Take another look at the video filmed under the Charlie Hebdo’s building, the black car of the terrorists who had no fear of death and are advancing by shooting, while the white car of the policemen is forced to retreat.
We are capitulating.
The West cannot win this war. Take the last French mass rally with dozens of heads of states from around the world: it was a silent march, a mute show where nobody took the podium. As if these people didn’t know what to say. As if these Western leaders didn’t really believe in what they were doing in Paris.
A few days ago, Martin Wolf in the British daily Financial Times gave voice to the deep estrangement of Europe’s élite. He suggested using massive doses of multicultural recognition of equality between different cultures in order to combat Islamism. Mr. Wolf is implicitly saying that we must surrender, that we cannot win, that we have to contain terror and finally find a way to coexist with it.
The French horror doesn’t lie in the killings per se. A few hours later, in Nigeria, Boko Haram destroyed many villages and burned hundreds of people to death. Europe’s horror lies in the fact that the terrorists came from the heart of the continent. The Chouaci’s brothers, the British bombers and Theo Van Gogh’s killer didn’t came from Raqqa, in Syria, or Al Qaeda in Yemen. No, they were born and raised in European democracies.
Europe gave everything to these terrorists: schools, education, entartainment, sexual pleasures, salaries and freedom. The French terrorists rejected the French values of liberté, egalité and fraternité; the British suicide bombers rejected British multiculturalism, while Dutch terrorist Mohammed Bouyeri, who slaughtered the film maker in Amsterdam, rejected the Dutch mute values of moral indifference.
A few days ago, I was talking with Flemming Rose, the Danish journalist who first published the cartoons in 2006 and now lives protected by the police. He told me the shocking truth nobody wants to hear:
“I am pretty pessimistic about the future of free speech, though I am delighted that so many people came out to support Charlie Hebdo”, Rose told me. “I knew several of the cartoonists who were killed, and I was a witness in a criminal case against CH in 2007. My fear is that this support will not translate into real decisions and changed behavior when we get back to our day-to-day life. We have seen that before. Madrid 2004, Theo van Gogh 2004, London 2005, Kurt Westergaard 2008 and 2010 (one planned attack and another real attack in which he was nearly killed). Every time lots of support and solidarity with the victims, but very little has changed in reality, quite to the contrary, apart from CH no European newspapers have dared to publish Mohammed cartoons since 2008”.
Charlie Hebdo’s journalists were brave people, defiant, but if they are the Western heroes, we have already lost. “Charb” and the other cartoonists didn’t believe in anything.
A few years ago, at my newspaper in Italy. I suggested we publish a letter that Mohammed Bouyeri released from his Dutch prison. Bouyeri says he does not feel remorse for what he did. The tone of the letter is marked by a kind of puerile candor. Bouyeri never mentions Van Gogh, but he makes it clear that he has fulfilled a religious duty by killing him.
The West cannot win this war. The price it would have to pay is the loss of European values: reducing the civil rights of many people, deporting them, declaring a war of values, sending boots on the ground in the Middle East, imposing Western civilization on them. Europe will never do that. Europe itself doesn’t believe in these values anymore. This is also one of the reason why Europe hates Israeli Jews who daily confront evil and fight it, so deeply.
The terrorists of Charlie Hebdo talk a religious language and use terms like honor, faith, prophet and loyalty, while the West replies to them with words such as freedom, democracy, rights, respect and tolerance. They speak theology, we reply with logic. They use bullets, we march in the streets.
It is a sad joke. The truth is that people in the West are relieved that they don’t have to fight, that we are surrendering, that life goes on as usual. Hurray, we are capitulating!
Oxford University Press (OUP) has banned authors from depicting pork-related products in their children’s books in an apparent attempt to avoid offending Jews and Muslims, the Daily Mail reports.
The new prohibition came up during a conversation about free speech on Radio 4’s Today program and was referred to as “nonsensical political correctness.”
“I’ve got a letter here that was sent out by OUP to an author doing something for young people. Among the things prohibited in the text that was commissioned by OUP was the following: Pigs plus sausages, or anything else which could be perceived as pork,” state Radio 4’s Today presenter Jim Naughtie.
An OUP spokesman justified the new regulations.
“Many of the educational materials we publish in the UK are sold in more than 150 countries, and as such they need to consider a range of cultural differences and sensitivities.”
However, these new measures have received considerable backlash from prominent figures.
Tory Member of Parliament (MP) Philip Davies stated that “no word is offensive. It is in the context in which it is used that is offensive … we have to to get a grip on this nonsensical political correctness.”
“That’s absolute utter nonsense. And when people go too far, that brings the whole discussion into disrepute,” agreed Muslim Labour MP Khalid Mahmood.
These new rules have serious implications for the freedom of speech, particularly in context of the recent deadly terrorist attacks in Paris initially targeting the satirical Charlie Hebdo publication.
“Jewish law prohibits eating pork, not the mention of the word, or the animal from which it derives,” said a spokesman for the Jewish Leadership Council.
This is not the first time that non-Muslims in Britain have attempted to self-censor in an effort to avoid actions they believed would offend Muslims. In 2007, organizers of a performance of a children’s play by Roald Dahl at a school in West Yorkshire originally removed the “Three Little Pigs” from the show, in favor of the “Three Little Puppies.” Councillors reversed that decision.
Likewise, two major banks in England in 2005 banned the use of piggy-banks in advertising or as gifts for children because of a perception that the banks would offend Muslims.
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
Many who consider themselves our “betters” continue to tell us that only “radicals” or “extremists” slaughter people for “insulting” Allah and Mohamed or try otherwise to force submission to Islam upon us. They refuse even to use the word “Islamic,” except when pretending that such actions are “not Islamic.” They are wrong and it’s time to wake up. Apathy and ignorance can be deadly.
As explained in my January 10th post, citing and quoting from an article in Catholic World Report by Father James V. Schall, S.J, the Islam we saw in Paris, France is neither “radical” nor “extremist.” It is mainstream Islam, as commanded by the Koran and Sharia law. It is the purpose of this article to explain further why that is the case.
Reliance is not some al-Qaeda or Islamic State pamphlet. It is a renowned explication of sharia’s provisions and their undeniable roots in Muslim scripture. In the English translation, before you get to chapter and verse, there are formal endorsements, including one from the International Institute of Islamic Thought — a U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood think tank begun in the early Eighties (and to which American administrations of both parties have resorted as an exemplar of “moderation”). Perhaps more significantly, there is also an endorsement from the Islamic Research Academy at al Azhar University, the ancient seat of Sunni learning to which President Obama famously turned to co-sponsor his cloyingly deceptive 2009 speech on relations between Islam and the West. [Emphasis added.]
In their endorsement, the al-Azhar scholars wrote:
We certify that the . . . translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community. . . . There is no objection to printing it and circulating it. . . . May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion.
There could be no more coveted stamp of scholarly approval in Islam.
Mr. McCarthy’s article provides many quotations from Reliance. Here are some of them:
Apostasy from Islam is “the ugliest form of unbelief” for which the penalty is death (“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”). (Reliance o8.0 & ff.) [Emphasis added.]
Apostasy occurs not only when a Muslim renounces Islam but also, among other things, when a Muslim appears to worship an idol, when he is heard “to speak words that imply unbelief,” when he makes statements that appear to deny or revile Allah or the prophet Mohammed, when he is heard “to deny the obligatory character of something which by consensus of Muslims is part of Islam,” and when he is heard “to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law.” (Reliance o8.7; see also p9.0 & ff.)
Jihad means to war against non-Muslims. (Reliance o9.0.) [Emphasis added.]
It is an annual requirement to donate a portion of one’s income to the betterment of the ummah (an obligation called zakat, which is usually, and inaccurately, translated as “charity”); of this annual donation, one-eighth must be given to “those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster. . . . They are given enough to suffice them for the operation even if they are affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing and expenses.” (Reliance, h8.1–17.) [Emphasis added.]
As commanded in the aforementioned Sura 9:29, non-Muslims are permitted to live in an Islamic state only if they follow the rules of Islam, pay the non-Muslim poll tax, and comply with various conditions designed to remind them that they have been subdued, such as wearing distinctive clothing, keeping to one side of the street, not being greeted with “Peace be with you” (“as-Salamu alaykum”), not being permitted to build as high as or higher than Muslims, and being forbidden to build new churches, recite prayers aloud, “or make public displays of their funerals or feast-days.” (Reliance o11.0 & ff.) [Emphasis added.]
The penalty for spying against Muslims is death. (Reliance p50.0 & ff; p74.0 & ff.)
The penalty for homosexual activity (“sodomy and lesbianism”) is death. (Reliance p17.0 & ff.) [Emphasis added.]
A woman is required to be obedient to her husband and is prohibited from leaving the marital home without permission; if permitted to go out, she must conceal her figure or alter it “to a form unlikely to draw looks from men or attract them.” (Reliance p42.0 & ff.) [Emphasis added.]
A woman has no right of custody of her child from a previous marriage when she remarries “because married life will occupy her with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent her from tending to the child.” (Reliance m13.4.) [Emphasis added.]
The penalty for theft is amputation of the right hand. (Reliance o14.0.)
The penalty for accepting interest (“usurious gain”) is death (i.e., to be considered in a state of war against Allah). (Reliance p7.0 & ff.)
The testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man. (Reliance o24.7.) [Emphasis added.]
If a case involves an allegation of fornication (including rape), “then it requires four male witnesses.” (Reliance o24.9.) [Emphasis added.]
The establishment of a caliphate is obligatory, and the caliph must be Muslim and male. “The Prophet . . . said, ‘Men are already destroyed when they obey women.’” (Reliance o25.0 & ff; see also p28.0, on Mohammed’s condemnation of “masculine women and effeminate men.”) [Emphasis added.]
Great Zeus! It almost as bad as the (alleged) “Republican war on women,” about which many “feminists” complain. There is no “Republican war on women.” Islam and Sharia exist and are growing. It does seem at least a tad strange that many quite vocal “feminists” remain silent about the Sharia laws imposed on millions of their sisters. Perhaps they should savor those quaint laws, personally, for a month or three and then (if still alive) return to tell us of their experiences.
Mr. McCarthy concludes,
This anti-liberty, supremacist, repulsively discriminatory, and sadly mainstream interpretation of Islam must be acknowledged and confronted. In its way, that is what Charlie Hebdo had been attempting to do — while, to their lasting shame, governments in the United States and Europe have been working with Islamist states to promote sharia blasphemy standards. That needs to end. The future must not belong to those who brutalize free expression in the name of Islam. [Emphasis added.]
Brutalizing free expression is bad enough. But that is not all that Islam tries to do to us. In the following video, Sean Hannity interviews Imam Anjem Choudary, who lives and preaches in Londonstan. As the Imam explains, “Islam” does not mean peace. It means total submission.
In the next video, Mr. Hannity and guests discuss the threat of “radical” Islam. It should, however, be referred to simply as Islam, because it is not radical; it is mainstream:
In a generally facetious article, Bernard Goldberg suggested that Muslims who disapprove of Islamic slaughter and demands for submission should engage in a million man march against them in Paris. Here is an also facetious video of the Million Muslim march as it happened. Watch closely.
I saw only one Muslim, and he was cleverly disguised as a pigeon.
Imam Obama frequently uses the phrase “on the wrong side of history.” He doubtless considers “Islamophobes” to be among those on the wrong side. There are, however, few if any “Islamophobes,” because the term means an irrational fear of Islam. Anyone other than a Muslim, who is capable of rational, reality based analysis and even occasionally indulges in it with respect to Islam, is very afraid of it. Fear, however, is not a solution and can lead to submission, the meaning and goal of Islam. We recently saw submission by most of the “legitimate news” media, which declined to republish any of the Charlie Hedbo cartoons, even as news. They were news, dammit, because they were the basis for the Charlie Hedbo slaughters.
Steve Emerson, of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, contends that Europe is finished. I am afraid that he is correct.
In America, there may still be time to deal with Islam to prevent it from gaining ascendancy as it has in much of Europe. The first steps — taken thus far by very few — are to recover from denial and apathy, to recognize the problem and give it a name: Islam. Not “extremist” or “radical” Islam. That will be a worthy beginning, but it is not sufficient.
Appeasement won’t work. Until we find and implement viable ways to deal with the Islamic problem, there will be less and less peace as we understand it, and more and more Islamic “peace,” in our time.
I offered some suggestions here. Comments suggesting additional or alternative ways to deal with the Islamic problem will be greatly appreciated.
(Is Saudi Arabia “not-Islamic,” like the Islamic State and its many cohorts? Nope, all are Islamic to the core and it’s high time for our “betters” to realize and acknowledge it. — DM)
“My commitment is… to reject any repression in the name of religion… a goal we will reach in a peaceful and law-abiding way.” — Raif Badawi.
If he ever leaves prison, his life will have been destroyed — by voyeurs as sexually twisted as those of ancient Rome.
“Our Prophet,” Malik said, “would have been crystal clear and unequivocal in condemning [the Charlie Hebdo massacre]. But his statement points out why there is a problem. Malik was — quite innocently, I am sure — completely wrong. Muhammad did the same thing – many, many times.
Today we all are Charlie, and we are all Raif.
His first 50 lashes were administered Friday. After the noon prayers, outside the mosque, Saudi writer and blogger Raif Badawi, 30, received a sentence perhaps worse than death. Accused of “insulting Islam,” he is to receive 1000 lashes: 50 per week for 20 weeks — nearly half a year. “The lashing order says Raif should ‘be lashed very severely,'” a twitter notice read. “If they lash him again next week we do not know if he is going to survive. He has no medical assistance,” another notice said.
After that, he is to spend ten years in prison and pay a fine of $266,000. If he ever leaves prison, his life will have been destroyed — by voyeurs as sexually twisted as those of ancient Rome.
His wife and three children have been given asylum in Canada. Her family has filed for divorce on the grounds of his supposed apostasy.
Raif Badawi and his children
His crime is said to have been “insulting Islam.” Badawi had written, “My commitment is… to reject any repression in the name of religion… a goal that we will reach in a peaceful, law-abiding way.”
He is alleged to have criticized the Wahhabi clergy who run his country hand in hand with the royal family.[1] Muslims seem not to be able to handle questions, reasoned criticism or satire. Perhaps where many come from, there is only one opinion — the dominant majority one. If there are more, as there are, there seems a wish to stamp them out. Here in the West, a major role of government is to protect the minority from the majority.
The day before, January 8, 2015, just after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, BBC News in London broadcast a report that contained short interviews with a number of moderate Muslims who decried the attack and feared repercussions on their own communities.[2]
One of the interviewees was Nadeem Malik, the UK Director of the Bahu Trust, a Sufi Muslim charity that “espouses the virtues of tolerance, peaceful co-existence and equality.” Malik said: “Our Prophet would have been absolutely crystal clear and unequivocal in condemning any such action. That’s not in the name of Islam at all, and Muslims are sick of having their faith hijacked in this manner.”
I do not doubt Mr. Malik’s sincerity, and I respect the Islamic tradition (Barelwi) from which he comes as one more in keeping with a non-violent interpretation. But his statement sharply points out why there is a problem. He was — quite innocently, I am sure — completely wrong.
There is an inspiration for attacks like those on writers, cartoonists, and film-makers: France’s Charlie Hebdo journalists; Amsterdam’s Theo van Gogh; Denmark’s Kurt Westergaard, Carsten Juste, and Flemming Rose, and Sweden’s Lars Vilks — as well as the assassination attempt on the Nobel Prize winning Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz and the fatwa for the murder of the British writer Salman Rushdie. The inspiration for this behavior is not that the Prophet Muhammad was lampooned or criticized or mocked. The inspiration for this behavior is that Muhammad himself would have ordered or approved such attacks as revenge for assaults on his honour.
How can one make such an outrageous suggestion? The answer is that Muhammad did exactly the same thing — many, many times. This may appear to be an Islamophobic calumny, perhaps something concocted by medieval churchmen in Europe (who did make up some fancy legends about Muhammad), but it is solidly recorded in the almost canonical biography of the Prophet by Ibn Hisham and in the canonical collections of prophetic traditions (hadith) by Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.[3]
Shortly after his move from Mecca to Medina in 622 CE, for instance, when he became the effective ruler of the town, opponents emerged in the Jewish and wider communities. Poets wrote lampoons and disrespectful verses. Muhammad had them killed. Not just poets, but almost anyone who disagreed with him and his “revelations.”
In 624, for example, a Jewish poet named Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf wrote verses condemning the killing of notables from Mecca. He later became a one-man Charlie Hebdo, writing obscene and erotic verses about the Muslim women. Muhammad took offense and instructed one of his companions, Muhammad ibn Maslama, to assassinate Ka’b. When Ibn Maslama expressed doubts about having to lie to Ka’b in order to trick him into going with him, Muhammad told him lying was permissible for such purposes. Ibn Maslama and some other Muslims went out with Ka’b under false pretenses and murdered him.
Ka’b ibn al-Ahraf was not Muhammad’s only victim. The poets Asma’ bint Marwan (a woman), Abu Afak, and Al-Nadir ibn al-Harith, and Abu Rafi’ ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq were all assassinated in the same year for the same offence of mockery. In the next few years, several other poets were killed, such as Abdullah ibn Zib’ari, Al-Harith bin al-Talatil, Hubayra, Ka’b ibn Zuhayr ibn Abi Sulama, and Huwayrith ibn Nafidh. Abdullah bin Khatal and two of his slave girls were murdered for having recited poems insulting the Prophet. There is a list in WikiIslam of 43 people — as well as all the men from the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza — who were killed on Muhammad’s orders or whose murders were sanctioned by him.
Today the lashes of Raif Badawi stand with the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo as further symbols of the determination of many extremists to reject the norms of reason, tolerance, pluralism, equality, the Universal Declaration human rights and the value that begins every chapter but one of the Qur’an: mercy.
Some people ask what inspires those who kill authors, cartoonists and journalists, while others insist that it has nothing to do with Islam. If we do not learn, if our leaders do not learn, what hope is there for us?
