By failing to defend our own ideals, we have conceded the high ground to the most murderous aspects of the terror network. The strength of a culture, a faith or an ideal is how it stands up to scrutiny by its critics. If a faith refuses to allow itself to be challenged or faith to be tempted, then is not faith or ideal that has truly taken root. Christians have seen their own faith mocked in our secular society but many still hold their faith to be the truth. For many, their faith is their bedrock and their identity and no amount of sacrilege will dissuade them. The strength of our culture is that we allow open debate and it is in those debates that our ideals are strengthen.
Blogger Iraq the Model gives the following advice to the European, “One last thing, even if the entire EU apologizes it won't change a thing; fanatics in our countries here had always considered the west their infidel arrogant crusader enemy and no apology no matter how big or sincere can change that.” Appeasement on this issue will not strengthen our position in the Islamic world but only encourage the more murderous to continue further upon the path of destruction. Fanaticism will not be deterred by appeasement of our own principles.
Article comments
1 - RJ Elliott
If you insult Muslims (12 Danish cartoonists), you are threatened with death, and are forced to either apologize or go into hiding.
If you insult Christians (Andres Serrano and Chris Ofili), you make a lot of money and millions of people adore you.
If you insult Jews (David Irving), you are put in prison.
A triple-standard?
2 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
RJ wites, "If you insult Christians (Andres Serrano and Chris Ofili), you make a lot of money and millions of people adore you."
I don't care about the adoration any but I could sure use some cash... At least now I know what to do for a living. Thanks for the tip, RJ.
3 - RJ Elliott
Just be sure to utilize a sacred symbol of Christianity and some form of human bodily waste.
I recommend the "Pus Paul"...or maybe the "Mucus Luke"...
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Mucus Luke? Pus Paul? Hmmm...
The article's author writes, "we are surrendering the interpretation of the Koran to the more radical Islamic fundamentalists."
If you want to learn something from this mess, lose phrases like "radical Islamic fundamentalists." These people have names and specific concepts, and you need to specifically name them and the concepts that make them so distasteful in Western eyes.
"Fundamentalism" is a concept that belongs to Christianity alone. It is not a term appropriate for describing Moslems or Jews, for that matter. There is no such thing as an "Islamo-fascist" either. All these terms divert you from naming the Wahhabi sect of Islam and its offshoots, the Moslem Brotherhood, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The other point that must be made here is that the Saudi monarchy is Wahhabi and has been funding all of the offshoots of Wahhabi Islam ever since it had the money to do so. The Saudi monarchy has been paying for thousands of madrassas all over the Moslem world, and has been funding "Middle East Studies" departments all over the United States.
These are your enemies. Look at Moslem violence world wide, and with the sole exception of the Shia, who have a different agenda, if you look hard enough, you'll see somebody from the Wahhabi sect behind the violence.
If I had a hundred shekel note for every time I've tried to make these points on Blog Critics alone, I'd have a nice bundle of money in my wallet - at least enough to buy a laptop with all the bells and whistles.
5 - tom donelson
Ruvy,
Good points, but I do disagree on some points. First, is there such a thing as Islamic-fascists? Yes, considering that many of the original baathists were in fact impacted by European fascism as well as European marxism. Saddam is or was a perfect example of this.
You are right to identify the Wahhabi sect impact on this but Iranians mullahs are of the Shia variety.
Finally, why not identify those who oppose for what they are and what they will do. If attempting to throw a society back into the medieval period or practice widespread totalitarian impulses is not radical, fundamentalist, fascists- then come up with a better word for those of us in the West can understand.
The Middle East has been a brew of secular fascists, radical Islamic that has spread from throughout the region with all branches of Islam involved. Shia's from Iran, Wahhabi from Saudi, Sunni from Iraq's have all played a role.
Nationalism has played an role as well as religion. Iranians are not Arabs and many Shites Arabs resent Iranian shites. So combined the nationalist, secular fascism, and various religious sects- you have a widespread pot to choose from.
The problem is not just Saudi brand of Islam since Iranian version is just as dangerous and Saddam version as well as the present Syrian is more of the secular brand that has roots in fascism and marxism. (Saddam heroes includes Stalin and many of the orignal baathist admired European fascism. Saddam own family members were part of the 1941 coup that attempted to seperate Iraq from Britain and essentially turn Iraqi oil over the Nazis.)
I will keep with my terms until someone comes up something better and encompasses the whole of the struggle and not just its pieces.
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Tom,
You have just identified the various pieces yourself. You can't just lump all Moslems into a "fundamentalist" basket because you want just one basket. That creates a distortion of the data that is dangerous - because the Western reader needs to comprehend what he is looking at. It is, unfortunately, a matter of life and death.
Also, the influences between Nazism and Wahhabi Islam and its spores go two ways. Haj Amin al Husseini, Yasser Arafat's uncle, a man who was influenced by the Moslem Brotherhood, went to persuade Hitler to kill all the Jews in Europe rather than deport them to Israel - and then kill them. One of the reasons for the Arab affinity for the Nazis was that they opposed the very colonial powers who kept the Arabs down.
Syria is now and Iraq was a secular nationalist dictatorship - because the Syrian dictator is part of a branch of Islam that is not fully recognized by the Sunnis in Syria, and because 1)Saddam Hussein saw himself as the new Nebuhadnetzar and 2)the Baathist party in Iraq desired to use Islam to maintain control.
So let's be clear for the sake of the readers.
The real powerhouse that is driving Moslem terror these days are the Wahhabi from Arabia, and the Shia from Iran. The Iranians are on a drive to create an empire. The Wahhabi want everyone in the world to convert to their version of Islam or die.
7 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Oh, and RJ. If I do make any money insulting Christians, I'll have to send you a finder's fee. ;-)