I'm no expert on the pornography industry, but I'd be hard pressed to believe that US capitalism and California liberalism are being outperformed in this dept. by even the most outrageous of French publishing houses! But I'll leave it at that. Finally, as I mentioned before, D'Souza's explanation is fully compatable w/ arguing that Muslim outrage ALSO has religious roots. All he does is make the causality a bit more "contemporary" with our own experience ofoutrage.

WNA

With regard to your item #4, Post-13 above you said “I disagree w/ you on the origins of smut! THE US is w/o question the place par excellence–and more importantly, enthusiastically (as far as the law is concerned) advertises this freedom. The relevant point is, however, that Muslims identify it as something coming from America (whether this is true or not).”

What you are arguing here is: myth creates its own reality, and there is some truth in that. I agree with you Muslim anti-Western, anti-liberal myths play a part in this angst, but cannot have been the originating motivation behind these movements, and are insufficient on their own to sustain hatred and suspicion for the many decades salafist-jihadists have been at our throats. What all of these movements have in common and teach is hatred of rivals and rival creeds. Moral dissolution is exploited by salafists more as symptomatic illustration for why our particular creed (liberalism) is evil than as a reason to attack us (not the real threat). Nor is it the only attribute of liberal societies which they exploit. They have, thus far, railed against us for our: political chaos, civic efficiency, greed, generosity, technology, strength, weakness, art (characterized as decadent even when not), literature, music, ignorance, learning, efficiency, inefficiency, sophistication, inexperience, decadence, innocence, rashness, and caution (some of these despite they crave them also). Each has been thrown in the stew at different times to see which will float while supporting the underlying objection against freedom. The narrative has varied, but the thrust and hatred has remained pretty solid.

Another thing obscuring this picture is not all of the arguments salifist level against us are their own. An awful lot of what you have been acknowledging as valid Muslim angst, is stuff they picked up from us arguing among ourselves alternate reasons for their hatred of us (very circular and exactly as D’Sousa has been doing). It doesn’t take much to figure out if your enemy is given to criticizing himself, his own arguments will not only be useful in expanding your own (theirs), but will also be the more easily digested by us when played back as though true. This makes it much easy for jihadist to tie us in knots second-guessing them. At the same time, it picks up a life of its own in which the next-generation of jihadists believes it and takes it as their point of entry into the debate, even when it is patently false from simple observation of their own society and its failures. So, to that degree, what you say is valid; but also invalid because in so arguing you create/propagate the myth and draw all of us (and them) further from the root conflict. It is not enough finding things that irritate them; whatever it is driving them to fanatical measures must actually threaten them and their power. Anything less is just smoke.

I have begun reading D’Sousa’s book, but already I am getting a sense he was intent on debunking the left’s argument we caused 9/11 with our ‘imperialist meddling’ than he is of finding the real reason for Muslim hate, and is doing this by shifting blame for it onto ‘leftist immorality’. If that is the case, then he’s just playing their game back at them (the left) and hasn’t given serious consideration to the question whether or not this has anything to do with us or, if with us, our role is sufficiently blameworthy or relevant to solving the jihadist dilemma. Both these arguments have as predicate that: if we are the cause, then we must be the solution. Yet, neither comes close to doing any such thing. Can D’Sousa really imagine if we simply clean up our American stable all this jihadist nonsense will vanish? Rubbish! At the end of the day, we have to ask if our part is even something we want to change or if it makes greater sense they (jihadist) should be the ones to change. As theirs is the far greater immorality (religious murder of innocents and dragging us back toward slavery), it is they who need to get off their holier-than-thou nonsense and leave us alone. Then, and only then, can we can talk about cleaning up this other stuff (a problem we all have) together.

I will have more as I read the book, but wanted to get these thoughts down while fresh.

My comment was only that you should probably read the book! It's not a great book–my summary is a very streamlined account of what is put forth very sloppily.

1. I think it's hard to argue that Americans or westerners in general value the family remotely as much as do Muslims. We accept passively Hollywood's continuous degredation of the family and religion. One might argue that its' the authoritarian nature of Islamic society that forbids criticism of the family–Muslims might argue they prefer it this way!

2. I think the key issue D'Souza would have w/ your comment #10 is "our freedom." Unfort. the globe is truly international when it comes to culture–we can no longer hide behind our oceans! And while we protect the right to pornography w/in our own borders, it quickly finds its way into other cultures, much like cocaine finds its way here from Colombia. D'Souza might say, how do they stop pornography from coming into the Islamic world? Do they educate their population? Or do they take more drastic measures. He suggests the latter. However, the more interesting question is whether there might be another outcome, if we could clean up our own act. Does suppressing one bit of smut somehow compromise our "Liberalism"?

3. rEGARDING Pt. 11. D'Souza argues–w/ evidence taken from speeches among other things–that the Muslim radicals today focus on "western decadence" as being a reason for Jihad. He's addressing a contemporary irritation–not one that has necessarily been around indefiniitely.

4. I disagree w/ you on the origins of smut! THE US is w/o question the place par excellence–and more importantly, enthusiastically (as far as the law is concerned) advertises thsi freedom. The relevant point is, however, that Muslims identify it as something coming from America (wether this is true or not).

The main points I wanted to emphasize from D'Souza's book was:

1) Muslims identify certain forms of western cultural expression as extremely offensive–namely pornography that attacks the family.

2) Most Americans disapprove–even strongly–of this pornography.

3) Rather than protect this anti-family pornography–and incurring the wrath of the Muslims–would it not be better to prevent it at home, thus not angering our Muslim neighbors and possibly strengthening the family at home?

Best,

WNA

There are as many sources of pornography as there is interest in it. That is a human failing, not a uniquely American failing. Much of that pornography showing up as spam in your email is making the rounds as much outside Western countries as within (we don't really own the net or control content). A huge amount of it comes from Asia and Africa. There is a lot of it coming from Russia and about the same from South America, Mexico and the Caribbean. Haven't you noticed that when you do an information query, what pops up first are nearby sources and the farther away sources are pages away. If you search on porn in China what pops up first then will be Chinese sourced porn and what pops up here will be primarily local porn. This is just a programming search trick embedded in the software to make what pops up relevant to each searcher. Net traffic reduction in the software also plays a role. Reaching half a planet away to find something available locally takes longer and uses more resources. Therefore, you can't take the prevalence of an American porn query launched from an American computer as an indication we produce more of this stuff than anyone else. Once again, I think you are confuting the folks who built the highway with how it is used.

Our Hollywood and television is a different matter, but if these other countries you reference have less smut in their comparable media, it is only because they censor content more than we do, not because their raging bulls are any less piqued or contributory than ours. My experience of this is censorship only succeeds in driving it underground and creating blackmarkets, but does not significantly suppress it (though severe punishment like castration does). Therefore, if Bollywood is sanitized more than Hollywood, it means their underground sex emporiums are thriving.

Muslim resistance and hostility to liberalism predates Hollywood and the Internet by more than a century. The salafist movements the modern radical movements evolved from got rolling in the mid-19th century well before the issue of who has more porno could have been germane. The old anti-imperialist rant back then was the reason given. The old-imperialist are laid to rest (though it doesn't seem to register with ideologues; and if you dig them up and give 'em a good kick they jiggle like they're still kicking), yet the seething hatred of the liberal West persists. Different eras, different excuses, same resentment.

By the bye, I am not arguing these things you find offensive to Muslim sensibilities are not in some degree offensive. Heck, I find them offensive so why shouldn't they. But, they are more our problem to deal with and no more a threat to Islam than is, say, sumo-wrestling and geishas. Why then the emphasis on Western foibles. Japanese is no threat to Islam at present and, so, no reason to find lame excuses other than the real reason which if generally known would put Islam in worse oder.

Radical-Islam's real problem is our culture of freedom. Blasting to the world they are offended by freedom and seeking to end it makes them more enemies than friends. Attacking our lax morals, on the other hand, garners them support from a broad section in agreement with that sentiment if not the conclusion it warrants flying planes into our buildings. Clearly, then the emphasis on lax morals infringing on Muslim morals is more in the way of a distraction.

Best regards, Bob

I think you should read D'Souza's book !

1) To the question of Wahhabi Islam, you'll have to read his evidence. Do the main schools of Wahhabi advocate attacking the west? This is an empirical question and may be resolved easily.

2) I disagree w/ your monolithic characterization of "Islamic" societies as such. This was why I made the passing reference to many Islamic societies as having a variety of governments and degrees of adherence to Islam. Iran today is very different from what it was in much of the 20th century, and Syria, Turkey and Iraq have secular governments. THe PLO was always wholly secular. Lebanon until 1975 was probably as decadent a place as you'd find in Middle East. All of these societies had significant Marxist movements. For complex reasons, an extreme Islamic group took over in Iran in 1979–but it is generally despised by its citizens for precisely this reason. Up until this time, most historians paid less attention to religion that other features of ME societies. Most historians would have argued that "lack of freedom" in these countries had less to do with religion than the dictatorships that ruled them. My point is that you are using an "intellectual historical" point in the distant past to perhaps avoid these more contemporary complexities.

3. I'm not sure arguing that one holy book is better than antoher holy book gets us very far. While all of us have interpretations of the scriptures (Islamic and Christian), St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are very clear in their support of forced conversion and Holy War. ONe might argue both are wrong, but we are trying to "clear" one faith vis a vis the other when it comes to violence, both speak for a majority of Christians. . .

4. I tried to avoid a debate over "what the HOly texts 'really' mean" by declaring them both "poetic" texts, ie. both contain contradictions and so their followers are free to say whatever they will about them (ie. they are of peace, or war)I'm making no claim about the "truth" of the Bible or the Koran in my review.

5. I don't understand your criticism of "anthopological" points. I think D'Souza makes a simple, very elementary one: Western societies used to value the family. Muslim societies continue to value the family. Muslims today are angry because western societies are now trying to attack their core institution. This strikes me as common sense! I call it "anthropological" because he's using the family in a sort of "trans-political" sense, ie. he's saying "pay less attention to what the ayatollahs say about us–pay attention to what we have at core in common w/ the Iranian (or Saudi) people!

6. I actually didn't miss the point on pornography. –and here the issue may easily be resolved empirically! There is one source of the world's pornography, and it's here in the USA! In fact much of what we call "prime time" TV is pornogrpahy in the rest of the world–and not just among the Muslims. However, D'Souza's point here is an esp. good oen. While you refer to "idiots" amongst us who take advantage of our freedom, D"Souza argues it's no longer enough to simply call them "idiots." There are now–not of course in the good ole US of A– consequences! The Islamic world, he argues, will no longer let us hide behind "Freedome of speech." What are we gonna do about it?! Continue to hide? Call Allen Dershowitz to protect us? Point out to Bin Laden teh "penumbra" in the (US) constitution that gives us the right to show his daughter "snuff films"? D'Souza is simply giving us a challenge!

7. D'Souza's point about the media in America being anti-family hardly needs to be disputed. That the "media" in the Islamic world is quite different also hardly can be disputed. His point is that the two are different because they reflect different values in different societies. This I find convincing.

8. (conclusion) I'm not seeing why it is so difficult to see the current American and European assault on the traditional family as provocative to the Islamic (and the rest of the, for that matter) world. However, I also find –from personal experience in part–that most people simply want to work, raise their families and go about their business. I find no reason to imagine the Islamic world–at the level of hte common citizen–is radically different. Most Christians today dont' organize their lives around the passages St. AUgustine and Aquinas thought authroized holy war–why should we assume most Muslims treat the Koran the same way?

I think there are some serious problems w/ D'Souza's argument–and Sullivan puts his finger on the main one, which is philosophical. However Sullivan takes refuge in western political philosohpy and in the name of "freedom of expression"–any freedom of expression– is willing to put the entire Islamic world to the sword. (mainly over the issue of homosexuality)D'Souza suggests we find a way to clean up the worst offenses of liberalism–namely the elite attacks on the family, or run the threat of further antagonizing the Muslims. Are you willing to take on the entire Islamic world so that "baywatch" can be streamed into every Islamic household? After all, it's a matter of "freedom of speech.?"

WNA

In the Judeo-Christian scheme of things, we acknowledge and venerate G-d; yet our theory of G-d includes the idea he made us free-agents that we may to come to him when ready. We may also lose our faith and wander off from G-d without violating Islam’s inflexible rule against apostasy (once in, no way out). However useful our points of commonality, any solution we find to the problem of jihad bis saif must take these uniquely Muslim values into account.

