Wanna Get Death Threats? Say It's Wrong To Kill People In The Name Of Religion
The New York Times' Deborah Solomon interviews Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese-Christian immigrant who grew up during the Lebanese civil war. Gabriel is now a vehement critic of Islam and author of They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It. Solomon asks Gabriel:
Are you concerned that your new book, "They Must Be Stopped," will feed animosity toward Muslims?
I do not think I am feeding animosity. I am bringing an issue to light. I disapprove of any religion that calls for the killing of other people. If Christianity called for that, I would condemn it.What about all the moderate Muslims who represent our hope for the future? Why don't you write about them?
The moderate Muslims at this point are truly irrelevant. I grew up in the Paris of the Middle East, and because we refused to read the writing on the wall, we lost our country to Hezbollah and the radicals who are now controlling it.In your new book, you write about the Muslim presence in America and bemoan the rise of Islamic day schools and jihad summer camp. Is there really such a thing?
Yes. Instead of taking lessons on swimming and gymnastics, the kids are listening to speakers give lectures titled "Preparation for Death" and "The Life in the Grave."You also lament the public foot baths that have been installed at the University of Michigan and elsewhere to accommodate Muslim students.
I lived in the Middle East for the first 24 years of my life. Never once did I see any foot-washing basins in airports or public buildings. So why are they pushing them down the throats of Americans?I can't get upset if people want to wash their feet before they pray. This is the way they are taking over the West. They are doing it culturally inch by inch. They don't need to fire one bullet. Look what is happening in Europe. Do we want to become like "Eurabia"?
But relatively few Muslims live in this country -- about three million, or 1 percent of the population, whereas Amsterdam, for instance, has been estimated to be as high as 24 percent Muslim. They started as guest workers in Europe; they grow at a much faster rate than any other religion.
...Are your parents still in Lebanon?
I became an orphan at the age of 23. Both my parents are buried in Israel, on Mount Zion, with Oskar Schindler.Why did you bury them in Israel?
I wanted to honor my parents. After all, it is the Holy Land. And I wanted to ensure that both my children will know where my loyalty lies -- with Israel, because Israel for me represents democracy, respect and human rights, something that no other country in the Arabic world offers.
Wow. Brigitte Gabriel speaks the truth and nothing but the truth.
The New York Times doesn't get it, though, does it?
lizzylights at August 21, 2008 3:08 AM
We don't accommodate multiple wives or human sacrifice, or any other number of evils to placate any other number of religions. So why are we installing foot baths for the Muslim ignorant?
If they truly feel the need of footbaths (and I don't for one second believe it, I think it is just as she frankly states, a lever) let them accept the limitations of their faith and work somewhere they can run home to pray or whatever. If they can't remove the veil for their driver's license, no license. (A question we'd better ask is why any woman too religious to remove the veil is seeking a license when in all the countries that are this extreme in their faith they are not allowed to drive.) The Amish way of life keeps them out on their farms.
If your particular flavor of kookiness is somehow limiting in some respect as compared to modern culture, either accept that limitation or admit you have no real faith. Don't put us out to cater to your delusions.
T's Grammy at August 21, 2008 5:07 AM
"I can't get upset if people want to wash their feet before they pray."
This line should also have been in italics.
I saw this interview in the NYTimes mag and read it aloud to my husband.
That "taking over culturally, inch by inch" should be a splash of ice-cold water on every American's head.
I've said this privately to Amy (and it's a complete reversal ofhow I have always felt): If we want to preserve America the way it is, we really should embrace immigrants from Central and South America even the illegals, and encourage lawmakers to make it easier for them to gain real citizenship. They are coming here because they want to share and perpetuate what we have, not chip away at it "inch by inch" and destroy it.
Deirdre B. at August 21, 2008 5:40 AM
I am writing from Mexico, and Deirdre is saying what I believe. We are working hard to keep the Central Americans out, which means in the end we will also be a Muslim nation. This is an act of self-destruction.
Some years ago, Dr. Laura, on her radio show, was getting calls that the Muslim schools in the US were openly teaching hatred for American.
irlandes at August 21, 2008 7:08 AM
We don't accommodate multiple wives or human sacrifice, or any other number of evils to placate any other number of religions.
Yet.
Bella Hellfire at August 21, 2008 7:13 AM
Unfortunately, the bulk of immigrants from the south are Mexican. And they disprove your point by way of NCLR and MEChA.
brian at August 21, 2008 7:16 AM
"But relatively few Muslims live in this country..." One only has to see one cockroach to know that there is an infestation problem.
If Muslims are so small a minority why are foot-basins being installed with public tax monies at dozens of colleges, airports and even here at NYU (see my post Islam is a Phony Religion - if you will permit my link). There are hundreds of times as many Jews at NYU as Muslims and Jews have been in New York for a full century and not once do I recall Jews raising havoc that they do not have a separate wasing facility for netilat yadayim prior to eating meals at NYU.
Millions of Jews live in New York and visitors coming here detect no sense of a Judaic theocracy ruling over them, but let one Muslim come here and he demands we live under Shariah laws.
bernie at August 21, 2008 7:19 AM
Good article, but Israel is not exactly a shining beacon of human rights. Maybe compared to Saudi Arabia, but it is a country formed for one ethnic group, where that ethnic group gets perks. And saying "Well, at least they aren't as bad Iran" does not make them a beacon of human rights.
NicoleK at August 21, 2008 7:34 AM
nicole - you don't know a whole lot about Israel, do you.
For instance, there are many non-Jewish citizens in Israel who have full voting rights, and even serve in the military. In fact, the only perk that Jews get is automatic citizenship (if memory serves).
Israel was NOT formed for "one ethnic group". It was formed as a place for Jews to go where there wouldn't be anyone trying to round them up and murder them again.
And that's worked so well, hasn't it?
brian at August 21, 2008 7:44 AM
Nicole, the Israelis live at peace with the Druze because the Druze do not want them dead, and don't have a neverending mission to run all the Israelis into the sea.
Imagine if all the illegal aliens over here, or even citizens who'd come over from Mexico were planting car bombs on Wilshire Boulevard. We'd see them rather differently and take a much harder line.
Of course, with our porous borders, pretty soon Osama's boys (and girls, as they're getting woman to become blow-themselves-to-bits murderers now, too) will be over to wreak some mass murder and mayhem.
Amy Alkon at August 21, 2008 7:51 AM
Oh, and as I've posted before, Islam is totalitarianism masquerading as religion. Here, from the late George Mason:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/12/04/the_religion_ba_1.html
Amy Alkon at August 21, 2008 7:54 AM
nicole - consider in this light:
1. If all of those who hate isreal laid down thier arms, there would be peace.
2. Reverse that - If all Israelis laid down thier arms, there would be genocide, and Israel would cease to exist.
I know someone killing me would certainly violate my human rights.
wolfboy69 at August 21, 2008 8:35 AM
We don't accommodate multiple wives or human sacrifice, or any other number of evils to placate any other number of religions. So why are we installing foot baths for the Muslim ignorant?
Why? Several reasons: one, because a number of sinks had broken from people washing their feet in the sinks. And because you don't have to be Muslim to find a use for the footbaths (which can be used for other kinds of washing, too--like it's more convenient for the janitorial staff dumping water). But also, because multiple wives and human sacrifice are legal issues, whereas foot baths are a hygiene issue that, while related to a religion, is not in and of itself solely religious. Much the way public funds can be used to purchase Christmas trees and such (but not nativity scenes, which are deemed exclusively religious).
If they can't remove the veil for their driver's license, no license. (A question we'd better ask is why any woman too religious to remove the veil is seeking a license when in all the countries that are this extreme in their faith they are not allowed to drive.) The Amish way of life keeps them out on their farms.
Exactly. Which is why the Muslim woman who sued Florida for the right to not remove her veil for her photo, lost. Meanwhile: I'm from Pennsylvania, land of the Amish. We actually have provisions for the Amish getting driver's licenses (and yes, some get them--it's a fallacy that the Amish reject all technology at all times), allowing them to forego getting their photo taken, since photography is against their religious practice. The point is that there IS precedent for the state making accomodations for religions in ways that are about as non-invasive as are footbaths.
Quizzical at August 21, 2008 9:35 AM
"Unfortunately, the bulk of immigrants from the south are Mexican. And they disprove your point by way of NCLR and MEChA."
I bet if you asked 100 Mexicans in this country about either of those groups, they'd give you the Victrola dog look. Those groups are camppus-based crackpots.
We are having our own problems wit the inch-by-inch thing though. A few years ago Ashcroft wanted to hang curtains in front of some sculptures because the women's breast were showing. The same kind of thing on a smaller scale goes on all the time, usually some group of parents objecting to nudity in art or whatever. They are objecting to Western art because of Middle Eastern cultrual norms.
Jim at August 21, 2008 10:08 AM
They are objecting to Western art because of Middle Eastern cultrual norms.
I think the fundamentalist Christians and evangelicals like Ashcroft are handling that all by themselves. See: www.ncac.org/action_issues/Nudity_&_Pornography.cfm
A recent, hilarious example: Amy Winehouse has a tattoo on her arm of a topless woman. She had to draw a bra on the tattoo when she appeared on American television. See: farm3.static.flickr.com/2068/2266947184_1f58c40e47.jpg
Quizzical at August 21, 2008 10:48 AM
Hi Amy,
I have been reading your blog over the last couple of days and I must confess that I am surprised that the progressive baffoons that labelled you a racist are not all over your comments about Islam (which I wholeheartedly agree with). It would however be amusing to see them attempt to justify the position that Islam is somehow a race ...
I actually believe the biggest threat comes from the North American and European concept of "multiculturalism". It may have been innocuous when it meant a simple curiosity in attempting to understand other cultures, but today's multiculturalism is a frightening mix of ignorance and a willingness to accept the notion that all cultures are equal. Have you ever noticed that most people that say that Islam is a religion of peace (other than Muslims)have never even read a single biography of Muhammed? As soon as one actually examines his life it is very easy to make direct parallels to atrocities committed by many Muslims today. Btw, if you want an example of "multiculturalism" running wild just check out the creepy and Orwellian "Human Rights Commissions" in Canada (my country). You can google the names Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn and see what happens in Canada when you criticize Islam.
Ciao!
Charles at August 21, 2008 11:28 AM
This book may be worth a read: Who Speaks for Islam, by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed [via Neatorama].
Some of the reported findings of an extensive study:
•Among the Muslims surveyed, 7 percent condoned the 9/11 attacks. The study terms these the "politically radicalized."
•When asked why they supported the attacks, the radicals gave political rather than religious reasons. They have a sense of political frustration and feel humiliated and threatened by the West. Those who opposed the attacks often gave religious reasons for doing so.
•The radicals, on average, are not the down-and-out people in society. They are more educated than moderates, and two-thirds of radicals have average or above-average income. Forty-seven percent supervise others at work. They are more optimistic about their own lives than are moderates (52 percent to 45 percent).
•Radicals are no more religious than the general population and do not attend mosque more frequently.
franko at August 21, 2008 12:17 PM
"Unfortunately, the bulk of immigrants from the south are Mexican. And they disprove your point by way of NCLR and MEChA"
URGHHH ARGHHHHH!
How many fucking times do I have to say that those organizations dont have anything to do with Mexican immigrants?
What is it with this shit that people so eagerly believe it?
"Those groups are camppus-based crackpots"
Thank you Jim!
Purplepen at August 21, 2008 12:38 PM
> saying "Well, at least they aren't
> as bad Iran" does not make them a
> beacon of human rights.
First of all, I think you're the vandal.
I think anyone new to the blog who doesn't post in a frame of mind consistent with their comments preceding August 7, 2008 is the vandal. Especially if they're kinda dull. In which case they're just as bad, regardless.
Secondly,
> Israel is not exactly a shining
> beacon of human rights. Maybe
> compared to Saudi Arabia, but
Comparison to Saudi Arabia is important indeed.
You seem fascinated with beacons, but we don't need to add too many dimensions to this judgment,,, In matters of decency, a single scale works nicely, and Israel rates highly on it
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 21, 2008 12:55 PM
I just finished reading Gabriel's Because They Hate which is a must-read for the folks in this country who think history began when Bush II took office. The story of her idyllic upbringing and how it was cruelly short-circuited by Islamic ragemongers is compelling.
the wolf at August 21, 2008 1:38 PM
Crid!!!! I've missed you! Where have you been? We've needed you!
kg at August 21, 2008 1:44 PM
Franko,
Please correct me if I am wrong but the data your book "Who Speaks for Islam" is based on has never been made public. I find it difficult to trust a book that refuses to publish the data it bases its analysis upon. Furthermore, some critics have stated that the authors define extremists as those that believe that the 9/11 attacks were completely justified (option 5) and defines those that believe the 9/11 were partially justified (option 3) and mostly justified (option 4) as "moderates". If this is the case I would beg to differ with the "statistic" that only 7% of Muslims are radical ... wouldn't you? As for your other assertions without data to back them up they are essentially useless.
Charles at August 21, 2008 2:28 PM
"They are objecting to Western art because of Middle Eastern cultrual norms.
I think the fundamentalist Christians and evangelicals like Ashcroft are handling that all by themselves. See: www.ncac.org/action_issues/Nudity_&_Pornography.cfm"
Well, that was my point, wasn't it. Do you think I was talking about Arabs or Jews? As a commenter pointed out above, it isn't the Jews trying to turn the Torah into law in this country, it's Pharisees who call themselves Christians that are pushing for that - Ashcroft, Dobson, Pat Robertson, Ron Parsley - the whole coiling ball of them.
Jim at August 21, 2008 3:41 PM
An American Author Mark Steyn wrote "America Alone" it's a best seller. I urge everyone who's worried about the Islamification of the US to read it. He predicts that Europe or Eurabia will become an Islamic Super State based on facts, evidence and demographics.
There are no foot baths in the ME, so the leftards who use safty as an issue are liars. It's not a saftey issue it's a supremacy issue, and I'm appalled at how much accomadation the US is allowing. In Canada Muslim organizations are using our Human Rigths Commissions to negate our legal rights under the guise of hate. We have a section that states if something is "likely" to offend (what doesn't offend Political Islam) someone it's a hate crime. Not does offend but likely to offended, I believe that's called precrime and it's sent a horrible chill over conservatives in Canada. Ezra Levant was persued and harassed by several HRCs because a Muslim complained that Ezra commited Blasphemy against Islam/Allah. No I'm not joking the marxist fools at the HRC investigated him for 300 days and he spent 100,000 on legal fees before the case was dismissed.
Political Islamist are Muslim Organizations that use soft jihad like legal warfare to silence Radical Islam's critics. They are equally as dangerous as terrorist, more deadly considering the dems have crawled into bed with Political Islamists for political gain.
Polical Islamists are using our laws to destroy us and the liberal left are aiding and abetting them for political gain. Foot baths, refusing to transport support dogs, refusing to do this that and the other thang. Why are we being forced to accept surrendering to tenets of Sharia Law yet we don't demand they integrate into Western Society? It's a death wish, and the left are hell bend on destroying our culture for political gain.
The polical Islamists openly practice polygamy in Canada and the government says or does nothing. They marry underage females over the net, Ipod etc from Islamic hellholes and it's perfectly legal here. We barely escaped the introduction of Sharia Law.
