Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Method in their madness

Danish newspaper prints cartoons implying violence/suicide bombing is intrinsic to Islam, arguing a right to do so under freedom of expression. A group of Muslims test their freedom of expression by dressing as suicide bombers and holding placards threatening to kill those responsible for the cartoons. Hypocritical? No. Stupid? No. Enemies of the Muslim community? Yes. Here's why.

To be consistent with the recent trial of Mark Collett and Nick Griffin, the government should try to prosecute these protesters (using existing legislation). But Mill in On Liberty (which I subscribe to) doesn't necessarily agree with government policy - I don't think the BNP had committed a crime whereas the protesters did.

So far as I understand the BNP charges - they were accused of inciting or being reckless to incite racial hatred during private BNP meetings. Mill says that the right to free speech stops with incitement to violence, using the example of a speaker railing against corn merchants outside the property of a corn merchant. Those roused by the speech have a ready target for their frustrations (the corn merchant's house/warehouse) and violence is very likely to result. Nick Griffin did not directly demand violent reprisals (unlike the Muslim protestors) and his speeches were made at private gatherings with no immediate target for the audiences' frustration. Anyone who is not an undercover reporter and attends a BNP meeting is likely to think bad things about ethnic minorities already and is unlikely to be incited to anything they couldn't think up in their own kitchen.

My problem with the Muslim protestors is not that their placards would encourage Muslims to undertake violent attacks. But by publically encouraging Islamophobic stereotypes they were inciting non-Muslims to commit violent acts against Muslims. Violence would probably have erupted outside the Danish Embassy if the protest had not been policed. Attacks against Muslims nationally will doubtless increase as a result of this episode. This was possibly the intent - the theory being that attacks against Muslims drives a wedge between non-Muslims and Muslims and rallies more Muslims to the extremist cause.

The Muslim community is already vocally condemning these lunatics - they should continue to do so and as loudly as possible.


  • At 2:47 pm , Blogger Biscit said...

    Danish newspaper prints cartoons implying all Muslims are suicide bombers

    Disagree with the interpretation of said cartoons there.

  • At 2:56 pm , Blogger Femme de Resistance said...

    Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and the one of him on a cloud saying they'd run out of virgins implies that suicide bombing and violence is intrinsic to Islam.

    My understanding is that there are theological debates about both the Bible and the Koran being the literal word of God... and both books extol violence to unbelievers.

    I've changed it to 'potential'. Does that help?

  • At 12:42 pm , Blogger Tristan said...

    I was about to post something very similar.
    This also goes for Abu Hamza, he was convicted of incitement to murder (or similar) not racial hatred.
    We need to show that there is a difference between these.

  • At 6:46 pm , Blogger British National Party member said...

    Ok, herein lies the rub, of what i saw was to be intended to be a fair and reasonable post on the subject.

    You wrote;

    "My problem with the Muslim protestors is not that their placards would encourage Muslims to undertake violent attacks. But by publically encouraging Islamophobic stereotypes they were inciting non-Muslims to commit violent acts against Muslims."

    Your problem is not then, that the muslims were inciting violence against non muslims, but by doing so they would incite violence against muslims.

    Implicit reasoning; you dont mind (as much) that muslims were encouraged to attack non muslims as you were that non muslims would feel more likely to attack muslims as a result.

    That shows brilliantly the implicit reasoning of so many people who consider themselves, rightly in their opinion, on the side of multiculturalism. They dont mind it as much when bad things happen to non muslims (or non blacks or whatever) compared to when the coveted minority themselves are attacked. This may often be denied when presented as a bare fact, but is usually a part of the decision making process behind the policies and ideals that promote multiculturalism and etc.

    About both books extolling violence, well, that may be so. But the point is that Christians are supposed to follow Christ, while muslims are supposed to follow mohammed (as he is the most perfect example of one who follows God, in their eyes)

    And while Christ was not violent to other people, Mohammed was incontrovertably very violent. ("oh you who believe, fight those of the unbelievers who live near to you") etc etc.

    Not to mention that he married a six year old and had sex with her from 9 years old onwards, while he was over 50, ref;




    Its wrong to take islam and Christianity as equal in intent and therefore moral worth, because they are not.


  • At 7:23 pm , Blogger Femme de Resistance said...

    Your problem is not then, that the muslims were inciting violence against non muslims, but by doing so they would incite violence against muslims.

    No. There are several groups who may commit violence:

    a) Muslims who may be considering being violent against 'the West' (Muslim 'borderliners')
    b) Non-Muslims who may be considering committing Islamophobic violence (Non-Muslim 'borderliners')
    c) Muslim nutters
    d) Non-Muslim nutters

    Muslim and non-Muslim nutters are going to carry out violence regardless. Muslim nutters were protesting with twee 'I love Osama' headbands.

    Non-Muslim 'borderliners' are encouraged to commit violence against Muslims by seeing Muslim nutters marching about which reinforces their Islamophobic prejudices.

    Muslim 'borderliners' are not encouraged to commit violence by watching Muslim nutters. They are encouraged to commit violence by things that they think are an affront to Muslims and by brainwashing by Muslim nutters.

    Hence, Muslim nutters with placards are going to cause non-Muslim 'borderliners' to commit violence. They are not going to encourage Muslim 'borderliners' to commit violence. Placards are ineffectual as a means of indoctrination.

    Violence against Muslims and non-Muslims is entirely equivalent and equally unacceptable.

  • At 7:25 pm , Blogger Femme de Resistance said...

    I am currently getting some background on the Koran, although I may be better just finding some 'choice' quotations from the Bibble.

  • At 8:44 pm , Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Interesting statement. Do you mean you want to find 'choice' quotations from the bible to satisfy yourself it's as bad as the Koran ? Whatever. But remember that Christans follow the NT, not the OT, if there is disagreement between the two.

  • At 8:19 am , Blogger Femme de Resistance said...


    First, whether the Qu'ran is violent or not is irrelevant. Muslims, in general, are not violent and thus violence is not intrinsic to Islamic belief. There are extremists but, hey, there are extremists everywhere. It's just these ones happen to be annoying 'the West' and not some obscure country everyone in 'the West' would rather ignore.

    The Bibble is also violent:

    "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

    Matt 10:34-39

    The issue of the 6-year old wife, Aisha. A Muslim and a Buddhist inform me that in the Arab tradition, it was appropriate to marry and sleep with a girl when she reached puberty (this was also the case in the Roman Empire). Sunnis claim that she had reached puberty by 9 years old and, thus, under the traditions of the time it was appropriate to sleep with her.

    Shias claim that she wasn't a very pleasant lady and was lying over when she got married for political expediency. This was because she made a later grab for power and pretending to be very young when married differentiated her from the other wives. Islamic historians are divided on the issue, but some believe she was anywhere between 15 and 20 when married.

    This issue is one of the factors in the Sunni/Shia divide - it is debatable and not common to 'Islam' generally.

  • At 11:00 pm , Anonymous Anonymous said...

    This is very interesting site...
    » » »


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home