Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Islam and the West

Old 05-13-08, 01:19 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,928
Islam and the West

Just continuing the closed "Islamophobia" thread.

Anyways, I would argue that one of the central problems we have in regards to this issue is the fundamentalist mindset of the western multiculturalists, who believe with a religious fervor that all religions are equally prone to extremists, and that only a racist/bigot/Islamophobe would argue anything different. And this skewed view of reality, held by many in the media, academia and government, leaves the West in a very weakened position to realistically deal with the Islamic world. And I would argue that this faulty understanding of Islam has underlied the violence and destruction of Bush's Iraq war, as well as the Islamification of Europe, which, IMO, is going to lead to horrible, wide-scale ethnic violence and racial hatred.

Here's a great piece on how the muliticulturalists skew the numbers to maintain this fantasy that the problem with Islam is only a "tiny minority of extremists" :

Just Like Us! Really?

Gallup says only 7 percent of the world's Muslims are political radicals. Yet 36 percent think the 9/11 attacks were in some way justified.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...chpzg.asp?pg=1

by Robert Satloff
05/12/2008, Volume 013, Issue 33


On the inside back cover of books published by Gallup Press there is the following breathtaking statement:

Gallup Press exists to educate and inform the people who govern, manage, teach and lead the world's six billion citizens. Each book meets Gallup's requirements of integrity, trust and independence and is based on a Gallup-approved science and research.

Don't be distracted by the bad grammar. Focus instead on Gallup's "requirements of integrity, trust and independence." Thanks to a remarkable admission by a coauthor of Gallup's new bestseller Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, we are now able to know precisely what Gallup's "requirements" really are.

Who Speaks for Islam? is written by John L. Esposito, founding director of Georgetown University's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, and Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. As the authors state at the outset, the book's goal is to "democratize the debate" about a potential clash between Western and Muslim civilizations by shedding light on the "actual views of everyday Muslims"--especially the "silenced majority" whose views Esposito and Mogahed argue are lost in the din about terrorism, extremism, and Islamofascism.

This majority, they contend, are just like us. They pray like Americans, dream of professional advancement like Americans, delight in technology like Americans, celebrate democracy like Americans, and cherish the ideal of women's equality like Americans. In fact, the authors write, "everyday Muslims" are so similar to ordinary Americans that "conflict between the Muslim and Western communities
is far from inevitable."


Similar arguments have been made before; some of this is true, some is rubbish, much is irrelevant. The real debate about the "clash of civilizations" is about whether a determined element of radical Muslims could, like the Bolsheviks, take control of their societies and lead them into conflict with the West. The question often revolves around a disputed data point: Of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, how many are radicals? If the number is relatively small, then the fear of a clash is inflated; if the number is relatively large, then the nightmare might not be so outlandish after all.

What gives Who Speaks for Islam? its aura of credibility is that its answers are allegedly based on hard data, not taxi-driver anecdotes from a quick visit to Cairo. The book draws on a mammoth, six-year effort to poll and interview tens of thousands of Muslims in more than 35 countries with Muslim majorities or substantial minorities. The polling sample, Esposito and Mogahed claim, represents "more than 90 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims." To back up the claim, the book bears the name of the gold-standard of American polling firms, Gallup.

The answer to that all-important question, the authors say, is 7 percent. That is the percentage of Muslims who told pollsters that the attacks of September 11, 2001, were "completely" justified and who said they view the United States unfavorably--the double-barreled litmus test devised by Esposito and Mogahed to determine who is radical and who isn't.


The authors don't actually call even these people "radicals," however; the term they use is "politically radicalized," which implies that someone else is responsible for turning these otherwise ordinary Muslims into bin Laden sympathizers. By contrast, Muslims who said the 9/11 attacks were "not justified" they term "moderates."

More than half the book is an effort to distinguish the 7 percent of extremist Muslims from the "9 out of 10," as they say, who are moderates and then to focus our collective efforts on reaching out to the fringe element. With remarkable exactitude, they argue: "If the 7 percent (91 million) of the politically radicalized continue to feel politically dominated, occupied and disrespected, the West will have little, if any, chance of changing their minds." There is no need to worry about the 93 percent because, as Esposito and Mogahed have already argued, they are just like us.

