Religion of peace strikes again: Danish cartoonist intruder shot

[NeonSamurai]

There are countless examples in history where good people follow bad ideology, and they themselves do unspeakable things due to the ideology, but yet are good people at heart.

There is a reason why we always tend to dehumanize our enemies and opponents, as that is part of what allows us to kill other good people, and still view ourselves as being "good".

Originally Posted by Lt.Fillipidis

PS Why is it so hard to make myself clear?

Because bluntly you are not expressing yourself very clearly.

At least once a month there's a protest going on in Thessaloniki where i live.
And if i go out there, pick up a gun against them, they'll say im a terrorist.

You basically said that people are protesting where you live, and that if you go and pick up a gun against them (them being the protesters since that is the only group you referred to) they will say you are a terrorist.

[Lt.Fillipidis]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

You basically said that people are protesting where you live, and that if you go and pick up a gun against them (them being the protesters since that is the only group you referred to) they will say you are a terrorist.

Not against the protesters for something's sake!
Against the politicians! We were talking about the politicians and by "them" i am refering to them politicians.
Is it the way i write that you dont understand or what?

I already said it somewhere before that i support peaceful protests but i am totaly against anarchy!

[NeonSamurai]

The problem is you are not writing clearly. You made no mention of politicians in that post. How you connected your sentences together placed "them" as being the group you had referred to in the last sentences, which was the populace of Greece and protesters.

When you use "them" "they" etc in a sentence it generally refers to the group you previously identified earlier on in the paragraph or sentence.

[Lt.Fillipidis]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

The problem is you are not writing clearly. You made no mention of politicians in that post. How you connected your sentences together placed "them" as being the group you had referred to in the last sentences, which was the populace of Greece and protesters.

When you use "them" "they" etc in a sentence it generally refers to the group you previously identified earlier on in the paragraph or sentence.

Actually we were talking about politicians, then i refered the protesters and then said the rest but by "them" mean the politicians.
My mistake then.

[NeonSamurai]

I know I was just explaining why people were not understanding you, because of how you used the word them in combination with the rest of what you said.

[Onkel Neal]

Quote:
At least once a month there's a protest going on in Thessaloniki where i live.
And if i go out there, pick up a gun against them, they'll say im a terrorist.

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

You basically said that people are protesting where you live, and that if you go and pick up a gun against them (them being the protesters since that is the only group you referred to) they will say you are a terrorist.

That's the way I read it too. I'm not intentionally trying to misunderstand you, but your comments give me the impression you are ready to go after these groups (BBC, protesters, etc).

[Lt.Fillipidis]

Well, for BBC its the way the say the news that pisses me off.
They DO exaggerate things and i dont like it.
Not of course put a bomb in there for real.

[Skybird]

How damn right the man again is:

Originally Posted by http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,669888,00.html

The West Is Choked by Fear

An Editorial by Henryk M. Broder

The attack on illustrator Kurt Westergaard wasn't the first attempt to carry out a deadly fatwa. When Muslims tried to murder Salman Rushdie 20 years ago, the protests among intellectuals were loud. Today, though, Western writers and thinkers would rather take cover than defend basic rights.

In 1988, Salman Rushdie's novel "The Satanic Verses" was published in its English-language original edition. Its publication led the Iranian state and its revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, to issue a "fatwa" against Rushdie and offer a hefty bounty for his murder. This triggered several attacks on the novel's translators and publishers, including the murder of Japanese translator Hitoshi Igarashi. Millions of Muslims around the world who had never read a single line of the book, and who had never even heard the name Salman Rushdie before, wanted to see the death sentence against the author carried out -- and the sooner the better, so that the stained honor of the prophet could be washed clean again with Rushdie's blood.

In that atmosphere, no German publisher had the courage to publish Rushdie's book. This led a handful of famous German authors, led by Günter Grass, to take the initiative to ensure that Rushdie's novel could appear in Germany by founding a publishing house exclusively for that purpose. It was called Artikel 19, named after the paragraph in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights that guarantees the freedom of opinion. Dozens of publishing houses, organizations, journalists, politicians and other prominent members of German society were involved in the joint venture, which was the broadest coalition that had ever been formed in postwar German history.


Sympathy for the Hurt Feelings of Muslims

Seventeen years later, after the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten published a dozen Muhammad cartoons on a single page, there were similar reactions in the Islamic world to those that had followed the publication of "The Satanic Verses." Millions of Muslims from London to Jakarta who had never seen the caricatures or even heard the name of the newspaper, took to the streets in protests against an insult to the prophet and demanded the appropriate punishment for the offenders: death. Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden even went so far as to demand the cartoonists' extradition so that they could be condemned by an Islamic court.

This time, however, in contrast to the Rushdie case, hardly anyone has showed any solidarity with the threatened Danish cartoonists -- to the contrary. Grass, who had initiated the Artikel 19 campaign, expressed his understanding for the hurt feelings of the Muslims and the violent reactions that resulted. Grass described them as a "fundamentalist response to a fundamentalist act," in the process drawing a moral equivalence between the 12 cartoons and the death threats against the cartoonists. Grass also stated that: "We have lost the right to seek protection under the umbrella of freedom of expression."

"I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong," commented then-British Home Secretary Jack Straw, referring to the decision by several European media organizations to republish the caricatures. Meanwhile, Vorwärts, the party organ of Germany's center-left Social Democratic Party -- one of the country's two largest political parties -- defended freedom of expression in general, but gave the opinion that in this special case, the Danes had "abused" the freedom, "not in a legal sense, but in a political and moral one." For Fritz Kuhn, the then-parliamentary floor leader for the Green Party, it was a déjà vu experience: "They (the caricatures), remind me of the anti-Jewish drawings from the Hitler era before 1939." With his statement, Kuhn, who was born in 1955, demonstrated that either he had a sensational pre-natal memory or that he had never seen a single anti-Semitic caricature in the Nazi's Der Stürmer propaganda newspaper.

Like Eunuchs Talking about Sex

It was like listening to the blind talk about art, the deaf about music or eunuchs discussing sex based on hearsay. Because with the exception of the left-wing Die Tageszeitung, the conservative Die Welt and the centrist Die Zeit, every German newspaper and magazine followed the advice of Green Party co-leader Claudia Roth, who said "de-escalation begins at home," and erred on the side of caution by not republishing the cartoons. Prominent German psychoanalyst Horst-Eberhard Richter advised: "The West should refrain from any provocations that produce feelings of debasement or humiliation." Of course, Richter left open the question of whether "the West" should also refrain from the wearing of mini skirts, eating pork and the legalization of same-sex partnerships in order to avoid causing any feelings of debasement and humiliation in the Islamic world.

Had the Muhammed cartoons been reprinted by the whole German press, then newspaper readers could have seen for themselves how excessively harmless the 12 cartoons were and how bizarre and pointless the whole debate had become. Instead, the assessment was left to "experts" who had in the past defended every criticism of the pope and the Church as well as every blasphemous piece of art in the name of freedom of opinion, but who, in the case of the Muhammad cartoons, suddenly held the view that one must take other people's religious feelings into consideration.

But that argument was clearly just an excuse, a way of excusing the fact they had been silenced by fear. After all, a few things had happened in the time between the Rushdie affair and the caricatures debacle: 9/11, the London bombings, Madrid, Bali, Jakarta, Djerba -- events which some commentators have also interpreted as a reaction by the Islamic world to its degradation and humiliation by the West. Against this threat, it seemed more reasonable and, above all, safer, to show respect to religious feelings rather than insist on the right to freedom of expression.

Right to Offend More Important than Protecting the Offended

Very few people showed a willingness to break ranks. Among them was comedian Rowan Atkinson ("Mr. Bean"), who in the context of a debate over British proposed incitement of religious hatred legislation, declared that "right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended." And Somalia-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a secular Muslim woman then living in the Netherlands, responded with a manifesto that began with the words: "I am here to defend the right to offend."

But she was one of the few exceptions. Even the then-French president, Jacques Chirac, temporarily forgot that he represented the country of Sartre, Voltaire and Victor Hugo, and decreed that "anything that could offend the faith of others, especially religious beliefs, must be avoided."

Thus began the "de-escalation" that had been called for. The only problem is the other side isn't thinking about de-escalation. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie is still in effect, and the attempt to murder Kurt Westergaard last week wasn't the first attempt to carry out a death sentence for an instance in which no crime had been committed. Islam may be the "religion of peace" in theory, but it looks different in practice.

A German-Turkish lawyer who lives in central Berlin recently had to go into hiding because she became the recipient of death threats after publishing a book. The tome doesn't include any caricatures of Muhammad. It's just the title that serves as a provocation: " Islam Needs a Sexual Revolution."

There is a saying in German: "Fear is a bad advisor". and I would add: weakness is no virtue, but the inability to form options, alternatives, defences. Only strength can achieve this. weakness - never is anything else but just this: weakness.

There is a saying in German: "Fear is a bad advisor".

Fear ? As in Islamophobia and Xenophobia.
Thanks for the advise, I shalll be sure to be careful of these evil foriegn muslims who are planning to take over the world.

[Onkel Neal]

It's not Islamaphobia to recognize the patterns of violence exhibited by some fanatical Muslims.

It's not Islamaphobia to recognize the patterns of violence exhibited by some fanatical Muslims.

But it is to take them few fanatics and their views and use them as a measure of islam as a whole, just as it is a phobia to think that them few nuts are going to take over the world.....and of course its a real sign of how bad the phobia has become when Sky repeatedly insists that non-existant laws are real.

[Skybird]

A brilliant and sharp comment by Hamed Abdel-Samad, a native Muslim himself, he teaches history and politology at the university of Munich. He is author of a german book, translated title "My farewell to heaven. A muslim's life in Germany".

Unfortunately it is in German. If I'm bored this afternoon, I'll translate it.

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/meinung/k...art141,2992562

Ungeachtet dessen wird der afrikanische Islam nicht selten als Beweis für die Heterogenität und Anpassungsfähigkeit des Islam gepriesen. Er galt lange als Argument, dass es „den einen Islam“ nicht gibt. Selbstverständlich ist der Islam vielfältig in seinen Strömungen und Ausprägungen, und natürlich kann niemand behaupten, dass über eine Milliarde Muslime zwischen Indonesien und Marokko eine gleichgeschaltete Masse bilden – und dennoch kann man von einem Islam sprechen. Denn die Unterschiede mögen für Theologen, Ethnologen und Kunsthistoriker von Interesse sein, politisch gesehen sind sie ziemlich irrelevant. Wenn wir vom Islam reden, meinen wir nicht volkstümliche Erscheinungsbilder, sondern meist die politische Ideologie und die Geisteshaltung, die dem Glaubenssystem Islam entspringen. Es geht um den Islam, der den Westen als eine feindselige gleichgeschaltete Masse sieht und sich davon in jeder Form abgrenzt.

Wenn Muslime selbst vom Islam reden, im Zusammenhang etwa mit der Einführung von Islamunterricht an europäischen Schulen oder der Beantragung des Status einer Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts, dürfen sie von einem einzigen Islam reden. Wenn Muslime von der „Religion des Friedens“ sprechen, sagen sie nicht, welchen Islam sie meinen. Wenn aber Islamkritik auftaucht, kommt ein Taschenspielertrick, um die Kritik abzuwürgen: Von welchem Islam reden Sie überhaupt?
(...)
Das berühmte Zitat des Rechtsphilosophen Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde „Der freiheitliche, säkularisierte Staat lebt von Voraussetzungen, die er selbst nicht garantieren kann“ wird gerne durch religiöse Institutionen so verstanden, als seien die Religionen die einzigen Lieferanten dieser Voraussetzungen als Erzeuger von Moral und Solidarität. Ich dagegen interpretiere Böckenfördes These so, dass jede Demokratie nicht nur von den Gesetzen, sondern auch von der Geisteshaltung der Menschen lebt, die diese Gesetze hervorgebracht haben. Viele zugewanderte Muslime in Europa befinden sich außerhalb dieses Konsenses, da sie die europäischen Erfahrungen, die diese Geisteshaltung zustande brachten, nie teilten. Sie halten ihre eigene Geisteshaltung für höher und moralischer. Auch darüber muss verhandelt werden.

In another article he raised my attention by the headline: "In Europe you get muzzled faster than a counter-argument can be given.": http://www.tagesspiegel.de/meinung/a...t22196,2963775

[Skybird]

Done. Needless to say that I question his comment of Islam Light in Europe. He talks of taking Sharia and the aggressive mission away from Islam, and this Islam Light then still being Islam. My argument always has been that this is no Islam at all, then, and that it is impossible to take Sharia out of Islam. With the rest of the text I agree very much.

-----

Hamed Abdel-Samad:

And it nevertheless exist: the just one Islam!


After the unsuccessful climate summit, the Danish capital does not find rest. During christmas night, 760 appartements had been robbed and got devastated, including mine. But that did not sadden the general happy mood. Skaet er skaet, what happened has happened, my Danish neighbour commented very relaxed, who got robbed, too. But right on time with the beginning of the new year, the city gets shaken by the failled assassination of the 74-year old cartoonist Kurt Wetsergaard. More than four years after the controversial muhammad cartoons, a 28-year old wanted to take revenge by knife and axe.

This assassination attempt reminds me of christmas night again, this time not of the robberies taking place, but of another failed assassination - the one against the American passanger plane. There also the candidate for paradise was a Muslim with black-african background.

Often it is claimed that the West creates the globalisation, Asians deal with it in creative ways, Muslim were reactionary, and Africans were passiv. hat about those who are Africans and Muslims at the same time? How passive are these? I do not even mention the Sharia in nigeria, the war in Somalia and Darfur.

Despite that, African islam often gets praised as an evidence for the "heterogeneity" and adaptability of Islam. For long time it served as the argument for the claim that "the one Islam" does not exist. Of course Islam is diverse in it's trends and shapings, and of course nobody can claim that over one billion Muslims between Indonesia and Marocco form one conform mass - but still one can speak of just one Islam. Becasue the differences may be interesting for theologists, ethnologists and art-historians, but politically they are rather irrelevant. When we talk of islam, we do not mean folksy appearances, but the political ideology and the attitude of mind that meet the belief system of Islam. It is about the Islam that sees the West as a hostile, conformal mass from which it strictly fences itself off in every way.

"I am sure that the complete Somali community in Denmark turns against this assault on Westergaard", said the the speaker of this community, Mohammed Gelle, which is a rather daring statement when taking into account that 16000 somalis live in Denmark.But it is no surprising comment for somebody who labels Islam a "religion of peace".

When Muslims themselves talk of Islam, for example in connection with teaching Islami classes at european schools or applying for getting the status of a corporation of public law (?, = Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts), they are allowed to talk of just one single Islam. When Muslims talk of the "relgion of peace", they do not say which Islam they mean. But when a critic of Islam shows up, immediately a cheat by sleight of hand gets used, to scotch criticsm from the very beginning on: "After all, what kind of Islam are you talking about?"
Of what kind of Alcohol are we talking , when we say "too much alcohol harms your health"? Yes, alcohol gets used to produce medicine, or for cooking, but these purposes are not the matter of interest when we talk of the social effects of alcohol. Yes, there are different kinds of alcohol, with different effects. It depends on the volume you consume, and the same is true for Islam. High-proof islam in huge volumes harms coexistence and living together, it hinders integration, becasue this Islam divides the world into friend and enemy, faithful and infidel , and it does not tolerate any other identity beside itself. It is not about Muslims that fopcus on the sprioitual side of Islam, but those many that in every situation of ordinary life grab for the bottle of Islamic dogmas.

Three days before the assassination attempt against Westergaard, I was sitting in the office of Flemming Rose, editor of the culture ressort for the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten, and original creator of the idea for the muhammad cartoons. the cartoons were not the theme of our talk. I told him of a striking observation that had gotten my attention: that so very many Somali women walk full of pride with their headscarfs through Copenhagen. This being-Muslim, that obviously has annulled their African identity, seems to be their only source of self-confidence.

Africans in Europe often complain about increasing discrimination, not only by autochthonous, but also by people with migration background. But if they convert to Islam, they perceive it as rising in social status, because their race gets replaced with religion - and suddenly they are being recognised as brothers and sisters. Some even exaggerate it and chose terror as a means of communication to emphasize their membership to the Umma - like the Nigerian and the Somali assassins.

It isno longer a question of centre and periphery. No matter whether in Cairo, Karatchi, Jakarta, Lagos, Berlin or Copenhagen: radical Islam is on the advance. It is not about what is written in the Quran, but about most Muslims' attitude towards this book as the ultimate word of God and as an oracle that gets asked about every issue and aspect of ordinary life. By nature alcohol is neither good nor evil, but it raises the mood that already exists, it makes the passiv more passiv and the aggressive more aggressive. And the mood in the Islamic world seems to be very crummy currently. but this Islamci world is no longer a distant, exotic place behind the ocean. but Muslims live here in Europe, they have demands and want to become more visible. that is okay - but at what conditions?

How does Europe want to live together with people that were not there when Europe established the rules of living together, and who do not feel obligated to share these rules? Do we just say skaet er skaet? will there be again the talk of "single perpetrators" who only "hijacked" Islam in abuse? Will we continue to discuss the "heterogeinity" of islam, until - as always - the debate just fizzles out in an useless open end? Or will one - finally - need to negotiate with Muslims the rules of living together much more detaied and more courageous and more determined? For me, only an "Islam Light" has a future in europe: without Sharia, without djihad, without sexual apartheid, without missionising and without a mentality to always raise demands.

The famous quote by the juristic philosopher Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde "The free, secular state lives by preconditions that it cannot guarantee by itself" often gets understood by religious institutions as if religions are the only suppliers of these preconditions as creators of morals and solidarity. But I interprete Böckenförde's thesis in that way that every democracy does not live only by it's laws, but by the mental attitude of the people that created them. Many immigrated Muslims in Europe are outside this consensus, because they never shared the the European experience that created this mental attitude. they consider there own mental attiotude as being higher and more moral. This also has to be questioned with them.

[Skybird]

The Somalis currently seem to have a run. Now they are after a Swedish cartoonist:

http://www.thelocal.se/24198/20100104/

As is linked in that article, they also make massive use of Sweden as a recruitment base for terrorists - in youth centres.


http://www.thelocal.se/23212/20091111/

Disclaimer: As alaways, i can assure that religion has nothing to do with it. The women quoted in that article, saying "it is part of our religion", is blatantly lying.

Needless to say that I question his comment of Islam Light in Europe. He talks of taking Sharia and the aggressive mission away from Islam, and this Islam Light then still being Islam. My argument always has been that this is no Islam at all, then, and that it is impossible to take Sharia out of Islam.

Yet since you repeatedly demonstrate that you havn't the faintest idea what sharia is and the only interpretation of Islam you accept is the same as the modern fundamentalist fruitcakes from the backwaters of crapsville, it means you have no arguement just a phobia.