| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Time for another Extreme Condemnation of Geert Wilders (via Reuters).
Same question as always: have members of Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS) ever extremely condemned Osama bin Laden and the global jihad movement? Have members of Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS) ever extremely condemned the violence and supremacism on the part of Muslims, as depicted in Wilders's film? Have members of Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS) ever even marginally condemned these things?
What do you think?
Posted by Robert at April 4, 2008 9:06 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Hmmmm.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, Roberto, and say they haven't and won't.
Posted by: undaunted![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 4, 2008 9:14 AM
I concur with undaunted, above. My answer is No.
People - "Columnist challenges women to wear hijab for a day!" A must-read - it's too funny.
Posted by: darcy at April 4, 2008 9:17 AM
People - this is from the above article I linked. Does anyone know where this is found in the Q?
"Muslim women wear the hijab because it is a commandment of Allah, or God, in the Quran."
Posted by: darcy at April 4, 2008 9:28 AM
Darcy,
I loved this statement.
"The hijab also protects women."
From what? Lustful Muslim males that cant control their urges?
at April 4, 2008 9:28 AM
I would say no. It seems pointing out statements by Islamist and terrorist acts by Ismaists is more offensives then the statements and terrorist acts themselves.
Posted by: Elric66 at April 4, 2008 9:30 AM
As a follow up to Robert's questions: Have these people seen the film they are condemning?
Posted by: Scorpius at April 4, 2008 9:32 AM
Its funny these muslim protesters always make mistake in spellings 'Assault vs Assult'
Posted by: Crusader at April 4, 2008 9:33 AM
Thanks, Elric.
Do you know the Qur'anic verse that commands women to wear the hijab?
Posted by: darcy at April 4, 2008 9:35 AM
They can condemn Fitna and Geert Wilders all they want. I love and respect the man. SO THERE!
Elric66 said:
"The hijab also protects women."
From what? Lustful Muslim males that cant control their urges?
Hey, maybe we should tell them lust is not just a Muslim thing!
Back in 8th grade at the Christian school I attended, I was sent to the office because the teacher said the dress I was wearing (a spaghetti-strap with a lace overshirt - very popular in the early 80's) would cause the boys to lust ... after my shoulders.
Backwards logic knows no religious bounds...
at April 4, 2008 9:35 AM
I don't understand why the Muslims are insulted by this movie. All it showed where the words and actions of Islam being consistent with the quran. Perhaps that would have been clearer if Wilders did not include the cartoon image and his forecast of what would happen--just have the entire film be the format of the beginning...words from the quran, words from Muslims, pictures of their deeds consistent with those words.
Posted by: Abby at April 4, 2008 9:41 AM
Martyrdom videos shown at London terror trial.
"We are doing this in order to gain the pleasure of our Lord, and Allah loves us to die and kill in his fires. And anyone who tries to deny this, then read the Koran and he will not be able to deny this."
The very point Geert Wilders was making in Fitna. Will there be protests against these men in Islamic countries?
Posted by: DB at April 4, 2008 9:47 AM
darcy,
As far as I understand, the Qur'an doesnt specify how much a woman is to be covered but in the hadith, Mo says a woman showed be covered except her hands and eyes.
at April 4, 2008 9:48 AM
WHAT?? You mean Muslim women go to school??
(rolls @@ eyes)
Posted by: Dumpling at April 4, 2008 9:48 AM
darcy,
The scary point is she said its to protect the woman. Interesting since that convert Muslim in the BBC show on having non Muslims live and dress like Muslims said the same thing to a non Muslim woman. "Its to PROTECT" you"
at April 4, 2008 9:51 AM
Well, People, I researched and found my answer from - of all people - Robert Spencer! Can you believe? lol
Here it is:
Actually, women covering their heads is generally understood to be mandated by Qur’an 24:31: “And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.”
There are also ahadith in which Muhammad says that women should cover all but face and hands.
I suspect you are referring to an article Amir Taheri wrote a few years back in which he spoke about a head covering that was introduced in Iran in 1979 and made mandatory. The article gave the impression that the covers of heads for women was something new, but actually what was new was only a particular style of covering. The command for women to be covered is as old as Islam.
Robert Spencer on June 24, 2007 at 2:35 PM
The above is from Hot Air, Blogging the Qur'an - Sura 2, "The Cow"
So, there's the verse - 24:31.
Posted by: darcy at April 4, 2008 9:58 AM
And I EXTREMELY CONDEMN islamic jihadist violence conducted in the name of a false god........and all who partake in this insanity.
Posted by: n.a. palm at April 4, 2008 9:59 AM
I am Geert Wilders! - we need T-shirts with that printed on them!
I saw this posted somewhere on this site. You know, like the movies Spartacus = "I am Spartacus!" "I am Spartacus." "No, I am Spartacus!"
Posted by: tanstaafl at April 4, 2008 10:03 AM
Yeah I don't think they'll ever march against Usama. I vaguely remember something before 9/11 that in general Muslims are loath to criticize another Muslim, because if they're wrong, and the other is right, Allah will send them to hell.
Which is why I doubt we will ever see a Reformation in the style of the Protestants and Catholics like we did just over 490 years ago. That is scary.
Posted by: V.I.N.C.E.N.T. at April 4, 2008 10:07 AM
Words don't impress the west much, but images certainly do. Saying 'starving children', gets little response. But show the image of a starving child, and the money rolls in.
Wilders movie was powerful because it stated the verses and shows the images of the results of those verses. If you want to see Islam, 'look' at the results. The image evidence is in, we have seen it.
Wilders movie confirms what we already know. And his movie was actually kind, there are films available that are very horrible, most people could not watch them. String a bunch of those together with the appropriate verses, and you have a real rabble rouser...
at April 4, 2008 10:15 AM
People - "Columnist challenges women to wear hijab for a day!" A must-read - it's too funny.
Posted by: darcy at April 4, 2008 9:17 AM
---------------------------------------------
After reading the above-referenced article, I got the feeling that this is a sneaky way that the muslims get the girls to start participating in the mosque, so that they can then start pressuring them to conform to slavery, I mean submission, I mean islam.
Also, the writer is trying to get society comfortable with the idea of enslaved muslim women walking around with their slave clothes on.
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at April 4, 2008 10:18 AM
I EXTREMELY CONDEMN arrogant, demonic islam.
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at April 4, 2008 10:19 AM
Great idea, tanstaafl. You da man.
Can anybody here make this happen?
Posted by: undaunted at April 4, 2008 10:21 AM
"So here are the rules of the game, so to speak:
1. Women must wear the hijab in front of all men not related to them. The only men that women are allowed to uncover in front of are their fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, sons, nephews and husbands. Sorry girls, boyfriends don't count."
....So it is okay for the fathers, brothers ...blah blah blah to see them with out there jibbies on .... to lust after them ? rape them......beat them......If some one comes over to the house unannounced do all of the women go running for cover? what happens if they don't get to cover fast enough? goodness no that some one should see an elbow oh the shame....so there for badda bing honor killing......
Posted by: mountiangirl at April 4, 2008 10:23 AM
I am Geert Wilders! - we need T-shirts with that printed on them! --above
Actually, I have been searching the 'net for GW clothing but have had no luck...
Posted by: darcy at April 4, 2008 10:23 AM
People - "Columnist challenges women to wear hijab for a day!" A must-read - it's too funny.
posted by:darcy
*****
Man, are you sh*#in' me? What a load of crap! Talk about sneaky brainwashing! How saaaaaaaad!
"Oh, here wear this bed sheet around in 90 degree weather - it's a GREEEEAT feeling and "God" says it so! and, and while you're at it here's a ball and chain for your foot, and a scarlet letter for your arm, a dog collar for your neck and a chastity belt for your..."
F#@*K ISLAM! whatever!
humpf! can u tell i'm a little annoyed by these retarded Mo-ron women?
Dee
at April 4, 2008 10:26 AM
Well, heck; we can have em' made individually at the local mall.
Something to do this weekend... in addition to attacking a mountain.
