|
Re: The EU and Europe's cultural identity
Quote:
Quote:
While agreeing that basic Western freedoms are considered means of suppression of Islam or diversion from Islam by mainstream Islam teachings I still consider that the demonstrators on the linked picture voice the "radical Muslim view" on a basic human ('Western") freedom. Radical means without compromise and as such this word is in accordance with what Skybird wrote. However, although the teachings of Islam may be radical, the followers are often not. To give immediate proof of this is that of the ca. 900.000 Dutch Muslims only about 300 (= 0.033%) attended a nationwide demonstration last Saturday against the Mohamed-cartoons at the Dam Square in Amsterdam. Recently I have made some business trips to Northern Cyprus and spoken with some Turkish Muslims, some of them living in Holland. They warned me for the growth of funsamentalism in Turkey and were - for that reason against Turkeys potential EU membership. Their vision on radical or mainstream Islam is that they don't buy that Sharia-crap and prefer Western freedoms. Still they would say that they are Muslims. Ergo:There are radical Muslims who are devoted to Islamic teachings and there are other Muslims who interpret these rules in their own way. While many Muslims may be (in my view: wrongly) offended by the Mohamed-cartoons, a smal but very vocal radical minority turned towards violence. I am convinced that most Muslims don't want to have anything to do with this kind of violence. By the way: In a whole day in Northern Cyprus you see far fewer veils (no burka's) than in walking for 5 minutes in the centre of Amsterdam. The reason should be clear to anybody with some basic sociologic knowledge (and supports my point of view). |
Re: The EU and Europe's cultural identity
Quote:
|
Re: The EU and Europe's cultural identity
Quote:
Veils plenty of them, Burka's only in certain area's, Osdorp, Slotermeer, Amsterdam Oost and then relatively seldom. No Burka's in downtown Amsterdam, but veils combined with traditional non-Western clothing a lot. Very few veils on Northern Cyprus and no burqa's at all. Women wear jeans and shirts. |
Re: The EU and Europe's cultural identity
Quote:
|
Re: The EU and Europe's cultural identity
Quote:
|
Re: The EU and Europe's cultural identity
Quote:
|
Quote:
[11] He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. Just for you and Steed. |
Re: The EU and Europe's cultural identity
Quote:
I think there are within the Muslim-world many people that you could call "people with a Muslim heritage", but, because of the Muslim nature of their social environment, their ties to the Muslim culture and religion would probably still be stronger than is the case with "people with a Christian cultural heritage". But I also think there is quite a group of devote Muslims who see their believe as something personal, prefer the 'peaceful' quotes in the Quran above the violent ones and leave any (extreme or "mainstream") activism to others, trusting that Allah will eventually judge the 'infidels'. Anyway, as I said there are about 900.000 so called "Muslims" in Holland. Many of them are annoyed to (deeply) offended by the - in my view - quite innocent cartoons. Some of then are definitely not offended - so they said on TV. Only 300 protested. My conclusion is that contrary to what some people on this forum say and the radical imams in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would wish, there is no such person as 'The Universal Muslim', who reacts on cue to whatever is said about or done to Islam. The Muslim community - certainly in the West - is divers. People who know my viewpoints on terrorism understand that what I wrote in this posting does not mean that I underestimate the danger to our society that can be (and is) caused by Islamofacists. I just hate generalisations. |
I am not worried about every indicidual calling himself/herself muslim. but by definition, there is only one kind of true muslim there can be, and this is one MUST NECESSARILY base on Muhammad, Medina-model,Quran, Sharia. this kind of person must lie to us if it is in the interest of Islam. It must be of a most intolerant, anti-intellectual mind, and it must be supportive for and obedient to a totalitarian and fascist order of politics, society, and religion. It must follow the Sharia and the quran without exception, in Islam you do not have the freedom to eclectically choose only the things oyu like and ignore the rest, it does ot work that way, this is no religion like christianity where you can reject the old testament and parts of the new and only pick the part on Jesuss and still would be a Christian. ISLAM IS NOT LIKE THAT. A person like above must be ALL of ISLAM without beeing able to reject any of these characteristics, else this true Muslim is not Muslim in a Muhammadian, Sharian, Quaranian, Medinesian understanding. And these four adjectives and no other describe what Muslim is.
If A man for whatever a reason violates all these four descpritions completely, than it is good for him and good us and good for all. He then is probably no problem. but one thing he is not, and cannot be, and will not be: Muslim. Islam has not that spectrum of interpretation to fall off these descpritions, and still be a Muslim. So what you are essentially meaning when describing those many silent Muslims (why is it that not many of them have protested AGAINST the hostile reactions towards these cartoons, btw, but against the practice of western freedom of speech and uncensored medias??), are muslims that have great deficits in knowledge about the ideology they claim for themselves. This is nothing new for me. What certainly also is true with regard to Christians. But neither true nor faked Christians nowadays run around and burn embassies. They also do not silently tolerate it, if for their feeling their religion is abused to bring chaos and submission onto others - in the name of their religion. Have you ever heared of the Spanish tradition of Schädel-Minarette, that would translate into "skull-minaretts" in English? This is the true and only Islam there is and that I speak of. During periods of the cordoba Caliphate and Islam in occupied Spain, they used the beheaded skulls of Christians to built and improve the minarettes of mosques they were buidling - by the hundreds and thousands. It was such a beloved tradition that christian skulls even were exported by the tens of thousands to North-West Africa , and the evil habit of skull-mosques spraid east to a degree that nowadays can no longer be reconstructed by archeologists. Somewhere between Marocco and Egypt it stopped to move further east, probably. That reminds of the Nazis, that used body fats of murdered KZ-prisoners for industrial processes, and their hair as sealing compound in U-Boot-yards. An ideology that since these times and earlier has not changed a bit, is a threat to us all. You see diversity in Western Islam, where by definition of Islam does not allow diversity. If these people then really are apostates, like you indirectly must claim, then I am wondering why they are so invisible in helping to protest and fighting back true Islam and it's ugly faces. You see diversity in Islam. I see silent tolerance for Islamic violence and effort to make the West submitting, accepüting more and more concessions to Sharia and Islam, and I see lacking effort to defend Western principles. Those Muslims that I was friend with during my life, were no Muslims, you see. I cannot be friend with a real muslim, like I cannot be friend with a Nazi or A KKK-member. My tolerance has limits. Two of them I even talked out of being under that evil spell, which caused them to stand up against their families - which is a very severe thing for them, the one was Turk, the other Armenian. Both converted to Chrstianity. They had lived long enough 8since their childhood) in the West to built the knowledge and the educated thinking to wake up from that nightmare they had been occupied by. Like it or not, Abraham, but those Muslims you describe, maybe they are not Muslims, but still they have more in common with THEM, than with US. they are like the many Germans that maybe have not voted for Hitler - but also did not raise to fight against him when there still was time. there ignorrance was the basis that made hitler possible, because wothout their inactivity hitler would not have been able to raise. so, they may not have been active Nazis. But nevertheless they were part of the problem. |
The EU and Europe's cultural identity
Your argumentation is very persuasive, Skybird, the more since I share your vision on traditional Islam and we agree broadly on the thread subject.
I want to thank you for the information about the skull-minarets. That's gruesome, but those were gruesome times (form all sides). Still, from my recent conversations with "Muslims" I get a - not fundamentally, but partly - different impression than you have. "Muslims" who warned me for Turkey joining the EU and it's possible voting tactics in the EU parliament, "Muslims" who were abhorred by the recent Islamofacistic violence, "Muslims" who hardly cared about going to a mosque anymore. And in Northern Cyprus they were no exception. If you don't call them Muslims - which is they still call themselves - you might have to distract anything between 30% and 60% of the world Muslim population, right? I see diversity amoungst Muslims. You see silent tolerance for Islamic violence and effort to make the West submitting. But I am sure that we both are right. Diversity implies that your view of the Muslims can be realistic, as well as my view. Mind you, I agree that Muslims in general don't share our Western principles. Still I wonder how people like Konovalov feel and think. I just can't generalise and view all Muslims as a threat. I even wonder if all devote Muslims are a threat, considering Konovalov is a devote Muslim. But I certainly agree with you that the Muslim world gets much more exited about some cartoons of the prophet than about Muslim terrorism. And I find it a shame that some Muslim clergymen set a price on the head of a Danish cartoonist without a wave of protest going through the Muslim community. That's why I don't disagree with you on principle, I just want to see a little bit less generalisation... |
