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!

Posted by: Bosch Fawstin 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

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 16, 2008 4:53 AM

re: Naseem

No.
Your beliefs do NOT transcend the law of the land.
Get.
Over.
It.

Posted by: Wookieelips 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

Posted by: Borg 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.

Posted by: Aunt Bea 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.

Posted by: Alert 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!

Posted by: Sencit 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.

Posted by: PMK 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.

Posted by: ebonystone 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.

Posted by: Frank 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".

Posted by: ebonystone 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.

Posted by: PMK 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

Posted by: jihadwatch 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.

Posted by: justamomof4 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!

Posted by: FM 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?

Posted by: ebonystone 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".

Posted by: ebonystone 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?

Posted by: darcy 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/

Posted by: Frank 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.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen 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..."

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.

Posted by: ssa 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

Posted by: jihadwatch 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...

Posted by: duh_swami 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

Posted by: jihadwatch 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."

Posted by: darcy 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

Posted by: ibrahimX 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.

Posted by: ibrahimX 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

Posted by: jihadwatch 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.

Posted by: ibrahimX 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

Posted by: jihadwatch 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

Posted by: jihadwatch 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

Posted by: ibrahimX 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.

Posted by: cantor 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 precious damned emotions!

===========

So here is the great irony of mohammedan culture.

They treat women like dirt.

But the men are more emotional, more touchy, more preoccupied with their damned feelings than any woman would ever allow herself to get!

What they need is a massive air-drop of Midol.

I mean really. They make their women walk around draped in bags on the assumption that no man could restrain himself from raping her if she were merely visible.

"Oh, oh! I couldn't help myself. My FEELINGS just took over!".

What a damned bunch of sissies!

===================

The proper message from the rest of the world to idiots like Ihsanoglu is "Man-up and calm down or we'll kick your noisy butt!".

Nobody has a right to go around stirring up riots every time their emotions get aroused.

Posted by: joeblough at February 16, 2008 5:27 PM

ibrahimX -

Sencit states:

"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."

As a Christian, I concur with Sencit, as I do not consider Islam to be a "competitor" in the least, but a fight between good vs evil.

A competitor is someone or something that is comparatively 'equal', and that is not the case between Jesus & Muhammad. One such comparison can be found here:
http://www.christring.org/shortseries/jesusormuhammad.htm

Posted by: champ at February 16, 2008 5:44 PM

"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."

Ahh, Ibe, you've most certainly revealed yourself, havent' you? You continue to divert attention from the subject of this thread, and purposefully use a word like "cute" in a provocative attempt to perpetuate off-topic discussion. Nevertheless, your commentary indicates to me why you want to distract, as your complaints are not materially different from Ishanoglou's! No, Robert's was not attempt to reframe the discussion when he asked you to refer to him any commentary you find offensive. He seemed to me to merely be discerning the difference between his advocating for each position conveyed by posters to this site, and the pragmatic realities of operating a very popular site that is open to the public. Sort of reminds me of erring on side of our First Amendment, rather than closing down a forum of discussion because someone my say something that some may find nasty or distasteful.

Your comment that, "frankly there are too many" comments of which you disapprove is extremely telling, though. How many would that be? Perhaps, one, IbrahimX? Since you don't run the site, it doesn't seem to me you're in a position to be the arbiter. Furthermore, a full-time censor just to make sure you feel better seems very similar to the subject that precipitated this thread in the first place. If you don't feel good hearing things, perhaps an old addage parents teach to their children will come in handy. It starts, "Sticks and stones...."

You then move on to complain in another post that, "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." Irrelevant? Wellllll, hello Mr. Ishanoglou!! Glad to meet you! Are we to just take the next "logical" step and close down the site, our press and outlaw sandwich-boards just in case someone lets slip an opinion of islam that is at odds with even a single muslim (or other individual for that matter)? How long then before you label everyone as a nutjob because of their dissenting opinion, Ibrahim?

In case you've missed the relevant nuance of freedom, Robert is not enabling ANYONE to make ANY statements. That happens to be their choice in our free society, and you don't seem to like it much I dare say. Perhaps Robert provides an unintended forum for them, but again, it is his decision to determine how and when to cut off someone's access to JW readership. That you abhor certain comments seems more to be a problem for your sensitivities...

Your point that racists, white-supremacists and others with extreme viewpoints align with the anti-jihad movement is likely correct; however, it is natural they would do so considering their core "values." Are you truly concerned that their presence/commentary on this site will degrade its effectiveness? Or do you use that as an excuse to foist onto Mr. Spencer a full-time censor? I suspect that chief among your reasons for the censorship is to be in the position to immediately disparage Robert Spencer and JW readers as "(pick your own tired descriptor)" when the first offending comment gets past the censor.

For those occasions when anyone finds something on JW they don't like, they can inform Mr. Spencer of their concerns, as is prominently recommended by Mr. Spencer. If the comment remains, he disagrees with the complainant; but if he removes it, they've done him a service. Your fear, Ibrahim, that the mere presence of particular commentary will perpetuate "old hatreds" exemplifies your lack of confidence in the ability of the enlightened readers of JW -- hell, humanity at large -- to see or contemplate a thought without accepting it. (Props to Socrates for that one!) In no way does an occasional inappropriate comment weaken the logic and rectitude of anti islamic-submission dialogue. Or is that what you actually fear?

You see, Ibrahim, ideas only take hold as memes in societies according to their merit. Except, of course, when the concepts of one group are at odds with the desires of others and must be force-fed as the only acceptable point of view under penalty of law or death. Sort of exactly like islam and its continuous attempts to force submission on the world-at-large. In enlightened societies, specifically the USA, there is no need for the enforcement or exclusion of thought. Some rather insightful folks recognized that in order for society to succeed, humans MUST have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those same folks crafted our Constitution to ensure the perpetuation of successful society based on the needs of humans as freedom demands. That includes our freedom to think and speak, regardless of the petty whining any person engages in because of what someone else might say. Threats or violence are sanctioned as crimes, and should be punished, not the author of "offending" words. The insidious attempts to limit freedom are not criminal -- of course and thank God -- but they are transparent and Americans will not tolerate them. So, sorry for the digression, but it sort of brings us full circle back to point of this thread, doesn't it, Ibrahim?

Posted by: Gondemar at February 16, 2008 7:05 PM

Naseem foolishly states:

".... is no match for the disciplined life of the muslims"

I find this statement to be idiotic & foolish, at best, on any given thread where Muslims are featured on this forum, but especially on this thread.

Note the headline, Naseem. Muslims are rioting in the streets by burning banners over a silly cartoon; which is hardly the response of a "disciplined" individual, as you allege, and instead it shows a TOTAL lack of self-control.

I would say that Muslims are completely UNDISIPLINED in nearly every way imaginable, so excuse me for laughing and for wholeheartedly disagreeing with you.

Disciplined. You're a funny one, Naseem. LOL!

Posted by: champ at February 16, 2008 7:06 PM

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

It's Islamic Jihad by another name. Birds of a feather flock together. JihadWatch is an Outdoor-cats sight. Someday, in the far future, somebody will say "Frank got it right. And the "Outdoor-cats" finally defeated the birds of ill omen. It was the outddor-cats that made the difference".

Posted by: Frank at February 16, 2008 7:10 PM

ibrahim X,

Seriously, just knock it off and move along. --posted by awake.

Get real, and quite frankly, get lost.

Posted by: awake at February 16, 2008 4:11 PM

Uh Huh. Especially since YOU are the "nutjob" and "bigot" Ibrahim!

GET LOST! Good Riddance you nutjob bigot!

Posted by: darcy at February 16, 2008 7:43 PM

Oh yes, champ - Mohammedans are the MOST "undisciplined" people around! Gotta love all those riots, burning buildings, mass-murders of innocent people. My God, so evil and so "undisciplined." Nasseem is a brainwashed fool, we all know that. Have to pity her.

Oh, and nutjob bigot Ibrahim, too.

Posted by: darcy at February 16, 2008 7:46 PM

Oh, and Ibrahim, "hateful statements" CAN be made about Mohammedans as THEY are the most hate-filled peoples on the planet (see: Qur'an). Oh, also see 9/11, 3/11, 7/7 and over 10,000 Islamic murders and mass-murders since those mass-murders.

Islam/Mo/Koran DESERVE to be "hated" - just like Naziism/Hitler/Mein Kampf. Any questions?

Posted by: darcy at February 16, 2008 7:51 PM

Hey, darcy! I don't know what "discipline" Naseem is referring too; unless she's talking about the disciplined dose of headbanging they perform five times a day to brainwash their mind in prayer -- that takes discipline.

Or perhaps she means the consistent acts of routine rioting and tailor-made terrorism, that takes discipline, too. Yep, Muslims are disciplined alright - disciplined thugs that is. But why would she brag about it? She must be a proud Mohammadean cult follower, because nothing else makes sense.

Islam - where it doesn't HAVE to make sense - and where no thinking is required.

Posted by: champ at February 16, 2008 8:23 PM

When you think about it, this treatment I have received from Robert Spencer and Jihadwatch isn't different from the way Islamists treat those who disagree with them Just because I take issue with an element of Jihad watch I am automatically deemed an enemy of Jihadwatch, and in alignment with the terrorists. In the subsequent posts Muslims were referred to as "evil" and called called "Mohammedians" even though RS said he founds such posts objectionable. I am wondering if he would allow grossly racist anti-jewish remarks on his comments section, as much as he'd disagree with them. My guess would be no.

In the end, the anti-Islamist crusade seems to be its own cult, with anger and hatred thrown the way of members who deviate from the cult's positions even the least bit.

Posted by: ibrahimX at February 16, 2008 9:18 PM

How disingenuous, ibi.

Wait until the thread settles down for a thread ending, self-pitying, pretensiously moralizing soliloquy. And to think, I even tried to help you by commending your occasional positive statements (e.g. free speech, not that you fully comprehend what that is).

Still waiting for you to respond to 510413 and 510442 above. Until you do, I don't respect that you and I have resolved, given your thinly veiled Islamist apologetics, that you are not to be "automatically deemed an enemy of Jihadwatch, and in alignment with the terrorists".

Put up or shut up.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 16, 2008 9:31 PM

this treatment I have received from Robert Spencer and Jihadwatch isn't different from the way Islamists treat those who disagree with them - Ibe

Oh, come on. Your head is still attached, and we haven't burned you in effigy. We haven't even given you an "Indian burn." Or noogies. (Or, from another common angle, a lawsuit). Nor have we threatened to do any of the aforementioned.

Might be worth revisiting the thing up top about "their radicals" and "our radicals."

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 16, 2008 9:39 PM

Put up with what, CC? Your tirades don't contain much in the way of argument. All they do is accuse me of wanting to "divert attention away" from the topic (in other words, accuse me of supporting Islamo-fascism) while at the same missing the point of my posts. I enjoy a good argument, CC, but you seem like a bad one. No thanks.

Posted by: ibrahimX at February 16, 2008 9:41 PM

"Just because I take issue with an element of Jihad watch"

What B.S. You refused above to even attempt to be a part of the "solution", which made it clear YOU only intend to opportunisticaly capitalize on the "problem". I personally have reported several problematic posts. I have had a few deleted, and rightfully so. The system works.

You actually expect someone with Robert's speaking schedule, book deadlines, and the number of articles he reviews for the site, to have the time to police the comments, on numerous threads simultaneously. I've spent all day just trying to track your sorry posts on one thread.

But no, you don't actually expect him to be able to do that. You just want the comments shut down, because you realize this is where people can actually learn to articulate and debate problems inherent in Islamic ideology, learn to spot and disable the common deflections, dissimulations and logical fallacies. If you feel like the hospitality is lacking, consider you are the new visitor who has barged in preaching the same crap we heard yesterday from the last apologist. You didn't get any points for originality.

"divert attention"

That was Gondemar. I asked you to address the following topics:

1) Causality for the riots
"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". Why is my holding up Jesus supposed to be of less importance to peace than your holding up Mohammad?

Why exactly am I to respect your "opinion" here?

2) Attempted imposition of Islamic mandates
"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? Are we supposed to be bound by your "taboo"?

Why exactly am I to respect your "opinion" here?

3) The inappropriate rage response and impulse control of Muslims
"Those people are really pissed off--but they need to channel that anger into a civilized form of protest."

Their reaction is illogical and inappropriate. Actually, they should mature into a civilization without need for protest at a trivial cartoon that actually (metaphysically or otherwise) harms NO ONE, and they have no valid reason for their disproportionate response.

Why exactly am I to respect your "opinion" here?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 16, 2008 9:54 PM

Clarification,

Robert has deleted ALL of the posts I personally complained about. JW has delete a few of my personal posts, of which I'm not proud, but his doing so was appropriate and I recognized it immediately when it was done.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 16, 2008 9:59 PM

In the subsequent posts Muslims were referred to as "evil" and called called "Mohammedians" even though RS said he founds such posts objectionable. I am wondering if he would allow grossly racist anti-jewish remarks on his comments section, as much as he'd disagree with them. My guess would be no.

Since you're throwing the gauntlet by claiming that you enjoy a good argument, take on this one for size.

A person can't choose his or her race: one can change one's loyalties, such as citizenship, religious affiliations and the like, but one can't change one's ethnicity, skin color, ancestrial origins, et al. Thus, one can't do much about the fact that one's ethnically an Arab, Iranian, Malay, Turk, sub-continental Indian, et al, no matter what cultural attributes one tries to alter. In other words, I, for one, can't become a White or a Hispanic or a Black just because I feel like it - just doesn't happen!

But a person can choose his/her loyalties, be it to country, religion, political and ideological affiliations. Therefore, just because somebody is any of the above ethnicities doesn't meant that that person has to remain a Muslim. (S)he can be an Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu or follow any of the world's myriad religions, and still belong to one's race or ethnicity.

So when the posters you complain about refer to Muslims as evil, they are obviously stating that by not dissociating themselves from Islam (which is what makes them Muslims in the first place), they are implicitly endorsing the virulent as well as the innocuous components of Islam, and therefore qualify for that description. From that, it's quite clear that all that a Muslim has to do is apostatize a la Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, et al, and they won't be subjected to the attacks from the people you refer to. While it's true that the overwhelming number of Muslims in the world are non-White, most of the comments you refer to attack Muslims for their belief system, rather than their skin color: I've been around since 2005, and I don't see much attacks on Hindus, Buddhists and a whole host of non-White peoples who also happen to be non-Muslim. Incidentally, I've been called racist by a Muslim here called 'defenderofislam' for attacking Bangladeshi Jihadis, even though I happen to belong to the same 'race' as they do.

As for Mohammedan, I know why Muslims find that objectionable, but the whole point of that is that Islam, as we see it, is a cult of Mohammed. Groups like the Branch Davidians, Heavensgate, Aum Shinrikyo and Scientology are generally disdained to dispised, and the sum total of everything they've done throughout their history doesn't come close to anything the Muslims did in their mildest years. Yet, people are expected to disdain them, while at the same time, according Islam the same deference that they show to mainstream religions such as Judaism or Hinduism. Calling them Mohammedans is our way of equating the followers of Islam with these cults - a message that doesn't quite come clear when standard terms, such as 'Muslims' are used.

I look forward to your good argument against this. Prove me wrong!

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 16, 2008 10:22 PM

My protocol for requesting a post deletion:

Open your e-mail program. Copy and paste (control c and v) the following into the text field:

1) the address of the thread from the address bar.
2) the entire line "Posted by: ..." including the date and time, or hover over the hypertext in that line and jot down the post number.
3) the offensive part of the post.

Send to:

director@jihadwatch.org

Title the email "Request post deletion".

Include a note explaining why it was objectionable. Thank Mr. Spencer for his time.

The above has worked for me every time. Takes about a minute to do.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 16, 2008 10:37 PM

Concerned Citizen--

Much appreciated.

One thing that speeds things up even more for us is copying the link from the timestamp so we can click right to it from the email.

And thanks again for taking the time to send them along.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 16, 2008 10:43 PM

Islam is a cartoon.

A Mad-magazine parody of the Talmud and New Testament.

Done by "The Usual Gang of Idiots", -otherwise known as the ayatollahs, imams and mullahs.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 16, 2008 11:41 PM

It's simple.

Cut and paste the comment. Provide the link to the thread. Put in your e-mail subject title: "moderator?"

Nuff said.

It couldn't be easier.

As a side note, why anyone is still engaging 'ibahimX', is beyond me.

Nitey-nite.

Posted by: awake at February 16, 2008 11:53 PM

I have reread all of ibrahimX posts. You are one of two types of provocateur.

One, you really believe in multi culturalism and that hate speech is negative and has no place in society.

Two, you are a muslim and are only practicing you deceit on use by diverting the thread away to a red herring of 'white supremest'. And trying to shut down debate and exchange of information.

I would love to hear your answer. You only need say 'One' or 'Two'. You will probably never say two if it were true, however. If one, you have many things wrong about the character of man and don't believe free thinking people can discern what is true or not when people post.

All in all, you used the words hate and racism and bigot in characterizing posters on the site. That is what most people use when they disagree with what is being discussed here.

If you are man enough and just answer by typing in three small character and nothing more I will respect you for your honesty.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at February 16, 2008 11:54 PM

Awake--

By the way, thanks for the comment you left on the Elbiary thread. Well said.

Mad props.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 17, 2008 1:00 AM

The nature of these threads is that one ends up being a lone voice going up against a chorus. CC suggests that I expect Robert himself to moderate the forums. But I never suggested such a thing--Robert can easily delegate that task to the hordes that follow him.

All I've said is that his disclaimer isn't sufficient enough to prevent the message of Jihadwatch from being contaminated by rabid Christians (who are so sure Mohamed was false but that Jesus was right) and every day bigots (that hate "multiculturalism" and the Mexicans) who are all too eager to latch on to anti-jihadism for their own reasons. Up thread, Robert essentially suggested that perhaps such an alliance is a necessary evil, so I'm going to guess terms like Mohammedian/evil muslim/etc must not bother him despite his disclaimer which, it would seem, is about as genuine as a similar disclaimer being put up by the people who run stormfront.

Concern Citizen further suggests that all I want is to have the comments shut down. No, not really--I don't particularly care if the various hate sites that exist online continue to flourish. But at least those people are honest and upfront about their stance. They generally don't hide behind a disclaimer. If Robert is embarrassed enough by the frequent disturbing comments to put up a disclaimer I am wondering why he simply doesn't screen out such comments in the first place. Whether he likes it or not those commentators who make such statements are speaking for him--and he for them by acting so unconcerned about the nature of their comments.

Concern Citizens also questions me about my stance on the rioting over cartoons issue. As I said, I think its ridiculous for them to get worked over something like that and the more they do so the more they proof the cartoonists point. The injunction against portraying Mohamed only applies to Muslims and non-muslims need not honor it.

Another poster suggests that all Muslims need to do to avoid being called "Mohamedian" and "evil" is to renounce their religion, which, to be honest, is a pathetically inhumane view, because if it is the case that Muslims derive meaning and purpose from their religion--and they do--then one would realize that they can't give up such a psychological and social attachment so easily. Muslims calling people of other faiths "kuffar" is wrong--and so is calling Muslims a name he did not choose for themselves like "Mohamedian." Why Robert tolerates that comment I have no idea. It's like calling black people Negro or something.

Posted by: ibrahimX at February 17, 2008 1:38 AM

is a pathetically inhumane view, because if it is the case that Muslims derive meaning and purpose from their religion--and they do--then one would realize that they can't give up such a psychological and social attachment so easily.

Derivation of meaning and purpose is all well & good, but given the significance of what Islam has meant for non-Muslims worldwide - not just in dar ul Islam - it's not unreasonable to demand that Muslims jettison Islam. If all Muslims were just following the 5 pillars, and not calling for the elimination of disbelief during the khutba all the time, then nobody would grudge them the inner peace that one inevitably would experience stoning shaitan in Mecca. It's all fine for you to say that it's wrong of Muslims to call us 'kuffar', but that isn't something that Hasan al Ba'ana or Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomenei came up with: it's right there in the Quran in 9:28. So you are welcome to disavow certain ugly aspects of Islam, but that doesn't make them less Islamic.

In addition to all that, you forget that there is no way of filtering out your type of Muslim from the more aggressive Muslim supremacists, and therefore, we have no choice but to regard all Muslims as our adversaries.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 17, 2008 2:44 AM

IbrahimX wrote:

"But I never suggested such a thing--Robert can easily delegate that task to the hordes that follow him."

But those "hordes" are, according to IbrahimX, part of the problem. He is calling for the wolves to guard the hen-house. Either he's very stupid, or trying to be very clever.

