Banning the Quran?

From the desk of Koenraad Elst on Fri, 2006-02-17 14:16

The controversy over the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad has generated plenty of hypocritical commentary from politicians and other public figures in attempts to convey an impression of moderation and neutrality.  In most cases they do so by taking up the quarrel in the middle and condemning both the “insensitivity” of the cartoonists and the “overreaction” of the Muslim world, both alleged instances of “extremism.” They expect us to believe that there is a moral equivalence between the exercising of a fundamental right (freedom of expression) and the attempt to abolish this right.

Many also adopted the snobbish position that the cartoons should not have been published because they were “substandard.” Ooh, those gourmet cartoon connoisseurs, they will settle for nothing but the best. Other evasions include the implication of ulterior motives, e.g. that the “real” object of the controversy is Denmark’s restrictive immigration policy rather than the cartoons. This goes against all the testimonies of Muslim government spokesmen and demonstrators. Another diversionary tactic is to declare that “the real issue” is unemployment of young Muslims in Europe, as if that was a concern of the violent demonstrators in faraway Beirut or Peshawar.

I do not know if hypocrisy is better or worse than the second most common position encountered in liberal circles: openly siding with Islamic fanaticism and putting the blame fully on the cartoonists and their editors, as Bill Clinton did, Kofi Annan and the Foreign Affairs spokesmen of the Bush and Blair governments. In the Brussels weekly Knack, the Belgian equivalent of Newsweek and Time, with a weekly circulation of 160,000 copies, the editor, Karl Van den Broeck, launched the innovative conspiracy theory that the Neoconservative cabal, with tentacles stretching from Washington DC and Tel Aviv to Aarhus and Brussels (this website!), had planned the whole cartoon riot incident as the trigger for the Clash of Civilizations and the invasion of Syria and Iran, no less. Well, not all that innovative: a similar view was expressed by Ayatollah Khamenei.

A well-known Belgian novelist (Kristien Hemmerechts), a noted feminist and cultural relativist (who has spoken in favour of female circumcision), stated that since the Muslims are so sensitive to the cartoons, the latter should not have been published. Typically, the liberal sympathisers of Muslim “sensitivities” do not seem to notice how childishly selfish the Muslim position is. For centuries and until today, Islam has ordered the destruction of everything that is sacred to other religions, starting with the 360 idols in the Kaaba (including Jesus and Mary) smashed to pieces by Muhammad himself, down to the Bamian Buddhas destroyed by the Taliban in 2001, the weekly vandalising of Hindu temples in Bangladesh, or the destruction of Christian churches in Iraq during the last couple of months. In many cases, moreover, not only the places of worship but the worshippers too have been assaulted. What an arrogance for Muslims, with their heritage of iconoclastic insensitivity, to put up this show of indignation for a handful of harmless cartoons. And now we are being expected to feel pity for those poor touch-me-nots?

In Muslim circles, meanwhile, only a few independent intellectuals have come out unequivocally on the side of freedom of expression, most bravely the Jordanian journalists who confronted their readers with the poser: “Which is worse for Islam, these cartoons or the TV images of Iraqi mujahedin beheading their hostages?” They were arrested. So were several Algerian journalists, for republishing the cartoons, and their paper was banned from publication. Likewise a leftist Syrian journalist was arrested under the law against “insulting religious feelings” for having proposed a dialogue about the cartoon controversy on the plea that violent protests could only hurt the image of Islam. And in Konya, Turkey, a woman journalist was stoned for not wearing a headscarf while reporting on a demonstration held under the motto “loyalty to the Prophet.”

By contrast, many Europe-based Muslim intellectuals who joined the debate, esp. those who opened their interventions with a plea against violent protest by way of captatio benevolentiae (then followed by “but…”), only did so as the first, non-violent line of attack in the broader Islamist offensive against freedom of expression and of the press.  They are the ones who stand to gain most from this type of crisis: with every Islamist bomb attack by the violent wing, the non-violent vanguard’s prestige with Western governments and media goes up. They become ever more needed as “dialogue partners” to fend off the violent option. But objectively they are working for the same goal as the armed Islamists: to curb democratic freedoms as a crucial step in the imposition of an Islamic order on the West.

A good example is the Brussels government-funded “intercultural” lobby group KifKif. Last Tuesday, seven of its board members, including widely read intellectuals of Moroccan origin, such as Tarik Fraihi and Sami Zemni, published a plea for “limits on freedom of speech.” They argue that “an absolute freedom of expression can only benefit antidemocratic extremists.” This position is evidently the opposite of the truth. Unfettered freedom of expression is a fundamental precondition for a democracy, because a democratically sovereign citizenry needs to be able to inform itself about the existing spectrum of opinions on any matters that come up for decision-making. In a democracy there cannot be two unequal categories of citizens, with one allowed to select what the other may hear and read. Conditional freedom of expression is typical of dictatorships.  Hitler and Stalin did not oppose the freedom to express opinions that were in line with their own policies, and likewise, KifKif does not advocate limits on the expression of opinions in line with its own.

But since the job of this type of lobbying groups is to put a democratic face on their attacks on the foundations of democracy, their spokesmen cleverly use the language of human rights. Kifkif writes: “The self-declared defenders of absolute freedom of expression forget (deliberately?) the second part of the much-discussed article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, not coincidentally the part in which the limits of freedom of expression are defined.” This is bluff aimed at fooling lazy readers, for those who take the trouble to read the ECHR article in question, which guarantees freedom of expression, will find that the limits mentioned there are conceived in terms of national interest and morality, not of prohibiting criticism of religious doctrines and leaders. The only straw to which the KifKif authors can cling is the following: “An important limit according to the ECHR is the ‘protection of the rights of others.’” This they take to include “the right to respect (art. 8) and the right to freedom of religion (art. 9).”

This is another attempt to fool unsuspecting readers, for the rights guaranteed in articles 8 and 9 are in no way thwarted by any form of self-expression. The “respect” mentioned in art. 8 is not the right to freedom from criticism which Islam is now demanding, but the very tangible right of freedom from encroachment on one’s private correspondence, home and family life. The freedom of religion guaranteed in art. 9 is similarly unaffected by the expression of opinions. The religious freedom of Christians, for instance, has not been violated by the various forms of criticism which have been aimed at them since the 18th century (but it has been violated by various forms of prohibition, repression and pogroms in Communist and Islamic countries).

The KifKif authors continue: “Freedom of expression is limited in this sense that exhortation to hate or racism are forms of verbal violence and therefore punishable offences.” That is not in the ECHR, but granted, this idea does underlie the anti-racist legislation in some European countries. The Newspeak notion of ‘verbal violence’ is an attempt to vitiate the debate by pretending that strong rhetoric amounts to, and is somehow equivalent to, physical violence. Again this is a trait which is typical of dictatorships, where dissenters are routinely criminalized as ‘trouble-makers irresponsibly sowing conflict in society’ and the silencing and incarceration of dissidents is justified as ‘necessary for the people’s well-being and social peace.’ In fact, it is precisely the so-called ‘violent’ speech that is protected by the principle of freedom of expression. Sweet talk is not controversial and no-one seeks to curb it. The opinions that need to be protected from censorship are precisely the opinions that hurt. As George Orwell said: if freedom of speech means anything at all, it is the freedom to say things that people do not want to hear. That is, those things that the targeted will resent as ‘verbal violence.’

The reference to anti-racist restrictions is yet another attempt to distort the debate, for criticism of religion (which is the basis of any criticism, according to Karl Marx) has nothing to do with race. There are many Muslim-born critics of Islam, racially identical with the Islamists they criticize, people like Ibn Warraq or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Conversely, there are quite a few European-born converts to Islam, often with a convert’s militant zeal. I have been on debating panels with several of them, and a few have made headlines by joining the armed struggle in Afghanistan or Iraq against Western forces, whose soldiers are mostly white like themselves. If the KifKif advocates of Islam’s right to veto criticism have to resort to the misplaced rhetoric of anti-racism, diverting attention from the religious basis of the controversy, this may well indicate that they know that their core argumentation is weak.

And it is. Suppose we take them at their word when they argue: “Freedom of the press and of expression cannot and must not become a licence or alibi for gratuitous, mendacious and disrespectful messages.” The first two adjectives are bluff, again. There was nothing ‘gratuitous’ about raising the issue of whether artists are afraid to depict the Muslim’s prophet. A Danish author of children’s books had discovered this to be the case, which was the reason for Jyllands-Posten’s invitation to the cartoonists. Neither was it gratuitous when two of the cartoonists connected the person of Muhammad with the contemporary theme of terrorism. It so happens that hundreds of terrorists in the past few years have justified their actions with references to the words and actions of their Prophet. It is not gratuitous or frivolous for a newspaper to address politically relevant and topical facts. 

Secondly, there was nothing ‘mendacious’ about depicting Mohammed in a way that associates him with terrorism. KifKif has no monopoly on access to the orthodox Islamic sources about the life and works of the Prophet of Islam. We can check for ourselves that the Hadith (traditions concerning the Prophet’s words and deeds) and Sira (biography) literature describe Mohammed as engaging in armed raids, plunder, hostage-taking, rape, assassination of critics and mass-murder of prisoners. Instances of this conduct are also confirmed and justified in the Quran itself. In a democracy it is perfectly legitimate to point this out, whether laboriously in a scholarly paper or more caustically in a cartoon.

As to the third adjective, one may agree that from a certain angle the cartoons can indeed be considered as ‘disrespectful.’ But in that case, one must likewise judge ‘disrespectful’ the sources on which the message they convey is based. As we just pointed out, the notion that Muhammad was a kind of terrorist is not an invention of some 21st-century ‘Islamophobe’ or ‘racist,’ it is based on Arabic sources compiled by orthodox Muslims and enshrined as the basis of Islamic doctrine and law. If cartoons critical of the Prophet are to be banned, what does KifKif propose to do with the Hadith collections and the Quran: ban those books in toto or merely excise the parts that testify to Muhammad’s acting in contravention of the ECHR?

I am unambiguously opposed to any curtailment of the freedom to buy and sell and read and discuss the Quran. Everybody should read it, for that is the best immunization against silly sop-stories about Islam being ‘the religion of peace’ or Muhammad being ‘the first feminist.’ Anyone who, like KifKif, demands restrictions on publications that cast the Muslim’s prophet in a negative light, is demanding restrictions which would logically affect the basic texts of Islam. If logic had any force of law, the KifKif board members would be well advised to ponder the old proverb: “Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.”

The question of how the Islamic texts would fare under a KifKif regime becomes all the more relevant in the light of another assertion of the board members: “Kif Kif is of the opinion that there are limits to freedom of expression.  t is at least necessary that those limits are the same for everybody. […] We wish to live in a tightly coherent society with equal rights and duties for everyone. A society without racism, whether it is Islamophobia or anti-Semitism.”

This seems to mean that disrespect for any religion should be treated the same as disrespect for Islam. So, if insults to Islam or the Muslim community must be prohibited, then so must insults to other religions and their adherents. (In the new nomenclatura, this might be called Kafirophobia, aversion to Kafirs or ‘unbelievers;’ if the KifKif authors mean what they say about equality, they should henceforth twin every mention of ‘Islamophobia’ with ‘Kafirophobia.’)  How would the Quran fare in such a system?

The Quran contains dozens of verses that preach hostility to Pagans (polytheists, Zoroastrian ‘fire-worshippers’ and atheists), Jews and Christians. It denounces their teachings as false and evil and a sure passport to hell. By modern Western standards the author of the Quran is entitled to his freedom of opinion on religions. But by KifKif standards, these insulting comments on other people’s religions are not so innocent and ought to be curtailed, especially in a multicultural society. (And indeed, the orthodox sources agree that it was Muhammad’s lifetime achievement to have transformed Arabia’s multicultural society into a monolithic Islamic one.)

The Quran also expressly forbids conversion from Islam to other religions, while allowing and encouraging the reverse. This becomes problematic in the light of the KifKif authors’ plea for equality and reciprocity. It is also in contravention of the ECHR’s article 9, to which they purportedly adhere, for this article defines “freedom of religion” as including “the right to change one’s religion.”

In addition the Quran rejects the principle of “equal rights and duties for everyone,” which KifKif now invokes. Apart from the candidly affirmed inequality in rights and duties between the sexes (which admittedly exists in all religions), it explicitly ordains inequality between the different religious communities. To the non-monotheists Muhammad denied freedom of religion completely, and as for Jews and Christians, the Quran only allows them to retain their faith if they accept the status of third-class citizens and pay a ‘toleration tax.’ When the Prophet’s Islamic state developed into an empire under his successors, the ‘rightly-guided Caliphs,’ this principle was elaborated into an entire system of legal inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims. This inequality pervades the Shari’a (Islamic law) and even now it is already seeping into our society, e.g. in the immense and sometimes violent pressure of Muslim communities against relationships or marriages of their daughters with non-Muslims.

There is even grimmer reading, however, in dozens of Quran verses that go further than mere doctrinal disputation and actually enjoin the Muslims to go out and fight the ‘infidels.’ The core text of Islam is not merely disrespectful towards other religions, it extols killing and glorifies dying in the war against the non-Muslims. If the text of the Quran should not be clear enough, one must bear in mind that it is a companion volume to Muhammad’s life story as a religious leader and military conqueror. Consequently, if one should have doubts about the meaning of jihad, literally ‘effort’ but in practice ‘war against the infidels,’ one need merely put the verses in their real-life context. Muhammad understood and used the term unambiguously in the sense of ‘war,’ not some ethereal or metaphorical ‘struggle against the evil in ourselves’ but an actual war involving horses, weapons, stratagems and blood. The Quran explicitly teaches hatred, hostility and the use of force against other religions and their adherents. By KifKif’s own standards, it clearly exceeds the “limits of freedom of expression.”

Fortunately most Muslims do not take the Quran literally. Their common sense, as well as human inertia and immediate self-interest make them focus on their own life’s business rather than on the struggle against the infidels. When pressed for a Quranic justification of this Islamically lax conduct, they may invent some conveniently soft and non-literal interpretation of the more militant verses, or even (before ignorant Westerners) deny their existence altogether. And so they get on with their lives much like their non-Muslim neighbours do.

However, this does not render the Quranic injunctions against the infidels innocent. Of the hundreds of dedicated Muslims who committed acts of terror in the last couple of years, a handful may have been temperamentally violent and predisposed to committing such acts regardless of their religion. They may be the “evil people” whom President George W. Bush blamed for the 9/11 attacks in his bid not to implicate Islam. But many others have crossed the threshold into terrorism through the teaching of the Quran and the example set by the Prophet. After all, they understand the Quran as nothing less than God’s own revelation. Unlike the ephemeral cartoons, which have not motivated a single act of violence against Muslims in the months since their publication, the Quranic injunctions are intended to be taken seriously.

Consequently, when people plead for restrictions on free speech on the grounds that it may cause offence and even inspire hatred and active hostility to certain communities, they ought to realize that they are in effect demanding limitations on the freedom to read and recite the Quran. Is that what the KifKif board members want? If not, they should withdraw their plea for limits on the freedom to express criticism of religions and religious figures including the prophet Muhammad.

PS: please note that in the present article and in other publications, I have practised a reasonable degree of respect for the founder of Islam. Of course I have not used any sycophantic or reverential appositions every time I mentioned his name, such as “Peace Be Upon Him” or “PBUH.” But at least I have repeatedly referred to him as the “Prophet,” and capitalized, no less. As a non-believer, I would have been entitled to describe him each time as “the so-called prophet.” Since I am not in the business of annoying people with such pedantries, I have refrained from exercising that right. It’s just a question of sensitivity, you know.

Sir, as a American with full

Submitted by oday on Sun, 2006-10-22 18:13.

Sir, as a American with full respect I think your an idiot about even having the idea of 'banning the Quran'. Your government does not hold that kind of power.

 

**Oday mumbles to himself. Europeans...pfft...They have no respect to Democracy. I guess its deep rooted history that pushes them for Eurocentric extremism. 

Human Rights and the Religion of Peace

Submitted by truth serum on Tue, 2006-02-21 18:46.

"At least four of the countries on the UN Human Rights Commission – Cuba, Syria, Libya and Zimbabwe – have appalling human rights records.  Cuba and Syria, for example, have both executed political prisoners and civil rights advocates.  None of the four can be classified as a democracy, and only Zimbabwe has a constitution (a vestige from a prior life as Rhodesia)."

 

"Who in their right mind would pretend that such countries are really in a position to stand in judgment over the United States?  What kind of organization is it that would make the treatment of al-Qaeda terrorists of higher importance than that of ordinary Africans?"

Zimbabwe, Libya and Guantanamo Bay

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/UN-Gitmo.htm

Re; Human RightsIn Islam

Submitted by A New Believer on Tue, 2006-02-21 17:26.

Oh Emeda30 that is terrible..please do not spew anymore garbage. In the West there are laws about such things. And you have just set pollution control back 50 years!

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

To emeda30

Submitted by ChrisBKK on Tue, 2006-02-21 15:55.

And making a cartoon is not ment to insult anyone, but with the sole purpose of entertaining your children. "imagine how is difficult for those in the past to understand that". Sorry emeda, you believe in your religion, and I respect that, but my personal opinion is still: "A lot of bullshit".

Muslims don't insult any-one - what are they doing in Nigeria ?

Submitted by Poul Nielsen on Tue, 2006-02-21 16:22.

Nigeria confirms that 35 persons were killed, 30 churches and five hotels were also burnt in violence the past three days.

For the third day in a row, Nigerian Muslims rampaged through the streets leaving 13 dead on Monday in Bauchi after at least 25 reported deaths in two previous days of violence.

NOW muslims - will defend this act - by reading quotes from lying Imans, and tell everybody - that they want peace ...

Masters of the Language of Murder & Terror: Arabic

Submitted by A New Believer on Tue, 2006-02-21 16:25.

According to history the arabic language spread with Mohmmaned since they spoke Aramaic as well as Syriac,and other forms of language there in the Middle East! that region was part of the Roman Empire. In the ancient world ALL business transactions were conducted in the leading language at the time .. Greek. Latin was spread by the use of the soldiers of the Roman Empire.. it was the vulgate of the people. The Jews only used Hebrew for worship and spoke Aramaic as did the other people and Syriac languages amongst themselves. All cultured works people, even the Jews spoke Greek when debating, conducting business. The Masters of the arabic language came sweeping out of the desert speaking a form of ARAMAIC which once they found someone who could write.. wrote it down and thus began the quran. the ONLY reason the Quran was not written in greek was because Mohammed was an illiterate camel herder and highway robberyman.. he spoke his gutteral arabic.. and there were those who could read and write and they wrote it down for him. If his transcribers had been more intelligent, learned and true scribes.. Your quran would have been printed in Greek. Of course, you would not have been able to get away with teh things you do and the quran these day. Because no scholarly person who could transcribe Greek would have written such nonesense down .

The Aramaic Language
Aramaic is one of the Semitic languages, an important group of languages known almost from the beginning of human history and including also Arabic, Hebrew, Ethiopic, and Akkadian (ancient Babylonian and Assyrian). It is particularly closely related to Hebrew, and was written in a variety of alphabetic scripts. (What is usually called "Hebrew" script is actually an Aramaic script.)

The Earliest Aramaic
0ur first glimpse of Aramaic comes from a small number of ancient royal inscriptions from almost three thousand years ago (900-700 B.C.E.). Dedications to the gods, international treaties, and memorial stelae reveal to us the history of the first small Aramean kingdoms, in the territories of modern Syria and Southeast Turkey, living under the shadow of the rising Assyrian empire.

Aramaic as an Imperial Language
Aramaic was used by the conquering Assyrians as a language of administration communication, and following them by the Babylonian and Persian empires, which ruled from India to Ethiopia, and employed Aramaic as the official language. For this period, then (about 700–320 B.C.E.), Aramaic held a position similar to that occupied by English today. The most important documents of this period are numerous papyri from Egypt and Palestine.

Biblical Aramaic
Aramaic displaced Hebrew for many purposes among the Jews, a fact reflected in the Bible, where portions of Ezra and Daniel are in Aramaic. Some of the best known stories in biblical literature, including that of Belshazzar’s feast with the famous "handwriting on the wall" are in Aramaic.

Jewish Aramaic Literature
Aramaic remained a dominant language for Jewish worship, scholarship, and everyday life for centuries in both the land of Israel and in the diaspora, especially in Babylon.

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the remains of the library of a Jewish sect from around the turn of the Era, are many compositions in Aramaic. These new texts also provide the best evidence for Palestinian Aramaic of the sort used by Jesus and his disciples.

Since the Jews spoke Aramaic, and knowledge of Hebrew was no longer widespread, the practice arose in the synagogue of providing the reading of the sacred Hebrew scriptures with an Aramaic translation or paraphrase, a "Targum" In the course of time a whole array of targums for the Law and other parts of the Bible were composed. More than translations, they incorporated much of traditional Jewish scriptural interpretation.

In their academies the rabbis and their disciples transmitted, commented, and debated Jewish law; the records of their deliberations constitute the two talmuds: that of the land of Israel and the much larger Babylonian Talmud. Although the talmuds contain much material in Hebrew, the basic language of these vast compilations is Aramaic (in Western and Eastern dialects).

Christian Aramaic Literature
Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the Gospels are in Greek, and only rarely quote actual Aramaic words. Reconstruction of the Aramaic background of the Gospels remains a fascinating, but inordinately difficult area of modern research.

Christians in Palestine eventually rendered portions of Christian Scripture into their dialect of Aramaic; these translations and related writings constitute "Christian Palestinian Aramaic".

A much larger body of Christian Aramaic is known as Syriac. Indeed, Syriac writings surpass in quantity all other Aramaic combined. Syriac is originally the literary language of the city of Edessa (now Urfa in SE Turkey). The language became the tongue of the entire eastern wing of the church, from about the third century C.E. down until well past the Muslim conquest.

Syriac writings include numerous Bible translations, the most important being the so-called Peshitta (simple) translation, and countless devotional, dogmatic, exegetical, liturgical, and historical works. Almost all of the Greek philosophical and scientific tradition was eventually translated into Syriac, and it was through this channel that most found their way into the Islamic World and thence, into post-Dark Ages Europe.

Other Aramaic
There are many other branches of Aramaic literature, including the substantial literature of the Mandaeans, a Gnostic religious group, and the Bible translation, liturgy, and doctrinal works of the Samaritans.

Aramaic survives as a spoken language in small communities in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and Iran. The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon will not attempt to be a full dictionary for this Modern Aramaic, which is best undertaken as a separate task, but where an ancient word has a modern continuation, the Modern Aramaic use will be recorded.
*******
Type Consonantal Alphabetic
Genealogy Proto-Sinaitic > Aramaic
Location West Asia, Africa
Time 3rd century CE to Present
Direction Right to Left

Due to the influence of Islam, the Arabic alphabet is one of the most widespread writing systems in the world, found in large parts of Africa and Western and Central Asia, as well as in ethnic communities in East Asia, Europe, and the Americas. While originally used to write the Arabic language, the Arabic alphabet has been adopted by other groups to write their own languages, such as Persian, Pashto, Urdu, and more.

Although Arabic inscriptions are most common after the birth of Islam (7th century CE), the origin of the Arabic alphabet lies deeper in time. The Nabataeans, which established a kingdom in what is modern-day Jordan from the 2nd century BCE, were Arabs. They wrote with a highly cursive Aramaic-derived alphabet that would eventually evolve into the Arabic alphabet. The Nabataeans endured until the year 106 CE, when they were conquered by the Romans, but Nabataean inscriptions continue to appear until the 4th century CE, coinciding with the first inscriptions in the Arabic alphabet (which is also found in Jordan).

Generally speaking, there are two variants to the Arabic alphabet: Kufic and Naskhi. The Kufic script is angular, which was most likely a product of inscribing on hard surfaces such as wood or stone, while the Naskhi script is much more cursive. The Kufic script appears to be the older of the scripts, as it was common in the early history of Islam, and used for the earliest copies of the Qu'ran. The following is an example of the Kufic script. This is part of a commemorative tablet dating to the 11th century CE and found in Toledo, Spain (which was controlled by Arabs at that time
By the 11th century CE, the Naskhi script appeared and gradually replaced the Kufic script as the most popular script for copying the Qu'ran as well as secular and personal writings. It is from the Naskhi script that modern Arabic script style developed.

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

To emeda30

Submitted by ChrisBKK on Tue, 2006-02-21 15:39.

That is still not clear to me. Does “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger" mean the religion or does it mean "“killing by stealth and targeting a defenseless victim in a way intended to cause terror in society.”

If it means the religion then I think I need better arguments from you to show that it is peaceful and tolerant.

If it is the second meaning, then your religious society has a major problem. You are compelled by your religion to handle cases such cases, and you do nothing. What does that make your religious leaders? Hypocrits? Surah 63 Verse 2 - 4 :

They have made their oaths a screen (for their misdeeds): thus they obstruct (men) from the Path of Allah. truly evil are their deeds.

That is because they believed, then they rejected Faith: So a seal was set on their hearts: therefore they understand not.

When thou lookest at them, their exteriors please thee; and when they speak, thou listenest to their words. They are as (worthless as hollow) pieces of timber propped up, (unable to stand on their own). They think that every cry is against them. They are the enemies; so beware of them. The curse of Allah be on them! How are they deluded (away from the Truth)!

To emeda30

Submitted by ChrisBKK on Tue, 2006-02-21 14:38.

I still wait for the explanation of Surah 5 Verse 33. Now when you are back online do you have a chance to reply?

To: emeda30

Submitted by Poul Nielsen on Tue, 2006-02-21 13:40.

You are the result of muslim with a poor education, based on muslim values.

Back to basic. You are saying (or is it just another "cut and paste" from the www) - when all have found the truth in Islam - there will be no Terrorist.

Try to look at who are performing the killing of innocent people, in what name those murders are perfoming those killing ! Does the name Muhammed - ring a bell ! I don't hear the names: Budda, Jesus ore anyone else.

You can also argue when all are muslims - all are terrists as well. To use the word truth in context with the muslim religion, must be false - like your crazy Imams in Iran deny fact; That Nazi germany killed a lot of innocent people.

People are different - and religions are different. But with your muslim background - and lack of education, you'll never reach a higher level of knowledge.

To Emeda30: Comments vs Articles

Submitted by Paul Belien on Tue, 2006-02-21 12:49.

It has nothing to do with the fact that you are a Muslim. We have deleted all comments of over 4,000 words. We welcome comments in the comments section. However, comments have to be short and to the point. We do not encourage the posting of entire articles (and 4,000 words is not just an article, but a very long article) in the comment section, nor do we want to allow the simple copy-pasting of entire chapters published elsewhere. We have also deleted two of your comments to an article on our Dutch (Nederlands) section because your comments were in English and had nothing to do with the article (which was about the European Constitution and not about Islam).

Islam and Muuslims

Submitted by tsa3400 on Tue, 2006-02-21 01:58.

I would like to state facts rather than religious beliefs. Islam and it's followers will be the cause of this worlds destruction if they are not stopped. This religions prophecy goes back to the days of murder, and so do other religions, don't get me wrong. But the difference is that they are still doing it. This religion is a cult and they will not only convert us all but will land up killing each other in the end as Sunis and Shiaits hate each other more that they collectively hate anyone else. These people do not need to share the same planet as the rest of us. They are children of a lesser god and I will spare a pig rather than the whole 1.5 billion population. This might sound as a uneducated person's view, but tell me, what would you do if you find a rotten mango in a pile of 20. Would you not remove it and throw it away so that the rest will be fine. Well same is the case with this cult. All muslims should be eradicated from the face of this earth or converted to any other religion. These people created the number 0 and are still stuck on it. Think about it people. Which religion cuts the hands and heads of women and children. These fucking pigs are the scum of this earth.

kungfu person

Submitted by celt on Mon, 2006-02-20 17:18.

...........so basically what you are trying to say is that you have a tremendous interest in Islam and sheep?

For Charlemagne

Submitted by Junius Redivivus on Sun, 2006-02-19 21:50.

I appreciate Charlemagne’s reply both in its tone and its substance. However I see little point in engaging in theological arguments, especially when they engage fine points of Christology from the patristic period. The issue that engages me is political and secular: the freedom of the press and of expression guaranteed by the first amendment to the American constitution and enshrined in most if not all European legal codes. What is being claimed by many Muslims and their supporters is that religious authority, supernatural revelation, religious sensitivities, good manners, prudence, craven fear, or some combination thereof should trump the free exercise of the press. Some comparative examination of religions and religious history is perhaps useful in trying to understand how Europeans of the twenty-first century could make such claims; but it is not for me an end in itself. I cannot tell whether Charlemagne thinks that the concept of European “Christendom” has any validity. I myself think it has very little. Though Christianity remains a vital force throughout much of the world, it is mainly a museum or archeological memory in Europe. One supposes that the Nigerian terrorists who are hacking up Christians and burning churches to show their outrage over cartoons published in a Danish newspaper—cartoons that few if any of them can possibly have seen—see this as a conflict between Christianity and Islam, but I do not. I see it as a conflict between a mealy-mouthed liberal democracy that either never knew or has forgotten that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and an obscurantist but resolute totalitarianism. Unlike the great godless totalitarianisms of the last century, which claimed the authorization of a transcendental nationalism or historical materialism, this one claims divine sanction. Its understanding and its discussion therefore necessarily require religious literacy. I very much fear that the same patterns of spiritual sloth, wishful thinking, and misguided benevolence that postponed the confrontation of the twentieth century until it became catastrophe will bring catastrophe to the twenty-first century before it is two decades old. Signs and portents must be sought in Palestine, in Iraq, and perhaps above all in Iran. Charlemagne’s vision of Christ as destroyer is not my vision of Christ; but my concern is with protecting and defending his unquestioned right to express that or any idea he wishes. Same goes for Onenoson, although it is at least as difficult to find an idea in the posts of Onenoson as to find a complete sentence.

hmmm ...

Submitted by Kalidren on Sun, 2006-02-19 05:50.

It's all so much over nothing. It's not like those cartoonist's held a rally against islam, where thousands showed up around the world carrying depictions of offensive cartoons while they burned mosque after mosque and killed muslim's left right and centre..

Then I'd be irate as well and Im not even a muslim... but you understand why others are so up in arms over this since aparently that's what is going on in alot of places with demonstrations and such...

Make a cartoon and churches are burned, other religions majorly disrespected as people die... Here the latest in Nigeria anyone?

Ban the Quran? Perhaps that's a little to much... Restrain the fanatics in your own faith? Definitely... and take any measure necessary to that end. It has to stop somewhere... or everyone gets dragged into it. All fine and good for the fanatics but not so good for the rest if that were to happen. Sadly, now that the west knows how to get under the skin of the so called muslim extremist im sure they will continue to *poke* and *prod* (thinking how do you like that eh?!) While it won't hurt the extremist physically, their action(s)because of it, will hurt others...

Honestly tho, I wonder what *GOD* finds more offensive.. cartoon pictures of his Prophet or ... the reaction's to it?

(Btw, junias while I didnt comment on your post .. well said, was alot to digest)

ahh I see..

Submitted by Kalidren on Sun, 2006-02-19 21:00.

Kungfu, It appears that your reacting to triggers within my statement instead of reading it all the way thru.(I worded things politely since my intent was not to offend) I did not defend Islam and I doubt that a Muslim would find my comments to be sympathetic.

In a nutshell I said ..

Cartoons are not a big deal & don't hurt anyone. The extreme reactions to them do. People have been killed with many more injured, churches & public buildings burnt. How can these reactions be justified? I suggested that maybe it's not the Koran that needs banning (mainly to try and not get to far off topic) but it's fanatics and extremists who *interpret it* should definitely be dealt with.

I also said that most of us in the west probably didnt know that making images of their Prophet would get their ire up. But, now that we do it's very likely that it will continue.

Response to Junius Redivivus

Submitted by Charlemagne on Sun, 2006-02-19 18:43.

An interesting post which I regret I will not be able to reply to fully because of lack of time. However, I will comment on one or two points.

First, you mention that Islam cannot accept that God "begat" Christ, and I will also ridicule any person who claims that the bible maintainms that God "begat" Christ before the world began. It is absolutely obvious that the references to Christ being begotten in the bible refer only to his entrance into the world as a human, and not to any metamorphis before the world began. The word "beget" is a fairly loose term with no mystical connotations meaning to give birth, or to cause to arise.

It is used frequently in the New Testament in various contexts e.g. in 1Cr 4:15, Paul says to the Corinthians For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

But in respect of the begetting of Christ, it obvious that it refers to his entry into the world because of the words "to-day" or "this day" in the prophecy Heb 5:5 Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

It was the exceptional folly of many of the church fathers to claim that allusions to Christ's begetting somehow referred to his being "begotten before all ages" - see the Nicene Creed (A.D. 325). The heresy of Arianism was a direct and inevitable consequence of this balderdash propagated by the early church. It's possible that Mahomet, also seeing the absurdity of the concept that Christ was begotten before all ages, seized also upon one of the major archilles heels of misunderstanding in the early church, to introduce his own form of extreme Arianism - Arius after all likewise effectively denied that Christ was the "I AM".

Mahomet merely denies any divine status to Christ, rather than the semi-divine status which was attributed to him by the Arian heretics.

The truth of the matter is that Christ is the YHWH, the I AM, who, in his unincarnate form is God, and always was God, yet not the same person as the Father, who dwells in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see - 1Ti 6:16. And yet Christians are entitled to say "God is one" - there is no division within God.

Secondly you point out that The idea of studying the Koran in an intellectually responsible manner that takes into account its relationship with obvious literary sources and analogues is so dangerous that the few scholars who dare to do so must write under pseudonyms.

That the Koran is a fraud made up of pagan, Arabian, distorted Jewish, and distorted Christian ideas is obvious to any individual, let alone scholar, with the slightest degree of impartiality. What the Koran is, has been known for hundreds of years. It is the book of the cult of Islam. That people, even professing Christians, purport to maintain that the Koran is somehow an alternative belief system to Christianity, is heresy and arrogance itself and flies in the face of all the evidence. Yet Christendom, or what was Christendom, is now full of politicians and intellectuals advocating "respect and tolerance for Islam". Such persons have no business referring to themselves as Christians - they are hypocrites who, at the very least, ought to be stripped of whatever political power they have usurped by their lies.

----------------------------------------------------Mahomet is no prophet, Allah is no faith, Islam is no religion. Christ will destroy them all.

Word of God by Onenoson

Submitted by Charlemagne on Sat, 2006-02-18 11:05.

Koran is an evil blasphemous work inspired by Satan. It directly conflicts with the bible at numerous points, far too many to mention in one post. But for how the koran denies the sonship of Christ see here. Specifically I refer you to:

O people of the scripture, do not transgress the limits of your religion, and do not say about GOD except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD - Koran, Surah 4:171

But this is what Christ said of himself: Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM - Jhn 8:58

And this is what God said to Christ after he died: Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool Hbr 1:13.

For he hath put all things under his feet - 1Cr 15:27

And this is what will happen at the end of the world:
I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom - 2Ti 4:1 I

And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, [be] unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.- Rev 5:13

And this is how the bible speaks of the rise of islam:
Rev 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

Rev 9:2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

Rev 9:3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

Rev 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

Rev 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment [was] as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

Rev 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

Rev 9:7 And the shapes of the locusts [were] like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads [were] as it were crowns like gold, and their faces [were] as the faces of men.

Rev 9:8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as [the teeth] of lions.

Rev 9:9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings [was] as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.

Rev 9:10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power [was] to hurt men five months.

Rev 9:11 And they had a king over them, [which is] the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue [is] Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath [his] name Apollyon.

Prepare to be judged, pagans!!

----------------------------------------------------Mahomet is no prophet, Allah is no faith, Islam is no religion. Christ will destroy them all.

Junius Redivivus

Submitted by foreign devil on Sat, 2006-02-18 02:43.

Thank you for that excellent synopsis.  You must speak up more.  Your measured and intelligent approach are exactly what the discourse needs.  As surely as a soldier, you are on the intellectual battlefield that is part of this war.  Parts are fought in Iraq, parts, the ideological parts, are fought in print and on the Internet.  You are a welcome addition to the struggle.

Banned Koran?

Submitted by Junius Redivivus on Sat, 2006-02-18 00:27.

I have seldom taken the time to contribute to an Internet debate, but I have been deeply shaken by the current assault on reason and free speech and also deeply impressed by this particular web-site, which picked up the “cartoon issue” long before I read a single thing about it in my own country. This is a courageous and clear-headed essay, civil in its tone and moderate in its rhetoric. It is devoutly to be hoped that intelligent Islamic apologists will engage it in a similar spirit. Whether what is to be hoped is also realistically to be expected is another question.

It is true that freedom of expression cannot be absolute. There is, for example, the famous conundrum concerning shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Is that protected speech? Provable libel and slander fall under the opprobrium of many legal codes. False swearing and perjury are punishable by law. But in each of these examples the constraints on free speech are narrowly constructed and depend upon that what has been said is untrue and uttered with malicious or recklessness. Outside the very few exceptions freedom of speech must prevail. As Dr. Elst points out, the tepid defenses of this fundamental freedom made by most of our pusillanimous political leaders has been of the tentative “Yes...but...” variety. Yes there is freedom of speech, but it must be bounded by responsibility. Yes, but we must respect minorities. Yes, but it will only create more jihadists. Any of those clauses following the conjunction may be true or untrue. If true, they merit at least prudential consideration. If false, they merit nothing. But true or false they can in no way limit the freedom of speech. The classic defense of that freedom as articulated by Voltaire also has a “but” clause, though its reverses what is subordinate and what is primary. “I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it.”

To remove from the body of protected speech what is inconvenient, insulting, provocative, or “disrespectful” is simply to eviscerate the freedom of speech altogether. If truth cannot defend itself with civility and rationality, it cannot be saved by a mandatory “respect”. Much talk about “respect” amounts to nothing more than double-talk, which is merely doublethink voiced in support of a double standard. This appears to characterize the arguments coming from the likes of KifKif, an organization unknown to me. If the KifKikfists are so big on mutual respect, why do they disrespect my intelligence with this kind of twaddle? I presume it is because they want to and think, correctly, that they have every right say whatever they want to say. That is, they have every right to do so in Brussels. They had best not try it in Cairo or Damascus.

Some years ago the leader of a self-proclaimed “Islamic” state authorized the murder of a citizen of another country on account of a novel he had written in the English language. Very large numbers of Muslims who had never read the book and were in any case incapable of reading it roared their approval of this barbarous edict from the streets. Now if I state my opinion that such a procedure is monstrous, and if I deny the ethical authority of any person or institution defending or executing it, am I therefore guilty of “disrespect” toward Islam? If I say that it is an absurd and abhorrent teaching that holds a Muslim apostate deserving of death, I disrespect only absurdity. If, incidentally, that is not a doctrine held or acted upon by any living Muslims, I am guilty of a culpable ignorance. Will any Muslim apologist so convict me?

I presume that Dr. Elst’s implication that it may be necessary to ban the Koran is made tongue-in-cheek. At the same time he has struck a vein of truth. Most people in the West know very little about the “historical” Mohammed, even or perhaps especially if they have read such classic Islamophile Orientalists as Carlyle or Washington Irving. But this whole episode of the Danish cartoons, based as it is on the charge that infidels have slandered an unimpeachably holy man, is encouraging people to discover the actual Mohammed of the Koran and the hadith. They are finding an all too familiar type of warlord, tricky and bloodthirsty by turns. They find out he slaughtered Jews and married prepubescent girls. And they are learning these facts not from lurid comic books printed on cheap paper in some imaginary Zionist press, but from the sacred texts and traditions of Islam. I couldn’t make my way through Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” even as an act of political solidarity. But the episode of the satanic cartoons has sent me back to the library and to the kind of deep and knowledgeable critique to be found in such books as Irshad Manji’s “The Trouble with Islam” or Ibn Warraq’s “Why I Am Not a Muslim”. Both of these books are based in the life experience of practicing Muslims. Although they are both repudiations of Islam as practiced by vast populations in the “Muslim world”, they both manage to exemplify certain attractive features of Muslim culture or habit entirely absent from the strident and self-pitying complaints of the self-appointed leaders of the Danish Muslim community, for example. Warraq’s book is, in addition, a work of considerable popularizing scholarship. His title is of course modeled on that of a famous anti-Christian exposition. The relationship of the two books raises inevitable questions. Christianity survived the publication of Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am Not a Christian”. Russell didn’t have to publish under a pseudonym or hide out under police protection. He continued to sip his port with Anglican clergymen around Cambridge high tables. His book will be found in the libraries of many Christian theological seminaries throughout the world. People who prefer Islamic theocracy to secular democracy will find it more congenial in Iran than in Denmark. Of course freedom of speech allows them to advocate theocracy in Denmark as loudly as they want, but they cannot be aggrieved if people talk back.

Banned Koran?

Submitted by Junius Redivivus on Sat, 2006-02-18 00:27.

I have seldom taken the time to contribute to an Internet debate, but I have been deeply shaken by the current assault on reason and free speech and also deeply impressed by this particular web-site, which picked up the “cartoon issue” long before I read a single thing about it in my own country. This is a courageous and clear-headed essay, civil in its tone and moderate in its rhetoric. It is devoutly to be hoped that intelligent Islamic apologists will engage it in a similar spirit. Whether what is to be hoped is also realistically to be expected is another question.

It is true that freedom of expression cannot be absolute. There is, for example, the famous conundrum concerning shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Is that protected speech? Provable libel and slander fall under the opprobrium of many legal codes. False swearing and perjury are punishable by law. But in each of these examples the constraints on free speech are narrowly constructed and depend upon that what has been said is untrue and uttered with malicious or recklessness. Outside the very few exceptions freedom of speech must prevail. As Dr. Elst points out, the tepid defenses of this fundamental freedom made by most of our pusillanimous political leaders has been of the tentative “Yes...but...” variety. Yes there is freedom of speech, but it must be bounded by responsibility. Yes, but we must respect minorities. Yes, but it will only create more jihadists. Any of those clauses following the conjunction may be true or untrue. If true, they merit at least prudential consideration. If false, they merit nothing. But true or false they can in no way limit the freedom of speech. The classic defense of that freedom as articulated by Voltaire also has a “but” clause, though its reverses what is subordinate and what is primary. “I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it.”

To remove from the body of protected speech what is inconvenient, insulting, provocative, or “disrespectful” is simply to eviscerate the freedom of speech altogether. If truth cannot defend itself with civility and rationality, it cannot be saved by a mandatory “respect”. Much talk about “respect” amounts to nothing more than double-talk, which is merely doublethink voiced in support of a double standard. This appears to characterize the arguments coming from the likes of KifKif, an organization unknown to me. If the KifKikfists are so big on mutual respect, why do they disrespect my intelligence with this kind of twaddle? I presume it is because they want to and think, correctly, that they have every right say whatever they want to say. That is, they have every right to do so in Brussels. They had best not try it in Cairo or Damascus.

Some years ago the leader of a self-proclaimed “Islamic” state authorized the murder of a citizen of another country on account of a novel he had written in the English language. Very large numbers of Muslims who had never read the book and were in any case incapable of reading it roared their approval of this barbarous edict from the streets. Now if I state my opinion that such a procedure is monstrous, and if I deny the ethical authority of any person or institution defending or executing it, am I therefore guilty of “disrespect” toward Islam? If I say that it is an absurd and abhorrent teaching that holds a Muslim apostate deserving of death, I disrespect only absurdity. If, incidentally, that is not a doctrine held or acted upon by any living Muslims, I am guilty of a culpable ignorance. Will any Muslim apologist so convict me?

I presume that Dr. Elst’s implication that it may be necessary to ban the Koran is made tongue-in-cheek. At the same time he has struck a vein of truth. Most people in the West know very little about the “historical” Mohammed, even or perhaps especially if they have read such classic Islamophile Orientalists as Carlyle or Washington Irving. But this whole episode of the Danish cartoons, based as it is on the charge that infidels have slandered an unimpeachably holy man, is encouraging people to discover the actual Mohammed of the Koran and the hadith. They are finding an all too familiar type of warlord, tricky and bloodthirsty by turns. They find out he slaughtered Jews and married prepubescent girls. And they are learning these facts not from lurid comic books printed on cheap paper in some imaginary Zionist press, but from the sacred texts and traditions of Islam. I couldn’t make my way through Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” even as an act of political solidarity. But the episode of the satanic cartoons has sent me back to the library and to the kind of deep and knowledgeable critique to be found in such books as Irshad Manji’s “The Trouble with Islam” or Ibn Warraq’s “Why I Am Not a Muslim”. Both of these books are based in the life experience of practicing Muslims. Although they are both repudiations of Islam as practiced by vast populations in the “Muslim world”, they both manage to exemplify certain attractive features of Muslim culture or habit entirely absent from the strident and self-pitying complaints of the self-appointed leaders of the Danish Muslim community, for example. Warraq’s book is, in addition, a work of considerable popularizing scholarship. His title is of course modeled on that of a famous anti-Christian exposition. The relationship of the two books raises inevitable questions. Christianity survived the publication of Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am Not a Christian”. Russell didn’t have to publish under a pseudonym or hide out under police protection. He continued to sip his port with Anglican clergymen around Cambridge high tables. His book will be found in the libraries of many Christian theological seminaries throughout the world. People who prefer Islamic theocracy to secular democracy will find it more congenial in Iran than in Denmark. Of course freedom of speech allows them to advocate theocracy in Denmark as loudly as they want, but they cannot be aggrieved if people talk back.

Banned Koran?

Submitted by Junius Redivivus on Sat, 2006-02-18 00:27.

I have seldom taken the time to contribute to an Internet debate, but I have been deeply shaken by the current assault on reason and free speech and also deeply impressed by this particular web-site, which picked up the “cartoon issue” long before I read a single thing about it in my own country. This is a courageous and clear-headed essay, civil in its tone and moderate in its rhetoric. It is devoutly to be hoped that intelligent Islamic apologists will engage it in a similar spirit. Whether what is to be hoped is also realistically to be expected is another question.

It is true that freedom of expression cannot be absolute. There is, for example, the famous conundrum concerning shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Is that protected speech? Provable libel and slander fall under the opprobrium of many legal codes. False swearing and perjury are punishable by law. But in each of these examples the constraints on free speech are narrowly constructed and depend upon that what has been said is untrue and uttered with malicious or recklessness. Outside the very few exceptions freedom of speech must prevail. As Dr. Elst points out, the tepid defenses of this fundamental freedom made by most of our pusillanimous political leaders has been of the tentative “Yes...but...” variety. Yes there is freedom of speech, but it must be bounded by responsibility. Yes, but we must respect minorities. Yes, but it will only create more jihadists. Any of those clauses following the conjunction may be true or untrue. If true, they merit at least prudential consideration. If false, they merit nothing. But true or false they can in no way limit the freedom of speech. The classic defense of that freedom as articulated by Voltaire also has a “but” clause, though its reverses what is subordinate and what is primary. “I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it.”

To remove from the body of protected speech what is inconvenient, insulting, provocative, or “disrespectful” is simply to eviscerate the freedom of speech altogether. If truth cannot defend itself with civility and rationality, it cannot be saved by a mandatory “respect”. Much talk about “respect” amounts to nothing more than double-talk, which is merely doublethink voiced in support of a double standard. This appears to characterize the arguments coming from the likes of KifKif, an organization unknown to me. If the KifKikfists are so big on mutual respect, why do they disrespect my intelligence with this kind of twaddle? I presume it is because they want to and think, correctly, that they have every right say whatever they want to say. That is, they have every right to do so in Brussels. They had best not try it in Cairo or Damascus.

Some years ago the leader of a self-proclaimed “Islamic” state authorized the murder of a citizen of another country on account of a novel he had written in the English language. Very large numbers of Muslims who had never read the book and were in any case incapable of reading it roared their approval of this barbarous edict from the streets. Now if I state my opinion that such a procedure is monstrous, and if I deny the ethical authority of any person or institution defending or executing it, am I therefore guilty of “disrespect” toward Islam? If I say that it is an absurd and abhorrent teaching that holds a Muslim apostate deserving of death, I disrespect only absurdity. If, incidentally, that is not a doctrine held or acted upon by any living Muslims, I am guilty of a culpable ignorance. Will any Muslim apologist so convict me?

I presume that Dr. Elst’s implication that it may be necessary to ban the Koran is made tongue-in-cheek. At the same time he has struck a vein of truth. Most people in the West know very little about the “historical” Mohammed, even or perhaps especially if they have read such classic Islamophile Orientalists as Carlyle or Washington Irving. But this whole episode of the Danish cartoons, based as it is on the charge that infidels have slandered an unimpeachably holy man, is encouraging people to discover the actual Mohammed of the Koran and the hadith. They are finding an all too familiar type of warlord, tricky and bloodthirsty by turns. They find out he slaughtered Jews and married prepubescent girls. And they are learning these facts not from lurid comic books printed on cheap paper in some imaginary Zionist press, but from the sacred texts and traditions of Islam. I couldn’t make my way through Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” even as an act of political solidarity. But the episode of the satanic cartoons has sent me back to the library and to the kind of deep and knowledgeable critique to be found in such books as Irshad Manji’s “The Trouble with Islam” or Ibn Warraq’s “Why I Am Not a Muslim”. Both of these books are based in the life experience of practicing Muslims. Although they are both repudiations of Islam as practiced by vast populations in the “Muslim world”, they both manage to exemplify certain attractive features of Muslim culture or habit entirely absent from the strident and self-pitying complaints of the self-appointed leaders of the Danish Muslim community, for example. Warraq’s book is, in addition, a work of considerable popularizing scholarship. His title is of course modeled on that of a famous anti-Christian exposition. The relationship of the two books raises inevitable questions. Christianity survived the publication of Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am Not a Christian”. Russell didn’t have to publish under a pseudonym or hide out under police protection. He continued to sip his port with Anglican clergymen around Cambridge high tables. His book will be found in the libraries of many Christian theological seminaries throughout the world. People who prefer Islamic theocracy to secular democracy will find it more congenial in Iran than in Denmark. Of course freedom of speech allows them to advocate theocracy in Denmark as loudly as they want, but they cannot be aggrieved if people talk back.

problems with the qu'ran

Submitted by kuran on Fri, 2006-02-17 17:50.

The problems with the Qu'ran is that it was never written down during Mohammed's time on earth. It was written 2 centuries after his death, based on hearsay and memorized passages, passed on to his followers. So, the Qu'ran, as it is today, cannot be the same version that was passed on Mohammed.

Otherwise, if the Qu'ran is literally the words of God, how can it be that in certain passages, God says that the world is flat, the world was created in 7 days, yet in other passages, it was in 3 days, in another, in an instant? That the world will end when man walks on the moon?

And can it be true that once when Mohammed led a raid during the night and got lost, at dawn, God made the sun rise in the west and had it set in the east that day, since Mohammed is infallible? It's in one of the ha'diths...can't remember which one.

As any sane person can see, the Qu'ran is nothing more than the rantings, full of contradictions and hatred, of a deranged, delusional degenerate, Mohammed...piss be on to him.

John Kuranosuke

Re: Awesome Miracle - No muslims anywhere!

Submitted by A New Believer on Sat, 2006-02-18 14:23.

You know I can tell you what the "MOST AWESOME MIRACLE " would be! Everyone woke up around the world and the ....all the muslims....were GONE! Not a trace of them anywhere! None in stores, shopping malls, neighborhoods, beauty parlors, nail slaons, mosques, train station, subway systems, cruise ships, tugboats, ferries, gardening centers...anyplace that normal, decent people were...all muslims were vanished long, gone away.
I Like IT! It is a great miracle. Going to pray very hard so it will happen!

Just say NO to Drugs! Just say NO to muslims! Thank You! Have a great day!

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

Re: A Dove

Submitted by A New Believer on Sat, 2006-02-18 18:19.

A Dove taking a shit is a member of the hundred million miracles that happen every day. So is when you go to the bathroom and take one, the fact that you are STILL ALIVE, or when you smile, or a raindrop falls..Nope, ordinary miracles,not good enough. No, I said an AWESOME MIRACLE. I want a resurrection of the dead - no leaders.. just simple, everyday folk; miraculous healing of the sick - not just one either.. say the next 200 groups standing outside at Lourdes...or EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO IS ILL ON THIS EARTH!, walls of Jericho falling down before the Ark of the Covenant type miracle. Perhaps a disembodied hand appearing and writing "Mene mene teke Upsilon" on the walls somewhere! Bhudda appearing in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean walking around and slapping the heads of governments for cartoon hubris! I have it Bhudda, Jesus Christ, Vishnu, Odin, Elijah, Zara Mama, Wakan Tanka, Shub - Niggurath, and Allah appearing and hanging out together having some pastries and lemonade saying..."What is all this nonesense about a cartoon!" *slapping everyone senseless and telling us to. " SHUT UP! Not to be fanatical, lighten up, everyone take a chill pill, and not take umbrage and offense so easily. They are not offended so why should we be! " Then telling us all .." Do not make US come down there, cause we will KICK everybody's bums collectively!" That is an AWESOME MIRACLE! Until then I will settle or my waking up to find no
more muslims in the universe!

Oh p.s. the FIRST word of God was not heard in Mecca,Saudi Arabia.. the first word of God on this EARTH were heard in the Garden of Eden.. You were not there!
The angels heard him all the time.. so You were there as well? Oh no! I do not think that is so either! His words later went down into the Pentateuch (other wise known as the Torah) also known as the First 5 books of the Bible. So far it is the year 5766 until 2006 - 22 - 9 when it will become 5767, this is for Judaicism . It is only 1427 for your religion, 2006 for Christians, hmm really old for my religion. I would stand down for the first word of God tactic since you will still "wind up" short anyway, you cut it!

Thank You! Have a Great Day!

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

Prophecy: AIIIEEEEEEEE! I have a

Submitted by A New Believer on Sat, 2006-02-18 14:27.

AIIIEEEEEEEE! I have a dream! All muslims everywhere have vanished! It could happen, it was revealed to me by the Raven who spoke coming from the Hand that writes...it said: Go forth and in the days to come , pray, chant . fast and seek out your governments because awesome miracles are helped sometimes by MEN! If you legislate, pray, chant and possibly use some tactical nukes, a few THOUSAND SAMS ( we want to make sure we get all!), strafing fire, and a hell of a lot of napalm...you can rid yourselves of muslims everywhere! That kind of prophecy is great!

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

Hmmm! Can I help fit you for

Submitted by A New Believer on Sat, 2006-02-18 14:34.

Hmmm! Can I help fit you for a trojan Onenoson!.. nothing fancy now mind you but perhaps something in a Trojan Missile Strike!
Here to help! Thank you! Have a great day!

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

Keep it for God? Whose Yours or Mine Do not lecture ANYONE

Submitted by A New Believer on Fri, 2006-02-17 18:08.

Keep it for God? Whose Yours or Mine ? Do not lecture ANYONE, with your so called slimy concern and your soothing tones. Snakes are not to be trusted.. and that is what you are..a snake. You will let a reptile insinuate its way inside the house and then kill all the inhabitants? Lying to you about peace etc.?

Do not want to! Not going to! Cannot Make us, become one with islam! I have heard people say they do nt want to criticise and insult with regard to faiths! I do not care, because every time a muslim begins to preach, proselytize, harangue and expound.. they are criticizing..what you believe..Have you noticed it? Only mohammed seemed to be able to get his pants on, only mohammed can talk, only mohammed and anyone who believes exactly their way believes, only mohammed was good only mohammed knew this or that.. Bullshit, they were sucked in by a cheap arabian bullshit artist, who in turned sucked in a lot of other arabian
bullshit artist..who duped nations and are now trying to sell the west "sos" wrapped up in a piece of pita bread. They criticize and they insult. Point in case when was the last time you saw or heard this:

"u do not know is whihc islam is best, giving u more freedom is ba d. only u not know quran, if you knowing muhmmned (pbuh) u getting someting u not knowing when u knoing is something with every thing is good and u slandered s prophet is terrible, becaus u not try is against all islam n u hatreds they way is good and rights of peope rtrmanple when u not know ing prpohert who can u show u 3ay to god. if u tyr you maybe no who iz a nd like u is coming u" (onenoson, emed30,peace, nermin, bashar, aman, islamisperfect all have come up with that))

Which means what? NOTHING! It means nothing! Except if you listen to that,, then we really are stupid. Then we really deserve to be swallowed up.Any muslim that wants to can kiss my rosy red native american bum in the large picture window of Filenes Department Store, on Christmas Day in Boston, Massachusetts! I am not handing them ANY of my rights. That goes for free of speech to freedom of dress, to freedom to think, freedom to recount and recall my heritage or festivals. If they troll into power by the back door, eventually Finnish Lapps will not be able to worship and do ancient ceremonies cause it might piss off allah baba boo and mohammed. Zara Mama, a corn goddess, in south america may n ot be able to have her ceremonies done because some raghead sitting in Quito, Ecquador may decide he does not like the lewd nudeness of a statute the indians carry that was around 3 thousand years before the prophet mohammed ever had his first shitty diaper changed. They are getting upset in Spain because they are not sure whther to do thei old remembrance ceremony of when they wrested back the Spanish mainland from a army of INVADER known as the MOORS. The heads of moors on large lenten puppets carried around dancing and pelting them with vegetables and the crowd in this manner recreates when EL Cid kicked the moorish bums back across the sea into North Africa.Are the europeans I love so dearly afraid to remind the world as they have for centuries that on several occasions it even pushed Suleiman and his invading armies that had invaded central Europe, sieging Vienna, in its attempts to conquer the Habsburg domain, and was only repulsed by coalitions of European powers, back to where they were. Someone tell me of the Polish-Lithuainian Commonwealth and how suleiman forces cut a path up through teh Balkans and was turned back. Are you going to let them take.. what your ancestors fought like DOGS to keep them from getting...NOW! You will submit to sharia law?.. Since when do the sons of Martin Luther, of von Karlstadt, of Tynedale, of Cromwell,of Wycliff, of Huss, of Thomas à Kempis, of Catherine of Genoa, of Nicholas of Cusa, of Lorenzo Valla ( in the catholic leanings meaning Rome) bow to other than their Lord and Savior! I am not a Christian, but I cannot look on if you bow to Mecca. In that instance I will die for Odin and my christian friends for this is to much. And this has to be stopped. They are laughing at you! this is a systemic program! If you appease them you play right into their hands.. or does no one remember that Neville Chamberlin and the United Nations gave Chancellor Hitler carte blanche in Europe . Will you give The Islamofascists carte blanche as well? You would say No to drugs! So now, just say NO islam.

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

Hmm! I have a quran in my library, bonfires anyone?

Submitted by A New Believer on Fri, 2006-02-17 18:21.

HmmI I have a quran in my library it is annotated and with passages marked off from when I was studying and disseminatin materials for comparative religious studies>

I hate to say it but I have some other treatises written by Al Motamid and a few other scholars, well I have been called so many things here. This surely will not matter. I will be building a bonfire this weekend! A
bonfire to the vanity of...islam. If islamic and religious.. i shall be burning it! Oh yes, it is the least I can do!

A bonfire is a terrible thing ...to waste!

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

The "sensitivity" argument is void

Submitted by illum on Fri, 2006-02-17 14:45.

A reporter in Turkey was stoned during a demonstration against Mohammed cartoons a couple of days ago. Protestors thought she was "provocative" since she wasn't wearing a headdress, which of course, brings us to an interresting point of extrapolation based on how "freedom of speech shouldn't provoke".

Should we soon demand that our "freedom to dress" shouldn't provoke either? Maybe our choice of politicians and our choice of law too? What if my religion prohibits the word "mathematics", should we ban it too?

Freedom of speech doesn't stop at offensive, it STARTS there! Why would something you agree to need to be protected?