These guys should read Revelation 19

Melanie Phillips love to peddle this Islamophobic nonsense.

I can quote frightening things said and done by prominent Zionists (letter bombs from Meir Kahane addressed to people because they were black, for instance). Does this "prove" that Judaism is a threat to the West? Or is it simply a crude attempt to whip up religious and often racial prejudice and hatred?

If she knew the first thing about Hamas she would understand that it is a nationalist and not a global theocratic movement, as has been made clear by its leaders time and time again, both in words and by its refusal to join a wider movement (see for instance "The Palestinian Hamas" by Shaul Misha and Avraham Sela).

We should also not forget that in the early 1980's Israel encouraged and fostered the development of the movement which later became Hamas, in an attempt to undermine the PLO and divide Palestinians. There would be no Hamas today were it not for Israeli sponsorship.

Now either Phillips is ignorant of these things, in which case perhaps she should spend a little more time learning and less time pontificating about things she knows next to nothing about; or she well understands them, in which case she seeks deliberately to mislead and distort, once more.

Either way, it's nasty drivel.

No. Melanie is right on this one, Brendan. Look around the world at countries where people fact persecution for their religious beliefs, and it is likely that those doing the persecution are Muslims, and those on the receiving end are non-Muslims.

Militant Islam is a bigger threat to our way or life than Islamophobia ever will be.

Sean Fear,

I think maybe we live on different planets. For information, I live on somewhere called the planet Earth.

Where I live we've seen muli-ethnic Bosnia dismembered by Christian Serbia. We even saw 7,000 Muslims murdered in one town called Srebrenica in one day by the Christians.

Then the Christians began to kill and ethnically cleanse the Muslim Albanians in Kosovo.

And then we have Chechnya where the Christian Russians expelled the entire Muslim population after WW2 and is now engaged on a brutal occupation and suppression of its people.

4.7 million people died in Congo's Christian civil war.

Over 1 million died in Rawanda. Not many Muslims in Rawanda.

1.7m died in the killing fields of Cambodia. That's over 1 in 5 of the population. Not many Muslims there, either.

3,500 died in Ulster as Christian killed Christian.

And then there’s Palestine, where a nuclear superpower has occupied, dispossessed and brutally suppressed the natives population. Jews imposing their superiority on Muslims and Christians.

Should I go on?

Anyway, as a matter of interest, what is the colour of the sky on your planet?

What a remarkable ability you have to ignore the point, Brendan. Answer me this: do radical Islamic groups represent a threat to western society? Spare us your blather. Yes or no will do.

Adrian,

I'm sorry if this is hard for you to follow but the last point made was:

"Look around the world at countries where people fact persecution for their religious beliefs, and it is likely that those doing the persecution are Muslims, and those on the receiving end are non-Muslims."

I answered that point. It's total garbage. It's also garbage to claim that Hamas is on a mission to Islamicise the world.

Are you able to follow that? A yes or no will do.

"I think maybe we live on different planets. For information, I live on somewhere called the planet Earth."

One could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

Religious divsion was not really the source of conflict in Cambodia, Rwanda or Congo, so it's not really clear what point you're trying to make there.

Stalinist Russia was not a Christian government, so while their treatment of the Chechens (and much of the rest of their population) was vile, it's not really relevant to this argument.

In the large majority of Muslim states, non-Muslims are not free to practise their religion openly and in many cases, Muslims who convert face the death penalty for doing so. That does not apply in reverse.

"It's also garbage to claim that Hamas is on a mission to Islamicise the world". Really? That seems to contradict the quote in the piece from an actual leader of Hamas, but I guess you know better about their aims than they do, because you've read a book about it.

The point of Melanie's piece was that Islamic militants represent a threat to western society. None of the replies you have posted addresses that point. So, again, answer me this: do radical Islamic groups represent a threat to western society? Yes or no?

Adrian, you need to define what you mean by "a threat to western society?". If you mean they may kill Westerners: yes. But so too do some Jews. If you mean they threaten to destroy Western civilizationan and/or force us all to become Muslims: no. Hope this helps.

And while we're demanding that people answer their questions, might I ask whether you accept that prominent Zionists have said and done stupid things and do you agree that without Israeli encouragement, we would not have Hamas today? Yes or no to both would be good.

"And then we have Chechnya where the Christian Russians expelled the entire Muslim population after WW2 "

BEFORE WWII

If we all said Hitler was evil - Brendam would defend him - thats the kind of bloke he is - so it is best to ignore him completly then he might go away.

Romulus we're both wrong but you more than me. The expulsions began in 1944 (when I was at school I learned that WW2 began in 1939)and continued after the war ended.

And brave person of no name, Brendam might well defend Hitler but I would not.

I don't think Brendan just takes the opposing position to whatever the prevailing view might be. No, he follows a specific view that takes for granted that Jews, Americans and non-leftists are unworthy, and that making sensible changes to forestall terrorist attacks is mere paranoia.

A sane definition of 'sensible' becomes Brendan's 'facist'. Yawn. Nex

Monica, we are both wrong absolutely and not by degrees of error

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya#History

it was 1943-4

"when I was at school I learned that WW2 began in 1939"

Then you obviously did not attend a Soviet School: they learned that the war for them began in 1941......Operation Barbarossa

Alan Pollock,

That's amazing! I'm impressed! Just by reading a few of my posts you can tell all there is to know about me and my politics. Only, shame you're so completely wrong.

I hardly think Jews or Americans are unworthy merely that they are worthy of better leaders. And I'm not a Leftist - in the last election I voted Liberal (tactically). But keep trying: randomness suggests you will get one right in the end.

Maybe you'd like to have a go at guessing what colour my eyes are or the number of my house. In the meantime, if I'm also permitted to join in the guessing game, would I be right to think that at work you wear a brightly coloured nylon wig, and shoes which are three feet long and drive a little car off which all the doors fall when it backfires?

Romulus,

I think it pretty irrelevant here but the link you provide does not appear to give the dates you quote.

"The Chechen Autonomous Region was created in 1922, and in 1934 it became part of the Chechen-Ingush Region, made a republic in 1936. After Chechen and Ingush units collaborated with the invading Germans during World War II, many residents were deported (1944) to Central Asia."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/Chechnya_History.asp

And I think Russians accept WW2 started in 1939 but the Great Patritic War did indeed begin in 1941.

Get things in perspective, folks. Brendan is right.

On the one hand we have Islamofascist terror groups and networks which are armed to the teeth and promising to invade all the world and smash freedom of religion and on the other we have someone quoting them, and possibly stirring up "Islamophobia" in the process. And you think the first case is more worrying! What are you? Tories?

Is Mahmoud Zahar the same Mahmoud Zahar whose family Israel declared as "legitimate targets" because they're related to him?

They killed his son and blew up his wife and daughter. Nice.

No wonder he's angry.

So, Brendan, if you don’t think that they threaten our society, perhaps you could let me know what you think was meant by ‘The march of resistance will continue until the Islamic flag is raised, not only over the minarets of Jerusalem, but over the whole universe.’ That seems to me to quite clearly threaten our society. Perhaps I’ve missed some of the nuances.

I guess that finding the prospect of our society being taken over by bizarre stone-age fanatics in any way objectionable makes me an Islamophobe. Oh dear.

No it doesn't make you an Islamophobe but it does seem to cast an unflattering light on how you see the world.

So some people (say, radical Islamics) want to change the world to the way they would like things to be. So too do the Maoists. And the anarchists. And many ulra-right Americans. And Christian evangelicals who want to convert the world to Christianity. And then there's the far right militias and the racists and the fascists and some extreme Zionists who want to kill all Arabs and the Trotskyites and on and on and on. And I’ve not got to that nutter Ann Coulter who recommended that we invade the entire Middle East, murder all their leaders and force the entire populations to convert to Christianity

Do these groups exist? Yes. Might some of them do dreadful things? Yes. Is there a real risk that they will destroy Western civilization? No. In my view.

Oh and Adrian, you did insist I answer your questions. Perhaps I can do the same with regard to the two I put to you.

There is no 'moral equivalence' between giving people the right to choose and trying to bend them to one's religious (or other) will. There are some absolutes in this world, and we can argue what they are night and day, but in the end, freedom at its most basic is one of them. It's a square one kind of thing. To deny it is to live in a fantasy world. That world is pretty crowded right now.

Religious Muslim countries' women's rights are the equivalent to western women's right because ....

They're Not.

As for security, the harping about the role of the UN (and there certainly are many roles for it) multilateralism and this world consensus gimmick; the rules have changed. ie: the opposition - terrorists and terrorist nations - has no rules. The taking of the US embassy in Teheran. Bombing of civilians in Ireland. Terrorist acts (small ones) in Europe over the last couple of decades. Palestinians who have forged a culture of hatred and suicide. And then 9-11. Rules? What rules? And now with chemical and nuclear materials much easier to get? Who's your daddy?

Sometimes you've got to act rather than bicker. All this palaver about the evil US and evil Blair all because they dared do the right thing ignores reality, which is not a totally relative place *if you're in it*.

