US Conservatives dispute Bush’s portrayal of Islam

The Indian Express ^ | 12/9/02 | Dana Milbank

[1bigdictator]

US Conservatives dispute Bush’s portrayal of Islam

Dana Milbank

Washington, December 8 PRESIDENT Bush finds himself in a rare disagreement with Conservatives in his party over his efforts to portray Islam as a peaceful religion that is not responsible for anti-American terrorism. In a score of speeches since the September 11, 2001, attacks, Bush has called for tolerance of Muslims, describing Islam as ‘‘a faith based upon peace and love and compassion’’ and a religion committed to ‘‘morality and learning and tolerance.’’

But a large number of foreign policy hawks — some of them with advisory roles in the Bush administration — have joined religious conservatives in taking issue with Bush’s characterisations. While most of them understand the political rationale for Bush’s statements — there’s no benefit in antagonising Muslim allies such as Pakistan and Indonesia — they say the claim is dishonest and destined to fail. For Bush and for the country, the outcome of the argument is crucial.

The administration, and moderate governments in Arab and Muslim nations, are struggling to prevent the war on terrorism from becoming what Osama bin Laden wants: a war of civilisation between the Judeo-Christian West and a resentful and impoverished Muslim world. Calling Islam a peaceful religion ‘‘is an increasingly hard argument to make,’’ said Kenneth Adelman, a former Reagan official who serves on the Bush Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board.

‘‘The more you examine the religion, the more militaristic it seems. After all, its founder, Mohammed, was a warrior, not a peace advocate like Jesus.’’ Another member of the Pentagon advisory board, Eliot Cohen of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, wrote an article on the Wall Street Journal editorial page arguing that the enemy of the US is not terrorism ‘‘but militant Islam.’’ ‘‘The enemy has an ideology, and an hour spent surfing the Web will give the average citizen at least the kind of insights that he or she might have found during World Wars I and II by reading Mein Kampf or the writings of Lenin, Stalin or Mao.’’

Cohen acknowledges it is impolitic and ‘‘deeply uncomfortable’’ for the administration to say such things. ‘‘Nobody would like to think that a major world religion has a deeply aggressive and dangerous strain in it — a strain often excused or misrepresented in the name of good feelings. But uttering uncomfortable and unpleasant truths is one of the things that defines leadership,’’ he said.

At the same time, social conservatives are resisting Bush’s efforts to portray Islam in a favorable light. ‘‘Islam is at war against us,’’ Paul Weyrich, an activist who is influential in the White House, wrote recently.

‘‘I have had much good to say about President Bush in recent months. But one thing that concerned me before September 11 and concerns me even more now is his administration’s constant promotion of Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance just like Judaism or Christianity. It is neither.’’ — LATWP

[1bigdictator]

^ Sorry folks... but Arabic doesn't format on FR, hence the martian language.

[1bigdictator]

I never thought I would ever utter a word in defense of Farrakhan, but in order to respond... look what you made me do!

Farrakhan considers himself to be a Muslim so this is a particularly weak example to illustrate the hypocrisy of posters here who you allege employ a double standard in holding all Muslims accountable for the acts of a "small percentage" of radical Muslims. But supposing you use this example for his race rather than religion, the record does not show his rhetoric to rise to the level of militant Muslims nor does it show the desire/ability to convert rhetoric into action. He is a clever tactician, even if he believes in genocide in his heart against the "white devils" his most recent mass sermon (propaganda?) in Washington two years ago advanced a position for repairing racial relations; this harmony is a far different chord than that espoused by the multitude of radical Muslim Mullahs in the Middle East.

If Mugabe and his other co-ideologists sought to export the slaughter of whites worldwide you would have a perfect analogy... but his is simply a conflict over power, not race-- whites hold the land and assets and he wants that wealth. If it were people of Hispanic or Asian decent holding the land and wealth-- they, and not the whites would be Mugabe's target. However, terrorism and murder is reprehensible regardless of the motives.

This debate seems to be a tempest in a teapot. The 10-25% of Muslims who are militant and wish to subjugate non-Muslim peoples and culture need to reform their ideology and accept modernity and global diversity or they need to die. The other Muslims are non-combatants in this war on Islamic terror. I just wish this 75% of Muslims would actively criticize their more extreme brothers and sisters for the trail of death and destruction militant Islam is leaving around the globe.

[Angelus Errare]

Yeah, I kinda noticed that, though I think that a couple of posters figured out a way to display Arabic somehow.

Since I'm guessing that you didn't come up with all of this on the fly, what's the source for this stuff?

[1bigdictator]

http://muhammadanism.org/Islam/islam_tolerance_cross.htm

[1bigdictator]

I didn't cite the source because anytime I cut and paste the original test... then seek to credit the author... the formatting goes to hell and it takes forever to fix. I know it appears like I plagiarized but that is never my intent.

[Angelus Errare]

"I never thought I would ever utter a word in defense of Farrakhan, but in order to respond... look what you made me do!"

This I simply _must_ hear, lol.

"Farrakhan considers himself to be a Muslim so this is a particularly weak example to illustrate the hypocrisy of posters here who you allege employ a double standard in holding all Muslims accountable for the acts of a "small percentage" of radical Muslims."

Farrakhan claims to be a Muslim, but he also believes (from what I gather) that the white race was created by a black mad scientist 12,000 years ago, a contention I don't think is going to sit very well with the millions of Muslim leaders in the Balkans alone.

"But supposing you use this example for his race rather than religion, the record does not show his rhetoric to rise to the level of militant Muslims nor does it show the desire/ability to convert rhetoric into action."

I dunno. After they arrested John Mohammed, a number of Freepers posted a bunch of stuff regarding the Nation of Islam's "Zebra Killings" that left ~270 whites dead between 1970 and 1974 and occurred with the tacit approval of both Farrakhan and Elijah Mohammed. Sounds to me as though he is quite capable of converting his rhetoric into action.

"He is a clever tactician, even if he believes in genocide in his heart against the 'white devils' his most recent mass sermon (propaganda?) in Washington two years ago advanced a position for repairing racial relations; this harmony is a far different chord than that espoused by the multitude of radical Muslim Mullahs in the Middle East."

First of all, if you seriously believe that Farrakhan is interested in racial cooperation ... I have a bridge to sell you. Regarding what he and his lieutenants say privately rather than what they say to the general public, this is little different than the Saudis praising bin Laden as a hero in Riyadh and then ordering CAIR to issue vague condemnations of terrorism in Washington. So I really don't see a difference between the mad mullahs and Farrakhan in terms of both desire and action.

"If Mugabe and his other co-ideologists sought to export the slaughter of whites worldwide you would have a perfect analogy ..."

If you truly delve into the depravity that is Mugabe's sock puppet ZANU-PF party, you'll see that they plan to do just this, starting with their attempts to export their philosophy to Namibia (which has already started farm seizures) and South Africa. This was bin Laden's initial goal as well, to overthrow the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Only after such attempts failed did he try to go after the US.

"If it were people of Hispanic or Asian decent holding the land and wealth-- they, and not the whites would be Mugabe's target."

I agree. But Mugabe is clearly a black supremist and should be acknowledged and condemned as such ... yet he is applauded by black leaders in the US. By the analogies brought forth in regards to Islam, this makes them tacit supporters of Mugabe and his sick ideology.

"However, terrorism and murder is reprehensible regardless of the motives."

Agreed.

"This debate seems to be a tempest in a teapot. The 10-25% of Muslims who are militant and wish to subjugate non-Muslim peoples and culture need to reform their ideology and accept modernity and global diversity or they need to die."

Agreed.

"The other Muslims are non-combatants in this war on Islamic terror."

I disagree and cite Uzbekistan, Jordan, Algeria, Malaysia, and post-Bali Indonesia as examples. Many moderate Muslims recognize that they're going to be the first ones on the chopping block if the Wahhabis win.

"I just wish this 75% of Muslims would actively criticize their more extreme brothers and sisters for the trail of death and destruction militant Islam is leaving around the globe."

I think that in America, many, like the Islamic Supreme Council, try. But the media has basically decided that CAIR and AMC speak for all Muslims when it comes to jihad the same way that Planned Parenthood and NOW speak for all women on the subject of abortion.

[Angelus Errare]

"I didn't cite the source because anytime I cut and paste the original test... then seek to credit the author... the formatting goes to hell and it takes forever to fix. I know it appears like I plagiarized but that is never my intent."

Hey, no problem.

I just wanted to see because there's a big difference between say the Encyclopedia Britannica and Jack Chick when it comes to source credibility.

[swarthyguy]

Jumping in here to point out the following...

Discussions like this point out a fatal flaw in Dubya's characterisation of this as a war on terror. By not specifying wahhabism as the >IDEOLOGY< we are fighting against and omitting any mention of states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as our enemies, he has encouraged virtually pointless discussions like this where we debate muslims and islam.

It is the inherently evil ideology of wahhabism, the sponsorship by the Sauds that are the enemy.

Being nice and ignoring wahhabi influence in the USA, as you correctly point out, is the main cause for the disconnect in American society.

If Bush would have the guts to finger Saudis and Wahhabism as the enemy, many muslim states like Algeria, Turkey and the Central Asian Stans would flock very openly to our side and not have to deal with the thorny issue of the US's reticence on the problem of Saud and the Wahhabs.

[Jael]

Lying makes you look really bad (again) Luis. You called her a kool aid drinker for her wrongly spelled words. Being a bad speller doesn't make her a blind follower of anything. Now get a grip and stop lying.

