LIAR and DHIMMI
The Tundra Tabloids holds this academic imposter with the highest contempt for willingly lying to Finns about the dangers of Islam. He’s nothing more than the Finnish mouthpiece for the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar university in Cairo, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi.
Sheikh Tantawi: Hämeen-Anttila is one of my most prized dhimmis if there were more like him, Europe would already be Dar al-Islam!
The excellent blogger, Vasarahammer, of the Vasarahammer blog, alerts the TT about an interview available at the online magazine of the Finnish Center party, Verkkoapila, concerning the views of Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila in regards to an interview of the Christian Democrat’s spokesman, Päivi Räsänen, where she states her views on Islamization, and the statements of the True Finns concerning a similar ban on minarets in Finland. First, here are the highly disengenuous statement of J H-A:
Verkkoapila: According to University of Helsinki professor of Arabic language and Islamic studies, Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, many of the opinions about Islam in recent days, reflect Islamophobia.
True Finns youth league and the spokesman for the Christian Democrats, Päivi Räsänen, spoke publically about their concern of the Islamization of Finland and of Europe. According to Häme-Anttila, the comments made in public are “a very far off” since the Muslim population in Finland are a small disappearing group.
– Primarily, it speaks of an untreated and widely spread Islamophobia. On the Finnish scale, Muslims are so few, only about 40 000, that it’s just as well or even better to say that we, for example, have been “Lapplandized”.
According to Hämeen-Anttila, also the talk of Europe’s Islamization are unfounded, since they are based on the idea that immigrants have higher fertility rates than the parent population.
– The birth rate can be expected to fall to the basic level of the population over the years.
Ban on Minarets are against Western values
The True Finns demand for a ban on minarets Hämeen-Anttila considers inappropriate, because it does not relate in any way exclusively to the extreme interpretations of Islam. What facade is to be built is a matter for the zoning board.
– The same reason, for example, could be used to prohibit the construction of the K-stores (note: a Finnish department store chain that has a high profile tower). I think a minaret ban would be contrary to Western values.
Islam does not seek to convert
Spokesman for the Christian Democrats, Päivi Räsänen, told the Uusi Suomi (New Finland, an online magazine) of her fear of the Europe’s Islamization importing restrictions to freedom of religion in Finland. According to Räsänen, coercion in religion belongs “in an entirely different way to Islam than in Christianity.”
– I have not read Räsänen’s interview, but I can say that Islam does not restrict the freedom of religion. Islam does not force conversion, and it does not have a command for proselytizing, Häme-Anttila responds to Räsänen.
The professor says that the poor status of other religions in some Islamic countries is not due to there being no freedom of religion in the state, but more linked to the fact that they are undemocratic. It has nothing to do with the Islamic religion.
-Muslims coming to Finland are not coming to convert Finns, Hämeen-Anttila says.
Hämeen-Antilla starts off his interview with the straw-man argument of Islamophobia, in order to cast the both the Christian Democrats’, Päivi Räsänen and the True Finns in the worst possible light imagineable, then proceeds to lie and obfuscate the issues with one falacious statement after another.
For starters, labeling the justifiable fears of these politicians who view the desperate situations in Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Germany, France and England where Muslim no-go zones are a common reality, and in which no fireman or rescue worker dare venture without the backup of a number of policeman, as Islamophobia, is an outrage.
Hämeen-Anttila then makes the bogus claim that the Islamization of Europe is based on the false assumption that the Muslim immigrant population has a higher fertility rate than the host population, and that “it can be expected to fall” over the years.” Well the highly accredited Brookings Institute would beg to differ with the Finnish professor’s claims,
BI: “More are on the way. Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent.”
Not only was Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila lying about the birth rate, he’s asking us all to just “trust him” that the high birth rate that he believes doesn’t exist, will somehow magically decline. What he doesn’t bother to mention is, the Europeans desperately believe (wrongly) that they are in need of more immigrants to Europe, and that means a steady influx of the same immigrant group bringing with them their cultural mores that include a high birth rate. Funny how the professor of Islamic poetry “overlooked” that.
Hämeen_Anttila does not belong to the crowd that believes immigration should be slowed down, nor that if it’s indeed necessary, potential immigrants should be from states that uphold the same values and ideas about pluralistic democracy and civil liberties as the Finns. And Surprise, He also deems the ban on minarets to against our Western values, and that the structure itself is of little significance in Islam outside of its architectural value.Henrik Raeder Clausen from EuropeNews would beg to differ, “Minarets are built to ”stamp a site with Islamic character”, not for their religious signifiance. Actually, no building should in principle have any religious significance, for only Allah is to be worshipped, not stones, buildings and holy water. The reality, of course, is somewhat different. The core purpose of a minaret remains to mark the ownership, that this land is Islamic.
Now, the idea of putting land under religious rule, Islamic rule in particular, is something we don’t quite like in the West. Here, religion is primarily a personal, not a political matter, and we have a certain dislike for the idea of permitting alien landmarks to dominate our lands, not to mention having religious law dominate our societies.
Truly moderate imams, like Taj Hargey in the United Kingdom, make it clear that minarets are not really needed. In his article “Minarets are not an essential part of Islam” (Times Online), he states clearly that “The Swiss vote does not infringe Muslim religious rights”, and proceeds to make the point that Islam will do just fine without minarets:
Switzerland’s referendum vote to ban minarets […] does not infringe the religious liberty of Swiss Muslims. Minarets remain emblematic of mosques in the Muslim heartlands but there is no theological reason why houses of worship in the West have to incorporate such towers.
Fundamentalist imams who hold the different views have, according to Hargey, a different and dangerous agenda, one that will stoke Islamophobia and conflict. That agenda has to do with the minarets as symbols of conquest.”
Again, Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, who, in the recent lecture series Europe and the Middle East, was lauded as being the authoritve voice on Islam in Finland, is caught lying. Yes, the TT says lying, because as a professor, he undoubtedly knows all about what Mr.Clausen was writing about, but for ideological reasons, chose to omit them, and state otherwise. The man is a serial liar and unacademic in every regard, at least when explaining Islam. The TT could care less about his expertise on Islamic poetry.
He then focuses his gaze on the forceable conversion to Islam, that’s inherent, crucial part of the Muslim ideology. He blatantly lies: “Islam does not restrict the freedom of religion” and “Islam does not force conversion, and it does not have a command for proselytizing.”
Really?! Robert Spencer shines an interesting spotlight on the Islamic principle of forced conversion to Islam, by none other than the prophet of Islam himself, Mohamed. Robert states:
“Muhammad instructed his followers to call people to Islam before waging war against them – the warfare would follow from their refusal to accept Islam or to enter the Islamic social order as inferiors, required to pay a special tax:
Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on non-Muslims specified in Qur’an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)
There is therefore an inescapable threat in this “invitation” to accept Islam. Would one who converted to Islam under the threat of war be considered to have converted under duress? By non-Muslim standards, yes, but not according to the view of this Islamic tradition. From the standpoint of the traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence such a conversion would have resulted from “no compulsion.””
There is also another Islamic principle that binds forced conversion into the very heartless soul of Islam, that being, the institution of dhimmitude. The placing of conquered people in a permanent second class status was a means by which Muslim rulers were afforded a steady flow of extra income from the “protected people of the book”, as well as keeping them in their place as inferiors. The only way one were to avoid and/or rise above their predicament, was to convert to Islam, which many did.
For more about the Muslim understanding of forced conversions, read what Dr.Andrew Bostom has to say about it. It’s also worth remembering that the greatest of Jewish sages, Maimonides, was a refugee from Al-Andulas, the area of Spain conquered by Islam before they were driven out in the late 1400’s.
This evidence proves that professor Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, from the University of Helsinki to be a liar and a fraud where Islamic studies are concerned, making him a highly untrustworthy source to turn to. That the Finnish media keeps turning to him on matters concerning Islam, is very much like the importance the US media places on CAIR, when they seek its views on anything remotely related to Islamic extremism. KGS