those of whichever political stripe are devastated by wars or natural disasters. (I’m not an American by the way)
You state that you “do not blame every muslim alive for that problem.” It is precisely this attitude of the politically correct which menaces our freedom. Mein koranf, unlike the holy scriptures of all other major religions, specifically orders the faithful to subjugate all non-moslems, “apes and pigs,” to the rule of islam; if they resist, they must be enslaved and made to pay “jizya,” or, preferably, killed. The penalty for non-belief in any part of their venemous manifesto is summary execution. You must have noticed that moslems never denounce or inform on the militants within their ranks. If they were so democratic and peace-loving wouldn’t they do so? In even the most oppressive societies, not every last person is a soldier – the profound silence of “mainstream” moslems is deafening, and speaks volumes. When someone identifies himself as a moslem, he is telling us that he supports a world caliphate. Period. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

By: Bubba4

Bubba4 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:02:56 +0000

He supported the contras with arm sales to Iran….what a guy.

By: Walt

Walt — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:57:51 +0000

You may actually want to review the Koran and Hadiths. There is no moderate Islam. Also, this religion has not changed much in 1400 years, so how will you as a despised infidel persuade Muslims to change their sacred texts to more suit your feelings? This is a silly approach.

By: Walt

Walt — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:53:07 +0000

Yes, I guess the Marxist guerillas and Sandinista government were just really cool? Ronald Reagan brought about the elimination of such Soviet supported movements. Through Cuba, the Soviet Union tried to take over Central and Latin America during the 80′s and before.Sorry, President Reagan came on to the scene long after 1973, when Pinochet ousted Allende. The only reason that Pinochet came into power was due to Salvador Allende’s efforts to turn Chile into a Marxist state. Also, how does David Horowitz blame every Muslim for Islamic extremism, unless you perhaps think that every Muslim is one perhaps. Also, you need to remember the terms Fascist Italy or NAZI Germany before spouting off on how Islamo-Fascism defames all Muslims. In no way did those terms even imply that all Italians were Fascists or Germans National Socialists, but simply described what regimes were controlling those countries and their ideology.

You really need to think before you post, and then people will take you seriously. Also, your beloved left will die just as quickly if Islamists take over.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:09:34 +0000

jhimmi, thoughtful post, but I see a few problems…
It would appear to us outsiders that Islam is in need of a Reformation movement, similar to that which occurred with Christianity. But we must consider these facts (and my own speculation)…
* Muslims consider the Koran perfect since every word was extensively cross referenced by numerous scribes. Any questioning of this, as happened some years ago in an Atlantic Monthly article, is considered an attack on their religion. Even though this article showed that some parchments had been bleached and rewritten, there can be no debate.
* How can you have peaceful relations with a culture that denies your right to exist?
One Muslim leader from several hundred years ago considered the world to be in two parcels: the world of Islam, with them ruling, of course, and the world of war, where heathens and infidels need to be subjugated or destroyed. From this ignorant American’s point of view, this still seems to be the mindset of many Muslims of radical character.
* How can there be any sort of |Reformation in the Muslim community when there is such disunity?
It seems to this unformed observer that it is easy to eliminate a potential rival by simply claiming that he defamed the Prophet. Off with his head!
How about the newspaper some years ago that reported on a beauty pageant, and said the women were so beautiful, the Prophet Muhammad would have married one of them? Angry Muslims burned the place to the ground!

It’s very confusing.
If Western society is so decadent, why do they use western derived technology, especially against us? Stop selling us oil, stop visiting our countries, make your own ‘Islamic Curtain’ and leave us alone, if you hate us so much.

We’ll survive without you.

