The verbal assault on Islam (unbelievable!)

Associate professor, political science and international relations; Fellow of the Institute of Social Policy and Understanding.

Q: What is the obligation of a Western, democratic government to protect individual freedoms in light of a realistic terrorist threat? Are the producers of South Park right to forfeit their freedom of expression in the interests of protecting their employees? Are the governments of Europe right to ban burqas in the interest of fostering a more open society?

It is disingenuous to talk about individual cases of mockery of Islam and Islamic symbols purely in the context of the right to freedom of expression. Every nasty episode designed to deliberately insult and mock Islam and its symbols, even as Western powers occupy Muslim lands, must be seen in the global political context. The verbal assault on Islam can be seen as an extension of the military assault that is waged everyday in Afghanistan and Palestine, and the legal assault that deprives Muslims of the right to free expression. Words and cartoons can be hate crimes too.

I've got to FISK this idiot.

The verbal assault on Islam can be seen as an extension of the military assault that is waged everyday in Afghanistan and Palestine, and the legal assault that deprives Muslims of the right to free expression.

First off, Mookie, the military assault waged everyday in Afghanistan is done so with the cooperation and assistance of muslims. This "assault", as you call it, has caused the previous foreign-supported regime in Afghanistan to hide out in the mountains, unable to carry on with the mass beheadings and executions of women for showing a little sexuality or learning to read, the murdering of MUSLIM political opponents for testing out "free expression", and the harboring of anti-western terrorists. So even if you don't like the the US being there, don't pretend as if we invaded some muzzie holymen bent on peace and justice.

The West has a long history of waging military crusades and systematic demonization of Islam..

Gee, Mookie, why did the "West" go on these crusades? It wouldn't have anything to do with the islamic hordes, known variously as the Saracens, Ottoman Turks, Arabs, Moors, etc. conquering lands previously held Christians and non-islamic peoples would it? I'm sure when the islamists showed up, they didn't treat people of other faiths poorly, now did they? Ooops, they did. And Mookie, it also might be noted that the good Popes also organized crusades against warring Mongols and Russians and Slavs, so try not to feel so persecuted. And FWIW, it doesn't seem like the Mongols, Russians (aside from 70 years of communism) and Slavs have a big chip on their shoulders today.

It is also disingenuous to talk about sleazy shows whose primary motive is to make money in the same vein as one would talk about serious discourses. Mockery for profiteering is not social criticism.

Well, Mookie, Pope Benedict did not use cartoons when he talked about the islamic world a couple years ago. He gave a highly intellectual talk that contained some justified criticisms. Yet, the "muslim street" was calling for his death. And it wasn't just the street, it was your so-called leaders who demanded aaplogies for the Pope stating something so obvious that even you, Mookie, know it to be true. So spare us the idea that "serious discorse" is any more welcome to the jihad squad than Southpark commentary. And just so you know, Southpark has raked just about every organized religion over the coals. Those religions of course condemned the brazen insensitivity of the cartoonists, but only islam offered death threats. Capiche?

The West continues to brag about its culture of freedom of expression and uses it as an excuse to mock Islam. We Muslims know on the other hand that the West too has its sacred cows. In Europe you cannot deny the Holocaust. In the U.S. you dare not criticize Israel. Try questioning the competence of the U.S. military or mocking them and see what happens to your editorial or political career.

Yes, the West, specifically the USA, has some "sacred cows", as you say. Our military is held in high regard, absolutely. But when members of that organization shoot the wrong muslims, they are usually brought up on charges, even if it was the heat of battle. Recently, much to my chagrin, 3 Navy SEALs were charged by or military for punching the muzzie terrorist (who they risked their lives to capture) who was responsible for mutilating 4 American contractors and hanging their toasted corpses from a bridge for all the world to see. BTW, Mookie, did you condemn this terrorist for such atrocities???

BTW, ever hear of Pat Buchanan? Last I checked he's still a gainfully employed US pundit that not only criticizes Israel, but slams US policy regularly for it's close ties to that nation. Israel is a nation is it not, Mookie? Or is it a 'zionist entity' as the leader of Iran calls it, as he plans for its elimination.

Even as the West brags about the values of freedom of expression it continues to ban religious expression. The Burqa is banned, the minarets are banned, books are banned and even political discourse is banned (in UK if it can be interpreted as valorizing terrorism). Again and again, the West reminds us that when Western cultural identity and symbols are threatened it will not hesitate to curb the religious expression of Muslims.

Whoa now Mookie! What books are banned in the US? What religious expression is curbed (aside from the Branch Davidians)? As to France and the Burqa, maybe they consider it a security risk to allow fully covered individuals. Have you heard about the "youth" over there rioting and setting fires and attacking Jews? Have you heard the many stories of men actually dressing in burqas to hide their terrorist intent?

Or maybe France just expects that immigrants follow the norms of their proud country to some degree. I mean it would never happen in a muslim country where immigrant and guest workers would be expected to adhere to that country's traditions would it? Do western born female citizens of Saudi Arabia get to ignore the Saudi dress code? Do the westerners living in Dubai get to snuggle on the beaches or kiss in public? Do US citizens traveling to your home country get to bring in Bibles and share the "Good News" with the locals. Funny how we let you in, Mookie,to tell us all the great things about islam and convert whoever is convertible.

And in Great Britain, about the ONLY speech that is curtailed is the speech criticizing the rank hypocrisy of the muslim hordes, who move there to escape some hellhole then demand to have their assinine "traditions" codified into British law.

And finally Mookie, here you are, in the Washington Post, defending islam and criticizing those of us who can't stand your religion and say so. Which muslim ruled country can I go and get a job defending my Roman Catholic Christian beliefs in the major periodicals there and slam the host countries own religion and history?

When that day comes when I can stand on a street corner of Medina or Tehran or Tripoli and profess my faith to the Lord Jesus and not have the hordes try to kill me and the authorities charge me with blasphemy, then maybe we'll have something to discuss. In the meantime, take your stealth jihad and shove it.

INTERESTING TIMING! (Did somebody have that in the hopper--- waiting for an opportune moment?)

Re: MUQTEDAR KHAN

Coddling Islamists By: Winfield Myers
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, February 20, 2008

The U.S. Department of State has awarded a grant worth $494,368 to University of Delaware political scientist, Brookings Institution fellow, and Pentagon consultant Muqtedar Khan, who last fall objected to serving on a panel with a veteran of the Israeli Defense Forces. According to a UD press release, the grant is to be used, “to initiate a dialogue on religion and politics between key members of religious and community organizations in the Middle East and the United States.”

The press release continued:

Under the grant, participants from Egypt and Saudi Arabia will be on campus this summer for a brief period before traveling to other locations, including New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Later a group of American scholars will travel to Egypt and Saudi Arabia to take part in similar activities in those countries. A documentary film is planned of the visit to the U.S.

The choice of Khan to oversee a program dedicated to expanding dialogue between religious communities is beyond parody, as Khan himself has a record of thwarting dialogue, at least with Israeli veterans. Moreover, his award is part of a larger pattern of coddling Islamists within the bureaucracies of the State Department and Pentagon.

Last October 23, Khan objected to the presence of IDF veteran and Campus Watch associate fellow Asaf Romirowsky on an academic panel at UD. Organized by students to discuss “Anti-Americanism in the Middle East,” the panel was set to go when Khan—writing from Washington, DC, where he had delivered a workshop at the Pentagon—sent the following email to undergraduate Lara Rausch, one of the key organizers of the event:

Laura, I have to speak at the Pentagon tomorrow. My workshop is from 12-4. I hope to catch the 5 pm Acela from DC and will be back in town by 7 pm. I will come directly, but may be late. I am also not sure how I feel about being on the same panel with an Israeli soldier who was stationed in West Bank. Some people see IDF as an occupying force in the West Bank. I am not sure that I will be comfortable occupying the same space with him. It is not fair to spring this surprise on me at the last moment.

Romirowsky, contacted via email, was asked what he thought of the State Department’s action of singling out Khan for a substantial award to encourage dialogue, was taken aback.

“I seriously question the type of dialogue this will promote given the fact that he wouldn't share space with me on an academic panel,” Romirowsky replied.

“Dialogue is good if you have something to dialogue about—starting with accepting the others’ right to exist,” he continued. “Yet, by not sitting on a panel with me due to my IDF service, he basically questioned Israel’s right to exist within safe and secure borders.”

“That itself should throw into question the integrity of any dialogue he might initiate.”

In the two months following the story’s October debut, Khan offered no fewer than three additional explanations for why he acted as he did. I documented these in December, and concluded that the reasons he gave in the October 23 email above rang truest: IDF vets are off-limits on panels in which he participates. The other excuses were little more than a smokescreen, set off in a vain attempt to reduce the embarrassment his intolerance had brought to himself and the University.

Khan’s large grant from the State Department, coupled with his role as a Pentagon advisor, further exposes a troubling trend within those federal departments of coddling Islamists and turning a blind eye toward intolerance. Hesham Islam, special assistant for international affairs in the office of Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, has made news lately for allegedly calling Joint Chief analyst on counterterrorism Major Stephen Coughlin, who also reported to England, a “Christian zealot with a pen” and pressing for his removal.

Coughlin is widely celebrated as one of a small number of Pentagon analysts who are consistently tough on Islamism—a stance that has made enemies within the Defense bureaucracy. His thesis from the National Defense Intelligence College, titled “‘To Our Great Detriment’: Ignoring What Extremists Say about Jihad,” is celebrated by terrorism experts as a clear-sighted warning that too few in Washington care to heed.

FrontPage
~~~~~~~~~~

I recently posted a lengthy post on Stephen Couglin, his firing, and his courageous analysis here on the Threat Matrix thread. Below is a short excerpt from that post:

Former Defense Department analyst Stephen Coughlin was exceedingly informative, and his point that official American self-censorship regarding Islam and jihad has given the enemy a "decisive victory in the information battlespace" was truly chilling.

Coughlin, whose perceptions got him crosswise with Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England’s Muslim sidekick Hesham Islam and later excluded from the DoD, insisted that those entrusted with protecting Americans from Islamic terrorism have a “professional duty to know” about the roots of said terrorism’s doctrine in Islamic scripture and tradition.

After all, he pointed out, the murderous rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, by Muslim U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan had a “doctrinal driver,” as evinced by Hasan’s own presentation to his Army medical colleagues calling for Muslim service personnel to be accorded conscientious objector status lest “adverse events” occur.

The enemy, Coughlin observed, has stated his doctrine. Can we, he enquired, be politically correct and threat-focused at the same time? No way – because, he concluded, “You cannot defeat an enemy you will not define.” Coughlin's thesis on jihad doctrine may be accessed here. It is lengthy but gripping, and is a must-read.

Greenspiece Blogspot

Stephen Couglin:
"The enemy has stated his doctrine. Can we, be politically correct and threat-focused at the same time?" No... because, “You cannot defeat an enemy you will not define.”

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.