Monday, December 03, 2007


Good point:
Sometimes you can be too inclusive:

Kes Gray, a former advertising executive, first decided on his gesture of cross-cultural solidarity after meeting Muslims in Egypt.

The character, Mohammed the Mole, appeared in Who’s Poorly Too, an illustrated children’s book, which also included Dipak Dalmatian and Pedro Penguin, in an effort to be “inclusive”.

This weekend Gray said he had decided to postpone a reprint and rename the character Morgan the Mole...

Incidentally, some readers have been kind enough to inquire about how I intend to respond to the "human rights" complaint against me by the Canadian Islamic Congress. In an ecumenical spirit, I thought I might send a machete-wielding mob round to chant "Behead the enemies of Steyn!"

Such is the nature of the assymetrical war we wage on terrorists. An entire nation can clamor, screech and wildly scream for the death of a woman who dares--dares!--to name a Teddy Bear Mohammed and civilized society shakes its head in bemusement and horror and then makes jokes about it. Generally humor is a very good and healthy thing; as well as an excellent and mature way of coping.

But you probably shouldn't joke around too much when someone with a scimitar is actively trying to hack off your head. It's ok to cope with the horrible waste of it all when you defend yourself and do unto him etc., with whatever black humor is necessary to get you through the experience.

If you think the Islamic reactions to benign incidents seem to be escalating and become more and more absurd, you are correct. The reason for this is a psychological one and it is quite simple, really. If you want to get people to behave responsibly you must first have an expectation that they will; you cannot be opposed to murder and then let them get away with it.

The first moment when the west failed to stand up to the insanity being promulgated by the adherents of Islam and instead appeased it, was when all of western civilization extended a carte blanche to the barbarians to do whatever they wanted, fully aware that they would be able to away with it.

The first time Muslims who practice the "real" Islam (at least they keep telling us it exists) failed to confront the fantatics in their midst, and instead let them take over the indoctrination and politization of their children, was when so-called "tolerant" Islam was thrown out with the dirty bathwater.

Shiraz Maher writes:
I spent 14 years in the Middle East, so I’m quite accustomed to Arab culture and its easily offended sensibilities. But the decision to arrest and jail the English school teacher Gillian Gibbons is so far removed from even the remotest sense of logic, I wondered if the date on my Arabic calendar was April 1.

Sadly, this was no joke. The truth is, as we’re beginning to realise, we’re locked into a battle for hearts and minds at the core of which lies a battle for the essence of Islam itself. And we can’t expect anyone to fight this on our behalf.

A few weeks ago Rod Liddle participated in a debate about whether Islam is good for London. His message, in a nutshell: I don’t have a problem with Muslims, I have a problem with Islam. I don’t share his views, though many do – and I can see how they’ve got there.

We’re at the point where the naming of a cuddly toy by children has become a international incident with the Foreign Office summoning foreign emissaries to Whitehall....

“I consider myself to be tolerant of all faiths, but reading of this situation, my tolerance of Islam is sorely tested,” said one primary school teacher.

And it’s hard to blame her. In recent years any perceived insult to Islam has resulted in mass global protest, the ransacking of embassies, burning of effigies, boycotts and deaths. Muslim groups have been at pains to explain that events in Sudan are “not Islamic”, and will, no doubt, later complain that the media “demonised” Muslims.

A report by the Muslim Council of Britain, paid for by London’s mayor, into media attitudes towards Islam alleges this happens in 90% of news reports “in a typical week”.

I agree that Gibbons’s fate has more to do with realpolitik than religion, but why do we expect people automatically to appreciate the difference between Islam and Islamism?

...For almost two decades we’ve allowed the message of political Islam to breed unchallenged within the British Muslim community, preaching separation and confrontation. The blame for that must rest solely with Muslims and, as a former member of the intemperate Hizb ut-Tahrir, I’m willing to accept more than my share.

Our indifference has allowed Islamism to become the dominant political discourse among young British Muslims.

And when people associate Islam with the kind of barbarism we see around the world, it's not because Muslims have stayed quiet for too long – but because we’ve failed to challenge and defeat the ideology which promotes it.

Is it any wonder that the Islam and Islamism increasingly seem to be synonymous? If anything, they are converging to a point of indistinguishability at a fast clip.

That there are decent, moral and civilized Muslims goes without question but they have been silenced by fear. Siggy, in a post titled, "Why I Hate Islam" talked about a friend:
My friend believes in God, without equivocation, and my friend is outraged at the yoke that must be borne by true Muslim believers because of the disintegration of Islam. The shame of many- but not all, who go to mosques to pray, cannot be measured. My friend describes an unwritten code and language decent Muslims share, so that they might find each other. They are too frightened to speak freely and they are too frightened to stand up to the bullies that have taken over the mosques and Islamic schools.

What ShrinkWrapped has to say is relevant here:
The important point from my work is that rage avoided is rage that can only grow; rage that is confronted and dealt with can be understood, channeled, and contained.

We do neither the Muslim world nor the West any favors by behaving as if their rage is so terrifying that we must avoid it at all costs. If we do not vocally address and confront the rage and its derivatives, we will one day, once again be forced to confront its violent fruition.

Read all of Maher's piece and the other links, of course; and consider: when an entire nation is willing to resort to the kind of barbarism we in the west have allowed to go on in the killing fields of Sudan--doing nothing; when the kind of insanity we in the west have repeatedly appeased in Gaza and the West Bank is facilitated and encouraged by useless "peace" conference after "peace" conference--then little matters like cartoons, Teddy bears, and free speech itself, are obvioulsy small potatoes.

Wretchard has this to say in a post about the "kinder, gentler sharia" that is evolving in Nigeria, which he calls "The Ecology of Tolerance":
The transformation of hard-line Islamic regimes into softer ones in places as diverse as Anbar province and Nigeria suggests that if the world wants to see a more "moderate" Islam, it is far more effective to support those who take a principled stand against it's excesses than to pander to it's most extremist elements. Ironically, the West's disgusting groveling during the Danish cartoon riots and on many subsequent occasions may have done nothing to attract the "moderates" in Islam. Those moderates would have been far better empowered if Western leaders had told the radical theocrats to shove their demands, lashes, cutting knives and fatwas where the sun don't shine.

As I wrote in a previous post, the strategy of these 21st century barbarians is to use the tolerance and goodwill of the west for the very purpose of destroying civilization and implementing intolerance and ill will (i.e., sharia) in its place.

So, I say without any humor intended, behead the enemies of Steyn. Wipe them off the map of civilization; and stop agonizing over hurting their feelings or doing something they won't like us for.

They already don't like us. And they like us less each time we show them our weaknesses.

Death or submission is what they have in store for us; They been saying it clearly and unambiguously for several decades now.

They don't need to think we're wonderful. When they respect us and understand that we mean what we say when we say, "Enough!", they may actually learn that tolerance is in their best interest.

It is not in our best interest to hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil.

No comments: