To Havas: we face similar problems - To Dhimmi: Chill, Dude, before you get a heart attack -

Submitted by Michel C. Zala (Switzerland), Dec 13, 2010 at 08:00

Mr. Havas, here's a great example, how our own fanatics treat their own, if they dare to engage even remotely in a respectful discussion with a Muslim. In utter denial of the fact that any side could go back in history and find skeletons in the various closets, Dhimmi, quite actually someone I respect for a lot of factual knowledge, depicts Turkish origins certainly correctly. However, while we celebrate Alexander the Great as one of the most skillful conquerors in history, re-shuffling Asia Minor indeed, the other side of historians describes him as a ruthless, brutal invador, causing much harm and misery. I've studied the man.... no denial of the fact that there are two sides to the coin, here.
Being a bit facetious, if we go back even further, Dhimmi 's own ancestors originate from current Tansania, hence this makes him an African, invading the lands of the north and then spreading out :) So... how far are we willing to go back in order to justify or argue territory, culture, race, religion or rights? Do we draw the line with the Romans or Byzantines, Persia, Babylonia or Egypt, or shall we go back to Lucy? Aren't these arguments all irrelevant in trying to resolve the conflicts of the 21st century?

As outlined in my piece with regard to Assange and WikiLeaks, where I made an effort to derive, how our own society, our civil rights and liberties are at present under siege by people who abuse and pervert them, Dhimmi presents yet another example, how for instance Freedom of Speech is being perverted to the interpretation of a free pass for slandering and offending people in the worst manner. Ironically it is people like Dhimmi, who endlessly keep on harping on our Freedoms and liberties in comparison to many muslim nations, but neglect to see, how in fact they themselves undermine their values and true intents, thus partake in the moral decay of our own culture, while proclaiming to inhabit the moral high ground in their struggle against Islamists, who subsequently themselves are feeling empowered to sardonically point out exactly this decay of morale and basic decency. Feeling to be on the forefront in the war of cultures against Islam, it is people like that, who gush fuel into the fire and quite actually strengthen the position of already determined enemies of the west.

Dhimmi does not get through his bonehead, that there is a difference between pointing out deficiencies matter of factly and/or debating respectfully with an achievable objective in mind, differentiating between a nation like Turkey or for instance Iran, and indiscriminately spewing out anger and hatred, thus growing the anti-western base from which islamists can recruit.

Not only does he thus in fact piss on our dear Freedom of Speech by becoming part of exactly those people who must be held accountable for the erosion of our hard-fought liberties and (moral) values, he quite actually helps the radical factions of the enemy by giving them reasons for justification of their recruitment efforts and propaganda. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Fanaticism is being mistaken as strength and will to prevail, as on the other fringe appeasement and weakness is being celebrated as intelligence and enlightenment. Either one however weakens our foundation and threatens our civil rights and liberties equally. It's been happening before so many times and must be considered as pure stupidity, the latter being defined as doing the same 10 times and expecting a different outcome of the eleventh.

Dhimmi's posts most definitely are based upon the very same emotions, if not hatred, we find on the other side in islamistic polemic and propaganda. Like some of the worst examples in the muslim world, he is blinded by so much aversion, that he will no longer differentiate. He talks about genozides, committed by muslims and Turks particularly (correct), but conveniently neglects to mention Hitler, Stalin, Mao, all ideologues of a different (non-muslim) origin who committed even worse. Consider also the genozides in the name of the Christian God by the conquistadors, eradicating entire beautiful, blooming societies as the Mayas or Inkas. Sadly even my own people should not talk too loudly and demonstrate a bit of humility, as American Indians were clearly subject to genozide and slave trade existed way longer than for instance in any European country. I can't even escape to Switzerland (being also Swiss), as they have ugly skeletons themselves (conspired quite often with the Nazi regime).

In other words: as despicable the actions of so many humans were and are up to today, one has to ask oneself, when to draw a line. I myself can not make that call, but at some point it seems to be at least reasonable to stop throwing historical events at each other and start moving on and looking forward. Recognize and acknowledge chances for a dialogue, as to my opinion presented to us with Turkey, rather than dishing out the everpresent menu of known, stale arguments of hatred and resentment.

The neverending conflict in Palestine with no more room left for any compromise presents a terrible example for contra-productivity of such debates. Hell, my own father presented symptoms of post traumatic stress, 40 years after being liberated from Auschwitz as the only survivor of the entire family. But even he was able to acknowledge a difference between the Hitler generation and subsequent Germans and never displayed any hatred or resentment against Germans grosso modo later. If a man directly impacted by gross injustice and victim of one of the most atrocious crimes against humanity in history was able to differentiate, do we not have a moral mandate to at least allow for an unemotional debate?

