a controversial movie about terrorism funded by a right-wing organization

To be clear, it's the movie that's funded by the right-wing organization.

Obsession is vicious, racist, mindless filth. There are parts which are hilariously funny (e.g., the allegedly Muslim rapper and the hysterical reductio ad Hitlerium at the heart of the "film"), but it's a deadly serious, vile little piece of propaganda - know-nothingism for the 21st century. It has no intellectual content, no merits, and despite its periodic protestations to the contrary, it tars all Muslims with the same big, ugly brush. It shows no interest in history, economics, or politics - no trace of interest in the various causes behind Islamic extremism. It just beats the idiot drums of war.

Would this hadith be a legit cause of Islamic extremism?

"... and the rocks and trees will say: O, Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!"

Interestingly, the hadith cites Jews, not Israelis.

Radical islamists are marching forward on every continent with their agenda. Whether it be as meek as cab drivers refusing rides to clients with dogs or alcohol or children refusing to take swim class in France. Or the bigoted preaching in Regents (moderate) mosque in London teaching that gays should be pushed off buildings and then stoned to death if still alive. And finally, there are the suicide bombers drugging young women and sending them to their death. There is one 'manual' that teaches these behaviors and it is being used all over the world. Islam may not seem monolithic when these news itesm are viewed apart but taken together these acts all over the world present a very monolithic obstacle.

No Dave. I don't think its that hadith. I think it might be this verse from the Koran. Maybe we can agree to disagree. Okay?

"[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."

Harvey, is it 'racist' to use Islamic teachings to find justification for Islamic actions?

Bruce, are you saying that hadith is not authentic? Its from Bukhari.

I have seen "Obsession" in its entirety. The film accurately details parts of Islam that Muslims (and Islamic apologists) don’t want known. It may not be PC to talk about Islam’s warts, but I’ll take the truth over PC swill any day.

If Muslims don't like what the video shows, then they need to force an Islamic reformation. Stop stoning women, cutting of hands and feet, teaching hate, preaching world domination, and following the teachings of a 7th century murdering child pedophile – Mohammad.

Or better yet just renounce Sharia.

Why would anyone try to write an article on a movie he had not watched?

Additionaly, Tim Fernholz, statement “And I thought we'd gotten past the idiotic monolithic theory of terrorism” proves his knowledge of Islam is less than he thinks it is.

Last time I checked Buddhist in Thailand, Christian in Philippines, Hindus in India & Bangaldesh, Africans in Darfur, Slavs in Balkans, Armenians, French Suburbs, and Scandinavian women are having serious trouble with Muslims.

So you are simply out of touch with reality. Islam is a monolith simply because the moderate(40%) don't have guns vs the violent Jihadist(20%) plus the Armani Islamist(40%) control the discourse with money, guns, and social pressure.

So please learn about Islam' daily doing with sites like Jihadwatch otherwise you sound like a clueless American.

I have not seen the movie and do not wish to.I get queasy watching man's inhumanity.
I believe that most mulims like other religions are in no way supportive of the small number of exremist who are a sub-group only.

As far as I can see the only way to deal with terrorism is through education, and as gun's eradicate and do not educate, I am for many more discussion between the mostly moderate Muslims, Christians, Jews and others to bring the opportunity of a tolerant discussion to the table.

Dear Tim,

If you consider you have won the lottery with only two of six numbers needed you may be disappointed. The movie is truth and it unfolds around us every day and has done so off and on for 1350 years.

It must be a warm cuddly feeling keeping your blinkers on. I myself keep them off.

Due to your ignorance I offer you Milestones by Sayyid Qutb The Islamic Jihadist’s ‘Mein Kampf’. Enjoy.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:hoFH-je1e94J:www.majalla.org/books/2005/qutb-nilestone.pdf+Milestones+by+Sayyid+Qutb&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

Islam is the only religion that condones and justifies murder of non believers in its holy book. The usual dismissal of this fact is that other religions have had their writings distorted to justify various crimes through out history. No other major religion has the basic tenant that non believers should be killed or made slaves. The whole history of Islam has been murder and subjugation. It continues today. Islam is a hate crime.

Dave, Just kidding. Really!

The point - mine and yours (I think), is that there are a multitude of quotes from both the Hadiths and the Koran that can be used to demonstrate a religious basis for "Radical" Islam.

What we understand, and most readers don't, is that Islam isn't the a la carte religion we're used to in 'The West'.

You take it in its entirety, or not at all.

Not really much chance of a "opportunity of a tolerant discussion"...

Dave, Just kidding. Really!

The point - mine and yours (I think), is that there are a multitude of quotes from both the Hadiths and the Koran that can be used to demonstrate a mainstream religious basis for "Radical" Islam.

What we understand, and most readers don't, (That means you too Ern.), is that Islam isn't the 'a la carte' religion we're used to in 'The West'.

You take it in its entirety, or not at all.

Not really much of an "opportunity of a tolerant discussion"...

Read a review of this review at www.weaselzippers.com.

Mr. Fernholz, as an attorney who has studied Islam and Islamic history for over ten years, and lived in the Middle East, I can assure you that Koran and Hadith - Islam's authoritative scripture - teach that Muslims must fight until Islam achieves world domination and that non-Muslims may be killed or made to live as slaves paying tribute to Muslims.

Dear Tim,

It's great that YOU'VE gotten past "that idiotic monolithic theory...". BUT 7th CENTURY BARBARIC ISLAM HAS NOT !

Try learning about islam from ex-moslems before you ramble on like another "idiotic thinker".

Ah trolls...Dave, Bruce, Sam and friends...you guys masturbate to Obsession, don't you? I hope your kids all marry Muslims you racist fucks.

"For instance, it conflates every vaguely related radical Islamist terrorist attack into one unitary war -- suggesting, for instance, the Beslan massacre in Russia was somehow connected to 9/11. And I thought we'd gotten past the idiotic monolithic theory of terrorism.[...]

Here's what we need to know: Radical Islam is not monolithic. It is not a clear and existential threat to the future of the United States of America
"
No, that couldn't be true. Because then there might actually be this evil thing going on that we need to fight, and that can't be true, because then the conservatives that are actually talknig about that would be right, and that can't be true because we don't want it to be true. Remember, we have to hate Bush and conservatives more than we hate the bastards who blow up innocent people and cut people's heads off.

Bush is Hitler, y'know. Sheesh

Fernholz is loving proof that the phrase "liberal intgelligence" under your masthead is an oxymoron.

Fernholz obviously knows nothing of Islam. Here are some basic facts that he and everyone else needs to know:
1) Not all Moslems are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Moslems.
2) All Moslem terrorists quote the Koran and Muhammad when they commit their murderous acts in the name of Islam.
3) There are moderate Moslems, but there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Moderate, peaceful Moslems can be moderate and peaceful only by NOT following the precepts of the Koran and Muhammad. That is why moderate Moslems cannot find any theological arguments against the Moslem terrorists and their legions of supporting imams.
4) Islam, as a belief system, is not just a religion. It is also an ideology, that is, a program for organizing all of society and then imposing this organization upon the whole world, by force, if necessary.
Here are just a few of the many violent precepts from the Koran and Muhammad:
--Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve. (8.55)
-- The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101)
--Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (48:29).
-- It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer, accidents excepted. (4:92)
--Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme. (8:40)
-- Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. (2:193)
--Mohammed said, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." Vol. 9:57
--Mohammed said, " No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir" (infidel). Vol. 9:50
--Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "
One could go on and on. All Moslems are required to believe and follow all of the above injunctions. Most of them don't; but many of them do.

Fernholz is loving proof that the phrase "liberal intgelligence" under your masthead is an oxymoron.

Fernholz obviously knows nothing of Islam. Here are some basic facts that he and everyone else needs to know:
1) Not all Moslems are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Moslems.
2) All Moslem terrorists quote the Koran and Muhammad when they commit their murderous acts in the name of Islam.
3) There are moderate Moslems, but there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Moderate, peaceful Moslems can be moderate and peaceful only by NOT following the precepts of the Koran and Muhammad. That is why moderate Moslems cannot find any theological arguments against the Moslem terrorists and their legions of supporting imams.
4) Islam, as a belief system, is not just a religion. It is also an ideology, that is, a program for organizing all of society and then imposing this organization upon the whole world, by force, if necessary.
Here are just a few of the many violent precepts from the Koran and Muhammad:
--Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve. (8.55)
-- The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101)
--Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (48:29).
-- It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer, accidents excepted. (4:92)
--Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme. (8:40)
-- Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. (2:193)
--Mohammed said, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." Vol. 9:57
--Mohammed said, " No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir" (infidel). Vol. 9:50
--Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "
One could go on and on. All Moslems are required to believe and follow all of the above injunctions. Most of them don't; but many of them do.

Fernholz is loving proof that the phrase "liberal intgelligence" under your masthead is an oxymoron.

Fernholz obviously knows nothing of Islam. Here are some basic facts that he and everyone else needs to know:
1) Not all Moslems are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Moslems.
2) All Moslem terrorists quote the Koran and Muhammad when they commit their murderous acts in the name of Islam.
3) There are moderate Moslems, but there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Moderate, peaceful Moslems can be moderate and peaceful only by NOT following the precepts of the Koran and Muhammad. That is why moderate Moslems cannot find any theological arguments against the Moslem terrorists and their legions of supporting imams.
4) Islam, as a belief system, is not just a religion. It is also an ideology, that is, a program for organizing all of society and then imposing this organization upon the whole world, by force, if necessary.
Here are just a few of the many violent precepts from the Koran and Muhammad:
--Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve. (8.55)
-- The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101)
--Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (48:29).
-- It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer, accidents excepted. (4:92)
--Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme. (8:40)
-- Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. (2:193)
--Mohammed said, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." Vol. 9:57
--Mohammed said, " No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir" (infidel). Vol. 9:50
--Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "
One could go on and on. All Moslems are required to believe and follow all of the above injunctions. Most of them don't; but many of them do.

I apologize for the triple posting. It was a glitch on the "submit" button on this website.

Let's pass the hat around to send Fernholz to pursue his journalistic calling in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Pakistan or a socre or so of other countries. How long would he last?

Once again demonstrating how ignorant or dishonest the Leftist Establishment is, note how those who oppose Islam are demonized as “racists.” Since when has Islam been a racial category? Muslims are of every race under the sun. Those who hold prejudices against Islam might well be labeled bigots but never racists.

That being said, Fernholz’s post is either woefully naïve or treacherously disingenuous. Just as leftist dopes of the previous century promoted communism and thus share in the guilt for communist crimes, they are now enabling the forward march of intensely malevolent Islam. Leftists deserve whatever the Islamicists decide to do with them.

Tim Fernholz,
you are an as* hole. Make yourself a favor and learn more about Islam from Quran, Sira and Hadits and then talk about it.

I personally support Obama, but I do not see any reason why those who prefer Mc Cain should not have rights to make their points and express their concerns. Personally, I think that Mc Cain is an as* hole,. a sh*ty pilot and sh*ty warrior, worst student (894 out of 899 in Naval Academy) who may bring us a nuclear war with Russia long before he may do anything wise about containing radical Islam. I hate Mc Cain and I hate this Pentecostal Waco Sarah Palin even more than him. But my personal views about Mc Cain/Palin insanity do not invalidate facts about Islam’s ideology and do not deny Mc Cain supporters right to make their points.
Peace.

Tim Fernholz,
you are an as* hole. Make yourself a favor and learn more about Islam from Quran, Sira and Hadits and then talk about it.

I personally support Obama, but I do not see any reason why those who prefer Mc Cain should not have rights to make their points and express their concerns. Personally, I think that Mc Cain is an as* hole,. a sh*ty pilot and sh*ty warrior, worst student (894 out of 899 in Naval Academy) who may bring us a nuclear war with Russia long before he may do anything wise about containing radical Islam. I hate Mc Cain and I hate this Pentecostal Waco Sarah Palin even more than him. But my personal views about Mc Cain/Palin insanity do not invalidate facts about Islam’s ideology and do not deny Mc Cain supporters right to make their points.

Peace.
Sergey

"I hope your kids all marry Muslims you racist fucks."

Ah yes, here we have the standard non-sequitur from a clueless lefty.

Islam_is_not_a_race. Thanks for playing though.

Islam is the only religion that condones and justifies murder of non believers in its holy book. The usual dismissal of this fact is that other religions have had their writings distorted to justify various crimes through out history. No other major religion has the basic tenant that non believers should be killed or made slaves. The whole history of Islam has been murder and subjugation. It continues today. Islam is a hate crime.

Posted by: Jay Mark | September 24, 2008 11:23 PM

You are right, Jay. It's "tenet", though, not "tenant."

As for this guy:

"Ah trolls...Dave, Bruce, Sam and friends...you guys masturbate to Obsession, don't you? I hope your kids all marry Muslims you racist fucks."

Posted by: Francisco The Man | September 25, 2008 12:58
AM

Francisco, you're not a "Man," you're a sub-human pos. I bet you have all of a GED, don't you? If that.

Tim Fernholz knows nothing about Islam, and hasn't read the Qur'an. That's clear.

Hey Tim, if you bother yourself to read the Qur'an before penning another column, you will find out very quickly that Islam is nothing but a mass-murdering political ideology like Naziism.

Stir yourself from your inertia, Tim, and READ THE QUR'AN! If you have the cojones to - because, you won't like what you read.

--Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme. (8:40)
-- Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. (2:193)

Such irony in these Qur'anic verses. Newsflash, Mohammedans: It's YOU who are the "idolaters," since "allah" is nothing but an Arabian pagan moon deity from Arabian mythology that doesn't exist! Mo only used "him" to gain power as a prophet. "Allah" is like Zeus and Jupiter in Greek and Roman mythology - non-existent.

And, concerning "God's religion" - that's Judaism and Christianity, the two Abrahamic faiths. Islam is a total fiction made up by Warlord Mohamet in order to gain power as a prophet. Which is why the Q is a mixed-up mumbo-jumbo Hate Book of insanity and stupidity. Mo's Con is the Con of all Cons, and is still brainwashing the Brainwashed Billion today. Pitiful. Absolutely pitiful, Moslems and their "religion" of War, Violence, Hate, Intolerance, Mass-Murder and Genocide.

2 Critiques of Obsession

Dear trolls - can you respond to these critiques in detail?

1) The film argues that radical Islam poses a comparable threat to the modern west as that posed by Hitler in the 1930s; its central accusation is that our refusal to understand the murderous nature of radical islam is equivalent to Chamberlain's actions at Munich.

Response In 1939, Germany had the third largest GDP in the world. It had probably the best military institutions in the world, and a large, thriving arms industry. Moreover, Chamberlain's error at Munich included the surrender of territory - control of central Europe made Hitler stronger.

Despite the considerable oil wealth in the Middle East, if we add up the GDP of every country which we might conceivably affiliate with radical Islam (even throwing in such countries as Indonesia), we don't get a figure matching even Germany's GDP, let alone that of the U.S., Japan, or China. Moreover, the Middle East doesn't have a native arms industry: they buy their weapons from us and from Russia. Put in language anyone can understand: Radical Islam has no capability of waging conventional war on us. While conventional terrorism is bad, it poses no existential threat in the way that Hitler's Germany did; we have suffered orders of magnitude more deaths from automobile accidents than from Islamic terrorism. The idea of nuclear arms in the hands of terrorists is terrifying, but we need to remember that nuclear arms require an enormous technoscientific apparatus to create. Our problems and our solutions to this issue are with the Iranian and Pakistani states; at the worst, we always have MAD to fall back on. This threat is real, but it has nothing to do with radical islam as such. Obsession grapples with none of these issues or distinctions, implying that conventional terrorism or conventional warfare poses some kind of existential threat to us, which is absurd. A serious documentary, even if right-leaning, about the threat of nuclear terrorism would be another matter.

2)The film repeatedly focuses on "their" hatred of "us," although curiously the film itself is an example of "our" hatred of "them." Setting that minor paradox aside, the film only attempts to explain "their" hatred through religious mania. There is no attention paid to any of the following:

a) The devastating impact of the Anglo-Russian "Great Game" on central Asia and Iran.

b) The devastating impact of Franco-British control of the Near East and the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.

c) The fact that the U.S. has for decades supported corrupt and brutal dictatorships across the Middle East; the resistance to American client states has provided a hotbed for extremism.

d) The fact that Israel did, in fact, displace Palestinians. Ultimately this is the fault not of Israelis or Palestinians, but of the holocaust and the anemic Anglo-American response to it. Our insufficient attention to the peace process has been more fuel to the fire of radical islam.

In short: Islam, like Christianity, has taken many forms over the centuries. The current variety of radical Islam needs to understood through its political and economic origins as well as its theological ones, as with any religious movement. Through our actions and our inaction, we have helped to create radical Islam as it is. We have armies across the Middle East; we support corrupt and brutal dictatorships; we provide unconditional support for Israel. Whether these policies are right or wrong, we can't expect there to be no blowback from them.

Any response?

You know Francisco, my objection to Islam has nothing to do with race. Seriously, where do you get that idea? Is calling someone a racist just shorthand for "I don't agree with you"?

I used to be ignorant of Islam. I imagine I'm like most here. I got the same education about world religions most did as kids: a couple of paragraphs in a social studies textbook in grade school. Maybe a page in a civics book in high school. I could swear Jainism got more coverage than Islam.

Then after 9/11 I learned just a little bit more. I thought Islam just needed a Reformation like Christianity went thru.

Then I learned better. And my concern with Islam has absolutely nothing to do with race. Jihad is being waged in the name of Allah all over the world, in ways both big and small by adherents of all races and nationalities.

And its part and parcel of Islam. You can't just surgically removed Jihad or Sharia from Islam without so changing the religion that it wouldn't be recognizable anymore. And that is part of the reason why there are so few real Muslim "moderates" in the world.

This needn't be a right/left thing. Chris Hitchens doesn't think so. Oriana Fallaci didn't think so. Last I checked neither was a member of the VRWC, though maybe Hitchens is just on double secret probation and I don't have clearance to view his file.

So take this as an invitation to learn a little bit more of Islam. I'd be happy to help.

Harvey: you've got a lot there. Mind if I take it in pieces over time? Cool nick.

Hitchens isn't a leftist. He's a neocon opportunist who happens to hate Henry Kissinger.

Your post, like Obsession itself, says one thing: lots of Muslims hate us. Big surprise. What nobody here has been able to address is these two issues which I raise at greater length above.

