One of the ironies of Arab democracization is that its chief proponents in the US are the "neocons," which in some quarters is code for Jews. Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz are its chief proponents. They along with President Bush are the ones saying that there is no reason why Arabs cannot achieve democracy. They just keep ignoring the bigotry and keep pushing for what is right. We will know that the bigotry is on the wane when this facts makes it into the history of this period.

The title implies that Islamic voices are normally insane. It's ignorant, intolerant and insulting in equal measure.

Anyone for "A voice of Jewish sanity"?

Brendan wrote:

'The title implies that Islamic voices are normally insane. It's ignorant, intolerant and insulting in equal measure.

Anyone for "A voice of Jewish sanity"?'

Not at all. Wonderful strawman, by the way.

"A voice of Islamic sanity" implies that some Islamic voices are sane and some are insane. No less, and certainly no more.

As for "A voice of Jewish sanity" - a headline as measured, calm and inoffensive as that would be a welcome change from the constant stream of anti-Jewish vituperation with which we are regularly regaled by the Islamic media and its supporters. In a worldview where the 'blood libel' passes for sophisticated comment and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are broadcast as fact, the mere suggestion that some Jews might NOT be insane would be a great leap forward.

llater,

llamas

llamas,

Great logic were it not for the fact that people write "man bites dog" stories not "man does not bite dog", so if it's so noteworthy to hear a sane Islamic voice that it warrants an article, that does rather imply that the writer is more used to hearing insane voices.

It's the usual Islamphobic drivel.

"A voice of Islamic sanity"?

That's an oxymoron, isn't it?

Brendan :

'Islamphobic'? (sic)

No, I don't think so.

A phobia is defined as an 'irrational fear'.

Given that every major incident of terrorism of the last several years has been perpetrated by fundamentalist Muslims, leaving thousands dead around the world, fear of Islamic terror is not a phobia, but rather a well-justified fear based upon real events.

Let's see - 'well-justified fear based upon real events' vs 'Islam(o)phobia'. Doesn't have quite the same dismissive ring, does it?

As to 'more used to hearing insane voices' - absolutely. Couldn't have put it better myself. Now, I prefer to hope and believe that the more sane voices of Islam are the vast majority, and are just not being heard from behind the barrage of hate-filled invective and calls to mass violence which typify Islamic expression - but then, I always was an optimist.

llater,

llamas

So, llamas, employing you own logic (I use the term loosely) should we all have a rational, fact based fear of insane Christians because they massacred 7,000 people in one day at Srebrenica? Or is it only Muslims who need fear such Christian insanity and tendency to slaughter?

And what of massacres in Lebanon (by Christians), the Congo (ditto), Rwanda (75% Christian), Cambodia (communists)?

Brendan,
Have you really not noticed that some muslims are engaged in a holy war to convert the whole world to an islamic theocracy?
After atrocities in New York, Bali, Istanbul, Baghdad, large areas of Africa and attempted attacks in Europe there is nothing irrational about the expectation of more islamic terrorism.
And the ideology that drives it is the ideology of a seventh-century bandit and conqueror; it IS insane, unless you regard the Vikings as role models for the modern world.

Idiotic moral equivalence, the average Leftie's tried and true best "debating" friend. What is your proposal then, Brendan?

No one can say anything bad about extremist Islam at any time under any circumstances because other groups of people have also done bad things?

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Very persuasive reasoning.

Brendan wrote:

'So, llamas, employing you own logic (I use the term loosely) should we all have a rational, fact based fear of insane Christians because they massacred 7,000 people in one day at Srebrenica? Or is it only Muslims who need fear such Christian insanity and tendency to slaughter?

And what of massacres in Lebanon (by Christians), the Congo (ditto), Rwanda (75% Christian), Cambodia (communists)?'

Yes - we absolutely should have a well-founded fear of any group that seeks to impose its will on others by the use of terror, and has shown itself willing and able to do so. I don't care who they are.

