Cherif, When are you actually going to grow up and face reality ? Throughout almost every single post of yours is this 'victim mentality' where everyone and everybody is to blame for everything save you and your fellow co-religionists. The time has come when you start to examine your own religion, the societies it has spawned and your own inherent Westernphobia and Christianphobia. Perhaps you should remember that to be tolerated you must be tolerant. This doesn't seem to be something Muslims understand. Pity.

Courtney, There is no such thing as Islamophobia either and yet it seems to be an accusation which is bandied around with gay abandon, so why not 'Westernphobia' and 'Christianphobia' ? The terms are just as valid and just as descriptive. Have we not seen such attitudes and mindsets on the Arab street and on our own street for that matter ? I would say at the bottom of much of what has occurred of late is a true hate and loathing of the West and of those - mostly Christians in this case - of another faith and religion.

Dear Mr. Cherif, I wonder if Peter Sire (as elsewhere) -and others, including yourself- can still not read the hate in your messages. Speaking of "eliminating the degenerate" with respect to Europeans, in addition to mentioning our "biological failures" is simply fascistic. I suppose you are familiar with the definition of fascism (which many, strikingly, are not). The way in which you chose to pack your insults suggest that they do not reflect your personal opinion. But of course they do. When I read your message I was instantly reminded of Freud's case history 'The Rat Man', where he noted that a way of insulting a king in a society that does not tolerate insults of the king is packing it in a way as if to merely voice (usually anonymous) others' opinions. For example, to call the king an idiot one would say: "if anybody says that THE KING IS AN IDIOT, I will break his bones!" To clarify this interpretation, the careful reader will notice that the 'vices' of the Muslim world, as mentioned by you are really not those a European would mention (such as 'vulnerability to attack from the West'). Further, the vices of Muslims you have mentioned are clearly only the vices of their governments. Fortunately, you are not the spokesman for the Muslim world, but for yourself.

ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE? The easy answer, of course, would be "all of the above". The notion that Muslims are "backward", though, seems a bit suspect to me. I suspect that the undeniable backwardness that is so visible in so many places is less a probuct of Islam than of the grafting of Islam onto a set of inordinately xenophobic, misogynistic, and violent tribal cultures. I deal routinely with Muslims in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Dubai. In Indonesia the combination of Islam with the underlying Malay culture has produced a far more relaxed and tolerant version of Islam than that which we see in parts of the MENA area and some immigrant communties in Europe. In Dubai, a quintessentially Arab Mulim society has made a conscious decision to abandon the parts of the tribal culture that were retarding progress, while retaining those parts that were compatible with the modern life they sought. The results are far from backward. In fact, they are pretty impressive, and seem quite satsifactory to all but a miniscule minority of medieval fundamentalists. Muslims who choose to identify themselves with backwardness are backward. By no means all have made that choice. Unfortunately, much of the modern Muslim political discourse seems dominated by those who have chosen backwardness. I wanna know about this "basketful of vices", though. What exactly are we talking about here? Message was edited by: Steven Rogers

Courtney, I take issue with your use of the words 'Westernphobia' and 'Christianphobia' … Right on. I am a Western Muslim, of Egyptian origin. Being Western, I do not hate the West, or I would have moved away. My grand parents were not Western, but were Westernized. My parents even more so. They were Westernized because they copied Western ways. First because they could afford to (embarrassingly, it was another factor helping differentiate them from the lower classes). Second because the West produced many advances in science etc. which they admired. As in Roman times, everybody everywhere who could afford to copied Roman ways. But none of my grandparents, parents or my siblings and myself turned our backs on Islam or our own culture. We have been fortunate to be able to pick and choose the best from a number of cultures. This is too complicated to understand for some. People like owly freak out because they do not understand Canada, and resent that we do not become like him, and can still be fully Canadian, i.e. Western, while retaining or discarding any part of any other identity or influence we may have acquired over generations. I am pleased that some postings are exhibiting quite the opposite of this kind of a medieval European village mentality.

Roger, May I suggest that you are experienced and observant. ...backwardness.. is less a probuct of Islam than of the grafting of Islam onto a set of inordinately xenophobic, misogynistic, and violent tribal cultures. Yes, like female circumcision which is of African tribal origin and sometimes practiced in Egypt, but not in Saudi Arabia. Malay culture has produced a far more relaxed and tolerant version of Islam than that which we see in parts of the MENA area and some immigrant communties in Europe. European Muslim communities are under severe chauvinistic pressure and expected to become replicas of Danes and whatever. They become hyper and defensive. Canadian Muslims are relaxed, due to our "cultural mosaic" and multicultural approach. In Dubai, a quintessentially Arab Mulim society has made a conscious decision to abandon the parts of the tribal culture that were retarding progress, while retaining those parts that were compatible with the modern life they sought. The results are far from backward. Yup. It is smart to take the best from various cultures. Muslim are urged to "seek knowledge even if you have to get it fom China" at the time meaning from the far end of the world. I wanna know about this "basketful of vices", though. What exactly are we talking about here? The "basket" is the confluence of socio-political and economic factors as well as individual behaviour, which interact to inhibit procreation. "Exactly" what, you can figure out just as well as I can, maybe better.

Cherif, You posts comes across as some declaration of Muslim superiority: “One team is growing in leaps and bounds and the other is declining, slowly heading towards extinction”. OK, give yourself a pat on the back. However, it seems that much talked about healthy birth rate amongst Muslims seems to produce more and more people whose only prospective is to live in impoverished countries under corrupt and repressive regimes. At the same time the Muslim religion seems to be becoming more and more totalitarian mainly towards Muslims themselves. Seems like a hollow victory to me.

like female circumcision which is of African tribal origin and sometimes practiced in Egypt, but not in Saudi Arabia. Another good example would be honor killing, and the general oppression of women in much of the Middle East. These phenomena stem less from Islam than from the tribal cultures over which Islam has been laid. European Muslim communities are under severe chauvinistic pressure and expected to become replicas of Danes and whatever. I've heard this, and I've also heard that much of the anger of European Muslims stems from a sense of exclusion: they want to become European, but feel unwelcome. The two lines of thought seem a bit incompatible. In any event, I think the issue is less that Muslims are expected to become replicas of Danes, Germans, or Frenchmen, but that they are expected to at least respect the ways of their adopted society. This is not, I think, unreasonable. When I go to Jeddah to visit, or if I chose to live there, I would be expected to deal with the way women are treated, and with the restrictions placed on religious expression by members of religions other than Islam, even if I disapproved of them. I cannot see why any other standard should be applied to Muslims in Europe. Even if they do not want to adopt all aspects of the culture of the country in which they live, they should show the same respect for that culture that a European in Saudi Arabia would be expected to show. It is smart to take the best from various cultures. Muslim are urged to "seek knowledge even if you have to get it fom China" at the time meaning from the far end of the world. I must wonder, then, why so many European Muslims seem determined to adopt the worst of Muslim cultures. They see that Muslims living in places like Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are prosperous, peaceful, and are treated with great respect by the western powers. They see Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia making peaceful progress, and Muslims in India living, for the most part, at peace with non Muslim neighbors in a democratic nation. Still, though, they choose to emulate squealing radicals who have never brought anything but misery to anyone. Why?

Steven Rogers, ...I'm in the later stages of raising 2 children, alone, and I've also managed a career and a fair bit of enjoyment. By far the most rewarding part of this has been raising the children. I cannot begin to imagine a career that could be as challenging and as constantly exciting, rewarding, and invigorating as helping to craft a new generation of life. People who are too busy with career and transient pleasures to bother with the single most fundamentally human experience on earth have a very peculiar set of values and priorities, as far as I can see... Beautifully put. This can be well understod by individuals - rich or poor, educated or not, from any culture - who have children and love them dearly. I have started companies and made money and lost money. All very exciting, but compares not at all to meticulous care and nurturing of one's children. I am fortunate to have a superb wife, who nurtured our three kids ever so wonderfully, as I provided for them and and taught them how face life, involved them in sports, music etc. I am experienced enough to know that for you to be bringing up two kids on your own in today's world is nothing short of heroic. Bravo! I hope you are European, since europe sorely needs more people like you.

Cherif - one issue on which you (and Steven Rogers) are quite clearly wrong is the issue of population. There is a clearly established relationship between quality of life, healthcare, human rights and population. It is called the Demographic Transitition Model (DTM) and seems to work quite well for all societies that have gone through an industrialisation and modernisation process, the exceptions being those that rely more on immigration (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA etc.) of course. Basically women in general stop having so many children when they don't have to (either through social pressure, the fact that so many children die younger, or economic necessity). Populations reach a peak and then start to decline through. The models predict that they will level out at a lower and more sustainable level. This is happening not just in Europe but also in Japan and to the wealthier non-immigrant (that is several generations down the line) populations of other industrialised countries. This will most likely eventually happen in all countries that go through industrialisation and modernisation processes, Islamic countries included. None of this implies that people love children less or any other such nonsense, indeed you will find a much higher general popular love and concern for children in Scandanavian countries (well advanced in the DTM) than in countries where women are forced to have more and more children to try to provide a family labour force, or 'goods for sale' (in marriage, slavery, prostitution etc.). Cultural attitudes to children vary according to lots of other factors - the British attitude being one of the worst in Europe IMHO. Basically, the argument about 'baskets of vices' of indeed Europeans being lazy are ludicrous, ignorant and prejudiced statements, and ignore reality and research.

In response to David Wood, regarding the genetic source of homo sapiens I think you'll find it was East Africa actually... Research is constantly moving on that one, and the location keeps moving northwards into what is now Ethiopia and beyond. The crossroads that was the melting pot for homo erectus types to morph into neanderthalis types and then into homo sapiens was the narrow isthmus represented by the Middle East. With the see sawing of the ice ages hominids were repeatedly driven across this isthmus to mix and intermingle. It is also the location of the first known civilizations. I think you will find that the Middle East is the most important geographical location on the planet for the human species. It is no coincidence that it is now the centre of so much politics. In response to cherif.rifaat and his quantity is better than quality theory, I guess you are not going to be moved on that one, but I might illustrate something about your generalization about being “Muslim”. The people of my country are multi-cultural. Muslims living in the west are westerners. Labeling people as Muslims except for the purpose of illustrating one or two beliefs, creates artificial barriers since beliefs can change overnight. The people who survive and prosper are those who assimilate what is good from other cultures and move on. Incidentally the forerunners of the Danes, (Vikings) the very people behind this controversy, were very good at assimilating into other cultures and probably still are. It is worth remembering that 60 years ago they were occupied by the Nazis and they are sensitive to ideologies that involve them to submit to an alien legal system. Since this controversy has started, I have taken a lot interest in all things Muslim and my ideas have changed and I have a lot more sympathy for Muslim causes than previously. I would say that there are many sorry people in Denmark currently making similar changes. As I said in my previous thread, it would be very easy for me to become a Muslim, but that actually wouldn’t change anything. I could tick ‘Muslim’ at the next census (this year). Cherif, you underestimate how fickle human populations are. People ascribe to Islam because it unites them to a local cause, not a global one, and that cause, in many countries is a backlash to colonialism. Pure Islam is a Utopian dream, like Communism and so is your idea that all Muslims will always be somehow united and put other Muslims before anyone else. The Muslim resurgence we see is only happening because the people who call themselves Muslims are seeking out a more pluralistic and practical existence than that dictated by those in the Middle East who claim to correctly interpret the Koran. Violence in the Middle East over the cartoons is a desperate attempt to exert control over expat Muslims in the West. I know from the reaction in my country that Muslims are now starting to support their new nationhood over previous Muslim affiliations. They have done this by denouncing the violence there and calling on Middle Eastern nations not to boycott our exports, following apologies from the media who published the cartoons.

Hello stigabormans "...we reject the pressures of our animal existence and adopt those of a species in control of its destiny." Well said but whimsical. I am not an official spokesman for Mother Nature, but I think this is what she might say about your comment: "Delusions of Grandeur". We humans love to think we are so noble. Especially the bit about "in control of our destiny" is really quaint. Was any European country that was invaded by Germany "in control of its destiny?" When we are well fed,sheltered and secure, then we might appear to "reject the pressures of our animal existence" (exept perhaps for promisuous sex.) As soon as we calculate that we can seize someone else's property (Palestine?) or assets (oil?) with minimal or no cost to ourselves, or in order to better our condition, we then routinely - even eagerly - revert to our "animal existence." You probably won't agree, but I believe Islam is an excellent way to help us in our struggle to resist the instincts of an animal existence. That is the primary meaning of "jihad".

Talk about your Europhobia.. 'Hey Steve Rogers, Europe needs more of you'... 'decadent Europe' 'dead end Europe', 'move to Canada'... sheesh! Let's get something straight here a) Do Europeans believe in a fundamental difference between Islamic and European 'identities' when about half support the accession of Turkey, with many more opposing it for economic reasons. I sensed no real Islamophobia in Europe until 9/11, Madrid, London, the murder of Theo Van Gogh etc. etc.. Big Muslim population equals more places for terrorists to hide. It doesn't even necessarily mean that we have a thing against Muslims, but they create a problem now because Bin Laden and followers declared a global terrorist jihad. The 9/11 bombers included German citizens. The London bombers were British citizens. Theo Van Gogh's murderer was Moroccan-Dutch. Hence Europeans NOW feel uncomfortable about giving Muslims citizenship and free movement too easily. It's sad (and in its most extreme cases can lead to paranoia-fuelled attrocities like the gunning down of Brazilian electricians), but let's not pretend that it comes out of thin air. I'm constantly amazed by how easily Muslims can discuss 'Islamophobia' as entirely separate from the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism. It's like trying to discuss Islamic contempt for the West without making any reference to Western complicity in anti-democratic coups, Israeli human rights violations, or Gulf Wars (okay, I admit there are your 'clash of fundamental values' wonks who try to do just that, but not to be encouraged) 2) The citizenship deal. Okay, here's how this works... Reforming entrenched systems is difficult. Hence the older democracies of the US and Britain still cling to their rusty, unrepresentation lack of PR and transferrable votes, while European countries 'swept clean' by the interruption of fascism adopted new, responsive PR systems. Our ingrained citizenship policies are rusty and nationalistic. This is transcended by EU policies that state that all European citizenships are equal, but it still poses the fundamental problem of getting EU citizenship... well, that'll take work (again, the aforementioned international Islamic terrorism networks don't exactly help things. Don't put down to permanent values what can be traced to concrete events) The EU freedom of movement laws show that Europeans are trying to move toward looser and more enclusive citizenship (also worth remembering we're the only union offering equal terms to accession nations, not something you see America doing in its zeal to aid Mexico...) The Canadian and American ease of citizenship comes from their founding circumstances, not nationalism but colonialism i.e. they needed to attract immigrants fast to get, keep and conquer land from Native Americans. Probably primarily intended for white European settlers, but you have benefitted from the legislation too. Congratulations. Okay, reading back over the post I may have taken a sour tone from time to time, but call it a response to all the endless Europe-bashing that goes almost unchallenged. Having to listen to generalisations about 'narrow-minded chauvinist Europe' and 'imagine the reaction if Muslims caricatured Christ' just depresses me from time to time. If you disagree with our values, fine. But don't misrepresent them in order to win the argument more easily.

> But I am being presumtious. I'm sorry. It is not for > me to harangue you about this. If you want to glorify > biological failure, it is your business and your > right. You might think you are being amusing here, but as I have already pointed out you are arguing from a postition of ignorance about post-industrial societies and demography (which incidentally is nothing to do with 'Europe' - look at Japan for an Asian example). I wonder what your ultimate criteria of 'biological success' would be - standing room only? I think biology, not to say, societies and their ethical bases, are rather more complex than your reductive logic.

Indeed. I recently saw a report that French productivity per hour is about a fifth higher than that of their counterparts in the United States, mainly because they work less hours and suffer less from the stress-related illnesses of pressure management. Europe-bashing does not exist in isolation, of course. I also get irritated to hear Europeans getting snotty about the stupidity of American electoral choices, without acknowledging that their 150 year old democratic system is simply slanted against third parties and political alternatives. Witness the same phenomenon in first-past-the-post Britain (Tony Blair gets 30% of the vote and a comfortable majority... explain THAT in terms of democratic principles...) Or, for example, discussing Muslim 'values' as shown in the cartoon crisis, without discussing the fundamental lack of free speech that cements those values (I cite, for example, the prosecution of editors in even 'liberal' Jordan for printing the cartoons and calling for reason, or the continued horrors against Akhbur Ganji). We need to take a good look at our systems of government and the way they could be reformed, but instead we're all reaching for convenient stereotypes that put problems down, not to realistically achievable reform, but to the 'nature' of different people (Europeans are lazy, smug, decadent, vice-ish by the basketful, Americans are stupid, violent, intolerant and ignorant religious fanatics, Muslims are stupid, violent, intolerant and ignorant religious fanatics (hey! two stereotypes for the price of one... that's economising)... As far as population stats, it's simple. Populations under threat breed more. E.g. AIDs, poverty and civil war ravaged countries in Africa have up to 6 or 7 children on average per family in many cases, more mildly threatened populations such as Israel have close to 3, and densely populated and entirely unthreatened populations such as Europe and Japan have slightly less than 2. When we fall back down to the point of feeling threatened, there is reason to expect (as with the 'baby boomer' generation) that we will rise again. AS for why I focused on Europe-bashing, I feel more authority to rebut it, being European and not fond of speaking in the name of other regions, but, for the record, I reckon American-bashing, Islam-bashing and China-bashing are as damaging if not more so in the big picture. I think that about covers it.

cherif.riafaat, quote: "Europeans can point to their internal combustion engines, their excellent weapons..." Cherif.riafaat, you fly by european/american planes, your life is in the hands of christian pilots, communication between us is possible due to european/american systems of communication, your life is based on many christian-designed facilities. We, the europeans, can survive without the islamic world. Of course, you can survive without the christian world. Can you describe for us how your life should be without christian facilities? How the world should be based only on the facilities designed/made by your culture?

"It is far better if every culture were to learn to criticize itself, at least first. We Muslims certainly have a great deal to criticize about ourselves and our condition in this time of our history." Well said. I think one of the things that bugs Europeans is the perception that despite the burgeoning of Islamic fundamentalist movements, there is little evidence of self criticism in the Islamic world. I maintain that a lot of this is tied to free speech issues, but it is important to take into account. Not matter, it is important that Europe doesn't abandon its traditions of self-criticism and succumb to the rise of the right-wing movements. Let's face it, the cartoons aren't really a threat to Muslims. What devout Muslim will open their paper, see these images by a Dane who has never even read the Qur'an and think "Hey, gee, I'd better abandon my religion". The cartoon crisis is a crisis for Europe, struggling to cling to the ideals of the Union (the notion that people can reach beyond borders, unite in common decision-making on common issues under the umbrella of democracy and human rights) in the face of a rising right-wing that feeds only on hatred of the 'other guy' and fear of change. What a shabby way to make decisions. We need our dreams, whether they're the United States constitution, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, the peaceful social harmony prescribed in the Qur'an or the European Union. Unfortunately the cartoon debate has been dominated by precisely this fear, hatred and looking outside ourselves in both Islamic response and European. When you're talking about 'racially pure babies' I'm not sure if it's ironic, based around your perception of European attitudes to race or what, but race is not the main issue (witness the Danish and Netherlands emphasis on 'assimilation to cultural values'... misguided, sure, but not focused on race so much as culture. How much are statistics on race affected by the lowering of prejudices against mixed race couples? If we stick to narrow interpretations of racial statistics, we might as well call these guys 'race traitors'. And, in general with the 'biological suicide thing' what are we? Giant pandas? When we get down to 30 Europeans left in the wild, then let's talk...) I don't believe that the 'tread softly on issues of religion and culture' is the way forward, as it only leads to mutual suspicion, unsaid prejudices and lack of integration, which then erupts. Our unwillingness to open up and discuss our cultural differences in attitudes is part of the reason for the misunderstandings and explosions surrounding these crises (the powder in the keg if you will). And in the interest of dialogue, could I ask your opinion on something that bugs a whole lot of Europeans. If Muslims are willing to protest the blasphemy against Muhammad worldwide, why don't they protest the blasphemy of terrorists that use his name to justify murder in similar numbers?

