| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Their radicals
"By reprinting these cartoons we are heading toward a bigger conflict and that shows that both sides will be hostages of their radicals." Our radicals print cartoons. Theirs burn stuff and kill people. And watch it, now: if our radicals keep printing those cartoons, their radicals will be at it again soon.
This is just organized thuggery. The OIC, by issuing this threat, shows itself to be an organization of thugs. Now is the time for Western authorities to stand up strongly and reaffirm the principle of free speech, and explain violent reprisals in the face of a perceived offense are irrational, immature, unacceptable, and will be dealt with in the strongest possible terms. Anyone up for that? Mr. Bush? Mr. Brown? Anyone? Anyone?
"Reprinting of Prophet cartoons sparks outrage," from Lebanon's Daily Star (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) denounced on Friday the reprinting of a Danish cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad, warning it could lead to confrontations between Muslims and Christians. "By reprinting these cartoons we are heading toward a bigger conflict and that shows that both sides will be hostages of their radicals," OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a Turk, said in Istanbul. The Jeddah-based OIC is the world's largest pan-Islamic body, with 57 members."It is not a way of improving your rights and exercising your freedoms when you use these rights for insulting the most sacred values and symbols of others and inciting hatred," he said. "This is a very wrong, provocative path - unacceptable."
No, Mr. Ihsanoglu, you are the one inciting hatred, by suggesting that violence in response to a cartoon is morally acceptable. Insulting the sacred values and symbols of others may be obnoxious, but what should be done about it? If you make it a crime to insult those symbols, you are in effect affirming their sacredness as a universal value: those who do not accept the sacredness of those symbols must behave as if they do, so their sacredness becomes a fundamental assumption of the culture at large.
If you make it a crime punishable by law in the West, which I know you want to do and which your coreligionists are already trying to do under the guise of "hate speech" laws, you will have forced Western societies to accept the sacredness of those symbols. And thus the openness to question this status will be removed, and free inquiry about these symbols will be foreclosed. Thus the West will have begun to accept the priority and superiority of Islamic values, which in the context of the total societal model that Sharia represents, means that it will have taken one large step toward its own Islamization.
I am sorry the cartoons offend you, Mr. Ihsanoglu, but I must stand and defend the right of the cartoonists to draw them, and -- in the face of the violent intimidation coming from the Islamic world -- defend also what has become the moral duty of publications to publish them. We live in a world where people in good faith come to differing views of religious truth and virtually everything else also. In a free society, those people live together in peace, being willing to accept the possibility of being offended as the price of being able to have their say also, even if what they have to say might give offense to others. The alternative is to demand that all people, whatever their own perspective, acknowledge and pay obeisance to the superiority and primacy of one value-system and belief-system over all others. And that, of course, is the goal of the Islamic supremacist imperative in the first place.
Posted by Robert at February 16, 2008 3:23 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
To artists and non-artists alike, make your very own Mohammed cartoon with the winner getting 72 virgins....in THIS life!
Try your hand at:
Mohammed Idol!
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 16, 2008 4:04 AM
Thank you for your passionate, articulate, and very reasonable request that our leaders defend the basic values - like freedom of speech and freedom of religion - from these ignorant, brutal, theocratic thugs!
Freedom of speech means the freedom to insult - and be insulted. Live and let live. Speak and let speak. Why is this so hard for so many educated Westerners to understand?
Posted by: How do you know? at February 16, 2008 4:08 AM
Ditto, 'How do you know?', re; Robert's tireless defense of civilization against the unrelenting tentacles of Jihad.
Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at February 16, 2008 4:28 AM
Assalamau Laikum all,
I agree that a violent response is not the answer to "motoons". Those 3 peoples who tried to kill that 73 year old cartoonist...they were caught and will be punished.
By publishing them however you are attempting to "punish" all muslims ...and that simply cannot be right.
Things like this transcend above the law...i.e. you will not be able to create a law that fits the crime...indeed mr Spencer has argued that no crime has ben committed in the utter disregard that the Danes have shown.
Do muslims have no faults....that's rubbish...we all know that we have a handful of them...but I personally believe that they are printed because the Western leaders KNOW that their way of life together with their wishy-washy faith of christianity ...(whose numbers ever keeps dropping) is no match for the disciplined life of the muslims....and it is a natrual jelousy and fear on capitalist humans to accept something they themselves could not come up with...so they have abondonded their faith...their Jesus (PBUh) and taken up a new weapon ...motoons.
Jesus (PBUh) must now be crying in Jannat at your abandonment of him.
As for Islam....give it time ...you own grandaughters will prohibit such drawings in the future...this this truth of truths ...you will see unfolding before your own eyes.
Posted by: Naseem at February 16, 2008 4:29 AM
It's good to see Muslim masochists who can't get enough of Jihad Watch.
Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at February 16, 2008 4:35 AM
Why call someone 'stupid' when you can call them 'Naseem'?
Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at February 16, 2008 4:38 AM
Kadija hatches a profit (misspelling intended)
http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/prophet-mohammed-with-first-wife1.jpg
at February 16, 2008 4:53 AM
re: Naseem
No.
Your beliefs do NOT transcend the law of the land.
Get.
Over.
It.
at February 16, 2008 4:59 AM
Naseem, there can be no compromise when it comes to freedom of speech. The cartoons ARE offensive to Muslims--but the newspapers have the right to publish them. By reacting it violently those Muslims have given the moral superiority to the cartoonists. The proper response should have been calm protest and writing letters rather than threatening violence. It now the case that those Danish Newspapers are fulfilling civic duty by printing those cartoons.
Posted by: ibrahimX at February 16, 2008 4:59 AM
Naseem is out trolling the blogs because her boyfriend is out raging..
"It is not a way of improving your rights and exercising your freedoms when you use these rights for insulting the most sacred values and symbols of others and inciting hatred," he said. "This is a very wrong, provocative path - unacceptable."
If it is so unacceptable.. MAKE us stop! I see a need for these cartoons to be reproduced ever more oftne and in ever more visible locations.
Think I'll print up some stickers and leave them on the walls of NYC subway stations :-)
How many leftists will hate it.. :-)
I overheard a middle-aged teacher-looking woman tell her daughter that she hopes that Hitlery will win while her daughter was pining for Hussein..er Obama. I bet they have REAL nice teachers in that school indoctrinating.. er.. discussing the upcoming election.
The only choices by their locic are Hussein O. or Hitlery RC.
Funny.. the Republicans are not exactly putting up a strong candidate either.. McCAIRn the Gitmo-closer and CAIR-coddler.. All in all the election promises even better results for islam than the last one we had.
The MSM made sure to discredit both Tom and Rudy and then that was that.
Posted by: Allah Schmallah at February 16, 2008 5:00 AM
Allah Schmallah--there is a blurry line here between the Danish Cartoonists position and that of traditional, petty hate speech. You aren't standing up for free speech by plastering New York subways with your stickers--you are just intending to give offense to Muslims.
Posted by: ibrahimX at February 16, 2008 5:12 AM
The Qu'ran offends me. It glorifies paedophilia, it promotes violence to all non-believers and it violates human rights, especially of women.
It refers to me and other non-believers as "filth", "kuffar", "infidel". It insults jews - "descendants of apes and pigs" and demands that all muslims kill the jews.
Publishing this evil book offends me and is solely designed to punish non-believers.
And the moonbats whine about cartoons? Funny how they aren't so offended by the disgraceful cartoons publsihed by the media in the ME or by the highly-offensive anti-jewish programmes that use Disney characters to brainwash children into hating jews.
These lunatics want the freedom to insult everybody else but become hysterical when anyone insults their beliefs - probably because their beliefs are so stupid and so brittle they can't stand the humiliation. What kind of God needs to be protected from cartoons anyway?
None of this however offends me anywhere near as much as the cowardice of the west in refusing to standup for better values and to fight the cancer of Islam.
Posted by: Britannia's Lion at February 16, 2008 5:50 AM
Excellent piece Robert really spells it out for everyone and forms the basis of the argument we have to have.
Posted by: payingattention at February 16, 2008 6:00 AM
What is the big deal over a group of 12 HARMLESS cartoons? Sadly worse things are said/pictured that ARE REALLY OFFENSIVE to Jews and Christians in many majority Muslim nations newspapers. Yet there are NO protest from the Jewish and Christian communites.
Besides, there have been pictures, paintings, and scuptures of Muhammed showing his FULL FACE that have been around for MANY YEARS and NO PROTESTS comming from the Muslim community. These protests are NOTHING MORE then crybabying for attention.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 16, 2008 6:00 AM
While Robert Spencer is doing right with this blog, it isn't necessarily unfair to criticize his comments section as being fairly similar to Stormfront.org. I've seen some posters practically call for genocide of Muslims. I wonder what Ayaan Hirsi Ali/Ibn Warraq would think of many of the comments in Robert's blog.
Posted by: ibrahimX at February 16, 2008 6:01 AM
It is also quite plain that many (I'm not saying ALL) of the posters who cast aspersions on Islam here are Christians who are too glad to insult a major religion they deem to be a competitor. I think it's sad when people dismiss Mohammed and hold up Jesus--they are precipitating the same sort of religious conflict the Islamists pray for.
Posted by: ibrahimX at February 16, 2008 6:05 AM
bigcatgirl--I agree. But at the same time realize that it is a considerable taboo in Islam to have any sort of depictions of Mohammed. Those people are really pissed off--but they need to channel that anger into a civilized form of protest.
Posted by: ibrahimX at February 16, 2008 6:09 AM
ibrahimX,
"bigcatgirl--I agree. But at the same time realize that it is a considerable taboo in Islam to have any sort of depictions of Mohammed. Those people are really pissed off--but they need to channel that anger into a civilized form of protest."
But that TABOO ONLY APPLIES to Muslims, not to non-Muslims, and as such they do protest too much.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 16, 2008 6:19 AM
I wonder if Naseem can enlighten us as to why the cartoon that offends Muslims the most, (the mad hatter), just happens to be the most telling and truthful one of all.
The cartoon gives the most remarkable portrait of Islam that the rest of the world is now becoming aware of---someone totally insane, bent on the total demonic destruction of everyone around him.
Look at his eyes--This picture is worth many thousands of words--a true masterpiece.
Posted by: guide inside at February 16, 2008 6:27 AM
ibrahimX,
"It is also quite plain that many (I'm not saying ALL) of the posters who cast aspersions on Islam here are Christians who are too glad to insult a major religion they deem to be a competitor. I think it's sad when people dismiss Mohammed and hold up Jesus--they are precipitating the same sort of religious conflict the Islamists pray for."
But WOULD IT BE SUPRSING that these 12 Muhammed cartoons are a just form of non-Muslim, western, Jewish/Christian society protest against the terrorism violence that has been going on for years coming from the Muslim side? This is an angry form of a backlash against all the Muslim jihadi violence and oppression that has been going on for years. In other words, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 16, 2008 6:28 AM
guide inside,
It could be because that cartoon of Muhammed with the bomb is saying this is now what the non-Muslims see about Islam.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 16, 2008 6:30 AM
Obama wants a world tax.
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272618845.shtml
What's his view on reparations? Will he push for that when he is elected? Has any reporter bothered to ask?
Posted by: Borg at February 16, 2008 6:35 AM
Saudi's to execute woman for witchcraft and supernatural acts.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080214/wl_mideast_afp/saudijusticewomenrights_080214165747
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4290209
at February 16, 2008 6:38 AM
Nasseem and the rest of Islam.
Thanks
There are many Westerners like me who went through a lot of their lives sort of being Christian.
You folks have led us to what we really need to understand about our faith.
Thanks for all those (unlike, Islam ours is not a numbers game) who have turned in their hearts to the true God of the Bible and to the Salvation of the belief in Jesus Christ.
Ten years ago no one wanted to talk about the Bible and now it is an accepted conversation.
Thanks for doing what the preachers and churches were unable to do.
Islam has opened a lot of eyes here, keep up the good work.
The more murder, horrors and rage we see, the more we appreciate what we have.
The golden rule is shining brighter in the West thanks to people like you.
at February 16, 2008 7:04 AM
And this from LGF via MEMRI
Omar bin Laden says his father is against killing civilians. Of course those killed on 9/11 were not civilians since he offered them a truce that they didn't answer. Europeans are not civilians either.
Who knew he ruled the world?
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1683.htm
Posted by: Borg at February 16, 2008 7:06 AM
It's is fun to watch the media like Foxnews try to cover this while covering it up.
Their only mention of this is buried in a story about a nice little march in "conservative Gaza" against the cartoons.
What is conservative about Hamas? The story didn't answer that question.
Posted by: Aunt Bea at February 16, 2008 7:11 AM
It is also quite plain that many (I'm not saying ALL) of the posters who cast aspersions on Islam here are Christians who are too glad to insult a major religion they deem to be a competitor. I think it's sad when people dismiss Mohammed and hold up Jesus--they are precipitating the same sort of religious conflict the Islamists pray for.
Posted by ibrahimX at February 16, 2008 6:05 AM
What is sad is that muslims manipulate ( ....a major religion they deem to be a competitor) a harmless event, into a "religious conflict" (Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." ) under any excuse (" ....a major religion they deem to be a competitor") and dismiss violence from it's own ummah: http://videogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/Video.aspx?
proving that Islamic hostility is only matched by it's deception.
And, ibrahimX is a "good muslim" fromt the same ummah.
at February 16, 2008 7:31 AM
The Qu'ran offends me. It glorifies paedophilia, it promotes violence to all non-believers and it violates human rights, especially of women.
It refers to me and other non-believers as "filth", "kuffar", "infidel". It insults jews - "descendants of apes and pigs" and demands that all muslims kill the jews.
Publishing this evil book offends me and is solely designed to punish non-believers.
- Britannia's Lion
This is the only point worth discussing. Muhammad, the Koran and Islam itself are nothing more than megalomaniac hate and Arab imperialism thinly wrapped with religious tripe.
Islam should be offensive to any thinking individual, regardless of their religious beliefs, if they have any.
To be repelled and disgusted by Islam is a sign of sanity.
There is NOTHING redeeming in Islam. Ali Sina, among many apostates works to see it destroyed, not by violence, but by shining upon it the light of truth. He wants save Muslims from the death their religion will bring them when the non-Muslim world responds to a nuclear attack.
Posted by: Ethelred at February 16, 2008 7:48 AM
IbrahimX,
You aren't standing up for free speech by plastering New York subways with your stickers--you are just intending to give offense to Muslims.
And are violence and threats of violence the only way Muslims can respond to an insult? That's how a child reacts. Are all Muslims children? (rhetorical question - the answer is self-evident) What about the rest of us and Muslim insults? Islam calls us the sons of apes and pigs. Would you prefer we react to Islamic insults in like manner? We COULD blow up the Grand Mosque, you know. We saw two stories yesterday on JW that show Muslims don't especially respect sacred places or ideas, even their own.
Posted by: PMK at February 16, 2008 7:57 AM
IX:
No Christian sees Islam as a "competitor"!
Far from it! Most of us see Islam for what it is.
Violent, evil beyond belief, murderous and cruel.
'Allah' is not the God of Israel whom we worship, but a phoney god, who demands human sacrifice and who promises an eternal orgy in the hereafter.
One cannot but see this as a satanic belief system, alien to our way of life.
Quite a number of posters have no belief at all and, rightly, air their views, which we are all entitled to do. One thing we have in common is a horror of Islam, and all that it stands for.
We do not hate Mohammadans, neither do we wish to kill anyone. Oh that this were reciprocated!
at February 16, 2008 8:08 AM
By publishing them however you are attempting to "punish" all muslims ...and that simply cannot be right.
Naseem,
If we "punished" all Muslims it would be by blowing up Mecca. And it will come to that one day, if you people don't learn how to play nice.
99% of all Muslims would never have seen those cartoons in the first place except that their fellow Muslims wanted to cause a ruckus and were looking for any excuse to start one. Maybe we should just remove the internet from all Muslim countries since you obviously are incapable of understanding that other people have different sensibilities. We ignore the nonsense that comes out on your websites, to our own detriment. If Westerners reacted to your sites the way you react to a cartoon published by one newspaper there would be no more Islam.
That you would even suggest that a picture is punishment shows how little you understand.
You say our wishy-washy faith is no match for the disciplined life of the muslims. Since when is yelling and screaming and burning cars and rioting and threatening people when you don't get your way a mark of discipline? Islam has to be THE least disciplined faith to ever exist. You have no self-control. You can't avoid sin. You have to remove all temptation from all people just so that YOU won't stray, almost as if a Western leader decided that because HE was an alcoholic that alcohol must be removed from the society at large.
If you were truly disciplined you would lead your life and leave people who are not harming you alone. Those Danish cartoonists did nothing to the people of Afghanistan or Pakistan or anywhere else. But YOU have decided that a piece of paper is "punishing" Muslims. Try developing a thicker skin. It's what's helped people in the West put up with people like you.
Posted by: PMK at February 16, 2008 8:13 AM
ibrahimX,
I think it's sad when people dismiss Mohammed and hold up Jesus--they are precipitating the same sort of religious conflict the Islamists pray for.
Why aren't we allowed to dismiss Mohammed? He isn't a prophet to US. He's just a man, and an evil one at that. His example is one hundred eighty degrees removed from Jesus. He preached hatred where Jesus preached love. He preached that people should kill sinners while Jesus said we should hate the sin but love the sinner. Mohammed indulged in conquest for the sake of conquest and considered anyone who opposed him to be his enemy. Modern-day Muslims carry on this legacy. Jesus preached the Golden Rule.
Why must we extol Mohammed just because you do? You don't extol Buddha (or two thousand-year-old statues would still exist), so why should any of us extol Mohammed? You don't extol Jesus, so why should any of us extol Mohammed? Just because you're willing to stoop to violence if we won't? Why aren't you going to the Islamists and demanding they stop the religious conflict they started? There's something you need to understand about the West: we put up with a lot but if you try to push us over the edge we fight back with everything we have and everything we are. Just ask the Japanese.
at February 16, 2008 8:30 AM
I know what to do - print new Euro bills with the cartoon on them.
Posted by: Pelayo at February 16, 2008 8:34 AM
It's a bit rich to hear Moslems calling for laws against "hate speech". If we really had laws against hate speech, the first to be arrested would be anyone who read aloud from the Koran.
Some countries already have laws against spreading "hate literature" -- Germany, I'm told, has laws against printing and disseminating Nazi literature. I wonder why these laws are not used against the Islamic "holy books"; the Koran contains far more hatred and calls for violence than Mein Kampf (which translates as My Jihad) ever did.
at February 16, 2008 8:39 AM
"Now is the time for Western authorities to stand up strongly and reaffirm the principle of free speech, and explain violent reprisals in the face of a perceived offense are irrational, immature, unacceptable, and will be dealt with in the strongest possible terms. Anyone up for that? Mr. Bush? Mr. Brown? Anyone? Anyone"?
Absolutely. The whole concept of "free speech" is that minority opinion-ideas, especially political-thought-criticism, are to be militantly protected by the majority. That does not mean that minority opinion-thought is entitled to power. All it means is that they have a "right" to express their thoughts-criticism of the majority.
Speech which incites to violence is not protected. Threats of violence against thoughts-opinion of persons is actually considered a very serious civil rights violation in a democratic society.
With the Allied victory in WW2 the protection of political speech was mandated for Germany and Japan as part of their constitutions. However, free speech, outside of a few nations influenced by the Brits and the US, is fragile in most places in the world. We must not forget that its roots are in Britain-which is all the more reason why it must be protected there and in the US above all.
at February 16, 2008 8:39 AM
"I know what to do - print new Euro bills with the cartoon on them."
Posted by: Pelayo
Great idea! Except I'd put them on the coins. The smallest bank-note is for 5 euros, which is rather a high value. Also none of the notes carry images of humans. But some of the coins do. I think the 2 euro-cent coin is about right, as in "here's my 2 cents' worth".
at February 16, 2008 8:52 AM
ibrahimX,
bigcatgirl--I agree. But at the same time realize that it is a considerable taboo in Islam to have any sort of depictions of Mohammed.
It's a taboo in Islam and only in Islam. Denmark isn't governed by Islam. Muslims have no right to demand the rest of the world modify its behavior to conform to their taboos. We don't believe in their so-called prophet and we won't act as if we do.
Pork is also a taboo in Islam. Does the rest of the world have to give up pork just because Islam says it's bad?
It is not up to the rest of the world to make Muslims feel good about who they are. If their beliefs can't withstand any argument then they aren't worth the paper they're written on. If their faith can't tolerate those who don't believe then they will soon find themselves on the losing end because more people don't believe than do.
at February 16, 2008 8:53 AM
Without the protection of minority opinions-ideas by the majority "democracy" is a farce. The protection of minority opinions-ideas is a farce under Sharia law.
We have to get back to our roots on this. People who incite to violence in the attempt to silence thoughts-opinions-ideas-political-speech are committing very serious civil rights violations against those expressing such thoughts-ideas-opinions. This is a civil rights issue. The people who criticize Islam must be protected.
Posted by: Frank at February 16, 2008 8:54 AM
pelayo and ebonystone,
Excellent idea. Wouldn't putting Mohammed on the currency show Muslims just how multicultural Europe is? They can't object to that, can they?
The coinage is better than the bills. The bills could just be burnt. Imagine Muslims scraping the image off every coin they get.
Posted by: PMK at February 16, 2008 8:57 AM
In Britain and the US, "free-speech" laws are meant to protect political speech. Such protection involves all ideas-opinions-criticism of a political nature. Incitement to violence is not protected speech.
The threats by Muslims should be considered as violations of the civil rights of those persons threatened by Muslims. In this case, a minority is threatening another minority for its opinions-ideas-criticism of Islam. This is a serious civil rights issue.
Posted by: Frank at February 16, 2008 9:13 AM
Ibrahim X
What a hipocrite you are. You come on here and compare remarks to those on Stormfront, you accuse people of disrespecting Islam and that by criticisng Islam we are bring about the conflict Islamists are praying for.
Thanks for confirming what muslims pray for.
Here's a tip for you: If you don't want people to criticise and mock YOUR religion THEN DON'T MOCK AND HATE THE BELIEFS OF OTHERS.
Why don't you go to mosques and tell them to stop preaching hatred against the kuffar and the jew? Why don't you campaign against the jihadists?
But you come on here and tell us we shouldn't attack this dispicable death-cult of yours because it offends muslims and this will cause trouble.
Typical threat from a moonbat: Don't offend us or violence will be used.
Physician, heal thyself. Or one day, the west will do the healing for you.
Posted by: Britannia's Lion at February 16, 2008 9:14 AM
IbrahimX:
While Robert Spencer is doing right with this blog, it isn't necessarily unfair to criticize his comments section as being fairly similar to Stormfront.org. I've seen some posters practically call for genocide of Muslims. I wonder what Ayaan Hirsi Ali/Ibn Warraq would think of many of the comments in Robert's blog.
Certainly it's unfair to do so, and you know it. I have repeatedly denounced racism, race supremacism, and genocide, and told people that comments favoring such were unwelcome. Comments here are unmoderated, and I will not close the comments section because I believe in the necessity and power of free speech. But when such comments are brought to our attention, we remove them. Does Stormfront?
Indeed, if you were actually favorably disposed toward the mission of this site as you claim, you would alert me to such comments at director@jihadwatch.org, as I have repeatedly requested that readers do, and I would remove them. But you have never done this.
Ibn Warraq has served as a member of the Jihad Watch Board, and is a friend. Why don't you ask him your question?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at February 16, 2008 9:18 AM
PMK, imagine Muslims burning their paper money, then complaining that they have no money.
To celebrate multi-culturalism that is the foundation of Europe, the image of Mohammed could be placed on paper money, coins, stamps, video game tokens, subway tokens, and anything else that can be thought of.
Posted by: Pelayo at February 16, 2008 9:19 AM
Often, I read the argument that this war is different because there is no state sponsor and it is simply unwise to declare war against billion+ muslims. Yet, here, once again, it is very clear that the self declared representatives of that very same billion+ believers, the OIC, speaking on behalf of said billion+ declares:
OIC denounces reprinting of Motoons, warns of confrontations between Muslims and Christians
A direct threat of violence condoned by OIC. The OIC represents 56 member states. 56 member states openly threaten violence. So much for that small minority.
at February 16, 2008 9:23 AM
IbrahimX, I have had a few of my comments rightfully deleted for insensitive remarks, So,there.
Posted by: Pelayo at February 16, 2008 9:24 AM
"By reprinting these cartoons we are heading toward a bigger conflict" --Organization of Islamic Conference.
Really? Great! Let's get to that "bigger conflict" asap and be done with all this Islamic crap.
Posted by: darcy at February 16, 2008 9:26 AM
The brave seventeen Danish dailies that defiantly printed the drawing on Wednesday in protest against the Muslim murder plots deserved loud applause from the free world. I doubt that the timid multiculturally suicidal Europeans have it in them but could this be the start of a European we’re-not-your-cringing-slaves-yet backlash?
Nah.
But a flood of Motoons throughout the world would be, IMO, a significant psychological weapon in the war against Islamofacism. What the psyches of arrogant Muslims need, perhaps more than anything, is major ridicule. Ridicule & argument can wake up many, which is why the Islamic clerics get so hysterically upset at it and call for death to anyone who would attempt this.
We should wish the skies to rain Motoons!
at February 16, 2008 9:27 AM
"The reproduction of the prophet cartoon sparked protests and anger in many Muslim countries since Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry."
How can they be worried about idolatry when the central event of the pilgrimage to Mecca is the adoration of a rock?
at February 16, 2008 9:30 AM
Jesus (PBUh) must now be crying in Jannat at your abandonment of him. --Nasseem
No one has abandoned Jesus, you ignoramus.
Indeed, in the end, Jesus and His followers will be triumphing over the evil that is Islam and the fake "prophet" that is Mo. You will see!
If anyone's "crying" it's Mo down in Hades as he's seen the future - his con exposed and beaten, finally! Goodbye and Good Riddance, mass-murderer MO!
Posted by: darcy at February 16, 2008 9:31 AM
"The reproduction of the prophet cartoon sparked protests and anger in many Muslim countries since Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry."
How can they be worried about idolatry when the central event of the pilgrimage to Mecca is the adoration of a rock?
Posted by: ebonystone at February 16, 2008 9:30 AM
Also what's funny and hugely ironic is that "Allah" is an idol! A pre-Islamic pagan moon-god that is just a figure carved in basalt!
A billion idol-worshippers!
Posted by: darcy at February 16, 2008 9:43 AM
"PMK, imagine Muslims burning their paper money, then complaining that they have no money.
"To celebrate multi-culturalism that is the foundation of Europe, the image of Mohammed could be placed on paper money, coins, stamps, video game tokens, subway tokens, and anything else that can be thought of."
Posted by: Pelayo
1) As for burning their money, in a sense they already do that. The Palestinians have plenty of money to waste (in effect, burn) on ammo for their AK-47's and for rockets, but then can't pay their electric bill to Israel; and they're all demanding more aid from the West.
2) I especially like the idea of putting Mohammed's image on the multi-ride bus and streetcar tickets used in many European cities. That way, every time one boarded a tram, one would have to give him a good "punch".
at February 16, 2008 9:47 AM
When someone issues death threats over a cartoon, literature or opinion irregardless of what dogma inspires this reaction, this element can no longer be part of a culture that cherishes freedom. I have no emotional relationship to Mo hammed, in fact, the more i have studied him the more of a creep he seems to be. Thus, the reprinting of those cartoons are a symbolic defense of my belief system where I can analyse, satirize and criticize anyone I like and indeed, those threatening my life because of my doing this cannot exist on the same planet as myself.
I do believe we are heading for division between Muslim and non Muslim because of the dogma that fuels Islamic ideology. The Islamists understand this and some are participating in that war while the other. so called moderate elements, like the OIC stand by as these elements murder, rape, burn, threaten and terrorize. Like the germans who stood by and watched Jews transported to death camps, they, too, are responsible and are also the enemy.
The westerners do not understand that this division and war is taking place. They still seek to appease those elements who will never be appeased until they extinguish or rule them under the reigns of tyranny.
Posted by: Briars at February 16, 2008 9:47 AM
Allah Schmallah--there is a blurry line here between the Danish Cartoonists position and that of traditional, petty hate speech. You aren't standing up for free speech by plastering New York subways with your stickers--you are just intending to give offense to Muslims.
Posted by: ibrahimX at February 16, 2008 5:12 AM
Oh yes, Ibrahim, he is standing up for free speech! So, plaster-away, Allah-Schmallah!
Next, we can give "offense" to Muslims or anyone or anything! Again, that's called freedom of speech!
Concerning your "hate speech" reference - the Qur'an is a Book of Hate Speech.
Finally, I have a "Mohammed Teddy Bear" sitting proudly on my living-room mantelpiece! Why? Freedom of Speech! I would like to put a second one in my car window, but my husband has vetoed that as he knows a Mohammedan could and would kill me for that "offense." You're psychos.
Posted by: darcy at February 16, 2008 9:48 AM
These cartoons of Muhammad are political speech. They are an expression of ideas-opinions-thoughts re Muhammad and Islam. This issue goes to the foundations of a democratic society. The threats against the cartoonists or those who print the cartoons (in Britain, US, etc.) are violations of the civil rights of the cartoonists or those who print the cartoons. Muslims who are in societies with civil rights laws that protect free-speech, who threaten the free-speech rights anyone, should be prosecuted under civil rights laws. That will get their attention.
(I'm surprised that they have not been prosecuted under civil rights laws. They should be prosecuted under civil rights laws.)
Posted by: Frank at February 16, 2008 9:51 AM
Mr. Fawstin,
Excellent cartoon! Any other historical figure would have been flattered.
Mr. IbrahimX,
"It is also quite plain that many (I'm not saying ALL) of the posters who cast aspersions on Islam here are Christians who are too glad to insult a major religion they deem to be a competitor."
Actually, we are exposing a ideological-political movement posing as a religion as an obvious fraud. And glad to do it.
"I think it's sad when people dismiss Mohammed and hold up Jesus--they are precipitating the same sort of religious conflict the Islamists pray for."
How odd, the mere expression of preferring one over the other "precipitates" the conflict, through no fault of the "sediment", I presume? And when you mock Jesus by deforming him into "Isa", another sock puppet of Mohammad, that's supposed to be OK? I personally don't see the difference from Serrano's debut of "Piss Christ". Except there were also no violent murderous riots.
"But at the same time realize that it is a considerable taboo in Islam to have any sort of depictions of Mohammed."
Let's explore that taboo. Actually, mocking the prophet is a mandatory death penalty from Kitab al-Hudud, which may be exacted by individuals with no repercussions, no fatwa needed. So what does it profit us to "realize" that, are we supposed to be afraid? Silly me, of course, it is the INTENT that we are to be intimidated. Try to keep up ibiX, we don't care.
"Those people are really pissed off--but they need to channel that anger into a civilized form of protest."
Actually, they should mature into a civilization without need for protest at a trivial cartoon that actually (metaphysically or otherwise) harms NO ONE (the point of the whole thing, dumbass), and dig some channels for irrigation to produce their own food, or otherwise busy themselves with rising out of their "pissed off" 7th century existence.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 16, 2008 9:52 AM
We should wish the skies to rain Motoons!
Posted by: FM at February 16, 2008 9:27 AM
I wish I could get my hands on a Danish newspaper so I could clip the re-printed Motoons and have them framed. In the Danish newspaper. Anyone going to Denmark?
at February 16, 2008 9:52 AM
"I think it's sad when people dismiss Mohammed and hold up Jesus"-- Ibrahim
Let's see now, since Mohammed was a mass-murderer rapist torturer slave-owner thief caravan-raider pedophile sex-addict polygamist, he *DESERVES* to be "dismissed." ! Yep, Mohammed - DISmissed!
Jesus, on the other hand, was NONE of those evil things, only good. Jesus is the direct opposite of Mohammed. Oh, yes, HOLD UP JESUS! And btw, Ibrahim, Jesus IS the Son of God. When your time comes to pass, you will learn that.
Posted by: darcy at February 16, 2008 10:02 AM
I meant to add, Ibrahim, that your referring to Islam as a "competitor" of Christianity's caused me to roar with laughter. Thanks for the morning mirth!
Posted by: darcy at February 16, 2008 10:05 AM
The irony is that if ignorant Muslims had kept their mouths shut, these cartoons would have been published one day in one newspaper and probably never been seen again.Instead they have been published in newspapers all over the world and hopefully will be republished every year for as long as Muslims attempt to silence free people. I've even seen one of the cartoons superimposed on a Camel's butt.
Posted by: Roxane at February 16, 2008 10:06 AM
darcy-
There is certainly no Sermon on the Mount in Islam. We must not forget that Muslims consider the Gospels a forgery. Jesus, as per Muslims, was a Muslim. Of course, they have no proof of that other than the alleged "revelations" to Muhammad.
This breathtaking sermon is not from a Muslim:
http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/mount/
at February 16, 2008 10:11 AM
Darcy, go to Jihad Watch link "main" and on the left is an icon of the Mohammed cartoon. Click on it, scroll down and right click on the picture. Save it on you computer and print as many as you want. It is only a 33 kb file so it may have to be enlarged, or you can search the internet for a larger version.
Posted by: Pelayo at February 16, 2008 10:11 AM
Beatitudes taught by Jesus:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Posted by: Frank at February 16, 2008 10:13 AM
Darcy, follow this:
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/jyllands-posten_cartoons/
Several Mohammed images.
Posted by: Pelayo at February 16, 2008 10:22 AM
Frank,
We must not forget that Muslims consider the Gospels a forgery.
Actually, they consider the Injeel (Gospel) to be tahrif (corrupted). Interestingly, they have never attempted to demonstrate
1) which parts are corrupted, and which not,
2) when and how it happened,
3) where any extant noncorrupted copies are,
4) how the cunning kuffars destroyed ALL of the copies,
5) how they made the extant copies appear genuinely old and authentic,
6) why this corruption did not occur to them until hundreds of years after Mohammed (Ibn Hazm, circa 994-1063 AD)
7) why Mohammed used the JudaeoChristian scriptures as documented in the hadith, but they don't.
at February 16, 2008 10:27 AM
"And when you mock Jesus by deforming him into "Isa", another sock puppet of Mohammad, that's supposed to be OK?" - Concerned Citizen
I hate that in particular.
Now here this, Mohammedans:
1. Jesus is not "Isa." That's a lie from jealous Mohammed. There is no "Isa."
2. Jesus is not just a prophet - He is half- divine and the Son of God. Jealous all-human false-prophet Mo again!
3. Jesus is certainly not the "slave" of moon-god "allah" - Jesus is nobody's "slave." Consumed-with-jealousy psycho Mo again!
4. Jesus is certainly not going to assist "allah" in destroying both Christianity and Judaism! How in the world can you believe such obvious idiocy and falsehood? Your neurons aren't firing? Apparently they haven't been firing for many centuries now.
5. Mohammed - Piss Be Upon him. See ya, Mohammedans.
Posted by: darcy at February 16, 2008 10:28 AM
Concerned Citizen-
Thank you. There is a difference. Exactness is important to me. Thanks, again.
Posted by: Frank at February 16, 2008 10:31 AM
Thank you Frank and Pelayo! I think Muslims use the term "corrupted" to describe the of course un-corrupted Gospels and Torah. They're just jealous because they know deep inside their's is a religion of tomfoolery. A bunch of hooey. (My father used to say "a bunch of hooey," which means "nonsense").
Appreciate your comments, and I will go to that Mohammed image, Pelayo!
Would love to have an original Danish newspaper, though!
Posted by: darcy at February 16, 2008 10:37 AM
"By publishing them however you are attempting to "punish" all muslims ...and that simply cannot be right."
Naseem above
"By reprinting these cartoons we are heading toward a bigger conflict and that shows that both sides will be hostages of their radicals,"
OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu
Very interesting approach to get the free world to stop exercising free speech.
Sorry but no lollipop,there is a big difference when yelling fire in a crowded theatre than drawing cartoons of Mohammed.
There is the danger of panic in a theatre, however there is only the fabricated,but controllable frenzy, and anger about the cartoons that does not reach the level of panic.
Nice try though in your attempt to get sympathy for Muslims in an effort to stifle free speech.
Muslims apparently can't help themselves and go on protesting the cartoons which amazingly they end up killing each other over them.
And of course it is a sad and daily played out commentary that we see everyday in the Islamic world which is still way back in the dark ages and refuses change ,IE Salem in Saudia Arabia as one of hundreds of pitiful examples of a violent and backward ideology.
Posted by: Mackie at February 16, 2008 10:38 AM
I just copied a bunch of mo cartoons just in case they disappear off of websites due to the stupidity of our government siding with muslims way too often and their allowing censorship.
Posted by: R_not at February 16, 2008 10:47 AM
LONG LIVE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
AND
FREEDOM OF THOUGHT
Posted by: senor doeboy at February 16, 2008 10:55 AM
"Allah Schmallah--there is a blurry line here between the Danish Cartoonists position and that of traditional, petty hate speech. You aren't standing up for free speech by plastering New York subways with your stickers--you are just intending to give offense to Muslims. "
Posted by: ibiX
You really don't get it. You might have a point if the images displayed Mohammad conjugally involved with a goat captioned by "Fxxk All Muslims", however, the cartoons are by all accounts quite innocuous. Therefore, they don't violate OUR laws, and it doesn't matter if we break yours.
Stickers in subway being "petty"? Perhaps. But definitely NOT hate speech.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 16, 2008 10:56 AM
It's an extremists' world, the moderates just live in it.
Posted by: objective1 at February 16, 2008 10:59 AM
The Muslims are all upset and protesting about the Mohammed cartoons because presenting an image of their prophet is tantamount to idolatry. But aren't they being hypocrites? Read the definition of idolatry in any English Dictionary and you will see that it is the Muslims that are the "idolaters".
Posted by: norman at February 16, 2008 11:05 AM
I've often wondered if there would be the same level of outrage if the cartoons were identified as a made-up cartoon character with a name like "Angry Abdul", instead of Mohammed. I'm not say that they should have been, just wondering what would happen if they were.
Posted by: Balrog at February 16, 2008 11:05 AM
"It is not a way of improving your rights and exercising your freedoms when you use these rights for insulting the most sacred values and symbols of others and inciting hatred," he said. "This is a very wrong, provocative path - unacceptable"
This is rich coming from a Muslim, what else have they ever done but to insult Christians, Hindus, Budhists, Zoroastrians & just about anybody else who does not agree with their perverted "religion"
As for inciting hatred, 6 years ago I would never have even had a thought about Muslims. I would have just thought "let them get on with it". Now, however, after 9:11, 7:7 and a host of other atrocities commited by these nihilistic morons I would be only too pleased if someone "Allah willing" dropped a Neutron bomb on Mecca whilst they were doing Hajh.
People in glass houses should not throw tantrums.
Posted by: ericthekuffar at February 16, 2008 11:05 AM
Thank you, Robert --
Excellent response to yet another moronic and childish threat from the "religion" of peace. The illogic of their position is manifest in their every threat, attack, and murder -- not to mention the "musings" of Naseem, IbrahimX, Hooper, Ishanoglu, ad nauseum.
Folks on this site have it right: It is a violation of my civil rights to be threatened for harboring any opinion or thought! With that in mind, I will brave the cold and don my mo-bomb t-shirt for all my weekend activities. If someone happens to take offense, well, I'll be willing to calmly discuss it with them. Will they be calm, I wonder?
And before anyone claims that my sole intent is to agitate or provoke, I'll say right now, "You are correct, sir!" Provoke Americans to remember that freedom of speech is a sacred trust that cannot be protected by hiding our thoughts or curtailing our expression due to fear of any sort.
I may not get invited to any eid parties, but I think I'll survive. I hear they don't like whiskey and pork, anyway....
Posted by: Gondemar at February 16, 2008 11:07 AM
OIC Agreement on Immunity and Privileges
Indemnifying Islam.
Posted by: justamomof4 at February 16, 2008 11:10 AM
Robert wrote --
"Now is the time for Western authorities to stand up strongly..."We no longer have Western authorities, we have Western Liberals. Posted by: Zeno
at February 16, 2008 11:12 AM
I just spent about two minutes in Stormfront.org. Two minutes seemed like an eternity. I read part of an article where the premise is that British agents infiltrated the Gallup company in 1940 so that opinion polls could be rigged in favor of support for the British. Stormfront is just another run of the mill, dime a dozen, white supremacist, Neo-Nazi conspiracy mongers. Comparing Jihad Watch to Stormfront is a crime.
Posted by: Pelayo at February 16, 2008 11:31 AM
Respect is a one-way street in Islam.
Posted by: BurgerBoy at February 16, 2008 11:33 AM
Sabah al khair, awrah atiik. (Good morning, old woman.)
Naseem, you have a beautiful name. In Arabic, it means "Fresh Air."
To enlighten you, I would like you to know "awrah" is an Arabic word for "woman."
"Awrah" means defective. Awrah originally was derived from "Aurat," whic is the Arabic word for "male genital or f@#k." Sorry, I did not invent this. At any rate, it's sad to see how you enjoy such degradation.
As to your comment: As for Islam....give it time ...you own grandaughters will prohibit such drawings in the future...this this truth of truths ...you will see unfolding before your own eyes.
Here is my response: There is no doubt that Islam will be the only religion in the future, as it has been predicted to be the instrument for bringing the world to an end. You will pitch war against the Jews in Armageddon--the sooner you do it the better.
at February 16, 2008 11:40 AM
Read the definition of idolatry in any English Dictionary and you will see that it is the Muslims that are the "idolaters".
Posted by: norman at February 16, 2008 11:05 AM
Idolatry:
1. The worship of a physical object as a god. [that would be al-ilah the moon god carved out of basalt with a crescent on "his" chest].
2. excessive devotion.
"Excessive devotion!" Oh boy does that qualify!
Posted by: darcy at February 16, 2008 11:47 AM
There is no doubt that Islam will be the only religion in the future, as it has been predicted to be the instrument for bringing the world to an end. -ssa
Not sure I understand this, ssa.
Where is this predicted?
Posted by: darcy at February 16, 2008 11:50 AM
pelayo,
Coins have a longer shelf life. I'm not sure about the Euros but bills in the US tend to last about eighteen months to two years before going out of circulation. Odds are that by then the EU will have decided its next bill will have a "less inflammatory" face. That isn't a criticism. It's a fact. Governments seek to avoid trouble.
Coins are forever (almost). That beautiful picture will still be around a century from now if it's on a coin. Even if it's no longer accepted currency it will be in someone's collection.
As for Muslims burning their own currency: they could burn everyone's. It would be harder to destroy all the coins.
We'd probably find the "cashless society" quickly becoming a reality if Mohammed's grimace ever made its way to all parts of our lives. Subway tokens, cash registers, toll collectors, all gone. They would quickly be replaced by total penetration of debit cards, credit cards (even for that candy bar, since the vending machine would no longer accept coins or currency), and EZ-Pass. Not because that's what the people want but because businesses and vendors will decide it's less trouble for them and they don't need the aggravation, for which I couldn't blame them.
Posted by: PMK at February 16, 2008 11:52 AM
Pelayo:
Stormfront is just another run of the mill, dime a dozen, white supremacist, Neo-Nazi conspiracy mongers. Comparing Jihad Watch to Stormfront is a crime.
Yes. And IbrahimX is just another provocateur out to defame this site and hinder our work.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at February 16, 2008 12:08 PM
"While Robert Spencer is doing right with this blog, it isn't necessarily unfair to criticize his comments section as being fairly similar to Stormfront.org. I've seen some posters practically call for genocide of Muslims. I wonder what Ayaan Hirsi Ali/Ibn Warraq would think of many of the comments in Robert's blog.
What on earth does any of that have to do with this thread?
Posted by: Abscedere at February 16, 2008 12:21 PM
I think the basic problem is that Islam won't take any percieved crap from dal al-harb. Harb is flawed beyond redemption and must be destroyed. As long as dar al-harb exists crap will flow from it. Anything coming from the kuffars from harb, anything at all, is haram. Evil cannot do good. Only dar al-Islam is good. Dar al-harb must be destroyed. The weapons used to do this are collectively called 'jihad'.
From above: "It is not a way of improving your rights and exercising your freedoms when you use these rights for insulting the most sacred values and symbols of others and inciting hatred," he said. "This is a very wrong, provocative path - unacceptable."
Many of the sacred symbols and values of others are perverted. We have laws in the western world that make the practice of some of these sacred
values and symbols illegal. To be forced to give perversion respectability indicates a slave condition. Hate speech laws create slaves. What does that make you if you don't dare, by law and intimidation, speak out against perversions?
Yet one mans perversion, may be another mans salvation. But if his salvation includes harming or killing, or aggressiveness, why should we honor his salvation? His salvation is perverted.
Why should we give it credibility and why should we support it? And why should we not vigorously oppose it? I would support and honor a Wiccan before I would support or honor Islam. I don't agree with Wiccan philosophy either, but a Wiccan's salvation does not require a deal with death. There is nothing supreme about Islam.
It's basic tenants are harmful to muslims and infidels alike. Islam is easily recognized by it's perversions. Islam, because of it's desire and propensity to spread these perversions around the world, must be stopped and forced to with draw.
If it takes Danish cartoons to squeeze the festering sore that is Islam, great, the more cartoons the better, soon they will run out of the energy to riot over it,(it may take a lot of cartoons to wear them out), and a small victory can be achieved over perversion...
at February 16, 2008 12:24 PM
Abscedere:
"While Robert Spencer is doing right with this blog, it isn't necessarily unfair to criticize his comments section as being fairly similar to Stormfront.org. I've seen some posters practically call for genocide of Muslims. I wonder what Ayaan Hirsi Ali/Ibn Warraq would think of many of the comments in Robert's blog.What on earth does any of that have to do with this thread?
What it has to do with is IbrahimX's attempt to deflect attention away from the violent irrationality of the cartoon protests, and to cast aspersions on those who resist this Islamic supremacist intimidation, so as to turn away people of good will from the jihad resistance (no decent person wants to hang around at something like Stormfront, and so if he succeeds in equating the two, he successfully sabotages JW), and allow the jihadists and Islamic supremacists to continue their work without resistance.
This reveals IbrahimX as just another jihadist provocateur, of which we have seen a great many here, and no doubt we will see many more. He is cleverer than most, in his professed sympathies for our efforts on behalf of human rights, but comments like this one betray his actual intentions.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at February 16, 2008 12:28 PM
Where is this predicted?
Posted by: darcy
Jesus warned that he, who is on the house top, had better not go into his house to grab his cloak. Juxtapose this with the Koran verse, which said that there will be Muslims everywhere surrounding the Jews, and the trees will say come, here is a Jew hiding behind me.
I have no doubt that Ishmael’s religion will prevail based on all the obvious evidence. Christians no longer expect their children to live a morally good life. Jesus said that as the end draws near, hearts will grow cold. In addition to this, the destruction brought under secularism has made it possible. In this manner the secularism is handing Christian nations into Muslims’ hands as inheritance.
If you know the bible, you should know that Abraham begged the Lord to bless Ishmael, and the Lord keeps his promise. You can see oil oozing out as Muslims pray 5 times a day. I don’t believe Christians pray as often in a day. I see most Christians in this country bow their heads down only on Sunday service, but that doesn’t mean that they pray. Contrary to Christians in the west, I remember trembling and praying constantly while I was running away from the Muslims.
Darcy, I am not a bible thumper, and not interested in peddling with bible verses. Please don’t let me bother you. I am not here to sell you anything.
I have life to take of. I am out of here now.
Posted by: ssa at February 16, 2008 12:33 PM
"The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) denounced on Friday the reprinting of a Danish cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad, warning it could lead to confrontations between Muslims and Christians."
The real purpose here is to force Western nations to officially acknowledge that Mohammad is a Prophet of God, deserving of of special honors in Western law. Once Western governments pass laws prosecuting anyone depecting Mohammad in an unfavorable light, the next step is to force them to acknowledge the Koran as the revealed, eternal, unalterable word of God, deserving of the same reverence and honor as Mohammad and his God. Following that is the acknowledgement that Sharia law has a devine orgin, and any law contricting it is not legitimate, and even blasphame.
The more that Western political, academic and religious leaders continue to confront Muslim demands, the worse it's going to get.
All Western governments should pass resolutions stating clearly that neither the government or peoples of their countries recognize Islam as having any devine orgins, or that Mohammad was a Prophet of any deity, or that the Islamic God, Allah, occupies any special place of honor or reverence in the laws of the nation.
This is not an insult to Muslim believers, it is a statement of how a Western, secular government operates, and it should be said forcefully, and without apology.
Posted by: rational
at February 16, 2008 12:34 PM
"Jesus said that as the end draws near, hearts will grow cold. In addition to this, the destruction brought under secularism has made it possible. In this manner the secularism is handing Christian nations into Muslims’ hands as inheritance."
Dispensationalism leads to nihilism. Try partial preterism.
"..the end draws near"
This happened in 70 A.D.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 16, 2008 12:48 PM
Where is this predicted?
Posted by: darcy
Jesus warned that he, who is on the house top, had better not go into his house to grab his cloak. Juxtapose this with the Koran verse, which said that there will be Muslims everywhere surrounding the Jews, and the trees will say come, here is a Jew hiding behind me.
I have no doubt that Ishmael’s religion will prevail based on all the obvious evidence. Christians no longer expect their children to live a morally good life. Jesus said that as the end draws near, hearts will grow cold. In addition to this, the destruction brought under secularism has made it possible. In this manner the secularism is handing Christian nations into Muslims’ hands as inheritance.
If you know the bible, you should know that Abraham begged the Lord to bless Ishmael, and the Lord keeps his promise. You can see oil oozing out as Muslims pray 5 times a day. I don’t believe Christians pray as often in a day. I see most Christians in this country bow their heads down only on Sunday service, but that doesn’t mean that they pray. Contrary to Christians in the west, I remember trembling and praying constantly while I was running away from the Muslims.
Darcy, I am not a bible thumper, and not interested in peddling with bible verses. Please don’t let me bother you. I am not here to sell you anything.
I have life to take of. I am out of here now.
Posted by: ssa at February 16, 2008 12:33 PM
Wierd.
What do you make of this people? A Muslim?
No, ssa, I don't believe that "Ishmael's religion will prevail."
at February 16, 2008 12:51 PM
OT to Darcy,
"There is no "Isa.""
Actually, there is. Now, wait--you're going to love this...
"Isa" is a Neanderthal woman, a major character in Jean M Auel's 'Clan of the Cave Bear'. She adopts the main character, Ayla (a Cro-Magnon girl), and rears her as her own child.
Posted by: Abscedere at February 16, 2008 12:54 PM
Excellent post(s)Rational, Darcy, Frank & Concerned Citizen...all of you-my take-stressing the arrogance of Islam and those "who arrogate to themselves" the right to kill unbelievers..this from Jose Maria the former PM(equivalent) of Spain after the Madrid bombings..
Posted by: nodak at February 16, 2008 12:56 PM
If Muslims wanted to fairly (see an eye for an eye, etc.) protest these cartoons, they would find someone who is willing to break with Sharia law just enough to create cartoons about Jesus.
Such artists do exist, and besides, war has been declared on "dar al-harb"--repeatedly! All's fair in war, right?
As for the absurd notion that Christianity is in some kind of contest with Islam, it matters not.
Some Christians have left their churches, yes. It has been so, since the first church was formed, I'm sure.
Just because people may be leaving Christianity, it doesn't mean they are becoming Muslims. Consider your reality check cashed.
Posted by: Abscedere at February 16, 2008 1:17 PM
OT to Darcy,
"There is no "Isa.""
Actually, there is. Now, wait--you're going to love this...
"Isa" is a Neanderthal woman, a major character in Jean M Auel's 'Clan of the Cave Bear'. She adopts the main character, Ayla (a Cro-Magnon girl), and rears her as her own child.
Posted by: Abscedere at February 16, 2008 12:54 PM
LOL, Abscedere. I didn't read that book but I believe at one time it was immensely popular.
Posted by: darcy at February 16, 2008 1:22 PM
Free speech is protected in the west--BUT, you cant yell FIRE in a crowded theater. Why, you ask?---Because it could cause deaths.
Islams 'free speech' causes many more deaths and should be banned in all western nations.
Posted by: guide inside at February 16, 2008 2:00 PM
Robert Spencer, thank you for responding to my posts several times. I think it's quite unfair of you to call me a jihadist provocateur for suggesting that your comments section disturbingly echoes stormfront. I am further perplexed by why you would imply I am in league with the violent protesters--it would appear that criticizing Jihadwatch automatically makes you a Jihadist sympathizer.
Blogs like thereligionofpeace and jihadwatch are perhaps the only blogs out there exerting pressure on Islam to reform itself, and for the West to realize the true impetus behind 9/11.
But it is undeniably true that racists of the stormfront/david duke variety are attracted to anti-Jihad crusade. Consider for instance Lawrence Auster--oh sure, he isn't quite as extreme as stormfront posters--but it's quite fair to say he is a white seperatist. He is attracted to the anti-Jihad movement especially because it allows him to dismiss multiculturalism/"mixing of people"--in short, his anti-Jihad stance becomes a mere excuse to indulge in traditional hatred.
The anti-Jihadists have the logical and intellectual upper hand--what a shame when that is thrown out when Christian posters suggest here that Muslims are like demons who need to be exorcised. I respect the liberal criticisms of Islam but abhor the one based on "Islam is a disease and Muslims are evil." I see many such comments here, Robert. Am I jihadist for being disturbed by them?
Thanks for taking the time.
kind regards,
-abe
at February 16, 2008 2:16 PM
rational said: "All Western governments should pass resolutions stating clearly that neither the government or peoples of their countries recognize Islam as having any devine orgins, or that Mohammad was a Prophet of any deity, or that the Islamic God, Allah, occupies any special place of honor or reverence in the laws of the nation."
I endorse this entirely.
at February 16, 2008 2:21 PM
quote: "I've often wondered if there would be the same level of outrage if the cartoons were identified as a made-up cartoon character with a name like "Angry Abdul", instead of Mohammed. I'm not say that they should have been, just wondering what would happen if they were."
Very good question. I haven't considered this. My guess is that the outrage would be severely less--they wouldn't be able to work themselves up for something as banal as that, but I'm sure there would be complaints of racism.
Posted by: ibrahimX at February 16, 2008 2:27 PM
Ibe,
When you make thinly veiled comments apologizing for rioters, supremicists, or shariah... yeah, you might get a sharp written retort. I refer you to posts 510413 and 510442 above for those I personally found offensive. You have made some positive substantive contributions to this thread. I suggest that you focus on those, the asides are doing you in.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 16, 2008 2:29 PM
IbrahimX:
I will gladly talk with you, but I'll tell you up front: I don't believe you. I've seen this happen too many times.
If you object to comments here, you could have alerted me to them, and I would have removed them. You have never done that. I am not saying you shouldn't object to comments here. If I didn't object to some of them also, I would never remove any. And I certainly don't approve of comments such as those you have characterized as being here, but I generally don't have time to read the comments fields.
You could, in other words, be helping with this, instead of adopting the adversarial posture you have adopted.
As for white supremacism, I have denounced this many times, and explained why the jihad resistance I am trying to mount has nothing to do with race. Why do you ignore these statements?
And as for Lawrence Auster, I have no interest in his racial theories, and have never endorsed them, and never will. Auster himself has repeatedly and shrilly attacked me and my work, which indicates that not only would I reject your attempt to lump us together, but he would also.
Auster has devoted multiple posts on his sites to attacking my positions, my character, my basic decency as a human being. In all of them, his characterizations of my positions are and have been completely inaccurate. He has claimed that I abandoned my immigration screening proposal when I realized -- due, he said, to his criticism -- that there was no way to distinguish peaceful Muslims from potential jihadists, and began calling for an end to Muslim immigration. This is false in every possible way: you can find me saying that you can't distinguish jihadists from peaceful Muslims in any reliable way years ago, from the beginning of JW, and long before I ever heard of Lawrence Auster. You can find me calling for immigration restrictions before I began JW -- only in his mind is that something new, because when I presented the quotes from a book I wrote in 2003, he dismissed them as not meaning what I had said they meant (and what I intended them to mean, and how they were understood by everyone else).
Nor have I ever abandoned the screening proposal, which I have always admitted was imperfect but is an improvement on the current system. Congressman Tancredo was the one interested in this proposal and lately he has been busy running for President, so I have no one to sponsor it.
Auster also took a long post I wrote here as considering how Constitutionally one could limit Muslim immigration, and discussing some of the problems with doing so, as evidence that I really didn't want to do so and was secretly a liberal -- which he has now again repeated recently.
He did this also with Melanie Phillips, whom I have plenty of disagreements, but I was sitting next to her at Restoration Weekend as she called for an end to Muslim immigration -- in other words, when she did exactly what Auster says she never does.
To take one final and particularly egregious example out of many available examples, there was Auster's ridiculous conspiracy theorizing over why I hadn't posted about Ayaan Hirsi Ali leaving the US (I was busy, and wanted to find enough time to give the matter some extended attention).
In sum: I don't see how anyone can take this man seriously as an accurate observer or commentator, and what I am doing at Jihad Watch and in my books and articles has nothing to do with whatever Lawrence Auster thinks he is doing. Lumping us together is something that I believe both he and I would vehemently reject.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at February 16, 2008 2:38 PM
Behead those who insult Jihadwatch!
Freedom of speech to insult Jihadwatch is like a plague!
You will pay!
/hopefully, obvious sarcasm...
Posted by: Goob at February 16, 2008 2:40 PM
I would think the statement by "ssa" above should be deleted --
"There is no doubt that Islam will be the only religion in the future, as it has been predicted to be the instrument for bringing the world to an end. You will pitch war against the Jews in Armageddon--the sooner you do it the better."
The "You" in the comment isaddressed to another poster named "Naseem" but evidently is also the 2nd person plural; i.e., Muslims in general]
Posted by: ssa [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 16, 2008 11:40 AM
I've seen far milder and relatively more trivial comments deleted at JW before. Were I moderator, I would draw at least one line at such apocalyptic certitude.
Posted by: cantor at February 16, 2008 2:53 PM
Dispensationalism leads to nihilism. Try partial preterism.
Or, to widen the principle out from Preterists from not only one type of Christians to all Christians but further out to humans in general, one could try the tension of existence towards the Beyond.
Posted by: cantor at February 16, 2008 2:57 PM
Robert, I think I might not have made my point clear. I am aware of your dispute with Mr. Auster--my point was that people who share his extreme racial views are also attracted to the anti-jihad movement for the sole reason that it allows them to vent bigoted views without much censure--as I have seen your comments section.
I think it's cute the way you attempt to re-frame the situation by saying that I should be bringing such comments to your attention. Quite frankly there are too many. The only sensible solution is to have comment moderation as this free for all invites unwarranted nastiness.
at February 16, 2008 2:57 PM
One of the many twisted ideas that is assumed by Muslims, is that if a person is bludgeoned into performing some meaningless religious ritual or act, even against his will, there is merit in it before God. It makes no difference if a person performs the ritual or act out of fear, without any real desire in his heart to perform it, it is the hollow, meaningless act that's of paramount importance in Islam.
In short, what's in a person's heart is of no importance to Allah. The hollow act is everything.
In the Judeo/Christian West, what's in the heart of the individual determines his relationship to God, because it's what's in his heart that determines his actions, not the other way around.
This was best illustrated when Jesus forgave the prostitute for her sinful acts once she repented. Her heart was turned to God, and she was forgiven, Whereas Mohammad and Allah forgave nothing. The act itself warranted death by stoning. Repentence meant, and means, nothing. The act determines everything.
In short, there is no such thing as real personal spiriutually or redemption in Islam.
Posted by: rational
at February 16, 2008 2:58 PM
IbrahimX:
I think it's cute the way you attempt to re-frame the situation by saying that I should be bringing such comments to your attention.
"Cute," eh? Ah, now I begin to realize who you are. In any case, your refusal to assist with this, by simply sending me an email when you see an objectionable comment, as other people do, is noted.
I am aware of your dispute with Mr. Auster--my point was that people who share his extreme racial views are also attracted to the anti-jihad movement for the sole reason that it allows them to vent bigoted views without much censure--as I have seen your comments section.
I have distinguished my position from theirs on many occasions. Why do you continue to ignore that fact? To condemn us both thusly would be like saying we cannot fight the Nazis, because Stalin wants to fight the Nazis too, for his own nefarious reasons.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at February 16, 2008 3:01 PM
"One of the many twisted ideas that is assumed by Muslims, is that if a person is bludgeoned into performing some meaningless religious ritual or act, even against his will, there is merit in it before God. It makes no difference if a person performs the ritual or act out of fear, without any real desire in his heart to perform it, it is the hollow, meaningless act that's of paramount importance in Islam. In short, what's in a person's heart is of no importance to Allah. The hollow act is everything."
Posted by: rational
Amen. That's been needing to be said.
"one could try the tension of existence towards the Beyond."
Posted by: cantor
(whhsp..khmp..cough...COUGH!) yeah, man, like... wow!
Not sure what that meant. I brought up preterism and dispensationalism because most dispensationalists are not even aware that their's is not the only perspective on the texts.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 16, 2008 3:07 PM
Robert, it isn't enough that you distinguish their position from yours when you can simply prevent them from having a stage to air their views by enabling comment moderation. Given how cries of "racism" are used to besmirch the efforts of Jihadwatch, it's curious why extra effort isn't taken to keep the nut jobs out.
kind regards,
Ibe
Posted by: ibrahimX at February 16, 2008 3:10 PM
"Cute" isn't it, that he won't interact with my comments, but he will assume the name I gave him ("Ibe" instead of "abe")?
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 16, 2008 3:15 PM
IbrahimX:
I don't have funds to hire a full-time moderator. You are welcome to make a contribution to that end.
Meanwhile, this heading is at the top of every comments field. I believe that only the most willfully mean-spirited misunderstand or discount it:
"(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)"
Is something unclear in that?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at February 16, 2008 3:21 PM
Robert, I am sure some of your followers would be willing to moderate comments for you, free of charge. Whether or not you agree with disturbing comments is irrelevant so long as you're enabling nut jobs to make any hateful statement about Muslims they like. The question isn't so much "does Robert Spencer secretly endorse such comments" but rather why doesn't he take extra steps to make sure his sound blog isn't hijacked by bigots. I am sure you're tiring of this little exchange, and I thank you again for taking the time.
-abe/ibe
at February 16, 2008 3:30 PM
I would be happy to enlist to delete "abe/ibe's" thinly veiled Islamofascist apologetic and anti-Christian comments for free.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 16, 2008 3:38 PM
I hope and trust that Spencer will stand his ground and not kowtow to those who -- either out of sophomoric irrationality or out of willful meanspiritedness -- consider the official JW disclaimer to be insufficient. While the presence -- however ephemeral most of them may be -- of comments that violate that disclaimer may, in the short-term and superficially, leave JW's reputation vulnerable to some flesh wounds here and there, substantively, rationally and in the long view of the love of truth, they cannot.
at February 16, 2008 4:06 PM
ibrahim X,
Seriously, just knock it off and move along. You are not gaining any ground here, nor is your argument that unmoderrated comments are problematic, simply because you think so.
Robert has made his position clear and has asked for all genuine readers to alert him whenever a comment appears whether by over-zealous readers or deceptively planted by unsavory characters.
In all honesty, do you expect Robert to agree with your transparent attempt to make him smear his own site by the way he operates and agree with your estimation about inappropriate comments appearing here, "too numerous" in your estimation?
You're not that smart and it isn't going to happen, but it was a nice try.
Since you are obviously an Islamic apologist and disagree with Robert's position, how can you expect ANYONE to accept your "concern" for Robert or the smooth operation of this site?
Get real, and quite frankly, get lost.
Posted by: awake
at February 16, 2008 4:11 PM
"You aren't standing up for free speech by plastering New York subways with your stickers--you are just intending to give offense to Muslims"
Ibrahim X,
Since when do Muslims object to giving offense to others? You can't even display a cross publicly in Saudi Arabia, and you risk your life for doing so in other Islamic socities.
Muslims don't care about sensibilities, unless it's their own.
Posted by: rational
at February 16, 2008 4:31 PM
I nabi ZK, nabi to the mohametan trolls,
also will edit this comments section for free...
CC and I could take turns or something.
nabi ZK
...nabi to the mohametan trolls...trust the nabi and not some wahabbi...
Posted by: zonie kafir at February 16, 2008 4:32 PM
I am NOT sorry the cartoons offend Mr. Ihsanoglu!
I don't know if humble pie is halal, but the mohammedan diet is clearly deficient in that respect.
Hey Ihsanoglu ... maybe other people's lives and well being are more important than your precio
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)