Political Blog

The current riots over Danish cartoons portraying Mohammed have been a missed opportunity by most parties involved. The Muslims could have protested peacefully, or ignored them, proving that the image of Muslims as terrorists is wrong. The American media has also missed an opportunity to both show solidarity with the European press, who published the cartoons, and prove to the Islamists that threats and violence will not work.
Make no mistake; the riots are a planned attack on our freedom of speech from people that do not have the same values as we do. The cartoons were originally published in September by a small Danish right-wing newspaper. Imams in Denmark and a group calling themselves the Brotherhood of Islam took the newspapers, went to Islamic countries and told the leaders, erroneously, that they were being published all over Europe. These countries then planned the riots. As proof I point to the fact that they had so many Danish flags to burn. I could understand if they had American flags on call to burn every time the Great Satan did something to anger so-called moderate Muslims. But Danish flags in abundance?
Not only that, but Denmark is soon to be on the U.N. Security Council. With Iran seeking nuclear weapons and trying to discredit the U.N., this is a perfect opportunity to portray the U.N. as an anti-Muslim organization. This attempt points to a larger scale operation than the ‘spontaneous’ riots that we were originally led to believe.
The rioters have signs claiming, among others that call for the death of the cartoonists and the beheading of people who speak ill of Islam, that pictures of Mohammed are not allowed according to Shar’ia (Islamic law). Not only is that a lie, there are portrayals of Mohammed that date to the medieval period in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, and Persian Iran, but we are not Muslims therefore we do not need to bend to their rules. Non-Catholics do not need to give up something for Lent or meat on Fridays. Nor do Catholics expect anyone to.
This has been a planned terrorist response by an international fascist movement. Unfortunately our mainstream media has decided to bow to threats of violence, citing ‘cultural sensitivity’. These self-styled proponents for free-speech, whenever Christianity is involved, are now kowtowing to terrorism.
During the Catholic priest pedophilia scandal the media wrote scathing editorials about the Catholic Church. When criticized they cited their right to free-speech. Did Catholics go out into the streets and burn consulates? Did Christians take to the streets calling for the death of op-ed columnists and cartoonists that portrayed priests and the Church as a whole in a negative light?
Why is the mainstream media, arguably our best defender of free-speech, now refusing to do just that? This is a missed opportunity by our press to show exactly where their loyalties lie. I do not buy the excuse that it would have ‘added fuel to the controversy’ when the very same people printed stories about Qur’an defacement (Newsweek) and the newly released Abu Graib pictures (CNN). Apparently freedom of speech is only applicable to people that will not kill you for disagreeing.
Another point that these riots have brought to light is that America is not the sole target of Islamic fundamentalism. For too long Europe has bought the myth that only the imperialist Americans and Zionist Israel were the sole foes of a Caliphate. Europeans were able to go to sleep sure that Islamists would overlook them. This has been proven horribly wrong. Not only is Europe in this war as well, but they have more concerns than us due to their larger population of Muslims.
The major question remains: Why did Muslims choose to respond to cartoons that portrayed their beliefs as a violent religion with violence? Simply put, violence worked. Our media chose not to run these stories and hence they chose to give in to terrorism. In essence, sacrificing our freedoms of speech and press for ‘peace for our time’

For the past two decades, America’s dependence on foreign oil has been seen as an increasing threat to its economic, political, and military wellbeing. Indeed, after the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001 that viewpoint gained new credibility. For the moment, the greatest natural resource on Earth is largely controlled by governments unfriendly to the United States. And, in the few cases where those governments are friendly with the US, we are simply incompatible with one another in terms of our views on freedom and democracy. Even traditionally friendly nations, such as Venezuela, seem eager for America to fail and wither into a second-rate power. There is little doubt that the United States would be well served to sever itself from foreign oil and focus its attention on important issues without having to be held hostage by oil-rich tyrants and dictators. President Bush, in his State of the Union Address, made it clear that America was in need of new sources of energy.

