Cartoonist behind “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” backs down: “I said that I wanted to counter fear and then I got afraid”

“The only thing we have to fear…” An update on this story. “Cartoonist Molly Norris Erases ‘Draw Muhammad’ Gag,” from MyFox9, April 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):

(CANVAS STAFF REPORTS) – In more fallout around the decision by Comedy Central to censor an episode of “South Park” that contained comedic depictions of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, a cartoonist has now censored herself .

Seattle artist Molly Norris originally posted on her website a cartoon showing many different objects – including a purse, a domino, a coffee cup and a spool of thread – claiming to be a likeness of Muhammad.

Norris said that May 20 would be the first annual “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” and created a fictional group, Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor, to sponsor the event. She dedicated the illustration to Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of “South Park.”

She sent the illustration to some bloggers and talked to a local radio host, saying “it’s a cartoonist’s job to be non-PC.”

Now Norris has backed off from that position. She no longer has the illustration on her website and she claims responses to the idea were overwhelming. Instead she has a drawing of herself, with various word balloons containing her feelings about the incident, including “I said that I wanted to counter fear and then I got afraid.”

Too late: the paints and brushes await:

But she may have started something she can’t stop. Others have taken up the cause of “Everybody Draw Muhammed Day.”

Reason.com’s blogger Michael C. Moynihan says he will be contributing artwork and will post fans’ work on his site as well. The fictional group Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor now has its own site that already contains some irreverent illustrations of Muhammad.

A Facebook page devoted to “Draw Muhammad Day” has followed Norris’s lead and backed away from the idea, but fans on the site are still arguing about it.

A rival Facebook page, Ban Draw Muhammad Day , also contains ongoing arguments on both sides of the issue.

On Sunday night’s episode of “The Simpsons”, the “South Park” issue was mentioned in the opening credits when Bart writes on the chalkboard in school. The chalkboard scrawl reads: “South Park – We’d stand beside you if we weren’t so scared.”

In the words of Homer himself: “[You] found my one weakness: that I’m weak! “

Spencer: Islamic War On Free Speech Heating Up
U.K.: Atheist who mocked Islam and Christianity hit with "Anti-Social Behaviour Order" -- but for which insult?
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    The artist is a naive young woman who knew little to nothing about Islam. Somehow something or someone unnerved her and she backed down. She’s afraid. She should be. The creators of South Park are multi-millionaires that can afford the best security money can buy. What about the young Molly Norris? Nope. Hell, she probably hasn’t figured out where next month’s rent is coming from.
    Obviously, she should have thought this through better before making a public spectacle (and ass) of herself, but at least she publicly admits she doesn’t have what it takes to follow thorough with what she was advocating.

  2. says

    Well at least she’s got the word spread on this idea and made more people aware. I was also happy to see what Bart wrote last night, this issue must be mainstream now..and that can only be good. The more people realize what Islam is about, the better.

  3. says

    Too bad she backed down, I hope others will follow and draw some anyway. Been thinking about drawing something myself.

    Muhammedans are just shit-scared to loose their sense of superiority over the unbelieving kuffar. They can’t let themseleves be ridiculed by the filthy infidels dogs because in their mind humiliation is only for them to dish out. That is why feelings are claimed to be so immensely hurt, Allah tells them they are the chosen ones but the cartoons shows them that Allah has granted others the intellectual upper hand. ;’)

  4. says

    If you want to see a woman who didn’t back down, then check out this video of the Saudi Arabian poet, Hissa Hilal, who caused a sensation in the Arab world when she appeared on a TV talent show and read the following to an all male Saudi jury – as well as millions of Arabs watching the show!
    She didn’t let Islam off the hook.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e6pjwntglk&feature=player_embedded

    Translation:

    I have seen evil in the eyes of the fatwas at a time when the lawful is condemned as unlawful; when I unveil the truth a savage monster comes out of its hiding place; barbaric in thought and action, angry and blind; wearing death as a robe with a belt over it.

    When I unveil the truth a savage monster comes out of his hiding place; barbaric in thought and action, angry and blind; wearing death as a robe with a belt over it.

    He preaches from the platform with powerful and official authority terrorizing everyone and targeting those seeking peace.

    He preaches from the platform with powerful and official authority terrorizing everyone and targeting those seeking peace.

    The voice of courage has run for cover; Truth cornered and silent

    Self-preservation prevents us from speaking out.

    Oh my people, you are on the edge of a cliff wedged between a vicious animal and an abyss

    My eyes can hardly see you in the deepest valley of darkness

    Oh my people, you are on the edge of a cliff wedged between a vicious animal and an abyss

    My eyes can hardly see you in the deepest valley of darkness

    You are neither allowed to light a fire or protect yourself

    Cornered, unable to carry out normal duties

    In the midst of terrifying, vicious and bone sucking people void of all compassion

    In the midst of terrifying, vicious and bone sucking people void of all compassion

    You are like a bowl satisfying any hunger

    Every bird of prey and every vicious animal finds food in you

    Those who love you are hungry while hypocrites have been provided with the best banquets

    Your people are fearful. You were up for sale and bidders have made their offers of money.

    You’ve been preyed upon and then fed in preparation to be slaughtered.

    You were disgraced by the bribe takers and in the market of politics you were shattered.

    You’ve been preyed upon and then fed in preparation to be slaughtered.

    You were disgraced by the bribe takers and in the field of politics you were shattered.

    Hidden and deadly intentions are ready to kill like snakes.

    Oh I do not understand why you like the oppressor,

    Who puts a spear through your shoulder without any qualm.

    Why do you distance yourself from those who love you and are loyal to you?

    But the Truth will come out one day

  5. says

    Actually, I laud Molly Norris. Anybody remember during the Danish cartoon saga, how a student paper called the Boston Phoenix published an editorial of why they chose not to publish the cartoon out of fear? I see Norris’ positioning here in the same category.

    Normally, w/ dhimmis, the reason they don’t do things to offend Muslims is that they are afraid, but at the same time, they are not only afraid of violence from Muslims, but also of ostracism from the pc crowd. So when they cover up these things, they make it look like Islam is benign, and that they were really doing what they were doing for other reasons. So Islam/Muslims end up looking no worse than they originally did.

    In Norris’ case, what she’s done is admit that she’s pulled the plug out of fear. So while it seemingly doesn’t look good on her, it doesn’t look good on Muslims either – they’re actually shown as being terrorists by Norris pulling her act not out of a change of heart, but out of fear.

    In the meantime, the firestorm she’s started can’t/won’t be put out, since too many participants are there. So I love what she did – tossing a cigarette on a ground w/ spilt gasoline, and then declining to videotape the event. No worries – others are there to do it, all we needed was the fire.

    So all the beautious irony above aside, Molly Norris is still the hero for starting this concept!!!

    P.S. Oh, and if she received death threats, she’d have done well to post them and publicize them, and cite them as the reason for her quitting. That would have been a hoot, and would have flied in the face of Mohammedan groups claiming that the Muslim community ain’t behind all these threats.

  6. says

    I too, wish Ms Norris would make available the types of threats, IP addresses and such She has received. Some may want to “discuss” the issue with these fine folks..But we do not know the nature of what went on..

    Is anyone besides myself having trouble with JW website as far as being able to read the articles?

    The advertising and links on the “right” column keep showing up “over” the articles themselves. This occurs on both my home computer and work computer..

  7. says

    Robert/Pamela/SIOA,

    Could SIOA take up May 20 as the ‘draw a mohmmad cartoon’ day?

    And also please publicise the fact that the person who originally came up with the idea has backed off due to fear of muslim attacks which is why SIOA has taken it up to bolster American love for freedom of ideas and speech.

  8. says

    In the wake of CAIR’s defeat in the Miami bus ad matter, this was reported:

    “Muhammed Malik, director of the South Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic relations, which had praised the ads’ removal, said it will now use them “as an opportunity to spark discussion about what Islam is really about.”

    Sounds like Molly got some Islam 101 sent her way.

  9. says

    Now Norris has backed off from that position. She no longer has the illustration on her website and she claims responses to the idea were overwhelming. Instead she has a drawing of herself, with various word balloons containing her feelings about the incident, including “I said that I wanted to counter fear and then I got afraid.”

    Actually, the whole thing was a great idea. If everybody drew a disrepectful likeness of the Holy Prophet Mohammed (as the late, great Tim Russert liked to call him), then the Moslems would be in a pickle. They’d have to go around all our cities complaining and threatening to kill everybody, and that’d be terrible PR for the Ummah.

    *** 33:21 ***

    But the idea was also impractical. If you publish an unflattering depiction of NBC man Tim Russert’s Holy Prophet, you could get hurt. And then what about little Susie’s soccer game this Saturday, and worse what would your boss say at work?

    *** 8:12 ***

    If there are any Moslems reading this, I fall to my knees and grab for your shoe strings. I’m so sorry for all the horrible things I’ve said (If you can’t disrepresect Islam and Moslems then what can you disrepect?)… so sorry, please lemme take your shoes off and lick your toes and the soles of your feet hell I’ll even shave those scraggly hairs from the top of joe feet, massah.

  10. says

    This all brings to mind an idea I had a while back. It was for a line of urinal screens that would have a likeness of Muhammad on them, with the words:

    Muhammad, Prophet of Islam – Piss be upon him.

    I was thinking truckstops and redneck bars might be good target markets, while others could be “given away free” in public restrooms in airports, hotels etc, preferably those in Muslim areas (Dearborn, etc).

  11. says

    It seems that Hirsi Ali agrees with my idea that the only way to break free of the 6th Pillar is to overwhelm it with sheer numbers. This taken from her essay today in the Wall Street Journal:

    *** 33:21 ***

    Another idea is to do stories of Muhammad where his image is shown as much as possible. These stories do not have to be negative or insulting, they just need to spread the risk. The aim is to confront hypersensitive Muslims with more targets than they can possibly contend with.

    Saturation bombing won’t work, but saturation disrespect will. For I disagree with Ms. Ali, the stories and depictions do have to be negative and insulting, that is to say disrespectful, and extremely so. Gotta fight fire with fire.

    *** 33:21 ***

    If you can’t disrespect Islam, then what can you disrespect? Disrespect is a natural, healthy and highly useful behavior. It’s a way to ward off infection, to enforce order, to ensure quality. Without disrepesect for Islam and Moslems, we are doomed.

  12. says

    People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    I despise this woman’s cowardice, but no more than I despise my own…for I’m in no way eager to come out from under the cloak of anonymity to openly proclaim my support for the anti-Jihad. To be sure, I express it incessantly among family and friends, but that’s a whole different ball game than going public…which is one reason I have such great respect for Robert; he doesn’t just talk the talk, he walks the very, very precarious walk.

    Allow Molly Norris her moment of weakness, she’s just flesh and blood.

  13. says

    I like Molly.

    I don’t think her decision is based on fear but on revelation. Likely she had a dream (which she wants to keep confidential) where the angeel Gabriel (May Allah seek favour upon all angeels) provided her with guidance relating to her after life status.

    One is upon this earth for a short time and kuffar get materially attached to 70 odd earth years and missing out on eternity essentials.

    Gabreel will have shown her the burning fires of hell, and how bad people can get treated by being bad.

    Being kuffar is bad enough, but often the majoity of kuffar are ignorant and although dissappointed Allah (SAW) lets that slide.

    However, being a kuffar and deliberately targetting not only Allah’s (SWT)chosen but the last messenger – well then eternal hell fire could be your chosen< \b> fate.

    I say chosen, because Molly – nobody is forcing you to do bad by publishing unwarranted pathetiuc cartoon depictions.

    Molly YOU are choosing to do so from your own volition and thus incurring the wrath of angels and Allah SWT.

    But now Molly is being a good girl, and hopefully will reveal to all that infact she is converting too.

    People, life is good when girls obey as they should. Please take advantage and speak to you nearest Imam on what being a muslima is like.

  14. says

    I have a good idea for a muhammad cartoon if anyone out there with artistic ability needs some motivation.

    Reply in this thread if interested.

  15. says

    I still don’t understand why so many people bow down to a pedofile. Muhammad was nothing but a low life child molester ! He married a little 8 year old girl and had sex with her when she was 9 years old ! He tells his followers that if they die while killing “infidels” they will go directly to Heaven and will have 70 virgins waiting for them!! He has declared that Heaven is nothing but one big sex orgy!! Just remember,he didn’t say those virgins would be women ! Boy would THAT be a surprise !

  16. says

    Sometimes a thread annoys me, because the full truth of the matter seems scattered in bits and pieces throughout the thread, but not expressed in any one place in its appropriate and complex entirety.

    So too with this issue of Molly Norris and non-Muslim cowardice. An adumbration is in order, in order to collect those bits and pieces:

    1. People who don’t have a lot of money to spend on luxuries cannot be expected to pay for the security needed when one becomes famous for mocking Mohammed. Spencer has that money; others don’t. Would Spencer be willing to be as brave with zero security to protect him? If he wouldn’t, and why should he be expected to, then people who cannot afford security cannot be blamed for recoiling from deadly notoriety. Matt and Trey surely have sufficient money for security — likely 1000 times more than Spencer — as do the execs at Comedy Central. That said, however, one cannot fault any business or corporation for being reluctant to make any one or all of their buildings the likely potential target of bombings.

    2. Thus, the problem is less that people are not brave enough, but that our sociopolitical culture remains in complex denial about Islam. Were our sociopolitical culture free of the PC MC that in complex ways causes it to consistently exculpate the very same Islam and the very same Muslims who are endangering us, the onus of managing that problem would shift off of ordinary citizens back onto the shoulders where it properly belongs — the shoulders of those whose job it is to protect us: our democratic political leaders commanding our police forces, our military and our intelligence agencies primarily, supported by our news media. There is not one Western country that hasn’t the money, resources and sophistication to protect its populace from Muslims — once the fog of denial about the various dangers which Muslims present were to be lifted. Then individuals, in that rational and sane circumstance, would not have to be “brave” about Muslim death threats — certainly not to the preposterous extent that now pertains.

    3. In our current circumstance, thus, a person in Molly Norris’s approximate predicament need not be recklessly brave — meaning to put herself in likely danger of homicidal fanatics without any security which she cannot afford — but there is something she does need to do if she chooses the path of shrinking back from bravery: She needs to communicate —

    a) that she is afraid,

    and

    b) specifically why she is afraid.

    She has done (a), but not (b). (Similarly, the Bart Simpson character noted by Spencer did (a) but not (b).)

    Thus (b) would go something like this: Molly Norris would issue a public statement saying, “I decided not to go through with this whole thing after all, because I am afraid that Muslims will kill me for some Islamic reasons, and being an ordinary person of limited means, I don’t have enough money to pay for the necessary security of protecting myself.”

    I wouldn’t then begrudge her too much if she then saw fit to add to that the obligatory Wildersian coda (reminiscent of that leitmotif on Seinfeld where each time some character cracked a joke about gays, they felt compelled to add — “Not that there’s anything wrong with being gay!”): “But I have nothing against most Muslims…”

  17. says

    This is how the muslims ALWAYS operate: terror, intimidation, control, abuse, violence. It is about time USA Congress does something to protect our rights. Declare all this muslim threats or “warnings” hate speech and hate actions. Prosecute all of them. Label all the Qu’ran sold here with warnings about its hate content. Send muslims who do not assimilate back to the Middle East!

  18. says

    I have been talking with people on this issue. The main problem is that people actually do not believe the threats are real. Crazy I know.

    Prove the threats of violence with police reports, just something you have to do. Make a police report, post it. It is public information.

  19. says

    Also from Seattle, and battling the Muslims and “progressives” every day, I cannot blame Molly Norris for her well-founded fear of retribution from the Religion of Peace.

    Also illustrates the difference between Muslim religious law and that of Orthodox Judaism, which resembles Islam more than it does Christianity. The observant Jew says, “This is against my religion, so I am not going to do it.” The Muslim says, “This is against my religion, so YOU are not going to do it.”

  20. says

    The Muslim Bible (yes, it is a Bible), The Koran – is very clear about how, when, and why a person who goes against what it orders all human to act like, are to be murdered. And, also, the Koran is very clear about how hard it is to get into heaven and how much your chances are increased if you were lucky enough to be killed while trying to murder these people who will not do what the Mighty Koran Orders them to do. Who ever dares to tell the truth about this book of murder and revenge and slavery, is very apt to end by seeing his or her family slowly murdered or raped right in front of his or her dying eyes. Anyone who wound dare criticize the Koran and other Muslim Holy Literature, is either a Saint, or they are totally crazy. This is a Religion of Murder led by the God of Murder and the Prophet of Murder. This is how Islam is so successful. I don’t blame anyone for being too afraid to tell the truth when a gun is pointed at ones whole family. And, I think we should all send all our spare money to those who do dare to tell the truth about the Muslims because they are saving all of us at great danger to themselves and their loved ones – even if they are crazy for doing it – these guys need money – please donate so that you do not have to put your family survival in deadly peril. If you don’t want to do that, make a bumper sticker that reads, “The Koran says Murder is holy” Believe me, after a few attempts on your families survival, you will realize how much better off you would have been if you had donated liberally! Do it NOW before it is too late.

  21. says

    From the article: “On Sunday night’s episode of “The Simpsons”, the “South Park” issue was mentioned in the opening credits when Bart writes on the chalkboard in school. The chalkboard scrawl reads: “South Park – We’d stand beside you if we weren’t so scared.””
    HYPOCRITES

  22. says

    The reason Mohamed didn’t want any depictions of him is that he had a disease that distorted his face to grotesque proportions. Apparently his ego couldn’t cope with his followers knowing that, so he made it a crime to make pictures of him. If only Muslims knew the truth about their religion. Of course, questioning Islam was made a crime too.

  23. says

    Thought-provoking exchange between Cornelius and Wellington! For your honesty and intellect you are both deserving of infinite respect.

    Wellington, you said, “Shame, deep shame, on the entire islamic world for this.” Agreed, of course…but…I say shame, also, on the Western world for allowing this! Can’t we, as a country, as a civilization, see this intimidation for what it is, why it is, from whence it emanates? And then take the necessary steps to protect our citizens from this obvious culture-killing assault? What’s more important than our God-given and constitutionally-guaranteed rights? How does that remotely compare as an issue to that of “hurting the feelings” of some alien culture, dedicated to the destruction of our own? There will always be bad-guys out there to get us. No one will pity us if we don’t defend ourselves!

    This young lady, with the naivete of youth, got in over her head and got, as a poster above said, a lesson in islam 101. As a society, we need to ask WHY she was afraid, who or what frightened her, and, from the obvious answers, conclude that this is UNACCEPTABLE here! But I just don’t know anymore what that will take? Isn’t it just as plain as day? I just don’t get it!
    But I do think Hesperado is right–she should’ve bowed-out telling the world EXACTLY
    what her fears were and why. THAT’s the word that needs to get out!

    Final note: I don’t think we should blame ourselves for our anonymity here. I believe we perform the best service within our means by supporting Mr. Spencer & serving notice that we “get it,” we hate it and we’re dedicated to its defeat (islam, that is). And if it requires more? Then we’ll all have to make our own decisions.

    Geez, you guys got me on a rant–hope you’re satisfied! Apologies for long-windedness.

    “Aren’t you glad you hate islam? Don’t you wish everyone did?”

  24. says

    Slightly OT but related to the whole problem of security:

    globalnational.com
    Agence France-Presse: Thursday, April 22, 2010

    “[…] Westergaard, who survived by hiding in a panic room, said Thursday he would likely “reluctantly” accept retirement, but that he planned to meet the newspaper’s chief editor on June 1 “to discuss the future.”
    Jyllands-Posten often allows people over the official retirement age of 67 to continue working, he said, adding however that the paper, in his opinion, wanted him to leave “for security reasons.”
    “It’s a pity. I have become a too heavy burden and a very big security risk,” he said, adding that he had not actually worked for the paper since last November.
    “The management was worried following the arrests last year of two men in Chicago who planned to attack Jyllands-Posten, and after the attack on me in January,” he explained. […]”

  25. says

    It’s rather irritating when people apparently don’t read your comments, but proceed to chide you for things that were already dealt with in arguments already made in those comments, but remain apparently misunderstood.

    Thus Cornelius, and less so, Wellington.

    I don’t mind a robust attempt at refutation, but at least read the damn argument (need “carefully” be added…?) before you refute.

    My comments relevant to this:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/cartoonist-behind-everybody-draw-muhammad-day-backs-down-i-said-that-i-wanted-to-counter-fear-and-th.html#comment-663541

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/cartoonist-behind-everybody-draw-muhammad-day-backs-down-i-said-that-i-wanted-to-counter-fear-and-th.html#comment-663566

    And an example where Cornelius apparently did read at least part of one of my comments, but failed to appreciate the elementary gist of it:

    HESP: “In fact, the fear of “bigotry” and “racism” against Muslims remains, for the PC MC, a more motivating fear than the fear of Muslim violence…”

    [Cornelius:] Not universally so. At least some of us have NO fear of being branded bigots (though in my case, I deeply resent the accusation), but DO fear threats to physical safety.

    What Cornelius failed to factor in was my qualifying phrase, “for the PC MC”. I don’t consider anyone here at Jihad Watch (except occasional trolls possibly) to be PC MC, certainly not Cornelius. For those whose minds are relatively free of PC MC, the “bigotry” canard fails to work — though they may still fear for their job if that job is influential and they know they would be fired or ostracized for being non-PC MC about the Hottest Potato in Town, Islam. Such jobs are usually only in relatively high places in government, the media, and academe; which I assume does not pertain to most commenters at Jihad Watch.

  26. says

    The threats made in the Rushdie affair, and threats made in all major instances of public criticism of Islam, have exposed a gap in our legal systems whereby it is possible for militant Muslims to come into our societies and

    (a) assert that the penalty for criticizing Islam or Muhammad is death,

    (b) openly affirm their agreement with this penalty,

    (c) put on violent or threatening public demonstrations affirming (a) and (b),

    (d) actually murder Islam critics (or their associates or even random non-Muslims) as a means of establishing (a) and (b) if not in law then in practice in our societies.

    In this fashion, militant Muslims like those with the RevolutionMuslim outfit can claim (a) and (b) and obtain the desired results of instilling fear and restricting less-than-flattering expressions about Islam and Muhammad. They can increase the risk to the Islam critic to the point that the critic has to either hire full-time security or stop the criticism and apologize. Yet these indirect or implicit threats are apparently not enough to warrant prosecution. So we have a gap in our legal systems, a gap which allows an absurd situation where people are justifiably in fear of being murdered over cartoons or critical commentary, and nothing legally can be done to remedy the situation.

    Clearly, something needs to be done to fix this state of affairs. If it is not possible to solve the problem by reinterpreting and applying existing laws, then it will be necessary to enact new and specific legislation that gives harsh long-term penalties to those who–in order to achieve their political and religious goals–make use of such direct or indirect death threats.

    These threats are not merely issued to the critic who is targeted; the purpose of threatening one or a few high-profile critics in a highly publicized manner is to threaten implicitly all people in the society by making an example of the explicitly targeted critic.

    And it is not merely the issuer of the threat who enforces, or is perceived to enforce, the threat. Every able-bodied teenage or adult Muslim who claims to be “angered” or “upset” by the cartoon or criticism is, for all practical purposes, intentionally or unintentionally supporting the issuer of the threat. Indeed, as far as non-Muslims are concerned, every able-bodied Muslim is potentially someone who could act on the issued threat, or carry out murder on the basis of his or her own anger combined with Islamic convictions regarding the blasphemy penalty and the religious duty of Muslims to “command the right and forbid the wrong.”

    In light of the threat, explicit disavowals by so-called moderate Muslims cannot be taken at face value. A non-Muslim does not know if the Muslim sitting next to him on the bus is really a moderate or a militant, a supporter or rejecter or sharia. Even if that Muslim seems moderate, and disavows the death penalty for blasphemy, there is, in fact, no reason whatsoever to believe that such a Muslim is giving his honest and frank opinion. Someone who is a member of a group, the majority of whose members believe that those non-Muslims who criticize Islam and Muhammad should be criminally prosecuted and punished, should not be trusted unless there is very strong evidence to believe that he or she can be trusted. Even if he or she can be trusted, the fellow Muslims they may talk to may not be trustworthy; they may be dangerous. When you are talking to one person, in a sense you are communicating indirectly with a social network of people, which ultimately connects to the broader Muslim population.

    Isn’t the public advocacy of the death penalty for criticizing Islam and Muhammad essentially a death threat issued on a mass scale? Isn’t this sedition, treason? For this potentially endangers not only the lives of every man, woman, and child in our societies, but it hijacks our democracy, our governance, our way of life. It is time we implemented harsh legal penalties for those who make direct or indirect death threats, and it is time we implemented harsh legal punishments against those who publicly advocate sharia with its death penalty for blasphemers and apostates (since these latter public declarations constitute death threats issued on a mass scale).

  27. says

    Under Shariah law, there is no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim. All are obligated to support jihad, either violently, passively, or financially. Under our legal system, we should make jihad crimes hate crimes against non-Muslims, with swift prosecution and serious penalties.

  28. says

    My efforts are pretty shabby art but at 70 who cares. They will find themselves in at least 20 locations. Gotta start somewhere and we’ve got less chance of getting snuffed here than in Europe where they have become completely cowed.
    Don’t know about you but I remember real freedom unadulterated by the cancer of political correctness.
    My half assed drawings are going up. My response to : ” Muslim rage “- screw them and the horses they rode in on if they can’t take a joke. My personal safety is left up to God. My household safety is in the capable hands of, Smith/Wesson, Winchester, Remington,Colt , and Glock with an occasional assist from La familia Beretta.
    If a few of us do it this year, more will do so next year.

  29. says

    Molly has been awakened by her funny little dream.

    And finally found out The Nightmare of Islam.

    That anti-Constitutional, anti-Universal Declaration of Human Rights ideology of theocratic tyranny and totalitarian intolerance.

    If she would explain to the media that Islamic Terror has silenced her, her silence would at least have some instructive value.

    Craven honesty is better than no honesty.

  30. says

    Most of us do not use our real name on JW — for whatever reason, but doing so in no way diminishes our input.

    Would using my real name suddenly make me more credible? No!

    And I don’t dismiss other posters comments just because they aren’t using their real name, and it would be silly of me to think that way …

  31. says

    Folks,

    In answer to the criticism of Champ and others, let me make this clear:

    Molly Norris may indeed be a coward, but this is in lieu of the fact that her identity was exposed. When ‘Undaunted’ is ready to show his courage by denigrating the RoP with HIS identity exposed, then his attacks on Norris might have some credibility.

    Same goes for Hesperado and his criticism of Robert and Wilders. They live and must function in the real world, while Hesp can advocate his mass expulsion schemes from the safety and comfort of anonymity.

    In a sense, Hesp is right, the reason Spencer and Wilders pay lip service to differentiating Muslims from Islam is – in my opinion – mostly political (though there is also a genuine philosophical premise here). Both seek to function as viably as possible in the prevailing culture, while remaining as true to their convictions as they can. Wilders is a politician running for office, for God’s sake.

    Instead of criticism for not going further, we owe Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders nothing but the greatest gratitude for having gone as far as they have, all things considered.

    I hope I’ve made myself clear.

  32. says

    HESPERADO: “This raises an interesting tangential question: would Cornelius and Wellington object to a non-anonymous critic taking Spencer to critical task in approximately the same way as I have done?”

    RESPONSE: It would certainly be less hypocritical…and I would then be much more inclined to argue the actual merits of the criticism.

    Furthermore, it is not just your criticism of Robert and Wilders, but your attempt to tar me with the brush of PC/MC on the occasion cited above (my insistence that Iran’s opposition was/is clearly the lessor of two evils when juxtaposed to the regime), and your effort on a different occasion to excommunicate Eastview for similar “heresy” (an inexplicable tactic of the proponent of unfettered discourse that you present yourself above).

    Listen man, you’re free to write whatever you want here. Christ, I’ve occasionally criticized Robert on these pages, but always from the position of loyal opposition (on one or two occasions, he took me out to the metaphorical woodshed).

    I’ll assume that your motives are just as constructive as mine. But the issue of PC/MC AS IT PERTAINS TO ROBERT seems hardly worthy. No one can deny he has burned a lot of bridges maintaining his intellectual integrity. No one can deny his message has been absolutely consistent over the years.

    Robert’s fighting a war in a hostile environment…and is obviously utilizing the strategy and tactics that he feels are best suited to maximize his efforts. Why can’t you just cut him some slack?

  33. says

    “Robert’s fighting a war in a hostile environment…”

    What I meant was that his home base is essentially enemy territory.

  34. says

    One more thing, Hesp. Robert is constantly being criticized and demonized by both the Right (Norquist, D’Souza) and the Left (everybody and their frigg’n mother). I hardly fear his becoming a demagogue in such an environment.

    Hey dude, have a great evening.

  35. says

    Update:

    THIS JUST IN: 17 Pulitzer-winning cartoonists ‘condemn threat’ against ‘South Park’ creators
    […]
    The 17 Pulitzer cartoonists who signed the letter are: Nick Anderson, Tony Auth, Clay Bennett, Steve Benson, Matt Davies, Mark Fiore, Jack Higgins, David Horsey, Jim Morin, Mike Peters, Joel Pett, Michael Ramirez, Ben Sargent, Paul Szep, Ann Telnaes, Garry Trudeau and Signe Wilkinson.
    Their letter goes on to say that “freedom of expression is a universal right” and “we reject any group that seeks to silence people by violence or intimidation.” The letter cites the United States’s “proud tradition of political satire” and affirms belief in the right “to speak or draw freely without censorship.”[…]”

    Source: voices.washingtonpost.com

  36. says

    I think this is a suitable point at which to remember Theo Van Gogh, Dutch writer and film-maker, friend and colleague of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who helped Ayaan make ‘submission’…and was murdered by a Muslim, to punish him for his critique of Islam.

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/11/theo-van-gogh-maker-of-submission-shot-dead-in-amsterdam.html

    (Be sure to read down through the comments, paying attention to the gripping testimony of ‘martin from amsterdam’, who begins – ‘the assassination happened around the corner from where I live. I arrived on the scene five minutes after they killed Theo, as I was on my way to buy some bread with my two year old. I saw his body, with the knives still in it, covered with white linnen. Like this: [link] – I informed Jihadwatch within the hour. I knew Theo very well. He was the nicest guy.”).

    *This* is why artists, painters, cartoonists, novelists, dramatists and film-makers in the Western world are afraid.

    They are afraid as poets all over the Arabian peninsula were afraid, after Mohammed approved the assassination of poet and young mother Asma Bint Marwan and the ancient Jewish poet Abu Afak: both assassinated by cowardly Muslim assassins sneaking into their houses during the night and murdering them while they lay sleeping.

    Because: there are lots of Muslims within striking distance and who knows when one of them may not come sneaking in through the window?

    And so we have to stop and think: if there were no Muslims living in the free non-Muslim lands – if Muslims were not permitted to freely enter those lands as tourists, diplomats, ‘students’, etc – then the fact is, those who like Theo Van Gogh speak plainly about the nature of Islam, would not need to be afraid. If there had been no Muslim presence in the Netherlands, it would have been far, far harder for a Muslim to murder Theo Van Gogh.

    Molly Norris wouldn’t have to be afraid, if there were no Muslims living in the USA.

    The Ummah, or Mohammedan Mob, wherever it is, is the sea in which the Assassins swim and from which, unpredictably, perpetually, they emerge. And the more numerous that Mob is, the more numerous the Assassins it produces.

    Post scriptum:

    Theo Van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight. Not in a dark back alley at 2 am in the morning; not by someone breaking into his house at midnight with an axe; but on a fine morning on a busy suburban street in Amsterdam, with people all around. As ‘martin from Amsterdam’ testified in the thread I’ve linked:

    “The gunner started shooting when Theo was still on the other side of the street.
This all happened at nine o’clock in the morning. 
People were passing by on their way to work on their bike. Or dropping off their kids.
I was on my way to buy bread with my 2 year old.
I am still shaking.”

    The Muslim assassin shot Theo Van Gogh and then, with a knife, in full view of all the horrified passers-by, proceeded *to attempt to saw off his head*.

    The date? All Souls’ Day, The Day of the Dead, 2nd November, 2004.

    On the 2nd November this year, six years later, a Dutch court will pass a verdict upon Geert Wilders.

    Perhaps over those three days – All Hallows Eve, All Saints, All Souls, on 31st October, 1st November, 2nd November – the Dutch Resistance and the Party for Freedom might like to organise an Event in memory of Theo Van Gogh, incorporating a film festival with suitable speakers and a memorial march and rally in the very street where he was murdered. Just to remind everyone, loud and clear, of *why* it was that Geert Wilders stepped forward as and when he did; like a soldier stepping forward into the gap, after the man in front of him has fallen.

  37. says

    Friends

    some time ago I mentioned ‘the poetess’ who used to post here, some years ago.

    Here is what she wrote, in the thread I linked above, in response to the murder of Theo Van Gogh.

    the poetess | November 2, 2004 5:15 PM

    “Theo, rest in peace,

    you were a brave daring warrior

    who used his talents and did his duty
    
for country and fellow citizens.

    May your muslim murderer,
    
scum of the earth, jihadi slime,

    join the demons of the underworld,

    and remain there,
chained to a pig and black dog

    until the end of time.”

    Perhaps this poem should be translated into Dutch – and *into Arabic* (Raymond Ibrahim? Wafa Sultan? Nonie Darwish? can you help?) – and recited, on 2nd November 2010, in that street in Amsterdam where Theo van Gogh was killed, on the very spot where the murder took place. It should be spoken by a woman, costumed as a free pre-Islam Arab woman, representing the soul of Asma Bint Marwan.

  38. says

    Demsci,

    Thanks very much for the kind words. I too respect Hesperado…I’ve even come to appreciate the guy on a personal level as a result of our disagreements.

    I’m with you 100% on the “armchair general” thing, but I would caution you about the “Islam vs Muslims” issue. It’s a complex one, and I’m not sure that Hesperado is wrong; certainly without Muslims, we wouldn’t have to worry about Islam.

    Like you, I personally cannot treat the Muslims I come into contact with as anything other than human beings. If I’m greeted, I respond in kind. If I’m asked for help, I invariably do so. But all that notwithstanding, I view Muslims with varying degrees of suspicion and even sometimes contempt, depending upon their dress and manner.

    My issue with Hesperado is not NECESSARILY that we should make a distinction between Muslims and Islam…I feel that question is a valid one for debate. Instead, my point is that I UNDERSTAND public personalities like Spencer and Wilders making the distinction for political reasons.

    We are just beginning the modern phase in this long-running war for civilization, and unless or until there is a paradigmatic shift in our cultural perceptions, it behooves Robert and Wilders to tread carefully so as not to marginalize themselves into oblivion. Knowing what battles to fight…and when…is key to victory.

    PS – Dumbledores, thanks for the reminder of Theo and his sacrifice.

  39. says

               ▂▃▅▅▅▃▂     ▲◢◤▀◥◣▃ �◢◤
           ▂▅▓▓▅██████▇▅◢██▀   〓 ★ 〓
          ◢▓▓▅███■▀████▓▓█◤    ◢◤ �◥◣
        ◢▓▓▆███▀� ▊▀▓▀█▓  ▓▲
       ◢▓▓▆██▀ ▼��▲▌�▓◥█▓▓██◣
     ▃ ▓▆███▓ �▎▌��▼�▌▓ █████▅
    �█▓█████▃▼▌� � ▌�▼ ◢█████▓█◣
    █▊■██████◣▓ ▌�▲◥◤ ▅██████▓█▊
    ◥■ ████████▅▼▀▃▆███████▓▓▼
    ◢█▲▓████████▆█▀▓▓▓█■▀▓▓▓█▅
    ███▓▓▀██■▀     ▀■▓▓█▓▓▓▓███
    �██◣▓▓■▀   �▎     ▀■▓▓▓▓█■▀
     ▀■◢▅▂▅▃ � � ▃▅▂▃▅ ▼◢▓██◤
        ▌ ▀█■▆▓▓▇■█■▀  ▲█▀
        ▲▀▓◣▀ ◢� �◣▀ ◢〓◤ ◢■▀
        ◢▓█◣ ◥〓▌ �◥〓◤  ▃▓◢▉
      �▓█▓◣  ◢�  ▂◣   ◢▓███▋
       ███▓▓ �◣▃▅█▅  ▃▓████
       ▼██▆▇█▅ ▀██▅▓▓▓████
       ▀███■▀   ◥▌▀■▇█■▀
        ███▀▓▓〓▃〓▓▓▀■▀
        ▀■▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓〓▀
            ▀■▓▓〓▀

  40. says

    Undaunted,

    You’re on the local scene there–did she receive threats? I suppose I should ask if a chicken has lips…

  41. says

    “Somehow something or someone unnerved her and she backed down.”

    ahm let me see who or what could possibly create fear in her? maybe it’s all those islamic snakes crawling out of their lairs? We have seen some of the nasty, hatefilled, mean, letters that are sent to RS and others by these reptiles. I think we could make some intelligent guesses

  42. says

    Those words above are chilling; an insider’s view of life in a muslin prison. Thanks for posting.

    to the so-called “The Godless Monster”

    I take exception to your calling the fine young lady an ass. You have no reason or position to do so and should apologize.

    What do you know of her or what she thinks – are you just making stuff up because you think yourself somehow more knowledgeable and superior?

    She has balls, and a fine sense of how to start a ball rolling and then fall back, and “who me?, nah” out of the crosshairs. The point is not to have ONE target, but millions, that way they can’t, you know, kill that ONE person. New rules for a new fight – get with it and support those on your side. Right?

  43. says

    I hate urinal screens…I try my best to stay away from them…But your idea of Mahounds image on them may have merit…couldn’t happen to a nicer guy…

  44. says

    “Muhammad, Prophet of Islam – Piss be upon him.”

    A good cartoon to incorporate this theme would be a variation of the Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) decals often seen in the windows of Chevy pick-up trucks, with Calvin letting go a stream on the Ford logo, with the words: “piss on Ford”. Only in this case, he’d be hosing down a cartoon of Mo.

  45. says

    I read your comment. Wow. You’re ignorant and evil.

    “life is good when girls obey as they should”

    What, are you joking? Are you some kind of Neanderthal from Stone Age Times? Or just the usual rabidly misogynist Muslim male? Both, I think.

  46. says

    Please take advantage and speak to you nearest Imam on what being a muslima is like.

    But we already know what is it like. We have heard everything on the subject from ex-muslimas and ex-muslims. We also read the papers and watch the news, you know…

    Besides, my “nearest Imam” is doing time in jail for indecently exposing himself to small girls.
    I know, I know, he only followed the example of your paedophile pig-prophet muhammad, still it greatly complicates a contact…

  47. says

    “Please take advantage and speak to you nearest Imam on what being a muslima is like.”

    No thanks – I wouldn’t want to live my life fearing FGM, having to find 4 male witnesses if I’m raped, and fearing being honor killed by my own father or uncle or brother. Or, fearing acid thrown on me because I rejected a suitor, or because I wasn’t “covered” properly in the Black slave rags.

    God, Muslim women lead horrible lives.

  48. says

    “Please take advantage and speak to you nearest Imam on what being a muslima is like.”

    Oh Naseem, you dummy. You totally gave yourself away with that one. Thanks for the advice but why bother talking to your nearest Imam when we can simply observe you?

    As to Molly folks, living in isolated Seattle art-land this is probably the first time she has ever had a chance to even encounter a little bit of what we see and discuss here daily. And with the amount of out of control Muslims it was probably the equivalent of a 2 x 4″ upside the head. She’s probably still in shock from what hit her. But no matter. Her idea was the catalyst that got us off our butts and offered us an exceptional opportunity to hit Islam right between the eyes. The devil hates to be ridiculed. We need to bring this on in copious amounts.

    And Alarmed Pig Farmer, there will be no licking toes. Please.

  49. says

    Khushi, I made that same suggestion but then after thinking about it realised that would be playing right into the hands of CAIR. CAIR would use the images (not the graphical) in its next press release saying see we told you SIOA was hate group and heres the proof. This could prove damaging to the national bus ad campaign.
    I agree that they should be drawn by the masses, but another unassociated site needs to be created where they can be shown, like a new facebook page.

    Note to wenti;
    Since you are an avid reader of this site I recommend you read a book called Gods war on terror. Read it come back and counter the facts contained in this book.
    I look forward to hearing your debate of the facts.

  50. says

    “I take exception to your calling the fine young lady an ass. You have no reason or position to do so and should apologize.”

    So now you are the arbiter of right or wrong in the universe? The gauge by which all should measure their morality?

    I WAS and AM supportive of the girl. If you actually read and understood my comment on this thread, you’d know that.
    She’s a nice kid who got over her head and made a public ass of herself. I’ve made an incredible ass of myself in the past and will do so in the future. So what? No big deal; stop whining like a little girl.
    I wasn’t making a value judgment on her as a person or denigrating the idea that she had. I defy you to find anything online, either HERE or on my blog (or anywhere), in which I am NOT fully 100% supportive of her and her idea..
    hummus for brains. I’ve lost friends to Islamic terrorism and I’ve been neck deep in more sh*t than you could possibly imagine. Don’t preach to me about fighting the good fight. Read my blog and then we’ll talk.

  51. says

    “I was also happy to see what Bart wrote last night, this issue must be mainstream now..and that can only be good. The more people realize what Islam is about, the better.”

    It helps, but on the other hand, the PC MC machine has a mechanism that kicks in at this juncture: these particular Muslims who issued the death threat (and any other Muslims who might do so) are part of the TMOE: the Tiny Minority of Extremists, who ipso facto are unrepresentative of Islam, and of the vast majority of Muslims — leaving Islam once again unscathed. Try then to argue against this, and other mechanisms will spring up — the Tu Quoque, the Equivalency Theory, the “What about the Tamil Tigers?”, the “Why Did We Invade Iraq There Were No WMDs There”, etc..

    I’m not saying there isn’t progress underway in terms of what 22nd century historians will look back on as The Great Reawakening of the West — but so far, that progress remains excruciatingly and infuriatingly incremental.

  52. says

    Yes L.H., that’s something often glossed over — the virgins awaiting Muslim men in Paradise are likely underage girls, who furthermore will (by divine miracle) remain virginal and underage for Eternity, in order for the men to have sex with them for Eternity. Add to that certain hadiths which also include underage boys as sex objects in Paradise.

    Islam thus holds out as its ultimate eschaton — the fulfillment of all existential meaning for humanity — eternal pedophiliac sex.

    So the problem is not merely Muslim men looking back to a pedophile prophet they revere as their founder and “beauutiful model of conduct”, but also Muslim men looking forward to the ultimate fulfillment of life in a pedophiliac Paradise.

    To back this up, one need only find the relevant hadiths and rulings by fuqaha (experts in Islamic law) — and don’t let any Muslims get away with that old canard of “but it’s not in the Koran”, because the vast majority of Muslims are not Koran-only — their Islam is massively informed by the Hadiths and the Sira which are de facto, if not de jure, just as holy as is the Koran.

  53. says

    I guess I’m a little touchy when it comes to pedophiles. I just retired after working for several years in a home for abused children, 4 years old to 12 years old. When I see someone honoring a pedophile, it really sets me off! I would like to make them feel the same way they make these little children feel !

  54. says

    A “moment of weakness” flows from a lifetime of compromise, heeding the whispered voices of little fears here and there along the way. Ultimately these little fears give birth to a wee dragon named “Political Correctness” and he grows into one big-ass dragon named “Fear” who needs to be fought until he is destroyed.

    For most people, petting the baby dragon is all they ever do.

  55. says

    PC isn’t merely about fear. Our Western societies easily have the means to protect themselves — through appropriate authorities of police, armies and intelligence agencies — from the dangers presented by Muslims. Why our Western societies aren’t galvanizing the appropriate machinery to get it all in place has thus less to do with fear, than with the sincere belief that Islam itself is not the problem and that the vast majority of Muslims are moms and pops like the rest of us — this sincere belief in turn powerfully reinforced by the anxiety that any thoughts that begin to suspect Islam and Muslims are trains of thought indicative of “bigotry” and “racism”.

    In fact, the fear of “bigotry” and “racism” against Muslims remains, for the PC MC, a more motivating fear than the fear of Muslim violence — though the two work symbiotically: the more the PC MC mind is aroused to a rational, albeit semi-conscious, fear of Muslim violence, the more — not the less — it fears its own propensity toward “bigotry” and “racism” against Muslims.

  56. says

    I disagree.

    If Molly Norris were publicly validating Islam due to her fears, that would be a different issue entirely. The fact that she doesn’t want to stand on the front-line in this war for civilization is – in my mind – understandable and forgivable.

    So as to encourage you to practice what you preach and avoid the ugly stench of hypocrisy, I suggest you stop posting here under the anonymous nic-name of “undaunted” and start posting in your full legal name. Such courage would be laudable and an action that does justice to your words. Should you be not inclined to do so, perhaps you could show some understanding for Molly Norris.

  57. says

    Thanks, Kim :)

    muhammad was such an evil dude — with his lying, steeling, pedophilia & mass-murdering — that it’s only fitting that he should have faced the electric chair.

    Were he alive TODAY he would have been put to death. I mean they executed Saddam Hussein for his evil crimes, so it stands to reason that if muhammad had lived today then they would have executed him as well, right? But what I don’t get is how they could find Saddam Hussein guilty of such heinous crimes, but not ole muhammad. No, instead muhammad gets a pass for his evil crimes and he’s elevated to prophet status. Hmm. Guess saddam hussein should have used muhammad’s defense by stating that “gabriel came to me in a dream”, blah, blah, blah. Oh, and that he’s actually God’s final and LAST prophet and not muhammad.

  58. says

    I have a feeling that putting such a decal in your car window would lead to sudden “car trouble” in the form of shattered glass and other forms of vandalism. Just a hunch…

  59. says

    HESP: “In fact, the fear of “bigotry” and “racism” against Muslims remains, for the PC MC, a more motivating fear than the fear of Muslim violence…”

    Not universally so. At least some of us have NO fear of being branded bigots (though in my case, I deeply resent the accusation), but DO fear threats to physical safety. Every friend and family member I have knows my views of Islam; some share them, others think I’m a bigot (and other unflattering things, including being obsessed over the issue, something I readily admit, but defend being so on the grounds that Islam is the most important sociological/security issue facing the world) .

    Going public is an entirely different issue because that is where personal safety becomes an issue. In my case, I have the additional burden of having a family to worry about.

    I just want to be clear about this to everybody: I think my own cowardice is contemptible and contributes in a small way to the sociological nightmare that the world finds itself in, vis-a-vis Islam. But hell if I’m going to play the hypocrite, judging harshly those who don’t have the protective cover of anonymity, while remaining safely ensconced in it myself.

  60. says

    Well, so-called The Godless Monster, for someone who is “100% supportive” you sure have a funny way of showing it.

    Calling her an ass IS rude and your response that this is no insult is silly on its face.

    I might have an interest in reading your blog, if you weren’t showing your self-stated ability to be such an incredible ass.

    You don’t like being called out? Tough. Don’t be a jerk.

    Get over yourself.

  61. says

    I agree that if I am not personally willing to put myself on the line then I have no right to criticize anyone else who is protecting their self. It isn’t as though this lady had a vocational plan laid out for her in which she had known that this part of her life would be dedicated to this dangerous cause. Heavily armed trained soldiers are fearful of mozoids, so I can certainly understand a civilian’s fear. What really irks me, though, are people who criticize the sometimes futile attempts of noble people who really are putting themselves on the line. It makes me think that such critics are not really interested in combating the problem, but rather would prefer the problem to remain so that they have an issue to bitch about.

  62. says

    ELIZADOOLITTLE: “What really irks me, though, are people who criticize the sometimes futile attempts of noble people who really are putting themselves on the line.”

    RESPONSE: I’m with you all the way. Bill O’Reilly really missed the boat on the South Park thing. Another example is Hesperado and his attacks on titanic figures like Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer because they are too politically-correct for his (Hesperado’s) tastes.

    When Hesperado ceases to hide behind his own anonymity and starts advocating the mass expulsion of Muslims from the West IN HIS OWN NAME, then his criticism of Robert, Wilders and others might have some resonance. Until then, it’s a bit of a joke.

  63. says

    I think the day may be coming, Cornelius, when we’ll all have to stand up and be counted as Spencer, Wilders, Geller and other brave souls already have. I have played with the idea of announcing who I really am but have hesitated for several reasons, the safety of my wife and her well being not being least among them. But I can see the day not long off when these reasons, still important, will not be as important as being counted right up front like in this struggle against a most invidious religious ideology. God, how I despise Islam. It really is malevolent to the core.

  64. says

    I here you, bro. I’m weary of my own reticence to shake off the shackles of fear. I hate my own cowardice…but I love my family.

    I’m also conscious of changes in time and circumstance, the permanent storage of internet communication, and the possibility of a future in which things written five, ten or twenty years ago may come back to haunt. Courage today could result in a fearful recantation tomorrow. That’s why I reject momentary bluster and false bravado.

    Every man has to make his own decision about taking a stand. Perhaps things will get bad enough that I’ll be ready to stick my neck out. But again, for as long as I hide behind the cloak of anonymity, I’ll not judge harshly those who are exposed and who fall short of the necessary courage.

    Where I draw the line is any expression of validation of Islam…NOTHING can justify that! Remaining silent is a moral crime of sorts, but I’d rather die than become a Quisling.

  65. says

    I think, Cornelius, you’re too harsh on yourself. You’re no coward, just properly cautious. There’s a difference you know. But it is telling that folks like us hesitate to remove our anonymity because of all the hate and intolerance stored up in Islam.

    Shame, deep shame, on the ENTIRE Islamic world for this. Our hesitation is not first and foremost indicative of a fault in ourselves, but rather damning evidence of a most egregious fault in the Islamic sphere of mankind (including those intrepid souls sometimes referred to as “moderate Muslims”). And, of course, I thoroughly agree with you that those critics of Islam who remain anonymous must be extra careful when they criticize no longer anonymous critics of Islam for not being harsh enough on the Islamic faith, although I would close here by saying that “undaunted” is a tough and competent individual, as near as I can tell, and for whom I have great respect as I do for you.

    The divisions between those who see Islam for what it is should be kept to an absolute minimum. Our focus should first and foremost always be the great beast out there which is the extremely warped religion of Islam. Hope all is well with you and your loved ones. Take care, pal.

  66. says

    I struggle with it, too. I tried not to be overly harsh in my wording re: Norris (though the Simpsons should stand up and not go all Seymour Skinner on this), with that in mind. But it was newsworthy, so I had to post it.

    I have two lives. This, and the day-job, non-Marisol existence. Both are fulfilling, though I recognize my work at Jihad Watch as far more important. I always wish I could be doing more here.

    Four years ago, I initially considered undertaking this work under my own name. My reasons for not doing so are partially about me — not so much safety as job security. I still need my day job to support my Jihad-Watching habit. The other reasons are not about me — namely, relatives, some with small children, who would be affected by my decision.

    So for the time being, I content myself with a “fifth column”-type existence in the non-Jihad-Watching world, listening, observing, and occasionally taking some pleasure in considering who around me has no idea what I know or what I do.

    At some point, the usefulness of the pseudonym may run out. But right now, I’m more effective with it.

    My message to Molly Norris would simply be this: She’s launched a good thing, even if she’s disavowed it for the moment, and it’s never too late to pick it back up… even if not as “Molly Norris.”

  67. says

    Infidel Pride wrote:

    Actually, I laud Molly Norris. Anybody remember during the Danish cartoon saga, how a student paper called the Boston Phoenix published an editorial of why they chose not to publish the cartoon out of fear? I see Norris’ positioning here in the same category.
    ………………..

    I agree, Infidel Pride. I understand a person who honestly admits they are afraid”who wouldn’t be afraid of crazed, murderous Muslims? After hearing about an axe attack on MoToon artist Kurt Westergaard and his little granddaughter, what sane person wouldn’t be terrified?

    What really angers me are the mealy-mouthed cowards who pretend they will not voice any criticism of Islam out of “sensitivity” or “respect”. Magician Penn Jillette, who has made a career as a gadfly, happily offending Christians and harmless new-agey types, said he thought refusing to offend murderous Muslims threatening the South Park artists “had a moral element”! Of course, it *does* have a moral element to it, but hardly the way he implied.

    Molly Norris usually draws cute little cartoons about not terribly consequential annoyances of modern life. I actually like her work quite a bit. I could post her Mohammed cartoons here”but I won’t, since she’s backed off.

    Here’s one of her non-political cartoons:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_a693TT2YGI0/Sad_jB7M3wI/AAAAAAAABvo/LuE-TIex1gA/s400/molly_norris.jpg

    Even though the most famous of the Danish MoToons is Kurt Westergaard’s powerful “bomb in Muhammed’s turban” piece, I always felt this cartoon was at least as salient:

    http://forum.americandaughter.org/jp-images/jp4a.jpg

    A cartoonist, with the shades drawn, hunched over his drawing table in fear, as his eyes dart around the room as he furtively draws the “Prophet” Muhammed. An image for our time, no doubt.

    For myself, I *will* be posting a piece here on “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day””but I confess it will be under the name “gravenimage”.

  68. says

    And also, Mary, ole Mo did dye his hair. Imagining such vanity from any other religious or ethical founder would put a serious crimp in his claim to represent ultimate reality. Among other cartoon depictions of Mohammed, I would suggest some should be with an anachronistic Clairol or Just For Men container right by his side, perhaps the very morning before the very afternoon of his having some 600 men of the Banu Qurayza tribe having their heads separated from their body, never mind the lustful lovemaking that night by ole Mo.

    Any Muslim reading this comment, do you not at least begin to understand the revulsion, the total revulsion, that so many millions of people who have studied the life of Mohammed feel towards your false prophet? That anyone could respect a man like Mohammed is ipso facto evidence of man’s capacity to fool himself. To all Muslims out there who retain shreds of common sense and the built-in crap detector you were born with, throw off your Islamic chains and join the rest of us who know full well that Islam is a giant fraud founded by a giant fraud.

  69. says

    The reason Mohamed didn’t want any depictions of him is that he had a disease that distorted his face to grotesque proportions.
    And that disease left him sexually inadequate…thus the myth that he had the sexual appetite of what?…30…40 men? I forget and don’t care. Makes perfect sense though.

    No islam…Know Peace.
    Know islam…throw up!

  70. says

    Marisol, George, & Wellington,

    Thanks for the input. I guess we’re all in a similar boat. Would that we could all have Robert’s courage.

    Someday, each of us will have a moment of truth…where we’ll either go public during our 15 minutes of fame…or refrain. Until then, we’ll just have to keep doing our best in our own particular ways.

    I’ll keep spreading my own counter-dawa to those I know, even if it frays relationships, (which it surely has). Meanwhile, when my current project is wrapped up, I plan on devoting myself to recording some very politically-edged music, much of which is already written. I’ll likely post it anonymously – coward that I am, but at least it’ll be out there.

  71. says

    The ability to afford bodyguards and societal denial of Islam’s ill intentions aside, the fact remains, Hesperado, that those who do announce who they are, while at the same time criticizing the Islamic world, are entitled to more leeway than I think you have accorded them. You make many sound judgments, but I agree with Cornelius that unless a person is ready himself to forego anonymity, he should be wary of taking people to task for not castigating Islam enough who have revealed who they are and who nonetheless criticize the Islamic sphere of mankind. Surely you can see that an odor of hypocrisy lingers when such criticism as Cornelius has pointed to occurs.

  72. says

    PS…

    HESP: “I don’t consider anyone here at Jihad Watch (except occasional trolls possibly) to be PC MC, certainly not Cornelius.”

    In fact, you HAVE accused me of being PC/MC, on a thread where I defended the Iranian opposition as being preferable to the regime. You’ve also accused, at various times and to varying degrees, Robert, Wilders, and others of the same “crime”.

    Hesp, you generally argue fairly and dispassionately, but I’m still waiting for you to concede on my main point, that there is a degree of hypocrisy in holding up others to a standard – an open, public, non-anonymous refutation of not just Islam as a belief-system, but of Muslims as a group – that you are not willing to meet yourself.

  73. says

    Mentioned this before.

    Babawa Wawa..aka Barbara Walters did an interview with some jihadi scumbags.
    First she went for a high speedboat ride…dumb broad…not a highspeed boat ride but a high speedboat ride. What she was high on I don’t know.
    anyway..she interviews around 8 of the little twits dressed in terrorist garb with the black and white scarves and carrying AKs.
    Having discussed martyrdom and what awaits the martyr she asks what waits for them in Paradise. The head scumbag replies, “All things forbidden on earth.” She presses him..”Yes, but what exactly?” Scumbag…”Wine…YOUNG BOYS!…uh…women…”
    When he said “young boys” with great enthusiasm all of his fellow scumbags became quite animated. Their little eyes lit up behind their masks and they jabbed each other and nodded vigorously.
    islam really needs to go…

    No islam…Know Peace.
    Know islam…throw up!

  74. says

    I agree, champ, that folks not using their real name does not diminish their input but Cornelius and I addressed a different matter and that was criticism by anonymous commenters which includes faulting those who have revealed who they are for not criticizing Islam or Muslims enough. Folks like Geller, Wilders and Spencer might not say everything they think for sundry reasons, those of safety or not wanting to lose a larger audience being just two of them. It’s very easy to remain anonymous while criticizing the warped beliefs of Muslims but a very different matter to to do without the advantage of anonymity. And for precisely this reason anonymous critics of Islam should cut some slack to non-anonymous critics of the Islamic faith and sometimes that doesn’t happen here at JW. I did also opine about a possible time in the future when most all of us will have to stand up and be counted for who we are but I never suggested that anonymity in any way lessens the content of a comment which is critical of Islam or Muslims.

  75. says

    “Instead of criticism for not going further, we owe Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders nothing but the greatest gratitude for having gone as far as they have, all things considered.”

    I agree, Cornelius. Hear, hear! Excellent point.

    Regarding Hesp …

    I don’t necessarily agree with everything he has stated about Robert & Geert concerning any pc/mc that they may or may not struggle with. I simply fail to see how Hesp revealing his true identity — or any of us, for that matter; how that would serve in adding additional weight or credibility to any of his insights and comments. That’s all.

  76. says

    Cornelius and Wellington,

    When ‘Undaunted’ is ready to show his courage by denigrating the RoP with HIS identity exposed, then his attacks on Norris might have some credibility.

    Same goes for Hesperado and his criticism of Robert and Wilders.

    The two things you are comparing are different. Undaunted was criticizing the cowardice of Norris; I have criticized aspects of analytical methodology of Spencer.

    They live and must function in the real world, while Hesp can advocate his mass expulsion schemes from the safety and comfort of anonymity.

    This begs the question of whether mass expulsion is supported, or rejected, by Spencer. Further, and more importantly, nowhere in my criticisms of Spencer have I criticized him for not advocating mass expulsions.

    the reason Spencer and Wilders pay lip service to differentiating Muslims from Islam is – in my opinion – mostly political (though there is also a genuine philosophical premise here).

    First, as William F. Buckley used to say: So which is it — political expediency or sincere philosophical position? The coincidence is a bit neat for credulity.

    Secondly, you’re just guessing as to their motivation. They could either be sincere in their artificial distinctions of Islam from Muslims and Extremist Muslims from “Muslims I Don’t Have a Problem With” — or they could be lying for political expedience in the unforgiving sociopolitical climate of PC MC. If it’s the former, then it’s silly to anxiously hush anyone who comes along to try to offer critical analyses of it; if it’s the latter, critical analyses from someone like me who seems more “extremist” can only benefit them, by highlighting their comparative moderation which they need for their political expediency.

    Instead of criticism for not going further, we owe Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders nothing but the greatest gratitude for having gone as far as they have, all things considered.

    One of the things that makes the West great is that both criticism and gratitude are permitted — yea, encouraged — as part of a healthy (and rational) life of the intellect and therefore of society. Criticism, when of course done within the bounds of respect and intellectual cogency (but not through gingerly anxiety unduly tempering robust differences where arguably warranted), can only help a movement dependent upon ideas and methodology. To persist in defending the opposite is most curious indeed, and not a little unsettling coming from individuals otherwise acculturated in Western democratic values. There begins to accrue the aura of the potential for demagoguery, whereby a Wilders or a Spencer become beyond criticism and must be supported blindly, or else.

  77. says

    “…and that was criticism by anonymous commenters which includes faulting those who have revealed who they are for not criticizing Islam or Muslims enough.”

    Hi, Wellington, and I agree; and I’m sorry for giving you the impression that I disagreed with you on that particular issue. Take care :)

  78. says

    champ,

    I simply fail to see how Hesp revealing his true identity — or any of us, for that matter; how that would serve in adding additional weight or credibility to any of his insights and comments.

    You point out a key aspect I hadn’t thought to point out to Cornelius and Wellington: at first glance, their objection seems have for its framework a distinction between a moral principle, and an intellectual position. I.e., they fault anonymous critics for the moral failing of remaining anonymous while the objects of their criticisms bravely reveal their real identities. This, as you point out, would of course be utterly irrelevant to whether the arguments of those critics were cogent or not.

    But at second glance, it seems that Cornelius and Wellington are at least in part also confusing the two spheres, of moral principle and intellectual position, insofar as in their moral objections to my endeavors they verge on the territory of my intellectual positions.

    Or, perhaps even worse, they seem to stand by a position whereby any intellectual endeavor of criticism is to be discouraged (if only by moralistic rebuking and peer pressure) precisely because of the moral principle that any anti-Islam figure who bravely reveals their real identity should be immune from criticism by anonymous critics of any aspects of their analytical methodology.

    This raises an interesting tangential question: would Cornelius and Wellington object to a non-anonymous critic taking Spencer to critical task in approximately the same way as I have done? Or would some other moral principle have to be adduced in that eventuality — such as the principle of We Need Solidarity, We Are Only Playing into the Hands of the Muzzies if we Bicker Amongst Ourselves…? (thus of course tendentiously characterizing constructive criticism with “bickering”, not to mention presuming that mutual criticism is a bad thing, rather than a healthy thing — as it in fact reflects to a great part the strength of the West).

  79. says

    Hi, Hesp …

    Well, we are engaged in a war with, and against islam & its many facets, so none of us are exempt from criticism. Not even those who serve in the military are exempt from such scrutiny. And Robert is no stranger to criticism, that’s for sure; and even though I may not always see the pc/mc problem that you observe in him and/or others, I do try and check *myself* each time I read your comments to see if that problem exists within me. Afterall, I am the only one that I can change, right? And I don’t take your input & insights as a personal attack against Robert — but rather against the infectious dangers of pc/mc, in all their various forms.

    Intent is key here, and imho, your intent is to expose the pc/mc problem, not to expose Robert, per se; as if you carry some sort of vendetta against him — as many of his other critics clearly do. And I certainly don’t read all of your comments, so perhaps I’ve missed something. But by overall impression of you is that you care deeply about protecting everyone against the dangers pc/mc, including Robert (et al), and you strike me as a very protective person, not a vindictive one. Big diff, imo …

  80. says

    You ought to work on writing plain English and reduce the overanalyzing. Here’s plain English for you: All that you have averred, whenever you assert that non-anonymous critics of Islam have not (for whatever reason or reasons) been sufficiently critical enough of the Islamic faith and its adherents, would have more resonance if you ceased to be anonymous yourself. You know this or should know it. All other things being equal, if you revealed your true identity, my chief quarrel with you would end. Plain enough? And for God’s sake, don’t dissect this statement of mine in turgid, exhaustive fashion. Think Abraham Lincoln here with his capacity to state simply what so many others stated not as well but in long-winded prose.

    Moreover, I have never asserted that the content of an anonymous critic of Islam is less worthy than that of a non-anonymous critic of Mohammedanism. What I object to, as I stated above and in so many other posts, is an anonymous critic of the Islamic faith taking non-anonymous critics of Islam to task for not being critical enough. I trust I have been crystal clear here.

  81. says

    Cornelius, I want to thank and compliment you and Wellington for formulating so well your position vis-a-vis Hesperado, for whom I still have the utmost respect. But still I take the position of Wilders, Spencer and you both against Hesperado’s regarding: We are against Islam, but not against Muslims. Well, to qualify that a bit; not against the vast majority of Muslims, obviously we are against many Islamic leaders, and fighters/ terrorists.

    I live and work alongside quite a few Muslims and have on the whole good relationships with them and it is hard for me to be against them themselves (then I feel I have to be hypocritical to them), but it works for me if I can be against Islam, but not against them so much. Only when Islam is known to all for what it really is and causes, yes, then, I would be capable of holding them much more accountable for supporting such a dangerous, detrimental Ideology, but not yet. It is very frustrating for me if this begets me the label of PCMC, because I ABHOR the real PCMC-attitude and speak against it as often as I can.

    I think “generals-in-the-field”, like Wilders, Spencer etc. can be held accountable for their results, of course. But these I think are excellent.

    Otherwise they can be criticized by people on the same side, and that can be very valuable. But not, as the expression goes, by “armchair generals”, who are harsh in criticism, but safely at home, not actually experiencing the many difficulties in reality.