| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
From the Copenhagen Post via Jyllands-Posten, with thanks to Wied:
Members of Denmark's moderate Muslim community say they are reluctant to speak out with critical observations of their religion, fearing social isolation, threats and violence....Danish-Pakistani author and political adviser Mohammad Rafiq recently published a book in which he openly criticised the practice of forced marriages. Following the book's release, Rafiq was the target of threats from Muslim extremists. He has so far refused to withdraw from the public arena, but says he knows people who are deliberately keeping quiet out of fear of reprisals.
"I've nearly been assaulted, and I've gotten threats. Not many people dare to speak out - they're just keeping quiet," said Rafiq.
Iranian-born social worker and Socialist People's Party city council candidate for Svendborg, Masoun Moradi, recently received death threats for writings perceived as critical of Islam.
Moradi likewise says he has no plans to censor himself, but says the reactions to his criticism from fellow Muslims is proof that others have given up.
"I've gotten three calls so far from other Danes of foreign descent who've gotten involved in the debate. They say they've also received death threats, but they haven't gone public. It's horrible that this kind of thing is allowed to happen. People born in Denmark regard freedom of speech as something quite natural, but for me it's a gift that must be safeguarded," said Moradi.
Lebanese-born Rabhi Azad-Ahmad agrees. Azad-Ahmad currently chairs a multicultural association in the Århus suburb of Gellerup. The group arranges regular debate meetings, and as chairman, Rabih Azad-Ahmad is active in local media.
"There are still extremists out there making life miserable for their own, and completely robbing some people of the desire to discuss anything. I myself have received threatening letters and heard rumours going around that I was anti-Islam," said Rahi Azad-Ahmad, noting that his own mother once asked him to refrain from speaking publicly.
"But I fled another country because I did not have freedom of speech," said Rabih Azad-Ahmad.
MP Naser Khader was born in Syria, and since moving to Denmark has become a well-known pundit and unapologetic critic of some aspects of Islam.
"I know several people who've gotten involved in the debate and subsequently pulled out of it altogether. One woman called me, quite shaken, and said she'd been threatened. Maybe the rest of us are tougher, but the fact remains that freedom of speech is the breath of democracy - and if you take that away, then democracy dies," said Khader.
Posted by Robert at November 18, 2004 6:26 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Um, why don't they press charges against the people threatening them? Denmark does have laws against making death threats and the like, doesn't it?
Posted by: Robert Crawford![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 18, 2004 7:54 AM
I think we're going to need to build a lot of new prisons in the next few years, with special mosque facilities and halal menus.
Posted by: Doctor Phibes at November 18, 2004 7:57 AM
It is a dilema they face. Unfortunately for moderate Moslems, our solution to that dilema is to make it infinitely worse for them to remain silent then to risk facing down the extremists in their midst.
The sooner they grow a spine and take back control of their "Religion of Peace" the quicker that dilema will disappear. In the mean time, they shouldn't expect anybody to shed crocodile tears over the results of their cowardice.
Posted by: ambisinistral at November 18, 2004 7:59 AM
Now if we can get the rest of these reptiles to stop speaking, we'll be getting somewhere.
Posted by: DCWatson at November 18, 2004 8:51 AM
Denmark: Moderate Muslims afraid to speak out
And so they should!
Posted by: Ummagumma at November 18, 2004 1:06 PM
TRANSLATION:
As long as only infidels are being killed I'm not going to risk my life for the preservation of human rights for the enemies of Islam and Allah.
Just wait until the Moderate temple are be bombed by their brothers,profiling will become very acceptible by Muslims for catching terrorist trying to hurt their children.
I saw Denmark should buy a large Bug-zapper
to end the annoying problem with "Mosque-E-Toes"
sucking the lifeblood out of their country.
NO ISLAM - KNOW PEACE
at November 18, 2004 1:17 PM
I agree with ambisinistral that moderate Muslims must step up to the plate when it comes to the immoderate aspects of Islam, such as jihadism and the inequality of women. However, I believe non-Muslims need to step to the fore and defend these peoples' rights to speak their consciences. Our silence is as no less counterproductive and cowardly than theirs in this regard.
The freedoms of thought, conscience and speech are rights we have to take a hard line on - it is in all our interests to do so. The Islamofascists who seek to silence Muslims and non-Muslims through acts of physical and rhetorical intimidation need to be dealt with aggressively, either by locking them up in jail, deporting them, or exposing them as violators of human rights (or fascists, if you will), depending on the nature of their offense. I am convinced this is one battle they cannot win if we fight along this line. As long as moderate Muslims and non-Muslims are united on this, organizations like CAIR will also be unable to start hurling around the R-Word to silence criticism. Opportunities such as these must be exploited if we are to win the ideological war.
at November 18, 2004 1:34 PM
A bit of a typo there,it shouold have read
"I say Denmark should buy a large BUG-ZAPPER "
Posted by: ala-sux at November 18, 2004 1:39 PM
OT -
Dutch blasphemy law faces the chop
16 November 2004
AMSTERDAM — An attempt to strengthen the blasphemy law in the wake of the murder of filmmaker and columnist Theo van Gogh seemed to have backfired on the Dutch government.
A majority in the 150-seat Parliament have indicated they support a motion introduced by small government party D66 to scrap the blasphemy law that was introduced in the 1930s.
Only the Christian parties — Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's Christian Democrats and the much smaller ChristenUnie and SGP — want to keep the ban. Together the Christian parties have only 49 seats.
Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner, a member of Balkenende's CDA, made the case at the weekend for tightening the
law against blasphemy. The move comes two weeks after Van Gogh was murdered.
Van Gogh - who likened Muslims to "goat fuckers" and "pimps of the Prophet" - was shot and stabbed to death on an Amsterdam Street on 2 November.
A Muslim man who holds Moroccan and Dutch nationality has been arrested for the murder.
It has been suggested the murder was carried out in direct response to the film Submission, which Van Gogh made with Somali-born MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The 10-minute film features Muslim women in see-though veils telling about domestic abuse suffered at the hands of their husbands and other male relatives.
Denouncing Van Gogh's killing, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende and other ministers of his three-party coalition emphasised the importance of freedom of speech as a cornerstone of Dutch democracy.
Speaking to a CDA conference, Donner said his plan had nothing to do with the murder of Van Gogh, but he said he was worried by increasing attacks on Jewish and Muslim beliefs in recent weeks.
On Tuesday, newspaper De Volkskrant published a letter asking Donner to define what he means by "scornful blasphemy". The letter, signed by leading writers, comics and artists, asked the minister to explain his motives and reasoning for the move to strengthen the law.
"Must we now, apart from terrorists, also fear your civil servants," the artists asked Donner.
The writers called for a public debate on the issue and questioned whether Donner wanted to differentiate between the protection afforded to religious believers from the protection for non-believers. He was also asked whether a new ban on "scornful blasphemy" would also apply to other philosophies like free thinking and atheism.
"If that is not the case, we want to know why," the letter stated.
Immigration and Integration Minister Rita Verdonk, of the Liberal Party (VVD), has distanced herself from Donner's plans, as has VVD parliamentary party leader Jozias van Aartsen.
Commentators have noted that Donner is following in the footsteps of his grandfather, Jan Donner, who was justice minister in the 1930s for the Anti-Revolutionary Party (now part of the CDA).
Shocked by a call by a Communist newspaper to ban Christmas, Jan Donner introduced the blasphemy law which is now on the statute books.
Posted by: justamomof4 at November 18, 2004 1:53 PM
Doctor Phibes
Correction
I think we're going to need to build a lot of new prisons in the next few years,with halal danish bacon,and no mosques
at November 18, 2004 2:42 PM
Laws against "blasphemy," against "hate speech" are difficult because the designation of what constitutes blasphemy and hate speech is difficult to define until one confronts Islam. Islam is very definite, and any culture or civilization that allows one of these on the books and has a a Muslim population will soon find that Muslims will have co-opted the law meant to protect all to mean only the protection of Muslims against non-Muslims.
When legislating against blasphemy or hate speech, be careful what you wish for...
Posted by: epg at November 18, 2004 4:06 PM
All governments have the obligation to protect their law abiding citizens from violence. If they can't do it, they become delegitimized, gangs rise up for group protection and aggression and the government eventually falls in civil war.
Moderate muslims must be protected from violence. It's that simple. The government must maintain a monopoly on licit violence. Once that's gone, war is inevitable.
Posted by: TM Lutas at November 18, 2004 4:07 PM
"Denmark: Moderate Muslims afraid to speak out"
The big question is will moderate muslims ever start to speak out before the islamists take over...or will they only speak out after democracy has died (and only so as to support islamism and save their own necks)?
It is the biggi!! We in the west have been waiting an extremley loooooonnnnnnnngggggg time.
Frankly it is taking msulims so long the non-muslims would be committing suicide if they waited for them. It is up to the western non-muslims to it. Thanks to our culture we can and will.
at November 18, 2004 6:50 PM
It would do us all well to remmeber the old saying that "there maybe moderate muslims, but there is no moderate islam".
Our beef (or should that be pork?) is with the murderous ideology, not the murdering ideologues per se.
Posted by: voletti at November 18, 2004 11:31 PM
Seeing Theo. van Gogh and Margaret Hassan from within the Moslem community might be a bit more vivid for them than for those of us who do not share the livingroom with men who'd gladly butcher us, fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters, regardless. I have some sympathy for the Moslem community held hostage by their own children, their own parents. If mom knows she's saddled with a psychopathic murderer who's looking for a reason, an excuse to stab her to death to "restore his family's honor," I can believe that mom would be treading lightly in the farthest room, not advocating Human rights and the rights of women.
What are we going to do? We are up against people whose idea of warfare is terror by butchery. We face an intransigent Platonic network of governments that we do indeed elect and legitimize. If our governments refuse to protect us, the natives of our respective nations, as well as the immigrant communities held in slavery and terror by their own community of terrorists, then where do we go? If our populations consistently elect governments that refuse to protect our lives, who are we to object? Who are we to step in to defend the rights of women held in bondage and terror by their own communities? Who are we to take our own lives into our own hands? Can we truely be so right that the majority of our populations are simply wrong in the face of everyday life? How is it that we know the good, and that the majority know nothing of the obvious wrongs we try to right?
I'm not even cautious.
There does come a time, such as the time of Hans Martin Schlyer, who met his end at the hands of the RAF of Germany, a man whose aristocratic background in Europe save him from trial for war crimes as a Nazi leader of the SS, and whose family connections and social advantages finally allowed his rise to become the CEO of Mercedes Benz Corp. [I'm doing this from memory, so please check before quoting anything I write here.] The RAF shot the man. Can I claim any sympathy for a Nazi who hid for a year and eventually rose to premier heights in Germany rather than face his choking end at the gallows? It was the work, to murder the man, of the terrorist Red Army Faction, the Baader-Meinhof Gang. I celebrate the death of the Nazi Schlyer. When the government is a criminal, it requires the lawful man to act in defence of the nation.
Is dhimmi Europe so corrupt that the population is at the mercy of Philosopher Kings who will lie for their greater good, and there will be no relief for them because they're too stupid, too iron-headed to realize the end is near? Is Europe doomed by their cynical leaders, and does it mean that the only hope of salvation from Nazi-like politics in drag is for the unwelcome emergence of an Extra-Parliamentary Opposition?
So who the hell am I? Do I know what is better for Europe than those who live there? Is it my place to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation? Do the Dutch and the Danes truely require my assiswtence in the fight to save Europe from fascist dhimmitude? Don't they know what is indeed better for them?
And of the immigrant communites living in terror of their own family members? Am I the one to intervene? Wherefrom is my right? No one thanked the RAF for shooting the brains out of that Nazi. If it was indeed a moral act, which is doubtful, given the nature of the RAF, should it be imitated for the greater good of those who would but act if only they could? but they can. The Europeans can vote for any government they choose. Immigrants have to rely on the generousity of those who live with them. Do we, as outsiders, have a right, let alone a duty, to act outside the realm of our legitimate states' right to a monopoly of force?
Maybe Europeans are indeed, like the Moslem world, commiting suicide. If they are, is it our place to save them from themselves? If the Europeans won't act, and if the immigrant communities can't act, then really, what's the point of even caring if they all die? Maybe mother's son will butcher her quickly to redeem his honor. Maybe brother will set his sister on fire for being "too Swedish," and perhaps she'll die quickly. do we have any right to act? To intervene? To create conditions in which perhaps the lights will come on in the dimmitude twilight of Europe? Should we act?
Do not ask my great and distant relative William because he will say yes. He will even show the way.
Posted by: sonofwalker at November 19, 2004 1:39 AM
Moderate muslims Afraid to speak out.
Hello could you all line up and tell the CIVILIZED world which part of this allah's Barbarous Savagery you do not subscribe to please.
Or are you Guy's just another part of the Good muslim BAD muslim GAME?
See we have all seen the Good COP Bad COP movies.
however in the end their "quarrie" gets it in the arse regardless of which COP "arrests" them.
F**K allah F**K islam.
Beware the BEAST regardless of it's UNIFORM.
RSole
Posted by: RSole at November 19, 2004 2:24 AM
Excellent post, sonofwalker.
When one considers the universality of human rights, the answer to your question is YES, we MUST act. What happens elsewhere today can happen here tomorrow.
at November 19, 2004 1:37 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.)