Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Little Green Footballs is a website I rarely visit. Though I usually like and agree with the chief blogger's views on Israel and Islam, two subjects which worry me deeply, I don't like some of the comments that follow some posts. At times so ascerbic and angry, that they remind me of their counterparts on Far-Leftist websites.

Anyway, I visited the blog today and found this post which is interesting:

"True voices of moderation are the delegates to the Secular Islam Summit, who insisted in their declaration that mosque and state should always be separate. They also called for tolerance for non-Muslims, and an end to violent jihad. CAIR should take notes.

So what if many of them are ex-Muslims? They risked their lives to leave Islam and now dare to openly criticize an ideology that everyone else is afraid to criticize. What these brave souls have to say carries far more weight than anything said by CAIR, which couldn’t even bring itself to condemn Osama bin Laden in the wake of 9/11.

Yes, Bedier argued, but the summit’s “funding is coming from the neoconservatives.” An article posted by CAIR suggests “Israeli intelligence” is behind the movement.

In CAIR’s kooky world, the Zionists are behind everything, even 9/11.

But if anyone was behind 9/11, it was the Saudis. And guess who bankrolls CAIR? Right: the Saudis.

Fittingly, CAIR’s Bedier balked when summit delegate Tawfik Hamid, a former terrorist, challenged him to denounce Saudi sharia law for “killing apostates, beating women and stoning women.”

I'm not sure I fully understand why the delegates are referred to as "ex-Muslims". Since the conference is called "Secular Islam Summit" I assumed the delegates were secular Muslims. Being myself a secular Jew (and an atheist) I still consider myself fully Jewish. Unless these ex-Muslims have all converted to some other religion, why are they called "ex-Muslims"? Why is the choice of practicing your cultural identity in a relaxed form, be tagged by a term that could be interpreted, wrongly, as apostasy?


And related to the above, here is a worried article from Bruce Bawer, whose While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within is from Doubleday:

No, most Danes don’t want to be dhimmis: In poll results released in late January, 79 percent of them said Fogh Rasmussen owed nobody an apology. (This is, let it be remembered, the only European country that stood up to the Nazi “final solution” by ferrying its own Jews to safety.) But millions of Europeans have already internalized Islamic taboos and accepted the need to curb liberties in order to “keep the peace.” For them, Muslim rage—and its expression in acts of violence and death threats—is already an accepted part of life that is simply not to be questioned or criticized; in their view, the fault lies with those who provoke the rage by failing to be good enough dhimmis. “There is something wrong with a democracy,” read a typical viewer SMS on a Norwegian news discussion program, “where an editor can put the whole country in danger!” EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson was one of many who spoke of outraged Muslims as if they were a force of nature—every re-publication of the cartoons by other European newspapers, he said, “is adding fuel to the flames.” Across Europe, the same kind of leftists who reflexively cheer art for outraging Christians now uphold Muslims’ sacred right not to be offended.


At 12:08 AM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

An odd thought occurred to me while reading this: If people behave like wild animals, why aren't they treated like animals, rather than little lords, in deference to their violent whims? And then I came to the remark made by EU Trade Commissioner Mandelson that the Muslims were like
"a force of nature". I sense some connection between the Europeans' obsession with ecology and their passivity before Muslim "rage".

Yeah, that might be a little too cute....


Post a Comment

<< Home