Click the image above to see a full-sized map of the OSCE countries. At the bottom of this post is a list of those countries, as well as the mission statement of the OSCE. The original map of OSCE states (in pdf format) can be found here.
Henrik Ræder Clausen has also posted a report on the same event.
and the Counterjihad
A report from the Human Dimension Roundtable, Vienna
July 9-10, 2009
One may wonder what the Counterjihad and an organization like the OSCE could possibly have in common. Before I delve into this matter, I will provide a short overview of the OSCE, as it is a rather obscure organization, especially for non-Europeans, despite the membership of the United States and Canada. I will also touch on how the OSCE processes work.
According to its fact sheet, “The OSCE works for early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. The Organization comprises 56 participating States that span the globe, encompassing three continents — North America, Europe and Asia — and more than a billion people.” However, the OSCE uses the “d”-word: dialogue. The fact sheet calls it its “genetic code, in order to maintain security throughout its region.”
To be fair, the OSCE does its work in relative obscurity, “away from the headlines”, in order to defuse potential threats. The only time we hear about the OSCE is during elections, when monitoring missions are established, most recently in Georgia. The OSCE is also active in post-conflict areas, “helping to reinforce confidence- and security-building measures.” These measures include, among others, initiatives for minority rights, legislative reform, the rule of law, and press freedom.
The OSCE, like the EU, believes in Euro-Mediterranean partnership which includes countries like Morocco, Tunisia, and Jordan for further cooperation. All partners for cooperation, save Israel, were noticeably absent from the roundtable discussions.
The OSCE, or rather its predecessor the CSCE, was one of the main players in bringing down Communism:
The Organization traces its origins to the early 1970s, to the Helsinki Final Act and the creation of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), which at the height of the Cold War served as an important multilateral forum for dialogue and negotiation between East and West. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 heralded the start of a new era for a “Europe whole and free”, and the participating States called upon the CSCE to respond to the emerging challenges. The CSCE acquired its first permanent structures, including a Secretariat and institutions, and established the first field missions. In 1994 the CSCE, more than a conference, was renamed the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
The Organization “views security as comprehensive and takes action in three ‘dimensions’: the politico-military; the economic and environmental; and the human.” It is precisely the third dimension — the human dimension — that brought down communism. The Soviets, through their participation in the CSCE, were gently led toward the acceptance of human rights, including freedom of worship:
“…[T]he inclusion of the humanitarian aspect was a victory for the West, including the neutral states….[A]t the beginning of the negotiations the Soviets did not even accept the use of the term “human rights” at the negotiations concerning the Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations Between Participating States, instead the word “penguin” was used. Finally they were forced to accept the human rights aspect on their territory as an “essential factor for peace, well-being and justice”. For instance, by accepting this the Soviet Union had to change its views on the suppression of its citizens of the Jewish faith as well as other minorities. The Soviet Union could not but free some of its imprisoned and persecuted dissidents […] As the Chairman of the United States Delegation to the Vienna CSCE Follow-up Meeting noted, “there were remarkable results”. By 1986, jamming of radio broadcasts had ceased, enabling citizens of all participating states to listen to broadcasts of their choosing. A significant number of Jews were able to emigrate from the Soviet Union. Freedom of speech and press censorship were also matters which were addressed as a consequence. At the same time over 600 political prisoners had been freed, dissidents had been allowed more freedom, worshipers form different religious faiths had won more tolerance. But not only the citizens of the Soviet Union profited form the CSCE process: in particular, citizens of both Germans states were finally able to visit each other (however, only up to 30 days per year), mostly to visit relatives.” (Source: university paper by ESW, “The evolution of the CSCE to the OSCE. Did the Institutionalization of the CSCE increase its Effectiveness — evaluation of successes and failures with emphasis on human rights and national minorities. 2002)In addition:
- - - - - - - - -
The very concept of freedom of movement for people, as established in the Helsinki Final Act, is what essentially facilitated the fall of Communism and marked the beginning of the end for bipolarism in Europe. What began in the early 1980’s in Poland with the mass protests of the Solidarity union, which was cracked down by the government, ended once again with Poland in 1988 the massive anti-government strikes forced the government to allow free elections in which the Communists were heavily defeated. These protests rapidly spread to other Soviet satellite states such as Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. By the end of 1991, Gorbachev had resigned and the Soviet Union had split up into separate republics. Communism was not defeated but had defeated itself.
The OSCE is
“unique and innovative in several respects. Firstly, the concept of “sovereign and independent states and in conditions of full equality” was unheard of in an era of bloc-to-bloc confrontation. Secondly, while other negotiations embraced a rather fragmented approach to security, the CSCE endorsed a comprehensive view. Thirdly, unlike the United Nations Security Council, where decisions could be halted by vetoes, the CSCE’s advantage was consensus. Thus, the CSCE did not offer the two blocs a playground for power politics. Instead of ambiguity, the CSCE process encouraged transparency in all fields.”
In OSCE terminology, the term human dimension is used to describe the set of norms and activities related to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, which is regarded within the OSCE as one of the three dimensions of security. The term also indicates that the OSCE norms in this field cover a wider area than traditional human rights law. (Human Dimension commitments, vol. 1, 2005)
According to its book on “Human Dimension Commitments, Vol. 1, 2005”, “the OSCE process is essentially a political process that does not create legally binding norms or principles. Unlike many other human rights documents, OSCE human dimension commitments are politically, rather than legally, binding. This is an important distinction since it limits the legal enforceability of OSCE standards. On other words, OSCE commitments cannot be enforced in a court of law.”
The OSCE’s office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODHIR), based in Warsaw, is the main institution of the OSCE for human dimension. It organizes “regular meetings that take stock of OSCE human dimension commitments and recommends follow-up. In all its activities, the ODHIR reaches out to a network of partners active in related areas, including international and local non-governmental human rights organizations.”
ODHIR organizes and hosts thematic roundtables to give civil society representatives the opportunity to draft recommendations for the OSCE and participating states.
The OSCE’s “Tolerance and Non-Discrimination and Information System (TANDIS) is worth looking into more closely, especially its brochure on hate crimes (pdf)
It is this consensus which was so extremely helpful in killing some “very poisonous” (Henrik R. Clausen) recommendations made at the Civil Society roundtable in July 2009. This is advantageous because if there is no consensus, then the recommendation is not carried and thus no longer an issue. Of course, this means only a very limited number of recommendations make it into the protocol.
These are the recommendations agreed upon in the Civil Society roundtable:
| 1. | Freedom of religion or belief should be mainstreamed in the work of ODIHR; | |
| 2. | Participating States are encouraged to implement existing commitments on freedom of religion or belief according to international human rights standards. Participating States are encouraged to make use of the assistance available from ODIHR; | |
| 3. | The rule of law should be recognized as an essential prerequisite for full and proper enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief; | |
| 4. | Participating States are encouraged to actively create an atmosphere in the public space within which freedom of religion or belief can best flourish and in which religious and belief communities can engage in full and fruitful dialogue. This space should be open to all, and the public media can play an important role in the creation of this space. |
Some of the poisonous recommendations are listed below:
Cojep International (no link to Cojep’s press release is available, as they were distributed on paper) appears to be a very dangerous organization. It was represented by its Vice-Chair, Veysel Filip, who not only took the floor sharply criticizing the “Charter on Muslim Understanding” in an official statement, but also complaining about “the inadequate response of the German government to date given the nature of the crime (the stabbing of an Egyptian woman in a courtroom in Dresden)” and “urges the German authorities to publicly condemn the attack.”
Now why should the German authorities react by condemnation? Here is Henrik R. Clausen’s (ICLA) statement in response:
“(Regarding) the murder in Dresden: We have full confidence in the German law to handle this matter, and we emphasize that no such events, no matter how evil, should be used (and abused) as a pretext for assaulting freedom of expression or implementing draconic legislation.”
It should be noted that other than the official German representative to the OSCE, no participating state or organization except for ICLA, took the floor.
Cojep added that “Governments should ensure that law enforcement officers are trained to respond to and investigate anti-Muslim crimes. Public education efforts should promote tolerance and diversity and address anti-Muslim prejudice.”
A similar request was made during the Civil Society round-table meeting, namely for “sensitivity training in schools”, but this was quickly off the table thanks to ICLA and Pax Europa interjections.
In its recommendations, Cojep “has recently observed a sharp decline of funding for support of the Muslim NGOs which is necessary for them to attend OSCE human dimension events and make their voice to be heard. We would like to emphasise that in order to ensure a more balanced participation of all communities in the OSCE region, ODIHR [OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights] should promote the participation of Muslim NGOs more.”
There should be no public funding for NGO groups as this would undermine the credibility of an NGO’s status as a non-governmental group. Other funding is acceptable, but it hard to understand the whining of Cojep regarding a supposed under-representation of Muslim NGOs. There were plenty of those present at the July 2009 meeting.
With regard to hate speech laws (which are described in great detail in an OSCE brochure “Hate Crime Laws — A Practical Guide”), the United States Mission to the OSCE weighs in:
“Anti-terrorism laws or extremism laws are too often misused — sometimes deliberately — to limit religious groups. To cite two recent examples, new religion laws in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan appear to be aimed at keeping a lid on religious extremism. In practice, however, such restrictions on legitimate religious activities tend to enhance extremism. Among the groups labeled this way in some participating States are many Muslim groups…[…].”
The US Mission also quotes President Obama who “noted the importance for countries to avoid impeding their citizens from practicing religion in almost any way they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a woman should wear.” As discussed by many commentators, this statement is truly poisonous when it comes to Islam.
However, the US Mission must be applauded for its statement on freedom of expression, namely that limitations must not be imposed unless there is a call for violence:
“Sometimes calls for religious tolerance or calls to respect others’ beliefs are used to justify limitations on our OSCE commitments relating to freedom of expression and religion. The United States believes that such limitations on freedom of expression, including religious expression, are unacceptable absent a clear threat of violence — governments should permit free expression to the fullest extent possible. In our view, the antidote to intolerant speech is not limitations on speech — even when it is admittedly offensive — but rather ensuring that our society uses its freedom of expression to discredit and condemn such statements, while nevertheless aspiring to a level of dialogue that is respectful and constructive.”
Though ICLA, Pax Europa, Mission Europa, and the Akademikerbund were invited to sign the Joint NGO Statement (Observatory for Religious Freedom, Spain; Alliance Defence Fund, United States et. al.; Paneuropa Union, Austria; Human Rights Platform www.christianophobia.eu, Europe; Evangelischer Aufbruch, Germany), we were unable to do so. There are some acceptable ideas included in the statement; however, other statements contrary to our ideas were truly problematic, even if the intention is noble.
For example, this statement was unacceptable:
“Governments must admit religious attire even in public places, except when paramount interests such as safety, public order or health compel to rule otherwise. Governments must recognize the wide extent and implications of the right of parents to the moral and religious upbringing of children, without any interference from political power and from official ideology leading to indoctrination. In sum, States must recognize religion as a vital source of moral behaviour which is beyond and superior to secular legal systems.”
Religious law must never be recognized as superior to secular law. This is where Muslims will applaud since this is precisely what Muslims believe: Sharia law is above any other law since it is Allah’s law. Thus, a clear “No” to religious law’s superiority to secular law.
The idea that of granting the parents the unconditional right to moral and religious upbringing of their children unfortunately opens the door to Islamic madrassas, widely known to be breeding grounds for religious indoctrination and brainwashing. While this — the parents being in charge of their children’s moral upbringing — might be seen as good and moral idea, Muslim parents must first renounce the problematic verses and suras of the Quran (see Charter for Muslim Understanding).
On the other hand, one recommendation can and must definitely be supported:
“To guarantee the availability of places of worship taking into account urban planning considerations, and the artistic, cultural, religious, architectural and environmental characteristics of the territory. A dialogue should be established with the local community and religions traditionally present in that area. Legislative regulations should distinguish between places used for worship only and places of worship used for activities beyond purpose of worship.”
