Bjørn Stærk blog - More on banning Islam

David Boxenhorn, Israel | 2004-08-08 18:16 | Link

"Yeah, I know, "Islam isn't a religion, it's an ideology". And criticizing the government isn't "speech", it's sedition. Redefining away a right is easy - just don't come here afterwards and pretend it's still the same right."

For this reason the US Constitution explicitly defines treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

USA | 2004-08-08 18:44 | Link

maybe we should ask why do mohammedans have such a bad image?
/sarcasm

Gill Doyle, California | 2004-08-08 19:13 | Link

Bjørn -- I think we can be proud of the fact that, following 911, there has been virtually no persecution here in America of muslims. Folks in Europe, I remember, were predicting attacks on muslims in America.

I think it's interesting that you are so sensitive to memos like the ones you've cited. Of course, you're right in objecting to such slander. Muslims have rights, as do we all, and should be treated fairly and protected. I agree with the points you have made.

I have noticed, though, that Norwegians are not so quick to detect and react to similar attacks on jews in Norway. Here in America, there is a Jewish Anti-Defamation League that keeps us on our toes. Now I think Americans must be more alert to prejudice directed at muslims, too. I suspect folks in Norway might be more careful when they speak publicly about muslims, because there is a vocal muslim minority in Norway that monitors what is said about muslims, and those people do stand up and object if they feel that they have been treated unfairly. It's not uncommon to hear Norwegian suggest that American foreign policy in the Mideast is skewed by an influential jewish lobby here. For my part, I have wondered whether the presence in Norway of a vocal muslim minority might not account for Norwegian support for radical muslim causes and even explain a certain reluctance in Norway to criticize islamic terror.

Jean, VA | 2004-08-08 22:41 | Link

Okay, let me understand this..........first you say that criticism of Islam is wrong because people are cherry-picking (specific quotes from the Koran, etc.), and then you visit web sites to cherry-pick yourself? 'Blogs, much like political parties, cater to a specific viewpoint; unlike 'blogs, political parties often have to compromise with 'the opposition.' That balance between left and right is what makes democracy so successful - 'blogs aren't under any such obligation. And now you are also engaging in a polemic - one must be either 'for' or 'against' banning a religion! Well, put me in the middle; I don't believe in banning religion, I don't believe the majority of Muslims living in 'the West' are dangerous - I do believe, however, that Islam needs a reformation, and has needed a reformation for some centuries now. The concept of "Allah wills it' is a loathsome to me as the caste system of India. Europe spent many centuries and much blood reforming religion; it appears to me that Islam is undergoing a reformation also, but the victims in this civil war are Muslim and non-Muslim. Most people do not want to stereotype innocents, but the lack of condemnation from most Muslims against the acts of barbarity lead some to wonder how they view these acts.
If the posters over at LGF are over-excited, well, they're worried. If you don't like what you read there, don't go there. If you want to extrapolate from that website to the entire US population, then you are making too large a leap. And finally, the point of all this is that rather than questioning ourselves, we should be helping those Muslims that want religious reformation. We should be pointing out the gender apartheid in the ME. We should donate to various charities helping make a better future in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, the human mind stereotypes - it must; the process of categorization is the only way one can manage so much information. Stereotyping is a problem if one does something negative with it (a harmful act, versus a harmful thought); banning a religion is a harmful act, questioning a religion is not.

Ali Dashti | 2004-08-09 02:02 | Link

I am against banning Islam, for purely tactical reasons. I think it is better to expose its hateful teachings in full light than to create sympathy through a misguided banning. It is the Muslims who are calling for restrictions of Freedom of Speech, like the five Muslim ambassadors who attacked Islam-criticism in Norway. They are the bad guys, and we shouldn't make martyrs out of them.

That being said, I think the comparison between Islam and Nazism is a very good and valid one. There is one major difference: If you didn't belong to the Master Race according to the Nazis, you couldn't join it. A non-white person couldn't suddenly become blond and Aryan. A non-Muslim can convert and become a Muslim. The view of The Others, those not belonging to the Master Race, is however the same. They, the non-Aryans or the non-Muslims, are subhuman. At best, they can live as discriminated subjects in an apartheid regime, like slaves or servants for the Master Race. At worst, they are filth that needs to be eradicated. It is - literally -the God-given right of the Master Race to conquer, subjugate or kill all "Others".

As an atheist or non-religious person, that would NEVER convert to Muhammed's disgusting creed, I belong to the "filth that needs to be eradicated" category. Islam only gives you three options:

1. Convert to Islam.

2. Accept a position as "dhimmi", second - or third rate citizen in your own country, with severe restrictions on your freedoms, subject to Muslim rule and humiliation and paying a somtimes crushing "punishment tax" called Jizya. This option, already not that great, is only available to the "People of the Book", which means other monotheists such as Christians or Jews. This is what too many in our growing Muslim communities in the West want to turn us into: Second-class citizens in our own home. That is what the fuzz is all about with screams of "censorship" from the 2% Muslims in Norway, who think the native 98% of the population shall submit to their rule. Just like the persecuted Christians do in Pakistan, Egypt etc. Reading DhimmiWatch, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/ , frequently will give you some idea of what's going on. Like this one:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch...

Opposition Leader in National Assembly Maulana Fazlur Rehman on Monday demanded that the United Nations should declare the defamation of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) an international crime. He said Muslims were ready to render every sacrifice to protect the honour and sanctity of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the belief of finality of his prophethood. Scholars and participants from all European countries including Great Britain, Germany, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, as well as Pakistan, India, Bangladesh attended the conference. More than 20,000 people participated in the conference.

3. Die. All those not belonging to the two first categories - Muslims and discriminated monotheists - shall be killed. Buddhists, Hindus, Bahais, animists, agnostics, atheists etc. This is not "extremism", it is ORTHODOX ISLAMIC TEACHINGS, and always has been so. Now Bjørn, since you are not a religious person, Muslims have a God-given right, some would say duty, to kill you. This is not paranoia, it is the sad and horrible truth.

The Totalitarian nature of Islam is actually WORSE than that of Nazism. Not even Adolf Hitler demanded or expected everybody to have the same mustache as he did, have sex with his wife or visit the bathroom in the same ways he did. Muahmmed did. And still does. It's called the "sunna". He is the perfect example for mankind now and forever, as is to be emulated in EVERY way. Can 54 year old men have sex with 9 year old children? Sure. Muhammed did, so then it must be ok:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/chapter16.html

Websites by ex-Muslims:

WEBSITES BY EX-MUSLIMS:

http://www.secularislam.org/

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

http://www.middleastwomen.org/

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

http://www.mukto-mona.com/

http://www.homa.org/

http://www.ladeeni.net/english.htm

http://taslimanasrin.com/

http://www.muslimsandislamic.faithweb.com/

http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/

http://exmuslim.com/

http://www.islamreview.org/

http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth...

http://www.shoebat.com/

http://www.noniedarwish.com/

http://www.murtadd.org/

http://www.webspawner.com/users/hfali1/

http://www.knowislam.info/

http://www.geocities.com/ibn_rushd2

http://www.ampbreia.com/

USA | 2004-08-09 04:07 | Link

Bjorn
i agree on most of your points however i would really like to see a parliament, senat, congress, house of lords etc.... read the ahadiths, sunna, and the koran. then debate whether it it is a religion or a political ideology. my own study lead me to lean towards the latter, and if thats so we truly live in interesting times.

Michael Farris | 2004-08-09 14:53 | Link

A few comments in my usual slapped-together style:

If you're thinking in terms of war, then you need an enemy and the less human, the better. One of the signs of real war is when substantial parts of the population cease to regard the 'enemy' as human (usually expressed negatively, as in "they don't think we're human").

The highest duty theologians of any religion can perform is to water down the sacred texts. Getting 'back to the source' as in close examination of holy texts and trying to base a modern society on them is a recipe for a miserable society.

There are lots of reasons that rank and file moslems don't speak out against the raving fundamentalist crazies, ranging from the "It's obvious they're crazy, who would listen to them?" (answer: too many people) to the fact that Islam (and a lot of Christianity) promotes a private conscience and not a social one (I first came across this from Stanley Diamond many years ago). After all, if you think you're living life as close as you can to God's design for living, then what goes on with other people isn't a great concern.

I sort of wonder if the modern world isn't Islam's plague moment (reference to CW that the Catholic church's failure to explain/control the plague led to the rise of protestantism and the loss of most overt political power of the church).
I'ts only the last 30 (probably less) years or so that great masses of Moslems can see how poorly their societies are doing materially compared with the west and Islamic theologians haven't been able to either explain or reverse this trend. I recently read (here?) that a 'back to basics' movement is usually a sign of imminent collapse. I'm not predicting imminent collapse for Islam but I wouldn't be surprised if (out of sight) mainstream Moslems are simply learning to simultaneously believe in contradictory messages from their religion and the real world (like most Christians and Jews, for example).

Franko | 2004-08-09 18:42 | Link

Bjorn,
You had me up until the last paragraph. Obviously, most people will agree that banning a religion is an unwise move for any democratic government. The slippery slope argument, while often misused, is valid here. If we ban Islam, why not other religions and ideologies that appear threatening?

My confusion is with your last paragraph:

Something has gone rotten. We can't blame it on the "left", the "relativists", the "PC crowd" or the "multiculturalists", (and don't anybody dare blame it on the Muslims). It's gone rotten here, among people who on 9/11 woke up to the danger of Islamism. The ban Islam meme and all its relatives (Islam is Islamism, Islam is war) must be confronted here, now, before it spreads.

I understand we can’t blame the “left", the "relativists", the "PC crowd" or the "multiculturalists", for the development of the Ban Islam meme. These folks are sincere in their desire to live peacefully with everyone and anyone. However I do not understand why we shouldn’t “dare to blame it on the Muslims”? Is there no culpability on the part of the Muslim community? Certainly, no one in the West would be embracing the meme if Muslims weren’t killing people all over the world in the name of their religion. I also understand that creating a clash of civilizations is one of the stated aims of the Islamo-fascist movement. I would argue that the gathering strength of the ban Islam meme is exactly the goal of OBL and crew and thus I believe it only proper that I “dare blame it on the Muslims,” at least to some degree.

Sandy P | 2004-08-09 19:12 | Link

--And here they go on record asking for Norway to abandon our equivalent of the first amendment, one of the basic rights of any democracy: Freedom of religion.--

So?

Europe and "the world" have been making demands on Americans for a few decades now to give up pieces of our Constitution.

ICC - violates 3, 4 & 5, possibly 1, 9 and 12. They could have protected our rights to get us to join it, but they refused. Could have done the same w/Kyoto, bringing in the 2 majorpollution-causing countries which has 1/3 of the world's population, but again, they refused.

UN wants world-wide gun control - there goes 2 which protects #1 - and trust me, all 3 branches have done TREMENDOUS damage to #1, we don't need outside help, thank you very much.

After all, it's an 18th century document suited to those times, not relevant in the 21st century, and we must put it aside for the greater good of "the world."

Hell will freeze over before I give it up. I'm going down fighting.

All the muslims have to do is stop killing us and learn to get along. Where are the "moderate" muslims?

The AQ plans discovered will not help. They were going to bomb The Tube and drown people.

3 years and the crickets still drown out the "moderate" voices.

And the chatter has fallen off - it did before 9/11, too.

Vehicle passes to the Olypics have been stolen partially because the some of the idiots who had them in their cars DIDN'T LOCK THEIR DOORS. Security is going to be a joke.

Bjorn, I understand what you're saying and why, but when someone tells you he intends to kill you, believe him. They've not only told you, they've done it.

Steve Skubinna | 2004-08-09 19:32 | Link

I believe that the real issue here is that there is an internal war within Islam. While that religion has always had its divisions, as have all others, right now the big split is between "mainstream" and the Islamists, i.e., the al-Qaeda and other sects. The latter, of course, are what we are currently fighting in our war on "terror."

So, as many others have noted before me, the WoT is actually in two parts. First is to find and destroy the terrorists, and to constrain their scope of operations, and to make the idea of being a jihadi syonomous with getting a one way ticket ot an inglorious and useless death. The second is going to have to be fought within Islam itself, by Muslims, and is eventually going to determine whether the religion survives or degenerates into an ideology of death.

Which would be fit for banning. In the US there are periodic fits of hysteria about Satanists. On that subject I am agnostic (heh, heh), that is, I don't believe there is an organized Satanic church. Yeah, sure, a bunch of losers and rejects and kids playing at being Goths, coupled with grandstannding local politicians and prosecutors, plus parental fear and ignorance but that's it. If, however, there really were such an organization, dedicated to blood sacrifice and slaughter, then I doubt that any American would suggest that it deserves protection under the Bill of Rights.

Sandy P | 2004-08-09 20:14 | Link

Not 3, 4, 5,

but

4, 5, & 6. Sorry.

----

And unfortunately for all of us, the terrorists number in the 10s of millions.

Sandy P | 2004-08-09 20:21 | Link

And as to Charles (LGF) background, long-haired, bike-riding Californian musician and artiste, if you will, and DEMOCRAT. LGF has been around awhile.

Read his archives on W, 2000 and 2001.

Doesn't like him.

Has admitted same many, many times after 9/11.

But then he was mugged by reality on a beautiful Tuesday morning in September of 2001. And he celebrates being head of his lizardoid minions.

He also started becoming informed.....

Palestinian Child Abuse is a must-see/must-read.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-09 20:37 | Link

Jean: "Okay, let me understand this..........first you say that criticism of Islam is wrong because people are cherry-picking (specific quotes from the Koran, etc.)"

Where did I say that? Show me the quote.

"and then you visit web sites to cherry-pick yourself?"

To prove what? That all Islam criticism is wrong? Of course not. There's no way you could read that from my words. My point was simply that the people I was quoting was wrong, and to warn that they make up a fair minority of readers of Islam critical websites. So is it cherry picking to quote the people I criticize to show that they are wrong?

"If the posters over at LGF are over-excited, well, they're worried. If you don't like what you read there, don't go there."

Are you saying that whenever anyone reads something, in a blog or newspaper, that they don't agree with, they should deal with this not by criticizing that view, but by ignoring it? That coming out publicly against the views of another person is some kind of .. I don't know, crushing of dissent? Now where have I heard that before. Anyway, good luck convincing a blogger who's been doing just that - criticizing the views of other people - for three years, to stop.

"If you want to extrapolate from that website to the entire US population, then you are making too large a leap."

Where did I say that? Show me the quote.

Ali Dashti: "I am against banning Islam, for purely tactical reasons. I think it is better to expose its hateful teachings in full light than to create sympathy through a misguided banning."

And that's part of the problem, this attitude "I don't fully agree with the solution, but of course they have a point". I'm still waiting for somebody to wake up and say "oh my God we're talking about banning an entire religion here! We're talking about removing one of the founding principles of democracy! What's gotten into us?" Yeah yeah, there are many bad Muslims. We know. That's not the issue here. The issue is how flippant people have suddenly gotten about freedom of thought.

Have you thought through the implications of the kind of language you're using here? Or are you so focused on the evil of Islam that you're no longer even aware of any other considerations?

Franko: "However I do not understand why we shouldn’t “dare to blame it on the Muslims”? Is there no culpability on the part of the Muslim community? Certainly, no one in the West would be embracing the meme if Muslims weren’t killing people all over the world in the name of their religion."

Ah .. yes. Doesn't this sound familiar. Look at yourself from the outside for a little bit, try to remember where else you may have heard this kind of reasoning before. "Of course it was wrong to attack the World Trade Center, and of course it is wrong to hate America. But is there no culpability on the part of the American government here? I'm not justifying terrorism, but surely it must be relevant to remember how Americans have been invading countries and overthrowing foreign governments for half a century."

Anti-Americanism is best explained in terms of flaws in the cultures we find it in, as an expression of their own inability to deal rationally with America. The level of irrationality, this total identification of America with everything negative, tells us a lot more about anti-Americans than it does about Americans. The same goes for this. When Westerners build up this huge fantasy of a war between the West and Islam itself, we should look for explanations - and culpability - at home. Sure the genuine evils of Islam play a part in this fantasy, as the genuine wrongs committed by America plays a part in the anti-American myth, but whatever you build on top of those truths is your responsibility, noone elses.

Sandy P: "--And here they go on record asking for Norway to abandon our equivalent of the first amendment, one of the basic rights of any democracy: Freedom of religion.-- So? Europe and "the world" have been making demands on Americans for a few decades now to give up pieces of our Constitution."

So? How is this relevant to what I said? At all? I don't even see the relationship between the sentence you're quoting, where I condemn Americans for abandoning the principles of the Bill of Rights, and your reply. This isn't "Europe and the world" advocating an end to religious freedom, but your own people. Right-wingers even! Not many of them, but vocal enough in some parts of the blogosphere.

A Reader | 2004-08-09 21:16 | Link

Okay, say we agree with Bjorn's outrage at the suggestion that Islam be banned in Norway. One question for Bjorn: how do you propose to protect your culture, traditions, your very language, and your democratic values from a political ideology, disguised as a religion, which does not respect any of those four, and makes no bones about it?

All reasonable suggestions entertained by me. What democratic, non-violent and humane solution have you Bjorn come up with for dealing with Islam as an ideology that has eluded, for the past 14 centuries, the Hindus, the Thais, the Eastern Europeans, the Greeks, the African animists, the Israelis, the Iberian Catholics, the Iranian Zorastrians and all other civilizations that Islam has made cultural and actual war upon for centuries?

Do you think that no one in all this time has tried to come up with alternatives to fight Islam without becoming just like it?

The most humane reaction to Islam I can think of was the Greek-Turkish population exchange in the mid-1950s. The rest has been pretty violent and brutal -- but those civilizations that were willing to be violent and brutal survived. Those that didn't, went under and became Islamized.

You have to offer solutions, not just criticisms, to those of us who know what this ideology is all about.

I know few people who are prejudiced against Islam just because it's "different." Those I know who hate it the most are people like me -- people who have been intimately exposed to its intolerance, hatred, bigotry and violence.

a Reader | 2004-08-09 21:31 | Link

An additional thought: maybe the solution is to not ban Islam as religion, but to ban its political expressions such as sharia, dhimmitude (AKA religious apartheid) and jihad.

a Reader | 2004-08-09 21:32 | Link

An additional thought: maybe the solution is to not ban Islam as religion, but to ban its political expressions such as sharia, dhimmitude (AKA religious apartheid) and jihad.

GoatGuy / Berkeley | 2004-08-09 21:51 | Link

Bjørn Stærk:

I appreciate your comment. I too in fact consider an ouster of an entire religion to be excessive, preposterous. The prime reason for that is simple: not only does the "freedom of religion" define government's censure from intefering with an individual's freely chosen religion, it also [later] places a permanent sanction on government and religion mixing. If our government decides to "take on" the admissibility of a religion, then then have to acknowledge that it IS a religion, which instantly censures their ability to regulate the religion.

But what is also clear is this: although not specifically guaranteed anywhere in the constitution, one's freedom to choose and profess a particular faith does NOT work in reverse: so long as citizens aren't working with the government they are ALSO free to proselytize their faith in whatever ways are upheld by that most noble of the ammendments: freedom of speech.

The grey region [at least for me, and I deeply suspect for a LOT of others] is at that proselytizing / faith-practice interface between peoples within a liberal democracy of different faiths, each trying avowedly to convert 'the other' to their faith and cause. I suppose it is only right to be allowed the liberty of expressing the tenants of one's faith publicly, on a 'jihad' of sorts to get converts. But the darker side of the grey region is also defined by religious vigilantes who feel authorized by their faith to carry out the proscriptions required by their god(s) on non-believers [and believers alike].

I, for one, am particularly glad that my Moslem fellow-citizens do not have Constitutionally defended rights to dhimmify me, or anyone else they don't particularly approve of. I'm sure Europe feels more or less the same way. But in some ways, I'm also not so sure.

Europe has been gradually refining and fleshing out a hybrid form of parlimentary socialist democracy called "Transnational Progressivism", which gives groups of people special "voting" [or influentual] forms of power. This is the socialism speaking. Special interest groups aren't limited simply to making 'group donations' to political parties, and to lobbying the assemblymen, but they also may VOTE and be counted as blocs. So, the Basques in Spain are given their representation, as an ethnic group, far out of proportion to their number. Maybe it is a good thing. I don't know whether the blocs can be called on religious leanings, but if so, then Europe is ripe for an overthrow-from-within due to the bloc of Islam in its midst. Or not ... Europe has shown for the last thousand years a suprising willingness to CHANGE its social fabric, over and over again.

In any case, I think neither the Governments of Europe, America or any other democracy-loving land shall be banning Islam any time soon. There will be repeated calls for it, so long as they are fingered almost exclusively as the perpetrators of fanatic terroristic skirmishes. But echoing several postings above, I do wonder why it is that the Muslims seem so reticent, so tardy in raising up their moderate -- and presumably ecumenical, secular and tolerant -- voices at every turn. It may BE the religion not to.

GoatGuy

Ali Dashti | 2004-08-09 21:53 | Link

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article844657.ece

Bin Laden backer on his way to Oslo

One of Pakistan's most influential and religious politicians will travel to Oslo later this month to speak before local Muslims. His party has earlier hailed Osama bin Laden, and he's been denied entry to Belgium and the Netherlands. Ahmed has earlier make flattering comments about Osama bin Laden, and his party, Jamaat-e-Islami, also has hailed al-Qaeda members as heroes.

The party also has allegedly encouraged its members to shield al-Qaeda members who are fleeing US troops in Afghanistan. Officials at Oslo's Islamic Cultural Center claim Ahmed's ties to Osama bin Laden are inflated. "Who says he supports Osama bin Laden?" asked local imam Hafiz Mehboob ur-Rehman. "We don't think he's controversial. We don't support terrorism and stay on the right side of the law."

Bjørn, your problem is that you don't understand that we are already entangled in a World War. There may be as many as 20 million Muslims living within the EU, and countries like Turkey and Morocco are pushing to join. This will be the death of Europe as we know it, which will collapse. In stead of a rich, peaceful continent, we will get poverty and ethnic and religious strife, just like they have in the Islamic world now. France may very well have a full-blown civil war within a generation. Within two generations, large parts of Europe will be destroyed. Much of it is already damaged today. Quiet Oslo will probably have a Muslim majority within your lifetime.

Europe has a dagger to its throat, and doesn't even know it. This is a matter of survival, a life and death battle between Western civilization and Islam. This planet isn't big enough for the both of us, at least not until a thoroughly reformed Islam sees the day. Unlikely, unfortunately. One of them has to die. At the very least, we should COMPLETELY STOP all kinds of Muslim immigration. No refugees, asylum seekers or "family reunions" of any kind will be allowed in. Even that probably isn't enough, which means that we have to expell many of the millions of Muslims present in our midst today. If necessary, we use strategic nuclear weapons to defend ourselves. We could issue an ultimatum, where any use of nukes against Western cities, or other major attacks with WMD in general, will trigger us nuking Mecca and Medina. Harsh? WW2 was harsh. That's why we won. If nuking Mecca does the trick, it has my vote.

JazzBow | 2004-08-09 22:17 | Link

Islam won't be banned. Googe on "Mormon" and "Supreme Court" tyo see how it will eventually be handled.

In short, the Bill of Rights trumps religious doctrine in the US.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-09 22:21 | Link

This debate actually shows the main problem of those that try a rational critique of Islam or, for that matter, of immigration politics in Norway or other Western countries. They end up with the wrong kind of allies.

In Norway we have Jarle Synnevåg and the ridiculous organization FOMI who have called the Norwegian Conservative Party (Høyre) a party "supportive of terror, apartheid and ethnic cleansing". The same Synnevåg has repeatedly called for an all-out-war on Islam, and he does repeat ideas also repeated here.

One of those ideas is that Islam is not a religion, but rather a political ideology. This is not a new thought. It has been said many times, and it still is being said. About Judaism. As an example I can include this anti-Semitic post from a Japanese website:

"Judaism is not a religion.Judaism is not a culture.Judaism has no country.It is a political ideology based on more irrational myths than Mary Poppins. It is a global group of people whose so-called religion teaches hatred of all non-Jews"

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=bbs&order=msg&author=yuenyuen&page=4

Ever heard something like that before? Another thing you often can hear some Anti-Islamists claiming is that moderate muslims are simply fundamentalists in disguise, practising taqiyya. For one thing this is a clear parallell to anti-Semitic use of the false Protocols of Zion. It is also doubly wrong. Taqiyya does not refer to what anti-Islamists refer to it as, and the people referred to as "fundamentalists" seldomly are. Instead they belong to a school of thought that is relatively new within Islam, a school of thought that cannot be understood without looking at both Islamic roots and roots in the modern-day societies where these ideologies developed.

All of this does of course not mean that a reasonable critique of Islam is not good, nor that it is not needed. Many Muslims would even agree.

Many Muslims also think that the time is ripe for change, that it is time to fight old ideas they feel is not a part of their true Islam. These people are they right allies of those who long for a rational critique of Islam. Sadly, that coalition is a rather unlikely one at the time, the discussion has been hijacked by another coalition. Ironically enough the worst of Anti-Islamists and the worst of Islamists agree on more and more issues. These days many dream of the Clash of Civilizations. Personally I have nightmares.

Ali Dashti | 2004-08-09 22:47 | Link

Øyvind, I would recommend reading some good books about Islam, to know what you're dealing with. Ibn Warraq's "Why I am not a Muslim" is available in Norwegian. IW explicitly states that Islam is a "Fascist ideology" and that there is "no difference between Islamism and Islam". The anthology of ex-Muslim testimonies he has edited is only available in English yet:

http://www.secularislam.org/testimonies/index.htm

There is a book in Danish which is excellent, called "I krigens hus - Islams kolonisering af Vesten". Read it.

Knuj Liam, Honolulu | 2004-08-09 23:03 | Link

The 14 centuries of the bloody borders of Islam speak for themselves.

The bottom line is that the Islamic ideology is utterly incompatible with, and mutually exclusive of, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The Islamic ideology was "perfected" by its founder and no reform is possible without repudiating his words and deeds, an impossible notion to even the most liberal and accomodating adherent.

It has propagated for over a thousand years by waging war (not the metaphorical kind, the real killing and mayhem kind). It divides the world into the House of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the House of War (dar al-Harb), that is, the rest of the world with which the House of Islam remains perpetually at war. These are not tenets of a fringe element of the Islamic community, these are fundamental and indivisible precepts of the Islamic belief system. Without them Islam does not exist.

Islam is a tribal political, social and economic construct that has failed to scale up to a higher social order and it is time for mankind's 14 century experiment with this failed ideology to end. If it cannot be exterminated, then it must be contained in the same way that Charles Martel, Pelayo, Richard the Lionheart, Jan Sobieski, et al, contained it in the past. Better would it be for all mankind if it were entirely tossed into the dustbin of history's failed ideologies along with Nazism, Stalinism & Maoist Socialism.

No amount of honey-tongued apology can explain away the fundamental disconnect of the mainstream Islamic tenets from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. End of debate.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-09 23:25 | Link

A Reader: "One question for Bjorn: how do you propose to protect your culture, traditions, your very language, and your democratic values from a political ideology, disguised as a religion, which does not respect any of those four, and makes no bones about it?"

How do we protect our democratic values? By being who we are, and by working for others to come around to our view. You must have little faith in Western ideals, as expressed by the American founding fathers in their religious tolerance, or by people like John Stuart Mill in his thoughts on open discussion. I believe there is a strength in those values that can withstand totalitarian and irrational ideas - not necessarily without weapons, but not exclusively with them either. We defend ourselves when we must, but haven't built our societies _on_ military power, nor thought control. That's not our way. Our way is the open way - free markets, free thought, free speech.

You and others speak as if the West has been infected by a culture that is evil and vastly superior to us in strength, and this culture will eat us up from the inside unless we cut it away. What kind of pessimism is that? What is it you think we're defending here if it isn't the belief that free societies are stronger and more attractive than unfree ones? Again: I'm not saying our ideals are strong enough to survive without military backing, but you seem to disregard their inherent power completely, as if Western culture is a house of cards waiting to be blown over, a naive dream waiting for reality to kick in.

You think this is a new dilemma, that free societies have only recently been confronted by ideas and cultures that want to end all that freedom? Those threats were always there, and every step towards freedom has been taken by people who despite the dangers believed in the strength of their ideals. Every step was opposed by people who talk like you do here. "Well, freedom of speech is fine in theory, but how do you propose to protect our free government against sedition, enemy propaganda and demagoguery unless we can control the media a little?" "Sure it's a nice ideal that the people should elect the government, but how do you propose to protect our country against the well-oiled military machines of our tyrannic neighbours when our leaders are at the whim of ignorant rabble?" "Yes people should be allowed to speak their mind, but how do you propose we protect our minorities against racism and hate speech?"

This is old news: Democracy is weak. Open discussions don't work. People are stupid and weak. The demagogues will take over, our enemies will march across us. And yet our way has always been to take the chance on freedom despite these risks. So far it has worked pretty well, and I'm not prepared to abandon it so easily.

"You have to offer solutions, not just criticisms, to those of us who know what this ideology is all about."

No, _you_ have to offer a convincing argument that the problem is as serious as you claim it is. Specifically that all Islam is bad and in practice unredeemable, and that unless we fight it now it will conquer Western culture. The first is a sloppy generalization based on an exaggerated belief in essences, the second is no more than an easily envisionable doomsday scenario, closely related to and no better than the doomsday scenarios of other ideologies.

Ali Dashti: "Bjørn, your problem is that you don't understand that we are already entangled in a World War."

Your problem is that you're so focused on Islam that you've lost sight of the ideals of the culture you're supposedly defending. What is the West to you? Do you have a clear concept of the ideals it was built on? Can you express any of them, and the reasoning behind them, on a level deeper than "freedom is good, and - anyway let's get back to Islam which is just about to conquer us all"?

I wonder if you even understand why the idea of banning a religion is so abhorrent to me, why it bothers me when people oppose such a ban merely because it is unpractical, not possible. I hope you haven't come so far that when you hear somebody stand up for the basic values of Western democracy, you attribute it to "multiculturalism" or "leftism".

"In stead of a rich, peaceful continent, we will get poverty and ethnic and religious strife, just like they have in the Islamic world now."

And I'm still waiting for the reasoning behind that claim. We've had this discussion before, (not sure if it was with you). I usually end up reading a lot of well-phrased _descriptions_ of this dystopic scenario, all very evocative and frightening, and very little of the actual thinking and facts behind that scenario. So let's jump straight to that part, ok?

Knuj Liam, Honolulu | 2004-08-09 23:31 | Link

I propose that Hitler's National Socialist Party is a religion. Should it be banned?

Sandy P | 2004-08-10 00:08 | Link

Bjorn - Islam will not be banned, it will reform or become a footnote in history. We're still waiting for those moderates to start shouting from the rooftops. Is all of Islam bad? No. But unfortunately for them, that's the face they're presenting. Again, 3 years, where are the moderates?

Besides, although the 1st amendment says freedom of religion, we have very active secularists and totalitarianists who are trying to eradicate at this point in time Christianity from this country. They think they can control Islam, much like some Europeans do, they're wrong.

The Constitution and western ideals are not a suicide pact, Bjorn. How far are you willing to let your tolerance go? What will be the point when you draw the line? What has to happen before you say enough is enough? The next 20 years might help you decide.

------

What is going on over there?????

While on a tour of the museum at the Auschwitz death camp in Poland on Sunday, a group of around 50 Jewish university students from Israel, the U.S. and Poland were verbally attacked by a three-member gang of French male tourists.

Evidently incited by the presence of an Israeli flag wrapped around the shoulders of Tamar Schuri, an Israeli student from Ben Gurion University, the first assailant ran at the group while its members were being guided through a model gas chamber and crematoria and began swearing and hurling anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli insults.----

----

In America - a woman went to work for an Islamic company, we don't care what religion you are, but she ate a bacon sandwich at lunch. Was fired. That little gem was also on LGF, IIRC.

hm | 2004-08-10 00:13 | Link

Isnt it strange though, when you think about which nations that are conservative muslim nations and which are progressive and modern, you will often see amongst those conservative, a muslim population that have a history of oppression, ethnic cleansing and religious conflicts.
What kind of society is most likely to spawn the most extreme fundamentalist ? The free and open or the oppressed one ?

And banning would never work. It could never be done. The Nazis tried it, didt quite pan out.

DP111 | 2004-08-10 01:10 | Link

It is so easy to be understanding and tolerant of all ideologies. After all it gives one the cosy feeling of being good and kind hearted. Who does not like to think of themselves as being decent and tolerant?

The fact is that tolerance of Islam will not be reciprocated if and whenever the boot is on the Islamic foot. History has repeatedly shown that Islam will not tolerate any other faith unless as a subservient one.

Here is a link to what some Muslims have in plan for us, even though they are a tiny minority at the moment.

http://www.muhajiroun.com/press_release/250704_londistan.htm

I'm aware there will be cries that this is unrepresentative. However, such dogma is sighted far more frequently then anything from the 'moderate' Muslims. So clearly it is representative.

I have been aware of the bigotry and sustained evil nature of Islam for over 30 years.With immigration and globalisation, this ideology has become a threat to everything I hold dear, ie kindness and tolerance, equality of the sexes and races. Islam and its followers are putting all these gains of the post-war period in jeopardy.

We face a really unpleasant dilemma. Banning a religion, even Islam, is against our principles and yet, not doing so would threaten those very values of freedom and tolerance. My own way out of this conundrum is to argue that liberal democracy, like all creations, is not perfect, and cannot be stretched to accomodate all possible views. Some ideas will be inherently incompatible with a liberal and tolerant democracy. Islam clearly falls under this dictum.

Does that mean I would ban Islam? Yes, if I thought it would be successful. Unfortunately, banning a religion, sometimes has quite the converse effect to one that had hoped for.

One needs to think of a better way; one that has the same desired result of the elimination of Islam but without 'collateral' damage or unintended consequences .

Sandy P | 2004-08-10 01:22 | Link

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FH10Aa01.html

Islam: Religion or Political Ideology?

Leif Knutsen, New York | 2004-08-10 01:35 | Link

There are two extreme positions at work here - "Ban Islam!" on the one hand, and "Never question Islam" on the other.

I don't know if there is a reasonable middle ground, but I think we have the right to assert that in some ways, "Western" values are superior. Women's rights. Religious freedom. A just society. Freedom of expression. The right to privacy. And so on. To the extent that we consider these to be self-evident, universal truths, we should have no qualms saying that

1) these apply to all societies
2) any religious system that subverts them deserves our criticism if not our condemnation

From what (little) I know if Islam, it can accomodate these values. I have no illusions that many self-proclaimed Muslims believe differently, but we must confront *their* beliefs without assuming they speak for all Muslims or all of Islam.

Franko | 2004-08-10 02:01 | Link

“Ah .. yes. Doesn't this sound familiar. Look at yourself from the outside for a little bit, try to remember where else you may have heard this kind of reasoning before.”

You are exactly correct Bjorn and I think your analogy proves my point. If you are saying, that if America were not acting as America does 9/11 would not have happened, you would be correct. Did America deserve what it got on 9/11, absolutely not. Did America’s support of Israel, spreading culture, military supremacy, etc., motivate the attack, absolutely yes. Likewise the actions of Islamic terrorists are motivating the creation and spread of the ban Islam meme.

“Anti-Americanism is best explained in terms of flaws in the cultures we find it in, as an expression of their own inability to deal rationally with America.”

Well put Bjorn. And as you suggest, the same goes for how we Western nations respond to Islam. GoatGuy has it right when he said that Islam is not going to be banned anytime soon by Governments of Europe or America. However, the fact of the matter is, the anti Islam meme is out of the box and spreading. The fact that this is happening should not be a surprise to anyone. All humans have a similar flight or fight response to danger, no matter if you are from the sands of Arabia or the fjords of Norway.

I think the more interesting question would be, is the anti Islam meme unreasonable and if is how should it be dealt with and/or stopped. I like to argue both sides of everything, so I would suggest that the spread of the meme is not totally unreasonable, and should in fact be an expected response by those that understand human nature. I would on the other hand point out, that by adopting this meme we undermine a more important meme, the meme of Western ideals of democracy and freedom for all.

This is called a conundrum.

Susan | 2004-08-10 02:24 | Link

Bjorn wrote:

"Our way is the open way - free markets, free thought, free speech. "

If that is our way -- then why do you want to shut down the "meme" of people who (correctly, I might add) believe that Islam and Islamism are the same thing? I might add that among those who believe that Islam and Islamism are the same thing includes the impeccably leftist-credentialed Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin, not just "wackos" who read little green footballs.

Morgane New Zealand | 2004-08-10 02:33 | Link

I think Islam should be Banned and have no hesitation saying so.Suggest all these bleeding Heart Liberals should spend three months in a Muslim Country and be forced to watch at least one Stoning and Amputations, also obligatory Beheading. After these experiences they won't use the words 'Politically Correct' again.Or even think them...Get real, Bjorn.This is a so called religion which forces little girls as young as nine to be raped by Muslim husbands who may be old enough to be their grandfathers,and their screams go in silence for they the victims, have no rights or say in who they marry or when.But maybe that appeals to you - Men have complete control over their wives and concubines in the glorious religion of ISLAM!!

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-10 07:45 | Link

Sandy P: "The Constitution and western ideals are not a suicide pact, Bjorn."

That's right, they're _not_ a suicide pact, they're the pillars of the strongest culture in history. We should trust the inherent strength of those pillars, not replace them with something new and phony just because we're confronted by yet another totalitarian ideology.

DP111: "It is so easy to be understanding and tolerant of all ideologies. After all it gives one the cosy feeling of being good and kind hearted. Who does not like to think of themselves as being decent and tolerant?"

I was waiting for it! Waiting for someone to equate standing up for freedom of religion, a pillar of Western society, with being a multiculturalist. Thank you for proving me right.

"We face a really unpleasant dilemma. Banning a religion, even Islam, is against our principles and yet, not doing so would threaten those very values of freedom and tolerance."

That's a real unpleasant dilemma all right, but it's a dilemma at the _core_ of our ideals. We've been facing that dilemma since the beginning. And now you want us to give up? What ideals do you want to replace the old Western ideals with?

"Some ideas will be inherently incompatible with a liberal and tolerant democracy. Islam clearly falls under this dictum."

So now an idea must be compatible with liberal and tolerant democracy to be acceptable to it? That's an interesting interpretation of tolerance and freedom of speech. A new one, anyway.

Susan: "If that is our way -- then why do you want to shut down the "meme" of people who (correctly, I might add) believe that Islam and Islamism are the same thing?"

Another neat fallacy imported from the left: equating criticism with crushing of dissent. I want to shut down this meme the way I want to shut down all bad ideas, with open debate on the battlefield of ideas. That's the open way. Talking about banning religions is not.

Morgane: "I think Islam should be Banned and have no hesitation saying so.Suggest all these bleeding Heart Liberals should spend three months in a Muslim Country and be forced to watch at least one Stoning and Amputations, also obligatory Beheading."

And now the exhibit is complete - a "bleeding heart liberal" reference. Didn't think those existed in real life. Are you aware that this "bleeding heart liberal" idea you're so against is a founding pillar of Western society? Not just any good idea some people thought up once, but one of the central ones. How many considerations did you weigh before you decided to tear it down?

Morgane | 2004-08-10 09:34 | Link

BJORN STAERK
You don't seem able to grasp the reality of situation,do you! This is WAR, a global war already declared on the West by Bin Laden and rest of Islamo-Fascists. They won't give a stuff about your prissy principles you're building a cosy dream on but they will pull down the pillars of Western democracies and freedoms, including yours.Actually they love nitwits like you who make it so much easier for them to establish Sharia Law. While you are pontificating, the Enemy
are literally banging on the door.God help Norway if the rest of them are like you!

Sandy P | 2004-08-10 09:50 | Link

--Sandy P: "The Constitution and western ideals are not a suicide pact, Bjorn."

Yet the European pillars are getting awfully shaky, Bjorn. Appeasement and accomodation are recipies for losing. You're not assimilating them. Takes 3 generations, you've already lost the middle, crucial straddle generation.

Vodkapundit has a good post up - you'd enjoy part 3 remain what we are. Except for nuking Japan. But it is in context.

http://www.vodkapundit.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2110

--So now an idea must be compatible with liberal and tolerant democracy to be acceptable to it? That's an interesting interpretation of tolerance and freedom of speech. A new one, anyway.--

No, they have to stop killing us.

What is your final enough is enough, we've given it our best shot? What is your line in the sand, Bjorn? We should have a baseline from where we start.

I think 25 years of killing Americans is enough. You don't. Fair, you're not an American and you're not the main target. You have that luxury at this point in time and for a few years more.

However, I'm flying in September and we're being tested w/larger groups on planes. I've got 12 nuke plants w/in a 90 mile radius and all they need is 1 SAM and the breeze blowing my way. I rely on the largest body of fresh water in the world. When the Sears Tower is hit, can you guarantee it'll pancake like the WTC? Or will it do what they hoped the WTC would do, fall on the others?

The difference is, what we destroy, we rebuild. If we don't do that, then we have lost it. But to get to that point, we will have taken tremendous casualties. It will get to that point precisely because of our tolerance and ideals.

I wrote on this site before, there were 4 options, IMHO. After reading Niall Ferguson in the WSJ, there are 5. US. If we don't do it, China or India will. Or the world under the "religion of peace."

Ferguson wrote about #5 - an armed, bordered world.

But then someone will have the courage and the vision to bleed and die because #5 is intolerable. What we're doing now, as a matter of fact, tho most Euros and a lot of Americans don't get that this is the hard way. Pick your hegemon, folks, and pick wisely, you're going to be living under it for a long, long time.

Especially now since Britain and frankenreich have done such a marvelous job of bringing Iran into the nuclear fold. JMJ, haven't you guys paid any attention to Jimmah' the Peanut and the NorKs? Didn't work then, won't work now.

You've written about western values more than once. But reality is going to make you choose. You come from it one way, but some Americans are coming at it from a survival perspective. We will not agree until you have reached your line in the sand.

They're chipping away at those western values you cherish so much and using western courts to do it. Watch Britain. Watch Canada.

Thomas Glahn, Denmark | 2004-08-10 13:25 | Link

Bjørn Stærk,

You seem to be highly out of touch with the vast majority of your own regular readers and commenters. Some advice for you. Try to open your eyes and see things differently. The truth is right there in front of you:

Islam is a threat to this world.

Yours truly,
A regular

Christian Lindhardt-Larsen | 2004-08-10 13:59 | Link

You are attacking the wrong folks, Bjørn.

Islam will not be banned. But right now are there muslims in Norway who work for banning critism of islam.

They are fascists.

They are the ones we should devote the attention to.

Just read "Vårt Land" today (In norwegian).

http://www.vartland.no/apps/pbcs.dll/article...

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-10 14:16 | Link

Dear Ali,

I have read Ibn Warraqs book a long time ago, it is in fact one of several anti-Islam books I have read during the last few years. I do perfectly well know what Ibn Warraq says about the relationship between Islam and Fundamentalism - and I am aware that he suggests that Islam is "a fascist ideology".

There is only one big problem with it all. His statement is not only false, it is completely absurd. Ibn Warraq says that the fundamentalists (who are the fundamentalists anyway, the islamists can hardly be called fundamentalists, eventhough Ibn Warraq uses these words synonymously) are "utopian visionaries who want to replace the liberal Western-styled democracies with an Islamic theocracy, a fascist thought system intent on controlling every act of every human being".

What liberal democracies is he talking about? Saudi-Arabia? Kuwait? Egypt? Pakistan? Tell me, what liberal democracies are there to replace in the Muslim world. Alas, it is not many. And the few countries where the Islamists have gotten power are definitely not amongst them.

One of the few democracies in the Muslim world is Turkey, a country that has long secular traditions, but at the same time a country ruled by a party with Islamist roots. And in fact, this party have passed several democratic reforms since they gained power, and are gradually moving Turkey further in the direction of Western democracies. In Norwegian newspapers they are seldomly referred to as Islamists. Instead they are called "Western-friendly". Turkey has a long way to go yet, but today it is often the secular Kemalists that act like reactionaries in that country.

The main enemy of the Islamists is not the West. It has never been. The main enemy is regimes in Muslim countries, which the Islamists feel should be replaced by Islamic regimes. The Islamists are, ironically, often inspired not only by Islamic ideas, but also by Western ideas; fascist ones, truly, but also liberal democratic and socialist ones. Thanks to many corrupt regimes and considering that American and other Western democracy-iniativies are not taken seriously in the Muslim world - Islamism has very often become the sole political alternative for alienated young Arabs and other Muslims.

Another thing with Ibn Warraq is his dubious use of sources. He is the master of cherrypicking, for instance using carefully selected quotes from Khomeini to make his points. He does not even care to look at how Khomeini was inspired by non-Muslim movements, how he reinterpreted classical Islamic concepts and how the Iranian revolution wrote Islamic concepts into a sort of class analysis. Ibn Warraq does not write about how Khomeini used populism, socialist rethorics and so on. Ervand Abrahamian, a leading scholar in the field, writes:

"The result (...) was closer to Latin-American populist than to fundamentalism".

There is no doubt that the Iranian revolution was hijacked by religiously inspired political fanatics. However, they were not fundamentalist. The real fundamentalists were soon to be angered by Khomeinis claims that Iran superceded every other Muslim society through times.

The roots of Islamism can not be understood without looking at the Islamic religion. However, they can neither be understood without considering the Modern world Islamism surfaced in, developed in and live in. Ibn Warraq does not even try.

Øyvind

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-10 16:39 | Link

Bjørn: Great article, and some good posts by you in this thread. Lots of other good posts, too.

Some thoughts.

Anything someone claims to be a religion, is and should be respected as a religion. However, the religion and those that practice ist has to adapt to the area they live in. They have to respect the laws of the country in which they are residing.

Banning a religion should never happen. Banning some way of practicing the religion is of course okay. If a religion dictates the sacrifice of living people - it's still a religion. The particular way of practicing it would however be illegal.

I'm worried about the Islamists that want to revive the parapgraph about blasphemy in norwegian law. It should of course not be revived, but be removed (at least not in my opinion :-)

Those that wants a ban of Islam -- remember what we love about our Western Culture. Freedom of speech is embraced. Freedom of belief is embraced. You're allowed to be a stupid git, as long as you don't break the law in other ways.

If exactly that freedom is removed, how are we any better than the countries we don't want to be compared to?

Susan | 2004-08-10 16:58 | Link

Is this the "free speech" society you want Bjorn? How will we be able to challenge the bad ideas of Islam when Muslims are using our democratic processes to destroy our Western freedoms?

Norwegian Muslims campaign for blasphemy law in Norway: (How can the blasphemy law be applied to Muhammad, I have no idea. Is Muhammad God?)

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article263256.ece

Next time, when they get stronger and more numerous in your country, will the petition be for legal penalties on apostates? Of course it will be. Look at Malaysia. Look at Nigeria. Look at Lebanon. All formerly non-Muslim societies, now the former non-Muslim majority are sinking further and further into dhimmitude. Racist Jim Crow laws applied against non-Muslims in Malaysia; Christians forced to live under full sharia, including hand-choppings and stonings, in Nigeria; Lebanon, the former "Paris of the MIddle East" decimated by 15 years of deadly civil war.

Susan | 2004-08-10 17:05 | Link

Why is that Muslims are the only people in the world who can't stand to have criticism of their religion? Nowhere else do you see people campaigning to shut down criticisms of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism. Only Muslims fight like this to "protect" their religion from all forms of criticism.

And why is that? Because their religion is so bad that it can't take anyone telling the truth about it, that's why. Islam can only live within a culture of lies.

Jan Haugland, Bergen | 2004-08-10 17:32 | Link

Muslims may *want* to be legally protected from criticism or even insults. They are not alone. When the so-called Blasphemy paragraph of the Norwegian penal code was up for debate the last time, it was the Christians (including the relative moderates in the KrF) that opposed removing it since that would have a "bad signal" (go figure).

The fact is that the "blasphemy paragraph" is dead and will not and cannot be used. Every time anyone reports a statement to the police referring to the anti-blasphemy law, it is thrown away. If some prosecutor should be crazy enough to run such a case on behalf of Muslims or Christians or anything else, the courts and in particular the Supreme Court will strike it down.

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-10 17:57 | Link

Susan: You seem to be quite blind. Bjørn is not arguing for the blasphemy paragraph. He is arguing against banning Islam.

You're talking about how Islam has reformed some countries in a bad way. Yet you seem to have no qualms about us reforming in a similiary bad way?

We should front free speech. We should front protection for blasphemy and any other speech. We should fight against religious oppression - both against Islamists and against people that wants to ban Islam.

At least in my opinion.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-10 18:06 | Link

Morgane: "You don't seem able to grasp the reality of situation,do you! This is WAR, a global war already declared on the West by Bin Laden and rest of Islamo-Fascists. ... God help Norway if the rest of them are like you!"

A lot of strong words here, but no substance behind them. Yes, we know that bin Laden has declared war on the West. That's not at issue here, as you'd know if you had taken the time to read my views before replying to them. This is often considered good practice before calling a blogger you've (presumably) never read before a "nitwit" who "pontificates" with his "prissy principles". (While you're at it, read what the comment guidelines have to say about personal attacks. Not that I'll enforce them as long as I'm the only target.) What is at issue is whether _all_ of Islam is at war with the West, which is an extraordinary claim requiring a similar amount of evidence and reasoning to back it up. None of which you're providing here.

Oh, and I believe a majority of Norwegians would be offended to be associated with what I write about Islam.

Sandy P: "Yet the European pillars are getting awfully shaky, Bjorn. "

Yeah, and that's a good reason to tear them down completely. Hm?

"What is your final enough is enough, we've given it our best shot? What is your line in the sand, Bjorn? We should have a baseline from where we start."

The line goes where it has always gone - at violence. We already have the laws in place, no special exception for Muslims is needed. Special attention on Islamists, certainly, but no exception from the basic rights of a free society.

"I think 25 years of killing Americans is enough. You don't. Fair, you're not an American and you're not the main target. You have that luxury at this point in time and for a few years more."

Oh don't give me that. I haven't written for three years in defense of American views on the war on terror to be dismissed like that. When I've stood up for something George W. Bush has done, the president of a country far away that I've never been in, then you've respected my views. Now that I write in defense of a founding principle not only of your society but of _mine_, now I'm to be dismissed because I'm not an American? Do you really think it is so simple, that whenever anyone disagrees with you on the war on terror, it's because they don't take the threat seriously? You're even willing to use that argument on _me_? Jesus.

Thomas Glahn: "You seem to be highly out of touch with the vast majority of your own regular readers and commenters. Some advice for you. Try to open your eyes and see things differently. The truth is right there in front of you:"

If you're right, then it was about time I started to fight back. I'm already out of touch with the vast majority of the country I live in. I don't mind taking on a few more people. But you're right, it's important to open one's eyes once in a while and try to "see things differently". Perhaps I've overlooked something. Very well, I'll listen carefully to your facts and reasoning:

"Islam is a threat to this world."

Oh. That's it? No arguments, just a contradiction of my views? That's not likely to impress anyone. I've seen enough _rephrasings_ of that particular point of view, (and all of them, btw, were longer and more detailed than yours). What I miss is arguments. Facts. Reasoning. I keep pushing, and people keep giving me clever, well-written even, rephrasings of the same claim: Islam is a threat to this world. Is there noone here who will go beyond that and try to explain how they arrived at that conclusion, and why it would be rational of me to do so as well?

Christian Lindhardt-Larsen: "Islam will not be banned. But right now are there muslims in Norway who work for banning critism of islam. They are fascists. They are the ones we should devote the attention to."

I will. I often do. But how on earth does that absolve the views expressed above about banning Islam? Are we not able to keep two thoughts in our heads at the same time: "It is wrong to ban criticism of a religion." + "It is wrong to ban an entire religion." Try it. Not very difficult - in fact marvelously consistent. And yes it _is_ important when people become so flippant about freedom of religion. Not because any such ban will actually happen, but because of the hypocrisy and intellectual corruption it is a symptom of. Look at the logical fallacies on display here - many of them exactly the same fallacies bloggers have exposed among anti-Americans and peace activists for years.

Susan: "Is this the "free speech" society you want Bjorn? How will we be able to challenge the bad ideas of Islam when Muslims are using our democratic processes to destroy our Western freedoms?"

I don't know, what do people usually do when somebody suggests a bad law? They try to prevent it from happening through regular democratic means, through debates and voting. That is precisely the free speech society I want.

jimmy USA | 2004-08-10 18:08 | Link

Bjørn Stærk

i'd like to here your take on this
http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article263256.ece

Norwegian Muslims want to collect 15,000 signatures in order to gain support for a stricter blasphemy paragraph.

yeah lets make it illegal to say big mo was a false prophet

Susan | 2004-08-10 18:34 | Link

Susan: "You seem to be quite blind. Bjørn is not arguing for the blasphemy paragraph. He is arguing against banning Islam."

Rune: I think you are missing the point. The point is not the blasphemy laws. The point is how our democratic processes will be used against us by the adherents of Islam, the fascist cult. This blasphemy petition -- applied to protection of Muhammad, who is only a historical figure in the Western tradition -- is only the beginning, as I said. Also, when the demographic numbers no longer go our way, and Muslims have real political power in the West, then what? We have already seen it happen elsewhere.

Was Hitler not a totalitarian even though he was democratically elected? Why does everyone think that just remaining "democratic" is enough to protect our freedoms from Islam even while the demographic pendulum is swinging toward its adherents and away from us?

We are losing our freedoms to Islam all over the West. In Canada they are allowing sharia courts; in the US they are allowed to blare their religious propaganda into our homes by loudspeaker five times per day; in Britain in many schools, non-Muslim children are only allowed to eat halal food at school cafeterias; in France, writers are prosecuted for saying "Islam is stupid" in magazine interviews.

And this is while Muslims only account for 3-5 percent of the population of Europe. What happens when the population of Muslims hits 30, 40, 50 percent?

History doesn't have very encouraging answers for us here.

Sandy P | 2004-08-10 19:17 | Link

--...Among ourselves, we need to stop pretending that Iraq is a one-time deal. We'll be in the Middle East for decades to come, in unexpected locations. Our bitter enemies — provoked by their civilization's utter failure — will continue to present us with a straightforward choice: Either take the war to them or, per Sen. Kerry, wait until they bring the war to us.

We have to deal with the world in which we live, not the one we wish we inhabited. Our tradition of passivity fostered the rise of a class of terrorists and thugs who would be delighted to slaughter every man, woman and child in America.

We need to kill them first.

Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."--

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28776.htm

--Sandy P: "Yet the European pillars are getting awfully shaky, Bjorn. "

Yeah, and that's a good reason to tear them down completely. Hm?

"What is your final enough is enough, we've given it our best shot? What is your line in the sand, Bjorn? We should have a baseline from where we start."

How much violence? How many dead?

As to our pillars, sometimes to protect something, one has to tighten up.

Maybe you want to fight this within western rules and use western beliefs to influence their beliefs. At a certain point you won't be able to, they don't play by our rules.

I'm not dismissing you. As I wrote, you have continually discussed this aspect. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of my people - including me and my family - are going to die to protect those values. But we have been going around on this for at least 1 year here if not more.

We readers agree with you, we understand what you're saying. You know the end game and you're fighting the valiant fight not to get there. In America's way, so are we. But maybe the disconnect is that you're talking principles, and you're looking at the peripherals and don't think it's a big deal at this time.

Americans went to endgame when the 2nd plane hit. IMHO, At least 1/2 are in denial, but there's no way no one could have watched 9/11 and not knew the possibility. And the world does not appreciate the fact that we did not do what we are capable of.

While we are trying to bring our principles to them (and it is working, BTW), they are using our principles in our countries to chip away at our principles.

I'm not dismissing you, never have. However, your line in the sand is very ambiguous. You're going to have to define violence for me. 190 Spaniards wasn't enough even after 9/11 and 10/12 in Bali. What I was actually looking for is how many dead before we reluctantly admit we gave it our best.

Maybe what some of your readers are looking for from you is an acknowledgement of their concerns. They're not seeing things in their backyard the same way you are.

Just because we're paranoid doesn't mean someone's not out to get us.

Lincoln did suspend the Writ of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War.

---

--I don't know, what do people usually do when somebody suggests a bad law? They try to prevent it from happening through regular democratic means, through debates and voting. That is precisely the free speech society I want.--

And while this is lovely, let me tell you what's happening in America. If activist groups don't get their way at the ballot box, they find a like-minded judge to implement their view. Or, use lawsuits to delay implementation of something they don't like. Even better, on environmental policies, they get to use my tax money to stop it. Talk about deep pockets.

Congress is starting to pay attention to what our judges are doing, and might have to slap down the USSC in the future. THAT is very, very big if they have to do that, the separation of powers is getting out of whack.

Do you think if the vote doesn't go their way, they'll take no for an answer? Or will they seethe and whine to get their way?

Ali Dashti | 2004-08-10 19:22 | Link

I notice that most of my fellow Norwegians here still seem to be extremely naive. Muslims hardly make up more than 2% of the population in Norway today, but are already launching a frontal attack against our freedom of speech, at the same time as they are demanding their own school for Norwegian-Pakistani children in Pakistan, paid by Norwegian tax payers. They are also demanding separate showers in schools, separate prayer rooms, Arabic language to be introduced in High Schools in Oslo etc. And inviting pro-Taliban and Al-Qaida politicians to Oslo to make speeches at Pakistan's national day. What do you think they will do when they make up 10, 15, or 20% of the population? These people aren't "new countrymen" that will integrate into our nation. They are enemies that want to subdue us and destroy the very society they enjoy the benefits of.

The "blasphemy" issue is also discussed in this thread:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002807.php

Sandy P | 2004-08-10 19:36 | Link

Bjorn and others, you really should read vodkaboy and his commenters.

Sandy P | 2004-08-10 20:38 | Link

http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/000414.html

A LOT OF WHAT I LEARNED ABOUT AMERICA
I LEARNED IN IRAQ
John Agresto, Ph.D.

Apostate of Islam | 2004-08-10 21:27 | Link

No, we should not ban Islam, but we should make it a well known fact that ist is a cult.

Then it would become socially unacceptable to be a Muslim, and Islam would be treated with the wariness and suspicion it should.

nickster | 2004-08-11 00:11 | Link

I think arranged and forced marriages of 13-year-old girls should be banned. Polygamy should be banned. The penalty for murdering a non-Muslim should be the same as that for murdering a Muslim. Discrimination on the basis of religion should be banned including separate but "equal" accommodations for Muslims and non-Muslims. Execution of Muslim apostates should be banned. Punishment of people for criticizing Mohammad should be banned. If all these things, among others I'm sure I can come up with, are banned, the practice of the religion of Islam is effectively banned as well.

DP111, UK | 2004-08-11 00:36 | Link

Bjorn:

Most if not all of your objections to my post can be ascribed to your position that freedom and tolerance, means freedom and tolerance of all ideas; as if they were a law of nature. This is a naive belief. These are ideas that have come to fruition only in the last 50 years or so. In the long run of history, freedom of thought as a 'Universal' value is a mere blip.

In response to your post, I would argue that there is no such thing as absolute freedom or absolute tolerance of all. All human constructs, whether they are physical or social, are defined within the social construct they were made for. Our present day Western culture never envisaged an encroachment from within, by an ideology that intends and uses the West's freedom, to destroy that very freedom. You may argue that Marxism was such a threat, but I can say unequivocally that though Marxism is totalitarian, its totalitarian greed was small compared to that of Islam. It was also amenable to reason, which Islam as it masquerades as a religion, is not amenable to.

But I digress. My main point here is that though we would like to uphold tolerance of religion under all circumstances, this is an ideal state. In the real world, there are limits to everything. Tolerance should not be extended to those who will destroy tolerance for all, if given the chance. If we do so, then there will be a price to pay. There always is. It maybe that that price is worth paying, OTH it may not.

So what price are we willing to pay to uphold the assumed infinite stretchability of pluralism and tolerance. Everything has a price, and the price may be too high for some. It is ofcourse easy to say that 'We will pay any price..". It maybe laudable and as I said, giving the holder the comfort of moral superiority. But these are critical times for the West and we have to face make critical decisions. Recourse to the moral and ethical comfort zone is not an option.

The question is what price are we prepared to pay, and how close do we wish to sail to the rocks before calling it a day.

Sandy P | 2004-08-11 00:36 | Link

More food for fodder, after reading Vodkaboy:

http://www.caerdroia.org/blog/archives/001189.html

DP111,UK | 2004-08-11 00:44 | Link

nickster:

"Punishment of people for criticizing Mohammad should be banned".

Precisely! You have hit the nail on the head. Ban Islamic rituals and practices that are inimical to Western values, and one has sorted the problem out to the satisfaction of all but Islamic fanatics. These can be dealt with in the normal way.

DP111, UK | 2004-08-11 01:04 | Link

Bjorn:
I was waiting for it! Waiting for someone to equate standing up for freedom of religion, a pillar of Western society, with being a multiculturalist. Thank you for proving me right.

One may equate the two of you like, but in this context you err. Multiculturalism is afterall the celebration of many ideas. Islam OTH would destroy all such ideas of plurality. It is hardly tactical or practical to invite Islam into the multiculturalism tent. If one does, then as I said, there will be a price to pay. This can come as reaction from the dominant culture in the West or the fear other minority cultures have; that Islam is getting a pre-eminent postion in the West. Either way, it harms multi-cultural society. This is not hypothetical. I know several Christians from the ME, Zoroastrians from Persia and India, who are fearful that Islam is getting a strong purchase in the West, way beyond what they deem as safe for themselves.

DP111, UK | 2004-08-11 01:04 | Link

Bjorn:
I was waiting for it! Waiting for someone to equate standing up for freedom of religion, a pillar of Western society, with being a multiculturalist. Thank you for proving me right.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-11 02:54 | Link

nickster:

All the things you mention ARE banned. Not only in Norway, but also in quite a few Muslim countries. Oh, there's one exception of course, we've got our sleeping blasphemy paragraph - recently fought hard for by Christians, including the Christian Democratic KrF - which, in theory makes blasphemous statements illegal. And blasphemy is not a possible crime (and of course should not be, regardless of what Susan thinks) only when the victim is Christianity.

When it comes to a couple of your points, thought, I think some further comments are necessary:

"I think arranged and forced marriages of 13-year-old girls should be banned".

As mentioned they are. Not only in Norway, but in most Muslim countries. Interestingly enough the age of consent (for sex, not marriage) is lower in Chile and Austria than it was in pre-War Iraq or is in Lebanon. A fight for womens rights in Muslim countries is obviously necessary (it is in fact still necessary in Norway, too), but a black-and-white picture does not really help us, nor does it help feminists in the Muslim world.

"Polygamy should be banned".

It is. From a liberal point of view one could argue, however, that people should be allowed to choose for themselves what kind of a family structure they want, without being pressured by Christian or Islamic morals. On the other hand, one could say that such a ban is necessary to protect people from exploitation.

"The penalty for murdering a non-Muslim should be the same as that for murdering a Muslim".

Even Saudi-Arabia has changed its procedures on this one. That says quite a lot.

"Execution of Muslim apostates should be banned"

I can only find factual examples of executions based on apostasy in two countries: Iran and Saudi-Arabia. Even in these two countries there are few examples. On the other hand, some Muslim countries does not even practice death penalty whatsoever, unlike for instance the United States. In addition the basis for hudud penalty for apostasy in Islamic law is not only disputed, but HIGHLY disputed. How can you then deduct that this is a basic element in Islamic faith?

Øyvind

Ali Dashti | 2004-08-11 05:47 | Link

Øyvind: Pakistan has got the death penalty for blasphemy, which is actually worse. Usually, people "deal with" potential ex-Muslims on their own. From an Islamic point of view, the law "should" be sharia, anyway.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/SherKhan40810.htm

Governments and citizens of western countries will have to understand the threat of real Islam. Their appeasing attitude comes from two factors, one is oil and another is the concept of freedom of faith. Freedom is an unknown word in Islamic book; it does not carry any value in the world of Islam. Freedom of faith gives Islam the freedom to kill and freedom to hate. Western world still has no clue of what Islam can do.

Hypocrite Muslim intellectuals have successfully created a rosy image of Islam, far away from actual Islamic teachings. Many western scholars fell in this trap and made comments that favored Islam. When some Muslims carry “Islam will rule the world” placards, people of western countries fail to get the message.

Western countries are smart enough to find alternatives of Oil and fight with Islam. However, this urge will not arise until they know what Islam is all about. Paranoid political leaders are afraid of calling a spade a spade. News Medias are scared to publicize horrendous Islamic news. Non-Muslim citizens avoid this sensitive subject of Islam.

Susan | 2004-08-11 06:20 | Link

Oyvind: "And blasphemy is not a possible crime (and of course should not be, regardless of what Susan thinks) only when the victim is Christianity."

Not sure on what you are implying here. Are you implying that I am in favor of enforcing blaspemy laws? If so, you are dead wrong and arrogantly, presumptuously so.

Oyvind again: "The penalty for murdering a non-Muslim should be the same as that for murdering a Muslim".

Even Saudi-Arabia has changed its procedures on this one. That says quite a lot."

Link, please? The last I heard, the blood price for a non-Muslim's life in Saudi was still much lower than for a Muslim -- insultingly so for "pagans" such as Hindus. Moreover, such changes in the Muslim world usually only come about as a result of Western pressure. What will become of such "reforms" when the West becomes too weak to push the Muslim world around? I do not believe such reforms will last.

Ovyind again: "Execution of Muslim apostates should be banned"

I can only find factual examples of executions based on apostasy in two countries: Iran and Saudi-Arabia. Even in these two countries there are few examples."

Death sentences have been pronounced on apostates in Yemen and in Kuwait in recent times -- only Western intervention halted them. And you conveniently leave out that apostacy is still a crime in almost all Muslim-majority countries, including "liberal" Malaysia. Punishments range from prison sentences (Morocco), to enforced divorce from spouses and foreiture of all property and legal rights (Egypt), to stints in "faith re-education" camps ("moderate" Malaysia).

Oyvind again: "In addition the basis for hudud penalty for apostasy in Islamic law is not only disputed, but HIGHLY disputed. How can you then deduct that this is a basic element in Islamic faith?"

This is flat-out wrong. I have never heard of a single debate on the apostacy punishment amongst Islamic scholars, except in the single matter of whether or not female apostates can be executed, and I read a LOT of Islamic websites including those purporting to be "moderate" and "mainstream." Apostacy as a capital crime has been affirmed by the "moderate" Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi for example, one of the most respected and popular scholars in the Arab world. And what does Al-Azhar have to say about it, please?

Please link to evidence of these "HIGHLY" disputing debates about apostacy amongst Islamic scholars. And, no, links from fringe Submitter and Rashid Khalifa sites are not acceptable as evidence.

Susan | 2004-08-11 06:35 | Link

Here is a good rundown on apostasy and blasphemy cases in the Islamic world:

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/islam_-_apostasy.htm

I forgot to add Sudan (and probably, the sharia states of Nigeria) as countries where the capital punishment for apostasy from Islam is enforced.

Morgane | 2004-08-11 09:49 | Link

Oyvind
You should be watching the news more.Nine yrs is the age girls can be married in Iran and remember this dates back to seventh century, according to Sharia Law. In Saudi Arabia and Iran, you can go to Stonings - Why don't you see one for yourself
and get educated!!Very recently a 14yr old girl {Muslim] had her ears, nose and tongue cut off by Miitant Muslims in Kashmir. A Christian daring to preach in Afghanistan had his throat cut.In Indonesia Buddhists were burned alive in their temple. The list of atrocities is endless and all the perpetrators did these things in the name of Allah. Have you ever seen a Christian Church or Hindu Temple allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia??
Islam allows NO other faiths. Many,many apostates have been killed.

BJORN STAERK re;'personal attacks'
Dear me. Are you expecting Al Quaeda to play by your rules?? All frightfully civilized doncha know..
You ARE in for a surprise!

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-11 12:23 | Link

Morgane:

I do watch the news quite enough, thank you. And I am familiar with low-age marriages in Iran (and other Muslim and non-Muslim countries). However, I find quite striking that your examples are from Iran, Saudi-Arabia and Afghanistan.

When it comes India and Indonesia, as I am sure you know - there has been quite a few examples of atrocities towards Muslims as well. I find it highly hypocritical not to mention this.

Susan:

When it comes to Saudi-Arabia changing its laws on murder this is something the Saudi-Arabian embassy in London has informed Amnesty International about
quite recently (spring 2004). I am sure it is possibly to find references to it on the net, however I do not have the time or energy.

Regarding apostasy I can point you to an enormous amoint of sources. Sadly, few of them are available on the Internet (I have however included some at the of this answer), but if you go to a decent university library you should probably be able to find them.

The former Chief Justice of Pakistan (!), SA Rahman, has written a book called "The Punishment for Apostasy in Islam" . Here he notes that even though the subject of apostasy occurs no less than 20 times in the Qu'ran there is no reference on death as a penalty for it. There is however ONE weak hadith were this penalty is suggested, this ONE hadith is the basis for Muslim scholars that support hudud penalty for apostasy.

According to professor Hashim Kamali in his book "Freedom of Expression in Islam" two leading jurists of the generation succeeding the Companions, Ibrahim al-Naka'I and Sufyan al-Thawri, both held that the apostate should be reinvited to Islam, and NEVER condemnde to death.
The renowned Hanafi jurist, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi wrote that even though renunciation of faith is the greatest of offences, it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the Day of Judgement. The Maliki jurist Abul Walid al-Baji and the renowned Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah have both held that apostasy is a sin which carries no hadd punishment.

If we go to modern times, we can for instance check with the late Sheik of al-Azhar, one of the most leading figures in the Muslim word, and a man highly appreciated for his vast knowledge of Islamic law, wrote that many ulama are in agreement that hudud cannot be established by a solitary hadith and that unbelief by itself does not call for the death penalty. The current Sheikh of al-Azhar, who was Egypt's former Grand Mufti, Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, also declared that apostasy is not a capital crime.

These, Susan, are LEADING Islamic scholars. That you are not aware of this suggests that you have been studying merely anti-Islamic sources.

A very common interpretation is that death penalty was not meant to apply to a simple change of faith (the Quran does mention people changing back and forth SEVERAL times), but to socalled hirabah, that is when apostasy is accompanied by rebellion or outright treason. While this view is also quite appalling, it is not the same as making apostasy punishable by death.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos.htm (this site is quite bombastic on what is Sharia Law and not, but at least it is honest enough to mention opposing Muslim views and to go through factual examples. There is also quite a few references to further reading - both from anti-Islamic sources and from Islamic sources with differing views)

http://www.understanding-islam.com/rp/p-003.htm
http://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/views/poa.htm
http://islamicbookstore.com/b5675.html

Ali Dashti:

Whether death penalty for blasphemy is worse than death penalty for apostasy or not can of course be discussed.

However, I am aware that this is the law in Pakistan and I am totally in agreement with you that this is a terrible, terrible thing.

It does reveal that several Muslim countries are caught in an era that Western countries have long left and that people in these countries - preferably with our help - will have to fight for human rights.

However, attacking Islam in general, and based on partially and sometimes wholly faulty accusations, will not help.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-11 13:03 | Link

I would like to add some further points:

1. Death penalty for apostasy is extremely rare in modern-day Muslim countries. Quite a few Muslim countries does not practice death penalty whatsoever.

2. Religious freedom is constitutionally guaranteed in Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya (Islamists, however, enjoy little religious freedom here - as they are regarded as dangerous for the regime), Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Western Sahara, Yemen (however, this is one of few countries where apostasy is formally punishable by death, regardless of the constitution. According to a US report there were no examples of cases in which the crime was charged or prosecuted by authorities), Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mongolia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan (in practice all kinds of religious expressions are restricted, including Muslim), Uzbekistan, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Chad, Mali, Niger and even Sudan (severely restricted in practice).

In quite many of these countries, like Qatar and UAE, however proselytization by non-Muslims and publich worship is restricted. Apostasy, however, is not punishable in the vast majority of them. As you can see, de facto Muslim law does not punish apostasy, and in general permits people at least personal religious freedom. There's a long way to go yet, but it would be advisable too have reality as a basis, and not a false idea of what sharia is and says.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/

3. Sharia is not "one" law, it is interpreted differently from Muslim denomination to Muslim denomitation and from country to country. Islamic law is also far from as rigid as many believe.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-08-11 14:21 | Link

Oops. The name of the late sheik of al-Azhar some how got dropped out of there. His name was Mahmud Shaltut, and he wrote: "apostasy carries no temporal penalty" (i.e. no penalty of this world)

Ref. Mohammad Hasim Kamali, 'Freedom of Expression in Islam', Ilmiah Publishers: Kuala Lumpur, 1998, pages 93-95.

Another link for you all:
http://www.thefiqh.org/article.php/18

momo | 2004-08-11 17:34 | Link

Bjorn writes: Are we not able to keep two thoughts in our heads at the same time: "It is wrong to ban criticism of a religion." + "It is wrong to ban an entire religion." Try it. Not very difficult - in fact marvelously consistent.

Bjorn, you're too smart for some of your readers. Don't bother explaining what should be obvious. these people go on and on about defending democracy and they dont have a clue.

I think you put the finger on one of the main effects of these years of fundamentalist Islam and terrorism - in that clash of civilisations view, for people who like to indulge in binary thinking, it's like that started a competition of a Darwinian nature, about which will be the STRONGEST civilisation to survive. Scratch Darwin, actually, that's just a classic action movie, that's how many people seem to think. It's ALL about the enemy, it's all about the war, it's all about the fight - it's like the entire existence of civilisation on earth to them is retro-actively justified by the war on terror. Like the whole existence of humankind was leading up to this armageddon-like confrontation, and that is what gives it its entire purpose. So the rest is irrelevant. The defending part - the means - has become an end in itself, a fundamentalist religion in itself!, and what is being defended is secondary. They don't see the risk that justifying _anything_ in the name of defense, without keeping in mind what it is you're defending, means you're already doing the fundamentalist's work for them.

But aside from the principles and conceptual part that Bjorn has already written about so well. I want to follow the absurdity to its conclusions, and ask this to the folks who are defending the concept of banning Islam: could you, in rational terms, explain exactly a) how you'd go about it (the practical details, how do you enforce such a ban - hint: it wouldn't be as simple as banning smoking in restaurants) and b) HOW can you possibly think a BAN on a religion would mitigate the fundamentalist elements within it and encourage the more moderate and democratic voices instead? (hint: the last time they tried to ban a religion it was a few hundred years ago and now it's the biggest one on earth.) and finally, the obvious c) how can you ban one religion without banning all religions? how do you legally justify that?

Really. EVEN if you followed that absurd premise that there's even a possibility that a religion could ever be banned within a democracy (it could, in THEORY, but it would automatically kill that democracy and turn it into a dictatorship, doh) - even if you skip the theoretical part, you come up with such nonsense even at a practical level, it's really hilarious if it wasn't so sad, that there's people who are really, in all seriousness, entertaining the notion of banning a religion... but carry on, it's very amusing...
Especially when some of these folks come up with a retort like "get real!", ha, the nerve!

Larry, Seattle, Wa., U.S.A. | 2004-08-11 18:20 | Link

Europe is already history because of political correctness and tolerance of bad ideologies like Islam. Most Europeans have lost the ability to process the concept of murdering lunatics who are out to kill them. It's back to basics when involved in this kind of conflict. It's simple. Identify the enemy (not a difficult task) and then kill him first. There's no time to quibble and split hairs. Too many good people die while Europe ponificates and ponders how to deal with evil. Take a good look at the video on 9-11, 2001. Want that in your cities?

momo | 2004-08-11 18:32 | Link

Oh yeah, because the difference between identifying the enemy as terrorists OR as a whole religion of 1.3 billion people is a matter of "splitting hairs". Who is the enemy to kill, a subgroup, or a whole 1/6th of the population of this planet? Oh, of course, that's just one of those European sophisticated subtleties that we right-thinking Americans rightly despise.

I. don't. think. so.

If at least everybody spoke for themselves only, rather than for entire countries, or entire religions, or entire continents. Too many wannabe prophets around.

| 2004-08-11 18:47 | Link

momo -

If you don't know who the enemy is by now, you've got a problem. The majority of Muslims are dangerous, not necessarily because they're fuse lighters or trigger pullers, but because the are facilitators and sympathizers. the roughly 20% who are left say nothing, for the most part.
And yes, again, europe will not survive. It nearly didn't survive WW2. This threat is much more serious. Your worldview helps put us here in America on the Islamist chopping block as well.

Ali Dashti | 2004-08-11 19:48 | Link

Momo, you are just as naive as Øyvind and Bjørn. Let me give you a VERY good example. Above, I quoted how a leading Pakistani Islamist has been invited to Oslo, Norway, to make a speech at Pakistan's National Day (There is a large community of Pakistanis in Oslo). His name is Qazi Hussain Ahmed. Local Muslims insist there is nothing "extremist" about his views, and that he is on the side of mainstream, "modern" Islam. Really? Let's take a look at some of his "moderate" views. And Øyvind, notice how he supports killing of people leaving Islam, and quite correctly points out that this is what Islamic law demands. But I guess that's just my paranoia......

http://www.media-watch.org/articles/0999/306.html

Q:Please tell us about your stay with Qazi Hussain Ahmed

Qazi had said once that JI comes to power in Pakistan, he will abolish the voting rights of women and minorities. Only the Muslim men can participate in voting or standing for elections. When I asked the proof from Hadiths, he had quoted many Hadiths in support of that.

Once the Jamaat comes to power, the minorities will be induced(forced) to become Muslims either by monetary or psychological factors. JI is already equating the India with Hindus so that the Hindus of Pakistan will be forced to become Muslims. This was very successful strategy during
the Babri Masjid riots. We ordered the destruction of the Hindu family property too. But our main aim was to destroy the Hindu temples. We wrote the JI pamphlets that destroying each pagan temple make a Muslim
move closer t