| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers a cartoon controversy curriculum:
The cartoon controversy has created a teaching moment in American high schools and universities.History teachers, civics teachers, government teachers, do the following:
Print out relevant sections from Milton's Areopagitica ("I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue" etc.), the trial of John Peter Zenger, the Virginia Remonstrances, and John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty."
Now print out the First Amendment of the Constitution (1791).
Now print out the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1792).
Now print out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Now print out the Muslim answer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is to say the "Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.”Xerox enough copies for every member of every class you teach.
Collate, and collect. Staple.
Now distribute to classes.
Now begin the discussion of how Freedom of Speech developed, in opposition to both political and religious censorship.
Now devote all of your attention to helping the students spot the differences between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Muslim version, the so-called Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.
See if they can spot the differences and can understand why those differences exist. Tell them a little something about the Shari'a. Explain to them that Muslims are not allowed to leave Islam on pain of death -- and that even in those Muslim countries whose law codes do not yet fully match the Shari'a ideal, complete economic collapse and social ostracism are the fate of any Muslim who dares to convert to another religion, or to openly express his lack of belief in Islam.See if they can detect differences in the rights of women.
See if they can detect differences in the right of the individual to freedom of conscience.
See if they can detect differences in the guarantees offered to minorities.
See what the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights says about the equal treatment of minorities in every respect -- and about pluralism.
Where reference is made in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights to the principles of Islam, or Islamic law (the Shari'a), do some research on your own and find out what the applicable principles of Islam are in the particular case and share them with your class.
Where you may not know enough, find out about the concept of the "dhimmi" and what the "dhimmi" -- that is, the non-Muslim in a Muslim-ruled society -- had to endure.
Find out which Muslim countries have laws forbidding mockery of non-Muslim religions and peoples. See if you can find examples of how Christians and Jews, Christianity and Judaism, are discussed in the Muslim press, radio, television (hint: go to www.memri.org for straightforward translations without any comments added).
This should be a wonderful way to spend a week or two of the term. You are trying to teach students about the heroic development of free speech in the Western world. You are also trying to teach them about the importance of other rights, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Stir and shake as you will.
Sweeten to taste.
Teach them that American constitutional law on limits to free speech are clear. Free speech can be limited only insofar as that speech is a "deliberate incitement to imminent lawless violence."
Who has been deliberately inciting imminent lawless violence in the world? The Danish imams have. The Saudi imams and the Saudi government has. The imams in Pakistan have. The government of Egypt and the government of Jordan have in the remarks of their own officials. The O.I.C. has. The government of Libya has. The Muslims who gathered and chanted and shouted and attacked embassies of what they saw as Christian, Infidel symbols, in a various countries, and killed helpless Christians in Nigeria and burned down churches in a half-dozen countries -- they were the ones inciting and being incited.
The Western world has to declare unambiguously that it will not tolerate attempts by Muslims to inflict their standards, their views of the universe, their careful refusal to allow others to examine, study, critically analyze, even make fun of if they so choose, any and all parts of all religions, including Islam. Those anodyne cartoons were nothing. It is clear that what will follow, if an inch is given now, is the attempt to suppress Infidel critical discussion of what is contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira.
That's what is in the works. The world's Muslims do not wish any Infidel, anywhere, to discuss Islam critically. They want Infidels to exhibit the behavior dictated to them by Muslims. They want reverence. They want submission. They want, and will work to achieve, the suppression of the rights that took centuries to develop in the Western world, and that some, out of a craven and casual spirit of false accommodation, are willing to throw over.
This cannot be.
Posted by Robert at February 22, 2006 2:24 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Not going to happen, Hugh.
It would require Critical Thought.
Not something to found in much of Academia these days, David Horowitz' efforts aside. They prefer denial, demonization, denigration and Death to Israel and Christianity.
Posted by: Gary![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 22, 2006 2:32 PM
This is an education that over half of our population needs immediately. This would also include many in our government and most of those in the media.
But, like Gary said. "Ain't gonna happen." I'm glad we have the second amendment. We may end up needing it.
Posted by: Christine at February 22, 2006 2:35 PM
Send Karen Hughes to the class.
Posted by: Stendec at February 22, 2006 2:40 PM
The cartoon controversy has created a teaching moment in American high schools and universities.
They don't read that much in public high schools anymore, nor in many college courses. Even the Cliffs Notes would be too long.
Our best hope to reach a wide enough audience would a recording of 50-Cent or Eminem rapping the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
Crank that bass!
Posted by: Shinoliite at February 22, 2006 3:40 PM
Look - we in the West can talk about this till we're blue in the face but it comes down to this simple fact. The West (in my case, the USA) needs to limit all Muslim immigration. This is not simply 'another religion". Islam is a total philosophical way of life that is for the most part, so different from Western culture, that the two can't live together.
It's all immigration folks. Reduce Muslim immigration before it's too late. Muslims do not assimilate; they change/convert society to an Islamic one.
Posted by: Nessus at February 22, 2006 3:41 PM
A brilliant case-in-study, Hugh. I can only hope that teachers somewhere might not fear to tread in these waters, but unfortunately, I know better.
The United States is undergoing a Spell of Dhimmitude right now.
I can think of a few ways to snap us out of it, but I'm afraid that few of them start with words anymore and even fewer end with less than bloodshed.
Still, I will pray that your prescribed method actually gets administered instead.
Beyond that hope, we had all better fasten our seatbelts for the next 30 years.
Posted by: Foehammer at February 22, 2006 3:45 PM
What a golden opportunity, indeed, for any teacher of English, Philosophy, Western Civ, Poli Sci, or Civics, who truly had an appreciation of the wonderful foundation fought bitterly for by our forebearers. (Of course, even if this hypothetical teacher existed, they would immediately be fired by the administration, and drummed out of the NEA union.)
Posted by: Infidel33 at February 22, 2006 3:51 PM
Perhaps some may object to this statement in the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights:
Secondly, the UDHR presumes inherent human right due to the birth per se, the Cairo Declaration, on the other hand, affirms the inherent human rights in a person for his status as God’s vicegerent in this world. Thus, the recognition of human rights in Islam is not for the sake of right only, but further the rights are granted in order for human to serve Almighty Allah
=======================
Hence, in the Universal Declartion (UDHR), every human being has human rights, in the Cairo Declaration (CD), human rights are only granted to Muslims.
at February 22, 2006 4:27 PM
Definitely this teachable moment should be exploited, but that will be impeded by the factors mentioned by other posters.
Perhaps, Hugh, you could work with others to produce a documentary/DVD on the "Truth about Islam", that could be broadcast, put on the net, or distributed on DVD door by door, campus by campus, if necessary? Perhaps a whole series could be done?
Posted by: elcordobes at February 22, 2006 4:51 PM
I feel like Picard, facing down the advancing Borg fleet and wondering what the hell to do.
"You will be assimilated" takes on an entirely new meaning for me now.
Posted by: Dead Infidel Walking at February 22, 2006 5:32 PM
Another suggestion for a topic of discussion, might be:'Which "Religions" are to be Tolerated"?
We need to clarify our Constitution regarding freedom of religion. How is "religion" to be defined? How is a "religion" compatible with our constitution, to be defined?
The mass human sacrifices of the Aztec and other mesoamerican cultures, killing tens of thousands of their neighboring tribes' people, annually, was a large and long-standing "religion".
The annual death of 20,000+ murders-by-strangulation by the Thug cult in India, that persisted for centuries, was a "religion".
The headhunters of New Guinea amassed tens of thousands of skulls of their neighbors in their shrine huts. This was the high mark of their "religion".
The Dionysian cult of Corinth, Greece, at the time of St. Paul had a thousand girl slaves kept as temple prostitutes.
Western civilization has to recognize, in its constitutions, that NOT all religions are equal, and that SOME religions are NOT to be tolerated to exist.
We are confronted, now, by a "religion" that demands the decapitation or enslavement of those who would not submit to Islam.
The mass slaughter in mesoamerica, the extirpation of the Thugs in India, the suppression of headhunting in New Guinea and elsewhere throughout the world, and even the end to slavery, were accomplished by the force of Western Civilization.
The clash of civilizations is well underway. The two cannot coexist. We have to face this reality and act.
at February 22, 2006 5:39 PM
Posted by: Dead Infidel Walking
I feel like Picard, facing down the advancing Borg fleet and wondering what the hell to do.
"You will be assimilated" takes on an entirely new meaning for me now.
I'm not a trekie but give the Borg some credit, they had a leader and worked in harmony. They were also peaceful when compared to Islam.
Posted by: Ronin at February 22, 2006 5:50 PM
Brilliantly stated, Hugh. For all of you who insist that this cannot happen in American schools - how many of you have read all of the above listed by Hugh? How many of you are fluent enough in exactly what our Constitution states to be able to quote it as needed when discussing the issue with friends/family? Speaking of friends and family, how many of you actively pursue discussions about Islam, the disappearnace of not only our rights but of all Western thought?
It isn't too late for anything, and far from being forced now to resort to violence, I believe that Hugh's solution is really the only one. I homeschool my children. For the past little while, we've spent quite a lot of our classroom time learning about the cartoons and the issues of basic human rights. My children have seen the cartoons, and painful as it was, they've seen some of the virulently antisemitic ones as well. My children will be well-educated enough not only to see but to point out the Emperor's lack of clothing.
Maybe you're grumbling that you do not homeschool your children, even that perhaps you do not have children to educate. So, educate someone else. Start with yourself, and then be prepared to stand up for everything our forefathers fought for. If ever I believed that the pen really is mightier than the sword, now I believe it one hundred times more. After all, just look what a few mediocre cartoons did.
Posted by: libbysmom at February 22, 2006 6:29 PM
An Editorial from Jyllands-Posten, Tuesday, February 21, 2006
EDITORIAL: No "support", Please
FOOD FAIR in Dubai: A man with a tight smile announces that Arla in no way "supports" any cartoons in Jyllands-Posten.
What cartoons in Jyllands-Posten have to do with a food fair in Dubai can only be explained by the gallopping lunacy of the times, but for now that is not our focus.
A different kind of weird is: what does the man mean by "support"? The statement, coming as it does from Arla, can only be about money. The matter at hand, we must deduce, is that Arla was thinking of sending us a check made out to some amount, but has now decided not to.
Thank you. To be blunt, it would be deeply insulting for us to receive any such "support" from Arla. We still have to consider our dignity.
And that is not for sale. We do not crawl for oriental dictators and we wouldn’t dream of boycotting the democratic state of Israel in order to please some bloodthirsty dictatorship out of medieval times.
But Arla has no such scruples. It is more profitable to kowtow to dictatorships than to stand up for democracy.
Danish history has seen other examples of grubbing merchants who haven’t let democratic principles or even ordinary decency stand in the way of profits.
While the man from Arla is in Dubai talking about his lack of "support" for the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten, the thugs of the dictators are busy desecrating national symbols and burning down embassies.
Arla doesn’t seem to mind.
Known madmen invade our TV sets, shrilly promising slavery to Danes, demanding that the Danish cartoonists be handed over to suffer torture and eventual death.
Arla becomes silent.
Moslems act as madmen over a cartoonist who - to their astonishment - portrayed the prophet with a bomb in his turban. Certainly not the most unnatural thought, considering the deeds that have been done in his name.
Arla is silent.
Plundering hordes scream that Islam is the Religion of Peace. Some of us say they have a funny way of showing it.
Arla stays silent.
We wouldn’t be as primitive as to suggest that Arla be boycotted.
But we are astonished.
http://agora.blogsome.com/2006/02/21/we-wouldnt-take-your-money-if-you-paid-us-to-do-so/
Posted by: DP111 at February 22, 2006 6:44 PM
I am a practicioner of the indigenous religion of the Norse, the same religion practiced by the Vikings. Remember them, we scared the crap out of Christian Europe from the 8th Century to the 11th Century... Even I abandon some of the more barbaric practices of my spritual forebearerers.
A word of caution, do not hold any person guilty of acts committed in the name of their religion, or you are a Muslim. Muslims do not forget the past, just look at their focus on the Crusade/Jihad Era...
What needs to happen is an Enlightenment take place in the Islamic World, just look at what The Enlightenment did to Christianity and the authoritarian church spawned by it...
Posted by: vikingskald at February 22, 2006 6:52 PM
The staunch attitude of Jyllands-Posten is evident, as the government of Denmark fully supported it. Contrast this to other Western nations, where such support was at best hesitant.
The moderates and the Jihadis are working towards the same goal, and each takes advantage of the work of the other. After each terrorist outrage, you will find the moderate muslim moaning about "islamophobia", "backlash", and at the same time issueing threats (and incitement), that if this or that special preference is not granted to muslims, it will make the angry young men even more angry and frustrated.
Islam is the most pernicious ideology to have infected the human population. It has outlasted every other vile creed by a long way, and that is proof enough of the extremely serious nature of the threat we all face.
One way to stop this ideology is to confine it to one region - dar ul islam, and then hope that it works its way out. This means first and foremost, an end to muslim invasion/immigration, and then hopefully a reversal by making Western lands as islam unfriendly as possible.
at February 22, 2006 6:59 PM
A word of caution, do not hold any person guilty of acts committed in the name of their religion, or you are a Muslim. Muslims do not forget the past, just look at their focus on the Crusade/Jihad Era...
What needs to happen is an Enlightenment take place in the Islamic World, just look at what The Enlightenment did to Christianity and the authoritarian church spawned by it... - posted by Vikingskald
Two books come to mind:
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization - Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) - Robert Spencer
Posted by: Shinoliite at February 22, 2006 7:02 PM
Muslims teach their children to hate all non beleivers from the day they can understand speech.
It's time for all us keyboard warriors to get off our backsides and start teaching our own offspring the REAL facts of life in regard to the murderous islamic cult.
If muslim apologist PC teachers in our schools refuse to tell our kids the truth about the evils of islam, then the parents commities should step in and demand it.
They are our children, we pay the taxes for their education, we decide what they are taught.
Then if it's not too late, in ten years or so, all the West will be united in erradicating this cancer that is trying to consume us.
Who is running our Western civilized countries,
We the people, Out of control polititions or islamics?......you be the judge, and make a decision to act NOW.
Posted by: Buddy
at February 22, 2006 7:04 PM
For this Teaching Moment to have any practical effect, one must study why it will not be allowed and implemented (much less even considered and discussed fairly) in most Western schools and colleges.
Then, after studying that, figure out how to oppose and circumvent such sociopolitically dominant resistance.
Otherwise, it's mostly mental masturbation.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at February 22, 2006 7:18 PM
Otherwise, it's mostly mental... - posted by Dr. Pepper
Dr. Pepper: How can it be wrong if it reads so right?
Posted by: Shinoliite at February 22, 2006 7:33 PM
Fitzpatrick, your curriculum would come under a rain of fire from the hate law contingent. Remember, as the Moslem population grows the U.S. Constitution shrinks.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 22, 2006 7:51 PM
A PROPOSAL FOR UNITED NATIONS PROTECTION OF ALL NON-ISLAMIC PEOPLES
When a group or a person attempts to place an ideology, religious or otherwise above humanity, then that group or person will by their actions become less human.
By placing the Islamic faith over humanity, Muslims are given justification for their inhuman acts against the rest of humanity. And in this way they will be dehumanized.
The Muslims have submitted themselves to a belief, which they see as being higher than their own selves, and to honor this belief, everything underneath, therefore can justifiably be destroyed, including themselves.
In isolation, perhaps these ideas are harmless - but once this group has to mix with other groups, who do not wish to submit in the same way or at all to their beliefs, Muslims are then instructed to place the higher cause of their religion, over the human rights of the other groups, to either forcibly convert or to annihilate those other groups.
Where we have placed humanity first in our international charters – they have placed their religion over humanity – which puts Islamic law in direct conflict with our international human rights charters. For this reason the citizens of each country, which has a large or growing body of Islamic people – should be given international protection from those in Islam who believe that they should carry out the Islamic laws and commit acts of violence against the rest of the population.
Further if those in the Islamic faith hold the religion over humanity – then all those who are not Islamic, are possibly at the risk of a genocidal force being acted against them – in the name of this religion.
All citizens should therefore be offered protection from the violent acts of the Islamic communities among them, where those communities do not wish to convert to Islam.
Case in point: Southern Thailand, where race is not an issue between the Buddhist and Muslim communities. Under the Islamic law those communities who are not Islamic are being attacked or threatened to be made to conform or pay respect to Islamic law – which these Muslims think that everyone in the land should eventually conform or submit to.
Unarmed Buddhist monks are having their head’s severed, non-Muslim school teachers are having to attend class under the threat of being attacked mainly by Muslim youths wielding swords on motor cycles and some of the markets are forcibly closed on Fridays, the Muslim holy day, where non-Muslim traders are being told to stay away or face having one of their ears cut off.
This is an example of how Muslims have gained the upper ground in one area, and there is clear evidence, in the form of violent acts committed by Muslims on non Muslims and by statements of intent, that the Muslims are looking to gain the upper ground in many other areas of the world.
Where the safety or wellbeing of humanity is placed at risk by a group, which has elevated its own religious doctrine over the wellbeing of all humanity – then those non-Muslim communities of the world should be guaranteed protection, from Islam and its laws, under the same United Nations charters which protect the rights and safety of all humans.
*These guarantees of rights and protections should also be extended to those wishing to leave the Islamic religion.
at February 22, 2006 7:51 PM
Muslims do not forget the past...
Which is why Russian pilots removed the serial numbers from their airframes during the Chechnya conflict. They heard that Chechens were swearing blood revenge against pilot families, even if it took generations to execute the revenge murder.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 22, 2006 7:54 PM
French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy revealed that house-searches of suspects related to the brutal murder and torture of a yong Jewish man, 23-year-old Ilan Halimi, produced Salafi (radical Islamic) and pro-Palestinian documents.
http://www.acage.org/news/?day=02222006&id=0001
The French government now considers the murder to be an anti-Semitic crime.
at February 22, 2006 8:08 PM
Hugh
There is still some hope out there in Redneckland!!
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-detail.php?id=12633
Campus Cartoon Controversy Continues
by Christopher Flickinger
Posted Feb 22, 2006
Students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill protest the school's newspaper after it prints a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad.
WTVD-TV cites an Associated Press report that student protesters entered the office of The Daily Tar Heel and said they wouldn't leave until the publication apologized for running an editorial cartoon showing a turban-wearing man between two mosque windows.
The story goes on to say a protest organizer helped collect 100 signatures on a petition from people pledging to boycott the paper until an apology is printed.
The editor-in-chief of the student newspaper says he's sorry if anyone was offended, but won't print an apology. He says the newspaper has always been a forum of expression and a place to challenge social ideals, the article adds.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=3896166
Cartoon Controversy in Chapel Hill
(02/10/06 -- CHAPEL HILL) - A political cartoon in a student newspaper is triggering protests on campus.
UNC-Chapel Hill's Muslim Students Association is demanding an apology after a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed appeared in the Daily Tar Heel newspaper.
"It's very disrespectful, and I find it racist," said student Rafsan Khan, a Muslim. "I find it discrimination, too."
Similar cartoons have incited violent riots for the last week around the world. Muslims held protests around the world Friday, denouncing cartoons they say defame Mohammed. Muslims believe it is forbidden to portray any images of the prophet. Many news organizations will not show the cartoon.
The Muslim Students Association's response to the cartoon was published in today's Daily Tar Heel. It says the paper was insensitive for running the depiction of Mohammad, but newspaper editor Ryan Tuck says he had a reason for printing the cartoon. He issued a statement on his blog, explaining his decision to run the cartoon, but offered no apology.
"They asked for a public apology, and the statement is half of that," Tuck said. "We're not apologizing for printing the cartoon. I do personally to any caller, letter-writer, anybody that comes in.
READ THE REST
AND OF COURSE THE CRY ABOUT RASISM FROM MULSUMS STARTS THIS IS WHERE THE STICKS AND STONES BREAK MY BONES BUT NAMES WILL NEVER HURT ME!!
THIS IS HISTORY REPEATING IT'S SELF
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NY_PORTS_ARAB_AMERICAN_REAX_BAOL-?SITE=WABCAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Feb 22, 4:36 PM
Arab American, Muslim groups disturbed by ports security rhetoric
By DEEPTI HAJELA
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- The political piling-on over a state-owned Arab business' plan to run some American ports is causing concern among Arab American and Muslim American groups, which say the furor is fueled by racism and bigotry.
"We're very concerned about the level of rhetoric and the way that there seems to be the assumption that because a company is Arab it can't be trusted with our security," said Katherine Abbadi, executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of New York.
The president of the Arab American Institute, James Zogby, also was distressed.
"When you have members of Congress literally tripping over themselves to run to a microphone and they're saying, 'The Arabs are coming, the Arabs are coming,' preying off that fear because it's an Arab country, that constitutes bigotry," Zogby said Wednesday.
http://www.inthefaceofevil.com/
A movie worth seeing a rose by any other name is still a rose
AND SO to is evil by any other name is still evil !!!
I LOOK AT IT THIS WAY IF THEY CAN FURN OUR FLAG WE CAN PRINT CARTOONS!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM GIVE THE WORLD COURAGE TO STAND TOGETHER TO FIGHT THIS EVIL AMEN
PS
Looks like the mosque that was blown up in Iraq was done by iranis? and Supported by sader??
at February 22, 2006 8:11 PM
Pass It On -
There is no United Nations, nimrod. There is only the US Military. That's why the UN calls us every time it needs troops.
The UN is very old joke at the expense of high school student counselors. It was a joke; it's still a joke.
Got it?
Posted by: 00Buck at February 22, 2006 8:22 PM
In a Philosophy class I teach, the required end of the year project is for students to investigate a problem with global implications.
Last year a group wanted to do something dealing with "HUman Rights". I asked them to take a look at the UN Declaration of Human Rights for them to identify what the UN says are Human Rights. They found it strange that "freedom of religion" was listed. I suggested that they investigate that one since they found it an odd idea. I suggested several countries which suppress religion/oppress believers. The group decided on Saudia Arabia. I had them read the "Cairo declaration" and suggested that they go to MEMRI for videos and speeches, etc...this presentation was an eye opener for the entire class ... the presentation with video, speeches, etc was well documented via MEMRI.
The basic question I had for the group was why does the USA protect freedom of religion and Saudi Arabia not....insisting that the group use documents and laws to support their analysis.
The 5 in the group now know the danger of Islam....the other 20 in the class were made uneasy and I hope that they would investigate further on their own.
at February 22, 2006 8:23 PM
Robert, your the man.
Posted by: parainvesta at February 22, 2006 8:56 PM
Robert, or Mr. Fitzpatrick, as two posters above would have it, or whatever your name is -- why yes, you are the man.
For yet another poster above, who dismisses, in quite unseemly fashion, the proferred Lesson Plan as nothing more than "mental masturbation," I have only one question: Is there another kind?
Posted by: Hugh at February 22, 2006 9:01 PM
There is no United Nations, nimrod...
All law and justice is ultimately derived from the barrel of a gun. So you're right, cuz where's the UN's army?
The UN was meant primarily to serve as a locus of diplomatic activity. But it evolved into a propaganda engine for Marxism, and more recently has developed into a front organization for Islam. Oh, and where you get your Islam you get your Moslems. And where they pop up you of course get the moochy mooch and the corruption. As his scowl widens, Kofi is looking more and more Moslem to me all the time, the greasy little crook.
We should wire the building, blow it down, and ask its former tenants to please vacate their apartments and be out of the country within a week's time.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 22, 2006 9:03 PM
Where are the student-revolts in 2006? How come students in universities in western countries, especially the US, are not up in arms and demand the sacking of their misguided, tenured professors and school-principals, who not only cave in to Mohammedan demands, but actually bend over backwards to accommodate their preposterous, outrageous demands?
This cannot be only fear of Mohammedans, who attack anyone who speaks against their cult; it cannot be that PC alone has clouded everyones conscience to forsake the constitution and the ideals on which western democracy is based.
Apart from Arab students paying full fees for US university-education it is obvious that 'donations', if not outright bribes are behind the current climate in the MESA-nostra.
This situation has too far degenerated to be tolerated any longer. The lethargy in the general population, uncritical acceptance of 'tiny minority of extremists' fairy-tales and deliberate misinformation including outright deception of the infidels must be exposed for what it is: Jihad!
This is not the 'inner struggle' Mohammedans would have us believe it means, but the struggle to shake the fundaments of our society to prepare the takeover by the RoP.
Deportations NOW!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 22, 2006 9:59 PM
Bravo, jihan!! May there be many others like you, who take their profession seriously.
Posted by: Infidel33 at February 22, 2006 10:03 PM
For yet another poster above, who dismisses, in quite unseemly fashion, the proferred Lesson Plan as nothing more than "mental masturbation," I have only one question: Is there another kind?
- posted by Hugh
If you have to ask, you'll never know.
Posted by: Shinoliite at February 22, 2006 11:06 PM
Now you tell me.
Posted by: Hugh at February 22, 2006 11:09 PM
Religion: : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity :
Cult: 1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual
Is islam a religious cult? You decide.
Posted by: Just_Linda at February 22, 2006 11:24 PM
Everyone please see this:
http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1140609313/YAAFM_12_Muslims
-Cheers
Posted by: Gorkhali at February 22, 2006 11:24 PM
Hey, guys...
Did publisher Rose have the right to publish those cartoons, as a matter of free speech? Absolutely.
Did he act responsibly in doing so, knowing that homocidal maniacs would probably go absolutely nuts if he did, destroying property and probably killing people? In no possible way.
Did he act responsibly in deliberately extending the middle finger to Sunni Muslims in general, and not merely to those who attempted to intimidate him? Was his decision to do so any more tolerant than Islam itself? Absolutely not.
Could he have challenged the attempted intimidation of the Jihadists without deliberately and intentionally insulting the religious beliefs of moderate and Jihadist alike? With the greatest of ease.
Did Rose's publication of those cartoons advance or retard the cause of pluralism? Absolutely the latter. Respect for the convictions of even those we disagree with is absolutely crucial to pluralism.
Does Rose have blood on his hands? You bet your sweet bippy.
Is this a free speech issue? No way.
at February 22, 2006 11:26 PM
shinolite: "How can it be wrong if it reads so right?"
Don't ask me: ask the millions of Westerners who can't read right.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at February 23, 2006 12:46 AM
A posting above is copied-and-pasted below, with each paragraph numbered:
1. Did publisher Rose [Flemming Rose of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper in which that handful of anodyne cartooins appeared] have the right to publish those cartoons, as a matter of free speech? Absolutely.
2. "Did he act responsibly in doing so, knowing that homocidal maniacs would probably go absolutely nuts if he did, destroying property and probably killing people? In no possible way.
3. Did he act responsibly in deliberately extending the middle finger to Sunni Muslims in general, and not merely to those who attempted to intimidate him? Was his decision to do so any more tolerant than Islam itself? Absolutely not.