1) Why do they hate us? Only complete ignorance of history would allow us to say that's it's primarily a matter of theology. The reasons are ultimately political and even economic.

2) What can they do about their hatred? Answer: not very much, except at the margins, especially if we reduce our dependency on petroleum and work hard on nuclear non-proliferation (these two are related).

I've read the Qu'ran; I've also read the Bible cover to cover, and I know something about history and even religious history. Our current conflicts are not primarily driven by theology, although demagogues East and West find it useful to pretend that they are.

Wow. You think Hitchens is a neo-con? I know the term has become plastic in recent years, but if you think Hitchens is one then it has lost all utility.

Of course there are local circumstances that color the Islamic imperative.

I wrote the above reply to Francisco while you were writing your opus. It wasn't a reply to you. Let me catch up a bit, will you?

Plus I keep having posting problems on this page.

Dave - I'll watch for your responses.

Ok, calling Hitchens a neocon is a bit of an exaggeration, but not much of one. He is better understood as an opportunist who has recently taken the neocon line on foreign policy - which is what he writes about. So I was oversimplifying, but there's a lot of truth in it. Good luck finding any air between what Hitchens and Bill Kristol have to say about foreign policy...

"Islam, like Christianity, has taken many forms over the centuries. The current variety of radical Islam needs to understood through its political and economic origins as well as its theological ones, as with any religious movement."

This gets closer to our disagreement."Radical" Islam is not really so radical.

Why do you want to separate the political from the economic from the theological in Islam? Islam itself does not.

Am I the only one who gets "Internal Server Error" messages when posting?

Harvey - I gotta get back to work and put food on the table. I'll post more here over the weekend.

Dave -

What I'm talking about is causation. Radical Islam as the film presents it (which it boils down to hatred of the West) has multiple causes, which are primarily economic and political in character -- whereas many commentators here, as well as the film itself, imply that anti-Western radicalism is organic to Islam. While the Qu'ran provides a basis for a radical theology (as does the Bible! Have you read the book of Numbers?), we almost certainly wouldn't have one in a position of political strength if we didn't have U.S. armies in 4 middle eastern countries, U.S. puppet states dominating Middle Eastern politics, and a failed peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

One only needs to look at the mostly peaceful coexistence of Muslims, Christians and Jews through most of the Middle East ever since Islam's arrival to recognize that anti-Western radicalism is not fundamental to Islam; it is a recent form of Islam with obvious political causes.

Exhibit A: The Caliphate of Cordoba.

Exhibit B: The Ottoman Empire.

Exhibit C: The fact that a substantial part of the Egyptian population is *still* Christian (the Coptic church), as was a significant part of Iraq until, uh, we invaded.

>> 1) Why do they hate us?

They don't hate "us", rather they hate the kafir - those who disbelieve. One only needs to look at the Thai jihad, or the Filipino jihad to convince one's self of this.

>> Only complete ignorance of history would allow us to say that's it's primarily a matter of theology. The reasons are ultimately political and even economic.

I have to call fail again. Only complete ignorance of history would allow us to say that it's NOT primarily a matter of theology. I can only assume by your comment that your are ignorant of the Barbary Wars in the early 1800s, so here is an excellent refresher in context:

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/01/05/eaton-agonistes-redux/

"During their discussions, they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of the unprovoked animus directed at the nascent United States republic. Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassador’s justification:

… that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise"

Sound familiar?

As a side note, using the term "theology" to refer to Islam is misleading, as Islam does explicitly encompass the political and the economic, in contrast to most other religions.

>>What can they do about their hatred? Answer: not very much, except at the margins, especially if we reduce our dependency on petroleum and work hard on nuclear non-proliferation (these two are related)

Heh, they have no choice but to hate us. For we are so horrible, who would not hate us?

Get a grip dude. They hate us and there's nothing WE can do about it except to stand our ground.

Chris at 12:18 PM, have you ever considered that people cloak political and economic decisions in religious language as a means of cutting off debate? Apart from Stalin, who hid behind "anti-imperialist, pro-worker" rhetoric, don't all leaders place real politik in religious terms?

That's a funny link, Chris. Eaton's use of conventional 19th century racist language is revealing here. Rather than responding to the Eaton quotes in detail, I'll direct you to Edward Said's Orientalism. While I don't agree with Said on many things, he offers the best way to understand this kind of perfectly conventional material.

And are you seriously asserting that the Barbary Wars, which were about *piracy*, aren't best understood through economics (piracy, after all, is about *theft*, right?).

And as far as "stand our ground" - what does that mean? Should we keep all of our puppet states and armies in place? Should we expand them? You're advancing the Green Lantern theory of politics here. The correct question isn't "do we have the will?" so much as it is "do we have the correct policies?"

Regardless of whether or not our policies are correct, obviously they foment hatred. You can't have your cake and eat it too - if you want to support the Saudi and Egyptian governments, and control Iraq and Kuwait, then you need to accept the resulting blowback. Incidentally, I didn't claim that we were awful - I merely am arguing the hatred is the logical consequence of many of our long-standing policies.

You haven't addressed any of the substance of my critique of the film, by the way.

Mmmm trollicious.

So I watched the movie. It's not an exploration of Muslim extremism. If they wanted to do a genuine exploration of extremism, they might have looked into the factors that contribute to certain regions leaning more towards it than others. Or perhaps at very least mention alternative and contrary ways of looking at Mulsim extremism.

The film doesn't, because it has no argument against contrary views. It's a piece of propaganda, and I'm not saying that cause I disagree with it's conclusions. It has no conclusions because no question is posed in the film. It is a series of random clips of scary extremist Muslims and interviews repeating the exact same talking points over and over again. The film makes no effort to conduct real research, question its own findings, or challenge its audience. It's directed to appeal strictly to emotion, with almost no information actually provided over the entire work.

It is manipulative, xenophobic, and full of one-sided representations. A real documentary, regardless of its perspective or thesis, tries to analyze the whole picture, not edit and remove the legitimate information it finds inconvient and contrary. The film could have made an effort to interview hundreds if not thousands of available moderate Muslim scholars, experts, theologists, Imams, community activists. It could have examined organizations that promote well being between religious groups. It could have done these things, and taken a critical eye to them if it felt they were truly wrong. Instead it just leaves them out.

To all the other posters and their extraordinary bigotry. Islam historically has proven to be one of the most tolerant religions ever. Jews under Muslim rule in Spain were treated better than in any Christian society.

And anyone who claims that Islam has a monopoly on terrorism clearly doesn't consider the KKK, IRA, or any number of assorted unrelated organizations made up primarily of white people to be terrorists despite the fact that they unquestionably are. Extremist Islam is a real phenomenon with global implications, and it needs to be thoroughly examined. This film does not do that.

So Harvey and Awkward, I suppose you also squeal like stuck pigs when Dateline, 20/20, or anyone else runs a critical writeup or program about the FLDS? After all, taking a critical look at a radical branch of Mormonism surely must paint all Mormons and in fact all Christians with the same broad brush? Racism, right? Or does that only apply to Islam? The simple fact is that the film does not purport to be original research or even unbiased. It is an advocacy film meant to draw attention to a very real issue. That issue being that radical Muslims all over the world see themselves as engaged in a global 'jihad' to defeat any and all opposition to the supremacy of their brand of Islam, and the fact that most Westerners have very little understanding of the goals and motivations of these groups.
But hey, I'm sure you would be just as outraged if, for example, George Soros would pay newspapers to distribute 'An Inconvenient Truth' to its subscribers during an election year, right?

Allah -

I note that you're not even attempting to respond to my detailed critiques of the film; in fact, you seem to basically agree that it's mindless propaganda, as far as I can tell. My point, to repeat myself yet again, is that the film tells us only the mindnumbingly obvious fact that people in the Middle East don't like us much. Jesus - who doesn't know that? Then it makes various idiotic comparisons (e.g., to Hitler) based on that, instead of actually raising and answering questions (to borrow from Awkward Silence) about why they hate us, what they can do about it, and what we should do about it.

As far as your various hypothetical points - I haven't seen these Dateline or 20/20 pieces on the FLDS. I have no idea whether they are bigoted propaganda or not, although for the record I often dislike the way that "strange" religious groups are portrayed in our culture. In particular, Jehovah's Witnesses and Hare Krishnas are portrayed unfairly.

I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth" either. My understanding, possibly incorrect, is that it's more or less a legitimate documentary (Awkward Silence does a good job of laying out what that means), and so - no, I wouldn't object. Nor would I object, at least not very much, if Obsession was a coherent documentary, instead of vicious propaganda.

But why am I going on? Try responding to some of my actual critiques of the film itself.

Actually, your critiques were not very detailed at all. In fact I thought they were rather vague, and you failed to point out a single inaccuracy in the film

I'm not arguing that the film was not propaganda. In fact it was, as is the film 'An inconvenient truth.' That is my point. Just because something is propaganda, does not mean that it is bad. Inconvenient truth uses scare tactics and sensationalism. So what? Sometimes this is a good way to get people's attention. There are far more detailed and nuanced documents out there regarding the very real threat of climate change, but most of them are very long and very boring, and the average voter is not going to concern themselves. That is where 'An Inconvenient Truth' comes in. It brings the issue in to the mainstream and gets the average citizen talking and thinking about it, which is good.
'Obsession' is the same type of film, just a different issue. Muslims who truly despise the "extremists" will be happy to have the attitudes and motivations of them drawn into the light, just as Evangelical Christians are happy to see what they see as perversions of their faith (such as the FLDS) exposed.

