I am a huge fan of the essayist known as Fjordman. He was given a raw deal in his home nation of Norway after Anders Breivik went on a murdering rampage and it was discovered that Fjordman was a favorite counterjihad writer used to formulate an odd Nazi-Christian ideology. Norwegian authorities treated Fjordman as a coconspirator to Breivik’s massacre in Norway.
I am gratified to read a Fjordman essay in which he is not on the defensive but rather on the offensive to expose Islam. In this essay Fjordman shows how the West has bowed down as dhimmis to Islamic Supremacism constantly worrying about insulting the Islamic death cult.
JRH 9/27/12 (Hat Tip: Gates of Vienna)
*********************************
Muslim ‘Offenses’ Are About Power, Not Words
By Fjordman
September 27, 2012 12:35am
The historian Nils Rune Langeland, a Professor at the University of Stavanger in Norway, dared to make some statements about possible future conflicts caused by Multiculturalism and mass immigration that the establishment, self-appointed guardians of Goodness, did not like. Frithjof Jacobsen, formerly the vocalist in a hard rock band and currently the leader of newspaper VG’s regular columnists, toyed in a column with the idea that maybe the security services should quietly search the flat of Mr. Langeland. He even suggested that the good Professor perhaps deserved to be “tarred and feathered” for his views.
This full-length essay was published in the country’s arguably most powerful newspaper and was illustrated by a drawing made by respected illustrator Roar Hagen, showing the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) spying on a brain filled with ideas about an Islamic threat to Europe and the Western world. Columnist Jacobsen furthermore wrote that Anders Behring Breivik’s mass murder was simply the “natural product” of mudslingers on the Internet who tirelessly keep repeating the same otherworldly tales about a supposed Islamic threat to our societies. In his opinion, using Breivik’s atrocities to confront people harboring such opinions is “completely natural,” since their criticism of Islamic aggression and terrorism means that they “share opinions with terrorists and murderers.”
Frithjof Jacobsen suggested that one of these dangerous and extremist ideas that should be confronted and possibly lead to closer personal surveillance by the country’s security services is the use of the term “dhimmi.” Yet this is a perfectly acceptable Arabic word that has been part and parcel of Islamic vocabulary and mentality for over a thousand years. Mr. Jacobsen thus first and foremost betrayed his own profound ignorance and mistook this for tolerance, which is a fairly common flaw for his kind of people.
Dhimmis are non-Muslims under Islamic rule who are not just second-rate citizens in their own country but could almost be described as non-citizens, lacking basic rights and protection for themselves and their families in many situations. Dhimmis are supposed to be subservient and obedient to Muslims at all times and are required to forever pay them substantial amounts of protection money, jizya, in “willing submission” to Islamic rule.
Muslims love to portray themselves as innocent, blameless victims and predictably complain after nearly every Jihadist terror attack that all Muslims should not be punished for the actions of a few individuals. However, they carefully leave out the fact that this is precisely what their own Islamic law and logic dictates for non-Muslims.
If even one non-Muslim dhimmi says or does something that displeases a Muslim, this can and sometimes does trigger violent retribution against his entire community. In practice, a mere rumor falsely planted by a Muslim who holds a personal grudge against a specific non-Muslim can be enough to trigger riots, murder and mayhem. This means that non-Muslims in countries harboring sizable Muslim populations live under a constant shadow of fear of Muslim violence and abuse. If one of them at any given time says something critical of Islam or its founder, this can trigger violent attacks and murder against his entire clan, tribe or nation based on the flimsiest excuse.
What Western mass media have nearly universally failed to point out is that Muslims have now advanced to the point where they treat the entire Western world as dhimmis, hostages to Muslim abuse and threats of violence. On September 11th 2012, the anniversary of the 9/11 Jihadist attacks against the USA, Muslim mobs attacked several American embassies in the Middle East and killed the US Ambassador in Libya, Christopher Stevens. Evidence indicates that this attack had been planned in advance.
In multiple Middle Eastern cities, crowds shouted slogans in praise of Osama bin Laden, whose terror network al-Qaida killed thousands of Americans on September 11th 2001. The date was no doubt chosen to mock the USA and show continued support for Jihad against the West, yet the pretext for these attacks was an obscure movie made under unclear circumstances in the USA that was considered offensive to Muslims. Western media who present this movie, Innocence of Muslims, as the “cause” or direct trigger of these attacks fail to note that Muslims will pick up any pretext to riot. They have been known to make complaints and threats to hamburger stores or coffee shops because they claimed to have seen hidden references to the words Allah or Muhammed in their products. Muslims are skinless people in a sandpaper world, as one observer once put it. Their feelings would always be “hurt” by something even if we removed all offensive cartoons and movies on the planet. This is about power, fear, dominance and Islamic aggression.
When Muslims worldwide use violent riots as tools of intimidation and blackmail in response to what a few individuals in one Western countries have done, they are in effect treating the entire Western world just like they treat the abused Christians in their home countries, or other religious minorities that have not yet been persecuted into non-existence. It is remarkable how most Western mass media and political commentators have systematically failed to point this creeping dhimmitude out to the public.
VG’s column by Frithjof Jacobsen was published on September 17th 2012, after nearly a week of angry Muslim protests and deadly riots which were still spreading to different countries around the world. Not only did the newspaper fail to point out that Muslims are increasingly treating Europeans and Westerners as dhimmis. On the contrary, Mr. Jacobsen went far in suggesting that those mentioning the very term “dhimmi” are suffering from delusional paranoia, are extremists and perhaps potential terrorists who should possibly be put under surveillance by the security services.
This is not a unique case, either. Another one of VG’s regular columnists, Anders Giæver, previously claimed that my readers react as strongly to any criticism as Muslims do to any criticism or mockery of their Prophet Mohammed. Giæver has some explaining to do after September 2012, when Muslims were attacking embassies and killing people in various countries while none of my readers seem to be doing the same. He is wise enough to remain silent on his matter, though — or perhaps we should say cowardly enough.
I have some positive things to say about VG’s debate editor Elisabeth Skarsbø Moen. VG have, for the most part at least, allowed me to reply to statements about me in their newspaper. This is, strictly speaking, only fair and in accordance with their own ethical guidelines, but I know from experience that some media don’t follow their own guidelines. Elisabeth Skarsbø Moen is willing to write sarcastic comments about “angry white men,” but seems more reluctant to write about angry Muslim men in the same manner.
On the negative side, however, she and her newspaper often cut out elements of my essays without asking me first, despite prior assurances that they would not do this. I have noticed that the newspaper tends to cut out references or quotes indicating that Islam itself, not just “radical Islamists,” might present a problem. They also cut out a reference made by me to the fact that Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the powerful spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, supports marriage with children based on the fact that Muhammed himself had sexual relations with his child wife Aisha when she was just nine years old.
Skarsbø Moen told me by email that they would not allow such statements to be published in their newspaper. However, theologically speaking this is a fact. It says so in the most revered hadith collections for a billion Sunni Muslims, and the Shias have similar traditions of their own. That is why the Islamic Republic of Iran under Khomeini after the revolution in 1979 lowered the legal marriage age of girls to just 9 years.
VG’s staff thus actively censors critical — but factually correct — information regarding Islam and Islamic practices, yet at the same time mock writers suggesting that such censorship exists. This represents a pattern of submission and hypocrisy that has sadly become all too familiar among Western mass media today.
_________________________
Copyright© 2012 FrontPageMagazine.com
No comments:
Post a Comment