By: peachey

peachey — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:09:24 +0000

So, John, tell us what is really on your mind. All I can say is ditto. Islam cannot be isolated from the foundations of Koran and hadiths. It is what is it is. There are of course Muslims that choose to ignore much of the content of the Islamic core principles as they are opposed to and appauled by the call to violence and destruction. Unfortunately, to practice true Islam is to accept all of the calls to kill, destroy, enslave,convert or kill all that is not Islamic. This is a difficult walk for many Muslims. Within the Koran it is very clear that all that do not conform to absolute Islam will be treated the same as the non-islamics.They practice what is essentially a quasi-Islam watered down to prayers,holidays and a more socially accepted form of behavior. They are also targets of true practicing Islamists in this country and Europe. Blending into and being assimilated into anything remotely Western is forbidden and violence among Muslims in Europe is commonplace. An approach of either you are in or out leaves many EU Muslims faced with the choice of conforming and becoming radical or the object of hate and violence. It is so frightening that within our society there are those that will side with the brutal dictators and deadly philosophies over the freedom of thought and speech. We live in a time when evil is viewed as good and good is viewed as evil. I fear that those that practice true Islam are a growing threat and have an ever growing influence and power within the US Muslim society. Ft. Hood was just the beginning in light of this administrations refusal to see the danger and call it for what it was. Terrorism.

By: john

john — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:09:40 +0000

Futile, what a shallow, stupid argument. You mock the “they hate our freedoms” argument. Islam, the word, means submission. The entire religion is based upon the model of Mohammed, and the generations that followed his life and death developed into a faith which views all non-muslims as infidels, and non-Islamic countries, with our liberal freedoms, are anathema to the jihadis. They do indeed hate the freedom of our women in the west. They hate our free, decadent culture (of course, they like strip clubs before they go to meet their virgins). They hate democracy, which places the rule of laws created by men above any particular religious law. To deny that they hate our freedmos is simply ignorant.

I wonder about toe-tag liberals, who seem to view Islam as just another religion- heck, they may as well be Methodists. Watch out for those radical chrsitians! Oh, the horror! The intellectual dishonesty on the Left about the Islamic enemy we face is staggering, and now, with all the branches of the government, academia and media echoing the theme that our REACTIONS to ongoing Islamic outrages is the problem, not radical Islam itself, a truly dangerous environment exists. The left and their PC orthodoxy is significantly to blame for the carnage. Of course, they have no shame in placing denial of the Islamic threat as a higher value than defending western values and actual Americans.

Left: no Islamic terror in America during 7 years of Bush following 9/11. Obama now has this attack on his record in his first year, even as he and his allies refuse to utter the “T word”. Deal with it.

By: Smithwinston

Smithwinston — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:04:58 +0000

Here is a better way of understanding the problem of liberalism from Larry Auster’s website:

“…Since last week, I’ve been bothered by conservative commentators’ constant use of the kneejerk phrase “political correctness” to describe liberals’ massively dishonest response to the Fort Hood massacre, but had not gotten around to writing about it. However, Sage McLaughlin posted a superb comment at What’s Wrong with the World yesterday that says pretty much what I would have said and more.”

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014743.html

By: Smithwinston

Smithwinston — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:06:22 +0000

There is only one way to save the West from Islam.

That is, separatism from, and the creation of, a cordon sanitaire around the Islamic world. Anything else is slow Islamization by high Moslem birth rates and immigration.

By: Smithwinston

Smithwinston — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:03:32 +0000

There is only one way to save the West from Islam.

That is, separatism from, and the creation of, a cordon sanitaire around, the Islamic world. Anything else, is slow Islamization by high Moslem birth rates and immigration.

By: jhimmi

jhimmi — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:49:54 +0000

This is a difficult issue. I think it is possible for Islam to become a religion in the modern Western sense, i.e., a personal belief system, but it’s irresponible and dangerous for Americans to stick their heads in the sand and hope it just happens.

I can see three ways to deal with Islam. The first would probably destroy the country rather quickly: ban the Qur’an and arrest all Muslims. The second would destroy the country more slowly: appease radical Muslims and/or pretend there is no such thing as violent jihad.

The best solution is to focus very specifically on the beliefs, words, and deeds of Islamists and jihadists that distinguish them from Muslims who do not consider themselves Islamist or jihadist. Freeing Islam from its totalitarian political ideology has to happen. Radical Islamic ideology must be marginalized within the Muslim community.

It is in this sense that the larger Muslim community is somewhat to blame. Because there is actual scriptural support for much of what these violent jihadists do and say, and probably also because they are afraid, it seems non-Islamist Muslims don’t, or can’t, agressively confront radical ideology with an effective counter argument.

It seems intuitive to me that religion should promote love and understanding, rather than hate and violence. Non-Muslims are waiting for the Islamic ‘revolution’ that doesn’t just pay lip service to love, peace, understanding, and denouncing jihad, but becomes a viable alternative ideology to traditional jihadist Islam.