Michael Copeland examines the Koranic basis for the violent response to Koran-burning.
Landesmuseum, Zurich
Europe’s William Tell Moment
by Michael Copeland
Everybody knows of the story of the crack crossbowman William Tell, and how he shot an arrow that split an apple on his young son’s head. What fewer people know is how that event came about. It resulted from Tell’s independent spirit, as he courageously defied an unacceptable demand from the disliked foreign authorities. It was in the very early 1300s that Tell’s town of Altdorf was ruled by a tyrannical reeve, Gessler, of the Austrian Dukes of the House of Hapsburg. Gessler had a pole erected in the town with his hat atop, and commanded the people to bow to it when they passed. The penalty for not doing so was death.
The townspeople, taking the easy way out, complied. The ace crossbowman William Tell, however, courageously and defiantly refused. Gessler, knowing of his marksmanship, sadistically offered him a hideous way out of the death penalty: to hit an apple on his young son’s head. In the story the boy was confident and encouraged his father. As we all know, the shot was accurate. Tell, however, revealed that if he had not succeeded he would have shot Gessler. In consequence Gessler had him imprisoned. Later Tell escaped. His example encouraged the population to open rebellion and a pact against the foreign rulers, marking the foundation of the Swiss Confederation.
Complying with the demands of powerful forces is the easy way, but the downhill way: it is how to lose freedoms. Standing up against tyranny takes courage and fortitude. Freedom is not free.
“In this kind of situation, we must stiffen our backs and stand up for our society.”
Who said that? Tell? No. That is Richard Jomshof, Chairman of the Swedish parliament’s Justice Committee. Some high-ranking Muslims in Sweden claim they want to see a “broader dialogue” about Islam. Jomshof accurately divines that they really seek to limit freedom of expression and democracy in line with Islam’s rules. Jomshof approved of their suggestion of a broader dialogue about Islam:
“I agree that we need a ‘wider dialogue’, a dialogue about how we democratize the Muslim world. Or why not a dialogue on Islam, this anti-democratic, violent, and misogynistic religion/ideology, founded by the warlord, mass murderer, slave trader, and robber Mohammed?”
Every claim he makes is easily verified from Islam’s trusted sources. This, however, is of no consequence to the Social Democrats in Sweden, who, self-evidently and most reprehensibly, have failed to inform themselves about Islam. They are horrified that their comforting fantasy, Nice Peaceful Islam, is being disturbed. “Triggered” by this shock, the Social Democrats’ foreign affairs spokesman, Morgan Johansson, resorts to typical Leftist strategy — mischaracterising and blackening. Jomshof, he says:
“continues to send out hate propaganda against Islam.”
No. No hate. No propaganda. Jomshof is simply stating Islamic facts.
The Muslim initiative in Sweden to seek, as they claim, a “broader dialogue” about Islam comes about in response to recent public Koran-burnings, acts of freedom of expression protected by the Swedish Constitution but disallowed by Islam’s rules. One was recently conducted outside the main mosque by an Iraqi immigrant. He, of all people, will be familiar with the Koran’s standing instructions concerning non-Muslims, the “clear enemy” (4:101), to “Kill them wherever you find them” (2: 191, 9:5), and “between us and you enmity and hatred forever” (60:4). The Koran, all of it, forms part of Islamic law, with the death penalty for denying any verse (Manual of Islamic Law, Reliance of the Traveller, o8.1, o8.7(7)).
Other public Koran-burnings have been conducted by the Swedish citizen Rasmus Paludan. Paludan leads the Danish party Stram Kurs (“Hard Line”). He openly proclaims that Islam is not compatible with Western democracy. He brilliantly demonstrates this by courageously burning the Koran in public. Burning a book is harmless. It is an example of free expression. Within the mosques this has been made the excuse for Islam’s standard response, criminal thuggery. Violent intimidation by organised rioting is instructed. There have been sustained attacks on police and their police stations, arson of local authority buildings, of a Mayor’s home and young family by night, and any number of car-burnings. This neatly reveals Islam’s level of compatibility. Paludan is right.
The riots are low-grade war. Islamic doctrine divides the world into two categories, Dar al Islam, the Realm of Islam, and everywhere else, such as Sweden, Dar al Harb, the Realm of War. Islam commands its adherents to spread Islam “by persuasion or by force” (Ibn Khaldun). The tainted mainstream media persist in describing this organised hostility as “protests” or “demonstrations”, thereby keeping the public in the dark. Information about Islam is easily available online, but evidently not made use of by them. It is journalistic negligence.
Many voices in Sweden, successfully cowed by the hostile rioting, are counselling not to burn, but to “respect” the Book of Kill Them. That is the downhill easy way out. Jomshof rightly sees this as the moment for Swedes to stand their ground. Swedish law needs to be upheld. Law enforcement, as the term implies, involves force if needed. Criminal riots need to be suppressed by force, using troops if necessary.
