Posted on 11/29/2002 6:51:23 AM PST by Greg Swann
Jacob Sullum has been around for years. Libertarians will know his name from Reason magazine. In this column from TownHall.com he seems to me to highlight the worst aspects of squeamish libertarianism:
The answer to the question of why some Muslims consider it their religious duty to kill nonbelievers cannot lie in the Koran, the authority of which is accepted by all followers of Islam. That is the point President Bush was making when, soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, he declared that Islamist terrorists twist their religion into a justification for their vile crimes.First we have the obligatory quibbling equivalizing. Then we get to a fancied significant difference between peaceful and violent Muslims. No doubt there are many doctrinal and personal differences between Muslims who simply live, work and play and those other Muslims who slaughter non-Muslims as they live, work and play. Who could object to such a claim? The question is, what do non-Jihadi Muslims do about the slaughterers among them? Do they cheer them? Do they finance them? Do they silently support them? Do they silently oppose them? Do they actively oppose them? Or do they just turn away and declaim again and again that the Islam in evidence is not the true Islam, the Islam of contemplation, the Islam of devotion, the Islam of peace? (Where have we heard that one before?)Robertson is not alone in arguing that Islam is especially prone to such twisting, but surely it is more productive to focus on the beliefs that distinguish peaceful Muslims from terrorists. Such an inquiry would highlight the principles that prevent religious differences from escalating into violence without tarring all Muslims as potential murderers.
The Jihadi are not twisitng the Koran. They are quoting it chapter and verse. Muslims know the Koran like only fanatical Christians know the Bible--which should tell us something just by itself. A more reasonable explanation for Sullum's conundrum is this: Just as American leftists decried the not-the-true-Communism yet did nothing to stop its atrocities, so peaceful Muslims are doing nothing to stop the atrocities of the not-the-true-Islam. I think for the same reason: Because they share the root premises but for whatever reason are not willing to pursue them to their logical conclusions. Is it possible that "the beliefs that distinguish peaceful Muslims from terrorists" are really just a matter of inches and hours? If so, then we are safe from peaceful Muslims (and peaceful leftists) only as long as their more ferocious brethren seem unlikely to succeed...
Actually, I recalled later where I'd seen you erupt this much, and was surprised you ever posted "Roar" around here. FReepers do tend to run to the homophobic and (where Muslims are concerned) Inquisition-fanatic, but strangely -- outside of Fresno -- they have the delicacy to rarely approve of street "direct action." Florida in 2000, I grant, was an exception.
~ "Janio at a Point": I discarded the printout of that piece that you sent to me in, oh, 1986 or so, long ago -- or at least it vanished in some move, unwept, unhonored, and unsung. I followed your more recent link to see if it was as stylistically bad, opaquely written, and full of ratiocination as I remembered. It was.
~ Your Website: I recall having clicked on something you posted weeks ago around here and getting nothing but "You're surprised to get this page ...", that apparently being your 404, at least for Netscape users.
~ Your going to Mass: Still as full of contradictions as it was a few years back. What is that teaching your son about you, and about what you stand for?
~ Your posting to HPO: Do you have the mistaken impression that you'd been taken, around there, as anything other than a gaudy debating pet? Catching Swann in another set of glittering generalities -- a favorite pastime, and for more than a few people.
Hit the button, Greg. Go ahead. Make your contempt obvious.
And, indeed, upon checking a few minutes ago, I had killfiled you. I knew I had good taste.
I hope that you can learn to do a better job of loving your self.
Greg Swann
IMHO, The article was poorly written. The previous sentence refers to President Bush and twisting Islam. Then the reference to Robertson twisting Islam appears. It seemed to be an obvious typo.
An article should be able to be read on its own merits; without the necessity of following each & every link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.