Posted by: undaunted at April 4, 2008 10:31 AM
Whenever I think of how far we are from where we should be in fighting this enemy, I think of Pigman and the rest is easy. Well, at least easier.
Giving Back.......to Jihad, Pigman-style.
at April 4, 2008 10:45 AM
Tanstaafl, that was me, hon. Hope you like long sleeve.
www.cafepress.com/antidhimmitude
Lori :)
Posted by: Lori B. at April 4, 2008 10:46 AM
I am waiting for the demonstrations in protest of that horrible children's puppet show that was shared here the other day. (The one with President Bush being stabbed.) Where's the seething about that? Where's the outrage?
I was going to post that in my journal and make this very point. But honestly, people, I am getting weary.
It doesn't matter how many times I post videos, audio or anything else. People still continue to deny it and defend this so-called religion.
Posted by: Mo at April 4, 2008 10:48 AM
Pigman; just checked your blog. Waaaay cool.
Can your suppliers do shirts, etc, as tanstaafl suggested?
Posted by: undaunted at April 4, 2008 10:52 AM
Lori B - just another in an unended series of senior moments.
Is that the correct address? Had trouble finding anything - wait, I'll just try cafe press.
Posted by: tanstaafl at April 4, 2008 10:57 AM
darcy~
I sure hope some gay guy showed up for Hijab Day in full Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence gear. It would be a good day for cross-dressing in general.
http://www.thesisters.org/meet.html
Muslim friends & fellow catholics: I post the link not to offend, but to demonstrate that we can laugh at ourselves. Can the Ummah do that?
Posted by: skevin at April 4, 2008 11:01 AM
Cut and paste the URL. Scroll down to the bottom of that page.
Get 'em while they're hot. White and ash grey.
Posted by: undaunted at April 4, 2008 11:01 AM
undaunted,
Thanks for visiting, glad you like the site. That 'I Am Geert Wilders' Spartacus sounding t-shirt is a good idea. I design all of the Pigman goods at my store at cafepress. It's a store I have to promote my book but we'll see, if you're really into the idea, contact me and we'll go from there.
Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at April 4, 2008 11:05 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346291,00.html
ACLU at it again. Sheesh with American friends like these...who needs Mo-ron enemas!
Posted by: DeeMack at April 4, 2008 11:05 AM
I see that Lori's on it, cool.
Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at April 4, 2008 11:08 AM
Any suggestions on when we should wear these?
Geert's birfday... which is exactly when?
Every Friday?
Posted by: undaunted at April 4, 2008 11:16 AM
Veil Controversy
By Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
http://www.indianresurgence.com/islam7.htm
(…)
When the prophet migrated to Medina in 622 AD, he became the chief administrator, chief of army, chief of judiciary and chief law maker in Medina and according to the self invented doctrine of jihad, started oppressing the original non-Muslim inhabitants of the city. But sometimes it happened that Muslims erroneously fell victims, and Muslim women were tortured and raped by their own believers. So, necessary arose to mark Muslim men and women so that they could be distinguished from the non-Muslim kafirs. The problem for the male believers was solved by the Prophet by asking them to keep beard and shave moustache. But it became difficult to mark the women. At such a juncture, Umar, a close associate and son in-law of the Prophet, suggested that Muslim women, when went out door, should wear clothes to cover their modesty. And Allah wasted no time to approve the idea by revealing a verse (sura 33, verse 59) of the Quran that reads –
“O prophet, speak unto thy wives, …
It is not difficult to notice that Allah had no hesitation to tell that the basic need of such a dress code for Muslim women was firstly, to distinguish them from kafir women and secondly, to escape humiliation and harassment by their own people. In no time, allah revealed other similar verses like-
Quran: 24:31, 33:33, 33:55
One should not miss the point that the verse (33:33) conclusively proves that a thing like veil was unknown in pre-Islamic Arabia.
Later on, the prophet started to face another serious problem, problem of protecting his harem of 12 wives and some concubines, or mainly to protect his youngest wife Ayesha, whom he married at the age of 52, when Ayesha was a child of 6, from the visitors who used to come frequently to meet their beloved Prophet to sort out various problems. Allah took no time to understand the agony of his beloved prophet and spent no time to reveal verses like- Quran- 33:32
(…)
One day the Prophet saw that one of his associates, while receiving something from Ayesha, touched her hand. Allah could understand the Prophet’s anguish and without delay, revealed,
Quran-33:53
at April 4, 2008 11:27 AM
'Interesting since that convert Muslim in the BBC show on having non Muslims live and dress like Muslims said the same thing to a non Muslim woman. "Its to PROTECT" you".'
Well, so will a little old Beretta pistol in an oversized Nine West handbag, with a pearl handle and a concealed weapons permit to match. And then you can where what you want.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 4, 2008 11:33 AM
Mo is such a puss.
Posted by: undaunted at April 4, 2008 11:33 AM
Isabella,
Amen to that. Its frightening that these women will say it as if its normal. Especially saying it in a Western country. Better to carry a gun.
Posted by: Elric66 at April 4, 2008 11:44 AM
What's the link for the Geert Wilders shirts?
Posted by: darcy at April 4, 2008 11:56 AM
www.cafepress.com/antidhimmitude
Posted by: undaunted at April 4, 2008 12:01 PM
People - this is from the above article I linked. Does anyone know where this is found in the Q?
"Muslim women wear the hijab because it is a commandment of Allah, or God, in the Quran."
Posted by: darcy
Nowhere in the Qoran it i written that women have to wear a hijab.
There is only 4 references in the Quran, and it is just a curtain, a divider in the tent between the guests and the women of the owner. Or husband, if you prefer.
It is [the hijab] imposed upon the women later by men who wanted to control women.
Posted by: pr126 at April 4, 2008 12:01 PM
That these people consistently misspell words is indicative of their general level of thinking. Since presumably their intent is to insult us, not the English language, they should at least retain a proof reader in making up their signs. It's good for a laugh, though.
Posted by: Eastview at April 4, 2008 12:09 PM
Nowhere in the Qoran it i written that women have to wear a hijab.
There is only 4 references in the Quran, and it is just a curtain, a divider in the tent between the guests and the women of the owner. Or husband, if you prefer.
It is [the hijab] imposed upon the women later by men who wanted to control women.
Posted by: pr126 at April 4, 2008 12:01 PM
But, pr126, what about this from RS?:
"Actually, women covering their heads is generally understood to be mandated by Qur’an 24:31: “And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.”
There are also ahadith in which Muhammad says that women should cover all but face and hands.
I suspect you are referring to an article Amir Taheri wrote a few years back in which he spoke about a head covering that was introduced in Iran in 1979 and made mandatory. The article gave the impression that the covers of heads for women was something new, but actually what was new was only a particular style of covering. The command for women to be covered is as old as Islam.
Robert Spencer on June 24, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Posted by: darcy at April 4, 2008 12:16 PM
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3145
The Austrian authorities have indicted politician Susanne Winter on charges of incitement and degradation of religious symbols and religious agitation. This offence carries a maximum sentence of two years. Last January, Ms Winter said that the prophet Muhammad was “a child molester” because he had married a six-year-old girl. She also said he was “a warlord” who had written the Koran during “epileptic fits.”
However, Alfred Hrdlicka, the Austrian “artist” who depicted Jesus and his apostles engaging in homosexual acts of sodomy during the Last Supper, has not been indicted. Nor will he be. Depicting Jesus sodomizing his apostles is not considered to be a “degradation of religious symbols” in Austria, but referring to the historic fact that Muhammad married a six-year old girl is “incitement to racial hatred.”
Our world in 2008. Will we stand up before it is too late?
Posted by: interestinconundrum at April 4, 2008 12:44 PM
What do I think?
Methinks Islam teaches --and practices-- first degree murder on a virtually liitless basis and nothing else about the thing matters in the least (except for finding a way to rid the world of it!).
That's what I think.
Posted by: pythagoras at April 4, 2008 12:54 PM
Uh oh...I think "extremely condemn" is a euphemism for....KILL. Nice info on the islamic uniform for muslim women so that they won't be raped by mistake by muslim men. Of course being raped by a muslim man is no crime anyway, except for the victim who must be "extremely condemned".
Posted by: pismopal at April 4, 2008 12:56 PM
Where was the parade of signs that read?:
"Terrorists an Insult to Islam" ...or does it say Assault? Whatever...
...and...
"Muslim Students Extremely Condemn Terrorists"
Maybe those signs got lost in the scuffle.
Posted by: champ at April 4, 2008 1:02 PM
"Uh oh...I think "extremely condemn" is a euphemism for....KILL."
LOL!! Ain't that the Truth, pismopal!
Posted by: champ at April 4, 2008 1:05 PM
Crusader said
Its funny these muslim protesters always make mistake in spellings 'Assault vs Assult'
I used to assume that it was an ESL (English as Second Language) issue, but now, after more familiarity with their unique brand of "If you don't agree that Islam is peaceful, we'll kill you" style logic, and after learning what they teach in the madrasses and what they don't teach, I've come to doubt that they do any better in their native language.
Posted by: special_guest at April 4, 2008 1:05 PM
I think maybe "assult" is when you are very mad and while screaming at the kaffur..a little spit flies out. It's just short of an assault but more than an insult..so it's an assult. I'm trying to make some sense out of these people but...it's hard.
Posted by: pismopal at April 4, 2008 1:37 PM
Ha Ha, pismopal! Careful, you are dangerously close to saying asshole. You would never say that, right? ...and neither would I. No way! :-)
Is thinking it wrong? ...maybe
at April 4, 2008 1:41 PM
Geert Wilders is THE Prophet.. and I am tired of moslems insulting him.
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at April 4, 2008 1:50 PM
@ Darcy
The Hijab:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=267_1190242811
Posted by: pr126 at April 4, 2008 1:55 PM
Champ
Actually, a jihadi could not rise to the level of asshole. It is a goal to which they should aspire but I'm afraid it's unattainable. Thanks
Posted by: pismopal at April 4, 2008 1:58 PM
Pismopal...Good one!! ....laughin' my ass off! Asshole is way too good for them here, maybe they'll reach that level in the afterlife.
Posted by: champ at April 4, 2008 2:04 PM
I hereby "extremely condemn" Islam.
and...
"insult" + "assault" = "asult"??
And they call themselves students.
*chuckle*
Posted by: Hadassah at April 4, 2008 2:06 PM
"Well, so would a little old Beretta pistol in an oversized Nine West handbag, with a pearl handle and a concealed weapons permit to match."
-Isabellathecrusader
Careful there,the policy seems somewhat ambiguous regarding references toward handgun protection as evidenced by a similar recent post which was shot down.
Then again,perhaps it was merely a fashion faux pas,as the poster in question alluded to "titanium" as opposed to "pearl handle." (;
Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at April 4, 2008 2:34 PM
I am Geert Wilders! - we need T-shirts with that printed on them!
I saw this posted somewhere on this site. You know, like the movies Spartacus = "I am Spartacus!" "I am Spartacus." "No, I am Spartacus!" tanstaaafl..
That was me...I had just watched a series on Kirk Douglas films and thought it was a perfect sentiment.
How about Geert Wilders masks or wigs!
at April 4, 2008 3:05 PM
Maybe by "extremely condemn" they really meant "condom."
Hard to say...
Posted by: Eastview at April 4, 2008 3:28 PM
We could all benefit from extreme condoms - as a low birth rate would be a plus for the good guys.
Posted by: champ at April 4, 2008 3:42 PM
You comedians! See what I miss when work gets in the way of Jihad Watching.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 4, 2008 3:56 PM
Champ, your extreme condoms remark brought forth a mental image of a hijab as a condom.
BTW I routinely misspell islamic words as an insult and protest.
at April 5, 2008 10:31 AM
Ha Ha, Aunt Bea!
Posted by: champ at April 5, 2008 2:53 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)