Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Truth Speech Isn't Hate Speech
Somebody on Consumerist with the name SETH_WENT_TO_THE_BANK posted a comment about somebody else's comment:

Nachas, I was going to reply until I read your bon mott "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

Even Dubya, as dense as he is, would call you an idiot.

ACAMBRAS wrote:

Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims.

Uh... Timothy McVeigh? The Unabomber? Eric Rudolph?

My reply to that comment:

Most terrorists are Muslim. A handful are not.

Bruce Thornton shows how terrorism springs straight from Islam -- contrary to the squeals of those who keep proclaiming it "The Religion Of Peace" (as if calling Charles Manson by the name Mahatma Gandhi will bring back Sharon Tate):

Common sense tells us that Khomeini and the other modern jihadists know their own faith and its doctrines, and are speaking squarely in that tradition, as can be documented from the Koran, Hadiths, and subsequent Muslim theologians, jurists, and other commentators (see Andrew Bostom’s invaluable anthology, The Legacy of Jihad). All these sources tell us that jihad indeed is the imperative to follow the example of the prophet Mohammed, who said in his farewell address: “I was ordered to fight all men until they say, ‘There is no god but Allah.’”

Modern jihadists, then, aren’t “heretics” or “fanatics” who have “highjacked” the “religion of peace” in order to compensate for their neurotic “humiliation” at Muslim backwardness. Bin Laden and his lieutenant Aymin Al Zawahiri have issued many writings that define their terrorist war as a traditional jihad, backing up their argument with numerous references to Islamic theology and jurisprudence. In a few weeks The Al Qaeda Reader will be published, Library of Congress researcher Raymond Ibrahim’s translation of the most significant Al Qaeda treatises, many of which have not appeared before in English. This promises to be one of the most important books since 9/11, a critical resource for accurately understanding the motives of Al Qaeda. These writings, especially those intended for Muslims, ground the war against the West squarely in the Islamic tradition of jihad: “Zawahiri’s writings,” Ibrahim notes, “especially are grounded in Islam’s roots of jurisprudence; in fact, of the many thousands of words translated here from his three treatises, well more than half are direct quotations from the Koran, the Sunna of Muhammad, and the consensus and conclusions of the Ulema [past and present commentators and interpreters of Islamic belief and practice].”

Even the killing of women and children is argued for on the basis of that same tradition, which provides traction for rationalizations based on Islamic military weakness, sophistic definitions of “innocence,” and the oft-repeated injunction to kill all infidels. This interpretation may be erroneous, but the mere fact that it can be argued for at all, and accepted by many Muslims, is itself significant. And such an interpretation is possible because there already exists the doctrine of jihad, which glorifies and justifies violence against non-believers. This helps to answer the obvious question why other ex-colonial peoples supposedly “humiliated” by their failure to keep up with the powerful West have not resorted to terrorist violence.

...No, it is we who are the dupes of distorters, all those apologists, propagandists, and Western useful idiots who obscure the truth of Islam and its history. And they are successful: Washington Times columnist Diana West, writing on July 6 about Robert Spencer’s important web-site jihadwatch.org, reports that “very ominously, Mr. Spencer's Web site is being blocked by assorted organizations which, according to his readers, continue to provide access to assorted pro-jihad sites. Mr. Spencer reports he's ‘never received word of so many organizations banning this site all at once.’ These include the City of Chicago, Bank of America, Fidelity Investments, GE IT, JPMorgan Chase, Defense Finance and Accounting Services and now, a federal employee in Dallas informs him, the federal government.” Why? “Some Internet providers deem the factually based, meticulous analysis on display at jihadwatch.org to be ‘hate speech.’”

This is the pass that we have come to: facts about the motives of an enemy sworn to our destruction are censored as “hate speech.” This betrayal of the truth demonstrates perfectly the West’s self-loathing failure of nerve that confirms the enemy’s belief in his spiritual superiority–– and his ultimate victory.

Posted by aalkon at July 19, 2007 11:01 AM

Comments

Apparently, the only way the people of the U.S. will ever muster enough outrage to fight these jihadists is if U.S. soil is again attacked in an egregious way. And then, if 2001 is any indication, we can count on only a few months' worth, before everything goes back to the normal comfort zone, and we again slip into denial about the threat.

If the jihadists play their cards right, they'll forget about a major attack here, and continue doing what they're doing with the aid of the soft Western left -- slowly bleed our assets and resolve by continued suicide bombings in Iraq, Afganistan, and wherever else we have a presence around the world. If that happens, there's no way our "leaders" will have the stomach to carry on the fight that must be fought eventually anyway.

