| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
But remember: those who would resist such a move are the bigots, not the Muslims involved. Didn't you get a copy of the script? From the Moscow News, with thanks to all who sent this in:
A group of top Muslim clerics have demanded that Orthodox Christian symbols be removed from the Russian coat of arms and have complained about the Russian authorities and power-wielding structures allegedly refusing to abide by the principle of secularity, the Interfax news agency reported.“This is not only a question of the Russian coat of arms. We can say that icons are all but put up on the walls of state offices,” Nafigulla Ashirov, chairman of the Spiritual Board of Muslims of Asian Russia, told journalists....
In his turn, Damir Mukhetdinov, deputy head of the Spiritual Board of the Nizhny Novgorod region’s Muslims, shared the Muslims’ concerns. Their feelings are insulted by the Orthodox presence in the Russian coat of arms.
“We, the Muslims of Nizhny Novgorod region, were wholeheartedly in favour of introducing the unity of the peoples holiday. We could not have imagined, however, that the sound of Orthodox bells and the icon of the Virgin of Kazan would become the symbols of this holiday in Russia,” he said about the day of people’s unity. The mufti is convinced that “all this violates the secular nature of the state and doesn’t contribute to the unity of Russia’s peoples”.
Ali Visam Bardvil, head of the Spiritual Board of Karelia’s Muslims, too, believes that the presence of Christian symbols in the coat of arms is impermissible. He said that Russia “is neither a Muslim nor a Christian country”.
“The cross is not a Muslim symbol. We respect the religious feeling of Christians but do not recognize the crucifixion of Christ,” the Muslim figure clarified. “Therefore,” he went on, “in my opinion Orthodox symbols should be removed from the coat of arms to make it acceptable to all religions.” Bardvil emphasized that Muslims would support all politicians calling for a change to the current symbols in the Russian coat of arms.
Posted by Robert at December 7, 2005 3:25 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Let them eat Jodekager.
Posted by: Shy Guy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 7, 2005 4:09 AM
The last time Russia enforced secularity, their kindly leader "Uncle Joe" would have responded to this sort of harangue by packing the entire Muslim population off to Siberia for some healthy outdoor exercises.
We could not have imagined, however, that the sound of Orthodox bells and the icon of the Virgin of Kazan would become the symbols of this holiday in Russia
at December 7, 2005 4:30 AM
Removing the Christian symbols from the coat of arms?
You can't be serious, the coat of arms of any nation, aristocracy, military, ethnic group etc etc is sacred. This shows you how much respect they have for Russia. Furthermore, the Muslims wish to eradicate the religious identities of others so that their intended victims of the future have nothing to relate to that binds them as a seperate identity.
Symbols, flags, coat of arms, national anthems, religious and non-religious insignias etc etc, are what help bind society in the socialisation of a people, nation, group. It helps to give an identity and is not something to to be taken lightly when altered. I find it amazing how much nerve the Muslims have in telling other nations what to do.
Meanwhile, Muslims are refusing to assimilate. They come into other countries and demand that people change their customs and practices to better accomodate them, yet in Islamic countries this is not the case. They are so damn intolerant of others.
If they wish for the Christian symbols to be removed, why don't they do the Russians a favour and remove themselves to Saudi Arabia.
However, I don't understand why Russia is willing to sell weapons and uranium to Iran.
-Cheers
at December 7, 2005 6:26 AM
Reminds of the discussion I had yesterday with a muslim guy.
He mentioned how women have superior rights in islam/sharia and I asked him to provide facts and the example he came up with was:
1 guy, 2 wives, 4 children moves from X to Netherlands, wants to divorce his 2nd wife, nothing she can claim.
To which I stated that bigamy is not allowed in the Netherlands and as such they will never get Dutch rights.
And then subsequently claiming we should have to accomodate that kind of situation. Glad I was not the only one stating that adjusting to their situation will NOT happen. I don't see Syria or Iran or Iraq change to support Dutch laws with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
Posted by: asmodai at December 7, 2005 7:35 AM
Funny also that in the Netherlands in the last 4 weeks the discussion about negerzoenen (negroid's kisses) and Jodekoeken (Jewish cookies) also got started again.
Posted by: asmodai at December 7, 2005 7:38 AM
RE: However, I don't understand why Russia is willing to sell weapons and uranium to Iran.
Look at the history of Russia, evil attracts evil.
at December 7, 2005 7:39 AM
Gorkhali
For the same reason America is going to sell billions in weapons to Indonesia - its called 'Making A Fast Buck! Forget all the claptrap about morality and human rights all the Big Powers including Britain & France have been selling lethal weaponry to horrible regimes for yonks.
New Zealand is a very PC country under Ms Clarke but Iran is one of our biggest trading countries : notice the dear lady made only a token sqeak about 'human rights' before signing up 'trading rights' with big China.
Agree absolutely with what you say about Muslims.
Not so many moons ago there was a Muslim chappie
accepted as a Refugee who came to live in Christchurch. He'd hardly been there a couple of
months before being 'offended by crosses on Christian churches' and actually 'demanded that they be removed!' How's that for cheek?? Happy to
tell you that he was given the bum's rush...
at December 7, 2005 7:51 AM
So far there are no crucifixes on American symbols. Imagine the outcry if there were. Why deny to Russia's Muslims what we in America take for granted. Does the criticism of Russia's Muslims smack a little bit of anti-Muslim prejudice?
Posted by: Lorenzo at December 7, 2005 8:09 AM
"The mufti is convinced that “all this violates the secular nature of the state and doesn’t contribute to the unity of Russia’s peoples”."
He's a funny guy that mufti!
Posted by: Anthony at December 7, 2005 8:18 AM
Oh sure. Remove the symbols.
And then remove the moon symbol on all islamic nation's flags.
Fair, no?
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at December 7, 2005 9:27 AM
I cannot understand the Russians.
Selling missiles & nuclear reactors to a future enemy of theirs (ours already) & now taking cultural cleansing from the same folks who hijack Russian schools & kill their children.
I do not "get" Putin at all.
Posted by: albion at December 7, 2005 9:37 AM
An interesting proposition, which in time will likely be extended to other countries in Europe. How many European flags have some version of the cross in their composition? How many churches have bells? Will these have to be silenced in order to mollify the new immigrant population?
Perhaps the West should concede that it is not entirely secular after all. But if pressed on to elimination of Christian symbols from official iconography perhaps it should be done on a reciprocal basis. For instance, the cross could be removed from the Russian coat of arms if the crescent is removed from the flag of, say, Pakistan. Religious bells could be eliminated from Western countries if the azan, so offensive to non-Muslim ears, is eliminated from countries like Saudi Arabia. And so on. Nice and equal.
Or maybe there are limits to accommodation.
Posted by: Chatillon at December 7, 2005 9:38 AM
"So far there are no crucifixes on American symbols. Imagine the outcry if there were. Why deny to Russia's Muslims what we in America take for granted. Does the criticism of Russia's Muslims smack a little bit of anti-Muslim prejudice?"
-- from a posting above
Russia is not like the United States. There is no Establishment Clause for the Russians to observe. Crosses can be religious symbols, or religio-cultural symbols, or purely cultural symbols. Among those furious at the demand by Adel Smith, a Muslim in Italy, for the removal of crucifixes from all public places were many of an anti-clerical, and anti-Vatican bent, who nonetheless understood that this was an assault on Italian history, art, the peninsula's past.
The "criticism of Russia's Mulsims" does not smack of "prejudice" but of alarm -- alarm at the constant, relentless, pressure of Muslims everywhere, not only in Russia, to undercut in every possible way the sense that this or that place belongs to, was created by, and should continue to remain in the hands of, Infidels. That alarm, and that anger, and that refusla to give in, where there is such refusal, to Muslim demands here and there and everywhere, isn't "prejudice." It is rational alarm, rational hostility to those whom, one discovers if one bothers to look, are taught to hate Infidels. Some may not, because they were bad or inattentive students, or played the truant. But the lessons of Islam remain on the books -- Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira.
There is no "prejudice" against Muslims. There is only the alarm and hostility that all properly informed Infidels should feel -- and the more they know, the greater both their alarm, and their hostility.
Posted by: Hugh at December 7, 2005 9:42 AM
Will this mufti also demand that the Islamic Shahada be removed from the Saudi flag or that Islamic symbols be removed from the coat of arms of all the Islamic countries. Russia should reaffirm that it is by heritage and culture an Orthodox Christian nation. The Russian Christian Empire under the Tsars showed amazing toleration for Islam and the sufi orders flourished under Russian rule. The Russian government offices should have Ikons and these symbols should he held sacred. The only absolute exception should be for Jews and Buddhists who have an equally long history in Russia and should have absolute free exercise of religion, language and culture.
Muslims should be tolerated and let to flourish if they can integrate like other groups. Unfortunately, the Chechen Jihadist have shown that very few of them are able to do this. This is probably because Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism are religions while islam is for the most part a totalitarian ideology.
Posted by: Provoslavni at December 7, 2005 10:17 AM
It won't be long before this spreads to the EU. For years, the Vatican has been trying to get the EU to acknowledge the Christian underpinnings of the continent, but to no avail. The Islamists will be happy to fill the vacuum.
OT,
I saw the following inspirational (tongue-in-cheek) story on the website of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. The "peace process" in action!
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/655069.html
Posted by: Howard, Fine & Howard at December 7, 2005 10:18 AM
"So far there are no crucifixes on American symbols".
I beg to differ. City seals, war memorials, the biblic quote at the Grand Canyon "how marvellous are thy works oh God" that the ACLU tried to have removed, Christian imagery in many older courthouses (and the Supreme Court, for that matter, In God We Trust on our money, Under God (and they weren't talking about Allah) in the pledge of allegiance....the list of Christianity related items is extensive.
Long may they remain part of our heritage.
Posted by: treehugger at December 7, 2005 10:30 AM
This is a very interesting development. What if Putin says NO? Will that affect his business dealings with Iran? We remember his bold statements about flushing chechens down the toilet... Did the Russian Muslims summon the courage to voice such demands BECAUSE of Russian's business dealing with Iran?
at December 7, 2005 10:42 AM
At a family wedding about a dozen years ago, I met an ancient uncle I had not met before who fled Czarist Russia to escape the persecution of Jews there. Maybe those Muslims who don't like the cross should do as mine did and find themselves another country to be part of.
(p.s. if Putin refuses, the Iranians will still buy from him with glee. And then sell weapons to the Chechens.)
at December 7, 2005 11:02 AM
The more lenient to these muslims,the more,they will try to sit on your heads.They only want to demand and enjoy the western 'freedoms', forsaking the'duties and responsibilities' attached to it. Not long ago in Britain, few muslim cops demanded that the cross on the crown in the coat of arms should be removed,as it hurts their religious feelings.! How can a cross hurt?... The culprit is the "peaceful'Koran. Self proclaimed'prophet'Mohamed wanted to push down the popularity and divinity of Jesus,(as there were staunch Arab christians in Arabia at his time)he declared in HIS koran that Jesus was never crucified in the cross,never died ,or rose again the thired day and he is not the Son of God. This is just to take away the strong belief prevailing that Jesus died for our sins. Further, he wrote in the Koran that when Jesus comes back to earth as a MUSLIM, he will break the crosses in the world (meaning,Destroy all christians)!. Why the western countries and Australia be so hen- pecked and accomodative to these muslims? Don't they ever realise the danger of loosing the very freedom, by accomadating these islamists?.
France learnt a big lession-still they didnt rellise the danger thats lurking to them. Similarly,Sweden,Holland, Britain,Italy,Belgeum,Australia,and USA Had their harsh lesions,but still act like nincopomps.Unless a huge civil war by the people of these countries take place,no one can save their countries.-In that case,--Buy your rag towels,purdahs,and ready to lift up your asses to Mecca.!
at December 7, 2005 1:12 PM
"Muslims would support all politicians calling for a change to the current symbols in the Russian coat of arms..."
-- Ali Visam Bardvil (pbuh), head of the Spiritual Board of Karelia’s Muslims
Did the spiritual head go on to explain that in addition they would continue to breed like horse flies?
Posted by: Duke Eudes at December 7, 2005 1:17 PM
Lorenzo,
So far there are no crucifixes on American symbols.
Many of our Founding Fathers were, well, eccentric when it came to religion.
The United States has no coat of arms because royalty is expressly forbidden in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 10). A little piece of me dies every time newscandy says "The Kennedys are America's royal family."
When Muslims moved to Russia they consented to the customs and laws of Russia, not the other way around.
Posted by: Beagle at December 7, 2005 1:44 PM
Whether secular or not, if Western society is unable to come to grips with the intractable hatred Muslims continually express for our heritage and our culture, then we may be doomed. They are allowed to exploit every loophole, as they see it, in our traditions of tolerance and inclusion. Yet they prove themselves to be antithetical to the very notions of tolerance and inclusion by the nature of their demands. The demands made by Muslims nearly always are a reflection of their acrid intolerance, despite their baleful claims that these things are demanded for the sake of "unity" and "tolerance." Tolerance of WHAT? Unity with WHOM? In truth, their demands are made under the pretense of tolerance, but are solely designed to further Muslim aspirations of degrading and then dominating "infidel" cultures and institutions. They are really to tolerate their intolerance for the sole benefit of Muslims and Islam, and are solely paid for at our expense.
If we mirror their delicate sensibilities, and claim that manifestations of Muslim religion and Muslim solidarity "feel" threatening to us, then what happens? If we can agree that Muslims are a menace and post a threat, then no Mosques will be built -- nor will any "community centers" dedicated to the promulgation of Islam be tolerated.
We know that under current circumstances, if we mirror their intolerance of our culture and religion and use their arguments to flout their manifestations of Muslimness and of Islam, we know that every insult would be hurled at us by them, every possible accusation of "Islamophobia" "intolerance" and "racism" would be used against us.
Furthermore, we intsinctually understand the terrible trip wire built into Islam -- the one that allows, no obligates the Muslim to turn violent against anyone whom they perceive is impeding or "harming" Islam. So we somehow know that if we reflect their intolerance back at them, and show ourselves to be as revolted by their displays of religiosity as they are of us and ours, we know that they just might believe they are then entitled to murder us as they are already doing.
So we are getting damaged by their hatred even in the absence of a pushing back against Islam -- we are getting punished by Muslims even when we show them respect, tolerance, and encouragement! Why don't we try it the other way? Why don't we begin to show some genuine intolerance of their intolerance? Why don't we push back? How much worse can it get?
My question after learning and observing how Muslims practice their "religion" is:
Why do we tolerate Muslims in our lands? What possible good could EVER come from allowing Muslims to live here? What possible benefit can we derive for risking our lives, our society, our property, and our peace of mind, by allowing Muslims to practice their so-called "religion" of hatred and intolerance on our soil? I am at a complete loss to understand why they should ever be tolerated in our nations? No good has come of it. No good ever will!
And perhaps it wouldn't be any worse than it already is. They aready accuse us of every imaginable crime against them! Despite our forebearance and tolerance, they are here agitating to dismantle our culture, and they clearly state their goal is to eventually dominate us with their "religion"!
So if we begin to repudiate them, to scuttle their plans to build mosques, to deport their traitorous Imams, to stop them at every level from comfortably practicing their sedition on our soil, WHAT THEN? Maybe they will attack us? Maybe they will feel justified in their violent jihad against us? How is this different than today?!?
We can see that all of our efforts to tolerate them, to welcome them onto our soil, to sacrifice for them in their homelands, to share the blessings of our hard won rights have not stopped them from hating us one bit! They have only stepped amplified their wish to see us harmed, for Islam to overthrow our institutions! How much worse could it get than it already is?
Posted by: jsla at December 7, 2005 1:47 PM
"Long may they remain part of our heritage."
Treehugger,
I agree with you, wholeheartedly. Our culture, both European and the Americas, was formed in the crucible of Christianity. That should never be forgotten or diminished. The ACLU and some of my belief, atheism, have damaged this country through this constant warfare to strip Americans of this heritage. A people who forget their history have no future, and are fools to be manipulated.
This does play into the hands of the Islamists.
at December 7, 2005 2:02 PM
I feel soooo offended by the flag of Saudi Arabia.
It proclaims that: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet" below there is a sword (in case someone disagrees).
That Flag should not fly in any freedom-loving country.
Posted by: rocky at December 7, 2005 2:30 PM
Hugh,
I disagree with you. The flag of the State of Hawaii has the cross of St. George and the Cross of St. Andrew of the British Union jack.
Posted by: rocky at December 7, 2005 2:33 PM
"So far there are no crucifixes on American symbols"
This is correct. To my knowledge, there is no image of Jesus nailed to a cross (the definition of crucifix en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifix ) on any of our national symbols.
Crosses, yes. Crucifixes, no.
Posted by: XRDC at December 7, 2005 3:10 PM
whut the hey: "Spiritual Board of Karelia’s Muslims"
how and when did Karelia (next to Finland) acquire a population of muslims?
Posted by: del at December 7, 2005 3:21 PM
I have an old Fire Sign Theater bit running in my head...
(The Spanish conquistadors are landing in the New World)
Native American: Oh the cross! The sign of the quartering of the universe into active and passive principles...
Priest: Lord have mercy on their heathen souls!
Actually there isn't a cross on the Russian coat of arms. It features a double-headed eagle (similar to Byzantine Empire) with a shield with a picture of a mounted knight slaying a dragon. Although the knight-slaying-the-dragon is widely seen as St. George, as he was so described in the old Russian Imperial coat of arms, in the official description it is simply a rider on a horse slaying a dragon.
In the article the mullah complains about "Orthodox bells" being rung on a state holiday. (The next time I hear church bells ringing should I be wondering, "Are those Orthodox bells, Roman Catholic bells, or Protestant bells"? Do bells have a religion?
So here are the Russian Muslims complaints:
1) A knight-slaying-a-dragon is offensive to Muslim sensibilities. Presumably they would prefer to see the dragon eating the knight.
2) They are disturbed by "Orthodox bells". They may interfere with hearing the "Muslim loudspeakers".
3) They are fed up with people who stereotype them as comic-book villains.
Go figure!
Posted by: Malta_1565 at December 7, 2005 4:01 PM
"Hugh,
I disagree with you. The flag of the State of Hawaii has the cross of St. George and the Cross of St. Andrew of the British Union jack."
-- from a posting above
You don't disagree with me, but with the poster far above who wrote "So far there are no crucifixes on American symbols." which line, and others, I merely cut-and-pasted so as to discuss.
But on another matter you raise -- well, since when did Hawaii become a state?
Posted by: Hugh at December 7, 2005 9:54 PM
Hear bloody hear jsla!
May as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
Posted by: Anthony at December 7, 2005 10:18 PM
It's stories like this that make you really miss the old USSR, huh? And that's coming from me, I'm Ukrainian.
Posted by: A.G.Frederick III at December 7, 2005 10:40 PM
The Muslims have caught on to the successful cultural undermining tactic the ACLU has honed so well, that is, attack the symbols of the society they don't like. Whether its the TEN COMMANDMENTS from a statehouse, or the cross from the LA county seal, or any other host of examples, the ACLU in all its terpitude and godlessness has become the example of the great underminer.
The ACLU, as champion for everything debased in society and for moral equivalency and cultural diversity, has paved the way for the bankrupt culture of secularism that is easily overrun by the heathen Muslims that smell the blood and fear of the enemy.
The ACLU:
How to destroy a society from within (because all we want to do is help you)
at December 7, 2005 10:42 PM
Goody! Goody!
When the UN arrives in Denmark, I'm sure they'll defend the historical name of Jodekager, Demark's Jewish cookies!
I just know they will!
Shmucks.
Posted by: Shy Guy at December 8, 2005 5:23 AM
Oops. Wrong thread. My post right above was supposed to wind up here.
Posted by: Shy Guy at December 8, 2005 5:24 AM
RE: I cannot understand the Russians
If the Russians have truely reformed why wasn't there mass arrests and convictions from all the politicians and KGB with their corruption and abuse of power.
Russia has not chamged, just moved underground as the Cold War is not over.
With their dealings with the Middle East it is akin to a child playing with matches. Eventually, they will "burn" themselves".
Posted by: learjet0450 at December 8, 2005 7:59 AM
There was a time when Russia knew how to deal with the filth in the dirty nightshirts. Where is Marshal Suvorov when they need him? He slaughtered Islamofascists in droves. Speaking of which, December 10 is the anniversary of the storm of Ismail, in which the garrison of about 40,000 Islamofascists was massacred. (Not because Suvorov did not take prisoners, but because the Islamofascists refused to surrender.)
Posted by: Winged Hussar 1683 at December 8, 2005 11:28 PM
if Russians allow the demands of muslims, then l know they have grown soft.. but with their government tardiness, it will take years before they have answer for the muslime cleric! one poster has it right, they can go to a muslim country!! russia is playing russian roulette by selling iranians military equipment, and then trying to smash the chechens.. they will be paid in spades if the iranians have their way with their chechen friends!
Posted by: Lulu at December 9, 2005 5:03 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.)