Doc's Talk

Monday, October 16, 2006

The Differences Among Us-Part Two
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
October 16, 2006

My basic premise is that there are significant differences between the Judeo-Christian culture and the Islamic culture. It is these perceived and interpreted differences that are the root cause of much of today’s terror and violence perpetrated against the West. Understanding that differences do exist, acknowledging that they exist and then being willing to take appropriate actions is the reason we must finally face this clear and present danger. Proper identification of the problem is the only way one can develop appropriate and effective answers. To continue to inaccurately identify the problem or to ignore or deny its existence can only mean we are unwilling to defend our way of life. I submit for consideration that this is our generation’s trial and, therefore, test.1

The context of this piece is to identify some of the overt behavioral differences between the Judeo-Christian and Muslim cultures. The author has no intention of indicating that the behaviors are doctrine driven; rather I do suggest that they are demonstrative of the influence each group’s culture has upon their resultant actions. For purposes of the discussion the following definition of culture has again been used:

“The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression…The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization”.2

Knowledge, experiences, and interactions with people enable a person to develop his/her own personal belief system. Setting aside the role religion plays in development of one’s beliefs, the socialization and education of an individual certainly helps one form a point of view. The result of forming opinions about life, others and sense of morality is acted out as behavior that is reinforced by the participant’s social group. We are who we are in part because of whom we live with and with whom we develop. Mix in religious teachings and the essence of a human being is formed.

We, in America, understand this simple explanation of why people are different from one another. Those of us who grew up in the East find it odd, different and even difficult to live in the West-the way of life is so disparate from one another. On the other hand how many stories have we each heard about the native Californian deciding to leave his/her life, move to another state, only to return to California within 5 years. The reason so often given: “I just could not adapt to their way of thinking or acting-I needed to come home.” This is witnessed around our country daily and we even have developed a sense of humor about it. Therefore, it is quite easy to understand that our views and values, the manner in which we choose to live are significantly different from those people who live in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Malaysia - to identify but a few countries. Everything from how we dress, to what we eat, to how we greet people to behavioral expectations between men and women and so much more is as different as the sun and the moon. To dismiss that these differences exist is naïve and ignorant. To chastise those who point out the differences is demonstrative of one’s failure to tell the truth. It seems lately that identifying differences automatically puts one into a category of being intolerant or racist. What a pity, to tell the truth is the ethical and moral duty of a good person.

The USA is perhaps the largest example of an ongoing social experiment. We are still in the process of learning how to live cooperatively with so many different groups of people choosing to become part of our culture. We are still figuring it out. What has been missing for some time is what does it mean to be an American? A return to this discussion is crucial. I will offer only this: our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and beliefs; we believe that English should be the primary language, we developed a Constitution grounded in the aforementioned values and we believe in a multitude of freedoms. From this foundation an entire American lifestyle has emerged-the result of commonly held beliefs –assimilation is still going on each day by people from many cultures. A code of operational behaviors is the result of the commonly held values. These translate into daily behaviors such as greetings, foods, speaking styles and clothing lines. Our life philosophy and thus our daily behavior is based upon the sum total of all the experiences we have had until today; we act in accordance with these. People are simply different.

It may be due to my own life perspicacity but I for one love the Western culture I live in and I choose it for my children and grandchildren. I do not support another culture coming into my country of origin and imposing itself upon me. I was taught from the time I could talk to always respect another’s person’s home and to not impose our family’s “way of doing things” on them. As I have traveled the world, I have adopted the same attitude. The fact is that visiting many other countries, particularly those in the Middle East and South Asia where Islam is the dominant religion, it is imperative that one not impose on others his/her “homegrown” behaviors; the consequences are severe. Yet, today, it is some practioners of Islam who want to impose their entire way of life upon us. The following represents only the tip of the iceberg:

The Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society, an organization the Chicago Tribune has established is devoted to turning the United States into a country run by Islamic law. The wife of a former head of the organization, for example, has explained that its goal is "to educate everyone about Islam and to follow the teachings of Islam with the hope of establishing an Islamic state."3

“The government of Saudi Arabia is distributing books and pamphlets across the United States in an effort to recruit American Muslims to an international struggle against Christians and Jews, the director of a religious freedom organization told the Senate Judiciary Committee Nov. 8.”4

Omar M. Ahmad Chairman of CAIR made the following statement a few years ago, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." To be fair, I must note that CAIR announced that Omar Ahmad denied making the statement and CAIR was seeking a retraction from the newspaper that published the story on July 4, 1998. As a follow up side note Steve Waterhouse, editor of The Argus in Fremont, Calif., told WND his paper has not been contacted by CAIR. The article of denial also was run in a sister publication, the San Ramon Valley Herald. The paper's city editor, Dave Boitano, said he would have known if CAIR had sought a retraction. Interesting strategy CAIR employs.

Imam Siraj Wahaj, a CAIR board member, who is one of the most respected American Muslim leaders and is vice president of the Islamic Society of North America. Dr. Daniel Pipes reports that he "calls for replacing the U.S. government with a caliphate."

Still more efforts by Saudi Arabia to Spread (Wahhabi) Islam :
· "…The determination of the Kingdom to support Islam and Islamic institutions to the best of its ability was evident from the formation of the Kingdom by King Abdul Aziz but it was only when oil revenues began to generate real wealth that the Kingdom could fulfill its ambitions of spreading the word of Islam to every corner of the world, of assisting Muslim countries less well endowed economically and of alleviating the suffering of Muslim minorities wherever they might live."
· Efforts in the U.S."The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under the leadership of King Fahd Ibn Abd Al-Aziz, has given support to the following institutions in the United States:
· Dar Al-Salam Institute, the Fresno Mosque in California
· Islamic Center in Colombia, Missouri
· Islamic Center in East Lansing, Michigan
· Islamic Center in Los Angeles, California
· Islamic Center in New Brunswick, New Jersey
· Islamic Center in New York
· Islamic Center in Tida, Maryland
· Islamic Center in Toledo, Ohio
· Islamic Center in Virginia
· Islamic Center in Washington
· Islamic Cultural Center in Chicago
· King Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles
· Mosque of the Albanian Community in Chicago
· South-West Big Mosque of Chicago
· Omar Ibn Al-Khattab Mosque in Los Angeles." 5
For your consideration: It is Islam and its practioners who proactively attempt and often demand to see to it that the international community operates under the veil of Islam. There is a major difference between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. “Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world… Judaism speaks about national salvation… Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sins. Islam says "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."6
The language we use is different as well as interpreted differently. There are many common day examples. Here in Israel what is reported in English to the media is reported the exact opposite in Arabic. Peace for our culture means to accept the other party, tolerate and empower the person and truly believe that conflict is over. In the Islamic world of interpretation there is but a hudna - temporary lull. Once the leaders feel they have more than enough power they immediately attack-there is no such concept as “peace”.
Even during wartime the West operates within certain rules or laws. “The civilized world believes in democracy, the rule of law, including international law, human rights, free speech and free press, among other liberties. There are naive old-fashioned habits such as respecting religious sites and symbols, not using ambulances and hospitals for acts of war, avoiding the mutilation of dead bodies and not using children as human shields or human bombs.”7
“The problem is that the civilized world is still having illusions about the rule of law in a totally lawless environment. It is trying to play ice hockey by sending a ballerina ice-skater into the ring or to knock out a heavyweight boxer by a chess player… The amazing thing is that all of these crooks demand protection under international law, and define all those who attack them as "war criminals," with some Western media repeating the allegations.”7
Judaism and Christianity are religions unto themselves. Not so with Islam. Nagdi Allam, born in Egypt, and today vice editor of the Corriere della Sera wrote that the root of evil was in the blind ideology of hatred by some Muslims, an ideology that was raping the faith…The problem is an internal Islamic problem since extremists have transformed the faith in God into an ideology which wants to impose a theocratic and totalitarian regime, he concluded.8
“Islam is not a religion as most Westerners understand it. For the Western media and apologetic thinkers, Islam is compared to Christianity, and Muslim groups in the European and American countries are defined as religious communities… But Islam is not a religion in this “narrow” sense. It is much more than that. It is a system of law, it is a social and political system; it is a way of life. It has full control over the behavior of the individual, the society, and the state. It deals with war and peace, it defines the relations between the Moslems and the rest of the world, and as we saw, it also determines the attitude to non-Muslims who are unfortunate enough to come under Islamic rule.”9
In the West we believe in freedom of speech, which includes criticizing as well as accepting criticism. This behavior comes directly from our Judeo-Christian values. This is absolutely not accepted nor true for many practicing Islam. The current examples are the Muslim world’s reactions to the Danish cartoons, to the words of a Pope quoting another writer and a teacher in France who has gone into hiding after receiving death threats. His offense? He published a column in the French newspaper Le Figaro in which he characterized the Muslim prophet Muhammad as “a merciless war chief, plunderer, slaughterer of Jews and a polygamist.”
The resultant behavior of this poor man’s honesty and accurate statement is the following:
Redeker said that one of the threats he received stated: “You will never feel secure on this earth. One billion, three hundred thousand Muslims are ready to kill you.” As the death threats poured in, everyone abandoned Redeker. The teacher himself noted that France’s education ministry “has not even contacted me, has not deigned to get in touch to see if I need any help.” The senior editor of Le Figaro, Pierre Rousselin, declared on Al-Jazeera that he had been mistaken to publish Redeker’s article, and hastened to assure the Islamic world that the article did not reflect the opinion of the paper.”10 Allow me to suggest that the Islamic rhetoric still seems to cause some people to lose any sense of ethics as well as any remaining courage they might have had.
It seems to me that the concept and application of multi-culturalism has had some unintended consequences-at least I hope they were unintended. For example, those of us who question the belief that everyone can live together peacefully are labeled anti this and “-ist” that; even in the hallowed halls of my academia I cannot have a reasonable discussion when I challenge my colleagues on this point. We have created a social consciousness that has invented “political correctness” as an operational behavior in our daily speaking lives. People are fearful of upsetting someone else or goodness gracious offending someone. This has lead to “passive acceptance” of others behavioral practices. We are not standing up to or by our internal behavioral principles. The consequences to each of us are enormous. The regretful results are dangerous to our country. Curiously political correctness does not seem to be part of other peoples’ culture and thus they are not bound by it. However, it is used against us and has highlighted our Achilles heel.
Finally, the concept of 'Pre-emptive obedience' is making a comeback in re-unified Germany and several other European countries. What is this? In Communist East Germany this meant guessing the future orders of the politburo and obeying them before they were issued. There have been many examples of this recently in Europe, although it has also presented itself in America.11 Here are but a few:
· It was based on "pre-emptive obedience" that the German Opera in Berlin decided to cancel its production of Mozart's Idomeneo after the managers decided that it might anger Muslims.
· In Spain, folkloric ceremonies and carnivals marking the expulsion of the Moors from Andalusia have been cancelled in all but a handful of villages, ending a 400-year old tradition.
· In most European countries, an official black of list of books has emerged, containing works deemed to be "hurtful to Muslim sentiments".11
This particular author cites many more examples of this behavior. The following line shouts at us: The practitioners of "pre-emptive obedience" often claim they are acting in accordance with the best principles of multiculturalism.11
It is time to awaken if one is asleep and for those who understand it is time to secure some courage and stand by the principles by which we live.

End Notes

Morris, GS Don ‘The Differences Among Us,” posted www.PRIMER.org, Oct. 10,2006
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
“Apple’s Mecca project provokes Muslim reaction,” http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD131506, Oct. 11,2006
William Matthews, “Saudi books aim to divide U.S. Muslims, infidels, Congress told”, http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1232073.php , Nov. 20, 2005
'Billions Spent by Saudi Royal Family to Spread Islam to Every Corner of the Earth', MEMRI, March 27, 2002.
Moshe Sharon, “Agenda of Islam”, referenced in “The Differences Among Us”.
Haim Harari, “A View from the Eye of the Storm”,
Sergio I. Minerbi, “Is it good for the West?” Jerusalem Post, September 18, 2006
Moshe Sharon, Reviving the Caliphate, October, 2006
Robert Spencer, The Philosopher and the Fatwa, Front Page, Oct. 2, 2006
Amir Taheri, 'Pre-emptive obedience' at work, http://www.gulfnews.com/, Oct.12,2006

Special thank you to my editor-Chana Givon
See more at: http://docstalk.blogspot.com

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.