This is an entirely consistent position, I've no idea why you would suggest that my logic is faulty in this regard.

It's also important to make distinctions about intent. The majority of Christian churches eschew violence absolutely and denounce it when it is done in the name of religion.

Islam embraces violence, and its mainstream clerics and teachers actively encourage its adherents to go out and commit acts of terror on unbeleivers. It truly is the last of the death cults.

If a Christian murders Muslims in the name of his faith, the mainstream Christian churches will disown him and tell their followers not to follow his example.

If a Muslim murders Christians in the name of his faith, many mainstream Islamic clerics and teachers will praise him as a martyr and encourage their followers to follow his example.

Despite your desperate attempts to draw moral equivalents, there is a difference.

llater,

llamas

"it IS insane, unless you regard the Vikings as role models for the modern world"

We pagans are waiting for you to destroy each other in your silly religious wars. Then we will emerge from the shadows and conquer the world!

How long before a fatwa is issued aginst Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari?

"We pagans are waiting for you to destroy each other in your silly religious wars. Then we will emerge from the shadows and conquer the world!"

Didn't Quisling already try that one?

"It's also important to make distinctions about intent. The majority of Christian churches eschew violence absolutely"

Except, of course, when Jews are being murdered. Then, they tend to be ever so understanding.

Some thoughts
1) I think this whole Islamophobia thing can be taken too far sometimes to stifle debate, almost in parallel to the use of the term "anti-Semitic". I'm not sure of the reason why ordinarily good liberals seem so touchy about attacking a widespread culture of medievalist, homophobic, misogynistic bile. For example, liberals championed the liberation of East-Timor for years. Once it happened, Islamic suicide bombers murdered hundreds of Australians in revenge for their help in aiding East-Timorese independence (this was one reason given by the group responsible).

2) Arguments which deflect any criticism by saying people are doing bad things elsewhere do seem to be very childish (I agree with you for once Susan). I suppose their only purpose would be to say that terror or fundamentalism is not the sole property of any one religion and that we cannot generalise a threat posed on that basis. We can only attack individual groups or movements.

3)On Ilana's points, it does seem that the reverse was true in the Crusades, for example. Here the virtue was to slay the heathen in preservation of Christian glory. So again, it's not a phenomena specific to any religion. But you're right in that there is far greater institutional support for "martyrdom" and terror in Islam than any other religious faith. I'm not sure it is as widespread as you claim - at least not in the Western world. Remember, 9/11 destroyed the largest mosque in the United States.

4) To play the situation out as some "clash of civilisations" only undermines the efforts of liberals/democrats in Islamic states to reform or overthrow authoritarian rule. This seems to be part of the problem in Iran, where the efforts of reformists are constantly undermined by the "siege mentality" engendered by labeling an entire country part of the "axis of evil".
Those who bang on about the situation in these terms do themselves no favours.

Let me get this one straight. Melanie Phillips:
1) thinks that the EC deliberately promotes anti-Semitism amongst Europeans;
2) that the BBC is populated by anti-Semites who ensure that all BBC outlets systematically report news with a clear anti-Israel bias
3) that David Hare is "guilty" of bar room agitprop but she is not and
4) that she is in a position to decide whose comments are sane and whose are not.

Am I the only one who finds that weird? Like seeing Adolf Eichmann giving advice on race relations.

Brendan, Islam itself is insane...ergo, those that take Islam literally and seriously develope insane opinions.........simply study and read what the top leaders and theologians of Islam say daily about Jews and Christians and the West and you will see what I mean.......

Better yet, read the horrific Quran and Sahih Hadiths and talk to ex muslims about the ideology of Islam and learn of all its brutish teachings...

Hence the correct title by Melanie.....a rare sane voice in a sea of insane nazi like hatred...

Thanks

Any British Jew who reads some of the posts on this blog and is not convinced that there is no future for him/her in the U.K. is deluding himself. Britain is slowly going Islamic and the UK public still enjoys Jew bashing.

Travis that is really not true, especially when compared to France. After all a major political party has a Jewish man as a leader. There are elements on the left that are judenhass, mostly in support of their Islamic nutcase friends.

On the point of the Crusades, all sides were pretty brutal. There was no such caring & sharing attitude from Saladin and Co. Wiping out entire towns and its inhabitants were seen as a legtimate form of warfare especially when it involved religion.

However we are not talking about the Crusades, we are refering to a significant portion of religious Muslims who seek to conquer the world for Allah. They believe that it is legitimate to do this by any means necessary. Saying this is not Islamophobia but Islamorealism.

Are all Muslims suicidal fanatics bent on murder and mayhem? No, of course not. But are there are a large number who support (financially) those who do? Yes.

There are plenty of peaceable Muslims who enjoy the freedoms of the West and wish to get on with their lives. However, until their tendency to keep schtum about the radicals in thier midst is ended they will have problems with their fellow citizens.

"Any Briton who reads some of the posts on this blog and is not convinced that there is no future for him/her in the U.K. is deluding himself. Britain is going downhill and the malevolent still enjoy Anglophobia."

A couple of thoughts to guy's post:

1.) The Crusades were a counter-jihad. Islam had been attacking and overrunning Christian lands for 350 years before the Crusades were even a gleam in Pope Urban's little eye. I get really tired of people banging on about the Crusades without mentioning that "unimportant" little fact.

2.) I don't know if the mosque at the WTC was "the largest mosque" in the US. I think I read the King Fahd mosque in LA qualifies for that title. Nevertheless, guy, under Islamic law, Muslims who inadvertantly get killed by other Muslims in a jihad are instantly granted paradise as martyrs. Some would not necessarily look upon the destruction of the WTC mosque as a bad thing in that context.

3.) Thank you guy, for pointing out that moral equivalence doesn't do anything to add to a debate. A friend of mine calls it the "Middle Eastern souk" form of debating -- I'll raise your Crusades and see you a Timurlame massacre. Blah blah blah. I think it is legitimate to point out the main reason why I at least am more concerned about radical Islam than about genocidal Serbs or Rawandans: Radical Islam wants to kill me and my family; the others don't. Simple as that.

Anglophobia? No. I think the British are great. I think the Jews are fine too, and Americans, etc..

It's the Jew-hating posts that too often appear on this blog I dislike.

Travis, Charles: I have every sympathy with your distaste for this rubbish, but I can't believe it is a fair reflection on the British. The British are better than that.

And, Monica: "Am I the only one who finds that weird? Like seeing Adolf Eichmann giving advice on race relations." If you think Melanie, talking good sense as usual, is like Adolf Eichmann, yes I think you are alone, and so you ought to be in that opinion.

Hi, guy chambers.

You have your facts a little wrong, and it never does any harm to combine sound sentiments with factual accuracy, so I hope you won't mind if I correct you in a friendly spirit.

"For example, liberals championed the liberation of East-Timor for years. Once it happened, Islamic suicide bombers murdered hundreds of Australians in revenge for their help in aiding East-Timorese independence (this was one reason given by the group responsible)."

Dead right in principle, but the number wants fixing. Two hundred were killed in the bombing, but less than half (88) were Australian. (That's still more than enough to take to heart though, together with the many others wounded and bereaved.) Others were generally fellow Westerners, including 26 Britons.

No more bombings followed, so no hundreds of dead Aussies, thank God. (And I hold the Americans in high regard for that. Intense pressure works, and I'm sure the capture of Hambali saved many lives.)

"On Ilana's points, it does seem that the reverse was true in the Crusades, for example. Here the virtue was to slay the heathen in preservation of Christian glory."

Not according to the top modern historians on this. The motives of the crusaders were misrepresented, greatly to their disadvantage, by older historians eager to make points against the West and Christianity, and not nearly as assiduous to get at the facts and the new historians of the crusades.