"The main problem is IF they could or not evolve to a democratic type society. If not then could you imagine what will follows?" What do you mean 'if'? Forces of democracy are alive and kicking in Malaysia and Turkey, and even countries like Egypt and Indonesia are making progress. It's also worth remembering that the slowness of Islamic states to transfer to democracy has a lot to do with Western attempts to undermine Islamic democracy (an infamous example being the complicity in the overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran. If Iranian politics had been allowed to follow its natural course, instead of placing a puppet like the Shah in power to represent Western interests, would we now have the headache of Adhmadinejad's extremist rhetoric and anti-Westernism to deal with? There are other examples of sabotage against progressive Islamic leaders including Muhammad Ali in Egypt and many more.) As with the overthrow of Allende in Chile, or Patrice Lumumba in Congo, the Western nations have often found that their short term political self-interest wins out over noble ideals of self-determination and democracy for all. I love Europe's ideals of human rights, self-determination and democracy (what's more, a close study of Native American, African, Chinese and Indian philosophy will reveal that these aren't simply European ideals but worldwide human aspirations) but let's start by acknowledging that we haven't lived up to them, and cause many problems by that failure, just the same way that Islamic countries also cause problems by their sacrifice of ideals for short term political goals. Something worth remembering was that for centuries in the Middle Ages, Islam was the most enlightened, progressive civilisation. My personal conviction is that, before modern technology made democracy practical over a large area (and is democracy even a European invention or a natural phenomenon? Small areas like Greek city states and many tribal societies from Africa to America developed democratic ways to select their leaders. Yet empires could only run under the God-king system... a good example being Rome's slide from Republic to Caesars as its territory expanded. And big empires always defeat small, disunified tribal societies in battle. Hence the shape of the world up until advances in communications infrastructure and the printing press brought about the information revolution) the 'divine right of kings' system, flawed as it is, was the only practical way to provide cohesive government over a large area and minimise power struggles. The codes laid down in the Qur'an are the best possible for administering a 'divine right of kings' style system, see also the codes of Confucian philosophy. Because the 'divine right of kings' civilisations in Europe were more openly exploitative and immoral, so they were quicker to be discredited and engulfed in revolution, while the idea of just rule based on codes and laws rather than public mandate still holds appeal in both the Islamic world and China. In a similar way, I think European concepts of the role of state and proportional democracy are currently more advanced than America because we have the experience of fascism in living memory breathing down our necks. Crudely put, the worse you mess up, the wider the room for reconstruction. At the moment, I think the Islamic world is messing up quite a bit and therefore clearing the way for regeneration. Too much European/American interference, allowing Muslims to blame their social problems on 'imperialism' rather than the flaws in Islamism as a political movement, will only hinder this process. At the same time, I think Europe still hasn't come out of colonialism fully. It is as if we accept the toxic, racist ideologies of colonialism that 'Western civilisation' is something entirely independently invented that has to 'be taught' to other parts of the world, and the only counter-argument we can come up with is this weak, multi-culturalism brand of leftism that makes excuses for violent extremists and, rather than challenging the assumptions that democracy and modernity are Western inventions, instead simply says "Well, sure, yeah, but you know, all discourses are equally priviledged, and their cultural views may be as valid as ours, and I'm sure they have a good reason for televised beheadings and is human sacrifice really any worse than any other belief structure?' And the backlash to that is, of course, ultra-nationalist fundamentalism. Can no one break free of the cycle and just accept that the reason countries from all around the world signed the Human Rights Declaration is because our dreams and aspirations are fundamentally similar, despite cultural differences? In some ways, I could almost welcome the cartoon crisis as a way of dragging the accumulated muck of generations of prejudice on both sides up into the light and opening the way to move forward, provided that both sides see in the frenzied attacks evidence not only of the hostility of the 'other guy' but of the threat within. Democracy works not because the majority is always right, but because the majority loves freedom, and in guaranteeing their freedom (even up to basketful of vice levels) they are also enshrining your freedom to think independently and to disagree with them. Message was edited by: kerrygoulde

kerrygoulde “And in the interest of dialogue, could I ask your opinion on something that bugs a whole lot of Europeans. If Muslims are willing to protest the blasphemy against Muhammad worldwide, why don't they protest the blasphemy of terrorists that use his name to justify murder in similar numbers?” I don’t know why some really devout Muslims attack unarmed civilians. Not knowing, I of course blamed it on the West. How? Here is what I wrote in my book, in Chapter 11, entitled “To Plague the Inventor+.” Quote Learning From the Rich and Powerful I must confess that I am puzzled as well as distressed when radical Muslims kill civilians and must condemn such attacks in the strongest terms. It seems that 9-11 was designed to change the behaviour of the U.S., largely the same reasons the U.S. bombed Vietnam. The attackers on 9-11 apparently were all devout or fanatical Muslims. From what I can tell, such people generally have the same goals and desires as most people, regardless of faith. This might include dignity, material belongings, a good life for their families, and so on. For the very religious, however, the pursuit of worldly objectives must never interfere with the highest objective of all: to enter Paradise. I am no Islamic scholar. Still, I have been taught that Islam sternly prohibits the killing or abuse of civilians and other non-combatants, such as prisoners of war. There are certainly no exceptions to exonerate the deliberate mass killing of civilians. Attacking armed and hostile forces in wartime is one thing — losing one’s life for such a righteous cause will be rewarded in Paradise. After 9-11, I wondered what could have justified the killing of thousands of non-combatants in the minds of these apparently pious Muslims, and how they still believed that they would not incur the wrath of God and would not jeopardize their place in Heaven. I can think of only one explanation. All over the world, in many cultures, peoples copy useful and advanced aspects of Western culture. They often enjoy participation in harmless Western-style fun. They also sometimes internalize ugly components of the West’s civilization. The “sacred warriors” of 9-11 in their zeal, rage, and desperation somehow felt justified in deviating from the rules of Islam in order to copy a most abhorrent technique of the rich, powerful, and successful West. For, in modern times, the mass killing of civilians to achieve military and political goals is indeed an invention of the West. Deliberately making war on civilians is a relatively recent invention.3 What today is routinely accepted as “collateral damage” was once seen as conduct unbefitting a gentleman-warrior. During World War I, American aviators refused to participate in air raids over Europe that might endanger civilians. At the beginning of that same war, German submariners gave warning and time for crews to escape their ships before they torpedoed them. However, the concept of “honour” declined swiftly thereafter. Among Western innovations is the mass bombing of large cities, first used by Hitler in Spain then enthusiastically adopted and expanded upon by the likes of the RAF’s “Bomber Harris.” Near the end of World War II, the German cities of Hamburg and Dresden were attacked by bombers dropping alternating waves of high explosive and incendiary bombs, an attack designed to kill as many civilians as possible. The genocide of concentration camps is a Western invention.4 Other notorious examples are the nuclear attacks against the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These were deliberate, calculated attacks designed to massacre tens of thousands of civilians, with the political goal being the surrender of Japan. As usual, Western apologist “scholars” invoke noble reasons and explanations. They say this act probably saved the lives of many more American and Japanese by ending the war quickly. Perhaps this was indeed so. But Islam accepts no excuses or justifications for deliberately killing civilians. The only explanation I can posit is that 9-11 was the result of years of torment and rage, blinding some people to the values of their faith and heritage. They copied the very worst aspects of Western behaviour in their desire for similar success: “…that we but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return to plague the inventor.” (Macbeth Act I Scene vii) There are millions in the West (whom I naturally consider to be knowledgeable and informed) who at least understand the reasons for my perspectives. But I do understand and sympathize with the millions of those in the West who might shut out such ideas and refuse to recognize or countenance that their beloved nation-states led the way and, by example, taught others to engage in the mass killing of civilians, as a way to achieve political or economic gains. Referring to Morgenthau,6 there is an “abstraction” (my country) with which we are inculcated since early childhood and throughout our lives, and to which our identities and self-esteem are closely tied. That abstraction may not encompass anything ignoble or reprehensible. In the West, to acknowledge that the mass killing of our civilians is a result of others copying our own techniques, is strictly taboo.