Print
Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?
by Johann Hari, Independent
Reposted from:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/johann_hari/article3093767.ece
Imagine a woman – let's call her Beth – who has been an unthinking atheist all her life, just because her family and her friends are, too. One day, she decides to convert to Islam. As soon as she dons the hijab, her neighbours start to swear and spit at her in the street. A brick is thrown through her window; while she is sleeping, her car is torched.
When she speaks out publicly, the death threats come. She is a "whore" who will be "raped to death". All the other converts to Islam are receiving the same threats. Some have been beaten. Some are on the run. When they approach the police, they are wary-to-hostile. The officers ask suspiciously: what have you been doing to anger these Muslim-bashers?
If this was happening this way, it would – rightly – be a national scandal. There would be Panorama specials, front-page fury and government inquiries into Islamophobia. But it is happening – only in the reverse direction. All over Europe, there are Muslims who are exercising their right in a free society to change their religion, or to become atheists. And they are regularly being threatened, beaten and burned-out, while the police largely stand by, inert.
Ehsan Jami is an intelligent, softly-spoken 22-year-old council member for the Dutch Labour Party. He believes there should be no compromise, ever, on the rights of women and gay people and novelists and cartoonists. He became sick of hearing self-appointed Islamist organisations claiming to speak for him when they called for the banning of books and the "right" to abuse women. So he set up the Dutch Council of Ex-Muslims. Their manifesto called for secularism – and an end to the polite toleration of Islamist intolerance. As he put it: "We want people to be free to choose who they want to be and what they want to believe in."
Ehsan was immediately threatened with death. He was kicked to the ground outside the supermarket. He was grabbed in a street with a knife put to his throat. He can't afford to be glib about the risk: he remembers the near decapitation of Theo Van Gough on the streets of Amsterdam. Yet instead of rallying to Ehsan, his party condemned him. The Dutch deputy Prime Minister, Wouter Bos, said they disapproved of an organisation that "offends Muslims and their faith".
In Britain, my friend Maryam Namazie recently set up the British Council of Ex-Muslims. She was immediately flooded with calls from frightened people who wanted to join but were too intimidated. Endless phone threats inform her that she will soon be beheaded – but she has learned that the police just aren't interested. "They have never been very helpful," she says. "They act as if it's your fault for 'provoking' these people, when in fact the Islamist movement uses threats and intimidation as a tool to silence their critics."
People raised on the honeyed multicultural platitudes that religions such as Christianity and Islam are all about love and hugging puppies will wonder why these people would take such risks to leave their faith. This week I interviewed Mina Ahadi, the founder of the German branch of the Council of Ex-Muslims, after she was named Secularist of the Year.
Mina is a warm fifty-something woman with a big laugh, and when we meet – in a house in London I can't disclose for safety reasons – she is wearing a big jumper and small, wire-rimmed glasses that make her look like any other German Hausfrau. But she has a very different story, taking me back to her childhood in rural Iran. She tells me: "As a Muslim girl, I was not allowed to do so many things. From the age of 12 onwards I was basically not allowed to leave the house. I couldn't play on the street, I couldn't mix with boys, I couldn't even do the shopping. I hated it. There was terrible violence towards the women in my community, everywhere. One of my cousins, Nahid, went into a man's house unaccompanied, and the men in my family tied her to a tree and whipped her. When I read the Koran for myself I was shocked, because many of these things are actually recommended by the Prophet Mohammed."
She soon realised she was an atheist, a view reinforced by her reading of Charles Darwin. When she went to university, the Islamists began to force a theocracy on the Iranian people. She refused to accept the mass sackings of women and the enforced veiling. She was beaten for speaking out, and had to go into hiding. One day, her husband and four of their friends were taken away. Nine months later, in another hiding place, she read that they had been executed.
She decided to seek refuge in Austria, because she read in a book that women's life expectancy there was higher than men's, "and I thought – that's my kind of country!" But she was amazed to find that even in Europe, Islamist groups were being treated as the respected spokesmen for all Muslims by politicians and journalists. Even here, the extreme wing threatened her with death for forming the International Committee Against Stoning to save women, and the police did little. On her visit to Britain, they offered her no protection at all.
If Christian fundamentalists were doing this – as they used to, and would like to again – none of us would hesitate in erupting in rage. But because Islamic fundamentalists are doing it, we feel awkward, and fall silent. The difference is the colour of their skin. There's a word for this: racism.
Women such as Mina expose a hole in the stale logic of multiculturalism. She shows that secularism is not a "Western" value: she thought of it all by herself, in a rural village in Iran. Yet the attitudes that lead to the persecution of apostates are widespread even within British Islam, because we patronisingly assume it is "their culture" and do not challenge it. Some 36 per cent of British Muslims between the ages of 18 and 24 think apostates should be murdered. The younger British Muslims are, the more they believe it – a bad sign for the future, unless we start arguing back. This isn't just kids sounding off. Some act on it: a Despatches documentary this year, Unholy War, found dozens of cases of apostates having their cars blown up, their kids threatened and even being beaten and left for dead, on British streets.
One way to keep up the pressure for this reform within Islam is to have a thriving movement of ex-Muslims. They demonstrate to ordinary Muslims that if they are appalled by the unreformed bigotry of their faith as it currently stands, there is a rich and rewarding alternative – secular humanism.
If we in Europe do not defend people like Ehsan and Maryam and Mina, who are fighting fundamentalist thugs for the basic human right to believe and say what they want, do we deserve these rights for ourselves?
j.hari@ independent.co.uk
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/johann_hari/article3093767.ece
Imagine a woman – let's call her Beth – who has been an unthinking atheist all her life, just because her family and her friends are, too. One day, she decides to convert to Islam. As soon as she dons the hijab, her neighbours start to swear and spit at her in the street. A brick is thrown through her window; while she is sleeping, her car is torched.
When she speaks out publicly, the death threats come. She is a "whore" who will be "raped to death". All the other converts to Islam are receiving the same threats. Some have been beaten. Some are on the run. When they approach the police, they are wary-to-hostile. The officers ask suspiciously: what have you been doing to anger these Muslim-bashers?
If this was happening this way, it would – rightly – be a national scandal. There would be Panorama specials, front-page fury and government inquiries into Islamophobia. But it is happening – only in the reverse direction. All over Europe, there are Muslims who are exercising their right in a free society to change their religion, or to become atheists. And they are regularly being threatened, beaten and burned-out, while the police largely stand by, inert.
Ehsan Jami is an intelligent, softly-spoken 22-year-old council member for the Dutch Labour Party. He believes there should be no compromise, ever, on the rights of women and gay people and novelists and cartoonists. He became sick of hearing self-appointed Islamist organisations claiming to speak for him when they called for the banning of books and the "right" to abuse women. So he set up the Dutch Council of Ex-Muslims. Their manifesto called for secularism – and an end to the polite toleration of Islamist intolerance. As he put it: "We want people to be free to choose who they want to be and what they want to believe in."
Ehsan was immediately threatened with death. He was kicked to the ground outside the supermarket. He was grabbed in a street with a knife put to his throat. He can't afford to be glib about the risk: he remembers the near decapitation of Theo Van Gough on the streets of Amsterdam. Yet instead of rallying to Ehsan, his party condemned him. The Dutch deputy Prime Minister, Wouter Bos, said they disapproved of an organisation that "offends Muslims and their faith".
In Britain, my friend Maryam Namazie recently set up the British Council of Ex-Muslims. She was immediately flooded with calls from frightened people who wanted to join but were too intimidated. Endless phone threats inform her that she will soon be beheaded – but she has learned that the police just aren't interested. "They have never been very helpful," she says. "They act as if it's your fault for 'provoking' these people, when in fact the Islamist movement uses threats and intimidation as a tool to silence their critics."
People raised on the honeyed multicultural platitudes that religions such as Christianity and Islam are all about love and hugging puppies will wonder why these people would take such risks to leave their faith. This week I interviewed Mina Ahadi, the founder of the German branch of the Council of Ex-Muslims, after she was named Secularist of the Year.
Mina is a warm fifty-something woman with a big laugh, and when we meet – in a house in London I can't disclose for safety reasons – she is wearing a big jumper and small, wire-rimmed glasses that make her look like any other German Hausfrau. But she has a very different story, taking me back to her childhood in rural Iran. She tells me: "As a Muslim girl, I was not allowed to do so many things. From the age of 12 onwards I was basically not allowed to leave the house. I couldn't play on the street, I couldn't mix with boys, I couldn't even do the shopping. I hated it. There was terrible violence towards the women in my community, everywhere. One of my cousins, Nahid, went into a man's house unaccompanied, and the men in my family tied her to a tree and whipped her. When I read the Koran for myself I was shocked, because many of these things are actually recommended by the Prophet Mohammed."
She soon realised she was an atheist, a view reinforced by her reading of Charles Darwin. When she went to university, the Islamists began to force a theocracy on the Iranian people. She refused to accept the mass sackings of women and the enforced veiling. She was beaten for speaking out, and had to go into hiding. One day, her husband and four of their friends were taken away. Nine months later, in another hiding place, she read that they had been executed.
She decided to seek refuge in Austria, because she read in a book that women's life expectancy there was higher than men's, "and I thought – that's my kind of country!" But she was amazed to find that even in Europe, Islamist groups were being treated as the respected spokesmen for all Muslims by politicians and journalists. Even here, the extreme wing threatened her with death for forming the International Committee Against Stoning to save women, and the police did little. On her visit to Britain, they offered her no protection at all.
If Christian fundamentalists were doing this – as they used to, and would like to again – none of us would hesitate in erupting in rage. But because Islamic fundamentalists are doing it, we feel awkward, and fall silent. The difference is the colour of their skin. There's a word for this: racism.
Women such as Mina expose a hole in the stale logic of multiculturalism. She shows that secularism is not a "Western" value: she thought of it all by herself, in a rural village in Iran. Yet the attitudes that lead to the persecution of apostates are widespread even within British Islam, because we patronisingly assume it is "their culture" and do not challenge it. Some 36 per cent of British Muslims between the ages of 18 and 24 think apostates should be murdered. The younger British Muslims are, the more they believe it – a bad sign for the future, unless we start arguing back. This isn't just kids sounding off. Some act on it: a Despatches documentary this year, Unholy War, found dozens of cases of apostates having their cars blown up, their kids threatened and even being beaten and left for dead, on British streets.
One way to keep up the pressure for this reform within Islam is to have a thriving movement of ex-Muslims. They demonstrate to ordinary Muslims that if they are appalled by the unreformed bigotry of their faith as it currently stands, there is a rich and rewarding alternative – secular humanism.
If we in Europe do not defend people like Ehsan and Maryam and Mina, who are fighting fundamentalist thugs for the basic human right to believe and say what they want, do we deserve these rights for ourselves?
j.hari@ independent.co.uk
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, October 25, 2007 | PermalinkComments 101 - 146 of 146 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers102. Comment #83286 by Vinelectric on October 29, 2007 at 2:00 pm
He merely points out how the Qur'an has been traditionally interpreted with the aid of the Hadith and Sira
Of course you should. How else would you understand the context of the passages? That Spencer is an outrage.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
103. Comment #83287 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 29, 2007 at 2:00 pm
There are no easy outs, and the "hit them with everything" we've got meme is exactly that. An easy, deceptive out which will end in millions of deaths. Though you don't seem to be proposing that I hasten to add:-)
Neither is anyone else. You keep resorting to this kind of blood libel, without the slightest facts to back you up.
Back to France though. I recall reading an article where similar questions vis a vis Sharia law had been asked of French muslims versus UK muslims, the article concluded that French were less likely to embrace Sharia law. It's really out there, real facts as opposed to speculation about what millions of people, may or may not do. Would you like me to find it for you? I'm sure I could. Maybe you'd like to find it first so you can integrate it into your world view:-)
Please do. THis should be interesting; hearing how 45% or 35% or whatever is so much better than 50%. You, once again, passed over those areas that are literally under the control of Shariah. You also haven't bothered to find out that, thanks to its Islamic population, France is in the grips of the kind of anti-Semitism that hasn't been seen since the fall of the Reich.
This happens all the time. You say that the fear of Eurabia was manufactured by 'fascists'. I give you a long list of people who have come to that conclusion independantly, from all corners of the political spectrum. You ignore this. I point out that three quarters of Arab Muslims support the goals and aims of HAMAS, and you ignore that. I point out that the Nazis rose to power as a small revolutionary cadre, and you ignore that. And on and on it goes.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
104. Comment #83304 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 3:06 pm
This happens all the time. You say that the fear of Eurabia was manufactured by 'fascists'. I give you a long list of people who have come to that conclusion independantly, from all corners of the political spectrum. Well the majority backs me up on this I'm afraid, and although it's not everything, it does count for something when coupled with actual demographics, real percentages and an elementary grasp of statistics.
You ignore this. I point out that three quarters of Arab Muslims support the goals and aims of HAMAS, and you ignore that.
YAWN. As noted ad nauseum, even if every single muslim on the face of Earth thought this whole Jihad thing was a good idea they still couldn't pull it off, and it still wouldn't be a justification for a global war of ... ah ... pacification. Which doesn't mean I accept your massaged stats, I'm just pointing out that it still wouldn't matter. How do you manage to be wrong on so many levels simultaneously? You truly are the Maestro of muddled thinking, the Impresario of idiocy.
I point out that the Nazis rose to power as a small revolutionary cadre, and you ignore that. And on and on it goes.
To which I countered they rose to power because 40% of the German electorate voted for them. From this foundation, it took them several years to dismantle German democracy and start the 2nd World War. Clearly you are the one in denial here.
You expect 5% of the EU population to vault into the seat of power without an electoral plan, or a power base of any sort. A despised minority. This is true magical thinking. It is a tragically absurd story which is going to get people killed, innocent people who don't even know you exist, much less have done or wished you harm.
Please do. THis should be interesting; hearing how 45% or 35% or whatever is so much better than 50%. You, once again, passed over those areas that are literally under the control of Shariah. You also haven't bothered to find out that, thanks to its Islamic population, France is in the grips of the kind of anti-Semitism that hasn't been seen since the fall of the Reich.
Oh ... come ... on. You don't think this a little ... strident?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1840737,00.html
Erm ... I extropolated the original article somewhat, it doesn't actual mention Sharia law, but rather the priority of loyalties of Muslims in the UK and France, however I think the point still stands. Enjoy.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
105. Comment #83309 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Neither is anyone else. You keep resorting to this kind of blood libel, without the slightest facts to back you up.Well except you of course. As a last resort you quickly add. A last resort which will be precipitated inevitably by your list of draconian first resorts. Summary executions, wholesale deportations ... can you say Dachau?
As for facts, well we have something better, your very own own words, in context and in glorious technicolor. Must we repost the same stuff over, and over again? Aren't you tired of being humiliated?
... and what is the rather Wagnerian term "blood libel" about?
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
106. Comment #83334 by Goldy on October 29, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Time to stoke the flames a bit :-Dhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/30/nmosques130.xml
And in the Independent..http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3109870.ece
Fanusi, seems your backlash against Islam has some supporters...
Other Comments by Goldy
107. Comment #83379 by lostn on October 29, 2007 at 9:42 pm
The murder of apostates is NOT an extemist thing. In islam, this is a normal, commonly accepted practice, and this news is nothing new or shocking.Absolutely ANY muslim is allowed to kill a muslim that is converting to another religion, atheism, or blasphemes against God or Mohammad. They are legally allowed to kill apostates without punishment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
For more (frightening) information, check out that entry.
Other Comments by lostn
108. Comment #83413 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 30, 2007 at 1:26 am
Thanks for the article Goldy. The comment that struck me most was this:
"I am sure the majority of moderate Muslims will be as horrified as everyone else that pamphlets advocating jihad by force, hatred for insufficiently observant Muslims, Christians and Jews, and segregationhave found their way into the UK's mosques."
Really. Then what were those pamphlets doing there? This is absolute, orthodox Islam. Nothing strange about finding such materials.
And of course it brings the loathesome Iqbal Sacraine, who still supports the death penalty for Apostasy, out of the woodwork.
brian another course in the obvious for you. Dachau prevented people from leaving, was part of a cruel and inhuman system of government that imprisoned innocents, enforced a totalitarian system, and waged both aggressive war and genocide.
Expelling Shariah supporters means expelling people who support _exactly that_. They aren't to be harmed, just, if they are found to advocate the imposition of Shariah law, they will be shown the door to whatever Muslim country they please. A process, btw, which will make life infinetly more livable for all other immigrant communities, not to mention those muslims who do not actually want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
109. Comment #83416 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 30, 2007 at 1:44 am
Erm ... I extropolated the original article somewhat
Made things up to suit yourself, in other words. The article does not give the source of the French estimates, and I wonder how they were made given the number of strongholds of the Dar al-Islam in which it is death for a Frenchman to set foot inside.
Speaking of making things up:
Which doesn't mean I accept your massaged stats,
'Massaged stats'. I cite sources as diverse as Pew on the one hand, and al-Arabiya on the other and you just ignore them. Utterly unserious. Similarly, you continue to dismiss the significance of that kind of a pool of jihadists. Yes, nothing to worry about. A transnational movement every bit as terrible as the National Socialists, that is funded by the largest oil reserves on the planet and, in fact, controls them, and already has a support base larger than the entire population of Germany during the Nazi era - what's not to be afraid of?
