Guardian writer Brian Whitaker, whose dhimmitude we have noted before, has gone out of his way to mischaracterize and caricature the positions of Jihad Watch in a Guardian column extolling Prince Charles as an Islamic reformer: "Prince Charles, the Islamic dissident":
This, without doubt, is the nub of the problem within Islam today. Whether the issue is ill-treatment of women, the persecution of minorities, barbaric punishments or just general intolerance, it all stems from a belief that there are fixed rules, laid down centuries ago, which must never be questioned or adapted to changing circumstances.Reactionary Islamic scholars are not the only ones who support that idea. It is also promoted by anti-Muslim activists, such as Jihad Watch, who argue that Islam is intrinsically bad and unreformable, and would like to press ahead with the great "clash of civilisations" as quickly as possible in order to wipe it out.
In his speech, therefore, Prince Charles was seeking to defend Islam from anti-Muslim prejudice in the west and at the same time supporting Islamic reform against clerics whose mentality is frozen in backwardness.
All right. Let's take this from the beginning. Whether the issue is ill-treatment of women, the persecution of minorities, barbaric punishments or just general intolerance, there are Islamic clerics around the world who insist that all that must be maintained and defended, since it all stems from fixed rules, laid down centuries ago, which must never be questioned or adapted to changing circumstances.
When they say things like this, I duly report that they are saying them. And because I report on their words and deeds, in Brian Whitaker's mind I must support them. And because of their numbers and prominence, as compared to the small and isolated voices calling for reform, I have noted that prospects for Islamic reform are dim. If Brian Whitaker thinks my assessment here is incorrect, he would be well advised to adduce in favor of his position an authority more respected in the Islamic world than Prince Charles, who is not -- officially, anyway -- even a Muslim.
As for the rest of Whitaker's statement about Jihad Watch, it is false on virtually every level.
It is also promoted by anti-Muslim activists, such as Jihad Watch...
We are not "anti-Muslim activists." In the FAQ here I say: "Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts." Jihadists worldwide are fighting to impose Sharia; we oppose the infringement of equality of rights for religious minorities and women that Sharia represents.
...who argue that Islam is intrinsically bad and unreformable...
I would ask Brian Whitaker to quote any statement to this effect from any of my books, articles, or web postings. But he can't, because I have never said anything to this effect. "Islam is intrinsically bad"? Islam is many, many things. Are aspects of it "intrinsically bad"? Of course. Or would Brian Whitaker rush to the defense of the death penalty for apostates (Qur'an 4:89), the beating of disobedient wives (Qur'an 4:34), warfare to convert or subjugate Jews and Christians (Qur'an 9:29) and all the rest?
"Unreformable"? Let's put it this way: show me, Mr. Whitaker, a large-scale Muslim movement anywhere in the world today that calls for indefinite peaceful relations as equals with non-Muslims, renounces and rejects for all time the jihad ideology of conquest and subjugation, and accords women full equality of rights. Take your time, sir.
...and would like to press ahead with the great 'clash of civilisations' as quickly as possible in order to wipe it out.
This is simply defamatory. Mr. Whitaker, I challenge you again to substantiate that statement with even a single quotation from my books, articles, or web posts. You will not, because you cannot. Unmoderated comments from posters here do not apply. You appear not to know, or not to want your readers to know, that I have told posters here that genocidal comments are unwelcome on many, many, many occasions. I believe that the antidote to bad speech is more speech, and I will not close comments here; however, I will not be held responsible for any comments, especially since people of all perspectives, including supporters of Islamic jihad, comment here regularly.
If you believe I support a position, prove it from my own writings. If you cannot, you are simply a liar.
Mr. Whitaker, I look forward to your retraction and apology.
Mr. Spencer,
Please don't hold your breath waiting for that apology or that retraction. We need you.
After reading Brian Whitaker's nice little column, including details of all those people who agreed with Charles, click on the link
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/faisal_bodi/2006/03/faisal_bodi_post.html
Which is linked to his article, which begs the question, who is the real extremist, the Guardian or Jihad Watch, this article was extreme and you only have to read the first few sentences to get the impression that the Guardian has totally lost its way...
I think this is good PR for Jihad Watch. The more the mainstream takes note of this website and other like it, the better off we will all be.
Whitaker is as much a piece of work as his friend Red Ken Livingstone. And the title of the article -- referring to someone who is, for all intents and purposes, the son and successor to the throne of a monarch whose title included "Defender of the [Anglican] Faith" -- as an Islamic dissident is a case of such cognative disonance as to be ludicrous.
As for Whitaker's defamatory claims against JihadWatch, you'd think he might have learned a lesson from his ill-considered assault on the integrity of MEMRI, but apparently not. I hope Robert decides to pursue him in court.
I wonder why Mr. Whitaker used the words "anti-Muslim activists." The only rational way to care about Muslims as human beings, to be pro-Muslim as it were, is to address the oppression imposed upon them by Islam.
Being anti-Communist during the Cold War or even today, since for some odd reason I cannot understand Communism isn't yet dead, is not to be anti-Russian or anti-Chinese - it was arguably the only pro-Russian and pro-Chinese position to take.
But that is assuming we care about people more than their ideology or religion.
Islam, as it is currently constructed, is designed to put itself and its perpetuation above all other considerations, including human rights.
Does Mr. Whitaker concur with the Afghan Muslims that Abdul Rahman, or any other Muslim, does not have the right to convert to Christianity?
The secularist with moral relativistic view are as totalitarian as the Islamist. It is the same problem as in the 20th century. Nazi equal Islamist and Secularist equal communist. At this time I am afraid that the two forces will form an unholy alliance against the rest of the world.
I think you hit a nerve with Brian on his Gandhi fantasy. Brian, as a gay may, should be aware of what Muslims think of gays. I never understood why gays think Muslims can be their 'superbest friends.'
Whitaker very creatively slanders Jihad Watch in a series of reasoned statements.
Jihad Watch argues that Islam is incompatible with freedom of thought and conscience, incompatible with representative democracy and liberal values. Whitakers' jibe insinuates that Jihad Watch is saying all Muslims are intrinsically bad. This is far from the truth.
Whitaker doesn't provide evidence for his charge, yet stands on popular falsehoods regarding Islam. True Islam is not reformable, it is not an "inspired" relgion, but believed to be the direct word of Allah. People who follow Islam are not instrinsically good or bad, but they are locked into a social system that evidences many shortcomings in the areas of freedom of thought, conscience and action.
Whitaker should be deeply ashamed of his dishonesty.
Robert and Rebecca, I read your posts, if it says Hugh I don't. I don't like his slant, I think that many of things Brian Whitaker states can be directed at Hugh.
Whitaker is looking much older and haggard these days.
Serving as an apologist for a 1,400-year old imperialist death cult is clearly taking its toll.
The Guardian rolling in the mire yet again.
That paper stinks in the nostrils of any decent person.
On its related blog which the newspaper launched recently with great fanfare, The Guardian permitted extreme anti-semitic comments to remain for 24 hours despite numerous complaints from readers. Amongst them was a comment likening Zionists to blood suckers. I can only assume that this was deliberate. Their talkboard is similarly infested with extremist anti-semitic posters who claim that the site should be closed to anyone who is not on the ultra anti semitic left. This newspaper also recently likened Israel to the apartheid state of South Africa which prompted numerous complaints from the Jewish community in the UK. The Guardian is a mouthpiece of Islamic fundamentalism and anti-semitism as far as I am concerned. I stopped reading it a long time ago. Robert should at least get the right of reply but I'm not holding my breath.
