His campaign began on YouTube, but news of it rapidly reached the Danish MSM, and is now available in English. According to Politiken, Naser Khader has launched a strong counterattack:
Khader: Quraishy Damaging Denmark- - - - - - - - -
The Syrian-born Leader of the Liberal Alliance Party Naser Khader is accusing a fellow Dane, Pakistani-born Bashy Quraishy of being a swindler with a questionable CV who travels around Europe on EU funds to spread negative stories about Denmark.
Khader says he is not surprised that Quraishy is urging Muslim countries to boycott Denmark in protest against the influence the Danish People’s Party exerts on Danish politics.
“This is treason of the worst type. I don’t understand why he’s so busy damaging the country that has given him a home. He’s not even a practicing Muslim and I certainly don’t understand his urge to involve totalitarian countries in Danish conditions,” Naser Khader says according to Ritzau.
Quraishy: ignorance
‘I will not dignify Khader’s remarks with an answer. This is the way a failed politician is simply trying to get into the news,’ Bashy Quraishy tells politiken.dk.
“If someone like Naser Khader, with his reputation, tries to accuse someone like me of treason, then it simply means he doesn’t know the meaning of the word. I love Denmark. It is my country and homeland. Why can’t I criticise the country I love,” says Quraishy.
Hat tip: TB.
56 comments:
I am starting to like the Syrian guy.
Concerning the Pakistani, "porrada" on him!
"I love Denmark. It is my country and homeland. Why can’t I criticise the country I love,” says Quraishy."
this is it in a nutshell. no matter WHAT muslims do, they are always peace-loving patriots.
feel the love, baby.
He loves probably..."Danish islam".
If there was a Nobel prize in whining I assume that 99% of all winners would be from muslim countries. This must be a natural born ability, one that they obviously master far better than that of science and literature.
YouTube leaves the Bashy vid alone but pulls the new Palin interview "sorry-this is no longer available..
I ran into the same 'sorry...' all last week...when any vid criticizing BHO was linked....
Who or what owns YouTube?
This belongs in this thread, too:
I got some interesting news on this fellow. His funding. Most everyone here should see this coming:
- George Soros (Open Society Institute) funded his report on "Racism in Denmark".
- EU funds his ongoing activities.
I don't think I need to add much.
Oh. Google owns YouTube. And YouTube pulls *lots* of stuff these days.
For our purposes, Khader is a more dangerous Muslim than Quraishy.
Khader said of Quraishy:
"He’s not even a practicing Muslim"
You see what Khader is telegraphing to us? He is reinforcing the PC MC paradigm, whose basic axiom about Islam is that Islam is never at fault, and that Muslims who follow Islam are never at fault, and that any time you see a bad Muslim, it is because he is NOT practicing "true" Islam.
It is this basic axiom that is the cornerstone of the single most important reason why the West cannot deal rationally with the danger of Islam. And Khader is subtly, slyly, cleverly serving to reinforce it.
"He’s not even a practicing Muslim"
Khader cannot be that stupid. He must know what Islam is, and what its "practice" entails. No. He is banking on our stupidity, our gullibility, to massage us with another reiteration of the PC MC axiom that the Muslims who practice real Islam are harmless, good, decent people who will "enrich" the multicultural "tapestry" of Europe, and the West at large.
The Quraishy type Muslims are easy to spot and to criticize. The Khader type Muslims are more subtle, sly and clever in their reinforcement of the PC MC idea that the Quriashy type of Muslim reflects only a "small minority of extremists". The Khader type Muslims are more subtle, sly and clever in their underhanded promotion and insinuation of Islam into the warp and woof of the West.
In fact, one major indication of the cleverness of the Khader type Muslim is the fact that a significant portion of the anti-jihad movement apparently thinks he's a useful ally against "extremist" Islam!
And unfortunately, the majority of Westerners -- beyond our small minority of anti-jihadists who do not trust the Khaders -- are stupid and gullible, because they have swallowed from birth through their formative educational years the PC MC paradigm and worldview.
You guys really seem intollerant to me. I'm surprised there are people who are so suspicious of Islam in Europe, I always thought Europe had embraced Islam and a multi-cultural society.
Anyway, look at your population growth. To maintain Europe you'll need to welcome Islamic immigrants from Africa and the middle east, who will care for you when you are old?
I'm also shocked that anyone in Europe could be a conservative. How does one become a conservative in Europe? Didn't you attend the ame public education system as everyone else? What happened to the European embrace of progressive ideals? Why is Europe electing conservative leaders? I'd really like to understand this because I think the US finally has a chance to establish a permanent progressive majority, and to do that we need to understand how it is conservatism ever managed to make a comeback in Europe so we know where to stop it.
I believe the suspicion that some hold towards Khader is unwarranted. I suggest you read his recent speech to the UN recently, here posted at International Humanist and Ethical Union. Fire-breathing stuff.
Bruce, being a Conservative is a logical consequence of applying intelligence, combined with a humanistic attitude, to the fields of history and political ideologies. If you like trolling, you might have more luck elsewhere.
I have consistently praised Khader. Many other European countries had their own Glistrups, and neither Kjersgaard is so unique (even though both are top class in respective category).
But only Denmark had a Khader!
His main significance was 8-9 years ago, but he's still showing his top class character.
CS, I think Khader's finest moment (so far) was his effort during the Muhammad crisis to break the impression of 'All Muslims are angry' and stand up for free speech. That's slightly less than 3 years ago.
Oh. Netherlands had Ayaan Hirsi Ali and still have Ehsan Jami (we didn't hear much from him lately). I think they count :)
CS, I think Khader's finest moment (so far) was his effort during the Muhammad crisis to break the impression of 'All Muslims are angry' and stand up for free speech. That's slightly less than 3 years ago.
Absolutely! But nevertheless his truly revolutionary role was back around 1999, the time when he had Naser Khader's brevkasse in Ekstra Bladet, wrote important books and invented the term "halal-hippie".
That is, Henrik, I'm speaking in term of the effect of the actions. His finest moment might very well have been during the Muhammad crisis, though, yes (he had many of them!). But without Khader 5-6 years earlier, there might not even have been a Cartoon crisis.
Someone will say:
Aw, but why must there be a "brown" person being the pioneering hero of the West? Well, then, this is how Westerners are wired, and must be lock-picked. The important thing is that the job gets done after all. And yes, Khader unleashed forces that even himself regretted.
No it was not only Khader of course, there were Glistrup and Kjeersgaard and several others. But as I have stated I hold Khader to be the most unique component of the (very explosive) Danish mix, and therefore the most decisive element.
Amazing the support for Khader here.
"He’s not even a practicing Muslim" Khader said of Quraishy.
Can't you see what this implies? It implies that a "practicing Muslim", like Khader, must be a good guy.
henrik,
I read that speech by Khader that you linked.
Khader is clearly insane, or he is very cleverly lying. There is no third alternative.
He thinks his Islam is good, wonderful and a paragon of human rights. It is only "Islamism" that he condemns.
The fact that he thinks Islam and Mohammed are good and wonderful and perfectly assimilable into the modern world shows that he must be delusional -- since we know that Mohammed was evil, unjust and dangerous and the Islam he founded has been for 1400 years evil, unjust and dangerous for all its neighbors and for all the peoples of all the lands it has attacked, pillaged, enslaved and conquered.
If he is not delusional, then he is cleverly lying about Islam and Mohammed.
The only other explanation -- that he is ignorant -- seems exceedingly improbable, given that he is Muslim and intelligent.
Erich,
FYI: Naser Khader is not a practicing Muslim.
CS, what does that mean "practicing Muslim"? He calls himself a Muslim, he defends Islam as good and perfectly capable of assimilating with the modern world's values.
Erich, I think you left out another option, namely that Khader is lazy. That is a well-known fact here in Denmark. He expects to be a top politician on a 40-day workweek. As others - like Pia Kjærsgaard - know from experience, that just doesn't add up.
I think Khader didn't do enough checking of Islam to realize there's nothing to build a real religion on.
Also, I think we may be expecting too much consistency from Khader. Consistency requires work, lots of work.
I still hold him to be a well-meaning guy suffering ignorance.