"All I've said is that his disclaimer isn't sufficient enough [sic] to prevent the message of Jihadwatch from being contaminated by rabid Christians (who are so sure Mohamed was false but that Jesus was right)..."

How are these "rabid Christians" any different from mainstream Muslims who are "so sure Mohammed was right but the Christian Jesus was false"?

"...and every day bigots (that hate "multiculturalism" and the Mexicans) who are all too eager to latch on to anti-jihadism for their own reasons."

The comments of this type of bigot are easy to spot, and from my experience and most everybody here, are pretty quickly deleted. Go ahead, here's a challenge: find us 3 comments from the Jihad Watch archives including the present month that express racist bigotry against any ethnic group. Copy-paste them with their nicknames and time/date stamp.

"Up thread, Robert essentially suggested that perhaps such an alliance is a necessary evil"

No: Spencer said that just because racist bigots might be anti-Muslim, that does not make everyone who is anti-Islam a racist bigot. Just because one can find serial killers who hate peanut butter, does that make everyone who hates peanut butter a serial killer? (There is the parallel issue Spencer raised of the West's alliance with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler: here is where a more fruitful disagreement could be raised, if IbrahimX had the intelligence to do so -- though even then, he might not be able to muster a convincing argument; for he would have to refute someone as formidable as Churchill to do so.)

"so I'm going to guess terms like Mohammedian/evil muslim/etc must not bother him..."

Here, on this circumscribed point, I would have to agree with IbrahimX, insofar as IMO Spencer has not sufficiently clarified the issue of where JW stands with regard to the "Is Islam itself evil" or not question. If Islam is evil, then any conscious and enthusiastic follower of Islam would also be evil. I have seen many comments that reflect this view on JW (for Pete's sake, I am one of them!). Does such a view constitute a sufficiently "offensive" view to warrant being deleted? I of course don't think so. But the question is reasonable to pose to Spencer for definitive clarification.

"Concern Citizen further suggests that all I want is to have the comments shut down. No, not really--I don't particularly care if the various hate sites that exist online continue to flourish. But at least those people are honest and upfront about their stance. They generally don't hide behind a disclaimer."

So it looks like IbrahimX is in fact attempting something a little more sly than Concerned Citizen posited: he doesn't want JW "shut down" -- but what he seems to want is JW exposed as a "hate site", by abandoning its disclaimer which serves the purpose of camouflaging its true intent.

"If Robert is embarrassed enough by the frequent disturbing comments to put up a disclaimer I am wondering why he simply doesn't screen out such comments in the first place."

Robert (and others) already explained to Ibrahim why.

"Whether he likes it or not those commentators who make such statements are speaking for him"

IbrahimX still needs to cite "such statements" he is referring to. Merely referring to them in the abstract is not enough. Ibrahim is accusing Spencer and JW of a fault: he needs to supply actual evidence. He has failed to do so. (There is also, of course, the problem of who decides what is an unacceptable comment: one suspects that an IbrahimX would not be the best judge of what is an unacceptable comment. Certainly, that determination should not be made by one commenter. (I don't even like the idea of Spencer determining that, frankly; I think it should be done by a consensus -- which would entail expanding JW into more of a community that shares in the process.)

"Another poster suggests that all Muslims need to do to avoid being called "Mohamedian" and "evil" is to renounce their religion, which, to be honest, is a pathetically inhumane view, because if it is the case that Muslims derive meaning and purpose from their religion--and they do--then one would realize that they can't give up such a psychological and social attachment so easily."

IMO, such a view does not constitute bigotry, even though it is a strong repudiation. It should be accepted as a condemnation of Islam, an opinion that should be part of a community of free speech. What determines crossing the line is what a person wants to DO on the basis of thinking that Islam is to be condemned: does he want to kill all Muslims?
Or does he have in mind less extreme, but still strong measures to keep his culture safe from what he considers to be an unjust and dangerous ideology?

"Muslims calling people of other faiths "kuffar" is wrong"

Then the Koran itself is wrong, for it does so many, many times. And even more so the Sunna.

"[Calling Muslims "Mohammedans] is like calling black people Negro or something."

Yes, it is like that, insofar as "Negro" has been deemed to be the "incorrect" term to use, just as "Mohammedan" is deemed to be "incorrect". But other than that, the analogy fails. There are cogent reasons for calling Muslims "Mohammedans", which were pointed out to IbrahimX above. When hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world worry about what hand to eat their food with or how to urinate or defecate and how to walk into, and out from, bathrooms -- and a 1,001 other things to do in their daily lives -- on the basis of what Mohammed said to do, and not to do -- and when they riot and threaten death over a fiction novel (Salman Rushdie), Mohammed cartoons, and a Mohammed teddy bear: it is eminently reasonable to call such slavish and fanatically intense admirers and followers of al-Insan al-Kamil and Uswa Hasana -- Mohammed, the "Perfect Man" and the "Model of Conduct" for all people -- Mohammedans.

Posted by: cantor at February 17, 2008 3:19 AM

"we have no choice but to regard all Muslims as our adversaries."

I completely agree, IP. And if the Muslims that comment on JW are as good as it gets in terms of being "moderate", then all the more reason for me to keep my distance. Because from what I've read & personally experienced from the so-called peaceful Muslims that visit this forum, I would be afraid to even have them as acquaintances, let alone as friends.

Posted by: champ at February 17, 2008 3:21 AM

Ibrahim,

"I don't particularly care if the various hate sites that exist online continue to flourish. But at least those people are honest and upfront about their stance. They generally don't hide behind a disclaimer."

"Robert essentially suggested that perhaps such an alliance is a necessary evil,"

First, Robert said just the opposite, giving examples of such "alliances" he eshewed. You here are portraying him now as WORSE than "hate sites", because he has a disclaimer. Surely, Ibrahim, you can see your own point as a clumsy slight of hand. You won't spend ONE MINUTE reporting a violation, but he is worse than "the varisous hate sites" for not paying not one but several full time, 24/7/365, holidays, weekends, no vacations, moderators.

You've made several other comments that I would like to query you on, to determine if you are practicing taqiyya, or you are just ignorant of your faith.

(Note to Awake: Because he reminds me so much of a Muslim who dropped his faith right here on one of these threads.)

1) "The injunction against portraying Mohamed only applies to Muslims and non-muslims need not honor it"
2) "Muslims calling people of other faiths "kuffar" is wrong--"

Is your basis for these opinions based in the Qur'an and Sunnah? If it became clear that this opinion ran counter to these sources, and the historical jurists' interpretations, would you maintain your opinions and leave Islam, or would you change your opinions to be consonant with these sources? This is not a trivial question.

3) "if it is the case that Muslims derive meaning and purpose from their religion--and they do--then one would realize that they can't give up such a psychological and social attachment so easily"

The point is not the ease of the transition, it is the propriety of it. The term "Mohammedan" as a descriptor of a slavish, acerebral imitator of the prophet, accepting of his warts and all as "perfect", offends you. Okay. But you sidestepped the question of whether you tacitly approve of the "virulent as well as the innocuous components of Islam".

