This is a bit rich coming from The Independent.

They recently published a review of “The Messenger” by Taraq Ramadan which concluded that there was no reason to believe that Islam had a greater capacity for violence than other religions.
This is like saying the events of the Second World War had nothing to do with “Mein Kampf.”

Posted by: Odyessus at August 14, 2008 3:43 PM

Pebbles might start a much needed avalanche,but at the end of the day the often repeated mantra: "fundamentalism itself is the problem" still manages to obscure the perceptions of many.

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at August 14, 2008 4:00 PM

I have read the entire article in The Independent. Very good article, stating that Islam needs to be critiqued as much as any other faith (if you can call Islam that). I am sure the perpetually offended are already offended by this article. My response: we don't give a damn! Islam is not and cannot be above criticism. It is NOT the word of God, no matter what the Islamists say to suit their end. Like any other religion or belief system, it is man-made and as such open to questioning. And we will continue to question it, notwithstanding the efforts by UN, OIC, and Islamists to silence the critics. The freedom to question and freedom of expression are very dear to us infidels and NO ONE is going to take that away from us. For these freedoms, we will resist and we will fight. Let CAIR hear that loud and clear.

Posted by: IndianTiger at August 14, 2008 4:16 PM

Quite frankly, this article has some serious non-sense in it. First, the author mentions criticism of Islam being used to justify US and Israeli military atrocities. Typical lefty moral equivalence drivel. Total BS.

Second, there's this gem:

"The smart, questioning and instinctively moral Muslims – the majority – learn to be silent, or are shunned (at best)."

Anyone who's spent anytime looking at this issue knows deep down most Muslims support Islamic Supremacy, their silence and willingness to make excuses for Islamic terrorists makes that an utterly idiotic statement that in my opinion, makes this article no great revelation.

I give him a couple of points for pointing out Western cowardice in speaking out about Islam, but otherwise, this article is nothing to get excited about. The author is still clueless.

Posted by: Proud Infidel at August 14, 2008 4:20 PM

Baby steps, folks, baby steps. The more the public learns, the more likely that the house of cards will fall down.

Abraham Lincoln once said that "you can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Read the Qur'an. Spread the word.

Posted by: tanstaafl at August 14, 2008 5:48 PM

His article here is flawed, but fundamentally right.

With respect Robert, you do not say how the article is flawed. Would be very interested if you could elaborate?

Posted by: marvin at August 14, 2008 5:54 PM

I'll assume it's his take on atheism, as I'm aware you are Christian, am I in the right area?

Posted by: marvin at August 14, 2008 5:56 PM

The other reason is more honourable, if flawed. There is very real and rising prejudice against Muslims across the West. The BBC recently sent out identically-qualified CVs to hundreds of employers. Those with Muslim names were 50 per cent less likely to get interviews. Criticisms of Islamic texts are sometimes used to justify US or Israeli military atrocities. Some critics of Muslims – Geert Wilders or Martin Amis – moot mass human rights abuses here in Europe. So some secularists reason: I have plenty of criticisms of Judaism, but I wouldn't choose to articulate them in Germany in 1933. Why try to question Islam now, when Muslims are being attacked by bigots?

Conversely, Muslims in Saudi Arabia aren't being attacked. S.A. has never been colonized like other Muslim countries. There are no prejudices toward Muslims in S.A. The country is swimming in enough $$$ to give every Muslim CV living there a decent job. All is peachy and keen for Muslims in S.A. versus Muslims in Europe.   Given the above logic, would Islam then be easier to question and challenge in Saudi Arabia than in the "bigoted" West?

Posted by: yadayada at August 14, 2008 6:44 PM

marvin

I think the point is Johann Hari is covering himself at every step and saying how jolly nice muslims really are. Consider,

“Criticisms of Islamic texts are sometimes used to justify US or Israeli military atrocities. Some critics of Muslims – Geert Wilders or Martin Amis – moot mass human rights abuses here in Europe. So some secularists reason: I have plenty of criticisms of Judaism, but I wouldn't choose to articulate them in Germany in 1933. Why try to question Islam now, when Muslims are being attacked by bigots?”

And - “There is very real and rising prejudice against Muslims across the West.

Nothing of course to do with bombs on public transport, fear of being accused of “racism” and “islamophobia” on the slightest pretext, cynical exploitation of the social security system, ethnic cleansing of non-muslims from “muslim areas”, contempt for just about every aspect of our society, demands for shria law, the “disproportionate” appetite of young muslims for rape – only admitted in Scandinavia - unprovoked attacks on everyone from children to pensioners and so on and on.

Does any know if the Jews in Germany in 1933 did any of these? Maybe I missed something.

If we object we are just “bigots” because while there MAY be odd cases of this, we are just using them as cover. When his wife gets punched in the stomach by a 6-year-old muslim kid – as mine was – he will probably be able to tell us it is our fault.

But did anyone pick up this bit?

The BBC recently sent out identically-qualified CVs to hundreds of employers. Those with Muslim names were 50 per cent less likely to get interviews.”

It is an interesting counterpoint that about 10 years ago a white middle class English woman got fed up being turned down by various academic institutions and did the reverse. She called herself “Sharon Shreck” and wrote herself up a downtrodden black woman from a “deprived” area with the result she had several offers. The left kept quiet about that.

Essentially the BBC Stasi are in business again. This follows on from the BBC reporter who joined the police to investigate racism and spied on his “colleagues” with hidden cameras and microphones for almost 2 years. There was a terrible outcry in the liberal press and about 12 traffic police were fired almost all for admitting to targeting muslims who treat traffic law with the same contempt as any other kaffur law. I remember it well because the same week I had to attend a house in a muslim area were the (white) occupiers had just had their front window put in. When I told the police that 2 witnesses who had chased the attackers said “It was the Asian lads who hang around the halal takeaway” they pooped their pants and said it could not have been.

Posted by: Fred at August 14, 2008 7:25 PM

Fred said: "It is an interesting counterpoint that about 10 years ago a white middle class English woman got fed up being turned down by various academic institutions and did the reverse. She called herself “Sharon Shreck” and wrote herself up a downtrodden black woman from a “deprived” area with the result she had several offers."

Remember the business in Australia maybe ten years ago of the brilliant young female aborigine novelist. I can't recall the name, but it was something like Ann Boolabong; anyway an aborigine name. The novel got rave reviews, and was awarded the Oz equivalent of the Booker Prize or the National Book Award. All the serious TV talk-shows wanted her on their shows, but she was strangely shy, and kept turning down the invitations. It eventually turned out that she was a he, and a white Australian, not an aborigine. He had submitted the book to various publishers under his own name, and been turned down; so he just submitted it under an assumed name, that of an aborigine girl, and it was published, to great critical acclaim.
Perhaps some Aussie reader of JW can supply more details on this.

Posted by: ebonystone at August 14, 2008 11:19 PM

This is a good time of year to consider The 800 Martyrs of Otranto

They do an AMAZING job of silencing.

Posted by: A Simple Sinner at August 15, 2008 1:05 AM

Great link A Simple Sinner! A real keeper, that's for sure.

Thank you!

ABS

لن استسلم

Posted by: Drewbenstein at August 15, 2008 3:41 AM

Hurray for Hari.

Let the debate begin and be open and be sincere and straight.

Posted by: dgene at August 15, 2008 8:34 AM

Islam is a certified hypocracy! They deprive Christains of every freedom, right, privlage, etc... and in Europe they cry like babies when they are treated less tham 100% like humnan or like Europeans.

Islam is hypocracy, idiocracy and you name it.

Posted by: American at August 15, 2008 11:42 AM

Johann Harri also wrote an article about child brides in Yemen on the same day.

He dares to question where they could have got this idea from.

Posted by: Big Luke at August 15, 2008 2:56 PM

Freedom of speech is ultimately about truth. If freedom of speech is killed, truth withers. When truth withers, humanity is dead.

Posted by: Malta_1565 at August 15, 2008 4:14 PM