Counter Rushdie's Rules
Reader comment on item: Two Decades of the Rushdie Rules
Submitted by Lawrence Daniel (Iraq), Sep 30, 2010 at 13:54
Let me begin my participation with trying to answer your question: will Westerners maintain their own historic civilization in the face of assault by islamist, or will they cede to Islamic culture and law and submit to a form of second-class citizenship?
To answer adequately to your question we need first to point out what the muslim individual go through in his home country in counter to what he sees in a western community and I will begin with the freedom of expression.
None of the so called muslim countries allow freedom of expression in the so called muslim world (by the way all these appellations are created by westerners and can easily by transformed into other names derived from historical facts)/ So when a muslim arrives to a western country, he is stunned by the freedom pattern of life the westerners enjoy due to their secular governing system and the implementation of human rights up to a certain level, so he starts penetrating the western life by adopting some of its humanitarian treatment exhibited towards each person,
Meanwhile, and as a result of this freedom, he starts implementing his own Islamic ideas in his surroundings be them his neighbors or his colleagues using snake cunning approaching methods by showing how good islam is and how filthy the way of the westerns' life is benefiting from the freedom of expression and the freedom of speech from which he was deprived in his own Islamic country, so, who is to blame, the muslim?
Of course not, it's the system of immigration that allowed to the muslim to migrated without any code of conduct signed document by the muslim in which his duties and responsibilities are outlined clearly, so one of the issues that each and every muslim, woman or man, must engage her/him self to is a" code of conduct" derived from the constitution of the western country and this code of conduct must include severe consequences up to deportation and confiscation of property should she or he deviate from the code of conduct.
With that said, I can tell from the way western countries are dealing with their muslim communities will lead very soon to answer you included yourself in your above question: westerners will cede to the islamic law and culture should the western countries will not imply what I call Counter Rushdie Rules:
Rule number 1: more public disrespectfulness to the muslims sacred topics using all elements possible be they books, TV shows, Articles, Drawings…etc
Rule number 2: declaring war on the muslim cultural infrastructure by displaying the ugly teachings of islam about woman, mohammad's private shameful sexual life and the life of his fellow caliphates…abu bakir, omar, uthman and ali.
Rule number 3: total isolation of muslims in the western communities, mocking the way of their life publicly starting from Kindergartens reaching the highest levels of teaching.
Rule number 4: nourishing education curriculums with real stories about the darkness of islam in regards of woman rights, child abuse, beating women should they refuse to have sex with their husbands, homosexuality (a muslim can and is lawful in the Koran for him to have sex with his wife from her butt), sex in muslim janna (paradise), the ridiculous teaching about entering the toilet with their right foot and eating their meals using the right hand only for the left hand usage is satanic act.
Westerns need not to be afraid of muslims, muslims are very clear with their message to the world, be muslim or die, the west, likewise, must be very clear with his message also with muslims, be respectful or beat it.
We all remember the Australian muslim leader who compared uncovered Australian Women to exposed meat and let me quote his exact words taken from guardian.co.uk electronic copy, he said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside ... without cover, and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab [the headdress worn by some Muslim women], no problem would have occurred." Not only he was giving the right to muslim stallions to rape Australian women but he was preaching islam, for when he says that if the woman was in her hijab" the headdress worn by some muslim women" it gives the impression that whole Australia must convert to islam and change the way of their day to day life, the same sheikh would have never dared to say anyting if he was living in own islamic country….what did the Australian Government do? Some shy carry outs of no siginificant consequences or even punishment, why? Because of the so called freedom of expression and human rights and that wsterners can live with but again a 'code of conduct" signed by each and every single muslim ...
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
Reader comments (69) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes