Slightly OT, but the cartoonist who drew the "bomb turban" Motoon for Jyllands-Posten now one year ago made a public appearance on Danish TV a couple of days ago, despite warnings from the Danish intelligence service. He too refuses to be intimidated.

For the interview they had invited a Danish Muzbot leader, who walked out during the filming, as he wasn't given an apology by mr. Westergaard.

Apparently some Muzzy hotheads asked him later why he hadn't killed the cartoonist when given this opportunity.

Posted by: anti-uffe at September 28, 2006 4:18 PM

"the right-wing daily Le Figaro..."
-- from the article above

Why "right-wing"? Because Robert Hersant once owned it? Because it manages, from time to time, not to attack the United States? Because it carries articles critical of Islam, such as those by the acute Yvan Rioufol? What makes Le Figaro "right-wing"? And is Figaro Madame for "right-wing" women? Is Figaro Litteraire for "right-wing" chers maitres, plume in hand and Gidean cap on head?

Why is Le Monde simply Le Monde, even if for years Michel Tatu for years was prevented from writing what he really wished to write about the Soviet Union, even if Peroz-Hugoncel was taken off the Middle East beat right after he published "Le radeau de Mahomet," even if Eric Rouleau, ardent admirer of Arafat and Khomeini, hater of Israel, was for years the Supreme Ruler of the Middle Eastern rubric at Le Monde?

Why is it never, ever "the left-wing Le Monde" but only "Le Monde"? But "Le Figaro," despite publishing, in the past, such writers as Annie Kriegel in the 1970s and 1980s, and more recently Alain Finkielkraut, Homeric-epithetly the "right-wing Figaro"?

Why?

Respondez, o ye gods and goddesses of the French intellectual ruling class, s'il vous plait. And make it snappy.

Posted by: Hugh at September 28, 2006 4:19 PM

"And make it snappy"

As in Oliver Norvell Hardy?

Posted by: anti-uffe at September 28, 2006 4:23 PM

As in Stanlio and Olio in...well, possibly "Sbrigati!"? [If that isn't the translation of the movie title -- Make It Snappy -- in question, it should be.]

Well, why not?

Posted by: Hugh at September 28, 2006 4:43 PM

Hello Robert,

Thank you for all that you are doing to keep the rest of us informed. I am currently listening to the Blackstone Audio recording of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam". I am....enjoying..that does not sound right. Its very good. And I plan on recommending it to my friends and fellow bloggers.

I am amazed that, the more I study, the more I see with clarity, that we are in trouble. I am truly confused why the world-at-large, especially in the west, is not rallying to the anti-jihad cause. I understand the alters of diversity and multi-culturalism are sacrosanct in the elite's dogma, but when these jihadists kill, mutilate, and attack in western Europe, why is the media in the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, and the UK silent?

These atrocities are going on daily. I cannot understand. Could this be the "powerful delusion" that Paul wrote about? Could this be the fulfillment of "the Beast was given power"? It is amazing watching the yeast of Islam rapidly spreading throughout the rest of the world.

The current stat of the world makes me think of Daniel's statue. The legs and feet were made of iron and clay. Talk about a poor foundation holding up the world system. Islam and Western Civilization certainly do not mix.

Thank you again for all that you do.

Bubba's Pravda
bubbaspravda.blogspot.com

Posted by: Bubba's Pravda at September 28, 2006 4:48 PM

I can think of three recent times in France where high school teachers have made national headlines because their intellect made nationalal waves beyond the classroom.

The most celebrated is Louis Changnon, the Evry history teacher who was sued for racism because he mentioned that Mohammed was a thief. He won his case,

Another is the professor Etienne Chouard, a teacher from Marseille http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/Presentation_(in_English).htm who had a huge influence in provoking the 'No' vote on the 29th of May 2005 European Constitution referendum.

And here we have Robert Redeker, who once again has proved that you cannot keep a keen intellect from expressing itself when the truth is silenced.

Beauty, courage and truth are what make our civilization what it is. Supress it and it comes out even harder. This is not over, not by a very long shot.

The article in question has disappeared from the Figaro site, so I reproduce it here for JW records.

For those looking for the soundbite quote; here it is: "Le Coran est un livre d’inouïe violence" (The Qu'ran is a book of extraordinary violence)

Robert Redeker (Philosophe. Professeur au lycée Pierre-Paul-Riquet à Saint-Orens de Gammeville. Va publier Dépression et philosophie (éditions Pleins Feux).

Les réactions suscitées par l’analyse de Benoît XVI sur l’islam et la violence s’inscrivent dans la tentative menée par cet islam d’étouffer ce que l’Occident a de plus précieux qui n’existe dans aucun pays musulman : la liberté de penser et de s’exprimer.

L’islam essaie d’imposer à l’Europe ses règles : ouverture des piscines à certaines heures exclusivement aux femmes, interdiction de caricaturer cette religion, exigence d’un traitement diététique particulier des enfants musulmans dans les cantines, combat pour le port du voile à l’école, accusation d’islamophobie contre les esprits libres.

Comment expliquer l’interdiction du string à Paris-Plages, cet été ? Étrange fut l’argument avancé : risque de «troubles à l’ordre public». Cela signifiait-il que des bandes de jeunes frustrés risquaient de devenir violents à l’affichage de la beauté ? Ou bien craignait-on des manifestations islamistes, via des brigades de la vertu, aux abords de Paris-Plages ?

Pourtant, la non-interdiction du port du voile dans la rue est, du fait de la réprobation que ce soutien à l’oppression contre les femmes suscite, plus propre à «troubler l’ordre public» que le string. Il n’est pas déplacé de penser que cette interdiction traduit une islamisation des esprits en France, une soumission plus ou moins consciente aux diktats de l’islam. Ou, à tout le moins, qu’elle résulte de l’insidieuse pression musulmane sur les esprits. Islamisation des esprits : ceux-là même qui s’élevaient contre l’inauguration d’un Parvis Jean-Paul-II à Paris ne s’opposent pas à la construction de mosquées. L’islam tente d’obliger l’Europe à se plier à sa vision de l’homme.

Comme jadis avec le communisme, l’Occident se retrouve sous surveillance idéologique. L’islam se présente, à l’image du défunt communisme, comme une alternative au monde occidental. À l’instar du communisme d’autrefois, l’islam, pour conquérir les esprits, joue sur une corde sensible. Il se targue d’une légitimité qui trouble la conscience occidentale, attentive à autrui : être la voix des pauvres de la planète. Hier, la voix des pauvres prétendait venir de Moscou, aujourd’hui elle viendrait de La Mecque ! Aujourd’hui à nouveau, des intellectuels incarnent cet oeil du Coran, comme ils incarnaient l’oeil de Moscou hier. Ils excommunient pour islamophobie, comme hier pour anticommunisme.

Dans l’ouverture à autrui, propre à l’Occident, se manifeste une sécularisation du christianisme, dont le fond se résume ainsi : l’autre doit toujours passer avant moi. L’Occidental, héritier du christianisme, est l’être qui met son âme à découvert. Il prend le risque de passer pour faible. À l’identique de feu le communisme, l’islam tient la générosité, l’ouverture d’esprit, la tolérance, la douceur, la liberté de la femme et des moeurs, les valeurs démocratiques, pour des marques de décadence.

Ce sont des faiblesses qu’il veut exploiter au moyen «d’idiots utiles», les bonnes consciences imbues de bons sentiments, afin d’imposer l’ordre coranique au monde occidental lui-même.

Le Coran est un livre d’inouïe violence. Maxime Rodinson énonce, dans l’Encyclopédia Universalis, quelques vérités aussi importantes que taboues en France. D’une part, «Muhammad révéla à Médine des qualités insoupçonnées de dirigeant politique et de chef militaire (...) Il recourut à la guerre privée, institution courante en Arabie (...) Muhammad envoya bientôt des petits groupes de ses partisans attaquer les caravanes mekkoises, punissant ainsi ses incrédules compatriotes et du même coup acquérant un riche butin».

D’autre part, «Muhammad profita de ce succès pour éliminer de Médine, en la faisant massacrer, la dernière tribu juive qui y restait, les Qurayza, qu’il accusait d’un comportement suspect». Enfin, «après la mort de Khadidja, il épousa une veuve, bonne ménagère, Sawda, et aussi la petite Aisha, qui avait à peine une dizaine d’années. Ses penchants érotiques, longtemps contenus, devaient lui faire contracter concurremment une dizaine de mariages».

Exaltation de la violence : chef de guerre impitoyable, pillard, massacreur de juifs et polygame, tel se révèle Mahomet à travers le Coran.

De fait, l’Église catholique n’est pas exempte de reproches. Son histoire est jonchée de pages noires, sur lesquelles elle a fait repentance. L’Inquisition, la chasse aux sorcières, l’exécution des philosophes Bruno et Vanini, ces mal-pensants épicuriens, celle, en plein XVIIIe siècle, du chevalier de La Barre pour impiété, ne plaident pas en sa faveur. Mais ce qui différencie le christianisme de l’islam apparaît : il est toujours possible de retourner les valeurs évangéliques, la douce personne de Jésus contre les dérives de l’Église.

Aucune des fautes de l’Église ne plonge ses racines dans l’Évangile. Jésus est non-violent. Le retour à Jésus est un recours contre les excès de l’institution ecclésiale. Le recours à Mahomet, au contraire, renforce la haine et la violence. Jésus est un maître d’amour, Mahomet un maître de haine.

La lapidation de Satan, chaque année à La Mecque, n’est pas qu’un phénomène superstitieux. Elle ne met pas seulement en scène une foule hystérisée flirtant avec la barbarie. Sa portée est anthropologique. Voilà en effet un rite, auquel chaque musulman est invité à se soumettre, inscrivant la violence comme un devoir sacré au coeur du croyant.

Cette lapidation, s’accompagnant annuellement de la mort par piétinement de quelques fidèles, parfois de plusieurs centaines, est un rituel qui couve la violence archaïque.

Au lieu d’éliminer cette violence archaïque, à l’imitation du judaïsme et du christianisme, en la neutralisant (le judaïsme commence par le refus du sacrifice humain, c’est-à-dire l’entrée dans la civilisation, le christianisme transforme le sacrifice en eucharistie), l’islam lui confectionne un nid, où elle croîtra au chaud. Quand le judaïsme et le christianisme sont des religions dont les rites conjurent la violence, la délégitiment, l’islam est une religion qui, dans son texte sacré même, autant que dans certains de ses rites banals, exalte violence et haine.

Haine et violence habitent le livre dans lequel tout musulman est éduqué, le Coran. Comme aux temps de la guerre froide, violence et intimidation sont les voies utilisées par une idéologie à vocation hégémonique, l’islam, pour poser sa chape de plomb sur le monde. Benoît XVI en souffre la cruelle expérience. Comme en ces temps-là, il faut appeler l’Occident «le monde libre» par rapport à au monde musulman, et comme en ces temps-là les adversaires de ce «monde libre», fonctionnaires zélés de l’oeil du Coran, pullulent en son sein.

Posted by: Sebastien at September 28, 2006 4:57 PM

Well, apparently Robert and Anne don't want to post this report as a discussion point. So I will, to insure that all of us know about this. No discussion allowed...

Third Night of Muslim Rioting in Brussels

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1384

also see:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1381

The 'youths' tried to burn down a hospital, among other targets. Can't you just feel the 'LOVE' from the ROP...

Posted by: SCV at September 28, 2006 5:12 PM

Friends,
Watch Salman Rushdie take on his critics and explain the challenges of elevating moderate voices against authoritarian and Islamist oppression within Muslim culture. Check it out - I've freshly posted it on DemoCast.Org 's Video Blog (27 min high broadband).

Posted by: DemoCast at September 28, 2006 5:30 PM

Muslims seem quite adept at intimidating everybody including "neo cons" and other "conservatives".. show me one major corporation, organization or media (including Fox) that hasn't caved in under muslim assault.. and speaking of that. check out this interview with taqiyya specialist Tariq Ramadan.. I wish, oh I wish, that you and he could get on the same state. Bush Administration Says Prominent Muslim Scholar Can’t Teach in the US Because He Donated to Palestinian Charity The essence of his argument is that he donated to HAMAS before it was put on the list by the US Government, like a German American Bundist objecting to being incarcerated during WWII and/or put on an enemies list because they joined before Dec 7, 1941

But this piece of crap is what fries my butt

Last paragraph towards the end

So if I am prevented from coming speaking to you in person, it means that you are prevented, yourself, from the respect of your civil rights and to listen to someone who has something to say. So it’s not only my struggle. It’s the struggle of all the citizens promoting freedom and promoting human rights and promoting the right to dissent, because the real loyalty to a country is not a blind loyalty, it’s a critical loyalty, even for the American Muslims, even for the European Muslims. This should be understood

There was no good reason for that interview, nothing topical, probably Mr Muslim Brotherhood trying to generate support to enter the U.S. so he can set about his subversion.

But the interview itself inflames me..there is more than one variety of "left", and not all on the left are stupid, not all on the left are Marxists, not all on the left hate America and their culture, but what chagrines me is that most of those on the left that do also are anti Israel, and most damningly they are Jews. I don't understand it..

Get this:

"sraeli Human Rights Group: Gaza Plant Bombing “War Crime”
Meanwhile, one of Israel’s leading human rights groups is taking the Israeli government to task for its recent attack on Gaza. In a new report, B’Tselem says Israel’s bombing of Gaza’s main power plant in June constitutes a war crime. The bombing knocked out electricity to more than a million people and disrupted Gaza’s water and sewage systems. Israel says it launched the attack to rescue the captured soldier Gilad Shalit. But B’Tselem accused Israel of other motives.

* B’Tselem spokesperson Sarit Michaeli: "Clearly this attack did nothing to help with the efforts of releasing Corporal Gilad Shalit and bringing him back to Israel. Our research indicates that the only motive possibly for this attack was just satisfying the need for revenge and imposing collective punishment on a civilian population.""..

Do you see any muslim human rights groups complaining about Islamic violations of human rights? I don't, yet dumb jews here (like Amy Goodman, Medea Benjamin of Code Pink, and virtually every Human Rights activists and ACLU lawyer )and there are actively engaged in trying to destroy their own society, nation and culture.

Siding as they do with the Islamists against not only the west, an Christians but also Israel and Jews.. and they act like they are completely ignorant of the authentic Islamic attitude towards Jews. These dumbasses actually believe that the whole thing boils down to race, economics, class and land..

Now how does one educate them, without driving them away. You don't approach an educational situation by hurling stones, browbeating, fear, guilt, accusations and epithets. Maybe with Children when you are trying to brainwash them into a belief system, but not with adults.

Posted by: Nariz at September 28, 2006 5:46 PM

Say, Rush Limbaugh today said something about the Germans cancelling an opera because they were afraid it might offend the muslims. They didn't even wait to see if muslims had a problem with it, just went ahead and canceled it.

They're gaining ground................

Posted by: thehappyinfidel at September 28, 2006 5:47 PM

Brave individuals like M.Redeker deserve our thanks and protection. It is a shame that there is no vehicle available to acknowledge this and similar acts of individual courage. During WWII, the British Govt. awarded the George Cross. We need a some form of recognition which would allow the recipients to know that they are not alone, and simultaneously encourage others to emulate them. The "Medal of Freedom" is already taken. Suggestions?

Posted by: MP at September 28, 2006 5:59 PM

How on earth can a liberal democracy tolerate a group within its midsts that routinely issues death threats, apparently as part of the normal practice of its religion?

Posted by: wallyUK at September 28, 2006 6:29 PM

Bravo Robert! We need moderation in Islam. My religion needs to self-actualize and make changes that will serve the needs of the members of this religion. Extremism has no place in Islam as it does not comply with the rule of law nor does it meet the minimum requirements of a constitutional republic.

Posted by: BanuQaynuqa at September 28, 2006 6:42 PM

Why is it never, ever "the left-wing Le Monde" but only "Le Monde"?
Hugh l am guessing you know why, it depends on your perspective. l find in the US, its an insult to call a liberal a "liberal", liberals feels like your calling them names. now in Canada, at least Central Canada.. it is the opposite not many want to be called a "conservative", and in Western Europe, its even worse.. you less you are most likely to say you are a socialist, as in Sweden,France.etc. but times are a changing.. the commoner are looking more to the conservatives for strong leadership. l have talked to many in the Netherlands, and there is more
support for the middle of right. what the people of LeMonde and its supporters do not realize is that is that islamist terrorist will kill liberals as faster if not faster than conservative non-muslims.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 28, 2006 7:03 PM

...after receiving death threats over an article he wrote in a national newspaper that accused Islam of "exalting violence."

Hmmm. Let's crack a book here:

Truly, if the Hypocrites stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. Then they will not be able to stay as your neighbors for any length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy --- a fierce slaughter—murdered, a horrible murdering.
--- God exalting murder in Koran 33:60

Of the 6,232 ayats (verses) in the Koran, this is my personal fave. Its intense bloodthirst is almost... Godly. I mean, slaughter—murdered and a horrible murdering?

Allah should be screenwriting for Quentin Tarantino.

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

The battle cry of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah that night was: "Kill! Kill! Kill!"
--- Tabari 8:141

Wow. Mohammed was one get-down party animal. What won't the Moslems do for fun.

But, let's be serious here: the Moslems are demanding that the integrity of the Islam Fictive Reality they've worked decades to construct not be questioned.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at September 28, 2006 7:18 PM

Hurray for the pope:

"True tolerance always presupposes respect for the other, for man, who was created by God, whose existence was wanted by God."

That’s talk from a true man of God, unlike Muhammad the Prophet of Satan. Man “…whose existence was wanted by God.” Get that Muslims?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_re_eu/pope_tolerance_2;_ylt=ApgGl_zli.8OPzrkXftR_3nkeO0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Posted by: ofcourse at September 28, 2006 7:33 PM

Just read the chapter on "Revelations of Convenience?" in Robert Spencer's new book, The Truth about Muhammad. It blew me away. I'd seen some of the material before, but nowhere had I seen it brought together so concisely and clearly so that I could get an understandable overview I could remember and retain. This chapter, for me, was alone worth the price of the book.

Posted by: traeh at September 28, 2006 8:14 PM

Does the book set the chapters and verses into the chronology of Mohammed's revelation period?

Ain't received mine in the mail yet.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at September 28, 2006 8:32 PM

Fellow Patriots, Please click this simpler link to watch Salman Rushdie explain moderating Islam on our DemoCast.TV
Democracy Broadcasting: Salman Rushdie, "Profile in Courage Award" Honoree, remarks on "Reforming the Muslim World"#links

Posted by: DemoCast at September 28, 2006 8:33 PM

"And Muslims who proclaim their moderation should make it clear that they reject all this"

When will we wake up and realize this ain't gonna happen? 2010? 2020? 2050? After a few millions Infidels are mass-murdered?

Posted by: remote_control at September 28, 2006 8:43 PM

Uh oh. Looks like we're all doomed as well since we post here.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 28, 2006 8:50 PM

Unfortunately honorable, courageous people do have problems in a nation of cringing sheep.

Posted by: OLDPUPPYMAX at September 28, 2006 9:34 PM

If moderate Muslims want to be believed, perhaps they should fund a security detail for this guy (he gets to pick the security of course)

Posted by: non-redneck at September 28, 2006 10:26 PM

The thing is, about all this western thought, is that we're programmed to think the best of everyone. And like 13 years of this, with it being ingrained into our subconciousness deeply and firmly, it is very hard to shake that feeling off. It took a fluke for me to look this all up. I was on my dads computer and I read this website for a bit, and I gotta say, it makes everything fit. Everything makes sense when you add in the whole hatred aspect of Islam.

Anyways, we all really need to do our parts to speed up everyones thinking. We don't have three years to spare. It's all very scary to do this, though, because doing all of this gets us labelled as a racist, or maybe an islamaphobe. You know what though? The longer we all wait, the worse the intimidation will get, until it gets to the point where we don't say anything out of fear of being murdered cold blood.

The one thing we can do, if we're afraid of being labelled as islamaphobes, or afraid of being beat to hell by some rogue Christianphobe (I call them this, because of all the discrimation towards us), is to tell our friends, our loved ones, of the bullsh!t that is surrounding us, and to tell them the truth. Get them convinced, and we are all one step closer to a safer world.

Posted by: TheVoiceofTruth at September 28, 2006 10:34 PM

He "accused Islam of 'exalting violence,'" and they threaten to kill him. Doesn't anyone notice the irony here?

Well, you know what the Quran says: there is no irony in religion. Religion is serious business.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at September 28, 2006 10:34 PM

Well quita a few of us bloggers most probably have recieced threats of this nature.we must learn to take them in our stride and continue,and do not let them deter us

Any here is the source of the threats,scroll down to the second post

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_illustratedpig_archive.html

Posted by: shiva at September 28, 2006 10:42 PM

"The way to respond to intimidation is..."

...to fight for what is right. To wage war against the aggressors that would enslave you. To destroy the evil that would defile you.

This is not rocket science.

Posted by: Foehammer at September 28, 2006 10:43 PM

I ask, how do we begin to rally? I am ready to rally. Who can we look to for leadership?

We need a world wide organization that can operate in local chapters with the common goal of stopping jihad.

Mr. Spencer:

Can you offer any insight as to how an organization like this could come into being?

----------------------

It has:
http://www.unitedamericancommittee.org/
With sister organizations in some other countries besides the US. Truly grass-roots. Been trying to raise $10,000 for months for troop eductation materials.

Posted by: Hyman Roth at September 28, 2006 10:44 PM

"Doesn't anyone notice the irony here?"

I think there is enough empirical evidence to conclude that irony falls on that long list of things that are considered "un-Islamic." Noticing irony is probably a form of blasphemy. After all, such observations might lead one dangerously close to such idolatries as humor, or, Allah forbid, skeptical analysis.

Posted by: Stendec at September 28, 2006 10:54 PM

These people (the Islamists) are beyond belief. They probably don't recognize good writing when they see it anyway.
Thanks for getting the truth out.

Posted by: pigtails not veils at September 28, 2006 11:27 PM

Sometimes I wonder what Mo would say if he somehow came back from wherever he is and saw what his followers are saying and doing and how thin-skinned they are. That would probably be the only way to get these lunatics to quit going bonkers over EVERY single little thing. Or have they become so unbalanced that even Mo himself would be targeted for death?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 28, 2006 11:51 PM

We are making huge strides. Even this humble forum is hugely influential - guard your posts, your language, and your reception toward introspective Muslims who have the courage to post here. Don't make blanket statements about Muslims. See the difference between Islam's prophet and canonical texts on the one hand, and the human beings whose identities are wrapped up in them, invariably not by personal choice but rather indoctrination. Very few people are beyond hope.

I see an enormous difference in my personal encounters vis a vis Islam. When I first began to realize the truth about Islam and Muhammad, I had trouble explaining to anyone. Over the last year there has been a stunning shift, and it is not only because I have learned how to explain my viewpoint more clearly. Almost everyone I talk to who has not been exposed to the life of Muhammad and the Islamic canon absorbs what I explain with a serious countenance. Few reject it outright, whereas two years ago most did. Even hard leftists are waking up in great numbers. The question is quickly becoming "how do we deal with Islam" rather than "why do these peaceful people hate us". The cartoon riots, the French intifada, the 7/7 bombings, it all adds up to that dark suspicion that only needs a rational explanation. It is our job to keep giving it.

Every overreach by Islamic authorities, every cry for censorship, every attempt to menace, has a cumulative effect, and it is not pointing to dhimmitude by a long shot. "Muslims for identification purposes" are embarassed of their co-religionists. They are quietly leaving, and in vast numbers - these are the kind of people who don't hold placards, don't blow up buses, don't make demands and whine about petty offences. They just give up on a dead ideology. The Islamic authorities in the west are very concerned that they have lost the young generation - read what they say in their forums. Read what they say about how they are losing to Christianity in Africa. It is true, rioters and terrorists are a terrible threat, but the silent majority of Muslims in the west and elsewhere are drifting away. Islam as a global force just looks stupid, and it is people like the brave editors and cartoonists of the Jyllands-Posten, Pope Benedict, Hirsi Ali and others who do it. And us.

Islam has never encountered anything remotely as dangerous to it as the self-critical, free thinking west. We ALL know their doctrine is a lie, that Muhammad was not as Muslims would like him to be, that Sharia is tyranny, and that Islamic nations are all benighted. It is obvious. The Islamic authorities are a joke. We are all laughing at them and they know it and they can't stand it. The devil can't stand to be mocked. In this case it is Muhammad and his religion that can't stand to be mocked because it means the end of their power.

Last year for Rosh Hashanna I was at my Aunt and Uncle's house, and they had guests over from their synogogue. They and most of my family was stunned with what I had to say about the nature of Islam. Many were in throes of disbelief, except that they all know I am well read and skeptical. This year was radically different. We all went around the table discussing the threat of Islam and how to deal with it. The unanimity was a shock to me. I was expecting to have to convert people. No more. I see this in so many places, my colleagues in New York and Seattle, casual friends and acquaintances, even among leftys in San Francisco. Not everyone knows the truth about Muhammad himself, but very few feel "this is not about Islam".

No suicide bomb, no threat of beheading, no Jihadi massacre is as powerful as a reasoned, convincing argument; not any more, not in the connected world we live in. Violence exposes moral and intellectual weakness more than it intimidates. Islam is unraveling.

Posted by: Quijybo at September 28, 2006 11:54 PM

BanuQaynuqa:

I appreciate your expressions of good will and support, but I, and perhaps other readers of this forum as well, would like to hear more from you and others like you than good wishes. So, please help us if you can, to understand your position better.

You are presenting yourself to us, it seems, as a Muslim who believes in moderation, perhaps even liberalism. In various postings that I've made in this forum I've spoken up for the possibility of a reform of Islam that would have as its goal to render historic Islam, with its seemingly innate insistence on violent subjugation of every non-Islamic person, community, idea and practice, into something new that is compatible with liberal values such as free speech, reciprocal recognition or rights of religious freedom among the peoples of different faiths, and the legal freedom and equality of men and women, and to eliminate from it everything that calls for violent enforcement of religious law, forced conversion, and coercion in religious matters. I've also said that as I see it at present, this reform ought to be made mandatory for the Islamic communities in the West, beginning immediately, as a condition for their being allowed to remain here. I continue to hold that if a global war between the Umma and the non-Islamic world should ever come, assuming the non-Muslims win that war, this reform should be offered to the Umma as an alternative to extinction if it demonstrates its implementation convincingly.

But, I must admit that even though I say that this should be attempted, I have grave doubts that it can ever succeed, and sometimes I wonder if it is even worth bothering with. Still, I hang on to the idea, if for no other reason, simply because it seems to me that every religious idea, for anyone other than the community of believers that adheres to it a priori, seems like a mere abstraction that can not be proven rationally, and about which therefore all debate is ultimately inconclusive. The result of all this, it seems to me is that all belief systems that attempt to offer their followers a vision of transcendent meaning and absolute value as a source of moral edification should, if they do so in a spirit of mutual respect toward all other such systems, be granted the right to take their place among the others, and carry on unhampered and unmolested by the state or by the adherents of competing religions. Ultimately, one can not prove by any rational method what the truth is in an argument about, for example, whether God is a trinity or a monad. Therefore, if some people find something appealing in the notion that Mohammed was a prophet who was given a unique religous experience and a superior insight into the nature of God, that seems harmless to me if what is elaborated upon that foundation remains peaceably within the boundaries I've described. Now unfortunately I take as a given that, in fact, this is clearly NOT what happened with this foundation; that rather, what was elaborated upon Mohammed's experiences as the "prophet" of his new creed, was a system of violence, brutality, conquest and subjugation that insists on endless war and persecution, and that this is established clearly within the fundamental texts of the Islamic ideology (sorry, but I have to call it that - NOT a religion).

You, though apparently a Muslim, express solidarity with us. So I have three questions for you that I would like you to share your thoughts on if you don't mind for the sake of my own enlightenment and that of all the other readers in this forum who may be interested in these questions.

1. How can this goal be achieved given the many Koranic verses and the traditions of the Hadiths that insist on the radical division of the world into the "dar al Islam" (House of Islam) and the "dar al Harb" (House of War), that insist that Jihad must be waged by every Muslim until the dar al Harb is conquered and subsumed within the dar al Islam, that Muslims must never be sincere friends with non-Muslims, that neither Islam nor individual Muslims can tolerate being under the authority of "Kifurs" (infidels), that no law can be allowed to hold sway over Islamic law, that no religion other than Islam can exist, unless it accepts the second-class status of the "dhimma", etc., etc., etc.

2. What can be done to make this kind of "reform of Islam" sustainable and successful, especially given the fanatical violence of Islam's extremists that seems determined to exterminate Islamic moderation and liberality just as insistently as it seeks to do the same to all non-Muslims and all non-Islamic ideas, and what kind of risks and sacrifices are you willing to accept to achieve it?

3. Are you willing to open up the Koran, and other Islamic texts,to the same critical exegetical methods that Christians and Jews have applied to the Bible and other aspects of their traditions for the past 150 years? If not, how do you propose to transcend the current interpretive impasse that Islamic fundamentalists exploit to predicate violence and intolerance on so many passages of the Koran and the other written sources of Islamic belief?

Despite having my own very clear religious beliefs, I am at heart basically a liberal who believes in a free society, and for that reason a part of me resists the idea that the outcome of all this must be the extinction of Islam if some other way can be found to deal with it, but I often feel that I may simply be pissing in the wind on this. I think to myself that when the victorious allies defeated Germany in World War II they did not "reform" Naziism, trying to make it into "moderate" Naziism, even though there were many Nazies who were simply people that got caught up in the madness of the times and did what they needed to do to survive, so why should we bother trying to try to make room for "moderate Islam" to at last reveal itself as the outcome of all this violence. So in spite of hoping for the best I often fear the worst and think to myself, why should anyone even comtemplate this after the more than 13 centuries the world has suffered Islamic violence? But then I remember that, for God's sake, even Pope Benedict was obliged to join the Hitler Youth as a teenager, after all, so I can appreciate your willingness to extend the hand of friendship and good will toward us, assuming that you mean it sincerely, so why shouldn't I respect your beliefs and make room for them if you are willing to do the same for me? But I think Muslims who visit this forum need to understand the indignation and resentment that exists here in light of our perception of the monstrous and unjustified nature of the threat that we perceive being made against us and to explain to us what you mean by these assurances and how you intend to translate them into concrete results.

So please, as a moderate Muslim, explain to me and to my fellow posters in this forum, just what is moderate Islam? What does it hold true? What does it do? Where is it found and how can we help it get the upper hand in the "struggle within Islam" that we have heard so much about? What does it say about the Koran, about violence and force in Islam and in its founding texts? What is its future? What difference is it making now? And what will it do to bring about, once and for, a definitive and irrevocable renunciation of Islamic war and oppression? We hear about it a lot but we know nothing about it. Yet it seems that the future of all of us, the choice between war and peace, survival or extinction, may depend on what kind of answers we get to these types of questions from you and other Moslems who think as you claim to, and we need serious answers to these serious questions.

Hoping to hear from you soon about all of this.

Jacques_de_Molay (aka "Templar" and "PatriarchMichaelCerularius")

Posted by: jacques_de_molay at September 29, 2006 12:00 AM

* Likening Islam to Communism, he said that "violence and intimidation are the methods used by an expansionist ideology ... to impose its leaden cloak on the world". *

Exactly right! Truth-telling is dangerous but important work. I'm heartened by the increasing numbers of brave people speaking out and taking stands against militant Islam.

Posted by: alexon at September 29, 2006 12:32 AM

What we need is a politician of the Cato the elder variety who will end his every speech with the slogan: "delenda religio mohammedica est". He'd probably be safe from death threats for a while, at least - the Mohammedan who can read Latin is probably a rara avis.

Posted by: wallyUK at September 29, 2006 12:52 AM

Sebastian,

Thanks for posting that, I was aware of it, the taxi driver I use to take me to the airport had even photo-copied it for me. He said what you said about Islam is in there. I told him the man was very couragous and you will see the truth in his words by the size of his police escort.

It was yesterday morning on the radio that I heard that he was in hiding, I expected it.

I found the article in English on a blog somewhere, but can't remember which one, sorry chaps. but I think that this phrase sets the tone rather nicely Jésus est un maître d’amour, Mahomet un maître de haine. Jesus is a master of love, Mohammed a master of hate.

Templer, I like that name, as Islam is a heresy, perhaps Christianity is what the moderates should be turned to and in many areas are turning that way.

Posted by: Daffersd at September 29, 2006 3:35 AM

About an award or recognition for brave people like our french friend here: I'd suggest something like the Ordo Draconis, the Dragons Order. Carriers of this medieval order were Oswald von Wolkenstein, a german knight and troubadour, and Vlad II. of Vlachia, the historical Dracula's Father (that's where he got his Name from, Dracul=Dragon). It was an organization and an award for those, who successfully defended Europe from the Osmanian/Islamic threat.

Google it, and think about it...

Posted by: Danilo at September 29, 2006 3:56 AM

The cost of free speach in Europe and the total surrender by the French government by allowing him to be ruined financially

A letter of Robert Redeker in André Glucksmann

Dear André,

Hello.

I am now in a catastrophic personal situation. Many death threats very precise were addressed to me, and I was condemned to die by organizations of mobility Al-qaïda. The UCLAT and DST are occupied some, but... I do not have any more the right to place at home (on the sites condemning me to dead there is a plan indicating how to come to my house to kill me, there are my photograph, that of the places where I work, of the telephone numbers, and the act of judgment). But at the same time one does not provide me a place, I am obliged of quêmander, two evenings here, two evenings there... I am under permanent police protection. I must cancel all the conferences envisaged. And the authorities oblige me to move. I am a SDF. It follows a lunatic financial standing from there, all the expenses are with my load, including those possible of rent a one month or two distant from here, of two removals, expenses of notary, etc... It is quite sad. I exerted a right connstitutionnel, and I am punished by it, on the territory even of the Republic. This business is also an attack against national sovereignty : foreign laws, decided by fanatics criminophiles, punish me to have exerted a French constitutional law, and I in undergone, in France even, great damage.

Friendships

http://trans.voila.fr/voila?systran_lp=fr_en&systran_f=1159517346&systran_id=Voila-fr&systran_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.france-echos.com%2Factualite.php%3Fcle%3D10319

Posted by: Daffersd at September 29, 2006 4:23 AM

A very good translation of the original article written by Redeker can be found here :
http://extremecentre.org/2006/09/28/robert-bedeker-english-translation/#more-2929

Despite Le Figaro timid attempt to defend freedom of speech in today's edition, it seems that Pierre Rousselin, senior editor, expressed his regrets for having published this article on th paper on Al Jazeera :
http://www.agence-paf.net/article.php3?id_article=266
I personally tried to publish this news on le Figaro's Forums but got censored. I guess they know lots of their readers would not appreciate this surrender !

Posted by: brubos at September 29, 2006 5:21 AM

Robert Redeker has just been interviewed and can be heard here http://www.dailymotion.com/Uncle/video/xg0dr_redekerelkabbach29septembre06europe

In summary he has been abandoned by his teachers union, the Minister for Education, his editor and his mayor.

Posted by: Sebastien at September 29, 2006 7:42 AM

Re: Writer of 'anti-Islam' article gets death threats (from big-babies)

Freedom is about the unlimited right to use the mind to reason, based on facts from the evidence of the 5 senses, and freedom of speech is the expression of thought, opinions and ideas based on facts and reason. (Freedom and freedom of speech are threatened by a licence that abuses it, as well as a totalitarian attempt to control the mind.)

Islam cripples creativity in the mind, and for that reason it is no accident that there are no great universities (though much of the Muslim world is affluent-particularly Arabia) and no new scientific ideas that come from Islamic culture. It is no accident that more new and excellent science comes from tiny Israel than all of the Muslim world. Islamic culture is basically a parasite of free thought.

The mind that threatens the philosopher is a crippled and childish mind that wants its own selfish way. It wants to impose a belief-system on others as if the belief-system were a fact. It uses the patina of "religion" to live in a make-believe world and it threatens to kill unbelivers. It is the mind of a big baby. The sad truth is that this infantile mind will only face reality when extreme force is used as a response to its violence.

The world cannot permit this kind of crippled big-baby mind to prevail. What is cute and touching in a baby (grasping demands, non-reason, treating beliefs as fact, etc.) is sick and repulsive in the grown Islamic mind.

Posted by: Frank at September 29, 2006 8:04 AM

Sebastien,

Thank you for reproducing the article.

Posted by: rocky at September 29, 2006 8:09 AM

A petition is going round for Robert Redeker here http://www.resiliencetv.fr/modules/epetitions/petitions.php?petitionid=14
It would be great to get as many international signatures as possible.

Regards

Posted by: Sebastien at September 29, 2006 8:16 AM

You're welcome Rocky. Kudos to Daffersd for finding an English translation

Posted by: Sebastien at September 29, 2006 8:18 AM

It was brubos not me, thanks Brubos, I could not locate the one I found before. Thanks for the raido link, very interesting and for once my French was up to it.

Posted by: Daffersd at September 29, 2006 8:33 AM

Final thought on my comment above: Reason is not at all incompatible with a religious point of view, an awe and wonder of a Supreme Being. Albert Einstein expressed a powerful awe and wonder of a Supreme Being and God's very subtle Mind that created laws in the Universe that could be understood (via much thought-reason) by man using his limited mind. Einstein's awe was the religious attitude. What we see in Islamic culture is not "religion" but an immature dogmatic-big-baby mind cannot be creative in the manner of an Einstein.

Many Muslims would kill Einstein for his skepticism and unbelief in Islam and general skepticism re organized religion. I'm sure of it.(I'll bet Einstein would see someone such as Ibrahim Hooper (e.g.) as big-baby with a costume hat on.)

Posted by: Frank at September 29, 2006 8:46 AM

Adam goddamn is also a big baby, but he's a dangerous killer. Islam is the beard with him. It's a kind of heavy-mettle mind that hurts animals and then people. Hopper is only infantile. He simply runs away from reason and reality.

Posted by: Frank at September 29, 2006 8:50 AM

There is a petition in support of Redeker on this site :
http://www.resiliencetv.fr/modules/epetitions/petitions.php?petitionid=14

For the translation of a good article by Le Monde ( yes, they some times do have good articles... just like the NYT, once every blue moon)with reactions from Villepin, Robien ( the French Education minister who sounds like a good dhimmi to me), and Redeker himself go here :
http://extremecentre.org/2006/09/29/a-professor-of-philosophy-receives-death-threats-for-writing-an-article-on-islam/

Posted by: brubos at September 29, 2006 3:57 PM

Those Muslism sure have a sense of humor. Why, Islam is a REGULAR RIOT!!!!

Posted by: pythagoras at September 30, 2006 1:51 PM

Footnote: Andre Glucksmann, Redeker's friend, is the fellow who last year said that the Parisian rioters were merely trying to fit into French society.

And here's my beg for a click-through.

Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at October 1, 2006 12:40 AM