Swedish rules or Islamic rules? Which is it to be?
Will Swedes bow before the hat? Will the EU?
References:
- www.quran.com Seven parallel English translations
- Islam’s Agenda: Muslims Speak
For previous essays by Michael Copeland, see the Michael Copeland Archives.
.
Sweden shouldn’t back down a millimeter on Muslim incitement
5 days ago
There is now an extensive campaign against Sweden in the Arab world. The aim is to get Sweden to align its policies with foreign interests. Some of the arguments for alignment may seem sensible, but are ultimately self-deceptive. The only way Sweden can survive is by defending itself and its interests.
Suddenly, in a manner similar to the Muslim world’s reaction to the Muhammad cartoons, for example, Sweden has come under fierce attack from much of the Muslim world. It now seems to be conducting a coordinated influence operation with the aim of getting Sweden to change its attitude to, among other things, Koran burning and, in practice, to give Muslims a special legal status in Sweden.
In this situation, it is easy to think that it is just as well to give in, to make certain concessions and ensure that there is peace and quiet. Swedes, especially women but also men, are by nature conflict-avoidant and prone to such thinking. There even appears to be a majority for this view in opinion polls and I myself have often encountered this attitude in conversations with others. Similarly, many Swedes were critical of Lars Vilks and questioned the cost of his bodyguard protection. Many simply thought that it is better not to argue.
However, this way of thinking must be said to be very short-sighted. It is hardly the case that Sweden’s opponents will settle for a minor concession, but if they see that the tactic is successful, they will continue it.
The shortcomings of the Swedish government’s strategy are evident not least from the outcome so far. Despite the fact that the Swedish government has humiliated itself, apologized for the Swedish legislation and even suggested that the Public Order Act should be amended, the Arab world is not satisfied. It sees that the method works and only wants more.
The big problem with the Swedish government’s attitude is that it not only has foreign policy consequences, but also feeds the forces in Sweden that want us to formulate legislation in the interests of non-Swedes rather than Swedes. In addition to an increasingly vocal immigrant population, there is a wide range of commentators pushing the adaptation line, including publicly respected figures such as Carl Bildt and various legal experts. Moreover, the government’s stance influences Swedish public opinion and increases the acceptance of foreign-influenced legislation.
It is therefore not possible to limit the field of vision to make this issue only about some kind of foreign diplomacy. What the government does and says risks having serious consequences for Sweden and the Swedish people. It is not primarily about Sweden’s relations with the Muslim world, but about who is to govern Sweden.
The government’s defenders sometimes say that this is no more remarkable than the concessions made by the coalition government during the war or in relation to the Soviet Union. But the comparison is seriously flawed. Sweden will not be invaded by any Arab country; the threat to Sweden is completely different. The threat to Sweden comes above all from within, from our inability to defend the interests of Swedes in Sweden and the fact that we have allowed foreign ethnic groups to gradually take over Sweden. The government’s defensive action hardly helps here.
Others refer to Swedish business interests, but they can hardly be of the magnitude to be relevant here. Moreover, the Middle East is more dependent on us than we are on them, not least through our aid money, but also through the technology we supply. It does not seem like a recipe for success, as Iraq has now threatened, to not allow Ericsson to operate in the country when it is dependent on its systems.
There is also a possible positive effect of negative attention in the Arab world: making Sweden less attractive as an immigration destination. After previous governments’ pro-immigration campaigns targeting developing countries, this could be a good counter-campaign.
Thus, Sweden should not back down one millimeter, but on the contrary explicitly state that Swedish law applies in Sweden and that it is not for Arab countries to comment on it. This is not about anything other than the defense of Swedish culture.
Updated on 2023-07-29
Editorial
Simon O. Pettersson
TAGSWeek 29 (2023)
https://insikt24.se/sverige-bor-inte-backa-en-millimeter-for-den-muslimska-hetsen/
Europe’s William Tell moment will only come when the populace starts reading Michael Copeland’s essays.
I have experienced that even well-meaning regular folks in Europe seem to protect the Koran because they think it’s a sort of “sacred book” of a “religion” that should never be burnt. And they believe that whoever burns it, had it coming for provoking the deeply religious masses of poor little saints.
When I tell the folks that the Koran is worse than the Mein Kampf, and that that’s what has always caused the Mohammedans to behave like hordes of killer monkeys, people freeze down and stare at me like zombies. Like “this is a contract about our genocide and slavery as a nation, called the Koran — would you sign it and respect it as sacred and promise to never burn it?”. Then the discussion is usually over.
My other observation is that there is no tribal instict in the West any more. People just don’t seem to understand the dinamics of tribal domination (that Michael Copeland describes as the ‘slippery slope’ in the context of tyranny). You don’t even have to know the horrors of the Koran and Sunna to understand that you cannot back off when another tribe tries to beat yours on your own land.
“Law enforcement, as the term implies, involves force if needed. Criminal riots need to be suppressed by force, using troops if necessary.”
— Absolutely. Alas, that will be (and has been) used as a Marxist justification for introducing a police state.
Thesis: Mohammedan violence.
Antithesis: The populace demands law and order.
Synthesis: Police state, suppressing everyone.
This must have been the plan all along, I guess. Islam is a Marxist tool in the West.
It again is rooted in the fact that the tribe cannot (and is not allowed to) repel the attack of another tribe (Islam) any more, and hence individuals shift that responsibility of self-defense onto the nanny state. Obviously, what the population gets by giving away their power to the state is state tyranny.
Until the money runs out, then it will truly be the age of the most ruthless and strongman to rule. Democracy(what a laugh) is dead as we know it, the corpse is there laying dead in the street, it just takes someone/anyone to say look at the dead corpse and kick it into the grave and get busy clearing the land of the orcs and their leftist/WEF/leftist enablers by whatever very uncivilized means and call it a day. What we will get at the end of the day is a ruthless rule of a strongman for a century before we become complacent and weak again.
Absolutely excellent use of what has been, formerly, a children’s tale of personal courage.
(The story of William Tell used to be included in books of children’s tales. These are the sorts of stories with which children need to encounter during their formative years. They inculcate early on the value for a righteous rebelliousness toward tyranny.)
At this point, it is hard to believe any of these elites are misinformed about Islam. You’d think someone would tilt their head and ponder, for a moment, how strange it is that these people, allegedly refugees, engage in rape and killing the minute they arrive in their “safe haven.” I mean, doesn’t that strike anyone as a bit BIZARRE?
.
If the government “distances itself” from legal demonstrations and speech, we must take them at their word and assume that they instead agree with everything they do not actively distance themselves from.
BY DAN ERIKSSON, July 31, 2023
Ahead of the OIC ministerial meeting being held today, Foreign Minister Tobias Billström has made an official statement, which I will return to shortly.
But first it should be mentioned that OIC stands for Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which consists of 57 member states such as Somalia, Iran and Nigeria.
Countries that are not particularly known for their freedom of expression and tolerance, to put it mildly.
In Nigeria, a father of six was recently stoned to death for allegedly saying the wrong thing about the ‘prophet’ Muhammad; in Iran, women are murdered in the streets for showing their hair; in Somalia, there are hardly any Christians left and those that are left have no protection and no religious rights.
So it is to these Islamist terror states that Billström now speaks, and he does so with both his head bowed and his neck exposed:
* * *
“I have also repeated that the government is very clear in its rejection of the Islamophobic acts carried out by individuals at demonstrations in Sweden.”
“I have also told you that the Ministry of Justice is currently analyzing the legal situation, including the Public Order Act, since the Court of Appeal’s judgment has gained legal force.”
“We see great value in continued dialog with OIC member countries.”
* * *
That Billström and the government “distance” themselves from individual citizens’ (and in some cases non-citizens with residence permits) legal expressions of opinion and authorized demonstrations is hair-raising. In the future, we must therefore assume that all demonstrations and statements that the government does not actively oppose, instead have their support and are in line with their own views.
Does that sound silly? Perhaps it does. But this is precisely why a government should not “distance” itself from legal actions and political expressions.
But they may not be legal for much longer.
Billström says that there is “an ongoing analysis of the legal situation”, which is political Swedish for looking at the possibility of changing the laws, so that statements and demonstrations that are now legal will soon become illegal.
A foreign minister who kowtows to, and in the worst case even changes the laws for, Islamist dictatorships and terrorists can only be classified as a traitor. If Billström in the slightest way means that Swedes should adapt to the freedom-hating rogue states in Asia and Africa, he is dangerous to the Swedes and must immediately be removed from any position of power.
I may simply quote myself from my statement on Det fria Sverige’s website last Saturday:
“The whole idea of adapting our lives and our law book to Islam in the hope that they won’t murder us, bomb our cities or at best treat us nicely, if they manage to become a majority in our countries is preposterous.
There is only one response to Muslim threats and demands, and that is to play hardball. Every step towards accommodation and submission is a step towards the abyss, a step away from the Western tradition and the quest for freedom that has served our people so well.
So there is no need for “debates” or complicated wording:
Our country, our rules – no adaptation to Islam!”
Source:
https://www.daneriksson.com/p/billstrom-kryper-for-islamister?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1546237&post_id=135588369&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Billstrom is the weak spineless jellyfish that I enjoy making getting on their knees to lick my boots.