Posted by: cpabroker at July 19, 2007 5:47 AM

"This betrayal of the truth demonstrates perfectly the West’s self-loathing failure of nerve that confirms the enemy’s belief in his spiritual superiority–– and his ultimate victory."

Well said.

Posted by: doombuggy at July 19, 2007 6:42 AM

I'd like to point out the most MODERN terrorists are Muslims. Key word is of course modern. The use of terrorist tactics is in no way shape or form new. Most cultures use this tactic when faced with a much more powerful adversary. Revolutionists used the tactics against Czar in Russia prior to the revolution. V.I. Lenin slaughtered the royal family as revenge for his brother who was executed by the Imperial Government for terrorist attacks. Mushadim (no clue about spelling) used these tactics in Afghanistan against the Russian military. The list goes on.

The reason that these sites are blocked is fairly simple. The companies are trying to cover their asses. Also post 911 I saw a few things that opened up my eyes. First my friend who's Albanian was harassed and called an "Afgani Bitch". Second I was at a rest stop watching the blunt faced hatred directed at a seik family. After these two experiences I don't think pointing out historic flaws in Islam is wise as it will breed inappropriate hatred. I'm all for hating our enemies, I was an still am all for hunting down every single member of Binnies group and publicly burning the bastards at the stake, packing the ashes into pig skins and burying them in a min shaft.

However give the average idiot more reason to hate a group will not have the desired effect. I think the companies should ban all pro or anti religious sites at work. Why are you checking out either at work. Also if you think about it maybe the pro jihad sites are left available for a reason?!?

Posted by: vlad at July 19, 2007 7:54 AM

Americans used terrorist tactics against the Brits. Most of Europe used these tactics against the Germans.

Sorry forgot to add these to the list.

Posted by: vlad at July 19, 2007 8:03 AM

Well, that's just silly. The Christians were behind the Inquisition, and the Germans weren't too nice to the Jews, and now we're going back to the Revolutionary War?

I'm not concerned about what people did hundreds of years ago, or even decades ago. These are modern times and we have a large group of people whose primitive superstitions lead them to murder the rest of us in the name of those superstitions.

I don't think companies should ban any sites, but then, if I were running a business with workers spending half their day on the 'net, I'd be concerned about that in general.

And I think it's extraordinarily wise to point out the realities of Islam so people in this country will pry their heads out of their asses before we're living under Sharia law. Those of us who haven't been killed for being "infidels." I believe it's already too late for Britain and France, and probably Germany and The Netherlands.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 19, 2007 8:20 AM

I agree that it's wise to point out the realities of Islamic Fundies. However there needs to be some control over how broad the brush used to paint the picture is. Stating that all Islam is like the fundies is like stating Fred Phelps represents all Christians.

I very much doubt that restricting what web pages one views at work will lead to Sharia Law being imposed.

Great Britain has suffered from terrorist attacks for years from the IRA. Would it have been appropriate to paint all of Ireland as IRA?

Posted by: vlad at July 19, 2007 8:44 AM

How many people has Fred Phelps killed?

Posted by: Jim Treacher at July 19, 2007 9:50 AM

None. Fine lets use Eric Rudolph, same point. Bible thumping fundy.

Posted by: vlad at July 19, 2007 10:20 AM

Yes, Eric Rudolph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph

One guy. Horrible. But, he didn't do it because large numbers of Christian religious leaders are calling for the death of abortion doctors.

Christians, even fundamentalists, aren't really, for the most part. After all, how many people do you know who slaughter their neighbors for wearing two different fabrics at a time?... prohibited somewhere in the bible, and, I believe, punishable by death.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 19, 2007 10:32 AM

Ah but what about being gay? My point is that all the books of faith have unscrupulous passages and there are members of every faith screaming for those passages to be adhered to. I'm not against hunting terrorists, nor am I against torturing them for information (and killing them afterwards). I'm questioning the use of ones religion as a test for someone being a terrorist.

I'm hearing something very much akin to racial profiling. Using the Rudolph example. Should every Christian get a full body cavity search if they are within 100 ft of an abortion clinic?

As far as large numbers calling for our destruction. If anyone knows the exact count of Muslim clerics who are calling for the destruction of the US. I would also like to know how many Muslim clerics there are world wide. I don't know the number so I can't really comment.

Posted by: vlad at July 19, 2007 11:02 AM

vlad, you're an idiot.

A christian bombs an abortion clinic they are not celerated, you dont see christin clergy calling for the murder of adulteres, idolaters, rape victims or women who show their ankles.

The problem is the "nice" muslims never protest or condem the actions of their religions terrorists

Wake up.

