In a guest column for IPT News, I discuss some seemingly moderate statements by ISNA's Ingrid Mattson that look less moderate the more one examines them (news links in the original):
In her statement on Geert Wilders' film Fitna, "Respecting the Qur'an," Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America, seems to strike a responsible note of Islamic moderation.[1] While in Karachi, jihadists chanted "Death to the filmmaker" and a Jordanian group called for an international arrest warrant against Wilders, Mattson – writing before the film was released -- appeared to be much more reasonable.[2] Yet the full import of what she says about Wilders and the film is ominous in its implications for the survival of free speech and free societies."Wilders," says Mattson, "should be afforded the full protection of the law and those threatening violence against his person should be prosecuted." She proclaims: "We do not have to agree with each other or love each other, but we have to afford respect to each other." One might get the idea that Mattson, a major Muslim leader in the United States and Canada, was endorsing Western notions of pluralism and free speech, in which individuals and groups accept the possibility that they might be offended by the speech of another, but do not seek to establish the hegemony of their own perspective over society by trying to silence that offensive speech. Free speech is the foundation of a free society, and this necessarily includes speech that others find offensive; if any group is placed off limits to criticism or offense, it has become a protected class, with rights that other groups do not enjoy, and there is no more equality of rights of all people before the law.
However, there are numerous indications in Mattson's article that free speech is precisely what she does not accept. When she says that "we do not have to agree with each other or love each other, but we have to afford respect to each other," she is not speaking of Muslims and their reactions to Wilders' film. Rather, she is referring to Wilders himself, as is clear from the sentence that follows: "This means that we do not deliberately try to humiliate each other." She clearly believes Wilders in creating the film Fitna, which offers violent quotations from the Qur'an and then shows Muslims acting upon them, was trying to humiliate Muslims: she claims that "Wilders has directed most of his hatred in recent years at Muslims," and says that "Wilders' actions are designed to hurt, offend, and even intimidate." She decries "the voices of self-proclaimed nationalists – really, racists – like Wilders, [who] often seem louder and more powerful because they are threatening."
These are serious charges. Does Wilders actually threaten Muslims in Fitna? Does he direct hatred against them? Is he a racist? The core objection to the film was that it linked Islam with violence. The Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Jan Peter Balkenende, declared: "We reject this interpretation. The vast majority of Muslims reject extremism and violence. In fact, the victims are often also Muslims."[3] Mattson herself has made many similar statements.
But was Geert Wilders really responsible for the connection of Islam with violence? An answer can be found in the film itself. The main part of Fitna features a series of quotations from the Qur'an, followed by scenes of violent acts committed by Muslims. But the key question is whether or not the violent acts really have anything to do with the Qur'an quotes.
Most of Wilders's detractors would say that they do not, but Wilders has already accounted for this objection in the film itself. For example, the first verse of the Qur'an presented in Fitna is 8:60: "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…" Wilders follows this with heart-rending scenes from 9/11 and the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings, as we hear two women, among the many victims, calling for help on those days. The women are indeed terrified, but what does this have to do with Qur'an 8:60? An Islamic preacher – not Wilders or any other non-Muslim -- soon appears to answer this question, stating in terms that clearly recall that verse of the Qur'an: "Annihilate the infidels and the polytheists, your (Allah's) enemies and the enemies of the religion. Allah, count them and kill them to the last one…"
Later, Fitna quotes Qur'an 47:4: "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them)." Wilders follows this with images of two unbelievers whose necks were struck by the warriors of jihad: Theo van Gogh and Nick Berg. The statements of the perpetrators make it clear that they believed themselves to be acting in accord with Islamic imperatives. Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of van Gogh, clutched a Qur'an as he told a Dutch court in 2005: "What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet."[4] And the late jihadist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi invoked Muhammad's example to justify the beheading of Berg: "Is it not time for you [Muslims] to take the path of jihad and carry the sword of the Prophet of prophets?...The Prophet, the most merciful, ordered [his army] to strike the necks of some prisoners in [the battle of] Badr and to kill them....And he set a good example for us."[5]
Here again, the Islamic justification for these acts of barbarism comes not from Wilders, but from Muslims.
Next comes Qur'an 4:89: "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." Wilders again illustrates this with Muslims calling for the deaths of those who leave Islam. One would think also that the case of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan Muslim who was put on trial for his life in 2006 for converting to Christianity before being spirited away to safety in Italy, would be enough to demonstrate that many Muslims take the traditional Islamic death penalty for apostasy seriously – and that penalty was not invented by Geert Wilders.
Finally, there is Qur'an 8:39: "And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere…" – and a series of Islamic preachers and other Muslims (including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) asserting that Islam will soon conquer the West and rule the entire world.
And that points up the odd myopia of virtually all of the objections to Fitna, including Mattson's. Is it "hateful" or "racist" for Wilders simply to quote the Qur'an and show specific Islamic jihadists acting on its dictates? It was not Geert Wilders, but the many Muslims he shows in his film, who link Islam with violence. And that link has already been made innumerable times around the world – by Islamic jihad warriors, not by non-Muslim "Islamophobes." Omar Bakri, once the leading jihadist in Britain but now not allowed to return to that country, even went so far as to say that with a few small edits, Fitna "could be a film by the Mujahideen."[6]
Yet despite the film's accuracy and actual lack of hateful content, Mattson suggests that Fitna should run afoul of "hate speech laws": "As for the right of freedom of speech, Wilders' film should be treated like other statements within Dutch law. The Netherlands, like most other countries, has certain restrictions on speech that is defamatory, libelous or insults a group of people based on their race or religion." She says: "We should not justify or excuse extremism of any kind, whether they are racist and hateful attacks on the Muslim community or vigilante violence by Muslims against those who make such statements."
Dutch authorities have determined there is no crime to prosecute, yet they are standing mute as Jordanian officials seek to try Wilders.
The idea that Wilders' straightforward film against Islamic jihad terrorism constitutes a "racist and hateful" attack on the Muslim community echoes the statements of Islamic leaders worldwide, as they push for international restrictions on free speech. "In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film ‘Fitna'," explained Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of Organization of the Islamic Conference, in June 2008, "we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked."[7]
The objective is to use "hate speech" laws to silence criticism of Islam and discussion of the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence. The Daily Times of Pakistan reported that same month that "Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator."[8]
Abdoulaye Wade, the President of Senegal and chairman of the OIC, said: "I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits."[9]
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, was ready to help. She said that legislators "should offer strong protective measures to all forms of freedom of expression, while at the same time enacting appropriate restrictions, as necessary, to protect the rights of others."[10]
In characterizing Wilders and his film (sight unseen) as "hateful" and "racist," Mattson was laying the groundwork for legal initiatives that would outlaw all honest discussion of the violent and supremacist elements of Islam, and essentially make Muslims into a protected class, beyond all criticism, precisely as her violent brethren are challenging the West as they have not done for centuries. Her superficially high-minded critique of Geert Wilders is actually a thinly-veiled expression of Islamic supremacism.
---
[1] Ingrid Mattson, "Respecting the Qur'an," Islamic Society of North America. http://www.isna.net/articles/News/RESPECTING-THE-QURAN.aspx
[2] "Muslim, UN outrage over Dutch MP's anti-Islam film," Agence France-Presse, March 28, 2008. "Jordan court wants Wilders arrested," DutchNews.nl, June 20, 2008.
[3] "Muslims condemn Dutch lawmaker's film," CNN, March 28, 2008.
[4] Philippe Naughton, "Van Gogh killer jailed for life," Times Online, July 26, 2005.
[5] Steven Stalinsky, "Dealing in Death," National Review, May 24, 2004.
[6] Michael Steen, Andrew Bounds, and Ferry Biederman, "Muslim reaction to Dutch film is muted," Financial Times, March 29, 2008.
[7] Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, "Speech of Secretary General at the thirty-fifth session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference," June 18, 2008.
[8] Tahir Niaz, "Pakistan to ask EU to amend laws on freedom of expression," Daily Times, June 8, 2008.
[9] Rukmini Callimachi, "Defame Islam, Get Sued?," Associated Press, March 14, 2008.
[10] "Louise Arbour condemns the film ‘Fitna,'" Kuwait News Agency, March 28, 2008.
Those born into Islam, through no fault of their own, are bad enough if they cannot manage to fight their way through, and then out, of Islam, a fight that in the countries where Muslims rule or call the tune requires a kind of superhuman bravery that cannot be expected of all but the very few. In the free, that is non-Islamic world, it has been possible, for the first time, for highly articulate people born into Islam to compoare and contrast, and to boldly jettison Islam.
And even in the West, the supposedly safe non-Islamic West, apostates cannot ignore dangers. One may dismiss the behavior of Indian authorities, who have tried to have outspoken Taslima Nasreen tone things down, and have informed Nasreen, who fled to India from her native Bangladesh after death threats and noisy chanting mobs, that they cannot guarantee her safety.
That's India. But it's the same in the West. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in The Netherlands, had to live for years under armed guards, and discovered that even in Washington, D.C. she required similar protection. And Magdi Allam, though an editor at Corriere della Sera, and frequent guest on the RAI (the state television channel), requires several armed guards. And Wafa Sultan, who lives on the West Coast, has recently had to go into hiding, with her family.
Still none of these people is going to shut up, or stop writing, or stop appearing to warn about the meaning, and therefore the menace, of Islam.
While the apostates from Islam represent the most morally and intellectually aware of those born into Islam, the "reverts" to Islam in the West, when they are not obviously economically and socially marginal, and finding a justification for their own alienation from society, that is are the kind of "reverts" who are slightly off, have been on a Spiritual Search, and stopped off at the bus-stop marked "Islam," are a different matter. Study them long enough, and you are sure to find what I think is legitimiate to describe as the behavior and attitudes of the psychically marginal. It may be obvious, as in the case of John Walker Lindh, and so too may what prompted it (that parody of a Marin County family). Or it may be slightly less obvious, as in the case in question.
I call it "Adult-Onset Islam." Has it been classified yet as a psychiatric disorder? No, and of course it won't be. But ask any of the apostates from Islam how they would characterize the mental condition that, today, would lead an adult in the free Western world to convert to Islam -- and especially a woman, who isn't doing it for some man (music, maestro, please: just a few hummable bars of Frank Loesser's "When You See A Gent" from "Guys and Dolls," with the obvious nedd to reverse the sexes in the lyrics) but because she's just wild about Islam -- and they'll give you a horrified earful.
Adult-Onset Islam. Yes, the phrase has possibilities. Feel free.
Thank God for the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.
l do like the term "Adult-onset islam". Still l cannot fathom any women accepting islam as her religion. but then l feel they have not lived life in the land of the sauds and to feel life behind closed doors, not being able to go about freely, these reverts have no idea how the born and bred muslim women's life has been in a real muslim society. these reverts have no idea while living in luxury of the west.
"This means that we do not deliberately try to humiliate each other."
by Ingrid Mattson
What a strange idea of "humiliation" Moslems have. Quoting their prophet and/or citing his actions somehow humiliates them.
Are any Christians ever humiliated by someone quoting Jesus, or describing His acts?
Are any Buddhists ever humiliated by some citing the Buddha's actions or words?
Of course, neither Christ nor Buddha were liars, or murderers, or rapists, or highway robbers, or oath-breakers, or . . . .
But Mighty Mo, ah there's a different story. I suppose in a way it is humiliating to be reminded of what a rat your prophet was. But there's such an easy way out: convert.
l do like the term "Adult-onset islam". Still l cannot fathom any women accepting islam as her religion."
-- from a posting above
Do you know how many girls and women convert to Islam, and not only convert to Islam, but become fervent, fervid, fanatical supporters of Islam's party line, all because of someone's smooth outward pattera and liquid brown eyes, and of course his eye is on the prize -- that green card, that citizenship. Do you know how many of those women, once married, and even with the mask being ripped off, or slowly peeled off, their formerly so courteous and even gentle-voiced new husbands, continue to stay because they now have children, and they are subject to threats from their husband and his family, including the threat of taking the children away and whisking them back to some wonderful place, Riyadh or Ramallah, it hardly matters.
And in the end, she lives a life of whole, or partial, wretchedness, and sometimes the kids are indeed snatched away, taken to the Middle East for that old-time religion, and she can try all she wants, and cry all she wants, but from a place like Saudi Arabia she's unlikely ever to retrieve or even possibly see her children again.
There ought to be a big book of testimonies by those who have suffered, akin to the book recounting the stories of individual apostates, "Leaving Islam." Call it "I Married A Muslim" and offer a dozen, two dozen, five dozen case studies. An attempt to warn others. It might work for some. And you know the pious platitude-- "if just one person can be helped by this book, it will have been...."
Well, that platitude in this case happens to be true.
Hugh, what an excellent idea. Love is blind (for awhile), and what a shock it must be when the blinders have been removed from these "converts".
Apart from the obvious reason, the place women have in their society is my second reason to dislike their religion and is what originally got me interested in finding out more about it. Now I know so much about it that I wish I didn't sometimes. What's that old saying? Ignorance is bliss?
ebonystone: Good point. What Christian or Buddhist would object to direct quotes or mention of actions by Jesus or Buddha? Even more important, what Christian or Buddhist would threaten serious bodily harm or even death for doing so? But Muslims do every day of the week. Muslims do a hell of a lot of threatening. Whining too. Oh man, can they whine.
Abdoulaye Wade, the President of Senegal and chairman of the OIC, said: "I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits."
You cannot have freedom of religion or expression without freedom from blasphemy, for example, Christian beliefs are blasphemous to Muslims, and vice versa.
"When she says that "we do not have to agree with each other or love each other, but we have to afford respect to each other,"
Is this the latest dogma we're expected to buy into, that we "have to afford respect to each other?"
I don't respect Islam, Mohammad or Islam's holy books. They are an abomination, and I have a right to say so.
Hate speech laws are a denial of that right, and and an attempt to force people to acknowledge something as respectable that they might not believe is respectable.
They are nothing less than imposing someone elses belief system on the rest of us.
I'll respect Islam when it makes itself respectable, and not before.
northernvirginiastan: Just took a look at your web site and would like to extend my compliments to you. I found the material relating to how Arabic is taught to Westerners particularly interesting. Diligence towards all things Islamic in America bears watching lest this country descend to the state Britain now is in.
Anyone who can be humiliated by someone who doesn't know any better has a thin skin.
The person whose faith is strong will not be bothered by those who reject it. Muslims' answer should not be to suppress this film but to create their own answer to the charges the film makes.
At the very least, the response of all Muslims should be: we pity you. You just don't get it. We are secure in the love of our god and you will never be. They should then go on their way. Refuse to pay for the movie. Vote against those who support it. Go to the mosque and say their prayers. In short, act civilized.
Of course they can't do that because their religion requires them to force all others to submit to islam's god or die.
Isn't that humiliation? When have Muslims who think they have the upper hand ever shown the slightest respect for non-Muslims? How about Muslims stop humiliating the rest of humanity before they start whining that others aren't being nice to them?
Abdoulaye Wade, the President of Senegal and chairman of the OIC, said: "I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits."
In other words, he gets to decide, based on his religious beliefs, whether or not what Geert Wilders says is protected speech.
The answer to all who would suppress speech that is deemed "hateful" should be: sunlight is the best disinfectant.
If you don't know what others think there is no way you can counter it. If your faith is secure then you shouldn't need a crowd to validate it and it shouldn't be necessary for you to silence your opposition. The idea that opposition equals humiliation exists only in Islam.
"Thank God for the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights."
MP,
I wouldn't put too much faith in the idea that the constitution and the bill of rights will protect you. Remember that the constitution means whatever the majority on the supreme court says it means.
When "hate crime" laws were first enacted I was absolutely certain that the supreme court would strike them down. After all, a hate crime is nothing but a thought crime. They punish people for their thoughts, not for an actual physical crime, but the court allowed them to stand.
If, according to the supreme court, it's constitutional to punish people for hateful thoughts, why not for hateful speech?
It's all tied into the dogma prevalent on the court that "evolving standards of decency" determines constitutionality, not what the constitution actually says.
There's not a single protection in the constitution that can't be violated if the court determines that it's the decent thing to do.
@ rational
"Is this the latest dogma we're expected to buy into, that we "have to afford respect to each
other?"
I think it is and it is dangerous. The dutch PM and his minsters have repeatedly said that freedom is speech is oke, but it has to be used with responsibility and respect. The rest of the political and cultural elite have quickly adopted the idea.
But not only the dutch government, this mantra is also to be heared coming from EU-institutions and representatives as well as the UN. Not to mention all the different islamic institutions, agency's and what have you, dedicated to fighting "islamofobia".
Now the danger is this.
There is no way that a constitutional right that has been clear and in place for over a century, can suddenly be restricted by some rather vague concepts like "respect" and "responsibility". It just is not in the constitution and never has been.
However, in the Netherlands freedom of speech is only limited by restrictions on speech that is defamatory, libelous or insults a group of people based on their race or religion, as Robert rightly mentioned. Up to a couple of years ago these limitations only applied to speech that can reasonable be seen as defamatory, etc., ig telling people to kill other people and so on. And there was a large concensus when speech really went too far.
Over the years we have seen that the dutch authorities are increasingly applying and even expanding these limitations to speech critical of islam. And only islam, mind you!
So the danger is that it is rather an easy judicial way, to get around the constitional "freedom of speech-problem". In fact, it is, to some extent, already in place.
So hearing this mantra echoed by the national and international western and islamic elites and their organizations, spells trouble to me!
The Netherlands, like most other countries, has certain restrictions on speech that is defamatory, libelous or insults a group of people based on their race or religion."
Doesn't the Quran in numerous places (including those in Mr. Wilders film) have speech that is defamatory, libelous or insults a group of people (namely people of the book and/or infidels) based on their race or religion.) violate the Dutch hate speech law? Why doesn't someone make a formal complaint?
Time to fight fire with fire. Since we still have free speech in the U.S. we can't file a formal complaint (which is as it should be), but in those countires that have those laws, there is a remedy. The Canadian human rights/hate speech committee that recently had Mr Steyn on trial comes to mind. The Quran is full of hate speech under Canadian hate speech laws and should be banned from Canada. Let them try to defend what the quran says in a formal trial/hearing situation.
Then again, given the dhimmitude of the Canadian Government (along with our own), they would just conduct riots and argue that the claim of hate speech is hate speech towards muslims and get the whole thing dismissed. And probably compensation for personal injury to boot.
Hugh - two books of the kind you call for, cautionary tales to warn young non-Muslim women...Do Not Marry A Muslim...have already been written.
I refer you to Phyllis Chesler's website (Phyllis Chesler, who in her foolish salad days married a plausible and charming Afghan Muslim, and lived in Kabul, but there came to her senses, and managed to escape by the skin of her teeth, and later wrote about it in 'My Afghan Captivity').
Here she is, reviewing two books by another woman who married an Arab, and has then talked to others, kafir wives of Muslim men, and has recorded their stories, for the better instruction of others.
http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2008/06/20/american-woman-arab-man-tales-of-horror-in-the-harem/
Note Chesler's unashamedly sensational title - 'American woman/ Arab man - tales of horror in the harem'. (A little rewording perhaps, and it would be perfect - 'Kafir woman, Muslim man - tales of horror in the harem').
A sample.
"This is another kind of Cassandra. Her visions of danger and doom concern what happens when an American woman marries an Arab and Muslim man.
"'Cassandra' {the author's nom de plume} herself was once married to an Arab Christian [?] and, based on that experience has, so far, written two books:
'Escape from an Arab Marriage: Horror Stories of Women Who Fled From Abusive Muslim Husbands' (2006) and 'Thirty Three Secrets Arab Men Never Tell American Women' (2008). {Again, perhaps the second book should be titled, more correctly, '33 Secrets Muslim Men Never Tell Kafir Women'}.
"In the first book, she ['Cassandra'] tells the stories of many American [kafir] women who married Arab Muslim men and what happened to them.
"The stories are gripping, terrifying, highly dramatic–and depressingly similar. At first, the men are utterly charming, generous, solicitous of their American girlfriend’s every need.
"After they are married to American citizens and can claim their own citizenship, they revert to form: Almost overnight, they become cruel, condescending, physically abusive, suspicious, insanely controlling, unfaithful, deceptive, and highly secretive."
I should say that I recently had an interesting conversation with a very nice Australian Christian couple (Anglicans) whose daughter, while living and working in Algeria (precise situation unclear) had met, and married, an Algerian Muslim. From the sounds of it, he was a 'lax' or 'cultural' Muslim, from a somewhat Frenchified family, who had appeared quite charming when they (the girl's parents) paid a visit.
Everything had seemed fine at first, but after five years it all fell apart, ending in divorce.
The young woman in question was extremely lucky: there were no children of the marriage, and she had resisted converting. As her mother said, the girl had read all the books, she had studied up on Islam, but 'she just couldn't do it' (i.e., convert). (I wonder whether she just had too much hard-headed Aussie common sense, and finding out what Islam actually taught, woke her up rather than sucking her in).
I congratulated them on their daughter's common sense and her very lucky escape.
Northernvirginiastan, HOVDummy, AlwaysOnWatch and others in the DC area, did you see the note on AtlasShrugs?
Pamela Geller is hoping someone in the DC area will attend a congressional task force meeting on the UN religious/hate speech issue and report back to her. There are numbers at the end of the article for a couple congressional offices to call for more info on the meeting that is open to the public.
See
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/religious-defam.html
Not so different from Australia's extra-slick taqiyya spin-meister Yusuf Irfan:
Same song and dance, year-in, year-out, but the moment you take a closer look, the whole thing falls part like a house of cards. Like here:
"The good news is that young Muslims are taking control of their own spiritual destinies. Young Muslims are looking to Europe and the United States for sensible relevant voices like Hamza Yusuf Hanson and Tariq Ramadan. "
Now google Tariq Ramadan or check Daniel Pipes on what he has to say about Mamza Yusuf Hanson. And Yusuf sells this crap as some kind of all NEW Islam, a bit like Irshad manji, really.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2298009.htm#comments
.. In her (Ingrid Mattsson's) statement on Geert Wilders' film Fitna, "Respecting the Qur'an' ....
What's there in the Qu'ran to respect?
Just saw the 06:21 pm post about two Israelis being shot by terrorists. My first thought was "thank goodness they weren't humiliated, that would have been serious."
The Islamic duty to use lies and dissemination (taqiyya) to spread Islam
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/07/12/the-islamic-duty-to-use-lies-and-dissemination-taqiyya-to-spread-islam/
The hypocrisy would be shocking if we weren't so used to it by now. High-minded talk of respect from western Islamic advocates, alongside violent threats from others. Meanwhile Muslims have done more than make films. They have destroyed holy places of Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and others to the celebration of their Muslim brethren. The pattern is to demolish and destroy the sacred places of other religions, physically attack Christians on Christmas, Jews on Yom Kippur, Hindus and Buddhists during their holy days and any other days they feel empowered to. Meanwhile, any word to expose what Muslims are doing and why is met with outrage, deep hurt, wild threats, and cries of racism. Do any Muslims really believe they are being treated unfairly? Deep down they understand what the ummah is up to because they participate in it by acquiescence or outright participation. The name of this game is domination by any means.
dumbledoresarmy,
Regarding the Australian couple whose daughter married an Algerian, any idea on when they got married?
I wonder how many such unions have taken place in just the last ten years, even as Islam's war against everyone else grows in intensity.
There ought to be a big book of testimonies by those who have suffered, akin to the book recounting the stories of individual apostates, "Leaving Islam." Call it "I Married A Muslim" and offer a dozen, two dozen, five dozen case studies. An attempt to warn others. It might work for some. And you know the pious platitude-- "if just one person can be helped by this book, it will have been...."
-From Hugh's comment, above
In addition to Chesler's books, cited by another poster above, there is a far better known, and harrowing book, Not Without My Daughter, by Betty Mahmoody, which became a movie starring Sally Field. Briefly, a midwestern American woman marries a charming, intelligent, and seemingly nonreligious and thoroughly Westernized Iranian-born physician, with whom she has a daughter. He becomes homesick and she reluctantly goes to post-Shah Iran with him to visit his family, whereupon her husband undergoes a horrific transformation, refusing to return to America, holding her and their child hostage. Ultimately, she escapes to Turkey and finds refuge, with her daughter, at the American Embassy. Mahmoody wrote the book (entirely non-fiction) as a warning to non-Muslim women never to marry a Muslim. How this book, and the movie which followed, could be so quickly forgotten is alarming to me. I believe the book is still in print, and the movie should still be available as well. Either is a must-have.
"Thank God for the Constitution of the United States"
Did you know that it was based loosely on the British Constitution? Didn't know that the British had a Constitution?
Please take a look at www.namastepublishing.co.uk and click on 'Elizabeth Beckett'. This elderly lady's lone fight will never be published in Britain!
commonsense
It might be a very good idea for films such as 'Submission', and books such as 'Not Without My Daughter' (or its film equivalent), Chesler's book, and the books Chesler mentioned, together with Ayaan Hirsi Ali's 'The Caged Virgin', to be generally shared by Islam-savvy non-Muslim women, with their unmarried female friends and relations and workmates and schoolmates.
Indeed, Christian womens groups such as the Mothers Union and Girls Brigade - and equivalent groups in other non-Muslim faith communities - might find it advisable to run regular sessions in which their girls aged 12-18 view films such as 'Submission' under the guidance of informed senior women, with discussion afterward, and examination of sections of Mr Spencer's books, or of his Quran blog, and some of the articles discussed on this website, that deal with what Muslim texts teach about the treatment of women, and what regularly happens to women in Muslim countries.
Cautionary tales about the perpetual Muslim abductions, abuse and 'conversion' of Jewish, Coptic, Christian and Hindu girls of nubile age (or even younger!) might also be told.
@ walterc
Doesn't the Quran in numerous places (including those in Mr. Wilders film) have speech that is defamatory, libelous or insults a group of people (namely people of the book and/or infidels) based on their race or religion.) violate the Dutch hate speech law? Why doesn't someone make a formal complaint?
There is no point making a formal complaints because this kind of hate speech is protected by constitutional right to freedom of religion. Therefore you can not have a re;igious book banned.
Now the thing that boggs my mind is the question what would have happened if Hitler hadnt claimed Mein Kampf (the only book that is formally forbidden in the netherlands) as his own work, but claimed it was a divine revelation.
dumbledoresarmy:
Your suggestions (above) are excellent. I always read your comments, as should everyone, as they are compelling.