Truth4u:
You know, that's not a half bad idea! I like it, in fact.
Considering the mayhem created by a few frivolous doodles...
Wouldn't it be fun to hear the Islamists, whine about how their Prophet, Holy book, Laws, Way of life (pick any one of thousands of things) is being "humiliated", then watch the furious back-peddling, when they finally tell us all the blood-soaked truth?
No more of the "can you read Arabic" B.S. We would get the word straight from the source, then!
Sorry to repeat this in a different thread, but I feel it is worth noting, and the setting is the UK.
OT - on the rally for free _expression on 25th in London.
Despite my skepticism and pessimism I think not all has been lost. Not only due to the hard
work of the organisers but also thanks to the fantastic bunch of supporters who turned up.
I can bet many more would have come had it not been for the unfortunate U-turn of Voltaire,
advising people not to bring the cartoons. This decision has angered and discouraged a great
number of supporters judging by their furious reaction in the blog's comments. The speakers
were excellent as well (except for Rend Shakir - her speech was full of empty, worn-out
slogans and platitudes), and Maryam Namazie became a star of the rally with her passionate and uninhibited diatribe against islamic intolerance and dogma. The people reacted with applause. During all the speeches they showed an amazing sensitivity and propriety, rewarding with feverish clapping words of wisdom, truthfulness and courage, and booing any bullshit and insincerity with an equal
passion. Despite the fact that almost as soon as I arrived and displayed my Polish and
Danish flags I was asked to put them away some people wrapped themselves in Danish flags and
there were others (including myself) wearing T-shirts with "support free speech - buy
Danish) pictures.
And ...now hold your breath...the cartoons were shown by a brave Iranian man, who completely
intercepted everybody's attention for the first 10 minutes of the rally with a great speech
against in defense of the carttons "I am not afraid" - he stated firmly holding proudly the
banner with the cartoons. Half an hour later he got arrested by the police as someone filed
a complaint. I wish this person had owned up to their stance (what a coward!. Then great
Maryam took up the banner and asked everybody in the crowd to pass it around - "they can't
arrest everybody!" - if nothing else significant happened at the rally (and a lot of DID) then it would have been worth just witnessing and sharing this amazing experience of solidarity with this man). Needless to say people rushed to respond to her appeal - the banner stayed with us taken care of throughout the rest of the rally and nobody else was arrested.
The cartoon did not leave us even for a second though. It reminded me of a flag picked up by
someone else as soon as the who carried it "fell in the battle" - this was symbolic and very
meaningful to me.
Please visit the blog for updates / commenst and further developments:
http://www.marchforfreeexpression.blogspot.com/
BBC has noted us, though was of course very economical with sharing important details (such as the cartoons' defiant display):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4844634.stm
here great pics:
http://muscularliberals.blogspot.com/2006/03/londons-march-for-free-_expression.html
http://www.thatshot.org/march_for_free__expression_london.html
http://nordish.net/blog/london_25march/
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-922.html
An excellent resume from one of the bloggers:
TheFriendlyInfidel said...
"What a wonderful day. It was great to amongst like minded thinkers and to speak with those
in the crowd. We really were from all backgrounds I had a great chat about the state of the
world with a very well informed Indian chap. I noted was how few young people there were, we
were all mature and stood in the rain to hear people speak their mind without the
constraints of Political Correctness. This was not a G8 protest, we knew why we where there.
My favorite moments were at the beginning, there was a BBC reporter desperately looking for
far right people, desperately looking of Muslim haters. He was bitterly disappointed. There
were some long beards about, I smiled at them and in return they turned their faces in
disgusted.
Just before the speakers started, an Iranian ex Muslim stepped forwards with a sign
containing the 4 strongest Danish cartoons. At first he was very shy, but we all stood
around him protectively and encouraged him to speak "here, here, well said that man", the
journalists rushed to get quotes from him. He explained what each of the cartoons mean to
him, he pointed at one and said "this is about the suppression of women", he was angry about
women being stoned to death by followers of Islam, and that Islam specified the size of
stones to use. He stated that he had been tortured by the Iranian government, he said he
came to England to be free from persecution. Us people around him said “you are welcome
here” and the Islamist interviewers visibly shook with anger at this.
One speaker said “Anyone that proposes that they back the concept of ‘free speech’, but free
speech with ‘respect’, is talking about respect on their grounds. This is not free speech at
all. These are false friends”.
I admire Rend Shakir for trying to build bridges and stating that Muslims are not demons, I
agreed with her and cheered her initial comments. As she went on she did not speak out
against the rise Political Islam and the injustices that are acted out in its name. She
didn’t acknowledge the benefits that free speech has brought this country. She proceeded to
run over her time and tried to explain that free speech shouldn’t really include the right
to insult. In my opinion she deliberately extorted Peter by offering to speak, then he
announced it, soon after she withdrew her support unless he bowed to the demands of the MAC,
which he did, just to have her there.
Rend Shakir is a false friend.
Overall I think that it was right that Peter asked people not to bring the cartoons, they
were there, but they only held by ‘brown’ people, not white people. This beautifully
sidesteps accusations of ‘white supremacy’. Had I bought one and held it aloft it would have
tainted the message.
The only shame is that the without the pictures the Rally become a discussion group, it was
not a really a protest. Had it been a protest the turn out would have been better, but I
don’t believe the discussion would have progressive.
Many of my friends refused to come because they were scared or believed that the rally was
being held for the wrong cause, they read the statement and asked “who is this Peter, why do
you lend your support to him?”. Post the success of this rally, they would certainly join us
for the next one.
I thank Peter for getting the ball rolling and the insightful speakers that stepped forwards
to speak.
He is right, the wave has broken and the tide has started to turn.
1:14 PM "
And a reaction from MAC's blog:
"
METROPOLITAN POLICE IGNORE MUSLIM CONCERNS
Despite being asked by the organisers not to bring placards with cartoons, and despite literally thousands of requests by Muslims and others that the police should prevent people carrying these offensive images, some protestors carried placards with the cartoons on and when Muslims who were present complained to the police, no action was taken. We condemn those secular extremists who attended who seem intent in damaging good community relations rather than building them.
posted by Ismaeel at 1:25 PM "
from:
http://muslim-action-committee.blogspot.com/2006/03/metropolitan-police-ignore-muslim.html
More on MAC's counter-demos here:
http://www.globalcivility.co.uk/
This coming from a journalist from the Guardian,
a newspaper who had a "guest reporter" belonging to the extremist organization Hizb Al-Tahrir, (who described the 7/7 London bombers as "sassy")
Don't hold your breath waiting for a balanced reply from these kind of people Robert!
Negative attention is still attention. All he has done is pointed the curious our way. As more people find this site we will get more posters, some we will not want and some will have to be censored (like my earlier ones) hopefully, we will all reach a middle ground and get into some real discussions with opposing sides. I say let the muslims and their lackeys come, more fodder. They fear the truth because it is the one force they can not intimidate. I am sure there is something positive about islam. I just couldn’t find it and no one to date has shown it to me. Then again, I could be wrong and there is nothing positive about islam. Oops, did that sound hateful or anti muslim? I’m sure I meant it with love and tolerance. Off to work, defend freedom ya’ll.
Not only that but published an article by an Islamist on its blog blaming the 7/7 bombings on Mossad. The biassed reporting on Shabina Begum was also noted in the blog "The Daily Ablution" which is mainly a Guardian watching site. The Guardian journalist (a female, to her discredit) was full of gushing praise for the Luton schoolgirl but failed to mention Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the men manipulating the scenes behind her. The Guardian used to be a fair, liberal newspaper but is just a pro-Islamist, anti semitic rag these days.
From now on I suggest budgeting 25 words maximum as response to folks who exhibit such profound ignorance of the unadulterated content of the Islamic canon.
For more than a thousand years the world has witnessed the violent promulgation of the scaled-up tribal warrior code that is shari'a. In countless cycles of Muslim assault on the non-Muslim world, the vitriolic words that spew from the ummah soon are followed by a swinging of swords and cacophony of firearms and bombs. Those who remain asleep in their ignorance of history will perish as surely as those who remained asleep in the face of this ancient menace in ages past.
Polish infideless - great report! Thank you! Too bad you and the other posters at this site who in attendance couldn't all identify each other
and then meet and organize....
I think since I have pretty much gotten a handle about what Islamic ideology consists of, I'm going to take a little look at what ZIONISM is.
Bye.
Rebecca thank you - please peep into this site and hopefully next time we will all be able to identify each other - i suggest a little BLUE piglet badge ;-)
I am really curious what reply Peter will (if any) get from MAC on this:
http://www.marchforfreeexpression.blogspot.com
"An open letter to the Muslim Action Committee
Dear Ismaeel-Haneef,
First of all, I would like to thank you for the work you did last week to help ensure that the rallies in Birmingham and London were peaceful occasions. When we chatted last night on Radio Five Live, I said that the Muslim and non-Muslim parts of our community tend to stare at one another in suspicion and hostility from heavily fortified bunkers. I think we have helped reduce this problem, if only slightly.
As I have told you during our telephone conversations, I asked people not to bring the cartoons on placards because I wanted Muslims to feel able to participate in our campaign if they agreed with the principles behind it, and for no other reason. I also told you it was not a bargaining chip of any kind. As you know, I had hoped it might help you change your mind and send a speaker to put your viewpoint to the rally but, disappointingly, you did not feel able to do so. Nonetheless, we heard a number of views from within the Islamic world.
Some people did feel so strongly about the cartoon issue that they brought them on placards. In every case, they did so in a way that showed their support for Denmark and their anger that artists are living in hiding after death threats were made against them by homicidal fanatics. I hope you will join with me in acknowledging and respecting the strength of their opinions, and their commitment to peace and freedom, even if you do not agree with them. Certainly, everyone who attended made sure the rally was a place where none of the Muslims I spoke to, including representatives of the media from the Islamic world, felt uncomfortable. The only complaint came from someone who came along specifically to try to find a reason to complain.
As I have told you on the telephone, I am not a Muslim and I am not bound by Islamic laws or taboos. I do not think the "Danish cartoons" were offensive and point out that almost nobody was offended when they were published. There was, in fact, almost no reaction to the actual publication. The trouble came later, after a group of Danish Imams toured the Middle East with a "dodgy dossier" specifically trying to stir up trouble. We all need to denounce this sort of deliberate troublemaking, and this sort of deliberate creation of tension and rifts within our community.
But even if they had been offensive, threats of any description are wholly unacceptable, and the mealy-mouthed waffling of the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, when he failed to condemn the death threats but did condemn the cartoons, was the initial impetus for this campaign. Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani lists "unclean" things on his website. I am one of them (Kaffir). That is offensive. But I don't think he should be banned from saying this.
When I asked people not to bring the cartoons to the rally, I also said we would exhibit them subsequently. We are now going to arrange this. We propose to find a venue within which they can be shown and discussed. As I have told you, I support the right to offend, not because I advocate the giving of offense, but because without this there can be no freedom of speech or expression. But, even so, in this case nobody who might be offended by the sight of them need enter the venue.
The only grounds that any Muslim could object to this on would be that they sought to impose Sharia Law and Muslim taboos on non-Muslims, even when those non-Muslims are in private surroundings. This would be a nakedly fascistic line and, while I know there are some on the extreme fringes who might advocate this, I know this sort of view is as repugnant to moderate, mainstream Muslims as the terrorism these fringes resort to when they feel they have been thwarted, or when they seek to advance their agendas.
I know you would want to have this opportunity to make sure that no controversy ever gets started, and that good community relations are preserved, by stating now that you accept and support our right to hold this exhibition.
The next is more difficult, I know. We would very much welcome it if you were to attend the exhibition and debate the cartoons. I realise you might find this impossible, but dialogue is a two way street, as I think I have proved. Sometimes we have to take difficult and unpopular decisions in the interests of good community relations. You know I have received significant and frequently venomous criticism for having asked people to take into account Muslim sensibilities.
Now you have an opportunity to show similar courage in the name of reconciliation. This opportunity we both have to break down barriers is one of the best things to come out of the free expression campaign. I'm glad I had a chance to make a contribution first. I'm also very glad you now have a similar opportunity.
Kind Regards,
Peter Risdon."
And the link to Maryam's brave speech:
http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2006/03/freedom-of-_expression-no-ifs-and-buts.html
Kudos to prince charlie for telling them to
"reform the words of allah". Islam the end....
I think what Brian Whitaker is really trying to say, is that we are 'RIGHT' - but he just doesn't know how to say it.
__________
"….and would like to press ahead with the great "clash of civilizations" as quickly as possible in order to wipe it out."
This part of the statement appears too careless a for an experienced writer like himself; and should be classed as waffle, diversion, in order to mislead.
__________
It just seems difficult for him to admit that there is a problem with Islam - on a fundamental level. But the Rahman issue has forced - him and others like him to rip off their blinders and take in a little reality the ‘Jihad Watch’ way!
And he thought he was doing a good job – someone should tell him that they behead people!
Kudos to prince charlie for telling them to
"reform the words of allah". is-slam the end....
Polish Infideless
Have a look
here
Sorry
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm?blog_id=225 here.
My fellow liberals are going to get the West destroyed just to maintain the illusion of multi-culturalism and religious tolerance (there mutated version of tolerance).
They do not realize, they while Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism and countless other religions can exist in any societal or governmental context, Islam by its scripture cannot. Islam must bring down other cultures, other forms of government, other religions and opposing ideas in order to survive and thrive.
If Radical Islam goes unchecked, then the average Liberal will wind up beheaded under Islamic Law...
Better deceased then praying to the East...
Robert and Rebecca, I read your posts, if it says Hugh I don't. I don't like his slant, I think that many of things Brian Whitaker states can be directed at Hugh. - moderation_is_key
Examples? It's unJihadWatchly to level a charge without them.
I have just followed the link to the Gruniad, and from that the link on to the Religios Policeman's blog. http://muttawa.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_muttawa_archive.html
He seems highly amused to be linked by the Gruniad and says this about Prince Charles:-
"Prince Charles, who has a particular interest in architecture and the preservation of historic buildings of cultural merit, will attend the presentation of prizes at an architectural event.
Many of us would love to hear his views on the destruction of historic sites in Makkah, because of possible idolatrous connections, and incidentally to make a few more dollars building sub-standard hotels that collapse and kill sub-continentals in double figures. But don't expect to read about them in Saudi newspapers.
The Duchess of Cornwall will be meeting women involved in charities in Riyadh and have discussions with women community members here. It is her first visit to Saudi Arabia.
But that probably won't include visiting the "safe houses" for battered and / or pregnant Indonesian housemaids.
Prince Charles is his own man, and quite capable of expressing his (sometimes eccentric) views in a forceful way. His sympathy for Islam is well known. But my main concern is that the Saudi press will "cherry pick" his comments so that we just hear one side of what he says, the complimentary side, and miss out anything critical. I just hope that some foreign press are in attendance to give more balanced reports, otherwise he's going to find himself becoming a "useful idiot" for the House of Saud."
His comments on Saturday's bash are pertinent as well.
It's rather surprising that the Grauniad links to the Religious Policeman's blog.
For non-UK readers, The Guardian newspaper, home to dhimmis like Whitaker and demented loon Madeleine Bunting, is often referred to as The Grauniad because of the large number of misprints to be found in its perfidious pages.
If you dare not attack the message, because it would involve unveiling Islam's "message" as well, you attack the 'Babylonian Messenger'.
Cheap Tricks in Journalism 101.
Mr Whittaker THERE IS NOT ONE CHRISTIAN NATION ON EARTH WHERE MUSLIMS ARE PERSECUTED. Yet in most nations where the majority of the population are Muslims, there is systematic government persecution of Christians.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
--Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--
Core Universal Rights
The right to believe, to worship and witness
The right to change one's belief or religion
The right to join together and express one's belief.
To want to believe that Christian nations can help to reform Islam is in its most positive form a noble thought, but failing to undersand the deep entrenchment of Sharia's apostasy laws throughout the Islamic countries is quite frankly ridiculous on its face.
For some reason Mr.Whittaker thinks that he and people like Prince Charles can bring down an elephant with a pin prick, a bit overconfident to say the least; especially coming from Prince Charles who has a history of being able to focus very little attention to issues that he comes across and when he becomes a bit bored with it, he tends to move on.
In many Islamic countries today sharia is more intrenched than it has ever been.In places like the Sudan have had to accept Sharia in just the last 10 years as Muslim dominanace has reached its ability to impose it. There are some 300 reasons in sharia law that can impose the apostacy laws which give the ultimate sentence.
Jihad watch takes the time to recognise this deeply entrenched ideology as it exists throughout the Islamic world,Reforming Islam will come from within Islam itself in the long run, but don't hold your breath.
"Or would Brian Whitaker rush to the defense of the death penalty for apostates (Qur'an 4:89), the beating of disobedient wives (Qur'an 4:34), warfare to convert or subjugate Jews and Christians (Qur'an 9:29) and all the rest?"
As a British journalist, Brian Whitaker is not intellectually honest. Mr. Whitaker would rather attack jihadwatch for its "anti-Muslim activity" than face up to the facts that Islam has serious problems and is a real threat to any civilized society.
Mr. Whitaker simply avoids dealing with the serious problems that are contained within the Qur'an such as the death penalty for apostates (Qur'an 4:89), the beating of disobedient wives (Qur'an 4:34), warfare to convert or subjugate Jews and Christians (Qur'an 9:29) and all the rest.
Mr.Whitaker is more concerned about his reputation with Muslims than he is about reporting the truth to British society.
Granny, cheers for th elink. I loved (and missed) the T-shirt:
"The crowd was good humoured, and the police relaxed. There were Danish flags and some ladies in pink wigs and rabbit ears but the promised unicyclists and jugglers did not appear. My husband spotted the best t-shirt afterwards in the warmth of the National Gallery.
On the front “I have a picture of Mohammed on my back”
On the back “Only kidding!” "
I would die to have one (but not before) :-)
Have you had "the experience" of hearing and standing next to Sister Ruth (what a Character!).
I also enjoyed the corrida and Nick Pullman (the Chief Steward) as a bull-fighter.
All in all it was fun.
I hope to identify you next time - any ideas for a password/sign?
Catholic priest who fled dhimmitude in Turkey is being put on trial in Belgium for -- you guessed it -- Islamophobia:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/936
Mr. Twitaker is obviously blinded by the notion that nothing in the Qur'an tells Muslims to do the things they do.
Prince Charles: One look at him, or one sentence he utters should provide enough evidence that he doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
A poster above ("Shinoliite") identifies someone who further up the thread, though lower down on the phylogenetic scale, objects to my views -- presumably in articles and postings -- because....well, because. He doesn't like "my slant." He finds me to be a legitimate object of Whitaker's distaste. But I have always suggested that if the Infidels had a good grasp of the tenets of Islam, they could then minimize open warfare, and military intervention (for example, the tarbaby of Iraq, which is a misallocation of resources) could be reduced to a minimum, and mainly in order to deprive Muslim states from acquiring mass destruction. Recognition that the instruments of Jihad go beyond the merely military, and that higher gasoline taxes, steadily increasing, do more than trying to hold the three vilayets of Iraq together, and urging, for more than two years now, that the Americans leave Iraq in order that the internal divisions, sectarian and ethnic, within Iraq and within the larger camp of Islam, could develop unconstrained by misguided, peace-making Infidels -- that is hardly the mark of someone calling for total war on Islam. I think Islam should be allowed to weaken itself, from within.
I have tried always to eliminate, when I come across, statements that are outrageous, that call for killing Muslims, or depicting them as mad-dog killers. Obviously many such statements cannot be caught; there are too many threads, too many postings at each thread. I never make such remarks and would never make such remarks, of the kind that Whitaker ascribes to the site, and that "moderation_is_key" would prefer to be ascribed to me.
The kind of statement that I would never make, and that I find completely deplorable, is of the following kind:
"I know for certain that there are Muslims (mostly the angry men) out there that read from religious texts and see me as worthless scum who actively wants to destroy their culture, rape their women and eat their babies."
What kind of mad-dog poster would ascribe to Muslims the belief that he, the poster, like all Infidels, wish to "rape their women and eat their babies." The charge against Infidels is not that they wish to "eat their [Muslim] babies" but that they wish to remain Infidels, to set up obstacles to the spread of Islam through Jihad. It is quite a charge. The person who made it would have to be quite extreme in his views -- unacceptably so, would he not?
Well, the charge is made by none other than "moderation_is_key" himself, at JihadWatch on December 13, 2005, under the article about the JW award contest conducted by Robert.
In the same thread, you can find the same "moderation_is_key" poster denouncing Tom Tancredo:
“Tom Tancredo on wikipedia, he comes over as a racist and an over the top fascist, who is using the rise of militant Islam to justify his view on immigration.”
I took offense at the time. I don't think Tom Tancredo is "a racist and an over the top fascist" and the kind of person who makes such charges, and adduces as evidence whatever he found in "wikipedia," cannot be taken seriously.
At the time, on that post, I explained, as sweetly as I could, that Wikipedia" is not exactly a reference on which one could depend, not least because among the billion Muslims with time on their hands, quite a few seem to spend that time editing and re-editing and re-editing everything they can, including Wikipedia. It is part of the world-wide campaign to control all sources of information about Islam, and to blacken the reputations of all those who are most knowledgeable and most effective in their opposition.
Here is what, on that mid-December thread, I then replied to "moderation_is_key":
For god's sake, Wikipedia is a guide to nothing and nowhere. Maligners, Muslim and non-, are having a field day (google "Siegenthaler" for more on this). The attempt to slander Robert for examle, through guilt by assocation, and that assocation happens to consist of phrases that are attributed not to him but to me, and which have been completely ripped out of all explanatory and softening context, making me seem -- and therefore Robert seem -- quite as Tancredo is made to seem, apparently, in his entry. Skip Wikipedia. It has no value. Anyone at all can add anything at all. And most people will not bother to respond or correct, for a determined campaign will not be dissuaded from reposting. That, by now, should be obvious."
Posted by: Hugh at December 13, 2005 04:31 PM
The reply by "moderation_is_key" was as follows:
"If you believe that the current summary of Tancredo is unfair please flag the article on him in wikipedia as biased and submit your complaints and the community will update it to include your alternate viewpoint this is how wikipedia works."
-- from a posting above
I then replied to this helpful suggestion:
"Wikipedia is worthless. It is worthless because it is created by anyone and everyone at all. This means that, however often one may correct evident falsehoods, that itself becomes a full-time activity, and nowhere is that truer than about anything to do with Islam. With gigantic resources, and tens or hundreds of milions of Believers, all of whom have been taught it is perfectly acceptable to practice taqiyya and kitman when discussing their beliefs, and the nature of Islam itself, and some of whose agents and operatives have shown a fondness for slandering others, it is unlikely that any entry on such people as "Robert Spencer" or "Tom Tancredo" can, even if an effort is made to get rid of falsehood and innuendo and misstatement and deliberate omission and ellipses and selective quotation, ripped out of context, and even if it succeeds, temporarily, one would have to keep monitoring the site, keep changing and rechanging things, and no one in his right mind can spend that time.
So the site becomes worthless, and is one of those problems -- the problem of what constitutes authority, what constitutes the truth -- that the Internet gives rise to. Why anyone should think there is a "community" of objective people to whom one can appeal, who will keep Wikipedia's entries within bounds, has not looked at other sites, such as that maintained by Amazon.com, where Muslims have been quite good at blackening those books that dare to tell something truthful about Islam, getting rid of sensible reviews, and continually putting in their own received version of events.
Intelligent people can see through this, if they are paying attention. Kids, doing their homework, and not knowing very much, may turn to a place like Wikipedia, accept whatever is written there, and then that something becomes engraven on their young minds and there it sits, and cannot be easily removed without invasive mental surgery.
Students need to be taught, rather, by using some of the most egregious examples -- that of Seigenthaler in the news this week is one -- that Wikipedia is not to be trusted, and use of it as a source should call anyone's ability to weigh evidence or conduct something like research is immediately, and permanently, suspect."
Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2005 12:12 AM
________________________________
Let me summarize. The poster above who thinks I deserve to be taken to task by Whitaker is someone capable of writing such things as:
1. "I know for certain that there are Muslims (mostly the angry men) out there that read from religious texts and see me as worthless scum who actively wants to destroy their culture, rape their women and eat their babies."
And
2.“Tom Tancredo on wikipedia, he comes over as a racist and an over the top fascist, who is using the rise of militant Islam to justify his view on immigration.”
Yet he dares to deplore my marshalling of considerable evidence, my ineluctable logic, and above all, my sweet and winsome personality, well-known to all visitors to Jihad Watch.
All those visiting here for the first time, based on Whitaker's piece and the links that might have brought them here, should judge for yourselves. Pull a seat up to the bar at the top of the page. Click on "Articles." Scroll down past Robert's vastness to my caboose at the end. Now drink deep of the Pierian Spring, and make your own judgment.
But do not pay any attention to someone whose idea of "moderation" (for "moderation is key" according to his nom de post) is to write "I know for certain that there are Muslims (mostly the angry men) out there that read from religious texts and see me as worthless scum who actively wants to destroy their culture, rape their women and eat their babies." And pay no attention to someone who thinks it sufficient to deplore the award of the Non-Dhimmi of the Year Prize to Tom Tancredo because wikipedia tells him everything he needs to know: "Tom Tancredo on wikipedia, he comes over as a racist and an over the top fascist, who is using the rise of militant Islam to justify his view on immigration.”
What's that anecdote about De Gaulle again?
Ah, yes. The political rally. The person in the crowd who shouted out "Mort aux cons." De Gaulle, his vision not as good as his hearing, looking over in the general direction of the shouter, and replying:
"Vaste programme, monsieur."
A lot of people in this world think that most if not all people are rational (just like them in other words - its a kind of projection - I am rational; therefore, everyone else is rational too). What stems from this belief is that all problems in the world are capable of being resolved by discussion, appeals to reason and so on. What this means in practice, however, is that when faced with irrational people (of which there are also many in this world), they refuse to admit, to even recognize that these people are irrational. They are ideologues of a naive, idealistic view of humanity. Thus, when someone like Robert Spencer points out that Islam teaches intolerance and bigotry and that many Muslims act on these teachings in word and deed, Robert Spencer is accused of intolerance and bigotry. The bottom line is that the fundamental assumptions you make about what human beings are all about color the rest of your views. For those who would like to think about the above-mentioned problems in greater depth, take notice that philosophers deal with these questions under the rubric of epistemology - "how do you know what you know?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Contrast the views of Brian Whitaker, naive, idealist with the views of Andrew C. McCarthy, hard-headed realist:
Cold Comfort on Islam and Apostasy
by Andrew C. McCarthy
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200603270613.asp
Whitaker is absurd. The ugliness and intolerance of Islamist hatred must be widely reported so it will stop being supported. That's what JW is really about.
As for the royal boob Prince Charles, Islamic reformer, I wonder if he doth protest too much re Islam because he has a bad concience re Princess Diana. BTW, when is the prince going to get a real job?
If those who so vehemently defend islam would just read the qur'an and hadiths instead of defending the "faith" blindly...
HUGH: "...and above all, my sweet and winsome personality, well-known to all visitors to Jihad Watch."
Gotta love the man's sense of humor.
As for the royal boob Prince Charles... when is the prince going to get a real job?
Perhaps he'll get a boob job.
Is that a job at the BEEB?
AP did a story on Charles a year or two ago in which it was reported by insiders that the Prince walks around in Muslim garb inside the privacy of his quarters, reads the Quran nightly and is in constant telephone contact with members of the House of Saud. In other words, there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that Charles has already converted to Islam.
It's also interesting that he wanted his title changed from 'Defender of THE Faith" (Aglicanism) to the more generic 'Defender of Faith.'
Hmmmmmmm.
I am disgusted with the Guardian. What used to be a decent paper is now turning into a vicious anti-semitic and pro Islam propoganda paper. There obssessed with " supporting the underdog", and the underdog to them is poor Muslims. Its ironic the Guardian feels this way, when most of the writers who write it and most of the readers who read it are middle to upper class.
Now dont get me wrong, i believe most Muslims are decent people. I think there misguided, but decent, good spirited people. But if 95% of the Muslim country's in the world today are poor, whose faults that? They keep on blaming it on the affects of colonization, but whats India's excuse? Or Israels's? Those two countries suffered far worse than any Muslim nation on the plannet.
I can remember reading one vicious editorial in the Gaurdian about a month ago saying that Jews should stop whining about anti-semiticsm, because it makes people hate them more! When have you ever heard a Jew in the papers or on the T.V complaining about it?
They make me sick.
The Guardian is Der Sturmer and Pravda rolled up in one.
Brian Whitaker!!! you know nothing about Islam, Don't listen to what Brian Whitaker said. I know what does Islam want from west country such as America. In my country Indonesia, most of moslems in here hate American and west people. Don't trust moslems. Don't give a chance for them to enter your country.
Don't listen to Prince Charles also. I don't know, what's wrong with west country political leader. They still don't realize the true nature of Islam.
Islam is not about tolerance. Your political leaders that come to Islamic country and hope can make some dialogue with Islam, is a stupid leader. DON'T TRUST THEM, DON'T VOTE FOR THEM. This is your chance west people to wake up. Vote for your leader that know the true nature of Islam and the danger of Islam for your country. Before it's too late. The choice is in your hand. I've already do my best to warn you all of west country people.
Cornelius:
I'd be interested to see the link, if you have it, Cornelius.
Daniel Pipes has a page of links pushing that idea, and frankly I tend to think it's a little bit barmy. I mean - since when has Julie Burchill been a reliable source for socio-political analysis?
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/119
But I must say I am becoming more and more disappointed with Charles. I misread the letter from the Coptic Christians to the Archbishop the Canterbury that JW put up the other day at first. I had thought Charles was a co-signatory, when rather it had been indicated that he was a co-recipient. I'd be curious to know how both Rowan Williams and Prince Charles responded.
Charles has spoken up for the Kalahari Bushmen in the past - the people whose sufferings Glenys Kinnock in her new EU capacity shut her eyes to - and he has met the Dalai Lama, despite Blair's wishing him not to. So he is capable of standing on principle. He also does some useful charity work. So I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt to him. He may simply be as ill-informed (and mis-informed) as the average politician or Guardian-reader.
But he is most definitely starting to strain my goodwill.
"He [Ali Sina] needs 5000 people to show interest in order to get it published."
-- from a posting above
Ali Sina is tireless, relentless, and his website wonderful. Few who visit www.faithfreedom.org fail to return again and again. For the articles he writes, or hosts, and for those debates, in which he comes up against a self-appointed Muslim paladin or two and always clears the field, are full of information. And offer, as only ex-Muslims can offer, a view (I am going out of my way to avoid the word "insight") into what most distinguishes Islam from other belief-systems (as in his essay on the "Golden Rule" -- an idea impossible for a True Believer in Islam, intent on bringing or imposing on Infidels the Truth of Islam, and to prevent them from opposing the spread of that Truth, whatever measures that may require).
I hope 5000 people will indicate an interest. But a failure of some to do so would not indicate, and the publisher should not take it as any indication, that they will not buy the book when it comes out. Some are wary of affixing their names, for obvious reasons; others are not. But those who sign as indicated above, and many who do not sign, will both buy and read whatever book Ali Sina writes or, if he has written, publishes.
I will certainly buy and greedily devour the book. And so, I suspect, will many others who come to this website.
Had they a better grasp of things, the governments of the Western world would see to it not only that Ali Sina's book is published, but would pay for translations into all major European and non-European languages (including Farsi, Urdu, Hindi, Bengali, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean). And would subsidize publication so that the price could be kept low.
Let them obtain that better grasp.
That last statement is not the Imperative. It is, and justly, the Jussive.
Better deceased then praying to the East...
Posted by: tennesseepride at March 27, 2006 09:53 AM
LOL
I have been looking for a similar saying to 'better red than dead'.
Thanks
It's funny that Western society has chosen the cartoons to defend the notion of freedom of speech. There's better causes to defend this principle on. I'm find it absolutely hilarious that the same people who critisize Muslims for not permitting freedom of speech are themselves guilty of denying freedom of speech. It's funny how the Israeli lobby in America stifles any critism directed against Israel, how countries in Europe who so admirably defended the concept of freedom of speech for the cartoons have laws sentencing anyone to jail for denying the holocaust, how countries like America and Britain can stifle anyone who merely critisizes them. These double standards are absolutely hilarious.
FREETHINKER1: "It's funny how the Israeli lobby in America stifles any critism directed against Israel."
Criticism of Israel is so pervasive in our universities and various Left-wing publications that your assertion just reveals utter ignorance and prejudice.
FREETHINKER1: "how countries like America and Britain can stifle anyone who merely critisizes them."
Please document how America and Britain stifle criticism. If you knew anything about anything, you'd know that criticism of America is as common as the common cold. It occurs everyday, everywhere, including inside America.
I suggest you change your moniker. You are hardly a freethinker.
Well, naturally, the mass-murder of some six million people is a small matter besides the feelings of people who can't take a mild joke being made at their expense in the form of a cartoon.
If your scriptures haven't yet left you deaf to compassion, take the time to read these articles and ask yourself whether you, too, do not feel a common humanity with these people, whether you, too, are not sickened.
I'm guessing you guys haven't heard of Campus Watch have you. So much for the concept of freedom of speech.
Yojimbo your argument is inherently flawed. You can't assess the severity of an insult if you don't yourself prescibe to that culture. Also you should have the freedom to insult everyone equally or no one at all. If you can't see that this is an obvious double standard then your logic is severely flawed.
hey freethinker1 you should be known as smallthinker1!! there are no censors in the US,GB, you are prol a muslim appologists and you cant get away with your rants in public in the US, as even in Canada,, we look upon Israel as our friend and ally! they are a democracy, and democracies hang together, we do have our spats, but freedom of speech is ingrained, but even with freedom of speech, you say something stupid, be prepared for others to question you and your motives. also you criticize, you need to back it up with facts, just the facts..
prescibe to that culture
Subscribe
"Subscribe.."
-- from Eliza Doolittle's posting above
A prescindere dal fatto che la parola "prescibe" non esiste.
But you can.
And if you can turn your back on the call to humanity that I just made to you, then I can have nothing more to say to you.
Mark Steyn - what the press should have done:
****************
The Periclean funeral oration I opened with last issue was a bit of a bummer so here's something to stir the blood: The New Moon, the smash Broadway operetta of 1928. It's 1792 and in French colonial New Orleans . . . hang on, wasn't New Orleans Spanish in 1792? Oh, well. Fortunately for Sigmund Romberg and Oscar Hammerstein, Spanish Colonialism Denial isn't a crime like Holocaust Denial.
At any rate, Robert Misson, a chevalier lying low as a servant, is dreaming of throwing off the shackles of the French King and establishing a free state on the Isle of Pines. But how does he know the other men will stand with him? Ha, he scoffs:
You may have seen the 1940 film version with Nelson Eddy tramping through the woods as stout-hearted torch-bearing yeomen fall in behind him.
Which brings me to our publisher, Ezra Levant. I'm not suggesting Ezra's as camp as Nelson Eddy, but I am saying he might reasonably have expected to have attracted a similar size crowd. In publishing the Danish cartoons, he'd started with our editor, Kevin Libin, and another ten stout-hearted men from the Western Standard office, and he had the right to assume he'd be joined by ten thousand more from the Vancouver Province and the Toronto Sun and La Presse and the Charlottetown Guardian.
But he wasn't. Nor were the other handful of publishers and editors in France, Germany and elsewhere who reprinted the Danish cartoons. And the ramifications of that will echo through our culture for years. As I said last time round, one can have different opinions on the merits of the original cartoons. After I posted them at my website, Rosie Witty of Christchurch, New Zealand--by the way, isn't it a little culturally insensitive to call a city "Christchurch"?--anyway, Ms. Witty wrote to say that she found the cartoons "rude, crude and lewd . . . The freedom of the press sometimes is wise; sometimes it is not."
That's a valid argument if you're writing to Jyllands-Posten, the originating newspaper in Denmark. Had this or that imam done as Ms. Witty did, many a dispassionate observer might have agreed. But, instead of writing to the newspapers, the imams embarked on a campaign that led to embassies being burned, Turkish priests being murdered, and over a hundred others dying in associated riots. Once that happened, the issue was not the appalling nature of the cartoons but the appalling nature of the reaction to them. The 12 cartoonists are now in hiding. According to the chairman of the Danish Liberal Party, a group of Muslim men showed up at a local school looking for the daughter of one of the artists.
When that racket starts, no cartoonist or publisher or editor should have to stand alone. The minute there were multimillion-dollar bounties on those cartoonists' heads, The Times of London and Le Monde and The Washington Post and all the rest should have said this Thursday we're all publishing all the cartoons. If you want to put bounties on all our heads, you better have a great credit line at the Bank of Jihad. If you want to kill us, you'll have to kill us all. You can kill ten who are stout-hearted men but you'll have to kill ten thousand more. We're standing shoulder to shoulder, and bolder and bolder.
But it didn't happen. There was a photograph from one of the early Muslim demonstrations in London that I cut out and kept: a masked protester promising to behead the enemies of Islam, and standing shoulder to shoulder with him two Metropolitan Police officers, dispatched by the state to protect him and enable him to incite the murder of others. When those Muslim men return to that Danish school, I only hope that little girl is as well protected by the forces of authority.
I realized the other day, talking to a novelist of my acquaintance, that I'd had the conversation before--the one where some writer of repute tells me that he had a great idea for a story involving certain, um, aspects of the, er, geopolitical scene and the publisher (or sometimes even the agent) hemmed and hawed and eventually said well, it sounds like a good idea but in the, ah, current climate maybe we should put that on hold for a year or two, and how about that plot you mentioned a couple of years back about the redneck Baptist serial killer in Alabama? Pitch certain proposals and even the cockiest New York editor at the back of her mind has the vague feeling that her swank Manhattan office could wind up as vulnerable as that Danish grade school. One consequence of the faint-hearted defence of free speech this time round is that more and more publishers and editors will take the path of least resistance next time.
The free world is shuffling into a psychological bondage whose chains are mostly of our own making. The Saskatoon StarPhoenix, you'll recall, published an advertisement directing readers to Romans 1:26, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and I Corinthians 6:9, and was fined $4,500, as was the advertiser, for "exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule." The British "historian" David Irving sits in an Austrian jail, having been convicted of Holocaust denial. It's not unreasonable for Muslims to conclude that, if gays and Jews are to be protected groups who can't be offended, why shouldn't they be also?
They have a point. How many roads of inquiry are we prepared to block off in order to be "sensitive"? And, once we've done so, will there be anything left to talk about other than showbiz gossip? Holocaust denial should be ridiculous and contemptible but not illegal.
If the objection is that it's a uniquely terrible stain on humanity, that's all the more reason to talk about it openly. How did we end up in a world where David Irving sits in a cell for querying the numbers of the last Holocaust while men march through London streets promising a new Holocaust and are given a bodyguard of police officers to help them do so? The more we hedge ourselves in with "hate speech" regulations, the less we're able to hold any genuinely inquiring discussion on the issues we face. And once that's the case, as the angry young men in the streets have figured out, you might as well just burn and kill to get your way. Canada and Europe need more free speech and less free incitement to murder. Instead, on the vital question of the age, we're retreating into darkness--one intimidated cartoonist, one browbeaten editor, one beleaguered publisher, one terrified Danish schoolgirl at a time.
"Extreme cases make bad law," we say. But extreme cases make the best defence of principle. In 1847, a man called Don Pacifico, a Portuguese Jew living in Greece, had his house burned in an anti-Semitic riot. He appealed to the Greek government for redress (the sons of some ministers had been involved) and got nowhere. But he chanced to have been born on Gibraltar and thus was, technically, a British subject. And so he turned to the British government. And, though to most Englishmen's eyes a century and a half ago no one could have seemed less English than this greasy dago Jew moneylender, Lord Palmerston began a naval blockade of Greece--on the grounds that Don Pacifico was a British subject like any other--until the government in Athens backed down. In Palmerston's words to the House of Commons, "As the Roman in days of old held himself free from indignity when he could say Civis Romanus sum, so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong." Civis Britannicus sum: that was all Don Pacifico had to say.
Today, in the face of more riots and more burnings, Palmerston's successor Jack Straw, like the foreign ministers of Canada and Europe, is craven and shifty. We in the media could at least recognize our own responsibilities and commercial interests here. The Danish cartoonists are the Don Pacificos of the modern media empire. They're not Thomas Friedman or Naomi Klein, just some nobodies on the fringes of the map. But the mob has threatened them with death, and if they get away with it they will do it again. For that reason--on Islam, eco-terrorism and anything else--the press should act on the principle that a death threat against one newspaper is a death threat against all and will invite automatic republishing of the offending item. We should all be stout-hearted men--before it's too late.
http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=article&article_id=1511
***************
Oh yes, never noticed that. By the way, Henry, thanks for reminding me of the word "jussive". I haven't heard that for a long time. Clearly I'm not moving in the right circles.
Why doesn't Yojimbo call on Islam to respect humanity? Oh can't do that?
The measure of tolerance is a greater measure than the measure of insult. The reaction to insult is the true test, and Islam is NOT tolerant. Anyone who spends more than 5 minutes researching online can see that.
"thanks for reminding me of the word "jussive". I haven't heard that for a long time. Clearly I'm not moving in the right circles."
-- from a posting by a Harry Lauder fan above
Well, I thought I hadn't seen you in Arabic class for a while.
The Guardian is on the same level as the National Enquirer....both fit for fire starting in the ol chimney or a forest loo.
Free Speech Demonstration, NOT so Free
___
RE: rally for free _expression on 25th in London
Arrested for holding up "the Cartoons", I am Appalled !, The police actually arrested a man (an Iranian at that) for exercising a basic freedom.
I was gald to hear that the Islamist interviewers became angry at some of the comments from an Iranian Asylum seeker, who had been totured.
The shame of what they represent (Islam), which problably is why most Muslims, will never, reveal the inner truths of Islam as this would
befar to humiliating.
Freedom over religion any day !
Whitaker should have said anti-Islamic, instead of anti-Muslim. In that case, he would have been right, and even though he would have been, it'd not be anything we need to be either defensive or apologetic about.
The time when there are armed insurrections of Islamists in the European continent and a possible overthrow of democratic governments is a scenario that is not too far away in the near future. Like that other fascist movement, Nazism, Europe in its desperation for appeasement will be caught sleeping and with its pants down once again. Churchill was a voice in the wilderness of the mainstream political consensus at the time and Spencer is in a similar position now, even though he has predicted for many years that the problem of Islamists in our midst would only get worse. I only hope that the useful Guardianista idiots on the left will get a very harsh lesson from their "friends" when Armageddon eventually arrives.
"In his speech, therefore, Prince Charles was seeking to defend Islam from anti-Muslim prejudice in the west and at the same time supporting Islamic reform against clerics whose mentality is frozen in backwardness.
Hmmm, looks like the Prince's I.Q. is about three standard deviations to the left of the mean on a standard Gaussian curve or Normal Distribution.
Son, get out of that paid skirt while your at it and dress like a man! No, I don't give a (expletive deleted) what your uncle Bob says -- especially after he's had a few rounds of Scotch.
Plish Infideless: I can bet many more would have come had it not been for the unfortunate U-turn of Voltaire, advising people not to bring the cartoons. This decision has angered and discouraged a great
number of supporters judging by their furious reaction in the blog's comments.
Voltaire's comments were unfortunate to say the least. Atleast 3 friends of mine in London, told me that they were not going to be at the march.
Volatire's comments were made just a few days prior to the march and that made it smack of dishonesty.
Britain or atleast its leaders and opinion formers are a phase of dhimmitude. People I know and talk to on muslims in Britain, are not happy with this state of affairs.
The article below by Patrick Sookhdeo is well worth reading.
http://www.barnabasfund.org/pdfdocs/77Response.pdf
"Truth4u:
You know, that's not a half bad idea! I like it, in fact."
I totally agree. Of course, we shouldn't call the changed bits a 'new translation', as that would be dishonest, but a 'modern re-interpretation' or similar.
Actually, I think Free Muslim Coalition is thinking along these lines, looking at discrediting some of the hadiths and suras and getting advanced theologists to re-interpret parts of the koran.
"defend Islam from anti-Muslim prejudice" Um Charlie, 'prejudice' means judging someone before you know anything about them. We know quite a lot about islamists now, and many of us don't fancy being dhimmis, living under sharia law which 40% of your own muslim citizens want us to do! Is that so hard to grasp?
"I say let the muslims and their lackeys come, more fodder." Ronin, true - but have you noticed that in recent days, with the christian convert crisis and other unsavoury facts about islam coming to light, there has been nary a peep from islam apologists?
So far so good. Atleast Brian Whitaker realises that there is a problem, except he really thinks that muslims are wrong to believe that islamic law is immutable. It is not just a belief Mr Whittaker, they know so, and all the imams in the world do so as well.
But the way he continues, indicates that he considers these as trivial problems. The far greater crime in his view is that of Mr Spencer, who points these out, and maintains that they are endemic to islam.
Not really, it is not the clerics whose mentality is frozen in backwardness but islamic law and the practices which are based on them. All schools of islamic law, including the shiia one, are quite specific that Apostates be executed.
Now frozen in time is not necessarily bad, but in the case of sharia, it is an unmitigated disaster, as it was in the 7th century and now. Of course one cannot say about the future. There may come a time when stoning adultresses and homosexuals, and executing apostates, could become morally and ethically acceptable throughout the world. Then sharia would not be frozen in backwardness.
The whole thrust of Brian Whitaker's article is an exercise in dhimmitude to islam, as this passage illustrates.
Huh? He has fallen for the 1001 Arab/muslim contributions to civilisation.
One commentator, BlackBeltJones wrote, "Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch has posted a rebuttal to your accusations. I think he refutes them convincingly".
What is interesting is the one muslim commentator who cried "racism" was shot down immediately.
There is hope.
Lili posted: Actually, I think Free Muslim Coalition is thinking along these lines, looking at discrediting some of the hadiths and suras and getting advanced theologists to re-interpret parts of the koran.
It is a very good idea. Islam is a house of cards. Take one card out and the the whole house collapses.
About the comments on the article page...BlackBeltJones sounds like a very intelligent guy. JW reader?
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2006/03/prince_charles_the_islamic_dis.html
Peter,
Yes, this is outrageous.
I sent the following comment on the blog:
"squirrelsbadhairday said...
"How ironic that Reza Moradi escaped theocratic, totalitarian Iran only to be arrested in increasingly totalitarian, thought-crime Britain."
Spot on! There is such a thin line between protecting and oppressing. Between preventing a breach of the public order and pacification at October Square in Minsk.
All of us present at the rally should then be summoned to court as all of us are "guilty" of the same "crime". It is a disgrace that such a complaint made by an anonymous coward (reminds me of "good old Stasi practices") should be even given consideration (which it does not deserve)."
After pastor Martin Niemöller:
"When they came for the cartoonist,
I remained silent;
I was not a cartoonist.
When they came for the film makers,
I did not speak out;
I was not a film maker.
When they came for Reza Moradi,
I did not speak out;
I was not an Iranian dissident.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."
DP111,
Sadly this was exactly the case. Now it is too late and i have to rest my case (which it was).
What I find most disturbing is that just a few days ago in the UK, the Guardian was voted newspaper of the year in the press awards!
Obviously a US led Zionist Crusader plot...
At times like these it is useful to remind ourselves the basics of shariah. Mentat wrote a very handy guide to this system of laws "frozen in backwardness".
http://www.challenging-islam.org/submissions/shariah.htm
It is worthwhile to keep a copy of this just in case.
"Son, get out of that paid(sic) skirt while your at it and dress like a man!"
-witness at March 27, 2006 04:41 PM
Hey witness, from someone whose great-uncle was killed fighting the Germans in 1917 as part of the Black Watch, piss off. Those guys in "skirts" are better, braver men than you could ever hope to be. You'd best direct your stupid remarks at people who couldn't whoop your behind.
Those who lie with dogs end up with fleas.
Suckers and 'apologists' for the blood-cult (like prince Charley) can try and put as much lipstick (or perfume) on that swine of Islam, it will still remain a swine and it stinks even worse.
Whatever this Brian Withaker's motives are, to knock Jihad Watch and to try to smear the good people behind it will simply expose him as a half-wit, or at least the ignoramus he is.
But usually journo's are being bribed into writing favorable crap about Islam. Invitations here and there, a trip to Sharjah, Dubai, Abu Dhabi or some other place where young boyz are willing and plentiful would turn out pro-Mohammedan propaganda such as his.
Plenty of motives, little integrity.
But stupidity and cupidity instead.
mommakat
"The secularist with moral relativistic view are as totalitarian as the Islamist. It is the same problem as in the 20th century. Nazi equal Islamist and Secularist equal communist."
Well, so many things are wrong with your statement that I don't know where to begin. Let's just say that secularism does not necessarily mean moral relativism.
It's late in the thread, I've just come home, and there's a commotion in my street, a woman yelling "Help! Help!", in clear distress, apparently a case of wife/girlfriend battery, and it looks like the police are needed (not making this up for the sake of argument). So in a minute I'm going to rush out the door to help because it's "bad," "wrong," "unqualified evil," "sickening," "depraved," even "ungodly."
And I'm a secularist. Islamists are most certainly not.
John Sobieski's post raises an important question...
"I think you hit a nerve with Brian on his Gandhi fantasy. Brian, as a gay may, should be aware of what Muslims think of gays. I never understood why gays think Muslims can be their 'superbest friends.' "
Why do some people, for example Mr. Whitaker, so willingly and with apparent enthusiasm, act as apologists for the Jihad when they stand to lose the most? In Mr. Whitaker's case, he stands to lose his life for his sexual practices - assuming Mr. Sobieski is correct in his claim that Mr. Whitaker is a practicing sodomite.
What strange and muddled forces impell these people (dhimmis, not sodomites)to so readily identify with those who wish them nothing but harm? Is this a case of the "hostage syndrome", where captives adopt the cause of the captors? What is it that makes them think this way?
This question deserves a thread of its own - here's a title - "The Psychology of Dhimmitude". There are so many well informed posters here, I'm sure someone has the answers
As for Mr. Whitaker, I think his appalling, abject cowadice surpasses his ignorance of Islam. Maybe he should be given the job as the British Foreign Minister.
I think that under UK libel laws you might have a case for libel. Give it a go ! Please I would love to see the Guardian taken to court and think how much damage you would do to their case if you win.
Once again The Grauniad singles out JW and Robert as the face of opposition to Islam. Remeber what I said a few weeks back?