Naming the type of conflict we're in. Dr Pipes on 14 4 2006

Submitted by Ian M (United Kingdom), Apr 14, 2006 at 12:18

Dr Pipes thinks we should say we're struggling against radical Islamism, but that misses the point. What we are up against is the complete dishonesty of legally mandatory censorship, so that the ability to query the claims of Mohammed and his book in any of the 57 countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, equals the ability to query Hitler and his book in Nazi Germany.

Thats the problem: it's the politics of principled censorship dishonesty that we're up against.

Now there is one sentence of the Koran that does give trouble here - the very first Sura of the Koran reads 'This book is not to be doubted', in the most recent rendering of the Kpran by Penguin books, 1998, by NJ Darwood.

That is the main problem with Islam; the rest is no better or worse than any other religion.

A UN resolution drawing attention to legally mandatory censorship in matters of say history or sociology or theology is dishonesty in principle, would be useful job for the new Human Rights Council of the UN; the day it happens I'll eat my hat, as the expression goes.

That this isn't even raised as the problem surely shows how great the problem is,
and how desperately far we are from solving it!

Anyone who agrees might like to get in touch with me; we need to start thinking actively about this most widespread inertial lack of adulthood, and how to combat it.

Ian Mordant

---

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".