Saturday, February 04, 2006

Tolerating the Intolerable

London protestNeo-neocon has weighed in on the Great Mohammed Cartoon Affair. Drawing on earlier posts, she discusses the inherent contradiction in open-ended tolerance. Those who would tolerate the behavior of others, no matter how intolerant those others are, will tolerate away their freedom, their wealth, and ultimately their own lives.

As she puts it in her concluding paragraph:

The bottom line is that members of a society must adhere to the rules of that society or face the consequences. Islamicist fanatics in Europe see their opportunity to remake the rules, and see a chink in the armor of Europe’s Enlightment secularism. How Europe chooses to respond will help to determine the course of its own future, and perhaps much more.

But she also asks a question that some regular readers here at Gates of Vienna might want to address:

What percentage of European Moslems is represented by the fiery protesters, the ones calling for death and destruction? (Please take a look at these photos to see the sort of thing I’m talking about). I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone knows. I tend to think most people lack a natural bent for fanaticism, so my guess is that they are not in the majority.

We have some Europeans who stop in here frequently. What do you think? And Mr. Eteraz: do you know enough about your co-religionists in Europe to offer an opinion?

I’m throwing it open as a forum.


PhilippinesPhil said...

By now it should be no secret that muslims believe sharia applies to EVERYONE, no matter where you reside. I don't see any tolerant "moderate" muslims demonstrating against this precept. Sounds like tacit approval to me.

X said...

For the last 10 years or so, we here in the UK have been patting our own backs abotu how successful we've been at integrating the Muslims in to our society. Unfortunately the people who think it's so live in a bubble in Westminster, not the real world. In reality, Muslims aren't integrating. The reason for this is, there's no such thing as a moderate muslim. It's like saying you're a christian, yet don't believe in christ, nor that he existed, nor that any of the events in the bible have any worth in society today...

I met someone like that. I laughed.

There are countries that are apparently modernising and secularising. Morocco, for instance, is becoming quite modern because the current king wants the tourist money. It's a nice image to present. The presence of Islam tends to either force a state to completely secularise, or to return to its islamic roots. Libya is an islamic state that's almost completely secular, though there's some confusion about that (little green books and so on)... the thing is, once Islam has a toe-hold, it stays until it's take over or it's been exterminated. Like dry-rot.

The seeds of extremism lie at the very heart of Islam. It's a militaristic religion, predicated on the idea of conquest. I've seen it speculated that Mohammed created it simply to form an army for the conquest of Arabia, to drive out the christians that so offended him and, eventually, take over the world. A quick read of the Koran and the Suras backs up the idea quite nicely. Which is the point, really. Unlike other religions, which demand that their followers act consistently with both fellow beleivers and unbelievers alike, Islami allows its followers to cheat, lie, steal, rape and murder if it means that the realm of Islam is expanded. I rarely trust Muslims because of this. They're taught to deceive unbelievers from an early age. Even the apparently moderate ones have been taught that, so it's difficult to see how much of their "moderate" behaviour is truly geniune.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

I would have thought it was obvious that tolerance is as a positive and intolerance is a negative. Multiplying a negative integer by a positive always generates a negative, and thus it is with tolerating intolerance or disrespecting tolerance - the intolerance grows.

Turning the other cheek merely gets you bitch slapped up the face both sides.

I don't think the % is too great yet, but the potential constituency is the majority of all European muslims.

Allowing this sort of rubbish (ie divisive protests inimicable to wider society) to continue allows the violent radical in their own (seperate segment of) society to attract the less brave, intimidate voices of reason, agitate the undecided, radicalize the aimless alienated (the losers, criminals and deranged). If left unsuppressed it will grow. Fortunately blood has not been spilled yet - when it is, the rifts become irreparable.

What we are seeing in general is the opening stages of potential inter-communal violence (a.k.a. civil war).
This is what happened in Bosnia in the 90's, where relatively small groups opportunistically managed to polarize their parts of a multi-ethnic society which was then more integrated than western europe is now. Underlying discords become enunciated, and institutional support (Imams) drives, organizes and reinforces the polarization. Quite frankly, all that remains is a spark to start serious violence, although hopefully that spark would have to be rather spectacular.

wildiris said...

As part of a discussion a while ago with some members at my church, I heard, what strikes me, as the most definitive observation regarding the question, “whether Islam is or is not a religion of peace”, I have ever run across.

The discussion went through many of the usual pro/con talking points that we’ve seen over and over again posted here on the web. Then…

(Apologist for Islam) Islam is really a peaceful religion; it’s just that it has been hijacked by a radical and violent element.

(Skeptical Listener) No! The problem with Islam isn’t that it has been hijacked; the problem is that there is something about Islam that makes it so easy to be hijacked by such radical and violent elements.

(Observation 1) Every society has its share of violent, misogynistic, hurtful and etc. people, a number of who will always try and bend their religion to serve as a cover, excuse or justification for their behavior. As a result, all religions have had their fringe cults and sects that have acted out in violent and/or other anti-social ways; that’s just a sad fact of human nature. But Islam, of all of the world’s major religions, seems to be the one most troubled by this problem, while at the same time; the more peaceful (moderate) element in the religion of Islam is seemingly powerless to stop this co-opting from happening.

(Observation 2) It doesn’t matter what verses of the Bible or Koran one chooses to emphasize, or how one may try to interpret them. The ultimate arbiter of what is or what is not a proper Christian or Muslim response is the lives and works of Jesus or Mohammed themselves. Jesus was above all, a man of peace, while Mohammed was anything but a man of peace.

A Christian may try to use scripture to justify or incite others to violence, but because Jesus himself would not have acted in that way, their words will never attract more than a handful of listeners.

But it is the converse that is true for Islam. While there may be many within the Muslim religion that want to live peacefully with their neighbors, Mohammed himself did not live that way. As a result, the voices of the “moderates” carry no weight with the community of Islam as a whole. After all, how can one Muslim, with any authority, tell another not to do what Mohammed himself did do? It’s not that the moderates can’t or won’t speak out against the radical element, it’s that the prophet Mohammed, by the example of his own life, left them with no voice to speak out with.

(Conclusion) That’s why Islam is not, never was or can ever be trusted to be a “religion of peace”. Because Mohammed himself was not a peaceful man and by the example of his own life, he has left the door wide open for the more violent element in any community or society, in which Islam is the dominant religion, to turn Islam into a tool to justify their violent actions against others.

In other words, Islam, as a religion, can’t be any more “peaceful” than, as a man, Mohammed was himself.

felix said...

I agree that deporting Islamofascists, Radical Islamists is the way to go. It is not our job in the non-Islamic world to take into our countries radical islamist who want to kill or convert us all in the hope that that somehow, through exposure to our education or political system, they will change. I am hopeful that a movement will soon arise to promote deportation of radical islamists and, of course, to keep out those who want to enter.

Papa Ray said...

"to turn Islam into a tool to justify their violent actions against others."

Um..excuse me, but it does not need to be turned into anything to justify violence. It advocates and encourages violence as it is and can not be revised or disbelieved by a believer.

On pain of death.

Islam is a cult, an evil cult, a cult of conquest and destruction.

Papa Ray
West Texas

John Sobieski said...

Why is banning Muslim immigration taboo to the infidels? All terror derives from Muslims. Less Muslims, less terror. It is as simple as that.

X said...

Islam is much more than merely a religion, though. They say it themselves; it's a way of life. Sharia proscribes every aspect of life, from trade, to marriage, to government, from birth to death, how to make peace, how to wage war. Everything. If it's not in the Koran or the Suras, it doesn't exist.

I suspect we've reached one of those pivotal moments in history. The US constitution, all our secular western beliefs, rest on the idea of freedom of expression, belief, movement... freedom to do anything not specifically designated as illegal. This is an idea to which Islam is diametrically opposed, as nothing is legal unless Allah wills it so. Islam abuses the freedom we grant in order to destroy it, yet they claim that freedom as their own when we try to prevent them. We've made our "freedom" in to chains and bars, when it should be the prime weapon in our arsenal, and the prime reason for action.

Our freedom is threatened by Islam, Islam is a political system that claims supremacy over our own, therefore, association with Islam is essentially sedition, and should be treated as such.

Always On Watch said...

Daffers D said, Tariq Ramadan and that Sir heading up the MCB are the same as Bin Laden in my opinion.

Check out what CAIR has to say about Tariq Ramadan.

I noticed today at CAIR's site that a state senator from North Carolina has now joined CAIR.

Many of our elected representatives regularly attend CAIR functions, such as banquets.