In this thread I've asked Fjordman's readers to explain how they'd actually go about to save the West from the threat they think Islam poses to us. Suggestions so far: End all immigration (even from non-Muslims), build no more mosques, automatic expulsion of criminals (for any crime), banning the Quran, and expulsion of all family members of terrorists. Yup, these are the defenders of European civilization.

Come on silly, behind many of these like banning building mosques, expelling family members etc. is only one persons idea, it´s sure not the points of view held by "defenders of European civilization." and you claim we generalize about moslems and miss the nuances ?

Well, here's an idea. I remember when I was a child that one of
my father's coworkers was originally from the Netherlands and that
one of the reasons this family was in the United States was that
they had been paid to leave the Netherlands. (The belief in the
Netherlands being that there were too many people in the Netherlands.)

If that was okay then I don't see why it shouldn't be okay now.

A different twist might be added for criminals, or people the
state claims are criminals. There the money might be paid to a
government accepting the person. All of this being conditional
on the person agreeing to go.

From across the atlantic it's hard for me to tell what's really
going on. To little information comes across and part of what
does come is surely bogus. Nonetheless I'm pretty sure that
the heart of the problem is a failure to make these children
of immigrants feel like they are a part of france and have a
stake in france. And in particular the almost hopeless situation
with respect to jobs.

It would be nice if these fundamentals were addressed, but assuming
that they won't be, or even if they are, it seems quite possible
that significant numbers of people have become so alienated, so
anti-french, that likely some terrible consequences will ensue down
the road if something is not done.

Yes how easy isn't it for you to lump all the
"islamophobes" into one basket.

It is is not a common opinion among all "islamophobes" that we have the right to ban books
and expell innocent people, or prevent someone from comming here.
And the automatic expulsion of criminals for any crime is ofcourse not something all us "islamophobes" would accept.

But since it is comfortable for you to generalise a few peoples outbursts onto all us "islamophobes" so you can make your little joke about the "defenders of European civilization" then be my
guest.

Anyway, i can answer your question about some of
the things i think could be done, but which
wont be done.

Our leaders go out and state that we have an absolute freedom of expression in
this country, and that all existing and planned laws restricting freedom of expression is scrapped.There shouldn't exist any "debate" about freedom of expression there should be freedom of expression period.This isn't a "complicated" issue which has no "easy solution" which requires endless babbling among politicians and "experts",
what is an expression and what is a threat or slander can be dealt with on a case to case basis.

It is stated that we have an absolute freedom of religion, but religious doctrine which
incorporates the use of force against innocents is not accepted, and when (not if) muslims are "offended" by anyones expression of their freedom they are told to piss off, they are not to be crawled for or have their boots licked.

When (not if) muslim pressure groups can't accept this, and they state publicly that they will work against freedoms that "offends" their sewage religion the threat they pose is evaluated and appropriate action is taken against them.

If i called you and said that i was going to kill you or harm you for no rational reason you would have the right to defend yourself, you could assess how serious the threat was and maybe you would decide not do do anything, but you would still have the RIGHT to defend yourself.
It is no different with organisations or religious groups which threathens the freedoms of others.

How the muslims would react to this we see already now all over europe, for example in Denmark where they throw a hissy fit over drawings of their sewage God.And we see all over europe how politicians from a national to a local level can not do enough to accommodate the vermins when they are "offended" by little piggies or christmas
celebrations.

It is stated especially that not one rubbish irrational muslim law, will EVER find its way into our legal system.We look up everything that we have the perfect right to choose for ourselves, from sexual preference to eating habits and clothing habits which "offends" their sewage religion and state that we have the right to do these things as we like from here to eternity, and
that we will stop everyone which tries to take away these freedoms.

We state that we have the intention to chase down everyone connected with terrorist groups, and if we have solid proof of their activities we will throw them in jail, expell them or kill them, whatever.And everyone that babbels about "looking at the underlying issues of terrorism", which translates to "it is really our fault", are told
to piss off.

Actions which are taken to intimmidate and terrorize the inhabitants of a country like
that which is going on now in France are clamped down on with extreme prejudice, every single individual of the vermins have the fear of death put in them, so this arrogant scum attitude of "i feel bad so i have the right to destroy property and bully others" dissapears instantly.

I dont think i will bother to mention anything else, none of this is going to ever be done by our established politicians anyway.They do not have the nerves to do it, and for the time being they feel they have something to gain by crawling for the muslims and inventing laws which will prevent the "islamophobes" from telling them things they dont want to hear.

So now i have told you a few things i think that could be done to save europe from the threat islam poses to us.

What do you think could be done to save europe from this threat?
Do you think there exists a threat at all?

How are you and your friends Stoltenberg and Halvorsen and "professor" Hylland Eriksen
in the responsible, rational, non-islamophobic camp going to deal with the problem?

Well, this is a start, via Tim Blair:

TREASURER Peter Costello said radical Muslims would not be allowed to turn Australia into an Islamic state.

Mr Costello said Muslims who wanted to live in a country governed by sharia law, which imposes strict limitations on freedoms, would be better off living elsewhere.
"If you are somebody who wants to live in an Islamic state governed by sharia law you are not going to be happy in Australia, because Australia is not an Islamic state, will never be an Islamic state and will never be governed by sharia law," Mr Costello said.

"We are a secular state under our constitution, our law is made by parliament elected in democratic elections.

"We do not derive our laws from religious instruction."

Mr Costello said anyone who was alienated by Australia's form of government, judicial system and civil rights and wanted something else "might be better advised to find the 'something else' somewhere else".

"There are Islamic states around the world that practise sharia law and if that's your object you may well be much more at home in such a country than trying to turn Australia into one of those countries, because it's not going to happen," he said.

How about no more mosques until churches are built in the magic kingdom?

Mark Steyn on Hugh Hewitt's radio show:

... But having said that, I do think that what's pathetic about all Western countries, including the United States, including France, including Canada, and a lot of other countries, is that they make these sort of high school sophist arguments about terrorism, as if it's some sort of theoretical debate. It's not. We're dealing with a very difficult situation here. And if you accord to terrorists all the rights of somebody who gets arrested for holding up a liquor store in Des Moines, you are going to lose to the terrorists, because when you accord them the full rights of somebody who is a criminal, you make it impossible to prosecute this as a war, which is what it is."

"How about no more mosques until churches are built in the magic kingdom?"

So because Saudi-Arabia, totalitarian dictatorship, has no religious freedoms we should give up one of the basics of our freedom?

Yes, that sure sounds like an excellent way of preserving the West. We should probably abandon freedom-of-expression and voting rights for Muslims when we are at it; because Christian surely have neither of those things in Saudi-Arabia.

Bjorn, Oyvind et al, I have a quick question for you that I hope you can answer.

Let's imagine that at some point in the future, there will be a sizable majority of Muslims in your country Norway. Some of these Muslims want to implement Sharia in Norway by democratic means, and even though not all of the Muslims want this, the number of Muslims which do want it is bigger than 50 % of the entire Norwegian population. In other words, a majority of the citizens of Norway want Sharia.

Now, I imagine you might consider this scenario unlikely to happen, but don't let that stop you from answering my question.

Let's assume that in the future, the scenario I just described might happen. My question is - should Norwegians try to prevent it from happening? Or is it not really problematic at all if in the future Norwegian citizens would want to implement Sharia as long as the majority of the citizens want it?

"My question is - should Norwegians try to prevent it from happening?"

I could have discussed what the concept sharia is supposed to imply, but lets define it as simple as possible, as "Islamic religious law". In my opinion national laws should be secular and not religious. As a result I would fight against this in precisely the same way I would fight against Christians trying to pull the same trick (and in the local community I come from, that is actually much more likely).

I would not use an AK47 in that battle, though.

Your PC tolerance will kill us and enslave those who are left, Oyvind. Just to prove you're superior. Especially since the Magic Kingdom provides most of the money. Our Congress is looking into this money flow and the vile literature which comes along w/it.

If the tree falls in the forest and no one's around, Oyvind, does it make a sound?

Heard that argument before, Oyvind, Americans have a history of tightening up when we had to and then loosening again.

---

Anthony, they can't answer that question, variations have been pointed out for a couple of years now. They've been told they'll start finding out in a generation or so. 1 of our sides will be right, and I don't think it's going to be theirs.

---

Via Roger L. Simon's blog, posted 10/10:

...My work sent me to an Eid celebration Saturday night; one speaker was a local Muslim scholar talking about living in the US while "not compromising our religion:" phraseology which seems odd; isn't it an unspoken agreement here that among other things, living in the US may involve some compromises on religion?

Anyway, he gave this as an example of what he considers to be immoral in the US: billboards urging people to go to casinos. I agree. There is an element of immorality there, and in fact it's an issue of mine, the way we've embraced both Indian casinos and state lotteries nationwide. I don't like it. I would like to roll it back to an extent. On the state-run side, I think it's immoral becuase lottery proceeds allow us to avoid hard spending and taxation decisions by depending on and feeding an addiction.

But this fellow didn't seem to get two things.

One, Islam is not alone in being concerned about morality; we all are in our ways. Two, what distinguishes Islam - beyond their evident belief that they are nearly alone on that score - is language he used like "we must continue to use the democratic process to fight againt those things we cannot tolerate."

Good, yes, use the system. But "cannot tolerate?" Where does that lead? There will always be things that you cannot tolerate, pal. That's an inevitable aspect of freedom. If you can't learn that lesson, then you're the problem, the problem that may evolve into something that literally can't be tolerated.

---

You don't listen, Oyvind.

Look what's happening in The Netherlands because a cartoon was published about mo.

"As a result I would fight against this in precisely the same way I would fight against Christians trying to pull the same trick (and in the local community I come from, that is actually much more likely)."

Which is how, exactly? And what chances would you have to overrule the will of the majority of citizens in your country?

I don't see the majority of Fjordman's commentators plumping for fascist measures. Bjorn mischaracterizes them in a dishonest way, which is only what I've come to expect from him.

Most of what I would do is already being done by the government of Denmark:

1.) End immigration from Muslim countries.

2.) Enact laws such as were done in Denmark to eliminate the abuse of family reunification laws. These laws apply to everyone BTW, not just Muslims.

3.) Deport illegal aliens, as well as any legal aliens who have committed a crime. (Again, applies to everyone, not just Muslims.)

4.) End welfare payments and encourage work.

5.) Try to encourage disbursement of immigrants into the population at large rather than
allow them to ghettize. This will aid
assimilation.

6.) Refuse any kind of special pleading or special exemptions for Muslims that go against the secular nature of our society. For instance, companies and public buildings should not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims (or for anyone else, for that matter.)

7.) Absolutely stand up for our Western values such as freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Again, Denmark is the exemplar in Anders Fogh Rasmussen's response to the Muslim ambassadors who tried to twist his arm over the matter of the mildly insulting Danish cartoons published in a newspaper.

8.) End the poisonous multi-culti, PC and Western-self-loathing ideology that is continually pumped into our societies by academia, the media, NGOs and "intellectuals". We are told constantly by our elites that we live in the worst civilization in the world, when in fact we live in the best one (and that includes the best one for minorities too,
despite all our faults--has anyone ever seen the "Native Japanese served only" signs in
Japan?). Absolutely refuse to give an inch on any value we hold dear, no matter how "insulting" it is to our Islamic brothers.

7. Encourage Muslims to convert to other religions by supporting missionary activities.

8. Stop trying to stifle the debate about how Islam is affecting our communities. Covering up evidence of Muslim wrong-doing in our communities, such as the government covering up rapes in Norway or the refusal of the French media to report how many cars have been "car-bequed", for fear of causing "racism," only makes matters worse.

9. End the nonsense of "celebrating our differences", diversity coordinators, and all the other bullshit that has been shoved down our throats by the leftist cultural warriors for years. It hasn't accomplished a multi-culti paradise; it's done exactly the opposite, making people more suspicious of other ethnic groups and more resentful of them. We should be
celebrating our samenesses, not our differences.

9. Realize that Islam is a political system as well as a religion, and treat it as such when it makes political demands on our societies.

I don't support banning mosques or Islamic books, but I do support very strongly banning
any type of special favor or special pleading for Muslims just because they have so many, many special demands and needs and accommodations. For us to give them their "complete way of life" means that WE don't get to have OUR complete way of life.

That is what springs to mind; I see nothing Nuremburgish about my suggestions.

Sorry my numbering system got screwed up. It's hard to scroll backward and proof-read with this type of comments system.

I should add that one of the problems I have with "moderate" Muslims is that so often they work with the extremists in a type of "good-cop, bad-cop" routine. How it works is that the extremists kill, bomb, riot and rape; then the "moderates" come along and say, "Oh, that's terrible, but how can you blame them? Give us special pleadings and special exemptions, give us prayer rooms in all buildings, give us the right to censor your newspapers, and the extremism will go away." These may look like two different paths, but they are actually the same path -- the path to dhimmitude for non-Muslims.

Remember, for them to have their "complete way of life" means that WE don't get to have OUR "complete way of life." It is either-or, there is no compromise on that score.

In my opinion national laws should be secular and not religious. As a result I would fight against this in precisely the same way I would fight against Christians trying to pull the same trick (and in the local community I come from, that is actually much more likely).

This was the same game plan of the Communists and liberals who helped the ayatollahs get rid of the Shah. Didn't work out too well for them.

Why must we choose between either
* Only Islamism is a problem, and Islam is no political problem at all, or
* Islam is all of the problem
Obviously there are numerous possible positions inbetween.

I for one, would like to put the focus on the Koran bashers (cf. Bible bashers), where the Koran bashers are a subset of Muslims, while the Islamists are a subset of the Koran bashers.

A question for you Bjoern: In the Fjordman-thread you state that you are quite clear about whom to call an Islamophobe and whom not. You declare Fjordman to be sure case of an Islamophobe.

I will list for you a number of American political pundits, all of whom have "invented a desperate situation", as it were, with the typical references to Eurabia, World War III, Islam as a problem as such, and the kind. You will tell me which ones are Islamophobes according to your definition:

Daniel Pipes
Mark Steyn
Christopher Hitchens
Robert Spencer
Bill O'Reilly
Ann Coulter
Newt Gingrich
Tom Tancredo

This will help me understand how you are prepared to apply this label. If you declare someone as not being an islamophobe, I might want to bring forward quotes from them which I think fits your definition, and then we can discuss.

I hope you find the time to do this. Thank you!

Sandy,

did you mean DENMARK, when you wrote about the cartoon thing?

They had muslim riots in Aarhus etc... in Denmark over the caricature of old Mo.

Sook-Im

Sandy: "Your PC tolerance will kill us and enslave those who are left, Oyvind"

Yes, I can see that clearly now. Through your excellent argumentative skills you have convinced me. I am profoundly impressed. However, I am slightly worried, because this means that you think Western culture is so weak that it will just roll over and die the first time an imam stares hard at it. That is quite a self-loathing point of view, is it not?

"Heard that argument before, Oyvind, Americans have a history of tightening up when we had to and then loosening again".

Yeah, but then Americans have quite a history for a number of things, not all of them which would fit into the category of "tightening up". You want to sacrifice the ideals of your revolution? Fine. But do not ask me to do the same.

Susan is actually perfectly right - we do need to stand up for our Western values such as freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Another one of those Western values is freedom of religion, that is a value Europe has spilt quite an amount of blood for. So is equality before the Law, by the way. Some of those suggestions Bjørn mention are against Western values.

Hatespeech should not be outlawed, however hateful it is, neither when it comes from radical Islamists nor when it comes from Islamophobes.

We should also fight against any religio-political attempts to deconstruct secular society, we should do that by pointing out why a secular society is better. It is not that difficult; any society that tries to force a specific set off religious values (including forced secular values) upon its citizens will end up in authoritarian tendencies.

"This was the same game plan of the Communists and liberals who helped the ayatollahs get rid of the Shah. Didn't work out too well for them".

Not yet, at least.

Not yet, at least.

You'll still have the 200,000 or so people who were slaughtered by the Ayatollahs, Oyvind. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of more who were merely tortured or starved by them. And not to mention the 1 million of them who died in a needless and extremely bloody war with Iraq, including the eight-year-old boys who were sent to clear the mine fields with the key to Jannah secured around their necks.

But it'll work out all right in the end, I'm sure. And we Western people have no right to not want the same for our countries, of course. After all, that would be racist, horror of horrors!

And not to mention the human costs of turning a 2nd World upcoming economy into a Third World economic basket case.

Oyvind, you write:Another one of those Western values is freedom of religion, that is a value Europe has spilt quite an amount of blood for.

If one religion's remit includes a political system that is anti-freedom and infringes onthe rights of others, we do indeed have the right to limit it - at least limit its potential to take away our freedoms.

Liberal democracy is not a suicide pact. Human sacrifices are not allowed for Aztecs in the US in the name of freedom of religion. Neither should sharia and a whole huge raft of special exemptions that infringe on other peoples'
rights be allowed for Muslims.

"We should also fight against any religio-political attempts to deconstruct secular society, we should do that by pointing out why a secular society is better."

Let's say that after pointing out to Norwegian citizens why a secular society is the better alternative, you're still left with a majority of citizens who want to implement Sharia. Then what?

Remember, once again, for them to have THEIR "complete way of life" that they talk about so much, means we do not get to have OUR complete way of life.

I keep repeating this, but that is the most important thing for people to understand about Islam in the West.

you're still left with a majority of citizens who want to implement Sharia. Then what?

Oyvind will fight for us the lonely good fight with his little keyboard while we pay the jizyah and make discreet inquiries into immigration policies for China or Latin America.

Anthony: Or is it not really problematic at all if in the future Norwegian citizens would want to implement Sharia as long as the majority of the citizens want it?

That's an easy question. Of course we shouldn't let that happen, a democratic turn towards Islamic law is as problematic as a democratic turn towards any other bad ideology. There's nothing holy about democracy itself, it's just more likely to take us in the direction of good government than the alternatives. The goal, however, is good government, not democracy. Islamic law is not good government.

The problem here is not the question, but the assumption. Nearly everything we disagree about follow from which version of reality is correct. If we agreed about the reality, we would probably agree on how to act.

Susan: I don't see the majority of Fjordman's commentators plumping for fascist measures. Bjorn mischaracterizes them in a dishonest way, which is only what I've come to expect from him.

Hm? Those ideas were representative of the two people who had answered my question when I wrote this. I'm not of course claiming that all Islamophobes want to do these things, I'm just making fun of these particular defenders of European civilization. Your suggestions aren't as bad as theirs, but I do wonder how you think this will be enough to solve the problem. After you've done these things, your country is still left with a sizable minority of Muslims. If I've understood your view correctly, these Muslims will have a tendency towards violence and totalitarianism, because they believe in a religion that at heart is violent and totalitarian. So won't we still end up with civil war? Some might even call you an appeaser. Imagine a large Nazi minority in your country - would it really be safe to leave them alone like this?

Cosmophant: You will tell me which ones are Islamophobes according to your definition:

I don't know their views well enough to say. As a more general observation, Mark Steyn is a brilliant writer, but a sloppy thinker. Christopher Hitchens is a great writer and a true independent thinker, and sometimes that leads him to embrace strange views arrogantly, but I admire him all the same. Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes seem to be admired by the Islamophobes, but I don't know if they are as well. Ann Coulter is the Michael Moore of the right.

Anyway, when I think of Islamophobes, I usually think of bloggers, blog readers and members of discussion forums. That's where this movement is really taking place, among people who are smart emough to embrace an intellectual idea, independent enough to show the finger to the establishment, but not patient enough to read actual scholarly literature about Islam. I think most of the writers you've mentioned have inspired Islamophobes in small or large ways, but they're also very clearly different from them. They're smarter, better read, harder to classify.

"The problem here is not the question, but the assumption."

I was waiting for that one, actually. I don't know whether the scenario of Sharia law in the future being implemented in Norway as a result of the will of the majority of Norwegian citizens is realistic or simply absurd. However, that is beside the point - it's just an assumption made for the sake of argument.

Your suggestions aren't as bad as theirs, but I do wonder how you think this will be enough to solve the problem. After you've done these things, your country is still left with a sizable minority of Muslims. If I've understood your view correctly, these Muslims will have a tendency towards violence and totalitarianism, because they believe in a religion that at heart is violent and totalitarian. So won't we still end up with civil war?

I didn't say my recommendations would solve the problem; yes we will always have problems with the Muslims in our midst. This is a given. We Westerners are no different than the Thais or the Hindus or whoever else is unfortunate enough to have allowed Islam to take strong root in their nations.

What I suggest will help us manage the problem, and maintain some semblance of our freedoms and cultures, without become animals and anti-democrats ourselves.

But yes, we will always have problems with Islam. My analogy would be the diabetic who manages his problem with daily doses of insulin. He stays alive and lives a reasonably decent life; but there is no cure for his condition as of yet.

You implied that my suggestions were "not as bad as the others" but still bad nonetheless. What do you find so reprehensible about them?

"The problem here is not the question, but the assumption."

It should be noted here that ALL muslim majority countries (56), including "secular" Turkey, have some form of Islamic law which discriminates against non-Muslims.

With a record like that, the burden of proof is on Bjorn and Oyvind, not on us.

It should also be noted here that the only Muslim who posts here, "Ex-Christian, Now Muslim" is a Western-resident Muslim who has stated exactly the scenario that Anthony describes.

He has stated here quite openly, "We will obey the secular laws until we become the majority, then we will have sharia."

Now of course he is only one person, but I can assure that this attitude/assumption is not rare amongst Western Muslims.

Islamophobe alert:

Some Australian workers refuse to work with a group of Muslims who were caught on camera beating up an Australian cameraman who was reporting on a terror arrest in that country:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17204895^661,00.html

"Islamophobes"? Or good people standing up for the Western value of free press?

It should also be noted that a British newspaper took a poll a while back asking how many British Muslims wanted to see sharia implemented in Britain. The "yes" vote was 66 percent.

I don't see what's wrong with making an "assumption" based on numbers like that. I must be a crazy Islamophobe to make an "assumption" like that. Dear me.

Ann Coulter is the Michael Moore of the Right?????????????????

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA???????????

She's a constitutional lawyer. I love her bomb-throwing, needs to be said.

My bad, Kim. I wasn't paying attention.

---

Oyvind, once again, the proof will be in a generation, maybe less. We'll see what Fallujah-sur-Seine brings.

--We should also fight against any religio-political attempts to deconstruct secular society, we should do that by pointing out why a secular society is better. It is not that difficult; any society that tries to force a specific set off religious values (including forced secular values) upon its citizens will end up in authoritarian tendencies.--

--we should do that by pointing out why a secular society is better. --- And if they don't agree, how do you intend to fight it once they're the majority and they vote it in?

But we've asked this question before and you guys can't give an answer. You guys just don't think it can happen?

--

Typical liberal elite response, just explain it enough and of course they'll see it our way, how can they not? Our way is superior, after all. But the problem is we're dealing w/a religion/political movement which has been taught for 1500 years it is superior and the rest of us are 2nd class or less.

So we have 1 superior view v. another superior view, and to show how superior Europe's view is ....

Europe'll keep giving in.

--Yeah, but then Americans have quite a history for a number of things, not all of them which would fit into the category of "tightening up". You want to sacrifice the ideals of your revolution? Fine. But do not ask me to do the same. --

1. You don't have my ideals, I am not European.

2. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

And depending on your ideals, there could be a contradiction in your last 3 sentences.

-----

Bjorn--There's nothing holy about democracy itself, it's just more likely to take us in the direction of good government than the alternatives. The goal, however, is good government, not democracy. Islamic law is not good government.

They will disagree. Quite vehemently.

Bjørn. "...a democratic turn towards Islamic law is as problematic as a democratic turn towards any other bad ideology."

Politically correct this statement may be, yet the logic is not sound. Unless you assume that all 'bad ideologies' are equally bad.

Why so reluctant to differentiate when providing your answer, Bjørn? Would it not be safe to assume that rule by Sharia law would limit personal freedom more than your average 'bad ideology', more so than say those orientated towards Christianity?

When Islam is mentioned, why this persistent need to align the religion with any other denomination, as if these were directly comparable?

When Islam is mentioned, why this persistent need to align the religion with any other denomination, as if these were directly comparable?

Moral and cultural relativism. It's rife in all Western societies. Many of us don't even realize how much we've been brainwa-- er, impacted -- by it.

What has been said here misses the true danger in Islam.

For 1400 years jihad has been the second most Islamic thing a Muslim can do. It's insidious, relentless, and tireless - the holy requirement of every Muslim. It's the terminator incarnate. If you are a Muslim in Dar Al Harb, it is your holy duty to convert or conquer.

Jihad has killed well over 50 million people on this tiny blue ball, and they don't seem to have slowed up a whole lot recently.

Muslims must be KEPT in Muslim countries where they can kill each other and not us.

We cannot treat Muslims like everyone else. They are not like everyone else, the are Muslim. Politics, law, and religion all rolled into a mindless, hateful way of life.

Never forget that if they win you will have two basic choices - convert or die, that is if they give you a choice before cutting your throat.

"Let's say that after pointing out to Norwegian citizens why a secular society is the better alternative, you're still left with a majority of citizens who want to implement Sharia. Then what?"

Then I will continue to point out why a secular society is the better idea. Good ideas will win because they are better. See, here is the issue, I believe in the strenght of Western civilization. You do not.

Bill Rowan has clearly demonstrated why another Holocaust is not such a faraway thought for true Islamophobes. Muslims are not people like the rest of us. Because of being Muslim, they are - put in jargon of the thirties - untermenschen. Yes, I am hitlering you. Yes, you deserve it. Say hello to Göring for me.

Sandy: Yeah, sure, Fallujah-sur-Reine, or maybe it is more like Watts-sur-Reine. Sure looks like it.

"Then I will continue to point out why a secular society is the better idea. Good ideas will win because they are better."

In other words, you're clutching at straws.

Øyvind, Mechelen:

Before you go calling people names, perhaps you should learn a little something about Islam, for it is clear you know little from the words you use (Islamaphobe).

Unlike most, and I'm certain you fall in the most category, I have put my life on the line to ensure that people like you can say things like that about me.

Sounds to me like a year or two in some Islamic hell hole just might change your mind.

Until you know what you are talking about, I suggest you simply shut up, for if the day comes for you to make a choice, I am certain I know what you will choose.

The one positive thing I can see is that Muslims in the West seem to shoot their wad a bit too early. Had they assumed control silently and incrementally, and my muslim constable would have decreed my wife should not venture on the streets without chador in, say, 2035, it would have been infinitely worse.

I take great pride in Bjoern Staerk accusing me of wanting to impose fascist measures, because it shows that the appeasers and those who would surrender our culture and indeed our very civilization to a medieval death cult are becoming aware of the growing force of Europes Right.

Thanks for showing your true colours Mr. Staerk. It is now an established fact that you are part of the problem, not of the solution.

Michael, Belgium:

Yes, Muslims get a little impatient to take control, or as you say "they shoot their wad" a little too soon. I agree and thank God that they do.

You should read Larry Niven's Man-Kzin wars for an interesting parallel.

French government is censoring "off-message" (i.e. "Islamophobic") Internet sites covering the riots. Leftist and "moderate" Islamic websites left untouched.

http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2005/11/is-french-government-trying-to-censor.html

Oyvind/Bjorn, if Mr. Rowan (and Mr. Michael) are indeed fascists/nazis, what do you propose to do about them?

Just interested to know.

Good ideas will win because they are better.

No, not necessarily. The Weimar Republic was a better idea than the Third Reich. And the MacIntosh OS was a better idea than DOS-Windows.

If that were true, Oyvind, we'd all be typing on Macs right now and Bill Gates would be a travelling software salesman from Seattle instead of the richest man in the world.

I type on Linux. Open source is an even better idea. And it will win. Eventually.

Mark: Yes, I can imagine that was what Nazis suggested to those sceptical to them, as well, "you just have to learn about Judaism, then you will understand".

I am not an American, in our election campaigns the number of purple hearts a government head candidate has earned is not big theme of discussion. His or her ideas is what matter.

Your ideas are appallable. They are fascist. They are also quite easily recognizable. I will not hesitate in calling them what they are.

Bjoern: "not patient enough to read actual scholarly literature about Islam"

What books do you have in mind here, and what will we learn from reading them? Who are the pundits, in your view, that did this scholarly study, and therefore hold a balanced view?

Also it is unclear to me what is really the relation between scholarly Islamic literature and the sum of different views among ordinary muslims. Only a fraction of muslims know Arabic, and illiteracy is high. How will studying the books you suggest lead us to what's in their hearts and minds?

Bjoern: "I think most of the writers you've mentioned have inspired Islamophobes in small or large ways"

The list of pundits I gave you, Bjoern, is at the same time the strongest voices for the War on Islamism. So there is obviously a major overlap between those who you consider respresenting or insipring lunacy and those who are your closest soulmates, and it's clear from your answer that you cannot easily decide which is which. Is it then really wise to throw around labels such as "islamophobe"? It appears as if you must be walking on a knife's edge, with such a thin line (and even fuzzy line?) between the pathological and the commendable. I understand what you are aiming for, but aren't you making it all too difficult for yourself here?

Last election in Sweden the politicians were shrilling "XENOPHOBES!!!" at each other in all directions. There were not a position you could take to avoid that label, except for silence. Both those for and against "guest workers" immigration where demonized. Labels such as xenophobe, islamophobe, racist etc. are designed to shut up the debate. They only promote silence, and eventually ignorance. Only dialog can save us in these difficult times.

Baard: Unless you assume that all 'bad ideologies' are equally bad.

I hate it when I have to spoonfeed people. Think about what you're accusing me of, then ask yourself if you honestly think I believe that all "bad ideologies" are equally bad, with no difference between them. Think, rethink, then make another attempt.

Bill Rowan: We cannot treat Muslims like everyone else. They are not like everyone else, the are Muslim. Politics, law, and religion all rolled into a mindless, hateful way of life.

And so it begins.

Michael: I take great pride in Bjoern Staerk accusing me of wanting to impose fascist measures

Those are your words. I was merely saying you're not a defender of European civilization.

Øyvind: I type on Linux. Open source is an even better idea. And it will win. Eventually.

It might, but it won't happen automagically. We're not on a steady march of improvement, we're walking blind. We've been lucky recently, but we have no guarantee of the luck continuing. In a way, there's a rational basis to the anti-Muslim paranoia. It's a fear based on the realization that the future is unpredictable, that civilizations fall. It's the fear of anyone who has thought "if this trend continues.." It's a destructive and misguided fear that seizes on and exaggerates just one of the frighteningly many potential threats to our future, like a parent who imagines their child getting kidnapped by pedophiles. But bad things do happen.

All we can do is promote a society that is able to deal with specific threats when they arise, a free and democratic society, and try to keep in mind some of the rules of thumb we've learned from our recent history. One of which is that people who say "we cannot treat people of kind X like everyone else" will, if given power, do exactly what they say.

I am not an American, in our election campaigns the number of purple hearts a government head candidate has earned is not big theme of discussion. His or her ideas is what matter.

Well. Their rhetorics and political strategy is what matters. Norwegians don't care about military medals, so that is not a big theme, but if we did, so would our politicians. Ideas aren't really welcome in politics, at least we shouldn't entrust discussion about ideas to the politicians.

Cosmophant: So there is obviously a major overlap between those who you consider respresenting or insipring lunacy and those who are your closest soulmates, and it's clear from your answer that you cannot easily decide which is which.

But that's my point, isn't it? I don't easily use the label of Islamophobia. I note that Daniel Pipes, for instance, writes "the terrorism of al Qaeda, Hamas, the Iranian government and other Islamists results from the ideas of such contemporary radicals as Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini, not from the Koran." In my view, that makes him not an Islamophobe. Islamophobia is just the extreme end of a long scale of opinions about Islam, which is why it is so sad to see so many in the blog community subscribe to it.

As for what books to read, that depends on what you want to know about. If you believe that Islamic theology is a simple matter of understanding what the Quran and the traditions "really" mean, you should read works about Islamic theology and history, or perhaps the works of Islamic theologians themselves. If you are more interested in how actual Muslims practice their faith today, you'll probably want a more social/cultural approach. Rule of thumb: Avoid polemics, seek out academics.

I don't know much about Islam, it's just one of the many subjects I'm interested in and read about, but it doesn't take much reading of non-polemical books to figure out that the Islamophobes don't understand Islam. There are many people who do understand Islam who are also very critical of it. I respect that (and I agree with much of it), because I respect knowledge. What I don't respect is arrogant ignorance in combination with desperate politics.

Bjoern, I find the article of Daniel Pipes you quote from interesting in many ways, for the purpose of our discussion. Let me quote from that article:

The challenge ahead is clear: Muslims must emulate their fellow monotheists by modernizing their religion with regard to slavery, interest and much else. No more fighting jihad to impose Muslim rule. No more endorsement of suicide terrorism. No more second-class citizenship for non-Muslims.

No more death penalty for adultery or "honor" killings of women. No more death sentences for blasphemy or apostasy.

Rather than rail on about Islam's alleged "evil," it behooves everyone - Muslim and non-Muslim alike - to help modernize this civilization.

Do you generally agree with Daniel Pipes that this is the kind of challange we have ahead of us, or are here any parts of this that you find being nonsense or phobic?

‘Hate’ is a strong word, Bjørn – you should reserve it for another context. But speaking of being spoonfed; I’m not saying that you do believe all ‘bad ideologies’ are equally bad, but that your statement does not come together unless you would believe so.

My intention is thus not to accuse you of believing all such ideologies are equally bad, but to merely question why your choice of words reflect such a view. As I wrote: “When Islam is mentioned, why this persistent need to align the religion with any other denomination, as if these were directly comparable?"

Some people have a problem pointing out that key aspects even in moderate Islam make this religion come out harsher than most other religions - if to criticise they feel a need to find something equally censurable. I’m not going to ramble on about being politically correct, but I would not think you to be one of these?

For most people, what is so hard to understand about Islam is the dedication of the uhmma.

Islam's single purpose is to extinguish all other faiths. There is no moral restraint, only the single minded, relentless jihad in all its many forms.

Jihad through bribery.
Jihad through conversion.
Jihad through disinformation.
Jihad through denial.
Jihad through murder.
Jihad through intimidation.

In western thought, it is inconceivable that a religion could be as hateful, as murderous and hideous as Islam.

Love thy neighbor? Not on your life if they are non-believers. Search the Koran or the Hadith for the treatment of Joos and Christians.

In Dar al Islam, where have all the Christian churches gone? Where have all the Hindu temples gone? Where have all the Armanian Christians gone? Where have all the Coptic Christians gone?

Ask yourself why there are so few Christians in Dar al Islam where once almost 80% of a population of tens of millions were Christian. Where did they go? Where did more than 30 million Hindus in India go?

In Egypt the population was more than 80% Christian. Only a small, die hard population of Coptic Christians remain, and they are under relentless attack by the hateful Muslim hordes.

I can point out and document so many civilizations that were extinguished through Jihad that it boggles the mind.

So what happened to the millions and millions of non-believers? Dead, gone, murdered, placed into slavery, butchered or beheaded.

What is so hard to grasp is the enormity of it. Islam makes Hitler look like a good guy, toying with the Joos with malevolence.

Islamiphobe? You God Damned right I am! And you had better be as well or your children will be doing the wudu five times a day in a country devoid of kites, art, music, laughter, sculpture, freedom of speach, all the things that have made western culture what it is today.

What has kite flying to do with religion? In Islam kites represent freedom of thought, freedom of the spirit to soar. Not allowed in Islam where the devel climbs into your nose when you sleep.

Ask yourself, is there any other religion that has a slogan like "the religion of peace"? Why does Islam need this slogan?

I could go on for many pages, but let me conclude by saying that anyone who is not an Islamiphobe is not only foolish beyond belief, they are "useful tools" of Islam as well.

I was merely saying you're not a defender of European civilization.

Oh, but I am, you goddam pathetic politico-correct piece of excrement. With people like me, the preservation of Montesquieus principles and the rule of law are certain. With people like me, our judeo-christian roots well never be denied. With people like me, the family with its accompanying set of traditional values will continue to be the core element of society. With people like me, the European intellectual heritage will be safe.

At the moment I'm typing this, the molotov cocktails are lying at the ready stacked away in garbage bins in Sint-Jans-Molenbeek. Fifteen cars were torched last night, and in fact the low-level arson acts from last week are comparatively speaking the same phenomenon that in France predeced the current riots.

People like Bjoern Staerk would like to make us believe that if riots were to break out in Belgium these, too, will be because of "neglect" of our immigrants, because we shut them off from the labor market, because we are racist and blah blah blah. The truth is that they have gotten all the chances including positive discrimination. We native Belgians have done our part. More than enough. Love must come from both sides, the immigrant faction has utterly failed in doing its part.

With people like Bjoern Staerk, who like to smear whistle-blowers and brandish them as fascists, the rot will continue to the point where there is no turnaround and Europe will indeed become a new caliphate.

The most ironic thing of this all is that basically Mr. Staerk is ideologically much more in tune with fascism than me. Me, I'm a law-abiding capitalist with conservative ethics. I am a member of the Vlaams Belang, formerly Vlaams Blok, which was outlawed one year ago basically because it has an agenda similar to the US's GOP, a deadly sin in a semi-communist country like Belgium. Had Mr. Staerk been a Belgian, he would no doubt have hailed the High Court's decision to stifle the voice of 1.5 million Flemings who don't want our cvivilization to succumb to a horrendous belief system.

I haven't read much of what Daniel Pipes has written, but this long article made me somewhat skeptical of him:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16798

Daniel Pipes responded to this article here:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2377

Then the author of the original article responded to Pipes' response:
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/20022

Too bad they've shut down drarie.be. This was a real eye-opener for me. You should have read that website, Bjorn. Muslims shouldn't expect to be respected if they don't respect us!!

Michael: "you goddam pathetic politico-correct piece of excrement"

I objected to Bjoern's use of the "islamophobe" label on the grounds that it's an invective designed to end the debate. Above harange obviously has the same purpose, only that it is much worse -- to put it mildly.

It is disappointing how little you have understood of where Bjoern is coming from, Michael. Even if I disagree with Bjoern, I respect him for encouraging debate, and being honest in his effort. While you need some anger management training, Michael. Whatever point you might have had, it gets lost once you start screaming instead of debating. Whatever point you might have had about what is the right way of defending European Civilization, you deviated from European Civilization in our last post, by deviating from civilized debating manners; and hence your point gets inevitably lost.

Michael: you goddam pathetic politico-correct piece of excrement.

Uh-huh. Solid European values, certainly. The question is: Which century?

People like Bjoern Staerk would like to make us believe that if riots were to break out in Belgium these, too, will be because of "neglect" of our immigrants, because we shut them off from the labor market, because we are racist and blah blah blah.

Tell me more about this Bjoern Staerk person you dislike so strongly. I for one think he goes too far in blaming the French riots on the French alone, and I would certainly not blame it on French racism. It's a lot more complex than that, and the responsibility (if not the ultimate cause, which goes further back in time) lies with the gangs of criminal youths who are doing the rioting. But I don't claim to really understand this, and I may have missed something, so if you would direct me to the article where Bjoern Staerk says these things, I'd certainly look into his arguments.

The most ironic thing of this all is that basically Mr. Staerk is ideologically much more in tune with fascism than me.

Exposed, at last.

I am a member of the Vlaams Belang, formerly Vlaams Blok, which was outlawed one year ago basically because it has an agenda similar to the US's GOP, a deadly sin in a semi-communist country like Belgium.

The plot thickens.

Had Mr. Staerk been a Belgian, he would no doubt have hailed the High Court's decision to stifle the voice of 1.5 million Flemings who don't want our cvivilization to succumb to a horrendous belief system.

Them I'm beginning to see why you hate Staerk so much. Like you, I believe in free speech and political freedom even for suspected racists. Unlike you, I believe in it for Muslims as well. If Bjoern Staerk fails to see why this is important, tell him to contact me, and I'll explain why.

Cosmophant: Do you generally agree with Daniel Pipes that this is the kind of challange we have ahead of us, or are here any parts of this that you find being nonsense or phobic?

No, I agree with what he says in that quote. And after reading the articles Anthony links to, I'm even beginning to respect him. This is almost exactly what I have been writing about Islam criticism for a year and a half. Don't know what his specific views about Islam are, but it's clear that Daniel Pipes lives in the real world, not the world of Islamophobic paranoia.

So the question to you, then, is if you believe Daniel Pipes is an Islam apologist. If so, then so am I, but if not, then it's time to acknowledge the broad range of opinion that exists outside the bubble reality of Fjordman & Co.

Bjoern,

I'm always very happy when it is possible to find a common ground in a debate. Especially in such a tricky as well as important debate as this one. Daniel Pipes provided us with this common ground. However, there are many leads to follow from here on.

First of all, no Dr. Pipes is definitely not an Islam apologist. Interestingly enough, I would say that Dr. Pipes too a large degree gets through the same points about the Islamic community as Fjordman does. However, rhethorics is the answer to all human prayers, and Dr. Pipes uses a much more sophisticated rhethoric. Note in the section I quoted from him how he is able to directly address "Muslims" as a problem, given qualifiers at the beginning and at the end, together with an optimistic outlook. Thereby, he makes the problem description more digestable for the average Westerner.

The problem as I see it is that the necessary wiggling to avoid the Islamophobe label, will lead to some contradictions in what you say. Anyway, there are problems with the Fjordman approach as well. I'm the kind of guy that thinks that the same kind of thing can be said in a whole number of different ways. Therefore I do not see such vast differences between Fjordman, Pipes and Bjoern Staerk in the long run. The important thing is that we have an ongoing dialog, and that we feed the machine with oil instead of gravel.

I have more things on this line, but I'll have to stop for now.

Well, there's a nut to crack. Our free speech doesn't "respect" the followers of allen.

They certainly are a very sensitive people. Seems a lot "offends" them and shouldn't be brought up.

The kicker on the "religion of peace" is that they're never asked their definition of peace.

People assume the western definition.

Sandy: Yeah, sure, Fallujah-sur-Reine, or maybe it is more like Watts-sur-Reine. Sure looks like it.

Actually, since most of the buildings and businesses being torched, and most of the cars, all belong to the infidel, and the one person who was beaten to death by thugs was an infidel, I think the French riots look much more like a Kristelnacht.

And there's even the government and media complicity in the Kristelnacht that was present in the original one: witness the French TV station which doctored a broadcast to hide the fact that the Kristelnachters were screaming for that "dirty jew" Sarkozy's head. Changed it to that "dirty fascist" Sarkozy.

Good thing we can trust the mainstream media and our beloved journalistic elite so much in our time of need, isn't it? Without them, we'd certainly be flying blind.

Don't forget the churches, Susan. They're torching churches.
-----

--Then I will continue to point out why a secular society is the better idea. Good ideas will win because they are better. See, here is the issue, I believe in the strenght of Western civilization. You do not.--

Oh, brother.

You're going to jaw-jaw them? Do you also believe the soft, morally righteous stance on nukes brought down the USSR/The Wall?

But let's hug, we've had a breakthru. We agree on the western civ part. It's just that again, they also believe they have a superior product. And while they will listen to you, because you are under their benevolent care, you might actually pay the tax for your protection in your own country because you're the minority.

They have been at war w/the world/west for 1500 years. Charles Martel, anyone? They've been sitting on your southern doorstep for centuries, they've watched the West develop and here's a clue, they really haven't adopted any of our ideas. They like A/C, running water and modern conveniences, but modern thought? Not really. They are extractors, Oyvind, they don't produce anything we want at this time. They cannot compete w/the chicoms and India.

-------------

--Your ideas are appallable. They are fascist. They are also quite easily recognizable. I will not hesitate in calling them what they are. --

Islam's political ideas could also meet the definition of fascist. You gonna keep to your ideals and tell them to their face when it comes up?

--

Umm, Bjorn???

Michael: I take great pride in Bjoern Staerk accusing me of wanting to impose fascist measures

Those are your words. I was merely saying you're not a defender of European civilization.--

Didn't communism and fascism spring from Europe? Frankenreich is trying to put together the EUSSR, after all. More benevolent, I know, but still, it's part of your civilization............

Don't forget, fascism is always descending on America but seems to land in Europe...........

---

--Cosmophant,

--Only dialog can save us in these difficult times.---

1st you have to get their attention..........

---

And Oyvind? Watts really isn't a comparison, I think at least a couple of US bloggers spelled out why. But you'll have to google.

Bjorn, you read islamic scholars, what's the definition of jihad?

1 other comment on what's going on in France.

Where's the helicopter news shots?

How come there aren't any?

And do you think if America were on day 15, the coverage would be different?

Don't forget the churches, Susan. They're torching churches.

And synagogues too. But Jews and Christians were told by the government not to make too big a deal about it. OTOH, a mosque has been attacked as well -- the government made a very big deal about that, quick to jump in and condemn, etc.

No such condemnation for the attacks on the Christian and Jewish places of worshop. They were just told to like it or lump it.

And people here wonder why "Islamophobes" don't listen to our more rational betters -- the governments, the media, the "intellectuals" -- they are so fair, they are so trustworthy when it comes to reporting news about Islam and Muslims -- we are so crazy, so irrational, to discount what they say. Ach! What can I say. We are so hopeless.

Paul Belien at The Brussels Jouranl reports on the extreme censorship of the French government and media and now the Belgium media and their attempts to spin what's happening so that no one will blame, uh, the "I" word or the "M" word. Worth a read of some of his latest articles.

Where's the helicopter news shots?

You're expecting helicopter shots from a media that stoops to doctoring feedback from its chosen victim group to airbrush out anti-semitic comments?

What's the latest news about Woody Allen and Soon-Yi? I'm sure the French are much more interested in that than in their country being burned down around their ears.

Bjorn, I want to show to you my deepest scorn, why?

-You don´t care your women are raped.
-You don´t care muslim women are oppressed and treated like cattle.
-You don´t care to give money to inmigrants, even without working!, just to save your life and your multicultural lie.
-The only racism you support is against Whites.
-You don´t care that there areas in your country, Malmoe for instance, where police cannot enter. Obviously you don´t care that Sweddish Law is not applied there, oh sorry sharia law is applied.

I wonder if people like you should not be treated like Criminals, I honestly I think you and all leftists are working with islamists to destroy our Civilization.
I hope you fail.

Od course you will deny it but consciously or not you are labouring for that.

"I think at least a couple of US bloggers spelled out why".

Yeah, a couple of US bloggers - the endless source to divine wisdom and truth. Bah.

Yeah, a couple of US bloggers - the endless source to divine wisdom and truth. Bah.

Apparently they're more trustworthy than the French "professional" media. Or is doctoring statements made on news reports now standard journalistic practice in Europe now?

Bjoern,

Obviously an overall problem is that a lot of people are hurt, angry, feel betrayed, lost trust in the ruling elites, etc. I do not think that the term "Islamophobia" addresses or covers the issue any good.

I expect that these kind of sentiments will increase year by year. Good leadership will become necessary in Europe to get a grip on the situation.

Oh, Susan, why be so stingy?

Don't forget the BBC and German papers.

---

Oyvind, are you suggesting you know more about Watts?

Oh, wait, you are European and do know our history better than we do. I'm sorry, I forgot, me being a stupid, ignorant American.

Here's another one for you, Oyvind. Why haven't are betters learned from our mistakes????

France, stuck on stupid since 1789.

Jose:

Yeah, Björn is quite a leftist alright. Leftist usually knock me over the head with Hayek all the time. Why do I feel such a strong smell of hay here?

You are of course quite right that he should be treated like a criminal though, that is after all what fascists do with people who do not agree with them, people that are "part of the problem, not of the solution".

By the way, the city of Malmö is in Sweden, not in Norway. This is the website of the regional headquarters of police, and you should not believe all the bullshit you read. Sites like dhimmiwatch falsely translates a number of newspaper articles to make it fit their own worldview - in good old propaganda style (and oops - someone noticed. These stories has later walked around the world on the browner edges of the anti-Islamic blogosphere.

You might want to take a trip to Malmö yourself. It is a city that has it problems, with "banlieus" like Rosengård where unemployment, crime, various social problems, more and less willing segregation and poor immigration policies can have potentially dramatic results, but it is not hell on earth.

Actually, it is quite a nice place.

Sandy:

Islam does not have merely one set of political ideas, and as such "Islams political ideas" are not meeting up with any definition. That there are fascists amongst Muslims, too, though is beyond any doubt.

Oyvind, until they learn to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and God, God's, they ain't going to assimilate.

How do you propose to to crack that basic tenent, fundamental nut?

Ack, I hate fast fingers, tenet.

Have a great weekend, I've got a busy one.

Oh, yay! Via Instapundit:

AVIAN FLU SPREADS TO PIGS in China. This is bad news, increasingly the likelihood of a strain that will jump to humans.

(Via Rand Simberg). Also there's this troubling news:

Experiments with human cells have found the H5N1 virus can trigger levelsof inflammatory proteins called cytokines and chemokines that are more than 10 times higher than those that occur during a bout of the common flu....

"Oyvind, are you suggesting you know more about Watts?"

Nope. However, I think that the fellows over at Time magazine might know a thing or two about American history too.

Are you suggesting that "a couple of American bloggers" understand the riots in Paris perfectly, while the Frenchies are capable of
understanding nothing at all? Seems like your anti-French - or anti-European, perhaps - sentiments are stronger than any anti-American sentiments I carry.

Here from stupid Eric Macé at the Paris University: On connaît tous les exemples des émeutes de Los Angeles aux Etats-Unis et Bradford en Grande-Bretagne. Les ingrédients sont exactement les mêmes [...]

"Why haven't are betters learned from our mistakes????"

Because, simply, when it comes to integration Europe is not better than modern America. We are worse. This poem is not European:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
with conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
a mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
the air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
with silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

There is too much white in the Stars and Stripes, there ain't enough black in the Union Jack.

Oyvind, I don´t know if dhimmiwatch has translated well the problems of Malmo, but Fjordman basically has said the same (increase in rapes and crime due to inmigrants) and I trust Fjordman. Unfortunately the links you give are in a language unknown for me.

You say Islam does not have merely one set of political ideas, and as such "Islams political ideas" are not meeting up with any definition.
Do you know the Caliphate? Don´t you think that is a very concrete idea shared between Muslims?

Bjorn may be should be treated like a criminal because he is helping to impose a dictatorship as bloody as was nazism or stalinism, don´t you think that is a real crime not a thought crime? Are you one of those enablers too?

Bjørn:

"In a way, there's a rational basis to the anti-Muslim paranoia. It's a fear based on the realization that the future is unpredictable, that civilizations fall. It's the fear of anyone who has thought "if this trend continues.." It's a destructive and misguided fear that seizes on and exaggerates just one of the frighteningly many potential threats to our future, like a parent who imagines their child getting kidnapped by pedophiles. But bad things do happen. "

"Exaggerates" "just one" of the "many threats to our future" ?
You mean like some people exaggerated the threat of Nazi Germany and communism ? Especially the latter people had a quite a problem realizing the danger of. I know you don´t consider this parable as founded in anything real because you are so hooked on moderate socialism oops islam.
But I think most islam critics likes to be free from your arrogant patronizing comparisons like: "parents hysteric about the risk of incest" I for one do not worry about earthquakes, tsunamis, birdflu, flying in an airplane, walking on the street, etc. nor am I hysteric if anything seems wrong I have been to the doctor 2-3 times in 20 years.

But islam is bloody dangerous, not the "socialist" pragmatic version of it, but the extremist/communist absolutist version of it.
But do keep sitting on the fence, one leg on each side, and enjoy the view till the day islamofascism starts steamrolling a location near your fence.

It´s just exaggeration that Osama tried to get nukes, it´s just exaggeration that the 9/11 attack added pace to militant islam, that a fundamentalist hate wave of renewed militant jihad is swaying across the moslem world especially in Asia and Iraq.
There is nothing to worry about, Osama lived in Torah Borah in a cave with a primitive chair and table and a sony VHS cam, and not in a xx´s mio several stores bunker with a lot scientific facilities here and there where he was developing weapons of mass destruction. He spend his 1 bio. family fortune, all the millions of donations, all the opium trade money, only on ak 47´s, RPG´s and conventional explosives.
he has never had any contact with nuclear scientists from the former Soviet, Iraq, Iran, and certainly never with A.Q. Khan´s team, these good fellows would never associate themselves with a maniac like Osama Bin Laden, only rational regimes like North Korea and Iran, so dream on, go to sleep, nothing to worry about.
Nor is there any breeding ground, the hate against the west and Israel found in the moslem is minute, so is the admiration of Osama, he hardly has any admirers, Nor can his religion brag about having 1.4 bio followers soon to be around 2 bio. All that is just plain nonsense and there is no way any serious and real threat to be seen originating from poor backwards and complex islam anyway, not even the fact that the jobless, hopeless, overpopulated masses of North Africa ( 200 mio people) currently are doubling their numbers in 30-40 years if not fast and is already numbering xx millions of unemployed semidesperate masses, only to become more and more in numbers and desperation in a stagnant society without any economic growth.
But good old SA is going to build many nice mosques and madrassas for them and help them out so they can find a purpose in life, it´s gonna be a show of somekind, of course noone is a prophet, but some things are more likely than others que ?

Bjørn:

"But that's my point, isn't it? I don't easily use the label of Islamophobia. I note that Daniel Pipes, for instance, writes "the terrorism of al Qaeda, Hamas, the Iranian government and other Islamists results from the ideas of such contemporary radicals as Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini, not from the Koran." In my view, that makes him not an Islamophobe. Islamophobia is just the extreme end of a long scale of opinions about Islam, which is why it is so sad to see so many in the blog community subscribe to it.
"

Aha an islamophobe is one that thinks jihad comes from the quran ? But then it´s like the good old egg/hen question, which was first ? the quran and muhammad or Khomenei and Osama ?

Khomenei:

"Why do you only read the Quranic verses of mercy and do not read the verses of killing?

Quran says; kill, imprison!

Why are you only clinging to the part that talks about mercy? "

What do you think about a person like Ali Sina, respect his knowledge but disagree with his conclusions ? Because you probably know that the accusation of never having opened a book by an islamic scholar doesn´t stick to Ali Sina ?
I felt repelled the first time I read Ali Sina, it´s only natural when a person places such a strong spotlight on islam, it´s the experience of most people, some just keep reading and try to understand it better.

Noone is claiming that islam is not changing, it is and for the worst, nay even more worse than that, given the time we live in and weapons at disposal, but the root lies in islam and it´s the root that needs to be cut.
Islam may be complex and many things, but it also calls for violence,tell the tales of muhammads violence and ruthlessness, its hate speech if anything is as an Eng. MP ( name I forgot right now? Bruce??? )said.
Thus though moderate islam in accordance with the golden rule and "live and let live", secular and exegetic islam would not pose any problem.

But still the best would be that islam either broke up or stopped existing because the very fact there is 1.4 bio moslems is part of what fuels the islamoviks, the avantgarde of militant islam like Bin Laden and others.

I don´t think we should answer hate with hate and I don´t think the Islamofascists will ever be able to win, but they might force us up in a corner and then force us to be very brutal to get out of that corner alive.
But we are not inventing or exaggerating on the contrary we find that most people are underestimating what moslems can be capable of, as well as they themselves will overestimate what they are capable of and go for the big price, conquest of the west. Actually that is nothing to suspect, it´s the not particular well hidden agenda of al qaida and related islamists all over the world.

It´s not us thinking that the Quran says kill and slay and strike terror into the heart of the infidels, "slay them wherever you find them" It´s the quran actually saying it and it is moslems actually doing it. Not all moslems but mind I add a xx mio. number would be more than enough out of the 1.4 bio.

There is just as much relevance to naziphobia, commiephobia as to islamophobia, just this time it´s rampant and embrace the worst of the two while hiding behind guise of "just a noble religion", it has no specific address, no specific target you retaliate towards and you can bet they are going to use that against us, they already did in 9/11.

Why is it so sad that people in the blog community ascribe to your certain definition of proletarian islamo"phobia"?, the part of the deal in blogs is that result in honest and unmodified opinions. If any of us critics were high ranking members of a political party, we might take a less blunt approach like Bush does even though he knows the game. But that is all play to the gallery, a diplomatic game of dressing the ugly reality in the rosa light of pretend.
there are fringe views out there but it will take a war for Bomber Harris to be heard the slightest, and that war we will not start, we did not start, Osama/al qaida did in 1998.

There are plenty of nutcases in the political circus as it is now which are far more dangerous than anyone ( with actual influence ) you call a islamophobe, so why target Fjordman just because he covers what the normal media tends to omit ?
Who would you consider the most dangerous ?
The politician ( I am not mentioning any names but she has been Danish MP for more than a decade ) who thinks we should have complete open borders, then immigration will stop naturally once our country simply has no room anymore or is no longer attractive ?
Or Fjordman ?
and which view would the good elite media back up of the two ?

These quotes are not the inventions of any islamophobe:

"
Jordanian Television (September 13, 1995)
"Since we cannot defeat Israel in war we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel." Yasser Arafat

", "Islam wants the whole earth and does not content itself with only a part thereof. It wants and requires the entire inhabited world. It does not want this in order that one nation dominates the earth and monopolizes its sources of wealth, after having taken them away from one or more other nations. No, Islam wants and requires the earth in order that the human race altogether can enjoy the concept and practical program of human happiness, by means of which God has honored Islam and put it above the other religions and laws. In order to realize this lofty desire, Islam wants to employ all forces and means that can be employed for bringing about a universal all-embracing revolution. It will spare no effort for the achievement of this supreme objective. This far-reaching struggle that continuously exhausts all forces and this employment of all possible means are called jihad." Mawdudi

"Resistance in Iraq and Palestine is Legitimate; America is Satan; Islam Will Invade America and Europe "
Muslim Brotherhood movement leader "Muhammad Mahdi Othman 'Akef "

"The real weapons of mass destruction are the desire for martyrdom. Millions of you are ready to be shaheed. Half a million martyrdom shaheed is enough for Muslims to control the whole of earth forever. In the end of the day, Islam must control earth, whether we like it or not."
Sheikh Abu Hamza Al-Masri

"Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine, and more eternal than the art of martyrdom? A nation with martyrdom knows no captivity. Those who wish to undermine this principle undermine the foundations of our independence and national security. They undermine the foundation of our eternity.
"The message of the [Islamic] Revolution is global, and is not restricted to a specific place or time. It is a human message, and it will move forward.
"Have no doubt... Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world."

Iranian President-Elect Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad
"

"“Indeed, our words remain dead, until we die in their cause, so they remain alive amongst the living”.

Sayyid Qutb Rahimahullah
"

""Jihad and the rifle alone. NO negotiations, NO conferences and NO dialogue."
Sheikh Abdullah Azzam,

"He said the only reason Hamas is honoring a truce is because "it is important for the Palestinian people. We are going to give them a chance to enjoy some breathing room after the occupation." Sami Abuzughri, , chief spokesman for the group. "Hamas"

"But the reality is that the freedom that they’re talking about is nothing other than forcing the Muslims to accept laws that legalise homosexuality, fornication, adultery etc.”" Richard Reid - ( shoebomber )

"We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization... we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them."

Ahmadinejad's chief strategic guru Hassan Abbassi,

""I am telling you that my religion doesn't tolerate other religion. It doesn't tolerate. The only one law which needs to spread, it can be here or anywhere else, has to be Islam," he said."

Abu Bakr ( AUS )

"say that the West's occupation of our country is old, yet new, and that the confrontation and conflict between us and them started centuries ago. The confrontation and conflict will continue because the conflict between right and falsehood will continue until Judgment Day. "

Osama Bin Laden

Thomas Bolding Hansen Bravo! Very well explained and so truthful that Leftists are obliged to say that you lie and are a fascists.

I came here to defend Fjordman, and so I will continue to do. But I'm very dissapointed with several other defenders of Fjordman. Looking at this thread, to some degree I start understanding why people like Bjoern is so inclined to use the "islamophobe" label. Too many people seem to have reached a hysterical state where they lost their minds to the extent that they are not even listening to what Bjoern is saying.

Bjoern is a staunch defender of the War on Islamism. And he seems to agree with Daniel Pipes that the muslim community (on all the following) has issues to deal with regarding slavery, holy war, sharia, suicide terrorism, dhimmi laws, honour killings and death penalties for adultery and apostasy. It's not exactly Dominique de Villepin you are dealing with here.

I strikes me now how some people in this thread are offended by the attitude of Bjoern -- not being perfectly the way they like it -- to the degree that they lose their minds and start yelling and waving instead. And Bjoern, once again, you are all wrong in labelling this as "islamophobic". I believe the correct term would be "islamomorphic"!

(This does not apply to Fjordman himself though. I stand by what I came here to say: Putting an Islamophobe label on Fjordman is dishonest and wrong.)

I understand that many of you feel an urgency about the situation. But so does a muslim who believes in islamic heaven and hell. Keep your heads cool. The worst case scenario is not that bad for you. You will not face any eternal torture in islamic hell. So there's nothing here for us to lose our minds over.

I know I have criticised Bjoern for using a term (islamophobic), that is designed to shut up the debate. But Bjoern himself is definitely not trying to shut up any debate (that's why I even bother to go on about that term). But the people here that get all emotional, attacking Bjoern without sense, you are the ones killing a debate. What's the matter with you guys? To me someone that connects the dots to 75% like I do is an ally, not an enemy!

Cosmophant: The worst case scenario is not that bad for you. You will not face any eternal torture in islamic hell.

Wow. Do I feel relieved. Thanks Cosmo, I will definitely sleep better tonight.

Susan: OTOH, a mosque has been attacked as well -- the government made a very big deal about that, quick to jump in and condemn, etc.

That is right. The paint to the left of the door was a bit black from soot or sumpin. Incident was worth a whole column with photo on De Standaard Online. More coverage in fact than the 500 cars burned the same night. It's a strange world.

People who refer to the watts riots and were not there should shut t f... up! What exactly do you know? Revisionist European history?

I was there during the riots, living in Torrance California. Rumors were rampant and people were both scared and angry. Many sat on their roofs with rifles and shotguns, waiting for the rioters to come into Torrance.

Had they shown up, the riots would have ended in a few hours. I know, because I sat on a friends roof cradling a loaded 30-30 carbine.

The French have no guns, no police who can protect them, no will to resist, and no balls. I'm not sure this apathetic defeatist disease isn't the European norm.

All it takes to have evil men succeed is for good men to do nothing. Complacent Europeans watch the evil grow around them and do nothing. The lights are going out in Europe and in a year or two civil war will be the norm in most European states. It's obvious that it's too late to save Europe, leaving America to stand alone once again. Pray that your children will be liberated by America when all of our other options have been exhausted.

Thank God for the American Constitution, my right to bear arms, and my right to free speech.

For all the hate Europe holds for America, I am certain that when Europe calls for help there will be no answer. Americans have spent 50,000 lives in defence of Europe. What has this terrible cost brought us?

Europe will have to solve her own problems while the arsenal of democracy rebuilds her decimated defenses.

--I think that the fellows over at Time magazine might know a thing or two about American history too. --

That's debatable.

There's so much revisionist history going on now, it's hard to tell.

--while the Frenchies are capable of
understanding nothing at all? --

Again, France, stuck on stupid since 1789.

Let's see, Mexico - mess

Louisiana (cajun) - mess

Canada - mess

---

Man, that babelfish translation is a trip.

Haiti - mess

Africa - mess

France - really big mess - 5th republic v. USA 1st

Frankenreich trying to form EUSSR -- potentially really, really, REALLY big mess - isn't it Norway which wants little to do w/it?

And for some odd reason, thugs just love it, Khomeini stayed, didn't Arafat stay awhile and and I don't mean when his condition was "stable." They let Mugabe in for a visit.

Did France give the world communism? And Europe gave the world fascism.

Let's just say not so much anti-Europe, but pro-Anglo-Saxon.

I have nothing against Europe - it's a wonderful museum, such lovely old things. (I don't know how to make that smiley thingy)

--

"The colours of the pales [the vertical stripes] are those used in the flag of the United States of America; White signifies purity and innocence, Red, hardiness & valor, and Blue, the color of the Chief [the broad band above the stripes] signifies vigilence, perserverence & justice."

cosmophant wrote:

"Bjoern is a staunch defender of the War on Islamism. And he seems to agree with Daniel Pipes that the muslim community (on all the following) has issues to deal with regarding slavery, holy war, sharia, suicide terrorism, dhimmi laws, honour killings and death penalties for adultery and apostasy"

precisely these are the defining characteristics of Islam........so what is there to change, any changes will spell the death of Islam and will be resisted by muslims with tooth and claw. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot have your zebra without the stripes, remove the stripes and you have a different animal.

this is the premise of Ali Sina in www.faithfreedom.org , and my understanding of Islam suggests no other choice but to encourage the eradication of this dangerous superMeme.

Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam

Cosmophant: The worst case scenario is not that bad for you. You will not face any eternal torture in islamic hell.

Michael: Wow. Do I feel relieved. Thanks Cosmo, I will definitely sleep better tonight.

Hi Michael, I hope you slept well.

However, the perspective I gave you above was not for that. It was for showing how we as secularized Westerners have no reason to behave as fundamentalist Muslims whose sensitivities have been offended, even if the debate gets heated. I understand if you and others feel an urgency about the situation. But keep your head cool. And do not alienate potential allies with dirty attacks.

I know a lot of people have justified fears and anger, and feel deeply betrayed by propaganda lies from MSM and the political elite. It's all very dirty, and I know that there are a lot of strong emotions of frustration to vent -- but this is not the place!

We anti-totalitarians (anti-nazi, anti-communist, anti-islamist) must be smarter and more diciplined than the enemy (and the quislings, the mislead, and the uninformed), otherwise we will lose. And of course, any anti-totalitarian that starts looking islamomorphic, is about to lose before even starting.

Kim Sook-im,

You suggest that (the superMeme) Islam must be erradicated. You claim that it cannot be reformed.

So while the imperialistic powers within Islam are as strong as they are, no reform is possible, I agree. I claim that we must see this in the same perspective as the reform of the Japanese society post-WWII. Only by defeating the power centre of the Japanese empire, reform was possible. This put a decisive end to the belief of Hirihito as a living god.

The Islamic Empire has never properly been defeated. If the financial, ideological and symbolic centres in Saudi Arabia and Iran are defeated and made impotent, a reform will be possible as well as natural. I'm not suggesting any pre-emptive attack here. I'm merely stating how things are related to each other. A religious Muslim believing in the Islamic Hell is driven by fear. As long as he is living under the shadows of an Arabic Imperialism that is omnipotent in his sphere of life, there's little chance for him to fundamentally change.

See this as a Marxist analysis if you want. The ideological superstructure rests upon, and is dependent of, a materialistic foundation. The only way to change the ideological superstructure is to fundamentally change the position of powers on the materialistic level. And the change has to take place in the social web of power relations affecting the lives of the Muslims. Westerners not living in the fold of Islam will, of course, be completely unaware of what this means, and what it takes.

Cosmophant, I do not apologize nor do I think I wouldn't do it again. A little yelling and cursing does wonders for people to pay attention. I might add that, like a famous high-ranking US politician with a rather typical smirk said last year, "I felt better afterwards". I might also add that if you think that using some forceful language equals to behave "as fundamentalist muslims whose sensitivities have been offended" you are profoundly mistaken. Fundamentalist muslims don't use foul language, they blow themselves up among nannies, schoolboys and white or blue collar workers.

Truth is, and yes, it's a HARSH truth, we Europeans have become Ueberwimps. General Patton may not have been the nicest character around, but he was a fella who could say something like that he would go through the Siegfried Line like shit through a goose, and do it. If we cringe if someone uses f-, s- or c-words we will certainly cringe if someone heads in our direction with knives and molotovcocktails.

I am absolutely sure that many, if not most European commenters here, regard Mr. Rowans's assertions that he was waiting for rioters with a loaded 30-30 carbine with utmost contempt. I can smell them think of another American cowboy. On 5 November ago 1,000 Frenchmen held a silent march through Clichy-sous-Bois with banners reading "No to violence". I do NOT doubt that, as they were walking through their wrecked neighborhoods, destroyed cars on every streetcorner, these people still, in the back corners of their minds, judge themselves to be morally superior beings regarding resorting to violence of their own as something medieval and unworthy for the sensitive sophisticated postmodernist secularists they are. It is that vanity, because vanity is what it is, which will kill Europe. We are 8 days down the road, or shall I say down that silent march, but the fancy banners seem not to have helped.

Jose:

"Do you know the Caliphate?". Yes. "Don´t you think that is a very concrete idea shared between Muslims?" Definitely not. To the degree that it is shared, which is not very large, it is anything but concrete.

"and I trust Fjordman"

Too bad. As I stated, you might want to take a trip to Malmö. You might get a chance to pick up on the language while you are at it. And the Swedish girls are quite cute. The immigrant ones, too.

"[kim] suggest[s] that (the superMeme) Islam must be erradicated. You claim that it cannot be reformed."

Personally, I sometimes wonder if the problem is simply the contents of Islamic holy scriptures, like the Koran and the Hadith.

Perhaps it would be an idea if people read through these holy Islamic scriptures to see for themselves what they say. The purpose would not be to make one's own version of Islam, or to find out what Islam is "really" all about or what the "correct" interpretation is. Still, it would probably give people a general idea of the "raw material" from which Muslims have to base their religion.

As we all know, ideas influence people, and ideas have consequences. A quick glance at the Islamic holy scriptures should give people some kind of impression as to whether these scriptures contain mostly good or bad ideas.

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-11-13 15:06 | Link
Jose:

"Do you know the Caliphate?". Yes. "Don´t you think that is a very concrete idea shared between Muslims?" Definitely not. To the degree that it is shared, which is not very large, it is anything but concrete.

My dear friend Abdul Oeyvind...did you obtain this information by interviewing x number of sheikhs and imams?

......I assume you scoured the scholarly journals and spent many an hour with your nose buried in those dusty tomes at Al Azhar University in Egypt. Better still you probably broke bread and drank tea with a pinch of 'heel' while interviewing some scholarly Doctor of Islamic studies or some erudite Qadi at
Al Azhar AL-Sharif, Islamic Research Academy.

....or maybe for all i know you have direct interaction with the General Secretary For Call ( Dawah ) & Religion Information.....or were you reading the Nour Al Islam Magazine : )

.........but then it is possible you were spending several semesters ( you could be on the payroll of some nefarious islamist foundation - you know !) or on sabbatical at The Islamic University in Al Madinah Al Munawwarah in Saudi Arabia and you were sitting under a big palm tree and a hugh cluster of date-palms fell on your head and caused you to arrive at this fallacious theory that the idea of a muslim Caliphate is NOT very wide-spread......NOT! ........TEE - HEEEEEEEEE ;)

Sister Ayesha Nyanyaponika Kim
spesjialist in irrasjional adamik kults :-)

اختصاصي الدين و الأيديولوجيا خطير.

危險宗教和思想體系專家

Øyvind, Mechelen do you mean this kind of girls?
If I were a scandinavian man I would be ashamed of my countrymen, I am ashamed of your cowardice to allow these things. The only explanation I find for you tolerating that is that your families are broken and you don´t love each other.
In Spain at least there are still united families, mine is one of them, believe me that I would kill any bastard who did that to one of the women of my family.
You scandinavians are the shame of Europe.

Why should I not trust Fjordman? You only make statements but no real proof.

The Caliphate is the rule of Allah on Earth through the Calipha, how could it be denied by any muslim. That is a must and every moslem wants it. If they have told you other thing they have lied to you, because you are naïve enough to believe them.

It seems you don´t know Islam, you have limited yourself to ask some moslems and you have believed them without checking with facts. Study their books and maybe you will understand that terrorism is rooted in their sacred writings and why women are not better than slaves for moslems. And may be you will understand why politicians lie when they say Islam is Peace.
Islam is an Evil that must be erradicated. Not only Islam, also their supporters, generally in the Left, always allied with assassins like Stalin, Castro and now with Islam.

You're fighting the good fight, Bjørn. But I do wish that people posting here could stop talking past each other. Try to narrow the debate down to singular questions and resolve them one by one.

Anthony: Personally, I sometimes wonder if the problem is simply the contents of Islamic holy scriptures, like the Koran and the Hadith

The Koran and the Hadith are problematic as they are, but only part of the picture. And, I will claim, problematic more for the context they are put in, than for their content.

Having the actual holy book being divine, and considered a perfect copy of the same book in heaven, is a major obstacle for reform. Makes it hard to suggest changing even a comma without being considered as a rebellion against Allah.

I expect 50 years from now, the course of events will have lead us to a point where Mecca and the Kaabah will have been turned into a museum. Occupied and guarded by international military power (from the US, India and probably Iran). Open to people of all faiths. This will mean that the spell of the Islamic Empire has been broken, both symbolically and literally. Among other things, it will change the meaning of turning to Mecca for prayer, making it a more private matter.

Once the monopoly of power has been broken, prophets after Muhammad can be accepted, such a Ahmad and Bahia, as well as new ones. Also new holy texts could be added.

A whole lot of things would be possible then, that are not posible now. And the actual wordings in the Koran will have less impact in their literal sense. And in a distant future could be rendered into the same destiny as the same kind of wordings in the Old Testament.

Among all the religions in the history of mankind, Islam will be the hardest nut to crack And this is exactly why it hasn't happened yet. This is not coincidence, there are good reasons for this. But the nut can be cracked, and it will be cracked, eventually changing the meaning of being a Muslim. Just as the meaning of being a Christian or a Jew has changed during the course of history.

Michael,

If you are getting a gun... even more important to keeping your head cool!

"Among all the religions in the history of mankind, Islam will be the hardest nut to crack And this is exactly why it hasn't happened yet. This is not coincidence, there are good reasons for this. But the nut can be cracked, and it will be cracked, eventually changing the meaning of being a Muslim."

But in the meantime, what measures should be taken by "infidel countries"? Should Muslim immigration perhaps be temporarily halted, and first resumed once the "nut has been cracked"?

In Los Angeles Times, Dennis Prager asks Five questions non-Muslims would like answered:

THE RIOTING IN France by primarily Muslim youths and the hotel bombings in Jordan are the latest events to prompt sincere questions that law-abiding Muslims need to answer for Islam's sake, as well as for the sake of worried non-Muslims

(1) Why are you so quiet?
(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?
3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?
(4) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?
(5) Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?

Hat-tip Swedish blogger Dick Erixon, who comments "This blog has pointed out many times, that the Muslim leaders of the world, political as well as religious, never have taken a stand against terrorism as a method. The best we have seen are sweeping excuses and misleading declarations (such as rejecting terror against innocent, but at the same time defining every Jew as guilty, and not defining suicide boming as terror). As long as internationally acknowledged Muslim leaders do not unconditionally repudiate the violence, the whole region must carry its responsibility as accomplish to the killing." (my translation)

Dick Erixon has during the last two years become the most significant Swedish blogger.

I'd like to ask Bjoern for comments about this. Do you share the view of Dennis Prager and Dick Erixon about this problem among Muslims?

Anthony,

What to do in the meantime?

A Danish approach is a very good idea. I think there is much to learn from the US as well. And unfortunately I think we will be forced to learn also from Israel.

The day we no longer consider Denmark, USA and Israel as honourable defenders of Western civilization, then the idea of Western civilization is kind of already dead.

Jose Maria,

You make some good points, such as this one:

Not only Islam, also their supporters, generally in the Left, always allied with assassins like Stalin, Castro and now with Islam.

It is quite true that the same people who told us Westerners that the Gulag was a paradise, Mao Zedong was a kindly benevolent dicator, and Pol Pot was a freedom fighter, are now saying that "Islam means peace" and "Tariq Ramadan is an Islamic reformer." Well I remember from my college days how the lefties supported Khomeini. In their own words, the murderous fascistic Ayatollah was an "anti-Imperialist", a "gentle spiritual leader". They cared for nothing about what he really was; all they saw was that he opposed an ally of the US, the Shah. They helped him with his propaganda war in the West, with the result that more than 200,000 people have been killed by Khomeini and his successor Khamenei, and Khomeini's heirs are now pursuing nuclear weapons that will shortly be aimed at all the West.

However, I must warn you, you should not be taking your information from such people as David Duke. He is a white supremacist; his concern is about skin color, not about a bad ideology such as Islam taking root and exerting influence in the West. In fact David Duke is
quite pro-Islam and makes a lot of money peddling his anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli views to rich Muslim Arabs on "lecture tours" to the Middle East. For a number of years I have observed several Islamic talkboards, and there are always Muslims on them posting links to David Duke's writings about Jews and Israel, in the mistaken belief that somehow, they will convince American Christians to start despising Israel and Jews as much as they do. He is not only a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, but also a former member of the American Nazi Party.

Just as certain people are useful tools of Islam from the left, David Duke and his followers are useful tools of Islam from the right. It would not suprise me at all if David Duke were receiving money from Wahabbi groups to "help along" his attacks on Israel and Jews.

But in the meantime, what measures should be taken by "infidel countries"? Should Muslim immigration perhaps be temporarily halted, and first resumed once the "nut has been cracked"?

I already posted my ideas about this upthread, no one has commented on them, except for Bjorn's comment that they were "not as bad" as some of the others being discussed (but still bad.) He did not answer my probe as to what made my suggestions "bad."

I suspect it was halting all Muslim immigration as not being consistent with our Western ideals of equal treatment under the law; but I do not see such a proposal in that light as all. We are not talking about citizens of a nation state here who are entitled to equal rights under the law; we are talking about potential citizens only.

Nation states have the right to decide who they will take in and who they will leave out. Such measures are no more immoral nor discriminatory than a company deciding to hire candidate A rather than candidate B. A company that wants to remain successful chooses candidate A because he has a good track record, and rejects candidate B because he has a poor one.

Muslim immigrants have not proven to be very good immigrants -- or should I say, candidates for the desired job of immigrant to the West. They are expensive in many ways. They very often do not add to the wealth or success of our
societies.

East Asians OTOH, have consistently proven that they are desirable job candidates. They are hard-working, they are low-crime, they assimilate well into the prevailing culture, they have a high education rate, they found many businesses that increase the wealth and prosperity of our nations. And this has been true not only in the USA but in nations like France where the Indochinese -- who are surely non-white and just as "foreign" as the North African Muslims -- are not rioting, looting, raping and killing to protest "racism".

In light of the above resumes, I choose Candidate #2, the East Asians, over Candidate #1, Muslims, for the important job of joining Team USA.

Anthony said,

"Perhaps it would be an idea if people read through these holy Islamic
scriptures to see for themselves what they say. The purpose would not
be to make one's own version of Islam, or to find out what Islam is
"really" all about or what the "correct" interpretation is. Still, it
would probably give people a general idea of the "raw material" from
which Muslims have to base their religion."

Anthony, I stumbled across something the other day that bears
directly on this. It's a website by an american woman, 26 years
old, who converted to Islam not long after 9/11. It's not current
and her diary of thoughts lasts less than a year but during that
time she does quite a lot of study of what Islam is about and
explores the attitudes of her moderate muslim community.

One of the things that surprised me is that the Qur'an is not
really the foundation of muslim perceptions of right and wrong.
That role is fulfilled by the hadiths. If the hadiths and the
Qur'an conflict is the hadiths and fiqh that count. And the
hadiths specify in astonishing detail most aspects of muslim
lives and muslim political attitudes.

Fatimah says it much better than I do. All the rest is quote.

from disaffectedmuslim.blogspot.com

There is one subject in the last entry that I think I should make very
clear to anyone who may be reading it, since I constantly see it
misunderstood. This is the fact that Islam and Islamic law, as practiced
and lived by millions of Muslims, does NOT depend on the Qur'an as
the be-all and end-all of Islam.

Islam is NOT just what is in the Qur'an; it is also what is contained
in the various collections of hadiths (the records of Muhammad's words
and deeds) and in the teachings of the various schools of Islamic law
(for Sunnis, the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali). In addition, the
Qur'an itself does not mean whatever you may think it means; there are
many, many commentaries on the Qur'an (tafsir) by scholars that have
to be taken into account.

Non-Muslims or Muslims who don't really know much about their religion
will often claim that a certain Islamic practice is really not "true Islam"
because it is unmentioned in the Qur'an, or because they interpret t
he words differently than Islamic scholars do. Well, sorry to say, this
is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Islam
(specifically Sunni Islam).

Many non-Muslims of Christian background see Islam in the same way
they do Christianity, specifically Protestant Christianity, in that
they believe that the holy book is the be-all and end-all of the religion,
and it is essentially up to the individual believer to interpret the
scriptures for themselves, and these ideas have also been absorbed by
some Western Muslims. Unfortunately, this is not Islam--at least,
until Islam changes in a fundamental manner and is no longer recognizable
as the same thing that it is today. It's more like Catholicism, which
is based on "the Bible and tradition," (meaning, among other things,
that the Bible means what the Church has traditionally interpreted it
as saying), as I was taught in religion classes, NOT the Bible alone,
which was the cry of the Protestant Reformation ("sola scriptura" and
able to be interpreted by each individual believer). In the same way,
Islam is not just the Qur'an, but the Qur'an and tradition (sunnah;
the Qur'an means what the scholars have traditionally interpreted it
as saying). But Islam is really not much like Christianity, so
expecting a "reformation" along the lines of the Protestant Reformation
is an exercise in futility.

One problem is that many Westerners see religion as a purely private
thing, that your religion is whatever you make it out to be, and
thus that whatever any individual Muslim decides is Islam, really
is Islam. Suffice it to say that what may be in this context termed
orthodox Islam, with its death penalties for apostasy and emphasis
on tradition while excoriating "innovation" (bid'a), does not look
too fondly on this concept. It is important to understand that Islam
isn't just a religion to be shut away in its own little "Religion"
compartment, which is the typical American concept of religion; it
aims to be "a complete way of life," as countless Muslims boast,
affecting every aspect of a person's life as well as society at large,
and it's kind of hard to run a society on "Islam" or "Islamic principles"
when everybody has their own, often contradictory, notions of what
those things are. Orthodoxy in religion is required if you're going
to run a whole society and legal system on it (The "Sunni" in "Sunni
Islam" refers to the "sunnah," or tradition, of Muhammad). The "everyone
for him/herself" view of religion only makes sense when it is
a purely private thing, quite detatched from the state or laws.
Imagine if a "Christian" nation wanted to rule itself according to
"Christian" law; that would require some common understanding of
what Christianity is, and what it requires, and what rules should
follow from this understanding. Needless to say, you would never
even get started, what with all the disagreements as to what Christianity
really is, or what the Bible really says.

The Islamic concept of religion does not include separation of
church/religion and state; instead, religion is the most important
factor in the ordering of the community. The "Islamic state" is
predicated on the fact that its stated goal is the spread and
strengthening of Islam, which, by definition, those of other
religions cannot participate in. It then follows that non-Muslims
aren't really "citizens" of the state, and thus the second-class
treatment of religious minorities and dhimmitude (it is to be noted
that non-Muslims were not to serve in the army; non-Muslims by
definition cannot engage in jihad to spread Allah's truth to the
world).

And of course an Islamic state must have Islamic law, and this must
be agreed on by Muslims as a group (or rather, agreed on by Islamic
scholars). In this way, apostasy or heresy become treason to the
state, worthy of death. The four schools of Sunni law accept each other
as true, but they differ from each other generally only in small,
rather unimportant ways. The substance of the law remains the same.

To sum up: Islam is not a "mere religion" like Christianity, which
is mostly a set of beliefs to believe; it is really much more like
Judaism, with its all-encompassing code of laws to guide every aspect
of a believer's life and as a framework for the ordering of the whole
society.

Now on to the Qur'an. Many people, both Muslims and non-Muslims,
seriously overestimate how much of Islam and Islamic law is actually
contained in the pages of the Qur'an. Typical is the following claim
by an American Muslim convert (from Jan Goodwin's Price of Honor,
pp.189-190 paperback): "If I want to know how late a woman can stay
out, the Qur'an tells me. It says whose permission I need when I want
to go out. And it tells me at what age I should discipline my child,
or when youngsters should learn how to pray. The Qur'an even tells me
how many miles a woman can travel from home without a mahram, a male
relative chaperone. It is forty-five miles. Whatever I need about
everyday life, it is there, as straightforward as a cookbook." But
the truth is, not one bit of that is actually in the Qur'an--it's all
in the hadiths or in the books of Islamic law! Another example is
Westerners claiming that some Islamic practice or other is "un-Islamic"
because it's not in the Qur'an, or because they interpret the verses
differently than the Muslim scholars, thereby displaying their
ignorance of what Islam and Islamic law actually consist of. To
actually understand Islam, one must not just be familiar with the
Qur'an but also with the collections of hadiths and the books of fiqh
(Islamic jurisprudence; the actual detailing of the shari'ah, or
Islamic law).

But the truth of the matter is that the Qur'an itself contains rather
little actual law, and much of that is either vague or contradictory
(though the Qur'an constantly states that it is "clear" and "easy to
understand"). Let's take as an example the matter of wine. Qur'an 2:119
says, "They ask thee concerning wine and gamb-ling. Say: 'In them is
great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the
profit.'" In other words, it can be both good and bad, but mostly bad,
and apparently the choice of whether to drink or not is left up to the
individual. In 4:43, the believers are admonished not to come to the
prayer drunk. But in 5:90-91 intoxicants are forbidden completely
("O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gamb-ling, (dedication of) stones,
and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination, of Satan's handwork:
eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. Satan's plan is (but)
to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gamb-ling,
and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will
ye not then abstain?"). To take another example, many verses in the
Qur'an declare that Muhammad was not responsible for the unbelievers'
refusal to believe, and that he should leave them in peace, that it
is Allah's job to deal with them (such as 68:44: "Then leave Me alone
with such as reject this Message: by degrees shall We punish them
from directions they perceive not," and 73:11: "And leave Me (alone
to deal with) those in possession of the good things of life, who (yet)
deny the Truth; and bear with them for a little while."); other verses
say to war against the unbelievers (9:5: "But when the forbidden months
are past, then fight and slay the agans wherever ye find them, and
seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem
(of war)," and 9:29: "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, (even if
they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with
willing submission, and feel themselves subdued," and 9:123: "O ye
who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them
find firmness in you: and know that God is with those who fear Him,"
and 8:38-39: "Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief),
their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment
of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And
fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there
prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, verily Allah
doth see all that they do.").

What to do, what to do?

This is where hadiths, tafsir, and fiqh take over. They decide which
verses are to be taken literally and which are to be taken more
symbolically (and even which verses are to be taken as binding law
and which as mere suggestions), but more importantly, they also
mention the context and the time the verses were revealed to Muhammad.
The guiding principle is that the later verses supercede the earlier
ones; thus, wine is strictly forbidden because the verse prohibiting
it was revealed later than the ones that grudgingly permit it. This
is called the principle of abrogation. The context of revelation also
helps to know when the law should be applied.

In the example above, the general consensus is that the earlier, more
tolerant verses were given when Muhammad and his followers were weak
and could not fight; the later, warlike verses were meant for when
Muhammad was strong and able to war against the unbelievers, in order
to "make Allah's word supreme," that is, to put the land under the
rule of Islam and Islamic law (sometimes euphemistically described
as "clearing all barriers to the spread of Islam" or even as
"liberation from the slavery to man-made laws and institutions so
that one is free to follow Allah's law," as noted Egyptian fundamentalist
Syyed Qutub put it, thereby pulling off a truly Orwellian distortion
of the meanings of "freedom" and "slavery."). It should also be noted
that in general, the latter warlike verses calling for jihad abrogate
the earlier, more lassiez-faire verses, although the verses revealed
when Muhammad was weak may also apply to Muslims when they are weak.
So, if you are weak in a non-Muslim country, you should try to
peacefully persuade others to accept Islam and leave them alone if
they do not; when you become powerful you should also invite them
to Islam, but then war against them if they refuse.

I had some difficulty reading Fatimah's account, not because she
wrote poorly -- she writes well -- but possibly because it was on
blogspot, pages would not appear, or only partial pages, and I would
try and try again till I could finally see what was supposed to
be there. So I will continue quoting long stretches.

To give an idea of just how detailed the hadiths are on specifying
the lives of muslims, I'll quote Fatimah extensively on the subject
of sex slaves. But to summarize, the hadiths describe at length
not only how one goes about getting a sex slave but how one has
sexual intercourse with a slave. Any non-muslim female can be
made into a sex slave. A sex slave can be raped, beaten, and sold,
without penalty. Since hadiths are the word of Allah, questioning
or doubting them is an apostatic act and subject to the death penalty.

The big question for muslims about sex slaves seems to be whether
or not children result. Good muslims aren't supposed to have
children with slaves, but if it does happen then that was Allah's
will and the rules change.

Here's Fatimah. All the rest is quote.
(http://www.secularislam.net/archives/2003_04.html)

Hadiths and Rulings About Slavegirls:

Umm Walad
Malik's Muwatta (Book of Maliki Law), Book 38, Number 38.5.6:

Malik related to me from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that Umar ibn
al-Khattab said, "If a slave-girl gives birth to a child by her master,
he must not sell her, give her away, or bequeath her. He enjoys her
and when he dies she is free ."

Slavegirls And Coitus Interruptus

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus
interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and
he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice,
"There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence,
till the Day of Resurrection."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured
some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without
impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interruptus.
The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah
has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection."
Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul
is ordained to be created but Allah will create it."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him
and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said,
"We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq
and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired
women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus
interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said,
'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who
is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better
for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection)
is predestined to exist, it will exist."

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3383:

Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have a slave-girl who
is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse
with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise 'azl,
if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The
person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl
has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed
for her would come to her.

Malik's Muwatta, Book 29, Number 29.32.100:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki that
a man called Dhafif said that Ibn Abbas was asked about coitus interruptus.
He called a slave-girl of his and said, "Tell them." She was embarrassed.
He said, "It is alright, and I do it myself."

Malik said, "A man does not practise coitus interruptus with a free
woman unless she gives her permission. There is no harm in practising
coitus interruptus with a slave-girl without her permission. Someone
who has someone else's slave-girl as a wife, does not practise coitus
interruptus with her unless her people give him permission."

Malik's Muwatta, Book 29, Number 29.32.99:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Damra ibn Said al-Mazini from al-Hajjaj
ibn Amr ibn Ghaziya that he was sitting with Zayd ibn Thabit when
Ibn Fahd came to him. He was from the Yemen. He said, "Abu Said! I have
slave-girls. None of the wives in my keep are more pleasing to me than
them, and not all of them please me so much that I want a child by them,
shall I then practise coitus interruptus?" Zayd ibn Thabit said, "Give
an opinion, Hajjaj!" "I said, 'May Allah forgive you! We sit with you
in order to learn from you!' He said, 'Give an opinion! 'I said, 'She
is your field, if you wish, water it, and if you wish, leave it thirsty.
I heard that from Zayd.' Zayd said, 'He has spoken the truth.' "

Don't Worry If The Slave Women You Captured Are Married Or Not

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3432:

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that at the
Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army
to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome
them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger
(may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with
captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah,
Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except
those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i.e. they were lawful
for them when their 'Idda period came to an end) [which is about a month --ed. note].

What To Do With A Slavegirl Who Keeps Screwing Around

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 731:

Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid:

The Prophet said, "If a slave-girl (Ama) commits illegal sexual
intercourse, scourge her; if she does it again, scourge her again;
if she repeats it, scourge her again." The narrator added that on the
third or the fourth offence, the Prophet said, "Sell her even for
a hair rope."

The Exemplary Example of 'Ali, The Prophet's Cousin and Son-In-Law

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 637:

Narrated Buraida:

The Prophet sent 'Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and
I hated Ali, and 'Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with
a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this
(i.e. Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He
said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you
hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus."

Slaves As Possessions

Malik's Muwatta, Book 31, Number 31.5.6:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar would
say, "A man should not have intercourse with a slave girl except one
whom, if he wished, he could sell, if he wished, he could give away,
if he wished, he could keep, if he wished, he could do with her what
he wanted ."

Malik said that a man who bought a slave-girl on condition that he did
not sell her, give her away, or do something of that nature, was not
to have intercourse with her. That was because he was not permitted
to sell her or to give her away, so if he did not own that from her,
he did not have complete ownership of her because an exception had
been made concerning her by the hand of someone else. If that sort
of condition entered into it, it was a messy situation, and the sale
was not recommended.

Women Not Treated As Sex Objects In Islam, My A**!

Book 31, Number 31.4.4:

...
Malik said, "The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us
is that if a man returns a slave girl in whom he has found a defect
and he has already had intercourse with her, he must pay what he has
reduced of her price if she was a virgin. If she was not a virgin,
there is nothing against his having had intercourse with her because
he had charge of her."
...
Malik spoke about a situation where a slave-girl was bartered for two
other slave-girls and then one of the slave-girls was found to have
a defect for which she could be returned. He said, "The slave-girl
worth two other slave-girls is valued for her price. Then the other
two slave-girls are valued, ignoring the defect which the one of them
has. Then the price of the slave-girl sold for two slave-girls is
divided between them according to their prices so that the proportion
of each of them in her price is arrived at - to the higher priced one
according to her higher price, and to the other according to her value.
Then one looks at the one with the defect, and the buyer is refunded
according to the amount her share is affected by the defect, be it
little or great. The price of the two slave-girls is based on their
market value on the day that they were bought."

Such A Happy Family

Malik's Muwatta, Book 41, Number 41.6.20:

Malik related to me from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman that Umar ibn
al-Khattab spoke about a man who went out with his wife's slave-girl
on a journey and had intercourse with her and then the wife became
jealous and mentioned that to Umar ibn al-Khattab. Umar questioned
him about it. He said, "She gave her to me." Umar said, "Bring me
a clear proof or I will stone you." Rabia added, "The wife confessed
that she had given her to him."

Malik's Muwatta, Book 30, Number 30.2.13: (note: according to Shari'ah,
babies who suckle from the same woman are considered to be related
and thus not suitable marriage partners):

Yahya related to me from Malik that Abdullah ibn Dinar said, "A man
came to Abdullah ibn Umar when I was with him at the place where
judgments were given and asked him about the suckling of an older
person. Abdullah ibn Umar replied, 'A man came to Umar ibn al-Khattab
and said, 'I have a slave-girl and I used to have intercourse with her.
My wife went to her and suckled her. When I went to the girl, my wife
told me to watch out, because she had suckled her!' Umar told him to
beat his wife and to go to his slave-girl because kinship by suckling
was only by the suckling of the young.' "

Anyway, I think this is more than enough to get the gist...

According to Fatimah there seems to be little room for changing the
hadiths. All hadiths are the word of God. Criticizing them
is an apostalic act and subject to the death penalty. Nor are they
ancient history that people ignore. Even in her 'moderate' muslim
community she could always find plenty of people that rationalized,
justified, and believed in all the hadith, no matter how dubious,
bizarre or even demonic a specific hadith ruling might appear to be.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
with conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
a mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
the air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
with silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door

Oyvind, I hate to tell you this, but the Emma Lazarus poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty represents the exact opposite of your viewpoints on immigration.

Emma Lazarus spoke to the old 19th Century American ideal of diverse nations coming together to form a new people. As part of the immigration contract, those diverse peoples were told to park their Old World bullshit at the gates of Ellis Island. That's what the "keep out the storied pomp from ancient lands" stuff refers to. We did not accept foot-binding from our Chinese immigrants; we told the Greeks to forget their feud with the Turks; we told the high-born English that aristocratic titles didn't fly over here; we kicked the Mormons out of our jurisdiction because we didn't want their polygamy (they later decided that a star on our flag for Utah was worth more than polygamy to them -- problem solved. Paris is worth a Mass or two.)

It's the last thing from the multi-culti bullshit being pushed by the left today about immigrants -- live in your seperate enclaves, keep your precious culture no matter how repulsive some aspects of it are, we'all all live together in a lovely salad bowl. Women who wear thong underwear will exist happily with a culutre that thinks women should cover even their faces in order to be modest. It's bullshit.

If we were still cleaving to our old 19th Century ideals, Muslim immigration here might not be such a problem We'd be telling them in no uncertain terms that honor killings, sharia, and special exemptions from our social contract were not welcome here -- just like we told all the other immigrants what aspects of their culture we would and wouldn't accept. Then we accepted them; the ones who couldn't keep their end of the bargain didn't have a very nice ride here.

There is too much white in the Stars and Stripes, there ain't enough black in the Union Jack.

The stripes, stars and colors on our flag
represent ideals that Americans are supposed to aspire to: white for to remind us to remain true to our revolutionary ideals; red for the blood of our patriots; stars to symbolize our concept of federalism. Americans of all colors are expected to honor these ideals (of course we have often fall short on this score). I personally find your attempt to link our colors to skin color deeply offensive.

Re: further thoughts on Emma Lazarus.

My own German-speaking grandparents abandoned their native language at the same time that the first Yankee doughboys headed across the Atlantic to fight the Kaiser. They flatly refused to countenance any German spoken in their home even though all their friends and relatives were also German-speaking.

I suppose today they'd be told by the diversity morons that giving up their native tongue as a
sign of allegiance to their new nation
was "imperialistic oppression" or "majority
hegemony" or some or other such bullshit. All
divisive, all destructive. But then again, that's what such ideologies are meant to be. They are meant to destroy the nation state concept of societal organization, which proved such a stubborn barrier to the great Utopian Internationale.

--1) Why are you so quiet?--

We've been asking that since 9/11.

It's been 4 years, where are they?

--You're fighting the good fight, Bjørn. But I do wish that people posting here could stop talking past each other. Try to narrow the debate down to singular questions and resolve them one by one. --

That's what America is trying to do.

Most people have no idea of what we are fighting, or better, what is attacking us.

Let me share a little story: for 2 months I went out to Muslim sites and forums to debate with Muslims about the character of their dear prophet. In over 30 posts I pointed out the incidents of murder, torture, wife-beating and slavery perpetuated by the "holy" prophet of Islam. I gave text, references and links to the Quran and hadiths (at Muslims sites) with these accounts.

I challenged Muslims to explain and/or repudiate those actions. Nada. Zilch! Nothing. Silence.

Only one out of dozens of replys (calling me some not very nice names) admitted that the passages were "problematic".

Muslims are in total denial. They cannot be honest. You cannot believe them - that is the bottom line. Sorry!

Yet the man Mohammed is considered a "great example" for those who want to see old Allah. So if Mo was a murderer, torturer, rapist, slaver, etc and he is a great example, well you figure it out. War is coming to Europe, sooner than you think.

Radical Muslims kill, moderate Muslims make excuses and turn their heads in denial.

When talking to Muslims about Islam, you must be honest, brutally honest, about their religion and the man they so adore. They will ignore you; they will delete your posts; they will say very unkind things about you; and they may even threaten to delete your infidel head from your blasphemous infidel shoulders. It is the only way!

Tudo bem, Kim. Quanto tempo!!

John aka Kactuz

Y

"Oyvind, I hate to tell you this, but the Emma Lazarus poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty represents the exact opposite of your viewpoints on immigration."

Problem, Susan, seems to be that you have no idea what my viewpoints on immigration are.

So, please abandon your strawman, your ideas of the standard European leftist, and your hatred for "multiculturalism", which never was what you portray it to be, anyway. I do not believe in accepting all kinds of barbarous traditions, I do not believe in create separate societies, and I do not believe in setting no demands.

Only in your nice imaginative little fairytale world are everyone who does not agree with your views on Islam like that.

"I personally find your attempt to link our colors to skin color deeply offensive". Buhu. Poor you.

"I do not believe in accepting all kinds of barbarous traditions, I do not believe in create separate societies, and I do not believe in setting no demands."

Oyvind, out of curiosity, what DO you believe?

John Kactuz:

"Radical Muslims kill, moderate Muslims make excuses and turn their heads in denial.

When talking to Muslims about Islam, you must be honest, brutally honest, about their religion and the man they so adore. They will ignore you; they will delete your posts; they will say very unkind things about you; and they may even threaten to delete your infidel head from your blasphemous infidel shoulders. It is the only way!"

Exactly, so many are trying to pull that moderate rabbit up the islamic hat, but in many cases moderate means nothing but not yet radical moslem, but then of course also perhaps not yet secular moslem.

Whatever, they work as figleaves over the fact that the quran does say "kill" "strike terror" and it only gets worse with hadiths and sira.

And as long as they can not like the secular moslems or sufis totally and explicitly denounce violent jihad or the idea of global khalifa, accept in full the golden rule, then they are likely to leaning more towards the radical hate version islam and than secular cultural islam, with certain explicit reservations as to quran, hadith and the example of the prophet.

Then I know one of Bjørn points is that we should avoid pushing to choose the extremist camp by calling their cards so to speak. I disagree with this since we fail calling people to the secular camp as well as the better option of all: out of islam all together.
As long as we allow moslems to "bluff" about "their religion of peace", lie to themselves as well as us, as long we keep the ghost alive. The fact that the islamists consider themselves the avantgarde of 1.4 bio moslems, a number strongly growing - not dropping is indeed what fuels much of their enthusiasm.

To put it blunt islam has nothing to offer that other religions have not been offering long before islam, except jihad and a well tuned female and freedom oppressing totalitarian warmachine must more effective than marxism.

Just as marxism is dying a slow death due to it´s working class is getting more and more history, so will islamism, terrorism, salafism die as people stop calling themselves moslems and only through that!

Euro Islam, secular islam may work too, but they have to face a complete cold shoulder as well as a strong determination NOT TO BOW TO TERROR and intimidation.

--and your hatred for "multiculturalism", which never was what you portray it to be, anyway. --

I think we've had another breakthru!

We're not "portraying" it, Oyvind.

It's how it's being presented in America - and other places by the believers of multi-culti.

--I do not believe in accepting all kinds of barbarous traditions, I do not believe in create separate societies, and I do not believe in setting no demands.--

Americans do not approach assimilation like everyone else.

That could be where part of the disconnect comes in.

Jeez, there was just a op-ed piece about this in the last 2 weeks - DVH? Ralph Peters? I can't remember.

I wish I could remember so Oyvind could tell us why that line of thinking was incorrect.

--and your hatred for "multiculturalism", which never was what you portray it to be, anyway. --

I think we've had another breakthru!

We're not "portraying" it, Oyvind.

It's how it's being presented in America - and other places by the believers of multi-culti.

--I do not believe in accepting all kinds of barbarous traditions, I do not believe in create separate societies, and I do not believe in setting no demands.--

Americans do not approach assimilation like everyone else.

That could be where part of the disconnect comes in.

Jeez, there was just a op-ed piece about this in the last 2 weeks - VDH? Ralph Peters? I can't remember.

I wish I could remember so Oyvind could tell us why that line of thinking was incorrect.

ACK - Sorry, thought I caught it in time.

--and your hatred for "multiculturalism", which never was what you portray it to be, anyway. --

Isn't it? Most of your opinions expressed here are pretty standard multi-culti line, right down to the standard double standards.

In the other thread for example, when Ms. Erin expressed her dismay at receiving an anti-semitic hateful email from a Muslim, you cautioned her "not to read too much into it."

But when Mr. Bill Rowan expressed far less violent sentiments against Muslims, you called him Goring.

So which is it, Oyvind?

A Muslim ranting about "Kill all the Jews" deserves the consideration of "not reading too much into" his viewpoints, while a US redneck saying he'd rather be dead than green gets to be compared to Goring? How come we don't get any excuses about "not reading too much into" Mr. Rowan's commentary?

You are so transparent Oyvind, just like your buddy Tariq Ramadan; but what's unbelievable, is that you think you are successfully hiding it!

Susan, I take into consideration what you write about David Duke, but I want to tell you that main stream media tend to hide or minimize the racism and rapes against Whites commited by non-Whites. The only sites that treat it are those you say.

It seems that the only racism allowed is against Jews or Whites, you can say anything against them, and anything is anything, but if you dare to critize any other group, uff! automatically you are called racist.

The problem of allowing this is that people mentally weak can arrive to the awkward conclusion that you can rape or kill whites or jews because we are racist! Amazing but true. I could give you many data about this, but I suspect that if you are an American White know it.

I don't deny that there are double standards in the US Jose. They even teach in many US universities that non-white people are incapable of racism; only white people can be racist! This is absurd as there are many conflicts between blacks and Latinos in the US for instance, and also between blacks and Asians in certain areas.

However I find it odd that if you care about attacks on Jews, which you seem to do, you would turn to a notorious anti-semite for a news source!

Susan, obviously white supremacists are ridiculously anti-Jews and they don´t provide anything of value about them, but they treat racism, rapes and other crimes against whites that are silenced or minimized by main stream media, that is why read them, because I want to know the whole truth.
In relation to Islam supremacists, nazis, KKK and the like are divided, they share the hate on Jews with Moslems but they are not so stupid as not to see that Moslems are anti-anyone-no-Moslem.

Well, Susan, as that great deep thinker Sean Penn observed while he was in Iran earlier this year, if they keep shouting "Death to America" some might actually believe it.

Death to America isn't helpful.

Which it is? Actually, Susan, it is both. My caution to Erin was not regarding this one specific imam, which doubtlessly is an anti-Semite and likely a fascist. If people were to conclude something about Americans in general from mr. Amermans fascism, I would caution them too.

Mark Amermans statements are fascist and equivalent of anti-Semitic. There is no double standard to pointing that out. It is the simple truth.

And, by the way, I have still not written anything about immigration or integration politics here, so that is still nothing but a fantasy from your head, created because I dare to disagree with you on Islam.

What are my opinions on integration, Anthony? Well, unlike Islam, integration politics is not a field I have studied (yes, Jose). My opinions are as such hardly solidly founded.

However, I do believe that our main focus should be to disencourage ghettifization, Europes biggest failure on this front (and a failure we also have seen in America). While this is difficult, people of the same background has always had a tendency to flock together, I believe some steps could be taken. The steps we took in the 1970s were hardly smart, as Paris and Malmö are both good examples off.

When it comes to our values being challenged, we will have to make perfectly clear what we will and we will not accept. Amongst the things we have been to soft on are forced marriages and female genital mutilation. Stricter legal measures should be taken. Family reunification laws is also something we should consider to change, not to avoid family reunification, but to prevent marriages happening through the use of force or coercion. Denmarks laws has had a number of unfortunate and unforeseen consequenses, obviously not reported on in the Islamophobic part of the blogosphere, but something better can probably be modelled on them.

Instead of broadening our blasphemy laws, we should make it perfectly clear that blasphemy in Norway and other Western countries, is perfectly legal. Current anti-blasphemy laws should be abandoned. So should laws limiting freedom-of-speech for racists, fascists, etc. Hate speech should be perfectly legal. We should implement strict laws against discrimination, though.

We should also take steps to promote the feeling of citizenship.

Much of the battle for integration will take place outside the legal world and outside the political world, though. The number one factor to create integration is to have contact, where there is lack of contact, and lack of will for such contact, often on both sides, integration will fail. This will probably partly solve itself, since Europes employers will soon be dependant on a growing Muslim workforce.

However, as I just stated, strict laws against discrimination is necessary and to avoid ghettofization is a key. Currently we are failing and social unrest is and will be the result.

I would like to comment on my dear friend Abdul Oeyvind's comments:

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-11-15 08:48 | Link
Which it is? Actually, Susan, it is both. My caution to Erin was not regarding this one specific imam, which doubtlessly is an anti-Semite and likely a fascist.

( i love your language of vacillation, as you well know all or very well 99% of all Imams are anti-semite, make that 100% are anti-semite - it is a prerequisite of islamhood to be a antisemitic, it is the defining characteristic of islam to be anti-semitic(ie. anti-jews).....and likely a fascist(?) , oh come on Abdul ' likely a fascist' ...oh , why dont you just say it - definitely a fascist...you can't be an imam without being a fascist ...and what did you say, that you have studied islam...where exactly did you study islam - in the Gugpoh monastery in Gangtok , Sikkim ? LOL???

oh...so sorry, i forgot you are quite educated in the principles of islamic jurisprudence and all about 'NASKH' ( ABROGATION), YA ULOOM AL QURAN .....hmmmmph and i supposed you know also how according to the general rule a Qur'anic nass or a Mutawatir Hadith cannot be abrogated by a weaker Hadith, by ijma' or by qiyas...heh heh ...a laysa ka dhalikh?

Ya brother عبدالله Oeyvind .......إن شخص ذكي جدا

! سوف يباركك الله)

If people were to conclude something about Americans in general from mr. Amermans fascism, I would caution them too.

Mark Amermans statements are fascist and equivalent of anti-Semitic. There is no double standard to pointing that out. It is the simple truth.
( so criticizing arabs and muslims is anti-semitic , whilst criticizing israel and jews is o.k. and not anti semitic?.hmmmm you really know how to stretch the definition of fascism dont you LOL )

And, by the way, I have still not written anything about immigration or integration politics here, so that is still nothing but a fantasy from your head, created because I dare to disagree with you on Islam.

( abdul...not only do you disagree with susan and me, but you also 'coddle' this vile Cult and tries to lend it some form of legitimacy -- but that is what radical leftists do ....by the way you never quite told me how You turned into a radical leftist....did you fell of your bike when you were a kid and your head struck a lamp post on the left side of the road and that started you on a rampaging career of radical leftist galores ?...tee hee )

What are my opinions on integration, Anthony? Well, unlike Islam, integration politics is not a field I have studied (yes, Jose). My opinions are as such hardly solidly founded.

( so you admit to having 'studied' islam...did you do it by correspondence course or did you sit at the feet of the eminent Sheikh Qaradawi and imbibe all the poisonous sermons that he proffer from his lofty mufti-ship ha ha )

However, I do believe that our main focus should be to disencourage ghettifization, Europes biggest failure on this front (and a failure we also have seen in America).

( Ahhh soooo...now the europeans are wringing their hands and blaming themselves for the behaviour of the young islamically idoctrinated hooligans.....never for a moment did they stop to think that perhsps the culture of ghettofication has just as much to do with the culture of islam which is an imperialist and segregationist cult , that teaches its adherents to dissociate themselves from infidels and to one day vanquish them and absorb them into Borgian Collective called the Ummah ! How come other minority groups ex. east asians, hindus, buddhists, taoists, sikhs, christians ,sri lankans, koreans, chinese, indians etc fit in rather well and integrate into the host society rather peacefully and successfully?)

(.....and pray what failure are you referring to in america?..it is only in america that the shiites and sunnis can pray together in the same mossque, whereas in islamdom, the sunni's may well be preparing for the slaughter of the minority shiites.)

While this is difficult, people of the same background has always had a tendency to flock together, I believe some steps could be taken. The steps we took in the 1970s were hardly smart, as Paris and Malmö are both good examples off.

When it comes to our values being challenged, we will have to make perfectly clear what we will and we will not accept. Amongst the things we have been to soft on are forced marriages and female genital mutilation. Stricter legal measures should be taken. Family reunification laws is also something we should consider to change, not to avoid family reunification, but to prevent marriages happening through the use of force or coercion. Denmarks laws has had a number of unfortunate and unforeseen consequenses, obviously not reported on in the Islamophobic part of the blogosphere, but something better can probably be modelled on them.

( aha , and you earlier told me you don't use the word Islamophobic ? )

Instead of broadening our blasphemy laws, we should make it perfectly clear that blasphemy in Norway and other Western countries, is perfectly legal. Current anti-blasphemy laws should be abandoned. So should laws limiting freedom-of-speech for racists, fascists, etc. Hate speech should be perfectly legal. We should implement strict laws against discrimination, though.

We should also take steps to promote the feeling of citizenship.

Much of the battle for integration will take place outside the legal world and outside the political world, though. The number one factor to create integration is to have contact, where there is lack of contact, and lack of will for such contact, often on both sides, integration will fail. This will probably partly solve itself, since Europes employers will soon be dependant on a growing Muslim workforce.( well just invite more south and east asians that are not muslims to join your work force.

However, as I just stated, strict laws against discrimination is necessary and to avoid ghettofization is a key. Currently we are failing and social unrest is and will be the result.
( even if you don't have ghettofication...musims will find another excuse to raise a ruckus, mayhem and murder...strict laws against discrimination....i presume you would love to muzzle the likes of me and susan and sandy to criticize islam right...i can read your little mind LOL )

Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"i presume you would love to muzzle the likes of me and susan and sandy to criticize islam right..."

In Norway we have a proverb: "Troll sprekker i solen". Trolls burst in sunshine. So, no, I do not believe in "muzzling" neither you nor Islamofascists.

It would help to read what I actually write, you know... On a number of areas. But of course - that is just too difficult, isnt it?

"aha , and you earlier told me you don't use the word Islamophobic?"

No. I told you that I do not have the habit of using it. For some people, I do make exceptions. I am with Bjørn on that one.

"what failure are you referring to in america?"

Lack of integration, ghettofization, various riots, social alienation, you name it, the US has it. But America is mostly a whole lot better than European countries, well, they have been the last few decades. It is possible to become American, it is extremely hard to become French. Yeah, Europe could learn a lot.

Read the 'Grundloven' (Constitution) closely - and surely you will find Islam & Koran are in breach of it. Basta! Prohibit and deport all muslims. It's our land, nobody asked them come. We should only grant asyl and staying permit to people from Moslem countries like Ayan Hirsi, who are oposing the Paedophile Caravan Robber's teachings. Just like Mein Kampf, Koran should be banned from Libraries and especially prisons. We should find poor, corruptible country somewhere south and pay that country's tough rulers $10,000 for every deported criminal, and let's the Air Force fly 24HR a day. In case of MAJOR ATTACK by Islamists the deportations should be 100%, by sealed ferries on autopilot, beaching in Mauretania at 30 knts. You want to fuck with the Vikings? See who'll be more ruthless!
And then the sweet raisin i sausage's end: for each 3rd child born to ethnic Scandinavians you'll get cool million kroner. Basta! Gloves off! Or do you think when we write here in 12 months time things will be better?

Oyvind:

Instead of broadening our blasphemy laws, we should make it perfectly clear that blasphemy in Norway and other Western countries, is perfectly legal.

Well and good, but what happens to that, and to all your other suggestions, when Muslims become a majority in a Western country? Assuming the best becomes too much of a gamble in my mind.

Also, what to do about the myriad examples of special pleading and demands for special treatment so that Muslims can have their "complete way of life" in our societies?

Example: my son and many in his community believe that carrying car insurance is "haram." This presents quite a difficulty, as the law requires it. Many Muslims expect special exemptions from these types of laws. (Aside: My son drove without car insurance, despite it being against the law, and had his license lifted because of it. He needed his car for his job and therefore lost his job. Kuffar Mom ended up stuck with supporting his family for a while. An example of how sharia hurts the kuffar as much as it hurts Muslims.) Do we exempt Muslims from carrying car insurance? Do you think that such an exemption would make the kuffar feel
more or less kindly inclined toward Muslims?

I could give you a hundred different examples.

The number one factor to create integration is to have contact, where there is lack of contact, and lack of will for such contact, often on both sides, integration will fail.

Contact becomes quite difficult once the kuffar become aware of the extreme bigotry that Muslims often display toward us. I know several well-intioned former liberals who, with the best of intentions, engaged in dialogue and contact with Muslims. They came away as "Islamophobes" based on their experiences.

I am estranged from my son. If Islam divides families this way, I see little hope for communities and nations.

It is not compatible with our way of life. For them to have their "complete way of life" means that we do not have ours.

If Islam is so divisive it destroys formerly close

"what to do about the myriad examples of special pleading and demands for special treatment so that Muslims can have their "complete way of life" in our societies?"

About the same as we do with special pleading and demands for special treatment for other groups. In Norway that means that we sometimes should accept it, like when some Norwegian Christians demand the right to run their own schools, and that we sometimes should refuse it, like when the same Christians demand the right not to teach their children in "controversial" subjects.

These days many Norwegians are shocked about the Kansas decision on Intelligent Design being taken into the curriculum at schools. Anti-Darwinism is however not limited to Americans.

Another example is interest on loans. In traditional Islamic law, as well as in some other religious traditions, interests on loans are not permitted. If Muslims want to create a bank based on some other principle, I see no problem with that. If they demanded that all staterun banking services, like Lånekassen, who gives student loans, stopped demanding interest to accomodate them, then forget about it.

Thankfully, Norwegian Muslims are not any worse than a myriad of other groups when it comes to this. I have not noticed Belgian Muslims being so either.

Øyvind

Oyvind,

Well and good, but what happens to that, and to all your other suggestions, when Muslims become a majority in a Western country? Assuming the best becomes too much of a gamble in my mind.

You did not answer this question. C'mon, cut the Tariq Ramadan act -- answer the questions directly. No poetry from Emma Lazarus. No taqqiyah. No tu quoqe comparisons with dopey Christians in Kansas. Just answer.

Contact becomes quite difficult once the kuffar become aware of the extreme bigotry that Muslims often display toward us. I know several well-intioned former liberals who, with the best of intentions, engaged in dialogue and contact with Muslims. They came away as "Islamophobes" based on their experiences.

Your comments, please?

Thankfully, Norwegian Muslims are not any worse than a myriad of other groups when it comes to this. I have not noticed Belgian Muslims being so either.

Perhaps you have not been "noticing" closely enough? In the US, such demands to sharia-ize our society are growing increasingly strong. Demands for prayer rooms in the workplace and the public schools. Demands for exemptions from sanitary burial practices. Demands for women to be allowed to wear face-coverings in ID photographs. And on and on. I can't believe that these sorts of demands are not also being made in Europe.

"Well and good, but what happens to that, and to all your other suggestions, when Muslims become a majority in a Western country?"

That question is a question I have answered above. Believe it or not, I do not have the time to answer every single question a myriad of little fjordmen and -women are asking here, considering that I actually try to spend some time with my girlfriend at times.

As I told Anthony, however, I will in such a situation fight for what I think is right. Then if I lose, I will continue to fight for what I believe is right. I believe that is when you started speaking about Iran, and I stated something like "Not yet, anyway" since I am off the firm belief that we might see another revolution in Iran one day soon.

This far Muslims that are involving themselves in Norwegian, or European, politics, seem to be just as much in disagreement as everyone else. In Norway you find Muslim members of every party from the Progress Party (populist right-wing) to the Red Electoral Alliance (far left-wing). As far as I know there is no one in our local fascist party, the humourously named Democrats, yet, and the four people left in the Christian Conservative Party (not to be confused with the Christian Democrats) has not been joined by imam Abdul Painintheass yet, although he probably agrees with them on both gay marriages and abortion.

So, I am not scared. And I am quite convinced that I might have a fair shot at finding allies amongst Muslims as well, even for my views on the blasphemy law. I have found a few already.

When it comes to your "liberal" friends, well, I do not usually waste my time on commenting on the opinions of anonymonous people paraphrased by other anonymonous people on the Internet.

I can, however. If you insist, well, I do not agree any more with them than with you, even with them being "liberals" and all. If the Muslims they have spoken to are of the kind that reads Saayid Qutb and thinks that he did not go quite far enough, their impression is quite understandable.

If they are like the Muslim guy I sometimes I have dinner with, or the guy I studied together with, or the guy who taught me to play the accordion, or the guys who sells me olives and feta cheese at the market or my next-door neighbours or the girl I know who told what Saudi-Arabia needs is someone to storm the Bastille, well... maybe they are the kind of liberals with a "panic room"?

Over at the blog of Fjordman, Bjørn said:

Islam is a threat on three levels: Islamism is a major threat, posed by a minority of Muslims. Conservative (mainstream) Islam is a threat to its own people, (primarily the women), and a political threat to the rest of us if it ever gets real political power. All of Islam is a threat in the minor sense that it is a religion, and religions aren't true, so it would be bad if Europeans adopted it.

Bjørn oversimplifies Islamism quite a bit, since what is called Islamism should be called with a number of different names. But he is a sensible guy, I will forgive him that. He is quite right that conservative Islam is a threat if it ever gains political power. But as Bjørn, I am not more worried about that than about some other groups that might be dangerous if they get political power, like the Christian conservatives around where I come from.

And by the way, maybe I have learnt something from those Christian conservatives. For some reason the demand for a prayer room does not freak me out. It might have something to do with the fact that at the state-run school I went to there was a prayer room. If the Muslims want one too, and the school has a room that can be used for the purpose, I do not see my society being attacked or my rights infringed on, and I do not think it will be a problem for my kids when they come to school either.

When it comes to ID cards, yeah, sure, I have heard about it.

But it always came from some fringe group, and no one really listened to it, not even the "multiculturalists". In fact, everyone - except a select group of Islamophobes who probably saw a golden chance - just did not care too much. It was disregarded in much the same way that other ridicilous demands are disregarded.

In a democratic society people have the right to come with laughable demands, like the Norwegian "politician" who wanted a childrens programme punished for "teaching children to kiss wildly".

And I have a right to laugh.

Oeyvind said,

"Mark Amerman's statements are fascist and equivalent of anti-Semitic."

I have no idea what you're talking about. Would you mind pointing to
a statement that was "fascist and equivalent of anti-Semitic"?

May I also suggest a change in terminology. Leftists clumped
Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, and Peron's
Argentina under the rubric of 'fascist' in, I believe, the late
1930s. There may have been others but these are the ones I'm
familiar with. To my mind these three governments were significantly
different, especially Nazi Germany. 'Fascism' as an epithet takes
almost all its emotional charge from the nazis. Few people at
this point either know much or care about Mussolini's Italy,
Franco's Spain or Latin American governments in the 1940s.

kim sook-im said, referring to Mr. Oeyvind's statement above,

"(so criticizing arabs and muslims is anti-semitic, whilst criticizing
israel and jews is o.k. and not anti semitic?. hmmmm you really know
how to stretch the definition of fascism dont you LOL)"

Kim, thanks greatly for speaking out in my defense. I agree
that there is great irony in people who hate israel and jews
accusing others of anti-semitism -- though not having focused on
all that Oeyvind has written I don't know whether this applies
to him. Though it would certainly apply to what might seem at first
glance many of his ideological allies. But I disagree with what might
be taken as the implication that a statement can only be anti-semitic
if it's anti-jewish. Although in the strict sense this is true, I find
abhorrent the idea that an act is some how less wrong if committed on
a non-jew.

Thus a man who defends and excuses the government and its supporters
that in the 1930s murdered and deliberately starved millions of
ukranians is the equivalent of a nazi regardless of the fact that
relatively few jews were targeted.

Oyvind, That question is a question I have answered above. Believe it or not, I do not have the time to answer every single question a myriad of little fjordmen and -women are asking here, considering that I actually try to spend some time with my girlfriend at times.

As I told Anthony, however, I will in such a situation fight for what I think is right. Then if I lose, I will continue to fight for what I
believe is right. I believe that is when you started speaking about Iran, and I stated
something like "Not yet, anyway" since I am off the firm belief that we might see another revolution in Iran one day soon.

Okay, thanks for reiterating your views on this, albeit in your usual graceless and rude way. That's a risk you are prepared to take; it's not a risk I'm prepared to take.

Øyvind: Bjørn oversimplifies Islamism quite a bit, since what is called Islamism should be called with a number of different names.

I use it as shorthand for "evil people who want to kill us". I know the picture is more complex than that, but it gets the point across. How would you classify the various forms of Islamism?

Bjørn Stærk: I use it as shorthand for "evil people who want to kill us". I know the picture is more complex than that, but it gets the point across. How would you classify the various forms of Islamism?.

Now, that is an interesting question, and it is also very difficult to answer.

Let me begin with explaining why I think the term Islamism is too wide, though. It is simple. I think it is rather unfair, and rather unprecise, to classify Rached Ghannouchi the same way as Muhammad abd al Salam Faraj, Osama bin Laden the same way as Abdullah Gül, Ali Shariati the same way as Hassan al-Hudaybi or for that matter Khomeini the same way as Musa as Sadr.

Their ideologies have similarities with each other, but these are often minor compared to the similarities between for instance German nationalism and German national socialism.

The problem could be easily solved. We could for instance take those people who do not want to kill us out of the equation. The problem is that some of those people will think of themselves and refer to themselves as Islamists, just as some people will refer to themselves as Marxists without believing in the dictatorship of the proletariate.

The problem we then have to face is that the other categories we have are also... well... sloppy.

We could speak of "Islamofascists", which would be an accurate enough expression for many of the people you refer to as Islamists. To a certain degree that word has already been hijacked, and it might be misleading if one thinks that all fascists are necessarily the same kind of fascists as the Italian ones were, but it could work.

But at least it would make sense to exclude quite a few of the not-so-bad Islamists from the equation if we called the bad-ass ones Islamofascists.

Now, we could use the word "fundamentalist". It is a word people understand. People would know what we were speaking off. But it would not be right, a very large number of the Islamists are anything but fundamentalist. We could speak of adherents off "Political Islam", but then we would have to include adherents of completely other kinds of political islam.

It is a hard nut to crack.

Personally I think we need to be more detailed. When speaking about Iranian Islamism, it makes sense to speak about Khomeinists, which establishes the ideological framework, and makes it possible to distinguish from other Iranian movements that draw from Islam, like Mujahedin-e-khelq or Shariati-supporters.

Imagine having to explain Soviet history and not having any way to distinguish between the bolshovikes and the menshevikes, or between the Trotskyists and the Stalinists, or between the Social Democrats and the hardcore Communists!

In my opinion Khomeinists would also be a fit description of a large part of Shiite Islamism in Iraq and Lebanon.

For Osama bin Laden and the people subscribing to his ideology We could speak of salafi-wahhabists, a word that point to the two traditions shaping the ideology around al Qa'eda. We could speak of wahhabists, which is the reactionary Islam exported from Saudi-Arabia in a purer form. We could speak of salafists, which refer to a specific Arabic school of thought, but sadly also refers to another Arabic school of thought. For some of the new conservative movements we could use neofundamentalist.

To simplify the issues, however, it does not make sense to get too detailed.

That is why I prefer to use the phrase "radical Islamists" for the people you are talking about. It is hardly precise. But it will have to do.

Mark Amerman: I am deeply sorry. I have totally screwed up. I was not referring to your statements, but to the statements of Bill Rowan. ("We cannot treat Muslims like everyone else. They are not like everyone else, the are Muslim, politics, law and religion all reolled into a mindelss, hateful way of life").

While disagreeing with you heartily, I would not refer to what you have written here as anti-Semitic, neither as fascist. Please accept my apologies.

"The number one factor to create integration is to have contact, where there is lack of contact, and lack of will for such contact, often on both sides, integration will fail. This will probably partly solve itself, since Europes employers will soon be dependant on a growing Muslim workforce.
"

Then the number 1 factor is jobs available, isn´t it ?

" Bjørn oversimplifies Islamism quite a bit, since what is called Islamism should be called with a number of different names.
"

Islamism is single word with a wide range, as are the salafis as "return" to the original teaching covers wahhabis, deobandi as well as the islamic revolutionaries or the various organisations from hamas. islamic jihad, hizbollah, al qaida, Armed Islamic Group, Al-Jihad, islamic brotherhood.

We earlier debated and agreed that "militant islam" is the problem.

We no longer disagree :)

First of all militant islam is just a term of those who push violently and ruthlessly, so far a minority, but a growing one.
Islamism share the goal of global islamic domination, end of democracy and sharia jurisdiction in what is now the secular west. It may not want to use violence - atleast not before the end goal is in direct line of sight - yet it still dream of that the days in the white house and all seats of power in Europe starts with "allahu akbar".

So the danger doesn´t stop with the hardcore psychopaths that blow children and innocents up as they plz, their goal is shared by more and eventually so may be their means.

Ulrik, Kathmandu | 2005-11-15 16:11 | Link
Read the 'Grundloven' (Constitution) closely - and surely you will find Islam & Koran are in breach of it. Basta! Prohibit and deport all muslims....

Ooooh Ulrik...right on bro.....you're my kind of Viking ,-- ruthless , behelmeted, behorned snarling axe awielding and foaming at the mouth from drinking too much mead...ready to do battle with the Saracenes and yearning for the Valkyre!

I, princess White Lotus will polish your shield and sharpen your sword , that you may do battle with the hordes of Eeklam afore Øyvind Lokisøn and HvitBjoern Lokisøn sell us out to the Saracenes.

....you're cool, we should break bread sometime , i'll pour you my famous kim-chee tea ;)

Princess White Lotus
Zen at War

白色蓮花公主

禪宗佛教在戰爭

Susan:
"
Perhaps you have not been "noticing" closely enough? In the US, such demands to sharia-ize our society are growing increasingly strong "

..........yes and recently CAIR had recently visited with NASA to hold workshops on how to be sensitive to the needs of muslims who work for NASA.......Himmel auf der Erde ! We are gonna get a Mosque in outer space !

Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam

Dem's fighting words:

Bjørn Stærk claimed that my posts about rapes in Sweden were exaggerated. Well, I'm not so sure. Now official figures from Sweden show that almost half of all rapists are immigrants. And I'm not talking about Koreans. As Steen from Danske øjne på svenske forhold points out, largely Muslim immigrants are behind about 70% of all rape charges in Denmark, and in the Oslo region in Norway. Sweden has a much larger immigrant population, both relative and actual, than either of its neighbors. There is little reason to expect the percentage of immigrants to be any lower in Sweden. The actual number is thus probably even higher than what the authorities are reporting now. From Viking Observer:

Rape in Sweden - and its perpetrators

According to a not yet published study from the Crime Prevention Council, Brå, men with a foreign background are over-represented in the group of suspected rapists. It is approximately four times more common that a known offender is born abroad, compared to persons born in Sweden. It has looked like that for a long time, according to Peter Martens, statistician for Brå. He points out that the talk is about identified offenders. That they have been identified does not mean they have been convicted. The lates study came in 1996, and showed that resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of suspected men. The pattern in the new study is the same.....

Actually it is very simple. No need to be mean or do as Muslims do. All that is needed is honesty. Brutal, simple honety.

You must be honest with Muslims.

When they say "Islam is peace," you must shake your head and say "No". You must point out the hate and anger in the Quran. When they say you are quoting "Out of context," you must tell them there is no context that justifies murder, oppression and hate.

You must tell them that their great example and leader, Old Mohammed, was a torturer, murderer, lier, slaver and wife-beater - as described in their own hadiths.

You must point out that injustice and oppression that are the rule wherever Islam dominates.

Tell them once, tell them again and then again. Maybe one day they will see the facts, maybe.

The biggest issues today are Political Correctness and/or multiculturalism, that contribute to the big lie that hurts all of us - that Islam and Muslim are peaceful. They are not! At beast one can only say most of them are indifferent, but they wont stand up for the rights of non-Muslims. This lack of honesty shields Muslims from the ugly truth about Islam. Remember, its for their own good. Nobody suffers under Islam more than the Muslims.

If you want to ridicule them thats OK too, but try being nice first.

It is the only way. Howver I sincerely doubt that the leaders and politicians in the West have the balls to do this, so it is up to us. Also, be aware that nobody will thank you for this. Oh well...

John Kactuz, aka kactuzkid

Oi John, como vai ?

gosta-me muito o seu blog - "kactuzkid blog".........i e mailed it to my friends.

Islam is like a hugh virtual prison, once born into it you cannot leave it, at best you can pay lip service to it, your friends, and family members and the alim ulemas will ensure that you remain a virtual prisoner. Many also stay with the islamic label out of cultural and racial pride rather than any philosophical superiority or spiritual veracity of the cult.

Here is an endless list of people killed by muslims under the spell of Islam.........and you thought the inquisition was bad? :)

My good friends Sayyed Bjoern ibn Staerk and Sheikh Abdul Oeyvind both are especially finicky about numbers, data and charts before they will believe that there is even a wee-bit relationship between all the killing fields and the Cult of Eeklam......

.........but knowing these gentleman it is unlikely all the murder and mayhem committed by islamists under the spell of Eeklam will ever convince them that Eeklam is the root of all the problem......how can it be?

how can it be??? after all Sheikh Abdul Mutallib just granted me an interview and he said Islam is a religion of peace and that those jihadists are just very very very bad boys who do not understand the real islam...ISLAM MEANS PEACE ...peace , pace, pax , paz, SALAAAAAAAAAAAM GOD DAMN IT WHICH PART OF SALAAAM DON'T YOU INFIDELS NOT UNDERSTAND,....AND YOU BETTER SAY THAT ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF PEACE OTHERWISE OFF WITH YOUR HEAD lol.........TEEEEEE HEEEEEEEEE.

o.K. Here is the link where you can see all the figures and numbers relating murder and mayhem to Islam....and you thought the inquisition was bad?

click here --->>>

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam

Mano pubanggama Dharma

Mano Setta ...Mano Maya

You must point out the hate and anger in the Quran. When they say you are quoting "Out of context," you must tell them there is no context that justifies murder, oppression and hate.

I take it then that you will also present this case to your christian neighbours? Stonnings, enslavement, murder etc.. are not nice things, and as you say there is no context that justifies it.

You must tell them that their great example and leader, Old Mohammed, was a torturer, murderer, lier, slaver and wife-beater - as described in their own hadiths.

Very true. Your freedom of speech to do this should be ensured by the state. Jesus is a saint by comparison, although the Christian god of the old testament often appears to be vengeful and angry.

You must point out that injustice and oppression that are the rule wherever Islam dominates.

Injustice and oppression are the rule wherever mindless adherence to a particular dogma is practice. I think that should include Islam, religious cult communes, communist/totalitarian regimes, and any other form of religious theocracy.

ell them once, tell them again and then again. Maybe one day they will see the facts, maybe.

Well constant repitition worked for Goebbels and again for modern social democratic Germans so why not for you?!?

While political correctness appears (at least to me) to be a degenerate mental condition, I do not think that tolerance towards people of different skin colours, different cultures and different faiths is a bad thing – so long as they are not allowed to use their cultures as an excuse to oppress others or breach the states secular laws. Such as the oppression of women under Islam or violent discrimination.

Cheers,
David Elson

kim sook-im,

Do you oppose all murder justified on religious grounds or just if the perps are muslims?

Dave

DaVid Elson | 2005-11-19 06:44 | Link
kim sook-im,

Do you oppose all murder justified on religious grounds or just if the perps are muslims?

As a person who draws her moral inspiration from the teachings of the enlightened Buddha and the MahaBoddhisatta - Lord Jesus of Nazareth, I categorically abhore all forms of murder irregardless of who the perpetrator may be.

Regarding muslims, murder and mayhem, i will let you-a person of great intelligence- draw your own conclusion after you have done your due research ;)

Sister Nyanyaponika Kim
specialist in dangerous religious cults

धन्यवाद...जहां धुआं है, वहां आग भी है

危險的宗教和膜拜專家

أخصّائي دين خطر

Sister Nyanyaponika Kim
specialist in dangerous religious cults,

I categorically abhore all forms of murder irregardless of who the perpetrator may be.

That's good to hear, thank you.

Tell me do you also specialise in my religion? It's the most dangerous religious cult of all that all of Europes people are afraid of....

Liberalism!

Thomas Bolding Hansen wrote:

Come on silly, behind many of these like banning building mosques, expelling family members etc. is only one persons idea, it´s sure not the points of view held by "defenders of European civilization." and you claim we generalize about moslems and miss the nuances ?

Sums it up, really...

Hi Bjorn, Appreciate your openess to feedback.

You should check out Tony Blankley's latest book: The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?. He has many concrete, common-sense policy suggestions for the USA which could apply equally to European countries.

My own suggestion is to define radical islamists (the folks we are at war with) and then deport them. If someone is one, then they must either be deported or taken into custody until they can be deported. This may sound radical, but what else is there to do?

The only real issue would be to define what is a Radical Islamist and then whether a particular person is one. Of course there would be lots of complications. If a person says they aren’t one and the government says they are, we would need a special court to decide. If their country of origin doesn’t want them back, what to do? Or if their country of origin would imprison or kill them upon return--I guess we send them back anyway. Or possibly use an empty island in the Caribbean as a place for them to live while they are trying to get some other country to take them. If they are already a citizen of the US or Norway or anywhere, what to do? What about all the family members? If someone says that they have changed, etc., etc. It all sounds so bizarre, but the alternate is to continue to allow tens of thousands of Radical Islamists to reside in our country. And it is irresponsible in the extreme to allow that to continue.

For those who can’t get used to the idea of deporting people for their beliefs, think of it this way: The Radical Islamists want to kill or convert the rest of us; all we want to do is deport them. Therefore, we have retained the moral high ground (for those who care) by not killing or imprisoning them. We could allow them to sell their left-behind assets--after leaving, thank you--so as not be accused of property confiscation There have been a number of unsuccessful trials of Islamists in Europe where witnesses did not show up, evidence issues developed, etc. but it was nevertheless clear that the accused parties were adherents to Radical Islam and meant their current country of residence no good.

It is not our job in the non-Muslim world to take into our countries Radical Islamists who want to kill or convert us all with the hope that somehow, through exposure to our education or political system, they will change.

Deporting Radical Islamists is the ultimate in homeland security. It is something most of us can agree on. Liberals, moderates and conservatives--pro or anti-Iraq war--how can anyone argue against it in principal? The only disagreements will be over method and process.

Felix wrote:

"Deporting Radical Islamist.......... It is something most of us can agree on. Liberals, moderates and conservatives--pro or anti-Iraq war--how can anyone argue against it in principal? "

Oh if only it were true ! but then we do have attorneys who encourage mexican nationals to come over and sue the merchants and professionals of USA...so likewise you will find many who will argue against the idea of deporting radical islamists.

Radical islamists do not come in black and white, but rather there is a continuum of ideologies. In islamdom the Ummah is the Borgian Collective, so while the radical islamists = violent jihadists do the dirty work of killing and maiming , the 'good' muslims will vigorously deny the connexion to Islam of any acts perpetrated by their jihadist brothers .

Additionally you can always have a bumper crop of new radical islamists as long as you have impressionable young minds exposed to the nefarious doctrine and tenets of a superCult.........Islam is root of the problem ...it must be eradicated or else neutralize or 'reformed'...easier said than done !

Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam

David Elson wrote:

Tell me do you also specialise in my religion? It's the most dangerous religious cult of all that all of Europes people are afraid of....

Liberalism!

hmmmm ....are you sure all of europe's people are scaredity of big bad Liberalism?

.........define 'Liberalism' LOL.

Sister Nyanyaponika Kim

kim sook-im,

Liberalism as the idiology that's drastically opposed to state forms of terrorism and oppression (facism/socialism).

Cheers,
David,

David,

O.K. so we're talking of liberalism as an ideology:

'Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, which strives to maximize individual liberty through rights protected by law. Liberalism seeks a society characterized by free action within a defined framework. This framework is generally seen to include a pluralistic liberal democratic system of government, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, and economic competition'

......if this is so, why do you state that europeans are afraid of liberalism? please explain? I know for example the pope's declaration of papal infallibility would be a slap to liberalism, so likewise sharia ( all the theofascists pretends to know God's mind LOL ) would be a threat!

Sister Ayesha Nyanyaponika Kim

Here's some land, please stop killing us, via Rantburg:

Government and MILF negotiators have agreed to submit to a plebiscite any peace settlement they may sign on the establishment of a separate Muslim homeland in the southern Philippines, a rebel leader said yesterday. Eid Kabalu, spokesman of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), said the plebiscite is to ensure that the peace agreement is acceptable to majority, if not all, of the residents of provinces, cities and towns proposed to be covered. “We will consolidate and review the agreements, and then ratify them. After that a peace accord will be signed and a plebiscite for the establishment of a separate Muslim homeland shall be held in the southern Philippines,” Kabalu said in an interview.

And the kicker:

"...Everything in the peace agreement will be submitted to the people and there is nothing to hide because we really want peace to reign,” Kabalu said."

Dare I hazard a guess that "peace" means the islamic definition?

"Dare I hazard a guess that "peace" means the islamic definition?"

yes Sandy...you got it right . This sad situation is also playing out in south thailand where the islamists are agitating for territorial control and i am afraid the chances of secession and more violence and murder will be in the offing in thailand.

Already there are rumors of the intentions of islamists to damage the lucrative thai tourist trade a la 'Bali'.

Bali is the only Hindu ( note: non-muslim infidel enclave in muslim indonesia - and what do you have ..bombings and violence in the house of the infidel.

East timor and other christian enclaves in the molukkas, and sulawesi are also subjected to constant violence and turmoil by the islamists all in accordance to the built in instruction of the superMeme of Eeklam.

'Peace'/salaam only when the muslims have it their way, salaam only when islam is in ascendency.Only when Islam and Shariah reigns supreme, that is the inexorable goal built into this foul superMeme....something which seems to escape the understanding of people like Sayyed Bjoern Staerk and Sayyed Abdul Oeyvind..who would rather dabble in inane concepts of 'randomness' , 'social stochastics' , and 'social chaos theory' hmmm all of which seems to Bjoerns latest penchant in dismissing the threat of eeklam to a rational and humane civilization .

Eeklam as it is currently (unreformed -if it ever can be ?) will always be a threat to all non-muslim civilizations western ,eastern, north or south ....unless of course there were an alien,extra-terrestrial? intervention ( I'm sure many will be quick to dismiss this as a quirky statement....fodder for another forum )

Sister Ayesha Nyanaponika Kim
Specialist in dangerous adamic cults

اختصاصي الدين خطير.

危险的宗教专家

מומחה של דת מסוכן

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.johannorberg.net/

"As most men are fettered by bonds of tradition, and by imitating the ways followed by their fathers, ancestors, relatives
and acquaintances, everyone continues, without investigating the arguments and reasons, to follow the religion in which he was born and educated, thus excluding himself from the possibility of ascertaining the truth, which is the noblest aim of the human intellect. Therefore we associate at convenient seasons with learned men of all religions, thus deriving profit from their exquisite discourses and exalted aspirations.”

That’s important reading for those who think that Islam can’t be combined with religious tolerance – whether they are hostile to Islam or advocates of it.

David Elson wrote:

".....That’s important reading for those who think that Islam can’t be combined with religious tolerance – whether they are hostile to Islam or advocates of it."

David, yes we should all be optimists and yes indeed the Ahmadiyah and Qadiyanist version of islam is available but they are still a minority and are viciously attacked by the mainstream islamites...more on that later.

The problem with a superMeme like Eeklam is that it perpetuates itself and its build in programs demands violent actions in order to preserve and perpetuate itself.

I refer you to :

http://www.geocities.com/scimah/memes.htm ( islam and meme theory )

and

http://www.geocities.com/scimah/idols.htm

( response to islamic critic of buddhism to expose the falsity of islam as a cult rather than a genuine spiritual system )

Namaste wa Shalom

Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam

धन्यवाद...जहां धुआं है, वहां आग भी है
מומחה של דת מסוכן

They're very tolerant when they're the dominent religion.

They also tax non-believers, don't they?

Via LGF:

Scott Burgess is investigating a subject almost no one else seems to have noticed—a Muslim Brotherhood document discovered by Swiss authorities, detailing a vast secret plan to combine jihad, surveillance, infiltration and propaganda (among other techniques) in order to “establish the reign of Allah throughout the world.”

The Daily Ablution: The Project, Part I

The Daily Ablution: The Project, Part II.
---------

The world will be at peace when the world is under Islam, I really don't understand why some refuse to get it.

For beginners, western countries can save themselves is by cleaning up corruption that exists within our own countries. I have worked within defenseand law enforcement for 12-13 years with a specialty in profiling psychopaths within criminal and radical environments and throughout all those years until now I have realized that a major problem lies with corruption in all levels of western society whether it be in the US or in Europe or any other well developed country. In the past the poor has often been blamed for corruption and crime but that has an easy excuse for those in high status in society. Wherever there is corruption you will be sure to find a sosiopath or sosiopaths playing a greater role with the confusion, deception, exploitation and manipulation as a means of causing much of the despair and grief in this world.
With freedom comes individual responsibility. Many seem to think that with freedom we can do anything we want even to the demise of others but freedom is not about ones own personal freedom to do as we want. Its about creating a balance with our lives that also includes sustaining stability with those who occupy our social environment such asa those we care for but also even those we do not know. Knowing that people around us live in conditions of a balanced and stable life nurtures the comfort of freedom within ourselves. If people around us cause uproar, deception or confusion in any form it will reflect on our own behavior of suspicions and unhealthy fear which will resolve into ones own entrapment. This is not freedom.
As an unknown wise person once said "evil exists because good people do nothing to change for the good".

Best regards to those who speak out.

Tom

On the surface, the Left and Islam have nothing in common. Islam is a religion and the Leftists are usually secular people...but don't let that fool you , the two groups have many similarities........and that is why Leftists, radical or otherwise are so enamoured with Islam or at the least seek to 'understand' and 'study' islam .

..........hmmmmmm, I wonder if my good friend Monsignor Øyvind Stroemmen and maybe even Monsieur Bjørn du Stærk would care to offer their kind comments or maybe even their critique of the following article on 'islam and the left'?
It would be interesting to hear it from the horses' mouths ;)

here are the links ---->>>>>

http://www.annaqed.com/english/under/the_leftist_and_the_islamist_tweedledee_and_tweedledum.html

( leftists and the islamists - tweedledee and tweedledum )

http://www.annaqed.com/english/attack/a_call_to_the_muslims_of_the_world.html

(Does Islam really preach peace, tolerance and non-violence?.......if Islam thrives, then Humanity will die !.......

............so come on Bjoern (!) and Oeyvind , help me out a bit...what is it about ' Islam is what muslims believe it to be?'

Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam

धन्यवाद...जहां धुआं है, वहां आग भी है
प्रधानमंत्री मनमोहन सिंह ने कुछ शहरों का चेहरा बदलने के लिए अरबों रुपए की लागत वाली एक महत्वकांक्षी योजना शुरू करने की घोषणा की है. इस योजना में ख़ास ध्यान शहरी ग़रीबों की ज़रूरतों पर दिया जाएगा.

危險的宗教和膜拜專家

A GITA VERSE FOR YOU: I, who dwell within their inner psyche as consciousness, destroy the darkness born of ignorance by the shining lamp of transcendental knowledge as an act of compassion for them. (10.11)

http://www.gitamrta.org/

nice blog . wanna to learn about me and southern lovely caspian sea coast? and its cultures and worries?
http://caspianous.blogspot.com

I forget to write the original meesage.sorry.mmm.... I am muslim .I should to confess that problems here in middle east is more than your countries (western) but AMIGo dont forget we -bright minded should to realize and devide what is bad and what is niceif we coud support goodness we will tauch the happiness for all earth citizens. your law following and disceplin will be a guide for undeveloped countries but also family supporting in the specially middle east is not forgetable.here in middle east you can find very good peoples who are different whith what you imagine from a midlle eastern . please check again my weblog . be success AMIGO

1000 years ago SADi -Iranian poet wrote:
all humen borned are from a body that are created from one gemstone.
When a part of the body be pained another parts of the body cant bear at all.

”Moderate” Islam is already a problem today. Today’s Dagbladet (link below) presents a survey showing how Norwegian youth change their values when they live as a minority in their own country (Minority Schools in East Oslo from 1999 to 2002). Traditional Norwegian values like equality and tolerance is replaced by Islamic values like "honour". The Norwegian girls dress significantly more conservative as they risk being viewed as “whores” if they follow the Norwegian fashion (In Rinkeby in Stockholm just being blond is enough to get that label, hence the very few Swedish have a tendency to colour their hair). Norwegian boys are looked down upon since they are unwilling to fight, whereas the more violent Somalis are more respected. What happened to the “good ideas will win”? Our am I just a racist/islamofob who I think our set of values are superior (which I do). It is our right to maintain our values and society, based on these values. It is under threat, and I think Islam is the biggest threat since it makes more demands on the host country to accept its set of values, and it stands more in contrast with our values then any other major religion. I must say I do get heart when people scream racist when I tell I’m not under any circumstances want my children to go to a school with at large Muslim population, however the thought of my daughter being screamed “whore” at, just because she is blond, or my soon being looked down on because he doesn’t want to fight, but more importantly the thought that they might adopt these values themselves, is worse. I had my suspicions that these things would happen, and now they have been confirmed. I must say I was rather impressed that Dagbladet would publish such a survey, all honour to the otherwise hated press.

http://www.dagbladet.no/magasinet/2005/11/30/450847.html

Bjoern,

I tried to submit a response to massoud's post above regarding iran and current draconian shiite regime controlling iran and my post was denied for ' questionable content...c:'.

I know you are attempting to screen out spam, but could you email me the list of 'trigger words' that you use in your screening program. I thought my content was rather innocuous :)

Takk,
Sook-Im

Hi Massoud,

Sobakheir va Chetourid. Ham mitavanam zabahneh farsi yek kami sohbat konam.

Gileki is an indo-european language and closely related to farsi, pashtoo, dari etc. I had a friend who was azerbaijani but that is another language family. The various minority groups in iran had suffered various persecutions in the past by the shiite religious authorities.

You sound like an open minded individual shining with the light of human kindness and goodness - this is a heartening tribute to the resiliency of the human spirit which is a part of the divine intelligent universe despite oppression by false relligions like Eeklam.

Eeklam has brutalized and subjugated the persian people....bedouinizing and arabizing the people, culture and religion. This is evident even in the language where every persian word has an arabic equivalent: pezeshk = tabib, bachcheh=tifl etc. etc..

Recently one of the ruling cleric insulted the zoroastrian minorities by calling them 'beasts' who deserve to have their hands and feet cut off. When the zoroastrian parliamentarian protested , he was summarily arrested for insulting Eeklam !

So you see my good friend Massoud, Eeklam is not a religion per se but a violent militaristic ideology invented millenia ago by a charismatic individual bent on arab nationalization and imperialism and he married a militaristic ideology with religion creating a superMeme which to this day continue to wreak havoc,mayhem and murder all over the globe !

متشکرم وخداحافظ

دوست خوبتان

Tashakor mikonam
va
Khadaa khaafez.

Duste-shoma Kim Sook-Im

متخصص دينهاى خطرناكى و آيينهاى خطرناكى.

위험한 종교와 위험한 숭배의 전문가

危險的宗教和危險的宗教崇拜的專家

Yek ruz midunam bi khabar
sarzadeh az rah miresi
jun haste' az bi dahrehshab
bah sobh beh fardah miresi....

Vaqti residi khuneh-am
bahz az tu gul bahrun mishe'
sahheb beh khuneh pishe' tu
nah ahshehnah mehmun misheh.....
nah ahshehnah mehmun misheh...........

please check out this links ---->>>>

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Iran/Faryaad.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/iran.htm

www.buddhanet.net

Tor --

--I must say I do get heart when people scream racist when I tell I’m not under any circumstances want my children to go to a school with at large Muslim population, --

You should just look at them bemusedly and say, "I wasn't aware Islam was a race."

Kim Sook-Im: I know you are attempting to screen out spam, but could you email me the list of 'trigger words' that you use in your screening program.

Nah, it's too long. The way this works is that Movable Type allows me to block all links that have been used in the comments I select .. and sometimes those links are meaningless, probably meant to sabotage anti-spam software. Seems I've blocked the phrase "c..." that way. A spammer used that as a link, and I blocked it without thinking. The error message tells you which word was blocked. If you find any more that shouldn't be, let me know.

Bjoern,

o.k. thanks. I rewrote the script and it went thro' anyay.

Sook-Im

Hi again Massoud,

Did you know that Buddhism reached all the way to iran in ancient times?

According to early Hinayana biographies of the Buddha, such as the Sarvastivada text The Sutra of Extensive Play (Lalitavistara), Tapassu and Bhallika, two merchant brothers from Bactria, became the first disciples to receive layman's vows. This occurred eight weeks after Shakyamuni's enlightenment, traditionally ascribed to 537 BCE. Bhallika later became a monk and built a monastery near his home city, Balkh, near present-day Mazar-i-Sharif. He brought with him eight hairs of the Buddha as relics, for which he built a stupa monument. At about this time, Bactria became part of the Achaemenad Empire of Iran.

check out these links:

http://www.berzinarchives.com/islam/history_afghanistan_buddhism.html

Did you know that wherever islam gained ascendency buddhists were severely persecuted and annihilated ex. india, afghanistan ...and currently in malaysia, indonesia, pakistan etc..

I think one of the reason why Islam is so vicious against buddhism is because buddhism teaches freedom of thinking - a horrible anathema for Islam which requires you to submit yourself blindly to a draconian system composed principally of superstitions, legends, and tribal folklores !

check out this link and you will understand why:

http://www.buddhanet.net/flash/toc/index.html

(do not believe anything to be true because scripture/Quran/Bible says so !.....do not believe anything to be true because it conforms to tradition - ahadeeths !)

http://www.buddhanet.net/flash/toc/index.html
( sayings of the Buddha )

Tashakkor Mikonam و خداحافظ

خواهر شما... Sister Farideh Nyanyaponika Kim

.....는 당신에게 감사한다 당신의 여동생

Hi Massoud,

The religious authorities in Iran are now persecuting more christians:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/512010029.htm

mutashakiram

Sister Farideh Nyanyaponika Kim

Sandy P--

My school book* thought me it was racist to ask (impolitely) an immigrant to speak Norwegian. It might be a too big step for many to realise Islam is not a race. Thanks anyway! The racist label truly hurt, I once thought my opinions were racist, and sometime think they are, but what made me realise I was not was when I met people with typical Muslim ethnicity (I have been travelling a lot), that to my surprise had the same opinions.

What angers me is that the same book doesn’t classify prejudice about USA as racism, and furthermore it promotes it – same 7 year school book - “But still we are far away from how its like in the USA, where thirteen year olds can use up to 8-10 hours in front of the television every day, or where a thirteen year old have seen thousands of murders and killings on his television in his short life”. I didn’t see any of that in my one year as an exchange student in Chicago, but if our government says so, it must be so?

*Jens Amundsen Samfunn 7-9 (1987) – Example of racism: “Stop the Urdu, we don’t understand anything. Speak Norwegian!” Original “Kutt ut den urduen, vi skjønner ingen ting. Snakk norsk!”

Original USA prejudice quote ”Men foreløpig er det lenge til vi har det slik som i USA, der trettenåringer kan tilbringe 8-10 timer foran fjernsynsskjermen hver dag, or der en trettenåring har sett tusener av mord og drap på fjernsyn i løpet av sitt korte liv”

Hei Tor /Norge,

...My school book* thought me it was racist to ask (impolitely) an immigrant to speak Norwegian...

Well, the multiculturalist ( probably radical leftists in the genre of my good friend Sayyed Oeyvind Stroemmen - o.k. Oeyvind your comments por favor ;) authors of your norwegian text books probably forgot to also tell you that the islamite authors of the text book of alMamlikah-ul-arabiyah-alSaudiyah wrote that ' unbelievers =infidels are worse than beasts of the fields and that they are enemies of Allah who spread corruption on earth and should have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off and be cast out of the land '

This article by Patrick Sookhdeo should be an eye opener for all norwegians :

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3350 ( will London burn too? )

also here is a link for compulsory term papers that all norwegian school children must read :

http://www.annaqed.com/english/under/
the_leftist_and_the_islamist_tweedledee
_and_tweedledum.html

(LEFTIST AND THE ISLAMIST-
TWEEDLE DEE AND TWEEDLEDUM )

.....'Even the US has been reluctant to conclude a holy war was occurring. While we might not have been at war with Islam, Islam was most assuredly at war with us. And that includes the Europeans and just about anybody else on the face of the Earth who does not want to convert to Islam.'

read on: http://www.annaqed.com/english/politics/europe_slowly_awakens_to_terror_threat.html

http://www.annaqed.com/english.html

http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

( required readings for norwegian high school exit exams :)

a little aside: >>>>>>

http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=2102

http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/religion.html (persecution of buddhists by muslims in bangladesh chittagong hill tract)

Takk,

Sister Nyanyaponika Kim
Specialist in dangerous religious cults

위험한 종교 전문가

危險的宗教和宗教崇拜專家

o.k. Bjoern,

here's another word that your anti-spam program got me: " tr(i)pod.com "..........don't know why it would screen out such a word combo. I was trying to transmit info on muslim persecution of buddhists and was quoting a magazine with the the name ' tricycle...and somewhere along the link was the word tr(i)pod.com. The actual word combo did not have the parenthesis, i had to use the () as modifier to get this message to you.

thanks
Sook-Im

To Farideh Nyanyaponika Kim
Thank you =sepasgozaram (persian)=shimiji tashakkor kun6m (gilaki or Gileki)
first I felt the responsibility to reply to yiu as a inteligent and open minded person then I will read your comment more clearly. I will be so thankfull if you write your comments about Gileki and Gilan in my weblog.
Thank you

OT: We do love our season:

http://media.putfile.com/WizardsofWinter_XmasLightShow

There's a peace sign in there.

Via Fjordman:

Who is the king????

Norway has a three-party coalition government, where the Labor Party is the leading force, but which also includes the Socialist Left Party and is backed by the Norwegian Socialist Trade Union (LO). The deputy leader of the Socialist Left Party recently announced that he wants to abolish private property. The leader of the Socialist Left Party, Kristin Halvorsen, is Norway's Minister of Finance. She started her election campaign in 2005 in the Pakistani countryside. Norway, which is a significant player in the global oil market, is actively involved in searching for oil in Iran. No boycott there:

Race war in Australia involving -- you'll never guess -- followers of the religion of peace:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17536279%255E601,00.html

Race riots in Denmark, race riots in France, race riots in the UK. But those of us who warned the Islam is not comopatible with Western
culture are a bunch of right-wing Islamophobic nutcases. What on earth have we been smoking, to think such an unthinkable thing?

Why, wherever those peaceful and tolerant Muslims emigrate, they fit right in with local culture and are welcomed and beloved for their peaceful and tolerant behavior.

(cue Oyvind to come in and claim the Ozzie Muslims were just protesting the lack of jobs in their neighborhood.)

"Race war in Australia involving -- you'll never guess -- followers of the religion of peace"

Yes, as the people who were beaten up .. All part of their Jihad, I'm sure.

Bjorn,

You obviously didn't read the full accounts from the Australian press -- or the comments from Aussie people on Aussie blogs. The "root causes" of the white non-Muslim mob action was Muslim Lebanese attacks on women and life guards at that beach that had been going on for more than two years. This includes grotesque sexual harassment of non-Muslim women and little girls which you and Oyvind constantly deny ever happens amongst the practioners of the "religon of peace".

I don't support mob action or the beating up of Muslims, however -- I can sort-of understand
the "root causes" of the non-Muslim anger in Australia.

(Yes, that was a sarcastic comment.)

Here you go:

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,17512923-5001035,00.html

They'll stand over you while you're sunbaking, block your sun so they get your attention, then say, 'She's not worth doing 55 years for'," she told them.

For those unsure of what these lowlifes are referring to, it's the length of the prison sentence which was given to Sydney's infamous gang rapist, Bilal Skaf.

Clearly, there's a deep cultural problem that exists with some of the second-generation young men of Middle Eastern descent who live in this country.

And now the peaceful and tolerant ones are fighting back -- with guns and baseball bats,
not beer bottles and flags:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/armed-gangs-on-rampage/2005/12/12/1134236005902.html

SYDNEY erupted in a second night of racial violence last night as Middle Eastern mobs fired shots into the air, attacked women and smashed shops around Cronulla, while up to 600 young men - armed with guns and crowbars - prepared for a battle.

Any resemblance to events in the UK, Holland, and France are purely coincidental, of course.

Of course.

Susan: Yes, that was a sarcastic comment.

No, drop the sarcasm. Do you "understand" their anger or do you not? I'll throw out a couple of statements for you to consider:

- There is no excuse for beating up random Arabs on the street.
- Australians have no cause for being angry at random Arabs.
- Arabs are not collectively guilty for the crimes of individuals.
- There is no justification for forming gangs to take back a beach from the Arabs.
- Many of the people who did this are racists.

Agree, or disagre?

While australia is experiencing the warm embrace of adherents of the religion of peace and love ( sarcasm intended) Thailand is experiencing the kiss of death of adherents of this beautiful and peace-loving religion - a mercy unto mankind LOL!

.......... >>>>>

Thailand Concedes Militant Islamic Hand Behind Violence...Extremists responsible for an eruption of violence in Thailand's deep south planned to seize control of a Muslim-majority province there, the government said, as Thailand and neighboring Malaysia launched the first joint patrols of their common border to prevent further attacks.

Read on >>>>>>

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200401\FOR20040115a.html

......"Several of the wanted militant islamist leaders are believed to be holed up across the border in Malaysia, one of whose border provinces, Terengganu, is controlled by an Islamist political party which has introduced Islamic shari'a law."

...........how interesting , where islamists are in ascendency they will introduce Sharia irregardless of the fact that Malaysia is a secular country ..Lovely ain't it mate ??? ...so no dance hall, no movies, no Bud-Weiser, no this no that , and of course girls forget about your rights ....something that both my good friends Sayyed Bjoern and Sayyed Oeyvind can tacitly 'understand'.

Also while we are on the topic of islamism , this treatise on islamic fundamentalism as a global threat was written in 2001 and has proved to be prophetic and relevant in the ensuing years......

The prospect of cultural submergence is the most alarming Islamic threat,even more so than Muslim missiles and hostage-takers. Millions of Muslims immigrate each year to the U.S. and Europe. In fact, of the current six million American Muslims, 77.6% are immigrants versus 22.4% U.S. born. According to the U.S. Department of State, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S.By 2010, America’s Muslim population is expected to surpass the Jewish population,making Islam the country’s second largest faith after Christianity.In the U.S., there are nearly 2000 mosques nationwide, as well as numerous Islamic dayschools. Unbelievably, the U.S. has become the rearguard headquarters for fundamentalistterrorists. With almost no oversight, they collect and launder money here, providecommunication links and spew out propaganda.....

read on:

Shortcut to: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:dWeq6zLyimQJ:www.gillespieresearch.com/pdf/228-364899293.pdf+13D+research,+inc,+islam&hl=en

Sawadee-Ca
Sister Sureeporn DuangPrapha Kimsookboon

แจ้งความเอาผิด'พีรพันธุ์'เมินยึดทรัพย์'เป๊าะ' กรณีทุจริตจัดซื้อบ่อขยะ ต.เขาไม้แก้ว 93 ล้านบาท ทั้งที่ศาลจังหวัดชลบุรี และศาลอุทธรณ์ ภาค 2 พิพากษาว่ามีความผิด อันเป็นความผิดมูลฐานตามกฎหมายฟอกเงิน..

In tandem with the spirit of this thread which is 'defense against the islamic threat' I recommend to you this extremely potent weapon in the infidels armamentarium !

Voila - the Pen is mightier than the Sword of Eeklam !

Muslim tradition holds that Muslims who come in contact with a pig before dying will be denied access to heaven.


At last a modern low tech solution to an ancient Evil ?

.........The Pen is mightier than the sword ?

".......The rabbi also said that if the police do not use pig fat in buses, tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews will arm themselves with toy water pistols filled with liquid lard to be used against terrorists, Maariv reported"

read on:

http://www.susbloodlabs.com/israelinsiderreprint.html


Overcome the fear of terror with the threat of eternal damnation. When you buy and use an Infidel's Revenge ball-point pen you will be putting fear, uncertainty and doubt into the mind of would-be-suicide bombers. Fanatical "Muslim's of the Jihad" are motivated to commit their suicide bombings with the promise of immediate paradise and 72 virgin companions for eternity. However, their strict ancient doctrine also teaches that their souls are damned should their flesh come in contact with pig’s blood at the time of their death.

The Infidel's Revenge! is a powerful psychological deterrent to terror. When you carry and use your Infidel's Revenge Ball Point Pen, you are joining an elite group of citizens committed to ending global terror. Imagine the impact on the worldwide "terror movement" knowing that the possibility of eternal damnation is resident in every drawer, every purse, every pocket everywhere. This simple solution holds the promise of dramatically reducing, and even ending, suicide bombings


Read more about a simple terror prevention ball pen filled with freeze dried porcine plasma and pig blood components.........a veritable infidel's revenge haaaaaaaaaah !

http://www.susbloodlabs.com/


Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam

शोधकर्ताओं ने दुनिया भर में उन स्थानों का विवरण तैयार किया है जहाँ दुर्लभ प्रजाति के जानवर और पेड़ पौधों के लुप्त होने का ख़तरा पैदा हो गया है.

The islamically inspired hooligans who for years have tried to impose their shariah inspired moralities on the care-free, fun-loving, beer drinking aussies are now trying to impose their shariah customs on the australian beaches !

.....naturally these brave and honorable Saracenes would have to attack women as per their Shariah ..........>>>>>

....."They knocked a woman unconscious on the footpath and smashed the window of a denture clinic.
Thai-born Suchada Goodier, 44, owner of a Thai restaurant on the Kingsway, said she was walking on the street when she was attacked. The group then started bashing her car. "What have I done?" she said. "I have done nothing."

In Bay Street, Brighton-le-Sands, a young woman was sitting in a car when men approached and opened the door to her vehicle and put a hand up her dress, saying: "We are going to rape you, you Aussie sluts."....."

Herrrooo Oeyvind, would you be so kind as to comment on how you would feel and what you would intend to do, had you been there in person and the poor woman in Brighton-le-Sands were your girl-friend and that you( being so erudite about the tenets of islam) suddenly & logically arrive at the conclusion that there is a highly probable correlation between the behaviour of these hooligans and the indoctrination that was afforded them by the misogynist tenets of islam ?

(...please note that this depraved misogynist behaviour of the middle eastern males -adherent of the lovely religion of Islam are inspired by the very misogynist tenets of their religion.( or at the very least find solace and support in the misogynist tenets of their religion).......to explain this behaviour otherwise is to be disingenious or to be an inveterate apologist.)

READ ON .....>>>>

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/armed-gangs-on-rampage/2005/12/12/1134236005902.html

Sister Sureeporn Duangprapha Kimsookboon

'..........Muslims in Sydney have been told they need to maintain unity as Western nations try to impose secular and capitalist values upon them.

In a meeting at Sydney's Auburn Town Hall last night, speakers from the Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is banned in some nations, told the crowd they did not need to establish some Islamic customs, such as sharia law, in Australia."

....HAAAH....of course no need to impose shariah , as yet, since we are weak, but slowly an inexorably when we the Ummah have gained strength , then we will forcibly impose shariah on this infidels and off with their heads....Islam is a territorial religion, their adherents sacralize the territory they occupy with marches, riots and the relentless islamization of the milieu...that is what muslims do ( aside from killing puppies and mistreating and raping women - Bjoern , please take note por favor :)

read on >>>>>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1426507.htm

Sister Sureeporn Duangprapha Kimsookboon

Agree, or disagre?

Sure, I agree with all those points. But I also agree that they should be equally applied to the peaceful and tolerant ones who rape, sexually harass, intimidate, murder, and pack-assault those who are not of their own kind.

Our governments and ruling classes, however, do not agree, which is why all kinds of "root causes" excuses -- so eloquently voiced here by your buddy Oyvind in defense of the rioting, murdering thugs in France only a month ago -- is continually used to validate and justify their actions.

20 rounds of shots fired into an Australian church where CHILDREN were practicing Christmas carols:

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/story.asp?id=83023

20 ROUNDS.

CHILDREN.

CHURCH.

Bjorn,

Agree or disagree:

1. There is no excuse for Muslims to gang-rape and sexually harass all non-Muslim women who go to beaches in Australia and who just might happen to -- gasp -- wear bikinis and thongs.
2. There is no excuse for Muslims to form violent gangs who intimidate Australian beach-goers and try to deny them access to their beaches.
3. There is no excuse for Muslims to attack churches, children singing Christmas carols, and Vietnamese female shop owners just because they are "kuffar."
4. There is no excuse for Muslims to preach constant hatred of their host society which generously took them in and provided them with basic life's necessities as they fled from a
former society -- Lebanon -- which they were insturmental in turning into a violent-ridden shithole (just like they are now trying their best to turn Australia into a violent-ridden shithole.)

PS -- I don't agree with your characterization of this conflict as being between "Arabs" and "White Australians" in your last post to me. The problem isn't "Arabs". As any Aussie or American will tell you CHRISTIAN Arabs are well-regarded and highly assimilated into both our \
societies. It's the MUSLIM Arabs who cause the problems, based on their indoctrination from youth in hating all non-Muslims.

PSS -- if you've been following the Aussie press you will know it is not specifically a "white" issue. Maoris took part in the protest against Muslim intimidation on the beach, and Asian and Vietnamese women have been sexually harassed by the Muslim gangs as well as white women.

The pivotal point for sexual and criminal targetting is RELIGIOUS background, not race.

And Bjorn, NONE of what you posted contradicts my central point: that Islamic culture and Western culture is essentially incompatible.

It is time we recognized that instead of stubbornly and stupidly insisting on trying to pound, pound, pound a square peg into a round hole.

Either the peg will splinter, or the hole.

And I'm not aiming for it to be the hole that
disintegrates rather than the peg.

PSS -- I did not notice Bjorn chastising Oyvind last month when Oyvind trotted out the tired-old "root causes" excuse to justify the French scumbags who murdered three non-Muslim men, torched 10,000 cars, set a woman and a crippled person on fire, deliberately targetted non-Muslim businesses, schools and goverment buildings for destruction, and who torched 13 churches and several synagogues.

Some animals are more equal than others at this blog, I guess.

Having found beach yobs a bit too much of a handful, the peaceful and tolerant ones take on targets more in tune with their moral orientation:

CHURCHGOERS. 2nd CHurch attacked in Oz:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17564679-37435,00.html

The first was of course the attack on the caroling five-year-olds.

Very brave, very peaceful, very tolerant.

And 80% or more of american mosques are funded by the ....

Magic Kingdom.

Via Dailypundit:

Earlier today, this post commented on Saudi Arabia's program of buying its way into America's opinion-shaping mechanisms.

Over at NRO, Nina Shea has a rundown of other parts of this Saudi agenda, including details like:

Booklets published in Arabic for the "Immigrant Muslim" by the Saudi embassy in Washington, for example, instruct Muslims to "hate" Americans. They counsel that, because America is ruled by infidel civil law, "it is forbidden" for a Muslim to become an American citizen, or join the U.S. military, or support Americans in any way.

...Such publications, distributed not only in the United States but around the world, are merely one part of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabization campaign. It spreads its ideology through its sponsorship of schools, mosques, imams, media outlets, cultural centers, and websites. A Treasury official told Congress that Saudi Arabia is the "epicenter" of Islamic extremism. Witnesses at a recent Senate hearing on the Saudi Accountability Act estimate that the Saudis expend three times as much as the Soviets did on external propaganda during the height of the Cold War. The late King Fahd's website continues to provide a long roster of names of American universities, mosques, and other sites in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere that have benefited from his generosity. As Mayor Giuliani knew when he returned the $10 million check from Saudi Prince Talal after September 11, these donations come with strings attached.

Sandy,
do you have the url/ or link for the original article at DailyPundit on the Saudi involvements?

Thanks.

Sook-Im

sick religion, sick culture,

Saudi's importing slaves into the US... read On:

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18413

...and why should we be surprised especially since slavery is sanctioned by the religion of peace and what not.

..........ahhh but you see all these things are secondary ! and actually quaintly irrelevant in the world of 'centrists' where it can be explained away via 'stochastic randomness' and by leftist radikals via ' western imperialism and what not ' haaaaaaaaaah.

...AND further why should be be suprised that the young middle eastern hoodlums in australia that are involved in the riots would target women and children in their opening campaign of terrorism against their host society....WHY? because the religion and culture in which they are immersed and from which they draw their 'moral'/'immoral' inspiration teaches that women and children are chattel of the males of their species. In particular women and children of the male and are therefore disposable commodities to be traded and manhandled as the circumstances dictate.

..... in the case of the islamite male threatening to rape 'aussie sluts', this should not come as a surprise since , the women driver was viewed(from the perspective of the islamite aggressors) as a commodity or property of the opposing tribe ( ie. the native australians ). Regarding the attack on the vietnamese and other asian females in australia, that is not surprising either, since these are infidel females and just ripe for the plucking, raping and pillageing....it is all very simple -- it is all rooted in the savage religious dictates of that lovely religion of peace !...you know which religion it is by now don't you ? No need for high fallutin constructs in 'random theories, chaos theories or stochastic statistics',, no need for radical leftist excuses of western imperialism or discrimination...heck it wasn't the immigrant sri lankans, immigrant koreans, immigrant taiwanese, immigrant tamils, immigrant gujeratis, immigrant polish, immigrant slovenians, immigrant czechs, immigrant greeks, immigrant hawaiians, immigrant filipinos, immigrant togo-ese, immigrant tongans, immigrant kenyans, immigrant taoists, immigrant greek orthodox christians, immigrant christian arabs, immigrant bahaiists, immigrant animists, immigrant buddhists, immigrant baptists, immigrant seventh day adventists, immigrant scientologists, immigrant fa lun Qong-ists, immigrant sikhs, immigrant new agers, immigrant wiccans, immigrant hindus, immigrant native americans......that were engaged in imposing the shariah on the happy go lucky , beer drinking, sun loving, fun loving australians ! It was minions of the religion of love and peace and mercy unto mankind that were engage in auto-segregation from the host society and attempting to forcibly enforce their retrograde misogynist behavior,'moral',mores, and customs on the larger host /australian society !

Q.E.D. Quod Erat Demonstrantum ......i rest my case !

hmmmmm.....why are the resident centrist and radikal leftist so strangely taciturn? Oh dear , has the proverbial Cat got their tongue ...tee heeeee.

Shalom,

Sister Rebekka Kim
Kibbutz Har-arotz

specialist in dangerous religious cults
מומחה של דת מסוכן

http://www.dailypundit.com/newarchives/006341.php#006341

12/13 posting - w/other links on what he's written before.

Bill coined the word "blogosphere."

Islam as S-E-D-I-T-I-O-N

a most interesting concept since by their own admission islamists proclaim islam not to be just a 'religion' but something more than a mere religion, and that should give us cause for alarm....

......read on:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/843436/posts

Gracias por su atencion

Hermana Guadalupe Kim

No comments from Bjorn or Oyvind on my questions. Typical.

Susan: No comments from Bjorn or Oyvind on my questions.

You mean do I "agree or disagree" about there being no excuse for Muslims to do evil things? If you really wonder how I would answer that question, then I'd be wasting my time giving it to you. If reading my blog for several years hasn't left you even the vaguest idea of what my views are, what good will one more comment do?

I guess today is the last day you Norwegians can comment on Islam without being bound by the shackles of Norway's new, wonderful dhimmi legislation. I still wish you all a happy new year.

(PS: Bjorn, what is this nonsense about "bl0gspot.com" being considered "questionable content" by the spam filter?)

Anthony: I guess today is the last day you Norwegians can comment on Islam without being bound by the shackles of Norway's new, wonderful dhimmi legislation.

Don't believe everything you read. First of all, this law deals primarily with religious discrimination (ie. "you can't get this job because you're a Muslim"), although it also restricts speech. Second, just about any law that restricts speech is bad, but that doesn't mean any such law is a step towards tyranny. Norway has near total free speech. I don't care what the laws say, there is a law against "blasphemy", another against "racism", and an isolated reading of the text of these laws might give casual observers the impression that Norwegians don't say bad things about God or foreigners, or say them only in hushed tones so that the authorities don't hear of it.

That impression would be wrong. Censorship of any but the most extreme viewpoints is a political impossibility in Norway. It doesn't happen. People won't let it happen. These laws survive with the wording they have only because they are not enforced except in extreme cases. All laws exist in a cultural context, and Norway's context is very liberal. Not liberal enough, or we wouldn't suffer censorship laws to exist at all, but enough to make nonsense of the idea that Norway now has a "dhimmi law". (In fact, Norway as a culture has never been more open for criticism of Islam than it is today.)

Fjordman and Bruce Bawer tell you otherwise, but then, as I said, you shouldn't believe everything you read. If you insist on believing this nonsense, please have the courtesy to contact some random Norwegians and ask them. "Is it true that Norwegians can no longer comment on Islam without being bound by the shackles of Norway's new, wonderful dhimmi legislation?" Go ask some of our bloggers, I link to 20 or so from the front page. Ask them if they believe a new fog of censorship has now descended over Norway. (Or better yet, I'll ask my Norwegian readers for you.)

Bjorn, what is this nonsense about "bl0gspot.com" being considered "questionable content" by the spam filter?

Sorry, I've fixed it now. Here's why this happens sometimes. If a word is blocked, and there's no good reason to, it's probably by accident, so just let me know when it happens.

"Censorship of any but the most extreme viewpoints is a political impossibility in Norway. It doesn't happen. People won't let it happen."

But won't the biggest effect of this legislation actually be _self_-censorship?

Sorry, I've fixed it now. Here's why this happens sometimes. If a word is blocked, and there's no good reason to, it's probably by accident, so just let me know when it happens.
Bjoern, it's a dilemma , firstly i don't know which word is being blocked .

All the message says is : your comment was denied for questionable content! The last time i had to guess at it. O.K. i even had to modify this short message to get it thro' the anti spam robo-cop.

Sook-Im

Anthony: But won't the biggest effect of this legislation actually be _self_-censorship?

I can't imagine how. Most people probably haven't even heard that there has been a further restriction of speech, and if they have, they'll either think "this doesn't apply to me", or "screw them, I'll say what I want". I tell you, Norwegians are truly not afraid of being censored. They know how rarely these laws are used, and they know that if they are abused - for instance if a Muslim organization forces a trial over a "blasphemous" statement - the public will wake up and force an end to it.

Norwegians don't care about speech laws. What they do care about is social acceptance or condemnation. There are things people believe in private which they are reluctant to say in public, because they fear being perceived as racists or bigots by other people. But then, this is so everywhere, and the problem is much smaller than it used to be. (And of course there are statements which are rightly perceived to be racist and bigoted.) The history of immigration debate in Norway is mostly a history of what is socially accepted to say, not what is legally accepted.

Bjorn, thanks for the response, but I am a bit puzzled by the argument that the legislation won't be a problem because it will hardly be enforced and because Norwegians won't care about it. If that's the case, then what was the point of the legislation in the first place? (That's why I asked about self-censorship, since I suspected that the mere existence of such legislation would lead to people treading more carefully just to be on the safe side.)

And, just out of curiosity, is there anything about the legislation _per se_ that you yourself object to? I admit it's been a while since I read about this, but I think I read something about an accused person having some (or all?) of the burden of proof in alleged cases of discrimination and had to actually (at least to some extent) prove his innocence - if that is the case, don't you find it unacceptable that there is even the slightest possibility that this legislation may be used at some point?

Oh, and Bjorn, do you plan on writing more extensively on this issue in one of your forthcoming posts?

Second, just about any law that restricts speech is bad, but that doesn't mean any such law is a step towards tyranny.

A so-called "libertarian" defends hate speech laws. What's next? A so-called "feminist" defending gang rapists? (Oh wait, we've already seen that happen. . .)

You mean do I "agree or disagree" about there being no excuse for Muslims to do evil things? If you really wonder how I would answer that question, then I'd be wasting my time giving it to you. If reading my blog for several years hasn't left you even the vaguest idea of what my views are, what good will one more comment do?

Since I've never once seen you speak out aginst "evil things" done by Muslims on this blog, but have seen you plenty of times speak out against "Islamophobes," I thought the question was a most reasonable one.

Oops! Did I just break Norwegian law by posting that?

Anthony: If that's the case, then what was the point of the legislation in the first place?

IANAL, but my reading of this is that this legislation deals with two issues: Discrimination, and hate speech. In both cases existing laws are strengthened, without anything radical being invented. There are already laws against discrimination and hate speech, and I believe the intention is to close what is perceived as holes on those laws. The part that will be actively used is the part about discrimination, (which makes up nearly all of the new legislation). The speech part is partly about sending a signal and partly about fighting extreme hate speech.

As for the burden of proof, the phrase used is "if there are circumstances that give reason to believe that a violation has taken place" then the burden of proof shifts to the accused. It does not mean the accused has to prove their innocence, but that the accuser does not have to prove the impossible, that the unspoken intentions of the accused were discriminatory. First the accuser shows that there is reason to believe that discrimination has taken place, and if that is established the accused has to show that it didn't. This is not a new principle, many countries use it in discrimination laws.

I'm not defending anything, just describing it as accurately as I know how. My own views is that just about any restriction on speech is bad, and that all of Norway's censorship laws should be removed. I believed this before, and I believe it now. I'm unsure about discrimination. I believe it may be right to ban discrimination by employers, and this may be difficult without a shared burden of proof, and as the worst punishment anyone is likely to get will be a fine, a shared burden of proof is not a major threat to our legal rights. Then again I'm not sure the problem is large enough to require laws, a shared burden of proof opens a door I'd rather keep shut even if I doubt we will walk through it, and it encourages the victim rhetoric of minority and anti-racist organizations.

So count me in as unsure and skeptical about discrimination laws, and against speech restrictions, but to the degree that I oppose this legislation, I oppose many existing laws as well, and I don't believe much has changed. The idea that Norway has suddenly undergone a radical descent into dhimmitude is idiotic. It's about what I expect from the dhimmi crowd and Islamophobes, but I was disappointed when Bruce Bawer called it a "dhimmi law". He lives here, he ought to have learned better by now.

Susan: I thought the question was a most reasonable one

Like I said, what good could one more comment do when you don't read the ones I've already written?

"First of all, this law deals primarily with religious discrimination"

"§ 1. Formål

Lovens formål er å fremme likestilling, sikre
like muligheter og rettigheter og å hindre diskriminering på grunn av etnisitet, nasjonal opprinnelse, avstamning, hudfarge, språk,
religion og livssyn."

I wont bother to translate, but anyone can see
that this can be interpreted as anything anyone
is willing to put into it.It is vague and covers
just about anything.But of course it is intentionally vague such that every possible case
is decided on the basis of someones personal "feeling", or on the basis of how the political
climate is at the moment.

This is the intention of the law, i haven't seen
anywhere it has been narrowed down to religious
discrimination.

"(In fact, Norway as a culture has never been more open for criticism of Islam than it is today.)"

Oh jesus.
What timeline are you talking about?
Was it a little more restricted two months ago?
A year and a half ago?
Or do you mean before the seventies when the topic had hardly any relevance to norwegian society?

What on earth do you base this horseshit on?

Is it from the fact that you read some criticism of islam on the internet you come to this conclusion?

Where is the much needed confrontation in the established media on the contoversial issues
regardig islam?

You talk about other blogger representing norwegian society in a false way, but you are
doing exactly the same thing yourself.There is not
a single country in western europe where the established media has not done nothing but stifle
the debate on such an important issue.
That there are a few cracks in the politically
correct wall from time to time does not change this fact.

"Fjordman and Bruce Bawer tell you otherwise, but then, as I said, you shouldn't believe everything you read. If you insist on believing this nonsense, please have the courtesy to contact some random Norwegians and ask them. "Is it true that Norwegians can no longer comment on Islam without being bound by the shackles of Norway's new, wonderful dhimmi legislation?"

Only complete morons will interpret it this way,
and fjordman has not said it this way.Everyone
understands that interpretations of laws are subject to the "feelings" of judges, lawyers and politicians.

"Norwegians are truly not afraid of being censored."

Norwegians or anyone in any country where you have
an "acceptable" level of freedom are not worried, because most people do not have a god damn controversial thing to say about anything.

People who have something of value to say have
reason to be worried, an that is exactly what such
laws are about.Of cource you do not have anything
to worry about since you are not a part of these
"repulsive fringe groups".

"There are things people believe in private which they are reluctant to say in public, because they fear being perceived as racists or bigots by other people. But then, this is so everywhere, and the problem is much smaller than it used to be"

And why do they fear being perceived as being
racists or bigots?
If the "multi culti" crowd was just a little
unimportant group would anyone care?

The problem is a tiny, little bit smaller than
it used to be, probably because the internet
has given people the opportunity to give their
opinion without going through the media.But as
to speaking out in public very little has changed.

"The history of immigration debate in Norway is mostly a history of what is socially accepted to say, not what is legally accepted."

True,but not entirely true.You use the word "socially accepted"."Socially accepted" i would think would apply more to "everyday" situations, and people have always dared to say a little more
in such situations than the would in a public
situation.
It is more correct to say that the history of the
immigration debate is a history of what is
politically correct.And political correctness is
pushed by people with an agenda, it doesn't just
"happen".

""if there are circumstances that give reason to believe that a violation has taken place" then the burden of proof shifts to the accused. It does not mean the accused has to prove their innocence, but that the accuser does not have to prove the impossible, that the unspoken intentions of the accused were discriminatory"

The paragraph does absolutely talk about a
reversed burden of proof, i don't know why you
are trying to distort it.
If the accuser has to go to the length of
proving the "unspoken intensions of the accused"
then he doesn't have a case in the first place.

"I believe it may be right to ban discrimination by employers"

Good to know what kind of "freedom lover" you are.

Good to know what kind of "freedom lover" you are.

He's not a libertarian. He's a multi-culti pretending to be a libertarian. Big difference.

Nor: I wont bother to translate, but anyone can see that this can be interpreted as anything anyone is willing to put into it.

Yes, but they won't. Like I said, laws exist in a context, and our context is such that we can be reasonably sure how these laws will be used. A good law should perhaps depend on cultural context as little as possible, it should be possible to understand its purpose with a minimal of effort, and even that wouldn't make speech restrictions "good" law. But the law has nevertheless been misrepresented. Fjordman has nothing to fear from these speech restrictions. (He might, though, have something to fear as an employer - I suspect he'd be anxious to avoid Muslim employees.)

What timeline are you talking about?

Ten years, or so. I'm thinking of both the mainstream media and the internet. The mainstream media has discovered and allowed discussion of the dark side of Islam and immigrant culture, neither of which were acceptable a decade ago, when the multi-cultural ideal of happy diversity still lived. The internet has introduced the concept of near-total free speech to Norway for the first time in our history, and though this happens in front of a smaller audience it's an important development. You may say there should be even more criticism of Islam, but what I said is nevertheless true: Norway as a culture has never been more open for criticism of Islam than it is today.

The paragraph does absolutely talk about a reversed burden of proof, i don't know why you are trying to distort it.

I'm merely explaining how this legal principle works, as best as I know how. Really, this is not a reversed burden of proof. You may say that anything less than a full burden of proof is a threat to our legal rights, and I'll respect that, but if you claim there's a "reversed burden of proof" here you've misunderstood what the paragraph says.

Susan: He's not a libertarian. He's a multi-culti pretending to be a libertarian.

I don't pretend to be a libertarian. Ideologies are for followers. I walk my own way.

Iran : A 17 year old girl is sentenced to death by hanging for defending herself against three rapists !

O.K. libertarians, centrists, independents etc... don't forget Nazanin !

No where in the world and under no law self defense is considered to be a crime, but in the tyrannical mullacracy of Iran if a woman does not resist rape she will be stoned as adulterer and if she does she will be hanged

Pressure Iran to free her !

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/601081013.htm

Takk

Sister Farideh Kim

Cartoon rage begets more cartoon rage....and now Norwegian Magazinet has published more offensive cartoons . Hoorah for Magazinet !

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009775.php

....and now the Norwegian newspaper, Magazinet, has received its first deaththreats today. One from a popular Middle-eastern e-mail service(not the provider, just an account provided by them) stating "You are a dead man!", another from a French Yahoo mail-address showing two pictures of burnt bodies.......

Magazinet har mottatt flere drapstrusler og likbilder etter at avisen trykket tegninger av Muhammed ......

http://magazinet.no/default.asp? menuid=&linktype=2&linkid=21887

Bjorn:

Bjorn: Yup, it appears that support for individual liberty is not uppermost in your ideological concerns.

Dhimmi Norway government bows to Islam:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/722

Fortunately there are more true and dedicated supporters of freedom in your country than you, such as the small and courageous Norwegian Christian magazine Magazinet that printed the harmless Danish cartoons in solidarity with the great nation of Denmark.

From the commentary on The Brussels Journal, the REAL letter of apology sent by Dhimmi Norway to the Islamic world:

I am sorry that the publication of a few cartoons in the Norwegian paper Magazinet has caused unrest among Muslims. I fully understand that these drawings are seen to give offence by Muslims worldwide, even if Muslims are never offended by what is written in their Quran and in the hadiths about the often vile life of their dear leader. Islam is a spiritual reference point for a large part of the world (The most screwed up part of it, but that is never their fault, of course), and your hate and anger is fine because you are not part of Western societies, so we cannot expect you to behave like civilized folks. Your faith has the right to be respected by us no matter what, and you have a right to murder us, take our children as slaves, torture our men and rape our women, just like in the good old days of Mohammed.

The cartoons in the Christian paper Magazinet are not constructive in building the
bridges which are necessary between people with different religious and ethnic backgrounds. Instead they contribute to suspicion and unnecessary conflict, or worse, may even cause some of us to think about the effect of Islam on Western liberties. On the other hand, threats, bombs, beheadings, rape and murder are very constructive, because they make so many of us into craving cowards - as you may have noticed.

Let it be clear that the Norwegian government condemns every expression or act which expresses contempt for people on the basis of their religion or ethnic origin, except those practiced by Muslims, of course. Norway has always supported the fight of the UN against religious intolerance and racism, except when it pertains to religious intolerance and racism practiced by Muslims. The Norwegian government believes that this act of cowardly surrender is important in order to avoid suspicion and conflict, and to avoid an honest anaylis of this issue. Tolerance, mutual respect and dialogue are the basis values of Norwegian society and of our foreign policy, but we recognize that these same values are incompatible with Islam, and so cannot be applied to acts by Muslims.

Freedom of expression is one of the pillars of Norwegian society. This includes tolerance for opinions that not everyone shares, except for Muslims, who do not have to respect others. At the same time our laws and our international obligations enforce restrictions for incitement to hatred or hateful expressions. Please understand that we have no problem with either the preaching of hate by Imams in the Mosques or even killing infidels - since these are outside our laws and obligations. Once again we want to make it clear that we do not expect Muslims to abide by the same laws and criteria that we demand from non-Muslims.

Mr. Terrorist, please be nice to us.

Signed....
Jonas Vidkun Quisling Støre

Bjoern wrote:

Susan: He's not a libertarian. He's a multi-culti pretending to be a libertarian.

I don't pretend to be a libertarian. Ideologies are for followers. I walk my own way.

hmmmm....they say , if it walks like a duck, qvacks like a duck, sure sounds like a duck to me :).....a lot of stuff you wrote and your opinions suggest to me that you have leftist and multi-culti leanings. I did recall your mentioning the word 'centrist ' in one breath somewhere back.

....but then you could be a libertarian agno-centrist if there is such an animal ? ;)

.....you know there are about 82 or 85 different islamic sects and many of their kult members are not beyond murdering each other - branding each other as mushriq or moonafiq etc etc...so you see as your buddy Senhor Oeyvind is so wont to say - Issslam is not 'monolithic' , yeaah as if it's gonna help us infidels feel more comfortable if Moolah Qaradawi disagrees with Moolah Tantawi over the finesse of Tafsir or Taksir etc.... I guess you'ses mah just as well be quibbling about the differences between Hodgekins versus non-Hodgekin's lymphoma hmmmmppphrrr.

Zus Ayesha Kim van Gogh

Until today, I have loooked upon the excesses of the "islamophobes" as, well, excessive.
Most of them, like "antipsykopaten",are people I'd not like to be assosiated with.
But after watching our government cave in to demands from totalitarians of the islamic persuasion, I'm not so sure anymore.
If the islamists doesn't want to fit into our society, then it's not necessary our fault.
And when they threaten us, the right response is defiance, not "understanding".

Kim Sook-Im: they say , if it walks like a duck, qvacks like a duck, sure sounds like a duck to me :).....a lot of stuff you wrote and your opinions suggest to me that you have leftist and multi-culti leanings

It is also said that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

kjell: But after watching our government cave in to demands from totalitarians of the islamic persuasion, I'm not so sure anymore.

The submissive words of a diplomat does not magically give tract-reading Fallacites any idea of what they're talking about. Jens Stoltenberg could convert to Islam and turn Stortinget into a Mosque, but how would that make the Islamophobes any less lazy and superficial? They have to do that themselves. It's not like there are two "theories", one that Islam is not so bad, another that it is totally evil, and there's a real struggle over who have the better evidence. There are many theories and ideas about Islam, based on various ways of understanding history and Islamic theology, but the blogosphere "OHMYGOD Eurabia will dhimmify us all!!!"-obsession isn't one of them. That's more like the Intelligent Design of Islam criticism.

I mean, when it comes to the "evil" nature of Islam I'm not saying anything Daniel Pipes hasn't said, except I'm less polite about it and I think it's appropriate to use the word Islamophobia to describe these ideas.

So yeah, feel free to be ashamed of our politicians, and be skeptical and critical of Islam. But seek out real knowledge instead of conspiracy theories and amateur theology.

I have personally visited(and lived in) islamic countries. I don't for a second think there's an islamic conspiracy.
What I have observed is a deep intolerance, from islamists, directed toward us.
Unfortunately, islamism seems to be very incompatible with our culture.
It would be nice if we all could live together, peacefully, holding hands.
But I think it's an illusion to believe so.

Bjoern wrote:

I mean, when it comes to the "evil" nature of Islam I'm not saying anything Daniel Pipes hasn't said, except I'm less polite about it and I think it's appropriate to use the word Islamophobia to describe these ideas.

........Islamophobia is a term coined by islamists to discredit anyone bold enuf to criticize islam and /or islamism. Leftists, multiculti's and apologists also use this term in cahoots with islamists to denigrate critics of islam incorporated. The term phobia suggests an irrational fear of something . It also cleverly begs for 'victimhood' for muslims/islamists - a most clever strategy that can only originate from a deviant mind of islamists.

Many people who criticize and offer alternative viewpoints on matters pertaining to islam/islamism and muslims are rational and educated people who have made a thorough study of the subject matter at hand. Many had even suffered personally the evil fruits of islam/islamism ....should we just callously and stupidly brand them as 'islamophobes' albeit their very genuine concern about the violence, murder and mayhem engendered by the tenets of islam?

As far as I am aware there are no Jains running amok in israel blowing up themselves and other innocent bystanders. I do not recount any zoroastrian or buddhist suicide bombers in south thailand or Bali blowing up tourists. I do not ever ever remember reading about Quaker suicide bombers blowing up a train station in spain or for that matter a Bahaii suicide bomber or just plain Taoist bomber detonating bombs on buses and trains in Britain.

I do recall the Cao Dai and some buddhist monks engaging in self immolation as a protest against the war in Vietnam - but that was an act of supreme self sacrifice.I do not know of any episcopalian jihadist slicing off the head of a muslim with a rusty penknife while shouting 'praise Jesus'.

Most interestingly i do not recall any Wiccans or new-agers engaging in whole sale rape of scandinavian women and girls after migrating to SCANDINARABIA ( a term most pleasing to the ears of multicultis , extreme-leftists , Oeyvindians and Agno-centrists)

..........so then if 99% of all those suicide bombings, looting, raping, mayhem and murder are being committed by those 'peaceful' muslims, would it still be irrational to fear islam/islamism....and if it is not irrational , then do not use the word Islamophobia . To do so would reveal one's naivete' ,foolhardiness, collusion with the enemy or being just plain lazy to find out the truth.

'So yeah, feel free to be ashamed of our politicians, and be skeptical and critical of Islam. But seek out real knowledge instead of conspiracy theories and amateur theology.'

.........Yes many of us here in the blog do seek out real knowledge . Some are into conspiracy theories, I'm not. What are the defining parameters of 'amateur theology'? LOL. Would having a face to face interview with Sjeikh Mullarumpa and trying to plumb his 'theology' as well as interviewing Sjeikh Tarantula upgrade me from 'book theologian' to 'field theologian'?

Sheikhah Ayesha binti WaKIM

Check it out Sister Kim -- one certain blogger really sees where the problem lies in the cartoon jihad: CHRISTIANS. Oh, I am sure you never would have ever seen THIS coming!

http://www.oyvindstrommen.be/?sectionid=10

You see, conservative Western Christians who
lobby peacefully for a blasphemy law (not that I
would approve of such a thing) are far worse
than Muslims who beat up people, threaten, riot and kill because of a few silly cartoons in an
obscure Danish (or Norwegian) newspaper.

I remember Oyvind telling me sanctimoniously
that if Islam's presence in Europe grew so large that sharia was implemented by democratic means,
he would fight against it for our sakes.

Where's your great defense of our rights NOW Oyvind? The cartoon jihad is basically a declaration of sharia rule over Denmark.

But you are Missing in Action. No words of defense of the right of the Danes to print what they want in their own newspapers, but plenty of jeers for the Norwegian Christian magazine who had the guts to demonstrate solidarity with Denmark by printing the cartoons.

I must admit, I really admire Oyvind's infalliable ability to root out the REAL enemy every time -- CHRISTIANS!

kjell:if you are ashamed of your government (and why wouldn't you be?), put up a blog and
start blogging in solidarity with the Danes.

Also, remember this about the "Islamophobes"
you are so afraid of -- if some jihadi slit your throat in the middle of the street in broad daylight like Theo Van Gogh for the "crime" of
speaking out against Islam -- who do you think would care about it?

Believe me, such as Oyvind would step over your bleeding corpse on his way to put up a post
castigating some conservative Norwegian Bible Banger for being rude to a Muslim woman wearing
a hijib. Only the "Islamophobes"would care about you. Only the "Islamophobes" would protest your murder. The others would try to hide it or de-emphasize it in the name of preserving the "multicultural peace."

I forgot to point out the money quote in Oyvind's piece:

The fact that Magazinet, the small evangelical Christian newspaper that has gotten the most attention for publishing the Muhammed cartoons in Norway (and probably partly did this as a PR stunt), illuminates the issue further.

How is it my dear Oyvind that publishing cartoons of a man who is, to Christians, at best a historical figure and at worst a false prophet, "can be said" to have violated laws against blasphemy?

Is it that you have finally taken your shehada, Oyvind old buddy?

Susan,
You hit the nail on the head ( and to think that people like Monsieur Strong Bear would insinuate that I'm the witch's hammer, that to a hammer everything looks like a nail hmmmmm...i guess criticizing islamist tendencies to slit women and girls throat somehow constitutes ueber-criticism of an extreme nature!)

The politicos of Norway must be composed of leftist leaning , spine-less multi-kulti , and self-flagellating apologists . Remember in 2003 when when Norway was shocked by an al-Qaeda threat, "the hope of the authorities is that al-Qaeda simply got their geography wrong." ..... the norwegian authorities were behaving like a bunch of sissified school wussies cringing in fear and hoping that the school-yard bully had simpley gotten 'their geography wrong'...and to think that the norwegian military and outposts in the far flung 4 corners of the world were waiting for instructions from that wussy bunch in Oslo LOL....haaaaah , what did they do then, Ohhhhh Senhor Oeyvind please refresh my memory , did they instruct the norwegian armies to hand out Hall mark cards and candies to the islamoid hooligans and terrorists with a plea : ' please pleeeeeeeez don't bash us nice mr. Tewwowist , pleeeeeez pretty please.

From what i read in the norwegian media a couple of days ago, Magazinet did recant and retract their cartoons and offered a muted apology ( correct me if i'm wrong) so did the Danes - and the nerve that the danish muslims are still complaining that the apology was not sufficiently contrite !!!!

Susan... I think you are right, Oeyvind may already have taken his shahada , his islamic credentials even show in his norwegian Oeyvind Stroemmen blog, where the top of the page shows a silhouette of a mosque ( i know it's not the Hagia Sophia ) superimposed on some alley-way in Oslo and a picture of what looks like models of a molecule of water ( probably for ablution of his sins:)....Oeyvind , darling would you be so kind as to explain those occult symbolism to us superstitious females :), it might help prepare us for the day when Shariah reigns supreme on norwegian soil LOL....could it be a harbinger of things to come? a new Eurabia, a new Norabia .... part of the sinister agenda of the axis of evil: islamists in cahoots with apologist-multiculti's and leftists?

Meanwhile CAIR/ council for american islamic relations is busy trying to stifle free speech in the US of A ......CAIR: Offended by Freedom of Speech

The Monterey Herald carried an article on January 27 about the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) opposition to comments made by on-air KFI radio personality Bill Handel.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/montereyherald/news/state/13726385.htm?source=rss&channel=montereyherald_state

Apparently, CAIR is upset that Handel made fun of the deaths of Muslim pilgrims to the annual Hajj in Saudi Arabia. CAIR is asking for an apology and an unspecified "reprimand".

We've seen this before.

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/press_012_05

While the comments made by Handel may be insensitive, CAIR seems to have forgotten that we live in America; where free speech is a God-given right, not a gift from the government to be withheld at will.

Handel, for his part, has apparently agreed to issue an apology if CAIR will agree to three conditions:

http://dailynews.com/news/ci_3459187

1. CAIR denounces bombings/attacks where intended victims are innocent citizens.

2. Acknowledge Israeli sovereignty.

3. Verify that CAIR has never had connections to any terrorist group or sponsor.

The Shariah is the law of the land in the ideal islamist Caliphate....this is what is in store for us infidels if the islamists have their way and eventually wins !

Read on and be informed:


http://www.freemuslims.org/document.php?id=41

Sister Ayesha Kim van Gogh

Kim, you are so right, I never noticed that Oyvind had a picture of a mosque on his website's banner. Kudos to you for being more observant than myself. Although I did notice his endless onanistic ecstasies over the obscure philosphies that Imam Ibn al-Krappomania al Krapptalistic al Krapp-to-fabulous wrote about in the 10th Century.

Kim Sook-Im:

"Susan... I think you are right, Oeyvind may already have taken his shahada".

Yes, everyone who disagrees with you, fair lady, has to be a Muslim. However, I have to disappoint you; I have not taken my shahada, and I am not planning to. I dont like pig meat too much, but I do enjoy wine and I do not believe that Muhammed was the seal of the prophets.

"shows a silhouette of a mosque ( i know it's not the Hagia Sophia )"

Indeed it is a mosque, and it is not the Hagia Sophia.

"superimposed on some alley-way in Oslo"

In Bergen, in fact. And not an alley-way.

"and a picture of what looks like models of a molecule of water"

That is the Atomium. You did not notice the fiddle, by the way?

Now, I have changed my blog logo, but since you are asking me so kindly to explain what it means, yes, I will. The occult symbols are symbols of the global society I live in and write about, including a place in Bergen, a place in Brussels, an old Norwegian fiddle and a mosque somewhere in the Middle East. Since I am Norwegian living in Belgium whos field of studies happens to be Middle Eastern history and Religious Science (aside of Journalism and Biblical Hebrew, that is) I thought that was a fit combination.

I never knew I was occult. Your conspiracy theories somehow does not come off as a surprise, though; therefore I am excited to hear what you think about the current logo?

And since Susan asks I have actually written quite extensively on freedom-of-speech, both in connection with the cartoons and in connection with the verdict against David Irving. She will not have noticed, since she:

a) probably did not want to
b) probably could not, as I wrote in Norwegian

In fact I have even posted a picture of Muhammed on my own blog. Admittedly, it was not a silly cartoon from Denmark, but a beautiful painting from Iran, but hey - a dhimmi is a dhimmi, you know ;)

"How is it my dear Oyvind that publishing cartoons of a man who is, to Christians, at best a historical figure and at worst a false prophet, "can be said" to have violated laws against blasphemy?"

Ah, so you mean that blasphemy laws only apply for blasphemy against Christianity? Well, not Norwegian Law, and we actually do have a blasphemy paragraph, which Magazinet can be said to have broken. If you are really interested - and that would be quite weird - you can always read up on the details of Norwegian Law (1).

There is a certain irony here. The editor of Magazinet namely supported the blasphemy law strongly when Norwegian politicans considered getting rid off it (thanks to the anti-immigrationist Progress Party we still have it). These days both the Progress Party and the editor seems to have changed their mind somewhat.

I have not. I have always opposed the law, and maybe we can now finally get rid off. I cross my fingers, anyway.

Øyvind

[1] Oh, yeah, the paragraph goes something like this: Those who, in word or action, publicly mocks or in a hurting matter shows comtempt for any religion which is legal here in the kingdom or the tenets of any here legally existing religious society, or who contribute to this, are penalized with fines [..] or with jail for up to six months.

It is a sleeping paragraph, though, and has not been in use for decades. "Life of Brian" was banned from Norwegian cinemas for a while though, cheers for freedom of speech.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1708

øyvindstrømmen.be: On Norwegian shackles, January 2, 2006 07:16 PM

Apparently, without me knowing it, Norway has turned into a dictatorship.