What’s the most classic, stereotypical piece of antisemitic rhetoric you can think of? Mine would be the charge of divided loyalties: the claim that Jews are willing to sell out their nation in favour of International Jewry, and that they’re willing to lie and pretend they’re assimilated in order to gain influence. Once they’re in the establishment, they’ll take over the world and run it for the benefit of their co-religionists and hangers-on.
So, how does this relate to the currently prevalent meme about Muslims’ ‘divided loyalties’? (clue: if you believe that Muslims have divided loyalties, and that those who don’t appear to want to overthrow us are merely pretending, you may wish to consider the evidence on which you base this belief, and compare it with the evidence on which people historically based their belief that the Jews did the same).
Islam is the new Judaism.
We await only the new Hitler, tragically.
It is Islam that tells its members they are superior. Not different or select or saved. SUPERIOR. That cheapens the value of the lives of non-believers.
That sense is what can be distorted by Islamist extremists. There are parallels with Aryan Nazism. Where certain types of "aberrant" or alien life were cheap.
The trouble is, the left is so crazed with its hatred of Bush that it can’t see the parallels.
Erm, don’t talk crap: an interpretation of Islam argues that; so does an interpretation of Christianity; so does an interpretation of Judaism.
Yes, because no other religion’s acolytes consider themselves ‘superior’. Oh, wait, they all do.
Most religions do that to some extent or another. Bush has nothing to do with it, although one might contend that there are people so crazed with hatred for Islam that they cannot see the ways in which it is similar to (and indeed derived in large part from) Judaeo-Christian experience.
I think perhaps some of the objection to Islamic doctrines of "superiority" to the infidel are actually projections of a secular western feeling of inferiority.
It’s an only slightly related subject, but it is probably worth pointing out that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the west, and NOT simply through immigration. It’s also worth noting that the Christian denominations which are growing in the west as a whole are those with a firmer moral line – e.g. Orthodox and Catholic – whereas those all-things-to-all-men more liberal churches are in decline. There’s something in all of that, and it is related to the inability of the liberal secular west to come up with any meaningful moral authority. I don’t want to see a theocracy of any stripe, but there seems to be something hard-wired into humanity that needs moral guidance of some sort or another. If the secular west cannot provide it, then those in search will turn elsewhere.
No-one I know who had any kind of Christian education was told that we are superior. Islam has nil division between the religious and secular, and its descriptions of arrangements for the "secular" world give a thorough sense of superiority for its members.
Or are you saying that us "infidels" are regarded as equal in the Koran and other teachings ?
So does Islam tell its members they are superior, or is it merely that its descriptions of arrangements for the secular world give a sense of superiority? There’s a pretty major difference there.
In general, all religions give a "thorough sense of superiority" to their adherents. Whether they explicitly say "Thou art superior, saith the Lord" is another matter.
I was never given any sense of moral superiority by Christian teachings. Indeed don’t the gospels counsel against a holier-than-thou attitude, eg in criticising the Pharisees ?
For Islam there is no distinction of secular – but for what I would call secular or political (render unto Caesar in our terms) they definitely take a superior role. It is defined at length in the Koran. It is part of the essence of Islam – it is them and us.
Since I have not read the Koran, perhaps you could enlighten me by showing exactly where it says Islamic political organisation is definitely superior.
I am aware that Islam recognises no separation between, as it were, mosque and state. Islam is politics, as I understand several Moslem scholars have said. That doesn’t make it "them and us" unless you are predisposed to see the complexity of the entire world in binary terms – usually an error.
The injunctions against Pharisaic behaviour in the gospels (Beatitudes, IIRC) are actually warnings against hypocrisy.
I actally meant the way Christ behved towards the high-and-mighty Pharisees. Plus the good Samaritan parable. Further on in the New Testament there is nothing eg in the Epistles that suggest that the nascent Christian community should regard themselves as superior.
As regards the Koran – you need to check it out. I was not saying that Islamic political organisation is deemed superior, it is deemed that Muslims are superior. The rest were to be subjugated, converted or hyper-taxed. Think Al Andalus.
But JiL, you said it was clearly defined in the Koran. I haven’t read the Koran and frankly don’t have the time to do it right now, so I asked if you could oblige by point out the references. If you can’t, then what you are saying is pure supposition, or alternatively paranoia.
