Bjørn Stærk, the extraordinarily sensible Norwegian who has been posting since September 11th, posted an immensely important post on August 8th. I'm going to link to his post here, and add my own comments on the topic of anti-Muslim hatred in blogs, the problems trying to find the "essence" of a religion, and the importance of distinguishing between Islam and Islamism.
(Note: this replaces a previous incarnation of this post because Joe felt it wasn't right to quote so much of Bjørn's post; please make sure to read his post in full.)
First he posts a list of reasons "why Islam should be banned in America" that a commenter posted to his blog.He concludes:
Again, I'm not saying these views are shared by the owners of these websites, or the majority of their readers. But neither do I see many strong, principled objections. Phil says above that "the failure of good Muslims to object or organize and stop bad Muslims indicts the whole Islamic movement", which doesn't justify a ban on Islam, but is true in a sense. We all have a responsibility to speak up clearly against extremists in our own ranks, whether we are Muslims or peace activists or bloggers who criticize Islam and support the war on Islamist terror.Damn straight. Now go read the entire post. This is mandatory before commenting, please, because it's the heart of this post. I didn't rewrite what Bjørn Stærk wrote because I didn't have to. So go read it, please, or skip this post.
And so it's time to stand up for the basic values of our democracies and confront those in our own ranks who want to abandon those values. Because if we don't, outsiders will be justified in interpreting this as silent approval or apologism.
Something has gone rotten. We can't blame it on the "left", the "relativists", the "PC crowd" or the "multiculturalists", (and don't anybody dare blame it on the Muslims). It's gone rotten here, among people who on 9/11 woke up to the danger of Islamism. The ban Islam meme and all its relatives (Islam is Islamism, Islam is war) must be confronted here, now, before it spreads.
I recently posted some comments to this "Hatewatch" thread here at Winds of Change:
There are a variety of sites on the Web with idiotarian hate. Here's a random example from one guaranteed site:I subsequently had the following exchange:Probably is a muzzie though.And it just goes on and on; that's from only about the top five percent of comments on a single post.
If the bastard wasn't a muzzie they would have said so.
We've already had Islamo-spies in Guantanamo, muzzies blowing up their officers in Kuwait... We also have illegal aliens with fake IDs, and assorted non-citizens (since we accept LPRs). There are several thousand throughout the military. Given the ideology they adhere to, suspicions must be raised far higher.
A few months ago I would have been very opposed to condemning all Muslims, but now I am at the point that they are going to have to prove that all Islam is not the problem.
While this is not an incitement to violence, my prediction is we'll see the slims hanging from light poles after the next attack. Their lies aren't going to mean squat to the great unwashed hordes. I'd just be satisfied with covering them with pork chops and putting them in a pit full of rottweillers.
Has anybody ever done any surveys or studies to determine how disloyal your average muzzie is to their new homeland?
Your allah (satan) lied to you, fool.
My grandchildren will wear muslim the fabric without ever being aware there was another definition.
Allah was the name given an idol to HaBa'al, brought from Assyria, and may indeed be the same false god Ba'al from the Bible.
Mohammad raided camel caravans, broke treaties, tortured and killed prisoners of war, and got hard-ons for six year old girls.
[...]They whine about rights? Get rid of em. Inhale oxygen within our borders? That's right. Get rid of em. I'ts a disease. Kill it before it kills us.
I've long, as a Jew, found a highly useful test for distinguishing legitimate commentary from hate; I take the noun of the statement in question, switch it to "Jew," or the adjective to "Jewish," and see how I think it stands up.
One can also switch out, say, one religious figure for another who did things, in a different religious tradition, we now would call horrible and despicable. Enjoy the game! "If the bastard wasn't a Jew they would have said so." "I'd just be satisfied with covering those Jews with pork chops and putting them in a pit full of rottweillers."Feel free to use "Christian, " or "atheist," or "Hindu," or whatever works best for yourself. lewy14, I thank you for your efforts, and very much hope you'll keep a sharp eye out for, as well, anti-Islamic hatred, which is a very great danger and quite prevalent in our time, and that you'll call it wherever you find it. It's a moral test for all of us today to distinguish between Islamic terrorism and Islam, between terrorists and Muslims, just as we largely failed, in 1941-2, in the U.S., to distinguish between those who served the Japanese empire, and our own loyal citizens of Japanese ethnicity.
"Don't worry, Gary, when Jews fly planes into skyscrapers I'll be hunting them too."And then my two last comments:
Yes, I know.
"And so I prefer to consign such repugnant comments on all blogs to a well deserved obscurity."And, excerpted:
This is purely my own opinion, of course -- that should be clear, but I want to make it ultra clear -- my own policy is that I believe blogs are responsible for what they publish. Period. That includes comments. I believe blogs should have prominently posted commenting policy as to what are and are not acceptable comments. I believe that posters should be warned that if they violate the guidelines/rules, their offensive comments will be deleted, and if they continue to offend, they will be banned. I believe blogs need to enforce that policy, and if they do not, they are completely responsible for what is posted on their blog. If enforcing such policies is too much work, they should shut down comments, because they are responsible for what is posted on their blog.
To me, that's a matter of individual responsibility. It's a matter of accepting that responsibility.
I believe that sites that are full of hate for white people, for black people, for red people, for yellow people, for Christians, for Jews, for Moslems, for Hindus, for animists, for atheists, for religious people, for short people, for tall people, for whatever kind of people, are hate sites.
I boycott hate sites, regardless of whatever value might be attached to them. Hey, Krupp built great guns, but I wouldn't have contracted with them in the Forties.Again, that is purely my own personal policy, and I respect the right of all to have their own policy, of course.
It strikes me that if we are "looking hard at the dark places most mainstream media seem determined to look away from," and we, as bloggers want to see blogs achieve large-scale, mainstreamish, success and recognition, that we can't turn a blind eye to hatred in blogs. Better an early start than having to wait until our soles/souls are held to the fire later and inevitably. (And sooner or later we will read mainstream stories about hate in blogs; mark my words; I'd rather we started policing ourselves first.)Anti-Muslim hate is hate. And hate in blogs is hate.
[...]Ten thousand words would be far too much. But it occurs to me that, in fact, a reasonably (a thousand or two, words, perhaps; perhaps even less, just a naming of blogs with a couple of sample comments each) sized monthly (or so) round-up of the most significant sites spewing hatred in comments -- whatever the form or target of the hatred -- would be a useful way to point a spotlight at these much-read blogs, and perhaps -- just perhaps -- give them a nudge towards being shamed, and cleaning up their act. (And I include, myself, sites that spew political hatred, as well as ethnic hatred.)
Both need to be fought. Neither should be tolerated.Read The Rest Scale: 0 out of 5.
Gary Farber's home blog is Amygdala.