Richard Wiig

Islam is not a human being. It cannot feel confidence or insecurity. Nor can it act. This is a propaganda method of distorting language metaphorically to oversimplify a scapegoat and laser-target hatred on it. That's if she means what you're portraying her to mean. When she uses "Islam" there, it's clear that she means in a general sense, which is perfectly possible and legitimate to do, and there's no bigotry or propaganda in it. You constantly say things are being oversimplified. Since distorting language is a bugbear for you (rightly so), what's the difference between simplifying and oversimplifying? How has she gone past simplification and into over simplification? What's actually wrong with simplifying, or generalising as Nonie does where its needed? Should she be complicating things rather than simplifying them? The oversimplification charge is thrown out constantly, but it's never elaborated on. Is there something she says in her article about Islam and what it wreaks on its followers, and non-followers, that is actually untrue? That's what is truly important here I think.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3841/egypt-revolutions The Problem at the Heart of Egypt's Revolutions, by Nonie Darwish. This latest revolution in Egypt, the second in the last two years, is a symptom of a deep-rooted problem at the heart of Islam itself: Egypt is on the verge of a civil war to bring a resolution to the never-ending tension between what Islam demands versus what the people really want. This is the central problem in most Muslim countries: the difficult choice between a civilian, military "infidel" government, and a totalitarian Islamic theocracy. The problem is compounded when most Egyptians consider themselves both Muslim and lovers of democracy, but refuse to see that Islam and freedom cannot co-exist. How can Islam anywhere produce a democracy when freedom of speech and religion are outlawed, where there is no free and independent judiciary, and equal rights for women, minorities and non-Muslims are legally suppressed? Islam also cannot let go of government control: since its inception, Islam has lacked the confidence in its own survival without government enforcement. As Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi stated this winter on Egyptian television, "without the 'Death for Apostasy' laws, apostasy laws, Islam would have failed with the death of Mohamed, as people would never stay in this religion otherwise." It is no coincidence therefore that Islamic law dictates that all Muslims must be ruled by Sharia, and declares that all secular governments, made by man, not by Allah, are heresy and an abomination. While mosques are busy teaching Muslims how to carry out jihad, hate Jews and mistreat Christians, their imams allocate no time to preach the values of peace and trust as a foundation for an orderly society or civilization. As a result of such an Islamic education, Muslims who know they want freedom are unable to build the value system on which to achieve it. Egypt's dilemma is nothing new, but the good news today is that finally there is an awakening in Egypt regarding the tyranny that Sharia law brings, especially if it is made the basis of a constitution. Despite this awakening, however, not one rebel in Tahrir Square was able openly to carry a sign saying, "Sharia must become null and void." The majority of Egyptians still believe that to say that would be an act of apostasy, punishable by death. All current surveys still show that the overwhelming majority of Egyptians still support Sharia law, or at least say they do. This is where the problem lies: the laws of a society are the mirror of its morality. Egyptians cannot make believe that they can have both Sharia and freedom, or that their laws do not have to match their style of government and what they can feel comfortable with. According to Sharia, a Muslim head of state must rule by Islamic law, and must preserve Islam in its original form, or he must be removed from office. Islamic law leaves no choice for any Muslim leader but to accept, at least officially, that Sharia is the law of the land, or else be ousted from office. Sharia also commands Muslims to remove any leader who is not a Muslim. Because of that command, Muslim leaders must play a game of appearing Islamic and anti-West while trying to get along with the rest of the world. It is a game with life and death consequences for them. That stricture is the reason many Egyptians today agree to keep Sharia in the constitution, even if only symbolically. But how can Egyptians be so naïve to believe they can ignore the laws of their constitution? As long as Sharia is on the books, even if it is ignored, the country can never have true stability and freedom. Even with revolutions, Egyptians can only achieve cosmetic changes with no substance; changes such as, the name of the country, its flag, national anthem, or even putting on or taking off women's hijabs. Although Egyptians were always exuberant about the removal of a regime or a dictator, they never were about a change in the religious, cultural and moral foundations of the country. Whether it is the Egyptian revolution of 1919, 1952 or 2011, the change achieved has always been superficial, or for the worse. Somehow whenever the Muslim mind comes to the underlying religious ideology that is the foundation upon which its systems are erected, it freezes. The result is a majority of confused citizens whose trust is shattered; moral standards in conflict, and laws and the concept of reality distorted. But how long can this warped existence last undetected? So far it has succeeded for 1,400 years without collapsing, but can this latest revolution be the crack in the stranglehold of Sharia? Egyptian secularists have achieved a great step against the Muslim Brotherhood, but will they be able to sustain it? The Muslim Brotherhood has powerful roots in the Egyptian psyche, and the Brotherhood has vowed a bloodbath against any secular government. For any secular government to remain in power, it needs to turn tyrannical and put in jail members of the Muslim Brotherhood. This has already begun; arrest warrants against leaders and 300 members of the Brotherhood were issued within hours of the removal of Morsi. Egypt is now back to square one; a military dictatorship is, for the moment at least, the only solution that can preserve and sustain a certain level of secularism in the face of the constant Islamic assault that human rights, freedom of religion and democracy. The assault has also been on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, on August 5, 1990, was repudiated and superseded by the Organization of Islamic Conference [OIC] in favor of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which, in article 24, in its entirety, concludes that "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah." Article 19(d) also posits that, "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari'ah." One can only hope that this military dictatorship will not be like others, which promise elections and freedom, but remain as autocracies for decades. Nonie Darwish is the author of "The Devil We Don't Know".

I posted it a couple of times because I thought I was having trouble with my computer. I wasn't sure that it had actually posted. Plagiarism, btw, is passing something off as your own. Sorry for my oversight. You could have just emailed me and asked me for the link, and I'd have courteously and kindly provided it.

Note from MSK: Both articles are the same. 'Even if you give up all the land, it won't solve the problems in the Mideast' Israel Hayom AYAAN HIRSI ALI ON 2-STATE DELUSION: “REACHING A 2-STATE SOLUTION IS TO BETRAY GOD, THE KORAN, THE HADITH AND ISLAM.” Atlas Shrugs

It's just the kind of thing you're likely to see on a street in Sydney.

If animals deserve to be treated well, someone should tell the animals.

Sure, Muslims were free to go to the mosque, but that doesn't mean that Islam wasn't suppressed. Islam is much more than simply going through the motions of gathering at mosques. It is ultimately about domination and submission. The military was the bulwark that held Islam in check in Turkey. That bulwark is now gone. We shall see where things go from here. The protests look massive, so hopefully the opposition is too strong. Anyway, as for my supposed bigotry. It's like saying that someone is a bigot for opposing Nazism or Socialism, or any other belief system. Even if you separate Islam and "Islamism", false dichotomy that it is (the jihadists claim they are practicing Islam, not Islamism, and they refer to Islamic texts to back their actions) I would oppose both. I oppose religion full stop, so that necessarily means Islam. If that is bigotry in your eyes, then I have no problems with being a bigot in your eyes.

Umm, Turkey did make progress into modernity as Islam waned, or rather, was suppressed. Those protests aren't over nothing. Islam is on the rise again and those protesters are fighting for the gains that they dont want to lose. But they are losing. Who controls the army in Turkey? At one time it was the secularists, but not anymore. Perhaps my comment was a bit rhetorical, but it certainly wasn't a lie. What was gained in Turkey is dying, or at least is being killed off, and it isn't anything Islamic that is being killed. Fazil Say is suffering for his unIslamicness.

" But the story behind the development of such a rich culture in the Islamic world as Fazil Say represents should not be ignored." You can thank Kemal Attaturk and his suppression of Islam for that. What we are seeing in these protests is nothing that hasn't been seen before. The reason they are out there is because of their concern at the ongoing reislamization of their country that has been happening ever since the end of Kemalism. Fazil Say is part of the remnants of what is dying in Turkey. He is part of what cannot exist alongside Islam. Where are the Western leaders denouncing Turkey's Government for its Islamization? Nowhere to be seen. Instead they are denouncing their own citizens for their criticism of Islam, even in the wake of Islamic beheadings in public streets. Islam ultimately can't win, but right now it looks pretty good for Islam in Turkey and bad for the secularists.

