A World Apart - Muslim Clerics Demand Apology

 

Muslim clerics in Denmark are demanding an apology from the Government for the offense caused by the Muhammad cartoons. They are also insisting that both the Danish and the European Governments change their laws to criminalize everything that offends them and their religious beliefs.

ONLY an official apology by the Danish government to all Muslims for offense caused by the prophet Mohammad cartoons would prompt the lifting of the boycott of Danish goods, Muslim preachers said.

An official apology “is absolutely necessary ... because your government has not dealt with them (Muslims) respectfully,” Islamic scholar Tareq al-Suweidan told a conference hosted by the Government in an attempt to ease tension over the drawings.[...]

If there is no apology, “the scholars of Islam and myself ... I am running an Islamic satellite TV channel, we will encourage people to continue the boycott,” Suweidan said.

Suweidan said his argument was not with the Danish cartoonists, who are under police protection after being threatened, but with their government.[...]

The center-right Danish government has refused to apologize on behalf of the newspaper saying it cannot influence the free press, but it acknowledged that many Muslims had felt gravely insulted by the controversial drawings.[...]

Both Muslim clerics supported free speech but accused the western world of applying double standards.

“We want the laws in Denmark and the European Union to be changed, either to have free speech for everyone including on the Holocaust and anti-Semitism, or to change the law to respect religious figures like Mohammad,” Suweidan said

AP puts a complete slant to the story by naming it "Muslim Preacher Urges Reconciliation". More like gives ultimatum, where does the reconciliation come into it?

Setting aside legislative issues, common sense would tell Suweidan that he has his reasoning upside-down. Moral equivalence, usually the first point of reference in these cases, doesn't even provide the basis for a good argument. Islam rejects the concept of separating the state and the church in our secular democracies. It rejects core values and beliefs deeply enshrined in Western Judea/Christian cultures. It not only rejects them, but labels them inferior. It does not accept secular legislation but insists on Shari'a law. Islam demands respect and preferential treatment from host countries in the West, yet insists on strict legislated repression of all non-Islamic religion at home.

It is hard to imagine a more systematically discriminatory regime/religion, but that is not where the audacity ends. It is true that many European countries have a number of statutes preventing the public from insulting certain individuals or groups and, yes, God. It is also irrelevant whether or not anyone has ever been prosecuted on charges of blasphemy, which to my knowledge nobody ever has. The  most basic principal of 'moral equivalence' is of course 'equivalence'. Therefore, it ought to be the case that any group seeking equal treatment on that basis, is holding itself to the same standards.

Islam however most certainly does not. Nowhere in the world is anti-Semitism as deeply enshrined and institutionalized as in all Islamic nations. Nowhere else is it part of the curriculum of state schools and part of daily editorials and their MSM; not since Nazi Germany has the West seen anything like it, a culture most akin to the middle ages.

For Suweidan and his supporters to demand the change of laws in Denmark and the European Union, on the grounds that there must either be "..free speech for everyone including on the Holocaust and anti-Semitism, or to change the law to respect religious figures like Mohammad,” does not sit well with the certain continuation of daily and most inflammatory anti-Semitic teachings and propaganda, especially in respect of the most brazen Holocaust denial, irrespective of any future law legislating respect for Islam in Denmark or throughout the European Union.

Instead, I strongly urge the Danish people and the state to evoke existing statutes and most vigorously prosecute all those who promote and incite violence against the cartoonists and their families. I hope,  that in response to Suweidan's demand, the Danish legislators will first do everything necessary to protect its citizens from the atrocious intentions of any Muslim activists, and second stick the proverbial governmental middle finger firmly in the air.

In the meantime the bloodthirsty Cartoon Jihadists want to execute an Arab newspaper editor in Yemen. Is this what they are edging towards here, in the civilized world?

American Future asks: "When will Muslim clerics apologize for the embassy bombings and other acts of violence? When hell freezes over."

Michael van der Galien delivers the slam dunk in a long and thoughtful post: "Like I said on numerous occasions: We will not limit our freedom of speech any more and we will not apologize for the cartoons. It is called freedom of speech.

Deal with it"

Now there's a liberal with the right idea.

More @ Gates of Vienna and Agora

Previously on ATB:

Islam - A Militant And Proselytizing Faith
The Manifesto Against The New Islamic Totalitarianism
Is There Any Difference Between Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity And Shari'a
Hirsi Ali 'The Real Heroine In The Fight Against Islam
A Perilous Premise
A Dangerous Precedent
Is Western Liberalism Modifying It's Core Beliefs
"The Nation of Islam Will Sit At The Throne Of The World..."
The Metastasizing Sharia
Religious Dogma Has No Place In A Secular Society
The Cartoon War
Take A Walk On The Wild Side
The Grave Injustice Of A Senseless Death Sentence
The Effect Of Our Holy Trinity Of Multiculturalism, Moral Equivalence And Relativism On The War Of Destiny

Linked to Wizbang, Stop The ACLU, Mudville Gazette

Comments

[Kenny]

Soso,

Tell your friend that we don't mind the 900 million or so Muslims who don't think God wants Muslims to keep killing infidels until the entire world is under a Wahhabite version of sharia. But the 100 million or so who think that if somebody draws an unflattering picture of Mohammed, then the proper thing to do is to cut off the cartoonist's head...well, certainly we think the world would be a better place without those asshats.

>
what did we do?????????????? is it becasue we follow our relign and we love it
>

Well, "you" as an entire religion didn't do anything. However, what is the most common name one finds being worn today by sociopathic murders who get a sadistic kick out of sawing people's heads off? Jesus? Um, no, try again. Buddha? Nope, take another shot. Moses? L. Ron Hubbard? Keep thinkin', maybe it'll come to you...

Seriously, even if "true" Islam isn't murderous, at the very least one has to admit that Islam is way more easily perverted into a murder-cult than is any other important religion in the modern world. That is your real problem. So here's the question your friend needs to ask herself: is she more upset by the cartoons, or is she more upset by the riots and mob scenes and "Death to the Infidel Blasphemers" signs that sprouted up across the Muslim world in response to the cartoons? Because if it's the latter -- well, that's a big part of the reason that Islam is in danger of being a religion that the rest of the world eventually agrees needs to be stamped out.

[soso]

you do not know what you people are doing you think you are doing the right think??? oh no! you poeple have some problwms and you need help listen to this...............I have a very nice friend she is very good muslim and she loves her religen like every one else dose,and when she heared and saw what you have drow she fell on her knees and said oh god they do not want any muslims in this plant why????
what did we do?????????????? is it becasue we follow our relign and we love it well they ned to know that no one and I mean no one is goign to stope us from folowing it and your stupied drwings are never going to change any thing.

[Alexandra]

Huan, Spot on.

David,

You are right on the basis "do unto others as you would have them do to you" (Luke 6:31). If however faced with a hostile culture hellbent on subjugating your own, and outright rejecting those values of equivalence, then the scale tips and morality necessarily takes on a different dimension. My point is, that we and our children will be the ones to witness to what extent our moral values are to be adapted. I hazard a guess, not far from those of the 12thC crusades...

[Huan]

holocost denial is not a religious blasphemy

[DavidByron]

And NO, in no way is morality about equivalence

"Love your neighbour as your self"

It is the golden rule surely? Or as the law puts it, in secular terms, the law is "blind" and cannot tell one person from another. Other philosphers have said the same. The basis of morality and law is the concept that what is a fair and just treatment for you and me is a fair and just treatment for everyone. Kant (?) says an action is moral if you can will that it apply to everyone, including yourself.

Equivalence is the heart of morality and law.

Therefore the muslims in Europe must be treated the same as everyone else and if Europe is to continue to have a concept of blasphemy it should include muslim icons, or else Europe should get rid of all it's blasphemy and anti-Holocaust laws and allow freespeech.

You argue that muslims are undeserving of being treated fairly. I disagree, but let's assume it's true for the sake of argument. If we don't apply the law and morality to all equally then we don't apply it to anyone. You can't be disaqualified on the basis of not agreeing with the system.

[RL]

right on Huan, and a very timely statement. i think that today is the "anniversary" of the cowardly Spaniard appeasers' "9/11". i'm glad that the Danish Prime Minister as well as the Danish Minister of Defense have absolutely refused to follow a similar path; and hope that other govt. officials in old Europe follow their gutsy and refreshing leadership. its also been refreshing to see some of the tough-talk coming out of some European leaders (ie. the new Chancellor of Germany) concerning the atomic crisis in the islamoterrorist republic of Iran. God bless Denmark. The "Iron Lady" would be very proud of them; God bless her.

[Huan]

if you were militant muslims, would you ask for less? would you not even want more if you get some? all very reasonable.
there is only one unreasonable side in this, and that are those who would give even an inch to such demands. and they deserve what falls upon them.

[North by Northwest]

Michael,

I just read Alexandra's update referencing your post. Excellent work.

The conflict we are going to face is to balance our actions within the confines of our laws and moral precepts, with the realization, that such actions are perceived as a sign of impotence amongst the nations of Islam.

If the roles were reversed, the Islamic nations would know immediately how to respond: for each Muslim missionary killed on your soil, we shall kill [ad multiple] Christians on our soil. This eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-an-tooth principal is the only respected response.

The reason why we in the West point to the Palestinian conflict as proof that this mentality has failed to reduce violence, but instead caused ever escalating bloodshed, has nothing to do with the validity of the principal per se. It is much rather an indictment for the West's refusal to acknowledge the difference between one people's desire for peace but constant need to protect itself against another peoples desire to destroy it.

In fact, if the West would have acknowledge PLO's macabre tactics and long-term strategy, and if we had taken a firm stand, if the Palestinians could no longer rely on Western apologists spreading their propaganda, the conflict would have ended long ago for lack of purpose.

If we were to pick for each killed Christian on Islamic soil one Muslim Imam and executed him in response, we'd see after a short surge of bloodshed, chiefly caused to test our true resolve, a rather swift and profoundly changed attitude. We would generate respect. There are countless historical incidents, confirming this phenomenon, especially recounted during British rule.

But it would cause more damage to our societies on too many different levels to mention, apart from being an utterly preposterous proposition. But it would work, save thousands of soldiers' lives and billions of army dollars. Unless moderate Muslims reform from within, I fear that it is only a matter of time until an uneven foe forces our hand.

[Michael Galien]

One thing that is worth to be noted is that the Muslims shouting for law reforms are not Danish citizens / immigrants. The far majority are foreigners. From Kuwait, Saudi Arabia andsoforth. Somehow these Muslims are interfering with our legal systems; although one can say a lot about our legal systems, one can not in all honesty suggest their legal systems are any better than ours. Let them focus on their laws first.
What is even more funny is that these foreigners are from the same countries where newspapers publish anti-semitic cartoons all the time: But do we hear them complaining about that? Of course not; this is not at all about 'feeling insulted in general' - it is not some sort of 'humane principle' - it is about them feeling insulted. That is what it is all about. Sure they are allowed to say things like... oh, what's a good example... oyeah here is one: "Israel needs to be wiped off of the map". Théy are allowed to publish cartoons in which a fat person (Jew) is swimming and drinking in the blood of innocent (Muslim / Palestinian) children (Saudi newspaper). Théy are allowed to insult just about everything and everyone, but when they feel insulted because someone published a cartoon about their prophet, 'insuling' is wrong all of a sudden.

Besides that; sure we have way too much restrictions in theory, but:
- we are currently engaged in quite a big debate: quite a lot of people want to abandon the restrictions (absolute freedom of speech) alltogether
- it is quite / very difficult to get someone convicted based on one of those restrictions

The reason they are very agressive in Austria towards people denying the holocaust is because Austria played a major role in the holocaust: They do not want to be associated with it anymore.

[gringoman]

"Did the Dane plan to put Americans (and others) into such a moral dilemna, or expect anything on this scale? Apparently not. Spit happens. Actually, the daily Jyllands-Posten was reacting to Islamic intimidation. Danish illustrators had been advised not to supply Danish drawings for a Danish children's book about Mohammed. The Danes had to ponder. Threats encourage ponder. The Danes are living in today's increasingly muslimized Europe. They were learning that even supporting Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade against Israel would not necessarily keep you fatwa-free. It could help, sure, so long as you did not rebuff Islamic instructions, teachings and threats in other ways. This isn't exactly Sharia. It's not exactly Western Civilization either. It's the New Diversity in the new Europe........"

from "The Dane That Roared," at gringoman.com

[Alexandra]

David,

Because the Muslims abuse our civil liberties to have their oppressive ways sheltered. Because you can't have your cake and eat it. Because you can not go around 'breaking' the very law at every step of the way which you demand to be enacted in your favor.

'Moral equivalence' in its extreme form is a cancer of our time. And NO, in no way is morality about equivalence. It is about cultural norms and values, the very ones that underpin societies' very fabric, including legal systems.

Freedom of choice allows you to make certain choices; but only as long as you do not break established laws. The tricky juncture is of course when those personal choices lead to calls for reform of established traditions; progress is necessary but so is compromise. Democracies provide the framework for such tug-of-war dynamics. Islamic theocracies do not.

You can not reject a system, attempt to impose your own, foreign doctrines, which are in direct contravention to the very core values and norms of the system you reject and then expect the guardians of that system to 'protect' the usurper's tenets; all the way cheerfully breaking any established moral and legal covenant of the system--meaning amongst others, fatwas to kill and persecute etc etc. That's perverse.

[DavidByron]

Isn't "moral equivalence" redundant? Isn't all morality about equivalence? My impression is that you are criticising muslims for the sin of not being like you. If European laws have a concept of taboo subjects why souldn't muslims claim that their sacred icons be covered? I don't think any issues should be banned (you probably could have guessed that) but as long as Austria is throwing old academic Nazis in jail for Holocaust denial and even the UK has it's blasphemy laws .... why can't the muslims play by the same rules?

[Michael Galien]

Ahhh now this is a very interesting topic. Great find Alexandra!

I agree with you in so far that the cartoonists should not be prosecuted. However, like you said yourself, there are so many restrictions on the freedom of speech in Europe: insulting of groups, insulting of individuals, insulting of the head of a befriended nation (I admit, I'm guilty), indeed; insulting of God / blasphemy, antisemitism, rascism, spreading of hate, etcetera, etcetera. So: In a way one could argue it is highly hypocritical we do not criminalize insulting Mohammed. I agree with that (partially at least).

I believe there should be no restrictions at all; once you start restricting, you will always find yourself getting in troubles: where does one draw the line? What should we restrict?

For the record it is highly important to state that the freedom of speech is a Constitutional Right and a Human Right; therefore one is able to go quite far. For instance: Insulting of groups - It is quite difficult for the Justice Department to get someone convicted for that 'crime': the freedom of speech is simply too important.

But it is hypocritical. Therefore; we need to get rid of the restrictions.

(NY Times has an article about this as well btw)

(breaking news: Slobodan Milosevic just died)

[Assistant Village Idiot]

The truths people use to lie with. They have seized on the recent David Irving case as a convenient wave to ride. They are not prevented from making anti-Semitic remarks throughout Europe, but they can create the impression in some minds that there is a general censorship.

This is the false reasoning of a teenager, who reasons that if he can get you to debate something, it must be debateable, and therefore his position is reasonable.

[North by Northwest]

If there is no apology, “the scholars of Islam and myself ... I am running an Islamic satellite TV channel, we will encourage people to continue the boycott,” Suweidan said.

The sad truth is that our infatuation with economic success over everything else proves to be our Achilles heel. Danish Executives are not prepared to bear the brunt of these boycotts and are lobbying hard. Competitors like Nestle saw it fit not to stand up against the Jihadist bullies, but to rush out a sticker on all their products saying, "No Danish Dairy Products Used Inside". Shareholders punish Danish stocks by dumping them, instead of responding with a spirited buying spree in support. Words of loyalty are strong and passionate; as long as it's free...

[Reney]

In one of Jack London's books, White Fang, he describes how a boxer-like dog kills other dogs during dog fights. Its jaw is designed so that it grabs a bit of skin and holds on. When the victim-dog pauses for rest, the lower jaw sort of disengages and moves forward later to be followed by the upper jaw. This way, the jaw is always moving forward headed towards the windpipe and eventual strangulation. I believe this is what's happening in Europe: the Muslim reaction to the cartoons is nothing less than "soft terrorism". The Danish government's response is one of kindness and reconciliation. For that it gets kicked in the teeth. The fanatics see kindness and recondiliation as signs of weakness, and they are masters of exploiting weakness; hence the ultimatim. They have advanced, just a bit, but nevertheless forward.

[Nasty_Ninety]

That was the plan all along in trying to coerce the EU to implement Sharia law and force non-muslims to respect that which deserves no respect. If they acquiesce to these demands and pass laws to criminalize making fun of Islam, then they are owned by the muslims. Look out world, darker days are ahead. The next step will probably be demanding that Islam be taught all the more in the schools to indoctrinate children in the filth of Islam.