I recommend _The Crusaders_ by Norman Housley. Of course, this stresses, as any honest history of crusading will, that it was a dire, savage, bloody business. But the "black legend" of the crusades, which Osama bin Laden appeals to as part of the justification for his crimes, is just not good history, as Professor Housley points out.

Susan wrote:

'I think it is legitimate to point out the main reason why I at least am more concerned about radical Islam than about genocidal Serbs or Rawandans: Radical Islam wants to kill me and my family; the others don't. Simple as that.'

To which I would add an important corollary - even if you are a devout follower of any one of the mainstream Christian denominations, and follow its teachings faithfully, you do not feel any religious or moral imperative to kill Muslims, nor do the leaders of your church preach to you that you should.

Not so for mainstream Islam, unfortunately. Like I said - the last of the death cults.

llater,

llamas

Andrew Ian Dodge

I hope that you are right. Although comparing the UK to France is not setting the bar too high. What disturbs me is not so much the anti Semitism but the tolerance of anti Semitism by what Melanie refers to as "the British chattering classes."

George Orwell wrote well of the deeply-rooted antisemitism of certain segments of UK society back in the 30's and 40's - even as the UK was at war with the greatest anti-semite of all.

Maybe things have changed for the better, but Andrew Ian Dodge's comments suggest that they have not.

llater,

llamas

I've got you Susan. So we should only be concerned with things which directly threaten us personally, is that right? So only Jews should care about anti-Semitism. Straights shouldn't care too much about gay bashing, whites about Paki-bashing and so on. And no one in Britian should have cared less about the Holocaust.

Srebrenica. Three hours flight from London. Part of Europe. A UN safe haven. Protected by UN ground forces and Nato airpower. And the (Christian) Serbs march in and murder 7,000 people more or less in full view of the world because of their religion and/or ethnicity.

And you expect me to care less about this because it did not threaten me directly but a supposed hypothetical risk from Islamic extremists does?

What a debased world it would be if more people thought like you.

No Brendan,

That is not what I said at all, but your reaction is typical of the hysterical personal mud-slinging that the Left engages in when it "debates". Please, spare me the obligatory off-the-shelf holier-than-thou expressions of Leftist piety. I see that you cannot even address the points I made earlier regarding the Middle Eastern souk style of "debating" and how little it adds to any discussion of serious subjects. Your posts are a good illustration of this event.

I supported the NATO action in 1999 and all humanitarian aid involved.

I was merely addressing your points about why we are singling out "Radical Islam" for special comment rather than "genocidal Christians" or what have you.

And I responded, because Radical Islamists want to kill me, while the others don't. The Serbian situation and Rawanda was specific to a time and place: Radical Islamism isn't.

Very sensible reaction, I think, but I know that many on the Left do not believe that self-defense is morally defensible anymore, so I can see why your are struggling with the concept.

PS Brendan, don't even try to debate the "hypotehtical threat" of Radical Islamism with me, unless you are willing to get into the nitty gritty details of the writings of Syed Qutb, A.A. Mawdudi, Ibn Taymiyah, al-Tabari, and many other figures revered by Radical Islamsts. Unless you know the five schools of sharia like the back of your hand.

Susan,

You give the game away when you say three times that I'm of the left or a leftist. Prejudice based on ignorance.

You know nothing of my politics but if you look you will see that I've said here that I voted Liberal (tactically) at the last election. Hardly Leftist unless your one of the neo-fascists for whom everyone is a commie.

Hey Brendan,
If you're not a leftist, you give a very good impression of being one.

"Srebrenica. Three hours flight from London. Part of Europe. A UN safe haven. Protected by UN ground forces and Nato airpower. And the (Christian) Serbs march in and murder 7,000 people more or less in full view of the world because of their religion and/or ethnicity.
"

Over-emotive twaddle. It was the Dutch Government that did not think it worth the lives of Dutch soldiers. They made a similar decision in 1940.

Brendan: "I'm not a Leftist, I just play one on the Internet!"