Here is a (sometimes very problematic) list of recommendations submitted to the OSCE prior to the Roundtable for Civil Society:
Alliance Defense Fund (US):
Freedom of religion and freedom of assembly are complementary rights, with the former requiring the latter for actualization, maturation and perpetuation. A disturbing trend exists where laws regarding the establishment of places of worship for minority Christian religions are either illusory (because of administrative provisions making the operative provisions of laws allowing for the establishment of places of worship virtually impossible to utilize) such as in Turkey, or are non-existent such as in several of the more conservative Middle Eastern Nations (e.g. United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia).
Weg der Versöhnung — Way of Reconciliation (Austria):
FREEDOM OF SPEECH is the foundation and basis of success of every democracy. It is the basis of the dignity of the human being. The loss of the freedom of speech is the beginning of tyranny, as history proves. It is being severely threatened in the EU in our day by so-called Hate Speech and Antidiscrimination legislation.
Cojep International (France):
In Europe we observe that Muslims have been increasingly facing arbitrary and discriminatory restrictions on their right to manifest and practice their religions. The referendum process to ban the building of minarets in Switzerland and the recent law adopted for the same purpose in the Carinthia province of Austria are two examples of this worrying situation. Muslims are also concerned about intervention of their internal religious affairs, especially when they were not allowed to choose their own imams or muftis.
We would like to also recommend that ODIHR’s Panel of Experts on Religious Freedom should have a more balanced approach towards to all regions of OSCE and all religious groups and believers and non-believers. For this purpose, we would like to propose to ODIHR to include at least one expert with a Muslim minority background.
Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association (Iceland):
Repeal blasphemy laws.
Muzaffar Olimov (Tajikistan):
The ban on hijabs limits the ability of women to get education and employment and indirectly discriminates against women. In Tajikistan, where the economic status of women is lower than that of men, the ban on hijabs should be lifted.
Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians (Austria):
Radical political correctness and hate speech legislation may lead to a restriction of the freedom of religion as well as of the freedom of expression. We urge not to promote a claimed right not to feel offended which ends up in restricting the freedom of expression of individuals and groups, including religious individuals and groups.
Observatory for Religious Tolerance and Freedom (Italy):
The ODIHR should not consider violations of religious freedom against majority religions less serious than those against minority religions because such violations are serious per se and OSCE commitments are referred to majority religions as well.
The European Union is also represented in the OSCE, both by the current presidency (Sweden) and ECRI, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. What follows are the most destructive passages from ECRI’s paper submitted to the OSCE (emphasis added):
- ECRI considers that religious intolerance is a form of racism.
- ECRI has taken issue with various forms of intolerance: harassment by the police and local authorities vis-à-vis, among others, “non-traditional” groups; violence against persons and properties perpetrated by non-state actors; and inflammatory speech by extremist politicians and media.
- ECRI has also commented on the spreading of stereotypes and prejudice (on, for example, the limited possibilities of some religious groups to integrate); and even the contribution to the negative climate of the exploitation by mainstream politicians of issues such as forced marriages and female genital mutilation.
- For ECRI there is no real dilemma between protecting freedom of speech and the fight against religious intolerance. There are cases where the demands of the latter will take precedence over the former. It should be noted in this respect that the Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention takes to some extent the same position.
- In its General Policy Recommendation on combating racism and racial discrimination in and through school education, ECRI has highlighted the need for an instruction which “complies with the scientific neutrality essential in any educational approach”.
- ECRI has had to deal with religious discrimination in employment and housing. This targets, among others, women with headscarves.
- Dialogue between the authorities and the representatives of religious groups but also between the different groups is essential in a multicultural society; also essential is the monitoring of the situation by the authorities, through a process of data collection that respects the principles of data protection and self-identification. However, multiculturalism should not be seen as an end in itself. What ECRI strives for is integrated societies. For us, successful integration is a two-way process, a process of mutual recognition, which has nothing to do with assimilation. An “integrated society” in ECRI’s conception is equally inclusive of majority and minority groups.
Just how dangerous the discussion on religious freedom can be becomes obvious if one goes back six years to a roundtable on Religious Freedom and Democracy, which took place in Rome in 2003, during the OSCE Fall Conference on Religious Freedom:
Ambassador Babacar Ba spoke on behalf of the Secretary General of the Islamic Conference, Abdelouahed Belkeziz, emphasizing the significance of Islam in the history of humanity and the values of tolerance and freedom it has always promoted, whilst denouncing the link between Islam and the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. Ambassador Ba stressed the positive relations between Islam and other religions, recalling how, historically, Islam had harmoniously integrated certain elements of previous civilizations. He made a link with the Mediterranean aspect of the Rome Conference by underlining the crucial role of the Mediterranean area in the symbiotic relationship between Europe and Islam. Quoting two verses of the Koran, Ambassador Ba underscored the openness of Islam. According to him, Islam has always been a good example of tolerance towards the Jews, the Christians and also nonbelievers throughout history, whilst discouraging forced conversion.
Ambassador Ba went on clarify the alleged misunderstandings pertaining to the debate on the compatibility of religion with democracy. According to him, Islam is not less compatible with democracy than other religions, pointing to the notion that the West did not inherit its democratic principles from any religion, but rather from its great philosophers. Moreover, he argued that the Islamic world is following the same path as the West by striving to institutionalize the same separation of religious institutions from the state. He emphasized the OIC’s commitment to the dialogue between cultures and civilizations in all its relations with international organizations, mentioning an initiative called the “civilization dialogue”.
We must, under all circumstances, continue what was started in July 2009. We need to shake up and wake up those willing to wake up.
Perhaps one day we will be able to say: The CSCE brought down communism; the OSCE brought down Islamic supremacism.
What is the OSCE?
(Original pdf here)
The OSCE works for early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. The Organization comprises 56 participating States that span the globe, encompassing three continents — North America, Europe and Asia — and more than a billion people.
Forum for dialogue — platform for action
Europe faces new threats and challenges. The OSCE, with its multi-faceted approach to security, offers the region a forum for political dialogue and negotiations and a platform for multilateral partnerships that pursue practical work on the ground.
Dialogue is in the OSCE’s genetic code. To maintain security throughout its region, the OSCE relies on political dialogue about shared values and develops partnerships with governments, civil society and the private sector. The OSCE often works away from the headlines to foster discussion to defuse tensions and head off potential conflict.
The OSCE’s 19 field operations enable the Organization to tackle crises should they arise, and can also play a critical post-conflict role, helping to reinforce confidence- and security-building measures. They foster the administrative capacity of the host countries through concrete projects that respond to people and their needs. These include initiatives to support community policing, minority rights, legislative reform, rule of law, press freedom and border management. Increasingly, the OSCE is building networks of professionals to work more efficiently against terrorism, smuggling of small arms and light weapons, and trafficking in human beings.
From the Cold War to new security challenges
The Organization traces its origins to the early 1970s, to the Helsinki Final Act and the creation of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), which at the height of the Cold War served as an important multilateral forum for dialogue and negotiation between East and West. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 heralded the start of a new era for a “Europe whole and free”, and the participating States called upon the CSCE to respond to the emerging challenges. The CSCE acquired its first permanent structures, including a Secretariat and institutions, and established the first field missions. In 1994 the CSCE, more than a conference, was renamed the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
The complex security challenges of the 21st century — from climate change to the spectre of terrorism — have made it clear that the co-operation fostered by the OSCE is needed more than ever.
These combine with the challenges inherited from the past — resolving conflicts in the former Soviet Union, embedding stability in the Balkans, promoting military transparency — to make the OSCE agenda ambitious and full.
Participating States
1 Albania
2 Andorra
3 Armenia
4 Austria
5 Azerbaijan
6 Belarus
7 Belgium
8 Bosnia And Herzegovina
9 Bulgaria
10 Canada
11 Croatia
12 Cyprus
13 Czech Republic
14 Denmark
15 Estonia
16 Finland
17 France
18 Georgia
19 Germany
20 Greece
21 Holy See
22 Hungary
23 Iceland
24 Ireland
25 Italy
26 Kazakhstan
27 Kyrgyzstan
28 Latvia
29 Liechtenstein
30 Lithuania
31 Luxembourg
32 The Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia
33 Malta
34 Moldova
35 Monaco
36 Montenegro
37 Netherlands
38 Norway
39 Poland
40 Portugal
41 Romania
42 Russian Federation
43 San Marino
44 Serbia
45 Slovakia
46 Slovenia
47 Spain
48 Sweden
49 Switzerland
50 Tajikistan
51 Turkey
52 Turkmenistan
53 Ukraine
54 United Kingdom
55 United States Of America
56 Uzbekistan
Asian Partners for Co-Operation
A1 Afghanistan
A2 Japan
A3 Republic Of Korea
A4 Mongolia
A5 Thailand
Mediterranean Partners for Co-Operation
M1 Algeria
M2 Egypt
M3 Israel
M4 Jordan
M5 Morocco
M6 Tunisia
35 comments:
you asked for articles I think - how about this ?
If it's not good enough for an article ,can you print it
somewhere anyway - thaks
Immigration - let’s get down to the absolute basics .
Forget about how much immigration , what kind of people we let in ,
the trickle of people who always land up on any foreign soil -
I’m talking about planned immigration , the policy of a government to let
foreign people into a country .
Why should there be a policy ?
WHY WOULD IT OCCUR TO ANYONE TO INVITE FOREIGNERS INTO THEIR COUNTRY ?
A people , settled in their country for hundreds , maybe thousands of years ,
go about their business , get married , produce the next generation - and so life goes on .
Why on earth would the idea suddenly come to someone ,
" Let’s invite some foreigners to live here ."
Can you see the absurdity of this ?
I’m not talking about the reactions to people once they’ve arrived from other countries , acceptance , intolerance , hospitality , indifference , hostility .
I’m talking about people in their daily lives , trying to get an
education ,working , finding a partner , looking after their children suddenly wanting to share their lives , their country , with foreigners .
Foreigners live in other countries - maybe you’re bigoted and you dislike foreigners just because they’re foreigners - maybe you find them interesting because they’re foreigners . Maybe you want to go abroad and meet some .
Maybe you could meet a nice foreigner who liked your country and you might say in a fit of generosity , " Why don’t you come and live here ? "
But to look outside of your country to individuals you know nothing about
and say , " Come and live in my country " WHY ?
I’m not debating the pros and cons of planned , wished for immigration up to now - I’m saying that it’s strange idea .
Governments do things for a reason - not always good reasons and they don’t always ( often ? ) tell us what these reasons are .
Planned immigration is not an idea that’s just popped unbidden into their collective heads .
It’s been thought out as a policy - what was their policy ? - they didn’t tell us .
What IS their policy ? - they haven’t actually explained but it’s something to do with the FACT that we live in a multicultural society .
Politicians are not , in general , kind people .
Their first priority in life is neither foreigners nor the locals .
Advocating immigration has something to do with their careers or their ideology but nothing to do with us or our wishes.
We can all come up with our own ideas why - whatever reasons we come up with , muslims will figure largely , but maybe not exclusively , in our thoughts .
It might not occur to someone to invite foreigners into their country but ,
given everything that’s happened over the last years , it wouldn’t be difficult
to find good, solid reasons why we are now wary of inviting any more - why some want a complete halt to immigration and some might even want to send our foreigners back whence they came .
The article on the OSCE is of course the opinion of an individual and not collective. It gives fair praise to an organisation that in the past and as its predicessor I had worked with and along side.
I do however agree and distance myself to any comments and motives of COJEP and still wonder why they get EU funding and linking. That was as far as I am concerned - a mistake.
But I will make a comment from my own personal, religous and professional experience on the refernces to the below statement which was marked as "unacceptable".
“Governments must admit religious attire even in public places, except when paramount interests such as safety, public order or health compel to rule otherwise. Governments must recognize the wide extent and implications of the right of parents to the moral and religious upbringing of children, without any interference from political power and from official ideology leading to indoctrination. In sum, States must recognize religion as a vital source of moral behaviour which is beyond and superior to secular legal systems.”
The author's comments were then:
"Religious law must never be recognized as superior to secular law. This is where Muslims will applaud since this is precisely what Muslims believe: Sharia law is above any other law since it is Allah’s law. Thus, a clear “No” to religious law’s superiority to secular law.
