Wow.

How do you respond to that. I mean, have the common courtesy to be discreet about your fascism.

I'm not sure to whom Arthur Wellesley's apostrophe is addressed -- who exactly should be discreet about his or her fascisim? If it's Mahathir, OK, but why be discreet if that's what you really think?

Bottom line, it seems to me, is ideas have consequences, and a corollary would be religious beliefs have consequences. It's worth pointing out that, while Dan and some others postulate a tolerant, "enlightened" phase of Islam, there is certainly no unanimity on this issue. In some reading I did earlier this year, I ran across the casual remark that there were three strains of early Christian thought, the Roman, the Constantinoplean, and the North African, and golly gee, for some reason the North African strain just sorta disappeared sometime around the seventh century. Right around the time the early, enlightened kind of Islam blew through, though the author (coming from a tradition that doesn't tend to rub old sores) didn't mention that part.

I think the only possible civilized response to Islam is the one that's taking place -- aggressively and proactively respond to the physical threat, while keeping the intellectual pressure up on the other side.

C'mon Mr. Bruce - back track a few posts on the previous threads, for god's sake - I can't be spending time explaining myself to friends, when we've got a blogoshere of foes to contend with.

I said exactly what you spent 10 minutes typing. Namely:

Lay it out like that, and you'll get the genocide you so eagerly desire for others.

The west, today, has the ability to destroy every single aspect of islamic culture, decides not to (as being true to it's own cultural identity) and is replied with that fascist garbage?

Good luck. Me? I'm buying Lockheed stock.

The funny thing is, so much of what he says is spot on.

His goal is kill all jews is obviously wrong.

His diagnosis of why they casn't kill all jews, the focus on theology and the discouragement of math and scienece is 110% correct.

His solution (promoting science while disregarding democracy) won't work, and he's still a raving lunatic, but he's also making some of the points that we've been making about modern islam for years.

Isn't this garbage more appropriate for Little Green Footballs or something?

There are hundreds of millions of muslims in this world. Do all muslims march in lock-step to what certain idiotic and bigoted leaders preach? No.

Think about Christianity. Would a conference of evangelical christians--say with Falwell, Robertson et al in attendance--be much different (not necessarily same target, but just as hateful towards gays, muslims etc)? Doubtful. But do I think they represent Christianity? No.

I came to this site to read the debate about the war being sponsored here. I doubt I'll ever visit it again; this post is just sickening.

Shame on you, Daniel.

The sentiment by Arthur Wellesley is commonly shared, including many posters on the large volume left-of-center blogs. Comments much more discreet than Daniel's regularly get you labeled as a MBF--Moronic Brownshirt F_ck. A Nazi fascist reference, for the uninitiated.

The sad irony is that the term Islamofascist is an accurate one that applies to much of the hierarchy and thinking of organizations and states like Al Qaeda. Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are good examples, as are Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and--yes--the Palestinian Authority.

Apologists like Arthur will claim righteous indignation at the idea of the nexus of Islam and a totalitarian structure modeled after fascism. Cries of "McCarthyism!" is the standard knee-jerk response.

My response is to these apologists is equally righteously indignant: Useful Idiots.

Garbage:

Shame on you. Your ignorance about a Christian evangelical conference is astonishing. Why don't you go to one and find out?

I think you'll be surprised.

Garbage...

Your comparison is specious. Where in the West is the analogue to a meeting of the leaders of 57 nations, all of which assemble under the banner of a religion?

The west is composed of universally secular states. The fact that, in order to achieve a valid comparison, you have to invoke a conference of evangelical Christians to make your point underlines its inadequacy.

There is no comparison between Western nations and those nations that embrace the failed ideology of Political Islam.

Of course, Falwell and Robertson aren't the elected leaders of any nations, while Mahathir is. And even Falwell and Robertson don't, I think, advocate the extermination of Muslims in the way that Mahathir does Jews.

The comments of Mahathir are disturbing precisely because he's sometimes presented as the moderate version of Islam.

Too bad they stopped Zoolander from completing his mission...

Eh, Paul? Read Arthur Wellesley's comments a bit more carefully. Unless I'm hugely misinterpreting him, he agrees with Professor Drezner and (I would imagine) you on the subject. The facism he was referring to was Mohammed's not Dan's.

And "Garbage," not like you're still reading this...I understand outrage at having every single little barking moonbat held against you - would I, as a liberal, wish to be judged by Michael Moore, or as a right-winger by Ann Coulter? - but that's because they're MARGINAL LOONS. (Famous, sure, but not representative.) Mohammed is the *prime minister of the largest Islamic 'democracy' in the world.* The leaders who ALL gave him a standing ovation for his filthy speech: Not Marginal Figures. It is ABSOLUTELY appropriate to condemn these people - they're heads of state, for chrissakes!

Fallwell can call Mohammed a terrorist, Billy Graham is invited to the Pentagon, and Robertson can threaten the State Department with "Nuculer" weapons but the world's longest serving democratically elected leader of a multi-racial, religiously tolerant economic leader in South East Asia says:

"Are we not allowed at all to criticize the Jews if they do things which are wrong?" Mahathir asked. "If Muslims can be accused of being terrorists, then others can accuse the Jews of being terrorists also."

Mahathir, 77, a senior statesmen in the developing world who will retire Oct. 31 after 22 years in office, has long been an outspoken leader. He is a staunch advocate of the Palestinians and strongly opposed the war in Iraq, but also has jailed terror suspects from the al-Qaida-linked Jemaah Islamiyah group.

In his news conference, Mahathir accused "most" European leaders -- by which he also generally means Americans and Australians -- of being biased.

"The fact is that they are biased," Mahathir said. "Most of them are biased. Not all; most of them. And they feel that while it is proper to criticize Muslims and Arabs, it is not proper to criticize Europeans and Jews. Apparently, they think they are privileged people."

Mahathir said the thrust of his speech had been to urge Muslims to step back from violence, rethink their strategies, and find a peaceful way through acquiring knowledge to gain strength and unity so they would gain respect and their rights.

"They survived 2,000 years of pogroms not by hitting back but by thinking," Mahathir said of the Jews. "They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others."

*******{This is not an attack on the Jews. The speech calls for peaceful unity of the ummah, specifically stating "NOT BY HITTING BACK BUT BY THINKING", however the categorical response by:
'Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said Mahathir's speech "is an absolute invitation for more hate crimes and terrorism against Jews. That's serious."' There's no way that could be construed out of Mahathir's statement. The obfucation of the truth in the [primarily] Judeo-Christian owned media outlets is profound. All these news stories one can lexis or googlenews on the internet are nothing if not evidence of a double standard of political correctness.

"What I said in my speech is that we should stop all this violence, all these killings, all these suicide bombings, all this massive retaliation," Mahathir said. "I am against violence, I am against terrorism."
-Mahathir Mohamad

(quotes from SFGATE.com)

Mahathir cares about the Jews and Palestinians about as much as he cares about whether there is life in the Rigel star system. He used this repellent rhetoric to buffer a message that is radically different from what much of his audience -- especially the Arabs -- want to hear.

In the context of Muslim politics his speech was actually quite courageous. The context, though, may make that level of courage irrelevant -- it's quite possible that what his audience applauded at was the anti-Israeli rhetoric and the boilerplate evocation of the long-ago era of Muslim greatness, and that they just ignored the rest.

I believe Mahathir is genuinely concerned about the future of Islam, but is more concerned about the future of Malaysia (as anyone familiar with that country knows, the idea that Jews exert any control over Muslims in Malaysia is absurd. It's the Chinese who dominate the economy -- the dynamic between them and the Malay majority has been the major theme of Malaysian politics since independence). The simplistic Islamism he inveighed against in the speech quoted here 1) brings terrorism behind it, which could drive away the foreign investment Malaysia depends on, 2) has the potential to split Malaysia's Malays, Mahathir's political base and 3) jeopardizes the sometimes tense but peaceful and economically productive relations between Malays and ethnic Chinese in Malaysia.

I don't blame people who are offended by the ostentatious anti-Jewish phrases in Mahathir's speech. It would be better for everyone if someone in his position could make a speech pointing out that Israel had a right to exist while Palestinians had made many of their own problems without risking assassination. But such are the limitations of Muslim politics. My point here is only to caution people reading into this speech the idea that Mahathir's major concern is crushing Israel. It isn't.

Garbage's email address from the properties of his link is "antibigot@bushsucks.biz". His views may be informed by a particular standpoint. That does not invalidate his opinions, but it does provide context.

It amazes that so many negative responses were incurred. The jist of their complaint is that there are so many Moslems and many of them are loving, peaceful etc. They fail to acknowledge that, when EVERY leading figure of Islam spews anti-semitism, the case for a peaceful result fails.

In Nazi Germany there were, doubtless, many peace-loving folk. The problem there was that no one in a position of power spoke for anything but death, murder, war. In contemporary Islam, to speak for peace and reconciliation with Israel is to sign your own death warrant. To examine Islam critically is to do the same.

Those who recoiled at your assessment offered nothing beyond their emotional response to it. Whistling past the graveyard, they wish to pass quickly by and garner no notice of something they fear. Purblindness is their refuge from a dark, nasty truth.

Unfortunately these remarks *were* characteristic and representative of a broad mainstream within Islamic thought.

Even those who are Isreal's friends and have been openly pro-Zionist like myself can see that its present course is needlessly unjust and needlessly provocative. If the Muslims can get their act together they will be a force to be reckoned with.

This points to the ultimate naivete of the neo-con vision and hints at the horrors its policies will produce. Democracy is *not* an inevitable consequence of history and modernization.

Democratic institutions are based upon civic traditions which are based upon cultural norms conducive to reason, rationality, discourse, and consensus. In purely competitive terms, each man for himself can just as easily produced nationalized capitalism as in China or oligarchic governments such as in Russia.

Democracy is the rare bright city shining on the hill. It is not like a McDonald's franchise that one can export!!! Failure to understand this is leading us to catastrophic errors which are threatening the very future of America. That is not an overstatement.

Mr. Jeff B.

Thank-you. I was about to scream.

Not only was he the second to misread - and I have to ask - WTF? - he didn't even catch my correction of the first guy.

Way to make our side look good, you two. We wouldn't want to disappoint the left and not live up to their criticism of us.

Now I swear, if someone else misinterprets the above... ;)

This lunatic's diatribe about we are the smoted/smitten and we will rise again sounds so familiar: it's the hallmark of all Fascisti (Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao). Yeah Europeans had to grovel at the feet of the Muslims, after the Muslims learned a lot of their skills from the Europeans. It's amazing that this tired nonsense is still going on. We in the West wrongly thought that nationalism was extinguished with the killing of 100M people in the 20th C. It's not only not gone but it can carry the banner of multiculturalism now instead of fascism.

Uhh, Talib.

You miss the point entirely, It's not just a question of whether or not he wants to kill all the Jews. It's his totally paranoid assumptions about Jews running the world for 2000 years.

They didn't. They don't. They can't. They won't.

Sooner or later, Islam has to take responsibility for its own predicament. Stop blaming the Jews. Stop blaming us. Be a responsible human being and look in the mirror.

Until Islam does that, it's always going to be easier to lash out at a group like the Jews and think that somehow that's going to fix things.

But it won't. Islam would be in just as much of a mess as it is now if every Jew on the face of the earth fell down dead. If Israel was Palistine, and if the nasty imperialist westerners stayed home instead of tried to clean up Islam's many and various failed states.

Take some responsibility already.

Wait just a minute..

You know what, when I change my POV, get prepared to receive any comment as an attack, and reread my original comment - I get where mssrs Bruce and B are coming from.

It can look as if I'm attacking Prof Drezner for taking the time to post it.

Well - Ok, Sorry - that's the problem of the inflectionless keyboard.

OK, Sorry again, the above looks like I'm blaming the keyboard.

I am Sorry to have offended you two. As I remaked to Mr. Bruce, however, Back-track a little before you assume the worst.

That reminds me of my favorite apology, ever...let me go find it.

Wow. My bad, Arthur. Read your 2nd post too quickly. Ought to have directed that at Garbage, instead.

And if you think my comments don't "make our side look good," maybe the tone was a bit strident. But as far as the term "Islamofascist," there's plenty of literature out there to factually back up my comments. Except for calling apologists "useful idiots," maybe...

OK - Here it is:

"I apologise for not being entirely honest with you. I apologise for not revealing my true feelings. I apologise, sir, for not telling you sooner that you're a degenerate, sadistic old man - and you can go to hell before I apologise to you now or ever again!"

First Character and Actor answer gets you $1 in the mail (Hey, I'm no Dan Drezner)

Talib,

whould those "non-violent" means include "striking back" with the " guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships for our defence" that Matahir talked about in his speech.

Nice double-think there. Almost as good as the Palestinans who were passing out candy and shouting "God is Great" after "Mossad" blew up our American convoy this week. Why are they so happy if it's a plot to make them look bad (and why do 75% of them agree with the bombing)?

Paul.

"at Garbage..." Precisely- and here's what I was getting at. When the 'Moderates' and "intellectuals" are just flat-out saying it, How in the world can the poor internationalists even get up in the morning and attempt to defend these guys.

It is coimpletely incredible.

And yet... Here comes garbage.

Garbage,

To respond adaquetly will take a rather long post. Sorry. Let's begin. One of the ways to compare religions is by the norm and by the aberration. For example, Christ taught the following:

1. Love God above everything else.
2. God so loves you that he makes every attempt to create a personal, loving relationship with you
3. Love everyone else more than you love yourself.
4. Show mercy to each everyone.
5. Turn the other cheek.
6. Do unto others as you want them to do to you.
7. Recognize that in God's eye's everyone is equally a sinner and equally deserving of God's mercy and love.
8. Convert people to Christianity by loving them and convincing them that God loves them and forgives them.

Christ did the following:

Forgave an adulteress by telling her accusers, "Let the person without sin throw the first stone." And the men slowly left, first the older then the younger. Looking at the woman, Jesus asked, "Where are your accusers." She answered, "There are none." Then Jesus said, "Then I don't accuse you either, go and sin no more." [This is the amazing thing. Jesus did not deny that she had committed adultery. But while ordering her not to do that anymore, He also showered her with love and forgiveness.]

Christ's disciples did this:

Told newly converted pagans, "Keep yourself from sexual sin and take care of the widows and orphans." That was it, be faithful to your husbands and wives and take care of people who can't take care of themselves. That's it. No akillin' the infidel.

That's the norm. Here's the aberrations:

1. Crusader Christians go to fight Muslims who are attacking them (Not supposed to engage in religious violence, you know, love and all)
2. Spanish Inquisition
3. Religious-based conquest by the Iberians (Portuguese and Spanish)including both the New World and the Indian sub-continent.
4. Post reformation Protestant / Catholic warfare

Here's the norm for Islam:

Mohammed taught:

1. Live in submission and obedience to an impersonal god.
2. To be eligible for heaven, you must do the five pillars of Islam.
3. To be guaranteed to get to heaven, die while killing a non-Muslim.
4. Kill or subjugate every non-Muslim.

Mohammed did this:

Lied, broke treaties, had sex with 9 year old, and lead armies to kill and subjugate non-Muslims.

Mohammed's disciples did this:

1. Assassinated (word comes from Islamic sect) several of Mohammed's successors during power struggles after his death
2. Split the faith after the murder of Ali, one of Mohammed's successors. Ali's followers are known as Ali's Partisans or Shi'Ali, or Shia. They fight the rest of Islam, called the Sunnis for the next 1300 years.
3. Spread their faith by military conquest

What's the aberration?

1. Tolerance of other religions
2. Peace with non-Muslims
3. Mercy toward non-Muslims

Food for thought - Muslims conquered the Iberian Peninsula in the mid-700s. The Spanish completed the recon quest in 1492. Might the Iberians have picked up a flavor of Islam during all those centuries of living under their Islamic rulers? Could there be a link between the rather cruel Spanish and Portuguese form of Christianity and their experiences with Islam?

Finally, I have no hope for an Islamic Reformation. The Roman Catholics had gone so far from the roots of the Christian faith that the Reformation sought to return the Church to those roots. Do we really want Islam to return to its roots? Just a thought.

David- Nicely DOne, that.

Marx was right about one thing: Religion IS the opiate of the masses. Only he had the wrong drug--it's not opium, its PCP!

We are in very dangerous times with a whole portion of the world gone insane form a belief system invented when people thought the world was flat.

Thank you David, that was nicely done.

This stuff about a "final victory," over Jews who are "taking over the world," and about needing "guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships" to win, yet saying that the movement will be peaceful or at least purely defensive - it all sounds so familiar. Where have I heard it before?

I'm sure Mahathir doesn't mean to use violent means to achieve his final victory over the Jews. He's just going to move them all to Madagascar.

One of the great historical myths, which is repeated in this speech, is that the Arabic cultural zenith appeared out of a vacuum and that it was "superior" to that of Europe. While certainly parts of Europe was largely barbaric between 800 A.D. and 1300 A.D. (era of so-called Arab culture's zenith), the Byzantine Empire was culturally ahead or equal to anything the Arabs had during this period. And the Arabs owed almost all of their cultural zenith to the classical cultures of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Peria and Mesopotamia. Throughout this period they waged unremitting aggressive wars of conquest against the Europeans, Persians, Indians, Moors, Armenians and Afghans. Some superiority.

Follow the link and read the whole speech. At the very least he is calling for the destruction of Israel (paragraph 38, where he calls for “a strategy that can win us final victory.”) His use of “final victory” sounds quite a bit like “final solution”. Given the context, I find it hard to believe this is an accident. Without a clear call for Muslims to live side by side in peace with Jews (and Christians, Hindus and everyone else non-Muslim), I find the sinister interpretations of the speech to be persuasive. The man is an anti-Semite. He is not loony: that implies irrationality. He has thought rationally about his ideas, and about the ends they will lead to. He now wants to adjust the means to those ends. And the entire conference, and the home governments of the members of the conference, applaud what he has to say. THAT is the scary thing.

Another thought - When a Christian goes asmittin' the infidel how would a fellow Christian convince him to stop? He would do it by appealing to the norm of the faith and convining him that he was not living up to the standards that he professes.

How do you convince a Muslim chaplain who graduated from West Point to betray his country? You would do it by appealling to the norm of the faith and convince him that he was not living up to the standards of his faith?

That's a rather disheartening thought. But one I've wrestled with since I took a comparative religion course in college. It was obvious to me then that Islam, unlike any other major religion, had violence and treachery at its core. At the time that didn't seem like such a big deal. After all it was just a college class. When I began paying attention to the name Osama bin Laden about 1997, I also began to take a renewed interest in Islam. The more I learned and watched, the more concerned I became. I am now convinced that something structural has to occur in this religion before Muslims and the rest of us can coexist peacefully. The fundamental core of the Islamic faith (its norm) does not admit to the tolerance of disbelief. Bin Laden gained adherents because the doctrine was on his side and Muslims who knew their Koran knew that bin Laden was right. To me, that is the scariest thought. How do you convince a Muslim to give up their faith, because the true Islamic doctrine will always be there. If we beat back the threat now, it will come back in twenty or thirty years and I have no idea how to beat that.

It's possible that rule of unintended consequences will be at work here.

Whether delegates were applauding the call to kill Jews or the call to educate themselves and break the lock of the fundamental clerics so they can kill the Jews more efficiently doesn't matter.

If the Muslim states modernize and their children go to school and their standard of living approaches that of the U.S., then killing Jews will no longer be their life's work.

The two Cuban dancers who defected (such a quaint word now) said they did so because while they toured the world with their dance company, they saw how the rest of the world lived and how they were lied to by Castro.

The same thing will happen to millions of Arabs when they're freed from the bondage of jihads and shaaria (sp?).

Allah Insallah!
It's the only way for anything like a peaceful planet.

No kidding, Nr. Reece - We're all looking forward to the spaceflight.iasm.sa website

C'mon now, it would be a 'm' not an 'a', not that my great-grandchildren will live to see it.

Well now, erp. I'd like to have said that, but then, that school of thought, along with about three thousand of your countrymen, on the 11th, didn't it?

Missing the word: died

died on the 11th

Drezner, your first block quote makes it look like the speaker is saying the Jews invented Socialism, Communism, etc. But when I followed your link to the entire speech, I discovered that paragraph is about ten paragraphs after any reference to Jews. He had transitioned to "enemies," whatever that means. In any event, that's some serious Maureen Dowd shit. I don't have a stake in this, but you've got some splan'n to do if you if this is the way you quote (without an elipse or anything!). It's a pain in the ass if your readers have to fact check you every time to make sure they're not being handled.

I think you all miss the main point of Mahathir speech concerning Palestine.
All dwell so much on anti-semitism as if there is anything new here. So what is relatively new is that he clearly says that the present intifada is a mistake and promotes the idea of compromise right now. What is relevant here is that he states that Israelis started to make mistakes recently because of their power and arrogance. I cannot think of any other recent change but Oslo process and a general emerging consensus in Israel about two-state solution. To conclude, he thinks that compromising now on two-state solution is the surest way to eliminate Israel in the long run.

Wilson,

First, there is an ellipse showing the break in paragraphs.

Second, the second sentence of the graf referring to democracy and human rights is:

They survived 2000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking.

I'd say Mahathir's definition of the enemy is pretty explicit.

The Spanish completed the recon quest in 1492. Might the Iberians have picked up a flavor of Islam during all those centuries of living under their Islamic rulers? Could there be a link between the rather cruel Spanish and Portuguese form of Christianity and their experiences with Islam?

As evidence this is the correct reading, the Spanish did not inaugurate the Inquisition (AFAIK) in imitation of anything Muslim, but to search out and punish recreant converted Jews (sometimes called Marranos) and other such heretics.

Jeff B and Oldman

Y'all attack "Garbage" for claiming this isn't the end all and be all of muslim thought, and you claim that he is an elected official, and he therefore _perfectly represents_ all many millions of his constituents.

Uh-huh. That's right. That's why all PA residents are frantically locating their pets and keeping a watchful eye on them, as they, like their elected senator Mr Santorum, are galldurned certain the Supreme Court just set off an epidemic of hot and sweaty man-on-dog action by following that dastardly "homosexual agenda" that other Christofascist, Scalia, rambles on about in his dissent.

One man gave this speech. The people in that room cheered him on. That's the sum of what this represents. It's disgusting and discouraging to believe that what Islam means to some/many/most? muslims, but it's dumb to believe it applies to all.

THIS IS NOT A HOLY WAR. We are not locked in a contest of civilizations. This is not, as GWB once famously and stupidly said, a crusade. Stop trying to make it into one.

Jeff - What was that you were saying about useful idiots, again...

Not a war... a contest...Ohhhh-kay.

And please explain to the unenlightened, what the operate difference will be to the players, Mr Observer?

Can you read AW?

I said NOT a holy war. We are NOT locked in a contest of civilizations.

How dumb are you?

[ Even those who are Isreal's friends and have been openly pro-Zionist like myself can see that its present course is needlessly unjust and needlessly provocative. ]

How so?

[If the Muslims can get their act together they will be a force to be reckoned with.]

If Muslims could "get their act together," they wouldn't be Muslims.

[This points to the ultimate naivete of the neo-con vision ]

It's naive to think Iraquis are capable of democracy? Maybe so.

[ ...and hints at the horrors its policies will produce.... ]

Is it horrible if Israelis defend themselves?

[ Democracy is *not* an inevitable consequence of history and modernization. ]

Maybe so, considering place such as China, as well as Muhammedan countries.

[... Democratic institutions are based upon civic traditions which are based upon cultural norms conducive to reason, rationality, discourse, and consensus. ]

I.e., Western culture.

[In purely competitive terms, each man for himself can just as easily produced nationalized capitalism as in China ...]

China's is a highly individualistic culture? I don't think so.

[...Democracy is the rare bright city shining on the hill. It is not like a McDonald's franchise that one can export!!! ]

You may be right about that, which doesn't bode well for the future of the Muhammedan world.

[ ... Failure to understand this is leading us to catastrophic errors which are threatening the very future of America. That is not an overstatement.]

Islam delenda est. Failure to understand this is what threatens the very future of America. This is not an overstatement.

Mr. Observer, please.

Explain the operative difference between the opening text - you know, the one that we are all commenting on, and your assertion.

We have a blantant admission of intent on one hand, and your assurances that they don't mean what they say on the other.

What, sir, would you have us do?

erp is brilliant and says exactly what I was going to say. Maybe, if we're lucky, the Muslim world will modernize and educate itself and get rich and along the way lose the crazy anti-semitism. We can only hope, at least.

Well we got an occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan, we support Isreal militarily, and we are in a period of increasing tensions and sanctions with Syria and Iran possibly culminating with war in both cases.

Now, I agree it ain't a clash of civilizations - yet. But if we were gonna brew one up on purpose this would be a darn good way to go about it!!!

Mr. Davenport, will you take this from here - I'm going to dinner.

cheers

Daniel and his commentators make strong and good points--and I agree with some and disagree with others. Let me say, as a practicing Muslim, that I strongly condemn Mahathir Mohammad's anti-Semitic remarks. Although, I admit, he makes some considerable points about the poor state of Islam, his Jew-hatred is all too evident of one of Islam's current problems (and there's no denial to it): Jew-hatred. Crazy conspiracy theories are an all too familiar aspect in the Middle East.

But how can a Muslim think that the Jews control the world? How is this possible? The Qu'ran teaches us that Allah controls the world. Suddenly the Jews have taken over? We must overcome our obsession with these sham politics. Life is much simpler when it consists of anesthetized existence, punctuated now and then by angry shouts about ghosts in the shadows and nightmares in our dreams, preventing us from being what we do not have the courage to become. A fellow-Muslim once said that "Muslims sometimes are just too stupid to be evil." Sure, you will say, that I'm one voice and not representative. But our (not me personally though) voices are beaten down and "fatwa'd" by repressive authorities everywhere, and you know it. Muqtada al-Sadr can call for a fundamentalist Islamic government in Iraq, but nobody showed up for his rallies today. It goes unnoted.

Muslims and un-believers have and will disagree on issues ranging from Islam itself to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but hopefully we can agree on one thing: "the Holocaust must serve as a cultural code fostering education for humane values, democracy, human rights, and tolerance."

This is a appropriate time for everyone to become familiar with the writings of the great Bernard Lewis. His superb “The Muslim Discovery of Europe” is a must read. The author shows that the Muslim world some 400-500 years ago willingly chose to be reactionary and Luddite. Not only did the Muslims abandon their own scientific efforts---they were bored silly by the advances of the Europeans. Inventions like a rudimentary clock were greeted indifferently, if not even with some hostility. In other words, the Muslims have nobody but their own ancestral leaders to blame for their current backwardness and second place status. This is their problem and nobody else's. Sadly, Ataturk is only among a mere handful of Muslims who was willing to face facts and adopt secular polices to improve the life of his people.

The recently departed Edward Said might be the single most important intellectual who further encouraged the Muslims to feel sorry for themselves and embrace the psychological debilitating mindset of victimization . Said’s “Orientalism” was regretfully a seminal work influencing perhaps millions. It may have even indirectly influenced Osama bin Ladin.

@Mr Wellesly: Colonel Dax, Paths of Glory
@ rest: the speech criticise Muslims in a lot of ways and calls for new unity and some investment in a more -umh- elaborate strategy. That's a plus.
As is 42 in some small way: Some are well disposed towards us. Some even see our enemies as their enemies. Even among the Jews there are many who do not approve of what the Israelis are doing.
43. We must not antagonise everyone. We must win their hearts and minds.
I think especially the latter two parts give cause for hope, though I -of course- agree the speech is anti-Semitic and deeply troubling.

With regard to whether or not it's possible to have scientific progress without freedom, I'd want to bring up the example of Nazi Germany. Not exactly intellectually free, but propelled by a simillar sense of manifest destiny and hatred. Somehow they managed to produce some of the best scientists in the world at that time and a very scary amount of innovation in building weapons.

I find it interesting that a lot of people are more driven to criticize Daniel Drenzer for noting PM Mahathir Mohammad's remarks and the reaction they received than they are to criticize the remarks themselves.

People have invoked Falwell and Robertson &tc, which is fine. But what I note about that is that Falwell, Robertson and their ilk are regularly condemned by many Christians and Americans (and it's a good thing, too).

If there are so many Moslems who disagree with PM Mohammad, why don't we hear from them as we hear from Americans and Christians who dislike the views of Falwell, Robertson, that General (whose name slips my mind at the moment), and others?

Also, let me finish with one provocative and perhaps inflamatory remark, but didn't we hear all this about Germans in the '30s? That, sure, there were some Germans (and French &tc &tc) who were anti-Semitic, but of course nothing would come of that because the vast silent majority didn't share these views and wouldn't sit by and let anything horrible happen.

If PM Mohammad's remarks are in the category of Falwell & Robertson et al, fringe and extremist expressions abhored by the sensible majority of Moslems, why aren't they vocally condemned (rather than given a standing ovation) by said majority?

Why aren't the people who are troubled by Mr. Drenzer's post troubled by *THAT*?

"Somehow they (the Nazis) managed to produce some of the best scientists in the world at that time and a very scary amount of innovation in building weapons. "

This is only half right. The Nazis hurt themselves severely by rejecting "Jewish" physics. They instead opted for some silly nonsense perceived as a more Aryan approach. This put them away behind the scientific efforts of the Allied forces. Supposedly, Albert Einstein's theories were too theoretical.

There seem to be several major errors in Mahathi's speech:

a)He cites the Jews as oppressors of Muslims, especially in Israel. But this is stupid.

It is true that there are some wealthy supporters of Israel in the US who have used million-dollar contributions to induce the US to pursue a strongly biased policy favoring Israel and hurting the Palestinians.

But many American Jews, while strongly in favor of Israel's right to exist, do not support Sharon/Likud aggression. Plus, some of the strongest Likud supporters are not Jewish (e.g., Conrad Black) and some of the strongest critics of Sharon are Jewish. Why blame 6 million Jews for the actions of a small, arrogant clique?

Plus much of the misery inflicted on the Islamic World by the US Government has NOT been driven by the supporters of Israel.

The US installed a dictator in Indonesia in the 1960s and gave him a hit list of 100,000 people to kill. That dictator stole everything not nailed down and put the people of Indonesia into a deep poverty that will require generations to remove. But the US government did that as part of the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union, not as part of any "Zionist plot".

Similarly, the US supported Marcos in the Phillipines -- stood by while he also stole everything not nailed down and bankrupted the country. But again, neither the Jews nor Israel had anything to do with that --Subic Bay was one of the major Naval bases offshore from the Asian mainland that we needed to contain China and Russia. But then CIA also rigged the Australian Prime Minister election in the 1970s so that the US could keep the Alice Springs satellite
center. No discrimination against Islam there --we fucked everybody.

The Iranian Muslims have a right to anger at the US for overthrowing Mossadagh in the 1950s and installing a puppet Shah whose Savak tortured and murdered. But again, that CIA coup was driven by the oil companies and by the Cold War with Russia, not by any Jewish influence.

The oil dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc were installed by the US to ensure the flow of cheap oil --but again, the drivers were the oil companies and the Cold War.

Today, the US is trying to gain control of Muslim countries around the huge Caspian Sea oil deposits. But that is driven by Houston, not by Israel.

As I've noted , the recent US conquest of Iraq was partially driven by the threat Hussein posed to Israel. But the US is not giving Iraq's oil to Israel -- and the last time I checked, the Houston oil boys were not overwhelmingly Jewish or Zionists. The neocons have merely rigged an alliance between some wealthy supporters of Israel and the oil /defense interests. The intent to destroy the Democratic Party by luring away it's major financiers --to ensure the continued dominance of the Republicans --is driven by lots of interests not remotely connected to Israel or to American Jews.

It seems stupid for the Muslims to be diverted away from their real oppressors by a jihad against the Jews.

Note: To answer Gregory's question above re Mahathi's statement that Jews are becoming arrogant and that they are using others to fight for them, I think Mahathi was referring to supporters of Israel influencing Bush to remove Hussein and to threaten Syria.

"I find it interesting that a lot of people are more driven to criticize Daniel Drenzer for noting PM Mahathir Mohammad's remarks and the reaction they received than they are to criticize the remarks themselves."

Edward Said is greatly responsible for this peculiar attitude among liberals. The latter feel that it is somewhat yucky, if not even immoral, for Western intellectuals to seriously take to task Muslim misbehavior. They cannot overcome their politically correct instincts. The West is always in the wrong, and the inhabitants of the Third World are mere victims of alleged capitalist imperialism.

For whatever it's worth, my problem with this whole Islam debate is that it rarely takes the time to differentiate between the religion and the socio-political profile of the people being identified as the source of a bad trend.

So is it the religion that is the problem here, or simply the people using the religion to fit their socio-political purposes? I would argue that the religious element is simply a gargantuan red herring in this debate. In fact, it's working both ways when "Muslims" use the "Jews" as a lightning rod for all of their troubles. It's merely a cheap and simplistic way of pointing out the opposing team, when the factors of opposition have very little to do with religion, and are instead grounded in historical, economic and cultural power struggles. In other words, purely man made manifestations of interest. Meanwhile the "religous struggle" is just a very useful tool of control, and moreover it's a terminal argument, a perfect combination for those who seek to use it.

In short, while I think it's useful for us to have these discussions, my hope is that it leads to continued acknowledgement that we shouldn't sink to the level of debate on the terms of the religious demagogues, of whatever stripe. If we fall into the trap of categorizing the "Muslims" as this or that, we have already lost the battle.

Compare and contrast Mahathir's full remarks with those of US General William Boykin's. Excerpts from
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031016/pl_afp/us_iraq_general_031016172420

***************
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended a US general who portrayed the war on terrorism in talks to church groups as a spiritual battle by Christianity against Satan.

The religiously charged remarks by Lieutenant General William Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, appeared to run counter to the US administration's longstanding insistence that the war on terrorism is not directed against Islam.

......

After displaying slides of Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, the Times said the general asked, "Why do they hate us?"