Go on! Your "arguments" are straight out of the Guardian-Independent handbook. (You can't help yourself--see how you used the word "fascist" to describe anyone who disagrees with your viewpoints. Are you next going to call me a "racist"? Go ahead, make my day! I have African, Muslim and Chinese relatives.)

You could write opinion columns for either one of those august publications, Brendan, as a matter of fact. Unless you already do.

Thanks for making me laugh out loud. I needed one today.

Thanks Susan, equally funny. If you define as a "Leftist" someone who reads the Guardian or the Independent then our country has an awful lot of Leftists. So in your eyes a Labour Party votes is a Leftist? Like Melanie Phillips?

Hey Susan,is a tabloid Independent for "Little Lefties" or "Concentrated Lefties" ?

Brendan, yes, indeed, the triumph of cultural Leftism seems to be extreme in Europe. It's all over your press -- moral and cultural relativism; cringing Western self-hatred, knee-jerk anti-Americanism; reactionary anti-Semitism; unrealistic pacifism (accompanied by a weird embrace of violent fascist dictators, as long as they are anti-American or anti-Israel); a weird type of cultural nihlism; the belief that "multilateralism" actually accomplishes someting. The only reason you don't think this type of thinking is "Lefist" is because it is now mostly the received wisdom of much of the Establishment. Those of us who don't sign on axiomatically to these beliefs are the radicals and the non-conformists now; look at how we are ridiculed and heckled in this comments section.

Joao, I have no idea what you are talking about. I know that the Independent is consider to be on the Leftish side but frankly, some of the stuff it publishes reminds me of Nazi magazines from the 1930s. I call it Das Independent.

Susan,

I think you might need to spend some time actually reading and watching UK media before making a fool of yourself like this. The UK press is overwhelmingly right wing in the UK.

On Israel, even the Telegraph's own journalsist admittted that they could no longer publish serious critical analysis because the owner (prominent Zionist Conrad Black) would not tolerate it. Black likes to write articles for his own papers (when he's not stealing money from the group) calling Palestinians vermin and giving space to his wife - prominent Zionist Babra Amiel - in which she has compared them to animals.

Then there is Murdoch who pledged "unquestioning support" to Israel and fired the Middle East correspondent of the Times because he filed a story about who killed schoolboy Mohammed al-Dura.

So yes, if you're a member of the BNP you think the UK press is leftist. But if you're a fairly normal human being, you don't.

Well, brendan, I guess you can just put me down as a member of the BNP then. I know that the fail-safe postion of the typical Leftist is to shout "Nazi" at anyone who disagrees with them, and I see that you are no different. Actually I saw that a few posts upthread but was inclined to give you another chance when you threw that "let's be civilized" stuff at me in the other thread.

The BBC, the Independent and the Guardian all seem quite left-wing to me. Of course, the left has very little to say for itself these days since the collapse of the Great Communist Hope. Leftism is today a catch-bag of various ever-shifting dogmas and contradictions. Gay marriage is a sacred cow and so is Islam, under which gay people are to be killed by having a brick wall toppled on them. What can you say about a belief system that entertains such ludicrous contradictions?

Anyways, I will sign off this thread and the other one, as I am tired of your cheap shots and off-the-shelf trite comebacks. Knock yourself out; shout "racist" and "BNP member" at me all the time. PS I am American, not British, so you should really be screaming "KKK member" at me instead. Just to keep things on an accurate level.

"Srebrenica. Three hours flight from London. Part of Europe. A UN safe haven. Protected by UN ground forces and Nato airpower. And the (Christian) Serbs march in and murder 7,000 people more or less in full view of the world because of their religion and/or ethnicity."

Well now Brendan, as I recall it was the West, specifically led by the "great Satan" the U.S., that went to rescue the Muslims. So, where were their Muslim brothers? What happened to the Arabs? What about the Malays or the Iranians?

Muslims stood by and let Saddam do his thing too. And Saddam is a Muslim.

It is interesting how Muslims always forget about their "brothers."