The idea that of granting the parents the unconditional right to moral and religious upbringing of their children unfortunately opens the door to Islamic madrassas, widely known to be breeding grounds for religious indoctrination and brainwashing. While this — the parents being in charge of their children’s moral upbringing — might be seen as good and moral idea, Muslim parents must first renounce the problematic verses and suras of the Quran."
Firstly, the last line of the comment is a personal statement which many would say is bigoted. There are no problematic verses in the Qur'an at all. There were no examples given and I would be disputing them verse for verse if there was.
There was no reference to Religious Law or the Sharia as well in the statement but it was raised and that raises motive and agenda questions regarding the entire critique.
In a nutshell the statement says that there should be no intereference in the rights to people to have religous attire, thus the hijab or a Sikh's turban and a strong Catholic's wearing of a cross or holding a rosary as examples. Also that parents have the right to insist their children be brought up in their religion without interference and indoctrination from the state that they live in.
They are simple demands that I personally agree with and out of work experience professionaly support if there is going to be harmony in the world.
Certainly rules can be set, the Burqa for example is not a religous demand but a cultural one and it can be banned from use under the rules of hiding identity etc. A Sikh should be banned from carrying a knife in public and so on.
Again, the writer added issues that were not raised and were not relevant.
Lastly and for information only because I know the answer, Morocco, Tunisia and a number of states did not attend for the simple reason that they understood there was going to be a collective statement on the Mediteranian and their participation, when it was told there would not be, they jointly said then as "associate members only" it would be not relevant for their participation as non European nations with observer status. They were correct to do so.
Solkhar, you take issue with people having personal opinions?
There are no problematic verses in the Qur'an at all.
Hogwash. First, some 20 % of the verses have no discernable meaning. They're supposedly 'miracles', but no meaning can be found in them. I find that problematic.
What the author alludes to, though, are the verses which contains incitement to violence, racism, anti-Semitism, denigration of women, non-believers and others. I take it you do not find racism or anti-Semtism problematic, but most of us here in Europe do, and would like the Quran to be sanitized of such elements. The Jewish handling of similar problems in the Torah (like stoning) is a great example of how this can be done.
We need to abolish violence and other crimes in the name of religion. That will improve peace and tolerance considerably.
Henrik, I have no problem with anyone having personal opinions that is a right for all.
When you publish them as facts it raises big concerns and you get responded to. Also in any forum/blog you will get opinons back.
Getting to the point here, I disagree totally, there is no violent commandments, evil or the like in the Qur'an and that for me tells me that either you do not understand Islam or you have an agenda, either way I would say your version is the "hogwash". That is my interpretation of your comments.
You say: "What the author alludes to, though, are the verses which contains incitement to violence, racism, anti-Semitism, denigration of women, non-believers and others. I take it you do not find racism or anti-Semtism problematic, but most of us here in Europe do, and would like the Quran to be sanitized of such elements." This again shows me that your talking without knowin the subject. The reality is there is no racisms, anti-Semitism, denigration etc in the Qur'an at all - none. You will find them in Haddiths that differing Muslims communities accept or not. Stoning is not a Qur'anic instruction.
I suggest we do not get into a quoting verse match, it could get long, the point is that I object to the statements being presented as fact. Apart from it being factually incorrect it becomes insulting and bigoted - not to mention simply making an article about a reported meeting into an agenda-based fest.
Cetainly you have the right not to believe the divinity of the Qur'an, I have no problem with that at all, obviously Muslims believe that though - that is what religion is.
The only statement I agree with is "We need to abolish violence and other crimes in the name of religion. That will improve peace and tolerance considerably." Thus bring the battle to the extremists and radicals and not distract from it by wrongly attacking the entire religion.
How come Muslims are always insulted when they read or hear about something they do not like or agree with? What if I am insulted by the Quran and Muslims? Do you care about that, Mr. Solkhar? Don't I have a right to be insulted by the Islamic division of believer and non-believer? You are constantly insulting my and our ability to read and understand the Quran and the Hadith.
As far as I can judge, the report is not meant to be objective, but rather a subjective account of what happened during these 2 days. For an objective account, consult the MSM and the OSCE website.
Solkhar: I disagree totally, there is no violent commandments, evil or the like in the Qur'an ...
Please correct me if the above statement takes you out of context.
If it does not, then please explain how the following verses are not "violent" commandments:
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know (8:60).
And unto Allah falleth prostrate whosoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly (13:15).
Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." (8:12).
Solkhar: The reality is there is no racisms, anti-Semitism, denigration etc in the Qur'an at all - none.
Please explain why the following passages prove that there are "no racisms, anti-Semitism, denigration etc in the Qur'an at all - none".
So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them. (9:5).
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29).
O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination. (9:73).
O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness. (9:123).
Solkhar: I suggest we do not get into a quoting verse match, it could get long, the point is that I object to the statements being presented as fact.
I suggest that we do. It is your claim that "there is no violent commandments, evil or the like in the Qur'an".
You are now presented with quotes taken directly from the Qur'an. Please feel free to demonstrate how not a single one of these passages has anything to do with violence or the mistreatment of non-believers.
Many of the above passages make direct reference to violence and hatred for the unbeliever. You insist otherwise yet have not as yet explained away the clearly violent message contained in so many of the foregoing passages.
You are invited to do so now.
The only statement I agree with is "We need to abolish violence and other crimes in the name of religion. That will improve peace and tolerance considerably.".
Until you demonstrate how the above Qur'anic exhortations are not meant to inspire religious violence, your agreement falls more than a little flat.
persikas wrote: What IS their policy ? - they haven’t actually explained but it’s something to do with the FACT that we live in a multicultural society .
Good question.
Greed and power, or both?
Elizabeth,
if you are told your core religous faith and values that you hold dearly are evil and destructive and constantly slashed in your face in forums and blogs - sometimes in crude third person such as on one blog - all Muslims are this and that - what do you think you will feel.
Add to that the incorrect references and interpretations of your religous text - not theres is somehow given as examples - how would you feel.
Yes Elizabeth, attacking my core faith is insulting, especially when they try and tell me what my own religion is - and it is full of errors and deliberate lies.
That is the reason and that alone.
