Dear ConservativeHippie, thank you for your mcomment:
"NC McAdam, you write with the assurance and style of an educated person but fail miserably at distinguishing between the Islamists that are terrorising the world and the everyday Muslim person that no one on this site has a problem with. If anyone is lumping all Muslims into one basket, it's you."

NC does appear a well educated and well read person to me too but I plead not guilty.

"Have you denounced the Taliban for killing 130 school children?"
Yes, I denounce them in the strongest possible terms.

"Are the Taliban Muslims?"
I hate to be the judge of any body's belief but am convinced that if they are Muslims, the are of the level of the "Hashashin". They were recruited and used by Hassan-e- Sabbah to terrorize the world for ulterior motives.
Taliban too were recruited and used for a purpose. Please refer to the "confession" I shared with you. Now some may think that, the act of creating and using the "assassins" was restricted to Soviet occupation of Afghanistan only and some on the other hand may be seeing that the act continues to be played out in the arena of the Middle East with reverberations,world over. It depends on the level of respective vision.

If I am the one who is lumping all the Muslims into one basket, then how come a lady from "the everyday Muslim persons that no one on this site has a problem with", gets harassed?

I respect your approach of isolating the criminals from the rest of the Muslims, with whom you say no one has any problem, but I will believe that statement to be sincere and true, when I see the discussion on Islam vanish from these pages and concentrated instead on condemning the heinous crime committed by the hostage taker and indiscretion of the zealot who harassed a lady for her dress.

Best regards

Hi McAdam/NC,

I fully agree with you, when you denounce the Taliban [and all other Salafists] in the strongest possible terms. I hope that your denunciation includes IS, Boko haram, al-Shabaab, the Afghan Taliban, al-Nusra, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, and the various al-Qa'ida franchises across the Muslim world.

I'm glad that you are able to distinguish criticism from 'hate' speech: in any healthy society, criticism - as I hope you will agree - is a vital feature. We criticise our best friends, we criticise our children, in the hope that they will see our criticism as constructive and take note of their faults, or at least, in turn, argue about them. Criticism is thus a sign of human respect.

And I have enough respect for the people in the above-mentioned organisations to believe that they can think for themselves: they are nobody's puppets, not the CIA's, not even the Saudis'. They make up their own minds, and commit the most dreadful crimes against humanity, clear-eyed, knowing what they are doing.

So when they use the Koran to justify their crimes, it puzzles me: are they actually citing what is in the Koran ? Are there parts of the Koran which justify what they are doing ?

And are there other parts of the Koran which would denounce - as you rightly do - such vile acts ?

Are there contradictions in the Koran ? Which bits should we take heart from, and which bits should we denounce ? If it is the literal word of Allah, did he get it right in one part, but wrong in another part ?

Thank you, in any case, for your courage in speaking out against the vile crimes of the Pakistani Taliban.

Joe

Hi Joe,

Don't be fooled.

I recently found this man who has plenty of knowledge and insights of Islam at first hand. He has written an essay which won an award. He regrets modern British culture particularly and its demise which only contributes to the issues at stake.

essay:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_2_when_islam.html

He has consulted hundreds of oppressed Muslim women who have tried to commit suicide.

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

Anthony (A.M.) Daniels (born 11 October 1949), who generally uses the pen name Theodore Dalrymple, is an English writer and retired prison doctor and psychiatrist. He worked in a number of Sub-Saharan African countries as well as in the east end of London. Before his retirement in 2005, he worked in City Hospital, Birmingham[1] and Winson Green Prison in inner-city Birmingham, England.

Some of his statements:

"When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself."

"The root cause of our contemporary cultural poverty is intellectual dishonesty. First, the intellectuals (more specifically, left-wing ones) have destroyed the foundation of culture, and second, they refuse to acknowledge it by resorting to the caves of political correctness."

"He is an atheist, but has criticised anti-theism and says that "to regret religion is to regret our civilisation and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy."

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/112823-our-culture-what-s-left-of-it-the-mandarins-and-the-masses
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12408994-anything-goes

Joe,
Good to hear your words “Nobody is demonising Muslims – nobody has to”.

Your concern about the tiny minority using (their perverted version of) Islam for their crimes against humans is thoroughly understood and totally shared by me, as is, I am sure, by the huge majority of the Muslim world. Muslim societies are mobilising to deliver them a death blow, which I am sure, is imminent now.
The discussion got to an unpleasant level, unfortunately, when crime of a deranged criminal were claimed to have been propelled by the teachings of Islam. Yes, there is a lot of material on this post to show that this sick attempt was in fact made.
Anyway, I regard your statement to be constructive, thanks.

ConservativeHippie,

Your post (of 23rd) indicates a genuine misunderstanding you may have of my position. Hence my responsibility for a good-faith effort to correct it, hoping that the harshness you exhibit will yield to acceptable communication.

My message to Joe must have provided answer to your question. Whatever the Taliban killing school children and their teachers may be, they can’t be Muslims, in my view.
I have no issues (in the context of this discussion) with anyone not implying the sickness I explained in the second paragraph of the message above.

SPQR,
I would not have addressed you if you didn’t.

If I didn’t address you, there was no reason for me to bring up my experience with you. And when I go over my experience with you, I must state facts, which is precisely what I did and would be willing to substantiate these facts from your posts, if you insist – that is.

Your plan of not going to wade through all your repeat waffle is ok by me. My response will depend on yours.

I wish good for you.

Continued …

Continued ….

The John Quincy Adams (d1848), quoted in a recent post, is a good example of a product of the environment that subject the history to distortions and errors.

The question is not about the existence of such ill-informed medieval images of Islam and Muhammad in the West. It is the distortions, however, which are in question.

I have personally seen books in the University of California Library which describe Islam and Quran (in medieval narrative) as something totally opposite to the real Islam and Quran. I am sure many other libraries would have similar books. A quote from such a reference is possible, but the question would be about its AUTHENTICITY.

Today, these medieval distortions are not being questioned by Muslims alone. There are legions of non-Muslim (mostly western) scholars busy demolishing these age-old misconceptions of Islam and Muhammad. A genuine research, quite in tune with the age of reason, has uncovered the facts. The facts are so well documented (thanks to the resources of this age), so vivid (thanks to the independent research) and so accessible to scholars as well as common readers (thanks to the age of information) that an independent scholar of this age cannot adhere to the medieval distortions and still maintain his/her reliability in the field of knowledge. Of course, negligible exceptions are possible here too – a minimum level of candidness is needed to see facts. But as we know, exceptions don’t form rules.

The fact of growing awareness of the facts can be observed in many of the quotes I have presented so far and will continue to show up in the quotes that will follow. This quote addresses part of the misconception John Adams had.

De Lacy O'Leary (1872-1957), British Orientalist who also taught at the University of Bristol in his book 'Islam at the Crossroads,' London (1923) observes that:

“History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”

Hi Constance,

Don't worry, I don't think I'm being fooled. Although, if there is such a concept in Islam as 'Teqqia', the right or obligation to lie in a good cause', I'm aware that whatever NC/McAdam says could be nothing more than fluff.

Having been on the Left all my life, I'm fully aware of the 'principle' of lying in a good cause, if you are in a weak position [call it the Medina option] and coming straight out with all the 'honesty' and brutality you can muster when you get the chance [call it the Mecca option]. Fortunately, the Left has never had that chance and never will.

But the innovation of single terrorists (I don't like or agree with the term 'lone wolf': they believe they have an entire religion backing them so they are not 'lone') complicates matters: it uses the Mecca option when numbers are still at Medina-level: force and brutality befitting a group with power, real Mecca-level power, when the individual doesn't not have any real power except his individual brutality and weapons. 'Lone-wolf' fascists, if you like.

So, once a 'principle' such as teqqia is ever sanctioned, how does anyone know when someone is being honest and when they are lying ? The precautionary principle suggests that we be wary, not fully trusting.

IF teqqia is, in fact, part of Islam, then Muslims can't really complain at that response. If they completely repudiate teqqia (although, by definition, how could you tell ?) then maybe we could lower our guard. In the meantime, of course, we should maintain a sort of arm's-length friendship, and Muslims should expect nothing more.

Joe