The Cartoon War

Things are rapidly getting out of hand. And of course Jihad al-Momani, the editor of the Jordanian newspaper al-Shihan, was sacked for publishing three of the 12 caricatures yesterday. He says now, that he was aiming "to show his readers the extent of the Danish offence" - as in "Wow, look how bad", or as in "Come on, is this what's it all about?"... But, you can't blame him for backtracking. Yesterday he called upon his Muslim brethren to be reasonable and to put things into perspective:

"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"

He told the AFP news service he decided to publish the offending cartoons "so people know what they are protesting about... People are attacking drawings that they have not even seen."

They are of course just warming up:

Yesterday (Thursday) Mullah Krekar, the alleged leader of the Islamist group Ansar al-Islam who has been living in Norway as a refugee since 1991, said that the publication of the Muhammad cartoons was a declaration of war. “The war has begun,” he told Norwegian journalists. Mr Krekar said Muslims in Norway are preparing to fight. “It does not matter if the governments of Norway and Denmark apologize, the war is on.”

Islamist organizations all over the world are issuing threats towards Europeans. The Islamist terrorist group Hizbollah announced that it is preparing suicide attacks in Denmark and Norway. A senior imam in Kuwait, Nazem al-Masbah, said that those who have published cartoons of Muhammad should be murdered. He also threatened all citizens of the countries where the twelve Danish cartoons [see them all here, halfway down the page] have been published with death.

And...

A leading hard-line Muslim cleric, Sheikh Yussef al-Qaradawi, called for the day of anger to protest against the printing of the cartoons - first published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September - in other European papers.

"Let Friday be an international day of anger for God and his prophet," said the sheikh, who is the head of the International Association of Muslim Scholars. He is one of the Arab world's most popular television preachers and made a controversial visit to London in July 2004 as a guest of the mayor, Ken Livingstone.

Ahmed Akkari, a Muslim theologian from Copenhagen, said he had attended a meeting this week with the Danish intelligence service, which called the situation "very, very tense".

Calling for the "International day of Anger for God and his prophet" is just the beginning and is code for yet another call to arms in the mighty struggle: It's all about Jihad and I am grateful for a better understanding of the meaning behind these not so long ago utterly strange and perplexing terms: Jihad, Shari'a, Dhimmitude, Jizya, Dar ul Islam, Dar ul Harb and Pax Islamica, to mention but a few.

Armand Abel, the esteemed mid-20th century Belgian scholar of Islam, has provided this elegant analysis of the concept of “Dar ul Harb”, which is critical to an overall understanding of the jihad, past and present:

Together with the duty of the “war in the way of God” (or jihad), this universalistic aspiration would lead the Moslems to see the world as being divided fundamentally into two parts.  On the one hand there was that part of the world where Islam prevailed, where salvation had been announced, where the religion that ought to reign was practiced;  this was the Dar ul Islam.  On the other hand, there was the part which still awaited the establishment of the saving religion and which constituted, by definition, the object of the holy war.  This was the Dar ul Harb. The latter, in the view of the Moslem jurists, was not populated by people who had a natural right not to practice Islam, but rather by people destined to become Moslems who, through impiousness and rebellion, refused to accept this great benefit. Since they were destined sooner or later to be converted at the approach of the victorious armies of the Prophet’s successor, or else killed for their rebelliousness, they were the rebel subjects of the Caliph.  Their kings were nothing but odious tyrants who, by opposing the progress of the saving religion together with their armies, were following a Satanic inspiration and rising up against the designs of Providence.  And so no respite should be granted them, no truce:  perpetual war should be their lot, waged in the course of the winter and summer ghazu. [razzias] If the sovereign of the country thus attacked desired peace, it was possible for him, just like for any other tributary or community, to pay the tribute for himself and for his subjects.  Thus the [Byzantine] Empress Irene [d. 803] “purchased peace at the price of her humiliation”, according to the formula stated in the dhimma contract itself, by paying 70,000 pounds in gold annually to the Caliph of Baghdad. Many other princes agreed in this way to become tributaries – often after long struggles – and to see their dominions pass from the status of dar al Harb to that of dar al Sulh.  In this way, those of their subjects who lived within the boundaries of the territory ruled by the Caliphate were spared the uncertainty of being exposed arbitrarily, without any guarantee, to the military operations of the summer ghazu and the winter ghazu:  indeed, anything within the reach of the Moslem armies as they advanced, being property of impious men and rebels, was legitimately considered their booty;  their men, seized by armed soldiers, were mercilessly consigned to the lot specified in the Koranic verse about the sword, and their women and children were treated like things.

The respected contemporary Muslim cleric Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, “spiritual” leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, head of the “European Council for Fatwa and Research”, and popular Al-Jazeera television personality, reiterated almost this exact formulation of Dar ul Harb in July 2003:

It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb [the Domain of Disbelief where the battle for the domination of Islam should be waged] is not protected…in modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilized to participate in the war, to aid its continuation, and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies. Every citizen in society must take upon himself a role in the effort to provide for the battle. The entire domestic front, including professionals, laborers, and industrialists, stands behind the fighting army, even if it does not bear arms.

Thus it is the consensus view of orthodox Islamic jurisprudence regarding jihad, since its formulation during the 8th and 9th centuries, through the current era, that non-Muslims peacefully going about their lives—from the Khaybar  farmers whom Muhammad ordered attacked in 628, to those sitting in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01—are “muba'a”, licit,  in the Dar ul Harb. And these innocent non-combatants can be killed, and have always been killed, with impunity simply by virtue of being “harbis” during endless razzias and or full scale jihad campaigns that have occurred  continuously since the time of Muhammad, through the present. This is the crux of the institutionalized ideology that we are fighting, i.e., jihad, notwithstanding  President Bush’s unfortunate public mischaracterization.

The larger, pervasive political correctness in this country, has engendered a stultifying “Islamic correctness” among our academic, political and media elites that prevents frank and meaningful discussions of Islam, jihad, and their relationship to terrorism. Moreover, when Bin Laden criticizes America for its “debauchery and secularism”, and seeks its replacement with an Islamic entity, he is simply arguing in accord with widely held, orthodox Islamic beliefs. That is why Bin Laden remains so popular in the Islamic world, and few so-called moderate or traditional Muslims have actively condemned Al-Qaeda, especially in Muslim societies, except when Muslims have been victimized by Al-Qaeda attacks (as for example in Jordan).  And there are very disturbing trends evident among Muslims living in the West, particularly in Europe. For example, survey results from British Muslims polled shortly after the 7/7/05 London bombings revealed that one-third were brazen enough to admit following 7/7/05, “Western society is decadent and immoral and …Muslims should seek to bring it to an end”, expressing ostensibly, their desire to replace Britain’s current liberal democracy with a Shari’a-based theocratic model . Ultimately, the denial and intellectual cowardice that accompany “Islamic correctness” as practiced by elites across the political spectrum emboldens those Muslims most committed to jihad in all its manifestations, including jihad terrorism

Never has the adage 'Information is Power' felt more critically relevant. And never has the Power of 'Dis-information' revealed its evil effectiveness more poignantly.

Go, read and re-read the entire interview with a fellow New Yorker, Andrew Bostom, for whom, like for many of us, the cataclysmic events of 9/11 appeared in very little context: "I set out to learn about Islam, reading voraciously. Starting with the writings of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito (how naïve and ironic it seems in retrospect!), I became thoroughly dissatisfied, in short order, with the entire genre of thinly veiled, treacly apologetics, sadly characteristic of modern popular and “academic” works on Islam." It's an excellent primer.

Michelle Malkin's pictures tell the story of revolting Muslim in Europe and throughout the Middle East and what is passing for art. And of course the all too familiar rhetoric:

"Whoever defames our prophet should be executed," said Ismail Hassan, 37, a tailor who marched through the pouring rain along with hundreds of others in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

"Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up," protesters in Ramallah chanted.

The BBC has joined Europe's stance of defiance. The Guardian puts it in thinly veiled contempt: "The BBC has involved itself in a growing Europe-wide controversy by broadcasting cartoons of the prophet Muhammad...". It goes on to display yet some more misguided "Islamic correctness":

The Muslim Council of Britain said its reaction to the BBC's decision to broadcast would "depend on the context".

A spokesman said: "It depends on whether they're broadcast to illustrate the story about the row developing, or, in the same way as the European newspapers have published, to gloat about freedom.

You've gotta shake your head in disbelief. It's gloating about freedom now, is it? What ARE they thinking when they write stuff like this?

"We recognise that the newspapers have full freedom. However, we hope that they would be able to show restraint when it comes to these images because of the enormous hurt it would cause to Muslims."

The Muslim Association of Britain, an affiliate of the Muslim Council of Britain, called on British broadcasters and newspapers not to reproduce the images.

A spokesman said: "Printing or republishing these images is not advisable, knowing that they are going to offend. It will only infuriate the British members of the Muslim community and Muslims around the world. It will be insult to injury. You can't reproduce these images in a sensitive manner."

But you CAN commit just about any atrocIty in the name of Jihad.

Anyway, there are some rays of reason:

"We would have done exactly the same thing if it had been a pope, rabbi or priest caricature," wrote Editor in Chief Serge Faubert in Thursday's editions of France Soir, one of the newspapers that printed the cartoons.

But of course Bush is to blame for it all.

More @  Captain's Quarters, Hugh Hewitt, Power Line, Dr. Sanity, Protein Wisdom, California Conservative, Gates of Vienna, JunkYardBlog, Strata-sphere, Argghhh! The Moderate Voice, The Glittering Eye, Big Lizards, The Political Pit Bull, Breitbart, Blinq, Secular Blasphemy, Brainster's Blog, Marathon Pundit, Outside The Beltway, The Belmont Club, Right Wing News, Dean's World,  bRight & Early, Gina Cobb, Right Wing Nut House, Iowa Voice, The Astute Blogger, Clark Mountain Musings, A Blog For All, Rantings of a Sandmonkey, Freedom for Egyptians, The American Princess, Don't Go Into The Light

UPDATE: Siggy as usual tells it like it is:

Imagine that in the West, you had a school system which sat the children down each day and fed them a tumbler of whisky. They might not like it at first, but they would eventually get used to it. Later on, they would start to look forward to it. By the time they left school, a fair proportion of them would be alcoholics. Perhaps not a problem if they kept it to themselves, but the ones who went out and drove over people or otherwise killed them would start to be a concern. So you would have to start a program of drying-out clinics, to cure them. And they might be successful, although there's no such thing as a cured alcoholic, just one who hasn't had a drink for a length of time. And you might just question the wisdom of spending money and effort creating alcoholics, only to have to spend more money and effort to cure them later.

In Saudi Arabia, we don't feed our children alcohol. Instead, we feed them race hate. It's a progressive thing, building up layer by layer, using the material you see above. Thankfully, many forget it, just like we all forget algebra and bits of history. But there is a proportion for whom it sticks. They are our "alcoholics". And their hatred extends not only to Jews worldwide, but also the countries that are seen to support them - North America, Europe, Australasia. And a proportion of these decide to do something about it, and sign up with the terrorist groups. Eventually they might get caught, and repatriated. And we have our own "drying-out clinics". It's a program where we get people to talk them round, to see the error of their ways, to be rehabilitated. And unlike a drying-out clinic, we keep them in prison in between times, so you can imagine that the "success rate" is a lot higher. It's documented here.

UPDATE: A  massive round-up @ Instapundit, and a very important video compiled by Michelle Malkin, as well as the round up @ Gateway Pundit with the unpleasant news of the Danish Embassy in Damascus being burned to the ground. The building happens to house the Sweedish and the Chilean Embassies.

Don't miss Hugh Hewitt interviewing Mark Steyn on these and other issues over @ Radioblogger. Audio here, and transcript here.

More @ Captain's Quarters, Daily Pundit, Tel-Chai Nation, Secular Blasphemy, The Brussels Journal, History News Network, Gateway Pundit, Right Wing News, Power Line,  neo-neocon, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, The Moderate Voice  California Yankee, Decision '08, Mudville Gazette, The Sundries Shack, Danske øjne …  Dean's World, JunkYardBlog, The Glittering Eye , The Astute Blogger, Publius Pundit, BBC  Outside The Beltway, The Volokh Conspiracy  Andrew Sullivan, Ed Driscoll,  Mark in Mexico, Telegraph, A Blog For All,  La Shawn Barber's Corner, Iowa Voice, The Corner on National. TigerHawk, Gina Cobb, Althouse, Tim Blair, Guardian, littlegreenfootballs

Related on ATB:

Religious Dogma Has No Place In A Secular Society
Take A Walk On The Wild Side
The Effect Of Our Holy Trinity Of Multiculturalism, Moral Equivalence And Relativism On The War Of Destiny
The Jihad Apocalypse 'A Muslim Obligation'
The Clash of Civilizations
The Enemy Within'
Secular Democracy Held To Ransom

Comments

[Michael van der Galien]

Hellooooo... couldn't you just refer to the book called "mohammed; the founder of Islam"??

[red-river]

Mohammed

The man, who claimed himself as the final messenger of Allah, was born in Mecca between AD 570 and 580. He also claimed he was the founder of a New World Religion as well as the spiritual and temporal leader of his people. He was called Mohammed. He belonged to the clan of Hasidim, a tribe of Quaraysh. His father died before he was born, and he was six his mother died. His Uncle Abu Talib took responsibility for him. In personality, he displayed an acute moral sensitivity at an early age, and he was known al-Amin (the trusted one). Like his fellow tribesman, he became a trader and made several journeys to Syria, where he met and conversed with Christians and Jews. He then began to manage the business of a rich widow, Khadija; she was greatly impressed by his hard working and ability, and she shortly offered him marriage, which he accepted at the age of 25. Information about his early life and religious activity is very sketchy. The story says Mohammed was raised first by his grandfather, Abu al-Muttalib, and then by his uncle, Abu Talib. During his period the family lived in humble circumstances, but Mohammed achieved wealth and position as the age of 25 by an advantageous marriage to the wealthy widow, Khadija, who was fifteen years his senior. Her money enabled him to manipulate the people of that region. Mohammed knew Christians and Jews were so religious. His views at commercial fairs in Mecca came to change his life and the people of that region. He periodically withdrew to cave outside Mecca to meditate and pray for guidance. During one of these retreats he experienced a vision of the archangel Gabriel, who proclaimed him a messenger of Allah. He was greatly bewildered by the experience but reassured by his wife, and, as new revelations followed, he came to accept his mission. His wife and his cousin Ali became his first followers, and eventually he began to preach in public, reciting the verses of his revelation, which came to be known as the Koran. He gained some prominent converts, but the movement was so slow.

Mohammed’s earliest teaching emphasized his belief in one transcended but personal Allah, the Last Judgment, and social and economic justice. Allah, he asserted, had sent messengers to other nations throughout history, but, having failed to reform, those nations had been destroyed. Mohammed proclaimed his own message, the Koran, to be the last revealed Book and himself to be the last of the messengers, consummating and superseding the earlier ones.

Mohammed had received a lot of bad feelings from wealthy merchants who looked down upon him in Mecca. In fact, Mohammed had no reliable relative and dependable family beside his financier Khadija. He tried to be honest, but the wealthy merchants did not regard Mohammed as a trusted one.

Insisting on the necessity of social reform, Mohammed advocated improving the lot of slaves, orphans, women, the poor and replacing tribal loyalties with the fellowship of Islamic faith. This egalitarian and revisionist tendency quickly aroused the animosity of the rich merchants who dominated Mecca. They persecuted some followers of Mohammed. Mohammed then ordered some families to take refuge in Ethiopia in 615. When both his beloved wife Khadija and his uncle and protector Abu Talib died in 619, he despaired of his position in Mecca. On the other hand, the merchants in Mecca were unhappy because of Mohammed’s conversion of the people to Allah. After an unsuccessful effort to convert the nearby town of At Taif, he was pronounced wanted. Meanwhile a delegation from Yathrib (later Medina), a city about 300 km (186 mi) to the north that was divided by tribal hostilities asked him to arbitrate the feuds, offering him considerable authority. The delegation knew Mohammed was in danger. After substantial negotiation, Mohammed accepted the offer. When the merchants prepared to murder him, he asked his followers to leave Mecca for Medina. Mohammed and his follower arrived in Medina eight days later. His flight became known as the Hegira (Arabic Hija, emigration) and marked the beginning of the Islamic calendar. Here, the word “emigration” was used to Mohammed’s flight. In fact, the threat from the merchants of Mecca was so heavy and his life was in danger because of his rigorous teaching of Allah. Finally, he had to run away from Mecca. Mohammed was soon given supreme authority in Medina, and he began to establish the ritual practices of Islam and to carry out social reforms. He promulgated a charter that specified the rights and relationships of the Muslims, Jews, and other groups of the city. The merchants of Mecca, meanwhile, persisted in their hostility, demanding the extradition of Mohammed and his partisans. One of the groups in Medina supported Mohammed’s elements to fight against Mecca’s merchants referring to in the Koran as the Hypocrites, who had submitted to Islam but were secretly working against it. The three Jewish tribes that were residing in Medina aided this group in turn. Mohammed’s strategy in the developing conflict with Mecca was to attack Mecca’s trade caravans returning from Syria and thus economically weakens the city. In 624, the first major battle occurred like terrorist activities, in which the Muslims, despite their inferiority in numbers and weapons, soundly defeated the Meccans. In the next major battle, the following year, the Meccans had the advantage but were unable to achieve a decisive victory. A Meccan army besieged Medina in 627 but failed to take the city. Mohammed meanwhile eliminated his enemies within Medina. After each of the battles he expelled a Jewish tribe, and after the major battles he had massacred the remaining male tribes for collaborating with his opponents. Mohammed’s army finally became stronger and stronger. In 630, the Meccans, unable to conquer Medina and crippled by the severing of their trade routes, at last submitted to Mohammed because they were afraid of being killed. Mohammed’s army attacked the merchants of Mecca in different forms in the name of Allah. When his army became powerful, tribal delegations arrived from throughout Arabia, and their tribes were soon converted to Islam. Those who refused to be converted to Islam would be horribly punished by Mohammed’s army. Mohammed, now the most powerful leader in Arabia, enforced the principles of Islam and established the foundation of the Islamic Empire. He ordered the destruction of the idols in the Kaaba, the traditional place of pilgrimage in Mecca, which then became the shrine of Islam. He granted Jewish and Christian religious autonomies as “people of the book”, whose revelations anticipated his own. On his last visit to Mecca, at the time of the annual pilgrimage, he gave a sermon in which he summarized his reforms, declared the brotherhood of Muslims, and repudiated all distinctions of class, color, and race. He died suddenly and unexpectedly in Medina about a year later, on June 8, 632.

After Khadija died in 619, when he was 50, he eventually married nine women, including 9 years old Aisha (Ayesha), the daughter of his kinsman and early follower Abu Bakr, who was to become the first caliph, or successor to Mohammed. He also took a Christian woman as his concubine. Mohammed’s sons all died in infancy, and the only daughter to survive him was Fatima, who married Ali, the fourth caliph. The scuttlebutt spread around the world that Mohammed had raped Aisha and forced her to be his wife. It was not a reliable story. But Aisha was Mohammed’s second and favorite wife. He died in her arms.

After Mohammed’s death, his followers began to establish the story of his life with mythology, probably derived in part from accounts of the founders of other religions. The story of Mohammed’s ascension to heaven from Jerusalem, for instance, seems to have been patterned on the ascension of Jesus. Mohammed’s heart, his early followers asserted, was miraculously cleansed of all unworthy thoughts when he was a boy of 12, and he was declared, as were the other messengers, immune from error and able to intercede on the behalf of sinners. Although the Koran explicitly denies that Mohammed performed any miracles, his followers soon credited him with many miraculous feats. Muslims, however, have always attributed their religion to Allah alone and repudiate any suggestion of Mohammed’s divinity. Mohammed’s remarkable abilities and personality were demonstrated by the establishment and rapid expansion of Islam, which had to overcome the traditional idolatry and tribal Arabs and opposition of their most powerful leaders. The strong monotheism, the theory of revelation, and the Biblical element in the Koran all suggest that Mohammed was exposed to both Christian and Jewish influence. However, his versions of Biblical stories indicate that they were indirectly acquired-most likely from Jewish and Christian traders and travelers whose religious knowledge was imperfect and apocryphal. The Hanifs, native people, who were unhappy with Arabian paganism, became satisfied after idol worshippers were killed by Mohammed’s army.

But Mohammed’s career always remains concealed in mystery. He felt disturbed and disgusted by the idolatry. He was painfully aware that the religious life of Jews and Christians about him contrasted sharply with the materialistic paganism of his people. He went to a cave under Mount Hira, near Mecca, for meditation and prayer. If the mountain will not come to Mohammed, Mohammed must go to the mountain. When Mohammed introduced his relationship with Allah to the Arabs, he was asked for miraculous proofs. He then ordered Mount Safa to come to him, and as it did not move, he said, “Allah is merciful. Had it obeyed my words, it would fall on us to our destruction. I will therefore go to the mountain, and thank Allah that he has had mercy on a stiff-necked generation”. The phrase is often used of one, who not being able to get his own way, bows before the inevitable.

Here, he said he received a Call “like the breaking of the dawn”. In fact, he wanted to say something to the people who were devoted to paganism; therefore, he created the legendary revelation of Allah, so that he could mention what he wanted to. According to tradition, Mohammed’s Call, the legendary revelation of Allah, came suddenly and dramatically in 611, when he was about forty years old. Description in the Koran, as well as a number of traditional stories, suggest that the Call was a flash of divine insight delivered by the angel Gabriel. Mohammed had no idea to begin founding a new religion. His ambitions were of modest kind; he hoped to bring his people to a unified Arab. Revelation was similar to that of the Christians and Jews. The early chapters of the Koran are brief and orthodox, dealing mainly with the unity under Allah, the wickedness of idolatry, materialism, and imminence of divine judgment.

At first, Mohammed’s few influential supporters, in addition to his wife, Abu Bakr and Umar were his powerful friends, and his sons-in-law Uthman and Ali, who succeeded him as the four “rightly guided” caliphs. Apart from this intimate circle, few were interested in his message of reform. However, as Mohammed became more confident in the importance of his mission he openly attacked the prevailing paganism and its leaders. He antagonized the powerful merchants who controlled Meccan society. Actually, he hated wealthy traders. Feared that his reforms would deprave Mecca of its unique and profitable position as a center of pilgrimage and trade, the merchants declared war with Mohammed and persecuted Mohammed’s soldiers. Eventually, some of Mohammed’s followers fled to Coptic Christian Abyssinia where they found asylum under the ruling Negus. The support of powerful relatives enabled Mohammed to maintain a foundation in Mecca, but he experienced one setback after another. First his wife died; then the sympathetic patriarch of his clan, whose successor was hostile to him.

Mohammed’s lack of achievement in Mecca, coupled with his abortive attempt to spread his message in Taif, led him to search for a new, more promising horizon. He found it at Yathrib (Medina).

Medina was a sophisticated city; it attracted many Pagan Arabs who eventually outnumbered its Jewish founders. It had no stable government but was constantly torn by feuds between the rival Arab tribes of the Aus and Khazraj, with the Jews often controlling the balance of power. After prolonged negotiations Mohammed finally agreed to his famous Hija (migration) to Medina. The people of Medina saw him as a man of power, discipline, and spirit who could serve as a mediator and conciliator rather than a religious leader. Unlike the Meccans, they had few strong religious convictions. Mohammed had some followers in Mecca, but the majority did not like his idea. They would accept the religious aspect of Islam for political and economic needs.

The move of Mohammed and his followers to Medina proved to be a pivotal one for the whole development of Islam. Once in Medina, Mohammed’s revelations changed in character; Mosques became a community and state, with Mohammed as the lawgiver, the supreme judge, the commander in chief, and the ruler.

Mohammed’s sudden death threatened the dissolution of the community he had struggled to create. First there was the problem of selecting his successor, or caliph. This task threatened to disrupt political and religious unity and precipitated some of the bloodiest battles in Islam. Mohammed had left no heir or clearly designated successor; in fact he had undermined the traditional tribal system of government by taking temporal as well as spiritual power into his own hands. Since he had proclaimed himself the last of the messengers and said that his unique mission would terminate with his death, there was no need for a spiritual successor, but someone had to fill his role as head of state, commander in chief, lawgiver, and chief justice. During the confusion that followed his death, several rival parties arose, each claiming priority in the appointment of a caliph.

The original Meccan converts, those who had migrated with him to Medina, based their claim on belonging to Mohammed’s tribe Quarayah and being the first to embrace Islam. His supporters of Medina, on the other hand, claimed priority because they had supported him following the Hija. Both groups, comprising the most influential among the Companions of Mohammed, cleaned toward the traditional tribal method of selecting a new chief from among the best qualified of their number.

A third group, advocating the idea of a divine designation as opposed to the traditional elective principle, supported Ali, a paternal cousin of Mohammed and the husband of his only surviving daughter Fatima; there were the influential Umayyads; the aristocrats of Mecca although the most recent converts to Islam, they claimed that their traditional position leadership, based on power and position, entitled them to name the caliph. An open breach between these diverse elements was avoided by the swift action of a small group of senior companions who nominated Abu Bakr as Mohammed’s successor.

Abu Bakr, an unprepossessing, but kindly man, slightly stooped by his sixty years, was revered for his gentleness, humility, and piety. His selection seemed most appropriate, for he had been chosen by dying Mohammed to lead the faithful in prayer. Mohammed’s death created a lot of problems. It acted as a signal for revolt to many of the out-laying tribes in central and eastern Arabia whose conversion to Islam had been at best lukewarm. Islam threatened their nomadic independence, and they were grateful for the opportunity to throw it off.

Abu Bakr’s awesome task was not only to be an effective religious leader, but also to solidify the shaky unity of the Islamic community. He was remarkably successful. In his short reign of two years, this weak man consolidated the diverse components of Islam and launched the Arabs on their path of conquest. Before his death in 634, Syria, Iraq, the southern provinces of Persia, and the Byzantine Empire had all fallen to the Arab conquerors.

To avoid difficulties, Abu Bakr had appointed Umar to succeed him, and the nomination was unanimously accepted. The reign of Umar (634-644) saw the further expansion of the Arab Empire. The typical Arab raids for booty into Iraq and Syria developed into campaigns of permanent conquest. The small Arab detachments, really mere raiding parties, were led by commanders (Khilid ibn al-Walid being one of the best known) and struck with lightning swiftness deep into the surrounding countries. They met little effective resistance. The seemingly unconquerable Arab armies, brilliantly using the desert as their ally won one battle after another. In the north the Arabs entered Damascus in 635. Then after the decisive battle of Yarmuk (636) the Byzantine emperor Heraclius abandoned Syria. Jerusalem fell in 637. In the east the Arabs won even more spectacular victories against the Persian Empire. After the battle of Qadisiya (643), finally broke Persian power, and the empire fell into Arab hands. In Egypt the pattern was the same: and Arab army under Amr al-Ass struck in 639. By 642 all of Egypt was under Arab domination.

Thus in a single decade a host of highly organized, sophisticated, and settled societies found themselves conquered by migratory Arab tribesmen. The Persian Empire, which had existed for centuries, was no more, and mighty Byzantium was forced back to the Tauru Mountains in Asia Minor.

The inspiration of Islam was of primary importance; it provided the Arabs, for the first time, with a cohesive centralizing force and the dramatic religion. The Muslims believed that divine intercession enabled them to scatter the armies of the infidels. The wars of conquest, moreover, provided opportunities for heroism and booty in the name of Allah and Islam. Everywhere the Islam conquerors gained territory and converts because of killings.

For the conquered peoples, the task of shifting from old to new rulers was not difficult. Most of them had long been alienated by cruel and corrupt Persian and Byzantine bureaucratic administrations. Moreover, in Egypt and Syria the Christian population was strongly opposed to the centralizing and Hellenizing tendencies of the Byzantine bureaucracy and Orthodox Church. Umar’s organizational abilities also contributed greatly to the Arab’s success. He regularized the legal position of the millions of non-Muslim subjects in his domain and set up an efficient administrative system for the empire. Mohammed had established the precedent of “tolerance” for the “People of the Book”, the Jewish and Christian communities in the northern Hijaz. Umar left these communities undisturbed except for the payment of an annual tribute in the form of poll tax (jizya); indeed, he extended the principle of toleration to cover not only codes, and were governed by their own religious leaders. This system prevailed throughout the Islamic area until the end of the Ottoman Era and still exists in the restricted way in parts of the Middle East that have not yet been thoroughly secularized. European claimed that Muslims gave unbelievers, mainly Christians and Jews, the choice of conversion to Islam or death by sword. From a practical point of view, mass conversions to Islam would have meant abandoning the jazya, a considerable source of revenue.

The Muslim conquerors, however, sought to maintain their identity as a separate ruling class. Overall authority in the conquered provinces was established by the appointment of military commanders as governors. Arab garrisons maintained order throughout the empire. Individual Arabs in the newly won territories were forbidden to acquire land outside Arabia proper and were discouraged from mixing with the local populace. Yet while the Arabs held the ultimate power, they left civil control in the hands of their non-Muslim subjects-the Hellenized Christians and Persians experienced in the local government.

Umar was reasonable for laying the foundation of the empire. In 644 a discontented Persian slave assassinated him as he was praying in a mosque in Medina. Uthman, a son-in-law of Mohammed, and a member of the influential Umayyad family of the Meccan tribe of Quarayah, was eventually elected caliph. Although noted for his mild manner, piety, and closeness to Mohammed, Uthman turned out to be a somewhat irresolute ruler and was accused of appointing his kinsmen to leading position in the empire. Some, however, were able generals and governors who carried the banner of Islam north into Asia Minor and Byzantium, and on the eastern front into Bactria, Kabul, and Ghazzi.

The problem of Islamic society at that time was the impact of the Empire upon it. The earliest Muslims were wealthy. A second urban generation was in the making, raised amid the amusements and the luxuries of Alexandra, Damascus, Ctesiphon, and the camp cities of Basra and Kufa. For this reason, politics, power, and prestige had ended, and Uthman was too weak to halt the trend. In 656, a party of regicides from the army in Egypt came to Medina to present Uthman with grievance concerning his misrule. Upon discovering that Uthman was stalling only to allow the Syrian troops he had secretly sought from Mu’awiya, the Umayyad governor of Syria, came to Medina to defy him, the regicides stormed his place. They murdered him while reading the Koran. The first blow was dealt by Abdallah, son of Abu Bakr, the first caliph. This murder of a caliph by fellow Muslim was the first direct challenge to the moral hero. Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Mohammed and his male kin, had many virtues as warrior, counselor, and friend. But he lacked the talents to govern a divided state, being indecisive and inflexible, as well as lacking in energy and foresight.

Opposition to Ali began in Mecca headed by Aisha, the widow of Mohammed, who hated him, and by Talha and Zubair, who had been Mohammed’s Companions, and who had their own eyes on the caliphate. They had previously been enemies of Uthman and had formed the real centers of opposition to him in Medina even prior to the advent of the Egyptian regicides. Now, with complete disregard of their previous role in the events leading to the murder, they defiantly withdrew to Mecca, withheld their recognition of Ali, and demanded the punishment of the guilty. Ali did not carry out the direct responsibility for the crime, but the opposition insisted by failing to use his prestige and standing more effectively to protect Uthman, and by failing to punish the regicides after his accession, he had implicated himself in the murder. Soon afterward, a pro-Uthman party developed around the opposition, carrying for war and vengeance. After gathering their forces in Mecca, Aisha, Talha, and Zubair moved to Basra in search of local support.

In 656, Ali moved against them and left Medina at the head of his army-never to return there again. From that day to the present, Medina ceased to be the capital of the Islamic Empire. The conflict was known as the “Battle of the Camel” after the camel Aisha rode as she urged her supporters to fight on. The first battle of Muslim against Muslim ended in victory for Ali, but not before many illustrious Companions including Talha and Zubair had lost their lives. Aisha, “the Mother of the Faithful”, was captured but was permitted to return to Medina, where she lived the rest of her life in obscurity. Ali, realizing his unpopularity in Basra, made Kufa his capital. His position as caliph appeared secure, but in reality his authority was constantly being challenged, both by tribal insubordination and by conflicting councils of theocrats in his own camp.

As for the rest of the empire, Ali was generally recognized as the new caliph. The new governors he had appointed were accepted everywhere, but in Syria Ali was accused of condoning the regicides. Ali led an army and met the Syrian forces at Stiffin by the Euphrates in 657. When the battle against them, the Syrian dramatically raised copies of the Koran on the point of their lances and appealed for arbitration. The arbitration which followed in 659 was unsuccessful, for it ended in a stalemate-Mu’awiya refusing to recognize Ali as caliph, and Ali either abdicating or accepting Mu’awiya as governor of Syria. But the arbitration was, in effect, a moral victory for Mu’awiya, reducing Ali’s status as sole caliph to that of a pretender.

Moreover, the settlement brought other difficulties for Ali, after the “Battle of the Camel”, and many supporters from Mecca and Medina had perished. Ali was left at the mercy of his soldiers-the anarchic and undisciplined nomadic Arabs. Ali subdued an important group among them, known as the Kharijities (seceders), the oldest religious sect of Islam in 659, but they continued to reappear as puritanical, militant movements throughout the later history of Islam.

Ali, weakened by the Kharijite revolt and declining morale among his supporters, was assassinated in 661 in Kufa by a Kharijite. Hassan, his eldest son, was proclaimed caliph in Kufa while Mu’awiya was recognized in Damascus. A few months later, Hassan reached an agreement with Mu’awiya, and Mu’awiya was then proclaimed the sole of caliph of the empire at Jerusalem in 661, with Damascus as his capital. As the center of the community changed from the Companions of Mohammed to the Umayyad, a new era was born.

Muslims say Koran is the word of Allah. They believe that the angel Gabriel is said to have spoken Allah’s word into Mohammed’s ears. According to Muslim tradition, after this ecstatic experience Mohammed was able to recite exactly what he had been told. The term Qu’ran, which means “recitation”, occurs several times in the text itself; the term refers either to a fragment of the revelation or to the entire collection of revelations that are known as the Qu’ran. Oral recitation of the Qu’ran is believed by Muslims to be the believer’s most direct contact with the word of Allah.

The recitation, known as tajwid or tartil, is consequently highly valued among Muslims. Recitation is heard almost everywhere. It is the core of religious devotion. The main topic of the Qu’ran is Allah’s relationship with humanity. The Qu’ran summons humans to acknowledge Allah’s sovereign over their lives and invites them to submit to his will. The chief doctrines laid down in the Qu’ran are that only Allah and one true religion. All people will undergo a final judgment for being rewarded with eternal bliss or being punished. Allah sent messengers to lead the nation. The greatest of these messengers were Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed. According to this sacred scripture, humankind’s fundamental role in this world is one of moral struggles. Each person will be held accountable for this struggle at the end of time. Allah sent Mohammed and the Qu’ran to instruct humanity in how to lead a moral life. The teachings of the Qu’ran are dispersed and repeated throughout the book rather than being organized as topic. The subjects of these teachings include Allah and creation, messengers from Adam to Jesus, Mohammed as a preacher and ruler, Islam as a faith and core of life, disbelief, human responsibility and judgment, and society and law. But on many specific questions the Qu’ran is silent.

While the Qu’ran itself does not instruct about the nature of humanity’s moral struggle in detail, the significance of this responsibility is emphasized by the portrayal of the Day of Judgment in some of the most powerful passages of the Qu’ran. Muslims believe that on that day the world will come to an end, the dead will be resurrected, and a judgment will be pronounced on every person in accordance with his or her deeds. The Qu’ran vividly depicts the torment of hell and the bliss of Paradise, the two realms to which people will be sent once judgment has been pronounced. In chapter 100, the Day of Judgment is described:

Although the Qu’ran accepts the miracles of earlier religious leaders, including the messengers of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles (Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and others), it declares their teachings outdated. For Muslims, the Qu’ran teaches the meaning of life. Consequently, it holds a pride of place at the very center of Muslim religious life and practice. There is no more eloquent testimony to the place accorded the Qu’ran in a Muslim’s life than the effort that many pious individuals make to internalize the scripture by memorizing it in its entirety. A person who has thus memorized the complete text is known as hafiz, one who keeps the Qu’ran in his or her heart.

Parts of the Qu’ran are recited on many different occasions. A Muslim who observes the five daily prayers will recite several short chapters from the Qu’ran each day. Passages are recited at birth to the newborn and at death to the dying. All the great events of life and the rites of passage in the Muslim are marked by recitation of the Qu’ran. Parts of the book are incorporated into the rites of marriages and funerals. A new venture of any kind, whether in public or private life, is inaugurated by the recitation of blessings from the Qu’ran. In many Muslim countries every public meeting starts with the recitation of Qu’ranic verse. It is a special mark of devotion to recite the whole of the Qu’ran at least once during the month of fasting.

The significance of the Qu’ran and the understanding of its sacredness can first be understood within the story of Mohammed. According to Islamic belief, the experience of receiving the revelations transformed Mohammed, a human being like any other, became the leader of his people and a man who profoundly influenced the history of the world. Mohammed’s home becomes a major religious center and site of the revered sanctuary and shrine. From AD 570 to 622, Mecca was also an environment of spiritual and intellectual unrest. The people of Mecca lived under an ancient system of tribes and clans; this system had evolved from their former nomadic lifestyle of herding and moving from place to place according to seasonal changes. But the moral values of this tribal social system were breaking down as the people struggled to adapt themselves to the lifestyle of Mecca, a thriving commercial town. As a child, dependent on his uncle for protection and livelihood, Mohammed experienced the bitter competition and politics of his times.

Mohammed was exposed to both Christian and Jewish religious dialogues in Mecca. Prior to his call, Mohammed had developed the custom of retreating to a cave outside Mecca to meditate and pray.

According to Islamic tradition, revelations such as this continued to come to Mohammed in Mecca for 13 years, and later in Medina. The revelations came in fragments as responses to the circumstances that he and his emerging Muslim community faced. The fragmentary nature of the revelations distinguishes the Qu’ran from other sacred texts, including many books of the Hebrew Bible, which tell a coherent history or story.

There was no definitive written text of the Qu’ran while Mohammed was still alive, but the structure of the Suras (chapters) and their titles may have been influenced by Mohammed. Muslims generally believe that the authorized version of the Qu’ran derives from the work of a commission appointed by the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, during the second half of his reign, roughly 20 years after Mohammed’s death. The text, the number and order of the chapters are also arranged by the commission.

The most widely accepted history of this Uthmanic text is that the commission relied upon a written copy of the entire text that was collected from written and oral versions within two years of Mohammed’s death during the reign of the first caliph, Abu Bakr. Written versions had been created by those who served as Mohammed’s secretaries and wrote down the revelations as Mohammed received them. Oral versions existed because some of Mohammed’s companions had memorized several chapters. The commission thus succeeded in establishing a complete text.

Different readings of certain words and verses, however, continued for a long time. This was due to differences among dialect of Arabic and deficiencies in the script used for writing at that time. Although Arabic script shows the characteristics of a consonantal script, there are several cases where the same form of writing was used to represent more than one consonant without any distinguishing mark If there were agreements on the consonants, some words could be read in different ways because the earliest copies of the Qu’ran were transcribed without symbols to represent certain vowels. Diacritical marks were added to the text a few generations after its creation, but the Uthmanic text was probably not accepted as a definitive text until the beginning of the 4th century of the Islamic calendar (10th century AD). In the 20th century an Egyptian edition printed in 1924 became the official text throughout the Islamic area.

The Uthmanic or canonical text represents a different sequence than the order in which Mohammed reportedly receive the revelations. The chapters, after the short opening chapter called al-Fatihah, are arranged roughly in descending order of length. Because the first revelations are the shorter chapters, they are assigned to the end.

The Qu’ran is divided into 114 chapters, or suras, each of which is further divided into a number of ayt (verses). The chapter titles were taken from images or events included in the suras. The chapters are customarily classified in reference to the two cities in which Mohammed lived and received the revelations. The Qu’ran is divided into various schemes, such as 30 equal ajza (parts), so that it can be read in full during Ramadan, the month of fasting, but reciting one part per day.

The 1924 Egyptian Qu’ranic text is printed with full diacritical marks and other signs that give precise guidance for the pronunciation of each word, especially for those readers who do not know Arabic. Although Arabic can be written without vowels, the meaning of Arabic words depends on both consonants and vowels. For centuries the Qu’ran was transcribed without symbols to represent the missing vowels, so that more than one reading of the text was possible. Despite the consensus among Muslim scholars on the authority of the Uthmanic text, seven or more legitimate readings of the Qu’ran prevailed during the early centuries of Islam.

There are many questions about Mohammed. One of the questions is why did he run away from Mecca?

Another question is he claimed he was the last messenger for the world and why did he set up an army to victimize the traders?

The Qu’ran and clerics are silent for these questions. On the other hand, there is no image of Mohammed remained. Actually, no one is allowed to illustrate Mohammed’s image; therefore, no one knows how he was look-like. After the death of Mohammed, many Muslim parents named their sons Mohammed. The name (Mohammed) became popular. The nomenclatures of Mohammed are not all Muslims. Some people name their pets Allah and Mohammed.

A farmer family of Myauk national once named two dogs, Allah and Mohammed in Thailand. Many Muslims from Bangladesh came to Thailand illegally and worked for the Myauk farmers in the northwestern area of Thailand. Sometimes Muslims prayed for Allah and Mohammed such as “Allah is great and Mohammed is his messenger” in a thunderous voice. When the owner of the farm heard of that voice, he named his dogs. He did not seem to know who were Allah and Mohammed. Muslims who heard that the farmer had two dogs, Allah and Mohammed, tried to create problems in that region. They called a meeting at the Maesod Mosque and told the people that the Myauk farmer merely insulted Islamic religion. At the meeting, the names of the dogs became a big problem. Some said the farmer insulted Islam. Some said they wanted to know the meanings of Allah and Mohammed in Myauk Language. Most of the illegal people threatened the farmer. But they were unable to live longer there; Thai authorities arrested and sent them back to their homeland.

Red River

[Julia Buckingham]

I want to see these Danish cartoons that have caused all the controversy. Please send me site so that I can have a look.

[Scott]

Kenny Pierce, I appreciate the thought, even the struggle, that you have invested in the issue. It is not my intention to start one of those blazing blog-wars, but I do have several thoughts.

1. Asking to Muslim to swear on the Koran to forgo jihad seems self-defeating, one for the reasons given by Liquid, but I would add two additional thoughts. The first, apparently jihad is an option/requirement/recommendation of that same Koran, so that seems ultimately self-defeating. The second is that Moslem oaths given to non-Moslems are non-binding. Trust becomes a problem.

2. The issue that I tried to raise is not that we can't trust most of the Moslems living in the U.S. (re: your second point: "A very significant portion of modern Muslims -- though BY NO MEANS all ..."). The point is that, should we find out that, while "most" Moslems in the U.S. would not terrorize us, there are possibly many who would. If that significant portion included Moslems in the U.S., how many would we tolerate before we determine that we cannot trust any Moslems, and deport them? Or worse. Mobs are a product of fear. An oath seems inadequate for determining trust.

I don't see a mass use of polygraphs or sodium pentathol to make sure that those taking the oaths mean it. Furthermore, a position of belief today can be over-ridden by events of tomorrow. Some grave indignity could shake strongly held beliefs. Imagine the shock if, by some strange, terrible fluke, the Dome of the Rock was destroyed. How would Moslems, tolerant, moderate Moslems, react?

To some extent I am sympathetic to your argument that non-participants in a particular religion can't adequately comment on the articles of faith of that religion. My problem is that the call to jihad is coming from the Moslem faithful, who seem to feel that the Koran demands their action against the West. That is as problematic as if the Pope called for a return of the Inquisition and making the U.S. a papal state (or the Church of England started killing Catholics, or the Calvinists killing Catholics, or the Puritans of New England hanging Quakers and Baptists again. I don't want to single out the sins of the Catholics in this area as worse than the sins of other denominations). The fact that the Catholic Church has denounced torture as a means of conversion gives me more security than I currently feel with Islamic leadership.

It's not an easy issue. For good reasons, our government is pushing the idea that we are safe, and we can stop any Moslem uprising before it happens, assuming NSA monitoring and a strong Patriot Act. But the government's position is to keep order, not actually determine threat. They don't want a massacre on their hands, and I tend to agree with them. But the government's position may turn out to be wrong, by at least a strong committed minority of Moslems. Then we have problems.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Alexandra,

Shari'a is the code of Islamic Law. Those nations living under the Shari'a in essence use the Qur'ran as their constitution.

Jizya is a tax imposed upon non-Muslims. One of the obligations of being Muslim is to give alms to the poor. The Jizya then assumes non-muslims do not give alms to the poor so the Jizya is imposed upon non-Muslim to make sure the non-Muslims give to the poor.

Dar ul Islam House of peace, those nations under Islamic rule.

Dhimmitude Those non-Muslims living under Islamic rule.

Dar ul Hurb. House of war, the nations not under Islamic rule.

Jihad. Seems like it depends on context but by its most common usage I usually assume Jihad to mean I am going to kill you kaffir (dirty non-believer)!

[antimedia]

The Cartoon War (what a wonderfully wry appelation, Alexandra) is the best thing that could possibly have happened. If you see people carrying signs that say "Behead people who insult Islam" because the sign-holder found a cartoon offensive and you don't get it, then you've identiied yourself as useless. The rest of us can move on, therefore, with the business of eliminating, once and for all, the threat of radical Islam from the world. For it should be beyond certainty now, that they will not accept any form of government but their religion and sharia law and they fully intend to behead every infidel that does not bow down to them in abject obesiance.

I'm glad it happened. I hope the anger grows and the protests continue. It will help separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Huan]

Denmark was targeted because the islamists thought they could win an easy one. After all it is both small and European. But again it is a strategic mistake. To kill Americans abroad is one thing, to kill them in the US only served to awaken the giants. In the PR section, to rant against US "imperialism" will get you sympathy even in Europe; to rant against free speech in Europe won't get you nearly as far.

btw, there is a question as to whether the MSM got it right in their reporting of the US State Department response.
From the State Department:

"We find them offensive. And we certainly understand why Muslims would find those images offensive," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in his daily press briefing February 3.
"At the same time, we vigorously defend the right of individuals" to express views that the U.S. government may disagree with or condemn, he added.

[Liquid]

Kenny, in your thinking, you said, " I believe, so slight that any Muslim who will swear on the Koran that he rejects the validity of jihad and has no desire to impose sharia upon the rest of us, should be taken at his word barring any actual evidence that he himself is engaged in violence or the subsidy thereof."

Wouldn't it be nice to "trust" that thought, but the facts are that the quran allows the muslim to lie via takeyya if they feel it's necessary, so to swear on a koran or anything really is no comfort. You can read about it HERE

" Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful." Surah 5:89

"Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing." Surah 2:225

[Jake Was Here]

I don't see why the cave-in on the part of the State Department surprised anyone. With the obvious exception of Condi Rice, virtually everyone working in that damn bureaucracy was hired by Bill Clinton - and we know how HE feels about those cartoons, since he didn't have the good grace to keep his trap shut about them.

You know, it's been five years since Bill left office - how friggin' long will it take him and the people who worked for him to accept that they're no longer the leaders of the country?

[Jeff Durkin]

A bit off topic but one commentor said "The west has dealt with uncivilized enemies before...germany, japan, natives in various countries. Take a number mussies."

Just to be clear, Germany and, to some degree Japan, were Western states. Certainly, Fascism (and Communism) were as much a product of Western civilization as democracy and the free market. And, while pre-War Japan was not Western to the extent that it is now, it was on the road in that direction.

Maybe this is one reason why the Islamists are popular; it is hard to escape the overwhelming influence of the West. Whether you lived in capitalist America or Communist Russia, you were in, essentially, a Western state. If you were part of the Viet Cong, fighting to create a nationalist/Marxist people's republic, you were as much a child of Western modes of thought as an 18-year-old grunt from Detroit.

Outside of Islam, there really isn't another alternative. There are alternatives within Western civilization (e.g., socialism, democracy, one-party states) but, if you are trying to organize a society on anything above a tribal level, you are either using some derivation of Western models or you are setting up a revisionist theocracy.

To be clear, I am not saying that Western culture has made this kind of penetration; certainly, there are many localized cultural norms that do not have any modern Western analogs; but, when you are talking governance, economics or buy-in to the scientific/rational/mechanistic worldview (even if only on a practical level; you might think that spirits guide your life, but you'll still probably be talking on a cell phone, driving a car and watching a Hollywood movie on a big screen TV) than you have three choices: something derived from the West, Islam or subsistence philosophy. This last refers to those places where life is so precarious that most energy is devoted purely to surviving from one day to the next and organization rarely rises above that which you would find in a street gang.

Anyway, just my two cents worth.

[tankerboy]

Interesting display of media bias today. Fox News showed protesters carrying signs in English that stated "Behead defilers of Islam" and "Massacare enemies of the Prophet". CNN only showed banners in Arabic which the bulk of their viewers cannot read. Hmmmmm.

[anon]

The west has dealt with uncivilized enemies before...germany, japan, natives in various countries. Take a number mussies.

[mynewsbot]

These fanatics are always pissed off on something or other .. who cares

[Kenny Pierce]

Scott,

I've actually thought about that quite a bit -- a very painful subject for me because of numerous close and much-beloved Muslim friends.

There are three facts that set Islam apart from all other religions.

1. The most obvious, straightforward and natural reading of the Koran and of the career of Mohammed (may he rest in peace) is that Islam requires the military, forcible, and eternal subjugation of all non-Muslims under the Muslim sword -- that is, that Mohammed declared war on the rest of mankind and enjoined it upon his supporters.

2. A very significant portion of modern Muslims -- though BY NO MEANS all -- remain at least intellectually, and if intellectually then generally emotionally, committed to the validity of jihad, and thus those particular Muslims -- though BY NO MEANS all -- give their willful assent to the Muslim war on the rest of humanity.

3. A grossly disporportionate percentage of the world's current conflicts in which people die, and practically all of the world's current conflicts in which innocent children and other noncombatants are deliberately killed as an explicit political strategy, are conflicts in which Muslims are trying to kill people who disagree with them about religion.

Now, I have heard a great many non-Christians undertake to tell me what the Bible means, and Alexandra's Guest at the Feast is -- I'm not exaggerating -- practically unique in being able actually to do so without making a complete ass of himself (or herself, as the Guest may be). So there's no way I'm going to undertake to tell a Muslim that he's wrong if he tells me that he can renounce jihad and sharia and still be a good Muslim; I'm not about to presume to tell a Muslim that I (who don't even speak a word of Arabic) know what the Koran means and he doesn't.

But I do think that a Muslim who does not renounce jihad and sharia, is a Muslim who forfeits any claim to religious liberty. It is an absolute prerequisite of the claim to a human right, that you recognize your responsibility to honor that right in other people.

And in light of the three facts given above, I believe that civilized societies must recognize not only that great swaths of the Muslim world have given wholehearted and willing assent to the rationalized-by-appeal-to-the-Koran war on the rest of mankind, but that this threat is sufficiently pressing and deadly as to require us to assume that being Muslim is in itself weak, but real, a priori evidence that you are at war with the rest of us. This presumption of guilt ought to be, I believe, so slight that any Muslim who will swear on the Koran that he rejects the validity of jihad and has no desire to impose sharia upon the rest of us, should be taken at his word barring any actual evidence that he himself is engaged in violence or the subsidy thereof. And I think Muslims who are American citizens should retain their full presumption of innocence unless other cause can be shown. But I believe that Muslims wishing to enter this country should be denied entrance unless they are willing to forswear jihad and the imposition of sharia in America; and indeed that Muslim foreign nationals currently here should be denied renewal of visas and resident rights without a similar oath.

It is absolutely critical to recognize three things.

1. I hate my own strategy, I hate my own approach, and I hate the thought of, say, my beloved practically-adopted-daughter Aigul's having to swear that she is not a proponent of jihad or sharia -- even though I know perfectly well that she could swear such an oath in all honesty. Unfortunately I believe that the armies of jihad force our hands in this matter -- or would if we had the courage and intelligence to know what is at stake.

2. I am not at all sold on this approach and I am more than willing to change my mind. I am very, very far indeed from having made up my mind; it is a problem with which I am very much in the process of wrestling. I can't overstate the degree of tentativeness with which I hold this position.

3. This has nothing to do with any particular religious difference I might have with Muslims other than, of course, the obvious fact that I do not believe that Mohammed (may he rest in peace all the same) was a prophet of God. If Muslims believed that it was a moral requirement for everybody not only to go to Mecca, but to have sexual relations with sheep while there, I would find their morality repulsive but I would not consider them a military threat or deny them entrance to our country. I don't think atheists should be denied entrance to the U.S., even though I think atheists have done more harm since 1900 than Muslims have (though the Islamists are doing their damnedest, quite literally, to catch up); there's no holy book of atheism (other than the shabby and discredited texts of Marxism) that urge atheists to seize power and forcibly impose upon the rest of the world the choice of conversion or degradation and slavery. The problem is that a whole bunch of Muslims are at war with the rest of mankind, and nothing in the world will satisfy them in the end save complete world domination. We are at war, and it is to the death.

I hate this conclusion. I would be delighted to be argued out of it.

[Scott]

Background: After Pearl Harbor, the United States confined people of Japanese heritage because of fears that these people would have greater loyalty to their Japanese heritage than to the United States.

Now assume that 1,000,000 or perhaps only 100,000 Moslems living in American decided to burn, destroy and terrorize the United States because of our opposition to Islamic tradition, principles, or simply because the cartoons have been published in America.

It can't happen here? It seems likely that it's about to happen in Europe.

Question: How should the United States treat Moslems? How many acts of terrorism should we tolerate in this country before we declare that Islam is incompatible with American ideals, and restrict, deport, whatever, Moslems to protect our way of life? How many homegrown terrorists can be tolerate? 50,000? 25,000? 12,500? How many?

[Kenny Pierce]

To Kofi Annan and the American State Department, the incitement of religious hatred or ethnic hatred is apparently an evil more worthy of criticism than is religious or ethnic hatred itself.

If a Muslim wants to be offended by those cartoons, I fully support him; I myself found Piss Christ incredibly and deliberately offensive. If a Muslim wants to boycott Denmark, let him feel free; I won't join the boycott myself but I certainly don't think he should be forced to buy Danishes if he doesn't want to. But IMHO if a Muslim tries to storm a building or otherwise wax violent because of cartoons in a newspaper, he should expect us to shoot him in the head and be done with it. Those who choose the path of violence against others who have done nothing violent...well, they have chosen the path of violence; let them reap what they have sown.

[Dumb Ox]

The State Department comment you mention is word for word what Kofi Annan said yesterday. How reassurring is that?

[Jeff Durkin]

Apparemtly, our State Department has sided with the Islamists on this one.

<<<<"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.">>>>

So, the feelings of people who want to destroy our civilization (something they have made quite clear) trumps our support for freedom of expression, one of the core components of our culture. Nice.

[Ron Franscell]

From media blogger Ron Franscell at http://underthenews.blogspot.com ...

OK, it's not really news that radical Muslims are mad and want to kill people ... that's just every Thursday for Osama and his boys.

But it's kinda funny that they now want to blow up anybody who laughed at that cartoon. It's funny to think of Denmark as a threat to Islam, isn't it? Denmark isn't even a threat to Finland.

I wonder: How can a culture that justifies crashing planes into buildings or beheading innocents find a piddling editorial cartoon too offensive? And we think these people should have nukes?

Hunting for logic in the madrassahs of the Muslim world is fruitless. Logic is a head-thing, and radical Islamists listen only to the sour bile in their guts. We have Muslim media (al Jazeera) airing decapitation videos for the simple reason that radical Islamists know beheadings are highly provocative to Westerners ... but now radical Islamists are going (slightly more) insane over a newspaper cartoon?? Man, they need to cut back the caffeine in that Turkish coffee.

If Muslim countries wish to ban such idolatrous art, let 'em. But most Muslim nations put more energy into organizing "Death to America!" parades than election days. Why waste time debating issues when you can simply blow up the opposition? Why write a letter to the editor when you can just shoot your rival? Face it, terrorists generally aren't good listeners (or cuddlers, for that matter.) But, hey, it's their little corner of Hell, and if they wish, they should be free to set the thermostat on "high."

But a lot of nations in this world still have free presses, free expression, and really wicked editorial cartoonists. Radical Islamists with 12th century sensibilities have already made a too-big dent in the 21st century ... and when they arrive at democratic government offices and newsrooms with loaded weapons, they're no better than the "devil-dogs" they so gleefully decapitate. Haven't they seen how George Bush is portrayed in cartoons? And how long do you think before "South Park" has a Mohammad character dancing nekkid with 72 virgins?

Oh well. Editorial cartoonists' only reason for living is to get under somebody's skin. And now, one Danish cartoonist has found some readers who want to get under his skin ... with a scimitar.

[Dumb Ox]

Well the Jordanian sacking matches nicely with France Soir's sacking of their editor. I've been frankly quite surprised that European papers are showing as much spine as they are, and have commented on this over at The Dumb Ox.

You're certainly right, Alexandra, about the stultifying political correctness in academia and at large. Everybody has to watch what they say so as to not remotely risk offending anyone. Did you see my post on Rabbi Gellman's attack in Newsweek on "the cult of winning"? He won't let his bahmitzvah students say "my parents are the greatest" because other parents might get hurt feelings!

Holy smokes!

Your readers can get all they need to know about Islam from the chapter in Hilaire Belloc's book "The Great Heresies" dealing with Mohammed.

All the best,
D. Ox
http://thomistic.blogspot.com