But, Havas, I nevertheless invite you to feel much better after reading Dhimmi's post. As you can see, emotions run wild also in our own fundamentalist block, where there is absolutely no room for any compromise, no will to debate pragmatically or constructively and, where even a "moderate" like me will be slandered, villified and condemned as "traitor" or like here as a "joke", who has no opinion, let alone a muslim who tried to respond respectfully in a language he is not too versed in. I respect your effort and apologize to you for the tone of Dhimmi's response in the name of what I strongly believe is still a majority of western readers.

Tragically most of the hateful sermons of Imams in the west which I was able to see or read, cite exactly such opinions, using them for their own propaganda and evidence of widespread hatred in the west against anything remotely muslim, as if Dhimmi represented the peoples of Europe or America.... and the vicious circle continues on and on.

I myself am a moderate Christian, a moderate (independent) Tea Party movement member, part of the conservatives in America (Republicans) trying to navigate an increasingly thinner line between increasingly polarized and growing demographics on both fringes and find myself now ostracised and belittled, just because I dared to make a distinction between Turks and the majority of other muslim nations. I dare to venture that, if your own fundamentalists were as outspoken here, some of your comments would have led them to attack you too.

Tragically this comprises the exact psychological profile of humans prone to become target and subject of demagogues of the ideological kind. On that dimension there is not much difference between Reverend Wright, Hitler, Stalin, Ghaddafi or Achmadinejaahd or the mio people mass in Berlin, screaming Heil Hitler, the mob in Tehran or the fanatics of the Taliban.

The fanatics here despise my positions as adamantly, as the Saudis, I consider as the most hideous of the enemies of the west. Insofar, I can therefore to a certain extent feel the pain of being moderate, which may serve as further explanation, why so few moderate muslims seem to exist. Undoubtedly in the muslim world orthodoxy is far more penetrated as for instance in Europe, hence it makes sense to find at least some moderate opinions here amongst western readers, as opposed to muslims voicing more than propaganda in response to rather strong verbal attacks here.

Not even healthy curiosity seems to be accepted here. Daring to ask respectful questions in order to find common ground and/or a respectful debate will be screamed down. In that sense, ironically there is not much difference in emotions between the fanatic Iranian 3 Mio people mob in Tehran, yelling allahu akhbar and death to all infidels and those people here, jerking verbally off, then ejaculating pure indiscriminate hatred.

No doubt, there are tons of historical facts supporting extreme positions. Long lists are presented of invasions, occupations, genozides, oppression on all sides, as if the one who could offer the longer list, was right, or one genozide was less brutal or had a lower amount of victims, and was thus somewhat less deplorable.

As opposed to Dhimmi LLC, Inc. I am not looking for the satisfaction to be a voice of the mainstream (in this forum), be applauded in parallel to the loudness of my arguments. The more acryd, cynical, patronizing, arrogant, angry, bitter, hurtful and disrespectful, the louder the applause, it seems. It reminds me of the mob of medieval public executions or lynch mobs in America. It is deeply human and sadly represents the mauling mentality of children following the local schoolyard bully attacking the weakest. By the way, the same can be seen during the stoning of people in Iran or the Taliban controlled regions, hence is certainly not unique to western culture, but must be seen as one of the most nasty qualities of human beings in general.

Why do I have to apologize for trying to exercise a bit of restraint and responsibility in exercising my own Freedom of Speech? I am just looking for answers, am curious, and look for respectful, tolerant feedback. I am looking for a respectful debate in the knowledge, that the ultimate truth at all times is found somewhere in the greyzone between opposite positions.

Why am I a joke, just because I recognize different shades of muslims and am interested to learn more about those? I simply want to know how a modern Turk navigates the requirements of a western style world with a rigid religion, oftentimes fundamentally opposed to many principles of mentioned system (interest, women's rights, equality and individualism) I have heard all the arguments for mutual resentment and am quite actually bored and ground down by now with all these outbursts and the (emotional) bullshit.

I repeat my invitation to Turks living in Turkey proper or abroad to share with us their impressions, ambitions and ideas, as I myself want to know more. I would love to know, if indeed Islamism presents the mentioned danger, how Turks see Iran, understand Islam and how they see the challenges presented to the entire world by terror, used in the name of Allah. I have heard the arguments presented by the likes of Dhimmi....it seems to be time to hear from some more Turks now - after all, isn't it them we talk about? Please engage with me and do not worry about the white noise of the fanatic Islamophobes in response, as I invite western readers, courageous enough to make distinctions and differentiations, to help me balance out the noise of the mob.

Allow me yet another analogy: I am definitely fed up with the endless and tiring monologues and bla bla of self-aggrandizing Olbermann type sports reporters, who always know better from the safety of the sidelines, but would like to hear from real analysts, coaches, and the players themselves,
thank you very much.

---

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".