What Will Europe Really Do?

[Jeffr062]

That’s the title of a column by Victor Davis Hanson. He asks the question what will Europe do about the cartoon riots. He lists several probable options and I’m curious what our European dopers think of them.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_14_06_VDH.html

Thanks in advance for all comments

[gum]

Hi Jeffr062,

A quote from your link:

• So now Europe is being thrust right into the middle of the so-called war against Islamic fascism. Once threatened, it will either react with a newly acquired Churchillian maturity to protect its civilization, or cave, in hopes that even more Chamberlain-type appeasement will satisfy the Islamists. *

I wish I could say otherwise, but I’m afraid the government of the Netherlands will take the second option.
Appeasing Islam is our new national motto.

But that oughtn’t to come as a big surprise to you, right?
The Dutch will do exactly what they did during WWII, when another dangerous regime was after the Jewish and homosexuals: We’ll look the other way and pretend it doesn’t happen.

And yes, It makes me physically ill and embarrased to be Dutch.

**Go Denmark! Go Free Speech! ** [that was ME speaking. Not my government]
[oh, We might make another cartoon, but that’s all. ]

[gum]

…Or we might make another cartoon in which not a nation is insulting the prophet Muhammed, but his lovely nine year old wife, Aisha.

[AFAIKnow]

@gum

…Or we might make another cartoon in which not a nation is insulting the prophet Muhammed, but his lovely nine year old wife, Aisha.
http://www.peterbreedveld.com/archives/Aicha.jpg

Nations produce the cartoons now?

[gum]

Heh. A newspaper in a country.
That okay?

[ExTank]

@gum

[oh, We might make another cartoon, but that’s all. ]

It may be inappropriate, but I got a good chuckle from that one.

[GIGObuster]

Too bad the Bush administration was more like Chamberlain that Churchill:

Columbia SC Breaking News, Sports & Crime | The State

But the Bush administration is being less than sure-footed in responding to the uproar and deadly protests over cartoon images of the Prophet Muhammad that were deeply offensive to Muslims, analysts say.

In the second week of violent protests, tens of thousands of Muslims demonstrated around the world Friday. Iranian youths rioted outside the French Embassy in Tehran despite calls for calm by government and religious leaders.
In its first reaction more than a week ago, the State Department appeared to blame the European media for publishing the cartoons, instead of condemning the violence that resulted, although U.S. officials said their message was misconstrued and taken out of context.

Then, after days of careful statements supporting press freedoms while denouncing violence, President Bush suggested anew that the press was irresponsible.

“America’s initial response was a bit lacking and regrettable, in that it actually sided with those who were offended as opposed to the Europeans, and particularly the Danes, who should have gotten unqualified support,” said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a conservative foreign policy scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for a New American Century.

I think Bush was remembering were his loyalties are:

http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/BushSaudi/main.asp

Cartoonists do rule in my book!

I already mentioned this before: when islamic extremists demand the freedoms of other nations to be limited, that is the moment one has to stand and say they are out of line and even force has to be considered to defend those rights. There were groups that fanned the flames that IMHO should not be left off the hook (like some imans in Denmark) the thing that we have to be on the look out is to prevent this administration (or other rulers in Europe) from attacking the wrong target again.

[AFAIKnow]

@gum

Heh. A newspaper in a country.
That okay?

Are there any other kind? Seriously, the only reason to blame Denmark for anything would be to allow free speach. And if allowing that is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.

[Sam_Stone]

@GIGObuster

I already mentioned this before: when islamic extremists demand the freedoms of other nations to be limited, that is the moment one has to stand and say they are out of line and even force has to be considered to defend those rights.

Absolutely. It’s a bit frightening how quickly a chilling effect on speech has descended on the free world. The message we’ve sent is, “If you want to control what we say, just firebomb a few of our embassies and stab a director or two in the chest. We’ll fall into line, pronto.”

Every paper should have rallied around and published those cartoons in a show of solidarity. But when most of them sit it out, then the ones who have the guts to print them become targets because they are isolated.

And the Bush administration made a huge error with that wealel-worded apology for free people expressing themselves. That was the time to stand up for OUR values and to put in a plug for tolerance, and to point out that tolerance is easy when everything is inoffensive, but the measure of a truly free society is the tolerance it has for offensive behaviour. Take the time to explain that this is not the work of a majority, or of a government, because unlike most countries in the middle east, our governments have no say in what is or isn’t printed. So no governmental apology will be forthcoming.

[bob_loblaw]

@Sam Stone

Absolutely. It’s a bit frightening how quickly a chilling effect on speech has descended on the free world. The message we’ve sent is, “If you want to control what we say, just firebomb a few of our embassies and stab a director or two in the chest. We’ll fall into line, pronto.”

Every paper should have rallied around and published those cartoons in a show of solidarity. But when most of them sit it out, then the ones who have the guts to print them become targets because they are isolated.

i don’t know… i think you looking at this the wrong way - imagine you are sitting in a restaurant with a dozen friends of the same skin colour as yourself, next to a table of a dozen friends of another skin colour. one of your dinner mates makes a “joke” about people of the skin colour the same as those sitting a table over, loud enough that they hear it.

does your friend have the right to say what he did? sure. it’s a free country.

do you expect the people of the other skin colour next to you, hearing a “joke” at their expense to have no reaction? well, i should hope not.

would a couple of those people from that next table stabbing some of your friends with their forks, and setting your table cloth on fire, be a complete over-reaction? of course it would be.

but can you understand why they might be enraged? i surely hope so.

should not the reaction of those at your table be to tryr and diffuse the rage of your neighbours by conversation, if at all possible? well, one would hope.

[tagos]

As i’ve said before. If you’re going to have to draw a line in the sand at some point, draw it straight away and don’t back down.

This whole furore has got me reading up on Islam and I find its totalitarian, expansionist ideology frightening enough when apologists are putting its best foot forward, let alone when reading critical analyses (not to mention the Koran itself).

Religion of peace, my ass. For Muslim males, so long as they toe the line, maybe.

[Illuminatiprimus]

@tagos

As i’ve said before. If you’re going to have to draw a line in the sand at some point, draw it straight away and don’t back down.

This whole furore has got me reading up on Islam and I find its totalitarian, expansionist ideology frightening enough when apologists are putting its best foot forward, let alone when reading critical analyses (not to mention the Koran itself).

Religion of peace, my ass. For Muslim males, so long as they toe the line, maybe.

I’m by no means an Islamic apologist, but I think you’re (simplisticly) fusing together Islamic-religious thought and Islamic-political action. There are Christians who believe that adultery is so profoundly wrong that those who commit it really should be stoned to death as the bible proscribes, but living in societies that forbid capital punishment and the taking of law into one’s own hands they don’t. Islamic religious thought is so vast and varied that it’s simply not possible to say “muslims all think/do this”, especially when the violent actions in the middle east have come from the usual suspects who weren’t too fond of the west anyway. I didn’t hear of any Chinese muslims firebombing emabassies.

Do you not see a distinction between muslims who accept and condone the use of violence to defend their ideas and attack those they don’t subscribe to, and those who reject violence? Are all muslims violent and aggressive because they’re muslim? Are all westerners violent imperialistic oppressors intent on keeping the Middle East ‘in its place’ because the US and UK invaded Iraq?

[tagos]

@Illuminatiprimus

I’m by no means an Islamic apologist, but I think you’re (simplisticly) fusing together Islamic-religious thought and Islamic-political action. There are Christians who believe that adultery is so profoundly wrong that those who commit it really should be stoned to death as the bible proscribes, but living in societies that forbid capital punishment and the taking of law into one’s own hands they don’t. Islamic religious thought is so vast and varied that it’s simply not possible to say “muslims all think/do this”, especially when the violent actions in the middle east have come from the usual suspects who weren’t too fond of the west anyway. I didn’t hear of any Chinese muslims firebombing emabassies.

Do you not see a distinction between muslims who accept and condone the use of violence to defend their ideas and attack those they don’t subscribe to, and those who reject violence? Are all muslims violent and aggressive because they’re muslim? Are all westerners violent imperialistic oppressors intent on keeping the Middle East ‘in its place’ because the US and UK invaded Iraq?

I understand where you’re coming from. Until very recently I was there too. My recent reading of the Koran and the works of Muslim scholars and non-islamic critics have changed my mind.

I now think Islam is an inherently totalitarian, expansionist ideology whose values concerning free speech, the organisation of society and the role of women are antithetical to a free society as I understand the concept.

I see very little to suggest otherwise. Sure, the majority are not burning down embassies, but they still claim Islamic law and custom trumps local laws.

I’m now reading what Islamic scholars and the Koran actually says and IMHO those who come up with pussy-footing definitions of Jihad and who try and claim Islam is tolerant of other religions are the ones that are misrepresenting Islam.

More power to them though.

And as world-wide, Muslims are insisting, peacefully and not, that Islamic custom, applies to us I figure that is justified. There are not any voices raised saying ‘we’re cool with free speech, carry on chaps.’

Islam is the one true religion and it is the duty of every individual Muslim, laid down in the Koran, to expand it to the whole world. Note how the earlier ‘peace and love’ parts of the Koran were written in Mecca when Mohammed’s position was weak.

Later, once his enemies had been expelled, massacred or enslaved in Medina, the sutra’s become much more forceful. and as I understand it, later trumps former s God progressively unveiled his full injunctions (look at the changing provisions on alcohol over time).

I don’t have the books I’ve borrowed from the library but this site puts this view strongly, with references.

Secular Islam

Averroes [12]: “Scholars agree that jihad is collective not a personal obligation… According to the majority of scholars, the compulsory nature of the jihad is founded on sura 2:216 ‘Prescribed for you is fighting, though it be hateful to you.’ … Scholars agree that all polytheists should be fought. This is founded on sura 8:39 ‘Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely.”

Encyclopedia of the Orient

Jihad
Arabic: jihād

Islamic term, Arabic for ‘battle; struggle; holy war for the religion’.

Jihad has two possible definitions: the greater, which is the spiritual struggle of each man, against vice, passion and ignorance. This understanding of jihad has been presented by apologetics of modern times, but is an understanding of the term rarely used by Muslims themselves.
The lesser jihad is simplified to cover holy war against infidels and infidel countries, aiming at spreading Islam. This kind of jihad is described in both the Koran and in the hadiths.

T

he enemies of Islam are divided into two groups, the Peoples of the book, ahl al-kitab and the pagans, the kafirun. The first group, defined as Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Mandeans need only to submit to an Islamic ruler, and live in peace with other Muslims to end the situation where jihad is imperative.
For the pagans there is a principle fairly similar, but they get less rights under the Muslim ruler than the Peoples of the book. While this group generally can live safely inside a Muslim society, some Muslims have propagated that these should either convert to Islam or face death penalty. In situations where the Muslim rulers mean that war has to be waged against the infidels, they should be allowed sufficient of time to convert before the Muslim army attacks.
Jihad is a duty for every Muslim community, but not necessarily for every individual: it’s sufficient that a certain number of the able men perform jihad.

Hopefully it is changing but looking at the teachings in the Koran and the Hadiths I think reformers have a mountainous rock to shift from their path.

I’m certainly no expert on Islam but I’m now trying to read widely on it and my overwhelming impression is that apologists are bending over backwards to reframe it in an acceptable light. A light recent events shows unwarranted regarding the possibility compatibility of Islam and liberal democratic institutions.

i’m more than happy to be completely disabused of these notions by more knowledgeable people. In fact I’d welcome it.

‘Most weren’t rioting’ doesn’t cut it though. The universal belief that liberal societies should bow to Islamic requirements regarding free speech and the organisation of society, particularly the role of women is the issue at stake. The cartoon row is the most prominent recent symptom.

[UselessGit]

Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Mandeans need only to submit to an Islamic ruler, and live in peace with other Muslims to end the situation where jihad is imperative.

Fair enough, I suppose…

[Evil_Captor]

@tagos

I now think Islam is an inherently totalitarian, expansionist ideology whose values concerning free speech, the organisation of society and the role of women are antithetical to a free society as I understand the concept.

‘Most weren’t rioting’ doesn’t cut it though. The universal belief that liberal societies should bow to Islamic requirements regarding free speech and the organisation of society, particularly the role of women is the issue at stake. The cartoon row is the most prominent recent symptom.

I agree. My initial bad impression of Islamic culture came well before 9/11, as a result of interacting in a discussion group led by women who had married, or who had close relatives (sisters) who married Islamic men. The thing that struck me most forcefully was their comments about how different Muslim men were in the US versus their home countries. In the US, the men were polite, respectful and tolerant. Those women who went back to the home coutnry with their men suddenly found themselves under their command – what had been requests were now orders. The men were still polite, in that they issued polite orders, but orders they were, nonetheless, and the women were suddenly treated like a kind of child, even though the men had been very “enlightened” in the US.

The point is that for many Muslims, how you behave depends very much on how much power you have in relation to others. The Muslims in Europe and the US are very reasonable, very tolerant, etc. But look to the Muslims in the Middle East for a picture of how things will be if the Muslims gain significant amounts of power in Europe. The people who are putting a “good face” on Muslim beliefs and practices are not accurately portraying the general tendencies of Muslims.

[furt]

@UselessGit

Fair enough, I suppose…

Actually not. Dhimmis are/were second- or third-class citizens.

[Illuminatiprimus]

@tagos

The universal belief that liberal societies should bow to Islamic requirements regarding free speech and the organisation of society, particularly the role of women is the issue at stake. The cartoon row is the most prominent recent symptom.

Tagos - I find myself agreeing with a lot (but not all) of what you say. However I would point out that we in the west are not really doing anything different, albeit in a more insidious way. The west hopes that that the middle east and other third world countries will eventually “see the light” and embrace ideas like democracy, free speech, equality of women, acceptance of homosexuality, secularisation of the state etc etc. Fine, we’re not fire bombing their embassies because they don’t accept these ideas, but implicit in what you and others write about the Islamic world is that - given time and patience and enough encouragement - they’ll give up their barbaric ways, become like us and we can all live happily ever after in a secular democratic utopia :dubious: .

I’m a westerner and I wish to live in a society that holds all of these ideas as central, but I’m realistic enough to accept that not everyone else agrees with them. Part of these beliefs for me is accepting that what I believe is not necessarily inherently right or true and to accept that other systems of thought and belief are valid. It doesn’t bother me that other countries run their affairs differently to mine, why should it? If it’s how they wish to live (and I don’t buy the ‘oligarchich uber-muslims control everyone and keep them in theocratic submisison’ argument) then who am I or you to dictate different? I think there is an element in the whole cartoon debate of asking whose values are ‘right’ and should ‘win out’, but I don’t see it that way. Why can we not have our values and societies and they have theirs?

What I definitely DO believe, and echo those above, is that our ideals are just as worthy of defending as Islamic ones. I don’t see any dichotomy between practice of freedom of thought and belief and defending (by force if necessary) those beliefs against those who would have us change them against our will or desire. I take the utilitarian standpoint - if what we are doing is not hurting anyone else then we should be able to do what we want. Of course it’s not quite that simple, a lot of antipathy towards the west is from our ‘freedom and prospecrity for us, none for you’ diplomacy and trade, so it’s not just a simple question of ideologies.

In summation I would say that as much as I respect and accept the differences of other cultues and religions I don’t see any reason why I should change how I live to suit someone living in a different country - I would not ask the same of them (I would like to make very clear that I see this as being separate to society changing to reflect the needs and wishes of immigrants which is a whole different debate and issue). Yes this issue has been emotive for many, but it’s not for us. We can’t be asked to change how we think and act to accommodate a foreign mindset any more than we can ask an Islamic state to give up ideas and customs that they cherish.

Are we coming from the same place or not really?

[Illuminatiprimus]

@Evil Captor

The Muslims in Europe and the US are very reasonable, very tolerant, etc. But look to the Muslims in the Middle East for a picture of how things will be if the Muslims gain significant amounts of power in Europe.

But isn’t that the whole point? We’re not talking about differences of religion, it’s difference of culture and society. Again, it’s “if the Muslims took over we’d be living like the middle east”. Well duh, of course we would - we’d be an Islamic society! But how is that going to happen? Are you saying that the whole world is really going to be Islamicised and then ‘slide backwards’ into some kind of ideological dark age, there to remain for the rest of time? :smack:

Again, as much as it would be nice for me to live in a world where everyone thought as I did, it wouldn’t be very nice for others to have my systems of belief and thought imposed on them.

If in your own post you agree that Muslims can live in western societies and get on respecting the law and others easily enough, why does it bother you that in other countries (i.e. not the ones we live in) they behave differently?

[tagos]

@UselessGit

Fair enough, I suppose…

Quite. So long as they pay the jiziya which in states ruled by Islamic law is a per capita tax imposed on non-Muslim adult males.

Source

The imposition of jizya upon non-Muslims is mandated by Sura 9.29 of the Qur’an.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.1

Shakir and Khalifa’s English translations of the Qur’an render jizya as “tax”, while Pickthal translates it as “tribute”. Yusuf Ali prefers to transliterate the term as jizyah.

Definitions

Commentators disagree on the definition and derivation of the word jizya:

* Yusuf Ali states "The derived meaning, which became the technical meaning, was a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to its ideals being enforced in the Muslim State."
* Monqiz As-Saqqar attributes the word jizya to the root word jaza meaning "compensate", and defines it as "a sum of money given in return for protection".[1]
* Shaikh Sayed Sabiq, in the Fiqh Alsunna (a commonly used source of fiqh), also states that the underlying root of the word jizya is jaza, and defines it as "A sum of money to be put on anyone who enters the themah (protection and the treaty of the muslims) from the people of the book".[2]
* Ibn Al-Mutaraz derives the word from from 'idjzã, meaning "substitute" or "sufficiency" because "it suffices as a substitute for the dhimmi's embracement of Islam."[3]
* Al-Marghinani, in his classical 12th century legal commentary The Hedaya (or al Hidayah), states that jizya means "retribution", and defines it as "a species of punishment, inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Jizyat"[4]
* Yusuf al-Qaradawi says the word jizya is derived from the jazaa', meaning "reward", "return", or "compensation", and defines it as "a payment by the non-Muslim according to an agreement signed with the Muslim state".[5]
* E.W. Lane, in An Arabic-English Lexicon defines jizya as a "tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim government whereby they ratify the compact that assures them protection, as though it were compensation for not being slain".[6]

In practice the word is applied to a special type of tax levied on those who did not accept Islam.

Answers.com

The Koran, unlike the Bible is considered the inerrant, uncorrupted last word by God, superceding the corrupted Bible. At least the harshness of the Old Testament was mitigated by Jesus’ message. The Koran seems to lay the smack down more harshly as it goes on. Kinder injunctions are superceded by harsher ones. There is nowhere near the wriggle room the Enlightenment won for Christians to interpret the Bible.

4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

Not much wriggle room for western women there.

This site tries hard though.

The Muslim Association of Great Britian whose aim is to

promote and propagate the principles of positive Muslim interaction with all elements of society to reflect, project and convey the message of Islam in its pure and unblemished form.

says this.

34 . Men are in charge of women , because Allah hath men the one of them to excel the other , and because they spend of their property ( for the support of women ) . So good women are the obedient , guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded . As for those from whom ye fear rebellion , admonish them and banish them to beds apart , and scourge them . Then if they obey you , seek not a way against them . Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted , Great .

A site worth checking out.

Sceptic’s Annotated Koran

[tagos]

@Illuminatiprimus

Tagos - I find myself agreeing with a lot (but not all) of what you say. However I would point out that we in the west are not really doing anything different, albeit in a more insidious way. The west hopes that that the middle east and other third world countries will eventually “see the light” and embrace ideas like democracy, free speech, equality of women, acceptance of homosexuality, secularisation of the state etc etc.

Totally agree with you - I just happen to believe our values are better.

I’m also speaking as someone whose had to scurry through Birmingham when changing trains because the run-away former Muslim woman I was with knew that if any member of her family spotted us they’d try to kill us so i’m not feeling that tolerant.