The Ottoman Empire, which emerged from this situation, was extremely tolerant compared to Christian states of the era, despite a lack of an “Enlightenment”. This tolerance was further enhanced by the presence of Sufist scholars of the Bektashi sect(which had deep roots in the Ottoman Janissary corps). Ironically, the Bektashi and other Sufi sects were banished from Turkey not by the Sultan Caliph, but by the secularist Ataturk, the very same man who did away with the Caliphate.

What, specifically, have I said that you interpret as endorcing discrimination against Muslims? Name concrete actions that I have proposed that amount to discrimination.

It is near-libel to put words in quotation marks that someone did not say.

“You have yet to acknowledge that this disparity is the result of historical events and the current economic and political state of several Muslim majority nations[...]”

You may need to be more specific about the latter part, but the former strikes me as obvious. Of course the disparity between Christian and Islamic extremisms is because of historical events, such as the lack of the Islamic equivilant of the Enlightenment. I’m not going to waste time going over the historic context in every single post on Islamism just so some people won’t strawman my arguments. I have more faith in this blog’s readership than that.

Tom

The best way to attack King as a bigot is to contrast his feelings about the torture of suspected IRA members in N. Ireland in the early 1970s and his feelings about torture techniques used by the US in recent years (King LOVES water-boarding). What you’ll need is information about the treatment of IRA suspects in the 1970s. Almost the entirety of a good book on that subject is available on the Conflict Archive on the InTernet site, a very academic and neutral source. The book (most of it) is at- http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/.....jmcg74.htm .

Tom

“We’ll just have to agree to disagree because I hate religion but I hate descrimination [sic] even more.”
I think we can agree to agree on that.

Ruslan,

Define “persecute”, because I do not remember advocating persecuting anyone. I actually remember being forced to talk about my work fighting for the civil rights of a Muslim man after someone accused me of not knowing about anti-discrimination law.

The Islamic Association for Palestine made the “apes and pigs” comments and posted a document quoting the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. It was in the link on CAIR that I showed you on March 19.

Let’s read that sentence again. “Newspapers across the Arab and Muslim world consistently portray Israel’s prime ministers with outrageous, hateful, and AT TIMES anti-Semitic caricatures.” (emphasis added). Not all the attacks on Israeli leaders mentioned are antisemitic, but many are. Do you see nothing antisemitic about a picture of a Jew drinking the blood of a child?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

As silly as the denials of racism at tea parties (including signs showing Obama as a witch doctor, calling him a “lyin’ African”, or claiming he’s planning “white slavery”) were, your denials are just insane.

A quick search of the ADL’s site will find many instances of both protesting against criticism of Islam and supporting the civil liberties of Muslims. Here are just five:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Mise_00/5910_00.htm
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/5934_62.htm
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/5907_62.htm
http://www.adl.org/terrorism/symbols/kahane_1.asp
http://www.adl.org/icom/

I meant to type “religious discrimination is the lesser of two evils.” Apologies for the confusion, the misunderstanding was on my part. My defense of Wilders was mostly on free speech grounds, specifically in answer to a poster that supports his arrest.

Since this is a US-centered site, I totally expect both the site itself and most of its readers to be more focused on the Christian literalism. However, while gay men and lesbians in the US have to deal with people who, obnoxious though they are, are rarely out to kill us, our brothers and sisters do fear for their lives because they are gay and I cannot ignore that. While I’m out with my boyfriend I may check behind me for drunk thugs instead of our local imam, but that does not mean I should ignore those who threaten my fellow human beings of all religions (or none), sexes, nationalities, and orientations in the name of Islamic fundamentalism.

What I saw on the ADL site was a man with the blood of a child on his hands and the following statement:
Arab Media’s Assault on Israeli Leaders
Newspapers across the Arab and Muslim world consistently portray Israel’s prime ministers with outrageous, hateful, and at times anti-Semitic caricatures.
This leads me to conclude that ADL makes little if any distinction between political opposition to Israel and religious or ethnic hatred of Jews. It is sad that this organization which has done so much to combat the defamation of other religious and ethnic groups seems to be blind to the defamation of Muslims which has become rampant in Europe and the USA.

I apologize if I misunderstood your stance on racism vs. religious intolerance but it still is not at all clear to me why you think “Racism is clearly the lesser of two evils.” I also fail to understand why you think it is OK for Geert Wilders to “attack a religion” if you think that is a greater evil than racism.

The danger of literalism in religion depends substantially on local circumstances. If you are gay in Topeka, KS you may find the “Christian literalism” of the Westboro Baptist Church a more immediate threat than “radical Islam.” If you are a non-Jewish resident of occupied Palestine you may find the literal interpretation of the Old Testament threatening indeed. As a resident of the USA I find the “threat” of Islamic fundamentalism among the least of my worries. Clearly this is the crux of our disagreement.

You find nothing antisemitic about a group that calls Jews “the children of apes and pigs” and publishes a document quoting the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”?

When I clicked on your ADL link, I saw a cartoon with a Jew drinking the blood of a child, some articles about Holocaust denial, a drawing showing Uncle Sam as a Jewish stereotype, a magazine accusing Jews of committing the attacks of 9/11, and a Jewish soldier stabbing Jesus. If you don’t think that is antisemitic then either your glances are far, far too quick or your definition of the term is meaningless.

My last remarks WOULD suggest ignorance of US law if a) I was talking about US law or b) I didn’t spend two years interning for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which included working with clients whose employers prevented them from taking a short break to pray five times a day.

I really hate bringing up this some-of-my-best-friends-type defense, but the silly assumptions being made by you and others leaves me no choice. Also, anything written about me in a part of a sentence that comes after “seem” or “seems” is untrue.

Literalism in any religion is dangerous, but it just so happens that the most dangerous and widespread literalism right now is in Islam.

For someone who is so critical of Ruslan’s references you seem quite willing to accept the ADL’s condemnation of CAIR based on the claim that it was “Founded by leaders of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP),” which ADL claims was an “anti-Semitic propaganda organization” without offering any supporting references. A glance at the ADL’s page on “Anti-Semitism in the Arab/Muslim World” suggests that they equate opposition to the actions of the state of Israel with anti-semitism. http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/default.htm

Why should Geert Wilders criticize any religious books? It is not those books or any others that cause problems but people acting on their own hateful interpretations of these ancient texts. It seems odd that you think Wilders should not be prosecuted for inciting hatred of Muslims but that somehow written religious texts should be held responsible for the damage done by those who claim to be following their teachings.

There is quite a difference between terms like “Christian right” or “religious right” and “radical Islam”. In fact it could be easily argued that Muslim terrorists are part of the “religious right.” If you want to talk about “radical Islam” the equivalent might be “imperialist Christianity.” What you seem to prefer is terms that suggest that some Christians are a problem while Islam itself is the problem. Also, in case you are not aware of the fact, many tax dodgers do not consider themselves sovereign citizens. Many of them consider themselves business and government leaders.

Religious discrimination and racism are far from equal. One chooses their religion, while race, though not a scientific concept, is almost always chosen for us. Racism is clearly the lesser of two evils.

The reason why I feel I have to keep reminding people that Islam is not a race is because the terms “racism” and “racist” are being thrown around when nobody is attacking anyone’s race. Hell, for the most part, they aren’t even attacking anyone’s religion, but a small strain of that religion.

Al Qaeda is not the only group of fanatics in the Muslim world. Ironically, you are making the same mistake the article accuses “Obsession” of making (not without some justification, I should add), namely that there are many different types of Islamic extremism.

My point was that the pundit in question’s comparison of the treatment of Muslims with the treatment of Jews (the latter also being the target of many attacks by the former, both today and during the Holocaust) is ridiculous and shows the emptiness of his argument. The Jews of pre-war Europe did not blow themselves up in pizzarias, stab children, engage in honor killings, or attack gay people in European streets.

No person can compare the sentiments which lead to the murder of 6 million people to sentiments that lead to the production of a cheap DVD and still honestly ask to be taken seriously.

No. And again, Islam is not a race.

I am an imperialist apologist because I oppose Islamic imperialism? If you are going to name-call and issue ad hominem attacks, at least try to justify them. And for a man who has excused HAMAS to accuse me of supporting imperialism is Orwellian.

But onto the rebuttal. First, the comparison to “The Birth of a Nation” is absolutely disgusting. At no point in “Obsession” does it glorify lynching people because of their religion, much less their race. The author or authors seem incapable of writing without hyperbole.

Remember, I asked what evidence you had that the Muslim interviewees were “extremely anti-Islamic”. The page linked to contained no such evidence, so I went to the section marked “The Pundits”, still optimistic. Sadly, I found nothing. One disliked the film, but could not articulate any solid errors they made, and threw in a reducto ad hitlerum for good measure (though the Jews did .) The other was, gasp, a Bush supporter. So were the majority of Muslim-American voters in the 2000 election. Are they “extremely anti-Islamic” too?

Under the names of two other Muslims it says “More Information, Coming Soon”. I am practically giddy with anticipation. Forgive my sarcasm, but this article leaves me no alternative.

And for a person accusing me of being an “imperialist apologist!” (I nearly expected five more exclamation marks, maybe with a 1 mixed in) to post a link to an article containing apologetics for a Nazi ally is mind-blowing.

Anyone with a knowledge of Wahhabism will find the defenses of Saudi Arabia’s record on extremism to laughable. They are the primary funders of extremist mosques responsible for producing the very Wahhabist violence the author or authors pretend to be concerned about. Anyone with a MEMRI subscription would find the denial of extremism to be curious, to be very generous.

And again, no mention of “The Third Jihad”.

Here is the first quote in context:
http://www.danielpipes.org/198.....are-coming

Read up, imperialist apologist!

Totally non-racist comment from Daniel Pipes: “Pipes has previously stated that, “Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene… All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most” and that “In its long history of immigration, the United States has never encountered so violence-prone and radicalized a community as the Muslims who have arrived since”

The majority of the charges against Wilders revolve around his criticisms of the religion itself. He has argued that the Quran should be banned under hate speech laws, which may be where the accusations of persecution come from. That being said, I fail to see how any unbiased person could not notice that the Quran (and other religious books) clearly violate such laws when read literally.

Should Wilders also criticize other religious books? Yes. But double standards should not be enough to land one in jail, especially when the majority of the Netherlands violent extremism comes from one holy book.

Couldn’t terms like “Christian right” or “religious right” suffer from the same problems you have with “radical Islam”? It is pretty hard to write something about extremist behavior without writing about the beliefs that lead to said behavior. It’s like asking the Intelligence Project to write about tax-dodgers without writing about sovereign citizens, or writing about anti-gay activism without mentioning fundamentalist Christianity.

Re: CAIR
http://www.adl.org/Israel/cair/default.asp

Ruslan,

No, that is not what I wanted. I asked for evidence that those Muslim interviewees in “Obsession” and the Muslim director of “The Third Jihad” are “extremely anti-Islamic”.

The article only guesses at the motivations of the film-makers. When one swims through the rhetoric of the article, the only pieces of evidence it has is that 1) one interviewee, only one, does not like Islam and 2) the group that paid for “Obsession”‘s distribution is “shadowy”. The article doesn’t mention “The Third Jihad”.

Please show evidence that CAIR is “pseudo-moderate.”

Along with many Muslims I oppose the persecution of Palestinians by the state of Israel and this does not make me either anti-semitic or a supporter of “militant Islam.”

Two people have used Wikipedia in this thread. I was neither of them. I must ask, are you on this site to have reasonable, adult conversations or to engage in pseudo-intellectual, macho contests?

“[V]ideos like Obsession are in fact extremely anti-Islamic”

Please show evidence that the Muslim anti-extremists interviewed for that documentary are “extremely anti-Islamic” or evidence that Pipes, Emerson, or the makers of those two films dislike “dark people”. If I criticize Mormon fundamentalists or the Jewish Defense League does that mean I dislike “light people” because those two groups are mostly light-skinned? How does this explain the dislike many opponents of radical Islam have for Ibrahim Hooper, the white spokesman for the pseudo-moderate CAIR?

While I do not question that any given opponent of religion A may oppose religion A because religion A is associated with racial or ethnic group(s) B, it does not automatically follow that all opponents of one particular strain of religion A (not even the whole religion) dislike racial or ethnic group(s) B. I oppose radical Mormonism, but this does not make me anti-white. I oppose radical Judaism, but this does not make me antisemitic. I oppose radical Hinduism, but this does not make me anti-Indian. I oppose radical Buddhism, but this does not make me anti-East Asian, etc. etc. etc.

Mitch,

The Nazis hated the Jewish “race”, which is why they killed Christian Jews and atheist Jews. The number of non-self loathing Jews who have criticized various aspects of Judaism is innumerable. And while the majority of adherents to Judaism are ethnic Jews, Muslims come in dozens and dozens of ethnic groups. Most Muslims are not Arab.

I wanted to straighten out what you meant in the last sentence. Do you think the combination of “religion X” with “militant” or “radical” is offensive? Because when you said “the church militant” I did not quite get what you mean.

Please take care to ensure that you and your family and your fellow workers and SPLC are well protected. The gun goons, right wing loonies and tea parties will be trying to hurt you all. You have our full support and appreciation.

A truly patriotic Montanan.

The fact is that Daniel Pipes is an imperialist apologist, and videos like Obsession are in fact extremely anti-Islamic. Moreover, the fact that Islam is not a race does not mean that Islamophobia does not have a kernal of racism inherent in it. Islam is often associated with “dark people”.