| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
A courageous and much-needed criticism of the proposed new religious hatred laws in the UK. I am amazed that this article got published. From Will Cummins in the Telegraph, with thanks to Charles at LGF:
In the time of Marcus Aurelius, Christianity was a growing force within the Roman Empire. His ministers asked him if the state should join the non-Christian majority in attacking the new religion, or seek to protect it. The Emperor's reply is found in his Meditations. The state's response to Christianity, he said, or to anything else, should be determined by one simple question: "What is the thing in itself? What does it do?" Today, the Government faces a similar dilemma regarding Islam. In response, the Home Secretary announced plans last week to make vilification of Islam a crime. He insisted that his law to "ban incitement to religious hatred" was meant to defend every faith. However, only Muslims have asked for immunity. The legislation would "close a loophole", David Blunkett observed, because inciting hatred of people on racial grounds is illegal in the UK, but inciting hatred of them on the grounds of belief is not.The problem is that a virulent hatred of Muslims can no more be racism than a virulent hatred of Marxists or Tories. Nobody is a member of a race by choice. Such groups are protected from attack because it is unfair to malign human beings for something they cannot help. However, nobody is a member of a community of belief except by choice, which is why those who have decided to enter or remain within one are never protected. Were such choices not open to the severest censure, we could no longer call our country a democracy.
It is a red herring for supporters of Mr Blunkett's law to say that Muslims should be shielded by the race laws because Jews and Sikhs are. It is the racial persons of Jews and Sikhs that are protected, not their beliefs. In any case, Sikhism and Judaism are race cults which actively discourage converts. It is almost impossible to become a member of either religion unless you are racially Jewish or Punjabi. They are diametrically opposed to inclusive ideologies like Christianity or Islam, which seek to convert everybody.
Some propose special protection for Muslims by saying that Islam is a racial identity because three of the four schools of Islamic law enjoin faithful Muslims to murder anyone who wishes to leave the faith, thus limiting every Muslim's freedom of action. But is this a point in Islam's favour? And is this the sort of religion we want to throw people into prison for condemning?
To argue that Islam should have special protection because it is a "religion" while Marxism or Conservatism are "merely philosophies" is equally specious. All that divides a religion from a secular ideology is something whose existence - supernatural support - is disputed by adherents of the latter. To privilege supernatural belief-systems by law would be to impose the view of the faithful about this on everyone, the situation that prevailed in the Middle Ages. This time, it is Islam, not Christianity, that New Labour wants to impose on Christendom.
A society in which one cannot revile a religion and its members is one in which there are limits to the human spirit. The Islamic world was intellectually and economically wrecked by its decision to put religion beyond the reach of invective, which is simply an extreme form of debate. By so doing, it put science and art beyond the reach of experiment, too. Now, at the behest of Muslim foreigners who have forced themselves on us, New Labour wants to import the same catastrophe into our own society.
In a recent television panel, Iqbal Sacranie explained why the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the organisation he leads, had pushed for this legislation. The British should be allowed not to believe in Islam, he said (thanks, Mr Sacranie!), but they should not be permitted to "criticise" it.
Ken Livingstone has gone even further. On Wednesday, the Mayor of London welcomed to City Hall the Qatari divine Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, according to the MCB "an Islamic scholar held in great respect throughout the Islamic world".
Basing his teaching on Islam's holiest texts, Dr al-Qaradawi has urged his fellow Muslims to beat their wives; to use child suicide bombers to kill female and infant civilians; to murder Jews, homosexuals and British servicemen; and to colonise, desecrate and usurp Christian Rome.
Mr Livingstone said that the newspapers that had condemned Dr al-Qaradawi for such views "showed why this legislation [Blunkett's] is necessary". It was the critics of Dr al-Qaradawi's beliefs, Mr Livingstone insisted, who were, as the Muslim Association of Britain put it, "the image of evil". Dr al-Qaradawi, a mainstream figure in a major religion, had endorsed Jew lynching and wife beating: Mr Livingstone seemed to imply that, like Islam, such activities should therefore be above criticism.
This brings us to the nub of the issue: the fact that Islam's teachings are completely unlike those of other faiths. The Government shows no sign of understanding this. Defending his proposed legislation, Mr Blunkett, for instance, said: "It applies equally to far-Right evangelical Christians as to extremists in the Islamic faith." But what "far-Right evangelical Christian" has ever proposed or endorsed anything as horrifying as what the moderate Muslim regards as normal?
Posted by Robert at July 11, 2004 6:54 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
This article is HUGE.......huge I say!!!
For a mainstream paper in the West to say what Robert and so many many others have been saying and warning for years is a 'great leap forward' as it were!!
Yes I know every now and then a snippet gets through in the mainstream press but this is a smashing rounder!!
And I LOVE as a Christian how he undercuts cheap liberal moral equivication near the end by slamming home the point that Islam is a beast like no other!!!
I do hope this man stays safe!!
When can we count on some Canadian and American columnists in the Media to start actually thinking out there narrow little boxes with their silly platitudes about Islam meaning peace and actually deal with REALITY!!!
Up here in Canada, we do have people like David Warren and Michael Coren who have bravely spoken out.........and of course in America you have some fine people also........But we need to get into the pages of the Post, NY Times, Time, and so forth to have a real huge impact......
