Post 81:
interesting article. Agree with some of it, but can't with the rest.
Like all western analyses, this one too is trivial and incomplete because it is founded on incomplete understanding of the problem (islam). It doesn't help that the analysts themselves are wearing blinders (courtesy of christianity), the kind they accuse those ignorant of islam of.
Before I get into that, another thing. The psychological analysis of why the west is in denial is rather trite too (comparing the situation to the reactions of abuse victims).
Europeans have analysed it much better than these American think tanks like CSPI. My sis read some articles on this. I think it was by Ayaan Hirsi Ali or one of her colleagues explaining the reason why Europe is still not waking up to notice the islamic j-hadi trying to break down the front door.
According to Europeans, their inability to identify the problem has to do with the way Protestants and Catholics finally settled down after the genocidal 30 Year War in Europe and how this had determined how pluralism and multiculturalism came to be implemented in that continent. Eventually accepting their differences were irreconcilable, Western Europe allowed the two major denominations their own schools, own churches and own broadcasting channels. This basically has kept the two sects from each others' throats in the more enlightened times.
But Islam does not fit into this, even though the Dutch and other European governments have given them their own centres for prayer, their own schools, and the like. Though Islam is equally intolerant, it is not a christian subdenomination after all. It has a problem with <i>all</i> of christianity (as it does with other religions) and is not satisfied with the 'mere' right to practise its own religion. Islam expects to have the right in Europe which both it and christianity insist on in India: the right to convert the entire place. Europe is dar-ul-harb, and for it to stay so is unacceptable from the islamic perspective.
The reason Europe is 'in denial' is merely because it does not understand why European pluralism does not work to soften up islam. They don't see that islam is (1) an intolerant and missionary religion; AND (2) is a religion opposed to non-islamic ways of life (secularism and christianity as it may be in the case of Europe). Both (1) and (2) make it not fit in with the recently created European pluralism, whereas other religions present in Europe - like the many eastern religions and Judaism - pose no such problems.
(Of course, Christianity exhibits (1) as well as a variant of (2): it's opposed to non-christian ways of life. It's out of sheer necessity that it had to get along with a secular Europe, because secular is what the majority of the European population became.)
Onto the initial matter, which is my main gripe with that article in frontpagemag.
I agree that islam is dualistic in the sense described, particularly that j-had means war 97% of the time and only 3% inner struggle. And that it divides the world into dar-ul-harb and dar-ul-islam. And that the j-had will always be on, to make all former into the latter.
What I don't agree with is that the analysts at CSPI, and others like them, are attempting to contrast this with <i>christianity</i>, of all ideologies! Their points are invalidated each time they try to draw a comparison:
- Christianity divides the world into saved and unsaved and has never given up trying to convert the latter (by all means necessary) into the former. This process as we know is ongoing.
They will never see the whole problem that islam poses as long as they are blinded by christianity, because the fundamental problems are shared by both. The west only feels threatened by islam, because it has already been conquered by and had eventually neutralised (the old varieties of) christianity.
Pasted the rest of my comments on this matter in post 264 of the christian missionary thread, more appropriate there.
interesting article. Agree with some of it, but can't with the rest.
Like all western analyses, this one too is trivial and incomplete because it is founded on incomplete understanding of the problem (islam). It doesn't help that the analysts themselves are wearing blinders (courtesy of christianity), the kind they accuse those ignorant of islam of.
Before I get into that, another thing. The psychological analysis of why the west is in denial is rather trite too (comparing the situation to the reactions of abuse victims).
Europeans have analysed it much better than these American think tanks like CSPI. My sis read some articles on this. I think it was by Ayaan Hirsi Ali or one of her colleagues explaining the reason why Europe is still not waking up to notice the islamic j-hadi trying to break down the front door.
According to Europeans, their inability to identify the problem has to do with the way Protestants and Catholics finally settled down after the genocidal 30 Year War in Europe and how this had determined how pluralism and multiculturalism came to be implemented in that continent. Eventually accepting their differences were irreconcilable, Western Europe allowed the two major denominations their own schools, own churches and own broadcasting channels. This basically has kept the two sects from each others' throats in the more enlightened times.
But Islam does not fit into this, even though the Dutch and other European governments have given them their own centres for prayer, their own schools, and the like. Though Islam is equally intolerant, it is not a christian subdenomination after all. It has a problem with <i>all</i> of christianity (as it does with other religions) and is not satisfied with the 'mere' right to practise its own religion. Islam expects to have the right in Europe which both it and christianity insist on in India: the right to convert the entire place. Europe is dar-ul-harb, and for it to stay so is unacceptable from the islamic perspective.
The reason Europe is 'in denial' is merely because it does not understand why European pluralism does not work to soften up islam. They don't see that islam is (1) an intolerant and missionary religion; AND (2) is a religion opposed to non-islamic ways of life (secularism and christianity as it may be in the case of Europe). Both (1) and (2) make it not fit in with the recently created European pluralism, whereas other religions present in Europe - like the many eastern religions and Judaism - pose no such problems.
(Of course, Christianity exhibits (1) as well as a variant of (2): it's opposed to non-christian ways of life. It's out of sheer necessity that it had to get along with a secular Europe, because secular is what the majority of the European population became.)
Onto the initial matter, which is my main gripe with that article in frontpagemag.
I agree that islam is dualistic in the sense described, particularly that j-had means war 97% of the time and only 3% inner struggle. And that it divides the world into dar-ul-harb and dar-ul-islam. And that the j-had will always be on, to make all former into the latter.
What I don't agree with is that the analysts at CSPI, and others like them, are attempting to contrast this with <i>christianity</i>, of all ideologies! Their points are invalidated each time they try to draw a comparison:
- Christianity divides the world into saved and unsaved and has never given up trying to convert the latter (by all means necessary) into the former. This process as we know is ongoing.
They will never see the whole problem that islam poses as long as they are blinded by christianity, because the fundamental problems are shared by both. The west only feels threatened by islam, because it has already been conquered by and had eventually neutralised (the old varieties of) christianity.
Pasted the rest of my comments on this matter in post 264 of the christian missionary thread, more appropriate there.