The relationship with the west has survived several wars between Israelis and Arabs, in Afghanistan and in Iraq (twice); the chilling predominance of Saudi nationals in the 9/11 attacks and the rise of al-Qaida; serious bribery and corruption scandals and diplomatic rifts; recurring oil crises; deepening concern over Saudi funding for extremist religious teaching and its links to terrorism; escalating rows about egregious human rights abuses and the repression of women, and most recently, the Syrian calamity and the ascendancy of the black-shirted head-cutters of Islamic State.To which he could (should) have added Saudi funding of mosques throughout the west, with donations of extremist literature, well documented in at least five studies.
"... comics of broken pencils crying blood or fountain pens stabbing terrorists, or heaving things labelled 'Freedom of Speech" squishing ISIS or whatever".Indeed. Like folk proudly holding "I am Charlie" signs. About as effective as those "#Bringbackourgirls" hashtag after Boko Haram kidnapped 300 girls in Nigeria.
When you don’t call things by their real name, you always get in trouble. And this administration, so fearful of being accused of Islamophobia, is refusing to make any link to radical Islam from the recent explosions of violence against civilians (most of them Muslims) by Boko Haram in Nigeria, by the Taliban in Pakistan, by Al Qaeda in Paris and by jihadists in Yemen and Iraq. We’ve entered the theater of the absurd. [the rest here]Tom Friedman is getting more and more spot on in his reporting matters Islamic....
The usually reliable Frank Ching has joined the ranks of the "but brigade" in his column ("Drawing a line", January 14).
Salman Rushdie recently coined this phrase to describe those who say "I believe in free speech, BUT", followed by a choose-your-own bias, presented as a show of the "tolerance" and "respect" of its author.
When that "but" is done at the point of a gun, it is giving in to intimidation. And if the intimidation is successful, it will only lead to more intimidation. For, make no mistake, if the murderers of the Charlie Hebdo journalists win, if the outcome is Western submission to Islamic blasphemy laws to outlaw any depictions of Mohammed - as sadly seems to be the trend - there will be more intimidation for further submission by the West, for further submission to Islamic laws.
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation is already pushing the UN to outlaw criticism of Islam.
That, surely, will be the next "red line" not be crossed by Western journalists, implemented by violent intimidation. And if that's successful, it will render us - Frank Ching included - mute in the battle of ideas against murderous jihadist violence.
It was even worse to see Pope Francis come out as a member of the "but brigade", when he said be believed in free speech, but "One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith". But why not? Why should we be able to satirise and excoriate politicians, but leave religion alone? Marx noted that the free criticism of religion is the basis for all our other freedoms (I'm no Marxist, but he had this one right!). [LATER: see this!]
Rushdie says that nobody has the right "not to be offended". Flemming Rose, the man who published the Danish cartoons in 2005, has said, "Satire is a sound civilisation's answer to savagery". These are powerful observations, so much more than the pusillanimous posturing of the "but brigade".
So it's a shame to see that the likes of Ching, joined recently by his colleague Alex Lo ("Price of free speech is sometimes too high", January 17), are so casually trampling on a key victory of the enlightenment in bowing to violent theocrats.
PF, DBLATER, one of many comments:
 |
| "Sensitive urban area" in Paris, one of 715 on the French Government website. Is this "no-go", or "go at your own peril", or a Muslim version of Chinatown? You go, and see for yourself. I've been and it was fine. But that's for a man. Try being a western woman, unveiled and go there...There are some shocking YouTubes of how they're treated in these "sensitive areas". |
On Saturday, Fox News apologized four times on the air for its reports about the no-go zones, acknowledging that there was no reason to believe that they existed. It called the reports an “error” and apologized to “any and all,” including “the people of France.” [New York Times]But why would Fox apologise? That there are such zones is proved by a French government website that details 715 such "sensitive" zones, where you enter at peril, especially if you are an unveiled woman. (See also here, and YouTube here, from the left-of-centre RT.com, which talks of the beating up of French police who went into one of these "sensitive zones").
Bowled out
Sir: The recent correspondence on the subject of the fatal cricket accident which in 1751 prevented Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales, from succeeding his father George II as king in 1760, has failed to mention that this was the first known instance in cricket history of play stopping reign.
Tim RiceLondon SW13
In my [Murong Xuecun] view, the anticorruption push is more of a Stalinist purge than a genuine attempt to clean up the government. Charges are framed with reference to party regulations, not the law. Investigations are run by K.G.B.-type cadres, not the regular judicial system. China's media does not report on cases until they are made public, after which there is a barrage of almost identically worded reports used to incriminate the suspect. Most telling of all, the purge has mainly targeted specific party factions, while those groups that support and pledge loyalty to Mr. Xi appear untouched.
Hmm. When Bill O'Reilly apologizes for I.R.A. bombings and the genocide by Christian Serbs, then Muslims will no doubt apologize for Paris.They would "no doubt apologise? In your dreams, Nicholas!
Jihad, Holy war, is an obligation for all believers. … The state of war is the natural state with regard to infidels … [T]hese doctrines of which the practical outcome is obvious are found on every page and in almost every word of the Koran … The violent tendencies of the Koran are so striking that I cannot understand how any man with good sense could miss them (emphasis added).
"…A handful of non-Muslim researchers in the West — typically outside the academic mainstream —...[Spencer]: That's Kirkpatrick semaphoring, "Don't take these guys seriously".
... seek to build a case that Islam is inherently more violent than Judaism or Christianity by highlighting certain Quranic verses. But they struggle to explain away approving passages about violence in other religious texts, such as the book of Joshua in the Old Testament, the Book of Revelation in the New Testament, or the statement attributed to Jesus by the Gospel writer Matthew that "I come not to bring peace, but a sword."[Spencer]: Do people like David D. Kirkpatrick ever get embarrassed writing things like this? Do they never look around the world and notice that there are Muslims quoting the Qur'an to justify violence all over the world and not a single Jew invoking Joshua or Christian invoking "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" to justify violence? And in fact, these "non-Muslim researchers" don't "struggle to explain away" such passages. It's really quite simple. As I have explained many times, both Judaism and Christianity have developed interpretative traditions that for various reasons reject the literal understanding of verses appearing to enjoin violence. Mainstream Islam has not. Nor is there actually any open-ended and universal command in the Jewish or Christian scriptures for all believers to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers; in the Qur'an, there is.