The June 19th conference given by Middle East Forum's Legal Project, entitled "Libel Lawfare: Silencing Criticism of Radical Islam" was superb. A cast of personalities spoke in the morning and afternoon sessions: Alan Dershowitz, Frank Gaffney, David Harris, Andrew McCarthy, Alan Mendoza, Douglas Murray, James Taranto and John J. Walsh. The morning session was moderated by Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum and star of DanielPipes.org. The afternoon session was moderated by David Rivkin, Attorney at law of Baker Hostetler.
The morning session's panel of five---Dershowitz, Gaffney, McCarthy, Taranto and Walsh---each gave their own versions of why freedom of speech is so important to our country and to the entire world. They each had their own unique view, but all were in agreement that it is increasingly difficult to criticize radical Islam--for that is what this is basically about---and get away with it unscathed. Daniel Pipes' contribution to this discussion was minimal, which was disappointing, as more of his voice would have been most welcome; however, he is a gentleman and a scholar and let the panel fight amongst themselves. His role, basically, was as a Solomon, allowing the panelists to divide the baby into equal parts, wisely keeping his own counsel.
David Rivkin, on the other hand, tried to involve himself more in the afternoon session--I detected a bit of "old Holloywood star syndrome"-- a la Sunset Boulevard. The panelists were just as interesting as the morning's selection, and they held the attention of the audience until the close at 4:00, the last few minutes devoted to audience questions.
There were testimonies from three very prominent figures: Hassan Daioleslam (iranlobby.com), Joe Kaufman, Chairman Americans Against Hate, and Marc Lebuis, President and CDO, Point de Bascule. All three men are fighting libel lawfare in their own countries; Daioleslam has had his life threatened and is currently in big trouble in Iran for speaking out against the government; Kaufman is currently fighting a lawsuit against him; Lebuis writes scathing articles in the Canadian press, pro-freeom of speech and anti-Islamic. These three men have proven that speaking your mind gets you into big trouble, but they are relentless in their pursuit of the freedoms that should be allowed, but aren't.
There was an invitation-only lunch provided: Chicken Cordon Bleu, baby broccoli, roasted potato wedges, salad, water, coffee and petite fours. Ice tea or a glass of wine would have been welcome, but the food was excellent nevertheless. After all, we didn't attend this conference simply to enjoy a free lunch--we who were there have a hunger for the truth, for the true freedom to speak and to write freely, to criticize, to inform, to ask questions---regardless of religious persuasion or non-religious affiliation. Hopefully we were all on the same page: fighting radical Islam with a free voice, not to be crushed by the national or international media or court systems, to define exactly what libel is and to fight false claims of libel.
The most significant aspect of this conference was the fact that libel lawsuits are creeping into Western society from Islamists who are trying to smother the voices of free speech. If the world can criticize Christianity and Judaism and other religions, then it certainly can criticize Islam and particularly, radical Islam, which is quickly consuming the more moderates of that belief. What kind of religion gives the nod to the murder of those who would not join its ranks? Where is the line between radical and moderate Islam? Or is it conveniently blurred to give more points to the radical side?
Our world is entering another phase of political and religious correctness, but it is unbalanced against all religions except Islam. Let us be brave and redress this balance.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
What She Saw from the Tower
Last night I went to a talk by Emile Nakhleh, ex. CIA . . . he believes that we need more dialogue with Islamic organizations. Some of his more noteworthy quotes are listed below:
"We've interviewed hundreds of Islamists worldwide . . . in how to engage the Muslim world"
"Religious nationalist ideology is a driving . . .force in Muslim countries."
" . . the phenomena of Islamization after 9/11 . . . ."
"99% of Muslims do not support terrorism"
"Different religious interpretations have contributed to diversity in religious nationalist ideology"
"Painting the whole Islamic world with broad brush of terrorism is wrong"
"Implementation of Shari'a not incompatible to democratic governments and countries"
and the list goes on and on and on ad nauseum.
"There is no one interpretation of Islam." Great.
He also believes that engagement between the Muslim world and other worlds must be done at the highest levels of government. Why must we bend over just for Muslims? Why not Animists? Why is Islam such a problem? Why do they wish to kill a former Muslim for converting to another religion?
Now this is strange talk from a Catholic born in Nazareth. Why must there be two worlds anyway? Why must we "engage" the American Islamic community in order to engage the larger world community? Are we not on the same planet? As my grandmother said, "Everyone puts their pants on the same way." Very wise words.
Obviously Mr. Nakhleh believes that Muslims should be set apart as a special breed of human being---are we not all created in God's image? Have we "engaged" the Jewish community or the Christian community or the Buddhist . . . .???
My understanding of this is just another Kumbayah gathering, all of us holding hands, singing "Let There Be Peace On Earth."
Someone I know said something very very wise: "Understand and accept the other's ways, for in this lies happiness." Not so true in everything, however. We do not understand everything in the universe, it is impossible. We do not understand why some cultures consider "honor killings" (the very word "honor" combined with "killings" is appalling) honorable; it is simply an excuse for murder. We do not understand a mother maming their child to garner more sympathy while they do their daily begging on the streets of Karachi. And we do not understand every different religious belief in the world. And why should we? In our own private, insular worlds, we have problems enough to deal with, let alone trying to understand everything else going on.
A comment was raised by a member of the audience: He stated that Islam is intolerant of other religions, as opposed to another member of the audience who stated that Islam is the most tolerant religion. I happen to agree with the former statment, but the history of religion will show that other religions, i.e. Catholicism and the so-called Christians of the Crusades, were also intolerant. Remember the Spanish Inquisition: anyone who would not accept Catholicism was tortured in the most horrific ways. The Crusaders killed thousands of those who refused to become Christians. This is not what Christ preached. So we can conclude that these people and the Inquisitors were not really religious at all--or were they? Did they really think that oppression would make people respect them and accept their religions?
"Religion. . .It is the opium of the people." Thank you, Mr. Marx, it certainly is. Religion is created by man, therefore makes the partaker of it mesmerized with the drug of mindlessness. Belief in God, however, without the religious trappings created by man, is something altogether different.
But I digress. In conclusion, I will say that Mr. Nakleh's ideas seem to make sense on paper, but in reality will never work. Dialogue with organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood cannot work. Two groups--them and us---engaging in dialogue about what? Organizations that use violence and killing to gain acceptance in the world will never be considered legitimate. Unless everyone in the world realizes that the heart has to change first, then there will never be peace, which is the ultimate goal of the world, and unfortunately, something that has been, so far, elusive in this life.
"We've interviewed hundreds of Islamists worldwide . . . in how to engage the Muslim world"
"Religious nationalist ideology is a driving . . .force in Muslim countries."
" . . the phenomena of Islamization after 9/11 . . . ."
"99% of Muslims do not support terrorism"
"Different religious interpretations have contributed to diversity in religious nationalist ideology"
"Painting the whole Islamic world with broad brush of terrorism is wrong"
"Implementation of Shari'a not incompatible to democratic governments and countries"
and the list goes on and on and on ad nauseum.
"There is no one interpretation of Islam." Great.
He also believes that engagement between the Muslim world and other worlds must be done at the highest levels of government. Why must we bend over just for Muslims? Why not Animists? Why is Islam such a problem? Why do they wish to kill a former Muslim for converting to another religion?
Now this is strange talk from a Catholic born in Nazareth. Why must there be two worlds anyway? Why must we "engage" the American Islamic community in order to engage the larger world community? Are we not on the same planet? As my grandmother said, "Everyone puts their pants on the same way." Very wise words.
Obviously Mr. Nakhleh believes that Muslims should be set apart as a special breed of human being---are we not all created in God's image? Have we "engaged" the Jewish community or the Christian community or the Buddhist . . . .???
My understanding of this is just another Kumbayah gathering, all of us holding hands, singing "Let There Be Peace On Earth."
Someone I know said something very very wise: "Understand and accept the other's ways, for in this lies happiness." Not so true in everything, however. We do not understand everything in the universe, it is impossible. We do not understand why some cultures consider "honor killings" (the very word "honor" combined with "killings" is appalling) honorable; it is simply an excuse for murder. We do not understand a mother maming their child to garner more sympathy while they do their daily begging on the streets of Karachi. And we do not understand every different religious belief in the world. And why should we? In our own private, insular worlds, we have problems enough to deal with, let alone trying to understand everything else going on.
A comment was raised by a member of the audience: He stated that Islam is intolerant of other religions, as opposed to another member of the audience who stated that Islam is the most tolerant religion. I happen to agree with the former statment, but the history of religion will show that other religions, i.e. Catholicism and the so-called Christians of the Crusades, were also intolerant. Remember the Spanish Inquisition: anyone who would not accept Catholicism was tortured in the most horrific ways. The Crusaders killed thousands of those who refused to become Christians. This is not what Christ preached. So we can conclude that these people and the Inquisitors were not really religious at all--or were they? Did they really think that oppression would make people respect them and accept their religions?
"Religion. . .It is the opium of the people." Thank you, Mr. Marx, it certainly is. Religion is created by man, therefore makes the partaker of it mesmerized with the drug of mindlessness. Belief in God, however, without the religious trappings created by man, is something altogether different.
But I digress. In conclusion, I will say that Mr. Nakleh's ideas seem to make sense on paper, but in reality will never work. Dialogue with organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood cannot work. Two groups--them and us---engaging in dialogue about what? Organizations that use violence and killing to gain acceptance in the world will never be considered legitimate. Unless everyone in the world realizes that the heart has to change first, then there will never be peace, which is the ultimate goal of the world, and unfortunately, something that has been, so far, elusive in this life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)