"The answer to that is because we're a Christian nation. We are hated because we are a nation of believers," he said, according to the Times.

An evangelical Christian, Boykin has appeared in uniform while delivering his message of a religious war to church groups, the Times said a month-long investigation found.

He was quoted as telling an Oregon congregation that President George W. Bush (news - web sites) was not elected by a majority of the voters: "He was appointed by God," he said.

In June 2002, he spoke to the congregation at the First Baptist Church of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, showing them a photograph he said he had taken of Mogadishu soon after the raid that contained a strange dark mark, the Times said.

"Ladies and gentleman, this is your enemy," Boykin said. "It is the principalities of darkness. It is a demonic presence in that city that God revealed to me as the enemy."

In a speech at a Daytona, Florida church in January, Boykin recalled how a top lieutenant of Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid had laughed on CNN after a raid by Delta Force commandos had missed by a few seconds, saying they would never get him because Allah would protect him.

"Well, you know what?" Boykin was quoted as saying. "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." He said the Aidid lieutenant was later captured.

The Times said his public remarks also include statements that Muslims who engage in terrorism are not representative of Islam, echoing the administration's position.

I agree with Waffle about religion being a red herring --used to manipulate people in order to serve other agendas.

There is something hilarious about the idea of "global domination by a hidden Jewish conspiracy". If that was so, anyone could join that conspiracy and gain great power/wealth merely by learning some Hebrew and having some foreskin clipped off.

If Arafat had two brain cells to rub together, he would have all the Palestinians convert to Orthodox Judism so that he could show up on Sharon's doorstep with 4 million new Jews possessing an aggregate net worth of 6 dollars and demanding the right of return plus help with settlement costs. Oy vey!!

I coulda been a rabbi.

This is another demonstration of the importance of separation of church & state. The very concept of a conference of Islamic countries runs contrary to western thought.

The achievements of the scientists and mathematicians in the golden age of islam were made in spite of islam. Advancements were due to assimilation & spread of greek, roman and persian knowledge throughout the muslim world.

The islamic world must move toward greater secularization. Until that is done, expect more victimization speeches by PM Mohatir Mohammed and his ilk.

@ David Thomson
Edward Said is greatly responsible for this peculiar attitude among liberals. The latter feel that it is somewhat yucky, if not even immoral, for Western intellectuals to seriously take to task Muslim misbehavior. They cannot overcome their politically correct instincts.
while I realise the partisan benefits, especially as far as cognitive dissonance is concerned, of considering one's opponents in a debate as misguided and delusional, I would nonetheless like to ask you, to kindly stop invading the privacy of fellow posters by mind-reading them. At least for the purpose of this discussion.

There was, in 13th century Mexico, a courageous and moderate leader. He was a true modernizer who defied the traditions of the Aztec clergy according to which the prisoners sacrificed on the top of the piramids had to be eaten raw, immediately. The king told them that those habits were wicked and unhealthy. After his triumph, everything changed in Tenochtitlan: no more prisoners were ever eaten without first being cooked.

Drezner, your article sheds more heat than light. What you are saying is just a reflection of the larger problem.

The "State of Islam 2003" (or whatever it is in Moslem years) is not determined by the Prime Minister of Malaysia. There is a struggle within Islam: the militant kind versus the kind that wants to join the rest of the world. Mathatir is not the "best moderate Islam has to offer." Quite frankly, I'm shocked that you, Drezner, would say such an asinine thing. Are you familiar with the Nobel Peace Prize? Shirin Ebadi? Have you heard of Muqtedar Khan? Have you heard of a country called Turkey? You know, the one that has alliances with Israel?

There are plenty of Muslim voices that are truly moderate, not falsely moderate like the nutjob Mutathir. Wake up, look around you, and smell the conflict within Islam.

You, Drezner, should apologize to all of the truly moderate Muslims around the world who daily struggle against militant Islam.

It is wrong for an anti-Semite to lump all Jews together. It is also wrong for someone to lump all Muslims together.

I agree with the Waffle as well, in that it appears to me this is much more about using religion as a means of cultural and social control -- as most (all perhaps) religions have done for ages.

Yes, Islam should stop blaming eveyone else -- but I'd wager if you went and talked with most ordinary citizens in Islamic countries, in private, they'd wholeheartedly go on and on about how their gov't screws them and does not help them, and it's got nothing to do with the Jews or anyone else. These are the ones smart enough to know to keep quiet or they'll vanish. Those uneducated who don't quite see this are more than happy to swallow the "blame the Jews" vitriol, which gov'ts looking to maintain their power and control repeat over and over like an opiate (sorry :-).

So it's a bitch of a situation - I optimistically (rare for me) hope that the earlier post of unintended consequences works out -- that greater prosperity in Islamic countries will weaken the hold of fundamentalist ideas, and give the majority of the people who don't believe this nonsense the power to get rid of the aging fascists running their states under the banner of Islam.

I can compare and contrast Gen. Boykin's remarks and PM Mahathir's speech: Boykin is an American hero who happens to be ardently religious, and was sharing remarks not intended for public distribution to fellow believers. He does not make US policy. He merely implements it within a narrow if critical arena. The LA TIMES brought a tape recorder to a private prayer meeting, and now is trying to destroy him and to associate the war on terror with what they impute to him - and will receive the help of Truthout-imbibing nincompoops who will no doubt be recycling his remarks for years to come as evidence that the worse-than-the-Nazis Halliburton-Evangelical-Jewish-NeoCon conspiracy intends to bring about Armageddon though only after first stealing a whole lot of American tax dollars and Middle Eastern oil.

Mahathir is possibly a Malaysian hero (I wouldn't venture an opinion) who happens to be a public figure, and gave his speech to a world audience. He happened to demonstrate just how twistedly simplistic and potentially dangerous certain widely held views in the Islamic world today happen to be. Because it's hardly the first time Mahathir has expressed himself along such lines, and because his views are actually rather tame compared to what passes for everyday (esp. Friday) discourse in the countries represented in his audience, the speech will in all likelihood be largely forgotten.

If Boykin were a Muslim explaining how he considered action against the radical apostates defaming his religion to be his own jihad, and marked up his speech with Islamic phrases and references, he'd just be a good, kind of interesting American fully entitled to his own religious views. If Mahathir were president of the US, or leader of any EU country, or of Israel, and gave an ignorant and paranoid speech explaining how he and his allies could best join together to fight Islam and Islamic influence in the world, he'd be ruined, not applauded.

I applaud Arash for his humane sentiments. I hope his point of view becomes widespread among his co-religionists. I fear, though, that if he were to express his ideas too publicly in a Muslim country he could find himself in serious trouble. I would like to be wrong about this, but I don't think I am.

Also, the lessons of the Holocaust are valuable only in a context where Holocaust denial lacks intellectual currency. Sadly, much of the Muslim world is happy to both deny the Holocaust and blame it on the Jews at the same time. Consistency is not necessarily an Islamic value.

