Ibn Warriq of the of the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society agrees with me. Isn’t that strange? Know what Ibn says? Lemme quote:

“There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism: at most there is a difference of degree but not of kind. All the tenets of Islamic fundamentalism are derived from the Qur’an, the Sunna, and the Hadith…”

Isn’t that what I’ve been saying? Oh, but I’m not muslim, therefore it is politically incorrect and I’m evil.

And Ibn also goes on…

“Only Islam treats non-believers as inferior beings who are expendable in the drive to world hegemony. Islam justifies any means to achieve the end of establishing an Islamic world.”

When Muhammed commands his followers to slay, kill, terrorize, burn, destroy, I think of that as preaching violence. When Jesus says to turn the other cheek, be meek, charitable, and sacrificial, then I think of that as preaching peace. Yes, there is a difference and not all the religions are the same with just a few name-cahnges.

I refuse, as a citizen of humanity, to condone, include, sanction, pardon, support, or otherwise ignore a political murder cult which has demonstrated that for 1300 of its 1400 years it is only interested in spreading Islam at the point of a sword.

Look at your ideas of Islam. As Clint pointed out, is it only Muslims that convert with the all-or-nothing lightswitch of extremism? Is Islam the only religion that can be interpreted as condoning violence within its scripture. Consider the following portions of the Old Testament and tell me if we should also be defending ourselves from the dangerous, coercive, militant religion that is Judaism:

Exodus 21:7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.”

Exodus 21:17 “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death”

Exodus 21:20 “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property”

Leviticus 24:15 “Say to the Israelites: ‘If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death”

Deut. 22:20-24 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel. If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

But at least there’s no way to read Christianity as a religion of violent conversion, right? Except, of course, for the whole end of days, good and evil struggle:

Rev. 2:26-27 “To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations— He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery— just as I have received authority from my Father. (the iron scepter bit is a reference to Psalm 2, also a fun one)

Do any of these quotes mean that Christianity or Judaism are inherently violent? No. Does that stop some members of either religion from refusing to beat their swords into ploughshares? Of course not. Your characterization of Islam as some homogenous league of violence is silly. Furthermore, so are your repeated claims that no Muslims have spoken out against extremist violence. Again, the following link:

http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/friedman-wrong-about-muslims-again-and.html

And some of the links on that page lead to even more extensive catalogings of Muslims speaking out against violent Jihad and Bin Laden, both in official and unofficial capacities.

Someone said it above. Just because you’re free to say it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, and people are free to have negative reactions. If I celebrate the fourth of july by burning a huge stack of American flags and some founding father effigies, I shouldn’t be surprised if people don’t want to come to my barbecue, you know? And I certainly shouldn’t act as though my rights are being trampled if people don’t come. I have the right to express myself, and so do the people I invited.

That’s why I can see a boycott of these newspapers. They have the right of free press (or should), but that doesn’t mean people can’t be offended. If you’re publishing something that’s possibly inflammatory like that, you really, really need to be sure that you want to, because someone’s going to get mad. It would be wrong for the government to censor them but any private (and legal) action taken against them is no violation of the rights. The Piss Christ was actually more of an issue, as I recall, because it was displayed in a museum funded by public money, which is a lot more sticky.

It is also worth noting that the gunmen involved in the kidnappings you cited, Clint, were members of Fatah, not Hamas. So they actually weren’t radical Islamists, they were the members of the secularist government that everyone was so alarmed to see lose the election. In fact, if I read right, the one mention of Hamas was a member of their leadership promising protection to Christians in Gaza.

On their web site, their story carries the disclaimer: “CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam.” (This isn’t such a bad reason, just not at all credible from the network that brought us Crossfire.)

Some things will never change.

Perhaps it was too much to expect even a private group (the editors of Soir) in France to show any sort of courage in the face of radical Islam.

The latest from the AP (or perhaps just details I wasn’t aware of last night):
(1) Islamic protestors threaten and demonstrate violence…
Armed Palestinian “militants” surrounded the E.U. headquarters in Gaza, and burst into hotels in the West Bank looking for Europeans to take hostage. (Hard to know what to make of the AP’s reference to “briefly kidnapped a German citizen” — perahaps they thought he was Danish?)

Danish (and the vaguely Danish-looking Norwegian) diplmats were withdrawn from the P.A.

(2) … the French find something white to run up the flag pole.
The editorial board of the Soir fired the managing editor who authorized the publication of the pictures.

On the flip side, it’s the Austrian Interior Minister who is urging the E.U. to issue an apology, while the French Interior Minister is speaking out for free speech.

Last thought — does it appear to anyone else like this mass effort to intimidate Europeans is really about nothing but making sure that no one in the E.U. dares to suggest that they cut off funding to the P.A. just because Hamas won the election? Sort of a “look how much trouble we can make over a trivial matter — don’t give us a real cause to get angry” threat?

Check. Now I’m with you — I too support the boycott as a method, even when I don’t agree with the goal.

Muss,

“To believe Islam just a little is to believe it all.”

Does the same apply to Christians? Or is it just Muslims who are either 100% or 0%.

You mentioned earlier that you have some friends who are ex-Muslims. Quick thought experiment: if your only direct experience of Christianity was by way of ex-Christians (a.k.a. fundamentalist atheists) how distorted a picture do you think you’d have of it?

That’s why there aren’t hundreds of millions of muslims generating 1000s of stories about their outrage over the murder of infidels.

I support the IDEA of a boycott, ya know, over blowing sh*t up and people.

and i shop at a local store that carries all brands of everything in the middle east, including israeli made products, jordinian products, saudi products, and I even buy the Danish Butter, cause it’s cheaper than buying Land O’ Lakes.

We may as well add in the recent $$ gift from the Saudi prince to Harvard to fund programs to better understanding and tolerance of the Muslim world in the West.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/12/13/saudi_donates_20m_to_harvard/

What the…? Talk about moral relativism here – it should be the other way around, don’t you think? Sheesh, some of the ruling elite from the House of Saud are quite shameless, really.

I’m confused. You said you support the boycott — a boycott of all products from Denmark, because their government doesn’t censor speech that offends you.

Perhaps what I should have asked is: How many other countries do you boycott, and why?

Without getting in to a semantic debate over “offended” vs. “outraged” — boycotting the products of an entire nation is a fairly strong stance, and it seems like a strange reaction to the actions of private parties within a nation. In this context, as well, it seems clear that the protest is intended to pressure the government of Denmark to curtail the freedom of expression within its domestic newspapers — which seems to conflict with your stated “resepect [for] others rights to opinions.”