Ezra Levant is the publisher of Western Standard magazine, whose print version — now defunct — published the Danish Mohammed cartoons two years ago.On Friday Mr. Levant was summoned under protest to be interrogated by a “human rights officer” from the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The reason? Khurrum Awan, an imam from the Canadian Islamic Congress, filed a complaint with the HRC against him.
Mr. Levant was required to appear before this extra-judicial body — no one on the HRC is a judge, and the panel is not a court of law — to answer questions about his exercise of his constitutionally protected right to free speech. If he is convicted (or whatever the negative outcome is called in a kangaroo proceeding such as this one) he will be compelled by the state to apologize to Mr. Awan — and presumably to 1.5 trillion other Muslims — for his offense against their Prophet.
Mr. Levant was justifiably furious about the proceeding, and insisted on taping it. He refused the HRC’s request to keep his video recording private, and has posted the tape as a series of YouTube videos on his blog.
A visit to his site to watch these videos is well worth your time. His opening statement is particularly compelling, and the text is published in its entirety, also on his blog.
- - - - - - - - -
It’s telling that after he finished his statement, the first question his inquisitor asked him was what his intent was in publishing the Motoons. Either the question was meaningless, or there must be acceptable and unacceptable reasons for printing the cartoons.
Freedom of the press? Ha! Not in Canada, not any more.
At the end of one sequence, the HRC officer said, “You’re entitled to your opinions.”
Mr. Levant responded, “I wish that were the fact.”
He showed remarkable poise and presence of mind throughout the whole process, and one can only hope that the Canadian authorities are embarrassed enough to drop the entire sordid case.
What about the compulsory apology?
Ezra Levant says, “I simply won’t comply.”
Lionheart. Mikko Ellilä. Dahn Pettersson. Mark Steyn. And now Ezra Levant. There are numerous others, and the list grows longer every day.
Freedom of speech is under systematic assault throughout the West, in Britain, Finland, Sweden, Canada, Israel, and virtually every other country except Denmark.
And what do all these muzzled people have in common?
They all offended Muslims.
Funny about that.
Hat tip: Five different people. Kepiblanc was first.
46 comments:
List just grew: Finnish blogger TomaShot was sentenced to pay 825€ fine and his web site to be shut because of "agitation against group of people". Decision was made by (city of) Tuusula court of justice today.
(TomaShot's site was publishing collected news about immigration)
News is fresh and picked from finnish bulletin board discussions so no valid link available (yet).
“You’re entitled to your opinions.”
Entitled by whom? Sickening. Which means she is only prepared to let you have an opinion if she permits it.
Sludge
Just added your update to my article
THX
TC
Watched the videos yesterday, brilliant! I wish more journalists and public figures had his courage. That quality is lacking in too many public figures today though. Fear is king!
On behalf of Canadians who are working to have these star chambers abolished ... Thanks!
Stop The HRCs Petition
VERY IMPORTANT STATISTICS CONCERNING KORAN
By
Larry Houle
www.godofreason.com
intermedusa@yahoo.com
Muthuswamy cites research on the Koran, conducted by the Center for Political Islam, which illustrates the Islamic focus on conformist behavior and beliefs. According to the Center's analysis of the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadith, only 17% of the Islamic trilogy deals with the words of Allah. The remaining 83% refers to the words and deeds of Mohammed. Of all of the references to "hell" in the trilogy, 6% are for moral failings, while 94% are for the transgression of disagreeing with Mohammed. Statistical analysis of the trilogy revealed that 97% of references to "jihad" relate to war and a mere 3% to the concept of "inner struggle."
About 67% of the Koran of Mecca deals with punishing unbelievers for merely disagreeing with Mohammed. Over 50% of the Koran of Medina deals with hypocrites and jihad against unbelievers. Nearly 75% of the Sira deals with jihad. About 20% of the Hadith by Bukhari is about jihad. The majority of the doctrine is political and it is all violent.
In 4% of the cases, women were superior, in 91% of the cases they were inferior and in 5% they were equal. But there is a big catch. The only way that women are equal is after death on Judgment day, when men and women will be judged on how well they followed the Koran and the Sunna. And guess what? The only way to follow the Koran and the Sunna is to obey men. Equality means obeying men
Woman are superior by being a mother, who must obey her husband. So the perfect woman on Judgment day will be a mother, who obeyed all the men in her life. So really, the women are subordinate to men in 100% of all of the Koran, Hadith and the Sira.
Levant is a modern day hero. The Canadian HRC would make Orwell proud. Short of outright totalitarianism, they represent the most intrusive form of government imaginable. Their attempts to prosecute thought crime are morally bankrupt.
This boils down to abject cowardice on the part of the government agencies doing this. They are doing the Islamists bidding without even being threatened. Or maybe they are being made "offers they cannot refuse" and using PC rhetoric to cover their miserable, despicable actions. These government functionaries are not just selling out themselves but their families, children, nations and future of Western civilization.
Canada: Freedom of Speech succumbing to Kangaroo Courts of the Human Rights Commission
Proceedings against Ezra Levant are nothing short of ridiculous, but let's consider the implications for moderate Muslims. This "investigation" will further divide Muslims and non-Muslims in Canada. It will give credence to radicals' claims that the West is at war with Islam. It will antagonize non-Muslims and moderate Muslims will be pushed towards radicalization. Regardless of the outcome, once again Islamists skillfully manipulated Dhimmi justice system and came out as clear winners. Thank you, Human Right Commission!
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/01/canada-freedom-of-speech-succumbing-to.html
Sign Free Dominion Against the HRCs Petition
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/a-free-dominion-against-the-hrcs.html
M. Rapp,
What did your mother do to you, to make you such a degenerate bigot?
Nothing.
I am not degenerate, nor a bigot.
I use language and freedom of speech to draw fire. I want to expose radical muslims for what they are: despicable human refuse.
I encite in order to gather ammunition...verbal ammunition. When I say extreme, outlandish things that are offensive to those who want me beheaded, it only goes to further prove my point. Usually, when I write that mohammed is a liar, I get something along the lines that if they find me on the street they will cut my throat and burn my body for insulting islam. It is very cathartic using their words to prove my point!
Works like a charm every time. I'll be sure to forward you what some of the violent responses I will get for insulting islam. It's quite humorous, really. For insulting someone, they want to kill you. It's simply mind-boggling.
The bottom line is that freedom and liberty are incompatible with islam and sharia law.
Thank you for your reply. I wish you all the best.
M. Rapp
"I want to expose radical muslims for what they are: despicable human refuse."
Everybody with half a brain know that radical Muslims are human refuse, but your previous comment looked like you were referring to Muslims in general. Failure to draw a distinction between Muslims and Islamofascists is a big problem. It legitimizes radicals' claims that the West is at war with Islam, makes it easier for them to radicalize young Muslims, and marginalizes moderate Muslims.
Well put, and I see your point, but it doesn't matter. "Radical" muslims are in charge of your religion, so any other moderate viewpoint is moot.
You wrote:
"Failure to draw a distinction between Muslims and Islamofascists is a big problem. It legitimizes radicals' claims that the West is at war with Islam, makes it easier for them to radicalize young Muslims, and marginalizes moderate Muslims."
Failing to draw that distinction is not a problem for me, only for you. Therefore YOU must deal with it. Prove me wrong. Stand up and fight against the "radicals."
The West IS at war with islam. Those "radicals" of which you speak declared it. It would be foolish to say you are not at war, when your enemy says that they are, and are doing everything in their power to destroy you.
The young muslims are more easily radicalized because the only voice they hear on their side is from the radicals themselves. Your voice and the voices of your fellow moderates are seemingly silent. What I say doesn't matter to them.
Moderate muslims outnumber radicals 10 to 1. How can you feel marginalized? Take your religion back!
-M. Rapp
Muslims against Sharia said: "It legitimizes radicals' claims that the West is at war with Islam, makes it easier for them to radicalize young Muslims, and marginalizes moderate Muslims."
How sad. But until such time as Muslims "take back" a religion they claim has been "hijacked", presumably by explaining to the "fanatics" that the Koran doesn't say what it actually DOES say, we will continue to be at war with Islam.
The problem is not that we are "marginalizing" anyone, the problem is that Muslims are marginalizing themselves, blowing things up, and launching spurious lawsuits against core values in the west. Or at least the radicals are, while the so-called moderates either cheer them on, stand mutely by, or wax philosophical about it.
One ought not "draw a distinction" between Germans and Nazis while the Luftwaffe drops bombs on one's head, nor would one be wise to make distinctions between so called, and very hard to find, "moderate" Muslims and immoderate Muslims; especially when both believe exactly the same thing.
Your alleged prophet did and said all the things the so-called fanatics say he did. As a "moderate," how do you reconcile those factual utterances with whatever "moderate" interpretation you favor? One can interpret some of the things Christ said in different ways...for instance "I bring a sword" has been interpreted to mean a number of things, and disagreements about it exist between reasonable people. But how does one interpret "cut off their fingers/heads/assorted appendages" in any other way but just exactly that? Needless to say, blood runs like water out of the pages of the Koran...one need not search very hard to be covered in it. There is simply no way to get around that. The fanatics aren't bad Muslims; they are good Muslims.
The 10 to 1 figure of (moderate Muslims to radical) is widely bandied about but has no serious factual basis. It is a guesstimate invented and promoted by mostly non-Muslims, some well-meaning, some not. It is meant a) to comfort people who cannot imagine confronting an enemy that may number a billion and b) protect Muslims in non Muslim countries from counter-attack.
Technically, "Muslims against sharia" must be a very small club because the vast majority of Muslims would consider such behavior that of an apostate. There is no way to be a devout Muslim according to the teachings of Islam, without abiding by and promoting sharia wherever one lives.
So-called moderate Muslims have had 6 long years to "take back their religion" from the putative fanatics or come up with a reformation that would make it compatible with Western values. Aside from a handful of truly brave Muslims, most of whom have actually left the faith or are considered apostates by their co-religionists, there has been no encouraging movement whatsoever by "moderate Muslims".
Instead, we have seen:
Thousands of jihadis who commit violence in the name of Islam, with no significant criticism by Islamic authorities.
Hundreds of thousands routinely taking to the streets to support jihadis and/or vandalizing and killing over some hyped up slight to their religion (this would imply the demonstrators believe all western countries are to follow sharia in many ways such as putting Mohammed and Islam above criticism)
Significant percentages of Muslims in public opinion polls in western countries justifying suicide bombing instead of condemning it.
A veritable Muslim industry of attacking free speech and gumming up human rights machinery in western countries with imaginary complaints of Islamophobia (the latter in actuality negligible considering the enormous provocation Muslims provide against every religion and in every country they immigrate to/occupy).
If the "moderates" put half the energy into pruning the giant redwood in their own eye of Muslims murdering innocents in declared pursuit of world domination as they do to complaining about the tiny splinter of claimed Islamophobia in western countries (really just rejection of dhimmitude), then the world would be better off.
I agree with the commenters above. Let's see some ACTION from the moderates.
If it's not forthcoming, we are being "takkiya'd" (misled to gain strategic advantage for Allah) or the numbers are so tiny, cowed, or fatalistic as Muslims are wont to be, that they are not players except as muddiers of the waters so the West cannot defend itself properly.
Laine,
“There is no way to be a devout Muslim according to the teachings of Islam, without abiding by and promoting sharia wherever one lives.”
Where did you get that? I must have missed it in my "Promoting Sharia" class.
MAS: Failure to draw a distinction between Muslims and Islamofascists is a big problem.
Yes it is and Muslims are directly responsible for the problem. They've had six long years since the 9-11 atrocity to clearly distinguish themselves from their radical brethern. Instead, the Western world has been treated to almost deafening silence. If the majority of Muslims are not bothering to loudly denounce the jihadis, then it should be a small wonder that non-believers no longer bother to make any distinction.
Here's a clue: It is not the West's obligation to sort out the Muslims and jihadis. Islam is obliged to clean its own house. To date, it has abjectly refused to do anything of the sort. America's own efforts to delicately winnow out terrorists from the Iraqi population has earned it nothing but scorn from the Muslim world. We are seen as being weak for not using real military might. Yet, the instant we do so, suddenly we are crusading warmongers.
Tell you what, Islam gets to weed out the jihadis. Any failure in accomplishing this task will be interpreted as a refusal. Sane people in the West are tired of pissing away BILLIONS of dollars doing a job that Arab Muslims should be spending their own petrodollars on. The clock is running down and running down fast. As Islamic lunatics like Ahmadinejad grope after the nuclear dagger they only increase the chance that MILLIONS of Muslims will die. Evidently—from the near total lack of regional criticism—this doesn't bother enough other Muslims to warrant any sort of strong action. Islam is far too proud of yet another Muslim cesspit squandering untold billions of dollars—money better spent on food and education—to build useless nuclear weapons instead.
As to how American oil expenditures are diverted into terrorist hands. We are not the ones placing that money into the Wahabbist coffers. The corrupt Saudis are responsible for that. If Muslims are so discontent with how their leaders choose to finance terrorism, then they had better well take up some of those omnipresent arms and begin deposing their own governments.
So far, it seems as though far too many Muslims are perfectly happy with terrorism. The only time we hear any loud protests are when the Pakistanis finally get a taste of their own medicine after another bomb vest killer detonates himself in a crowd.
How sincere are those lamentations? If Muslims were truly repulsed by these bomb vest killings, long ago they would have sworn out a death fatwa upon Yusuf "beat your wife lightly" Qaradawi. This one single individual—widely regarded as a moderate Muslim—is almost personally responsible for handing down the Islamic jurisprudence that sanctified bomb vest murderers. Everything was just fine and dandy so long as only Jews were being shredded into fragments. Perish the thought that some day Muslims might turn such a weapon upon each other. As if killing their fellow believers isn't one of the things that Muslims do better than anything else.
Long before Americans arrived in Iraq, Muslims had spent EIGHT LONG YEARS KILLING A HALF MILLION OF THEMSELVES in the Iran-Iraq conflict. So, please don't try to tell me that Muslims are averse to slaughtering each other.
Yet, when it comes to tracking down and killing the radicals in their own populations, suddenly the task is too onerous, the challenge too great.
Tell you what: Pretty damn soon the West is going to lose all patience. When that happens, don't be surprised if the moderate Muslim baby gets thrown out with the jihadist bathwater.
Answer: Muslims Against Sharia Part 2
THE INVISABLE MODERATE MUSLIMS
WHAT WE MUST DEMAND FROM THE INVISABLE MODERATE MUSLIMS
By
Larry Houle
www.godofreason.com
intermedusa@yahoo.com\
1.The end of the 1400 year old war against the Infidels.
This means the renouncing, denouncing and removal from the Koran of all teachings of violence, terror, war, death and destruction, violent jihad etc.
2,Renouncing, denouncing and removal from the Koran all teachings of the oppression, subjugation and repression of women.
The total and complete equality of women in a democratic society without equivocation is absolutely essential to the reform of Islam. Nothing less is acceptable.
3. Renouncing, denouncing and removal from the Koran all teachings of the rape.
4.Renouncing, denouncing and removal from the Koran all teachings of slavery. Slavery is the most vile, evil institutions ever invented by man. Slavery is a immortal eternal divine LAW OF GOD in the Koran. There is no such LAW OF GOD.
5.Renouncing, denouncing and removal from the Koran all teachings of looting and pillaging and sharing the profit received from selling looted property and slaves with God.
6. Renouncing, denouncing and removal from the Koran all teachings of brutality.
7. Renouncing, denouncing and removal from the Koran all teachings of hate and racism.
8. Renouncing, denouncing and removal from the Koran all teachings of murdering Apostates of Islam. The total and complete right of Muslims to leave Islam.
9. Renouncing, denouncing and removal from the Koran all teachings of polygamy.
In Islam, not only are men allowed to practice polygamy, but they may also capture women in war and use them as sex slaves. This is considered morally legitimate according to the Quran. In other words, non-Muslim women have no right to be free from the horror of slavery and serial rape by Muslim men.
10. The total and complete destruction of the sexually depraved Islamic Paradise of virgins who are to service the Men of Allah for all eternity. This evil Paradise for murderers is an outrageous affront and sin against God. To turn God into a pimp
makes a mockery of everything God stands for. Over 1400 years, upwards of 270,000,000 people have been murdered by Muslim men so they could fulfill Koran teaching 9:111 and ascend to this place of obscenity. You cannot ascend to Paradise by climbing on the corpses of the murdered. Those who kill in the name of and to the greater glory of God will ascend not to Paradise but descend into the fires of hell
11.The total and complete destruction of Sharia Law and its replacement by separation of religion and state and democracy and freedom.
The question is WHERE ARE THE SO CALLED MODERATE MUSLIMS. WHY ARE THEY NOT REFORMING THIS 7th CENTURY EVIL IDEOLOGY AND TURNING ISLAM INTO A TRUE RELIGION OF PEACE AND LOVE?
I have a certain sympathy for the poster named "Muslims Against Sharia." At the very least, his name implies that he is against Sharia.
To beat someone down like this is counter productive to our cause of remaining free persons in the west.
OTOH, his vilification of western aid as what is continuing to drive Muslim extremeism follows a long path of Islamist externalism that, to this day, has not been fully discussed in the Islamic world.
I recently read a statistic that the entire industrial GDP (excluding oil) of all Islamic countries, 1.5 billion people or so, is less than the GDP of France... More books are translated into Spanish than into Arabic in one year.
These are very serious concerns that no foreign power can deal with effectively.
So, to Muslims Against Sharia I say, deal with some very fundemental problems in your historic culture rather than debating western aid. I really don't think that the "mind block" that the heart of the Muslim world currently encounters can be placed at the doorstep of western culture. It is entirely an internal problem and, while we might rant and rave against it, no true change will happen until the population affected decides it should happen. Western aid be damned...
I am more than willing to support you.
Muslims Against Sharia--
Both of your posts made some telling points. However, your frequent references to male and female genitalia to underline your argument violates Gates of Vienna's comment policies.
We are a PG-13 blog. That means no bad language...and we are the final arbiters of "bad."
Please read these ruleswhich the Baron posted again before he left.
I agree with you that some of the comments are bigoted and I'll take those down, too. As you can see by the GOV comment rules I referred you to, "civil discourse" is a requirement -- calling the Koran "toilet paper" is not civil and doesn't promote anything helpful in this long war.
m.--
Potty mouth and intemperate language are a no-go here. See comment to MAS. Calling any group by a pejorative name is a cop-out. "Raghead" is no more acceptable here than "chink," "wop," et cetera.
I refer you to the same rules; how can I make it any plainer?
CIVIL DISCOURSE.
What is so hard about that?
"Calling" the koran anything is perfectly civil. I'm not burning it or shooting it full of bullet holes.
My point in my initial post was to elicit a response and then engage in substantive discourse.
Restricting civil discourse because someone might get their feelings hurt is just as dangerous as the jihadis who target those "apostates" who speak out CIVILLY against radicalism.
If you read the entire conversation in context, you will see that it has remained entirely civil.
I'll be very interested to see what actions you take against this post. It will be very telling if you restrict civil discourse because someone might disagree with something that has been said.
M. Rapp
personalrep 1--
I don't think you ever read the other commenters. You just drop these boringly long cut-and-paste jobs into our comments.
It's annoying. I deleted the one that took up the equivalent of two pages in Word. The other comment just barely squeaks by.
It would serve you well to remember Peter Drucker's adage: "communication is always the act of the recipient."
IOW, as soon as someone sees your long quote down the page, they skip to the next comment. So what you "say" never gets transmitted to an audience.
Dymphna - I never get much farther than 5-6 sentences before skipping but always attributed it to my ADD and male attention span, or lack thereof ;~)
I already got my answer. Censored because someone got their feelings hurt. Very interesting.
Despite there not being any threats against anyone, which would stray from the realm of civility, our conversation has been sabatoged because strong language was used and somebody might have a whimper in their voice and a tear in their eye.
What has become of us?
m. rapp--
Your last comment was on topic, civil, etc.
In fact, it was easy to read.
"Civil discourse" doesn't mean that we all agree with one another on anything. It just means what it says: civil...from the Cambridge dictionaries on line:
polite and formal:
His manner was civil, though not particularly friendly.
Disagree all you want. Just keep it courteous disagreement. Otherwise the comment section becomes a toxic waste site.
okay, one more time...
m rap said:
I already got my answer. Censored because someone got their feelings hurt. Very interesting.
Despite there not being any threats against anyone, which would stray from the realm of civility, our conversation has been sabatoged because strong language was used and somebody might have a whimper in their voice and a tear in their eye...
No, your comments were not deleted because someone got their feelings hurt. "Strong" language -- e.g., references to feces, genital body parts, ad hominem remarks, etc., have no place here.
Parents of home-schooled children send their kids here for Civics readings. That's why we're PG 13.
This has nothing to do with hurt feelilngs...and if you think ridicule furthers your argument, you badly need some lessons in Rhetoric 101.
"Our guesstimate is between 1/4 and 1/3 of Muslims worldwide are moderate. The rest are radicals to a various degree. Doesn’t mean that all the rest supports violent Jihad, though."
That's terribly sad. You should just give up. It looks like it will be an uiphill battle for the moderates, then. May as well just pack up and go home, or just sit around and wait for the jihadis to come lop off your heads. When the going gets tough, muslims stop going.
I've never heard a people so prone to chicken-little, sky is falling, all is lost, there's no hope rhetoric, than muslims. You've got a lot of quit in you, boy.
So you're also saying that upwards of 75% of muslims are "radical," but don't support violent jihad. I think that's what they call an oxyMORON. Here's a litmus test for you and your ilk: if you support violent jihad, you're a radical. If you're a radical, you're picking a fight, and you're picking it with the wrong guy.
"A hypocritical dumbshit who finances terrorism while pretending to fight it talks about incompetence?" I presume you're talking about me. You better watch your language, I might just get my feelings hurt and then I would complain to have you censored for being mean.
How do you figure that I finance terrorism? "Petrodollars" has become the war-cry of the loony left, just like "neo-con" and "bushista". It's meaningless pap. There are more and more oil and gas companies that buy 100% of their crude from domestic sources, and there are more and more people like me who don't give one red cent to any company who is in bed with arab states, South American socialist dictators, or any other commie thug. The last thing I do is directly or indirectly finance terrorists. I wish my government would cut all ties with the arabs. I think they're all crooks...on both sides! I don't pretend to support our continued partnership with any arab state. I wish it weren't the case. Someday, we'll be able to sever those ties, but until then, the only thing I can do is elect better representatives and keep pressuring them to do the right thing.
But all of this is meaningless, because you are throwing up your hands and saying "the work is too hard, I'm giving up." You won't even fight for yourself, and yet you want other people to fight your battles for you. Quit being such a wimp!
"And how do you suppose we do that [dealing with your culture] when you are financing and arming the other side?"
FIGHT BACK!
It's like voting: if you don't vote, then you lose your right to bitch about the political state of affairs. If you don't fight back against islamic extremists then you don't deserve to keep your head. It's that simple.
If you love that perverse religion of yours, then you should be willing to fight for it. If not, then you deserve what you get. I don't care about the continued prosperity of your religion or any of its practicioners. You can all disappear in a puff of smoke and it doesn't effect me in any way. But when those same people start picking a fight with my people, then we have a problem. And it's not that the muslims are picking a fight just with my people, they are picking a fight with freedom. I wouldn't want to be on the losing end of that deal, and I can guarantee you, that I won't be.
muslims against sharia:
You simply refuse to abide by the rules. One more infraction and I'm closing this thread...which I've not done before. But your language continuees to pollute the comments.
Stop right now. Why don't you go back to your own blog and say all these things. You have perfect freedom there to use any language you prefer; that freedom doesn't exist here.
We do not have enough public moderate Muslims commenting. Why are you wasting your opportunity to speak to people by making it poisonous?
_____
m. rapp--
Cute. You quote one of his potty mouth words just to slide it in. The word is just a quote, isn't it, so you're not responsible. Tell me another one.
If I weren't so ill right now I'd cut and paste your comment, delete the word, and republish, explaining the comment rule to the person who *unwittingly* violated it. I often do this for people who aren't aware of the rules.
However, you know -- and everyone reading your comment knows -- that your choice was a deliberate thumb in the eye.
So same goes for you. Both you and your interlocutor are going to be responsible if this thread is cut. I have a responsibility for the pledge I made to other parents about what would appear here and I won't let you break that.
You both ought to have to attend Miss Manners classes. MAS said at one point, What did your mother do to you, etc I could ask him the same question.
In the South, people shake their heads over such goings on and say "too bad those boys weren't Raised Right."
I feel sorry for dymphna who is clearly a lady getting stuck with refereeing some rough language which always tends to escalate once one person uses it.
It is a little difficult to follow the train of thought since the deletion of some posts (for the justifiable reasons given) has left some discontinuity but my understanding is this:
Apparently "Muslims against sharia" took umbrage at what I consider only straight talking even though it was in non-objectionable language and ripped off a post that was deleted before I could see it.
It is never my intention to discourage or gang up on a real moderate Muslim. I honor the ones who truly are, but the sad fact remains that only a handful have made themselves known out of a billion, and I'm not sure MAS is one by the West's criterion, though obviously not wanting to live under sharia makes him something other than a mainstream Muslim by Islamic criteria. Does he deny that the sharia difference alone makes him a not devout Muslim, even an apostate in the eyes of the majority who call themselves devout and who seem to hold the leadership positions?
It's been a really steep learning curve since 9/11 burst on the world, and though I started out believing the business about the "highjacked religion of peace", as time and the opportunity to read and observe went on, this fiction became unsustainable. Even MAS taught me something, that the number of moderates is a small minority of 25% or so. It's truly depressing to have one's suspicions confirmed.
But what's more depressing is that MAS presumably places himself in that 25% and he's still blaming the West for the problems Islam presents to the world. I agree with the above posts that point out there's something about Islam that prevents introspection and self-criticism and requires an external to blame. I would add the fatalism that comes with Islam, the "insha'Allah" (as Allah wills it) feeling of impotence.
Petrodollars have only been around since the 60's and rising to obscene riches only in the past couple of decades. It seems the Muslim/Arab way (and I'm aware they're not synonymous but for petrodollars they are) is to stay with the tribal model of Mohammed from 1400 years ago and that means dictatorships, complete or quasi. Islamic leaders with money are choosing to export Wahhabism around the world or in the case of Pakistan and Iran, spend money on nuclear arms that should have gone to feeding and educating their people (real education, not madrassah indoctrination of illiterates).
The West took care of its people first, then developed arms to counter threats, first from the Soviet Union and now radical Muslims which MAS informs us is most Muslims.
A trustworthy moderate Muslim who still practices the faith and bravely defends the West and criticizes Islam publicly is Dr. Salim Mansur, a Canadian University professor and journalist. Read anything by him to get the flavor of a true moderate Muslim.
Since he is only a tiny drop in a sea of hostility to the West, one has to hope that the pen is mightier than the (Islamic) sword.
M,
“May as well just pack up and go home, or just sit around and wait for the jihadis to come lop off your heads.” “You've got a lot of quit in you, boy.”
You must have been dropped on your head too many times when you were a child, haven’t you? First, you make things up, then you blame us for those things.
“So you're also saying that upwards of 75% of muslims are "radical," but don't support violent jihad.”
Have a little comprehension problems, don’t we? Let me re-phrase it that even someone with very modest IQ (you) can understand. We think that between 2/3 and 3/4 of Muslims are radical to a various degree. Some of them are engaged in violent Jihad, some of them support violent Jihad, some of them don’t, because they think democratic takeover is more effective than violent Jihad. All of them want global Caliphate, which makes all of them radicals.
“I might just get my feelings hurt and then I would complain to have you censored for being mean.”
Are you gonna run to your mommy too?
“How do you figure that I finance terrorism? "Petrodollars" has become the war-cry of the loony left, just like "neo-con" and "bushista". It's meaningless pap.”
If your extensive brain damage did not prevent you from occasional reading, you might have found out that almost every terrorism expert (except for the Islamists of degenerate Dhimmis) says that vast majority of terrorism financing comes from oil revenues.
“There are more and more oil and gas companies that buy 100% of their crude from domestic sources, and there are more and more people like me who don't give one red cent to any company who is in bed with arab states, South American socialist dictators, or any other commie thug.”
Really? Since you’re such an expert on the subject, can you name those companies? Or can you name the companies where you, personally, fill up? Or do you even know what percentage of oil used in America comes from the Middle East?
“The last thing I do is directly or indirectly finance terrorists.”
Is there a chance that you’re too dumb to even notice?
“Someday, we'll be able to sever those ties, but until then, the only thing I can do is elect better representatives and keep pressuring them to do the right thing.”
At least we’re having so progress now.
“But all of this is meaningless, because you are throwing up your hands and saying "the work is too hard, I'm giving up."”
What a bunch of crap! We’re not giving up. I explained you that trying to fight Jihadists in Muslim countries, while West is supporting them, is a waste of time. That’s why we do what is practical. Exposing Jihadists and educating the West, so it will stop its support for radical Islam.
“FIGHT BACK!”
Leave your slogans for halfwits like yourself. Why don’t you go and attack a military base, by yourself, armed with a stick. See how far can you get.
Dymphna,
Let me understand your rules. Calling a religion of a billion plus people perverse is acceptable, but calling the person who wrote that an idiot is not?
My point in my initial post was to elicit a response and then engage in substantive discourse.
Dymphna is also making a point. Those who cannot make a point without engaging in talk unsuitable for readers such as the home-schooled students I send here, need to get a dictionary and learn how.
It's really not that hard. It's not difficult, and it's not a burden. You want a space to spill out expletives and crudities, create (and use) your own blog. Hi-jacking somebody else's blog space and insisting you have the right to flood it with language as crass, vile, and socially unacceptable as you please is boorish. It is not conducive to substantive discourse.
Rather the opposite.
Laine,
“I'm not sure MAS is one by the West's criterion”
Would this be an acceptable criteria? http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/
2008/01/what-is-moderate-muslim.html
“Does he deny that the sharia difference alone makes him a not devout Muslim, even an apostate in the eyes of the majority who call themselves devout and who seem to hold the leadership positions?”
If we cared about Muslim establishment opinions, we’d be chopping off your heads right about now, wouldn’t we?
“But what's more depressing is that MAS presumably places himself in that 25% and he's still blaming the West for the problems Islam presents to the world.”
That’s not entirely true. Islam had its ups and downs from the Seventh century and up to the WWII. Then, with massive infusion of petrodollars into Gulf (mostly Wahhabi) countries, Islam has been in freefall. “The majority of Muslims are moderate” could have been true a couple of generations ago, but when the Saudis are building thousands of mosques and madrassas throughout the world (even in America more than 4/5 of the mosques are run by extremists), what can be expected from Muslims who are taught to hate Christians and Jews every time they come to worship? Is it surprising that every new generation of Muslims is more radical than the previous one? We cannot fight radical Muslims and the Western sponsors. We need the West on our side.
“there's something about Islam that prevents introspection and self-criticism and requires an external to blame.”
That is absolutely not true when it comes to MASH. If anything, we’ve been overly critical of Islam. Critical to the point that many Dhimmis believe that we cannot possibly be Muslim. They claim that people behind MASH are either David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, or Pamela Geller.
http://www.stageleft.info/2008/01/
13/meet-ezras-new-non-muslim-muslim-friends/
http://www.freethinker.co.uk/?p=175
Critical to the point that Islamists even created an anti-blog dedicated to us. http://exposingmuslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/
I don’t even know where to start. I’ll ignore the personal attacks, because I simply don’t care what you think of me. That’s a great example of the difference between us. I’m not going to fly off the handle and threaten your life because you insult me or my religion. That’s a foreign concept for muslims. When I call mohammed a loser or something far worse (I’m trying to watch my language for the sake of the kiddies that may see a bad word), I’m marked for death by islamic thugs who proudly display signs that read, “Behead those who insult islam.” I love those guys. I can’t wait to meet them face to face! I bet they’ll bring a knife to a gun fight!
On to your rant…
What have I made up and then blamed on you? That’s your m.o., not mine. I take full responsibility for my actions. The only one who is responsible for me pulling the trigger is me, not society, not my mother who dropped me on my head, not some imperialist government, etc. I don’t blame anyone but the terrorists for terrorist activity. And frankly, I don’t care what the “why” is behind their actions. Everybody has a reason. Everybody has an excuse. The only thing that matters is the action.
You think that up to 75% muslims are radical “to a varying degree.” Isn’t that like being a little bit pregnant? There are only two sides to the issue. Either you are for freedom and democracy throughout the world, or you’re not. There’s no middle ground when it comes to freedom. If you are not for freedom, pure and simple, then you are against it. If you are against it, then you are an enemy of mine and the rest of the free world.
The fact that “all of them want global caliphate” pretty much settles it for me. They are all enemies of freedom, regardless of how pregnant they are.
Regarding the oil companies that do not buy crude from the middle east, allow me to broaden your horizons, and yes, I’m happy to name them.
Sinclair Oil Corp.
Cenex (CHS)
MFA Oil
NCRA
Holiday Station Stores
United Refining Co, Kwik Fill, Keystone, Country Fair
Flying J- since you asked, this is where I proudly fill up twice a week. I also get beef jerky and a cup of coffee, in case you were interested.
Hess
Sunoco
Yukos
You can check them all out at terrorfreeoil.org
I said, “The last thing I do is directly or indirectly finance terrorists.”
You said, (in a brilliant reply, I might add!) “Is there a chance that you’re too dumb to even notice?”
My reply: Not a chance. I can’t stand you people or your false religion. You are a scourge on humanity and your religion is poisonous. I steer pretty clear of everything arab. I avoid all things muslim. If you come at me, we’ll have a different story on our hands. I avoid dealing with those people because I don’t trust them. You never know if they’re part of that 75% you were talking about!
“…trying to fight Jihadists in Muslim countries, while West is supporting them, is a waste of time.”
There you go again with that “hurry up and quit attitude.” Do you always quit so easily? Wanna arm wrestle?
Dymphna, I don’t mind if he calls me an idiot. I won’t get my feelings hurt. I have said some mean things about his despicable religion, and I stand behind everything I’ve said. Mohammed was a loser and islam is perverse. But that’s why we are having a civilized dialogue. No one is calling for me to be killed, although I would bet that’s the next step.
M. Rapp
MAS, I looked at your site. I do not have time to read anything in depth (will return to do so) but on a first scanning, it appears a very welcome initiative by and for truly moderate Muslims and those of us in the West looking for them. I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot.
If I may, I would suggest that you direct posters who doubt your sincerity to the site first, so you do not have to keep re-inventing the wheel. I realize it must be very frustrating having to defend yourself, but please remember, it is that 75% of Muslims who have created this situation for you, not Westerners who I think you'll have to admit, are much more tolerant and slower to anger than the majority of Muslims. It's just that we are also frustrated and justifiably I think feeling at the end of our rope.
Close examination of your religion, with its praise of takiyya (I saw on the site that you reject this precept among others) makes trust difficult for those Westerners who ironically, are actually better read and better informed so they actually know about the potential for mendacity.
There is material on the site, M, that would reassure you as well in that it appears that this individual/group is actually taking initiative as you rightly wish.
We can all disagree about what is preventing moderates from making more of an impact on Islam's direction at this point, but it appears from the MAS site that we actually have more in common than separates us and it would be a shame to lose possible allies (this applies to M and MAS as well as myself).
Peace?
M.
“I don’t even know where to start. … That’s a great example of the difference between us. I’m not going to fly off the handle and threaten your life because you insult me or my religion.”
I’ll tell you where to start. How about stop lying? When did I ever insult your religion? Not that I even know what your religion is.
“I bet they’ll bring a knife to a gun fight!”
Judging by your previous comments, you must have done that a few times, haven’t you?
“You think that up to 75% muslims are radical “to a varying degree.” Isn’t that like being a little bit pregnant?”
I give up. If you do not understand that CAIR does not blow people up, but they are still radicals, nothing I can say will get through to you.
I see you visited TFO site. Let me give you a little insight what a reaction TFO’s home town displayed. This is one of the threads from Omaha Gas Prices.
I salute you for being a good citizen and making sure your money do not fund terrorism. Unfortunately, majority of Westerners do not concern themselves with those issues. According to the aforementioned thread (I don’t know how much of that is true, though) TFO station is empty most of the time while two stations beside it are full. What does that tell you?
Laine,
"It's just that we are also frustrated and justifiably I think feeling at the end of our rope."
I understand. But you've felt like that for six and a half years. We've felt like that for most of our lives. At least now people are starting to listen.
"Peace?"
Absolutely! I apologize if some of my previous descriptions were too harsh. It's just really frustrating to keep explaining people that moderate Muslims are powerless to do anything while the Western civilization provides fuel for growth of radical Islam.
I'm going to post a reply I made to MAS over at The Belmont Club. We are all being treated with the same arrogant abuse at both locations.
-------------------------------
MAS: Isn't that what we are trying to do?
[i.e. legalizing shari'a law]
Ummmmm ... no. Nowhere at your website is there any actual policy put in place to actively bring this about. Flowery rhetoric is nice but direct action is all that really counts. This is especially so in the face of a violent, fascistic, theocratic tripe volcano such as Islam. Please review the various petition links at the bottom of this comment to get an idea of what constitutes truly "active measures".
From your own website:
Sharia
Sharia Law must be abolished, because it is incompatible with norms of modern society.
Nowhere on your website is there any mention of a petition to provide for such abolishment. Get with the program or be considered ornamental.
Outdated words & phrases
• Jihad: this word is often interpreted as Holy War against non-Muslims
Not "often interpreted", jihad means "Holy War against non-Muslims". Any interpretation of it as a "spiritual quest" is pure kitman that was fabricated only two centuries ago. Jihad has always meant Holy War and continues to do so today. Your site really needs to avoid mincing words.
On the surface, much of what appears at your website seems quite commendable. However, as Fred notes:
what he is proposing does not alleviate the high degree of caution we need to maintain, given how our own non-Muslim populations and leadership do not have the proper abilities to spot subterfuge.
Despite what may even be good intentions upon your organization's part, taqiyya damns Islam. There will never be any way of authentically determining if a Muslim is genuinely desirous of peaceful coexistence. If taqiyya isn't damning enough, the Islamic practice of hudna nails its coffin shut. Even a century or more of ostensibly peaceful coexistence could not necessarily be interpreted as a total rejection of jihad by Muslims. Such a lull could just as easily represent a reversion over to the slow jihad of demographic takeover in non-Muslim lands.
Such demographic takeover is already an openly declared intention and policy of Islam and—in light of that—even a century of peace could still be nothing more than a prolonged hudna. Once in the majority, what would prevent a dominant Muslim population from installing shari'a law?
Answer: NOTHING
Islam is a wholly compromised concept. Its internal sanctification of terrorism, deceit and perfidy make it the enemy of all mankind. Islam poisons the minds of its followers and kills those who do not obey it. There is no realistic hope of rehabilitating such a hateful, violent and treacherous entity. The risk of further betrayal is simply too great.
MAS, face it, at best your organization represents a whopping 0.000001% of the global Muslim population. The fact that—due to Islam's policy of death for blasphemers—you cannot even afford to have registered members speaks volumes as to the efficacy of your organization. It is essentially wishful thinking to consider your goal as anything more than hopeless.
There is a valid reason for the presumption of such futility. Nobody, not you, not anyone in the West nor even this world's Muslim population has the luxury of spending several decades defanging Islam's vicious and barbaric doctrine. Islamic madmen are already groping for the nuclear dagger. Unhindered, they will bring about catastrophe on an unimaginable scale. My own prediction continues to be that of a Muslim holocaust. The only sure way to prevent this is by dismantling Islam and eradicating its practice from the face of this earth.
At best, Mecca and Medina could serve as architectural museum pieces. Any worship in those halls must end forever if mankind is to have any hope of living in peace. That is how drastic the situation is. Islam has spent a thousand years voluntarily bringing conditions to the state they are in and the West has absolutely no obligation to demonstrate the least speck of mercy in assuring its own survival.
As a Muslim, I must suppose that your efforts represent a noble—if not very realistic—effort at salvaging Islam. In no way does anything you say or do eliminate the need for all Westerners to regard your actions in the very most suspicious light. Your group could just as easily be a front dedicated to defusing any Western sense of urgency in dealing with the Islamic threat. The mere existence of taqiyya literally demands that you be regarded in that light. Again, that is precisely how taqiyya irrevocably damns Islam.
This remains the central issue. Even a delay of only a few years is long enough to tip the scales out of the West’s favor. A nuclear-armed Islam is simply too great a threat to be countenanced. Your organization’s activities, no matter how successful will not bear fruit anywhere within the necessary timeline in order to avoid the worst case scenario of terrorist nuclear attacks upon the West. It is that simple fact that obliges me—and many others, I’m sure—to simply abandon all hope of and Islamic reformation and, instead, agitate for its destruction.
Below are examples of halfway realistic efforts at legally combating Islam. My own opinion is that only large-scale military intervention can save Western civilization.
Congress Debate Qur`an
United Nations Investigate Koran
PS: I strongly urge you to drop the name calling. It is immature and counterproductive behavior that only damages your own cause. Everybody here is totally fed up with Muslim arrogance and stupidity. You are only reinforcing that perception.
Bloody typo got included:
MAS: Isn't that what we are trying to do?
[i.e. illegalizing shari'a law]
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.