And this is a great start.......I have a strong feeling that Europe, for all of its faults, does seem to be more then willing at times to speak out on these issues with greater of ease then we have seen in North America!!
The Light of Truth needs to be continually shone on Islam.........this article is a beam in the right direction!!
Thank You
Posted by: Albertanator![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 11, 2004 7:17 AM
At last! A journalist daring to tell it like it is instead of obeying doctrine or rather spin doc of Blair and trendy Lefties. Personally doubt if bill will be passed by House of Lords. I was living in London for three years up to quite recently and can tell you ordinary people aren't happy at situation with Muslims. Other groups, Chinese,Japanese, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs etc have no problem adjusting to Western Culture whilst keeping their own identity. But not majority of Muslims who show no sign of wanting to
integrate although always complaining about'their rights.'Remember there was a Sikh celebration going in a procession where they were taunted by
Muslim youths - how's that for tolerance - and a Sikh sword mysteriously cut one of these youths!
Of course the Muslim youth who had provoked this action immediately became the VICTIM. Screams of outrage, more Muslim bashing etc,etc. If the Jihadists try to take over, good news is we have lots of allies out there.
at July 11, 2004 7:49 AM
"In a recent television panel, Iqbal Sacranie explained why the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the organisation he leads, had pushed for this legislation. The British should be allowed not to believe in Islam, he said (thanks, Mr Sacranie!), but they should not be permitted to "criticise" it."
If Tony Blair eats some lsd and a religious UFO visits him and proclaims God has given him THE new party platform, nobody would be allowed to criticise him according to the new law?
This is so very not progressive. To find out that the left now wants to outlaw criticism of religion is a mind boggling turnaround of the traditional leftish stance on religion.
at July 11, 2004 8:55 AM
It beggars belief that the Left is so cosy with such a backward, regressive, anti-everything belief system. The Left is so very pro-feminist & rights for women. Islam is not. The Left is so very pro-gay-rights. Islam believes in murdering gays. The Left is probably predominantly atheist. Islam believes in murdering atheists.
So why is the Left wanting to outlaw criticism of such an intolerant ideology? What is the common ground? Do they worry that to put the spotlight on Islam, that it might take the heat off their favorite targets: Bush/America and Israel? That it might make it clear that the reason Muslims are oppressed, poor and violent is due to their stupid belief system, and not because of the wall that Israel is building or American foreign policy?
Posted by: feralee at July 11, 2004 9:09 AM
Folks:
You all need to read Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran.
In that book, she describes how the left in Iran worked with the Islamists to overthrow the Shah's regime. Then, she recounts how the left was then crushed by the Islamists.
The left is so stupid. They like to think that the enemy of my enemy is my friend as Islam is against capitalism and Western civilization in general. However, they don't seem to realize that once they help the Islamists achieve power, the Muslims will crush them.
That is something a lot of people in the West don't seem to understand. Islam is not only against free speech, free thought, freedom of the press, human rights in general, democracy, pluralism and religious tolerance but they are also against free markets and capitalism. Hardly any one knows, and I am here to tell you, that in Islam the idea of a corporation as a legal person does not exist. This concept only exists in the West and has been a major reason for our economic success.
at July 11, 2004 9:56 AM
the thread on LGF on this article was very good. i suggest if you have time to drop in there and read it.
Posted by: jimmytheclaw at July 11, 2004 12:14 PM
"So why is the Left wanting to outlaw criticism of such an intolerant ideology?"
All the lefty loonies see is "minority". Besides, as long as they are anti- Bush, anti- establishment, it doesn't matter who they are or what they (muslims) do. Lets not forget that the loony left is no shining example of rightious behavior themselves.
Posted by: Imam_Nathan at July 11, 2004 12:24 PM
This is a good article. I can’t even imagine something like this appearing in the Globe & Mail, much less the Toronto Star. (not that I read either one.) I can see the Western Standard writing this though.
Albertanator,
Where would I find stuff by David Warren and Michael Coren?
We have to do more to support guys like this writer. Email him and let him know that you agree with his sentiments.
Canuck
“Your grandchildren will be writing articles against islam and islamos.”
at July 11, 2004 12:39 PM
Morgane said, “Remember there was a Sikh celebration going in a procession where they were taunted by
Muslim youths - how's that for tolerance - and a Sikh sword mysteriously cut one of these youths!”
I have a close friend who comes from a Sikh family. He was born in India and moved here with his family when he was 12. He and his wife still are definitely Sikh and retain their Indian culture (although they both love Canada and have no trouble fitting in with our culture) but both of their children are as western as they come and that suits my friend and his wife just fine. They understand that immigrants should adopt the culture of the country they move to as much as possible.
My friend also has some definite ideas on islam, none of them are positive.
“Your grandchildren will carry swords to combat islamic injustice.”
at July 11, 2004 12:49 PM
Mentat said, “That is something a lot of people in the West don't seem to understand. Islam is not only against free speech, free thought, freedom of the press, human rights in general, democracy, pluralism and religious tolerance but they are also against free markets and capitalism. Hardly any one knows, and I am here to tell you, that in Islam the idea of a corporation as a legal person does not exist. This concept only exists in the West and has been a major reason for our economic success.”
There is a good site on the net called www.mises.org. Everything you ever wanted to know about free market capitalism and classic liberalism (now called libertarianism in North America)
“Your grandchildren will be capitalists and free marketeers.”
at July 11, 2004 12:53 PM
This significant article should be given out to as many that will read it.
Canada already has the same problem as do the British. The hate speech law will nto allow pastors to teach moral precepts that go against Canadian social policy.
We in America should take note that our hate crime laws on the books could be interpreted by activist judges to accomplish the same goal - silencing of criticism of Islam and, national social engineering. We must take care to be vigilant of the judiciary and of legislation that could limit our freedom of speech and of redress.
Posted by: epg at July 11, 2004 12:59 PM
Whether I'm "allowed" or not, Islam will continue to receive criticism and scrutiny from me. More than they want.
Their feelings would be important to me if ours were important to them. Turning the other cheek with Muslims will get us one thing, a sliced cheek.
To hell with them. They'll be treated like humans when they behave like humans.
Posted by: DCWatson at July 11, 2004 1:19 PM
Look at this letter to the editor that the Telegraph published (unbelievable!):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=HMQZRCXQYQA5DQFIQMGSM5OAVCBQWJVC?view=HOME&grid=P18&menuId=-1&menuItemId=-1&_requestid=80581
Re: Mohammed is the Anti-Christ
Date: 11 July 2004
Thank you for the courage you have shown in publishing the excellent article by Will Cummins - who is not bereft of courage himself. He has shone the light of wisdom and truth into a dark region where the less stout-hearted fear to gaze.
To deny the validity of Islam is to invite the attention of murderous fanatics, as it has been for the last 1,400 years, and also to incur the wrath of the establishment that has neither the wisdom to recognise the truth, nor the guts to speak out.
Mohammed is not merely a false prophet, he is the Anti-Christ. Jesus stood between the fallen woman and the lynch-mob, whereas Mohammed would have been the first to cast a stone. Jesus allowed his enemies to kill him. Mohammed had his critics assassinated. The God of Jesus loves the sinner, even the unbeliever, but Allah hates the transgressor.
We must not allow the likes of Dr Rowan Williams to fool us. Allah is not God. The two are not the same. Islam does not recognise the concept of universal love, as do all the great religions of the world.
From:
Robert Baehr, Haselbury Plucknett, Somerset
at July 11, 2004 2:25 PM
mentat
look at the letter right above it. that will be the one people will read.
at July 11, 2004 3:18 PM
And who are the freedom speech, I have listened a lot of critics about Catholic Church and I don´t ask the censure of them, the Islam deserves be criticised yesterday, today and forever.
Posted by: Franze at July 11, 2004 3:26 PM
Jimmy,
I'm not sure the letter above is the one that will be read, it comes off as a hysterical rant by someone who is in denial about Islam who wishes to stifle debate. The letter describing Mohammed as the anti-Christ is far more reasoned.The point is that anti-Islam letters and articles are being published and will be read more and more by the general public.Islam seeks to stifle debate because the more people learn about Islam the more people come to reject Islam.I'm very excited to see open debate, discussion and criticism of Islam.
I also want to add I enjoyed reading Will Cummings excellent article.
Posted by: Roxane at July 11, 2004 3:34 PM
Jimmytheclaw:
Thanks for pointing that out. I think that is fine. The Telegraph is sticking up for the concept of free speech and free thought. And that means publishing opinions that are at variance with each other. The problem that we are having in the West is that the discussion is completely one-sided. Muslims can be critical of Christianity, Western civilization in general but we were not allowed to be critical of them. Our own press and governments are muzzling us. We needed a balance of opinions and the Telegraph is providing us with that for the last 24 hours anyway.
I have no problem with Muslim apologists ranting and raving to their hearts' content. I am for free speech. But if the Islamists can go on about how great their religion is, I should have the right to be able to say how terrible I think it is.
Posted by: Mentat at July 11, 2004 3:37 PM
To Sheik Canuck........
David Warren I believe writes for the Ottawa Citizen which I believe is a liberal paper...he has his own website and I have the link somewhere but I can't find it right now but if you google his name you will find it..
The wonderful Mike Coren writes of course for the Sun Newspapers....
I always write to these guys and encourage them as WE all must do and write to the editors.....
We need to write to the Telegraph also.....Muslims will be having a FIT over this great article......
Thanks
at July 11, 2004 8:51 PM
If i call jews and christians the descendants of monkeys and apes, i am gulty of racism or religious defamation.
But when a muslim does this he his merely following the word of the prophet.
So when i castigate this muslim, i am the one guilty of religious defamation because i am doing from a secular platform or for that matter any other religious platform which does not incorporate such teachings.
Is this the morality of ken livingstone and the london reds?
So when muslims slit the thoats of innocents, the act of merely reporting such actions becomes racist and the perpetrators must be exonerrated for simply following their religion ?
In other words nuslims can kill and maim us and as infidels we must say nothing.
is that the history of christian communities under islam?
at July 11, 2004 9:03 PM
Albertanator
Thanks for the info. I found David Warren’s site www.davidwarrenonline.com
The Ottawa Citizen is on www.canada.com
Mike Coren’s paper, The Sun, part of www.canoe.ca for anyone that is interested.
Canuck
“Your grandchildren will be writing letters for freedom.
at July 11, 2004 9:15 PM
Dear Robert,
"Basing his teaching on Islam's holiest texts, Dr al-Qaradawi has urged his fellow Muslims to beat their wives; to use child suicide bombers to kill female and infant civilians; to murder Jews, homosexuals and British servicemen; and to colonise, desecrate and usurp Christian Rome"
Posting this article, I would like to comment on this particular section of the article. Tabloids in the UK have made endless acusations about Al Sheikh Yusif Qaradawi, blatantly false, which even The sheikh himself denied. It is easy to make a claim, but what no one can shy away from is the unavailable quotes to proove their accusation. Im interisted in finding the slightest bit of proof to back up the claim he urged "muslims to beat their wives(though the prophet Muhammed clearly states "how can one sleep with the wife whom he beats"), and use"child suicide bombers (when even Shikh Ahmad Yassin Rahimahu Allah Made a fatwah the ordered children not be used in suiside bombings) even going on to claim he ordered them to target females and infant civilians?! And speaking of colonisation, that is the british speciality , "The land the sun never sets on"...
Now i have no problem with people attaking other faiths. Not at all. But then again, the UK is trying to extinguish the religous hatred fanned by the USA. Let us be reminded anti muslim sentiment has risen from sept 11 upto date by 1400%. If the law is aimed at fanning away religious hatred, i have little problem with that.
"I was living in London for three years up to quite recently and can tell you ordinary people aren't happy at situation with Muslims. Other groups, Chinese,Japanese, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs etc have no problem adjusting to Western Culture "
I too live in london (but am on vacation elsewhere for now). Yes they are not fond of islam, it is contrary to their values. But to tell me the sikhs, japs, hindus etc integrate better than the muslims only prooves you either dont live there, or are socially blind. The English do not integrate with the chinese or japs. The Sikhs arnt the english mans favorite. The jews do terrible. They even have a word for them, and accuse them of being isolated and stingy. The whole reason jews have been picked on over and over again was for the isolation. Beliefs that you are not a "pure" jew unless your mother and father are jews aswell etc... Muslims do not have that. Muslims in the UK, and in particular in london, are everywhere, in every degree of society. They integrate quite well, but their ability to keep away from clubbing, bars, and generally a life of sin in condonable, not condemable.
"Islam believes in murdering gays"
Not at all. Islam recognises there are gay people, believes in trating it, and abstaining from sexual contact with other men. However, simply being gay is not ones ticket to death, commiting a sexual act is. Furthermore christianity strongly condemns gays in the severist of terms, islam tolerates them.
"That it might make it clear that the reason Muslims are oppressed, poor and violent is due to their stupid belief system, and not because of the wall that Israel is building or American foreign policy?"
Speaking of poor, 10% of America lives in poverty, another 5 million in slums. The statistics are for those holding citizen ship.
Also, about the poorness of the society, i suggest you take a look at other muslim contries, like the united arab emarites (GDP Per capita 28000$) Kuwait (GDP Per capita 21000) both of whom are a whooping 10000$ more than israel. And Saudi (GDP Per capita 11000$). However, you fail to blaim poverty on globalisation due to the richer contries, and loans from the world bank and such that cripled African economies and decade, greedly sucking out money from poverty striken nations.
"Islam seeks to stifle debate because the more people learn about Islam the more people come to reject Islam"
Care to explain why the rate of converts to islam has risen by almost 50% after 9-11 in the USA alone?
"But what "far-Right evangelical Christian" has ever proposed or endorsed anything as horrifying as what the moderate Muslim regards as normal?"
Killing 90000 civilians in afganistan, and up to 50000 civilians in iraq (statistics released by British based medact) and accepting it is radical beyond the muslim radical can hope to become.
Regards
Ahmad
at July 11, 2004 9:36 PM
Ahmad:
Since you are apparently Sunni, what school do you follow? All of 4 schools, to the best of my knowledge, codemn sodomites to death. Do you deny the sacred law? You choose to deny the Holy Qur'an? You are you an apostate. You will burn in hell and deserve death. I wish you a quick and merciful death at the hands of your co-religionists.
What does the Umdat al-salik say:
pp. 664-665
p17.0 SODOMY AND LESBIANISM
p17.1 In more than one place in the Holy Koran, Allah recounts to us the story of Lot’s people, and how he destroyed them for their wicked practice. There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of all other religions that sodomy is an enormity. It is even viler and uglier than adultery.
p17.2 Allah Most High says:
“Do you approach the males of humanity, leaving the wives Allah has created for you? But you are a people who transgress” (Koran 26:165-66).
p17.3 The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
(1) “Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him.”
(2) “May Allah curse him who does what Lot’s people did.”
(3) “Lesbianism by women is adultery between them.”
at July 11, 2004 10:25 PM
Mentat,
Yes it condemns the practice by death. Should you have read my post carefull and not just screened through it you would have realised that. Secondly i stated that islam does not condemn to death those who claim not to be attracted to the opposite sex, so long as they do not comit sexual acts with those of their same sex. At one point i was taught that islam rewards their patience with the ability to practice it in heaven. I dont need a islamic lesson from one who is ignorant of islam himself.
Posted by: Ahmad at July 11, 2004 10:38 PM
The speech of the Free
is Freedom of Speech,
to be silenced is to be a slave,
to be a slave is to obey,
follow another's way
even against our own judgement,
to be coerced to act
whether we want it or not,
whether we like it or not,
to be a slave is not to be Free . . .
like those who believe god
needs worship around a black rock,
believe god reigns not alone,
but needs another, a perfect pattern
to be followed who lies, cheats, steals,
condones rape, murder, primitive punishment,
and persecutes Jews, but the worst
is that he is a physician of death,
a black magician who casts a spell
over the Others, his inferiors, not brothers,
to keep them from saying their mind,
to confuse their mind,
to take away their mind.
for his cult is a mind-stealer,
a shape shifter, and a divider of humanity.
To be free
we must have freedom of speech,
we must agree to disagree
without harm or enmity,
a sophisticated level of contract in society
perhaps an ideal for the dhimmi-kind
an ideal whose time has not come
since the invading mohammedans march
to the beat of a different drum.
at July 11, 2004 11:16 PM
Ahmad,
there are many, many moslems in Canada quietly leaving the umah, most to become Christians.
I know Iranians who consider islam an arab ideology that keeps Iran subservient to arab interests,and, while still nominally moslem themselves, are working against islam.
And never forget, arabs themselves did not accept islam, it was shoved down their throats. Why would arabs accept an ideology and laws that were backward, retrogressive even then.
'The prophet' spent most of his time after the hijra fighting wars, and most of the wars were against arabs who did not accept his leadership, his teachings; arabs were beaten into submission by the prophet and his paid thugs.
Christianity was 600 years old when ' the prophet' started killing arabs - pagan, jew and christian alike - and the message of Christ was light years ahead of the weird and bizarre burblings of 'the prophet' ( Christ came from the Jewish tradition, which was 2500 years old when 'the prophet' decided he was right, everyone else was wrong ).
There was no place for islam when the prophet was alive, thus the constant wars required to 'persuade' arabs to obey ' the prophet', and there is certainly no place for such nonsense in the 21st century
at July 11, 2004 11:21 PM
The absurdity of the claims above by one "Ahmad" are not worth responding to in detail; his dreamy assumption that Sikhs, Chinese, Japanese, e tutti quanti fail to blend in, whereas Muslims are doing just fine, thank you, at every level of society, is so far from reality as to cause one to wonder if an "Earth-to-Ahmad" appeal might work.
But the most ludicrous remark is that about relative GNP. Surely he knows that before the discovery, by Infidels, of the oil and gas deposits that happen to lie under a number of Muslim countrie,s those countries were dismally poor. Their entire wealth, the largest transfer of wealth in human history, is not the result of any hard work, or entrepreneurial flair, but simply the result of an accident of geology. And should the oil consumers find a way to lessen their demand, or find alternative sources of energy, or impose taxes to recapture some of the oligopolistic rents, the Muslim states will decline to their natural, pre-oil level.
All the evidence suggests -- the evidence even of the Arab technocrats who recently wrote a highly critical report on Arab underdevelopment for the U.N. (carefully pointing out how few books were translated, how high the level of illiteracy remained, how difficult was the position of women, and so on -- but never quite reaching any conclusions about the possible relation of Islam, and the intellectual habits it promotes or discourages, to all of this)-- that that wealth has been squandered, mostly on armaments, on luxury goods, and on the need to hire foreigners to do all the real work in places llike Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., and Kuwait. That anyone should pretend that this is a sign of Muslim achievement shows the fantasticd irreality which Islam imposes on its adherents.
Even Malaysia, supposedly a success story among the Muslim countries, actually imposes a disguised jizyah on its non-Muslim citizens through the Bumiputra system, which requires non-Muslim non-Malays to hire, for any undertaking, full Muslim Malay partners (the real indigenes who supposedly were to be helped by this "Sons of the Land" or Bumiputra, measure, happen to consist largely of Christianized tribes, and they, not surprisingly, though the original inhabitants of the area, have received nothing under the Bumiputra system.
With a record like this, I would have thought anyone wishing to defend Islam would have carefully avoided the matter of economic wellbeing, and possibly taken a different tack -- which is to say, that Islam is not as materialistic as other religions, that it deliberately works against the faith in economic growth, and is, therefore, a religion for those who believe in the limits of growth rather than constant economic development.
Really, if one is going to defend Islam it ought not to be on the grounds of its putative economic achievements, but rather on the grounds that it is uninterested in such achievements for it understands that there are more important things, such as the development of the umma, or community of Believers, in contradistinction to what is seen -- wrongly, I think -- as too great an emphasis on individualism in the non-Muslim world.
I would like to quote, in that regard, a sentence from Nabokov's "The Real Life of Sebastian Knight": "The only real number is one. All else is repetition."
Posted by: Hugh at July 11, 2004 11:36 PM
Ahmad
Excuse me.When was the last time Hindus, Sikhs,Buddhists,Jews,Zoroastrians,Pagans etc bombed or beheaded anyone in terrorist acts ongoing around the World in 'holy Jihad'? Nor do you hear them in Western countries whinging and whining because the particular government hasn't granted them enough 'rights.' No, they get on with their lives and are pretty successful in what they do. As for Chinese and Japanese, they wear western dress, go to clubs and bars,dancing
and listen to music, also gamble, bless 'em.
But then again they're not brain washed by a maniacal cult dating back to the seventh century which encourages killing others of different beliefs, condones wife beating and murder in Jihad,actually stones, burns and amputates limbs
according to holy Sharia Law.
at July 12, 2004 2:57 AM
At last the truth is coming out, slowly but surely the worm has turned the penny has dropped.
There was another article in the Telegraph relating to this Dr qaradawi's views on gays & jews.
slowley the lefties are realising that islam is a belief like no other.
Gay groups are normally lefties and they have condemmed his beliefs (strangly enough Peter Tatchell and his group Outrage were attacked by some moslems when they turned up to support a pro palestinian group).
Anti rape groups are slowly realising this cult will slowly destroy any reights women have.
yes the penny has dropped.
By the way there have been references to Sikhs in other posts.
I am of sikh origin (my father) my mum is hindu, my wife christian)
May I suggest that people visit sikh temples and ask people of the experience of sikhs with islam.
You will normally find very grusome pictures of sikh gurus being tortured by moslems for refusing to accept islam.
Also visit hindu temples.
This nonsence that criticsm of islam is racist can be refuted quite easily by any sikh, hindu, moslem or even a pakistani/arab christian.
Also pleas e mail the the telegraph and congratulate them.
The mail on sunday columnist Peter Hitchens has written a similar article about islam.
AI
Posted by: apostate_islam at July 12, 2004 4:44 AM
God and Allah are not one and the same deity.
Consider: Christians become martyrs with the way Muslims become martyrs.
In Christianity a martyr is a person that is persecuted unto death. However in Islam, a martyr is a person that dies in the act killing other human beings in a jihad.
To say that God is Allah is totally illogical. How can God, tell one group of humans to, “turn the other cheek” and if necessary die; and, tell another group to kill other humans in order to achieve the same result: “martyrdom”?
In a rational universe, our Christian God and Allah, can not be the same “being”.
Additionally, Christianity was the sacred, timeless context of the Byzantine Empire. In “Why Angles Fall” by Victoria Clark, MacMillan Press LTD, © Victoria Clark, 2000; it was believed that the Byzantine Empire was destined to last until the arrival of the Anti-Christ. And we know to whom the Byzantine Empire fell to. Right! … the Muslims.
at July 12, 2004 1:46 PM
Care to explain why the rate of converts to islam has risen by almost 50% after 9-11 in the USA alone?
Okay Ahmed,
That can be explained as example of taqiyya or lying for Islam. There has been no 50% increase in converts in the US since 9/11 just as there are not 7 mil Muslims in the US. For those who are interested here is an excerpt about the Muslim practice of taqiyya.
___________________________________
Part and parcel with this are the many inflated claims made concerning the number of Muslims residing in Western nations. For years, it has been an article of faith among American Muslim leaders that Islam had over 7 million followers in the United States. This large number is designed to give Muslims additional clout with American political and cultural leaders. However, this number is vastly over-inflated. An article in the New York Post reported that two prominent scientific polling groups, using data from recent polls, each report numbers around 1.8 million 25. The same article also reveals that the American Muslim Council put pressure on researcher Fareed Nu'man to grossly inflate the figure for the Muslim population in a poll he was taking for them, and that Nu'man was fired when he refused to do so.
Related to these inflated population figures are the claims which Islam makes to ever-accelerating conversions of Westerners to the religion. However, these numbers are also exaggerated, and carry little real validity. The majority of white Western converts usually become disenchanted with Islam; because of the cool reception they receive from "born Muslims", the lack of true piety they observe in Muslim immigrants to the West, and family pressure against Islam; and revert back to their birth religions 26. Also, there appears to be a systematic attempt at deception on the part of many Muslims through the manufacture of "conversion stories" designed to influence people towards Islam. This author formerly was a member of an Islamic e-mail message group based in Egypt which regularly sent out stories of this type. Invariably, the individual who had "converted" would have a stereotypically Anglo-Saxon name, claim to be an American (or, less commonly, a Canadian, Englishman, or Australian), yet would appear to have almost no skills in the English language. The letters gave all the appearance of having been written by someone with no command of English whatsoever; grammar, punctuation, verb conjugations, adverbs; all used wrongly. One can easily surmise that either all the illiterates of the Western world were converting to Islam, or else the letters were being faked by zealous (but careless) Middle Easterners.
at July 12, 2004 4:52 PM
MEMRI has an excellent summary of some of al-Qaradawi less than friendly comments and he reaffirms some of the indictments of Islam. I was perusing LGF and noticed some Ali freak claiming that Islam was not spread by the sword, al-Qaradawi speaks of offensive jihad in order to spread the lie. Sounds to me like some muslims want to deny there own leaders because they can't handle the truth. See http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR3004
Posted by: RollingThunder at July 13, 2004 12:07 AM
I wrote a large reply. unfortunately when i pressed post it said i was not signed in, and the post was deleted. I will reply soon
Regards
Ahmad
at July 13, 2004 2:14 AM
The Labour Party is no longer the child of the biblically inspired, Evangelical social reform movement ( Christian Socialism as it used to be). It was hi-jacked, first by the atheist Marxist Socialist and then by the liberal secular humanists.
Tony Blair did not join the Christian Socialists until after the late John Smith became leader of the Labour party. For a while there was a serious danger that Britain might have an old-fashioned Christian Socialist as Prime Minister - but then he died suddenly of an unexpected heart attack - shortly after being given a clean bill of health. (Am I the only person to be suspicious?)
The liberal secular humanists and Islam share a common hatred. It is this that explains the Unholy Alliance. Both ideologies deny the God of Israel. They find Jews and Christians a painful reminder that they are wrong in their beliefs. Hence David Blunkett's creation of an imaginary Far-Right Evangelical boogey-man with which to terrify the masses.
It is, of course, hate speech. But does he realise this - and would he care?
Elsewhere, Hugh (or Bob Owens, I forget which - sorry guys, but you both make sense) pointed out that Islam is moribund. Like Communism, it will die and like Communism it will leave a hell of a mess. Unlike Communism, it will not go quietly. I wish that were not the case, but the nature of the belief system admits of no other solution.
After Islam, secular humanism will be taken over by New Age religion - it is already happening - and that will be the final confrontation.
Posted by: Ian at July 13, 2004 8:04 AM
As time goes on, I get the impression that Islam's incursion into the West is a punishment for our continued attempt to distance ourselves from our Biblical roots. It is being done measure for measure. The liberal left (aka. socialism and/or communism) has a lot to answer for. I am not saying that the right doesn't have its own sins to atone for, they do. Mostly, I would say, these are the sins of giving up on their own faith to the extent of letting the rest of the culture go to hell.
My one comfort in this is that this is going to be the thing that will wake us up to the realities of our own heritage. We are going to have to learn from our own stupidity, modify our concept of political correctness and do what earlier generations did - push the buggers out of Western lands. It is sad, but there is no way they will integrate with us and no way we will willingly choose to be swallowed up by such an inferior and barbarous culture.
Posted by: paula at July 14, 2004 6:23 AM
Dear DBY,
I can undestand there are muslims that actually leave for christianity. The church of france reported that there were 1000 muslims baptised by the end of 2003. But i see a gross exageration. For one, 1000 is a pathetic number at a time when the muslim population in france numbers at around 5 million (i think). Thats 0.02% of the muslim population. Also, when comparing it to the number of converts to islam (10,000 british whites alone in 2003, not to mention the fact that you could convert privatly, as there is no ceromonial practices assosiated with conversion) Frances conversion rate, as well as muslim imigrants and such, that acording to the daily telegraph, 20-30% of french under the age of 25 are muslim, the telegraph continues that on current trends, withing 25 years muslims will form a majority. That sheds little light on your statements. Id apreciate you back them up by figures (preferably with a source). The christian population stands at 29.9% of the world, in 1980 is was 30%, it is predicted to become 25% by 2025.(Facts and figures from barnes and noble encyclopedia, universal almanac, cambridge fact finder, the world almanac) Muslim population figures on the other hand are, 12.4%in 1900, 16.5% in 198, 19.2% in 2000, and predicted to become 30% by 2025 (thus surpassing christianity).
Now i can also understand that there are iranians with the views you projected. I have had the honour of knowing many iranians. I know one who hates ayatollah and so on, but i never encountered an iranian who thinks of islam in the way you claim some do. Now i know there may be, that is undoubtfull, but im also sure i could count the number of their likes on my fingers. I respect Iran, i respect it because its the only functioning democracy in the middle east. I respect it because you can actually speek out without recieving 40 busses, and dozens more police cars to greet you (as happened here in Saudi)
With regard to islam being shuved down anyones throat, id like to remind you that Muhammed and his followers were tortured most of early islam (20 years), their women had spears shuved in their private parts, their men had their arms pulled of by several men on either side, their slaves were made to lie on the burning sand with huge boalders on their stomachs, they endured what no apostle of jesus endured. Moreover, they were fearless. How, i ask, couls islam be shuved down anyones throat when islam was the weak, and the empowered? No, that is complete rubish. Islam was spread inspite of the sword, not by it. The battles of Badr, Khandaq, Uhud were all fought against the muslims. Ironically, they were the ones whom the pagans tried to shuve their beliefs down their throats, and not vice versa!
Now you say islams laws were backward and retrospective. The practices of the pagan arabs included burying ones daughter alive, wide spread prstiturion, complete illeteracy. They were completely culturless, and uneducated men. Now look at what islam produced. Wether one wants to argue islam just stole other civilizations inovations and such, i am not interested, the fact is they vigorusly searched for knowledge. They advanced in medicine, astronomy. The worlds populations would travel to the muslim khilafa to get an education. Pope Sylvester II is a good example. He studied in spain. This is in stark contrast to the naming of education evil by pope, one after the other, burning european libraries, and denying an education to those who seek it. I challenge anyone to produce the slightest bit of evidence that islam discourages education. For it was the order of the prophet Muhammed (PBUH) "seek knowledge if it meant travelling to china" and muslims did. Even today muslims pursue an education vigorusly. For example, today the highest PHD per capita is Palestine, 20 years ago it was Iraq. Then again, you provide nothing to proove any of your claims. About the killing of christians etc, the prophet never mobalised an army unless threatened (i do recall the romans and persians starting skirmishes in Arabia) none the less, it was a struggle for survival. The jews did it to their roman captors. Ill come back to this later in my post.
Hugh,
My first request is that you actually reply to my other posts. You constantly try to wriggle you way throught my facts and statistics by claiming them to be absurd, or that you dont need to reply. I find them to be feeble excuses, running away from the truth. None the less, i will reply to everything you have to say with rational explanations, and as usual, statistics, facts, and figures. I did that earlier, yet you refute them with absolutly nothing but opion.
Firstly, you talk about the blending in of other cultures better than muslims in the UK. Question, have you actually lived in the UK, have you experienced it? I live their, have the nationality etc... What i said was my opinion, far more likly to be closer to the truth than that of someone who hasnt experienced it, and is heavily anti islamic.
You then claim that my most "most ludicrous remark is that about relative GNP". For one, what got oil into the subject. I challenge you to find a flaw with my statistics. Perfectly correct, i was arguing the fact that arab states and their populations are not poor, not wether or not some "infedel" found oil or not. But ill lecture you a bit on arab and muslims economies. Primarily on the finding of oil by "infedels"(i see you prefer i call you that). For one islam has a truly free trade economy style. It believes in complete freedom to deal in businesses with whome one pleases. So wether it was an infedel, a sikh, or some atheast, i couldnt care less. Secondly, none are completely oil based economies anymore. Tourism has become one of UAE's main incomes. Saudi Arabia has now funneled into large projects (like the many 5 year plans) to end saudi arabias dependancy on oil. For exapmple they are currently building the largest petro chemicals plant in the world on one of saudi arabias shores. Saudi Arabia has been poor at times, certainly before the oil discovery they were poor. They were poor because of civil war, and the campaign led by the lawrence of arabia against the ottoman turks. They were poor becuase their population was very small, and not many could trade in the fruitless deserts. But not all was poor, mekkah and medinah remained rich due to the income from pilgramige. The ottomans were clearly not poor. Your good at blaiming the poor on islam, though you have nothing to proove the link. You also carefully ignore colonialism, all the muslim countries in africa, and other asian muslim countries like iraq, syria, palestine, lebanon. And what about muslims in india, china, indonesia, bangladesh? No? Nothing to blame on colonialism? Id suspect somthing with the colonialist being white, lacking a beard, and being an ally might be the reason.
Now, with regard to the "real work" done by the forigners. My answer is simple, forigners occupy the unskilled labour force. If thats the real work, then id suggest you look at all the real work done in america, all the forign slave labour for the usa.
Really, if you want to attack the lack in poorer islamic nations, id suggest you actually look at the cause.
Dear Mogane,
Maybe you dont recall anger hindu mobs burning mosque and businesses belonging to muslims, burning down the babri mosque, attacking pakistan on several occasions? What about jewish attacks on a daily basis in palestine? What about the bloody war fought by the americans leaving 14 million dead since the 1950's? What about the sick slaughtering of 150000 sleeping japanese civilians, or the depriving of food and medicine to iraq that left another 1.5 million dead, or the iraq war, that accoding to medact (british based organisation) that recorded the iraqi civilian deathtoll to be as highe as 50000, what about the tons and tons of chemicals dropped on vietnamese? Roberts Spencer himself posted an article about the number of people killed by "islamic terrorism" 7000 was the number, the number killed since sept 11, compare that to the figure that stands at 300000 by america (140,000 of those civilians).
Dear AI,
Im interisted in reading some articles concerning what you said.
Dear VietViet,
Actually the pope used to call those who died in the way of the crusades martyrs. And being a shahid/martyr in islam is anything from dying while in a forign country, to fighting physically in the cause of god.
Dear Roxane,
Youll have to do better than that to convince me. Being a muslim, i find it quite confusing people attack the islamic lying laws. Considering Taqiyah means lying "to save life, honour. or property by hiding one's belief", and also considering that the 3 cases in which a muslim may lie is when , 1, it may hurt the other persons feelings in a case where for example person A asks person B what he thinks of his new shoes. The second case is when one is trying to bring together 2 friends who fought. For example, by going up to either one and claim that the other said so and so good things about him/her. 3rdly when one is a life threatining situation, or holds secrets in that situation which may endanger others. Other than that nothing is permissable. '
As for your article, it holds no proof, and i can take nothing of it seriously.
Dear Ian,
I suggest you read the bit i posted to DBY. Islam is increasing hugly, and will grow to become about 30% of the worlds populations religion by 2025.
Regards
Ahmad
at July 15, 2004 1:21 AM
Any more big attacks like 911 or worse, and islam will be Shrinking with such speed that Mohammed's head will spin- while his body spins in the opposite direction.
And it won't be due to conversion.
Posted by: Gary at July 15, 2004 2:10 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)