Posted by: lujlp at July 19, 2007 12:15 PM

So, I'm an idiot. Ok, not going to stoop to your level (though I very much want to). Why don't you take a peak here then tell me that they are not celebrated.

http://www.ezekielsystems.com/paulhillmemorial/

So I will refrain from the use of personal attacks unless Amy gives me specific permission to use them.

Posted by: vlad at July 19, 2007 12:29 PM

Vlad is not being an idiot, lujlp .

Amy politely modified the original sentence "all terrorists are muslims" to "most terrorists are muslims."

Vlad then politely modified Amy's sentence further "most MODERN terrorists are Muslims. Key word is of course modern."

That's neither idiotic, nor outrageously inaccurate.

Because of Amy (and Joe) I've actually changed my mind on this subject because I think I DID have my head somewhat asswards.

If you were born or brought up in the UK, however, it used to be a sore point that SOME Americans appeared to have a provincial, romantic view of the mainland terrorism of the IRA due - it was whispered - to some guff about their Catholic-Celtic heritage.

Most Brits now attach "muslim" to "modern terrorist" not "IRA" - and long may that scant comfort continue.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at July 19, 2007 1:05 PM

Vlad - you are comparing outliers (yes, Eric Rudolph and those who elevate him are outliers) with official policy.

The arbiter of Catholicism, Pope whatsisname, has not called for the execution of abortion doctors or the death of homosexuals. Regardless what's in the book.

The arbiters of Islam's major sects, on the other hand, are at least agreed on one thing: the infidels must convert or die.

It is not a stretch to say that muslims who do NOT endorse jihad are out of the mainstream.

I won't call you an idiot, but you are either underinformed or idealistic. Which would be fine, if the stakes weren't quite so high.

Posted by: brian at July 19, 2007 1:07 PM

I'm hearing something very much akin to racial profiling. Using the Rudolph example. Should every Christian get a full body cavity search if they are within 100 ft of an abortion clinic?

Oh, don't be a drama queen.

There are probably fewer Christian terrorists than there are serial killers in America.

To say "most modern terrorists are Muslims," well, yes, that's the case...but why would it be practical to worry about terrorists who are no longer with us?

Note that as Wafa Sultan said, Jews are not blowing up German restaurants because of the Holocaust.

A christian bombs an abortion clinic they are not celerated, you dont see christin clergy calling for the murder of adulteres, idolaters, rape victims or women who show their ankles. The problem is the "nice" muslims never protest or condem the actions of their religions terrorists.

Or, at least, too few or very, very few of them do.

In short, Christians cherrypick the parts of their fairy tale book they take seriously, and I highly doubt there's a preacher in the country who will get up on his pulpit this weekend and encourage Christians to go murder the infidels...despite passages in the bible that encourage it.

I only wish we could say the same for the Muslims.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 19, 2007 1:34 PM

I'm looking for evidence, that's all. No pope what his name did not endorse killing homosexuals. He does however want us heathens excommunicated for our crimes against god.

I'm neither under informed nor idealistic (well maybe just a tiny bit).

However if we start grabbing practicing all practicing Muslims, and especially if we start lumping other similar looking groups together we accomplish 2 things.
1) We prove to the non-militants that the militants are right about us; thus creating more militants.
2) While we are dedicating all this effort to track and follow practicing Muslims the terrorists take the vow (can't remember the name) where in the quest for Jihad they abandon tenets of Islam to better hide among the infidels (like booze, pork, etc.)

The muslims standing on the street in Burkas with offensive signs are a pain in the ass and/or a distraction. The ones in Muslim countries doing the same are the real threat. Most of the parading lunatics who take the suicide bomber oath will look very different when they go boom.

Hell picture a Johny Walker Lynn (too lazy to find spelling) takes the oath to go boom. Doesn't go to the mosque, drinks and eats a ham sandwich. So while the noisy women wearing the burka is getting probed in all ways possible he goes boom in a stadium.

Also just a point of reference the permission of suicide bomber in the Koran is a very heavily debated topic even among the jihadists. So there is no unity even among those that publicly hate us.

Posted by: vlad at July 19, 2007 1:34 PM

Yeah ok the Christian getting a body cavity search sounded less dramatic in my head then on paper. I was making a point, did not work out as well as I planned.

As far as the public condemnation of terrorist acts against American in hostile Muslim countries. You can't actually be serious. Your asking these people to wear a bullseye. They would be better off just shooting themselves.

I'm against the religious profiling not because it wrong but because it doesn't work. If your looking for bomb in a turban you will miss the one wearing a baseball cap.

Posted by: vlad at July 19, 2007 1:46 PM

vlad, I was talking about the muslims in this country not speaking out.

Remember the incedent with the icture of mohomad?

You had muslim clegry in EUROPE calling for the death of the cartoonist.

Also given the the non militnts refuse to do anything about the militants who cares what they think, and incedentally many of the militants in first world countries come from stable, secure, comfortable homes and are not the dirt poor oppressed people looking for revenge the PR machine would have you belive.

BTW the term idiot is defined as a foolish person, as you are acting foolishly it is a DESRCIPTION not a personal attack

Posted by: lujlp at July 19, 2007 2:08 PM

Vlad,

It is difficult to do an accounting of all the clerics in the world. There are varying degrees of titles and a cultural vagueness on the proper criteria to call onself a Ulema/Alim (Scholar of Islam) Do not interpret as a Western version of scholar. Scholar in Islam usually means authority or expert in matters of their faith. The original phrase is something similar to "a person of Islamic knowledge or the people of Islamic knowledge."

Now the problem of modern Islam is the culture of tafsir or the interpretation and the mufassir, the person who writes the tafsir. There are 5 traditional sources used for writing the current interpretation of their faith:

1. Qur'an
2. Hadith
3. Sahaba; writings of Muhammad’s companions.
4. The recognized companions of the recognized companions of Muhammad.
5. Past qualified scholars of Islam. (Usually the Caliphs)

Now the approaches of the interpretation follow these particular methods:

-Qur'an interpretation through the Qur'an.
-The interpretation of the Qur'an through the Hadiths
-Interpretation of the Qu'ran through the historical development of the religion.

If you haven't filled in the blanks by now. This is how a vast majority of the clerics have a literalist interpretation of their faith. Any input of 'Modernity' is seen spiritually impure by defiling the sacred words of Allah in the Qur'an. Physical force in the defense of Islam is justified through teachings of the Hadiths and the historical record of the faith's conquests in the past 1,400 years.

This particular religious system incubates violent extremism along with particular pre-Islamic cultural traditions of the specific region where the faith thrives. (tribal based customs and societies)

Posted by: Joe at July 19, 2007 2:33 PM

Profiling based on a certain criteria is just a tool among many. It shouldn't be disregarded based on your 'conscious raising awareness' of a dangerous religious-social-political movement called Islam.

Posted by: Joe at July 19, 2007 2:43 PM

I meant a dangerous religious-social-political movement within Islam. Damn multi-tasking.

Posted by: Joe at July 19, 2007 2:46 PM

wearing two different fabrics at a time?... prohibited somewhere in the bible, and, I believe, punishable by death.

A single fabric made of both linen and wool; forbidden only to Jews not Christians (who reject most Old Testament commandments - that was the whole point); and not punishable by death.

Posted by: kishke at July 19, 2007 2:51 PM

gandhi was inspired by the gita. read about it at http://www.gitananda.org/about-gita/index.php

Posted by: hello at July 19, 2007 2:52 PM

Joe - they say that a gaffe is when one accidentaly speaks the truth. Which is what you seem to have done with your 2:34 post.

The fact that 70% or more of muslims in the middle east support the violent destruction of Israel, the overthrow of all Arab governments, and the creation of an Islamic super-state to be called "Caliphate" would tend to indicate that peaceful coexistence is unlikely to impossible. Add to the mix that 25% of muslims in the US think that killing civilians is acceptable in defense of the faith, and you have a huge problem.

Unless Martin bin Sheikh nails a list of demands to the mosque door and lives to tell the tale, that is.

Posted by: brian at July 19, 2007 2:55 PM

Brian,

They say people get sick from the cold too. Both cases are untrue. Try emailing 2 people in 2 different languages and then write a post on Amy's site in a third language, consecutively.

Then lecture me on my real intentions.

Kishke,

Many atheists do not understand Christian Antinomianism used under the New Testament interpretation to invalidate the various lifestyle rules under Judaism found in the Old Testament.

Posted by: Joe at July 19, 2007 3:18 PM

Don't believe there are Catholic terrorists?

Move to Ireland.

Posted by: LYT at July 19, 2007 5:15 PM

Actually, Jody could prove me wrong, but wouldn't the PIRA (Provos) phone the bomb plantings ahead of time during their campaign in London? Allowing the civilians to vacate the area in time, but still maintain the level of high emotional insecurity after the bomb went off.

The PIRA came to decision after a bomb went off and killed seven cavalry horses and eight soldiers at Hyde Park in 1982. The press and public went crazy over the death of the horses.

Soldiers may get blown apart, because that is in the line of duty. But if you kill horses? Watch out! You want to see charming English ladies turn into an army of Boudicas ready to decapitate anyone that looked Irish? Kill a horse. So the Provos decided to phone in their bomb attacks during the 1980s.

Also the IRA of both wings (Provos and Official) are Marxist in nature and not religious. The Provos are Maoist and the Officials are old school Communist. Hence the split into 2 factions during the late 1960s over the use of terrorist tactics. The Officials wanted to discuss it in committees and the Provos wanted action in Belfast and Londonderry.

There is a huge difference in the terrorism of the last century was mainly about political liberation. The current stream is of a spiritual liberation through martyrdom and the death of infidels.

So I don't see members of Al Qaeda phoning in their bomb attacks anytime soon. Anyone disagree?

Posted by: Joe at July 19, 2007 6:26 PM

Joe - You've pretty much got it. I forget where I saw it (probably Instapundit), but someone had noted that in the past, terrorists had political demands, and used terror to advance those causes. Whereas the Islamists don't have political demands per se. They just get off on killing civilians.

Posted by: brian at July 19, 2007 6:42 PM

Brian, the idea appeared here a few weeks back, in a blog post by Amy quoting her friend Satoshi.

Posted by: kishke at July 19, 2007 7:21 PM

They don't have political demands? Um, free palastine and get the west out of the Middle East. Tell me how that's any different than the IRA and a free northern Ireland? In principle they look the same, the PIRA tried to avoid killing civilians where are Jihadists relish the idea.

Posted by: vlad at July 19, 2007 7:26 PM

They don't have political demands? Um, free palastine and get the west out of the Middle East.

Al Qaeda's main goal, and that of the Islamists, is to install Islam by force everywhere (not just the ME), as they are commanded in the Koran and hadith. Infidels who resist (i.e. everyone else) are subject to death. Killing them is seen as a good deed and a fulfillment of Allah's command. That's a religious goal, and it won't be satisfied by the West leaving the ME nor even by the defeat of Israel (God forbid). What they are after is worldwide dominion. This is not a secret; they are quite open about it.

Posted by: kishke at July 19, 2007 7:54 PM

Joe,

The reliability of those phone warnings and who made each one and when has always been the subject of fierce debate.

The following quote is from a 2001 Daily (i.e. Conservative) Telegraph story used "for balance" in a report of an IRA supporter's radio interview. The interviewee claimed the famous warnings DID prevent collateral civilian deaths - thus the IRA, it was argued, were totally UNLIKE the 9/11 terrorists.

The "balance" quote in the story promptly disagreed!

"A security analysis of IRA warnings shows that the vast majority during three decades were misleading and that in many cases secondary devices were deliberately planted in order to kill and maim soldiers and police officers dealing with the primary bomb."

My student memory is that a warning meant civilians should keep away from ALL popular, crowded areas. Then just cross your fingers you weren't unlucky.


Yes, I can indeed just remember the horses!

Both the lady-on-the-street fury that innocent dumb animals could be slaughtered. And the fury of other people who were furious at the outpouring of sentimental fury about animal rather than the human victims.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at July 19, 2007 8:04 PM

Thanks for clarifying the event, Jody.

My knowledge of the Hype Park incident was told to me by a Brit expat (Clive) living in Alexandria. Clive was in his late teen years in 1982 and told me about the press coverage on the horses.

Great guy, but a bit shady. Always used me as a translator when hitting on young Russian women tourists in Egypt. A great storyteller about the time he was a 'volunteer' during the Balkan crisis in the early 1990s. I never knew the exact details of what a volunteer was in the Balkans. My guess he was a drug runner. He was ignorant about specific details about guns to be a mercenary and didn't have the humanitarian spirit to be a volunteer ambulance/medical driver. Never had a job in Egypt and always had plenty of money on hand.

The expertise on horse crazy English girls was through dating one in Washington DC.

Posted by: Joe at July 19, 2007 9:44 PM

Al Qaeda's main goal, and that of the Islamists, is to install Islam by force everywhere (not just the ME), as they are commanded in the Koran and hadith. Infidels who resist (i.e. everyone else) are subject to death. Killing them is seen as a good deed and a fulfillment of Allah's command. That's a religious goal, and it won't be satisfied by the West leaving the ME nor even by the defeat of Israel (God forbid). What they are after is worldwide dominion. This is not a secret; they are quite open about it.

Indeed. If you search my site with "Islam" or "Muslim" you'll see COUNTLESS examples of Imams and others being quite open about this as their goal.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 20, 2007 2:57 AM

"Don't believe there are Catholic terrorists?"

Who said there aren't?

Posted by: Jim Treacher at July 20, 2007 10:52 AM

Leave a comment