Convicted pianist speaks out on lost freedoms in Turkey http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/2013/05/convicted-pianist-speaks-out-on-lost-freedoms-in-turkey.html Islam and freedom just do not mix.

"Islam is responsible for many horrible actions but there is nothing in Islam which would justify this kind of atrocities." Yep, a religion with a leader who said that he glimpsed hell and it was mostly populated by women. That considers a woman to be worth half that of a man. That teaches men that woman are their property, that if a woman doesn't do what she's told it's ok to banish her and/or beat her. A religion that allows men to divorce at the drop of a hat, but it's a long arduous task for a woman. A religion that stacks everything against women in favour of men, doesn't provide the foundations for mysoginistic vindictive acts such as throwing acid in a womans face. Yeah, right!!!

I don't know if it's in defence of secular freedom. It's certainly against the Muslim Brotherhood, as it stands, but that doesn't necessarily equate to the same thing. Ultimately, if the vast majority want more Islam, then more Islam is what they're going to get.

Funnily, I think that might work in the Brotherhoods favour. They thought they had it in their hands, but they didn't. Now they'll work on eliminating their opposition in a more gradual way before trying their hand again. Good to see them back down though. That opposition needs to be supported and strengthened.

Morsi to pass law granting military power of arrest: http://dailynewsegypt.com/2012/12/08/morsy-to-pass-law-granting-military-power-of-arrest/

The Brotherhood just might have pushed too hard too soon. http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?ID=295040&R=R1

Egyptian Christians sentenced to death. http://213.158.162.45/~egyptian/index.php?action=news&id=28163&title=Egyptian+Christians+sentenced+to+death+for+anti-Islam+film

The new leader can, seemingly retreat, but the Jihad will not. We are talking about a movement that is more than willing to murder its opponents to advance its agenda, and it shows no signs of waning. How long before opponents in Egypt are being assassinated. It will be nice if there's enough people in Egypt, or anywhere in the Middle East for that matter, who could bring about a true revolution for freedom. But where exactly is it? Some say it was possible in Iran. But I don't know. Even in Iran there were a lot of cries of allah hu akbar. When I hear that it doesn't fill me with confidence that freedom is in the wind.

Well, the Adam Smith part was my embellishment. I'm refering to Mr Scherk's postings about how the Muslim Brotherhood were going to be a step forward for free trade in Egypt.

Well, whoever it was that said the Brotherhood were the next best thing since Adam Smith certainly didn't.

Although many Muslims do kill jews based on Islamic sanction. Hamas cites the very verse below in order to inspire fellow Jihadists. "The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.” (Sahih Muslim, 41:6985; see also 41:6981-84 and Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:176,177 and 4:56:791)

So, what date has the war been put back to?

I think I'm going to ignore it. No one else has replied to it, so it doesn't seem to be attracting much attention. I'll just draw more eyeballs to it if I make a stink, and I won't be allowed to reply properly once the conversation goes the way it inevitably will go. You could actually ask him to clarify for you. That would actually be objective, rather than simply taking it to mean what you, perhaps, want it to mean.

I think it's more than appeasement. I think it's a softening up.

All in the good cause of protesting a movie they probably havent' even seen: (NOTE FROM MSK: The title of this is: "Muslim Youths In Nigeria Crucify A Cat On The Cross To Protest Anti-Islam Film," published in Nigeria News. You can go to the link by clicking on the image.)

He of course should be defended. Anything less would be snobbery. That's he's a lowlife is irrevelevant. If it was someone like Stephen Fry on the chopping block, for making a clever, witty, and sophisticated movie that criticised aspects of Islam, I suspect you'd all be happy to defend him from the outset. We live in a world now where the likes of Rowan Atkinson, etc, censor themselves when it comes to mocking, or criticising Islam. Given that trend, it seems inevitable that exercising freedom of speech will be taken up more and more solely by the "lowlifes".