Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on February 09, 2006, 09:56:47 AM
-
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004455.htm
-
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004455.htm
I had a danish this morning but I guess that doesn't count. I will have a Carlsberg tonight ;)
-
Not only did my father live in Denmark for 10+ years, he was also a spokesman for Carlsberg for a while. Not shortage of Pro-Danish sentiment around our house.
-
my girlfriend works 4 a danish woman who sells products from denmark and sweden. i guess that counts! :lol:
i cant believe the reaction from this cartoon. wow what a world. how can the muslem world justify such an extreme response 2 A CARTOON!??!?!
has anyone seen it? i want 2 c it just 4 curiosity?s(sp?) sake.
-
Here is a good discussion of the controversy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons
As well as links to the cartoons.
-
On the Danish muslim cartoons:
I believe there is a need for censorship within the public/media and greater discipline/respect for other people and their beliefs. I am not a muslim yet I have seen and found the cartoons to be offensive, just as i find cartoons of Jesus offensive, the same as I find people trashing (not having lively discussion, flat out rubbishing it) my choices in martial arts or anything else.
But this whole deal of violent protests is over the top and they need to remeber they are just Cartoons, and if you don't like the cartoons just put the paper at the bottom of the bird cage.
-
no censorship, just respect.
... anyway, buy Danish!
-
Respect? Good idea!
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm
I've seen more and worse, but these are what come to hand right now , , ,
-
Losing Civilization
Are we going to tolerate the downfall of Western ideals?
The great wealth and leisure created by modern technology have confused some in the modern age into thinking that history is linear. We expect that each generation will inevitably improve upon the last, as if we, the blessed of the 21st century, would never chase out Anaxagoras or execute Socrates ? or allow others to do so ? in our modern polis.
Often such material and moral advancement proves true ? look at the status of brain surgery now and 100 years ago, or the notion of equality under the law in 1860 and in 2006.
But just as often civilization can regress. Indeed, it can be nearly lost in a generation, especially so now, with technology acting as an afterburner of sorts which warps the rate of change, both good and bad.
Who would have thought, after the Enlightenment and the advance of humanism, that a 20th-century Holocaust would redefine the 500-year-old Inquisition as minor in comparison?
Did we envision that, little more than 60 years after Dachau, a head-of-state would boast openly about wiping out the remaining Jews? Or did we ever believe in the time of the United Nations and religious tolerance that radical Muslims would still be seriously promising to undo the Reconquista of the 15th century?
Did any sane observer dream, in the era of UNESCO and sophisticated global cultural heritage preservation, that the primitive Taliban would blow up and destroy, with impunity, the iconic Buddhist statues chiseled into the sandstone cliffs of Bamiyan that had survived 1,700 years of war, earthquakes, conquests, and weather?
Surely those who damned the inadvertent laxity of the Americans in not stopping others from looting the Baghdad museum should have expressed far greater outrage at the far greater, and intentional, destruction inflicted by the Taliban. Unless, that is, the issue of artistic freedom and preservation was never really the principle after all, but only the realistic calculation that, while George Bush's immensely powerful military would not touch a finger of its loudest critic, a motley bunch of radical Islamic fascists might well blow someone up or lop off his head for a tasteless caricature in far off Denmark.
The latest Islamic outrage over the Danish cartoons represents an erosion in the very notion of Western tolerance. Years ago, the death sentence handed down to Salman Rushdie was the dead canary in the mine. It should have warned us that the Western idea of free and unbridled expression, so difficultly won, can be so easily lost.
While listening to the obfuscations of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw about the Danish cartoons, I thought that next he was going to call for a bowdlerization of Dante's Inferno, where Dante and Virgil in the eighth rung of Hell gaze on the mutilated specters of Mahomet and his son Ali, along with the other Sowers of Discord. I grew up reading the text with the gruesome illustrations of Gustave Dor?. Can Straw now damn that artist's judgment as well, when the next imam threatens global jihad, more terrorism, an oil cut-off, or to make things worse for Anglo-American troops who are trying to bring democracy to Iraq?
Surely he can apologize that the cross of the Union Jack offends British Muslims? Or perhaps the memory of what Lord Kitchener did in 1898 to the tomb of the Great Mahdi needs contemporary atonement ? once one starts down the road of self-censorship, there is never an end to it.
Since Bill Clinton mentioned nothing about free speech and expression or the rights of a newspaper to be offensive and tasteless, but lectured only about cultural insensitivity and the responsibility of the media not to be mean to Muslims, why did he stop with the Danish cartoonists? Surely someone who has apologized for everyone from General Sherman to the Shah could have lamented the work of every Western artist, from Rodin to Dali, who has rendered the Prophet in a bad light.
Like the appeasement of the 1930s, we are in the great age now of ethical retrenchment. So much has been lost even since 1960; then the very idea that a Dutch cartoonist whose work had offended radical Muslims would be in hiding for fear of his life would have been dismissed as fanciful.
Insidiously, the censorship only accelerates. It is dressed up in multicultural gobbledygook about hurtfulness and insensitivity, when the real issue is whether we in the West are going to be blown up or beheaded if we dare come out and support the right of an artist or newspaper to be occasionally crass.
In the post-Osama bin Laden and suicide-belt world of our own, we shudder at these fanatical riots, convincing ourselves that perhaps the Salman Rushdies, Theo Van Goghs, and Danish cartoonists of the world had it coming. All the while, we think to ourselves about the fact that we do not threaten to kill Muslims when they promulgate daily streams of hate and racism in sermons and papers, and much less would we go about promising death to the creator of "Piss Christ" or the Da Vinci Code. How ironic that we now find politically-correct Westerners ? those who formerly claimed they would defend to the last the right of an Andres Serrano or Dan Brown to offend Christians ? turning on the far milder artists who rile Muslims.
The radical Islamists are our generation's book burners who search for secular Galileos and Newtons. They are the new Nazi censors who sniff out anything favorable to the Jews. These fundamentalists are akin to the Soviet commissars who once decreed all art must serve political struggle ? or else.
If we give in to these 8th-century clerics, shortly we will be living in an 8th century ourselves, where we may say, hear, and do nothing that might offend a fundamentalist Muslim ? and, to assuage our treachery to freedom and liberalism, we'll always be equipped with the new rationale of multiculturalism and cultural equivalence which so poorly cloaks our abject fear.
There are three final considerations. First, millions of brave reformers in the Muslim world are trying each day to create a tolerant culture and a consensual society. What those in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Egypt want from us is not appeasement that emboldens the radicals in their midst, but patient, careful, and firm explanations that freedom is precious and worth the struggle ? even though its use can sometimes bother us. Surely the lesson from Eastern Europe applies: the oppressed there did not appreciate the realpolitik and appeasement of many in the West, but most often preferred a stalwart Reagan to an equivocating Carter.
Second, we, not the Islamists, are secure; our dependency on oil has masked a greater reality: that the Muslim Middle East, as in the days of the Ottomans, is parasitic on the West for advancements of all sorts, from heart surgery to computers. Most of the hatred expressed over the cartoons was beamed on television, through the Internet, or communicated over cell phones that would not exist in Pakistan, Syria, or Iran without imported technology.
The Islamists are also sad bullies, who hunt out causes for offense in the most obscure places, but would recoil at the first sign of Western defiance. Turkey may say little to the Islamists now, but they would say lots if the European Union decided to pass on its inclusion into the union. Local imams sound fiery, but if the West is too debauched a place for any pure Muslim to endure, why then do they not lead, Moses-like, an exodus of the devout away from the rising flood of decadence, and back to the paradise of a purer Syria or Algeria?
Third, the bogus notion of multiculturalism has blinded us to a simple truth: we in the West can live according to our own values and should not allow those radicals who embrace or condone polygamy, gender apartheid, religious intolerance, political autocracy, homosexual persecution, honor killings, female circumcision, and a host of other unmentionables to threaten our citizens within our own countries.
The deluded here might believe that the divide is a moral one, between a supposedly decadent secular West and a pious Middle East, rather than an existential one that is fueled by envy, jealousy, self-pity, and victimization. But to believe the cartoons represent the genuine anguish of an aggrieved puritanical society tainted by Western decadence, one would have to ignore that Turkey is the global nexus for the sex-slave market, that Afghanistan is the world's opium farm, that the Saudi Royals have redefined casino junketeering, and that the repository of Hitlerian imagery is in the West Bank and Iran.
The entire controversy over the cartoons is ludicrous, but often in history the trivial and ludicrous can wake a people up before the significant and tragic follow.
? Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200602100920.asp
-
Curse of the Moderates
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 10
As much of the Islamic world erupts in a studied frenzy over the Danish Muhammad cartoons, there are voices of reason being heard on both sides. Some Islamic leaders and organizations, while endorsing the demonstrators' sense of grievance and sharing their outrage, speak out against using violence as a vehicle of expression. Their Western counterparts -- intellectuals, including most of the major newspapers in the United States -- are similarly balanced: While, of course, endorsing the principle of free expression, they criticize the Danish newspaper for abusing that right by publishing offensive cartoons, and they declare themselves opposed, in the name of religious sensitivity, to doing the same.
God save us from the voices of reason.
What passes for moderation in the Islamic community -- "I share your rage but don't torch that embassy" -- is nothing of the sort. It is simply a cynical way to endorse the goals of the mob without endorsing its means. It is fraudulent because, while pretending to uphold the principle of religious sensitivity, it is interested only in this instance of religious insensitivity.
Have any of these "moderates" ever protested the grotesque caricatures of Christians and, most especially, Jews that are broadcast throughout the Middle East on a daily basis? The sermons on Palestinian TV that refer to Jews as the sons of pigs and monkeys? The Syrian prime-time TV series that shows rabbis slaughtering a gentile boy to ritually consume his blood? The 41-part (!) series on Egyptian TV based on that anti-Semitic czarist forgery (and inspiration of the Nazis), "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," showing the Jews to be engaged in a century-old conspiracy to control the world?
A true Muslim moderate is one who protests desecrations of all faiths. Those who don't are not moderates but hypocrites, opportunists and agents for the rioters, merely using different means to advance the same goal: to impose upon the West, with its traditions of freedom of speech, a set of taboos that is exclusive to the Islamic faith. These are not defenders of religion but Muslim supremacists trying to force their dictates upon the liberal West.
And these "moderates" are aided and abetted by Western "moderates" who publish pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung and celebrate the "Piss Christ" (a crucifix sitting in a jar of urine) as art deserving public subsidy, but who are seized with a sudden religious sensitivity when the subject is Muhammad.
Had they not been so hypocritical, one might defend their refusal to republish these cartoons on the grounds that news value can sometimes be trumped by good taste and sensitivity. After all, on grounds of basic decency, American newspapers generally -- and correctly -- do not publish pictures of dead bodies, whatever their news value.
There is a "sensitivity" argument for not having published the cartoons in the first place, back in September when they first appeared in that Danish newspaper. But it is not September. It is February. The cartoons have been published, and the newspaper, the publishers and Denmark itself have come under savage attack. After multiple arsons, devastating boycotts, and threats to cut off hands and heads, the issue is no longer news value, i.e., whether a newspaper needs to publish them to inform the audience about what is going on. The issue now is solidarity.
The mob is trying to dictate to Western newspapers, indeed Western governments, what is a legitimate subject for discussion and caricature. The cartoons do not begin to approach the artistic level of Salman Rushdie's prose, but that's not the point. The point is who decides what can be said and what can be drawn within the precincts of what we quaintly think of as the free world.
The mob has turned this into a test case for freedom of speech in the West. The German, French and Italian newspapers that republished these cartoons did so not to inform but to defy -- to declare that they will not be intimidated by the mob.
What is at issue is fear. The unspoken reason many newspapers do not want to republish is not sensitivity but simple fear. They know what happened to Theo van Gogh, who made a film about the Islamic treatment of women and got a knife through the chest with an Islamist manifesto attached.
The worldwide riots and burnings are instruments of intimidation, reminders of van Gogh's fate. The Islamic "moderates" are the mob's agents and interpreters, warning us not to do this again. And the Western "moderates" are their terrified collaborators who say: Don't worry, we won't. It's those Danes. We're clean. Spare us. Please.
-
respect on both sides.
yesterday I heard interesting thing about this BS.
1. cartoons are offensive
2. I also find quite offensive burning of american flag in public with the mob in the background (showed every other day on tv)
3. how about we print some cartoons every time some nice people burn american flag on tv?
-
Iran Renames Danish Pastries
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associat
ed Press Writer Thu Feb 16, 2:23 PM ET
TEHRAN, Iran - Iranians love Danish pastries, but when they look for the flaky dessert at the bakery they now have to ask for "Roses of the Prophet Muhammad."
Bakeries across the capital were covering up their ads for Danish pastries Thursday after the confectioners' union ordered the name change in retaliation for caricatures of the Muslim prophet published in a Danish newspaper.
"Given the insults by Danish newspapers against the prophet, as of now the name of Danish pastries will give way to 'Rose of Muhammad' pastries," the union said in its order.
"This is a punishment for those who started misusing freedom of expression to insult the sanctities of Islam," said Ahmad Mahmoudi, a cake shop owner in northern Tehran.
One of Tehran's most popular bakeries, "Danish Pastries," covered up the word "Danish" on its sign with a black banner emblazoned "Oh Hussein," a reference to a martyred saint of Shiite Islam. The banner is a traditional sign of mourning.
The shop owner declined to comment Thursday.
In Zartosht Street in central Tehran, cake shop owner Mahdi Pedari didn't cover up the word "Danish pastries" on his menu, but put the new name next to it.
"I did so just to inform my customers that Rose of Muhammad is the new name for Danish pastries," he said.
Some customers took immediately to the new name. But others were less enthusiastic about the protest.
"I just want the sweet pastries. I have nothing to do with the name," homemaker Zohreh Masoumi told the sales clerk taking her order.
The drawings, which have offended many Muslims, were published in a Danish newspaper in September and then reprinted in European and American newspapers. One depicted the prophet with a turban shaped like a bomb with a burning fuse.
Islam widely holds that representations of Muhammad are banned for fear they could lead to idolatry. At least 19 people have been killed in protests over the past several weeks, most of them in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Consumer boycotts of Danish goods, from Havarti cheese to Lego, are costing Denmark's companies millions in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Muslim countries.
Iranians love sweets, often bringing candies and pastries to parties. So-called "Danish pastries" are extremely popular.
The Danish's distinctive dough was first created in the 17th century by a French apprentice baker who forgot to add butter to the flour and tried to hide his mistake by folding lumps of it into the dough. It became known as "a thousand leaves" in France.
It was copied in Italy ? where it is known as "folded pastry" ? and Italian bakers took it to Austria. It journeyed from there to Denmark when Danish bakers went on strike and replacements imported from Austria brought along what became known in Denmark as "Viennese Bread."
The pastry became the Danish to the rest of the world, probably, according to the Danish bakers' union, because Danish bakers emigrated to so many countries.
In Iran, the pastries are domestically baked, not imported. Iran has cut all commercial ties with Denmark in retaliation for the prophet cartoons.
Iran's Danish renaming wasn't the first time a food name has become a symbol of protest. A Republican congressman from North Carolina helped lead an effort to make sure Capitol Hill cafeterias changed their menus to advertise "freedom fries" instead of french fries after France opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
-
Protestor In England....
http://www.filedump.nl/plaatjes/20060203BritishMuslims_ps.jpg
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand. The Second Coming!
Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of it {Spiritus Mundi}
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
William Butler Yeats
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings
respect to all who deserwe it, but this is going too far.
-
Fatwas and Rewards: An Inflection Point in the Cartoon Controversy
February 22, 2006 00 21 GMT
www.stratfor.com
By Fred Burton
Two minor Shariah courts in India's Uttar Pradesh state have issued fatwas calling for the death of a Danish cartoonist who drew caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. The fatwas, issued Feb. 21, came three days after a religious scholar in Peshawar, Pakistan, offered a reward -- 500,000 rupees, or about $8,300, of his own money, and 1 million rupees, or about $16,600, fronted by two of his followers, plus a new car -- for anyone who kills one of the cartoonists associated with the controversy.
Taken together, these two incidents mark a significant juncture in the global uproar over the Mohammed cartoons -- one that represents an uptick in security risks to Westerners around the globe. Given the nature of the two fatwas and the terms of the reward, the risks are particularly pertinent to European media professionals who would be closely associated with the cartoons or the newspapers that printed them; but the threat, for a variety of reasons, extends beyond this circle.
Let's begin by noting that neither the fatwas themselves, nor the promise of rewards by a Pakistani religious scholar, is the central issue. A fatwa is nothing more than an opinion or decree handed down by a Muslim leader or group on a matter of Islamic law. It is not binding, even in countries ruled by Shariah law, but it can be motivational. It also can be quite controversial within the Muslim community -- as has been the case with the fatwas issued in India. The true power of a fatwa lies in the credentials and reputation of the person who issues it, and the edict's consistency with Islamic principles. These factors will be taken into consideration by anyone struggling with the ethical issue of whether to abide by a fatwa.
In Uttar Pradesh, which has a large population of Muslims, the fatwas were issued by minor entities, while the most prominent institutions there have gone on record to make it clear they do not endorse the measures. That doesn't mean, however, that there are not those likely to act on them: Technically speaking, Osama bin Laden -- who is not a religious leader -- had no standing to issue his fatwa declaring war against the West in 1998, but followers and sympathizers certainly took his words very seriously and acted accordingly.
One of the more interesting aspects of the fatwas in this case has to do with the fact that they only now are being issued. As has been previously noted, there already has been one interesting time lapse in the case of the cartoons: They originally were published in late September 2005, but public fury in the Islamic world didn't break out in earnest until early February -- after a group of Muslim leaders traveled from Denmark to the Middle East, by their own admission, purposely to "stir up attitudes" in response to the cartoons, and after several European newspapers had republished the images.
It is intriguing, therefore, that the Indian fatwas and the Pakistani reward offer are appearing only now -- after weeks of violent outbursts, several of them fatal, in flashpoints around the world. These statements, then, are not the knee-jerk reactions of deeply offended Muslim leaders to what is construed as blasphemy; they are being issued for other reasons. Certainly, the religious leaders very likely are offended by the images, but they waited for public sentiment to reach critical mass before publicly calling for action against Danish cartoonists. This is the logic of politics: The leaders who issued the fatwas refrained from doing so until they were sure they had a built-in level of support and that their statements would be taken seriously, lest they perhaps lose credibility with their core audience, the local congregations.
In general, extreme fatwas such as those calling for the targeted killing of a "blasphemer" are most likely to resonate among hard-line conservative or radical Muslims, but they can strike a chord with larger swaths of the mainstream as well. In cases where the blasphemy was considered extreme -- or a fatwa politically expedient -- such edicts in the past have led to some unexpected results, and those in some unlikely corners of the world. Some examples from history may illuminate the security risks now at issue.
Perhaps the best-known example of a deadly fatwa, at least in the West, is that issued by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini against author Salman Rushdie in 1989, in response to the publication of "The Satanic Verses." Rushdie, of course, was placed under the protection of the Special Branch in London and went into hiding under an assumed identity. In this case, extreme measures were taken to protect the life of a British citizen because the fatwa was issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran, and it was believed that the Iranians and other Muslim faithful from around the globe would go to great lengths to carry out his bidding.
What is, perhaps, less widely known is the violence carried out against ancillary players associated with "The Satanic Verses." Men who translated the book into Italian and Japanese were both attacked in July 1991; one of the translators, Ettore Capriolo, survived being beaten and stabbed, but the other, professor Hitoshi Igarashi, was killed. Two years later, in 1993, the man responsible for having the book published in Norway was shot outside his home in Oslo, but survived.
In all three cases, the victims apparently were chosen because they were easier to get to than the primary target, Rushdie, and the attacks still fulfilled the requirements of the fatwa in some form. In fact, targeting guidance in some fatwas can be subject to broad interpretation, or used as justification for seemingly unrelated acts of violence. Consider the March 1989 killings of Abdullah al-Ahdal, a Muslim spiritual leader in Belgium, who was gunned down in Brussels, along with an associate, by a Lebanese group called Soldiers of Truth. Investigators believed al-Ahdal may have been murdered because he had criticized Khomeini over the fatwa.
In a related example, 38 Saudi clerics endorsed the Khomeini fatwa in February 1989 when they issued their own against Rashad Khalifa, an Egyptian author who had immigrated to the United States in 1959. Khalifa's controversial writings, including a biography of the Prophet Mohammed, are widely believed to have inspired Rushdie's "Satanic Verses." In January 1990, Khalifa was murdered in Tucson, Arizona -- allegedly by al-Fuqra, a Pakistan-based extremist group that has been linked by U.S. counterterrorism officials to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and al Qaeda. One of the group's members, Mahmoud Abouhalima, was convicted for his role in the WTC bombing, and is believed to have been involved in Khalifa's murder as well.
More recently, there have been controversies and perceived offenses to Islam in the mass media that led to killings, even when there were no fatwas or rewards in question. The case of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh certainly stands out: He was brutally murdered in Amsterdam in November 2004 by a Moroccan immigrant. Van Gogh had received death threats related to a film released earlier that year, "Submission," that dealt with violence toward women in Muslim society and projected Quranic verses in controversial ways on the screen. The confessed killer, Mohammed Bouyeri, said he murdered Van Gogh in order to fulfill his duties as a Muslim.
In all of these cases, violence associated with perceived offenses to Islam was carried out in the West or -- as in the case of the Japanese translator, who was killed in Tokyo -- other locations far removed from traditional flashpoints in the Muslim world. Thus far, the bulk of the violence in the cartoon controversy has occurred with public demonstrations in Muslim countries, but the fatwas and offers of rewards might mark a shift in that dynamic.
Again, the point here is not about the overwhelming influence of any of the religious authorities involved; certainly none of them has the stature of a Khomeini. For that matter, fatwas in general may be losing their effectiveness with Muslims as they are employed by low-ranking clerics on occasionally mundane issues. The point is that the cartoon controversy now has reached a threshold that public demonstrations against state symbols like embassies no longer may suffice to vent the frustrations of some radical elements within Islam. Where there exists any predilection to seek out Westerners as targets for violence, the fact that fatwas have been issued or rewards offered could make the difference between contemplation and follow-through.
We are not necessarily predicting an open season on Danish cartoonists, editorial page editors or European journalists in general; but it should be understood that, as the ancillary attacks in the Rushdie case and others have shown, there is a potential for violence to be channeled in unexpected ways. Where perceptions of blasphemy and other affronts warranting death are concerned, fatwas often are carried out with extreme brutality -- and those targeted have not always been directly associated with the initial offense.
Moreover, fatwas can be executed anywhere in the world, and they do not expire (though they can be rescinded or amended) until their requirements are satisfied. Considering the chord that the Mohammed cartoons touched and the depth of the emotions still playing out in the Islamic world, that satisfaction may be a long time coming.
-
Opinion - David Aaronovitch
The Times February 21, 2006
'Whoever insults the one true Church deserves to be killed.' (News report)
David Aaronovitch
?EUROPE MUST LEARN to live in and with the world, not to dominate it, nor to assume it is superior or more virtuous. Any continent that has inflicted such brutality on the world over a period of 200 years has not too much to be proud of, and much to be modest and humble about.? Martin Jacques, The Guardian, on the cartoons row.
Meanwhile, in a parallel universe . . .
From a Reuters report, Rome, some time around now
The Vatican has protested in ?the strongest possible terms? against the publication in paperback of Dan Brown?s bestselling novel, The Da Vinci Code. Cardinal Loopi, of the Office of the Defence of the Faith, condemned the book for defaming Catholicism and, in its suggestion that Jesus Christ was married, of heresy. ?We demand that the book be destroyed and that the author be punished,? said Loopi, ?otherwise we cannot be held responsible for how Catholics throughout the world may react.?
Excerpt from a speech by Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor
Merkel: ?The affront to the honour of the one true Church is in fact an affront to the worship of God, and to the seeking of truth and justice, and an affront to all the prophets of God. Obviously, all those who harm the honour of the one true Church . . .?
Crowd: ?Death to Dan Brown.
Death to Dan Brown.
Death to Dan Brown.
Death to Dan Brown.?
From the Paris correspondent of al-Jazeera
A Lyons priest today offered half a million euros and a top-of-the-line Toyota as a reward to anyone who killed Dan Brown or any executive of the Da Vinci Code publishers, Jonathan Cape. Speaking to a 1,000-strong crowd gathered after Mass outside the church of St Marie-la-Vierge, Fr Jules Monbiot announced that the offer was ?a unanimous decision by all bishops that whoever insults the one true Church deserves to be killed, and whoever will take this insulting man to his end will get this prize?.
News stories in al-Ahram (Cairo)
Bookseller shot dead in Poland, by teenager shouting: ?For God, and the Pope!?
Ten killed in Lisbon Dan Brown riots, when police opened fire on mob ransacking the Canadian Embassy. ?We thought he was Canadian,? says riot leader.
Violence in northwest London as Jews go on rampage against Holocaust denial in Muslim countries. Kebab restaurants and curry houses ablaze from the Finchley Road to Edgware.
Iranian and Syrian embassies and consulates attacked in 20 cities worldwide. Iranian Embassy destroyed in Canberra. Australian Government describes violence as ?regrettable, but understandable?.
Speech by Angela Merkel, about the convening of an international conference in Berlin to ?investigate? Islam
?We propose the following to the Muslims: if you are not lying, allow a group of neutral, honest researchers to come to Mecca, and to talk to people, examine documents and let people know the findings of their research about the Muhammad myth. You have even prevented your own scholars from researching this issue. They are allowed to study anything except for the Muhammad myth. Are these not medieval methods??
Reuters report from Berlin
?German Chancellor Angela Merkel today caused alarm in diplomatic circles when she called for the Netherlands to be ?wiped from the face of the earth?.? She went on, ?The establishment of the Dutch regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Catholic world.?
Summary of an article in French government newspaper, Le Monde
The Netherlands may have created the avian flu virus in order to damage the economies of Europe, and cleverly planted it first in the Far East to divert attention away from the real plan.
Angela Merkel on German attempts to produce a nuclear weapon
?Those who oppose us should be grateful that our people has acted nobly towards you so far, and has been patient. We want to remain patient. Don?t make us lose our patience. The peoples have awakened. The world of Christendom has awakened. Do not make us reconsider our policies.?
Reuters reports from Munich
Fr Rudiger Schlitz, the assistant to the head of the Catholic Church in Germany, has said that it is doctrinally permissible for nuclear weapons to be used. ?When the entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is permissible to use these weapons as a counter-measure. According to church law, only the goal is important . . .?
Al-Jazeera News. Mark Seddon reporting . . .
These are the pictures of Our Lady?s Church in Shoreham, following the explosion in which 31 parishioners died, along with the suicide bomber, who is believed to belong to the majority Anglican community. This is the fourth such bomb attack on a Catholic church in the last two years.
Statement from Human Rights Watch . . .
Calling on the Italian authorities to order an immediate, independent investigation into the violent suppression of an apparently peaceful demonstration by Seventh Day Adventists in Naples on February 13, 2005. Hundreds of demonstrators, including women and children, were injured when police and armed militia from the Catholic Enforcement League broke up the protest, apparently using excessive force, and as many as 1,200 protesters are believed to have been arrested. A year later 200 of those detained are still being held without trial.
Report from al Quds-al-Arabi
Finland. Mr X, a local celebrity and Muslim, was exhumed after his funeral and given a Christian burial, despite his widow?s objection that he had not been to Church since he was a child, and had converted to Islam at the age of 15. A church court had considered the case following a complaint from a local Lutheran preacher, and ruled that Mr X should be treated as a Christian.
Excerpts from Amnesty International Report for 2006
In Newcastle, England, a special court sentenced a Gateshead woman to be burnt to death for witchcraft. Betty Spencer, 53, was immolated in front of a crowd that had gathered in the Newcastle United football stadium. It was the sixth such execution since the year 2000.
In Idaho a teacher was killed and three of his pupils badly injured when militia members of the ?Party of Christ?, who object to girls being educated on the same premises as boys, fired into a packed schoolroom.
And finally, the good news . . .
From hiding, somewhere in Pakistan, Dan Brown apologises to the Judaeo-Christian world for the publication of The Da Vinci Code, promises to donate the proceeds from all his books to any charity nominated for the purpose by Opus Dei and undertakes to become a monk in a silent order at a monastery atop a high mountain in the Apennines.
-
A Failure of the Press
By William J. Bennett and Alan M. Dershowitz
There was a time when the press was the strongest guardian of free expression in this democracy. Stories and celebrations of intrepid and courageous reporters are many within the press corps. Cases such as New York Times v. Sullivan in the 1960s were litigated so that the press could report on and examine public officials with the unfettered reporting a free people deserved. In the 1970s the Pentagon Papers case reaffirmed the proposition that issues of public importance were fully protected by the First Amendment.
The mass media that backed the plaintiffs in these cases understood that not only did a free press have a right to report on critical issues and people of the day but that citizens had a right to know about those issues and people. The mass media understood another thing: They had more than a right; they had a duty to report.
We two come from different political and philosophical perspectives, but on this we agree: Over the past few weeks, the press has betrayed not only its duties but its responsibilities. To our knowledge, only three print newspapers have followed their true calling: the Austin American-Statesman, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Sun. What have they done? They simply printed cartoons that were at the center of widespread turmoil among Muslims over depictions of the prophet Muhammad. These papers did their duty.
Since the war on terrorism began, the mainstream press has had no problem printing stories and pictures that challenged the administration and, in the view of some, compromised our war and peace efforts. The manifold images of abuse at Abu Ghraib come to mind -- images that struck at our effort to win support from Arab governments and peoples, and that pierced the heart of the Muslim world as well as the U.S. military.
The press has had no problem with breaking a story using classified information on detention centers for captured terrorists and suspects -- stories that could harm our allies. And it disclosed a surveillance program so highly classified that most members of Congress were unaware of it.
In its zeal to publish stories critical of our nation's efforts -- and clearly upsetting to enemies and allies alike -- the press has printed some articles that turned out to be inaccurate. The Guantanamo Bay flushing of the Koran comes to mind.
But for the past month, the Islamist street has been on an intifada over cartoons depicting Muhammad that were first published months ago in a Danish newspaper. Protests in London -- never mind Jordan, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Iran and other countries not noted for their commitment to democratic principles -- included signs that read, "Behead those who insult Islam." The mainstream U.S. media have covered this worldwide uprising; it is, after all, a glimpse into the sentiments of our enemy and its allies. And yet it has refused, with but a few exceptions, to show the cartoons that purportedly caused all the outrage.
The Boston Globe, speaking for many other outlets, editorialized: "[N]ewspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance."
But as for caricatures depicting Jews in the most medievally horrific stereotypes, or Christians as fanatics on any given issue, the mainstream press seems to hold no such value. And in the matter of disclosing classified information in wartime, the press competes for the scoop when it believes the public interest warrants it.
What has happened? To put it simply, radical Islamists have won a war of intimidation. They have cowed the major news media from showing these cartoons. The mainstream press has capitulated to the Islamists -- their threats more than their sensibilities. One did not see Catholics claiming the right to mayhem in the wake of the republished depiction of the Virgin Mary covered in cow dung, any more than one saw a rejuvenated Jewish Defense League take to the street or blow up an office when Ariel Sharon was depicted as Hitler or when the Israeli army was depicted as murdering the baby Jesus.
So far as we can tell, a new, twin policy from the mainstream media has been promulgated: (a) If a group is strong enough in its reaction to a story or caricature, the press will refrain from printing that story or caricature, and (b) if the group is pandered to by the mainstream media, the media then will go through elaborate contortions and defenses to justify its abdication of duty. At bottom, this is an unacceptable form of not-so-benign bigotry, representing a higher expectation from Christians and Jews than from Muslims.
While we may disagree among ourselves about whether and when the public interest justifies the disclosure of classified wartime information, our general agreement and understanding of the First Amendment and a free press is informed by the fact -- not opinion but fact -- that without broad freedom, without responsibility for the right to know carried out by courageous writers, editors, political cartoonists and publishers, our democracy would be weaker, if not nonexistent. There should be no group or mob veto of a story that is in the public interest.
When we were attacked on Sept. 11, we knew the main reason for the attack was that Islamists hated our way of life, our virtues, our freedoms. What we never imagined was that the free press -- an institution at the heart of those virtues and freedoms -- would be among the first to surrender.
William J. Bennett is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute and a former secretary of education. Alan M. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard.
-
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/book_covers/
-
Tehran, Iran, Feb. 28 ? A senior Iranian cleric has approved attacks on foreign embassies in Tehran over the publication of insulting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in European dailies, a website belonging to the office of hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reported.
?Muslims must take the most ferocious stance against insults to Islamic sanctities?, the senior cleric told Ayatollah Dorri Najaf-Abadi, the country?s Chief State Prosecutor, according to the Persian-language website Khedmat.
?If setting fire to embassies of countries that insult the Prophet aims to show that these countries no longer have any place in Islamic countries then this act is permissible?, the senior ayatollah was quoted as saying.
?Anyone who dies in this path [of protests against the insults] is a martyr?, he said.
Khedmat did not name the senior Shiite religious leader, but Najaf-Abadi met and held talks separately with five senior ayatollahs in Qom on February 20. The ayatollahs, Moussavi Ardebili, Makarem Shirazi, Fazel Lankarani, Safi Golpayegani and Nouri Hamedani, unanimously condemned the cartoons depicting Islam?s Prophet Mohammad and described it as a ?Zionist and Western conspiracy against Islam?.
?The support shown for the [cartoons] by the European Union and some European governments showed that this was not just an issue of journalism. But Muslims? reaction was beyond expectation and it showed that Muslims have woken up and this is a great asset?, Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi told the prosecutor, according to the government-owned ISNA news agency.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/new...p?storyid=5970
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caricaturist's daughter sought
(Aftenposten English Web Desk/NTB/Ritzau)
The daughter of one of the artists behind one of the controversial newspaper caricatures of the prophet Mohammed was sought out at her school by twelve Muslim men, a leading Danish politician claims. Jens Rohde, political chairman of the prime minister's Liberal Party, made this claim during a debate program on Danish television on Thursday evening.
The twelve cartoonists are now in hiding after receiving death threats.
"And a daughter of one of the artists was sought out by twelve Muslim men at a school, they wanted to get hold of this daughter. Luckily she was not at school," Rohde said.
Rohde told Danish news agency Ritzau that he received this information from a meeting with the artists.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/wo...cle1239506.ece
-
I don't remember the Pope issuing any fatwas in response to this one, nor any killings or riots , , ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
-
http://www.danishmuhammedcartoons.com/Home.html
-
The Sunday Times February 26, 2006
We should fear Holland?s silence
Islamists are stifling debate in what was Europe?s freest country, says Douglas Murray
?Would you write the name you?d like to use here, and your real name there?? asked the girl at reception. I had just been driven to a hotel in the Hague. An hour earlier I?d been greeted at Amsterdam airport by a man holding a sign with a pre-agreed cipher. I hadn?t known where I would be staying, or where I would be speaking. The secrecy was necessary: I had come to Holland to talk about Islam.
Last weekend, four years after his murder, Pim Fortuyn?s political party, Lijst Pim Fortuyn, held a conference in his memory on Islam and Europe. The organisers had assembled nearly all the writers most critical of Islam?s current manifestation in the West. The American scholars Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer were present, as were the Egyptian-Jewish exile and scholar of dhimmitude, Bat Ye?or, and the great Muslim apostate Ibn Warraq.
Both Ye?or and Warraq write and speak under pseudonyms. Standing at the hotel desk I confessed to the girl that I didn?t have any other name, couldn?t think of a good one fast. I was given my key and made aware that the other person in the lobby, a tall figure in a dark suit, was my security detail. I was taken up to my room where I changed, unpacked and headed back out ? the security guard now positioned outside my bedroom door.
I had been invited to deliver the closing speech to the memorial conference on what would have been Fortuyn?s 58th birthday. I said I would talk on the effects of Europe?s increasingly Islamicised population and advocate a tougher European counterterror strategy. There was no overriding political agenda to the occasion, simply a desire for frank discussion.
The event was scholarly, incisive and wide-ranging. There were no ranters or rabble-rousers, just an invited audience of academics, writers, politicians and sombre party members. As yet another example of Islam?s violent confrontation with the West (this time caused by cartoons) swept across the globe, we tried to discuss Islam as openly as we could. The Dutch security service in the Hague was among those who considered the threat to us for doing this as particularly high. The security status of the event was put at just one level below ?national emergency?.
This may seem fantastic to people in Britain. But the story of Holland ? which I have been charting for some years ? should be noted by her allies. Where Holland has gone, Britain and the rest of Europe are following. The silencing happens bit by bit. A student paper in Britain that ran the Danish cartoons got pulped. A London magazine withdrew the cartoons from its website after the British police informed the editor they could not protect him, his staff, or his offices from attack. This happened only days before the police provided 500 officers to protect a ?peaceful? Muslim protest in Trafalgar Square.
It seems the British police ? who regularly provide protection for mosques (as they did after the 7/7 bombs) ? were unable to send even one policeman to protect an organ of free speech. At the notorious London protests, Islamists were allowed to incite murder and bloodshed on the streets, but a passer-by objecting to these displays was threatened with detention for making trouble.
Holland ? with its disproportionately high Muslim population ? is the canary in the mine. Its once open society is closing, and Europe is closing slowly behind it. It looks, from Holland, like the twilight of liberalism ? not the ?liberalism? that is actually libertarianism, but the liberalism that is freedom. Not least freedom of expression.
All across Europe, debate on Islam is being stopped. Italy?s greatest living writer, Oriana Fallaci, soon comes up for trial in her home country, and in Britain the government seems intent on pushing through laws that would make truths about Islam and the conduct of its followers impossible to voice.
Those of us who write and talk on Islam thus get caught between those on our own side who are increasingly keen to prosecute and increasing numbers of militants threatening murder. In this situation, not only is free speech being shut down, but our nation?s security is being compromised.
Since the assassinations of Fortuyn and, in 2004, the film maker Theo van Gogh, numerous public figures in Holland have received death threats and routine intimidation. The heroic Somali-born Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her equally outspoken colleague Geert Wilders live under constant police protection, often forced to sleep on army bases. Even university professors are under protection.
Europe is shuffling into darkness. It is proving incapable of standing up to its enemies, and in an effort to accommodate the peripheral rights of a minority is failing to protect the most basic rights of its own people.
The governments of Europe have been tricked into believing that criticism of a belief is the same thing as criticism of a race. And so it is becoming increasingly difficult and dangerous to criticise a growing and powerful ideology within our midst. It may soon, in addition, be made illegal.
I had planned ? the morning after my speech ? to see Geert Wilders, but instead spent the time catching up with his staff. Their leader had been called in by the police to discuss more than 40 new death threats he had received over the previous days.
As I left the Netherlands I once again felt terrible sorrow for a country that is slowly being lost. A society which should be carefree and inspiring has become dark and worried. The jihad in Europe is winning. And Holland, and our continent, takes one step further into a dark and menacing future.
Douglas Murray is the author of Neoconservatism: Why We Need It
-
This looks pretty good to me , , ,
===============
INDIA: Court nod sought for case against Yaqoob
Lawyer files case against minister who announced bounty on head of Danish cartoonist
Times of India
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Lucknow --- A Ghaziabad lawyer on Tuesday filed an application before a district court to get a case registered against Uttar Pradesh minister Haji Yaqoob for announcing a bounty of Rs 51 crore for the head of the Danish cartoonist who sketched a caricature of the Prophet. The court will take up the case on February 24.
In another development the Lucknow police "sought" some more time to dispose of a similar complaint lodged by a local resident against Yaqoob. Meanwhile, clerics in Deoband have supported fatwa by a Sharia court in Lucknow on the grounds that Koran provides for stringent punishment against anyone who dares to challenge the Prophet.
The clerics were addressing a night-long congregation held at Deoband on Monday to discuss the cartoon issue. "We will hold a massive protest at Ram Lila grounds in Delhi on March 1 against Denmark and the US," Maulana Masood Nadwi of Darul-Uloom Deoband told TOI.
In Ghaziabad, lawyer Chowdhary Ajay Veer Singh on Tuesday approached the court of additional chief judicial magistrate (ACJM) VIII Narendra Kumar seeking directives to the police to lodge an FIR against Yaqoob.
"I used the provisions of Section 156/103 of the CrPC which provides for court's intervention for registration of a complaint related to a crime in case the police refuse to entertain such an application," Ajay told TOI.
"I have requested the court to order for an FIR against sections 115/120 (B), 153 and 108 (A) of IPC," the lawyer said.
"These provisions cover charges of criminal conspiracy to instigate a crime which may be committed outside the country but where the conspiracy to such instigation is hatched in India," he argued.
'UP minister should be sacked'
New Delhi --- A group of eminent Muslim scholars and intellectuals on Tuesday demanded the immediate sacking and prosecution of Haji Yaqoob Qureshi, the UP minister who announced a Rs 51 crore bounty for the murder of the Danish cartoonist who sketched Prophet Mohammed.
"UP's chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav, who is constitutionally obliged to uphold the law of the land, must immediately sack Yaqoob Qureshi," said a statement by the group Muslims for Secular Democracy, which includes noted lyricist Javed Akhtar.
The statement said Qureshi's remarks, made at a rally on Friday in Meerut to protest the publication of the cartoons by a Danish newspaper, "openly incited Muslims to violence."
Such calls, made by politicians with an eye on the Muslim vote, "have done more damage to Islam and Muslims than the original offenders against whom they protest," it said.
The UP government has rejected calls for action against Qureshi despite there being a clear violation of laws on incitement to murder and call to violence.
No Muslim support for fatwas against cartoonist
Lucknow --- Two little known Shariat courts have joined an Uttar Pradesh minister in prescribing death for the Danish cartoonist who sketched a cartoon of Prophet Mohammed but have found little endorsement from prominent Muslim groups.
While one fatwa was issued by the Irada-e-Sharia Darul Qaza on Monday, another was issued by the equally unknown Ifta Firangimahli Taksal on Tuesday.
Both have interestingly been signed by Maulana Naimul Haleem Qadri, a member of both institutions. However, he has found little support in Uttar Pradesh, which has a considerable number of Muslims.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said the fatwa had no meaning.
AIMPLB legal adviser Zararyab Jilani said: "The board has nothing to do with these fatwas; but even if we consider that the Shariat does prescribe death penalty for anyone committing blasphemy with the name of the Prophet, such a fatwa would have legal sanctity only in a country governed by Islamic law."
Northern India's widely respected 300-year-old Firangi Mahal has also dissociated itself in no uncertain terms from the fatwas.
Firangi Mahal head Maulana Khalid Rasheed said categorically: "Let me make it clear that Firangi Mahal, which is among the country's oldest institutions authorised to issue fatwas, has nothing to do with the fatwas issued by some organisation which has given itself a name similar to ours."
"A fatwa can be issued only when a formal reference is made by someone before the authorised institution; and a 'darul qaza' (Islamic court) can issue a verdict only after hearing both parties involved in a dispute."
In a move that has attracted widespread condemnation, state Minister for Haj and Minority Welfare Haji Yaqoob Qureshi had declared a reward of Rs 510 million for the head of the Danish cartoonist.
Date Posted: 2/21/2006
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southasia.asp?parentid=39537
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 11, 2006
The Saturday Profile
For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats
By JOHN M. BRODER
LOS ANGELES, March 10 ? Three weeks ago, Dr. Wafa Sultan was a largely unknown Syrian-American psychiatrist living outside Los Angeles, nursing a deep anger and despair about her fellow Muslims.
Today, thanks to an unusually blunt and provocative interview on Al Jazeera television on Feb. 21, she is an international sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die.
In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries.
She said the world's Muslims, whom she compares unfavorably with the Jews, have descended into a vortex of self-pity and violence.
Dr. Sultan said the world was not witnessing a clash of religions or cultures, but a battle between modernity and barbarism, a battle that the forces of violent, reactionary Islam are destined to lose.
In response, clerics throughout the Muslim world have condemned her, and her telephone answering machine has filled with dark threats. But Islamic reformers have praised her for saying out loud, in Arabic and on the most widely seen television network in the Arab world, what few Muslims dare to say even in private.
"I believe our people are hostages to our own beliefs and teachings," she said in an interview this week in her home in a Los Angeles suburb.
Dr. Sultan, who is 47, wears a prim sweater and skirt, with fleece-lined slippers and heavy stockings. Her eyes and hair are jet black and her modest manner belies her intense words: "Knowledge has released me from this backward thinking. Somebody has to help free the Muslim people from these wrong beliefs."
Perhaps her most provocative words on Al Jazeera were those comparing how the Jews and Muslims have reacted to adversity. Speaking of the Holocaust, she said, "The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling."
She went on, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people."
She concluded, "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."
Her views caught the ear of the American Jewish Congress, which has invited her to speak in May at a conference in Israel. "We have been discussing with her the importance of her message and trying to devise the right venue for her to address Jewish leaders," said Neil B. Goldstein, executive director of the organization.
She is probably more welcome in Tel Aviv than she would be in Damascus. Shortly after the broadcast, clerics in Syria denounced her as an infidel. One said she had done Islam more damage than the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, a wire service reported.
DR. SULTAN is "working on a book that ? if it is published ? it's going to turn the Islamic world upside down."
"I have reached the point that doesn't allow any U-turn. I have no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our holy book."
The working title is, "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster."
Dr. Sultan grew up in a large traditional Muslim family in Banias, Syria, a small city on the Mediterranean about a two-hour drive north of Beirut. Her father was a grain trader and a devout Muslim, and she followed the faith's strictures into adulthood.
But, she said, her life changed in 1979 when she was a medical student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria. At that time, the radical Muslim Brotherhood was using terrorism to try to undermine the government of President Hafez al-Assad. Gunmen of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the university and killed her professor as she watched, she said.
"They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."
She and her husband, who now goes by the Americanized name of David, laid plans to leave for the United States. Their visas finally came in 1989, and the Sultans and their two children (they have since had a third) settled in with friends in Cerritos, Calif., a prosperous bedroom community on the edge of Los Angeles County.
After a succession of jobs and struggles with language, Dr. Sultan has completed her American medical licensing, with the exception of a hospital residency program, which she hopes to do within a year. David operates an automotive-smog-check station. They bought a home in the Los Angeles area and put their children through local public schools. All are now American citizens.
BUT even as she settled into a comfortable middle-class American life, Dr. Sultan's anger burned within. She took to writing, first for herself, then for an Islamic reform Web site called Annaqed (The Critic), run by a Syrian expatriate in Phoenix.
An angry essay on that site by Dr. Sultan about the Muslim Brotherhood caught the attention of Al Jazeera, which invited her to debate an Algerian cleric on the air last July.
In the debate, she questioned the religious teachings that prompt young people to commit suicide in the name of God. "Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up?" she asked. "In our countries, religion is the sole source of education and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched."
Her remarks set off debates around the globe and her name began appearing in Arabic newspapers and Web sites. But her fame grew exponentially when she appeared on Al Jazeera again on Feb. 21, an appearance that was translated and widely distributed by the Middle East Media Research Institute, known as Memri.
Memri said the clip of her February appearance had been viewed more than a million times.
"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations," Dr. Sultan said. "It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality."
She said she no longer practiced Islam. "I am a secular human being," she said.
The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked, "Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking or debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran.
Dr. Sultan said she took those words as a formal fatwa, a religious condemnation. Since then, she said, she has received numerous death threats on her answering machine and by e-mail.
One message said: "Oh, you are still alive? Wait and see." She received an e-mail message the other day, in Arabic, that said, "If someone were to kill you, it would be me."
Dr. Sultan said her mother, who still lives in Syria, is afraid to contact her directly, speaking only through a sister who lives in Qatar. She said she worried more about the safety of family members here and in Syria than she did for her own.
"I have no fear," she said. "I believe in my message. It is like a million-mile journey, and I believe I have walked the first and hardest 10 miles."
-
Wafa Sultan's website!
http://www.annaqed.com/english.html
-
SPIEGEL ONLINE - May 31, 2006, 03:04 PM
URL:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,418930,00.html
Opinion
Why I Published the Muhammad Cartoons
By Flemming Rose
European political correctness allows Muslims to resist integration, argues
the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten. Instead, Muslims should be treated
just like all Europeans -- including being subject to satire. He argues that
publishing the caricatures was an act of "inclusion, not exclusion."
REUTERS
The burning of a Danish flag in Islamabad, Pakistan.
The worldwide furor unleashed by the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed that I
published last September in Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper where I
work, was both a surprise and a tragedy, especially for those directly
affected by it. Lives were lost, buildings were torched and people were
driven into hiding.
And yet the unbalanced reactions to the not-so-provocative caricatures --
loud denunciations and even death threats toward us, but very little outrage
toward the people who attacked two Danish Embassies -- unmasked unpleasant
realities about Europe's failed experiment with multiculturalism. It's time
for the Old Continent to face facts and make some profound changes in its
outlook on immigration, integration and the coming Muslim demographic surge.
After decades of appeasement and political correctness, combined with
growing fear of a radical minority prepared to commit serious violence,
Europe's moment of truth is here.
Europe today finds itself trapped in a posture of moral relativism that is
undermining its liberal values. An unholy three-cornered alliance between
Middle East dictators, radical imams who live in Europe and Europe's
traditional left wing is enabling a politics of victimology. This politics
drives a culture that resists integration and adaptation, perpetuates
national and religious differences and aggravates such debilitating social
ills as high immigrant crime rates and entrenched unemployment.
As one who once championed the utopian state of multicultural bliss, I think
I know what I'm talking about. I was raised on the ideals of the 1960s, in
the midst of the Cold War. I saw life through the lens of the
countercultural turmoil, adopting both the hippie pose and the political
superiority complex of my generation. I and my high school peers believed
that the West was imperialistic and racist. We analyzed decaying Western
civilization through the texts of Marx and Engels and lionized John Lennon's
beautiful but stupid tune about an ideal world without private property:
"Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or hunger/ A
brotherhood of man/ Imagine all the people/ Sharing all the world."
BIO BOX
Flemming Rose, 48, is culture editor of Jyllands- Posten, the Danish
newspaper that set off a wave of protests in the Islamic world when it
published a series of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
It took me only 10 months as a young student in the Soviet Union in 1980-81
to realize what a world without private property looks like, although many
years had to pass until the full implications of the central Marxist dogma
became clear to me.
That experience was the beginning of a long intellectual journey that has
thus far culminated in the reactions to the Muhammed cartoons. Politically,
I came of age in the Soviet Union. I returned there in 1990 to spend 11
years as a foreign correspondent. Through close contact with courageous
dissidents who were willing to suffer and go to prison for their belief in
the ideals of Western democracy, I was cured of my wooly dreams of
idealistic collectivism. I had a strong sense of the high price my friends
were willing to pay for the very freedoms that we had taken for granted in
high school -- but did not grasp as values inherent in our civilization:
freedom of speech, religion, assembly and movement. Justice and equality
implies equal opportunity, I learned, not equal outcome.
Now, in Europe's failure to grapple realistically with its dramatically
changing demographic picture, I see a new parallel to that Cold War journey.
Europe's left is deceiving itself about immigration, integration and Islamic
radicalism today the same way we young hippies deceived ourselves about
Marxism and communism 30 years ago. It is a narrative of confrontation and
hierarchy that claims that the West exploits, abuses and marginalizes the
Islamic world. Left-wing intellectuals have insisted that the Danes were
oppressing and marginalizing Muslim immigrants. This view comports precisely
with the late Edward Said's model of Orientalism, which argues that experts
on the Orient and the Muslim world have not depicted it as it is but as some
dreaded "other," as exactly the opposite of ourselves -- that should
therefore to be rejected. The West, in this narrative, is democratic, the
East is despotic. We are rational, they are irrational.
This kind of thinking gave birth to a distorted approach to immigration in
countries like Denmark. Left-wing commentators decided that Denmark was both
racist and Islamophobic. Therefore, the chief obstacle to integration was
not the immigrants' unwillingness to adapt culturally to their adopted
country (there are 200,000 Danish Muslims now); it was the country's
inherent racism and anti-Muslim bias.
A cult of victimology arose and was happily exploited by clever radicals
among Europe's Muslims, especially certain religious leaders like Imam Ahmad
Abu Laban in Denmark and Mullah Krekar in Norway. Mullah Krekar -- a Kurdish
founder of Ansar al Islam who this spring was facing an expulsion order from
Norway -- called our publication of the cartoons "a declaration of war
against our religion, our faith and our civilization. Our way of thinking is
penetrating society and is stronger than theirs. This causes hate in the
Western way of thinking; as the losing side, they commit violence."
The role of victim is very convenient because it frees the self-declared
victim from any responsibility, while providing a posture of moral
superiority. It also obscures certain inconvenient facts that might suggest
a different explanation for the lagging integration of some immigrant groups
-- such as the relatively high crime rates, the oppression of women and a
tradition of forced marriage.
Dictatorships in the Middle East and radical imams have adopted the jargon
of the European left, calling the cartoons racist and Islamophobic. When
Westerners criticize their lack of civil liberties and the oppression of
women, they say we behave like imperialists. They have adopted the rhetoric
and turned it against us.
These events are occurring against the disturbing backdrop of increasingly
radicalized Muslims in Europe. Muhammed Atta, the 9/11 ringleader, became a
born-again Muslim after he moved to Europe. So did the perpetrators behind
the bombings in Madrid and London. The same goes for Mohammed Bouyeri, the
young Muslim who slaughtered filmmaker Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam. Europe,
not the Middle East, may now be the main breeding ground for Islamic
terrorism.
Lessons from the United States
What's wrong with Europe? For one thing, Europe's approach to immigration
and integration is rooted in its historic experience with relatively
homogeneous cultures. In the United States one's definition of nationality
is essentially political; in Europe it is historically cultural. I am a Dane
because I look European, speak Danish, descend from centuries of other
Scandinavians. But what about the dark, bearded new Danes who speak Arabic
at home and poor Danish in the streets? We Europeans must make a profound
cultural adjustment to understand that they, too, can be Danes.
Another great impediment to integration is the European welfare state.
Because Europe's highly developed, but increasingly unaffordable, safety
nets provide such strong unemployment insurance and not enough incentive to
work, many new immigrants go straight onto the dole.
While it can be argued that the fast-growing community of about 20 million
Muslim immigrants in Europe is the equivalent of America's new Hispanic
immigrants, the difference in their productivity and prosperity is
staggering. An Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development study
in 1999 showed that while immigrants in the United States are almost equal
to native-born workers as taxpayers and contributors to American prosperity,
in Denmark there is a glaring gap of 41 percent between the contributions of
the native-born and of the immigrants. In the United States, a laid-off
worker gets an average of 32 percent compensation for his former wages in
welfare services; in Denmark the figure is 81 percent. A culture of welfare
dependency is rife among immigrants, and it is taken for granted.
What to do? Obviously, we can never return to the comfortable monocultures
of old. A demographic revolution is changing the face, and look, of Europe.
In an age of mass migration and the Internet, cheap air fares and mobile
phones everywhere, cultural pluralism is an irreversible fact, like it or
not. A nostalgic longing for cultural purity -- racial purity, religious
purity -- easily descends into ethnic cleansing.
Yet multiculturalism that has all too often become mere cultural relativism
is an indefensible proposition that often justifies reactionary and
oppressive practices. Giving the same weight to the illiberal values of
conservative Islam as to the liberal traditions of the European
Enlightenment will, in time, destroy the very things that make Europe such a
desirable target for migration.
Europe must shed the straitjacket of political correctness, which makes it
impossible to criticize minorities for anything -- including violations of
laws, traditional mores and values that are central to the European
experience. Two experiences tell the tale for me.
Shortly after the horrific 2002 Moscow musical theater siege by Chechen
terrorists that left 130 dead, I met with one of my old dissident friends,
Sergei Kovalev. A hero of the human rights movement in the old Soviet Union,
Kovalev had long been a defender of the Chechens and a critic of the Russian
attacks on Chechnya. But after the theater massacre he refused, as always,
to indulge in politically correct drivel about the Chechens' just fight for
secession and decolonization. He unhesitatingly denounced the terrorists,
and insisted that a nation's right to self-determination did not imply a
free ticket to kill and violate basic individual rights. For me, it was a
clarifying moment on the dishonesty of identity politics and the sometime
tyranny of elevating group rights above those of individuals -- of
justifying the killing of innocents in the name of some higher cause.
The other experience was a trip I made in the 1990s, when I was a
correspondent based in the United States, to the Brighton Beach neighborhood
of Brooklyn, N.Y. There I wrote a story about the burgeoning, bustling,
altogether vibrant Russian immigrant community that had arisen there -- a
perfect example of people retaining some of their old cultural identity
(drinking samovars of tea, playing hours of chess and attending church)
while quickly taking advantage of America's free and open capitalism to
establish an economic foothold. I marveled at America's ability to absorb
newcomers. It was another clarifying moment.
An act of inclusion. Equal treatment is the democratic way to overcome
traditional barriers of blood and soil for newcomers. To me, that means
treating immigrants just as I would any other Danes. And that's what I felt
I was doing in publishing the 12 cartoons of Muhammad last year. Those
images in no way exceeded the bounds of taste, satire and humor to which I
would subject any other Dane, whether the queen, the head of the church or
the prime minister. By treating a Muslim figure the same way I would a
Christian or Jewish icon, I was sending an important message: You are not
strangers, you are here to stay, and we accept you as an integrated part of
our life. And we will satirize you, too. It was an act of inclusion, not
exclusion; an act of respect and recognition.
Alas, some Muslims did not take it that way -- though it required a highly
organized campaign, several falsified (and very nasty) cartoons and several
months of overseas travel for the aggrieved imams to stir up an
international reaction.
DPA
Flemming Rose, culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which
originally published the Muhammad cartoons.
Maybe Europe needs to take a leaf -- or a whole book -- from the American
experience. In order for new Europe of many cultures that is somehow a
single entity to emerge, in a manner similar to the experience of the United
States, both sides will have to make an effort -- the native-born and the
newly arrived.
For the immigrants, the expectation that they not only learn the host
language but also respect their new countries' political and cultural
traditions is not too much to demand, and some stringent (maybe too
stringent) new laws are being passed to force that. At the same time,
Europeans must show a willingness to jettison entrenched notions of blood
and soil and accept people from foreign countries and cultures as just what
they are, the new Europeans.
Flemming Rose is culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, the largest newspaper in
Denmark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
? SPIEGEL ONLINE 2006
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More about this issue:
Related SPIEGEL ONLINE links: OPINION: Threaten One, Intimidate a
Million (02/01/2006)
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398532,00.html
Muhammad Cartoons: The Importance of Being Danish, or Not (02/10/2006)
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,400146,00.html
European Dis- Unity: Cartoon Conflict Shows Cracks in the EU (02/14/2006)
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,400710,00.html
Cartoon Jihad: Rotten Judgment in the State of Denmark (02/08/2006)
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399653,00.html
-
SPIEGEL ONLINE - May 31, 2006, 03:04 PM
URL:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,418930,00.html
Opinion
Why I Published the Muhammad Cartoons
By Flemming Rose
European political correctness allows Muslims to resist integration, argues
the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten. Instead, Muslims should be treated
just like all Europeans -- including being subject to satire. He argues that
publishing the caricatures was an act of "inclusion, not exclusion."
REUTERS
The burning of a Danish flag in Islamabad, Pakistan.
The worldwide furor unleashed by the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed that I
published last September in Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper where I
work, was both a surprise and a tragedy, especially for those directly
affected by it. Lives were lost, buildings were torched and people were
driven into hiding.
And yet the unbalanced reactions to the not-so-provocative caricatures --
loud denunciations and even death threats toward us, but very little outrage
toward the people who attacked two Danish Embassies -- unmasked unpleasant
realities about Europe's failed experiment with multiculturalism. It's time
for the Old Continent to face facts and make some profound changes in its
outlook on immigration, integration and the coming Muslim demographic surge.
After decades of appeasement and political correctness, combined with
growing fear of a radical minority prepared to commit serious violence,
Europe's moment of truth is here.
Europe today finds itself trapped in a posture of moral relativism that is
undermining its liberal values. An unholy three-cornered alliance between
Middle East dictators, radical imams who live in Europe and Europe's
traditional left wing is enabling a politics of victimology. This politics
drives a culture that resists integration and adaptation, perpetuates
national and religious differences and aggravates such debilitating social
ills as high immigrant crime rates and entrenched unemployment.
As one who once championed the utopian state of multicultural bliss, I think
I know what I'm talking about. I was raised on the ideals of the 1960s, in
the midst of the Cold War. I saw life through the lens of the
countercultural turmoil, adopting both the hippie pose and the political
superiority complex of my generation. I and my high school peers believed
that the West was imperialistic and racist. We analyzed decaying Western
civilization through the texts of Marx and Engels and lionized John Lennon's
beautiful but stupid tune about an ideal world without private property:
"Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or hunger/ A
brotherhood of man/ Imagine all the people/ Sharing all the world."
BIO BOX
Flemming Rose, 48, is culture editor of Jyllands- Posten, the Danish
newspaper that set off a wave of protests in the Islamic world when it
published a series of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
It took me only 10 months as a young student in the Soviet Union in 1980-81
to realize what a world without private property looks like, although many
years had to pass until the full implications of the central Marxist dogma
became clear to me.
That experience was the beginning of a long intellectual journey that has
thus far culminated in the reactions to the Muhammed cartoons. Politically,
I came of age in the Soviet Union. I returned there in 1990 to spend 11
years as a foreign correspondent. Through close contact with courageous
dissidents who were willing to suffer and go to prison for their belief in
the ideals of Western democracy, I was cured of my wooly dreams of
idealistic collectivism. I had a strong sense of the high price my friends
were willing to pay for the very freedoms that we had taken for granted in
high school -- but did not grasp as values inherent in our civilization:
freedom of speech, religion, assembly and movement. Justice and equality
implies equal opportunity, I learned, not equal outcome.
Now, in Europe's failure to grapple realistically with its dramatically
changing demographic picture, I see a new parallel to that Cold War journey.
Europe's left is deceiving itself about immigration, integration and Islamic
radicalism today the same way we young hippies deceived ourselves about
Marxism and communism 30 years ago. It is a narrative of confrontation and
hierarchy that claims that the West exploits, abuses and marginalizes the
Islamic world. Left-wing intellectuals have insisted that the Danes were
oppressing and marginalizing Muslim immigrants. This view comports precisely
with the late Edward Said's model of Orientalism, which argues that experts
on the Orient and the Muslim world have not depicted it as it is but as some
dreaded "other," as exactly the opposite of ourselves -- that should
therefore to be rejected. The West, in this narrative, is democratic, the
East is despotic. We are rational, they are irrational.
This kind of thinking gave birth to a distorted approach to immigration in
countries like Denmark. Left-wing commentators decided that Denmark was both
racist and Islamophobic. Therefore, the chief obstacle to integration was
not the immigrants' unwillingness to adapt culturally to their adopted
country (there are 200,000 Danish Muslims now); it was the country's
inherent racism and anti-Muslim bias.
A cult of victimology arose and was happily exploited by clever radicals
among Europe's Muslims, especially certain religious leaders like Imam Ahmad
Abu Laban in Denmark and Mullah Krekar in Norway. Mullah Krekar -- a Kurdish
founder of Ansar al Islam who this spring was facing an expulsion order from
Norway -- called our publication of the cartoons "a declaration of war
against our religion, our faith and our civilization. Our way of thinking is
penetrating society and is stronger than theirs. This causes hate in the
Western way of thinking; as the losing side, they commit violence."
The role of victim is very convenient because it frees the self-declared
victim from any responsibility, while providing a posture of moral
superiority. It also obscures certain inconvenient facts that might suggest
a different explanation for the lagging integration of some immigrant groups
-- such as the relatively high crime rates, the oppression of women and a
tradition of forced marriage.
Dictatorships in the Middle East and radical imams have adopted the jargon
of the European left, calling the cartoons racist and Islamophobic. When
Westerners criticize their lack of civil liberties and the oppression of
women, they say we behave like imperialists. They have adopted the rhetoric
and turned it against us.
These events are occurring against the disturbing backdrop of increasingly
radicalized Muslims in Europe. Muhammed Atta, the 9/11 ringleader, became a
born-again Muslim after he moved to Europe. So did the perpetrators behind
the bombings in Madrid and London. The same goes for Mohammed Bouyeri, the
young Muslim who slaughtered filmmaker Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam. Europe,
not the Middle East, may now be the main breeding ground for Islamic
terrorism.
Lessons from the United States
What's wrong with Europe? For one thing, Europe's approach to immigration
and integration is rooted in its historic experience with relatively
homogeneous cultures. In the United States one's definition of nationality
is essentially political; in Europe it is historically cultural. I am a Dane
because I look European, speak Danish, descend from centuries of other
Scandinavians. But what about the dark, bearded new Danes who speak Arabic
at home and poor Danish in the streets? We Europeans must make a profound
cultural adjustment to understand that they, too, can be Danes.
Another great impediment to integration is the European welfare state.
Because Europe's highly developed, but increasingly unaffordable, safety
nets provide such strong unemployment insurance and not enough incentive to
work, many new immigrants go straight onto the dole.
While it can be argued that the fast-growing community of about 20 million
Muslim immigrants in Europe is the equivalent of America's new Hispanic
immigrants, the difference in their productivity and prosperity is
staggering. An Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development study
in 1999 showed that while immigrants in the United States are almost equal
to native-born workers as taxpayers and contributors to American prosperity,
in Denmark there is a glaring gap of 41 percent between the contributions of
the native-born and of the immigrants. In the United States, a laid-off
worker gets an average of 32 percent compensation for his former wages in
welfare services; in Denmark the figure is 81 percent. A culture of welfare
dependency is rife among immigrants, and it is taken for granted.
What to do? Obviously, we can never return to the comfortable monocultures
of old. A demographic revolution is changing the face, and look, of Europe.
In an age of mass migration and the Internet, cheap air fares and mobile
phones everywhere, cultural pluralism is an irreversible fact, like it or
not. A nostalgic longing for cultural purity -- racial purity, religious
purity -- easily descends into ethnic cleansing.
Yet multiculturalism that has all too often become mere cultural relativism
is an indefensible proposition that often justifies reactionary and
oppressive practices. Giving the same weight to the illiberal values of
conservative Islam as to the liberal traditions of the European
Enlightenment will, in time, destroy the very things that make Europe such a
desirable target for migration.
Europe must shed the straitjacket of political correctness, which makes it
impossible to criticize minorities for anything -- including violations of
laws, traditional mores and values that are central to the European
experience. Two experiences tell the tale for me.
Shortly after the horrific 2002 Moscow musical theater siege by Chechen
terrorists that left 130 dead, I met with one of my old dissident friends,
Sergei Kovalev. A hero of the human rights movement in the old Soviet Union,
Kovalev had long been a defender of the Chechens and a critic of the Russian
attacks on Chechnya. But after the theater massacre he refused, as always,
to indulge in politically correct drivel about the Chechens' just fight for
secession and decolonization. He unhesitatingly denounced the terrorists,
and insisted that a nation's right to self-determination did not imply a
free ticket to kill and violate basic individual rights. For me, it was a
clarifying moment on the dishonesty of identity politics and the sometime
tyranny of elevating group rights above those of individuals -- of
justifying the killing of innocents in the name of some higher cause.
The other experience was a trip I made in the 1990s, when I was a
correspondent based in the United States, to the Brighton Beach neighborhood
of Brooklyn, N.Y. There I wrote a story about the burgeoning, bustling,
altogether vibrant Russian immigrant community that had arisen there -- a
perfect example of people retaining some of their old cultural identity
(drinking samovars of tea, playing hours of chess and attending church)
while quickly taking advantage of America's free and open capitalism to
establish an economic foothold. I marveled at America's ability to absorb
newcomers. It was another clarifying moment.
An act of inclusion. Equal treatment is the democratic way to overcome
traditional barriers of blood and soil for newcomers. To me, that means
treating immigrants just as I would any other Danes. And that's what I felt
I was doing in publishing the 12 cartoons of Muhammad last year. Those
images in no way exceeded the bounds of taste, satire and humor to which I
would subject any other Dane, whether the queen, the head of the church or
the prime minister. By treating a Muslim figure the same way I would a
Christian or Jewish icon, I was sending an important message: You are not
strangers, you are here to stay, and we accept you as an integrated part of
our life. And we will satirize you, too. It was an act of inclusion, not
exclusion; an act of respect and recognition.
Alas, some Muslims did not take it that way -- though it required a highly
organized campaign, several falsified (and very nasty) cartoons and several
months of overseas travel for the aggrieved imams to stir up an
international reaction.
DPA
Flemming Rose, culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which
originally published the Muhammad cartoons.
Maybe Europe needs to take a leaf -- or a whole book -- from the American
experience. In order for new Europe of many cultures that is somehow a
single entity to emerge, in a manner similar to the experience of the United
States, both sides will have to make an effort -- the native-born and the
newly arrived.
For the immigrants, the expectation that they not only learn the host
language but also respect their new countries' political and cultural
traditions is not too much to demand, and some stringent (maybe too
stringent) new laws are being passed to force that. At the same time,
Europeans must show a willingness to jettison entrenched notions of blood
and soil and accept people from foreign countries and cultures as just what
they are, the new Europeans.
Flemming Rose is culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, the largest newspaper in
Denmark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
? SPIEGEL ONLINE 2006
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More about this issue:
Related SPIEGEL ONLINE links: OPINION: Threaten One, Intimidate a
Million (02/01/2006)
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398532,00.html
Muhammad Cartoons: The Importance of Being Danish, or Not (02/10/2006)
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,400146,00.html
European Dis- Unity: Cartoon Conflict Shows Cracks in the EU (02/14/2006)
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,400710,00.html
Cartoon Jihad: Rotten Judgment in the State of Denmark (02/08/2006)
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399653,00.html
-
Woof All:
I've renamed this thread to reach the deeper question presented by the Danish cartoons-- the effort to restrict free speech by certain groups of Muslims.
Of course when surfing the forums and the Net, not everything can be assumed to be 100% true. Does anyone have any confirmation of the accuracy of the following?
CD
================
CAIR Gets DePaul Professor Suspended For "Offending" Muslim Students
By Jim Kouri
Jul 25, 2006
In my position with the National Association of Chiefs of Police, I get many reports, press releases and other documents on a daily basis. Because of time constraints, I may read perhaps one-third of them, giving priority to Department of Homeland Security and FBI reports.
However, every once in a while I get something that angers me and compells me to research.
Such is the case with the one report that describes the unfair, almost Stalinist treatment, of a Chicago educator whose only transgression is he supports Israel's right to defend itself from terrorists.
Responding to what has been condemned as a violation of academic freedom, professors, scholars, and students worldwide signed a petition by The Scholars for Peace in the Middle East to reinstate Professor Thomas Klocek to his teaching position at DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois.
Klocek was suspended from the university following a campaign launched by pro-Palestinian student groups and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Klocek believes in Israel's right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state within safe and secure borders.
CAIR and Muslim student groups told University officials that Klocek offended Muslim students when discussing Christian interests in Israel, disputing that Israeli treatment of Palestinians was akin to the Nazi treatment of the Jews, and then terminating the discussion when it appeared that the students were more interested in Israel-bashing than discussing the issues.
Titled "A Petition to Reinstate Professor Thomas Klocek to DePaul University With No Prejudice or Penalty," the petition is to be delivered to DePaul's president and Dean upon its goal of 2,000 signatures.
DePaul's Alleged Violations Of Academic Freedom
In an interview with Walking Eagle Productions, a documentary film company covering the DePaul controversy, Klocek said that he was suspended by DePaul administration, and ultimately lost his position and teaching benefits, after engaging in an out-of-class argument with pro-Palestinian students at a student activities fair on campus.
Klocek shared that he served 14 years a part-time adjunct professor in DePaul's School of New Learning and that he was considered a popular professor, with large class enrollments and received excellent student reviews, with no prior complaints about Klocek's behavior.
But after engaging in heated discussion with two Muslim student groups at a Student Involvement Fair on DePaul's campus, the student groups Students for Justice in Palestine (SPJ) and United Muslims Moving Ahead (UMMA) went to the administration to call for Klocek's firing. Both groups were backed by CAIR's Chicago office, and other local Muslim advocate groups, some of whom called for even harsher punishment.
Klocek said that although no third-party witnesses were provided by the offended parties, DePaul's Dean of the School of New Learning, Susanne Dumbleton, had him suspended without any hearing, and held his insurance benefits in jeopardy.
Once Klocek was removed from his teaching position, Dumbleton then publicly castigated Klocek in DePaul's student newspaper, The Depaulia, stating that Klocek was being punished by the DePaul Administration for expressing what she deemed to be Klocek's "erroneous assertions" to the Muslim student groups.
Christina Abraham, Civil Rights Coordinator for CAIR's Chicago branch office, granted an interview to Walking Eagle Productions to explain their reasons for filing the original complaint to DePaul on behalf of the student groups. Abraham stated that she believed all of the student group's allegations, and that they were serious enough to demand Klocek's immediate firing.
First Amendment groups, such as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), protested DePaul's actions. FIRE's then-president David French stated in its own press release that Klocek's suspension violated DePaul's policies guaranteeing academic freedom as well as its contractual promise of due process "because his statements were allegedly offensive."
"While DePaul may now argue that the issue is one of professionalism, its public statements at the time of Klocek's punishment make it clear that Klocek's real crime was offending students during an out-of-class discussion of a controversial and emotional topic." said French. "Academic freedom cannot survive when professors who engage in debate on controversial topics are subject to administrative punishment without even the most cursory due process."
A Peace Organization Rallies For Academic Freedom
How did Scholars for Peace in the Middle East become involved in Klocek's defense?
"SPME is an academic community of scholars." explains SPME President Dr. Beck, in an interview with Walking Eagle Productions. "And as such, we're trying to support another scholar on what we see as a violation of his academic freedom and due process. The goal is to raise awareness among faculty members that we may not be as safe as we think we are, and to get him reinstated without penalty."
Klocek is undeterred and confident that true scholars will rise above such divisiveness, and support the petition on behalf of him. "The issue of free speech and academic freedom," says Klocek, "extends to all faculty members, part- and full-time, non-tenured and tenured alike."
While the petition is open for everyone to sign, SPME is especially encouraging signatures from professors. SPME however, has expressed the important role students can play in circulating their petition professors in their own schools and classes, or contacting professors who remain active during the summer in online forums and web blogs.
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media Alliance
----------
"Klocek said that although no third-party witnesses were provided by the offended parties, DePaul's Dean of the School of New Learning, Susanne Dumbleton, had him suspended without any hearing, and held his insurance benefits in jeopardy"
I am informed that:
"Interesting, under her guidance the SNL became a non-gov organization of the UN in 1998.
DePaul University : : About DePaul (University Officers-Susanne Dumbleton)"
-
Credible threats against the Danish cartoonists
By Olivier Guitta
If you thought that the Cartoon Jihad was over, think again.
Indeed, several European secret services are on the lookout for special Islamist commandos allegedly trying to kill the 12 Danish cartoonists involved in the Jyllands Posten Muhammad cartoons. Most probably, a European sleeper cell could be activated for that mission. Nonetheless, an entrance of dangerous Pakistani elements thru Turkey is envisioned.
In fact, a couple of Al Qaeda messages are warning of targeting the cartoonists along with some European countries. The first one is the April 23 Bin Laden's call in a video to boycott products from the US and European countries which supported Denmark over the publication of the cartoons . Bin Laden had also severely critisized France for pts supposedly harsh treatments of Muslims, referring most probably to the anti-hijab law passed in 2004. Then the Islamist website Ansar Al Sunna published the exhaustive list of newspapers which published the cartoons and called for vengeance against them; adding that they deserve the same fate as Theo Van Gogh, who was savegely murdered by an Islamist in November 2004.
Then on May 2, Hamid Mir, the editor in chief of the Pakistani daily Ausaf, who met Bin Laden a couple of times, reported that credible sources told him that a team of 9 Afghans and 3 Pakistanis were on their way to murder the Danish cartoonists.
In a May 11 35-minute video, Libyan Mohammed Hassan, who escaped from US custody at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan last July stated: "Muslims avenge your Prophet .... We deeply desire that the small state of Denmark, Norway and France ... are struck hard and destroyed," said "Destroy their buildings, make their ground shake and transform them into a sea of blood".
All this is happening while a Pakistani student who tried to kill the editor in chief of the German daily Die Welt for publishing the cartoons, was found dead in his German cell on May 3. The cause of death was suicide but the Pakistani press and opinion think differently and anger is brewing.
===================
Danish Mohammed Cartoons
2006-07-24
Israel is attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon and the civilians are getting worried. Strangely, a large proportion of the Lebanese population turns out to be Danish (5,000 people), Swedish (6,000) or Canadian (30,000). Apparently lots of people, who have received asylum, are now on vacation in the very country from which they have ostensibly fled.
Akkari hiding behind the Danish flag.
Luckily, the Danish embassy which was burned down in February is functioning again. But it turns out that one of these people with Danish passports Danes is none other than Ahmed Akkari - one of the lying imams, who travelled the Middle East with their fake Mohammed cartoons and thus were directly responsible for the embassy burnings.
Danes, Swedes lead evacuation race (CNN)
The Danes got a test run in crisis management earlier this year when newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad triggered violent protests against Danish embassies in Muslim countries.
One of the Danish Muslims who spearheaded the rallies against the prophet drawings, Lebanese-born Ahmad Akkari, was among those evacuated from Beirut on Thursday.
"My impression is that the transportation has been safe and that no one has been suffering," Akkari told Denmark's TV2 channel as he boarded a Greek ferry chartered by Denmark.
Ahmed Akkari has Danish citizenship since he only received a suspended sentence for violence in 2001. His wife and daughter are not Danish, but have now received a temporary residency permit.
So Akkari and his family are going to Denmark. This time Akkari is neither burning the Danish flag - nor trampling on it - but hiding behind it.
Added: Fixed typo, 30,000 Canadians - not "30,0000" (thank you, Unright@Fark).
Added: According to Danish Television (Danish text), 5,300 people have been evacuated. 47 of these weren't Danish citizens but have received a 90 days temporary residency permit (this group includes Akkari's wife and daughter). Among the evacuated are at least 10 criminals, who were expelled from Denmark for a period of no less than five years, but who have been granted a visa.
http://bibelen.blogspot.com/2006/07/akkari-and-danish-flag.html
-
From the Wall Street Journal
Bret Stephens
The Many Faces of Belgian Fascism
August 22, 2006; Page A13
BRUSSELS -- Belgium is the birthplace of Ren? Magritte. So perhaps it's not surprising that, in politics, even the fascism here is surreal.
Take Belgian Socialists, Flemish or Walloon. The hallmark of nearly every European socialist party has long been hostility to religion. In recent years, Belgium's ruling Socialist-Liberal coalition has antagonized Catholics by legalizing gay marriage and euthanasia, banning crucifixes from government buildings and abolishing the traditional Te Deum service previously held by the government to commemorate the inauguration of Leopold I, first king of the Belgians.
But then the Socialists began taking note of Belgium's Muslim community, some 500,000 strong. In Brussels, notes Jo?l Rubinfeld of the Atlantis Institute think tank, half of the Socialist Party's 26-member slate in the city's 75-seat parliament is Muslim. In the commune of Molenbeek, longstanding Socialist mayor Philippe Moureaux has made Halal meals standard in all schools; police officers are also barred from eating or drinking on the streets during Ramadan. The Socialist Party was also, improbably, the leading opponent of a bill that would have criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide. This, too, is a product of burgeoning Muslim-Socialist alliance, as is the party's routine denunciations of Israel.
Now take the Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest), the secessionist Flemish Party previously known as the Vlaams Blok until a court ruled it illegal in 2004. The Blok has longstanding links to Nazi collaborators. One of the party's founding members is Karel Dillen, who in 1951 translated into Flemish a French tract denying the Holocaust (possibly the only French text for which a Vlams Blok party member has ever shown sympathy.) For many years, the party's chief selling point was its call to forcibly deport immigrants who failed to assimilate. It also made plain its sympathies with other far-right wing European parties, such as Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front in France.
But that's changing. Younger party leaders, realizing their anti-Semitic taint was poison, began making pro-Israel overtures. And the party's tough-on-crime, hostile-to-Muslims stance began to attract a considerable share of the Jewish vote, particularly among Orthodox Antwerp Jews who felt increasingly vulnerable in the face of the city's hostile Muslim community. Today, Vlaams Belang is the largest single party in the country.
Then there are the government's actual policies. In April, Belgians were shocked by the murder of a teenager named Joe Van Holsbeeck, who was stabbed to death in Brussels's central train station by two Gypsy youths, at the height of the afternoon rush hour, in broad view of dozens of onlookers. (Apparently, the killers wanted his MP3 player.)
Amid a pervasive and growing sense of lawlessness -- Belgium's per capita murder rate, at 9.1 per 100,000 is nearly twice that of the U.S. -- the murder became the occasion of much national soul-searching. When Jean-Marie Dedecker, a senator from the ruling Liberal Party, opined in an op-ed that "policemen look the other way in order to avoid being accused of racism," he was rebuked by Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt for "inciting hostilities."
There is also the amazing case of journalist Paul Belien, who edits the Brussels Journal, a pro-American, Euroskeptic, anti-Islamist blog. In February, the blog was one of the few news sources to republish the notorious Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammad, thereby attracting some two million unique visits. It also attracted extraordinary scrutiny from the Flemish newsweekly Knack. Noting that Mr. Belien's blog had been cited by Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, Knack described the link as "no coincidence," but rather a "deliberate provocation by the neocons," the ultimate aim of which was to make Americans and Europeans believe "that all Muslims are violent and dangerous, after which the clash in Palestine, Iran and Syria can really kick off."
But that was as nothing compared to the reaction Mr. Belien provoked by an article following the Van Holsbeeck murder, in which he described the killers as "predators" and called for Belgium to decriminalize the possession of self-defense weapons (pepper-spray is what he says he had mainly in mind).
Two weeks after the article appeared, Mr. Belien received a letter from the Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, a government-mandated body whose mission is to "assist victims of discrimination" and "sensitize the general public on anti-discrimination." (Belgium has one of the strongest anti-discrimination regimes anywhere.) Mr. Belien's article, according to the CEOOR, constituted an "incitement to violence"; he was ordered to remove it from his blog or face state prosecution. He complied. In the meantime, he says he received emails with pictures of burned corpses and messages reading, "This is what is going to happen to you."
Mr. Belien has since been questioned by the police for homeschooling his five children, four of whom have moved on to university or beyond. Part of Mr. Belien's problem, surely, is that his wife is a member in parliament for the Vlaams Belang. But whatever her politics, Mr. Belien is not a member of the party, and nothing on the Brussels Journal suggests that it is a party vehicle. His chief crime, rather, seems to be that he has laid bare, to an English-speaking audience, the lesser-known charms of the Belgian state.
Meanwhile, the real fascists in Belgium are gaining strength, largely protected from scrutiny by the country's "anti-racism" legislation. At Brussels's Imam Reza mosque, a preacher commemorated the 17th anniversary of the Ayatollah Khomeini's death: "The enemies cannot extinguish the light of the Islamic Revolution." And in Molenbeek, the newspaper Het Volk published a study of the local Muslim population: The editor, Gunther Vanpraet, described the commune as "a breeding ground for thousands of Jihad candidates."
The Belgian government may prefer not to notice. But as Magritte might have said, this is not a pipe.
-
The Pope's Real Threat
Captain Ed
Many people have written about the controversy over Pope Benedict's recent
remarks at the University of Regensburg, where he quoted a medieval emperor
about the barbarity of forced religious conversions. In a replay of the
Prophet Cartoon madness, Muslims only escalated their rhetoric after the
Vatican apologized for any offense the quotation may have given followers of
Islam. Despite apologizing Wednesday for quoting Manuel II's words from 1391
(but not for its argument against violence in religion), Muslims burnt
effigies of the Roman Catholic leader and staged demonstrations around the
world:
"Protesters took to the streets in a series of countries with large Muslim
populations, including India and Iraq. The ruling party in Turkey likened
Pope Benedict XVI to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of reviving the
mentality of the Crusades. In Kashmir, an effigy of the pontiff was burnt.
At Friday prayers in the Iranian capital, Teheran, a leading ayatollah
described the Pope as "rude and weak-minded". Pakistan's parliament passed a
motion condemning the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Ismail Haniya, the
Palestinian prime minister, criticised him hours after a grenade attack on a
church in the Gaza Strip. ...
The head of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, said the
remarks "aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world".
Similar comments were made in other Muslim capitals, raising fears of a
repetition of the anger that followed the publication of cartoons depicting
the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper earlier this year."
All this has shown is that Muslims missed the point of the speech, and in
fact have endeavored to fulfill Benedict's warnings rather than prove him
wrong. If one reads the speech at Regensburg, the entire speech, one
understands that the entire point was to reject violence in pursuing
religion in any form, be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Bahai. The
focal point of the speech was not the recounting of the debate between
Manuel II and the unnamed Persian, but rather the rejection of reason and of
God that violence brings (emphasis mine):
"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this:
not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The
editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by
Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching,
God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our
categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted
French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to
state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would
oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have
to practise idolatry."
This is really the crux of the argument, which is that argument, debate, and
rhetoric are absolutely essential in forming any kind of philosophy,
including religious doctrine. The words of sacred text do not cover all
situations in the world, and therefore development of a solid philosophical
body of thought is critical to growth and wisdom. That requires the ability
to challenge and to criticize without fear of retribution, a difficulty that
most faiths struggle to overcome.
Islam, on the other hand, doesn't bother to try. Benedict never says this
explicitly, but Islam's demands that all criticism be silenced turns
doctrine into dictatorship, which rejects God on a very basic level. A
central tenet of most religions is that humans lack the divine perfection to
claim knowledge of the totality of the Divine wisdom. Islam practices a form
of supremacy that insists on unquestioned obedience or at least silence of
all criticism, especially from outsiders, and creates a violent reaction
against it when it occurs.
Islam bullies people into silence, and then obedience. We saw this with the
Prophet Cartoons, a series of editorial criticisms that pale into
insignificance when seen against similar cartoons from the Muslim media
regarding Christians and especially Jews. It is precisely this impulse about
which Benedict warns can occur in any religion, but modern Muslims show that
they are by far the widest purveyors of this impulse.
Unfortunately, the Muslims are not the only people who missed the point. The
New York Times editorial board joins Muslims in demanding an apology and an
end to criticism of Islam:
"There is more than enough religious anger in the world. So it is
particularly disturbing that Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims, quoting
a 14th-century description of Islam as "evil and inhuman." ...
Muslim leaders the world over have demanded apologies and threatened to
recall their ambassadors from the Vatican, warning that the pope's words
dangerously reinforce a false and biased view of Islam. For many Muslims,
holy war - jihad - is a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence. And
they denounce its perversion by extremists, who use jihad to justify murder
and terrorism.
The Vatican issued a statement saying that Benedict meant no offense and in
fact desired dialogue."
The Times missed the point, too. They aren't satisfied with the explanation
offered by the Vatican. They want a "deep and persuasive apology" for
Benedict's temerity in criticizing the use of violence and rejection of
reason in religion, and specifically using a six-hundred-year-old quote that
insulted people who regularly insult everyone else, including other Muslims.
The Times counsels surrender to the threats and the violence.
Benedict opposes both. That's the real threat behind the Pope's speech, and
don't think the radical Muslims don't understand it.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008071.php
===========
From a column in the WSJ:
Another AP dispatch quotes a spokeswoman for the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, Tasnim Aslam: "Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence." Aslam's view of Islam can be described, charitably, as passive-aggressive.
If Kapusuz and Aslam are so concerned about Islam's reputation, why don't they denounce those of their coreligionists who do evil and inhuman things in the name of their faith? Most likely because they are afraid of them. In the eyes of a jihadi, a moderate Muslim is something worse than an infidel: an apostate.
By contrast, attacking Benedict is cost-free. After all, how many suicide bombers does the pope have?
===========
The Pope?s Words
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?E-MailPrint Save
Published: September 16, 2006
There is more than enough religious anger in the world. So it is particularly disturbing that Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims, quoting a 14th-century description of Islam as ?evil and inhuman.?
In the most provocative part of a speech this week on ?faith and reason,? the pontiff recounted a conversation between an ?erudite? Byzantine Christian emperor and a ?learned? Muslim Persian circa 1391. The pope quoted the emperor saying, ?Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.?
Muslim leaders the world over have demanded apologies and threatened to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican, warning that the pope?s words dangerously reinforce a false and biased view of Islam. For many Muslims, holy war ? jihad ? is a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence. And they denounce its perversion by extremists, who use jihad to justify murder and terrorism.
The Vatican issued a statement saying that Benedict meant no offense and in fact desired dialogue. But this is not the first time the pope has fomented discord between Christians and Muslims.
