Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?
by Johann Hari, Independent
Reposted from:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/johann_hari/article3093767.ece
Imagine a woman — let's call her Beth — who has been an unthinking atheist all her life, just because her family and her friends are, too. One day, she decides to convert to Islam. As soon as she dons the hijab, her neighbours start to swear and spit at her in the street. A brick is thrown through her window; while she is sleeping, her car is torched.
When she speaks out publicly, the death threats come. She is a "whore" who will be "raped to death". All the other converts to Islam are receiving the same threats. Some have been beaten. Some are on the run. When they approach the police, they are wary-to-hostile. The officers ask suspiciously: what have you been doing to anger these Muslim-bashers?
If this was happening this way, it would — rightly — be a national scandal. There would be Panorama specials, front-page fury and government inquiries into Islamophobia. But it is happening — only in the reverse direction. All over Europe, there are Muslims who are exercising their right in a free society to change their religion, or to become atheists. And they are regularly being threatened, beaten and burned-out, while the police largely stand by, inert.
Ehsan Jami is an intelligent, softly-spoken 22-year-old council member for the Dutch Labour Party. He believes there should be no compromise, ever, on the rights of women and gay people and novelists and cartoonists. He became sick of hearing self-appointed Islamist organisations claiming to speak for him when they called for the banning of books and the "right" to abuse women. So he set up the Dutch Council of Ex-Muslims. Their manifesto called for secularism — and an end to the polite toleration of Islamist intolerance. As he put it: "We want people to be free to choose who they want to be and what they want to believe in."
Ehsan was immediately threatened with death. He was kicked to the ground outside the supermarket. He was grabbed in a street with a knife put to his throat. He can't afford to be glib about the risk: he remembers the near decapitation of Theo Van Gough on the streets of Amsterdam. Yet instead of rallying to Ehsan, his party condemned him. The Dutch deputy Prime Minister, Wouter Bos, said they disapproved of an organisation that "offends Muslims and their faith".
In Britain, my friend Maryam Namazie recently set up the British Council of Ex-Muslims. She was immediately flooded with calls from frightened people who wanted to join but were too intimidated. Endless phone threats inform her that she will soon be beheaded — but she has learned that the police just aren't interested. "They have never been very helpful," she says. "They act as if it's your fault for 'provoking' these people, when in fact the Islamist movement uses threats and intimidation as a tool to silence their critics."
People raised on the honeyed multicultural platitudes that religions such as Christianity and Islam are all about love and hugging puppies will wonder why these people would take such risks to leave their faith. This week I interviewed Mina Ahadi, the founder of the German branch of the Council of Ex-Muslims, after she was named Secularist of the Year.
Mina is a warm fifty-something woman with a big laugh, and when we meet — in a house in London I can't disclose for safety reasons — she is wearing a big jumper and small, wire-rimmed glasses that make her look like any other German Hausfrau. But she has a very different story, taking me back to her childhood in rural Iran. She tells me: "As a Muslim girl, I was not allowed to do so many things. From the age of 12 onwards I was basically not allowed to leave the house. I couldn't play on the street, I couldn't mix with boys, I couldn't even do the shopping. I hated it. There was terrible violence towards the women in my community, everywhere. One of my cousins, Nahid, went into a man's house unaccompanied, and the men in my family tied her to a tree and whipped her. When I read the Koran for myself I was shocked, because many of these things are actually recommended by the Prophet Mohammed."
She soon realised she was an atheist, a view reinforced by her reading of Charles Darwin. When she went to university, the Islamists began to force a theocracy on the Iranian people. She refused to accept the mass sackings of women and the enforced veiling. She was beaten for speaking out, and had to go into hiding. One day, her husband and four of their friends were taken away. Nine months later, in another hiding place, she read that they had been executed.
She decided to seek refuge in Austria, because she read in a book that women's life expectancy there was higher than men's, "and I thought — that's my kind of country!" But she was amazed to find that even in Europe, Islamist groups were being treated as the respected spokesmen for all Muslims by politicians and journalists. Even here, the extreme wing threatened her with death for forming the International Committee Against Stoning to save women, and the police did little. On her visit to Britain, they offered her no protection at all.
If Christian fundamentalists were doing this — as they used to, and would like to again — none of us would hesitate in erupting in rage. But because Islamic fundamentalists are doing it, we feel awkward, and fall silent. The difference is the colour of their skin. There's a word for this: racism.
Women such as Mina expose a hole in the stale logic of multiculturalism. She shows that secularism is not a "Western" value: she thought of it all by herself, in a rural village in Iran. Yet the attitudes that lead to the persecution of apostates are widespread even within British Islam, because we patronisingly assume it is "their culture" and do not challenge it. Some 36 per cent of British Muslims between the ages of 18 and 24 think apostates should be murdered. The younger British Muslims are, the more they believe it — a bad sign for the future, unless we start arguing back. This isn't just kids sounding off. Some act on it: a Despatches documentary this year, Unholy War, found dozens of cases of apostates having their cars blown up, their kids threatened and even being beaten and left for dead, on British streets.
One way to keep up the pressure for this reform within Islam is to have a thriving movement of ex-Muslims. They demonstrate to ordinary Muslims that if they are appalled by the unreformed bigotry of their faith as it currently stands, there is a rich and rewarding alternative — secular humanism.
If we in Europe do not defend people like Ehsan and Maryam and Mina, who are fighting fundamentalist thugs for the basic human right to believe and say what they want, do we deserve these rights for ourselves?
j.hari@ independent.co.uk
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/johann_hari/article3093767.ece
Imagine a woman — let's call her Beth — who has been an unthinking atheist all her life, just because her family and her friends are, too. One day, she decides to convert to Islam. As soon as she dons the hijab, her neighbours start to swear and spit at her in the street. A brick is thrown through her window; while she is sleeping, her car is torched.
When she speaks out publicly, the death threats come. She is a "whore" who will be "raped to death". All the other converts to Islam are receiving the same threats. Some have been beaten. Some are on the run. When they approach the police, they are wary-to-hostile. The officers ask suspiciously: what have you been doing to anger these Muslim-bashers?
If this was happening this way, it would — rightly — be a national scandal. There would be Panorama specials, front-page fury and government inquiries into Islamophobia. But it is happening — only in the reverse direction. All over Europe, there are Muslims who are exercising their right in a free society to change their religion, or to become atheists. And they are regularly being threatened, beaten and burned-out, while the police largely stand by, inert.
Ehsan Jami is an intelligent, softly-spoken 22-year-old council member for the Dutch Labour Party. He believes there should be no compromise, ever, on the rights of women and gay people and novelists and cartoonists. He became sick of hearing self-appointed Islamist organisations claiming to speak for him when they called for the banning of books and the "right" to abuse women. So he set up the Dutch Council of Ex-Muslims. Their manifesto called for secularism — and an end to the polite toleration of Islamist intolerance. As he put it: "We want people to be free to choose who they want to be and what they want to believe in."
Ehsan was immediately threatened with death. He was kicked to the ground outside the supermarket. He was grabbed in a street with a knife put to his throat. He can't afford to be glib about the risk: he remembers the near decapitation of Theo Van Gough on the streets of Amsterdam. Yet instead of rallying to Ehsan, his party condemned him. The Dutch deputy Prime Minister, Wouter Bos, said they disapproved of an organisation that "offends Muslims and their faith".
In Britain, my friend Maryam Namazie recently set up the British Council of Ex-Muslims. She was immediately flooded with calls from frightened people who wanted to join but were too intimidated. Endless phone threats inform her that she will soon be beheaded — but she has learned that the police just aren't interested. "They have never been very helpful," she says. "They act as if it's your fault for 'provoking' these people, when in fact the Islamist movement uses threats and intimidation as a tool to silence their critics."
People raised on the honeyed multicultural platitudes that religions such as Christianity and Islam are all about love and hugging puppies will wonder why these people would take such risks to leave their faith. This week I interviewed Mina Ahadi, the founder of the German branch of the Council of Ex-Muslims, after she was named Secularist of the Year.
Mina is a warm fifty-something woman with a big laugh, and when we meet — in a house in London I can't disclose for safety reasons — she is wearing a big jumper and small, wire-rimmed glasses that make her look like any other German Hausfrau. But she has a very different story, taking me back to her childhood in rural Iran. She tells me: "As a Muslim girl, I was not allowed to do so many things. From the age of 12 onwards I was basically not allowed to leave the house. I couldn't play on the street, I couldn't mix with boys, I couldn't even do the shopping. I hated it. There was terrible violence towards the women in my community, everywhere. One of my cousins, Nahid, went into a man's house unaccompanied, and the men in my family tied her to a tree and whipped her. When I read the Koran for myself I was shocked, because many of these things are actually recommended by the Prophet Mohammed."
She soon realised she was an atheist, a view reinforced by her reading of Charles Darwin. When she went to university, the Islamists began to force a theocracy on the Iranian people. She refused to accept the mass sackings of women and the enforced veiling. She was beaten for speaking out, and had to go into hiding. One day, her husband and four of their friends were taken away. Nine months later, in another hiding place, she read that they had been executed.
She decided to seek refuge in Austria, because she read in a book that women's life expectancy there was higher than men's, "and I thought — that's my kind of country!" But she was amazed to find that even in Europe, Islamist groups were being treated as the respected spokesmen for all Muslims by politicians and journalists. Even here, the extreme wing threatened her with death for forming the International Committee Against Stoning to save women, and the police did little. On her visit to Britain, they offered her no protection at all.
If Christian fundamentalists were doing this — as they used to, and would like to again — none of us would hesitate in erupting in rage. But because Islamic fundamentalists are doing it, we feel awkward, and fall silent. The difference is the colour of their skin. There's a word for this: racism.
Women such as Mina expose a hole in the stale logic of multiculturalism. She shows that secularism is not a "Western" value: she thought of it all by herself, in a rural village in Iran. Yet the attitudes that lead to the persecution of apostates are widespread even within British Islam, because we patronisingly assume it is "their culture" and do not challenge it. Some 36 per cent of British Muslims between the ages of 18 and 24 think apostates should be murdered. The younger British Muslims are, the more they believe it — a bad sign for the future, unless we start arguing back. This isn't just kids sounding off. Some act on it: a Despatches documentary this year, Unholy War, found dozens of cases of apostates having their cars blown up, their kids threatened and even being beaten and left for dead, on British streets.
One way to keep up the pressure for this reform within Islam is to have a thriving movement of ex-Muslims. They demonstrate to ordinary Muslims that if they are appalled by the unreformed bigotry of their faith as it currently stands, there is a rich and rewarding alternative — secular humanism.
If we in Europe do not defend people like Ehsan and Maryam and Mina, who are fighting fundamentalist thugs for the basic human right to believe and say what they want, do we deserve these rights for ourselves?
j.hari@ independent.co.uk
Comments 1 - 50 of 146 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #81628 by Johan on October 25, 2007 at 1:32 am
It's about time we put an end to this bizarre tolerance towards the intolerant.Maybe it's time for some kind of ombudsman who protects the right of lapsed Muslims.
In any case, it's time we in the West start taking this seriously.
Other Comments by Johan
3. Comment #81635 by Goldy on October 25, 2007 at 1:40 am
Fanusi, you have comments about this? ;-)But I agree - things have to be done. No more mollycoddling - they came to be European, then European they should be, if not in custom then in law.
Other Comments by Goldy
4. Comment #81641 by Peacebeuponme on October 25, 2007 at 1:45 am
This type of article is exactly what this site is about. This is how religious bigotry clearly and dangerously affects our lives.Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
5. Comment #81648 by nickthelight on October 25, 2007 at 2:01 am
Islam is No1 on the list of humanities worst ideas. There should be no such thing as passive religious hate crime. No violence, no incitement to violence = no crime. Islam seems to have manufactured for itself a particular sub section of law in which 'we' are not permitted to exercise our powers of free speech and expression. Islam is evil pure evil.
Other Comments by nickthelight
6. Comment #81676 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 25, 2007 at 3:01 am
Well this is clearly appalling, but depressingly familiar. We have heard it all before. These are exactly the kind of people who we should be bolstering, protecting and actively promoting, not ignoring.I cannot imagine the mind set that would turn a blind eye to this lunacy:-(
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
7. Comment #81683 by NJS on October 25, 2007 at 3:10 am
These surveys (36% approve of murder) as quoted are what frighten me.I've come to the conclusion that they should be acted on. The idea that we can "corrupt" these people with our western values and turn them into human beings is now a dead duck as far as I'm concerned.
I'm going to sound like a BNP member here but I'd consider deportation for people who advocate murder. To those who say "they are born in the UK" - I'd say fair enough - but they always find convenient family in the usual suspect countries when they need them so that answers the question of where to.
Other Comments by NJS
8. Comment #81714 by Logicel on October 25, 2007 at 4:56 am
Excellent article, and we need more journalists, politicians, and celebrities to rally to the plight of ex-muslims.Is this author implying that instead of tolerance, the politically correct squad is really tacitly racist?
Other Comments by Logicel
9. Comment #81727 by Flagellant on October 25, 2007 at 5:25 am
I think NJS has a point about deportation but it's important to make the distinction that the BNP is motivated largely by racial intolerance. A few days, ago, I was discussing the de facto extremism of many Mohammedans. My friends and I concluded that it would not be unreasonable to conduct surveys among British Mohammedans, asking them many questions, including if they approved of murder for apostates and infidels, and if they would like Sharia law. Those assenting to the questions would immediately be deported to (e.g.) Saudi Arabia.
The idea was discussed humorously and I am not sure that I would advocate it seriously. It would, of course, be wildly impracticable. However, there are too many people for whom all cultural and religious practices must be tolerated, simply by nature of their being cultural and/or religious.
For too long we have failed to grasp the multicultural nettle. OK, we like foreign food, clothes and customs that are not anti-social. But we have to draw the line much more strictly. The prison sentences for Mohammedan demonstrators ("Behead those who insult Islam") were suitable steps but more and stronger measures could be taken. The police only acted against these men with reluctance. The forces of law and order must be pressed - by Parliament - to act more forcefully against extremism (e.g. incitement) governed by current legislation. There is no excuse.
Verily, god is grott, merdeiful.
Other Comments by Flagellant
10. Comment #81764 by fatcitymax on October 25, 2007 at 6:33 am
All a woman needs to do is carry a gun. Then shoot the next fanatic who assaults her. This advice applies to any wife who is assaulted by her husband.Other Comments by fatcitymax
11. Comment #81791 by kraut on October 25, 2007 at 7:27 am
"All a woman needs to do is carry a gun. Then shoot the next fanatic who assaults her."The perfect american solution - works every time, in vietnam, panama, iraq...
The idea of a society based on the rule of law that makes such behaviour impossible to conduct has never entered the mind of the participant?
Other Comments by kraut
12. Comment #81794 by fatcitymax on October 25, 2007 at 7:38 am
She has a choice to either live by protecting herself or die like a scared mouse.Other Comments by fatcitymax
13. Comment #81838 by ramses on October 25, 2007 at 9:08 am
"The idea of a society based on the rule of law that makes such behaviour impossible to conduct has never entered the mind of the participant?"kraut, did you read the article? Laws are not being applied, innocent people are not being protected. Instead, politicians and police allow the violence.
And why is it wrong to defend your life? Why is it wrong to kill a criminal that is going to kill you for fun?
Other Comments by ramses
14. Comment #81850 by USA_Limey on October 25, 2007 at 9:37 am
Comment #81791 by kraut:The perfect american solution - works every time, in vietnam, panama, iraq...
Vietnam, Panama, Iraq were/are all foreign policies by a nation state. Right or wrong, successful or not what the hell do they have to do with internal law and order and the rights of an individual to defend themselves? This kind of knee jerk anti-americanism really pisses me off.
I happen to agree with fatcitymax and am glad I live in a part of the USA where I can legally carry a weapon AS A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN if I so wish. Police cannot be everywhere at all times, and particularly in these types of cases what are they ever realistically going to be able to do other than turn up after you've had your throat slashed? I cannot imagine living in parts of Europe where it is illegal to have the means to defend yorself.
Lets see some of these Islamic scum try this crap in Vermont, Pennsylvania or Texas and see how far they get. Thank you Jefferson for the second amendment!
Other Comments by USA_Limey
15. Comment #81889 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 25, 2007 at 11:07 am
brian said:
I cannot imagine the mind set that would turn a blind eye to this lunacy:-(
...
Words literally fail me. I suppose the maxim 'know thyself' doesn't appear often enough...
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
16. Comment #81893 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 25, 2007 at 11:15 am
Goldy as a matter of fact, I do have some very strong comments about this. I have always known that mercy to the guilty is treason to the innocent, and here we see it demonstrated in full. To appease minds enslaved by seventh-century mysticism, we sacrifice those brave enough to to free their minds from this evil.Behold, multicultral tolerance in action! Behold, the final abortion of the ideals held by so many, and they know who they are, the same ones who sneer at those of us who place justice above mercy, and right above tolerance.
These brave souls deserve every aid they need. We should promote Islamic apostasy and protect the apostates wherever they are found, because beyond the matter of basic human rights, they have, one and all, proven themselves as human beings.
If proctecting such men and women means sending the barbarians back to their seventh-century societies, to rot in medieval darkness, I have no objections.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
17. Comment #81900 by Bonzai on October 25, 2007 at 11:24 am
FK,Behold, multicultral tolerance in action! Behold, the final abortion of the ideals held by so many, and they know who they are, the same ones who sneer at those of us who place justice above mercy, and right above tolerance.
Are you a TV evangelist or a Shakespearian actor by any chance?
Other Comments by Bonzai
18. Comment #81906 by Corylus on October 25, 2007 at 11:31 am
Comment #15 by Fanusi Khiyal:That was insulting, unjustified and uncalled for, Fanusi.
Brian is a big boy and capable of speaking for himself. However, I have to say I really think you need to learn some manners.
Other Comments by Corylus
19. Comment #81921 by Vinelectric on October 25, 2007 at 11:56 am
All a woman needs to do is carry a gun. Then shoot the next fanatic who assaults her
Take the law into your own hands and you end up where Iraq has. No sane person would discourage people from defending themselves but the reason laws exist is that people tend to have varying definitions of what constitues a retaliable "assault". This is espcially true of those with volatile tempers.
Sorry mate, but better keep your hollywood style justice to yourselves.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
20. Comment #81957 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 25, 2007 at 12:53 pm
USA_Limey , while Vinelectric and a host of others would prefer that innocents be shot dead rather than being able to defend themselves, allow me to give you a thumbs up for an eminently sensible proposition!Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
21. Comment #81966 by 82abhilash on October 25, 2007 at 1:05 pm
I know we are going off on a tangent here. But fatcitymax's comment on all women carrying a gun, has a very American origin. Actually the founding fathers believed everyone should be able to carry a gun. So it is written into the US consititution. Why?Here is the logic. Everybody can carry a gun. Everybody who carries a gun can use it. There are more good people in the world than there are bad people. So if everyone has a gun, it is most probable that more good people will have it than bad people. It is also more probable that more bad people will die in gun fights than good people.
These are Thomas Jefferson's words on the issue, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
So there. Modern day Americans are not as blood thirsty as their founding father hoped they would be.
Other Comments by 82abhilash
22. Comment #82026 by USA_Limey on October 25, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Comment #81966 by 82abhilash I know we are going off on a tangent here
I don't think it is a tangent at all, I think it is the exact point we should be focussing on.
A person leaves their faith. They are threatened, their property is destroyed; the threats are physical with a very real danger of death. The established authorities of law and order seem to be paralysed and 'unable' to act.
What exactly is a person supposed to do?
Other Comments by USA_Limey
23. Comment #82045 by Goldy on October 25, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Goldy as a matter of fact, I do have some very strong comments about this.
:-)
I am not a big fan of forcing people to lose their culture, such as it is. I am, however, a huge fan of adaptation to the new conditions. I do not want people to lose their culture but I do want these cultures to adapt to the new situations and for the host countries to make it happen. A Muslim can always be thus if they want but there is no need for the mediaeval mafia mindset that once in, always in. That is barbaric and can be changed. It is, after all, a religion. It is not genetic and the books that have petrified are not the final word 9after all, look at all the changes religions had to go through to get to where they are now. Even Mo had to make changes and accept a few pagan cultural practises to be acceptable to his followers.
The law cannot stand idly by and allow these things to happen as they are against the law. Immigrants come to us for a better life, for law and order and the ability to live and bring up a family unmolested - if they decide to molest, they are bringing in that which they sought to flee from. If they can't make up their mind, they should either return (without those who wish to stay) or change. No one is forcing them to become something they do not wish to be - they made the move, the lifestyle change, as it were.
Other Comments by Goldy
24. Comment #82206 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 25, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I do not want people to lose their culture
Why not? When that culture consists of honour-killings, paedophilia, forced marriages, and totalitarianism?
but I do want these cultures to adapt to the new situations and for the host countries to make it happen.
What if those cultures instead want to adapt the host countries to them? What if they see the host countries as so weak and gutless that they think they can succeed?
It is not genetic and the books that have petrified are not the final word
Actually, they are. The Qur'an must be seen by Muslims as the final, unalterable word of God, not a single word may be changed or ignored. This is why the choice is typically Islam or apostasy.
Immigrants come to us for a better life,
Depends on the immigrants. Quite a few come to continue the demographic jihad, and they say this quite frankly. They desire the added financial opportunities of the West, but cannot bear the thought that Islam is responsible for the collapse of their own societies.
No one is forcing them to become something they do not wish to be - they made the move, the lifestyle change, as it were.
Yes, noone is forcing them to become civilised human beings, and large numbers are not doing so. And those few that are, are being ignored.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
25. Comment #82225 by Damien White on October 25, 2007 at 10:32 pm
"The Qur'an must be seen by Muslims as the final, unalterable word of God, not a single word may be changed or ignored. This is why the choice is typically Islam or apostasy."This is what we must change, then. If every muslim was able to read the Koran for themselves and make up their own minds regarding what it said, I think they'd be much less likely to kill people. I'll give the Gideons a call and see what I can tee up.
Other Comments by Damien White
26. Comment #82350 by Bertybob on October 26, 2007 at 5:58 am
I don't think the US are in any place to lecture Europe and the UK over gun laws. Look at your homocide rates, and the number of innocents killed each year by "law abiding citizens", who are law abiding right up until the moment they "loose the plot" and decide to take 30 people out with them.
I live in a quiet part of the UK, where gun crime is not a problem. I am glad though that if I were to have a row with my neighbour, or be involved in a road rage incident, then the chances are that my neighbour or the other driver will not have a gun to express themselves with.
Other Comments by Bertybob
27. Comment #82379 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 26, 2007 at 7:46 am
While the usual suspects are feeling self-righteous about explaining away Muslim behaviour, people are taking their lives in their hands to face this menace. Look at _this_:http://sioe.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/update-on-the-copenhagen-demonstration-murder-attempt-on-sioesiad-denmark-leader-and-members/
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
28. Comment #82385 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 8:09 am
15. Comment #81889 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 25, 2007 at 11:07 amMust you be an ass? I've consistently said that freedom of speech is a bedrock issue.
I just don't endorse your "final solution" for the problem, OK? Can we leave it at that and have the good sense to agree were we ... you know ... actually agree? Just fake the nuance, if you can't actually grasp it.
That said, it absolutely concerns me to see brave muslims stepping up to the plate and exercising their right to freedom of speech and not being supported. Downright stupid and self defeating to leave the very people we should be helping, twisting in the wind.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
29. Comment #82386 by HunterZolomon on October 26, 2007 at 8:09 am
8. Comment #81714 by Logicel"Is this author implying that instead of tolerance, the politically correct squad is really tacitly racist?"
He's not implying it, he's stating it plainly.
The dogma of multiculturalism most commonly generates results that are the exact opposite of what was meant to be achieved.
Other Comments by HunterZolomon
30. Comment #82430 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 26, 2007 at 10:15 am
brian
Must you be an ass? I've consistently said that freedom of speech is a bedrock issue.
And you have consistently screamed bloody murder whenever I speak of steps that are essential to preserve it.
We do not have freedom of speech because of a police force that cracks down on people who try to violate it. We have freedom of speech because everyone of us has had hammered into us, at at visceral level, from our very earliest ages, that it is not kosher to kill someone for a difference in opinion. Creating that visceral code, creating that structure of civilisation did not come easy, and it did not come cheaply.
What freedom of speech does someone in a Muslim neighbourhood enjoy, when a dissenting view will recieve violence at the behest of the Imam and his thuggish enforcers? How exactly are they supposed to enjoy that right?
The solution can only be to establish this visceral code, and that means getting rid of those elements that make it impossible. This means deporting Shariah supremacists, closing down radical mosques, ending the madrassahs, and so on. This is exactly what would protect the brave souls trying to free themselves from the hideous nature of Islam.
Whenever I say that, however, certain people howl and accuse me of of suggesting Hitlerish tactics. Which is rich, given that the group that I am hostile too are often the literal heirs of Hitler's philosophies. Anyway, this is the moral immaturity I have commented on elsewhere: the belief that a moral principle can stand on its own. Admitedly, I used to share that immaturity, but that was a long time ago, before the jihad became too obvious to ignore, and now we do not have time for this.
Claiming to support free speech and then being against what it takes to make that freedom real is actually worse than oposing it outright, because in the latter case you have a clean fight at least. Freedom of speech is a very recent, very hard-won freedom, and it does not come cheaply.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
31. Comment #82446 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 10:55 am
And you have consistently screamed bloody murder whenever I speak of steps that are essential to preserve it.
That is not why I have screamed bloody murder. I am appalled because your solution involves a genocidal culling exercise, with you estimating casualties on "our" side running into millions, I'd be interested in what you think the casualties on the other side would be. You are on record as having posted this, and similar deranged opinons all over the site.
Thats clearly insane, although as I've kindly pointed out, I see where you're hysterics are coming from, and certainly you are not the only one being panicked in this way.
We are unlikely to see eye to eye on this, but I'm happy to pop back and forth for a while. This is an important issue, and we need to tease out the specifics of your "policy".
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
32. Comment #82449 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 26, 2007 at 11:03 am
I am appalled because your solution involves a genocidal culling exercise
Provide a quote to substantiate that, because I have had it up to here with this libel. In fact, let me up that: provide a quote to substantiate that, or I will report this as an incident of trolling.
And, as to your ill-informed characterisation of myself as an opportunist, for noting the plight of people who actually do fight for freedom, I am aware of them because I spend a great deal of time studying this.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
33. Comment #82455 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 11:19 am
Hey no problem. This from the most recent thread, and the last time we had at it the tone was similar.http://richarddawkins.net/article,1763,Interview-with-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali,Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali-Rogier-van-Bakel-Reason-Online#80565
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1763,Interview-with-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali,Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali-Rogier-van-Bakel-Reason-Online#80580
I'd be interested to hear from other parties. Am I overstating the case? If I've lost objectivity on this, I'll apologise, but first lets hear from a few neutral parties.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
34. Comment #82464 by epeeist on October 26, 2007 at 11:39 am
Comment #82455 by briancoughlanworldcitizen
I'd be interested to hear from other parties. Am I overstating the case? If I've lost objectivity on this, I'll apologise, but first lets hear from a few neutral parties.
No, I find Fanusi's comments to be at best hysterical and simplistic. Having said that I find the actions of many politicians on Islam hypocritical, they either take the money and assume the position or they see a distorted reflection of their own faith and don't criticise. Essentially they are selling out their own culture.
There are other methods of dealing, unfortunately from what I can see it involves governments deciding that their foreign policy isn't purely a matter of "interests" but must have an ethical basis as well.
Total supposition on my part, but I believe Robin Cook actually saw this but was undermined by the likes of the DTI, DoD and the Treasury aided and abetted by that supreme faith holder the Prime Minister at the time.
Other Comments by epeeist
35. Comment #82470 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 26, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I knew it. Not one single word in that thread you linked advocates genocide, and a great deal of it is about how to _prevent_ such horror from returning. Your fellow 'epeeist' characterises me as 'hysterical' while utterly failing to deal with my arguments. As per usual.Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
36. Comment #82474 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I'd be interested to hear from other parties. Am I overstating the case? If I've lost objectivity on this, I'll apologise, but first lets hear from a few neutral parties.
I think your comments are entirely reasonable. Fanusi's comments, on the other hand, have an emotional tone that makes me suspect about the motive and context.
Other Comments by steve99
37. Comment #82476 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 12:16 pm
OK Fanusi. You absolutely did not use the word genocide. However, a "genocidal culling" (my choice of words) of muslims seems to me to be the logical outcome of your proposals.Tell you what, I'll get off your case if you can tell me, in all honesty, that your current preferred course of action is NOT a full blown war with the Islamic world which will terminate in either their complete capitulation or complete destruction.
Well?
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
38. Comment #82482 by epeeist on October 26, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Comment #82470 by Fanusi KhiyalYour fellow 'epeeist' characterises me as 'hysterical' while utterly failing to deal with my arguments. As per usual.
Three things. Firstly, I am not Brian's "fellow", I speak completely for myself. Secondly, I didn't call you hysterical. Thirdly, I gave what I thought was the answer to the problem - ethically based diplomacy.
Other Comments by epeeist
39. Comment #82485 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 26, 2007 at 12:42 pm
First of all, allow me to say that I have had it up to here with the kind of 'defender' of the Enlightenment who turns green whenever we are come into actual conflict, and who will go to any lengths to smear those of us who know what price freedom extracts.
You absolutely did not use the word genocide. However, but a genocidal culling of muslims seems to me to be the logical outcome of yor proposals.
Only if you have a pathalogical need to attribute the worst to your oponents in order to justify an untenable position. I could attribute any number of things to you, in the same manner, but your own words are more than enough.
Define your terms, please. 'Full blown war' - what does that mean? War can't be avoided, because, apart from anything else, we are in the middle of it. That's not something that can be opted out of. What we can avoid is something far worse, and that is blood feud. I have explained what this means elsewhere.
Second of all, a course of action that will end with either the complete capitulation or complete destruction of the Islamic world is emphatically not the same thing as genocide. According to the United Nations, genocide is:
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
What I advocate hardly qualifies. It does not qualify to anyone who has even remotely studied the subject. What I advocate is isolating the Muslim world, by ending Muslim immigration, and deporting Shariah supremacists, and by destroying the network of radicalism by seizing and destroying any mosque or other gathering place, and the assets thereof, that is implicated in teaching jihad, Shariah supremacism, Islamic totalitarianism etc. This is no different than the laws already in place in many countries for dealing with the drug trade. Radical Imams who advocate jihad and overthrow of Western governments should be prosecuted for treason and sedition, and, if found guilty, executed. During the Second World War, Lord Haw Haw and the Quislings were rightly dealt with.
That is the bare minimum required to ensure that Europe, especially, does not end in a bloody civil war or enslaved to Islam.
Then we need to go on the ideological offensive against this insanity. We need to answer their campaign of Da'wa with our own attack to undercut and destroy the teachings of Islam wherever they are found. Above all, the direct link between the utter failures of Muslim societies and Islam's tenets need to be made clear.
We should also extend alliances, not with the overpraised 'moderate Muslims', but with non-Muslim minorities that are fighting against Islam. We should make clear to groups like the black Africans of the Sudan, that the racism they suffer under is the direct result of the cult of Arab supremacism carried by Islam, and that they must leave Islam to be free of it.
Additionally, we should engage in a Manhatten project to get us away from oil, and so break the money supply of this movement.
Militarily, I support comparatively little. The Iranian regime must be ended, as it is the central sponser of Islamic totalitarianism and is the main inspiration. Yes, this means war. The alternative is nuclear weapons in the hands of the Hojjatieh sect, and that can only end in a nuclear version of blood feud.
If we do this, we will drive Islam into submission and total surrender. Under that kind of pressure, Islam will crumble, and mass apostasy will take place. This means the utter capitulation and destruction of the Islamic world, because the 'Islamic world' will cease to be Islamic.
As Sam Harris says "We must win the argument, or win the war". This is how we can fight mainly in the field of argument, and least in the field of war. This is not genocide. But genocide is what we will have, if people like you are listened to, and we continue this suicidal course. Because sooner or later, we will see constant use of catastrophic terror, and, believe me, we will answer in kind. To think otherwise is to betray an utter lack of knowledge about human nature or human history.
And, by the way, Steve ? My background is that I am a man of reason who has informed himself about Islam. My motive is that I do not wish to see everything I love and hold dear destroyed. And my context is that I do not abandon the responsibility of rational thought, nor do I pretend things will magically change, nor do I try to pass that responsibility off to others.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
40. Comment #82491 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 12:54 pm
A simple no would have been much more reassuring. Your "solution" will precipitate the genocide you claim to wish to avoid. Your assessment of the risk is hopelessly overstated, and you ignore completely the knock on effect on the rest of the Muslim world of the actions you suggest. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and they are by orders of magnitude more unstable and undemocratic than Iran.
You also seem to have learnt nothing from history. In the kind of free for all you propose, everyone that has an axe to grind will see a window of opportunity. Witness Turkey and Northern Iraq, and you already see the leading edge of the kind of chaos that could potentially engulf the world. Two NATO allies almost at loggerheads, over 15 soldiers!! You can bet your ass that China will be all over Taiwan like a rash.
Wise up man, you're not this stupid.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
41. Comment #82504 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 26, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Your "solution" will precipitate the genocide you claim to wish to avoid.
And there we have it again. No reason, no justification, no evidence, no proof. A string of random assertions, with no attempt to, even slightly, grapple with issues of actual evidence. No knowledge of what Islam actually teaches, nor what the views of Muslims are around the world, nor of the history of jihad conquest. Nothing.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
42. Comment #82511 by Bonzai on October 26, 2007 at 2:07 pm
epeeist wrote:
No, I find Fanusi's comments to be at best hysterical and simplistic. Having said that I find the actions of many politicians on Islam hypocritical, they either take the money and assume the position or they see a distorted reflection of their own faith and don't criticise. Essentially they are selling out their own culture.
It seems that the U.K government considers a Muslim preacher "moderate" as long as he doesn't advocate outright terrorism, it doesn't matter how odious and medieval his ideas are on other topics such as non Muslims, apostasy, secular democracy, women and homosexuals. The bar is set very low for moderation. Once some high profile Muslim is certified a "moderate" in the eyes of the government he will be courted and consulted on "Muslim affairs" as an expert. As usual the most vocal elements get to represent "the community".
I can be wrong on this but I suspect the U.K government's tolerance of and pandering to not so moderate Muslims is a kind of crass quiproquo offered to British Muslims to make up for its participation in Bush's war. I sense that quite strongly when Blair was prime minister.
Other Comments by Bonzai
43. Comment #82513 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Fanusi, your selective reading is borderline delusional. I've explained all this at length, most recently in the previous post in somewhat abbreviated form.What some parts of Islam teach means nothing, it must be coupled with capacity.
With each post you simply make a bigger fool of yourself, which is fine by me. Your noxious message should be exposed.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
44. Comment #82519 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I can be wrong on this but I suspect the U.K government's tolerance of and pandering to not so moderate Muslims is a kind of crass quiproquo offered to British Muslims to make up for its participation in Bush's war. I sense that quite strongly when Blair was prime minister.There is a lot in that, and I know my own views have hardened over the last year or so. Pat Condell has the right idea, savage and relentless full spectrum mockery of religion, Islam included.
Muslims must wean themselves off their "kill the apostate" approach to criticism, and we have got to do more to support real moderates and especially apostates.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
45. Comment #82606 by epeeist on October 27, 2007 at 12:18 am
Comment #82519 by briancoughlanworldcitizen
Muslims must wean themselves off their "kill the apostate" approach to criticism, and we have got to do more to support real moderates and especially apostates.
Just to show I am am my own man and not your "fellow".
I disagree with you on this. I think the time has come to rid society of the automatic deference it shows to religion of any kind, Christian or Islam, moderate or extreme.
This means it gets the same rights and privileges as any other organisation, the same tax breaks for education, the same representation in parliament, the same attention and criticality paid to its views by the media.
Other Comments by epeeist
46. Comment #82611 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 27, 2007 at 12:28 am
I disagree with you on this. I think the time has come to rid society of the automatic deference it shows to religion of any kind, Christian or Islam, moderate or extreme.Well ...but ... this is an OUTRAGE. You swore an oath of fealty!! A bond of loyalty!! Erm .... not:-)
Although we don't disagree all that radically I suspect, as an eventual end game, complete organisational parity for religion, with everything else, certainly seems fair enough.
It would be tragically ironic if theists became a sort of oppressed minority. Still it's a fine line though, what happens when law begins to make inroads into religious upbringing?
In Sweden it is illegal to smack your children, in other countries it's not. A few decades ago this would have been considered an outrageous intrusion into the private sphere. Consider that wife beating was in a similar cultural context in most of the civilised world less than 70 or 80 years ago.
Tricky times.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
47. Comment #82613 by epeeist on October 27, 2007 at 12:42 am
Comment #82611 by briancoughlanworldcitizen
It would be tragically ironic if theists became a sort of oppressed minority. Still it's a fine line though, what happens when law begins to make inroads into religious upbringing?
It is into religious education rather than upbringing that I would want a first foray.
I find the current enthusiasm for faith schools in the UK appalling. While the "bog standard comprehensive" is not allowed to select at all, religious schools are freely allowed to do so. Now if they put their own money into this it wouldn't be quite so bad, but the very large majority of funding for such schools comes from the state.
Other Comments by epeeist
48. Comment #82614 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 27, 2007 at 1:19 am
It is into religious education rather than upbringing that I would want a first foray.Thats well underway here in Sweden our conservatives just banned the teaching of creationism or it's analouges outright, in faith schools too.
I personally think that fairly uncontroversial, obviously some authority sets a universal curriculum, school boards can't just make stuff up.
Where I see some real problems coming is where society begins to say, you cannot tell your kids outright delusional and damaging lies, the whole business of hell for example. Is that an unnacceptable intrusion? Is that abuse?
If a parent told a child there was a monster under the bed, but if they just breathed softly enough it wouldn't hear them. If it did hear them, it would rise from it's lair and kill everyone in the house. Unequivocally abuse right? How is it different from telling 4 years olds there is a Hell?
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
49. Comment #82616 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 27, 2007 at 1:35 am
I've explained all this at length, most recently in the previous post in somewhat abbreviated form.
No, you have done no such thing. You have never brought even the slightest evidence to the table.
Leaving that aside, as well as the petulance of some of the others here, I suggest you ask yourselves: Do you think your objections will count for anything once we see further incidents of catastrophic terror in the West? Catastrophic terror they have repeatedly demosntrated the willingness and ability to use?
But, of course, this remains the purpose behind such a fantasy ideology: to maintain a clean view of yourself, regardless of the horror and bloodshed you turn a blind eye to.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
50. Comment #82618 by Goldy on October 27, 2007 at 1:49 am
If I may step in, Brian, and borrow Fanusi for a spell...Why not? When that culture consists of honour-killings, paedophilia, forced marriages, and totalitarianism?
I believe the mafia run the same game, as to Georgians, Armenians and a few other Middle Eastern non-Islamic faiths (Yazidis spring to mind). I think this is pre-Islamic.
Actually, they are. The Qur'an must be seen by Muslims as the final, unalterable word of God, not a single word may be changed or ignored. This is why the choice is typically Islam or apostasy.
Actually, no. They are just words in a book. People's perceptions might be of a "word of god" idea becasue that is what they've been told - but these words are just words in a book. No gods, no divinity. When people accept that (and they can if you tell them enough) then words can be changed im these books.
What if those cultures instead want to adapt the host countries to them? What if they see the host countries as so weak and gutless that they think they can succeed?
Here I'm with you...ish. If they want their country, they should return. Given the fear they have of the host country "contaminating" their culture, I think they don't see them as weak. Indeed, suspect the bombs show their fear - why argue with words when you know you'll never win?
Not every part of their culture is bad - you yourself have to admit this. We need to mix the two - get the best out of both. Chinese and Indians appear to succeed (even though many of them never become westerners as such). We need to find out why Muslims don't want to succeed like the others.
As for worrying about Iran - plenty Sunnis will do the fighting for us. "Godless" nations are Iran's only hope - Russia and China will prove to be Iran's best allies (while the oil and gas last).
Other Comments by Goldy
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #81627 by BAEOZ on October 25, 2007 at 1:32 am
Other Comments by BAEOZ