open Democracy News Analysis - Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?, - Comments

Brendan 2 on "Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?"

Brendan 2 — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:35:54 +0000

Hi Cherif, I think the people will only begin to notice once job losses begin to really take hold. That happening is not a certainty in all economic sectors and could be avoided by innovation in the 'west'. I don't think Russia and China's interests are served by militarism if they continue to make progress peacefully. They will avoid any needless confrontation and continue to quitely secure resources for the future. If they have a set back... well they may start to think differently.

cherif.rifaat on "Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?"

cherif.rifaat — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 15:34:51 +0000

Brendan_2 Thanks for drawing my attention to the article: Shanghai Pact Struts World Stageby Martin Sieff "...Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a security grouping anchored by Russia and China, which has styled itself as a counterweight to US global dominance." This is heavier than I thought, if it is accurate. In this thread I have been saying that those who seek to foster and nourish hostility, suspicion and hatred between Islam and the West are furthering the interests of Russia and China at the expense of the interests of the West. Do you think "the people" might begin to notice?

Brendan 2 on "Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?"

Brendan 2 — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 05:01:31 +0000

Sure, in fact, that is what has happened in this instance.

cherif.rifaat on "Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?"

cherif.rifaat — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 04:42:43 +0000

Hello brendan_2 I agree with your posting. You sound like a Canadian who understands what is going on. "Canada has now published the cartoons as well: .... The story should not be about the fact of the publishing itself, as his reasoning sounds like logic, but of the motivations of this publisher. In this case, Ezra Levant is an Israeli passport holding, right wing radical being opportunist in his attempt to escalate this event (for obvious reasons)." Should we therfore not rather say: "Israel has now published the cartoons in Canada as well"

Brendan 2 on "Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?"

Brendan 2 — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:14:34 +0000

Cherif, Canada has now published the cartoons as well: "Ezra Levant of the Western Standard told CBC Newsworld that he published the dozen cartoons in Monday's edition because they are "the central fact in the largest news story of the month." The story should not be about the fact of the publishing itself, as his reasoning sounds like logic, but of the motivations of this publisher. In this case, Ezra Levant is an Israeli passport holding, right wing radical being opportunist in his attempt to escalate this event (for obvious reasons). It seems that this enmity on both sides is politically motivated and media driven. Let us not lose sight of that fact.

cherif.rifaat on "Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?"

cherif.rifaat — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:44:59 +0000

SUBJECT: EUROPEAN ENMITY TOWARDS ISLAM HURTS WESTERN INTERESTS AND BENEFITS RUSSIA AND CHINA. Quote “… the prime minister (Abdullah Badawi) warned of a "huge chasm" between the West and Islam. …'The demonisation of Islam and the vilification of Muslims, there is no denying, is widespread within mainstream Western society,' he said… Abdullah said Western nations wanted to control the world's oil and gas, and blamed that desire along with colonialism and "the imposition of Israel upon the Arab world" for a rift with the Muslim faith.”Unquote Meanwhile, President Putin warmly congratulated President Ahmedinejad of Iran on his election victory. As in Canada and some European countries, I doubt any insulting cartoons were published either in Russia or in China. Russia says Hamas is not a terrorist organization and President Putin extends a warm invitation to visit Moscow. China - which has veto power in the Security Council - has made it clear that economic sanctions as a tool of coercion is unacceptable against “any country,” meaning of course Iran (and North Korea.) When Mr. Donald Rumsfeld told a German TV station that the military option remains on the table, Russia warned against threatening Iran. And so on and so forth. In the new orientation of global rivalries and the reconfiguration of the distribution of power in the world, there is a growing cost to those who antagonize roughly a quarter of the planet, and an advantage to be gained by those who nurture good relations with the Muslim World. The “huge chasm” between the West and Islam is fostered in the West by racists and chauvinists who have not yet shed the colonial-imperial mentality, by prejudiced Christianists who harbour old hatreds, some dating back to the Crusades, by influential groups who seek to pursue their special agendas regardless of other considerations, and by the easy to manipulate.

seculartalk on "Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?"

seculartalk — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:36:41 +0000

Jyang, There is no disagreement about one following what one believes to be true. Nor is this discussion about your personal belives. We are talking about Islam as a threat to Democracy.. Let the quest for truth be upon you to deliver you from the vicious cycle of repeating yourself.

jyang on "Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?"

jyang — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:51:19 +0000

seculartalk, It seems you have made up your mind and convinced yourself what Islam is. I have made up my mind what you say is not what it is, and I follow what I believe it is. Everyone is free to follow what they believe is the truth. I don't believe Islam needs to change anything, as I do not see any problems in what I follow and preach - and you would agree you do not see anything wrong in my philosophy. this philosophy I derive from Quran. So peace be with you, you on your belief, and I on mine. There is no point in repeating the same things over and over.

seculartalk on "Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?"

seculartalk — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 04:26:59 +0000

Jiyang, You say: What you have in your mind, that interpretation of Islam is not what many Muslims adhere to or follow (although many do), I for one certainly do not believe that is Islam. The world does not wait to see what brand of Islam you believe in to conclude which is true Islam. My view has not been challenged that there is a brand of Islam that is the enemy of Democracy. You confirm that there are many Muslims who subscribe to that brand of Islam. The question of "whether Islam is anti-Democracy" is agreed. We just need to debate how anti-democratic Islam is. I think your view is that it is not yet time to worry. I differ. Do we have a way of identifying who follows which brand of Islam? To do that, Islam has to denounce many of the features in the religion. And that no one can do. That is the contradiction. Followers of both brand of Islam go to the same Mosque for prayer. One group says that we are here to pray. Ours is a religion of peace. In the background there is a hate preaching that sends piloted planes into high rise building. The group claiming to be the peaceful one, abets the crime with silence. What does a democratic institution do? Wait till the brand distinction to emerge so that just action is taken? Or, value the lives of victims who died not knowing why? To protect the lives of the innocent victims, if some rights of the mosque goers is trampled, it is OK with me. No one's right to religion is above another's right to life. We are living in dangerous times caused my Islam. If someone had told me 15 years back that Islam is a blood thristy religion, I would have considered it as rambling of some religious maniac. Many would have done the same, 15 years back. Not today. Today, the driving force of Islam thinks that they are close to dominating the world. To all non-Muslims, it is a threat. The anti-Islam feeling one sees today, is the result of the threatening posture Islam has taken. Islamic propagation today, is funded by money and blood. The religious precepts incites the mentally weak to blow themselves up, kill innocents, create terror, destroy another man's property and freedom. To all those acts, to which any other religion would attach guilt, Islam attaches glorification and Salvation, promise of fortune and debauchery in heaven. This is the cause for the clash of values. Assuming we do not know which set of values is correct, the powers representing these opposing values will, in near future, settle it through 'other' means. My guess is, it will begin with Iran. I have decided which side to take as you have. If the Reds call is "Workers of the world, Unite" , the Islamic call is "Nuisance makers of the World, unite. You have nothing to lose but your life" How can Taliban and Iran do damange to the Image of Islam when it is part of the Image? Let us see the countries that have added glory to Islam. The winner isssssssssssssssssssssssssss SAUDI ARABIA.... Pakistan? Nigeria? Libya? Iraq? Egypt? Morocco? Yemen? Bangaladesh? Such wonderful countries that offer peace and prosperity to all irrespective of the religion one belongs to... WOW... I am impressed....

jyang on "Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?"

jyang — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 05:08:11 +0000

seculartalk, It is not as simple as that. There are not just two sides, the good side and the bad side, those who follow dogma, and those who follow reason. There is a mix and blend of many minds and philosophies and it is not prudent to over simply like G W Bush does it. What you have in your mind, that interpretation of Islam is not what many Muslims adhere to or follow (although many do), I for one certainly do not believe that is Islam. The actions of Muslims today in the world along with fundamentalist regimes like Taliban and Iran have done much harm to the image of Islam. But if you think that is Islam, then it is your own loss, as many discover every day the merciful and tolerant side of Islam, that is the salvation. Surprisingly most of these are women, and European women. The Quran is a guidance for humanity of those who are God conscious already. The Quran says that its word guides many and misguides many at the same time, but only misguides the fasiqeen (sura ya-sin). So for those who are evil, it misguides them more. And in that is an example for the rest of us. It is true a religion is spread by the example of its followers (not by the sword). That has been true for Islam. I was reading about Abu-Hanifa. Such an honest person he was that one time he found out his agents had sold merchandise without informing the customers of the faults in the goods. He was so upset with being unable to identify the customers and pay them back, that he gave up the earnings from that transaction to charity. This is the way our prophet Muhammad (pbuh) used to trade. He would not sell a thing to anyone without first stating all the faults in that thing. Later Abu Hanifa became famous for his work and integrity, the ruler wanted to hire him as judge and put him on his pay-roll. Abu Hanifa wanted to be independent and declined the offer saying he was not fit for the job. The ruler got upset and told him he was a liar, he was fit for the job. Abu Hanifa replied that if he is a liar, then how can he be fit for the position of a judge. At this the ruler got infuriated and had been imprisoned, where he spent most of the rest of his life. Every Muslim should follow the footsteps of such honest and firm Muslims as Abu Hanifa. Sadly today what we see is radicalism, fundamentalism, chaos, killing and all kinds of sin and evil in the name of God. It is deplorable.

seculartalk on "Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?"

seculartalk — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 03:18:29 +0000

My last posting was in Decemeber. We have here one cherif who talks intellect and if one raises uneasy questions he wants to know where one lives...:-)Hmm. Open Democracy did not take this as an offence. This gentleman is tne new raw face of Islam and is on an agenda. However much one argues and get stuck in nitty gritty details, for some people, I being one of them, 1. Islam is a political movement in religious garb. 2. It is a growing tribal movement that takes in members. 3. It offers sexual and spiritual reward for men for being voilent. More violent they become, more virgins :-) 4. Every week you see Islam clashing with European or western values. When they have no such reason, the Sunnis blow themselves up in Shia town. 5. Islam assures peace after the entire world turns slaves of allah...It is called Dar-ul-Islam. Their campaign slogan that Islam is a 'peaceful religion' comes with a small print that most do not read. They achieve this by two ways. Convert some, kill others. 6. Islam has many fringe elements like all other religions. The only difference is, in other religions, these fringe elements are not taken seriously by the majority followers. In Islam, the fringe, fanatical, violent elements run the religion. 7. Cherif is the so called 'intellectual' face that is shown to the world, till what these fanatics think the the day they will sit on the throne (democracy has never crossed their mind) as a matter of strategy. 8. Until Islam changes into a benevolent religion it cannot co-exist in west or any other region where Muslims are not in majority. 9. But, Islam cannot be changed because it is blasphemy according to the believers of Islam. Hence, Muslim leadership WILL take this world to a bloody war. They will then rationalize it by saying that the war was thrust into them. 10. Though I think war is a bad thing, if one reads history, war settles certain issues that cannot be settled otherwise. 11. I choose peace for rational reason. Not due to cowardice. Europeans have to introspect and find out if they are raising their level of tolerance to this bunch of nuisance makers, is it because of cowardice than anything else? We have one group of people talking reason and the other dogma. One group wants to discuss the other recites. One group tries to validate values the other has found the final truth. One wants to co-exist, other does not want. One hand wants to clap, the other does not. I see no scope for change here. Call me a pessimist. I think I am a realist. May be the Muslims will become so dreadfully violent, they may really start controlling the world. Iran may get the N Bomb. Israel may cease to exist. US may cease to be the world power. European liberals may have momentary success for being instrumental in that and may realize that they are not very happy for getting things they fought for. I dread that day for my children. May be, this may not happen. The West would stop pampering these fantatics and burn less oil. Iran would be stopped. Islamic countries will turn democratic. Islamic countries will have a common law for people of all faiths. Muslims will see themselves as humans first and last. Which one do you think is a day dream?

cherif.rifaat on "Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?"

cherif.rifaat — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 02:42:42 +0000

Sorry if I offended you owly. But facts are facts. A new clan cannot be built without members of the opposite sex behaving as such. No need to get upset. I am not important, and your insults will not stop or slow down the growing conversions to islam.

owly on "Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?"

owly — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 10:46:28 +0000

Cherif is talking clap-trap as per usual. Islam has shown itself to be deeply repressive and to have no regard for the rights and liberties of minorities. You only have to look at the way Christians are treated in Moslem states to see this is true. And let us not even mention the terrible treatment of Homosexuals - a number of men have in the past year been killed merely for being Gay. Cherif is a hypocrite as he enjoys all the protection of a catholic sovereign and the firm foundations of the English Common Law. He enjoys freedom and liberty which would be denied to him in his homeland and would certainly be denied to a Christian in his homeland.

David Wood on "Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?"

David Wood — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:04:35 +0000

Cherif Rifat writes: "All I can say in a forum like this is that it seems to me that Islam responds very well to the human condition as it really is, not as we would like it to be, and that it offers an excellent moral compass. I am encouraged by the fact that thousands of Canadians convert to Islam every year." It seems to be that Canadian values offer an interesting way forward for the world in themselves (see the essay on Canada versus Australia elsewhere on this forum). This way seems to be based on a properly multicultural model, which is fundamentally based on modern human rights and the enlightenment project of a better future for all humanity regardless of their affiliations. In this context I see no reason to be encouraged by the growth of any particular religion in Canada. What I would be encouraged by is the decline of all religions in favour of that fundamental progressive, non-religious ethical understanding of common humanity. Religions were a necessity of human evolution and historically have been very important, producing much that was beatiful and necessary. But, it is about time we started to move further beyond them. Islam may of may not be any better than any other theistic religion: my only criteria for judging such systems are 1. truth and 2. ethics. It seems that Islam like all other theistic religions and indeed all systems of thought that require belief, fails on both: firstly, in so much as it is quite clearly partial and needs a 'leap of faith' rather than the rational thought or testable evidence to accept its supernatural element; and secondly; in that it argues that violence and cruelty are aceptable in certain circumstances. Now, so long as you don't try and enforce the latter on me or any other human beings, I do not mind quite so much that what you follow is irrational ot that you think I do not see 'the real truth' that you do (as would be the same for believers of any belief). Unfortunately at the moment we have Muslim, Christians and Jewish believers trying to enforce their truths on the rest of humanity. That is the troubling reality of an immature humankind. The only thing that would encourage me is growing numbers of people who embrace a common humanity free of the archaic vestiges of oppressive beliefs.

cherif.rifaat on "Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?"

cherif.rifaat — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:52:16 +0000

Hello cole, “It is mind boggling that an Egyptian with all that history would call themselves an Arab.” Sorry if I have in some way contributed to boggling your mind. Perhaps the following might unboggle it. Here are some of the components making up my identity, not necessarily in any precise order of importance: Muslim Egyptian Canadian Arab North African European influence Here are some ancestral roots which I am reasonably certain of: Egyptian, originally Coptic converting to Islam many centuries ago Caucasian (My great grandmother from my father’s father’s side) Moorish (From my great-great grandfather’s side) Greek (From my father’s mother’s side) Arab, partly descended from the Muslim Arabs who came to Egypt “to liberate the country from the harsh Byzantine Empire” (Not from Syria as you seem to think). Turkish (From my mother’s mother’s side) Berber (Not so sure) Take your pick. Going back much further in history, as you might know from the work in genetic analysis used by Scott Ridley, Spencer Wells and others to map human migrations, about 20 000 (estimated) years ago humans left Africa for the first time. They went East (Australia, India) and later to the Caucasus. From the Caucasus, about 10 000 years ago, some moved West to Europe and many modern Europeans are the descendents of these. At about the same time, apparently, some moved South-West from the Caucasus back to North Africa and mixed with the existing populations there. So if you are European we are related from 20 000 years ago, just as the both of us are related to the whole human race. Which is why I believe all human beings are equal, whether or not they have nuclear weapons, so that killing one or saving one is like killing or saving our own kin. Hope the above helps to unboggle (or is it deboggle?).

Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace?,

cherif.rifaat — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:58:27 +0000

Subject: Should Islam become a bigger threat for the sake of peace? David Thompson has been defaming Islam in a discussion forum. This is my response Hello David Thompson, Someone drew my attention to the interesting discussion in which you are involved. Please accept my compliments on the eloquence with which you make your points. It appears that you feel Islam represents a threat, even though Muslims today are weak and divided, and the Muslim world is at a very low point in its history. Perhaps, for the sake of peace, Islam has to become a bigger threat. But first, here are some comments on some of your comments. My points are organized as follows: - Massacre of Armenians - Female Genital Mutilation - Ottoman discrimination? People In Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones. - On Inheritance In Muslim Law. - Why so Much Islam Bashing? - Why Islams Healthy Growth In Spite Of Systematic Vilification? - Wonderful Western values I embrace. - An aspect of Western culture I abhor. - Non-Muslim scholars. - Responding in kind. - Does a Greater Muslim Threat Mean a Better Chance For Peace? Massacre of Armenians You spoke of the first formal genocide of the 20th century, the tragedy of the many Armenian deaths at the hands of the (Muslim) Ottoman Empire. Have you given any consideration to the opposing view? I have, by questioning a former Turkish Consul in Montreal, a young, well-educated and articulate diplomat. Here is what he had to say. The Armenian tragedy (he recognized that it was) is similar to the Acadian tragedy. In 1755, Acadians of Nova Scotia in Atlantic Canada were forcibly evicted from their homes and driven off their lands by the (Christian) British Empire, in a forced march during which many men, women and children perished. Though the actions were similar, there is a difference between the Turkish and the British motivations. Many Armenians died on a brutal forced march because they had been actively helping the Russians many actually fighting with the Russians forces in their war (during WWI) against the disintegrating Ottoman Empire. On the other hand, the many Acadians who died on their forced march had not born arms against the British Empire or attacked its interests. The English had simply decided that the Acadians, who lived in the surrounding countryside, might become a threat to their new naval base in Halifax, and decided to forcibly and brutally expel them. The Consul felt that the Armenian deaths, though tragic, were in the context of the heat of a desperate war with many Ottoman defeats and large territorial losses, and the perceived treachery of the Armenians. Much more vicious, was the coldly calculating action of les Anglais, who caused the deaths of so many merely on the suspicion that they could perhaps one day cause trouble. Besides, he said, the Armenians had lived for centuries under powerful Ottoman rule and could have been massacred any time, except that there was no reason not to let them live their lives, own their property and practice their faith freely in the Muslim tradition of tolerance. The Turks, he said, did not suddenly one day, for no reason, decide to massacre the Armenians. In fact the purpose of the March was not to massacre them but to move them somewhere where they could not continue to support the Russian enemy. So, what is the real truth? As Ibn Khaldoun (1332 1406) the Muslim historian wrote in his greatly respected (even in the West, to this day) Muqqadimah, of the difficulty of knowing historical truth. The thoughtful among us understand that in discussions such as this are not dealing with absolute truths, rather with perspectives. Unless our purpose is to denigrate another religion or culture, or prove that ours is superior, it behooves us to look at more than one perspective Female Genital Mutilation This horror is of African origin, not Muslim. There is nothing in Islam that supports it. It does not exist in Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Islam. It is practiced in Christian Ethiopia and sometimes in Egypt among the very uneducated, where the idea has been imported from the south. A little bit of knowledge is not a good basis for attacking another faith, unless perhaps one starts off hating Islam, then casts about seizing on partial truths and putative arguments to defame it. Ottoman Discrimination? People In Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones. the Ottoman Empires record of discrimination and legal subordination David, please! For heavens sake! My grandmother was shot by the (Christian) British Army during an intifada in Cairo in the 1920s. She was unarmed. Her crime was helping injured students also unarmed - who were demonstrating to rid the country of predatory foreign occupiers who had come to pillage the countrys resources and control its assets. Other (Christian) Europeans behaved in the same disgraceful way. The (Christian) French killed hundreds of thousands of Algerians during their war of independence, and the (Christian) Italians used chemical weapons against barefoot Ethiopian warriors armed with spears and shields. Then there is the savagery with which the (particularly pious Christian) Spanish and Portuguese treated vulnerable peoples. I dont know, is such behaviour part of the Christian ethic? On Inheritance In Muslim Law Male offsprings share of inheritance is double that of females. Upon the death of my grandparents, my father and his brother inherited double what their sisters inherited. My mothers share was half of her brothers share of their inheritance. If we stop there, it sounds unjust. Enemies of Islam can use this incomplete truth to demonstrate how unjust it is towards women. However, what I have never seen explained in the West, is that, under Islam, my father (an architect) was obligated to support the family. His inheritance, like his income, went to food, lodging, clothing, education, leisure, etc. for my mother, my siblings and my self. On the other hand, under Islam, my mother (an artist, specializing in Aquarel) was not obligated to spend a cent of her inheritance on the family. All her wealth and earnings were hers to keep, and do with as she pleased, or simply save. In our case, mom spent from her inheritance to enhance our standard of living, though she did not have to. (These Muslim rules have been in place since the beginning, while for centuries Christian women and their assets became the properties of their husbands upon marriage. Fortunately, these Christian rules, grossly unfair to women for well over a thousand years, have been overturned. To achieve this, it was necessary for Western societies to largely marginalize Christianity.) My mom did not feel wronged. The same went for all my aunts and uncles. Their children, my cousins, all had a good education and upbringing. Male or female, we are happy. Western enemies of Islam might manipulate their publics through omission. Take one narrow section of Muslim inheritance laws, omit the big picture, and prove that Muslim inheritance laws are unjust. With all due respect and with no offence meant, dear West, kindly either act in good faith or mind your own business. Why So Much Islam Bashing? So why is there substantial Islam bashing in the West? Muslims have their own ideas regarding this continuous defamation that has lasted centuries. I address the question in my book Immigrants Adapt, Countries Adopt Or Not, and will quote from it rather than rewrite on the subject . From page 109 of Immigrants Adapt, ...: "Almost any factor that distinguishes between human groupings can serve as a basis for conflict. Religion is certainly such a factor. In the view of most Muslims I know, some "Christian church organizations" have deliberately and consistently fostered such enmity over the centuries. According to this view, many Christian religious leaders have feared the central Muslim idea (also present in Judaism?) that no intermediary is needed between man and God: each and every individual can communicate with Him directly through prayer. As I understand it, in Catholic doctrine, there is an "original sin" which taints all humanity and salvation is only possible through the church. Over the centuries, brilliant theologians such as Thomas Aquinas have developed sophisticated philosophies and a reliable conceptual structure to link man to God in this way. In the view of Muslims, the church felt threatened by a new faith that came along and said that, essentially, the service it offered was not really required. Thus, there has been a centuries-long campaign of defamation against Islam, Muslims, and the Prophet Mohamed.[FN] The large numbers of people converting to Islam did nothing to ease the tension and hostility. I will not get into a theological debate but will give an example. Among the popular slanders propagated against Islam is that it was spread by the sword. Actually, war in Islam is not allowed except under very strict and narrow conditions. For example so-called "pre-emptive" war is not allowed. An example of allowable war would be to protect the freedom of speech of those who would explain the Muslim faith, if rulers of non-Muslim lands attempt to forcibly suppress their message. This specific reason for Muslims to wage war is not applicable to Canada and the United States, since both countries allow complete freedom of expression in this regard. The most populous Muslim country in the world is Indonesia. No Muslim army was ever involved in bringing Islam to Indonesia. Muslim ideas were expressed freely and those who wished to convert did so without compulsion. According to the 2001 census, Islam is the fastest growing faith in Canada. Part of the growth comes through conversions: I never heard of anyone being converted by force. Some Muslims express anger and outrage when, now and then, some firebrand preacher in the U.S.--perhaps a TV celebrity--insults Islam or the Prophet Mohammed. In my case, such tirades usually elicit a chuckle. Obviously Islam is competing too successfully and over the centuries has attracted away a great deal of potential business. Perhaps I should take the matter more seriously, however, since prominent extremist religious figures have impressionable "flocks." Constantly reminded to be faithful enemies of Islam, they might widen the rift and increase tensions in their own society and internationally. Some of them might hold prominent positions and use their authority or public voices to plot wicked mischief. Fortunately, the great majority of the Christian clergy today are secure, tolerant, respectful of other faiths, and not prone to hurling insults at the competition. The pope in Rome is generally considered by Muslims to be the most important among the many Christian religious leaders in the world. He has consistently repeated a message of peace and mutual respect. (FN: Islam does not respond in kind. Christians are considered 'People of the Book' - who have their own different and respected way - while Christ Is a prophet of equal stature to Mohamed, as is Moses)." Why Islams Healthy Growth In Spite Of Systematic Vilification? I understand how it must be maddening for Islamophobes that, despite the widespread vilification by talented, well-educated, well-funded and well-connected enemies, Islam is growing rapidly. There must be a good reason that it is the fastest growing religion. Why is it? It is because the Koran reaches deeply into the most fundamental depths of the human psyche, like Wagners Der Ring des Nibelungen and Shakespeares plays, only much more so. It responds wonderfully to the human condition as it really is, devoid of wishful thinking. It sets guidelines to regulate and control the dark side of the human psyche, shared by our species as a whole, while it encourages the pursuit of as much happiness and pleasure as possible, commensurate with not harming ones self, family or others. That struggle at the individual level to control the primordial dark side in every human, is the first meaning of the word Jihad. I do not dispute that there are Muslims who misunderstand, manipulate or just ignore the Korans message. But it remains a realistic and pragmatic - not to mention sublime and transcendental - message that is overwhelmingly attractive to those who come to understand it. Wonderful Western Values I Embrace I have chosen to live in the West and have embraced what I feel are some excellent, not to say marvelous, Western values and concepts. I must marvel at this amazing phenomenon called democracy. From page 82 of Immigrants Adapt : "Having lived in Canada for many years and in Switzerland before that, I have come to take fair and free elections for granted. I routinely follow the shenanigans of our politicians and am often amused or revolted, like everyone else. But on pensive days I feel wonder, even awe, at how it was possible for such a democracy to come about, where the power of the powerful is extremely limited by ordinary people, where rulers are selected by the people and removed if they fail to perform, and where they are unable to torture or kill the people who would remove or replace them." America has been a beacon of democracy to the world. To their eternal credit, the British invented and developed parliamentary democracy. The Swiss have a marvelous and pure form of direct democracy. Another aspect I admire in the West, is the "critical mass" of integrity, which the Muslim World used to have in its glory days, and today is lost to too many Muslims. From pages 89, 90: "Compared to what I have seen elsewhere, , the overall level of integrity in today's Canada is high. Sure, there are dirty tricks, wrongdoings, dishonesty, outright fraud, and criminality here. But overall there is more integrity than lack of it. There are many places in the world where an understanding of democracy might exist but where there is insufficient integrity to sustain it, especially among the elites, who care only about maintaining and benefiting from their privileged status. In my view, in societies that do well there is a "critical mass" of integrity among its people. I cannot define this critical mass of integrity or of how it comes about, but I can recognize a number of factors that create the right environment. In this environment, there is a genuine, widespread sense of personal honesty and integrity among most individuals." (Note on "Socio-Political Entropy": All powers, great and small, all empires, all successful cultures, eventually decline and sometimes collapse and disappear entirely. I believe in a kind of "socio-political entropy" which erodes integrity and which is a result of the dark side of the human psyche. It usually starts at the highest levels of a society. Some believe the United States is showing signs of decline at this time, as special-interest groups with special agendas are able to corrupt the mass media - and perhaps democracy itself. Is the inevitable effect of socio-political entropy already visibly affecting America? Is its "critical mass of integrity" being eroded? Perhaps, but I try to be optimistic about the fabled self-correcting qualities of America.) An aspect of Western culture I abhor. There are also some aspects of Western culture I simply cannot accept. Chief among them is the propensity to slaughter helpless people - civilians, women, children - on a very massive scale. Alas, now the rest of the world is learning from the rich and powerful. From page 170 of Immigrants Adapt, : 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, for example. 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. 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. 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 [in an earlier chapter], 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." Non-Muslim scholars David, you write, Non-Muslim scholars are generally more likely to approach historical and textual evidence in an impartial way Certainly not if their approach is in bad faith and tainted by ideology or bias, or if their objective is to provide cover and spin for immoral and brutal acts which, if approached impartially, might trouble a moralistic but uninformed society, thus causing annoying public pressure and interference. Certainly not if they seek to make good money selling feel-good concepts about how we can do no wrong and even if our actions seem evil they are not and actually help the greater good, and even the victims. I have observed that in the West, far greater prominence and publicity is given to scholars, authors and media commentators who support the line we are wonderful and can do no wrong; our victims are not really victims and have only themselves to blame for the suffering we inflicted upon them, than those who approach historical and textual evidence in an impartial way Books with titles that use words like trouble or wrong in conjunction with Islam receive enthusiastic accolades in the West. Responding in kind Now, in the style of Islamophobes, let me try to blame Christianity for this callous Western propensity to kill the weak and vulnerable, apparently sans gêne. This is not a lofty critique, such as perhaps Nietzsche might propose, but simply a dose of their own medicine, so to speak. I face two difficulties as I try to do this. The first is that I do not dislike Christianity. The second difficulty is that my wonderful wife is Christian. Still, I must now role-play as a Christianophobe, and soldier on. One trouble with Christianity is that it evolved in a very weak, poor and downtrodden milieu that had no hope whatsoever against the Roman legions which oppressed it. Any kind of warlike resistance would have been foolish in the extreme and completely futile. The military power of Rome was colossal, while that of the early Christians was non- existent. A head-on battle between any force the Christians could have mustered, and the elite, professional Roman army, the most powerful fighting machine of the time, would have courted extermination. Yet Christianity was a beautiful faith attractive to many of the wretched and abused. Thus a resistance strategy evolved, which was devoid of any and all violence. Any aggression or threat of violence (which early Christians were in no position to resist) was met with extreme passivity and forgiveness. Turn the other cheek, essentially because there was no other choice. It worked and eventually, centuries later, Christianity got the upper hand. Islam too was opposed by pagan forces as soon as it began to appear. When the Prophet Mohamed escaped an assassination attempt in Mecca, he immigrated to Medina, where he continued his mission. As the core of Muslim society began to form in Medina, it came under continuous attack from pagan forces, who tried to crush it. From the very beginning, Muslims were subject to aggression. For years, they were greatly outnumbered by non-Muslims. The odds favoured the pagans, but were not hopeless, as in the case of the Christians vis-à-vis the Roman legions. Some skilled fighters converted to Islam. Most importantly, Muslims were fearless in battle and would take on far greater numbers and defeat them. In only a few years, not centuries later, they had secured Islam. Having faced violent aggression at its inception, Islam recognizes the warlike nature of man as a reality. It takes note of the fierce acquisitive nature of our species and our low inhibition against killing our own kind. Since the very beginning, it has sought first to maintain peace. Rather than deny the possibility of violent conflict, it has sought to minimize its occurrence. When it occurs, Islam sets stringent rules for its conduct in a chivalrous, gentlemanly manner. Most especially, prisoners of war and non combatants are to be treated honorably. The permissible causes for war are narrowly defined, for example expelling those who would expel Muslims. Transgression, continuing the war beyond the original objective, is forbidden. Because it evolved under constant violent aggression, its doctrines include ways of trying to avoid and to limit the tragedies inflicted on humanity by that most undesirable but ubiquitous of human activities: war. Christianity did not. Early Christians had no prospect whatsoever of capturing Roman soldiers (or any soldiers) in battle. The idea of attacking, let alone conquering, a city was whimsical in the extreme. During the most important formative decades and centuries, the fundamentals of Christianity emerged to insure the survival of victimized and vulnerable followers. Much later, when Christians became powerful, they also became aggressive, in keeping with the greed-fear nature of man. Alas, there were no core rules to regulate and try to civilize their behaviour, now that they were no longer helpless victims, but had power over others. Oh, sure, there are a bunch of recommended noble concepts (often borrowed from Islam, as when Richard the Lion Heart learned from Saladin) stitched together haphazardly over the centuries by successive rulers. But the core of the faith does not appear to have provided for what to do when Christians capture prisoners or cities or otherwise engage in war. Thus the Crusaders who captured Jerusalem acted pretty much like the pagan Mongols, massacring everybody in town, Muslims, Christians (would you believe), Jews, men, women, children. From their own descriptive manuscripts sent back home, they apparently stood ankle deep in the blood of their victims and sang hymns of praise to the Lord As far as I know, there is no record of the Mongols singing hymns after their massacres. Briefly, to end this tirade, it is not widely publicized (no surprise here) that Adolph Hitler invoked Christianity on a handsome scale. In one speech in the original German, I heard how he eloquently and passionately assured his adoring (Christian) Aryan followers that God Himself was behind the blessed (Nazi) movement. His SA (Schutz Armee or fascist Brown Shirts) wore lapel badges with the message GOTT MIT UNS (God with us) during their rampant atrocities such as Kristallnacht. David, I am not trying to convince you of anything except that any side can play this game of self-aggrandizement and the denigration others. Mutual respect is much to be preferred. A greater Muslim threat means a better chance for peace. For about 150 years, the Christian West has posed a global threat, including to the Muslim World. The continuous aggression was made possible and profitable by the scientific revolution and the advent of the Industrial Age. New weapons allowed Europeans to kill from a distance on a massive scale. European countries threatened everyone, including each other, and killed millions (about 50 million in WWII alone). However, colonial wars against vulnerable peoples, who had not entered the industrial age and had no mechanized methods of killing others, were the most profitable from a cost-benefit point of view. Islam had no response to the new organizational skills and weapons and became easy prey. The Muslim World was occupied, oppressed, pillaged and divided. Islam was not a threat so, as can be expected in human affairs, it became abused and victimized. The Opium Wars were launched against China about 150 years ago because it was no threat to the Western powers which attacked and plundered it. (The USA refused to participate: ah, the good old days of American morality and honour). China was a rich prize, but was weak and divided. Japan also attacked China. Today, China can threaten back and no one in their right minds would war against it. There is peace with China. Even little North Korea can muster enough of an apparent threat to give pause for thought. At this time, wars and malicious intrusions and plunder against the Muslim world continue, because it is not sufficiently threatening. As with China and elsewhere, when the threat from Islam is large enough, there will be peace. Regards, Cherif Rifaat