Although I'm howling into the wind, I've been meaning to write some of this stuff down anyway, so here's a third critique of the film.

#3) The bulk of the film (excepting the reductio ad Hitlerium argument and a few other bits and pieces) presents clips of sermons, protests, media snippets, and interviews of various people from the Middle East, cut in with various commentators, VH1 style, who affirm repeatedly that the clips/excerpts/snippets are representative of Islam and/or the Middle East as a whole. Even the most sensible part of its argument - that we are broadly hated - is rooted purely in anecdote.

Here's the thing: can anyone deny that if you spent some time and effort filming far-right American groups, congregations, and talk-radio, you could concoct an "Obsession: America's Hatred of Islam"?

Of course you could do it! Hell, you could do it just by going around interviewing pastors and parishioners in my home town, with some KKK members thrown in for good measure. But that wouldn't be a fair portrayal of my home town, even, let alone America as a whole.

So, let's summarize my critiques.

#1) The film makes a gigantic and wholly fallacious leap by arguing that radical Islam poses an existential threat to the U.S., comparable to the one posed by Hitler.

#2) The film ignores the fact that there are a web of historical and political causes behind "their" hatred of "us"; it infers that "their" hatred is organic to Islam without ever exploring any of the relevant history or politics, starting with our military presence in and political dominance of the middle east.

#3) The film's narrative is purely anecdotal; equivalent anecdotes could be gathered to create an equivalent film about "our" hatred of "them."

If a man tells you he is going to kill you, believe him.

#3) The bulk of the film (excepting the reductio ad Hitlerium argument and a few other bits and pieces) presents clips of sermons, protests, media snippets, and interviews of various people from the Middle East, cut in with various commentators, VH1 style, who affirm repeatedly that the clips/excerpts/snippets are representative of Islam and/or the Middle East as a whole. Even the most sensible part of its argument - that we are broadly hated - is rooted purely in anecdote.
Actually, it wasn't 'people from the middle east,' it was radical Muslims from Europe, South Asia, East Asia, North America, and the Middle East.
Of course you could do it! Hell, you could do it just by going around interviewing pastors and parishioners in my home town, with some KKK members thrown in for good measure. But that wouldn't be a fair portrayal of my home town, even, let alone America as a whole. Actually, the KKK and most other 'White Power' groups are on the side of the Islamists. After all, anyone who hates the JOOOOZ that much can't be that bad, can they? If you don't believe me, check out Stormfront.org. Kind of ties back into that whole Hitler/Mufti of Jerusalem thing doesn't it?

The film is 100% correct. As the prime minister of Turkey has said just this year. "There is no moderate Islam. There is only Islam". Islam in every form calls for the subjagation,conversion or death of all non muslims. This is in the koran and this is not debatable.

The film makes a gigantic and wholly fallacious leap by arguing that radical Islam poses an existential threat to the U.S., comparable to the one posed by Hitler.
I don't recall anywhere where the film said that radical Islam poses an existential threat to the U.S. I think the idea is that we need to drop this silly idea of a 'War on Terror,' and actually have the testicular fortitude to at least name the enemy we are fighting.
#2) The film ignores the fact that there are a web of historical and political causes behind "their" hatred of "us"; it infers that "their" hatred is organic to Islam without ever exploring any of the relevant history or politics, starting with our military presence in and political dominance of the middle east. No, it implies that there is a theological basis to their struggle or 'Jihad,' which is quite strong and very foreign to our normal Western understanding of motivation for war. Think about it. How many Westerners are willing to go suicide bomb a crowded market for the USA, or Capitalism, or even Christianity?

Allah - Yes, you're right about the geographical origins of the people interviewed, for whatever that's worth.

But go back to my actual point. Do you deny that it would be perfectly possible to construct a similar narrative out of bits and bits extracted from talk media, far-right churches, and white power groups? Regardless of whether or not that would be a *fair* representation of the white power groups, or extremist churches, or whoever, you *could* do it by stringing together snippets of decontextualized film - which is exactly what Obsession does.

How many Westerners are willing to go suicide bomb a crowded market for the USA, or Capitalism, or even Christianity?

There'd be plenty, if the U.S. and Europe had been under the political and economic dominance of Iran and Saudi Arabia for a century or two, and if there were currently Iranian armies in Italy and Sweden -- we have our theology of war and empire, too. You are aware of the Crusades, Manifest Destiny, "the white man's burden," etc? Which is simply to repeat my assertion: our current situation in the Middle East can only be understood through a proper understanding of historical, economic, and political contexts - and yes, understanding Islam itself is relevant as well. But then, the film doesn't try to do that, either.

How many Westerners are willing to go suicide bomb a crowded market for the USA, or Capitalism, or even Christianity?

There'd be plenty, if the U.S. and Europe had been under the political and economic dominance of Iran and Saudi Arabia for a century or two, and if there were currently Iranian armies in Italy and Sweden -- we have our theology of war and empire, too. You are aware of the Crusades, Manifest Destiny, "the white man's burden," etc? Which is simply to repeat my assertion: our current situation in the Middle East can only be understood through a proper understanding of historical, economic, and political contexts - and yes, understanding Islam itself is relevant as well. But then, the film doesn't try to do that, either.

#3) The film's narrative is purely anecdotal; equivalent anecdotes could be gathered to create an equivalent film about "our" hatred of "them."
Actually, the film does mention a number of statistics, one of which I can remember right off the top of my head is the fact that there have been over 10,000 Islamic Terror attacks around the world since 9/11/01. Anecdotal information is important with this issue, because of the difficulty of gathering hard numbers with regard to issues such as people's personal faith. For example, the film tries to make a rough estimate that 10%-15% of Muslims support radical ideology. These numbers are based on various polls and academic sources, but to me are rather subjective. How does one readily differentiate between a moderate Muslim and a radical? After all, terrorists do not go around wearing uniforms identifying themselves, and they don't register their groups and members with the IRS. Not only that, but what of all the groups, most of whom are linked to or inspired by the Egyptian political group the Muslim Brotherhood" who may not agree with Al Qaida et al's tactics, but share their goals?

You keep reasserting that the real reasons behind the hatred and terrorism are political and economic, but if that is the case, where are all the huge International Communist terror groups, and where are all their terror attacks? After all, they should have a far bigger axe to grind with the West and especially the USA, than Islamists should. After all, we have been backing Pakistan against India for the India for the past 60 years, we helped fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80s, and helped Islamists and other Muslim groups in the former Yugoslavia. And if the issue is economic, where are all the Haitian terror groups and suicide bombers? There are many groups throughout the non-Muslim world who are far more desperately impoverished than the Muslims of the Middle East and South Asia, but we have yet to see them turning en mass to international terrorist groups. Furthermore, if the main causality of these terror groups and their supporters is our foreign policy, why are there such strong, and similar movements in places like Kashmir, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Somalia, Sudan, and so many other places where we have no presence?

Another common mistake you make is the logical fallacy of moral equivalence. You bring up "the Crusades, Manifest Destiny, "the white man's burden," all of which are ideologies rejected by modern Western society. By contrast, these Islamist movements, and much of Muslim culture as a whole looks back quite proudly at past conquests. They view their current jihad as a seamless continuation of the conquests against Europe. Our culture as well as the Christian and Jewish religions were completely reshaped by the Enlightenment in Europe. Islam and Islamic culture has never gone through any equivalent reform.

Islam is a death cult, powered by fear.

Read http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com/

Islam is a death cult, powered by fear.

Read http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Bob Smith | September 25, 2008 4:02 PM

Exactly.

And poor "Harvey Lobster" is as intellectually-deficient as the crustaceon he takes his name from. Poor brainless Harvey!

Free Speech and Bob Smith:

You two should let the adults talk. Neither of you has presented a coherent thought yet.

Allah:

As far as the enlightenment goes - there are certainly many differences between our culture and Islamic culture which relate to the enlightenment; I like our culture better. That being said, it's far from apparent that somehow we're beyond manifest destiny, etc. We dominate *them*, economically, politically and militarily. Don't make us into morally elevated beings.

As far as the economic and political causes for why we have problems with Islamic terrorists and not with, e.g., Indian ones, I'll just touch on the obvious one: Osama Bin Laden & co. targeted us because of our military presence (occupation? protectorate?) in Saudi Arabia. They hate us because of our armies in their countries and because of our client governments.

If you want to defend our military policies and client states, fine. But we're getting the same blowback that, say, the British occupation of the colonies got. People don't like occupying armies and dictatorships propped up by remote powers.

I'll concede you one minor point: there are statistics in Obsession. They are so decontextualized, so unexplained, though, that they offer nothing but a false veneer of authority to the endless stream of anecdotal evidence.

Harvey

If you believe what you wrote
"They hate us because of our armies in their countries and because of our client governments", you know nothing about Islam.

Mr. Fernholz, as an attorney who has studied Islam and Islamic history for over ten years, and lived in the Middle East, I can assure you that Koran and Hadith - Islam's authoritative scripture - teach that Muslims must fight until Islam achieves world domination and that non-Muslims may be killed or made to live as slaves paying tribute to Muslims.

Posted by: Paul J Tetreault Jr, Esq. | September 24, 2008 11:58 PM

Exactly. As simple as that. Just like Naziism.

Poor "Lobster," giving the crustaceon a bad name.

Ok, boys, I'll bite.

If they hate us because that's the nature of Islam, rather than because of our presence in the Mideast, would you care to explain why our little problem with Islamic extremism & terrorism started after we started to firmly support Israel, then established an Egyptian protectorate, then invaded Iraq (the first time)? You don't see *any* causation here?

You live in a dream world.

Why would anyone try to write an article on a movie he had not watched?

Additionaly, Tim Fernholz, statement “And I thought we'd gotten past the idiotic monolithic theory of terrorism” proves his knowledge of Islam is less than he thinks it is.

Posted by: Bob Smith | September 24, 2008 10:28 PM

Much less. PC MoonBat Fernholz knows NOTHING about Islam. Hasn't even bothered himself to read the Koran. Just like the illiterate and uninformed Lobster. Two stupid peas in a pod. They don't even read the primary text of the ideology they're defending!

"allah" is a pagan moon deity from Arabian mythology. It doesn't exist! Mohammedans - why don't you go ahead and worship Zeus and Jupiter, too! LOL! Barbarians.

You live in a dream world.

Posted by: Harvey Lobster | September 25, 2008 5:17 PM

No, YOU live in a dream world. You don't know about Charles Martel in 732? Or Jan Sobieski in 1683?

Without the actions of those two men and others we'd have long been pissing toward Mecca, you imbecile.

If they hate us because that's the nature of Islam..." --the Lobster

Exactly! Islam hates "Infidels," (see: Qur'an), that's YOU, Lobster, and all of us, too. Islam hates EVERYONE who is not Islamic! Do you get it now, Lobster? What is it about "Kill the Infidels" (Qur'an) and "Slay the Unbelievers" (Qur'an) you don't understand? Islam is the MOST intolerant "religion" on the planet. Islam tolerates no one but Moslems, just as Naziism tolerates no one but Nazis. DO YOU GET IT, LOBSTER? Yes, that's the "nature" of Islam, and that's the "nature" of Naziism. Hello? Do you have a brain? As a Lobster, I guess you don't. But, there's no excuse for Fernholz except willful blindness and dhimmitude. (Look up "dhimmitude," Fernholz, I know you don't know what it means).

The power of your dialectic is dizzying, Free Speech. I'm overwhelmed by keen edge of your wisdom, the acuity of your historical analysis, the depth of your scholarship.

I'd better go back to reading Kant. My odds of keeping up are better there.

Bring Back the Crusades!

The resurgence of Barbaric Islam in the early 21st century MUST be stopped!

September 11, 1683.

September 11, 2001.

Hey Lobster - ya think Bin Laden chose the date of September 11 at random????

No, he didn't. Read about the Battle of Vienna, September 11, 1683, won by Polish King Jan Sobieski and others' against the Ottoman Turks. THANK GOD! Or we would all have been pissing toward Mecca long ago, and our females forced to wear veils and black tents and have no rights whatsoever.

Anyone not Islamic who defends Islam is such an ignorant fool that there's no adequate words to describe that ignorance and foolishness.

You hate free speech and free press? How about free intellectual inquiry? Hate that, too? Then, BECOME ISLAMIC! ISLAM'S JUST THE THING FOR YOU!

Bring Back the Crusades!

The resurgence of Barbaric Islam in the early 21st century MUST be stopped!

September 11, 1683.

September 11, 2001.

Hey Lobster - ya think Bin Laden chose the date of September 11 at random????

No, he didn't. Read about the Battle of Vienna, September 11, 1683, won by Polish King Jan Sobieski and others' against the Ottoman Turks. THANK GOD! Or we would all have been pissing toward Mecca long ago, and our females forced to wear veils and black tents and have no rights whatsoever.

Anyone not Islamic who defends Islam is such an ignorant fool that there's no adequate words to describe that ignorance and foolishness.

You hate free speech and free press? How about free intellectual inquiry? Hate that, too? Then, BECOME ISLAMIC! ISLAM'S JUST THE THING FOR YOU!

Lobster - you are such an imbecile it defies description.

Do you even have a GED? Probably not. You wouldn't know Kant from cant.

Read about the Battle of Vienna, September 11, 1683, won by Polish King Jan Sobieski and others' against the Ottoman Turks. THANK GOD! Or we would all have been pissing toward Mecca long ago, and our females forced to wear veils and black tents and have no rights whatsoever.

Because that's exactly what happened everywhere conquered by the Ottoman empire. Like Greece and the Ukraine.

Look, man. History isn't quite as simple as picking good guys and bad guys. The Ottoman Empire was as much European (especially Greek) as it was Islamic or Turkish. The victory of Charles Martel was great and everything, but the heart of Christian civilization back then was in the Byzantine empire, not among the Franks.

The ability to spout talking points which happen to have historical dates attached to them is not the same as the ability to understand and analyze history. You simplify everything until it's just Cowboys vs. Indians, virtuous Christians vs. diabolical Muslims. I'm bothering to write this because that's exactly what Obsession does - substitutes repetition for analysis, talking points for in-depth understanding of facts.

That worldview wouldn't last long if you actually read up on the Crusades. Try reading Lord Runciman, as a start - he's no liberal (rather a traditional British narrative historian), but everything you believe would collapse if you read him carefully.

I have a doctorate, by the way. The very fact that I'm still here shows that I have the pointless stubbornness characteristic of those who produce a dissertation... I'm falling into the unfortunate habit of thinking of you as a stubborn student.

Islam is powered by its own engine -- Muslim supremacy and jihad -- it has no other 'moral' content -- only that which is 'allowed' or 'forbidden. there is no 'golden rule' Mohammad, who murdered, raped, tortured, mutilated and whose QUr'an, ahadith and Sira establish Shariah, is for Muslims 'a beautiful pattern of conduct' to emulate. Therefore, there's absolutely no wrong in hacking off an infidel head-- the 'perfect man' did this hundreds of times. Read Ibn Ishaq's "Live of Mohammad" a glowing account of the 'prophet's' horrendous deeds, written before PC in the 8th century. Then you might think again before defending Islam in any way...

Forget the US, what is the excuse for Islamic terrorism in, Thailand, India, the Philippines, Spain, Kashmir, Pakistan, Canada, London, Paris, Argentina, and the list goes on.

Funny how the only similarity is ISLAM. A hate filled - fake religious cult - giving all religions a bad name.

The real question is why so many "liberals" and feminists make excuses for Islam.

You still failed to explain, though, if the root cause is primarily poverty and our foreign policy, why
a) Countries such as India, Thailand, the Philipines, etc. struggle with similar, if not directly linked Islamist terror groups, and
b) why there are not huge international communist terror organizations or why we aren't seeing Haitian terrorists blowing up embassies.
I never said that our foreign policy or economics have nothing to do with it. If nothing else, they a convenient pretext for attacks. In fact Al Qaida once stated that our not signing Kyoto was one of their grievances, lol. My assertion, and I believe that of the film, is that the theological motivations, up to this point, have been given far too little attention in Western media. OBL et al are going to keep doing what they do regardless of our policies. Before they were fighting us, they were fighting the Serbs in the Balkans, before that, the Russians in Afghanistan. They are fighting "Jihad for the sake of Allah," to establish a united Islamic Caliphate with no permanently limited boarders, ruled by Sharia law.
No, they don't hate us for our freedom. They hate and fight us because they see us as the top dog, and the single biggest impediment to establishing their idea of Utopia. Once one grievance is removed, it will quickly be replaced by another. Removing our troops from Afghanistan, or giving the Palestinian Authority a few more kilometers of land in the West Bank aint going to make Islamist terrorists or rioting European Muslim 'youth' put down there guns and Molotov cocktails and sing Kumbaya, and the sooner Western policymakers realize that, the better.

Allah -

First off, while I disagree with most of what you say, I certainly don't find it crazy. What I do find surprising is that you find this degree of relative subtlety in the film. It's far less thoughtful than you are - again, take the incoherent comparison between our "inattention" to radical Islam and Munich as an example.

One thing you forget about OBL, etc. all is that they are products of Russo-American conflict; we fueled their particular theology, which is very much a product of its time and place. I don't disagree with you that they'd be fighting someone if we weren't around - but that is not, itself, a justification for, e.g., our support of a corrupt and brutal Saudi state.

On to a) and b)

a) While these individual movements/rebellions have arguably become part of a global jihad, there are also local causes; Muslims in Thailand and the Phillipines are arguably underdogs who identify with global Jihad sporadically, as a way of solidying their own identities. This doesn't make them right - but these are primarily local problems, with local causes and hopefully local solutions. Furthermore, *our* behavior helps to fuel the globalization of Jihad. If OBL were focused on overthrowing the Saudi government, it's doubtful that he would be the kind of rallying figure that he is in danger of becoming in Thailand, etc.

b) I explained that already. Our armies aren't in Poland or Vietnam; they are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, etc. And I said economic issues, not poverty per se - oil wealth as well as our military presence makes Jihad possible.

I didn't find the degree of nuance in the film I would have liked, but in order to accomplish that, the film would have had to have been several hours longer than its one hour run time. It was an awareness advocacy piece in the same vein as 'An Inconvenient Truth' I certainly find your representation of it as some sort of 'neocon' hate propaganda way off base. In fact the last scene in the movie showed Iranians holding a candle light vigil on Sept. 11th to protest the terror attacks. If this was the type of propaganda that you and so many others make it out to be, wouldn't it have focused largely on vilifying anything Iranian? Iran is, after all, the big bad neocon's next Imperial target is it not?

I don't disagree with you that they'd be fighting someone if we weren't around - but that is not, itself, a justification for, e.g., our support of a corrupt and brutal Saudi state. You must be mistaking me for a Bush supporter. There is not an aspect of American foreign policy that I find more revolting than our ties to that despicable nation, but I don't think our support for that regime is much of a catalyst of Muslim hatred toward the US. If you pay attention to Muslim condemnation of the House of Saud, it almost never has anything to do with the stoning or chopping of hands or the plethora of other human rights violations. In fact it seems to hinge entirely on their alliance with the infidel Americans. In fact OBL's only real beef with the regime seems to be the fact that they allowed American troops on to sacred Muslim soil to defend against Saddam's forces during the first gulf war. As for your response to a), you may view OBL as entirely a product of the cold war, but he certainly does not, nor do those Muslims who share his supremacist goals. They consider their struggle to be a linear continuation of the efforts of Islamic armies of the past going all the way back to the many conquests of Muhammad himself. In fact, up until the demise of the Caliphate just 80 years ago, there is quite a bit of precedent for their actions. As for your answer to b), Poland is not a communist state, but Cuba certainly is, and last time I checked, we have a nice little facility located on the beaches of Guantanamo Bay. I'm still patiently waiting for the Cuban revolutionary suicide bombers to start detonating. And with regard to oil wealth making Jihad possible, if what you mean is that by funding it, it makes it possible, I would certainly agree. However I can hardly see how the largest voluntary transfer of wealth in human history could be seen by the beneficiaries of said transfer could see it as grounds for grievance against the West. No, at $100 + per barrel, we are not "stealing their oil."

And by the way, I do need to give you credit, at least, for watching the film. That is certainly more than can be said for Mr. Fernholz.

Wow, any other women here?

I'm definitely liberal, left wing and an atheist. And I fear islam for pretty non-phobic reasons. I have a reasonable suspicion that if living as a muslim under sharia law (whether established by force or by demographic shifts) I would lose my rights to gender equality, my husband would be permitted to beat me (koran verse 4:34), my inheritance would be half that of my brothers, I'd be forced to cover my hair, perhaps even my face in public, while dressing head-to-toe in non-revealing clothes even in hot weather.

If living as a dhimmi in a muslim-controlled country, I'd have to pay the jizya (infidel tax), and still conform to the 'modesty' dress codes' and other aspects of sharia. How about trying to leave islam? Apostasy: death under sharia.

And as for my gay friends: they'd be dead!

How immediate this threat is to the US is debatable (the demographic one not great currently). But once Europe goes...

How happy my moderate muslim friends would be about living this way isn't clear. Perhaps as happy as young Iranians seem to be: not very.

But that should not distract us from understanding the theocratic political system called islam. And there are violent and non-violent adherents who are working hard to establish this system in western countries, by their own admission.

And I'll thank you not to automatically call people racists for having concerns about dangers of an islamic political system.

Lili - You are making a series of wild generalizations - not generalizing about Christianity as a whole by pointing out that Christians have brutally persecuted "witches," or systematically dehumanized people of color using the Bible as their defense - both of which are true of particular places and times, but wildly unfair as generalizations. Many Islamic nations, starting with, e.g., 20th century Tunisia, have had a rich and open gay culture (a good novel partially about this subject is Patricia Highsmith's The Tremor of Forgery). I don't have to like or admire sharia to understand that the role of women in Islamic cultures has varied widely, as it has in Christian cultures - several Islamic countries have had female prime ministers, for instance - something which we've never gotten around to. Y

You are making broad and unfounded generalizations (some of which are simply untrue) about a huge swath of humanity. You might not like the word, but that's bigotry. I grew up hearing a similar range of generalizations about black culture and especially black men, and it's not any nicer coming from you, feminist or not.

I have known many muslim women, including converts to Islam. Most of them were smart, outspoken, interesting people. At least one was gay (and not dead, you might note), without repudiating her heritage, even if she had a complicated relationship to it. I won't presume to speak for them, but I guarantee that any of them would have some choice words for you.

I'm not Muslim, have no intention of becoming Muslim, and I have no *particular* fondness for or investment in Islam as such; what I do feel is the need to speak up for my students and colleagues. What you're saying is narrow-minded, ill-informed, and bigoted - although I'll grant you that it's not technically racist.

"not generalizing" above should read "not unlike generalizing" instead.

Allah - Here's the difference between "Obsession" and "An Inconvenient Truth" (I'll accept your definition of it as an awareness piece, having not seen it myself). The "awareness" that "Obsession" wants to create is that lots of sick, deluded people out there hate our guts for no apparent reason at all. Its omissions are so enormous, so flagrant, that they are functionally lies.

I have literally heard Klansmen make similar arguments -- that they are simply raising awareness of "urban crime" or "drug trafficking" or whatever. "Obsession" is paranoid bigotry which, like a klansmen who doesn't want to admit to explicit racism, puts on a thin veneer of politeness.

As for your response to a), you may view OBL as entirely a product of the cold war, but he certainly does not, nor do those Muslims who share his supremacist goals. They consider their struggle to be a linear continuation of the efforts of Islamic armies of the past going all the way back to the many conquests of Muhammad himself.

There is no contradiction here. My argument is that the force and relevance of what you call OBL's supremacist theology emerges from the history of Western imperialism in the Middle East, most recently our adventures in Iraq. People are shaped by their environments! Just because OBL sees himself as being part of a particular tradition doesn't mean that the current form of that tradition isn't shaped partially by *our* policies. The fact that you acknowledge that Islamist attacks on the Saudi state focus on our presence makes part of my point, I think.

As far as your argument about Cuba - while we do control a bit of Cuban territory, we don't have an army or a puppet government in Havana. There's absolutely no equivalency there.

Doctor Lobster,

Apparently for you the truth is bigoted.

Allah has presented very good arguments which you continually address only with moral relativism, Western imperialism as the cause, and accusations of bigotry of those with a negative view of Islam.

While not being intellectual and educated, I am very well read with regards to this subject.

It is because of this that regardless of your denial, I recognize you as a Muslim...a very educated one to be sure, but a Muslim non the less. I suspect that this is your jihad...defending your religion by cloaking yourself as one of 'us' so that we would believe that you are more objective and reasonable.

Your arguments are the same old arguments that I have encountered and debated with for many years now.

I will agree with you on one point...the terrrorists that want to blow us up are not much of a threat.

For me, I worry more about the ones who wear a suit and tie.

Their goals are the same as OBL. It is simply their technique that is different.

I am sure you get my point?

Allah has presented very good arguments which you continually address only with moral relativism, Western imperialism as the cause, and accusations of bigotry of those with a negative view of Islam.

To say that Western imperialism has an influence on Middle Eastern politics is not "moral relativism." I may or may not underestimate the importance of the history of theology as such as opposed to history proper -- the problem is that you people (including Allah, to some extent) discount economic, political and military history in favor of your skewed and limited understanding of Islamic theology.

It boggles my mind that none of you will admit to the simple fact that the U.S. support of Israel, our support of assorted corrupt and brutal client states (starting with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia), and especially our 17-year military hegemony in the reason don't influence events. Amazing.

While not being intellectual and educated, I am very well read with regards to this subject.

Obviously you're right about the first half. Regarding the second half, I'd love to hear about what you've read.

Here's a partial list of my relevant reading:

Lord Kinross's "The Ottoman Centuries"

Ira Lapidus's "A History of Islamic Societies", Cambridge UP

Lord Runciman's three-volume history of the Crusades.

John Riley Smith's books on the Crusades.

What you people really need to read is David Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace," which is an excellent discussion of how the modern Middle East was created during and after World War I.

While you're at it, something like Ostrogorsky's "History of the Byzantine State" is very helpful at grasping the relationship and continuity between Islamic and Christian civilization.

Oh, and to add an actual liberal book, just so you have something to complain about: Edward Said's "Orientalism"

And yes, I've read the Qu'ran. Also the Bible, cover to cover, several times.

Doctor Lobster,

I am afraid my books are not quite as thick as yours...

Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, Andrew Bostom, Bruce Bawer and Steve Emerson are among a few authors whose work I repect and admire.

I don't think anyone here is discounting economics, politics or military history. Of course they play a part...in feelings of humiliation. I mean, it must be embarrassing and confusing as to why Islam is not ruling the world already. Apparently during those lean years Muslims were not religious enough, an error they are now seeking to rectify. The answers on how to do so are all there...in the Koran, the Hadith and the Sunnah.

These are the real reasons behind the Israeli/Palestinian conflict...no amount of negotiations will succeed unless Israel is destroyed.

So yes, they hate us because we support Israel...we are standing in their way of that annilation.

Have you ever given any thought as to why the OIC supports Palestine?

And why is it ok for the Palestinians to have their support and Israel is not to have ours? That...is boggling to me.

Truth Serum -

You misunderstand me. I don't think that Israel shouldn't have our support (I do think many of our policies on Israel are flawed, but I don't support abandoning them!). Nor do I necessarily think that all of our policies in the Middle East - even our militant ones - are wrong.

What I am saying is that hatred is a predictable result of these policies. If there had been Iranian armies and Iranian client states scattered across Europe for the last century, then most Europeans would hate the Iranians. Christian theology would be deployed in defense of that hatred; the details of Christian theology would even matter in the details of the response. But the primary cause of the hatred would be the Iranian armies and client states, not the details of whether we should give more weight to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah or the book of Ruth when evaluating foreigners (most of you trolls won't understand the reference, because you don't know the Bible better than you know anything else).

In short: it is irrational, for a variety of historical reasons, to assume that theology is the primary cause of the hatred portrayed in Obsession. Theology plays a role, but the primary causes relate to our own actions - including our imperial actions.

Supporting Israel, or even the Iraq war, is one thing. Supporting them, and then blaming any blowback on the theology which, after all, is being mobilized against what is seen as a foreign invader, is simply irrational.

Use Occam's razor. If you enter a man's house (maybe for what you understand to be good reasons), kill him, then set up camp on his land, then when his sons come after you do you

a) Assume that they are coming after you because you go to different churches or,

b) Assume that they are coming after you because you killed their father.

In the real world, of course, the situation is a little more complicated than that, but that captures the essence of it.

I repeat what I said to Allah. Defend our policies if you want, defend our empire if you want. But don't act all hurt when they hate us for it. That's the absurdity of Obsession -- it treats the hatred like it's in a vacuum, existing only in the context of a vaguely understood theology, instead of in a complex social, political and economic context.

Here's another example. It's as if people acted shocked - shocked! - that Apaches and Sioux hated American settlers. Of course, people *did* sometimes act shocked in response to Indian hatred - it was an excuse to be even more militant. You take their land, you kill some of them, rape some of them, put mines on their land - then when they attack you, you're a blushing innocent rose. "Why oh why could they hate us?" What you guys are doing is analogous to blaming the Ghost Dance and Geronimo's last war on some pan-Indian ideology, rather than our conquest of the West. The Ghost Dance was a theology deployed - actually, created wholesale - to resist us. Radical Islam, while emerging from an existing tradition, owes a great deal to our behavior over the last couple hundred years (where "us" is the West in general).

That's a deliberately extreme example -- for the record, we are *not* waging genocidal warfare in the Middle East, whereas we were in the American West -- but the causality is the same, even if our actions are far more defensible.

Oh, one more thing. I'm still chuckling over your claim that I'm a Muslim. Good stuff.

Lobster,

Please read more carefully. My views would be bigoted if I'd said 'all muslims want to oppress me'. Nowhere have I said that. Ayaan Hirsi Ali (ex muslim) and Irshad Manji (lesbian but still trying to be a muslim) obviously know more about the islamic theocratic political system than you do, and they don't think it's good for women. Irshad wants to *reform* islam, not live under sharia.

I stand by my point: under that system, with sharia law, women are second-class citizens.

Where muslim countries women have equal rights, sharia is not in place and there is no theocratic rule. Turkey, for instance, whose secularism is being undermined by islamists right now.

Thanks for calling me a bigot though, I'll be proud to stand alongside others labelled that way, e.g. Asaan, Irshad, Pim Fortuyn, Geert Wilders, Bruce Bawer, Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'Or and other liberals who have pointed out the risks of an islamic system.

Anyway, it's great to see that even on this liberal site, you are in the minority.

Here's a liberal exercise you should perform: imagine how many countries in the world you could travel to *if you were a woman* and not be classed, within the legal system, as an inferior. You won't find many islamic ones on your list.

I guess I could call you a sexist bigot, blinded by the relative safety of your gender. But I'm sure once you've performed the exercise above your liberal roots will win over your sexism.

Lili,

I'll take you at face value for the moment, and explain why I called you a bigot.

If living as a dhimmi in a muslim-controlled country, I'd have to pay the jizya (infidel tax), and still conform to the 'modesty' dress codes' and other aspects of sharia. How about trying to leave islam? Apostasy: death under sharia.

Maybe this was an error on your part, but this part of your previsious entry clearly equates "muslim-controlled" with "sharia." Maybe this was sloppy writing on your part (I've certainly had such moments myself) or maybe you meant it. If you meant it, the generalization that sharia applies in all muslim controlled countries is false and bigotted.

And as for my gay friends: they'd be dead!

As I already discussed, many muslim countries (e.g., Tunisia and Afghanistan) have a history of being more open about at least male homosexuality than we are. Your gay friends, and mine, would probably prefer life in our system (although they haven't seen my home town!) over Iran - but the generalization is false and bigoted.

How immediate this threat is to the US is debatable (the demographic one not great currently). But once Europe goes...

Typical right-wing conspiracy theory, which deserves no response. I'll admit, though, that paranoia is not necessarily the same thing as bigotry, although they typically go hand-in-glove.

But that should not distract us from understanding the theocratic political system called islam. And there are violent and non-violent adherents who are working hard to establish this system in western countries, by their own admission. Calling "Islam" a "theocratic political system" is about as accurate as saying the same thing about Roman Catholicism - an old favorite of the KKK. There are doubtless Muslims who aim at theocracy, but Islam, like all world religions, is a house with many mansions. This false generalization is bigoted.

Now, on to your recent post. I don't like sharia, either - nor do I like our homegrown theocrats. And it is true that under sharia women are second-class citizens. However, your previous post was not about sharia; it quickly elided the distinction you should be making between sharia and Islamic culture & civilization as a whole.

The bigotry is not in any critique of sharia per se (although you didn't make one); the bigotry is in the equation "Islam=sharia"

One more thing: Obsession, which you are implicitly defending, is not making a critique of sharia, either. It's a vicious little screed which does the same thing you're doing - presents things about Islam that Westerners don't like, ripped out of their contexts, and then lets us assume that Islam is nothing other than these things.

Lobster,

Read again. I named sharia in my first paragraph, and dhimmis in my second (a feature of sharia law). I was obviously referring to living in a muslim-controlled sharia state, not in a charming secular state with full gender equality, human rights and gay rights that happens to have a muslim majority. Delicious halva, charming minarets, don't you just loove the hammam?

There might be a deeply personal religion without political ambitions that shares the name 'islam'. But the political system that seeks to oppress is also called islam and so its adherents keep clearly telling the world.

I hope you wake up, as I did not so much after 9/11 but after the cartoon crisis, when politicians in my little country were trying to shut up the media out of fear of violence such as the riots. I realised then that islam was not only going to curb my rights, but that it already had curbed my rights, through the violence of muslim mobs. Sorry, that's a simple fact, bigoted as it may sound.

As for defending 'Oppression': we can easily read and see any amount of positive information on muslim history. 'Oppression' showed a different aspect that the world needs to understand.

Perhaps you are arrogant enough to underestimate people's ability to think for themselves. I think people will understand that the quotes come from ideology-crazed bigots (pretty obvious) and that many muslims don't share their views.

They will also know the facts that a significant minority of a billion people do share those radical views, do wish 'infidels' harm and do want to rule the world under sharia law. See the July YouGov poll in the UK.

Your conclusions leave me with a big 'so what'? feeling. So what if 'only' some muslims are violent extremists? So what if 'only' a few countries currently practice full sharia law? So what if 'only' a minority of a billion muslims want us all to live this way?

There are enough islamists to be a real concern and the film-makers of 'Obsession' were right to bring this to the world's attention.

There might be a deeply personal religion without political ambitions that shares the name 'islam'. But the political system that seeks to oppress is also called islam and so its adherents keep clearly telling the world.

This is in no way different from taking one branch of Christianity - say, the FLDS church, to use Allah's example - and then referring to it as "Christianity," as if there is no difference. Islam has been many things, to many people, in many cultures, over many centuries.

As for defending 'Oppression': we can easily read and see any amount of positive information on muslim history. 'Oppression' showed a different aspect that the world needs to understand.

This would be fair enough if Obsession was some kind of scholarly critique. It isn't; it's far-right propaganda, rooted in false inferences, false generalizations, and argument by anecdote. Our information on Islam, or any other issue, should be based on its adherence to facts, not ideology. Which is why I presented a list of scholarly books as the source of my views.

Perhaps you are arrogant enough to underestimate people's ability to think for themselves. Yeah, that's it. I'm arrogant for thinking that people should read real scholarship (e.g., A Peace to End All Peace), instead of rehashing the talking points of the KKK, as applied Muslims instead of Catholics this time around.

Perhaps part of your problem is that you don't fully understand the position of this film within the history of far right U.S. politics.

Doctor Lobster,

I am chuckling too...because with each and every post you use the talking points that Muslims use when discussing Islam vs the West.

Talking point No 1:

You over emphasize the role that Christianity would play in Europe in your imagined scenario of oppression and you under emphasize the role that Islam is playing today throughout Europe.

Talking point No 2:

You also under emphasize the role that sharia is playing in most Islamic countries today...for those few countries where it is generally lax or in some cases suppressed it is on the rise.

Talking point No 3:

It was simply a matter of time before you brought up the American genocide of Indians...a favorite argument that most Muslims use to justify to themselves their own feelings and hopes of annilation of Israel. In other words...because you did it (the US) we should be able to do it.

Talking point No 4:

You equate sharia with "homegrown theocrats" implying that they are as much of a threat.

Talking point No 5:

You are irrational for seeing Islam as a threat.

Talking point No 6:

The general theme thoughout your posts is that Muslims are justified in their hatred of us because of our imperial meddling and if we would just stop doing it that all would be well.

This is an illusion that many people wish to believe and one you want them to believe. I, for one, will not.

Truth Serum -

I never claimed that any of my arguments were unique to me. I did claim that they are correct. Noting that you've heard similar arguments before does not constitute a counterargument in any way.

Your style of "argumentation" reminds me of that of a freshman on his first paper - one receiving about a D-. Ad hominem, generalizations, unjustified inferences and a complete lack of evidence.

Can you actually respond, with evidence and logic, to anything I've argued?

Start with the metaphor regarding our treatment of the Indians. Our behavior in the Middle East is far more ambiguous, our empire looser, the death tolls lower (although still very high).

Or return to my hypothesized Iranian occupation of Sweden and Italy, with 200 years of other colonial adventures behind it. Do you seriously believe that many Europeans wouldn't hate the Iranians, and sometimes act on that hatred? Do you seriously believe that Christian theology wouldn't be deployed on behalf of that hatred?

Again, defend our policies if you want - but don't pretend they don't exist. We have armies across the Middle East. We have had, for decades, client states in the Middle East, which are loathed by their own populations. Our policies are to a great extent continuous with those of the British Empire. Defend or attack those policies, but don't deny that they have consequences.

You are an intellectual and moral coward, ready and eager to hate, but totally unwilling to engage in any analysis of your own attitudes or our collective history.

Not one of you trolls has defended our policies in the Middle East!

Omitted part of my fourth paragraph. Here it is:

Start with the metaphor regarding our treatment of the Indians. Our behavior in the Middle East is far more ambiguous, our empire looser, the death tolls lower (although still very high). But yet, we do hold military, political, and economic (arguably) hegemony over the Middle East; our policies have lead, at least, to hundreds of thousands of deaths; we prop up some regimes and topple others. We have an empire. Care to deny it?

Yo Lobster,

Stop dignifying these xenophobes with responses. Their arguments are riddled with historical and theological inaccuracies, and they of course would refuse to apply any of the standards of critique and analysis they have towards Islam to Christianity as well.

These guys are bigots with ulterior motives. Don't feed the trolls!

(Good try though, you make some great points in spite of the ridiculousness going on here)

Awkward Silence -

Right you are, on all counts. My excuse is that the movie offended me so badly that I wanted to organize my thoughts on this issue - these trolls provided the opportunity to do so.

Besides, you never know when a fellow creature might listen to reason. It doesn't hurt to try every now and then (although I might sanely have stopped, say, ten posts ago).

I bookmarked your blog, by the way - so some sort of good came out of my pointless stubbornness.

On that note...

Dear Trolls: See you in the funny papers, or, more likely, in Hell. I'm out of here.

I for one am happy to see him go.

After talking down to us like we are his students, he has done nothing to help our understanding of the film "Obsession" or radical Islam.
Instead he has only given us his opinion that "Obsession" tars all Muslims with the same brush. Instead of sending us off to read the three volume history of the Crusades by Lord Runciman, time would be better spent reading Ashmawi.

It is not necessary to travel eight hundred years into the past to appreciate Laban's role in inciting the cartoon riots.

Do not read the academic fraud of Said. Rather, read about the Siege of Mecca in 1979, or Murder in Amsterdam by Ian Buruma, or the Enemy of my Enemy by George Michael.

Be aware that the Organization of Islamic Countries is trying to make any criticism of Islam hate speech.

Notice that the argument that 911 was caused by America's foreign policies is what Saudi Prince Al Waleed asked Rudolph Giuliani to say.

Take a look at the rebuttal to the film by the ObesseionwithHate web site. It is there that the Mufti's role in the Holocaust is minimized, and swept under the rug.

"The fact is that America and the allies didn't even know the extent of the holocaust or the extermination of European Jewry so how was the Mufti of Jerusalem supposed to know?"

What difference does it make if the Mufti knew the exact number murdered when he undoubtedly would have said "kill more"?

ObesseionwithHate goes on to say :

"This does not absolve the Mufti from criticism. He may rightly be accused of political and even moral expediency. But to reinterpret history in order to contrive a scenario that fits some kind of contiguous "Islamofascism" that binds Jerusalem's Mufti with Bin Laden, Saddam , Hamas, , and other 21st century phenomena, that are themselves unrelated, is simply revisionist absurdity. "

Is it really absurd?

The Mufti was one of the few people to have face time with Adolf Hitler. Persia changed its' name to Iran to show solidarity with Adolph Hitler. Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, hosted a Holocaust denial convention. Hezbollah is the Iranian Special Forces. Hezbollah supplies Hamas with material support. Hamas quotes form the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in its' charter. Saddam was a member of the Baath Party, an Arab Nazi party.

Who is doing the revisionism?

I for one am happy to see him go.

After talking down to us like we are his students, he has done nothing to help our understanding of the film "Obsession" or radical Islam.
Instead he has only given us his opinion that "Obsession" tars all Muslims with the same brush. Instead of sending us off to read the three volume history of the Crusades by Lord Runciman, time would be better spent reading Ashmawi.

It is not necessary to travel eight hundred years into the past to appreciate Laban's role in inciting the cartoon riots.

Do not read the academic fraud of Said. Rather, read about the Siege of Mecca in 1979, or Murder in Amsterdam by Ian Buruma, or the Enemy of my Enemy by George Michael.

Be aware that the Organization of Islamic Countries is trying to make any criticism of Islam hate speech.

Notice that the argument that 911 was caused by America's foreign policies is what Saudi Prince Al Waleed asked Rudolph Giuliani to say.

Take a look at the rebuttal to the film by the ObesseionwithHate web site. It is there that the Mufti's role in the Holocaust is minimized, and swept under the rug.

"The fact is that America and the allies didn't even know the extent of the holocaust or the extermination of European Jewry so how was the Mufti of Jerusalem supposed to know?"

What difference does it make if the Mufti knew the exact number murdered when he undoubtedly would have said "kill more"?

ObesseionwithHate goes on to say :

"This does not absolve the Mufti from criticism. He may rightly be accused of political and even moral expediency. But to reinterpret history in order to contrive a scenario that fits some kind of contiguous "Islamofascism" that binds Jerusalem's Mufti with Bin Laden, Saddam , Hamas, , and other 21st century phenomena, that are themselves unrelated, is simply revisionist absurdity. "

Is it really absurd?

The Mufti was one of the few people to have face time with Adolf Hitler. Persia changed its' name to Iran to show solidarity with Adolph Hitler. Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, hosted a Holocaust denial convention. Hezbollah is the Iranian Special Forces. Hezbollah supplies Hamas with material support. Hamas quotes form the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in its' charter. Saddam was a member of the Baath Party, an Arab Nazi party.

Who is doing the revisionism?

Allah: Think about it. How many Westerners are willing to go suicide bomb a crowded market for the USA, or Capitalism, or even Christianity?

You've really never heard of Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph or Theodore Kazcynski? Or do they not count because they were only murderous bombers and not suicide bombers? Does it only count as terrorism if it involves suicide bombing, and remotely killing people with bombs is A-OK and the American way?

My last post here in response to Larry, and everyone else I suppose...

If you apply the same standards of analysis and criticism that you point at Islam to Christianity you'd find some remarkably similar results. For every extremist imam or leader with views derived from Islam, I can do the same for Christianity I assure you. Terrorist organizations have in the past, and continue to commit acts of violence and fear in the name of Christianity.

This isn't relativism. I've seen people beaten for saying they don't believe in Jesus. And in the same way you claim that Islam is trying to make criticism against it hate speech, Christians in America are trying to legislate their own religious values and make it hate speech to criticize them as well. Christianity has a history of violence both in actuality and rhetorically towards non-Christians. In the same fashion, just as there is much about peace, respect, love, faith, etc. in Christianity, the same is true of Islam.

You can pick and choose people, historic events, and texts that support your ideas. But if you don't address the ones that contradict your ideas, just as this movie fails to do, then your theories are meritless.

I am sorry Mr Silence, but it IS relativism.

We are discussing the well documented phenomenon of Islamic extremism that has been going on far longer than the US has been a country.

Since you have not supported your statements with a single fact, I will have to take it on your word that there is a Christian equivalent to the OIC trying to make critisim of Christianity a crime. If that is so it should be opposed, but that is a separate issue.

You are engaging in the logical fallicy of tu quoque by introducing it now.

As I posted previously, please look at the writings of former Egyptian Supreme Court Justice Muhammad Sa'id al-'Ashmawi.

Because he has been an outspoken critic of Islamists and Sharia law, he lives under 24 hour police protecion from Islamic militants, and this has nothing to do with American foreign policy.

As for the film "Obsession" , it does not "tar all Muslims with the same brush". It states at the begining of the film that most Muslims are decent people, and recapitulates this at the end, including video clips of Saudi clerics preaching that the enemy is the terrorists, and a mass demostration of Iranian citizens chanting "death to the terrorists."

"Obsession" also states that we should be giving support to those decent Muslims so that they can raise their voice without getting lynched. Engaging in sophomoric arguments is sending the message that it is not yet safe to criticise Islam because even the Americans will not protect you.

What needs to be done?
As per Robert Spencer:

1. Focus indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, NOT on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. RENOUNCE DEFINITIVLY not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means.
3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.