Besides the Koran, Islam also has a legal foundation of which most westerners are unaware. This legal tradition has resulted in a number of codes every Muslim must follow and a looser body of practices he is expected to follow. Together they comprise shari’a (law), and wherever a Muslim finds himself (be it in Muslim countries or not) he is expected to adhere. Moreover, Muslims fully expect host countries to allow Muslims to practice these laws (not merely a religion) within the confines of the host’s territory without respect to the host’s laws and without reciprocity. Where the Muslim population is small, there is not much pressure from Muslims to enforce shari’a, but where their numbers are large some one of them will invariable start a movement to impose it locally; and that’s when the trouble starts. The rest of the Muslim community (all 1.6 billion of them) can be counted on to lend whatever support is necessary to bring about the necessary change. Now, can you honestly say we ‘share’ this particular Muslim value of Islamic superposition? Or anything remotely like it?

However ‘clear’ D’sousa’s reasoning, it is not proof. How does he prove his thesis Wahhabism is not a breeding ground? The negative of a negative is not necessarily a positive. He is reasoning from inferences only, and not verifying them as exclusive of other possible causations. He makes no accounting for the proven involvement of Saudi Wahhabist groups found to support terrorism and spreading anti-Western doctrine in the lead up to 9/11. Saudi Arabia has been exporting the Wahhabist creed for decades, pouring billions of petro-dollars into Western mosques, madrassas, and outreach programs; and with western Muslims taking their technical training from us while getting their indoctrination, spiritual guidance, and marching orders from Riyadh. The Saudis continue that support today unabated and without giving much account of their activities. They don’t succeed in snaring every loyal Muslim this way into subverting his adopted country, but they don’t have to. If only a fraction of native Muslims take up the anti-western rant, return to the east for ‘specialized’ training, or berate fellow Muslims for slackness, it is enough. Therefore, Wahhabism has managed to bypass this seeming obstacle. Nor is Saudi Wahhabism the only conduit for this. The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, ISF, &c also promote salafism. Many of these operate as charitable and educational organizations, including some who receive taxpayer funding in addition to Wahhabi funding operating as NGOs. Many (including the Saudi Wahhabist groups) have been caught laundering money, recruiting, disseminating propaganda, provisioning, border violations, and providing cover for anti-Western activities. So technically, no, Wahhabism isn’t the only one, but they have certainly made the biggest contribution and had the widest influence.

Actually, it should come as no surprise to anyone, conservative or otherwise, that Wahhabism is “about discipline”. All Islam is discipline. How else describe ‘submission’ if not as a form of imposed or self-discipline? Liberalism is, by its very nature, ‘undisciplined’ as it is founded on the idea each of us has free-will to decide how disciplined or undisciplined we choose to be. Islam makes no such allowance, has been expansionist from its inception, recognizes but one sovereign (Allah), and dishes out some of the severest punishments for minor infractions known to man.

What also should come as no surprise is, as you say, that most of the ‘radical Muslim behavior’ is found here in the West. But, from this Dinesh has drawn a false conclusion. This same behavior, if acted out in a Muslim country, would be quickly suppressed. The only radical behavior tolerated in Muslim countries is anti-Western behavior. But, that is not the same as saying these Muslim radicals who act so awful here in the west do so because they are somehow different from or more radicalized than their ME brothers or have been made radical by exposure to us. Some of that is true, but not all. Mainly, they share the same underlying philosophy and intolerance as their ME brethren. The ME brothers are already immersed in the ‘approved culture’; and, therefore, have no reason to rebel, and would be suppressed in any case. The Western-residing Muslim, on the other hand, is encouraged act up; the better to ignite changes in the host country satisfactory to Islam’s objective of expanding the circle of faith. When he does, he gets immediate political backing from the mother-ship; as we saw in the case of 9/11, the London subway bombings, the Madrid train bombings, the imposition of French laws to Muslim ghettos, the Mohammed caricatures, and every other case in which Muslims react violently to hosts.

The only place we see radical-type behavior by Allah believing Muslims in the ME is directed almost exclusively against non-Muslims, between Muslim sects, or against apostates. All other violence is simply labeled ‘crime’, or else, as in the case of Israel, ‘redress of grievance’. If you factor that part of this crime and redress that which looks suspiciously identical to the ‘radical Muslim violence’ we accuse them of here, the levels are roughly equal. So, if Dinesh is buying this ‘Muslim radicals only in the West’ nonsense, it can only be he has bought into the CAIR propaganda there is no Muslim violence in the ME, and no comparable radicalism of any kind; which is true but only because suppressed. Muslim Apostates are sometimes dealt with by mobs with the sanction of ruling councils. Iraq lies on a fault-line between Sunni Baghdad and Shia Iran. This Sunni-Shia schism is the main exception to the general rule Muslims may not fight fellow Muslims, which Islam makes as its claim for ‘religion of peace’. The other places we find Muslim ‘radicalism’ are Israel, Sudan, India, the Balkans, Philippines, and anywhere Muslims come in contact with non-Muslims. Thirty years ago we had a brief spate of religious uprisings forcing ‘secular’ Muslim governments like those of Egypt to reform in greater conformity with shari’a; but, nonetheless, left some of these governments intact, possibly giving rise to the western notion the chief problem was/is not with liberalism. The notion Muslim radicalism is somehow created by liberalism’s corrosive influence and because these radicals are mostly liberal is extremely weak. In fact, it is on life support. The real problem with Islam is that any credo that challenges Islam’s core tenet of submission is a threat. It is a threat, because it is an unnatural belief for people to have of themselves and, therefore, an idea needing constant reinforcing if it is to be maintained. What we regard as radicalism in Muslims, then, is simply deeply religious, easily threatened Muslims reacting to rival philosophies with which they come in contact and fanned by their mullahs into translating belief into action. This is mistaking behavior for ideology. Radical-Islam (or, perhaps, we should call it ‘hardcore-traditional Islam’) borrows strategy and tactics from radical-liberalism, but is not itself liberal.

Around the globe, the spread of the liberal idea resulted in initial (radical) demands for greater freedom, tolerance, better treatment, and prosperity. Briefly, that happened in parts of the world under Muslim rule; but, almost immediately, movements sprung up in resistance to liberal ideas in widely separated places; and the principal irritation in all such cases was the inherent threat of free-will to Islam and Muslim rule. Some of these movements were initiated from above (from the mullahs, imams, and sheiks who direct the course of official Islam), but also from the ground up (from traditionalists recognizing in liberalism the threat to the very essence of what it means to be a Muslim – surrendering totally to Allah). They foresaw fellow Muslims enticed by freedom to the neglect of religion and reacted to that. Many of these movements were begun by religious scholars and students, or by zealots co-opting the teachings of scholars. Among the former was Wahhabism; among the latter and far more widespread are movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, and Qutbism.

I’m sorry, but “… find almost anything in the Koran – as you can in the Bible” is an argument almost as old as slogans. That doesn’t make it accurate. There is no interpretation anyone but an idiot can put on the New Testament that it condones religiously inspired violence. It could be put on the Old Testament, but not to the degree it can be used to justify global religious domination. Where it does appear is in the Jewish re-conquest of tribal lands lost while in Egyptian captivity, and applies only to those lands. The justification used was those lands were specifically promised by G-d to Abraham and Israel to their descendants for all time. That’s it. Where Jesus spoke of violence, it was to teach peace. Both Jesus and Paul spoke eloquently and unambiguously against such justifications, whether in defense of religion or states. Yes, his was a continuation of the ‘old religion’, but he radically altered the terms of that religion from then forward. We Jews do not accept Jesus as a god the way Christians do (on the Greek model of deifying kings), but that does not mean we do not revere the lessons he taught the world. Many have tried to torture his meaning to find justification for their religious wars, but every such attempt is trumped by overwhelming scriptural confirmation of this core Christian belief in nonviolence. Therefore, whenever Christian zealots took to fighting anyway, they were not acting in accord with Christ’s message. They were acting in accord with some other motivation and scouring scripture to give them legitimacy. You don’t have to look anywhere near that hard finding it in the Koran or Hadith. Nor was this change confined to Christianity because Judaism suffered a mass exodus of converts to the new religion forcing it to change also. We incorporated the peace of Jesus into later compilations, enshrining it as deeply as other tenets of our religion. Judaism’s great idea was freedom in religion, Christianity’s great idea was peace built on the love of men for each other. For several centuries this new paradigm held and the Roman world saw a measurable decrease in the number and ferocity of conflicts. The only significant threat to peace in this period arose out of the territorial aspirations of Persia and Byzantium of which Western Europe and large parts of north Africa played little part. Other squabbles were petty, local, and territorial.

Then, in the seventh century, a new and aggressive religion erupted out of Arabia, butchering and pillaging in the name of Allah, destabilizing the peace of Rome and the hegemonies of Byzantium and Persia, and weakening the resolve of Christians to act Christian. Europe learned again how to fight and, in the process incorporated much of the new religion’s scriptural ideology as well as its more successful martial methods and techniques for governance.

Unlike Jesus, Mohammed was not a teacher of peace but of war for the advancement of his god and personal glory, incidentally accruing considerable power and perks to himself. His successors continued spreading his religion (mainly by means of war, reduction in status, and threats of death), pillaging, and massacring those unfit to serve them as slaves, and laying waste to large tracts that took centuries to recover (some never have because of the indifference that rigidly imposed Islam induces, lack of freedom does that to people).

There is nothing dubious in my interpretation of the Koran. It is the interpretation hardcore, unapologetic Muslims give it, and which very few ‘moderate’ Muslims bother denying. If this is just some ‘dubious interpretation I picked up’, why aren’t Islamic scholars rushing to defend it. They don’t because the evidence is available to us and has a nasty habit of putting their religion in bad odor the more it is revealed. Until the 19th century with the triumph of liberalism, Muslim chroniclers delighted in publishing the exploits of a patron sheik in whose service they fawned. These chroniclers detailed a trail of blood a mile wide and spanning three continents for us to read of infidel deaths measured in the tens and hundreds of thousands, year after year and century after century. Since that time and because Islam fell on hard times and disrepute, a different spin has been put on Islam to dispel the odor and making it more acceptable to post-modern sensibilities. I have no doubt a great many modern Muslims accept this spin as gospel, but the undeniable record of Islam is and remains a long succession of religious military campaigns waged in the name of Allah without remorse and in which rival religion is suppressed, spoils and slaves are divvied up, and against which the thirst for freedom has proved a major obstacle in the way of restoring it to former glory. European Christian history may not bear scrutiny all that much better, but it is false putting very much of the blame for that on your religion; a religion which, if anything, tempered European aggression relative to Muslim aggression, and more so the more it is understood and valued.

Anthropological arguments are attempts to equate unequal things in the belief we can reduce all things ‘scientifically’. To be accurate they are far more useful for understanding ourselves (a subject we can get our brains around) than understanding others. This is because they start from 'us' rather than from where we ought be looking to understand 'them' which is them. Understanding 'them' is always much harder and, so, we resort to anthropologic shortcuts. These type arguments have always suffered massively from the tendency of humans to project our own values onto others to satisfy an innate desire to be liked. No sooner is one of these arguments made then it is pounced on as the solution to every social problem or disagreement that is far more easily understood on its own terms. We don’t need fancy, vague, feel-good anthropological arguments to understand Islam or its angst.

You missed my point regarding pornography entirely which was Islam is no more the source of pornography than we are and, conversely, we are no more or less to blame. Pornography is as old as cave paintings and found in every culture. My point is we have nothing to apologize to Muslims (or anyone else for that matter) for having allowed our own idiots the freedom to express themselves in this regard. There are websites in some Muslim countries that pander to vice every bit as much as ours do, and their misuse of the Internet started around the same time. It is only in the more rigid Muslim countries where it has been successfully suppressed; yet, even there, human weakness somehow prevails. Our culpability is limited to the fact we built the networks. But that is like blaming Henry Ford because people do stupid things while driving cars. Calling us the source of the problems, then, is just scapegoating.

Every culture on the planet has the “institution of the family”. The Russians are very big into family and always have been. That did not keep them from embracing a murderous ideology did it? Were they any less into family because they were commies? How about the drug cartels? They are very big into families too. Does that mean we share a similar worldview or should relax and forget they are flooding our country with dangerous substances targeting mainly children? No other cultural or religion on earth condones its children being used as bombs or human-shields as does Islam. Nor is this a new phenomenon. The term ‘assassin’ (hashshashin) derives from an ancient Persian Muslim sect that acquired children (usually abducted) which they then drugged with hashish and brainwashed as human weapons. They preferred children because it is harder convincing adults into suicidal attacks. The Ottomans did much the same with Janissaries which were taken as children from mostly Christian families and raised to become soldiers fighting other Christians and pagans. Please tell me how Dinesh reconciles the love these people have for their children (which is real enough) with using these same children as weapons in all its religious wars, and how we should then 'relate to that'.

Islam is not that hard to understand. It began as the pseudo-religion of a delusional misfit who desperately wanted respect. He borrowed ideas from Jewish, Christian and Persian visitors as well as from local tribal religions, all of which he managed to mangle rather badly in translation, and went about preaching to anyone who would listen. Apparently, he was pretty insufferable about it and, although he managed to gather a small following, was thrown out for his troublemaking; and felt humiliated and unappreciated. So, he plotted revenge against his former Meccan neighbors and uncles, preached his religion (fortified with promises of plunder) to a bunch of sand-pirates, plundered and murdered Meccan (and other) caravans, modified his religious narrative to cover his altered tactics, made up stories about his enemies, built up a following strong enough to take the Meccans head on and ultimately defeat them, and eliminated rivals and anyone the least threatening to his sanctimonious authority. Along the way, he built up a myth of invincibility he used to encourage his warriors and used his direct personal relation with Allah to keep them in line. He also kept the best plunder for himself as ‘most worthy’, and made up special rules (e.g., unlimited wives for himself) applying to him alone for all time straight from Allah’s mouth to his ear. He arbitrated for himself the position of final and only spokesman to insure no one could ever take his place then or later.

Fortunately for his legacy, he died before he could do much to blow his cover. His henchmen then took turns assuming the mantle and polishing the record the better to keep power. About a hundred years after Mohammed’s death, some serious theologians got hold of Islam and turned it into the more sophisticated religion we know; and, so, it remained until forced by modernity and overexposure into reducing the emphasis on things like jihad and plunder. One of the things those early theologians did was change the order of the text, putting increased emphasis on spiritual duties but doing nothing to reduce the priority Mohammed and those first caliphs placed on expanding Islam’s reach by conquest. For awhile, there were multiple versions of the Koran floating around, but someone in authority realized that wouldn’t do and had all but one version suppressed. They may also have taken some ‘poetic license’ with Mohammed’s prose because there is little evidence he had a literary background or naturally poetic inclination (do know he could write and be persuasive, but poetry probably wouldn’t have worked on his sand-pirates). True believers, of course, insist the words and poetry are Allah’s, which, of course, is entirely possible but I can’t see the Creator would choose such a one as Mohammed as representative. Those ‘peaceful’ poetic passages we see in the Koran and placed toward the end were putatively written entirely during Mohammed’s Meccan period before he got thrown out and at a time he was trying to win converts with honey, and following the script that seemed to work so well for those other more successful religions. The bloodthirsty parts he wrote later on to justify multiple massacres and convinced of his own sanctity, and, so are out of chronological order in the final product.

My response does not equate liberalism with “far-left, anti-family values”. I am using liberalism in the context of ‘classic-liberalism’ which is nothing like the modern spin we give the term ‘liberalism’. Islam despises secularism because it supposes itself the champion of religion, but hates freedom because freedom blows its cover and stands in the way of its ultimate object – total domination of human society and religious thought. You are trying to understand Islam’s animosity with the West in Western terms, and I am pretty sure that is neither possible nor relevant. Islam can be more easily understood and dealt with as a shaky proposition whose adherents are desperately preventing it falling apart and who see us as causing that to happen. We went through much the same thing with communism and much the same ‘anthropological’ arguments were bandied both trying to make sense of that nonsense and lending it cover.

Of course, I could be all wrong or inhabiting another universe where good is bad and bad is lavender. ;-)

I want you to know I am really enjoying this exchange and that we are covering so much ground that needs covering. Luminous ball is entitled to his point and I won't disagree with him we have made some mistakes, but it doesn't help getting stuck in rant and he is not going to get very far insisting on painting things blacker than reality warrants.