[Mr. Pipes is the director of the Middle East Forum. His website address is http://www.danielpipes.org. Click here for his blog.]

Beneath the deceptively placid surface of everyday life, the British population is engaged in a momentous encounter with Islam. Three developments of the past week, each of them culminating years' long trends – and not just some odd occurrence – exemplify changes now underway.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith describes terrorism as"anti-Islamic."

First, the UK government has decided that terrorism by Muslims in the name of Islam is actually unrelated to Islam, or is even anti-Islamic. This notion took root in 2006 when the Foreign Office, afraid that the term"war on terror" would inflame British Muslims, sought language that upholds"shared values as a means to counter terrorists." By early 2007, the European Union issued a classified handbook that banned jihad, Islamic, and fundamentalist in reference to terrorism, offering instead some"non-offensive" phrases. Last summer, Prime Minister Gordon Brown prohibited his ministers from using the word Muslim in connection with terrorism. In January, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith went further, actually describing terrorism as"anti-Islamic." And last week the Home Office completed the obfuscation by issuing a counter-terrorism phrasebook that instructs civil servants to refer only to violent extremism and criminal murderers, not Islamist extremism and jihadi-fundamentalists.

Second, and again culminating several years of evolution, the British government now recognizes polygamous marriages. It changed the rules in the"Tax Credits (Polygamous Marriages) Regulations 2003": previously, only one wife could inherit assets tax-free from a deceased husband; this legislation permits multiple wives to inherit tax-free, so long as the marriage had been contracted where polygamy is legal, as in Nigeria, Pakistan, or India. In a related matter, the Department for Work and Pensions began issuing extra payments to harems for such benefits as jobseeker allowances, housing subventions, and council tax relief. Last week came news that, after a year-long review, four government departments (Work and Pensions, Treasury, Revenue and Customs, Home Office) concluded that formal recognition of polygamy is"the best possible" option for Her Majesty's Government.

Third, the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, endorsed applying portions of the Islamic law (the Shari‘a) in Great Britain. Adopting its civil elements, he explained,"seems unavoidable" because not all British Muslims relate to the existing legal system and applying the Shari‘a would help with their social cohesion. When Muslims can go to an Islamic civil court, they need not face"the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty." Continuing to insist on the"legal monopoly" of British common law rather than permit Shari'a, Williams warned, would bring on"a bit of a danger" for the country.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says that Islamic law in Great Britain"seems unavoidable."

Prime Minister Brown immediately slammed Williams' suggestion: Shari‘a law, his office declared," cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor can the principle of Shari‘a law be used in a civilian court. … the Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values." Criticism of Williams came additionally from all sides of the political spectrum – from Sayeeda Warsi, the Tory (Muslim) shadow minister for community cohesion and social action; Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats; and Gerald Batten of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Secular and Christian groups opposed Williams. So did Trevor Phillips, head of the equality commission. The Anglican church in Australia denounced his proposal, along with leading members of his own church, including his predecessor, Lord Carey. Melanie Phillips called his argument"quite extraordinarily muddled, absurd and wrong." The Sun newspaper editorialized that"It's easy to dismiss Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams as a silly old goat. In fact he's a dangerous threat to our nation." It concluded acerbically that"The Archbishop of Canterbury is in the wrong church."

Although widely denounced (and in danger of losing his job), Williams may be right about the Shari‘a being unavoidable, for it is already getting entrenched in the West. A Dutch justice minister announced that"if two-thirds of the Dutch population should want to introduce the Shari‘a tomorrow, then the possibility should exist." A German judge referred to the Koran in a routine divorce case. A parallel Somali gar courts system already exists in Britain.

These developments suggest that British appeasement concerning the war on terror, the nature of the family, and the rule of law are part of a larger pattern. Even more than the security threat posed by Islamist violence, these trends are challenging and perhaps will change the very nature of Western life.

---

This article is reprinted with permission by Daniel Pipes.

Sally Gee - 2/24/2008

Mr Ecktein, any basis for the determination of legal jurisiction is arbitrary but adding a confessional option where the parties to a civil dispute can make use of Sharia if they all agee that it is appropriate to do so means that, for some at least, this will be mitigated to some degree if Parliament follows advice of the wise Dr Williams.

art eckstein - 2/23/2008

"Plural jurisdiction" from Mr. Williams sounds an awful like the "millet" system, Ms. Gee. Mr. Friedman, who is a lawyer, makes exactly this point. What is your response? And what is your evidence to back up your response?

Your personal attacks on me are no substitute for facts, Ms. Gee. I notice that whenever you HAVE no facts to back up your absurd and vicious assertions (which so far is always the case), you resort instead to personal attacks on those who catch you at that game. Ms. Gee, you should try to understand that it's not a serious response.

For my part, I always offer specific facts and can source them.

Sally Gee - 2/23/2008

"But Williams is advocating a specific policy, that it establish a particular "millet" system for Muslims, founded on Sharia law. Do you support this position of Williams or not?"

Well. as Dr Williams does not himself support the position you describe, I can only assume that your question is skillfully designed to highlight your distance from reality or, of course, it may just be a silly rhetorical device which unintentionally highlights your distance from reality.

Mr Eckstein, as always, takes the opportunity to demonstrate both his incapacity to see the point and the eternal pertinence of the old adages that ingnorance is bliss and a little learning is a dangerous thing and is best worn, if at all, lightly. I can't thank God enough for ensuring that Mr Eckstein is not one of my teachers.

N. Friedman - 2/23/2008

Ms. Gee,

Yes, I think I can explain the difference between territorial jurisdiction and the millet system. Anyone in a given territory, regardless of religion, is subject to the same rules in the US system. That means, if you kill someone in New York, that event is judged by the criminal system in which, notwithstanding one's religion, the list of crimes a person could potentially be charged with is the same, the facts that the prosecution must show are the same, the rules of evidence used to present the evidence are the same, the weighting of different types of evidence is the same, the degree of proof required (e.g. beyond a reasonable doubt) is the same, the burden of persuasion is the same (i.e. the government must prove its case rather than the accused must prove his or her innocence), etc., etc.

In the millet system, each religious confession has its own list of crimes, the facts to be proven for a similarly named crime are not necessarily the same, the rules of evidence are not necessarily the same, the weighting of different types of evidence is not necessarily the same (e.g. in Islam, a woman's testimony is considered to have 1/2 the value of a man's testimony), the degree of proof required may not be the same, etc., etc.

Now, as for the territorial jurisdiction issue more generally as practiced in the US, the United States was founded by the partial joining of separately governed colonies - nations, if you will. Each is, subject only to the ceding of certain authority to the Federal government, technically sovereign, just as France and Japan are sovereign. Hence, each state has its own laws in its own territory.

In practice, however, the laws of each state are rather similar. The one exception is Louisiana, which is not technically a common law state, as it was, at one time, governed by France and its civil law system. However, the law of Louisiana, albeit more civil law oriented jurisprudentially, tends to be very close in substance to the law elsewhere in the US.

art eckstein - 2/23/2008

Parliament is sovereign, to be sure, Ms. Gee. But Williams is advocating a specific policy, that it establish a particular "millet" system for Muslims, founded on Sharia law. Do you support this position of Williams or not?

Sally Gee - 2/23/2008

"My initial comment answers this question. Laws in a modified common law system like the US system are territorial. They do not break down into different laws for Muslims, Jews and Christians. Rather, each state is free to pass laws applicable to that state. Each county and each city are also free to pass laws."

I think we will all be grateful, Mr Friedman, if you were to explain the difference, which you obviously regard as significant, between segmenting a legal system by the accident of geography as opposed to faith and ethnicity - the borders of which, to take, for instance, the Polish experience, tend to be more resiliant than the geographical boundaries of states.

And Mr Eckstein: "As for Sharia, you have it correctly: Muslim extremists want to impose a separate system in Britain where British common law will not apply to important aspects of the life of the Muslim community, which will be instead under Sharia law, not British law: "plural jurisdiction", as Archbishop Williams put it." Perhaps you're a little thick - and it is true we must make allowances for those less fortunate than ourselves - but the essence of the parliamentary system in the UK is that common law is modified by statute and that Parliament is sovereign and the purpose of Parliament is to maintain the Queen's peace between and within the diverse nations of the United Kingdom. If recognising Sharia is the choice of Parliament, so be it; if it is not, so be it. And I think your real problem is a resentment of an otherwise successful democracy which only seems to falter when its less competent politicians choose to pursue the unhinged agenda dictated by the thuggish anti-monarchical British Board of Jewish Deputies, the USA and its colony Israel.

art eckstein - 2/23/2008

An excellent post, NF, from first to last.

To extend one point you make, Ms. Gee has no evidence--none--that anyone is starving in Gaza. If she is sincerely concerned with people who are being starved to death, she should focus her attention on Darfur, where an Islamic Sudanese government is employing ACTUAL Nazi tactics to deal with its enemies. Since 2003, some 200,000-400,000 civilians have died in Darfur. This number is up to TEN TIMES the ENTIRE number of deaths in the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1948: i.e., not five years, but 60 years.

Yet somehow I expect Gee is not particularly interested with this actual starvation genocide--just as, though she claims to be so morally concerned with "Nazism", she's not interested in the ACTUAL and grotesque Nazi phenomena perpetrated by Hamas (the Nazi salutes, the naming of children "Hitler", the popularity of "Mein Kampf", the genocidal ideology and genocidal activity). Instead, she's focused on swilling out false slanderous propaganda involving the alleged starving of Gazans to death by Israelis--"crimes perpetuated in the name of Judaism," as she put it. The reason she has no EVIDENCE for this latter phenomenon, however, though she's been pressed and pressed by us to provide such evidence, is simple: because it isn't happening. In Darfur, it is.

As for Sharia, you have it correctly: Muslim extremists want to impose a separate system in Britain where British common law will not apply to important aspects of the life of the Muslim community, which will be instead under Sharia law, not British law: "plural jurisdiction", as Archbishop Williams put it. But significant numbers of Muslims in Britain have come to Britain to flee just such Sharia law; and as a prominent British Muslim said in response to Williams, if extremists wish so fervently to place themselves and their familes under Sharia law, there are many countries where they can go to do so, and that is what they should do. The impact upon British Muslim women of the imposition of a separate Sharia law for the Muslim community in Britain would be devastating. Yet Archbishop Williams has shown interest in accommodating this extremist demand. Indeed, he sees appeasement of this demand as inevitable. That's the problem.

N. Friedman - 2/22/2008

Ms. Gee,

Your comment confuses the millet system - where people of different religions are served in the same territorial jurisdiction by different courts - which was used, for example, by the Ottoman Empire with the common law system, which assumes the same laws applies to everyone within a court's territorial jurisdiction.

What the Archbishop is suggesting is adopting the beginnings of a millet system. That is what he means by plural jurisdiction. It is, in other words, a half-way house toward separate laws based on one's religious heritage. That ought to be an affront to anyone who believes that government should be secular.

Jewish law has not governed a state since ancient times. It may well have been somewhat akin to the millet system, given that non-Jews would only be required to abide by the Noahide commandments and not halakhah. At this point, since halakhah is not likely to become the law of any nation, it is rather irrelevant, including to Jewish law.

The US system is very complicated and nearly unintelligible to a foreign. For purposes of this discussion, the US does not take the millet approach. One law theoretically applies in a given territorial jurisdiction.

You write: "Am I correct in thinking that the different States in the United States are not so united in their legal systems and the only centralising judicial moment, and I use that term carefuly. is that exercised, presumably in extremis, by the Supreme Court"

My initial comment answers this question. Laws in a modified common law system like the US system are territorial. They do not break down into different laws for Muslims, Jews and Christians. Rather, each state is free to pass laws applicable to that state. Each county and each city are also free to pass laws.

The Federal government is also free to pass laws. Only Congress can enact a federal law. The president is free to sign the law or veto it.

Where there is a conflict between federal and state law in any territorial jurisdiction, there is an elaborate system for determining which law applies. Sometimes, Federal law trumps state law. Sometimes, not. It all depends.

There are also disputes between which state's laws apply to a case when it is possible, in theory, that more than one state's laws might be pertinent. Again, there is an elaborate system for determining which is the correct law.

Regarding Gaza, if Gazans were starving, they would be concerned about eating, not sofas. Which is to say, the starving charge is propaganda. Frankly, Ms. Gee, the allegation that people who are not starving are starving is about as low as it gets. It mocks people who really are in need.

Sally Gee - 2/22/2008

Plural jurisdiction is central to the English legal system and the Jewish faith, momentarily, the most prominent beneficiary of this circumstance. Dr Williams has merely suggested that the largest single believing community in England and Wales be accorded the same privileges as those enjoyed by a much smaller racial/religious/allegiance to a foreign power grouping.

I think this tolerance of different legal systems within one jurisdiction exists because the English are merely one (albeit the most numerous) of four very different nations sharing a monarch who also happens to be the Head of the Established Church and the Defender of the Faith of the Universal Church. The Prince of Wales has made his wish to be the Defender of Faith well known.

Am I correct in thinking that the different States in the United States are not so united in their legal systems and the only centralising judicial moment, and I use that term carefuly. is that exercised, presumably in extremis, by the Supreme Court. And George Bush is President..? Twice...?

And, Mr Friedman, people do most often what they do when they can see a future. I believe that the Gazaans rightly can see a future, and you are as equally aware of the future of the Israeli state as any observer of history.

N. Friedman - 2/22/2008

Ms. Gee,

According to The Times (UK):

Dr Williams argued, in a speech at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, for a “plural jurisdiction” that would allow Muslims to choose whether some legal disputes were resolved in secular or Sharia courts. He called for “constructive accommodation” over such issues as resolving marriage disputes.

Note the words "plural jurisdiction." That is something quite different than arbitration. Such would create, to some extent, a dual system of laws. And that is something different than arbitration.

N. Friedman - 2/22/2008

Ms. Gee,

I read just fine. What I said about the Bishop of Canterbury stands.

As for the comment regarding Gaza, were it so that people were starving, then, when people went to Egypt, they would have returned with food, not sofas and not missiles and other arms. That, after all, is what starving people do in real life.

art eckstein - 2/22/2008

Your argument is that they're making it all up, then? Just like the attack on the YMCA, no doubt.

You STILL have not come up with any evidence that anyone is starving in Gaza. Your argument on this thread for the alleged parallel between Israel and Nazi Germany was that people were being starved to death in Gaza like the Nazis starved ghettos in Poland.

Where's your evidence to back up this vicious slander? EVIDENCE, Ms. Gee!

Sally Gee - 2/22/2008

Mr Friedman, I think you have obviously failed to read, or somehow otherwise have misunderstood, the words used by Dr Williams

It may also seem odd to you, but people - even Palestinians - do not eat money. I also note that the Egyptian government, under pressure from the Israelis, soon closed up the wall.

Equally, I have no doubt that many Germans used precisely your arguments about the treatment of the Jews during the entire Nazi period.

And Mr Eckstein, shae on you for assuming and relying on the ignorance of others. You may get away with it with your students but not everyone is dumb enough to choose to be taught by you. Most readers of HNN, from Tel Aviv to Pheonix, Arizona, are aware that Fatah has its own purpose which is a whole lot closer to that of the US and Israel than it is to the interests of either the Gazaans or the Middle East in its entirety.

art eckstein - 2/22/2008

Life in Gaza at the moment, Gee:

Showcasing the vulnerability of Gaza’s tiny Christian community, a dozen or more gunmen, some of them masked, blew up the library of the YMCA in Gaza City last week, while holding the YMCA’s security guards at gunpoint. The Gaza YMCA, which welcomes both Christian and Muslim youngsters, was someplace where men and women were free to interact together, offending many radical Islamists. Possibly the gunmen, who attacked shortly after midnight, were also reacting to the re-publication in Denmark of the famous Muhammad cartoons. A second bomb left by the gunmen in the YMCA’s office failed to detonate.

Oh, I guess from Gee's point of view, to protest against such conduct is to engage in an attempt to repress "the exercize of liberty by Muslims."

art eckstein - 2/22/2008

Perhaps Gee didn't actually read the article from Sept. 2006 which she desperately cited in the hope of using it as "evidence" of "starvation."

And here's what the Palestinian Authority itself now says about the nature Gaza:

"Hamas has turned the Gaza Strip into an international center for global jihad," said one Palestinian Authority official to the Jerusalem Post. This official claimed that, "Most of the men who entered the Gaza Strip through the breached border are now being trained in Hamas's camps and schools." Another PA security official told the Jerusalem Post that, according to his information, dozens of al Qaeda operatives have managed to enter the Gaza Strip in the past two weeks. He said some of them had already been recruited to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. "They brought with them tons of explosives and various types of weapons, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles," he told the paper, and added that a number of Iranian security experts had also entered the Gaza Strip to help train members of Hamas and other armed groups."

I guess Fateh backs my description of the place, Ms. Gee.

In any case, N.F. is totally right that this Gaza stuff is off the topic, which is the place of Sharia in Britain. It was necessary to do because of Gee's slanderous descriptions of Jews as Nazis, on the alleged "evidence" of "starvation" in Gaza--a slander which had to be responded to.

art eckstein - 2/22/2008

Omar, how often have I been proven wrong in any of my factual assertions?

Comparison: how often have you been?

Example: Readers, take a look at the "Imad Who?" thread.

omar ibrahim baker - 2/22/2008

Re: Lawyerly wisdom (#119374)
by A. M. Eckstein on February 21, 2008 at 6:26 PM:
"I agree with N.F. As distasteful as it is for scholars to deal with Ms. Gee (or Omar), "
How do you know Prof???
Or is it that you believe you are one of them Scholars??
That would be ultra absurd!

N. Friedman - 2/22/2008

Sally,

In Britain, what was talked about by the Archbishop is incorporating features of the Shari'a into British law, not to do what is done in the US.

Regarding Gaza, the article you cite does not show that anyone was starving or was even likely to starve. It shows nothing of the sort. Rather, the article shows that business may have taken a turn for the worse. And, that is assuming that one ignores, as the article forgets to note, that aid was pouring in at a record pace.

According to the article, which was written in 2006, not today, the per capita income in Gaza was about $700. That is higher than in some other Arab countries, for your information. And it is substantially higher than in some African countries. Moreover, when the boundary with Egypt - which is not even mentioned in the propaganda article you cite, yet had, at the time, closed the Gaza border - was breached, people showed rather clearly that they were not starving and that figures, such as the noted per capita income figure, could not possibly be correct since people were purchasing supplies in substantial amounts. This was well reported in the press.

In any event, note that I asked for an article that shows that someone actually starved. You cite an article that, notwithstanding its title, does not even show that anyone was starving. And, in fact, no one has starved.

Sally Gee - 2/22/2008

Mr Hamilton, the idiots are the American people who've allowed their foreign policies and their human rights policies to be captured by a client state claiming a religious entitlement to another people's territory. From what you say, I guess you must be one of them.

I bet you support a "free" and "independent" Kosovo as well, don't you?

Sally Gee - 2/22/2008

First, Mr Friedman, the proposal is to accept Sharia as a system of mediation and arbitration subject to English and, possibly all though it is not absolutely clear, Scottish law.

Second, are you so perverse that only physical evidence of death from starvation will satisfy you? How very tidy minded and bureacratically Nazi of you! For an informed view, try: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-is-a-jail-nobody-is-allowed-to-leave-we-are-all-starving-now-415101.html

A. M. Eckstein - 2/21/2008

I agree with N.F. As distasteful as it is for scholars to deal with Ms. Gee (or Omar), it is necesary to do so, in order not to let them get away on HNN with their profound ignorances and various slanders.

N. Friedman - 2/21/2008

Mr. Hamilton,

The point of responding to Ms. Gee and to other people who adopt a position akin to hers is to expose their position for what it really is - in their own words, not my interpretation of it. I leave it to the reader to see if such position is somehow consistent with reality and the historical record and/or, perhaps, motivated by some animus or even by something else. Which is to say, I let them shine a light upon themselves.

R.R. Hamilton - 2/21/2008

I thought that from your past experience, you might have learned this lesson months ago: http://www.historynewsnetwork.com/readcomment.php?id=116298&bheaders=1

R.R. Hamilton - 2/21/2008

Mr. Friedman, you've convinced me that you are an attorney. Watching you (and Mr. Eckstein) here with Ms. Gee reminds me of something said by a famous attorney: "Never get into fight with an idiot in public; someone might see you and get confused as to who is who."

N. Friedman - 2/21/2008

Ms. Gee,

Two points:

First, the article here concerns the potential incorporation of the Shari'a law into British law. Have you anything to say on that topic? Would it be good, for example, for Shari'a to govern divorce, as part of British law? Or, would Britain be better off following the US model, where husbands and wives with whatever religious convictions can, by means of a religious version of private, but binding, arbitration, divorce, subject to the arbitration being overturned - in a very rare circumstance - by a court.

Second, your comments about starving Palestinian Arabs in Gaza is contradicted by the fact that no one has actually starved to death. And, in any event, if the situation is as you say, why is Egypt not helping, since it could, with no trouble at all, solve the problems you mention?

art eckstein - 2/21/2008

1. Gee asserts that the Gazans are starving, indeed are starving to death. Where is the specific, hard evidence for this assertion? She has none. There's a reason for this lack of evidence. Because--her assertion is not true.

2. Gee continues to equate Gaza with the Warsaw Ghetto. The differences are obvious to anyone with a brain, starting with the genocidal ideology of the Hamas government, an ideology implemented with the shooting of thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians (who in this case are themselves Jewish refugees from Muslim countries).

3. Gee once more dismisses the actual Nazism of Hamas, from Nazi salutes to the huge popularity of "Mein Kampf" to naming children "Hitler", with a shrug. I thought she was concerned with recurrences of classic Nazism. Evidently not. What she is only concerned to do is to use this vicious and harmful slander against Jews. In an earlier thread she spoke of "the crimes committed in the name of Judaism." Enough said.

Sally Gee - 2/21/2008

Hmmm... Let them eat money heh? S sentiment fully worthy of Mr Eckstein's Shakespearian imagination. And those Nazi salutes again. Oh dear.

And what's this. Mr Eckstein professes to see a moral virues in the fact that The Bundists and Communists didn't have the technological and organisational capacity to take the fight out of the ghetto, nor the genocidal impulse of the Zionist reflectors of Nazism who were long gone stealing land from the Palestinians.

art eckstein - 2/20/2008

Television pictures did not show anyone starving, let alone starving to death. TV showed a lot of people with a lot of money--as well as a lot of energy.

Where is Gee's SPECIFIC EVIDENCE that Palestinians are being starved? She has none. None. It's just a slander.

Gee's statement ABOVE is that Israel "exhibits all the classic Nazi phenomena." Previously, she has was forced to to admit that Israel does not exhibit "classic" Nazi symptoms but rather she then retreated to the thesis that it is an "evolved" Nazi state--i.e., a state with free elections, freedom of the press, no dictator, no death camps, no Nazi uniforms, etc. etc. etc. That is, clearing away the anti-Israel rhetoric--a democracy. Now she has retreated back to Israel being a "classic" Nazi state. She has no evidence for this, she contradicts herself, it's all just vicious slander.

Meanwhile, the ACTUAL Nazi state, complete with Nazi salutes, the best selling "Mein Kampf", children named "Hitler", and intentional genocidal targetting of civilians--that is, Gaza--this evinces no response from her.

Gee doesn't appear to comprehend that the Warsaw Ghetto fighters did NOT attack anyone outside the ghetto, did NOT intentionally target civilians as a matter of policy, had no rockets, were NOT armed to the teeth, were NOT motivated by a genocidal ideology. All these constitute huge, absoltutely huge, differences between Warsaw and Gaza. They are lost on Gee, of course--replaced simply by slander after slander.

Sally Gee - 2/20/2008

"Ms. Gee: PROVE the statement that the Israeli government is starving Palestinians to death."

I think the TV news provided enough proof to satisfy a dozen War Crimes Tribunals when the wall with Egypt was broken down by the inhabitants of the Gaza concentration camp so that they could get hold of the supplies necessary for life - food, medicines and fuel - which they had been denied by Israel's racist policy of ethnic cleansing and murder.

"The last time I read about the Holocaust, also, I didn't see that the inhabitants of "concentration camps" were armed to the teeth, had their own self-government, and were busy firing 6,500 rockets at nearby civilian towns."

Didn't something like that happen in the Warsaw Ghetto? Oh, but as the Warsaw heroes were Bundists and Communists and not Zionists, it probably doesn't count.

"...a statement Gee herself gave up on under overwhelming pressure of the opposite the last time she tried this slander".

Not true, and a falsification that would do credit to Herr Hitler himself, Mr Eckstein. As I said: "Israel does exhibit all of the classic Nazi phenomena including the passion for attempting to starve to submission and death the inhabitants of concentration camps, torture, and the habit of invading neighbouring countries without warning to systematically commit war crimes."

So get a grip, Mr Eckstein, get a grip!

A. M. Eckstein - 2/20/2008

I completely consistently and carefully delinate between Islamist fanatics (such as Omar) and Muslims in general. The examples are too numerous to list, but here's just one example:



art eckstein on September 30, 2006 at 11:12 AM:

"An advantage to the use of the term and concept [Islamofascism] is that it accepts that our enemies are motivated by IDEAS, not socio-economic-political grievances.

In this case, the idea is to establish the rule of God on earth. Anyone who opposes this deserves death--that includes all non-Muslims (men, women and children).

Is this what all Muslims think? I've repeatedly said that one main purpose of using the term Islamofascist is to strengthen the hand of the moderates by treating the extremists with disrespect. This is what the moderates want. And when we treat the extremists with respect, or as if WE are responsible for their endless list of grievances, we weaken the hand of the moderates."

Omar has no facts to back his accusations. His above post is one example of this intellectual weakness. For another example of his weakness with specific facts, look at the exchange between Omar and myself on the thread "Imad Who?" this week.

A. M. Eckstein - 2/20/2008

Personal attacks are no substitute for facts. I said nothing about myself--I was pointing to people who are really under very literal threat for criticizing Islam, and who are not paranoid. This issue of Islamist violence in the West against freedom of speech, including not only death-threats but actual murders, is an issue that Ms. Gee simply doesn't want to think about,

As for Gee's statement that "Israel does exhibit all of the classic Nazi phenomena", this is (a) one of the most ridiculous statements ever posted on HNN, and (b) a statement Gee herself gave up on under overwhelming pressure of the opposite the last time she tried this slander. Yet here it is again.

Ms. Gee: PROVE the statement that the Israeli government is starving Palestinians to death.

The last time I read about the Holocaust, also, I didn't see that the inhabitants of "concentration camps" were armed to the teeth, had their own self-government, and were busy firing 6,500 rockets at nearby civilian towns.

Gee consistently mistakes ridiculously slanderous propaganda *metaphors* for the real literal thing. That's her intellectual problem. Well, one of them.

omar ibrahim baker - 2/20/2008

In a vain attempt to camouflage an overall, comprehensive and overpowering hatred and "fear" of Islam some have tried to denigrate it while pretending to favour it, or at least evade attacking it ,by deceitfully pretending and falsely contending that their attacks and defamation efforts are directed at Islamists and Islamism and NOT at Islam.

A rehash of the innumerable
"episodes" they string in their disparaging posts will show that in their “chronicles” no attempt is ever made to convey that impression of distinguishing one from the other by, for example, pointing out which of these "episodes" relate to “Islam” and Moslems and which relate to “Islamism”and "Islamists".
A ready example at hand is the issue of polygamy.

Is that an Islam wide issue or an Islamist issue ??

In the most general of terms:
- "Islam" is the monotheistic religion carried to humankind by Prophet Mohamed.
Adherents to Islam whether by birth or conversion are called Moslems.

-"Islamist" , a relatively newly coined term, denotes those Moslems that believe, very roughly, that Islam includes, on top of its spiritual message, a structural (society/state/nation building and forming) socio/economic/political” doctrine" that demands, inspires and sustains an "Islamic" mode/code of governance.
This mode of governance , they believe, should be based on and/or derived from the Holy Koran , the Suneh ( the actions and the utterings (=Al Hadith)of the Prophet)and Al Ishtihad ( roughly =the deductions, the interpolation and extrapolation) there from.

(Islamists base their position on the very commonly acknowledged and widely accepted dictum that Islam is: Dinn wa dawlah= religion and state/nation.).

Noting that very few non Moslems can tell the difference they consciously confuse and collate both terms, use them interchangeably to convey their comprehensive hatred of both.

A recent development, in the same vein and goal, is to confuse and collate Islamist with radical/fanatical/extremist/terroristical or use the term in a context to inescapably inspire these attributes.
In that sense NOT all Moslems are Islamists and NOT all Islamists are the same in the sense that NOT all Marxists are identical and share identical views.

To sum up:
-Islam is a monotheistic religion
-Islamism is the political movement to develop and adopt a mode/theory/model of governance based on and derived from the principles of Islam.

What we have here, though, is a classical demonstration of the ill willed, knowledgeable or semi knowledgeable, propagandist preying on and exploiting the lack of knowledge of the general, non specialized, reader.
Eckstein here has prominence of place.

Sally Gee - 2/20/2008

Are you saying that you are under threat of death from some Islamic force, Mr Eckstein, and that justifies your evident paranoia?

Also, you misrepresent me. Israel does exhibit all of the classic Nazi phenomena including the passion for attempting to starve to submission and death the inhabitants of concentration camps, torture, and the habit of invading neighbouring countries without warning to systematically commit war crimes.

I think the only conclusion that our sensible and open minded readers will be able to draw is that your paranoia is now seriously out of hand and it's time to get your pills reviewed and the dosage increased.

art eckstein - 2/20/2008

I don't uaully agree with RRH's take on things, but he hits the nail on the head about Gee with this statement:
""Between her ears is a universe where opposing a Muslim’s claim to have a right to kill a person over a matter of personal conscience can be called 'genocidal'".

art eckstein - 2/20/2008

Gee, tell that "paranoia" line to Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Redeker, Ezra Levant, and the editors of Jyllands-Post. All of them have been threatened with death by Muslim extremists for criticizing Muslim extremism. Van Gogh was murdered for criticizing Muslim extremist oppression of women.

But readers, as to "anti-Muslim paranoia" reference of Gee, note that once more it is Gee, not Eckstein, who equates violent fanaticism with all of Islam.

Gee is the same person who repeatedly calls Israel a Nazi state though she admits it exhibits none of the classic Nazi phenomena, and calls anyone who warns of Islamist fanaticism and violence a Nazi--while simultaneously refusing to call Hams or Hezbollah Nazis, though they have (a) a genocidal program, (b) use the Nazi salue, (c) spread the use of Hitler's "Mein Kampf", (d) and the blood libel that Jews eat non-Jewish babies, done in a 29-episode (!) television program during Ramadan, so that (e) Palestinians name their children after Hitler.

Readers, draw your own conclusions.

Sally Gee - 2/20/2008

Not so much commonsense, Mr Friedman, as a deep desire to propogandise the sorry products of anti-Muslim paranoia.

art eckstein - 2/20/2008

N. F., in a thread above (#119235) you concluded that Omar is one of those--and there are many--who thinks that Islam and fundamentalist Islamist extremism are one and the same. It looks like Ms. Gee thinks this as well; hence her slanderous equation of my criticism of Islamism with hatred of Islam. As you well know, I have been at pains to argue at great length in the past that Islam need not be Islamism.

Schwartz, meanwhile, who is himself a Muslim, is at great pains immediately above to distinguish between Islam in general and extremist Islamism--as I have been.

N. Friedman - 2/19/2008

Ms. Gee,

I do not see how Mr. Eckstein is seen as hating Muslims or Islam. That is in your head.

I do not see how you have him in fear either.

It, however, is reasonable to have some apprehension about some of what comes out of the Muslim regions. That is called common sense.

Sally Gee - 2/19/2008

I think the real issue is that you feel an awful lot of hate for Islam and Muslims, and you equally obviously feel an awesome amount of sheer unadulterated fear as well. Glad I'm not inside your mind, Mr Eckstein

Sally Gee - 2/19/2008

Interestingly, Mr Hamilton. "Between her ears is a universe where opposing a Muslim’s claim to have a right to kill a person over a matter of personal conscience can be called “genocidal”

Your original comments contained the statements: "No Muslim who does not condemn the Islamic injunction to kill apostates can ask for my respect" and "Of course, without the threat of death for apostasy, who would remain a Muslim? I doubt that Islam, stripped of its "legal duty" to kill apostates, would survive more than two generations."

First, you are assuming that a Muslim would prefer to have your respect (a bargain which you may or may not wish to deliver when it comes to the point) rather than continue to accept an idea which may be fundamental to that person's understanding of his or her place in the divine scheme of things, whch seems to me to be based on a less than considered view view of human psychology.

Second, if you beieve that the existence of Islam will die in two generations if stripped of its "legal duty" to kill apostates and you choose act on this believe, then that action, by definition, is intended to commit the crime of genocide and can't be construed in any other way.

Unless, of course, you're just a babbling provocateur with a tendency to flaunt your streak of exhibitionism in a public place, thereby gaining whatever perverse pleasures you seek at the expense of a minority group.

A. M. Eckstein - 2/19/2008

Despite his name, Schwartz is a Muslim convert:


1. "Britons--some 3 percent of whom are Muslims--were disturbed by more than Archbishop Rowan Williams' naivete. Many Muslim immigrants came to the West to *escape* the excesses of Islamic ideology in countries like Pakistan. Imposition of sharia could deny these immigrants' children opportunities to become successful in British society or elsewhere in the West.

2. "Sharia fanatics call for the public enforcement of religious decrees. Obligatory sharia for Muslims, enforced by the British state, is the ultimate threat implicit in Archbishop Williams's call for "accomodation."

3. "The Islamists' call for introduction of Islamic religious law in the West is an innovation--not heard in Europe or the U.S. before the radicalization of Muslims at the end of the 1970s. This is because it is actually a VIOLATION of traditional sharia, which commands that Muslims living in non-Muslim lands obey the law and respect the customs of the host countries. This requirement is spelled out, for instance, in the sharia vaolume A Code of Practice for Muslims in the West (1999), which quotes the Iraqi Shia ayatollah Ali Sistani pronouncing that Muslims in non-Muslim nations must commit themselves "to abide by the laws of that country." If they cannot do this, they should return to Muslim territory."

4. "Family law is the most controversial aspects of sharia, because radical Muslim concepts of modesty, and traditional regulation of marriage and divorce, violate Western canons on women's equality. Many Muslim clerics in Western Europe acquiesce in, and offer mendacious legal interpretations to SUPPORT, such offenses as wife-beating, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor killings, forced marriage, and forced divorce."

5. "Archbishop Williams has failed to see that demands for sharia int he West have little to do with increased respect for Islam and everyhting to do with the contuing radicalization of Muslims [by extremists]."

R.R. Hamilton - 2/19/2008

Mr. Friedman,

While I appreciate the effort, you needn’t try to defend me before Ms. Totalitarian. Between her ears is a universe where opposing a Muslim’s claim to have a right to kill a person over a matter of personal conscience can be called “genocidal”. In fact, while you ask Ms. T to be “fair” to me, I must say that if I ever thought she, with her thoroughly inverted view of the world, could be fair to me – not to mention most other people in the world – then it would destroy my confidence in my ability as a judge of character.

N. Friedman - 2/19/2008

Ms. Gee,

I note that fair to all means to all. And that means that all also give some things up. That would include you, me and Mr. Hamilton, etc., etc.

N. Friedman - 2/19/2008

Mr. Hamilton,

I am a lawyer but do not practice in a field related to family law.

However, I do know that religious divorces occur in the US, most particularly in New York state. And, as with all forms of arbitration, a court has the ultimate final say, most particularly where there is a fundamental dispute between religious and secular law. See the following, as an example of an arbitration/pre-nuptual agreement. And note that on page 4 of the document, the following is stated: "They must, however, understand that secular courts generally retain final jurisdiction over all matters relating to child custody and visitation." That, to note, is true for anything else in any arbitration agreement. And, note a similar point in this article:

13. One area where courts exercise a very strict standard for review of beit din decisions is in the area of child custody. However, not every case involves child custody determinations. Additionally, many divorcing couples do submit to beit din for custody issues as well, based on their readiness to comply with the decision of the beit din. In fact, the reality is that, provided that a beit din demonstrates that its decision is based on the “best interests of the children,” courts are likely to enforce a decision of the beit din even in child custody matters. The Beth Din of America has decided a number of cases involving child custody issues and regularly employs child therapists and professional experts to assist in the Beth Din’s determination. No child custody matter resolved by the Beth Din of America has been overturned in secular court.

Now, vis a vis the treatment of polygamy by Mormons under US law, I suggest you read some of the decisions of the Supreme Court on the issue. First, there has been an evolution in the manner by which the Supreme Court handles "free exercise" cases. At one time, the concern was that there would not be new elements added into criminal matters so that the same offense might be enforced against one party but not another, depending on the accused person's religious beliefs. See e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 US 145 (1878) (and, to note, the case deals specifically with polygamy as practiced by Mormons). The case also makes clear the view that polygamy is not consistent with democracy.

The evolution of law on the topic has altered legal theory but not all that much on the outcome or view taken where religious practice and important laws come into conflict. Criminal laws (e.g. poison snake charming) have generally been enforced. Even regulatory laws have often, but not always, been enforced. The court has generally been willing to find a compelling state interest for enforcing criminal laws or an important non-criminal regulation.

I am rather doubtful that polygamy would cease being considered a practice that undermines democracy. And, polygamists are still prosecuted under criminal laws in the US.

Sally Gee - 2/19/2008

Mr Freidman, I suppose it all depends on the level of inclusivity of the term "all" in the phrase "the right to practice religion in a manner fair to all involved". I, for one, would be loathe to include the unblinkingly unhinged and genocidal anti-Muslim Mr Hamilton as one of the "all involved" the rest of us are expected to be fair to.

Sally Gee - 2/19/2008

But, Mr Hamilton, by stating your assumption so clearly: "Of course, without the threat of death for apostasy, who would remain a Muslim? I doubt that Islam, stripped of its "legal duty" to kill apostates, would survive more than two generations", your purpose can only be one of cultural genocide. What can be more clear than that?

R.R. Hamilton - 2/19/2008

Mr. Friedman,

I thought you said, "The problem for Europe is to create secular societies." Admittedly your comment then went on to talk more about secular GOVERNMENTS than secular SOCIETIES.

Btw, are you a lawyer? Judging by the rest of your comment which talks about divorce, etc., I think you are not.

Anyway, my point is that while there is nothing wrong with secular government when restrained to the narrow fields enumerated in the Constitution (and as it was in America until about 1933), secular government can secularize society when it spreads to areas outside of the natural governmental sphere, such as education, welfare, healthcare, etc. No one would be asking the government to "take moral stands" if the government had not invaded the provinces of morality which in the past -- say in the time of Thomas Jefferson -- had been reserved for religious and other private concerns.

N. Friedman - 2/19/2008

Mr. Hamilton,

I think you misread my point. I am not concerned here one way or the other about the secularization of society. I am concerned with a government policy called secularism. Such is the policy of the US government, as embodied in the First Amendment's twin clauses that relate to religion.

The US government is probably the world's most secular government. The people of the United States are among the, if not the, least secular among Western countries.

Please do not tell me about Huckabee or about problems around the political edges of society or that large numbers of Americans want the government to take moral stands or this or that based on religious principles. The First Amendment remains and, so far as I know, is still the law of the land.

art eckstein - 2/19/2008

Here is what I see to be the real issue concerning Islamism in Britain and elsewhere in the West:

Islamist extremism represents a profound threat to the long-reigning western post-Enlightenment convention on allowing freedom of speech. That convention is based on the idea that you can say what you want about anything, and the response of those who disagree with you must have its limits. But among extremist Muslims, no criticism of Islam is permitted, on pain of violence. This constititues a dramatic threat to fundamental post-Enlightenment principles, and the more extremist Muslims there are in any Western society, the bigger that threat becomes. This is because they will respond to some exercises in freedom of speech with violence. Can anyone deny this? Ask Theo van Gogh, for instance. And in Denmark, the re-publication of the Mohammed Cartoons, done in sympathy for DEATH-threats against the cartoonist (as required by Sharia regarding “insults to Islam”) has now led to six nights of violent rioting by extremist Muslims; much property damage; almost 100 people arrested.

The danger is that given the high costs to society of speaking out one’s opinions about Islam under these conditions of a threatened response with violence, as well as the personal danger increasingly overtly involved, with death-threats common to any critics, freedom of speech on this subject will be, in one way or another, curtailed.

This is because the price in social dislocation in allowing freedom of speech about Islam can become too high for the government to countenance, and the price in personal danger too dangerous to bear. Is this scenario merely “alarmist”? Ask not only Theo van Gogh, but Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or the French philosopher Robert Redeker. Who among us is willing to engage in legitimate criticism of Islam, or Islamism, when faced with personal danger in response? And how does the government exercise its primary duty to maintain social order in such circumstances?

In Denmark, the government responded fairly strongly to the outrageous riots caused by the exercise of freedom of speech and a symbolic demonstration in support of a journalist threatened with DEATH by Islamists. But in Canada, the Canadian government Human Rights Commission is seeking to repress all public criticism of Islam, on "multicultural" grounds as well as for the common good of maintaining social peace. THIS is the threat--that governments in the end will seek to appease extremist Muslims who are willing to use violence to prevent any criticism of Islam. Is this "alarmist"? If you want to be really alarmed, I urge all readers to go to Youtube and look up "Ezra Levant before the CHRC" and watch the video! Archbishop Rowan is evidently part of the same appeasement mentality.

The issue we face is that Islamic extremists seek to impose the same social privileged position for Islam--a position immune from public criticism--in the West that this religion enjoys by government force in countries with a Muslim heritage and Muslim majoritie. The same is true with the campaign for Sharia law.

This isn't "multiculturalism". This is an assertion that Islam and its practices, as the True Religion, rightlfully demands a privileged place in every society, including societies where Muslims are immigrants. This program of the Islamists especially emphasizes establishing the immunity of Islam from criticism, and especially including immunity from criticism by non-believers. It also includes strong efforts to enforce Sharia law despite the human rights rules that exist in the West. All of this is an assertion of Islamic superiority and Islamicist imperialism. It is not multiculturalism. This effort by the Islamists is all too natural, given their ideological beliefs. The question is whether the West has the backbone to resist.

R.R. Hamilton - 2/19/2008

Change "opposition" in the first sentence to "support".

R.R. Hamilton - 2/18/2008

Dear Mr. Friedman,

A full discussion of this point -- the ability of secular societies (which secular governments create when they spread too far into non-governmental affairs such as education, etc.) to defend themselves against religious fanatics -- is beyond the scope of a mere comment. However, I think this following comment and quote, which I borrowed from another commenter at another site, addresses the matter succinctly. I do not think the quote is the final word, but it is certainly fodder for further thought. And without further ado, the comment and quote:

The best analysis of the European liberal response to global jihad is as follows:

Distinguished Belgian journalist Paul Belien, one of Europe’s most insightful commentators, put it this way:

“In Europe a secularized post-Christian culture is facing a Muslim one. The secularized culture is hedonist and values only its present life, because it does not believe in an afterlife. This is why it will surrender when threatened with death because life is the only thing it has to lose. This is why it will accept submission without fighting for its freedom. Nobody fights for the flag of hedonism, not even the hedonists themselves.”

R.R. Hamilton - 2/18/2008

Ms. Gee,

Of my opposition to Muslims being free to choose to abandon Islam without fear of being killed, you ask, "Isn't this the perfect expression of a hate crime which even the crazed Nazi Zionists, Messrs Friedman and Eckstein, will be hard pressed to match?"

Well, gee, and here I thought it was the "perfect expression" of the true meaning of the words used by the totalitarian fraud who pretended to care about "the effective exercise of liberty by Muslims" on 2/16/2008 at 5:22 AM

Let me quote that in full:

"Yes, but this 'larger pattern' is usually called the exercise of liberty within a democratic society, or is Mr Pipes uncomfortable with the idea that this 'will change the very nature of Western life.' Or perhaps Mr Pipes' notion of 'Western life' excludes the effective exercise of liberty by Muslims and other minorities which do not take his fancy?" -- Thus sayeth Sally Gee

Clearly, it is YOU, Ms. Gee who would exclude "the effective exercise of liberty by Muslims" -- and what liberty is MORE effective, MORE fundamental to democracy than the liberty to be free from threats death for changing one's religion?

I know you won't answer that question. You may concoct some response, but never one that directly answers that question. But that's fine; I'm used to totalitarians at HNN.

art eckstein - 2/18/2008

By mistake, N.F.!

:)

Art

N. Friedman - 2/18/2008

Art,

Why is the name NF added to this comment header?

art eckstein - 2/18/2008

Unfortunately that's how it looks, N.F. Illuminating in its own depressing way.

N. Friedman - 2/18/2008

Professor,

Omar, in fact, does see Islam and Islamism as one and the same. He, unfortunately, has a lot of company.

N. Friedman - 2/18/2008

Mr. Hamilton,

You may be correct that pushing for secular government could prove to be pipe dream. I do not deny that. However, it is a better idea than that of the Bishop of Canterbury because there, at least, might be a constitutional basis to stand up a protect society from assault on grounds which are universal. But again, I am aware that this is a very difficult situation and that the most likely possibility is a bad outcome.

art eckstein - 2/18/2008

Omar has no answer to my response.

What a surprise.

N. Friedman - 2/18/2008

Ms. Gee,

My comment was hardly anti-Muslim. It was in favor of secular government. And, my contention is that such best preserves the right to practice religion in a manner fair to all involved.

omar ibrahim baker - 2/18/2008

Lame, very lame indeed!

Sally Gee - 2/18/2008

So to sum up your position Mr Hamilton, "No Muslim who does not condemn the Islamic injunction to kill apostates can ask for my respect" and "Of course, without the threat of death for apostasy, who would remain a Muslim? I doubt that Islam, stripped of its "legal duty" to kill apostates, would survive more than two generations."

Isn't this the perfect expression of a hate crime which even the crazed Nazi Zionists, Messrs Friedman and Eckstein, will be hard pressed to match?

Sally Gee - 2/18/2008

Sorry, those Zionist gremlins seem t have infiltrated my system again. Here's the corrected version:

"Well, you might have mentioned my undoubted powers of observation, my obvious wisdom and humanity, and my ability t spot bullshit at a thousand miles, Mr Eckstein, my little halfwitted, Zionist Nazi Muslim baiter."

Sally Gee - 2/18/2008

Well, you might have mentioned my undoubted powers of observation, my obvious wisdom and humanity, and my ability ti sot bullshit at a thousand miles, Mr Eckstein, my halfwitted little Muslim baiter.

R.R. Hamilton - 2/18/2008

No Muslim who does not condemn the Islamic injunction to kill apostates can ask for my respect -- not for his religion, nor for any other of his beliefs. Muslims or anyone who claims the right (or in the Muslim case, the DUTY) to kill apostates should be grounds for refusing admittance to U.S. universities on security grounds alone -- not to mention for the violence such a does to the fundamental American value of freedom of religion enshrined (yes, Mr. Baker, ENSHRINED) in the First Amendment.

Of course, without the threat of death for apostasy, who would remain a Muslim? I doubt that Islam, stripped of its "legal duty" to kill apostates, would survive more than two generations.

Mr. Eckstein's criticism is actually extraordinary mild. Mr. Friedman's dream that "secular government" can stop Islamic fundamentalism is, to say the least, unsupported by history.

A. M. Eckstein - 2/18/2008

Ms. Gee writes of "the crimes committed in the name of Judaism". What more needs to be said about her?

A. M. Eckstein - 2/18/2008

The only thing that "muddles the issue" is the facts.

1. I repeatedly referred to "Muslim extremists," not to Muslims in general; and:

2. As I demonstrated, many Muslims in Britain do not want Sharia enforced in Britain, so referring to Sharia in my posting is not the same as referring to all of Islam and every Muslim--UNLESS Omar DOES indeed wish to equate Sharia-fanatics with all of Islam and every Muslim, which I do not, and which would be interesting on his part.

A. M. Eckstein - 2/18/2008

The only thing that "muddles the issue" is the facts.
1. I repeatedly referred to "Muslim extremists," not to Muslims in general; and:
2. As I demonstrated, many Muslims in Britain do not want Sharia enforced in Britain, so referring to Sharia in my posting is not the same as referring to all of Islam and every Muslim--UNLESS Omar DOES indeed wish to equate Sharia-fanatics with all of Islam and every Muslim, which I do not, and which would be interesting on his part.

omar ibrahim baker - 2/18/2008

Prof
DID you or did you NOT write the following re my querries/remaks:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
"Professor
Omar: Is it Moslem extremists you have in mind as in:

" I repeatedly said in the posting above that I was discussing Islamic extremists--"
(Personal attacks-- vs. hard facts (#119151)
by art eckstein on February 18, 2008 at 12:04 AM)

Omar:Or is it Sharia law as in:

"Sharia law enthrones among other practices polygamy, the beating of wives,..."
(Re: Alarmists are everywhere!! (#119104)
by art eckstein on February 16, 2008 at 5:40 PM)

Another failed attempt to weasel out from your own words plus a transparent “fabrication”!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Do NOT try to muddle the issue.
Face it !

Sally Gee - 2/18/2008

Hmmm... Messrs Friedman and Eckstein seem to be locked in an ongoing competition to see which one of them can offer the silliest commentary on Islam, Muslims and multiculturalism, and now they seek to apply their hysterical nonsense to the very sensible, pragmatic and limited suggestions made by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Wouldn't it be a better use of their time - and ours - if they were to set an example to those they criticise and turn their attention to propogandising against the crimes committed in the name of Judaism against the people of Gaza?

art eckstein - 2/18/2008

1. Readers, regarding Omar's accusation that I do not differentiate between extremist Muslims and Islam, here is what I actually wrote in # 119104, and which Omar "forgets" to mention.

(a). As for the profound nature of the threat, post-Enlightenment convention on allowing freedom of speech is based on the idea that you can say what you want and the response of those who disagree with you must have its limits. But among extremist Muslims [NOTE: EXTREMIST MUSLIMS], no criticism of Islam is permitted, on pain of violence.

(b) "This constititues a dramatic threat to post-Enlightenment principles, and the more extremist Muslims {NOTE} there are in any Western society, the bigger the threat, because they will respond to some exercises in freedom of speech with violence.

(c) "in Denmark, the re-publication of the Mohammed Cartoons, done in sympathy for DEATH-threats against the cartoonist (as required by Sharia regarding “insults to Islam”) has now led to six nights of violent rioting by extremist Muslims [NOTE]; much property damage; almost 100 people arrested.

2. As for my reference to Sharia as proving I was talking about Islam in general, perhaps Omar does not understand that NOT all Muslims in Britain accept that Sharia law should be enforced there, far from it. Thus my pointing out what Sharia law enthrones is, again, not an attack on all Muslims, only on the extremists. As one Muslim said during the Archbishop Rowan controversy, "IF one desires to live under Sharia, one can leave Britain and go to one of the countries where Sharia rules" Extremist Muslims, however, *do* believe that Sharia law should be enforced in Britain. Now, perhaps Omar thinks that all Muslims believe Sharia law SHOULD be enforced everywhere, including in Britain, and so took my comments on the position of the extremists to be an attack on Islam itself. But previously he has denied vociferously that all Muslims DO believe this vastly imperialist ideology.

3. The fundamental principle of British (and American) law is: equality before the law. What extremist Muslims want in Britain (and increasingly in Canada, Australia, France, the U.S. and, e.g., Denmark) is a special *privileged* status for Islam--including the right to polygyny (otherwise illegal), the right to beat their wives (otherwise illegal), and the right of Muslims to be free of any criticism of their beliefs. In Canada they are increasingly able to enforce the latter through the government (!!).

Muslim extremist hostility to the fundamental Enlightenment principle of equality before the law is one reason among many, though perhaps the subtlest reason, why such people constitute a profound danger to the cultures of the Western countries to which they have migrated.

4. The fact is that Omar surely did see all my references to Muslim extremism. Desperate to prove something on me when he has nothing, he is arguing above desperately against the hard facts. This is not the first--or the fiftieth--time he has done this, to me and to several others.

This intellectually unacceptable behavior on Omar's part is why several people on this blog have actually suggested that Omar is an agent of Israeli Intelligence.

omar ibrahim baker - 2/18/2008

Professor
Is it Moslem extremists you have in mind as in:

" I repeatedly said in the posting above that I was discussing Islamic extremists--"
(Personal attacks-- vs. hard facts (#119151)
by art eckstein on February 18, 2008 at 12:04 AM)

Or is it

Sharia law as in:
"Sharia law enthrones among other practices polygamy, the beating of wives,..."
(Re: Alarmists are everywhere!! (#119104)
by art eckstein on February 16, 2008 at 5:40 PM)

Another failed attempt to weasel out from your own words plus a transparent “fabrication”!

art eckstein - 2/18/2008

1. I repeatedly said in the posting above that I was discussing Islamic extremists--not Islam in general. If Omar wants now to equate all of Islam with the positions of Islamic extremists (which I was careful not to do), and say I was therefore attacking Islam, that is interesting.

2. Islam allows polygyny and always has--a man may have up to four wives. Note that polyandry, on the other hand (a woman having multiple men) is NOT allowed. "Frowningly allowed" is Omar's propaganda. The fact is that it has always been allowed. The Prophet himself was supposedly the perfect man, and the model for all Muslims, and he had multiple wives (at least 11 between the time he was 49 and his death at age 63).

3. Polygyny is so important among certain of the extremist element of the Muslim population in Britain that the British government has now decided that men with multiple wives can receive WELFARE benefits--i.e., at tax-payer expense--for each wife. This is the conclusion after a year-long review by the government.

Currently, a successful welfare claimant with one spouse is paid the equivalent of $183 a week, while each additional spouse receives a payment of approximately $67.

This means: A Muslim man with the maximum of four spouses permitted under Islamic law could receive £10,000 a year in income support alone at tax-payers' expense.

The new rules state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate (£92.80). The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65." The decision comes after a year of review and applies if the multiple marriages occurred out of the country in jurisdictions where such arrangements are legal.

This remains the government practice even though polygamy is illegal in Britain for everyone under current British law.

4. And then there's this, from Canada:

Canadian lawmakers are "perturbed" to find out that husbands can claim welfare benefits for multiple wives in Ontario. Madeleine Meilleur, Minister of Community and Social Services, responded to a report from the Canadian Society of Muslims that estimated that "several hundred" men in the Greater Toronto Area are in polygamous marriages and are receiving welfare payments for each of their multiple wives. Bigamy remains illegal in Canada and the rules officially bar applicants for welfare from claiming for more than one spouse.

Meilleur is quoted by the Ottawa Citizen February 9, saying, "Not knowing the law is not an excuse. They should know that in Canada there is no polygamy and that only one wife is covered."


5. Omar's instinctive response to uncomfortable information is to attack the messenger. It's a style of argument that is prevalent in the Middle East, and rhetorically effective within that setting.

But here in the West, personal attacks on me cannot stand before the FACTS, Omar.

omar ibrahim baker - 2/17/2008

It takes a truly sick mind and an endless capacity for blind hatred to collate aspects of cultural -religious diversity such as polygamy and slavery.
Eckstein's prologue to his post, his quotation from Hitchens, not only demonstrates that but confirms his endemic affliction with that despite his lukewarm later attempt to weasel from his own words.

Dialogue is decidedly futile when confronted by such an affliction as Ecksteins' except that it is another one of his endless attempts to demonize and denigrate Islam that may affect the unbiased and nonblind, and the less knowledgeable, onlooker.

Not that he, Eckstein, knows what he is talking about!
Among his glaring ignorance are categorical statements such as :
"Sharia law enthrones among other practices polygamy, the beating of wives, ....."
The Webster dictionary defines
“enthrone” as:
“en•throne
Pronunciation:
\in-ˈthrōn, en-\
Function:
transitive verb
Date:
circa 1593
1 a: to seat in a place associated with a position of authority or influence b: to seat ceremonially on a throne
2: to assign supreme virtue or value to : EXALT “
.
Patently Professor (???) Eckstein had (2) in mind when he chose that word; ie 2:“to assign supreme virtue or value to : EXALT.

Whereas in truth and fact, both of which seem to mean absolutely nothing to this Professor, “polygamy “ and “ the beating of wives” are NOT
“enthroned” in any sense in the Sharia but frowningly “allowed” under strict conditions”
What we have here is a Professor (????) who presumes to know something about Islam BUT can NOT tell the difference between
“enthrone” and “allow” neither in English nor in Sharia!

That is NOT only SAD but dangerous: the barefaced distortion and conscious misinformation by a Professor!
The worst thing about this phenomenon is that it is TYPICAL and is Eckstein’s guiding principle in every thing he writes on the subject.

So much for reliability, the truthfulness and the objective search for knowledge by a Professor of innocent knowledge seeking students!
(The rest of his post is too worthless to comment upon.)

omar ibrahim baker - 2/17/2008

Despite Pipes' tireless efforts to aggravate Moslem/Christian relations at each and every real, or imagined, opportunity and to launch and nurture new areas of conflict where none exists, all of which is only too evident in the prologue to his post, despite that he has touched here on an important, sensitive and timely issue.

The issue, in essence, is:cultural ,
including religious, diversity and the diverse allowances ( =accepted modes of behaviour )of and within heterogeneous minority communities versus the civic dictates of the society in which they all live which, ultimately, reflects the cultural "dictates" of the numerical majority of that community.

Here a clear distinction should be made between "personal ” allowances, specific to a certain group and affecting that group only such as marriage, and "common"(=national, state wide) which affect all , such as taxation .

The issue of personal-cultural allowance , used here in the sense that they affect only those that believe in them and voluntarily adhere to and sustain them, end up usually by posing the question of personal rights and personal liberty .

For example, should a couple of a husband and a wife who believe in and approve of polygamy which happens to be part of their common tradition, forgo that license to humour a society which does not share their belief?

If they do, in obedience to the law of the land, do they or do they not thus forgo their "personal freedom" to manage their family the way they see best?
Conversely is NOT the state that imposes on all a one and only cultural-personal standard, re e.g. marriage, forfeiting the personal liberty of that couple?

(Did NOT the USA coerce the Mormons to forfeit part of their cultural heritage, and personal liberty, when the admission of Utah to the USA was conditional on foregoing their religious license for polygamy?)

Western states have shown resilience re the personal-cultural dictates of the several diverse groups that share the country; e.g. Quakers were exempted from participating in
"fighting" units.
I see no harm should Moslems, and Mormons for that matter, be allowed polygamy in Western states as long as the marital setup is acceptable to both parties of the marriage.

Several Arab countries, including Egypt and Jordan, have solved this problem in a manner that has been deemed satisfactory to the different "cultural=religious" communities that share both counties; i.e. the Moslem and Christian.
The solution involved the establishment of "religious courts" for both. In these courts "personal issues", e.g. marriage, divorce, polygamy, inheritance etc are adjudicated by these courts according to the dictates of their respective religions and their verdicts are enforced by the state.

(An improvement on the whole system would entail establishing “ civil courts” to adjudicate according to a common “civil=personal freedoms” code as long as the couple in question has the free choice between their own religious and the common civil code and court. An issue that is very much alive in Lebanon)

art eckstein - 2/16/2008

I am not saying above that Muslim men are *literally* slaveholders (of their women); I am drawing a comparison between the present situation in Britain and a situation of oppression that existed in the late 18th century and that led to Lord Mansfield's landmark ruling of 1772, and the principle it enshrines.

art eckstein - 2/16/2008

Christopher Hitchens writes:

"Picture the life of a young Urdu-speaking woman brought to Yorkshire from Pakistan to marry a man—quite possibly a close cousin—whom she has never met. He takes her dowry, beats her, and abuses the children he forces her to bear. She is not allowed to leave the house unless in the company of a male relative and unless she is submissively covered from head to toe. Suppose that she is able to contact one of the few support groups that now exist for the many women in Britain who share her plight. What she ought to be able to say is, “I need the police, and I need the law to be enforced.” But what she will often be told is, “Your problem is better handled within the community.” Under Rowan’s ’multicultural’ principles, this will happen all the more often. And those words, almost a death sentence, have now been endorsed and underwritten—and even advocated—by the country’s official spiritual authority."

Sharia law enthrones among other practices polygamy, the beating of wives, the impossibility of proving rape, and the value of the testimony of a woman in court as being half the value of the testimony of a man. The great jurist Lord Mansfield. Chief Justice of England, ruled in 1772 that, wherever someone might have been born, and whatever he had been through, he could not be subject to slavery once he had set foot on English soil. Simple enough a principle for you? This is the principle, almost 250 years old, that Archbishop Rowan now violates. Or do Ms. Gee and others object to that principle on grounds of “multiculturalism” and hence the need to be understanding of the traditions and practices of slaveholders who come to Britain?

As for the profound nature of the threat, post-Enlightenment convention on allowing freedom of speech is based on the idea that you can say what you want and the response of those who disagree with you must have its limits. But among extremist Muslims, no criticism of Islam is permitted, on pain of violence. This constititues a dramatic threat to post-Enlightenment principles, and the more extremist Muslims there are in any Western society, the bigger the threat, because they will respond to some exercises in freedom of speech with violence. Can anyone deny this? Ask Theo van Gogh, for instance. in Denmark, the re-publication of the Mohammed Cartoons, done in sympathy for DEATH-threats against the cartoonist (as required by Sharia regarding “insults to Islam”) has now led to six nights of violent rioting by extremist Muslims; much property damage; almost 100 people arrested.

The danger is that given the high costs to society of speaking out one’s opinions about Islam under these conditions, as well as the personal danger increasingly overtly involved, freedom of speech on this subject will be, in one way or another, curtailed. The price in social dislocation can become too high for the government to countenance, the price in personal danger too dangerous. Is this scenario merely “alarmist”? In Canada, the Canadian government Human Rights Commission is seeking to repress all public criticism of Islam, on "multicultural" grounds and for the common good. Archbishop Rowan is evidently part of the same appeasement mentality.

N. Friedman - 2/16/2008

Ms. Gee,

What does any of this have to do with "effective exercise of liberty by Muslims"?

The problem for Europe is to create secular societies. The approach taken by the Bishop of Canterbury, by contrast, is to maintain privileges for the Church of England - the country's established religion - by appeasing Muslims, given their growing numbers, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of Britain's population, with the non-Muslim population of the country both declining in absolute terms and relative to the country's Christian population.

By comparison - to see how wrongheaded this all is -, the United States has a secular constitution which, comparatively speaking, more or less separates church and state, thus allowing for far freer expression of religious sentiments and thus not causing the sort of hostility between religions that exists now in Europe.

Hence, US law allows for Muslims to divorce according to their laws but, at the same time, thereafter requires a Court to approve the divorce according to secular family law that pervades in Court. The place where there would be an issue between Muslim or any other religious custom and courts would be where the religious law conflicts with what would be seen as a compelling state interest.

That does not happen all that often with a divorce - except to the extent that religious practice may make it difficult for a religious woman to obtain a religious divorce, thus giving the man some veto power over whether a divorce is ever legally official. This problem, however, is not unique to Muslims since, in fact, orthodox Jews have very similar issues.

If we go by the experience of Mormons and their confrontations with the US legal system, the real problem for Muslims would relate mostly to polygamy - to the extent that some small number of Muslims may want to have more than one wife. The Supreme Court has indicated rather clearly that polygamy is antidemocratic, such that it can be criminalized notwithstanding the right to freely practice a religion. So, the court system is not likely to bend to allow Muslims to practice polygamy, since there would be a compelling state interest for criminalizing that practice.

That notwithstanding, the American approach allows people of all religions to feel comfortable practicing their religions. The European approach, at least thus far, seems to antagonize people. This is true not only in Britain but all over Europe, where Muslim opinion polls suggest large numbers of very angry people.

Given the large numbers of Muslims in Europe and their growing numbers, both absolute and relative to the non-Muslim population, my bet is that the Archbishop's approach will not accomplish a reconciliation between the religions that cohabit Britain. Such will, instead, be seen by Muslims and non-Muslims alike as advancing divisions between groups, separate laws for different peoples, just as occurred in the Ottoman Empire. And, such approach likely advances the disaster towards which Europe, including Great Britain, is heading, with societies becoming ever more deeply divided by religion.

What European countries should be doing is working toward the creation of secular constitutions. That means the governments should make no laws establishing a religion or religion itself and make no law preventing the free exercise of religion (apart from exercise which comes into conflict with a compelling secular state interest). That allows for the freest exercise of religion and the least hostility among religions.

Sally Gee - 2/16/2008

"A Dutch justice minister announced that "if two-thirds of the Dutch population should want to introduce the Shari‘a tomorrow, then the possibility should exist." A German judge referred to the Koran in a routine divorce case. A parallel Somali gar courts system already exists in Britain.

"These developments suggest that British appeasement concerning the war on terror, the nature of the family, and the rule of law are part of a larger pattern. Even more than the security threat posed by Islamist violence, these trends are challenging and perhaps will change the very nature of Western life."

Yes, but this "larger pattern" is usually called the exercise of liberty within a democratic society, or is Mr Pipes uncomfortable with the idea that this "will change the very nature of Western life." Or perhaps Mr Pipes' notion of "Western life" excludes the effective exercise of liberty by Muslims and other minorities which do not take his fancy?

Lorraine Paul - 2/16/2008

I live in a multi-cultural society. If Daniel Pipes had ever done so he would not be so quick to foment trouble by taking words out of context!!

His lack of understanding regarding these matters merely shows how little notice should be taken of him by serious minded people.