Ya crack me up Skybird. :)...I'm sorry you have the view that some Christians cast off parts of the Bible...I was trying to teach my son just last night about...Point Of View...he had a school assignment and a few questions to determine which were opinion and which were fact....This was intresting because it brings up the old...Point of View thing...I told him there are millions of Muslims that he watches on the tv with me who think blowing themselves up for there religion is Right! and there are millions of Christians who think it's wrong! Point is it is all about point of view and opinion...and what one thinks as fact may really only be opinion.I told him the song of Knights in White Satin....Red is Green and Yellow White but we decided which is right and which is an illusion....I finsihed with him on the note of "You know what they say about opinions"...he said no what?..."They're like A-holes everyones got one"...he was rolling on the floor laughing...my wife was was not though hehe.Ya know I see you Skybird laying it out like this in regards to Islam and Christianiaty for that matter and I think you miss a big point here...at least with Christianity anyway....God does not follow some set script or set of laws made up by man...the Earth and everything in it was...good....and for our use.I don't know man... the only Christian law is LOVE....how much more do u need to know?How can that simple law be construed into so much kaos and confusion.....I believe from what little I know of Islam or any religion that at it's heart must be LOVE....if not than it's probably not that good of a belief.But what I am getting at too is the flexibility of LOVE....Love doesnt 't need to follow a script and I just think many many people of all beliefs think this too...Love can change,adapt, overcome.So please don't discount beliefs on the pretense of....O....this group does't follow the letter of the law or belief they must suck....I think you will be a very lonley person my friend.....My "Opinon" any ways. :) :up:
|
Re: The EU and Europe's cultural identity
Quote:
Have you red my recent essay, two days ago? You perfectly fit into that pattern I describe there. As long as you make a diffrence between what you call "traditional" islam, and other kinds of Islam, you have no clue what Islam is about. And that is true for other Muslims that consider themselves to be Muslim as well. with regard to Konovalov, we still exchange mails occasionally, so muczh for my attitude towards him, and vice versa. He has prooven with all his behavior and attitude that he showed on this forum, that he is no Muslim at all. He just is under a spell. We leave it to that, and still can talk to each other. Try to understand that, Abraham, or you will always miss with great precision: there is only ONE Islam with crystalclear criterias for what it is. there is no two Islams, not three, and not four or more. Only ONE. and this is the Islam you can see throughout history, it has that history not because it is violating it's laws, but becasue it is in correspondence with it's laws. This is different than in the bible, which never gave the fundament to build a church, and thus also holds no arguments why there can only be one church, or several churches. It even cannot explain why there is any church at all. You cannot tame Islam. There is only one islam: the fighting Islam. It's part of it's identity. Stop fooling yourself. Most people do think in comparable pattern like you on Islam. This has brought Europe to where it is. You can't criticise the state of Europe and it's attitude toeards turkey, Islam, and such - and stick to that method of yours at the same time - that is a contradiction in itself. Islamic history does not know our concept of time. For them, time stand s still , for Allah has revealad himself and muhammad was his envoy, his voice and prophet, every change, every developement could only mean to move away from the most perfect condition that is possible. That'S why I referred to those skull-minarets - the attitude that led to their building is the same that rules true Islam today. It is not clever trying to put that into a more relöative popsition again by saying "the times were like that, and Templars were not kind either" - you only do one thing by that: deconstructing even more of our values and standards, so that we become even more vulnerable for them beeing replaced with the values of Islam. Those moderates you mentioned are sticking to "Islam" by habit, and tradition, but their wish for seeing modernisation and more liberties only shows that they have understood how destructive and unhuman and totalitarian Islam is. It's a compliment for them, but nevertheless they are no Muslims anymore. Not evertyhing should be put into relative relations to others, tolerance needs limits, else it is the law of the jungle, and not the most reasonable and most tolerant will win, but the strongest. And that is the situation we head for in europe. Your attitude is dangerous, Abraham. Again, I refer to my latest essay, "The dialogue that never was". I cannot put it any better than like I did in that one. |
Re: The EU and Europe's cultural identity
Quote:
As far as your essay is concerned, I've printed it - you owe me a HP cartridge - and I'll read it later today... :D |
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/825
Banning the Quran? From the desk of Koenraad Elst on Fri, 2006-02-17 14:16 The controversy over the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad has generated plenty of hypocritical commentary from politicians and other public figures in attempts to convey an impression of moderation and neutrality. In most cases they do so by taking up the quarrel in the middle and condemning both the “insensitivity” of the cartoonists and the “overreaction” of the Muslim world, both alleged instances of “extremism.” They expect us to believe that there is a moral equivalence between the exercising of a fundamental right (freedom of expression) and the attempt to abolish this right. Many also adopted the snobbish position that the cartoons should not have been published because they were “substandard.” Ooh, those gourmet cartoon connoisseurs, they will settle for nothing but the best. Other evasions include the implication of ulterior motives, e.g. that the “real” object of the controversy is Denmark’s restrictive immigration policy rather than the cartoons. This goes against all the testimonies of Muslim government spokesmen and demonstrators. Another diversionary tactic is to declare that “the real issue” is unemployment of young Muslims in Europe, as if that was a concern of the violent demonstrators in faraway Beirut or Peshawar. I do not know if hypocrisy is better or worse than the second most common position encountered in liberal circles: openly siding with Islamic fanaticism and putting the blame fully on the cartoonists and their editors, as Bill Clinton did, Kofi Annan and the Foreign Affairs spokesmen of the Bush and Blair governments. In the Brussels weekly Knack, the Belgian equivalent of Newsweek and Time, with a weekly circulation of 160,000 copies, the editor, Karl Van den Broeck, launched the innovative conspiracy theory that the Neoconservative cabal, with tentacles stretching from Washington DC and Tel Aviv to Aarhus and Brussels (this website!), had planned the whole cartoon riot incident as the trigger for the Clash of Civilizations and the invasion of Syria and Iran, no less. Well, not all that innovative: a similar view was expressed by Ayatollah Khamenei. A well-known Belgian novelist (Kristien Hemmerechts), a noted feminist and cultural relativist (who has spoken in favour of female circumcision), stated that since the Muslims are so sensitive to the cartoons, the latter should not have been published. Typically, the liberal sympathisers of Muslim “sensitivities” do not seem to notice how childishly selfish the Muslim position is. For centuries and until today, Islam has ordered the destruction of everything that is sacred to other religions, starting with the 360 idols in the Kaaba (including Jesus and Mary) smashed to pieces by Muhammad himself, down to the Bamian Buddhas destroyed by the Taliban in 2001, the weekly vandalising of Hindu temples in Bangladesh, or the destruction of Christian churches in Iraq during the last couple of months. In many cases, moreover, not only the places of worship but the worshippers too have been assaulted. What an arrogance for Muslims, with their heritage of iconoclastic insensitivity, to put up this show of indignation for a handful of harmless cartoons. And now we are being expected to feel pity for those poor touch-me-nots? In Muslim circles, meanwhile, only a few independent intellectuals have come out unequivocally on the side of freedom of expression, most bravely the Jordanian journalists who confronted their readers with the poser: “Which is worse for Islam, these cartoons or the TV images of Iraqi mujahedin beheading their hostages?” They were arrested. So were several Algerian journalists, for republishing the cartoons, and their paper was banned from publication. Likewise a leftist Syrian journalist was arrested under the law against “insulting religious feelings” for having proposed a dialogue about the cartoon controversy on the plea that violent protests could only hurt the image of Islam. And in Konya, Turkey, a woman journalist was stoned for not wearing a headscarf while reporting on a demonstration held under the motto “loyalty to the Prophet.” By contrast, many Europe-based Muslim intellectuals who joined the debate, esp. those who opened their interventions with a plea against violent protest by way of captatio benevolentiae (then followed by “but…”), only did so as the first, non-violent line of attack in the broader Islamist offensive against freedom of expression and of the press. They are the ones who stand to gain most from this type of crisis: with every Islamist bomb attack by the violent wing, the non-violent vanguard’s prestige with Western governments and media goes up. They become ever more needed as “dialogue partners” to fend off the violent option. But objectively they are working for the same goal as the armed Islamists: to curb democratic freedoms as a crucial step in the imposition of an Islamic order on the West. A good example is the Brussels government-funded “intercultural” lobby group KifKif. Last Tuesday, seven of its board members, including widely read intellectuals of Moroccan origin, such as Tarik Fraihi and Sami Zemni, published a plea for “limits on freedom of speech.” They argue that “an absolute freedom of expression can only benefit antidemocratic extremists.” This position is evidently the opposite of the