Today, we are all Charlie. And we are all Raif.
_______________
[1] The Al al-Shaykh are descendants of Wahhabi founder Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792), who allied himself and his puritan belief system with the Al Sa’ud, an Arabian family with pretensions to grandeur.
[3] For details, see Uri Rubin, “The Assassination of Kaʿb b. al-Ashraf”, Oriens, Vol. 32. (1990), pp. 65-71; the entries on Ka’b in both editions of the authoritative Encyclopedia of Islam; Sahih Bukhari5:59:369, Sahih Muslim19:4436
(The opinions expressed in this article are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or any of its other editors. — DM)
They should welcome Islamic peace, including eternal bliss with their beautiful virgins.
Many more of us await you. Hurry up!
The attacks by adherents to the Religion of “Peace” in France were not the first, nor will they be the last, by “extremists” who live for nothing better than to demonstrate Islamic tolerance by slaughtering blasphemers who mock their “holy prophet” or otherwise insult Islam. We are told, ad nauseam, that they and their cohorts — like the Islamic State — are not Islamic: the Fort Hood massacre was mere “workplace violence” that had nothing to do with Islam, the Islamic Republic of Iran can be trusted with nukes and Saudi Arabia is our friend.
No matter that Major Hasan, a Muslim, yelled “Allah Akbar” while he slaughtered thirteen people and injured thirty more, and now wants to be a citizen of the Islamic State. No matter that there were many more Islamic jihad attacks during 2014.
No matter that Iran has long sought (and may already have) nukes and the death of Israel. Is Iran non-Islamic? No matter that our “ally,” Saudi Arabia, just applied to Raif Badaw the first fifty of the one thousand lashes imposed as part of his punishment for blasphemy for calling for religious freedom and thereby insulting Islam. Is Saudi Arabia non-Islamic?
taught political philosophy at Georgetown University for many years until recently retiring. He is the author of numerous books and countless essays on philosophy, theology, education, morality, and other topics. His most recent book is Reasonable Pleasures: The Strange Coherences of Catholicism (Ignatius Press).
After highlighting only a few of many Islamic murders* and persecutions of Christians, Father Schall contends, quite persuasively, that
In the Quran, there is no mention of the Trinity or Incarnation, except explicitly to deny them. It is blasphemy to believe in them, as well as to question anything connected with the Quran. Allah intends the whole world to observe the Sharia, the Muslim legal code, observing its letter. As soon as it can, this law is imposed in every Muslim land or smaller community, even in democratic states. No distinction between Islam and the state exists. Everyone is born a Muslim. If he is not a Muslim, it is because his parents or teachers corrupted him. It is impossible to convert from Islam to another religion, without grave, often lethal, consequences. [Emphasis added.]
It is not against the Quran to use violence to spread or enforce Islamic law. Those Islam conquers, even from its beginnings till now, it either kills, forces conversion, or imposes second class citizenship. The Islamic State, now so much to the forefront, seems to have the correct understanding of what the Quran intends and advocates. The voluntarist presuppositions of Islamic thought allow what is prohibited to become good. Allah is not bound by the distinction of good and evil. Whatever Allah wills, even if it was the opposite yesterday, is good. [Emphasis added.]
. . . . To most Muslims, the West is itself morally decadent. Many think that the decline of population in the West and the high birth rate of Muslims almost guarantee eventual control of many European countries by Islam. And no talk exists of “converting” Islam by Christians. With Fatima, Reagan and John Paul II could talk of ending the evil empire of the Soviet Union, but the question, “What is Islam?”, is seldom addressed. There is certainly nothing said about really changing Islam, only containing it. [Emphasis added.]
[I]t is possible that Islam will follow its pattern in the early modern world. Much of its recent success has depended on its good fortune with oil and other resources. But no Islamic state or group has been the origin of any properly modern inventions or developments. There seems to be theological reasons for this, as there is no reason to investigate a world that is based solely on the arbitrary will of Allah. Islam lacks any real notion of a natural law or a basis in reason that would allow it to criticize itself and recognize the extremism of many of its own practices, and especially the killings. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
[N]o real basis for the much-appealed-to “dialogue” with Islam seems to exist. Almost all the initiative for dialogue has come from the Christian side. Islam has no central authority. It has no fixed theology except what is in the Quran and attempts to defend its consistency.
Dialogue is looked upon as a sign of weakness unless it can be used to further Muslim goals. In the case of the killings that Coren lists, if they are looked upon as legitimate means, there is no need either to talk about them or to cease their presumed effectiveness in spreading Islam. One cannot really appeal to the Quran to cease these killings, as there is ample reason within it to justify them as worthy means. Had it not been possible to justify these means in the Quran, the whole history of Islam would be different. Indeed, it probably never would have expanded at all. [Emphasis added.]
Speaking at the start of a three-day trip to Turkey, Pope Francis said “terrorist violence” showed no sign of abating in Turkey’s southern neighbours, where Islamist insurgents had declared a caliphate and persecuted Shiite Muslims, Christians and others who do not share their ultra-radical brand of Sunni Islam.
“It is licit, while always respecting international law, to stop an unjust aggressor,” the leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics said in reference to the Islamic State militants after a meeting with Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan.
“What is required is a concerted commitment on the part of all … [to] enable resources to be directed, not to weaponry, but to the other noble battles worthy of man: the fight against hunger and sickness.”[Emphasis added.]
Sure. That should take care of the problem. In an Islamic pig’s eye.
Perhaps Obama and His devotees should read the article, even though it would not likely change their minds even a whit.
Why do many refer to Islamic terrorists as “extremists” or “radicals?” Aren’t they actually Islamists, dedicated to defending their religion against “slander?”
Are Christians and Jews, who actually practice their religions, “extremists” or “radicals?” Aren’t they practicing Christians and Jews? Or are Christians, in the eyes of Obama and His supporters, just bitter little people who cling to their religion or their guns and hate those who are not like them? (That’s a good characterization of Islamists.)
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. [Emphasis added.]
How about the Jews of Israel, who would much rather live in peace with their neighbors than kill or be killed by them? Are they also “bitter clingers?” They cling to life, so they must be, in Obama’s view.
President Obama finally remarked upon the attacks on our consulate in Libya — but was silent on the attack on our embassy in Egypt — and stressed the importance of not disrespecting religion in his speech, something he’s newly concerned about:
While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
It’s interesting that only when Islamists riot is Obama concerned for religious respect. I assume that Islam is excluded from what is called his ‘war on religion’ as he’s never before shown any concern for the denigration of other faiths. He’s demonstrated none of what he asks these past several years. Who could forget his demeaning characterization of middle America as ‘bitter clingers?’ [Emphasis added.”
Remember Obama’s October 3, 2014 Eid greeting to Muslims around the world?
As our Muslim neighbors and friends gather for Eid celebrations, Muslim Americans are among the millions of pilgrims joining one of the world’s largest and most diverse gatherings. Hajj brings together Muslims from around the world – Sunni and Shiite – to share in reverent prayer, side by side. It serves as a reminder that no matter one’s tribe or sect, race or religion, gender or age, we are equals in humanity.
On Eid, Muslims continue the tradition of donating to the poor and joining efforts with other faith communities in providing assistance to those suffering from hunger, sickness, oppression, and conflict. Their service is a powerful example of the shared roots of the world’s Abrahamic faiths and how our communities can come together in shared peace, with dignity and a sense of justice. [Emphasis added.]
Is there such a thing as “moderate” Islam of the type to which Obama may have referred? After searching high and low and finding none, Daniel Greenfield finally found an example:
There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won’t find it in the Koran or the Hadiths. If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.
You can’t find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.
You won’t find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won’t even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won’t find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.
Moderate Islam isn’t what most Muslims believe. It’s what most liberals believe that Muslims believe. [Emphasis in original]
The new multicultural theology of the West is moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn’t a religion at all. [Emphasis added.]
Take Islam, turn it inside out and you have moderate Islam. Take a Muslim who hasn’t been inside a mosque in a year, who can name the entire starting lineup of the San Diego Chargers, but can’t name Mohammed’s companions and you have a moderate Muslim. Or more accurately, a secular Muslim. [Emphasis added.]
Perhaps such secular Muslims are not “bitter clingers.”
Islam and the multicultural “blessings” of “shared peace, with dignity and a sense of justice” (from Obama’s Eid greeting) it brings are rampant in Europe. They could have been avoided but were not, on the apparent theories (a) that there is no evil in the world, (b) that all religions are equally evil, (c) that all religions are equally good and/or (d) that no other evil is even comparable in its insidiousness to Islamophobia.
Some in Europe are learning, but their principal leaders seem to be too dense, too devoted to their ideologies or both, to absorb the lessons of even recent history. French President Hollande decried “racism and anti-Semitism” and proclaimed that the Islamic attacks in France had “nothing to do with Islam.” Apparently, in his twisted view, “true” Islam rejects racism and “antisemitism.” This Islamic preacher must not be Islamic.
In similar vein, a Palestinian envoy to Iran recently “said that ‘Israel is a cancer’ that ‘will be destroyed.”
Islamists throughout the world are as antisemitic as they are anti-Christian and appear to be proud of it.
Here are five more short videos:
Appeasement (is that another name for multiculturalism?) is not a viable solution; it merely postpones evil until it become stronger and multitudes are slaughtered, unnecessarily. Unfortunately many of us, as well as many of our “leaders,” have yet to learn the lessons of history; hence appeasement continues to be the preferred, but most deadly, response to evil.
Meanwhile, Obama and all too many leading RINOs insist that massive immigration must continue in the United States and that amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the there is good. I have found no credible statistics suggesting the numbers of Islamists or other murderers among actual and potential illegal immigrants, but their numbers cannot rationally be assumed to be insignificant. Nor can it be assumed that the apparent hopes of our “leaders” that all will turn out just fine will be realized; it may all depend on their definitions of “just fine.” It can reasonably be assumed that the Obama Nation is galloping, and will continue to gallop, down a path similar to that trod by Europe and that the consequences will be comparable in lives and freedoms lost, to say nothing of the financial burdens incurred by Federal, State and local governments and, of course, their citizens.
– AFDI denounces the crippling rules of engagement under which our soldiers are forced to labor. They should be given the freedom to defend themselves and protect their comrades.
— AFDI calls for profiling of Muslims at airports and in hiring in professions in which national security and public safety could be compromised.
— AFDI calls for immediate investigation into foreign mosque funding in the West and for new legislation making foreign funding of mosques in non-Muslim nations illegal.
— AFDI calls for surveillance of mosques and regular inspections of mosques in the U.S. and other non-Muslim nations to look for pro-violence materials. Any mosque advocating jihad or any aspects of Sharia that conflict with Constitutional freedoms and protections should be closed.
— AFDI calls for curriculum and Islam-related materials in textbooks and museums to describe the Islamic doctrine and history accurately, including its violent doctrines and 1,400-year war against unbelievers.
— AFDI calls for a halt of foreign aid to Islamic nations with Sharia-based constitutions and/or governments.
– AFDI denounces the use of Sharia law in any Western court or nation.
– AFDI advocates deportation hearings against non-citizens who promote jihad in our nations.
– AFDI calls for an immediate halt of immigration by Muslims into nations that do not currently have a Muslim majority population.
— AFDI calls for laws providing that anyone seeking citizenship in the United States should be asked if he or she supports Sharia law, and investigated for ties to pro-Sharia groups. If so, citizenship should not be granted.
– AFDI calls for the cancellation of citizenship or permanent residency status for anyone who leaves the country of his residence to travel for the purpose of engaging in jihad activity, and for the refusal of reentry into his country of residence after that jihad activity.
— AFDI calls careful investigation of Muslims resident in non-Muslim country who have obtained naturalized citizenship or permanent residency status, to ensure that that status was not obtained under false pretenses.
— AFDI calls for the designation of the following as grounds for immediate deportation: fomenting, plotting, financing, attempting or carrying out jihad attacks; encouraging or threatening or attempting to carry out the punishments Islamic law mandates for apostasy, adultery, blasphemy, fornication or theft; threatening or attempting or carrying out honor murders, forced marriage, underage marriage, female genital mutilation, or polygamy.
— AFDI calls for the U.S. and other free nations to have jihad, as it is traditionally understood in Islamic jurisprudence to involve warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims, declared a crime against humanity at the U.N., or to withdraw from the U.N. and have its headquarters moved to a Muslim nation.
– AFDI calls for legislating making illegal the foreign funding of Islamic Studies departments and faculty positions in our universities.
– AFDI demands the repeal of U.N. resolution 16/18 and any other resolutions that might limit the freedom of speech.
– AFDI calls for all Muslim chaplains in prisons and the military to be thoroughly vetted, and dismissed if they have ties to any Islamic supremacist group, or if they advocate jihad.
– AFDI calls for the development of energy policies that will free us from dependence upon oil from Muslim countries.
Through SION, AFDI establishes a common American / European coalition of free people determined to stand for freedom and oppose the advance of Islamic law, Sharia. Islamic law is not simply a religious system, but a political system that encompasses every aspect of life; is authoritarian, discriminatory, and repressive; and contradicts Western laws and principles in numerous particulars. SION respects Muslims as fellow human beings and rejects Islamization as a comprehensive political, religious, cultural and social system of behavior and ideology.
AFDI and SION stand for:
— The freedom of speech – as opposed to Islamic prohibitions of “blasphemy” and “slander,” which are used effectively to quash honest discussion of jihad and Islamic supremacism;
— The freedom of conscience – as opposed to the Islamic death penalty for apostasy;
— The equality of rights of all people before the law – as opposed to Sharia’s institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims.
Here’s a link to an essay by Allen West proposing much the same. It’s well worth reading.
The Obama Nation won’t take any of the suggested steps, of course, and no European nation seems likely to; they are too preoccupied with fighting Islamophobia and pursuing the “blessings” of multiculturalism. However, it’s worth pushing hard for. After all, it’s more humane than giving Islamists the “peace” they claim to want, wholesale, and sending them to their virgins.
In the meantime, let’s load up on neat gifts and get ready for a merry Christmas.
_________________
*An exhaustive list of Christians slaughtered during November of 2014 is available in an article titled Christians Burned Alive, published on January 10, 2015 by the Gatestone Institute.
It was an act of violence prescribed by shariah to punish what that code deems to be a capital offence: giving offense to Muslims by caricaturing, or even just portraying pictorially, the founder of their faith, Mohammed. Unfortunately, acknowledging this reality is a practice that continues to be eschewed by governments on both sides of the Atlantic and by many in the media – even as they decry the attacks.
Therefore, it would be clarifying if, as those who profess solidarity with the fallen and their commitment to freedom of expression by declaring “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) would also acknowledge the impetus behind the perpetrators: “Je suis jihad.”
*****************
In the aftermath of the murderous attack on the staff of Charlie Hebdo, the iconically irreverent French satirical journal, there is a widespread – and welcome – appreciation that the Islamic supremacist perpetrators sought not only to silence cartoonists who had lampooned Mohammed. They wanted to ensure that no one else violates the prohibitions on “blasphemy” imposed by the shariah doctrine that animates them.
In other words, the liquidation of twelve of the magazine’s cartoonists and staff – and a police officer (a Muslim, as it turns out) assigned to protect them after an earlier 2011 firebombing of its offices – was an act of jihad. Not “workplace violence.” Not antisceptic “terrorism” or the even more opaque “violent extremism.”
It was an act of violence prescribed by shariah to punish what that code deems to be a capital offence: giving offense to Muslims by caricaturing, or even just portraying pictorially, the founder of their faith, Mohammed. Unfortunately, acknowledging this reality is a practice that continues to be eschewed by governments on both sides of the Atlantic and by many in the media – even as they decry the attacks.
Therefore, it would be clarifying if, as those who profess solidarity with the fallen and their commitment to freedom of expression by declaring “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) would also acknowledge the impetus behind the perpetrators: “Je suis jihad.”
Such a step could begin a long-overdue correction in both official circles and the Fourth Estate. Both have actually encouraged the jihadists by past failures to acknowledge the reality of jihad and shariah, and by serial accommodations made to their practitioners.
One of the most high-profile and egregious examples of this phenomenon was President Obama’s infamous statement before the United Nations General Assembly in September 2012 – two weeks after he first, and fraudulently, blamed the attack on U.S. missions in Benghazi, Libya on a online video that had offended Muslims: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
This outrageous submission of the constitutional freedom of speech to shariah not only tracked with the sorts of statements one might have heard from global jihadists like al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, the Taliban’s Mullah Omar or the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was of a piece with an agenda the Obama administration had been pursuing since its inception: finding ways to satisfy the demands of another, less well known, but exceedingly dangerous jihadist group – the supranational Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
As documented in a superb film on the subject entitled Silent Conquest: The End of Freedom of Expression in the West (spoiler alert: I appear in this documentary, as do most of the preeminent international champions of freedom of expression), starting in March 2009, Team Obama began cooperating with the OIC in its efforts to use the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to impose what amounted to shariah blasphemy laws worldwide. This collaboration ultimately gave rise to UNHRC Resolution 16/18 entitled, “Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to violence, and Violence against Persons based on Religion or Belief,” which was adopted with U.S. support in March 2011. Despite its pretense of protecting persons of any religion or belief, the motivation behind and purpose of Res. 16/18 was to give Islamic supremacists a new, international legal basis for trying to impose restrictions on expression they would find offensive.
Resolution 16/18 is, in other words, a form of what the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad” – a stealthy, subversive means of accomplishing the same goals as the violent jihadists worldwide: the West’s submission, and that of the rest of the world, to shariah and a caliph to rule according to it.
It fell to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to try to accommodate the Islamic supremacists’ demands. She launched something called the “Istanbul Process” which brought the United States, the European Union and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation together to find ways of giving force to Res. 16/18. On July 15, 2011, after paying lip service to the fact that, “for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy,” Mrs. Clinton announced:
We are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.