The US must stay strong, who's going to rescue us from the left/socialist self loathing liberals and the Islamists if you surrender to Islamic Supremacy?
Rose at August 21, 2008 4:53 PM
Charles,
You are wrong in that it is not my book, and I didn't make any assertions. Just passing on a fruitful-looking link to a book.
You are also wrong in that a book doesn't refuse to do much of anything -- I find they are usually fairly cooperative.
Question: Do any of you people know any Muslims? If so, do they seem like they want to destroy America to you?
franko at August 21, 2008 4:55 PM
Franko,
Wow ... points for the sarcasm and for completely circumventing the point of my post.
I realize you did not write the book. I was asking whether my understanding that the authors had not provided any data whatsoever was correct. At this point, I will assume you simply did not want to answer my question honestly or you have not read it this book and therefore have no idea.
I do know many Muslims. Unfortunately, many of these Muslims would like to see some form of Sharia law in effect. Unless you believe that the Qur'an is a relevant code for most Westerners to live by, this should concern you ...
Charles at August 21, 2008 5:29 PM
Yes, and no.
However, if even one percent of the world population of muslims believe in jihad for the sake of jihad, we're in trouble. Because that would leave us with 15 million potential suicide bombers.
Even if they don't win, we lose.
brian at August 21, 2008 6:07 PM
Well, that was my point, wasn't it. Do you think I was talking about Arabs or Jews? As a commenter pointed out above, it isn't the Jews trying to turn the Torah into law in this country, it's Pharisees who call themselves Christians that are pushing for that - Ashcroft, Dobson, Pat Robertson, Ron Parsley - the whole coiling ball of them.
Well, it was difficult to see your point, because it's incorrect to say that Ashcroft, etc. are using "middle eastern cultural norms," as if fundamentalist Christians are in some way drawing their guide to behavior from Muslims or something. You're mixing up different behaviors and philosophies from different historical periods. They're both sexually repressive, literalist, and authoritarian, but the path they took to get there is a bit different. And FYI it's not the best turn of phrase to use the word "Pharisees" in the way you do, since the direct religious, philosophic, and genetic descendants of the Pharisees are modern Jews and Rabbinic Judaism. I know you likely mean Pharisee as "self-righteous rule follower," the definition that Christians tend to use for the word. But the way you use it ends up being really confusing ("it isn't the Jews trying to turn the Torah into law in this country, it's Pharisees who call themselves Christians), since Pharisees ARE Jews.
Quizzical at August 21, 2008 7:29 PM
> Where have you been?
Having a hissy fit here in Mom's basement... Amy's found another obsessive geekboy to have fights with, and I'm kinda steamed about it, because he cheats by sending fake IP addresses and pretending to be lots of different people.
On the other hand, I've corrupted her soul pretty deeply: She's apparently (and righteously) fixated on the importance of loving fathers in children's lives, so my work here was done, anyway. It only took five years.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 21, 2008 11:32 PM
5 years, Crid? My, you are stubborn. Amy once took a stand against fathers then? I'm sorry but I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around this. Even I who made a baby with someone who turned out to be such a horror of a father that I abdicated to another state with her concede the important of fathers who don't abuse their children. And, btw, equally condemn mothers who abuse their children.
T's Grammy at August 22, 2008 7:31 AM
"Well, it was difficult to see your point, because it's incorrect to say that Ashcroft, etc. are using "middle eastern cultural norms," as if fundamentalist Christians are in some way drawing their guide to behavior from Muslims or something."
I don't see how it is difficult to see that what Christians call the Old Testament is a Middle Eastern text and that its cultural norms area slo Middle Eastern.
