So we should kill'em all if they don't convert to Christ? Sounds like Islamic extremism to me.

Submitted by Chris G. (United States), Jun 27, 2007 at 01:37

I will answer your first question. No, what we did in World War II was NOT genocide. We did not systematically wipe out millions of civilians like Hitler did. Did we target civilians intentionally? Yes. Was it necessary? That is debatable if the slaughter of German or Japanese civilians in the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden was necessary.

The same goes for the A-bomb attack of Heroshima and Nagasaki. But I'm not a historian on those subjects so I won't debate that so don't waste time writing about that. The closest we came to serious mass genocide on the scale of Hitler was during the cold war where we directly or indirectly supported (or were directly involved in) the slaughter of millions of communists, marxists, or anyone too left wing for Uncle Sam who threatened our interests. An example is the estimated 300,000 to 1 million ethnic chinese and suspected communists executed in Indonesia with assistance and support from the United States government.

However, I will not argue the morality of our support of such actions. What I will say is that despite our best efforts to wipe out Communism and Marxist ideology, it was never wiped out and is undergoing a widespread resurgence in popularity in developing nations in which the dream of globalization has turned into a economic nightmare. If I could post pics on here I'd love to show you recent pictures from a week ago in Guatamala where slums are filled with Marxist propaganda and organizations. The difference is that now they are using non-violent democratic means to gaining power rather then violent revolution.... for now.

With that said, comparing the Cold War or WWII with the war against terrorism is incredibly bad. While there are some things in common, they are for the most part entirely different. First of all, Osama Bin Laden has not murdered millions of innocent people. There is not massive Islamic empire sweeping the globe. Lucky for you, Islam is an extremely diverse religion and islamic sects do not agree with each other about who should be the rightful caliph of Islam. They spend way more time fighting each other then they do fighting Western nations except when we invade them or they threaten our oil supplies.

So in other words, I see absolutely no signs of a threat to America of an Islamic revolution or an invasion by Islam. I also will repeat that I am against ANY nation from attaining nuclear weapons that didn't already have them. Yes this includes Iran. I only differ with you in how we go about preventing them. However if all peaceful and diplomatic means fail, then yes I support a limited 6-month invasion of Iran with a clear goal of going in and seeking out and destroying their entire nuclear program infrastructure and technology. However I don't think that will be necessary. If you haven't heard, their economy is in a near state of collapse with insane gas rationing put into law now. More then likely their crazy President and his thugs will be toppled soon by the Iranian people.

What is disturbing in your response is that you really didn't listen to what I am saying. You keep insisting that you know more about Islam and yet you have yet to say what your credentials are or what your methodology of research has been. If you like I can list the dozens upon dozens of Islamic scholars I have studied. Some of the modern scholars I have spoken with personally or via the internet. This includes researching both moderate and extremist scholars. On another post on a different topic, I had listed in more detail then here my full credentials and some of the typical methodology that I use. Should I repeat them again?
I'm still wating to hear your credentials as a self-described "islamic expert" and the research methodology that you use.

You also refuse to systematically and logically answer me why what I advocate will not work other then answering with your hate filled rhetoric and mantra that Islam is a evil religon over and over. Yet I see a glimmer of hope in that you recognize that not all Muslims themselves are evil people.

But, you also still refuse to answer how violence will somehow make a normal peaceful Muslim (who might be your neighbor) suddenly accept Jesus. What you advocate is exactly the same thing that the very worst of the Islamic extremists advocate: CONVERT OR DIE.
I find it ironic that you essentially have the exact same mentality as the worst of the Islamic extremists. I bet if you were to meet them in person, you guys would probably become best friends. I know some Southern good ol' boy rednecks who fell in love with Saudi Arabia when they went there when they realized that a lot of the Saudis had the same type of redneck values. They both love guns, love God, believe that a woman should know her place, like to ride animals (horses/camels), and believe in strong family values and a black and white, good guys vs. bad guys simplistic way of looking at the world.

Are you a Christian? If so have you ever read the Book of Mathew and more specifically, the Sermon on the Mount? If you are a Christian, what does Jesus Christ, your Lord, God, and Savior command you to do to your enemy? You say I need to read the Qu'ran again and I say that perhaps you need to read the Bible again. You say I have a twisted sense of morality, but I am doing what Christ commanded. It is up to God whether people choose to convert or not. It is not for Christians to judge and punish those who do not convert. Sadly I have told Islamic extremists the same thing...that if they have faith in Allah, that Allah will punish those who have done evil ultimately while rewarding those who have been good.

You mention that nothing intellectual came from that part of the world? There was enormous growth in scientific and medical fields during the peaks of various Islamic empires. This included contributions to the fields of Algebra and Geometry such as Al-Khwarizmi's contributions to the development of Algebra (although yes, the roots are from the Babylonians and the Greeks also did a lot of important work on it). Arabic numerals were also adopted by Europe as was the concept of the zero. Then you have the pioneering trigonometry work by Alkirmani in Islamic ruled Toledo (in which Greek geometry work by Euclid was preserved). Also you have Ibnul Hairham's important work on optics, Jabir ibn-Hayyan's early research in chemistry, etc... etc.... I could go on and on.

Many of the Greek classics and philosophy that we enjoy today is because Arab scholars preserved them and used them until they were again translated later by Christian monks and academics at places like the Islamic library of Cordoba. Even the formation of universities was first seen in the Islamic world in the 700's. Universities modeled after Islamic universities were not seen in Europe until the 13th century.
When you make these huge general and irresponsible statements you just come out sounding ignorant. Science in reality is something that all of the world civilizations have contributed to. Even the Maya, Inca, and Aztecs all developed all kinds of advanced ideas and systems separate from Christian Europe and before the arrival of Europeans. Sadly only a small glimmer of their works survive as most of it was destroyed by the Spaniards in the name of Christ and Country because we all know that their Western civilization was far superior to these "savages" in every way to those heathens.

Speaking of heathens, you also mention that there is not a shred of spiritual or theological gems in Islam. Tell me, have you ever studied Tasawwuf? Its more commonly known in the Western world as Sufism. It is the mystical sect of Islam containing profound spirituality. Anyone who has read the poetry of the Persian Sufi master, Rumi, or the modern writings of Said Nursi (and his successor Fetulah Gulen) can attest to the incredibly deep and rich philosophical and spiritual richness within this ancient Islamic school of thought. Long before Freud ever wrote about the ego, the Sufis were writing great works of philosophy concerning the ego. In Arabic, the ego or self is referred to as nafs. A huge element of Sufism consists of constant awareness and honesty of one's own ego with emphasis on guarding against it so that shaitan (satan) does not whisper to the desires of your ego and lead you astray from doing good and from being closer to God. This includes guarding against pride, hatred, greed, anger and other such emotions that can be harmful to ourselves and others. If you know so much about Islam surely you have studied the Sufi masters in great detail.

If not, given your level of pure hatred and contempt for anything even remotely Islamic I don't expect you to. As you know all good scientists reject all and any data that may disprove their hypothesis. We can't have that now can we?

I also don't expect to change your mind, but at the very least I hope that you will learn how to critique someone's ideas using logic rather then emotions and assumptions based upon ignorance and a self-righteous hatred of "the other." How can you expect anyone to respect what you're saying if you can't even back it up with good critical thinking, but rather instead simply engage in rhetoric?
I was actually hoping that I'd get a good intellectual neoconservative who could really challenge my ideas critically but with an open mind. I have met a few who I can respect. They are polite but still passionate about their beliefs. Some are actually surprisingly open minded and not hateful or vengeful.

Without knowing you personally, I can't really tell what drives your belief system or hatred but I can tell that someone needs to give you a big hug or something.

Chris G.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".