I just checked Mr. Coyne's blog for an up-date of to-day and it just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. May I suggest that people send their concerns to the BC Premier and MLAs if BC residents.

I was so disgusted after reading Ezra Levant's point-by-point coverage that I sent this email addressed to "Missing in Action" Nicholson , cc to Jason Kenny, my local MP (who also is "missing in action"), and PM Harper.

=============================

Mr. Nicholson,

If ever there was a clear example of why the various HRC's should be abolished , the current "inquisition" being held by the BC HRC is a shining example.

Canada is very likely to become a laughing stock if the International press latches onto this "kangaroo court" hearing , where the normal rules of evidence do not apply , and where truth and innocence are not relevant , but where a panel of "judges" both makes the rules and passes sentence. Comrade Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria of the USSR would smile in his grave to see this hearing !

It is reminiscent of the Star Trek TV episode where "Q" puts Humanity on trial. I refer you to the YouTube link to see if you notice ant resemblance to the current BC HRC proceedings ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3r3r65xzIU

“We anticipate that success in this case will provide the impetus for prohibiting discriminatory publications in the other provinces.”
.
Guess who's idea that is?

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/04/liveblogging-the-macleans-trial-iii-die-another-day/

@ 1:30 PM.

Kangaroo court indeed! The odds are heavily stacked against Steyn/MaCleans. I hope they decide to go to a real court for relief of what will surely be a judgement against them.

What I find strange in the case is that the complainant's lawyers (Muslim side) are going after the 'accuracy' of the representation of Islam in Steyn's article.

The witnesses refer to differing views of 'jihad' - as referring to 'self-examination' versus the Islamist (Islamic fascist) view that it means conquering all non-Islamic territories.
The witnesses say that Islam is a 'peaceful' religion and just wants to convert people to Islam.

Might I say that such an interpretation ignores 9/11, the London and Madrid bombings, ignores the beheadings, ignores the attacks - all carried out in the name of 'jihad'; all asserting claims of world domination. It ignores the threats against those who convert to Christianity..and so on.

The Muslim tactic of bringing up witnesses who are asserting that Islam is peaceful, that they didn't burn the Library of Alexandria (it's a myth, the witness says); that ...and so on..

This is totally irrelevant. Steyn's article wasn't a scholarly article on the different interpretations of the Koran. It was an article with two issues: One, is the demographics of Muslim population increase in the West. Nothing to do with ideology at this point, merely the demographics. The second issue is the nature of militant Islamism with its publicly stated agenda of world domination.

To counter these two factors: demographic increase and Islamist preaching and actions - by attempting to declare that Islam is, in its original intention, 'peaceful' is irrelevant. Steyn is focusing on ACTUALITY. And what is actually happening is a Muslim population explosion in the West - and - an ideological dominance of one type of Islam - militant Islamic fascism.

Can't these two issues be discussed and debated and openly stated? They are facts after all.

So, I don't get the defense of the Muslims in this case. It seems to be focused on fiction rather than fact. We aren't really interested in the fictional nature of Islam as peaceful; we are interested in the factual, actual nature as militant.

"We anticipate that success in this case will provide the impetus for prohibiting discriminatory publications in the other provinces.” That really is the bottom line - expressed in as bold a manner as you could ask.

But according to the geniuses in Rob Nicholson's Department (Ministry of Justice) they, by filing a 50-page brief in the Warman v. Lemire CHRC case - arguing that truth and fair comment have no place in the Human Rights world, support this action completely. What a disgrace this guy (Nicholson) is. Instead of coming out in favour of the Charter Right of Freedom of Speech, he assists the other side. Pathetic. And where is PM Harper? What's the point of electing a so-called conservative government if they're going to stand by and allow one of our cherished freedoms to be taken away. I've written to Nicholson and John Baird and received NO REPLY. I hope they will understand when they ask me for a donation or a vote and they get NO REPLY from me.

Oh dear, more misunderstanding of Islam, this time by my neighbours, the so-called Toronto 18.

Evidently while plotting to chop off the PM's head and spray parliament with AK-47 fire, they listened to music with lyrics like this:

"Ready to serve you my Islam – Ready to serve you my homeland ... And I offered you from the veins of my blood."

It would be delicious if Porter would ask the good prof to square that with what he's been saying so far.

Tor Star linky with the whole story

"This is totally irrelevant. Steyn's article wasn't a scholarly article on the different interpretations of the Koran. It was an article with two issues: One, is the demographics of Muslim population increase in the West. Nothing to do with ideology at this point, merely the demographics. The second issue is the nature of militant Islamism with its publicly stated agenda of world domination."

ET, I agree with your overall argument, but I think you are leaving out Steyn's main point. He asserts that societies aren't killed off by an outside force but usually commit suicide. In addition to the two challenges you state above, the greatest challenge the societies of the West face is from within. We are so socialistic and dependent upon the nanny state, that we are likely going to stand by and let Islamists (or whoever) take over. By our replacement rates (below the 2.1 needed to maintain a population) we are too weary or spoiled to breed our replacements, so where are we going to find the resolve to meet a demographic (or to a lesser degree terrorist) challenge? Even worse, we become fearful about false threats such as global warming and any potential threat to the percieved wisdom of multiculturalism. This distracts us from real threats and makes us vulnerable. We would rather just ignore the real problems (declining populations, massive changes in cultural makeup, energy crisis, food production and protectionism issues, etc.) and assume everything will remain the same, and insist upon our entitlements. Meanwhile .....

Steyn (IMO correctly) argues that we must not focus on the outside forces, but on ourselves. We should decide which threats are real and apply our limited resources accordingly. I think it is one of the biggest fallacies in the blather against Steyn that he is anti-Muslim. He is pro-Western and he is trying to shake us out of our collective stupor. There are real problems out there (only one of which is militant Islam) and we are focusing on the wrong ones. I believe that he thinks the internal weakness of the West and its demographic challenge is much greater than that of militant Islam. But I recommend all to read his books and decide for yourselves.

More from Andrew Coyne's blog.

A witness for the complainants, "Ayoub says he believes in free speech, “but my freedom ends where it begins to do harm to any community… I don’t think freedom of speech should include inciting the general public to hate a group, whatever the group may be.”

Ahh, so are you saying that you disagree with Elmasry inciting the general public that all Israeli's over the age of 18 should be killed? Are you saying that you disagree with the violent anti-American, Anti-West preachings of the various imams around the world? Hmmm?

And, neither of the complainants in this case, the ones who FILED the Human Rights complaint, are willing to take the stand to justify their actions!!! Julian Porter, the lawyer for Macleans is furious at such - what I'll call blatant cowardice. I think he's going to call them.

When Porter voiced his disapproval that the complainants weren't going to testify about WHY they filed the complaint...Joseph, the Muslim's lawyer, retorted that 'Mark Steyn was in the audience'..and 'he's not testifying'. But Steyn didn't file the complaint; he has nothing to say about WHY the complaint was filed...

Again, what bothers me is the profound lack, not merely of due process, but of any attempt of factual depth and validity.

For example - you cannot slither into calling criticism of Islam, as an ideology, and of Islamism (Islamic fascism)...akin to 'Islamophobia'. Both Islam as an ideology and a religion must be open to critique, debate, questions, criticism, rejection...and the same with the militant version, Islamism.

I'm disturbed that the Muslim defense seems to be focused on rejecting criticism by calling it 'Islamophobic' (which is an irrational fear).

I'm disturbed that the M. Defense is trying to define Islam as a peaceful, non-violent ideology, and ignoring that many of its followers are committing extremely violent acts - in the name of that ideology. The M. Defense is ignoring these. Utterly and totally ignoring them. Do they think they didn't and aren't happening?

They are ignoring the many imams who preach hatred and violence in the mosques. Why? Can't we talk about and criticize this?

"It has a lot to do with the difference in belief about freedom … the essential difference is how freedom is understood. I believe that my freedom ends where the dignity and respect for all the prophets begins.” (—Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub)

Unpack this theologically and it means that Muslims define what freedom is. This kind of thinking means the death of any religion but Islam, the end of any criticism of Islam, and ultimately the enslavement of humanity to Islamic theology. If, of course, he extends this limitation to others, which I suspect he does.

Just look at Islamic states and you'll see how "respect" is used to justify murder of Christians and Bahias and other non-Muslims on a regular basis. This kind of thinking must be opposed by all people of good will since disrespect of the prophets can ultimately mean anything in the hands of an islamic theocracy.

i hate all of islam. carry on.

"What [Ayoub] said, he said, is that there are evangelicals who want to hasten the day of Armaggedon and the Rapture."

And why should this not be considered hate speech designed to hold an identifiable minority group in contempt and hate?

If free speech ends at the point where you harm or offend an identifiable group, why should this not be considered prohibited speech?

liberalism will one day cause the demise of democracy !!!!!

"I believe that my freedom ends where the dignity and respect for all the prophets begins.” (—Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub)"

Hmmm, well in that case I'd have to tell Mr. Ayoub that in my country he is quite free to determine where his own personal freedoms end, but he certainly is not free to enforce his standards upon me to determine where my freedoms end.

And although I'm sure Mr. Ayoub not attempting to do this to me his retainers in the CIC are.

The idiots on the left have come full circle... they militated for the separation of church and state, i.e. taking religion out of every day life so that they could impose their Big Brother State creed, and now they've reached the point in their incoherence that they're actively militating for the fusion of state and religion. Amazing that anyone on the left would actually countenance muslim intolerance and its intrusion into the affairs of the state. Further proof that the left is completely insane.

Revolution time, folks - the people need to retake control of the country and put the social engineers, HRC minions, activist judges and power-hungry pols against the wall.

"I believe that my freedom ends where the dignity and respect for all the prophets begins"

Free speech for me but not for thee, which is no freedom at all.

The "prohibiting discriminatory publications ..." portion of the infamous statement comes from section 206 in the following link:

http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/docs/cerd/2003-08-11/p4-BC_e.cfm

Perhaps a gentle nudge or reminder to the three Roos?

Nobody needed any 'incitement' from Steyn to hate Islam.

9/11 and countless actions by crazy Muslims (with few objections from the non-crazy ones) did just fine on its own.

Oh and this trial isn't helping their image much either. Especially since numerous folks have tried calmly pointing this fact out to the complainants -- and the complainants DON'T UNDERSTAND this simple point.

Look people...

I am not sure I agree with that specific complaint..

but....

FREEDOM OF SPEACH IS NOT ABSOLUTE.

Islam is not more violent than christianity.

Steyn IS an islamophobe bigot.

Macleans would never publish him if he was saying conspiracy theories about jews. But they publish his bullshit about muslims. Steyn wrote 80% of his columns about Islam.. Clealy he is obsessed.

he is a disgrace.

Atheism will fix all of that.

Would this be believable if it was a movie?

Here is how it goes, in the future, one where it is hate speech to even voice opinion on the most trivial of things, let alone asking tough questions about what is happening.

So Joe, the hero, says maybe, just maybe, that with the rise in muslim populations and laws shifting to suit them, maybe just maybe we are loosing our freedom.

Joe gets the death penalty for thinking Muslim's are evil out to destroy the western way of life.

But what if some of the Muslim's are out to destroy our western way of life?

I sure would like to be able to talk about it without all this BS.

It is not against the law to ask/debate/engage/discuss the events/happenings/issues of minorities/majorities/political parties and judge our MP's/MLA's.

If you have views like Ahenakew, you do not need to be judged by some tribunal.

You will be judged by the company you will be forced to keep, the job you not have and the respect that know one will have for you.

Sorry for the rant but I feel better.

BTW, did I break any HRC rules?

aqs, as an atheist myself, you are clearly deranged. If we claim to live in a free country, unless Steyn was saying something illegal, he HAS an absolute right to speak his opinions, just as you have an absolute right to speak yours (as deluded as they may be). In the past, Christianity has shown itself to be every bit as capable of mindless, xenophobic violence as Islam is, but Islam is currently CONTINUING much of that mindless xenophobic violence today, in the name of spreading their superstition; not a day goes by that another act of mindless violence somewhere in the world isn't committed by one group of Muslims or another in the name of their "prophet", but at least the vast majority of Christians have stopped doing things like this. What "conspiracy theories", exactly, do you believe that Steyn was saying about Muslims? So far as I can tell, he has said nothing less than the truth, and one of the very things that this complaint is about is that he dared to DIRECTLY QUOTE a Muslim imam, when those quotes showed that fanatical Muslims want nothing less than to convert everyone else to their superstition, or to kill them. Atheism is a step out of the dark ages, but it certainly isn't going to stop a religious fanatic that believes you should be car-bombed if you don't believe in that fanatic's personal brand of superstition.

I'm loosing track of the cast of characters!
Who is "Porter" ......

Is Mark Steyn obsessed? really?

Perhaps he is just focussed and diligent.

Kind of like the opposite of certain lefty trolls who like to lecture about absolutes.

Am I in Canada?
Remind me exactly why my family and countless others have fought in two World Wars?
Unacceptable.
Terminate the Canadian Human Rights Commssions!
Immediately!

Separatiste-

You are absolutely correct, freedom of "speach" is not absolute, "freedom of speech" however, is indeed an absolute. That means, by the way, to not water down, if you want the latin(ish) derivation. Down here, it's usually referred to obliquely as "Don't Tread On Me".

And, no, I'm not in that zoo of a "tribunal", I own a "beagador" and am known by Kate (sorta). I trade for a living, and read for a hobby. Flying model airplanes is my vice. Not HRC's (Human Rights..., not Hillary).

(Just wanted to go on the record that there are more than just one "Porter".)

If this limitation on free speech and free press is allowed then it means that freedom of religion would be given top status over other rights. AQS, that would mean that Atheists like yourself would not be allowed to mock or critique any religions. Not even if you speak the truth based on facts or state any personal opinion at all. The is beyond the reasonable grounds of regarding hate propaganda talked about in the Charter. No group should expect to be free from debate, scrutiny and ridicule.

No unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat should be allowed to arbitrarily remove those rights from citizens without our consent. These HRC tribunals do not represent a cross section of society. They have no credentials at all to justify this kind of power grab. They have far overstepped their bounds.

What other rights would religion be allowed to supersede....gender equality, equality of legal protection, separation of church and state?

"FREEDOM OF SPEACH IS NOT ABSOLUTE."

So shut the f*ck up, then.

Oh, you didn't like me telling you that, did you? Think how much less you'd like it if instead of text on a page, it was coming out of the mouth of someone sticking a gun in your face. Because THAT is EXACTLY what you are advocating and what this sham of a "trial" represents: placing the coercive and violent power of the state behind favored opinions at the expense of unfavored opinions.

"Islam is not more violent than christianity."

I disagree. Shall I be silenced for my temerity, Mr. Would-Be-Philosopher-King?

"Steyn IS an islamophobe bigot."

Again, I disagree. But even if he were, who cares? Freedom of speech may not be an absolute right, but "freedom to not be offended" is not a right at all. Anyone who supports such a supposed right is either a tyrant or seeking to become one.

"Atheism will fix all of that."

Atheists would be among the first against the wall to be shot if the complainants in this case had their way. You're so mired in your own appeasement that you can't even recognize it for what it is: as Churchill said, feeding the crocodile in the hope he will eat you last.

The rights to freedom of flight end at the exterior skin of our buildings.

"Islam is not more violent than christianity."

Yes, it was.

And yes, it is.

But not as violent as atheism, which tops them all.

Ayoub likes to be a witness for the defence in Canada.

"An American scholar, Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub, testified at Humaid's trial that many Islamic societies permit men to punish wives suspected of adultery and sometimes even kill them. Under Islamic law, punishment for adultery is usually flogging or stoning, Ayoub said."

Porter, noted that you do not consider Hillary as your vice.
thanking you for this...

what an interesting few days of "rights" this has been... I've yet to hear of any public pronouncements of freedom from our politicos.
Is "not much" worth fighting for? what is important to these types?
I imagine we'll find out when it's more safe to state opinions again.. if that's allowed?

Hey AQS, ostie de cave... count the number of innocents murdered in the name of Islam. Now count the number murdered in the name of Christianity. Take off your shoes and socks if the number is higher than 10 and you have a hard time figuring. T'est rien qu'un idiot AQS, si t'est pas capable de faire la différence entre un culte meurtrier et une religion légitime. Va jouer sur la 20 pendant l'heure de pointe, poubelle

"I believe that my freedom ends where the dignity and respect for all the prophets begins"

Read that line again AQS. Then read this line:

Atheism will fix all of that.

If you think the first line represents a reasonable limit on free speech, you won't be allowed to utter the second.

Is this what you are supporting?

AQS is obviously a serious shut-in and not well travelled. Here's an idea AQS, go to the ME for a month and then drop back to the crib and fill us in on how peace-loving and non-oppressive islam is. Alrighty then, off you go.

I'm thinking maybe I need a "live free or die" bumper sticker right about now.

Trouble is, I strongly doubt there's anywhere in this asinine country I could buy one. I'll have to IMPORT it from America.

Cheap land in Arizona looking reeeeeal good today.

Look right wing people.... I'll try to educate you.

I would agree that the Islam world is more *primitive* in the anthropological sense of the term. But I don't think it is more violent.

In the same way that the nazis were violent but not primitive. If you look at the global picture of all the violence in the world of the past 100 years... Islam was not more violent.
(WW1 and WW2 was nothing about Islam)

ASQ:

Look...

I don't worship anyone either; I do however read. Mark Steyn's Islamophobia is a justified phobia. Here's a simple trick... think of all the suicide bombs used in the last 10 years... to what religion may the bombers be considered adherent to? think of all the hijacked airplanes (last 10 years)... who jacked them?

For all the whining that you atheist seperatistes do over the few deaths Israeli aggression caused... you seem to easily be able to gloss over the hundreds killed every week by militant Islamists!

So... Mao was an atheist, as was Pol Pot. The USSR was an officially atheist state. How many is that in the last 100 years? 120MILLION deaths? How will atheism stop any of this... people kill people because God exists, and people kill people because God doesn't exist.

No one kills over the fact that he may exist.

Steyn (according to his columns about Islam and Islamists!) warns of Islamists! He warns of a religion (Islam) who is happy to remain quite when it's radical adherents (Islamists!) inflict suffering on others. He asks where are the moderate muslims to stop these guys.

If moderates won't stop the extremists who will?

It's pretty obvious from your comments that you've never read Steyn, or you understood it as well as I understood Camus.

PS Your belief in no God is no more valid than anyone elses' belief in God. It's just belief, and without proof it is merely conjecture.

Ah, Monsieur Separatiste,

Your attempts at education expose your lack of historical curriculum. Tough to teach what was not learned. Saaricen would be a good start, followed by what happened with a Polish king and the rescue of Vienna. Finish it off with an essay on comparative narratives of Andalusia and The Inquisition. Your final exam is on the true fount of the Caliphate and who are it's present day heirs.

Learn, or at least figure out why your compatriots speak the language they claim to separate for and from where it came. (I'll give you a hint, "Manifest Destiny" is not an American concept.

I wish you luck. And please stop using a bucket for a hat.

If Macleans loses, then the next obvious step is to launch a complaint against all publishers and resellers of the koran, a book replete with very obvious hate messages.

Muslims are complexed by freedom as they have never experienced it, before being in the Western world, always being behoven to a totalitarian ideology and dictatorships in the muslim world.

Freedom of speech is an absolute. As long as I am not attacking an individual, I shall say whatever I please. whenever I please.

If you don't like my music...turn off the radio

If you don't like my book...don't read it

If you don't like my thoughts...2 f$%^ing bad

Unlike you, AQS, I put on a uniform, picked up a rifle, and stood up for freedom.

No kangaroo court, leftarded moonbat or pseudo thought police will ever say different to me!

VOTE REFORM!
GO ARMY!

AQS- your illogical 'thought' (in quote marks) processes are astonishing.

What's your data base and logical foundation for your use of the terms 'primitive' and 'violent'? What do YOU mean by those terms?

Therefore, how can you justify your conclusions that the Nazis were 'violent but not primitive'? Don't you think that defining another member of the same species (homo sapiens) as NOT a member but an alien Other - is a primitive conclusion?

And your data base to show that "Islam was not more violent'? More violent than what? Are you actually going to justify or validate violent actions by comparing the numbers killed?

So, is your conclusion that Maoism and Stalinism - both totalitarian, both utopian...just like Islamic fascism - are worse than Islamic fascism because they killed more, because they both controlled a governmental military force rather than non-state militants? What a relativist perspective! All of them are violent; there's no possibility of a scale evaluation of 'good or bad violence' in this issue!

I love all the replies to AQS, and especially Jon's, so I won't add to it.

But I do have a strategy question. I read in the comments thread (here or on Coyne's? Can't remember) that Nicholson has been rattled by his underlings at Justice to support Section 13.

But isn't there about to be a cabinet shuffle? Maybe what we should be doing is sending letters to PM Harper saying put someone with guts in Justice who actually stands up for Conservative principles. This is the chance for a change, right? And if there is a change, we can be the first ones that the new Minister hears from.

Wow...some testy critics over there on the MacLean's blog. When Dr. Hirji was called as a witness...I posted a 6/2/08 article indicating that Iran had arrested a man for securing signatures on a petition supporting women's rights...as well as various arrests associated with the woman's rights movement in that country.

I did so, because Hirji made a bit of a name for herself condemning western media spotlighting the oppression of women under the Taliban (which is highly ironic in that Dr. Hirji calls herself a feminist).

It took all of five minutes to punch the "abuse" button...and a few hours later, that post, and a follow up post questioning the action disappeared down the memory hole.

Open discussion and debate are dead in the water.

Commenter Porter ... you are a wit! Thanks for the elucidation.

From the post above:
"Wait! Porter in on his feet: “If Habib and Elmasry are afraid to testify,...."

I guess this means Lawyer Julian Porter .. all I can get is that it looks like he is part of the MacLeans legal team.

It also seems that complainants are not required to be at these hearings. So, what's the point of all the theatrics?

Sheila, just send them ALL mail. email AND snail mail. Phone your MP and ask him when the government is going to squash these HRCs. Intimate that NOW might be a really good time, because the MSM is not going to pick up this ball and run with it.

The MSM is populated by lazy Liberals who just want to maintain the status quo and let the government get on with attacking their philosophical enemies, the Conservatives.

This is too much work to cover, and right now there's no down side for a Liberal. Let's face it, the HRCs are going after all the right people so far as progressives are concerned. And don't forget, progressives are not interested in personal freedom. They live and breath victim group politics, its the group that matters not one guy.

I'm sure the jerks at the CBC can't envision a future in which THEY will be hauled up before the HRC, because they are intellectually lazy, complacent, and in love with bureaucratic procedure. They have no problem complying with speech laws forbidding this and that, because it doesn't interfere with their business.

So yeah, I'd be sending those letters if I were you.

OMMAG, its a show trial, so they're putting on a show. Its theater.

If it were an -actual- trial there would be rules of evidence, full disclosure, witnesses would be compelled to appear (under arrest and in cuffs if required), experts would be qualified and unprimed by the Crown, and etc.

Here we see the trappings of a court, but the result has already been decided. If they take the case you're guilty, all the rest is window dressing. These HRC a-holes have probably settled on the punishment already.

Re Ayoub's "testimony," apparently it's mostly Islam apologetics and image management. It's too bad the defense does not have the services of Islam critics such as Robert Spencer or Ibn Warraq at their disposal. (Not that such matters should have to be discussed in a court, kangaroo or otherwise, but, well, here we are).

From Coyne's notes on Ayoub's claims:

“Now commenting on Steyn piece. It’s mostly a demographic argument, he says. There has been rapid growth in Islamic numbers, yes, but this is not part of some conspiracy to take over the world.”

The “conspiracy” here may be limited to those Islamic clerics who are quoted preaching about and promoting high birth rates among Muslims (they do not exactly keep these views a secret). But whether or not there is a conspiracy, the fact remains that Muslim birth rates are still higher than non-Muslim birth rates in the West generally (and in Russia, and India, and elsewhere). So the demographic scenario discussed by Steyn could occur, though perhaps on the order of decades later than he suggests. Bernard Lewis thinks there will be Muslim majorities before the end of the century in much of Europe.

Such a plan to overwhelm non-Muslims through sheer numbers is consistent with Islamic doctrine. Muhammad in the Hadith says “Marry women who will love their husbands and be very prolific, for I wish you to be more numerous than any other people.” (That hadith is also quoted on the Muslim-Canada website). In another hadith, Muhammad urges Muslim men to marry virgins because they have “the most prolific wombs.”

Coyne notes that Ayoub says:

"The vision of Islam in the Koran is pluralist.”

I think Ayoub's apologetics are bordering on comedy. Quran verse 3:85 states that Islam is the only acceptable religion. Much of the Quran is devoted to hatred against non-Muslims.

Coyne notes that Ayoub says:

“2:03 PM Returning to critique of Steyn’s article. “Portrays Muslims as an underground movement trying to take over the world — that’s not true.” They’re missionaries, they want to spread their faith, just like Christianity does. But neither religion wants to take over the world.”

Clearly, though, some Muslims do want Islam to rule the whole world, however improbable this objective may seem to others. There are plenty of statements in the Quran, Hadith, and Sira testifying to these imperialistic ambitions. The Quran states that Muhammad (or his message) was sent to “all humankind” (7:157-158; 34:28), and verses 9:32-33, 61:9, 48:28 are clearly imperialistic. In the hadith, Muhammad is quoted as saying that he was sent to all humankind, and that Islam would spread to all the corners of the world, that there would not be a house or a hut which Islam would not enter. In the Sira, Muhammad and his men pledge to wage war against “all and sundry”–all humankind, and the jihadists in poetry celebrate their “prophet, a true helper, by whom [they] will conquer all men.” A major hadith quotes Muhammad saying he was “commanded to fight the people until they say there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet...”

The Shafi'i book of fiqh states that it is apostasy for a Muslim to reject the premise that Islam is to be followed by all humankind (apostasy is a major sin-crime for which the same book prescribes the death penalty).

As to Ayoub's claim that there are only a tiny number of extremists, perhaps a more direct question is what percentage want sharia law to be set up. According to polls taken in the largest Muslim countries (Indonesia, Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco), most Muslims (overall average, 71%) want “a strict application of sharia in every Muslim country.” (See World Public Opinion, Apr/07)