Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

THOUGHTS ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE

Lowell Ponte offers an excellent overview of Europe's (non-Muslim) progressive demographic demise.    If a reader hasn't been following this story, Ponte's article will bring one up to speed in a hurry.   It's a must-read to get keyed in on Europe's future.   Ponte begins with the following words, 

Europe’s botched civilization, perverted by socialism and lost faith, seems to have lost the will, the passion to sustain itself. If it continues to practice today’s multiculturalist leftism, Europe’s demographic doom will be sealed. 

Some harbingers:

• In Brussels, Belgium, the most popular name for baby boys is now Mohammad. .
• In France at least 12 percent of the population is already Muslim, the fruits mostly of immigrants from former French colonies in North Africa. . . .

If Europe continues as it is now, the rising Muslim tide will, one at a time, transform the members of the European Union into Islamic Republics under Islamic Shari’a law as Muslims become the majority population.

Already the wealth of traditional Europeans is being bled away and transferred to new Muslim immigrants and their children.   One mechanism for this is the European welfare state.   In Denmark, observed Bawer, only five percent of the population is Muslim, but this minority demands and receives 40 percent of the Danish government’s total welfare payments and other taxpayer-subsidized social benefits. . . .

Another method used to transfer wealth from Europeans to Eurabian Muslims is theft.   Some radical Mullahs have told their European congregations that Islamic Shari’a law justifies shoplifting and other forms of stealing from European merchants and companies as a way to make non-Muslims pay the discriminatory jizya tax that is extracted from non-Muslim citizens in Muslim countries. . . [I find this particularly amazing!]

Forty percent of Muslims living in Great Britain want Islamic Shari’a law introduced into parts of that country, according to a poll reported last month by the London Sunday Telegraph. . .

Ponte discusses Sharia law, lack of religious freedom, the Muhammad cartoons controversy,  press freedom and other matters.   After so much negativity, he allows himself to end on a hopeful note:

In time Islam could collapse, as Communism did.   More likely, this religion now living through its own dark 14^th Century might flower into a Renaissance and follow the enlightened model of Ataturk’s Turkey.   Modern Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a friend of Israel, and a candidate for European Union membership.   Women had the right to vote in Ataturk’s Turkey before they did in England.   Turkey could become the model for the future Islamic world, besting the medieval ideology of Islamism, narrow-mindedness, hate and violence preached by Osama bin Laden and his ilk.

A courageous European stand against that nest of Islamist vipers and their atomic eggs in Teheran would be a good place for Europe to demonstrate to itself and to the world that it has the will and skill to survive.

LETTER WRITTEN BY THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA MUSLIM STUDENT WHO TRIED TO KILL OTHER UNC STUDENTS WITH HIS CAR

Click here to read the entire transcript of the letter Mohammed Taheri-Azar left in his apartment for police to find after he drove into nine people with an SUV in The Pit at UNC on March 3.  Below are a few excerpts:

I am writing this letter to inform you of my reasons for premeditating and attempting to murder citizens and residents of the United States of America on Friday, March 3, 2006 in the city of Chapel Hill, North Carolina by running them over with my automobile and stabbing them with a knife if the opportunities are presented to me by Allah. . . .

Due to the killing of believing men and women under the direction of the United States government, I have decided to take advantage of my presence on United States soil on Friday, March 3, 2006 to take the lives of as many Americans and American sympathizers as I can in order to punish the United States for their immoral actions around the world.

In the Qur'an, Allah states that the believing men and women have permission to murder anyone responsible for the killing of other believing men and women.   I know that the Qur'an is a legitimate and authoritative holy scripture since it is completely validated by modern science and also mathematically encoded with the number 19 beyond human ability.   After extensive contemplation and reflection, I have made the decision to exercise the right of violent retaliation that Allah has given me to the fullest extent to which I am capable at present.

I have chosen the particular location on the University campus as my target since I know there is a high likelihood that I will kill several people before being killed myself or jailed and sent to prison if Allah wills.    Allah's commandments are never to be questioned and all of Allah's commandments must be obeyed.   Those who violate Allah's commandments and purposefully follow human fabrication and falsehood as their religion will burn in fire for eternity in accordance with Allah's will.

His reasons for believing the Koran (paragraph 3 above) are "interesting."   I will want to revisit that bit of "apologetics" sometime in the future.

MUSLIM SHARIA LAW OF DEATH TO APOSTATES HANGS OVER THE WORLD EVEN IF ABDUL RAHMAN IS RELEASED

On Islam's decree, "death for apostates", one needs to consult Andrew G. Bostom's definitive article in The American Thinker.    (HT: Michelle Malkin)    One must recognize that Islam's demanding death for apostates  is not unique to Afghanistan.   As Bostom aptly states,

Death for apostacy is part and parcel of Islamic scripture and tradition.  When Afghanistan’s leading clerics endorse his death, they are on solid ground.

He cites chapter and verse of the Koran and learned Koranic commentaries through the ages, including the opinion of the Hadith and contemporary authorities.   

Thus even if Mr. Rahman gets a “dispensation” by the Karzai Government —for “mental health”, or other reasons, unfortunately, he is and remains guilty as per Afghan religious leaders, and Shari’a.   As such, once released from prison, should any pious Afghan Muslim kill him (heeding the calls of local Afghan clerics), according to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, (which prevails in Afghanistan), specifically the important legal text The Hidaya by al-Marghiniani (d. 1197),

If any person kills an apostate….Nothing [i.e., no punishment]...is incurred by the slayer. . . .

For a decade, three courageous, prescient scholars—Ibn Warraq , David Littman, and Bat Ye’or —have warned about the grave dangers posed by Shari’a-based “human rights” constructs, such as the  1990 Cairo Declaration (i.e., the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, to which all member states [now 57] of the Organization of the Islamic Conference—including “secular” Turkey—are signatories).   Indeed the intrepid Senegalese jurist Adama Dieng (a Muslim, who subsequently became a United Nations special rapporteur), then serving as secretary-general to the International Commission of Jurists,  declared forthrightly in February 1992  that the Cairo Declaration, under the rubric of the Shari’a,

...gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based;  introduces, in the name of the defense of human rights, an intolerable discrimination against both non-Muslims and women; reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standard in effect in a number of Muslim countries; [and] confirms the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, that attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.

Bostom quotes Samuel Zwemer's 1924 book, The Law of Apostasy in Islam, as still relevant today.  Zwemer wrote that

" . . . the conscience and the faith of the most sincere and upright Moslems are bound up with the Koran and the Traditions.   Civilization cannot eradicate deep-seated convictions.   Rifles and ironclads, the cafe, the theatre, written constitutions, representative parliaments; none of these reach far below the surface.   A truer freedom…than the one supplied by their own faith, must come before Moslems can enter into the larger liberty which we enjoy.

In other words, Muslims who remain loyal to traditional  Islamic ethics and theology cannot be moved into a "freedom of religion" mode very easily.   One wonders how many Islamic background converts to Christian faith will suffer martyrdom in the years ahead, and whether there will ever be any loosening of the dire penalties demanded by the Koran.  It is reported by several sources that an astounding number of Muslims in various countries are experiencing "dreams and visions" of the risen Christ, thus precipitating a desire to learn more about this man whom Christians recognize as Lord and Savior of the world.   At the same time, European Islamic enclaves continue to push for the enshrinement of local Sharia  law.   To my mind, the Islamofacist threat is the 21st century's equivalence of the Communist - Free World struggle of the previous century.    Only in many ways it is more severe...   

AFGHANISTAN CRISIS DEEPENS OVER DEATH PENALTY FOR CHRISTIAN CONVERT

What are we to make of the on-going crisis in Afghanistan over Abdul Rahman, the Muslim convert to Christianity?    Supreme Court Chief Justice Fazl Hadi Shinwari, once told our National Public Radio that it is his duty as a judge to “behead” those who do not conform to Islamic law.    Western nations are lodging their protests.  Here is a case where American foreign policy and Afghanistan's independence collide.  How will it be resolved?

Nina Shea, the director of Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom, has this to say:   

But this is about more than Mr. Rahman.   This will be a persistent, recurring problem under Afghanistan’s sharia apostasy and blasphemy laws.  The administration also needs to do more to ensure the reform Afghanistan’s judiciary.    President Karzai must be encouraged to wrest it from the control of Islamists like Supreme Court Chief Justice Fazl Hadi Shinwari, who once told our National Public Radio that it is his duty as a judge to “behead” those who do not conform to Islamic law.   Americans continue to give billions of dollars, and sacrifice their lives to support the Afghan government.   It not only serves compelling humanitarian interests to use this leverage now, but it would be a betrayal of America’s deepest national values not to.

She is urging the U.S. to initiate pressure on the Afghan government.   But the government is receiving equally strong pressure from influential Muslim leaders to resist such pressure.    I see this as a genuine crisis in American foreign policy.  It is not only Afghanistan about which this issue revolves, but Iraq as well.  "Democracy" as a panacea, as a "cure-all" for what ails the Middle East, is apparently stumbling over the rock of Islamic theology and ethics.

The BBC reports "Mood Hardens Against Afghan Convert."   The report includes such quotes as the following:

The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back," says Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the trial judge.

"Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity.  That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him," he told the BBC News website.   [Hmmm...  peace, tolerance, kindness -- but only for those who convert!!  Death to all others!   That's a unique definition of  'peace, tolerance, kindness"!!]

"We will not let anyone interfere with our religious practices," declared cleric Inayatullah at Kabul's Pulakasthy mosque, one of the city's largest.

"What Rahman has done is wrong and he must be punished."

"What is wrong with Islam that he should want to convert?" asks an agitated Abdul Zahid Payman.

"The courts should punish him and he should be put to death."

"Who is America to tell us what to do? If Karzai listens to them there will be jihad (holy war)."

The BBC commentator explains:

Afghanistan's constitution, written in 2004, enshrines the country as an Islamic state under which no law can contravene Islam.

But it also protects personal freedom and respects international human rights conventions.

It is a deliberately ambiguous document which tries to paper over the cracks and contradictions of Afghanistan," says one Afghan law professor privately.

But now the contradictions have risen to the surface.    [Yes, exactly.  See my post for March 23, 2006)

IS THERE A CLASH OF CIVILIZATiONS? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!!

Western apologists for Islam have their work cut out for them.   If the world didn't know it before, (thanks to the ubiquitous disinformation of "multiculturaists"), the world now knows that Islam demands that a convert to Christianity be killed.   This is nothing new.  This is no novel development.    This is Islam's history.    Now the "religion of peace" can be more clearly grasped in its macabre, vicious, totalitarian reality.   Read Michelle Malkin's post below [my underlinings].   It will make you sick.    The unmasking of Islam (especially for those who have been deluded) has apparently begun . . .   

THE RELIGION OF PIECES

By Michelle Malkin   ·   March 24, 2006 12:39 AM

WAKE-UP CALL (via AP/WaPo):

Senior Muslim clerics demanded Thursday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces."

..."Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001.

...On Wednesday, authorities said Rahman is suspected of being mentally ill and would undergo psychological examinations to see whether he is fit to stand trial.

But three Sunni preachers and a Shiite one interviewed by The Associated Press in four of Kabul's most popular mosques said they do not believe Rahman is insane.

"He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian," said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque.

"The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed," Hamidullah said.

Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, agreed. "The government is playing games. The people will not be fooled."

"Cut off his head!" he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside Herati Mosque. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left."

...Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite places of worship in Kabul, said Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country.

"If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too," he said. "We must set an example. ... He must be hanged."

..."We are a small country and we welcome the help the outside world is giving us. But please don't interfere in this issue," Nasri said. "We are Muslims and these are our beliefs. This is much more important to us than all the aid the world has given us."

Australian PM John Howard speaks for me [Michelle Malkin]:

The case of an Afghan man facing a possible death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity is ``appalling,'' Australian Prime Minister John Howard said.

``We're putting the lives of Australian soldiers on the line and this sort of thing is allowed,'' Howard told Melbourne radio station 3AW today. ``When I saw the report about this I felt sick.''

AFGHANISTAN AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION

It's obvious that the Afghanistan government will try to wiggle out of their public relations nightmare by declaring the Christian convert from Islam, Abdul Rahman,  mentally incompetent to stand trial.  That will prove nothing.   The lack of religious freedom remains, and the penalty also remains (death).  Professor John S. Ford of the UCLA School of medicine inveighs against using psychiatry as a tool of social engineering.    (HT: Michelle Malkin)

The fact is that the lack of religious freedom in the "new" Afghanistan was an issue the United States didn't want to address explicitly during the writing of the constitution.   Those who pointed out the problematic future of that approach, like Andrew C. McCarthy  and Paul Marshall, were pooh-poohed.   Now we're living with the short-sightedness (dare we say incompetence?) of our U.S. government.    A kind of benign political correctness and naivete concerning the power and potency of religion (including, and especially Islam) bedevils the State department and other areas of "enlightened opinion."   This current crisis could have been avoided.

Andrew McCArthy concludes his essay:

You reap what you sow. What is happening in Afghanistan (and in Iraq) is precisely what we bought on to when we actively participated in the drafting of constitutions which — in a manner antithetical to the development of true democracy — ignored the imperative to insulate the civil authority from the religious authority, installed Islam as the state religion, made sharia a dominant force in law, and expressly required that judges be trained in Islamic jurisprudence.  To have done all those things makes outrage at today’s natural consequences ring hollow.

We can pull our heads up from the sand now and say, “No, no, no! We’re nice people. We didn’t mean it that way. That’s too uncivilized to contemplate.”   But the inescapable truth is: the United States made a calculated decision that it wasn’t worth our while to fight over Islamic law (indeed, we encouraged it as part of the political solution).   People who objected (like moi) were told that we just didn’t grasp the cultural dynamic at work. I beg to differ — we understood it only too well.

U.S. POLICY FAILS TO GRASP THE WORLDWIDE POPULARITY OF ISLAMIST THEOLOGY

Daniel Pipes, a man whose analysis of things Middle Eastern and Muslim I respect highly, is not excited about a a major foreign policy document issued last week by the White House, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.   It is mandated by law to appear every four years.

Among various things that worry him, Pipes says

The report minimizes the threat of radical Islam via the fiction that a “proud religion” has been “twisted and made to serve an evil.”   Not so: Islamism is a deeply grounded and widely popular version of Islam, as shown by election results from Afghanistan to Algeria.   Reliable opinion polls are lacking from majority-Muslim countries but repeated surveys in the United Kingdom give some idea of the harrowingly extremist attitudes of its Muslim population: 5 percent of them support the July 7 terrorist attacks in London and say more such attacks are justified; 20 percent have sympathy with the feelings and motives of the July 7 attackers and believe that suicide attacks against the military in Britain can be justified.  These results are probably typical of Muslim populations globally, as recent polls of Indonesians and Palestinians confirms.

Policy built on illusion can only produce disappointment, if not tragedy.  One could wish the President's optimism and idealism were based on a better grasp of Islamism's widespread popularity and its grounding in Muslim theology.

AFGHAN CHRISTIAN FACES DEATH FOR CONVERSION

I have lifted the post below from Andy McCarthy at the Corner of National Review Online.    This is truly serious.  Maybe now the world (and our State Department??) will wake up to the fact that the "peaceful religion of Islam" mandates the death penalty for a Muslim who converts to Christianity.   What will the Afghanistan court system do with this case?    The consequential big question:  has the United States failed to provide "freedom of religion" for countries it has supposedly liberated?    If so, then we must question how real and genuine is the new-found freedom.   I predict the issue of Islam's mandating the death penalty for converts leaving Islam will prove a defining issue for Islam and the world's attitude towards it in the years ahead.   It should also raise a few belated questions among unthinking "multiculturalists" as well.

        IN THE NEW AFGHANISTAN:  DEATH FOR APOSTASY [Andy McCarthy]

Back in mid-August, I was the spoil-sport raining on the Corner parade over the new Iraqi constitution. With key assistance from the U.S. State Department, that constitution installed Islam as the official state religion and made sharia a primary source of law. It also contained some human rights provisions, which is what its enthusiasts said we should be focusing on rather than all that nettlesome religio-cultural stuff.

At the time, I was reminded that we had birthed the same kind of constitution in Afghanistan, and that this was purportedly working out very well. Specifically, the Afghan constitution states that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.” But not to worry. The State Department maintained that it also contained strong human rights provisions and was thus becoming a framework for the emergence of a peaceful and vibrant democracy.

Today comes this, from Fox News, via the Associated Press:

Afghan Man Faces Death for Allegedly Converting to Christianity

KABUL, Afghanistan — An Afghan man who allegedly converted from Islam to Christianity is being prosecuted in a Kabul court and could be sentenced to death, a judge said Sunday.

The defendant, Abdul Rahman, was arrested last month after his family went to the police and accused him of becoming a Christian, Judge Ansarullah Mawlavezada told the Associated Press in an interview. Such a conversion would violate the country's Islamic laws.

Rahman, who is believed to be 41, was charged with rejecting Islam when his trial started last week, the judge said.

During the hearing, the defendant allegedly confessed that he converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years ago when he was 25 and working as a medical aid worker for Afghan refugees in neighboring Pakistan, Mawlavezada said.

Afghanistan's constitution is based on Shariah law, which states that any Muslim who rejects their religion should be sentenced to death.

After over four years of American guidance, assistance and sacrifice, here is how the Afghan judge explained the situation: "'We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law,' the judge said. 'It is an attack on Islam. ... The prosecutor is asking for the death penalty.'"  (Italics mine.)

For his part, the Afghan prosecutor, too, explained that he had been eminently reasonable: "The prosecutor, Abdul Wasi, said the case was the first of its kind in Afghanistan. He said that he had offered to drop the charges if Rahman changed his religion back to Islam, but the defendant refused."

Now I ask you, does it get any more moderate than that?

CAIR: ISLAMISTS FOOLING THE ESTABLISHMENT

The article I've linked to is titled  CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment.   It's disheartening to see how blind the 'establishment' can sometimes be.   The article tells you all you need to know about CAIR - the Council on American-Islamic Relations.   Daniel Pipes, one of the co-authors, is a particularly well-known, distinguished student of Islamic current affairs.  Some excerpts:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), headquartered in Washington, is perhaps the best-known and most controversial Muslim organization in North America.   CAIR presents itself as an advocate for Muslims’ civil rights and the spokesman for American Muslims...    But there is another side to CAIR that has alarmed many people in positions to know.  The Department of Homeland Security refuses to deal with it.  Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat, New York) describes it as an organization “which we know has ties to terrorism.”[2] Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois ) observes that CAIR is “unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect.”   Steven Pomerantz, the FBI’s former chief of counterterrorism, notes that “CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.” . . .    Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance calls CAIR “the most accomplished fifth column” in the United States. And Stephen Schwartz of the Center on Islamic Pluralism writes that “CAIR should be considered a foreign-based subversive organization, comparable in the Islamist field to the Soviet-controlled Communist Party, USA.”  ...  CAIR has consistently shown itself to be on the wrong side of the war on terrorism, protecting, defending, and supporting both accused and even convicted radical Islamic terrorists.

Read the entire article.   It sheds light on an organization that employs intimidation and deceit, but succeeds in fooling many.

ISLAM AND THE LAW OF 'GENERAL BENEFICENCE'

Robert Spencer, an authority on Islam, has written many books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades),  The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims, and  Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith.    In a recent article, Spencer makes a most interesting observation. 

In his landmark book The Abolition of Man, the Christian apologist C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) assembled examples of what he called the Tao, or the Natural Law: principles held by people in a wide variety of cultures and civilizations.  These principles include “Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors”; “Duties to Children and Posterity”; The Law of Good Faith and Veracity;” “The Law of Magnanimity”; and more. He illustrates the universality of these principles by quotations from sources as diverse as the Old Testament, the New Testament, Virgil’s Aeneid, the Bhagavad Gita, Confucius’ Analects, the writings of Australian Aborigines, and many others. But completely missing are any quotations from the Qur’an or other Muslim sources. 

Spencer goes on to say,

Lewis may have found that traditional Islam simply does not uphold what he calls “The Law of General Beneficence”; one is not to be charitable except to fellow believers. To be sure, Lewis could have quoted a hadith in which the Muslim Prophet Muhammad says: “Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them” (Sahih Muslim 4546). This certainly appears to affirm the Law of General Beneficence.   But it is contravened by so many other passages in the Qur’an and Hadith that make such a sharp distinction between believers and unbelievers (the “vilest of creatures” according to Qur’an 98:6) that it becomes an essentially empty statement, or one in which “the people” to which Muhammad refers are understood as Muslims only. After all, “Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another” (Qur’an 48:29).

There's more.  Read the whole article.

AN ARAB-AMERICAN SPEAKS OUT

Wow.  Here is the story of an incredibly courageous Arab-American woman.  Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNetDaily.com introduces her as a heroine.

Her name is Wafa Sultan. She came to the U.S. about 15 years ago to escape the oppression of the Muslim world. A psychologist, she has not been content to sit back and simply enjoy the new life she has made for herself in the West. Instead, she has literally put her life on the line to condemn, in no uncertain terms, the ugliness, the vileness, the murder and the violence of the world she fled.

On Feb. 21st on Al Jazeera she said:

"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations," she said. "It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete."

Read the article and view the video.

MODERATE MUSLIMS OFFER A MANIFESTO

Two moderate Muslims, Mustafa Akyol and Zeyno Baran, have offered a "Muslim Manifesto" in response to the Danish cartoons and the overheated, violent Muslim response.  Embedded in the manifesto is this sentence - "Supported by the Koran's affirmation that 'there is no compulsion in religion' (2:256), we cherish religious liberty." 

Andy McCarthy of National Review Online offers a response to the manifesto.

I have probably already said as much as I can say on this subject in yesterday’s marathon of a debate. But some observations about the "Muslim Manifesto" offered by Mustafa Akyol and Zeyno Baran on NRO today.

First, it is obviously a good thing that Muslims of good will are finally trying to come forward in numbers to condemn the cartoon rioting.  But we should understand that this business of citing the congenial passages of Muslim scripture for Western consumption (which I have debated with Mr. Akyol before, here) is probably not very persuasive to Muslims, especially the ones doing the rioting.

That is because most of the nice verses, from Mohammed’s Meccan period, are in the early part of the Koran.  They are arguably superseded by the later part, from the Medina period, which is much more belligerent, and instructs Muslims, for example, to “fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.” (Sura 9:5).

Until self-professed moderates revise or reinterpret such passages in a way that sways the Islamic world decisively (a very tall order), all of this citation of scripture actually plays into the hands of the militants because they can credibly contend that the passages they can cite have more authority.

A good example of this is the Manifesto’s claim that “Supported by the Koran's affirmation that ‘there is no compulsion in religion’ (2:256), we cherish religious liberty.” Later in the Koran, however, Allah instructs: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, from among the people of the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

As I tried to explain yesterday, the jizya, or poll-tax, was a levy imposed on those who did not accept Islam but were willing to live under its protection.  Robert Spencer, among other experts, has explained that it was often exacted in most humiliating ways in order to comply with the directive that those paying it “[felt] themselves subdued.”

WHERE IS THE MUSLIM RECIPROCITY?

Muslims complain about the Danish cartoons.  Where is the reciprocal respect for Christian faith in Muslim lands?  It's hard to find.  Instead we find the opposite:  violence against Christians, the burning of churches, the refusal to even allow Christian worship to take place (Saudi Arabia).  Today's Breakpoint with Chuck Colson highlights the problem.    Nigeria is one of the hot spots of Muslim aggression against Christians in the world today.  Peter J. Akinola, President of the Christian Association of Nigeria and Primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, issued a statement recently.  Compass Direct chronicles the on-going struggle of Christians in that land.    A useful map showing the Northern Nigerian states that have imposed Muslim sharia law may be found here. 

A VICTIM OF MUSLIM VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION TELLS US TO WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE

Brigitte Gabriele, a Lebanese Christian who has experienced the brunt of Islamic terror in her own life, recently delivered a powerful speech. She warns America to wake up to the real nature of Islam.   An excerpt:

America cannot effectively defend itself in this war unless and until the American people understand the nature of the enemy that we face.  Even after 9/11 there are those who say that we must "engage" our terrorist enemies, that we must "address their grievances”.   Their grievance is our freedom of religion.  Their grievance is our freedom of speech.  Their grievance is our democratic process where the rule of law comes from the voices of many not that of just one prophet.  It is the respect we instill in our children towards all religions.   It is the equality we grant each other as human beings sharing a planet and striving to make the world a better place for all humanity.  Their grievance is the kindness and respect a man shows a woman, the justice we practice as equals under the law, and the mercy we grant our enemy.  Their grievance cannot be answered by an apology for who or what we are…  For the sake of our children and our country, we must wake up and take action. In the face of a torrent of hateful invective and terrorist murder, America's learning curve since the Iran  hostage crisis is so shallow that it is almost flat.  The longer we lay supine, the more difficult it will be to stand erect.

BRITAIN HAS ISLAMIC SHARIA LAW IN ITS FUTURE

If anyone wants to know the future of  Britain vis-a-vis Islam, he or she should read this account of the views of Dr. Partick Sookhdeo, the director of the Institute on the Study of Islam and Christianity.  A former Muslim himself, he excoriates the superficial knowledge of Islam by Prime Minister Tony Blair and other political leaders.

Dr Sookhdeo says that  "in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law."  Some quotes:

'Islamic clerics do not believe in a society in which Islam is one religion among others in a society ruled by basically non-religious laws.  They believe it must be the dominant religion - and it is their aim to achieve this.

"That is why they do not believe in integration.  In 1980, the Islamic Council of Europe laid out their strategy for the future - and the fundamental rule was never dilute your presence. That is to say, do not integrate.

"Rather, concentrate Muslim presence in a particular area until you are a majority in that area, so that the institutions of the local community come to reflect Islamic structures. . .

That plan, says Dr Sookhdeo, is being followed in Britain. "That is why you are seeing areas which are now almost totally Muslim. The next step will be pushing the Government to recognise sharia law for Muslim communities - which will be backed up by the claim that it is "racist" or "Islamophobic" or "violating the rights of Muslims" to deny them sharia law.

"There's already a Sharia Law Council for the UK. The Government has already started making concessions: it has changed the law so that there are sharia-compliant mortgages and sharia pensions.

"Some Muslims are now pressing to be allowed four wives: they say it is part of their religion. They claim that not being allowed four wives is a denial of their religious liberty...

"The more fundamentalist clerics think that it is only a matter of time before they will persuade the Government to concede on the issue of sharia law. Given the Government's record of capitulating, you can see why they believe that."

ISLAM ABLAZE

-- Daniel Pipes asks,"What are the long-term consequences of the Muhammad cartoon furor? I predict it is helping bring on not a clash of civilizations but their mutual pulling apart. This separation, which has been building for years, has dreadful implications."  He writes about the consequenes here.

-- The Brussels Journal published a powerful essay titled "The Betrayal of Denmark (and of us all)."  It includes a remarkable article translated from the Danish.  An eloquent, powerful piece.   

-- Two brave men stage a counterprotest in the midst of a Muslim demonstration in Paris.  What courage!!

-- Victor Davis Hanson looks into his crystal ball "What Will Europe Really Do?" to contemplate Europe's possible future responses to Islamic fascism, as well as a possible reconstructed new relationship with the United States.    - Dr. Andrew Jackson did a good job highlighting certain paragraphs:

If the most liberal and tolerant states in Europe such as Holland and Denmark have the most problems with Islamic radicals, then what does that say about the continent as a whole?

Do the Europeans sense that the more open, free-wheeling and non-judgmental the culture, the more it is hated by the jihadists?

We may see less of the anti-American rhetoric and a return to the Cold War slogans of a “strong Atlantic Alliance” and “an essential Nato,” as nuclear jihadists replace the fear of 300 Soviet divisions.

Be sure to check Michelle Malkin daily.  She remains must reading!  She has lots more on her website.

EUROPE AS "EURABIA"

On February 10^th of this year, Charles Colson produced a "Breakpoint" broadcast that provides a masterful, if brief, overview of the morphing of the European continent into “Eurabia.”  Some excerpts from Colson's article are reproduced below, but be sure to check the article itself for excellent links  and supporting documentation.

“Eurabia,” which has been in the making since the 1970s, is “the shifting of Europe into the Arab-Islamic sphere of influence,” accomplished through European-Arab “collaboration at all levels”: political, economic, educational, and in the media.

And this collaboration “became the channel for Arab immigration into Europe,” leading to what Ye’or calls “a pseudo-culture” characterized by “anti-Americanism,” “Judeophobia,” and a “general hatred of the West.”

It’s this “pseudo-culture” that’s on display today. The timidity of the response to Islamic violence is the result of what Ye’or calls a “multiform European symbiosis with the Arab world.” After nearly three decades of appeasement, Europe is unable to say “No!” to the Islamic world, even when its core values are at stake.

Another factor hastening the advent of “Eurabia”—or the Islamicization of Europe—is what historian Niall Ferguson calls “the extraordinary prospect of European demographic decline.” Arab immigration has coincided with a precipitous decline in birthrates. So an aging and shrinking population, coupled with sacrosanct welfare state, has left Europeans dependent on Islamic immigrants. The result? There is “a youthful Muslim society . . . ,” in Ferguson’s words, “poised to colonize” an aging Europe.

Finally, there’s Europe’s cultural and spiritual exhaustion. Less than 10 percent of the population of Western Europe attends church once a month, and more than half of Scandinavians “say that God does not matter to them at all.”

The combination of low birthrates, immigration, and “decadence” leaves Ferguson, like Ye’or, worrying about a “creeping Islamicization” of Europe. Not only is Europe ill-prepared to wage a “clash of cultures,” it is not even willing to admit that it is in one! European elites thought that secularism—renouncing its Christian heritage—and solicitude for Islamic positions would buy peace.

They were wrong. Appeasement only emboldens those being appeased, as Europeans ought to have learned by now. And replacing even a “pseudo-culture” requires a viable alternative, something Europe doesn’t have.

And so people are being killed over, of all things, cartoons.

MUSLIM REACTION TO THE MUHAMMAD CARTOONS (AGAIN)

The Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons of Muhammad remains very much in the news.  Over the past several days I have read several outstanding commentaries, a few of which I mention below.

 Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born Muslim dissident (now an agnostic), and member of the Dutch Parliament, wrote with incredible bravery a defense of Denmark and free speech. She requires permanent personal protection because of the persistent death threats against her.  One journalist, Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News, has called her "the Solzhenitsyn of our time."

 Nonie Darwish, Muslim-born in Cairo and raised in the Gaza Strip, exposes (and laments) the culture of hate which she personally experienced as a youth and which persists within the Muslim world. “In school in Gaza, I learned hate, vengeance and retaliation. Peace was never an option, as it was considered a sign of defeat and weakness. . . Criticism and questioning were forbidden. When I did either of these, I was told: "Muslims cannot love the enemies of God, and those who do will get no mercy in hell." She said that from a mosque she heard, "May God destroy the infidels and the Jews, the enemies of God. We are not to befriend them or make treaties with them. . ."

“For 30 years I lived inside this war zone of oppressive dictatorships and police states. Citizens competed to appease and glorify their dictators, but they looked the other way when Muslims tortured and terrorised other Muslims. I witnessed honour killings of girls, oppression of women, female genital mutilation, polygamy and its devastating effect on family relations. All of this is destroying the Muslim faith from within.

“Muslims need jobs - not jihad. Apologies about cartoons will not solve the problems. What is needed is hope and not hate. Unless we recognise that the culture of hate is the true root of the riots surrounding this cartoon controversy, this violent overreaction will only be the start of a clash of civilisations that the world cannot bear. 

---

Paul Marshall, respected scholar of things Islamic, points out in a Feb 13^th article, “we should rid ourselves of certain misconceptions.  One is that Islam forbids any visual portrayal of Mohammed; another is that such depictions of Mohammed are extremely unusual.” According to Marshall, “There is a strong tradition within Islam that making portraits of Mohammed is wrong, but it is by no means universal. Some, especially Shiites, believe it is legitimate. Others believe that it is legitimate to portray him when he was young, before becoming a prophet.”  The article cites instances, with links, of depictions of Muhammad in various lands and differing centuries.  He concludes his article by saying,

If we yield now to pressures for censorship, Islamists and authoritarian regimes overseas will have learned that by undercutting our trade, attacking our embassies, and threatening our citizens, they can control our press, just as they do their own, and they will take those lessons to heart.

Tony Blankley offers a powerful and persuasive column on why the West needs to publish the cartoons.   Cal Thomas  weighs in as well. 

2/14/06 UPDATE:  Dennis Prager cites American news media's loss of credibility to two factors: dishonesty and cowardice. 

"Everyone and his mother knows why the networks and the print journals haven't shown the cartoons -- they fear Muslims blowing up their buildings and stabbing their editors to death. The only people who deny this are the news media."

Key quote:

When it comes to taking on conservatives, Catholics, evangelicals and the like, liberal news media are Supermen.  When it comes to confronting real evil, however, the news media are Mickey Mouse. 

KRAUTHAMMER UNIMPRESSED BY MUSLIM 'MODERATES'

Charles Krauthammer isn't impressed by Muslim moderates.  He asks,

"Have any of these 'moderates' ever protested the grotesque caricatures of Christians and, most especially, Jews that are broadcast throughout the Middle East on a daily basis?  The sermons on Palestinian TV that refer to Jews as the sons of pigs and monkeys?  The Syrian prime-time TV series that shows rabbis slaughtering a gentile boy to ritually consume his blood?  The 41-part (!) series on Egyptian TV based on that anti-Semitic czarist forgery (and inspiration of the Nazis), 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' showing the Jews to be engaged in a century-old conspiracy to control the world?

A true Muslim moderate is one who protests desecrations of all faiths. Those who don't are not moderates but hypocrites, opportunists and agents for the rioters, merely using different means to advance the same goal: to impose upon the West, with its traditions of freedom of speech, a set of taboos that is exclusive to the Islamic faith. These are not defenders of religion but Muslim supremacists trying to force their dictates upon the liberal West. ..

What is at issue is fear. The unspoken reason many newspapers do not want to republish is not sensitivity but simple fear. They know what happened to Theo van Gogh, who made a film about the Islamic treatment of women and got a knife through the chest with an Islamist manifesto attached.

The worldwide riots and burnings are instruments of intimidation, reminders of van Gogh's fate. The Islamic "moderates" are the mob's agents and interpreters, warning us not to do this again. And the Western "moderates" are their terrified collaborators who say: Don't worry, we won't. It's those Danes. We're clean. Spare us. Please.

MUSLIM RIOTS OVER MUHAMMAD CARTOONS (AGAIN)

The internet is full of responses and commentary on the Muslim reaction to the Danish (and later other European publications) of the "Muhammad cartoons."   (The cartoons may be viewed here.)   Forthwith a useful samplng of opinion and commentary:

John O'Sullivan rejects the equating of Muslim violence/riots with the Western response.   See "Flag-burning riots are one-sided assault".

The National Review offers a valuable symposium on the Danish cartoons. Included in the symposium are voices such as those of Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye'or, in addition to Muslim writers.  UPDATE 2/8/06 - The symposium participants respond a second time.   I found the last three contributors especially valuable. 

Muslims object to depictions of Muhammad, but there have been plenty of examples  of depictions throughout history.    Muhammad is even on the frieze of the United States's  Supreme Court!  Here's a more distant photo of the frieze.  - HT: Michelle Malkin)

Dr. Sanity reflects on the postmodern dilemma of multiculturalism and political correctness that infects the west and how that affects its response to the Muslim riots. 

Paul Marshall, senior fellow at Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom, and the editor of Radical Islam's Rules:  The Worldwide Spread of Extreme Shari'a Law,  concludes a survey of Muslim responses to the cartoons with these words:

Finally, amid current calls for "toleration" and "respect for belief," we need to be very clear about the distinction between religious toleration and religious freedom.

Religious toleration means not insulting somebody else's religion, and it is a good thing. But religious freedom means being free to reject somebody else's religion and even to insult it. Government should want and encourage its citizens to be tolerant of one another, but its primary responsibility is to protect its citizens' rights and freedoms. The fact that people are sometimes insulted is one cost of freedom. The Jyllands-Posten affair calls us to uphold that principle internationally as well as domestically.

The jacket of his book, Radical Islam's Rules, describes the book this way: 

"A significant consequence of the rise of Islamism in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and other regions of the world is the rapid growth of a starkly repressive version of Islamic shari'a law, often fueled by funds and support from Saudi Arabia. Despite its importance, this worldwide growth of extreme shari'a is under-documented and little understood. Through a detailed comparative analysis of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Indonesia, the contributors to this timely book document its terrible effects on human rights -- especially the status of women and religious freedom -- of Muslims as well as religious minorities, and of democracy itself.  This book also makes a compelling argument that such laws are a direct threat to the Western interest of advancing democracy and human rights. Democratic nations and international human rights groups lack any meaningful policy for dealing with the spread of extreme shari'a."

 

Muhammad cartoons

If anybody is reading this today, Feb. 3rd, you are probably well aware of the huge story the publication of the Muhammad cartoons is having around the world.  One very good site to follow the story is Michelle Malkin who links to many other sites as well.  I regard hers as one of the most important blogs on the internet for keeping up with the news, especially news that the MSM neglects to cover adequately.

Victor Davis Hanson - the man to read for a sane perspective on international events

I know of no writer who looks at the madness of the world with more sanity and clarity than Victor Davis Hanson.  Few can put the international scene into better perspective than he, a man filled with knowledge of the classics, military history, and modern cultural movements.   He writes a weekly column for National Review Online  and publishes numerous internet articles in addition to being the author of many  books.   Today's NRO essay on the challenge of the Middle East, appropriately subtitled "Finding our footing where lunacy looms large"  exhibits his trademark realism and clear-headedness.   It's very much worth reading.

Pope Benedict XVI on the Unchanging Nature of Islam

“Spengler” has an important article  in the Asia Times Online on Pope Benedict XVI’s understanding of the inability of Islam to reform itself. The Pope has stated how Islam’s view of the unchanging nature of the Koran differs fundamentally from Christianity or Judaism. In short, the suggestion that Islam can modernize or moderate is extremely unlikely. The leader of Iran, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, said on January 5th of this year,

“We must believe in the fact that Islam is not confined to geographical borders, ethnic groups and nations. It's a universal ideology that leads the world to justice. We don't shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world. We must prepare ourselves to rule the world."

That statement represents more mainstream Islamic thinking than most American thinkers are prepared to acknowledge.

Spengler says his own views “simply follow the leading Muslim authorities, who are unanimous that Islam is in no need of reform.”

HT: Rod Dreher at the Corner, National Review Online

Update: 1/17/06 -  Daniel Pipes, noted scholar on things Islamic, disagrees with the Pope and cites reasons why it is possible to hope that Islam can undergo reforms.  He cites certain scholars and examples, but also acknowledges it will not be easy. 

Colson’s Nightmare, Political Correctness, and the Clash of Civilizations

Chuck Colson’s nightmare of a Muslim-Al Qaida takeover of the world makes for a chilling read. It's not as wild and unrealistic a scenario as one might suppose.   Colson’s Breakpoint article links to a separate article on political correctness that reviews The West and the Rest:  Globalization and the Terrorist Threat by Roger Scruton.  I found much of value in this essay, including Scruton’s distinction between Islam and Christianity.

The Muslim faith, like the Christian, is defined through a prayer. But this prayer takes the form of a declaration: There is one God, and Muhammad is his Prophet. To which it might be added: and you had better believe it. The Christian prayer is also a declaration of faith; but it includes the crucial words: "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us." In other words, the appeal to divine mercy—which prefaces every sura of the Koran with the beautiful words bism illah il-rahman il-rahim, "in the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful"—is made conditional, in the daily prayer of Christians upon the habit of forgiving our enemies. The "imitation of Christ" is conceived in the same terms: not a vanquishing of God’s enemies, but as a self-sacrifice, a willing oblation, an acceptance—in a sprit of forgiveness—of the worst that human beings can do. . . . Christianity contains within itself the idea of a political solution which Aeschylus presents in the Oresteia: a solution that steps out of the cycle of vengeance in order to seek peace through conciliation.

Third World Romanticism

Phyllis Chesler descries the epithet “racist” thrown at anyone who dares to criticize Islamists. It serves as a convenient way to stifle debate about the Middle East and Islam. This article offers sobering examples of the serious distortions and one-sidedness of the debate.  Chesler, an early leader in the modern feminist movement, recounts her life as the wife of an Afghani Muslim living in Kabul here. That early experience made her immune to "third world romanticism" and aroused her concern about the failure of Western feminism to address the plight of women in the third world today.  Here, one can read a speech she gave before a Senate hearing on December 14, 2005 discussing "Islamic Gender Apartheid."  This is important material sadly neglected in the civilizational struggle now upon us.  It is easier for us to close our ears and our eyes to this tragedy.