January 17, 2006

Iran Threatens the West—The U.S. Senate Shows it Doesn’t Accept Intimidation

President Ahmadinejad of Iran is actually trying to intimidate the West with threats:

Addressing a rare press conference in Tehran, [Ahmadinejad] appeared to issue thinly veiled threats against Western countries, implying that they could face serious consequences unless they backed down. 'You need us more than we need you. All of you today need the Iranian nation,' Ahmadinejad said. 'Why are you putting on airs? You don't have that might.' 

Here we see Ahmadinejad seeking to intimidate the West with threats relating to oil production.  What threats would he be likely to issue if he also had nukes?

But U.S. Senators are showing that they are not so easy to intimidate:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said sanctions will be tough but that Iran poses a greater danger to the United States than Iraq at this point and must be contained.

"If the price of oil has to go up, then that's a consequence we would have to suffer," McCain said on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

...Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Bush should do whatever he can to get support from Russia and China.

"They need stuff from us," Schumer said on "Fox News Sunday. "They need trade. They need all kinds of assistance. We ought to play hardball with them."

...Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said penalties should be imposed as a response to Iran's "irresponsible" behavior. He pointed to Iran's announcement Sunday that it will hold a conference to examine evidence of the Holocaust. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust a "myth" and called for Israel to be wiped from the face of the earth.

"We cannot be intimidated by economic threats from their side," Lott said on CNN's "Late Edition." "At the very minimum, we should go to the U.N. Security Council and we should impose economic sanctions unless there's some dramatic change in the Iranian position."

...Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., said President Bush should have dealt with threats from Iran years ago. He said Iran is the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world and a "force for instability and death."

Sharia—It’s not Just Another “Love-thy-Neighbor” Culture

We Westerners are most familiar with two religions -- Christianity and Judaism -- and we think that all religions must be similar.

But the Sharia culture of Islamic fundamentalists is not in the "love-thy-neighbor" tradition of those two.

A fairly stark example of this is seen in this recent quote from a professor of Islamic law who is often seen on Saudi TV:

Sheikh Abd Al-Aziz Fawzan Al-Fawzan, a professor of Islamic law at Al-Imam University, who frequently appears on Saudi TV recently made anti-Christian comments on Saudi Al-Majd TV. 

Al-Fawzan: "Someone who denies Allah, worships Christ, son of Mary, and claims that God is one third of a trinity - do you like these things he says and does? Don't you hate the faith of such a polytheist who says God is one third of a trinity, or who worships Christ, son of Mary?

"Someone who permits and commits fornication - as is the case in Western countries, where fornication is permitted and not considered a problem - don't you hate this? Whoever says 'I don't hate him' is not a Muslim, my brother."

[...]

"This is not racism, my brother. We don't hate a polytheist because of his color, gender, blood, country, or because he is American, European, Chinese, or Asian. They are our partners in humanity. An American Muslim may be better in Allah's view than all the Arabs."

[...]

"But if this person is an infidel - even if this person is my mother or father, God forbid, or my son or daughter - I must hate him, his heresy, and his defiance of Allah and His prophet. I must hate his abominable deeds. Moreover, this hatred must be positive hatred. It should make me feel compassion for him, and should make me guide and reform him."

Just try and fathom that for a moment. This a professor of Islamic law. Note that Islam has a law they want to impose on everybody, unlike the religions we are familiar with. Islamic law is called Sharia. Under Sharia, a woman's testimony is worth 1/2 that of a man's in court. Under Sharia, people are stoned to death for the crime of "fornication." Under Sharia, anyone who's not a Muslim must pay a tax, and assume second-class citizen status, or convert to Islam. That's the law this Al-Fawzan is a professor of.

And this professor is flat-out promoting hate. He calls it by that name: he says he's talking about "hate." He says it's his duty as a Muslim to hate non-Muslims.

According to this noted professor of Islamic law, Islam is a religion of hate, specifically, hatred of non-Muslims.

It's a self-perpetuating system, the main characteristic of which is to kill everyone who isn't part of the system, or convert them to that system.  Other than that it has little meaning or purpose of any kind.

Conclusions:

• Sharia culture is very different from Western culture.
• Sharia culture is incompatible with Western culture.
• Islam is not a "love-thy-neighbor" religion.
• The purpose of fundamentalist Islam is to enslave non-Muslims to Sharia law. 

A Theological Basis, Acceptable to Muslims, by Which Islam Can Modernize

Lately I've been discussing the statements in the Koran that instruct fundamentalist Islamists to do things such as the terrorists are currently doing. The question is, can Islam reform itself, given the unmistakable meaning of these statements?

Daniel Pipes has identified a line of thought, originated by a Muslim and likely widely acceptable to Muslims, by which Islam can be reformed:

...note the original thinking of the Sudanese theologian Mahmud Muhammad Taha (1909-85). Taha built his interpretation on the conventional division of the Koran into two. The initial verses came down when Muhammad was a powerless prophet living in Mecca, and tend to be cosmological. Later verses came down when Muhammad was the ruler of Medina, and include many specific rulings. These commands eventually served as the basis for the Shari'a, or Islamic law.

Taha argued that specific Koranic rulings applied only to Medina, not to other times and places. He hoped modern-day Muslims would set these aside and live by the general principles delivered at Mecca. Were Taha's ideas accepted, most of the Shari'a would disappear, including outdated provisions concerning warfare, theft, and women. Muslims could then more readily modernize.

Even without accepting a grand schema such as Taha proposed, Muslims are already making small moves in the same direction. Islamic courts in reactionary Iran, for example, have broken with Islamic tradition and now permit women the right to sue for divorce and grant a murdered Christian equal recompense with that of a murdered Muslim.

As this suggests, Islam is not stuck. But huge efforts are needed to get it moving again.

It is very significant that such an approach has been developed.