"No-one I know who had any kind of Christian education was told that we are superior."
No-one I know who had any kind of Islamic education was told they were superior.
Hey, don’t mess with stright talking JiL. Us lefties are all too slippery for him to debate with.
In other words, we actually care about the meaning of our arguments, and whether they can be supported. But that’s just appeasing, totalitarianism! Far better to make arguments that have a shit load in common with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, while at the same time asserting that a documentary which makes no such claim is anti-semetic.
And you know what? JiL was a civil servant who worked on the privatisation projects of the 1980s. From the logic he has demonstrated on this board, and others, I’m surprised we even have public services these days.
Bartlett
I was not a civil servant in the 1980s.
The rest of your post is unintelligible.
Euan G
The Brits are calumnied for having had an Empire. A lot of what is driving the extremists is yearning for a return to the Caliphate. An Arab empire. That is another part of the superiority attitude.
Has no one mentioned "the chosen people"?
Not that it’d make much difference, obviously – minds appear already to have been made up.
I’m thinking of starting my own religion, by the way – anyone interested? You need to acknowledge me as being the bestest, obviously – but then you will earn my favour by being given a place in heaven while the non-believers burn in hell for all eternity. Not very original, admittedly, but I thought I’d have the best chance of getting converts by keeping it familiar.
Religion is shit.
Yes, but WHERE DOES IT SAY IN THE KORAN the things you say are clearly defined there?
Euan
I have not read it for 3 years, following 9/11 but that was the strong impression I took away. Why don’t you try reading the damn thing yourself ? And many others say the same – including dissident Muslims.
Wh about the way other religions or even other sects are treated in Saudi ? Is thaat not indicative ?
My recollection from the Bible several decades ago was that the Old Testament was harsh, the New Testament changed course and urged charitable forgiveness. Do you dispte that ? I haven’t opened a bible for 40 years, I can’t quote chapter and verse – but I know the overall SENSE of what I read.
On the Koran, my overall sense was very very depressing, i am afraid.
Well, given that you didn’t understand tPoN even when you read the transcript, can we really take your word that you understood either the Koran or the Bible when you cannot point to the passages concerned?
My post was unintelligible? Sorry, I was having a go at your attacks on people who care about the meaning of words and the presentation of logical argument, contrasted to your own straight-talking attitude. You’d rather be straight talking, and wrong, it seems, than actually invest some thought in understanding and articulating complexity.
This straight-talking seems to consist of levelling the classic ‘political’ anti-semetic charge against Muslims, while accussing others of being fascistic. I like that. It about sums you up.
I advise taking JiL’s word for nothing whatsoever. He’s constantly proving himself to be hopelessly unreliable, and uniformly wrong.
The man’s not so much as an "intellectual lightweight" as an "intellectual sex-doll filled with helium".
The same divided loyalties idea has also been used against Catholics, of course, recently by some of the evangelical Christians in the US (see here, for instance) but, of course, it’s been a recurrent theme in British political discourse since the 1530s.
Larry
I was right about the BBC changing their policy, wasn’t I ?
And I will be right about the serious snafu they have made about a fatwa about the London bombings. Watch this space.
JiL, you described the BBC policy as "appeasing" the terrorists, which is just one of examples from thousands of you being very far indeed from right about anything.
It is matter of judgment, Larry. I think the BBC has lots of "useful idiots" in this matter.
I think the BBC has lots of "useful idiots" in this matter.
LIBEL!
JiL,
It seems, then, that what you say is "clearly defined" in the Koran is in fact nothing more than subjective general impressions that you have. This is, to say the least, unpersuasive.
Britain and America are nominally Christian countries. I haven’t read the Koran, but I do have a passing familiarity with the Bible. The Bible enjoins us to do a great many things and refrain from doing a great many others. We don’t live up to that, but the "general impression" is that we murder homosexuals, burn witches, love our enemies, obey the law and give all that we have to the poor. I mean, it says so in the book that forms the basis of our legal and moral culture, does it not? And I CAN quote chapter and verse on this if you want.
Funny how "general impressions" can be just a little misleading, isn’t it?
Now, put up or retract.
It’s no good Euan, JiL’s already up to his eyeballs with statements that he should retract if he had a shred of decency: suggesting that John B is "a fellow traveller with tolitarianism" for instance. But he just won’t.
And JiL – yes whether or not the BBC policy constitutes "appeasing" the terrorists is indeed a matter of opinion. There’s the opinion that it does not, which is the right opinion, and there’s the opinion that it does which, as I said before,is the opinion of a monumental fucking moron.
Euan
Your post is crap and you know it. The central theme of the Old Testament is Live by the law of your one God. The central theme of the New testament is Love thy Neighbour.
If you suggest that main themes are to burn witches and murder homosexuals you are crazy.
Retract ? Piss off.
Your opinion, Larry, plus 50 cents might buy a cup of coffee. Might.
…you are crazy.
LIBEL! LIBEL!
I think it’s really axiomatic that when someone resorts to insult and personal remarks he is either (i) losing the argument or (ii) John B making a valid and succinct comment on a figure of notoriety. Since I don’t think JiL is John B, the conclusion is patent.
I will try one last time, not because I seriously expect an accurate answer or even a civil retraction, but because I allegedly have a sense of humour.
If one visited Salem, Mass. in the 17th century, one might indeed get the "general impression" that one of the main themes of Christianity was burning witches. Now, of course, they have central heating and cable TV, so there is little need to continue the practice.
If one visits today the charming surrounds of the Westboro Baptist Church, one might take away the general impression that murdering homosexuals is a sure route to divine blessing, coupled with the slightly odd feeling that the omnipotent God made a mistake creating some 2% of the male population and really needs the hand of man to put things right, especially if that hand is holding a pistol and belongs to a guy with a small penis and unresolved feelings of lust towards his strapping young gardener.
Such things are in the Bible. Well, probably not the strapping gardener or the cable TV, but the rest of it is. In these communities, each is seen as one of, if not the, most important part of the Bible. Is this representative of Christianity as a whole? No, it isn’t.
So, even if the Koran does explicitly say Islamic political organisation is superior, does it necessarily follow that all Moslems think this is true? No, it doesn’t.
Get the point? You can’t generalise like this.
None of my best friends are gay, unfashionably enough, but I have no objection to gay people. I do, however, know and have worked with several Moslems from different parts of the world, and I can honestly say that I have never got from any of them the slightest impression that they want to destroy the west and restore the Caliphate. Some Moslems doubtless do, just as some Christians doubtless want to kill witches and homosexuals. In neither case are they representative.
The problem is NOT Islam, it is a small group of fucked-up religious loonies who use Islamic teaching as a justification for their social and political agenda.
"The central theme of the Old Testament is Live by the law of your one God. The central theme of the New testament is Love thy Neighbour."
Not as interpreted by St Paul, it isn’t. The most important parts of the Bible, if you want to understand Christianity, are the epistles immediately following the four gospels. Similarly, the quickest way to approach an understanding of Islam is to read interpretations of the Koran.
Some Muslims do have dual loyalties; others don’t. This is normal and uncontroversial. The problem is what those who do have dual loyalties are loyal to. Even if a British Jew does put loyalty to Israel above loyalty to Britain, so what? Israel has no plans to kill Britons. But loyalty to Islam can be a problem when Muslim clerics start calling for heads to roll. Just ask Salman Rushdie.
My employers’ new web-filter has blocked this site as "offensive". I suspect it was offensive to them how much they were paying me to argue on here.
I’m almost tempted to run a rude-word-censored mirror site, to further subvert the West’s economic productivity…
"My employers’ new web-filter has blocked this site as "offensive""
Can’t you just use bloglines?
No, because my RSS feed isn’t good enough (summaries only, rather than full content, and no hyperlinks).
The Koran, which only JohnInLondon and myself appear to have read, is very explicit on the superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims and on the supremacy of the Ummah, or global Muslim brotherhood.
‘You are the best of people, evolved for mankind’ Sura 3 vs 110
On Muslim brotherhood, the Koranic doctrine, not the political movement:
The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy. Sura 49:10
And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah’s favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you: That ye may be guided. Sura 3:103-104
Muslims are instructed to feel each other’s pain anywhere in the world. Fine and dandy, except that the basis of Western civilisation is the nation state, not the global ummah.
They are also instructed not to trust the unbelievers:
Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with Allah.
O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves? Sura 4:139, 144 (Yusuf Ali’s Translation)
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. Sura 5:51