| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In "An honor worth defending" in the IHT (thanks to all who sent this in), Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls on the West to recover its spine and defend its culture and civilization, as I do also in my forthcoming book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't (coming in August from Regnery). But there is a curious phrase in the opening paragraph:
Imagine if a crowd of Englishmen marched in London carrying effigies of Muhammad, peace be upon him, stacks of the Koran, miniatures of the Kaaba in Mecca and Saudi flags. Imagine if they then built a bonfire and hurled the items one at a time into that fire screaming "Long Live the Queen!" each time the flames shot up.
"Peace be upon him"? This is an interjection that pious Muslims add after uttering the name of a prophet. Yet Hirsi Ali has referred to Muhammad as a tyrant and a pervert. She has not presented herself as a Muslim except in a broad cultural way. So I wonder: did she add this interjection herself, as a means of identifying herself as a cultural Muslim? Or did an editor at Tribune Media Services (which distributed this piece) or the IHT add it in as an exercise in politically correct sensitivity?
If anyone knows, write me at director[at]jihadwatch.org.
Anyway, Hirsi Ali goes on:
This would be the equivalent of what hardline Muslim students did in the eastern Pakistani city of Multan, to take just one example, when they burned effigies this week of Queen Elizabeth II and Salman Rushdie, chanting "Kill him! Kill him!" in response to his recently bestowed knighthood.[...]
Westerners have too often shrugged their shoulders at the trashing of their icons - such as when the queen is burned in effigy - by the foot soldiers of tribal barbarism. This perceived weakness makes the foes of the West more ferocious and helps recruit more jihadists.
Instead the West should join together to vigorously defend its symbols and civilization that, with all its flaws, still offers the best life to the most people.
[...]
By knighting Salman Rushdie, the queen has honored the freedom of conscience and creativity cherished in the West, making her a symbol of the essence of our way of life.
Posted by Robert at June 25, 2007 5:48 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Yes, it's extremely odd that Hirsi Ali would say, "PBUH." Hmm... We must find out why that's there. Does not sound like Hirsi Ali AT ALL.
NOT AT ALL.
Posted by: darcy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 25, 2007 6:02 PM
Sarcasm?
Posted by: npabga at June 25, 2007 6:07 PM
It is one thing, and far more principled, to oppose islam because you are fundamentally offended by the entire idea of the religion. The tenets are unacceptable to you. It is another thing altogether, however, to stray from islam only because you disapprove of the treatment of women simply because you happen to be one.
Could Hirsi be in the latter camp?
Posted by: jihadwatcher at June 25, 2007 6:07 PM
From what I read in her autobiography Ms. Hirsi Ali is an atheist. I'm guessing sarcasm here.
Posted by: JadeDragoness at June 25, 2007 6:14 PM
PBUH? It must be an editorial emendation by the frightened.
Posted by: Hugh at June 25, 2007 6:14 PM
". This perceived weakness makes the foes of the West more ferocious and helps recruit more jihadists."
it also makes the hard right parties more attractive to disillusioned voters fed up with extreme violent multiculturalism and islamic death threats to our monarchies and respective governments and her peoples.
islam has been the biggest recruiting tool which nationalist parties have had in a very long time. as well as the perceived weakness which the european governments have conveyed.
give it a few years and a hard right party will rise in europe, then it's only a matter of time before every european nation will swing to the extreme right.
this may or may not be a good thing. it would lack balance but the islamic threat would be snuffed out within a few years.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at June 25, 2007 6:16 PM
I saw Hirsi Ali in Sydney a few weeks ago.
she said that she was a muslim in terms of understanding the culture that muslims come from, and that she wasn`t a muslim in terms ofbeing a believer.
Posted by: Voltaire at June 25, 2007 6:22 PM
give it a few years and a hard right party will rise in europe, then it's only a matter of time before every european nation will swing to the extreme right.
this may or may not be a good thing. it would lack balance but the islamic threat would be snuffed out within a few years.
Leon, no arguments here. However I fear we may swing too far to the right and allow ourselves to be presided over by an even MORE totoltarian regiem....of this we must beware. (imho)
Posted by: ooddballz at June 25, 2007 6:23 PM
I really admire Hirsi Ali, but for even stronger tell-it-like-it-is realism, you couldn't beat the Reverend Jerry Falwell (PBUH), who once likened Mohammed to a terrorist.
Posted by: jewdog at June 25, 2007 6:37 PM
Assalamau Laikum all,
It is true that Muhd PBUH himself commanded his followers to offer prayers to "Allah's daughters", Manat, al-Lat and al-ussa, with Manat perhaps being the best known. Each daughter even had a separate shrine near Mecca, back in the day.
Muhd PBUH was tricked by the devil into adding a verse in the Koran that commanded Muslims to pray to Allah's three pagan daughters.
The female "trinity" was immediately accepted without dissent and the passage was considered part of the revealed Koran.
However some time later, Muhammad PBUH got a revelation from Alla SWT that the verse MUST be removed. After repenting of the error, Muhd PBUH was comforted by Allah SWT.
Peoples, when a religion is born based on soley on truth and justice there is no room for the devil. This was the case when Allah SWT started to reveal the holy suras.
Not wanting to be left behind in the cold or to be forgotten, ...the devil tried to get in on the act...darting in and out of suras to confuse Muhd PBUH, not allowing him to settle in his mind, getting Muhd, PBUH to say some of the suras over again and then crucially getting in the addition of the (explantion) of daughters.
These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries) Whose intercession is to be hoped for.
These are the words of satan that were deleted.
Clearly Muhd PBUH was distraught but the versus were holy...and crept into the Koran. With the guidiing had of Allah SWT Muhd PBUH has managed to separate or abrogate the wood from the trees....but the only way for you to be really sure is to learn the koran in GREAT detail.
This is also why quoting a sura out of context is so wrong...it is also the reason why learned scholars of Islam are so keen to defend the Koran and Muhd PBUH.
The devil has now set up bed with the kaffur...(as he did not make much progress with muslims)...and in particular used Salam "Fatwa" Rushdie as a vehicle to push the daughters ( + Sura) into view ....when in fact there are none....this is not only insulting Muhd PBUH...but even Allah SWT.
Only muslims can right the wrong ...but violence is not way...they will get to know this slowly, Allah T'allah will show the way.
Incidentially, there have been rumors been circulating recently here in Pak that the program "Charlie's Angels" (based on 3 beautiful womens) has loosely been based on these daughters...and so it is wise that this program should also no longer be shown on Western TV.
Posted by: Naseem at June 25, 2007 6:43 PM
Don't rule out her editors. Media managers are either deluded by Islam or terrified of it. Or both.
For example, Tim Russert likes to call Mohammed The Holy Prophet but you never hear him endorse Christianity with the words Jesus Christ our Savior.
Probably Ali's editor is terrified.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at June 25, 2007 6:45 PM
Islam has a serious inferiority complex, why else would it put a death sentence on the head of anyone who even questions it, or even unwittingly offends it ? Islam has to kill all those who question or oppose it , otherwise we would be saying ......Islam?? , never heard of it .
Without Subhuman barbarity to enforce it's will Islam would have ceased to exist, long ago.
Islam is a Dragon that needs slaying.
Posted by: MoBlows at June 25, 2007 6:50 PM
A secular right wing totalitarian government might be worse than an Islamic one, however it would lack an intergenerational narrative to sustain it over time.
Most non-religious despots can only hold power for a couple generations since all they rely on is a combination of pride and fear. With a new generation, the party or "the leader" loses the confidence of the masses as the fear wains and the pride in the totalitarian government is lost.
Islam can produce an intergenerational totalitarian government because in their case their god is the despot. They have an overarching cosmic story which will rejuvenate itself as it passes through history from generation to generation. This process is witnessed in the Middle East and now with Turkey and Indonesia as they fight the rise of Islamic totalitarianism in their so called democracies.
While some systems of thought can attempt to mimic a cosmology (If anyone says that Communisim was not religious in its fervor, they must be idiots ... just read some of their propoganda ... they were fundamentalist in what they saw as the truth.), they lack the energizing Spirit to transmit themselves through history in a generative manner.
The great religions have this power and their staying power is proof of this. Because the Islamic narrative is filled with positive admonitions to violence in the name of God and given that the dignity of a Muslim is more important than a non-Muslim, it is very prone to violent oppressive dictatorships which could last for generations or theoretically forever. Islam is therefore an inhuman religion which must where possible be non-violently opposed.
Kudo's on Robert Spencer for helping some of the secular dummies understand that the idea that "all religions are the same" is just empty headed crap.
While Christianity has had its share of violence, the primary Christian narrative has a destabilizing effect on totalitarian governments due to the radical call to complete obedience to the Risen Christ. History has shown that revolutionaries have always been suspicious of devote Christians because they are never completely committed to the worldly cause. Politics is always subservient to Jesus Christ. Remember the central metaphor for Christians is not a Prophet with A Sword but a Prophet/Priest/King dying on a cross. The death of God on the cross is the ultimate political expression and due to its narrative (and real) power, Christianity is incompatibly, in the long term, with a Christian theocratic totalitarian government. Whereas, Islam with its primary narrative being one of religious will to power, will lead humanity into an endless cycle of war as each group tries to please allah by killing the others more readily. In the end, a global Taliban style world is the ultimate end of humanity if Islam triumps.
at June 25, 2007 6:51 PM
Dear Mr. Spencer
My two cents is that Ms. Ali is using the honorific (without capital letters) to let Muslim readers know that she does not advocate this act, i.e. the burning of Muhammad's effigy; that she means no disrespect.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at June 25, 2007 6:56 PM
Whether or not the Queen is "a symbol of the essence of our way of life," I can't help wondering if Salman might have preferred a kind word and tea at Windsor, rather than be made front and center for the We Hate Everything That Matters Muzzies.
It made thin of the Saturday Night Live skit that Norm MacDonald did about Lou Gehrig: "Today, I am the luckiest man in the world. I have a disease so rare, they've named it after me. Lucky me."
Nonetheless, she did the right thing.
Posted by: Drum at June 25, 2007 6:57 PM
Nasseem, thanks for the explanation. Do you actually BELIEVE that pile of horseshit? I'll take dogs over Muslims any day. Literally.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at June 25, 2007 7:02 PM
Westerners have too often shrugged their shoulders at the trashing of their icons - such as when the queen is burned in effigy - by the foot soldiers of tribal barbarism. This perceived weakness makes the foes of the West more ferocious and helps recruit more jihadists.
Wait, I thought we created more jihadists by fighting them? Now someone's saying we create more by not fighting them?
Someone needs to do some data-gathering. Personally, I actually believe Hirsan Ali here, given what I know about Muslim's tendency toward bullying attitudes towards non-Muslims. Still, it'd be good to have some data to throw in the faces of those who believe that if only we remain supine and appeasing, the Muslims will eventually be sated with something less than domination over non-Muslims.
That's like saying if only the Italian city-states hadn't resisted Rome, the Romans would never have attempted to subjugate all of Italy under Roman rule.
Posted by: venividivici at June 25, 2007 7:18 PM
So Naseem, Salman Rushdie is not just a novelist but an agent of the devil?
How exciting - it's like The Omen all over again!
And as for Charlie's Angels, well, I thought that Farrah Fawcett was just a glamorous actress. I shall have to reconsider my opinion in view of your astonishing revelation.
Posted by: A Nonny Nonny at June 25, 2007 7:20 PM
James Martel
the current nationalist/right wing parties in the west are not totalitarian. let's get this straight. all of them are anti-muslim and pro-christianity. go research nationalists and christianity in europe.
right wing totalitarianism is distasteful and ignorant of the people's of europe and especially my home, great britain.
i'm talking about nationalism, british nationalism, serbian nationalism, italian nationalism which is supported by right wing parties, not fascist or nazi style parties, who most sane nationalists find abhorrent.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at June 25, 2007 7:38 PM
Perhaps the 'PBUH' that Ms. Ali added was meant to be satirical...in a subtle way that only a Muslim would understand best.
After all, she is considered a Kafr already...so she is really just adding gas to the fire by saying 'PBUH.'
Real Muslims are probably plugging their metaphorical ears and choking on their collective outrage that Ms. Ali should have the temerity (i.e., 'follhardy boldness and/or disregard of danger) to even speak his name.
at June 25, 2007 7:45 PM
"Perhaps the 'PBUH' that Ms. Ali added was meant to be satirical..."
maybe her respective country hosts have warned her to be more respectful of islam or they cannot guarantee her safety.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at June 25, 2007 7:57 PM
Naseem the internet comic strikes again.
I have news for you naseem i think the verses influenced by the devil survived in the koran,the only verses that survived.
As for charlies angels goes yea you are probably right i mean it fits islam to a tee (par for the course) now doesn't it three hot chicks running around catching criminals.Nothing says islam like justice.....huh?
I suggest you worry about your pitiful little life in your crap hole of a country and let others worry about thiers.
Also as far as ALI goes she could have puked up the saying (pbuh)as to show respect (not earned by the horde mind you)so as to not come off as a racist,bigot,islamophobe....you choose.
But i wouldn't rule out PC bull crap.
I do not wish peace upon the bastard.I hope he feels the heat of his reward for eternity.
Does this give you enough propaganda material to cut and paste and print out to distribute as any good muslim does naseem?
Posted by: Dar al-harb at June 25, 2007 8:06 PM
The credibility of Hirsi is Nil. And I repeat you all are waging war on Muslims and Islam and Arabs. You will lose. You will lose big. And so will your collaborators.
Posted by: progressive at June 25, 2007 8:09 PM
I think AHA is displaying some irony in her comment "peace be upon him."
Cinder
Posted by: Cinder at June 25, 2007 8:10 PM
You know it's just all around a sad day that we in the free world have to even defend such a thing as Rushdies Knighthood.
If they don't like it why don't they just saty in thier own hells and turn the t.v to allah all day everyday.
Can you people understand we will not bow to islam,are you so ignorant that you can't recieve this message?
We will not be held hostage to what upsets muslims.Deal with it and get over yourselves.
Posted by: Dar al-harb at June 25, 2007 8:13 PM
Hater meets hater. They are such stars in the West. The West will give credibility for anyone who collaborates with them and gives them legitemate cover.They are mere tools though, they are disposable. Soon, they'll be looking for another job.
Posted by: progressive at June 25, 2007 8:18 PM
The AEI (where she works) has it the same way...
"peace be upon him"
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.26395,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
My guess is what 7syzygy7 & npabga stated that it is sarcasm. My feeling is she don't care anymore what religious muslims think afterall they already want her dead so what more can they say that is worse.
She thus concludes the sarcasm/satire with what happens to Mo PBUH ...."into that fire screaming "Long Live the Queen!""
"Peace be upon him" and "Long live the Queen"...
My guess is based on her past statements. She does have a "sharp tongue"....
at June 25, 2007 8:23 PM
Except for the incongruous "PBUH", a very concise and clear article by Hirsi Ali. Her analogy is apt. We hold ourselves to a very high standard (as we should), but are far too forgiving of jihadists' behaviour.
Perhaps Robert or Hugh or someone else knows: when you submit an article for publication, do the editors have carte blanche authority to modify the article? Even if it involves a change that may personally offend the author? Would the author have any recourse?
Posted by: special_guest at June 25, 2007 8:27 PM
The West will give credibility for anyone who collaborates with them and gives them legitemate cover.They are mere tools though, they are disposable.
It's a conspiracy, man. It's just a cover-up to benefit the manufacturers of knighting swords.
Posted by: venividivici at June 25, 2007 8:27 PM
If you have not read Ms. Ali's novel INFIDEL, I highly recommend it. Also, I recently finished reading Nonie Darwish's NOW THEY CALL ME INFIDEL. This gives an excellent explanation of the cultural mind of some muslims. Another book that is outstanding - especially from a statistical and demographic perspective - is Steyn's AMERICA ALONE.
Another book rarely mentioned, but one that I read that gave me tremendous insight into what happens in a terrorist training camp is Omar Nasiri's INSIDE THE JIHAD: MY LIFE WITH AL QAEDA.
I tried to read Akbar Ahmed's book JOURNEY INTO ISLAM in which he takes the four, young American's to Pakistan with him, but I saw a lot of bias in it. If you're interested in hearing him and the four students speak, you can go to this website - http://interfaithradio.org/node/176.
Cinder
Posted by: Cinder at June 25, 2007 8:34 PM
This is also why quoting a sura out of context is so wrong...it is also the reason why learned scholars of Islam are so keen to defend the Koran and Muhd PBUH.
Naseem, how do I not quote a sura out of context?
The entire book is a disjointed collection of sentences. They are not in any kind of order.
Only muslims can right the wrong ...but violence is not way...they will get to know this slowly, Allah T'allah will show the way.
Naseem,
How slowly? Muslims need to right the wrong before non-Muslims do it for them. If you won't get rid of the wrongdoers in your midst who would threaten the West for not worshipping Allah, then be prepared to share their fate. I'm sorry to say this, but we can't tell the two of you apart, simply because you will not set yourself apart.
at June 25, 2007 8:37 PM
"These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries) Whose intercession is to be hoped for." -- Naseem, allegedly quoting Satan
Naseem, the only "cranes" that matter in modern Islam are the construction cranes your correligionists in Iran use to murder homosexuals, adulterers, female rape victims, apostates and other victims of Islamic savagery, on the orders of the sneering degenerates of the Sharia courts.
I bet the fat sizzles and the flames crackle when those sanctimonious "judges" meet their appointments in Hell. May it be soon.
BSI
Posted by: RedStateInfidel at June 25, 2007 8:45 PM
"These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries) Whose intercession is to be hoped for." -- Naseem, allegedly quoting Satan
Naseem, the only "cranes" that matter in modern Islam are the construction cranes your correligionists in Iran use to murder homosexuals, adulterers, female rape victims, apostates and other victims of Islamic savagery, on the orders of the sneering degenerates of the Sharia courts.
I bet the fat sizzles and the flames crackle when those sanctimonious "judges" meet their appointments in Hell. May it be soon.
RSI
Posted by: RedStateInfidel at June 25, 2007 8:46 PM
Just out of curiosity, "progressive," why is Ali's credibility "nil"? Is she lying about her Islamic genital mutilation? Is she lying about her Islamic death fatwa? It's pretty apparent to anyone who watches the news that the things she says about Islamic murder, torture and subjugation of infidels, apostates, children, and random passersby, as well as systematized, sanctified Islamic sexual and physical abuse of women and children, are all absolutely justified.
Where does Ali's credibility fail?
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at June 25, 2007 9:00 PM
Robert: "So I wonder: did she add this interjection herself, as a means of identifying herself as a cultural Muslim? Or did an editor at Tribune Media Services (which distributed this piece) or the IHT add it in as an exercise in politically correct sensitivity?"
I really hate to ask the obvious question, but did you ask her? (I was under the impression that you knew her personally).
Posted by: Caroline at June 25, 2007 9:42 PM
I vote satire...
After reading her book, I'm positive she would use that as satire. Only other option I can imagine is habit.
"The devil has now set up bed with the kaffur...(as he did not make much progress with muslims)..."
I find this highly amusing, since Islam sanctions murder, 'honor' killings, rape, genital mutilation, and child marriage, to name just a few. None of which are sanctioned or condoned by any other major religion that I'm aware of.
In all honesty, I've actually stopped reading Naseem's posts, because frankly they just bore me. This time, however, poeticcomic1 posted a comment that made me return to her post. This time.
I think her quote above makes it quite clear why I have stopped reading them. Why bother reading such drivel?
Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at June 25, 2007 9:43 PM
Could it be that she probably feels that this mortal man(mo)has created such a horrific, violent and backwards religion, has been burning in hell for a few decades and has maybe "learned his lesson?" It's been a long time. How much fire must he roast in? He might be a nice person by now if satan let him out. Ok, I'm really tired.
at June 25, 2007 9:43 PM
According to one person who saw her speech at Pepperdine a few weeks ago, in which she used the same "peace be upon him" formula, she did and does so deliberately, with sarcasm aforethought. In her speech at Pepperdine, she described a woman in the Netherlands who had been attacked by a gorilla that escaped from its cage; some were in favor of blaming the woman for having attempted to befriend the gorilla in the first place; Hirsi Ali said that "Muhammad, peace be upon him, would no doubt agree."
So it was not, as I first thought and suggested, likely an editorial interpolation, but a deliberate and wilful act of defiance and mockery by Hirsi Ali.
Posted by: Hugh at June 25, 2007 9:57 PM
Hirsi Ali is not a native English speaker. Born in Somalia, she learned to speak Dutch while living in the Netherlands. She now speaks English with a (very attractive) Dutch accent that tends to overpronounce the vowel "i" to sound like the vowel "e" (common also to French speakers). To a native English speaker, what sounded like "Peace be upon him" was actually, "Piss be upon him".
I hope that clears it up.
Posted by: Xero G at June 25, 2007 10:31 PM
Naseem...So, Muhd PBUH was tricked by the devil into adding a verse in the Koran that commanded Muslims to pray to Allah's three pagan daughters.
The devil made him do it...Haha, I tried that once.
I had done something bad, and told my father that,'The Devil made me do it'. I was hoping if I could blame the devil, I would get off the hook. But no, my father said, 'Then I shall beat the devil out of you'. The devil left me in a hurry.
