The campaign against criticism of Islam Posted by: McQ
on Friday, September 29, 2006
Disclaimer: No I'm not talking about all of Islam. I'm talking about those who identify themselves with Islam and claim to say and do things in its name. The latest example involves a journalist named Robert Redeker who had the temerity to write an opinion piece about "Islamist intimidation". True to form, such intimidation is now in full swing against Redeker. His article is in the excerpt below in full:
What should the free world do while facing Islamist intimidation?
The reactions caused by Benedict XVI’s analysis of Islam and violence highlight the underhanded maneuver carried out by Islam to stifle what the West values more than anything, and which does not exist in any Moslem country: freedom of thought and expression.
Islam tries to impose its rules on Europe : opening of public swimming pools at certain hours reserved exclusively for women, ban on caricaturing this religion, demands for special diets for Muslim children in school cafeterias, struggle to impose the veil at school, accusations of Islamophobia against free spirits.
How can one explain the ban on the wearing thongs on Paris-Beaches* this summer? The reasoning put forth was bizarre: women wering thongs would risk “disturbing the peace”. Did this mean that bands of frustrated youths would become violent while being offended by displays of beauty? Or were the authorities scared of Islamist demonstrations by virtue squads near Paris-Beaches?
However, the authorization of the veil on the street is more disturbing to public peace than wearing a thong, because it invites complaints against the upholding the oppression of women .This ban represents an Islamization of sensibilities in France, a more or less conscious submission to the diktats of Islam. At the very least it is the result of the insidious Muslim pressure on the minds: even those who protested the introduction of a “Jean Paul II Square” in Paris would not be opposed to the construction of mosques. Islam is trying to force Europe to yield to its vision of humanity.
As in the past with Communism, the West finds itself under ideological watch. Islam presents itself, like defunct Communism, as an alternative to the Western world. In the way of Communism before it, Islam, to conquer spirits, plays on a sensitive string. It prides itself on a legitimacy which troubles Western conscience, which is attentive to others: it claims to be the voice of the oppressed of the planet. Yesterday, the voice of the poor supposedly came from Moscow, today it originates in Mecca! Again, today, western intellectuals incarnate the eye of the Koran, as they have incarnated the eye of Moscow. They now excommunicate people because of Islamophobia, as they did before because of anti-communism.
This opening to others, specific to the West, is a secularization of Christianity that can be summarized thus:the other person must come before myself. The Westerner, heir to Christianity, is the that exposes his soul bare. He runs the risk of being seen as weak. With the same ardor as Communism, Islam treats generosity, broadmindedness, tolerance, gentleness, freedom of women and of manners, democratic values, as marks of decadence. They are weaknesses that it seeks to exploit, by means of useful idiots, self-rigtheous consciences drowning in nice feelings, in order to impose the Koranic order on the Western world itself.
The Koran is a book of unparalleled violence. Maxime Rodinson states, in Encyclopedia Universalis, some truths that in France are as significant as they are taboo. On one hand: “Mohammed revealed in Medina unsuspected qualities as political leader and military chief (…) He resorted to private war, by then a prevalent custom in Arabia (….) Mohammed soon sent small groups of partisans to attack the Meccan caravans, thus punishing his unbelieving compatriots and simultaneously acquiring the booty of a wealthy man.”
There is more: “Mohammed profited from this success by eradicating the Jewish tribe which resided in Medina, the Quarayza, whom he accused of suspect behaviour.” And: “After the death of Khadija, he married a widow, a good housewife, called Sawda, and in addition to the little Aisha, barely ten years old. His erotic predilections, held in check for a long time, led him to ten simultaneous marriages .”
A merciless war chief, plunderer, slaughterer of Jews and a polygamist, such is the man revealed through the Koran.
Of , the Catholic church is not above reproach. Its history is strewn with dark pages, for which it has officially repentaed. The Inquisition, the hounding of witches, the execution of the philosophers Giordano Bruno and Vanini, those wrong-thinking Epicureans, in the 18th century the execution of the knight of La Barre for impiety, do not plead in the church’s favor. But what differentiates Christianity from Islam is obvious: it is always possible to go back to true evangelical values, the peaceful character of Jesus as opposed to the deviations of the Church.
None of the faults of the Church have their roots in the Gospel. Jesus is non-violent. Going back to Jesus is akin to forswear the excesses of the Church. Going back to Mahomet, to the conbtrary, reinforces hate and violence. Jesus is a master of love, Mahomet is a master of hatred.
The stoning of Satan, each year in Mecca, is not only an obsolete superstition. It not only sets the stage for a hysterical crowd flirting with barbarity. Its importis anthropological. Here is a rite, which each Muslim is invited to submit to, that emphasizes violence as a sacred duty in the very heart of the believer.
This stoning, accompanied each year by the acciedental trampling to death of some of the believers, sometimes up to several hundreds, is a rite that feeds archaic violence.
Instead of getting rid of this archaic violence, and thus imitating Judaism and Christianity (Judaism starts when it abandons human sacrifice, and enters civilization; Christianity transforms sacrifice through the Eucharist), Islam builds a nest for this violence, where it will incubate. Whereas Judaism and Christianity are religions whose rites spurn violence, by delegitimizing it, Islam is a religion that exalts violence and hatred in its everyday rites and sacred book.
Hatred and violence dwell in the book with which every Muslim is brought up, the Koran. As in the Cold War, where violence and intimidation were the methods used by an ideology hell bent on hegemony, so today Islam tries to put its leaden mantel all over the world. Benedict XVI’s cruel experience is testimony to this. Nowadays, the West has to be called the “free world” in comparison to the Muslim world; likewise, the enemies of the “free world”, the zealous bureaucrats of the Koran’s vision, swarm in the very center of the frre World.
The result? Well per the Brussels Journal, Redeker is in fear of his life and in hiding:
Mr Redeker has written a letter to his friend, the philosopher André Glucksmann, describing his ordeal:
“I am now in a catastrophic personal situation. Several death threats have been sent to me, and I have been sentenced to death by organizations of the al-Qaeda movement. [...] On the websites condemning me to death there is a map showing how to get to my house to kill me, they have my photo, the places where I work, the telephone numbers, and the death fatwa. [...] There is no safe place for me, I have to beg, two evenings here, two evenings there. [...] I am under the constant protection of the police. I must cancel all scheduled conferences. And the authorities urge me to keep moving. [...] All costs are at my own expense, including those of rents a month or two ahead, the costs of moving twice, legal expenses, etc.
It's quite sad. I exercised my constitutional rights, and I am punished for it, even in the territory of the Republic. This affair is also an attack against national sovereignty – foreign rules, decided by criminally minded fanatics, punish me for having exercised a constitutional right, and I am subjected, even in France, to great injury.”
And the publication for which he wrote the piece? Cut and run:
Pierre Rousselin, the editor in chief of Le Figaro, apologized on Al-jazeera for the publication of the article. A number of Islamic countries, including Egypt, banned Le Figaro following the publication of Redeker’s piece. Mr Rousselin said the publication of the op-ed was a mistake. He said the article did not express the paper’s opinion. The article is no longer available on the Figaro website.
My guess is, other than this case of course, Rousselin would be among the first to protest any abridgement of freedom of speech. That is if it didn't take any real courage and all.
I would guess, yes, it is a coincidence, unless Deb’s back and a lunatic islamonazi now. But the message is clear, that that would be a tactic of these particular practitioners of the "religion of peace". Freedom of speech is a non issue for these folk. So, obviously, is freedom of religion.
And CAIR will have nothing to say about I’m sure. If they were the organization they proclaim to be, I’d like to see them stand up and bring the poor man over here on their dime. Now that would be a good thing and an incredible PR move. I won’t hold my breath.
Disclaimer: No I’m not talking about all of Islam. I’m talking about those who identify themselves with Islam and claim to say and do things in its name.
We all must temper our criticism of Islam generally, because there are so many people who consider themselves to be Muslims and have differing beliefs and practices. It is wrong to steryotype, of course.
However, one thing that any of us should be able to do is to criticize individuals (alive or dead). No one has qualms about saying Osama bin-Laden, or Napoleon or Nathan Bedford Forrest fall into the catagory of evil or morally corrupt men of history. For some reason, criticizing Mohammad as an individual historical figure becomes racist or islamophobic or something, as if you are defaming all muslims.
It seems to me that criticizing Mohammad has become even more offensive or politically incorrect than steryotyping Islam as a whole. This is wrong and we must fight it.
It seems to me that criticizing Mohammad has become even more offensive or politically incorrect than steryotyping Islam as a whole. This is wrong and we must fight it.
Personally, Ithink you should be able to criticize whomever you like without fearing for your life, Jimmy, but when you say:
For some reason, criticizing Mohammad as an individual historical figure becomes racist or islamophobic or something, as if you are defaming all muslims.
it makes me think that you are being willfully ignorant. This is like blaming Christians for taking offense at criticism of Christ. Of course criticizing Mohammad defames all of Islam (where did the Koran come from again?).
As I said, you should be able to fearlessly critique who you want, but you can’t expect no reaction at all, and you certainly can’t expect muslims not to take ANY offense.
I am merely stating an observation. I expect a reaction from criticizig Mohammad by Muslims; however, it is not morally acceptable for that reaction to involve violence or threats of violence. If a critic of Mohammad is murdered or assaulted by a Muslim, then the moral responsibility for that crime lies solely upon the assailent and not in any way borne upon the critic. Theo Van-Gogh was not morally responsible in any way for his own murder.
Of course criticizing Mohammad defames all of Islam (where did the Koran come from again?).
If this is indeed true, and one comes to the opinion that Mohammad was a brigand or a pirate (for the sake of argument, lets say this opinion is deemed legitamate by historians and ethicists), then one has to inevitably come to the conclusion that all of islam is pejorative, as if it were piracy or brigandry.
Must critics lie to themselves and believe that Mohammad was a benevolent human being for the sake of not being labelled an Islamaphobe according to your logic? Or is it the case that islam is just a backward religion and a critic must be unapologetic and openly steryotype all Muslims as brigands?
Or is it possible to say that you can be a critic of Mohammad, but beleive Islam can still be peaceful and valuable if a Muslim lives a life rejecting a significant amount of Mohammad’s stated philosophy and commandments? What if eccumenical denominations of Islam started preaching such a theology; would you consider them real Muslims?
What worries me the most is how this diatribe on Islam, Mohammed, Muslims, etc. is coming from people who have probably never read the Koran, stepped into a Mosque, or have any historical perspective on the role violence and war hace had in all religions.
For the Pope to use a Byzantine Emperor’s quotes to criticize Islam is like quoting Charlie Manson on family values. Byzantine Orthodoxy became so intolerent of an divergent views,- and we are talking among Christian sects here (what they did to pagans and Jews was just as bad) - that torture, burning at the stake, etc. was common practice if you held a view like: "Jesus was born man and later became God" or "Mary did not have an emaculate birth". Real show stoppers on the road to belief!! Yet they were used by the political powers of Constantinople to wipe out critics, villages, sages, writers, etc.
Part of Islam’s great attraction (Mohammed forbad the forced conversion of Christians and Jews) was that it was simple: One God (try to explain the Trinity to a pagan!!), rules on all aspects of life made it very clear and simple. And the masses of people in the MidEast and Northern Africa were fed up with the autocratic rule of the Byzantine Emperors. Ever think how much the USA must look like a modern equivalent of a Byzantime Empire to people living in the MidEast?
Don’t forget: In the first crusade, the Christian armies massacred thousands in Jeruselem (Jews, Muslim, and Christians). The Muslims were horrified. They had never carried out a massacre of civilians like this.
But fast forward to the 20th Century: Now we have some great Christian examples of tolerance and peace: The Holocaust, The purges in Russia (remember all the commies had once been good Orthodox!! - Stalin even studied to be a monk!!). Then there is the Yugoslav war when Orthodox Serbs massacred Muslims. And even better: The imposition of a religious state like Israel onto Muslim Middle East to solve Europe’s "Jewish Problem".
If we count up the number of Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis and Afghanis that have been killed in the past 50 years by Western powers, I think you may understand the rage that some of these people may have towards the West.
The issue is not Islam vs. Christianity. The issue is US and European blind support of Israel, despotic kings/rulers and our tactics to maintian our supply of oil. Ever wonder why in Islamic countries that do have elections, the people almost always vote in the most anti-American candidate they can find. If we respect democracy and the rule of the majority, the US would be long out of the Mideast.
The Muslims were horrified. They had never carried out a massacre of civilians like this.
In 638 AD, less than 10 years after Mohammad’s death and one year after burning Damascus to the ground and wiping out the byzantine army, the 2nd Caliph Omar sacked Jerusalem after a 4 month siege. In order to keep their lives and religious identity, The indigenous christian and Jewish population were forced to submit to archaine segregation laws, based on Koranic verses, which were far worse than anything blacks had to endure in the American south after the civil war. (including the adornment of the zonar, which inspired Hitler to label jews with a yellow badge in the ghettos)
In 1004, nearly 100 years before the first crusade, the sixth Fatimid Caliph, Abu ‘Ali al-Mansur al-Hakim massacred over 3000 Armenian Christians of palestine and demolished hundreds of churches and synagogues, including the church of the Holy Sepulcher.
More innocent Hindus, Buddhists and Zoroastrians were massacred under persecution by Mahmud of Ghazni and his descendants over 200 years than the total number of native americans who ever lived before european colonization combined.
The lesson here: Every civilization sucks. No religion or ethnicity has a clean record. I think you acknowledged this in your first statement, so why do you have to romanticize Islam, especially when you insinuate that I don’t have any perspective on that religion?
The vatican has recognized its role in the evil that was the crusades, inquisitions ect... and has apologized. When has a single Mufti or Ayatolla recognized the atrocities throughout history done in the name of Islam, including those carried out by Mohammad himself (such as the ethnic cleansing of Medina and the Kybher oasis)? Am I islamophobic for pointing out these historical events? Does that make you anti-christian for mentioning the crusades?
What worries me the most is how this diatribe on Islam, Mohammed, Muslims, etc. is coming from people who have probably never read the Koran,
Have you read chapters 5, 8, and 9 yet? How long will it take for Muslims to re-evaluate the theology of those revalations, the way the Jews have done with leviticus and deuteronomy?
And even better: The imposition of a religious state like Israel onto Muslim Middle East to solve Europe’s "Jewish Problem".
What ever you say Ahmadinajad. Maybe you should blame Attaturk for dissolving the Ottoman empire and Mandating half of palestine for a Jewish state administerred by Britain in 1917. What do you think of the existance of Armenia, Albania, Poland, Bangladesh, ect.. and all other ethno-states carved out of larger empires (complete with massive refugee flows) after a war? Is it only the Jewish state that is immoral?