A Muslim View on Esmay Challenging Malkin and Rightosphere
Update: Dean writes an open letter to Malkin. Also see Isis (my friend from Coulter Chat).
Dean Esmay is one the top 30 political bloggers. He is a self-proclaimed hawk. He has now challenged members of the right blogosphere to recognize that stereotyping of Muslims is wrong. Please read his post:
This very statement–that Islam is incompatible with democracy–is why I fight so hard with many of my friends on the Right: accepting that statement means we have to declare war on the entire Muslim world if we’re to hope for human freedom to survive.
To me it would be akin to, in World War II, declaring ourselves at war with “Germanic People,” “Latin People,” and “Southeast Asians.” Not Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy and Tojo’s Japan. No, we would have declared that we were at war with anyone of Germanic or Latin descent, and anyone who happened to be short, yellow, and slant-eyed (to put it rudely and crassly).
There are some on the Right who believe this. But I think they’re badly hurting our efforts. I think such people on the Right are hurting the war effort and not helping it.
I suppose such anti-Islam statements must add some moral clarity: oh, Muslims are the enemy. So let’s just fight the Muslims. But that means you want to fight well over a billion people found in over 100 countries around the globe. Including people in America’s armed forces who are serving with honor and distinction right now. Including many countries which have done great work in helping us round up and/or kill terrorists. Including many people who have died under the U.S. flag to defend freedom.
This is exactly what nutjobs like Osama Bin Laden, as well as the Ayatollah Khamenei and Ahmadinutjob in Iran, also believe. They want every Muslim to be arrayed against us. And sadly, some Americans on the Right seem to want that too.
I will note again, as I often have, that during World War II there were Filipinos who were ethnically Japanese and who spoke Japanese, but who allied with us against the Japanese Empire. Fought and in some cases died alongside our boys in the South Pacific. Some of them were even United States citizens, and served invaluable roles as translators and in propaganda efforts (and “propaganda” is not a necessarily a dirty word by the way).
Furthemore the Chinese, as much as they “looked Japanese” to American eyes, were also welcome allies against Tojo’s Japan.
I think that many of America’s rightists–including, sadly, Michelle Malkin–have done a piss-poor job of making such vital distinctions. Indeed, I would like to publicly challenge Michelle Malkin: you’ve said you’ve stopped using terms like “Islamo-fascist” and “Islamic radicals” because they don’t make sense. Oh really? Then how is it, Michelle, that you guys at Hot Air and Michellemalkin.com still approvingly highlight statements by America’s Iraqi and Afghan allies, like Hamid Karzai and Nouri al-Maliki? They are Muslims. Born and bred Muslims. They’re Muslims right now. They will almost certainly die Muslim. So why do you treat them like enemies and liars?
I’m making an open appeal to your conscience, Michelle Malkin, and to the conscience of conservatives everywhere: shouldn’t you start making a distinction between Muslims who hate us and want to kill us, and Muslims who believe in freedom, democracy, and religious tolerance?
This is a debate that the rightosphere needed to have. It’s obvious which side I stand on. What’s notable is that this divide is something that the right itself will have to resolve, even as it simultaneously reveals that the ‘right’ is not just one monolithic entity. Dean should be aware that he is not alone in holding his position and when Malkin dismisses him for “dhimmitude” she is also attacking other reputable right bloggers like The Anchoress when she said:
that the press and powers-that-be are - by their reactions - fomenting distrust and prejudice toward moderate and peaceful Muslims much moreso than are these violent acts by Islamic Fundies.
as well as Maxed Out Mama when she wrote this.
I do believe that there are times when Malkin has discussed Muslims in a positive light. She even linked to my piece on British Muslims. However, I don’t believe its Dean’s point that discussing some Muslims positively is enough. I think what he is suggesting that someone of authority in the rightosphere should say to the thousand of small time bloggers and right wingers who have no compunction in demonizing all Muslims that this kind of behavior is wrong (wrong pragmatically; wrong in relation to the Enlightenment; wrong morally). I think Dean’s question is that while Malkin’s conscience might be clear, will she say something to those who do insult and degrade all Muslims? Will she say, “don’t do that”? Maybe (and perhaps this is wishful thinking on my part), Dean is asking Michelle to say something about the kind of prejudice that I encountered at the Ann Coulter Chat Forum. Or to say something to those who made these kinds of comments to me:
I continue to argue for the retention of this shit-weasel for the reason that he has a right to be here on an equal basis, given that he’s invited in the first place, and that though he violates every common decency at seemingly every chance it’s good that he continue to do so openly so we and others can witness just what a piece of shit he is.