"And FYI it's not the best turn of phrase to use the word "Pharisees" in the way you do, since the direct religious, philosophic, and genetic descendants of the Pharisees are modern Jews and Rabbinic Judaism. "
Very good point, Quizzical, and I stand corrcetd on that particular point. I should have called these people "psuedo-pahrisees" or "wannabe-Pharisees" to distinguish them from the actual cultural and genetic descendants of the real Pharisees. It is to the immense credit of these descendants that they have managed somehow to retain what they see as the core of that Middle Eastern heritage and yet also managed to become fully Western. These pseudo-Pharisees on the other tend to reject many aspects of Western art and political culture. This tendency has been an aspect of Puritan Protestant Christianity almost from the beginning. In that they resemble Islamists, by independent development.
Jim at August 22, 2008 10:30 AM
> Amy once took a stand against
> fathers then?
Not to remember, but she wouldn't have had to. Pop-psychology thinking has lots of stupidities about human bonding that float around on the streets and in television and in magazines, so otherwise normal people have desperately twisted ideas about divorce and children and parenting generally. They don't really know where these ideas come from, they just know better than to cross the party line.
Consider, for example, gay marriage....
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 22, 2008 11:27 AM
Crid, Crid, Crid...
Dear heart, I should have known. You are really obsessed with this. Wife thinking of leaving you for another woman or something?
You've yet to really demonstrate how gay marriage threatens either hetro marriage or fatherhood. I wish my ex were merely gay. So does my daughter. We could live with that.
You're like a broken record with this and your attack on brian not having health insurance. You probably think Bill Gates is being irresponsible if he doesn't have health insurance. At least it sounds that way from the way you harp on needing it no matter how much money you have.
Frankly, you don't know brian well enough (neither do I) to know just what he'd do if his health care cost exceeded his savings. Maybe just as he says.
Try to wrap your mind around this, with all the money and health insurance in the world, there are those of us who don't want to be tortured forever just to live half a life. Resources or not, there's only so much I'd want to subject myself too medically, especially in certain futile states where you could never fully recover.
Not to mention how the health insurance companies are not all you make them out to be. Maybe socialized medicine isn't the answer but neither is the health insurance companies deciding what treatment we can and cannot have, what preventative measures we have to take.
Health insurance companies control way too freaking much of our lives in this country so frankly brian's braver than you are. At least he has the balls to stand up and say you are not going to rip me off.
T's Grammy at August 23, 2008 10:42 AM
> You've yet to really demonstrate
> how gay marriage threatens either
> hetro marriage or fatherhood.
I never said it did. I said it threatens children. If you're going to be snooty, try and keep up.
> You're like a broken record
> with this
I have themes.
> you don't know brian well enough
> (neither do I) to know just what
> he'd do
Exactly. And if he had insurance, I wouldn't have to worry about his judgment. He expects the rest of the world to be fascinated with his personal character and darling insights... But his risks are entirely typical.
> here are those of us who don't
> want to be tortured forever
Oh, give it up: Courage's tuxedo sags on cheapness's shoulders.
> he has the balls to stand up
> and say you are not going
> to rip me off.
What he saying is, I'm going to rip off everyone else in the community, at least with a horrible risk, rather than pay a price I don't like. This isn't manly economic daring; it's infantile marketplace cowardice.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 23, 2008 4:26 PM
What Crid's saying is "I expect you to pay for other people's poor lifestyle choices by buying a product that pays for services you will never ever use."
Show me where I can buy insurance (instead of a wealth-transfer scheme) and I'll buy it if it's reasonable.
So far, I've not found one.
brian at August 23, 2008 6:34 PM
I'd be interested too, Crid. I'd like to separate my insurance from my employer (I don't know just in case I ever want to quit) but the cost of carrying my own is too prohibitive, even for just major medical coverage. And I don't even smoke.
Only brian can know if it's courage or cheapness or some combo thereof. Frankly, even if cheapness, there's a degree of guts in just saying I'm not gonna pay it.
Face it, insurance companies are scams. Uh, don't know if you've noticed this but they are in business to make a profit.
T's Grammy at August 25, 2008 8:24 AM
Leave a comment