As to erp's notion that wealth and development will moderate Islam's bloodier tendencies, we can always hope that's right. Hope may at last triumph over experience. Our experience is that we were attacked by 15 Saudis with no apparent lack of money, led by a well to do Egyptian with a master's degree from a German university. These were people with the wherewithal to travel all over the Western world. Familiarity did nothing to ameliorate their contempt or viciousness.

Would Muslims still have it in for Isreal if the Palestine was a happy independent state? I'm betting no.....

"Might the Iberians have picked up a flavor of Islam during all those centuries of living under their Islamic rulers? Could there be a link between the rather cruel Spanish and Portuguese form of Christianity and their experiences with Islam?"

Right. It's all the Muslim's fault when Christians do something bad. Sheesh.

Dan, your selective quoting is extremely misleading. He's not friendly to Jews and has all sorts of crazy theories, but he's not calling for Jewish extermination like you're implying. I also see nowhere he advocates eliminating the Isreali state.

Adding to AWH's post, an issue that seems pretty low profile (in the US at least) is all the turbulence going on in Pakistan between the govt and a range of Islamic groups, from militant ones to moderate ones.

While this may of course be due to personal or other smaller scope issues, many accounts attribute it to a larger struggle between Islam looking back or forward. Bernard-Henri Lévy's researched a book on Daniel Pearl, which I've not read, but listened to an interview with him and his descriptions of what's going on in Pakistan were pretty disturbing. Yes he's French for any knee-jerkers, but he adamantlly stated no problem with the US -- except for our calling Musharref a "big help" or similar.

Basically, I get the impression there's some serious sh_t going on in Pakistan -- that being "showdowns" between extremists and progressive Islamists -- which is a large reason we're dumping so much money into the country when we were already pissed at them for going nuclear (yes we want to get Al-Queda in Afghanistan, but I think it goes deeper and farther). I bet this is a time/place lots of CIA activity stories will emerge from in the future.

An Observer:
> One man gave this speech. The people in that
> room cheered him on. That's the sum of what
> this represents. It's disgusting and
> discouraging to believe that what Islam means
> to some/many/most? muslims, but it's dumb to
> believe it applies to all.

Wow. Way to decontextualize. So, we are to think that the folks in that room, applauding, aren't in some way connected to the broader political, cultural, and religious context of the countries from which they come.

As far as I read, no one claimed this speech represented *all* Muslims (nice attempt at a straw man, though). However, if we can't take this speech, and the reactions to it, as providing significant insight into modern Islam, what *can* we thus take?

The vanity inherent in every religious adherent - that only they possess "true knowledge" and that only they are the "chosen" people - will always leave us at risk of another 9-11 or another genocide.

As long as people continue to advocate the irrational over the rational, there will always be war and there will never be any "Peace on Earth" until everyone is dead.

The only hope is that we may outgrow religion and move towards a higher morality - based on reason - before it is too late.

" So, we are to think that the folks in that room, applauding, aren't in some way connected to the broader political, cultural, and religious context of the countries from which they come."

I don't think anyone was implying they had *no* connection, rather that as heads of (many of them) repressive governments with large populations of poor and uneducated, they are the loud mouthpieces trying to maintain the status quo -- with little incentive to modernize and empower their citizens. So of course they are connected - they are the problem in most cases, but the points mentioned are that just because they are the leaders of these countries doesn't mean they accurately reflect the views of a majority of Muslims.

Granted, this is a problem and *is* a "significant insight into modern Islam", but that's not to say it's shared by every Muslim person because these people say it. It is indeed a focal point of the friction of Islamic society and the West IMHO.

Again, that's why I think we are dumping cash on Mushareff in Pakistan, because there's much worse groups there than him who'd love to kill him and take over - with nukes. He is an example of what happens when you [a leader of an Islamic country, one of those conference-goers] criticizes in some way strict interpretations of Islam -- the militants go after your head. They are an unfortunate loud, violent minority. And I think trying to coerce the leaders of these countries with whatever financial arm-twisting we can muster is in the long run a more effective, and probably much cheaper path to take. (I hope at least).

Unfortunately, joseph, most americans disagree with you. Our president invokes biblical phraseology to justify going to war and very little is heard from the american press.

PM Mohathir Mohammed based his speech on the Koran. President Bush and General Boykin on the Bible. Frankly, the difference between them is only a matter of degree and not of substance.

The true "demon" in all of this discussion is faith and its "evil" manifestation religion.

Get rid of religion and we're half way to solving our problems.

I know my point of view must sound very odd, but here goes:

I'm Jewish but I'm terribly disturbed by some of the conduct of the Israelis. I know their situation is horribly difficult, but I think the central problem is that Israel is a religiously-defined state -- and in the long term that simply doesn't work. Here in the US we are still facing that very same problem when we wrestle with "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Here is part of Mahathir's speech that isn't being widely quoted:

"We also know that not all non-Muslims are against us. Some are well disposed towards us. Some even see our enemies as their enemies. Even among the Jews there are many who do not approve of what the Israelis are doing."

I happen to be one of those Jews, even though I strongly sympathize with the Israeli predicament. And somehow this speech seems more like a recounting of reality than a truly anti-semitic document. My sense is that Mahathir is trying to urge his fellow Muslims to act more carefully, rationally, wisely. Yes, he is using some language of polarization and hatred, but that is the current context.

If I were a diplomat, my inclination would be to work with this man.

Of course, I could be very wrong, very naive, but I just felt I should register my reaction.

Ralph

I'll lay odds that Tony has never actually read the Koran. It is not the moral equivalent of the Bible.

Jesus never lopped off anyone's head, declared holy war as a religious obligation, slept with a nine year old, reneged on a treaty, ordered the death penalty for fornication, ordered women to stay at home, nor took slaves as booty. The list goes on and on.

Look through the Koran. Find the verse equivalent to "love thy neighbor as thyself" or "turn the other cheek". "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" never made it into Islam.

The problem isn't faith. Gandhi had faith. It is what one has faith in. If you believe you have a complete Divine Revelation to which no real knowledge can be added, you have a recipe for sanctified ignorance and a fanatical devotion to backwardness. That's an enormous problem, and must be the focus of the coming Islamic Reformation. Either that or we will endure a new Dark Age. The West may influence the debate, but this is something that will ultimately be resolved by Muslims. Or not.

“I'm Jewish but I'm terribly disturbed by some of the conduct of the Israelis.”

You listen to too much radical leftist and ultra-right wing propaganda. I’m non-Jewish and you can immediately cease feeling guilty about the Palestinians. These people are the quintessential example of self pitying racists who are suffering primarily from their own self inflicted wounds. The Jews are mostly benevolent and just---and the Palestinians are cruel and despicable. It’s as simple as that. The Edward Saids have done much to encourage these people to wallow in their feelings of victimization. You should immediately obtain a copy of Alan Dershowitz’s new book, “The Case for Israel.” He deals with the false accusations thrown at the Israelis in a thorough and honest manner.

"@ David Thomson
'Edward Said is greatly responsible for this peculiar attitude among liberals. The latter feel that it is somewhat yucky, if not even immoral, for Western intellectuals to seriously take to task Muslim misbehavior. They cannot overcome their politically correct instincts.'

while I realise the partisan benefits, especially as far as cognitive dissonance is concerned, of considering one's opponents in a debate as misguided and delusional, I would nonetheless like to ask you, to kindly stop invading the privacy of fellow posters by mind-reading them. At least for the purpose of this discussion."

Sigh, I am willing to change one sentence of my previous post. How does this sound?:

“Edward Said is greatly responsible for this peculiar attitude among many, if not most liberals.”

Am I engaging in “mind-reading?” Nope, not in the least bit. The evidence for my position is readily found in the writings and public utterances of the leftist intellectual crowd. Edward Said was their knight in shining armor. They worshipped the ground he walked on.

This article in the Washington Post concerning Arab-Americans booing Senator Joseph Lieberman is an eye opener:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43374-2003Oct17.html

The Arab-American community in the United States indulges in self pity and childish whining. Regretfully, both the Republicans and the Democrats often encourage this immature behavior. This can no longer be tolerated.

Sorry to come into this so late, but I have been off-line traveling.

I have lived in the Middle East. In every day life, particularly at the family level, there is much laudable in Islamic life. Heavy emphasis on family, children, love and the responsibilities of the individual to preserving these values.

It is indeed unfortunate that these exact same strengths can be so twisted into horrible weakness and intolerance. In day-to-day Muslim life, personal and familial interaction and benefit with and from other social units is not advanced in prime consideration of what is fair (a prime Western precept in interaction), but is performed first from a strong sense of duty and obligation. The most extreme actions can be conceived and executed - one man to another, one family to another, one tribe to another, one nation to another, one religion to another – without overriding consideration of the justness or fairness of the act, driven on by the obligation owed to the social unit.

I have many Arab friends and acquaintances and it pains me deeply to express the following view, yet intellectually I cannot avoid the conclusion that the religious and cultural basis of Islam is so at odds to the mainstream social developmental goals of the growing global Western meme that a policy of coexistence is not possible. It is not a Crusade - a Crusade is a Christian religious vehicle as abhorrent to today’s Western cultural precepts as Jihad stands today. This is not about religion. Modern western culture has developed away from the predominance of religion in our day-to-day societal life (while still prevalent a personal level, by choice; I said at a societal level – how many schools start the day with a prayer?).

But when considering the Western clashes with Islam there is no doubt that we are experiencing the first skirmishes of a large battle to come. It is a battle of Memes in the extreme. The reality is that there is as little room in the current modern Western meme for fundamental Islamic tenets as there is in Islam for those of the West. The advantage to date is that the Islamic leaders recognize this and are fighting back by closing and regulating their societies against Western influence (an insidious meme we do share, with Islamic success in direct proportion to the degree of Western interaction. Watch KSA the next 10 years. The discrepancy there is widening and the rulers are very aware of the knife-edge on which they walk).

If the West is to be successful in its dealing with Islam it must recognize the nature of the cultural clashes and its actions must be strategic and follow a uniform policy for promoting and fostering Western values into the Islamic culture. Oldman nailed it when he said (paraphrasing, I hope!) that our ideals of democracy et al. come from a cultural perspective and until our actions construct those same cultural foundations in the societies to which the West valiantly brings “Democracy” we will fail every time. The current Western meme arose out of the ashes of our own Middle Ages and is the product of over 600 years of social and political evolution, which never really reached ubiquity of conscious thought and action (some can argue action is still yet to be fully realized) until the Civil Rights movements of the ‘60’s. Consider that and contemplate the real depths of the division between the West and Islam.

Mahathir was not wrong on all points – this really is a cultural war and the winner is going to be those whose actions follow from thoughtful, purposeful planning.

A Quick Comparative Religion Course:

CHRISTIANITY :
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

ISLAM :
"No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself."

JUDAISM :
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the law: all the rest is commentary."

------

CHRISTIANITY :
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

ISLAM :
"Happy is the person who finds fault with himself instead of finding fault with others."

JUDAISM :
"Do not judge thy comrade until thou hast stood in his place."

------

CHRISTIANITY :
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

ISLAM :
"The good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel the evil deed with one which is better, then lo!, he between whom and you there was enmity shall become as though he were a bosom friend."

JUDAISM :
"God said, 'Resemble Me; just as I repay good for evil so do you also repay good for evil'."

-------

Although this "ethics of reciprocity" is the prime directive of each of these religions - and in theory, if everyone just acted liked they preached, there shouldn't be a problem between them - the vanity that only they are right leads to an arrogance that gives excuse to beat others over the head with their idea of God.

@David Thomson:
that's exactly what I did _not_ mean. My beef is with
The latter feel that it is somewhat yucky, if not even immoral, ... to seriously take to task Muslim misbehavior. They cannot overcome their politically correct instincts.'
which, by and large, paints those you disagree with as out of touch with reality. Imagine I had said "The latter [conservatives] feel that it is somewhat yucky, if not even immoral, ... to seriously take to task Israel's misbehavior. They cannot overcome their pro-Israel instincts.'". Now, I wouldn't say that, as I in fact think it is wrong, but I don't doubt I could make the case, e.g. by pointing to LGF. I don't believe in my fictional sentence, because I assume, that what appears as blindness to me is in fact a legitimate perception of reality. Of course, not all perceptions of reality are legitimate. Mahathir's is not. But you were talking about liberals who criticised Dan's post. And with all due respect, besides being wrong on the generalisation, the assertions that your opponents are out of step with reality is both wrong and won't help the discussion, in fact it is more likely to end it.
AFAIK, no one questioned the anti-Semitism in Mahathir's speech. People were disagreeing when it comes to interpretation and conclusions from the speech, and some, including me, pointed out the good parts. Painting that as misguided/out of touch with reality, without offering substantial evidence why this view is not legitimate, and why it is wrong to criticise Dan for focussing on the negative part (again, which no-one denies) may provide comfort to you, but it is neither an intelligent nor a helpful contribution to the debate IMO.

Finally, your response ...the leftist intellectual crowd. Edward Said was their knight in shining armor. They worshipped the ground he walked on. moves from "liberals" to the "leftist intellectual crowd", and while I think I see where you're coming from here, I must insist these groups are not identical. I'm aware of the faults of the "armchair liberals", as I like to call them, though even for this subgroup of liberals, I would insist that not that many of them uncritically swallowed Said's arguments. AFAIK the recent obituaries were mostly of the "so-so" variety, pointing out is errors and strengths. Consider the Guardian and Mother Jones. Ironically, while googling I've also find a decent amount of vilification of Said, some commentaries going so far as to compare him to Eichman. Regardless, you have yet to show the claimed universal uncritical acceptance, and -more to the point- how Said's work as any causal bearing on the -so far also unsubstantiated, hence the quotes- "inability" of (most) liberals t