In 2004 when he was still the Vatican?s top theologian, he spoke out against Turkey?s joining the European Union, because Turkey, as a Muslim country was ?in permanent contrast to Europe.?
A doctrinal conservative, his greatest fear appears to be the loss of a uniform Catholic identity, not exactly the best jumping-off point for tolerance or interfaith dialogue.
The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.
-
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005938.htm
-
Jihad Enablers
The pope, the protesters & White Guilt.
By Jonah Goldberg
Before you can discuss the manifest seriousness of the latest controversy involving the pope, you have to acknowledge its hilarity. Pope Benedict XVI, in an austere philosophical address, invoked Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, the 14th-century ruler who offered a harsh assessment of Islam. While the Koran says, ?There is no compulsion in religion,? Manuel couldn?t help but notice that Muslims were setting up more franchises in his neighborhood than Starbucks ? and they weren?t doing so by selling the best darn Mocha Frappuccinos on his side of the Bosphorus Straits.
?Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new,? Manuel complained sometime around the siege of Byzantium, ?and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.? Why Pope Benedict quoted Manuel is hotly debated. But one explicit reason was to enunciate the Church?s opposition to using faith to justify violence or intolerance.
And this is where the hilarity comes in. A Pakistani foreign-ministry spokeswoman responded: ?Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.?
During Friday prayers in Iran, a senior cleric changed his usual script to denounce the pope, but the crowd of worshippers hadn?t seen the memo, so they chanted back the usual refrain: ?Death to America! Death to Israel!?
In Turkey, protesters demanded that the justice ministry arrest the pope when he visits there this fall and prosecute him for insulting Islam.
And just this week, clerics in Gaza reportedly suggested that the pope convert to Islam to save his own life.
But let us not dare suggest that even a whiff of intolerance can be detected in the Islamic world. If you say otherwise, I will cut off your head.
It may be amusing to note how so many Muslims are eager to confirm a stereotype in the process of denouncing that very stereotype, but it?s not so funny when they put their jihad where the mouth is. Churches were attacked in the West Bank and a nun in Somalia was murdered, allegedly in reaction to the pope?s comments. Al Qaeda?s franchise in Iraq announced ?We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... (May) God enable us to slit their throats.?
But this isn?t primarily about al Qaeda or even the war on terror. Note that the parliaments and governments of Islamic nations ? our allies in the war on terror ? have been at the forefront of the anti-pope backlash.
The many learned disquisitions on the pope?s speech notwithstanding, this isn?t about theology either. After all, no serious person can take lectures on religious tolerance from the Muslim world very seriously. Spare me tales of Jewish accommodation in the 15th century. Today, throughout the Muslim world, Jew-hatred and Christian-bashing are commonplace, state-sanctioned and fashionable.
No, this is about us. The best book for illuminating what?s going on in the Muslim ?street? isn?t some weighty treatise on Islam; it?s a short little tract called White Guilt by Shelby Steele. The book isn?t even about Islam. Steele focuses on white liberals and the black radicals who?ve been gaming them ever since the 1960s. Whites, he argues, have internalized their own demonization. Deep down they fear that maybe they are imperialistic, racist bastards, and they are desperate to prove otherwise. In America, black radicals figured this out a while ago and have been dunning liberal whites ever since.
The West is caught in a similarly dysfunctional cycle of extortion and intimidation with Islam, but on a grander and far more violent scale. Whether it?s the pope?s comments or some Danish cartoons, self-appointed spokesmen for the Islamic street say, ?You have offended a billion Muslims,? which really means, ?There are so many of us, you should watch out.? And if you didn?t get the message, just look around for the burning embassies and murdered infidels. They?re not hard to find.
In response, the West apologizes and apologizes. Radical Muslims, who are not stupid, take note and become emboldened by these displays of weakness and capitulation. And the next time, they demand two pounds of flesh. Meanwhile, the entire global conversation starts from the assumption that the West is doing something wrong by tolerating freedom of speech, among other things.
This week, French President Jacques Chirac explained that everyone in the West must avoid everything that sparks tensions. In other words, we must forever be held hostage by the tactical outrage of a global mob. There?s nothing funny about that.
?2006 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDdjNzM2ZjZkYzc3NWExYzk1YWVhY2FhMDc4YmJmM2I=
-
Submit or die: An offer infidels can't refuse?
Commentary
By CLIFFORD D. MAY
Many commentators have noted the apparent irony: The pope suggests Islam encourages violence _ and Muslims riot in protest.
Many commentators have pointed out the apparent hypocrisy: Muslims are outraged by cartoons satirizing Islamic extremism while in Muslim countries Christianity and Judaism are attacked viciously and routinely.
Many commentators are missing the point: These protestors _ and those who incite them _ are not asking for mutual respect and equality. They are not saying: "It's wrong to speak ill of a religion." They are saying: "It's wrong to speak ill of our religion." They are not standing up for a principle. They are laying down the law. They are making it as clear as they can that they will not tolerate "infidels" criticizing Muslims. They also are making it clear that infidels should expect criticism _ and much worse _ from Muslims.
They are attempting nothing less than the establishment of a new world order in which the supremacy of what they call the Nation of Islam is acknowledged, and "unbelievers" submit _ or die. Call it an offer you can't refuse.
If you don't understand this, listen harder. In London, Anjem Choudary told Muslim demonstrators that Pope Benedict XVI deserves to be killed for daring to quote a Byzantine emperor's description of Islam as a religion "spread by the sword."
"The Muslims take their religion very seriously," Choudary explained as if to a disobedient child, "and non-Muslims must appreciate that and must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet. Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment."
Iraqi insurgents _ some Europeans admiringly call them "the resistance" _ posted on the Internet a video of a scimitar, a symbol of Islam, slicing a cross in half. It would be a stretch to interpret this as a plea for interfaith understanding.
In Iran, the powerful imam Ahmad Khatami said the pope "should fall on his knees in front of a senior Muslim cleric." In no culture of which I am aware is that a posture from which brother addresses brother.
Dr. Imad Hamto, a Palestinian religious leader, said: "We want to use the words of the Prophet Muhammad and tell the pope: 'Aslim Taslam' "
The Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh explained: "Aslim Taslam is a phrase that was taken from the letters sent by the Prophet Muhammad to the chiefs of tribes in his times in which he reportedly urged them to convert to Islam to spare their lives."
It is not only those readily identified as extremists who voice such views. The prime minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, seemed to strike a conciliatory note, saying that the pope's expression of regret for his remarks was "acceptable." But he added: "(W)e hope there are no more statements that can anger the Muslims."
Similarly, on National Public Radio, a George Washington University professor, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, argued that statements such as those quoted by the pope _ expressing sentiments some Muslims may find offensive _ must be viewed as a form of violence.
Is the Western ideal of freedom of speech and of the press threatened? Of course. But that's only part of what is at work here. More significantly, Americans and Europeans are being relegated to the status of a dhimmi _ the Arabic word applied to those conquered by Muslim armies between the 7th and 17th centuries. Based on shari'a law, dhimmis are meant to "feel themselves subdued," to acknowledge their inferiority compared to Muslims.
In some ways, we already have done so. For example, Muslims are welcome in the Vatican, even as Christians are banned from setting foot in Mecca. We do not object to Saudis building mosques in America and Europe even as they prohibit churches and synagogues on Arabian soil.
We pledge to abide by the Geneva Conventions when waging wars against Muslim combatants. We expect those combatants to follow the same rules. They are engaged in a jihad and they will show no mercy to infidel soldiers or even to infidel journalists. The "international community" does not seriously protest. With our silence, we consent to inequality.
Most of the world's Muslims are neither rioting nor calling for the death of the pontiff. But quite a few may reason that if Christians and Jews haven't the confidence to reject dhimmitude and defend freedom, they would be foolish to stick their necks out. After all, a Muslim who challenges the Islamic extremeists brands himself as an apostate _ as deserving of death as any uppity pope.
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/13428
-
Opera Canceled Over a Depiction of Muhammad
Claudia Esch-Kenkel/European Pressphoto Agency, 2003
A scene added to ?Idomeneo,? shown in a 2003 rehearsal, includes Muhammad and other religious figures.
? ? ?
By JUDY DEMPSEY and MARK LANDLER
Published: September 27, 2006
BERLIN, Sept. 26 ? A leading German opera house has canceled performances of a Mozart opera because of security fears stirred by a scene that depicts the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad, prompting a storm of protest here about what many see as the surrender of artistic freedom.
In the scene that offended Muslims and led to security fears, a king places the severed heads of religious leaders on chairs.
The Deutsche Oper Berlin said Tuesday that it had pulled ?Idomeneo? from its fall schedule after the police warned of an ?incalculable risk? to the performers and the audience.
The company?s director, Kirsten Harms, said she regretted the decision but felt she had no choice. She said she was told in August that the police had received an anonymous threat, but she acted only after extensive deliberations.
Political and cultural figures throughout Germany condemned the cancellation. Some said it recalled the decision of European newspapers not to reprint satirical cartoons about Muhammad, after their publication in Denmark generated a furor among Muslims.
Wolfgang B?rnsen, a culture spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel?s conservative bloc in Parliament, accused the opera house of ?falling on its knees before the terrorists.?
?It is a signal to other stages in Germany, or even elsewhere in Europe, to put no works on their programs that criticize Islam,? he said.
The disputed scene is not part of Mozart?s opera, but was added by the director, Hans Neuenfels. In it, the king of Crete, Idomeneo, carries the heads of Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Poseidon on to the stage, placing each on a stool.
?Idomeneo,? first performed in 1781, tells a mythical story of Poseidon, or Neptune, the god of the sea, who toys with men?s lives and demands spiteful sacrifice.
The cancellation of the performances fanned a debate in Europe about whether the West is compromising values like free expression to avoid stoking anger in the Muslim world.
Already in Germany, there is growing sentiment that Pope Benedict XVI may have overdone his contrition for a recent speech in Bavaria, in which he cited a historical reference to Islam as ?evil and inhuman.? The speech set off waves of protests in Muslim countries.
The interior minister, Wolfgang Sch?uble, who has defended the pope and called for more dialogue with Muslims in Europe, said canceling the opera was unacceptable and ?crazy.?
Michael Naumann, a former German culture minister, said, ?It?s a slap in the face of artistic freedom, by the artists themselves.? Mr. Naumann, now the publisher of the weekly newspaper Die Zeit, added, ?The pope showed the way by being so extraordinarily apologetic.?
The sulfurous public reaction prompted some people to speculate that the decision might eventually be reversed.
Ms. Harms said the ?Idomeneo? production, which was first staged by the Deutsche Oper in 2003, would remain on the opera?s program. It could be performed later, she said, though she would have to consider the political and diplomatic aspects of ?this complex issue.?
The scene with the severed heads aroused controversy among Muslims and Christians when the Deutsche Oper first staged it. But the company was not the target of any organized protests, and the Deutsche Oper put four performances on its calendar for this November.
Then, in August, came the anonymous threat.
?All this came in light of the cartoon controversy,? said a police spokesman, Uwe Kozelnik. ?We started to investigate and finally concluded that disturbances could not be ruled out.?
While the police said they did not pressure the Deutsche Oper to cancel the opera, they supported the decision.
Berlin?s chief security official, Ehrhart K?rting, drew a parallel between the decision and that of German newspapers earlier this year to resist reprinting the cartoons depicting Muhammad.
?Even the German journalists? association criticized the reprinting of the cartoons because their publication could hurt the religious feelings of one group of people,? Mr. K?rting said in a statement.
Muslim leaders in Germany reacted cautiously. Several planned to participate in a conference on Wednesday organized by the government to foster a better dialogue with Germany?s 3.2 million Muslims.
The leader of the Islamic Council, Ali Kizilkaya, told a radio station in Berlin that he welcomed the cancellation, saying a depiction of decapitated Muhammad ?could certainly offend Muslims.?
?Nevertheless, of course, I think it is horrible that one has to be afraid,? Mr. Kizilkaya said, according to The Associated Press. ?That is not the right way to open dialogue.?
The head of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, Ayyub Axel K?hler, declined to comment on the decision, saying he wanted to learn more about the circumstances.
Those circumstances appear to be in some dispute.
At a news conference on Tuesday, Ms. Harms said she broached the possibility of removing the offending scene with Mr. Neuenfels. When he resisted, she let the matter drop.
However, a lawyer for Mr. Neuenfels, Peter Raue, said Ms. Harms telephoned the director on Sept. 9 to tell him she planned to cancel the performances. The issue of tinkering with the ending never came up, Mr. Raue said, and in any event, ?you couldn?t change it; it is part of the story.?
The scene devised by Mr. Neuenfels puts a sanguinary ending on an opera that, in the way Mozart wrote it, ends with King Idomeneo giving up his throne to appease the god of the sea, and blessing the romantic union of his son Idamante with the Greek princess Ilia.
The severed heads of the religious figures, Mr. Raue said, was meant by Mr. Neuenfels to make a point that ?all the founders of religions were figures that didn?t bring peace to the world.?
Andr? Kraft, spokesman for Komische Oper, a more adventurous opera house where Mr. Neuenfels is engaged in another Mozart production, described the 65-year-old director as ?a secularist who does not believe religion solves the problems of the world.?
For the Deutsche Oper, the cancellation is a major crisis for a prestigious opera company that has been in transition. Founded in 1912 as the Deutsches Opernhaus, the company moved to its present building in western Berlin in 1961, opening with a production of Mozart?s ?Don Giovanni.?
Ms. Harms was appointed director in 2004, coming from a less prominent opera house in the northern German city of Kiel. While there, she said, she faced a bomb threat to the opera house. Ms. Harms plans to present her first production, a little-known work by Alberto Franchetti called ?Germania,? on Oct. 15.
Some critics of the decision to cancel said it revealed the weaknesses of Berlin?s generously supported cultural institutions.
?Because they are subsidized by the German state, there is a great deal of artistic independence, but also a lack of accountability and intellectual rigor,? said Gary Smith, the director of the American Academy in Berlin.
The practice of updating classical operas ? often with current political or social themes ? is common in Germany. But the cancellation of ?Idomeneo? could make this production a landmark of another kind.
?I?ve never heard of something like this, or even similar to it,? said Nikolaus Lehnhoff, a prominent German opera director. ?I have seen many politically incorrect performances in Berlin. I think the reaction to the pope?s speech has sensitized the cultural scene.?
-
Lileks: Now history is off limits lest we offend Islamicists
James Lileks, NEWHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
Monday, September 25, 2006
Clip and save, for this may come in handy: If you mock Islam with a drawing or a novel, you get riots and dead people. News of mishandled holy books yields riots and dead people. Insufficiently reverent short films by a Dutchman yields a dead person, specifically the Dutchman.
Now we add this detail: Quoting medieval religious colloquies is a reasonable justification for burning churches, shooting a nun and holding up signs demanding that the pope convert to Islam or saw off his own head. (There have been reports of carpal tunnel syndrome among radical Islam's enforcers, and they have requested we all help out.)
This is a new twist: Now history itself cannot be discussed. Since it's difficult to predict what else will enflame the devout, Islam has to be treated with unusual deference, like a 3-year-old child with anger management problems.
But it's not what we say that truly offends. It's what we are. The West's lack of interest in joining the Ummah is an affront in itself, and we broadcast our sins in High Infidelity. If you believed that the West's apostasy was an affront to God, you'd spend your leisure hours torching straw popes, too.
Progressives at home and abroad seem oddly unconcerned. "Islamophobia," after all, is just a product of the BushCo junta's relentless fearmongering, and Benedict is the Nazi pope who personally swipes the condoms from people's bedroom drawers.
But it's an inconvenient truth, to coin a phrase, when the ranters show up with vibrating uvulas demanding the pope's assassination. (Would they be satisfied with a docudrama version? It would go over big at Cannes.)
It's inconvenient when glowering young men line the walk outside Westminster Abbey with anti-pope signs, thereby showing that England's radical Muslims have sunk to the level of idiots who protest funerals with "GOD HATES FAGS" placards. Such images cause a momentary pang of dismay among some: That's not helpful, chaps. Not helpful at all.
See, the real problem is the West and its bluenose brigade, its Wal-Marts and Hummers and Big Gulp lifestyles. The Christianists, as some clever equivocators call them, are an impediment to Utopia as great as the terrorists. No less a philosopher than Rosie O'Donnell said so on "The View" recently, proclaiming Christian fundamentalists and Islamicists equal threats to America. They're both judgmental ? boo, hiss! ? and that makes them equal.
O'Donnell had a point, one supposes. Using the legislative process to pass faith-based initiatives, driving jets into skyscrapers: madness, everywhere.
At the risk of making a generalization: The secular right seems more tolerant of Christianity, and skeptical toward large swaths of Islam. The secular left often seems annoyed and contemptuous towards American religion ? unless the pastor on the dais insists Jesus would have been a board member of Planned Parenthood ? and oddly protective of Islam. Not because they believe in it; heavens, no. Some progressives are simply besotted by any civilization not their own.
Others have no vocabulary to oppose its more radical manifestations, because, well, we cannot judge other cultures. (Unless they're in the American South.) Others are less concerned by Islamicists because they have greater dislike for the people who oppose radical Islam, who are probably bigots. (Boo, hiss!) When those theo-neos get tough on radical Islam, it's just a convenient mask for their dislike of the Scary Non-Christian Dusky Hordes. Besides, what about the Crusades and the Inquisition? Huh? OK, then.
Thus the most enlightened and well-intentioned beneficiaries of the human civilization excuse or wish away the words of their most implacable opponents. It'll take something drastic to change their minds. A dirty bomb? Maybe. A demonstration in Pakistan in favor of Wal-Mart? That would certainly reorder some opinions.
In the meantime, we will learn to say less and less about more and more. As the grim cliche has it: If you say Islam isn't always a religion of peace, the Islamicists will kill you. This doesn't make them hypocrites, of course. The grave is a very peaceful place.
-
FWIW, my seat-of-the-pants impression is that the response to the Pope and now to this opera is a lot milder in some Muslim quarters see e.g. the Turkish-German leader's response in the following. Still, plenty of stupidity to go around , , ,
=========
Opera reignites Islam row after cancelling production
By Devika Bhat and agencies
A leading German opera house has been condemned by senior politicians and security officials for its "crazy" decision to cancel a production featuring the severed head of Muhammad because of security concerns.
Deutsche Oper halted the production of Mozart's Idomeneo after Berlin officials warned of an "incalculable risk" because of scenes dealing with Islam. The move has reignited the debate about free speech which was triggered in the row over published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
Kirsten Harms, director of the Deutsche Oper, told the Berliner Morgenpost that the Berlin state police had warned of a possible, although not certain, threat in regard to the production, which is scheduled for November.
She said that it would be in the best interests of the safety of the opera house, its employees and patrons to cancel the show, which will be replaced by The Marriage of Figaro and La Traviata.
After its premiere in 2003, the production by Hans Neuenfels drew widespread criticism over the scene in which King Idomeneo presents the severed heads not only of the Greek god of the sea, Poseidon, but also of Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad.
"We know the consequences of the conflict over the (Muhammad) caricatures," the opera house said in a statement. "We believe that needs to be taken very seriously and hope for your support."
Ms Harms defended her decision saying that Ehrhart Koerting, Berlin's top police official, had phoned her in mid-August and warned her of grave consequences if the opera house proceeded with its plan to show Idomeneo
"If I had paid no attention and something had happened, everyone would rightly say that I had ignored the warnings," she said.
Police have said their concern was prompted by an anonymous phone call in June, but they had no evidence of a specific threat. Mr Koerting issued a statement confirming the conversation, but said that the decision to cancel had been Ms Harms's alone.
The decision comes in the wake of a speech by German-born Pope Benedict XVI which infuriated Muslims by citing a 14th century Byzantine emperor as linking the spread of Islam with violence.
This year, furious protests also erupted after a Danish newspaper published 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Those caricatures were then reprinted by dozens of newspapers and websites across Europe and elsewhere.
Islamic law is interpreted to forbid any depiction of Muhammad for fear it could lead to idolatry.
Wolfgang Schaeuble, Interior Minister and Germany's top security official, condemned the decision, which came ahead of a conference on Islam planned for Wednesday to discuss ways of improving dialogue and integration with the country's Muslim community.
"That is crazy," he told reporters in Washington, where he was holding meetings with US officials. "This is unacceptable."
Wolfgang Thierse, the Deputy Parliamentary Speaker, said that the decision to cancel highlighted a new threat to artistic expression in Germany.
"This is a very dangerous sign about fears of violence motivated by Islam in Germany," he told the Reuters news agency. "Has it come so far that we must limit artistic expression? What will be next?"
Peter Ramsauer, head of the Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU) in parliament, said the move pointed to a "naked fear of violence" and called it an act of "pure cowardice".
Klaus Wowereit, Berlin's Mayor, said that "with all understanding for the concern about the security of spectators and performers, I consider the decision of the director to be wrong."
He said: "Our ideas about openness, tolerance and freedom must be lived out on the offensive. Voluntary self-limitation gives those who fight against our values a confirmation in advance that we will not stand behind them."
Bernd Neumann, the federal government's top cultural official, added that "problems cannot be solved by keeping silent."
"When the concern over possible protests leads to self-censorship, then the democratic culture of free speech becomes endangered," he said.
However, the leader of Germany's Islamic Council welcomed the decision, saying a depiction of Muhammad with a severed head "could certainly offend Muslims."
"Nevertheless, of course I think it is horrible that one has to be afraid," Ali Kizilkaya told Berlin's Radio Multikulti. "That is not the right way to open dialogue."
Berlin Police Chief Dieter Glietsch told Germany's rbb radio that "one can find nothing wrong if, in a climate that's already tense between Islam and the Western world, people avoid heating up the situation further through a scene that can, and perhaps even must, be taken as provocative by pious Muslims."
The leader of Germany's Turkish Community said that while he could understand how the production could be seen as offensive, he also encouraged Muslims living in the West to accept certain elements of its traditions, saying that an opera production was not equivalent to a political point of view.
"I would recommend Muslims learn to accept certain things," Kenan Kolat told the online Netzeitung newspaper. "Art must remain free."
About 3.2 million Muslims live in Germany, mainly Turks who arrived after the Second World War, many of whom contributed to the nation's postwar economic boom.
Fears of Islamic radicalisation have increased recently, aggravated by a failed bomb attack on two German trains in July. Two Lebanese students have been arrested in relation to the plot.
-
Little Green Footballs blog follows up on the initial ruckus:
=======================================
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Denmark Exports Soaring
How one of the biggest rows of modern times helped Danish exports to prosper. (Hat tip: Moonbat Media.)
While Danish milk products were dumped in the Middle East, fervent rightwing Americans started buying Bang & Olufsen stereos and Lego. In the first quarter of this year Denmark?s exports to the US soared 17%. The British writer Christopher Hitchens organised a buy-Danish campaign. Among the thousands of emails sent to Rose was one from an American soldier serving in Iraq. ?He told me he was sitting in Iraq, watching a game of football and drinking a can of Carlsberg,? Rose said.
Rose is not the only person to have prospered from the crisis. Re-elected last year, Mr Rasmussen last week became Denmark?s longest-serving Liberal prime minister. Danish troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than this, his sceptical line on immigration appears to have been vindicated as other EU countries follow suit.
This article is a good example of how twisted the discourse on this issue has become. Apparently, the Guardian?s viewpoint is that only ?fervent rightwingers? could actually support Denmark?s battle for free speech?when it would be difficult to find a more ?liberal? cause than the right to free expression.
The subheadline for the article?s another howler:
One year on, protagonists have few regrets despite deaths of more than 139 people.
As if the Danes should ?regret? violence and murder they did not perpetrate. Why do Guardian writers never seem to think the raging Muslim mobs need to regret anything?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22777_Denmark_Exports_Soaring&only
-
Interesting that some of the response seems to be less or even non-violent this time:
================
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood denounces what it calls 'new Danish insults' to Islam
The Associated Press
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2006
CAIRO, Egypt Egypt's largest Islamic group, the Muslim Brotherhood, on Saturday denounced what it called "new Danish insults" to Islam and urged the world to boycott countries that allow offenses to all religions.
The Brotherhood's condemnation came a day after word spread about a Web video showing young members of a populist Danish political party mocking Islam's Prophet Muhammad.
The video showed people in their 20s and 30s participating in a drawing contest at a summer camp for the Danish People's Party Youth last August. They appeared to have been drinking alcohol.
The footage shows a woman presenting a drawing of a camel and saying it has "the head of Muhammad" and beer bottles as humps. The group laughs as the woman, who was not identified, explained the drawing.
"Muslims are shocked by this new Danish insult," the Muslim Brotherhood said in a statement issued Saturday. It described the drawing as "the ugliest for God's most honorable human being, peace be upon him."
Kenneth Christensen, chairman of the Danish People's Party Youth ? known for its anti-immigration stance ? refused to apologize Friday for the actions of its members, but acknowledged they were problematic.
"It is bad style because it overshadows our political line," Christensen said. But he added that he believed it was "OK to poke fun at Muhammad, Jesus or Bill Clinton."
The Brotherhood, which enjoys wide popularity in Egypt and across the Arab World, urged Muslims on Saturday to boycott products from Denmark and any other country that would allow such an "insult."
It also called on Muslims to "express denouncement through peaceful means, by demonstrations and protests."
The drawings depicted in the video, like the pope's comments about Islam earlier this month and Danish cartoons mocking Muhammad last year, were likely to provoke Muslims and could trigger a new round of angry demonstrations all around the world.
"The repetition of such actions is evidence of the depth of enmity carried by certain sectors in the West toward Islam and the prophet," the Brotherhood statement said.
In September 2005, the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten printed drawings of the Prophet Muhammad. Four months later, they were reprinted in a range of Western media, triggering protests from Morocco to Indonesia.
Some Islamic leaders called for the cartoonists to be killed. Throughout the crisis, the Danish government resisted calls to apologize for the cartoons and said it could not be held responsible for the actions of Denmark's independent media.
Islamic law is interpreted to forbid any depiction of the prophet for fear it could lead to idolatry.
8 October 2006
JAKARTA - A video lampooning the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) broadcast in Denmark has angered groups in Indonesia, the world?s largest Muslim-majority nation.
Denmark?s national TV2 channel on Friday broadcast excerpts from the video showing Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as a beer-drinking camel and as a drunken terrorist attacking Copenhagen.
The video, filmed in August, was made by members of the far-right Danish People?s Party.
It shows the Prophet being mocked during a summer party, with some portraying Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as dressed in a turban and wearing a belt with explosives, as others look on and laugh.
?In Islam, death is the penalty for insulting the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), visually through a caricature or verbally, except if the doer regrets his deed and promises not to repeat it,? said Fausan Al Ansori, a spokesman for the hardline Indonesian Muhajehdin Council.
He added: ?Danish authorities should think seriously, are they going to defend, in the name of human rights, one or two of its citizens who clearly insulted the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and sacrifice its relations with the Islamic world??
The Danish embassy in Jakarta had to close down for weeks in Februaryfollowing angry protests over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) published in the European nation and reprinted elsewhere.
Muslims consider all images of the Prophet to be blasphemous.
?I remind the Danish government, do not provoke (us). If the government of Denmark cannot maintain harmony, it will have to bear the risks,? said Tifatul Sembiring, the head of the Prosperous Justice Party, in a Detikcom online report.
?A state system should be able to control its citizens. ( :-o ) It is very regretful that provocation is repeating itself without the (Danish) government doing anything,? Sembiring said.
Amidhan, the chairman of the Indonesian Council of Ulema, the country?s highest authority on Islam, criticised the caricature of the Prophet.
?I cannot accept this. Denmark should give attention to this because no matter what, the country also bears responsibility over the actions of its citizens,? he told ElShinta radio.
-
Let them speak for themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axgxyrBB31Y&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pDu4YS5To0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ery38_v5SqA&mode=related&search=
-
Dissent Crushed
By Adam Brodsky
New York Post | November 20, 2006
Muslims are often accused of not speaking out sufficiently against terrorism. Nonie Darwish knows one reason why: Their fellow Muslims won't let them.
Darwish, who comes from Egypt and was born and raised a Muslim, was set to tell students at Brown University about the twisted hatred and radicalism she grew to despise in her own culture. A campus Jewish group, Hillel, had contacted her to speak there Thursday.
But the event was just called off.
Muslim students had complained that Darwish was "too controversial." They insisted she be denied a platform at Brown, and after contentious debate Hillel agreed.
Weird: No one had said boo about such Brown events as a patently anti-Israel "Palestinian Solidarity Week." But Hillel said her "offensive" statements about Islam "alarmed" the Muslim Student Association, and Hillel didn't want to upset its "beautiful relationship" with the Muslim community.
Plus, Brown's women's center backed out of co-sponsoring the event, even though it shares Darwish's concerns about the treatment of women. Reportedly, part of the problem was that Darwish had no plans to condemn Israel for shooting Arab women used by terrorists as human shields, or for insufficiently protecting Israeli Arab wives from their husbands.
In plugging their ears to Darwish, Brown's Muslim students proved her very point: Muslims who attempt constructive self-criticism are quickly and soundly squelched - by other Muslims.
"Speaking out for human rights, women's rights, equality or even peace with Israel is a taboo that can have serious consequences" in the Arab world, Darwish says. In part to drive home that point, she wrote a book, just out. Its title says it all: "Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror."
Darwish argues that her own community - in the Middle East and in America - is hostile to criticism, even from Muslims. After 9/11, she says, many in Egypt refused to believe that Muslims were responsible. Instead, they blamed "the Zionist conspiracy."
From her childhood in the '50s, she's seen seething animosity toward Jews, Israel, America and non-believers generally pervert her culture. "I asked myself, as a Muslim Arab child, was I ever taught peace? The answer is no. We learned just the opposite: honor and pride can only come from jihad and martyrdom."
In elementary schools in Gaza, where she lived until age 8, Darwish learned "vengeance and retaliation. Peace," she says, "was considered a sign of defeat and weakness."
An event in 1996 inflamed her longstanding frustration with her community. Her brother suffered a stroke while in Gaza, and his Egyptian friends and relatives all agreed: To save his life, he needed to go to Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem, not to Cairo. Even though they had spent their lives demeaning Israelis - and boasting of Arab supremacy.
Hadassah saved her brother's life; understandably, her appreciation for Jews and Israelis grew. Today Darwish preaches not only the almost embarrassing lengths to which Jews go to seek dialogue and peace, but also their cultural, political, scientific and economic contributions.
Such notions from anyone in the Arab Muslim world are indeed rare. But Darwish isn't just anyone: Her father was killed by Israelis. Yet she doesn't blame the Jewish state - for her father was Lt. Col. Mustafa Hafaz, an Egyptian who headed one of the modern world's first terrorist groups, the anti-Israel fedayeen in Gaza.
Hafaz's terrorists killed hundreds, maybe thousands, of Israelis in cross-border attacks. Of course the Israelis fought back. Darwish realized that Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdul Nasser, who controlled Gaza, had sent her father to a certain death.
Hafaz became a shahid - a martyr for jihad - and that bought Darwish's family great status. She'd rather have had her father alive.
Darwish's message is invaluable for our age. Too few Arabs and Muslims share her desire for peace with Israel, equality and cultural reform; too few speak - in their living rooms or mosques - about the need to root out radicals from among them. When one Muslim voice does raise such sentiments, it deserves to be heard. Too bad the young Muslims (and their Jewish enablers) at Brown won't hear it.
And if those values can't be espoused in America - land of tolerance and free speech - well, what hope is there for meaningful cultural change?
-
Second post of the day
A Muslim writes a "Islam is against terrorism" letter to the editor, is kicked out of his mosque, and is threatened with violence.
====================
Posted November 27, 2006 12:50 PM Hide Post
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=061029_Op_G4_Messa31453
Readers Forum: Message of Islam is not jihad, fatwahs
By JAMAL MIFTAH
10/29/2006
I moved to the United States in March 2003, with my four kids and wife from Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. There was a call by a local jihadi organization to fight the coalition forces in Afghanistan. One of my dearest friends, Mirza Kohistani, fell prey to that call and joined the group, despite my advice and that of his wife to him.
All the leaders of that organization returned safely after the fall of the Taliban empire, but they left behind the body of my friend and hundreds of other innocent people like him.
I am obliged to respond to Ayman al-Zawahri's recent video message, portraying himself as champion of Islam and others as liars.
My message to Ayman al-Zawahri and Muslims of the world: "Islam" means submission and is derived from a word meaning "peace." Islam, Christianity and Judaism have the same origin, the Prophet Abraham. The prophet of Islam has said that God has no mercy on someone who does not have mercy for others.
I ask that al-Zawahri look at his deeds and those of his master, Osama bin Laden, and other so-called Islamic jihadists.
Because of lack of knowledge of Islam, Muslim youth are misguided into believing by the so-called champions of the cause of Islam that the current spate of killings and barbarism, which has no equal in the recent civilized history, is jihad in the name of Islam. They are incited, in the name of Islam, to commit heinous crimes not pardonable by any religion and strictly forbidden in Islam.
Cowards like al-Zawahri and bin Laden are inciting the ignorant and innocent youths to commit suicide bombings to kill innocent civilians including children, women and the elderly, while they hide in spider holes and caves. They never send their own sons and daughters, born out of half a dozen of their wives, to get killed in the name of Islam. They are themselves hypo crites, cowards, thugs and liars. For 12 years they misappropriated aid received from the U.S. and the West to fight Russia. Now they are ensuring smooth flow of petro dollars from Arab countries in the name of jihad against the West.
Even mosques and Islamic institutions in the U.S. and around the world have become tools in their hands and are used for collecting funds for their criminal acts. Half of the funds collected go into the pockets of their local agents and the rest are sent to these thugs.
They are the reason for branding the peaceful religion of Islam as terrorism. The result, therefore, is in the form of Danish cartoons and remarks/reference by the Pope.
I appeal to the Muslim youth in particular and Muslims of the world in general to rise up and start jihad against the killers of humanity and help the civilized world to bring these culprits to justice and prove that Islam is not a religion of hatred and aggression.
I appeal to the Muslim clerics around the world that, rather than issuing empty fatwas condemning suicide bombing, they should issue a fatwa for the death of such scoundrels and barbarians who have taken more than 4,267 lives of innocent people in the name of Islam and have carried out more than 24 terrorist attacks on civilian installations throughout the world. This does not include the chilling number of deaths because of such activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is well over 250,000.
I appeal to al-Zawahri and his band of thugs to hand themselves over to justice and stop spreading evil and killing innocent humans around the world in the name of Islam. Their time is limited and Muslims of the world will soon rise against them to apprehend them and bring them to justice.
Jamal Miftah is a resident of Tulsa.
===============
Now see a news clip about the response from the leaders and some others in his in his mosque.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23480_Why_We_Rarely_Hear_from_Moderate_Muslims&only
-
Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
February 7, 2006
The key issue at stake in the battle over the twelve Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is this: Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise: Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.
More specifically, will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims enjoy immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones . Are they entitled to dish it out while being insulated from similar indignities?
Germany's Die Welt newspaper hinted at this issue in an editorial: "The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical. When Syrian television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were quiet." Nor, by the way, have imams protested the stomping on the Christian cross embedded in the Danish flag.
The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism. The Danish editor who published the cartoons, Flemming Rose, explained that if Muslims insist "that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos ... they're asking for my submission."
Precisely. Robert Spencer rightly called on the free world to stand "resolutely with Denmark." The informative Brussels Journal asserts, "We are all Danes now." Some governments get it:
Norway: "We will not apologize because in a country like Norway, which guarantees freedom of expression, we cannot apologize for what the newspapers print," Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg commented.
Germany: "Why should the German government apologize [for German papers publishing the cartoons]? This is an expression of press freedom," Interior Minister Wolfgang Schauble said.
France: "Political cartoons are by nature excessive. And I prefer an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship," Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy commented.
Other governments wrongly apologized:
Poland: "The bounds of properly conceived freedom of expression have been overstepped," Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz stated.
United Kingdom: "The republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong," Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said.
New Zealand: "Gratuitously offensive," is how Trade Negotiations Minister Jim Sutton described the cartoons.
United States: "Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable," a State Department press officer, Janelle Hironimus, said.
Strangely, as "Old Europe" finds its backbone, the Anglosphere quivers. So awful was the American government reaction, it won the endorsement of the country's leading Islamist organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This should come as no great surprise, however, for Washington has a history of treating Islam preferentially. On two earlier occasions it also faltered in cases of insults concerning Muhammad.
In 1989, Salman Rushdie came under a death edict from Ayatollah Khomeini for satirizing Muhammad in his magical-realist novel, The Satanic Verses. Rather than stand up for the novelist's life, President George H.W. Bush equated The Satanic Verses and the death edict, calling both "offensive." The then secretary of state, James A. Baker III, termed the edict merely "regrettable."
Even worse, in 1997 when an Israeli woman distributed a poster of Muhammad as a pig, the American government shamefully abandoned its protection of free speech. On behalf of President Bill Clinton, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns called the woman in question "either sick or ? evil" and stated that "She deserves to be put on trial for these outrageous attacks on Islam." The State Department endorses a criminal trial for protected speech? Stranger yet was the context of this outburst. As I noted at the time, having combed through weeks of State Department briefings, I "found nothing approaching this vituperative language in reference to the horrors that took place in Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands lost their lives. To the contrary, Mr. Burns was throughout cautious and diplomatic."
Western governments should take a crash course on Islamic law and the historically-abiding Muslim imperative to subjugate non-Muslim peoples. They might start by reading the forthcoming book by Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale).
Peoples who would stay free must stand unreservedly with Denmark.
_________
Additions:
The cartoon above was drawn by J.J. McCullough of www.filibustercartoons.com and is posted with permission.
For those who wish to "Buy Danish," a list of products to purchase can be found at End the Boycott.
_________
From www.danielpipes.org | Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/3360
-
Looks like they're going to hold that "beheading" opera in Germany after all.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/now-showing-in-berlin-muhammad-beheaded/
-
This comes from a web site that looks interesting. I'll be checking it out further as time permits:
http://www.metransparent.com/english.html
17 December 2006
Carnage amongst brothers and the vain nirvana of global Caliphate…
Iqbal Latif
Radicals are the greatest proponents of Islamic unity and caliphate. The unique method to reach this unison is mesmerising. The formula is simple: first, eliminate any opposing thought and then impose spiritual unity from top down. Definitely unity can only be achieved by force. The last time a universal Islamic Ottoman Caliphate existed under Selim the grim, Mamluks and Saffvids lost their dynasties. Might and conquest was an integral part of previous ideological unity. In an environment where state craft has become part and parcel of the new world, the radicals are selling a dream of nirvana where 'great Islamic unity' will under a caliph achieve the dominance that Islam is missing today. To achieve that, elimination of dissent is the primary object; nothing can be resolved peacefully hence bloodshed is a convenient tool of statecraft.
A quick expanse of the hotspots in the Islamic world reveals a very repulsive and distressful drama unfolding very silently and unnoticeably. Sectarian and political divisions are leading to mass inter-communal terror: the way Hamas and Al-Fatah are ready for a civil war; the manner in which Hezbollah is readying for the new civil war in Lebanon; the approach taken by Gulbadeen Hikmatyar to eliminate the government of brother Pakhtoon Karzai with the aid of his ex-enemy Mullah Omar. In the latter case, Karzai is a Sunni so are the other enemies of Karzai i.e. Taliban. Of course they consider Karzai to be a puppet of the Northern Alliance.
Nearly all of these varied groups, whilst colouring their hands by the blood of their own brethren, talk about the ultimate Caliphate where they all can live peacefully under the tabernacle of the God-entrusted Caliph. Mullah Omar likes the title of Ameer-ul-Momeneen; Hezbollah awaits an even bigger appearance that of 'Imam Ghaib.' Osama would like to be the first rejuvenated Caliph of Islam after the end of the Ottomans Empire, which his forefathers under the guise of 'Arab National Army' and leadership of Lawrence of Arabia, fought to destroy and obliterate.
In 1517, the Ottoman Sultan Selim I defeated the Mamluk Sultanate and made Egypt part of the Ottoman Empire. Al Mutawakkil was captured and transported to Constantinople, where he agreed to formally surrendered the title of Caliph as soon as he dies, as well as its outward emblems, the sword and the mantle of Muhammed (PBUH), to the Ottoman Selim I.
The creation of an Islamic caliphate, or empire, has long formed part of Al-Qaeda's worldview, and it is a vision that seems to have unsettled many in the west. But it will remain just a militants' dream. It is these very people who had torn Caliphate apart when it existed. Before he went into hiding in 2001, Osama bin Laden often talked of deposing Muslim rulers, seen as indebted to Western powers, and abolishing modern state borders to unite all Muslims under a caliphate - an Islamic state where God's word was law ruled over by a caliph, or "successor" to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
What grudge possibly can Arab Osama bin Laden have with the westerners; it was not until 400 years after the Mamluks defeat at the hands of Selim I that under Lawrence of Arabia as the head of the Arab armies they captured Damascus and installed an interim Arab administration, deputizing for King Feisal. So after 400 years of Turkish rule, the Arabs were once again a power to be reckoned with in the contemporary world, though very much below the authority and strength which Lawrence had intended for them. As Lawrence himself put it, the opponents of Arab nationalism had bigger guns, that were all. Is Osama going to re-install Caliphate that his forefathers in the name of 'Arab revolt and nationalism' busted?
Now Al-Qaeda militants are talking about setting up a caliphate in west Iraq, and militants calling themselves Al-Qaeda in Yemen also said recently a caliphate is their goal. Very noble goals indeed but the way they are handling communal differences between various strains of Islam is absolutely murderous. A Caliphate being conceived on orgies of blood!! It absolutely took two wars with Mamluk and Safavid armies to unite the Caliphate the last time. No universal Caliphate is possible, going by what happened to the 'Ottoman Caliphate' under the name of Arab revolt. The Ottoman family, the House of Osman of Turkish origin, and was not a member of the Prophet's family. They were always considered as a usurper by the Arabs. According to the Islamic tradition, a caliph had to trace his lineage to Prophet Mohammed (Umayyads and Abbasids are examples of this). Blood is thicker than ties of Islam, 1400 years of history is living prove.
The treacherous battle of Shiite and Sunni Islam in the heartland of Iraq is another unique example of this hysterical exposition of internecine abhorrence. Zarqawi's detestation of Shiites in Iraq and his war of freedom for Iraq by mass elimination of Shiites resulted in emergence of the equally ruthless Sadr; the two are fighting for freedom of Iraq and freeing Iraq of Iraqis at Godspeed. People of peace and advocates of inter-sectarian unity have been totally sidelined. The mass frenzy of carnage has overtaken the hotspots of the Islamic world, and no one seems to notice that this is actually the consequence of continuous chastisement of 'hatred against mankind' that is now revealing its full impact on fledgling societies. The so-called blood infested freedom struggles have come to a full circle and are now consuming the children of Jihad; the first victim of misplaced revolutions, rather, all revolutions, has been its own children.
Such naked and barefaced vengeance has seen very few parallels in modern history. Medieval world had seen Protestants and Catholics war on the lines of Shiite and Sunni war between Iraq and Iran. But within the Middle East, where these communities are so intermingled in modern day and age, the spectre of inter-sectarian violence at this height is a new threat to regional balance and economic stability of the world as far as energy goes.
For the consumption of these bloodthirsty tyrants who want to claim universal 'Caliphate' by waging a war against their own brethren, let us take a whirlwind tour of history; let us se e how bloody and forceful it was the last time when Selim I united the Caliphate of Islam. The Ottomans under Selim at the Battles of Marj Dabiq and al-Raydaniyya destroyed the Mamluk Sultanate, which led to the annexation of Syria, Palestine and Egypt. It was he who extended Ottoman power to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The holiest sites of the Islamic world - the Great Mosque in Mecca and the Mosque of the Prophet in Medina - fell under his dominion when the Turks took Egypt and her Arabian provinces from the Mamluks. The title which 'King Fahd' took in the 80's, that of Khadim ul Haremeyn, or The Servant of The Two Holy Shrines, was originally instituted by Selim I. Instead of styling 'Hakim ul Haremeyn,' or The Ruler of The Two Holy Shrines, he accepted the more pious title Khadim ul Haremeyn, or The Servant of The Two Holy Shrines.
It was after the conquest of Egypt and the Holy Cities, Al-Mutawakkil III (1509–17), the last Abbasid Caliph in Cairo, formally surrendered the title of Caliph and its emblems, the sword and the mantle of Muhammad to Selim. Once cementing his claim to the position of the "Guardian of the Faithful", Selim waged a war against Persia, whose ruler Shah Ismail I claimed to be Caliph as well. The triumphant crusade which followed was a victory for Selim, whose determination and bravery overcame the insubordination of the Janissaries, the household troops of the Ottoman dynasty.
After assuming the Caliphate, Selim assumed the title Malik ul-Barayn, wa KhaKhan ul-Bahrayn, was Kasir ul-Jayshayn, wa Khadim ul-Haramayn - that is, King of the Two Deserts, KhaKhan of the Two Seas, Conqueror of the Two Armies, and Servant of the Two Holy Shrines. This designation alludes to his dominions in Africa and Asia (namely, Egypt, Anatolia , and much of the Fertile Crescent), his rule over the Mediterranean and Black seas, his conquest over the Mamluk and Safavid armies, and his guardianship of the shrines of Mecca and Medina. It was Selim who expanded the 2,500,000 km² of Ottoman land to 6,500,000 km². After completely filling the royal treasury, he reportedly locked it with his own seal and decreed that "he who will fill the treasury more than this, may use his seal to lock it." The treasury remained locked with Selim's seal until the collapse of the Empire 400 years later.
One problem that is faced by the Islamic world is the distrust and infighting between them; the violence within communities is extensive. In the face of huge diversity of religious and political systems in the Middle East today, no such 'messianic' figures are on the scene. Selim-kind of power and figures do not exist anymore; it is decentralising of authority where every state within the Arab world wants respect and authority. The massive schism between Sunni and Shiite Muslims who argue bitterly over the first four caliphs (632-661 AD) to succeed the Prophet (PBUH) makes this dream of a universal caliphate even more part of a fairy tale.
Shiite Iran has its own form of Islamic government where supreme authority lies with an Islamic jurist chosen by a body of senior clerics to rule in the place of a disappeared line of descendents of the Prophet (PBUH). In Saudi Arabia, the adherents of an austere school of Sunni Islam , known as Wahhabism, give their allegiance to the Saudi family to rule as kings in return for wide latitude to enforce their version of sharia, or Islamic law. "I can see the whole Arab world falling into sectarian violence, so I can't see this caliphate happening," said London-based anthropologist Madawi Al-Rasheed, referring to Sunni-Shiite tensions in Iraq and Lebanon. "This is just part of (Al-Qaeda's) war of slogans."
These brewing struggles are suggestive of a roadmap of insecurity, all through the crescent of volatility from Morocco to Afghanistan. The internecine wars have to be stopped. Continuous fanning of the message of 'Jihad' against the infidels have to be revisited and abolished once for all; sowing hatred breeds hatred, sowing bullets leads to a harvest of bullets. Eventually the Muslim world should wake up to realize that this 'Jihad' is being fed by the blood of its own children. Guns, dynamite, venom and poison have no boundaries. They flourish on the easiest of preys, and when these guns fail to find the 'infidels,' they can easily find unarmed civilians in their own neighbourhood with whom they don't agree ideologically and they become the new target. Hamas and Hezbollah and Alqaeda deliver messages of poison that need continuous feeding of blood to sustain their efforts. The best antidote is 'peace.' That means death to them; if they are contained they start gulping their own children with equal ferocity. It is their brand of ideology that matters and in absence of their brand being accepted every other shade of human thinking is discarded.
That is what is exactly happening. Unable to launch their global campaigns of terror, the fangs of terrors are now demanding new blood to sustain its tentacles. In Gaza, the Palestinians are now victims of the Hamas or the Palestinian security forces, political expression bastardised to the highest level of corruption. When politics are at the back stage and guns in front, naturally every dispute is handled by guns, even a shoddy attempt of formation of a bipartisan government. Last week they were talking of a coalition government; yesterday they were killing each other like nobody's business. The problem is that when a 'gun' is relied on for so much, even a family feud, then it becomes a gun-based feud. The family of Islam is tearing each other apart; the message of tolerance and communal coexistence has been lost. It is important it searches from the moments of history where tolerance led to peaceful eras.
Hezbollah should avoid making attempts to plunge Lebanon into the ignominies of bloodstained days. Al Fatah and Hamas, ready to get on to each other's throats to bury the façade of brotherhood and unity once and for all, should avoid the dance of death amidst them. Mature societies respect life and respect law. These signs of medieval immaturity need to be buried; the Middle Eastern media should join hand s to denounce this vain violence all around us. It is not the enemies who are killing Muslims, once again, it is the Muslims killing each other and if unchecked it will be the biggest unfolding tragedy. There are hundreds of regions where fragile balance between communities can dribble over to bloodshed.
It was not an Arab freedom fighter like Arafat or Osama bin Laden, but Lawrence who as a great military leader and strategist got them freed from the 'yoke of Caliphate..' Today's demands of Caliphate are expedient tool to find the cannon fodder of the Islamic Jihad, find new suicide bombers in hope of a vast Caliphate land. Islamic global unity brings out a lot of emotion and lot of anger. Lawrence of Arabia organized the national rebellion of the Arab peoples and gave them the first opening in 400 years to become a significant Middle Eastern power. It was overthrown by the French with considerable bloodshed. Feisal, having been robbed and deposed of his kingdom in Syria was awarded with Iraq. On his death Sheikh Hamoudi of Aleppo exclaimed in his grief: "It is as if I had lost a son. Tell them in England what I say. Of manhood, the man; in freedom free; a mind without equal; I can see no flaw in him."
A lesson from history where coexistence, even in wars, was most important has to be revisited; sensibilities and rejection of hatred should take the front seat. The best caliphate would be respect of the territorial integrity of bigger and smaller states and respect of life and property with the tolerance of opposing strains of ideas that is a possible goal. Radicals who are destroying peace and security and demanding the promotion of universal Islamic unity amidst this carnage of bloodletting under the name of 'caliphate' is nothing but a visa for elimination and cleansing the minority thought. A Caliphate should be about inclusion not exclusion. The atrocities in the hotspots within the fringes of the Islamic world demand removal of this toxic thinking of self-righteousness associated with eliminations. The world today needs no global wars and no mass conversions. Let the hundred flowers bloom.
iqbal.latif@gmail.com
Paris
-
Muslim leaders condemn CW Post video
BY OLIVIA WINSLOW, HERBERT LOWE AND JENNIFER KELLEHER
Newsday Staff Writers
February 7, 2007, 10:12 PM EST
A video by five students at the C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University depicting ski-masked "hostage-takers" speaking in cartoonish Middle Eastern accents has drawn condemnations from local Muslim leaders.
The university dismissed the students from their jobs as residence hall assistants in Brookville Hall, saying they had engaged in activity that violated their employment contract and that reflected "insensitivity."
In the video, which mocks those aired by real-life terrorists, five figures speak in exaggerated accents as they threaten their captive, a rubber duck dubbed "Pete," according to an account in the student newspaper that knowledgeable campus sources agreed was accurate. The subtext is understood to many on campus: The duck is the mascot for Brookville Hall.
While friends of those who created the film amphasized it was made in jest, Muslim leaders did not see the humor. They acknowledged students' right to freedom of speech, but said that right carries responsibility.
"I think it's not a prank," said Ghazi Khankan of Long Beach, a member of the board of the American Muslim Alliance, which he described as a regional and national group that advocates for Muslim participation in the political process. "Campuses are for enlightenment and for teaching us to get along, to respect each other, to know how to live together."
News of the video quickly went national. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil liberties and advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., sent out Newsday's Web article about the incident in an e-mail blast. Said Ibrahim Hooper, council president: "It's something that needs to be addressed."
Habeeb Ahmed, president of the Islamic Center of Long Island in Westbury, who said he was a C.W. Post alumnus, agreed. "People are testing the waters again and again, and the Muslim community is always at the receiving end."
Back on campus, provost Joseph Shenker, said the five students involved would continue to receive free housing and the meal plan -- but in exchange for working 10 hours per week in community service.
Student employees must "function as role models and as teachers for the other students," Shenker said yesterday. "We expect them to be instructing our students on being sensitive regarding all groups.
"I think the tape was an insult to the victims and families involved in hostage situations," he added.
The college, which has about 8,500 undergraduate and graduate students, could not provide a breakdown of Muslim students on campus.
The video, which was posted on YouTube and Google -- then taken down -- came with a statement indicating that it was done "all purely as a joke of course."
Meanwhile, the five students, all seniors -- Robert Bennett, Bert Estrada, Dustin Frye, Jordan Marmara and Billy McDermott -- are to face a formal campus hearing, either later this week or sometime next week, Shenker said. He declined to speculate on what disciplinary action could result.
The students have hired civil rights attorney Frederick K. Brewington of Hempstead, who said he felt the college's actions were unfair.
The affair apparently also cost Brookville Hall's residence hall director, Kristin Kielczewski, her job. She did not respond to a message seeking comment.
McDermott, 21, of Ocean City, Md., said yesterday that Brewington had advised him and the other fired student resident assistants not to comment beyond saying, "We're getting our ducks in a row."
Danny Schrafel, the Pioneer student newspaper editor-in-chief, said the administration's actions have split the campus into two camps: People who believe the resident assistants were fired unjustly and those offended by the video.
Matthew Bartlett, 19, a freshman from Clifton N.J., who lives in Brookville Hall, called McDermott "a great guy.
"I'm pretty appalled by what they [the administrators] did because I don't think it's fair. It's our right as students to express ourselves. We're in college."
Frank Schlegel, 21, of Westhampton Beach, a senior in marketing, said he has had all five of the students as an R.A. during his nearly four years in Brookville Hall.
"I thought it was hysterical," said Schlegel, who said he had seen the video. "There's no way it can be seen as these guys are being racist. It was strictly made for entertainment. They're not troublemakers of any sort."
Michael Colon, of Westchester, 19, a freshman biology major, said he started a petition supporting the R.A.s on Monday. So far, he said, he has 80 signatures.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lipost0208,0,3675967.story
-
GM posted
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/23/intimidation-islamist-attacks-across-the-west/
on the "Islam the religion" thread, but I am moving it here.
-
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/rss/print_503977.html
Furor over author Ayaan Hirsi Ali's visit stirs debate on religious freedom
By Robin Acton
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Say what you want about your religion.
Go ahead, say anything that comes into your mind -- even if you don't agree with your minister, your priest, your rabbi. Even if you think you're right and they've got it all wrong, as long as you're not making a direct threat to someone, you can disagree or turn your back and walk away to another faith or to no faith at all.
Here, in America, it's OK. In a land of more than 3,000 diverse religions, your right to religious liberty is a guaranteed protection under the First Amendment.
"The key in the U.S. from the beginning has been to make sure all religious groups not only understand freedoms, but connect them to their own commitment," said Charles C. Haynes, senior scholar and director of educational programs at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., and Nashville.
A community debate over religious freedom surfaced in Western Pennsylvania last week when Dutch feminist author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee who has lived under the threat of death for denouncing her Muslim upbringing, made an appearance at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown.
Islamic leaders tried to block the lecture, which was sponsored through an endowment from the Frank J. and Sylvia T. Pasquerilla Lecture Series. They argued that Hirsi Ali's attacks against the Muslim faith in her book, "Infidel," and movie, "Submission," are "poisonous and unjustified" and create dissension in their community.
Although university officials listened to Islamic leaders' concerns, the lecture planned last year took place Tuesday evening under tight security, with no incidents.
Imam Fouad ElBayly, president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, was among those who objected to Hirsi Ali's appearance.
"She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death," said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976.
Hirsi Ali, an atheist, has been critical of many Muslim beliefs, particularly on subjects of sexual morality, the treatment of women and female genital mutilation. In her essay "The Caged Virgin," she also wrote of punishment, noting that "a Muslim's relationship with God is one of fear."
"Our God demands total submission. He rewards you if you follow His rules meticulously. He punishes you cruelly if you break His rules, both on earth, with illness and natural disasters, and in the hereafter, with hellfire," she wrote.
In some Muslim countries, such as Iran, apostasy -- abandoning one's religious belief -- and blasphemy are considered punishable by death under sharia, a system of laws and customs that treats both public and private life as governable by God's law.
Sharia is based largely on an interpretation of the Quran, the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed, a consensus of Islamic scholars and reasoning, according to the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. In some countries, sharia has been associated with stoning to death those who are accused of adultery, flogging for drinking wine and amputation of a hand for theft.
One of the most noted cases of apostasy in recent years involved author Salman Rushdie, whose novel "The Satanic Verses" offered an unflattering portrayal of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed. The book prompted Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to issue a fatwa -- a religious decree -- in 1989 calling for Rushdie's assassination.
Although ElBayly believes a death sentence is warranted for Hirsi Ali, he stressed that America is not the jurisdiction where such a crime should be punished. Instead, Hirsi Ali should be judged in a Muslim country after being given a trial, he added.
"If it is found that a person is mentally unstable, or a child or disabled, there should be no punishment," he said. "It's a very merciful religion if you try to understand it."
Zahida Chaudhary, a member of the education council and education secretary at the Muslim Community Center of Greater Pittsburgh in Monroeville, insisted that Islam is a peaceful religion.
"The Prophet Mohammed was a peacemaker and a role model for humanity," she said. "My understanding is that he was a peaceful person who believed that religion was a choice. He tried to teach people and bring them into it, not punish them."
Haynes, who has studied and written extensively about religious liberty and has worked with many Muslim groups, said he was "stunned" by ElBayly's comments.
"There are more radical, extreme views of Islam in European counties than in the U.S. It's rare to hear it and even more rare to learn that American Muslims believe it," he said.
While Hirsi Ali is viewed as an infidel among the Islamic community, those who speak out against other religions usually are met with discussion, prayer and counseling. In extreme cases, critics might be shown the door.
"One is free to choose whatever religion and body of truths one wants to believe," said the Rev. Ronald Lengwin, spokesman for the Roman Catholic Diocese. "The church fosters freedom of religion. That's a decision everyone has to make on their own."
Centuries ago, Lengwin said, the church imposed harsh punishment -- including execution -- upon people viewed as heretics. He cited as an example the Roman Inquisition trial of 15th century Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei, who was tried by the church, threatened with torture and sentenced to prison for his teachings on the motions of the earth.
With the evolution of the church, things have changed.
For example, Lengwin said, the church has faced criticism from many of its own priests who have disagreed with various beliefs and practices. When that happens, there is discussion and clarification of beliefs, he said.
It doesn't always work.
"We've had people walk away and start churches of their own or join Lutheran or Presbyterian or other churches," he said. "The role of the church is to teach the truth as effectively as you can. There's no jail if you don't agree with us."
The Rev. Douglas Holben, executive presbyter for the Redstone Presbytery, which covers Westmoreland, Fayette, Somerset and Cambria counties, said the Presbyterian Church "as a community of faith would try to find a common ground" when confronted with differing opinions.
"We seek to find things to unite us," Holben said.
If faced with criticism, it's best to "find ways in which they find the church to be faithful to the Lord," he said.
Holben said the church has formed a Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity that includes people from different backgrounds and perspectives. Discussions among the group were productive, he said, adding that the members did not condemn or judge each other for their differences.
"They were able to say that even though we don't agree with your opinion, we can agree upon a common faith," he said.
Rabbi Sara Perman, leader of the Congregation Emanu-El Israel in Greensburg, explained that before the French Revolution emancipated Jews in Europe, those who spoke out against Judaism faced "cherem" or excommunication. Cherem resulted in both a spiritual and economic "death" because people who were excommunicated were unable to make a living in their community.
"Now, the reality is that if you are unsatisfied and speak out against Judaism, there isn't much we can do about it in this country," Perman said. "Within the general Jewish community, there isn't much you can do except not give them a forum or ignore them."
Haynes said the key to America's success in religious diversity is for people of all religions to understand that you "can't just tolerate" the fact that Muslims or Catholics or Protestants or Mormons or Jews have a right to be here. He said this country is a "level playing field" where everyone is free to practice their religion, but not to carry out extreme ideas that violate basic principles.
"I don't think there's anyplace on the planet with more religious diversity," Haynes said.
"This is a big challenge in 21st century America to make sure we can live with the deepest differences, and religious differences are the most difficult to navigate."
Robin Acton can be reached at racton@tribweb.com or 724-830-6295.
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/25/audio-ayaan-hirsi-ali-defends-the-imam-who-says-she-must-be-killed/
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is right. Easy on the eyes as well.
-
Not exactly within the subject of this thread, but worth noting.
Dhimmitude wins again:
Little Green Footballs blog
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
France Bans Citizen Journalists from Reporting Violence
The French government, in inimitable French fashion, have decided that they can prevent more riots like the intifada that tore apart French suburbs in 2005 by cracking down on free speech: France bans citizen journalists from reporting violence. (Hat tip: LGF readers.)
The French Constitutional Council has approved a law that criminalizes the filming or broadcasting of acts of violence by people other than professional journalists. The law could lead to the imprisonment of eyewitnesses who film acts of police violence, or operators of Web sites publishing the images, one French civil liberties group warned on Tuesday.
The council chose an unfortunate anniversary to publish its decision approving the law, which came exactly 16 years after Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King were filmed by amateur videographer George Holliday on the night of March 3, 1991. The officers’ acquittal at the end on April 29, 1992 sparked riots in Los Angeles.
If Holliday were to film a similar scene of violence in France today, he could end up in prison as a result of the new law, said Pascal Cohet, a spokesman for French online civil liberties group Odebi. And anyone publishing such images could face up to five years in prison and a fine of €75,000 (US $98,537), potentially a harsher sentence than that for committing the violent act.
============
Riot coverage ‘excessive’, says French TV boss. (Hat tip: Ralph.)
One of France’s leading TV news executives has admitted censoring his coverage of the riots in the country for fear of encouraging support for far-right politicians.
Jean-Claude Dassier, the director general of the rolling news service TCI, said the prominence given to the rioters on international news networks had been “excessive” and could even be fanning the flames of the violence.
Mr Dassier said his own channel, which is owned by the private broadcaster TF1, recently decided not to show footage of burning cars.
“Politics in France is heading to the right and I don’t want rightwing politicians back in second, or even first place because we showed burning cars on television,” Mr Dassier told an audience of broadcasters at the News Xchange conference in Amsterdam today.
“Having satellites trained on towns across France 24 hours a day showing the violence would have been wrong and totally disproportionate ... Journalism is not simply a matter of switching on the cameras and letting them roll. You have to think about what you’re broadcasting,” he said.
-
Factual Statements=Unprotected Harassment!? A Terrifying Precedent at Tufts
by Greg Lukianoff
May 11, 2007
Today, FIRE announced the decision by a disciplinary panel at Tufts to find the conservative student newspaper, The Primary Source, guilty of “harassment” for, among other things, publishing a satirical ad that listed less-than-flattering facts about Islam during Tufts’ Islamic Awareness Week. You can see the ad here, and Eugene Volokh has also published it with excellent commentary over at his blog, but, just to make sure people see the ad for themselves, I have reprinted the full text:
Islam
Arabic Translation: Submission
In the Spirit of Islamic Awareness Week, the SOURCE presents an itinerary to supplement the educational experience.
MONDAY: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” – The Koran, Sura 8:12
Author Salman Rushdie needed to go into hiding after Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeni declared a fatwa calling for his death for writing The Satanic Verses, which was declared “blasphemous against Islam.”
TUESDAY: Slavery was an integral part of Islamic culture. Since the 7th century, 14 million African slaves were sold to Muslims compared to 10 or 11 million sold to the entire Western Hemisphere. As recently as 1878, 25,000 slaves were sold annually in Mecca and Medina. (National Review 2002)
The seven nations in the world that punish homosexuality with death all have fundamentalist Muslim governments.
WEDNESDAY: In Saudi Arabia, women make up 5% of the workforce, the smallest percentage of any nation worldwide. They are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle or go outside without proper covering of their body. (Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2001)
Most historians agree that Muhammed’s second wife Aisha was 9 years old when their marriage was consummated.
THURSDAY: “Not equal are those believers who sit and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit. Unto all Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit by a special reward.” – The Koran, Sura 4:95
The Islamist guerrillas in Iraq are not only killing American soldiers fighting for freedom. They are also responsible for the vast majority of civilian casualties.
FRIDAY: Ibn Al-Ghazzali, the famous Islamic theologian, said, “The most satisfying and final word on the matter is that marriage is form of slavery. The woman is man’s slave and her duty therefore is absolute obedience to the husband in all that he asks of her person.”
Mohamed Hadfi, 31, tore out his 23-year-old wife Samira Bari’s eyes in their apartment in the southern French city of Nimes in July 2003 following a heated argument about her refusal to have sex with him. (Herald Sun)
If you are a peaceful Muslim who can explain or justify this astonishingly intolerant and inhuman behavior, we’d really like to hear from you! Please send all letters to tuftsprimarysource@gmail.com.
So does this paint Islam in a nice light? No. Is it one-sided? Yes, but that was kind of the point. The students were responding to what they thought was a one-sided and overly rosy depiction of Islam during Islamic Awareness week. But is it unprotected harassment!? One certainly hopes not, or else “harassment” just became a truly lethal threat to free speech—an “exception” that completely swallows the rule.
This is perhaps the most troubling and far-reaching aspect of this case. The Primary Source published a satirical ad filled with factual assertions and because this angered people it was ruled to be unprotected harassment. If what the complaining students wanted to say was that the TPS facts were wrong, then—while this still would not be harassment—that could have been an interesting debate. But instead, in sadly predictable fashion, the students plowed ahead with a harassment claim that, based on the hearing panel’s decision, appeared not even to raise the issue of whether or not the statements in the ad were true, but turned only on how they made people feel. A panel consisting of both faculty and students found the publication guilty in flagrant abuse of what harassment case law and regulations actually say, and demonstrating total ignorance of the principles of a free society. Even in libel law (one of the oldest exceptions to the rule of free speech is that you can be punished for defaming people) truth is rightfully an absolute defense. Here, the fact that TPS printed verifiable information—with citations—was apparently no defense, nor was the fact that the ad concerned contentious issues of dire global importance. Such an anemic conception of free speech should chill anyone who cares about basic rights and democracy itself.
I doubt that the Tufts disciplinary board thought through the full ramifications of their actions. If a Muslim student had published these same statements in an article calling for reform in Islam, would that be harassment? If Tufts wished to be at all consistent (a dubious bet here), it would be.
Since those students and faculty obviously did not think about the ramifications of this decision, we put it to you, President Bacow: do you think the publication of factual assertions should be a punishable offense if they hurt the wrong people’s feelings, regardless of whether or not they are true? I hope he will think hard on what the U.S. would look like if that was the law of the land. It’s not a country that most of us would recognize or even want to live in. We ask again for President Bacow to live up to the best principles of a liberal university in a free society and overturn this dangerous decision.
-
Factual Statements=Unprotected Harassment!? A Terrifying Precedent at Tufts
by Greg Lukianoff
May 11, 2007
Today, FIRE announced the decision by a disciplinary panel at Tufts to find the conservative student newspaper, The Primary Source, guilty of “harassment” for, among other things, publishing a satirical ad that listed less-than-flattering facts about Islam during Tufts’ Islamic Awareness Week. You can see the ad here, and Eugene Volokh has also published it with excellent commentary over at his blog, but, just to make sure people see the ad for themselves, I have reprinted the full text:
Islam
Arabic Translation: Submission
In the Spirit of Islamic Awareness Week, the SOURCE presents an itinerary to supplement the educational experience.
MONDAY: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” – The Koran, Sura 8:12
Author Salman Rushdie needed to go into hiding after Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeni declared a fatwa calling for his death for writing The Satanic Verses, which was declared “blasphemous against Islam.”
TUESDAY: Slavery was an integral part of Islamic culture. Since the 7th century, 14 million African slaves were sold to Muslims compared to 10 or 11 million sold to the entire Western Hemisphere. As recently as 1878, 25,000 slaves were sold annually in Mecca and Medina. (National Review 2002)
The seven nations in the world that punish homosexuality with death all have fundamentalist Muslim governments.
WEDNESDAY: In Saudi Arabia, women make up 5% of the workforce, the smallest percentage of any nation worldwide. They are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle or go outside without proper covering of their body. (Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2001)
Most historians agree that Muhammed’s second wife Aisha was 9 years old when their marriage was consummated.
THURSDAY: “Not equal are those believers who sit and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit. Unto all Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit by a special reward.” – The Koran, Sura 4:95
The Islamist guerrillas in Iraq are not only killing American soldiers fighting for freedom. They are also responsible for the vast majority of civilian casualties.
FRIDAY: Ibn Al-Ghazzali, the famous Islamic theologian, said, “The most satisfying and final word on the matter is that marriage is form of slavery. The woman is man’s slave and her duty therefore is absolute obedience to the husband in all that he asks of her person.”
Mohamed Hadfi, 31, tore out his 23-year-old wife Samira Bari’s eyes in their apartment in the southern French city of Nimes in July 2003 following a heated argument about her refusal to have sex with him. (Herald Sun)
If you are a peaceful Muslim who can explain or justify this astonishingly intolerant and inhuman behavior, we’d really like to hear from you! Please send all letters to tuftsprimarysource@gmail.com.
So does this paint Islam in a nice light? No. Is it one-sided? Yes, but that was kind of the point. The students were responding to what they thought was a one-sided and overly rosy depiction of Islam during Islamic Awareness week. But is it unprotected harassment!? One certainly hopes not, or else “harassment” just became a truly lethal threat to free speech—an “exception” that completely swallows the rule.
This is perhaps the most troubling and far-reaching aspect of this case. The Primary Source published a satirical ad filled with factual assertions and because this angered people it was ruled to be unprotected harassment. If what the complaining students wanted to say was that the TPS facts were wrong, then—while this still would not be harassment—that could have been an interesting debate. But instead, in sadly predictable fashion, the students plowed ahead with a harassment claim that, based on the hearing panel’s decision, appeared not even to raise the issue of whether or not the statements in the ad were true, but turned only on how they made people feel. A panel consisting of both faculty and students found the publication guilty in flagrant abuse of what harassment case law and regulations actually say, and demonstrating total ignorance of the principles of a free society. Even in libel law (one of the oldest exceptions to the rule of free speech is that you can be punished for defaming people) truth is rightfully an absolute defense. Here, the fact that TPS printed verifiable information—with citations—was apparently no defense, nor was the fact that the ad concerned contentious issues of dire global importance. Such an anemic conception of free speech should chill anyone who cares about basic rights and democracy itself.
I doubt that the Tufts disciplinary board thought through the full ramifications of their actions. If a Muslim student had published these same statements in an article calling for reform in Islam, would that be harassment? If Tufts wished to be at all consistent (a dubious bet here), it would be.
Since those students and faculty obviously did not think about the ramifications of this decision, we put it to you, President Bacow: do you think the publication of factual assertions should be a punishable offense if they hurt the wrong people’s feelings, regardless of whether or not they are true? I hope he will think hard on what the U.S. would look like if that was the law of the land. It’s not a country that most of us would recognize or even want to live in. We ask again for President Bacow to live up to the best principles of a liberal university in a free society and overturn this dangerous decision.
« main | e-mail comments
-
I doubt the ad qualifies as "unprotected harassment". If I were that Islamic student group at Tufts, I would instead make the point that while the content of the ad may be "factual" the newspaper is being deliberately and needlessly inflammatory by publishing it, especially at the time they chose to.
-
I am a tad bit new and late on the comment that was made by the person about Muslims upset about that Danish cartoon but what I can't believe is the fact that they would get upset over a cartoon but their Holy prophet married his favorite wife "Aisha" when she was 6 years old and he was at that time 54. Then he "Consummated his marriage with her when she was 9 now making him 57...So they are gonna get upset over a cartoon..But not at the fact that their Prophet Muhammad Kidnapped a child in Allah's name and then whisked her away on a magic carpet ride??? Nope..Getting mad over a Cartoon is much more important then getting mad at a pedophile :|
Then again..What do I know.. :wink:
-
Rog:
Apparently the disciplinary committee DID find it unprotected-- that is precisely the point of the piece. Why does the suppression of free speech not concern you?
"I would instead make the point that while the content of the ad may be "factual" the newspaper is being deliberately and needlessly inflammatory by publishing it, especially at the time they chose to."
How can the truth be deliberately and needlessly inflammatory? And why would it not be appropriate to raise these questions precisely at the moment of "Islamic Awareness Week"? Should not awareness include inconvenient truths as well?
Marc
-
Rog:
Apparently the disciplinary committee DID find it unprotected-- that is precisely the point of the piece.
Wow. How did they decide that?
Why does the suppression of free speech not concern you?
Who says it doesn't concern me? I realize I said "I doubt the ad qualifies as unprotected harassment", but I should have added that I personally think it doesn't.
How can the truth be deliberately and needlessly inflammatory? And why would it not be appropriate to raise these questions precisely at the moment of "Islamic Awareness Week"? Should not awareness include inconvenient truths as well?
The Abu Ghraib photos and our secret torture camps in Eastern Europe also qualify as inconvenient truths necessary for awareness, yet IIRC you considered the "New York Slimes", "Left Angeles Times", etc. totally irresponsible (if not guilty of treason) for publishing these revelations during wartime as they risked increased hostility towards the troops in Iraq. Again, I don't support banning the ads in question, but I also don't blame the Muslims for being pissed about them and perceiving them as an unnecessary attack.
-
Were it an ad attacking christianity, I doubt Rogt would defend offended christians.....
-
Were it an ad attacking christianity, I doubt Rogt would defend offended christians.....
It would depend on the details of the ad. But let's be honest: it's not like Christians in the US have to worry about being attacked or mistaken for a terrorist and thrown in Guantanamo. That this is a real concern for Muslims is a crucial difference.
-
"The Abu Ghraib photos and our secret torture camps in Eastern Europe also qualify as inconvenient truths necessary for awareness, yet IIRC you considered the "New York Slimes", "Left Angeles Times", etc. totally irresponsible (if not guilty of treason) for publishing these revelations during wartime as they risked increased hostility towards the troops in Iraq. Again, I don't support banning the ads in question, but I also don't blame the Muslims for being pissed about them and perceiving them as an unnecessary attack."
Umm, lets be a bit more precise here.
1) Abu Ghraib and the investigation thereof which was generated by regular Army procedures without any public knowledge of the events in question at the time was revealed to the press by the Pentagon.
2) The secret detention centers in Europe in my opinion should not have been revealed. What also earned my ire at the NY Slimes and the Left Angeles Times was their revelation of a secret military program to get favorable articles in Iraqi media and of a secret government program that was monitoring secret islamo-fascist movements of money. In my opinion, in time of war these actions ARE irresponsible at best and do veer towards treason. Actions such as these cost real lives of real Americans who are putting their butts on the line for all of us.
The nature of Islam is a vital question of our time. Yes I am sure that pieces like this irk many Muslims, but in that they are based upon truth and operate within the context of Reason, that really is irrelevant in America. Free Speech irritates many people on a regular basis. Too bad, so sad. The answer is for Muslims to answer the points and questions raised, not get p*ssy PC, multi-cultural academic cowards to silence them.
-
"The Abu Ghraib photos and our secret torture camps in Eastern Europe also qualify as inconvenient truths necessary for awareness, yet IIRC you considered the "New York Slimes", "Left Angeles Times", etc. totally irresponsible (if not guilty of treason) for publishing these revelations during wartime as they risked increased hostility towards the troops in Iraq. Again, I don't support banning the ads in question, but I also don't blame the Muslims for being pissed about them and perceiving them as an unnecessary attack."
Umm, lets be a bit more precise here.
1) Abu Ghraib and the investigation thereof which was generated by regular Army procedures without any public knowledge of the events in question at the time was revealed to the press by the Pentagon.
2) The secret detention centers in Europe in my opinion should not have been revealed. What also earned my ire at the NY Slimes and the Left Angeles Times was their revelation of a secret military program to get favorable articles in Iraqi media and of a secret government program that was monitoring secret islamo-fascist movements of money. In my opinion, in time of war these actions ARE irresponsible at best and do veer towards treason. Actions such as these cost real lives of real Americans who are putting their butts on the line for all of us.
So are you saying that "suppression of free speech" would have been justified in the above cases because the troops' lives may have been put in extra danger, but not in a case where it might put Muslims in extra danger?
I'm not arguing in favor of *any* suppression of free speech that's actually true. I'm just trying to make the point that it's perfectly valid to accuse somebody of presenting "the truth" in a deliberately inflammatory or irresponsible manner.
-
"So are you saying that "suppression of free speech" would have been justified in the above cases because the troops' lives may have been put in extra danger"
The issue is one of aiding and abetting the enemy-- in time of war. Are you asserting a free speech right to publish military secrets?!?
"but not in a case where it might put Muslims in extra danger?"
I see absolutely nothing in the information which we have indicating that this is the case. It appears that you are pulling this out of thin air. Anyway, it makes perfect sense to me that people can freely search for Truth about the nature of Islam without being punished by their University.
" I'm just trying to make the point that it's perfectly valid to accuse somebody of presenting "the truth" in a deliberately inflammatory or irresponsible manner."
What does this have to do with a post that is about true free speech being punished by an University ?!?
-
"So are you saying that "suppression of free speech" would have been justified in the above cases because the troops' lives may have been put in extra danger"
The issue is one of aiding and abetting the enemy-- in time of war. Are you asserting a free speech right to publish military secrets?!?
If the secrets in question are war crimes (which Abu Ghraib and the secret torture prisons 100% qualify as), absolutely!
" I'm just trying to make the point that it's perfectly valid to accuse somebody of presenting "the truth" in a deliberately inflammatory or irresponsible manner."
What does this have to do with a post that is about true free speech being punished by an University ?!?
You asked if it were possible for the truth to be inflammatory or offensive, and I provided you with examples.
Look, we both agree that the ads shouldn't be banned. So stop with this fantasy like the newspaper was just innocently presenting "information" instead of knowingly publishing something intentionally hostile and offensive.
-
"Look, we both agree that the ads shouldn't be banned. So stop with this fantasy like the newspaper was just innocently presenting "information" instead of knowingly publishing something intentionally hostile and offensive."
You mean those instances when the Times publishes classified information which harms the national interest? When the mainstream media attempts to shape public opinion to suit their political agenda? Let me remind you of Dan Rather's "fake but true" memos regarding President Bush's nat'l guard records right before the last election.
-
Woof Crafty,
Hypothetical question: what would be your feelings about the subject titles below, on your political discussion forum or somebody else's?
Israeli Society
Israel vs. Palestine
Zionism and Fascism
Judaism the religion
Jews in the US
Jews in the Media
Jews in Hollywood
Jews in Europe
AIPAC/JADL
Over-representation of Jews in the Bush Administration?
Joseph Lieberman
Invitation to dialog with Jews
Keep in mind that I haven't said anything about what would be posted in them. I'm just talking about opening the subjects for a truth-seeking discussion.
Rog
-
Rog:
At the moment I'll just answer this post of yours:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on Today at 04:36:11 PM
ROG "So are you saying that "suppression of free speech" would have been justified in the above cases because the troops' lives may have been put in extra danger"
MARC: The issue is one of aiding and abetting the enemy-- in time of war. Are you asserting a free speech right to publish military secrets?!?
ROG: If the secrets in question are war crimes (which Abu Ghraib and the secret torture prisons 100% qualify as), absolutely!
MARC: Again, Abu Ghraib does not belong in this conversation. AG was revealed by the US Army of its own accord, yet you keep bringing it up in this context. IMHO it would be appropriate if you did not keep bringing it up in this context.
Concerning the secret detention centers, your point is rational. Concerning divulging our secret program getting our side into Iraqi press it is not and concerning our monitoring the enemy's financial flows, it is not.
Quote
ROG" I'm just trying to make the point that it's perfectly valid to accuse somebody of presenting "the truth" in a deliberately inflammatory or irresponsible manner."
MARC What does this have to do with a post that is about true free speech being punished by an University ?!?
ROG You asked if it were possible for the truth to be inflammatory or offensive, and I provided you with examples.
MARC Ummm, , , no I did not ask that at all.
Rog: Look, we both agree that the ads shouldn't be banned. So stop with this fantasy like the newspaper was just innocently presenting "information" instead of knowingly publishing something intentionally hostile and offensive.
Marc: Hostile? Sure, but what does it say when people find the Truth offensive and seek to shut down its expression? I'm assuming here that some Muslims complained to the University. If this is not the case, I submit that voluntary dhimmitude is finding its way to our shores. Anyway, Maybe this has something to do with the hostility? And leads to the creation of threads like this one?
Marc
-
Woof Crafty,
Hypothetical question: what would be your feelings about the subject titles below, on your political discussion forum or somebody else's?
Israeli Society
Israel vs. Palestine
Zionism and Fascism
Judaism the religion
Jews in the US
Jews in the Media
Jews in Hollywood
Jews in Europe
AIPAC/JADL
Over-representation of Jews in the Bush Administration?
Joseph Lieberman
Invitation to dialog with Jews
Keep in mind that I haven't said anything about what would be posted in them. I'm just talking about opening the subjects for a truth-seeking discussion.
Rog
If jews had done 9/11 (I'm assuming not even DogBrian thinks so), if jews were killing people in the name of G-d on most every continent on the planet, if the majority of armed conflicts on the planet had jews making war on gentiles as a core element of their theology wouldn't you agree that those would be important topics of discussion?
-
MARC: The issue is one of aiding and abetting the enemy-- in time of war. Are you asserting a free speech right to publish military secrets?!?
ROG: If the secrets in question are war crimes (which Abu Ghraib and the secret torture prisons 100% qualify as), absolutely!
MARC: Again, Abu Ghraib does not belong in this conversation. AG was revealed by the US Army of its own accord, yet you keep bringing it up in this context. IMHO it would be appropriate if you did not keep bringing it up in this context.
Even though it was revealed by the military, IIRC you still considered it irresponsible for the media to publish the photos.
Concerning the secret detention centers, your point is rational. Concerning divulging our secret program getting our side into Iraqi press it is not and concerning our monitoring the enemy's financial flows, it is not.
Thank you for acknowledging my point about the detention centers. Monitoring finances (if that's all it was) doesn't seem criminal to me, but I'm less sure about the disinformation campaign in the Iraqi press.
Quote
ROG You asked if it were possible for the truth to be inflammatory or offensive, and I provided you with examples.
MARC Ummm, , , no I did not ask that at all.
Umm... Yes you did.
How can the truth be deliberately and needlessly inflammatory?
I'll give you a better answer. The truth can be inflammatory when there's a deliberate effort to present a set of cherry-picked facts to make one point of view appear indisputable. This is the exact same criticism a lot of right-wingers have about Michael Moore's movies (which I myself have never claimed to be anything other than "the truth" as MM sees it). I too could easily come up with a set of facts that, by themselves, would make Jews look completely violent, racist, and backwards (isn't the Arab media accused of this all the time?) So while I don't dispute the factual accuracy of the ads, they don't exactly qualify as "truth" as far as I'm concerned.
-
Rogt,
I'd like to hear what you think is fair criticism of islam would be, if any.
-
ROG You asked if it were possible for the truth to be inflammatory or offensive, and I provided you with examples.
MARC Ummm, , , no I did not ask that at all.
ROG Umm... Yes you did.
------------
MARC: Care to provide a quote?
=================================
MARC: Concerning the secret detention centers, your point is rational. Concerning divulging our secret program getting our side into Iraqi press it is not and concerning our monitoring the enemy's financial flows, it is not.
ROG: Thank you for acknowledging my point about the detention centers. Monitoring finances (if that's all it was) doesn't seem criminal to me, but I'm less sure about the disinformation campaign in the Iraqi press.
MARC: Actually I haven't agreed with your point, I merely said it is rational-- something which I have said to you before on the DBMAA forum. Concerning monitoring financial flows, since you agree it wasn't criminal of our government to do so, does this mean you agree it was wrong of the NY Times and the LA Times to print about them? Does not an action like this aid and give comfort to our enemies in time of war???
Concerning getting favorable articles in the Iraqi press, your choice of words "disinformation campaign" is very revealing about your orientation. One might even get the idea that you were not for our victory, so please correct me if I am wrong.
Regardless, this was an action that our troops took in a theater of war. Please tell us what "law" do you think might apply to this case?!? Why do you not care that the LA Times broke this story thereby destroying the value of a secret military operation in a theater of war??? :x :x :x For me the word treason applies here.
-
ROG You asked if it were possible for the truth to be inflammatory or offensive, and I provided you with examples.
MARC Ummm, , , no I did not ask that at all.
ROG Umm... Yes you did.
------------
MARC: Care to provide a quote?
I provided the quote (and another answer to question, to which you have not responded) right below the words of mine you cite above. Maybe you should re-read my previous post.
MARC: Actually I haven't agreed with your point, I merely said it is rational--
And I didn't say you agreed with it, but thanked you for acknowledging it. Again, please re-read my last post.
Concerning monitoring financial flows, since you agree it wasn't criminal of our government to do so, does this mean you agree it was wrong of the NY Times and the LA Times to print about them?
As far as I know, it was no secret that our government was doing this. If you can show me that some law was broken, then yes, I'll agree that it was wrong.
Does not an action like this aid and give comfort to our enemies in time of war???
No.
Concerning getting favorable articles in the Iraqi press, your choice of words "disinformation campaign" is very revealing about your orientation.
I call it one thing, you call it another. Clearly we're not going to agree on this.
One might even get the idea that you were not for our victory, so please correct me if I am wrong.
Oh, I'll spell it right out for you: I am 100% opposed to a US victory in Iraq and that I consider it the worst possible outcome for both us and Iraq. If you don't get this from me by now then you must have been reading a different discussion forum for the past four years.
-
Rogt,
I'd like to hear what you think is fair criticism of islam would be, if any.
I certainly take issue with Islam's treatment of women and gays, which isn't all that different from Christianity's.
-
Rogt,
I'd like to hear what you think is fair criticism of islam would be, if any.
I certainly take issue with Islam's treatment of women and gays, which isn't all that different from Christianity's.
That's a good point. I was kind of thinking the same thing the other day while beating a woman for being immodestly dressed in public. I was on my way to the public execution of homosexuals when I saw her.....
-
That's a good point. I was kind of thinking the same thing the other day while beating a woman for being immodestly dressed in public. I was on my way to the public execution of homosexuals when I saw her.....
You don't see Muslims in the US stoning anybody to death either. I see the two religions themselves as being more or less equally intolerant, if you compare their ideas. The difference between the US and most of the Muslim world is that we have a democracy and a constitution that impose tolerance.
-
The majority of the founders of the US were of what religion? The Majority of Americans today are of what religion? Please tell me of any majority muslim nation where religious minorities enjoy the same level of freedoms religious minorities enjoy here.
-
The majority of the founders of the US were of what religion? The Majority of Americans today are of what religion? Please tell me of any majority muslim nation where religious minorities enjoy the same level of freedoms religious minorities enjoy here.
Yes, the same Founding Fathers who added freedom of religion AND separation of church and state.
Sorry, I just don't see Christianity the religion as being anything special in terms of compassion or enlightenment. Maybe I'd change my mind if they'd cut out the "moral values" (coded speech for anti-gay bigotry and anti-abortion activism) stuff, but unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Anyway, you asked for my fair criticism of Islam and I gave it to you.
-
I really do not plan in getting into this conversation. Been there done that, however, I would like to add that.....I don't know of any Country U.S. or otherwise that permits the stoning of adulterers or the murder of homosexuals.
How many Islamic countrys permit this?
Also I don't see JESUS partaking in any of these activitys either in fact he condemed such things.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%208&version=50
I think the problem that Rog has is not really so much to do with Christianity, but morals themselves.
You see there is a seperation of church and state as Rog states, but the thing I think hes missing is, that you don't have to be "religous" to have morals.
Lots of non religous people are against abortion as well as homosexuality.......as Rog also well knows......real Christians love the sinner....but hate the sin.
Then thats just my observation and I happen to know quite a lot of Christians. :lol:
TG
Its my hope that someday Rog will accept Christians the same way he embraces homos and pro-abortionists. We are all still people even though we may have different beliefs.
-
"I am 100% opposed to a US victory in Iraq and that I consider it the worst possible outcome for both us and Iraq. If you don't get this from me by now then you must have been reading a different discussion forum for the past four years."
I understand that many people opposed going into Iraq and I understand that many people think we should get out now, but that is quite a long way from opposing US victory!
I find myself pretty steamed at the moment.
-
"I am 100% opposed to a US victory in Iraq and that I consider it the worst possible outcome for both us and Iraq. If you don't get this from me by now then you must have been reading a different discussion forum for the past four years."
I understand that many people opposed going into Iraq and I understand that many people think we should get out now, but that is quite a long way from opposing US victory!
What exactly does opposing a war mean to you then? I honestly do not feel that a US victory would be a good thing.
I mean, after all the stuff we were told about why we had to get into this war that's turned out to be complete BS, all the people killed, and of course all the torture and other illegal stuff we've done, how can you honestly say us keeping it up until we "win" would be better than just stopping now and pulling out?
Does the truth of what's happening there or why we're there really matter to you? Or is it just all about our side winning no matter what?
-
Rogt,
What do you think America's loss would look like? Do you think the Vietnamese people were well served by our pulling out of Vietnam and abandoning the South to the tender mercies of the NVA? I think you should rent "The Killing Fields" and watch it until it sinks in....
-
If someone said "I don't think we can win this" or "I think there is a better way" well, this is America and as Americans we talk it over and then we vote. That is a long way on my spectrum from saying "I oppose American victory".
-
I give Rogt credit for his truthfulness, instead of the usual "I support the troops, but....." line most of the left hides behind.
-
If someone said "I don't think we can win this" or "I think there is a better way" well, this is America and as Americans we talk it over and then we vote. That is a long way on my spectrum from saying "I oppose American victory".
Again, I feel like I've made my view on this pretty clear since the start of this war, so I'm not sure what you're acting so shocked about. I'm not some pacifist - I absolutely would support a war I felt was justified, and this one just plain isn't. IMHO, anybody who says they're against the war but hopes our side wins is just trying to have it both ways. And please, don't get started on some "Rog wants more troops killed" thing. You know me well enough to know I'm not talking about fighting for the other side or justifying genuine acts of treason.
Now that (hopefully) we've cleared the air on this, I would appreciate a response to this part of my post from a couple of days ago (back on the topic of this thread):
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on June 14, 2007, 05:27:55 PM
How can the truth be deliberately and needlessly inflammatory?
I'll give you a better answer. The truth can be inflammatory when there's a deliberate effort to present a set of cherry-picked facts to make one point of view appear indisputable. This is the exact same criticism a lot of right-wingers have about Michael Moore's movies (which I myself have never claimed to be anything other than "the truth" as MM sees it). I too could easily come up with a set of facts that, by themselves, would make Jews look completely violent, racist, and backwards (isn't the Arab media accused of this all the time?) So while I don't dispute the factual accuracy of the ads, they don't exactly qualify as "truth" as far as I'm concerned.
-
I think I'm doing a pretty good job keeping up here with a huge Gathering just days away.
-
If someone said "I don't think we can win this" or "I think there is a better way" well, this is America and as Americans we talk it over and then we vote. That is a long way on my spectrum from saying "I oppose American victory".
So in your mind, is every American supposed to want an American victory regardless of their feelings about the war? You seem to be OK with war "opposition" only so long as it remains within appropriately safe (i.e. toothless and non-offensive) bounds.
-
I can't say as Iv'e actually heard any American say that they were 100% opposed to us winning the war or that A U.S. victory would be the worst possible outcome for us andIraq. I think its a first for me.
Who would you like to see win this war?
Its kinda hard to comprehend your mindset Rog. I understand all your gripes but I don't get your bottom line and how it would be good for the U.S. and Iraq.
Seems contrary........care to enlighten me with your thought.
TG
-
Woof Tom,
The reasons we were given for getting into this war were complete BS, and there is simply no denying this. We attacked a sovereign nation that had never attacked us and that we have not been able to prove (even after the fact) was an actual threat to us, which is a war crime under international law. We have tortured people and illegally "rendered" others to secret prisons so they could be tortured. Also war crimes.
As I see it, any victory of ours under these circumstances would be seen by our leaders as having justified these crimes, and would thus increase the temptation to use the same methods again in the future. We would see ourselves as having a blank check to wage war against anybody we decide is a threat to our "national security" for any reason. No country should have that right.
Rog
-
Rog, I agree with your post.
My question is: who would you like to see win this war, specificly Iraq.
Also how would it be good for America and Iraq to lose this war?
I'am guessing that you think it would be good for America to lose this war as a lesson for all the wrong doing that has transpired since its inseption.
I doubt that, our leaders would take it as such since it is such a broad out look.....even so.....how would our losing be good for Iraq?
I still think inspite of all the wrong/bad things, that a U.S./Iraq victory would be good for the U.S. Iraq and the rest of the world.
Simply because the people who we are fighting are FAR worse than Bush and the present admin.
In a year or so we will be rid of Bush, not so for our enemys in Iraq.
TG
-
Posted on: Today at 02:41:01 PM
Posted by: rogt
Insert Quote
Woof Tom,
The reasons we were given for getting into this war were complete BS, and there is simply no denying this.
**Saddam was a well documented state sponsor of terrorism and had everyone convinced he had WMD. After 9/11, it was clear he needed to go.**
We attacked a sovereign nation that had never attacked us and that we have not been able to prove (even after the fact) was an actual threat to us, which is a war crime under international law.
:roll: **I love it when people who know nothing about the law try to cite it to support their bogus assertions. Please cite the applicable statute you allege was violated, Mr. "War Crimes" expert. Saddam signed a cease fire at the end of the Gulf War, which he violated for years afterwards. If you got your information from sources other than Bay Area bumper stickers, you might be able to comment with a little more credibility.**
We have tortured people and illegally "rendered" others to secret prisons so they could be tortured. Also war crimes.
**Again, your assertion without evidence.**
As I see it, any victory of ours under these circumstances would be seen by our leaders as having justified these crimes, and would thus increase the temptation to use the same methods again in the future. We would see ourselves as having a blank check to wage war against anybody we decide is a threat to our "national security" for any reason. No country should have that right.
**We are fighting a war for our very survival. Maybe it will take the deaths of people you care about to wake you up to this. I can't appeal to your patriotism, being a good leftist, you have none, so I guess it'll come down to when you find some sort of personal stake in the war.**
-
We are fighting a war for our very survival. Maybe it will take the deaths of people you care about to wake you up to this. I can't appeal to your patriotism, being a good leftist, you have none, so I guess it'll come down to when you find some sort of personal stake in the war.
You just crossed the line.
-milt
-
I have two family members in harm's way in the GWOT. One on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, the other a member of a Marine rifle company engaged in combat operations as we speak. What's your investment in our losing? Who's over the line?
-
It is well within bounds to say that "I think this war was/is a mistake. I don't think we can win. I think we should come home". To say that "I hope we fail" -- which is how it is heard when you say "I oppose our victory"-- is something else altogether.
-
I have two family members in harm's way in the GWOT. One on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, the other a member of a Marine rifle company engaged in combat operations as we speak.
And if it were up to me they'd be home right now.
What's your investment in our losing?
What's yours?
Your relatives can get injured or killed whether or not we "win" this war. It's not like "losing" the war means all our soldiers are dead. But this is obvious, and you're not stupid, so why am I even having to explain it?
In any case, I want them out of harm's way. You're the one who seems to want to keep them there.
Who's over the line?
This is just supposed to be a political discussion, "friends at the end of the day," and all that. But you guys insist on making it personal. Every post is full of snide comments and cheap shots against "the left" and the conversation inevitably turns into an attempt to smear your opponents as Communists and/or traitors. Anything but sticking to the subject.
I'll give this forum one more shot if you want to just forget all this and start fresh, but I've grown weary of all the bickering.
-milt
-
It is well within bounds to say that "I think this war was/is a mistake. I don't think we can win. I think we should come home". To say that "I hope we fail" --
Which means what to you, exactly? What would our "failure" look like?
which is how it is heard when you say "I oppose our victory"-- is something else altogether.
Again, what is a US "victory" in this context?
The terms are so abstract that it's possible you and Rog are thinking of different scenarios when you use those terms.
But the real question is why do you guys want to make such a big deal out of some comment he made and have this huge f-ing debate about it? Why is that so much more interesting to "the right" than sticking to the original subject?
-milt
-
Woof Milt, I agree about the cheap shot thing. Its part of the reason I intend to not post often here. I do hope that Rog will answer my 2 questions that I asked earlier.
I'am just intrested in what he has to say about them........and thats it I'am out.
A funny thing is that people are people and just because their opinions might be on opposite ends of the spectrum makes them no less people at the end of the day. :-D Weather Christian or pagan :|
In the words of the infamous Rodney King "why can't we all just get along" :wink:
TG
-
Woof Milt, I agree about the cheap shot thing. Its part of the reason I intend to not post often here.
No kidding. If what you guys want is a truth-seeking discussion with some people with views different from your own, then let's have it, but if all you really want are some liberal punching bags, say so now and I'll stop wasting my time here.
I do hope that Rog will answer my 2 questions that I asked earlier.
Sure. First question:
My question is: who would you like to see win this war, specificly Iraq.
The way I see it, both we and the Iraqis win if we stop the war now and concentrate our energy on making Iraq a better place for Iraqis to live than it was under Saddam, which we have the power to do anytime we want.
But if we insist on continuing to fight, then I see two possible outcomes: (1) we kill and terrorize as many Iraqis as it takes to subjugate the entire country or (2) the Iraqis keep up the fight until we decide it's no longer worth it and force our political leadership to give it up. Of those two outcomes, I consider (2) to be the better one.
Also how would it be good for America and Iraq to lose this war?
I really can't answer this without knowing what victory and loss mean to you.
A funny thing is that people are people and just because their opinions might be on opposite ends of the spectrum makes them no less people at the end of the day. :-D Weather Christian or pagan :|
In the words of the infamous Rodney King "why can't we all just get along" :wink:
Couldn't have said it better myself! Tom and I may disagree on a LOT, but our discussions have always been in the spirit of "friends at the end of the day". :)
-
Victory means achieving something like we set out to do. Some sort of representative government like millions of Iraqis have voted for at considerable personal risk to themselves three times and something which is opposed by Al Qaeda and its ilk-- who have succeeded in stirring up sectarian religious strife while engaging in considerable true torture and mass deliberate targetting of civilians as part of their standard operating procedure. This vision is also opposed by Saddamite Baathist elements who also have engaged in terrible deeds.
Coming on the heels of finding nothing wrong with revealing military secrets in time of war, to say that one "opposes" our victory is to deliberately choose to express oneself in a way that sounds quite like something unpatriotic and I find it a bit disingenuous to be surprised when GM took the bait.
"The way I see it, both we and the Iraqis win if we stop the war now and concentrate our energy on making Iraq a better place for Iraqis to live than it was under Saddam, which we have the power to do anytime we want."
This is either vacuous or , , , silly. It has been our mission from the beginning and continues being our mission under the most challenging of circumstances to "make Iraq a better place for Iraqis". Preventing this are AQ and its ilk (who have openly declared democracy to be against Islam) Saddamite Baathist elements, etc. The blame for the fighting belongs on those who violently and murderously oppose the three times democratically expressed will of the Iraqi people, not on the US. Sure the Bush people have made plenty of mistakes but to put the blame on the US equally with AQ, Baathist elements, etc is easily understood to go hand in hand with opposing our victory.
"The reasons we were given for getting into this war were complete BS, and there is simply no denying this."
This is tedious. Quite the contrary. There is plenty of denying this as I have with you for several years now, both on the Assn forum and here. I find the denial of what has been explained to you many times by others and by me to be yours.
Also tedious was this:
BEGIN
"Woof Crafty,
Hypothetical question: what would be your feelings about the subject titles below, on your political discussion forum or somebody else's?
Israeli Society
Israel vs. Palestine
Zionism and Fascism
Judaism the religion
Jews in the US
Jews in the Media
Jews in Hollywood
Jews in Europe
AIPAC/JADL
Over-representation of Jews in the Bush Administration?
Joseph Lieberman
Invitation to dialog with Jews
Keep in mind that I haven't said anything about what would be posted in them. I'm just talking about opening the subjects for a truth-seeking discussion.
Rog"
END
There is not a world-wide movment (India, Canada, Thailand, France, Afghanistan, England, Iran, Spain, Iraq, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the Horn of Africa, Algeria and the rest of North Africa, Palestine, United States, Lebanon, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc) of jewish fascism of at least 100 million and maybe hundreds of million more jews looking to bring down western civilization by the sword, terror and treachery. You do not see world-wide demonstrations of jews killing and burning down embassies as we did in the events that started this thread with the world-side response to the Danish cartoons- although there are far nastier cartoons aplenty about Jews in the Arab and Iranian press quite regularly.
If there were such a movement doing such things, such questions would be quite appropriate. However there is not such a movement, which is why such questions are tediously in search of a non-existant moral parity.
Again, one may fairly think that our goals are not achievable and that therefore we should come home. To oppose the achievement of these goals is something else. Do you two oppose the achievement of these goals?
Marc
-
EUROPE TELLS BRITAIN: DON'T SAY 'MUSLIMS'
wn up warning governments not to link Islam and terrorism.
The politically correct directives are believed to be behind ministers not using words such as “Muslim’’ about Britain’s terrorism crisis.
Yesterday the Daily Express reported how Gordon Brown’s ministers had been told to avoid inflammatory language when speaking about the attempted car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow.
Neither the Prime Minister in a major interview nor Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in the Commons referred to Muslims or Islam.
Last night critics pointed to a classified EU document sent out to all European governments offering “non-offensive’’ phrases to use when discussing terrorism.
Banned terms were said to include “jihad’’, “Islamic’’ or “fundamentalist”.
It is completely unacceptable for people in Brussels to tell us what words we can and can’t use.
Conservative MP Philip Davies
EU officials said the “common lexicon’’ aimed to stop the distortion of the Muslim faith and alienation of its followers in Europe. European governments had previously agreed on the need to develop a “non-emotive lexicon’’ for use in discussion to avoid “exacerbating division’’.
Gerard Batten, a UK Independence Party MEP, claimed Ms Smith’s statement was “evidence that the Government is now cutting its suit to suit the European Commission’s cloth’’. He is demanding that the full lexicon be published.
But the Home Office insisted: “The Home Secretary uses her own words. She did not draw on any other source.’’
Even Labour former Foreign Office Minister Denis MacShane said yesterday that “Islamist’’ was an “accurate description’’ of the ideology behind the terror attacks.
And Conservative MP Philip Davies said: “Whatever your view on particular words, surely everyone should agree it is completely unacceptable for people in Brussels who have already interfered too much in our lives to start to tell us what words we can and can’t use.
“If we believe in anything in this country we should believe in free speech. If we are allowing the EU to dictate to us on this, most people would find that horrifying.’’
Hugo Robinson, of Open Europe thinktank, said: “Brussels has no place telling national governments how they should deal with the real and immediate threat of terrorism: The EU’s so-called non-emotive lexicon won’t do anything to stop dangerous extremists targeting Britain.’’
A Foreign Office source insisted the “common lexicon’’ was not an exercise in “political correctness’’ but an attempt to find a “common vocabulary and definitions’’ for statements about terrorism.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12236
-
A legal follow up to the Danish cartoons affair from the WSJ:
=========
Shouting Murder on a Crowded Street
By DANIEL SCHWAMMENTHAL
July 27, 2007
A British court last week sentenced four men to up to six years in prison for inciting murder and racial hatred. The men were among the hundreds of Muslims who in February of last year met after Friday prayers at London's Regent's Park mosque and marched to Denmark's embassy to protest the Muhammad cartoons that had been published in Danish newspapers. Like other such rallies, this protest descended into calls for terror and the beheadings of those who "insult Islam."
The convicted men did nothing more destructive than shout, and in the view of some Britons, the judge went too far and dangerously curtailed the freedom of speech. But consider another view: By locking away the protestors for the words they chanted that day, the judge actually struck a victory for the freedom of speech.
Even in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, where freedom of expression has always known fewer limitations than in Continental Europe, it is not an absolute right. Laws regulating obscenity and hate speech have long set boundaries for what can be considered legitimate speech.
In this case, the slogans the men were chanting and had written on their placards were more than offensive; they were calls to mass murder. They were not vague threats that a society could afford to tolerate. Instead, by referring to actual acts of terror, the men's words took on a concrete, menacing character. Among the threats they shouted were: "U.K. you will pay, 7/7 on its way," "Oh Allah, we want to see another 9/11," "Bomb, bomb Denmark, bomb, bomb U.S.A." and "Bomb, bomb the U.K."
The court's judgment contrasts with the attitude of the police on hand that day. The protest took place just seven months after the July 7 London bombings, in which 52 people died. Yet the officers turned a blind eye -- literally -- to the protestors' calls for more terror. They stood with their backs to the demonstrators, apparently ready to defend them against angry passers-by. British TV would later show an English bobby reprimanding a man who called for the protestors' arrest. "You say one more thing like that, mate, and you'll get yourself nicked (arrested)," the officer could be heard telling the onlooker. Public outrage about the police's failure to stop this pro-terror rally prompted the later arrests of some of the protestors.
In his verdict, Judge Brian Barker said that "Freedom of speech and assembly have long been jealously guarded by our laws…With freedom comes respect and responsibility, none of which was demonstrated by you." He continued: "What you were part of was the complete opposite of peaceful protest. Your words were meant to foment hatred and encourage killing."
Recall, this case started with a Danish newspaper's decision to publish cartoons that satirized the Prophet Muhammad. The protestors' goals were to impose their own standards of acceptable speech and silence dissenting voices. By striking down the demonstrators' "freedom" to intimidate and threaten, the court protected free speech for everybody else.
This is also what the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken MacDonald, suggested when he argued during the trial that glorifying the London subway bombings and calling for more terror "undermines everyone else's freedom by stirring up bigotry, racial hatred and violence. Terror attacks our way of life and incitement can make a very real contribution to it."
In fighting the war on terror, the challenge for Western societies is usually defined as finding the right balance between security and preserving the freedoms that make our democratic societies worth defending. But that's not the whole story. Terrorists and their supporters threaten not just our lives; they also threaten our freedom -- including our freedom of speech.
Some critics of radical Islam already live under constant police protection in fear of their lives. How many journalists or writers may mince their words out of fear of repercussions? The state has a duty not only to guarantee security, arguably its foremost task, but also to protect the open society against its Islamist enemies.
Civil libertarians' almost reflexive objection to any type of tougher security measures stems from a noble tradition. History teaches members of democratic societies to see the state not so much as the guardian but as the natural enemy of civil liberties. That's because liberty had to be gradually wrested from the hands of absolutist rulers. In Western political philosophy, freedom is defined as freedom from the state.
But there's another danger too, one that we forget at our peril: If the the state is not allowed to stop Islamists' incitement to murder and terror, their speech may eventually be the only one that remains "free."
Mr. Schwammenthal is an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/28/sharia-watch-man-arrested-for-koran-abuse/
-
Some fascinating details about the arresting officer
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26463_The_Koran_Complaint&only
-
Take a Chill Pill - the Oxford English Dictionary Adds 2,700 Entries!
NEW YORK, July 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- New words enter the English
language every day, and dictionary publishers are constantly struggling to
keep up. The editors of the Oxford English Dictionary Online
(http://www.oed.com) update the internet version of their 20-volume lexicon
every three months. This week 'chill pill,' 'argh,' 'bikini wax,' and
'problemo' are among the almost 2,700 new words that were added to the OED.
"The revised range of the OED contains 2,693 entries, bringing the
total number of main entries to 260,154," notes John Simpson,
Editor-in-Chief of the Oxford English Dictionary. "They are illustrated by
2,827,811 quotations and represent 697,324 different meanings."
Some of the other new and revised entries to the OED include:
Brooklynite
sleeper cell
glitch
high-maintenance
low-maintenance
prime directive
Islamofascism
scratch and sniff
focus group
prissy
primal scream
that's not my problem
comeback kid
Hollywood ending
"The English language changes and evolves all the time and the Oxford
English Dictionary has to keep up," according to the OED's Editor at Large,
Jesse Sheidlower. "Our editors are currently going through the entire
alphabet bit by bit, writing new entries and revising existing ones in
order to stay current. It's a massive job and will take years, if not
decades, to complete- at which point we'll start over again."
A complete list of the new words and their definitions in the OED is
available online at http://www.oed.com/help/updates/prima-proteose.html.
SOURCE Oxford University Press
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/07-03-2007/0004619634&EDATE=TUE+Jul+03+2007,+05:20+AM
-
The timing of the entry of "Islamofascism" could not have been better for me. On the DBMAAssn forum someone was taking me to task for my use of the term so in addition to the article on this term which I posted earlier in this thread it was quite perfect for me to quote the OED :-)
-
Crafty,
I wonder how detatched from reality one has to be to question the word "islamofascism". :roll:
-
It is a mystery to me too.
-
GM, Speaking in terms of reality. Care to name a Islamofascist that we are actually fighting? Or.......are you would you just say that any Islamist that opposes us Is automaticly A Islamofascist.
Heres the short list of the definition given on who or what a Islamo is :
In my analysis, as originally put in print directly after the horror of September 11, 2001, Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology. This radical phenomenon is embodied among Sunni Muslims today by such fundamentalists as the Saudi-financed Wahhabis, the Pakistani jihadists known as Jama'atis, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In the ranks of Shia Muslims, it is exemplified by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the clique around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.
Of the list above which ones are we currently and directly engaging in combat.....
For clarification purposes there wasn't so much a question of "Islamofascism" more a question of how do you identify them among the 100's of millions of Muslims.....Or do we just "kill them all and let god sort em out"
Would you say that Sadaam Husien was a Islamo?
Can an Iraqi fight Americans in his back yard simply because he dosen't want a Occupying force in his home, without being a Islamo?
Seems we did something similar here a couple of hundred plus years ago with the British.......
Anyway......Just bringing thesse things up for clarification and to keep it real.
In case you didn't pick up on this.......I'am the one that was detached from reality :|
Looking forward to your response to my post. :wink:
TG
-
Woof Tom:
When it comes to politics, I am no "GM" :lol:
1) "Would you just say that any Islamist that opposes us Is automaticly A Islamofascist?"
I certainly would NOT say that any Muslim that opposes us is a Islamofascist, but note that the term "Islamist" is used by many to mean something quite similar to the intended meaning of IF.
2) SH, to the extent that anything can be attributed to him, was a Baathist-- a thoroughly secular ideology
3) "Can an Iraqi fight Americans in his back yard simply because he dosen't want a Occupying force in his home, without being a Islamo?"
Sure-- and the motivation can be mixed in with his being a Sunni Baathist fearful of losing the position he held under SH. And, having experienced AQ and the other IFs, he now increasingly is working WITH the US to get rid of the fcukers. Again, I encourage you to read Michael Yon's reports-- see the thread on this forum dedicated to him.
4) "Of the list above which ones are we currently and directly engaging in combat?"
a) In Iraq: Saudi financed Wahhabis/Al Qaeda. General Petraeus said recently that “al-Qa’ida is carrying out the bulk of the sensational attacks, the suicide car-bomb attacks, suicide-vest attacks, and so forth... and all of the individuals in the intelligence community, General [Stanley] McChrystal, the head of our Joint Special Operations Command, all of us feel that the central front of al-Qa’ida’s terror war is focused on Iraq.”
b) In Iraq: Iranian backed forces-- I would define the Iranian govt. as IF
c) In Afg/Pak: AQ
d) In Afg/Pak: the Taliban
There are others, but this list will suffice for the purposes here.
I'm not familiar with the Jama'atis.
The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood does not meet the criterion of resorting to violence, but it most certainly seeks a theocratic state and Sharia-- which, in that government is force, it seeks to acquire force legally. In the American context I would define any group seeking a theocratic state and Sharia as seditious.
5) "Care to name a Islamofascist that we are actually fighting?" Well, I'm not sure we have the name of the late, unlamented Zarqawi's replacement, but he would be a pretty good example.
As we both know well, there are many players in Iraq-- but the IFs most certainly are some of them. The AQ have sedulously worked in the most despicable manner to create a religious civil war-- similary the IF Iranian government. But for their efforts, IMHO the situation in Iraq would be quite different.
6) "For clarification purposes there wasn't so much a question of "Islamofascism" more a question of how do you identify them among the 100's of millions of Muslims.....Or do we just "kill them all and let god sort em out"
For clarification purposes, it is a mystery to me that you would associate me with a "Kill them all and let God sort 'em out" mindset.
The difficulties of identification of IFs when the IFs are hiding are considerable, especially in that a goodly percentage of the Muslim population seems unwilling to point them out. Whether this is due to sympathy or intimidation can be very hard to discern. When they are shouting "Allahu Akbar" while decapitating civilian hostages it would be easier-- but for the masks they always seem to be wearing. When they are blowing up innocent people in market places in the name of Allah, it would be easier-- but for the fact that they are vaporized.
Have I answered your questions?
Marc
-
GM, Speaking in terms of reality. Care to name a Islamofascist that we are actually fighting? Or.......are you would you just say that any Islamist that opposes us Is automaticly A Islamofascist.
**Al Qaeda leaps to mind, Al qaeda in Iraq, the Taliban as well. We've been targeted by Hezbollah many times but seem not to have inflicted much back on them**
Heres the short list of the definition given on who or what a Islamo is :
In my analysis, as originally put in print directly after the horror of September 11, 2001, Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology. This radical phenomenon is embodied among Sunni Muslims today by such fundamentalists as the Saudi-financed Wahhabis, the Pakistani jihadists known as Jama'atis, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In the ranks of Shia Muslims, it is exemplified by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the clique around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.
Of the list above which ones are we currently and directly engaging in combat.....
For clarification purposes there wasn't so much a question of "Islamofascism" more a question of how do you identify them among the 100's of millions of Muslims.....Or do we just "kill them all and let god sort em out"
Would you say that Sadaam Husien was a Islamo?
**No, the Baathists were/are closer to plain old school fascism. This doesn't mean they can't/won't work with the jihadists though. Saddam would play the islam card when it suited him.**
Can an Iraqi fight Americans in his back yard simply because he dosen't want a Occupying force in his home, without being a Islamo?
**Yes.**
Seems we did something similar here a couple of hundred plus years ago with the British.......
**Really? I missed that part of American history where we were under a brutal totalitarian government until the Brits overthrew the totalitarian leader, tried to build schools and infastructure to make us a free and independant nation with civil rights and the rule of law, so we suicide bombed the Brits in return.**
Anyway......Just bringing thesse things up for clarification and to keep it real.
In case you didn't pick up on this.......I'am the one that was detached from reality :|
Looking forward to your response to my post. :wink:
TG
No idea it was you, Tom. :-D
-
Woof, There again, I take this back to a war agianst individuals or peoples? There maybe Saudi Islamo fas. operating in Iraq, but in the mean time were selling arms to the Saudis.......I saw a political cartoon the other day that IMPLIED we give arms to the Saudis they give them to their Jihadists and eventually they get used on us in Iraq.
(anyone here claim Saudi Arabia to be a friend) :roll:
Iran sends fighters and arms into Iraq to fight us.....and now we are negotiating with them for Iraq. (whatever) :-P
I have no problem with A'Q OR the Taliban seems we would have been better suited to fight them in Afghanastan then spread the war across Iraq as well. :|
My point again is we fight a selective war and use terminology to suit our needs.......
Some would also insiuate that we need to "reform Islam" Which is in my opinon the crux of the war for some here on this forum.....of course I don't expect anyone to come right out and say it, any more than I expect the U.S. Gov. to get serious about the "global war on terror" or the "war on Islamofascists" or whatever or who ever we are at war against.
To me in a lot of ways its out right laughable.
Has anyone noticed that little problem with the 13(still alive) Korean hostages....where? Oh yea that would be Afghanastan not Pakastan they are being held to my knowledge in Afghanastan...nice.....bang up job. :|
TG
-
Gents:
With this forum, I like to keep a fairly tight leash on thread coherency. Lets take a look at the title of the this thread. The question of whether IF is a sound term readily falls within this heading, but we are starting to drift into a shapeless mishmash of subjects here. By all means please continue the conversation, but please move the question(s) presented to the relevant
thread(s).
Marc
-
The vanishing jihad exposés
MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist
How will we lose the war against "radical Islam"?
Well, it won't be in a tank battle. Or in the Sunni Triangle or the caves of Bora Bora. It won't be because terrorists fly three jets into the Oval Office, Buckingham Palace and the Basilica of St Peter's on the same Tuesday morning.
The war will be lost incrementally because we are unable to reverse the ongoing radicalization of Muslim populations in South Asia, Indonesia, the Balkans, Western Europe and, yes, North America. And who's behind that radicalization? Who funds the mosques and Islamic centers that in the past 30 years have set up shop on just about every Main Street around the planet?
For the answer, let us turn to a fascinating book called "Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World," by J. Millard Burr, a former USAID relief coordinator, and the scholar Robert O Collins. Can't find it in your local Barnes & Noble? Never mind, let's go to Amazon. Everything's available there. And sure enough, you'll come through to the "Alms for Jihad" page and find a smattering of approving reviews from respectably torpid publications: "The most comprehensive look at the web of Islamic charities that have financed conflicts all around the world," according to Canada's Globe And Mail, which is like the New York Times but without the jokes.
Unfortunately, if you then try to buy "Alms for Jihad," you discover that the book is "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock." Hang on, it was only published last year. At Amazon, items are either shipped within 24 hours or, if a little more specialized, within four to six weeks, but not many books from 2006 are entirely unavailable with no restock in sight.
Well, let us cross the ocean, thousands of miles from the Amazon warehouse, to the High Court in London. Last week, the Cambridge University Press agreed to recall all unsold copies of "Alms for Jihad" and pulp them. In addition, it has asked hundreds of libraries around the world to remove the volume from their shelves. This highly unusual action was accompanied by a letter to Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, in care of his English lawyers, explaining their reasons:
"Throughout the book there are serious and defamatory allegations about yourself and your family, alleging support for terrorism through your businesses, family and charities, and directly.
"As a result of what we now know, we accept and acknowledge that all of those allegations about you and your family, businesses and charities are entirely and manifestly false."
Who is Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz? Well, he's a very wealthy and influential Saudi. Big deal, you say. Is there any other kind? Yes, but even by the standards of very wealthy and influential Saudis, this guy is plugged in: He was the personal banker to the Saudi royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government. He has a swanky pad in London and an Irish passport and multiple U.S. business connections, including to Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission.
I'm not saying the 9/11 Commission is a Saudi shell operation, merely making the observation that, whenever you come across a big-shot Saudi, it's considerably less than six degrees of separation between him and the most respectable pillars of the American establishment.
As to whether allegations about support for terrorism by the sheikh and his "family, businesses and charities" are "entirely and manifestly false," the Cambridge University Press is going way further than the United States or most foreign governments would. Of his bank's funding of terrorism, Sheikh Mahfouz's lawyer has said: "Like upper management at any other major banking institution, Khalid Bin Mahfouz was not, of course, aware of every wire transfer moving through the bank. Had he known of any transfers that were going to fund al-Qaida or terrorism, he would not have permitted them." Sounds reasonable enough. Except that in this instance the Mahfouz bank was wiring money to the principal Mahfouz charity, the Muwafaq (or "Blessed Relief") Foundation, which in turn transferred them to Osama bin Laden.
In October 2001, the Treasury Department named Muwafaq as "an al-Qaida front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen" and its chairman as a "specially designated global terrorist." As the Treasury concluded, "Saudi businessmen have been transferring millions of dollars to bin Laden through Blessed Relief."
Indeed, this "charity" seems to have no other purpose than to fund jihad. It seeds Islamism wherever it operates. In Chechnya, it helped transform a reasonably conventional nationalist struggle into an outpost of the jihad. In the Balkans, it played a key role in replacing a traditionally moderate Islam with a form of Mitteleuropean Wahhabism. Pick a Muwafaq branch office almost anywhere on the planet and you get an interesting glimpse of the typical Saudi charity worker. The former head of its mission in Zagreb, Croatia, for example, is a guy called Ayadi Chafiq bin Muhammad. Well, he's called that most of the time. But he has at least four aliases and residences in at least three nations (Germany, Austria and Belgium). He was named as a bin Laden financier by the U.S. government and disappeared from the United Kingdom shortly after 9/11.
So why would the Cambridge University Press, one of the most respected publishers on the planet, absolve Khalid bin Mahfouz, his family, his businesses and his charities to a degree that neither (to pluck at random) the U.S., French, Albanian, Swiss and Pakistani governments would be prepared to do?
Because English libel law overwhelmingly favors the plaintiff. And like many other big-shot Saudis, Sheikh Mahfouz has become very adept at using foreign courts to silence American authors – in effect, using distant jurisdictions to nullify the First Amendment. He may be a wronged man, but his use of what the British call "libel chill" is designed not to vindicate his good name but to shut down the discussion, which is why Cambridge University Press made no serious attempt to mount a defense. He's one of the richest men on the planet, and they're an academic publisher with very small profit margins. But, even if you've got a bestseller, your pockets are unlikely to be deep enough: "House Of Saud, House Of Bush" did boffo biz with the anti-Bush crowd in America, but there's no British edition – because Sheikh Mahfouz had indicated he was prepared to spend what it takes to challenge it in court, and Random House decided it wasn't worth it.
We've gotten used to one-way multiculturalism: The world accepts that you can't open an Episcopal or Congregational church in Jeddah or Riyadh, but every week the Saudis can open radical mosques and madrassahs and pro-Saudi think-tanks in London and Toronto and Dearborn, Mich., and Falls Church, Va. And their global reach extends a little further day by day, inch by inch, in the lengthening shadows, as the lights go out one by one around the world.
Suppose you've got a manuscript about the Saudis. Where are you going to shop it? Think Cambridge University Press will be publishing anything anytime soon?
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/mark-steyn-jihad-1797347-exposs-column
-
Not maybe for the Saber ratellers, but another very good example of how we are fighting a selective was on "radical Islam" and another good example of how we are not serious about fighting it or wining it........but yeeee haaaa there cowboy!!, lets kill us some of them Iraqi's :|
TG
-
Insert Quote
Not maybe for the Saber ratellers, but another very good example of how we are fighting a selective was on "radical Islam" and another good example of how we are not serious about fighting it or wining it........but yeeee haaaa there cowboy!!, lets kill us some of them Iraqi's
Not sure you're responding to the piece I posted, but if so I don't think your pronoun use is appropriate. The "we" in this case involves British libel laws, Sunni v. Shia realpolitic, religious freedom in the US, and so on. Kind of a large porridge to be caputured by the term "we," yet when some of us try to break the issue down into its constituent units by using terms like "Islamofascist," objections arise. Sounds to me like you want some sort of unitary tactic that offends no one while applying our cultural standards to an enemy who has no use for them in a time of war. Can't get there from here as I see it, which may be the point: time to curl up in Fortress America, eh?
-
Buzzwardo, I was responding to your posted piece. Either curl up in fortress America or start telling the truth....and making it apply to all regardless of who or whom we may offend.....or expose.
Onley then will real changes be made.......My bet says it aint gonna happen.
Just trying to keep it real.....or at least start to keep it real :-D
TG
-
Tom:
The logic of you post #111 eludes me, both as a response in the context of this thread to what Buz posted or in general. As best as I can tell, as has been explained in this thread and on this forum with what I perceive to be reasonable clarity NO ONE is calling for killing anyone because they are Iraqi.
Marc
-
Guro Crafty, Please allow me to clarify my post. By telling the truth...I meant that we pretend to be fighting this war against AQ and all others, but yet we fail to mention that we allow financiers of our enemys walk about freely and live among us and even allow them to threaten our publishers with suits for attempting to tell the truth and what this war is really all about.
Hope that clarifys that part...
As for the killing of Iraqis part.......We also try to hide behind this charade that ALL who oppose us or are at war with us are AQ IN Iraq........
When the truth is there are many factions we are fighting in Iraq and some maybe fighting us for no other reason then the veiw us as unwanted occupiers in Soverign country. It si much easier to kill these low leve types than go after the real enemy that hides behind banks and status....thats really what makes this war on terror such a joke. Remember we are selling arms to the Saudis.
I made several posts that went unresponded to like our wanting to put a up a permenate military theresince we no longer have one in Saudi Arabia......Do you suppose the Iraqi people or American people will tolerate that?
Or is that reality to far down the line to be a consideration at this time?
-
Tom: Lets post your question/answer in a thread relevant to its content. This thread is about Islamic Fascism vs. Free Speech.
-
The Right to Assembly
By DANIEL SCHWAMMENTHAL
August 27, 2007
Brussels
"I'm a free thinker," says Freddy Thielemans. Really? Many critics now doubt it after the socialist mayor of Brussels banned a demonstration under the slogan of "Stop the Islamization of Europe" (SIOE).
The rally was scheduled for Sept. 11, and the organizers from Germany, Britain and Denmark had planned to bring about 20,000 people from all over Europe to protest not just Islamist terrorism but what they call the "creeping" introduction of Shariah law in their societies. The march would have ended in front of the European Parliament with a minute of silence for the victims of the 2001 terror attacks in the U.S. The organizers now hope that Belgium's administrative court will overrule the mayor's decision tomorrow and allow the rally to proceed as planned.
In the meantime, the ugly word of censorship has been making the rounds. The suspicion gained even more currency when, around the time of his Aug. 9 decision to ban the anti-Islamization protest, Mr. Thielemans authorized an anti-American demonstration slated for Sept. 9. "United for Truth," a loose group of anticapitalists and conspiracy theorists, suggests that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks and demands an end to "state terrorism."
Even so, Mr. Thielemans rejects any questioning of his democratic credentials. The demonstrators' ideology had nothing to do with his decisions, he says. It was all a matter of public security. While there are no indications that the "United for Truth" rally could turn violent, he adds, the same could not be said about SIOE. The police have warned of "a very strong possibility that there will be a breach of peace" at the SIOE march, he told me in his office Friday.
As the mayor of not just Belgium's but Europe's capital, shouldn't he rather err on the side of political freedom? Not in this instance, Mr. Thielemans shoots back. "I won't have Brussels regarded as the capital of racism, that's what I think for sure." Apparently, anti-Americanism doesn't qualify as racism. At any rate, the mayor's characterization of the SIOE protesters seemed to contradict his previous statement that political disagreements had nothing to do with his decision to ban the protest. Pressed on that point, he acknowledged that he has little sympathy for the group but reiterated that his decision was purely based on security reasons. He also qualified his racism charge, admitting that he didn't know enough about the people organizing SIOE.
"But when they consider a community as a whole as a danger, that is disturbing," he said. "I don't mean they intentionally wanted to be racist but it turns into racism in my eyes....The oversimplification of ideas is always a risk."
True, the organizers paint with a broad brush and often care little for nuances. "We have a difficulty with the concept of 'moderate' Islam because the Muslim world is moving toward what the media call 'radical' Islam," Stephen Gash, one of the British organizers, told me over the phone. No doubt their message can be provocative or even extreme, especially when it includes calls for a halt to Muslim immigration.
Yet you don't have to sympathize with the speakers to believe in free speech. Beyond that, banning the protest partly out of fear of violent reactions from Muslims would seem to bolster the protesters' point. If Muslim radicals decide the level of debate about Islam in Europe, doesn't it show that "Islamization," the erosion of traditional European liberties, is a reality? Mr. Thielemans did not address that irony. He said instead that he's not only worried about Muslims reacting violently to a SIOE march. "A number of democrats announced that they'd react too," he said, along with "NGOs that are in favor of peace and integration." It's difficult to see how people who threaten to disrupt a demonstration can be called "democrats" or "in favor of peace." Pressed on the point that the organizers should not be limited in their democratic rights due to what their opponents might do, Mr. Thielemans eventually agreed. In fact, if the counterprotesters were his only worry, he said, he'd probably let the demonstration go ahead. What really concerns him, the mayor said, is the possibility of violent racists infiltrating the protest, mingling among peaceful demonstrators and provoking and attacking foreigners. The mayor says that police have discovered extremist Web sites calling on their followers to join the protest and cause trouble.
Unfortunately, many demonstrations contain the possibility of turning violent and some in the end do so. It is the job of the police to nip such violence in the bud and arrest troublemakers. The pre-emptive strike of banning the entire protest seems justified only if the threat to public safety is significant.
How significant is the threat in this case? The mayor didn't elaborate. He couldn't even say how many potentially violent racist protesters were expected. "That's hard to say. And on top of it you are sometimes astonished -- even people you would never expect can react strangely," he said. "A part of the analysis always remains in the dark."
During our interview at least, not much of this analysis ever came to light. The mayor pointed to a "recent" demonstration in the U.K. where, he said, racist protesters attacked nonwhite bystanders: "The phenomenon would be similar to what happened in London. I don't remember the date but the police absolutely referred to it. It was very violent."
When that particular demonstration took place and what exactly happened remains a mystery. Oddly, Mayor Thielemans didn't know the specifics of an event that apparently was important in his decision to limit civil liberties in his town. His spokesman promised to provide details later about this London protest but never delivered. Whatever happened, it can hardly have been a major race riot. That's not the sort of thing that goes unnoticed in Europe these days.
Of course, the mayor is responsible for public security. If a controversial demonstration that he approved a permit for were to turn violent, he would be held responsible.
Yet freedom of speech, particularly controversial speech, is also a treasured good in a democracy. In this instance, moreover, any immediate threat to public security perhaps should be weighed against a potential long-term threat to peace. Among other things, banning the SIOE demonstration will embolden Muslim radicals by suggesting that violence, or the fear of it, is the way to manipulate freedom lovers. Arguably, a ban may also undermine faith among ordinary people that their concerns about radical Islam can be voiced, and addressed, in a democratic fashion. Perhaps the court will consider this at tomorrow's hearing.
Mr. Schwammenthal edits the State of the Union column.
WSJ
-
In Defense of the Constitution
News & Analysis
015/07 August 28, 2007
CAIR: Media Cowers in Face of Islamist Threat
On August 24th, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), issued a "News Release" trumpeting the role CAIR played in getting the Christian TV program "Live Prayer with Bill Keller" off the air in Tampa, Florida.
http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=2929&theType=NR
While this is not a free speech issue, (TV stations are free to carry programs as they wish), it is troubling that a national broadcaster would terminate a program based on the demands of an Islamist hate group.especially an Islamic hate group that was not only founded by Islamic terrorists, but now stands as an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorism case.
http://www.nysun.com/article/55778
In view of the fact that CAIR was founded by Islamist terrorists, is here to overthrow constitutional government, actively works to impose Sharia (Islamic law), and other odious aspects of CAIR's perverted brand of "Islam", and one can't help but wonder, "What was CBS thinking?" CBS is in the business to make money; the Bill Keller program paid for its air time; in normal times, this would be considered good business.except for the antics of the unindicted co-conspirator, CAIR.
But these are not normal times.
Islam have become the latest "victim" in the American public arena, thanks to groups like CAIR; groups that purport to support "equal rights", but in reality demand "Special Rights".for Muslims only.
Rights not available to non-Muslims.
That's right. If you are not a Muslim in America , you can be insulted; your faith (or lack of faith) can be made fun of, the way you dress, your voice, your choice of living arrangements.are all fair game.
The odious activities of CAIR have even influenced decisions regarding publication of cartoons.and we don't mean the Danish Cartoons. The popular "Opus" cartoon strip has been pulled from the August 26th and September 2nd editions of many North American newspapers. Why? Could it possibly be the subject matter? Readers may view the August 26th strip and reach their own conclusion:
http://www.salon.com/comics/opus/2007/08/26/opus/index.html
http://www.berkeleybreathed.com/pages/index.asp
This is an alarming trend. While there is no evidence that CAIR had anything to do with the Opus cartoon strip being pulled, it would seem to fit well with CAIR's agenda to define Islam in America .to define what can be said.or not said.
Censorship.
By a group that tarnishes the meaning of the words "Islamic civil rights group".
It should be noted that when Anti-CAIR attorney Reed Rubinstein asked a reporter from a renowned Washington DC newspaper why they won't report on the obvious connections CAIR has to terrorism, he was told that the newspaper would never print or follow up on information uncovered in the CAIR v Anti-CAIR Lawsuit "because Muslims are an oppressed minority in this country."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utJs2WoDlYI
This is extremely dangerous, especially since America has a long tradition of inquiry; no subject has been taboo, no course of inquiry subject to censorship in search of the truth on important matters of public interest. This is as it should be.
Until now.
Whenever there is an article that questions Islam, a commentary that correctly points out problems with Islam in North America, or even dares to raise the issue of Islamic terrorism, CAIR is in the forefront demanding that Islam be described in only the most innocent of terms.
CAIR, once again, is clearly demonstrating what is in store for North America should CAIR's perverted brand of Islam become dominant.
CAIR has, since its founding, told us exactly what is in store for us should its dream of imposing Wahabbi Islam on North America come to fruition. Our "mainstream press" has refused to even make inquiry into any aspect of CAIR's activities on behalf of radical Islam; is it any wonder that most North Americans are woefully ignorant of the threat?
The mainstream press has abdicated its role in society. Is it any wonder that many people now turn to alternative sources for their news?
Come what may, North Americans will never be able to claim we weren't warned.
Andrew Whitehead
Director
Anti-CAIR
ajwhitehead@anti-cair-net.org
www.anti-cair-net.org
-
PAKISTAN, SWEDEN: The Pakistani Foreign Ministry condemned a cartoon sketch of the Prophet Mohammed published by the Swedish daily Nerikes Allehanda in the past week, describing it as offensive and blasphemous. The deputy head of the Swedish mission to Tehran was summoned to the ministry and a strong protest was lodged with her, the ministry said. Cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed published in Danish newspapers in early 2006 sparked deadly protests across the Muslim world.
stratfor.com
-
“Out Of Context,” Or, How To Argue With A Muslim
by Ibn Warraq (Sept. 2007)
It is quite common to hear two arguments from Muslims and apologists of Islam, the language argument, and that old standby of crooked, lying politicians, “you have quoted out of context.”
Let us look at the language argument first. You are asked aggressively, ‘do you know Arabic?’ Then you are told triumphantly, ‘You have to read it in the original Arabic to understand it fully’. Christians, even Western freethinkers and atheists are usually reduced to sullen silence with these Muslim tactics; they indeed become rather coy and self-defensive when it comes to criticism of Islam; they feebly complain “who am I to criticise Islam? I do not know any Arabic.” And yet freethinkers are quite happy to criticise Christianity. How many Western freethinkers and atheists know Hebrew? How many even know what the language of Esra chapter 4 verses 6-8 is? Or in what language the New Testament was written?
Of course, Muslims are also free in their criticism of the Bible and Christianity without knowing a word of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.
You do not need to know Arabic to criticise Islam or the Koran. Dr. Paul Kurtz, founder of the Center for Inquiry, and Prometheus Books, does not know Arabic but he did a great job on Islam in his book The Transcendental Temptation [1]. You only need a critical sense, critical thought and skepticism. Second, there are translations of the Koran by Muslims themselves, so Muslims cannot claim that there has been deliberate tampering of the text by infidel translators. Third, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs, and are not Arabic speakers. So a majority of Muslims also have to rely on translations. Finally, the language of the Koran is some form of Classical Arabic [2] which is substantially different from the spoken Arabic of today, so even Muslim Arabs have to rely on translations to understand their holy text. Arabic is a Semitic language related to Hebrew and Aramaic, and is no easier but also no more difficult to translate than any other language. Of course, there are all sorts of difficulties with the language of the Koran, but these difficulties have been recognized by Muslim scholars themselves. The Koran is indeed a rather opaque text but it is opaque to everyone. Even Muslim scholars do not understand a fifth of it.
Let us now turn to “you have quoted out of context”. This could mean two things: first, the historical context to which the various verses refer, or second, the textual context, the actual place in a particular chapter that the verse quoted comes from. The historical context argument is not available, in fact, to Muslims, since the Koran is the eternal word of God and true and valid for always. Thus for Muslims themselves there is no historical context. Of course, non-Muslims can legitimately and do avail themselves of the historical or cultural context to argue, for instance, that Islamic culture as a whole is anti-woman. Muslims did contradict themselves when they introduced the notion of abrogation, when a historically earlier verse was cancelled by a later one. This idea of abrogation was concocted to deal with the many contradictions in the Koran. What is more, it certainly backfires for those liberal Muslims who wish to give a moderate interpretation to the Koran since all the verses advocating tolerance (there are some but not many) have been abrogated by the later verses of the sword.
Out of Context Argument Used Against Muslims Themselves:
Now for the textual context. First, of course, this argument could be turned against Muslims themselves. When they produce a verse preaching tolerance, we could also say that they have quoted out of context, or more pertinently, first, that such a verse has been cancelled by a more belligerent and intolerant one, and second, that in the overall context of the Koran and the whole theological construct that we call Islam ( i.e. in the widest possible context), the tolerant verses are anomalous, or have no meaning, since Muslim theologians ignored them completely in developing Islamic Law, or that, finally, the verses do not say what they seem to say.
For instance, after September 11, 2001, many Muslims and apologists of Islam glibly came out with the following Koranic quote to show that Islam and the Koran disapproved of violence and killing: Sura V.32 : “Whoever killed a human being shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind”.
Unfortunately, these wonderful sounding words are being quoted out of context. Here is the entire quote: V.32 :
“That was why We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being , except as a punishment for murder or other villainy in the land , shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as though he had saved all mankind.
“Our apostles brought them veritable proofs: yet it was not long before many of them committed great evils in the land.
“Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country.”
The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. Behave or else is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated and banished!
Behind the textual context argument is thus the legitimate suspicion that by quoting only a short passage from the Koran I have somehow distorted its real meaning. I have, so the accusation goes, lifted the offending quote from the chapter in which it was embedded, and hence, somehow altered its true sense. What does “context” mean here? Do I have to quote the sentence before the offending passage, and the sentence after? Perhaps two sentences before and after? The whole chapter? Ultimately, of course, the entire Koran is the context.
The context, far from helping Muslims get out of difficulties only makes the barbaric principle apparent in the offending quote more obvious, as we have seen from Sura V.32 just cited. Let us take some other examples. Does the Koran say that men have the right to physically beat their wives or not? I say yes and quote the following verses to prove my point:
Sura IV.34 : "As for those [women] from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge [or beat] them.”
This translation comes from a Muslim. Have I somehow distorted the meaning of these lines? Let us have a wider textual context:
Sura IV.34 : “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. God is high, supreme.”
If anything, the wider textual context makes things worse for those apologists of Islam who wish to minimize the mysogyny of the Koran. The oppression of women has divine sanction; women must obey God and their men, who have divine authorisation to scourge them. One Muslim translator, Yusuf Ali, clearly disturbed by this verse adds the word “lightly” in brackets after “beat” even though there is no “lightly” in the original Arabic. An objective reading of the entire Koran (that is the total context) makes grim reading as far as the position of women is concerned.
Finally, of course, many of the verses that we shall quote later advocating killing of unbelievers were taken by Muslims themselves to develop the theory of Jihad. Muslim scholars themselves referred to Sura VIII.67, VIII.39, and Sura II.216 to justify Holy War. Again the context makes it clear that it is the battle field that is being referred to, and not some absurd moral struggle; these early Muslims were warriors after booty, land and women not some existential heroes from the pages of Albert Camus or Jean-Paul Sartre.
Let us take another example: Sura IX.
Here I have tried to use where possible translations by Muslims or Arabophone scholars, to avoid the accusation of using infidel translations. However, many Muslim translators have a tendency to soften down the harshness of the original Arabic, particularly in translating the Arabic word jahada, e.g. Sura IX verse 73. Maulana Muhammad Ali, of the Ahmadiyyah sect, translates this passage as:
Sura IX.73 : “O Prophet, strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm against them. And their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.”
In a footnote of an apologetic nature, Muhammad Ali rules out the meaning “fighting” for jahada.
However the Iraqi scholar Dawood in his Penguin translation renders this passage as:
Sura IX.73 “ Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”
How do we settle the meaning of this verse? The whole context of Sura IX. indeed makes it clear that “make war” in the literal and not some metaphorical sense is meant.
Let us take another verse from this Sura:
Sura IX.5 “Then, when the sacred months have passed away, kill the idolaters wherever you find them…” These words are usually cited to show what fate awaits idolaters.
Well, what of the context? The words immediately after these just quoted say, “and seize them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Ah, you might say, you have deliberately left out the words that come after those. Let us quote them then, "If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful”. Surely these are words of tolerance, you plead. Hardly, they are saying, only if they become Muslims then they will be left in peace. In fact the whole sura which has 129 verses (approximately 14 pages in the Penguin translation by Dawood), in other words the whole context, is totally intolerant, and is indeed, the source of many totalitarian Islamic laws and principles, such as the concepts of Jihad and dhimmitude, the latter proclaiming the inferior status of Christians and Jews in an Islamic state. All our quotes from the Arabic sources in Part One also, of course, provide the historical context of raids, massacres, booty, and assassinations, which make it crystal clear that real bloody fighting is being advocated.
First the idolaters, how can you trust them? Most of them are evil doers (IX. 8); fight them (IX. 12, 14); they must not visit mosques (IX. 18); they are unclean (IX. 28); you may fight the idolaters even during the sacred months (IX. 36). “It is not for the Prophet, and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of idolaters even though they may be near of kin after it has become clear they are people of hell-fire” ( IX. 113). So much for forgiveness! Even your parents are to be shunned if they do not embrace Islam: IX.23 "O you who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you takes them for friends, such are wrong-doers.” In other words if you are friendly with your parents who are not Muslims you are being immoral.
The theory of Jihad is derived from verses 5 and 6 already quoted but also from the following verses:
IX. 38-39: Believers, why is it that when it is said to you: ‘March in the cause of God’, you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? Few indeed are the blessings of this life, compared to those of the life to come.
If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men.
IX. 41: Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of God, with your wealth and with your persons.
IX. 73: Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal harshly with them.
The word that I have translated as fight is jahid. Some translators translate it as go forth or strive. Dawood translates it as fight, as does Penrice in his Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, where it is defined as: To strive, contend with, fight –especially against the enemies of Islam. While Hans Wehr in his celebrated Arabic dictionary translates it as “endeavour, strive; to fight; to wage holy war against the infidels”.[3]
As for the intolerance against Jews and Christians, and their inferior status as dhimmis we have IX verses 29 –35:
“Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.
“ The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are!
“They make of their clerics and their monks, and of the Messiah, the son of Mary, Lords besides God; though they were ordered to serve one God only. There is no god but Him. Exalted be He above those whom they deify besides Him!….
“It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters may dislike it
“O you who believe! Lo! many of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar men from the way of Allah; They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings of painful doom …”
The moral of all the above is clear: Islam is the only true religion, Jews and Christians are devious, and money-grubbing, who are not to be trusted, and even have to pay a tax in the most humiliating way. I do not think I need quote any more from Sura IX, although it goes on in this vein verse after verse.
[1] P.Kurtz , The Transcendental Temptation , Prometheus Books , Amherst ,1986
[2] There seems to be some controversy as to what the language of the Koran really is , see my introduction to What the Koran Really Says ., Prometheus Books , Amherst , 2002.
[3] Hans Wehr , A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic , Lebanon , Reprinted , 1980 , p.142
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/10467/sec_id/10467
-
'The Trial' in Brussels
September 4, 2007
Belgian justice brings to mind a certain novel by Kafka. Last month the mayor of Brussels banned a demonstration planned for September 11 under the slogan of "Stop the Islamization of Europe." An administrative court upheld that decision last week. So much for free speech and freedom of assembly in Europe's capital.
The organizers from Germany, Britain and Denmark had expected about 20,000 people from all over the Continent to protest what they called the "creeping" introduction of Shariah law into their societies. The rally was supposed to end with a minute of silence for the victims of the terror attacks on the U.S. six years ago.
True, the organizers' goal of "preventing Islam becoming a dominant political force in Europe" and their claims that Islam is incompatible with democracy are provocative. But the question is not whether one agrees with the message but whether the message is within the bounds of protected speech, which it clearly is.
Mayor Freddy Thielemans, while making no secret of his dislike for the organizers' political views, says his decision was based entirely on security concerns. The police, he says, had warned him of a possible breach of peace.
But Mr. Thielemans isn't worried that the organizers or their followers would turn violent. Instead, he fears that some Muslims and, in his words, "democrats" and "peace activists" might stage counterprotests on that symbolic day and perhaps clash with any racists who might infiltrate the demonstration. In other words, the mayor decided to ban an otherwise legitimate rally for fear of possible violence by people who are not linked to the demonstrators.
On their Web site, the rally organizers reject any association with racists and violent groups and called on the police to take care of potential troublemakers. It is the police's job, after all, to maintain law and order, which includes the right to peaceful demonstrations. Otherwise, extremists, be they skinheads, radical Muslims or "peace activists," could prevent any demonstration they disagreed with by the simple expedient of announcing they planned to show up.
Late Wednesday the administrative court in Brussels refused to overrule the mayor. It said the plaintiffs had failed to show "irreparable damage," such as those that result from contractual obligations. The court also suggested the demonstration could perhaps be held another day -- a rather speculative remedy as the mayor has not said he would allow such a rally on a different date. Besides, the organizers chose September 11 for its historic significance.
The judges overlooked that if law-abiding citizens are not allowed to express their opinions on any given day, it causes irreparable damage to the plaintiffs' rights and Belgium's democracy. Perhaps the civil court to which the organizers have appealed will give more weight to these arguments at tomorrow's hearing.
WSJ
-
Muslim ambassadors: 'Sweden needs to change its laws' Muslim ambassadors: 'Sweden needs to change its laws'
Published: 6th September 2007 17:19 CET
Ambassadors from Muslim countries have indicated that they intend to present the Swedish prime minister with a list of demands when they meet for talks on Friday.
Fredrik Reinfeldt invited the ambassadors from 20 Muslim countries to government offices on Friday following a wave of protests from Muslim countries after the publication of a caricature of Muhammad in local newspaper Nerikes Allehanda.
Reinfeldt's press secretary Oscar Hållén was unable to say which countries had confirmed their attendance.
Egyptian ambassador Mohamed Sotouhi told news agency TT that he and a group of fellow ambassadors had agreed on a list of measures Sweden needed to take if it was to secure a long-term solution to the Muhammad cartoon controversy.
According to Sotouhi, "comprehensive measures" were required if Sweden was to prevent some "amateur artist" from reawakening tensions every other month.
"We want to see action, not just nice words. We have to push for a change in the law," he said.
"Muslims need legal protection against the desecration of the Prophet Muhammad, maybe something similar to the protection enjoyed by Jews and homosexuals."
While praising the "very constructive steps" taken by Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Egyptian ambassador said that Sweden had much work left to do.
"In the long term the school curriculum has to convince pupils that if they want to express their opinion they should do so in such a way that it doesn't cause offence or hurt. This should also be part of journalism training," said Sotouhi.
"A permanent parliamentary committee also needs to be established to tackle islamophobia," he added.
The ambassador urged Reinfeldt to strive towards "reaching a balance between freedom of speech and taking responsibility to avoid offending Muslims or other religious groups in this society".
"Everybody will compare his wisdom with the situation in Denmark, whose prime minister treated the problem with a sort of arrogance, or at least delayed taking action to prevent the problem from escalating," he said.
Sotouhi described Sweden as a sophisticated country containing talented and creative diplomats.
"They know that proactive measures are necessary and we are ready to cooperate with them," he said.
Algeria's ambassador to Sweden, Merzak Bedjaoui, said the meeting "was an excellent initiative taken in a spirit of appeasement."
"At our level, we are trying to work hand in hand with Swedish authorities to try to create a real bridge between our communities," he said.
"When we speak of a dialogue between civilisations, it can't just be a catchy slogan. I think that the publication of this kind of caricature doesn't help at all," he said.
Earlier in the day the Oscar Hållén said that the meeting would form "part of our dialogue with these countries."
"We want to emphasize the fact that Muslims and Christians live side by side in Sweden in a spirit of mutual respect," he said.
Hållén further added that the government intended to reiterate its earler defence of Swedish laws surrounding freedom of expression.
http://www.wnd.com/redir/r.asp?http.../8412/20070906/
-
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=101170&d=14&m=9&y=2007
Sweden Did Not Apologize on Behalf of Paper: Envoy
Siraj Wahab, Arab News
JEDDAH, 14 September 2007 — Sweden yesterday denied that its ambassador to Saudi Arabia apologized to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for the publication of a caricature of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a Swedish newspaper.
According to a statement released to the media on Wednesday by the Jeddah-based organization, it was stated that the Swedish ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Jan Thesleff, met OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu on Tuesday in Jeddah and “offered his deepest apologies for the controversy created by the publishing of the hurtful depiction.”
The Swedish Foreign Ministry, however, immediately denied that the ambassador had made any apology, saying he had only expressed regret.
“The ambassador repeated his regret at the controversy created by the publication, but not for the publication itself,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Anna Bjorkander was quoted as saying by The Local newspaper of Sweden.
Bjorkander described the OIC’s interpretation of the meeting as a “misunderstanding.”
She told the Swedish newspaper that Thesleff was dissatisfied that the OIC had said he had apologized, but did not plan to demand that the organization change its statement. “He said he is not satisfied with the use of the word ‘apologize,’” Bjorkander said.
The publication of the caricature in the Swedish newspaper, Nerikes Allehanda, on Aug. 18 sparked anger in the Muslim world, with Egypt, Pakistan and Iran lodging formal protests with the Swedish government.
During his meeting with the Swedish ambassador, the OIC chief had conveyed his “concerns that this kind of irresponsible and provocative incitement in the name of defending freedom of expression was leading the international community toward more confrontation and division.”
Ihsanoglu strongly condemned the newspaper for publishing the blasphemous caricature saying it was an irresponsible and despicable act with malicious and provocative intentions in the name of freedom of expression.
“The caricature was intended solely to insult and arouse the sentiments of Muslims of the world,” he said.
“The international community was well aware of the serious impact of such publications that were globally felt during the controversy created by the publication of similar cartoons in a Danish newspaper last year,” he said.
The Swedish ambassador informed Ihsanoglu that his government had taken careful and serious note of his statement and acted in a proactive manner at an early stage. “Sweden feels that the best possible action to resolve the crisis is to choose the path of dialogue,” he said and pointed out that Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt had taken immediate steps by offering his personal regrets to the Muslim community in Sweden.
“Sweden is a country where people of different faiths can live together side by side,” the Swedish prime minister said in his statement late last month. “The foundation of this, our social model, is mutual respect and understanding, but also a desire for joint repudiation of offensive acts as well as acts of violence or aggression.”
While expressing regret, the Swedish prime minister pointed out that Sweden’s social model is based on the premise that politicians must not pass judgment on freedom of the press and expression.
Ihsanoglu welcomed the prime minister’s statement. However, he felt, there was a need for a legal mechanism for stopping the recurrence of such extreme provocation.
He said by intentionally offending the sentiments of 1.3 billion Muslims, these caricaturists were leading the international community toward more confrontation and division and providing extremist and deviant ideologies with valuable ammunition.
-
Al Qaeda Offers Bounty for Murder of Swedish Cartoonist
Saturday , September 15, 2007
ADVERTISEMENT
CAIRO, Egypt —
The leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq offered money for the murder of a Swedish cartoonist and his editor who recently produced images deemed insulting to Islam, according to a statement carried by Islamist Web sites Saturday.
In a half hour audio file entitled "They plotted yet God too was plotting," Abu Omar al-Baghdadi also named the other insurgent groups in Iraq that Al Qaeda was fighting and promised new attacks, particularly against the minority Yazidi sect.
"We are calling for the assassination of cartoonist Lars Vilks who dared insult our Prophet, peace be upon him, and we announce a reward during this generous month of Ramadan of $100,000 for the one who kills this criminal," the transcript on the Web site said.
The Al Qaeda leader upped the reward for Vilks' death to $150,000 if he was "slaughtered like a lamb" and offered $50,000 for the killing of the editor of Nerikes Allehanda, the Swedish paper that printed Vilks' cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad with a dog's body on Aug. 19.
Vilks said from Sweden he believed the matter of his cartoons had been blown out of proportion.
"We have a real problem here," Vilks told The Associated Press by telephone. "We can only hope that Muslims in Europe and in the Western world choose to distance themselves from this and support the idea of freedom of expression."
Ulf Johansson, editor in chief of Nerikes Allehanda, said he took the bounty "more seriously" than other threats he had received. "This is more explicit. It's not every day somebody puts a price on your head."
Johansson said he had contacted the police and that they had already started work on the threat.
Aside from a few scattered protests and condemnations by Muslim countries, the reaction to the cartoon has been muted, in contrast to last year's fiery protests that erupted in several Muslim countries after a Danish newspaper published 12 cartoons of Muhammad that were reprinted in a range of Western media.
In an attempt to defuse the tensions caused by the cartoon in both Sweden and abroad, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt last week invited 22 Sweden-based ambassadors from Muslim countries to talk about the sketch.
Reinfeldt expressed regret at the hurt it may have caused, but said that according to Swedish law it is not up to politicians to punish the free press.
Al-Baghdadi added in his message that if the "crusader state of Sweden" didn't apologize, his organization would also attack major companies.
"We know how to force you to retreat and apologize and if you don't, wait for us to strike the economy of your giant companies including Ericsson, Scania, Volvo, Ikea, and Electrolux," he said.
No photo has ever appeared of al-Baghdadi, whom the U.S. describes as a fictitious character used to give an Iraqi face to an organization dominated by foreigners.
The U.S. has said that under interrogation, a top Al-Qaeda member revealed that al-Baghdadi's speeches are read by an actor.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq in the past has carried out operations in Jordan and may have links to militant groups in Lebanon, but is not known to have any kind of presence in Europe.
-
September 21, 2007
"Muhammad cat" cartoonist gets one month in jail; magazine banned
"Unfortunately, Muslims in the West must live with the local laws on freedom of expression." But for how long?
An update on this story. "Bangladesh detains cartoonist for offending Islam," from IslamOnline (thanks to Paul):
A Bangladeshi cartoonist has been detained for drawing a caricature offensive to Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). Bangladesh witnessed mass protests after the publication of an anti-Islamic caricature by cartoonist Arifur Rahman.
The offensive cartoon, published in the 431st issue of Alpin, a weekly supplement of Bangladesh daily Prothom Alo, led to a one-month jail sentence to Rahman after the Bangladeshi Home Affairs Minister ruled that his drawings hurt Muslims’ feelings.
Islam was introduced to Bangladesh in the twelfth century by Sufi missionaries, and subsequent Muslim conquests helped spread the noble faith. Even though religion is practiced in a moderate manner in Bangladesh, the government bans any insult to Islam.
According to the BBC, the cartoon featured a conversation between a cleric and a child and ended with a joke about Prophet Mohammed's (PBUH) name.
The head of clerics of Dhaka’s main mosques filed complaints against the cartoonist who was arrested from his residence last Tuesday and handed over to the Tejgaon police station.
Rahman violated Section 54 code of criminal procedure and under such emergency laws; the government has the authority to detain people without charge if they are deemed to threaten national security.
Meanwhile, Prothom Alo published an apology on its front page for the “unfortunate publication”, withdrew the copies of that issue from the market and fired the cartoonist.
However, many in Bangladesh did not view such measures as enough and demanded that the newspaper be shut down....
Muslims might be a little relieved that those who offend their religion get punished in some countries as this is not the first time that involves the publication of anti-Islamic cartoons....
Western media often claims that such offensive cartoons shouldn’t anger Muslims and that their publication do not violate the laws of “freedom of expression“.
Unfortunately, Muslims in the West must live with the local laws on freedom of expression, Ibrahim el-Zayat, of the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe, told the BBC....
"Magazine banned for 'Mohammad cat' cartoon," from Reuters (thanks to JE):
BANGLADESH has suspended publication of a magazine after a cartoon it published this week triggered protests by Muslims who said it was offensive to the devout.
The suspension of publication of the Alpin, the weekly satire magazine of leading Bengali daily Prothom Alo, was ordered as some Muslim groups called for a street protest after Friday noon prayers, and a march towards the Prophom Alo office.
The daily has apologised for the cartoon in which a small boy referred to his cat as "Mohammad cat".
The protesters said it was a deliberate attempt by the cartoonist to ridicule Islam's Prophet Mohammad....
Police said that to avert any violence over the cartoon they would strictly enforce emergency laws banning protests and rallies.
"We shall impose a tight watch around Dhaka's Baitul Mokarram mosque from where the protesters would likely start their march," said a police officer.
Police have also deployed outside the daily's office.
Prothom Alo published a third apology toay and appealed to all to take the printing of the cartoon as a mistake.
On Wednesday police broke up a street march by hundreds of Islamists in Dhaka, demanding "death to the Prothom Alo editor" and "hang the cartoonist".
A government statement on Thursday said: "The magazine in its 431st issue has hurt the sentiment of devoted Muslims" and risked upsetting law and order....
-
The Al Qaeda Reader: A Review
By Gary H. Johnson, Jr.
A review of
The Al Qaeda Reader
Raymond Ibrahim, Editor/translator.
$15.95, 282 pp.
Recently, Raymond Ibrahim edited and translated into English a decade's worth of public releases by al Qaeda's leadership. Published by Broadway Books, with partial proceeds donated to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Ibrahim's The Al Qaeda Reader is not only a timely fountainhead for the United States citizenry's understanding of our Jihadi enemies, it is also a necessary release for all Muslims living under secular governments to grapple with in the coming years.
The text focuses on the prepared statements of both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leading authority figures of the Al Qaeda forces, which coordinated and carried out the devastating attacks of 9/11/2001. Since Muhammad's definition of war is "deceit", and al Qaeda has declared war against America, we can only assume that these al Qaeda releases hold a two-fold purpose: to provide sound, doctrinal justification for terrorism; and to gather popular support for their cause.
Raymond Ibrahim tackles these angles admirably well by splitting the releases into the broader sections: Theology and Propaganda. This revealing text brings forth the Doctrines of Loyalty and Enmity, Jahaliyya, Taqiyya, in jihadi context for the Western witness. It also sheds light on the source blood of the modern Islamist mentality in terms of ibn Taymiyya as well as the pivotal battle of Taif eight years after Muhammad's celebrated Hegira to Medina.
Part 1, Theology, begins with a thesis entitled, "Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West". What is obvious from this essay is that Osama bin Laden feels betrayed by the Muslim Intellectuals (particularly of Saudi Arabia) who would seek to stamp out extremism by helping President Bush in his "Crusade" against Islam. Bush's actual statement was made on September 16th, 2001: "This Crusade, this war on terror, is going to take a while." Regardless of President Bush's intent, the slip was made, and Osama bin Laden berates these "Moderate Muslims" for not including into their dialogue, with the Western Crusaders, three central elements of the Islamic Faith: the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity; the necessity of jihad; and the bounds of Sharia.
Osama bin Laden chides the moderates for seeking the UN's concept of equality, freedom, and justice, which differ from the Islamic Notions, of the same, in the sunna tradition. This train of thought rolls like a juggernaut into its culmination on page 43 when Osama places down the cornerstone of Al Qaeda, the Koranic ayat (sign/verse) 60:4, in which Allah via his Messenger, Muhammad, summarizes the Muslim-Infidel relation as plainly exampled by Abraham, when he states
"We disown you and that which you worship besides Allah. We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us--till you believe in Allah alone."
Bin Laden lays the brick with ease, stating,
"Battle, animosity, and hatred - directed from the Muslim to the infidel - is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them." [emphasis added]
Osama is vexed by the pesky Moderates, since they don't uphold Islam while dealing with the West. After all, he notes that,
"Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the sharia..."
It is as if bin Laden is saying, if only these moderates had simply invited the West to submit to Islam; but, instead, by cooperating with the West, they have become apostates, denying the ultimate truth of Islam its rightful place above the Infidel, who has only three options when confronted with the Islamic faith: conversion to Islam, paying the Jizya tax, or death.
Part 1 continues with a Treatise by Ayman al-Zawahiri entitled "Loyalty and Enmity", in which he expounds upon Osama bin Laden's efforts. The controversial topic of Taqiyya is broached in which it is permissible for Muslims to associate with infidels to dissemble rather than befriend. Taqiyya basically states that if forced to deal with infidels, lie and smile, remain secure in faith, knowing you are not helping the enemy. Loyalty comes first, for all Muslims must heed ibn Taymiyya when he states,
"...he is obligated to befriend a believer - even if he is oppressive and violent toward you, while he must be hostile to the infidel - even if he is liberal and kind to you."
Al-Zawahiri confirms that all Muslims are ordered to wage jihad against infidels, apostates, and hypocrites by the consensus of the ulema (jurists of accepted hadith).
It is in this vein that ibn Taymiyyah's power is demonstrated in the line of Islamic jurists, for repulsing an invading force is second only to faith in Allah as a duty to Islam. Ibn Kathir then shows his value by verifying that unquestioning obedience to the will of the ulema is the right path of submission to Allah, while doubt and refusal to adhere is caused by fear.
But by far the most striking feature of this lengthy treatise comes when he notes those leaders that Al Qaeda has targeted, "that clique of rulers who, while domineering over the lands of Islam, oppose sharia." Al-Zawahiri proceeds to enumerate the Arabian Peninsula, Gulf Emirates, Egypt, and Jordan as the secular clique of governments that aid the Crusader armies against the Mujahidin.
He goes on to state that anyone who joins the UN is not a true Muslim, calling them Henchmen of the Crusaders. He takes aim at the cowards who oppose sharia out of fear that the Crusaders will hurt them. And al-Zawahiri then pounds on the Northern Alliance Muslims who are aiding the American cause in Afghanistan. This juristic wrangling is the establishment of a purge to come. One can only wonder what type of purge is in store for these apostates should Al Qaeda win or become desperate. And if you doubt the purge to come, consider that the Tawhid (Oneness) of God, demands Submission to Allah and Fear of Allah, alone; yet, in this treatise's conclusion, al-Zawahiri states,
"We warn our umma against falling to defeatism and ignoring the dangers that oppressively lie atop our chests. Behold! the Crusader-Jewish military machine... It gears its aggression against us through a network of submissive rulers."
What happens to apostates again?
Part 1 culminates with two shorter treatises by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the first of which is entitled "Sharia and Democracy" and is simply an extract from his 1991 release, Bitter Harvest: The Muslim Brotherhood in Sixty Years. The importance of this section is in the simplicity with which democracy is labeled as the defining difference between Muslims and infidels, namely, Muslims submit to God, while infidels submit to men. Al-Zawahiri takes the consensus view of seven different jurists of the ulema, the source of Sharia Law, to explain why democratic government, created by the whims of men and nations is "a motley set of contrived rules".
Not only that, democracy is a primitive form of religion in comparison to faithful submission to Allah's Sharia. As proof for this rationale, Zawahiri examines Seven Islamic Jurist opinions, including those of the sheik of Islam, Ibn Taymiyya, and the father of radical Islam, Sayyid Qutb, all of which consider the rules of men to be a jahiliyya initiative, which is an attempt to bring mankind back to the time of man's law, before the Divine Koran was delivered, before the time of Muhammad, when true Sovereignty was ordained to Allah, by Allah himself.
This section is a revealing legalist perspective on why democracy is idolatry, the earmark of infidelity, and punishable by death. But, the most startling outburst in this treatise comes as a response to the "equality" to be had under democratic institutions, raging that there isn't anything more blasphemous than a society that does not limit apostasy (with death), abolishes jihad against infidelity, abolishes the protection tax and second-class dhimmi status of infidels, and (to top it off) abolishes man's dominion over women. But in order to understand the impact of these ruminations on the Islamic community, one must trace back to Sayyid Qutb, who provides the just definition of democracy as a religion. Without this linchpin, the argument just sounds like raving lunacy and an attack on reason.
The Second of the minor treatises, "Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents" is actually al-Zawahiri's master stroke of blending ulema doctrines in order to justify his chief weapon of deception in his war on America: the suicide bomber. For thirty odd pages, he examines suicide and "proves" that the intent of the suicide determines whether it is a sin or an act of martyrdom. But by far the most striking element in this treatise is the examination of accidental killing of innocents or fellow Muslims, which culminates in Ibn Tamiyya's statement,
"Based on the consensus of the ulema, those Muslims who are accidentally killed are martyrs; and the obligatory jihad should never be abandoned because it creates martyrs."
This is the logic that America needs to understand. America must come to grips with the fact that the jihad is obligatory to the Islamic faithful. Thus, with a sweep of historic citations, Ayman al-Zawahiri, utilizes the sheik of Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah, whom all Muslims adhere or respect, to define defensive jihad as second only to faith in Islam, and at the same time justifies suicide bombing in the measure of antiquity... via ijma, or parallels, to Muhammad's battle of Ta'if.
Part 2, Propaganda, is a hodgepodge of shorter releases, aimed at specific groups, and documented in order to seek popular support for methods and aims as well as provide the righteous sword of reciprocity for all to see. Strangely, in "Why are We Fighting You", Osama bin Laden begins listing reasons for Al Qaeda's war with the West, and ironically claims that the clique of secular Islamic governments give true Muslims "...a taste of humiliation, placing us in a large prison of fear and submission."
In "Your Fate is in Your Hands Alone," Osama bin Laden tells the touching story of tragedy in the 1982 occupation of Lebanon by Israel, with American support, which filled his heart with nebulous ideas concerning occupation and repelling the oppressor regimes of Islam, and lo! a freedom fighter was born. But it is not until bin Laden offers a truce to America that we see plain the intentions of al Qaeda for the long run, when he states,
"You have occupied our lands, transgressed against our manhood and dignity, spilled our blood, plundered our wealth, destroyed our homes, dislocated us, and played with our security -- and we will give you the same treatment."
Words like these seem to give weight to President Bush's notion that if we tuck tail and run in Iraq (a process called redeployment in some circles), the terrorists will follow us home, especially when you take into account a previous promise of bin Laden:
"...this has not been because of a failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your own homes once they are readied."
Bin Laden hints at possible future targets in his "To the Muslims of Iraq", when he defines the countries most in need of liberation: Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. But as far as recent news is concerned, the five releases under the theme heading, "The Youth of Islam" basically state that men over 25 are busy building families, and those under 15 are still dependent on parents, while those Muslims between 15 and 25 are strongly urged to join ranks with Al Qaeda. This call virtually demands that "profiling" be implemented in all transit areas on men between 15 and 25, especially since the 2007 July Pew Report of Islam in America notes that "26 percent of Muslims [in America] age 18 to 29 believe that suicide bombing can be justified" (Newsweek Special Report, July 30, p. 31). To attempt to view the issue in any other way is suicide by denial.
The purpose of revolutionary propaganda is to gather popular support, to justify the righteousness of the cause, to generate outrage and fervor in its proponents, and to demonstrate why victory is inevitable for the righteous few. Part 2 of Ibrahim's text, Propaganda, demonstrates these purposes well; however, it is the Soviet paradigm of victory which is the least convincing. The key element in this battle according to both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri is Patience. The element is woven through every treatise and release. It is the belief that like Soviet Russia while fighting with Afghanistan, America will, through its "War on Terror" grow politically fractured, will eventually go bankrupt and will split apart, by the grace of Allah.
It would be hubris to say that America can't go the way of the dodo. Yet, while the opinions in this country are divided almost 50-50 on every issue, it is this freedom to have a polarity of opinion that differentiates America from both the communism of Stalin and Khrushchev and the rigid, puritanical Islam of al Qaeda. And, in the end, the resilience of capitalism's inequalities compared with the desperate equality of communism promises only the inevitability of exhaustion for al Qaeda, hence its call for Muslim youth to dedicate their lives to Jihad.
In full, Raymond Ibrahim's text The Al Qaeda Reader provides the world of English-speakers many lessons that we may choose to learn or dismiss. Chief among these lessons is that in Islam there is no separation between Mosque and State. For years, since the fall of the Twin Towers, moderate Muslims have claimed their religion had been hijacked by fundamentalists, literalists, radicals, and extremists; and, now the West has been apprised of the twisted view of two of these hijackers.
Is this message of hate the literalist perspective of Islam laid bare for the world to see? And if it is, what does it teach the World of English-speakers about the Koran's content, intent, and merit? The fact is, all Muslims believe the Koran to be the literal, uncorrupted word of Allah, written in the celestial language of Arabic. Moving past the arrogance necessary to declare to the world that any language is that of God, what does this text teach us about the original words of the Islamic God? Has the God of Islam, Allah, demanded His followers to wage jihad on all infidels in a quest to force the entire planet to convert, pay alms, or die? And if the Koran is the literal, uncorrupted, Word and Warning of Allah; then, why would we, infidels, ever consider "Peaceful" a religion which promises our demise as sovereign states in one form or another, following obligatory genocidal purges, inquisitions, enslavements, indoctrination, trials of apostasy, and the death of the very idea of American Freedom, and the death of every value held as heroic in the West? For the West's concepts of equality, justice and freedom do not hold parallel with the Koran's or Sharia's view of the same.
In full, Raymond Ibrahim's release The Al Qaeda Reader is a necessary addition to the scholarship of jihad. The text begs the question: does the doctrine proclaimed by al Qaeda's leadership, now widely known among the world's Muslims, guarantee a state of perpetual war against the whole of humanity? And if so, what is the process of eradication of these elements from the Ulema consensus in order to defuse this ticking bomb of world-wide genocide?
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_al_qaeda_reader_a_review.html at November 03, 2007 - 10:04:23 PM EDT
-
(http://www.americanthinker.com/images/includes/102.gif)
-
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=58595
LAW OF THE LAND
Students who 'desecrated' terrorist flags vindicated
Judge cancels university policies protecting Hezbollah, Hamas banners
Posted: November 9, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
College Republican member argues with Palestinian supporter at Oct. 17 anti-terrorism rally at San Francisco State University (Photo: Golden Gate Xpress)
In a decision hailed as a victory for free speech, a federal judge ordered San Francisco State University and the California State University system to stop enforcing speech codes used to prosecute students for the "desecration" of flags used by terrorist groups.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Wayne Brazil issued a preliminary injunction to bar the schools from enforcing several policies challenged in a lawsuit. One required students to act in accordance with SFSU "goals, principles, and policies" and another, a CSU system-wide policy, called for students "to be civil to one another."
"This decision is a vital step in the fight against unconstitutional campus speech codes," said Greg Lukianoff, president of the non-profit advocacy group Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE. "The court's decision frees hundreds of thousands of students throughout the CSU system from unlawful restrictions on their expression."
The judge, who described himself at the hearing as a "friend of the First Amendment," also limited the CSU system's ability to enforce a policy prohibiting "intimidation" and "harassment," holding that the policy could only be applied to conduct that "reasonably is concluded to threaten or endanger the health or safety of any other person."
The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund defended the SFSU College Republicans and two of the group's members in cooperation with FIRE.
San Francisco State University
As WND reported in March, the university decided – after months of pressure – not to punish College Republicans who had been accused of desecrating the name of Allah by stepping on makeshift Hezbollah and Hamas flags at an anti-terrorism rally.
The trouble began at an Oct. 17, 2006, anti-terrorism rally in which the students stepped on butcher paper painted to resemble the flags of the Middle East terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. The College Republicans say they simply copied the script from an image on the Internet and didn't know it bore the name of Allah in Arabic script.
A student who is not a member of the club had filed a complaint with university officials after the protest.
The student claimed that the Republican students engaged in "acts of incivility" and "intimidation" and created a "hostile environment" by publicly walking over the terrorist flags.
"I believe that the complaint is [about] the desecration of Allah," a university official told the San Francisco Chronicle.
SFSU President Robert A. Corrigan eventually wrote that the Student Organization Hearing Panel "unanimously concluded that the College Republicans organization had not violated the Student Code of Conduct and that there were no grounds to support the student complaint lodged against them."
But FIRE contended the speech codes led to a "burdensome, unnecessary investigation and five months of ridicule and harassment for these students," even though they did nothing but exercise their constitutional rights.
The ADF lawsuit asked the court to strike down the ill-defined speech code policies of SFSU and the entire California State University system at issue in the investigation.
ADF attorney David Hacker said Judge Brazil's decision this week "sends a clear message to administrators in California and nationwide that they are not above the Constitution."
The San Francisco State and California State University system case is the latest victory in FIRE's Speech Codes Litigation Project, which seeks to "dismantle unconstitutional speech codes on public university campuses." Other schools wher the group has seen success are Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania, Texas Tech University, the State University of New York at Brockport and California's Citrus College.
"FIRE's Speech Codes Litigation Project has ended virtually every code it has challenged," Lukianoff said. "At public universities, these vague and overbroad speech codes are unconstitutional, period. Courts have held this again and again, yet somehow the scandal of campus speech codes continues."
-
This piece from the NY Times raises some points worth considering-- others are , , , very NY Times.
=========
Bring the Real World Home
E-Mail
Print
Save
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
Permalink
By ROGER COHEN
Published: November 12, 2007
In the gym at the NATO base in Kabul, U.S. soldiers hit the treadmills every morning and gaze at TV screens broadcasting Al Jazeera’s English news channel. When Osama bin Laden makes news, as he did recently with a statement about Iraq, America’s finest work out beneath the solemn gaze of their most wanted enemy.
Skip to next paragraph
Roger Cohen
Related
Go to Columnist Page »
Blog: Passages
This sounds like a scene from Donald Rumsfeld’s private hell. The former secretary of defense dismissed Al Jazeera as a “mouthpiece of Al Qaeda.” He once called the network, which is based in and owned by Qatar, “vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.”
In an indication of what the Bush administration thinks of Al Jazeera journalism (and habeas corpus), it has locked up one of the network’s cameramen, Sami al-Hajj, in Guantánamo Bay for more than five years without charging him.
The choice of viewing at the NATO gym is a lot wiser than Rumsfeld’s choice of words or the terrible treatment of Hajj. America, and not just its front-line soldiers, needs to watch Al Jazeera to understand how the world has changed. Any other course amounts to self-destructive blindness.
The first change that must be grasped is America’s diminished ability to influence people. Global access to information now amounts to an immense à la carte menu. Networks escape control. To hundreds of millions of people accessing information for the first time, from central China to Kenya’s Rift Valley, the United States can easily look exclusive and less relevant to their future.
The second essential change is the erosion of American power. Samantha Power, the author and Harvard professor, calls this “the core fact of recent years.”
America’s hard power — its military — is compromised by intractable counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its economy is strained; witness the ever feebler dollar. Its soft power — the resonance of the American idea — has been hurt by a loss of legitimacy (Hajj languishing) and by incompetence (Iraq).
The third essential change is the solidification of anti-Americanism as a political idea. Jihadist Islamism is the most violent expression of this, but its agents benefit from swimming in a sea of less murderous resentments.
In response to all this, America can say to heck with an ungrateful world. It can mutter about third, even fourth, world wars. Therein lies a downward spiral. Or it can try to grasp the new, multinetworked world as it is.
To this world Al Jazeera English offers a useful primer. The network can be tendentious — bin Laden’s face up there for several minutes — in stomach-turning ways. But, over all, its striving for balanced reporting from a distinct perspective seems genuine.
A year after its launch, it reaches 100 million households worldwide. Its focus is on “reporting from the political south to the political north,” as Nigel Parsons, its managing director, put it. The world it presents, more from the impact than the launch point of U.S. missiles, is one that must be understood.
Yet, the network has been sidelined in the United States. Representative Jim Moran, a Democrat from Virginia, told me: “There’s definitely an attitude here that these guys are the enemy. But in the Mideast, Asia and Europe they have a credibility the U.S. desperately needs.”
Moran met recently with Al Jazeera English executives seeking to extend the service’s Lilliputian reach here. Right now, you can watch it in Toledo, Ohio, through Buckeye Cablesystem, which reaches 147,000 homes.
Or, if you’re in Burlington, Vt., a municipal cable service offers the network to about 1,000 homes. Washington Cable, in the capital, reaches half that. Better options are YouTube or GlobeCast satellite distribution.
These are slim pickings. Al Jazeera English is far more accessible in Israel. Allan Block, the chairman of Block Communications, which owns Buckeye, told me: “It’s a good channel. Sir David Frost and David Marash are not terrorists. The attempt to blackball it is neo-McCarthyism.”
Block, like other cable providers, got protest letters from Accuracy in Media, a conservative watchdog. Cliff Kincaid, its editor, cites the case of Tayseer Allouni, a former Afghanistan correspondent jailed in Spain for Al Qaeda links. This is evidence, he suggests, that “cable providers shouldn’t give them access.”
Most cable companies have bowed to the pressure while denying politics influenced their decisions. “It just comes down to channel capacity and other programming options,” Jenni Moyer, a Comcast spokeswoman, told me.
Nonsense, says Representative Moran, blaming “political winds plus a risk-averse corporate structure.”
These political winds hurt America. Counterinsurgency has been called armed social science. To win, you must understand the world you’re in.
Comparative courses in how Al Jazeera, CNN, the BBC and U.S. networks portray the Iraq war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be taught in all U.S. high schools and colleges. Al Jazeera English should be widely available.
•
You are invited to comment at my blog: www.iht.com/passages.
-
British Teacher Faces 40 Lashes for Naming Class Teddy Bear 'Muhammad'
Monday, November 26, 2007
A British primary school teacher arrested in Sudan faces up to 40 lashes for blasphemy after letting her class of 7-year-olds name a teddy bear Muhammad.
Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, was arrested at at Khartoum's Unity High School yesterday, and accused of insulting the Prophet of Islam.
Her colleagues said that they feared for her safety after reports that groups of young men had gathered outside the Khartoum police station where she was taken and were shouting death threats.
The Unity school is a Christian-run but multi-racial and co-educational private school that is popular with Sudanese professionals and expatriate workers.
Bishop Ezekiel Kondo, chairman of the school council, told The Times that the school was in dispute with authorities over taxes, and suggested that Gibbons, who arrived in Khartoum in August, may have been caught up in that.
"The thing may be very simple but there are people who are trying to make it bigger. It's a kind of blackmail," he said.
Teachers at the school, in central Khartoum, a mile from the Nile River, said that Gibbons had made an innocent mistake by letting her pupils choose their favorite name for the toy as part of a school project.
Robert Boulos, the Unity director, said Gibbons was following a British National Curriculum course designed to teach young pupils about animals and their habitats. This year’s animal was the bear.
In September, she asked a girl to bring in her teddy bear to help the class focus and then asked the children to name the toy.
“They came up with eight names including Abdullah, Hassan and Muhammad. Then she explained what it meant to vote and asked them to choose the name,” Boulos said.
Twenty out of the 23 children chose Muhammad. Each child was allowed to take the bear home for weekends and asked to keep a diary about what they did with the toy. Each entry was collected in a book with a picture of the bear on the cover, next to the message "My name is Muhammad."
Boulos said that the bear itself was not marked or labeled with the name in any way, adding that Sudanese police had now seized the book and asked to interview the 7-year-old girl who brought in the bear.
He said that he had decided to close down the school until January for fear of reprisals in Sudan’s predominantly Muslim capital.
“This is a very sensitive issue. We are very worried about her safety,” he said. “This was a completely innocent mistake. Ms. Gibbons would have never wanted to insult Islam.”
The British Embassy in Khartoum said that it was still unclear whether Gibbons had been charged formally. “We are following it up with the authorities and trying to meet her in person,” it said.
Under Sudan's Sharia law, blasphemy could attract a large fine, 40 lashes or a jail term of up to six months.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312895,00.html
-
Cabinet warns Wilders on anti-Koran film
Wednesday 28 November 2007
The cabinet is concerned about a ‘provocative’ film about the Koran by anti-immigration party PVV leader Geert Wilders which he expects to be shown on tv at the end of January.
The justice, foreign and home affairs ministers, who are worried about a backlash from Islamic countries, have warned Wilders about the risks of screening such a film.
Justice minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin stressed that while Wilders is free to express his views about the Koran, he also has a responsibility towards society in general. ‘Think about the what the repercussions could be,’ he said.
If the film is hard-hitting, it could evoke hard-hitting reactions against himself and others,’ says the minister. Those who want a free debate must show respect for all religions and for things that are sacrosanct for others, he said.
Wilders says it is not the aim of his film to insult people but if they are insulted, that is ‘a pity but not my problem’. He says he wants Muslims to realise that the Koran is a ‘terrible and fascist’ book which inspires people to commit ‘terrible’ deeds.
He repeated his belief that the Koran, like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, should be banned in the Netherlands.
Abdelmajid Khairoun, chairman of the Dutch umbrella organisation of Muslim organisations, said Wilders’ film would damage not only Muslims but the Netherlands in general. In addition it could lead to a boycott of Dutch products similar to the anti-Danish reaction which followed the controversy about cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed two years ago.
© DutchNews.nl
===================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...cle2126760.ece
Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) reported Thursday that Krekar, the former head of Islamic guerrilla group Ansar al Islam, told a Kurdish web site that he's sure the Norwegian authorities will never deport him, because that would spark "reaction" against Norway from his Islamic supporters.
Krekar told web site Awane that the "reaction" would come from his relatives, from an armed group, and also from those who follow his religious teachings and sympathize with him.
The groups, he said, "probably are from Somalia or Morocco." He refused to specify what type of "reaction" he expected.
Krekar's remarks are being widely interpreted as new threats against Norway, and that, predictably enough, has sparked more anger among Norwegians who can't understand why Krekar remains in the country.
The official version is that Krekar faces a death sentence if sent back to his native Iraq. Norway won't deport anyone if their lives would officially be in danger, and no other country has volunteered to take over responsibility for Krekar.
The mullah originally came to Norway as a refugee, later won permission to have his family join him, and since has lived largely off Norwegian welfare. He first got in trouble with Norwegian authorities when it became known that he had repeatedly violated the terms of his asylum by traveling voluntarily back to northern Iraq, to lead the guerrilla group. US authorities have long considered Krekar a terrorist suspect.
__________________
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin
-
Muslims call ham sandwich hate crime
Sher Zieve
April 24, 2007
As they are "highly offensive" to Muslims, it appears that our politically correct leftist-run middle school system will soon no longer allow any pork products on school property. At Lewiston, ME Middle School, placing pork in the mere presence of Muslims is currently being called a hate crime. Note: Jews also believe pork is unclean but, there has never been any effort by the public school system to remove pork, in order to honor their religious beliefs. That is reserved solely for Muslims. For that matter, celebrations of Christian holidays are being summarily removed from the public school system, while Muslim holidays are commemorated — and Muslim foot washing basins and prayer rooms are being built. All manner of Islamic demands, no matter what the complaint, are being met and Islam is quickly and clearly being established as the "superior" religion in the USA — now in the public school systems and, no doubt, soon in the entire country.
The latest incident of "Muslim outrage" involves a middle-school student purportedly placing a ham sandwich wrapped in a baggie on a lunch table where Somali Muslim students sit. One 14 year-old unnamed Somali student is reported to have said: "At the school the next day, I didn't feel safe. I felt like everybody was against me. Before I felt like I fit in, and everything was normal." The ham-placing "offending student" has been suspended, the Maine middle school is calling the placing of the ham sandwich a "hate crime" and the local police are investigating the child. More charges against the child may be forthcoming. School Superintendent Leon Levesque said: "The school incident is being treated seriously as a hate incident!" Then, in the true and remarkable spirit of the Kumbaya-for-Islam set, Levesque added: "We've got some work to do to turn this around and bring the school community back together again." Note: Again, 'presenting pork' is only an offense and "hate crime" if it involves Muslims.
Even the Portland, ME based Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence has become involved. Its Executive Director Stephen Wessler immediately went off the deep end and commented: "It's extraordinarily hurtful and degrading to Muslims, whose religion prohibits them from being around ham. It's important to respond swiftly." Huh? Respond swiftly to an evil ham sandwich? Wessler then added warningly: "Incidents like this that involve degrading language or conduct are often said by the perpetrator as a joke. I know that conduct is never static. It's part of a process of escalation!" Is Wessler actually saying: "Today it's a ham sandwich, tomorrow it's the world!"? What has happened to the alleged minds of our supposedly educated adults, when a non-threatening childish prank is raised to the level of a hate crime? Oh — I forgot. To Muslims we are now being led to believe that everything is potentially threatening. However, real threats from real Islamic terrorists are increasingly discounted by our PC society. 9/11 is a fading memory in all too many minds and Islamic Imams can not only threaten passengers on planes but, then turn around and sue said passengers for complaining about them!
Now, not only do we have Congressional leaders working to appease each and every aspect of Islam that has vowed to destroy us but, we have the US public school system bowing to all complaints — or even potential complaints — from Muslim students and their parents. Of course, any and all complaints from Christian and Jewish students are ignored. Special privileges are progressively being given to Muslims and even facilities are being built, with tax payer dollars, for them on US campuses. No such privileges or construction projects are being afforded to or for any other religious group. And too many are continuing to remain silent. In this case, as in others, silence equates to acceptance. Islam is taking over the USA from both without and within — apparently with the consent of the new 'silent majority.' It's a tragedy that SCOTUS did not include mosques in its ruling on the separation of church and state. It has not only come back to haunt and bite us but, will soon render we-the-people and our country as only so much dust in the wind. If we do not now speak up loudly at these injustices and inequities, soon we won't be allowed to speak at all.
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=58204
http://proteinwisdom.com/index.php?/weblog/entry/22914/#260316
http://www.aim.org/guest_column/5317_0_6_0_C/
http://www.aina.org/news/20070418103800.htm
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=903490
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
Sher Zieve is an author, political commentator, and staff writer for The New Media Alliance (www.thenma.org). Zieve's op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massachusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Ms. Zieve is currently working on her first political book: "The Liberal's Guide To Conservatives."
__________________
-
Stand By Steyn
by Robert Spencer
Posted: 12/19/2007
The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal have begun proceedings against Mark Steyn, author of America Alone. They are responding to complaints from the Canadian Islamic Congress about an excerpt from the book that was published in the Canadian journal Maclean’s. “The article,” the CIC claims, “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt,” and was “flagrantly Islamophobic.”
To be sure, the article was pretty strong stuff. Here’s a bit of it: “There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe -- without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” Even worse, it goes on to say: “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children.”
“A Muslim continent”! “The number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes”! No wonder the CIC was upset. And not just the CIC: writer Jim Henley, whose articles have appeared in The New Republic and The American Spectator Online, quoted the “mosquitoes” line and called Steyn a “racist.” There were just two problems: The “Muslim continent” statement is not only factual, it’s stated in words no one can characterize as inflammatory. (Also, it’s been said by Libya’s strongman Muammar Qaddafi). Second, “The number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes” was not Steyn’s phrase. He was quoting Mullah Krekar, a jihadist who currently resides in Norway, although officials have been trying for years to get him out of the country..
And that sums up the problem with the Canadian human rights commissions’ action against Steyn: he was simply reporting on contemporary European reality. It was not Mark Steyn, but Algerian leader Houari Boumédienne who said at the United Nations in 1974: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” Those who want to silence Steyn want to suppress facts and limit free speech.
It was not Steyn who said that “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor,” and that “the conquest this time will not be by the sword but by preaching and ideology.” That was Al-Jazeera’s Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi, who is widely hailed as a moderate reformer in the West. Did Steyn say that Muslims “will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it”? Nope. That one comes from a Saudi Sheikh, Muhammad bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-‘Arifi, imam of the mosque of King Fahd Defense Academy.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is putting itself in the peculiar position of penalizing those non-Muslims who report on such statements, as if it is somehow an act encouraging “hatred and contempt” to reveal the unpleasant reality that comprises mainstream Islamic rhetoric today. There is no indication that the CHRC has done a thing to investigate the possibility that some Muslims in Canada might hold the views of Mullah Krekar, Qaddafi, Boumédienne, Qaradhawi and Sheikh Muhammad. When the CIC’s President Mohamed Elmasry said in 2004 that all Israelis over age eighteen were legitimate targets, the CHRC took no action. But Elmasry, you see, is part of a protected victim class.
Actions like the one against Steyn threaten the foundation of free society. Once you declare one group off-limits for critical examination, once you declare that these people -- whoever they may be -- must at all costs not be offended, then you have destroyed one of the essential elements of free speech and political debate. In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to force their neighbor to be silent if his opinions offend them. If offensive speech had been prohibited in the 1770s, there would be no United States of America, and that is one of the reasons for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of course, Canada is a different case -- but wherever offensive speech is prohibited, the tyrant’s power is solidified. That is no less so in this case, although the tyrant in question is of a different kind.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24033&s=rcme
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Islam vs. Free Speech
by Jed Babbin
Posted: 12/28/2007
Under assault by Muslims and multiculturalists, free speech and freedom of the press are dead in Britain. The same sorts of people who killed them in Britain are killing them in Canada. They and their allies are using the British and Canadian courts and tribunals to bury our First Amendment rights in America.
Muslims -- individually and in pressure groups -- are using British libel laws and Canadian “human rights” laws to limit what is said about Islam, terrorists and the people in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who are funding groups such as al-Queda. The cases of Rachel Ehrenfeld and Mark Steyn prove the point.
Dr. Ehrenfeld is a scholar and author of the book, “Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed, and How to Stop it.” In that book, Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz -- a Saudi who is former head of the Saudi National Commercial Bank -- and some of his family are described as having funded terrorism directly and indirectly.
Ehrenfeld is American, her book was written and published in America and she has no business or other ties to Britain. Under American law, the Brit courts would have no jurisdiction over her. But about two-dozen copies of her book were sold there through the internet. Bin Mahfouz sued her for libel in the Brit courts where the burden of proof is the opposite of what it is in US courts: the author has to prove that what is written is true, rather than the supposedly defamed person proving it is false.
Think about that for a moment. Under the US Constitution political writing -- free speech -- is almost unlimited. To gain a libel judgment a politician -- or someone suspected of terrorist ties -- would have to prove that the story or book was false. If that person were a public figure such as Mahfouz, in order to get a libel judgment he’d not only have to prove that what was written was false, he’d also have to prove it was published maliciously.
Those American laws and standards of proof protect political speech. The First Amendment is intended to protect political speech that people find objectionable. In the landmark 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court overturned an Ohio statute which would have outlawed hate speech by the Ku Klux Klan. That’s why Mahfouz sued in Britain, not here.
Ehrenfeld refused to fight the case, saying the Brit courts have no jurisdiction over her. Mahfouz got a default judgment against her for ₤10,000 (for himself, and in equal amounts for his sons). The judgment also requires that there be no further “defamatory” statements published in England and Wales.
In a letter published in the Spectator on November 21, bin Mahfouz’s lawyers gloated over their victory against Ehrenfeld: “Rather than check her facts, defend her statements in open court, or acknowledge her mistakes, Ehrenfeld hides behind a claim to free speech. Thank goodness, the legal lights remain on in Britain to expose such harmful journalism.”
“Harmful journalism” is what tyrants and despots call free speech, especially political speech that condemns their affronts to freedom. The “legal lights” Mahfouz’s lawyers see is the bonfire they made of the Magna Carta. Thanks to Mahfouz and his ilk, the light of free speech is extinguished in Britain. Consider the fate of the book, “Alms for Jihad.”
In 2006 Cambridge University press published “Alms for Jihad.” It’s a highly detailed and apparently well-researched book that documents Saudi funding of terrorist groups (as well as other funding and the network of Islamic “charities” that contribute to terrorism). “Alms for Jihad” -- like Ehrenfeld’s book -- documents bin Mahfouz’s funding ties to terrorism, including to Usama bin Laden. But “Alms”-- in settlement of a libel suit by bin Mahfouz in the Brit courts -- was withdrawn from stores and libraries and unsold copies destroyed. The Saudi book burners won.
Mahfouz’s case against Ehrenfeld has already done enormous harm in the US. Ehrenfeld told me she’s unable to get book publishers to contract for another book. She said all of the major US publishing houses have turned down a book on the Muslim Brotherhood -- thought to have substantial terrorist ties -- and the Saudis’ involvement in funding it.
If what Ehrenfeld writes about the Brotherhood offends Mahfouz or someone else whose ties to terrorism ought to be exposed, sales could be banned not only in Britain but in the entire European Union and the publisher -- and the author -- made liable for damages. Mahfouz -- using British courts that have no jurisdiction over American authors -- has apparently precluded Ehrenfeld from writing another book. Steyn’s case is another instance of Muslims trying to silence “harmful journalism.”
Mark Steyn’s superb book, “America Alone”, makes two important points: first, that the Muslim baby boom around the world will likely result in Christian nations becoming Muslim by weight of demographics; and second that Islam is a political system, not just a religion:
So it’s not merely that there’s a global jihad lurking within this religion, but that the religion itself is a political project and, in fact, an imperial project in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are not. Furthermore, this particular religion is historically a somewhat bloodthirsty faith in which whatever’s your bag violence-wise can almost certainly be justified.
Steyn’s stance -- written by him and paralleled by other writers in the Canadian magazine, “Macleans” -- is the subject of a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission brought by three Muslim law students in Canada, with the apparent support of the Canadian Islamic Conference. That group is similar to the CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a multiculti kangaroo court. The complaint against Macleans will be adjudicated next year, and findings entered against the magazine. (Steyn told me that the CHRC has granted 100% of the petitions brought to it so far.) What then?
Fines and other sanctions will be entered against Macleans along with probable injunctions against further “harmful journalism” that offends Muslims. A case may be brought against Steyn himself later. Which means that he could be subjected to fines or other penalties in Canada for exercising his First Amendment rights in the US. And -- because American publishers look to Canada for about 10% of their sales -- Steyn may, like Ehrenfeld, find publishers unwilling to publish his work.
What has happened to Ehrenfeld and may happen to Steyn is in contravention of their First Amendment rights. No American court would or could do that. No foreign court or commission should be able to. US courts, and each of us who believes in free speech, must stand with both authors. US courts should make it clear that foreign libel judgments or “human rights” decisions that conflict with our First Amendment cannot be enforced.
Each and every presidential candidate should speak -- loudly and clearly -- against this encroachment of foreign law on the First Amendment. Anyone who doesn’t stand forthrightly against these foreign infringements on Americans’ Constitutional rights should receive neither our confidence nor our votes.
What Muslims such as Mahfouz and those complaining against Steyn are doing to destroy free speech overseas has been commenced here by groups such as CAIR. A few weeks ago, CAIR announced its media guide, which is purportedly corrects “misperceptions” about Islam and “…educate(s) the media and disabuse(s) journalists of misinformation.” But the other aspect -- which I and others suspect -- is that it’s not so much a guide as a set of rules against “harmful journalism.” And those who write about terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Islam will be accused of intolerance and racism should they violate them.
We don’t yet know what the CAIR guide says. I requested a copy of it from CAIR by e-mail, as they specified. I have neither received a copy nor received any response. I suspect CAIR wants to hide it from people who would scrutinize it. Having to operate under our Constitution, they will take a more indirect path than Mahfouz and the Canadian law students to preclude what they believe is “harmful journalism.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Babbin is the editor of Human Events. He served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in President George H.W. Bush's administration. He is the author of "In the Words of our Enemies"(Regnery,2007) and (with Edward Timperlake) of "Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States" (Regnery, 2006) and "Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think" (Regnery, 2004). E-mail him at jbabbin@eaglepub.com.
-
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ViewPrint.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200712/INT20071220a.html
Islamic Bloc Scores 'Defamation of Religions' Resolution at UN
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
December 20, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - Alongside a resolution adopted by the U.N. General Assembly this week calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, the world body passed a raft of other human rights-related motions. One of them, introduced by Islamic nations, focuses on combating the "defamation of religions."
Resolutions on the human rights situation in North Korea and Iran also passed, although dozens of countries -- including human rights violators Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Zimbabwe -- voted against the motions.
An annual resolution on "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination" also passed by an overwhelming margin, with only the United States, Israel, and three small Pacific island nations voting "no." There were four abstentions.
The motion on defamation of religions has been a priority for the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) since 9/11. It took on new impetus following a Danish newspaper's publication in 2005 of cartoons satirizing Mohammed.
Introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC, it passed on Tuesday by a 108-51 margin, with 25 abstentions. As with many of the other votes, the U.S. lined up with democracies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere against developing nations, including repressive regimes.
Although the resolution refers to defamation of "religions," Islam is the only religion named in the text, which also takes a swipe at counter-terrorism security measures.
It expresses alarm about "discrimination" and "laws that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration."
Muslim minorities are subjected to "ethnic and religious profiling ... in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001," it says.
The resolution decries "the negative projection of Islam in the media" and voices "deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."
OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu earlier this month addressed an international conference on "Islamophobia," held in Turkey, and told the gathering that freedom of expression was being used as a cover in the West to promote anti-Islam sentiment.
The OIC soon will release its first-ever annual report on "Islamophobia."
'Flawed and divisive'
On a number of the General Assembly resolutions passed Tuesday, the U.S. stood in the minority, including one dealing with practices that contribute to "fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance," and another on a report on preparations by the U.N.'s Human Rights Council for a major conference on racism, scheduled for 2009.
The international conference is intended to review progress achieved on a program of action adopted at an earlier racism conference, held in Durban, South Africa in 2001.
The Durban event was marred by controversy, with attempts spearheaded by Arab and Muslim states to equate Zionism with racism. The U.S. government sent a low-level delegation and then recalled it midway in protest against the attacks on Israel.
On Tuesday, only the U.S., Israel and the Marshall Islands voted against the resolution on preparations for the Durban review conference.
In an earlier explanation of vote, American envoy Grover Joseph Rees told member-states that although the U.S. supported the stated objectives of Durban gathering, "the outcomes of the conference were deeply flawed and divisive."
"The resolution now before us endorses that flawed outcome and is therefore itself seriously problematic," he said.
Rees said the Human Rights Council should be concentrating on the role for which it was created - "addressing human rights situations around the world, particularly emerging situations."
At the same time, countries should be focusing on implementing existing commitments, rather than on following-up "a flawed instrument" or creating of new ones.
Specifically, he said, states should be ratify and effectively implement the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Countries that have not ratified the 1965 treaty include Burma, North Korea, Malaysia, Angola, Singapore and a number of small Pacific island nations.
-
By JAN M. OLSEN, Associated Press Writer
Tue Feb 12, 7:49 AM ET
COPENHAGEN, Denmark - Danish police said Tuesday they have arrested three people suspected of plotting to kill one of the 12 cartoonists behind the Prophet Muhammad drawings that sparked a deadly uproar in the Muslim world two years ago.
Two Tunisians and a Dane of Moroccan origin were arrested in pre-dawn raids in western Denmark, the police intelligence agency said. The Dane was suspected of violating Danish terror laws but likely would be released after questioning as the investigation continues, said Jakob Scharf, the head of the PET intelligence service. The two Tunisians would be expelled from Denmark, he said.
The agency did it mention which cartoonist was targeted. However, according to Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the drawings on Sept. 30, 2005, the suspects were planning to kill its cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.
"There were very concrete murder plans against Kurt Westergaard," said Carsten Juste, the paper's editor-in-chief.
The cartoons were later reprinted by a range of Western publications, and they sparked deadly protests in parts of the Muslim world. Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.
Westergaard, 73, and his wife Gitte, 66, had been living under police protection, Jyllands-Posten reported.
"Of course I fear for my life when the police intelligence service say that some people have concrete plans to kill me. But I have turned fear into anger and resentment," Westergaard said in a statement published on Jyllands-Posten's Web site.
PET, the police intelligence service, called the action "preventive," saying it decided to strike "at an early phase to stop the planning and the carrying out of the murder."
In the uproar that followed the publishing of the cartoons, Danes watched in disbelief as angry mobs burned the Danish flag and attacked the country's embassies in Muslim countries including Syria, Iran and Lebanon. Jyllands-Posten was evacuated several times because of threats and posted security guards at its office outside Aarhus and in Copenhagen. The paper initially refused to apologize for the cartoons, which it said were published in reaction to a perceived self-censorship among artists dealing with Islamic issues, but later said it regretted that the cartoons had offended Muslims.
The Danish government also expressed regrets to Muslims, but noted that it could not interfere with the freedom of the press.
Kasem Ahmad, a spokesman for the Copenhagen-based Islamic Faith Community, a network of Muslim groups that spearheaded protests against the cartoons in Denmark, said he hoped Tuesday's arrests would not rekindle the uproar.
"We urge Muslims to take it calmly," he told the TV2 News network.
The rage over the caricatures resonated beyond Denmark. In Germany, two men were accused of planting bombs aboard a pair of German commuter trains in 2006 that failed to explode. One of the men, Youssef Mohammed el-Hajdib, a Lebanese citizen, is on trial in Duesseldorf. The second man, Jihad Hamad, was convicted in December in Lebanon and sentenced to 12 years in prison. El-Hajdib told the court last week that Hamad planned the attacks as revenge after some German newspapers reprinted the Muhammad caricatures.
Hamad, however, testified at his trial in Lebanon that el-Hajdib was the initiator of the failed plot. He said el-Hajdib brainwashed him and exposed him to extremist videos and propaganda.
-
Danish newspapers have reprinted one of several caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad which sparked violent protests across the Muslim world two years ago.
They say they wanted to show their commitment to freedom of speech after an alleged plot to kill one of the cartoonists behind the drawings.
Three suspects were held in Denmark on Tuesday "to prevent a murder linked to terrorism", officials said.
The cartoons were originally published by Jyllands-Posten in September 2005.
Danish embassies were attacked around the world and dozens died in riots that followed.
'Defiant'
Jyllands-Posten and several other leading newspapers - including Politiken and Berlingske Tidende - reprinted the caricature in their Wednesday editions.
I have turned fear into anger and resentment
Kurt Westergaard
Cartoonist
The cartoon depicts Muhammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with a lit fuse.
"We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper will always defend," Berlingske Tidende said.
One Danish tabloid published all 12 drawings, the Associated Press news agency reported.
On Tuesday, the head of the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (Pet), Jakob Sharf, said its operatives had carried out pre-dawn raids in the Aarhus region.
The three suspects - two Tunisians and a Dane of Moroccan origin - had been detained "after lengthy surveillance", he added.
The Danish citizen will be released pending further investigation, while the Tunisians will be held until they are expelled from the country.
The Pet did not identify the target of the alleged plot, but the online edition of Jyllands-Posten said its cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, was the focus.
The newspaper, based in Aarhus, said Mr Westergaard, 73, and his 66-year-old wife, Gitte, had been under police protection for the past three months.
In a statement on Jyllands-Posten's website, Mr Westergaard said: "Of course I fear for my life when the police intelligence service say that some people have concrete plans to kill me.
"But I have turned fear into anger and resentment."
The editor of Jyllands-Posten, Carsten Juste, said he and his staff had been "deeply shaken" by the news.
"We'd become more or less used to death threats and bomb threats since the cartoons, but it's the first time that we've heard about actual murder plans - that's new," he said.
Muslim anger
The BBC's Thomas Buch-Andersen in Copenhagen says the arrests have stunned people in Denmark, where the furore over the cartoons was thought to have passed.
Mr Westergaard was one of 12 artists behind the drawings but he was responsible for what was considered the most controversial of the pictures.
The cartoons were later reprinted by more than 50 newspapers, triggering a wave of protests in parts of the Muslim world.
The demonstrations culminated a year ago with the torching of Danish diplomatic offices in Damascus and Beirut and dozens of deaths in Nigeria, Libya and Pakistan.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...pe/7242258.stm
Published: 2008/02/13 10:20:06 GMT
-
This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday February 17 2008 on p40 of the World news section. It was last updated at 00:06 on February 17 2008.
Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.
More than 180,000 worldwide have joined an online protest claiming the images, shown on European-language pages and taken from Persian and Ottoman miniatures dating from the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, are offensive to Islam, which prohibits any representation of Muhammad. But the defiant editors of the encyclopaedia insist they will not bow to pressure and say anyone objecting to the controversial images can simply adjust their computers so they do not have to look at them.
The images at the centre of the protest appear on most of the European versions of the web encyclopaedia, though not on Arabic sites. On two of the images, Muhammad's face is veiled, a practice followed in Islamic art since the 16th century. But on two others, one from 1315, which is the earliest surviving depiction of the prophet, and the other from the 15th century, his face is shown. Some protesters are claiming the pictures have been posted simply to 'bait' and 'insult' Muslims and argue the least Wikipedia can do is blur or blank out the faces.
Such has been the adverse reaction, Wikipedia has been forced to set up a separate page on its site explaining why it refuses to bow to pressure and has also had to set up measures to block people from 'editing' the pages themselves.
In a robust statement on the site, its editors state: 'Wikipedia recognises that there are cultural traditions among some Muslim groups that prohibit depictions of Muhammad and other prophets and that some Muslims are offended when those traditions are violated. However, the prohibitions are not universal among Muslim communities, particularly with the Shia who, while prohibiting the images, are less strict about it.
'Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group.
'So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the law of the US state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed because people find them objectionable or offensive.'
The traditional reason given for the Islamic prohibition on images of prophets it to prevent them from becoming objects of worship in a form of idolatry. But, say the editors, the images used were examples of how Muhammad has been depicted by various Islamic sects through history and not in a religious context.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ia.islam/print
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080220/..._cartoons_dc_1
Quote:
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reaffirmed his predecessor's line on cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad on Wednesday, saying free speech should respect religious sensitivities.
"The Secretary-General strongly believes that freedom of expression should be exercised responsibly and in a way that respects all religious beliefs," his spokeswoman Marie Okabe told reporters.
The cartoon issue has returned to prominence after Denmark's five major daily newspapers last week republished one of 12 drawings of the Prophet that angered Muslims around the world in 2006.
They did so as a protest against a plot to murder one of the cartoonists who originally published the drawings in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
Most Muslims consider depictions of the Prophet offensive.
In a statement two years ago at the height of the cartoon uproar, the spokesman for then secretary-general Kofi Annan said Annan "believes that the freedom of the press should always be exercised in a way that fully respects the religious beliefs and tenets of all religions."
In the last few days, Danish lawmakers have canceled a trip to Iran, the Egyptian government has protested to the Danish ambassador in Cairo and Indonesian Muslims have demonstrated outside the Danish Embassy in Jakarta over the cartoons.
=======================
NO, RELGION MUST RESPECT FREE SPEECH :x :x :x
-
Sorry, no URL for this yet.
====================
Fitzgerald: The Great Undoing
The Dutch government was today examining the legality of banning a film attacking Islam amid fears that it would fan sentiment against the Netherlands in Muslim countries. The Telegraaf newspaper reported that the coalition government was divided on the film, with the Christian Democrats leaning towards a ban but Labour favouring freedom of expression and calling on Muslim countries to prevent violence against the Netherlands. -- from this article
Fitzgerald: The Great Undoing
The Dutch government was today examining the legality of banning a film attacking Islam amid fears that it would fan sentiment against the Netherlands in Muslim countries. The Telegraaf newspaper reported that the coalition government was divided on the film, with the Christian Democrats leaning towards a ban but Labour favouring freedom of expression and calling on Muslim countries to prevent violence against the Netherlands. -- from this article
If the Netherlands bans the Geert Wilders film on the Qur’an, it will be one of the most important acts in the history of free speech. It will constitute an act of Great Undoing, in response to threats from maddened primitives, of the most important political right acquired, over time, by individuals in the Western world -- a right that, without which, all other rights are essentially meaningless.
This has to be understood. If the Netherlands, and if the countries of NATO (who are now involved), cannot permit, and will by fiat end, freedom of speech when it comes to perfectly legitimate criticism of Islam, then the civilization of the West will have suffered an immense blow. Not everyone will mind, or even notice. Some will tell themselves that this "right-wing" politician Wilders was looking to stir up trouble by criticising Islam. And if he was? Isn't it better that the "trouble" be stirred up now, while the West can still defend itself, especially within its own lands, but can do so only if it recognizes the meaning, and the menace of Islam and Jihad?
And others will say something like "oh, but there will be greater danger to Dutch troops" in Afghanistan. And still others will add, "yes, and even to the troops from the other NATO lands." And perhaps that is true. However, if it is true, perhaps it is NATO forces that should rethink their "mission" in Afghanistan, and what is achievable there. Perhaps NATO should rethink whether "helping" people who would eagerly kill them because of the refusal of the Western world to abandon freedom of speech in the case of a fifteen-minute film in the Netherlands, is really the wisest course of action. Perhaps NATO should consider what that tells us about the nature of the people in Afghanistan, or in any other Muslim state or society, whom we complacently or desperately assume are not our sworn enemies, are not hostile to the non-Muslims of the world. (For yes, that hostility can exist side-by-side with a desire to get from the West all the benefits that West clearly offers, including every sort of aid. It can even be present among people who decide to move to and settle within that same West. That is, even those who leave the misrule of Islam can continue to harbor that hostility to non-Muslims. Unlike refugees from the Nazis or the Communists or other examples of misrule, all too many of these immigrants bring with them, in their mental baggage, the very thing, Islam, whose effects, especially those of political despotism and economic paralysis, are what caused them to leave such hell-holes as, say, Somalia, or Pakistan, or the Maghreb, in the first place.
This suppression, by the Western world, of free speech, will have grave and long-lasting consequences. For if this movie is suppressed, one assumes that all other such movies will be suppressed. And the demands, by Muslims inside and outside of Europe for still more to be censored, including the written word, will only increase, with that well-known triumphalism that feeds each new demand, as Muslims demand more and more concessions to ensure that they will never feel offended, neither within their own lands, nor within the historic heart of the free and advanced West. For if they are offended, the consequences will be greater than what the West wishes to pay. It need not be soldiers in Afghanistan. It could be, say, a threat to blow up one of the Oxford colleges, or the Louvre, or the Alte Pinakothek, or the Uffizi or the Vatican. Oh, it could be any number of things. Do what we want, submit to our Diktat....or else!
The stand has to be taken now. Not later. Later will be too late.
Dutch government may ban Wilders' Qur'an film
Dhimmitude and fear. "Dutch government could ban anti-Islam film," from the Guardian (thanks to all who sent this in):
The Dutch government was today examining the legality of banning a film attacking Islam amid fears that it would fan sentiment against the Netherlands in Muslim countries. The Telegraaf newspaper reported that the coalition government was divided on the film, with the Christian Democrats leaning towards a ban but Labour favouring freedom of expression and calling on Muslim countries to prevent violence against the Netherlands.
Labour seems to have retained a modicum of sanity.
The 15-minute film, called Fitna - an Arabic term used in the Qur'an and sometimes translated as "strife" - was made by Geert Wilders, a rightwing politician who leads the nine-member PVV (Freedom) party. Wilders has argued that there is no such thing as moderate Islam, and has called for a ban of the Qur'an, which he compares to Hitler's Mein Kampf.
"The core of the problem is fascistic Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Muhammad as it is set out in the Islamic Mein Kampf: the Koran," he wrote in a comment piece for the Volksrant newspaper last year....
And the core of the problem is whether anything he says gives anyone else a license to destroy and kill, and whether Western governments should abet that mindset.
-
AARHUS, Denmark — “I think this is safe house No. 5,” Kurt Westergaard said the other day, and it was clear that he genuinely had lost track.
Last month the Danish police arrested two Tunisians and a Dane of Moroccan descent on charges of plotting to kill Mr. Westergaard, one of the 12 cartoonists whose pictures of Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten sparked protests, some of them violent, by Muslims around the world in 2006 and put bounties on the heads of Mr. Westergaard and his editor, Flemming Rose. Mr. Westergaard (he drew Muhammad with a bomb in his turban) has been in hiding ever since.
Americans, for whom the presidential election seems to have become a delirious, unending sport, preoccupying their attention, turn out not to be the only ones who preferred to forget about the cartoons. So had many Danes and fellow Europeans. They were shocked by the arrests.
In the days shortly after, 17 Danish newspapers, having declined to publish the offending cartoons two years ago, declared solidarity with Mr. Westergaard and printed them. This, naturally, provoked a fresh round of protests from Gaza to Indonesia.
In Egypt the speaker of the Parliament claimed Danes had violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which seemed a little rich coming just a few weeks after the European Parliament, which itself complained about the cartoons’ re-publication, condemned Egypt for the sorry state of its human rights.
Meanwhile demands in Afghanistan for the instant withdrawal of Danish troops under NATO’s command and the severing of all diplomatic ties with Denmark caused Denmark’s foreign minister, Per Stig Moeller, to reply that it was becoming difficult for him “to put Danish soldiers’ lives in danger” to support a country “where one is at risk to be condemned to death for values that we believe to be an inseparable part of democracy and the modern world.”
And then, while it still seemed just a Danish problem, trouble spread. A gallery in Berlin was shut because an exhibition of satirical art by a Danish group called Surrend, which has previously produced works mocking neo-Nazis, caused several angry Muslim visitors to threaten violence unless a poster depicting the Kaaba, the shrine in Mecca’s Grand Mosque, was removed.
Two years earlier, in the wake of the original cartoon imbroglio, a Berlin opera company canceled performances of Mozart’s “Idomeneo” when police warned the company that a scene with the severed head of Muhammad, among other religious figures, posed “incalculable risk” to the performers and audience. Cries of self-censorship erupted across Europe.
This time around Germany’s interior minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, a politician who has been conspicuous in working to improve relations with Muslims in Germany, was reported to have urged other newspapers in Europe to reprint the cartoons, a remark he strongly denied making, which made no difference to the Saudi newspaper Al-Watan.
“The German minister is required to immediately withdraw his statement,” Al-Watan demanded. Racism, not freedom of speech, was obviously behind Germany policy, the newspaper added. After all, Germans aren’t free to “discuss the Jewish Holocaust.”
And everybody knew what that meant.
Now many Europeans seem fed up. Over dinner in Copenhagen recently, Mr. Rose, who has made something of a second career out of the cartoon fallout, said it all came late but was inevitable.
“At the time, in 2006, there were good journalistic reasons for other newspapers to publish the cartoons because few people had seen them then, so they were news,” he said. “Now the journalistic justification is almost nonexistent because everyone knows what they look like, so it’s more about solidarity than about news.”
Unlike Mr. Westergaard, Mr. Rose doesn’t live in safe houses, although he long ago removed his name from the local telephone directory and has learned that a different Flemming Rose (there are apparently several in Denmark) decided to change his name.
“It was not about mocking a minority but a religious figure, the Prophet, so it was blasphemy, not racism,” Mr. Rose said of the cartoons. “The idea of challenging religious authority led to liberal democracy, whereas the singling out of minorities, as minorities, led to Nazism and the persecution of the bourgeoisie in Russia. So this distinction is crucial to understand.”
========
Page 2 of 2)
Years spent as a student and a newspaper correspondent in the Soviet Union shaped Mr. Rose’s philosophy. There he saw how “the concept of universal values was crucial to the dissident culture, and I saw what censorship meant,” he said. “I saw that values were not relative between Western society and the Soviets.”
Flemming Rose, Kurt Westergaard's editor. Recently, 17 papers reprinted the cartoons.
The Soviets, he noted, had a law in their penal code outlawing defamation of the Soviet way of life. Blasphemy laws in Muslim countries today “have the same purpose of silencing dissident voices,” he said. “Free speech does not extend to libel, invasion of privacy and incitement to violence.” But “a distinction must be made between words and deeds,” he insisted. “Images are open to interpretation, they’re different from words.”
Mr. Westergaard put it differently: “Cartoons always concentrate and simplify an idea and allow a quick impression that arouses some strong feeling.”
He recalled a cartoon he did years ago to complement an article defending Palestinians against Israelis, “not because this was my belief but because my job was to illustrate the views in this article, and I showed a Palestinian wearing a yellow star with ‘Arab’ on it.” He continued: “Many people called to protest. One man said I had abused a Jewish symbol. We talked for a long time and finally accepted each other’ s viewpoint.” It was the talking, he said, that mattered.
Did he go too far that time?
“Looking back,” he said, “perhaps I should have made a cartoon that did not use the yellow star.”
But then why Muhammad and not a star?
“Because millions of Jews died in camps wearing that star.”
Which is obviously the wrong answer for those who have put a price on his head. “I have always been an atheist, and I dare say these events have only intensified my atheism,” he said. “But the same clash would eventually have occurred over some book or a play. It was waiting to happen.”
He brought a cartoon that he had recently revised. In it Jesus, wearing a suit and tie, strides from the cross on which a sign hangs: “Service hours, Sunday, 10-11, 2-3.” Mr. Westergaard recently added an imam watching Jesus walk away.
He agreed to meet at Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper, from which he’s now semi-retired. Tall, broad-shouldered, with a salt-and-pepper beard, at 72 he’s like a Scandinavian sailor out of central casting but dressed, as usual, in fire-engine red pants, a patterned red scarf and a Sgt. Pepper black coat — clearly an act of sartorial defiance. When asked about Mr. Westergaard’s general approach to the last two years, Mr. Rose, with awe, said, “Calm.”
As it happens, most of the dozen cartoonists are older and, like Mr. Westergaard, closer to the generational ethos of 1968 than to the cultural relativism of later generations. A Social Democrat, Mr. Westergaard ran a school for severely disabled children before he became a cartoonist. He likes to point out that Himmerland, the region of Denmark where he was born, was home to a race of warriors: “There were also Danes among the Crusaders.”
He knows it’s a loaded reference. “Is this another Crusade now, or what is it?” he asked.
Then he answered himself: “In Denmark there is a culture of radicalism, a skepticism toward authority and religion. It’s part of our national character.” Years of relativism, during which Danes felt they “had no right to ask anyone else to live like us,” ended with the cartoons, he said. But he’s less sure than Mr. Rose about the degree of progress, conceding that recent gains by Denmark’s anti-immigrant party “are an unfortunate setback due to all this.”
Now he’s accustomed to being (and maybe, who is to say, even slightly enjoys his status as) an accidental celebrity with a soapbox. “Disagreement is an essential part of democracy,” he said. “I want to explain my sense of this clash between two cultures because I have grandchildren who will grow up in this multicultural society. The Danes are tolerant people. They don’t deserve to be treated like racists.”
He added: “This will go on for the rest of my lifetime, I am sure. I will never get out of this. But I feel more anger than fear. I’m angry because my life is threatened, and I know I have done nothing wrong, just done my job.”
“Anger,” he said, smiling, “is the best therapy.”
-
Islam and Free Speech
By PETER HOEKSTRA
March 26, 2008; Page A15
WSJ
The Netherlands is bracing for a new round of violence at home and against its embassies in the Middle East. The storm would be caused by "Fitna," a short film that is scheduled to be released this week. The film, which reportedly includes images of a Quran being burned, was produced by Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament and leader of the Freedom Party. Mr. Wilders has called for banning the Quran -- which he has compared to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" -- from the Netherlands.
After concern about the film led Mr. Wilders's Internet service provider to take down his Web site, Mr. Wilders issued a statement this week that he will personally distribute DVDs "On the Dam" if he has to. That may not be necessary, as the Czech National Party has reportedly agreed to host the video on its Web site.
Marked for death: Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Reasonable men in free societies regard Geert Wilders's anti-Muslim rhetoric, and films like "Fitna," as disrespectful of the religious sensitivities of members of the Islamic faith. But free societies also hold freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right. We don't silence, jail or kill people with whom we disagree just because their ideas are offensive or disturbing. We believe that when such ideas are openly debated, they sink of their own weight and attract few followers.
Our country allows fringe groups like the American Nazi Party to demonstrate, as long as they are peaceful. Americans are permitted to burn the national flag. In 1989, when so-called artist Andres Serrano displayed his work "Piss Christ" -- a photo of a crucifix immersed in a bottle of urine -- Americans protested peacefully and moved to cut off the federal funding that supported Mr. Serrano. There were no bombings of museums. No one was killed over this work that was deeply offensive to Christians.
Criticism of Islam, however, has led to violence and murder world-wide. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie over his 1988 book, "The Satanic Verses." Although Mr. Rushdie has survived, two people associated with the book were stabbed, one fatally. The 2005 Danish editorial cartoons lampooning the prophet Muhammad led to numerous deaths. Dutch director Theodoor van Gogh was killed in 2004, several months after he made the film "Submission," which described violence against women in Islamic societies. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch member of parliament who wrote the script for "Submission," received death threats over the film and fled the country for the United States.
The violence Dutch officials are anticipating now is part of a broad and determined effort by the radical jihadist movement to reject the basic values of modern civilization and replace them with an extreme form of Shariah. Shariah, the legal code of Islam, governed the Muslim world in medieval times and is used to varying degrees in many nations today, especially in Saudi Arabia.
Radical jihadists are prepared to use violence against individuals to stop them from exercising their free speech rights. In some countries, converting a Muslim to another faith is a crime punishable by death. While Muslim clerics are free to preach and proselytize in the West, some Muslim nations severely restrict or forbid other faiths to do so. In addition, moderate Muslims around the world have been deemed apostates and enemies by radical jihadists.
Radical jihadists believe representative government is un-Islamic, and urge Muslims who live in democracies not to exercise their right to vote. The reason is not hard to understand: When given a choice, most Muslims reject the extreme approach to Islam. This was recently demonstrated in Iraq's Anbar Province, which went from an al-Qaeda stronghold to an area supporting the U.S.-led coalition. This happened because the populace came to intensely dislike the fanatical ways of the radicals, which included cutting off fingers of anyone caught smoking a cigarette, 4 p.m. curfews, beatings and beheadings. There also were forced marriages between foreign-born al Qaeda fighters and local Sunni women.
There may be a direct relationship between the radical jihadists' opposition to democracy and their systematic abuse of women. Women have virtually no rights in this radical world: They must conceal themselves, cannot hold jobs, and have been subjected to honor killings. Would most women in Muslim countries vote for a candidate for public office who supported such oppressive rules?
Not all of these radicals are using violence to supplant democratic society with an extreme form of Shariah. Some in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark are attempting to create parallel Islamic societies with separate courts for Muslims. According to recent press reports, British officials are investigating the cases of 30 British Muslim school-age girls who "disappeared" for probable forced marriages.
While efforts to create parallel Islamic societies have been mostly peaceful, they may actually be a jihadist "waiting game," based on the assumption that the Islamic populations of many European states will become the majority over the next 25-50 years due to higher Muslim birth rates and immigration.
What is particularly disturbing about these assaults against modern society is how the West has reacted with appeasement, willful ignorance, and a lack of journalistic criticism. Last year PBS tried to suppress "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center," a hard-hitting documentary that contained criticism of radical jihadists. Fortunately, Fox News agreed to air the film.
Even if the new Wilders film proves newsworthy, it is likely that few members of the Western media will air it, perhaps because they have been intimidated by radical jihadist threats. The only major U.S. newspaper to reprint any of the controversial 2005 Danish cartoons was Denver's Rocky Mountain News. You can be sure that if these cartoons had mocked Christianity or Judaism, major American newspapers would not have hesitated to print them.
European officials have been similarly cautious. A German court ruled last year that a German Muslim man had the right to beat his wife, as this was permitted under Shariah. Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, stated last month that the implementation of some measure of Shariah in Britain was "unavoidable" and British Muslims should have the choice to use Shariah in marital and financial matters.
I do not defend the right of Geert Wilders to air his film because I agree with it. I expect I will not. (I have not yet seen the film). I defend the right of Mr. Wilders and the media to air this film because free speech is a fundamental right that is the foundation of modern society. Western governments and media outlets cannot allow themselves to be bullied into giving up this precious right due to threats of violence. We must not fool ourselves into believing that we can appease the radical jihadist movement by allowing them to set up parallel societies and separate legal systems, or by granting them special protection from criticism.
A central premise of the American experiment are these words from the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There are similar statements in the U.S. Constitution, British Common Law, the Napoleonic Code and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, hundreds of millions in the U.S. and around the world enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and many other rights.
These liberties have been won through centuries of debate, conflict and bloodshed. Radical jihadists want to sacrifice all we have learned by returning to a primitive and intolerant world. While modern society invites such radicals to peacefully exercise their faith, we cannot and will not sacrifice our fundamental freedoms.
Mr. Hoekstra, who was born in the Netherlands, is ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
-
Score one for Islamo-fascism:
======================
Breaking news: “FITNA” video removed following serious threats to hosting company staff
We learn this evening that Internet hosting operation, LiveLeak, have been forced to remove Dutch MP Geert Wilders “FITNA” video, following very serious threats to its staff. At the present time it is not known who is behind the threats or the nature of the threats. However, the cowardly ritualistic murder of Dutch film director Theo van Gogh, by an Islamic fanatic, does mean that all such threats have to be taken very seriously.
Unfortunately for those who would try to stifle our western democracy through naked fascism and criminality, many thousands of copies of the controversial video have been downloaded and it can only be a matter of time before they start appearing in “cyberspace”!
The fact that this has happened only goes to underline one of the themes of “FITNA” - that western democracy and freedom of speech are under attack by the enemies of freedom! Appeasement cannot be an option!
An explanatory message posted on the LiveLeak site reads:-
“Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.
"This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one. Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture. We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.”
See the LiveLeak announcement here .
http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/03/28/breaking-news-fitna-video-removed-following-serious-threats-to-hosting-company-staff/
-
One man with the courage to speak up:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=30a_1204991129
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSL1584799120080415?feedType=RSS&feedName=entert ainmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slur
PARIS (Reuters) - French former film star Brigitte Bardot went on trial on Tuesday for insulting Muslims, the fifth time she has faced the charge of "inciting racial hatred" over her controversial remarks about Islam and its followers.
Prosecutors asked that the Paris court hand the 73-year-old former sex symbol a two-month suspended prison sentence and fine her 15,000 euros ($23,760) for saying the Muslim community was "destroying our country and imposing its acts".
Since retiring from the film industry in the 1970s, Bardot has become a prominent animal rights activist but she has also courted controversy by denouncing Muslim traditions and immigration from predominantly Muslim countries.
She has been fined four times for inciting racial hatred since 1997, at first 1,500 euros and most recently 5,000.
Prosecutor Anne de Fontette told the court she was seeking a tougher sentence than usual, adding: "I am a little tired of prosecuting Mrs Bardot."
Bardot did not attend the trial because she said she was physically unable to. The verdict is expected in several weeks.
French anti-racist groups complained last year about comments Bardot made about the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha in a letter to President Nicolas Sarkozy that was later published by her foundation.
Muslims traditionally mark Eid al-Adha by slaughtering a sheep or another animal to commemorate the prophet Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son on God's orders.
France is home to 5 million Muslims, Europe's largest Muslim community, making up 8 percent of France's population.
"I am fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its acts," the star of 'And God created woman' and 'Contempt' said.
Bardot has previously said France is being invaded by sheep-slaughtering Muslims and published a book attacking gays, immigrants and the unemployed, in which she also lamented the "Islamisation of France".
-
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020442.php
-
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/terrorism.php?id=1387239
Welcome to ‘Lawfare’ - A New Type of Jihad
Brooke Goldstein
The Islamist movement has two wings – one violent and one lawful, which can operate apart but often reinforce each other. While the violent arm attempts to silence speech by burning cars when cartoons of Mohammed are published in Denmark, the lawful arm is skillfully maneuvering within Western legal systems, both here and abroad.
Islamists with financial means have launched a “legal Jihad,” filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits with the aim of abolishing public discourse critical of Islam and with the goal of establishing principles of Sharia law (strict Islamic law dating back to the 9th Century) as the governing political and legal authority in the West.
Islamist Lawfare is often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, and undertaken as a means to intimidate, demoralize and bankrupt defendants. The lawsuits range in their claims from defamation to workplace harassment and they have resulted in books being pulped and meritorious articles going unpublished.
Forum shopping, whereby Plaintiffs bring actions in jurisdictions most likely to rule in their favor, has enabled a wave of “libel tourism.” At the time of her death in 2006, noted Italian author Orianna Fallaci was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland and other jurisdictions by groups dedicated to preventing the dissemination of her work.
Libel Tourism has also resulted in foreign judgments against American authors mandating the regulation of their speech and behavior. The litany of American anti-Islamist researchers, authors, activists, publishers, congressman, newspapers, television news stations, think tanks, NGOs, reporters, student journals and others targeted for censorship is long and merits brief mentioning here.
One of the earliest cases in the US dates back to 1937, where in Birmington, Alabama, an Arab Sheik sued the Birmington Post for libel over an article entitled “Arabian Sheik Asks Friend Here to Buy him an American Girl for Harem.” The Post reported that Sheik Fareed Iman, “who is 29 years old and fears he may reach 30 before he obtains a chief-wife for his four-wife harem, is ready to purchase a suitable girl from her parents. The lucky girl”, the article continued, “will benefit from the traditional Arabian protective treatment of women but she can’t be seen by those who are not members of the household.”
The article read more like a parody of a personal ad in the dating section of a magazine and listed a telephone number should anyone reading be interested. Nevertheless, the Alabama court of appeals refused to dismiss the suit and judged the article libelous per se, or defamatory on its face, and remanded it for jury trial, where eventually the Plaintiff lost for his failure to state a cause of action.
Within the last ten years, however, we have seen a steady increase in cases pursued by Islamic organizations and Muslim individuals attempting to use Western courts to stop the flow of certain information. They are achieving a degree of success in Europe because the judicial systems in England, France and elsewhere don’t afford their citizens, or American citizens for that matter, the same free speech protections granted in America under the U.S. Constitution. The cumulative effect of the suits abroad, and of the suits here at home even if they are not successful, and the looming threat of future suits is creating a detrimental chilling effect on dialogue concerning important matters of public concern because, naturally, people want to avoid costly litigation.
I want to mention briefly a few cases that have occurred here within the last ten years against American anti-Islamist authors and activists. It is imperative that our judicial system continue to enforce the authors’ and activists’ rights to free speech and free assembly against all parties attempting to stifle them here and abroad.
In 1998, America Online (AOL) permitted chat rooms in which voluntary participants could post comments and talk to one another about issues involving the Koran and tenants of Islam. One Muslim visitor to the chat room named Saad Noah considered posts by other visitors blasphemous and defamatory against Islam. Noah then sued AOL for libel, attempting a class action on behalf of all Muslim chat room participants and claiming that AOL wrongfully refused to prevent participants from posting anti-Islamic comments. The court properly dismissed the case against AOL, for failure to state a cause of action.
In 2003 the Council on American Islamic Relations (i.e., CAIR) sued U.S. Congressman Cass Ballenger after an interview with the Congressman was published in the Charlotte Observer wherein Ballenger exclaimed how living in Washington across the street from CAIR headquarters no longer appealed to him because CAIR was, “a fundraising arm for Hezbollah,” and that the Congressman had reported such to the FBI and the CIA. Fortunately, the judge ruled that Ballenger’s statements were made in the scope of his public duties and were therefore protected speech in the interest of public concern.
The following year, CAIR sued Andrew Whitehead, an American activist and blogger, for $1.3 million for maintaining the website Anti-CAIR.net.org, on which Whitehead lists CAIR as an Islamist organization with ties to terrorist groups. Ironically, after CAIR refused Whitehead’s discovery requests, seemingly afraid of what internal documents the legal process it had initiated would reveal, CAIR withdrew its claims against Whitehead, the two parties came to a settlement – the terms of which have not been publicly disclosed – and the case was dismissed by the court with prejudice. Whitehead’s Anti-CAIR website, however, is still up and running along with the articles that were at issue.
Last year, When Joe Kaufman, an American activist and chairman of Americans Against Hate, traveled to Texas to lead a peaceful ten-person protest against the Islamic Circle of North America outside an event the group was sponsoring at a Six Flags theme park, he was served with a temporary restraining order and sued for defamation and harassment. What is particularly troubling about Kaufman’s case is that the suit was filed against him, not by ICNA, but by seven Dallas area plaintiffs who had never previously been mentioned by Kaufman, nor had they been present at the theme park. This suit currently is being litigated.
Another case that is ongoing is that of Bruce Tefft. Tefft is a former CIA official and worked as a counter-terrorism consultant for the NYPD. After sending out emails to a voluntary list of police officer recipients in which he cut and pasted articles about terrorism – complemented with Tefft’s own commentary – Tefft, along with the NYPD, was sued by a Muslim John Doe Police Officer alleging workplace harassment.
Often the mere threat of suit is enough to intimidate publishers into silence, regardless of the merit of their author’s works. In 2007, when wealthy Saudi Arabian businessman, Khalid bin Mahfouz, threatened to sue Cambridge University Press for publishing the book Alms for Jihad, by American authors Robert Collins and J Millard Burr, Cambridge Press immediately capitulated, offered a public apology to Mahfouz, took the book out of print and ordered the destruction of all unsold copies and the removal of the book from the shelves of libraries – a directive certain libraries refused to follow.
Sometimes defendants targeted are able to take advantage of Anti-SLAPP statutes. Anti-SLAPP statutes have been enacted in several, but not all, states and are aimed at preventing such lawsuits designed to hinder legitimate public participation.
In the book Hamas, author Matthew Levitt describes KinderUSA as a charitable front for terror financing. When Levitt, along with Yale Press who published his book, were sued by KinderUSA, he instituted a counter-claim against the plaintiff based on California’s Anti-SLAPP statute. Shortly afterwards, KinderUSA dropped their lawsuit claiming it found the suit too costly to pursue.
Most disturbing, parties sued for reporting on U.S. government investigations into terrorist activities, or for formally appealing government authorities to conduct investigations, include The New York Times which, in 2001, reported on the US Government investigation of the Global Relief Foundation; The Wall Street Journal which, in 2002, reported on the monitoring of the Saudi bank accounts; and ADL which, in 2002, called for the investigation of a public school superintendent, Khadja Ghafur, based on indications that schools under his supervision were teaching religion.
Legal Jihad is gaining momentum with a ripple effect, and we must expect that Islamists will engage in future legal efforts along these lines. Indeed, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) have both stated publicly that they are considering filing defamation lawsuits against their critics. The Muslim World League has called for the establishment of a commission to take legal action against those who abuse Islam and its prophet Mohammed. During the recent two-day summit in Dakar, taking legal action against those who defame Islam was a key issue debated at length by Muslim leaders.
For its part, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has announced an ambitious fundraising goal of $1 million, in part to “defend against defamatory attacks on Muslims and Islam.” One of its staffers, Rabiah Ahmed, has stated that lawsuits are increasingly an ‘instrument’ for it to use.” Moreover, CAIR’s chairman, Parvez Ahmed, has stated that “People who make statements connecting CAIR to terrorism should understand the legal consequences of their attempted slander and defamation.”
This is not a Left or Right issue.
The Islamist Lawfare challenge presents a direct and real threat to our constitutional rights and national security. Left unabated, this phenomenon has the potential to seriously hinder public debate on the threat of radical Islam. The United States was founded on the premise of freedom of worship, but also on the principle that one should have the freedom to criticize religion.
Should the voices of concerned Americans be intimidated into silence, a real possibility exists that the criticism of radical Islam will be stifled, and Sharia law will begin to creep into our system as we are seeing it do in the financial markets with Sharia banking.
Daniel Pipes, who founded and heads the Middle East Forum, recognized the seriousness of this threat and last spring established the Legal Project (LP) to counter it. The LP has been working to recruit and establish a network of attorneys who are willing to work as pro bono counsel for the defendants in these cases; it has also embarked on fundraising efforts to assist with the cost of litigation and is working to raise public awareness of this phenomenon. Moreover, the LP is capable of positioning itself on the offensive and has recently succeeded in causing The Muslim Weekly publication, a UK-based lslamist magazine, to issue an apology and retraction of an article in which one Tariq Ramadan made false and defamatory statements about Dr. Pipes.
Those parties who recklessly and wrongfully defame our counter-terrorism researchers should beware.
# #
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Brooke Goldstein, a practicing attorney, is the Director of The Legal Project at the Middle East Forum, Director of the Children's Rights Institute, an Adjunct Fellow at the Hudson Institute and the 2007 recipient of the E. Nathaniel Gates Award for Outstanding Public Advocacy. Goldstein has been invited to the White House and State Department to brief government officials on issues of counter-terrorism and has appeared on Fox News, CNN and in other media as an expert commentator.
If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to pr@familysecuritymatters.org.
-
VANCOUVER -In the subterranean bowels of a provincial courthouse, a bizarre and frightening spectacle starts to unfold. At issue are the pointed musings of Mark Steyn, a journalist and author living in the United States. A lengthy excerpt from his controversial book, America Alone, was published two years ago in Toronto-based Maclean's magazine, a weekly publication owned by Toronto-based Roger's Publishing Ltd.
The book excerpt ran as a cover story, entitled "Why the Future Belongs to Islam," and argued that Western democracy is threatened by the spread of Islam. In response, a human rights complaint was made here, in British Columbia, by an electrical engineer living in Waterloo, Ont.
That's the bizarre part, or one slice of it. None of the main players starring in this quasi-judicial drama actually live or work in B. C. Not Mr. Steyn, not the editors responsible for Maclean's, and not Mohamed Elmasry, a Muslim who launched a complaint to the B. C. Human Rights Tribunal on behalf of all Muslims in this province.
Neither Mr. Steyn, nor his editors, nor Mr. Elmasry were in sight when the tribunal panel began the week-long hearing yesterday. Mr. Steyn will not testify, say lawyers for Maclean's. Nor will Mr. Elmasry, the aggrieved. So why bring the complaint forward here? Because Mr. Elmasry can. This thanks to provincial human rights legislation of a breadth and elasticity not known in other parts of Canada.
Mr. Elmasry, the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, and a highly controversial figure himself -- especially among Jewish groups -- claims the Steyn excerpt denigrated and vilified Canadian Muslims and promoted hatred of an identifiable group.
He is not obliged to demonstrate what harm occurred to whom, or to what degree. Maclean's magazine and Mr. Steyn could still be found to have violated B. C.'s Human Rights Code. No proof of damage is required.
Meanwhile, if found to have violated the code, Maclean's faces sanctions, including payment to the complainant "an amount that the member or panel considers appropriate to compensate that person for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them."...
Packing the small gallery behind them were Mark Steyn supporters, Internet bloggers, and others opposed to limits placed on free speech.
Mr. Joseph opened with a blistering attack. The Steyn excerpt that Maclean's published in October, 2006, presented Muslims as "a violent people" who hold traditional Canadian values "in contempt," he alleged. Their religion was portrayed as "inhuman" and "violent." Even the cover image that Maclean's chose to run with the Steyn excerpt was hauled before the inquiry. The image of two Muslim women, along with the magazine's cover line, "could have been the picture of a horror cult movie," declared Mr. Joseph.
He soon swerved off topic, referring to inflammatory passages from Mr. Steyn's book that did not appear in Maclean's. He mentioned "20 other articles" that ran in Maclean's, beginning in January, 2005; these were also unkind to Muslims, he alleged, even if they were not part of his client's complaint. Mr. Joseph even slammed Maclean's for publishing letters from readers praising the magazine and Mr. Steyn.
Full article here.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...3fda2ca5dd&p=1
=============
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363182,00.html
A Danish cartoonist and ten newspaper editors have reportedly been summoned by Jordan's public prosecutor on charges of "blasphemy" for reprinting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
According to the Copenhagen Post, prosecutor Hassan Abdullat has subpoenaed the 11 Danes for drawing and reprinting cartoons they say offend Islam, charging them with "threatening the national peace."
Under Jordanian law, reproducing images of the Prophet Muhammad inside — or even outside the country — is illegal under the Jordanian Justice Act, the newspaper wrote.
A lawyer representing "The Prophet Unites Us," a Jordanian group angling for the prosecution, said that if the Danish journalists did not appear in Jordan for legal proceedings, the next step would be to inform Interpol and seek their arrest.
But the Danish foreign ministry said that the journalists would not be forcibly deported, as the printing of the controversial cartoons is not a punishable offense in Denmark.
Jordanian courts have not issued an indictment, but lawyers are hoping the case will help establish an international law against slandering religion, according to Danish reports.
Abdullat has summoned Kurt Westergaard, a cartoonist facing death threats for his depiction of the Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb.
Abdullat also subpoenaed the editors of ten newspapers that reprinted the infamous cartoon in March, the paper reported.
The summons came just one day after the Danish embassy in Pakistan was destroyed in a bombing that killed 6, apparently a reprisal for the reprinting of the cartoons.
__________________
Brigitte Bardot fined £12,000 for racial hatred after claiming Muslims are destroying France
Last updated at 5:55 PM on 03rd June 2008
French film star Brigitte Bardot was today convicted of provoking discrimination and racial hatred for writing that Muslims are destroying France.
A Paris court also handed down a €15,000 ($11,920) fine against the former screen siren turned animal rights campaigner.
A leading French anti-racism group known as MRAP filed a lawsuit last year over a letter Bardot, 73, sent to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy.
The remarks by the star, who helped popularise the bikini during her heyday in the 1950s, were published in her foundation's quarterly journal.
In the December 2006 letter to Mr Sarkozy, now the president, Bardot said France is "tired of being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts."
The actress, who is most famous for her sex kitten role in And God Created Woman, was referring to the Muslim feast of Eid el-Kebir, celebrated by slaughtering sheep.
Bardot's lawyer, Francois-Xavier Kelidjian, said he would talk to her about the possibility of an appeal.
"She is tired of this type of proceedings," he said.
"She has the impression that people want to silence her. She will not be silenced in her defense of animal rights."
The court also ordered Bardot to pay €1,000 (£795) in damages to MRAP, as well as one symbolic euro to two other anti-racism groups.
French anti-racism laws prevent inciting hatred and discrimination on racial or religious or racial grounds.
Bardot had been convicted four times previously for inciting racial hatred.
She was first fined in 1997 for her comments published in Le Figaro newspaper.
A year later she was convicted for making a statement about the growing number of mosques in France "while our church bells fall silent".
In 1998 she was convicted for making a statement about the growing number of mosques in France.
In a book she wrote in 1999, called "Le Carre de Pluton" (Pluto's Square), she again criticised Muslim sheep slaughter and was fined 30,000 francs £3,000).
In a 2001 article named, Open Letter to My Lost France, she lamented: "...my country, France, my homeland, my land is again invaded by an overpopulation of foreigners, especially Muslims."
In her 2003 book, A Scream in the Silence, she warned of the “Islamicisation of France”, and said of Muslim immigration: “Over the last twenty years, we have given in to a subterranean, dangerous, and uncontrolled infiltration, which not only resists adjusting to our laws and customs but which will, as the years pass, attempt to impose its own."
She was fined €5,000 (then worth £2,900)
Find this story at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...ng-France.html
-
Here's more on the Steyn trial of my previous post:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...f-461ff39cb6cd
The show trial begins
David Warren
The Ottawa Citizen
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
The writings of Canada's most talented journalist, Mark Steyn, went on trial in Vancouver on Monday, in a case designed to challenge freedom of the press. It is a show trial, under the arbitrary powers given to Canada's obscene "human rights" commissions, by Section 13 of our Human Rights Act.
I wrote "obscene" advisedly. A respondent who comes before Canada's "human rights" tribunals has none of the defences formerly guaranteed in common law. The truth is no defence, reasonable intention is no defence, nor material harmlessness, there are no rules of evidence, no precedents, nor case law of any kind. The commissars running the tribunals need have no legal training, exhibit none, and owe their appointments to networking among leftwing activists.
I wrote "show trial" advisedly, for there has been a 100 per cent conviction rate in cases brought to "human rights" tribunals under Section 13.
Take this in:
A group of Islamist fanatics, claiming to speak for every Muslim in Canada, charged Maclean's magazine with "spreading hatred against Muslims" for having printed a lucid and reasonable (if controversial) excerpt from Steyn's bestselling book, America Alone. This is a news story that should be on the front page of every newspaper in Canada, every day until it is resolved.
Everything about this case stinks to high heaven. It was brought before three different "human rights" tribunals simultaneously. The British Columbian venue was openly "jurisdiction shopped" because the province's human rights tribunals have an especially egregious record for ignoring respondents' most basic Charter rights. The charges were brought more than a year after the article appeared. There was an open attempt at extortion, when representatives of the complainant called a press conference in which an offer was made to retract the charges for unspecified considerations.
The case is the more ludicrous because the allegations brought are semi-literate (for instance, Steyn's quotations of lunatic Islamist imams are confused with Steyn's own assertions). The remedies sought keep changing; the arguments keep changing; the explanation of why the complainant has brought the case and what he hopes to gain from it has kept changing. And now the show trial has begun, the prosecution is presenting a parade of entirely irrelevant testimony. (Has Steyn properly understood the Koran? Etc.)
A farce, but a farce that has huge consequences for Canada: for by such methods free speech and free press are being snuffed out. The Left may think they have found the ideal method to silence anyone who challenges their insane, "politically correct" ideas, but have instead created a monster that can as easily eat them next.
This is a disaster also for Canada's Muslims, for the views of fanatical Islamists are being presented as representative of all. No single person has done so much to advance contempt for Islam in this country as Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, the complainant in this case, whose public assertions include, for example, the view every adult Israeli citizen is a valid target for Palestinian hitmen.
The bland acceptance of this man, by mainstream Canadian media, as the definitive spokesman for Muslim interests in Canada, cannot be blamed on the Muslim community. Innumerable Muslims have disavowed him, and yet are entirely ignored. Indeed: Mark Steyn has been among the few journalists distinguishing between camps. He would be: for he has plenty of Muslim supporters.
There is some good news. It appears the Harper government has finally been goaded into calling a public inquiry into proceedings of at least the federal "human rights" commission. Some good may come from public confirmation of the outrageous, often sick behaviour of its members and hangers-on, which Canada's leading bloggers have been documenting.
But the problem is at once more urgent and much broader than any carefully-focused inquiry can present. For what radical activists have achieved through "human rights" commissions is now endemic, in all kinds of "star chamber" and "kangaroo court" operations, in everything from the tax system to provisions of family law.
Another crucial point:
While media attention to Mark Steyn's show trial is inadequate, it is nevertheless the best publicized case ever to come before our "human rights" bureaucracies. Most of the victims of these neo-Maoist tribunals have been "little people," with nothing like the resources Maclean's magazine has put in play to defend itself and Steyn, and no media reporting whatever. They have been persecuted, stripped of their livelihoods and savings, demonized among their neighbours, made to endure humiliating "re-education" programs - without lawyers, without assistance of any kind -- all for exercising rights that any Canadian would have taken for granted a mere generation ago.
I want justice for Mark Steyn. But I also want justice for all these little people, who have been crushed under the jackboot of "political correction."
David Warren's column appears Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2008
-
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2008/06/the-guardian-po.html
June 05, 2008
The Guardian Position
Regular readers may remember the Danish journalist, Jakob Illeborg, and his rhetorical contortions. In February, following the republication of the Muhammad cartoons, while Muslim youths were burning down Danish schools on a nightly basis, Mr Illeborg went to enormous lengths to convince Guardian readers that,
The Danes could, with some justification, be seen as fire starters.
This claim is, it seems, based on a belief that to exercise and defend, even belatedly, the most basic values of a free society is actually to “rock the boat” and invite upon oneself a week of rioting, violence and murderous intimidation. When the 73-year-old cartoonist Kurt Westergaard was forced into hiding following a plot to murder him, several Danish papers republished Westergaard’s cartoon as both an affirmation of free speech and an expression of solidarity. This was, according to Illeborg,
A headstrong idealistic response.
Given Mr Illeborg’s articles appear on a website named Comment is Free, one might find this disapproval a tad peculiar. Though perhaps not quite as peculiar as his willingness to denounce as “headstrong” a perfectly legal activity, while carefully avoiding any such pejoratives when referring to those making death threats and setting fire to schools. Mr Illborg is, however, quite skilled at double standards and juggling contradiction, as demonstrated by his dual assertion that,
The fire starters are frustrated young Muslim men who claim that their action is sparked by the re-publication of one of the prophet cartoons –
And,
although it probably has little to do with religion.
Illeborg’s most recent article, titled Denmark Loses Tolerance, once again demonstrates a craven doublethink that has come to define much of the Guardian’s commentary on the subject of Islam. In an attempt to illustrate “how far Denmark has moved from the liberal values it was once proud of,” Illeborg highlights, of all things, Monday’s suicide bomb attack on the Danish embassy in Islamabad. Just pause for a moment. Think about that. A claim that Danes are “losing tolerance” is illustrated with an Islamist attack on a Danish embassy in which 6 people died and burned body parts were left strewn across the road.
Ever since the prophet cartoon crises of 2006 and 2008, Islamist extremists around the world have been threatening bloody revenge on Denmark.
Ah, bloody revenge. For a cartoon. Note that the intolerance which most troubles Mr Illeborg is that of “headstrong” Danes who wish to retain a freethinking culture, and not the rather more emphatic intolerance of men so vain they blow off people’s limbs and burn them to death. At this point one might reflect on how it is that some among us have come to accept the idea that an unflattering cartoon is a comprehensible “cause” of death threats and dismemberment. The cause is not, it seems, lunatic pride cultivated in the name of piety.
Monday's attack, is of course, indefensible,
Wait for it.
but
There we go.
it raises questions about the wisdom of the much-debated cartoons and Danish reactions to Muslim wrath. Not because anything about any cartoon - no matter how provocative - justifies such acts of violence, but because the cartoons ended up playing into the hands of extremists who could utilise it to “prove” how badly the west behaves towards Muslims.
Having previously made quite a few excuses for Islamic violence and its accommodation, Illeborg goes on to say,
Denmark has now become a target, and while [this] should in no way be excused, we ought to have known better.
The claim that “we ought to have known better” implies a great many things that Illeborg takes care not to state too clearly. Apparently, it’s okay to have certain rights provided we don’t actually use them or defend them against assault. Or, as Illeborg previously chose to word it, rather coyly:
Most of us agree that the Danish newspapers have the right to print the cartoons, but they don’t have an obligation to do so.
Likewise, in order to believe that publishing the cartoons constitutes being “headstrong” or “behaving badly” one would first have to forget the series of violent events that prompted them and on which they passed comment. Then one would have to imagine that backing down in the face of threats and intimidation will not invite more of the same. One would also have to believe that even the most ludicrous religious vanities, including fantasies of dominion, are deserving of respect. Not just tolerance, mind, but respect, which is not the same thing at all. And, by implication, one would have to believe that the taboos and ticks of Islam should, as a matter of courtesy, extend to non-Muslims, even those who find Muhammad an absurd and contemptible figure.
One might deduce from such thinking that the values of a free society - on which Mr Illeborg’s livelihood depends - are best defended by an unending accommodation of Islamic neurosis and supremacist posturing. Indeed, one might suppose that “liberal values” are actually best affirmed by their abandonment, and that being “tolerant” means touching one’s toes and hoping no one takes advantage. Behold The Guardian Position™, dutifully assumed: cowardice masked as compromise, tarted up in moral drag.
-
**Surrender your freedoms, and no one gets hurt.**
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C06%5C08%5Cstory_8-6-2008_pg7_14
Pakistan to ask EU to amend laws on freedom of expression
By Tahir Niaz
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator, sources in the Interior Ministry told Daily Times on Saturday.
They said that a six-member high-level delegation comprising officials from the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Law would leave Islamabad on Sunday (today) for the EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium and explain to the EU leadership the backlash against the blasphemous campaign in the name of freedom of expression.
The delegation, headed by an additional secretary of the Interior Ministry, will meet the leaders of the EU countries in a bid to convince them that the recent attack on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan could be a reaction against the blasphemous campaign, sources said.
They said that the delegation would also tell the EU that if such acts against Islam are not controlled, more attacks on the EU diplomatic missions abroad could not be ruled out.
Sources said that the delegation would also hold discussions on inter-religious harmony during its meetings with the EU leaders.
-
Now THAT is some serious chutzpah.
Sadly I am predicting that the response given will be less than the correct answer of FCUK OFF. :x :cry: :x
-
The euro-dhimmis can't wait to cower and appease in the name of tolerance and multiculturalism.
-
Sounds of Silence
By MARK DUBOWITZ
June 19, 2008
Welcome to a world where criticism of militant Islam could land you in court or worse. In Vancouver, Canada's venerable Maclean's magazine awaits a hate-speech verdict from a human-rights tribunal for publishing a chapter from syndicated columnist Mark Steyn's best-selling book "America Alone." The accusers charge the author and publisher with "Islamophobia."
Last week, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), warned a gathering in Kuala Lumpur that "mere condemnation or distancing from the acts of the perpetrators of Islamophobia" would not suffice. He recommended that Western countries restrict freedom of expression and demanded that the media stop publishing "hate material" like the Danish cartoons. "It is now high time for concrete actions to stem the rot before it aggravates any further," he said.
AP
Kabul speech: Afghans demonstrate against a Dutch Quran documentary and Danish cartoons that depicted the Prophet Muhammad. March 21, 2008.
Islamic countries already scored a victory on this front back in March. They pushed through a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council urging a global ban on the public defamation of religion -- read Islam.
* * *
These are examples of a growing campaign to use judicial power to silence critics of militant Islam. In the U.N. Durban Review Conference, scheduled for April 20-24, 2009 in Geneva, it appears that the OIC and its cohorts have identified the perfect platform to further their agenda.
Recall the first Durban meeting, the 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism, which took place only days before 9/11. That gathering deteriorated into a hate-fest against Jews, America and Israel. Disgusted by the vile rhetoric and Stürmer-like caricatures of Jews on display, the U.S. and Israeli delegations walked out.
Hopes that the Durban II conference next year will be a more enlightened event have already been dashed by the fact that some of the worst human rights abusers are setting its agenda. At the urging of the OIC, Libya secured chairmanship of the preparatory committee. Iran and Pakistan each won a seat on the committee. And Egypt, another OIC member, has been representing the 53-nation African Group during floor debates.
And so instead of Durban II rectifying the sins of the past, this latest U.N. forum will seek to undermine free societies by invoking the specter of Islamophobia. The OIC is the U.N.'s most powerful voting bloc. As the democracies at the U.N. have repeatedly learned, the OIC, with 57 members the controlling group in the 130-member bloc of developing countries, can usually push through its agenda with little difficulty.
The likely outcome of Durban II will be to urge all U.N. member states to pass legislation restricting basic freedoms of speech and action -- all in the interest of preventing "Islamophobia." The discrimination or defamation of Muslims, or of any other group for that matter, is of course reprehensible. But "Islamophobia," as defined by Libya, Iran and the other Durban II organizers, covers any criticism of Islam, Muslims or their actions.
If the leaders of these countries have it their way, writing op-eds criticizing Islamic radicalism, or speaking out against Muslim terrorists or, of course, publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, are soon to be considered criminal examples of racism.
During the most recent Durban II preparatory meetings in April and May, OIC members from Iran to Indonesia all insisted that freedom of expression is what causes Islamophobia. "The most disturbing phenomenon is the intellectual and ideological validation of Islamophobia," noted the Pakistani representative to the U.N., Marghoob Saleem Butt, on behalf of the OIC. "While it is expressed in the form of defamation of religion, it takes cover behind the freedom of expression and opinion." Voicing the demands of the Muslim bloc and its many authoritarian leaders, Mr. Butt requested that the Durban process "devise normative standards that provide adequate guarantees" against the intolerance of Muslims promoted by these freedoms.
Human rights advocates worried about this threat to civil liberties have been voicing their concerns with little success. Juliette De Rivero, for example, the Human Rights Watch advocacy director in Geneva, raised the alarm in late April: "Justified concerns about the complex relationship of racial and religious intolerance and hatred should not be the pretext to undermine key freedoms, including freedom of speech," she told the conference organizers in Geneva.
The danger of the Durban process is that it seeks to shape international and national laws. If the OIC succeeds, a broad definition of "Islamophobia" will be incorporated into Durban II's final outcome document. Thereafter, expect U.N. bodies, such as the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, to call countries to task if they fail to implement these recommendations. Other organs of the international system will adopt and cite the Islamophobia definition as well, until it and its ill effects have migrated throughout the international system.
The Durban II recommendations, however, will not stop only at warping international standards on what constitutes Islamophobia -- the OIC aims to export its language into individual countries' domestic laws. The first point in a draft of the conference's final outcome document compels countries to pursue the "enactment of adequate legislation in line with [those] international standards." The same diplomatic draft paper identifies freedom of expression as a "main challenge and obstacle" to addressing contemporary forms of racism.
Only the European Union can now stop this insidious process. Canada has already announced that it will boycott the conference, and the U.S. has also indicated that it will not participate in Durban II unless satisfied that it will not be another fiasco. But only the threat of a European pullout would deal a true blow to the credibility of the proceedings and deny the partisans of "Islamophobia" the U.N. imprimatur they crave.
Next month, France ascends to the EU presidency. It will be up to Paris to lead the fight for Western freedoms and, for once, put Iran, Libya, and other authoritarian states on the defensive. Let's hope French President Nicolas Sarkozy understands what's at stake.
Mr. Dubowitz is executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/19/hot-air-tv-new-jihad-watchbound-and-gagged/
Jihad Watch.
-
Related to problems with limiting free speech
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1992760,00.html
The German justice minister has proposed that all EU states should criminalise Holocaust denial and ban the public display of Nazi insignia, as Germany itself does. The EU's justice commissioner has apparently supported her. No reasonable person will doubt their good intentions, but this would be a big mistake. I hope and trust that other EU members will put a stop to this deeply unwise proposal, as they have to similar ones in the past.
Let me be clear about my starting-point. The Nazi Holocaust of the European Jews was unique. The main historical facts about it should be known by every contemporary European. Trying to ensure that nothing like that ever again happens here in Europe (or anywhere else in the world, insofar as that is in our power) should be one of the fundamental aims of the EU. As someone who came to European affairs through the study of Nazi Germany, I can say that this was a major reason for my personal commitment to what we call the European project.
That a measure is well-intended does not, however, make it wise. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And this proposal is very unwise. First of all, if passed, it would further curtail free expression - at a time when that is under threat from many quarters. Free expression is a unique and primary good in free societies; it's the oxygen that sustains other freedoms. You must therefore have very good reasons for restricting it by law.
The German justice minister, Brigitte Zypries, argues that she has such reasons. Recalling the way in which the anti-semitic words of Hitler and others paved the way for the horrors of Nazism, she says: "This historical experience puts Germany under a permanent obligation to combat systematically every form of racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia. And we should not wait until it comes to deeds. We must act already against the intellectual pathbreakers of the crime" (I translate from a speech posted on the German justice ministry's website). So this additional restriction on free expression - an EU-wide ban on Holocaust denial and Nazi insignia - is justified because it will make a significant difference to combating racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia today.
But what is the evidence for that? Nine EU member states currently have laws against Holocaust denial: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. That happens to be a list of countries with some of the strongest rightwing xenophobic parties in the EU, from France's National Front and the Vlaams Belang in Belgium to the NPD in Germany and the Greater Romania party. Self-evidently those parties don't exist as a result of Holocaust denial laws. Indeed, the existence of such parties is one of the reasons given for having the laws, but the laws have obviously not prevented their vigorous and dangerous growth. If anything, the bans and resulting court cases have given them a nimbus of persecution, that far-right populists love to exploit.
The same thing has happened with the imprisonment of David Irving in Austria. Six years ago Irving lost, in the British high court, a spectacular libel case that he had himself initiated against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt, who had described him as "one of the most prominent and dangerous Holocaust deniers". Mr Justice Gray concluded that Irving was "an active Holocaust denier". The last shreds of his reputation as a serious historian were torn apart - in a country that does not ban Holocaust denial. Now, having served time in Austria for statements he made there 16 years before, he can pose as a martyr for free speech and receives renewed publicity for his calumnies. At a press conference after his release, he reportedly endorsed the drunken anti-semitic comment of Mel Gibson that "the Jews" are responsible for all the wars in the world
Now suppose the ban on displaying Nazi insignia had already been in force EU-wide and the British courts had therefore been obliged to prosecute Prince Harry for (offensively and idiotically) sporting an Afrika Korps uniform and swastika armband at a friend's fancy dress party. What would that have done to combat Eurosceptic and xenophobic extremism in Britain? Nothing. Quite the reverse: it would have been worth thousands of votes to the British National party. And while we're on the subject of the swastika, Hindus across Europe are protesting against the proposed ban, on the grounds that for them the swastika is an ancient symbol of peace. Meanwhile, the German legal authorities have got themselves into a ridiculous tangle because a court in Stuttgart has convicted the manager of a mail-order company for selling T-shirts showing crossed-out and crushed swastikas. These might be anti-fascist T-shirts, you see, but they still showed swastikas and were therefore illegal. And so it goes on, and would go on even more if the whole EU adopted such measures.
The argument that these well-intentioned bans actually feed the flames they are meant to quench is, of course, ultimately unprovable, although circumstantial and anecdotal evidence points in that direction. But the burden of proof is on the proponents of the ban. In a free society, any restriction on free speech must have a compelling justification - and that is not available here.
Holocaust denial should be combated in our schools, our universities and our media, not in police stations and courts. It is, at most, a minor contributing factor to today's far-right racism and xenophobia, which now mainly targets Muslims, people of different skin colour, and migrants of all kinds. Nor will today's anti-semitism be countered most effectively by such bans; they may, at the margins, even stoke it up, feeding conspiracy theories about Jewish power and accusations of double-standards. Citizens of the Baltic states, who suffered so terribly under Stalin, will ask why only denial of the Holocaust should be criminalised and not denial of the gulag. Armenians will add: and why not the genocide that our ancestors experienced at the hands of the Turks? And Muslims: why not cartoons of Muhammad?
The approach advocated by the German justice minister also reeks of the nanny state. It speaks in the name of freedom but does not trust people to exercise freedom responsibly. Citizens are to be treated as children, guided and guarded at every turn. Indeed, the more I look at what Zypries does and says, the more she seems to me the personification of the contemporary European nanny state. It's no accident that she has also been closely involved in extending German law to allow more bugging of private homes. Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser (trust is good, control is better). Isn't that another mistake Germany made in the past?
Zypries is right: we must learn the lessons of history. But we must learn the right lessons of history, the ones relevant to a free, multicultural continent today. "Experience shows," writes the former attorney general of India, Soli Sorabjee, "that criminal laws prohibiting hate speech and expression will encourage intolerance, divisiveness and unreasonable interference with freedom of expression ... We need not more repressive laws but more free speech to combat bigotry and to promote tolerance." True for India and true for Europe.
timothygartonash.com
-
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/06/print/jihad_against_un.php
Counterterrorism Blog
Jihad Against Freedom of Speech at the United Nations
By Jeffrey Imm
The United Nations' Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has no problem with its members suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job" perpetrated by the United States on itself. The human rights of America's 9/11 victims are not a priority for UNHRC's Richard Falk, the special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, who engages in 9/11 conspiracy propaganda, while working for an organization headquartered in New York City funded by U.S. tax dollars. This is Richard Falk's protected freedom of speech.
Denying the role of Jihadists in the 9/11 attacks is apparently perfectly acceptable freedom of speech for the UNHRC, but criticizing Sharia law is another story.
On June 16, 2008, UNHRC president Doru Romulus Costea announced that criticism of Sharia law will not be tolerated by the UNHRC, based on the complaints and pressure by Islamist delegates to the UNHRC. In effect, the Islamist nations represented at the UNHRC have effected a Jihad against freedom of speech at the United Nations when it comes to criticizing Sharia or Islamic supremacist (aka Islamist) theocratic ideologies that threaten the freedom and lives of innocents around the world. This again demonstrates the key imperative of control for Islamists - in this case in terms of controlling ideas, thoughts, and words of an international organization intended to promote human rights. Outgoing UNHRC Commissioner Louise Arbour subsequently raised concerns about debates on Sharia becoming "taboo" within the United Nations group, stating that it "should be, among other things, the guardian of freedom of expression."
The UNHRC ban on debate regarding Sharia came as a result of a three minute joint statement by the Association for World Education with the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) to the Human Rights Council on women's rights and the impact of Sharia law. These NGOs sought to address international issues of violence against women, specifically, the stoning of women, "honor killings" of women, and female genital mutilation, as a result of Sharia law.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Arab Republic of Egypt vehemently criticized this attempted NGO message, interrupting it via "16 points of order", for an hour and twenty-five minutes per the IEHU. Jihad Watch provides a full transcript of the debate. The Egyptian UNHRC delegate claimed that silencing these NGOs was necessary to ensure "that Islam will not be crucified in this Council," but the fact is that Islamist forces seek to silence any debate on Sharia at all - anywhere, any time.
Ongoing Efforts to Silence Debate on Sharia
This is not the first time that efforts have been made by such pro-Islamist Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) member nations to influence the United Nations. In my article "Jihad, Islamism, and the United Nations," I addressed the efforts of OIC member nations to reword a UNHRC resolution on religious freedom so that it would not respect the right of individuals to change their religion, as this would be in conflict with Sharia law. The OIC continues global efforts to influence the United Nations and worldwide organization to silence any debate on Sharia by painting such debate as "Islamophobia."
In the war of ideas, the debate over Sharia's influence on Jihad (or "Islamist terrorism" per the 9/11 Commission Report), continues to remain under the radar for many analysts. Yet in the ongoing battles by the Taliban in Pakistan, a primary stated objective of the Taliban is enforcing Sharia law throughout the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, a sentiment that nearly 75 percent of Pakistanis agree with. (I address this issue in my article "Pakistan and the Growing Threat of a Sharia Mini-State.")
Two days after this silencing of debate on Sharia at the UNHRC, a man was sentenced to death for "blasphemy" in Pakistan by a Sharia court. This is the same Pakistan, whose government seeks to export the death penalty for "blasphemy" against Islam on a global basis, that now has successfully achieved the silencing of debate on Sharia in the United Nations. Moreover, when the Danish Embassy was attacked by terrorists in Pakistan recently, the Pakistan ambassador suggested that this was deserved due to the "blasphemous" cartoons published in Danish newspapers -- the Pakistan ambassador to Norway further stated to the press that "blasphemous" cartoons are "an act of terrorism."
The challenge of Sharia's impact on Jihad is so completely beyond the thought processes of counterterrorism analysts that Sharia is not even mentioned in the latest "terror lexicon" publications by the DHS and NCTC warning government officials not to use terms like "jihad," "Islamist," "caliphate," "mujahedeen." Yet Sharia is a fundamental component of what western political scientists call "Islamism" or "political Islam." The 9/11 Commission Report specifically states that "Islamist terrorism" is based on "Islamism."
Nevertheless, as the U.S. and the United Kingdom governments seek to end dialogue on jihad, Islamism, etc., the United Nations now seeks to end debate on Sharia. The war of ideas seems to be ending before it is even begun.
News media publications cannot be relied upon to address this vacuum in ideological debate either. Most refuse to address Islamic supremacist ideologies, including the impact of Sharia law on human rights and freedoms. The Wall Street Journal even employs specialists on Sharia law to help promote Sharia-based financial instruments.
Silence on Supremacist Ideologies Not Consistent With History or Democracy
The gross illogical nature of such an approach is seen by looking at another form of supremacist political ideology that the United States government, the United Nations, and other nations have aggressively debated and have enforced change in their governments and their people to remove.
If the issue was a racial supremacist ideology, would such objections exist?
Can one imagine the United Nations refusing to debate "white supremacism" due to fears of insulting "whites," or refusing to debate "apartheid"?
Can one imagine the U.S. government refusing to use terms such as "white supremacism" in dealing with fighting the Ku Klux Klan, or in refusing to consider the influences of white supremacist ideology when guaranteeing civil rights for all of its citizens, and in creating laws to effectively ban white supremacist influences in schools, businesses, and public places?
Most of all, in fighting white supremacist terror groups as the Ku Klux Klan, would the FBI have consulted "non-violent" white supremacists for ideological guidance? Would the FBI and the federal government have stated that it could not be involved in the "war of ideas" against white supremacism?
With the context of history, such questions are obviously absurd. That is precisely the point regarding the unwillingness to address the challenges of Islamic supremacist ideologies.
History shows that, in fact, none of this happened, and that the United Nations, the U.S government, and federal U.S. law enforcement all took action against such supremacist ideologies and publicly, aggressively, debated these in a war of ideas that would change the world and the nation. For the United States, the history of such federal action against such supremacist ideologies goes back nearly 140 years.
Therefore, such deliberate silence and denial regarding Sharia and Islamic supremacist ideologies is completely inconsistent with the history of such organizations and with America's democratic values. I will be addressing this in more detail in a future article to be entitled "Jihad and Supremacist Ideologies."
UNHRC president Doru Romulus Costea silenced debate on Sharia due to his fears of pursuing a "slippery slope" in such discussions.
Yet it is precisely such a "slippery slope" of denial on Islamic supremacist ideologies that the world is facing in the debate over Jihad, or in the words of Osama Bin Laden "the greater state of Islam from the ocean to the ocean, Allah permitting."
On a national and global level, the combination of denial and refusal to address the impact of Sharia and Islamic supremacist ideologies in providing an ideological basis for global Jihadist activity is truly a "slippery slope" for the safety of the entire world.
Sources and Related Documents:
June 19, 2008 - FOX News: Critics Demand Resignation of U.N. Official Who Wants Probe of 9/11 'Inside Job' Theories
June 19, 2008 - Pakistan Daily Times: Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates
June 19, 2008 - JihadWatch: UN Human Rights Council: Any mention of the word "sharia" is now taboo
June 18, 2008 - AFP: UN Rts Head Concerned At Council "Taboos" After Sharia Row
June 18, 2008 - Reuters: UN's Arbour opposes "taboos" in human rights body
June 17, 2008 - International Humanist and Ethical Union: Human Rights Council President: "We are on a slippery slope"
June 18, 2008 - AP: Muslim man in Pakistan sentenced to death for blasphemy
February 29, 2008 - OIC Statement on Islamophobia
February 1, 2008 - Jihad, Islamism, and the United Nations - Counterterrorism Blog - by Jeffrey Imm
February 29, 2008 - Jihad, Islamism, and U.S. Envoy to OIC - Counterterrorism Blog - by Jeffrey Imm
November 14, 2007 - Dow Jones, Wall Street Journal, and Islamist Financing - Counterterrorism Blog - by Jeffrey Imm
June 10, 2008 - Pakistan and the Growing Threat of a Sharia Mini-State - Counterterrorism Blog - by Jeffrey Imm
UN Watch Blog
UN Watch Home Page
By Jeffrey Imm on June 19, 2008 10:00 PM
-
You Still Can't Write
About Muhammad
By ASRA Q. NOMANI
August 6, 2008; Page A15
Starting in 2002, Spokane, Wash., journalist Sherry Jones toiled weekends on a racy historical novel about Aisha, the young wife of the prophet Muhammad. Ms. Jones learned Arabic, studied scholarly works about Aisha's life, and came to admire her protagonist as a woman of courage. When Random House bought her novel last year in a $100,000, two-book deal, she was ecstatic. This past spring, she began plans for an eight-city book tour after the Aug. 12 publication date of "The Jewel of Medina" -- a tale of lust, love and intrigue in the prophet's harem.
Corbis
It's not going to happen: In May, Random House abruptly called off publication of the book. The series of events that torpedoed this novel are a window into how quickly fear stunts intelligent discourse about the Muslim world.
Random House feared the book would become a new "Satanic Verses," the Salman Rushdie novel of 1988 that led to death threats, riots and the murder of the book's Japanese translator, among other horrors. In an interview about Ms. Jones's novel, Thomas Perry, deputy publisher at Random House Publishing Group, said that it "disturbs us that we feel we cannot publish it right now." He said that after sending out advance copies of the novel, the company received "from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."
After consulting security experts and Islam scholars, Mr. Perry said the company decided "to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel."
This saga upsets me as a Muslim -- and as a writer who believes that fiction can bring Islamic history to life in a uniquely captivating and humanizing way. "I'm devastated," Ms. Jones told me after the book got spiked, adding, "I wanted to honor Aisha and all the wives of Muhammad by giving voice to them, remarkable women whose crucial roles in the shaping of Islam have so often been ignored -- silenced -- by historians." Last month, Ms. Jones signed a termination agreement with Random House, so her literary agent could shop the book to other publishers.
This time, the instigator of the trouble wasn't a radical Muslim cleric, but an American academic. In April, looking for endorsements, Random House sent galleys to writers and scholars, including Denise Spellberg, an associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas in Austin. Ms. Jones put her on the list because she read Ms. Spellberg's book, "Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of 'A'isha Bint Abi Bakr."
But Ms. Spellberg wasn't a fan of Ms. Jones's book. On April 30, Shahed Amanullah, a guest lecturer in Ms. Spellberg's classes and the editor of a popular Muslim Web site, got a frantic call from her. "She was upset," Mr. Amanullah recalls. He says Ms. Spellberg told him the novel "made fun of Muslims and their history," and asked him to warn Muslims.
In an interview, Ms. Spellberg told me the novel is a "very ugly, stupid piece of work." The novel, for example, includes a scene on the night when Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha: "the pain of consummation soon melted away. Muhammad was so gentle. I hardly felt the scorpion's sting. To be in his arms, skin to skin, was the bliss I had longed for all my life." Says Ms. Spellberg: "I walked through a metal detector to see 'Last Temptation of Christ,'" the controversial 1980s film adaptation of a novel that depicted a relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. "I don't have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can't play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography."
After he got the call from Ms. Spellberg, Mr. Amanullah dashed off an email to a listserv of Middle East and Islamic studies graduate students, acknowledging he didn't "know anything about it [the book]," but telling them, "Just got a frantic call from a professor who got an advance copy of the forthcoming novel, 'Jewel of Medina' -- she said she found it incredibly offensive." He added a write-up about the book from the Publishers Marketplace, an industry publication.
The next day, a blogger known as Shahid Pradhan posted Mr. Amanullah's email on a Web site for Shiite Muslims -- "Hussaini Youth" -- under a headline, "upcoming book, 'Jewel of Medina': A new attempt to slander the Prophet of Islam." Two hours and 28 minutes after that, another person by the name of Ali Hemani proposed a seven-point strategy to ensure "the writer withdraws this book from the stores and apologise all the muslims across the world."
Meanwhile back in New York City, Jane Garrett, an editor at Random House's Knopf imprint, dispatched an email on May 1 to Knopf executives, telling them she got a phone call the evening before from Ms. Spellberg (who happens to be under contract with Knopf to write "Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an.")
"She thinks there is a very real possibility of major danger for the building and staff and widespread violence," Ms. Garrett wrote. "Denise says it is 'a declaration of war . . . explosive stuff . . . a national security issue.' Thinks it will be far more controversial than the satanic verses and the Danish cartoons. Does not know if the author and Ballantine folks are clueless or calculating, but thinks the book should be withdrawn ASAP." ("The Jewel of Medina" was to be published by Random House's Ballantine Books.) That day, the email spread like wildfire through Random House, which also received a letter from Ms. Spellberg and her attorney, saying she would sue the publisher if her name was associated with the novel. On May 2, a Ballantine editor told Ms. Jones's agent the company decided to possibly postpone publication of the book.
On a May 21 conference call, Random House executive Elizabeth McGuire told the author and her agent that the publishing house had decided to indefinitely postpone publication of the novel for "fear of a possible terrorist threat from extremist Muslims" and concern for "the safety and security of the Random House building and employees."
All this saddens me. Literature moves civilizations forward, and Islam is no exception. There is in fact a tradition of historical fiction in Islam, including such works as "The Adventures of Amir Hamza," an epic on the life of Muhammad's uncle. Last year a 948-page English translation was published, ironically, by Random House. And, for all those who believe the life of the prophet Muhammad can't include stories of lust, anger and doubt, we need only read the Quran (18:110) where, it's said, God instructed Muhammad to tell others: "I am only a mortal like you."
Ms. Nomani, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is the author of "Standing Alone: An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam" (HarperOne, 2006).
-
CNN Avoids Mentioning Islam in Segment on 'Honor Killings'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNN Avoids Mentioning Islam in Segment on 'Honor Killings'
By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
August 11, 2008 - 15:12 ET
Quite a feat: CNN has pulled off the MSM equivalent of describing a spiral staircase without using one's hands. It has managed to produce a segment on "honor killings" and related violence in the UK . . . without using the word "Muslim" or "Islam." CNN Newsroom anchor Don Lemon introduced the segment this afternoon at 1:37 PM EDT.
DON LEMON: Women forced into marriages, or killed for having the wrong boyfriend. So-called "honor crimes" are often committed by fathers or brothers when daughters do something that supposedly brings shame on the family. It's on the rise in Britain, and authorities, they are very worried about it. Our Paula Newton reports.
View video here.
Honor crimes are "often committed" by father and brothers? And the crimes are "on the rise" in Britain? Now why would that be? Newton did little to elucidate. She told the story of Banaz Mahmod [seen here]: kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered at the order of her father, Mahmod Mahmod, for "bringing shame" on her family. Newton never mentioned that Mahmod was a Muslim, an Iraqi Kurd. According to Diana Nammi with the London-based Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization, "we're seeing an increase around the world, due in part to the rise in Islamic fundamentalism."
Instead of identifying the root of the problem, Newton said only that British authorities have instituted public awareness campaigns in "the few communities" where they've seen problems. She cited a figure of 17,000 honor crimes or forced marriages as possibly being only the tip of the iceberg in the UK. A British police official is then seen decrying the fact that "the perceived honor of the family is seen as more important than the life of a child." In which families? The policeman never said and CNN never explained.
The closest the segment came to revealing the truth of the matter was during an interview with a woman living in hiding for fear of her life for having converted to Christianity and refused an arranged marriage. She mentions that her family has justified killing her for her failure to obey Koran and Allah. And at another point in the segment, brief images of women in black burquas appear.
But the words "Muslim" or "Islam" are never heard during the segment. Newton again elliptically speaks only of "communities" where "young women still live in fear." Which communities might those be? CNN doesn't say.
The network deserves some credit, I suppose, for airing the subject at all. But CNN's failure to mention by name the religion that lies at the root of the problem constitutes a particularly craven political correctness.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...honor-killings
-
If true, here's what a little magnanimity will get you. Riots and calls for wanton slaughter will doubtless ensue, and then Western apologists will doubtless leap to defense (/sarc).
Headline News
Sunday, September 07, 2008 Israel Today Staff
Muslims urinate on Torah scrolls in Hebron
Jewish worshippers returning to Hebron's Cave of the Patriarchs after Muslims were given exclusive access to the holy site at the weekend reported that the cabinet containing their Torah scrolls had been urinated on.
One Jewish resident of Hebron told Israel National News that he and several other men had to move the cabinet to another part of the room because of the strong smell of urine in the area where it is usually positioned.
Additionally, green Hamas flags were found placed in the windows that mark the burial sites of Abraham, Isaac, Sara, Rebecca and Leah.
The Cave of the Patriarchs is split into Jewish and Muslim sections, as both groups revere Abraham.
Several times a year, the holy site is given over to one or the other group exclusively to mark special holy days. Muslims were given exclusive access to the Cave of the Patriarchs on Friday to mark their holy month of Ramadan.
Another Jewish resident of Hebron said that some damage to Jewish religious articles or the Jewish side of the site is found every time the Muslims take over.
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=17101
-
2nd post:
by Dr. Joel Kotek
Published June 2004
No. 21, 1 June 2004 / 12 Sivan 5764
We would also like to draw your attention to another article on anti-Semitic cartoons: Jew-Hatred in Contemporary Norwegian Caricatures by Erez Uriely
Major Anti-Semitic Motifs in Arab Cartoons
Interview with Joël Kotek
The main recurrent motif in Arab cartoons concerning Israel is "the devilish Jew." This image conveys the idea that Jews behave like Nazis, kill children and love blood. The similarity with themes promulgated by the Nazis is evident. Many Arab cartoons praise suicide bombing or call for murder. The collective image of the Jews thus projected lays the groundwork for a possible genocide.
A caricature may have as much influence on public opinion as an editorial.
Palestinian cartoonists often place emphasis on the anti-Semitic accusation of "ritual murder" of children. This is underscored by their claim that Israelis target Palestinian children. To dehumanize Jews, Arab cartoonists often depict them as malevolent creatures: spiders, vampires or octopuses.
Several Arab hate motifs also have permeated Western society as they resonate with the long-standing anti-Semitic prejudices of the Christian world.
Genocide's Groundwork
"The collective image of the Jews created by Arab cartoons lays the groundwork for a possibility of genocide. My collection of Arab caricatures demonstrates this. One can argue about whether these genocidal ideas are conscious or subconscious. My view is that they are still at the subconscious stage."
Dr. Joël Kotek, a political scientist at the Free University of Brussels, searched the Internet daily for anti-Semitic cartoons in the Arab media for over two and a half years and found about 2,000. Even an initial superficial analysis revealed that the cartoons not only targeted Israel, but were aimed at all Jews. His subsequent research resulted in a book co-authored with his brother Dan Kotek. Published in French, its title translates as In the name of anti-Semitism: The image of the Jews and Israel in the caricature since the second Intifada.1
In a world where image plays a central role, the cartoon, Kotek stresses, has become a popular and efficient means of communication. A caricature may have as much influence on public opinion as an editorial.
The visual impact of these drawings is further strengthened by the fact that many Arab cartoonists are quite gifted illustrators.
Kotek says: "The main recurrent theme in these cartoons is 'the devilish Jew.' By extension, this image suggests that the Jewish religion must be diabolic, and the entire Jewish people evil. I even found a Greek Orthodox cartoonist of Lebanese origin, who conveys the message that the Jewish religion has caused the State of Israel to be so 'evil.' The cartoons convey the idea that Jews behave like Nazis, leading readers to conclude that the only logical solution is their elimination. As the Arab world is becoming increasingly convinced of these ideas, they have no inhibitions showing them on a multitude of websites."
Ten Major Themes
Several hundred Arab cartoons from Kotek's collection are categorized according to ten anti-Semitic themes in his book: "The first theme is based on the oldest anti-Semitic motif, demonization of the Jew. In the Islamic world the Jew's status - like that of Christians - is that of a dhimmi, a second-class citizen.
"Israel, an entire state of these 'inferior creatures,' has won military victories against the Arab world. By their logic, this was only possible, they believe, because Jews are 'satanic beings.' In the cartoons I collected, the Jew is depicted as inhuman and an enemy of humanity. This dehumanization is necessary to justify the hoped for elimination.
"On 28 December 1999 - well before the second Palestinian uprising - Al-Hayat al-Jadida, the official Palestinian Authority journal, published a cartoon expressing this core idea. It depicted an old man in a djellaba, symbolizing the twentieth century, taking leave of a young man wearing a tee-shirt symbolizing the twenty-first century. In between them stood a small Jew with a Star of David on his breast, above which an arrow pointed to him saying, 'the illness of the century.'2
"A few months later on 22 March 2000, the same journal ran another cartoon showing a large Pope talking to a small Jew with the skin, feet, and tail of an animal, and a big hooked nose, wearing a kippa. The Pope exclaimed 'Peace on Earth' while the Satanic-looking Jew calls out 'Colonies on Earth.'"3
(http://www.jcpa.org/phas/pope-Jew_cartoon.gif)
Deicide
A second central theme in the cartoons Kotek has collected is the Jew as a murderer of God. "This is originally a Christian motif. Bernard Lewis has shown how this theme had been appropriated by the Islamic world. This representation serves in efforts to obtain the sympathy of some Christians by adapting one of their central myths.
"Lewis said that the first manifestations of anti-Semitism in the Middle East originated among Christian minorities there who were inspired by Europeans. These ideas initially had only a limited impact. The poison spread after 1933, when Nazi Germany promoted hatred of the Jews in the Arab world. Thereafter, the Palestinian conflict enabled the diffusion of an anti-Semitic interpretation of history.4
"In the Muslim worldview one cannot kill God, but can wound Him. Their discourse says that not only did the Jews betray Mohammed, but before that, they had turned Jesus - a prophet, according to Islam - into a martyr. In a dangerous mutation, Islamic anti-Semitism says, as if it were to the Christians, that the Jews treat Palestine as they treated Christ. In this way they transform the story's main characters: the Israelis have become the Romans and Jesus has become a Palestinian.
"Whenever there is a report from Bethlehem, the Israeli soldiers are depicted by Arab cartoonists as Romans, while Bethlehem is described as Christ's birthplace. In the Islamic world the motif of the Jews wounding the prophet is not ancient. Its inventors are Christian Arabs in the 1980s."
Israel as a Nazi State
"The third motif in these cartoons is Israel as a Nazi state. This is based on two contradictory allegations, which the Islamists try to reconcile. Their first claim is that the Shoah never happened. Their second contention is that if it did, it has caused more damage to the Palestinians because they believe they are being treated worse than the Nazis treated the Jews.
"Long before Sharon came to power, the theme of the Israeli as a Nazi was well-represented in the Arab caricature. According to it, all Zionists from Peres and Barak to Sharon are inspired by Nazi methods. The paradox is quite evident if one remembers the Arab sympathies for the Nazis during the Second World War. After the war many Arab intellectuals denied the crimes the Nazis committed during the Holocaust. These were rarely denounced.
"A cartoon in the Egyptian Al-Akhbar shows Barak dressed as a Nazi with a Hitler moustache, blood dripping from his hands.5 In another caricature in the Egyptian daily Al Goumhouriya from 1996, Hitler is shown wearing a swastika band on his arm, while telling Shimon Peres, wearing a Star of David band on his arm: 'I made a mistake by not understanding the importance of American support.'6
"A 1993 cartoon in the Syrian daily Teshreen shows one soldier with a Star of David on his helmet and another with a swastika on his helmet. The caption reads: 'The Security Council has studied the case of genocide of the Palestinians.' The long list is of Israeli crimes; the small list of Nazi crimes.7 In the Lebanese Daily Star in 2000, four consecutive drawings show how Sharon, with a Star of David on his lapel, becomes Hitler with a moustache, and on his lapel, a swastika. The cartoonist Jabra Stavro, born in Beirut, has won many prizes."8
(http://www.jcpa.org/phas/Hitler_cartoon.gif)
Zoomorphism
Kotek says: "The fourth motif - zoomorphism - is a very common theme throughout the world. To abuse one's adversaries, one dehumanizes them by turning them into animals. In Nazi, Soviet and Romanian caricatures, the Jew is often depicted as a spider, perceived as an evil animal. Stavro in the Daily Star portrays Barak, with a Star of David on his breast, as a spider interrupting the peace process.9
"The two other predominant anti-Semitic zoomorphic motifs are the blood-thirsty vampire and the octopus. The vampire image is a classic theme used by anti-Semites. I have not found any other people besides the Jews represented as such. This genocide-preparing design originates in Christian imagination.
"Another caricature by Stavro in the Daily Star of 23 October 2000, depicted a spider with a Star of David on its body and the head of Ehud Barak in a web on which the word 'war' is written many times. A cartoon in the weekly La Revue du Liban shows an octopus with the Star of David on its body, its tentacles strangling Fatah, Jihad and Hamas. This is another cartoon by Stavro.10
"The Arab cartoonists often follow the Nazis as far as the bestial representation of the Jews is concerned. The messages transmitted are that the Jews are destructive, inhuman and evil. In 1934 a Nazi cartoonist drew an octopus with a Star of David whose tentacles covered the globe.11 A 2002 cartoon from Russia shows a Star of David with America throwing coins on it. The star then mutates into an octopus with rockets and planes in its tentacles.12
(http://www.jcpa.org/phas/octopus_cartoon.gif)
Snakes, Pigs and Cockroaches
"Occasionally, other animals are used to dehumanize the Jews. Emad Hajjaj, a well-known Ramallah-born cartoonist living in Jordan, designed a two-headed snake with Stars of David on its body, depicting the heads of Sharon and Barak.13 The cartoon's message is simple: these persons are two faces of the same monstrosity. It was published in the Jordanian daily Al Dustour.
"Sometimes one also finds pigs representing the Jew in contemporary Arab cartoons. This classic dehumanizing motif has its origins in the Middle Ages, though everybody knew that the pig was a forbidden animal to the Jews.
“This approach of zoomorphism exists in every culture and has cultural specifics. The snake is used by almost everybody. It appeared very often in French caricatures about the Germans before the Second World War and vice versa. The Hutus in Africa consider the Tutsis cockroaches.
"In the Israeli press one rarely finds cartoons depicting Arabs as animals. In such instances, they do not appear in mainstream papers but originate from extremist bodies such as the forbidden Kach movement or the Women in Green. These occasionally present Arafat as a pig or snake."14
"Masters of the world"
(http://www.jcpa.org/phas/world_cartoon.gif)
"The fifth anti-Semitic motif in Arab cartoons echoes the classic conspiracy theme, that 'the Jews control the world.' This explains Arab thought as to why they have not been able to win against these people. Before 1967, the classic theme - also in the Soviet world - was that the Israelis were the aircraft carrier of the United States in the Middle East.
"Today the opposite idea is depicted. Israel's opponents allege that the Jews dominate the United States. By implication, they also claim that the Jews are the 'masters of the world' - a classic conspiracy theme exploited by the Nazis. For the communists, the Jews were the bourgeoisie and the capitalists; for the Nazis they represented the essence of capitalism.
"Many Arabs wonder why the United States supports Israel rather than their own cause. They find this mysterious and have developed a simple response: The Jews dominate the world. As the Arab world is in a rather poor state, they claim that its masters, i.e., the Jews, are the cause of their problems. This motif is identical to that exemplified in the Russian Czarist falsification of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Thus, subconsciously, they want to get rid of these 'evil conspirators.' In the caricatures Israelis are rarely shown. When they are, they are often represented as ultra-orthodox Jews, which is another absurdity.
"The gifted American caricaturist of Algerian origin, Bendib, designed a monkey with a Star of David on its breast sitting on top of the globe on which small figures of the Pope and an Arab are drawn. The monkey says: 'Jerusalem: from New York City to Kuala Lumpur, undivided, eternal capital of Israel; everything else is negotiable.'15 In this cartoon the domination motif is thus combined with that of zoomorphism."
The Jew, a Corrupting Force
"The sixth recurring anti-Semitic motif is that of the Jew as a corrupting force. This is a derivative of the theme that Jews dominate the world with their money. Arab anti-Semites allege U.S. presidents are linked to Jewish banks and other Jewish money. What the Arabs forget in the caricatures is that George W. Bush was their candidate in the last American elections. Most Jews, who are liberals and thus Democrats, voted for Al Gore. Jews also supported Clinton. In the perception of the cartoonist, however, everything becomes possible.
"Bendib draws God holding a fat bag of dollars. On it the names of major Jewish organizations are written: 'ADL, AIPAC, ZOA.' God outstretches his hand to Bush, who slaughters a child on the altar of the Holyland Foundation for needy Muslim children. The caption reads: 'And the Almighty dollar [represented by God] said: "Sacrifice me, a Muslim son, or else." And George the W. said "You've got it Lord, if this improves my chances for a second term."'16
(http://www.jcpa.org/phas/Bush_cartoon.gif)
"A caricature in Teshreen shows bearded Jews with sidelocks and a bag stepping on Hitler to access an open safe filled with money on which is written: 'U.S.' The Holocaust is thus introduced as a motif of blackmail in order to extract money."17
Blood Libel Motif
"Yet another major theme in Arab cartoons is the bloodloving or blood-thirsty Jew. This originates in Christian anti-Semitism. The Christian anti-Semitic libel alleged the Jews needed Christian blood for their Passover service. Its claim is that the Jew is evil, as his religion forces him to drink blood. In today's Arab world this image of unbridled hatred has mutated into the alleged quest for Palestinian blood.
"There are so many of these cartoons that I could select only a few for my book. Blood-drinking Jews are frequently shown by Al Ahram, one of Egypt's leading dailies. On 21 April 2001, it printed a cartoon showing an Arab being put into a flatting mill by two soldiers wearing helmets with Stars of David. The Arab's blood pours out and two Jews with kippot and Stars of David on their shirts drink the blood laughingly.18
(http://www.jcpa.org/phas/blood%20libel_cartoon.gif)
-
"Another well-known Egyptian cartoon portrays Sharon with horns and blood dripping from his mouth.19 A Jordanian cartoonist Rasmy shows a plumber repairing a number of taps. From the American tap comes oil, from the Turkish, water and from the Israeli blood."20
Kotek says that to the best of his knowledge, the blood theme is anti-Semitic, and not a general racist theme. No other people has been accused of drinking blood. The origins of this myth are in twelfth century Christian England, where the blood libel was invented.
Infanticide
"The eighth recurring anti-Semitic theme in Arab cartoons is the most extreme. The concept that the Jews not only murder, but preferably target children, is what the cartoonists try to convey through their imagery. This depicts the Palestinians primarily as children or babies. Thus, Arab and Muslim propagandists turn Palestinian children into the paradigm of the victim, despite the fact that most of their dead are adults."
Kotek observes: "The Palestinians do live a tragedy on a daily basis and have had over the last decade about 5,000 dead. Many Israelis have also been killed. During the same period of time, two million Sudanese have died; three million Africans around the big lakes; 200,000 Bosnians; 150,000 Algerians and 100,000 Chechenians. The media, however, concentrate on the Palestinians.
"A Palestinian caricature shows the Statue of Liberty lifting with her right arm a Palestinian child dripping blood. In her left hand, she protectively holds Barak.21 A Kuwaiti cartoon shows an old Jew wearing a kippa and carrying a gun, shafting a child into a burning oven to bake matzot. The reference is both to the Shoah - which now the Palestinian child is portrayed as undergoing - and ritual crime.22
"The official website of the Palestinian Authority's press service carries a caricature of Sharon with a blood-covered axe slaughtering a baby, or fetus, against a background of a butcher's hooks with children hanging from them, next to a sign saying 'Palestinian blood.' A large sign on the counter says 'Sale.'23
"In the Qatari journal Al Watan, Sharon is shown drinking from a cup on which is written 'blood from Palestinian children.' On the bottom of the cup it says 'Made in the U.S.A.'24 In Al Hayat al-Jadida, Sharon offers the bleeding head of a young Palestinian on a plate to George Bush.25 The earlier-mentioned cartoons of the Jew as a blood-thirsty vampire thus combine two anti-Semitic themes in one design."
Arabs want Peace, Israel does not
"The ninth anti-Semitic motif used is that Israel is a 'perfidious' country which does not want peace. The theme of 'the perfidious Jew' is an ancient one in Islamic anti-Semitism. Mohammed is said to have tried to make peace with the Jews at times, but, they allege, he was systematically betrayed, and he murdered them.
"Rasmy shows a Palestinian throwing his weapons on the floor saying: 'I give up my weapon to convince you.' An Israeli soldier from behind the wall kills him saying, 'That's how I believe you.'26 In a Syrian cartoon, an Israeli offers a ball to Arafat holding a dove. On the top is written 'The Oslo Accords.' The ball explodes, killing the Arab. The Israeli walks away strangling the dove."27
Apologies for Suicide Bombers and Terrorism
"The tenth motif concerns apologies for suicide bombers. I collected many cartoons calling for outright murder. In the hundreds of designs I analyzed on this theme I did not find a single one depicting the Israeli as a civilian. He is always a soldier or an ultra-orthodox Jew. He has no father, mother or child.
(http://www.jcpa.org/phas/jet%20bombers_cartoon.gif)
"A Jordanian cartoon by Rasmy shows a Palestinian with his face covered and dynamite on his body, saying to a Russian Jewish immigrant shown as an ultra-orthodox Jew: 'Come into my arms.'28 Another one by Emad Hajjaj shows a Palestinian mother raising her arms, holding up her children who are depicted as suicide bombers."29
Kotek concludes that these caricatures often express a new type of anti-Semitism. "They are frequently 'calls for murder.' To the cartoonists, death seems the only worthy punishment that 'the Zionist enemy' merits. As Pierre-André Taguieff notes in his book on the new Judeophobia,30 this Islamic-Jihadic version is explicitly genocidal. It defines its battle as a total elimination of the absolute enemy."
The Fascination of a Child
When asked how he became so interested in cartoons, Kotek says that when he was nine years old - shortly before the Six Day War - a book published by an Israeli scholar on anti-Semitic caricatures already fascinated him. "Some books you read when you are young, can influence your entire life.
"Belgium has always focused a great deal on cartoonists and their iconography. Living there, one's mind is more open to this art form. I even wrote an article on Hergé, Belgium's most important cartoonist, who was an anti-Semite.
"I was thus predisposed toward the caricature. It is a simple and convincing tool to demonstrate quickly the extremely serious developments taking place in the Arab world. Their themes are used in the Western world as well. The similarity of these cartoons with those of the Nazis is evident, which has already been demonstrated in an earlier book by Arieh Stav."31
In order to obtain the copyright for the caricatures, Kotek wrote to many cartoonists in the Arab world. As Belgium has an anti-Israeli image, especially in view of the law suit brought against Sharon, many of those queried automatically assumed that he was anti-Israeli. Quite a few gave him permission to use their cartoons without payment.
A Peace Camp Rightist
"In Europe, being an anti-racist makes one automatically a leftist. When you fight anti-Semitism however, you are seen as a right-winger - a supporter of the Likud and of Sharon. This is untrue, as I am a conscious Jew who belongs to the peace camp. I see myself as a friend of Israel, yet critical of some of its policies. But once you become aware of the enormous Arab hate and demonization of Israel you have to defend Israel. I am horrified by the impact of anti-Zionism combined with the great ignorance I often find among people about Israel.
"The cartoons in my book - representative of a much larger collection - show how old Christian myths of the diabolic Jew are resuscitated in the Arab world. Palestinian cartoonists often lay the emphasis on ritual murder of children. They then try to give this tenability by claiming that Israelis target Palestinian children."
Kotek says that these allegations have also permeated Western society as they resonate with the long-standing prejudices of the Christian world. He follows the French and Belgian media closely. "It occurs regularly that when French or Belgian radio reports a Palestinian being killed, they also tell his age. This is the only conflict in the world in which the age of the victim is mentioned.
"In the collective sub-conscious of many Christians, and now Arabs, anti-Semitic myths cannot be eradicated. They present the Jews as 'the Eternal Jew,' a warmonger and a danger for the world. This is no longer just an Arab concept. Many recent polls in the European Union confirm how strong these prejudices have permeated this continent."
Interview by Manfred Gerstenfeld
* * *
Notes
1. Joël et Dan Kotek, Au nom de l'antisionisme: L'image des Juifs et d'Israël dans la caricature depuis la seconde Intifada (Brussels: Éditions Complexe, 2003). [French]
2. Al-Hayat al-Jadida, 28 December 1999, Kotek, op. cit., p. 53.
3. Al-Hayat al-Jadida, 22 March 2000, Kotek, op. cit., p. 52.
4. Bernard Lewis, "Islam: What Went Wrong?" in The Atlantic Monthly, January 2002.
5. Al Akhbar, 3 October 2000, Kotek, op. cit., p. 60.
6. Al Goumhouriya, 24 April 1996, Kotek, op. cit., p. 62.
7. Teshreen, 15 April 1993, Kotek, op. cit., p. 63.
8. Daily Star, 3 April 2002, Kotek, op. cit., p. 63.
9. Daily Star, 23 October 2000, Kotek, op. cit., p. 64.
10. La Revue du Liban, 8 December 2001, Kotek, op. cit., p. 65.
11. Kotek, op. cit., p. 158.
12. Ibid.
13. Al Dustour, 3 February 2001, Kotek, op. cit., p. 66.
14. Kotek, op. cit.., p. 152.
15. www.iviews.com, Kotek, op. cit., p. 69.
16. Kotek, op. cit.,p. 71.
17. Kotek, op. cit., p. 71
18. Al-Ahram, 21 April 2001, Kotek, op. cit., p. 76.
19. Al-Haqiqa, 5 May 2001, Kotek, op. cit., p. 79.
20. www.Arabia.com, Kotek, op. cit., p. 77.
21. Omaya, 28 October 2000, Kotek, op. cit., p. 91.
22. Al-Rai Al-Ram, 5 April 1988, Kotek, op. cit., p. 83.
23. Official website of Palestinian Authority, Kotek, op. cit., p. 82.
24. Al-Watan, 24 July 2002, Kotek, op. cit., p. 80.
25. Al Hayat al-Jadida, 6 October 2001, Kotek, op. cit., p. 84.
26. www.Arabia.com, 23 September, 2001, Kotek, op. cit., p. 94.
27. Al-Thawra, 1 October 1988, Kotek, op. cit., p. 94.
28. www.Arabia.com, 7 March 2001, Kotek, op. cit., p.96.
29. www.mahjoob.com, 27 August 2004, Kotek, op. cit., p.95.
30. Pierre André Taguieff, La Nouvelle Judeophobie (Paris: Les Mille et une Nuits, 2002). [French]
31. Arieh Stav, Peace: The Arabian Caricature; A study of Anti- Semitic Imagery (Jerusalem: Gefen, 1999).
* * *
Dr. Joël Kotek was born in Gent in 1958. He studied history at the Free University of Brussels and has a doctorate in Political Science from the Institute for Political Studies (Sciences Po) in Paris. He teaches Political Science at the Free University of Brussels, specializing in the subject of European Integration. He is also director of Training at the Center for Contemporary Jewish Documentation in Paris.
The cartoons in this interview have been taken from Dr. Kotek's book. Other cartoons with English explanations from this book can be found in the booklet, "Fighting Anti-Semitism," published jointly by the JCPA and the office of the Minister for Diaspora and Jerusalem Affairs, Natan Sharansky. A Hebrew version of this booklet can be seen at: http://www.antisemitism.org.il/antisemheb.pdf.
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=644&TTL=Major_Anti-Semitic_Motifs_in_Arab_Cartoons
-
Criminalizing Criticism of Islam
By ELIZABETH SAMSON
FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE
September 10, 2008
There are strange happenings in the world of international jurisprudence that do not bode well for the future of free speech. In an unprecedented case, a Jordanian court is prosecuting 12 Europeans in an extraterritorial attempt to silence the debate on radical Islam.
The prosecutor general in Amman charged the 12 with blasphemy, demeaning Islam and Muslim feelings, and slandering and insulting the prophet Muhammad in violation of the Jordanian Penal Code. The charges are especially unusual because the alleged violations were not committed on Jordanian soil.
Among the defendants is the Danish cartoonist whose alleged crime was to draw in 2005 one of the Muhammad illustrations that instigators then used to spark Muslim riots around the world. His co-defendants include 10 editors of Danish newspapers that published the images. The 12th accused man is Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, who supposedly broke Jordanian law by releasing on the Web his recent film, "Fitna," which tries to examine how the Quran inspires Islamic terrorism.
Jordan's attempt at criminalizing free speech beyond its own borders wouldn't be so serious if it were an isolated case. Unfortunately, it is part of a larger campaign to use the law and international forums to intimidate critics of militant Islam. For instance, in December the United Nations General Assembly passed the Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions; the only religion mentioned by name was Islam. While such resolutions aren't legally binding, national governments sometimes cite them as justification for legislation or other actions.
More worrying, the U.N. Human Rights Council in June said it would refrain from condemning human-rights abuses related to "a particular religion." The ban applies to all religions, but it was prompted by Muslim countries that complained about linking Islamic law, Shariah, to such outrages as female genital mutilation and death by stoning for adulterers. This kind of self-censorship could prove dangerous for people suffering abuse, and it follows the council's March decision to have its expert on free speech investigate individuals and the media for negative comments about Islam.
Given this trend, it's worth taking a closer look at the Jordanian case.
The prosecutor is relying on a 2006 amendment to the Jordanian Justice Act that casts a worryingly wide net for such prosecution. Passed in response to the Danish cartoons incident, the law allows the prosecution of individuals whose actions affect the Jordanian people by "electronic means," such as the Internet. The 2006 amendment, in theory, means anyone who publishes on the Internet could be subject to prosecution in Jordan. If the case against the 12 defendants is allowed to go forward, they will be the first but probably not the last Westerners to be hit by Jordan's law.
Amman has already requested that Interpol apprehend Mr. Wilders and the Danes and bring them to stand before its court for an act that is not a crime in their home countries. To the contrary. Dutch prosecutors said in July that although some of Mr. Wilders's statements may be offensive, they are protected under Dutch free-speech legislation. Likewise, Danish law protects the rights of the Danish cartoonists and newspapers to express their views.
Neither Denmark nor the Netherlands will turn over its citizens to Interpol, as the premise of Jordan's extradition request is an affront to the very principles that define democracies. It is thus unlikely that any Western country would do so, either. But there is no guarantee for the defendants' protection if they travel to countries that are more sympathetic to the Jordanian court.
Unless democratic countries stand up to this challenge to free speech, other nations may be emboldened to follow the Jordanian example. Kangaroo courts across the globe will be ready to charge free people with obscure violations of other societies' norms and customs, and send Interpol to bring them to stand trial in frivolous litigation.
A new form of forum shopping would soon take root. Activists would be able to choose countries whose laws and policies are informed by their religious values to prosecute critical voices in other countries. The case before the Jordanian court is not just about Mr. Wilders and the Danes. It is about the subjugation of Western standards of free speech to fear and coercion by foreign courts.
Ms. Samson, an attorney specializing in international and constitutional law, will join the Hudson Institute this fall.
-
Three held as Mohammed book publisher set ablaze
Police arrested three men on Saturday in connection with a fire at the offices of the publisher of a book about the Prophet Mohammed and his child bride.
The men, aged 22, 30 and 40, were arrested in north London under anti-terrorism legislation after the fire on Saturday morning at Gibson Square's offices. Police were also searching four addresses in east London.
Britain's domestic Press Association news agency said some residents, whom it did not identify, reported that the incident may have involved a petrol bomb being pushed through the firm's letterbox.
Gibson Square is responsible for the publication of "The Jewel of Medina" -- a fictional account of the Prophet's relationship with his youngest bride Aisha -- by American author Sherry Jones.
Random House announced last month it had cancelled publication of the book in the United States because of fears of violence.
"The Jewel of Medina" was re-released in Serbia earlier this month after being withdrawn in August under pressure from Islamic leaders.
Martin Rynja, publishing director at Gibson Square, earlier this month defended the decision to publish the book, saying that in "an open society there has to be open access to literary works, regardless of fear."
"As an independent publishing company, we feel strongly that we should not be afraid of the consequences of debate," he added.
Gibson Square could not be immediately contacted for comment on Saturday's fire and subsequent arrests.
The firm is known for having published other controversial books such as "Blowing Up Russia" by former KGB agent turned Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko.
Litvinenko died in a London hospital in 2006 from radiation poisoning which it is thought he ingested through a cup of tea. Russia has refused to extradite lawmaker and ex-KGB agent Andrei Lugovoi to face charges in Britain.
-
Know Thy Enemy
Inside the Mind.
By Michael Ledeen
Laurent Murawiec’s The Mind of Jihad is, at last, a book on radical Islam that does it all. Unlike many engaged in the heated debate over the nature of our enemies, Murawiec does not believe that ancient texts tell us all we need to know. He insists that all ideas change over time, even those believed to have been dictated by God’s angel. He has therefore immersed himself not only in the sacred texts of Islam but also in the richly variegated speeches, writings, and actions of its most extremist practitioners: the jihadis waging war against us.
He candidly admits that it was not easy, that many of his initial ideas turned out to be wrong, and that his current understanding of “the mind of jihad” surprises him. This understanding holds that the current doctrine is far more than the resuscitation of medieval commandments, and in fact has a lot to do with modern European and Soviet totalitarianism.
As Murawiec tells us in fascinating detail, the jihadis have been willing to collaborate will all European totalitarian movement and regimes. And although we have heard quite a lot about their collaboration with the Fuhrer (in the person of Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem), there was a constant, intimate and extremely important alliance with the Soviet Union, which gave some of the key jihadis training in organization (and, most likely, intelligence as well).
He does go a bit far at times, though. “Most of the ugly repertoire of Modern Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism,” he writes, “came from the Soviet Union (with only the racial-biological component added by the Nazis.” That gives insufficient credit to the long tradition of Muslim anti-Semitism; they didn’t need Lenin and Stalin to teach them to hate Jews. But they did need Hitler and, more importantly, Himmler, to explain the most modern ways to hate, and then annihilate, the Jews. No surprise that the mufti quietly visited Auschwitz with his buddy Adolf Eichmann.
But perhaps the most valuable part of this invaluable book is the fascinating exposition of how Islamists, theoretically tied to a social and political doctrine that made it very difficult, if not impossible, to rebel against Islamic rulers, came to embrace a very leftist call for revolution. The key figure, according to Murawiec, is the Pakistani Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, a friend of Khomeini and of Sayyid Qutb (Osama bin Laden’s hero). Maududi, as Murawiec notes, is a throwback to the medieval European chiliasts, like Thomas Muntzer and the radical Anabaptists. And like the European millenarians, Maududi’s claims are universal: “Islam addresses its call for effecting (its) program of destruction and reconstruction, revolution and reform not to just one nation, but to all humanity.” This effectively transforms Islam from a religion into a political cause, a call to arms, “as if Lenin’s ‘The State and Revolution’ had become their bedtime reading.”
As a result of these European and Soviet influences, the jihadis are inspired by a real lust for blood, and are members of a cult of death. Murawiec has a wonderful eye and a fine nose for telling anecdotes, such as that of Jordanian Prime Minister Wasfi al-Tell’s assassination at the Sheraton hotel in Cairo in November 1971. One of the major figures in the repression of the PLO in Jordan, al-Tell had been the object of death threats following “Black September,” and Arafat’s vengeance was swift and brutal:
Five . . . shots, fired at point-blank range. . . . He staggered back against the shattered swing doors . . . and he fell dying among the shards of glass on the marble floor. As he lay there, one of his killers bent over and lapped the blood that poured from his wounds.
Murawiec calmly draws the proper conclusion: “Something out of the ordinary was occurring, not war in the accepted sense, not political conflict or even guerrilla warfare.”
The Mind of Jihad is a work of considerable elegance and culture; it probably could only have been written by a European who has become an American, as it combines the best of French appreciation for the details of jihadist ideology — and jihadism’s connection to European precursors — with a keen pragmatic eye for the terrible consequences of these ideas and passions. It’s a hell of a book, and it deserves a lot of attention.
— Michael Ledeen is Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2QzZGVhYTUzMzkwZjlmY2M2MTI2NGNhZDYyMTFkYzg=
-
New Danish Book Draws Jihadist Ire
IPT News
December 5, 2008
Print Send Comment RSS
It is an equation becoming all too familiar. A new book released in Europe contains essays critical of Islam and illustrations of the Prophet Mohammed. In response, some are calling for blood.
Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard's book Groft Sagt (Rough Talk), was released in Denmark Monday. It is a collection of about 100 of his favorite newspaper columns from a Copenhagen daily. Many of the columns are critical of Islam. In addition, the book features 26 new illustrations from Kurt Westergaard, whose drawings of the Prophet Mohammed in the newspaper Jyllands Posten in 2005 sparked a wave of violent protests.
An Israeli security center is sounding the alarm about calls for a violent backlash after noticing a series of incendiary posts on jihadist web sites. According to an International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) release, someone identifying himself as Abu Salem posted comments about Hedegaard's book on a website called Hanein, "a mouthpiece for Al-Qaeda and other jihad organizations":
"Abu Salem requests that all who love the Prophet Muhammad help spread the news of the upcoming publication and notify religious leaders of what ‘these pigs' are attempting to do. One forum visitor responded to the post, suggesting that Bin Laden attack Copenhagen, repeating the call: ‘Bin Laden, Copenhagen!' several times. Another forum visitor wrote: ‘Our blood... our souls... our children... our money... all that we have... the entire world… anything so that a single hair of your distinguished head [i.e. Muhammad] is not harmed.'"
In a separate post on another site, the ICT reports an internet user identified as Saqr Al-Islam Al-Maqdasi said a boycott of Danish goods would be an insufficient response. Instead:
"[…] by attacking Denmark everywhere so that it be known we are a nation sacrificing itself for Islam and its Prophet […] this cattle doesn't understand anything but the language of rage, and we will decapitate the heads and set fire to the ground underneath their feet. They do not understand anything but the language of blood and scattering of body parts. I ask that Allah make successful the way of the loyal Jihad warriors, in order to blow up and set fire to Denmark."
In an interview with the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Hedegaard said he has been in communication with Danish law enforcement but isn't letting the threatening response curtail his activities. His book is being used by jihadists looking for an excuse to justify their violence. "It is quite obvious that they think it is the right moment to strike a new offensive against Denmark and against free speech. It could be anything. This is planned. This is orchestrated."
In February, Danish police arrested three men suspected of planning to kill Westergaard, who had been forced into hiding after the 2005 publication of his Mohammed illustrations. Many Muslims consider any image of Mohammed to be blasphemous.
The response to perceived insults against Islam has grown increasingly violent.
In 2004, filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered on an Amsterdam street by a Dutch Moroccan angered by his film "Submission." The murderer stuck a note on van Gogh threatening Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who developed the idea for the film and wrote it. Since that time, Ms. Ali, formerly a Dutch MP, has had to live with constant protection, often a contentious issue in the Netherlands.
In September, the home of British publisher Martin Rynja was firebombed in advance of the publication of the novel "The Jewel of Medina," a fictional account of the life of Aisha, a child bride of the Prophet Mohammed.
These incidents make it more important to continue issuing work that may offend some people, Hedegaard said. "The point has to be made again and again. We live in a country with free speech. Unless we make this point again and again, every day, we don't have free speech."
Most of the columns in the book are not about Islam. Others deal with foreign policy, religion and "idiots that need to be taken down."
Hedegaard's newspaper, Berlinske Tidende, let him go earlier this year. His bosses told him he was getting boring and repetitive but he said he thinks they were bowing to pressure from his critics. As the new controversy brews, he said he feels he has strong public support, but felt Danish journalists and academics were either passive or hostile toward him.
Despite the controversy and the threats accompanying it, Hedegaard vowed to continue speaking his mind. Whether those threats should ever target him personally is not something he thinks about.
"I cannot live that way," he said. "I might as well be dead. It's like dying before you die... Death is when you are forced to shut up. I don't want them to shut me up before I die physically."
http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/909
-
December 06, 2008, 0:00 a.m.
Silence=Acceptance
Rabbi Holtzberg was not murdered because of a territorial dispute over Kashmir or because of Bush’s foreign policy.
By Mark Steyn
Shortly after the London Tube bombings in 2005, a reader of Tim Blair, the Sydney Daily Telegraph’s columnar wag, sent him a note-perfect parody of a typical newspaper headline: “British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing.”
Indeed. And so it goes. This time round — Bombay — it was the Associated Press that filed a story about how Muslims “found themselves on the defensive once again about bloodshed linked to their religion.”
Oh, I don’t know about that. In fact, you’d be hard pressed from most news reports to figure out the bloodshed was “linked” to any religion, least of all one beginning with “I-“ and ending in “-slam.” In the three years since those British bombings, the media have more or less entirely abandoned the offending formulations — “Islamic terrorists,” “Muslim extremists” — and by the time of the assault on Bombay found it easier just to call the alleged perpetrators “militants” or “gunmen” or “teenage gunmen,” as in the opening line of this report in the Australian: “An Adelaide woman in India for her wedding is lucky to be alive after teenage gunmen ran amok…”
Kids today, eh? Always running amok in an aimless fashion.
The veteran British TV anchor Jon Snow, on the other hand, opted for the more cryptic locution “practitioners.” “Practitioners” of what, exactly?
Hard to say. And getting harder. Tom Gross produced a jaw-dropping round-up of Bombay media coverage: The discovery that, for the first time in an Indian terrorist atrocity, Jews had been attacked, tortured, and killed produced from the New York Times a serene befuddlement: “It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.”
Hmm. Greater Bombay forms one of the world’s five biggest cities. It has a population of nearly 20 million. But only one Jewish center, located in a building that gives no external clue as to the bounty waiting therein. An “accidental hostage scene” that one of the “practitioners” just happened to stumble upon? “I must be the luckiest jihadist in town. What are the odds?”
Meanwhile, the New Age guru Deepak Chopra laid all the blame on American foreign policy for “going after the wrong people” and inflaming moderates, and “that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster in Bombay.”
Really? The inflammation just “appears”? Like a bad pimple? The “fairer” we get to the, ah, inflamed militant practitioners, the unfairer we get to everyone else. At the Chabad House, the murdered Jews were described in almost all the Western media as “ultra-Orthodox,” “ultra-” in this instance being less a term of theological precision than a generalized code for “strange, weird people, nothing against them personally, but they probably shouldn’t have been over there in the first place.” Are they stranger or weirder than their killers? Two “inflamed moderates” entered the Chabad House, shouted “Allahu Akbar!,” tortured the Jews and murdered them, including the young Rabbi’s pregnant wife. Their two-year-old child escaped because of a quick-witted (non-Jewish) nanny who hid in a closet and then, risking being mown down by machine-gun fire, ran with him to safety.
The Times was being silly in suggesting this was just an “accidental” hostage opportunity — and not just because, when Muslim terrorists capture Jews, it’s not a hostage situation, it’s a mass murder-in-waiting. The sole surviving “militant” revealed that the Jewish center had been targeted a year in advance. The 28-year-old rabbi was Gavriel Holtzberg. His pregnant wife was Rivka Holtzberg. Their orphaned son is Moshe Holtzberg, and his brave nanny is Sandra Samuels. Remember their names, not because they’re any more important than the Indians, Britons, and Americans targeted in the attack on Bombay, but because they are an especially revealing glimpse into the pathologies of the perpetrators.
In a well-planned attack on iconic Bombay landmarks symbolizing great power and wealth, the “militants” nevertheless found time to divert 20 percent of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city’s poor in a nondescript building. If they were just “teenage gunmen” or “militants” in the cause of Kashmir, engaged in a more or less conventional territorial dispute with India, why kill the only rabbi in Bombay? Dennis Prager got to the absurdity of it when he invited his readers to imagine Basque separatists attacking Madrid: “Would the terrorists take time out to murder all those in the Madrid Chabad House? The idea is ludicrous.”
And yet we take it for granted that Pakistani “militants” in a long-running border dispute with India would take time out of their hectic schedule to kill Jews. In going to ever more baroque lengths to avoid saying “Islamic” or “Muslim” or “terrorist,” we have somehow managed to internalize the pathologies of these men.
We are enjoined to be “understanding,” and we’re doing our best. A Minnesotan suicide bomber (now there’s a phrase) originally from Somalia returned to the old country and blew up himself and 29 other people last October. His family prevailed upon your government to have his parts (or as many of them as could be sifted from the debris) returned to the United States at taxpayer expense and buried in Burnsville Cemetery. Well, hey, in the current climate, what’s the big deal about a federal bailout of jihad operational expenses? If that’s not “too big to fail,” what is?
Last week, a Canadian critic reprimanded me for failing to understand that Muslims feel “vulnerable.” Au contraire, they project tremendous cultural confidence, as well they might: They’re the world’s fastest-growing population. A prominent British Muslim announced the other day that, when the United Kingdom becomes a Muslim state, non-Muslims will be required to wear insignia identifying them as infidels. If he’s feeling “vulnerable,” he’s doing a terrific job of covering it up.
We are told that the “vast majority” of the 1.6-1.8 billion Muslims (in Deepak Chopra’s estimate) are “moderate.” Maybe so, but they’re also quiet. And, as the AIDs activists used to say, “Silence=Acceptance.” It equals acceptance of the things done in the name of their faith. Rabbi Holtzberg was not murdered because of a territorial dispute over Kashmir or because of Bush’s foreign policy. He was murdered in the name of Islam — “Allahu Akbar.”
I wrote in my book, America Alone, that “reforming” Islam is something only Muslims can do. But they show very little sign of being interested in doing it, and the rest of us are inclined to accept that. Spread a rumor that a Koran got flushed down the can at Gitmo, and there’ll be rioting throughout the Muslim world. Publish some dull cartoons in a minor Danish newspaper, and there’ll be protests around the planet. But slaughter the young pregnant wife of a rabbi in Bombay in the name of Allah, and that’s just business as usual. And, if it is somehow “understandable” that for the first time in history it’s no longer safe for a Jew to live in India, then we are greasing the skids for a very slippery slope. Muslims, the AP headline informs us, “worry about image.” Not enough.
National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzA2Y2E2MDU2YjQzOTQwZjUzNjcwZDA0OTE3YmFkYzg=
-
Dutch MP in freedom of speech trial for comparing Koran to Mein Kampf
By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 6:11 PM on 21st January 2009
A Dutch politician who produced an anti-Islamic film and compared the Koran to Mein Kampf is to be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred, a court ruled today.
Geert Wilders, who leads the right-wing Freedom party, will be tried after judges reversed an earlier decision that insisted the MP had a right to voice his opinion.
Mr Wilders, who sparked outrage in March last year with his film Fitna, said the ruling was a ‘black day for myself and for freedom of speech’.
But the Amsterdam appeals court said: ‘In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to draw a clear line.’
Its ruling now sets the stage for a high-profile trial likely to expose changing attitudes towards Islam in the Netherlands.
Attitudes in the traditionally tolerant society towards Islam hardened after the 2004 murder of the filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a radical Dutch Muslim.
Mr Wilders, whose party has nine MPs, has largely built his popularity on the fear and resentment among many voters towards immigrants.
His film interspersed images of the September 11 attacks with quotations from the Koran.
A year earlier Mr Wilders described the Muslim holy book a ‘fascist book’.
And he called for the Koran to be banned in ‘the same way we ban Mein Kampf’, in a letter published in the De Volkskrant newspaper.
In 2007, Wilders called for the Muslim holy book to banned and likened it Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
Today, the appeals court called Wilders’ film, newspaper articles and media interviews ‘one-sided generalisations which can amount to inciting hatred’.
It reversed a decision last year by the public prosecutor’s office, which said Wilders’ film and interviews were painful for Muslims but not criminal.
The court’s three judges said they had weighed Wilders’ anti-Islamic rhetoric against his right to free speech, and ruled he had gone beyond the normal leeway given to politicians.
While judges in the Netherlands are generally liberal, the court said it was making an exception in the case of Wilders’ comments about Islam.
‘The court considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders,’ a summary of the court’s decision said.
It said the Wilders statements were ‘so insulting for Muslims that it is in the public interest to prosecute’.
Gerard Spong, a prominent lawyer who joined Muslim groups in pushing for Wilders’ prosecution, welcomed the decision.
‘This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Nazism,’ Spong told reporters in Amsterdam.
Wilder has not yet been charged, and it is not clear what maximum penalty he could face if convicted.
‘I’ve had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate,’ he wrote in national newspaper De Volkskrant.
‘I’ve had enough of the Koran in the Netherlands: forbid that fascist book.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...in-Kampf.html#
-
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3765
Muslims in the Lords
From the desk of Thomas Landen on Mon, 2009-01-26 11:16
The House of Lords is a venerable British institution, but what does one get if one accepts Muslims in? This:
A member of the Lords intended to invite her colleagues to a private meeting in a conference room in the House of Lords to meet the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, an elected member of the Dutch parliament, to watch his controversial movie Fitna and discuss the movie and Mr. Wilders’ opinions with him.
Barely had the invitation been sent to all the members of the House when Lord Ahmed raised hell. He threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr. Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organizing the event to court. The result is that the event, which should have taken place next Thursday was cancelled.
Lord Ahmed immediately went to the Pakistani press to boast about his achievement, which he calls “a victory for the Muslim community.”
A victory for the Muslim community, but a defeat for British democracy where topics to which Muslims object cannot even be debated. That, apparently, is what one gets when one accepts Muslims into the House of Lords.
Lord Ahmed is considered to be a “moderate” Muslim. The Pakistani born Nazir Ahmed became the United Kingdom’s first Muslim life peer in 1998. He is a member of the Labour Party and was appointed to the Lords by Tony Blair. Lord Ahmed took his oath on the Koran. He led one of the first delegations on behalf of the British Government on the Muslim pilgrimage of the Hajj, to Saudi Arabia. In February 2005, Lord Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for anti-Zionist author Israel Shamir. In 2007, he responded to the award of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie by stating that he was appalled, saying that Rushdie had “blood on his hands.”
Lord Ahmed was among the founders of The World Forum, an organization set up “to promote world peace in the aftermath of 9/11 with an effort to build bridges of understanding between The Muslim World and the West by reviving a tradition of Dialogue between people, cultures and civilizations based on tolerance.”
What does “dialogue” mean to those who make discussion about controversial issues impossible? Thank you, Mr. Blair, for bringing “diversity” to the House of Lords.
-
Compelling vid made by a Muslim physician condemning Islamic extremism:
http://e.blip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf?file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2Frss%2Fflash%2F1461068%3Freferrer%3Dhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.freerepublic.com%25252Ffocus%25252Ff-news%25252F2179858%25252Fposts%26source%3D3&showplayerpath=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2Fscripts%2Fflash%2Fshowplayer.swf&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbivouac-id.blip.tv%2Frss%2Fflash&brandname=blip.tv&brandlink=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2F%3Futm_source%3Dbrandlink&enablejs=true
-
This piece echos something I mull a lot: the human propensity to embrace simple fictions over complex truths.
Theodore Dalrymple
The Persistence of Ideology
Grand ideas still drive history.
Winter 2009
In 1960, the sociologist Daniel Bell published The End of Ideology, in which he argued that ideology—understood in the sense of a coherent, single-minded philosophical outlook or system of abstractions intended as much as a lever to change society as a description to explain it—was dead, at least in the West, and in the United States in particular. A combination of democracy and mass prosperity had “solved” the political question that had agitated humanity since the time of Plato. There were to be no more grand and transformative, if woefully erroneous, ideas; all that remained was public administration, with, at most, squabbles over small details of policy. The new version of the old saw, mens sana in corpore sano, a sound mind in a sound body, was a capitalist economy in a liberal democratic polity. That was the lesson of history.
In 1989, as the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were reforming—indeed collapsing—so rapidly that it became clear that Communism could not long survive anywhere in Europe, Francis Fukuyama went one step beyond Bell and wrote an essay for The National Interest titled “The End of History?” In this soon-to-be-famous article, later expanded into a book, Fukuyama suggested that the end of ideology that Bell saw in the West was now global. By “the end of history,” he did not mean the end of events, of course; one team or another would continue to win the Super Bowl, and there might yet be wars between national rivals. But broadly, history had given its lesson and mankind had taken it. Henceforth, those who resisted the march of liberal democracy were like the Luddites, those English workers at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution who smashed machines, blaming them for destroying the independent livelihoods of workers at home.
At the end of his essay, however, Fukuyama—more concerned to understand the world than to change it, by contrast with Marx—implicitly raised the question of the role of ideology in the world’s moral economy. With no ideological struggles to occupy their minds, what will intellectuals have to do or think about? Virtually by definition, they like to address themselves to large and general questions, not small and particular ones: as Isaiah Berlin would say, by temperament, they are hedgehogs, who know one large thing, not foxes, who know many small things. Fukuyama admitted that he would miss ideology, if only as something to oppose. “I have ambivalent feelings for the civilization that has been created in Europe since 1945, with its North Atlantic and Asian offshoots,” he wrote. “Perhaps this very prospect of centuries of boredom at the end of history will serve to get history started once again.”
As it turned out, of course, we did not have long (let alone centuries) to suffer existential boredom. Our dogmatic slumbers—to use Kant’s phrase for the philosophic state from which reading David Hume roused him—had barely begun when a group of young fanatics flew commercial airliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, thus demonstrating that pronouncements of the death of both ideology and history were somewhat premature.
In truth, we should have known it, or at least guessed it, without needing to be reminded. Fukuyama’s concluding sentences contain a hint of the psychological function that ideology plays. It is not just disgruntlement with the state of the world that stimulates the development and adoption of ideologies. After all, disgruntlement with society there has always been and always will be. Dissatisfaction is the permanent state of mankind, at least of civilized mankind. Not every dissatisfied man is an ideologist, however: for if he were, there would hardly be anyone who was not. Yet ideology, at least as a mass phenomenon, is a comparatively recent development in human history.
Who, then, are ideologists? They are people needy of purpose in life, not in a mundane sense (earning enough to eat or to pay the mortgage, for example) but in the sense of transcendence of the personal, of reassurance that there is something more to existence than existence itself. The desire for transcendence does not occur to many people struggling for a livelihood. Avoiding material failure gives quite sufficient meaning to their lives. By contrast, ideologists have few fears about finding their daily bread. Their difficulty with life is less concrete. Their security gives them the leisure, their education the need, and no doubt their temperament the inclination, to find something above and beyond the flux of daily life.
If this is true, then ideology should flourish where education is widespread, and especially where opportunities are limited for the educated to lose themselves in grand projects, or to take leadership roles to which they believe that their education entitles them. The attractions of ideology are not so much to be found in the state of the world—always lamentable, but sometimes improving, at least in certain respects—but in states of mind. And in many parts of the world, the number of educated people has risen far faster than the capacity of economies to reward them with positions they believe commensurate with their attainments. Even in the most advanced economies, one will always find unhappy educated people searching for the reason that they are not as important as they should be.
One of the first to notice the politicization of intellectuals was the French writer Julien Benda, whose 1927 La trahison des clercs—“the treason of the clerks,” with “clerk” understood in its medieval sense as an educated person distinct from the uneducated laity—gave a phrase to educated discourse. Today, people most frequently use the phrase to signify the allegiance that intellectuals gave to Communism, despite the evident fact that the establishment of Communist regimes led everywhere and always to a decrease in the kind of intellectual freedom and respect for individual rights that intellectuals claimed to defend.
Benda meant something much wider by it, though support for Communism would have come under his rubric: the increasing tendency of intellectuals to pursue lines of thought not for the sake of truth, or for guiding humanity sub specie aeternitatis, but for the sake of attaining power by adopting, justifying, and manipulating the current political passions of sections of humanity, whether national, racial, religious, or economic. The political passions that Benda most feared when he wrote his book were nationalism, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism, which then had plenty of intellectual apologists, and which indeed soon proved cataclysmic in their effects; but really he was defending the autonomy of intellectual and artistic life from political imperatives.
That ideological ways of thinking have survived the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union would not have surprised Benda. The collapse did severely reduce Marxism’s attractiveness, and despite decades of attempts by intellectuals to dissociate the doctrine’s supposed merits from the horrors of the Soviet system, it was only natural that many people believed that the death of Marxism meant the death of ideology itself. But as Benda might have predicted, what resulted instead was the balkanization of ideology—the emergence of a wider choice of ideologies for adoption by those so inclined.
The most obvious example of an ideology that came into prominence—or better, prominently into our consciousness—after Communism’s fall was Islamism. Because of its emphasis on returning to Islamic purity, and its apparent—indeed noisy—rejection of modernity, most people failed to notice how modern a phenomenon Islamism was, not just in time but in spirit. This is evident from reading just one of Islamism’s foundational texts: Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones, first published in 1964. The imprint of Marxism-Leninism is deep upon it, especially the Leninist component.
Qutb starts with cultural criticism that some might find eerily prescient. “The leadership of mankind by Western man is now on the decline, not because Western culture has become poor materially or because its economic and military power has become weak,” he writes. “The period of the Western system has come to an end primarily because it is deprived of those life-giving values which enabled it to be the leader of mankind.” Since, according to Qutb, those “life-giving values” cannot come from the Eastern Bloc, he thinks (like Juan Domingo Perón, the Argentinean dictator, and Tony Blair, the former British prime minister) that a Third Way must exist: which, he says, can only be Islam.
Just as in Marx only the proletariat bears the whole of humanity’s interests, so in Qutb only Muslims (true ones, that is) do. Everyone else is a factionalist. In Qutb’s conception, the state withers away under Islam, just as it does—according to Marx—under Communism, once the true form is established. In Marx, the withering away comes about because there are no sectional material interests left that require a state to enforce them; in Qutb, there is no sectional interest left once true Islam is established because everyone obeys God’s law without the need for interpretation and therefore for interpreters. And when all obey God’s law, no conflict can arise because the law is perfect; therefore there is no need for a state apparatus.
One finds a unity of theory and praxis in both Qutb’s Islamism and Marxism-Leninism. “Philosophy and revolution are inseparable,” said Raya Dunayevskaya, once Trotsky’s secretary and a prominent American Marxist (insofar as such can be said to have existed). And here is Qutb: “Thus these two—preaching and the movement—united, confront ‘the human situation’ with all the necessary methods. For the achievement of freedom of man on earth—of all mankind throughout the earth—it is necessary that these methods should work side by side.”
Like Lenin, Qutb thought that violence would be necessary against the ruling class (of bourgeois in Lenin’s case, unbelievers in Qutb’s): “Those who have usurped the authority of God and are oppressing God’s creatures are not going to give up their power merely through preaching.” Again like Lenin, Qutb believed that until human authority disappeared, the leader’s authority must be complete. Referring to “the Arab” of the Meccan period—an age whose moral qualities he wants to restore—Qutb says: “He was to be trained to follow the discipline of a community which is under the direction of a leader, and to refer to this leader in every matter and to obey his injunctions, even though they might be against his habit or taste.” Not much there with which Lenin could have disagreed. The British Stalinist historian Eric Hobsbawm wrote of himself: “The Party had the first, or more precisely, the only real claim on our lives. . . . Whatever it had ordered, we would have obeyed.”
Qutb is as explicit as Lenin that his party should be a vanguard and not a mass party, for only a vanguard will prove sufficiently dedicated to bring about the revolution. And like Leninism, Qutb’s Islamism is dialectical:
[Islam] does not face practical problems with abstract theories, nor does it confront various stages with unchangeable means. Those who talk about Jihaad in Islam and quote Qur’anic verses do not take into account this aspect, nor do they understand the nature of the various stages through which the movement develops, or the relationship of the verses revealed at various occasions with each stage.
Compare this with Lenin’s Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder:
Right doctrinairism persisted in recognizing only the old forms, and became utterly bankrupt, for it did not notice the new content. Left doctrinairism persists in the unconditional repudiation of certain old forms, failing to see that the new content is forcing its way through all and sundry forms, that it is our duty as Communists to master all forms, to learn how, with the maximum rapidity, to supplement one form with another, to substitute one for another, and to adapt our tactics to any such change that does not come from our class or from our efforts.
There are many other parallels between Leninism and Qutb’s Islamism, among them the incompatibility of each with anything else, entailing a fight to the finish supposedly followed by permanent bliss for the whole of mankind; a tension between complete determinism (by history and by God, respectively) and the call to intense activism; and the view that only with the installation of their systems does Man become truly himself. For Qutb’s worldview, therefore, the term Islamo-Leninism would be a more accurate description than Islamofascism.
Qutb was a strange man: he never married, for example, because (so he claimed) he found no woman of sufficient purity for him. You wouldn’t need to be Freud to find the explanation suspect, or to find his reaction to Greeley, Colorado, in 1950, where he spent time on a scholarship—he saw it as a hotbed of unrestrained vice—somewhat hysterical, a cover for something seething deeply and disturbingly inside him. Devotion to an ideology can provide an answer of sorts to personal problems, and since personal problems are common, it isn’t surprising that a number of people choose ideology as the solution.
Ideological thinking is not confined to the Islamists in our midst. The need for a simplifying lens that can screen out the intractabilities of life, and of our own lives in particular, springs eternal; and with the demise of Marxism in the West, at least in its most economistic form, a variety of substitute ideologies have arisen from which the disgruntled may choose.
Most started life as legitimate complaints, but as political reforms dealt with reasonable demands, the demands transformed themselves into ideologies, thus illustrating a fact of human psychology: rage is not always proportionate to its occasion but can be a powerful reward in itself. Feminists continued to see every human problem as a manifestation of patriarchy, civil rights activists as a manifestation of racism, homosexual-rights activists as a manifestation of homophobia, anti-globalists as a manifestation of globalization, and radical libertarians as a manifestation of state regulation.
How delightful to have a key to all the miseries, both personal and societal, and to know personal happiness through the single-minded pursuit of an end for the whole of humanity! At all costs, one must keep at bay the realization that came early in life to John Stuart Mill, as he described it in his Autobiography. He asked himself:
“Suppose that all your objects in life were realized; that all the changes in institutions and opinions which you are looking forward to, could be effected at this very instant: would this be a great joy and happiness to you?” And an irrepressible self-consciousness distinctly answered, “No!” At this my heart sank within me: the whole foundation on which my life was constructed fell down. All my happiness was to have been found in the continual pursuit of this end. The end had ceased to charm, and how could there ever again be any interest in the means? I seemed to have nothing left to live for.
This is the question that all ideologists fear, and it explains why reform, far from delighting them, only increases their anxiety and rage. It also explains why traditional religious belief is not an ideology in the sense in which I am using the term, for unlike ideology, it explicitly recognizes the limitations of earthly existence, what we can expect of it, and what we can do by our own unaided efforts. Some ideologies have the flavor of religion; but the absolute certainty of, say, the Anabaptists of Münster, or of today’s Islamists, is ultimately irreligious, since they claimed or claim to know in the very last detail what God requires of us.
The most popular and widest-ranging ideology in the West today is environmentalism, replacing not only Marxism but all the nationalist and xenophobic ideologies that Benda accused intellectuals of espousing in the 1920s. Now, no one who has suffered respiratory difficulties because of smog, or seen the effects of unrestrained industrial pollution, can be indifferent to the environmental consequences of man’s activities; pure laissez-faire will not do. But it isn’t difficult to spot in environmentalists’ work something more than mere concern with a practical problem. Their writings often show themselves akin to the calls to repentance of seventeenth-century divines in the face of plague epidemics, but with the patina of rationality that every ideology needs to disguise its true source in existential angst.
For example, a recent column in the Guardian, by the environmental campaigner George Monbiot, carried the headline the planet is now so vandalised that only total energy renewal can save us. Monbiot, it is true, does not offer us heaven on earth if we follow his prescriptions; only the bare—and by no means certain, for “we might have left it too late”—avoidance of total biological annihilation. But behind Monbiot’s urgency, even hysteria, one senses a deep lust for power. He cannot really believe what he says, for starters. “Do we want to be remembered,” he asks rhetorically, “as the generation that saved the banks but let the biosphere collapse?” If it is really true that we must either have “total energy renewal” or die, however, we cannot be remembered as the generation that let the biosphere collapse, for if we let it collapse, ex hypothesi no one will be around to remember us. This reminds me of patients I used to see who would threaten suicide, in the clear expectation of a long life ahead, unless someone did what they wanted. And though Monbiot says that it is uncertain that anything we do now will make any difference, he nevertheless proposes that every human being on the earth follow his prescriptions.
The environmentalist ideology threatens to make serious inroads into the rule of law in Britain. This past September, six environmentalists were acquitted of having caused $50,000 worth of damage to a power station—not because they did not do it but because four witnesses, including a Greenlander, testified to the reality of global warming.
One recalls the disastrous 1878 jury acquittal in St. Petersburg of Vera Zasulich for the attempted assassination of General Trepov, on the grounds of the supposed purity of her motives. The acquittal destroyed all hope of establishing the rule of law in Russia and ushered in an age of terrorism that led directly to one of the greatest catastrophes in human history.
Theodore Dalrymple, a physician, is a contributing editor of City Journal and the Dietrich Weismann Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His new book is Not with a Bang but a Whimper.
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_1_otbie-ideology.html
-
Geert Wilders is an unlikely free-speech symbol, as the Dutch lawmaker wants to ban the Quran. And Britain is an unlikely country to suppress free speech, but police yesterday detained Mr. Wilders at Heathrow Airport to stop him from speaking at the Mother of Parliaments.
Lord Malcolm Pearson had invited the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party -- who was indicted last month in his home country for "inciting hatred and discrimination" against Muslims -- to discuss his anti-Islam film "Fitna." The 15-minute video juxtaposes Quranic verses that call for jihad with clips of terror attacks.
But the British Home Office said his presence would pose a "serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society," arguing that his statements on Islam "would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the U.K." A Home Office spokesman further explained: "The government opposes extremism in all its forms."
In truth, the government is selective in opposing extremism, allowing last May, for example, Ibrahim Moussawi, a chief spokesman for the Iran-financed Islamist terror group Hezbollah, to enter the country and address meetings organized by the "Stop the War Coalition." In recent weeks, protesters against the Israeli Gaza offensive could freely express their support for Hamas, another Islamist terror group.
Barring Mr. Wilders from entering the country is not about opposing extremism but giving in to it. As insulting or offensive as Mr. Wilders's likening Islam to Nazism is, he doesn't call for violence, let alone terror. Nobody really thinks his presence will incite attacks on Muslims. Rather, the unspoken fear is that his visit will spark riots by Muslims.
Either the government is exaggerating the dangers, in which case his detention will only reinforce whatever prejudices people may have about Muslims. Or the threat analysis is correct and the free expression of Mr. Wilders's views really could have led to Muslim violence. In that case, the question is what sort of "community" would so easily turn violent, and where is the "harmony" that supposedly needs to be preserved?
Giving in to mob rule, real or imagined, is the abdication of democracy and the rule of law.
-
Interesting take on the Left's betrayal of Marxist ideals, amongst other things.
Once Again It’s the Economy, Stupid
By admin • on February 17, 2009
The Left is only too happy to suppress free speech. It doesn’t know what it’s getting itself into
By Lars Hedegaard
One thing in particular struck me last week when I was in London for the showing of Geert Wilders’ Fitna in the House of Lords. Well, apart from the fact that Mr. Wilders was banned from entering the country.
It was the press’ uniform designation of the Dutch politician as “right-wing” or even “extreme right-wing”.
What precisely has Geert Wilders done or said that makes him deserving of this epithet? For make no mistake: whereas “left-wing” is considered an accolade and smacks of loving kindness towards green forests, stray dogs in need of a warm place to sleep and undernourished children in Africa, “right-wing” denotes a misanthrope who hates all good people and will eat innocent babies for breakfast.
If one has committed the ultimate sin of criticizing religion, particularly if it is murderous and retrograde, there is no way to wash off the brand of Cain. Politically you may be a socialist, a liberal or a conservative. You may be a staunch supporter of the welfare state, socialized medicine, gay marriage, preferential treatment of women and 75 percent taxation of all private income. It won’t help you if you have distanced yourself from the teachings of the prophet.
This is curious. Irreverent criticism of religion used to be a specialty of the Left. Today such criticism proves that one is a semi-fascist to be shunned in polite company.
The forgotten prophet
There are still a few grizzled post-socialists around that will remember what their old prophet, Karl Marx, had to say about religion in the very first sentence of his Contribution to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right from 1843: “… criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism”.
Criticism of religion is not only the starting point of all criticism. It is the prerequisite of any kind of criticism. In a society where religion cannot be criticized, everything becomes religion ¬¬– from the length of your beard to what hand to use when wiping your backside.
Where there is no criticism of religion, life and society in their entirety become religious and the littleest squeak against the existing order is eo ipso an act of blasphemy to be rooted out by cutting off the offender’s head.
The courage to blaspheme is consequently the sine qua non of civilization and of social, intellectual and scientific progress. It is also the premise of the separation between church and state, as Jesus Christ was well aware of.
But what passes for the Left these days has long since given up on socialism’s founding fathers – particularly when they were right – and is groveling at the feet of a bloodthirsty moon-god from far Araby.
We know what has happened. But how and why did it come about?
A new worldview
We know that the broad Left – which in Europe would include various shades of the hard, Communist or Marxist Left, the New Left, which has now transformed itself into tree huggers, and the traditional Social Democratic parties – has vacated its traditional ideological positions in order to preach ideologies that used to be hallmarks of the far right. Positions such as the need for censorship, kissing up to demands that “religions” (i.e. Islam) must not be criticized or ridiculed, the institution of ethnic or tribal special privileges and inequality before the law – depending on what ethnic, tribal or clan chief or holy man can ingratiate himself to the top of the totem pole as most aggrieved victim.
This new weltanschauung takes us back to a legal order – or rather lack of order – the like of which we haven’t seen in the civilized world since – when? The democratic revolutions of the 19th century, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, England’s Glorious Revolution, John Milton’s Areopagitica, Magna Carta?
Take your pick. Any one of the above is true.
The road chosen by the parties on the Left permits no return. Having alienated – not to say discarded – large chunks of their traditional working class voters, they are now increasingly dependent on the Muslim vote, which they hope will guarantee them a perpetual foothold at least in the major populations centers.
Goodbye to the welfare state
In the process the Left has also undermined its signal creation, the modern welfare state.
In a remarkable report from 2008, Denmark’s National Bank (the equivalent of the Bank of England or the Federal Reserve) writes:
“A major part of the immigration into Denmark over the past 15-20 years, particularly at the beginning of the period, has come from less developed countries and has consisted of people with a low participation in the labor market causing a relatively large drag on public welfare expenditures. This has lead to a deterioration of the public finances, i.e. it has aggravated the problem of sustainability.
If immigration is to support the financing of the public sector, it must be in the shape of so-called “super immigration”. This concept covers a person who does not immigrate until he has completed his education, who is immediately employable and has an employment frequency of 100 per cent, pays taxes like a Dane, does not bring along his family and leaves the country before he reaches pension age.”
A tall order indeed and one that has never been filled by the sort of immigrants Denmark has been attracting.
Yet the Left has no answer to offer except for more immigration and lamentations over the oppression of Muslims combined with a loving understanding of their need for “respect” and special treatment.
Of course, many – if not most – of the non-socialist parties have been equally eager to embrace mass immigration of non-integratable masses from the third world. But they haven’t really been that wedded to the cradle-to-grave welfare state – at least not in the beginning.
In fact, when we look at such countries as Germany, Holland, England, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, it was private enterprise that started importing cheap and unskilled labor from the rural populations of Bangla Desh, Pakistan, Turkey, Morocco and other such places to fill the gaps along the assembly lines. At that time – in the late sixties and seventies – many spokesmen for the labor unions and the socialist parties were critical of this unwelcome competition that threatened to drive down wages and undermine hard-fought labor rights.
That was when the old industrial society was on its hind legs, soon to be replaced by the knowledge society, in which many of the new immigrants were simply unemployable. Yet they were allowed to stay on, bring in their large families and collect welfare.
The new proletariat
With the fundamental shift from industrial to knowledge society it also became clear that socialism in the shape of the nationalization of the means of production was no longer achievable. The traditional working class was disappearing and the downtrodden masses, which the Marxists had identified as the “revolutionary subject”, became too bourgeois for comfort. They left the socialist parties in droves and began voting for center-right parties that promised them a share of the wealth created by private enterprise. A house, a car, a color tv and such. In other words the kind of amenities that the leftist intelligentsia had come to consider as indispensable for its own lifestyle.
This presented the socialist ideologues with a major problem. From their reading of Lenin, Trotsky and Gramsci they knew that they were destined to remain the vanguard of the masses. The proletariat was unable to reach the required level of political consciousness without the constant goading of their far-sighted betters.
Socialism was no longer in the cards. Still the socialist intelligentsia was unwilling to let go of its claim to power. So it had to find a new revolutionary subject – a class of people that would never allow itself to be bought off by the allure of a bourgeois life but was guaranteed to remain at the edge of society.
And they found the Muslim immigrants. This socialist-Muslim nexus turned out to be a marriage made in heaven. The swelling ranks of the Muslim immigrants could deliver the votes to fill the void left by the disappearing native working classes, and the socialist parties could reciprocate by delivering welfare benefits, cultural concessions and free immigration to their to non-working Muslim charges.
The tiger’s tail
This well-functioning political arrangement, however, is on the verge of making the welfare state unsustainable. It is crumbling all over Europe, but there is no way back for the Left. There is no option but to cling ever tighter to the tiger’s tail. Otherwise the beast will turn around and bite them. We have already seen intifadas in England, France, Denmark and Norway. If the “youths” don’t have their way, they will burn the town down, smash up the cars and brutalize the indigenous population.
To keep this bizarre road show running, it has become necessary for the leftist rulers to crush free speech. However much they may privately deplore it, there is nothing else to do if they want to retain the Muslim vote that keeps them in power.
A poll conducted by the official Statistics Denmark and published on February 10, 2009, shows that 50 percent of the Muslim immigrants and their descendants want to make attacks on religion a criminal offense. 36 percent of the immigrants and 40 percent of their descendants disagree.
The corresponding figures for ethnic Danes are 79 percent against and only 15 percent in favor.
The next step ¬– a head-on attack on democracy itself – is in the works. Throughout Europe we are already seeing arrests and convictions of “right-wing” agitators who refuse to laud the multicultural state as the epitome of social virtue.
Further down this slope there may be bans on political parties that threaten to rally significant numbers of the non-Muslim
population.
The economy strikes back
There is, however, one fact of life that our power holders have left out of their political equation. That is – as Bill Clinton has so aptly expressed it – the economy, stupid.
In the near future the economy will strike back. Censorship and persecution of the unruly will not save the welfare state. How will the native populations react when they find out that their kids are not being educated, that they are not receiving adequate treatment in the hospitals, that their pensions and other welfare benefits are dwindling and that they cannot rely on the police to protect them? In a situation where they cannot themselves pay for such services because the state continues to suck up most of their income?
That is the question.
An equally intriguing question is how the captains of private enterprises and their investors will react when they realize that capitalism is incompatible with sharia law. Free enterprise cannot flourish in a society where there is no security of property rights and where there are no courts to enforce contracts.
And that is precisely the problem inherent in the likely spread of sharia courts and “sharia financing”.
If you are an infidel who happens to have done business with a true believer, the sharia court is duty bound to find against you because sharia law is based on the inequality of Muslims and non-Muslims. It is even worse if you happen to be an infidel businesswoman.
Perhaps it is time that the business community, which has so far preferred to stay aloof, starts paying attention to the real world.
http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2009/02/once-again-its-the-economy-stupid/
-
Minister beaten after clashing with Muslims on his TV show
By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 4:39 PM on 15th March 2009
A Christian minister who has had heated arguments with Muslims on his TV Gospel show has been brutally attacked by three men who ripped off his cross and warned: ‘If you go back to the studio, we’ll break your legs.’
The Reverend Noble Samuel was driving to the studio when a car pulled over in front of him. A man got out and came over to ask him directions in Urdu.
Mr Samuel, based at Heston United Reformed Church, West London, said: ‘He put his hand into my window, which was half open, and grabbed my hair and opened the door.
Frightened: TV minister Noble Samuel
He started slapping my face and punching my neck. He was trying to smash my head on the steering wheel.
Then he grabbed my cross and pulled it off and it fell on the floor. He was swearing. The other two men came from the car and took my laptop and Bible.’
The Metropolitan Police are treating it as a ‘faith hate’ assault and are hunting three Asian men.
In spite of the attack, Mr Samuel went ahead with his hour-long live Asian Gospel Show on the Venus satellite channel from studios in Wembley, North London. During the show the Muslim station owner Tahir Ali came on air to condemn the attack.
Pakistan-born Mr Samuel, 48, who was educated by Christian missionaries and moved to Britain 15 years ago, said that over the past few weeks he has received phone-in calls from people identifying themselves as Muslims who challenged his views. ‘They were having an argument with me,’ he said. ‘They were very aggressive in saying they did not agree with me. I said those are your views and these are my views.’
He said that he, his wife Louisa, 48, and his son Naveed, 19, now fear for their safety, and police have given them panic alarms. ‘I am frightened and depressed,’ he said. ‘My show is not confrontational.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-TV-show.html
-
http://www.internationalfreepresssoc...e-of-our-time/
:lol:
-
Texas Appellate Court Deals Another Blow to Islamist Lawfare—Upholds Free Speech Rights of Internet Journalist; Islamic Groups Lose Appeal
ANN ARBOR, MI – On July 16, 2009, seven Texas-area Islamic organizations lost an appeal of the unanimous ruling of the Texas Second Court of Appeals at Forth Worth, which protected the free speech rights of internet journalists and at the same time dealt a blow to the legal jihad being waged by radical Muslim groups throughout the United States. The Islamic groups asked for a reconsideration of the appellate court’s recent decision through what is known as an en banc opinion (appeal to the whole court, not just a panel of the court). The Court ruling, in a per curiam (in the name of the whole court) two page opinion, upheld the dismissal of the libel lawsuit filed against internet reporter Joe Kaufman by the seven Islamic organizations.
The lawsuit against Kaufman was funded by the Muslim Legal Fund for America. The head of that organization, Khalil Meek, admitted on a Muslim talk radio show that lawsuits were being filed against Kaufman and others to set an example. Indeed, for the last several years, Muslim groups in the U.S. have engaged in the tactic of filing meritless lawsuits to silence any public discussion of Islamic terrorist threats. This tactic, referred to by some as Islamist Lawfare uses our laws and legal system to silence critics and promote Islamic rule in America.
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan provided the lead attorney to represent Kaufman, at no charge. The Law Center attorney, Brandon Bolling, was assisted by Texas attorney Thomas S. Brandon, Jr. who acted as local counsel, and Los Angeles, CA attorneys William Becker, Jr. and Manuel S. Klausner.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “It is gratifying to see our client’s First Amendment rights being upheld by this entire Texas Appeals Court. We do not yet know if these Islamic groups will try another appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, but this ruling is an indication of how strong this First Amendment case is.”
Kaufman, a full-time investigative reporter, has written extensively on Radical Islamic terrorism in America. He was sued because of his September 28, 2007 article titled “Fanatic Muslim Family Day” published by Front Page Magazine, a major online news website. Kaufman’s article exposed the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Islamic Association of Northern Texas (IANT) ties to the radical terrorist group Hamas.
Kaufman’s article called ICNA a radical Muslim organization that has ties to Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Kaufman, ICNA is an umbrella organization for South Asian-oriented mosques and Islamic centers in the United States created as an American arm of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) of Pakistan.
Significantly, neither ICNA nor IANT, which were mentioned in Kaufman’s article, sued Kaufman. It is speculated that ICNA and IANT were afraid of being subjected to pretrial discovery. On the other hand, none of the seven plaintiffs that sued Kaufman were even mentioned in his article. The seven Islamic organizations that sued Kaufman are the Islamic Society of Arlington, Texas, Islamic Center of Irving, DFW Islamic Educational Center, Inc., Dar Elsalam Islamic Center, Al Hedayah Islamic Center, Islamic Association of Tarrant County, and Muslim American Society of Dallas. All are affiliated with CAIR, one of the unindicted co-conspirators in the successful federal prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation.
In what should be welcome news to internet journalists, the Appellate Court specifically rejected the Plaintiffs’ contention that Kaufman is not a “media defendant.” The Court held that the Texas statute that gives procedural protections to traditional electronic and print media, including the right to a pretrial appeal, also covers internet journalists. Thus, the Texas Statue entitled Kaufman the right to appeal the lower court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the frivolous libel claim before a time-consuming and expensive trial. Most parties have to wait until after a trial before they can appeal an unfavorable lower court ruling.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
-
Brüno star Sacha Baron Cohen threatened by Gaza militant group over 'mocking' interview
By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 2:06 PM on 28th July 2009
Brüno star Sacha Baron Cohen has been threatened by a terrorist organisation that he ridiculed in the hit satire.
The al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a coalition of Palestinian militias in the West Bank, released a statement saying it was 'very upset' at how it is portrayed in the film.
The group is responsible for dozens of suicide bombings and shootings and has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the European Union and United States.
'The movie was part of a conspiracy against the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades,' a spokesman told Jerusalem-based journalist Aaron Klein.
'We reserve the right to respond in the way we find suitable against this man.'
In the film, Baron Cohen's Austrian character, an outrageous gay fashionista, attempts to get himself kidnapped during a meeting with Ayman Abu Aita, who is identified in the film as the leader of the Martyrs' Brigades.
Brüno is shown telling Mr Abu Aita: 'I want to be famous. I want the best guys in the business to kidnap me. Al-Qaeda is so 2001.'
Before Mr Abu Aita can respond, Brüno suggests that he remove his moustache, explaining: 'Because your king Osama looks like a kind of dirty wizard or homeless Santa.'
A spokesman for 37-year-old Baron Cohen refused to comment on the threat.
Mr Klein, the WorldNet reporter who received the statement from the Martyrs' Brigades, said today: 'These are terrorists who are fundamentalist Islamists. They are against feminism, gay rights and abortion.
'Once I asked them what would they do if they found out one of their members was a homosexual. They said they would cut off his head.'
Mr Abu Aita himself has threatened to sue Baron Cohen. He claims he was tricked into appearing in the film and has insisted that he is no longer involved in the Martyrs' Brigades.
Baron Cohen is reported to have received death threats in America and Kazakhstan after his previous box office hit, Borat.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...nterview.html#
-
Yale Removes Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad From Forthcoming Book, Citing Fears of Violence
Tuesday , September 08, 2009
Yale University wiped a forthcoming book clean of controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, fearing the images would cause another outbreak of violence. Yale University Press, which the Ivy League school owns, removed the 12 caricatures from the book "The Cartoons That Shook the World" by Brandeis University professor Jytte Klausen — which is scheduled to be released next week.
A Danish newspaper originally published the cartoons, including one depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban, in 2005. Other Western publications reprinted them. The following year, the cartoons triggered massive protests from Morocco to Indonesia. Rioters torched Danish and other Western diplomatic missions. Some Muslim countries boycotted Danish products.
Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.
"There is a repeated pattern of violence when these cartoons have been republished,” University Vice President and Secretary Linda Lorimer told the Yale Daily News in August. "The homework for us here this summer was to ask people in positions who could give expert counsel whether there is still an appreciable chance of violence from publishing the cartoons.”
The university said it consulted counterterrorism officials, Muslim diplomats, the top Muslim official at the United Nations and other mostly unidentified experts in making its decision.
Those experts said they had "serious concerns about violence occurring following publication of either the cartoons or other images of the Prophet Muhammad in a book about the cartoons,” University President Richard Levin told key administrators in an Aug. 13 letter, according to the Yale paper.
Those consulted said republishing the images "ran a serious risk of instigating violence," a press spokesman told FOXNews.com in August.
Click here for FOXNews.com's previous coverage of the controversy.
The action taken by the New Haven, Conn., university regarding the book, which looks at how the illustrations caused outrage in the Muslim world, has drawn criticism from prominent Yale alumni and a national group of university professors.
"I think it's horrifying that the campus of Nathan Hale has become the first place where America surrenders to this kind of fear because of what extremists might possibly do," said Michael Steinberg, an attorney and Yale graduate.
Steinberg was among 25 alumni who signed a protest letter sent Friday to Yale Alumni Magazine that urged the university to restore the drawings to the book.
Other signers included John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, former Bush administration speechwriter David Frum and Seth Corey, a liberal doctor.
"I think it's intellectual cowardice," Bolton said Thursday. "I think it's very self defeating on Yale's part. To me it's just inexplicable."
Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, wrote in a recent letter that Yale's decision effectively means: "We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands."
In a statement explaining the decision, Yale University Press said it decided to exclude a Danish newspaper page of the cartoons and other depictions of Muhammad after asking the university for help on the issue.
"The decision rested solely on the experts' assessment that there existed a substantial likelihood of violence that might take the lives of innocent victims," the statement said.
Republication of the cartoons has repeatedly resulted in violence around the world, leading to more than 200 deaths and hundreds of injuries, the statement said. It also noted that major newspapers in the United states and Britain have declined to print the cartoons.
"Yale and Yale University Press are deeply committed to freedom of speech and expression, so the issues raised here were difficult," the statement said. "The press would never have reached the decision it did on the grounds that some might be offended by portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad."
John Donatich, director of Yale University Press, said the critics are "grandstanding." He said it was not a case of censorship because the university did not suppress original content that was not available in other places.
"I would never have agreed to censor original content," Donatich said.
Klausen was surprised by the decision when she learned of it in July. She said scholarly reviewers and Yale's publication committee comprised of faculty recommended the cartoons be included.
"I'm extremely upset about that," Klausen said.
The experts Yale consulted did not read the manuscript, Klausen said, telling the school newspaper that their opinions were "terribly alarmist." She said she consulted Muslim leaders and did not believe including the cartoons in a scholarly debate would spark violence.
“I have a reputation as a fair and sympathetic observer,” Klausen told the Yale paper. “There’s absolutely nothing anti-Muslim about my book.”
Klausen said she reluctantly agreed to have the book published without the images because she did not believe any other university press would publish them, and she hopes Yale will include them in later editions.
She argues in the book that there is a misperception that Muslims spontaneously arose in anger over the cartoons when they really were symbols manipulated by those already involved in violence.
Donatich said there wasn't time for the experts to read the book, but they were told of the context. He said reviewers and the publications committee did not object, but were not asked about the security risk.
Many Muslim nations want to restrict speech to prevent insults to Islam they claim have proliferated since the terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.
Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, a world affairs columnist and CNN host who serves on Yale's governing board, said he told Yale that he believed publishing the images would have provoked violence.
"As a journalist and public commentator, I believe deeply in the First Amendment and academic freedom," Zakaria said. "But in this instance Yale Press was confronted with a clear threat of violence and loss of life."
Click here for more on this story from the Yale Daily News.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,547572,00.html
-
http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=17043&R=1637E18C1A
You Can't Say That
At the UN, the Obama administration backs limits on free speech.
by Anne Bayefsky
10/05/2009 12:00:00 AM
The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.
President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president's penchant for "engagement" as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America's most treasured freedom.
For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the "reformed" Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN's lead human rights body. In 2008, against the backdrop of the publication of images of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, Cuba and various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an "abuse . . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination."
The Obama administration decided that a revamped freedom of expression resolution, extracted from Canadian hands, would be an ideal emblem for its new engagement policy. So it cosponsored a resolution on the subject with none other than Egypt--a country characterized by an absence of freedom of expression.
Privately, other Western governments were taken aback and watched the weeks of negotiations with dismay as it became clear that American negotiators wanted consensus at all costs. In introducing the resolution on Thursday, October 1--adopted by consensus the following day--the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d'Affaires Douglas Griffiths, crowed:
"The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration's commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."
His Egyptian counterpart, Ambassador Hisham Badr, was equally pleased--for all the wrong reasons. He praised the development by telling the Council that "freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused," insisting on limits consistent with the "true nature of this right" and demanding that the "the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner."
The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."
Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions" instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion--as defined by government--to curtail it.
Even the normally feeble European Union tried to salvage the American capitulation by expressing the hope that the resolution might be read a different way. Speaking on behalf of the EU following the resolution's adoption, French Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattéi declared that "human rights law does not, and should not, protect religions or belief systems, hence the language on stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals . . . and not of ideologies, religions or abstract values. The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religions." The EU also distanced itself from the American compromise on the media, declaring that "the notion of a moral and social responsibility of the media" goes "well beyond" existing international law and "the EU cannot subscribe to this concept in such general terms."
In 1992 when the United States ratified the main international law treaty which addresses freedom of expression, the government carefully attached reservations to ensure that the treaty could not "restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
The Obama administration's debut at the Human Rights Council laid bare its very different priorities. Threatening freedom of expression is a price for engagement with the Islamic world that it is evidently prepared to pay.
Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a professor at Touro College, and the editor of EYEontheUN.org.
-
PETER BERKOWITZ
Professors have a professional interest in—indeed a professional duty to uphold—liberty of thought and discussion. But in recent years, precisely where they should be most engaged and outspoken they have been apathetic and inarticulate.
Consider Yale. On Oct. 1, the university hosted Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. His drawing of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban became the best known of 12 cartoons published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005. That led to deadly protests throughout the Muslim world. On the same day, at an unrelated event, Yale hosted Brandeis Prof. Jytte Klausen. Her new book, "The Cartoons that Shook the World," was subject in August to a last minute prepublication decision by Yale President Richard Levin and Yale University Press to remove not only the 12 cartoons but also all representations of Muhammad, including respected works of art.
The Westergaard appearance inspired protests. Muslim students condemned Yale's invitation to the cartoonist as religiously and racially insensitive, compared him to Holocaust deniers and white supremacists, and declared his art and utterances hate speech rather than free speech.
Students will be students. It is to be hoped that those who opposed Mr. Westergaard's invitation will learn at Yale that the aim of liberal education is not to guard their sensitivities but to teach them to listen to diverse opinions and fortify them to respond with better arguments to those with whom they disagree.
Mr. Westergaard's appearance did prompt a small faculty-led panel discussion on Oct. 7. It dealt mainly with Muslim reaction to the cartoons, though Prof. Seyla Benhabib said that in Ms. Klausen's position she would have withdrawn the book. But generally the faculty has been unmoved by Yale's censorship of Ms. Klausen's book, which suggests that lessons in the fundamentals of liberty of thought and discussion may be lacking on campus.
To be sure, Yale's censorship—the right word because Yale suppressed content on moral and political grounds—raised difficult questions. Can't rights, including freedom of speech and press, be limited to accommodate other rights and goods? What if reprinting the cartoons and other depictions gave thugs and extremists a new opportunity to inflame passions and unleash violence? Can't the consequences of the cartoons' original publication be understood without reproducing them? Weren't the cartoons really akin, as Yale Senior Lecturer Charles Hill pointed out in a letter to the Yale Alumni magazine, to the depictions of Jews as grotesque monsters that successive American administrations have sought to persuade Arab newspapers to cease publishing? And isn't it true, as Mr. Hill also observed, that Yale's obligation to defend free speech does not oblige it to subsidize gratuitously offensive or intellectually worthless speech?
These are good questions—to which there are good answers.
Rights are subject to limits, but a right as fundamental to the university and the nation as freedom of speech and press should only be limited in cases of imminent danger and not in deference to speculation about possible violence at an indeterminate future date. One can't properly evaluate Ms. Klausen's contention that the cartoons were cynically manipulated without assessing with one's own eyes whether the images passed beyond mockery and ridicule to the direct incitement of violence.
Even if the cartoons exhibited a kinship to anti-Semitic caricatures, it would cut in favor of publication: a scholar would be derelict in his duties if he published a work on anti-Semitic images without including examples. And finally, if Yale chooses to publish a rigorous analysis of the Danish cartoon controversy, which affected the national interest and roiled world affairs, then the university does incur a scholarly obligation to include all the relevant information and evidence including the cartoons at the center, regardless of whether they are in themselves gratuitously offensive and intellectually worthless.
The wonder is that Yale's censorship has excited so little debate at Yale. The American Association of University Professors condemned Yale for caving in to terrorists' "anticipated demands." And a group of distinguished alumni formed the Yale Committee for a Free Press and published a letter protesting Yale's "surrender to potential unknown billigerents" and calling on the university to correct its error by reprinting Ms. Klausen's book with the cartoons and other images intact. But the Yale faculty has mostly yawned. Even the famously activist Yale Law School has, according to its director of public affairs, sponsored no programs on censorship and the university.
Alas, there is good reason to suppose that in its complacency about threats to freedom on campus the Yale faculty is typical of faculties at our leading universities. In 2006, even as the police had barely begun their investigation, Duke University President Richard Brodhead lent the prestige of his office to faculty members' prosecution and conviction in the court of public opinion of three members of the Duke lacrosse team falsely accused of gang raping an African-American exotic dancer. It turned out they were being pursued by a rogue prosecutor. To be sure, it was only a vocal minority at Duke who led the public rush to judgment. But the vast majority of the faculty stood idly by, never rising to defend the presumption of innocence and the requirements of fair process. Perhaps Duke faculty members did not realize or perhaps they did not care that these formal and fundamental protections against the abuse of power belong among the conditions essential to the lively exchange of ideas at the heart of liberal education.
Similarly, in 2005, Harvard President Lawrence Summers sparked a faculty revolt that ultimately led to his ouster by floating at a closed-door, off-the-record meeting the hypothesis—which he gave reasons for rejecting only a few breaths after posing it—that women were poorly represented among natural science faculties because significantly fewer women than men are born with the extraordinary theoretical intelligence necessary to succeed at the highest scientific levels. Before he was forced to resign, Mr. Summers did his part to set back the cause of unfettered intellectual inquiry by taking the side of his accusers and apologizing repeatedly for having dared to expose an unpopular idea to rational analysis. Apart from a few honorable exceptions, the Harvard faculty could not find a principle worth defending in the controversy over Mr. Summer's remarks.
As the controversies at Yale, Duke and Harvard captured national attention, professors from other universities haven't had much to say in defense of liberty of thought and discussion either. This silence represents a collective failure of America's professors of colossal proportions. What could be a clearer sign of our professors' loss of understanding of the requirements of liberal education than their failure to defend liberty of thought and discussion where it touches them most directly?
Mr. Berkowitz is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
-
Free speech or the diversity of ideas is a myth on college campuses Check out the entire documentary but here is the trailer:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-zz1HwxIjg[/youtube]
Boyo
-
Boyo,
More suppression of free speech because it is not politically correct and offends some liberal students and evidently the faculty or administration have no problem with it either because I have not heard them renounce it. Nothing new of course. We continue to give it all away:
Harvard group cancels invitation to anti-immigration speaker
Was scheduled to talk at forum
‘Many are looking for answers to the illegal immigration chaos,’ said Jim Gilchrist of the Minuteman Project.
By Milton J. Valencia
Globe Staff / October 16, 2009
Less than a year after speaking at a Harvard University student conference, the head of an anti-illegal immigration movement had his invitation to speak at a similar forum tomorrow rescinded following a student uproar over his aggressive position on immigration.
Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, which sends armed civilians to patrol the Mexican border for illegal immigrants crossing into the United States, was scheduled to speak during a public interest and law conference hosted by the Harvard Undergraduate Legal Committee.
Gilchrist was slated to appear on a panel that discussed “Immigration and Its Future in America.’’
But student protests, emboldened since Gilchrist spoke at a Harvard Law School event in February, led to the cancellation of his invitation.
The Undergraduate Legal Committee released a statement that read, “Mr. Gilchrist’s participation in the conference on the behalf of the Minutemen Project was not compatible with providing an environment for civil, educational, and productive discourse on immigration, and we cannot host him at this time.’’
A representative from the group would not elaborate on the statement.
Gilchrist could not be reached for comment, but said in a statement on his website that the protests came from only a few and that “the minute they received threats from fellow students these pre-law students shied away from defending free speech.’’
“That future graduates of the most renowned university in the world are literally afraid to support the very cornerstone of the foundation of our nation, namely ‘free speech,’ ought to frighten anyone looking to America as the beacon of liberty, freedom, and justice for all,’’ he said.
Gilchrist seemed to be looking forward to tomorrow’s conference and had solicited funds for the trip.
“Believe me, in these turbulent times many are looking for answers to the illegal immigration chaos,’’ he said in an earlier statement. “Not just the man on the street, but all the way up through the nation’s Ivy League schools.’’
A former Marine and journalist, Gilchrist has run into protests before. He was attacked in 2006 while speaking at Columbia University.
The incident spurred national debate on free speech as well as immigration, while many condemned the violent protests.
He formed what he calls the “multi-ethnic’’ Minuteman Project in 2004, saying he was frustrated with the nation’s failure to enforce immigration laws, and has participated in academic panels, given countless interviews, and has been published in legal journals.
But his hard-line anti-immigration stance has met much opposition, centering on the arming of civilians enforcing federal laws - referred to by many as vigilantes - and the group’s animosity toward immigrants, particularly Mexicans.
Gilchrist’s participation in a Harvard Law School Journal on Legislation panel in February prompted the head of the American Immigration Lawyers Association to withdraw from the event, saying in a letter that, “I draw the line . . . at debating or appearing with members of known hate groups, and those who advocate violence whether explicitly or implicitly.’’
Kyle de Beausset, an undergraduate student and migrant advocate, who was one of the original Harvard protesters, said yesterday that Gilchrist’s removal will allow discussions to move toward policy, rather than animosity.
“It’s a victory for people who are trying to get hate out of the immigration debate,’’ he said. “There’s a difference between having views, and hate speech.’’
Beausset said more students have been alerted to the group’s stance since the arrest in June of a woman with ties to the Minuteman Project.
Shawna Ford and two others allegedly shot and killed a father and son, and wounded the mother in a robbery that Beausset said was to “finance her nativist activism.’’
He said the episode showed the extremes to which some members of the movement will go.
“I’m concerned about the broader national implications of legitimizing these extremist views with the Harvard name,’’ he said in a letter to fellow students.
Milton Valencia can be reached at mvalencia@globe.com.
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.
-
Good post ccp. I believe footage of Gilchrist's 2006 appearence actually made it into the documentary.The really telling part is the handling of a conservative muslim on a campus (in Tenn. I believe) that wrote an editorial challenging the student gov't selections of guest speakers.He wanted more consevatives ,OOPS. :roll:
Boyo
-
Sweden Democrat leader reported for 'hate speech'
Published: 20 Oct 09 11:50 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/22762/20091020/
An opinion piece by Sweden Democrat leader Jimmie Åkesson in which he labels Muslims a major threat has been reported to Sweden's highest legal official by the Centre Against Racism (Centrum Mot Rasism). The anti-racism organization called on the Chancellor of Justice (Justitiekanslern - JK) to examine whether claims made by the head of the far-right party were tantamount to agitation against an ethnic group (hets mot folkgrup).
Åkesson's article, published in Aftonbladet on Monday, has provoked a furious reaction following the Sweden Democrat chief's assertion that the spread of Islam represents the country's "greatest external threat since World War II".
"We are of the view that the article agitates against Muslims when it points at Islam as the greatest threat to Sweden," said Mariam Osman Sherifay, head of the organization and Social Democrat politician, to the TT news agency.
Osman Sherifay was also highly critical of Aftonbladet's decision to print the article, a move she said was out of step with established journalistic standards.
"The newspaper is giving the Sweden Democrats space that they don't deserve. The fact that they're racists is not news. Aftonbladet could instead have examined the party's views," she said.
Osman Sherifay's political rivals, the conservative Christian Democrats -- currently the smallest of the four parties in the governing centre-right coalition -- were also quick to shoot down Åkesson's comments.
"My understanding of media reports from the weekend's Sweden Democrat conference was that they wanted to broaden the party and show that they have more strings to their bow than just xenophobia," said party leader Göran Hägglund in a written comment to The Local.
"But when they formulate this opinion piece all we get once again are sweeping accusations portraying an ethnic group as a threat, all of which is based on facts that are dubious to say the very least."
Tempers have flared between the two parties in recent months as the battle heats up for the conservative vote. A number of opinion polls have indicated that the Sweden Democrats are closing in on the four percent threshold necessary for representation in the Riksdag as the Christian Democrats struggle to keep their heads above water.
Relations between the two reached perhaps their lowest ebb during the summer when the Christian Democrat leader accused the Sweden Democrats of failing to shake off their Nazi past. But this didn't stop Åkesson from weighing in recently on Hägglund's side as the latter slammed Sweden's "cultural elite" for their purported antipathy towards "regular people".
But Hägglund, who has called on the established parties to tackle the Sweden Democrats head on, was keen to reiterate his view that the Christian Democrats have little in common with their challengers from the far-right.
"Theirs is a viewpoint that places the value of human life on a scale. Some are worth more than others. The way their party views human life is light years away from both my own view and that of my party," he said.
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=22762&print=true
-
Official: Danish police stop attack on cartoonist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That peaceful religion of peace is at it again:
Official: Danish police stop attack on cartoonist
By JAN M. OLSEN, Associated Press Writer Jan M. Olsen, Associated Press Writer 4 mins ago
COPENHAGEN – Police foiled an attempt to kill an artist who drew cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad that sparked outrage in the Muslim world, the head of Denmark's intelligence service said Saturday.
Jakob Scharf, who heads the PET intelligence service, said a 28-year-old Somalia man was armed with an ax and a knife when he attempted to enter Kurt Westergaard's home in Aarhus shortly after 10 p.m. (2100 GMT) on Friday.
The attack was "terror related," Scharf said in a statement.
"The arrested man has according to PET's information close relations to the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab, and al-Qaida leaders in eastern Africa," he said.
Scharf said without elaborating that the man is suspected of having been involved in terror related activities during a stay in east Africa. He had been under PET's surveillance "although this has no connection with cartoonist Kurt Westergaard," he said.
Police shot the Somali man in a knee and a hand, authorities said. Preben Nielsen of the police in Aarhus, where the attack took place, said the suspect was seriously injured but his life was not in danger.
The Somalia man, who had a staying permit in Denmark, was to be charged Saturday with attempted murder for trying to kill Westergaard and a police officer, Scharf said.
It was unclear whether the suspect managed to actually get inside the home of the 75-year-old cartoonist in Denmark's second largest city.
Westergaard, who had his 5-year-old grandson on a sleepover, called police and sought shelter in a specially made safe room in the house, Nielsen said. Police arrived two minutes later and tried to arrest the assailant, who wielded an axe at a police officer. The officer then shot the man.
Westergaard was "quite shocked" but was not injured, Nielsen said.
Westergaard remains a potential target for extremists nearly five years after he drew caricatures including one of the Prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban.
The drawings printed in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten daily in 2005, triggered an uproar a few months later when Danish and other Western embassies in several Muslim countries were torched by angry protesters who felt the cartoons had profoundly insulted Islam.
Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.
Westergaard, whose provocative cartoon thrust Denmark into the midst of an international crisis, has been exposed to death threats and an alleged assassination plot.
Throughout the crisis, then-Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen distanced himself from the cartoons but resisted calls to apologize for them, citing freedom of speech and saying his government could not be held responsible for the actions of Denmark's press.
-
http://thenextweb.com/2010/01/05/google-blocking-negative-search-recommendations-islam/
I lack the google-fu to really follow this; anyone else?
-
Counterterrorism Blog
Google and the Problem with al-Manar
By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross
UPDATE, 4/12/2006, 11:09 A.M.: Video clips from the CD-ROM that accompanies Avi Jorisch's Beacon of Hatred are available at this website. It is worth visiting to get a sense of the kind of propaganda that al-Manar regularly broadcasts.
Last Thursday, my colleague Olivier Guitta noted that Google carries the Hizballah-run al-Manar as one of the sources in its news section. (See this link, showing that al-Manar is still featured in Google News.) Questions have been raised in the past about the criteria used for selecting Google News sources. For example, there is a 2005 post by Michelle Malkin noting that her website and Little Green Footballs were rejected as news sources, while Democratic Underground and the malicious uruknet.info were included. What is clear, though, is that the Google team believes -- rightly -- that it confers a degree of prestige upon those websites that it chooses to include in its Google News feed. That is why Google's selection of al-Manar as a news source is disturbing.
Guitta noted that al-Manar was placed on Treasury's list of Specially Designated Global Terrorist entities and that al-Manar has also been banned in France. But to understand why Google's use of al-Manar as a news source is disturbing, it's necessary to look beyond the mere fact of its designation and understand the kind of propaganda that al-Manar is known for disseminating. The definitive study on al-Manar, Beacon of Hatred: Inside Hizballah's al-Manar Television, was written by Avi Jorisch and published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in 2004. The research performed for the monograph was extensive: Washington Institute staff recorded and analyzed hundreds of hours of primetime al-Manar programming, and Jorisch conducted a number of interviews at al-Manar's headquarters in Lebanon, as well as at the offices of other Lebanese TV stations and al-Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar.
Jorisch's study makes clear that al-Manar views its mission as propagandizing for Hizballah and promoting violence against the United States and Israel. Hizballah has openly called for violence against American forces in Iraq, and al-Manar's programming has accordingly incited violence and hatred toward Americans. Among many examples, Jorisch's description of a music video was particularly interesting:
Al-Manar has also broadcast explicit calls for acts of resistance against U.S. forces in Iraq. One video lambastes U.S. troops in Iraq with the following lyrics: "Down with the mother of terrorism! America threatens in vain, an occupying army of invaders. Nothing remains but rifles and suicide bombers." The video ends with an image of a suicide bomber's belt detonating.
Al-Manar also calls for the destruction of Israel. One video featuring Hizballah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah makes this desire crystal clear:
In it, he challenges fellow Arabs to account for what they have personally done to liberate Palestine and Jerusalem. Population figures for each Arab country are listed, and the video ends with big letters that read, "Population of the Arab world: 300 million Arabs. Occupied Palestine: 5 million Jews. What are you waiting for?" The clear message to viewers is that the Arab world should encounter no difficulty in destroying Israel through sheer numbers alone.
Al-Manar consistently supports acts of terror against Israelis. The programming frequently praises suicide bombers, and indeed, Jorisch writes that "station officials maintain that one of al-Manar's aims is to promote suicide missions. The station also strives to ensure that the families of suicide bombers know that they will be compensated for their loss."
Nor is this advocacy of violence limited to Israelis: Many al-Manar guests portray all Jews as part of a sinister conspiracy to dominate the world. As Sheikh Taha al-Sabounji, the head mufti of northern Lebanon, said on al-Manar: "Judaism is a project against all humanity. It is about time the world understands this. Those who are fighting Israel are not just defending themselves; they are defending the whole world. They are protecting all the future generations of humanity. If they don't believe this, then they should read in the Jewish books what is written about Islam, Christianity, about Jesus and Muhammad. It's our job as Muslims to call upon the Christian world to rise up and become aware of what the Jews are doing. . . . There is no such thing as Zionism . . . . There is only Judaism." And Nasrallah stated on a diferent show, "If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."
Reasonable minds can differ about the relative merits of MichelleMalkin.com, Little Green Footballs and Democratic Underground for inclusion in Google News. But the inclusion of al-Manar -- itself a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity, and known for its unrelenting support of terror against Americans and Israelis -- is simply indefensible.
UPDATE, 3:16 P.M.: If you find the inclusion of al-Manar as a Google News source outrageous, I encourage you to send a polite but firm e-mail to source-suggestions@google.com encouraging them to remove al-Manar as a news source.
UPDATE, 5:03 P.M.: I just learned that, in refusing to list a website called Alain's Newsletter as a Google News source, the Google team explained: "We've reviewed your site and cannot include it in Google News at this time. While we make an effort to provide a well-rounded perspective on controversial topics by including sites that represent contrasting points of view, we do not include sites that contain hate speech." If Hizballah's al-Manar isn't hate speech, I don't know what is.
By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross on April 11, 2006 3:08 PM
-
Islamic Groups Lose Lawfare Attempt in Texas Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Islamic Groups Lose Lawfare Attempt in Texas Supreme Court— Free Speech Rights of Internet Journalists Upheld;
January 19, 2010
People - Joe Kaufman ANN ARBOR, MI – The Texas Supreme Court dealt another blow to Islamic organizations which use lawsuits as a form of “legal jihad” to silence public discussion of Islamic terrorist threats. On Friday, January 15, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court denied a petition for review of a Second District Court of Appeals opinion which dismissed the defamation lawsuit brought by seven Dallas-area Islamic organizations against internet journalist Joe Kaufman.
On his radio show, Mahdi Bray, head of the Muslim American Freedom Foundation, the political arm of Muslim American Society –Dallas, exhorted his radio audience of the need of Muslims to lawyer up and fund additional lawsuits. The case against Kaufman was used as the example. In fact, for the last several years, Muslim groups in the U.S. have engaged in the tactic referred to as Islamist Lawfare which uses our American laws and legal system to silence critics and promote the Islamic agenda in America.
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan acted as lead counsel for Kaufman, at no charge. The Law Center was assisted by Texas attorney Thomas S. Brandon, Jr. who acted as local counsel, and Los Angeles, CA attorneys William Becker, Jr. and Manuel S. Klausner. The Law Center’s attorney, Brandon Bolling, later moved to a for-profit law firm.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “It is gratifying to see a courageous citizen like Joe Kaufman withstand the legal intimidation of a well-financed lawsuit aimed at shutting down his right to speak out against the threats of radical Islam.”
On July 25, 2009, the Texas Second District Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that as an internet journalist Kaufman had the same procedural protections under the Texas law given to traditional electronic and print media, including the right to a pretrial appeal. [Read opinion] Accordingly, Kaufman had the same right to appeal the lower court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the frivolous libel claim before a time-consuming and expensive trial. Most parties have to wait until after a trial before they can appeal an unfavorable lower court ruling.
As a full-time investigative reporter, Kaufman has written extensively on Radical Islamic terrorism in America. He was sued because of his September 28, 2007 article titled “Fanatic Muslim Family Day” published by Front Page Magazine, a major online news website. Kaufman’s article exposed the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Islamic Association of Northern Texas (IANT) ties to the radical terrorist group Hamas.
Kaufman’s article called ICNA a radical Muslim organization with ties to Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Kaufman, ICNA is an umbrella organization for South Asian-oriented mosques and Islamic centers in the United States created as an American arm of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) of Pakistan.
Significantly, neither ICNA nor IANT, which were mentioned in Kaufman’s article, sued Kaufman. It is speculated they were afraid of being subjected to pretrial discovery depositions. On the other hand, none of the seven plaintiffs that sued Kaufman were even mentioned in his article.
The seven Islamic organizations that sued Kaufman are the Islamic Society of Arlington, Texas, Islamic Center of Irving, DFW Islamic Educational Center, Inc., Dar Elsalam Islamic Center, Al Hedayah Islamic Center, Islamic Association of Tarrant County, and Muslim American Society of Dallas. All are affiliated with CAIR, one of the unindicted co-conspirators in the successful federal prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation.
This is the third straight loss for the Islamic groups in this case. After the ruling in favor of Kaufman on June 25, 2009, they asked for a reconsideration of the decision through what is known as an en banc opinion (appeal to the whole court, not just a panel of the court). The court denied that request. Last week the Texas Supreme Court also denied their request for review. However, plaintiffs can still file a petition for review with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/...asmore/pdf.pdf
-
Hat tip to GM on this:
Dhimmitude in corporate media:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/22/comedy-central-censors-all-references-to-mohammed-on-south-park/comment-page-1/#comments
-
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=313170
-
As it so often does "Day by day" leads the way with a practice run for "Draw Mohammed Day"
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2010/04/25/
-
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/04/24/comic-depictions-of-mohammed-knowing-when-to-hold-and-when-to-fold/
Comic Depictions of Mohammed: Knowing When to Hold and When to Fold
posted at 1:56 pm on April 24, 2010 by Howard Portnoy
Did you hear the latest knee-slapper about Moses? Actually, I don’t have a joke about Moses to share, though if I did and chose to, I wouldn’t need to go into hiding. If the joke were sufficiently tasteless or insulting, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League might issue a statement. Beyond that I know of no organized source or form of ritual retribution I would summarily face for my sacrilege. I wouldn’t need to live in mortal fear that some rabbi would assign a price to my head, instructing his congregants to hunt me down, machete in hand. That is because in my religion—and I suspect in yours—that just isn’t how things are done.
It’s not how they should be done in any religion, but sadly that just isn’t the world we live in.
Much has been written in recent days on the pickle “South Park” creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone put themselves in by depicting (or rather not depicting by dressing him in a bear costume) the prophet Mohammed in an episode of their popular cartoon series. By now, the absurdly over-the-top reaction of a New York-based jihadist group has been too ubiquitously documented to require reprise here.
Much of what I’ve seen in commentaries adopts the same point of view as an editorial in today’s New York Post titled “Cowardly Central.” The bottom line of the editorial is summed up in a single, closing sentence: “And until the West decides—culturally and collectively—not to take it any longer, it’s only going to get worse.”
The general point is hard to dispute. Behind it is the attitude—in a very real sense it was a warning—that we Americans conveyed in the days and weeks after 9/11 by flying the American flag and displaying posters showing Old Glory and carrying the legend “These colors don’t run.”
But there is an important distinction between that situation and this one. It is one thing to stand tall and hang tough as a nation. It is quite another to do the same when you as an individual have been singled out and have a bounty on your head.
Before you exception me your exceptions, understand: I agree with the general tenet that if you give the islamist cretins an inch, they’ll take a mile, and that we should not tolerate their threats, which are little more in the end than thinly veiled excuses to kill more of us “non-believers.” They certainly needed no provocation to wantonly murder 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11, and we now know from another headline this morning that they will keep on trying with every last breath in their being.
That eventuality—a day when the last of these monstrous miscreants takes his last breath—is something to be devoutly wished for. But until it arrives, we need to do what it takes to survive—both en masse and as individuals. If that means we resist depicting their prophet, so be it. It’s a small sacrifice to make it if means living to fight another day.
It is a truism of survival that under threatening circumstances it is important first and foremost to keep you head. At this critical juncture in the lives of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, let us all pray that they are able to keep theirs.
-
As I understand the point of it, the purpose of the Draw Mohammed Day is that these two cartoonists do NOT stand alone.
-
I agree with "Draw Mohammed day". I posted the article because I liked how the author pointed out that islam alone has to threaten and murder those that refuse to live by it's theology.
-
By AYAAN HIRSI ALI
'South Park" is hilarious, right? Not any more.
Last week, Zachary Adam Chesser—a 20-year-old Muslim convert who now goes by the name Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee—posted a warning on the Web site RevolutionMuslim.com following the 200th episode of the show on Comedy Central. The episode, which trotted out many celebrities the show has previously satirized, also "featured" the Prophet Muhammad: He was heard once from within a U-Haul truck and a second time from inside a bear costume.
For this apparent blasphemy, Mr. Amrikee warned that co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone "will probably end up" like Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh, readers will remember, was the Dutch filmmaker who was brutally murdered in 2004 on the streets of Amsterdam. He was killed for producing "Submission," a film that criticized the subordinate role of women in Islam, with me.
There has been some debate about whether Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker should view the Web posting as a direct threat. Here's Mr. Amrikee's perspective: "It's not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome," he told Foxnews.com. "They're going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It's just the reality." He's also published the home and office addresses of Messrs. Stone and Parker, as well as images of Van Gogh's body.
According to First Amendment experts, technically speaking this posting does not constitute a threat. And general opinion seems to be that even if this posting was intended as a threat, Mr. Amrikee and his ilk are merely fringe extremists who are disgruntled with U.S. foreign policy; their "outrage" merits little attention.
This raises the question: How much harm can an Islamist fringe group do in a free society? The answer is a lot.
Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim first thought to have been a minor character in radical circles, killed Theo van Gogh. Only during the investigation did it emerge that he was the ringleader of the Hofstad Group, a terrorist organization that was being monitored by the Dutch Secret Service.
The story was very similar in the case of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The cartoons, drawn by Kurt Westergaard, were published in September 2005 to little notice but exploded five months later into an international drama complete with riots and flag-burnings. The man behind this campaign of outrage was an Egyptian-born radical imam named Ahmed Abu-Laban.
Prior to this conflagration, Mr. Abu-Laban was seen as a marginal figure. Yet his campaign ended up costing Denmark businesses an estimated $170 million in the spring of 2006. And this doesn't include the cost of rebuilding destroyed property and protecting the cartoonists.
So how worried should the creators of "South Park" be about the "marginal figures" who now threaten them? Very. In essence, Mr. Amrikee's posting is an informal fatwa. Here's how it works:
There is a basic principle in Islamic scripture—unknown to most not-so-observant Muslims and most non-Muslims—called "commanding right and forbidding wrong." It obligates Muslim males to police behavior seen to be wrong and personally deal out the appropriate punishment as stated in scripture. In its mildest form, devout people give friendly advice to abstain from wrongdoing. Less mild is the practice whereby Afghan men feel empowered to beat women who are not veiled.
By publicizing the supposed sins of Messrs. Stone and Parker, Mr. Amrikee undoubtedly believes he is fulfilling his duty to command right and forbid wrong. His message is not just an opinion. It will appeal to like-minded individuals who, even though they are a minority, are a large and random enough group to carry out the divine punishment. The best illustration of this was demonstrated by the Somali man who broke into Mr. Westergaard's home in January carrying an axe and a knife.
Any Muslim, male or female, who knows about the "offense" may decide to perform the duty of killing those who insult the prophet. So what can be done to help Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone?
The first step is for them to consult with experts on how to stay safe. Even though living with protection, as I do now in Washington, D.C., curtails some of your freedom, it is better than risking the worst.
Much depends on how far the U.S. government is prepared to contribute to their protection. According to the Danish government, protecting Mr. Westergaard costs the taxpayers $3.9 million, excluding technical operating equipment. That's a tall order at a time of intense fiscal pressure.
One way of reducing the cost is to organize a solidarity campaign. The entertainment business, especially Hollywood, is one of the wealthiest and most powerful industries in the world. Following the example of Jon Stewart, who used the first segment of his April 22 show to defend "South Park," producers, actors, writers, musicians and other entertainers could lead such an effort.
Another idea is to do stories of Muhammad where his image is shown as much as possible. These stories do not have to be negative or insulting, they just need to spread the risk. The aim is to confront hypersensitive Muslims with more targets than they can possibly contend with.
Another important advantage of such a campaign is to accustom Muslims to the kind of treatment that the followers of other religions have long been used to. After the "South Park" episode in question there was no threatening response from Buddhists, Christians and Jews—to say nothing of Tom Cruise and Barbra Streisand fans—all of whom had far more reason to be offended than Muslims.
Islamists seek to replace the rule of law with that of commanding right and forbidding wrong. With over a billion and a half people calling Muhammad their moral guide, it is imperative that we examine the consequences of his guidance, starting with the notion that those who depict his image or criticize his teachings should be punished.
In "South Park," this tyrannical rule is cleverly needled when Tom Cruise asks the question: How come Muhammad is the only celebrity protected from ridicule? Now we know why.
Ms. Ali, a former member of the Dutch parliament, is the author of "Nomad: From Islam to America—A Personal Journey through the Clash of Civilizations," which will be published next month by Free Press.
-
Jon Stewart on South Park
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/04/23/jon-stewart-notes-blatant-double-standard-south-park-muhammed-censor
-
Raging Muslim Students Screaming “Allahu Akbar” Assault Swedish Artist During Free Speech Lecture
(Video)
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com...lecture-video/
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 12:37 PM
Woah!… Raging Muslim students attacked artist Lars Vilks during a free speech lecture in Sweden. 15 Muslims screaming “Allahu Akbar” rushed the podium, headbutted Vilks, broke his glasses and tackled him to the floor. The whole assault was caught on tape:
Vilks has been receiving death threats since he drew an image of the prophet Mohammad with a dog’s body.
The AP and Atlas Shrugs have more on the attack:
A Swedish artist who angered Muslims by depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog was assaulted Tuesday while giving a university lecture about the limits of artistic freedom.
Lars Vilks told The Associated Press a man in the front row ran up to him and head-butted him during a lecture, breaking his glasses but leaving him uninjured. It wasn’t immediately clear what happened to the attacker.
Vilks has faced numerous threats over his controversial drawing of Muhammad with a dog’s body, but Tuesday’s incident was the first time he has been physically assaulted.
Earlier this year U.S. investigators said Vilks was the target of an alleged murder plot involving Colleen LaRose, an American woman who dubbed herself “Jihad Jane,” and who now faces life in prison. She had pleaded not guilty.
Vilks said a group of about 15 people had been shouting and trying to interrupt the lecture before the incident at Uppsala University. Many of them stormed the front of the room after the attack and clashed with security guards as Vilks was pulled away into a separate room, he said, describing the scene as “complete chaos.”
“A man ran up and threw himself over me. I was head-butted and my glasses were broken,” Vilks said before hanging up for questioning by police.
The Muslims want Lars Vilks dead because he drew this:
He drew the Prophet Mohammad with a dog’s body. Now, he must die.
UPDATE: Zombie has background on the “roundabout dog.”
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com...lecture-video/
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZw7ps886aI&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZw7ps886aI&feature=player_embedded
-
Hmm, I guess I failed as my effort was more of a pictogram:
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1037.msg37284#msg37284
-
Spot the offensive picture
Clarice Feldman
My online friend bgates, created this for Draw Mohammed Day and invites anyone who want to republish it.
It is right on target, I think:
(http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/spot%20the%20offensive%20picture.png)
-
Director Mueller, Say No to CAIR
A Muslim Brotherhood tentacle targets Robert Spencer.
At this point, the question about CAIR should be: Why does anyone care? Care about anything CAIR officials say, that is.
The notorious Council on American-Islamic Relations is back up to its old tricks. CAIR officials figure our ten-minute attention span has lapsed, and that we’ve probably forgotten by now that, in the 2007–08 prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) — a case in which several Islamists were convicted in a scheme that poured millions of dollars into the coffers of the terrorist organization Hamas — CAIR was named as, and shown to be, an unindicted co-conspirator. CAIR reckons that the heat is off, so it’s back on the “Islamophobia” soapbox, demanding an apology from FBI director Robert Mueller.
An apology for what? The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces had the temerity to invite Robert Spencer — one of the nation’s leading experts on Islamist ideology — to lecture federal agents on Islamist ideology.
Spencer’s lecture departed from the government’s “religion of peace” dogma, which holds that there is no Islamist aggression, that there is no civilizational jihad to destroy the West from within (never mind that CAIR’s progenitor, the Muslim Brotherhood, has bragged about its “sabotage” campaign), and that terrorism is not merely unconnected to Islam but, in fact, is anti-Islamic. According to this thinking, Islamist groups like CAIR have a monopoly on what Americans — including American law-enforcement and intelligence agents — are permitted to hear about Islam from academic, media, and government sources. No dissenting views are permitted, no matter how steeped the dissenters may be in Islamic doctrine and no matter how much these dissents accord with what your lyin’ eyes are seeing.
“When I speak with the American,” said Nihad Awad, “I speak with someone who doesn’t know anything.” Awad is now CAIR’s executive director. He made this statement at a Marriott Hotel in Philadelphia on Oct. 27, 1993, when he was the public-relations director for the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). He and about two dozen other Islamist activists were meeting to brainstorm about how they might be able to continue supporting Hamas and to derail the Oslo Accords — the Clinton administration’s effort to bring a peaceful, two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
For Hamas supporters, there can be no peaceful two-state solution, because they deny Israel’s right to exist. That is why, to this day, the charter of Hamas (which was established at the start of the intifada in the late Eighties) calls for the elimination of Israel by violent jihad. But in 1993, the United States was cracking down on Hamas. It would soon be designated a terrorist organization, and providing material support to it would be made a crime.
The Philadelphia conferees realized they were “marked” men, as one of them put it. Omar Ahmad, then the IAP president and Nihad Awad’s boss, openly worried about U.S. government surveillance, counseling his confederates to use the inversion “Samah” in their conversations to avoid uttering the word “Hamas.” As it happened, the FBI was secretly bugging the meeting. It was thus able to record Ahmad calling himself “Omar Yahya,” the better to conceal his identity from Bureau snoops.
When later compelled to testify about the meeting, Ahmed said he couldn’t recall being in Philadelphia, though the tape captured his calling the meeting to order. Awad, too, had a bout of amnesia when asked about the meeting during a 2003 deposition. But the tape showed him to have been a very active participant. When he gave his cohorts the aforementioned advice about American ignorance, his point was that we are easy for Islamists to deceive. Speaking with Americans was different, he posited, from communicating with “the Palestinian who has a martyr brother or something.” A “martyr,” of course, is one who gives his life (often by suicide bombing) in the terror campaign against Israel.
Elaborating on the communications point, Omar Ahmad observed, “There is a difference between you saying, ‘I want to restore the ’48 land,’ and when you say, ‘I want to destroy Israel.’” If you confined yourself to saying the former, Palestinians would understand that you meant the latter, while unwary Americans would figure you were just making a political statement. Similarly, Ahmad suggested saying, “Yasser Arafat doesn’t represent me, but Ahmed Yassin does.” Palestinians would understand that this meant one was a supporter of Hamas (which Yassin founded), while clueless Americans would be in the dark.
Shukri Abu Baker, the HLF leader and a friend of Awad and Ahmad, concurred in that sentiment. The Islamists were at war, he reminded his confederates, and the prophet Mohammed had counseled that “war is deception.”
Deception is CAIR’s métier. It was created precisely because the marked men at the Philadelphia meeting realized they needed a new vehicle: one that was not tainted by a prior history of Hamas support, one that had media savvy, and one that could set up shop in Washington and portray itself as a “civil rights” organization rather than just another Islamist mouthpiece. In America, when lobby groups complain that someone’s civil rights have been violated, opinion elites take notice.
At the Philadelphia meeting, Ahmad complained, “We don’t have influence over the Congress.” The organization he envisioned would accrue political influence “by infiltrating the American media outlets, universities, and research centers.”
CAIR was formed the following summer, with Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad sliding over from IAP to run it.
There should have been no question, though, about where CAIR was coming from — even for unwary Americans. The IAP had been started by Mousa abu Marzook, the leading Muslim Brotherhood figure in the United States, and Sami al-Arian, a Brotherhood operative who went on to become a top leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, another terrorist organization. When Israel apprehended Yassin, Marzook succeeded him as the head of Hamas, running the organization from his Virginia home until he was deported in 1994. Meanwhile, al-Arian turned his teaching perch at the University of South Florida into a PIJ outpost; in 2006, he was finally convicted of conspiring to support a designated terrorist organization.
Under Marzook, the IAP anchored the Palestine Committee. This committee was established by the Muslim Brotherhood to “increase the financial and moral support for Hamas.” At the HLF trial, an internal Muslim Brotherhood report, dated July 30, 1994, identified CAIR, along with the IAP, the HLF, and another Marzook creation, the United Association for Studies and Research, as members of the Palestine Committee. Ghassan Elashi, one of the defendants convicted for using HLF to underwrite Hamas’s terror war, had run an IAP office in California before starting CAIR’s chapter in Texas.
Elashi is just one example of a CAIR figure either convicted or deported as a result of terrorism investigations. There have been several others.
To no one’s surprise, CAIR vigorously opposed al-Arian’s prosecution and Marzook’s deportation, calling the latter “anti-Islamic” and “un-American.” As Daniel Pipes recounts, CAIR also referred to the terrorism conviction of Omar Abdel Rahman (the “Blind Sheikh” behind the cell that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993) as a “hate crime.” When Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1998 and then bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, a Los Angeles billboard called him “the sworn enemy”; and CAIR demanded the billboard’s removal, calling it “offensive to Muslims” while denying bin Laden’s responsibility for the embassy attacks.
CAIR’s purpose is to further what the Muslim Brotherhood calls its “grand jihad” to destroy America from within. That is why it is consistently a cheerleader for Islamist terrorists and a thorn in the side of American national security, opposing every sensible measure to protect our homeland.
“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” Ahmad is quoted as saying in 1998. “The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”
A key tactic in carrying out this supremacist agenda is to suppress its critics. With their media acumen, CAIR operatives know there is nothing more debilitating for a public figure in America than to be portrayed as a racist or a bigot. Islamists have thus coined the phrase “Islamophobe” to stigmatize those who dare speak forthrightly about the extremely troubling aspects of Islamic scripture, particularly of sharia, Islam’s legal and political framework.
We are not, it bears emphasizing, speaking about people who lie about Islam or smear all Muslims as terrorists. Islamists are targeting the truth-tellers. If they can intimidate their critics into silence, they have inched yet closer to the goal of supplanting our First Amendment with their sharia, which condemns as “blasphemy” any speech or expression that casts Islam in a poor light. Blasphemy can be savagely punished — and, in contrast to the Western idea of defamation, truth is no defense.
Thus is CAIR trying to intimidate the FBI into ostracizing Robert Spencer. As he demonstrates daily at Jihad Watch, the invaluable site he founded, he is effective and immune to Islamist scare tactics. Because Spencer won’t quiet down, CAIR officials have concluded that it will be necessary to have the U.S. government silence him. They know the government, the FBI in particular, has a history of being overly solicitous toward Islamist apologists. They are banking on getting satisfaction out of Mueller, and they’ve brought out the big guns to turn up the heat. Their letter has now been signed by Grievance Industry eminence Jesse Jackson (who better to give sensitivity lessons than the guy who labeled New York City “Hymietown”?) and by such groups as the Islamic Society of North America (another unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas case, but one for which Obama-administration majordomo Valerie Jarrett nonetheless gave the keynote address at its 2009 annual convention).
If any party is owed an apology or explanation from our government, it is the American people — over the government’s courtship of CAIR. For years, even though the Justice Department was in possession of information showing the key role CAIR officials played in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas-support network, government agencies, including the FBI, continued turning to CAIR for “liaison” duties. Top brass forced our law-enforcement agents to endure CAIR-prescribed sensitivity training, and, in the case of the Department of Homeland Security, even published a CAIR press release on an agency’s taxpayer-funded website, enabling CAIR to pass itself off as a civil-rights organization. This went on until finally, following the convictions in the HLF case (to say nothing of the emerging indications that CAIR itself may be under investigation), the FBI cut off ties with the group in 2009, citing its Hamas connections. That was a stand for which Mueller won strong bipartisan praise on Capitol Hill. Here’s hoping he sticks to his guns.
— Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.
http://article.nationalreview.com/439017/director-mueller-say-no-to-cair/andrew-c-mccarthy
-
As someone who took a CAIR/USG "sensitivity" class, all I can say is it was laughable. Sadly, there are plenty of people deceived by such propaganda.
-
Koran burner Derek Fenton booted from his job at NJ Transit
By Alison Gendar, Kevin Deutsch and Pete Donohue
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Originally Published:Tuesday, September 14th 2010, 7:55 PM
Updated: Tuesday, September 14th 2010, 9:05 PM
Derek Fenton's 11-year career at the agency came to an abrupt halt Monday after photographs of him ripping pages from the Muslim holy book and setting them ablaze appeared in newspapers. Fenton, 39, of Bloomingdale, N.J., burned the book during a protest on the ninth anniversary of Sept. 11 outside Park51, the controversial mosque slated to be built near Ground Zero. He was apparently inspired by Pastor Terry Jones, the Florida clergyman who threatened to burn the Koran that day but later changed his mind.
NJ Transit said Fenton was fired but wouldn't give specifics.
"Mr. Fenton's public actions violated New Jersey Transit's code of ethics," an agency statement said. "NJ Transit concluded that Mr. Fenton violated his trust as a state employee and therefore [he] was dismissed."
Fenton was ushered from the protests by police on Saturday and questioned, but he was released without charges.
"He said, 'This is America,' and he wanted to stand up for it, in a Tea Party kind of way," a police source said. Another police source said Fenton described himself as a "loyal American" exercising his "right to protest."
But the source said Fenton looked like he was having second thoughts as he was released.
"He looked nervous, like he was starting to think it wasn't such a good idea," the police source said.
Described by neighbors as a likable family guy with two children, Fenton was an assistant train-consist coordinator, sources said - a job that entails ensuring there are enough train cars positioned to be put into service. He previously worked as an NJ Transit conductor.
Several neighbors in Fenton's town stood up for his right to express himself with flames.
"Good for him for burning the Koran," neighbor Jacqui Marquez, 40, said.
"Everybody's entitled to their opinion ... by firing him, they're sending a message that there's no freedom of speech. They're completely wrong for doing this."
"He's a family man," neighbor Randy McConnell, 43, said. "He loves his kids and he loves trains. I don't agree with what he did, but he shouldn't lose his job over it. That's his right."
If Fenton was fired for burning the Koran while off-duty, his First Amendment rights probably were violated, Chris Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union said.
"The Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to burn the flag. As reprehensible as it may be, burning the Koran would be protected as well."
=======================
Government Justice Breyer Questions Free-Speech Right to Burn Korans`
* Posted on September 14, 2010 at 12:36pm by Scott Baker
“Good Morning America” host George Stephanopoulos interviewed Justice Breyer this morning:
Last week we saw a Florida Pastor – with 30 members in his church – threaten to burn Korans which lead to riots and killings in Afghanistan. We also saw Democrats and Republicans alike assume that Pastor Jones had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans. But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on “GMA” that he’s not prepared to conclude that — in the internet age — the First Amendment condones Koran burning.
“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?”
Stephanopoulos points out that Obama and Boehner gave at least grudging affirmation that Pastor Jones had the legal right to burn a Koran. Breyer isn’t convinced:
“It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” Breyer told me. “And not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think. And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”
-
Burning an American flag is protected speech, per the SCOTUS, but a koran has a protected legal status?
-
Well, to be precise, it is an open question for him-- but you have the gist of it I think.
-
‘Draw Mohammad’ Cartoonist Goes Into Hiding at FBI's Insistence
Published September 16, 2010
| FoxNews.com
AP
May 19: Pakistani students gather to demonstrate against a Facebook page amid anger over a page on the social networking site which encourages users to post images of Islam's Prophet Muhammad, in Lahore, Pakistan.
The Seattle cartoonist whose work sparked the controversial "Everybody Draw Mohammed Page" on Facebook has gone into hiding at the advice of the FBI, the newspaper that published her comics said Wednesday.
Molly Norris has moved and changed her name following a call by U.S.-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, The Seattle Weekly said. Awlaki reportedly said she was a "prime target" for execution and that her "proper abode is hellfire."
"You may have noticed that Molly Norris' comic is not in the paper this week," the newspaper said. "That's because there is no more Molly."
"The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, 'going ghost': moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity.
"She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program -- except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab," the newspaper said.
Norris drew a cartoon in April to protest the decision by the cable TV channel Comedy Central to cancel an episode of the popular show "South Park" over its depiction of the Prophet Mohammed in a bear suit.
In her cartoon, Norris satirically proposed making May 20 "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day."
Soon after, A fan page turned up on Facebook but Norris wrote on her since-shuttered website that said she had nothing to do with it.
"I did NOT 'declare' May 20 to be 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,'" she said, adding that her idea was satire that was "taken seriously, hijacked and made viral."
"I apologize to people of Muslim faith and ask that this 'day' be called off," she said.
Islam strictly prohibits the depiction of any prophet as blasphemous and the "Draw Mohammed" page led to Facebook being temporarily blocked in Pakistan and sparked angry street protests.
In July, an English-language Al Qaeda magazine, "Inspire," in an article attributed to Awlaki, the radical Yemeni cleric, said Norris "should be taken as a prime target of assassination."
Awlaki, who is based in Yemen, rose to prominence last year after it emerged he had communicated by email with Major Nidal Hasan, a US army psychiatrist accused of opening fire on colleagues at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13.
Agence France Presse contributed to this report.
-
Well, as islam is the religion of peace, she has nothing to worry about. Anyone who says otherwise is probably just some right wing islamiphobe....
-
A Tale of Two Journalists
Molly Norris used to have a life and a career in Washington, as a cartoonist for
Seattle Weekly, an alternative paper. But not any longer. She has now -- at the
urging of the FBI -- gone underground, forfeiting her identity and her job. Is
Norris a criminal? No. She just had the poor judgment to draw a cartoon entitled
"Everybody Draw Muhammad Day," which led to the issuance of a fatwa -- or Islamic
death sentence -- against her. Perhaps she had forgotten the 11th Commandment: Make
fun of Christians and Jews all you want, but thou shall not inflame Muslim ire.
The fatwa was issued by imam Anwar al-Awlaki, a man The New York Times described in
October 2001 as "a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and
West." Al-Awlaki, who was born in the United States and headed a mosque in Virginia,
is now conducting his dirty work from a hiding place in Yemen.
Barack Obama has remained silent on this matter, conspicuously so because only
recently he lectured all of us on the freedoms afforded by this country. Of course
that was in relation to the building of the Cordoba House mosque two blocks from
Ground Zero (http://patriotpost.us/edition/2010/08/20/digest/ ). When it comes to
the injustice that has befallen an average American like Molly Norris, he has
nothing to say.
While some in the field of journalism are threatened with death for making a joke,
others are rewarded for their hatred. Recall Helen Thomas, the poster child for
women in journalism, who was canned after making incendiary comments at a conference
celebrating Jewish heritage. Thomas' statement that Jews should "get the hell out of
Palestine" (http://patriotpost.us/edition/2010/06/11/digest/#4 ) and "go home" to
Poland, Germany, America and "everywhere else" was caught on tape so that not even
leftists could defend her.
Even after her weak apology, no one would touch her with a 10-foot pole. No one,
that is, except the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Next month the
90-year-old Thomas will be given a lifetime-achievement award at CAIR's Leadership
Conference & 16th Annual Fundraising Banquet in Arlington, Virginia. Clearly, her
final flourish as a "journalist" was appreciated by someone.
-
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_region/20101001_Swedish_artist__his_Phila__speech_on_freedom_canceled_by_threat__meets_with_media.html#ixzz11DEpd8LN
-
Waiting for the vast majority of peaceful muslims to take to the streets to voice their support for the freedom of expression......
Yup, any time now.....
Hello? **tap-tap-tap** Is this thing on??........
-
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/10...est=latestnews
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/8041998/Geert-Wilders-trial-suspended-after-he-attacks-judge.html
-
STRATFOR
---------------------------
December 29, 2010
VIDEO: DISPATCH: SUSPECTED TERRORISTS ARRESTED IN DENMARK
Vice President of Tactical Intelligence Scott Stewart explains why a thwarted terrorism plot in Denmark -- in which five suspected terrorists were arrested -- appears to be a more credible threat than other recent terrorism plots.
Authorities in Denmark and Sweden arrested five men today in connection with a plot to attack a Danish newspaper office in Copenhagen that was involved in the Muhammad cartoon controversy. Unlike some other recent cases in Europe involving the arrest of terrorism suspects, this case appears to be the real deal.
Although we still have a lot of details unavailable to us concerning this case, several of those that have surfaced so far indicate to us that this cell was sincere, that it was dedicated and that is was the real deal.
Probably the first indicator that leaps out to us is that this group was looking at a reasonable and reachable target. They were going to attack this newspaper office -- it wasn't the fact that they were looking to attack every target in Copenhagen or Denmark, or even hard targets that would be difficult to attack. Recently we saw a cell taken down in the United Kingdom last week. That group of plotters was looking to hit everything in London, including hard targets like the U.S. Embassy. When we see plots like that, it indicates to us that those conducting them are inexperienced, and they are more fanciful than real threats. In addition to the fact that the target was reasonable, the means of attack was also reasonable and achievable. They weren't looking at some grandiose plot involving nuclear weapons or large explosive devices. They were going to conduct a simple armed assault on the newspaper office with the intent of killing the largest number of people possible.
Second, the cell in Denmark had already obtained weapons to conduct their attack and had them in place, and three of the members had traveled from Sweden to Denmark in pursuit of the plot. So, this plot had gone beyond the theoretical stage, and the plotters had gotten to the stage of executing it. We saw a plot last week in The Netherlands where a group of Somalis was arrested, and that plot allegedly involved the desire of the Somalis to shoot down Danish helicopters. The only problem for them is that they didn't have any missiles to shoot down the helicopters. Again, the plot wasn't very far along and the people involved in it were more amateurish (whereas the group in Denmark appears to have not only obtained the weapons, but pre-positioned men to carry out the attack).
Third, like past cases, including the case involving American David Headley, who went to Copenhagen to conduct surveillance of the Jyllands-Posten office, and an attack last year in January in which a Somali had attacked the home of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard armed with an axe and a knife, this case shows us that, Jyllands-Posten office remains a very serious target of terrorists.
As al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula said in 2010, they were not going to allow the dust to settle on the Muhammad cartoon controversy, and that those involved in the cartoons were going to continue to be targeted. This case is evidence that those threats were true.
More Videos - http://www.stratfor.com/theme/video_dispatch
Copyright 2010 STRATFOR.
-
Keep in mind that all it takes for those jihadists that have the motivation but not the skillsets or equipment is hooking up with a professional jihadist who can use them in something very lethal. The 1993 WTC attack is a good example of that.
-
While WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is celebrating his $1 million-plus book deal on a 600-acre estate and enjoying his status as a lefty fringe hero, former cartoonist Molly Norris is in hiding.
The moral of this column is that in today's world, cartoons, if they target Islam, can be more hazardous to your health than crossing the mighty U.S. government and its allies.
Swedish and Danish authorities arrested four suspected militant Islamic jihadists last week for allegedly planning a terrorist attack before this weekend. Their target was the Jyllands-Posten news bureau in Copenhagen. In 2006, the newspaper became the target of terrorist threats after it printed controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2005. Authorities say the suspects arrested planned to use the same "swarm" tactics used in the 2008 Mumbai killing spree that left at least 160 people dead.
Kurt Westergaard drew a cartoon that depicted Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban. Last January, a Somali man wielding an ax and demanding "revenge" broke into Westergaard's home. In 2009, Danish authorities arrested three men for planning to behead Westergaard.
Like Westergaard, Jyllands-Posten Editor Flemming Rose, who commissioned the cartoons, now has round-the-clock security. I asked via e-mail how many planned attacks against his paper and cartoonists have been thwarted.
Rose answered that this latest episode represents the sixth or seventh foiled attack.
In his new book, "Tyranny of Silence," Rose explains that he asked cartoonists to submit works on Muhammad in order to stand up to "my perception of prevalent self-censorship among the Danish media" on the subject of radical Islam. Now he has a target on his back.
When we met in 2008, Rose summarized what summed up "The Cartoon Crisis." "They are basically saying, 'If you say we are violent, we are going to kill you.'"
And: "If you give in to intimidation, you will not get less intimidation, you will get more intimidation."
Back to Molly Norris. In April, the one-time Seattle Weekly cartoonist made the mistake of drawing a cartoon that called for an "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day." Norris was reacting to Comedy Central's decision to censor parts of the show "South Park" that depicted a cartoon Muhammad dressed in a bear suit -- wink, wink -- lest showing an image of the prophet offend. The network also bleeped out verbal references to Muhammad.
Norris quickly renounced the idea and apologized to the Muslim community. But that didn't stop American-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki from declaring that that Norris should be "a prime target of assassination." Al-Awlaki, you may recall, has been linked to the attempted Times Square bombing, last year's failed Christmas Day bombing on a Detroit-bound plane, and the Fort Hood shootings that left 13 dead.
At the FBI's urging, Norris changed her name and wiped her identity.
As for "South Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, they didn't like Comedy Central's decision to censor their material. To their credit, they risked the wrath of extremists, who made veiled death threats against them.
But they thrive in a system that perpetuates a double standard. Stone and Parker are now working on a new Broadway musical, "The Book of Mormon." In reporting on the musical, Newsday called them "scamps" and "the wonderful troublemakers of 'South Park.'"
Those aren't the sort of terms reserved for Rose, who became something of an international pariah for doing to Islam once what Parker and Stone do regularly to devout Christians. The "South Park" guys know that they can make fun of Mormons without fear of censorship from upstairs or fatwas from abroad.
This new year will bring the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. "Since Sept. 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement," a Heritage Foundation paper reported in April. And that was before Faisal Shahzad failed to set off a car bomb in Times Square.
As for 2010, it ended with arrests in London, Denmark, Sweden and a suicide bombing in Stockholm.
We don't know the names of the intelligence operatives and law enforcement officials who saved innocent lives by uncovering and stopping these plots, but they are the unsung heroes of the last decade.
As for Assange, his leaks "have made it much harder for those who are stopping attacks to do their jobs," according to former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow. "The countries we rely on for information must increasingly be unwilling to share it with us for fear that it will be exposed in the next set of leaks. Next time an attack is successful, those who are applauding WikiLeaks today will give not a second's thought that they contributed to it."
-
The event that kicked off this thread is STILL current.
=============================
The Mohammed Cartoon Dust Has Not Settled
January 6, 2011
By Scott Stewart
When one considers all of the people and places in the West targeted by transnational jihadists over the past few years, iconic targets such as New York’s Times Square, the London Metro and the Eiffel Tower come to mind. There are also certain target sets such as airlines and subways that jihadists focus on more than others. Upon careful reflection, however, it is hard to find any target set that has been more of a magnet for transnational jihadist ire over the past year than the small group of cartoonists and newspapers involved in the Mohammed cartoon controversy.
Every year STRATFOR publishes a forecast of the jihadist movement for the coming year. As we were working on that project for this year, we were struck by the number of plots in 2010 that involved the cartoon controversy — and by the number of those plots that had transnational dimensions, rather than plots that involved only local grassroots operatives. (The 2011 jihadist forecast will be available to STRATFOR members in the coming weeks.)
Groups such as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) have gone to great lengths to keep the topic of the Mohammed cartoons burning in the consciousness of radical Islamists, whether they are lone wolves or part of an organized jihadist group, and those efforts are obviously bearing fruit. Because of this, we anticipate that plots against cartoon-related targets will continue into the foreseeable future.
A Recent Plot
On Dec. 29, 2010, authorities in Denmark and Sweden arrested five men they say were involved in planning an armed assault on the offices of Jyllands-Posten in Copenhagen. Jyllands-Posten is the newspaper that first published the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in September 2005. According to the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (known by its Danish acronym PET), three of the arrested men, a 29-year-old Swedish citizen born in Lebanon, a 44-year-old Tunisian and a 30-year-old Swedish citizen, lived in Sweden and had traveled to Denmark to participate in the plot. The other two individuals arrested were a 37-year-old Swedish citizen born in Tunisia who was detained in a Stockholm suburb and a 26-year-old Iraqi asylum seeker who was arrested in a Copenhagen suburb. The Iraqi has been released from Danish custody.
According to the PET, one of the three men who had traveled to Copenhagen, 29-year-old Swedish citizen Munir Awad, had been arrested in Somalia in 2007 and in Pakistan in 2009 on suspicion of participating in terrorist activity. When arrested in Pakistan, Awad was allegedly traveling in the company of Mehdi Ghezali, a Swedish citizen who had been released in 2004 after being held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay since 2002. Given Awad’s background, it is almost certain that he had been placed under intensive surveillance by Swedish authorities and it is likely this surveillance resulted in the unraveling of the plot.
In addition to Awad’s background, there are several other indicators that this latest plot against Jyllands-Posten was serious. First, the attack plan was reasonable, practical and achievable. The plotters sought to attack a specific target, the Jyllands-Posten offices, with an armed assault. They were not seeking to execute some sort of grandiose, fanciful attack using skills and weapons they did not possess, or to conduct attacks against targets that were too difficult to strike using their chosen method of attack. They appear to have been aware of their own capabilities and limitations and planned their attack accordingly.
This stands in stark contrast to plots like the one also thwarted in December in the Netherlands, where a group of Somalis allegedly plotted to shoot down a Dutch military helicopter but lacked even a rudimentary weapon with which to mount such an attack, much less a surface-to-air missile, the weapon of choice for anyone really wanting to bring down a helicopter. In another recently thwarted plot in the United Kingdom, the planners considered hitting pretty much every conceivable target in London, including the U.S. Embassy, Parliament, the London Stock Exchange and a host of religious and political leaders. The Copenhagen plotters were far more focused.
The PET said the group arrested in Denmark had obtained a pistol and a submachine gun equipped with a sound suppressor for use in its assault on the newspaper offices. Reportedly, the plotters were also found to possess flexible handcuffs, an indication that they may have been seeking to take hostages and create a theatrical terrorist operation to play to the world media.
In addition to conducting their preoperational surveillance, planning their operation and obtaining weapons, the plotters had also brought in a team of operatives from Sweden to assist them in implementing their plan. This indicates that the operation was likely in the later stages of the terrorist attack cycle and was close to being executed. Even though it appears that Swedish and Danish authorities had the plotters under close scrutiny, had the attack been launched against unsuspecting security at the Jyllands-Posten offices, it would have had a fairly good chance of creating considerable carnage and terror.
History of Plots
The cartoons received very little notice after their initial release by Jyllands-Posten in September 2005. It was not until early 2006 that a group of Muslim clerics traveling through the Middle East brought attention to the issue in a deliberate effort to stir up emotions. Those efforts were successful in fomenting a violent, if somewhat belated, reaction. In early February 2006, Danish and Norwegian embassies and consulates were attacked in Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria and Indonesia. In Damascus, rioters set fire to the Danish and Norwegian missions, and in Beirut the Danish Embassy was burned. At least nine people died when protesters tried to storm an Italian Consulate in Libya while protesting the cartoons.
The furor diminished to a low boil but did not go away. In addition to calls by Muslims to boycott Danish goods, a Swedish newspaper published yet another cartoon of Mohammed, once again stoking the fires. In September 2007, Omar al-Baghdadi, then leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, offered a $100,000 reward for killing Lars Vilks, a Swedish artist who drew the August 2007 cartoon in which the Prophet Mohammed was portrayed as a dog. In a March 2008 audiotape, a speaker purporting to be al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden threatened to conduct attacks in Europe because of the drawings. According to bin Laden, drawing cartoons of the Prophet was even more provocative than killing Muslim civilians.
On June 2, 2008, the Danish Embassy in Islamabad was attacked in a suicide vehicle bombing. Before the attack, the Danes had drawn down their embassy staff in Islamabad and, recognizing that their embassy was not very secure, had ordered the Danish staff remaining in Islamabad to work out of hotels. This move undoubtedly saved lives, as the bombing killed only a handful of people, mostly Pakistani Muslims.
But militants were clearly trying to take their retribution for the cartoons to Denmark itself. Following the October 2009 arrest of U.S. citizen David Headley, American officials learned that Headley, who had conducted preoperational surveillance for the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, had also been dispatched to conduct surveillance in Denmark.
According to a complaint filed in federal court, the U.S. government determined that the Kashmiri militant group Harkat-ul-Jihad e-Islami (HUJI) had ordered Headley to travel from Chicago to Copenhagen on two occasions to plan attacks against Jyllands-Posten and cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in what HUJI called “Operation Mickey Mouse.” Westergaard is a Jyllands-Posten cartoonist who drew one of the original batch of 12 Mohammed cartoons in 2005. In Westergaard’s cartoon, the Prophet’s turban was depicted as a bomb, which caused the drawing to elicit a stronger reaction than the other cartoons. In January 2009, Headley conducted surveillance of the Jyllands-Posten offices in Copenhagen and Aarhus, Denmark. He then traveled to Pakistan, where he met with his HUJI handlers to brief them on the findings of his surveillance and to formulate an attack plan. Headley traveled back to Copenhagen in August 2009 to conduct additional surveillance (presumably to address issues that arose during the operational planning session in Pakistan). During this second trip, Headley made some 13 additional videos and took many photos of the potential targets and the areas around them. It is suspected that some of the observations, photographs and video recordings may have been used in planning some of the subsequent attacks against Jyllands-Posten and Westergaard.
Plots pertaining to the cartoon controversy in 2010 include:
On Jan. 1, a Somali man reportedly associated with the Somali jihadist group al Shabaab broke into Westergaard’s home armed with an axe and knife and allegedly tried to kill him. Westergaard retreated to a safe room and the assailant was shot and wounded by police.
On March 9, seven people were arrested in Ireland in connection with an alleged plot to kill cartoonist Lars Vilks. The group was apparently implicated with American Colleen LaRose (aka Jihad Jane) and included a second American woman, Jamie Paulin-Ramirez.
On May 11, Lars Vilks was assaulted as he tried to give a presentation at Uppsala University in Sweden. On May 14, Vilks’ home was the target of a failed arson attack.
On Sept. 10, a Chechen man was injured when a letter bomb he was assembling detonated prematurely inside a Copenhagen hotel bathroom. The letter bomb, which featured a main charge comprised of triacetone triperoxide and contained small steel pellets, was intended for Jyllands-Posten.
On Dec. 11, an Iraqi-born Swedish citizen detonated a poorly constructed explosive device in his car and then detonated a suicide vest, killing himself. The man had sent a warning email expressing anger over the Lars Vilks cartoon as well as the presence of Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan.
Cartoonists Remain in the Crosshairs
In July 2010, AQAP released the first edition of its English-language magazine Inspire. One of the articles in that issue was written by the American-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who wrote, “If you have the right to slander the Messenger of Allah, we have the right to defend him. If it is part of your freedom of speech to defame Muhammad it is part of our religion to fight you.” He added: “Assassinations, bombings, and acts of arson are all legitimate forms of revenge against a system that relishes the sacrilege of Islam in the name of freedom.” Al-Awlaki also referred to a 2008 lecture he gave regarding the cartoon issue titled “The Dust Will Never Settle Down” and noted that, “Today, two years later, the dust still hasn’t settled down. In fact the dust cloud is only getting bigger.”
The first edition of Inspire also featured a “hit list” that includes the names of people like Westergaard and Vilks who were involved in the cartoon controversy as well as other targets such as Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who produced the controversial film Fitna in 2008; Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote the screenplay for the movie Submission (filmmaker Theo van Gogh, the director of Submission, was murdered by a jihadist in November 2004); and Salman Rushdie, author of the book The Satanic Verses.
The van Gogh murder demonstrated that such targets were vulnerable to attack — and not just by highly skilled transnational operatives. They were also potential victims of grassroots jihadists using readily available weapons in relatively simple attacks. The January 2010 attack against Kurt Westergaard using an axe and knife underscored this point. In light of the events of 2010, al-Awlaki’s boasts ring true. The dust kicked up over the cartoon issue has not settled — and there is no indication it will any time soon.
-
"Our man formerly in Iraq" comments:
=========================
I figure within a month or two Chesser will be getting passed around the prison in a sex for cigarettes program.
Man who threatened 'South Park' creators gets 25 years in prison
www.cnn.com
A 21-year-old man who admitted posting online threats against the creators of the animated TV series "South Park" was sentenced Thursday to 25 years in prison...
-
Yup.
-
Peter King vs. Eric Holder
Why did the Justice Department never indict CAIR?
The clock is ticking for Eric Holder. On Monday, Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) sent the attorney general a letter asking why the Justice Department declined to prosecute the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim-American organization, in a recent antiterrorism case. He gave Holder until April 25 to respond.
In United States v. Holy Land Foundation — which was ultimately decided in November 2008 — the U.S. attorney’s office in Dallas, Texas, listed CAIR as an “unindicted co-conspirator” with the Holy Land Foundation, a now-defunct fundraiser for the terrorist group Hamas. Citing wiretaps from a 1993 Philadelphia conference among several Muslim groups, the attorney’s office argued that CAIR and its founder, Omar Ahmad, “discussed . . . redefining the perception of the sub-organizations due to their work for the Palestinian cause, and the legal hurdles the [Muslim] Brotherhood faced when raising funds for Hamas and other Palestinian causes or when taking orders from overseas leaders.”
King claims to have sources who know why the Justice Department never indicted CAIR or Ahmad. “I have been reliably informed that the decision . . . was usurped by high-ranking officials at Department of Justice headquarters over the vehement and stated objections of special agents and supervisors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as the prosecutors at the U.S. attorney’s office in Dallas, who had investigated and successfully prosecuted the Holy Land Foundation case,” King wrote. “Their opposition to this decision raises serious doubt that the decision not to prosecute was a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”
After King released his letter, however, bloggers questioned the accusation. Politico’s Josh Gerstein reported that the George W. Bush administration also neglected to prosecute CAIR. “The decision not to indict CAIR came in 2004 as prosecutors in Dallas were preparing to seek an indictment of the Holy Land Foundation and five of its officials,” Gerstein wrote. “Some prosecutors wanted to include CAIR and others in the case at that time. However, senior Justice Department officials elected not to, [a source of Gerstein’s] said.”
Ron Kampeas, chief of the Washington, D.C., bureau at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, raised doubts about King’s allegations as well. He quoted from district judge Jorge Solis’s opinion, which argued that there was no “legitimate government interest that warrants publicly identifying CAIR and 245 other individuals and entities as unindicted co-conspirators.” The main reason the government had done so, Kampeas argued, was to increase the pool of evidence it could use to convict its main target, the Holy Land Foundation.
But that’s a selective reading of the decision, King says. The judge “went on to say the government had produced ample evidence” that CAIR was linked to the Holy Land Foundation, King tells National Review Online. Indeed, Solis wrote, “The four pieces of evidence the government relies on . . . do create at least a prima facie case as to CAIR’s involvement in a conspiracy to support Hamas.” Solis may not have seen a reason for the government to publicly disclose its suspicions of CAIR and thus besmirch the group’s reputation without the opportunity of a trial. But he also saw reason for the government to be suspicious.
King continues: “In this case, the prosecutors on the case who were dealing with it most closely wanted to proceed and they weren’t allowed to. The people working on the case thought they had enough for a conviction. If they believed an indictment was likely and a conviction was likely, what possible reason did the Justice Department have to overrule them?”
Politics, the congressman surmises. “We have probably the most liberal attorney general we have ever had,” he says. “From the day he came into office, he was talking about investigating CIA interrogators and holding 9/11 trials in New York, and even when he was forced to reverse himself, he made it clear he wanted trials held in New York. I would see this as being just a very dug-in liberal ideology on Holder’s part.”
And the pushback he’s gotten is just standard liberal fare, King believes. “There’s no doubt that radical Islamists in this country have become a protected force,” he tells NRO. “All of the radical Muslim groups such as CAIR, their allies in the media, and liberals in general have just rallied to the their defense.” If King had made similar charges about a right-wing Christian group, “there’d be either silence or encouragement” from the left.
But is the Left merely defending a politically unpopular minority? King has his doubts. “I think the fight against terrorism is somehow perceived as a Bush/Cheney thing,” he muses. “The New York Times trips over itself defending [radical Islamists]; they have visions of McCarthyism. They have all these right-wing scare scenarios. I went through the whole thing with my first radicalism hearing and I dare to say it’s probably rooted in some liberal psychological disorder.”
The congressman is sticking to his guns. His hearings on Muslim radicalization are going “to continue so long as I’m chairman.” And if Holder doesn’t respond to his letter, then, “I’ll probably discuss it with Lamar Smith [chairman of the House Judiciary Committee]. I’m serious about it, so we’ll decide. We’re certainly not going to let this hang around.”
So King soldiers on. He expects to hold his next two hearings on foreign money coming into American mosques. In July, he plans a hearing on terrorist group al-Shabab’s efforts to recruit young Muslim men in Minneapolis.
“It’s time for the American people to be aware of how real the issue is,” King explains. “Eric Holder needs to be more serious about prosecuting radical Islamist groups. Hopefully my hearings will put more pressure on him to take the issue seriously.”
— Brian Bolduc is a William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review Institute.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/265576/peter-king-vs-eric-holder-brian-bolduc
-
2nd post:
Defending the Constitution, and the Right to Be a Jerk
by Doug Bandow
This article appeared in The Forbes on April 25, 2011.
Terrorism may pose the greatest threat currently facing America. Not the possibility of being killed in a terrorist attack. Rather, the possibility of losing basic constitutional liberties.
Freedom is inconvenient. We all want the right to do as we please, but we hate it when other people do as they please. Free speech is fine, unless we disagree with the message. Everyone should be able to protest, unless we don't like their viewpoint. Spout the conventional wisdom, and few people get upset. Challenge the status quo, and public outrage results.
This is why freedom of expression and religion require constitutional protection. Freedom of conscience goes to the core of the human person. If this most basic liberty is not protected, then no freedom is likely to be secure. The power to curb expression must be put beyond transient political majorities.
]e cannot take our liberties for granted. We must guard them jealously...
Observed Glenn Greenwald: "The whole point of the First Amendment is that one is free to express the most marginalized, repellant, provocative and offensive ideas. Those are the views that are always targeted for suppression. Mainstream orthodoxies, harmless ideas, and inoffensive platitudes require no protection as they are not, by definition, vulnerable to censorship."
Yet at the first sign of trouble many public officials want to close the public square.
Terry Jones is a jerk. The Gainesville, Fla., pastor recently burned a Qur'an, which triggered deadly riots by Muslims abroad. He then traveled to Dearborn, Mich., in order to protest at an Islamic facility. His permit was denied and he ended up in jail after he refused to post a bond for police protection.
Jones is an agent provocateur and publicity seeker. He is more interested in generating media attention than in provoking thoughtful debate. His actions needlessly antagonize rather than convince people. He knew great harm was likely to result from his actions. He is a jerk.
But he also has a right to protest, whether by burning a Qur'an, demonstrating in front of a mosque, or in some other non-violent way. Deny him that right, and we all lose one of our most important constitutional rights.
Last September Jones received worldwide attention when he threatened to burn a Qur'an. If an Imam in Pakistan had threatened to burn a Bible, it would have garnered no press. After all, Christians are routinely murdered and imprisoned in that nation. Bible-burning would be unexceptional.
Jones backed down after being cajoled, pressured, and begged by political, military, civic, and religious leaders across the country. But in March he claimed that he had been duped by backers of the mosque planned near Ground Zero in New York City. He went ahead with the Qur'an burning, only this time he received virtually no publicity.
That didn't stop Muslims, including America's supposed ally, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, from stoking the flames of protest abroad. On April 1 hundreds of Afghans descended on the United Nations mission in the city of Mazar-e-Sharif and murdered seven foreign employees. Protesters were also killed in Mazar and Kandahar in the south of Afghanistan. Moreover, mobs attacked Christian churches, killed Christian worshippers, and desecrated Bibles in Pakistan. The protesters demanded that Jones be arrested and executed.
After the deaths, Jones acknowledged that his action had provoked the Muslim protests. But the Qur'an burning "was intended to stir the pot," or else everyone "will stay in their complacency." He had put the Qur'an on trial, he explained: "We wanted to raise awareness of this dangerous religion and dangerous element." In response to the killings abroad, he called on the U.S. government to retaliate for the murders: "The time has come to hold Islam accountable" and to make Muslim nations "allow for individual freedoms and rights, such as the right to worship."
Efforts to subvert Jones' constitutional rights began last year, when the Gainesville city attorney began the process of changing the municipal fire code to prevent Jones from lighting his fire outside. So the pastor burned the book inside.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who passes for a liberal, suggested an exception to the First Amendment which would allow government to criminalize a Qur'an burning. There also were the usual left-wing cries of Islamophobia. After Jones's March performance, radio host Thom Hartmann suggested that Jones be"tried for treason" or prosecuted for a"hate crime."
Majority Leader Harry Reed (D-Nev.) looked moderate in comparison: "We'll take a look at this." After all, he added,"Ten to 20 people have been killed."
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — who has supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, detention policies at Guantanamo Bay, and Israeli occupation policies which all have done so much to anger Muslims worldwide — opined, "I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war." He added: "during World War II, we had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy." Never mind free speech: "Anytime we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk, we should do it."
When Jones traveled to Dearborn, Mich., to hold a protest outside of the Islamic Center of America, the local authorities complained that his rally would result in a breach of the public peace. In fact, the Wayne County prosecutor warned that if Jones held a demonstration "the greatest danger is the likelihood of a riot ensuing complete with the discharge of firearms." The city urged him to move his event away from the Center, while the prosecutor demanded a bond to arrange for police security. After Jones refused to pay, he was jailed.
All this for a rally where no Qur'an burning or anything else controversial apparently was planned.
Jones is once again a jerk. But in this case, he represents all of us. His right to free speech cannot be abrogated because there are evil people, whether half a world away or nearby, ready to murder for any excuse.
Time magazine's Joe Klein declared that "There should be no confusion about this: Jones' act was murderous as any suicide bombing." But Klein is the one who is confused. Giving offense is not the same thing as murder. Christians have had much to be offended by in recent years — remember "Piss Christ," the federally-funded "art" which involved dunking a crucifix in a jar of urine? To merely suggest that taxpayers should not have been forced to fund this creation set off an orgy of First Amendment outrage.
Even more so, Jones has the right to burn his own copy of the Qur'an as a form of symbolic speech. Over much protest, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld flag-burning as symbolic speech, ruling: "the government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." The burning of the Qur'an is no different. The question is not whether the majority believes Jones' criticisms of Islam. He has a First Amendment right to voice, and dramatically illustrate, his beliefs.
His right to hold a simple protest rally is even clearer — Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University, noted that the courts have ruled it unconstitutional for government to require the posting of a police bond. Jones cannot be held to different rules because he is Jones.
Explained Rana Elmir of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan: "As reprehensible as his beliefs may be, this is an unconstitutional attempt to limit his speech." The fee, she added, is an attempt "to put a price on free speech in anticipation of what others may do." Even the organizer of a counter-demonstration, Majed Moughni, agreed: "We think he has the right for free speech." Deny that to Jones, and the government has the power to deny it to anyone.
Ironically, the violent response to Jones's act supports his arguments. One of more than 310 million Americans burned one Qur'an. Muslim mobs in different cities and countries killed Christians and destroyed churches. As Muslim mobs did in Nigeria after a Christian was recently elected president. As Muslim mobs did in Egypt as authoritarian central rule was relaxed earlier this year. As Muslim mobs have done in response to critical cartoons, papal addresses, false reports of other Qur'an desecrations, and more.
Indeed, the fevered domestic response to Jones's plans reflects the pervasive fear that Muslims not only overseas but in America would respond with violence. What is the more basic problem? That a jerk is willing to offend others? Or that extremists are willing to kill, wound, and destroy in response?
The fear is real. In America television shows have been censored, bookstores have not stocked books, publishers have dropped cartoons, and newspaper cartoonists have gone into hiding out of fear. In Europe speech is routinely tempered and critics of Islam have been murdered, assaulted, and forced into exile.
But to allow fear to justify the abrogation of Americans' constitutional liberties would threaten what makes America worth protecting. Indeed, the First Amendment sets the U.S. apart from the rest of the world. Canada and many European nations long have sacrificed free speech to political correctness. It is a new form of tyranny, in which people cannot argue about important political, religious, moral, and cultural controversies if doing so might offend the majority or, more often, an influential minority.
Obviously, most Muslims, especially in America, do not resort to violence. But a disturbing number of people apparently believe that Islam provides a license to kill. When is the last time that the burning of a Bible or Torah set off murderous Christian or Jewish riots directed against Muslims? Equally disturbing, it is hard to find a majority Muslim nation which does not at least discriminate against religious minorities. In many, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan to Iran to Egypt — the government either engages in virulent persecution or fails to curb private violence.
Surely this subject deserves discussion. Seeking to insult and scandalize those who believe differently, through the burning of the Qur'an or otherwise, achieves nothing. But a serious debate is warranted. Obviously, there are Muslim grievances, of which U.S. foreign policy is an important one, but none of them warrants the slaughter of innocents — including religious minorities in Muslim lands who typically express the same grievances. Any serious interfaith dialogue requires discussing the worrisome relationship between Islam and violence.
Equally important, Americans must preserve their liberties. We cannot let freedom of expression become another casualty of the War on Terror, along with privacy in almost all of its forms. We must not surrender our liberties out of fear.
The danger is clear and present. Bruce Bawer wrote in Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom: So far Islamic extremists have "been less successful at rolling back freedom, including freedom of speech, in the United States than in Europe — partly because the First Amendment makes that freedom a good deal stronger in America than anywhere else on earth, and partly because Americans have traditionally possessed a deeply ingrained appreciation for their freedom that many Europeans, alas, have not."
But we cannot take our liberties for granted. We must guard them jealously, even when that means protecting the rights of jerks like Jones. For his rights are our rights and our rights are his rights. If the Constitution still means anything, it means Terry Jones is free to burn the Qur'an and demonstrate in front of a Muslim facility.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13052
-
Amen.
I note that CAIR has supported the reinstatement of an MTA (Metro Transit Authority) worker in the NYC/NJ area who lost his job for burning three pages of the Koran.
For most of us here, this is likely to be suspected of theologically blessed deception (taquiya- sp?) but nonetheless it should be noted-- at the very least so we are not thrown off guard when someone uses it as a debating point.
-
Jones is a JERK; but I too agree he should not be denied his right of free speech.
Justice Breyer disagrees. And I think it's important for this forum to hear all sides.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016378-503544.html
During an appearance on ABC's Good Morning America this morning, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer addressed the recent controversy over a Florida pastor's plan to hold a Quran-burning rally on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, saying he wasn't convinced the First Amendment would protect such an action if the case were brought to the court in the future.
"Holmes said it doesn't mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater," Breyer told George Stephanopoulos during the GMA interview, referring to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who wrote the opinion in a 1919 Supreme Court decision that addressed Freedom of Speech. "Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?"
-
Can you yell fire in a crowded theater if the theater is on fire?
-
After Breyer's sundry warblings on the second amendment his credibility on all things constitutional is shot where I'm concerned. He can divine our penumbras, but cant see black letter law.
-
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=80&load=5298
Be sensitive.
-
By GEERT WILDERS
Yesterday was a beautiful day for freedom of speech in the Netherlands. An Amsterdam court acquitted me of all charges of hate speech after a legal ordeal that lasted almost two years. The Dutch people learned that political debate has not been stifled in their country. They learned they are still allowed to speak critically about Islam, and that resistance against Islamization is not a crime.
I was brought to trial despite being an elected politician and the leader of the third-largest party in the Dutch parliament. I was not prosecuted for anything I did, but for what I said. My view on Islam is that it is not so much a religion as a totalitarian political ideology with religious elements. While there are many moderate Muslims, Islam's political ideology is radical and has global ambitions. I expressed these views in newspaper interviews, op-ed articles, and in my 2008 documentary, "Fitna."
