 |
On Geert Wilders And Other Threats To Liberal Society |
|
 by Ali Eteraz, April 17, 2008 |
||
From this Series
Prior to Geert Wilders' release of
the film, Fitna, Reason Magazine's
Michael Moynihan wrote a piece on
the subject, which is worth reading as he and I are about to engage in a
mini-dialogue on many of the questions it raises.
Michael argued that while Wilders
was "something of an extremist" and whose views on Islam were
"both reductive and puerile" his film, once released, needed to be
engaged "on its intellectual merits." Further, he argued that
"not to support Wilders" was tantamount to acquiescing to
"bullying" by "religious crackpots."
At the broad level, Michael and I
agree that Wilders' film should not have been banned and needed to be engaged
on its merits.
In my review of the film, I did
precisely that. So did numerous other people,
Iranian Student Protestors: Far more deserving of our sympathy than an illiberal fraud like Wilders including Irshad Manji
(in both English and Arabic), Eskander
Sadeghi (Iranian in the Middle East) and Mona Eltahawy (Egyptian in
the US). Not one of these three Muslim dissenters -- each with a long history
of disavowing Muslim extremism -- found Wilders' film interesting or coherent.
The film is intellectually lacking.
Where I particularly disagree with
Michael -- and why I maintain that we owe nothing to Wilders -- is over the
fact that Wilders is a threat to liberal society. I do not believe that
Wilders' views must be criminalized by the state, but they should be deemed out
of the bounds of liberal society much the same way that we consider discrimination
on the basis of gender unacceptable. Further, the threat of a civil and
democratic discussion --- yes, the threat of a discussion --- about the
criminality of his views should be left on the table as a deterrent. Our aim
should be to rid liberal society of people like Wilders. This can only start if
we ignore Michael’s exhortation about looking out for Wilders’ rights, and
spend our time either ignoring or mocking him.
Wilders' obfuscations are
pernicious. He conceals his xenophobic nativism by waving (incorrectly
translated and randomly picked) verses of the Quran. Sprinkled in the
middle of Fitna, which Wilders would have us believe is about the Quran, are
Dutch news clippings included for no other reason than to provoke an emotional backlash against immigrants. This is why I don't
believe this film had anything to do with theology. Fitna was nothing more than a veiled attack on the newest
"outsider." Jews and Chinese in the past, the Polish in London today
and Latinos here in the US, have been the butt of similar tactics by
ideologues. Demagogues enjoy taking pot-shots at the things immigrants hold
closest --- in this case, the Quran. I have no doubt that if it was Charlie and
the Chocolate Factory that Muslims held dear, Wilders would be trying to equate
Muslims with Oompa-Loompas. The job of public intellectuals like Moynihan is to
cut through the veneer and get to the heart of the matter.
Here, the heart of the matter is
nativism, not Islam, and not whether Wilders has an unqualified right to speak.
Today, in Europe, immigrants from
Muslim countries are viewed as being inherently incapable of becoming good
citizens in the West. It reminds me of the late 19th century when
discussion waged in Europe about how it was impossible for a Jew --- who gives obeisance to Talmudic Law --- to simultaneously give allegiance to
the state.
Similarly, the threat of "Eurabia," promulgated by men like Wilders, is not very different from the threat of "Aztlan"
raised by anti-immigrant forces in the US. Neither scenario is likely. But in a
picture where immigrants are painted as gang-bangers, rapists, arms and drug
dealers, rioters, and multiplying like the Borg, the narrative quickly shifts
from irrational phantasmagoria to social policies that are either explicitly
bigoted, or which turn a blind eye to the immigrants' concerns. This shifting
is what men like Wilders excel at.
What Wilders manages to do with
relative ease is to shift the discussion away from how power and resources
should be apportioned between native and immigrant Europeans into a referendum
on jihadism. This is wrong and unfair. By and large, European Muslim grievances
with Europe are grievances with the state apparatuses --- with unemployment, with
police brutality, with poverty. Yet Wilders and his cohorts would have us
believe that the issue is all of Islam all across the world and if you do not
characterize immigrants' agitations in a theo-political manner then you are
either "with the enemy" or have already turned into a "dhimmi."
This is called missing the point.
A perfect example of this
missing-the-point occurred during the riots by immigrant youth in France.
The New York Times and various other news agencies took a barracking, right here at
Jewcy, for referring to the rioters as "youth" and not as "Muslim."
Yet, the fact was that the latest rounds of the riots were touched off not only
by the 40% unemployment rate --- a rate that matches Saudi Arabia's --- among
immigrant youth but the police mandate to deport 25,000 illegal aliens a year
and the specific incident of the police rather
bizarrely running over a pair of youth on a motorcycle. As the UK Spectator and Reuters
both noted, what needn't have been about Islam, became about Islam.
If Wilders were interested in
discussing extremism, jihadism or even Islamism, he would have done it in a way that allowed Muslims who oppose these things to join with him. However, he
purposefully chooses to marginalize such people in order to pretend that they
don't exist. In some quarters this is called bigotry. I’ve already pointed out, even dissenting Muslims are acknowledging that while
Wilders shouldn't be banned, they are also feeling that he isn't someone to be taken seriously either.
There are reasons for this, reasons having to do with the fact that the guy is
not just a bore but also a boor. We don't jail boors, but we shouldn’t be
particularly interested in what they are saying either.
What people like Wilders
ultimately do is to encourage the worst parts of the discourse to feel
empowered, whether Islamophobic or Islamophilic. I am, for example, not
particularly surprised that on the heels of Wilders film we have news about
French Muslim graves --- from World War I no less -- defiled by Islamophobic
elements (which previously used Nazi imagery on Muslim graves). Nor am I
surprised that around the world handmaidens of
dictators have tried to stir violence in response to the film. (The
Jamat-e-Islami’s protests are particularly disgusting given that they
participated in the rigged 2002 elections of Pakistan and boycotted the 2008
elections because they were free and fair).
While I do not believe that we
ought to be influenced by what ayatollahs and extremists on the other
side of the globe think, I do think we ought to speak in a way that will
promote our values: democracy, decency and exemplarism. When the philosophers
Jürgen Habermas and Richard Rorty went to Tehran to criticize religious
oligarchy, their lectures were attended by an astonishing 1500 people. Those of
us who profess to support democracy cannot forget that in the world today our
allies aren't people like Wilders, but those 1500 dissenters in Iran who brave
torture and prison to exchange in the best of our ideas. If for no other
reason than for the sake of their emancipatory project, we should reach out to
them and tell them: As you fight your supremacists, we fight ours. The only way
we can make this showing is if Wilders is aware that he is perpetually
"this close" to losing his right to offend. I don't want Wilders
criminalized but I certainly don't understand why I ought help make him more
audacious.
At the end of the day, Michael, when I bully Wilders, it's not because I am a religious crackpot, or in league with any such people, or antagonistic to free speech, but because I consider Wilders a threat to our liberal principles (and so does the Dutch Parliament). As you said, people like Wilders have a right to offend, but simultaneously people like me have a right to chastise the offensive. My optimistic sense is that in liberal societies people like me far outnumber people like Wilders and always will. I happen to think this is a good thing.
 |
Ali Eteraz, 27, is a columnist for Jewcy, a politics and culture magazine. He also contributes regularly to the More... |
With anti-Semitism increasing in Britain, it won’t be long before...
Memoirist Elizabeth Wurtzel demands gifts, confessions from comedy...
We must break from the Orthodox
An ancient faith faces down a new millenium
Don't Ignore the Terrorists. Turn Them Against Each Other.
| Dev Blog | Privacy | Submissions | Contact | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | FAQ | Masthead |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
Buzz Kill
Limits to free speech
Intelligent open free societies must constantly struggle to find the right tension between absolute free speech and limited free speech. Anyone that thinks American or European socities are built on the bedrock of the first amendment or absolute free speech, which must be doggedly protected, have never apparently heard of a libel suit, Bong Hits 4 Jesus ( Morse v. Frederick ) or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
There are limits to free speech. Not every piece of grandstanding hate speech deserves a soapbox in town hall. Sometimes, people must use the judgement and exercise their free will to not allow hate into their cities and towns.
This has become particularly difficult with the internet and something of a puzzle to solve. In a town, if the majority did not want to hear hate speech, they could reject the request for a forum.
Now every self-promoter who can ride a trend can have a broad forum. This is unfortunate. But, in this incident, at a time when anti-Muslim emotions have not been whipped up to the point of genocide, we can sit quietly and debate what we would and should do in times when political or religious hatred has become dangerously manipulated.
Wilders is a Hitler with bad timing.
Some free speech doesn't promote freedom.
David Kelsey
not sure about this
"Today, in Europe, immigrants from
Muslim countries are viewed as being inherently incapable of becoming good
citizens in the West. It reminds me of the late 19th
century when
discussion waged in Europe about how it was impossible for a Jew ---
who gives obeisance to Talmudic Law --- to simultaneously give
allegiance to
the state."
That there may be similar resentments to today's Muslim immigrants as there were to immigrants of yesteryear does not erase that there are specific problems in the west with Muslim mass immigration. Agreed?
"Those of
us who profess to support democracy cannot forget that in the world today our
allies aren't people like Wilders, but those 1500 dissenters in Iran who brave
torture and prison to exchange in the best of our ideas."
Why don't the dissenters ever win in Muslim countries, Ali?
Gene Wilders
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Excellent, Ali Eteraz, well-argued...with one exception
If Muslims held Charlie and the Chocolate Factory sacred, Wilders would be using Verucca Salt and Agustus Gloop as typical Muslims.
If Wilders held Charlie and the Chocolate Factory sacred, Muslims would be Oompa Loompas, the little brown people that know their place and step and fetch things for people like Wilders.
Buzz Kill
Beheadings
When the philosophers Jürgen Habermas and Richard Rorty went to Tehran to criticize religious oligarchy, their lectures were attended by an astonishing 1500 people.
That is a great example of Free Speech in Iran! I had no idea the Iranians were so open-minded.
If Habermas or Rorty held such a lecture in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, I suspect they would have left in a couple of boxes.
Anonymous
Canard alert:
"Today, in Europe, immigrants from
Muslim countries are viewed as being inherently incapable of becoming good
citizens in the West. It reminds me of the late 19th
century when
discussion waged in Europe about how it was impossible for a Jew ---
who gives obeisance to Talmudic Law --- to simultaneously give
allegiance to
the state."
This has been answered many times, yet even intelligent Muslim writers keep repeating this lie.
One example should suffice. The sheer number of Muslims in the world protects the Muslims of Europe from the kinds of pogroms Jews were subject to.
Also there are over two dozen Muslims countries to which this people could return if they are ever kicked out from Europe.
Jews on the other hand were an orphan people with no country to turn to when they were being persecuted.
The fact that the Jews could not even go to Mandate Palestine during the Holocaust ensured their death at thands of the Nazis.
Anonymous
verses of the Quran
OK. I'm listening.
What are the correct translations of those verses?
Thank you,
RandallJones
genocide in Iraq
Anonymous at 04/19/08 12:53
wrote. "One example should suffice. The sheer number of Muslims in the world
protects the Muslims of Europe from the kinds of pogroms Jews were
subject to."
The sheer number of Muslims has not been able to protect Iraqis from having their country's infrastrucutre bombed, from being attacked by weapons using depleted uranium and chemical weapons, from having thousands of people jailed without justification, and the Untied States controlling and benefiting, more than the Iraqis, from the reconstruction.
Ironically, Saddam Hussein was helped into power by the United States and the U.S. supported Saddam, strategically and financially, when he was committing his worst atrocities. The Iraqis are scapegoats for U.S. foreign policy.
Amillennialist
Muslims who feign moderation in order to demonize critics . . .
. . . of Islam are an actual threat to the West, not a courageous politician seeking to inform -- and thereby save -- his fellow citizens from an ancient but revitalized existential threat.
Ali Eteraz still deceiving and hoping no one will notice, I see.
The author has conceded previously that Qur'anic verses requiring offensive violence against non-Muslims exist, but rather than address that fact in this forum and offer his "remedy" (his empty assertion that those commands were only for Mohammed; how can a mandate addressed to Muslims be only for Mohammed?), he employs an embarrassingly transparent ad hominem attack against Wilders.
Even if one or two of the passages in Fitna do not specifically apply to the carnage carried out in Allah's name with which they were connected (for example, burning is Allah's punishment, not for Muslims to use), the truth is that Wilders could have used so many others, for Qur'an and Sunnah demand slavery or death for all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam.
But again, just as in his misleading and stupidly disingenuous "refutation" of OBL's alleged misapplication of The Verse of the Sword," Ali Eteraz hopes that his charges of "Islamo-xeno-arabo-phobia!" and other red herrings will prevent non-Muslims from noticing that his god and prophet require the conversion, subjugation and humiliation, and death of all non-Muslims "until all religion is for Allah."
If only Muslims venerated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory rather than the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed. I'd trade "Oompa-Loompas" for "Allahu Akbars!" any time.
Here is what Ali Eteraz hopes to obfuscate:
Some of the Source and Sustenance of 1350 years of Allah's War Against Humanity:
"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).
"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).
"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).
"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).
"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?" (Qur'an 9:111).
Allah and his apostle (described by Allah as a "beautiful pattern of conduct") on terrorism:
"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).
On Mohammed's numerous battles and his intentions for non-Muslim lands:
"Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: ''Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans . . . 'Umar said to him [Al-Hurmuzan] "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade."
'Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs . . . if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless.
'The head stands for Khosrau [Persia], and one wing stands for Caesar [Byzantium] and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau."
'So, 'Umar sent us (to Khosrau)
. . . When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied, "Ask whatever you wish." The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us.
'Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."
'(Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu' man said to Al-Mughira, "If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah's Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah's Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday)" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386).
As for the allegedly inviolable prohibition against killing innocent women, children, and the elderly and burning down trees:
"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).
"The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong" (Qur'an 42:40).
It is permissible for Muslims to kill inviolable infidels if they are aiding the fighting in deed, word, opinion, or any other way. This is because of the Prophet's order to kill Duraid ibn Al-Simma, who was 120 years old and went with the Hawazin tribe [to fight against the Muslims] to give them counsel. Ibn Qudama notes that the Prophet ordered him killed in the Battle of Hunein because he knew military stratagems. See Al-Tamhid 16:142.
"It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah . . . ordered the date-palms of Banu Nadir to be burnt and cut. These palms were at Buwaira. Qutaibah and Ibn Rumh in their versions of the tradition have added: 'So Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, revealed the verse: "Whatever trees you have cut down or left standing on their trunks, it was with the permission of Allah so that He may disgrace the evil-doers"'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4324).
The "divine" command for beheading:
"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).
"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them) . . . Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost" (Qur'an 47:4).
How Allah deals with prisoners of war (apparently, he hasn't heard of the Geneva Conventions):
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).
"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).
It's not just women you get when you kill for Allah. You also get boys in Paradise:
"As to the Righteous (they will be) in a position of Security, Among Gardens and Springs; Dressed in fine silk and in rich brocade, they will face each other; So; and We shall join them to fair women with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes" (Qur'an 44:51-54).
"those who believe and whose families follow them in Faith,- to them shall We join their families: Nor shall We deprive them (of the fruit) of aught of their works: (Yet) is each individual in pledge for his deeds. And We shall bestow on them, of fruit and meat, anything they shall desire. They shall there exchange, one with another, a (loving) cup free of frivolity, free of all taint of ill. Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them, young male servants (handsome) as Pearls well-guarded" (Qur'an 52:21-24).
"round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness): If thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered Pearls" (Qur'an 76:19).
On Mohammed's raping of his nine-year-old "wife" -- Allah ordained it:
“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).
“Allah’s Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual "partner"], ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, so uncover her.” And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, “If this is from Allah, then it must happen”’” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140).
There is much more to be found on these topics (and others) from Islam's own "sacred" texts.
Amillennialist
http://amillennialist.blogspot.com
Amillennialist
Buzz Kill at it again
I see Ali has brought along at least one of his hatchet men.
Let's look at Buzz Kill's "arguments," shall we?
BK: Intelligent open free societies must constantly struggle to find the
right tension between absolute free speech and limited free speech.
Anyone that thinks American or European socities are built on the
bedrock of the first amendment or absolute free speech, which must be
doggedly protected, have never apparently heard of a libel suit, Bong
Hits 4 Jesus ( Morse v. Frederick ) or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater."
Equating the reporting of the preaching and practice of religious texts with 1) lying and 2) a threat to public safety is accurate only when those texts are Islamic. But that's not what he meant, is it?
The blame lies not with the person reporting those facts, but with those commands and those who preach, defend, and seek to fulfill them today.
BK: There are limits to free speech. Not every piece of grandstanding hate
speech deserves a soapbox in town hall. Sometimes, people must use the
judgement and exercise their free will to not allow hate into their
cities and towns.
Wilders opposes hate in his cities and towns, which is why he is exposing the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed.
In accord with Mohammed's example, Buzz Kill seeks to silence criticism of the pedophile prophet.
To demonize those exposing malice is perverse. He should be ashamed.
BK: This has become particularly difficult with the internet and
something of a puzzle to solve.
Free speech is a problem only for tyrants and those with something to hide.
BK: in this incident, at a time when anti-Muslim emotions have not been whipped up to the point of
genocide, we can sit quietly and debate what we would and should do in
times when political or religious hatred has become dangerously
manipulated.
That's the pot calling the china "black." Nice try at "manipulating" the discourse.
Wilders exposes the genocidal impulse foundational to Islam, but Buzz Kill accuses those who would defend themselves against that impulse of harboring one!
Typical Muslim apologist: Blame the victim!
Apparently, Buzz Kill's shame knows no bounds.
BK: Wilders is a Hitler with bad timing.
Ridiculous ad hominem.
I have an idea: Rather than libel someone exposing and denouncing the threat to humanity posed by the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed, why don't Ali Eteraz and Buzz Kill join him?
BK: Some free speech doesn't promote freedom.
Not when it obfuscates for evil, as AE's column and BK's post do.
Amillennialist
RandallJones
Experts on Islam proliferate the internet
Amillennialist,
So many non-Muslim have become experts on quoting the Qarun to preach and condemn the violent and offensive parts of it. But these same peopl have not read the Bible (old and New Testament) and found the violent and offensive parts of it, otherwise they wouldn't be acting so sanctimonious.
How com Geert Wilders and people who thionk like him have nothing to say about the fact that the Untied Statas accepts trillions of dollars of investment money from the Saudis. In addition, the Untied States makes billions of dollars selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, even though they do not have the qualified personnel to operate the weapons. Saudi Arabis is just a storage place for the waepons the Utnied States uses in its military interventions.
You have nothing to say baout the fact that certain Western coutnries while preaching human rights and democracy, go around engaging in regime chage (even democratically ellected ones) and support brutal dictators and kings who do their bidding?
Are you aware that the coutnry in which there is the most killings and rapes are occuring is the Christian Congo? Of courtse the Untied States is doing its share to fueling the violence by selling weapons and tranng soldoers of both sides of the conflict. See http://worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/congo.htm
But I guess you and Geert Willders are not too concerned about these Christians because the United Staes, Israel, and Europe benefit from the diamonds and other natural resources, sales of weapons and the slave labor.
sheik yer'mami
Taqiyya Doctor
Eteraz obfuscations are pernicious. Its not the criminality of Wilders views, but the criminal doctrine of Muhammedanism that should be discussed and brought out into the open. Our aim should NOT be to rid liberal society of people like Wilders, but of obfuscators and lying Muhammedan agit-props like Eteraz and his cheerleading jihadists.
'Today, in Europe, immigrants from Muslim countries are viewed as being inherently incapable of becoming good citizens in the West.'
Hmm, any idea why that is so? Is there any evidence that Muhammedans want to be good citizens instead of conquering Eurabia for Islam?
Buzz Kill
Freelance, amillinealist
I am not associated with Eteraz. I follow some of the issues he raises because I am interested.
I think it is impolite to bring vitriole to a blog I am not too familiar with and I am surprised that what I wrote offended anybody. It was all common sense. Of course common sense does not apply necessarily to Islamophobes, so I will just make what is the key observation and leave it at that.
Equating the reporting of the preaching and practice of religious texts with 1) lying and 2) a threat to public safety is accurate only when those texts are Islamic. But that's not what he meant, is it?
The blame lies not with the person reporting those facts, but with those commands and those who preach, defend, and seek to fulfill them today. -Amillinealist
What Wilders and other nuts at Jihadwatch, etc. do is pretend that Islam is a religion of 4 or 5 verses which should be interpreted by Wilders as absolute and throw out all other Chapters and Verses of the Holy Quran, especially the contradictory ones, and throw out the context and make everything relevant to European nativism, racism and isolationism.
Please. We have enough nuts in the world. Rabid anti-Muslim rhetoric is SUCH a bore. Wilders couldn't rehash a bit of life into it nor can his little fan, millinealist. Both of you have had you hand played for you for the past six or eight years by the neocons and to no avail. The middle east has not been recast in your image like a Golden Calf to worship. So give it up. You lose, we win.
The Quran actually has Verses about those who tear the Book to shreds to support this or that. On one side, we have al-Qaeda. And on the other, we have these nuts.
It makes no difference. The Truth lies in between these extremists. The "evil" verses we all revealed by God and have their rightful and just place in history and revelation.
Hate speak and haters masquerading as human rights champions can change a damn thing about it.
Buzz Kill
Crazy by the foot
Amilinnealist
I just looked at your comment on the post. Your crazy, long, cut and paste rants are like a confession or a self-diagnosis. You need some meds! Just a suggestion. Don't get so worked up.
It's only politics. No need to wig-out.
RandallJones
media bias
sheik yer'mami,
How's your pappi? LOL
I had written a comment on another website that was discussing protests over offensive religious material; it is related to what is being discussed here, so I am putting it here, as well.
It is important to discuss how the media represents the issue of offensive art or speech toward religion.
When
it is offensive toward Christians and Jews, the media invites moderate
Christians and Jews who know the politically correct thing to say: that
they are offended but we are allowed free speech.
When it is
offensive to Muslims they show only the angry protests of extremists
and emphasize the death threats. This only fuels the the anger of
Muslims.
Remember when the American actor Mel Gibson was stopped
by a police officer for drunk driving? Mel Gibson had made anti-Jewish
statements such as "The Jews are responsible for all the wars?" There
were condemnation by all the media outlets and politicians.
While
the media loves to show Muslims protesting over the Mohammad cartoons,
they hardly ever show Muslims who protest for human rights. Then
they claim that Muslims are afraid to protest against their own
governments, so they protest over cartoons with the encouragement of
their governments.
But look at this, here are people in Egypt
protesting and the are stomping on a large poster of the President of
Egypt. Why is this not being reported as much as the protest over the
cartoons?
See
http://www.sandmonkey.org/2008/04/08/we-have-come-to-see-the-day/
and
http://www.sandmonkey.org/2008/04/07/aftermath/
Amillennialist
So much for legendary Muslim civility
Let's see, BK,
My comment's length was necessary to quickly but sufficiently orient readers here unfamiliar with Islamic "sacred" texts who might otherwise be deceived by the nonsense Eteraz asserts.
As to the other descriptors, my post was pointing out the perfect word of Allah, the example of Mohammed, and Muslim perfidy in their defense.
You call that "crazy."
Allah will not be pleased.
Amillennialist
Not equivalent situations
If Christians were destroying property and lives over blasphemous depictions of Christ, it would make the news.
If Muslims want to stop receiving bad press, they ought to stop enslaving, slaughtering, and threatening to enslave or slaughter non-Muslims.
Amillennialist
Speaking of masquerading haters . . .
That's quite a clumsy and transparent attempt to avoid addressing the fact that Allah and Mohammed require the slaughter of non-Muslims and apostates.
On the chance that a reader here might be tempted to give your or Eteraz's comments any credence, I will address a few of your "points."
I am not associated with Eteraz.
I remember you from a thread at his site. Different page, same tune.
I think it is impolite to bring vitriole to a blog I am not too
familiar with
False civility about to vanish in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
Islamophobes
POOF!
False, ad hominem, and a red herring, since the issue is Allah and Mohammed's requiring the faithful to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam.
How dishonest, but then Mohammed did declare, "War is deceit," didn't he?
What Wilders and other nuts at Jihadwatch, etc. do is pretend that
Islam is a religion of 4 or 5 verses which should be interpreted by
Wilders as absolute and throw out all other Chapters and Verses of the
Holy Quran, especially the contradictory ones, and throw out the
context and make everything relevant to European nativism, racism and
isolationism.
Several falsehoods in just a few lines! Quite impressive, BK!
1) "nuts at Jihadwatch" is an ad hominem attack and again avoids the ugly truth of your ideology.
2) No one is pretending that Islam is "4 or 5 verses;" rather than misrepresent my or others' positions, why not deal with Allah's malevolence?
3) As for the "contradictory ones," doesn't the fact that your god contradicts itself concern you?
And aren't you familar with naskh, the doctrine of Abrogation? Surely you know that when a later passage contradicts an earlier one, the later revelation stands. That's why Mohammed's early tolerance and cooperation were replaced with murderous bloodlust.
4) False charges of "nativism, racism, and isolationism" are meant to distract attention from the fact that you worship a god and prophet who require the conversion, enslavement, or death of all non-Muslims to make the world Islam.
Why don't you do something about that?
Rabid anti-Muslim rhetoric
is SUCH a bore.
I quote Mohammed, but you call it a "bore."
Allah will not be pleased.
Both of you have had you hand played for
you for the past six or eight years by the neocons and to no avail. The
middle east has not been recast in your image like a Golden Calf to
worship.
Another false charge meant to avoid the real issue, which is: Islam kills.
On one side, we have al-Qaeda. And on
the other, we have these nuts.
Equating those who kill in Allah's name, at his command, and in accord with his apostle's example with those who report on those commands and example.
You have no shame, do you?
Hate speak and haters masquerading as human rights champions
I will continue to expose the perfidy of such people -- people like you -- as I have opportunity.
Amillennialist
Last reply for the night
So many non-Muslim have become experts on quoting the Qarun to preach
and condemn the violent and offensive parts of it. But these same
peopl have not read the Bible (old and New Testament) and found the
violent and offensive parts of it, otherwise they wouldn't be acting so
sanctimonious.
That is an admission that Qur'an contains "violent and offensive parts." That's a step in the right direction.
However, your implication that the violence in Qur'an (and Sunnah) is of the same kind as that recorded in certain Biblical texts is a tu quoque argument. That's dishonest of you.
The Islamic texts require the enslavement or slaughter of all non-Muslims who refuse the "invitation" to Islam.
Violence recorded in the Bible includes: 1) Accounts of what people have done; 2) Capital punishment under the Mosaic Law for the people of Israel only; and 3) A one-time, narrowly-focused, limited command for Israel to wage war against several nations.
There is no Biblical command to war against anyone on the basis of their religion. In fact, Jesus said, "Love your enemies," and "treat your neighbor as yourself."
Where is that in Islam for non-Muslims? Instead, you have passages like 9:5: "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them . . . ."
like him have nothing
to say about the fact that the Untied Statas accepts trillions of
dollars of investment money from the Saudis.
Spurious. That is a growing threat to America and serves to highlight the greed of our politicians.
the Untied
States makes billions of dollars selling weapons to Saudi Arabia,
Arming those funding the global jihad is foolish.
You have nothing to say baout the fact that certain Western
coutnries while preaching human rights and democracy, go around
engaging in regime chage (even democratically ellected ones) and
support brutal dictators and kings who do their bidding?
Saddam was removed to protect American interests.
Was he not a "brutal dictator"?
As for Christians murdering and raping (another tu quoque!), it should be noted that when a Christian does such things, it is always in direct opposition to Christ's command and example.
However, when Muslims commit such crimes against non-Muslims who refuse conversion or submission, it is in obedience to Allah's command and Mohammed's example.
But I guess you and Geert Willders are not too concerned about these
Christians because the United Staes, Israel, and Europe benefit from
the diamonds and other natural resources, sales of weapons and the
slave labor.
As a matter of fact, I am currently enjoying diamonds and natural resources prepared for me by my slave labor.
Another spurious ad hominem attack.
Renounce Mohammed's depravity and you will gain credibility.
Buzz Kill
Brainwashed
<i>I remember you from a thread at his site. Different page, same tune. </i>
Would that I could forget you! Wait.
Poof! I just did.
DMF
Missing the point, Ali
First, I'm not so sure the film was quite as bad as you make it out to be. Second, the film's production values and lyricism are not at issue. The film was, from start to finish, an act of defiance against a culture of violence, cruelty and barbarism that has invaded Wilders' home. It's a culture that drove Ayan Hirsi Ali out of that country and produced the unrepentant murderer of Theo van Gogh (who, obviously, won't be exercising any more free speech). I have no interest in quibbling about the merits (or lack thereof) of Wilders' film. I just hope to see the day when a European can insult Islam as freely as Christianity without having to worry about being subjected to a fatwa as a result. I think that was Wilders' point. Kudos to him for standing up for that point, and raspberries to you for pretending that this is about something else.
CraigPennington
Speech
In my opinion, the answer to non-governmental speech one finds objectionable is corrective speech or non-violent action such as economic boycott. The only exceptions to this should be libel (by the US legal standard, not British) and a specific calls for violence.
Mockery, boycotts of entities that provide platforms, passionate denunciations, et cetera are all fine responses. I don't see that much difference between my position on this and the opinion put forth in the article, and having read Ali's review of Wilder's film, I'll choose to ignore the film.
Amillennialist
Another typically-thoughtful reply from Buzz Kill
So, BK,
Still unable to demonstrate from the Islamic texts that I've misrepresented the god from hell and its apostle, I see. That says much about your intellectual integrity.
And your deity.
Craig,
The film is not Islam. Neither is it in accurate.
Ignore it, but do not ignore what Allah has in store for you and yours (assuming you are a non-Muslim):
"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight
against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you
meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of
action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you,
accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If
they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree
to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to
pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19,
Number 4294).
Post new comment