Islam: In violation of our constitution
A message from God
By Mogens Rukov
Director of the screenwriting department of the Danish Film Academy
March 14th 2008, WeekendAvisen
The great tolerance being displayed in Europe these days is directed towards Islam.Islam is being recognized, and Muslims are awarded full citizens’ rights. Tolerance has never been greater. But this period in time can be compared to the late 1930s, where the leading nation, Great Britain, spared no effort to accommodate the megalomaniacal plans of Hitler. Back then tolerance was a political decision. And it was a gigantic political misunderstanding, which led us directly to WWII.
At present, tolerance is culturally determined and well founded in public opinion. Very few Europeans are in significant disagreement with the policy that faith is a private matter for the individual. And relative to this notion — shared by the author of this article — the tolerant attitude towards Muslims is a matter of cause. But is this also the case towards Islam?
Islam is a law-based religion, to a much greater extent than any other religion we know of. And utterly incomparable to the Jewish religion that is also called a law-based religion by some. The Islamic law of faith, Sharia, is also the civil law of Islam. The main offering of Islam is to replace other legal systems with Sharia. As a Danish-speaking imam stated recently: “You request me to condemn stoning of women, but what can I do, when my god demands stoning of women?”
He is completely right. What can he do? The learned authorities of his religion have throughout time formulated sentences of faith, commands, bans etc. in a way that bestows divine status upon the entire legal complex. “It is my god saying so.” He cannot circumvent the direct request from his god. And he hereby invokes an authority of higher standing than the law we have, which is given by mere humans, influenced by Roman law and Christianity.
But do we want a civil law like this? What we are finding is that it cannot be the same god in the monotheistic religions, but actually radically different gods.
As the American literary researcher Harold Bloom aptly expressed it in “Where Shall Wisdom be Found?” (2004): “Christians believe in, Muslims submit to, and Jews have confidence in — the will of God.” Believe in, submit to, have confidence in is an elegant characterization of the different demands put upon us by our gods. Therefore it is utter nonsense that for political reasons some claim that we ultimately worship the same god.
But now some strangers arrive and demand that we replace our legal code, our understanding of law, our legal consciousness, in part or in whole, piecemeal or completely, step by step or by leaps and bounds. I decline politely but very firmly. Would I then be intolerant?
Recently a book entitled “Tolerance” was published. According to this, ‘Tolerance’ is defined as:
1) That the object in question is repugnant to someone. 2) That its existence is permitted nonetheless.
A third item is that one must have a certain amount of humorous attitude towards oneself, some self-irony that permits one to realize the limits of ones own values.
However, this has precisely nothing to do with tolerance. And it shows that these persons from the intelligentsia plain do not understand what tolerance is.
Tolerance is a hard law. It has nothing to do with ‘understanding’ or ‘receptiveness’, friendliness to do. It has nothing to do with ‘respect’, as it is frequently invoked. It has nothing to do with canceling of ones own values.
- - - - - - - - -
Right from the first edicts of tolerance from AD 301, 303 and 313, tolerance has always been limited, tied to securing something or other. Not securing the repugnant that one is supposed to tolerate. But securing the state and individuals. In the edict of 301, the survival of the state is to be secured.
Tolerance is a double security, it goes both ways. It ensures the existence of the minority, and it ensures the law and order of the majority.
This is still the way things are.
And in particular as it pertains to matters of faith. For this reason, no open freedom of faith is given. Freedom of faith is not, as people of Islam and their proselytes would claim, a carte blanche of free faith. The intelligentsia, some politicians, journalists, and Muslims are practically jumping over each other to open the gates for a counter-culture, a different culture, a culture in radical opposition to the Nordic, Western, and democratic.
They are applying a means: The Danish constitution. According to the constitution, they claim, there is freedom of religion in Denmark, including freedom for a faith like Islam. This is a fallacy. They do not understand the sense of tolerance, which means upholding and furthering law and order. They have not read the relevant articles of the constitution on freedom of faith, they are calling upon. I was myself surprised reading them.
A faith freedom permissive of a counter-culture like Islam does not exist in the Danish constitution. It is simply not open to it. The constitution has, for sure, an article about freedom of faith. But this is a conditional freedom. The freedom is not open and hollow. The condition is that the religion is constructed so that that “nothing will be taught that contradicts decency and the public order.” It is specific that nothing of the kind must be taught. If a mosque teaches stoning of women, distrust in democracy, disdain for adherents of other faiths, permission to kill them, Sharia etc., then this mosque is not covered by the articles on faith freedom in the Danish constitution.
Tolerance and the conditions for tolerance are so closely connected that they are told without any pause, in the same breath.
The entire article 67 of the Danish constitution reads: “Citizens have the right to unite in societies to worship God in the way that matches their conviction, provided that nothing is taught or done in violation of decency or the public order.”
This point of view is elaborated in further paragraphs, where it is also stated that nobody may, due to matters of faith, be excused from their normal duties as citizens (article 70).
This excludes Islam. Islam has an alternative notion of decency and public order, a notion that contradicts that of the Danish constitution. The humanitarian ideal that our constitution is based upon is being undermined and rejected by Islam. Not by Islamism, not by any radical interpretation of Islam, but by Islam proper.
We have to extend our tolerance. Not to accommodate Islam, but to make sure that it really safeguards what the American social scientist Lawrence E. Harrison sees as the foundation for the Nordic development of society: “The most important force behind the Nordic development is culture — values, convictions and attitudes — that further democracy, social justice, and creativity.”
14 comments:
This is all true, but the Danish Constitution is, however, suspended and no longer valid. It has been replaced by a secret - at least unreadable - document called The Constitutional Treaty of the European Union.....eh, Lisbon.
This is all true, but the Danish Constitution is, however, suspended and no longer valid.
No.
I know your next argument:
It has been replaced by Treaty of Lisbon.
No, it hasn't.
I'm second-guessing the next one:
It has *effectively* been replaced by Treaty of Lisbon.
Leaving aside the hair-splitting of the fact that the Lisbon Treaty is not in force yet, and that Poland is causing trouble, I still say:
No.
It has not. Show me any document, any referendum to the countrary?
Doesn't exist.
Now, a different thing is that our constitution has been *weakened* by EU and the upcoming Lisbon Treaty (English language materials here. That's a different matter.
Perhaps better:
Unless we do something, our constitution will be suspended.
That's meaningful - here's a condition, and in that condition a seed for action, "do something". Now, what can we do for our constitution?
I think the very best is to use it. Read it, and identify stuff that seems to violate it. Take the politicians to task for it, and they will have to respect the constitution, for they cannot find that document suspending it, either. This is a very good time to use the constitution actively.
At this point, the politicians still respect the constitution and are avoiding like the plague any accusation of breaking it. Lisbon shows that they'll jump an amazing number of loops to avoid that charge. Let's keep 'em jumping, they just might stumble.
Like, here in Denmark the police is working to block specific Internet pages for access. I consider that a violation of § 77 of the Danish constitution and intend to ask my representative in parliament about it. There might be a good explanation somewhere, or it may be that the police will have to change their approach in order to respect the constitution.
While the latter would be the best - also for protecting freedom of expression - the former is also good, as it demonstrates citizens caring about the Rule of Law and speaking up when they see it violated. You may be wrong - that happens - but the mere interest in the constitution, and the respect that this interest provokes, will make it much more difficult to suspend it in the future.
The whole Lisbon thing is, in my view, a violation of § 20, and at the upcoming meeting in Dansk Kultur, I intend to make it perfectly clear that we cannot respect the European Union, as defined by Lisbon. The treaty itself was bad - we worked against it - and the process surrounding it is doubly so. Unconstitutional.
By excercising our constitution, it will regain its strength. But it's us who'll have to be active - if you believe your politicians will do it for you, I have a really big bridge to sell you :)
“You request me to condemn stoning of women, but what can I do, when my god demands stoning of women?”
You can get your filthy, violent arse the Hell out of civilized society and hie thee back to the Islamic utopia your family calls home.
And he hereby invokes an authority of higher standing than the law we have, which is given by mere humans, influenced by Roman law and Christianity.
