Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Free Speech on a Slipper Slope?

Here is something from September 11th.

Your comments are welcome.

More on the weblog icon in due course.


Mike O'Malley said...

That's another excellent find Gil.


I’ll do a quick cut-n-paste from the Infidel Bloggers Alliance. So that we can understand the various expectations which are being placed upon us, this is a listing of normal provisions of the dhimmi contract with emphasis in bold mine as usual:

1. Dhimmis live in a second class condition within the society they inhabit.
2. Dhimmis are not allowed to vote or hold public office.
3. Dhimmis must pay a steep tax, called the Jihza, and do so under humiliating conditions: they must pay the tax in person where they are either spit on or slapped. The tax is a heavy financial burden, but if you can't pay it, you're dead. Some dhimmis who couldn't pay were forced to turn over their children as payment. The children were then raised as Muslims.
4. Dhimmis must dress differently than Muslims, e.g. with broad cloth belts, shoes of different color on opposite feet, or no shoes at all, and must shear their forelocks (the front part of their hair) so their dhimmi status is obvious.
5. Dhimmis must give way to Muslims on the sidewalk or street.
6. Dhimmis must give up their seat in any public place if a Muslim wishes to sit.
7. Dhimmis cannot build a house that is higher than Muslim houses in his neighborhood.
8. Dhimmis can only work in menial jobs like street sweeping or manual labor.
9. Dhimmis cannot renovate their churches or synagogues, so when they fall into disrepair they continue to deteriorate.
10. Dhimmis cannot display any symbol of their religion in public, like a cross, nor ring church bells or sing too loudly in their churches or synagogues lest they offend Muslims.
11. Dhimmis must house and feed any Muslim who passes their door for three days.
12. Dhimmis cannot criticize Islam, the Qur'an or Muhammad, under penalty of death or imprisonment.
13. Dhimmis cannot prevent any of their family members from converting to Islam.
14. Dhimmis cannot attempt to convert any Muslim to their religion.
15. Dhimmi men cannot marry Muslim women, but Muslim men can marry Dhimmi women.
16. Dhimmis cannot be witnesses in court against Muslims.
17. Dhimmis cannot own or carry any weapons.
18. Dhimmis cannot fight with or injure any Muslim, even in self defense, under penalty of death.
19. Dhimmis are subject to execution for apostasy against the Prophet of the Qur'an. (This provision was often abused. When a Muslim wanted a dhimmi's land or house, he simply had to state the dhimmi had insulted the Prophet. Since a Muslim's word was always accepted over that of a dhimmi, the dhimmi's unjust execution or imprisonment was assured.)
20. In many cases, dhimmi children are not allowed to attend state schools or universities.

This would be your new … Bill of Rights … so to speak. As Saber Point, which is linked to by Infidel Bloggers Alliance, explains: “Once the dhimmi community fails to abide by these rules, they are subject to death, banishment or enslavement. The Armenian genocide in the early 20th century began after Armenians appealed to England to help ease their dhimmi status. The Turkish government considered this a breach of their dhimmi contract and proceeded to slaughter them (about 1.5 million Armenian dhimmis died.)

Through the ages dhimmis have often been murdered in mass by Muslim riots, or had their homes burned. Their existence has been fraught with high anxiety due to their status as social outcasts and their subjection to sudden violence or other oppression.”

... Jim Crowe, but worse, in practice much worse ...

Mike O'Malley said...

This sort of religious criticism is however A-OK

Herein “the two hosts of a Hamas children's TV program use three different words for “slaughter” to describe how to rid Israel of Jews. The bear puppet Nassur explains that all Jews must be “erased from our land,” and the young host Saraa then specifies, "They'll be slaughtered."

Later in the conversation Nassur adds, "We want to slaughter them, Saraa, so they will be expelled from our land.” He repeats, “…We’ll have to [do it] by slaughter."

Three different Arabic expressions are used to describe the “slaughter” of the Jews: “Manhurin naher,” “Nidbah-hom” and “Shaht.”

The following is the transcript from the children’s program Tomorrow's Pioneers:

Nassur: “There won't be any Jews or Zionists, if Allah wills. They'll be erased.”
Saraa: “They'll be slaughtered.” (Manhurin naher)
Nassur: “And just like we will visit the Qaaba [in Mecca]... everyone will visit Jerusalem.”
[Seven-year old Palestinian child on phone tells how his father, a member of the Hamas Al-Qassam Brigades, “died as a Shahid (Martyr).”]
Nassur to child on phone: “What do you want to do to the Jews who shot your father?”
Child on phone: “I want to kill them.”
Saraa: “We don't want to do anything to them, just expel them from our land.”
Nassur: “We want to slaughter (Nidbah-hom) them, so they will be expelled from our land, right?”
Saraa: “Yes. That's right. We will expel them from our land using all means.”
Nassur: “And if they don't want [to go] peacefully, by words or talking, we’ll have to [do it] by slaughter.” (Shaht)

[Al-Aqsa (Hamas) TV, Sept. 22, 2009]”

… and in accordance with Islamic expectation because the Israelis are living within the land of the Dar Al Islam but they do not abide by each and every of the usual dhimmi contract provisions quoted above. :

Dave Evans said...

What a profoundly sloppy piece of journalism!

Presumably the question is whether the laws are the same for Muslims, Jews and Christians. I am not aware of a single European country which has a law framed in such a way. If you know of one then do point me to it.

In the first minute the people behind the video show by what they imply that they don't understand the relationships between different European countries. The Netherlands and Sweden are not two states in one country.

They mention the article from the Netherlands on Islam without saying exactly what aspect of the article made it hate speech. They describe what the boy wrote about the Netherlands becoming a Mulsim country in the mildest of manners. Quite possibly there were parts which might have sounded a little bit more controversial.

We do not know if the boy was sent to prison or not. I also find it fascinating that they quote the prosecution rather than the finding - in the Swedish comment they quote the finding. This is comparing apples and oranges and poor journalism.

They mention the Swedish newspaper article and then jump to 'some say this amounts to the anti-semitic blood libel' suggesting they are almost synonymous but producing no evidence for the link.

The title of the piece was laughably hyperbolic.

In the UK we have dire jounalism like this from time to time but most of the people I know ignore it until there is something of substance to comment on.

Mike O'Malley said...

Dale Evans asked: Presumably the question is whether the laws are the same for Muslims, Jews and Christians. I am not aware of a single European country which has a law framed in such a way. If you know of one then do point me to it.

Here is an example of law in the UK which is not the same for Muslims, Jews and Christians. Sharia courts have been operating in Britain to rule on disputes between Muslims for more than a year, it has emerged.

By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent
Published: 2:12PM BST 14 Sep 2008

Five sharia courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The government has quietly sanctioned that their rulings are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

Lawyers have issued grave warnings about the dangers of a dual legal system and the disclosure drew criticism from Opposition leaders.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: "If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so."

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, added: "I think it's appalling. I don't think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state."

Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said that sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals under a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law


Dale Evans said: In the UK we have dire jounalism like this from time to time but most of the people I know ignore it until there is something of substance to comment on.

Here is a article on UK Sharia courts in the New York Times, hardly an example of dire UK journalism.

See this also

Sharia courts are in fact operating elsewhere in Europe. I'm not clear about the degree to which those operating Islamic courts are officially recognized by local law.


Dale Evans wrote: They mention the article from the Netherlands on Islam without saying exactly what aspect of the article made it hate speech.

Fitna criticized Islam and the role of the Koran and the example of Muhammad in political-religious violence against non-Muslims. That is what "made it hate speech". See expectation # 12 above: Dhimmis cannot criticize Islam, the Qur'an or Muhammad, under penalty of death or imprisonment.

Dave Evans said...

In response to Mike's comments

1. I am no Islamic apologist - I am quite clear that our Christian inheritance has been vital to much that we value in the UK.

2. There are always tensions when sizeable ethnic groups become increasingly cut off from those around them - as we can see with large Hindu groups in other parts of the world.

3. The Telegraph is almost certainly the least reliable of the broadsheets in the UK. Its libertarian agenda means its science reporting, for example, is often appallingly skewed. An area I do know about.

Having said that both reports from the Telegraph and the NY Times are qualitatively very different (i.e. better) to the news report we started discussing , even though, I could point to one or two places where the reporting is bordering on disingenuous.

A few points.

1. You still haven't identified an example where British law is framed in favour of Muslims. The question of where civil law impinges on criminal law is what this case is about. The differences between the roles of Beth Din and Sharia courts as community courts are quite subtle and I still haven’t been given a clear example of where their roles have made a substantive difference.

The only exception being the legal settlement in a divorce where twice as much being given to the husband as the wife. How often this happens and how often a judgement in a Sharia court is more in line with British law than a ‘family’ agreement is unclear. (This being a cultural tradition, it may well have even more power when operated informally outside a Sharia court.) So yes an area for concern but very little evidence so far that UK law has been subverted by a Sharia court.

Also the legal footing of Beth Din – based almost certainly on how long they have been established - will almost certainly mean that the decisions dovetail better with British law. Imagine the outrage if someone suggested that Sharia courts be put on the same legal footing as Beth Din – you might even be one of them! And yet to have that same clear cut relationship with British law that would probably be necessary. Not to, implies that Jewish community courts are valid but Islamic ones are not. As you can see – and is pretty plain from the articles – what is being discussed is potential problems rather than clear cut miscarriages of justice.

Ironically it often appears to be the women that appeal to the court as it is regarded as fairer than ‘family’ justice.

2. You cut and paste the Telegraph article and don't stop your quote at the end of a paragraph or even a sentence but in mid sentence so that your quote says: "The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law." Leaving off the second part of the sentence which says... "provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case." Rather an important qualification I think, leading to your quote being misleading. Indeed it was the part I noticed straight away as it didn't ring true. I find it hard to believe that this was done accidentally. It is this sort of at best selective reporting at worst dishonest reporting that makes me wary of the hyperbole of much of the right on the web. Presumably you didn't think I would bother to check.

3. The example has nothing to do with hate speech.

In my view Europe faces massive challenges - as does much of the rest of the world. And if we are to come through them positively then we must have a passion for the truth. I really do believe that the truth will set us free - even when it says something different to my ideology.

The whole ‘Islam always bad - always 100% bad’ is no more helpful than the 'Christianity bad always 100% bad' of the new atheists. My hope is that we become as wise as serpents and innocent as doves. I certainly haven't achieved that yet but I do know a strong desire to find the truth will be essential to that - rather than falling back on ‘we know who our enemies are and we are willing to vilify them at every possible opportunity.

Dave Evans
BTW My name is Dave not Dale

Mike O'Malley said...

Dave Evans: BTW My name is Dave not Dale

Oh Gheez! Now where did that particular typo come from? From Lucille Wood Smith whose stage name was Dale Evans? She was married to singing cowboy Roy Rogers. Both were personal friends of Ronald Reagan. Now how did that particular arcane Americana get into my subconscious? I’d guess fortune smiles upon me as a Brit would likely miss the cultural connection. ;-)

Dave Evans: The whole ‘Islam always bad - always 100% bad’ is no more helpful ...

At first I puzzeled about why you chose to give my initial comment above a (Edward) Saidian cast. Then I recalled the benevolences bestowed upon we O'Malley's by Elizabeth I, Lord Protector Cromwell, and the tag team of Peel and Russell. I find I must thank you for a point well worth considering ;-)

Dave Evans said...

Mike - I am afraid I have no idea what you are getting at when you say: "At first I puzzeled about why you chose to give my initial comment above a (Edward) Saidian cast."

Could you clarify please?


Mike O'Malley said...

I sorry for the delay Dave. I was probing to see to what degree we were operating on the same information wavelength and then I got caught up with other time demands.

I was referring to the late Dr. Edward Wadie Said, a Marxist anti-Western supporter of Palestinian terror. Edward Said was born and raised in Egypt to an American father and Palestinian mother. He postured as a Palestinian refugee for propaganda effect. Saidiana

Said is best known for his extremely influential 1979 book Orientalism, which holds that it is impossible for Westerners to write valid accounts of Middle Eastern affairs because their ideas are tainted by cultural biases and arrogance. In The Weekly Standard, Stanley Kurtz explains:

"The founding text of postcolonial studies, Orientalism effectively de-legitimated all previous scholarship on the Middle East by branding it as racist. Said drew no distinction between the most ignorant and bigoted remarks of nineteenth-century colonialists and the most accomplished pronouncements of contemporary Western scholars: All Western knowledge of the East was intrinsically tainted with imperialism."

Said considered Israel to be an illegitimate, colonialist state that preyed aggressively upon blameless Palestinians. He was a member of the PLO's Palestinian National Council throughout the 1970s and 80s, though he stepped away from that post in 1991 -- in protest to the Oslo peace accords and to what he deemed Yasser Arafat's unduly moderate stance toward Israel.

Edward Said provided genocidal Islamofascist groups such as Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood with rhetorical tools with which to blunt Western criticism of Jihad and Islam's mistreatment of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim dominated countries.

Ibn Warraq has describes Edward Said as an 'intellectual terrorist".

Feel free to read more here at Discover the Networks



Hoping that I wasn't being too clever by half, in effect I tried to restated and validated your argument. First in a snarky anti-Brit form such as:

The whole 'Islam always bad - always 100% bad' is no more helpful than the 'Brits always bad - always 100% bad' of the Irish Republicans.

And then in a profound form recalling that as Prime Minister Peel ruthlessly structure the ethnic cleansing of Catholic Ireland during the Potato Famine, the English people in an act of heroic Christian charity supply over 2 million British pounds of private famine relief too Ireland, without doubt saving millions. At an 8 US Dollar to a 1 British pound exchange rate, British citizens not only provided 20 time greater famine aid than the British government, Their $17.6 million of private aid converted into US Dollars almost exceeded the $ 18,250,000 paid Mexico for undisputed control of Texas, and the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming.

I've a question for you Dave. Can you provide me an example of a comparable private relief effort, as the British private relief effort described above, being mounted by a Muslim population to save a hated religious minority that was oppressed by their own Muslim government?