Monday, May 01, 2006

"Global Civility" debate

Peter Risdon, co-organiser of the March for Free Expression (MfFE), will be debating Faiz Siddiqi from the Muslim Action Committee (MAC) at Oxford University this Wednesday. MAC, you may recall, is the organisation which promotes censorship under the guise of “Global Civility”. It claimed victory when Peter requested that the Mohammed cartoons not be shown at the MfFE (the cartoons still appeared, but that didn't stop the gloating). Emboldened, MAC then joined the campaign to prevent the cartoons being displayed at NYU. Again, it claimed success. It is currently demanding that the Press Complaints Commission makes amendments to its Code of Practice; if successful, MAC will use the PCC as another tool for Islamic censorship.

Be under no illusions, MAC is a thoroughly nasty piece of work. Ismaeel-Haneef Hijazi, who runs the MAC blog, is a Muslim supremacist. On his other blog he denounces those he sees as Muslim reformers, happily promotes the concept of dhimmi status for non-believers, and defends those members of Al Ghuraba who paraded placards inciting and celebrating murder in London on February 3. And all the while he demands censorship of others. (Incidentally, Ismaeel has been getting a hard time in the comments at Pickled Politics recently)

Alison at Making Headlines and Steve the Pub Philosopher have more on the upcoming debate. I just hope Peter is not in conciliatory mood, because Siddiqi (who has previously said "You cannot be a moderate Muslim. You are either a Muslim or not a Muslim") will, along with the rest of MAC's followers, take any sign of weakness as a victory.

16 Comments:

Blogger Ismaeel said...

Well we can all see how sincere you are to distort things- when did I defend al-Ghuraba. I defended protests against the cartoons worldwide which were 99% peaceful.

5:30 pm  
Blogger DFH said...

In your response to Baroness Falkner you state “The members of Al Ghuraba did not physically harm anyone, yet you have denoted their demonstration as not being peaceful.”

Even accepting your ludicrously narrow interpretation of the word ‘peaceful’ (which I don’t) I take that as a defence of "those members of Al Ghuraba who paraded placards inciting and celebrating murder in London".

BTW - here's a video of the demo. If you think that's peaceful then I'm glad I don't move in your circles, Ismaeel.

(And your silence on the rest of my observations speaks volumes)

9:30 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Again DFH, you fail to look at the context of my comment, which was pointing out the foolish distinction in the liberal system between words and expressions and actions they may result from them. The reality is that this distinction is not readily maintained and we have laws against incitement. Thus highlighting the inconsistancy of the liberal position

10:52 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

As to your other comments: the idea that i support censorship: i have dealt with this ad nauseum and cannot be bothered to repeat it again here.

You seem to imply that being a dhimmi=bad thing is some sort of undisputable fact, because you and a bunch of other bloggers say so. So here like many other places this equation has gone unquestioned. The fact of the matter is that dhimmi status for non-Muslims in Muslim lands was far better than anything the west today offers for minority groups and would be a far better state of affairs for the non-Muslims living in Muslim lands today.

As for Muslim reformers, yes i'm against them, because 99 times out of 100 they haven't a clue what they are talking about. Renewers that's a different matter

10:57 am  
Blogger DFH said...

I stand by everything I said about you Ismaeel.

2:34 pm  
Anonymous Clematis Fraud said...

An interesting use of moral equivalence. Speaking of which, I wonder Peter Tatchell would have to say about your assertion on the rights of 'minority groups', Ismaeel?

Dhimmitude is not dissimilar to apartheid, in which group enjoys the full benefits of society and another, lesser group is deemed to be constitutionally, legally, socially (etc.) inferior.

Happily, a dhimmi can convert to Islam but a coloured or black person living in South Africa couldn't change the colour of his skin.

Apartheid was vile - dhimmitude doesn't sound like much fun either.

6:20 pm  
Anonymous Steve said...

Ismeel, so dhimmi status in Muslim lands was better than the treatment of minorities in the west today, was it?

Did dhimmis get the vote or the chance of equal participation in public life?

Were dhimmis equal before the law?

Did they get state-funded religious schools?

Were there laws to prevent the majority saying nasty things about them?

Could they stand in the streets and demand the destruction of the host society, with impunity?

In what way were dhimmis better off under the Ottoman Empire or the Caliphate than you are today in Britain?

Perhaps you would like to see dhimmi status introduced for Muslims in Britain. In return for legal protection and the right to follow your religion, you lose the vote and the right to stand for public office, you pay extra taxes and wear legally prescribed clothing to mark you out from everyone else. Does that sound OK?

8:06 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

I see you are not basing your definitions of being dhimmis on actual historical realities.

Let us remember that Muslims themselves did not vote or stand for public office. The Caliphate was not a democracy for Muslims. So the Dhimmis didn't have what the Muslims didn't have.

You must also remember that religion and politics in the Caliphate were identical.

The jizya paid meant that the dhimmi community was protected by the state in terms of their lives, wealth and religion whilst at the same time exempt from service in the armed forces. Also taxes due on Muslims such as Zakat etc were not due on Dhimmis, so it wasn't extra taxes it was different taxes.

Dhimmis were also allowed to have their own courts and administration according to their own laws, you didn't offer me that in your dhimmi package, but if you did i would accept it.

Were dhimmis equal before the law?
Yes they were

Did they get state-funded religious schools?

No, but how many state funded Muslim schools are there here?

Were there laws to prevent the majority saying nasty things about them?

*Are there laws to prevent people saying nasty things about Muslims or about other minorities here?

Could they stand in the streets and demand the destruction of the host society, with impunity?

*Can they do that here, i thought members of al-Ghuraba had been arrested and charged for doing exactly that.

In what way were dhimmis better off under the Ottoman Empire or the Caliphate than you are today in Britain?

* They administered themselves under their own laws, lived in their own communities where they could be free to practice their religion and culture without risking offending anyone or being subject to abuse. They were not pressurised to show loyalty to the Caliph every five minutes. They were not pressurised to join the armed forces and the police to prove their loyalty. They were not blamed for everything done in the name of their religion by Christians in Europe.

4:12 pm  
Blogger DFH said...

There's the propaganda, now here's the truth from Dhimmi Watch:

IT IS LONG PAST time to bring the world's attention to a global scandal.

Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race.

If dhimmis complained about their inferior status, institutionalized humiliation, or poverty, their masters voided their contract and regarded them as enemies of Islam, fair game as objects of violence. Consequently, dhimmis were generally cowed into silence and worse. It was almost unheard-of to find dhimmis speaking out against their oppressors; to do so would have been suicide. For centuries dhimmi communities in the Islamic world learned to live in peace with their Muslim overlords by acquiescing to their subservience. Some even actively identified with the dominant class, and became strenuous advocates for it.

Spearheaded by dhimmi academics and self-serving advocacy groups [my emphasis - DFH], that same attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, school textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today. To do so would endanger chances for peace and rapprochement between civilizations all too ready to clash.

But in this era of global terrorism it must be said: this silence, this distortion, has become deadly. Before 9/11 it was easy to ignore and whitewash dhimmitude, but the atrocities changed the situation forever. In jihads throughout history, untold millions have died. Tens of millions have been uprooted from their homes. Tens of millions have been stripped of their cultural identity. To continue to gloss over the destruction wrought by jihad ideology and its attendant evil of dhimmitude is today to play into the hands of jihadists, who have repeatedly vowed to dhimmify the West and destroy any recalcitrant elements. While jihadist groups, even with their global diffusion, are not strong enough to realize this goal by themselves, they have a potent and destructive ally, a genuine fifth column, in the dhimmi academics and dhimmi journalists they have recruited in the West. They have succeeded in confusing millions in the West into mistaking honesty and truthfulness for bigotry, and self-defense for oppression.

Before it's too late for Western Europe and the United States, which gave birth to the traditions of freedom and equality of rights for all that shine today as lights in the entire world, this must be stopped. Therefore Dhimmi Watch seeks to bring public attention to:

The plight of the dhimmis, an immense but almost completely ignored ongoing scandal that continues in Muslim countries today;
The plight of women under Sharia provisions, similar to conditions imposed on dhimmis, in the denial of equal rights and dignity;
Slavery in Islamic lands, which continues today, justified by Sharia-'s dhimmi codes;
The integral role of jihad and dhimmitude ideology in global terrorism today;
The license that academic and journalistic whitewashes of dhimmitude gives to radical jihadist enemies of human rights for all.

Dhimmi Watch fights to ensure that deeds done in the darkness for so long will not continue to be done. The light of world attention is anathema to the proponents of jihad and dhimmitude: we have seen in recent years that women sentenced to stoning for adultery, often victims of rape unjustly accused thanks to Sharia laws disallowing rape victims' testimony, were freed following international outcry. Dhimmi Watch will seek to provoke similar, continuous and increasing outcry wherever and whenever the Sharia's institutionalized injustices threaten dhimmis and women.

May the truth prevail.

5:04 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

So again, no actual analysis of historical facts or Islamic law. But what can you expect really. Anyway i'm done here.

8:31 pm  
Blogger DFH said...

Anyway i'm done here.

Good.

8:50 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

asalam meaning hello everyone

I guess you have picked up I am a muslim.

I have just watched the video link. I was shocked to see these people call themselves muslims and portray islam in such a violent way. I know if I stood infront of them and told them I disagree they will probably chop my head off and all! But you have to take note, what happened then and the websites of insult which have followed do upset people of the islamic faith and they will want to air their concerns, because many have decided to attack islam to upset muslims and make a joke out of their beleif alone.

These people, in the video, scare normal muslims too. I was totally unaware of the way in which they spoke and their actions that day, very scary indeed.

Please, kindly do not judge all muslims on the actions of a handful.

Thank you for reading this message.

From a muslim, a follower of Muhammad PBUH and jesus, moses, abraham .... peace be upon them all and you.

7:33 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello

I just want to say there are enough problems in the world already. DONT CREATE ANYMORE. Everyone has a right to respect. To gain respect, you have to give respect. That applies to all. Muslims and non - muslims. So, everyone should stop pointing the finger and take note of this advice!

7:37 pm  
Anonymous hope said...

LEAVE ISMAEEL ALONE!

you people who keep going on at him over the same stupid thing are so annoying, have a sensible debate for goodness sake about real issues at present.

Why should Ismaeel have to answer for others? particularly those who are causing problems!?

You sure are the sad bunch of losers to gang up on one guy, when he is viewing this blog like yourselves!

come to think of it, you wont have done it to a jew or hindu? so why a muslim?

Ismaeel, dont waste your time with these people. Go talk to sensible minds.

7:59 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ismaeel apologised i should think so too!

11:22 pm  
Anonymous ATTENTION said...

hey, Ismaeel has nothing to apologise for! DONT GO ROUND APOLOGISING ISMAEEL. There not worth the trouble.

11:56 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home