Bjørn Stærk blog - Defending against the Islamic "threat"

Thomas Bolding Hansen - Denmark | 2005-11-11 00:34 | Link

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 ?

Mark Amerman | 2005-11-11 04:23 | Link

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.

Nor | 2005-11-11 04:57 | Link

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?

Sandy P | 2005-11-11 06:49 | Link

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.

Sandy P | 2005-11-11 07:19 | Link

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

Sandy P | 2005-11-11 07:48 | Link

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."

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-11-11 08:33 | Link

"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.

Anthony | 2005-11-11 15:06 | Link

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?

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-11-11 15:32 | Link

"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.

Sandy P | 2005-11-11 15:35 | Link

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.

Sandy P | 2005-11-11 15:38 | Link

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

Anthony | 2005-11-11 16:09 | Link

"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?

Susan | 2005-11-11 16:17 | Link

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.

Susan | 2005-11-11 16:20 | Link

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

Susan | 2005-11-11 16:26 | Link

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.

Susan | 2005-11-11 17:01 | Link

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.

Cosmophant, Sweden | 2005-11-11 17:28 | Link

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!

kim sook-im | 2005-11-11 17:31 | Link

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

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-11-11 17:38 | Link

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.

Susan | 2005-11-11 17:53 | Link

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!

Susan | 2005-11-11 17:55 | Link

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

Susan | 2005-11-11 18:01 | Link

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.

Anthony | 2005-11-11 18:04 | Link

"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?

Susan | 2005-11-11 18:04 | Link

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.

Susan | 2005-11-11 18:06 | Link

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.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-11-11 18:19 | Link

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.

Anthony | 2005-11-11 18:32 | Link

"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.

Susan | 2005-11-11 18:32 | Link

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?

Susan | 2005-11-11 18:35 | Link

"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.

Susan | 2005-11-11 19:55 | Link

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.

Susan | 2005-11-11 20:03 | Link

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?

Susan | 2005-11-11 20:06 | Link

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.

Sandy P | 2005-11-11 21:20 | Link

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

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

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

Sandy P | 2005-11-11 22:13 | Link

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.

Baard, Oslo | 2005-11-11 22:38 | Link

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?

Susan | 2005-11-11 23:34 | Link

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.

Bill Rowan, Modesto, CA | 2005-11-12 00:33 | Link

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.

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-11-12 01:10 | Link

"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.

Anthony | 2005-11-12 01:21 | Link

"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.

Bill Rowan | 2005-11-12 01:25 | Link

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.

Michael, Belgium | 2005-11-12 01:25 | Link

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.

Bill Rowan | 2005-11-12 01:33 | Link

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.

Susan | 2005-11-12 02:13 | Link

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.

Susan | 2005-11-12 02:17 | Link

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.

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-11-12 10:05 | Link

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.

Cosmophant, Sweden | 2005-11-12 10:09 | Link

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.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-11-12 11:46 | Link

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.

Cosmophant, Sweden | 2005-11-12 12:57 | Link

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?

Baard, Oslo | 2005-11-12 13:27 | Link

‘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?

Bill Rowan | 2005-11-12 13:51 | Link

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.

Michael, BELGIUM | 2005-11-12 14:12 | Link

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.

Anthony | 2005-11-12 14:36 | Link

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

Stijn, Belgium | 2005-11-12 14:41 | Link

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!!

Cosmophant, Sweden | 2005-11-12 15:02 | Link

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.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-11-12 15:13 | Link

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

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

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.

Cosmophant, Sweden | 2005-11-12 15:54 | Link

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.

Sandy P | 2005-11-12 16:25 | Link

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.

Saandy P | 2005-11-12 16:28 | Link

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

People assume the western definition.

Susan | 2005-11-12 16:51 | Link

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.

Susan | 2005-11-12 16:56 | Link

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.

Sandy P | 2005-11-12 17:30 | Link

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.

Sandy P | 2005-11-12 17:31 | Link

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

Sandy P | 2005-11-12 17:33 | Link

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?

Susan | 2005-11-12 17:37 | Link

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.

Susan | 2005-11-12 17:41 | Link

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.

José María | 2005-11-12 17:57 | Link

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.

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-11-12 18:19 | Link

"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.

Susan | 2005-11-12 18:21 | Link

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?

Cosmophant, Sweden | 2005-11-12 18:26 | Link

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.

Sandy P | 2005-11-12 19:20 | Link

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.

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-11-12 19:22 | Link

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.

Sandy P | 2005-11-12 19:26 | Link

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?

Sandy P | 2005-11-12 19:27 | Link

Ack, I hate fast fingers, tenet.

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

Sandy P | 2005-11-12 19:32 | Link

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....

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-11-12 19:43 | Link

"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 [...]

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-11-12 19:49 | Link

"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.

José María, Spain | 2005-11-12 20:26 | Link

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?

Thomas Bolding Hansen - Denmark | 2005-11-12 21:49 | Link

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 ?

Thomas Bolding Hansen - Denmark | 2005-11-12 21:52 | Link

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

José María, Spain | 2005-11-12 22:12 | Link

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

Cosmophant, Sweden | 2005-11-12 23:50 | Link

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!

Michael, Belgium | 2005-11-13 00:20 | Link

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.

Bill Rowan | 2005-11-13 01:32 | Link

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.

Sandy P | 2005-11-13 08:29 | Link

--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.

Sandy P | 2005-11-13 09:13 | Link

--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."

kim sook-im | 2005-11-13 09:19 | Link

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, Sweden | 2005-11-13 12:48 | Link

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.

Cosmophant, Sweden | 2005-11-13 13:48 | Link

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.

Michael, Belgium | 2005-11-13 14:25 | Link

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.

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.

"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.

Anthony | 2005-11-13 15:41 | Link

"[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.

kim sook-im | 2005-11-13 17:33 | Link

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

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

José María, Spain | 2005-11-13 18:01 | Link

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.

OEK | 2005-11-13 18:03 | Link

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.

Cosmophant, Sweden | 2005-11-13 19:14 | Link

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.

Cosmophant, Sweden | 2005-11-13 19:31 | Link

Michael,

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

Anthony | 2005-11-13 19:39 | Link

"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"?

Cosmophant, Sweden | 2005-11-13 20:11 | Link

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?

Cosmophant, Sweden | 2005-11-13 20:20 | Link

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.

Susan | 2005-11-13 21:38 | Link

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 G