Give us ONE good reason, other than our own security, as to why the West or anyone else on the planet should care about Muslims—when they are trying to annihilate us all, as instructed in the Qur'an?

(9:29) “Make war upon …the Jews and Christians …who profess not the Religion of Truth, until they pay Jizya and be humbled.”

(9:33) Allah hath sent the religion of truth that it may prevail over all religions.”

(5:51) “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends.

Now, WHY would the world trust people who believe such things—who send murderous suicide jihadis to destroy innocents world wide?

Lili

Susan,

I'd worked out you aren't British from your coments about the UK press which is why I said:

Susan,

I think you might need to spend some time actually reading and watching UK media before making a fool of yourself like this. So yes, if you're a member of the BNP you think the UK press is leftist."

Fair comment. The far right think the press is left wing. Most normal people who actually read it, do not. Because, errr ...it's not. Try the Times. Or Telegraph. Sun. News of the World. Daily Mail. Express. Star. Mail on Sunday ......

Brendan, I am familiar with the publications you named. They are on the rightish side, that is true. BBC, Guardian and Independent are overwhelmingly left wing. BBC appears to be the most influential news outlet in the UK however. As well, most of the Continental press that I've seen.

PS-- In the US the most famous white supremacists and neo-Nazis and KKK leaders are all pro-Islam and pro-Arab. KKK Grand Dragon David Duke, the American equivalent of Nick Griffin, has made a bundle of money giving anti-Israel "lectures" in the Arab world. William Baker, another famous neo-Nazi, recently spoke at a Canadian gathering of Islamists.

Your views appear to have more in common with the KKK's than mine, that's why I laugh at your BNP comparisons.

The BBC is overwhelmingly left wing, is it? Well, maybe on your planet but not on mine.

Whatever, Brendan.

The Guardian, The Independent and The Mirror (Britain's other 'left-wing' paper) between them account for a very small share of the market; to characterise the British media as leftist on the basis of these would be akin to cherry-picking papers like the New York Times in an attempt to make a similar claim about the US. Yes, Britain has newspapers that adopt a social democratic or even a socialist slant on the news, but I fail to see how this can be considered a bad thing. A healthy media environment requires different viewpoints and perspectives, and however much I may detest the Daily Mail, the Express and The Sun, the variety of political philosophies on offer in the British press is something to be envied.

As for the BBC...well, it perpetually seems to be in a no-win position, attacked from various angles as either institutionally left-wing or as a bastion of pro-establishment conservatism (that's 'small-c' conservatism!). I fear that a lot of those who bemoan its 'bias', on the grounds that it is a publicly-funded service, would adopt a similar approach if it were to become a private corporation, with the same popularity and ethos; the climb to the moral high ground, in many cases, disguises a more general irritation with its approach to reporting. If this is the case, then one could apply the same criticisms to virtually all mass-media outlets...Fox, al-Jazeera etc. Editorialising has always taken place, and always will do. There is no such thing as neutral reporting, nor should there be. Equally, the way in which the news is reported and current affairs are analysed should not be dictated by popular opinion or political lobbying. When I grumble about the right-wing, gung-ho nonsense produced by Fox, what I'm really saying is that they're wrong, or at least that I disagree with them, not that they're 'biased'. Likewise, when people point out the BBC's use of 'occupied territories' instead of 'disputed territories', or its demonisation of Ariel Sharon they are saying that it is wrong and they are right; however if it were to reverse these positions, it would attract similar criticism from other sources. Ultimately, it is impossible to report the news using completely neutral terms and labels (see Foucault, and discourse theory generally...), so it is unrealistic to call for the BBC to stop editorialising, whether or not it is publicly funded, and whether or not you happen to agree with what it says.

Chris that is a bit disingenuous....The Guardian has considerable influence within the BBC; just look how many Guardian journalists are presenters, or interviewees on Radio 4......certainly way out of proportion to its miniscule readership........it has disproportionate influence on the Weltanschauung of the BBC, its producers, staff and stories......and see where most BBC jobs are advertised