Posted on 03/29/2004 7:52:49 AM PST by Eurotwit
There is a new breed of Islam bashers that were at one point part of the Muslim community itself. Muslims already have to contend with people like Daniel Pipes making statements such as "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene ... All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most".
Now beyond Daniel Pipes, Muslims are seeing a new stream of attacks against their faith by individuals that were born Muslim and being promoted by media.
These particular bashers have chosen to take on the literary world with recent publications by Canadian Journalist Irshad Manji and Ohio based author Ibn Warraq. Mr. Warraq, a self proclaimed former Muslim has authored four books in recent years that promote anti-Islamic rhetoric by citing incorrect traditions of the Prophet Muhammad and citing Quranic verses out of context. In his book Why I am Not a Muslim, he states "People generally convert to Islam only in terror, quest for power, or to avoid heavy taxation, or to escape humiliation, or because of infatuation with a Muslim woman." A funny statement to make in the United States where many people have converted to Islam without terror. Becoming a Muslim may grant a person a considerable amount of struggle but not power.
First time Muslim author, Manji has been receiving mass media attention for her book, the Trouble with Islam. It has been reviewed by over thirty prominent United States newspapers and magazines and become a best seller in the United States and Canada. It's contents are an open letter to Muslims and Non-Muslims on why Islam needs to be reformed. In one section she writes, "First and foremost, being self-critical means coming clean about the nasty side of the Koran, and how it informs terrorism." She fails however to point out where in the Koran terrorism is mentioned.
Although I completely respect freedom of speech, I must ask what is the point of all of this? Do these Muslim bashers want us all to convert out of Islam? Do they want the whole world to hate Islam? The answer in my view is that they want Muslims and the rest of humanity to renounce the religion and in their delusion hope to extinguish the light of Islam from the world.
Muslims are used to attacks by non-Muslims but with people like Manji, and Warraq it is different because it is completely hypocritical. They would like to be respected for leaving Islam or in Manji's case "reforming Islam", but they refuse to give the same respect to Muslims to practice their faith as they choose, without the constant condemnation and criticism. These authors state that they should be given the right to interpret religion as they wish yet; they criticize Muslims for practicing their religion as they want to. The bottom line is tolerance is a two way street, and there should be tolerance for those who choose to practice religion and those who do not.
The abandonment of tolerance will only lead to hatred and crime. The FBI reports that hate crimes against people who appear to be Muslim increased more than 1,500 percent in 2001. As a staff member of a Muslim non-profit organization I receive daily hate emails that contain profanity towards Muslims and Allah, which is simply the Arabic word for God.
It has become the norm and acceptable by society to stigmatize Muslims as it was at one time, to stigmatize African Americans and Jews.
Most immigrant Muslims came to America to pursue a better life for themselves and their children. Freedom of religion is part of that better life.
One must wonder the motive of these new Islam bashers. Are they just trying to make a quick buck or do they simply want to annihilate Islam. Either way, the bigotry needs to stop because it might just be another book on the shelves to most Americans but to Muslims, these books threaten their identity in a society that prides it self in tolerance and pluralism.
Nahal Ameri is the Community Relations Director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council
Islamic Tolerance:
Saudi Arabia - Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death. Bibles are illegal. Churches are illegal.
Yemen - Bans proselytizing by non-Muslims and forbids conversions. The Government does not allow the building of new non-Muslim places of worship
Kuwait - Registration and licensing of religious groups. Members of religions not sanctioned in the Koran may not build places of worship. Prohibits organized religious education for religions other than Islam
Egypt -Islam is the official state religion and primary source of legislation. Accordingly, religious practices that conflict with Islamic law are prohibited. Muslims may face legal problems if they convert to another faith. Requires non-Muslims to obtain what is now a presidential decree to build a place of worship
Algeria - The law prohibits public assembly for purposes of practicing a faith other than Islam. Non-Islamic proselytizing is illegal, and the Government restricts the importation of non-Islamic literature for distribution.
Jordan - Has the death penalty for any Muslim selling land to a Jew.
'Cause I'd really hate that.
I agree, but I would also argue that, in a lot of ways, true Christianity is not compatible with "the west" either (given western society's focus on attaining things like material wealth, earthly pleasures, reknown of place and power, etc, etc, etc).
BWAAHAAAWAAAA!!! What a laugh! Here is Muslim "tolerance"-- We tolerate women in burkhas and beating them with sticks as a form of amusement; we tolerate teaching children that Jews are cannibals; public torture and execution for criticizing the mullahs----we tolerate all kinds of neat stuff like that.
(Now someone will report what I have just written and claim that "hate crimes" are now up 1600 per cent, not just 1500% as reported in the article).
Really??
Nahal Ameri is the Community Relations Director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council
Oh - that would be this organization, Abdul...err... Nahal?
MPAC's staff, hitherto better known for justifying militant Islamic terrorism and promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, goes mano-a-mano in Qur'anic exegesis with Luxenberg, fearlessly spouting such silliness as:He challenges what he claims as the Arabic meaning of "beings with swollen breasts," while had he known Arabic, he would have understood the term as "beings of distinction."
MPAC's department of historical research must have also swung into gear for this particular edition of MPACnews, for it includes the dubious assertion that "there were about 100,000 copies of the Quran circulating in different parts of the world during the time of the second Caliph, Omar ibn al-Khattab (634-644)."
But most notable about the MPAC press release is its assumption that Luxenberg is attempting "to undermine the foundation of faith" among Muslims by challenging the authenticity of the Qur'an. MPAC says it can "only surmise" that a work like this, "attacking the authenticity of the Quran," seeks to destroy the Qur'an.
-- Daniel Pipes, http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/77
So is a respect for the institutions of the host country and understanding that this country is a secular republic. So is a respect for this country, including turning in those in your ranks who are here to kill other Americans.
The abandonment of tolerance will only lead to hatred and crime.
Tell that to the 3,000 victims murdered by Islamic hatred on 9/11.
Actually, we could do with a little less "tolerance" for harboring terrorists, and supporting terrorist organizations from our Muslim neighbors.
First, Mr. Hooper lists quotations by and about me going back to 1983, and he does so in so sly and selective a fashion that many things end up sounding like the opposite of what was intended. One example: he concludes from a passage in a 1990 article of mine that I am a racist: "Western European societies," he quotes me, "are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene." Yes, I wrote this. But I was not giving my own views, only reporting on the way Europeans think. Mr. Hooper choses not to quote what are clearly my views, provided in the very next paragraph:
"The movement of Muslims to Western Europe creates a great number of painful but finite challenges; there is no reason, however, to see this event leading to a cataclysmic battle between two civilizations. If handled properly, the immigrants can even bring much of value, including new energy, to their host societies."
Second, he misrepresents my argument ("Daniel Pipes once again tries to paint Islam as a threat to America"). Nowhere do I discuss Islam or indicate any feelings, positive or negative, about this faith. Rather, I argue that the chauvinist (or fundamentalist) version of politicized Islam is a threat to America. Its talk about (and sometimes violent actions toward - remember the World Trade Center bombing in New York) overthrowing the U.S. government and replacing it with an Islamic one worries me. Many pious Muslims agree with my view and some publicly denounce the chauvinist program of institutions like Mr. Hooper's organization, CAIR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.