I have no problem condemning any Muslim for stupidity, errors, evil acts, terrorism - I will be the first to point the finger to many. I care not about these people but condemn them.
But condemn my core faith which is the Qur'an and then you are condemning me. It is clear and simple as that and almost every Muslim will say the same - to varying degrees of hostility or anger.
Last comment and as a certain new US President understood (abou time) that to gain respect you must be able to give it.
Most of your quotes are from Sura's 8 - al Anfal and 9 at Tawba
are both historical records of events - who said they are instructions for the behavior of the Muslim Ummah and the future in general?
In fact it is clear from 8.01 and the name of the sura which is "spoils of war" was about what to do after a battle. This is after all 7th century southern Arabia which was plagued with tribal conflicts. If anything, the lesson to be learnt from this is about fairness and selfishness - in this particular case what to do with war-booty and how when wealth is aquired to a community that fair distribution must be made.
Sura 9 (the name means repentance or dispensations) is a message to idolators/pagans who were condemning and waging a destructive war against the Muslims. Again it is about a specific event and the lessons that I was taught in my studies by the Imam of my own Mosque was that this was about being stern when it comes to hypocrits.
Sura 13 Ar Rad is a creationist sura that exists also in the Torah and the Old Testiment Bible texts - this is a reminder that God is great, he created the world and the heavens as well as all of us and we should not foget that when it comes to the crunch and we meet our maker - we must fall in our knees and prostrate ourselves to him. I rather consider that the obligitory statement/reminder sura, it is the reminder of the fires and the heavens.
You like most will quote only from 3 of the 114 Surahs and they are easily explained.
Next? Please do remember though that I have been wrongly accused of talking to much about the Qur'an (though each time it is to defend an incorrect statement or attack) and I said this will go on until the blog is cut or you stop.
Next?
Solkhar: Next?.
No "next?" yet. You have yet to address each individual Qur'anic sura that I presented for your examination. Your attempt to dismiss them wholesale does nothing for your reputation at this site.
Only a point by point refutation will suffice. If you are not up to the task, please admit so and I will disregard all further objections from you as to the Qur'an and how to interpret it.
Solkhar: Most of your quotes are from Sura's 8 - al Anfal and 9 at Tawba are both historical records of events - who said they are instructions for the behavior of the Muslim Ummah and the future in general?.
Do you propose to selectively interpret the Qur'an? That is what you most certainly appear to be doing and traditional Islam has capital punishment as the reward for doing so.
In addition, you seem to be practicing ijtihad upon which the door was close almost 1,000 years ago. Please clarify if I am incorrect in this observation.
Mr. Solkhar,
Only 2 things to which I will reply:
1. Respect must be earned, it is not something to be dispensed just be cause a "religion" such as yours demands it. And Islam has not done much for me to respect it in any way.
2. I am insulted to varying degrees every single day but I do not go around whining, but get on with my life. I suggest you do the same. The Muslim whining machine is unbearable.
For an objective account, consult the MSM.
LOL!
Solkhar said:
The reality is there is no racisms, anti-Semitism, denigration etc in the Qur'an at all - none.
Heh - let's take some anti-Semitism first, like:
Qur'an 2:61
"Humiliation and wretchedness were stamped on the Jews and they were visited with Allah's wrath."
Qur'an 2:64
"But you [Jews] went back on your word and were lost losers. So become apes, despised and hated. We made an example out of you."
Ibn Ishaq:240
"The Jews are a nation of liars.... The Jews are a treacherous, lying, and evil people."
Qur'an 33:26
"Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before."
Then some violence:
Qur'an 2:191
"And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter."
Qur'an 33:60
"Truly, if the Hypocrites stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. Then they will not be able to stay as your neighbors for any length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy - a fierce slaughter - murdered, a horrible murdering."
Now time to denigrate infidels:
Qur'an 9:71
"O Prophet, strive hard [fighting] against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be harsh with them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed."
Qur'an 8:59
"The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them."
Qur'an 4:168
"Those who reject [Islamic] Faith, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them to any path except the way to Hell, to dwell therein forever. And this to Allah is easy."
Qur'an 4:114
"He who disobeys the Apostle after guidance has been revealed will burn in Hell."
Etc. Lovely, isn't it?
You will find them in Haddiths that differing Muslims communities accept or not.
Exactly. It's a mess as to who accepts what hadiths. Yet, without the hadith, there could be no Islam, as can be seen from the fact that the Quran does not describe the five pillars of Islam. Without the hadith, Muslims would not know how to practice their faith.
Further, the hadith is vital due to merely this Quranic verse:
Qur'an 33:21
"You have in (Muhammad) the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern of conduct for any one to follow."
Stoning is not a Qur'anic instruction.
No. It is from Sahih ('Flawless') Bukhari. And still practiced today.
Elizabeth,
1) yes respect must be earned and not dispensed, my religion does not demand it, that is your incorrect words and many acts from Muslims do not merit respect at all - there is no argument there.
2) whining? this is a blog - a semi-public published environment, thus someone accuses, I will retort.
Henrik - (and Zenster)
Now it all comes out, the agenda-based web sites cut & pastes and yet again I have to repeat ad nauseum that if you take one line from a Sura, carefully tread around the others then anything can be made to look like what you want. If it was a matter of intellectual property, you could be charged with breaching it.
The famous "Kill them all" phrase directly refers to a battle decision in the 7th century but it clearly says also as an "instruction" that God loves not the aggressors or oppressors and the remaineder of that particular Surah talks about how important it is to be magnanimous, kind and supportive after the victory.
The statements about the Jews talks about pre-Islamic history, how they rejected Jesus and explains events that were left out of the Bible. It also warns them that even though God says that all good Jews and Christians will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Muslims at the Gates of Heaven on Judgement Day, it says that Jews who still after they die and see God and do NOT recognise the truth that there was Jesus and then Mohammed will suffer the greater of the punishments in hell for denouncing God's instructions twice over.
Do you propose to selectively interpret the Qur'an? That is what you most certainly appear to be doing and traditional Islam has capital punishment as the reward for doing so.
Zenster, you said "In addition, you seem to be practicing ijtihad upon which the door was close almost 1,000 years ago. Please clarify if I am incorrect in this observation."
Apart from your even knowning what "ijtihad" is, you continue to assume that all of Islam are wahhabists or salafists which they are not. You also assume there is one accepted codex when there are many and there are many who just ignore even those. A conservative Muslim in North Africa will not agree with exact implications from a Saudi then a Pakistani, Malaysian not to mention an Iranian.
The only thing you can be certain is that radical extremists will capitalize and reinterpret to suit their political goals - not the other way around - and I am not only talking about Muslims.
Solkhar, the issue here was if such passages exist in the Quran or not. You claimed they don't, I proved that they do. You were wrong.
Issues of context is different, sure. I encourage everyone to read the Sirat in order to find the context for these quotes. Al-Tabari volumes 6 through 9 are well translated into English and shows in detail how Muhammed spent his life, and provides context for a multitude of Quranic quotes.
But what really matters is the application of these verses today. Some fanatics use them to justify violence and other crimes in the name of Islam. We don't want that, I'm sure we can all agree.
An effective way to counter this would be that Islamic scholars issue fatwas declaring violence non-religous, stating clearly that anyone using violence in the name of Islam will henceforth be regarded as non-Muslims - apostates - with everything that implies.
That would earn genuine respect for Islam as a religion of peace.
Mr. Solkhar,
I do not accuse, but state facts. Isn't it true that your co-religionists demand respect all the time? It appears like that to me an many others.
And what you call "retort", I call whining.
Solkhar: Please do remember though that I have been wrongly accused of talking to much about the Qur'an (though each time it is to defend an incorrect statement or attack) and I said this will go on until the blog is cut or you stop.
You seem to conflate stubborn persistence with sincerity or intellectual honesty.
Both Henrik and myself have demonstrated that the Qur'an contains exhortations to violence and hate speech. Your sole refutation is to say that it does not.
Either that or you try to call those passages historical references in an attempt to fob them off as relics that nobody takes seriously when it is quite clear that Muslims around the world in great numbers accept those passages as if they were cut in stone.
What you are doing is not just tiresome but reflects rather negatively upon you as a self-appointed spokeman for supposedly moderate Muslims.
What you really do is defeat your own cause by confirming for most people that Muslims are either dishonest or unwilling to admit the truth about Islam's hostility and intolerance for all other faiths or beliefs.
As a dedicated counter-jihadist I can only congratulate you for providing such solid proof of these suspicions. You are a far more convincing spectacle of Muslim taqiyya and kitman than I could ever summon up by myself.
Thank you for your contributions to making the Western world aware of just how dangerous Islam really is. Few could have done a better job.
Zenster, thanks for mentioning Kitman, a concept that really deserves wider understanding. Kitman is the art of misrepresenting the truth in a deceptive way, with the purpose of benefiting Islam, of course. Palestinians are masters of this art, as seen in the al-Dura Hoax and similar incidents.
Here's one explanation (from JihadWatch):
“Kitman” is close to “taqiyya,” but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Muslim maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle,” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “kitman.” When he adduces, in support of this doubtful proposition, the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said (as known from a chain of transmitters, or isnad), that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” and does not add what he also knows to be true, that this is a “weak” hadith, regarded by the most-respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing “kitman.”
If our politicians understood the concept and took proper precations, it might irritate some Islamic leaders. But eventually, we would have a more honest discourse, and treaties with Islamic governments would be much more workable.
[A]t the beginning of the negotiations the Soviets did not even accept the use of the term “human rights” at the negotiations concerning the Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations Between Participating States, instead the word “penguin” was used.
What is the word "penguin" supposed to signify in this context?
Hm. Strange how 'human rights' have now become somewhat subversive in the hands of the UN and their henchmen.
Possibly the term 'individual rights' might serve us better to rid us of global governance.
Sean --
As I understand it, the Russians would not accept the words "human rights" during the negotiations, so "penguin" was used in place of them. It was chosen as a silly alternative; it could have been any other word or phrase.
Thanks Baron.
Henrik R Clausen: Zenster, thanks for mentioning Kitman, a concept that really deserves wider understanding. Kitman is the art of misrepresenting the truth in a deceptive way, with the purpose of benefiting Islam, of course. Palestinians are masters of this art, as seen in the al-Dura Hoax and similar incidents.
You are most welcome. I especially appreciate your dedication in exposing Solkhar's unwillingness to confront the hate speech embedded in the Qur'an. I believe that, wittingly or not, Solkhar is practicing a form of kitman and diverting attention from one of the principal drivers of Muslim extremism, the Qur'an itself.
If our politicians understood the concept and took proper precations, it might irritate some Islamic leaders. But eventually, we would have a more honest discourse, and treaties with Islamic governments would be much more workable.
I must beg to differ. So long as taqiyya and kitman are present in Islam, they preclude all productive negotiations. Muslim promises, signatures, seals and all other contractual tools or instruments are all rendered null and void.
This is why I continue to agitate for the complete dismantling of Islam. There will never be any reliable way of determining whether Muslims have genuinely given up the practice of taqiyya and kitman.
These two ethical crimes are just the beginning of a long list of deal-breakers like shari'a, Abject Gender Apartheid and jihad that all contribute to Islam's totally unacceptable nature.
Henrik quotes Jihadwatch as a reliable source and confirm it with the garbage that is quoted. Kitman is a term that is not even used or known by the vast majority of Muslims but only theologins and clerics. It is not used in sermons in Mosques on Friday.
To quote an example of the rubbish that comes from Jihadwatch in the quote given is "When a Muslim maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle,” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “kitman.”".
If the term of greater Jihad (the spiritual or personal struggle) is only recent and 100yrs old, then how come it it was stated by Ibn al-Qayyim (1292-1350CE / 691 AH- 751 AH) (a famous Sunni Islamic jurist, commentator on the Qur'an, astronomer, chemist, philosopher, psychologist, scientist and theologian).
Just to add to the side, struggles of a personal nature being mentioned 12 times in the Qur'an - just go to any on-line version.
Seyyed Hossein Nasr's "Al-Serat - "The Spiritual Significance of Jihad" Vol. IX, No. 1
"And those who perform jihad for Us, We shall certainly guide them in Our ways, and God is surely with the doers of good. (Quran XXXIX; 69) "
Also
"You have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad. (Hadith) "
I think we can throw away the rubbish from JihadWatch which is just more extreme right-wing ranting for goodness knows what reason (other than Robert Spencer trying to sell his books).
Solkhar, I shall not grace your silly insults with any further comments for the moment.
Zenster said:
I must beg to differ.
Please note:
and took proper precations
That means "Trust but verify" when dealing with any Islamic agency.
Like we should do with the PA (formerly PLO), who just got another sack of money for - absolutely nothing. We're throwing good money after bad, for they never cared to keep the Oslo Accords. Yasser Arafat (he took the name 'Arafat' to look holy, BTW), referred to the example given my Muhammad regarding treaties with 'infidels' and declared that treaties with infidels (like the Oslo Accords) need not be adhered to.
'proper precations' and 'Obama administration' do not belong in the same sentence, unfortunately.
Henrik's idea is to be able to accuse and bash a faith, post ludicrous quotes from unreliable sources and when they are pointed out for the trash they are simply refuse to answer.
The points are clear, certain groups simply wish to keep villification of certain groups, fiaths, cultures or races to ensure a superiority of one group over an other. At present it is Islam, before that it was Jews.
Solkhar, your Insult-O-Matic machine is way out of control. May I suggest you disconnect it and let it cool off. There are guidelines for proper behaviour on this blog, too.
And before you start insinuating about poor Muslims being the Jews of the 21st century, please check the Islamic (like, Iranian) attitude to Jews, and other actions in the name of The Religion of Peace.
Henrik,
And before you start insinuating about poor Muslims being the Jews of the 21st century
There is also the Farhud:
The Farhud, the Mufti inspired Krystallnacht in Iraq, 1941
There's also Icon of Evil, of course.
Henrik said:
"application of these verses today. Some fanatics use them to justify violence and other crimes in the name of Islam. We don't want that, I'm sure we can all agree.
An effective way to counter this would be that Islamic scholars issue fatwas declaring violence non-religous, stating clearly that anyone using violence in the name of Islam will henceforth be regarded as non-Muslims - apostates - with everything that implies".
-------
Solkhar the avoider has no logically coherent answer for why this obvious solution is not even considered by the putative sea of moderate Muslims as it is part of the hook he's hoisted on himself. Namely, where is the missing Muslim to Muslim dialogue in which the "misguided" terrorist jihadis are taken to task by the "moderates"? They could stop the jihad tomorrow if they wanted to by issuing fatwas and giving up the jihadis in their mosques instead of aiding and abetting them by their silence if nothing else.
All Muslim tongue firepower is directed at non-Muslims, either in eternal whining as Elizabeth correctly perceives it about non-existent "Islamophobia" (every sentient informed non-Muslim is justifiably leery of a group with such a bad record of treating infidels around the world and throughout history) or non-stop propagandizing and apologia for Islam as Solkhar practises.
If he and other supposed "moderates" spent half the time tongue lashing the supposed wayward Muslims he says are spoiling it for everyone else as he does being a pompous deflector here, we'd all be better off.
And there's no getting around that sticking point. The mythical moderate Muslims do not do the most efficient thing to rein in the jihadis. In fact, they do not lift a finger in that direction. Ergo, they're all on the same team and are just blockers for the jihadis carrying the ball.
Henrik R Clausen: Please note:
and took proper precautions.
As usual, were are typically in violent agreement.
Without wishing to nit pick, how do you "verify" with people who will dissemble and generally lie about anything they feel is convenient for them to misrepresent?
Not all forms of compliance can be physically verified, like the funding or arming of terrorists.
Again, this is why I feel that taqiyya irevoccably damns Islam. There will never be any reliable way of knowing whether Muslims are genuinely complying with anything or just engaging in another round of hudna.
laine: Namely, where is the missing Muslim to Muslim dialogue in which the "misguided" terrorist jihadis are taken to task by the "moderates"?.
An article by Thomas Friedman almost manages to address this issue:
Islamists are losing, but their rivals aren't winning
Yes, the dominoes you see falling in the Muslim world today are the extremist Islamist groups and governments. They have failed to convince people by either their arguments or their performances in power that their puritanical versions of Islam are the answer. Having lost the argument, though, the radicals still hang on, thanks to gun barrels and oil barrels — and they can for a while.
Because, while the radicals have failed miserably, our allies — the pro-Americans, the Muslim modernists, the Arab moderates — have not really filled the void with reform and good government of their own. They are winning by default.
Everywhere they have won or seized power, the Islamists — in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon or Gaza — have overplayed their hands, dragged their societies into useless wars or engaged in nihilistic violence that is producing a broad backlash from mainstream Muslims. [emphasis added]
The legitimate question being, why aren't the supposedly "moderate" Muslims rushing in to backfill the power vacuum being left by attrition of the extremists.
It's not as if the West hasn't spent thousands of Infidel lives and about a TRILLION dollars helping to assure that outcome.
My own perception is that, although Muslims aren't enchanted with their extremist oppressors, they still want people in power who insist on killing the Infidel in large numbers.
Ergo, ZERO ACTION against the radicals.
I'll put it another way:
They ain't killing their radicals and the radicals are still killing us!
Without wishing to nit pick, how do you "verify" with people who will dissemble and generally lie about anything they feel is convenient for them to misrepresent?
That's what we in computer science call "a detail of implementation". Our competent politicians, loyal and courageous civil servants, top-notch media etc. should, as a matter of cause, check and double-check details of how our opponents fulfill their obligations. The Oslo Accords are a case in point - the Palestinians invented all kinds of excuses to not do their part, and we've been swollowing those excuses hook, line and sinker. The al-Dura Hoax is another one - that should have been seen through years and years ago.
Our timid media, scared civil servants and inept politicians do not even take the trouble to check things that can be physically verified. That is the least they can do - we can't expect them to understand taqiyya or kitman - but at least they could do what any competent businessman does: Check that the terms of a contract are abided to.
Thus, we need to out-compete MSM (please *no* bailout packages!) and ultimately our politicians.
Krulayar, please apply some appropriate medicine to that problem.
Post a Comment