The only way the anti ideology can work is in a moral vacuum. Even that doesn't exist. Sorry. Nex

Once again, the gist of Brendan's "arguments" follow: We can't do anything about Radical Islamism because evil people have done bad things elsewhere in the world.

Makes as much sense as saying, "We can't treat lung cancer in this patient because he also has athelete's foot."

Typical Guardian-reader's no-thinking attitude.

Oh,and Adrian, great post(s).

I presume you're deliberately missing the point Susan but in case not, I'll step you through it one part at a time.

I was asked if radical Islam posed a threat to the West. I clarified that this might mean at least two things: killing Westerners (in which case the answer is yes) or over-turning Western civilization (in which case - in my opinion - the answer is no).

Now (hope you have followed so far) the challenge to my opinion is that some radical followers of Islam say they wish to bring down the West. My contention is that they may well do so but that doesn't mean it is going to happen or even poses a credible threat.

To illustrate the point I have cited a great many other groups that want to overthrow systems, bring down the West, destroy capitalism or force people to convert to their faith. Most of these people are fruitcakes. There is no realistic prospect that they will achieve their goals either.

That's not moral equivalence; that's called giving examples which illustrate my point: that people saying they wish to achieve objective X and objective X being achieved or their being a realistic chance it might be achieved are not the same thing.

Now, let me ask two questions (1)which if any parts of this do you not understand (that's comprehension, not assent); and (2) which if any parts of this do you not agree with?

Thanks in advance.

"And I think Russians accept WW2 started in 1939 but the Great Patritic War did indeed begin in 1941."

That is interesting Brendan because that means the USSR accepts that through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and its subsidiary protocols the USSR was an ally of Nazi Germany at war with Great Britain in 1939 as it was with Poland in its coordinated invasion of 17 September 1939.

You are correct in that the Russians supplied oil, wheat, and metals including imports brought through Black Sea ports to sustain the German War Effort.......'The Great Patriotic War' was in fact a rout as the Wehrmacht pulverised the Red Army until Britain and the US could supply them with equipment.

This probably excuses Stalin's decision to deport the Chechens as they would no doubt have been collaborators like the Ukrainians

Brendan, apologies for not answering your questions last time. It was rude of me, since you’d answered mine.

1. I’m sure that some prominent Zionists have said and done stupid things, so yes. It’s just that they haven’t reached the flying-airliners-into-buildings stage yet, which is perhaps why they are a bit less of a concern to me.

2. Since the very existence of Israel and Jews seems to provide Hamas with all the ‘encouragement’ their nihilistic death cult needs, it’s hard to see what the Israelis could actually do to encourage them any more.

Susan - thanks for the kind words!

Brendan to answer your question, thanks for the polite tone of the response:

1.) I do believe that radical Islam is a threat to the West. In fact I believe that Islam itself is a threat to the West, although it is not politically correct to say so. I should add that I have Muslim friends relatives myself, and I don't have problems with the purely religious aspects of Islam, but the problem with Islam is that it's "a complete way of life" in its complete form. This complete way of life includes intractable military, judicial, political and economic structures that I don't particularly want to live under or with.

Muslims who only practice the purely religious aspects of Islam, such as prayer and Ramadan fasting, etc., are not really practicing full Islam. And I have serious doubts about how many are willing to only practice the religious aspect of it once they become a majority in any community. Islam has an enormously developed political and legal tradition which is not at all compatible with Western concepts of human rights. For example, rights are apportioned in Islamic jurisprudence according to group affiliation, not individuals. Muslim men are on the top with the most rights and non-Muslim women are on the bottom with the least rights. You may scoff at this as not being relevant to today's times but the problem is that all of this has been written down and studied for centuries and is not easily thrown out. Moreover, most Orthodox readings of Islam consider any tampering with the "divine law", the sharia, as a sin. These are the bare facts and no Islamic scholar, even a "moderate" one, will disagree with them. Only a tiny liberal movement, specific mainly to the West, is at all addressing the need to restructure and reform Islamic law and they are presecuted sorely by orthodox Muslims. Many of these liberal reformers have been murdered, so I have little hope that they will be able to make much difference.

2.) The problem with the moral equivalence argument is that it saps the will of people to respond to the issues I raised above. Yes, it would be nice if we could all fight all evil everywhere all the time, but that's not really realistic is it? The plain fact of the matter is that many of these Radical Islamists are evil, and that many more "moderate" Muslims may not be violent, but that they do wish to change our political, judicial and economic structures in ways that I for one do not consider at all palatable. I have told you before: I have studied the sharia and not from "anti-Islam" sources but from actual Islamic handbooks of law. It reminds me of Jim Crow law in the United States Southern States from half a century ago.

Since I'm a non-Muslim woman who would eventually end up at the bottom of the heap in any Islamic society, I feel I certianly have a right to be concerned about where the West is going right now.

However none of our Western institutions, be it the mainstream media, academia or even the mainstream churches, allow any discussion of these "politically incorrect" subjects. Those who bring it up are instantly denounced as "racists, fascists" etc. This is largely where my contempt for the Left comes from, as they are the ones who are shutting off the debate in loud and threatening tones.

I should add that my Muslim relatives are all True Believers in the sharia, and the way they think the government (once turned Islamic, of course) should compell me to live my life is pretty frightening. All for my own good of course.

Adrian, thanks but you're slightly ducking the point (maybe without knowing it). Israel allowed funds to flow to Hamas (it wasn't called Hamas then, so I'm simplifying) and gave direct logistical support in order to undermine the PLO and divide Palestinian society. Now it complains because secular Palestinian nationalism is undermined and is not willing to start the Palestinian civil war which it craves.

Personal story: I was at Bir Zeit Univeristy in 83 when Israel helped bus in Islamic students from Gaza to disrupt student council elections and attack the heavily Fatah oriented student body.

So, Susan, I do appreciate where you're coming from. I've been opposed for over 20 years to the Islamic advance within Palestinian society and I mean opposed as in word and as in I've traded the punches too. But while I'm in despair at the advances which radical Islam has made I equally despise the Islamophobic, racist hate filled garbage I see served up each day in even mainstream media (here included) and I'm afraid I can't help feeling that Israel has been the greatest sponsor Hamas could have wished for. At the very least, it now reaps what it sowed.

Pleased at least we have a civilised discussion, though we may never agree. Apologies if I've been unfair on anyone - as I said to Susan it's hard to read someone's politics from a few random posts.

Brendan, what do you consider Islamophobic in te media? As far as I'm concerned the Western media gives Islam a free pass at almost every turn. The BBC practically falls all over itself in slavishly presenting the Islamo-apologist line, while at the same time exhibiting extreme contempt for Christianity and for Western culture in general. Nowhere do I see the Western media discussing the fact that apostacy is a death sentence in Islam; nor the fact that Islam teaches that the entire world must be brought into an Islamic super-state organized on religious, not national, lines. Nowhere do I see the Western media mentioning that in Islam, the world is divided up into the Land of Peace and the Land of War, and that we in the West are considered to be the Land of War (as are other non-Muslim nations.)

I think the Western media is not nearly "Islamophobic" enough. If someone wants to make me a second-class citizen in my own land, I want my media to say so loud and clear, not print the type of fudgy apologia and whitewash that they do now.

Consider the announcement that the BBC is introducing a satirical cartoon about the Vatican called "Popetown." Only in our dreams would they ever dare to produce a satirical cartoon about Mecca and call it "Muhammadtown."

Susan,

You may have missed Kilroy Silk's article. You think they'd have publised it if it had used the same approach about Jews?

In the Telegraph, owner Conrad Black (prominent Zionist and crook) writes that Palestinians are "vermin". He gives space to his wife Barbra Amiel (prominent Zionist and crook) in which she compared them to animals.

Would you like some more examples?

You say that you would like the UK media to promote irrational fear of Islam.

I would wager this: most people in the UK would rather see the backs of people like you who promote such hate driven garbage than the family next door who happen to have a different faith.

Gee, Brendan, and I thought you had reformed. I guess your promises and please for "civilized discussion" are all for naught. Now you turn around and start shrieking insults and "racism" at me. When did I ever say that Muslims should be described as "vermin" etc.? I focused my comments on Islam and the things I hate and fear about it, not on Muslims.

I didn't think much of the Kilroy-Silk article. Obviously Kilroy-Silk doesn't know much about Islam or what is called "Islamism."

I think Islam is as fair of game as any other religion or ideology that can be criticized and discussed. BTW, the fact that Islam teaches some really horrifying things is Islam's fault, not mine. The fact that Islam can't be satirized by the BBC in the same way as Christianity is likewise not my fault, but Islam's.

I'm disgusted by your nasty, hysterical reply and your cheap shots, and am not really interested inn further "discussion." You show yourself to be what I had initially thought: a nasty intolerant Leftist who can't stand to be challenged or forced out of his received wisdom comfort zone.

PS Brendan,

What in the hell is "irrational" about being afraid of a system that teaches that I am living in something called "The Land of War"?

Susan, will you be seeing the new Mel Gibson film on Ash Wednesday ? Can you let us know what it is like ?

Susan I think you need to read what people write before losing it like this. I did not accuse you of saying Palestinians are vermin.

You asked (or had you forgotten) "Brendan, what do you consider Islamophobic in te media?" I've given you some examples (Kilroy, Black, Amiel).

I didn't say you want to promote irrational fear of Isalm - you did: "I think the Western media is not nearly Islamophobic enough". In other words you would like the media to express more irrational fear of Islam.

I'm saying plainly, Muslims are an awful lot more welcome in the UK than people who push that nasty agenda.

Brendan,
Islamophobia is NOT irrational.
Read and learn about Islam and you will find that it is anti-democratic, misogynistic, homophobic and above all obsessed with violence and conquest.
Not surprising, considering that it was founded by a bandit and gangster who slaughtered hundreds.
If you think Muslims are "an awful lot more welcome in the UK than people" like Susan, you really ought to get out more.

Brendan, I plainly said that I wished the Western media would honestly assess Islam instead of giving it special treatment and special pleading, and quit glossing over the issues I outlined above such as death sentences for apostates and the doctrine of dar-al-Islam versus dar-al-harb. You reacted with lefty typical hysteria. Forget it, you are not worthy of the reply.

Rom, don't know if I am planning to see that film or not. I have read that it is very violent, and I've been rather "off" violent movies and teevee since 9-11. At any rate, I won't see it on opening day as attending "big" films on opening day where I live is a very painful event (huge jostling crowds, lines, limited seating, etc.)

Susan,

What you actually said was "I think the Western media is not nearly "Islamophobic" enough"

GrimReaper,

When you say "Islamophobia is NOT irrational" are you using a different definition to the rest of us? Phobia - irrational fear or hatred.

Lord, this is like taking candy from a baby.

Brendan, apparently we have a different definition of "Islamophobic." My definition means "Fear of Islam." Call me guilty and in spades.

Nothing in it about calling Muslims "vermin" etc. "

Only a moron would think he has somehow "won" this "debate."

What a child.

I am done with you. Christ, I regret replying to you at all. You are a childish master of the non sequitur. Be gone with you.

Susan,

I think you will find that the word phobia is applied to irrational fears. Perhaps you should choose your words with more care.

The problem with a term like "Islamophobia" is that it implies that fear of Islam is irrational. Susan has demonstrated that, for a non-Muslim, fear of Islam is not at all irrational.

'Islamophobia' is the word chosen by those who defend the activities of extremist Muslims by attempting to co-opt moderate Muslims into an all-embracing concept of "Islam under attack"

The word is not one I care to use.

The fact is there are poorly-educated, dysfunctional, usually characters with an unsavoury past on the criminal fringes who seek to be more royalist than the king and affect a piety and fervour which is typical of the recent convert; and they subvert the codes of Islam into a rabid, aggressive, violent and offensive battle-cry against their perecerived enemies and hide behind the rest of the congregation when they invite incoming fire.

Islam has earned itself a move up the scale from indifference and benign neglect to a rational fear of unpredictable outbursts of violence. Did you read recently that that doyen of the liberal Left Trevor Phillips (NUS-ex)of the CRE stated that the shortage of GPs in areas like Inner City Bradford could cause riots......isn't that a strange thing for someone with antecedents in Guyana to say about Muslims in Britain ?

There is a basic primitivism about some of the hotheads hidden in Muslim communities which makes even Guardian-Groupies like Trevor Phillips reach for the notion of violent mobs when talking of Muslims.......

Phobia ? No, not at all. Evidentially-based Uncertainty and a need to watch out for what could become an enemy within; or a Fifth Column; and which is now subject to guilt by association because of the mentally-deranged criminals hiding in its midst.

The trading of insults and simplistic labels I'm reading above gets us all nowhere.

However, it is possible to look beyond the labels (Jew, Muslim, black, white, terrorist, leftist, sensible, royalist et al) and examine the different value systems that are the real motivation for people's behaviour.

There can be egocentric Muslims, ethnocentric Muslims - but also Muslims with a worldcentric, or global, compassion. (Where the Left - at its best, resides - but can't admit it, as this would be 'elitist', given how relatively rare global compassion is in today's world).

Same goes for blacks, whites, Jews et al. The labels completely miss the deep drivers of behaviour, make people with the same drives seem at loggerheads and vice versa.

The approach of looking at value systems was used by Dr Don Beck - in cooperation with Mandela - to help the shift from apartheid. 'Black' as a label was missing much of the dynamics.

It is used by the (black) CEO of the Diversity Channel in his great book The 10 Lenses, dealing with cultural diversity.

The secret in all this is that this way of approaching politics will eventually redefine how we understand politics, both Left and Right.

You heard it here first... ; -)

Cheers,

Matthew Kalman