The Jewish hostages are dead

Some think elements in the Pakistani government had something to do with this.

And another thing, remember that Barrak Obama has maintained that we should put more undisclosed military pressure on Pakistan; and now as president-elect he still intends to do that. This is more that a coincidence. I wonder if Obama is being "tested" early.

Of well, peace is not breaking out all over the world this holiday season.

@RJohnson:

The obvious conclusion is that Islamic terrorism is not the fault of anyone except Muslims.

This time Islamic terrorists targeted Americans, Britons, and Jews, but they targeted Indians in their previous attacks, attacks that didn't take up 3-consecutive-days-and-counting of the news cycle.

This is not Americans' fault, not Britons' fault, not the Jews' fault, certainly not the Indians' fault, not anyones' fault but the Muslims.

To Corey: It's a reasonable surmise that, as several hostages were released due to their being muslims, the hostage-takers themselves, who went out of their way to look for US & British passport holders, must be yet another infestation of islamist grievance-mongers. The fact that one of the demands given was the release of prisoner jihadists might also be one of those little things called a "clue."

As to obvious solutions, please engage in something other than red herring fallacies. No one is advocating opening the ovens again. What's ironic in that assertion, though, is just how much the Holocaust is being de-emphasized in some European school systems due to muslim students either taking offense, laughing about it, or denying it. Herewith some of the fruits of the misbegotten idea of "multiculturalism" and it's cousin, "moral relativism."

So what are some soluitons? How about, instead of dithering due to fears of being called a racist (I forget, what race is islam?), the US takes a no tolerance stance on any imam preaching hate in this country, and rooting out any Salafi/Wahabbi extremists and sending them back where they came from? How about, rather than trying to gloss things over, saying to muslims who have emigrated to this country, "Please adapt to the cultural norms of the US, and don't try to implement any element of sha'ria law here, for it is incompatible with the US Constitution. Furthermore, public funds cannot be used to build footbaths in common use facilities, cab drivers have to occasionally drive someone who has purchased alcohol or who may in fact be drunk as "hayal", and if you take a job in a grocery store, you cannot refuse to scan pork products if you're working the cash register."

Defending our own cultural prerogatives might be a good start....

Full disclosure, and in order to not appear to be hiding behind anonymity, the 11:51 "Your Name" posting is me.

"How about, rather than trying to gloss things over, saying to muslims who have emigrated to this country, "Please adapt to the cultural norms of the US, and don't try to implement any element of sha'ria law here, for it is incompatible with the US Constitution. Furthermore, public funds cannot be used to build footbaths in common use facilities, cab drivers have to occasionally drive someone who has purchased alcohol or who may in fact be drunk as "hayal", and if you take a job in a grocery store, you cannot refuse to scan pork products if you're working the cash register"

IOW, religious liberty in the U.S. has no place for Islam. What a lovely, post-Thanksgiving message.

As for why the mainstream media has not carried this story...has YOUR paper carried it, Rod? Have you written on it before now? If not, why not?

You need to settle down. I took down your Holocaust post.

I have been writing about this stuff on this blog and in my newspaper for a long time. I have made a nuisance of myself in my workplace on the subject of MSM blindness -- and I include my newspaper in that -- to the presence of and meaning of Islamic extremism.

You're right: this might turn out to be Swedish Lutherans involved in the Mumbai attacks. If it does, I'll apologize. It often is the Lutherans, to say nothing of the ferocious Bahais. Mormons too. But if it turns out to be anyone other than Muslims, I'll eat my fez.

We now need to settle down to watch an entire day of the Usual Suspects talk about why we shouldn't notice the bleeding obvious, and how even if it is what it plainly is, it's somehow the fault of Christians.

Obviously this is the work of the Irish Republican Army.

"religious liberty in the U.S. has no place for Islam"
Give me a break. If Christians wanted public money to be used for Christian religious purposes, liberals would be screaming "separation of church and state." But when public money is used for Muslim foot washes they are all for relgious liberty. If Christian cab drivers refused to drive people to abortion clinics, liberals would be screaming "then get another job." But for Muslims it's matter of religious freedom. If Christians refused to sell morning after pills at a pharmacy liberals would be screaming get another job, but it's OK for Muslims to refuse to seel pork products.

RJohnson, you are not going to be permitted to troll this thread with your customary 10 posts in one hour. That is my fatwa.

Rod - equivocate all you like, but at this point is nothing but irresponsible, shoddy journalism to assume that a) the attackers were Muslims or b) that if they were Muslims, the attacks were committed for explicitly Islamist reasons, as opposed to ethnic or regional reasons. It is simplistic and ridiculous to boil down the conflict in India as "Muslim vs. Hindu" as if it were the same conflict as Al Qaeda vs. the West.

It seems so gentile to wring hands about how Islam is a religion of peace, it's just a teensy minority that does the bad stuff, etc.

I think the Jews get it, though. They know that Muslims aren't kidding about their hatred of Jews. They know that Muslim tradition labels them subhuman. They've heard that kind of stuff before.

When the Jews strike back, though, you watch: it won't be Muslim civilians whose lives are the focus of the attack.

"Democracy don't rule the world, better get that through your head. This world is ruled by violence, but I guess that's better left unsaid."

Corey, you are on the edge of sounding troll-like in your abject disingenuousness on this issue. It IS simplistic, if you've at all taken the time to study wahabbi islamic teachings, which all of these various islamist groups have been steeped in (with the exception of Iranian ayatollahs, who nonetheless make common cause with the former).

It isn't islam vs. hindu or al qaeda vs the west, it's Wahabbist Islam vs EVERYONE who isn't them, full stop.

An entry from my blog a couple of years ago...

http://celticharp.blogtownhall.com/2006/08/11/multiple_guess_test.thtml

celtic-dragon writes: Friday, August, 11, 2006 9:18 PM
Multiple Guess Test
1. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Tehran was stormed and the diplomatic personnel held hostage by:

A. The Sandmen from "Logans Run"
B. ABBA
C. Cheech and Chong
D. Male Muslim extremists, mostly between the ages of 18 and 45

2. The Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and passenger leon Klinghoffer murdered and thrown overboard by:

A. Sponge Bob Squarepants
B. Jaques Costeau
C. Flipper
D. Male Muslim extremists, mostly between the ages of 18 and 45

3. The U.S Marine Corps barracks and French peacekeeper barracks in Beirut were blown up by:

A. Deranged Jodie Foster fans who read "The Catcher In The Rye"
B. Salman Rushdie
C. Truman Capote
D. Male Muslim extremists, mostly between the ages of 18 and 45

4. Suicide Bombers, snipers and molotov cocktail throwing people in Israel and Palestine are usually:

A. Disgruntled postal employees
B. Disgruntled "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" Fans
C. Disgruntled Kerry/Edwards campaign workers
D. Male Muslim extremists, mostly between the ages of 18 and 45

5. U.S. Embassies in Africa were attacked by:

A. The guys from the movie "Zulu"
B. General Rommel and The Afrika Korps
C. The Mummy
D. Male Muslim extremists, mostly between the ages of 18 and 45

6. A U.S. warship was attacked in Yemen and nearly sunk by:

A. The good ship Lollypop
B. The Pirates of the Caribbean
C. The Bermuda Triangle
D. Male Muslim extremists, mostly between the ages of 18 and 45

7.Journalist Daniel Pearl was tortured and beheaded on T.V. by:

A. Captain Kangaroo
B. Mister Rogers
C. Big Bird
D. Male Muslim extremists, mostly between the ages of 18 and 45

8. Women in Afghanistan were imprisoned, denied basic human rights and reduced to slavery by:

A. Ruyard Kipling
B. Ghandi
C. Mother Theresa
D. Male Muslim extremists, mostly between the ages of 18 and 45

9. Christian and Animist Sudanese are being massacred, displaced and sold as sex slaves by:

A. Nelson Mandela
B. The rock band "U2"
C. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie
D. Male Muslim extremists, mostly between the ages of 18 and 45

10. The World trade Center was initially attacked in 1993 and subsequently destroyed in 2001 by:

A. The Death Star
B. The Klingon Empire
C. Orcish armies from "The Lord Of The Rings"
D. Male Muslim extremists, mostly between the ages of 18 and 45.

You may score your papers and hand them in now.

A Jewish colleague told be a 'Chabad' is what we'd call a 'missionary' centre. He said there must be around 30 Jews in Bombay, so clearly the Chabad was specifically targetted.

A Muslim group has claimed responsibility for the attacks, though there's reason for skepticism that this Muslim group is responsible. There are frequent Islamic terrorist attacks in India (and Hindu terrorist attacks against Indian Muslims and Christians, by the way). There is no rationale for Hindu terrorists to have staged this attack. There is no Christian terrorist group in India.

I don't care if Muslim store clerks here in the US don't want to handle pork in their own stores. But if you work for a non-Muslim store, tough.

I would favor a conscience clause for pharmacy employees who don't wish to distribute the morning-after pill on grounds that it involves facilitating an act they believe to be morally tantamount to murder. The issue is not Evangelicals or any other Christians refusing to distribute contraception. It's the morning-after pill, which, if it works as intended on a woman who has conceived the night before, is abortifacient. This is in a far more serious moral category, in my view, than a Muslim finding it objectionable to handle pork in his supermarket job, or a Catholic finding it objectionable to sell condoms.

Just as a point of information, the Chabad Lubavitch movement is a worldwide evangelically-minded movement of Orthodox Jews who believe in outreach to bring fallen-away Jews back to the practice of their faith. They are often identified in the media as "ultra-orthodox," a designation I am given to understand that they find offensive. The Chabad house in Mumbai must have been, as Francesca says, sort of an outpost of Jewish life for Jews who live and work in the city. I wonder what kind of terrorists would target a Jewish religious and cultural center? Hmm. Mormons, plainly.

"This is in a far more serious moral category, in my view, than a Muslim finding it objectionable to handle pork in his supermarket job, or a Catholic finding it objectionable to sell condoms."

Note the key words...in your view. When we are crafting a law there are many, many views. Yet the law must be crafted to respect ALL faiths, nor none at all. A Muslim taxi driver who believes he is furthering immorality by transporting drunk riders is equal before the law to a Catholic pharmacist who believes he is assisting in an abortion by dispensing the morning after pill. Either they both have a right to practice their religion and exclude clients based on that, or they have no right to do so.

This is the conundrum we face here in the US. We have the First Amendment to work around. Restrictions based on religious belief must pass the test of the First Amendment.

And it is precisely because of what you state, Rod. If we do not adopt this approach, then the views of the majority will dictate which religions have freedom and which do not.

"I would favor a conscience clause for pharmacy employees who don't wish to distribute the morning-after pill on grounds that it involves facilitating an act they believe to be morally tantamount to murder. The issue is not Evangelicals or any other Christians refusing to distribute contraception. It's the morning-after pill, which, if it works as intended on a woman who has conceived the night before, is abortifacient. This is in a far more serious moral category, in my view, than a Muslim finding it objectionable to handle pork in his supermarket job, or a Catholic finding it objectionable to sell condoms."

You find it more serious. Do you presume to speak for the law? Some Muslims find it abhorrent to have dogs in their cabs while transporting passengers. Whatever. I have no sympathy for religious exemptions for doing your job. If you are hired to hand out medication, then HAND OUT THE FRAKKIN' MEDICATION!!!! Don't like it? Get a new job. Same for the Muslim cab drivers and grocery store clerks. If your delicate constitution is so offended by the normal pursuit of your duty, then you are in the wrong profession.

Corey, there's another example of why you are behaving like a politically correct ignoramus. Islamic terrorists, including Al Qaeda, have for years targeted synagogues and Jewish cultural centers abroad. If you're determined not to recognize what is right in front of your face, that's your right. But don't insult me, and don't insult our intelligence.

Corey, just out of curiosity... What motive for this attack would suit you? If the attack happened because the Chabad house was a Jewish center, would that make it more or less excusable than your other proposed motive – that the inhabitants were probably Westerners? Which of these scenarios makes the attack understandable in your eyes, and somehow undeserving of Rod's criticism? It seems that, as far as you're concerned, the only real sin committed in this case was by Rod, with his "lazy journalism."

Corey

I have no idea why you are playing this denial game, but you remind me of Japanese politicians who deny that there was ever a "Rape of Nanking", or that Japanese soldiers regularly conscripted women as sex slaves for military brothels under the guise of "comfort women".

Keep it up if it amuses you, but you look and sound ridiculous.

I have often wondered if there is something in Islam that leads it, when it goes bad, to violence, something related to its central message. Perhaps its simple (not simplistic), unified vision of reality? In Christianity, based on love, perhaps we might say the flip side is a kind of tolerance so extreme that it kills of doctrine, morals, and any social and intellectual framework. This is a question I wish Muslim intellectuals would address. And, please, no irrelevant arguments over the relative harm of bad Islam and bad Christianity

Corey: If today a group of rednecks goes and blows up a synagogue or a Hillel in Missouri or something,

When did Rednecks last blow up 'a synagogue or a Hillel im Missouri or something' ?

What about that guy who killed all the Unitarians a few weeks ago?

1. Given the epic history of Christian violence against fellow Christians and non-Christians, I would think followers of Jesus would be the last ones to start blaming a religion for the behavior of its adherents.

2. Call me nuts, but I really don't think getting pissy with Islam as a faith is really going to produce any positive results when it comes to dealing with Islamic terrorism. It's pretty hard to read Rod's comments and the comments of folks in this thread as anything other than a call to be angrier, meaner and more intolerant of Muslims generally...which will help with this problem, how?

Mike

Folks,

It doesn't matter where terror comes from. What matters is stopping terrorists in their tracks, on the spot. The only way this can happen is if people understand they must instantly react, and respond to the terrorists who confront them. This includes school children.

People in these situations ALWAYS have the advantage of numbers against terrorists. If we teach the people of the world that 'unarmed does not mean incapable', they can overcome and rally back from these attacks. As they are defeated on the spot, by unarmed, yet brave civilians, these attacks will be reduced.

We can never stop the suicide bomber, but acts like these should go the way of the dinosaur if people will simply stop being sheep, and feel that they should follow the instructions of terrorists. Once terrorists reveal themselves, people have to act. Take them on, make them expend ammunition. Fight back, engage them. Most terrorists are not combat trained, or nor expecting resistance.

Terrorists expect sheep, don't be a sheep! Be a wolf! Be a sheep dog! Be a shepard.

Are people going to get hurt? Sure they are, but the likelihood is these people made a commitment to make today their last day on earth and to take YOU or your LOVED ONES with them. Our job is to not give it to them. Better to die fighting back, than be blown up, or shot, or have your head taken and shown on the world wide web.

We need to fight back, on the spot, and take these cowards alive, try them and fry them in democratic courts around the world.

dbvanhorn: The scenario you describe is exactly the one that happened on United Flight 93, a situation where our martyrs defeated theirs.

Why? Why is it that so many people hate the Jews so much? They never did anything wrong. I blame media. Second of all: There are around 60 Jews in Mumbai. 5 were killed. Two were not from mumbai. I think 8 people were there all toghether including the child.

There should be action against the Arab nations exept for Turkey (and Ukraine and Israel, if you think of them as arab. I think of Ukraine as Christian and Israel as Jewish) responsible for this. Not every single person, but the extremist groups and the governments.

me at 1:39 says:
The problem with Islam is that you can find justification for both living a good, loving, peaceful, generous heart in the Koran AND you can find justification for living a life of violence, hatred, evil and hostility in the Koran.
---
I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that despite a long acquaintance with Islam, especially Sufism, I've never read the whole Qur'an, so I don't have the context for many of the passages in question. I will assume your point is valid as far as it goes, but a fundamental question is: how have these passages been understood by the tradition as a whole? I cannot agree with your statement, "With Islam, there is no need to twist the religion to fit the desires of evil people." I will have to ask a Muslim friend to speak to this, perhaps even get him to ask a Muslim scholar to write on it.

The lack of coverage of the attack on Copts in Egypt recently is not surprising. How much news coverage does Egypt get in this country unless it is involved in something to do with Israel? For that matter, how much does our news cover internal events in India that don't involve Westerners?

The lack of coverage hardly strikes me as somehow anti-Christian. It is more about our lack of interest in the rest of the world - unless it involves us.

Julie, I can think of no other adjective besides "sweet" to attribute Islamic terrorism to confusion.

They're not confused! Me's post clarifies that those who want to read justification for jihad into the Koran can do so without mental or moral gymnastics.

As for beating us all over the head for the Iraq war, those of us who supported Bush in initiating it were misled (to put it kindly); and some of us following history found it plausible that Saddam had WMD based on his use of them on the Kurds.

Bush exploited the moral law (described in The Art of War as one of the "five constant factors" to be taken into account in the art of war) by "causing the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their olives, undismayed by any danger" for an immoral purpose.

Sun Tzu writes, in The Art of War:

"In all history, there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."

Before this, he writes:

"...if victory is long in coming, the men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened...if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the state will not be equal to the strain. ...When [this happens] other chieftains will spring up to take advanges of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue."

I think this is where we are, with our weakness exposed, and other chieftains (terrorists) springing up. I believe that the Iraq war coined "the war on terror" had the unintended (I hope) effect of exacerbating terrorism. The terrorists now have another treat to exploit with our economic collapse. Because I believe they have mastered The Art of War, I fully expect them to make hay while the sun shines for them.

And now there are reports that British nationals of Pakistani origin may be involved in the attack -- something that, if true, could make life very difficult for Brit-Paks.

No, there will be absolutely no repercussions. The UK government will still allow cousin-marriage weddings to create more streams of immigration in the UK. Criticizing in strong terms Islam will be called 'hate speech' and those who do it will be jailed. Both parties will move to put more 'ethnic' candidates on their short lists for parlimemtary selection.

Your Name (Mike) wrote at 1:48 pm:

I really don't think getting pissy with Islam as a faith is really going to produce any positive results when it comes to dealing with Islamic terrorism. It's pretty hard to read Rod's comments and the comments of folks in this thread as anything other than a call to be angrier, meaner and more intolerant of Muslims generally...which will help with this problem, how?

Mike, the problem is that it's hard to tell the extremists from the peaceful. Why is that? Because the peaceful aren't speaking out in large numbers against the extremists. Why not? Because the peaceful have death sentences hanging over their heads if they side with "the infidels", which means US. If that's not hate, I don't know what is. Unfortunately, peaceful Muslims risk martyrdom for themselves and their children for their beliefs

There are extremists among us, in our country, as demostrated in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas. As I've written exhaustively today, they have mastered the art of war and are waiting for their time here; but that time will come. I'm not willing to protect those who are unwilling to speak up, stand up, and stand beside us.

Sun Tzu writes, in The Art of War, of the five essentials for victory, two of which are:

"He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight."

"He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared."

He also writes that you cannot win unless you know yourself and know your enemy. Our PC culture stands in the way of both."regardless of their olives" should be regadless of their own lives. Sorry.

"If a muslim doesn't want to handle pork, he/she is free to look for employment that doesn't require handling pork. If a cab driver doesn't want to give a drunk a ride, he too is free to look for employment elsewhere (logically, in Utah I suppose, hehe)."

If a Catholic doesn't want to see contraceptives, they are free to look for other employment. If an Orthodox Jew doesn't want to work on Friday nights, they can find another job. If a sikh doesn't want to remove his headwrap, the jew doesn't want to remove his skullcap, the Evangelcal doesn't want to remover her cross, let them find another culture.

If someone wants to pray in Spanish or Greek, Russian or Arabic, let them move somewhere else. If they want to enforce religious-based laws--like being allowed to discriminate against gays, not approve divorces--toss them out of the country.

I'm coming to this thread late, but here's my two-cents'worth:

1. From what we're hearing, it certainly appears that the criminals responsbile for the Mombai killings were radical Islamic terrorists. In the year 2008, radical Islam is responsible for much (most?)of the world's terror attacks. I'm unimpressed by both those folks who try to ignore Islam's role as well as those who try to make too much of it. Terrorism by Islamists is a fact in the year 2008, so let's have some rational discussion of how to deal with it without going off the deep end on either side of the spectrum.

2. Some of the victims of this recent Mombai incident were Jews. Their families deserve our most sincere prayers and sympathy. Similar terrorist attacks on Jews in various parts of the world have all been shameful and wrong (as have terrorist attacks on other nationalities and ethnic groups). And yet, I have been appalled by many actions of the Israeli government, and can understand why many people of goodwill around the world have no particular sympathy for that government. In particular, I wish my government (U.S.) would stop carrying water for the Israeli government. In holding such policy positions, by no means have I set aside my regard for the Jewish people and their welfare.

3. The Mombai terrorists killed a lot of people. Some were Jews. Others likely were Christian, Hindu, Sikh, whatever. All of those killings were wrong.

Rachel said, November 28, 2008 3:01 PM:

"Julie, I can think of no other adjective besides "sweet" to attribute Islamic terrorism to confusion.

They're not confused! Me's post clarifies that those who want to read justification for jihad into the Koran can do so without mental or moral gymnastics."

I never said the terrible acts of terrorism were caused by confusion. What I did say is that American's should take the plank out of their own eye and look inward to determine if we have attributed to the Muslim hate. We waged an unjust war and should be asking God for forgiveness.

Your Name said, November 28, 2008 2:47 PM:

"Julie--
The US has not gone to war in Iraq "in the name of God." Where on earth do you get that idea?
If you look at the violence taking place in Iraq, it's Muslims killing Muslims, and in the process killing Americans (and a few more than 3 Australians) too. perhaps we made a mistake going into Iraq-- we should have harder hearts and not cared what the tyrant Saddam did to his own people. perhaps we made a mistake in believing that such people could actually rule themselves in a democratic way."

The statements about going to war with Iraq in the name of God are attributable to George W. Bush. I think we went into Iraq with a very hard heart about the increased suffering we would cause the Iraqis.

A 2003 Beliefnet article is a good place to start with George W Bush's mission from God.

An Evolving Faith - Does the president believe he has a divine mandate?

BY: Deborah Caldwell Beliefnet http://tinyurl.com/5bbgcg

The U.S. added to the considerable suffering of the people of Iraq:

Disarm Iraq…Without War by Jim Wallis

http://tinyurl.com/5688pj

"Most important, a war against Iraq raises serious moral questions. If it includes massive air attacks and house-to-house fighting in the streets of Baghdad, tens of thousands of civilians could be killed. This risk to innocent lives must be unacceptable to us as Christians. The people of Iraq have suffered for the past decade from Saddam's oppression, from the continuing consequences of the 1991 Gulf war, and from the effects of economic sanctions. A war would cause even more suffering. We must also consider that in such a war casualties among the attacking forces are likely to be significant. The impact on families and loved ones in our own society is also a moral question we must consider."

10/20/02 Iraq War Unjustifiable says Bush's Church Head

Pres Bush's own Methodist church has launched a scathing attack on his preparations for war against Iraq saying they are without any justification according to the teachings of Christ

All attempts at a 'dialogue' between the President & his own church over the war had fallen on deaf ears at the White House

Winkler, General Secretary, Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church (UMC), which counts the President & the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, among its members. The church represents eight to nine million regular churchgoers and is the third biggest in America

The UMC is not pacifist, but 'rejects war as a usual means of national policy' UMC scriptural doctrine, he added, specifies 'war as a last resort, primarily a defensive thing. And so far as I know, Saddam Hussein has not mobilized military forces along the borders of the United States, nor along his own border to invade a neighboring country, nor have any of these countries pleaded for our assistance, not does he have weapons of mass destruction targeted at the United States'

Winkler said his church was 'keenly aware' that it counted the President and his deputy among its members

http://tinyurl.com/3cqk8

me, to answer your real question "are we actually willing to protect those who ARE willing to speak up, stand up, and stand beside us", the answer is that I don't know. I know that I am willing to do so and know many who are. "We" is a collection of "I's", so I guess it boils down to the number of individuals willing to do so. I do know that I am not willing to stand by any of them if they don't speak up, stand up, and stand beside us because if I don't know which of them is my enemy, I have to assume, if under pressure, that all are my enemy. I don't think that's a farfetched assumption if they're willing to stand by and let me (and US) be killed because we don't share the beliefs of the extremists.

You are absolutely right about most of us refusing to accept the possibility of any real threat. I think I made that point in my prior post. And yes, it's hard to imagine the willingness of the "friendlies" to accept martyrdom for themselves and, more importantly, their children (who also have that death sentence hanging over them) when there are those among us who will chide us for blaming fatwa for their deaths. We (using that term real loosely) would rather blame the Swedish Lutherans than risk being politically incorrect. So yeah, what's in it for them? They get to live, regardless of whether the rest of us die.

But here's the thing, what life will they get to live? One under sharia. If they're truly moderate and peace loving, they're not going to want that any more than we; so it's only by identifying themselves as our allies that they're going to save their own lives as they know and wish to live them.

Sun Tzu says that "the art of war recognized nine varieties of ground", one of which is desperate ground: "Ground on which we can only be saved from destruction by fighting without delay."

Once the enemy has decided the time is right, we will be unprepared and, therefore, on desperate ground. The friendlies, if they haven't set themselves apart by aligning themselves with us so that we know who they are, will be indistinguishable from the extremists; and we will be fighting our allies to the death in the battle to overcome the aggressors.

No kidding, elizabeth, this happens in quite a few threads here. Play time is over, already.

Great Comments Rod and Celtic Dragon, keep up the good work.

I commend you for your consistency, Doug. All I was asking is that if we are going to limit Islam in America, what are the consequences for other people of faith who have their own requirements, their own version of Sharia, their own peculiar beliefs.

Me, the problem with your post regarding the koran and the interpretation thereof revolves around the concept of abrogation. You are correct that there are gentler passages that are in direct contradiction with the harsher verses.

The way islamic scholars get around this is to use the idea of abrogation: whatever is the final verse on this or that subject is the binding, final word of allah. As such, and as most all the violent verses came after muhammed had consolidated power and had massive armies, those are the operative verses now and for all time.

I'm not sure how, without a massive reinterpretation of the koran and sunnah, one can get around this.

Daniel, I guess I'd say that they need to either find a job that can be tailored to those requirements or start a business of their own that they can control. I really, truly believe that. And again, I say that as an Evangelical (sorry Rod) Christian firefighter in a busy metro area. I have to work three Sundays in a row, when I'd much prefer to spend that day with family and at church. So in reality, I'd say we already do "limit" other people of faith. And that's not neccesarily always a bad thing. I've assisted a whole lot of people in need on Sundays over the years, and I have to think God is pleased with that.

Doug,
while the idea of abrogation does exist in Islam, and is used as justification for holding to the harsher verses over the more loving verses, your depiction of the issue is incomplete. First of all, the people who compiled the Koran did not want to impose human thinking on God's words - including human notions of time. So, people who argue abrogation are imposing their own assumptions about which edicts actually came later. In fact, this way of reading the Koran in order to try and reconcile the differing sayings in the Koran did not get introduced until the 10th century or so. Secondly, the matter of abrogation and what it means, how it is applied, etc, is very controversial in the Muslim world. There is no consensus on the chronology of various words. Thirdly, many Muslims are acutely aware that the issue of abrogation is widely used by non-Muslims to discredit the Koran and Islam and to justify painting the religion as a whole as violent and incapable of moderation. This has caused many to re-examine and reject the traditional idea of abrogation altogether. Fourthly, abrogation is used by extremists to justify ignoring the more positive verses which moderates embrace - further discrediting the idea.

So yes, abrogation is a notion which has been common in Islam. However, it is hardly universally embraced and even those who do embrace it do not necessarily agree with the radical's claims about which verses supercede which verses.

Re: there's a difference between the serving of alcohol and partaking in an action one thinks is the taking of a human life

So what? Once again, no one is being dragooned into working these jobs! Applicants should certainly be told that their duties may include the dispensing of these drugs (sorry about getting the RU number wrong by the way.) They should not have it suddenly sprung on them. But once they sign on, in full knowledge of what their duties may include, they should be required to perform those duties or they should be fired. That sems eminently fair and just. If the pharmacy owners want to go the extra mile for workers on this issue, then mroe power to them. But its owner's choice and they should not be forced to adapt their business to their employees' sectarian demands.

Am I missing something in this whole terrorism discussion?

Infiltrate terrorist cells, cut off their funding sources, arrest known members of terrorist groups and interrogate them to learn more about how the groups are structured.

Repeat as needed.

On the issue of abrogation and which chapter takes precedence over which: from what I've gleened, both the Mecca and Medina verses are true, but at different times. It is probably quite accurate for a muslim in the United States to say that there is "no compulsion in religion" because his condition mirrors Mohammad's when he lived in Mecca - but it is also correct for a muslim in Somalia or N. Nigeria or Sudan or Gaza who is actively engaged in imposing shariah and consolidating power in an islamic "state" to say, "either submit to islamic law or you will be killed." Unfortuneately, the progression is (or at least is SUPPOSED to be) all one direction and everybody agrees that chapter 9 (with the Sword verses)was just about the last one:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Sell/Development/p204.htm

This is a really helpful look at the dualistic nature of islamic thought and why it's so difficult for some of us in the west to understand:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7B6AA49466-2575-491F-B712-CEA90FCCCD0D%7D

your name at 11:00:
your explanation of abrogation is certainly the one which radicals adhere too. And to a much lesser extent many other Muslims living in parts of the world where indoctrination in wahabbiism is common hold to it as well. However, in most of the world, abrogation is either understood in a much more nuanced way (for example,many, many Muslims believe that abrogation means expanding on earlier verses rather than reversing them. So the later verses must be read as limited by the earlier verses). Many others reject the notion of abrogation as inconsistent with the eternal nature of the koran and an unchanging God. They believe that the abrogation referred to in the koran only refers to Islam replacing earlier,less perfect revelations found in Judaism and Christianity.

So if your point is that abrogation which leads to more violent verses super-ceding the more peaceful verses is a cornerstone of radical Islam, then you are correct. If you are saying that this is an undisputed fact of Islam, then that is like claiming that the teachings of Southern Baptists represent the undisputed facts of Christianity. The fact that radical Islam does believe in the form of abrogation which hold Chapter 9 of the Koran to be the ultimate goal needs to be understood and taken seriously by those who they are being targeted by these people. To think that this is not a deeply held belief which guides their actions would be a foolish error. However, to insist that this is a necessary component of Islam is just as foolish.

Doug: And again, I say that as an Evangelical (sorry Rod) Christian firefighter

Goodness, don't apologize! Please forgive me if I've given you any reason to think that you should apologize for being Evangelical.

At 2:44 p.m., Don Altabello wrote:

"I do think we need a lot more nuance in these discussions and with respect toward the various currents within Islam. Truth be told, I have not seen any extremism from Rod on this issue. His main point in bringing up the Islamic aspect of it is b/c it is the motivation for many of these terror attacks and we need to understand and deal with that dynamic within Muslim societies.

"But every time that is brought up, someone wants to talk about the inquisition. First, I'd say that while there has been violence in most religions, it is not all identical in its scope, source, motivation, or intensity. Second, because members of a person's religion engaged in violence in the past does not mean a member of that religion can't address concerns of Islam today.

"For instance, say a Christian man's wife or daughter walks through a heavily populated Muslim (or that of any religion) sector, and she is raped and murdered for not wearing the proper dress. It would be absurd to claim he can't point out that Muslim attitudes in western countries are a serious problem because there was an inquisition in the mid to late middle ages.

"But that's what happens on this blog any time the subject is brought up."

********

True. It, er, um, has a name:

blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2007/12/mannings-corollary.html

(I mention it only because I think we're going to continue to see examples of the corollary as the Mumbai situation continues to unfold.)

Me:

Here's the problem with the "it's just one version" apologists: wherever there's a significant non-muslim minority in a muslim minority country, I'm seeing humiliation, threats, intimidation; and, if you examine the history over the course of a few years, outright genocide. Almost invariably, the assaults have a distinctly "jihadic" tone. It's been going on for several centuries of course, but here are some recent examples:
1. Bangladesh: was about 27% hindu at the time of partition, now hindu and other non-muslim populations are around 9%, with a recent genocide (1971) that killed off about 3 million people (hindus and supposedly "hinduized" muslims) and drove many more to flee to india. Reports from the period list as a motivating factor the need to "re-islamize the region."
2. Pakistan: was 25% hindu at time of partition; now, the non-muslim population is negligible, probably aroud 1-2%.
3. Jamu Kashmir: 500,000 Kashmiri pandits driven out in 1990's and currently living in exile, too afraid to return. The call for their extermination and for the imposition of shariah was blaired from MOSQUE loud speakers (all of this subcontinental jihad should be contrasted with condition of muslims living in India, whose population since partition THRIVES AND GROWS).
4. Iraq. Much of Chaldean christian community driven into exile and virtually exterminated in the past five years.
5. S. Phillipines. Christian towns in muslim Mindanao being targeted by islamist militants. Something like 20,000 christians fled islamist attacks in the past few months alone (although they may have returned now with guarantees of safety from the government). They're still scared sh*tless - trust me.
6. S. Thailand: Buddhist schools and school teachers targeted.Many, many schools shut down because of islamist violence.
7. Turkey: Christian population now down to something like 100,000 after about three separate genocides in about 150 years (in a country of 70 million). In the past 3 years alone I've come across about 6 attempted or successful assassination plots against a miniscule number of christian leaders and publishers. The Patriarchate in Turkey has been virtually exterminated as a matter of ONGOING government policy: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/08/opinion/edgage.php?page=1 (The first page of this article contains a near classic description of dhimmitude as set forth by Umar, as well as its effects).
8. Egypt: Mr. Dreher's already described the kinds of attacks that Copts are facing. The attack on the Fana monastery a couple of months ago with the kidnapping and beating of several monks is also noteworthy. There's always some dispute about defaming the prophet, or rebuilding or repairing some old church. Just the other day, some coptic boy neglected to dismount from his donkey for an islamic funeral procession - riots ensued, coptic shops were burned, etc. The amazing thing is, once the police arrive (often oddly delayed) they usually arrest a bunch of Copts (as their homes and shops are looted and burned) and a few muslims for good measure. The copts are then obliged to enter into a "reconciliation" with their attackers that results in "forgiveness" for the assailants but absolutely NO justice for the copt. No Copt is ever reimbursed, no muslim is ever charged. It's almost laughable.
8. N. Nigeria. I've seen several reports of genocidal attacks against christians centering around Kano and environs in recent past - the Christians in the north are clearing off to safer pastures in the South. Kenya, Somalia, etc. Then there's the Sudan where the animists and christians in the S. were virtually exterminated in the 1990's. There are many, many more examples.

I thinks it's very commendable that the folks you mention are trying to find a more tolerant version of islam in the Quran. In the face of what I've just described, though, it seems to be largely irrelevant. The islamists always win out eventually (especially when it comes to threatening and assaulting non-muslims in their midst), because the moderates live in fear and do nothing. I don't see it changing any time soon.

Re: Western democracy was not responsible for slavery, people in western democracies were.

Slavery antedates our civilization by some millennia, and it was universal (at least in every "advanced" culture). Also, it was Western monarchies (starting with Spain and Portugal) not democracies that brought slavery to the New World. As democracy began to evolve, both here and in Europe, so did strong anti-slavery movements.

Public Defender:

It's not "individual muslims." Those who perform these acts draw their inspiration and justification overtly and specifically from traditional islamic texts. There is a general consensus among the various islamic schools about the proper relationship between muslim and non-muslim, and the Quran, the hadith and the example of Mohammad all teach violence against non-muslims and mandate the subjugation of non-muslims under islamic law:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gGHHUowk-0

Go ahead - read the pact of Umar and compare it to the oddly similar humiliations meted out to non-muslims in Egypt, Turkey and elsewhere, then tell me those aren't SPECIFICALLY ISLAMIC practices.

Also, do you understand the role that islam and muslims played in the slave trade on the both the east and the west coasts of Africa? The Christian west is the only culture that ever took a principled stand against slavery. It ended to the extent - and only to the extent - the British navy enforced a ban on a number of islamic states through violence. Saudi Arabia and Yemen didn't outlaw it until the 1960's and '70's and the only countries that still practice it openly are all islamic (Sudan, Mauritania, etc.). Here's Sheik Fawzan, premier salafi scholar, on the place of slavery in islamic theology:

"(Washington)… November 7, 2003 …The main author of the Saudi religious curriculum expressed his unequivocal support for the legalization of slavery in one of his lectures recorded on a cassette and obtained exclusively by SIA news. . . .

“Slavery is a part of Islam,” he says in the tape, adding: “Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1018026/posts

Andrew Bostom is a good corrective:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/04/the_living_legacy_of_jihad_sla.html

American slaveholders accurately took passages from the Bible to justify slavery. I have no doubt that evil Muslims can do the same from the Quran.

Not quite, they ripped verses out of the context of the whole Bible in an attempt to make their point, which they had decided was right before they even went to the Book. How can you possible justify slavery in light of the Golden Rule? Or considering Jesus' command to love our neighbors as ourselves? Unless you think that slavery is a desirable state that you aspire to, you can't. Jesus said His whole ministry was about the release of the captives, and yet you still think the Bible can justify slavery? Somehow I don't think that you have ever actually read the Bible.

"f you are hired to hand out medication, then HAND OUT THE FRAKKIN' MEDICATION!!!!"

This is precisely the problem with this whole argument. The job of a pharmacist is not to "hand out medication." They are not clerks who go to five years of school just so they can get a license to mechanically hand out some sort of inert contraband product (as though they were the clerks at Walmart who have to sign off that people who purchase glue or penknives are over 18.) They are medical professionals who are trained to appropriately dispense the appropriate medications for the patient in a given situation, and to protect against potential errors on behalf of the prescribing physician. If, in their judgment, a prescription is not safe and appropriate for the patient, they are supposed to prevent its being dispensed.

What's really ironic here is that this is the flip side of the "between a woman and her doctor's best judgment" argument. On the one hand, politicians aren't supposed to interfere with medical judgment when it comes to abortion. On the other hand, they ARE supposed to interfere with a pharmacist's medical judgment against dispensing a lethal product.

Re: There is a general consensus among the various islamic schools about the proper relationship between muslim and non-muslim, and the Quran, the hadith and the example of Mohammad all teach violence against non-muslims and mandate the subjugation of non-muslims under islamic law

You could say the same thing about medieval Christianity, and I won't rehash the historical and Biblical parallels because I assume they are well known here. The key fact here is that Christianity ultimately realized that violence in the name of God was wrong and reinterpretted its Scriptures and traditions accordingly. Islam is stuck back where Christianity was c. 1600 AD. But that doesn't mean that Islam can't evolve in a more peaceful direction. Anyone who predicted Christianity would become a religion of tolerance and pacifistic impulses in 1600 would have been laughed at (or maybe burned at the stake). So it's hardly impossible for a more peaceful, modernistic version of Islam to emerge down the line. My guess is this process is going take most of this century, as Islam is dragged kicking and screaming into the reality of the modern world. In the meantime the world will sustain a lot of grief from radicals and extremists who are willing to kill in the name of God, and there's nothing we can do about it except defend against them as best we can. Yes, when an exceptionally virulent group emerges like al Qaida then we shoul try to extirpate it root an branch (and we will probably have help from the Islamic world itself in that endeavor, since, as we need to remember, the majoity of the victims of islamic terror are in fact other Muslims). But the "kill'em all let God sort'em out" types here need to realize that there's no way we (the non-Mulsim world) is going to go on a genocide binge to dispose of one million Muslims. Just ain't going to happen, sorry.

re: There are reasons why such a reinterpretation of islam will be far more difficult and far less persuasive than Christianity's own reformation.

In the end though Islam will have to reform or else collapse. The rise and fall of Communism provides an insight here: it just didn't work and so in the end it had to fail. Religious systems are more complicated of course; one can excuse a multitude of failures under the rubric of "This is the will of the Lord". But when all is said and done nothing fails like failure and you can't base a civilization on outmoded, false priciples. Islamic civilization survives as well as it does because of oil wealth-- without the oil, it would be less significant, less developed than Africa. But oil isn't an inexhaustible resource. Islam must either learn to function soothly in the modern world or it will fail.
I don't however mean that Islam must necessarily become identical to the West. In east Asia we see several cases of ancient cultures which have adapted to modernity without becoming explcitly Western-- Japan, most obviously (the jury is still out on China, though it is certainly making the effort). I can see an Islamic civilziation where Islam remains the central religion, where societal norms that impress us as prudish and puritanical remain in force, and where governments are quite less than Jeffersonian in their commitment to popular sovereignity. But still a civilization that is not in endless turmoil, or a bane to its neighbors.

OTOH, if we believe pharmacists should have a conscience clause for doing their job, then why are they different from the store clerk or taxi driver who won't touch alcohol or pork? Is it because one is the dominant faith, and one a reviled minority faith?

One big difference is that pharmacies are often required to carry these products, as a matter of law. The owner of the pharmacy has no choice in carrying the product, but the conscience clauses give pharmacists a way to work without violating their beliefs. If the law allowed pharmacies not to carry RU-486 and other abortifacients you might have a point. I'm not sure what happens when none of the pharmacists in a store will dispense product.

And there is not question that the drugs are lethal, they are just lethal to people whom our culture does not value, so they do not count.

Re: One big difference is that pharmacies are often required to carry these products, as a matter of law.

Can you cite such a law verbatim from the statute books? I have never heard of law that requires a pharamacy to carry any particular drug, with the possible exception of drugs that might be deemed essential in the event of a major public emeregency (and I doubt these drugs would meet that criterion).