This case offers proof yet again of Sam Harris' observation (quoted by Brad Thor here):
The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do.
At the root of this stance is a desperate attempt to have it both ways, to reconcile Islam's teachings and the actions that stem from it with the religion's claims to be just, compassionate, and peaceful. Or at the very least, it is an attempt to convince non-Muslims that the two can indeed be reconciled, and that to believe otherwise is to be bigoted and hateful. In other words, it is emotional, political blackmail.
More on this story. "Fears of Muslim backlash amid cartoon row," by Phumza Macanda for Reuters, May 21:
A South African weekly on Friday published a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad complaining that his followers lack a sense of humour, angering Muslims and raising fear of reprisal attacks during next month's World Cup.
Whose prophet?
South Africa will host the month-long soccer tournament from June 11 and police have pledged to protect the 300 000 expected foreign visitors and the teams taking part.
The Mail & Guardian newspaper published a sketch by renowned South African cartoonist Zapiro after a court rejected an overnight bid by Muslim advocacy groups for an injunction to prevent the newspaper from printing the cartoon.
The cartoon depicts the prophet on a psychologist's couch saying that his followers do not have a sense of humour.
Muslims consider any depiction of the founder of Islam to be offensive. In 2005, a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Muhammad which were subsequently republished elsewhere, sparking violent protests that killed several dozen people.
South Africa's Muslim Judicial Council (MJC) said it would meet to discuss the cartoon, which it deemed highly offensive to the religious sensibilities of Muslims.
"It seems to be provocative in many ways on the very eve of the World Cup in South Africa, when we need peaceful co-existence and co-operation amongst religious communities in South Africa," said MJC President Ihsaan Hendricks.
"The M&G (Mail & Guardian) needed to understand that offending the South African Muslim community is offending the international Muslim community," he added....
And your point is...?
The game is on, and internationally. My guess is that the only gubmints capable of dealing with their respective internal Moslem threats right now are communist Russia and communist China. They've always had such a Machiavellian bent.
"The M&G (Mail & Guardian) needed to understand that offending the South African Muslim community is offending the international Muslim community," he added.
All Moslems need to be offended all the time. It's the responsibility of our governments (whether South Africa or here in America) to actively expose Moslems for what they are, and that includes a change in curricula as well as criminal legislation. The message: Islam is a hate crime.
*** 8:7 ***
The only way out of this mess is advertising. The world's Moslems are always aggrieved about some offense or another anyway, and they are well into the process of making terrorism and the threat thereof a permanent fixture in North America.
We need hundreds of thousands of ads run every day on TV, the radio, billboards, the Web, everywhere, talking about what Islam is and what Moslems are. And all politicians, judges, and government officials, including military brass, should be publicly cowed into accounting for the factual reality of Islam and Moslems.
*** 4:142 ***
The hits are coming anyway, but the solution is obvious, but offensive to globo-socialists (Marxists) as well as all Moslems. And the former group controls our society, so surrender instead of struggle has been our stalwart policy since 9/11.
*** 92:8 ***
Why is there no public argument about such a dire emergency situation?
Why is there no public argument about such a dire emergency situation?
Because if there were public argument then people would have to publicly admit it was happening?
Can't try to bury it and then argue about it can they?
Ihsaan Hendricks point, clearly shown by the reference to the World Cup, is a threat that any attack carried out during the World Cup will be justified, because the Mail and Guardian refused to stop the printing of the cartoon, which threatens to terminate the "peaceful co-existence and co-operation among religious communities in South Africa"
And, of course, it will all be the infidels fault.
I'm sure that most, if not all, South African mahoundians are black... I wonder if they'd be so ready to defend their piece-of-*** prophet if they knew that it (not he) referred to black people like them as raisin-heads and pug-nosed slaves.
we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do.
No? Think again buster...Will you peaceful Mahoundians go into the streets, and confront your raging brothers...I bet not, that would be risky for both of you...So it's better to stay home and let the homeboys rage and blow things up...
After people get killed and the dust settles, you can come out of your bomb shelter/mosque, start playing victim, and demanding justice...
