ﻛﺘﺎﺏ "ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﺗﻀﺤﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺮﻳﺔ" ﺳﺘﻴﻔﻦ ﺑﻮﻻﺭﺩ ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﻟﻸﻟﻮﻛﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ: ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻰ ﻣﻬﺪﻱ ﻛﺘﺐ "ﺳﺘﻴﻔﻦ ﺑﻮﻻﺭﺩ" STEPHEN POLLARD - ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻔﻲ ﺑﺠﺮﻳﺪﺓ "ﺟِﻴﻮِﺵ ﻛﺮﻭﻧﻴﻜﺎﻝ"، ﺃﻗﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻒ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻳﻄﺎﻧﻴﺔ - ﻣﻘﺎﻻً ﺑﺠﺮﻳﺪﺓ "ﺍﻟﻨﻴﻮﻳﻮﺭﻙ ﺗﺎﻳﻤﺰ"، ﻳﻘﺪِّﻡ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻋﺮﺿًﺎ ﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻣﺆﺧﺮًﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﻭﺳﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ، ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻨﺘﻘﺪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ، ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻭﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﺑﺎﻟﺨﻀﻮﻉ ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺘﺴﻼﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺻﺮﺍﻋﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﻭﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻠﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻭﺃﻭﺭﻭﺑﺎ. ﻭﻳﺼﻒ "ﺳﺘﻴﻔﻦ ﺑﻮﻻﺭﺩ" ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺑﺄﻧﻬﺎ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻮﺍﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻬﺪﻳﺪﺍﺕ، ﻭﻳﺠﻌﻞ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﻬﺪﻳﺪًﺍ ﻳﺴﺘﻠﺰﻡ ﺍﻹﻋﺪﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﺠﻴﺪ ﻟﻤﻮﺍﺟﻬﺘﻪ، ﺣﺘﻰ ﻟﻮ ﻏﻔﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺗﻬﺪﻳﺪ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻳﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﻭﻣﺼﺪﺭﻩ ﻭﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﻩ. ﺛﻢ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻞ "ﺑﻮﻻﺭﺩ" ﺇﻟﻰ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ "ﺑﺮﻭﺱ ﺑﺎﻭﺭ" ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮﺍﻟﻲ "ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺴﻼﻡ: ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻀﺤﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺮﻳﺔ" Surrender Appeasing Islam، Sacrificing Freedom، ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻺﺳﻼﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ. ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﺪ "ﺑﺮﻭﺱ ﺑﺎﻭﺭ" ﻗﻴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺑﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻘﺼﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﺯ ﺧﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻹﻋﻼﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ، ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻮﺟﻪ ﺳﻬﺎﻡَ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻒ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ، ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻐﻔﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻬﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻲ، ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻘﺼﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺳﻤﺎﻩ "ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﺔ" ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﺠﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺩﻋﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ، ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻤﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ. ﻭﻳﺸﻴﺮ "ﺑﻮﻻﺭﺩ" ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ "ﺑﺎﻭﺭ" ﻓﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺳﺮﺩ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﺻﺎﺭ ﻋﺪﻭًّﺍ ﻟﻠﻐﺮﺏ ﺑﺘﻬﺎﻭﻧﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﻴﻦ، ﻭﻳﻤﺜﻞ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﺣﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻳﻄﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺆﻳﺪﻭﻥ ﺣﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺿﺪَّ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻠﻴﻦ، ﻭﻳﺆﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺳﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻮﺍﺫ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺨﻠﺺ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ، ﻭﻳﺴﺘﻨﻜﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺣﻴﺐ ﻷﺣﺪ ﺃﻗﻄﺎﺏ ﺣﺰﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻳﻄﺎﻧﻲ ﻋﻤﺪﺓ ﺑﺮﻳﻄﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮﺍﻟﻲ ﻛﻴﻦ ﻟﻴﻔﻨﺠﺴﺘﻮﻥ ﺑﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺮﻳﺪﻭﻥ ﺇﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺑﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺑﺮﻳﺔ. ﺛﻢ ﻳﺬﻛﺮ "ﺑﺎﻭﺭ" ﻣﺜﺎﻻً ﺁﺧﺮَ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺿﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻟﻺﺳﻼﻡ، ﻏﺎﻓﻼً ﻋﻦ ﺧﻄﻮﺭﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ - ﻓﻲ ﺯﻋﻤﻪ - ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺒﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺳﺔ ﻋﻘﺐ ﺍﻷﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻭﻗﻌﺖ ﻛﺮﺩِّ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﻳﻜﺎﺗﻴﺮﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻒ ﺍﻟﺪﻧﻤﺎﺭﻛﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﺳﺎﺀﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻲ - ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ - ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﺻﻔﻪ "ﺑﺎﻭﺭ" ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻷﺳﻮﺃ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻤﺪﺓ ﻟﻨﺪﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ. ﻭﻳﺮﻯ "ﺑﺎﻭﺭ" ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺭﺳﻤﻬﺎ ﻟﻪ؛ ﻷﻧﻪ - ﻣﻦ ﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﻩ - ﻋﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳُﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔً ﺧﺎﺻﺔً، ﻓﻼ ﻳﺘﻌﺮﺽُ ﺃﺣﺪٌ ﻟﻪ، ﻭﻻ ﻳﺘﻢُّ ﻧﻘﺪُﻩ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻬﺰﺍﺀُ ﺑﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺴﺨﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻨﻪ، ﻛﺸﺄﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻼﺩ ﺗﻨﺘﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﻳﺔ. ﻭﻳﺨﺘﻢ "ﺑﻮﻻﺭﺩ" ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﻤﺎ ﻧﻘﻠﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺪﺡ "ﺑﺎﻭﺭ" ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺭﺋﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﺯﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﻧﻤﺎﺭﻛﻲ "ﺃﻧﺪﺭﺱ ﺭﺍﺳﻤﻮﺳﻴﻦ" Anders Fogh Rasmussen، ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻃﺎﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﺘﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﻣﺮ ﺑﻤﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔٍ ﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔِ ﺗﺪﺍﻋﻴﺎﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﺔ - ﺃﺟﺎﺑﻬﻢ ﻗﺎﺋﻼً: ﺇﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺘﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺘﻪ ﺃﺻﻼً، ﻭﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺪﻧﻤﺎﺭﻛﻲ!! ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ: The Appeasers Stephen Pollard There is no more important issue facing the West than Islamism, Islamofascism or — to use yet another label — radical Islam. And there is no more necessary precondition to countering that threat than understanding it: where it springs from, how it is expressed and the ways in which it is spreading. But before we do any of that, we have to agree that the threat exists. For the United States, the danger so far has taken the form of terror, as 9/11 so clearly demonstrated. In Europe, terror is real too, but a more insidious problem has now taken hold: many liberals and others on the European left are making common cause with radical Islam and then brazenly and bizarrely denying both the existence of that alliance and in fact the existence of any Islamist threat whatever. Bruce Bawer’s “Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom” is focused on this phenomenon. Bawer, an American writer who lives in Norway — the archetype, even the caricature, of the liberal European mind-set — seeks to show, among other things, that the United States is becoming as culpable as Europe, its liberal news media and college campuses willfully refusing to acknowledge the danger posed by radical Islam and opening their pages and seminars to those who seek the undoing of the very tenets that allow liberals — and everyone else — their freedoms. Bawer devotes much of his book to an attack on The New York Times for refusing to highlight the Islamist threat while swallowing the claims of figures like Tariq Ramadan, a supposed moderate who, Bawer writes, is “a habitual practitioner of the Islamic art of taqiyya — which essentially means saying one thing in Arabic and another thing in English or French.” But it’s when he turns to Europe that Bawer is able to provide example upon example of how the West is becoming its own worst enemy. He cites, for instance, the welcome offered by the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, to the Muslim cleric Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who supports suicide bombing and the execution of homosexuals. Livingstone proudly hugged Qaradawi in public at City Hall. That alliance between a man who is presumed to be a proud liberal — Livingstone was a member of the same Labour Party as the prime minister at the time, Tony Blair — and a Muslim cleric who would return the West to barbarism was far from unique. But Livingstone is a politician. He is accountable to voters for his behavior, and he was voted out of office. More pernicious, perhaps, is the refusal of institutions that depend on freedom of speech for their very existence to stand up for that freedom. Bawer analyzes the story of the 12 cartoons of Muhammad published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005, which is emblematic of the “surrender” of his title. When the paper was attacked by radical Muslims for daring to mock Muhammad, solidarity from other newspapers in supposedly free nations across the globe was paltry. The response of political leaders was even worse. Rather than confronting a blatant, indeed self-proclaimed, attempt to ensure that Islam could not be treated like any other subject in a free country — that is, mocked, criticized or satirized — politicians and editors simply cowered in fear of retaliation. Even those newspapers that offered words of support to Jyllands-Posten refused to reprint the cartoons. Almost the only leader to show any backbone was the Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. His response to a demand by Muslim leaders for a meeting was to tell them that “it is so self-evidently clear what principles Danish society is based upon that there is nothing to have a meeting about.” “Surrender” is, at times, hard going. In part that is because of the level of detail Bawer offers in support of his argument. But “Surrender” is hard going in another respect as well. Bawer is unquestionably correct, and that fact is quite simply terrifying. Stephen Pollard, the editor of The Jewish Chronicle, is the author of “Ten Days That Changed the Nation: The Making of Modern Britain.”
siege auto
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق