Monday, September 20, 2010

What Does the Muslim Brotherhood think of the new Pew report?

The Muslim Brotherhood has its own official English language website. Who knew? I only discovered this because I had taken notice of the dearth of media coverage on the newly released Pew report on "Muslim networks" in Western Europe (see my previous post on the report for a brief overview and links to Pew's website where you can read more and even download the full report).

It was while searching through what very little media coverage there is on the Pew report that I came across an article titled "New Pew Forum Report offers an In-Depth Profile of Muslim Networks and Movements in Western Europe," at a website called IkhanWeb. At first I did not notice that IkhanWeb is "The Muslim Brotherhood official English web site."

Overall it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood is quite pleased with the new report, in which they are featured prominently. Pew, it should be emphasized, is hardly a bunch of liberal kumbayaist Obama-boosting Islamophilic Ground Zero Mosque supporters. In fact, the director of their "Forum on Religion and Public Life", under whose aegis the report was done, is a conservative Christian named Luis Lugo whose last job prior to coming to Pew was at the Center for Public Justice, a group committed to government subsidies for Christian missionary work (via "faith based initiatives"), and combatting the evils of non-procreative sex. (Officially, of course, all the folks at Pew are as objective as the driven snow. For more on Pew and Lugo, look here).

But now, let's allow the Muslim Brotherhood speak for themselves:
New Pew Forum Report offers an In-Depth Profile of Muslim Networks and Movements in Western Europe
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has released a new report on "Muslim Networks and Movements in Western Europe," profiling several of the oldest, largest and most influential Muslim groups

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has released a new report on "Muslim Networks and Movements in Western Europe," profiling several of the oldest, largest and most influential Muslim groups operating in Western Europe today. A close look is taken at the distinct histories, missions and executive frameworks of these groups including the Gulen Movement; the Muslim Brotherhood and Jama'at-i Islami; the Muslim World League and World Assembly of Muslim Youth; Jihadi Networks and Hizb ut-Tahrir; Sufi Orders; and Tablighi Jama'at.

Focusing on transitional networks and movements whose origins lie in the Muslim world but currently have a significant existence the report discusses the influence on daily lives of Muslims living there;

“Many of the younger leaders are pressing for an agenda that focuses on the interests and needs of Muslims in particular European countries rather than on global Islamic causes, such as the Israeli-Palestinian dispute”.

It highlighted that several Islamic groups with foreign roots had changed their focus to European issues because of pressure from younger European-born Muslims with fewer links to the Muslim majority countries their families emigrated from.

The report examines how European governments cooperate with the groups and the growing connections between Islamic groups and European governments, and the integration of some of these groups into the continent's political mainstream concluding that;

“These Muslim groups and movements have become more visible on the European political stage and have not led to a decrease in activism on the part of these groups”.

Other examinations include the possible future challenges these networks face considering shifts in leadership and membership ranks. According to the report;

“Many Muslims in Western Europe participate in the activities of these movements and networks, and the groups' formal membership rolls appear to be relatively small”.

It continues however that;

“Despite the low levels of formal membership, these groups often exert significant influence by setting agendas and shaping debates within Muslim communities in Western Europe. The growing connections between Islamic groups and European governments, as well as the integration of some of these groups into the continent's political mainstream, have not led to a decrease in activism on the part of these groups. If anything, Muslim groups and movements have become more visible on the European political stage."

The report also indicates there is a significant presence in Western Europe and North America.

The report sums up that in short it is difficult to generalize about Muslim groups in Western Europe because they vary so widely in their philosophies and purposes.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Blasphemous Images

There are a variety of Christian groups and individuals in the West that are as hell-bent as ever on censoring anything that "offends" them, and punishing those responsible.

For example, here is an outraged call to action for protests against "Chocolate Jesus", a piece by Canadian artist Cosimo Cavallaro. Another example is the now infamous "Merry Titmas" exhibit by "notorious art curator" Lenora Claire in 2007.

Below are some not quite randomly selected images that could, potentially, be seen as examples of anti-Christian blasphemy. (Including one from Claire's "Merry Titmas" show):

The cover of a relatively recent book on Republicanism and Anticlerical Nationalism in Spain, by Enrique Sanabria:



Some naughty nuns by Clovis Trouille:


.
.

















Max Ernst's "Virigin Spanking the Christ Child":



Jesus Guinness & Jesus Thong:




The Virgin Mary depicted as a Hooter's waitress:



"Motivational Poster" styled blasphemy:





Racing Nuns action figures:




Sexy Jesus t-shirts from zazzle:



Sexy Nun stickers from zazzle:



Lookin' Good for Jesus products by Blue Q:



Objectified Jebus:



Jesus Elvis:



Jesus Christ On A Bicycle:




even more blasphemy at
e g r e g o r e s:

Saturday, September 18, 2010

"Islamism" widespread, deeply rooted among Muslims in Europe, according to Pew study

Surprise! In a newly published report, researchers from the Pew Religion Forum show that groups committed to "political Islam" are extremely influential among Muslims in Europe. The report goes so far as to say that "The Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates often succeed in setting the public agenda for European Muslims." [p. 26]

In addition to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is most influential among Arab Muslims in Europe, the report also highlights the Pakistan-based Islamist group, Jama'at-i Islami, which is predominant among Muslims from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and other parts of South Asia. Jama'at-i Islami is especially strong in the UK, where two thirds of the Muslim population (of about 3 million) are of South Asian origin. [pp. 23-24]

The report, perhaps unintentionally, also provides a startling look at the moving targets of "moderate" versus "extremist" Islam. Both the Muslim Brotherhood and Jama'at-i Islami are specifically identified in the report as promoting "the establishment of a distinctly Islamic system of government". In addition, the report states that the Saudi based and funded Muslim World Leage and Assembly of Muslim Youth "are widely regarded as promoting the strict Wahhabi brand of Islam that is prevalent in the desert kingdom." [p. 29]

However, the Pew report treats "radical Islam" separately from the four groups above. Apparently, no matter how extremist a group's ideology is, if it has enough widespread support from Muslims, and official recognition from both Muslim and Western governments, it must fall outside the "radical" camp! The clear impression given is that there are, on the one hand, responsible, mature, broad-based Islamic organizations and movements in Europe, while, on the other hand, there are "networks and cells affiliated with global jihadi organizations, such as al-Qaeda, whose ideology calls for the violent pursuit of a global Islamic political order." [p. 32]

The only problem is that there is actually little, if any, ideological space between the "radicals" and non-radicals in terms of their ultimate goals.

The report also includes a brief appendix on Muslim groups in North America, from which the following is an excerpt:
Most, if not all, of the Muslim movements and networks with a significant presence in Western Europe can also be found in North America . . . .

Muslim Brotherhood supporters were involved in the founding of several groups in North America, including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim American Society (MAS). But these organizations have since diversified their memberships and activities. ISNA is now a broad-based organization whose annual conventions are attended by Muslims of varied backgrounds and sectarian orientations. CAIR focuses on advocacy and civil rights issues involving Muslim Americans. MAS, which has dozens of local chapters across the U.S., was the organization most closely associated with the Brotherhood when it was founded in the early 1990s, but its current leadership disavows ongoing ties to the movement and emphasizes the group’s civil rights and social justice agenda.


The Muslim World League, which undertakes a wide range of activities focused on the propagation of Islam, has offices in New York City and Falls Church, Va. (a Washington suburb), as well as one near Toronto. The World Assembly of Muslim Youth, which focuses primarily on promoting Islamic solidarity among Muslim teenagers and young adults in their early 20s, also has an office in Falls Church, Va.

[pp. 58-59]
Visit the Pew website to find out much more about the report. You can even download the whole thing as a pdf (it's only 63 pages).

Friday, September 17, 2010

"Those that surrender tamely are finished."

"Nations that go down fighting shall rise up again;
those that surrender tamely are finished."

As hagiography does, it just doesn't get any better than the HBO biopic about Winston Churchill, Into the Storm. It might be cliche, but it must be said that this is stirring stuff indeed.

Even if you are familiar with the historical facts, it is still a shock to the system to watch such a convincing portrayal of England's Darkest/Finest Hour. Two hundred thousand British soldiers were trapped on the beaches of Dunkirk at the end of May, 1940. It was feared that the vast majority of them would be either killed or captured by the advancing Nazi armies. If that happened, Hitler would have uncontested control of all of Europe. And if that had happened, well, it could very well have changed everything.

But somehow the British managed to not only evacuate their own troops, but also nearly 150,000 French troops as well. It was at this point that Churchill delivered one of the great speeches not only of the 20th century, but of all modern history and arguably of all time:
I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

Even though large parts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old.
The heart of this film, directed by Thaddeus O'Sullivan, is the masterful weaving of Churchill's words together with unfolding historical events that called those words forth. And it is Brendan Gleeson, playing the lead role, who makes those words come to life. Gleeson's performance is staggeringly good, and he won a well deserved Emmy for it.

The quote at the very top of this post ("Nations that go down fighting ...") is actually apocryphal. It is supposed to come from a cabinet meeting in May of 1940, but there is no precise record of what Churchill said at that meeting.

Here is another quote, but one that is not apocryphal. It is from Churchill's six volume History of the Second World War, and it is also inscribed on the pediment of the statue of Churchill in Fulton, Missouri:

In War: Resolution
In Defeat: Defiance
In Victory: Magnanimity
In Peace: Good Will

Blasphemy, Part Deux

"Isn’t it a little too much to have tolerance and delicate forbearance preached by what is intolerance and cruelty itself?"
[from Religion: A Dialogue,
by Arthur Schopenhauer, 1889]

Islam is a religion that was founded by proud warriors on horseback. It is a religion whose adherents have conquered vast empires, and, in so doing, have spread their faith to the far corners of the earth, including, at one time, over one third of Europe. It is a religion in which it is considered an honor to be called "Saifullah", or "The Sword of Allah," and in which the sword is a commonly encountered religious symbol. It is the religion that gave us the word "Assassin."

So why do so many moden day Muslims insist on acting like hypersensitive drama queens and whining crybabies? Instead of behaving like reasoning, self-respecting, civilized human beings with their own centuries-long cultural tradition, the slightest imagined offense causes them to descend into bloodthirsty savagery. And then the ones who aren't raging and rioting (or blowing things up or cutting people's heads off on youtube) expect to be congratulated and praised as "moderates" and "bridge-builders" -- even while they demand that the rest of the world refrain from provoking the non-bridge-building-non-moderates -- or else.

In the West we are fortunate to have the freedom to not only question and criticize, but to openly condemn, mock and ridicule individual religions, as well as Religion itself. Historically, Christianity has been the most common, but certainly not the only, target of this kind of decidedly unwanted attention. And no one should be under any illusions about what Christians think of having their religion critiqued, let alone mocked, whether this is done with accompanying fart jokes on South Park, or with National Endowment for the Arts funding and hung in a museum, or put to music and posted on teh inernets, or performed by stand-up comics getting a cheap laugh out of pedophilia, or in the form of t-shirts worn by frat-boys (or the thongs they buy for their girlfriends), or on the bumper of the car in front of you on the way to work, etc, etc.

There has, in fact, been significant and determined resistance from Christians to any and all forms of criticism directed against them and their faith. There have been frequent attempts, up to today, to silence and punish those who dare to criticize Christianity. Sometimes these attempts are even successful, but for the most part we have succeeded in establishing, in principle, the right to think and say whatever we want on matters of religion. And that is a good thing. For everyone.

In particular, it's a good thing for Christians themselves, for they have often been the target of the most vicious persecution intended to silence criticism within Christianity. But the days of heretic-hunting are over, and now Christians enjoy the right not only to voice criticisms of their own religion among themselves, but even to turn against Christianity altogether and leave it behind. And only when that freedom is real and solidly established can people genuinely be considered true Christians in their hearts, for, as Samuel Butler wrote (sometime around 1670):
He that complies against his will
Is of the same opinion still.
Despite the fact that a great many of their coreligionists have given evidence to the contrary, there are Christians who have come to understand and appreciate that it is essential for a person to be truly free to reject Christianity in order to freely choose Christianity. When will the followers of Islam come to a similar understanding? When will they cease to debate amongst themselves what the proper punishment for apostasy should be, with the most commonly accepted answer to that question, and the one traditionally espoused in mainstream Islam throughout its history, being death?

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf very recently acknowledged the importance of just this kind of freedom, when he spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations this Monday, September 13, 2010:
In America, we do protect these differences. We protect different expressions of faith. We assemble in our various houses of worship to pray, to chant, to recite our sacred scriptures, or simply to come together in communion and draw together and draw strength as a community. But religion in America is not imposed on us: We can be as devout or as agnostic as we like.

That choice -- to be or not to be religious, or anything else for that matter -- forced me to think about who I was, who I am, what I truly wanted and chose to be; and has given me a profound appreciation for the country that provides these freedoms. In that sense, you could say that I found my faith in this country. So for me, Islam and America are organically bound together.

But this is not my story alone. The American way of life has helped many Muslims make a conscious decision to embrace their faith. That choice, ladies and gentlemen, is precious, and that is why America is precious.
Unfortunately, Rauf dances around the real issue with a wink and a nod. After all, hadn't he just returned from a whirlwind tour of Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates? Did it occur to him to talk up this "precious" freedom, the kind of genuine religious freedom that is only possible when there is the freedom to reject Islam, or any other religion, or all religions whatsoever? Rauf has never been shy about criticizing the West and the US in particular, even going so far as to condemn America for having so much "Muslim blood" on our hands. But where is his condemnation of the real oppressors of the Islamic peoples of the world: the societies where Muslims live under their own self-imposed ideological totalitarianism?

In the case of Bahrain, for example, the introduction of a limited amount of "democracy" in recent years has led to less religious freedom, as rival Islamist parties compete for popular support by attempting to outdo each other with proposals for ever more medieval theocratic legislation, such as the newly approved law prohibiting witchcraft and sorcery!

Imam Rauf wonders why people don't trust him. Maybe it is because he only praises religious freedom when he is safely on American soil, and even then only as a ploy to try to dampen opposition to his dream of constructing a lavish monument to Islam at the site of Islamism's greatest and bloodiest modern victory. And anything Rauf says about America's religious freedom these days is just an asterisk next to his incessant accusations that we are, in fact, a nation of Neonazi Islamophobic bigots.

The truth of the matter is that for all of his pretended appreciation of the "preciousness" of the freedom "to be as devout or agnostic as we like", Imam Rauf and his "progressive" cheerleaders have already succeeded in seriously eroding an essential component of that freedom: the freedom to criticize Islam in America.

On Monday (Sept. 13 -- the same day imam Rauf addressed the Council on Foreign Relations) the New Jersey Transit Authority announced that they had fired Derek Fenton (who had worked there for eleven years) because he had publicly burned pages from a Koran on September 11th near Ground Zero. The Transit Authority stated that: "Mr. Fenton’s public actions violated New Jersey Transit’s code of ethics."

New Jersey Governor, Republican Chris Christie, has publicly voiced his support for the decision to punitively fire Fenton for exercising his Constitutional rights. The mainsteam media has completely ignored the story of Fenton's firing, which has led some right-wingers to point out the glaring contrast between Fenton's invisibility and the attention lavished on Colorado teacher Jay Bennish, who was fired for comparing then US President George W. Bush to former German Chancellor Adolf Hitler. Bennish's story not only received prominent coverage, but it was consistently portrayed in the media as a cut and dried "free speech" case in which Bennish was clearly in the right, or at least well within his rights, Constitutionally speaking. (Bennish was eventually reinstated.)

And then yesterday (Thursday, September 16) word spread that Molly Norris, the young cartoonist who had gained world-wide attention when she proposed the idea proclaiming May 20th as "International Everbody Draw Muhammad Day", had gone into hiding after having received warnings from the FBI that she was in danger.

Norris now joins with good company: Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasreen, Geert Wilders, Wafa Sultan, Sooreh Hera, Ehsan Jami. The truly frightening thing is, though, that in the past people who were threatened by the Religion of Peace used to flee to the United States for their safety! But now even American citizens are being forced to go into hiding, move to someplace where no one knows them, change their identities .....

Meanwhile, Imam Rauf & Co. continue to advise us, like the good "moderates" they are, to do exactly as the extremists demand, so that no one gets hurt. And even though he now claims to understand that the idea of building a mosque at Ground Zero was a mistake, Rauf also claims that he is powerless to move his $100M mosque, for fear of unleashing a savage outburst of attacks against "our people, our soldiers, our troops, our embassies, our citizens."

One might expect that true Islamic moderates would not menacingly insist that non-Muslims must at all costs avoid even slightest offense against the malevolently psychopathic elements of the world's second largest religion. Rather, shouldn't they concentrate on admonishing their fellow Muslims about the shame and humiliation they bring on themselves every time there is another killing spree over a cartoon? Imam Rauf's response might be that if he were to issue a condemnation every time there is a death threat, or a physical assault, or an act of terrorism, or a wave of riots, etc, by so-called "Islamic extremists", well, he wouldn't have time to do anything else. But that, really, is the whole point. And so long as that is the case, there is no reason whatsoever to pay any attention to the Sufi imam as he drones on about interfaith dialogue, "community centers", and the bogeyman of Islamophobia.

[Also see the previous post on Blasphemy, and links therein.]

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Blasphemy

Voltaire did it. Thomas Paine did it. Elizabeth Cady Stanton did it. Bertrand Russell did it. Kathy Griffin does it. Some people thought R.Crumb was doing it, when really he was just illustrating Bible Stories without censoring them. The artist Andres Serrano did it, on the National Endowment for the Arts' dime. Adam Darski, better known as "Nergal", the frontman for Polish blackened death metal band Behemoth, did it. Thomas Pooley did it.

Thomas Pooley?
Thomas Pooley, who lived in the village of Liskeard, was a well-digger of eccentric beliefs. He thought the earth was a living, thinking animal, and he feared that, if he dug too deeply in it, he might penetrate its skin and wound vital parts. He professed a belief in one great and wise "Almighty Power," but experience with his fellow men taught him to dislike Christians and "Christian Bible tyranny." He did not, however, interfere with the Christian beliefs of his loving wife, or the Christian education of his children. One of his odd beliefs, which resulted in his imprisonment, was that burning all the Bibles and spreading their ashes over fields would cure potato rot. Although Pooley was an exemplary father and husband, and an industrious worker, he had a reputation for being mentally unbalanced and a village freethinker. But he was ignorant of freethought literature. Holyoake, who went to Cornwall to study his case, wrote solemnly that, if Pooley had "had the advantage of Freethinking books, he might now be of sound mind."

For fifteen years, Liskeard and its environs had been annoyed by chalked inscriptions on walls and gates, expressing sentiments that offended religious people. Pooley was thought to be the culprit, but no one ever saw him to the writing. One day, the Cornish Times ran this ad: "BLASPHEMY. Any person who has seen a man writing blasphemous sentences on gates or other places in the neighborhood of Liskeard, is requested to communicate immediately with Messrs. Pedler and Grylls, Liskeard, or with the Rev. R. Hobhouse, St. Ive Rectory." Soon after, the Reverend Paul Bush filed a criminal complaint against Pooley, asserting that he had blasphemously libeled the Holy Scriptures, the Christian religion, and God. Pooley may have been guilty of chalking the messages, but not even Bush ever saw him do it; Pooley was only seen in the vicinity, and he believed in God. Bush, who was rector of Duloe, swore that he had read on a gate the words: "Duloe stinks with the monster Christ's Bible-Blasphemy -- T. Pooley." Some children erased all but the first and last words. No proof was ever offered that the printing was in Pooley's hand, but these words on the gate constituted the first count in Pooley's indictment for blasphemy.

A second count consisted of similar gate-writing. When Pooley was summoned before the Liskeard magistrates, he walked into court with a rope around his neck and told the judges to pull it "and have done with it." To the constable who took him off to jail to await trial Pooley angrily said, "If it had not been for the blackguard Jesus Christ, when he stole the donkey, the police would not be wanted, and . . . he [Christ] was the forerunner of all theft and whoredom." That remark added a third count to his indictment for blasphemy. A fourth count was derived from his often stated belief that the ashes of Bibles would cure potato rot.
[Blasphemy: verbal offense against the sacred, from Moses to Salman Rushdie by Leonard Williams Levy pp. 467-8]
Pooley was convicted on all four counts and sentenced to serve 21 months in prison. Well-healed British atheists and freethinkers adopted the case as a "cause", although they generally dismissed Pooley himself as mad. The irreligious literati pointed out that new anti-Christian tracts were published and circulated in London on a weekly basis, but their authors were not brought up on charges.

Five months into his sentence, Thomas Pooley was pardoned by the presiding judge at his trial, John Coleridge. The year was 1858. There would not be another blasphemy prosecution in Britain for more than two decades, but the law under which Pooley was charged, arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced stayed on the books -- and blasphemy cases continued to be argued in the courts until late in the 20th century, including one case by British Muslims trying to have Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses legally banned, and the law itself was not abolished until 2008!

more blasphemy at
e g r e g o r e s:


.

Damned Good Ice Cream

According to the BBC, Italian gelato maker Antonio Federici has a new advertising slogan: "Immaculately Conceived." But the Advertising Standards Authority, Britain's independent regulator of advertising, has deemed the new ad campaign, which features a picture of a pregnant nun eating ice cream in a church, to be unacceptable:
"We considered the use of a nun pregnant through immaculate conception was likely to be seen as a distortion and mockery of the beliefs of Roman Catholics.

"We concluded that to use such an image in a lighthearted way to advertise ice cream was likely to cause serious offence to readers, particularly those who practised the Roman Catholic faith."
According to the BBC, "Antonio Federici says it will now put up new posters near Westminster Abbey." Pope Ratzinger will be visiting Westminster Abbey on Friday, and holding mass at Westminster Cathedral on Saturday.

The ASA banned another series of advertisements by Antonio Federici in July 2009. That advertising campaign featured a series of images depicting a nun and priest staring longingly into each others' eyes, while undressing and eating Antonio Federici gelato.
.


Tuesday, September 14, 2010

"We plead for the universality of freedom of expression."

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity, and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilizations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism, and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology, which kills equality, freedom, and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject "cultural relativism," which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom, and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia," an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatization of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

Signed:

Salman Rushdie, author, The Satanic Verses
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Somali-born Dutch MP
Taslima Nasreen, exiled Bangladeshi writer
Bernard-Henri Levy, French philosopher
Chahla Chafiq, exiled Iranian writer
Caroline Fourest, French writer
Irshad Manji, author, The Trouble with Islam
Mehdi Mozaffari, professor of political science, University of Aarhus
Maryam Namazie, producer, TV International English
Antoine Sfeir, editor, Cahiers de l'Orient
Ibn Warraq, author, Why I Am Not a Muslim
Philippe Val, editor, Charlie Hebdo

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The above statement was issued in early 2006 and published, among other places, in the Summer, 2006 issue of the Middle East Quarterly. Below is the accompanying statement from the editors of that publication:
On October 22, 2005, the France 2 television talk show Tout le Monde en Parle aired an interview with writer Salman Rushdie and French actor and Islamist Sami Nacéri. Left on the cutting room floor was an ugly incident during taping when Nacéri accused Rushdie of debasing Islam. If an imam asked him to kill Rushdie, Nacéri went on, he would himself shoot the bullet into Rushdie's head. He then pantomimed firing a gun at Rushdie.

Philippe Val, editor of the French left-wing weekly Charlie Hebdo, described the omitted segment in the November 2 issue of the magazine. French reaction was minimal. While some journalists debated whether celebrities made appropriate commentators, there was little discussion of France 2's decision to delete the offending segment.

On February 28, 2006, in response to Nacéri's threat, France 2's censorship, and the decision of several newspapers not to publish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, twelve prominent Muslim and non-Muslim intellectuals issued a manifesto first published on the French website Proche-Orient.info. The translation, replicated below, was later published in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten. The willingness of prominent thinkers, both Muslim and non-Muslim, to stand together suggests that intellectuals recognize the totalitarian nature of Islamism and are determined not to cede terms of the societal debates to Islamists.

—The Editors


The statement was also published in the February 28, 2006 issue of the Danish language Jyllands-Posten newspaper, which also ran the following brief biographies of the signatories of the statement. Some of the English is a little sketchy -- I cleaned it up some, but left it mostly "as is". Links have been added:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, from Somalian origin, is member of Dutch parliment, member of the liberal party VVD. Writter of the film Submission which caused the assassination of Theo Van Gogh by an islamist in November 2004, she lives under police protection. [AHA Foundation website]

Chahla Chafiq, writer from Iranian origin, exiled in France is a novelist and an essayist. She's the author of "Le nouvel homme islamiste , la prison politique en Iran " (2002). She also wrote novels such as "Chemins et brouillard" (2005). [chahlachafiq.com]

Caroline Fourest Essayist, editor in chief of Prochoix (a review who defend liberties against dogmatic and integrist ideologies), author of several reference books on « laicité » and fanaticism : Tirs Croisés : la laïcité à l'épreuve des intégrismes juif, chrétien et musulman (with Fiammetta Venner), Frère Tariq : discours, stratégie et méthode de Tariq Ramadan, et la Tentation obscurantiste (Grasset, 2005). She recieved the National prize of laicité in 2005. [Le blog de Caroline Fourest]

Bernard-Henri Lévy French philosopher, born in Algeria, engaged against all the XXth century « ism » (Fascism, antisemitism, totalitarism, terrorism), he is the author of La Barbarie à visage humain, L'Idéologie française, La Pureté dangereuse, and more recently American Vertigo. [bernard-henri-levy.com]

Irshad Manji is a Fellow at Yale University and the internationally best-selling author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith" (en francais: "Musulmane Mais Libre"). She speaks out for free expression based on the Koran itself. Née en Ouganda, elle a fui ce pays avec sa famille musulmane d'origine indienne à l'âge de quatre ans et vit maintenant au Canada, où ses émissions et ses livres connaissent un énorme succès. [Irshad Manji blog and official website]

Mehdi Mozaffari, professor from Iranian origin and exiled in Denmark, is the author of several articles and books on islam and islamism such as : Authority in Islam: From Muhammad to Khomeini, Fatwa: Violence and Discourtesy and Glaobalization and Civilizations. [Professor Mozaffari's web page at the University of Aarhus]

Maryam Namazie Writer, TV International English producer; Director of the Worker-communist Party of Iran's International Relations; and 2005 winner of the National Secular Society's Secularist of the Year award. [maryamnamazie.com]

Taslima Nasreen is born in Bangladesh. Doctor, her positions defending women and minorities brought her in trouble with a committee of integrist called « Destroy Taslima » and to be persecuted as « apostate ». [Official website of Taslima Nasreen]

Salman Rushdie is the author of nine novels, including Midnight's Children, The Satanic Verses and, most recently, Shalimar the Clown. He has received many literary awards, including the Booker Prize, the Whitbread Prize for Best Novel, Germany's Author of the Year Award, the European Union's Aristeion Prize, the Budapest Grand Prize for Literature, the Premio Mantova, and the Austrian State Prize for European Literature. He is a Commandeur of the Ordre des Arts et Lettres, an Honorary Professor in the Humanities at M.I.T., and the president of PEN American Center. His books have been translated into over 40 languages. [Salman Rushdie's website at Random House]

Philippe Val Director of publication of Charlie Hebdo (Leftwing french newspaper who have republished the cartoons on the prophet Muhammad by solidarity with the danish citizens targeted by islamists). [Website of Charlie Hebdo]

Ibn Warraq, author notably of Why I am Not a Muslim ; Leaving Islam : Apostates Speak Out ; and The Origins of the Koran , is at present Research Fellow at a New York Institute conducting philological and historical research into the Origins of Islam and its Holy Book. [ibnwarraq.net]

Antoine Sfeir : Born in Lebanon, christian, Antoine Sfeir chose french nationality to live in an universalist and « laïc » (real secular) country. He is the director of Les cahiers de l'Orient and has published several reference books on islamism such as Les réseaux d'Allah (2001) et Liberté, égalité, Islam : la République face au communautarisme (2005). [Columbia World Dictionary of Islamism, edited by Antoine Sfeir]



The 12 signatories (from left to right): Ayaan Hirsi Ali – Chala Chafiq – Caroline Fourest – Bernard-Henri Lévy – Irshad Manji – Mehdi Mozaffari – Maryam Namazie – Taslima Nazreen – Salman Rushdie – Antoine Sfeir – Philippe Val – Ibn Warraq

Expect violent backlash if anti-Catholic protests aren't called off: Warning from politicians, religious leaders, and terrorism experts

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned, "as a very practical matter", that planned protests against the Pope's upcoming visit to the UK could be "a recruitment bonanza for the IRA, the FLQ and other extremists," referring to the Irish Republican Army and the less well known Front de libération du Québec, a Quebecois terrorist organization.

Blair also warned that British citizens living in Ireland and Quebec will be at serious risk of violent reprisals unless the planned protests are called off.

Immediately after making his statement Blair was hit in the head by a large shoe and had to be rushed to the hospital. The identity of the shoe-thrower is still unknown, but suspicion has focused on the shadowy ultra-ultramontanist group known simply as "Basis", which views Blair as a traitor because he concealed his Catholicism during the time he was in office.

Sporadic rioting has already broken out across Spain, Italy, Poland, France, the Philippines, and throughout Latin America. There are unconfirmed reports of deaths after police opened fire on a crowd throwing molotov cocktails at the buildings housing the British Consulate in Krakow.

President Obama has entered the fray by demanding that British Atheists call off their planned "stunt" of attempting to perform a citizens' arrest, under international law, of the Pope for supposed "crimes against humanity."

Religious leaders, interfaith dialoguers, Quakers, Unitarians, and progressive activists around the world have called for "solidarity with Catholics" and have condemned what they see as a dark wave of Papaphobia that threatens to plunge Western civilization back into an era of murderous scapegoatery the likes of which haven't been seen since the Third Reich.

World famed Sufi mystic, interfaith bridge builder, and expert in predicting violent religious backlashes Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf ably summed up the fears of many when he warned, gravely: "If these protests go ahead as planned, the headlines in the Catholic world will be that Catholicism is under attack in Great Britain, and the extremists have won. This will strengthen the radicals and it will put our people, our soldiers, our troops, our embassies, our citizens, under attack in the Catholic world. And we have expanded and given fuel to terrorism."

[The image in this post was snagged from the tshirthell.com website, where you can get your very own "Arrest the Pope" t-shirt -- the very latest in anti-ultramontanist fashion statements!]