Posted on 11/09/2001 4:59:57 AM PST by BenF
Daniel Pipes says leading American Muslim groups want Islamic law to rule the U.S. -- even if they won't admit it -- and must be carefully watched.
For Muslims in America, the rhetorical war of words continues to escalate at home. Two weeks after sparring publicly with Jewish advocacy groups over the accurate number of Muslims living in the U.S., the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Thursday issued a call to stop the "Islamophobic smear campaign" against the American Muslim community and its leaders. CAIR urged journalists and public officials not to "be used as unwitting tools in this campaign or to undermine President Bush's efforts to show that the war on terrorism is not a conflict with Islam."
CAIR angrily pointed to a recent Los Angeles Times article which reported, "Pro-Israel or Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Defense League and the Middle East Forum think tank have provided news organizations with reams of critical documentation on Muslim leaders in recent weeks."
And the group singled out Middle East Forum's Daniel Pipes for special Scorn, calling Pipes "one of the foremost proponents of the current smear campaign," which has tied CAIR with Islamic radicalism and even violence.
In an interview with Salon, Pipes answers those charges, and warns that Muslims in America want Islamic law to rule the land.
Islam had no Renaissance (although it contributed to ours), neither had it a Reformation (which along with the counter-reformation of the Catholics, did much to form the modern mind); it has had no Enlightenment; it has actually very little literature, beyond inward looking Islamic texts; no music, nor theater, no representative art, no original science to speak of, and no tradition of representative government which truly honors individual libery or even thought. What little of the mind is in Islam peaked in the 12th Century. They had by then, captured and assimilated vast areas of the former world of classical antiquity. But they have gone downhill ever since, never appreciating the formation of the Western mind, which is the true gift of Greece and Rome.
Haven't you noticed that the only intelligent discussions(even if quite inconclusive) that can be had are with Western-Educated Muslims? And it's not just a language barrier.
Whether we agree or disagree with a Muslim is not really the point. We are from two completely different worlds and there is literally no basis for discussion in the philosophical sense. Western thought is inclusive. Islamic thought is exclusive. We can tolerate and understand them. They must convert us to their way of thinking. The Muslim thought process ends in "yeahbutt Allah, yeahbutt Mohammed, yeahbutt quran says"
If we don't let too many Muslims in, I believe that eventually our way of life will work for them, even as they practice their religion, if they are smart enough to sanitize it. Right now, illegal Muslim aliens must be immediately deported, and other non-citizen Muslims scrutinized very carefully. Too many of them are up to no good for the West. As far as American Citizens who wish to practice Islam go, it's OK with me. As long as they obey the law and do not preach the overthrow of this form of government in their mosques (which they are now doing). No rights protect them from the harsh official penalties, and the even harsher unofficial penalties, that will bring down on them. Just as for other American citizens.
This country, which is based on Western, European, Christian values and traditions, can assimilate anyone of any religion who wishes to be assimilated.
Unfortunately, the stated aim of Islam is the foundation of government based on Islam. (No use denying that, George. It's in your Books, such as they are, and your hate-mongering clerics preach it every day, five times a day.) Obviously we cannot have that. So if American Muslims do not disavow this part of their religion, we obviously cannot have them.
The Koran is like the Old Testament eye for an eye thinking on steroids. It represents a very low and primitive consciousness of reality.
I'll put in my .02$ on that , if you don't mind.
The OT as a whole (and the NT, too) takes slavery for granted. There are rules covering the proper treatment of slaves throughout the book and the enslavement of conquered people is condoned. Enslavement for debt or as a punishment is expected. 'Slave and free' may be equal in the sight of God, but a society in which no man owns another was unthinkable and unimaginable.
The idea that "Negro Slavery" (archaic term used deliberately) is mandated by the Bible is old. The notion is based on the "Curse of Ham" (Gen 9:25), and the belief that the descendants of Ham (Gen 10:6-7) are all darkskinned, probably "Negroid" peoples. (Which is not true, exactly ; the people who pushed the curse of Ham theory had in mind West African peoples as the descendants of Ham. In actuality, the peoples the Bible lists as Ham's descendants were mainly what we would called North Africans/semitic/Berber peoples...dark, but not at all the same 'stock' of people who manned American plantations. And it was THEIR slavery the 'curse of Ham' was meant to justify, by those who misused the Bible so. But the curse was really meant to explain the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews.)
I have an old Bible in my Bible collection. It is a KJV, published by World in 1929. It must have the last justification of slavery by Genesis published in the USA. This segment appears in the back, in a list of questions and answers included for the benefit of sunday school teachers. Bolding theirs:
26. Which of Noah's sons brought a curse on his posterity by his conduct on this occasion?-Ham.
27.Do the effects of this curse continue to the present time?Where?-Yes; in Africa which was peopled by the descendants of Ham, and is the chief scene of the horrible traffic in slaves.