I was dragged to court by leftist and Islamic organizations that were bent not only on silencing me but on stifling public debate. My accusers claimed that I deliberately "insulted" and "incited discrimination and hatred" against Muslims. The Dutch penal code states in its articles 137c and 137d that anyone who either "publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in any way that incites hatred against a group of people" or "in any way that insults a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their hetero- or homosexual inclination or their physical, psychological or mental handicap, will be punished."
I was dragged to court for statements that I made as a politician and which were meant to stimulate public debate in a country where public debate has stagnated for decades. Dutch political parties see themselves as guardians of a sterile status quo. I want our problems to be discussed. I believe that politicians have a public trust to further debates about important issues. I firmly believe that every public debate holds the prospect of enlightenment.
My views represent those of a growing number of Dutch voters, who have flocked to the Party for Freedom, or PVV. The PVV is the fastest-growing party in the country, expanding from one seat in the 150-seat House of Representatives in 2004, to nine seats in 2006 and 24 seats in 2010. My party's views, however, are so uncommon in the Netherlands that they are considered blasphemous by powerful elites who fear and resent discussion.
That's why I was taken to court, even though the public prosecutor saw no reason to prosecute me. "Freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society," the prosecutors repeatedly said during my trial. "That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable."
The Netherlands is one of the few countries in the world where a court can force the public prosecutor to prosecute someone. In January 2009, three judges of the Amsterdam Appeals Court ordered my prosecution in a politically motivated verdict that focused on the content of the case. They implied that I was guilty. The case was subsequently referred to the Amsterdam Court of First Instance.
The judges who acquitted me yesterday already had a peremptory ruling from the appeals court on their desk. They decided, however, to follow the arguments of the public prosecutor, who during the trial had once again reiterated his position and had asked for a full acquittal.
Though I am obviously relieved by yesterday's decision, my thoughts go to people such as Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard, Austrian human rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and others who have recently been convicted for criticizing Islam. They have not been as fortunate. In far too many Western countries, it is still impossible to have a debate about the nature of Islam.
The biggest threat to our democracies is not political debate, nor is it public dissent. As the American judge Learned Hand once said in a speech: "That community is already in the process of dissolution . . . where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists to win or lose." It has been a tenet in European and American thinking that men are only free when they respect each other's freedom. If the courts can no longer guarantee this, then surely a community is in the process of dissolution.
Legislation such as articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code disgraces our democratic free societies. On the basis of such legislation, I was prevented from representing my million-and-a-half voters in parliament because I had to be in the courtroom for several days, sometimes up to three days per week, during the past year and a half. Such legislation should be abolished. It should be abolished in all Western countries where it exists—and replaced by First Amendment clauses.
Citizens should never allow themselves to be silenced. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak.
Mr. Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and the leader of the Party for Freedom.
-
Allah akbar! :-D
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-france-arson-muhammad-20111103,0,4620865.story
but paper shows courage:
http://www.latimes.com/sns-rt-france-firemagazinel5e7m304n-20111103,0,4671429.story
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-france-arson-muhammad-20111103,0,4620865.story
but paper shows courage:
http://www.latimes.com/sns-rt-france-firemagazinel5e7m304n-20111103,0,4671429.story
If they only had concealed carry permits, those arsons could have been avoided.... :roll:
-
By ANNE JOLIS
Shortly after the death of John Paul II, French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo led with a caricature of the Pope stumbling through an empty, Heaven-free afterlife. "Hello, is anyone there?" read his speech-bubble against the darkness. There was not.
Welcome to the world of "Charlie," neither as subtle as Private Eye nor as hip as the Onion, and more scatalogical than National Lampoon ever was. If Charlie can be said to hold anything sacred, it is that nothing is sacred.
In 2001, Charlie marked 9/11 with a pornographic cartoon. A crucified and wisecracking Christ has made countless appearances over the years, as have gold-bedecked rabbis, and titans of nations and industry in various states of compromise. When Princess Diana died, the magazine offered a crack about her nose.
Charlie is also a serial depicter of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. This is the leading theory for the motive behind a firebomb attack that destroyed the paper's Paris offices last week. Charlie had been on the verge of printing a special "Shariah Weekly" edition. The cover featured Muhammad as "guest editor," assuring readers "100 lashes if you don't die laughing!" French authorities have yet to name suspects for the arson.
Separately, Turkish Muslims claimed responsibility for hacking Charlie's website last week; it stayed down for days. In a particularly cantankerous but prescient editorial in 2001, Charlie explained that it did not (then) have a Web presence because the Internet was too infested with "defectives, maniacs, fanatics, megalomaniacs, paranoiacs, Nazis, informers, who have found a means of globally diffusing their delusions, their hatreds or their obsessions." Now they're after Charlie and have also threatened the website of the daily Liberation, which has taken in the now-homeless Charlie operation.
The response in France to last week's attacks has been powerful and all but unanimous: Six months before presidential elections, politicos from every quarter of the French establishment are rushing to defend Charlie, including some who, at one time or another, have threatened the magazine with defamation suits. "All the world, all Frenchmen, must feel solidarity with this newspaper that, with its very existence and way of being, expresses the liberty of the press," said Interior Minister Claude Guéant. On Sunday hundreds of pro-Charlie demonstrators gathered outside Paris City Hall to declare their "right to blaspheme."
That's a right that arguably had its birth in the France of Voltaire, who once said the Christian faith is "without a doubt the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and the most bloody to ever infect the world." It's also a right that, in the last quarter of the 20th century, was generally taken for granted in the West.
But the right to blaspheme is under frontal assault. Writing about the attack on Charlie's offices, Bruce Crumley, Paris bureau chief for Time magazine, did nothing to hide his contempt—not for the attackers, but for the magazine itself.
"Not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish," he wrote, "but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good." James Kitfield, National Journal's security correspondent, told NPR listeners that he wished the "irresponsible" people who "do this get condemned by society for constantly provoking crises that we don't need right now." Such reactions cause one to wonder whether the deeper threat to free speech comes not from its avowed enemies but from its supposed practitioners.
The good news is that Charlie is taking all of this in stride. Its first cover since the attacks depicts a Muslim man French-kissing one of Charlie's male cartoonists. Above the pair, the headline offers the rallying cry of our liberal world: "Love is Stronger Than Hate."
Miss Jolis is an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.
-
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/12/sioa-trademark-lawsuit-geller-vs-united-states-patent-and-trademark-office-before-the-trademark-and-.html
-
Over the Line
December 8, 2011 - 3:00am
By
Scott Jaschik
In an unusual move, Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted this week to eliminate two summer school courses in economics because of anti-Muslim statements the instructor made in an op-ed published in India.
When word about the op-ed spread in July, some Harvard students demanded that Subramanian Swamy be fired. At the time, Harvard pledged to look into the situation, but noted that it is "central to the mission of a university to protect free speech, including that of Dr. Swamy and of those who disagree with him." But faculty members this week cited the nature of his statements as justifying the move to kill his courses rather than permit him to return to Cambridge.
The op-ed ran in Daily News & Analysis (and while that newspaper no longer has the piece online, it can be read here). The piece, a response to a bombing by Muslim terrorists in Mumbai, said that India could wipe out terrorism by taking certain steps, such as declaring India a Hindu state where "non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus," or demolishing mosques, or banning conversion from Hinduism to any other faith. Swamy was once an economics professor at Harvard, but he returned to his home in India, where is an outspoken nationalistic politician. But he has come back to Harvard each year to teach in the summer school.
The faculty vote on Swamy's courses came during what is typically a routine review (and approval) of the slate of summer school offerings. In this case, the faculty approved the courses only after removing the two Swamy was to have taught.
Harvard faculty meetings are closed to the press except for representatives of Harvard Magazine (the alumni publication) and The Harvard Crimson (the student newspaper). An account of the meeting in Harvard Magazine said that the economics department chair, John Y. Campbell, told the faculty that his economics colleagues considered Swamy to be "competent" to teach the courses, and that none of the students who took his courses last summer had complained about him. The only student who mentioned the op-ed in a class evaluation rated the course favorably. The department had "expressed its view that it would not take a collective position on academic freedom or on matters of speech, hate speech, or Harvard’s reputation -- issues on which there were a wide range of views, in this case, within the department," Campbell was quoted as saying.
The proposal that eventually carried -- to decline to authorize Swamy's courses -- was made by Diana L. Eck, a scholar of India's religions. According to the Harvard Magazine account, she stressed that this was much more than an issue of a professor having some controversial views. She called Swamy's views "destructive" and said that his ideas involved limiting the human rights of others and denying freedom of religion. In light of the nature of his comments, she also wondered why his courses hadn't been "quietly dropped," rather than included in the proposed offerings for the coming summer.
She also quoted from a letter she and other Harvard faculty members sent to President Drew Faust last summer. The letter said in part: "Freedom of expression is an essential principle in an academic community, one that we fully support. Notwithstanding our commitment to the robust exchange of ideas, Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the line into incitement by demonizing an entire religious community, demanding their disenfranchisement, and calling for violence against their places of worship. Indeed, India’s National Commission for Minorities has filed criminal charges against Swamy, whose incendiary speech carries the threat of communal violence. When Harvard extends appointments to public figures, it behooves us to consider whether the reputation of the university benefits from the association. In this case, Swamy's well-known reputation as an ideologue of the Hindu Right who publicly advocates violence against religious minorities undermines Harvard’s own commitment to pluralism and civic equality."
Under Harvard's governance system, the faculty vote is final, and does not require administrative approval. A spokesman for the university released only a brief statement: "Members of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences each year vote to approve or amend the course list for the Harvard Summer School. Yesterday, the faculty voted to approve the curriculum for the Summer School for the coming summer session with the exception of two courses, about which there was considerable discussion."
On his Twitter feed, Swamy said that the vote at Harvard was "nothing serious," explaining that "non-economists at Harvard don't like my views on how to protect India."
Citing Eck and a colleague who also wanted his courses dropped, Swamy also tweeted: "I have been held accountable at Harvard for what I write in India. This means India studies' [Michael] Witzel and Eck are accountable in India. Healthy?"
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has spoken out against Harvard's taking any action against Swamy on the basis of his op-ed. The organization's blog noted that Swamy's op-ed calls for radical social change in India, but FIRE noted that American principles of free expression extend to calls for radical social change. As an example, it cited the legal right for people to call for the United States to become a communist country.
"We tolerate the widest possible range of political, social, cultural, and religious views because, for one thing, we trust in the marketplace of ideas to eventually sort it all out," the blog post said.
Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/12/08/harvard-kills-courses-controversial-summer-school-instructor
Inside Higher Ed
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sharia at Harvard?
User Rating: / 2
PoorBest
Mar 14, 2008 at 01:24 AM
By Andrew G. Bostom
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, March 13, 2008
Right on the heels of Harvard’s capitulation to Sharia mores at its Quadrangle Recreational Athletic Center, the Harvard “academic” community indulged an ideologue with much grander aspirations for implementing Sharia, UCLA Professor of Law, Khaled Abou el Fadl.
My dear friend and colleague Hillel Stavis had the morbidly fascinating experience of witnessing this pseudo-academic fraud peddle his paltry wares March 5, 2008 at Harvard’s Divinity School, during a lecture entitled, non-sequitur, “Conceptualizing Islamic Theology: Sharia and Human Rights Doctrine”
Here are Hillel Stavis’ cogent first hand observations, in his own words:
Of all the evasions, obfuscations and diversions uttered by UCLA’s Professor of Law Khaled Abou el Fadl yesterday [ i.e., March 5, 2008] at the Harvard Divinity School, none was more revealing than his opening declaration that Sharia Law’s compatibility or incompatibility with human rights was wholly “vacuous” and “irrelevant”. None of the 60 or so, mostly Muslim attendees, seemed to have had a problem with this statement. The audience reaction, from both Mr. Fadl’s academic colleagues (among whom was Harvard’s Roy Mottahedeh, Gurney Professor of History, specialist in Persian history) and students was more disturbing than the actual presentation.
Professor Mottahedeh lamented the fact that Muslims have spent too much time trying to reconcile Shari’ah with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, urging the world to supplement it with the Muslim version. Of course, the former is truly universal, the latter particularistic.
And so, a Harvard tenured professor would essentially replace one with the other in a kind of perfecting process.
Nearly 5-years ago now, I warned that El Fadl’s much ballyhooed reputation as a reformer was completely unjustified. Specifically, I noted his pattern of uniformed or deliberately deceitful presentation:
Recently El Fadl elucidated his "construction" of the tolerant tradition in Islam as part of an essay collection. He focused this presentation, appropriately, on two of the most obvious challenges to any such construction, i.e. jihad, and the poll tax (jizya) levied on non-Muslims under Islamic rule. El Fadl's arguments regarding both jihad and the jizya in this essay merit close scrutiny, as these institutions are integrated into the corpus of the Shari'a, or sacred Islamic law. I believe his omissions of evidence in this essay, combined with an excessive reliance on sacralized, whitewashed historiography, refutes the prevailing notion that El Fadl is engaged in a sincere effort to instill fundamental change in Islam.
El Fadl states categorically: “..Islamic tradition does not have a notion of holy war. Jihad simply means to strive hard or struggle in pursuit of a just cause...Holy war (al-harb al-muqaddasah) is not an expression used by the Qur'anic text or Muslim theologians. In Islamic theology war is never holy; it is either justified or not...” This contention cannot be supported on either theological-juridical, or historical grounds, and in fact contradicts the conclusion of an earlier essay by El Fadl.
El Fadl's discussion of jihad is rendered meaningless by a blatant historical negationism of both Muslim and non-Muslim sources. In his analysis of the poll tax (jizya), he relies exclusively upon the sacralized early Muslim historiography of this institution. El Fadl thus attempts to uphold the "virtuous" aspects of the jizya, omitting any reference to the consistent, intentionally humiliating character of its application…El Fadl's presentation excludes discussion of how the jizya was viewed by classical Muslim jurists. There was in fact a basic consensus among the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence regarding the intimate relationship between the institutions of jihad against the infidels, and jizya. El Fadl ignores these extensive writings, and instead asserts whimsically, "…there are various indicators that the poll tax is not a theologically mandated practice, but a functional solution that was adopted in response to a specific set of historical circumstances. Only an ahistorical reading of the text could conclude that it is an essential element in a divinely sanctioned program of subordinating the non-believer."
Another important aspect of the jizya that El Fadl ignores is the widely upheld, although not unanimous view of the classical schools of Islamic jurisprudence about the "humiliating" imposition and procurement of this tax. Here is a discussion of the ceremonial for collection of the jizya by the 13th century Shafi'i jurist an-Nawawi: "…The infidel who wishes to pay his poll tax must be treated with disdain by the collector: the collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel personally must place the money on the scales, while the collector holds him by the beard, and strikes him on both cheeks…"
El Fadl also fails to discuss how the "contract of the jizyah", or "dhimma" encompassed other obligatory and recommended obligations for the conquered non-Muslim "dhimmi" peoples. Collectively, these "obligations" formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims- Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists- subjugated by jihad. Some of the more prominent features of the system of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis), and of church bells; the restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches and synagogues; the inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to overall taxation, and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; the obligation for Jews and Christians to wear special clothes; and their overall humiliation and abasement.
And I concluded with this relevant assessment:
It should be abundantly clear that Professor El Fadl's disingenuous revisionism hardly qualifies as a sincere effort to promote a meaningful Islamic "Reformation". Intended or not, his whitewashed, "ahistorical" presentation is dangerous, and serves to justify alarming contemporary Muslim assessments of dhimmitude, and its appropriate application, even today! For example, Palestinian Authority (PA) Undersecretary for Awqaf [Religious Endowment], Sheik Yussef Salamah, representing the PA at a May 1999 "Inter-Cultural Conference," in Tehran, praised the 7th century system of Ahl Al-Dhimma (i.e, the system of dhimmitude), as the proper paradigm for relations between present day Muslims and Christians 58. Palestinian Authority employee, Sheik Muhammad Ibrahim Al-Madhi later reiterated these sentiments with regard to Jews during a Friday sermon broadcasted live on June 6, 2001 on PA TV, from the Sheik 'Ijlin Mosque in Gaza:"We welcome, as we did in the past, any Jew who wants to live in this land as a dhimmi, just as the Jews have lived in our countries, as dhimmis, and have earned appreciation, and some of them have even reached the positions of counselor or minister here and there. We welcome the Jews to live as dhimmis, but the rule in this land and in all the Muslim countries must be the rule of Allah."
One needs simply to contrast El Fadl's meager revisionist approach with the unequivocal statements of a Muslim academic such as Professor Bassam Tibi. Professor Tibi possesses the insight and courage to acknowledge that a meaningfully reformed Islam must embrace the pluralistic spirit of the Western Enlightenment:
“..In the context of religious tolerance-and I write this as a Muslim- there can be no place in Europe for Shari'a …Shari'a is at odds with the secular identity of Europe and is diametrically opposed to secular European constitutions formulated by the people… I hold out for the superiority of common sense over religious faith (i.e., absolute religious precepts); individual human rights (i.e., not collective human rights); secular democracy based on the separation of religion from politics; a universally accepted pluralism; and a mutually accepted secular tolerance. The acceptance of these values is the foundation of a civil society..”
Professor Tibi's comments underscore basic truths that apologists for the Shari'a such as El Fadl refuse to acknowledge. For example, the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam maintains that the Shari'a has primacy over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and includes the specific proclamation that God has made the umma (Islamic community) the best nation, whose role is to "guide" humanity. This statement captures the indelible influence of jihad ideology on the Shari'a, rendering sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah, and the infidels. Thus we can see clearly the differences between the Shari'a-inspired Cairo Declaration, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which does not refer to any religion or to the superiority of any group over another, while stressing the absolute equality of all human beings. Indeed a Senegalese jurist (and Muslim), Adama Dieng, (then serving as secretary-general to the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists), courageously declared in 1992 that the Cairo Declaration introduced an intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women.
Subsequently, Daniel Pipes elaborated on El Fadl’s so-called “anti-Wahhabism,” which is negated by his continued apologetics for jihad terrorism, and open espousal of the implementation of Sharia in non-Muslim societies, as a leading pseudo-academic, cultural jihadist. Pipes highlighted, for example the fact that Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali (1917-96), an important 20th century Egyptian cleric, remains one of Abou El Fadl's chief intellectual influences. However, as I have noted, the “anti-Wahhabi” al-Ghazali, then an official of Al Azhar University, supported the July 1994 vigilante murder of secular Egyptian writer Farag Foda. Testifying on behalf of Farag Foda’s murderer, al-Ghazali stated, unabashedly, “A secularist represents a danger to society and the nation that must be eliminated. It is the duty of the government to kill him.”
Over fifty years ago (i.e., circa 1955), Gustave von Grunebaum (d. 1972), a major scholar of Islam, well prepared to make sound judgments on matters related to Islamic societies, issued this prescient warning based upon actually studying the writings of the Muslim ideologues of his day, including El Fadl’s ideological inspiration, Muhammad al-Ghazali. [Gustave von Grunebaum, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 1955, Vol. 14, p. 202, (Book Review of Muhammad Al-Ghazzali’s, Our Beginning in Wisdom, 1953, translated by Ismail R. al-Faruqi)]:
The political constellation of the moment which is likely to continue for some not inconsiderable length of time has induced us to envisage ourselves in a world of an “either…or.” We concern ourselves with the compatibility or otherwise of Islam with communism and regardless of the conclusion in which we acquiesce, we are apt to overlook the fact that the Muslim circles most emphatically opposed to communism are at the same time potentially if not actually the most formidable stronghold of hostility to the West. Ghazzali’s tirade against American Democracy (pp. 60-62) with its warning “against the spreading American ways,” with its condemnation of “the domestic as well as foreign policy of America” as “actually a systematic violation of every virtue humanity has ever known” should make us aware that the Muslim “extremists” will be with the West not because of any recognized affinity but merely out of momentary political considerations. Ultimately, the self-conscious world of Islam would wish to consolidate into a power center strong enough to set itself up by the side of the Russian and the Western blocks, strong enough to determine for itself what its primary political concerns should be, and strong enough perhaps to be no longer compelled to westernize for the sake of survival. The hot-headed half-truths of Ghazzali must not delude us into considering absurd the aspiration of those who feel that for its revival Islam needs less rather than more gifts of the West.
At present, more than fifty years later, the distressingly stupid leaders of our universities remain oblivious to (or if ever aware, hostile to) von Grunebaum’s profound insights, allowing post-Edward Saidian pseudo-scholars like El Fadl and Mottahedeh, to blissfully pursue their university-supported efforts aimed at “peacefully” subverting the US to Islamic Law.
Let me state bluntly, and humorlessly, I have lost all patience with such fraudulent “presentations,” and their utterly ridiculous academic patina—they are pernicious.
Mr El Fadl, and his equally deficient Harvard host Roy Mottahedeh want nothing less than for our liberal democracy to willfully impose upon itself the Ur-Fascistic totalitarianism of Sharia. Only the most empty-headed buffoons, their minds melted away by ceaselessly and uncritically imbibing the cultural relativism that prevails in our “academy,” and “public discourse,” would even begin to entertain El Fadl’s premise. And yet there he was, at Harvard, no less, espousing such hideous ideas along with the dangerously ludicrous Mr. Mottahedeh, who endorsed them.
Hillel Stavis sent me this apposite closing observation shortly after hearing El Fadl’s lecture, and the equally inane commentary of his host, Mottahedeh:
Harvard seems to have heard Mr. Mottahedeh’s message recently when it accorded exclusionary rights to Muslims by banning men from one of its gyms at designated hours to accommodate Muslim women. Given the professor’s desired trajectory of Islamic “ethics”, we might even see the ultimate penalty for apostasy applied to those foolhardy students who decide to change their religion while at Harvard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Bostom is a frequent contributor to Frontpage Magazine.com, and the author of The Legacy of Jihad, and the forthcoming The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.
-
IPT News
December 22, 2011
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3355/state-department-panders-to-islamists-on-free
The Obama administration is drawing fire for yielding what critics see as a huge propaganda victory to Islamist regimes seeking to curb American speech deemed "offensive" to Muslims.
The State Department hosted a three-day, closed-door meeting last week with representatives of the Saudi Arabia-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on measures to fight religious "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization."
In her closing remarks, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton portrayed the conference as a sign that Washington and the OIC are working together to protect religious freedom around the world.
"We have to get past the idea that we can suppress religious minorities, that we can restrict speech, that we are smart enough that we can substitute our judgment for God's and determine who is or is not blaspheming," Clinton said. "I think if we do our work right, in years to come, people will look back and say this was a great step forward on behalf of both (sic) freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and our common humanity."
But according to the Hudson institute's Nina Shea (who attended portions of the conference as an observer), the event was actually a step backward for religious liberty. The meeting seemed to be an exercise in "moral equivalency and pandering to Sunni tyrants in the Middle East," she said.
"The general theme seemed to be that the U.S. has problems just like Saudi Arabia with religious tolerance," she added. "There was a total absence of perspective on all counts."
Pointing to familiar events such the Muhammad cartoon violence, Quran burnings and Muslim objections to the film "Fitna," OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu argued that his organization regarded bigotry as a primarily Western phenomenon. He wrote that "no one has the right to insult another person for their beliefs or to incite hatred and prejudice," and that "freedom of expression has to be exercised with responsibility."
Zamir Akram, Pakistan's permanent representative of the OIC before the U.N. Human Rights Council was more emphatic. He claimed that Resolution 16/18, which expressed concern about "negative profiling" and religious "stereotyping," was driven by Western discrimination against Muslims. Akram also questioned whether Muslims engaged in discrimination, and said Muslims would not compromise on permitting "anything against the Quran, anything against the Prophet."
Given these comments – and Saudi educational materials that encourage the spread of Islam through jihad and demonize Jews, Christians and polytheists – Shea believes U.S. officials are "naïve" to think there will be reciprocity from the OIC when it comes to combating discrimination.
Despite Saudi Arabia's abysmal record of persecuting non-Muslims, the Kingdom received a note of dubious praise from the United Nations General Assembly, which on Monday passed a resolution condemning religious intolerance. According to Shea, the UNGA resolution – passed by consensus with U.S. support – singled out for praise a single program: A Saudi-built "religious dialogue" center in Vienna, Austria.
Given Saudi Arabia's relentless persecution of non-Muslims, the praise is "Orwellian," Shea told the IPT. "They don't dare establish such a program on their own territory."
OIC member states spearheading the anti-blasphemy campaign include Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia – all of which jail or execute "blasphemers." In nations like Egypt and Iraq, Christians are attacked and their churches torched while Muslim-dominated governments are unwilling or unable to protect them.
"In these countries, you have 'cleansing' tolerated by the authorities," Shea noted. "Religious cleansing [of Christians] is underway right now in Egypt and Iraq. It's been completed in Saudi Arabia. Jews have been cleansed from the Sunni Muslim world."
By any measure, Muslims and other religious minorities in the United States face no dangers comparable to religious minorities in the Muslim Arab world. Indeed, like the Bush administration preceding it, the Obama administration has gone to extraordinary lengths to court American Muslims and portray their situation in a very favorable light.
Clinton's Dec. 14 remarks included a rebuke to Islamists who seek to silence people of other faiths. "But is our religion so weak that statements of disapproval will cause us to lose our faiths?" Clinton asked. She added that there is nothing wrong with "hav[ing] good debates with others."
But Shea emphasizes that the behavior of OIC participants like Saudi Arabia gives no indication that they are interested in dialogue with minorities in their countries. She said that at the conference, participants largely ignored the vast differences between the United States and OIC member nations in protecting religious minorities.
One legal official (State Department confidentiality rules barred observers from identifying him or his country) gave a "one-sided depiction of American bigotry against religious minorities, including Muslims" in his opening keynote address, Shea said, telling representatives of some of the world's most repressive regimes that America can learn from them about protecting religious tolerance.
But the official never bothered to explain that, when compared with other countries, America has an extraordinary record of "upholding individual freedoms of speech and religion," Shea told the Investigative Project on Terrorism. "The tolerance of the American people is misrepresented by omission."
Pointing to mounting reports of atrocities and intimidation against Middle East Christians and mass slaughter by the Islamist regime in Khartoum, Shea didn't mince words in characterizing the attitudes of the American conference participants toward their OIC counterparts.
"It's the equivalent of saying to Hitler: 'Well, you have a real problem with the way you treat minorities and we have a problem with limiting the rights of Aryans here.'"
Washington Retreats on Speech Codes
The OIC (previously called the Organization of the Islamic Conference) has pushed for a universal blasphemy law for more than a decade. Since the November 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands and the 2006 riots protesting cartoon depictions of the prophet Mohammad, the group has pressured Western European nations to implement speech codes punishing criticism of Islam.
In March, the Obama administration thwarted the OIC's attempt to win United Nations Human Rights Council passage of a resolution calling for criminal penalties for the "defamation of religions." The following month, Washington engineered Council passage of Resolution 16/18, a nonbinding measure which did not censor speech.
The victory didn't last long. In July, Secretary of State Clinton revived the issue when she co-chaired an OIC session in Istanbul dealing with "religious intolerance." Clinton called on countries to "counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue and public debate," while emphasizing that speech restrictions were unacceptable. She invited conference attendees to a follow-up meeting to continue the dialogue.
OIC officials seized on Clinton's offer by stepping up their campaign for blasphemy laws and speech codes.
Based on conversations with U.S. officials, Shea believes that many of them fail to grasp what the OIC represents. They lack essential information about apostasy and blasphemy laws and have "very little knowledge of the illiberal nature of the OIC," she said. "There's a sense of political correctness that prohibits probing of that organization and what it stands for."
Although the United States is unlikely to emulate Western European countries in enacting speech codes, "what we see is self-censorship" by agencies like the State and Homeland Security departments which are barred from discussing issues such as Salafism and jihad. Moreover, "in the media, academia and the entertainment world, we see self-censorship on behalf of Islam. Certain issues are off the table."
Shea believes that this "politically correct" approach to Islamism has disturbing implications for U.S. national security. In the case of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who massacred 13 of his fellow servicemen at Fort Hood in 2009, co-workers emphasized that they were deeply troubled by his jihadist ravings regarded him as a radical Muslim "but didn't report it for fear of being labeled "Islamophobes,'" she noted.
Similarly, a Senate committee issued a report documenting a culture of timidity at the Pentagon on the subject of Islam. Shea said the Fort Hood massacre is a "perfect example" of the danger posed by the U.S. government's failure to address the danger Islamism poses to our liberties.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzGTaEQebfE[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzGTaEQebfE
Lesson learned, violence is rewarded and respected, especially when you are muslim.
-
**Imagine if the roles were reversed. You'd have national media coverage and the DOJ would be investigating.**
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/muslim-admits-attacking-atheist-muslim-judge-dismisses-case
Muslim Admits to Attacking Atheist; Muslim Judge Dismisses Case
Submitted by American Atheists on Feb 22, 2012
By Al Stefanelli
The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.
The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.
The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death. Judge Martin’s comments included,
“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.
Judge Martin then offered a lesson in Islam, stating,
“Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it.
Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it when he said,
“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say”
But wait, it gets worse. The Judge refused to allow the video into evidence, and then said,
“All that aside I’ve got here basically.. I don’t want to say he said she said but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.”
And,
“The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… “
And,
“…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”
The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws. This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. Instead, the judge gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone ” to piss off other people and other cultures” and he was also insulted by Mr. Perce’s portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried.
This is a travesty. Not only did Judge Martin completely ignore video evidence, but a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce’s behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn’t give an accurate account or doesn’t give it any weight.
Here is a link to the video that includes the audio of the Judge during the trial:
Here’s coverage of the incident from the local ABC affiliate
Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally unacceptable. That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible abrogation.
This reeks of those cases we used to read about where a woman is blamed for her own rape because she “was asking for it” by virtue of the clothing she chose to wear, and then having the Judge set the rapist free.
I can promise you this, you have not heard the last of this issue. Not by a long shot.
-
"The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death."
I guess the fact we are in the US is no reason to uphold the law. So here is an activist judge enforcing Sharia law in the US?
"**Imagine if the roles were reversed. You'd have national media coverage and the DOJ would be investigating.**"
That is the truth.
I suppose Obama is going to apologize for this?
-
"The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death."
I guess the fact we are in the US is no reason to uphold the law. So here is an activist judge enforcing Sharia law in the US?
"**Imagine if the roles were reversed. You'd have national media coverage and the DOJ would be investigating.**"
That is the truth.
I suppose Obama is going to apologize for this?
Nope. Non-muslims are lesser beings and not worthy of Obozo's notice or concern.
-
ttt because I've referenced this thread elsewhere.
-
This law firm in NYC, which had agreed to host an appearance by Robert Spencer on April 18th, has caved to threats from the Islamic supremacist thugs at CAIR. Please call, write, fax and e-mail your displeasure over this. Again, a business is being intimidated by an organization with terrorist links to Hamas into canceling an appearance by a noted scholar on Islam - Robert Spencer - who is only telling the truth. This must not be allowed to happen:
www.jihadwatch.org/2012/03/action-alert-new-york-law-firm-kramer-levin-caves-to-hamas-linked-cair-cancels-robert-spencer-event.html
-
http://www.radicalislam.org/news/allegan-michigan-free-speech-0-sharia-1
Acting on a tip from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), police shut down a private event in a rented room that was promoting the American constitution and the “American Laws for American Courts” legislation initiative.
Amid calls of “What about free speech?” the Allegan Police Department entered the room in the middle of the event and ordered it shut down.
Police originally gave as their reason for the shut-down the appearance of Kamal Saleem, a former Muslim terrorist who converted to Christianity and who was a featured speaker at the event. However, the chief of police later admitted to a reporter that he was acting on no specific threat or danger being posed by the event.
The event was located in the Allegan High School auditorium which had been rented by Willis Sage, an Allegan County commissioner. Sage is the author of “Constituting Michigan – Founding Principles Act,” which would require Michigan public schools to teach the history and constitution of the United States.
No specific threat of violence was received by either the City of Allegan
Kamal Saleem, the police department, the Allegan Public School District or the Allegan Public High School.
However, school officials had notified police that they had received a letter complaining about the event from Dawud Walid, executive director of CAIR - Michigan. The letter asked the school to cancel the event despite an existing contract.
CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism funding trial in U. S. history, U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation.
A civil rights lawsuit has been filed against the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR- MI), its Executive Director, the City of Allegan, the Allegan Police Department and the School District for violating the constitutional and contractual rights of the event organizers and participants. The lawsuit was filed for the plaintiffs by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center commented, “It’s amazing how much clout CAIR has with the political establishment of both parties in Lansing [Michigan’s capital] and throughout Michigan and the nation -- this, despite the fact that CAIR has its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood, was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, and the FBI’s former chief of counterterrorism noted that CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.
Richard Thompson“Press accounts make it clear that an indictment naming CAIR as a defendant in the Holy Land Foundation trial was squelched by Attorney General Holder’s office despite vehement objections by FBI agents and the federal prosecutors in Dallas.”
The purpose of the event was to inform the public about the importance of honoring the United States Constitution, to recognize the internal threat to America posed by radical Muslims and the dangers to American society posed by the imposition and insinuation of Islamic (sharia) law.
Saleem has spoken at numerous high schools and universities, Christian churches and Jewish institutions across the nation. He has also spoken at the U. S. Air Force Academy, Michigan’s State Capital and Ford Field in Detroit, Michigan. At no time before or after the Allegan event has an event where he has spoken been shut down by law enforcement.
Commissioner Sage had notified the Allegan police chief ten days before the event and invited him to check out the background of Saleem, which he never did.
In addition to Sage, plaintiffs in the case include Michigan State Representative David Agema, sponsor of the “Restriction of Application of Foreign Laws Act,”, which bans the use of foreign laws including sharia by courts and administrative bodies of the State when those laws conflict with fundamental rights protected by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Michigan.
CAIR is an outspoken opponent of the act.
The American Laws for American Courts act is designed to protect American citizens’ constitutional rights against the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially sharia.
Foreign laws are frequently at odds with U.S. constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, and freedom of religion, speech and assembly. They typically enter the American court system through the principle of comity (mutual respect of each country’s legal system). Granting comity to a foreign judgment is a matter of state law. Most state and federal courts will grant comity unless the recognition of the foreign judgment violates an important public policy of the state.
The “American Laws for American Courts” act has been passed into law in Tennessee, Louisiana and Arizona. To find out more about the law, a Forty Minute Course is available online.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnJBW49afzg
-
Today, 9/11, a mob with AQ flags crashed the US Embassy in Cairo and burned our flag in protest of some docu-movie here in the US that offended them. So what did the State Dept. do? It expressed regret at those who abuse free speech that hurt the feelings of Muslims. :x :x :x
-
A FB post:
As a good Christian, I need 60 or 70 of my friends to come help me burn a non-Christian (preferably Arabic) embassy later this afternoon, then kill and behead with a jack knife whoever made this insulting video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4297XZdQsM&feature=related
The US internet broadcast of this satire video, (which, according to its own description, is not actually associated with the glue manufacturer), is constitutionally protected 'free speech' and 'artistic satire' but the Balice "Innocence of Muslims" film in question today is "bigoted hate speech" according to this afternoon's NPR. It’s sad how much the leftist apologists are trying to undermine your rights to speak out, regardless of your idiotic viewpoint (by which I here include my own).
...
-
Obama administration officials said Thursday that they have asked YouTube to review the video and determine whether it violates the site's terms of service, according to people close to the situation but not authorized to comment.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-youtube-accountability-20120914,0,4384171.story
And now they put their name to it , , ,
Administration officials have asked YouTube to review a controversial video that many blame for spurring a wave of anti-American violence in the Middle East. The administration flagged the 14-minute "Innocence of Muslims" video and asked that YouTube evaluate it to determine whether it violates the site's terms of service, officials said Thursday
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-administration-asks-youtube-to-review-innocence-of-muslims-video-20120913,0,610679.story
-
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/report-iran-adds-reward-rushdies-death-17247292
-
:lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204904/Pakistani-man-dies-inhaling-fumes-burning-American-flag-anti-Islam-film-rally.html
-
second post
Life in the Fatwa's Shadow
Instead of condemning Ayatollah Khomeini and his Western surrogates, many putative liberals blamed the embattled novelist..
By MICHAEL C. MOYNIHAN
In 1988, a Booker Prize-winning author published a novel called "The Satanic Verses." In the British city of Bradford, 200 miles from his London residence, a wild-eyed rabble of Muslim fundamentalists, most of whom hadn't bothered to read the book, declared it blasphemous and set it alight. The word "fatwa" would enter the English lexicon when Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini weighed in, issuing a religious edict demanding that Salman Rushdie, the book's author, be put to death for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. The ayatollah offered those unmoved by promises of otherworldly paradise a bounty of $1 million.
Mr. Rushdie now lives quite openly in New York—but the author's more literate tormentors can take satisfaction from "Joseph Anton," his compelling, affecting, depressing memoir of a life profoundly disfigured by terrorism. The soldiers of Allah didn't "send him to Hell," as Khomeini demanded, but they did make his existence a living one.
The conspiracies against Mr. Rushdie demanded the intervention of Britain's security services, curtailing his movement and making interaction with the outside world—and his young son—onerous. Book reviews he wrote were, in the days before email, given to a protection officer to be mailed from London, a postmark far from his undisclosed location. (When he included a note explaining why his reviews were late, one newspaper reproduced it on the front page.) The Thatcher government, a frequent target of Mr. Rushdie's more polemical writing, provided the security arrangement but offered only qualified diplomatic support, expressing sympathy more for those "offended" by the novel than for the condemned novelist himself.
It was a position shared by many of his literary and journalistic peers. British tabloid hacks mocked Mr. Rushdie's physical appearance, dismissed the literary merit of his novels and regularly complained of the cost to British taxpayers of keeping him alive. To many in the intelligentsia, it wasn't the bearded ghoul in Tehran who was responsible for the violence, nor his British surrogates, but the bearded novelist who surely "knew what he was doing."
The list of putative liberals suddenly concerned with hurt religious "sensibilities" is depressingly long: Joseph Brodsky, John le Carré, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Roald Dahl ("long, unpleasant man with huge strangler's hands"), Germaine Greer, the reliably Islamophilic Prince of Wales, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who coughed up the most astonishing pronouncement of the whole affair: "We must be more tolerant of Muslim anger."
"Joseph Anton" is hardly a conventional memoir. It is written in the third person, a conceit that works well enough as a way of recounting the alienating experience of living under cover while hearing one's real name condemned by Muslim leaders world-wide. The author covers his life before the fatwa, including a moving account of the death of his father, a brilliant secularist and a brutish drunk. He also savagely recapitulates his marriage to the American novelist Marianne Wiggins (to whom "The Satanic Verses" was dedicated) and provides a brief but revealing accounting of married life with model and TV star Padma Lakshmi, whom he took up with after he came out of hiding. But the bulk of the book deals with the death sentence, the point when "The Satanic Verses" left the realm of literature and was "denied the ordinary life of a novel," instead becoming "something smaller and uglier: an insult." "Joseph Anton" demonstrates Mr. Rushdie's ability as a stylist and storyteller. It also serves as an important moral balance sheet.
It is quite stunning to be reminded of the craven "religious leaders" who openly suborned Mr. Rushdie's murder, to no response from the police or courts. Mr. Rushdie hasn't forgotten, though it seems everyone else has. Iqbal Sacranie, one "leader" given substantial airtime and column inches to adjudicate Mr. Rushdie's fate, said that "death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him." In 2005, Mr. Sacranie was knighted at the behest of Tony Blair. Then there is Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), who in 1989 publicly supported the death sentence, saying that Mr. Rushdie "must be killed." In 2010, he was a special guest at comedian Jon Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity" in Washington, D.C. In a subtle dig at Mr. Stewart, Mr. Rushdie sighs that the musician, who later denied his words, must have understood that "he lived in an age where nobody had a memory."
Mr. Rushdie's analysis of the pusillanimity of Western journalists and intellectuals is bracing, though one greedily wants more of it. He thunders against the "the cancer of cultural relativism" and the newly minted crime of "Islamophobia," which meant that "to criticize the militant stridency of this religion in its contemporary incarnation was to be a bigot." Mr. Rushdie, a strident atheist, is forthright. "Actually existing Islam had become a poison and Muslims were dying of it and that needed to be said," he writes. "He would say it, if nobody else would."
Since the Iranian regime stopped actively pursuing the fatwa in 1998, Mr. Rushdie has "said it" less frequently, focusing mainly on his career as a novelist. He periodically wades back into the free-speech debate—like signing a statement denouncing "religious totalitarianism" during the Muhammad cartoon affair—but has left the polemical activism to others, like his late friend Christopher Hitchens.
Mr. Rushdie is optimistic about the Arab Spring and those young Muslims who took to the streets because they "wanted jobs and liberty, not religion." But the recent violent attacks on American embassies suggest that the revolution in the Middle East might be more religious than libertarian, and the lightning-quick condemnation last week by the American embassy in Cairo of the "abuse" of free speech by a private citizen who produced an anti-Islam YouTube video indicates that the enemies of liberal democracy have learned well from the Rushdie affair. Defenders of Enlightenment values, regardless of what they think of Mr. Rushdie the novelist, must acknowledge the fact that, when threatened, Salman Rushdie—Joseph Anton—reacted with great bravery and even heroism.
Mr. Moynihan is a contributing editor at Reason and a columnist at Tablet.
-
France to Shut Embassies, Schools Amid Cartoon Row .
By INTI LANDAURO
PARIS—France's Foreign Ministry said it would close its embassies as well as French schools in 20 countries on Friday, amid fears of backlash after a French weekly magazine published a series of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. French authorities said they feared the cartoons published in satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday could cause more outrage in the Muslim world, days after a low-budget film denigrating the Prophet Muhammad sparked violent protests at U.S. and other Western embassies in several Muslim countries.
Paris's decision to pre-emptively close its embassies highlights how Western governments are grappling to respond to a wave of protests fueled by events—the film in the U.S., or potentially the caricatures in France—largely out of their control.
The French government said that although freedom of speech rules applied in France, the magazine's decision to publish the cartoons was ill-timed.
"It is dangerous, even irresponsible, when we know the general climate, to pour oil on fire," French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said at a news conference in Paris on Wednesday.
French authorities didn't disclose the list of countries where they would close embassies. But government officials said they had decided to close buildings on Friday because it is the main day of prayer for Muslims, suggesting the order would apply mainly to Muslim countries. A spokesman at the Foreign Ministry said ambassadors would have the option to keep their embassies closed beyond Friday for security reasons.
French interests overseas have so far been spared by the recent spate of protests in Muslim countries. The protests began last week, when a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked, resulting in the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Demonstrations have since erupted elsewhere in the Middle East and South Asia, including Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
In Paris, about 150 protesters were arrested on Saturday during what police described as an unauthorized rally near the U.S. Embassy.
Charlie Hebdo defended its decision to publish the prophet cartoons.
"If we start to wonder whether we have the right to draw Muhammad or not, or if it is dangerous to do it, we will have to start to wonder whether we can draw Muslims or human beings in the paper," the magazine's editor in chief, known only as Charb, told French radio RTL. "Eventually, we won't be drawing anything and a bunch of extremists in the world and in France will have won."
The magazine headquarters in Paris were put under heightened police protection, police said.
Charlie Hebdo's offices were struck by arson last year after the paper published a special issue with Muslim cartoons called "Sharia Hebdo."
Write to Inti Landauro at inti.landauro@dowjones.com
-
http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis/european-politicians-begin-bow-muslim-demand-limit-free-speech/#fm
-
http://www.danielpipes.org/11965/a-muhammad-cartoon-a-day
-
The White House Goes Mum on Free Speech While France stands up for a basic right, the Obama administration sits on its hands.
By L. GORDON
When Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York, he tried to cut off taxpayer funding for a museum showing a work entitled "The Holy Virgin Mary," featuring an image of the Madonna smeared with elephant dung, surrounded by cutout porn photos of female genitalia. Mr. Giuliani said the museum didn't have a "right to government subsidy for desecrating somebody else's religion." Hillary Clinton, then a Senate candidate, defended the right to show the artwork: "Our feelings of being offended should not lead to the penalizing and shutting down of an entire museum."
Mr. Giuliani, who always acknowledged the artist's First Amendment right while questioning the public funding, was a censorship softie compared with Mrs. Clinton today. Her State Department's response to a movie trailer tied to Islamic mob violence and organized terrorism has been censorship and a global apology campaign.
The movie "Innocence of Muslims," apparently made by a Coptic Christian in the U.S., mocks Muhammad, the Islamic prophet, but it exists publicly only as a 14-minute trailer on YouTube. Digital technology can spread mischief, but it was only when an Islamist television show in Egypt aired excerpts that the video got widespread attention. The movie, if there is one, would never have gotten distribution in theaters, with its amateurish filming and clumsily dubbed voices.
The U.S. government attributed enormous power to these 14 minutes of video. The White House press spokesman insisted that the attacks in Egypt, Libya and some 20 other countries were a "response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people," but "to a video, a film we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting." The White House later backtracked, blaming organized terrorists for killing the U.S. ambassador in Libya and three other Americans.
But the problem is not the video. It's that many of the post-Arab Spring governments condone or encourage Islamist groups that find any pretense to attack the U.S. The Obama administration kowtowed to pressure from Egypt and other supposed allies, asking Google to remove the YouTube footage globally. Google rightly refused to censor, citing the right to free speech, which the president is sworn to defend.
When the government in Pakistan last week cynically organized a "Love for Prophet Day," the State Department bought time on Pakistani television to run groveling advertisements. In one, Mrs. Clinton says: "Let me state very clearly . . . the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message."
Instead of seeking to censor the video or apologizing, the White House should be reminding the world that free speech, even when tasteless or hateful, is an American right. The U.S. should be encouraging the new governments in the Middle East to value free speech. In contrast to the U.S. abandonment of free speech, tiny Denmark refused to apologize for the satirical cartoons of Muhammad that ran in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005, which provoked rioting in many countries.
Indeed, in the aftermath of the YouTube video, France has been truer to free speech than has the U.S. A French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, responded to the video controversy by running more cartoons of Muhammad. Its editor, Stephane Charbonnier, told the German magazine Der Spiegel: "We publish caricatures every week, but people only describe them as declarations of war when it's about the person of the prophet or radical Islam."
French authorities offered protection to the magazine before it went to press. "Of all publications, our magazine, which mocks the police at every opportunity, is now protected by it," Mr. Charbonnier says. "Which only goes to show that freedom of speech is protected in our country." He pledges to keep satirizing Catholics, Jews and Muslims. Meanwhile, France temporarily closed its embassies and schools in 20 countries when the magazine came out.
A silver lining to this controversy is how many people, apparently mostly Muslims themselves, used the online medium in a humorous way to make the point that Islamic fundamentalists are a minority of the religion. Under a hashtag on Twitter that Newsweek created for its cover story, #MuslimRage, they tweeted laugh lines for what leads to "Muslim Rage":
"Sale at the butchers! Oh, only on pork."
"Lost your kid 'Jihad' at the airport. Can't yell for him."
"Head & Shoulders STILL hasn't made a beard conditioner!"
"When I wear a white hijab to a TV interview with a white backdrop."
On a more serious note:
"Hezbollah offended by the movie but not by the daily murder of hundreds of Syrian civilians."
"Memo to those few violent Mideast protesters, this is how you fight Islamophobia. You make fun of it."
These tweets use free speech the way it was intended: To make political points, unapologetically. Islamists will protest and some will even kill for any reason or for no reason. On behalf of Americans and reformers around the world, the White House should stand up for free speech instead of recoiling from it.
-
By Michael McGough
September 25, 2012, 4:13 p.m.
President Obama did an admirable job in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly in explaining why the United States does not punish those who engage in offensive speech like the infamous video defaming the prophet Muhammad. He was more expansive in defending protection for unbridled free speech than was Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, though not to the extent of explicitly challenging calls by Muslim leaders -- including the prime minster of Turkey, a NATO ally -- for "international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred."
But a couple of things about Obama’s speech struck me as odd. One was a strange moment of self-reference: "As president of our country and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- and I will always defend their right to do so."
I’m sure Obama was not equating himself with Muhammad, Jesus or other venerated religious figures, but the juxtaposition was awkward and will probably inspire some comment-board complaints by Obamaphobes who believe the president seems himself in messianic terms.
In the same paragraph, Obama made a pitch for American almost-exceptionalism when it comes to laws against blasphemy. “Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense," the president said. "Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs.”
Well, not exactly. Blasphemy laws remain on the books in some states, though they are dead letters. According to Massachusetts General Law Section 36: "Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior."
In 1977, my home state of Pennsylvania passed a law prohibiting the use in a corporate name of "blasphemy," "profane cursing or swearing" or words that "profane the Lord's name." The law was passed after complaints by religious leaders about a gun shop called "The Damn Gun Shop." A federal judge struck down the law 33 years later in a case involving a film producer who wanted to call his company "I Choose Hell Productions."
(Pennsylvania is an old hand at blasphemy legislation. In 1989, vandals scrawled a pro-PLO slogan on a menorah erected on the steps of the Pittsburgh City-County Building. A policeman told reporters that the culprit, if caught, would be charged with the obscure offense of "desecration of a venerated object." The joke in Pittsburgh at the time was that the law was passed to protect the Steelers logo.)
The most famous court decision involving desecration of a venerated object was the Supreme Court’s 1989 ruling striking down a Texas law that made it a crime to burn the American flag as a political protest. Opposition to the ruling was fierce. Had Congress approved a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision -- and the amendment failed to achieve the required two-thirds by only one vote in the Senate in 2006 -- it’s quite possible that the necessary three-fourths of the states would have ratified it.
So perhaps Americans aren’t as robust in our support for free speech as Obama suggested. Mock our religion -- or our flag -- and we may not engage in violence, but we’re willing to throw the book at you, at least until a court makes us come to our senses.
-
I’m sure Obama was not equating himself with Muhammad, Jesus or other venerated religious figures, but the juxtaposition was awkward and will probably inspire some comment-board complaints by Obamaphobes who believe the president seems himself in messianic terms.
Oh, there's nothing in Buraq's past conduct that would support that.... :roll:
So perhaps Americans aren’t as robust in our support for free speech as Obama suggested. Mock our religion -- or our flag -- and we may not engage in violence, but we’re willing to throw the book at you, at least until a court makes us come to our senses.
Typical leftist attempt at moral equivalency. When was the last time someone was prosecuted under those statutes? Let's compare that to the death penalty for blasphemy under sharia faced across the globe today.
-
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=105&load=7512
-
POTH
Man Tied to Anti-Islam Video Held on Probation Charge
By BROOKS BARNES
Published: September 27, 2012
NYT
LOS ANGELES — The man thought to have been behind the crude anti-Islam video that set off deadly protests across the Muslim world in recent weeks was arrested Thursday for violating terms of his probation in a 2010 bank fraud case.
The man, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, was ordered held without bond during an appearance in United States District Court here Thursday evening. Suzanne H. Segal, a federal magistrate judge, called Mr. Nakoula “a flight risk and a danger to the community.” He will remain in jail until a probation-revocation hearing is scheduled.
Mr. Nakoula is widely considered to be the filmmaker responsible for “Innocence of Muslims,” an inflammatory, amateurish video that is supposedly a trailer for a full-length film.
The video depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a buffoon, a womanizer and a child molester. It was first uploaded to YouTube in June, and translated into Arabic and uploaded several more times leading up to the 11th anniversary of the terrorism attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Mr. Nakoula was charged with eight probation violations, including lying to law-enforcement officers when they initially detained him for questioning, and using various aliases, which an assistant United States attorney, Robert Dugdale, said was “part of a lengthy pattern of deception.”
Federal officials have been investigating whether Mr. Nakoula was the person who posted the video on YouTube using the pseudonym Sam Bacile, a name he used during the making of the movie, according to actors and crew members. If he did post the video, he would have violated the terms of his sentencing in a conviction in a 2010 check-kiting case, which restricted his use of the Internet.
Mr. Nakoula served about a year of a 21-month prison term for orchestrating a check-kiting scheme against Wells Fargo Bank, court records show.
As part of his sentence, Mr. Nakoula was ordered to pay restitution of $794,700.
The bank fraud scheme included a twist that is probably pertinent to the current investigation: he committed the crime using a variety of aliases.
On Sept. 15, federal probation officers took Mr. Nakoula to a Los Angeles County sheriff’s station in the suburb of Cerritos, where he lives, for questioning. He wore a hat and had a white shawl around his face. He was not arrested at that time.
Mr. Nakoula has not spoken publicly since the trailer, parts of which were broadcast on Egyptian television, first set off a wave of rioting and attacks that led to the death of four Americans in Libya, including the ambassador.
On Saturday, a Pakistani cabinet minister offered a $100,000 reward for the death of the person behind the video, with the incendiary statement coming a day after violent protests paralyzed Pakistan’s largest cities, leaving at least 23 people dead.
Mr. Nakoula’s lawyer, Steve Seiden, had argued unsuccessfully that it was a dangerous for his client to be in jail where there are, presumably, Muslim inmates. “My client’s safety has been an issue for weeks,” he said.
Ian Lovett contributed reporting.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SULemueqpiU&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0RZIrZT0Uc
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/26/Islamic-Leaders-in-Dearborn-Mich-Plan-Rally-In-Support-Of-Laws-Against-Islamophobia
-
The WSJ weighs in on Pamela Geller's ad.
Call a Terrorist a 'Savage'? How Uncivilized An anti-jihad message is 'hate speech' by today's topsy-turvy standards.
By WILLIAM MCGURNLike this columnist ..
"In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad."
So reads an advertisement that went up a week ago in New York City subway stations. Sponsored by Pamela Geller's American Freedom Defense Initiative, the ads were meant to provoke, and they did. Denunciations poured in, activists plastered "racist" and "hate speech" stickers over the ads, and an Egyptian-American activist even got herself arrested after spray-painting one poster pink.
Establishment opinion quickly rallied to a consensus. As the Washington Post put it, while the words could be read as "hateful," "an offensive ad" nonetheless has the "right to offend." A rabbi summed up the media orthodoxy in the headline over her column for CNN: "A right to hate speech, a duty to condemn."
Certainly that's one way to read this ad. Then again, most Americans probably read it the way it is written: Israel is a civilized nation under attack from people who do savage things in the name of jihad. Whatever the agenda of those behind this ad might be, the question remains: What part of that statement is not true?
Ah, but the use of the word "jihad" inherently indicts all Muslims, say the critics. There are millions of peaceful Muslims for whom jihad means only a spiritual quest. So why do so many people associate jihad with murder and brutality?
A controversial ad, which has already been defaced, that condemns radical Islam is viewed in a New York subway station.
.
Might it be because violence is so often the jihadist's calling card? Might it be that some of these killers even incorporate the word jihad into the name of their terror organizations, e.g., Palestinian Islamic Jihad? That may not be the exclusive meaning of jihad, but surely it is one meaning—and the one that New York subway riders are most likely to bring to the word.
The same goes for "savage." Exhibit A is Oxford's online dictionary, which defines a savage as "a brutal or vicious person." There are innumerable Exhibit Bs, but let me invoke one of the most powerful.
This is a Reuters photo that ran on the New York Times front page for Sept. 1, 2004. It shows an Israeli bus after it had been blown up by a suicide bomber. Neither bloody nor gory, the photo is nonetheless deeply disturbing, because it shows the lifeless body of a young woman hanging out a window.
The Times news story added this detail about the reaction to that attack. "In Gaza," ran the report, "thousands of supporters of Hamas celebrated in the streets, and the Associated Press reported that one of the bombers' widows hailed the attack as 'heroic' and said her husband's soul was 'happy in heaven.' " What part of any of this is not savage?
Two years ago, Time magazine ran a cover photo of an 18-year-old Afghan woman whose nose and ears had been cut off by the Taliban. This weekend, an al Qaeda-affiliated jihadist group in Kenya threw grenades into an Anglican church, killing a 9-year-old boy attending Sunday school. In light of these atrocities, "savage" seems profoundly inadequate.
The point is that what makes someone a savage is not the religion he professes. It's the actions he takes. Notwithstanding the many Jews and Christians who have been attacked, those bearing the brunt of this savagery are innocent Muslims who find themselves targeted—at their mosques, in their markets, at a wedding reception—simply because they belong to the wrong political party or religious tradition.
The people of Libya appear to understand this better than the president of the United States. The Libyans know that a civilized society is one where the strong protect the weak. In July they voted for such a future when they rejected Islamic radicals in their first free elections since toppling the dictator Moammar Gadhafi. The Libyans' problem is that the extremists are better armed and better organized than their elected government, which leaves the strong free to prey upon the weak.
Back home in America, amid all the gooey indignation about how the subway ads are hate speech but must be defended, the idea seems to have taken hold that the beauty of the First Amendment is that we get to insult each other's religions. Certainly that's sometimes the price of the First Amendment. Its glory, however, is as the cornerstone for a self-governing, free society whose citizens know that someone saying something disgusting about your faith is no excuse for murder.
What a curiosity our new political correctness has made of our public spaces. Let your sex tape loose on the Internet and be rewarded with your own TV show; photograph a crucifix in a jar of urine and our museums will vie to exhibit it; occupy someone else's property and you will be hailed by the president for your keen social conscience.
But call people who blow up, behead and mutilate "savage"—and polite society will find you offensive.
Write to MainStreet@wsj.com
-
LOS ANGELES — Fuming for two months in a jail cell here, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has had plenty of time to reconsider the wisdom of making “Innocence of Muslims,” his crude YouTube movie trailer depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a bloodthirsty, philandering thug.
Does Mr. Nakoula now regret the footage? After all, it fueled deadly protests across the Islamic world and led the unlikely filmmaker to his own arrest for violating his supervised release on a fraud conviction.
Not at all. In his first public comments since his incarceration soon after the video gained international attention in September, Mr. Nakoula told The New York Times that he would go to great lengths to convey what he called “the actual truth” about Muhammad. “I thought, before I wrote this script,” he said, “that I should burn myself in a public square to let the American people and the people of the world know this message that I believe in.”
In explaining his reasons for the film, Mr. Nakoula, 55, a Coptic Christian born in Egypt, cited the 2009 massacre at Fort Hood, Tex., as a prime example of the violence committed “under the sign of Allah.” His anger seemed so intense over the years that even from a federal prison in 2010, he followed the protests against the building of an Islamic center and mosque near ground zero in New York as he continued to work on his movie script.
Until now, only the barest details were known about the making of the film that inspired international outrage. Initial reports made it seem as if the film had been thrown together in about a year.
But a longer, more intricate and somewhat surreal story emerges from interviews with Mr. Nakoula, church and law enforcement officials and more than a dozen people who worked on the movie — those who knew its real subject and those who were tricked into believing it was to be a sword-and-sandal epic called “Desert Warriors.” Together, they paint a picture of a financially desperate man with a penchant for fiction who was looking to give meaning and means to a life in shambles.
There is a dispute about how important the video was in provoking the terrorist assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the United States ambassador and three other Americans. Militants interviewed at the scene said they were unaware of the video until a protest in Cairo called it to their attention. But the video without question led to protests across the globe, beginning in Cairo and spreading rapidly in September to Yemen, Morocco, Iran, Tunisia, Sudan, Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, Indonesia and Malaysia.
The making of the film is a bizarre tale of fake personas and wholesale deception. And as with almost everything touched over the years by Mr. Nakoula — a former gas station manager, bong salesman, methamphetamine ingredient supplier and convicted con man — it is almost impossible to separate fact from fabrication.
A few years ago, Mr. Nakoula told some of the crew members he had gathered, supposedly to make “Desert Warriors,” that the project would have to be put off. He had cancer. Treatment was needed, far away, and they would not be able to reach him. His family shared a similar story with church officials.
Mr. Nakoula, it turns out, was not going away for cancer treatment, although the time did overlap with the prison sentence for bank fraud, which the crew knew nothing about. (Mr. Nakoula pleaded guilty this month to violating his supervised release in that case and received a one-year sentence.)
He claims that he only wrote the film — five versions of the script — and served as a “cultural consultant.” One of Mr. Nakoula’s sons, Abanob Basseley Nakoula, 21, said in an interview that his father had written the script in Arabic and then translated it into English. The son said he helped him with grammar.
But Mr. Nakoula, who described himself to some cast members as the writer and producer, explained to a confidant that his plan was to fool actors into thinking they were making a movie built around an ancient tribal villain named George, dubbing in the name “Muhammad” later whenever anybody said “George.”
As early as 2008, he had cobbled together a 20-page treatment for a film he wanted to call “The First Terrorist.”
Page 2 of 3)
In Mr. Nakoula’s responses to questions from The Times, conveyed through his lawyer, Steve Seiden, he had no second thoughts about the way he had handled the cast. “They had signed contracts before they went in front of any camera, and these contracts in no way prevented changes to the script or movie,” he said.
Abanob Nakoula said: “The actors were misled. My dad thought the film would create a stir, and as a precaution for their safety, there are no acting or production credits at the end of the trailer or the full-length movie.”
A Slippery Identity
The amateurish project might have disappeared quietly, the way many forgettable messes do in Hollywood’s underbelly. Yet three years after completing his script treatment, Mr. Nakoula was on a makeshift movie set inside the suburban Los Angeles headquarters of a nonprofit organization called Media for Christ, whose founder has been critical of Islam. There Mr. Nakoula was surrounded by actors wearing false beards, and there was a goat slipping on a tile floor. Alongside him was his director for hire: Alan Roberts, known for soft-core pornography movies like “The Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood.”
Mr. Nakoula noted that the head of Media for Christ, Joseph Nassralla Abdelmasih, was “a friend for five years.” Mr. Abdelmasih attended the 2010 protests against the Islamic center near ground zero. Other contacts in the world of anti-Islam activism would also play pivotal roles. Helping to publicize the film were Morris Sadek and Elaia Basily — activist Copts living in Northern Virginia — and Terry Jones, the Florida preacher whose own Koran burnings had stirred violence abroad.
That Mr. Nakoula is a hard man to pin down is no accident. He told the cast and crew that his name was Sam Bassil, which he sometimes spelled differently. Federal prosecutors convicted him in 2010 under the name Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, but he recently admitted to the court that he had changed his name in 2002 to Mark Basseley Youssef.
What he did not mention at the time, however, was that in 2009, according to court records, he changed his name yet again, this time to Ebrahem Fawzy Youssef. (His lawyer said Mr. Nakoula was unaware until recently that the latest change had been finalized.)
Facts presented by Mr. Nakoula as rock solid tend to weaken upon inspection. For instance, he told federal probation officials that he first came to Los Angeles in 1984 for the Olympics as part of the Egyptian soccer team. But a Web site listing official players on that team does not include Mr. Nakoula. Nor was there evidence that he was on the squad’s staff.
He claimed during production that the budget for the film was $5 million, raised mainly from Jewish donors. Actually, it cost no more than $80,000, apparently raised through his second ex-wife’s Egyptian family and donations from other Copts, according to a person who discussed the financing with him.
Even though the shoot lasted only 15 days, there was enough footage for a feature-length movie, which exists, running roughly one hour and 40 minutes. Mr. Basily, the Virginia activist who has donated to Media for Christ, said he watched the entire film on DVD early this year and found it historically accurate.
All that has been seen on the Web is the 14-minute YouTube trailer, which by the time it hit the Internet in July was titled “Innocence of Muslims.”
Mr. Nakoula was able to finish the project even though people who ran into him over the years found him puzzling. When he rented offices in suburban Los Angeles, other tenants noticed that he came around only at night for the most part and stored stacks of Marlboro cartons there, among other things. When he took a stall at a flea market to sell drug paraphernalia and tobacco merchandise, other stall holders noted that his wares never seemed to move and that he spent most of his time on the phone, shouting in Arabic.
And Coptic Church officials said they considered Mr. Nakoula an unlikely candidate for the kind of religious zeal behind “Innocence of Muslims” because he had attended services so infrequently. But Mr. Nakoula said fervor and witnessing persecution are what drove him to create the film.
Mr. Nakoula agreed last month to be interviewed by The Times at the Metropolitan Detention Center here, where he has been held since his September arrest. But the warden refused to allow the interview.
In his written responses to questions, Mr. Nakoula reeled off “atrocities” by Muslims that went back many years and formed his views, focusing on shootings, a bombing and the torture of his fellow Copts. After the Fort Hood massacre, in which an Army psychiatrist with ties to Muslim extremism has been charged, “I became even more upset and enraged,” he said.
Abanob Nakoula said: “My dad is not an evil man. He has had a hard life. He did something — the movie, something he felt strongly about — that was not frowned upon by the Constitution. He would always say, ‘Don’t fight Muslims; fight their ideology.’ ”
From Prison to Studio
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula grew up in Egypt but came to the United States and wed Ingrid N. Rodriguez in 1986 in Nevada, according to state marriage records. They divorced in 1990, the records show. Soon afterward, while living in California, he married an Egyptian woman, Olivia Ibrahim, with whom he has three children. Although the couple divorced, the family members all lived together on a cul-de-sac in Cerritos until going into hiding after the video spread.
Mr. Nakoula declared bankruptcy in 2000. By then he was a felon: a police sting caught him trading crates of a methamphetamine ingredient for $45,000 in cash. He was sentenced to one year in prison but did community service instead. A little over a decade later, Mr. Nakoula, while at work on his movie, was arrested for bank fraud. He was behind bars for almost 21 months before getting out in the summer of last year.
“He said it might have been a blessing to go to prison because he had time to work on the script,” his son said.
Mr. Nakoula’s supervised release barred him from using aliases. But he resumed work on his movie under the name Sam Baccil, said Jimmy Israel, who assisted with preproduction. Mr. Israel, who still thought Mr. Nakoula had been away battling cancer, placed casting notices on Backstage.com. One advertised 11 roles that included “George: male, 20-40, a strong leader, romantic, tyrant, a killer with no remorse, accent.” Mr. Israel said Mr. Nakoula told him that “Muhammad would be named George to mislead the actors.”
Mr. Nakoula found his director through a circuitous route. During the time of his bank fraud scheme, he rented five offices in a building owned by a man named Shlomo Bina, who, as it happened, had once aspired to a movie career, too, crossing paths with Mr. Roberts, the director. Chatting one day, Mr. Bina pointed him toward Mr. Roberts, whose real name is Robert Alan Brownell, records show. Attempts to reach Mr. Roberts through lawyers were unsuccessful.
A few Coptic immigrants in the United States have built media outlets with the help of programming that is anything but favorable toward Islam. One of them is Mr. Abdelmasih of Media for Christ. Not only did he provide Mr. Nakoula with 10 days of free studio space, but he also helped get the promotion going for the YouTube trailer by contacting Mr. Sadek in Virginia.
Mr. Sadek wrote in an e-mail that “my friend,” Mr. Abdelmasih, “told me that Mr. Nakoula had created a movie about the Copts’ persecution in Egypt.” Mr. Sadek then publicized the YouTube trailer on his Web site and to his contacts. Mr. Basily, the activist, also spread word about the trailer using social media. Mr. Sadek also put Mr. Nakoula in touch with another important promotional partner: Mr. Jones, the Florida pastor.
Mr. Abdelmasih said Mr. Nakoula called one day to ask to use his facility. “He said to me the movie was about persecution of Christians by the government, combined with radical Muslims,” Mr. Abdelmasih recalled in an interview.
‘Not Tech-Savvy’
Media for Christ provided no cameras or any other production help, Mr. Abdelmasih said. He also insisted that Media for Christ’s “work is not against Muslims,” and he said he was “shocked” by the final product. But his studio has been used to produce “Wake Up America,” a program hosted by Steve Klein, an insurance salesman in Hemet, Calif., and a staunch anti-Islam activist. Mr. Klein served as a consultant for Mr. Nakoula after they first met at Media for Christ.
When Dan Sutter, cast as George’s grandfather, arrived at Media for Christ’s offices in early August last year, Mr. Nakoula was there, greeting people as Sam. Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” played on a television in a break room.
Eight months or so after shooting ended, Mr. Nakoula contacted a few of the actors to return to Media for Christ for looping, a standard part of moviemaking in which inaudible dialogue is rerecorded. Lily Dionne, an extra with no lines who was called to dub for another actress, said that a fellow actor had also been asked back and that Mr. Nakoula told him to say “Muhammad” into a microphone. He did.
On July 2, the trailer was posted on YouTube by someone using the name Sam Bacile. Mr. Nakoula’s son said he was the one who did it.
“My dad is not tech-savvy at all, and does not know how to work social media,” Abanob Nakoula said. “So he asked me to take the initiative to spread the word, and I did my best.”
He explained that using the name Sam Bacile, he created a Facebook account before production started and then the YouTube account.
Abanob Nakoula added, “My dad wanted to show the trailer on TV as a commercial, and I told him that was not going to happen because it costs a lot of money and the networks would not show a 14-minute trailer, especially if they knew the content.”
-
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3826/seven-egyptian-christians-sentenced-to-death-over
-
The Assassin at the Door
A Danish free-speech advocate on the day a gunman disguised as a postal worker tried to kill him..
By LARS HEDEGAARD
Copenhagen
A police psychologist has told me that after an attempt on your life, things may appear somewhat fuzzy. After a while details of what happened may all of a sudden become clear as you remember more and more of this most distressing occurrence.
That hasn't been my experience. What took place on Tuesday, Feb. 5, is as clear and vivid to me now as it was seconds after it happened.
Shortly after 11 a.m., I was preparing to leave my apartment for the half-hour commute to my newspaper office in Malmo, Sweden, when the door-phone buzzed. The phone doesn't work properly—I can hear that I have visitors but not communicate with them. Nor can I buzz them in.
I opened a window in my apartment to see who was down below at the front door. A man dressed in a red jacket with the logo of the Danish postal service was waiting at the door. He said he had a package for me. I answered that I couldn't buzz open the door and would instead come downstairs to get the package.
I went down and opened the front door. The man repeated that he had a package, which he handed to me. As I held the package (which the police later determined was empty), he immediately pulled out a gun and fired at my head.
Between my taking the package and the shot there was less than a second, so I had no inkling of what was going on.
The distance between us must have been less than a yard. Nevertheless, he missed. He then proceeded to fumble with the gun in order to cock it for a second shot. I swung my right fist at his head, and my action confused him sufficiently for him to drop the gun. After a scuffle, he recovered the gun but couldn't make it fire. He then fled.
Regrettably, he managed to run off with the gun. The police found a bullet hole in the wall and a cartridge.
I judged my attacker to be around 25 years old and either an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants—most probably from an Arab country or possibly Pakistan. He spoke Danish with no accent.
Since the attempted murder, I have been living under police protection and, as I am 70 years old, will most likely have to do so for the rest of my life.
Despite intensive efforts—the Copenhagen police have set a special 20-man task force to deal with the case—no arrest has been made and consequently no motive can be established.
However, everybody who has commented on the incident has assumed that the motive is political. Some people don't like what I have been saying or writing in recent years, and they want to silence me. It is difficult to pinpoint exactly what may have spurred the gunman or those who may have sent him.
For years I have been a campaigner for free speech—since 2004 as president of Denmark's Free Press Society. I have been an outspoken critic of Islamic supremacism and of attempts to impose Islamic Shariah law in Denmark and the West. Together with my Swedish colleague Ingrid Carlqvist, I have recently launched a Swedish-language weekly newspaper called Dispatch International—to the great dissatisfaction of the Swedish mainstream media, which are probably the most politically correct in the Western world and are in absolute agreement on every issue of any consequence.
Dispatch International is critical of mass immigration to Sweden and Denmark from third-world countries and takes a dim view of Islam. As a consequence, we have been reviled as "racist." We are not. We simply insist on our right to defend freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and individual and sexual equality. We also insist on our right to criticize religious fanatics of every stripe who try to impose theocratic laws and customs on free societies.
When I was a young Marxist during the 1960s and '70s, these opinions used to be described as characteristic of the political left. Nowadays the defenders of such positions are routinely labeled as right-wing or as belonging to the "extreme right." Meanwhile, what used to be the left is cozying up to holy men who want adulterous women to be stoned, homosexuals to be hanged, apostates from Islam to be killed, and 1,200-year-old laws emanating from somewhere in the Arabian desert to replace our free constitutions.
In my home country of Denmark, the reaction to the failed murder has mainly been one of horror. Nearly all leading politicians and media have condemned it. To be sure, some newspapers have availed themselves of this opportunity to emphasize what a despicable racist I am, but at least they express their satisfaction that I'm not dead.
Not so in Sweden, where I work most of the time. The Swedish media have either hinted that I have invented the incident in order to set myself up as a martyr—which would have required a major conspiracy involving the Danish police and Security Service—or they seem disappointed that my delivery man was not a better marksman.
What's next?
Unfortunately, the attempt on my life is one in a wave of political assassinations or attempted assassinations that has swept Europe since Ayatollah Khomeini issued his so-called fatwa against Salman Rushdie in 1989. Some have been killed—among them the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn and Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Others, like writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have been forced to flee Europe or go into hiding.
I am determined not to be silenced, come what may. I refuse to live in a world ruled by the gun.
Mr. Hedegaard, a journalist and historian, is the founder of the International Free Press Society and editor in chief of Dispatch International
-
http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis/nytimes-manages-praise-muslims-over-assasination-attempt/#fm
-
A Double Standard on Hate By Daniel GreenfieldEvery year college campuses across the
country hold a festival of hatred aimed at Jews and the Jewish State. Israeli
Apartheid Week has become notorious for the targeted harassment of Jewish students,
support for Hamas and even physical violence. This year the David Horowitz Freedom
Center has responded to Israeli Apartheid Week with Islamic Apartheid Week. Unlike
Israeli Apartheid Week, which is based on a lie, Islamic Apartheid Week addresses
the sexism, homophobia and religious bigotry threatening minorities in the Muslim
world. To promote Islamic Apartheid Week, the Freedom Center attempted to place an
ad in forty college papers. The ad called "Faces of Islamic Apartheid" drew
attention to the victims of Islamic sexism, homophobia and theocracy by briefly
telling the stories of gay men hanged in Iran, women and girls murdered by their
governments and their families for the crime of falling in love and the Christian
Minister for Minorities Affairs in Pakistan's cabinet who was murdered for trying to
reform his country's theocratic blasphemy laws. These four women, three men and one
little girl were the victims of Islamic Apartheid. Five of them have been murdered.
Their memory lives on only when they are remembered. One has been on death row for
six years. Telling her story may help save her life. The remaining two live under
threat of death. Instead of listening to their stories, the campus culture of
political correctness drowned out their voices and apologized for even allowing
their stories to be told. Nine college papers turned the ad down, five of them in
the University of California system which has been criticized for tolerating
anti-Semitism. When the California State Assembly passed a resolution condemning
anti-Semitism on campus and warned that no public resources should be used for
anti-Semitic hate, the University of California objected on free speech grounds.
However free speech for Israeli Apartheid Week did not translate into free speech
for Islamic Apartheid Week. Seven college papers took the advertisement. Of those
papers, Tufts University's Tufts Daily and Austin's Daily Texan both ran apologies
from their editors for even printing the ad. Tufts Daily editor Martha Shanahan
called the decision to run the ad an "editorial oversight." Daily Texan editor
Susannah Jacob denounced the attempt to tell the stories of victimized women and
children as "hateful" and "an unspoken incitement to violence." Martha Shanahan
spent two pages apologizing for the existence of the "Islamophobic and violently
offensive" advertisement, the existence of Tufts Daily, its staff and her own
existence. At no point during her long series of apologies, did Martha acknowledge
that her paper had run four editorials in a single week from Students for Justice in
Palestine attacking Israel and promoting hatred for the Jewish State. And in an
unequal response to this, it also ran a brief letter from Tufts Friends of Israel
distancing itself from the ad and politely suggesting that apartheid shouldn't be
used to refer to Israel. Anthony Monaco, the President of Tufts University, took to
Twitter to denounce the advertisement for vilifying Islam, but made no such
denunciation of the Tufts Daily's op-ed, "The Case for Israeli Apartheid" which (not
coincidentally) appeared on the same day as the ad. At Tufts, no one apologizes for
accusing democratic Israel of apartheid. There are only apologies when theocratic
Iran and Pakistan are accused of practicing Islamic Apartheid. When anti-Israel
voices are outweighed 4-to-1 and the editor apologizes for publishing another
perspective that would have made it 4-to-2 then the freedom of debate at Tufts
University is in a very sad state. When that same editor prints editorials
describing Israel as an apartheid state, but promises to put in place an entire
system of oversight to make certain that no advertisement challenging Islamic
Apartheid is ever printed again, then a system of censorship has been put into place
silencing the voices of victims and encouraging their persecutors. The Daily Texan's
Susannah Jacob claimed that the crosshairs over the faces of the victims were an
incitement to violence when they were actually a way of bringing urgency to the
violence that had been committed against them. And making it clear that she never
even saw the advertisement that she was denouncing, Susannah described the ad as
depicting six women, when it included two gay men, one Christian man and one little
girl. Susannah further distorted the truth about Islamic Apartheid when she
described the pervasive sexism, homophobia and theocracy that these people fell
victim to as "discrete incidents of violence by Muslims" being used "to implicate
all Muslims" while ignoring the fact that five of the victims in the ad had been
targeted by their governments or with government backing. Can the Daily Texan's
editor honestly claim that Iran's persecution of women and gay men or Pakistan's
persecution of Christians are "discrete incidents of violence", rather than state
policy? Could she find a single human rights organization that would agree with such
a dishonest whitewashing of the terror under which millions live? The responses to
the advertisement have established once again that some forms of apartheid are
privileged on campus and that some forms of persecution cannot be talked about.
Demonizing the Israeli victims of Islamic terror is within the realm of campus free
speech, but speaking about the vulnerable minorities in the Muslim world is not. If
the advertisement was wrong, then there would have been no need to censor it. False
claims can easily be disproven. Five minutes with Google would have told every
reader and editor whether there was any truth to the Faces of Islamic Apartheid. It
is never necessary to censor lies. It is only necessary to censor truth. That is why
the majority of campus papers – ten so far, including Harvard whose editors said
they would not print it under any circumstances -- refused to run this paid
advertisement. It is why those few who did have begun making ritual apologies while
lying about its contents. It is why the attacks on the advertisement have taken
refuge in vague platitudes about offensiveness, without a single attempt at a
factual rebuttal. It is why every response to the advertisement has consisted of
claiming that speaking about Islamic bigotry is the real bigotry. There were eight
faces and eight names in the censored advertisement that the President of Tufts, the
editors of Tufts Daily, the Daily Texan and the editors of ten college papers that
turned down the ad, did not want their students to see or know about because it
might disturb the manufactured campus consensus that they have constructed with
great effort around Israel and Islamic terrorism. These are the names. Amina Said.
Sarah Said. Afshan Azad. Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani. Shahbas Bhatti. Rimsha Masih.
Mahmoud Asgari. Ayaz Marhoni. They were repressed as individuals. Now their story is
being repressed on the American campus. Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism
Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center
-
Truth is a defense. Let the Truth be determined!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/10/muslim-group-sues-ban-christian-action-network-boo/
-
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/%E2%80%8Bfbis-most-wanted-ads-blocked-muslim-brotherhood-group/#fm
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/15/us-france-bardot-muslims-idUSL1584799120080415
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/09/brandeis-withdraws-honorary-degree-offer-to-ayaan-hirsi-ali/
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/09/brandeis-withdraws-honorary-degree-offer-to-ayaan-hirsi-ali/
Having suffered female genital mutilation and constant death threats, this is the least worst thing done to her by muslims.
-
http://wwsg.com/response-by-ayaan-hirsi-ali-to-the-statement-from-brandeis-university
-
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2014/July/Britains-Lost-Freedoms-Were-Living-in-a-Mad-House/
-
Jordanian Cleric Advocates Jewish Temple Mount Prayer
Click here to watch: Jordan Arrests Cleric for Advocating Jewish Temple Mount Prayer
A Jordanian Muslim cleric has been arrested for advocating Jewish prayer rights on the Temple Mount, just a week after he issued a public statement retracting the comments following a hail of criticism. In a video statement posted online on December 18, Salafi cleric Sheikh Yassin Al-Ajlouni said a place of worship for Jews should be established on the Temple Mount, noting its religious importance to Judaism - although he emphasized that the site should remain "under Hashemite [Jordanian] sovereignty and control," as per existing arrangements. "There should be a special place of worship for the Jews among the Israelis under Hashemite and Palestinian sovereignty, and in agreement with the Israeli regime," Al-Ajlouni said "This by no means entails the harming of the Al-Aqsa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock," he added, clarifying that under his vision "part of the courtyard, where there are trees, will be allocated for the prayer of the Israelis." He further called on Jordanian and Palestinian Islamic scholars to issue a fatwa (religious ruling) to "clarify their religious position regarding the building of a place of worship dedicated for the Israeli Jews." But the comments unsurprisingly drew the ire of authorities, who do not recognize the Jewish claim to the Temple Mount, leading him to issue a public retraction. In a video dated December 28, the cleric said: "I am retracting my call, in my previous video, to allocate a place of worship for the Jews (on the Temple Mount)." "The Israelis interpreted this call as if I were saying that they have a right to Bayt al-Maqdis [Temple Mount]," he continued. "I would like to emphasize that Bay al-Maqdis is pure Islamic land. "No one is allowed to give it up, trivialize it, or to pass sovereignty over it to any non-Muslim party."
Watch Here
However, apparently that was not enough for Jordanian authorities, who arrested him not long after his retraction. According to Jordanian media, first cited by the Elder of Ziyon blog, Al-Ajlouni was arrested on the orders of the Administrative Governor of the Irbid Governorate. In addition, the "General Mufti Department" Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Sheikh Ajlouni, who is a physics teacher, calling on the Ministry of Education to take "appropriate administrative action" against him "for issuing random fatwas that hurt the feelings of Muslims, and affected the Jordanian efforts to protect the Al-Aqsa Mosque from Zionist attacks." Despite its status as the holiest site in Judaism, Jews are currently banned from praying on the Temple Mount (as are other non-Muslims) due to pressure and threats from Muslim groups - not least among them the Waqf Islamic trust, which administers the site under Jordanian auspices as per Jordan's peace treaty with Israel. Jewish activists have been campaigning to change that, branding such measures illegal and discriminatory - and have faced hostility and even violence, sometimes deadly, by Muslim extremists in response. Al-Ajlouni's comments were unusual given the current discourse within the Muslim world, which denies any Jewish connection to the site. Prominent Jewish Temple Mount rights activist Rabbi Chaim Richman praised his "bold" statement as "extremely positive." Up until the 20th century Islamic literature consistently referred to the Mount as the site of the Jewish Temple of Solomon, but Arab and Muslim opposition to the growing Zionist movement sparked a wave of revisionism which saw nearly all reference to the site's Jewish heritage removed from their history books. Today, the Waqf and Palestinian Authority deny that the Temple Mount was ever Jewish, and actively seek to erase any traces of its Jewish past by destroying precious artifacts.
Source: Arutz Sheva
-
Charlie Hebdo: Martyrs for the Truth
by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
January 7, 2015
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4719/charlie-hebdo-martyrs-for-the-truth
With the massacre of Charlie Hebdo magazine's editors and cartoonists in Paris by Islamic gunmen early Wednesday afternoon, the forces of radical Islam lay the gauntlet down: radical Islam is not just fighting against Western freedom, or the hegemony of Western powers. Their real enemy is truth.
The killing of the Charlie Hebdo staff was not the first time Islamists have made a point of murdering journalists or commentators, or the first time they have risen up against satirists in the West. The record is rich with them: the slaughter in broad daylight of Theo van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam in November, 2004; the many attempts on the life of Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist responsible for the drawings of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban; the plot to kill Swedish cartoonist Lars Viks, for similar drawings; the kidnap and murder of American journalist Steven Vincent in response to his New York Times article exposing corruption in the Basra police force in 2005; the beheadings of James Foley and Steven Sotloff in 2014; and the 2011 bombing of the Charlie Hebdo offices in response to the magazine's own publication of cartoons about Mohammed. Among others.
(And that doesn't even address the strong-arming and censorship of Muslim countries – even "democratic" Turkey, which, under the iron hand of Islamist president (and former prime minister) Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has been condemned internationally for its imprisonment of journalists. Indeed, on a list of 170 countries graded on press freedom, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabi a stand at 154, 158, 159, and 164, respectively.)
But what is most terrifying about the Charlie Hebdo massacre is the fact that we can no longer hide behind excuses about "lone wolf" terrorists who are "unbalanced" or "disturbed." Such descriptions are the way in which both media and public officials have attempted to minimize the impulses behind attacks such as the one in Fort Hood in 2009, or the attempts to behead two police officers in the streets of New York. What today's events in Paris make clear is that this is not the work of individual crazies, and that Islam is, in fact, a part of the equation.
It's time to stop pretending otherwise.
Let's be clear: the killers announced after their rampage that "this was vengeance for the Prophet Mohammed." Some witnesses claim that at least one of the men cried "Allahu Akbar," ("Allah is great"), the rallying cry of Islamic terrorists. And while many Muslim organizations condemned the attack, other Muslims have taken to Facebook and other social media to praise them.
But as CNN's Anderson Cooper said, "This was an attack on journalism." And an attack on journalism is an attack against truth, against insight, against knowledge – against the Enlightenment.
The weapons may not be new, but the frontier Muslim extremists are fighting on – the destruction of the media, of truth – is one we have not paid enough attention to before.
In many cases, we've perhaps contributed to it: most American and other Western publications refused to republish the Danish Mohammed cartoons after they first set off international rioting among Muslims. And even the Bush administration spoke out against them, saying "We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive."
And in 2012, White House spokesman Jay Carney criticized Charlie Hebdo for publishing cartoons mocking Mohammed.
"[W]e have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. But we've spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution," Carney said.
"In other words, we don't question the right of something like this to be published; we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it. And I think that that's our view about the video that was produced in this country and has caused so much offense in the Muslim world."
Perhaps in this, Charlie Hebdo was way ahead of the rest of us: they, along with the editors of the Danish Jyllands Posten, which first published the "Mohammed cartoons," have been fighting back from the very start. Shockingly, even Western commentators (and especially Western Muslims) condemned the cartoonists in Denmark, just as they condemned Theo van Gogh and, today, Charlie Hebdo for "inviting" these attacks through their "recklessness."
Nothing Charlie Hebdo ever did was "reckless," any more than Steven Vincent's reporting was reckless, any more than Theo van Gogh's film Submission, about honor killings and the abuse of women in Islam, was reckless. In Charlie Hebdo's case, it was about satire on the face of it – but more than that, their work was about the very urgent need to preserve free expression, and to condemn – in any and all ways possible – those who seek to destroy it.
In the memory of those who died for truth and freedom, we cannot give up that fight – and we cannot afford to lose it.
Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2005/07/insulting_muhammad_free_speech.html
-
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/46-examples-of-muslim-outrage-about-paris-shooting-that-fox-news-cant-seem-to-find/
-
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/46-examples-of-muslim-outrage-about-paris-shooting-that-fox-news-cant-seem-to-find/
:roll:
-
Why the eye roll?
-
Why the eye roll?
Well, aside from the obvious lefty bias of the source, they start off citing CAIR, which is the US branch of the Muslim brotherhood. The MB is of course dedicated to the destruction of western civilization. How many of the others are engaging in taquiyya as well?
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/13/this-muslim-mayor-has-no-patience-for-immigrants-who-cant-take-a-joke/
-
Pakistani actress vs. Cleric
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAO8oc93UVQ
-
Charlie Hebdo’s Defiant Muhammad Cover Fuels Debate on Free Speech
By DAN BILEFSKYJAN. 13, 2015
Pravda on the Hudson
The editors of the satirical newspaper discussed the cover of the first issue after the attack on their offices, which depicts the Prophet Muhammad crying.
Video by Reuters on Publish Date January 13, 2015. Photo by Yoan Valat/European Pressphoto Agency.
PARIS — Immediately upon unveiling its new cover — a depiction of Muhammad — the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo on Tuesday reignited the debate pitting free speech against religious sensitivities that has embroiled Europe since 12 people were killed during an attack on its Paris offices by Muslim extremists a week ago.
The cover shows the bearded prophet shedding a tear and holding up a sign saying, “I am Charlie,” the rallying cry that has become synonymous with support of the newspaper and free expression. Above the cartoon on a green background is the headline “All is forgiven.”
While surviving staff members, at an emotional news conference, described their choice of cover as a show of forgiveness, most Muslims consider any depiction of their prophet to be blasphemous. Moreover, interpretations quickly swirled around the Internet that the cartoon also contained disguised crudity.
One of Egypt’s highest Islamic authorities warned that the cartoon would exacerbate tensions between the secular West and observant Muslims, while death threats circulated online against staff members.
A preacher, Anjem Choudary, the former leader of a radical group that was banned in Britain, was quoted by a British newspaper, The Independent, as saying that the image was “an act of war” that would be punishable by death if judged in a Shariah court.