He’s not asking that anyone apologize to me or other Muslims (I frankly don’t believe in apologies), but that someone of authority should say to such non-Muslims that talking to Muslims like this is problematic.
Needless to say, today Dean should be proud of his ‘liberal’ credentials.
I really dislike this whole kook right vs moderate right nonesense when it comes to discussing Muslims. Neither has any moral high ground to stand on. The Left doesn’t either, by the way, for both miss the point of Islam. That’s right, Islam, not Muslims. There are rougly 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, in every country and with about 100 hundred different cultures, languages, and
agendas. Almost all of them want to live in peace with civil rights that guarentee they can say or read or worship or think what they like, and won’t be dragged away to prison at 3:00am because of it. Unfortunately, many of them can’t. they live in countries whose dictators or princes or emirs or sultans don’t like to share power with free speech or free thought.
This is not a war of civilizations or a war for civilization. Nor is it a war of religious vs secular societies. They can both exist happily in a democratic country.
And that is the key word - Democratic. Everyone in power hates the very notion of democracy. That includes the US Congress and the Bush Neocon fatheads. They hate the fact that they can’t do what they want and have to be held accountable to the people, the press, the voters, and now the 24 hours pundits and bloggers and everyone with 2 cents to add. They hate that more than anything, the way a bullying father hates to be talked back to by his kids. And their reaction is much the same.
Screw em. See you on the barricades!
If the ‘Bush Neocon fatheads’ hated being held account as much as you claim, why haven’t they cancelled elections?
And you want to go to the barricades - what, to make sure you have the right to free speech?
Ooops, you said that on a blog.
Never mind.
Dear Ali: Interestingly enough, ACOC is in the midst of another battle on this subject again (and I find myslef being the voice of reason once more).
****
The thread de jour is entitled “I’ve crossed that line… Islam must be destroyed”.
In it, the ACOC member writes:
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:02 am
I’ve been saying for a while that Islam must either be reformed or destroyed.
I’ve just crossed a line while listening to author Brigit Gabriel talk about her experiences.
Islam must be destroyed. If the so-called Easter Bunny Moderate Muslims manage to take back their supposedly hijacked religion, then I will reconsider. maybe.
but we can no longer WAIT for that to happen. in fact, I begin to wonder if our tolerence isn’t part of why and how Muslims are able to ignore the evil abomination that they are. they won’t see the truth until we hold a mirror up in front of them and force them to look.
until the day that they actually change, and can prove it, I support the destruction of Islam…
****
Esmay is right to hone Malkin on this point. As a well-read member of the right, I find that the members of the Rightosphere are too quick to lump all Muslims into one big group. Interestingly, Conservatives will complain when they are negatively classified too!
My reponse to the member included this point: I am tired of the claims that Republicans are evil by people who get their only information on my political party on websites such as this:
http://www.evilgopbastards.com/
I am not evil. I just have a different view. Demonizing an entire group of people based on limited information is not helpful.
Keith Oberlmann from MSNBC on Clinton, the Truth and a textbook coward named Bush.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/
Interesting to see mainstream media getting aggressive on this debate.
I Will Be Responding To Michelle & Co. Soon
I had hoped that my posting would start a worthwhile dialogue. I will respond probably tomorrow. But in the meantime I thought I’d point to
I just posted Dean’s column on ACOC. That should be entertaining. I will updated with any worthwhile development.
Mutnojmet: Could you provide a link to that Islamophobic nutjob’s statement? If possible? Thanks.
And, uh, what is ACOC?
Ann Coulter Official Chat Forum
Where I had a short lived welcome.
http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/08/12/muslim-experience-at-ann-coulter-chat-forum/
Leading Islamic Scholar disputes Ismay:
“The common form of democracy prevalent at the moment is representative democracy, in which the citizens do not exercise their right of legislating and issuing political decrees in person, but rather through representatives chosen by them. The constitution of a democratic country will be largely influenced by the needs and wants of its people. Thus, if its people want casinos, bars, gay marriages, prostitution, etc. then with sufficient public pressure, all these vices can be accommodated for. From this, it becomes simple to understand that there can never be scope for a democratic rule from the Islamic point of view.”
