Seneste opdatering: 14/12-13 kl. 0852
9 kommentarer - Tryk for at kommentere!

Af David Pryce Jones, forfatter til den berømmede The Closed Circle: An interpretation of the Arabs 2002. Foto Ibn Warraq i København, 9 marts 2008, interview. The 2008 Free Press Award for Ibn Warraq

Ibn Warraq 070

Islam, so say apologists, is a religion of peace. If so, how come that Muslims happen to be fighting Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and animists right across the world? The official body representing Muslim countries has recently put out a statement that the question reveals prejudice they like to call Islamophobia. For them, the price for freedom of speech is too high, and they recommend banning criticism of Islam altogether.

As it happens, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale are now standing trial for the murder and partial decapitation of a soldier in an open London street in front of passers-by. Of Nigerian origins but born British, they are both converts from Christianity to Islam. They plead not guilty and express no regret on the grounds that they are “soldiers of Allah,” engaged in war with enemies. On account of many passages in the Koran, they explain, “We must fight them as they fight us.”

The evidence that the faith conditions Muslims to fight for it is by now overwhelming. Yet every horror precipitates Western leaders to parrot that Islam is a religion of peace. This is a classic case of transference in the jargon of psychology, whereby the aggressor and the victim exchange roles and responsibility.

Apologetics of the kind are escapes from reality, a refusal to look at consequences, accepting blame that belongs to others in the hope that a quiet life will follow. A Muslim who calls himself Ibn Warraq is the only writer I have come across who addresses this crucial phenomenon.

Why I am Not a Muslim, an early book of his, openly condemns Islam as backward and bigoted, totalitarian and unreformable. He was the first to point out that Western apologists for Islam are simply not telling the truth. Sir Walter Scott’s Crusades and Other Fantasies, his new book, is a bit more specialized but still for the general reader.

He makes the point that Arabs conquered the Middle East and it was only after centuries of abuse and persecution that Christians tried to recapture it. Popes and presidents apologizing for the Crusades are out of order, absurd even. Walter Scott put in place the falsification reaching down to the present that Muslims are peace-loving gentlemen and Crusaders war-mongering thugs. Not even Ibn Warraq can explain the transference, but his description of its sources is enough to clear the air.

In that great anti-totalitarian novel 1984, the hero Winston tries to reassure himself that people don’t really surrender to deception and lies, thinking, “If there’s hope, it lies with the proles.” Today, if there’s hope it lies with finding many more Muslims like Ibn Warraq. Not a Religion of Peace By David Pryce-Jones

Fjordman og Ibn Warraq i Nationalmuseets kolonnade i Stormgade, 9 marts 2008. Så vidt jeg husker på vej mod Søren’s værtshus på Vandkunsten.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Donér engangsbeløb?Kan du forpligte dig til fast betaling?

Notify of

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

[…] på Hovedbiblioteket, Abu Laban på Christiansborg Slotsplads. Ayaan Hirsi Ali i København, Ibn Warraq i København. Hvad man sidder og synes i énrum, er noget andet og det rager ofte andre en papand. Opinion kan […]

9 years ago

“…if there´s hope it lies with finding many more muslims like Ibn Warraq.” Med andre ord, en masse mennesker der er lysende-bragende klar over “why they are not muslims”! Det er nok i den samme kontekst man skal se den globale revival-jihadbevægelse. Der er reelt kun to strømme indenfor ummahen, den ene en lille piblende bæk, den anden en brusende-svulmende flod. Den første løber ud af islam og ind i den vestlige-demokratiske-sekulære modernitet, den anden mod jihad og kalifat-storhedsvanvid. Der er ingen rigtig mellemting, ingen “moderat”, “moderne” tredje vej. Som så ofte i naturen er det enten eller, knald eller… Read more »

9 years ago
Reply to  steen

Ja, det synes at være den lidt sært skruede mening. 🙂

Men ok, løsningen på Sovjetunionen bestod da også i kommunister der opgave kommunismen.

9 years ago
Reply to  Prudentius

“opgave” = opgav

Hvor kom det “e” fra?? Jeg aner det ikke. 🙂

9 years ago

“Terror har intet med islam at gøre, mener dansk muslimsk forening.” http://politiken.dk/indland/ECE2159120/fatwa-mod-terrorisme-skal-bekaempe-radikalisering/ “Pakistansk imam: Terror er uforeneligt med islam” http://politiken.dk/indland/ECE2159192/pakistansk-imam-terror-er-uforeneligt-med-islam/ Det handler sådan set ikke om terror. Ligesom selvmordsangreb ikke bliver udført fordi man er deprimeret. Hvis der er muslimer, der har den opfattelse, at islam er under angreb, så indeholder islamisk teologi masser af henvisninger og opfordringer til, hvad man så skal gøre. Og “under angreb” behøver ikke at være drab på muslimer eller trusler og vold. Det kan bare være kritik af islam – eller hvis man med sin blotte ekstens afviser islam som den sande religion. Hvis… Read more »

Peter Andersen
9 years ago
Reply to  BE

Med terrorisme menes der drab på uskyldige. Men da vantro pr. diffinision ikke er uskyldige, er det naturligvis en gratis omgang.

9 years ago
Reply to  Peter Andersen

Her er en dugfrisk fatwa, der siger at man gerne må slås: “BAGHDAD — A leading Shiite Muslim cleric widely followed by Iraqi militants has issued the first public religious edict permitting Shiites to fight in Syria’s civil war alongside President Bashar Assad’s forces. The fatwa by Iran-based Grand Ayatollah Kazim al-Haeri, one of the mentors of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, comes as thousands of Shiite fighters mostly from Iraq and Lebanon play a major role in the battles. …… Asked by a follower whether it is legitimate to travel to Syria to fight, al-Haeri replied: “The battle in… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x