Flemming Rose speaks
So, over two weeks we witnessed a half-dozen cases of self-censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear of confronting issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover, and Jyllands-Posten decided to do it by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: Show, don't tell. I wrote to members of the association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw Muhammad as you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the prophet. Twelve out of 25 active members responded.
We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers.
"Show, don't tell."
And that is exactly what the Muslims did after the cartoons were published.
Thank you, Islam, for validating what this site has been saying. Thanks for "showing" the world what Islam is all about.
They cannot be integrated, to the extent that they adhere to Islam. Not in Denmark, and not in any other Infidel country. Not a single one of the most important rights guaranteed to individuals in Western countries, and enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, can conceivably exist in a Muslim society, or be accepted by Muslims who are required to work, as a duty, for the day when Islam is everywhere to "dominate and not to be dominated." The very idea of religious pluralism, that is full equality of various religions, is simply impossible in Islam. The non-Muslim has only three choices in lands where Islam conquers and Muslims prevail: death, immediate conversion, or if he is lucky (i.e. if he is a member of the ahl al-kitab, or People of the Book -- that is, Christians and Jews) he may be permitted to live, to practice his religion, but only under conditions so onerous that they amount, as they are supposed to, to a status of permanent humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity. This is the way it always was, wherever Islam conquered, until the 19th century, when finally Western pressure managed to force better treatment in the Ottoman Empire for non-Muslims, but only through through constant renewal of such pressure on unwilling Muslim officials, both in Constantinople and scattered throughout the Empire. Furthermore, in India the situation became better for HIndus only because the British, in removing the Muslim ovelrords, ended the dhimmi (zimmi) system, ended the host of political, economic, and social disabilitities under which the HIndus had suffered, and even allowed Indians to recover their own Hindu past.
Islam is an alien creed. There are many alien creeds whose adherents have managed to integrate successfully into the West, from Vietnamese Buddhists to Hindus to Siberian animists. But there is one group whose members are inculcated with hostility toward Infidels (start with 9.29 and the rest of Sura 9, and then work through all the verses in the Qur'an about how to treat, and regard Infidels, and similiar passages in the Hadith, and then for the final lesson, look at what Muhammad is reported as having done in the Sira) and whose loyalty is similarly to be not a "double loyalty" but rather a single loyalty -- to Islam and to the umma al-islamiyya. To the extent that one is a bad Muslim, a Muslim who wishes to ignore the central division, in Islam, between Believer and Infidel, and only to that extent, can one possibly exist in an Infidel society without posing a permanent danger to that society and those Infidels. This is not an imaginary problem. It is not a hypothetical problem. It has 1350 years of history behind it, and the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira, to explain it.
No pious pronouncements about "three monotheisms" or the "three abrahamic faiths" can any longer disguise this disturbing reality, that Infidels must begin to comprehend, even if they have to study the matter not in the press, which so carefully has avoided instructing people in the contents of Islam, or from their political leaders, who do not know, do not want to know, cannot bring themselves to know, what they have a duty to study, to know, and to instruct the citizens, those whom they claim to protect and to represent, and whose futures and lives they are, by not examining Islam through something less misleading than the lens supplied by members of MESA Nostra or others directly or indirectly determined to hide the full truth about Islam, endangering -- perhaps fatally. something more than an apologist's lens, ,
Terrific article here
Banning the Quran?
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/825#comment
Saw this posted at LGF it's from a Spanish newspaper.
All European life died in Auschwitz
By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez(*)
---------
I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth:
Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims.
In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, and talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.
And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts. And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.
Fleming Rose's explanation as to why he had published those cartoons are insufficient,as he failed to pin point the MAIN reason for this Cartoon uprising in all the Islamic world by Muslims. In one of the interviews,he has stated that before the Cartoon controvercy, a Danish Islamic Mulla's Deligation went to the Middle eastern Islamic countries, carried with them a bunch of cartoons ,to show and incite the Arabic Muslims.
This cartoons not only included the thirteen cartoons,which were published by Rose,but also OTHER CARTOONS,NOT DEPICTED BY HIM,BUT TAKEN FROM OTHER SOURCES,WHICH WERE NOT CONNECTED TO PROPHET MOHAMED AT ALL.TWO SUCH CARTOONS WERE TAKEN FROM THE "PIG CARTOON FESTIVAL",and these cartoons were a depiction of humans with a pig's head.It is nothing to do with Mohamed.But these Mullas included these cartoons too, to incite the Arabs as they have depicted Mohamed with pig's head. The Danish Government ,and the Autorities connected with the paper should acuse these Mullas for spreading false allegations,and spreading mischief against the country of Denmark'
I fail to understand why Flaming Ross is mum over this issue,which is the main reason for so much world unrest. The concerned Mullahs should be exposed to the whole world as lyers and trouble creators,and should be punished in public and thrown out of Denmark.
Furthermore, in India the situation became better for HIndus only because the British, in removing the Muslim ovelrords, ended the dhimmi (zimmi) system, ended the host of political, economic, and social disabilitities under which the HIndus had suffered, and even allowed Indians to recover their own Hindu past.
Hugh
Small correction (or big) - the Brits didn't remove the Muslim overlords in India. The Marathas did. Between 1708 and the early 1800s, it was they who dominated much of India. And following their example, the Rajputs, Sikhs, Jats, and other infidel groups threw of Muslim rule. By 1761, the Moghul empire was pretty much confined to the Red Fort in Delhi, and much of the political, economic and social disabilities under which Hindus had suffered, were history.
The Brits do deserve thanks for other things they did for Hindus, like the rediscovery of early Rajput history (Col Todd), abolition of sati, promotion of widow re-marriage, and promoting female education. I believe in giving the Brits credit for the good things that they did for the Hindus, but freeing them of Muslim rule wasn't one of them.
Mr Rose,
Apparently, the Muslims don't agree with you that they are part of your society.
DP111
Thanks for the link above. I love Brussels Journal, and the entire thread you linked to is terrific, not just the head article. Didn't have patience or good will for the Muslim apologist, but the "native American" defender of Spain and El Cid is a riot, funny as hell, sparkling, passionate. By the time he invoked Odin at the end I was choking with laughter. Couldn't help thinking how sullen, humorless Islam is.
I'd like to buy Mr. Rose a nice "Roses of Mohammad" pastry. Formerly known as a Danish.
But his pose of lacking an understanding about how vilently Muslims respond to humor about their religion rings false.
Hadn't he heard of Salman Rushdie?
Or the word fatwa?
Let's not start to b.s. about the reality of the issue from both sides, now.
The original dozen pictures even include one sketch of a cartoonist, shrinking in fear at his drawing board, partially covering up an illustration he has just made of the face of the "prophet" Mohammad, shielding it from possibly prying Muslim eyes.
What did he fear? A sharp letter to the editor?
Or something more steely? And permanent?
This demonstrates that the subject was: are Danish artists too afraid of Muslim mayhem and intimidation to draw a doodle of the Islamic "prophet", in any form?
That's what they were commenting on in these editorial cartoons: the abject terror that children's book illustrators in Denmark felt when Kare Bluitgen, the author of a kid's book on "The Koran and the Life of Mohammad", asked for someone to draw the pictures for his completed manuscript.
Not one would, out of pants-pissing fear.
Rose now acts as if the newpaper's artists thought that there would be no serious reaction from the Islamic Umma. And that, by this satirical tweaking the Muslim "prophet", the editorial cartoonists were merely hazing the Muslims down a friendly gauntlet toward hail-fellow-well-met equality in Danish society. A jolly rite of passage into Civilization. And that the Muslim community would smile and go along without a peep.
Ignoring the danger starkly illustrated, and baldly commented upon, in most of the cartoons themselves.
I thought that the cartoonists knew the risk, and were brave enough to stand the reaction.
If so, stand by your work, defend freedom, and condemn the irrational violence -that the cartoons commented on- and that has erupted as predicted by the caricatures of the pedophile warlord.
Don't play dumb or naive or surprised.
Stick by your guns. Mock on!
Slightly OT
Did anyone watch 60 Minutes tonight? It had a segment on the cartoons. I don't remember the name of the "journalist" (he's the guy who usually reports on the Middle East.)
It was relentlessly mocking of the Danes, with cheap sarcastic shots throughout: they are shallow, self-absorbed, living in doll-like houses (Beg your pardon?? Would caves been more politically correct?) racist and intolerant, and, to top it off, they have a mermaid as a national symbol! Imagine that.
According to the reporter, Flemming Rose is currently living in a "five-star hotel" in D.C.
Roxane ... interesting piece by Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez. Of course, Europe did more than just invite Mohammedans in .. in the case of Arabs, they welcomed with open arms Hitler's allies.
Big Mistake.
ovidius_naso .. "...they have a mermaid as a national symbol!"
And if the Danes were not so morally strong the Little Mermaid would be burkahed and stoned by now.
"It was relentlessly mocking of the Danes, with cheap sarcastic shots throughout: they are shallow, self-absorbed, living in doll-like houses..."
--from a posting above
Yes, 60 Minutes gave it the worst of 60 Minutes -- Bob Simon. You remember Bob Simon, the shallow ignorant nasty Bob Simon, who used to report from Israel, sounding just as much an echo chamber of Hanan Ashrawi as was Peter Jennings? Bob Simon, who was always sympathetic to Arabs and Muslims, save for that briefest of moments when he reappeared after having been seized by the Iraqis, and one somehow assumed the experience would change him. True, for about a week he did have a slightly chastened tone, but he soon reverted to his own appalling type.
The importance of Freedom of Speech, the histoyr of Freedom of Speech, the way in which it is now not only menaced, but in which those who are afraid are so often unable to admit to this fear and instead come up with rationalizations -- "must respect religious beliefs" etc. -- that were unheard-of and certainly not applied in any case involving non-Muslims who were offended by all sorts of things, but whose dignified protests were usually dismissed or mocked.
How is The New Duranty Times, how is Bob Simon himself, con una faccia da schiaffi, ever going to understand what grave matters are in play, are at stake, and why this abandonment of a principle and of those cartoonists and of that newspaper and of that country (not well-represented by that smooth-talking former Danish official, whom Bob Simon dragged up to present the Case for Appeasement)?
Shallow, stupid, almost the opposite of those models whom so many now claim to revere -- think of Edward R. Murrow, or Elmer Davis, or Eric Sevareid, and then think of Bob Simon, hyperions to a satyr -- this Bob Simon has disgraced himself and 60 Minutes for all time with this performance tonight.
What can he tell us about Freedom of Speech? What can he say about the fanatic mobs that are now threatening? Why did he not even mention those newspapers that were willing, in 40 countries, to print those cartoons? And why was he coyly unable to show even one of them fully -- and not merely details being sketched? Why, when the malevolent Danish imam assured him that those "other" cartoons were ones he had been sent as part of hate-mail, did Bob Simon simply accept this highly unlikely version of events, and not raise the matter of the Danish imam concocting the "atrocities" himself, as so many Muslims have done for the Al-Jazeera cameras, in Iraq and in soi-disant "Palestine"?
He disgusts. But that he is kept on, that he was hired by 60 Minutes and is no doubt being groomed for his unpleasant, high-pitched, moronic closeup -- this is what is so intolerable.
Tonight one had the quintessence of Bob Simon. What a quint. What an essence.
from the article
“In January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern secular democracy.”
Moderate Muslims insist their faith is compatible. They insist! Well, I feel all better now.
I wonder how long radical Muslims will let the moderates get away with this, going against the imams, the Qur’an, and making friends with the Infidels and respecting their laws. They might soon be on the same list as the cartoonist if they’re not careful.
The real explanation is owed by all the western publications that wouldn't show the cartoons once they became an enormous story due to hysterical, violent Muslim reaction. You can bet that 99% of the powers-that-be at these Timid Times sought out online what they denied their readers; To See for Themselves what all the fuss was about. What a bunch of hypocritical cowards!
The real explanation is owed by all the western publications that wouldn't show the cartoons once they became an enormous story due to hysterical, violent Muslim reaction. You can bet that 99% of the powers-that-be at these Timid Times sought out online what they denied their readers; To See for Themselves what all the fuss was about. What a bunch of hypocritical cowards!
Daisytoo:
Andersen's The Little Mermaid is one of the most beautiful and profound stories ever. So cheapened by Disney and Comp., unfortunately.
Andersen is a giant, too easily relegated to the "children's corner" and left there. He's much more than that. Perault and the Grimm Brothers and Hauff (unknown in this country) all speak about the dark side and other-wordly perils and revenants and witches and big bad wolves and transformations from one realm to another, but nobody understands the tragedy of it all for a human moving between these realms like Andersen does--well, with an exception, Oscar Wilde's The Happy Prince. Or the simple pain of being poor and wretchedly cold, selling matches in the street.
Hey Danes, those of you who read this post, you have every reason to be proud of your culture.
Don't ever doubt it.
Cartoons need to be seen to be appreciated. But enough has been shown in the Muslim reaction to the non-Muslim public to further chip away at the facade of the peaceful Islam. A major crack has opened up, and we should now insert the crowbar to pry it open further, and break it apart completely. The crowbar is information about (a) Islamic ideology (the core texts), (b) Islamic history, and (c) the world-wide imperialistic jihad*. The more Muslims try to explain this away, the less credibility they have in the eyes of the ordinary non-Muslims citizen.
The simple fact cannot be escaped that all of this mayhem is ostensively in relation to cartoons. Of course the Islamists are attempting to further impose Islamic blasphemy law upon the whole world, which is itself part of a larger objective. But Muslim spokesmen are giving 'explanations' that don't add up and which raise suspicion to the ordinary non-Muslim. No amount of spin can undo what has happened. These are now significant historical events, and we are seeing them unfold.
This whole controversy has provided the perfect opportunity to give the ordinary non-Muslim citizen a better explanation of what is behind all of this. It's not enough that the ordinary non-Muslim sees Muslims behaving badly. He/she must be shown what is the method behind the madness, and that requires frank discussion of the (a), (b), and (c) of Islam.
*attempts to impose Islamic law through deception, threats and assassinations, zealous political activism, and terrorist mayhem.
@Infidel Pride:
It seems you are a Hindu, I’m not sure, but about your response to Hugh’s comment about Hindus and Brits. I am a Hindu so believe me, any comments about Hindus is very sensitive to me naturally.
I think Hugh didn’t word it properly, but what Hugh is referring to is the British destroying the Nawab of Bengal, the Nawab of Oudh, Tipu Sultan of Mysore, and eventually the city state of what was left of the Mughal Empire, which was only Delhi.. The three fairly large and powerful Muslim kingdoms in India were Oudh, Bengal and Mysore (excluding Hyderabad), I am sure you’ll agree.
The British didn’t destroy them to liberate the Hindus, but the Hindus being liberated was an indirect benefit from British expansion.
The Nawab of Bengal was defeated by the British because Hindu businessman financed the British Army, thus the battle of Plassey in 1757.
It is true that the Hindus liberated themselves from the majority of Muslim power without any foreign aid.
It would be also fair to note that if it wasn’t for my great great grandfather Sri Teen Maharaja Jung Bahadur of Nepal, the British would have lost to the Muslim forces in 1857 who were fighting a Jihad for the reestablishment of the Mughal Emperor and not the liberation of India. When the Muslim forces asked for Jung’s help against the British, he replied that if the British attack Hindusim then Nepal fights the British, but since this is not the case Nepal will honour our treaty with the British Empire. You can read this account in my cousin’s book “Jung Bahadur Rana” by Purushottam S.J.B. Rana.
- Cheers
Ayo Gorkhali
One more thing Infidel Pride, the Brits knew who to keep as friends and who to fight.
Nana Saheb, the famous Peshwa who fought the Brits in 1857 was given protection by Sri Teen M. Jung Bahadur, thus he spent the rest of his life in Kathmandu and was given a palace for his disposal. The British did not pursue the matter since they wanted to keep good relations with the house of Gorkha.
-Cheers
Why Laws Concerning Immigration of Muslims to the West Must Become Much More Restrictive
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/23/npoll23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/23/ixnewstop.html
Here are a couple of results of the above poll:
Now a poll reported 3rd January 2005 at:
http://www.theasiannews.co.uk/heritage/s/191/191543_war_torpedoes_labours_muslim_backing.html
A statement presented to polltakers, and the percentage who agreed and disagreed, as recorded by the above poll:
"It was relentlessly mocking of the Danes, with cheap sarcastic shots throughout: they are shallow, self-absorbed, living in doll-like houses (Beg your pardon?? Would caves been more politically correct?) racist and intolerant, and, to top it off, they have a mermaid as a national symbol! Imagine that."
Tell him to get back to us when his own country has freedom of expression. You know, REAL freedom of expression, not just the pretend kind.
ovidius_naso
Look for comments by KungfuMaster on other threads dealing with islam. He is truly laugh riot. He and the others are getting "revelations". Yeah. I almost fell off the chair.
So here it is again for those who havnt looked
Terrific article here
Banning the Quran?
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/825#comment
Another downer:
Howard gives us (once again) the 'tiny minority of extremists' BS':
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18204301%255E601,00.html
I think Flemming Rose by and large does a good job defending his newspapers decision to publish the cartoons, I just think he is too politically correct in making such a clear distinction between 'moderate' and 'radical' muslims.
Soon the dust will settle over this issue and many peopel will think that some sort of progress have been made in terms of 'softening' the muslims and make socalled 'moderate' voices in that community more powerful; I don't think so. The problem with Islam has been the same ever since the days of Mohammad: There might be moderate muslims but Islam in itself doesn't encourage moderation. The literal interpretation of Islam is voilent and intolerant, so muslims will always be more likely to commit acts of violence than others. Unfortunately many peopel haven't realized that yet, so they are in for some nasty surprises in the future...
A reminder:
"In a post on Monday I helped publicize a grass-roots British project to counter the growing movement to suppress free speech in order to appease Muslims.
The efforts of all the people involved have borne fruit; we received an email this morning announcing that March for Free ____Expression has booked Trafalgar Square for Saturday 25th March.
They also sent us the following:
Statement of Principle
The strength and survival of free society and the advance of human knowledge depend on the free exchange of ideas. All ideas give offense to someone, and some of the most powerful ideas in human history, such as those of Galileo and Darwin, have given profound religious offense in their time.
The free exchange of ideas depends on freedom of ____expression and this includes the right to criticize and mock.
We assert and uphold the right of freedom of ____expression and call on our elected representatives to do the same.
We abhor the fact that people throughout the world live under mortal threat simply for expressing ideas and we call on our elected representatives to protect them from attack and not to give comfort to the forces of intolerance that besiege them.
The group’s email address is marchforfreespeech@googlemail.com, and the blog is marchforfreeexpression.blogspot.com.
So readers in the UK — and those planning a visit — will want to make a note of the date, March 25th, and the venue, Trafalgar Square. That’s in London: just hang a left at the White Cliffs of Dover and go about 60 miles — you can’t miss it."
We are all Danes!
ovidius_naso
Your timing concerning Hans Christian Anderson's "The Little Mermaid" was fortuitous. And what a wonderful observation you've made concerning The Little Mermaid as the intermediary between the realms of consciousness. She has her work cut out for her these days, doesn't she ?
I've recently received 2 beautifully bound volumes of Anderson's complete works. After these posts, it will be with renewed appreciation that I dive into his paradoxical world ... where becoming human is the greatest gift of all.
The reverence H.C. Anderson holds for the 'longing for humanity' is lost on fascists. This longing for human vulnerability is exactly what is rejected by the absolutist Islamists who reject all of Danish culture but gladly grab the concrete welfare $$$. And what they reject the hardest is what they need the most. But you already know that :)!