Did not Khader wish to dethrone Pia in the last election, specifically to "loosen up" Danish immigration laws? I'm not biting. He is still a foreigner, how do we know wheter or not he owes his first loyalty to his own Arabic kin, not to Danish people? There are plenty of Mexicans in the US for instance, who wave the US flag and act all "patriotic", but when push comes to shove, they pick loyalty to their raza (race) over loyalty to the US every time.
Queen, that's sortof a complicated question. Khader had some team mates whose main objective of the election was to push Danish People's Party away from influence. That is, technically, a really stupid objective, as all you do is push someone else without explaining your reasons to do so. Khader personally held a low profile about this, and the people from his party I spoke with during the election itself usually said "Sure, we can work with DPP".
Those lightweight people left the party for various reasons, and they reformed themselves into a mildly libertarian party, under the influence of Anders Samuelsen, who is the only one in the group I consider able to do independent, abstract political thinking.
After that reform, the rethoric against Islamism was increased to levels that DPP would cause a scandal with.
One lesson learned is that it pays to attend meetings and meet people in person. One year ago, I went to a meeting with Anders Samuelsen, asked (transmitted live on television :) about their plans to counter Islamism, and handed him a personal copy of "What the West Needs to Know" - which he probably passed on to Khader. It would seem so, at least.
Little efforts can make a great difference.
Meant also to include:
Yes, he still considers himself 'Muslim'. That is potentially a problem - though if all Muslims were like him (he lets his children eat pork, for one), we wouldn't have much of a problem.
The question of 'Can we trust him?' is something I suggest not to think too hard of. We don't need to. Unless we have something where we actually consider his participation, but that's probably not coming right up.
We don't need to trust him. We can rejoice in what he says, quote it as an example of how a moderate Muslim views the fundamentalist, and be happy that he uses such strong expressions that the rest of us would be marginalized if we used words as radical as his. Now we can quote them and step a little aside personally :)
Queen,
Khader has been competing for the power with DPP. And he's done so fairly and as a gentleman. It's known as democracy. He has not ostracized or stigmatized DPP. To the contrary he has defended them against such dirty tricks.
Henrik,
Also, I think we may be expecting too much consistency from Khader. Consistency requires work, lots of work.
Khader has always be very consistent:
1. He's not a practicing Muslim
2. At the same time he has not openly denounced Islam. Anyone who knows anything about Islam knows that this is a smart move. Much better protection than body guards.
3. He manages to forward his message to the general public better then almost every other Islam critic; based on his position , based on how he presents his message, based on his solid and honest commitment to Western values in its best interpretation.
I never said I completely (or even generally) agree with him. I would be like asking whether I agree with sledge hammer. A sledge hammer is a tool that can make a huge hole in a wall. later in the process we will need other tool, possibly dynamite (but without the sledge hammer first having made the hole in the wall where would we have put the dynamite?)
Swede, I will take your word that Khader is a decent man. But he should be judged by his actions, no? And his actions, if proven successful in the last election, would have opened up Denmark to more mass Third World and Muslim immigration. I would rather have a scoundrel who shared the goal of preserving Denmark and its historical people and culture, than a gentleman who did not share that goal. You sound like a liberal now.
Henrik,
From this Danish blog, here are some apparent facts about Naser Khader.
http://agora.blogsome.com/2006/02/25/a-prize-immigrant/
-- which I shall parcel out and enumerate in 12 points:
1. Naser, the oldest of five siblings, proved himself a gifted scholar. He did well in school and impressed people in the mosque.
2. The boy often went to the mosque with his grandfather, who was the second-most important man in the mosque outside Damascus, after the Imam.
3. It impressed the men at the mosque that Naser rapidly learned whole sections of the Quran by heart. He attended the Friday prayers, went to the Quran-school, prayed five times a day and fasted all through the month of Ramadan.
After his family emigrated to Denmark when he was age 11, the blogger quoted above notes:
4. The spiritual base for the family was still Friday prayers at the mosque of The Islamic Community.
Then he goes on to note:
5. ...as Naser entered his teenage years, a change came over his way of perceiving at the world. He would sit for hours reading Danish litterature, learning how Danish society had evolved through the ages to finally reach the stage of modern democracy. ...he was introduced to the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche who said: "God is Dead", and the Danish Kierkegaard with his "Either, Or" of the the duty of each single man to choose his own way in life, [and so] Naser decided: He would no longer practice Islam.
Later, the blogger notes:
6. He was especially struck by the fact that most Danes’ knowledge of Islam was almost non-existant.
7. Therefore Khader published the book "Honour and Shame" in 1996. Here he tried to give an introduction to the central tenets of Mid-Eastern culture which were based partially on ancient culture and partially on Islam.
Then the blogger notes:
8. Now, having put aside Islam, Naser Khader began to call himself a "Cultural Moslem". He acknowledged his cultural heritage, but only practiced it to the degree that he would participate in prayers at funerals.
The blogger then notes that, after the cartoon controversy:
9. [Khader] had to stand up to the Imams. In his view, the Imams don’t represent the Moslems of Denmark at all. They may speak for a few thousand, but there are 200000 Moslems in Denmark.
10. He decided to form the Democratic Moslems to show that the majority of Moslems in Denmark want democracy.
The blogger then quotes Khader from an interview he had with him:
11. "My modest hopes are to create the determining factors needed to create a reformation and enlightenment for Islam. That may sound ambitious. But the people who are needed to create the conditions needed for that are us - the Moslems of the West. My ambitions are - apart from making integration less painful - to show that Islam and democracy can be made to be compatable."
12. "I think I am fighting my mother’s fight. She’s a Moslem, religious, who prays five times a day and wears a scarf. But she believes in Danish democracy. In that way she is a lot like many of my friends - Moslems with their hearts, but not Islamists or Extremists. I feel I am fighting a fight for the majority of Moslems. Islam was once a religion which was about the personal relationship of man to Allah. But some Imams have intervened, like the publicans of the Bible and have taken for themselves the power of Allah."
Discussion:
Facts #1-4 (as well as #7) indicate that Khader is not “ignorant” about Islam and indicate that he has had years of study and contact with Islam through a) Muslim communities both in Syria and in Denmark, b) family, c) mosque sermons, d) personal study of the Koran and other related materials.
Khader also seems to have extensive familiarity, experience and knowledge of Danish Muslims (cf. #9, 10 and 12) -- enough to pronounce that the “majority” of them are moderates like him. Either the majority of Danish Muslims are all ignorant of Islam like Khader, or Khader does not really know the Islam of the majority of Danish Muslims, or Khader is lying about this.
His apparently extensive familiarity, experience and knowledge of Danish Muslims (cf. #9, 10 and 12) also undermines the theory that he is “ignorant” of Islam.
As for Khader’s degree of “Islamicity”, we see from #8 that he has followed that path of incoherent twilight ambivalence -- the “Cultural Muslim” -- about which Hugh Fitzgerald has written aptly:
It is precisely those intelligent and charming and very-close-to-being-right-but-refusing-to-deal-with-Islam Muslims, the kind who if asked will tell you that "well, I'm a cultural Muslim" or "culturally, I come from a Muslim backround" or "there is much I find of great interest and which I am sympathetic to in Islam" (without more) and who, of course, are then part of the problem.
Why? Because Westerners, Americans in particular, are innoocent. They do not wish to investigate the tenets of Islam. They would prefer to believe that those tenets are ignored by most Muslims, and that they can go on ignoring them. They would prefer to believe that the history of Islam is not what it is.
When on television Kanan Makiya begins to express his affection for his pious Muslim grandmother, who wouldn't hurt a fly, we are sympathetic. We understand. We are perfectly aware that there have always been pious Muslims intent only on the rituals of worship. Ibn Warraq never fails to remind people of his own family, and of his own gentle, pious brother. But when that leads people to shift their attention away from Islam, to substitute the unrepresentative from the representative, to substitute wish for reality, it is a menace to us.
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/008758.php
Meanwhile, Khader’s #9-12 shows that he is a true believer in the Myth of the Moderate Muslim -- worse yet, the myth that the moderate Muslim is the majority, and that the extremists are the minority. Closely related to this is his constant implication that “true” Islam is good and harmless. But this brings up the screamingly obvious question, if “true” Islam is so good and harmless, why has he distanced himself from Islam over the years to the point where he is virtually (but not quite) an ex-Muslim? One cannot expect coherence from Muslims like Khader -- either because their reason is deformed, or because they are lying while trying to articulate the impossible and the preposterous.
Most importantly, Muslims like Khader are purveying the notion that most Muslims are harmless, and thus he is reinforcing the PC MC mindset that sees nothing dangerous about admitting thousands, yea millions, of Muslims into the West. Among these thousands, even millions, there will be innumerable Muslims who will form underground terror cells and who will spend years planning horrific attacks on us.
And Khader is doing his small part to enable them.
Yes, Khader is a believer in moderate Islam. Though logically silly, it might bring some temporal benefits.
I don't know - really, I can't know. This is not mathematics, there are no exact answers.
What I say is that we don't need to discuss if we can trust him or not, unless people want to do some actual activities with him. Which just might happen one day, but the issue of trust can safely be postponed until that day arrives.
We can rejoice in his constructive public statements - he seems to understand the problem of 'Stealth Jihad', which is heads and shoulders above most politicians - and we can quote him for saying some rather outspoken things on civil liberties vs. political Islam.
I don't feel like continuing this quarrel. I'm pointing out the positive sides of Khaders' activities. If you're looking at that as something with a subtle, hidden meaning (like a complete, unconditional trust in him), you're looking in vain. It isn't there. It is good that he speaks up for civil liberties. And that's it.
Henrik,
I could better respond to your response if you actually addressed my specific points one by one. Otherwise, you are just talking past me with more or less vague generalities.
Sorry, Erich, not interested. I have other matters to attend to.
Queen,
You sound as if you want things to be simple and black and white. I'm sorry to inform you that they are not.
I have praised Khader for what he did 6-10 years ago. This was his pivotal effort. No one created the constructive debate situation about Islam in Denmark more than him. Henrik sees Khader's effort during the Cartoon crisis as his finest moment, and it arguably is. But a more fundamental insight is that without the efforts of Khader 5-6 years earlier there might not even have been a Cartoon Crisis, or it would have been much delayed.
Khader unleashed more than he wished for however. And the party New Alliance was an attempt from him to "balance" that. Ironically enough, and as indicated by Henrik, if New Alliance had managed to tip the scale and have a government change, Khader would once again have unleashed more than he wished for (in the other direction).
I do not know how you parse my messages, Queen. But if you read it as saying the New Alliance was a great party, well then you'll need to read again.
Seriously Queen, if you want to oppose what I say you will have to oppose what I actually said and not bring up unrelated things. You will have to claim that Khader didn't have this high significance for the Danish debate back in 1999-2001. Do you?
How come he had that? Well, as we all know, because Westerners are seriously scr*wed up in our minds. Yes even the honourable Danes. But the Danes found a way out of this mental maze, with much help of Khader. Yes, you need a "brown" person to lock-pick Western minds. This is also why Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, etc. are so celebrated. It's not my fault that it is so, so don't blame it on me. Neither am I saying that all these "brown" people will side with us all the way.
I'm just describing what is actually happening. If you have an issue with that, take your fight with reality.
Swede, I don't quite get why the abusive tone of your post. The conversation is over. Have a good weekend.
Queen,
There is no abusive tone in my post, you are being oversensitive now.
Have a good weekend too!
The quotes that Erich provides suggest that Khader is an Islam apologist who, for whatever reason, is concealing the real nature of Islam by suggesting that Islam has a potential for reformation and enlightenment and that it can be made compatible with democracy, which is outrageous and irresponsible considering the actual nature of Islam. Also, by using terms such as "Islamists" and "extremists" and suggesting that "Islam was once a religion which was about the personal relationship of man to Allah. But some Imams have intervened, like the publicans of the Bible and have taken for themselves the power of Allah", he is promoting the view that Islam has been hijacked by extremists.
This discussion, as well as previous discussions, about whether Khader can be trusted, is a symptom of the general dilemma of whether any so-called "moderate Muslim" can be trusted. My position is that at the end of the day, anyone who retains a commitment to Islam, even only a seemingly nominal one, cannot and should not be trusted and relied upon, at least not as a potential ally on whom we should depend. Khader should not be trusted, not only because he has not explicitly renounced Islam, but because, even as he may be doing some things that are applauded by some counterjihadists, he is nevertheless actively promoting false and misleading views of Islam for the potential benefit of Islam.
I have an idea regarding Khader:
We help and promote and praise and assist every move he makes against fundamentalist Islam. If he's happy-busy tearing at the evil Islamists, he won't notice that after we're done with that, there is no trace of religion to return to.
That'd be a nice little surprise.
We help and promote and praise and assist every move [Khader] makes against fundamentalist [sic] Islam.
The problem with Khader isn't necessarily the moves he makes against "fundamentalist" Islam, but the fact that he promotes a benign view of Islam that doesn't correspond with reality. His actions against "fundamentalist" Islam may be useful per se, but they may also be used for harmful purposes, i.e. they may enable him to present himself as a "good Muslim" combatting extremism within a once great religion and thus cement the view that Islam is a basically good religion merely hijacked by extremists.
While Khader may deserve some praise, it seems he also deserves a lot of criticism for contributing to concealing the actual nature of Islam, especially considering the fact that Islam is often the cause of the very extremism he is supposedly combatting.
As I have always said, Khader is the only genuinely moderate Muslim. This has to be taken in account.
As for the discussion here I think it's a bit off. First of all Khader's achievement was in the past. Nobody is suggesting he's anything to hold on to today.
Then, the comments about how he's secretly promoting Islam and concealing the true nature of Islam, are just weird for us how know Khader from years of action, and not just from one text on the Internet.
It's been clear for me however from the very start that he wouldn't be on our side all the way, because of his different identity (religion or not). But the same is clear also about e.g. Ali Sina. And by the way, when Khader speaks about how most Muslims are "moderate" this is paralleled by what is said by Ali Sina (even if they do not use the same words). Most Muslims simply just try to live ordinary lives and are not Jihadists etc.
Evilislam, I'm being tactical here. Send Khader full blast against the Islamists, merrily doing the Right Thing against those.
Behind him, we'll equally merrily demonstrate that non-political Islam has no merit and is evil, too. As in my essay on Ramadan.
You can critizise lots and lots of people for being ignorant about Islam. Rightfully so. But as long as Khader has courage to challenge the Islamists, Durban II etc., it's useful. Thus, better bury him with praise for the good he does, then mock the religion to pieces behind his back.
This is about winning more than about being strictly logical :)
Henrik,
Thus, better bury him with praise for the good he does, then mock the religion to pieces behind his back.
Precisely!
This is about winning more than about being strictly logical :)
Hear hear!
The people who are strictly logical and nothing else. Who approach this as if it was a mathematical problem. Who missed the whole social reality behind it. Well, they are generally isolated islands and do not get far.
This is not a quest for purity in Plato's world of ideas, it's a quest for concrete results on planet Earth.
Then, the comments about how he's secretly promoting Islam and concealing the true nature of Islam, are just weird for us how know Khader from years of action, and not just from one text on the Internet.
My point did not have anything to do with Khader having any supposed secret motivations - my point was that Khader is effectively promoting Islam and concealing its true nature by the way he is presenting Islam.
Behind [Khader], we'll equally merrily demonstrate that non-political Islam has no merit and is evil, too.
Non-political Islam?! What non-political Islam?
Evilislam,
Khader is effectively promoting Islam
Effectively no.
Effectively no.
I'm not sure if there might be a misunderstanding here - just in case there is, I would like to clarify that I did not mean to say that Khader has way of promoting Islam that is effective, but rather that the effect of his way of presenting Islam is that people get an incorrect and falsely benign impression of Islam.
If this was indeed how Conservative Swede understood my comment, I would be curious to know what he means by his "[e]ffectively no" response.
Non-political Islam?! What non-political Islam?
Exactly.
It's easy pickings, once the stuff is understood.
I agree with CS - Khader is not promoting Islam as such. Actually he's mocking it, by very visibly breaking some of the fundamental rules that everyone knows about, like he gives his children pork etc. He's even official ambassador of *beer* this year! Take _that_ for promoting Islam :)
He does some great stuff at the UN level, possibly inspired by Spencer, Trifkovic etc. He's as direct as Pia Kjærsgaard on the matter, and much more acceptable to a wide audience, given his background in the terribly multiculti Radikale Venstre.
Division of labor. Adam Smith style. Useful.
Henrik,
I agree with CS - Khader is not promoting Islam as such. Actually he's mocking it
Absolutely. But what I mainly had in mind was how the net effect of Khader's efforts is hugely towards exposing the true nature of Islam. He made a real educational effort around the turn of the century, and did things like exposing imams like Fatih Alev and politicians like Mona Sheik, who presented themselves as cuddly multicultis but were in fact supporting stoning to death for adultery, death penalty for homosexuality, etc.
99.9% of the Westerners wimp out, but Khader had the confidence to go all the way, and th knowledge of how to "unlock" them as to show to the general audience what they really stood for.
Division of labor. Adam Smith style. Useful.
Exactly!
His higher goals of a reformed Islam are of course quixotic though. But at least he's honest in his attempt.
Queen,
What I meant to say is that I didn't mean it as abusive, and I'm sorry if it came out that way.
But what I mainly had in mind was how the net effect of Khader's efforts is hugely towards exposing the true nature of Islam.
Only insofar as it is recognized as such, which it may not necessarily be outside of the sphere of the counterjihad movement (which is already aware of the sinister nature of Islam and the false distinction between "moderate" and "radical" Islam, and which therefore does not really need Khader's input to begin with). Elsewhere it may very well have the opposite effect, and I would not be the least surprised to hear people defending Islam and its continued presence in the West by referring to Khader and his efforts to combat "Islamic extremism", efforts which they may claim will eventually lay the foundation for a reformed, non-extremist, moderate Islam that is compatible with democracy and the West (I have already heard people refer to Irshad Manji using similar arguments.). As long as Khader represents an alibi for people with this point of view, he is indeed contributing to promoting a falsely benign view of Islam.
What Khader can do, and indeed what he must do to have any credibility whatsoever, is to unambiguously renounce Islam in its totality.
I can't help but conclude that although Khader's intentions may be honest, his proclamation that Islam is compatible with Democracy only rings true when one of the two entities is rendered subservient to the other. Either entity must cease to be what it currently exists as.
Although Khader's historical actions are generally viewed as positive, I can't help but believe that Khader, while trying to fight an ocean of dissent by Muslim imams and scholars, is viewed as anything other than an apostate by them, as Manji basically is.
When that conclusion is reached, there are far better spokespeople in that regard, in my estimation.
Awake,
I understand how you think, but you do not see the whole picture. You can't, since you are disconnected from the Danish arena. Even GoV (who reports almost everything about Denmark) has not reported about this. When GoV entered, the Danish Wonder was an established fact. But how did this wonder come into existence? Well, if the Baron and Dymphna had been blogging since around 1998, then also this transformation would have been covered...
"There are far better spokespeople" you write. Unfortunately this is not true. Judging from accumulated effective results Naser Khader is still the best.
There no one fighting Islam (yes I see his legacy as fighting Islam, that is effectively what he has done) that has reached as many people as Khader. Yes, confined to the Danish arena, but on that arena he reached the vast majority. And not only did he reach them, he hit them right in their minds - transforming the minds of the majority! No other anti-Jihadist/ex-Muslim have been even close to this immense effect on the arena where they operate as Khader.
The only other one comparable is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Unlike Khader she reaches globally, but not with the same focus and effect.
But more importantly she a proponent for PC-ism, comparing Catholicism with Nazism, calling for a ban of Vlaams Belang.
In this respect Naser Khader is her complete opposite. One of his best feature is that he's anti-PC. In complete contrast to PC-Ayaan, he has always defended the Danish People's Party against PC bullying.
It has always been clear to me that Khader won't take the fight for us all the way (what lazy wimps we would be if we expected that). In fact I haven't expected anything from him for the last few years (still he manages to make an imprint!). His true achievement is in the past. But even so, there is no anti-Jihadist/ex-Muslim that has surpassed him yet in being a better spokesperson, in terms of allover actual effective results.
If GoV had been blogging since 1998. Khader would have been the biggest hero of this blog. His photo would have been in the side bar. The first five years of GoV's blogging decade would have been an orgasmic hailing of Khader. Surely, the same criticism that is brought up now, would be brought up (and maybe the Baron would have gone CJ on his photo), because this is a forum of intelligent people (except for the Russophobes ;-). But everybody would have understood how big he was!
And this is the problem with this whole discussion. People who hasn't got a clue of what they are talking about, are trying to lecture people about a reality that they are completely disconnected from; in rewriting history about a big historical process, that has never been properly described.
But then again, if it will be properly described it will be here at GoV.
Conservative Swede wrote: I understand how you think, but you do not see the whole picture. You can't, since you are disconnected from the Danish arena.
It's not so much about the Danish arena, and the picture isn't exactly black and white here (in Denmark)... While I agree with most of what CS and HRC have written about Naser Khader, he has also had the opposite effect that evilislam and awake are describing, namely to make Islam palpatable to many people, because of his "special variant"... I have heard DPP people saying stuff like: Islam is not so bad after all, just look at Naser Khader! This was an actual quote from today.
So he is a two-headed sword, intentional or not, and also in the Danish arena.
Zonka,
I have heard DPP people saying stuff like: Islam is not so bad after all, just look at Naser Khader! This was an actual quote from today.
Thanks Zonka! Now *I* have been updated. No, I don't have the time to follow Danish debate as I did back in the old days. Yes, that's definitely bad!
A thing I intended to write in my praise of Khader above (but forgot) was how he was the perfect entrée but that we'd need something else for the main course, This becomes extremely well underlined by what Zonka just shared. Nail and written in stone. In spite of brave statements during the Cartoon Crisis, the net effect of Khader is thusly nowadays negative. But never forget that there might not have been a Cartoon Crisis at all without Khader. And what most countries need might probably still be an entrée. Although the main course is still the most important part of the meal.
Yes, that's definitely bad! [ie. "DPP people saying stuff like: Islam is not so bad after all, just look at Naser Khader!"]
Yes, it is bad, but then again it is also rather predictable (or even inevitable), considering Khader's position and the way he presents Islam.
Evilislam,
considering Khader's position and the way he presents Islam
You have got little overall view of Khader's way of presenting Islam during the years. Also "predictable" is a funny word from you here, since it suggests that you believe in causality backwards in time.
The fact remains. No single person has (in total) had more positive effect on the Islam debate -- that lead to actual change! -- than Naser Khader.
This are not supposed to be simple... Something to do with humans... human societies...
Naser Khader, may still be useful and have a positive effect, the important thing is to realize that he isn't black or white, but some shade of grey... Not all good, and not all bad. And as with other "dual-use" tools, one has to understand how to use them to get the best results... And as always knowledge is the key, and spreading that knowledge, that yes he is a muslim, but he is a one of a kind muslim, not to be mistaken for a larger group of muslims.
And as Henrik stated previously, let him be the rottweiler that goes after the extremists, while the ideological/political base of islam is being attacked by others.
You have got little overall view of Khader's way of presenting Islam during the years.
Perhaps, but as far as I've understood he still calls himself a Muslim and has never actually articulated that Islam itself is the problem, and ultimately that's what relevant here, as his failure (as far as I know) of doing so means that he has not even admitted the basics of the nature of Islam.
Also "predictable" is a funny word from you here, since it suggests that you believe in causality backwards in time.
As long as Khader is as influential as he is described here, and yet not only renounces Islam, but even asserts such Islam-apologetic nonsense such as "Islam was once a religion which was about the personal relationship of man to Allah. But some Imams have intervened, like the publicans of the Bible and have taken for themselves the power of Allah" and in other ways signalizes that Islam itself is not the problem (such as the oxymoronic and irresponsible name of his organization, "Democratic Muslims", which suggests that Islam and democracy are compatible, which they are not), then he is in effect sending the message that it is possible to retain a commitment to Islam while fighting "extremism", and I do consider it predictable that some people (though obviously they do not inevitably have to be members of DPP) will be persuaded by the signals he is in effect sending. How this constitutes believing in causality backwards in time is beyond me, unless there is some misunderstanding here.
Post a Comment