There is much here to criticize. The not-so-hidden purpose of this book is to blur any difference between average Muslims around the world and average Americans, and the authors rise to the occasion at every turn. Take the very definition of "Islam." From Karen Armstrong to Bernard Lewis--and that's a pretty broad range--virtually every scholar of note (and many who aren't) has translated the term "Islam" as "submission to God." But "submission" evidently sounds off-putting to the American ear, so Esposito and Mogahed offer a different, more melodious translation--"a strong commitment to God"--that has a ring to it of everything but accuracy.

Or take
the authors' cavalier attitude to the word "many." How many is many? Thirty percent of the vote won't get Hillary Clinton nominated for president, but it would be a lot if the subject were how many Americans cheat on their taxes or beat their wives. At the very least, one might expect a book based on polling data to be filled with numbers. This one isn't. Instead, page after page of Who Speaks for Islam? contains such useless and unsourced references as "many respondents cite" this or "many Muslims see" that.

Or take the authors' apparent indifference to facts. Twice, for example, they cite as convincing evidence for their argument poll data from "the ten most populous majority Muslim countries," which they then list as including Jordan and Lebanon, tiny states that don't even rank in the top 25 of Muslim majority countries. Twice they say their 10 specially polled countries collectively comprise 80 percent of the world Muslim population; in fact, the figure is barely 60 percent.

These problems would not matter much if the book gave readers the opportunity to review the poll data on which Esposito and Mogahed base their judgments. Alas, that is not the case. Neither the text nor the appendix includes the full data to a single question from any survey taken by Gallup over the entire six-year period of its World Poll initiative. We, the readers, either have to pay more than $20,000 to Gallup to gain access to its proprietary research or have to rely on the good faith of the authors.

Or, more accurately, we have to rely on Gallup's good name--the "integrity, trust and independence" cited above. Public comments by Mogahed at a luncheon I hosted at the Washington Institute on April 17 show exactly what that is worth.

Here's the context: As the event was about to close, Mogahed was pressed to explain the book's central claim that radicals constitute 7 percent of the world's Muslim population. A questioner focused on the critical distinction between the 7 percent of respondents who said the 9/11 attacks were "completely justified" and the other 93 percent. How many of those 93 percent, Mogahed was asked, actually answered that the attacks were "partly," "somewhat," or even "largely" justified? Were those people truly moderates?

In her answer, transcribed below, Mogahed refers in pollster code to numbers ascribed to the five possible answers to the poll question about justifying 9/11. Although she and Esposito never discuss the details of this question in their book, they did expound on them in a 2006 article in Foreign Policy magazine, which described a five-point scale in which "Ones" are respondents who said 9/11 was "totally unjustified" and "Fives" those who said the attacks were "completely justified."

In that article, she and Esposito wrote: "Respondents who said 9/11 was justified (4 or 5 on the same scale) are classified as radical." In the book they wrote two years later, they redefined "radical" to comprise a much smaller group--only the Fives. But in her luncheon remarks, Mogahed admitted that many of the "moderates" she and Esposito celebrated really aren't so moderate after all.

MOGAHED: I can't off the top of my head [recall the data], but we are going to be putting some of those findings in our [updated] book and our website.

To clarify a couple of things about the book--the book is not a hard-covered polling report. The book is a book about the modern Muslim world that used its polling to inform its analysis. So that's important: It's meant for a general audience, and it's not meant to be a polling report. One very important reason why is because Gallup is selling subscriptions to its data. We are a for-profit company; we are not Pew. We are Gallup. So this isn't about .  .  . it was not meant for the data to be free since we paid $20 million to collect [the data] .  .  . that we paid all on our own. So just to clarify that  .  .  .  

So, how did we come up with the word "politically radicalized" that we unfortunately used in the book? Here's why: because people who were Fives, people who said 9/11 was justified, looked distinctly different from the Fours  .  .  .  At first, before we had enough data to do sort of a cluster analysis, we lumped the Fours and Fives together because that was our best judgment.

QUESTIONER: And what percent was that?

MOGAHED: I seriously don't remember but I think it was in the range of 7 to 8 percent [actually, 6.5 percent].

QUESTIONER: So it's seven Fours and seven Fives?

MOGAHED: Yes, we lumped these two and did our analysis. When we had enough data to really see when things broke away, here's what we found: Fives looked very different from the Fours, and Ones through Fours looked similar. [Mogahed then explained that, on another question, concerning suicide bombing, respondents who said 9/11 was only partially justified clustered with those who said it wasn't justified at all.] And so the Fives looked very different; they broke, they clustered away, and Ones through Fours clustered together. And that is how we decided to break them apart and decided how we were to define "politically radicalized" for our research.

Yes, we can say that a Four is not that moderate .  .  . I don't know. .  .  .You are writing a book, you are trying to come up with terminology people can understand. .  .  . You know, maybe it wasn't the most technically accurate way of doing this, but this is how we made our cluster-based analysis.

So, there it is--the smoking gun. Mogahed publicly admitted they knew certain people weren't moderates but they still termed them so. She and Esposito cooked the books and dumbed down the text. Apparently, by the authors' own test, there are not 91 million radicals in Muslim societies but almost twice that number. They must have shrieked in horror to find their original estimate on the high side of assessments made by scholars, such as Daniel Pipes, whom Esposito routinely denounces as Islamophobes. To paraphrase Mogahed, maybe it wasn't the most technically accurate way of doing this, but their neat solution seems to have been to redefine 78 million people off the rolls of radicals.

The cover-up is even worse. The full data from the 9/11 question show that, in addition to the 13.5 percent, there is another 23.1 percent of respondents--300 million Muslims--who told pollsters the attacks were in some way justified. Esposito and Mogahed don't utter a word about the vast sea of intolerance in which the radicals operate.

And then there is the more fundamental fraud of using the 9/11 question as the measure of "who is a radical." Amazing as it sounds, according to Esposito and Mogahed, the proper term for a Muslim who hates America, wants to impose Sharia law, supports suicide bombing, and opposes equal rights for women but does not "completely" justify 9/11 is .  .  . "moderate."

Could the smart people at Gallup really believe this? Regardless, they should immediately release all the data associated with their world poll and open all the files and archives of their Center for Muslim Studies to independent inspection. With a dose of transparency and a dollop of humility, the data just might teach something useful to the world's six billion citizens.

Robert Satloff is the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

**************************

I think part of the problem that the western multiculturalists have is that they're under the impression that if the west really takes the stand that Islamic culture is inferior to, incompatible with, and a threat to the West, then this will necessarily lead to widescale violence and racial and ethnic hatred. As I gave the previous example of the Iraq war, I would argue just the opposite: that the FAILURE of the west to realistically appraise Islam is going to be the wellspring of violence.

I would highly recommend the book "Without Roots" written by Marcello Pera (then president of the Italian senate) and Pope (then Cardinal) Ratzinger. Pera says:

" [according to the dominant way of thinking in the West]...if a person maintains that the West is better than Islam...then he or she ought to clash with Islam....I personally reject that position. I deny that there are no valid reasons for camparing and judging institutions, principles and values. I deny that such a comparison cannot conclude that Western institutions are better than their Islamic counterparts. And I deny that a comparison will necessarily give rise to conflict....I affirm the principles of tolerance, peaceful coexistence and respect that are characteristic of the West today. However, if someone refuses to recoprocate those principles and declares hostility or jihad against us, then we must acknowledge that this person is our adversary. In short, I reject the self-censorship of the West. This self-censorship...is something that I find unjustified and dangerous."
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 05-13-08, 01:39 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,928
And hold the phone, the NEW YORK TIMES actually stepping out of it's politcally correct fantasy land to offer an accurate assessment of Islamic jurisprudence?!

President Apostate?
By EDWARD N. LUTTWAK
Published: May 12, 2008
Chevy Chase, Md.


BARACK OBAMA has emerged as a classic example of charismatic leadership — a figure upon whom others project their own hopes and desires. The resulting emotional intensity adds greatly to the more conventional strengths of the well-organized Obama campaign, and it has certainly sufficed to overcome the formidable initial advantages of Senator Hillary Clinton.

One danger of such charisma, however, is that it can evoke unrealistic hopes of what a candidate could actually accomplish in office regardless of his own personal abilities. Case in point is the oft-made claim that an Obama presidency would be welcomed by the Muslim world.

This idea often goes hand in hand with the altogether more plausible argument that Mr. Obama’s election would raise America’s esteem in Africa — indeed, he already arouses much enthusiasm in his father’s native Kenya and to a degree elsewhere on the continent.

But it is a mistake to conflate his African identity with his Muslim heritage. Senator Obama is half African by birth and Africans can understandably identify with him. In Islam, however, there is no such thing as a half-Muslim. Like all monotheistic religions, Islam is an exclusive faith.

As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.

Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).

With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered — as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy — but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Senator Obama’s case.)

It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Iran’s Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities.


For example, in Iran in 1994 the intervention of Pope John Paul II and others won a Christian convert a last-minute reprieve, but the man was abducted and killed shortly after his release. Likewise, in 2006 in Afghanistan, a Christian convert had to be declared insane to prevent his execution, and he was still forced to flee to Italy.

Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama — not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law — another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.

At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.

That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be. But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world’s Muslims is the least realistic.

Edward N. Luttwak, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of “Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace.”
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 05-13-08, 03:44 PM
  #3  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,796
Originally Posted by Ky-Fi
Gallup says only 7 percent of the world's Muslims are political radicals. Yet 36 percent think the 9/11 attacks were in some way justified.
Not to be argumentative, but American religious leaders including Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Jeremiah Wright have said the attacks were in some way justified.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 05-13-08, 03:48 PM
  #4  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Originally Posted by wendersfan
Not to be argumentative, but American religious leaders including Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Jeremiah Wright have said the attacks were in some way justified.
Falwell and Robertson haven't said they're justified. They offered odd reasons why it happened. Justification implies endorsement and they haven't done that.
bhk is offline  
Old 05-13-08, 03:51 PM
  #5  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
And even if 7% of all Moslems are Islamofascists, that's still a lot of suicide bombers.
bhk is offline  
Old 05-13-08, 04:01 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,928
Originally Posted by wendersfan
Not to be argumentative, but American religious leaders including Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Jeremiah Wright have said the attacks were in some way justified.
Ok, and don't you think it's reasonable to consider that perhaps these people aren't "moderates" ?
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 05-13-08, 06:51 PM
  #7  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,796
Originally Posted by Ky-Fi
Ok, and don't you think it's reasonable to consider that perhaps these people aren't "moderates" ?
Robertson, Wright, and the late Falwell? No, they are extremists IMO.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 05-13-08, 07:09 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: DE
Posts: 1,070
Falwell and Robertson haven't said they're justified. They offered odd reasons why it happened. Justification implies endorsement and they haven't done that.
Surely this is a mis characterization of the explanations. God let the shield down; while the acts themselves weren't justified, surely they mean that America deserved it (as in just dessert) or that God's action (taking down the shield) was justified.
darkessenz is offline  
Old 05-13-08, 08:12 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
Originally Posted by wendersfan
Not to be argumentative...
Did I suddenly warp out of politics talk?
crazyronin is offline  
Old 05-14-08, 11:39 AM
  #10  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll...105120058/1009
May 12, 2008


SCSU student leaves training at Technical High School

By Dave Aeikens
[email protected]

A St. Cloud State University student in a teacher-training program at Technical High School left the school in late April because he says he feared for the safety of his service dog.

The school district calls it a misunderstanding, and officials there say they hoped Tyler Hurd, a 23-year-old junior from Mahtomedi who aspires to teach special education, would continue his training in the district.

Hurd said a student threatened to kill his service dog named Emmitt. The black lab is trained to protect Hurd when he has seizures.

The seizures, which can occur weekly, are from a childhood injury.

The dog has a pouch on his side that assists those who stop to help Hurd.

Hurd said he was unable to finish his 50 hours of field training at Tech. The university waived the remaining 10 hours, he said. He plans to do his student teaching outside a high school setting.

“We came up with a solution because I felt threatened by it," Hurd said.

The school district and university are working to make sure a similar situation doesn't happen.

Kate Steffens, dean of the college of education at St. Cloud State, and Tech assistant principal Lori Lockhart met Thursday.

The threat came from a Somali student who is Muslim, according to Hurd, St. Cloud State and school district officials.

The Muslim faith, which is the dominant faith of Somali immigrants, forbids the touching of dogs.

Hurd trained at Talahi Community School and Tech. He said his experience at Talahi was good. The Somali students there warmed to the dog and eventually petted him using paper to keep their hands off his fur, Hurd said.

Things didn't go as well at Tech, Hurd said. Students there taunted his dog, and he finally felt he had to leave after he was told a student made a threat.
Hurd met with Lockhart but said he did not feel comfortable continuing.

Julia Espe, director of curriculum, instruction and assessment for St. Cloud school district, said the school needed to do a better job communicating.

“I think it was a misunderstanding where we didn't really prepare either side for possible implications," Espe said.

Espe said the school's investigation determined the student did not make a direct threat.

“We certainly welcome (Hurd) in our district, and we hope we can get this all resolved so he feels welcome and his dog is welcome," Espe said.

St. Cloud State places about 1,000 students in 240 schools to help prepare them for careers in education.

In St. Cloud school district, 330 are in the field training program Hurd was in and 94 are in student teaching.

Steffens said it is important to respect different cultures and the rights of disabled students.

“I think this is part of the growth process when we become more diverse," Steffens said.

Steffens called Hurd a good student and committed young man.

Gary Loch, who is the diversity coordinator for the district, said the situation was an unfortunate case of miscommunication.

“I'm not quite sure where the breakdown comes into play here," Loch said.
Headline should read: "Threat from Muslim student...."

Hopefully the school will get him back and kick the student that made the threat out but since political correctness requires self-flagellation, it might not happen.
bhk is offline  
Old 05-14-08, 04:22 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Where the sky is always Carolina Blue! (Currently VA - again...)
Posts: 5,167
To me the really disturbing thing seems to be that any muslims that we would consider really "moderate" are generally considered heretics by mainstream Islam - ie. the Adhamiyah sect.

I've been going through Robert Spencer's Blogging the Quran series and it's eye-opening to say the least: http://www.jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php
Tuan Jim is offline  
Old 05-14-08, 04:52 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,928
Originally Posted by wendersfan
Robertson, Wright, and the late Falwell? No, they are extremists IMO.
And I would more or less agree with that. The point I would make is that one would be hard pressed to list a single social or religious issue where the positions of Robertson, Wright and Falwell are more extreme than the positions of mainstream Islam.
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 05-14-08, 08:14 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,455
SCSU student leaves training at Technical High School

And being a pussy about somebody using their religion to bully you, is also just as bad. This is how any religion will take control. By fear. By intimidation.

It's not up to the school to "bring him back". It was Hurd who left on his own, who needs to grow a pair and fight back. If we're going to give sympathy for a handicapped person, then we need another example here, because I'm not going for sympathy today.

And Hurd needs to sue the school as well. He shouldn't coward away, and HOPE things get better. Because the other side doesn't hope much. They fight. And they don't care who they take with them.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 05-16-08, 02:48 PM
  #14  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...t-Arrested.php
Dutch cartoonist arrested on suspicion of violating hate speech laws

The Associated Press
Friday, May 16, 2008
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands: A Dutch political cartoonist was arrested this week on suspicion of insulting people because of their race or religion through his work, authorities said Friday.

The cartoonist, who works under the pseudonym Gregorius Nekschot, was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of violating hate speech laws and held overnight before being released, a spokeswoman for his publisher Uitgeverij Xtra said.

"He was arrested with a great show of force, by around 10 policemen," the spokeswoman said.

She asked that her name not be used, and declined to give Nekschot's real name, because the cartoonist and publisher have both received death threats.

Nekschot is known primarily for cartoons mocking Muslims and leftists, though the spokeswoman said he is a satirist who targets "any strong ideology."

Amsterdam public prosecutor spokeswoman Sanne van Meteren said Nekschot remains a suspect in a criminal investigation.

"We suspect him of insulting people on the basis of their race or belief, and possibly also of inciting hate," she said.

Each is a crime punishable by up to a year in prison under Dutch hate speech laws — or two years for multiple offenses.

Nekschot publishes primarily on several Web sites, including his own, but has also been featured on the Web site of Theo van Gogh, the filmmaker who was murdered by a Muslim radical in November 2004.

The cartoonist also works for HP/De Tijd, a major Dutch language weekly news magazine, and he has published two books.

One recent cartoon on his web site caricatured a Christian fundamentalist and Muslim fundamentalist as zombies who met at an anti-gay rally and now wished to marry.

Van Meteren said prosecutors were investigating a complaint that dated from 2005. They are now focusing on eight or nine published cartoons, she said, but prosecutors are not disclosing which ones.

Nekschot did not answer police questions during his arrest, she said, appealing to his right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination.

The spokeswoman for Xtra said police had seized Nekschot's computer, sketches, CDs, DVDs and telephone at the time of his arrest.
Our future in a more "liberal" and politically correct west.
bhk is offline  
Old 05-16-08, 04:46 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally Posted by wendersfan
Not to be argumentative, but American religious leaders including Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Jeremiah Wright have said the attacks were in some way justified.
Not sure I follow your point. Is it that our radicals are pussies compared to Islamic radicals, or what?
kvrdave is offline  
Old 05-16-08, 04:53 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by crazyronin
Did I suddenly warp out of politics talk?
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 05-16-08, 04:53 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by Ky-Fi
And I would more or less agree with that. The point I would make is that one would be hard pressed to list a single social or religious issue where the positions of Robertson, Wright and Falwell are more extreme than the positions of mainstream Islam.
What is mainstream Islam?
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 05-16-08, 05:14 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,928
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
What is mainstream Islam?

I believe there are four main schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, and one Shia school. As I understand it, these represent the vast majority of the world's Muslims, and if something is agreed upon by all these schools of jurisprudence, then it would be quite fair to say that that is mainstream Islam. I believe it would be analogous, for instance, to say that if something is agreed upon by the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox church, The Anglican Church, the Methodists and the Baptists, then it's part of mainstream Christianity.

Columbia Encyclopedia:

Sharia, the religious law of Islam. As Islam makes no distinction between religion and life, Islamic law covers not only ritual but every aspect of life. The actual codification of canonic law is the result of the concurrent evolution of jurisprudence proper and the so-called science of the roots of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh). A general agreement was reached, in the course of the formalization of Islam, as to the authority of four such roots: the Qur'an in its legislative segments; the example of the Prophet as related in the hadith; the consensus of the Muslims (ijma), premised on a saying by Muhammad stipulating “My nation cannot agree on an error”; and reasoning by analogy (qiyas). Another important principle is ijtihad, the extension of sharia to situations neither covered by precedent nor explicable by analogy to other laws. These roots provide the means for the establishment of prescriptive codes of action and for the evaluation of individual and social behavior. The basic scheme for all actions is a fivefold division into obligatory, meritorious, permissible, reprehensible, and forbidden. Numerous schools of jurisprudence emerged in the course of Islamic history. Four coexist today within Sunni Islam, with one or more dominant in particular areas—Maliki (N and W Africa), Hanafi (Turkic Asia), Shafii (Egypt, E Africa, SE Asia), and Hanbali (Saudi Arabia; see Ibn Hanbal, Ahmad). While these schools of jurisprudence vary on certain rituals and practices, they are often perceived as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Twelve-Imam Shiite jurisprudence is often referred to as Jafari. Islamic law is an important legal influence, to a greater or lesser degree, in nearly all nations with a Muslim majority population; the primary exception is Turkey, which has been a secular state since Atatürk.
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 05-16-08, 05:26 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,928
Originally Posted by Ky-Fi
Columbia Encyclopedia:

Islamic law is an important legal influence, to a greater or lesser degree, in nearly all nations with a Muslim majority population.

Oh, and it probably should be noted that Columbia Enclyopedia is a hateful, intolerant, Xenophobic, Islamophobic, right-wing extremist publication for having the audacity to suggest that Islamic law is an important legal influence where there are Muslim majorities.
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 05-16-08, 06:03 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,928
Originally Posted by bhk

Dutch cartoonist arrested on suspicion of violating hate speech laws
The Associated Press
Friday, May 16, 2008

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands: A Dutch political cartoonist was arrested this week on suspicion of insulting people because of their race or religion through his work, authorities said Friday.

The cartoonist, who works under the pseudonym Gregorius Nekschot, was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of violating hate speech laws and held overnight before being released, a spokeswoman for his publisher Uitgeverij Xtra said.

"He was arrested with a great show of force, by around 10 policemen," the spokeswoman said.
I think you're overreacting. It's the Netherlands---you still have the freedom to visit prostitutes of any shape, size or sex, you can legally purchase all kinds of drugs, you can experience a multicultural society. What more do you want? Freedom of political, intellectual and artistic expression are nice concepts, but we have to be realistic. Nobody has a right to express thoughts that might offend others. After all, avoidance of conflict and offense must be our highest value and our most cherished principle.

But seriously, that's exactly the attitude of the European left. I have to crack up at the left wing blogospere always fantasizing that Bush is striving for a police state, but not a peep out of them when things like this ACTUALLY happen in that left-wing utopia of Western Europe.
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 05-16-08, 07:04 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 29,893
Originally Posted by Ky-Fi
Just continuing the closed "Islamophobia" thread.
Damn...

Anyways, I would argue that one of the central problems we have in regards to this issue is the fundamentalist mindset of the western multiculturalists, who believe with a religious fervor that all religions are equally prone to extremists, and that only a racist/bigot/Islamophobe would argue anything different.
"Multiculturalism" comes in all shapes and sizes. There's "extremism" in multiculturalism just like in any other ideology. Do you even realize how many countries, in one form or another, practice multiculturalism around the planet?
To argue that what you have stated (religious fervor? really?) represents the "fundamental mindset of multiculturalism" (even in Europe) is just silly. It's just as silly as all those knee-jerk generalizations about "Dems", "Reps", "conservatives" or "liberals" which are usually frowned upon...

And this skewed view of reality...
Now that's a good one. You're the one skewing reality by conveniently reducing the " fundamentalist mindset" of evil leftists/multiculturalists to fit your own pre-existing opinion.

As I can tell, this thread is going to be just as full of nuance as the previous one... And would this be about any other topic, it woudn't be allowed to happen...

Buy hey, I'm all for freddom of speech so have at it.
eXcentris is offline  
Old 05-16-08, 07:38 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,928
Originally Posted by eXcentris
As I can tell, this thread is going to be just as full of nuance as the previous one... And would this be about any other topic, it woudn't be allowed to happen...

Buy hey, I'm all for freddom of speech so have at it.
I have to say that, like much of the European left, I suspect that your committment to that last sentence is inversely proportional to your ability to enforce the sentence just above it.

Last edited by Ky-Fi; 05-16-08 at 07:40 PM.
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 05-16-08, 07:56 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 29,893
Actually, I kind of enjoy this (and the previous) thread for it's inherent irony. The more you guys post in it, the more it serves to prove the original OP's point.
eXcentris is offline  
Old 05-16-08, 09:08 PM
  #24  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/126194
Jordanian Professor Advocates Suicide Terrorists Use Nuke Bombs

by Hana Levi Julian


(IsraelNN.com) Jordanian University lecturer Ibrahim Alloush recommended on Al-Jazeera television this week that suicide bombers be equipped with small nuclear bombs.

According to a transcript provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Dr. Alloush said, "Whoever managed to get a martyrdom-seeker into Dimona, should consider how to get martyrdom-seekers into Dimona and elsewhere armed with non-conventional explosives - and perhaps even small nuclear bombs," he stated. "We should think in this direction."

Alloush lived for 13 years in the United States, earning graduate degrees at Ohio University and Oklahoma State University, where he earned a doctorate in economics.

As the editor of the "Free Arab Voice", he was jailed by the Jordanian government in 2003 for incitement, after publishing an article saying there were American bases in Jordan "taking part in the aggression against Iraq."

Holocaust Denier, Al-Qaeda Supporter
Alloush also maintains that the Holocaust never took place. In 2005, Alloush said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television quoted by MEMRI, "The Holocaust is exploited to justify the Zionist policies and to justify the enemy state's right to exist. There is evidence and scientific research proving that the Holocaust is a lie."

The Jordanian professor also strongly supports Osama bin Laden's international al-Qaeda terrorist organization.

'America Got What it Deserved on 9/11'
Moreover, Alloush, said in the same 2005 interview that the US deserved the al-Qaeda attack on Washington and the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

"America brought the 9/11 attacks upon itself. Okay? This is a case of the chicken coming home to roost. In other words, you have brought this problem upon yourselves," he said. "As long as America occupies the Arab homeland and the Islamic world militarily, politically, economically, and culturally, and as long as it supports the Zionist entity, it should expect something."
If you just look at his resume, this guy would typically be described as a "moderate". While he was living in the US, no doubt he "was" a moderate.
bhk is offline  
Old 05-16-08, 09:10 PM
  #25  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Originally Posted by eXcentris
Actually, I kind of enjoy this (and the previous) thread for it's inherent irony. The more you guys post in it, the more it serves to prove the original OP's point.
And what point was that? That people pointing out how prevalent radicals are in Islam are the problem not the radicals themselves?
bhk is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.