That kind of coercion would certainly intimidate the hell out of me. Here’s hoping the magazine’s staff, and indeed their colleagues in other publications, have more guts.
juliansays
Haven’t found any mention of anyone being hurt and, thankfully, everyone seems to agree this was a terrible thing to do and the perpetrator should be jailed.
Hopefully that’ll mean less tension going forward but I’m probably just being my naive optimistic self.
Most of them are silently angry or indifferent, but a minority feels empowered to resort to violence. -Pierre Haski
They may be marginalized and they may rightly be angry at a country that often treats them more like squatters than citizens, but acts of terrorism cannot be tolerated.
A community that condones, supports and engages in this level of violence over something as trivial as cartoons has issues outsiders aren’t going to be able to fix just by chastising some arguably racist cartoonist.
khmssays
The Guardian will excuse the hell out of this.
It already has!
Maybe I’m strange, but I can’t see it. Nowhere in that article do I see anything that sounds like an excuse to me. Explanations, yes (mind you, I’m not saying anything about the quality of those explanations) – but explanations and excuses are not the same thing. Nor do I see one word that says Charlie Hebdo were in the wrong, for that matter.
In fact, that sequence about not waiting for the courts and taking the law in their own hands sounds like a pretty clear condemnation to me.
So – what are you seeing that I don’t see?
A community that condones, supports and engages in this level of violence
Do we actually know that? The article doesn’t actually come out and say it (though it certainly suggests it). Based on these two articles, we don’t even know if it was even done by Muslims (of course that’s the way to bet), much less how many supporters they have. Petrol firebombs (is that what’s usually known as Molotov cocktails?) don’t exactly need a big organization. (Of course, it might have been said in some other piece of news.) Has anyone come out and claimed this one? (Or is it perhaps one in a series? But I’d expect that to be mentioned.)
khms – it’s subtle, but then that’s how it’s done. Maybe if you haven’t read a lot of this kind of thing it’s less obvious.
In 2006, Charlie Hebdo decided, as a sign of support for press freedom and the right to caricature, to reprint the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, with a highly provocative front page.
…
The magazine sold out, but had to live several weeks under police protection, and was taken to court by several Muslim associations, including the respectable Grand Mosque of Paris.
Etc. Then the meaningless conclusion: “A disturbing reminder of the underground tensions in society.”
It could have been worse, to be sure, but it pushes the usual buttons.
You’re right that it could be just a couple of people of course – but then that’s all it takes.
juliansays
Or is it perhaps one in a series? But I’d expect that to be mentioned.
I’m not sure if it was in the piece Ms. Benson linked to, but I definitely did see it mentioned that this satire mag has been being harassed and targetted for their Mohammed cartoons for some time now. Their site has been hacked and they’ve been receiving threats in the mail for some time.
Do we actually know that?
I know Mohammed Moussaoui, from the French Council for Muslim Faith, said he condemned the attack and hoped the culprits would be caught, so yeah, I probably went further than I should have knowing as little as I do. But the fact that no one sounds surprised this happen, including those who condemned the cartoons, makes it seem like this behavior isn’t entirely outside what’s considered acceptable by this community.
“Charlie Hebdo fire shows how polarised French attitudes to Islam are.
“For many French Muslims, religion has become a cultural identity, a refuge in a society where they don’t feel accepted.”
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Between those lines we read: We all want to be accepted don’t we? And you, Guardian reader, want to be accepted don’t you? Surely you can understand how these poor buggers feel, and sympathise, even if only a little bit.
I may stand in danger of being disagreed with on this, but when we start talking intolerance, Islam is a standout. It leaves all other religions in its wake, including of course, the majors. Though many or most have intolerance in their histories, modern Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics and Christians have come to terms with differing outlooks and god-based ideologies. India, though mainly Hindu, is a cacophony of religions all out there flogging their goods. Same for Catholicism, Christianity and Buddhism. Everything through the alphabet from Aardvark worshippers to Zoroastrians: same story, provided we leave out I for Islam.
I think the reason is that Islam is primarily a pan-tribal, totalitarian ideology that happens to be based on a god: in much the same way that Nazism was based on the personality and predilections of Adolf Hitler. I will predict here that there will be no condemnation of this outrage from any Muslim source: no imam, no grand mufti, no average street Muslim will be prepared to say a word against it, even if doing so would make them more ‘accepted’.
When they are not blowing one another up, the Muslims of the world present as a pretty solid bloc to the rest of us. They are excellent team players, and they have the uniformity of mind and dress to prove it. And the tribal loyalty.
“I know Mohammed Moussaoui, from the French Council for Muslim Faith, said he condemned the attack and hoped the culprits would be caught…”
Interesting development. I hope the worthy Mohammed has sandbagged his home.
Ingsays
Ian…how can you honestly post this
When they are not blowing one another up, the Muslims of the world present as a pretty solid bloc to the rest of us. They are excellent team players, and they have the uniformity of mind and dress to prove it. And the tribal loyalty.
And then act like Mr. Mousssaoi supports that statement?
Ingsays
Or rather the opinion of Mr. Moussaoi supports your view of Islam as a new Nazism? It’s a confirmation bias in action.