truth. Unfettered freedom of expression is a fundamental precondition for a democracy, because a democratically sovereign citizenry needs to be able to inform itself about the existing spectrum of opinions on any matters that come up for decision-making. In a democracy there cannot be two unequal categories of citizens, with one allowed to select what the other may hear and read. Conditional freedom of expression is typical of dictatorships. Hitler and Stalin did not oppose the freedom to express opinions that were in line with their own policies, and likewise, KifKif does not advocate limits on the expression of opinions in line with its own. But since the job of this type of lobbying groups is to put a democratic face on their attacks on the foundations of democracy, their spokesmen cleverly use the language of human rights. Kifkif writes: “The self-declared defenders of absolute freedom of expression forget (deliberately?) the second part of the much-discussed article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, not coincidentally the part in which the limits of freedom of expression are defined.” This is bluff aimed at fooling lazy readers, for those who take the trouble to read the ECHR article in question, which guarantees freedom of expression, will find that the limits mentioned there are conceived in terms of national interest and morality, not of prohibiting criticism of religious doctrines and leaders. The only straw to which the KifKif authors can cling is the following: “An important limit according to the ECHR is the ‘protection of the rights of others.’” This they take to include “the right to respect (art. 8) and the right to freedom of religion (art. 9).” This is another attempt to fool unsuspecting readers, for the rights guaranteed in articles 8 and 9 are in no way thwarted by any form of self-expression. The “respect” mentioned in art. 8 is not the right to freedom from criticism which Islam is now demanding, but the very tangible right of freedom from encroachment on one’s private correspondence, home and family life. The freedom of religion guaranteed in art. 9 is similarly unaffected by the expression of opinions. The religious freedom of Christians, for instance, has not been violated by the various forms of criticism which have been aimed at them since the 18th century (but it has been violated by various forms of prohibition, repression and pogroms in Communist and Islamic countries). The KifKif authors continue: “Freedom of expression is limited in this sense that exhortation to hate or racism are forms of verbal violence and therefore punishable offences.” That is not in the ECHR, but granted, this idea does underlie the anti-racist legislation in some European countries. The Newspeak notion of ‘verbal violence’ is an attempt to vitiate the debate by pretending that strong rhetoric amounts to, and is somehow equivalent to, physical violence. Again this is a trait which is typical of dictatorships, where dissenters are routinely criminalized as ‘trouble-makers irresponsibly sowing conflict in society’ and the silencing and incarceration of dissidents is justified as ‘necessary for the people’s well-being and social peace.’ In fact, it is precisely the so-called ‘violent’ speech that is protected by the principle of freedom of expression. Sweet talk is not controversial and no-one seeks to curb it. The opinions that need to be protected from censorship are precisely the opinions that hurt. As George Orwell said: if freedom of speech means anything at all, it is the freedom to say things that people do not want to hear. That is, those things that the targeted will resent as ‘verbal violence.’ The reference to anti-racist restrictions is yet another attempt to distort the debate, for criticism of religion (which is the basis of any criticism, according to Karl Marx) has nothing to do with race. There are many Muslim-born critics of Islam, racially identical with the Islamists they criticize, people like Ibn Warraq or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Conversely, there are quite a few European-born converts to Islam, often with a convert’s militant zeal. I have been on debating panels with several of them, and a few have made headlines by joining the armed struggle in Afghanistan or Iraq against Western forces, whose soldiers are mostly white like themselves. If the KifKif advocates of Islam’s right to veto criticism have to resort to the misplaced rhetoric of anti-racism, diverting attention from the religious basis of the controversy, this may well indicate that they know that their core argumentation is weak. And it is. Suppose we take them at their word when they argue: “Freedom of the press and of expression cannot and must not become a licence or alibi for gratuitous, mendacious and disrespectful messages.” The first two adjectives are bluff, again. There was nothing ‘gratuitous’ about raising the issue of whether artists are afraid to depict the Muslim’s prophet. A Danish author of children’s books had discovered this to be the case, which was the reason for Jyllands-Posten’s invitation to the cartoonists. Neither was it gratuitous when two of the cartoonists connected the person of Muhammad with the contemporary theme of terrorism. It so happens that hundreds of terrorists in the past few years have justified their actions with references to the words and actions of their Prophet. It is not gratuitous or frivolous for a newspaper to address politically relevant and topical facts. Secondly, there was nothing ‘mendacious’ about depicting Mohammed in a way that associates him with terrorism. KifKif has no monopoly on access to the orthodox Islamic sources about the life and works of the Prophet of Islam. We can check for ourselves that the Hadith (traditions concerning the Prophet’s words and deeds) and Sira (biography) literature describe Mohammed as engaging in armed raids, plunder, hostage-taking, rape, assassination of critics and mass-murder of prisoners. Instances of this conduct are also confirmed and justified in the Quran itself. In a democracy it is perfectly legitimate to point this out, whether laboriously in a scholarly paper or more caustically in a cartoon. As to the third adjective, one may agree that from a certain angle the cartoons can indeed be considered as ‘disrespectful.’ But in that case, one must likewise judge ‘disrespectful’ the sources on which the message they convey is based. As we just pointed out, the notion that Muhammad was a kind of terrorist is not an invention of some 21st-century ‘Islamophobe’ or ‘racist,’ it is based on Arabic sources compiled by orthodox Muslims and enshrined as the basis of Islamic doctrine and law. If cartoons critical of the Prophet are to be banned, what does KifKif propose to do with the Hadith collections and the Quran: ban those books in toto or merely excise the parts that testify to Muhammad’s acting in contravention of the ECHR? I am unambiguously opposed to any curtailment of the freedom to buy and sell and read and discuss the Quran. Everybody should read it, for that is the best immunization against silly sop-stories about Islam being ‘the religion of peace’ or Muhammad being ‘the first feminist.’ Anyone who, like KifKif, demands restrictions on publications that cast the Muslim’s prophet in a negative light, is demanding restrictions which would logically affect the basic texts of Islam. If logic had any force of law, the KifKif board members would be well advised to ponder the old proverb: “Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.” The question of how the Islamic texts would fare under a KifKif regime becomes all the more relevant in the light of another assertion of the board members: “Kif Kif is of the opinion that there are limits to freedom of expression. t is at least necessary that those limits are the same for everybody. […] We wish to live in a tightly coherent society with equal rights and duties for everyone. A society without racism, whether it is Islamophobia or anti-Semitism.” This seems to mean that disrespect for any religion should be treated the same as disrespect for Islam. So, if insults to Islam or the Muslim community must be prohibited, then so must insults to other religions and their adherents. (In the new nomenclatura, this might be called Kafirophobia, aversion to Kafirs or ‘unbelievers;’ if the KifKif authors mean what they say about equality, they should henceforth twin every mention of ‘Islamophobia’ with ‘Kafirophobia.’) How would the Quran fare in such a system? The Quran contains dozens of verses that preach hostility to Pagans (polytheists, Zoroastrian ‘fire-worshippers’ and atheists), Jews and Christians. It denounces their teachings as false and evil and a sure passport to hell. By modern Western standards the author of the Quran is entitled to his freedom of opinion on religions. But by KifKif standards, these insulting comments on other people’s religions are not so innocent and ought to be curtailed, especially in a multicultural society. (And indeed, the orthodox sources agree that it was Muhammad’s lifetime achievement to have transformed Arabia’s multicultural society into a monolithic Islamic one.) The Quran also expressly forbids conversion from Islam to other religions, while allowing and encouraging the reverse. This becomes problematic in the light of the KifKif authors’ plea for equality and reciprocity. It is also in contravention of the ECHR’s article 9, to which they purportedly adhere, for this article defines “freedom of religion” as including “the right to change one’s religion.” In addition the Quran rejects the principle of “equal rights and duties for everyone,” which KifKif now invokes. Apart from the candidly affirmed inequality in rights and duties between the sexes (which admittedly exists in all religions), it explicitly ordains inequality between the different religious communities. To the non-monotheists Muhammad denied freedom of religion completely, and as for Jews and Christians, the Quran only allows them to retain their faith if they accept the status of third-class citizens and pay a ‘toleration tax.’ When the Prophet’s Islamic state developed into an empire under his successors, the ‘rightly-guided Caliphs,’ this principle was elaborated into an entire system of legal inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims. This inequality pervades the Shari’a (Islamic law) and even now it is already seeping into our society, e.g. in the immense and sometimes violent pressure of Muslim communities against relationships or marriages of their daughters with non-Muslims. There is even grimmer reading, however, in dozens of Quran verses that go further than mere doctrinal disputation and actually enjoin the Muslims to go out and fight the ‘infidels.’ The core text of Islam is not merely disrespectful towards other religions, it extols killing and glorifies dying in the war against the non-Muslims. If the text of the Quran should not be clear enough, one must bear in mind that it is a companion volume to Muhammad’s life story as a religious leader and military conqueror. Consequently, if one should have doubts about the meaning of jihad, literally ‘effort’ but in practice ‘war against the infidels,’ one need merely put the verses in their real-life context. Muhammad understood and used the term unambiguously in the sense of ‘war,’ not some ethereal or metaphorical ‘struggle against the evil in ourselves’ but an actual war involving horses, weapons, stratagems and blood. The Quran explicitly teaches hatred, hostility and the use of force against other religions and their adherents. By KifKif’s own standards, it clearly exceeds the “limits of freedom of expression.” Fortunately most Muslims do not take the Quran literally. Their common sense, as well as human inertia and immediate self-interest make them focus on their own life’s business rather than on the struggle against the infidels. When pressed for a Quranic justification of this Islamically lax conduct, they may invent some conveniently soft and non-literal interpretation of the more militant verses, or even (before ignorant Westerners) deny their existence altogether. And so they get on with their lives much like their non-Muslim neighbours do. However, this does not render the Quranic injunctions against the infidels innocent. Of the hundreds of dedicated Muslims who committed acts of terror in the last couple of years, a handful may have been temperamentally violent and predisposed to committing such acts regardless of their religion. They may be the “evil people” whom President George W. Bush blamed for the 9/11 attacks in his bid not to implicate Islam. But many others have crossed the threshold into terrorism through the teaching of the Quran and the example set by the Prophet. After all, they understand the Quran as nothing less than God’s own revelation. Unlike the ephemeral cartoons, which have not motivated a single act of violence against Muslims in the months since their publication, the Quranic injunctions are intended to be taken seriously. Consequently, when people plead for restrictions on free speech on the grounds that it may cause offence and even inspire hatred and active hostility to certain communities, they ought to realize that they are in effect demanding limitations on the freedom to read and recite the Quran. Is that what the KifKif board members want? If not, they should withdraw their plea for limits on the freedom to express criticism of religions and religious figures including the prophet Muhammad. PS: please note that in the present article and in other publications, I have practised a reasonable degree of respect for the founder of Islam. Of course I have not used any sycophantic or reverential appositions every time I mentioned his name, such as “Peace Be Upon Him” or “PBUH.” But at least I have repeatedly referred to him as the “Prophet,” and capitalized, no less. As a non-believer, I would have been entitled to describe him each time as “the so-called prophet.” Since I am not in the business of annoying people with such pedantries, I have refrained from exercising that right. It’s just a question of sensitivity, you know. |
Skybird I'm sorry to put it like this, but you have simply entered a nonsense one-way street with your reasonings about Islam. You define Islam as radical, totalitarian and primitive, and when you get the proof that someone so-called muslim does not follow that pattern, you simply say that he can't call himself a muslim. This is a self-circling reasoning that leads nowehere, it's a tautology completely empty of any sense.
In my average experience as jurist, I can tell you that I daily see in the courts nearly unbelievable interpretations of any law. You woulnd't really believe how a lawyer can manage to make a law say exactly the opposite of what it means through argumentation. Quran has a set of laws, a set of principles and yes it is radical and intolerant in its base, much like any religion. But it can be interpreted nearly as far as you want, and serve to support more tolerant ideas. The bible itself is full of radicalisms and intolerance, and it has however been reinterpreted as a more tolerant religion than it originally was. You have today catholics, orthodoxs, protestants, evangelists, anglicans and a good amount of minor variants who claim to be the only ones making the correct interpretation of the bible. In the Islam itself you have the chiis and the sunnis, with rather different views in many basic aspects. You are commiting a tremendous error when trying to create -and freeze- a definition of what Islam is, tailored to your ideas and opinions, and then excluding any other interpretation of it. When doing so, you are nothing else but supporting the vision the radical muslims have about Islam. You could as well say that only The witnesses of Jehova are doing a correct interpretation of the Bible, and that all the rest, the catholics, orthodoxs, and any other, are not real christians. Arguing like that is just cheating :down: |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.