Please understand that from our "rabid Christian" background we accept the following:

2 Timothy 2:15
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
Acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

That is, we can reasonably expect you to be reasonably knowledgeable and able to defend Islam, and to have the integrity to leave it if you find yourself at odds with it, ignoring the personal costs. If you would be so "Noble" as to explain how and why you are not to be painted with the same stripe as a literal adherent as Ruhollah Khomeini, al Ba'ana or bin Laden, then please explain how your manner of dividing the word of truth varies from them. That is, it is insufficient to say you are a moderate member, knowing we believe it to be a murderous cult, without explaining why and how you are so. More succinctly, what is your personal hermaneutic that should assuage us to divest you of personal responsibility for the "virulent" passages?

I disagree with a poster above, you are not "welcome to disavow" portions of Islam with a wave of the hand. I would like to know what your procedure is, what flavor of reformist you are.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 17, 2008 5:31 AM

IbrahimX continues to reveal himself as a provocateur:

When you think about it, this treatment I have received from Robert Spencer and Jihadwatch isn't different from the way Islamists treat those who disagree with them...

Minus the beheadings, threats of blood and murder, etc., of course.

All I've said is that his disclaimer isn't sufficient enough to prevent the message of Jihadwatch from being contaminated by rabid Christians (who are so sure Mohamed was false but that Jesus was right) and every day bigots (that hate "multiculturalism" and the Mexicans) who are all too eager to latch on to anti-jihadism for their own reasons. Up thread, Robert essentially suggested that perhaps such an alliance is a necessary evil...

Cantor expressed this well above: "No: Spencer said that just because racist bigots might be anti-Muslim, that does not make everyone who is anti-Islam a racist bigot."

IbrahimX above took issue with my characterization of him as a jihadist provocateur, out to defame our work at this site. But of that I am more convinced than ever.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 17, 2008 5:40 AM

He most certainly is Robert. He is a troll making long comments that have nothing to do with the orignal article.

Interesting to note that he does not respond to the offence given by the Qu'ran for its use of hate-filled language towards non-believers.

And that all of the accusations he makes against commenters on JW can be applied to every Muslim who reads the Qu'ran and accepts the hatred within it as the will of God.

The Qu'ran is offensive. Islam is offensive. And this troll Ibrahim X is offensive.

If the Muslims keep spewing forth hatred and intolernace towards non-believers they should not be surprised when the non-believers respond in kind.

And there is a lot of hatred to respond to isn't there?

Posted by: Britannia's Lion at February 17, 2008 6:06 AM

Preterism sucks---or you could say that an examination of its biblical strength is a real stretch. A real stretch of scripture to prove that God is done with Nation Isreal.

Posted by: guide inside at February 17, 2008 9:26 AM

this treatment I have received from Robert Spencer and Jihadwatch isn't different from the way Islamists treat those who disagree with them - Ibe

Oh, come on. Your head is still attached, and we haven't burned you in effigy. We haven't even given you an "Indian burn." Or noogies. (Or, from another common angle, a lawsuit). Nor have we threatened to do any of the aforementioned.

Uh Huh, Marisol, I thought the same thing. Well, it's obvious that the "treatment" from Islamists and "treatment" from non-Islamists is as different as night and day. That was an easy one to refute!

Posted by: darcy at February 17, 2008 10:13 AM

"Christians (who are so sure Mohamed was false but that Jesus was right)" --Ibrahim the Provacateur

You put "rabid" in front of Christians, Ibrahim, but just "Christians" will do fine!

Oh yes, anyone with their brain cells working can easily discern that Mohammed was a con man with a big con and a big sword behind the con. Voila - Islam. Yes, he is definitely a false "prophet."

Yes again, Jesus is all-good, not all-evil as Mohammed the human Warlord mass-murderer, and is without doubt a true Prophet of God (not "allah" that doesn't exist).

You got it right! Great!

As to the appellation "Mohammedans." You call me "Infidel" and "Unbeliever" in the Qur'an, and I believe the "apes and pigs" description applies to Christians as well as Jews. And, you call for my and my religion's annihilation. Well, guess what? To me you are a Mohammedan. And I can definitely say that. Again, anyone with their brain cells in operation can discern by reading the Qur'an that there is no "allah" - just Moahmmed who "wrote" the Q by dictating it to followers who wrote on animal skins or dried plants or rocks! Therefore, you worship Mohammed, as "allah" doesn't exist, which makes you a Mohammedan. Sorry if you don't like it - too bad. I couldn't care less. Get over yourselves - you're NOT the "superior peoples" as Mo hornswaggled you with. Deal with it. Oh, and while you're dealing with it, could you try and not burn down any buildings, kill innocent people, behead anyone? Thanks - your restraint is much appreciated.

Posted by: darcy at February 17, 2008 10:36 AM

I daresay Ibrahim just couldn't wait to drop the phrase Mohammedans love so much - "hate site."

Well, no, it's a truth site. About Islam.

However, regarding the much-maligned word "hate" these days - Hate is quite a useful emotion. It enables us to distinguish between things we should like and things we shouldn't. For example, Naziism is worthy of being hated. If we didn't have the word hate - what would we do? Love Naziism? Yes, and that's insane.

Similarly, Islam is worthy of being hated. For as many reasons as Naziism is worthy of being hated.

Here's what I, and many, many others, consider to be a "hate site" - the Qur'an. The Qur'an is just one big Hate Fest of everyone who isn't Islamic, courtesy psycho Warlord Mo.

Posted by: darcy at February 17, 2008 11:04 AM

"you could say that an examination of its biblical strength is a real stretch."

Maybe you could suggest another site where you would like to show that you've done that. Start with the phrases "This generation", "coming soon", and "will soon come to pass". Nothing is more "stretched" or tortured than the dispensational rendering of those phrases.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that pre-trib dispensationalists, almost always ignorant of any other interpretation, come on this site and out of nowhere start bleating up their dogma as fact. It does no service to this site or Chrisitanity. Identifying it as dispensationalism always seems to give them pause.

Yeah, so-called "full" preterism "sucks". God's not finished with any of us, even for a thousand years.

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 17, 2008 12:02 PM

ibrahimX -

The only one currently turning this site into a 'hate site' is you - and others like who - who come on here and attack Robert and the Truth.

Darcy got it right when she called this a Truth Site. Here, here!

Posted by: champ at February 17, 2008 12:04 PM

ibrahimX,

It would be better to view this site as a truth about Islam and jihad site. Besides political correctness creates more problems then needed.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 17, 2008 2:59 PM

IbrahimX --

To put a fine point on what others have already honed sharp, the bottom line is that you don't seem capable of handling opinions that are critical of you or your beliefs. Fortunately for us, our First Amendment makes that YOUR burden to carry, regardless of how you may otherwise care to shift the responsibility for your tender sensitivities to others.

Here's my final suggestion to you: If seeing or hearing words hurts your feelings so much, stay home and out of danger! And by all means, don't accept as truth any concepts with which you disagree! Please feel free to pass that on to Mr. Ishanoglou and all your friends in Jordan, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and all the other bastions of freedom and good conscience in the world.

Posted by: Gondemar at February 17, 2008 3:32 PM

Dear Concerned,
Im 'concerned' about the validity of your posts about preterism as I gage any posts by how many insults accompany them. What would de-validate would be---Credential questioning and "ignorant of any other interpretation", "come out of nowhere" and "bleating up their dogma". all assumptions on your part with out knowing anything about me.

My post just simply said, in my humble opinion of course, that preterism lacks a strong Biblical foundation to stand on. It included no insults toward you. I am sure you are a fine 'citizen' and I value your obvious study and the scripture reference even though I might differ on the subject of preterism.

Best in Him,
And lets keep on with scholarship.

Posted by: guide inside at February 17, 2008 6:13 PM

Preterism sucks---or you could say that an examination of its biblical strength is a real stretch. A real stretch of scripture to prove that God is done with Nation Isreal.

Guide,

I, of course, stand by my opinion as well, and apologize that I found the word "sucks" provocative, and the unsupported dismissiveness and equating with Replacement Theology somewhat offensive.

I do thank God, however, that we can as current day Christians critically examine our scriptures, have disagreements, even resolve to disagree, and, unlike another "competing" religion, nobody's head has to be chopped off. No rioting, no burning cars or "Rage Boy" fits.

Peace.

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 17, 2008 7:18 PM

Somebody defended the term "Mohamedian" as being okay to use because Islam is a cult of Muhammed, as if all religions aren't some sort of cults. This defense is the equivalent of saying that it is okay to call black people 'negroes' because they are in fact negroes. The hypocrisy of Jihadwatch readers knows no bounds. It is also shocking that Robert Spencer seems perfectly fine with the use of such an outdated term.

Cantor challenges me to find "three statements" that indicate racial hatred. But the challenge misses my point entirely--I am not saying that the Jihadwatch comments section is racist. I am saying that the Jihadwatch comments section is pretty bigoted, and bigotry need not be racial in nature.

Some posters suggest that I am a muslim and that I should defend the faith from that viewpoint. But, as I explained in another thread some time ago, I am an agnostic leaning towards atheism. If I were to become religious again I would surely turn to Islam as, I believe, it probably offers more religious fulfillment and meaning to its followers than other religions. I think that particular fulfillment and sense of meaning carry a heavy price which we see ail the Islamic world--but the meaning and fulfillment are undoubtedly there try as Jihadwatch readers might to suggest that Islam is all bad. But the chance of my turning religious is pretty slim thanks to Richard Dawkins and the like.

Someone else took issue with my statement that Christians hold up Jesus while putting down Mohammed. This person largely missed my point that such a stance is absurd and childish as a reaction to Islamic extremism that takes the same position to other religions.

Someone else called Mohamed a con. Well sir, I think we can potentially claim the same about all religious figures and religious texts. So what's the point?

Just as I hope that Islam rids itself of its bad elements, so too do I hope that Jihadwatch rids itself of the bigotry and pointless hate that mar its important message. Too bad its creator doesn't seem overly concerned.

kind regards,

~ibrahimX

Posted by: ibrahimX at February 17, 2008 9:24 PM

IbrahimX:

Just as I hope that Islam rids itself of its bad elements, so too do I hope that Jihadwatch rids itself of the bigotry and pointless hate that mar its important message. Too bad its creator doesn't seem overly concerned.

You're a clever smear artist and an artful liar, but you're not as clever as you think.

What you have done here is say that various comments -- with no specific examples -- manifest bigotry. I asked you to alert me to them so I could remove them. You declined, and then accused me of not being concerned about them -- slyly implying that I secretly agree with them.

In reality, I have made my position clear: I do not hold such sentiments, I oppose and deplore them. I do not have the resources to monitor comments at all times. I therefore ask people to notify me of objectionable comments, and I'll see that they're removed. To any person of good will, which clearly at this point does not include you, that would be enough.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 17, 2008 9:36 PM

Ibi,

Too bad its creator doesn't seem overly concerned.

Just can't pass up the last-post parting potshot at Robert, eh? Now I hope he bans you. Sad, you could probably have contributed usefully here.

If I were to become religious again I would surely turn to Islam as, I believe, it probably offers more religious fulfillment and meaning to its followers than other religions. I think that particular fulfillment and sense of meaning carry a heavy price which we see ail the Islamic world--but the meaning and fulfillment are undoubtedly there try as Jihadwatch readers might to suggest that Islam is all bad.

Meaning and fulfillment.

How about truth? There is no historical basis for the Islamic claims about all the pre-7th century prophet being proto-Muslim, and no extant archaeological or textual evidence. Just an internally contradictory book dictated by a marauding, warmongering, wife-stealing, sex-obsessed, pedophilic sadistic mass-murdering supremicist conscious religious imposter whose only ability to inspire "meaning and fulfillment" was from appropriated passages of pre-existing faith. THAT is the part of Islam that is not all bad, so why not get it from the source?

Someone else took issue with my statement that Christians hold up Jesus blah, blah, blah...

No, here is what you said:

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.

You're the one missing your own point. What you're saying is that Muslims are not responsible for their own actions if offended by the expressed tenets of another faith. What you're saying is that it's okay to laud Mohammad and denigrate Jesus, but to do the opposite is asking for trouble. You miss the point that it is NOT okay in Islam even in this world to worship any but Allah. Try it in Mecca during the next Hajj. THAT is the problem, and no amount of molly-coddling them here will change that.

And it is not "hate" to point that out.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 17, 2008 10:21 PM

Muslims ARE responsible for their own actions regardless of how offended they are. It is not my position here to absolve Muslims of any such responsibility. I may not like that the term "Mohammdian" is used on this forum, but I am surely not going to burn down anything as a reaction. Instead I am going to use my freedom of speech to argue against usage of the term and to put pressure on those that do. Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion/argument. Have a good one. (And I am not going to hold back anything in fear of being banned.
If others can freely say the term "Mohammedian" here then I think it would be exceedingly hypocritical of Spencer to ban me for criticizing him for being so nonchalant about how frequently the term is employed on his own forum.)

~Ibe

Posted by: ibrahimX at February 17, 2008 11:02 PM

Wow, I think we've made some progress. It boils down to one term?

I am going to use my freedom of speech to argue against usage of the term...

Start here. I'll be honest, I'm one of those who just doesn't see what is offensive about the term, besides that some people, who don't seem to find it problematic to be affiliated with those that want to take away my rights and head by imposing shariah, feel that it may lead to idolatry and they otherwise just don't like it. Is that enough, if the use of the term is from the other side's perspective is pedagogical?

I'll be even more honest. I'd never consider using the term if the vast majority of Muslims were more proactive in rooting out "extremist" elements and supported a vibrant reformation in Islam, beginning by participating in an honest reappraisal of Mohammad's example to be imitated (this would include redress of 33:21).

I'd even swear off using the term if you or someone else here made a damn good argument against it.

..and to put pressure on those that do.

You mean by heckling Robert?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 17, 2008 11:52 PM

Citizen,
Yes, thank God no one has lost their head and we are not 'rage boys'. In hind sight, I must admit that as soon as I posted with the word 'sucks' I regreted it, but it was too late to alter, as you know. Not that some things do suck, but I realized that was a bit strong. Please, to forgive.

Isnt that the dramatic difference, agreeing to disagree, rather than issuing a 'hit' as does the 'religion' of this discussion often does?

I guess I could have used the term 'blows', instead.-- Just kidding, just kidding!
Seriously, I find in study, scriptures that seem to validate almost all views put forth by different scholars and denominations, but as you indicate, some things wont be known fully just yet. Many years ago I owned a Christian bookstore and from time to time had to ask Christians to 'take it outside' as their 'discussion' was getting to the shouting stage and they were rapidly de-evolving back to the stone age,(ready to stone each other). I believe the Lord expects so much more from us who say we follow His Love, Joy, and Peace.

P.S. Both scriptures you quoted happen to be favorites.

Posted by: guide inside at February 18, 2008 12:08 AM

ibrahimX

Thank you for answering my question. You just don't get it! I understand your POV completely, why don't you understand the other side? Or if you do, you so quickly dismiss it. What I see is misguided political correctness by your responses. Hope, you aren't offended? Do you honestly think these people will listen if we drop the Mo word? Heck, they're offended if we breath, because we are INFIDELS!

I have added a little explanation that may help you on your spiritual journey, hope it helps.

1 Corinthians 1:23-29
So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended, and the Gentiles say it's all nonsense. But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the mighty power of God and the wonderful wisdom of God. This "foolish" plan of God is far wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God's weakness is far stronger than the greatest of human strength. Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world's eyes, or powerful, or wealthy when God called you. Instead, God deliberately chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose those who are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important, so that no one can ever boast in the presence of God.

1 كورينثيانس 1:23-29
حتى اننا عندما يعظون ان كان المسيح المصلوب ، واليهود هم المتضرر ، والوثنيون نقول للجميع انها هراء. ولكن لتلك التي دعا اليها الله لخلاص كل من اليهود والوثنيون ، والمسيح هو الأقوياء قوة الله وحكمة الله راءعه. هذا "الغباء" خطة الله هو الآن اكثر حكمة من أحكم خطط البشريه ، وضعف الله اقوى مما هي الآن اكبر من القوة البشريه. تذكر ، أيها الاخوة والاخوات ، ان عددا قليلا من الحكمة ان كنتم في عيون العالم ، او قوته ، او الاثرياء عندما دعا الله لكم. وبدلا من ذلك ، اختار الله عمدا الأشياء في العالم تعتبر أحمق من اجل العار أولئك الذين يعتقدون أنهم عقلاء. واختار اولئك الذين عاجزات العار لمن هم الاقوياء. الله اختار الاشياء محتقر من العالم ، على انها امور لا شيء على الاطلاق ، واستخدمها لتحقيق شيء ما في العالم يعتبرها هامة ، وحتى ان احدا لا يمكن ان نتباهي من اي وقت مضى في وجود الله.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at February 18, 2008 12:32 AM

Firstly CC, the frequent use of the term on these threads is emblematic of the general bigoted view of Jihadatch readers. It is an example and not the whole. One can certainly find many hateful terms employed against Muslims. I know what you people must be wondering--why I am so concerned about how Jihadwatch treats Muslims and not why many Muslims are so intolerant.

The simple fact is, one does not get a chance like this to interact with those of the Muslim faith--at least on the web. In real life, I dare not risk offending muslims in fear for my physical well being, and I dare not argue with my family about the matter because they're my family and, even though they're secular, they have a cultural attachment to the image of Mohammed and Islam. Why should I try to wreck their sense of meaning and fulfillment? I would be as bad as the combative atheist who insists on telling Christians that there is no God. He may be right, but does he realize what he's depriving people of? But at least in the West that atheist needn't be afraid for his life. This is why I am extremely skeptical about Islam and hope for some new school of the faith that is at peace with fundamental Western values.

At the receiving end of anti-jihadism are, in addition to Jihadists, real people who have done nothing wrong except being accidentally born to a faith that both simultaneously enslaves and enriches their lives. I find the idea of such people--people like my family--becoming collateral damage of the anti-jihadist crusade to be abhorent and, quite frankly, frightening. This is why I oppose terms like "Mohammedian" and such: Once we dehumanize a people the horrors we enact upon them bother us less. Let's not begin this process.

kind regards,

~ibramim X

Posted by: ibrahimX at February 18, 2008 12:37 AM

IbrahimX --

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You don't offend muslims out of fear of physical harm; you are a skeptic of islam; and you find names and words to be too dangerous to countenance. Is that right?

You mentioned some sort of collateral damage of the anti-jihadist crusade. I'm not exactly certain which effort that may be, but I don't recall having seen incessant scenes of threats, violence and intimidation played out against non-jihadists on my television . Of course, since we have ostensibly been discussing cartoons and the rights of humans to disagree with, question and/or criticize islam, I presume you are truly frightened your family might be subjected to such a grisly horror as an unflattering rendering of mohammad.

It's a kind and practical gesture for you to abstain from criticizing what your family believes in, but that gesture cannot be mandated for others. Your example of the combative atheist who tells Christians there is no God really made no sense, but maybe your context fooled me. Anyway, let the atheist speak -- Christians do so readily without issuing threats of violence -- because the atheist does not determine for them what they choose to believe. That applies equally for a muslim should his insensitive ears hear the label "mohammadan," even though we all continue to see his irrational reactions. Anyway, neither you nor any JW poster has the capacity to deprive anyone of their sense of meaning and fulfillment, IbrahimX, so fear not for your family, even if you have no faith in in the strength of their beliefs. No one has the power to deprive them of their faith -- it's integral to the definition.

Bravo to you for your claimed skepticism of islam. Sadly, you likewise endeavor not to offend muslims for fear of physical harm. Acquiescence to threats and fear is obviously not the answer, lest the resulting onslaught determine for all of us the depth of our skepticism. One can be forgiven a lack of courage, I suppose, but not when that cowardice inspires them to restrict others' ability to discuss, identify or adress a threat. (Such as your continued approaches to limit the expression of ideas that could precipitate an irrational and violent muslim response.) Patrick Henry made this point much more eloquently than I ever could, when he stated, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Alas, we can't all emulate the man...

As for dehumanizing people to inure the group to the horrors they inflict on others, I'd suggest you apply that concern directly to those who have been practicing it incessantly for oh, nearly 1400 years now. Remember, in this country all men are created equal. We do not portray non-believers sons of apes and pigs, or otherwise characterize them as somehow sub-human. Nor do we demand their submission, departure or death. We allow the former as freedom permits the right to disparage any religion. As I mentioned to you up-thread, the latter is proscribed. If someone just cannot be happy in a society where all are equal and none must agree on anything except that, well, they can make the obvious choice.