Long before his State of the Union Address this past January, The President hinted at another long-term US strategy, perhaps without even realizing it. In early 2004, President Bush announced an ambitious plan to return American astronauts to the moon by 2020. In the wake of mounting casualties in Iraq, many Americans viewed this latest endeavor as unworthy of our attention. They argued that the US had more pressing needs to consider here on Earth and that this was merely a publicity stunt with no real value. But the moon is far more than a handsome rock that we stare at on clear winter nights. The moon may just be the most valuable piece of real-estate in the solar system. In fact, the moon may make or break the next global superpower on Earth.

Our nearest cosmic neighbor actually has a very special resource that is extremely rare on Earth. This little gem is not really a gem at all, but a potent little substance known as Helium-3 (He-3). Without getting too technical, He-3 is an isotope of helium with 1 neutron and 2 protons (as opposed to the 2 neutrons and 2 protons we are familiar with in our balloons). The really great thing about He-3 is that it could provide a much safer and more reliable source of nuclear energy. It is very powerful, it is non-polluting, and there is essentially no radioactive byproduct when using it as nuclear fuel.

We actually have some He-3 right here on Earth as a by-product of nuclear weapon maintenance. It is estimated that we can supply ourselves with about 15 kg of He-3 per year and that there is 29 kg in strategic reserves. But the Moon is packed with the stuff. The current estimate is that there are 1.1 million metric tons of He3 waiting to be exploited on the Moon. That amount of He-3, when used with Deuterium, would generate approximately 20,000 terawatt-years of thermal energy. Incredibly, that is about 10 times as much energy as we could produce from mining all of the fossil fuels on the planet - and it is much cleaner. 25 tons would power the entire United States for 1 year and that is about the amount we could pack into the cargo space of the space shuttle.

And if that isn’t enough to sell you, imagine the economic potential. Of all of the countries on Earth, the United States is the only one that has proven it can put men on the moon. If the US could get a jump start on this new resource, it could single handedly provide the entire world with all of its energy needs. The United States could go from energy consumer, to energy provider very quickly. The economic gain will drive exploration of the moon and encourage private industry in the US to take up the lucrative and difficult challenge of space commercialization.

While many people wondered how we could afford to be thinking about the Moon at a time like this, I ask, “How can we afford not to?”

Yes, I believe we should put a full economic boycott on all muslim nations.

In a previous article posted here on this blog there was a statement regarding the resolve to defend islam. There, it refered to blasphemy as an attack on islam. Ergo, the author believes it to be his duty to protect his religion. Methods of this protection are, following from his article, boycotting, ignoring, et cetera.
My point is, how different is boycotting, ignoring, et cetera from disrespecting? I exercise my beliefs by saying that “Muhammed suffered from epilepsy, and his revelations are thusly of ‘undivine’ nature”.
The author states that he respect atheists, yet with his wish to limit my freedom of expression, he assaults, he attacks with those words my love of freedom. My statement “Muhammed…nature” could be seen as a consequence to his intolerance (and that of the muslim world).
Merely because he professes islam to be reactionary (in contrast to peaceful, as some would dare claim) does not mean that these reactions do not in turn have other reactions, of which he is in part responsible (at least, if one were to feel one has the right to blame others for their actions).

It were people using islam to murder others that inspired those cartoons. Extremists using Muhammed were being displayed in those cartoons. The reaction of the western world, rather than placing boycotts on the muslim world was to finely point out critique in a responsible way. Responsible? Yes, because the method in which it was presented did not harm anyone.

These boycotts will harm people. They will harm the people in Denmark who are right now having a tough time. Likewise, boycotting the muslim world and letting victims of earthquakes and the likes without food, medicin and support would have direct casualties as a result. The western world chose for a method to vent their frustration about extremist islam by using cartoons, rather than boycotting, silencing, murdering, torching, lynching, or other methods that are seen as unhuman. The Western world recognises its global responsibility and is actively preventing escalation. It is in no means responsible for the violent, suicidal tendencies of the muslim world towards escalation. Tendencies (for they are in no case isolated incidents) that do not fit a peaceful religion.

Mahatmi Gandhi gave a method of manipulation. Civil disobedience. Islam, the religion of peace? Then call up those muslims of Syria and other nations where people are being oppressed, to inact a period of civil disobedience. No authority, history has proven, can force an entire nation to comply. If islam is a religion of peace, let alone supported by Allah, this should be within its power.

A famous western proverb, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” best describes here the choice the modern muslim faces. He can not be complacent, he can not be lazy. He can not say in 50 years, “I did not know.” He must stand up, now, and show the world that fundamentalist islam is not the path. He must actively scream out, in unison with all other muslims, against those oppresive regimes, and against war in the name of islam.

Until such interuption of complacency in the moderate muslim, doubt will remain about his true intent, and his true loyalty and devotion towards freedom (both in the western world, and abroad.

Jerôme Serpenti

British revocation of our independence.

A newspaper in Denmark started an uproar in the Muslim world by publishing 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed(saw) a few weeks back which has triggered a huge backlash against anything made in Denmark. Before I go any further, I would like to state to my non-Muslim readers that to make an image of any of the prophets of Allah(swt) is considered blasphemous and a possible route to idolatry. One example I can easily cite is with the Christians, who have taken Prophet Jesus(as) and raised him to the the rank of Allah(swt) and the son of Allah(swt) [astaghfirulah].

One of the worst cartoons shows the Prophet(saw) with a turban in the shape of a bomb. Not only are these cartoons blasphemous, which most non-Muslims would not care about, but they are disrespectful as well. When it comes to religion I try very hard not to disrespect others religions or lack of religion, due to the simple fact that it may cause them emotional disstress or another form of discomfort. Besides these two reasons it is, as I stated before, disrespectful to attack someones beliefs in such a manner. If the people of Denmark don’t want to like the Prophet(saw) that is fine, but at least respect the beliefs of others. Denmark and Norway (second nation to publish the cartoons) are both now facing and feeling a worldwide Islamic boycott of any and all goods from the two nations. Denmark has now threatened Saudi Arabia with the threat of going to the WTO to try to get monetary compensation if the government has in anyway supported this boycott. I find it kind of funny, since when US Republicans Senators and Representatives called for a boycott of Frence products, no such move was made by France.

The Denmark paper that published the cartoons has finally come out and made an empty apology concerning the cartoons. I say empty because with the apology they stated that they don’t regret running the cartoons, and would not have made a different choice if they could take the publishing back. Weak. Allah willing the Musilms will not stop their boycott, but only increase it. Speaking of increasing it, the Frence and the Germans have now made the move to re-publish the cartoons in their papers. Therefore the Muslims of the world have a duty to further boycott any and all products from these two nations. I find it particularlly interesting that France was stupid enough to publish these cartoons as the Muslims in France are still boiling over poor treatment and services they recieve in their own nation. I would not be surprised to see riots re-erupt in France.

What this all comes down to is respect for others. I do not know of any decent Muslim that makes fun of other people’s belief systems such as Christianity, Judiasm, Wicca, Atheist, or the Hindu’s. If someone were to publish something about the Prophet Moses(as) it would immediatly and relentlessly be condemned as anti-semitism. So why is it ok to treat us with disrespect?

One thing that many people fail to realize, is that we as Muslims take our deen (faith) very, very seriously. So any of the non-Muslims can attempt to have an understanding of what I mean by this, if I were to ever hear a family member or friend slander the Prophet Muhammed(saw), I would likely never speak to them again in this life, and may even become so angry by the remark that I would not hold back on them. We love our faith and are proud to be Muslims and we will not hesitate to defend Islam.

Back to respect. I wish to give an example. A good friend of mine is a Wiccan. I have known him since before I was a Muslim and lost contact with him for about four years. Even though we are very opposite now, we still show each other the respect that is deserved. Even if he is opposed to aspects of Islam, he does not attack them out of respect for me, and I do not attack aspects of Wicca out of respect for him. This is how it should be, even if we didn’t know each other. We don’t as humans have to like everything about one another, but we do need to show a minimal level of respect.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1565688