The headline and subhead were written by an editor (they always are). The headline and subhead are much less subtle than the article (as they often are). It’s C is F Belief…Any more to be said?
But Ian, I do know of Muslims who will be condemning this, who I’m sure already have – Tarek Fatah and Irshad Manji to name two. It’s not true that no Muslims will. It probably is true that lamentably few will.
It’s entirely possible that some far-right group did the bombing. But – it’s also the case that it’s not unreasonable to think a Muslim group or individual did it, given recent history and discussion.
RJWsays
Then the meaningless conclusion: “A disturbing reminder of the underground tensions in society.”
Yes, I’m always worried about the next attack from the Atheists’ Liberation Front.
The Guardian article is tendentious drivel, as usual the blame is tranferred to the host society. Some Moslems will kill anyone who ‘insults’ Islam, particularly in majority Moslem nations. Where’s the marginalization of and prejudice against Islam in Pakistan and Egypt for example?
Islam is an ancient, brutal, totalitarian ideology that’s been imported and reproduced in Western societies-rather like Christianity.
Sorry, I don’t follow you. How do I ‘act like’ Mr Moussaoi supports that statement? I must be missing something.
Islam is not a new Nazism. It is the original. The Koran was written over a thousand years before ‘Mein Kampf’ and puts forward much the same doctrine, for much the same imperialist reason. Submit to us. If you are not with us, or at least moving in our direction, then you’re dead. There are moderate Muslims. There is no moderate Islam.
In all but one or two Muslim-dominated countries, non-believers are given a hard time, if not legally proscribed. (Infidels appear to be best off in Lebanon and Indonesia, worst off in Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.)
What has been conspicuous by its absence through all the years of documentation of Muslim atrocities of one kind or another on this site (well N&C to be exact) has been the absence of condemnation of it from any Muslim quarter, faction or whatever. As far as I can see, Mohammed Moussaoui is exceptional if not totally unique.
Having left their native lands for whatever reasons, Muslims are trying to create self-contained autonomous enclaves within the western societies they have settled into. This is standard immigrant practice world-wide, but what makes Muslims unique is the fact that they want not only their own cultural centres, mosques and schools, but their own laws as well. I have found no dissenting Muslim voices on that.
It is over the last point that most of the argument has occurred. There is also no shortage of short-sighted fools who are prepared to accommodate them on this, the Archbishop of Canterbury being perhaps the most prominent.
I get on quite well with the Muslims I encounter down at the local shops, though personally, I have no Muslim friends as such. But it is a global religion whose adherents are generally most reluctant to live and let live. Like all totalitarian ideologies, it has a goal of ultimate world domination. Christianity likewise had that once, but appears to me to have abandoned it.
If you don’t want to take my word on Islam, read Patrick Sookhdeo and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Alainsays
Well put, Ian. Islam is more than simply a “religion”; it’s a totalitarian ideology. Since the demise of international Communism it is the only worldwide menace of its kind. And I’m beginning to wonder if it isn’t beginning to rank with other man-made perils like environmental pollution and global warming.
OB: “But Ian, I do know of Muslims who will be condemning this, who I’m sure already have – Tarek Fatah and Irshad Manji to name two. It’s not true that no Muslims will. It probably is true that lamentably few will.”
Point taken. I am usually guarded in the academic sense when I make such statements: ‘As far as I am aware…” etc are my standards. I thought I had done so this time, but to my eternal shame and horror, on re-reading I find I wasn’t. Ah well. Apologies all round. Especially to those liberal Muslims out there in the global B&W readership (both of you) who may have taken exception to what I said.
San Bansays
@Ian MacDougall:
I think you’re well off-base for claiming that:
– Muslims are more intolerant than other religious,
– Muslims are homogenous (“a solid block”).
There has been lots of evidence of extreme intolerance from many other religious groups. Have you completely forgotten the European Inquisitions, where often the persecution was for disagreements as (ridiculous and) trivial as whether Jesus’s mother died a natural death and was resurrected or was taken to heaven alive? Have you no knowledge of the more recent horrific sectarian violence in India, Pakistan, in the Arabian Gulf, in the Middle East, Eurasia and in Ireland? Specifically, on the Indian subcontinent, Hindus slaughter members of other Hindu sects, Sikhs and Hindus kill each other, both battle Muslims and Christians.
As for the homogeneity of Muslims worldwide – are you having a laugh? The running joke after Bush invaded Iraq was that he had managed what millenia of Islamists had failed to do: unite the Muslim world, at least against America! Muslims are as diverse as their origins would suggest. I have known Pakistani Muslims that have radically differing views on the veil and on polygamy.
All of the above is not to say that any of these religions is any less batshit crazy than the others, nor that Islam is not likely the most violent and pernicious ideology threatening the future of humanity today.
This attack happened BEFORE the offending issue went out. This does not look like a spontaneous mob reaction. It looks more (so far at least) like a premeditated act, possibly by activists whose agenda may not be apparent yet.
It should always be remembered that the original Toon Tantrum was actually orchestrated by Saudi state-owned media, to divert attention away from some other embarrassing circumstance. Some government or activist group may be trying to do the same here; maybe to drive a wedge between Europeans and the Arab Spring folks. And if we go off here accusing Muslims in general of violent suppression of speech, we may be giving the perps exactly what they want.
The Koran was written over a thousand years before ‘Mein Kampf’ and puts forward much the same doctrine, for much the same imperialist reason. Submit to us. If you are not with us, or at least moving in our direction, then you’re dead.
And that makes Islam significantly different from other backward authoritarian religions…how?
There are moderate Muslims. There is no moderate Islam.
Pure fucking bullshit. If there are moderate Muslims, then, by definition, there is moderate Islam.
“Islam is… likely the most violent and pernicious ideology threatening the future of humanity today.”
Though you said that in a more roundabout way, I agree.
Raging Bee:
“‘There are moderate Muslims. There is no moderate Islam.’
“Pure fucking bullshit. If there are moderate Muslims, then, by definition, there is moderate Islam.”
You wish to equate Islam with Muslims, so if one can find a pocket of moderate Muslims, one has simultaneously found moderate Islam.
Sorry. I’d rather go by the book and the bulk reality. Within a given set of borders, the more numerous Muslims become, so the more demanding. Western Europe is the evidence. Trouble is, scripture is the authority, and if a militant can cite scripture, the opposition wilts: particularly if they risk being seen as siding with the Dhimmitude against the Believers.
But I won’t pursue this further. You are probably raging up a storm already.
RJWsays
Ian MacDougall,
Agreed.
Let’s review the evidence,if the majority of Moslems are ‘moderate’, why are majority Moslem nations so chaotic and oppressive? It’s simply the nature of Mohammed’s ideology.
juliansays
Let’s review the evidence,if the majority of Moslems are ‘moderate’, why are majority Moslem nations so chaotic and oppressive?
Because of a lack of any strong central government, multiple warring bands, poor communication and road systems, lack of food, water and other resources ectectect?
RJWsays
#26 julian,
Yeees,and…why in Moslem countries, is there, still, “a lack of any strong central government…….ectectect?”, in contrast to the industrialized and industrializing non-Moslem countries of the West and East Asia.
Western Europe escaped from chaos and oppression, Moslem societies have made no significant, independent progress for a thousand years. There’s a clue there, somewhere.
“Because of a lack of any strong central government, multiple warring bands, poor communication and road systems, lack of food, water and other resources ectectect?”
Sounds like pre-Reformation Europe.
Like that Europe, the people in that giant arc of countries from Indonesia to Nigeria have what they can do, say, think, listen to, look at, read, buy, sell and enjoy circumscribed by their dominant religious code: or more particularly, by the clerical bureaucracy that runs life through enforcement of the code.
A reformation is yet to occur in Islam.
San Bansays
“Within a given set of borders, the more numerous Muslims become, so the more demanding.”
Sounds like any other set of immigrants to me!
“and…why in Moslem countries, is there, still, “a lack of any strong central government…….ectectect?”, in contrast to the industrialized and industrializing non-Moslem countries of the West and East Asia.”
For a host of different reasons, not all having to do with the backwards ideology of Islam! (Compare the chaos/oppression/lack of progress of any number of non-Islamic countries in the developing world.)
RJWsays
#29 San Ban,
Of course there are other backward,oppressive non-Moslem societies in the world, that’s not relevant. The point is, that all Moslem societies share those characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, even the so-called ‘moderate’ countries of Turkey and Indonesia.
“Sounds like any other set of immigrants to me!”
I can’t think of any other ‘set of immigrants’ apart from Moslems who have conspired to attack a nuclear reactor or an army base here, where I live, perhaps I just haven’t noticed.
“Compare the chaos/oppression/lack of progress of any number of non-Islamic countries in the developing world.”
I strongly recommend that you read (and I would presume from the above that you have not) Samuel P Huntingdon’s ‘The Clash of Civilizations and theRemaking of World Order’ (1996). In ch 10 (From Transition Wars to Fault Line Wars) he cites a study by TR Gurr of conflicts in 1993-94. Of 50 ethnopolitical conflicts studied, 20 of them were between groups from different civilizations. Of those, 15 were between Muslims and non-Muslims. He says: “There were, in short, three times as many intercivilizational conflicts involving Muslims as there were conflicts between all non-Muslim civilizations.”
Intraciviliztion conflicts totalled 30, of which Islamic civilization scored 11. He concludes: “Three different compilations of data… yield the same conclusion: In the early 1990s Muslims were engaged in more intergroup violence than were non-Muslims, and two-thirds to three-quarrters of intercivilizational wars were between Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam’s borders are bloody, and so are its innards.”
He also notes the relatively high degree of militarization (ie number of military personnel per thousand population. Muslim countries have such force ratios around twice those of Christian countries.
(Huntingdon counts nine civilizations in all: Western, Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist and Japanese.)
No kidding. Just look at the title! “Muhammad cartoon sparks attack on French magazine.”
Apparently, the petrol was already there in the office, and everyone knew it was there. The magazine was pretty much asking for it, deliberately sparking things around all that petrol.
Yes, I know it’s a metaphor, but when you combine the metaphor that’s literally true (it was firebombed!) with the victim blaming construction that has the cartoons, and not the actual terrorists, as the creators of the attack, it’s hard not to think it was a deliberate choice.
If I were a Muslim, I’d be rightly pissed that, when this sort of thing happens, newspapers talk as if I’m so obviously inherently violent and volatile that civilized folks must forever walk on eggshells around me, lest they “spark” my tendency to blow things up.
It’s like that guy who said that boobs cause earthquakes. Boobquakes are a fundamental fact of nature; all we can do to avoid them is to cover up.
There are moderate Muslims. There is no moderate Islam.
Pure fucking bullshit. If there are moderate Muslims, then, by definition, there is moderate Islam.
So, where can I buy the Moderate Koran, which leaves out all the bits that moderate Muslims ignore? I’d like to put it next to my Jefferson bible which is, of course, the standard text of all moderate Christians.
San Bansays
“Of course there are other backward,oppressive non-Moslem societies in the world, that’s not relevant. The point is, that all Moslem societies share those characteristics to a greater or lesser degree”
As do all societies, short of Utopia. I don’t doubt Islam is responsible for oppression and lack of progress – I’d say all religion is inherently oppressive and opposed to progress. In many developed countries where other religions hold more sway, the effect is just as deleterious.
“Huntingdon counts nine civilizations in all: Western, Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist and Japanese.”
I have not read the book, and I can’t say I’m going to – Huntingdon has espoused some pretty nasty ideas in the past. (This listing of “civilizations” seems at best incomplete.)
“moderate Koran” LOL!
“Jefferson bible…, the standard text of all moderate Christians.” LOL!
“I have not read the book, and I can’t say I’m going to – Huntingdon has espoused some pretty nasty ideas in the past. (This listing of “civilizations” seems at best incomplete.)”
Yes, as far as I can see he missed out the Australian Aborigines, the Kalahari Bushmen, the Andaman Islanders and the Alaskan Eskimos. He obviously had a reason: including them would have somehow blown his whole thesis out of the water.
As for the rest of it: best not read it then. And I don’t want to look through your telescope either.
In other words, you choose to think of Muslims, not as people with rights and legitimate interests, but as an undifferentiated mass (“bulk”) of mindless zombies, animated and guided by an inhuman force (“the book”) separate and distinct from the bodies it controls. In other words, you’re a bigot doing what bigots do — dehumanizing the hated others. (Also, if you really cared about “the bulk,” you’d notice that the majority of Muslims are NOT violent criminals — and that Muslim victims of terrorism probably outnumber Muslim terrorists.)
Within a given set of borders, the more numerous Muslims become, so the more demanding.
Sounds like my white Christian ancestors as they populated North America. What racial, ethnic, religious, or political/economic interest-group DOESN’T behave like that?
Western Europe is the evidence.
It’s not enough just to mention Western Europe; you have to discuss the specific economic and political conditions in that region. Your failure to do so means you have no case.
But I won’t pursue this further. You are probably raging up a storm already.
In other words, you’re starting to realize your stupidity has been exposed, and you’re looking for an excuse to run away.
A reformation is yet to occur in Islam.
IF you had any idea what that word means, you’d know your assertion is dead wrong. Perhaps you meant “Enlightenment?” If so, you’re wrong there too: Muslims had something like that too, and it fueled something called the Renaissance. Do you know what THAT word means? Do you know why the numbers you count with are called “Arabic?” What language the word “algebra” came from?
Of course there are other backward,oppressive non-Moslem societies in the world, that’s not relevant.
Really? Backwardness and oppression are only relevant when it’s Muslims doing it? At least you’re up front with your hypocritical double standards.
The point is, that all Moslem societies share those characteristics to a greater or lesser degree…
How wide a range is this “greater or lesser degree” you’re rambling about? I could just as easily say all Europeans “share those characteristics to a greater or lesser degree.”
I can’t think of any other ‘set of immigrants’ apart from Moslems who have conspired to attack a nuclear reactor or an army base here…
Ever heard of something called “organized crime?” Here in the US, nearly all immigrant groups spawned gangs of vicious parasitic criminals who corrupted politics at all levels and caused lots of human misery, with or without a stated political cause. Seriously, how many Muslim terrorist groups have killed as many people as the Mafia, the Molly Maguires, or a Mexican drug gang? Oh, and have you ever heard of the KKK? IRA? ETA?
So, where can I buy the Moderate Koran, which leaves out all the bits that moderate Muslims ignore?
There you go, you’ve just admitted that there are indeed moderate Muslims, who ignore the more extreme bits of their holy book, just as the moderate Christians do to their holy book. Argument over.
Argument not over. You’re the one who admitted – the “extreme bits” are there, in the holy book, just as they are with the Christian one. There are “moderate” or liberal Muslims (and Christians) but that requires them to ignore huge chunks of their own holy books.
That can become so institutionalized over time that eventually it becomes possible to talk about a moderate or liberal denomination of a given religion. That could be true of Sufi Islam. It’s not currently true of Islam tout court.
And you’re sure of this how? “Islam tout court” is over a billion people, in many nations and a huge variety of socio-economic circumstances. How do you derive the correct picture of “Islam tout court?”
Aw, shit.
That kind of coercion would certainly intimidate the hell out of me. Here’s hoping the magazine’s staff, and indeed their colleagues in other publications, have more guts.
Haven’t found any mention of anyone being hurt and, thankfully, everyone seems to agree this was a terrible thing to do and the perpetrator should be jailed.
Hopefully that’ll mean less tension going forward but I’m probably just being my naive optimistic self.
It was at 1 a.m., so presumably no staff around.
It would intimidate the bejeezis out of me, too. Would, does, has.
julian, yes, I’m afraid that is a bit over-optimistic. I don’t think a bomb demolition of the office of a satirical journal will reduce tension.
The Guardian will excuse the hell out of this.
It already has!
I posted the link in News at ur-B&W but not here yet.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/nov/02/charlie-hebdo-fire-islam-france?newsfeed=true
They may be marginalized and they may rightly be angry at a country that often treats them more like squatters than citizens, but acts of terrorism cannot be tolerated.
A community that condones, supports and engages in this level of violence over something as trivial as cartoons has issues outsiders aren’t going to be able to fix just by chastising some arguably racist cartoonist.
Maybe I’m strange, but I can’t see it. Nowhere in that article do I see anything that sounds like an excuse to me. Explanations, yes (mind you, I’m not saying anything about the quality of those explanations) – but explanations and excuses are not the same thing. Nor do I see one word that says Charlie Hebdo were in the wrong, for that matter.
In fact, that sequence about not waiting for the courts and taking the law in their own hands sounds like a pretty clear condemnation to me.
So – what are you seeing that I don’t see?
Do we actually know that? The article doesn’t actually come out and say it (though it certainly suggests it). Based on these two articles, we don’t even know if it was even done by Muslims (of course that’s the way to bet), much less how many supporters they have. Petrol firebombs (is that what’s usually known as Molotov cocktails?) don’t exactly need a big organization. (Of course, it might have been said in some other piece of news.) Has anyone come out and claimed this one? (Or is it perhaps one in a series? But I’d expect that to be mentioned.)
khms – it’s subtle, but then that’s how it’s done. Maybe if you haven’t read a lot of this kind of thing it’s less obvious.
Etc. Then the meaningless conclusion: “A disturbing reminder of the underground tensions in society.”
It could have been worse, to be sure, but it pushes the usual buttons.
You’re right that it could be just a couple of people of course – but then that’s all it takes.
I’m not sure if it was in the piece Ms. Benson linked to, but I definitely did see it mentioned that this satire mag has been being harassed and targetted for their Mohammed cartoons for some time now. Their site has been hacked and they’ve been receiving threats in the mail for some time.
I know Mohammed Moussaoui, from the French Council for Muslim Faith, said he condemned the attack and hoped the culprits would be caught, so yeah, I probably went further than I should have knowing as little as I do. But the fact that no one sounds surprised this happen, including those who condemned the cartoons, makes it seem like this behavior isn’t entirely outside what’s considered acceptable by this community.
The headline sums it up:
“Charlie Hebdo fire shows how polarised French attitudes to Islam are.
“For many French Muslims, religion has become a cultural identity, a refuge in a society where they don’t feel accepted.”
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Between those lines we read: We all want to be accepted don’t we? And you, Guardian reader, want to be accepted don’t you? Surely you can understand how these poor buggers feel, and sympathise, even if only a little bit.
I may stand in danger of being disagreed with on this, but when we start talking intolerance, Islam is a standout. It leaves all other religions in its wake, including of course, the majors. Though many or most have intolerance in their histories, modern Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics and Christians have come to terms with differing outlooks and god-based ideologies. India, though mainly Hindu, is a cacophony of religions all out there flogging their goods. Same for Catholicism, Christianity and Buddhism. Everything through the alphabet from Aardvark worshippers to Zoroastrians: same story, provided we leave out I for Islam.
I think the reason is that Islam is primarily a pan-tribal, totalitarian ideology that happens to be based on a god: in much the same way that Nazism was based on the personality and predilections of Adolf Hitler. I will predict here that there will be no condemnation of this outrage from any Muslim source: no imam, no grand mufti, no average street Muslim will be prepared to say a word against it, even if doing so would make them more ‘accepted’.
When they are not blowing one another up, the Muslims of the world present as a pretty solid bloc to the rest of us. They are excellent team players, and they have the uniformity of mind and dress to prove it. And the tribal loyalty.
julian’s was a cross-post on mine.
“I know Mohammed Moussaoui, from the French Council for Muslim Faith, said he condemned the attack and hoped the culprits would be caught…”
Interesting development. I hope the worthy Mohammed has sandbagged his home.
Ian…how can you honestly post this
And then act like Mr. Mousssaoi supports that statement?
Or rather the opinion of Mr. Moussaoi supports your view of Islam as a new Nazism? It’s a confirmation bias in action.
The headline and subhead were written by an editor (they always are). The headline and subhead are much less subtle than the article (as they often are). It’s C is F Belief…Any more to be said?
But Ian, I do know of Muslims who will be condemning this, who I’m sure already have – Tarek Fatah and Irshad Manji to name two. It’s not true that no Muslims will. It probably is true that lamentably few will.
It’s entirely possible that some far-right group did the bombing. But – it’s also the case that it’s not unreasonable to think a Muslim group or individual did it, given recent history and discussion.
Then the meaningless conclusion: “A disturbing reminder of the underground tensions in society.”
Yes, I’m always worried about the next attack from the Atheists’ Liberation Front.
The Guardian article is tendentious drivel, as usual the blame is tranferred to the host society. Some Moslems will kill anyone who ‘insults’ Islam, particularly in majority Moslem nations. Where’s the marginalization of and prejudice against Islam in Pakistan and Egypt for example?
Islam is an ancient, brutal, totalitarian ideology that’s been imported and reproduced in Western societies-rather like Christianity.
Ing:
Sorry, I don’t follow you. How do I ‘act like’ Mr Moussaoi supports that statement? I must be missing something.
Islam is not a new Nazism. It is the original. The Koran was written over a thousand years before ‘Mein Kampf’ and puts forward much the same doctrine, for much the same imperialist reason. Submit to us. If you are not with us, or at least moving in our direction, then you’re dead. There are moderate Muslims. There is no moderate Islam.
In all but one or two Muslim-dominated countries, non-believers are given a hard time, if not legally proscribed. (Infidels appear to be best off in Lebanon and Indonesia, worst off in Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.)
What has been conspicuous by its absence through all the years of documentation of Muslim atrocities of one kind or another on this site (well N&C to be exact) has been the absence of condemnation of it from any Muslim quarter, faction or whatever. As far as I can see, Mohammed Moussaoui is exceptional if not totally unique.
Having left their native lands for whatever reasons, Muslims are trying to create self-contained autonomous enclaves within the western societies they have settled into. This is standard immigrant practice world-wide, but what makes Muslims unique is the fact that they want not only their own cultural centres, mosques and schools, but their own laws as well. I have found no dissenting Muslim voices on that.
It is over the last point that most of the argument has occurred. There is also no shortage of short-sighted fools who are prepared to accommodate them on this, the Archbishop of Canterbury being perhaps the most prominent.
I get on quite well with the Muslims I encounter down at the local shops, though personally, I have no Muslim friends as such. But it is a global religion whose adherents are generally most reluctant to live and let live. Like all totalitarian ideologies, it has a goal of ultimate world domination. Christianity likewise had that once, but appears to me to have abandoned it.
If you don’t want to take my word on Islam, read Patrick Sookhdeo and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Well put, Ian. Islam is more than simply a “religion”; it’s a totalitarian ideology. Since the demise of international Communism it is the only worldwide menace of its kind. And I’m beginning to wonder if it isn’t beginning to rank with other man-made perils like environmental pollution and global warming.
OB: “But Ian, I do know of Muslims who will be condemning this, who I’m sure already have – Tarek Fatah and Irshad Manji to name two. It’s not true that no Muslims will. It probably is true that lamentably few will.”
Point taken. I am usually guarded in the academic sense when I make such statements: ‘As far as I am aware…” etc are my standards. I thought I had done so this time, but to my eternal shame and horror, on re-reading I find I wasn’t. Ah well. Apologies all round. Especially to those liberal Muslims out there in the global B&W readership (both of you) who may have taken exception to what I said.
@Ian MacDougall:
I think you’re well off-base for claiming that:
– Muslims are more intolerant than other religious,
– Muslims are homogenous (“a solid block”).
There has been lots of evidence of extreme intolerance from many other religious groups. Have you completely forgotten the European Inquisitions, where often the persecution was for disagreements as (ridiculous and) trivial as whether Jesus’s mother died a natural death and was resurrected or was taken to heaven alive? Have you no knowledge of the more recent horrific sectarian violence in India, Pakistan, in the Arabian Gulf, in the Middle East, Eurasia and in Ireland? Specifically, on the Indian subcontinent, Hindus slaughter members of other Hindu sects, Sikhs and Hindus kill each other, both battle Muslims and Christians.
As for the homogeneity of Muslims worldwide – are you having a laugh? The running joke after Bush invaded Iraq was that he had managed what millenia of Islamists had failed to do: unite the Muslim world, at least against America! Muslims are as diverse as their origins would suggest. I have known Pakistani Muslims that have radically differing views on the veil and on polygamy.
All of the above is not to say that any of these religions is any less batshit crazy than the others, nor that Islam is not likely the most violent and pernicious ideology threatening the future of humanity today.
This attack happened BEFORE the offending issue went out. This does not look like a spontaneous mob reaction. It looks more (so far at least) like a premeditated act, possibly by activists whose agenda may not be apparent yet.
It should always be remembered that the original Toon Tantrum was actually orchestrated by Saudi state-owned media, to divert attention away from some other embarrassing circumstance. Some government or activist group may be trying to do the same here; maybe to drive a wedge between Europeans and the Arab Spring folks. And if we go off here accusing Muslims in general of violent suppression of speech, we may be giving the perps exactly what they want.
The Koran was written over a thousand years before ‘Mein Kampf’ and puts forward much the same doctrine, for much the same imperialist reason. Submit to us. If you are not with us, or at least moving in our direction, then you’re dead.
And that makes Islam significantly different from other backward authoritarian religions…how?
There are moderate Muslims. There is no moderate Islam.
Pure fucking bullshit. If there are moderate Muslims, then, by definition, there is moderate Islam.
San Ban:
“Islam is… likely the most violent and pernicious ideology threatening the future of humanity today.”
Though you said that in a more roundabout way, I agree.
Raging Bee:
“‘There are moderate Muslims. There is no moderate Islam.’
“Pure fucking bullshit. If there are moderate Muslims, then, by definition, there is moderate Islam.”
You wish to equate Islam with Muslims, so if one can find a pocket of moderate Muslims, one has simultaneously found moderate Islam.
Sorry. I’d rather go by the book and the bulk reality. Within a given set of borders, the more numerous Muslims become, so the more demanding. Western Europe is the evidence. Trouble is, scripture is the authority, and if a militant can cite scripture, the opposition wilts: particularly if they risk being seen as siding with the Dhimmitude against the Believers.
But I won’t pursue this further. You are probably raging up a storm already.
Ian MacDougall,
Agreed.
Let’s review the evidence,if the majority of Moslems are ‘moderate’, why are majority Moslem nations so chaotic and oppressive? It’s simply the nature of Mohammed’s ideology.
Because of a lack of any strong central government, multiple warring bands, poor communication and road systems, lack of food, water and other resources ectectect?
#26 julian,
Yeees,and…why in Moslem countries, is there, still, “a lack of any strong central government…….ectectect?”, in contrast to the industrialized and industrializing non-Moslem countries of the West and East Asia.
Western Europe escaped from chaos and oppression, Moslem societies have made no significant, independent progress for a thousand years. There’s a clue there, somewhere.
julian:
“Because of a lack of any strong central government, multiple warring bands, poor communication and road systems, lack of food, water and other resources ectectect?”
Sounds like pre-Reformation Europe.
Like that Europe, the people in that giant arc of countries from Indonesia to Nigeria have what they can do, say, think, listen to, look at, read, buy, sell and enjoy circumscribed by their dominant religious code: or more particularly, by the clerical bureaucracy that runs life through enforcement of the code.
A reformation is yet to occur in Islam.
“Within a given set of borders, the more numerous Muslims become, so the more demanding.”
Sounds like any other set of immigrants to me!
“and…why in Moslem countries, is there, still, “a lack of any strong central government…….ectectect?”, in contrast to the industrialized and industrializing non-Moslem countries of the West and East Asia.”
For a host of different reasons, not all having to do with the backwards ideology of Islam! (Compare the chaos/oppression/lack of progress of any number of non-Islamic countries in the developing world.)
#29 San Ban,
Of course there are other backward,oppressive non-Moslem societies in the world, that’s not relevant. The point is, that all Moslem societies share those characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, even the so-called ‘moderate’ countries of Turkey and Indonesia.
“Sounds like any other set of immigrants to me!”
I can’t think of any other ‘set of immigrants’ apart from Moslems who have conspired to attack a nuclear reactor or an army base here, where I live, perhaps I just haven’t noticed.
San Ban:
“Compare the chaos/oppression/lack of progress of any number of non-Islamic countries in the developing world.”
I strongly recommend that you read (and I would presume from the above that you have not) Samuel P Huntingdon’s ‘The Clash of Civilizations and theRemaking of World Order’ (1996). In ch 10 (From Transition Wars to Fault Line Wars) he cites a study by TR Gurr of conflicts in 1993-94. Of 50 ethnopolitical conflicts studied, 20 of them were between groups from different civilizations. Of those, 15 were between Muslims and non-Muslims. He says: “There were, in short, three times as many intercivilizational conflicts involving Muslims as there were conflicts between all non-Muslim civilizations.”
Intraciviliztion conflicts totalled 30, of which Islamic civilization scored 11. He concludes: “Three different compilations of data… yield the same conclusion: In the early 1990s Muslims were engaged in more intergroup violence than were non-Muslims, and two-thirds to three-quarrters of intercivilizational wars were between Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam’s borders are bloody, and so are its innards.”
He also notes the relatively high degree of militarization (ie number of military personnel per thousand population. Muslim countries have such force ratios around twice those of Christian countries.
(Huntingdon counts nine civilizations in all: Western, Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist and Japanese.)
The Guardian will excuse the hell out of this.
No kidding. Just look at the title! “Muhammad cartoon sparks attack on French magazine.”
Apparently, the petrol was already there in the office, and everyone knew it was there. The magazine was pretty much asking for it, deliberately sparking things around all that petrol.
Yes, I know it’s a metaphor, but when you combine the metaphor that’s literally true (it was firebombed!) with the victim blaming construction that has the cartoons, and not the actual terrorists, as the creators of the attack, it’s hard not to think it was a deliberate choice.
If I were a Muslim, I’d be rightly pissed that, when this sort of thing happens, newspapers talk as if I’m so obviously inherently violent and volatile that civilized folks must forever walk on eggshells around me, lest they “spark” my tendency to blow things up.
It’s like that guy who said that boobs cause earthquakes. Boobquakes are a fundamental fact of nature; all we can do to avoid them is to cover up.
There are moderate Muslims. There is no moderate Islam.
Pure fucking bullshit. If there are moderate Muslims, then, by definition, there is moderate Islam.
So, where can I buy the Moderate Koran, which leaves out all the bits that moderate Muslims ignore? I’d like to put it next to my Jefferson bible which is, of course, the standard text of all moderate Christians.
“Of course there are other backward,oppressive non-Moslem societies in the world, that’s not relevant. The point is, that all Moslem societies share those characteristics to a greater or lesser degree”
As do all societies, short of Utopia. I don’t doubt Islam is responsible for oppression and lack of progress – I’d say all religion is inherently oppressive and opposed to progress. In many developed countries where other religions hold more sway, the effect is just as deleterious.
“Huntingdon counts nine civilizations in all: Western, Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist and Japanese.”
I have not read the book, and I can’t say I’m going to – Huntingdon has espoused some pretty nasty ideas in the past. (This listing of “civilizations” seems at best incomplete.)
“moderate Koran” LOL!
“Jefferson bible…, the standard text of all moderate Christians.” LOL!
San Ban:
“I have not read the book, and I can’t say I’m going to – Huntingdon has espoused some pretty nasty ideas in the past. (This listing of “civilizations” seems at best incomplete.)”
Yes, as far as I can see he missed out the Australian Aborigines, the Kalahari Bushmen, the Andaman Islanders and the Alaskan Eskimos. He obviously had a reason: including them would have somehow blown his whole thesis out of the water.
As for the rest of it: best not read it then. And I don’t want to look through your telescope either.
You wish to equate Islam with Muslims…
Well, yeah, what’s Islam WITHOUT Muslims?
I’d rather go by the book and the bulk reality.
In other words, you choose to think of Muslims, not as people with rights and legitimate interests, but as an undifferentiated mass (“bulk”) of mindless zombies, animated and guided by an inhuman force (“the book”) separate and distinct from the bodies it controls. In other words, you’re a bigot doing what bigots do — dehumanizing the hated others. (Also, if you really cared about “the bulk,” you’d notice that the majority of Muslims are NOT violent criminals — and that Muslim victims of terrorism probably outnumber Muslim terrorists.)
Within a given set of borders, the more numerous Muslims become, so the more demanding.
Sounds like my white Christian ancestors as they populated North America. What racial, ethnic, religious, or political/economic interest-group DOESN’T behave like that?
Western Europe is the evidence.
It’s not enough just to mention Western Europe; you have to discuss the specific economic and political conditions in that region. Your failure to do so means you have no case.
But I won’t pursue this further. You are probably raging up a storm already.
In other words, you’re starting to realize your stupidity has been exposed, and you’re looking for an excuse to run away.
A reformation is yet to occur in Islam.
IF you had any idea what that word means, you’d know your assertion is dead wrong. Perhaps you meant “Enlightenment?” If so, you’re wrong there too: Muslims had something like that too, and it fueled something called the Renaissance. Do you know what THAT word means? Do you know why the numbers you count with are called “Arabic?” What language the word “algebra” came from?
Of course there are other backward,oppressive non-Moslem societies in the world, that’s not relevant.
Really? Backwardness and oppression are only relevant when it’s Muslims doing it? At least you’re up front with your hypocritical double standards.
The point is, that all Moslem societies share those characteristics to a greater or lesser degree…
How wide a range is this “greater or lesser degree” you’re rambling about? I could just as easily say all Europeans “share those characteristics to a greater or lesser degree.”
I can’t think of any other ‘set of immigrants’ apart from Moslems who have conspired to attack a nuclear reactor or an army base here…
Ever heard of something called “organized crime?” Here in the US, nearly all immigrant groups spawned gangs of vicious parasitic criminals who corrupted politics at all levels and caused lots of human misery, with or without a stated political cause. Seriously, how many Muslim terrorist groups have killed as many people as the Mafia, the Molly Maguires, or a Mexican drug gang? Oh, and have you ever heard of the KKK? IRA? ETA?
So, where can I buy the Moderate Koran, which leaves out all the bits that moderate Muslims ignore?
There you go, you’ve just admitted that there are indeed moderate Muslims, who ignore the more extreme bits of their holy book, just as the moderate Christians do to their holy book. Argument over.
Argument not over. You’re the one who admitted – the “extreme bits” are there, in the holy book, just as they are with the Christian one. There are “moderate” or liberal Muslims (and Christians) but that requires them to ignore huge chunks of their own holy books.
That can become so institutionalized over time that eventually it becomes possible to talk about a moderate or liberal denomination of a given religion. That could be true of Sufi Islam. It’s not currently true of Islam tout court.
It’s not currently true of Islam tout court.
And you’re sure of this how? “Islam tout court” is over a billion people, in many nations and a huge variety of socio-economic circumstances. How do you derive the correct picture of “Islam tout court?”
Raging Bee:
Your latest rage is noted.