Good luck finding some courage, IbrahimX.

Au revoir

Posted by: Gondemar at February 18, 2008 3:04 AM

Robert Spencer wrote:
Our radicals print cartoons. Theirs burn stuff and kill people.

IbrahimX wrote:
I would be as bad as the combative atheist who insists on telling Christians that there is no God. He may be right, but does he realize what he's depriving people of? But at least in the West that atheist needn't be afraid for his life.

I write:
These two comments highlight the crux of the problem. Leaving to one side the propriety of the cartoons, surely vandalism and threats of murder far exceed any appropriate and rational response. It is, of course, completely fair to say "I do not like what you have said/done." Free speech entails not only the right to speak but the right to criticise the speech of others.

Moreover, the "combative atheist," as Gondemar quite rightly points out, deprives nobody of anything. In fact, he or she is not combative at all, at least not in the way that the militant Islamicist is combative. He or she does not force anyone to give up their religion. Neither, for that matter, does the cartoonist who draws a picture of Muhammed. Similarly, I do not deprive the Muslim of his or her religion when I say that I do not believe that Muhammed was a Prophet, or buy non-halal products at the grocery store. The combative radical Muslim, on the other hand, deprives everyone of general security, and some people of their very lives.

Today, Islam is the only religion that is off-limits to criticism. Christianity can be critiqued with impunity; Israel, the Jewish state, is a favourite whipping horse of the Left. Hare Krishnas are frequently caricatured in pop culture. Members of these religions might not always like it, but they accept it as part of living in a free society. If you criticise Islam, however, and you might find oneself having to go into hiding, or your loved ones might find you dead. So, tell me, who is being deprived of what?

Posted by: FidesEtRatio at February 18, 2008 6:28 AM

Thanks for the response. It's no surprise of course that both posts missed my point as both readers insist on reading my posts as if I were defending the indefensible. Did I say anywhere that I wanted to protect my family from the cartoons? No, I never said that, but you guys create that straw-man and knock it down easily. I said I wanted to protect my family from hateful terms like "Mohamedian", a term which doesn't seem to bother Robert Spencer. Likewise my point about the combative atheist largely went over your heads, as if I was comparing him to militant Jihadists! I guess it was too subtle a point to mention in a place where people are so eager to misinterpret your posts. Anyway, another thread, another time.

kind regards,

IbrahimX

Posted by: ibrahimX at February 18, 2008 12:53 PM

ibrahimX -

Have you given any thought to the fact that you have a double standard with regard to labels or name calling? You don't like the term "Mohamedian", and yet without reservation you make snide remarks about Christians by calling them "rabid Christians".

If you insist on being respected, then you need to set the example yourself; and may I suggest that you do it without expecting anything in return, because you cannot control what other people state or what they think.

Posted by: champ at February 18, 2008 2:51 PM

addendum:

Sorry about the snide and dismissive tone of my last post. The two posts I was responding to were thoughtful and certaintly did not deserve that kind of response from me.

~IbrahimX

Posted by: ibrahimX at February 18, 2008 3:23 PM

IbrahimX, I didn't miss your point at all. It's all there in your very own words. Read them again if you disagree.

You said,

"Did I say anywhere that I wanted to protect my family from the cartoons? No, I never said that, but you guys create that straw-man and knock it down easily. I said I wanted to protect my family from hateful terms like "Mohamedian",..."

There's hypocrisy in your claim of a straw man, as contained within your own protestation -- and in the context of freedom of expression -- you attempted to cast a difference between a cartoon and a word. So, I guarantee you none of what you said contained any subtlety whatsoever. Your obfuscation is quite blatant, I assure you.

YOU said you were afraid to offend muslims. YOU said you wanted to protect your family from words like "mohammedan." YOU implied you did not want your family to see a cartoon of mohammad, because "...they have a cultural attachment to the image of Mohammed and Islam. YOU compared yourself to the atheist were you to argue with your family about their beliefs, because YOU were afraid doing so would somehow (impossibly) deprive them of their sense of meaning and fulfillment. YOU diverted the discussion from one regarding the Danes' right to print cartoons, to one of castigation of Mr. Spencer because occasionally you find on this site words with which you disagree. Through your own words, IbrahimX, your intentions are clear.

For my own edification, I want you to know that I never even came close to implying that you were defending the indefensible. Maybe you found a subtlety where I intended none? Regardless, recognizing the context in which you made this claim, I think I see a straw man under construction after all!

Your contention is obvious to me, and I hope you have the courage to state it candidly, without circumlocution or deflection: You, IbrahimX, do not believe freedom of expression should allow the presentation of anything with which you disagree. You can continue to debate this with yourself into perpetuity. Nothing you conclude, however, will ever trump the rights of humanity to harbor and express their own thoughts and beliefs, notwithstanding your misguided attempts to "protect" the unprepared or weak. In this country, the First Amendment remains sacrosanct to a few hundred million citizens. Thank them for giving you a forum, and stop complaining that regardless of their point of view, all are entitled to participate.

For the final time, IbrahimX, fear not, you DO have the power to ignore whatever you choose. As I now choose to ignore you...

Bonne chance, et a Dieu

Posted by: Gondemar at February 18, 2008 4:18 PM

There's a difference between a cartoon and telling my family that Islam is an evil religion and that they are wrong and should ditch it. Really, there's a difference. I hope you see it.

Posted by: ibrahimX at February 18, 2008 4:41 PM

Ibrahim,

You write:
"There's a difference between a cartoon and telling my family that Islam is an evil religion and that they are wrong and should ditch it. Really, there's a difference. I hope you see it."

I write:
Certainly there are differences. A cartoon is not a verbal statement, after all. However, said differences are altogether irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The same freedoms that protect a Muslim's right to practice his or her religion also protect the non-Muslim's right to critique Islam. These are, in fact, the same basic freedom: the freedom of expression, which is in turn necessary to protect the freedom of conscience. In any society wherein expression is not truly free, neither is conscience--for what good is conscience if it cannot be expressed through words and deeds?

Now, having said all this, is it good and proper to hate Muslims? Not really. We know where it can lead when we say that it is good to hate any particular group of people. It does not follow, however, I think Islam teaches the truth about God, the universe, and everything. I do not, but that is not why I think Islam is a major threat to global security and freedom. I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree on the intellectual differences between myself and Muslims. However, the problem is, many Muslims are unwilling to extend to me the same courtesy. In fact, many seem quite convinced that if my refusal to agree with them makes me a fair target in their war against the West. So, do I hate Muslims? No, for history has shown us time and again hate leads us to quite bad places--not just for the hated, but also for the one who hates. Yet, do I fear them? To a very great degree, yes--but only because so many have proven themselves willing to take up arms against myself and mine.

Posted by: FidesEtRatio at February 19, 2008 12:39 AM