Here is a sample-
“How are we supposed to know who our enemies are?” I turned and growled at him. “The world is a complex place. Morality is a complex thing.”
“Your enemy is he who will give his life to kill you,” said the Time Traveler. “Your enemies are they that wish you and your children and your grandchildren dead and who are willing to sacrifice themselves, or support those fanatics who will sacrifice themselves, to see you and your institutions destroyed. You haven’t figured that out yet – the majority of you fat, sleeping, smug, infinitely stupid Americans and Europeans.”
He stood and set the Scotch glass back in its place on my sideboard. “How, we wonder in my time,” he said softly, “can you ignore the better part of a billion people who say aloud that they are willing to kill your children . . . or condone and celebrate the killing of them? And ignore them as they act on what they say? We do not understand you.”
This is something that should be disseminated far and wide. LGF calls it "the must read of the week, possibly the year". I'll second that- Go read it now. And then sent it to everyone you know.
6 comments:
Simmons seems to have left a couple of lines out of his story. Let me add them:
“According to their own writings, which we all know well in my day,” continued the Time Traveler, “ ‘Hadith Malik 511:1588 The last statement that Muhammad made was: "O Lord, perish the Jews and Christians. They made churches of the graves of their prophets. There shall be no two faiths in Arabia.’"
I started to speak, but there was more. The Time Traveller continued, taking a copy of the Torah from his pocket. "'I will give to you and to your descendants after you the land in which you are now staying, the whole land of Canaan, as a permanent possession; and I will be their God.'" He read. "These two quotes from two books, coupled with bullheaded people who believed words more important than peace with their neighbours, created the Century War."
Funny, I can't remember the last time I heard a rabbi calling for war against the infidels, or for them wanting to see the Star of David hanging over the Houses of Parliament or the White House.
There's no global expansionist ideology in the Jewish faith. Can the same thing be said about Islam?
As for "peace with their neighbours" Israel isn't advocating the destruction of the Arab states around them. The reverse however, is true.
Fair reply; my point mostly is that Simmons' work is one-sided propaganda, and that demonising one side of any struggle won't add to the possibility of a peaceful resolution. It's a shame, as I kinda thought Simmons was more intelligent than that. Bullheaded people thinking they're right and the other side is wrong is pretty much non-denominational and it's there that the problem lies, not in any particular religion or racial grouping.
I will, however, disagree with one point of yours, however:
As for "peace with their neighbours" Israel isn't advocating the destruction of the Arab states around them. ; this seems not to be the case - at least in the opinion of much of the rest of the world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3517587.stm
When has Israel ever advocated the destruction of its neighbours? That country has been subject to terrorist attacks and invasion for decades. It has every right to defend its citizens from such threats.
Dan Simmons' story isn't one sided propaganda- terrorism of the Islamic variety exists all around the world- the Islamic terrorists on the Phillipines have nothing to do with Israel.
And it's interesting that you bring Israel into the argument- as if the existence of that state is somehow linked to the ideology of jihad.
The justification given by these people is rooted in their religion. As Simmons points out in the story "can you ignore the better part of a billion people who say aloud that they are willing to kill your children . . . or condone and celebrate the killing of them? And ignore them as they act on what they say?"
The terrorists themselves are giving us their justification for what they are doing- and it's not politics, it's their religion.
How can we pursue a peaceful resolution with a group that sees us as unclean kafirs? With a group whose own holy book admonishes them not to take Christians and Jews as their friends?
Sadly, Simmons' story is rather sorry racist propaganda; like I say, I'd've expected better of a writer of his calibre, but some of the Islamic Jihad bobbins in 'Olympos' should have put me wise to this particular bee in his bonnet.
The justification given by these people is rooted in their religion. As Simmons points out in the story "can you ignore the better part of a billion people who say aloud that they are willing to kill your children . . . or condone and celebrate the killing of them?
Well, if there really were the better part of a billion people saying that, I've no doubt I'd be worried. Many Muslims live in parts of the world where people routinely go armed and a billion people rising up with Kalashnikovs would indeed give me pause for thought. However, thankfully they aren't. Experience has taught me that the vast majority of people, irrespective of creed, colour, race or religion just want to be left alone to live their lives peacefully, and it's the minorotiy of people who think they're right and the next guy is automatically wrong - of any creed - who seem to end up in charge. Sadly, it's ordinary folks like me who seem to get caught in the crossfire when said blockheads kick off.
Simply blaming the religion is short-sighted, to say the least; Dubai and the UAE aren't on any list of nations sponsoring terrorism, but they're the ones who've been smart enough to spend their oil money on developing an infrastructure and a skilled middle class. The Al-Quaeda sponsors, like the Saudis, are using Jihad as an excuse to shift the blame onto the west for the penury of their populations, as the rulers of those nations don't really want to admit to their people that the real reason they're poor is because the oil revenues have been spent on Rolls-Royces and Russian prostitutes. That's politics - painting it green and slapping a crescent on it doesn't change it.
How will I get on with someone who regards me as a dirty Kaffir? Presumably the same way I get on with the guy who runs the shop round the corner from me; by going into his shop, buying fags and booze, and bitching with him about Tony Blair whilst sharing a couple of cigarettes.
Talking to people and treating them as people is the best way to build bridges; not writing inflammatory nonsense under the cover of SF.
I'd point you at Robert Young Pelton's "The World's Most Dangerous Places", as he's a better writer than I am and is also rather better informed.
Racist? Really? Can you tell me what race Muslims are? Is that the same or different from the Christian race?
You seem to equate terrorism with poverty- startling considering that many of the terrorists we're facing are university educated and middle class. Poverty is not the cause of this. These people consider themselves to be involved in a jihad, not a quest for equality, socialised health care or anything vaguely similar.
Again, you're ignoring the words coming from their own mouths. And replacing it with your own conception of why they are doing what they do.
Sure, it would be great to just go and talk to the guy who thinks you're a kafir. But are you really going to change the way he thinks by being a nice reasonable guy- when his beliefs, the literal word of his god, tell him not to befriend you, that you are less than he is, that your proper place in society is as a subjugated second-class citizen.
I'm amazed that you consider Simmons writing to be inflammatory- and not the endless terrorist atrocities committed in the name of a religion which teaches its adherants that they are obliged to take part in jihad.
Consider for a moment the Free Muslims Against Terrorism- when they held an anti-terrorist event in the US about a dozen people turned up. Contrast it with the anti-cartoon protest in London: there were more people threatening death and destruction there than at the entire FMAT rally.
I keep hearing about a "majority of moderates" but I've yet to see it.
One of the clerics calling for Abdul Rahman's execution in Afghanistan was a moderate who had spoken out against the Taliban.
Why not spend a week reading Dhimmi Watch, Jihad Watch and Little Green Footballs. You can even ignore the comments made by the writers if you don't agree with it, but do try and pay attention to what the Islamists themselves are saying.
Post a Comment