| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Our friends and allies the Saudis were in the thick of it, along with Iran's Thug-In-Chief. "At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized," from the New York Times, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
BEIRUT, Lebanon, Feb. 8 — As leaders of the world's 57 Muslim nations gathered for a summit meeting in Mecca in December, issues like religious extremism dominated the official agenda. But much of the talk in the hallways was of a wholly different issue: Danish cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad.The closing communiqué took note of the issue when it expressed "concern at rising hatred against Islam and Muslims and condemned the recent incident of desecration of the image of the Holy Prophet Muhammad in the media of certain countries" as well as over "using the freedom of expression as a pretext to defame religions."
The meeting in Mecca, a Saudi city from which non-Muslims are barred, drew minimal international press coverage even though such leaders as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran were in attendance. But on the road from quiet outrage in a small Muslim community in northern Europe to a set of international brush fires, the summit meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference — and the role its member governments played in the outrage — was something of a turning point.
After that meeting, anger at the Danish caricatures, especially at an official government level, became more public. In some countries, like Syria and Iran, that meant heavy press coverage in official news media and virtual government approval of demonstrations that ended with Danish embassies in flames.
In recent days, some governments in Muslim countries have tried to calm the rage, worried by the increasing level of violence and deaths in some cases.
But the pressure began building as early as October, when Danish Islamists were lobbying Arab ambassadors and Arab ambassadors lobbied Arab governments.
"It was no big deal until the Islamic conference when the O.I.C. took a stance against it," said Muhammad el-Sayed Said, deputy director of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo.
Sari Hanafi, an associate professor at the American University in Beirut, said that for Arab governments resentful of the Western push for democracy, the protests presented an opportunity to undercut the appeal of the West to Arab citizens. The freedom pushed by the West, they seemed to say, brought with it disrespect for Islam.
He said the demonstrations "started as a visceral reaction — of course they were offended — and then you had regimes taking advantage saying, 'Look, this is the democracy they're talking about.'"
The protests also allowed governments to outflank a growing challenge from Islamic opposition movements by defending Islam.
Posted by Robert at February 10, 2006 6:40 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"...it expressed concern at rising hatred against Islam and Muslims..."
WHATEVER!
Let's call this what it really is...rising concern that the rock has been pulled back and the light shined on the reality of Islam and what it does to other nations, other peoples and other religions.
Let's face it, man, the PR has been REALLY, REALLY, BAD.
This is the face of Islam:
http://www.persecutionblog.com/2005/11/more_beheading_html
And I can't believe how ridiculous these people are. First, they stop eating Havarti cheese (Dumb.) Then they terrorize non-muslims so that the aid workers from many different countries leave so they are left with no humanitarian help. (Really dumb!)then they plan a big rally at Mecca, which is famous for it's stampedes causing multiple deaths. (Even dumber!)
If they weren't so dangerous they would be hilarious.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 10, 2006 6:56 AM
The guy standing to the right of the Iranian president is none other than the King of Saudi Arabia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_bin_Abdulaziz_al-Saud
that photo speaks VOLUMES about whats going on.
at February 10, 2006 6:59 AM
this photo, taken in August 2005, also speaks volumes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:20050805_v080505db-0546copyj-1-515h.jpg
Posted by: archduke at February 10, 2006 7:09 AM
He said the demonstrations "started as a visceral reaction — of course they were offended — and then you had regimes taking advantage saying, 'Look, this is the democracy they're talking about.'
What is referring to as "this"? The cartoons or the riots. If he means the riots he is probably right. Democracy would probably bring lots of riots in these countries.
Posted by: restitutor orbis at February 10, 2006 7:32 AM
Robert,
This is off topic, but I just finished your Politically Incorrect Guide
and I want to thank you for your work and vigilance. There should one day be
a statue of you ... next to Paul Revere.
at February 10, 2006 7:35 AM
The Danish cartoons were published by an Egyptian newspaper in October 2005 and barely a peep was heard. Everyone knows the "outpouring" is highly orchestrated, sponsored and promoted by the "leading lights" of the OIC who have a legion of reasons for doing so, primarily to deflect attention from themselves. But here's where they most deserve to be hoisted by their own petards on the international stage for the self-wrongeous indignation:
"The closing communiqué took note of the issue when it expressed 'concern at rising hatred against Islam and Muslims and condemned the recent incident of desecration of the image of the Holy Prophet Muhammad in the media of certain countries" as well as over "using the freedom of expression as a pretext to defame religions.'"
There is ample evidence of the extent to which these outraged nations use their religious institutions, media and education systems to defame other religions and they should be held to account by the 80% of the world that isn't Islamic.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at February 10, 2006 8:30 AM
I had to laugh when I read this passage:
[[The group put together a 43-page dossier, including the offending cartoons and three more shocking images that had been sent to Danish Muslims who had spoken out against the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.]]