BZZZZTT!!! WRONG! He imputes, repeat IMPUTES his god as being of higher authority but nowhere is there any cogent proof that this is so. I can claim that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is of “higher standing” and if the Invisible Pink Unicorn is more merciful, benevolent and civilized than his Allah, then there is adequate proof that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is of higher moral authority than his putrescent, bloodthirsty and barbaric Allah.
The key issue here is moral authority and how it is vested by a minimal violation of inalienable human rights through a benevolent upholding of the social contract. Allah, Mohammed, Islam and shari'a law all fail this litmus test in so many respects that the sheer notion of Allah being of "higher standing" and the worship of Allah as conferring even a speck of moral authority would be hilarious if it were not so deeply offensive.
What we are finding is that it cannot be the same god in the monotheistic religions, but actually radically different gods.
As Old Bill would say, "Therein lies the rub." I've been lambasted at other sites for asserting that Allah, in fact, DOES NOT share in the Abramic origins of Judaic and Christian faith. Any similarity is the sole result of intentional "product confusion" put in place by Mohammed as he sought to discredit his religious forerunners for reasons of personal advancement.
THERE IS NO WAY ON EARTH THAT ANY DEITY WORTH THE NAME "GOD" WOULD EVER REWARD WITH PARADISE THOSE WHO SLAUGHTER INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE IN DROVES.
This is the beginning, middle and end of all arguments regarding any pretense with respect to Allah’s deistic qualifications. If there is a God, it is one that encourages, nurtures and blesses all life. The mere notion of a god that sanctifies or rewards the mass murder of innocent human beings invokes a malevolent universe that is wholly antipathetic to intelligent life and largely incapable of summoning it forth. PERIOD.
Therefore it is utter nonsense that for political reasons some claim that we ultimately worship the same god.
Word, Baron. Islam has put the lie to this notion FOREVER. The Unitarians certainly have, as Mr. Ricardo would say, some ‘splaining to do.
Tolerance is a double security, it goes both ways. It ensures the existence of the minority, and it ensures the law and order of the majority.
This is what turns all Muslim demands for tolerance into a complete and total laughingstock. As a minority, Muslims have absolutely no intention of ensuring any "law and order of the majority". They seek both legal immunity and imposition of their minority views upon the majority. This constitutes nothing less than a basic affront to—not just democratic rule but—the underlying bedrock of human rights that democracy rests upon.
Such a blatant assault against the most fundamental definitions of civilization must not be allowed to go unchallenged. To do so is an unforgivable trespass against the blood, sweat and tears spilt in so many wars fought by the free people who went before us. It is only because we—as Sir Issac Newton said—stand upon the shoulder of giants that our vision is sufficiently elevated to give us sight of freedom’s eternal beacons.
There are those who now wish to blinker us with pathetic constrictions of thought, speech and expression. The lamp of knowledge burns too brightly for their squinting and shifting eyes. They march under false colors waving the banners of Progressivism, Political Correctness and Multiculturalism: Even as these traitors of freedom seek to deconstruct all the hard won liberties that they and our Islamic foes hold in such deep contempt. The parallel course pursued by these enemies of liberty is no coincidence or happenstance. It results from closed and narrow minds reeling at the very notion of free thought that just as often dwarfs their meager capacity for understanding and lays bare the wholly inadequate mentalities they brazenly try to parade about as spiritually enlightened human intellect.
A faith freedom permissive of a counter-culture like Islam does not exist in the Danish constitution.
And—despite what all the Multiculturalists and appeasers claim—neither does it exist in America’s own constitution. NOWHERE is it written that we must tolerate treacherous subversives who seek to destroy our body of law solely for their own gain and the destruction of constitutional rule. This is TREASON writ large wherever Islam prowls in Western society and must be branded as such.
The humanitarian ideal that our constitution is based upon is being undermined and rejected by Islam. Not by Islamism, not by any radical interpretation of Islam, but by Islam proper.
Repeat: “ Not by Islamism, not by any radical interpretation of Islam, but by Islam proper.” NEVER, EVER forget this. It is Islam—not its fringe elements, not its radicals, not its fundamentalists—at its very core and Islam alone that stands as this threat to the civilized world. There is no excuse for it save want of ascendancy over all other faiths laws and peoples. For this, Islam must die. It is anathema to freedom and worthy of nothing but the scorn of all free people. The longer we delay in crushing this glaring insult to human dignity the greater loss of that selfsame dignity we shall have to endure in defeating such a repugnant foe. The butcher’s bill grows steadily with each passing day that we shrink from grasping the cleaver in order to amputate this excresence from our civilized world.
I was going to write a line about the most intolerant of groups are constantly demanding tolerance from others. But Zenster said it better in the 13th paragraph.
As for the Imam recommending stoning, his name is Abdul Wahid Pedersen, If you're puzzled about his last name not being particularly Arabic it's because he's a Dane who converted some 30 years ago when he was doing hard time for drug-trafficking.
His words goes like this (in Danish, my translation) to an on line question on the Sharia's point of view on stoning unfaithful women:
Headline: Stoning Is Not Up For Discussion
"We can quickly agree that stoning is a very cruel form of punishment, but that does not alter the fact that has been decreed by The Creator Himself. We are therefore not in an immediate position to change that.
Things that are commanded in the Quran or by the Prophet Mohammad in an indisputable way is therefore not up for discussion amongst Muslims. In the moment we where to debate these things we would basically have declared our selfs as non-believers in Allah and His Messenger, and thereby having placed ourselves outside of Islam.
And of course, that is something no Muslim would do."
This dude is one who is constantly interviewed on TV on Islam and has the ear of the Danish government on things Islamic.
It's freaky!
Islam is not (entirely) a religion, but a political movement wearing the cloak of a religion. For this reason, it is not entitled to the deference and privileges we accord to other religions.
thabk you so much, Henrik. I missed the dansih version . S
Actually, with regard to Abdul Wahid 'Stoning' Pedersen, I think our government is starting to get the point. When things really matte, he has nothing useful to give.
He, as well as the other imams, has been pretending to have some standing, but the only real standing he and the other Salafi reactionaries ever had was that of being in the media. That gave them prestige in the Islamic community, which increased their power.
Now, when too much terrorism has been exposed and people have learned about their beloved so-called 'prophet', their standing is plummeting. It is an embarrasment that they can consider ancient criminals to be 'holy', and it is bad that they can always conjure up some new excuse for vile behaviour in the name of Islam, or come up with fresh demands or accussations when what we really want is some reflection on Islam and terrorism, womens' rights or compatibility with democracy.
And now we're kicking the butt of those who represent Salafi movements. HuT was the first to go, but the ones, like Islamisk Trossamfund, who also want the caliphate, are left in the cold, too.
If we are going to deal with any Muslims under the name of religion, it would have to be strictly democratic, non-violent. They are few and far between - and the conclusion is that we'd better deal with Muslims as bus drivers, nurses, teachers, shop clerks etc. - the useful stuff that drives society.
For what do the imams have to offer, except twisted interpretations of violent tales from ancient Arabia?
I feel it may be relevant to point out, that in the Danish constitution there is indeed a section devoted to the freedom of faith. There is however no part dedicated to the EQUALITY of differing faiths.
Either way, I see no place for Islam in our midst. Islam is not merely an orientation of belief. It is an invasive and perverse culture. By its very being so, it should be excluded from our society.
Zenster, your large comment above says it all. I need not elaborate.
Powerful stuff Zenster. Thanks, I learned a lot.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 03/18/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
No additional comment necessary. Bravo, Zenster.
If my "God" and my "religion" said that I had to eat Muslims, would that be okay with them?
Why shouldn't they "tolerate" that kind of "divine dictate" if I am supposed to tolerate their stoning to death of women and their devouring of the infidel world and subsuming it into the cruel maw of intolerant, totalitarian Mohammadism?
Islam is a subversive movement for the extablishment of a global theocratic gulag.
I'll tolerate that the way I tolerate any other potentially fatal influence: NOT.
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/03/re-islam-in-violation-of-our.html
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.