EU Referendum

Showing posts with label Islamism. Show all posts

mosque[i-mosque]Part of Monday was spent at a conference organized jointly by (deep breath) the Center for Security Policy with the New Criterion, Hudson Institute, City Journal – Manhattan Institute and our own Centre for Social Cohesion. With such illustrious sponsors there were illustrious speakers, including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mark Steyn, Daniel Johnson, Melanie Phillips, John O’Sullivan and David Pryce-Jones. Several postings will be needed to do it all justice and this is merely a preliminary musing.

The theme was “Free Speech, Jihad and the Future of Western Civilization” with a sub-heading mentioning libel tourism, a peculiarly British problem but that was not one of the main subjects. Since there were no lawyers on either of the panels, there could be no discussion of how the libel laws of this country can be changed as, we all agree, they must be.A repeated theme elaborated by several speakers was the notion that the danger we are facing through soft jihad is greater than any we have faced before as neither Nazism nor Communism were so obviously ensconced in our society. There were no schools named after Lenin or St Adolph churches on street corners. Thus, our refusal to fight the jihad is liable to destroy Western civilization in a way the other two ideologies could not.

Let me, respectfully, disagree with that. Well, I guess you expected that. The long analysis and disagreement is on EUReferendum2, though without pictures as I cannot think of any appropriate ones.

brothertariq[i-brothertariq]By now I have lost count of the number of talks I have heard from people who should know something about the subject (one of them was Peter Clarke, until recently in charge of the Metropolitan Police Service's section on counter-terrorism), which all come up with the same point. It is so difficult to deal with Islamists and their supporters because we are not used to the way they think, act and organize themselves.

In particular, they tell us, the Islamist groups are not like the IRA. Well, no, they are not. But then, the IRA was a relatively untypical terrorist organization in that its aims were limited and clearly stated; they organized themselves as an army with a command structure; and if they infiltrated any other organization it was for a specific purpose, be that gathering of information or terrorist activity.

On the other hand, there have been plenty of political and terrorist organizations in the past whom our present-day enemy does resemble. These thoughts were once again going through my mind as I was reading Caroline Fourest's "Brother Tariq - The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan", a book I can sincerely recommend to anyone who is interested both in the eponymous hero and in the swirling movements around him.

Tariq Ramadan, who is, to my great embarrassment but no suprise, a fellow of my old college at Oxford, is a very dangerous man. He confuses many of his Western interlocutors because he appears to be a steady follower of the rules of action laid down by his maternal grandfather, Hassan al-Bana, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is what Ms Fourest, a highly regarded French writer and journalist and a woman of the left, says about the Muslim Brotherhood:

From the very start, the Muslim Brotherhood has been based on an ambiguity: that of being at one and the same time an organized movement and a way of thinking. The movement's founding law, which dates from 1945, defines an 'active member' as someone who has pledged allegiance to the Guide, but the great majority of those committed to serve the Brotherhood's ideology do so on an informal basis. These agents spread al-Banna's message and his methods, without being an integral part of the organization.

The movement had, to be sure, an official structure that represented it in political dealings with institutions. The Brotherhood even ahd a flag: two crossed swords with the Koran as a background. The organization's officers intoduced themselves as members of the Muslim Brotherhood if, in so doing, negotiations with the Egyptian government or other administrations were facilitated.

But the Brotherhood consisted of much more than this official façade. Some sections were engaged in infiltration operations that were of necessity undercover. Other sections organized terrorist attacks that had to be publicly condemned so as not to discredit the official line taken by the head office.

Steps were taken to separate, as far as possible, the sections that were in the public eye from the undercover cells, either because the latter were more radical or because their mission had to remain confidential.

This led to the creation of an unofficial branch, knowns as the Secret Organization, in charge of the most sensitive operations.

Well, well, I thought, now who does that remind me of? Could it be the Communist Party and the Communist International, who created parallel structures in most countries where it was possible, from the very beginning? Not much changed between the early days of 1920 - 21 when gold was exported from starving Russia (famine caused, naturally enough, by the Bolshevik government's policies) not to buy in grain but to fund subversive organizations in the United States and Britain and the situation in the seventies and eighties when the mighty Soviet Union secretly sent funds to such organizations as the German "Generals for Peace".

Why do we have to re-learn the same lesson over and over again? It is bad enough that the powers that be refused to deal with that "unknown unknown" the need for anti-subversion. That has damaged the West and this country in particular a great deal. Our refusal to learn those lessons will harm us again now and in the future.

Geert+Wilders[i-Geert+Wilders]Though Geert Wilders’s film Fitna, which is less than totally complimentary about Islam, the Qu’ran and, above all, terrorism committed in the name of Islam, is now available on the internet, I am actually finding it hard to link to it. Some of our readers might have better luck, though, as Charles Johnson on Little Green Footballs points out, some of the scenes in this 15 minute film might be harrowing.

In other words, I am not in a position to pass judgement on the film. It may not be particularly accurate and it may confuse Islam with Islamism. Other people who have seen it, think that it is hard going but not particularly offensive to anyone who is not out there wanting to be offended and is threatening to kill anyone who suggests that Islam is not the most tolerant religion under the sun.

In any case, the suggestion that almost all recent terrorist activity has been carried out by Islamists who quote the Qu’ran to justify their behaviour is hardly contentious.

As Robert Spencer on Jihadwatch details, the protests in the Muslim countries have started already, because, as we know, Pakistan, Iran and other countries of that kind know all about freedom of speech and respect for other religions.

England Expects discusses the BBC article on Geert Wilders and the omissions in it, such as the fact that Mr Wilders’s name was on the piece of paper that had been skewered to the body of Theo van Gogh (spelling Mr Towler/Harvey!), the murdered film-maker.

The various protests by the Muslim countries and, inevitably, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), another expert on freedom of speech and tolerance, has acquired an unexpected and somewhat confused supporter. Yes, dear readers, you have guessed it – the European Union, that embodiment of European values, among which freedom of speech always seems to come high. (Though, as I have already pointed out in what is still a half-finished posting, the concept of freedom of speech is an inadequate and unhelpful one, easily destroyed.)

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has called on Britain, the Netherlands and the European Union to ban the film and has spoken particularly harshly about this country because the website that is hosting the film, LiveLeak, is based here.

link[i-link]The film is described as “dirty” and provocative whose intention is to insult and, no doubt, hurt Muslims. This should not be allowed, the Iranian Foreign Ministry maintains. And if it is, there might be violence as Muslims yet again display their rage at being so insulted.

LiveLeak issued a statement Thursday saying there was no legal reason not to allow Wilders to post the film. It said the site's policy is to remain unbiased and allow freedom of speech. Some in the Muslim community rejected the film as nothing more than dangerous anti-Islamic propaganda.

"This film is a direct attempt to incite violence from Muslims and help fan the flames of Islamophobia," Arsalan Iftikhar, a contributor to Washington-based Islamica Magazine, told CNN on Thursday. "Any reasonable person can see this is meant to spit in the face of Muslims and insult our religion."

Iftikhar said he doubted the film would spark the same type of violence that followed the publication of the caricature of Mohammed, but he called on Muslim leaders to react peacefully.”

As the film is on the net, it might be a little difficult for imams to travel round some Middle Eastern countries with fraudulent versions of it as Abu Laban did with the Danish cartoons as we wrote here, here and here.

Meanwhile, what has been the EU’s reaction? Well, not very helpful to those of us who believe in freedom and prefer to think that if we must have governments, they should be there to protect our liberties from those who are threatening them.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said Thursday that the film equates Islam with violence.

"We reject this interpretation," Balkenende said in a statement. "The vast majority of Muslims reject extremism and violence. In fact, the victims are often also Muslims."

Slovenia, which holds the rotating EU presidency, said Friday that it supports the Dutch government's position and believes the film does nothing to promote dialogue among religions.

"Mutual tolerance and respect are universal values we should uphold. We believe that acts, such as the above-mentioned film, serve no other purpose than inflaming hatred."

Well, if the Slovenian government can direct me to examples of that “mutual tolerance and respect” and explain how many other parts of the world think of them as “universal values” I shall be very happy.

It would also be quite useful if some of these politicians would explain how suppressing our liberty could possibly help the Muslims who are fighting for theirs.

I mean, these people wouldn’t be afraid, would they? After all, you know, some of those alleged believers in mutual tolerance and respect go around demanding that all those who insult Islam be executed, massacred or exterminated.

In the circumstances, I can’t resist it: here is a not very well known clip from that wonderful film with Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney, “Babes on Broadway”. It is sort of appropriate. Enjoy! But have a hankie at the ready.

UPDATE

LiveLink has announced that it has had to take the film down because of threats to its staff. This appears to be a victory for the forces of terror and censorship as well as the pusillanimous politicians of the EU and SecGen Ban Ki-Moon, who, inevitably, condemned the film. On the other hand, the film has already been seen by millions of people and is still available on many other internet addresses. Here are some more links.

Booker Rising[i-Hirsi+Ali] is a favourite blog of mine. As an outsider, deeply interested in American affairs I find it highly refreshing to read discussions of issues to do with Black Americans that are not based on endless demands and complaints. (Of course, it is not as good as La Shawn Barber's Corner but few things on the internet are.)

Today's Quote of the Day comes from that very great and courageous lady, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who now lives in the United States (more shame on the Netherlands), one of the most outspoken and incisive critics of the "all civilizations are equal" thesis and a thorn in the flesh not just of Islamists but of cultural relativists like our old friend Tim Garton Ash.

Booker Rising publishes her comments about different cultures and her assertion that there is no equality between those cultures that value the individual and those who deny that.

Human beings are equal; cultures are not. A culture that celebrates femininity is not equal to a culture that trims the genitals of her girls. A culture that holds the door open to her women is not equal to one that confines them behind walls and veils. A culture that spends millions on saving a baby girl’s life is not equal to a one that uses its first encounter with natal technology to undertake mass abortion simply because baby girls are not welcome. A culture with courts that punish a husband for forcing his wife to have sex with him is not equal to a culture with a tribunal that decrees a young woman be gang-raped for talking to a boy of an allegedly higher caste.

Read it all.

COMMENT THREAD

Abu+Laban[i-Abu+Laban]Who dies, I hear readers asking themselves. Ahmed Abu Laban, the Danish imam who engineered all those cartoon riots. His death has been reported on Al-Jazeera.

Let me recapitulate very briefly. Ahmed Abu Laban who had fled from Egypt and found sanctuary in Denmark then proceeded to spend his time there attempting to introduce notions of sharia law in various parts of that country. When the Mohammed cartoons first appeared in Jyllands-Post in September 2005, Laban tried to stir up trouble in Denmark.

Jyllands-Post[i-Jyllands-Post]When this did not work out he, and some colleagues, went on a trip round some Middle Eastern countries (though not Egypt, which would not let him in) and showed the rather mild cartoons to all and sundry.

Among the original 12 drawings he had slipped three others that were considerably more offensive. One of them showed Mohammed with a pig’s snout. This was a lightly doctored picture of somebody winning the annual pig-squeaking competition in France.

Eventually, Laban admitted that he had falsified the evidence on Danish TV but pretended that he had received these pictures and messages in the post. The missives were never produced.

Pig_person[i-Pig_person]One way or another Laban achieved his aim: there were riots in various parts of the world and the Danish cartoonists and journalists went into hiding. The Danish government, despite pressure exerted by the UN and the EU, refused to close down the newspaper or apologize for freedom of the press.

Most European countries had one or two brave publications that put out the cartoons and they were published even in Egypt and Yemen, with unhappy results for the editors. The one country, shamefully, where no MSM outlet dared to reproduce the cartoons was the United Kingdom. This is something we shall not live down in a hurry.

Ahmed Abu Laban was next noted in Lebanon during the Israeli-Hezbollah war last summer, when westerners were being evacuated from Beirut. It turned out that he had been given Danish citizenship and, therefore, he was rescued by the Danish embassy.

Curiously enough, this man who held Muslim thought and culture so dear to him turned to the, undoubtedly first-class, Danish medical facilities during his last illness.

Michelle Malkin and Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs analyze AP's obituary piece, which has some curious omissions.

COMMENT THREAD

usa+hat[i-usa+hat]I can tell you where I got the picture: nicked it quite shamelessly from Gateway Pundit but I expect he nicked it from AP. And quite right, too.

It does sum up the contradictions of all those rage-filled, if somewhat belated, demonstrations. Saddam execution rage has followed cartoon rage, veil rage, Pope rage any other kind of rage you care to name.

This reminds me of an article the late lamented Oriana Fallaci wrote soon after 9/11. She interviewed a number of people in Egypt, all of whom denounced American imperialism and Western misdeeds, while wearing American jeans and refreshing themselves in the local (franchised) branch of McDonald's.

She raised the subject of the hefty subsidies the United States gives to Egypt to be told haughtily that the money Egypt receives (which keeps that economy together) and their hatred for America are not related to each other.

By the way, those with a strong stomach might like to see the pictures of what Eid al-Adha consisted of in numerous Muslim countries. Not for those who think that people have a responsibility towards animals and definitely not for people who think animals, too, are God's creatures.

I am delighted to say that nothing of this kind was seen in Shepherds Bush, where the Eid was moved to Saturday, no doubt, to give everyone a chance to celebrate New Year as well.

COMMENT THREAD

HTlogo_main[i-HTlogo_main]Our readers might recall that some time ago this blog had a mild run-in with Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organization that even according to the Observer "campaigns for Britain to become a caliphate - a country subject to Islamic law". It is also an organization that is banned in a number of countries, including, at different ends of the political spectrum, Canada and Pakistan.

Soon after the 7/7 bombings in London, Tony Blair announced that, as part of the fight against terrorism, he would seek the banning of the group. Furthermore,

On a trip to Pakistan last month, he is understood to have given personal assurances to President Pervez Musharraf that the ban would go ahead. Musharraf made clear to him that outlawing the group - banned in Pakistan since 2003 - must be a priority for Britain.

Well, President Musharraf can go whistle for that ban. After "intense discussions" between Number 10 and legal experts it was decided not to ban the group. Our counter-terrorism experts, who spent the past 15 years turning this country into "Londonistan" have, once again brought their moderation into play:

Despite public concerns about Hizb ut-Tahrir's perceived extremism, Home Office lawyers, the Foreign Office and representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers have quietly lobbied against outlawing the group and have, for now, won the argument.

"If there was evidence for proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir, we would support a move to proscribe it," said Rob Beckley, Acpo lead for communities and counter-terrorism. "But we think such a move would be counter-productive and not in the spirit of the government's [anti-terrorism] legislation. It is not an offence to hold extreme views."

Good to know that this country is well looked after by its guardians. Shall we hear anything from Her Majesty's Opposition?

COMMENT THREAD