Beyond new threats — and the potential for more violence after a week in which both mosques and Jewish sites were attacked — the persistence of what many Muslims see as continuing provocations opened complaints about a double standard in European countries, whose bans on hate speech some see as seeming to stop short of forbidding ridicule of Islam.
“If freedom of expression can be sacrificed for criminalizing incitement and hatred, why not for insulting the Prophet of Allah?” Mr. Choudary wrote last week on Twitter on the same day as the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, during which the attackers indicated they were avenging Muhammad for the newspaper’s insults.
Supporters of the iconoclastic newspaper defended the cover as a fitting and defiant tribute to Charlie Hebdo’s slain cartoonists. “I have no worries about the cover,” the cartoonist who drew it, Renald Luzier, who uses the pen name Luz, told assembled reporters at the offices of the newspaper Libération, which the Charlie Hedbo staff has used since the attack. “We have confidence in people’s intelligence, and we have confidence in humor. The people who did this attack, they have no sense of humor.”
“I’m sorry we’ve drawn him yet again,” he added, “but the Muhammad we’ve drawn is a man who is crying.”
Laurent Léger, an investigative journalist with Charlie Hebdo, shrugged off the idea, circulating on social media, that the cartoon contained one or even two hidden renderings of male genitals. “People can see what they want to see, but a cartoon is a cartoon,” he said. “It is not a photograph.”
Muslim leaders as far away as Egypt condemned Charlie Hebdo, recalling threats received by a Danish newspaper in 2005 after it, too, published cartoons satirizing Muhammad.
Elsa Ray, the spokeswoman of the Paris-based Collective Against Islamophobia in France, declined to react specifically to the new cartoon, but said that cartoons that lampooned Muhammad breached the limits of decency and insulted Muslims. “The freedom of expression may be guaranteed by the French Constitution, but there is a limit when it goes too far and turns into hatred, and stigmatization,” she said.
Moreover, she argued that the failure of French courts to clamp down on cartoons satirizing Muhammad was a double standard, given the robustness of action taken when Jews were insulted by cartoonists or artists, including Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a comedian, who in 2013 came under the scrutiny of courts, which banned a series of his shows. Mr. M’bala M’bala has said it was a shame that a Jewish journalist had not been killed in the gas chambers. He has also come under fire for popularizing a gesture that strongly resembles a Nazi salute.
In a statement on his Facebook page after Sunday’s enormous unity march in Paris, Mr. M’bala M’bala expressed his admiration for Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman behind the killings at a kosher supermarket. “As far as I am concerned, I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly,” he wrote, alluding to the “I am Charlie” rallying cry. The Paris prosecutor’s office said Monday it had opened an investigation to determine if Mr. M’bala M’bala should be charged with promoting terrorism.
Mr. M’bala M’bala said he was being unfairly targeted.
French laws safeguard the freedom of speech, but there are many exceptions to the rule.
Prime Minister Manuel Valls told the National Assembly on Tuesday that “blasphemy” was not in French law and never would be. But he refused to draw any analogy between the satirists of Charlie Hebdo and Mr. M’bala M’bala.
“There is a fundamental difference,” he said.
Some cultural observers praised Charlie Hebdo for upholding Western values of liberal democracy, even at risk of violence. Flemming Rose, the former cultural editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, whose 2005 publication of cartoons lampooning Muhammad — including one with his turban depicted as a lit fuse — drew violent recriminations that reverberated across the world, recalled that the publication of the cartoons resulted in a fatwa against him by a radical cleric, threats against the newspaper and one of its cartoonists, and attacks against Danish embassies in the Middle East.
Mr. Rose said in an interview that Jyllands-Posten had decided not to publish the latest Charlie Hebdo caricature for fear the newspaper would be targeted again. Still, he said it was imperative that Western newspapers not surrender to Islamic radicals.
“We aren’t republishing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons because we are afraid,” he said. “But I know well that if you give in to intimidation, it works.”
His comments reflect the debate that last’s week attacks have ignited in newsrooms and in the streets and cafes in Europe.
Jérôme Fenoglio, the managing editor of Le Monde, said his paper had decided to publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoon on its cover because “it is an important document that we wanted to show to everybody.” The cartoon, Mr. Fenoglio said, “didn’t carry any insulting message.”
“We defend our right to be able to publish any cartoon, but never those which would be aggressive,” Mr. Fenoglio said. Though he said that some of Charlie Hebdo’s caricatures were “not funny” and could “uselessly” offend people, “each paper makes its own judgment.”
“Freedom of the press is an absolute right,” Mr. Fenoglio said, “but each paper has its own free will, and chooses what seems pertinent or not.”
Some American newspapers, including The New York Times, did not reproduce the Charlie Hedbo cartoons that mocked Islam. The Times called the decision an editorial judgment that reflected its standards for content that is deemed offensive and gratuitous.
The decision drew criticism from some free-speech advocates who called it cowardly in the face of a terrorist attack, which the newspaper disputed.
“Actually, we have republished some of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, including a caricature of the head of ISIS, as well as some political cartoons,” Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The Times, said in a statement. “We do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities.”
The Washington Post, which published a single previous Charlie Hebdo cartoon of Muhammad on its printed op-ed page last Thursday, republished the new cover on its website on Tuesday. Martin Baron, the newspaper’s executive editor, said the images did not violate its editorial standards.
“It has to be deliberately, pointedly, needlessly offensive,” Mr. Baron said.
More publications have published or plan to reproduce Charlie Hebdo’s newest cover online. Three million copies of the newspaper will be published on Wednesday in 16 languages.
The proliferation of the cartoons is heightening concern that the already precarious climate in Europe will worsen, with the possibility of more violence. Some newspapers that reproduced the cartoons in solidarity after last week’s attack have themselves been threatened or targeted already.
A Belgian newspaper, Le Soir, received an anonymous call Sunday from someone threatening that “it’s going to blow in your newsroom.”
The same day, in Germany, stones and an incendiary object were thrown through the windows of the headquarters of a newspaper, Hamburger Morgenpost, damaging the archive but causing no injuries.
Khalil Charles, spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain, said free speech had been allowed to defy common sense and had given way to insults. Referring to last week’s attacks, he added: “Muslims are appalled, like everyone, about what happened. But this is criminality that should not be attached to Islam, and the Prophet should not be attacked as a result.”
-
Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty
January 15, 2015
Who Is Surprised that the Pope Isn’t a First Amendment Absolutist?
What guides us morally -- and God’s desire for how we treat each other -- is sometimes distinct from what guides us in this rough-and-tumble world, dealing with other human beings. “Turn the other cheek” is a very noble personal policy for dealing with others who wrong you. It doesn’t work as national-security policy -- at least, not for long.
The people who insist that what is morally right and what is legal in a free society must be one and the same will make a lot of hay about this:
Pope Francis suggested there are limits to freedom of expression, saying in response to the Charlie Hebdo terror attack that “one cannot make fun of faith.”
The pontiff said that both freedom of faith and freedom of speech were fundamental human rights and that “every religion has its dignity.”
“One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith,” he said. “There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity . . . in freedom of expression there are limits.”
The pope was speaking to reporters on a plane as he flew from Sri Lanka to the Philippines on his tour of Asia.
-
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=699547676857163&fref=nf
-
French Rein In Speech Backing Acts of Terror
By DOREEN CARVAJAL and ALAN COWELLJAN. 15, 2015
Photo
The funeral in Montreuil for Bernard Verlhac, a cartoonist who died in the attack on Charlie Hebdo. Credit Yoan Valat/European Pressphoto Agency
PARIS — The French authorities are moving aggressively to rein in speech supporting terrorism, employing a new law to mete out tough prison sentences in a crackdown that is stoking a free-speech debate after last week’s attacks in Paris.
Those swept up under the new law include a 28-year-old man of French-Tunisian background who was sentenced to six months in prison after he was found guilty of shouting support for the attackers as he passed a police station in Bourgoin-Jalieu on Sunday. A 34-year-old man who on Saturday hit a car while drunk, injured the other driver and subsequently praised the acts of the gunmen when the police detained him was sentenced Monday to four years in prison.
All told, up to 100 people are under investigation for making or posting comments that support or try to justify terrorism, according to Cédric Cabut, a prosecutor in Bourgoin-Jalieu, in the east of France. The French news media have reported about cases in Paris, Toulouse, Nice, Strasbourg, Orléans and elsewhere in France.
The arrests have raised questions about a double standard for free speech here, with one set of rules for the cartoonists who freely skewered religions of all kinds, even when Muslims, Catholics and others objected, and yet were defended for their right to do so, and another set for the statements by Muslim supporters of the gunmen, which have led to their prosecution.
But French law does prohibit speech that might invoke or support violence. And prosecutors, who on Wednesday were urged by the Ministry of Justice to fight and prosecute “words or acts of hatred” with “utmost vigor,” are relying particularly on new tools under a law adopted in November to battle the threat of jihadism. The law includes prison sentences up to seven years for backing terrorism.
Some of those who were cited under the new law have already been sentenced, with the criminal justice system greatly accelerated, moving from accusations to trial and imprisonment in as little as three days.
Prosecutors seized on the law in the days after the terrorist attacks in Paris, which left 17 people dead — 12 at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a weekly newspaper that was targeted in retaliation for publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. A notice from the Ministry of Justice on Jan. 12 directed prosecutors to react firmly.
The accused did not have to threaten actual violence to run afoul of the law. According to Mr. Cabut, who brought the case in Bourgoin-Jalieu, the man shouted, “They killed Charlie and I had a good laugh. In the past they killed Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Mohammed Merah and many brothers. If I didn’t have a father or mother, I would train in Syria.”
The most prominent case now pending in the French courts is that of Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a provocative humorist who has been a longtime symbol in France of the battle between free speech and public safety. With nearly 40 previous arrests on suspicion of violating antihate laws, for statements usually directed at Jews, he was again arrested on Wednesday, this time for condoning terrorism.
He faces trial in early February in connection with a Facebook message he posted, declaring, “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly.” It was a reference to the popular slogan of solidarity for the murdered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists — “Je suis Charlie” — and one of the attackers, Amedy Coulibaly, who killed a policewoman and later four people in a kosher supermarket last Friday.
Prosecutors and other lawyers say the difference is laid out in French law, which unlike United States laws, limits what can be said or done in specific categories. Because of its World War II history, for example, France has speech laws that specifically address anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. In the case of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, prosecutors said, the targets were ideas and concepts, and though deemed extreme by some, the satire was meted out broadly.
“A lot of people say that it’s unjust to support Charlie Hebdo and then allow Dieudonné to be censored,” said Mathieu Davy, a lawyer who specializes in media rights. “But there are clear limits in our legal system. I have the right to criticize an idea, a concept or a religion. I have the right to criticize the powers in my country. But I don’t have the right to attack people and to incite hate.”
President François Hollande of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany on Thursday both sought to quash any backlash against Muslims in the wake of the Islamic militants’ attacks. As they have also done in recent days, they raised the issue of anti-Semitism.
“We must be clear between ourselves, lucid,” Mr. Hollande told an audience at the Institute of the Arab World in Paris. He said that inequalities and conflicts that had persisted for years had fueled radical Islam.
“The Muslims are the first victims of fanaticism, extremism and intolerance,” he said.
“French Muslims have the same rights, the same duties as all citizens,” Mr. Hollande said.
Pope Francis joined the debate while traveling to the Philippines from Sri Lanka, saying that while he defended freedom of expression, there were also limits.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipu0ifyC-Xc
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N76w0pkz7yQ
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N76w0pkz7yQ
Well done!
-
http://pamelageller.com/2015/01/media-and-academia-urge-vandalism-of-mosques.html/
-
second post
http://pamelageller.com/2015/01/artwork-removed-from-paris-exhibition-showing-womens-shoes-on-muslim-prayer-mats-after-muslim-threats.html/
-
second post
http://pamelageller.com/2015/01/artwork-removed-from-paris-exhibition-showing-womens-shoes-on-muslim-prayer-mats-after-muslim-threats.html/
The French surrendering?
-
The Sound of Silence
by Mark Steyn
February 9, 2015
Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University is nobody's idea of a right-winger. He voted for Obama, and supports almost all of his policy goals (if not his extra-constitutional methods). But, unlike most of the left, he's still prepared to defend free speech against what he calls Charlie's False Friends:
For civil libertarians, it is clear that when leaders insist that they "Stand with Charlie" it does not mean actually standing with free speech. To the contrary, the greatest threat facing free speech today is found in Western governments, which have increasingly criminalized and prosecuted speech, particularly anti-religious speech. Once the defining right of Western Civilization, free speech is dying in the West and few world leaders truly mourn its passing.
Around the world, speech is under attack under an array of hate speech and anti-discrimination laws... The result is a growing, if not insatiable, appetite for speech regulation that only increases after violent responses to controversial publications.
The most recent tragedy in France follows an all too familiar pattern from publication to prosecution. Consider what happened in 2005 with the publication of the Danish cartoons and the global riots leading to the murder of non-Muslims and burning of churches and homes. The West rallied around the right of free speech, but then quietly ramped up prosecutions of speech. It happened again in 2012 when a low-budget trailer of a low-grade movie was put on YouTube. The "Innocence of Muslims" trailer was deemed insulting to Mohammad and Islam and led to another global spasm of murder and arson by irate Muslims. Again, Western leaders professed support for free speech while cracking down further on anti-religious speech. Even in the United States, President Obama insisted that the filmmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula had every right to make the film. However, the next image that the world saw after that speech was filmmaker being thrown into a police car in handcuffs for technical violations of a probation on unrelated charges...
Professor Turley then lists a round-up of state assaults on freedom of expression from around the so-called free world, including my own difficulties in Canada. I doubt Turley agrees with a single one of these hatespeechers (including me) on the merits, but he recognizes that the point of free speech is for the speech you hate. If you don't believe in free speech for those you hate, you don't believe in free speech at all. And then he adds:
These cases represent more than a lack of support for free speech. They represent a comprehensive assault on free speech. Indeed, one of the world leaders proudly proclaiming support for free speech in Paris has banned the publication of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Yalcin Akdogan called the use of the prophet's image on the magazine an act of "sedition and provocation."
Well, Turkey is hardly anyone's idea of a crucible of liberty. But what are we to make of England, mother of the free? The other day Wiltshire Police went to a local newsagent and demanded that, in the interests of "community cohesion", he hand over the names of every customer who bought a copy of Charlie Hebdo:
Mrs Keat, a self-confessed news junkie, ordered the magazine from a local newsagent in Corsham, Wiltshire, a week after the 7 January attacks in Paris. Two days after she bought her magazine, she learned that an officer had been back to ask for the names of the buyers.
The names and addresses of the buyers were added to an intelligence note and fed into a police crime and intelligence system, police confirmed. The force deleted the note after details of the visit came to light in a letter that Mrs Keat wrote to The Guardian and warned of the potential ramifications after seeing an advert for Je Suis Charlie badges...
What really is the difference between Charlie Hebdo's killers and Wiltshire Police? The anti-Charlie crowd made it clear years ago that they knew where the offending cartoonists were and one day they would get them. The Wiltshire Police are not so subtly telling Charlie's English readers that they know where you are - just in case one day they need to get you:
"Wiltshire Police would like to apologise to the members of public who may be affected by this. Information relating to this specific incident has been permanently and securely disposed of," it said... "Wiltshire Police are confident that the police officer's intention was purely around enhancing public safety and ensuring that the newsagent was advised appropriately."
You can get away with anything when you smother it in blather about "enhancing" public safety and "advising appropriately". But the fact remains that, a few days after the hideous opportunist Cameron was marching under the #JeSuisCharlie banner in Paris, his coppers were ordering newsagents to cough up the names of anyone who bought the magazine. This is Mother England in 2015: You can still read samizdat literature, but your name will be entered in a state database.
Equally disturbing was a recent English court judgment re the Home Office ban denying Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller entry into the United Kingdom. Their Lordships' appalling decision essentially extends the heckler's veto to Her Britannic Majesty's immigration policy:
A British Court of Appeal handed down its judgment dismissing our appeal challenging our ban from entering the United Kingdom. The key element of its decision is its emphasis on the fact that "this was a public order case where the police had advised that significant public disorder and serious violence might ensue from the proposed visit." In writing that judgment, Lord Justice Tomlinson (with whom Lord Justice Patten and Lord Justice Floyd agree) has only made it clear that the British government has decided to set aside established law and the freedom of speech in order to appease violent Muslims.
No serious person thinks Spencer and Geller are any threat to "public order". They speak without incident all over not only the United States but also the Dominion of Canada, and without unduly stressing the Queen's Peace. So, if they can't speak without incident in the United Kingdom, that is a reflection not on them but on Britain. What Lord Justice Tomlinson means by the prospect of "serious violence" is that, if you're booked to give a speech in Oxford and some Islamic grievance-mongers threaten to go bananas over it, your speech has to be forbidden in deference to the crazies. The decision thus incentivizes those who threaten violence. As Laura Rosen Cohen likes to say, "security concerns" are the new "shut up".
And, if you think David Cameron's ministry has grown far too comfortable with using state power to restrain the opinions of a free party, wait till the other fellows take over:
The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, will on Monday unveil a strategy to tackle the UK's soaring rise in antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia and abuse of people with disabilities. The package includes making homophobic and disability hate crimes an aggravated criminal offence, ensuring that police treat such offences in the same way as racist hate crimes.
Cooper will outline changes to the criminal records framework whereby such offences will be clearly marked on the criminal records of perpetrators. Currently, records checks do not highlight homophobia, disability or transgender identity as a motivating factor in a conviction, and do not automatically appear in police data used for vetting applicants in sensitive vocations, such as those working with vulnerable people, including the disabled.
Labour's move comes as a new breakdown of police figures reveals an escalation in hate crimes since 2012, with a steep rise in abuse reported by the transgender community alongside the well-documented rises in antisemitism and Islamophobia.
As that grab-bag suggests, right now the leftie sexual identity groups are happy to make common cause with the Islamocrazies because they're both about shutting people up. For example, the feminist comedienne Kate Smurthwaite is already in Britain so, unlike Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, she can't be turned back at Heathrow. But she apparently holds insufficiently "respectful" attitudes to "sex workers", so she had her speech at Goldsmiths College canceled because of - what else? - "security concerns". The topic of her talk was, of course, free speech.
Professor Jonathan Turley says:
Western leaders have increasingly spoken out against the dangers of free speech. For politicians, free speech is an abstraction, the consequences of free speech tend to be more tangible in the form of riots and murders.
You don't have to be a politician to think "free speech is an abstraction". Robert Spencer might want to give speeches about Islam, and Mrs Keat might want to read Charlie Hebdo, but most people don't want to give any speeches at all and are content to read Hello! or People or whatever's filling the rack where Charlie Hebdo used to be. In some ways, it's the easiest right to surrender, particularly to regimes that smother the expansion of state regulatory power in soothing twaddle about "enhancing public safety" to protect "vulnerable people".
Speaking of "vulnerable people", how about this headline from The Daily Mirror?
Child sex abuse gangs could have assaulted ONE MILLION youngsters in the UK
That's according to Rotherham Labour MP Sarah Champion. Who knows if it's true? On the one hand, Britain is so alert to "paedos" that, if some cheesy old Radio One disc-jockey is alleged to have grabbed the passing breast of a 15-year-old teenybopper on "Top Of The Pops" in 1973, he'll be dragged through the courts and publicly ruined. But vast, systemic, industrial-scale 21st-century paedophilia by Muslim grooming gangs aided and abetted by law enforcement and local government will be ignored and hushed up - essentially in the interests of (what was that expression again?) "community cohesion". It turns out free speech isn't that "abstract". When you so hedge in free expression with political correctness, you make it impossible even to raise certain subjects, and thereby facilitate real, non-abstract evil. The loss of free speech brings other losses, too.
Yet, looking at the ease with which governments of some of the oldest, freest societies on earth are shackling and restraining the right to speak, to read, to think, the obvious question to ask is what rights will they go after next? After all, if 300 years of free speech can be rolled back in the interest of "enhancing public safety", why not property rights, due process, freedom of association, freedom of religion or even (gasp!) sexual liberty? Why think that statist restraints on core liberties will confine themselves to just one right?
-
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/11/10000-muhammad-art-and-cartoon-contest-to-be-held-at-site-of-stand-with-the-prophet-conference-in-texas/?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+February+12%2C+2015&utm_campaign=20150212_m124393278_Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+February+12%2C+2015&utm_term=More
-
40 shots fired. (Wait! Isn't Europe gun free?)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31472423
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31475803
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31475803
Most likely a Methodist, or perhaps a Quaker.
-
Europe’s New Terrorist Normal
Islamist attacks are becoming routine on the Continent.
Feb. 15, 2015 2:52 p.m. ET
210 COMMENTS
Islamist violence visited Denmark twice on the weekend, underscoring Europe’s new terrorist normal. Homegrown or immigrant Muslim terrorists targeting innocents and the Western way of life are becoming a feature of Continental life.
The alleged assailant didn’t choose his victims at random. First he fired dozens of rounds at a cafe in Copenhagen during a debate on free speech, killing one and wounding three. Police believe the same man attacked a synagogue hours later, killing a Jewish civilian guard and maiming two officers. Early Sunday police killed the man they believe committed both attacks. Witnesses heard him cry “Allahu Akbar” during the cafe assault.
Among those attending the debate at the Krudttoenden cafe was Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has received death threats and an al Qaeda bounty since the 2007 publication of a cartoon he drew that mocked Muhammad. A failed suicide bomber attacking downtown Stockholm in 2010 mentioned Mr. Vilks’s name in an email explaining his motives, and later that year the cartoonist’s home was the target of arson. He lives under police protection.
Denmark is also home to Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that set off days of Muslim rage world-wide in 2005 by publishing Muhammad cartoons. Five suspected terrorists were arrested in 2010 and four later convicted for plotting to murder Jyllands-Posten staffers, and an ax-wielding Somali tried but failed to murder one of the newspaper’s cartoonists at his home.
The 8,000-strong Danish Jewish community has also been besieged by anti-Semitism from the country’s Muslim quarters. In 2012 Israel’s Ambassador to Denmark warned visiting Israelis not to wear kippahs and other visible religious symbols.
Elite hostility to Israel amplifies street-level anti-Semitism. The Danish government has disbursed millions of kroner to anti-Israel activists and agitprop campaigns in recent years, according to NGO Monitor, an Israeli civil-society organization. Perhaps Danish officials will now spend less time henpecking Jerusalem about efforts to prevent terrorism and devote more energy to protecting their own citizens from the same forces.
They might look to France, where since the attacks on the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket, the government of Prime Minister Manuel Valls has ramped up counterterror powers. These include isolating jihadists in prison, giving security forces broader authority to monitor terror suspects online, and boosting staff and funding at intelligence agencies. These prudent measures, so bewailed by imprudent civil libertarians, can help avert large-scale atrocities that would result in public demand for mass detentions, expulsions and other broad restrictions.
Stopping terrorism from becoming normal will also require describing accurately the jihadist threat. The Obama Administration in the U.S. has refused to identify Islamism—or even “Islamic extremism”—as the ideology behind the recent attacks on the Continent and the horrors in Syria and Iraq. Such obfuscation doesn’t help moderate and reformist Muslims, whose cooperation is essential to defeating jihadists. Copenhagen can set a counterterror example by calling the enemy by its name.
-
Who could have foreseen such a thing?
Funny, now Andrez doesn't have to leave Europe to spread the word that jihad doesn't mean violence. I look forward to his success.
-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/danes-weigh-costs-of-free-speech-as-fear-takes-grip-1424131870
-
http://pamelageller.com/2015/02/brigitte-bardot-on-trial-again-for-insulting-muslims.html/
-
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/sarahjeanseman/2015/03/04/student-paper-mocks-terrorists-university-cuts-funding-n1965848?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
-
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/04/maine-lacrosse-coach-loses-job-for-criticizing-islam
-
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/04/maine-lacrosse-coach-loses-job-for-criticizing-islam
He reposted someone else's letter he thought was interesting for comment on his facebook page and lost his job for that?! Most of the facts in the letter were true. Part of it was opinion. Formerly called free speech. Now, very expensive speech!
-
http://www.clarionproject.org/news/pressure-university-south-dakota-cancel-honor-diaries
-
http://pamelageller.com/2015/04/emails-leaked-hamas-cair-strong-arming-brooklyn-college-to-cancel-my-lecture.html/
-
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-orders-york-transit-agency-run-pro-israel-164735981.html
-
This is fantastic. Predictably, CAIR and the media are in an uproar:
http://pamelageller.com/2015/04/ny-daily-news-posters-slamming-islam-for-killing-jews-can-be-displayed-on-mta-buses-court.html/
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feOV1Hh9eOU
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/3/shooting-reported-prophet-muhammad-cartoon-contest/
By Victor Morton - The Washington Times - Updated: 11:28 p.m. on Sunday, May 3, 2015
Police in a Dallas suburb killed two men in a car during a gun battle as they attacked a Muhammad-cartoon drawing contest. As the event at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland was ending, “two males drove up to the front of the building in a car.” according to a statement Sunday night by the city of Garland.
“Both males were armed and began shooting at a Garland ISD security officer. Garland Police engaged the gunmen who were both shot and killed,” the statement said.
One guard was wounded in the melee, which was held under tight security. More than 40 extra officers assigned to the event at the expense of the New York-based American Freedom Defense Initiative, which was awarding $10,000 prize would be awarded for the best cartoon depicting Muhammad. The city’s statement said the vehicle may have been intended for use as a car bomb.
“Police suspect the vehicle may have carried an incendiary device and the bomb squad is on the scene,” the city said.
The city did not explicitly say whether the contest, led by conservative anti-Shariah activist Pamela Gellar and with Dutch ally Geert Wilders also present, was the intended target. Both Ms. Gellar and Mr. Wilders have been the target of both death threats by Muslims and attacks by liberals as hatemongers. Muhammad drawings have resulted in several fatal attacks by Muslims in Europe and the Middle East.
Robert Spencer, co-founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, blamed the attacks on the environment cultivated by all forms of Islam.
“The shooting outside our free speech event shows once again that moderate Muslims are unable or unwilling to rein in their violent brethren,” he wrote on Twitter on Sunday night.
An officer dressed in SWAT gear took the stage around 7 p.m. CDT near the end of the event and told attendees, including an Associated Press reporter, that a shooting had occurred and everyone had to be evacuated. About 75 attendees were taken to another room. Later, a group of 48 people were escorted to a school bus. Authorities told attendees they would be taken to a nearby high school. A second group was set to be moved shortly after.
“Right when we were beginning to drive away, we heard gunshots,” attendee Cynthia Belisle told NBC News. “We thought they were fireworks, but they were not.”
Mr. Wilders tweeted from inside the event that the attack was ongoing and that he was leaving the building. He tweeted a photo of himself surrounded by camouflaged men that he said was taken just before the shooting began.
Story Continues →
Shooting reported at Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest near Dallas, Texas
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/3/shooting-reported-prophet-muhammad-cartoon-contest/#ixzz3Z8YoTvuT
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
===========
“Thank God the heroes of SWAT-team prevented the worst,” he wrote.
Muhammad drawings are deemed insulting to many followers of Islam and have sparked violence around the world. According to mainstream Islamic tradition, any physical depiction of the man Islam reveres as God’s final prophet — even a respectful one — is considered blasphemous. In January, 12 people were killed by gunmen in an attack against the Paris office of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, which had lampooned Islam and other religions and used depictions of Muhammad.
There was a quick claim of responsibility by a Muslim twitter account called “Shariah Is Light,” which uses as its avatar Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born imam who blessed the underwear bomber in Detroit and Fort Hood attacker Maj. Nidal Hasan.
“The bro with me and myself have given bay’ah to Amirul Mu’mineen. May Allah accept us as mujahideen. Make dua #texasattack,” the account wrote at 6:35 p.m. Sunday, apparently before the Texas attack.
The term “bay’ah” is the Muslim word for a solemn oath of allegiance, and “make dua” refers to an act of prayer and/or supplication before God. The claim could not be independently verified, but the account had long been sharply critical of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and was not established Sunday for the purpose of trolling after the attacks became public knowledge.
Another Twitter account known for pro-Islamic State sympathies went into divine praise for the attack.
“Allahu Akbar!!!!! 2 of our brothers just opened fire at the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) art exhibition in texas! #TexasAttack,” wrote AbuHussainAlBritani before the account was suspended.
• This article was based in part on wire-service reports.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/3/shooting-reported-prophet-muhammad-cartoon-contest/#ixzz3Z8YcL2vu
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
Islamic terrorism? Probably workplace violence.
-
The cowardice begins. This morning Donald Trump was on FOX criticizing Geller for looking to provoke a fight.
-
Our own Objectivist was there! I spoke briefly with him this morning. He says he will give a report here when he gets home.
-
No one say or do anything the Muslims don't like and we will all be fine!
-
This is the sad state of our media and our intellectual discourse today. Yes - I was at the event, and will post here what I experienced soon. I haven't been home more than a few hours. In the mean time, watch this interview with Pamela Geller (who I consider a friend and support 110% in this cause.) It's very disappointing and adversarial on MacCallum's part, in my opinion.
www.youtube.com/watch?t=47&v=mnMRFSg8i2s
-
And still the cowardly media refuses to even show this man's winning drawing:
http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/afdi-muhammad-cartoon-winner-bosch-fawstin-goes-unto-hiding.html/
-
The writer makes an excellent point. The cowardice of most of our media sickens me - this is just the latest and most egregious example:
http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/pamela-gellers-war-on-radical-islam-and-everybody-else.html/
-
I remember when this country was America.
-
As if this Administration gives a crap:
http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/fbi-under-increased-scrutiny-for-failing-to-prevent-garland-jihad-attack.html/
-
Pretty damn impressive if you ask me , , ,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCdJgqDhbS4&app=desktop
-
Yes I agree, Crafty - Pamela is an impressive woman and an excellent debater. She defends herself quite eloquently and without malice to her accusers such as this idiot reporter. Sadly, this is the state of our media today. I attended this event in Garland because I am as passionate about the First Amendment as Pamela. Her cause is righteous. Americans need to wake up, as Pamela says, and fight back - not submit to this savagery, as this President and our media would have us do. Freedom vs. slavery - it really is that simple. I for one, will NEVER submit. I have and will continue to support both Pamela and Robert Spencer 100%, including but not limited to standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them at these sorts of events.
-
Good on you for being there!!! 8-) 8-) 8-)
-
Good on you for being there!!! 8-) 8-) 8-)
I, too, am impressed!
--------------------------
Islamo-non-phobia, and the value of defiance
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/04/islamo-non-phobia-and-the-value-of-defiance/
Two apparent would-be jihadists drove to the Texas Muhammad cartoon drawing contest and opened fire. They wounded a security guard, who is expected to survive; they were shot dead by police.
Unsurprisingly, the organizers of the event — the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which has long been sharply critical of Islam — are being criticized for their “provocative” actions. Here, for instance, is a Twitter message from New York Times’ Rukmini Callimachi:
Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a “Muhammad drawing contest”?
This reminds me of the old joke: “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the theater?” There is no “free speech aside” here.
But beyond this, I think there is a special kind of exercise of free speech here: speech as defiance. The organizers are sending a message that they are not afraid, either of those who would condemn us or even of those who would kill us — at least not so afraid that they will forgo their First Amendment rights.
Harsh critics of Islam are often accused of “Islamophobia”; and while the suffix “-phobia” means “aversion to” as well as “fear of,” I think “-phobia” terms usually convey (and are often intended to convey) an allegation of irrational fear. Well, the critics say, our fear is actually quite rational; it makes sense to rationally fear dangerous ideologies. But with events such as this, I think the critics are saying: it is those who condemn us for being “provocative” who are relying on fear of Muslim extremists, and we are the ones who actually act contrary to the counsel of fear. The winning cartoon (which got both the “people’s choice” prize and the jury prize at the contest) reflects that:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/05/MohammedContestWinner.jpg
A different, more earnest and perhaps less catchy sort of defiance than that from Charlie Hebdo, and many of the original cartoons struck me as wittier. (Hey, everyone’s a critic.) But the message is pretty clear — and it’s an important message to have out there.
... (more at the link)
Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.
-
She certainly has put a target on her back.
We'll see first hand if ISIS has reach here if they murder her.
-
CCP:
Both Pamela and Robert Spencer have had "targets on their backs" for many years now. Both have received countless death threats, and have to travel with armed bodyguards routinely. As for ISIS having reach here, this is a moot point. The war IS HERE. IT IS NOW. Whether these two jihadists were directly or indirectly connected to ISIS is really irrelevant. They were following the same sick, evil and repressive ideology. Americans need to wake up and understand that despite what this President and most of our media would have us think - these people are here now, and are prepared to slaughter us at any opportunity. This incident proves the point. Take heed. Be prepared. You will be made to care about this situation. (Not that I'm implying you don't care about it, CCP - just making a general statement.)
-
http://bearingarms.com/pushed-forward-brave-garland-police-officer-advanced-brought-garland-terrorists/
-
http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/nypd-assessing-islamic-state-threat-to-pamela-geller.html/
-
Radical Imam tells Pamela to her face that she deserves death penalty for sponsoring event in Garland, TX. This is what we are dealing with. Pamela responds with aplomb and dignity as she speaks truth to this savage:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3xuj-aJyaE
-
Radical Imam tells Pamela to her face that she deserves death penalty for sponsoring event in Garland, TX. This is what we are dealing with. Pamela responds with aplomb and dignity as she speaks truth to this savage:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3xuj-aJyaE
She makes a point most wouldn't think of. By luring these terrorists a thousand miles out to a secure and guarded event, she saved lives. The same people otherwise would go out shooting up shopping malls.
-
This ought to tell you everything you need to know about this administration, who as Pamela points out, has created an environment which has raised the stakes.
Absolutely inexcusable:
www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/fbi-homeland-security-have-not-bothered-to-contact-pamela-geller-after-islamic-state-threatens-to-murder-her
-
Bet you the IRS finds Geller to place her under audit first.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/BradThor/status/595961657546903554
Must be a bunch of offensive cartoonists on that beach!
The vast majority of peaceful muslims are going to be so upset when they find out about this!
-
Je Suis Pamela Geller
Posted By Robert Spencer On May 8, 2015
I was standing next to Pamela Geller just after our American Freedom Defense Initiative/Jihad Watch Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest ended last Sunday in Garland, Texas when one of our security team ran in and told us that there had been a shooting outside. As the audience was led to another area inside the building and the outside was swept for bombs and additional jihadis, Geller and I were hurried to a safe room. It was the last time since then that Pamela Geller has been safe.
The Islamic State quickly issued a communiqué that included this:
The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah [actually wilayah, administrative district] in the heart of our enemy. Our aim was the khanzeer [pig] Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter. This will heal the hearts of our brothers and disperse the ones behind her. To those who protect her: this will be your only warning of housing this woman and her circus show. Everyone who houses her events, gives her a platform to spill her filth are legitimate targets. We have been watching closely who was present at this event and the shooter of our brothers. We knew that the target was protected. Our intention was to show how easy we give our lives for the Sake of Allah.
On top of that, instead of rallying to her defense and to that of the freedom of speech, the mainstream media, both on the Left and on the Right, has spent the week excoriating Pamela Geller for daring to “provoke” the poor jihadis, as if the two Muslim gunmen who showed up at our event would have become fiercely patriotic stockbrokers if only we hadn’t shown those cartoons.
It is therefore clear that if, God forbid, anything does happen to Pamela Geller, the talking heads will look soulfully into the cameras and say, Of course we are shocked…Of course we condemn….but…wellllll…she had it coming…she should have submitted to Sharia blasphemy restrictions like the rest of us…
The reality is that if the gunmen were “provoked” by the Muhammad cartoons, they would have been “provoked” by something else. What had the Jews in the Hyper Cacher supermarket in January done to “provoke” the Muslims? They dared to be Jews. What had the people in the Lindt Chocolat Cafe in Australia done to “provoke” the Muslims? Dared to be non-Muslims.
People who say our cartoon contest deliberately tried to provoke a violent reaction are under the apparent delusion that if we abide by Muhammad Atta’s advice to the passengers on his doomed plane on September 11, 2001, all will be well. Atta told the passengers, “Stay quiet and you’ll be OK.”
They weren’t.
The jihadis are already “provoked.” As I show in my forthcoming book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS [2], they were already planning and preparing for massive jihad attacks in the United States long before our cartoon show was ever considered. No amount of submission on our part is going to change that. In fact, the more we submit to violent intimidation, the more violent intimidation we are going to get. Why should the jihadis abandon a winning formula?
The world rallied to proclaim “Je suis Charlie” after the massacre of Muhammad cartoonists in Paris in January. But when those jihadis targeted our Muhammad cartoon event last Sunday, few were saying “Je suis Pamela Geller.” What’s the difference? The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were reliably Leftist, while Geller is identified with the Right. And now it is clear: the Leftist intelligentsia would rather see the freedom of speech restricted, and Sharia censorship imposed, rather than stand with someone whose opinions they find unacceptable.
That really isn’t any surprise. The Left in America is increasingly authoritarian, intolerant, and opposed to the freedom of speech. Leftist thinkers speak only to each other, dismissing challenges from the Right with ad hominem attacks or ignoring them altogether. It would be easy for those who live in that echo chamber to think of the Garland jihadi gunmen, Ibrahim Simpson and Nadir Soofi, as ideological kin: assassins rather than character assassins, but with the same goal in mind.
Those who understand, however, that the freedom of speech, and free society in general, cannot possibly survive the imposition of censorship to avoid offending a group that reacts with murderous violence to being offended, are indeed saying Je Suis Pamela Geller today. If the free world ever remembers that obeying someone who will kill you if you disobey only reinforces your slavery, it will owe her a debt of gratitude of awesome proportions.
-
Siding With The Victims of Aggression
By CAROLINE B. GLICK - Jerusalem Post
05/07/2015
Last Sunday, two Islamic terrorists armed with assault rifles tried to massacre participants at a Muhammad cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas.
The notion that a rape victim deserved to be raped because she was wearing a tight outfit lights up all our red lights.
This is the case first and foremost because it absolves the rapist of responsibility for his crime.
Then too, attempts to blame a rape victim for her victimization infuriate us because they are substantively untrue. If men are more likely to rape women in tight clothing then rape should be all but non-existent in traditional Islamic societies. Yet the opposite is the case. Rape and sexual abuse are endemic to such societies. According to the UN, a whopping 99.3 percent of Egyptian women report having suffered sexual abuse.
There is a third, more general reason that we recoil from the thought of blaming rape victims for their suffering. One of the foundations of liberal societies has always been that victims of aggression are not to blame for their attackers’ behavior.
See the latest opinion pieces on our Opinion & Blogs Facebook page
Over the past few days, we have witnessed a dangerous erosion of this principle among American elites.
Last Sunday two Islamic terrorists armed with assault rifles tried to massacre participants at a Muhammed cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas.
The goal of the contest was self-evident. The organizers wished to defend the freedom of speech – and the right to life – of critics of Islamic totalitarianism.
Rather than standing with the contest’s organizers and participants, the US media from MSNBC to Fox News attacked Pamela Geller, the event’s main organizer and accused her of responsibility for the attack.
For its part, the White House has refused to condemn the attack.
The White House failed to condemn the terror attack, and the media continued their offensive against Geller even after ISIS claimed credit for the assault, promised to “slaughter” Geller and anyone who shelters her or gives her a microphone, and announced it has a formidable infrastructure across the US it will use to launch more attacks against Americans.
To a degree, the White House’s refusal to condemn the attack, like the media’s pile-on against Geller is understandable. Most Americans ascribe to the overarching notion of “Live and let live.” And it is a good thing they do. It is impossible to maintain a liberal society without a basic tolerance of differences between its members.
But there are groups that a liberal society cannot tolerate without ceasing to be liberal.
When a group says that society as a whole must constrain its freedoms so its members can feel comfortable, it crosses a boundary that cannot be crossed. So too, when a group demands that society choose between it and another group that is not issuing a similar ultimatum, it is crossing the line. In other words, any group that demands a limit on liberty and rights of others is harming the foundations of liberal society. If a society wishes to remain liberal, it must constrain such groups.
Champions of totalitarian Islam test the strength of liberal societies because they force them to choose. Distressingly, as we see with the refusal of the White House and media elites to recognize that like the rape victim with tight clothes, Geller isn’t responsible for the jihadists’ decision to kill her and the participants at her event, elite American society is failing this test.
Geller and her colleagues aren’t the only victims that America’s elites refuse to side with against aggressors. In recent years, on college campuses across America, university authorities have failed to distinguish between tolerant and intolerant groups and so have effectively sided with the intolerant against their victims.
The primary victims of this abdication of moral responsibility on the part of administrators have not been counter-jihad activists like Geller and her colleagues. The primary victims have been Jews.
According to a study conducted by the Louis Brandeis Center in Washington last year, more than half of Jewish students at US universities suffered or witnessed anti-Semitism during the preceding year.
This week, Mosaic, the online journal of Jewish affairs published an essay by Prof. Ruth Wisse from Harvard describing the rise and spread of anti-Semitism on campuses throughout the US. To exemplify the process Wisse discussed at length the rapid rise of anti-Semitism at UCLA.
Jew hatred at UCLA burst into the headlines in March when it was reported that members of the student government initially rejected a student’s application to serve on an influential board because she was “very active in the Jewish community.”
The story caused waves of indignation and revulsion from all the right corners. But the incident was not exceptional. A similar incident occurred last month at Stanford. And more no doubt occur regularly under the radar.
These open anti-Semitic assaults are the foreseeable consequence of campus cultures sympathetic to anti-Semitism.
Wisse recalled that at the start of the year, a consortium of anti-Israel organizations asked that candidates for the student council sign a “statement of ethics.” The statement included a pledge not to participate in trips to Israel organized by Zionist groups including the Zionist Organization of America, AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League or Aish International’s Hasbara Fellowships.
One of the candidates that signed on was elected president of the student council.
A group of pro-Israel organizations asked that UCLA’s chancellor officially condemn the so-called “statement of ethics.” Chancellor Gene Block refused, claiming it was “protected speech.”
Block’s response was shockingly hypocritical. Statements of opposition to homosexuals, women, Muslims, blacks, and any number of other groups are not considered protected speech at UCLA. His claim that anti-Jewish speech is protected when speech against other groups is not is itself a bigoted statement.
Moreover, his claim that the “statement of ethics” is protected speech is intrinsically false. The content of that “statement” was itself an assault on freedom of expression. Its authors and supporters sought to coerce candidates for student leadership into agreeing not to expose themselves to Zionist ideas, and so silence Zionist voices and prevent open debate.
Block made a mockery of free speech by claiming that the “statement of ethics” was protected speech.
A straight line connects Block’s refusal distinguish between anti-Israel aggressors and their pro-Israel victims and the student council’s rejection of a student’s candidacy for office because she is “too Jewish.”
Block made it acceptable to blame the victim at UCLA, as long as the victim is a Jew.
In campuses throughout America, anti-Semitism is legitimate. Anti-Israel goons do not always win their battles for campus boycotts of the Jewish state. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t achieving their what they have set out to accomplish. The primary purpose of anti-Israel groups on campus is not to pass boycott resolutions. Their goal is first and foremost to normalize anti-Semitism by normalizing the libelous claim that there is something intrinsically controversial if not evil about Zionism, Israel, and Jews who support Israel.
Just as the media claims that Geller is responsible for the jihadist attack against her own event, so at US universities, pro-Israel activists -- and even non-activist Jewish students and professors who refuse to condemn Israel -- are accused of racism. According to the prevailing wisdom, the Jews are the bigots and the aggressors because they refuse to condemn Israel and even dare to support it. In so doing, they hurt the feelings of the anti-Israel activists that cannot peacefully coexist with people who support Israel’s right to exist.
The opposite of course is the case.
The anti-Israel students, like the terrorists in Texas cross the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a liberal society. By demanding that wider society on and off campus choose between them and the Jews who make no parallel demand, they demand that American society side with intolerance and against its foundational principle of “Live and let live.”
One of the great difficulties that those who fight the anti-Semites on campuses face is the fact that a significant number of Jews have joined the anti-Semites in their quest to expel Jews from the public square. Organizations like J Street and Jewish Voices for Peace were established to give a Jewish stamp of approval to anti-Israel campaigns. And they aren’t the only Jews stymying efforts to force university administrations to side with the Jews against their attackers.
Last month, the heads of the Jewish Federation in Orange County reportedly interfered with student celebrations of Yom Haatzmaut at University of California at Irvine on behalf of Muslim anti-Israel protesters who sought to ruin the festivities. According to a report of the events at the online Frontpage Magazine, the pro-Israel students separated participants in their event from Muslim student protesters by placing a line of students waving Israeli and American flags between them.
The move was angrily opposed by Federation Director Lisa Armony and Federation President Shalom Elcott. They reportedly insisted that the Israeli flags be taken down because they were “antagonizing” the anti-Israel protesters.
Next week a consortium of Zionist groups will be demonstrating outside the UJA-Federation building in New York to protest its promotion of groups that support boycotting Israel. The President of the UJA-Federation Alisa Doctoroff is reportedly a major donor to the New Israel Fund which funds pro-boycott groups.
The American elites’ – including the Jewish elites -- willingness to accept anti-Jewish discrimination on US campuses, like their willingness to accept attacks on anti-jihad activists like Geller is devastating for the American Jewish community and for America as a whole.
Their refusal to distinguish between the victim and the aggressor, not to mention their willingness to stand with the aggressor against the victim threatens the American Jewish community and weakens the liberal foundations of American society.
The rise and spread of anti-Semitism in elite circles in the US of course also threatens Israel.
What can the government of Israel do to combat the rise of anti-Semitism in America? How can the object of the demonization defeat those who demonize it?
Although its bare 61 seat majority makes Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s new government unstable, a narrow coalition has a clear advantage over a unity government with the Left. If it wishes to defeat this threat, Israel cannot continue to speak in two voices.
Israel cannot fight the this fight when government ministers participate in J Street conferences. It cannot defend its defenders when members of the government say that Israel is only legitimate if it works actively to cede its capital city to terrorist groups that seek its annihilation.
The government’s response to this onslaught must be clear and uncompromising: The freedom of American Jewry to be Jewish, like the ability of the US to remain a liberal democracy is dependent on restoring the ability of Jewish Americans and American elites to distinguish between victims and aggressors and on their willingness to side with the victims.
www.CarolineGlick.com
-
EXCELLENT ANALYSIS:
www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/05/09/6-reasons-why-pamela-gellers-muhammad-cartoon-contest-is-no-different-than-selma/
-
I liked that.
Here even SNL gets it right https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_kuC35F06E
-
This is an excellent, incisive piece, demonstrating admittedly, what we already know about The New York Times - fit only for a bird-cage liner:
‘Offensive Art’ and Double Standards at the NY Times
Posted By Arnold Ahlert On May 8, 2015 @ frontpagemag.com
[1]When it comes to rank hypocrisy and leftist-inspired double-standards, there’s nothing quite like the New York Times. Despite the reality two Islamist gunmen would have undoubtedly killed as many participants attending Pamela Geller’s “Draw Mohammed” contest in Garland, TX, as possible, the so-called paper of record chose to excoriate [2] those exercising their freedom of speech.
“There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies,” the Times editorial board condescendingly concedes. “There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.”
“But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom,” the board concludes.
For the pseudo-moralists who run the Times, such indignation is highly selective. In 1989, Arts Section contributor Michael Brenson was highly effusive when it came to defending [3] and praising artist Andres Serrano whose ostensible cutting-edge brilliance consisted of a photograph entitled “Piss Christ,” depicting a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine. He described the photo as a “religious emblem enveloped in a dreamy golden haze.” Moreover, Brenson was upset the about ensuing uproar over the original showing of the photograph. That unveiling took place at a group show underwritten by government grants and caused the National Endowment for the Arts to change its policy to one restricting endowments for projects the agency considered obscene. “People may agree or disagree with him, or they may question his belief in photography, but how can anyone find in his work just obscenity and disrespect?” Brenson wondered. “It is hard to believe that anyone whose faith is searching and secure would not be grateful for what Mr. Serrano has done.” (Italics mine.)
In 1998 the paper criticized [4] the withdrawal of playwright Terrence McNally’s “Corpus Christi” from the Manhattan Theater Club, due to threats of violence. Corpus Christi was about [5] a gay Jesus, with a plot line that included the Christian Son of God performing a same-sex marriage, and Judas betraying him due to romantic jealousy. “What we are witnessing, once again, is the peculiar combat between freedoms that is repeatedly staged in America,” the paper stated. “The practitioners and beneficiaries of religious freedom attack the practitioners of artistic freedom–freedom of speech–without seeing that the freedoms they enjoy cannot be defended separately.”
One year later, Arts Section contributor Michael Kimmelman wondered [6] how artist Chris Ofili’s ”Holy Virgin Mary,’’ showing the mother of Christ replete with small cutouts of vaginas and buttocks from pornographic magazines, and a ball of dung representing one of her breasts, “could cause so much fuss.” “One of the casualties of political debates about art is always a complexity of interpretation, both sides needing to simplify the meaning of the work because contradictory connotations would undermine their arguments even though those contradictions make art art and not a political tract,” he explains. “People want a straight answer — is it good or bad? — which misses the point about how art functions, especially in a divisive context.”
In 2011 Theater Section reviewer Ben Brantley was especially delighted [7] by “The Book of Mormon,” a musical dedicated to the mockery of the Mormon religion. It contains a song entitled Hasa Diga Eebowai [8] sung by blighted Africans in a made up Ugandan language intended to translate into “F**k you, God, in the ass, mouth, and c**t!” Brantley addresses all the “doubters and deniers out there, the ones who say that heaven on Broadway does not exist, that it’s only some myth our ancestors dreamed up,” he gushes. “I am here to report that a newborn, old-fashioned, pleasure-giving musical has arrived at the Eugene O’Neill Theater, the kind our grandparents told us left them walking on air if not on water.”
In short, the New York Times is very much in favor, if not downright ecstatic about, overt Christian-bashing. But not just Christians. Last year the paper was equally determined to defend [9] the “principle of artistic freedom in a world rife with political pressures” regarding the Metropolitan Opera’s presentation of “The Death of Klinghoffer,” depicting the 1985 murder of Leon Klinghoffer by Palestinian terrorists — terrorists who shot the wheelchair-bound Jewish American and tossed him overboard. The Times insisted Met general manager Peter Gelb “should not have yielded to its critics” even as Gelb himself canceled live broadcast of the opera due to what he perceived as rising tide of anti-Semitism. The Times remained resolute about the importance of freedom. “Viewers may have different reactions and responses to such an ambitious and painfully contemporary work, but the arts can only be harmed by retreating from controversy,” the editorial board asserted.
Nonetheless, the same board contends that Geller’s exercise of a far more benign expression of freedom in comparison to any of the aforementioned examples is “inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.”
Sadly, the contemptible notion that Geller is engaged in what the Times and others define as hate speech resonates with a number of Americans. An Economist/YouGov Poll reveals [10] only a small plurality of Americans would be against a law criminalizing hate speech. Only 38 percent of Americans would oppose enacting such a law, while 36 percent would support it, with 26 percent of Americans undecided. When political affiliation enters the picture, the results are as follows: Independents, 53 percent opposed, 27 percent in favor and 20 percent are not sure. For Republicans its 49 percent opposed, 25 percent in favor and 26 percent unsure. Democrats are a different story. A 51 percent majority of Democrats favor criminalizing “hate” speech, while 21 percent oppose it, and 28 percent are unsure.
Perhaps the Times is playing to its core support group. Regardless, the editorial board remains oblivious to the reality they favor the very same “right” not to be offended that ostensibly animates not just Islamists, but supposedly all “offended” Muslims. The paper may differ with Islamists on how to respond to such offenses, choosing to excoriate Geller and company rather than kill them, but their insistence that some sort of anti-Constitutional line be drawn between “freedom” and “hate” is to share the same totalitarian ambitions that form the heart of Sharia Law.
And while that alignment may constitute an alliance of convenience, it is no accident. The Times would like nothing more than to crack down on America’s “bitter clingers.” Thus progressives will temporarily embrace Islamists in an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy. That is why the Times and other equally feckless [11] mainstream media outlets are now wondering aloud [12] where the nonexistent “fine line” between free speech ends and hate speech begins. And it is occurring even as these leftist provocateurs devote far more time to undercutting the First Amendment than they do chronicling the wholesale extermination of Christians or the oppression of gays and women in the Islamic world.
How softly do they trod? “If Americans are to respect and obey the laws of Islam that prohibit the drawing of pictures of Mohammed, then why wouldn’t Americans have to respect and obey Islam’s laws and punishments regarding gays and women?” wonders [13] radio host Rush Limbaugh. When it comes to aiding the agenda of the jihadists, there is no one the Left wouldn’t throw under the bus.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/pakistans-biggest-city-has-unlikely-addition-to-skyline-14-story-christian-cross/2015/05/14/cc8cea3e-f268-11e4-bca5-21b51bbdf93e_story.html
-
This interview appeared in The Objective Standard recently:
www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2015-summer/bosch-fawstin-on-islam-and-jihad/
-
Why I love 'hate speech'
By Mallory Millett - posted at: americanthinker.com - May 24, 2015
I love Pamela Geller. I have known and loved her for years. She is a great American! If only everyone who has the honor of calling himself American could grow courage like hers we would be un-terrorizable as a nation. Pamela gets that we are at war and stands as an example for those of us who have lost our way.
Many of you under fifty have been educated by the whackerino indoctrinators crowding reality out of our High Schools and Universities. These liars and fantasists are so busy obliterating, truncating or revising history (when they're not entirely ignoring it), that our true history has drifted out the window like so much smoke wafting in the wind. As a consequence there are few Americans left to say, "Hey, whoa, that's not the way it goes...that's not the way it is"; especially when it comes to our Constitution.
The First Amendment is in the Constitution because not one scintilla of it could be taken for granted; it's an anomaly which needed to be boldly, emphatically, unequivocally stated due to it's being nonexistent in all of the places from which we ran to reach sanctuary on this continent. There seems to be some grand misunderstanding that human rights or free speech has ever existed anywhere else
But, the thing is...it didn't!
Forget about Greece. I'm talking post-ancient.
The first time such rights came to be was the English Magna Carta, which mildly inspired such thinking. (Remember, many in 16th Century England lost their heads over "thought crimes.") It was America which took rights from that document and others and greatly elaborated on them. For this reason, the First Amendment needed to be drawn out most carefully so as not to be misconstrued.
The entire point is that we have freedom of thought which flowers into freedom of speech. Otherwise, if my speech can be curbed then so may my thought be curbed and then, of necessity, we will have "thought police." America is where one comes to escape "thought police" who, to this day, predominate in the world.
Millions have died over this exact amendment. And here's the kicker: the whole point is to cover detestable speech, the most hateful speech. There would be no reason for its formation, were it just to cover acceptable speech. It had to be put in there first and laid out meticulously as all the other freedoms are dependent upon it.
Jonah Goldberg says, "She (Pamela) is contending that in America people are allowed to say offensive things (i..e. hate speech) without risking execution. I am at a loss as to why anyone would disagree with that".
I wholeheartedly stand behind that along with Judith Miller and Alan Dershowitz. As Jeanine Piro says, "The First Amendment is "an ABSOLUTE". This is contrary to Leftists, who would re conform our culture of liberty to please the tastes of savage, knife-wielding hordes. According to a report, one-half of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to ban "hate-speech". Whaaaa? Let’s just get rid of our sacred free thought amendment?
Has everyone forgotten Nazis are allowed to march in Skokie? The KKK has the right of assembly and, by the way, Broadway just hauled in millions and many awards ridiculing, mocking and mercilessly pillorying The Book of Mormon. If we harbored constraints against such stuff Don Rickles would have been separated from his head before we knew of him (wouldn’t you love to hear his riff on this?)
What is this new idea being put out by that wrecking-ball throng of teachers that anything is all right except hate speech! Hate speech is the most protected speech. We're at liberty to spew hate-speech at anyone or anything.
Except the Muslims? ...because they are threatening to murder us because we object to their murdering us? You are kidding me! We are free to object to whatever we wish and to hate whomever we wish. Because some primitives are holding a knife to our throats we should just throw it in and say, "Aw, shucks, guys, we never really meant free-free?
The smartest thing to get rid of these clowns and their love of menace would be regularly to hold a "Mohammad cartoon contest" in every town in the USA with every newspaper and outlet publishing them. They will either go away and show themselves so we can dispatch them; or develop an ability to laugh at themselves and their shibboleths like every other person living in this motley nation. We've had the foul-mouthed "Book of Mormon", the infamous piss-Christ, the Polish jokes, the Irishmen jokes, the Jewish and Catholic jokes. It's an all-inclusive culture. Everyone and everything is fair game in America.
We should become a nation of Pamela Gellers. "Je sius Pamela Geller" needs to be our battle cry just as "Je suis Charlie Hebdo" came out of Paris in the same fashion as the Danes in WWII, who, to the one, put on The Star of David to stymie the Nazis. Oops! I forgot history's been erased from our mind-screens. Look it up. Denmark, WWII, Star of David. Google it, millennials.
Pamela sussed these beasts out of the woodwork. They were here and planning horrific violence. Let us drag the "lone wolves" and “terror-cells” who have come to invade and butcher us out into the open so we can weed them from our garden.
They came to kill and got killed. Perfect!
Pamela saved each life of those they would have massacred in whichever mall, theatre, school, hospital, church or gathering they had in their sights. These men were planning a big hit like the ones in Australia or Paris; the bazaars, mosques and schools where they've wreaked havoc on their fellow Muslims. Never forget: they are murdering Muslims by the hundreds of thousands. But Pamela brilliantly provoked them and voila! they showed themselves. She deserves a medal.
That's well-executed warfare.
Where are the men? Where are the Christians? Where are the Jews? Where are the sane non-homicidal Muslims about whom we hear? The war is upon us now and we have no choice but to win. Who, in this nation, is ready to face losing to these cutthroats? They are already secreted among us. Daily, hourly, we are being infiltrated...Ann Arbor, Florida, Minnesota, Idaho, the more innocent the place the better for entrenchment.
To win we must become inventive and clever like Pamela.
We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with her just as the Obamaless heads of state marched shoulder to shoulder through Paris. And anyway, this has nothing to do with speech. These radicals are here for the express purpose of murdering every one of us at random regardless of who we are, what we have done or what we say!
What has happened to Americans? You listened to the liberals for forty years and now you have Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and the radical jihadists. Oh, yeah, you liberals, you "free thinkers" who never saw provocative art you didn't worship...you now have the gall to denounce Pamela? Yeah, we want you governing us as we face marauders...we want to stand shoulder to shoulder through the Revolutionary, Civil, and WWs I & II with such as you?
An Imam, in defending the fatwa on Pamela, had the gall to say, "You have to know that when you say such things there will be consequences!" Pamela exploded, "Not in America, sir! There are no punishing consequences for speech here." She was forced to talk over his incessant shrieking to be heard. "I am an American, sir, and, in America, you don't threaten my life over something I say." The Imam was covering her words because the very idea of such freedom makes him hysterical. He can't stop chattering as it's unbearably threatening to him. Terrorists are terrified people.
There is only one thing we tolerant Americans absolutely will not tolerate and that is the startling intolerance of these religious radicals. We are in the throes of a great war, perhaps one of the last great wars on Earth and we must win it at all costs...but never at the cost of our consciences, standards or souls.
We, every man and woman, must be ready to rise to the occasion, well-armed, to defend our dear land. We got relaxed; brain-washed by fools in our Universities and Media which opened up voluminous vacuums and, of course, the rapacious invaders have arrived. It's a simple law of physics: "Nature abhors a vacuum." Nothing new! Millennia old! Are we really so ignorant as to insist on turning a blind eye to this monstrous assault? We owe it to everyone who’s given life or limb in preserving this exact same liberty to close ranks against our predators.
The other day a Japanese statesman was quoted as saying that the thing the Japanese most feared about America throughout WWII was that so many individuals were armed. They said they believed they could never conquer a country where every citizen was armed and ready. Nuff said!
Mallory Millett resides in New York City with her husband of over twenty years. She has lived, studied and traveled extensively throughout the Third World. CFO for several corporations, she is a long-standing member of The David Horowitz Freedom Center and sits on the Board of Regents for the Center for Security Policy.
-
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2015/05/28/bikers-plan-armed-anti-islamistdraw-muhammad-event-outside-mosque-in-arizona/
-
Pamela is exactly correct - by refusing to publish or display these images of Mohammed, we are submitting to intimidation and ultimately - Sharia Law. This is was the cowardly media - the vast majority of it - would have us do. When did we lose a sense of moral clarity in this nation? It appears to be in precious short supply. See story below:
http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/us-news-and-world-report-on-washington-dc-transit-ban.html/
-
Cuomo - like so many in the media - just doesn't get it. He is completely clueless. Watch as Pamela articulates her position perfectly. Cuomo simply doesn't want to hear it:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WJVt3vYJy0
-
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/us-embassy-removes-july-4-celebration-out-of-respect-for-islam
-
First They Came for Pamela Geller, and I Did Not Speak Out
Posted By Robert Spencer On June 7, 2015 @ pjmedia.com
“This is a showdown for American freedom,” said Pamela Geller [1] about the abortive jihad beheading plot against her, and she was right. The showdown is right upon them now, and mainstream media talking heads have no idea of the significance of what is happening.
“They targeted me for violating sharia blasphemy laws. They mean to kill everyone who doesn’t do their bidding and abide by them voluntarily,” Geller added.
“It’s just beginning,” she warned. “ISIS is here. Islamic terrorism is here.”
That is all true. The jihad plot against Pamela Geller was an attempt to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws upon someone who does not accept them. If it had succeeded, it would have shown Americans that no one who deviates from Sharia norms is safe. It would have been a staggering blow to the continuation of the U.S. as a free society.
Heedless of these manifest implications, however, the mainstream media hasn’t caught on. The execrable New York Daily News [1] couldn’t stop sneering at the heroic Pamela Geller — “conservative firebrand,” “Upper East Side right-winger” — even when she was a direct target of an Islamic State-inspired murder plot.
CNN’s Chris Cuomo, interviewing Geller [2], lectured her:
You can show the cartoon. People have the equal right to criticize your showing the cartoon as an overt provocation of a religion.
And he asked her:
Why not do what we often teach as a function of virtue — when we’re dealing with savagery — which is show that we are better than this? Not show that we can poke them in the eye in a way they don’t like it.
Geller rightly responded:
That’s not what you’re doing. You are submitting, and you are kowtowing. And they’re saying to you, if you draw a little cartoon; if you draw a stick figure and say it’s Mohammed, we’re going to come and kill you. And so you say, okay, we won’t — we won’t draw it. CNN won’t show it.
The Daily News and Chris Cuomo and the rest at CNN, along with their many colleagues among the comfortable media and political elites, are happy to throw her under the bus. They effectively say: “Free speech? Yes, of course, but not deliberate provocation.”
They don’t realize that whatever distaste they may have for Pamela Geller (and that distaste ultimately derives from the fact that she speaks truths they would rather ignore and deny), she stands for all of us now. Whether you’re as proud to stand with her as I am, or whether you wish she would go away, she is the figure today about whom one must decide: will I stand for freedom, or kowtow to violent intimidation? Will I submit to the tyranny of violence, or defend free society?
Remember Pastor Niemöller from World War II?
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.
Well, here we are. Those days are upon us again, and as few, or fewer, people are paying attention to what is happening as were in those days.
First they came for Pamela Geller, and they did not speak out, because they didn’t like “right-wingers.” Or because they wanted to keep appearing on CNN, or because they didn’t want to offend Islamic supremacists, or because they thought her ads were in poor taste, or because they wanted to keep getting invited to the best parties, or because their Leftist Alinskyite friends would have laughed at them.
So first they came for Pamela Geller, and they did not speak out. What they do not realize, or do not care to acknowledge, is that the jihadists will not stop with Pamela Geller. They will not stop with those who had something to do with showing Muhammad cartoons. They will not stop. It is stand now, or surrender.
“This is a showdown for American freedom,” said Geller. Yes, it is.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/08/afdi-rolls-out-new-free-speech-billboard-campaign-featuring-muhammad-cartoon/
-
http://pamelageller.com/2015/06/lou-dobbs-the-lone-true-free-speech-champion-in-broadcast-news-loudobbsnews.html/
-
http://tellmenow.com/2015/06/oxford-university-press-submits-to-shariah-law-bans-pork/
OU answers: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/15/books-pigs-global-publishing-oxford-university-press-children
-
http://www.politico.eu/article/charlie-hebdo-911-qaeda-mohammad/
-
This is exactly why there IS something refreshing about Trump. This endless shaming of enemies of the establishment to submission.
Trump does go too far. OTOH is Jeb and the others who cave every chance they get.
No one stands up to the left from our party.
-
This is exactly why there IS something refreshing about Trump. This endless shaming of enemies of the establishment to submission.
Trump does go too far. OTOH is Jeb and the others who cave every chance they get.
No one stands up to the left from our party.
Trump is the monsters created by the rino establishment
-
Apparently my mom thinks he is "a hoot"; no way he makes it to president, but a hoot nonetheless.
-
21
12
Opinion
Review & Outlook
Malaysia’s Missed Democracy Lesson
Obama again can’t find a voice for liberty and moderate Muslims.
July 23, 2015 7:14 p.m. ET
6 COMMENTS
Malaysia is in the midst of a first-class political scandal, thanks in part to reporting in this newspaper that $700 million linked to a state-owned investment fund allegedly was transferred to the personal accounts of Prime Minister Najib Razak. Mr. Najib denies wrongdoing, and neither the original source nor ultimate destination of the money is clear.
Yet the larger scandal in Malaysia is hiding in plain sight. We’re talking about the imprisonment of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who is five months into a nonappealable five-year prison sentence on trumped-up sodomy charges. Nearby we publish an op-ed by Mr. Anwar, written in his jail cell, detailing the Najib government’s broader assault on the civil liberties of all Malaysians.
While Mr. Anwar’s op-ed speaks for itself, it would help if others speak up for him. That goes especially for President Obama, who has long claimed an interest in cultivating the forces of moderation in the Muslim world. Too bad, then, that he refused to meet Mr. Anwar when he visited Malaysia last year, though he had time for a very public round of golf with Mr. Najib in Hawaii a few months later. Mr. Obama’s reticence on behalf of political freedom in the world, from Iran in 2009 to Malaysia today, is one of the mysteries of his Presidency. Out of realpolitik or indifference, he is mute.
At a White House event in June with young South Asian leaders, he answered a pointed question about Mr. Anwar’s imprisonment with a dainty answer about how “democracy is hard,” adding that “it’s important for America to recognize that we’re not perfect, either.” And what, exactly, did Mr. Obama have in mind? “I mean, the amounts of money, for example, that are involved in our elections these days is disturbing because it makes it seem as if a few people have more influence in the democracy than the many.”
We often hear from friends overseas that they find U.S. foreign policy perplexing and disheartening these days. Maybe it has something to do with a President who sees a moral equivalence between funding free speech at home and jailing a moderate opposition leader abroad.
-
second post
By
Anwar Ibrahim
Updated July 23, 2015 7:37 p.m. ET
4 COMMENTS
Selangor, Malaysia
Since Prime Minister Najib Razak’s 2013 electoral victory, which was plagued by widespread allegations of gerrymandering, fraud and voter intimidation, Malaysia has taken a turn for the worse. Mr. Najib, who once promised democratic and economic reforms and pledged to allow “the voices of dissent” to be heard, has doubled down on political repression.
A former deputy prime minister of Malaysia and leader of the opposition, I am now in the fifth month of a five-year prison sentence that has been roundly condemned by governments and human-rights groups around the world. I spend my days in solitary confinement in meditation and in the company of the few books that are allowed into my cell. Meanwhile, allegations of corruption at the highest levels of Malaysian government have surfaced.
In 2012, the draconian Internal Security Act was repealed by the Najib government with much fanfare, only to be replaced by the Prevention of Crime and Prevention of Terrorism Acts, which are equally, if not more, repressive. Beyond encroaching on Malaysian citizens’ fundamental liberties, these new laws rob judges of their discretionary sentencing powers.
Instead of abolishing the outdated and much-abused Sedition Act of 1948 as promised, Mr. Najib’s government has deployed it as a weapon of mass oppression. In the past 18 months, more than 150 Malaysians have been arrested and many charged with sedition for an array of activities including accusing the government of voter fraud and criticizing the verdict in my trial. The arrested include students, professors, journalists, cartoonists, activists, human-rights lawyers and opposition politicians.
Mr. Najib’s finance ministry’s “strategic development fund,” 1Malaysia Development Bhd., or 1MDB, founded by Mr. Najib in 2008, is under intense scrutiny. As this newspaper reported on July 2, Malaysian investigators “have traced nearly $700 million of deposits into what they believe are the personal bank accounts of Malaysia’s prime minister, Najib Razak.” Neither the original source nor ultimate destination of the money is clear.
A few weeks earlier, on June 18, this newspaper reported that during the 2013 election 1MDB “indirectly supported Prime Minister Najib Razak’s campaign.” The fund paid what appeared to be an inflated price for assets acquired from a Malaysian company; the company then contributed to a Najib-led charity that announced projects, such as aid to schools, that Mr. Najib was able to tout as he campaigned.
After these two stories were published, Mr. Najib’s office put out a statement that “there have been concerted efforts by certain individuals to undermine confidence in our economy, tarnish the government and remove a democratically-elected prime minister.” It called the Journal articles a “continuation of this political sabotage.” Not surprisingly, foreign investors are increasingly wary. Malaysia’s currency, the ringgit, recently fell to a 16-year low.
Meanwhile, the Najib government sows communal and religious animosity among the Muslim ethnic Malay majority and the country’s large ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities. Mr. Najib’s ruling coalition blamed a “Chinese tsunami” for its losing the popular vote in the 2013 parliamentary elections, regardless of a study showing this to be false. And despite Mr. Najib’s claims of moderation internationally, the state-run media have vilified Shiite Islam. Last summer the prime minister urged his ruling United Malays National Organization members to be “brave” like Islamic State fighters in Iraq, causing him to later explain he doesn’t support Islamic State or its radical brand of Islam.
Such actions undermine the fragile fabric of Malaysia’s multiethnic and multireligious society. In four decades in public service I cannot recall a time when racial and religious sensitivities have become so inflamed, and at the same time so poorly managed by the country’s political leadership.
Yet I stayed put in Malaysia to face a difficult third bout of unjust incarceration because we in the opposition believe in a brighter future made possible by good governance and the rule of law. We believe in the dismantling of Malaysia’s system of race-based privileges that has devolved into nothing more than rent-seeking for the privileged few. We believe that corruption is a slow bleed that robs future generations of the education and business opportunities that will make them prosper.
Most important, we are joined by a new generation of young, millennial Malaysians with a commitment to building an inclusive, democratic and economically vibrant country.
Still, there is real danger ahead. Middle-income nations like Malaysia—after several decades of economic mismanagement, opaque governance and overspending—can devolve into failed states. The irresponsible manner in which the current leadership is handling religious issues to curry favor from the extreme right is fueling sectarianism. Increased political repression may drive some to give up on the political system altogether and consider extralegal means to cause change, thus creating a tragic, vicious cycle.
Yet there remains a clear path out of this mess: a return to the underpinnings of the Malaysian Constitution, which preserves and protects the rights of all Malaysians; a devolution of power from the executive, whose role now resembles that of a dictator more than a servant of the people; elections that are truly free and fair; and a free media unafraid to challenge authority.
Malaysia is ready for change. This is why, rather than flee my country, I chose to stay and continue the fight for peaceful, democratic reform from my prison cell. This is not easy and puts a tremendous burden on my family. I am grateful for their love and commitment. While I am physically behind bars my spirit remains with them, the people of Malaysia, and people all around the world who continue the struggle for dignity and for freedom.
Mr. Anwar, a former deputy prime minister of Malaysia (1993-98), is a former member of parliament for the People’s Justice Party and until April was leader of the opposition.
-
http://pamelageller.com/2015/08/9th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals-upholds-sharia-ruling-faces-of-global-terrorism-ads-banned.html/
-
http://pamelageller.com/2015/08/9th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals-upholds-sharia-ruling-faces-of-global-terrorism-ads-banned.html/
Exhibit A of why this country is doomed.
-
Charlie Who? Dutch Muslim Actor Threatened For Playing Jesus
by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
August 19, 2015
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4960/charlie-who-dutch-muslim-actor-threatened-for
How well so many of us remember. It wasn't very long ago – barely eight months – since Muslim extremists stormed the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, killing 12 of the satirical magazine's editors and artists. And how well we remember, too, the hours and days that followed as the world declared its support for free expression, with hashtags and marches and T-shirts and headlines that bore the now-immortal phrase "je suis Charlie" – and believed that it would make a difference.
Apparently, it didn't.
Earlier this month, a group of Dutch Muslim youth surrounded actor Abbie Chalgoun – a self-described "non-practicing" Muslim – at a train station in Venlo. They called out, "Whore child! Just you wait. We know where you live. We know where to find you."
Chalgoun's misdeed? He plays the role of Jesus in a nationally-celebrated performance of "The Passion." For Muslims, Chalgoun explained in an interview with national daily Trouw, the image or personification of a prophet – including Jesus – is forbidden.
And so you think: here we go again. The concept of the arts for radical Muslims becomes nonexistent, and so, impossible. European civil laws for them possess no meaning and no power. True, unlike Chérif and Said Kouachi, the brothers who staged the attack on Charlie Hebdo, these youth have not (yet) committed a crime in this case, did not (yet) physically attack the 35-year-old actor. But they demonstrate clearly the subtle, more insidious threat that lurks in Europe today: a generation of Muslims who too often place Allah's law above the state, and who will use violence and intimidation to make the rest of Western civilization do the same. Sometimes – as with the attacks on a conference on free speech in Denmark last February or a draw Mohammed event in Texas in May, they will try to kill for it.
But sometimes the threat alone is enough.
Those who oppose his playing the role of Jesus comprise "no more than a half percent [of Dutch Muslims]," Chalgoun estimated, "but they are the ones with the biggest mouths."
They also follow a solid tradition among European Muslims, particularly in the Netherlands, where the Dutch-Moroccan Mohammed Bouyeri shot and stabbed writer and filmmaker Theo van Gogh to death in 2004, then plunged a knife into his body along with a lengthy letter that included a list of those he would attack next. Since then, there have been plenty of others, from artist Rashid ben Ali, threatened for his drawings of Mohammed and "idiot" imams; photographer Sooreh Hera, who received death threats for her photographs of costumed homosexuals she claimed depicted Mohammed and his son-in-law Ali; outspoken anti-Islam Parliamentarian Geert Wilders, whose film "Fitna," exposes the destructiveness and dangers of radical Islam; and even comedian Ewout Jansen, who was the target of threats against "those who make jokes about Islam."
To his credit, Chalgoum – like these others – has so far remained unbowed. ("Jesus was also threatened," he told Trouw.) So, too, is activist Pamela Geller, despite alleged plans by Boston-based Islamic terrorist Usaamah Rahim, who was killed in a confrontation with Boston police in June.
Not so, however, for far too many others – like the National Youth Theatre of London, which earlier this month cancelled a play about the radicalization of British Muslims, inspired, said its Muslim creators, by the plight of two British schoolgirls who joined the Islamic State earlier this year.
Tweeted one would-be cast-member, in frustration, "I don't know how anything can ever change when we are too scared to say the things that need to be said."
Perhaps the play's censors – among others – might take a lesson from Chalgoum, who told NPO radio shortly after the incident, "We can't let things like this make us crazy. We will go on. "
Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands
-
Apparently the concert in Pairs by the "Eagles of Death Metal" was selected because they will be playing in Israel. They have stated their renewed intention to play in Israel.
RESPECT!!!
-
What is the legal process required to put every liberal in an internment camp and exile them to Syria. Just curious.
It would be a win/win/win situation.
Conservatives don't have to live with people they fundamentally don't agree with.
Syrians would have help with their plight from people that couldn't love them more.
Liberals could go exchange fairytales and enjoy coffee at a foreign coffee bar in some swanky third world country while being hipsters from notably absent bigots.
How is that not perfect?
-
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/17/john-kerry-charlie-hebdo-kind-of-asked-for-it-you-know/
-
http://www.clarionproject.org/news/what-you-can-and-can%E2%80%99t-say-europe-today
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6s-JFnw15Q
-
http://www.patdollard.com/muslim-london-mayor-sets-up-task-force-to-jail-those-who-annoy-muslims-online/
-
http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21711635-it-may-only-boost-muslim-bashers-popularity-netherlands-has-found-geert-wilders-guilty
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/denmark-man-burned-quran-koran-video-blasphemy-facebook-islam-prosecuted-charged-46-years-a7594796.html
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/denmark-man-burned-quran-koran-video-blasphemy-facebook-islam-prosecuted-charged-46-years-a7594796.html
If europe is going to survive, it's well past time for europeans to stand up to this.
-
http://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/muslim-organisation-announces-rs-10-lakh-reward-for-beheading-tarek-fatah/story-18mCuEVluWTHerEZCoXiyM.html
-
on for "right wing" "hate speech"
no surprise from this guy:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/03/12/sadiq-khan-warns-silicon-valley-hate-speech-fake-news-blames-donald-trump/
-
https://clarionproject.org/bbc-blames-salman-rushdie-for-radicalizing-an-entire-generation/
-
https://clarionproject.org/bbc-blames-salman-rushdie-for-radicalizing-an-entire-generation/
"Stay quiet and you'll be OK,"-Mohammed Atta
-
Profound irony here given how this thread began , , , :cry: :x
https://www.foxnews.com/world/denmark-charges-14-people-including-13-year-old-over-sharing-of-backpacker-beheading-video?fbclid=IwAR0trE29_oSxu4DpWEieOMeM_rPKzF0fn4OjmuFiazBm_ZRMpldy5Wmr5m4
-
Profound irony here given how this thread began , , , :cry: :x
https://www.foxnews.com/world/denmark-charges-14-people-including-13-year-old-over-sharing-of-backpacker-beheading-video?fbclid=IwAR0trE29_oSxu4DpWEieOMeM_rPKzF0fn4OjmuFiazBm_ZRMpldy5Wmr5m4
Well, the good thing is Danish women won't need to travel outside europe to encounter such real islamic cultural traditions.
-
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/zealander-pleads-guilty-sharing-mosque-shooting-video-62645858
-
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/zealander-pleads-guilty-sharing-mosque-shooting-video-62645858
Surrender your guns, surrender your free speech. Surrender.
-
Infowars is not a reliable site, so caveat lector , , , that said, this sure sounds plausible:
https://www.infowars.com/swedish-artists-jail-term-extended-after-he-committed-hate-crime-of-saying-muslim-migrants-have-not-integrated/?fbclid=IwAR1MCDIYjOkBW9YeYD3Ozl7-499gMghV8TGYg9_MuNIGEBN5flgKh9R_mNg
-
Infowars is not a reliable site, so caveat lector , , , that said, this sure sounds plausible:
https://www.infowars.com/swedish-artists-jail-term-extended-after-he-committed-hate-crime-of-saying-muslim-migrants-have-not-integrated/?fbclid=IwAR1MCDIYjOkBW9YeYD3Ozl7-499gMghV8TGYg9_MuNIGEBN5flgKh9R_mNg
https://www.thelocal.se/20190426/malm-street-artist-given-extra-month-in-jail-for-hate-crimes
Not clear in this article.
-
Sorry, confused. What is "Not clear"?
-
Sorry, confused. What is "Not clear"?
I'm not sure I grasp all the nuances of "Blattar".
-
Ah.
-
Ah.
That being said, locking someone up for speech is something evil societies do.
-
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15256/hate-speech-laws
-
https://www.dw.com/en/china-angry-over-coronavirus-cartoon-in-danish-newspaper/a-52196383?maca=en-Facebook-sharing
-
Aia Fog on Denmark after the Muhammad Cartoons
by Marilyn Stern
Middle East Forum Webinar
July 21, 2020
https://www.meforum.org/61295/aia-fog-defending-free-speech-on-islam
-
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16598/netherlands-free-speech-geert-wilders
-
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16550/france-terrorism-silence
France: More Terrorism, More Silence
by Giulio Meotti
September 27, 2020 at 5:00 am
Send
Translations of this item:
German
Italian
Portuguese
Spanish
Swedish
This brand of extremism has also managed to transform many European citizens into prisoners, people hiding in their own countries, sentenced to death and forced to live in houses unknown even to their friends and families. And we got used to it!
"[T]his lack of courage to follow in Charlie's footsteps comes at a price, we are losing freedom of speech and an insidious form of self-censorship is gaining ground." — Flemming Rose, Le Point, September 2, 2020.
"To put it simply, freedom of speech is in bad shape around the world. Including in Denmark, France and throughout the West. These are troubled times; people prefer order and security to freedom." — Flemming Rose, Le Point, August 15, 2020.
On September 25, in Paris, two people were stabbed and seriously wounded outside the former offices of Charlie Hebdo, where 12 of the satirical magazine's editors and cartoonists were murdered in 2015. Pictured: Firefighters and paramedics evacuate a wounded victim from the site of the attack. (Photo by Alain Jocard/AFP via Getty Images)
On September 25, in Paris, two people were stabbed and seriously wounded outside the former offices of Charlie Hebdo, where 12 of the satirical magazine's editors and cartoonists were murdered by extremist Muslims in 2015. The suspect, in police custody, is being investigated for terrorism.
The accused murderers in the 2015 attacks are currently on trial in Paris.
Shortly before the knifing attack, on September 22, Charlie Hebdo's director of human resources, Marika Bret, did not come home. In fact, she no longer has a home. She was evicted after serious and concrete death threats from extremist Muslims. She decided to make her "exfiltration" public for French intelligence to alert the public to the threat of extremism in France.
"I have lived under police protection for almost five years", she told the weekly Le Point.
"My security agents received specific and detailed threats. I had ten minutes to pack and leave the house. Ten minutes to give up a part of one's life is a bit short and it was very violent. I will not go home. I am losing my home to outbursts of hatred, the hatred that always begins with the threat of instilling fear. We know how it can end".
Bret also claimed that the French Left abandoned the "battle for secularism".
From the start of the trial of the men accused of committing the murders at Charlie Hebdo in 2015 -- and especially since the renewed publication of Mohammed cartoons -- Charlie Hebdo has received threats of all kinds -- including from al Qaeda. Security today at the satirical magazine is massive. "The address of our headquarters is secret, there are security gates everywhere, armored doors and windows, armed security agents, we can hardly get anyone in", Bret said.
Today, there are 85 policemen protecting Charlie's journalists.
Bret has become another example of the clandestine nature of freedom of expression in France, the country of Voltaire. The first was Robert Redeker, a professor of philosophy. On September 17, 2006, he arose early to write an article for Le Figaro on Europe's grappling with Islam. Three days later, he was in a safe house and on the run.
Last January, Mila O., a 16-year-old French girl, made insulting comments about Islam during a livestream on Instagram.
"During her livestream, a Muslim boy asked her out in the comments, but she turned him down because she is gay. He responded by accusing her of racism and calling her a 'dirty lesbian'. In an angry follow-up video, streamed immediately after she was insulted, Mila responded by saying that she 'hates religion'".
Mila continued, saying among other things:
"Are you familiar with freedom of expression? I didn't hesitate to say what I thought. I hate religion. The Koran is a religion of hatred; there is only hatred in it. That's what I think. I say what I think... Islam is sh*t... I'm not a racist at all. One cannot simply be racist against a religion... I say what I want, I say what I think. Your religion is sh*t. I'd stick a finger up your god's a**h*le..."
After her school's address was posted on social media, she was forced to leave and transfer to a different school, this time kept secret.
The journalist Éric Zemmour was attacked several times outside his house; the French-Moroccan journalist Zineb el Rhazoui also found the address of her home published on social media.
Meanwhile, to his credit, French President Emmanuel Macron has been defending Charlie Hebdo's right to freedom of expression. Blasphemy, he said, "is no crime."
"The law is clear: we have the right to blaspheme, to criticize, to caricature religions. The republican order is not a moral order... what is outlawed is to incite hatred and attack dignity."
A 2007 legal case ruled that "In France it is possible to insult a religion, its figures and its symbols ... however, insulting those who follow a religion is outlawed."
The courageous words of the French authorities, however, seem harmless, pale and dull, compared to the strength of extremist violence and intimidation.
Islamic fundamentalism has already managed to displace not only thousands of persecuted Christians -- such as Asia Bibi, forced to flee for her life from Pakistan to Canada after she was acquitted of committing blasphemy. This brand of extremism has also managed to transform many European citizens into prisoners, people hiding in their own countries, sentenced to death and forced to live in houses unknown even to their friends and families. And we got used to it!
On the day of Iran's death sentence against Salman Rushdie for his novel, The Satanic Verses, he and his wife, Marianne Wiggins, were taken from their home in North London by the British secret service, to the first of more than fifty "safe houses" in which the writer lived for the next ten years.
The Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders -- whose name, as the next to be murdered, was found on a sheet of paper knifed into the murdered filmmaker, Theo van Gogh -- has been living in safe houses since 2004. "I am in jail," he says, "and they are walking around free."
Ten years ago, a Seattle Weekly reporter, Molly Norris, in solidarity with the endangered makers of the television cartoon "South Park," also drew a caricature of Mohammed. The last newspaper article that talked about her stated:
"You may have noticed that the Molly Norris strip is not included in this week's issue. That's because there is no more Molly... on the advice of FBI security specialists, she will be moving and changing her name..."
The Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten, which first printed cartoons of Mohammed in 2005, gave up. The paper declined to republish the caricatures of the Prophet of Islam when Charlie Hebdo printed them again on its front page. The editor who published the cartoons at Jyllands Posten, Flemming Rose, is still escorted by bodyguards. "I really admire Charlie's courage," he said.
"Heroes who have not succumbed to threats or violence. Unfortunately, they received limited support. No publication in France or Europe behaves like Charlie. That is why I believe that in Europe there is an unwritten law against blasphemy. I am not criticizing the journalists and editors who make this choice. We cannot blame people who, unlike Charlie, do not put their lives in danger. But let us not be fooled: this lack of courage to follow in Charlie's footsteps comes at a price, we are losing freedom of speech and an insidious form of self-censorship is gaining ground".
In recent days, the new editor of Jyllands Posten, Jacob Nybroe, repeated:
"We will not publish them anymore. I confirmed this editorial line when I arrived and received a lot of applause. I may look like a coward, but we cannot do it".
The names of Danish cartoonists appeared on the same "hit list" that Al Qaeda published with the name of Charlie Hebdo's editor-in chief, Stéphane Charbonnier, murdered in the 2015 massacre. The Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard is alive only because during a terror assault on his home, he hid.
Today Jyllands Posten's headquarters has bulletproof windows, metal bars and slabs, barbed wire and video cameras. It sits opposite the port of Aarhus, the second largest city in Denmark, and is under surveillance day and night. Each automatic door, each elevator, requires a badge and a code. You enter it as if it were a bank vault. One door opens and after it closes, the next door opens. The journalists who work there enter one at a time. "To put it simply, freedom of speech is in bad shape around the world. Including in Denmark, France and throughout the West," Rose said, "These are troubled times; people prefer order and security to freedom."
If all of us do not defend our freedoms, soon we will not have them anymore.
Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.
-
Girls Scout troop violates the org’s rules by fundraising for “Palestinian children” and so gets told to stop. Tries to turn it into a national issue, milking it for all it’s worth:
https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/leaders-push-girl-scouts-for-stance-on-gaza-apology-to-former-st-louis-troop/
-
No, I don't agree with this person turning her girl scout troup into her personal action committee
!!!!!
Why always the apologies just to say no we don't allow this.
-
No, I don't agree with this person turning her girl scout troup into her personal action committee
!!!!!
Why always the apologies just to say no we don't allow this.
Back in my telephone hotline days & misspent youth I hobnobbed w/ several Saul Alinsky students (Alinsky did most his work in the Chicago area where I grew up), students that would gleefully pass on what they learned at the master's knee. One such--a 40 something Jewish lady--would tell of a successful protest she authored, one where she hit up all the second hand stores, neighbors, etc. for Girl Scout uniforms, whereupon she and her troop showed up at the protest site (Dow Chemical, IIRC) and got a lot of air time as cute little Girls Scouts protesting the evil polluting company.
I think this is more of the same. I've worked w/ my share of Scouting orgs as a firearm and outdoor skills instructor and they all have a ton of rules and regs re what's kosher behavior and what's not. This lady knew going in that cookies and cookies only was the singular fundraising tool, but chose optics over the rulebook (big surprise). Too bad those reporting the story haven't dug into it further as I'd bet her troop was a small, recently organized one. It's not like Palestinian aren't known for twisting the truth into all sorts of odd shapes.