By 1929, the language had changed. Now, the curse is "horrible", and the victims pitied. In 1829, such an answer would have been phrased to suggest that slavery was beneficient to the Africans, that it brought them religion, and because they were under a curse, they deserved it anyway. But the Curse of Ham was never used to justify African slavery as often as one would think. In fact, darwinism was used the most, and "scientific knowledge" by the 1850s "proved" Africans were inferior, possibly subhuman. And a lot of proslavery people simply didn't care ; they thought they were profiting by slavery, and whether the Bible or science justified them didn't concern them-the only book they were interested in was their bank book.
Also around the 1850s were the proslavery extremists such as George Fitzhugh. They used economic theory to justify slavery. At times, Fitzhugh sounds like Marx. To them, the African slaves were freer, happier, and healthier than what they called the 'white slaves' of New England and Great Britain, and they incessantly urged the wealthy of those lands to enslave their factory workers and servants and reduce them to the status of personal possessions. That's slavery as a good divorced from biblical and scientific justifications.
The Christian Identity people and some others believe that certain verses of the Bible are to be interpreted allegorically : When one is told not to mix plant seeds, or fabric fibers while weaving, or not to plow with an ox and an ass yoked together, one is really being told that the races should be separated, preferably geographically. Mixed marriages are therefore an abomination, because it's forbidden to plant ,say, marigolds and tomatoes together. Oddly, these same people generally insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Check out Genesis. After Noah is saved from the flood, he gets drunk and his youngest son, Ham, humiliates him. He cursed him to be a "servant of servant". One of Ham's sons is Cush who is supposed to be the ancestor of the Africans. I think George's claim is a stretch to say the least, but I suspect this is what he is basing his claim on.
You should really use a Hebrew bible if you want to offer commentary. Things have a way of getting lost in the translation.
Your comment above is simply untrue and cannot be supported with the Hebrew version of the scriptures.
The idea that "Negro Slavery" (archaic term used deliberately) is mandated by the Bible is old. The notion is based on the "Curse of Ham" (Gen 9:25), and the belief that the descendants of Ham (Gen 10:6-7) are all darkskinned, probably "Negroid" peoples. (Which is not true, exactly ;
First of all, there is a difference between slavery and the description in the bible regarding "servants of servants". Although you are correct in your last sentence about it not being true.
the people who pushed the curse of Ham theory had in mind West African peoples as the descendants of Ham.
This is not biblical, it is your commentary.
In actuality, the peoples the Bible lists as Ham's descendants were mainly what we would called North Africans/semitic/Berber peoples...dark, but not at all the same 'stock' of people who manned American plantations. And it was THEIR slavery the 'curse of Ham' was meant to justify, by those who misused the Bible so. But the curse was really meant to explain the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews.)
No, the "curse" had nothing to do with the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews.
I have an old Bible in my Bible collection. It is a KJV, published by World in 1929. It must have the last justification of slavery by Genesis published in the USA. This segment appears in the back, in a list of questions and answers included for the benefit of sunday school teachers.
Here's the part that you should really use a Hebrew translation for.
Bolding theirs: 26. Which of Noah's sons brought a curse on his posterity by his conduct on this occasion?-Ham.
27.Do the effects of this curse continue to the present time?Where?-Yes; in Africa which was peopled by the descendants of Ham, and is the chief scene of the horrible traffic in slaves.
The bible uses the word "slaves" when it means slaves. It did not use that word with regard to the curse of Ham by Noah.
No, it isn't. If you want to post a separate article by one of your favorite Nazi authors showing that it is, please be my guest.
A search on Google for "slavery in the Bible" produced these two hits:
A REBUTTAL TO "THE BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY"
Both essays were written by rabbis in 1861, when slavery was an issue for Americans, and the rabbis each bring opposing interpretations from the Hebrew scriptures.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you and what you're getting at, but every Bible I have (over 20 translations, versions, and paraphrases) has rules in it on the proper care of slaves, under what circumstances a slave must be freed, the punishment of slaves, slaves making their way to freedom to a city of sanctuary must not be returned to their master,etc. Those rules are in the OT, and I fail to see how one can interpret the rules as being proof that slavery was not simply taken for granted as just and right by the writers of the OT. And why should they? Slavery was UNIVERSAL ; the idea of a society entirely composed of free men (not to mention women) where slavery was outlawed, was unprecedented then and for centuries-millenia-after. It's no reflection on the great men and women of the Bible to say they accepted human slavery as a natural phenomenon. The mere fact that the laws of Leviticus offered some protection to slaves is what is unusual, not that the ownership of men, women , and children was condoned. In that respect, the ancient Hebrews were advanced. Look how the Assyrians treated POWs and the women and children of conquered peoples, as opposed to the Hebrews.
the people who pushed the curse of Ham theory had in mind West African peoples as the descendants of Ham. >
This is not biblical, it is your commentary.
It's not MY "commentary" ; it was the opinion of far too many proslavery writers in the USA prior to 1865. And that the peoples whose enslavement they were trying to justify Biblically were almost entirely from or descended from West Africans is well known. It's unfortunate that the ownership of people was ever justified by Americans in any way, especially by misinterpreting Bible verses, but that's what some did. And the appeal of Islam to some American blacks is by no means unrelated to this. (Yeah, I know, but the role of the Arabs in the slave trade wasn't really stressed till quite recently, so...)
No, the "curse" had nothing to do with the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews.
That's not my opinion. It's the opinion of pretty much every theologian that I've read-though I certainly do not claim to have read every single theologian published, and as the Curse of Ham is no longer of much more than historical interest,some try to 'bleep over' the words (to quote the great theologian Linus Van Pelt) as they were misused so often. At least, that's my speculation as to the curse doesn't get much attention these days.
Here's the part that you should really use a Hebrew translation for. 26. Which of Noah's sons brought a curse on his posterity by his conduct on this occasion?-Ham.< p> 27.Do the effects of this curse continue to the present time?Where?-Yes; in Africa which was peopled by the descendants of Ham, and is the chief scene of the horrible traffic in slaves.
The bible uses the word "slaves" when it means slaves. It did not use that word with regard to the curse of Ham by Noah.
The use of the Curse of Ham to justify the enslavement of Africans may be based on a misinterpretation of the words . I believe the Anchor Bible (and a few others ) makes just that claim. But that's how it was used( sadly), though darwinism was misused that way even more.
Actually, what amazes me about the Bible and slavery is this : Duet 23:15 says "If a slave has escaped from his master and taken refuge with you, you are not to hand him back to his master. Allow him to stay with you, in whichever place suits him best among your settlements ; do not mistreat him."(Stern trans.)
Now, I have a pretty large library of books pertaining to the civil war : The causes of , battles of , social history of the south and north during, the role of women or slaves in it, the soldiers and generals of, etc etc etc. And you know, in all the conflict over the Fugitive Slave Act, I do not recall EVER reading those words being used to justity northern noncompliance with that act. I'm not saying no one ever did, but one would think the abolitionists would have used that argument more than they apparently did. At the very least, I'm surprised the southern supporters of the act were never forced to 'explain away' that rule, by claiming it only (eg) applied to fugitive Hebrews held by pagans, or whatever...But I don't believe I've ever read that a proslavery writer felt compelled to do so. ??????
"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk." Koran al-Ma'idah 5:51.8
"Allah (Himself) doth mock them, leaving them to wander blindly on in their contumacy." Koran 2:15
The Koran says that Christians and Jews and of other religions worship devils:
"And when they fall in with those who believe, they say: We believe; but when they go apart to their devils they declare: Lo! we are with you; verily we did but mock." Koran 2:14"
The Koran states that God is not the same as Allah. Koran Chapter 109: Al-Kafiroon (The disbeliveers, atheists)
"In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful."
"Say: O disbeliveers!" (Koran 109:1)
"I worship not that which ye worship;" (Koran 109:2)
"Nor worship ye that which I worship." (Koran 109:3)
"And I shall not worship that which ye worship." (Koran 109:4)
"Nor will ye worship that which I worship." (Koran 109:5)
"Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion." (Koran 109:6)
The Koran describes Allah as a god of revenge and torture:
"Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed we shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise." Koran 4:56
"And lo! the curse shall be upon thee till the Day of Judgment." Koran al-Hijr 15:35.4
"And yet a fifth, invoking the curse of Allah on him if he is of those who lie." Koran an-Nur 24:7.7
"And we made a curse to follow them in this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be among the hateful." Koran al-Qasas 28:42.5
"Our Lord! Oh, give them double torment and curse them with a mighty curse." Koran al-Ahzab 33:68.9
NEW TESTAMENT
"Bless them, which persecute you: bless, and curse not." Romans 12:14
The message of Jesus is to love your enemy and return GOOD for EVIL. He says, "Rejoice, when people say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake." That message is absent from the Koran. The Koran demonstrates that the fundamental message and belief underlying it, is the necessity to subjugate and surrender all people to Islamic belief and practice.
Check out Genesis. After Noah is saved from the flood, he gets drunk and his youngest son, Ham, humiliates him. He cursed him to be a "servant of servant". One of Ham's sons is Cush who is supposed to be the ancestor of the Africans. I think George's claim is a stretch to say the least, but I suspect this is what he is basing his claim on.
BenF - I figured that's where the connection was being made. I've heard that before and find it pretty lame also.
Good response!
I'm not aware of any mainstream organized religions in this country that exercise strong autocratic or dictatorial control. Our mainstream religions allow anyone to walk away, renounce their old religion, and take up a new one or none in it's place.
Islamists fit the defintion of fascists to a tee; thus, the term Islamofascists is highly appropriate. We've fought fascism in the last hundred years for good reason and won. I see the same good reasons to now fight Islamofascism and win.
You know, the Demonrats have vilified Republicans and conservatives over the years, comparing us to fascists and labeling us extremists. By doing so they far overplayed their hand and have hopefully lost their credibility with anyone who has a sense of reality and decency. If they wish to see extremists, take a trip to Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia. If they wish to know fascists, let them snuggle up to some Islamofascists for a while.
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.