Marisol asks, "Whose prophet?"
Yes. The media should refer to Muhammad as "the prophet of Islam" or something similar; not as "the Prophet Muhammad." Is Reuters now an Islamic media outlet? Talk about obsequiousness. Good grief.
We need "DMD-365."
"Draw Muhammad for 365 Days."
Do we want to bring this to a head and get it over with? We need a sustained effort that runs every single day for an entire year.
The only downside is we'd probably be in WWIII by the six month mark.
It's important that we actually *see* this work—so it won't be like those books on the MoToons that don't actually reprint the cartoons at all.
Here is Zapiro's actual cartoon (thanks to poster David):
Here is http://www.mg.co.za/zapiro/all
It is a very well-rendered, gentle cartoon—showing Mo on a couch complaining to his shrink: "*Other* Prophets Have Followers with a Sense of Humour!..."
Kudos to the Mail and Guardian for publishing this cartoon! I hope everyone involved stays safe from the crazed Muslim hordes.
Long live freedom of speech!
Ladies and gentlemen
I think we who approve of the publishing of this cartoon - which, though genuinely funny - it made *me* laugh - still doesn't quite 'get' Islam, since it dissociates Mohammed from the grim violence of his followers, whereas of course, we know that the Mohammed of the Hadith and Sira *approved* of the assassination, by his followers, of poets who had criticised and satirised him - should be sending friendly e-mails or postcards in to the Mail and Guardian in South Africa, to express our support for the editor, Mr Dawes, and for the cartoonist, Mr Zapiro.
When we do write, perhaps we should also casually mention Mr Robert Spencer's "The Truth About Muhammad", as a helpful and scholarly study based on the original Islamic sources; and recommend this website.
Of course, a letter to the relevant persons in authority in South Africa, expressing pleasure that the principle of freedom of expression and freedom of speech has been upheld in this particular case, and urging them to be brave and refuse to grovel to Muslim threats, might also be in order...dsinc, can you tell us who to write to?
We may choose, in addition, to express our extreme disgust at the threats that Muslim jihad plotters have already made in connection with the upcoming World Cup, and make it plain that the simplest method of countering these threats would be to *profile all Muslims* both before and during the holding of the Cup.
Why is the depiction of Mohammed forbidden,who do Moslems worship Mohammed or Allah?
In theory, Allah. In practice, Muhammad.
The following is from "Unmasking Muhammad" by Sujit Das (e-book available free online):
"It is expected that Prophet must uphold God over his own self and devote his life for the service of God. But in Islam it is theoretical. In practice Muhammad put himself in a position superior to Allah. Muslims fail to see this point, but I can quote from authentic Islamic sources to prove my point.
“Narrated Abu Sa`id bin Al−Mu'alla: While I was praying in the Mosque, Allah's Apostle called me but I did not respond to him. Later I said, "O Allah's Apostle! I was praying." He
said, "Didn't Allah say'−−"Give your response to Allah (by obeying Him) and to His Apostle when he calls you." (Q: 8.24)
He then said to me, ‘I will teach you a Sura which is the greatest Sura in the Qur'an, before you leave the Mosque’." (Bukhari: 6.60.1)
The same Hadith is repeated again with a slight variation.
Unmasking Muhammad; The Malignant Narcissist and His Grand Delusion Allah.
“Narrated Abu Sa`id bin Al−Mu'alla: While I was praying, Allah's Apostle passed me and called me, but I did not go to him until I had finished the prayer. Then I went to him, and he said, "What prevented you from coming to me? Didn't Allah say:−− "O you who believe! Answer the call of Allah (by obeying Him) and His Apostle when He calls you?" He then said, ‘I will inform you of the greatest Sura in the Qur'an before I leave (the mosque)’." (Bukhari 6.60.170)
Now let me put my observations logically point by point to prove that Muhammad had placed himself in a position higher than Allah.
1. A Muslim was praying to Allah and hence he neglected Muhammad’s call and continued praying (quickly) and once his prayer is finished he gets to Muhammad.
2. This behavior of a Muslim made Muhammad angry. He asked the Muslim for a reason for not responding sooner. The Muslim gave an honest reply that he was praying.
3. On hearing this, Muhammad quoted the following verse from Qur’an, "O you, who believe! Answer Allah (by obeying Him) and (His) Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life” (Q: 8.24).
4. But the Muslim’s business in prayer frustrated Muhammad, though Allah said, “Answer Allah (by obeying Him)…”.
5. It means what Muhammad was frustrated because the Muslim did not obey him, even if he was praying to Allah.
So the logical conclusion is that, Muhammad put himself in a higher position than Allah. He was so desperate of attention that that he can't bear even the simplest signs of him being neglected, even if it would mean placing him higher than his God. A Narcissist does not even leave the God to live peacefully. Muhammad could not tolerate to see that his Allah was getting more attention than himself from a common Muslim. Once he realized that his false God Allah is revered more than himself, he came out with Qur’anic revelations demanding more respect. For a Narcissist,
even God is his victim for narcissistic supplies. The only difference between God and Muhammad is that God does not believe that he is Muhammad."
that peaceful co-existence.. last month at the website "Yearners for Paradise" someone posted "how beautiful" if a bomb exploded at the US/England match of the World Cup.
Good response, Eleanor. If only it could be realized en masse what a control freak Mohammed was, everything else would start to fall into place to discredit the most overrated belief system of all time. If only. In any case, whenever Mohammed is mentioned, many thoughts come to mind----child molester, fraud, psychopath, etc., but "control freak" is right up there with the best of them.
It's amazing to me with all that is "known" about Muhammad, that there are still some who feel he may not have existed at all! If he didn't exist, what sort of sick moron(s) would make up such hideous traditions about "him"?
I mean, reading the Islamic sources makes Mo sound like the spawn of Satan himself.
If he was created out of whole cloth, why not make him a more palatable character?
Robert has mentioned he's working on a book about the subject and I'll surely be anxious to hear his views on it.
In theory, Allah. In practice, Muhammad.
When I read that, I couldn't help but remember how brilliantly Ali Sina summed up mahoundianism in his essay, Smashing the Fear of Allah:
(...) If God actually exists, it is nothing short of blasphemy to say he is so desperate to be known and worshiped that he would punish measly creatures like humans for eternity just because we did not worship him. What would you think of me if you see me picking the ants in my garden and throwing them in fire and tell you, I am pissed off of them because they do not bow to me despite letting them live on my property with no rent? Wouldn’t you say Ali is crazy? Then how is it that when a charlatan narcissist like Muhammad attributes such craziness to God you fear that he may be telling the truth?
The fact is that Muhammad was a liar. He could not say, I want power, I want money, I want women and I want you to worship me and obey me. So he invented a deity who was none but his own alter ego and made him tell the foolhardy people to obey Muhammad and do his bidding. So he’d say, fight for Allah and his messenger, bring the booty to Allah and his messenger, the prettiest girls captured in the raids belong to Allah and his messenger. He made Allah responsible for all his crimes and by making himself his partner he enjoyed all the loot. I assure you Allah never saw a dime of those loots. It all went to the coffers of this bogus prophet.
Would really an all powerful god need the help of humans to kill his detractors? If Muslims only thought about this question alone they would leave Islam. Alas this fear that their psychopath prophet has has placed in them is so strong that they are rendered incapable of thinking. The god of Muhammad is a fabrication of his sick mind. He is a psychopath like Muhammad who created him.
Something like "the prettiest girls captured in the raids belong to Allah and his messenger", plus Mein Qurampf 33:21, should be enough for anyone with 5% of a brain to see that mahoundianism is nothing but a big-time inbred bedouin savage scam, shouldn't it? And it sure as hell tells you a thing or 500 about the sorry state of mahoundians' pea brains.
I think we who approve of the publishing of this cartoon - which, though genuinely funny - it made *me* laugh - still doesn't quite 'get' Islam, since it dissociates Mohammed from the grim violence of his followers, whereas of course, we know that the Mohammed of the Hadith and Sira *approved* of the assassination, by his followers, of poets who had criticised and satirised him...
...................
*Excellent point*, Dumbledore's Army. With his approval of the murders of nursing-mother poet Asma bint Marwan, the two slave girls with their satiric verses, and the critical "slave-mother", Muhammed was very much for the assassination of anyone who "insulted the Prophet of Allah" (himself).
Still, Zapiro's otherwise excellent cartoon was enough to bring out the usual threats and calls for Shari'ah censorship from pious Muslims.
Hi Proud_Kafir_ !
I think Muhammad was a malignant narcissist, and Allah was his "Superego." One cannot criticize or question Allah, Muhammad or Islam, and that's built right in. Inquires about things are strictly verboten, and if you do have serious questions, you're instructed to just forget them and reaffirm your faith in Allah! What a great scam!
Sujit Das in "Unmasking Muhammad" explains further:
"Now it is time to discover the true character of Allah. If the whole doctrine of Islam is put under the searchlight of psychological analysis, it is not difficult to understand that Allah is the superego of Muhammad. Allah gave Muhammad authority and Qur’an confirms it.
“Do not rise up against Allah, I come to you with clear authority” (Q: 44.19).
“Those who swear allegiance to you (Muhammad) indeed swear allegiance to Allah” (Q: 48.10).
According to Islamic belief, Islam was created by Allah, but the final and truest revelations of Islam were "passed down" to humanity via the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Therefore, Muhammad is the final authority for Allah's revelation here on earth. This is how, the false self
of Muhammad keeps its narcissistic ‘balloon’ inflated with the strong authority of his superego, Allah. Without a strong and dictatorial Allah, Muhammad could not move forward in his Divine mission. But what are Allah’s credentials? Such questions are forbidden in Allah’s religion and may lead to a grave danger.
“If you insult Allah’s Apostle, Allah will slay you” (Ishaq: 414).
“Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "Satan comes to one of you and says, 'Who created so-and-so? ’till he says, 'Who has created your Lord?' So, when he inspires such a question, one should seek refuge with Allah and give up such thoughts." (Bukhari: 4.54.496)
“It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: Men will continue to question one another till this is propounded: Allah created all things but who created Allah? He who found himself confronted with such a situation should say: I affirm my faith in
Allah” (Muslim: 1.242).
“He (Allah) will say: 'Do not dispute before Me. I sent you a warning beforehand” (Q: 50.28).
By this way Allah debarred any possibility of criticism in Islam and the authority remains unchallenged. The fact is, Muhammad’s false self knows very well that Allah does not exist. But he has to keep Allah ‘at work’.
The relationship between Allah and Muhammad was not friendly. Their liaison is not like father and son, it is purely that of a master and slave. Allah, the superego of Muhammad never gave Muhammad the intimate love that a father gives his son. Muhammad had spent years among
Christians and Jews, and also adopted many of their customs and stories in Qur’an, but he never wanted to adopt the ‘father and son’ theological concept of Jews and Christian, because Allah was a mental figment of Muhammad.
It is the harsh, cruel, uncompromising and punishing
superego. Muhammad simply could not imagine that God could be loveable. Hence the relationship between Muhammad and Allah was one of a slave to his master, with obedience,
rather than love, being the primary impulse. Bukhari confirms it --
“Narrated 'Umar: I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle’." (Bukhari: 4.55.654)"
Hello Eleanor,
It's quite interesting to note that the following excerpt from your latest comment, "It is the harsh, cruel, uncompromising and punishing
superego. Muhammad simply could not imagine that God could be loveable. Hence the relationship between Muhammad and Allah was one of a slave to his master, with obedience,
rather than love, being the primary impulse" is something that makes even more sense in the light of Andre Servier's study of the mind of the bedouin savage, and how mahoundianism is nothing but a secretion from that mind.
In the harsh, brutal, inhumane universe that gave rise to the harsh, brutal, violent, inhumane, misogynistic, barbaric, bloody, animalistic and primitive creatures (the bedouins) that, in submission to allah/mahound, started calling themselves mahoundians, how could there have been anything like that father-son relationship between mankind and the God of Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism? There was just no way that such a notion could ever have been a product of the the Arabian Peninsula.