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
If you are a Muslim, and you believe in Democracy, then you are not a good Muslim (according to leading Islamic scholars.)
Sorry Right. Islam is not monolithic.
http://www.islam-democracy.org/
Not to mention that Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan for about 30 of its 60 years, Bengladesh, have had successful experiments with democracy. You also forget that Hamas got elected democratically. Recently Kuwaiti and Bahraini women also got the right to vote. Incidentally there is a Quranic verse — relating to “mutual consultation” — which provides textual support for democracy. Incidentally I have never heard of the Mufti you cited.
That statement by Mufti Desai quoted above shows a muslim who takes a pretty dim view of his co-religionists. The assumption he makes is that his muslim brothers will make a choice for all of the vices he listed if they had freedom. This really underestimates the adherents of his religion as a bunch of children that if given the opportunity will choose vice over virtue. I don’t believe that to be true. I’m glad all muslims don’t feel as that guy does.
Getting to the matter at hand, while I diagree with Dean’s approach, he has certainly raised an interesting issue that hopefully will generate some thoughtful discourse amid the personal vitriol.
[...] MORE from: Pink Flamingo Bar and Grill, Pundit Review, Empire Builder, Queen of All Evil, The Glittering Eye, Word Around the Net, Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Jihad Watch, One Hand Clapping, Classical Values, Eteraz [...]
I find this whole discussion kind of odd and pointless.
Firstly the war on terrorism isn’t a war on all muslims despite the rhetoric of “islamofascism” etc.The US would actually gain nothing by being at war with all muslims.What lingo Coulter and other assorted degenerates choose to use has no relevance to real events.
Secondly I really don’t see where the whole “islam vs democracy” issue comes in.I was under the impression that the problem with al-qaeda is that they’re anti-US terrorists.Couldn’t they in theory believe in some sort of representative government and still be terrorists?
Leading Islamic Scholar disputes Ismay
Who died and made you the Muslim Pope?
Ali,
Sorry, but if the Islamists get their way, Islam WILL BE monolithic.
But, rather than argue that, let’s go back to Ismay’s piece.
Again, the point if Ismay’s rant was this notion that somehow people who believe that Islam and democracy are incompatible are just nutty.
Well, we got that idea from leading Islamic scholars who tell us, with reasoning, that of course there cannot be, from the Islamic point of view, democracy.
Democracy is unIslamic.
Democracy = bars
Democracy = casinos
Democracy = prostitution (yes, it is legal in the United States)
We didn’t may this up. The Muslims are TELLING US that democracy is incompatible with Islam.
democracy doesn’t mean bars, casinos, or prostitution. have u forgotten that our democracy gave us the prohibition? that our democracy for the most part (save vegas and atlantic city) does not allow casinos. and as far as i know, where i live, prostitution is illegal.
so i have no idea what you’re talking about.
i think you’re confusing democracy with western morality (or a-morality if you ask most of the evangelical leaders). you can have a restrictive democracy. look up fareed zakaria’s work “illiberal democracy.”
thanks.
Sorry, but if the Islamists get their way, Islam WILL BE monolithic.
Like in Turkey?
I’m still waiting for an explanation of what argueing that al-qaeda doesn’t represent all muslims has to do with “islam vs democarcy”.
Oman is a country that has fairly good relations with west and no problem of islamist terrorism but as far as I know is a conservative absolute monarchy.
Actually I think if you read my original piece there was no ranting. (Not the comments, where I cut loose on an Islamophobic troll who’s been infesting my blog for the last week, just the original piece).
By the way, my name is “Esmay” not “Ismay.”
I’m believe that Islam and democracy can surely be compatible but I feel compelled to point out that, contrary to a previous comment, democracy has far from thrived in Pakistan. Have they ever had consecutive democratic elections?
Islam and democracy can surely coexist in a theoretical world. The problem is that the number and ferocity of fanatics may hinder the realization of this goal.
DEAN!!!!!!
You have me a heart attack. I thought you were initially attibuting that statment to me! Shock and horror. However, I see that you are not.
The quote comes for the chat room, so a link is not possible. Link to my blog, where I have placed the quote into my essay: I AM NOT EVIL (and Neither are Most Muslims) — about the similarities between Republicans and Humanist Muslims.
http://mutnodjmetsmusings.blogspot.com/
I have to chime in, nut there are two different definitions of democracy being thrown around here. Pure democracy is compatable with Islam, in countries where there is a Muslim majority. Problems arise in a Republic such as ours where minority rights are granted to groups regardless of majority opinion.
In other words, the incompatibility I beleive MM and others are speaking of is the same incompatibility with Pat Robertson’s flock, that their desire to live in a theocracy (like the Christianized Communism Robertson espouses) is unattainable by “democratic” means. The constitution prohibits activities that some, maybe even a majority in some places, Muslims would want to participate in like slavery.
Because no matter how many votes a pro-slavery initiative on the ballot it could never be passed.
The slavery example may seem heavy handed, nut there was a man arrested just recently for having a slave in CO, his defense was that it was “tradition”
“Have they ever had consecutive democratic elections?”
Yes. They had three straight in the 90’s. Interestingly, even with Musharraf, local elections have occurred, and they are manifestly fair. In fact, one of the critiques about Musharraf arising out of the Women’s Protection Bill, has been that he defers to much to the legislature (in that he is not dictatorial enough).
Democracy is not a panacea or a cure-all. The focus has to be on constitutionalism and rule of law.
Someone please tell that to the Bush worshippers.
have u forgotten that our democracy gave us the prohibition? that our democracy for the most part (save vegas and atlantic city) does not allow casinos.
Have you forgotten Abromoff and how democracy can be bought and sold to place Indian casinos on or off whatever passes for a reservation in this country.
California will probably take in more gambling money than Las Vegas soon. Which is why Las Vegas is going with shows, food and swank to cover their Indian gaming losses.
“people who believe that Islam and democracy are incompatible are just nutty.”
I’ll go one step farther, people who believe that democracy, civil and human rights aren’t the innate right of every human and compatible with all of humanity are wrong and bigotted. I say this as a Bush-voter and Republican.
To look at any one small slice of human history and come to the conclusion that a certain group of people or a certain religion is incompatible with the innate rights that most humans yearn for and all humans are born with is silly. A few hundred years ago many Christian countries were struggling with human rights and democratic values. How idiotic it would have been to conclude at that time that Christianity is incompatible with democracy!
A more accurate thing to say would be that theocracies are incompatible with democracy. Islamic theocracies, just as theocracies of all other stripes, supress the necessary freedoms required for a democracy. Democracy was hard fought in the Western world, those of us in the West often seem to forget that. We seem to think that we just snapped our fingers and had democracy and forget that we fought centuries worth of bloody wars before we adopted democratic forms of government. To point to five years of fighting in Iraq, for example, and say “see Islam is incompatible with democracy” is about as ignorant of our own (Western) history as it is of Islam.
Islam and the West.
This is a tough topic to address in the middle of a war but we will have to have it soon. We are fighting in Iraq and Afganistan and we have said that these two battles in the GWOT will end when Iraq and Afganistan are functioning democracies. Dean…
Have you forgotten Abromoff and how democracy can be bought and sold to place Indian casinos on or off whatever passes for a reservation in this country.
Which is REALLY besides the point, BK. Nobody said any democracy was perfect.
All we have to do is get rid of the gavones who insist if you make up laws out of your head, you are not following god’s.
Eliminate religious distinction on that issue…just keep to the idea.
By the way, my name is “Esmay” not “Ismay.”
Seems like RNO was trying to be snide on that score. Islam + Esmay gets you “Ismay”… Cute, but no cigar.
Dean!!!!
I am truly humbled and honored to me linked and featured in your post. Damn, I had to spell check my blog entry again!!! I couldn’t post on your site (I am in the process of registering). So I hope Ali will forgive me posting my note of appreciation here. I put some time into that post, and you made that effort very worthwhile. Thanks tons.
You folks are MISSING THE POINT.
The entire point of Mr. Esmay’s post was that folks like Michelle Malkin are “insensitive” when they claim that Islam is incompatible with democracy.
So, the question becomes: Why does Michelle Malkin claim this.
The answer is: It is Muslim scholars who claim that Islam is incompatible with democracy. I have quoted one; there are THOUSANDS who state it.
In a democracy, we can choose to have (or not have) bars. We can choose to allow legalized prostitution (yes, Ali, sadly in some parts of the United States prostitution is legal). In a democracy, we can choose to have casinos (there are literally THOUSANDS of them scattered in every state Ali, not just Las Vegas and Atlantic City), not to mention state lotteries.
In a democracy, a bank can charge interest, if we decide to allow it.
These things are abominations in Islam, and it is for this reason that Muslim scholars say that Islam is not compatible with a democracy.
It is not Michelle Malkin making this claim, it is the leading Islamic clerics in the world making this claim (there being no Islamic pope to settle the matter.)
Which is REALLY besides the point, BK. Nobody said any democracy was perfect.
I wasn’t really addressing that point, I was addressing that casinos in America only existed in Vegas and Atlantic city, but since you take me to task….
…it is clear the Bush Administration has no fucking clue what the hell they are doing as far as nation building. ( I am sure they know what they are stealing and who they are stealing it from) Democracy is being held up here as compatible/incompatible/panacea for the troubles with Islamic countries.
Cultures are compatible. America works as a diverse representative democracy (reasonably well, Abramoff notwithstanding) because of our unique culture and History.
The Middle East, Iraq for sure, don’t share that history or this culture. Democracy may be very different for them.
Yeah, democracy is supposed to be this perfect solution to the Middle East. That is a bullshit sell point.
And you righties have been slinging it for 5 failed years.
Iraq is more fucked than it has ever been. Great job!
I was addressing that casinos in America only existed in Vegas and Atlantic city, but since you take me to task….
Which was also beside the point.
The Middle East, Iraq for sure, don’t share that history or this culture. Democracy may be very different for them.
Indeed. Democracy mixed with a little religion and the re-defining of what’s moral and what’s not can lead very quickly to a theocracy, as someone upthread pointed out. But as I said earlier, no democracy is ever perfect: you will have multiple groups that have a stake in the governing process with different views of sound regulation saying something at one time or another about the entire process. It’s only when the public is unaware or chooses to remain ignorant of a particular faction’s goals that things can go downhill.
And you righties have been slinging it for 5 failed years.
Uh, a little quick to throw labels there, pal. What makes you think I’m a tried and true righty? And if you weren’t addressing ME in particular, maybe you should’ve said so.
All religions in their extremist morphs are anti-democratic. Extremism is anti-democratic.
We should try, insofar as possible, not to draw overly broad conclusions about groups of people who may have only a fragile thread of ideology or religion in common.
That having been said, it’s not absurd to suspect the Islamic world of harboring more religious lunatics per hundred than the modern, secularized Christian world. Christians, even those who pretend to take their faith literally, generally don’t. And while to my atheist eyes all faiths are equally absurd I think large swathes of Christendom are saved by the fact that they don’t really pay much attention to their nominal faith. (Is there even a functioning church anywhere in Sweden?)
Muslims on average seem to take religion rather more seriously. Believe me if there were a billion Jews or a billion Christians (or heaven help us, a billion scientologists) who took their religion as seriously as Muslims appear to take theirs, I’d be worried about them too.
But right now, at this point in history, it’s Islam that holds the record for people who take the whole God thing waaay too seriously. And that concerns not only me, but most Westerners. And I’m sorry, but given our own cultural experience with religious (and ideological) nuts, we get a little jumpy when we see people who actually do bow five times a day toward Mecca — a practice that, were it western, would by now be reduced to a casual, once-a-day, two-finger salute. Or better yet, a toast.
Obviously no rational person thinks all one billion Muslims are our enemies. (I’m pretty sure the Moroccan kid in my daughter’s kindergarten class doesn’t want me dead.) But we are right to be skeptical of any faith, any ideology, which seems to have such a powerful hold on so many minds. We have a long, unhappy history with true believers.
positive, righteous (1) Shaastra “Mr. Want-All” glutton, greedy, someone who wants it all. (29)
RG
No one is asking if democracies are perfect.
Whether Democracy is a solution for problems in the Middle East and whether the USA has a perfect democracy model to set up is PRECISELY the issue in case you are having trouble following along.
You don’t lead the discussion, but you atleast have to keep up.
Eh?
Hey, My sincere apologies to all those whom I spammed. Wont do it in future. This is the last spam.
Ok two points:
(Washington, D.C.) Today the House of Representatives scheduled a vote on H.R. 2679, the “Public Expression of Religion Act.” The bill would eliminate damages and awards of attorneys’ fees for individuals or groups in successful cases brought to ensure their constitutional rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This bill would limit long-standing remedies available under civil rights law, 42 U.S.C. 1988.
Point two:
Allah guards the justice-loving government, even if it is the government of the infidels, and destroys the tyrant government, even if it is the government of Muslims. [Ibn Taimiyah]
Amen, brother.
I read that piece. Very good stuff.
Thank God. LIterally.
An Open Letter To Michelle Malkin
I am still thinking about how to respond in full to Michelle Malkin’s response to me. This may be my entire response, or I may have more to say later. I haven’t decided …
Whether Democracy is a solution for problems in the Middle East and whether the USA has a perfect democracy model to set up is PRECISELY the issue in case you are having trouble following along.
Please, dude - maybe we’re not using the same terminology, but that’s exactly what I meant if you had read what I said.
I even agreed with you, by the way, and yet I’m not the one keeping up here. Right. Maybe you should take your own advice.
Does anyone miss the days when we were fighting “radical” communism?
Was there ever a “moderate” communism? I can’t find too many references to “we respect the great ideology of communism which has been hijacked by radical Stalinist”
Surely most of the people in the land gulags or mental asylums must have wanted to live in peace and tolerance.
Is it possible that communists as individuals could be wonderful, kind, and decent while communism as an ideology was barbaric, cruel, and prone to never ending “grievances” and scapegoating. (apparently, they weren’t fond of the Jews either) Oh, and the killing of 100 million people.
Yep, I think we may have a good old fashion war of ideas, not people.
Personally, I hope my ideology wins… we has Tivo.
Eteraz, rightnumberone does have a small point. I think he’s wrong when he says Islam is not compatible with democracy and I certainly disagree with that Mufti he quotes.
The real issue is that Islam is incompatible with some of the tenents of secularism. Gay marriages, strip clubs, prostitution etc. are in fact unIslamic.
The only way those things won’t happen is if the majority votes against them but what if the opposite happens? Will the minority allow it based on the fact “there’s no compulsion in religion”?
Is it Islam that makes it unIslamic or Muslims that make it unMuslim?
Sorry for being crude with my points but I don’t think some of the tenents of secularism are Islamic.
In Malaysia prostitution is illegal and there’s only one huge Casino in the whole country but Muslims aren’t allowed to go there.
One thing that I have not seen mentioned here:
Michelle Malkin, though I am sure she IS expressing her views can not relent in any way because she has audience expectations now of being uncompromising, unrelenting and complete hatred of all Muslims.
This is about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Rather than chomp on the hype, polemics and be duped into robotic reactionaries, paranoid right-wingers who see the extermination of Muslims as necessary for their elusive sense of secuity, as well as moderate rights, who retain some sanity and even the left as well as Muslims in the West should stop referring to infotainment as their source of ideas and information. There are real places where sanity does prevail (not Dr. Sanity obviously) and one rarely sees these sources brought to the discussion. Example:
Council on Foreign Relations is a Nonpartisan entity to address just such issues and encourages debate and analysis from extemists like the Neacon/Zionist Loony bin American Enterprise Institute and more moderate organizations.
The Subcommittee on Middle East, House International Relations Committee published policy recommendations on this subject. Their conclusions:
Pursuing democratization, even assuming it was in our power to bring it about, would almost certainly result in the accession of hostile governments in the region. Whether this would defang jihadism is open to question. In any case, the costs would be high.
The U.S. presence in Iraq will seriously impede American efforts to influence hearts and minds. Perhaps this will change if a pluralistic, functioning government takes shape and the level of violence diminishes, but such developments appear unlikely at this time. In the interim, our occupation will reinforce regional images of the U.S. as both excessively violent and ineffectual. These images are going to spur Muslims to attack us, or tacitly approve of those who do.
We can affect perceptions of the U.S., at least on the margin, in several ways. America’s generous response to the tsunami that killed 100,000 people in Indonesia had a sharply positive effect on public opinion there. The key appeared to be the perception that the aid was unconditional. There is a lesson here.
The U.S. can also lower the temperature of anti-Americanism by engaging more energetically in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. The key here would be to do so with a greater public acknowledgement of Palestinian grievances. Surely this would be possible without creating the appearance that Washington was either supporting a terrorist clique in Gaza, or weakening its historic commitment to Israel. Again, action taken now will not instantly disable the jihad, but, over time, it will erode the credibility of the jihadist claim that the West was implacably opposed to the Muslim world.
Finally, the U.S. should engage more actively through diplomacy in local conflicts that jihadists exploit and which would ultimately put the US in the jihadists’ gunsights. A top U.S. intelligence official told me not long ago that when “we get whacked again, the attacker will have an Asian face.” Let me assure the subcommittee that he was not predicting an attack or that an attacker would necessarily be Asian. His point, rather, was that the U.S. was likely to be attacked by someone who was radicalized in the course of a local conflict involving Muslim grievances, a conflict that had been hijacked by jihadists and forced to fit their global agenda. The way to stave off this alternative future is to work with countries such as Thailand and help them see their way toward a meaningful accommodation to Muslims in their midst. This would be an inexpensive investment with a potentially large yield.
Tariqnelson, you’ve got one hell of a point. She’ll be sacrificing a chunk of her traffic…
I was surprised by the un-intellectual comments she made about Dean’s post. She didn’t even bother to answer coz she probably knows shez guilty
She’ll be sacrificing a chunk of her traffic…
Yes, and too many t-shirts to sell. She would be seen by her audience as selling out.
Any reasonable conversation about Muslims or recognition that moderates exist is ‘dhimmitude”
The Muslim view
I wonder why some people view all the Muslims of the world as Jihadists and think that they have to wage an war against all the Muslims in the world. They think the same as the lunatic bin Laden, who waged an war against the West. They should read th…
“Democracy = prostitution”
Given that this is exactly what the fundamentalists think, it’s a wonder they don’t get along better with western conservatives…
the most depressing thing…is how short the memory of the bloverse is. Malkin’s anti DPW position was totally informed by islamophobic reaction. if u look at her posts during the cartoon traumadrama, they are rife with islamohatred, and islamo-ignorance.
she is a stone islam hater.
when dean asked her to consider a muslim co-blogger she instead hooked up with foul jihaadi-logic-regurgitater robert spencer.
Aisha, maybe I should clarify my points @47.
I don’t think true Islam is incompatible with democracy. In fact it’s the opposite. It’s very compatible.
It’s the perception of “Amsterdam” secularism that is and I think this issue needs to be addressed more often.
I think its a waste of time for Esmay to argue with his co-rightists over this. Sounds like two cheeks of the same backside arguing over the precise use of semantics. Malkin is a fucking idiot, that is apparent even to many on the right who enjoy shrill rantings from aging harpies, Esmay on the other hand approaches the subject with more subtlety and intelligence yet is still a part of the same shit hole which supports the illegal war against Iraq. These hypocrites have no interest in democracy whatsoever.
Dont buy into this charade, these people are scum who have the blood of innocents on their hands.
“Democracy = prostitution”
It could, however, be argued that democracy is a form of prostituion.
I absolutely agree. Islam is very compatible with Democracy….right up to the point where it is voted out in favor of an Islamic Republic with the institution of Shar’ia Law.
Democracy is the friend of Islam. As demographics already show in Europe, it is only a matter of time before the new majority Muslim faction democratically abolishes Democracy in favor of Shar’ia…never to return via political means.
If the Islamic scholars, which grant no real rights to non-Muslims, are truly the minority amongst the masses of moderate Mulsims, why is it they gain power instead of losing it to the majority voice of moderate Muslims and moderate Islam?
If moderate Muslims really reject the universal villification of Democracies like the U.S., and truly abhor the use of terror and violence as an end to obtain political gains, where is the public outcry by the majority of “moderate” Muslims against this practice?
Until this takes place, we “infidels” have no choice but to assume it is Jihad as usual, misrepresented by Muslims as something else which, by the way, is permitted and encouraged against non-Muslims in the Qur’an to further Islamic dominance over the world.
[...] of mine. A long standing defender of Muslim liberties and stanch opponent of Islamophobia. His attack on Islamophobia among right-wing bloggers got him blacklisted by two of the biggest right-wing blogs. Also, overwhelmed by the Islamophobic [...]
[...] A while back there was a bit of movement among conservative bloggers to not be Islamophobic. It didn’t get far, though I’m not [...]
obsequiousness motorist nonamphibious bifara disulphone unvalue neobeckia molossoid
Wanganui Mountain Bike Club
http://www.petersonemp.com/
obsequiousness motorist nonamphibious bifara disulphone unvalue neobeckia molossoid
Your HR Department, Inc.
http://www.modernflanges.com/