Yeah, well the Danish imams added a couple of fake pictures of the own, look the shock:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8959820
This Jacques Barrot at the French Pig-Squealing Championships in Trie-sur-Baise. Now, if you send this photo through a fax machine, it gets shocking:
http://www.neandernews.com/?p=54
Which raises an interesting question: Are we still allowed "This is Mohammed"? Because that is the only thing the imams added.
And should MBSCN now apologize? Should all pictures of pig squealers be accompanied by a disclaimer "This is not Mohammed?"
Hmmm...
Posted by: Derukugi at February 10, 2006 10:12 AM
There they go again! Just can't drop the cartoon issue! Dumb Islamofeces just got to keep it going.
I guess they think that we, the civilizied western infidel dogs, pigs, and monkeys, don't know that the cartoons were published in September of 2005. I guess that we are too stupid to know that an Egyptian newspaper al-Fagr also published the cartoons a month later in October of 2005 during Ramadan. Oh yeah, when I'm on it, all editors that tried to reprint the cartoons in Islamofecesland were arrested, while the Egyptian editors went unharmed!!! Imagine that?
I guess that they think that we don't know how Iman Ahmad Abu Laban fabricated a photo of a French comedian, Jacques Barrot competing in the annual French Pig Sqealing Championships.
And of course they can get away with it, because of the unlearned Islamofeces that have the education of a doorstop. One would have figured that this outrage would've been protested last year. But it was totally ignored by Muslims. And during Ramadan when it would have been more legit.
I guess that's what happens when you're an Islamofeces. even when you're hurting your cause, you're hurting your cause. 1.5 billion Muslims, duped by the very leaders that they foolishly trust. And they want that for us in the United States and the West. No thank you. I'd rather be able to think for myself. Not easily mislead.
This illrelivant timing of outrage is a sign that the violent response to the cartoons is politically motivated by the Muslim extremists in Europe and the Islamofeces goverment of Islamofecesland!!!
This summit would be more legit if it was held 5 months ago, when no one gave a care!!!
at February 10, 2006 11:01 AM
May an errant pig wander into the "Conference" and cause one of those perennial stampedes so popular in the region!
Inshallah!
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 10, 2006 11:18 AM
My beloveds (Malik and Musa)
May the Creator of the heavens and the earth reward your valiant strivings in the den of inequity of the shaytin.
One ponders the question: Of all the professed religions of the world... WHY has Islam become the chief and sole obsession of so many Americans? Is it purely because of the events of September 11, or are there other reasons? What motivates so many people that are not Muslim to spend countless hours researching Islam if they want nothing to do with it?
Be sure, this is a dedicated, well-orchestrated, totally planned campaign being waged to disuade as many people as possible from their chosen religion (funny, they are not interested in converting the atheists, wiccans or satanists), and turn back as many Muslims as they can from their religion. If this were not so, you would be able to engage in intelligent dialogue with these people and discuss and compare religion respectfully without trading insults.
The tendency to apply today's standards to acts that occurred more than 1,400 years ago is also suspect, given the fact that Muslims are accused of living in the past and following a religion that is archaic and obsolete. The bible, revered by millions as irrefutable truth from God, is never put under similar scrutiny.
For example, Prophet Lot is reported to have slept with his two daughters after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah at their urging, fearing that the world needed to be repopulated and they were the only survivors as seen in these direct quotes from the bible, NIV:
"Lot and His Daughters" NIV, Genesis 19:30-36
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab [g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi [h] ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.
Should we question the morals of Prophet Lot and his daughters for engaging in this obvious act of incest?
Still more distressing passages of immorality can be found in Genesis 38:13-18. I challenge anyone anywhere to find a single passage that says Muhammad slept with his daughters, committed adultery, or fornicated even once outside of marriage:
13 When Tamar was told, "Your father-in-law is on his way to Timnah to shear his sheep," 14 she took off her widow's clothes, covered herself with a veil to disguise herself, and then sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. For she saw that, though Shelah had now grown up, she had not been given to him as his wife.
15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. 16 Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, "Come now, let me sleep with you." "And what will you give me to sleep with you?" she asked.
17 "I'll send you a young goat from my flock," he said. "Will you give me something as a pledge until you send it?" she asked.
18 He said, "What pledge should I give you?"
"Your seal and its cord, and the staff in your hand," she answered. So he gave them to her and slept with her, and she became pregnant by him. 19 After she left, she took off her veil and put on her widow's clothes again.
And in the following passages, David lies with Bathshebah, a black hittite woman, the wife of Uriah, plots for him to be killed in battle, and earns the wrath of God. Notice that the prophets of the bible did not shy away from killing and warfare. Also notice that in 2 Samuel 11:4, Bathshebah lay with David after ritually "purifying" herself from "uncleanness". Why was she considered "unclean"?:
2 Samuel 11:1-26 (NIV)
David and Bathsheba
1 In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king's men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.
2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then [a] she went back home. 5 The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, "I am pregnant."
6 So David sent this word to Joab: "Send me Uriah the Hittite." And Joab sent him to David. 7 When Uriah came to him, David asked him how Joab was, how the soldiers were and how the war was going. 8 Then David said to Uriah, "Go down to your house and wash your feet." So Uriah left the palace, and a gift from the king was sent after him. 9 But Uriah slept at the entrance to the palace with all his master's servants and did not go down to his house.
10 When David was told, "Uriah did not go home," he asked him, "Haven't you just come from a distance? Why didn't you go home?"
11 Uriah said to David, "The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and my master Joab and my lord's men are camped in the open fields. How could I go to my house to eat and drink and lie with my wife? As surely as you live, I will not do such a thing!"
12 Then David said to him, "Stay here one more day, and tomorrow I will send you back." So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next. 13 At David's invitation, he ate and drank with him, and David made him drunk. But in the evening Uriah went out to sleep on his mat among his master's servants; he did not go home.
14 In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. 15 In it he wrote, "Put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die."
16 So while Joab had the city under siege, he put Uriah at a place where he knew the strongest defenders were. 17 When the men of the city came out and fought against Joab, some of the men in David's army fell; moreover, Uriah the Hittite died.
18 Joab sent David a full account of the battle. 19 He instructed the messenger: "When you have finished giving the king this account of the battle, 20 the king's anger may flare up, and he may ask you, 'Why did you get so close to the city to fight? Didn't you know they would shoot arrows from the wall? 21 Who killed Abimelech son of Jerub-Besheth [b] ? Didn't a woman throw an upper millstone on him from the wall, so that he died in Thebez? Why did you get so close to the wall?' If he asks you this, then say to him, 'Also, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead.' "
22 The messenger set out, and when he arrived he told David everything Joab had sent him to say. 23 The messenger said to David, "The men overpowered us and came out against us in the open, but we drove them back to the entrance to the city gate. 24 Then the archers shot arrows at your servants from the wall, and some of the king's men died. Moreover, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead."
25 David told the messenger, "Say this to Joab: 'Don't let this upset you; the sword devours one as well as another. Press the attack against the city and destroy it.' Say this to encourage Joab."
26 When Uriah's wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. 27 After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the LORD.
Should the bible as a result be viewed as a manual of incest and debauchery because of these passages? What do these passages tell us about the lowly status of women during these times?
And what sense shall we make of the following biblical passages about the sons of Prophet Noah? It has been a long-standing dispute that these passages infer that the black-skinned peoples of Africa are the descendents of Ham, the Canaanites, cursed by Noah to be the eternal "slaves" of their brothers (see Genesis 9:24-27). If this is not true, why haven't these passages been stricken from the bible, as they would have Muslims strike offensive passages from the qur'an? Note also that Noah is reported to have lived 950 YEARS, when the average life expectancy of a human today is about 75 years. I don't hear anyone challenging the validity of this claim.
The Sons of Noah (NIV) Genesis 9:18-28
18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."
26 He also said,
"Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem. [b]
27 May God extend the territory of Japheth [c] ;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his [d] slave."
28 After the flood Noah lived 350 years. 29 Altogether, Noah lived 950 years, and then he died.
My beloveds, I give these few passages to you as an example of the deception, dishonesty, and twisted purpose of those who attack you here, who spend all of their energies and exhaust their knowledge and resources attacking Muslims and what we believe, without looking at what they claim to believe themselves.
May God the Creator grant you peace and mercy and forgiveness of your sins. Salutations of peace to Muhammad and all the prophets and companions of heaven.
Posted by: hatshepsut at February 10, 2006 12:44 PM
Say, CAIR had representatives at that Mecca meeting. I wonder if they knew what was brewing?
Posted by: Solomon at February 10, 2006 2:34 PM
Try this:
http://www.persecutionblog.com/2005/11/more_beheading_.html
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 10, 2006 3:55 PM
Try this:
http://www.persecutionblog.com/2005/11/more_beheading_.html
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 10, 2006 3:56 PM
Try this:
http://www.persecutionblog.com/2005/11/more_beheading_.html
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 10, 2006 3:58 PM
The ChristianFascit Danish Prime Minister refuse to met with Moslim Ambor in sept 2005,
If you spineless Christian have roit and burn at the stake that artist that put the Christ figure in ajar of piss it would have send than very strong message to your illreligious seclar artists to respect all religish beliefs. Those artist are on they way to than posible hellfire in the hereafter.
Posted by: DefenderofIslam at February 11, 2006 1:45 AM
Hey Defender of Islime,
What did you just say?
at February 14, 2006 3:01 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)