On his RealTime programme last night, Bill Maher couldn't wait to get into his shopworn, anti-Islam theme about the Muslim faith being unique in promoting violence.
As I listened to his diatribe I so wished I could ask him just one question. Since the turn of this century, how many innocent Muslims have died at the hands of Christian forces and how many innocent Christians have perished at Muslim hands?
My guess is that the ratio would be at least several hundred to one and would utterly reduce Maher's endless rant.
The fact is we've been putting the boots to the Muslim world since the days of Napoleon. We've carved up their territory without the slightest regard to their national, tribal, religious, linguistic and ethnic differences, dividing them up and herding them behind straight line borders to suit our convenience, creating instant minorities cut off from their own people to be set upon by the power structures we have also installed.
We have taken their wealth and ensured our domination by toppling any leader who stood against us while propping up the worst despots just so long as they were willing to do our bidding. We have not hesitated to rain violence down upon them, to leave their women and children dead in countless numbers. Winston Churchill even ordered the use of chemical weapons against unruly Kurdish tribesmen in villages in northern Iraq (1920) and castigated his critics for lacking a suitable appreciation of modern military technology.
All these things and more we have done to them, repeatedly, for two centuries and yet we seem mystified and enraged at their periodic, feeble attempts to strike back.
Had some other people - of alien ethnicity and religion, from an alien culture, speaking an alien language, wielding alien weapons against us punitively, taking control of our homelands, appointing and propping up brutal despots to oppress us and robbing us of our heritage and assets for generation upon generation upon generation, how would we react? Would we not find those who struggle against those aliens truly noble? Of course we would. We make popular movies about that very premise. We absolutely love it.
But, when we're the alien oppressor and they rise against us and dare to lash out, well - they're monsters, sub-humans, not worthy of being considered humans much less civilized.
Bill Maher lays this at the feet of Islam. Would we need the Prophet Mohammed to fight back if we were on the receiving end? I doubt it.
16 comments:
Bill Maher is an idiot. He is a well-known Islamaphobic. This kind of diatribe does not bring peace.
The irony and hypocrisy is that despite the 9/11 and involvement of Osama Bin Laden, Bushes still do business with Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia. I suppose oil money is sweet.
Then God told Bush to invade Iraq. Result was over one million Iraqis men, women, children killed. And deadly sectarian war between Shiites and Sunnis continues as a result of the war. But Bushes are happier and wealthier with more oil money. We live in a very troubled world, Mound.
We do indeed, LD.
Turn of the century? How about the turn of the millenium you filthy ignorant traitor.
Good to know you ignore any and all context, and seem to think it's noble to support hostile aliens who would destroy us if they could.
Your ignorance is as profound as your vulgarity, Anon. I don't understand why you contend I ignore context when it is context that so easily sets you off. And, by the way, they're not aliens. They're human beings very much like yourself only, in the main, probably more level-headed.
Radical Islam is a scourge. All religious fundamentalism seems to breed extremism. That goes for radical Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism - the lot.
MOS,
Here's the part I can't explain.... The West has done exactly the same stuff to folks in Southern Africa, Eastern Asia, South America, North America, Australia, the South Seas, ... basically around the world for the past several hundred years.
Until 90 years ago, the greatest military power after the Western powers was the Ottoman Empire.
Western aggresion has impacted folks who are Buddhist, Hindu, Catholic, and all sorts of other religions. Even in the past 50 years, there have been wars in places other than Muslim areas. And the recent wars (Iraq, Afghanistan) were at least obliquely generated by Islamic attacks on the West or on the West's interests.
Yet, Muslims are doing at least 99% of the terrorist acts (I'd be hard pressed to come up with more than 200 non-muslim deadly attacks vs. more than 20,000 for Muslims).
So, I just can't figure out why folks in South America, Vietnam, and Southern Africa aren't blowing themselves up, too. It's a mystery to me why non-Muslims in Southern Sudan, Thailand, the Philippines, Nigeria, and Uganda aren't behaving the same way as their Muslim neighbors. I can't figure out why Copts in Egypt aren't out burning down mosques since they must feel the same rage as their Muslim countrymen.
Yep, sure is a mystery.
Can't be the religion.... Maybe the West is doing something to their water?
I don't know that your comparisons are quite valid, Cameo. Vietnam, for example, was at war for almost 200-years to rid themselves of Chinese, French, Japanese, French (again) and finally American domination. The Vietnamese were quite skilled in what we would today call insurgency and terrorism.
You don't think there was abundant terrorism across Africa against first European colonialism and subsequently white rule? Do you not think terrorism was at the heart of the butchery in the Congo that claimed 5-million lives? The late Margaret Thatcher, like Dick Cheney, called Mandela a terrorist.
One man's terrorist, after all, is another man's freedom fighter. Much of Europe has a splendid history of domestic terrorism. Think of Malaysia, Indonesia, Borneo, Cambodia (big time), Thailand, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, the Punjab and the tribal lands of Pakistan, the Baloch insurrection.
I think that, around the world, you'll find the absence of terrorism is the exception, not the rule.
There is still insurrection and terrorism in South America but the region has largely cemented its independence and finally crawled out from underneath the Monroe Doctrine. It's curious that most of the terrorism in Central America was American trained, supported and directed although it was then labelled freedom fighting.
You might want to see the Muslim world a bit more clearly. Yes, of course, there is radical Islam - Islamism. That is anchored in religious fundamentalism. Do you really believe that everyday Muslims clamour for Jihad? They want fairness and freedom but they're hardly pre-occupied with taking down the west.
Religious fundamentalism - Muslim, Christian, Judaic, Hindu - is extremist and its poisonous.
I have argued for years that the way to defeat radical, violent Islamism is to drive a wedge between the vast moderate majority of Muslims and the fundamentalists. Instead of that we tend to drive the moderates into the arms of the extremists by propping up oppressive regimes and killing innocent Muslims in droves.
I'd like to ask you the same question I would pose to Bill Maher given the chance. Since the turn of this century, how many innocent Muslims have lost their lives at the hands of Christian forces and how many Christians have died at the hands of Muslims?
Does it matter to you that we kill their innocents with 500-pound high explosive bombs and Hellfire missiles? Does that make it somehow legitimate?
We'll forget all about it soon enough. Washington now has Beijing in its crosshairs.
MOS,
Nope. Doesn't fly.
The behaviors are so different.
Every other movement is a nationalist movement.
Only Islam deals with a religion-based movement.
You answer you own question when you phrase the question in terms of a "Christians vs. Muslim" kill ratio. That is exactly the way Islam sees the conflict -- religion vs. religion. In the West, we tend to see conflicts as nation vs. nation!
The Boston bombers were from Chechen. The US has had zero, absolutely zero, interaction with Chechen. So, why bomb the US, as opposed to Russia, the more traditional Chechen target? Because the bombers are not dedicated Chechen nationalists who happen to be Muslims -- they are observant Muslims who happen to be Chechen.
Yes, this is an Islamic vs. Western conflict. The sooner we recognize this, the better off we will be.
BTW, there are no analogous conflicts anywhere. Think of it as controlled experiment. For every factor that we can think of (ethnicity, poverty, education, indigenous population being killed by Western powers, you name it), there are no parallel examples of populations killing other populations based on religious grounds that do not involve Islam. (Actually, the one exception that comes to mind is Ireland, and that has simmered down considerably, and even there, there was a significant nationalist flavor.)
I turned the show off as soon as I heard the words start to come out of his mouth about Muslims. I can't believe how hell-bent he is against Muslims. For that I disavow any respect for him. Shocks me that he can maintain a semblance of understanding very intelligent and meaningful conversation but I suppose those are all written for him and he abides by them by way of faking it to make it for his salary.
Anonymous,
Why turn off Maher? Where is your open mind to listen to other points of view? Afraid of having your perspective challenged or even modified?
BTW, Maher does not refer to or paint "Muslims." He refers to "Islam."
If I say something critical of America, I am not painting or putting down or degrading all Americans.
If I say something critical of France, I am not criticizing all Frenchmen.
If I say something disparaging about the Church, I am not putting down all Catholics.
So, if I say something disapproving about Islam, I am not criticizing all Muslims.
Islam is to Muslims as America is to Americans.
Not a difficult concept to grasp, yet so many folks don't seem to (or at least pretend not to).
Now that we have that clear, let's look at what Maher was saying with respect to Islam -- if you had chosen to listen.
A problem with Islam is that it teaches that criticising Islam is a crime and should be punished. (Indeed, in Islam, this is called "blasphemy," and the Islamic interpretation is generally significantly more sensitive than present Christian or Jewish concepts of blasphemy.)
This is the basis of Maher's remarks about Mohammed cartoons or producting a "Book of Islam" musical for Broadway.
So, Maher was saying that a huge probelm is exactly what you are doing, i.e., saying that criticizing Islam is the same as criticizing all Muslims.
Cameo, if you choose not to distinguish between radical, fundamentalist Islamism - Wahabist, Sufi, Salafist - and the mainstream Muslim world then this discussion is quite pointless.
By the way, Maher does indeed refer to the Muslim faith but that's really of no great moment.
"Muslim Faith" == "Islam"
"Muslim" != "Islam"
Again, Maher is discussing Islam, not all Muslims. I do not take offense as an American when Maher criticizes America. Why should anyone take offense when Maher criticizes Islam.
One can argue with Maher on the merits of his criticism -- but do not argue that Maher is not allowed to do the criticism in the first place. That is the road to totalitarianism.
Which form of Islam is not fundamentalist?
Which interpretations of Sharia (acknowledged by significant schools of Islamic jurisprudence) are not extreme (by Western standards)? (Actually, none are extreme by Islamic standards -- they are all "normal," though with some variance of doctrine.)
Islam is not divided (like Christianity) into a myriad of different sects covering a wide spectrum of beliefs.
On the other hand, there is a huge spectrum of adherence or observance to Islam (Sharia). But, there is a huge variance of observance of, say, Catholicism by Catholics, Judaism by Jews, or Mormonism by Mormons.
Remember, do not confuse people with faith.
The faith is the problem, along with the folks who strictly adhere to that faith.
Thus, for example, a huge percentage (at least 80%) of mosques in the US (and by inference Canada as well) teach beliefs that most Westerners would find "extreme."
On the other hand, most Catholic churches teach that abortion is a terrible sin, though many Catholics (as well as non-Catholics) do not take action on that teaching.
The issue is that many Muslims do take action on the beliefs being taught in their faith.
Another Anon here
Cameo appears to be another individual whose bias is cemented and will see any and all circumstances like what happened in Boston from that perspective, so I'm sure no one is going to change his/her view on the Religion being the "root cause". But I'm going to write this anyway.
The "root cause" is long standing Imperialism and to his musing about why American not Russia, an objective point of view leads me to speculate it's a big picture issue, such as Israel vs. the Palestinians and US government support of Israel. That reality blended with the use of Religion by radical fundamentalists as a means to somewhat level the huge military advantage of the West / modern Imperialists, can result in tragedies such as what happened in Boston.
Will add, Boston by comparison to the horror the Americans have caused in places like Iraq and Libya speaks for itself.
What's especially troublesome about those two realities is that the Iraqi situation appears to have resulted from a combination of intentional geopolitical strategies and blunders. Libya on the other hand, was no mistake and the country has been reduced to another Wild West reality, just like Iraq.
But the anti Muslim howlers never really examine "root cause" because it's easier to just go on a nice rant instead. As MOS points out, the history of terrorism is long and bloody and not restricted to any one nationality or religious group by any means.
Second Anon,
I make no claim as to what the "root cause" is -- we can go back far enough in history to find or rationalize any "root cause" we like.
What's important is recognizing the "here and now." Maher referred to that when he mentioned that many centuries ago, Christianity had as many problems as Islam has now. But the present reality is what we are dealing with.
Now, as I said earlier, the West has imposed Imperialism on countless cultures.
The defining characteristic, the common thread, of the present-day reactions against the West is Islam.
Simple as that. Can you name any other characteristic? Are there any other groups, any other bindings?
Is this hard to grasp?
Have the Vietnamese been terrorizing the West? The Koreans? The Japanese? Have the Central Americans? The Chinese? The Hawaiians? Native Americans? Central Africans and some eastern Asians (aside from Islamic groups) have been terrorizing each other on ethnicity, but not the West.
I agree absolutely that Imperialism is magnifying and indeed, perhaps triggering, the Islamic reactions. Indeed, I agree more strongly than you likely do.
So what?
What is actually triggering the reactions is not the point.... The point is the triggered reactions are Islamic reactions -- not Buddhist or Chinese or American Indian, or Aztec, or any other group. Why?
And those reactions are not the occasional off-the-wall individual or tiny group -- those reactions are broad, wide-spread, and, indeed, systemic.
BTW, you mention Israel -- the issue there is that Israel is a Jewish state in an Islamic neighborhood -- not that it is a Western state in a Middle Eastern neighborhood. This is religion-based -- not nationalism The issue that Islam has with Israel is that Israel has a Jewish (non-Islam) government and a large, non-subservient Jewish (non-Muslim) population, most of whom are multi-generational residents (similar, say to Canada or the US). Islam does not tolerate that insult, that blasphemy, in a land that was formerly Islamic -- just as Islam did not tolerate the mainly Christian government in Lebanon. (In the next few decades, watch for focus on Spain (Andalusiya or Al-Andalus) -- but, hey! that's merely a preview of coming attractions... :-)
Another Anon
No need to go back many centuries to find the "root cause" Imperialism I'm referring to and to suggest otherwise is merely argumentative at best. The here and now is a result of Imperialism mostly beginning with British involvement in the Middle East. The present reality we are dealing with, is due to our (Western) actions and I don't see why that should be difficult to acknowledge?
"Are there any other groups, any other bindings?" Surely you should be able to answer that for yourself. Most History books lay out the details.
The premise of your view on this seems to be that Western Imperialism is a one size fits all template that should work equally every where. I'm beginning to see why MOS decided against furthering a discussion with you. The Americans gave up in Vietnam, Korea has that Kim dynasty which most certainly makes it's share of noise and occasionally trouble too. The Japanese were an entirely different society to the Arabs and Persians, that too should be obvious.
The Islamic faith is practiced in a great number of countries, the large majority of which are not engaged in hostile actions against the US or the West as a whole. That's almost exclusively limited to areas where Western Imperialism has extended it's economic and or Military reach, so your focus on Islam doesn't hold much water.
Your systemic reactions would end if there was a wide scale withdrawal from actively meddling in, and controlling Arab and Persian affairs. In short, leave them to mind their own store, don't actively work to destabilize their countries and turn their World into a new version of the US Wild West. That would of course take some considerable effort now, given the damage Western countries have done and the multiple breaches of trust, Military campaigns, wide spread death and destruction that has taken place. I find it rather incredible that so many Westerners ignore these things or seem to be unaware when considering Islamic fundamentalist extremism and hostile actions.
BTW, the 2002 peace proposal presented by the Saudi's included full recognition of Israels right to exist and that all Arab States would sign on. That of course was based on Israel agreeing to the two State solution, on UN resolution 194, and the 1967 borders, which it appears clear is not of interest to Israels current leader and his supporters.
I believe Obama has given lip service to that proposal again recently
Pull the thorn and the wound will heal.
Few Westerners know that the Muslims launched their own Crusades outside of Arabia two years after Muhammad’s death of a fever in AD 632. The first part of this article answers three questions about the early Muslim Crusades. In this article, the word Crusade (derived from the Latin word for "cross") means a holy war or jihad. It is used as a counterweight to the constant Muslim accusation that only the Europeans launched a crusade. Muslims seem to forget that they had their own, for several centuries before the Europeans launched theirs as a defense against the Islamic expansion (cf. The Real History of the Crusades).It may surprise the reader that Muhammad was the first to launch a Crusade.
In October to December 630, after the conquest of Mecca in January 630, Muhammad launches a Crusade to Tabuk, a city in the north of Saudi Arabia today, but in the seventh century it was under the control of northern tribes. "Crusade" is the right word, because early Muslim sources say the army had 30,000 men and 10,000 horsemen and because Muhammad did so under the banner of Islam. On his way north, Muhammad extracts (or extorts) "agreements"—without provocation—from smaller Christian Arab tribes to pay the jizyah tax, instead of being attacked and killed (a jizya tax is exacted from non-Muslims for the "privilege" of living under Islam; see Sura 9:29). They also had the option to convert, but most do not and agree, rather, to pay the tax. Once the Muslims reach Tabuk, however, the Byzantine army fails to materialize. Muhammad the prophet had believed a false rumor. So Muhammad and his large army return home.
So it is Muhammad himself who inspired the first generations of Muslims to carry out his Crusades. Why Did Muslims Launch Their Crusades Out Of Arabia In The First Place? In a complicated Crusade that lasted several centuries before the European Crusades, it is difficult to come up with a grand single theory as to what launched these Crusades. Because of this difficulty, we let three scholars and two eyewitness participants analyze the motives of the early Islamic Crusades.
Muslim apologists like Sayyid Qutb assert that Islam’s mission is to correct the injustices of the world. What he has in mind is that if Islam does not control a society, then injustice dominates it, ipso facto. But if Islam dominates it, then justice rules it (In the Shade of the Qur’an, vol. 7, pp. 8-15). Islam is expansionist and must conquer the whole world to express Allah’s perfect will on this planet, so Qutb and other Muslims believe. But this is ambiguous at best. Over the centuries until now, Islam does not represent justice. People, especially women, are oppressed in Islamic lands—for reasons beyond bad rulers like Saddam Hussein. The essence of Islam, which Qutb correctly describes elsewhere (e.g. pp. 147-50), is to control the details of society, but sharia (Islamic law) sometimes becomes excessive. Excess is never just. Nonetheless, Qutb describes Islam as politically and militarily expansionist from the very beginning, and in this he is right.
Did the Islamic Crusades force conversions by the Sword? The above is taken from the followeing....
Islamic Crusades vs. Christian Crusades Who should own the "Kingdom of Heaven"? James M. Arlandson
What does any of this have to do with any of this? This sounds like a bad marriage counseling session where the wife or husband keeps going back to the past, again and again and again, unable to just stick to today. The arm chair liberals are all a bunch of wanna-be history teachers. Like , the sign says - a picture speaks a thousand words, and one act of senseless mass murder and violence today, trumps all your history. The rest of this is just dribble. Treat them as they do, not as they say.
Post a Comment