4. Could he have challenged the attempted intimidation of the Jihadists without deliberately and intentionally insulting the religious beliefs of moderate and Jihadist alike? With the greatest of ease.
5. Did Rose's publication of those cartoons advance or retard the cause of pluralism? Absolutely the latter. Respect for the convictions of even those we disagree with is absolutely crucial to pluralism.
6. Does Rose have blood on his hands? You bet your sweet bippy.
7. Is this a free speech issue? No way."
-- from an absurd posting above
Let's dissect this, paragraph by numbered paragraph.
Paragraph 1 assures us that yes, Flemming Rose had a perfect right to publish those cartoons, "as a matter of free speech." But by the time we have arrived at Paragraph 7, this has been stood on its head, and the poster answers his own question -- "Is this a free speech issue?" with "No way." So the Danish paper had a right to exercise its free speech, but this is not a "free speech" issue.
What is it then? Let's start with the next paragraph, paragraph #2.
We are immediately confronted with that adverb "responsibly." All of a sudden we have entered a world where the right of free speech has been modified by a very powerful, because so very vague, adjective: "responsibly." You may exercise your right of free speech, but you must do it a certain way. You must do it -- "responsibly." So all of a sudden the burden is now on you, the one who wishes to exercise that right of free speech.
And what now should be taken into account by you is that some will take offense. And despite the classic formulation of the right of free speech offered by John Stuart MIll in "On Liberty"-- the right to free speech must include the right to give offense -- all of a sudden we are in a different universe, where we must calculate the fanatism of those who might take offense. And if they are fanatical enough, murderous enough, as they have proven to be, then it is "irresponsible" to have offended them.
Was that Danish newspaper acting "irresponsibly"? Not at all. It was of course testing the right to still exercise freedom of speech. It wanted to see if Muslims were going to control, and limit, its exercise even within Europe. The cartoons were anodyne. The business about Muslims never permitting images of the man they call (but we Infidels do not, and are under no obligation to do so) the Prophet, is false. There are Muslim images of the Prophet all over the place, and if one consults the book "The Islamic World" put out by the Metropolitan Museum of Art (by Stuart Cary Welch, a great expert on Islamic art) one will find a discussion on p. 95 of just how common were certain images of Muhammad, such as those of him ascending to the Seventh Heaven on his strange steed al-Buraq during the Miraj or Night Journey.
Flemming Rose has testified that he had no idea that such a reaction -- the economic boycott of Denmark, the recall of ambassadors, the crazed mob attacks on Danish consulates and embassies and, in a general anti-Infidel fit, on the embassies of the United States and other Western countries. He could not have foreseen, and did not foresee, and it is wrong to blithely assume that Western men, rational and modest, would ever have assumed, the kind of display of primitive and murderous fanaticism, from the total destruction of the last Christian church in Benghazi and the harrying out of all those Italians who still remained, to the burning down of churches in many Muslim countries, and the murder of an Italian priest in Turkey, and dozens of Christians in northern Nigeria, and so much more. Were the Danes supposed to undrstand that that is how Muslims all over the world would behave, that their governments would whip them up for various reasons, including the main reason -- to divert attention from the local lords of misrule (the poverty in Libya, the stampede at the hajj in Saudi Arabia, the general mess all over Dar al-Islam, with the ver-present all-purpose answer: whip up hatred of the Infidels? It is false to accuse the Danes of knowing in advance that all this would happen. Danes everywhere are now under a collective death threat all over the Muslim world. Flemming Rose himself has fled the country; who knows where those cartoonists, on whose heads bounties have been placed by assorted imams, now live? Do you think they, or Rose, or Jyllends-Posten, had any idea? Did you have any idea this would happen? Are we not continually astonished at how Muslims behave? Would you have predicted, five years ago, that someday Muslim websites would use as a recruiting tool, so proud were they of it, the videotaped decapitation of the Berg boy in Iraq, or of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan? Would any Infidel have predicted any of this?
Paragraph #3 -- to call the brave refusal to kowtow, to submit, and instead to heed all the ex-Muslims such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq who correctly identified the problem, as did Flemming Rose, of one involving a deliberate and sustained attempt to force dhimmitude on Europe, to make it change its laws and customs, under Muslim threats of violence and more than threats, actual acts, to be unable to see that this is hardly, as you put it so crudely, to "give the finger" to the Sunnis (why, pray, to "the Sunnis" -- didn't the Shi'a in Iran also riot, even though they are, as perhaps you were alluding to, more at ease with images of Muhammad). There was no "giving of the finger" to anyone. Every appearance by every Dane -- Flemming Rose, or Juste, or Rasmussen, was entirely dignified.
werey the end of the posting, when we get to the it is rof free speech. idiocy by each numbered paragraph. The very first one, which is not repeated, simply states, for purely rhetorical purposes, that of course Flemming Rose, the editor at Jyllands-Posten, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraph #4: You say there was another way to have challenged the atmosphere of intimidation and self-censorship that, it was felt, had descended upon Denmark and much of Western Europe. It was a way that could have been found "with the greatest of ease." Strangely, you do not tell us how the beliefs of "moderate and Jihadist" (a very peculiar phrasing, since it implies that "moderate" Muslims, whom you do not define, do not believe in the Jihad -- but Jihad is a duty laid out, clearly and repeatedly, for all Muslims, and any Muslim who claims not to believe in Jihad, not to believe that is in the duty, collective and sometimes individual, to participate in the relentless campaign to spread Islam all over the world until it "dominates and is not to be dominated," is simply not a "moderate" Muslim but no Muslim at all. Jihad is central to Islam; it is practically the Sixth Pillar of Islam, as Muslim commentators have noted. See, and read deeply in, the texts of the Muslim Quranic commentators, assembled in "The Legacy of Jihad," and then read, if you wish, the overwhelming scholarship by Western students of Islam also collected in that indispensable volume: indispensable both by itself, and because it will now allow scholars to follow suit, and to collect and publish all the real scholarship on Islam from the period 1880-1960 that has been allowed to be deliberately ignored, as if such people as Schacht and Abel and Margoliouth and Snouck Hurgronje and Lal and all the others simply were irrelevant, when their scholarship is impeccable, and they are a constant source of embarrassment and anguish to the apologists who have infiltrated the ranks of MESA Nostra and are now in charge of teaching young Americans about Islam. These apologists are moving heaven and earth to keep both the full texts (and intrepretive guides, such as naskh or abrogation) of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, away froom the students, and also to keep those students either pre-brainwashed to mistrust real scholarship, or not even to allow them to find out about such scholarship.
Paragraph 5 tells us that the right of free speech should not have been exercised because Rose did not advance, but retarded, the cause of "pluralism." What does this mean? Islam does not believe in pluralism. It never has. It never will. It believes that "Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated." That is one of Muhammad's most famous statements in an "authentic" Hadith. And the entire history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, whether Jews or Christians, Zoroastrians or HIndus, Buddhists or Confucians, shows that that is meant. Islam is not to co-exist as an equal with any other faith -- so the Western idea of "pluralism" has no meaning. If "pluralism" is taken advantage of in the Western world by Muslims, that is only temporary, until such time as they are numerous enough, and powerful enough, to bring about the changes in local laws, customs, manners, and understandings that will allow Islma to dominate and Muslims to rule. There is not a single counter-example to this in the long 1350-year history of Muslim conquest, from Spain to East Asia. And one can see, today, in all the lands where Islam rules, the emptying out of the non-Muslim populations, from the Hindus who over the last 50 years have had to leave Pakistan and Bangladesh, to the steady elimination of the Christians in Turkey over the past century, to the constant persecution, and sometimes mass murder, of Christians in the Sudan, in Nigeria (the Biafra war, fought in self-defense against what Col. Ojukwu carefully described as a "Jihad"), and indeed the assault on Maronnites in Lebanon, Copts in Egypt, the Christians who managed to remain in Algeria and Libya and elsehwere in the Maghreb, and all kinds of other non-Muslim populations wherever they happened, unhappily, to find themselves under rule by Muslims.
"Respect for the opinions of others" has nothing to do with pluralism -- or rather, no one deserves respect just because they exist. What if a belief is not worthy of respect? Why should Infidels respect for one minute a belief-system as antipathetic to art, music, free and skeptical inquiry, and to their own beliefs, to their own desire to live unmolested and unsubjugated -- why does Islam deserve the respect of Infidels? Doesn't the contents of a particular belief-system first have to be analyzed, and are we not entitled to withhold respect, which is not a party-favor that one simply distributes like confetti.
And even if this or that belief or system somehow merited "respect" that does not trump the right to exercise free speech. One may deplore a cartoon as exhibiting bad taste, or see through the obvious sensationalism of such non-art works as Serrano's Pissing Christ. But one does not shut it down or make death threats. Had Muslims simply quietly expressed some kind of dignified sorrow at those cartoons, or ignored them altogether, one might thihnk of them differently today. As it is, whatever modicum of respect some might have had has been completely lost in the world-wide display of murderous rage, and the taqiyya sentiments of the so-called "moderates" (e.g. Ihsanoglu of the O.I.C.), with their transparent nonsense and attempts to throttle through the passage of laws, the right of free speech recognized in the Western world, and by the rest of the civilized world (but not by any Muslim country -- they respect, and adhere to, quite a different document, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights, which makes every individual right subject to Islam and the Shar'a, which is to say -- subject to the principles and Holy Law of Islam which flatly contradict every single one of the rightts of individuals which the advanced world takes for granted.
Most grotesque of all, in this grotesque effort, is the blaming of Rose and not the fanatical mobs, for the "blood" of those killed: "Does Rose have blood on his hands" asks the poster. And does not stay for anyone else to answer, but answers himself, in the unseemly style with which he seems quite satisfied: "You bet your sweet bippy."
So it was Rose who was responsible for the murder of the Italian priest in Turkey, and not the Turkish boy who shot him. It was Rose who beat to death those Christians in northern Nigeria, including that priest and several young children. It was Rose who led the charge and set fire to those churches in Nigeria and Benghazi, in Libya, and in Indonesia and Pakistan, and Rose who led the charge on the Danish embassies and consulates, and American embassies and French embassies, adn whatever else could be found that represented the "Infidels" who are always and everywhere to be blamed for everything, if you view the universe through the prism of Islam.
And that is how, having put the entire burden of the victims, living and dead, animate and inanimate, of the deliberately whipped-up hysteria and hate exhibited by Muslim mobs all over the world, on the frail shoulders of the fearless Danish editor, Flemming Rose, who stood up for free speech, and was seconded by others, though not by the pusillanimous major newspapers, not by The New Duranty Times in what is its least finest hour since its scant coverage of the Nazi murders of Jews in the 1930s and then, at industrial strenght, in the 1940s (see Professor Laurel Leff's books), this poster chooses to deal with it.
And this is how, having started with the question: Did Rose "have the right to publish those cartoons, as a matter of free speech?" and then answering it "Absolutely" the poster managed, by the crazed and cruel (il)logic of his posting, to end up declaring that in fact that "right" is not existent, he did not "absolutely" have that right at all, or rather, he had the "right" but had no right to exercise the right.
In other words, realize you "absolutely" have the right but you have no right to exercise the right precisely to the extent that those who may take offense will be primitive, fanatical, murderous, and the more murderous, primitive, fanatical they are, and the more cunningly and meretriciously their assorted lords of misrule harness that hysteria and hate to divert attention from those examples of misrule, and onto the hated Infidel, hated because Qur'an and Hadith and Sira have prepared Muslim minds to hate the Infidel, have inculcated from early on the need, the right, the positive duty (yes, "absolutely") to hate that Infidel, not to take him as a friend (or only feigningly so, to promote Islam), not to do him favors, not to see him as anything but a creature who stands in the way of the spread of Islam, and hence to be conquered, not necessearily through military means, but through any means that present themselves (economic boycott and bribery, Da'wa, demographic conquest, propaganda of every kind) and that prove most effective.
So by the poster's logic, one should still exercise that right of free speech. But be sure you do not use it to offend anyone who, in taking offense, has a demonstrated propensity to burn down embassies and churches and other buildings, and beat people to death, or shoot a priest or two. That wouldn'be be right. And you, like Flemming Rose, would have only yourself to blame.
No, make sure that you offend only those whose reaction, upon taking offense, might be to write a letter to the editor. Or nurse a private sorrow. You know -- take a look at how Christians and Jews have behaved when they or their beliefs have been mocked in some way. So they are fair game. Buddhists too. Hindus as well -except when they are maddened, in India, by some Muslim outrage that goes beyond free speech, such as when Hindu pilgrims on a train are burned alive. What cruel and cynical casuistry. What indifference to free speech, the product of centuries, tossed overboard in order -- in order to make peace, or rather to appease, those who wish to impose their view of what we can say, what we can write, what we can publish, in our own lands.
Disgusting.
Posted by: Hugh at February 23, 2006 1:47 AM
Dr. P - 'Twas in reference to your quip about intellectual onanism, a play on a saying associated with the non-abstract practice.
Circumlocution: It's not just for breakfast anymore. ;)
Posted by: Shinoliite at February 23, 2006 1:51 AM
Wonder what "Bow Waters" real name is?
Could it be:
'Mohammed al cartoonbomber?'
or rather
'Abu Takqiyya' or 'Abu simpleton al kitman?'
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 23, 2006 2:01 AM
00Buck ->Pass It On
There is no United Nations, nimrod. There is only the US Military. That's why the UN calls us every time it needs troops.
The UN is very old joke at the expense of high school student counselors. It was a joke; it's still a joke.
Got it?
_____________
I believe that the problems with Islam, in each case are being dealt with, as a local issue - if it is not being dealt with under the - American Armed forces - war on terror.
That there is only the “US military” - shows that there is a global problem which needs to be acknowledged, by a international body.
There is no one else who can appear on National TV and say that they are going to kill you, for a belief that most don't even follow - without being arrested or called in for questioning at the end of the program – except the Muslims. This demonstrates that Muslims are being protected - in ways that other members of the society are not.
And with this protection they are flouting the rights of those who are non-Muslims or who do not wish to practice Islam in the same way as they do.
Each government is faced with dealing with the threat of Islam or [more accurately those who wish to carry out the violent or militant aspects of Islamic law on non- Muslim members of society] are doing so on a country by country basis - expect where they can be linked to the war on terror.
_____________
For example Australia, Sweden, UK, and Thailand are all dealing with all dealing with the problems which are arising from having Islam in their countries, individually. Can the US military – protect Thailand’s teachers from Islamic youths wielding swords, or girls from being raped by Islamic rape gangs in Sweden or Australia, where in these cases and many like them there is no direct link to an international terrorist network, only those within Islam who feel that they should be given the right to practice Shar’ia law over the laws of the land.
At the moment each country is expected to see their problem as a local difficulty – and not to link it to a growing global phenomenon of the changing face of Islam, where Koranic scriptures are brought into force to be used in ways which harm or threaten fellow citizens.
International laws are often references – and although the UN is in no position to offer guarantees – States around the world are expected to uphold these laws or offer those rights and protection to their citizens.
The problem with Islam is that it has been given the freedom to practice its religion – under these same UN rights and protections, and this is where additional laws or additional clauses are needed, to protect others from the strict interpretation of the religious laws of another’s religion which might be used to harm them.
_____
Fatwas, which are issued punishments for ‘so called’ Islamic offenses – would then be made illegal under these new International laws.
The open incitements to violence for breaking Islamic laws – which we have seen and heard over the last few weeks, would also be made illegal.
As the right to practice one’s religion freely; should not include the right to harm or threaten others.
_____
The UN would probably not be able to intervene in most cases, but with this law or acknowledgement as a reference, individual States will have a better basis on which to establish laws which might be needed, to protect their citizens from the violent or intimidating aspects of Shar’ia law.
It might be that Islamic countries will want to show their acceptances of these new laws – by controlling their clerics – establishing a clear line of the Shar’ia laws which might be used to run their own countries and the international – or more secular laws which govern the rest of the world.
It is one possible solution - as there should be no protection for Islam at the expense of the safety of the non-Muslim citizens around the world. And I believe that this should be acknowledged somehow in international law.
at February 23, 2006 12:33 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.)