What else did the devil 'trick' Mohammad into??
More than you are willing to admit, I bet.
It's not logical for Hersi to use PBUH, unless she is being sarcastic. Maybe if she find's out there is a question about it, she will clarify...
Posted by: duh_swami at June 25, 2007 10:39 PM
The credibility of Hirsi is Nil. And I repeat you all are waging war on Muslims and Islam and Arabs. You will lose. You will lose big. And so will your collaborators.
Posted by: regressive at June 25, 2007 8:09 PM
Hirsi Ali's credibility may be nil to you, but you're just another savage, mindless muslim programmed to defend your vile death cult. Arabs are fine as long as they aren't muslims and we didn't start the war, islam did. War, death, and suffering are islam's most sacred tenets.
Repeat your mindless blather until you go hoarse or your fingers fall off; who cares? You'll lose big and so will your collaborators because islam spawns worthless losers.
Posted by: Susanp at June 25, 2007 11:33 PM
duh_swami, you always crack me up!
Posted by: champ at June 25, 2007 11:47 PM
Peoples, when a religion is born based on soley on truth and justice there is no room for the devil. This was the case when Allah SWT started to reveal the holy suras.
Naseem,
Problem is Islam is not based on truth and justice, it is a religion based on revelations by an unclean spirit who managed to deceive Mohammad, who, in turn, deceived millions of others.
You could know this if you opened your heart to God and asked him to reveal the truth to you. Thats how you truly surrender to God, not by accepting the empty prayes and rituals of Islam.
Try it. He will answer your prayer. You have his word that he will.
Posted by: rational
at June 26, 2007 12:05 AM
Ms. Ali may have simply used the parenthetical designation ("PBUH") to single out this particular "Mohammad" from the millions of Mohammads imaginatively named after him.
Which is pretty much why Muslims say it.
Otherwise they'd all be thinking:
"Does she mean my cousin Mohammad, or my uncle Mohamat, or my brother Mohammed, or my teacher Muhammud, or my butcher Muhamet, or...." et al.
Posted by: profitsbeard at June 26, 2007 12:25 AM
Champ...I'm sorry, I hope you are fixable.
Just kidding, Thanx...
at June 26, 2007 12:58 AM
Quote:
"Hater meets hater. They are such stars in the West. The West will give credibility for anyone who collaborates with them and gives them legitemate cover.They are mere tools though, they are disposable. Soon, they'll be looking for another job."
Progressive is a Muslim. But is far too gutless to admit it and posts here in the guise of a left winger calling for multicultural fairness. Naseem for all her blindness and indoctrinated state is at least an honest Muslim.
Progressive is such an idiot: islam is an ideology based upon hatred and violence and these basic tenets are practised visibly by muslims worldwide(although usually only openly when they have numerical superiority) and yet its followers in the best tradition of hypocrisy and untruth scream "hate" at anyone who dares to disagree with them.
In a group you act like a tribe of monkeys who throw faeces at their enemies for the fatal sin of pulling a face and yet you call jews monkeys?
Can you not see why we do not hate you? Instead, we pity you for your brainwashed state of mind where everything you see is tainted by the hideous veil that is islam: which means submission to the will of a warlord with a fetish for 6yos as no god would support the rubbish you lot spew forth.
The world needs the west, not only to feed it, but for virtually everything you see around you.
It does not need muslims at all in any shape or form for they are worthless as a group and always have been. Parasitism is an Islamic byword.
Muslims = the cultural and financial vampires of history and the now.
Posted by: MisIslamist at June 26, 2007 1:26 AM
when they burned effigies this week of Queen Elizabeth II and Salman Rushdie, chanting "Kill him! Kill him!"
Pretty clear to me who the hostile, hating ones are.
Posted by: yadayada at June 26, 2007 2:13 AM
"Imagine if a crowd of Englishmen marched in London carrying effigies of Muhammad, peace be upon him, stacks of the Koran, miniatures of the Kaaba in Mecca and Saudi flags. Imagine if they then built a bonfire and hurled the items one at a time into that fire screaming "Long Live the Queen!" each time the flames shot up."
What are they waiting for?
Posted by: Fennec at June 26, 2007 3:37 AM
progressive:
... you all are waging war on Muslims and Islam and Arabs. You will lose. You will lose big. And so will your collaborators
We are not waging a war. We are trying to defend our way of life which is being threatened by waves of Muslim immigrants, far too many of whom do not wish to integrate into the culture of their new homes. Instead they insist on following the example set by their idol - a 7th century desert warmonger - and expect us to bow to their demands or face their wrath.
If I were a guest in your house would it be ok for me to demand you redecorate or face violent consequences? I suggest you change your handle to regressive, as it more accurately reflects your attitude.
By the way, the West has the firepower to reduce all Muslim countries to wastelands if it so chooses.
Naseem, your fairy stories would be quite amusing if it weren't for the fact that many of those who believe them think it is their duty to harass, persecute and murder those who don't.
Posted by: watling at June 26, 2007 5:30 AM
"...The West will give credibility for anyone who collaborates with them and gives them legitemate cover.They are mere tools though, they are disposable. Soon, they'll be looking for another job.
Posted by: progressive"
....substitute Muslims in place of "west" and then you would be more correct.....
Islam is for losers...they prove it every day...Ban Muslim Immigration...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at June 26, 2007 6:18 AM
Time to make some effigies of Mo, take a few copies of the Koran, a few Islamic flags and burn the fuckers on video and send it throughout the internet so these bastards can see we can fight back.
Burn Mohammed BURN!!!!!
Posted by: Demvaril at June 26, 2007 7:08 AM
PBUH? Maybe Hirsi Ali is trying not to frighten off muslims from questioning the path of the apostate, or maybe she feels the burden of being an apostate, or maybe the editor just so happens to worship an illiterate rock spider. Who knows..?
Posted by: eloivsdiablo at June 26, 2007 7:32 AM
When I first read Hirsi Ali's remarks I took the PBUH as sarcasm.
What else could it be, when she knows, and the world should know, there is no peace in islam.
And if she really meant to say, piss be upon him, so much the better !
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at June 26, 2007 7:50 AM
if we're going to burn effigies & the koran, where better than dc???
anyone want to plan on this summer? i'll join in on the fun...we could chant god save the west, or nato!nato!nato!
any other ideas for the crusade-a-thon?
Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at June 26, 2007 10:09 AM
"By knighting Salman Rushdie, the queen has honored the freedom of conscience and creativity cherished in the West, making her a symbol of the essence of our way of life".
that was a very nice thing for Ms Ali to say, and it is probably too late to mention this now, but i dont think it was actually the Queen who decided this:
it is a tortuous committee thing, but millions around the globe seem to think it was her personal decision. (they probably also think that she personally manages the Royal Mint, the Royal Philharmonic, etc)
the decision may even have been as much of a surprise to her as it apparently was to the Foreign Office:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2106965,00.html
the problem is now that threats are being made, and honour is at stake. as we don't have much of that left, i hope we don't back down.
at June 26, 2007 5:03 PM
"By knighting Salman Rushdie, the queen has honored the freedom of conscience and creativity cherished in the West, making her a symbol of the essence of our way of life".
that was a very nice thing for Ms Ali to say, and it is probably too late to mention this now, but i dont think it was actually the Queen who decided this:
it is a tortuous committee thing, but millions around the globe seem to think it was her personal decision. (they probably also think that she personally manages the Royal Mint, the Royal Philharmonic, etc)
the decision may even have been as much of a surprise to her as it apparently was to the Foreign Office:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2106965,00.html
the problem is now that threats are being made, and honour is at stake. as we don't have much of that left, i hope we don't back down.
at June 26, 2007 5:04 PM
sorry for the double post, i have a new modem...
Posted by: M Al-Content at June 26, 2007 5:11 PM
Westerners have too often shrugged their shoulders at the trashing of their icons - such as when the queen is burned in effigy - by the foot soldiers of tribal barbarism. This perceived weakness makes the foes of the West more ferocious and helps recruit more jihadists.
The Queen or King or whoever was in power at the time as suffered burning of effigies into memoriam. Being British and ruling an Empire larger than Rome’s does that for your royalty. Even the wife of our just departed ex Dear Leader would not bow to Her Majesty.
The fact that the Queen doesn’t involve herself in politics is a long and complicated story, but if you ask a soldier whether he would rather fulfil is oath of allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, or support a Sharia Government, I think you will find the jihadists looking down the barrel of a gun.
For Britain to become Islamic the Queen would have to agree to Islam as the state religion.
Maybe Americans believe that she is there for tourists to look at, but the British Army think otherwise.
at June 26, 2007 6:18 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)