Bjørn Stærk blog - Theo van Gogh assasinated

John Edwards, NC, USA | 2004-11-02 18:34 | Link

He is not the first, and will not be the last. Once again the "Religion of Peace" shows its true colors. Europe needs to open its eyes and take care of the cancer growing in its mist. No, I'm not talking about killing or repression -- all you folks have to do is be honest and speak out against Islamic ideology. The fact is that Islam is not, and never was tolerant. Not in the sense the West uses. What Muslims mean when they say their faith is "tolerant" is that they will not kill you if you submit and be quiet and accept to be a third class citizen. If you criticize their culture, their religion or the murderer/slaver/pedophile they follow (PHUASS)you could get killed. How sad! How pathetic.

Markku Nordstrom, New York/Helsinki | 2004-11-02 18:42 | Link

I'm sure now every one will want to see the film he made.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-02 18:48 | Link

John Edwards: Once again the "Religion of Peace" shows its true colors.

You're being ridiculous. What is the definition of "true colors"? Refers to something that is essential, right? Something a lot of Muslims have in common. Most Muslims in Europe do not kill their critics. Almost nobody does. People like this assasin are part of the problem - but to claim that they're typical of Islam is factually dead wrong, at least for the typical definition of "typical".

I don't see why the case against Islam has to be overstated. Isn't it enough to point out, factually, that a lot of Muslim women are oppressed, and that many Muslims are apologists for terrorists? Why take the extra steps to claiming that assasination of critics is the true color of Islam, when you must know that this isn't true?

Franko | 2004-11-02 18:54 | Link

I remember a right wing Dutch politician, Pimm or something like that, was also recently assassinated for speaking out against Muslim immigration. Who would have believed that intimidation and murder would be used against Europeans that question Muslim immigration policies and assimilation problems. I suppose killing people that disagree with you is one way to make sure that everyone agrees with you. Unfortunately my guess is that this story will be quickly buried and the good citizens of Holland will be able to go back to sleep secure in knowing that these were only right wing radicals that were killed. Correct thinking Europeans have nothing to fear as long as they keep thinking correctly and don’t step out of line.

John Edwards | 2004-11-02 18:57 | Link

One more thing. I want to make it very clear that violence is NOT acceptable. Muslims should have the same rights as all people, no more and no less. They should also be made to respect our laws. All you have to do when talking to Muslims or when in a public meeting about Islam is to make it clear that as long as Muslims discriminate and oppress people in countries where they dominate, they are a bunch of dishonest hypocrites and they deserve absolutely no respect. Period. If the people do that, and demand that their leaders speak up about this, then things will improve for all - even for Muslims. Just because Muslims live a lie doesn't mean we have to accept it. We must demand that Muslims -- particularly those in the West -- be responsible for all actions everywhere done in the name of Islam.

I am very dubious about the integrity of Muslims in the West, in the sense I don't see a real committment for equality and democracy. I have a feeling that if Muslims were a majority in any Western country, it would not be a pretty picture. One thing is for sure, Muslims want to be known as peaceful and tolerant, they just don't want to actually have to be peaceful and tolerant.

So, take your Political Correctness and shove it up Big Mo's rear end.

Scott in Pennsylvania | 2004-11-02 19:35 | Link

"People like this assasin are part of the problem - but to claim that they're typical of Islam is factually dead wrong.."

On the contrary, criticism of Islam or apostasy from Islam is a crime punishable by death in several Islamic countries.

The word "assassin" has Arabic/Islamic origins.

To say that an "essential" characteristic of Islam is revealed by this act is not too far off the mark.

John Edwards, USA | 2004-11-02 19:47 | Link

Of course you are right, Born. And I wish more people were like you -- speaking out for freedom for all. It is true that most Muslims are
peaceful people. However, they are also people who are mostly silent about the issue we are talking about. Sure they condemn murder, but somehow it doesn’t make any difference. It is as if it is a game that Muslims play: kill, condemn the killers, everything is fine. That is why I make the actions of Muslims in Islamic countries the real issue, not what Muslims in the West do or say. When women, gays, Christians, Hindus, Jews and other minorities have the same rights as do Muslims, and when people are allowed to openly express their opinions and faith without fear, then we can dialogue with Muslims. When Mormons, Communists, Baptists, Buddhists and/or Lesbians can openly parade down the streets of Cairo, Amman, Tripoli or Riyadh, or preach, or hand out literature, then Muslims can take a seat at the table of the civilized world.

The fact is that I went to many meetings on Islam
after Sept 11, and it was always the same politically correct story: Islam means peace, bla, bla, bla. The West has to do more, to be more understanding, etc... and more bla, bla, bla. Here in my state they even invited a local Iman – from Saudi Arabia no less – to
lecture the public on how tolerant Islam is. These people have no shame. So picture an Islamic Wahhabist from Saudi Arabia teaching and preaching about tolerance to the American public. It was a scene that would have made Fellini proud.

Thats it... I have to go vote.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-02 20:08 | Link

I condemn strongly his murder, this is not the way to tell people that this man was indeed a piece of shit.

He did not criticize Islam, he INSULTED Islam, for many muslims anyone who dare insult islam will be killed straight away.

You can criticize Islam, that is your right but you cant INSULT Islam, this is MY right.

PS: I see Bjorn was very quick to start a thread about the murder of this ' piece of shit' but he did not start any thread about the MURDER of 200+ Muslims in Thailand last week !!!

Michael Farris | 2004-11-02 20:15 | Link

I have just about no interest in criticising Islam as a belief system (or any other religion) except in general non-judgmental abstract contrastive terms.

But I feel that Moslems and thier behavior are fair game (just like any other group) and you have to willfully blind or stupid to not realize that a number of Western European countries have created a dangerous underclass that's largely, though not entirely, moslem.
The fault lies in a combination of poor judgement and a refusal to realize whether or not they want to be, they are in fact immigration destinations and better act accordingly.
A generation of young Moslems have been encouraged to not integrate or educate themselves in any meaningful way (I don't consider memorizing a religious text to be education) and as a result are unemployable, dependent on welfare and resentful of the fact.
There's some indication that some countries are in fact trying to improve the situation but a lot of damage has been done already.

In this case, the young man needs to be dealt the harshest punishment available in Netherlands law (probably pathetic).

And the movie needs to be seen .... widely. The message needs to be clear and unambiguous, this kind of attempted censorship has _no_ place in a civilized country.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-02 20:17 | Link

Ex-Christian: You can criticize Islam, that is your right but you cant INSULT Islam, this is MY right.

Actually, that depends on which country you live in. In Norway, blasphemy is illegal but the law is ignored, and would die the moment anyone tried to revive it. Which means that I, at least, have a right to insult Islam. It is my right. And I suspect Theo van Gogh was well within his rights in "insulting" Islam (or whatever he did) in Holland.

I see Bjorn was very quick to start a thread about the murder of this ' piece of shit' but he did not start any thread about the MURDER of 200+ Muslims in Thailand last week !!!

I didn't have anything to say about that. I took note of it, because it was important, but I have absolutely no background information to hold it up against. I don't do news, I do commentary. If I don't have anything to say that I feel is worth saying, I won't, even if the subject is really important.

Michael Farris | 2004-11-02 20:25 | Link

"this man was indeed a piece of shit."

your tolerance is awe inspiring. consider me stunned.

"He did not criticize Islam, he INSULTED Islam, for many muslims anyone who dare insult islam will be killed straight away."

So you're saying that many muslims are incapable of living in a civilized society? If they're so pathetic that something trivial like an insult to their religion drives them to murderous rage then I don't want them in any country I'm living in.

"You can criticize Islam, that is your right but you cant INSULT Islam, this is MY right."

It's your right to insult Islam? Are you sure that came out right?

A.R.Yngve, Sweden | 2004-11-02 20:27 | Link

"Ex-Christian, now Muslim" wrote:

"I condemn strongly his murder, this is not the way to tell people that this man was indeed a piece of shit.

"He did not criticize Islam, he INSULTED Islam, for many muslims anyone who dare insult islam will be killed straight away."

Do the readers of this weblog realize, that the poster "Ex-Christian, Now Muslim" just made a covert death-threat against all of us?

Anything we say, do or write -- anything at all -- he might interpret as an "insult", and then he thinks he has divine permission to murder us.

Just because of how he feels. Because "being insulted" is a subjective emotion (often connected to "not having a sense of humor", very common among fanatics of all stripes).

I calmly await my death at the knife-wielding hands of "Ex-Christian, Now Muslim". When they find my corpse, you know who to look for.

(Just kidding. Please don't stab me to death, Mr. "Ex-Christian, now Muslim", it would be such a terrible thing to do, and my mother would be so upset to see my bloodstained dead body...)

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-02 20:28 | Link

Bjørn, Consider the Satanic Verses controversy

The publication of The Satanic Verses in 1989 caused controversy in the Fundamentalist Muslim world, due to its irreverent depiction of the prophet Muhammad. On February 14, 1989, a fatwa promising his execution was placed on him by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran, calling his book "blasphemous against Islam". Furthermore, Khomeini condemned Rushdie for the crime of "apostasy" – i.e. attempting to abandon the Islamic faith – which according to the Hadith is punishable by death. This was due to Rushdie's communication through the novel that he no longer believes in Islam. Khomeini called on all "zealous Muslims" to execute the writer, as well as those of the publishers of the book who knew about the concepts of the book. On February 24 Khomeini then placed a three-million-US dollar bounty for the death of Rushdie

How about this tolerance:

In 1991 the Japanese translator was murdered and in 1993 Rushdie's Norwegian publisher was wounded in an attack outside his house.