The Charlie Hebdo attack is a particularly vivid reminder of what comes of such appeasement and how it encourages jihadists – pursuant to their shariah ideology – to redouble their efforts, not just through stealth but through violence, to achieve our absolute submission. If are to have any hope of preventing more such incidents in the future, let alone far worse at the hands of shariah’s adherents, we must acknowledge the true nature of these enemies and adopt a comprehensive and effective counter-ideological strategy for defeating them.
(Obama continues to tell us, ad nauseam, that Islam is the religion of peace. He should lead some of the one million man small processions, hand in hand with Iranian President Rouhani and no security guards present. Then, surely, Islamic terrorists will lay down swallow their weapons and peace will reign. Right?
— DM)
Here’s another idea: Million Man Muslim Marches in every major capital city around the world to denounce Islamic terrorism, a show of solidarity to tell the jihadists that good, law abiding Muslims hate what the extremists are doing in the name of Islam.
Of course none of this will happen. Moderate Muslims may tweet, but if history is any guide that’s as brave as most of them will ever get.
******************
In a column about the massacre in Paris, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wanted us to understand that while there is indeed a “strain of Islamic intolerance and extremism” that has caused too much violence in the world, most Muslims are good people who detest what happened in Paris the other day as much as you and I do.
“Terror incidents lead many Westerners to perceive Islam as inherently extremist,” he wrote, “but I think that is too glib and simple-minded. Small numbers of terrorists make headlines, but they aren’t representative of a complex and diverse religion of 1.6 billion adherents. My Twitter feed Wednesday brimmed with Muslims denouncing the attack — and noting that fanatical Muslims damage the image of Muhammad far more than the most vituperative cartoonist.”
That’s the age we live in. Tweets – 140 characters or less – is how people express outrage. Remember when Michelle Obama held up her little sign that read “# Bring Back Our Girls” after a Muslim terrorist group in Nigeria kidnapped 300 schoolgirls? # or no # … the girls are still missing. Terrorists aren’t afraid of tweets and hash tags.
Here’s another idea: Million Man Muslim Marches in every major capital city around the world to denounce Islamic terrorism, a show of solidarity to tell the jihadists that good, law abiding Muslims hate what the extremists are doing in the name of Islam.
Muslims should march in Paris and London and Madrid and Rome and Washington and Cairo and Riyadh and Beirut and every other capital of every other Muslim country.
They should make speeches that condemn the violence. They should say that the jihadists are backward people who must be shunned. They should make clear that they not only condemn Islamic terrorism, they will give the terrorists no comfort by even understanding it.
Imams should look out at the crowds and say that those who kill in the name of Allah will not be greeted by virgins in Paradise. They should say they will be greeted by fire in Hell.
Of course none of this will happen. Moderate Muslims may tweet, but if history is any guide that’s as brave as most of them will ever get.
Most, but not all. Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi recently told an audience of religious scholars that they must lead a “revolution” to transform Islam. “You imams are responsible before Allah. The entire world—I say it again, the entire world—is waiting for your next move because this umma (a word that can refer either to the Egyptian nation or the entire Muslim world) is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”
A sliver of sunshine in what too often is a very dark Arab world.
(Which is more deadly? The white flag of surrender flown in the name of multiculturalism throughout Europe and elsewhere, or the (non-Islamic, as we have repeatedly been told) Islamic State flag? The white flag flutters as it celebrates the killing of our souls, while the flag of Islam merely celebrates the killing of our bodies while “enriching” local culture with the “blessings” of multicultural diversity.– DM)
Sean Hannity: Welcome back to “Hannity.” So France is on high alert at this hour following today’s deadly terrorist attack that left 12 people dead. Investigators working around the clock to put the pieces together. So could a similar terrorist attack happen here at home? Joining me now terrorism expert Steve Emerson. Steve, I want to talk about the growth in population of people moving to France from Muslim countries. You have these no-go zones. You have sharia courts that they’ve allowed. I assume the French, they wanted to be accepting and accommodating and have not insisted on assimilation. Has that played a part in this and is that something we’ve got to be on alert for now?
Steve Emerson: Well certainly throughout Europe, Sean, you have “no-go zones.” When I was in Brussels a year ago when I asked the police to take me to the Islamic zone or the Islamic community area they refused. They said we don’t go there. This goes on in Belgium, this goes on in Sweden, in the Netherlands, in France, it goes on in Italy. It goes on throughout Europe. So there are no-go zones.
Sean Hannity: Hang on. “No-go zone” means no non-Muslims, no police, no fire, their own court system. So basically these countries have allowed Muslims to take over parts of their country, entire portions, towns.
Steve Emerson: These are semiautonomous countries within countries in which the federal governments there have basically given up, surrendered their autonomy, surrendered their authority and goes against the entire grain of what social democracy was after World War II, was to integrate everybody into a socialist democracy, which is really a pluralistic experiment which worked. And everybody was supposed to be egalitarian; at least everyone was supposed to be equal in a pluralist society. What has happened however with migration of Muslims – and [although the problem] not all Muslims, the problem is the domination of Muslims [communities] within European countries, particularly in France…by radical Islamic groups. The mosques and Islamic centers… infuse the Islamic population with a militant strain of Islam that teaches them the infidel has to be killed and that the Crusaders like the French, Jews and Americans have to be killed or punished like [we saw] today. And this goes on and on and on. And the reaction unfortunately as we saw this morning from the President or from the President [Hollande]… of France or from [Prime Minister] Cameron of Britain is this has nothing to do with Islam, this is just a simple act of [non-religious] violence and that Islam is a religion of peace. And when they say those things they exonerate the leaders of Islamic communities throughout Europe and the militants themselves are given a free pass.
Sean Hannity: The next logical question then, Steve, is, okay, what about visas for people coming from Muslim countries? What about people that come to America that are Muslim? I’m sure the average American believes in freedom of religion, they don’t want to discriminate, they don’t want to be called Islamophobic, all of these things. How do you balance the two if people are coming from Muslim countries, how do you determine if they hold radical views, if they want sharia implemented in America like this guy Chaudary that I talked about?
Steve Emerson: Well you raise a very good question because that’s the role – you know there are DHS officers planted, placed overseas in US embassies in certain countries that have produced disproportionate numbers of terrorists like in Egypt or Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. Their role is to collect the intelligence on the visa applicants coming to the United States. The problem has been under this administration is that DHS has specifically instructed DHS agents overseas to basically not do their job, to not collect this intelligence. And when the intelligence has been collected, to show that the applicants coming to the United States with the visas in hand have radical backgrounds are either connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, connected to the Taliban, connected even [tangentially] to ISIS, they’ve been told to look away. I can tell you that personally. having had discussions with DHS officials and other agents from DHS who operate in an environment that’s Orwellian. And so you’re right, there’s a real problem here and our national security being violated.
Sean Hannity: Do you think France can get control of their country again and take over these no-go zones, stop sharia courts? I know prayer rugs are in just about every hotel if you go to Paris, according to a friend of mine who travels there quite often. Do they have the ability now to stop this, to say no you either assimilate or you have to go?
Steve Emerson: That’s a great question. I think they’ve reached critical mass, frankly. I’ve said this before, I think Europe is finished.
Sean Hannity: You think it’s finished? Well there’s a poll out there. One in six people in France actually support ISIS. Over 1,000 French have gone to join ISIS. So you’re saying you don’t think they can recover, that’s there’s too many radical Islamists that have taken over this portion of that country and it would be a war to take it back?
Steve Emerson: They [the European governments] wouldn’t take it back. They refuse to take it back. Sweden just engineered this artificial political coalition designed to stop any type of immigration prohibitions until the year 2022. So we’re talking about a situation throughout Europe where there’s a refusal to acknowledge the problem. And two, even if they did acknowledge the problem, what are they going to do if six to seven to eight to nine percent constitute a serious radical threat, not every single person but within that percentage, [there exist] no-go zones with sharia courts? Who are they hurting the most? They’re hurting Muslim women the most. They’re the ones who get subject to beatings, to death, to honor crimes.
Sean Hannity: So women who live in France are subject to sharia. They’re not subject to the laws of the country.
Steve Emerson: Not all Muslim women.
Sean Hannity: If they live in the no-go zone.
Steve Emerson: Absolutely. You’re 100% right. That’s the problem.
Sean Hannity: All right. That’s a big problem, and a warning I think.
If there is a lesson to be drawn from such a grisly episode, it is that what we believe about Islam truly doesn’t matter. This type of violence, jihad, is what they, the Islamists, believe.
Those responsible for the slaughter in Paris, just like the man who killed the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004, are seeking to impose terror. And every time we give in to their vision of justified religious violence, we are giving them exactly what they want.
We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curricula. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organizations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.
We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.
****************
After the horrific massacre Wednesday at the French weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, perhaps the West will finally put away its legion of useless tropes trying to deny the relationship between violence and radical Islam.
This was not an attack by a mentally deranged, lone-wolf gunman. This was not an “un-Islamic” attack by a bunch of thugs—the perpetrators could be heard shouting that they were avenging the Prophet Muhammad. Nor was it spontaneous. It was planned to inflict maximum damage, during a staff meeting, with automatic weapons and a getaway plan. It was designed to sow terror, and in that it has worked.
The West is duly terrified. But it should not be surprised.
GETTY IMAGE
If there is a lesson to be drawn from such a grisly episode, it is that what we believe about Islam truly doesn’t matter. This type of violence, jihad, is what they, the Islamists, believe.
There are numerous calls to violent jihad in the Quran. But the Quran is hardly alone. In too much of Islam, jihad is a thoroughly modern concept. The 20th-century jihad “bible,” and an animating work for many Islamist groups today, is “The Quranic Concept of War,” a book written in the mid-1970s by Pakistani Gen. S.K. Malik. He argues that because God, Allah, himself authored every word of the Quran, the rules of war contained in the Quran are of a higher caliber than the rules developed by mere mortals.
In Malik’s analysis of Quranic strategy, the human soul—and not any physical battlefield—is the center of conflict. The key to victory, taught by Allah through the military campaigns of the Prophet Muhammad, is to strike at the soul of your enemy. And the best way to strike at your enemy’s soul is through terror. Terror, Malik writes, is “the point where the means and the end meet.” Terror, he adds, “is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose.”
Those responsible for the slaughter in Paris, just like the man who killed the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004, are seeking to impose terror. And every time we give in to their vision of justified religious violence, we are giving them exactly what they want.
In Islam, it is a grave sin to visually depict or in any way slander the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims are free to believe this, but why should such a prohibition be forced on nonbelievers? In the U.S., Mormons didn’t seek to impose the death penalty on those who wrote and produced “The Book of Mormon,” a satirical Broadway sendup of their faith. Islam, with 1,400 years of history and some 1.6 billion adherents, should be able to withstand a few cartoons by a French satirical magazine. But of course deadly responses to cartoons depicting Muhammad are nothing new in the age of jihad.
Moreover, despite what the Quran may teach, not all sins can be considered equal. The West must insist that Muslims, particularly members of the Muslim diaspora, answer this question: What is more offensive to a believer—the murder, torture, enslavement and acts of war and terrorism being committed today in the name of Muhammad, or the production of drawings and films and books designed to mock the extremists and their vision of what Muhammad represents?
To answer the late Gen. Malik, our soul in the West lies in our belief in freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. The freedom to express our concerns, the freedom to worship who we want, or not to worship at all—such freedoms are the soul of our civilization. And that is precisely where the Islamists have attacked us. Again.
How we respond to this attack is of great consequence. If we take the position that we are dealing with a handful of murderous thugs with no connection to what they so vocally claim, then we are not answering them. We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.
This would be a departure for the West, which too often has responded to jihadist violence with appeasement. We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curricula. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organizations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.
What do we get in return? Kalashnikovs in the heart of Paris. The more we oblige, the more we self-censor, the more we appease, the bolder the enemy gets.
There can only be one answer to this hideous act of jihad against the staff of Charlie Hebdo. It is the obligation of the Western media and Western leaders, religious and lay, to protect the most basic rights of freedom of expression, whether in satire on any other form. The West must not appease, it must not be silenced. We must send a united message to the terrorists: Your violence cannot destroy our soul.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments