James Dobson says we're at war with Muslims. Well, not all of them, maybe 4% of them.

Generalizing about Islam based on the actions and intents of Islamists is a dangerous game. Pretty much the one Osama set out to start, actually.

Comments

[Cara Michele]

From the link you provided:

"Mr. Dobson, chairman and founder of Focus on the Family, made it clear that he doesn't think all Muslims want to kill Americans. But he said there is a percentage -- even if it's only 4 percent, or close to 50 million people -- who do."

"He made it clear..." and following doesn't sound at all like a generalization. It sounds to me as if he was careful to clarify his statement. Was there something else you heard that concerned you? Perhaps something from a different source?

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

It only took 19 to turn our world totally upside down. And Osama, boogie-man that his is, is only one man. I wonder what "percentage" of Muslims that is. And if it IS microscopic, then why haven't the BILLIONS in the very quiet majority of that "peace-loving" religion done something to stop the insanity? And isn't that a large part of why Osama got what he wanted?

[sean coon]

50 million people, with the aggression and dedication of a bin laden or his crew? i highly doubt it.

cara michele, please don't play the game as to whether or not dobson was being precise in the delivery of his statement. that 4% figure is absolutely a generalization. if anyone wants to back it, please, i'd love to hear the details of your rationale and/or research.

there's a threat of extremism out there, but playing the neo-con game of a self-fulfilling prophesy is dangerous to say the least.

[Ed Cone]

Yes, they are Muslims, but we're not fighting them because they are Muslims, we're fighting them because they are Islamists who attacked us (except of course for the ones in Iraq, who did not attack us). The Islamists would love to make this the broader fight at which Dobson's rhetoric hints.

It took a lot more than 19 people to perpetrate 9/11. That's why we took out the Taliban.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

1.2 billion is the last estimate I heard of the number of Muslims on the planet (and I just did an brief Internet search to be sure) - that being about 22 percent of the world's population. It seems to me that if they are a religion dedicated to peace, what the majority doesn't have in aggression, they could make up in numbers - and nip a lot of this murderous "Islamism" in the bud.

Yes it did take a lot more than 19 people to perpetrate 9/11. Many sat on the sidelines. Many sat in the dark. Many had their heads under a desk.

[Cara Michele]

Sean, I'm not playing a game. I can't speak for James Dobson, and I'm not defending his statement, but I think he was was very clear and he didn't generalize, and Dr. Mary's first comment pretty much sums up what I think he was trying to say in the first place, whether people agree with him or not.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

We may be one down. If the link cited in one of Bubba's posts today is right, the "sulfur" smell that Hugo Chavez said he wifted on the UN podium was not leftovers from President Bush . . . but actually the result of fumes escaping when Hell split wide open to accept Osama Bin Laden into the fold.

[Phil Melton]

The main thing wrong with Dobson's statement is his potential downplaying of the Islamic threat by using a 4% figure as a guesstimate.

Everyone who doubts this should read Sam Harris' piece from the Sept. 18th Los Angeles Times, titled:
"Head-in-the-Sand Liberals
Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists."

A particularly cogent observation from the essay:

"A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.

Unfortunately, such religious extremism is not as fringe a phenomenon as we might hope. Numerous studies have found that the most radicalized Muslims tend to have better-than-average educations and economic opportunities.

Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb — and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise. And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism."

[Bubba]

"......And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism."

It's nothing that can't be solved by showering them with gifts of puppies and ice cream, and flowers, and just LISTENING to them, and all joining hands around the campfire to the tune of a rousing chorus of the Joan Baez version of "Kumbaya", or the Harry Belafonte version of "Michael Row the Boat Ashore".

Isn't that apparent? I thought EVERYBODY knew that!

[Ed Cone]

There are many factors that allow Islamists to gain adherents and foot soldiers.

I don't know who these nameless "liberals" are who don't take the threat of Islamist terror seriously. People in New York City probably understand the threat on a more visceral level than most of us, yet they are typically cast as "liberal" and in fact voted for Kerry in '04.

It is inaccurate to correlate an understanding of the threat with an embrace of Dobson's rhetoric or the policies it serves.

[Bubba]

"It is inaccurate to correlate an understanding of the threat with an embrace of Dobson's rhetoric or the policies it serves."

It's not the "understanding' of the threat that really concerns Dobson and others, it's the MISUNDERSTANDING of the threat, and counter productive use of that misunderstanding that's a matter for concern.

[Phil Melton]

"There are many factors that allow Islamists to gain adherents and foot soldiers.

I don't know who these nameless "liberals" are who don't take the threat of Islamist terror seriously. People in New York City probably understand the threat on a more visceral level than most of us, yet they are typically cast as "liberal" and in fact voted for Kerry in '04.

It is inaccurate to correlate an understanding of the threat with an embrace of Dobson's rhetoric or the policies it serves."

The main factor enabling Islamists to gain footsoldiers is the inherent nature of their religious ideology. Muhammmad was not a person after the fashion of Moses or Christ. He was a militarist and a warrior. Submission to dhimmitude, conversion, or death are the options for non-Muslims. The notion that Islam is a group of millions of Unitarian wannabes that has been hijacked by a few extremists is nonsense. The strain of Islam that Sayyid Qutb propagated was not his invention. It was a calling of the faith back to its roots. This is one reason it has flourished.

The people of New York certainly experienced the fruit of Islam more viscerally than the majority of the country, but that does not mean they understand it more (with the exceptions of the Police and Fire departments).

And as far as correlating an understanding of the Muslim threat with embracing Dobson's rhetoric or policies, that's not something Harris, a self styled liberal and atheist, does.