One has to separate the people following this so called religion from the ideology itself. The vast majority of the people are good. However, it's not accidental that a larger percentage are evil than the normal percentage of criminals in other societies.

Any group that kills people who leave the group is in fact a cult. Where did Mohammedanism come from?

"The Great Heresies," by Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953)

Mohammedanism was a heresy: that is the essential point to grasp before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was – not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing

ok, but how did Mohammed manage this?

Mohammed was a camel driver, who had had the good luck to make a wealthy marriage with a woman older that himself. From the security of that position he worked out his visions and enthusiasms, and undertook his propaganda. But it was all done in an ignorant and very small way. There was no organization, and the moment the first bands had succeeded in battle, the leaders began fighting among themselves: not only fighting, but murdering. The story of all the first lifetime, and a little more, after the original rush the story of the Mohammedan government (such as it was) so long as it was centred in Damascus, is a story of successive intrigue and murder

From what I can tell, it looks like Mohammed was a terrorist who used some Catholic ideas to gain power and wealth. It looks like the Quran has a bifurcation: the good and evil in one book. The good is the Catholic part, peace and brotherhood. (There are evil christians, but they can't find support for their evil in the Gospels) So, Mohammed added his own commandments, like "kill infidels". So both sides of Islam find support for their view of Islam. Cat Stevens has verses about peace, love and understanding (although he agrees with killing Rushdie), and the Osama types can point out evil verses to their young recruits.

For more info: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Quran.htm

from the "The Great Heresies":

It was remarkable among all the powers which have ruled these lands throughout history for what has wrongly been called its "tolerance." The Mohammedan temper was not tolerant. It was, on the contrary, fanatical and bloodthirsty. It felt no respect for, nor even curiosity about, those from whom it differed. It was absurdly vain of itself, regarding with contempt the high Christian culture about it. It still so regards it even today

Ex-C, your response is totally predictable, so don't even bother.

Michael Farris | 2004-11-02 20:40 | Link

Maybe Senor Yngve could carry on enough of an exchange in Swedish to establish if EX-C really is an ethnic Swede as claimed in the past?

Many have doubted his designation since he doesn't seem to have what you'd call a western mindset and doesn't seem to know the first thing about Christian doctrine.

It wouldn't be conclusive, but if he can produce native level Swedish in a timefly fashion, it would increase his credibility ....

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-02 21:01 | Link

Do the readers of this weblog realize, that the poster "Ex-Christian, Now Muslim" just made a covert death-threat against all of us?
Anything we say, do or write -- anything at all -- he might interpret as an "insult", and then he thinks he has divine permission to murder us.

Of course he did. It should not be a surprise. The problem with a lot of people is that they compartmentalize. They can talk about big or faraway issues, and disconnect them from their personal lives. They don't integrate concepts into a conceptual whole. So, they can talk about 9/11 as some faraway abstract concept, part of history now. Just a political issue in a large country that is a great big reality show, a soap opera for your amusement. Separated by time, distance or compartmentalization, it just makes for intersting blogging, eh?

But consider that a little girl jumped over a fence and ran to a drinking fountain, because she hadn't had water for 3 days. These monsters riddled her with machine gun bullets...

Go to this link,

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110104/content/rush_is_right.guest.html

Ignore the words (you can't vote anyways), just get real close to the picture, and imagine...

Imagine that person's family, without even remains to bury. Imagine if your child died at the hands of these people.

The lines at the polling booth close to ground zero were really long. Hopefully, they agree with Mike Moran:

Having lost his brother and 12 colleagues in the trade center, Moran said: "In the spirit of the Irish people, Osama bin Laden, you can kiss my royal Irish ass."

Pete, Paris | 2004-11-02 21:10 | Link

I also know nothing about Theo van Gogh - he is apparently the victim of an insane person acting for incoherent reasons - but the reasons given by a lunatic should not be taken as automatic condemnation of all those to whom a similar label can be attached. Drawing conclusions from the lunatic's religion is nonsense. There have been, and still are, unfortunately, plenty of lunatics of all stripes. Hitler does not make all Germans evil, Sharon does not make all Jews evil, and so on.

I think that Islam has been made to appear a greater threat than it really is, and is therefore becoming a greater threat than it need be in our European societies, for reasons which have nothing to do with religion - all of this murderous controversy has come about over the last thirty years or so as a result of the antagonism created, not by Islam on its own, but by the tension between Islamic nations and colonial expansion by Jewish and Christian entities acting in the Middle East. Whether or not the European culture may be considered a Christian culture - many would disagree - it remains true that the people of Europe are required to obey the laws of the country they live in - whether they are of that nationality or not. This is not, and should not be, negotiable. On that condition, everyone has the right to practise their religion freely. But it becomes wearying to note the current, constant, media-propagated marginalisation, not to say demonisation, of Muslims, who, as if by chance, also happen to be the proprietors of the lands and the wealth which the West presently covets. It requires no great stretch of the imagination to understand why Muslims might be angry with the West at the moment. They could easily find faults with "Christianity" in their turn, since so many Christians are acting in total contradiction to Christian principles. But the true problem has nothing to do with religion. Public opinion is being quite deliberately stirred up for political motives - Hitler did the same. Saying this does not imply defence of religious creed, however - neither one nor the other.

Allow me to include a note about religions which I posted earlier elsewhere on this site.

We know that the religious experience is common to human beings from all cultures ever since records have been kept - human beings feel or sense a truth, a plane of existence that can not be expressed in words, can only be hinted at - it may then be recognised by others who have their own approach to a similar experience. In most cases, the major religions are an attempt at expressing what seems to be basically the same truth. The cultural and historical environment may make for apparent and superficial differences in the basic form of these religions - the name used to designate the Supreme Being, for example, and the various modes of prayer - but all seem to agree that there is ONE Supreme Being, that we are ALL connected directly to that Being, and as such we ALL have equal dignity and deserve equal respect. It is the power structures invented to support these religious truths which cause problems, because a power structure first of all operates in order to preserve power. Since power seeks to take precedence over the will of others, it can be argued that this is the primary departure from the religious truth it purports to defend. According to the story, Christianity began with the teachings of Jesus, which were apparently reported and translated more or less efficiently - various interpretations have demonstrably been used ever since as a form of mass mind control as much as a set of guidelines for a productive life. I'm not qualified to speak for Islam and Judaism, but I would assume, human nature so far having been what it has been, that the same errors were made by the religious leaders of these two major religions. I've spoken with Muslims and Jews about this, however, and they assure me that violent imposition of one doctrine over another has no part in their religion as they understand it, on the contrary, they speak of respect and brotherhood. In fact, just as in Christianity, love is the word which arises most often. Until you feel love, you've no idea what it feels like - movies and songs and other people's stories may be interesting approaches to it, but until it happens to you, you don't have a clue. As soon as it happens, as I sincerely hope it will for us all, then you know what it is - and nobody can tell you that you must feel this, that, or the other. It's your experience, and it's up to you to express it as you wish - nobody would argue with that, I think, so what the fuck is all the noise about religion for? It's the same thing. It's a unique and personal experience, and no-one else has any rights over it whatsoever. The present mess in the Middle East is not truly a problem of religion, it's a question of colonialism. Islam seems to crystalise the motives of many of those who feel they have a right to defend themselves and their brothers against imperial aggression. There are without doubt some evil men who are prepared to use "Islam" as a means of forwarding their own power agenda - just as there are evil "Christians" - some gravitating around and manipulating the US power structure - and also evil "Jews" who manipulate the state of Israel, amongst others. Insofar as we get caught up in those lies and power games, we become victims of and parties to the current chaos. We may become victims of it anyway, of course, by virtue of a car bomb or a "smart" bomb, a "terrorist attack" or a "pre-emptive strike".

It seems to me that "love your enemy" is a daunting challenge, especially these days, but I feel it's still more worth while than "an eye for an eye."

Best wishes

Pete

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-02 21:16 | Link

Bjørn Stærk

''Ex-Christian: You can criticize Islam, that is your right but you cant INSULT Islam, this is MY right.

In the same token, in most muslim countries I have the right to kill anyone for insulting Islam, it is my right..it is fair, isn't ?

You see Bjorn, the thing you guys fail to understand is how Muslims view their faith, you can criticize Islam but you CANT insult it ( apart from insulting it behind a screen ! )

try and insult Islam in front of a muslim face to face, and let me know what will happen.

I mean you wont accept someone telling you SON OF BITCH, will you ? so if you consider that an insult and it is unacceptable, why is it acceptable to insult Islam ?

''I see Bjorn was very quick to start a thread about the murder of this ' piece of shit' but he did not start any thread about the MURDER of 200+ Muslims in Thailand last week !!!

Come Bjorn !! I know you have an agenda, when muslims are MURDERED in their hundreds, nothing appear in your blog but when muslims kill ONE westerner, it is all over the news !

WESTERN HYPOCRISY AT WORK AGAIN.

Human Rights Groups Urge Probe of Thai Muslim Carnage

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-10/27/article04.shtml

Steve in Michigan | 2004-11-02 21:18 | Link

The Netherlands used to have a reputation for tolerance, but no more.
The assassination of Pim Fortuyn was not an isolated incident.
It's a shame.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-02 21:22 | Link

Gunnar, Maryland

''Bjørn, Consider the Satanic Verses controversy ''

Salman Rushsie affair was a great example that illustarted deep rooted western hypocrisy when it comes to Muslim affairs !! first of all, his novel was a novel, it has no academic or investigative value at all, secondly, the fatwa issued against him was indeed stupid fatwa because it is this fatwa which made him a celebrity ! the muslim world was criticized for trying to silence him, I am wondering how many WESTERN SCHOLARS were silenced for daring to question the Holocaust ! look at these examples :

Teacher sentenced for denying holocaust

By Vanessa Medley

A TEACHER who told his pupils at a secondary school in France that the Nazi gas chambers were for disinfecting Jews was found guilty today of denying the holocaust.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/00/05/France150500.html

Holocaust revisionist sentenced

A court in Switzerland has sentenced a Swiss publisher to a year in jail for denying that millions of Jews were exterminated in gas chambers by Nazi Germany during World War II.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/708778.stm

Swiss Holocaust Denier Sentenced

One of the world's leading Holocaust deniers, the former Swiss school teacher Juergen Graf, was sentenced in July to 15 months in prison and fined $5,500 for violating Switzerland's anti-racism law.

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/updates/i98026.html

So it is ok when the west oppresses and indeed IMPRISONS people for expressing their views but it is not ok for some muslisms to do the same !!!

Back to Rushdie, here is an Islamic analysis of his novel:

The Satanic Verses unexpurgated
by Ahmad Deedat

http://www.themodernreligion.com/assault/srushdie.htm

The more I read about the western hypocrisy when it comes to islam, the more attached I become to my great new faith.

HYPOCRISY RUNS TO THE BONES IN THE WEST.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-02 21:24 | Link

Steve in Michigan

''The Netherlands used to have a reputation for tolerance, but no more.
The assassination of Pim Fortuyn was not an isolated incident.
It's a shame.''

But the assassination of this nazi ( Fortuyn ) was done by NATIVE WHITE DUTCH ! ( kind of divine punishment )

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-02 21:27 | Link

Michael Farris

''Maybe Senor Yngve could carry on enough of an exchange in Swedish to establish if EX-C really is an ethnic Swede as claimed in the past?''

Are you still at it ?? loooooooooool

I already made an offer to write in Swedish with native swedish speaker, but no one took the challenge !! so anyone here speaks Swedish ?

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-02 21:28 | Link

As usual, a sensible debate about Islam in the future of Europe started by Bjørn is soon reduced to a black-white fight between ex-Christian, who - as if what he says is not bad enough itself - is willfully misinterpreted and the typical anti-Islamic Joes out there.

Soon, Bjørn ends up being named "politically correct" because he protests against the idea that this is "the true colours of Islam". I do not know Bjørn personally, but I do know that he's hardly politically correct.

In Norway the anti-immigration Progress Party is becoming uncomfortably politically correct these days anyway, although they of course do not admit it and continue to sob about being overlooked at the same them as they're regular guests on political talkshows like TV2s Tabloid.

I do not think we should use any murder committed by a Muslim to raise a debate about Islam. This murder, like the murder on Pim Fortuyn (committed by a crazed environmentalist, not by a Muslim), is probably committed by a lone individual. Remember that debate about environmentalists and the future of Europe? I don't.

Since I happen to speak a bit of Dutch, here's my translation from an article about Theo van Gogh in the Belgian newspaper De Standaard - (my comments).

[...]He was a columnist for many Dutch newspapers and opinion magazines, wrote books like 'Engel' (Angel) and 'Sla Ik Mijn Vrouw Wel Hard Genoeg?' (Do I hit my wife hard enough`). When some of his columns was not published Theo established his own website - De Gezonder Roker.

Van Gogh was a successful director. He made over twenty movies, amongst these the movie '0605' about the murder on Pim Fortuyn. Currently he worked on the 'Cool', a movie where politicians Gerrit Zalm and Katja Schuurman had parts. For several of his movies he was nominated to the Dutch filmfestival (prices). Both '0605' and 'Blind Date' received a Golden Calf, amongst them for best direction. 'In het belang van de Staat' got a Golden Calf for the best tv-drama.

Gijs van de Westelaken, the producer of Theo van Gogh is bitter over the death of the movie maker. - There are no words, he says in a first reaction. Writer Ronald Giphart, the scriptwriter of the roadmovie 'Bad' can also not understand the murder. [...] - If it is true that van Gogh was murdered because of his opinions I do not find the Netherlands a nice country anymore, the Utrecht-based author writes. [...]

Theo van Gogh was not afraid of controversial opinions. He spoke very negatively over islam and concervative Muslims. Muslims were, amongst other things, angered by his movie 'Submission' made together with VVD (the Peoples Party for Freedom and Democracy) parlamentarian Hirsi Ali (well known Dutch ex-Muslim Islam critic). Several mistreated (beaten) women are shown in see-through costumes with their breasts are visible. On their bodies antifeminine Quran quotes are shown written in Arabic calligraphy.

- It can not be that two people are killed within such a short time because they say what they think, Giphart says over Van Gogh and Fortuyn. - This day is a huge defeat for those fighting for the free word, the writer continues. He looked at Theo van Gogh as a "brave, lovable and humoristic human being".

Also from the politics reactions are coming. The Dutch prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende expresses deep repulsion. - Our thoughts and compassion goes out to his family, friends and coworkers, he states. Queen Beatrix is also "chocked" [...].

Because the circumstances of the murder still are unclear Balkenende is careful with his conclusions: - I want to ask everyone not to draw fast conclusions. The facts must be carefully established. We must let the investigators do their work.

In a press conference he states that there is a "hardening climate" in the Netherlands. According to Balkenende it is terribly sad that people seek to violence. - This is a sorrowful day for the free word in the Netherlands, but violence will not get the last word in the Netherlands.

Balkenende refers to Van Gogh as a "forefighter for the free word". The prime minister says that the Netherlands is a country where people can voice their opinions openly.[...]

Øyvind

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-02 21:30 | Link

Gunnar, Maryland

You can rant and insult Islam the way you want, you are just a coward hinding behind a screen, I challenge you to say what you said about prophet muhammad face to face in front of a muslim !!

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-02 21:30 | Link

ex-C:

Quite a few of us are Norwegians. Norwegians understand Swedish :), so I guess you can prove your ethnicity to us. Anyway, I don't really care, I prefer to debate what people are saying instead of where they're coming from.

Øyvind

Soren, Denmark | 2004-11-02 21:37 | Link

And so a filmmaker was killed for making a movie critical of how some muslims use Islam to abuse women.

His killer will of course be tried and sentenced to a few years in prison.

The Dutch authorities will mouth the usual and expected platitudes of how this will not and indeed must not hinder our cherished freedom of speech.

But the intended lesson I fear will be learned all the same.

I do fear that today ten authors/filmakers/artists who were planning to do a work critical of aspects of practised Islam, will halt, consider that they could be doing something else, something safer (like attacking the US), and quietly drop the planned book/article/play/movie/song.

And so the climate of fear spreads a little.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-02 21:45 | Link

Michael Farris: Maybe Senor Yngve could carry on enough of an exchange in Swedish to establish if EX-C really is an ethnic Swede as claimed in the past?

No. As I said before this is off-topic and ad hominem. Just not relevant to any of his arguments.

Ex-Christian: In the same token, in most muslim countries I have the right to kill anyone for insulting Islam, it is my right..it is fair, isn't ?

You said I did not have the right to insult Islam. I do. So you're factually wrong. You think I shouldn't have that right, perhaps, but fortunately you're in no position to pass or enforce such a law.

I mean you wont accept someone telling you SON OF BITCH, will you ? so if you consider that an insult and it is unacceptable, why is it acceptable to insult Islam ?

In this context, "accept" means "not killing someone for it". That one Muslim didn't "accept" van Gogh's criticism of Islam, and that's what I'm objecting to. If he had just said openly that he was offended, that would have been a whole different matter.

Come Bjorn !! I know you have an agenda, when muslims are MURDERED in their hundreds, nothing appear in your blog but when muslims kill ONE westerner, it is all over the news !

I'm not the news. I don't have an obligation to cover important events, and if you think I have you've completely misunderstood what it is you're reading here. I have limited time and limited knowledge. Just one guy writing on my spare time about things that interest me. If you're not satisfied with what I'm able to produce, setting up your own blog takes about 5 minutes.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-02 21:47 | Link

Øyvind

This ' piece of shit ' described our imams as ' Allah's pimps ' and women haters ! he made his movie in which semi naked woman was dressing revealing cloth with QURANIC verses under her breasts !! you know how insulting is that for muslims ??

This is NOT free speech, this is slander and insults, in some muslim countries, people get killed for this.

in fact, when the great muslim hero, Salahu addin ( saladin ) crushed the crusaders in Hitin battle in 1187 AD, he captured the kings of Europe who were in the defeated crusade army, one of the crusaders princes insulted prophet muhammad in the presense of saladin, saladin took his sword and choped his hand, but the insult was heard by other muslim commanders, so one of them hurried to the tent and killed this ' crusader ' for daring to insult our great prophet.

This is ISLAMIC traditon, dont insult Islam, for muslims, Islam is dearer than life itself.

Free speech does not mean to slander and insult other people beliefs and what they hold dear to their hearts.

As Europe is asking Muslims to accomodate to European way of life, Europe has also to accomodate to MUSLIMS sensibilites and standards, after all, Europe needs Muslims as much as muslims need Europe.

Michael Farris | 2004-11-02 21:52 | Link

"This ' piece of shit ' described our imams as ' Allah's pimps ' and women haters ! he made his movie in which semi naked woman was dressing revealing cloth with QURANIC verses under her breasts !! you know how insulting is that for muslims ??"

You really can't imagine how little I care how insulting it is to them. Either they can get over it or go somewhere else where they'll be happier. Western Europe doesn't need specifically Moslem immigration. I'd say some controlled Chinese/Vietnamese immigration would do them just fine (and some immigration from eastern europe too). These groups are willing and able to assimilate and their home countries' educational systems are miles ahead of those of North Africa so they have that going for them too.
They also have the advantage of not being mentally unhinged (your own description of Moslems makes them sound as bad as anything LGF can come up with).

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-02 21:55 | Link

Bjørn Stærk

''You said I did not have the right to insult Islam. I do. So you're factually wrong. You think I shouldn't have that right, perhaps, but fortunately you're in no position to pass or enforce such a law. ''

No you DONT have the right to insult Islam, show me where in the Norwiegan law it says it is OK to insult islam ???

Do I have the right to insult your queen and burn your flag and defame your national symbols under the banner of FREE SPEECH ?

Do I have the right to insult YOU ?

Do I have the right to insult the victims of the holocaust and even deny the holocaust ? ( In some 'civilized' EU countries you go to jail for denying the holocaust !!! )

''I mean you wont accept someone telling you SON OF BITCH, will you ? so if you consider that an insult and it is unacceptable, why is it acceptable to insult Islam ?

The problem as I said earlier is your totall ignorance of the way muslims view their faith, Islam for all muslims are dearer than life, you can insult them, you can insult their countries but you never insult Islam, never.

''Come Bjorn !! I know you have an agenda, when muslims are MURDERED in their hundreds, nothing appear in your blog but when muslims kill ONE westerner, it is all over the news !

The problem Bjorn is that you are contributing to the typical western hypocrisy when it comes to muslim affairs, try to be FAIR.

200 + muslims who were MURDERED last week in Thailand deserve some attention, dont you think ?

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-02 21:59 | Link

Michael Farris

''You really can't imagine how little I care how insulting it is to them. Either they can get over it or go somewhere else where they'll be happier''

This is OUR land, we are EUROPEANS and we are not going anywhere and we will fight for our rights HERE, we will defend our religion HERE and if you dont like it, you can back up and go back to Lebanon or wherever you you came from.

A.R.Yngve, Sweden | 2004-11-02 22:05 | Link

I just want to point out that I have not insulted Islam, so please don't kill me.

Thank you for not killing me.

-A.R.Yngve

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-02 22:19 | Link

Øyvind, Bergen

''ex-C:

Øyvind''

Hej Øyvind

Jag förstår inte denna hysteri om islam, och om mig. Har ni inget annat att göra????? Varför ska de ifrågasätta vem jag är, debattera istället det jag kommer med!
Deras hat gör mig mer extrem i mina åsikter, de är nära att skuffa mig över tröskeln och göra mig till extrem. Jag börjar känna det som om de vill ha en andra Förintelse, en som riktar in sig på muslimer denna gång. Förra veckan dödades mer än 200 muslimer i Thailand, men INGET skrivs och debatteras om dem. Idag dör EN muslim-hatare och redan hör vi att det uppmanas till våld mot muslimer på forum och hatsidor. Varför denna DUBBELMORAL?
Det måste finnas en skiljelinje mellan rätten att säga vad du vill och förtal.

Det är alltid trevligt att tala med dig, du är den man kan resonera med.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-02 22:20 | Link

So, where's the debate about environmentalists and the future of Europe?

Anyway, here's how Dutch Muslims react to the murder (my translation from De Volkskrant - a major Dutch newspaper):

Almost forty Muslims in the Netherlands condemned the murder on Theo van Gogh in a common declaration Tuesday. According to them the attack on the filmmaker is an "unacceptable attack on the freedom of expression, the freedom of religion, the freedom that for makes life possible for all of us in this land".

The chocked leaders of Muslim organizations, social organizations and others state that van Gogh often criticized the multicultural society and Islam. - He did not hesitate speaking out. That he was violently siolenced is an attack on everyone in the Netherlands, the statement says.

Amongst the undersingers are members of parliament Albayrak (Labour - PvdA), Azough (Green - GroenLinks) and Örgü (Liberal Party - VVD), director Haci Karacaer of Milli Görüs and foreman Mohamed Sini of Stichting Islam en Burgerschap. Some non-Muslims have also put their name under the statement and the text will be posted on the Internet so that others may sign.

- The Dutch democracy has, once more, been seriously hurt, says director H. Karacaer of the Turkish social-religious group Milli Görüs, D. el-Boujoufi of the Moroccan Mosque UMMON and director M. van Diggelen of the Amsterdam Foreigners Centre.

Of course, these statements will be overlooked by those who prefer talking about "the true colours of Islam" and we will soon hear the mantra again "Where are the Muslim reacting against this"? It's a bit sad, really, that these Muslim voices have to come out saying this. Of course they are chocked. Every sensible person would be.

But some aren't. And the Ahmadiyya group quoted in De Volkskrant is right when they say:

Sadly we see that many Muslims do not act according to the teaching of Islam, and thereby give Islam itself a bad name. [Muslims should] share the love of Islam with everyone and help protecting the harmony of the Netherlands

And, while it is impossible to know whether the guy arrested was a lone nutcase or a holy warrior of jihadist Islamists, a fight against those "someone" is a fight that needs to be taken, as Bjørn says, "with open enquiry and rule of Law". That fight is much more important for Muslims than for anyone else.

Øyvind

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-02 22:22 | Link

A.R.Yngve, Sweden

''I just want to point out that I have not insulted Islam, so please don't kill me.

Thank you for not killing me.

-A.R.Yngve''

You are very welcome , as long as you are good boy and behave well with muslims, you are ok :))))

Brian O'Connell | 2004-11-02 22:24 | Link

I just want to point out that in the US, we can insult religions, deny the holocaust, and burn the flag.

Free speech does not mean to slander and insult other people beliefs and what they hold dear to their hearts.

Yes it does. Well, ok, not the slander part.

Anybody remember Piss Christ? That artist is still alive. *Allah's pimps!*

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-02 22:28 | Link

>> something safer (like attacking the US),

Haven't you heard? The US just passed a law making insulting the US a "hate crime". US soldiers will come and kill you. You can criticize, just don't insult the good ol USA. Coward, hiding behind a screen. You people just don't understand how americans feel about the US. You can say anything you want, but insult the US, and you can be killed, without penalty.

>> typical anti-Islamic Joes & "the true colours of Islam"

I hope you're not implying that I'm anti islamic. I'm just interested in the truth. I started out with no prejudices about the matter. I went to a reach out meeting at a mosque, the governor of MD was there. The first guy condemned the attacks, the 2nd guy wasn't quite that clear. Since that time, I've been gathering information, mostly from ex-muslims. There is a great iraqi dentist who has a blog. He asserts that he is now finding out that everything that he has been taught about Islam turns out to be false. So bjørn and øyvind, my fellow norwegian vulcans, I think it's fair to judge a religion by what the leaders of that religion do and say. They kill people for "insulting" Islam, and leaving it. That is no religion, that's a cult.

>> Salman Rushsie affair was a great example that illustarted deep rooted western hypocrisy when it comes to Muslim affairs !!

How? To be hypocrisy, we would have say one thing and do another. The west doesn't kill people who disagree. The west took no position on Rushdie, other than to protect him. It's Islam that is hypocritcal: You claim to be tolerant and a religion of peace, but your leader tried to have Rushdie killed, and succeeded in killing the Japanese guy.

>> first of all, his novel was a novel, it has no academic or investigative value at all,

So? This seems to support our case.

>> secondly, the fatwa issued against him was indeed stupid fatwa because it is this fatwa which made him a celebrity !

Right, which supports our case as well. Your leaders are evil and stupid.

>> the muslim world was criticized for trying to silence him,

Right, because you have no right to silence anyone. That is fascism.

>> I am wondering how many WESTERN SCHOLARS were silenced for daring to question the Holocaust ! look at these examples

I would say "None were killed". Your examples prove that. The leaders of Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc have not threatened anyone with death for insulting their religion or for leaving that religion. The US has no laws against telling lies like this. It's a marketplace of ideas. However, Europe doesn't have a bill of rights to fall back on, so apparently, they believe they can stop anti-semitism by outlawing it.

You can rant and insult Islam the way you want, you are just a coward hinding behind a screen, I challenge you to say what you said about prophet muhammad face to face in front of a muslim !!

Yes, but Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. It's just a matter of time before these rough men of ours will find the tolerant, "man of peace" who beheads people, and then we'll sleep even better.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-02 22:37 | Link

You are very welcome , as long as you are good boy and behave well with muslims, you are ok

I was once confronted with a criminal. The amazing thing was that he wanted credit for not hurting my family "I've been nice, I haven't pulled a gun on you and your family yet". I've thought about that as a common way for criminals to think. They think that what they do is good, no matter what, and if they choose not to do evil, they are doing people a favor.

AR Yngve, you are being a typical European: appeasement.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-02 22:42 | Link

I just want to point out that in the US, we can insult religions, deny the holocaust, and burn the flag.
Free speech does not mean to slander and insult other people beliefs and what they hold dear to their hearts.

Yes it does. Well, ok, not the slander part.

That's right. But remember that it's only slander and libel, if it's not TRUE.

Slander: Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation

And it's only applicable to a person.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-02 22:43 | Link

Ex-C said this in Swedish, so here's my translation and my response:

I do not understand this hysteria about Islam, and about me. Do they have nothing else to do? Why do they question who I am, debate instead what I am saying!

Their hate makes me more extreme in my opinions, they are near to disappoint me over the edge and make me extreme. I start feeling like they want another Holocaust, one targeting Muslims this time. Last week more than 200 Muslims were killed in Thailand, but NOTHING is written and debated about them. Today one Muslim-hater dies and we already hear that violence towards Muslims are encouraged on forums and hatesites. Why this double morale?

I think ex-C should not worry too much about the Muslim-haters, especially if that makes him go towards extremist ranks. I do not know if I would call van Gogh a Muslim hater, seems to me that he mostly attacked reactionary interpretations of the religion, but it does not matter, as ex-C clearly stated this is not the way to tell that someone is a piece of shit.

Of course, he shouldn't have said that. It does not matter. This is not something we want to see in our society, in the Netherlands, or - for that matter - anywhere else. Every political murder is an utterly sad event.

Ex-C, however, does have a point that all these attacks on Islam have a self-prophecy effect. When Muslims feel that they are loathed by their surroundings, they are indeed more likely to seek to extremist interpretations and variants of Islam. Ex-C, I have been disappointed by many of your statements here, some of them seem to suggest that you have taken up extremist ideas already and some of them can easily be regarded as outright threats. While you might be sarcastic, sometimes I get that impression, your sarcasm is not clear.

In the future, ex-C, I hope you will find inspiration in those of the holy scriptures of Islam that praise forgiveness and love. Keep in mind, as a wise man once said, about Mankind "Ye are all leaves on one tree and the fruits of one branch".

Or to say it as the Islamist Rachid Ghannochi, who asserts that it is the divine will that differences exist among humans. Such differences do not call for indignation or exclusion but for contemplation and complementation. Differences in belief, ethics or politics – just like differences in tongues and colours – do not justify the quet to eliminate them by force since that will violate one of the purposes of divine creation.

Øyvind

T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-02 23:09 | Link

Theo Van Gogh was among the first to fall but he won´t be the last.

But the more they try to keep us from speaking - the more we should speak.

The freedom of speech is worthless without the guts to use it.

A few weeks ago a university teachers was attacked on the street here in Denmark - his crime ? Reading from the quran as part of a lecture.

People are increasingly gonna suffer such as Islam gain strenght and momentum in Europe.

Talking about it, condemning it, apologizing it, avoiding it all together won´t change that fact.

David Elson, Australia | 2004-11-02 23:26 | Link

All those who threaten to, and use physical violence in order to silence the dissenting views of their crtics should be sentenced and jailed according to the appropriate legislation.

Dave.

Michael Farris | 2004-11-02 23:46 | Link

"This is OUR land, we are EUROPEANS"

Then please act like it. I'll take your word for it now that your a Swede, sorry for doubting you.

But, talking of killing people for their religious beliefs (which you are implicitly defending) has no place in 20th century Europe.
I'd like to see a strong condemnation of the little thug that killed Van Gogh with no weasling about how he had it coming, because
HE DID NOT! and it's despicable to imply that he did.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-02 23:51 | Link

Ex-C, however, does have a point that all these attacks on Islam have a self-prophecy effect. When Muslims feel that they are loathed by their surroundings, they are indeed more likely to seek to extremist interpretations and variants of Islam

øyvind, some perspective please. Appeasement never works. Good people don't turn bad just because you insult them. Real character is indicated by how one reacts to things. If Jesus is one of their great prophets, then what happened to "turn the other cheek"? The gangster Gotti once got out of his car and smashed the car behind him with a baseball bat. Now, was the guy who honked his horn at fault? or did Gotti have a character flaw: a propensity for violence.

Islamic extremists attacked first. America would leave the Islamic world alone, and never give it a second thought. But what was the first thing the Ayatolah did? He took Americans hostage for 444 days. They killed americans: Khobar towers, USS Cole, Embassies, OK City, TWA800, 9/11, Anthrax, flight 587, Bali bombings, beheadings, and a huge number of attacks in Russia, including Beslan, and many, many more. A town in Sweden has been taken over by Islamics, police won't even go in there.

For over three decades, terrorist organizations grew wealthy, they grew more deadly. Despite increasingly brazen attacks, American deaths were brushed off. Now, finally, the US is defending itself. The US is not the aggressor. The US didn't start this war, but it will finish it.

As Rush says of Freedom:

It is something that has to be fought for on a daily basis. It's something that far too many people take for granted. It is something that far too many people think that can be purchased with appeasement of enemies. You can't purchase peace with appeasement. I heard over the weekend, "You can only rent it for a while," but eventually you're going to have to make the buy. You're going to have to purchase peace. You don't get it because you want it. You don't get it because you bury your head in the sand and ignore it. You don't get peace, you don't continue the lifestyle of freedom and liberty that we in this country too often take for granted simply by wanting it more than the other guy.
You have to back it up and you have to defend it, and to defend it you have to recognize when it's under attack, and recognizing when it's under attack takes courage. Recognizing when we are under attack takes wide open eyes, takes honesty. Because once you admit, once you come to the intellectual decision, not emotional, once you come to the intellectual decision to admit, to understand that our way of life, that our freedom that, our daily existence as we've always known it is under attack, once you come to that conclusion, then there's only one option you have, and that is to defend it. We are under attack. The truth is that ... fanatic Islamists have been attacking freedom and Americans for over 20 years.

T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-02 23:55 | Link

To insult Islam - that of course is translated into putting light on it´s dark sides as it´s view on women like Van Gogh.

"Do I have the right to insult the victims of the holocaust and even deny the holocaust ? ( In some 'civilized' EU countries you go to jail for denying the holocaust !!! )"

No you don´t but apperantly you have the right to say as Omar Bakri did and get away with it - But it seems that Europe is full of appeasers feeding the crocodilles hoping it will eat them last - thus we are going full circle back to the ignorance 1930´s europe.

I used to be in the appeasers ranks myself hoping and thinking that clash of civilations was pure propaganda and Islam was just another religion.

But the different in views is just as fundamentally different between the west and Islam as was it was between communism and western democracy if not even more so.

Your sensibilties we can live with indeed but your sentiment of being ideological superpower I for one would like to see backed in facts in a real working model for society that people actually largely thrive in.

Now utopians are utopians for good reasons.

They will claim "but a true communist regime was never really coming it was state fascism" or "it´s all evil propaganda - Stalin was a comrade".

And no failure in applying this faith to the benefit of the people, no appeasement, no toughness can change the fundament of this faith.

nly it´s rise not to glory but total failure like happened to nazism and communism can probably change this mindset.

If the islamic nations should ever gain military strenght that compared to that of the free world is estimated as sufficient as to stand a chance ( in their view ) - war will in my opinion be certain.

Luckily this is unlikely to happen in our time - and Islam can be reformed - just not by us it has to come from inside.

Cornelius, USA | 2004-11-03 00:12 | Link

And the Ahmadiyya group quoted in De Volkskrant is right when they say:

Sadly we see that many Muslims do not act according to the teaching of Islam, and thereby give Islam itself a bad name.

I realize you didn't say those words Øyvind, but you agree with them. Islam teaches many things. Violence is one of them. So I am puzzled by this statement. Could you explain?

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-03 00:21 | Link

Gunnar wrote: think it's fair to judge a religion by what the leaders of that religion do and say.

Leaders? What leaders? I can find plenty of leaders that say the opposite of what you say they're saying (and you should know this). Heck, I can point at classical Quran interpreters such as Zamakshari who underlines that the Qu'ranic principle "There is no compulsion in religion" means just that. For instance.

And so it goes on in every - yes, that's right - every instant I have ever seen mentioned in a debate on Islam. T. Hansen quoting from the Qu'ran is an excellent example. Most Muslims will interpret the verses he quotes completely different from what he wants us too interpret them as.

Is it not fair to judge by what they are saying, as well?

Islam is what Muslims believe. The catch is, of course, that Muslims believe different things. Extremely few believe that all infidels should be killed in sacred months or not. Some more think that jihad, in the meaning "holy war", is a good thing, and that it should be waged not only for defense but also for spreading islam. Others think that the only legal war is a war of self-defence. Not even a pre-emptive war is okay.

What I am implying, Gunnar, is that any claim saying that a violent act is the true colours of Islam is stupid. Not because there are no explanations in Islam, but simply because many, many Muslim find no accept for violence (and especially not such violence) in their religion and simply because the Islam of these Muslims is just as Islamic as any other Islam.

The world isn't white and black, and these attempts to paint it that way, is anti-Islamic paranoia. Calling a world religion "distorted Catholicism" doesn't help either. Because of your statements about "French resistance" earlier on, however, I am willing to forgive you. You seem to be in league with a certain gal called Ann.

At least - you both seem to be going into overkill mode from time to time. It's fun. I probably do it at times myself. But it doesn't make any of us wiser, does it?

Oh, since I'm mentioning overkill and Ann Coulter in the same post, I might include this quote as well: In New York City, the chancellor of the Department of Education prohibited the display of Nativity scenes in public schools, while expressly allowing the Jewish menorah and the Islamic star and crescent to be displayed. Some would say that was overkill inasmuch as New York City is already the home of the world's largest public display built in commemoration of Islam: Ground Zero.

Amazingly enough - she's partly right. Ground Zero is not built in commemoration of Islam. WTC, however, can be said to have been:

Yamasaki received the World Trade Center commission the year after the Dhahran Airport was completed. Yamasaki described its plaza as "a mecca, a great relief from the narrow streets and sidewalks of the surrounding Wall Street area." True to his word, Yamasaki replicated the plan of Mecca's courtyard by creating a vast delineated square, isolated from the city's bustle by low colonnaded structures and capped by two enormous, perfectly square towers—minarets, really. Yamasaki's courtyard mimicked Mecca's assemblage of holy sites—the Qa'ba (a cube) containing the sacred stone, what some believe is the burial site of Hagar and Ishmael, and the holy spring—by including several sculptural features, including a fountain, and he anchored the composition in a radial circular pattern, similar to Mecca's.

I guess it's things like this that makes even bleeding heart liberals, nutty Muslims and crazed communist love America.

Øyvind

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-03 00:25 | Link

The explanation is simple, Cornelius. I prefer the Ahmadiyya interpretation of Islam before the Militant Islamist interpretation of Islam.

Of course they can both be accused for being far from mainstream, as you say "Islam teaches many things". Islam is not one thing, there are different Islams out there, and they teach different things.

Øyvind

T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-03 00:26 | Link

"Ex-C, however, does have a point that all these attacks on Islam have a self-prophecy effect. When Muslims feel that they are loathed by their surroundings, they are indeed more likely to seek to extremist."

Yea and it goes the other way around too. Now most of the misery of the Islam world who is to blame for that ? not that we can plead completely innocense but we get a dispoportionate share of that hate all the time - I say we and it is the western civilization - though more the US. or "Great Satan" as was Khomenei´s expression.

John Edwards, USA | 2004-11-03 00:27 | Link

So Ex-C (AKA Salim) is offended by pictures of abused Muslim women. Too bad he is not offended by the fact that there are beaten. Beat them, good, show pictures of them beaten, bad. Well, excuse me, isn't that what the Quran tells Muslim husbands to do? Perhaps Ex-C can give us the chapter and verse, then explain it away, or maybe blame it on the jews, americams, or maybe the crusaders.

The fact is that Ex-C is so typical of Islamic people and their mentality. All too often dialogue based upon facts and reason will break down and then either the Muslims start telling us of all the rights they have, or should have, or, just as often, they start with the threats. Anyone who has talked to Muslims about these serious issues knows about the threats. They are as certain as the sun coming up each morning in the east.

Gosh, I wish I had the right not to be offended. That would be great. "Sorry boss, that salary offends me... You'll have to pay me more" or maybe "Teacher, that grade you gave me really offends me, I am going to have to kill you. Sorry but it is my Allah given right!".

This whole issue of "to insult or not to insult, that is the question" is highly subjective. One man's insult is another persons question. Logically it makes no sense even to try to discuss it. The fact is that there is something rotten in Islam, and Muslims are basically incapable of honest self-reflexion. No wonder so many Muslims want to come the the West. I don't blame them.

Imagine if a person were to stand up in an Islamic country and have to research historical aspects relating to Muhammad’s activities as a man who made, owned and sold salves, or wanted to discuss the morality of raiding unsuspecting caravans, or talk about the hundreds of executions he ordered, or even wanted to talk about his rather lecherous for fondness for women (wives, concubines or slaves, ages 9 to 90). Do you think people like Ex-C would consider this legitimate historial research, or would someo poor guys head be rolling on the floor after the first sentence?

Thats all folks, as Bugs said...

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-03 00:30 | Link

Thomas:

Of course it goes the other way, too. But there's no reason we should accept any of those ways.

The misery of the Islamic world is to blame on many things. As you say, we can not plead complete innocence (far from it, in fact), but if I were to point at one single problem: The corrupt leaderships of the Muslim world are to blame.

The lack of democracy they've created today gives birth to radical Islamism. The violent political culture they've created has created accept for violence as a political weapon.

Of course these corrupt leaderships have often found friends in Western leaders, but that's another story. Or isn't it?

Øyvind

Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-03 00:37 | Link

Ex Christian . . .

You said, "He did not criticize Islam, he INSULTED Islam, for many muslims anyone who dare insult islam will be killed straight away."

Isn't that why many people think that Islam is not a moral religion? It does not allow dissent and disagreement.

Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-03 00:46 | Link

Soren, Denmark . . .

This is really the point, isn't it. Slowly our freedoms are being extinguished. This extends from people being afraid to comment on Islam to standing in lines, taking off one's shoes and jackets in order to pass through security.

In the U.S., the major newspapers do not discuss Islam. Have they been warned to keep quiet?

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-03 00:54 | Link

A town in Sweden has been taken over by Islamics, police won't even go in there.

I think you need some perspective yourself, Gunho. Maybe you believe the stories of Ali Dashti and DhimmiWatch. I, however, have been in Malmø (the "town" taken over by "Islamics") several times. I saw policemen. Amazing, isn't it? But hey - even Fox News managed to be more "fair and balanced" than you. They actually took the trip and traveled into the ghetto areas where Muslim youth have attacked police. Who took them there? A policeman.

Well, that you believe in silly stories like that makes me doubt your "research" on other fields as well.

Do you know when the first Muslim suicide terrorattacks where committed? No, I'm not talking about the Hashashins. They were nutcases, but just like their Jewish "equivalents", the Sicairis, were not suicide terrorists. Maybe you can say that Muslims committed suicide attacks against Western dominance in Atjeh, Mindanao, Sulu and other places most of us haven't heard about in the 18th Century, but personally I think it's more fitting to talk about a much later year.

1983.

Yes, that's right. 21 years ago. Who were behind it? Hezbollah? Who were the targets? Well, the first one was the US Embassy. Now, let's look at something Colin Powell once wrote:

The USS New Jersey started hurling 16-inch shells into the mountains above Beirut, in World War II style, as if we were softening up the beaches on some Pacific atoll prior to an invasion. What we tend to overlook in such situations is that other people will react much as we would.

Who started it all? We? They? Does it really matter or is this just the silly childish "But he started it game" of children, Israelians and Palestinians? The question isn't who started it, but how we're going to end it.

While it is sadly true that Muslim often fall in that trap, denying their own mistakes isn't a good beginning. Not for us either.

Øyvind

T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-03 00:57 | Link

"Of course these corrupt leaderships have often found friends in Western leaders, but that's another story. Or isn't it?"

Well if these leaderships were to be replaced with elected governments dedicated to their people I don´t think anyone would have a problem with that.

" Quran 8:12 Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes."

This can be overlooked yes but not interpreted as pacifism.

I am by no means saying that moslems are bloodthirsty people - whether a person can express utterly disrespect for another individual and kill that individual lies in the heart of the individual.

Nor have the very clear "Thou shalt not kill" from NT kept christians from killing.

But if a moslem feel the need to find killing justified in the quran above verse is one of the options.

But to the considerance of all there are more loving verses in Islam - here is my favorite one.

"All creatures are Allah´s children, and those dearest to Allah are those who treat his children kindly" Baihaqi Hadith.

That is pretty clear if Sahih I don´t know.

Cornelius, USA | 2004-11-03 00:59 | Link

The explanation is simple, Cornelius. I prefer the Ahmadiyya interpretation of Islam before the Militant Islamist interpretation of Islam.

Of course they can both be accused for being far from mainstream, as you say "Islam teaches many things". Islam is not one thing, there are different Islams out there, and they teach different things.

Øyvind

But in the context of the original quote I posted I don't feel your explanation is valid. Simply because you prefer a non-traditional Islam in no way validates your claim that Muslims are not 'acting according to Islam'. In fact, if you use Islamic history, law, or literal readings of the Quran as a guide then I think you can argue that what this man did was complete accordance with Islam.

And that's the rub. For every one person such as yourself who chooses not to interpret the Quran literally, there are 2 who do. And they have the advantage, not you. They have the Quran, the Word of God, as their proof. They can, if they choose, validate beating their wives, owning slaves, or slaying the infidel.

While there are varying interpretations of Islam, its fundamental ethos, Submission, is fairly standard in all sects.

Pete, Paris | 2004-11-03 01:09 | Link

The French Loi Gayssot of July 13 1990 prohibits the public expression of "negationist speech" concerning the importance (size) or the reality of the Jewish genocide perpetrated by the Nazis during the Second World War.

This law has been the object of criticism from all over the political spectrum - Madeleine Rebérioux, President of Honour of the Ligue des Droits de l'Homme, considers it "highly criticable" since it sets a dangerous precedent for the "baptism" of political truths, such as the system used by the USSR, and opens the door to all sorts of possible misuse, including the "martyrisation" of potential anti-semites.

"Racist" speech and "incitation to racial hatred" is also illegal in France.

"Incitation to racial hatred" is a particularly interesting idea given the context of today's media.

Best wishes

Pete

Soren, Denmark | 2004-11-03 01:16 | Link

Re: Totoro, US

This is really the point, isn't it.

I think it might be. I think it works, unfortunately. I think crimes such as this will tend to reduce substantial overt criticism (which can in turn be subjected to counter criticism, if there are grounds for it; and from there allow for a debate, or at least an exchange of views). It will also increase less overt resentment against Muslims, and there goes a spiral that will end badly for everyone.

Soren, Denmark | 2004-11-03 01:27 | Link

Re : Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-02 22:28

>> something safer (like attacking the US),
Haven't you heard? The US just passed a law making insulting the US a "hate crime". US soldiers will come and kill you. You can criticize, just don't insult the good ol USA. Coward, hiding behind a screen. You people just don't understand how americans feel about the US. You can say anything you want, but insult the US, and you can be killed, without penalty.

Color me skeptical. And just what in Sam Hill constitutes an insult? Maybe I did not get the memo, but as A.R. Yngve pointed out earlier, an insult is a laughably subjective term.

But I am sure you have a source to verify that remarkable claim.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-03 01:32 | Link

In fact, if you use Islamic history, law, or literal readings of the Quran as a guide then I think you can argue that what this man did was complete accordance with Islam.

No, he hardly was. I have studied Islamic law, history and read the Qu'ran enough to know this. There's a reason many Jews fled together with the Muslims when Spain was reconquered by the Christians. Intolerance isn't it.

1. Yes, Islam does have a bloody history. Is it fair, though, to look at Islams bloody history without looking at the bloody histories of every other major religion? Islam wasn't spread anymore by the sword than Christianity was.

2. Islamic law prohibits killing. Many classical interpretations do permit or even recommend hudud penalty (including death penalty) for blasphemy (while I wouldn't call van Gogh a blaspheme, this is probably a claim some will make). Such a penalty is, in classical understanding, not to be implemented by invididuals, but by Islamic societies and the penalties are not valid outside of Islamic societies. Islamists might have other ideas, but in that case THEY (and oddly enough YOU) are the ones leaving tradition.

3. There's not a single verse in the Qu'ran which in its "literal" meaning supports a murder like this. There are verses that, in its literal meaning and when taken out of its textual context can be interpreted towards accept of killing infidels no matter what. However, this has never been a mainstream idea in Islam, and classical exegesis interpret it otherwise.

Let me quote Zamakshari - a classical exegete of Islam:

There is no compulsion in religion, that is God does not allow belief through compulsion, but through strenghtening, and free choice. Accordingly he has said: 'If thy Lord had willed, whoever is in the earth would have believed, all of them, all together. Wouldst thou then constrain the people until they are believers'. That is, if he had willed, he would have compelled them to believe; however, he did not do this, but placed faith on the basis of free choice [on 2:256/257]

[...]

Whoever is guided is only guided to his own gain, and whoever goes astray, it is only to his own loss. No soul laden bears the load of another. We never chastise until We send forth a messenger.

That is, each person bears a burden, but he bears only his burden and not that of another. We never chastise: There is among us no principle according to which wisdom requires that we punish people, until after we have sent a messenger to them [...] Therefore, they must be punished because they neglected contemplation of that which was given to them (through reason) and thus disbelieved. Yet [they must not be punished] because they disregarded the revealed laws, to which there is no access without Gods help and which a man can thus obey properly only if he has first obtained faith [on sura 17:15/16]

While I am not a Muslim I do believe that these words clearly say that someone cannot be punished for breaking the revealed law without first having obtained faith in the very same laws.

Ideas like these are definitely troublesome elements of mainstream Islam, making the existence of radically alternative thought more difficult - at least in theory. The ideas you suggest exist are the common ideas of classical Islam, though, simply aren't common.

Øyvind

5 | 2004-11-03 01:33 | Link

Reading this thread, I realize that Europe is in deep deep trouble.

Franko | 2004-11-03 01:52 | Link

Soren,
I think he was being sarcastic. There is no such law.

Soren, Denmark | 2004-11-03 01:56 | Link

Franko,

Well, that figures. When my sarcasm-meter goes on the fritz, it is a clear and unmistakable sign that it is high time to hit the sack.

Gunnar, sorry about that. Will call a doctor to remove the foot that seems stuck in my mouth.

Cornelius, USA | 2004-11-03 03:05 | Link

There's a reason many Jews fled together with the Muslims when Spain was reconquered by the Christians. Intolerance isn't it.

Actually, intolerance is the reason. They were kicked out.

Your deviating. Christianity is not the subject here. All religions and cultures have violent aspects because they are human endeavors. But ultimately Christians who commit violence are doing so in spite of their religion, not because of it.

There's not a single verse in the Qu'ran which in its "literal" meaning supports a murder like this. There are verses that, in its literal meaning and when taken out of its textual context can be interpreted towards accept of killing infidels no matter what.

Sounds like your contradicting yourself imo. Either the idea is there or it isn't. Claiming interpretation or context isn't going to wash with the fundamentalist. The Quran is pretty specific on how to deal with unbelievers. Your Hadith and Sura quotes are nice, but they are the words of man. The Quran is the word of God and as such takes presidence. I could post loads of Quranic verses to back up my claims but I'm sure you've seen those and dismissed them.

So i'll quote Ibn Warraq instead:

"There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. At most there is a difference of degree but not of kind."

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-03 03:47 | Link

No, Christianity isn't the subject. History and how to tell it is. It seems rather odd to criticize Islam for having a violent history when this is the norm for all world religions, even including peaceful Buddhism.

Of course, you can say, that violent Christians did what they did in spite of their religion, but then it's you who are deviating - not me. The crusaders hardly thought that what they where doing where in spite of Christianity. Islam has had plenty of its Torquemadas, and Christianity plenty of its Ibn Taymiyyas. But Islam has also been spread by the plough, by traders and by peaceful missionaries (just like Christianity). That is also a part of Islams history, and your history view seems merely distorted.

Since you seem to enjoy Ibn Warraq, who has made this history distortion his favourite technique, that's hardly a surprise. Cut and paste-techniques might do good for firebrand preaching against any religion, but it doesn't provide understanding.

Furthermore, I did not say merely that the idea is not in the Qu'ran. If you read verses literal AND out of context (not historical context, which is of course also relevant, but textual context) then: Yes, you can conclude that all infidels are to be killed when not in sacred months. However, as mentioned, that has never been a mainstream interpretation, and it isn't even the interpretation of extreme Islamists of today.

You can probably post heaps of Quranic verses to "proove" that your right, but the fact remains; to make the points that T. Hansen tried to make above you will have to overlook the textual context, not merely the historical one. To make points about Islam having violent aspects, something that - from a religious scientific perspective can not be denied (just like for Hinduism, for instance) - you will not need to disregard textual context, since suras 8 and 9, for instance, are militant in their approach. But then you are disregarding historical context. While that might be a fundamentalist trick with longer roots than Islamism, it wasn't the method of classical interpreters like Zamakshari and it definitely is not the method of modern interpreters.

Btw, I have not quoted hadith, merely the Quran and Zamaksharis exegesis of the Quranic verses. Unlike Ibn Warraq - a secularist defending his own belief (as he has every right to) and trying to sell as many books as possible to right-wing Americans - Zamakshari is a renowned classical exegete of Islam.

Let me quote from al Mizan, an (Shia) exegesis by Al-Allamah al-Sayyid Muhammad Husayn at-Tabataba'i (1892-1981):

“There is no compulsion in the religion” negates and disapproves compulsion and coercion in religion. Religion is a set of truths which are believed in, and some of them are then acted upon. In short, religion is belief and faith, it is a matter of conscience, and such a thing cannot, be created by coercion and compulsion. One may force someone to do a certain physical action against his will but he cannot be forced to believe against his will. Belief follows reason and understanding; and nothing but reason and understanding can create it.

“There is no compulsion in religion” may be treated as a bit of information or a piece of legislation. If it is information of a creative decree, it will give rise to a legislative order that compulsion should not be used in matters of belief and faith. And if it is an order in the form of information then the meaning is clear. Apparently, this alternative is more correct, because the next sentence (“truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error”) gives the reason for this legislation. And this prohibition of compulsion for religion is based on a factor of creation: the fact that compulsion can influence physical action but not matters connected with the heart and conscience.

“Truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error”: As mentioned above, it gives the reason for the prohibition of compulsion. A wise person resorts to compulsion only when the truth of the order cannot be explained, either because the person so coerced has no capacity to understand it or for some other reasons. But there is no need for compulsion in an important matter whose advantages and disadvantages are clearly defined and the reward and punishment of accepting and rejecting well-explained. A man, in such a clear matter, should be free to choose his course of action himself - whether he takes it or rejects it, whether he wants the rewards of obedience or is prepared to take the punishment. The realities of religion have been explained, and its path well-laid; the divine revelation and prophetic explanation have illuminated this highway to the utmost degree. It has now been made clear that the religion is truth, that the only right thing is to accept it and follow it; and that if one deviates from this road he will fall in perdition. Why should anyone, after all these clarifications, compel others to follow the religion?

It is one of the verses that show that Islam is not based on the sword and killing, and that it does not allow Muslims to compel or coerce others to accept Islam. It is contrary to the view held by many Muslims and non-Muslims alike that Islam is the religion of the sword. They bring as their evidence the legislation of jihad which is one of the pillars of Islam.

We have already clarified, while writing the commentary on the verses of fighting, that the fighting ordained by Islam is not for the purpose of material advancement nor for spreading the religion by force. It was ordained only for reviving the truth and defending the most precious treasure of nature - the faith of monotheism. Where monotheism is accepted by the people - even if they remain Jew or Christian - Islam does not fight with them. Therefore, the objection arises from clouded thinking.

The verse: “There is no compulsion in the religion”, is not abrogated by the verse of the sword, although some writers think so. The order is followed by its reason: "truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error". Such an order cannot be cancelled unless and until its reason is also abrogated. So long as the reason is valid the rule must remain valid. There is no need to emphasize that the verse of the sword cannot negate the clear distinction of the right way from error. For example, the verses: . . . and kill them wherever you find them. . . (4:89) and: And fight in the way of Allah . . . (2:190), have no effect whatsoever on the clear distinction of truth from falsehood; and therefore they cannot abrogate an order based on that distinction.

In other words, this order is based on the fact that the right way is made clearly distinct from error. And this distinction is as valid after the revelation of the verses of fighting as it was before that. And as the cause is not changed, the effect, that is, the said order, cannot be changed or cancelled.

Muhammad Abduh, a late 19th century modernist and sheikh of al Azhar (as mainstream as it gets in the Muslim world) has also written:

He has cited several verses in support of his thesis. He construes: There shall be no compulsion in religion (2:257); as both laying down a principle and as a command addressed to the Holy Prophet, peace be on him. Thus the Holy Prophet was directed that he was not to exercise compulsion in matters of religion; he was to admonish, for he was but an admonisher (88:22) and had no authority to compel people (88:23). This has been interpreted as meaning that the Holy Prophet had not been set in authority over people to compel them to carry out his will and to accept that which he believed to be the truth. He then cites: We know well what they say, and thou hast not been appointed a despot over them. So admonish, by means of the Quran, him who fears the warning (50:46). The Holy Prophet had no responsibility in respect of those who did not fear God's warning. God well knew all that they said in refutation. Then it is said: Thou art not charged with guiding them to the right path; it is Allah who guides whomsoever He pleases (2:273). He then says that vakil connotes a guardian to whom God may have committed authority to punish creatures for their sins.

These are the very same ideas that you will find on most Islam sites on the Internet, whether Shia or Sunni, Arabic, Norwegian, Danish or American, Ahmadiyya or Islamist. "There is no compulsion in religion" is a sura from the Qu'ran, it has not been abrogated by the verse of the Sword, according to mainstream Islamic analysis it is highly valid and it means exactly what it says.

While there are problems within mainstream Islam, like the tendency to trust previous authorities that people like al-Afghani, Abduh, Rashid Rida and even outright Islamists like Banna protested against, a tendency towards anti-Semitism and (these days) a tendency to excuse or overlook Muslim-committed atrocities (ref. Irshad Manji: The trouble of Islam), the ideas you claim are responsible for the murder of van Gogh are in no way mainstream.

Øyvind

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-03 03:52 | Link

By the way, while I did not quote hadith I did quote suras, yes. How you manage to think that
"Your Hadith and Sura quotes are nice, but they are the words of man. The Quran is the word of God and as such takes presidence" beats me however.

Suras are, as a matter of fact, verses of the Qu'ran - you know, that Holy Book, "the word of God that takes presidence".

Please.

Øyvind

David Elson, Australia | 2004-11-03 04:15 | Link

The islam facists will have done their worse, if they can force our societies to be as monotheistic and as stricly controlling as their own.

What differences does ideology make when a state increases its control upon its people? When it enlarges its scope of power in the pretense of the pubic good?

It doesn't matter if a state removes, individual freedom due to an intrepretation of Islamic law (Islame facist), or in the interests of national security (US neo-cons), and to take action against mythical "enemies of the people" (Cuba, Russia).

It worries me that these dogmatic practices could be pulled further and further into the political norm, with christian conservatives dominating and overturning formerly liberal democracies, and europeans and middle eastern nations becoming more polarised due to American global interventions.

I don't want to see an increase in centralised state power in EU or in the US.

And I certainly don't want to see increasing power in the hands of Islamic facists in the middle east.

Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-03 05:07 | Link

David Elson, Australia . . .

You said: "It doesn't matter if a state removes, individual freedom due to an intrepretation of Islamic law (Islame facist), or in the interests of national security (US neo-cons),

I guess "US neo-con" has become like the "boogie man." Any idea you don't like can be pinned to the "neo-cons."

Hey, fella--I'm a "neo-con." BOOOGA BOOOOGA BOOOOGA

;-)

David Elson, Australia | 2004-11-03 06:48 | Link

Then let me be more specific concerning that neo-con remark. George Bush's statist enlargement of the US government (in terms of departments), his massive spending sprees and huge budgets, and his use of government funds to implement his neo-christian religious beliefs (ie using police resources to stop the abortions of unwanted pregnancies) terrifies me, as much as Islam clerics who weild totalitarian control over their shitty little states, and the communistic social democrats in Europe who are getting even more support from the peoples of europe (inspite of shithouse economies resulting from poor economic management), alienated by the actions and interventions of American's in the world.

Freedom and liberty have never been as threatend as they are now.

Cheers

David

Mark Amerman | 2004-11-03 06:59 | Link

David,

I'm no fan of "massive spending sprees and huge budgets"
and actually do think that such if taken far enough can
threaten human freedom, but I'm having trouble with
"using police resources to stop the abortions of unwanted
pregnancies." I'm american and have no idea what you're
referring to.

David, Queensland, Australia | 2004-11-03 07:37 | Link

"The legislation in America for the first time in history bans a medical procedure without making any exception for the health of the woman."

Mark,

How will Bush enforce his banns (proposed or otherwise) on abortions in America?

How else can he drag dissenting doctors and mothers to face court without the (mis)use of the police manpower?

Not to mention the waste of public funds required for the courts to hold trials in relation to this. Judges salaries and other associated expenses don't come cheap!!

Links about Bush and Abortion:

http://www.cnsnews.com/InDepth/archive/199903/IND19990310b.html

http://www.issues2000.org/MyWay/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3212348.stm

Cheers,

Dave ;-)

Oisín, Oregon, USA | 2004-11-03 08:03 | Link

There are similarities between the Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions with regard to their oppression of women. But while the latter culture has progressed towards equality of the sexes in the 21st century, the former seems to be stuck in the 6th century. That's just the way traditionalist Imams, who teach young Muslims and otherwise lead the Muslim society, want to keep it.

When women from Western societies immigrate to Muslim societies, it does not seem unreasonable that they should have to concede some rights to get along in their new country. When women from Muslim societies immigrate to Western societies, one would think that they should be able to take full advantage of their rights in their new countries, but the males do not permit this. The traditionalist Imams teach that Muslims should in most respects live apart from the larger society of infidels and not be tempted to change their ancient ways.

So we end up with 6th century Muslim enclaves in our 21st century Western societies. It's no wonder that there are unsuccessful and even tragic interactions between residents of these very different societies. If we had a time machine and brought hundreds of thousands of Medieval Jews and Christians to live in 21st century Europe, Scandinavia, or America, there would be similarly unsuccessful or tragic interactions between them and their contemporary Judeo-Christian countrymen.

Until the Muslim immigrants are willing and able to become integrated into the larger society--which does not mean abandoning their religion but does mean practising it in a way that is more contemporary and compatible with their new country--there is going to be friction. And enough friction can create combustion. We're seeing the smoke and flames already.

Sensi, paris | 2004-11-03 08:14 | Link

Well, as any murder its a shame.
btw dunno Theo van Gogh work as many.

@ Franko | 2004-11-02 18:54

« I remember a right wing Dutch politician, Pimm or something like that, was also recently assassinated for speaking out against Muslim immigration. »

He was an extreme-right politician and was assassinated by a non-muslim anarchist, no?

Best regards,
Sensi

Sensi, paris | 2004-11-03 08:24 | Link

Oisín, Oregon, USA | 2004-11-03 08:03

« But while the latter culture has progressed towards equality of the sexes in the 21st century, the former seems to be stuck in the 6th century »

Go to Turkey (they had female vote & parliamentarian before many Judeo-Christian tradition's countries), Tunisia... as i did, you will have a more balanced opinion.

Best regards,
Sensi

David Elson, Queensland, Australia | 2004-11-03 08:56 | Link

Well I am somebody who is very supportive of women's rights. Here are the years that women were given sufferage (the right to vote, stand for elections).

Australia 1902

Norway 1913
France 1944
America 1920
Turkey 1923

http://www.byegm.gov.tr/YAYINLARIMIZ/newspot/2001/jan_feb/n17.htm

http://www.wcc2002.asn.au/suffrage.htm

http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/suffrage.htm

I should hope that Turkey's treatment of ethnic minorities continues to improve, their governments actions during the 2nd Guld War were truly disgraceful. With their attempts at intervention arguably even more unjust than that of the Americans.[http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/text3-21-2003-37785.asp]

At least America toppled a murderous dictator and had mythical weapons of MD as an excuse, Turkey just wanted to kill some Kurds.

Dave Elson, Australia | 2004-11-03 08:58 | Link