Also, your constant refusal to acknowledge the facts about Islam as posted mars you.

[Destro]

when I was talking about the defence of Milosevic (and even you have to argue that there are a number of Milosevic apologists here on FR,

There is no need for anyone to apologize for Milosevic to Americans because he never took any action against America that would need to have him and his supporters apologize for it.

Most Americans have no real idea about the al-Qaeda connection to the KLA (or the Chechens, for that matter) and as a result I think of them as under-informed rather than as fifth columnists.

Which is why I post here.

it's not front page news here in the US, which I assume is where Schwartz lives

Not front page, but prominently published in editorial pages like the NY Post and National Review.

Sheikh Kabbani, whose top lieutenant had an excellent article in the National Review a couple of days ago about the rampant demolition of Sufi shrines in Kosovo, Albania, and Bosnia because the Wahhabis decided that keeping such shrines in business was haram.

I read that editorial as well. I and other freepers posted about such things here over a year ago.

PS: I always thought I was a Scotsman.

[Republic of Texas]

I think the Indians know better than us the truth of this religion. They seem perplexed at Bush's choice of words. Wonder why?

[Republic of Texas]

I disagree with Pat Buchanan quite a bit. I have never supported him, nor would I. I've voted for Bush three times now in my life. Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Not all who practice it are terrorists, they just tolerate/quietly support the terrorists.

[Jael]

My friend claims that anyone who does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God is th anti-Christ.

Luis, I am not your friend. Understand that. I could never be friends with anyone who quotes the Koran to try and prove that the moon god Allah is Jehovah.

I answered your question in regard to the Jews. They do believe that the Messiah will be the Son of God. The Muslims however call God a liar.

[TLBSHOW]

Islam will never mean peace again

[Jael]

Really Luis, are you posting that to say that Scripture is wrong regarding salvation being only through faith in Jesus Christ?

[Jael]

Someone said, (and I have forgotten who)

All I ever needed to know about Islam, I learned September 11.

[Jael]

Luis, you must stop the personal attacks and stop calling people Clinton just for disagreeing with you. It will never wash with anyone who has been following this thread and it only serves to further damage your reputation.

[MatthewViti]

republicanwizard signed up 2002-11-18.

nuff said!

[TLBSHOW]

The beginning of the new One World Religion will be an attempt to bring Christianity, Judaism, and Islam into one group.

That will fail, as it must, and will evolve within three and one half years into a worship of the Antichrist. World Leadership does not care who is God (In all likelihood, most of them do not actually believe in the reality of the literal God.) as long as the world has peace. The Antichrist will be presented as a great man of peace. He will be Arabic, and Muslim (Gentile).

We know by Revelation 11:1-2 and Luke 21:24 printed below, that the Antichrist will be a Gentile. Only a Muslim (Gentile) would be able to allow the Jews to re-establish daily sacrifice in Jerusalem.

If a Jewish or Christian person attempted to allow the Jews to re-establish daily sacrifice, there would be "Jihad" by the Muslims.

http://www.cynet.com/Jesus/Prophecy/Antichrist.htm

[Luis Gonzalez]

I am going to type really slowly so that you can understand and follow the discussion. Get help with the bigger words, and find an adult to help you with the more complicated points that I am going to make.

I pointed out the errors in spelling, then I commented on the substance of his/her post. I didn't call him/her a "Kool-Aid" drinker based on spelling, but rather used the term as described in the FReeper lexicon that you are so busily trying to ignore.

That term has been used so often by FReepers in the context described by the definition, that it has become a common-place FReeper expression.

But I guess that seeing the way you reacted to my having used it, you consider all FReepers to be racists.

You are in here quoting the Bible, my Bible, and doing a great disservice to Christians with your constant personal attacks, your lies, and your unwillingness to actually face the question I have asked you on at least six different posts. Yours are not the actions of a Christian, in spite of the claim, you have no idea what the discussion is here.

There are no "facts" about Islam that you have shown me that would convince me that Islam is "evil" in and of itself, Islam is ruined by zealots and radicals who have no wish to co-exist with anyone. What you have proven, is that people with an agenda can take selective bits and pieces of information, and turn opinion in their favor, or at least the general opinion of the hoi polloi.

Islam a religion observed by over a billion people, the vast majority of which have never entertained the idea of hurting anyone. American Muslims have been on this soil since @1790, and they number in the millions. I don't see them committing acts of mass murder.

You are a puppet of those within Islam who wish to see this blown into global warfare.

Ask yourself something, to be the Christian that you claim to be, you must at least make an attempt at being Christ-like. On this thread, there isn't a single example of Christ-like behavior from you.

Not one.

Now, you don't need to answer the question, as it is obvious to everyone reading the thread that you believe Jews are the anti-Christ. It is the logical conclusion to your statements on this thread.

What you lack, or rather, one of the many things lacking in you, is the moral strength to stand by your convictions.