In a modern way the Danish newspaper 'Jyllands Posten', has become like the Rosa Parks of the Islam debate.

By refusing to give in to censorship - it has become the leading star of our times.

Posted by: Pass It On at March 1, 2006 6:49 AM

Excellent! I'm sending a copies to my local papers too.

Posted by: justamomof4 at March 1, 2006 7:05 AM

This has also been published in France today by Charlie Hebdo

http://www.france-echos.com/actualite.php?cle=8594

Posted by: Sebastien at March 1, 2006 7:07 AM

If only ever organ of the main stream media would publish this - but they won't.

I'll bet the silence will be deafening.

I have sent it to all three of my local papers - bet they won't publish either.

Posted by: Certiorari at March 1, 2006 7:29 AM

Sir David Low is Danish too...

http://hmmh.blogspot.com/2006/02/cartoonist-fought-hitler.html

The cartoon of Hitler marching up the "spineless leaders of democracy" is uncanny.

Posted by: mistyhymen at March 1, 2006 7:36 AM

This is a marvelous Manifesto. I am sure that Voltaire must wish he were back in time as he reads it.

Posted by: Frank at March 1, 2006 7:45 AM

Hebdo's publication is mentioned at this german language site as well:

http://www.baz.ch/news/index.cfm?ObjectID=B1D45E3B-1422-0CEF-706B6758A295881C

All the best,
Mac

Posted by: amana39 at March 1, 2006 7:50 AM

I have emailed this article and the link to the original, to the newspapers of three major cities in my area. Multiple contacts for each email... I will be curious to see if anyone even answers, let alone publish this.

Posted by: Gary at March 1, 2006 8:06 AM

What a breath of fresh air "freedom"! my hats of to these individualas, lets see if the spinless media
picks up on this! all they have been doing is repeating their mantra about Bush low in polls taken from yes the CBS polls, a very trust worthy source of credible news...oh well if your a leftist, anti western sort of person! bravo for this article!

Posted by: Lulu at March 1, 2006 8:13 AM

Why stop at twelve? Or are these the dirty dozen of hard-hitting writers? I might have gone for a baker's dozen myself and included a Guardian jorno.

Posted by: FallingProphet at March 1, 2006 8:19 AM

Sorry, I do think they mean well but, a critique:

I have a real problem with their expression of what "totalitarianism" is.
In fact, by limiting it to numerous labels that were invented by the totalitarians themselves they are hiding the core elements that all these supposedly different "ideologies" shared, and that is COLLECTIVISM and Statism.
It is an EXTREMELY obvious side-step or even possible DECEPTION to name "Stalinism" without any reference to what was before or after Stalin in the "Stalinist" countries.
Of course, Mr. Kruschev played this game when confronted after the fact that Stalin's policies had become well-known around the world, and could not be denied. Mr. Kruschev had blood-soaked hands as well.
The fact is, Stalin was a very serious student of "Marx and Lenin(and a true intellectual), at worst, "he was impatient and made the mistake of trying to see the goal realized in his lifetime. But the USSR had to figure out a way of saving the Communist idea, so they scape-goated Stalin as the true cause of the excesses. Nevermind that "Stalinism" was just a logical extension of "Leninism". Mr Lenin had his "crimes against humanity" too. Less well known of course.

By ignoring Communism/Socialism/Collectivism in the classification of totalitarianism I see a willful blindness that in fact exposes a updated twist on the Kruschev/Soviet tactical game. In my view collectivism is totalitarianism, it does not necessarily have to be a physically brutal totalitarianism, it can be a "soft" totalitarianism. Totalitarians/collectivists certainly can claim to be proponents of "free-speech" and expression, and when collectivists are in control of "government" and the various information-media/legal/educational/cultural institutions, they can feel very safe to allow it.

These people it seems to me are bound to an ideological dogma of their own, of which I suspect "Humanism" being the inspirational source. All "ideologies" are TOTALITARIAN, and are traps to enslave the mind.

Egalitarianism:
"the doctrine of the equality of mankind and the desirability of political and economic and social equality".(the freedictionary.com)

Marxism. Globalization. Humanism. Word-games.
(Pseudo)"Scientific"(psychological) management of society(the herd) by an elite. Enslave the mind, and the body will follow.

There is a verbal/linguistic trap that pretty words and emotionalism can obscure concerning the ultimate end result of these dogmas.

Sorry, but no thanks.

Posted by: kentim at March 1, 2006 8:19 AM

It is an EXTREMELY obvious side-step or even possible DECEPTION to name "Stalinism"
--------------------------------------------

its very clever of them to phrase it that way.

if they said "communism" that'd immediately be labelled as "right wing" by the left in Europe.

by saying "stalinism", they can get leftists around to their way of thinking, rather than having leftists immediately discount what they have to say.

whats the point of alienating the 40 to 50 per cent of people in Europe who vote left wing?

this broader struggle against Islamism needs to include the left - and to wake them up from their dhimmi inspired appeasement. that is all.

their approach is the correct one - for Europe anyway.

of course, they could have said "communism" in America and gotten away with it. but this letter is being published in European periodicals, so a different approach is required, in terms of wording.

very clever. i like it.

Posted by: archduke at March 1, 2006 8:25 AM

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism...

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

Too many "isms". This statement is marred by ism-ism. Plain old "Islam" will do. Some of the writers on this list must know this.

And the totalitarian global threat is not new. It has been around for 1350 years.

Apart from that, good stuff.

Posted by: Interested at March 1, 2006 8:26 AM

Aljazeera is commenting the 'Manifesto'.

Aljazeera.Net - Writers slam Islamic 'totalitarianism':

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9F873D63-8FE0-4789-8292-BB3623E86995.htm

Posted by: rotterdam at March 1, 2006 8:33 AM

Islamism - short for Islamic Imperialism- is the new orthodoxy of the jihad that has to be examined openly and skeptically in the Press and mass media.

Its ultimate goal?

George Orwell defined it well:

"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

No further thought allowed.

No analysis allowed.

No doubt allowed.

The Koran as a roadblock to any free future.

No Press but the theocratically-censored permitted.

And it begins when the Press adopts the tyrant's rules before the mind-killers even gain power.

From craven imbecility.

Any resistance, like this, is a start.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 1, 2006 8:33 AM

I see your point archduke, but I don't really think the "leftists" are so ignorant of Islam. The fact is that leftists are well known for their contempt for any religion.

Posted by: kentim at March 1, 2006 8:39 AM

It was exactly right. Can't quarrel (though of course in a different and better world, further along in its understanding, one would) with "Islamism" instead of "Islam." They know what they are doing.

Posted by: Hugh at March 1, 2006 8:56 AM

I fell into a leftist trap in my last statement.
I should rephrase it to say: Lefists are well-known to have contempt for anything that opposes or interferes with their ideology. Including truth, facts,evidence and reality.

By my restricting it to religion I inadvertently submit to leftists purported association with science and objectivity. They use the obvious metaphysical construct of religion to hide their own reliance on dogma.

It is a false equation. But still the Hegelian Dialectical process is functional in that equation.

Posted by: kentim at March 1, 2006 8:56 AM

The leftists are well known for contempt of religion, but much more
against Christianity and Judaism. Islam fits neatly under their wing of "victimhood".

Posted by: NoMo at March 1, 2006 8:58 AM

too bad,that none of the U.S.A media,has as much backbone,as these people.God,how muslims must hate that article!!!God pless them people,and i hope they got good security,they're gunna need it

Posted by: patriot at March 1, 2006 8:59 AM

I think 'interested' made the most telling point, the use of 'Islamism' to make the artificial distinction from Islam. It was obviously a political consideration; those names on the list full-well understand the nature of the beast (Islam).

As it is, the manifesto will be nothing but a tiny blip in the course of modern history...less relevant than the 12 cartoons. Had they exhibited the courage to substitute the word Islam for Islamism, then we would have seen a new round of ferment and anger...and the exposition of intolerance on an entirely different (and indefensible) plain, one absent the canard of 'insult,' but fully possessing the intellectual and moral essence of a very real conflict.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 1, 2006 9:05 AM

We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions.

I have a problem with this statement! 'Cultural relativism', if it is anything, must surely be defined in the OPPOSITE way: It accepts that men and women of Muslim culture are deprived neither of the right to equality nor the freedom to practise their faith. So the converse must surely be true: That in an atmosphere infused with 'cultural relativism', all cultures and all religions have equal value, and must be regarded as equal, regardless of the beliefs of those diverse cultures, and regardless of the particular tenets of those religions.

Moreover, I reject TOTALLY this false distinction between Islam, the real thing, and 'Islamism', the invention, surely, of the infidel to try and understand the aggressive nature of the jihad, and separate it from the so-called 'moderate Muslims' within.

There is but one Islam, and that's Islam itself. 'Islamism' - I'd love to know who coined this ridiculous expression! - obfuscates the true problem we face, namely the growth of Islam in the West, and therefore the increasing Islamization of our societies, and the jihad itself, which is the tool of the Muslim to bring this state about.

Let us, for goodness' sake, think clearly, for without clear-thinking, we shall never overcome this grave threat to our civilization.

To talk of 'Islamism', and make a fake distinction between that and Islam, is like making a false distinction between Christianity and 'Christianism'! We don't do this with Christianity, so why should we do it with Islam?

'Islamism' is the invention of the infidel thought up because he is unable to come to terms with the notion that a major world religion is out to destroy our way of life. Has anyone ever heard a practising Muslim use the word? I doubt it!

The jihad is fed by Islam, that means to say by the Qur'an, the teachings and sayings (Ahadith) of the Prophet Muhammad, and As-Sirah. These are the sources of the problem - die Quelle des Übels! It is what the so-called 'Islamism' is based on! "Islamism', if it is anything, is not a source, but the result of taking the religion of Islam literally; and that's what all true Muslims do anyway.

Posted by: Mark Alexander at March 1, 2006 9:12 AM

They must know the problem is Islam rather than some political version of it. After all, where is the apolitical version of Islam, the one that makes a distinction between public and private spheres, between sin and crime?

But if you accept Islam good, Islamism bad, then Mohammed has to be the first Islamist. Someone should have told him that Islam was a religion of peace, then he wouldn't have beheaded all those Jews, robbed all those caravans and raped all those women.

Posted by: Interested at March 1, 2006 9:15 AM

It's swell that these famous Left-leaning intellectuals have taken a universalist/non-relativist stand on human rights, but the REAL issue is: What are they willing to do about it?!

Are they willing to support a proactive, bold, aggressive counter-attack - including sanctions, blockades and even preemptive military strikes?

Will they urge their own nations to do more to help the USA and the UK and the other coalition members assist the emerging Iraqi democracy?

Will they support an end to immigration without assimiliation? Will they support the deportation of radical Muslims who incite violence? Will they demand that nations which don't allow its citizens the universal human rights outlined in the UN Declaration be demoted to "observer status" at the UN?

Will they at least criticize their comrades on the Left who - at best - have been skeptical of Bush, and at worst accused him of being a lying, torturing war criminal who went to war for oil/Halliburton/family revenge?

Or do they just want to sign petitions and send strongly worded, high-minded letters?

I suspect it's the latter, and we don't need them for that - we already got Blix and Baradei and Kofi for that!

I pray they prove me wrong, and that this represents the beginning of a more unified West. If that's the case, we will be more likely to have the resolve necessary to defeat the enemy in this - THE LONG WAR.

Posted by: reliapundit - the astute blogger at March 1, 2006 9:28 AM

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:Kjtb2IOzBqAJ:www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Voltaire+voltaire&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9

It has always been a marvel to me how Voltaire so disagreed with Rousseau, yet he protected him when the Church hunted Rousseau because of his "blasphemy." Voltaire thought all ideas and opinions based on reason were to be protected, defended, that incitement to violence is the enemy free speech, of reason.

Posted by: Frank at March 1, 2006 9:29 AM

There may be a tactical advantage to be gained from pretending the problem is a particular version of Islam, namely Islamism - or Qutbism or Wahabism or Wahever - and that the true Islam is benign.

In Monty Python's wonderful "Life of Brian", there is the line "apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system, and public health... What have the Romans ever done for us? ". In a reverse of this, one could argue that Islam, as opposed to Islamism, is fine and dandy. Apart from the jihad, the dhimmitude, the subordination of women, polygamy, concubinage, slavery, stoning, flogging, the subjugation of the infidels, the suppression of free speech and free enquiry, the absence of art, sculpture, literature and music, the prohibition on wine, the poverty, stagnation and cruelty, what is wrong with Islam?

Posted by: Interested at March 1, 2006 9:33 AM

We all know that when they write "Islamism" they mean -- or most of them do (likely not Irshad Manji or Bernard-Henri Levy or Salman Rushdie) "Islam" tout court. But at this point they can't do it. Should we attack them, as we would normally attack anyone who shied away from using the word "Islam" and subsituted "Islamism" or "Islamofascism" or "radical" Islam? In this particular case, no.

Yeats once wrote that the artist had to choose "Perfection of the life or of the work." A silly formulation, then and now. But I'll repeat it to make a point. To have their message more widely disseminated, and more immediately effective, and possibly to attract more public interest and support, perhaps even more signatories, it was deemed necessary to use the word "Islamism" instead of "Islam." hIn so doing, the letter's carefu composers (yes, "Stalinism" instead of "Communism") have wisely chosen, for this case only, a variant on Yeats's formulation: "protection of the life and of the work."

Posted by: Hugh at March 1, 2006 9:40 AM

"
Apart from the jihad, the dhimmitude, the subordination of women, polygamy, concubinage, slavery, stoning, flogging, the subjugation of the infidels, the suppression of free speech and free enquiry, the absence of art, sculpture, literature and music, the prohibition on wine, the poverty, stagnation and cruelty, what is wrong with Islam?
"

brilliant I will repeat this to anyone who cares to listen and of course I wont claim it as my own!!

Posted by: johnmac at March 1, 2006 9:44 AM

You can if you want. Just bung me five quid.

Posted by: Interested at March 1, 2006 9:47 AM

Nice to see a good mix of Muslims and non-Muslims there. Some are apostate and semi-apostate. All I know is that the Muhammad of the Koran had a very vicious, murderous side to him to put it mildly. Some pagan idolaters worship demon gods and Muslims come close to this.

(I've got nothing against Hindus because they don't try to conquer others)

Posted by: dennisw at March 1, 2006 9:49 AM

Hugh,

You repeatedly slam Bush for quibbling in his fight against islam, yet you
give these people a pass. Why the difference?

Posted by: NoMo at March 1, 2006 9:51 AM

Rough Translation of the French Posting...

Charlie Hebdo publishes Wednesday March 1, 2006 a proclamation against islamist terrorism In its edition of Wednesday Charlie Hebdo a text of 12 intellectuals against "Islamic totalitarianism" This text signed by twelve intellectuals publishes whose Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen, are entitled "Together against new totalitarianism, Islamism". Charlie Hebdo, in a presentation of proclamation, stresses that certain signatories "were threatened of death". "After having overcome Fascism, the Nazism, Stalinism, the world faces a new total threat of totalitarian type: Islamism. We writers, journalists, intellectuals, call with resistance to religious totalitarianism and with the promotion of freedom, of the secularity and equal opportunity for all "they wrote. After the business of the caricatures, they affirm that "that highlighted the need for the fight for these universal values, which will not be gained by the weapons but on the ground of the ideas". They add that it "does not act of a shock of civilizations or an antagonism the Occident-East but of a total fight which opposes the democrats to the theocrats". "Nothing, not even despair, justifies to choose the obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is an ideology reactionary. Its success can lead only to one world of injustice and of domination ", they continue. To final, they say to refuse the "cultural relativism" and launch a call "with all the free spirits of all the countries". Signatories: Ayaan Hirsi Ali (appointed Dutchwoman of Somali extraction, scenario writer of the film "Submission"), Chahla Chafiq (écrivaine of Iranian origin exiled in France), Caroline Fourest (French essay writer), Bernard-Henri Levy (French philosopher), Irshad Manji (essay writer living in Canada, whose family had fled Uganda), Mehdi Mozaffari (university of Iranian origin exiled in Denmark), Maryam Namazie (écrivaine of Iranian origin exiled in Great Britain), Taslima Nasreen (doctor and écrivaine exiled of Bangladesh after having been the object of death threats by the islamist ones), Salman Rushdie (writer British, condemned to died by a fatwa of Antoine Sfeir (directing of the review Books of the East), Philippe Valley (directing of publication of Charlie Hebdo), Ibn Warraq (enquiring American of indo-Pakistani origin, author of "Why I am not Moslem"). Source:

Source:
www.france2.fr

KnightHawk

Posted by: KnightHawk at March 1, 2006 9:59 AM

Here is a great little summation of the evils of cultural relativism:

In his excellent book, The Killing of History (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000)Keith Windschuttle says, among many other intelligent things, as follows:

"The late Ernest Gellner pointed out the basic logical flaws in cultural relativism. In his book Postmodernism, Reason and Religion, Gellner showed that relativists are saddled with two unresolvable dilemmas. They endorse as legitimate other cultures that do not return the compliment. Some other cultures, of which one of the best known is Islam, will have no truck with relativism of any kind. The devout are totally confident of the universalism of their own beliefs which derive from the dictates of God, an absolute authority who is external to the world and its cultures. They regard a position such as postmodern cultural relativism as profoundly mistaken and, moreover, debasing. Relativism devalues their faith because it reduces it to merely one of many equally valid systems of meaning. So, entailed within cultural relativism is, first, an endorsement of absolutisms that deny it, and, second, a demeaning attitude to cultures it claims to respect." (p. 301-2)

Posted by: Mentat at March 1, 2006 10:05 AM

Interested said it in in a few words:

"Apart from the jihad, the dhimmitude, the subordination of women, polygamy, concubinage, slavery, stoning, flogging, the subjugation of the infidels, the suppression of free speech and free enquiry, the absence of art, sculpture, literature and music, the prohibition on wine, the poverty, stagnation and cruelty, what is wrong with Islam?"

Kudos

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 1, 2006 10:06 AM

Interested-

Well put!

Be sure to throw in:

Aside from being founded on a pedophile warlord, what's so wrong with Islam?

Text analyzers-

Quibbling with a group of allies about the wording of their brave opposition to Islamic Imperialism (which I prefer to "Islamism", and I hope this is how they explain its meaning when asked by the cowering Press) diffuses the energy needed to defend Civilization against this absolutist theocratic tyranny. Which will not be defeated by an appeal to any other religion's beliefs, alone.

We need every like mind working to defeat these dogmatic Islamic maniacs.

Once the threat is past, then we can go back to arguing over the quantity of angels able to samba on a pinhead.

When Ibn Warraq can show his face, and when Salamn Rushdie can walk down the main street of any Western city openly, then we can squander our resources on phraseological analysis of the various methods that prevented "Islamism" from conquering the world.

If we bite one another's ankles while they slice off people's heads (schoolteachers in Afghanistan being the latest), they may conquer us.

As the Buddha advised:

-Don't waste time asking of the name of the person who shot you with the poison arrow, or their tribal affiliation, -just pull the damned thing out!

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 1, 2006 10:12 AM

@ kentim,
...am I mistaken or do you really seem to think that throwing a bunch of fancy words at a problem might solve it? After ruminating over several -isms (what about revisionism, eh?), your concluding remarks are a bit of a disappointment to me. Let's try to walk along that fancy road for a bit longer... ;-)

Should your view in general be, that linking jihadist ideology to all kinds of socialisms (be it "national" or "international") are a distraction from the 1400 year old completely self-reliant totalitarian doctrine of islamism ... then I would fully agree with your
-ism "exegesis".
But since you buried the manifesto-of-12 under your very own -ismist shovelling , I'm not entirely sure about the point you try to make.

Kind regards,
Sag.

Posted by: Sagunto at March 1, 2006 10:14 AM

We all know that when they write "Islamism" they mean -- or most of them do ... "Islam" tout court.

Maybe. They do, in any case, specifically refer to the bogus ideological concept of "Islamophobia" as:

"... an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

That seems to indicate that they consider that "criticism of Islam as a religion" is necessary.

I do, however, agree with earlier posters that the letter does tend to draw on leftist categories. Consider this:

Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present.

"Reaction" is a traditional boo-term of the left. Moving behind it is a notion of "historical theodicy". It comes out of the thought of people who disposed of God but naively turned all his functions over to "history". (It also draws on the language of Newtonian mechanics, of course.)

In my view, there is no "history" is this sense - i.e., "history" as a process moving, as by a ratchet effect, in a pre-determined direction. (And neither, of course, is Islam a "reaction" to the "movement" of "history", but simply one of the many ways in which people have tried to understand themselves.)

Books such as Sir Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies - not to mention an open mind and an eye on current events - should have taught people who claim to speak for the West the need for greater scepticism in such matters.

I'm not convinced by calls for the "right to equality" either. I think it is important to speak of equality under the law. Nevertheless, a goal-driven politics - a politics in the pursuit of the abstraction "equality" (or any other abstraction, for that matter) - is something we can do without. That kind of thinking was what led, for example, to the "Great Leap Forward" in China.

I wouldn't even speak of "freedom" in the abstract as a goal. I would rather speak of a certain tradition of political thinking in the West that can be described, as Oakeshott does here (and, at length in On Human Conduct) in terms of "civil association".

I do agree with much of the letter, but I think in it's haste to set up a clearly defined "answer" to the threat of Radical Islam it gives an inadequate impression of what the West is about.

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 1, 2006 10:23 AM

We need things simply stated - like our Greeting Cards.

If well said, simple statements often have more impact.

Truth can usually be simply stated.

Interested - I've spent the last three and a half years writing a novel about a guy who takes on our true enemy... I will be trying to get representation for it later this month now that I'm revised and ready... I like to include your quote and attribute it to you ("Interested" a blogger on jihadwatch.org) That would be a great quote for my main character.

Would that be acceptable to you? Please understand the possibility of seeing the quote in print is a long shot at best ( I'm unknown and unpublished) ....but it could happen.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 1, 2006 10:27 AM

One fault I find:

""Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers."

This implies that one could rightly be called an Islamophobic were one to stigmatize Muslims.

From the dictionary: "to stigmatize" -- to brand as ignominious

"ignominious" -- 2. deserving disgrace or shame; despicable.

"despicable" -- deserving of contempt or scorn; vile.

"vile" -- loathsome; disgusting... morally depraved; ignoble or wicked.

I can see from my adumbration of the original word that it has a stratum of arguable demonization. I know that in Europe and the UK, there is a legal culture that tends to try to legally penalize demonization or anything that smacks of demonization. However, in America, a person is free to demonize whatever or whomever he wants, so long as he does not incite to violence against those whom he demonizes.

In Europe and the UK (due to their recent history with Hitler), they are understandably -- but, I maintain, unreasonably -- wary about the potential for mere demonizing rhetoric to lead to violence. The problem comes when the object of what sometimes comes to smack of demonizing rhetoric happens to be a subculture (Islam) based upon reasonably stigmatizable holy texts held by all dedicated members to be unchangeable, absolutely true divine mandates.

A nuanced revision could state that they support the freedom to stigmatize Islam itself and all Muslims who support Islam, but will refrain from stigmatizing all Muslims in toto.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at March 1, 2006 10:31 AM

"You repeatedly slam Bush for quibbling in his fight against islam, yet you give these people a pass. Why the difference?"
-- from a posting above

Let me see. Have the signatories above repeatedly called Islam a religion of "peace" and "tolerance"? Have the signatories above chosen to give, at the White House, an Iftar dinner which is now a custom that will be more difficult to end? Have the signatories above chosen repeatedly to tell us that Islam itself is a "noble religion" that has been taken by others who present a "perversion" of it, as George Bush did in his recent State of the Union message? Have the signatories above a duty to instruct, and protect, hundreds of millions of people in whose name they claim to rule, and have they failed, as Bush and the rest of his adminstration has failed, to figure out a way to discuss Islam, if not completely head on, with no holds barred, at least by degrees to educate the populace, through the asking of disingenous questions, by the pretense, for example, that Jihad as a duty (to spread Islam until it covers the globe, for "Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated") is not central to Islam, but merely something that those "extremists" and "radicals" who, in the idiotic Bush formulation, "would pervert" a "great relgion."

Shall I also adduce, while I am at it, the just as absurd remarks, repeatedly made, by Rice and Hadley? Shall I discuss the strategy that is no strategy, of defeating the world-wide Jihad by manically focussing on bringing "democracy" to Iraq instead of allowing the sectarian and ethnic fissures there to help demoralize and divide the world of Islam? Shall I go on to note the rhetoric about that "addiction to oil" but the missed opportunity, along with that famous five-word phrase, "America is addicted to oil," to add another phrase, this one of six words, that a clever administration would have inserted immediately after that first phrase, and that would have stuck in everyone's mind, and won plaudits, and provoked necessary discussion. To wit: "and oil revenues fund the Jihad."

Shall I talk about Bush's sentimentalism -- "all people love (want, desire) freedom"? His deep respect for anything that is called, or calls itself, a "religion"?

Shall I discuss (oh, sorry, I did discuss at a posting just the other day) the idiotic selective quotation, by Bush, from the Qur'an -- his complacent or ignorant quotation of 5.322 but not of 5.233, the very next verse, that gives quite a different, and more truthful, meaning to 5.232). And did you know that Boubakeur, the agent of Algeria, the imam of the main Paris mosque, the man trotted out by Dominique de Villepin on every occasion to be the "moderate Muslim" in residence, a sinister practitioner of taqiyya, who just this week did exactly what George Bush had done a while back --quoted, quite misleadingly, 5.232 but not 5.223?

There is no contradiction here. Ibn Warraq and the others are trying to make people see what is really at stake, not in the non-existent "clash of civilizations," but in the totalitarian demands of Muslism for Western (and other Infidel) submission to their Muslim ideas of what is permitted and what is forbidden.

I could go on, for hours. But just look at the speech given on February 24th to the American Legion by Bush. Horror after idiotic horror. Or, if you wish, read the transcript of his interview with Elisabeth Vargas on ABC-News last night, and see that he really is terminally uncomprehending of how he should, and must, talk about Islam.

Do you really want me to go on for pages ane pages? I think not. The series of idiotic remarks by Bush on Islam would make us all laugh, and cry, and wince in shame and chagrin.

"Why the difference?" you ask, in my comment that in this one case, for this particular purpose, use of the word "Islamism" (which we all know is inaccurate) can be understood and forgiven, while I do not let Bush get away with what he says.

But Bush constantly, almost nervously, praises Islam, when he might at least remain silent. He not only praises Islam, he offers selective quotation from it, in the spirit of, and following the letter of (who is writing his scripts? who is explaining to him what Islam is all about? Who? We need some names, and those names need to be investigated.) Muslim apologists -- the 2.256 ("There is no compulsion in religion" said with a straight face, and no further discussion) and 5.232 without 5.233 boys.

The signatories of the letter are realists who nowhere praise Islam, even if they do use the word "Islamism." Bush has repeatedly praised Islam. Bush is the leader, or should I write "He is taking a leadership role" in the most powerful Infidel country, on whose attitudes, and acts, the entire Infidel world must rely. He has not done well. He has done poorly. He has not grounded his policy in a thorough understanding of Islam, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics, its remarkable ability to retain a hold on the minds of men, its remarkable ability, by exploiting Western laws, Western customs, Western "tolerance" raised to the level of idiocy, to largely avoid, until now, the kind of attentive analysis and study by non-apologists, that it deserves. Bush is hallucinatory in his plans for Iraq, in his inattention to the islamization of Europe and Russia, in his inability to frame things correctly (Good god, I've written everything he needs to say, right here, for easy reading, over the past 2 1/2 years -- and I haven't even sent him a bill).

"Why the difference?" you ask.

Because there is all the difference in the world.

Posted by: Hugh at March 1, 2006 10:57 AM

That would be a great quote for my main character.

A_Plague_on_Both_Houses - what's your main character like? A cross between Jane Austen and Victoria Wood would do nicely.

Quote me, by all means. More of the same from my alter ego here.

Posted by: Interested at March 1, 2006 11:07 AM

"To have their message more widely disseminated, and more immediately effective, and possibly to attract more public interest and support, perhaps even more signatories, it was deemed necessary to use the word Islamism instead of Islam."

from a poster above.

I submit that the teeth and the significance of the manifesto have been all but lost by this decision. It will be destined to simply disapeer into the din of blogosphearea.

It was cowardice. Plain and simple. I'm not casting aspersions. I'm a coward myself; I don't trumpet my anti-Islamic views on my car bumper or sweater (though I do espouse them religiously at social occasions, much to the consternation of my host-de-jour).

Imagine the splash...imagine the raised eyebrows among the uninitiated...imagine the potential for mainstreaming the manifesto's message...if the word Islam had been used.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 1, 2006 11:13 AM

JihadWatch readers know what heroes Warraq and Ali are.

But a manifesto like this is not meant for JihadWatch readers.

It's meant for a general public as of yet ignorant but now willing and/or interested to learn a bit more about Islam.

So what does this manifesto tell them? It implies that there is nothing wrong with Islam. The problem is with Islamism. No criticism of Islam, just Islamism.

So now we're going to have a new batch of "smart" people who "read up on the issues" and will go around telling their friends, their families, and their politicians that if only we could get people to follow true Islam, rather than this crazy Islamism thing, we'd all be fine.

Sound familiar?

And even worse, because Islamism is not a word that exists in any historical records/books, it furthers the misconception that Islamism must be a new phenomenon, a recent invention by a recent inventor. Again, if we could only get back to the good ol' true Islam, we'd all be fine.

Hugh, there is of course a world of difference between Bush and Warraq, but for someone who has never read up on the subject, this message won't sound much different from Bush's typical equivocations.

Posted by: kamala at March 1, 2006 11:22 AM

No, the poster above is wrong. This letter will be useful.

Ordinarily, collective letters are suspect, often idiotic. They tend to take positions based on little information (for example, on the Middle East otherwise-intelligent people, who know nothing of the history of the area, and nothing about Islam, the source of opposition to Israel, have no difficulty signing all kinds of letters lecturing or hectoring successive Israeli governments). The attitudinizing annoys. The "collective" voice annoys. The very idea that people who might be called "intellectuals" are in fact politically wiser than others, annoys. And a long history, decades of absurdly posturing letters, almost always signed by Harold pinter and Gunter Grass and Susan Sontag, and for all I know by the egregious Christopher Hitchens (no doubt chomping at the bit to sign this one, in his new incarnation as George Orwell), gives the whole thing a bad name.

But this is a good letter, and will have a good effect, above all in Europe. It will support, and reinforce the support of others, for lonely Jyllands-Posten and its few brave fellow publishers, and for all those who recognize the Muslim assault on Western freedoms and values and laws and customs.

It will help promote understanding of the meaning, and menace, of both Islam (never mind that "Islamism") and of those who take the message of Islam completely to heart.

Posted by: Hugh at March 1, 2006 11:26 AM

PS - Ibn Warraq is already living life psuedononymously...what point is there in avoiding antagonizing those eager to kill you anyway?

Moreover, even if Irshad Manji and a couple of others had opted out at the use of the word, the manifesto's significance would still have been much greater than the watered-down version.

I think we can safely assume that most Westerners with any degree of fidelity to their culture are opposed to "Islamism." But for those of us who are initiated, it is plain that "Islamism" is the vision of Muhammad (as 'interested' has written), that Islamism is essentially Islam in practice.

This manifesto was hardly profound - but it might have been had the word Islam been used.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 1, 2006 11:27 AM

Here is a clip from history - when a part of Europe was under Islamic rule.
*Note the role reversal where martyrdom was used against the early Islamic rulers, but also that they too, dared to openly criticize the Prophet Muhammad.
________________
Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica
The Moors – Muslim Spain

'Abd ar-Rahman II inaugurated an era of political, administrative, and cultural regeneration for Muslim Spain, beginning a sharp "Orientalization," or, more precisely, of an "Iraqization." 'Abd ar-Rahman's greatest problems sprang from his restless vassals in the Ebro valley, namely, the convert Banu Qasi family, and, before his death, above all, from the Mozarabs.

Incited by the extremist chiefs Alvaro and Eulogio (the latter being canonized after his death), they sought to strengthen their faith through the aura of martyrdom and began to revile publicly the Prophet Muhammad, an action punishable by death from 850 onward (this is reported only by Mozarabic sources).

The emir sought to persuade the blasphemous to retract, but failing in his attempts, he imposed the death penalty. The "vogue" of seeking martyrdom was a reaction of the conservative Mozarabic party against the growing "Arabization" of their coreligionists. The conflict ended in 859-860, and, in spite of official tact, this provocation by the Christians led to the capital punishment of 53 people and was finally disavowed by the ecclesiastical authorities.

Posted by: Pass It On at March 1, 2006 11:31 AM

Interested - the character is an amalgam of the late Bon Scott and me with a bunch of other bits mixed in to round him out...

When it comes down to it he's willing to take the long walk alone with full knowledge of its ramifications.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 1, 2006 11:33 AM

I've never had a sex change or been in a book before.

Posted by: Interested at March 1, 2006 11:36 AM

Interested - I've seen your posts on the blog for some time and to be honest - I never considered the idea that you might be female. Don't know why?
Anyway, I do have a second strong character that helps the main guy out - she's named Dafna and is a plucky little thing - kind of like Catherine on this site...

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 1, 2006 11:40 AM

I don't mind having the sex change for the occassion of being put in a book, and hope it will be the first of many.

Posted by: Interested at March 1, 2006 11:45 AM

Hugh,

My comment above was to point out that you are willing to forgive
terminology "which we all know is inaccurate" in order
"To have their message more widely disseminated, and more immediately effective"
yet there seems to be less wiggle room allowed for Bush et al. These writers
are not leaders of the most powerful country in the free world, and as such their
words are not followed nearly as closely, nor do they carry as much weight.
In addition, it needs to be remembered that in politics, it's not good
enough just to be right. While I do think that Bush was the least of the evils
we had to choose from, I don't believe it would serve us to have him practice
blunt talk at every opportunity. This boil will most surely need to be lanced
at some point, but first let's at least see if a political consensus can be
forged. As bad as Bush and his administration are, they are still light years
ahead of the rest of the west, with the possible exception of the British.
We will need the west to form some sort of front here or it will surely
spiral into disaster. All I'm saying is we need to recognize a need for
some wiggle room in world politics.

Posted by: NoMo at March 1, 2006 11:47 AM

More Anti Dhimmitude in France from 'Liberation' a very left wing newspaper.

http://www.france-echos.com/actualite.php?cle=8598

It tells the story of Messaoud Bouras who as an apostate, is the most despised of people. Abandoned by his wife, his children and parents.

Born in Roubaix, Northern France, he is preparing a book entitled 'Muslims have killed me'. Ho goes on to explain how Islam has missed out on meodernity and how the Koran is incompatible with Human Rights.

In the thread of the blog linked to above, another apostate writes how his wife aborted rather than have their child raised by a non muslim father.

If French left wing papers can start speaking the truth, I'm sure Mr Bush can make a little effort

Posted by: Sebastien at March 1, 2006 11:49 AM

My reply still stands. The difference is great. This letter does not praise Islam, or selectively and misleadingly quote from the Qur'an, or attribute "peace" and "tolerance" to Islam. Bush has repeatedly done all of those things.

Posted by: Hugh at March 1, 2006 11:51 AM

Thank you very much Interested - it will be a good way to 'hook' people into this site.

Most of us common people in the United States are disinterested in the whole topic - we've got too much living to do. The thing most of us don't realize, even to this point, is that the very lives we hold dear and are so busy living will come to an end if we don't name the enemy and don't face it down. People in the United States don't seem to realize we're in an existential battle of ideas right now, whether we like it or not, and that the threat is immediate and close.

The audience for my story is this same set of people, who will never study the situation. The problem needs to be presented to them viscerally - through an entertainment. People need the emotional connection to understand what's at stake here. I've tried to give that to them and at the same time lay the problem on the table for them that's both 'good to eat' and 'good for the digestion'.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 1, 2006 11:59 AM

Interested - the character is an amalgam of the late Bon Scott.....

I don't mind having the sex change for the occassion of being put in a book, and hope it will be the first of many.

Well, Interested my dear friend, if you are going to have a sex change you could do worse than Bob Scott who I saw with AC/DC in 1979 and who was definitely a bit of alright. His early demise was a great loss to rock. Will you be able to carry the vocals do you think? And Angus Young on your shoulders around Hammy Odeon?

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at March 1, 2006 12:11 PM

kentim:

Spot on. Bringing "Stalinism" up in an argument has enabled the left to avoid dealing with the nature of communist dogma itself. It's a trick that's become a mental habit.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 1, 2006 12:11 PM

Bon Scott, damn you, you stupid word spellchecker.......Highway to Hell!

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at March 1, 2006 12:12 PM

While I applaud the courage of those signing this Manifesto, as a Roman Catholic, I find the notion of defending the West's "secularism" ignores the Judeo-Christian theology from whence true freedom sprang. I think Paul Belien of www.Brusselsjournal.com summed it up best in the closing paragraph of his article on the Manifesto:

"The Islamists and the secularists (including the priests and bishops among them) have more in common than the Islamists and the Christians (including the agnostics among them), because the latter acknowledge that at the heart of Christianity is the individual with his individual responsibility before God. Without Christianity, individual responsibility would not have become the centre of European civilization. It was the French Revolution that jeopardized this tradition and that became the root of collectivism, with its socialist, fascist, national-socialist and communist excesses. From this perspective even Jihadism is more a child of secularism than of religion."

I suggest to use Robert's term that you "read it all" at the brusselsjournal.com blog.

Posted by: bevc at March 1, 2006 12:24 PM

it will be a good way to 'hook' people into this site

Well, I hope to be a really good hooker.

Will you be able to carry the vocals do you think? And Angus Young on your shoulders around Hammy Odeon?

I'll have to brush up on my humping.

Posted by: Interested at March 1, 2006 12:25 PM

Yes, that too.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at March 1, 2006 12:41 PM

Maybe Old Europe is not lost after all. Many here have posited that in secular Europe a backlash against the cancer of Islam eroding the Judeo-Christian culture, upon which the secularism is based, would reult in a return to the underlying Judeo-Christian foundations of European cultural.

New fervor among young Italian Catholics

Vatican officials say young people's thirst for moral direction is driving a resurging interest in Catholicism. "There's a reawakening after a time of secularization,"

But the tide is turning in Italy. Nearly half of adult Catholics attend mass at least weekly, up from 35 percent who did so in 1980.

Posted by: Lisa at March 1, 2006 1:07 PM

Granny got to get her groove on!

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 1, 2006 1:07 PM

GW used to be a rock chick.
GW now a rock dinosaur. But not quite as heavy as Whole lotta Rosie.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at March 1, 2006 1:29 PM

Re the use of "Islamism" in the Manifesto:

The use of "Islamism" is quite deliberate. "Isms" are generally belief systems that are treated as fact/certain/truth/dogma and unquestioningly superior by the practicioner, or advocate of the "ism."

"Islam" would emphasise the faith (as Christian faith, Jewish faith, Hindu faith)and that it is not certain. Beliefs are not facts-though they do have consequences. The meaning of Islamism is its consequences.

Posted by: Frank at March 1, 2006 1:29 PM

Promoting the label: Judeo-Christian culture?
And then call yourself a catholic, eh?
The Judeo-Christian quality-label is preferrably used by Protestants (at least here in Holland), who like to think of themselves as forerunners of the Enlightenment (instead of a zealous religous purification movement).

Are there any catholics left in the U.S. who are not particularly fond of the Old Test. Jaweh? This misanthropic god of revenge? What kind of a contribution to civil society is that? Man, incapable to do good, inclined to all vices? Predestination? This sounds more like contempt for human dignity, to me.

Why not use the label: Roman-Christian? The early church in part has been a continuation of Roman civilization, espec. by taking over Roman Law almost in it's entirety.
I know that some people still like to think of Roman civilization as kind of a hedonistic carnivale (series "Rome"), or that the roman emperors killed early christians by the numbers proven to be results of early christian "remaking of history", interpolating classical lit. with "proof" of early martyrs ;-) ).

You take a close look at the theocratic 2 year rule of Calvin c.s. in Génève, burning opponents et c., and then again state y'r claim using this Protestant-Christian (Judeo-Christian) slogan as a foundation for civilized Europe.

Apart from that, I fully agree with people who take issue with the French Revolte as a shining light of modern civilization.
Sag.

Posted by: Sagunto at March 1, 2006 2:11 PM

So it is the Daring Dozen. Dozens of other dozens come to mind. The Twelve Tribes. The Twelve Tables. The Twelve Days of Christmas. "The Twelve Who Ruled" -- R. R. Palmer's classic study of the Committee of Public Safety (headed by Robespierre).

Unseemly and undue interest in the background -- racial, religious, ethnic, sexual -- of a writer, or a journalist, or of anyone who puts observations and thoughts memorably to paper, is for most purposes silly. That hasn't kept the practice out of American classrooms and, especially, university lecture halls.

But in this case one can make a few observations. There are both Infidels and ex-Muslims, and those who might -- we do not know for sure -- describe themselves as "cultural Msulims" or "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims. The Infidels include the editor of Charlie-Hebdo, Phillipe Val, and the Maronite commentator on world affairs, Antoine Sfeir, and the author of "Frere Tariq" (a study of Tariq Ramadan that the trustees of Notre Dame, and those who oversee Scott Appleby at the Kroc Center, would do well to read), Caroline Fourest. There is Bernard-Henri Levy, who turns out to be not as silly on Islam as one might have expected him to be.

And then there are the adamantly and open ex-Musliims, or those who are ex-Muslims in name only, or very close to it. There is Ibn Warraq, originally from Pakistan. There is Irshad Manji, of Pakistani parentage. There is Salman Rushdie, originally from India. There is Taslima Nasreen, from Bangladesh (or if you are in a Kiplingeque pukka sahib mood, and like your local color, Bangla Desh). There is Mehdi Mozaffarri, from Iran. And Maryam Namazie, from Iran. And Chahla Chafiq, from Iran.

Notice anything? Not a single Arab in the list of ex- or almost ex-, Muslims.

Is this accidental? I think not. I think that the hold of Islam on Arabs, which is partly a result of filial piety, not to one's parents but to all of Arab history, for if Islam is declared to be unpleasant, Islam is not a great repository of civilization it has been taken to be but rather a source of intellectual disarray and civilizational decline wherever it conquered, then that "gift of the Arabs" is not so much a gift, but a poisoned chalice. How many of us, if we were told not only that slavery is a great evil, and the corruption of the Gilded Age a great evil, and the crazed Dickensian laissez-faire capitalism to which some would have us return pell-mell, a great evil, could agree to all of that, and yet bristle, if we are told that from first to last, American history has been an uninterrupted series of horrors. And of course it hasn't.

But in the case of Islam, the more one studies the few centuries of what is described as High Islamic Civilization, the less there seems to be there, and the more one realizes that the same dozen names -- Avicenna, Averroes, and so on --keep being repeated, and the same large claims made which, upon investigation, turn out to be considerably inflated, and the same absence of high achievement in so many areas of art, and the absence of music, and the decline, rather quickly, of literature in Arabic (as opposed to the literature in Persian, which was often not a result of, but in defiance of, the spirit of islamization and of linguistic arabization).

Why does this matter for laying out a strategy of self-defense? 80% of the world's Muslims are non-Arabs. They can be made more aware of the use, by the Arabs, of Islam as a vehicle for cultural and linguistic imperialism. Kateb Yacine, the most famous Berber writer, understood this perfectly, and so do some other Berber intellectuals. The Kurds, in a free Kurdistan, may come to see that the mistreatment that they have suffered at the hands of the Arabs can be explained not merely as the result of an individual (Saddam Hussein), but of the same mistreatment, even mass murder, now being inflicted on the black (i.e. non-Arab) Muslims of Darfur, and the linguistic imperialism that for years prevented the Berbers of Algeria of being able to freely use their language, Tamazight.

There is a natural division between the o'erweening Arabs and the put-upon non-Arabs, forced or encouraged to take on Arab names, fake Arab identities, even claim a false, Arab genealogy (all those "Sayeeds" running around Pakistan). They are encouraged to look to the customs and behavior of seventh-century Arabs (or at least what is attributed to seventh-century Arabs). They are encouraged to forget their own pre-Islamic heritages and histories. They are encouraged to do the bidding, political and otherwise, even when it hurts them, of the Arabs who are the "best of peoples" (see the Qur'an), for it is to them that the Qur'an, uncreated and immutable, was given, and in their language.

You can learn a lot from that list. You can begin to figure out the lines of attack to divide and demoralize those who would impose the very totalitarianism that those authors decry, on all of us. For in the view of the Believer, "Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated."

Posted by: Hugh at March 1, 2006 2:28 PM

bevc:

I haunt the Brussels Journal (and others) as truth serum. While I usually agree with Paul Belien and enjoy reading his opinion...I think he was wrong on this one. My comments to him were the following:

"Mr Belien is one missing the point of the manifesto actually. Fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism are similiar to Islam in that they are all totalitarian in nature. Islam is both a religion and a politcal ideology - you cannot separate them. What matters is that they all had/have the same goal - world domination.

Mr. Beliens real problem is that the authors put a value on the secular rather than the Christian religion. His answer to the coming 'clash of civilizations' is for Europe to find it's Christian roots. A noble effort and one that I would not disagree with, however, Europe does not have the time.

Debating is a great thing...we are doing that here, but the window for debating is closing rapidly. You have a problem-fix it. Figure out the 'why and the how it happened' later if you want to hold on to all those individual freedoms that the Christian religion inspired and gave you."

It appeared to me that he was so zoned into secular aspect of the statement that he was missing the big picture.

When I came here to read jihadwatchers comments...they had all gotten it right away as I knew they would.

"The biggest point I believe that has been missed by all here is that Jyllands-Posten has bravely not succumbed to self-censorship again and that the authors have dared to put into print a truth that Europe has yet to face. Their timing was magnificent for the whole world is watching.

This manifesto is undoubtably is going to create another outcry (put mildly) by Muslims around the world, EU and the UN. How strong a reaction will we see? One think is for certain...the EU is going to have a conniption fit."

A_Plague_on_Both_Houses:

Can I be in your book too?????????

Posted by: infidella at March 1, 2006 2:29 PM

Infidella - you were already in the book before you asked!

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 1, 2006 2:40 PM

>>> Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present.

That's a pretty strong statement imo. Ok so the list of what "Islamism" kills is far from complete. And it does leave open the possiblility that regular ole' "Islam" is swell but its more radical form isn't.

But as one who uses the term "Islamism" myself, I take issue with the criticism that use of it comes from a fear of pointing directly at Islam itself as the problem.

Obviously "Islamism" stems from Islam itself, as does "Islamo-Fascism" (plenty strong), and "radical Islam" (the mildest form). Using it/them in no way means that 'regular' Islam is blameless, in fact quite the opposite.

Though I agree with many of the thoughtful points raised in objection to this or that particular of the statement, it is nonetheless a brave public stance against Islamic totalitarianism and all that goes with it at a time when very few are daring to openly resist, especially in Europe.

Yeah it would be great if everyone was as aware and ready to fight back as found here on Jihad Watch, but they're not. Many millions are still asleep (amazingly, shamefully), even after 9-11. But all 1,000 or so of us here aren't going to defeat Islamo-Fascism (my preferred term) by ourselves. We need allies and we need to give support wherever resistence, however mild, shows.

I would also add that if others are too timid, some here are too virulent (not on this thread). 'The only good muslim is a dead muslim' type postings do not advance our cause. It only helps our enemies caricature us as reactionary bigots.

I also like the direct mention of "Islamophobia" and how they refuse to be cowed by its use. Excellent; Not milquetoast in the least.

Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 1, 2006 2:55 PM

"Notice anything? Not a single Arab in the list of ex- or almost ex-, Muslims." -- Hugh

I hadn't even noticed. Very interesting commentary following on the fact too.

Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 1, 2006 3:00 PM

Regarding the word Islamism, I must confess advocated the adoption of it a couple of years ago when Robert Spencer and I and Daniel Pipes were scheduled to do a White House staff briefing. Pipes and I both thought calling the enemy "Islamism" would have moved the discussion forward from "War on Terror." Robert dissented.

There are pros and cons on both sides, depending on the circumstances. However, I have changed my mind since and so never refer to Islam as Islamism anymore. I wouldn't think of it. Robert was right and I was wrong.

Islamism is a bridge word that helps people get from one concept to the next, but I think a point is reached where it becomes an obscuring obstacle in itself and must be dropped. That point has been reached.

Sorry Hugh, I dissent.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at March 1, 2006 3:10 PM

Hi I've been reading this site for about a month. I'm not a muslim but I think it doesn't make sense to judge Muhammed by today’s standards. Few will stand up to that scrutiny.

Civilization has moved on since and the problem is not so much Muhammed, the Quran but the literalist interpretation of our caveman friends. I suspect If we had a substantial number of christians or hindus hellbent on interpreting their books literally we would face similar problems of fundamentalism from them. They exist but they don't have the support of the majority, but in the case of muslims I think they feel the same grievance that their more violent members feel and thus all condemnations are followed by too many ifs, buts, and 'root causes'

Nothing has been done to isolate the extremists and all muslims need to seriously question their riduculously misplaced sense of victimhood and the hollow siege mentality peddled by the mullahs. And if such feeling still persists why not adopt more 21st century methods, distance themselves from the savages and find a more civilized and sensible method to resolve their sense of anguish or injustice. Because if things continue the way they are Huntinton will become a self fulfilling prophesy and fundamentalists on all sides will reign.

Posted by: raulb at March 1, 2006 3:19 PM

If the word had been changed to "Islam" several would have dropped out-- Irshad Manji, Bernard-Henri Levy, and Salman Rushdie, at least. Of course, the absolutely uncompromising Ali Sina would then have signed. But at this stage, given the condition of things as they are, given the almost wilful failure to comprehend, I still think that those who would have been perfectly at ease with the word "Islam" (Ibn Warraq, on the BBC a few minutes ago, discussing this letter, forthrightly said that he at least met "Islam" and not "Islamism") nonetheless understood why it was legitimate here.

I have written repeatedly here about the Benes Decrees. I have written about them as an example, in recent memory, of legislation introduced by, and carried out by, the postwar but pre-Communist government of what ever since its inception had been most tolerant and advanced country in Central or Eastern Europe, legislation prompted by reasonable fears for long-term security. I offered something to think about. That is all.

The word "Islamism" here, in this context, in this environment, at this time, will do the trick.

Posted by: Hugh at March 1, 2006 3:21 PM

I think at this site especially someone would have already noted at how silly "Islamism" is as a word. Is the idea of following Judaism to the letter called Judaismism? How about Christianityism?

Posted by: kamala at March 1, 2006 3:29 PM

If the word had been changed to "Islam" several would have dropped out-- Irshad Manji, Bernard-Henri Levy, and Salman Rushdie, at least. Of course, the absolutely uncompromising Ali Sina would then have signed. But at this stage, given the condition of things as they are, given the almost wilful failure to comprehend, I still think that those who would have been perfectly at ease with the word "Islam" (Ibn Warraq, on the BBC a few minutes ago, discussing this letter, forthrightly said that he at least met "Islam" and not "Islamism") nonetheless understood why it was legitimate here.

I have a problem with what appears to be a double standard here.People in the West are criticized again and again at JW for not pointing out that the problem is Islam.We're also told about the importance of clearly identifying the enemy. For example there is an article over at DW criticizing the use of the word extremist instead of jihadist.Yet it's acceptable for "intellectuals" to use the word Islamism instead of Islam. Why the double standard?

Posted by: Roxane at March 1, 2006 3:46 PM

For god's sake, many of the signers, and obviously Ibn Warraq, are perfectly aware that the word "Islamism" is here being used not, as some often used it, to deflect attention from "Islam," but to slowly get people to take the first step, using the word "Islamism" as that spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine go down.

And so do you. And so do I. If I had ever wanted to use the word "Islamism" I would have used it in one of several thousand postings. Not once have I done so. Not once have I suggested that "islamofascism" should be used, though I would not always and everywhere prevent its use if that is the only way, like a coney-barker, to make a pitch for some would-be Abraham-Lincoln Brigade members to begin to think about the nature of Islam.

Here the word "Islamism" is a useful decoy. It has nothing to do with, say, the use of that word by, for example, a single writer, analyzing what he calls "Islamism." That's nonsense. This isn't.

A little give, for a lot of get, is worth it here. Perhaps only here. But here.

Posted by: Hugh at March 1, 2006 3:46 PM

So this manifesto isn't perfect. So what? Neither was the Declaration of Independence. Anti-slavery language was struck out of the final draft to keep the Southerners on board.

But it still did the trick.

I'm with Hugh.

This "manifesto" is good enough.

Either we all hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang separately.

Cheers!

Posted by: Suzan at March 1, 2006 3:48 PM

I hadn't noticed the absence of Arabs amongst the twelve. Irshad Manji, whose views, though she calls herself a Muslim, are not so far from those of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, has spoken of "desert Islam". She thinks that this is Islam without ijtihad, literal and cruel. Others may see it as the Islam of 7th century Arabia, without the later, softening, cultural accretions - the Islam that came to Britain from the Indian subcontinent was softened by Indian culture, but is sadly becoming more Arabised. Others may see "desert Islam" as "Islamism", political Islam, distinct from a real, benign faith. Still others, notably most posting at JW, see "desert Islam" as the true Islam, any prospect of reform being illusory.

Does this matter? If enough people sit up and take notice of letters like this, perhaps not. Sooner or later, though, the "red herring" of desert Islam/Islamism will have to be thrown away.

The proof of the pudding (dessert Islam) is in the eating. After the herring. Mmm, I'm hungry.

Posted by: Interested at March 1, 2006 3:50 PM

The problem, Raulb, lies in the content of the "holy" texts themselves. It's a given that in any society, there are going to be religious fanatics who live according to what they perceive as the fundamental tenets of their religion. The "rapture" crew here in the U.S. come to mind --- people who focus too narrowly on something in a holy text --in this case, a few verses in the book of Revelations. But there is little in the New Testament which can be realistically used to incite mass hatred against or domination of another group. And indeed, most other major religions, not just Christianity, have a self-reflective component over all.

Islam, on the other hand, is based on the Quran, which has page after page of bellicosity toward anyone not wishing to believe that Muhammed is actually hearing the word of "God." And the Koran is filled with pages of descriptions of what happens to those in battle (led by Muhammed, of course) who ignore "Allah's Messenger."

Had Christ or Buddha been as militaristic as Muhammed, we would not have a world as such we recognize today. As far as standards of human behavior go, some things are timeless. Muhammed is not being judged by the standards of today, but by standards set long before the advent of written time.

Posted by: kafira at March 1, 2006 4:39 PM

The book of revelation written by the apostle of Christ, John, the very same John whom Christ said would see the coming of His kingdom (the book of Revelation) and whom the Romans attempted to execute but could not.

"12 The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East. 13 Then I saw three evil[a] spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty...16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon." Armageddon is in Israels backyard. Funny how the finger was laid on the middle east back in 60 AD or there abouts.

if you dont have a Holy bible: www.biblegateway.com

Posted by: CrusadoRob at March 1, 2006 4:50 PM

The twelve who are in my opinion, heros, did the right thing and went up to the plate and by this manifesto said, enough is enough.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 1, 2006 5:01 PM

Lots more on this here:
http://www.somebodyhelpme.info/RIGHTEOUS_MUSLIMS/righteous.html

You might want to check this out too:
http://somebodyhelpme.info/cartoons/anti-Semitic/anti-Semitic.html

Posted by: Lover of Zion at March 1, 2006 5:03 PM

Hmmm...Stalinism would not go down too well in the former Communist block, too many isms to follow after Uncle Joe kicked the bucket. Castroism, Kimjonism, FRELIMISM and the apparently immortal Maoism. Why not call Islamism Islam (as Interested rightly pointed out) and why not call Stalinism Communism. I remember in the old days of workers' paradise called the Poeple's Republic of Poland we used to laugh at the Italian Communists, each in possession of at least one car (of which every lucky citizen of the workers' paradise could only dream) and a nice villa, and loned to swap places with them in their oppressed status in bloodthirsty Capitalist workers' hell.
I find it hard to understand the sensitivities of the Western Left when it comes to calling Communism evil. Still more appealing (at least in theory) than Islam.
Excellent news - Maryam Namazie will be a speaker at our March march for free speech!
God bless her!

Posted by: Polish infideless at March 1, 2006 5:10 PM

To me, "Islamofascist" aptly captures the essence of religious Muslims acting like secular Nazis even though technically the construct is nonsense. I don't feel the least like a carnival barker using the term since it conveys the urgency of stopping such a vicious, intolerant movement.

Yes it would nice if we just the right term. So do tell; If "Islamofascist, Islamist, Islamic radical, militant, etc are all insufficient or otherwise flawed for best use, then what is the preferrred term? Just plain old "Muslim"?

Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 1, 2006 5:22 PM

"Jihadist" is an obvious, accurate choice, but I don't think it resonates with most people. At least the names with some form "Islam-o" in them directly connect Islam with the terrorist acts.

Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 1, 2006 5:39 PM

Agree with bigcatgirl....

About the islamism vs. islam exegesis:

Ask Mrs. Ayaan Hirsi Ali for instance, what she'd think of islamism vs. islam... hell I'll ask her myself (via our AHA-weblog)

I'm sure she would assert that islamism is as old as islam itself, though it's a fresh label to describe the politically expansionist side of the 1400 year old islamic coin. Islamism is an "aspect of", inseperable from islam.
Compare it to an aggregational state of a chemical substance: water vapour is still water, only more heated up :-)
(I'm not sure my English is correct here, but i hope y'all understand my point here). It can be used to focus attention of Westerners more on the 'nation'-building agressive political side of islam. The use of "islam", sometimes deludes westerners into equating the doctrine with nothing but religion.

In the end it does not matter what people think islamism would mean for academic use. This "islamism"-dinges is not merely a strategic formula; it is supposed to act like an agens among the broader public.
Look at Ayaan Hirsi Ali in any confrontation with islamists and you'll know that the label islamism will not be a vehicle for safeguarding islam from criticism, far from it.

Kind regards,
Sag.

Posted by: Sagunto at March 1, 2006 5:45 PM

I doubt if Fouad Ajami, originally from Lebanon, or Fareed Zakaria, originally from India, would dare to add their names to this letter. Not out of physical fear. But careerist fear, fear of no longer being seen as the very best kind of Muslim, but rather as an apostate, and as that mere apostate, no longer to "speak for the best in Islam" but rather, in that act of open apostasy, will lose all kinds of entree, for Ajami in Kuwait among his friends and supporters (some of whom are just as much those Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims but just can't admit it, to their half-brothers, or their parents, or to themselves), for Zakaria to his television and Newsweek bosses who would no longer find him so engaging -- and thus engageable. Ajami once entrusted a class he was teaching to Habib Malik, which says a lot. And Zakaria has even had a wine column, and that says a lot about his Islam. But they want to keep on top, and to openly declare any disaffection on the subject of Islam would make them less valuable. That is why their usefulness is so limited, and why Ibn Warraq, and not they, will be praised by posterity. As for Kanan Makiya, who forgot what Iraq was like, and still can't make the connection to Islam for so many of the things he describes but cannot correctly explain -- who knows? He refused to read Bat Ye'or. Like Podsnap, he doesn't want to hear about it. For it offends him. Put it out of his mind. Just like Podsnap.

But Wafa Sultan is another matter. She is fearless -- go to www.memritv.org, and turn in on, and laissez les bons temps rouler. Her honesty will cheer you up. Why doesn't Bush invite her, and some of the Dozen above, to a special Iftar dinner, and then he will get all kinds of mouthfuls.

Posted by: Hugh at March 1, 2006 6:02 PM

all kinds of mouthfuls

Like Clinton's little friend.

Wafa Sultan is here. Someone sent me the link earlier today, with the comment, "Bet that twotty old scrote of a cleric wants to kill her". I'm not sure if Americans use the word "twat"/"twot" in the same way that we do, but you get the idea.

Mouthful, handful, joyful. How women are meant to be.

Posted by: Interested at March 1, 2006 6:34 PM

Sagunto,

The point I'm trying to make is that collectivism is totalitarianism. Collectivism is conformity, coerced altruism, and the destruction of the individual.
It is incompatible with the American idea.
Another point I'm trying to make is that Islam is not the only enemy of America, and probably is not the most dangerous or destructive.
It is supposed to be too late(to stop it), but I have not accepted that yet.

What they(the collectivists) are trying to do is condition and program society to accept a collectivist(world socialism-enslavement) world-view that gives the appearance of willing submission. This is deception, and that is my main problem with it. I don't like being scammed, and I don't like sob's using psychological mind-games on society. Just so they can sit up at the top, above it all and play "God".

This sh-t is deep, and it's the biggest con the world has ever seen.
They don't present their theory/motivation for examination or critisism, they just keep on pushing ahead, artificially limiting choices, stealing our freedom/liberty, our BIRTHRIGHT, p-ssing on the Constitution. Without choice, freedom does not exist. To hell with 'em.

I know from personal experience what Martin Niemoller was talking about. And what he was talking about was so-called "enemies of the people" labeled and their individuality destroyed completely. This is COLLECTIVISM. It is emotionalism and arbitrary.

Screw the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a collectivist construct. OBVIOUSLY.

I am a fricken American, I don't need or want it. And I won't submit to it. The Constitution is my authority. And it is in opposition to that other slick, pretty sounding Marxism-in-disguise document.
Words matter. Language is how we understand and express our perceptions of reality. There has been a long-term effort to change our perceptions, not with open discussion, but with a monopoly on information and tricky employment of linguistic gymnastics.

The difference between me and them? I understand I could be mistaken, so a "final solution" will never enter into my mind.

Posted by: kentim at March 1, 2006 7:14 PM

Thanks, ovidius_naso.

Posted by: kentim at March 1, 2006 7:25 PM

Mr. Fitzgerald -

If I choose to be Kiplingesque, as you phrase it, old boy, I would certainly never refer to it as Bangla anything. It is correctly called, as all well educated Englishmen over fifty know, East Bengal. What was good enough for the John Company and the great Queen Empress is certainly good enough for me, and the others at my club.

Kiplinesque, indeed. He was some sort of arty chap, don't you know. Not really one of the ton, even though he did have a certain sort about him. A kind fellow, no doubt, but he would have been nothing if the King Emperor hadn't taken him up.

Posted by: Certiorari at March 1, 2006 8:28 PM

Excuse: I was working with what's presently available. Bangla Desh is in present use. And I'm not English. And I'm not over fifty. But East Bengal is fine by me. It was good enough for "Oriental" Jones.

I like Lourenco Marques, not Maputo. Saigon, not Ho Chi Minh City. Batavia, not Jakarta. Hochelaga, not Montreal. Lugdunorum, not Lyon (now I'm just being silly). But whose heart does not rise at a book entitled "Three Years Among the Esquimaux" and whose heart does not sink at seeing a Call for Papers on an Upcoming Conference on "Methodologies of Measuring Gender Identity Among Post-Menopausal Inuit Women." How did we get to that point? What happened?

East Bengal it is, if you insist, just as it was back in the day. I'm going to suggest it be put into use by my homies at Boodle's, and possibly White's, as soon as I can return to my modest pied-a-terre at The Albany (just above that once owned by David K. E. Bruce). I can't leave just yet. I still need to check a badger sett that has been giving my horses some trouble. Can't miss that three-day eventing in mid-May on account of some hole in the ground.

East Bengal. Hobson-Jobson. Back to Blighty. Right.

Posted by: Hugh at March 1, 2006 8:48 PM

Ok, kentim,

I see your point and I certaily think you're right about equating collectivism with totalitarianism. Though collectivism is also a scientific label from anthropology, I trust you refer to its common use as sort of an equivalent for all "brands" of socialism (be it "national"/"international" communism/marxism/stalinism/maoïsm and so on). Oh and let's not forget Hitler and Mussolini, all members of the "revolutionary socialist movement".

I thought the initial point you were making was the sophistic trickery along the lines of Kruschev c.s., coining the label "Stalinism" to ensure immunity for criticism and a continuation of the soviet system.
You're absolutely right these tricks belonged to the standard repertoire of the Kruschev propaganda effort. You're spot off should you think that nobody saw what he was aiming at.

Even the simplest folk in Russia knew that the system was rotten and they all took Kruschev's propaganda for what it was: a obvious attempt at lying on behalf of the holy collectivist system.

The really interesting question for visitors from outside (for instance the Dutch Soviet-expert and lifelong commie-basher Karel van het Reve) was not about any sinistere covering up of ideological intent, but instead why the blatant and overtly clumsy lying when everybody could see for themselves the holy system sucked?
The downfall of Soviet collectivist communism began when it became absolutely clear to everyone that the Soviet dictatorship no longer intended to use the amount of violence of earlier times (Lenin/Stalin) to enforce the populus into submission. From that moment on it was just a matter of time before the rotten system would collapse.

Now about the daring 12 and their statement.
Is it because you know nothing of, for instance Mrs. Ayaan Hirsi Ali that you seem to link her to Leftist political sympathies? Or might the European desciption of her as a Dutch politician and a member of the "liberal party" (VVD) delude your judgement?
Liberal party in EU, means she's a right-winger (and liberal also is far removed from any collectivist sympathies whatsoever!) probably republican in the US.

You seem to think that the mere mentioning of the label "Stalinism" is a repetition of the same tactics used by Mr. Kruschev in his days at the office. Well, just for your info: Stalinist is not by anyone I know over here regarded as anything different than communist dictatorship, i.e.: Stalinism is just another word for all those ideological labels you think it succeeded in covering up: communism/socialism/marxist-leninist collectivism/ and so on.
It was understood as such by even the simplest of ordinary folk in Russia. Some, very few zealous idiots in the West, notably some high-brow fanatics have propagated blatant communist lies, but to no avail.
You think the 12 are a collectivist bunch? Or deluded perhaps by "collectivist" propaganda? Should that really be your point of view, I think you're truly mistaken.
Sag.

Posted by: Sagunto at March 1, 2006 9:10 PM

Hugh-

Despite whatever slings and arrows we hurl at Islam....Sometimes the MSM gets the hint.

Now, I don't know if it's George Will, or George Stephanopoulos...but Fareed Zakaria has been getting less play in the world of objective journalism.....perhaps because he's NOT objective when it comes to Islam.

Posted by: kafira at March 1, 2006 9:17 PM

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism...
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present.

We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.
==================================

Lauds and hoorays to these Europeans that have stood-up where no one else in the MSM will and have named Islam as the greatest threat to freedom in today's world.

God bless them and keep them safe and quoting to the world.

We need more of the MSM to emulate these brave warriors that carry a pen to reveal to the world the vileness of Islam.

There are those of us that will fight when needed, but we need the MSM to start screaming to the world about the vileness of Islam.

The Texican.

Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at March 1, 2006 9:29 PM

Mr. Fitzgerald -

Bombay not Mumbai (actually, when I was there a few months ago the locals still call it Bombay). Heaven only knows how we got here.

Not The Albany today, old bean, surely. Full of 'trade' don't you know.

Toodle-pip.

Posted by: Certiorari at March 1, 2006 9:42 PM

Mr. Fitzgerald -

We just gas them then dump mud into the holes. Used to use terriers to flush 'em then we could have a good old bait but the peelers don't like that anymore. At my place the setts aren't rea