West: International caricatures

The same loss of freedom (especially in regards to the discussion of islamic terrorism) can be found in the US:

http://www.thefire.org/

And in threats from politicians to shut down entire networks:

http://instapundit.com/archives/018388.php

The battle to ensure freedom of expression and freedom to choose one's own religion (or no religion) is a battle that is essential, but neglected by our leaders. We cannot allow the kinds of compromises and stupidity that brought Karzai--yet another Islamic tyrant--back into power. We need to put much more pressure on Islamic countries that do not permit freedom in their societies and in their schools.

Islam as an ideology cannot survive under free conditions. It requires coercion, threat, and restriction; these logically- and morally-fallacious elements are prescribed in the Islamic core doctrines. Allow Islam to be exposed to the critics, the disbelievers, the methods of science and ethical scrutiny, the free marketplace of ideas, and it cannot survive on its own.

And goodbye Ali Mohaqiq Nasab, the "blaspheming" editor sentenced to two years in jail. By all accounts, this was getting off easy: The prosecutor in the case was angling for a death sentence.

I'll believe that it's not "a death sentence" when he actually completes his two-year sentence and arrives safely at his home.

If sentenced to jail for fighting Islam IN AMERICA you'll get killed... I'm pretty sure that they have Muslim gangs in Afghanistani prisons too.

The taking away of free speech in Europe is already underway. The islamists are getting their way, and the Europeans, for the most part, are bending over and looking the other way. England and Italy have done a little, but not enough. And the rest of Europe needs to fall in place, and not allow these demons to take control of their freedoms. And in the US, too, it's already begun. The two most dangerous organizations in the US, CAIR, and the ACLU, have begun to make sure that Americans no longer have freedom of speech, and that the islamists have their way, with no one to stand in their way. We're living in dangerous times, and instead of doing what our ancestors would have done, fight to the death for our freedom, we are now just sitting idley by and letting it happen. Unfortunately, some of the reason is because the average Joe american doesn't want to believe, or is blinded to the fact, that it is indeed happening. Ignorance is never bliss.

CAIR is in for a rude surprise; they have so many morons working there, sooner or later one of them is going to say the wrong thing and then its over.

Hmmm... I find it interesting that an American journalist for the Washington Times is "outraged" about an Afghani's freedom of speech being curtailed when it is the media in America that is leading the fight against Christian's having the right of free speech here.

Talk badly about any religion you want to here and get negative treatment for it from the media - unless it's Christianity. The only media coverage you'll get is that "right wing Christian extremists are trying to impose their values on America. But we love muslims, hindus, buddhists, etc.."

I bet if Mr Nasab had been jailed for preaching Christianity instead of just leaving Islam, you'd never have heard a word from the Washington Times. They're only upset that he can't become a secularist, not that he can't speak his mind.

I am coming to the conclusion that we should not have invaded either Afganistan nor Iraq. We should have bombed them back to the stone age. They are already there mentally, we should make sure that they are there physically.
The blood of our men and women should not be shed for people who believe in Theocracy, especially in such an evil one.
Once we leave, they will just return to their evil ways.
From the USA Middle East, Dearborn, Mi

COMPARE:
JUDITH MILLER: "Oh, boy, am I happy to be free."
These are the first public words New York Times reporter Judith Miller has had to say since going to jail 85 days ago for civil contempt of court for refusing to testify before a grand jury and disclose her source. (oddly enough, she went to jail for information that loads of people understood as common knowledge .. but that's another story for another day. B. Woodward's admission interestingly belated ..)

&
CONTRAST:

"Jyllands-Posten, however, has refused to back down, which just might have something to do with the paper's appearance, according to Brusselsjournal.com, on an al Qaeda Web site listing potential targets."

Freedom of the press as opposed to Islamic supremacist ideology.

Anyone know where we can see the Mohammed cartoon images?
Love to have a look at the brave artistry.

"It was a test," said editor Carsten Juste...

Did they WIN or LOSE the test? -- I guess this begs the question who "they" refers to in Denmark these days? The Muslims? The "Danes" -- WOW! Not as simple a question as it seems on the surface... Who would think I'd ever have to put quotes around "DANES" while pondering such a question.... When I was a child, not long ago, the meaning of "DANE" was fairly concise -- apparently not today... sadly....

EUROPE! -- I hope you can salvage yourselves from the new nightmares you have unleashed!

Island jail fit for a prince: Posh prison digs offer cable TV, sunset view
By Michele McPhee
Friday, November 18, 2005 - Updated: 09:51 AM EST

EDGARTOWN – Lawyers for the Saudi prince who pleaded guilty yesterday to a misdemeanor charge – homicide by motor vehicle while operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor – were recently granted a guided tour of the ritzy Colonial house that serves as the Martha’s Vineyard jail so they could determine if it was fit for royalty.


more..
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=112754&format=&page=1

kj wrote "If sentenced to jail for fighting Islam IN AMERICA you'll get killed."

Yes, that is exactly what happened to Irv Rubin and that Krugel fellow. The prisons are islam's exclusive domain. Any sentence you get is a death sentence.

Artistic Representations in Afghanistan: Buddhas

A few days ago on jihadwatch, an Islamist poster gave his straight-out justification for the Taliban's destruction of the historic Buddha statues. Here is a Toronto Star article from the spring of 2001, written from the perspective of an Islamic apologist (Haroon Siddiqui). This article is so full of distortions, half-truths, outright falsity, and outrageous absurdity that I thought it would be worth posting.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/afghan/no-place.htm

No foundation in Islam for Taleban rampage on statues

By Haroon Siddiqui, the editorial page editor emeritus of The Toronto Star, March 4, 2001

The Taleban's is not so much an austere interpretation of Islam as one that distorts, often violates the words and spirit of the faith. Which is why Muslims everywhere have joined the international chorus of condemnation.

Had the Taleban not been isolated from the world by the American-led economic sanctions, starved of resources of which they had few to begin with, rendered too helpless to do anything for their 1 million internally displaced people fleeing drought or civil war, reduced to being mute witnesses to the death of starving and shivering children in winter refugee camps, would the rulers of Afghanistan have been less likely to destroy priceless pre-Islamic treasures? Perhaps.

But of this there is little doubt: We would have had greater credibility in trying to save Afghanistan's historic treasures had we been more helpful in saving its human beings. While that debate goes on, there is another: What is the Islamic critique of the Taleban rampaging all statues, including two giant 2,000-year-old Buddhas?

Not much different than the secular world's. For these Philistines are ignorant of the theology they invoke to justify their tyrannical rule.

Theirs is not so much an austere interpretation of Islam as one that distorts, often violates the words and spirit of the faith. Which is why Muslims everywhere have joined the international chorus of condemnation. The Taleban's shaky grip on religious doctrine shows in the confusing edict of their spiritual leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar.

Graven images are blasphemous, he ruled. Idols are insulting to Islam. ``They are the gods of the infidels.'' But they could be preserved so long as they were not worshipped. Then changing his mind, he said all statues must be smashed, the way Prophet Muhammad destroyed the idols of Mecca. And he wondered about the worldwide fuss: ``All we are breaking are stones.''

The old Islamic injunction against drawing the human form is similar to the Christian and Jewish prohibition of the Ten Commandments: ``Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.'' Swept aside long ago - with the impeccable logic that if pictures and TV can show and transmit the word of God, how can they be illicit? - the ban is now preserved only by the Luddites who, like those of any faith, fear any innovation. Citing Muhammad's actions in Mecca 1,400 years ago to justify intolerance today is theologically false, says Islamic scholar Mohammed Zahid of Toronto: "The Ka'ba was the historic monotheistic centre of worship, established by Abraham, but later filled with idols. The prophet overturned that aggression,'' but went on to establish a multireligious state. Islam extended to Christians and Jews, whose prophets they shared, full protection of the state, calling them dhimmis, from dhimma, guarantor. Declared Muhammad: ``Whoever oppresses a dhimmi, I shall be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgment.''

The sharia, the governing law of a Muslim state, dictated harmonious relations for the whole millet, multireligious community. The duties of the governor included ensuring that non-Muslims lived free of religious harassment.

The state was to provide non-Muslims even the right to be tried under their own religious laws - a feature not duplicated by any other system, ``legal exclusivism being the very essence of national or political sovereignty,'' in the words of the authoritative Cultural Atlas Of Islam (Macmillan, New York, 1986).

When Muslims conquered Persia, they extended full protection to Zoroastrians. When they defeated the Byzantines, the caliph signed a treaty granting Christians ``security of their persons and all their properties, their churches and their crosses, large and small.''

When the first Muslim conqueror came to the Indian subcontinent in 711, not far from where the Taleban rule, he had never heard of Hindus or Buddhists. So he sought instructions from head office in Damascus. There the caliph called a synod of senior theologians. They wrote back that minorities ``must remain free to worship their gods as they please, to maintain their temples and to determine their lives by the precepts of their faiths.''

The Taleban would be unaware of all this. Ironically, also most people in the West. They are seeped in the folklore, rooted in the legacy of the Crusaders and replenished daily by the dictates of modern geopolitics, that Islam was spread by the sword and is, inherently, intolerant.

Muslims often ruled empires where the faiths of the non-Muslim majority thrived Some conquerors and rulers, as those of any faith, did invoke religion to spill much blood and destroy many holy places, including Hindu temples in India. But the greater truth remains, to which the Taleban also remain oblivious: that Muslims often ruled empires where the faiths of the non-Muslim majority not only survived but thrived, and their religious relics and monuments were preserved, proof being that we have them today - European churches, the Pyramids, Petra, the temples of India and beyond.

The Taleban - as indeed some other Muslim rulers these days, even if far less obscurantist than they - may read the Quran, the holy book in Arabic, but clearly don't understand and certainly don't follow its clear dictates:

Let there be no compulsion in religion. (2:256)
Whoever wills, let him believe; and whoever does not will, let him disbelieve. (18.29)
Also, an entire short chapter (111):
Say: O ye unbelievers.
I worship not that which ye worship,
And ye do not worship that which I worship;
I shall never worship that which ye worship,
Neither will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your religion; to me mine.
-------------------------------------------------
END OF ARTICLE

Note also how even the quotes from the Koran are cropped in such a way as to cut out the "non-Muslims burn in hell-fire" parts (2:257; and the other half of 18:29). Chapter 111 (or 109) is at best ambiguous.

Archimdes -- good repost... and telling...

The omnipresence of distortion and deceipt among Muslims (both very effective forms of Jihad) is a thing that worries me more than terrorist jihad...

Even at this clear-headed site dedicated to revealing the true nature of Islam -- we endlessly become enmeshed in parsing games and petty academic squabbles over the meaning of this or that statement in the Koran/newspaper/internet thread about what this or that Muslim said/wrote/believes etc...

There is NO END to this chaos -- after all, although this "dialogue" appears to be a Western discussion using Western logic and intellectual incision, it is really defined by terms, concepts, and principles that are purely Islamic/Arabist --

We can fantasize that applying Western logic to this inanity will yeild enlightenment, but this is simply an omnipotent fantasy on our part...

There will never be a point where Muslims say -- "Oh! You're right! Islam is wrong and you've proved it!" Nor do I believe that we'll ever see a point where non-Muslims intellectually agree in sufficient numbers about this or that aspect of Islam... There are so many diversionary cul de sacs in Islamic thought wherein Westerners can get lost (zeroing in on canards like economics or imperialism, false constructs like "moderate" vs "radical" Islam, relentless revisionist protrayals of Islam, wanting to believe the denials of "moderate" appearing Muslims -- the list goes on and on...)

I am increasingly convinced that we will not win against Supremacist Islam through education and dialogue for the masses -- I am already convinced that we will never see Muslims develop a 'Western friendly' form of Islam, at least not one that doesn't harbor recidivist seeds...

As distasteful as it may sound, but for the sake of our survival, the West may need to begin to appeal to baser human instincts to counter the growing menace of predatory Islam -- In order to survive we may be forced exploit the abundant material offered by Muslims, and specifically Arab Muslims in order to develop a revulsion for Islam which inoculates, or more accurately, variolates our citizens against Islam... I have long feared that in order to defeat this enemy, we may need to become like our enemy or perish altogether... This is something that I deplore most about Islam -- it debases all human accomplishments, and threatens to destroy humanity... Islam's threat is so grave, and the nature of Islam is so poisonous, that the very act of defeating this mortal foe may destroy us in the process...

Variolation -- perhaps the oldest form of inoculation -- used often in ancient times against smallpox -- Material was taken from an infected patient and transferred to an uninfected person -- (sometimes) resulting in a less severe form of infection --

It is extremely dangerous, but it does work. If my theory is correct, and all of our modernist theories are unsuitable or incapable of coming up with a convincing "cure" for Islam -- then we must resort to more primitive but effective modes of defense. Marginalization, intolerance, dehumanization, caricaturization, ridicule, excoriation, ostracism, punishment... These characteristics which are replete in the Muslim culture and which show signs of increasing among Muslims, may be the only weapons we can deploy effectively against them in the long run... These tactics are ugly, debase us, and make us more like them than we would wish -- but I would opt for that eventuality over yeilding to Islam -- At least we'd have the option of lifting ourselves out of the sewer after the fact -- the West has been there before, and lifted itself out before -- we could do it again -- If Islam prevails -- the record is CONCLUSIVE -- there is no turning back from the dark side!

And (finally) It occurs to me that the "soft" side of Islam, the one most people confuse with "moderation" -- the side that constantly denies the link between Islam and terrorism is really the most dangerous -- These so-called "moderates" are the agents of continued confusion as to the nature of violent Islamic Jihad -- their constant apologetics, and the false hope they hold out for "infidels" that Islam is not inherently violent or supremacist are the main reason Islam is allowed to continue its predations...

Irshad Manji, Bernard Lewis, Tom Friedman, Marc Rhuel Gerecht, Daniel Pipes, are all abettors of Islamic fascism... Perhaps they believe in the canard they tell that there is moderation in Islam, and that we shouldn't lump all Muslims into the same camp as the terrorists. But this is fatuous at best... The continued smokescreen these apologists provide creates the cover for the violence to continue, for Mosques to continue (which are little more than indoctrination centers for sedition and insurrection) for Muslim immigration to continue, and, in short, for the Jihad to continue unabated. They prevent the discussion of Islam's complicity in terrorism from happening...

And finally, lastly, and for once and for all -- it is easy for most to see an act of terror and to condemn it forthrightly. But it is far more difficult when one is confronted with such a cacaphony of conflicting opinions about Islam from so-called "experts" who have long led us astray... Many of the talking heads about Islam today are the same individuals that utterly missed or misinterpreted the warning signs staring us in the face for nearly 5 decades. ... They missed the growing tide of triumphalist Islamic fascismit, they lied about it, or they misattributed it to far more benign forces... Why trust them? They have been Islamic Fascism's largest abettor in the West...

Jsla,

You raise a number of important points. I can’t respond to all of them, but I agree with most of what you say.

Although I believe educating people about the problems with Islam is essential, the problem is not going to be solved by education alone. Shortly after 9/11, many of our leaders were telling us that this was going to be a long, drawn-out war, perhaps lasting decades. They told us it was going to be a war fought in many battles on many fronts in many different ways. The war would involve fighting, out of necessity (there is no other way to defeat existing groups like bin Laden’s), but would also involve political and educational aspects. I believe we’ve not accomplished much in any of those areas.

I support our troops 100%, but the fact is Afghanistan was not conquered. Significant portions of Al Qaeda were allowed to seep through into Pakistan and elsewhere. This is a failure at the top-level, not by the troops on the ground. To accomplish our goals in Afghanistan, it had to be conquered, no loose ends with warlords and Taliban members still running around causing problems. And we should have installed a western style government, or at the very least disallowed any dictatorship or any remnants of Islamic rule. Why should we go to all this trouble to set up a “Taliban-light” government, which is now in place under Karzai? Much the same could be said for Iraq.

I think we’ve failed so far on the education side of the war. We’ve failed to do anything about Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, for examples, which all still educate youth in jihad ideology, and which still churn out millions of young men with Islamist hate-based motivations and goals. In our own societies, we’ve been sluggish to educate the masses. In a democracy, winning public opinion is key, and we have not done that yet. The apologists are still beating us. How pathetic! (Of course, this is not a fair fight, because they have death threats working in their favour).

I see the ridicule and excoriation that you mention as part of this process of education. (Hirsi Ali argued this recently). Once non-Muslims know the facts about Islam, they’ll be inclined to excoriate and ridicule. Another suggestion by Bostom recently in his radio interview was that non-Muslims who’ve been persecuted by Muslims should make their stories public. This bad publicity will be tough for Muslims but, hey, they’re the ones who consider us inferior (worst beasts in Allah’s sight, unclean, etc.); they’re the ones walking around with a supremacist ideology in their heads; and they’re the ones who hate us. They’re the ones who come to our countries with the intention of setting up Islamic societies. And they’re the ones who come up with bizarre justifications for killing civilians in suicide attacks.

As I’ve said before, it is not worth it for people such as Manji to even bother trying to reform Islam. People like Manji are a double-edged sword: Their presentations confuse people but they also cause problems for traditional Islamists. Bottom line, though: It would be better if they rejected Islam fully, exposing it and refuting it in detail.

There have been political failures, domestically and internationally. These failures are tied, in part, to the lack of education of our politicians. Our politicians need to be educated before they can act. We are way behind on that front. Internationally, a major problem is the U.N. itself, which needs to be either revamped or scrapped. Martin, Canada's Prime Minister, proposed that a "League of 20" nations be established so that atrocities (such as in Sudan) could be dealt with, effectively circumventing the U.N. That proposal was made a couple of years ago, and I haven't heard it mentioned since. We need something like that though.

Domestically, we should be deporting far more Islamists. Any cleric who gets up and preaches jihad, destruction of the West, etc., is not merely sounding off or testing the limits of free speech, but is actively engaged in conspiracy and incitement to commit treasonous acts. They are members of one nation (an insurgent one) trying to overthrow the host nation. In Islam, a cleric has similar status to a military leader (in some cases, they are one and the same) and should be treated as such in our prosecutions. These clerics and their followers should be deported or imprisoned. Likewise, I see no reason why individuals with a treasonous ideology should be allowed into our countries in the first instance. Our politicians need to be educated quite a bit before they would realize that such ideological expressions are actually conspiratorial and treasonous, not just hateful fire-and-brimstone sermons.

jsla,
One point I'll add about education, because I see I missed it earlier...

Many apostates of islam (see the web site by this name, www.apostatesofislam.com/ ) cite having read some part of the Koran, or having some aspect of Islam pointed out to them by a critic, as having contributed to doubt, and eventually to their rejection of their faith. If a believer views the same information from a different perspective, or in a different frame of reference, this can alter their beliefs. Significant moral concerns are often what are reported to contribute to the doubt (e.g., why must non-Muslims be treated so badly, killed, etc.). Deconversions generally don't happen suddenly, all at once, but happen in steps.

Islamists and apologists who show up at this site are generally coming in with an agenda to cause disruption (which they do) or (in their delusion) to try and win converts. I believe it is generally a waste of time to try and instill doubt in them, in this context.