Walid Shoebat said it best: "We looking at not just one, but up to fifty-three Nazi germanies if these guys get their way." To which I can add that at least one of these, and probably others, will be nuclear armed, and they all will have millions of supporters in Western Democracies.
Secondly, you ignore that the fact that there is currently zero opposition to this madness. If we have this level of support for Shariah now, what happens when they get even stronger, and even better at silencing dissent. A full third of British Muslims have already testified their willingness to act as enforcers - support the killing of apostates.
Get real. Be serious.
The one thing that will, in fact, prevent this is that the various factions of the jihad aren't exactly coordinated, which means that we will see further catastrophic terrorism before they are sufficiently entrenched. And the result will be as I predicted, thanks to the likes of brian who care only about maintaining a good self image.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
110. Comment #83433 by GoatBoy36 on October 30, 2007 at 3:06 am
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/Publications.aspx?id=430http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/307.pdf
That's a summary of that research project, and the actual document (in Adobe form) from the research group mentioned in the article which Goldy linked to.
And from that report ...
"Most readers will be shocked by this report. However, its contents ought not to come as a surprise. Over the past three years several highly responsible broadcasters and investigative journalists have sought to alert the public to the fact that some of Britain's mainstream Islamic institutions give cause for concern. Those who have questioned their integrity or accused them of Islamophobia should now have second thoughts. The findings presented here demonstrate unequivocally that separatist and hate literature, written and disseminated in the name of Islam, is widely available in the UK." - (page 13)
"How is it possible that, in the year 2007, after many years of multiculturalism and earnest endeavour to bring the diverse communities of the UK together, one can still enter some major religious buildings and walk away with calls for hate-inspired separation? How is it that, after concerted inter-faith initiatives, one can still find texts in too many mosques that express hatred for Jews and a sneering disregard for the rights of woman - as well as Muslims who do not subscribe to the Wahhabite/Salafi conception of Islam? And how is it that these sentiments can be too often found coupled with exhortations to the fighting of jihad? [...] it is clear that hate and separatist literature of the type found in some mosques and reported in these pages is of a wholly different order from what one expects to find in mainstream religious contexts. In too many places, the material runs beyond pure moralising and carries a hint of coercion - even at times violence - that is highly troubling. Whereas all religions identify and censure practices they consider "sinful", few nowadays appear to respond to them with calls for punishment in this world, rather than the next." - (page 15)
gb.
Other Comments by GoatBoy36
111. Comment #83435 by GoatBoy36 on October 30, 2007 at 3:19 am
Goldy,I see in your earlier post that you were "making a shower" yesterday. I take it you're using the correct verb there, although you might mean "taking a shower". Funnily enough I was making a shower yesterday as well, that is to say installing a new shower unit in my mum's house. She's had problems with one she had installed months ago, and the firm tried to give her the brush-off. I wasn't too happy about that, so I wrote off to the firm (Roman Showers) giving them a bit of a dressing down, and to the investigators at the Daily Mirror as well (Penman and Sommerlad) and got them onside, and managed to persuade Roman to cough up a credit note so that a firm I knew could install a new shower at no cost to my dear old mum. Which is what happened yesterday. It's a two man job really, so I put my old engineer's head on, and gave the fellow who was installing the new shower unit a bit of a hand. So all's well in the end.
Not that that's got any relevance to much of anything, it was just when I saw your post I though hey, that's what I was doing. Anyway, if you've got a new shower unit it be sure to leave it for a while to let the silicon cure properly, and enjoy using the thing!
gb.
Other Comments by GoatBoy36
112. Comment #83436 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 3:21 am
Expelling Shariah supporters means expelling people who support _exactly that_. They aren't to be harmed, just, if they are found to advocate the imposition of Shariah law, they will be shown the door to whatever Muslim country they please.I welcome the reduction in your position from execution to expulsion. We'll get you back into the human race yet:-)
Made things up to suit yourself, in other words.
That is a bit rich from a chap who speculates European domination and enslavement from a base of 5%, less than that in the UK.
I got it (slightly) wrong and I fessed up. I should have looked up the article first. However, my speculation, that if nearly double the per capita base of French muslims consider themselves French citizens first and Muslims second (compared to the UK), this logically translates to less support for Sharia law is hardly such a leap is it? Plus the biggest base of Muslims in a major Western democracy (approaching 10%) is in France, so this is good news, no?
It is of course a disruptive fact if you are trying to paint the majority of muslims as raving lunatics.
Secondly, you ignore that the fact that there is currently zero opposition to this madness.
Well thats just flat wrong isn't it? Aren't I having to keep the lunatic fringe on a leash right here? Isn't there a discussion raging, and haven't all the western democracies (with the US in the forefront) already begun truncating and abbrevating civil rights? Um ... yay? If by zero action you mean we aren't summarily executing anyone or expelling citizens, well yeah. Thank goodness.
A full third of British Muslims have already testified their willingness to act as enforcers - support the killing of apostates.
And I think that is crazy too. However, they represent a tiny fraction of the UK populace ... what is it 1.5%? Get real yourself. What a panic monger, what must you be like in an actual emergency. Headless chicken city.
Certainly we should be uncompromising in prosecuting apostate killings or honour killings with the full rigour of the law. Sweden is a good example of where this happens, curiously without abrogating anyones human rights. Go figure.
Here is someone to look up to. Someone heroic who gave her life in pursuit of rights for others instead of taking the lives of others because of her completely justified fear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fadime_Sahindal
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/02/04/sweden.sahindal/
It is a harrowing story, and I can guess in advance that you will draw completely different conclusions to mine. Ah well, one can only hope:-/
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
113. Comment #83438 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 3:29 am
Fanusi, seems your backlash against Islam has some supporters...Horrifying stuff, but I don't believe the article endorsed executions and mass deportations did it?
I'm not sure what the deal is in Britian, but religious hate speech in Sweden is hate speech regardless. A fundamentalist spent jail time for prattling on about the abomination of homosexuality. I would expect the same thing for those inciting people to murder in Britian? No?
I suppose it gets fuzzier when it comes to printed material that is generally available. Tricky. These guys aren't doing themselves (or those of us keeping things rational) any favours, thats for sure.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
114. Comment #83439 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 3:37 am
Walid Shoebat said it best: "We looking at not just one, but up to fifty-three Nazi germanies if these guys get their way." To which I can add that at least one of these, and probably others, will be nuclear armed, and they all will have millions of supporters in Western Democracies.Classic! How does he work this out? By taking the population of Germany in 1933 (the global population at the time was about 2 billion) and dividing it into 1.5 billion. I bet that is how he created this soundbite. How stupid do you have to be to fall for this stuff? Ah ... kids:-)
End of credibility. Next bullshit story please:-)
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
115. Comment #83443 by GoatBoy36 on October 30, 2007 at 3:57 am
Wow, try downloading the full document from that Adobe link earlier on, and go down to page 31 and start reading ...At the Muslim Cultural Heritage Centre (www.almanaar.org.uk) in London, material was found to be available which was "devoted entirely to the issue of separation and the antipathy between Muslims and western society. Its title is a variant on the concept of loyalty and dissociation, which is a regular feature of this material. According to this text: separation is mandatory; jihad is the struggle against the enemies of Islam (ie all unbelievers); showing favour to non-believers is enough to make a Muslim an apostate - they are to be hated; it is treachery to join the army of a non-Muslim state; it is recommended that a conscripted Muslim should do nothing in battle; and to see anything good in other religions is enough to make a Muslim an apostate and worthy of death; there are grave dangers in loving non-believers. Throughout, there is total contempt for all that is unIslamic. (pages 31, 32)
Other Comments by GoatBoy36
116. Comment #83447 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 4:07 am
115. Comment #83443 by GoatBoy36 on October 30, 2007 at 3:57 amWow, try downloading the full document from that Adobe link earlier on, and go down to page 31 and start reading ...
Some people are complete nutjobs. No contest. The question is what do we do about that?
Do you have a course of action you think sensible Goatboy? Genuine question. Should such material be banned, it's possession considered a criminal offence?
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
117. Comment #83449 by epeeist on October 30, 2007 at 4:13 am
Comment #83443 by GoatBoy36
Wow, try downloading the full document from that Adobe link earlier on, and go down to page 31 and start reading ...
Yes - loathsome, but I don't think anybody is disputing that, nor are they disputing that something needs to be done about it.
Nor I suspect do we want to be quiet about the fact that this is simply not acceptable. Lifting up the stone and exposing the nastiness underneath to the daylight is to be encouraged.
Where Brian and I differ from Fanusi (and I assume Brian will correction me if I get his position wrong) is in the action that needs to be taken. As far as I am concerned it needs tackling at the political, diplomatic and educational levels.
The King of Saudi Arabia is visiting the UK at the moment. Personally I am not in favour of the visit, but now he is here it needs to be made clear to him that the funding of extremists by his government is unacceptable, that the funding of mosques and madrassas will not be allowed, nor will Wahabi imams be allowed into the country.
Other Comments by epeeist
118. Comment #83452 by epeeist on October 30, 2007 at 4:19 am
Comment #83447 by briancoughlanworldcitizenShould such material be banned, it's possession considered a criminal offence?
Personally I wouldn't ban it, it would just go underground.
What I would do is prosecute at least the authors (assuming they actually live here in the UK) and make sure there was a lot of publicity about why the prosecution was being made.
The one thing I do agree with Fanusi about is the equivocation shown by the "moderate" organisations and their spokesman. What they spout is just a variant on the "not my god" argument. They need to be placed in a position where they cannot equivocate, where they have to come out and say that what is being said in their name is both morally wrong and illegal, i.e. that they accept that the mores and laws of the country they live in are paramount.
Other Comments by epeeist
119. Comment #83454 by GoatBoy36 on October 30, 2007 at 4:22 am
"The issue for me is not about harm to individuals, clearly individuals can act as they please .." - brianThat's not exactly clear. You appear to be saying that you're not bothered about terrorists blowing up buses, or about the murder of individuals (like Theo van Goch). That' can't be right. I mean, I don't want to read you "too literally" or anything ..
"I must insist, intent is completely irrelevant unless coupled with capacity." - brian
That says nothing at all to undermine my previous argument, that the capacity of Islamic terrorists to act is inextricably linked to the resistance they meet (resistance put up by their enemies - ie. us). So my original argument stands.
"Certainly we must take robust and sensible steps to minimise the risks we run from fanatics" - brian.
As I said.
"... but as anyone can see the correlation between an increase in terrorism and the Iraq war is pretty inescapable [...] there are no easy outs, and the "hit them with everything we've got" meme is exactly that. An easy deceptive out which will end in millions of deaths. Though you don't seem to be proposing that I hasten to add. Still why even appear to be going to bat on behalf of Fanusi? I find that puzzling I have to say." - brian
brian, I wish you would stick to what has actually been said (by me anyway). I shouldn't have to waste my time pointing out the obvious: I said nothing about the Iraq war, I said nothing about hitting people with everything we've got (and absolutely nowhere did I employ what appears to be your *own* favourite word genocide, and I definitely never used the expression "culling" or anything like it - let's just lay that out here and now), and if you can't take on board the points I'm making for their own sake, without going on and on and on to me about what F said & what he didn't say, well I guess that's going to have to be your problem & not mine.
gb.
ps. just read your last post, I'll get back to you on that, I've been doing a night shift & got to get some shut eye right now ... I'm thinking though of the passage in John Stuart Mill where he talks about the crowd outside a corn dealer's house ... I'll look it up later.
Other Comments by GoatBoy36
120. Comment #83458 by GoatBoy36 on October 30, 2007 at 4:45 am
"A last resort which will be precipitated inevitably by your list of draconian first resorts. Summary executions, wholesale deportations ... can you say Dachau?" - brian, post 105."Certainly we should be uncompromising in prosecuting apostate killings or honour killings with the full rigour of the law. Sweden is a good example of where this happens, curiously without abrogating anyones human rights. Go figure." - brian, post 112.
You seem to be saying on the one hand that it's ok to prosecute people for breaking the law, and on the other hand you're saying that it shouldn't be done "wholesale". Well, ok. But surely legal deportations would only be "wholesale" if there were a lot of people committing the offence carrying that penalty? And if there weren't, then it wouldn't be.
There have been a few people prosecuted in the UK for shit stirring, not many to the best of my knowledge, but that lad with the hooky hand was done not long ago for example. I think he's in Belmarsh jail. A far cry from Dachau.
I notice that you continually use Nazi references in your posts btw; do you not think that the attitudes of some of the real badboy Muslims, mentioned in that report by the policy exchange for example, all that anti-Semitism, and the continual use of anti-Semitic propoganda in Muslim newspapers etc, is very like the Nazis? I provided a link to that 1hr long movie Obsession earlier - they make that point quite well. As someone said in that film, jihad means struggle - and so does Mein Kampf! See those photos of the octopus though .. quite bad really. And from what I can make out, such cartoons are not uncommon throughout the Muslim world.
Try drawing a picture of their beloved prophet though ... see where that gets you.
gb.
Other Comments by GoatBoy36
121. Comment #83459 by GoatBoy36 on October 30, 2007 at 4:57 am
"SUCH being the reasons which make it imperative that human beings should be free to form opinions, and to express their opinions without reserve; and such the baneful consequences to the intellectual, and through that to the moral nature of man, unless this liberty is either conceded, or asserted in spite of prohibition; let us next examine whether the same reasons do not require that men should be free to act upon their opinions--to carry these out in their lives, without hindrance, either physical or moral, from their fellow-men, so long as it is at their own risk and peril. This last proviso is of course indispensable. No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavorable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. But if he refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, and merely acts according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself, the same reasons which show that opinion should be free, prove also that he should be allowed, without molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost. That mankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable, and diversity not an evil, but a good, until mankind are much more capable than at present of recognizing all sides of the truth, are principles applicable to men's modes of action, not less than to their opinions. As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. Where, not the person's own character, but the traditions of customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress." - (John Stuart Mill, Ch 3, "On Liberty".)That's the relevant passage, I'd write something about it but I'm afraid my night shift has finally caught up with me ..
gb.
Other Comments by GoatBoy36
122. Comment #83463 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 5:09 am
"The issue for me is not about harm to individuals, clearly individuals can act as they please .." - brianThat's not exactly clear. You appear to be saying that you're not bothered about terrorists blowing up buses, or about the murder of individuals (like Theo van Goch). That' can't be right. I mean, I don't want to read you "too literally" or anything ..
Not at all. Simply. If an individual belonging to a particular group behaves like a lunatic, it does not fellow that everyone in the same group will behave likewise. You are reading me to literally, Stop it:-) I'll endeavour to be clearer, and respond to your questions rather than Fanusi's which is partially what I'm doing. Sorry:-)
I notice that you continually use Nazi references in your posts btw; do you not think that the attitudes of some of the real badboy Muslims, mentioned in that report by the policy exchange for example, all that anti-Semitism, and the continual use of anti-Semitic propoganda in Muslim newspapers etc, is very like the Nazis?
They are practically indistinguishable. Nonetheless our response must be be informed by the scale of the threat, not the delusions of grandeur of some muslims. Don't you agree?
I find much of what Fanusi (for example) posts, or the contents of jihad watch, very similar in tone, content and spittle flecked hysteria to Nazi propaganda too. Both parties have a group whom they demonise and despise, and both have a list of terrible "remedies" they wish to impose. On balance I find the worst of islamic fundamentalism worse than Fanusi and Co., but they indisputably lack the means to carry out their more demented dreams. Should a majority of westerners ever be convinced of the case for war, the results would be terrible indeed. Hence I actually consider "our" extremists more of a longterm danger than "theirs", to humanity generally. In immediate terms Islamic terrorists obviously present the most significant threat (but not existential!!) to us. The reality is that they are symbiotically linked to each other, with each outrage feeding and reinforcing the stereotypes, and hardening the attitudes. Thats a worry.
In addition, the Islamic world is not a monolithic block, if it where the "Caliphate" would already exist, and we might actually have something serious to contend with. Still though, given the relevant strengths of the parties we would prevail with casualty ratios somwhere between Iraq and Vietnam. That is to say 30 to 100 to 1, and there would still (this will give Fanusi apoplexy I'm sure) be some room for avoiding a general war. After all India, China and Russia are all natural allies in this particular fight. Although I hasten to add, what will actually happen in a major war is almost impossible to predict, still there are only 1.5 billion of "them" and 5 billion of "us", in principle.
Try drawing a picture of their beloved prophet though ... see where that gets you.
I have always said, and you'll find my posts on this site from months back saying this, that it was a mistake to pander to that kind of blackmail. Every newspaper in the western world should have published those pictures.
My policy on the subject of Islam has been, for some years now, full spectrum mockery and denigration. To bear this out, a fairly cring worthy youtube of mine from 6 months ago, but the point still stands:-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jC7qxSKTAw
Nice quote On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. I read it on your recommendation some months back. Excellent stuff:-)
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
123. Comment #83478 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 30, 2007 at 6:19 am
I welcome the reduction in your position from execution to expulsion
I wonder whether brian will ever deal with what I have actually written, instead of making up nonsense in order to attribute it to me. I never advocated the death penalty for supporting Shariah, and any reasonable person who reads my posts will appreciate that.
I advocate the death penalty for jihadists, on the grounds that they are mass murderers and traitors. Abu Hamza, the nutjob with a hook, is an example. We know that he advocates violent jihad and urged his followers on. This is something that deserves the death penalty. I make no apologies for saying that. Here's a parallel: when a mob boss orders one of his subordinates to kill someone, he may be justly charged with murder.
I also pointed out that there is no alternative for such individuals. Deportation and they will stir up trouble elsewhere. Not to mention that they are usually so crazy that even countries like Saudi Arabia doesn't want them. Imprisonment? Does anyone in their right mind believe that Abu Hamza is not busy making recruits in prison, and spreading his doctrine? And that those recruits will continue jihad once they get out?
brian routinely distorts my positions, and engages in the worst kind of blood-libel (comparisons with the Nazis and so forth). I notice that he has also chosen to include groups like JihadWatch; anyone who even remotely bothers to read that site knows this is nonsense.
I have trouble dealing with people who simply lie. Not interpret, not simply pick facts to suit them, but just plain lie.
-------------------------------------------
Oh yeah, in reference to the telegraph article Goldy posted, Robert Spencer gives an accurate assesment:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018612.php#comments
As he points out, what people are worried about is found throughout the Qur'an and Hadith. Which reminds me, Goatboy thanks for the articles. However, they, again, don't confrom the real problem. Take the following quotes:
"Jihad against a tyrant, oppressors, people of bid'ah [Muslim innovators], or wrongdoers. This type of jihad is best done through force if possible."
* "The Jews and the Christians are the enemies of the Muslim."
* "Whoever changes his religion, kill him."
This is utterly mainstream Islamic teaching. Points 1 and 3 are direct quotes from the Hadith, and point 2 is repeated throughout the Qur'an. The report goes on to recommend some policies, such as:
The Saudi Arabian government must be told to stop distributing extremist literature in Britain or else risk its good relations. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is currently on a state visit to the UK and the British government should address this matter directly with him.
ii) Mosques and other Islamic institutions must act immediately to remove extremist literature from their premises.
Okay, how's this supposed to work? Saudi Arabia is going to stop printing and exporting Qur'ans and ahadith collections? Mosques will stop housing the same? Come on, people. This is ridiculous. If reports like this one continue to ignore the roots of these 'extremist' ideas, their recommendations will continue to be futile and worse than futile.
The article is headed 'the hijacking of British Islam'. How the hell can the Qur'an and Hadith be 'hijacking' Islam? We can pretend all we want, but the jihadists just laugh. They know they have theological justification, and they keep on making recruits based on this.
On which note, epeeist,
Yes - loathsome, but I don't think anybody is disputing that, nor are they disputing that something needs to be done about it.
Okay, what? What do you suggest? The ball is in your court. What, exactly, should be done?
I've argued for sensible law enforcement and immigrations restrictions, coupled with an aggressive media campaign, that will stop this contamination from spreading and promote apostasy amongst sensible Muslims. Believe me, once open support for Shariah earns you a one way trip to Saudi Arabia, its supporters will drop rather quickly. But I'm willing to hear some other suggestions. Out with it.
N.B.: epeeist I will, with your permission, debate with you here.
I would also like to point out that you can either deal with people who think like me now, or with the considerably milder writers of JihadWatch, or something alot worse later. I have pointed out again and again what will happen if we see CBN terrorism. Let me expand on that: what kind of political parties will rise? It's obvious; in Europe it will be the far right, quasi-fascist parties (such as the BNP in Britain), while in America it will be the most extreme Christian hardliners. If this goes on, the next Pope will be named Urban.
As Sam Harris notes:
Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies
...
The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.
To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.
Some of us are able to see this, and hope that it can be prevented. And some try to put spokes in the wheels.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
124. Comment #83480 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 6:38 am
I have trouble dealing with people who simply lie. Not interpret, not simply pick facts to suit them, but just plain lie.I think you will find the consensus against you on this one. Thanks for the clarification though, it helps to erode what little credibility you might have.
It's obvious; in Europe it will be the far right, quasi-fascist parties (such as the BNP in Britain), while in America it will be the most extreme Christian hardliners. If this goes on, the next Pope will be named Urban.
Exactly what I've always said. These guys are a far greater threat, and eminently more electable than Muslims!!! Once elected, well, the path has been trodden before. We agree! The real threat is in fact a resurgent European fascism. Wow! Eye to eye at last:-)
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
125. Comment #83487 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 30, 2007 at 7:23 am
The real threat is in fact a resurgent European fascism.
No, it isn't. Anyone who thinks that the BNP is even remotely equivalent to the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir is fooling themselves. I don't like characters like the BNP one little bit, and still less do I like Pat Robertson et al in America, but these are nohing like the totalitarian nightmare of Islam. You're fooling yourself if you think differently.
The threat is that, thanks to people like you, countries like Britain will be faced by a choice between rule by the BNP or slavery to Shariah.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
126. Comment #83490 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 7:38 am
No, it isn't. Anyone who thinks that the BNP is even remotely equivalent to the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir is fooling themselves. I don't like characters like the BNP one little bit, and still less do I like Pat Robertson et al in America, but these are nohing like the totalitarian nightmare of Islam. You're fooling yourself if you think differently.They are both totalitarian. The only difference is that given enough credence to your point of view, the BNP could actually be elected. If people are sufficiently spooked by Islamic fundamentalism. A muslim political party will never come to power in our lifetime, can we agree on that? Or do you see a scenario in the next say 50 years where that might happen?
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
127. Comment #83542 by Janus on October 30, 2007 at 11:26 am
I don't have much to contribute to this thread, but I have to say that briancoughlanworldcitizen's repeated misrepresentations of Fanusi Khiyal's opinion strongly remind me of the kind of stuff that's found in reviews of The God Delusion. They make it painfully obvious that the person in question only understands what he wants to understand.Other Comments by Janus
128. Comment #83588 by Goldy on October 30, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Well, that fire flared up a tad :-)Goatboy, yes, it is a shower I am making. Converted a garage to a flat and like to practise there before usingthe skills upstairs in the main house :-) Shower looks good - at the grouting stage now - silicon is all pretty dry. Hard, though, got a 2 year old daughter and need to spend time wit her while wife helps out a frind who's had twins.
Back on topic, the fact that these articles are being printed and that immigration is being seriously discussed in parliament leads me to suggest that there is something being done. As Brian says often, this is a tiny minority that is causing the fuss - now we have 2 different papers mentioning things that are anti-Islam (and read yesterdays Independent for Saud's visit - hardly complimentary!). The cartoon fiasco horrified quite a few Muslims too (if the BBC HYS was anything to go by) and we have a seemingly growing number of ex Muslim aathiests/converts (well, they feel safe enough to "come out"...mostly). And look at the fuss in Koln regarding the building of a mosque - or even the feelings in Clitheroe (I think it was...) about a simple mosque.
Things are happening - just read the press and guage the current feelings. Maybe not a Powellian rivers of blood scenario, but the public is, I believe, tiring of Islam and their demands
Other Comments by Goldy
129. Comment #83592 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 1:56 pm
127. Comment #83542 by Janus on October 30, 2007 at 11:26 ambriancoughlanworldcitizen's repeated misrepresentations of Fanusi Khiyal's opinion strongly remind me of the kind of stuff that's found in reviews of The God Delusion. They make it painfully obvious that the person in question only understands what he wants to understand.
He rubs me up the wrong way no question, but thanks for your comment sometimes a dash of cold water is required for reflection. Not that I agree, but pause for thought is always good.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
130. Comment #83593 by annabanana on October 30, 2007 at 1:59 pm
While I am not nearly as informed and researched about all of this as Fanusi and Brian seem to be, I am very interested in the debate and have been following it as much as possible.I think that the appropriate stance on the matter lies somewhere in between what Fanusi and Brian think. On the one side of the spectrum Fanusi seems certain that world war is eminent if we don't act immediately and rather rashly while Brian is a little too confident that nothing will come of the Muslim fundamentalism and that we will be infringing on Muslims' rights if we do anything aimed at a particular culture.
One thing that I think needs to be taken into consideration and that I think Fanusi has said in not so many words is that if one's rights, for instance practicing orthodox Islam, infringe on another's rights like living as an apostate without fear of death, then those rights are no longer permissible.
Something that came to my mind in reading all of this is Elie Weisel's book Night in which he talks of his people being more or less seduced into believing that everything would be okay because things occurred more gradually rather than suddenly and before they knew it, they were being led off to the concentration camp. This is something to think about when thinking about both points of view. On the one hand, we don't want to be Hitler-esque in our treatment of people of the Islamic culture, but on the other hand we don't want to be so pacifistic that we are seduced into thinking that we are safe and end up being massacred.
Now for the love of the make-believe old man in the sky, Fanusi, can you please find another synonym for the words "blood libel". I think you have far surpassed the acceptable amount of times that you could use that phrase and I'm tired of reading it. :) I understand that you feel that you have been defamed and calumniated, but there are plenty of other words you could use that don't make you sound so sanguinary.
Now I'm sure I'll be strung up by my toes by someone that feels that I have grossly misrepresented or miscalculated their views.
Other Comments by annabanana
131. Comment #83608 by Vinelectric on October 30, 2007 at 3:57 pm
AnnabananaBrian's doing a good job by engaging the morbidly agitated Fanusi. It's good to see the latter refrain from articulating his genocidal fantasies.
Anyhow the same report that Fanusi often misquotes (overall 28% of British muslims prefer to live under sharia law) also says the following:
59% feel they have as much, if not more, in common with non-Muslims in the UK as with Muslims abroad.
21% have consumed alcohol. 65% have paid interest on a normal mortgage. 19 % have gambled. 9 % have admitted to taking drugs.
Do you expect that mouthful but practically watered down version of Islam to pose a serious threat to Europe? Maybe Sam Harris has a point, the danger is that the moderate majority would continue to foster extremists. But have you seen the Muslim Council of Britain's recent newspaper statements condeming terrorism or have you witnessed ex-Hizbut Tahrir activistis sharing information on public television in the UK?
Lend no ears to the twisted right wing propaganda.
http://www.eukn.org/eukn/themes/Urban_Policy/Social_inclusion_and_integration/Integration_of_social_groups/living-apart-together_1115.html
Other Comments by Vinelectric
132. Comment #83635 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 30, 2007 at 6:21 pm
I do not have that much time, and I will therefore refute yet another of the smears against me:
Anyhow the same report that Fanusi often misquotes (overall 28% of British muslims prefer to live under sharia law) also says the following
My data come from a series of ICM surveys, first in March 2004, the next in November 2004, and then again in September 2005. Actually, these paint an even bleaker picture, with a 61% support for Shariah.
In the process of digging up these polling results, I came across the one you're going on about, the GfK NOP social research one. Please make the cognitive leap of working out that more than one person is interested in the attitudes of British Muslims, before you accuse me of misquoting.
But in any case, let me tie my hands behind my back here. Okay, only 28% are avowed supporters of a National Socialist style theocratic dictatorship. We're now supposed to relax?
59% feel they have as much, if not more, in common with non-Muslims in the UK as with Muslims abroad.
I wish this made me feel better. But the statistic is meaningless, as we know that both the 7/7 terrorists and the more recent Doctor's Plot were both carried through by utterly integrated Muslims.
As for 'watered down', Britain has, for decades, been giving asylum to characters so nuts that even places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia don't want them. This is 'watered down'?
Finally, this is something that irritates me intensely:
Lend no ears to the twisted right wing propaganda
Okay, what exactly is 'right wing' about this? I am reminded of Mark Steyn being humerous about a very unfunny situation: "This should be a leftist agenda. I'm a 'social conservative'. When the Mullahs take over, I'll grow out my beard, get a couple extra wives, and keep my head down. It's the feminists and the gays who'll have a tougher time of it."
Of course, these days, any concern about human rights, unless its about the human rights of convicted terrorists, is a 'right wing' agenda. Will someone please explain to me how that happened?
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
133. Comment #83682 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Of course, these days, any concern about human rights, unless its about the human rights of convicted terrorists, is a 'right wing' agenda. Will someone please explain to me how that happened? This is just the same self serving nonsense we hear from "the right" all the time. Many of the people protesting human rights abuses now, have been doing so for years, while the cheerleaders for the Iraq war (for example) were oblivious (or actively supporting crimes) for decades prior to their current faux hand wringing.
When SH was torturing the Kurds in the 80's did you protest? When the French began nuclear testing in the pacific in the 90's did you protest?
I'm guessing a no on both fronts. I also had a trawl around the internet to refresh my memory with specific examples from the last time we crossed swords. Guess what a gusher of depravity I struck? Holyeeee Shit. You keep some fairly unpleasant company, and enjoy a good laugh about all this when amongst your "own".
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?p=1738
If this is actually you, then you are a duplicitous and perhaps even marginally dangerous individual.
If you are actually a molecular biologist, and I have no reason to doubt your claims on this front, your posts on evolution on some these sites are lucid and devastating, then you are a genuine danger. If you would seriously consider independently manufacturing some kind of biological weapon as you seem to suggest here :
Hey, I'll back you up on this one. Oh, note to the Slaves of Allah: The Emperor may well be one of the most strident of civilisation's voices, while I am something of a very small fish, but I'm a Molecular Biologist. Do you care to imagine what would happen if I chose to spend a few weeks in the lab and set the results loose in your heartlands? Oh, and I'm not the only one who is a MolBiologist and thinks this way.
Do _not_ fuck with us.
Comment Posted By Fanusi Khiyal On 15.12.2006 @ 14:02
Then you are dangerous indeed. I wonder if this doesn't constitute some sort of ethical breach?
You have repeatedly accused me of hyperbole, and outright lies. Well here is someone who seems awfully like you, just you know, a hundred times worse, who seems to be using your moniker of choice to say some pretty horrible stuff. The combination of atheist, molecular biologist and rightwing lunatic is pretty uncommon. However, an outright denial would have to be taken at face value.
I never dreamed I would meet a German who held your views. I lived in Germany for 4 years, and they are people who have always had tremendous respect for international and regional institutions, and a deep sense of the weight of their history. People who had learned, at an almost genetic level, that war was the wrong choice in practically every situation. Well you've ruined that rosy picture:-(
You are persona non grata in my book going forward. I've got you pegged, and anyone who reads this stuff, and your enthusiastic comments will have you pegged too. No hand wringing here.
Unless you'd like to deny that these are your postings, and repudiate them utterly?
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?p=1734
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?page_id=1536&stats_author=Fanusi+Khiyal
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?page_id=1536&stats_author=Fanusi+Khiyal&stats_page=3
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
134. Comment #83697 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 31, 2007 at 1:25 am
I notice that brian has joined the ranks of those with a perverse, and somewhat sinister obsession about me. Of course, I can wonder what's wrong with cheering on Ethiopia's destruction of the Taliban forces of Somalia, who had called for jihad against Ethiopia. But then again, this would require a minimum standard of honesty and reading comprehension on Brian's part. Anyway, I think I will turn to ignoring him for the moment, since there isn't anything to be gained with this level of disconnect from reality.Although, I do enjoy being thought of as 'dangerous'. It must be my rakish charm. ;-) And 'Marginally Dangerous' would make a great t-shirt...
But will someone please explain to me what makes people want to go and dig up data on me? It is getting a little creepy, the obsession certain characters have for me.
----------------------------
Vinelectric I am hoping you can respond to why a concern about Islamic totalitarianism is inherently 'right wing'? That actually, reminds me of a comment that you can see if you browse the lasts of brians links, and go to the second page. I was being loudly condemned as 'left wing' because of my support for ES cell work.
This is really not a right- or left-wing thing. It's about anyone who has some concern for the future of civilisation.
I didn't have time to address any further points, but one does leap out at me:
Muslim Council of Britain's recent newspaper statements condeming terrorism
You hear this alot. It's a meaningless statement. Define 'terrorism'. I assure you, there are plenty of the most radical Imams who will happily explain that jihad isn't terrorism, because, you see, terrorism is the deliberate killing of innocent civilians, and non-Muslims are by definition not innocent.
I'm more concerned about the MCB raising cain about the 'Undercover Mosque' documentary. With respect, given the Islamic practice of taqqiya it is difficult to know which statements to trust.
***************
edit I note that brian over here has decided to change his post after I had replied to it, in order to selectively splice together my comments from elsewhere. That someone is willing to dig up my comments from over a year ago, on a site devoted to rants, and to furthermore select only one such comment, and to then edit his post after a reply has been posted - I think that this says a great deal about brian's somewhat creepy and twisted mental state.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
135. Comment #83699 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 1:30 am
Yeah. I'm done.Dude. You are exposed as a cunning, articulate and willful propagandist, who has repeatedly disembelled and misrepresented the depth of their depravity, knowing how it would appall and outrage. I have nothing left to say to you. I'm just hanging around to hear what other people have to say.
Post, edit, say whatever you like. You'll never hear directly from me again. That I promise.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
136. Comment #83837 by GoatBoy36 on October 31, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Brian,I'm glad you enjoyed reading Mill's "On Liberty". Mill himself was a very interesting fellow, and that particular book of his is one of the classic texts on personal freedom. I don't know if you've ever seen Christopher Hitchens' talk at a university in Toronto (I believe it is) which was floating about the internet for a while, but he mentions "On Liberty" by Mill, just as he's getting warmed up.
You will recall that Mill advances four different arguments for freedom of speech, one of these being "the partly true argument". Mill argues that an "heretical opinion" often confronts "the received opinion" as an enemy, and sets itself up as the whole truth, for "in the human mind, one-sidedness has always been the rule, and many-sidedness the exception". Nevertheless, an opinion which turn out to be largely in error may still contain a portion of the truth, "which the common opinion omits" and which "ought to be considered precious". As Mill puts it: "No sober judge of human affairs will feel bound to be indignant because those who force on our notice truths which we should otherwise have overlooked, overlook some of those which we see."
Although you obviously disagree with what you think F's fundamental position is, or perhaps what you think the consequences of F's fundamental position would be, could one not say here that it would be fruitful to apply's Mill's argument to what has been written? If I may just give one example of what I mean: F's post no. 54 on this thread is quite excellent, and (I think) well worth reading. It also seems to me that if you believe that there will never be a united Islamic threat, and that there will never be enough Muslims in European countries to significantly alter our political power structures, then what you think the consequences of F's position would be will actually never happen. If one believes this to be the case, could one not therefore adopt a relaxed attitude to an "heretical opinion" which says otherwise, and think of Mill's argument?
I have become entangled with individual posters on one or two message boards in the last few years, and I know how seductive the idea of "winning" such tussles can be. (Does anyone remember the Christian who haunted several atheist sites called "Abby Aaron"? I had a running battle with "her" which went on for ages.) But I don't know if this kind of thing does you any good; it can take up far too much of you time; it can even impact on your personal life (late nights, lack of sleep etc.).
I did watch one or two of your videos on you tube, and quite enjoyed them. I really don't think you and I are all that far apart really. My worry is not so much that there will be a whole heap of Muslims coming to live in the NE of Scotland and that a jihadi candidate will be voted in ahead of the SNP! But I do worry about the way our own country is run, and the difficulty we have in discussing religious issues openly. I would like us all to be able to criticise Islam, whenever we want to, and however we want to. And if some Mohammedans do not like it when that happens, that's too bad. As you so eloquently put it in your video: "Lads, you just have to get used to this shit."
You talked in one of your videos about reaching out to help Muslims, and from my own perspective, one of the best things we could do for them is tell them what we think of their religion. We should also support and encourage (as you say) people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the others mentioned at the beginning of this thread who leave Islam - and then try to talk about why they did so. I believe we are more or less in agreement here.
One wonders though, how much good that would do. Again referring to Mill, you'll remember that he limits the scope of his arguments, when he says that societies living in "backward states" where "not the person's own character but the traditions or customs of other people are the rule of conduct" and where "there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress" are exempt from what he is trying to say. Mill also notes that "so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about that religious freedom has hardly anywhere been practically realised, except where religious indifference, which dislikes to have its peace disturbed by theological quarrels, has added its weight to the scale." And talking again of religious belief: "Wherever the sentiment of the majority is still genuine and intense, it is found to have abated little of its claim to be obeyed." It might be difficult to persuade a follower of the Islamic faith that he or she is in error. But I think we must find a way to let people live up to Mill's ideas here in the West (if I can put it like that) and show that we are indeed "human beings in the maturity of our faculties" and that we are "capable of being improved by free and equal discussion".
I spoke earlier about the way one's capacity to act is linked to the resistance put in front of one by other people. I'll just argue for that a little bit here, by bringing in Berlin's concept of negative freedom: "The extent of a man's negative liberty is, as it were, a function of what doors, and how many are open to him; upon what prospects they open; and how open they are." And again: "The freedom of which I speak is opportunity for action, rather than action itself." If I parked my car across your drive, I would be stopping you from getting to your work. You might be signed off with the flu, and have no intention of going to your work today - but that door is no longer open to you in any event. The government in whatever country you live in at the moment might make striking illegal. You might have no intention of going on strike - but that door is now closed to you. When discussing Berlin, the philosopher Nigel Warburton points out what is obviously the case: "Other people limit our freedom by what they do." The capacity of Islamic terrorists to act is inexorably linked to our own actions. Those who would see Ayaan Hirsi Ali dead find that door closed to them, because the West has taken steps to close it.
Mill argued that only if one's actions violated his "Harm Principle" could a government legitimately use "compulsion and control" - only if "the conduct from which it is desired to deter him [is] calculated to produce evil to someone else". I think there are obvious cases when one is violating the Harm Principle (murdering Theo van Goch for example) but it is a fuzzy concept nevertheless, and there are undoubtedly gray areas. (See thon previous passage, about the crowd outside the corn dealer's house.) While one could argue that there should be limits upon how far any Western government should be allowed to go in acting against people who might present a threat to its citizens, and that there should be limits in how their intelligence services and polices forces conduct themselves, one thing I feel strongly about is that no Western government should ever prevent, or discourage, its own citizens from talking out about the religion of the men who have now carried out several terrorist attacks upon us. Mill also notes that society can "practice a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression" and I think that this too needs to be recognised. Speaking out against Islam may carry no legal penalties as such, but the prevailing social atmosphere may make it tremendously difficult to do so openly. Again one need only read the article at the beginning of this thread to see this is so. So I think that we need to work to develop an atmosphere in our own countries where we ourselves can criticize Islam without being labelled as racist (ridiculous!) or Islamaphobic (what does that even mean?). We also need to work with those people who leave Islam. Again going back to Mill, one could argue that if other Muslims see that it is indeed possible to leave the Islamic religion, and live a prosperous and happy life into the bargain, then they are more likely to do just that - if that's what they want.
They should certainly be free to do so, here in the West at any rate. To use Berlin's terminology, that door should be open to them - here. That, surely, is the point of this thread.
gb.
Other Comments by GoatBoy36
137. Comment #84234 by GoatBoy36 on November 1, 2007 at 1:15 pm
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gPYVC3gb4fpmhjV9KYRA_AUAS4Gw"At this point, jihad is all we need. There is no political process we can be involved in unless we get a government practicing Sharia." - Shiekh Mukhtar Robow.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/22/wqaeda122.xml
"The Horn now ranks alongside the Middle East as the area of greatest concern to British counter-terrorism officials, coming second only to Pakistan, where al-Qa'eda's core leaders are ensconced.
Al-Qa'eda operatives based in the Horn, probably in the failed state of Somalia, could choose to target Britain, which has a large Somali community. Of the four men convicted for the failed bomb attacks in London on 21 July 2005, all were from the Horn and two were of Somali origin.
A few young Britons are also known to have travelled to Somalia in order to fight for the country's Islamist extremists. Meanwhile, al-Qa'eda may also strike in Kenya, which is filled with Western targets ranging from tourists to embassies."
I certainly don't know much about Somalian politics; I do remember reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's account of her childhood, and of her surprise on arriving in the West at how peaceful and prosperous everything was, which kind of tells you what Somalia wasn't.
From what I read on that "doggie" thread, Fanusi was cheering on a military victory against Islamic forces in Africa - big deal.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-13559431,00.html?f=rss
gb.
Other Comments by GoatBoy36
138. Comment #84249 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 2:28 pm
While one could argue that there should be limits upon how far any Western government should be allowed to go in acting against people who might present a threat to its citizens, and that there should be limits in how their intelligence services and polices forces conduct themselves, one thing I feel strongly about is that no Western government should ever prevent, or discourage, its own citizens from talking out about the religion of the men who have now carried out several terrorist attacks upon us. Mill also notes that society can "practice a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression" and I think that this too needs to be recognised.This is the distillate of your lengthy post, and I concur with all of it. The upshot is that Fanusi is, and should continue to be, free to post and say what he likes, and I am likewise free to challenge it.
Where I do disagree with you strongly is your response to the "doggie" site posts. You dismiss this far too casually. In the rabid environment of that site, Fanusi presents an abandon and downright relish for the idea of muslims being killed.
The civilised world has had its hands tied completely behind its back. Our troops are supposed to do everything up to and including giving Qur'ans to these fucks. On the other hand, they use every dirty, miserable, cowardly trick in the book. And we are still kicking their asses!
Just wait until the gloves come off. Wait until one of these scum drops a nuke, or fires a chemical weapon. Then the West will wake up. Then these scum will be destroyed in a few years.
Comment Posted By Fanusi Khiyal On 21.07.2006 @ 14:49
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?p=1088
Is it not clear that he and I believe exactly the same thing about the relative strength of the west versus the Islamic world? That we are not at all poised on the brink of extinction? For this reason I fear a confrontation, because of the many innocent deaths that would be incurred in the Islamic world. For the same reason he is eager for it. He hates these people with an abiding passion, a burning fervour and we now see with a calculation that is downright disturbing. To me at least.
No. Fanusi has been deliberately deceptive about what he thinks the best "solution" is. He argues (on the Dawkins site) for action because it will "save more lives", not because he believes this, but because it is a suitably engaging fiction that makes people here think he, like them, is genuinely interested in a solution that minimises misery..
I don't see how the tone of his posts here, and there can be reconciled except to cast him as duplicitous in the way I have described.
So I'm sorry, but I must vehemently disagree with you on that score.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
139. Comment #84263 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 1, 2007 at 3:16 pm
*dryly* I have noticed that our friend brian continues with his morbid obsession about me. What I find absolutely fascinating here is this:Because of a few comments, that are obviously rants, made by me over the course of years, brian thinks that I, poor private citizen, am, quote, 'dangerous', close-quote. However, he does not think that what is taught throughout the world, in every mosque and madrassah, day in and day out, is dangerous.
I ask you, what kind of reasoning is this? And I would like to know what powers brian's creepy obsession with me, unless it is an utter failure to deal with my facts?
In any case, I make no apologies for any rants that I have made, that have been driven by the utter frustration of watching the West desire to knuckle under to Islam ASAP. Helplessness is never a pleasant feeling.
I am intrigued however, that brian seems intent on morphing this from a discussion about the threat of Islam, to an evaluation of my moral character. I suppose that's one way of signalling a surrender on the field of reason, logic and evidence.
GoatBoy thanks for your kind words. I followed that particular ghastliness in Somalia rather closely.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
140. Comment #84302 by Goldy on November 1, 2007 at 5:01 pm
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3118764.eceSeems these are getting quite popular in the press!
Other Comments by Goldy
141. Comment #84807 by GoatBoy36 on November 3, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Brian,You originally provided a link to a post made by Fanusi on another board, in which he cheered a military victory against hard line Islamic forces in Africa.
I then provided a link to a Sky News article on that event, together with two more links showing how dangerous the Islamic forces out there appear to be. I also mentioned Ayaan Hirsi Ali's childhood in that same area, which she describes in some detail in her autobiography, "Infidel".
I said that I did not see what the problem was with someone saying they were pleased that that military operation had been successful. In response to that, you then tried to support your "anti-Fanusi" position by providing a link to a different post, which Fanusi made over a year ago, in which he said that our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq were fighting with one hand tied behind their backs, and that if Al Qaeda ever hit a Western city with a WMD, then the West would retaliate in a decisive and devastating manner.
When I read that, I was reminded of a book I recently listened to on my iPod: "Lone Survivor", by Marcus Luttrell. This is the story of a team of American Navy SEALs who landed right in the shit during an operation in Afghanistan.
Their mission was compromised, and they had to decide what to do with the locals who had discovered them, and who were in league with the enemy: eliminate them, or let them go and accept the dire consequences of being grassed up in hostile territory. The SEALs chose the latter course in order to avoid being persecuted by people in America who would undoubtedly take the view that a Navy SEAL had no business shooting someone, even to save his own life.
Luttrell was asked recently (on American TV) if he would make the same choice again, and he said that he would rather be in jail, if that meant that his buddies were still alive.
http://www.defenselink.mil/heroes/50heroes/luttrell.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Wing
http://www.armytimes.com/entertainment/books/military_luttrell_qanda_070618w/
Other Comments by GoatBoy36
142. Comment #84808 by GoatBoy36 on November 3, 2007 at 5:06 pm
part 2 ... (couldn't get the whole post accepted at once)I don't know if you are familiar with the "Flashman" novels, written by George MacDonald Fraser OBE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_MacDonald_Fraser
In his war memoirs, "Quartered Safe Out Here" Fraser argued in favour of using nuclear weapons against Japan in WWII. He said that if it would have saved just one allied life, then we should have dropped another one too. I'm afraid I can't give you the direct quote or the reference from the book, since I listened to it on tape, which I got from my local library (a while ago). The book is still available on Amazon though, in fact I think a new edition has just been published, should you wish to read it yourself.
It's worth mentioning here that not only did the other members of Luttrell's team lose their lives, a rescue chopper was shot down as well, as you can read here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/07/03/afghan.casualties/
You've criticised Fanusi for arguing that our troops are limited by their ROE, and for asserting that iff (if and only if) Al Qaeda ever managed to employ a WMD against Western civilians, then our political leaders would be less interested in placing restraints on our troops and prosecuting anyone who violates them. Fanusi also asserts that if that happened and "the gloves came off" then Al Qaeda and their supporters would be defeated by the West.
It is surely an undeniable fact that our armed forces have Rules of Engagement which limit what they are allowed to do on the ground. One can hardly criticise anyone for pointing this out. It also seems uncontroversial for one to assume that if Al Qaeda operatives ever set off a dirty bomb in the middle of London, then our politicians would suddenly adopt a more aggressive approach in their efforts to defeat "the base". And from that position, it is surely not illogical to believe that our armed forces would prevail, and Al Qaeda would ultimately be defeated.
It seems to me that anyone reading what Fanusi actually said in this new post you refer to, without any preconceptions based on your assertions about his moral condition or his emotional state, will acknowledge that far more forceful arguments were put forward by both Marcus Luttrell and George MacDonald Fraser. Personally, I would hesitate to criticise either of those two military men for advancing their own opinions about warfare. After all, they've been there, and know what it is like to be under fire, and they also know what it is like to lose comrades to an enemy that is both ruthless and unnecessarily cruel.
Other Comments by GoatBoy36
143. Comment #84809 by GoatBoy36 on November 3, 2007 at 5:07 pm
part 3 ..I have already mentioned "The Great Siege" by Ernle Bradford, which as it happens I am reading right now. At a crucial point in the siege of Malta in 1565, just as the invading Muslim forces were about to overwhelm the garrison of St. Michael on Senglea, Mustapha Pasha ordered his men to withdraw. "The wall, where only a few minutes before the Moslem banners had waved, was deserted. To the stupefaction of the Christians, the enemy began to withdraw at the very moment when they had felt unable to resist any longer. La Valette, who had been on the point of sending a handful of his own troops over from Birgu was as astonished as the rest. What could have caused Mustapha (Pasha) to call off his troops at such a time?" (Bradford, The Great Siege, Hodder & Stoughton, p. 174.)
"What had happened was this. Early that morning, the Chevalier Mesquita, Governor of Mdina, hearing the fury of bombardment, had conjectured that this could only mean another major assault against the two garrisons. Guessing - correctly as it proved - that the Turkish camp would only be lightly guarded, he had despatched his whole cavalry force to the Marsa under the command of the Chevalier de Lugny." (ibid., p. 175.)
The Turkish camp was utterly destroyed, the slaves, sick and wounded, all were killed. As Bradford notes, "It was a massacre." (ibid., p. 176.) When Mustapha Pasha found the remnants of the Muslim camp he swore "that when I take those citadels I will take no man. All, shall I put to the sword. Only their Grand Master will I take alive. Him alone I will lead in chains - to kneel at the feet of the Sultan!" (ibid., p. 176.)
Now some people might argue that the actions of the Christian forces in this instance were unacceptable. However two things need to be remembered here: their enemy was incredibly cruel, and utterly ruthless. When (earlier on) the Muslim forces finally managed to overcome St. Elmo, they showed this clearly. "He (Mustapha Pasha) ordered the bodies of the Knights to b
101. Comment #83284 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 29, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Actually, if you bother to read Spencer, you find that he does no such thing. He merely points out how the Qur'an has been traditionally interpreted with the aid of the Hadith and Sira, how this interpretation has continued for centuries, and how jihadists and Shariah supremacists routinely cite these texts in order to justify themselves. He has never claimed that this reading is the only 'correct' one, he merely has challenged so-called 'reformers' to build a case that the jihadists will not tear to pieces in five seconds flat.
You simply are not telling the truth, Bonzai . Now, I, personally, go further and say that Islam is, indeed, inherently tyrannical, cruel and totalitarian, that it is functionally identical to National Socialism. I defy anyone to prove me wrong. However, Robert Spencer does. not. do. this. It is disingenuous and just untrue to claim anything else.
And may I further say, that trying to blame Israel for the Muslim Brotherhood who allied with Adolf Hitler, who translated the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf into Arabic, who linked up with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who had members in the SS, who are the fountainhead of most jihadist and Islamic totalitarian movements today, to try and do that is, not to put to fine a point on it, so perverse that it reeks of the basest kind of anti-Semitism.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal