| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
As we have seen, the reaction to Geert Wilders's film Fitna in the Islamic world has so far been muted, at least compared to Cartoon Rage, Pope Rage, and what the wretched dhimmi governments of Europe were fearing. Aside from the large demonstration in Pakistan on Sunday, there has been little public outrage. However, there has been action: calls by the OIC -- which fall on very receptive ears at the UN -- to outlaw speech that Muslims deem insulting to Islam. I believe that the riots have, at least for now, served their purpose, and the Islamic authorities who stirred them up a few years ago at the height of Cartoon Rage are now using the very specter of them, and the chimerical appearance of a period of calm that can -- they say -- be lengthened if the West is willing to play ball, to wring more concessions from an increasingly fearful and compliant West.
Here is a piece I published at FrontPage discussing this:
Geert Wilders’s film on the Qur’an, Fitna, which had the whole world holding its breath before its release, has been out for over a week now, and the much-anticipated explosion of worldwide Muslim rage has so far failed to materialize. That rage, however, is heating up: 25,000 people rallied against the film in Karachi on Sunday, and demonstrators in Pakistan and Indonesia have already called for Wilders to be killed. While many continue to hope that that will be the crest of Muslim rage regarding the film, there are indications that these demonstrations are actually only part of a larger strategy.The 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has condemned the film in “the strongest terms,” saying that it was “a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims” designed to “provoke unrest and intolerance.” This statement closely follows the OIC’s March meeting in Senegal, where they developed what AP called “a battle plan” to defend Islam “from political cartoonists and bigots.” Wilders’s film is obviously just the sort of thing they had in mind.
At the Senegal conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC’s secretary general, declared: “Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination.” The Associated Press reported that OIC “delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted.” Ihsanoglu stated that “Islamophobia cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement.”What kind of robust political engagement? Nothing less than restrictions on freedom of speech, of course. Abdoulaye Wade, the President of Senegal and chairman of the OIC, said: “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits.”
These words, and the OIC’s “legal instrument” in general, demonstrate why the foundations of a free society cannot take root where Islamic Sharia law prevails.
Once you declare one group off-limits for critical examination or declare that these people must at all costs not be offended, or that if they are they’re perfectly within their rights to stone, or lash, or imprison, or kill the offender, then you have destroyed free speech. In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to kill one another if their neighbor’s opinions offend them. Whenever offensive speech is prohibited, the tyrant’s power is solidified. No less in this case, although the tyrant in question is of a different kind.
That’s why all free people should oppose the OIC’s legal initiative. Not only does it threaten the foundations of Western society, but as it would render us unable to analyze it, it is an attempt to leave us defenseless against the jihad threat.
Yet at the United Nations, officials seemed eager to use Fitna as an excuse to enact laws restricting free speech. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon dubbed the film “offensively anti-Islamic” and declared: “There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here.” Or maybe it is: the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, urged those angered by the film to work to limit free speech rights. “There is a protective legal framework,” she noted, “and the resolution of the controversy that this film will generate should take place within it.” She said that legislators “should offer strong protective measures to all forms of freedom of expression, while at the same time enacting appropriate restrictions, as necessary, to protect the rights of others.” And last week, the UN Human Rights Council passed unanimously a resolution proposed by Egypt and Pakistan that calls for the policing of individuals and media reports for negative statements about Islam.
Will it soon be illegal to speak about the use that Islamic jihadists make of Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism? If it is, the only ones who will benefit will be the jihadists themselves – advancing the jihadist agenda far more effectively than riots ever could alone. The demonstrations on the one hand and the calls to limit free speech on the other neatly coalesce into a carrot-and-stick strategy. The message to the West is that speech about Islam that the Islamic world dislikes could lead to violent reprisals – but if the West heeds the voice of reason and clamps down on free speech and free inquiry, this violence will melt away. It is a message that all too many Leftist, appeasement-minded European and American leaders will find quite enticing. And that could be the most serious threat of all to our survival as a free people.
Posted by Robert at April 9, 2008 7:55 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"Fitna" may have received most of the attention, but there are other movies about the same subject, some of which are presented in sober fashion, others more sensational in their presentation, all of them with their use, and potential abuse.
The governments and peoples of the non-Islamic world simply must decide: will they modify, change, impinge upon, the carefully-constructed system of individual liberties, the hallmark of the Western world, will they willingly change their own political and legal institutions, modify their own social arrangments, own system of liberties, what makes them what they are, in order to accommodate a Total Belief-System whose results -- political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral -- can be seen by simply looking at the Muslim countries and peoples today, and comparing them with non-Muslim countries. Compare India with Pakistan. Compare Malaysia with Singapore. Compare any Arab country with Israel. Compare, even within Dar al-Islam, those states where Islam is or has been sysstematically constrained, as Turkey and Tunisia -- or where Islam for a long time was subject to a general anti-religion campaign, as in Kazakhstan -- with those states that are most fervently Muslim, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan. Are we prepared to give in, to help others conduct their "stealth jihad," as Robert Spencer calls it, in order to buy a little false harmony today?
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 9, 2008 9:33 AM
"..I believe that the riots have, at least for now, served their purpose, and the Islamic authorities who stirred them up a few years ago at the height of Cartoon Rage are now using the very specter of them.."
I totally agree. Anti-Western riots will only occur in Islamic countries when their dictatorial governments want them to happen, i.e. when they have a specific issue with some Western country like Denmark a the time of the orchestrated cartoon rage.
Sagunto
Posted by: Sagunto at April 9, 2008 9:39 AM
“a battle plan” to defend Islam “from political cartoonists and bigots”
Why should a religion need the state to defend its beliefs, as opposed to its people, from the words, as opposed to the deeds, of others? Surely beliefs that run so deep and are so personal are able to withstand the musings of others.
They aren't looking for dialog with those who have these "mistaken" opinions of Islam. They aren't looking to examine their own behavior to see if they have given this viewpoint credence. They don't like the message so they are going to shoot the messenger.
Muslims have done more damage to Islam than the most ardent Crusader ever could have.
Posted by: PMK at April 9, 2008 9:45 AM
“a battle plan” to defend Islam “from political cartoonists and bigots”
This is funny considering that Islam is the most bigoted religion of all time.
Posted by: darcy at April 9, 2008 9:56 AM
"..Muslims have done more damage to Islam than the most ardent Crusader ever could have.."
@PMK,
I'd like to slightly modify your statement 'cause i.m.o. the ideology of Islam is our prime adversary:
"Islam has done more damage to Muslims than the most ardent Crusader ever could have.."
It might be interesting to note that there are documented reports by Muslim historians stating that Muslims living in the Crusader states were better of than the ones living under Islamic rule. I believe there's such a quote in Robert's "PIG to Islam", a book I'm currently translating into Dutch.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sagunto
at April 9, 2008 10:02 AM
It often strikes me that Islam is like a spoiled child.
Always throwing tantrums if it doesn't get what it wants.
Any parent will tell you that it's often easier to just give in for the sake of a little peace and quiet.
Anything for an easy life.
The child learns from this. It knows that if it kicks and screams and shouts "I want it! I want it! I want it!" often enough and loud enough, it will win the day.
Spoiled children come to think that the normal rules of social behaviour don't apply to it. No punching, No Biting, No Screaming? Hey, dem rules are for the other saps. Me? I can do anything.
Eventually though, the parent learns too.
They learn that by giving in, the child loses all respect for their authority.
They learn that by giving in, the child's behaviour simply worsens and it starts to take even bigger liberties with your patience.
They learn that the only way to treat tantrums is to ignore them.
They learn that a child who always gets his own way quickly grows into an insufferable bully.
Unfortunately, the patient parental West hasn't yet reached that turning point yet and until it does the spoiled brats of Islam will continue to demand special treatment for them whilst ignoring any reciprocal requests for the kind of good and respectful behaviour expected of all other members of society.
Posted by: Rab at April 9, 2008 10:04 AM
>>It often strikes me that Islam is like a spoiled child.
Always throwing tantrums if it doesn't get what it wants. --Rab
I like your image of Islam as a brat throwing tantrums. Too true! Too true! Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa! CryBaby Warlord Muhammed says, "Stop it. You hurt my feelings! Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"
Posted by: darcy at April 9, 2008 10:20 AM
PMK:
“Muslims have done more damage to Islam than the most ardent Crusader ever could have.”
To my way of thinking: Islam has never been fit for human consumption in the first place so any “damage” done in retrospect is a mute point. Either way, however, I’m simply just exercising my right to ‘free speech’ while I still have it and isn’t that what’s at issue here with Wilders ‘Fitna’ and the offended Mohammedans?
at April 9, 2008 10:47 AM
Robert Spencer:
“The Associated Press reported that OIC “delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world.”
I managed to track down a copy of this report online. I’m still working my through it, but a few things stand out. Under the heading “The Root Causes of Islamophobia”, the OIC identifies the following:
“Ignorance or insufficient knowledge of Islam in non-Muslim societies. ..a mind set among the common people of the West that Islam was a religion that lived by the sword and preached violence and hatred against non believers and that it stood to challenge the Western democratic life.”“Insufficient dissemination of information about Muslim countries being victims to terror attacks … the firm rejection of terror and extremism by the political leaders of the Muslim world, as well as misrepresentation and incorrect interpretation of Islam at various levels …”
“Abuse or misuse of freedom of expression by the media and vested interests. The sanctity of freedom of expression has been abused by individuals to cause hurt and insult to Muslims by provocative and defamatory remarks and publications against sacred symbols of Muslims…”
Although it does acknowledge that some good Dhimmis are following the official OIC line on Islamophobia, it laments that:
“The debate on religious intolerance and discrimination against Muslims has mostly remained confined to the educated elite and failed to reach the grass roots.”
The report goes on to identify the main Islamophobic outrages during 2007 in a long list that includes:
The work [and presumably the continued existence] of Ayaan Hirsi Ali;France's policy of deporting radical Muslim clerics, which could "risk further alienation among the country's Muslim community.”;
David Horowitz's initiative to observe an Islamo-Fascist Week in US Universities in October 2007;
Various campaigns opposing the building of mosques, including the one that will overshadow Cologne’s world-famous cathedral;
The Spanish police’s surveillance of mosques and recruitment of more Arabic translators since the attack on Madrid;
Geert Wilders calls to ban the Koran, and his comparing it to Mein Kampf;
Baptist Minister Rev. Jerry Hillenburg’s call to halt the installation of the footbaths at the Indianapolis International Airport;
The repeated widespread claim that Muslims are hijacking the human rights issue to suppress free speech;
The British media’s 'torrent' of negative Muslim stories (quoting claims made in a ridiculous report commissioned by borderline anti-Semite and admirer of al-Qaradawi, London Mayor Ken Livingstone);
Belgian city of Ghent’s decision to prohibit civil servants from wearing hijab when dealing with the public.
If you want to read the report, and discover what else the OIC laughably classes as "Islamophobia", you can find it at:
http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/is11/english/Islamophobia-rep-en.pdf
Posted by: Matamoros at April 9, 2008 11:12 AM
This report disturbs me that only slights against Islam are being reviewed. What about the slights made by the religion of Islam. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Posted by: Shinnypen at April 9, 2008 11:13 AM
Sagunto,
Point taken. Yours is a good resaying.
I was thinking more of modern-day Islam. Its history is violent but people can rightly point to other periods when many people were killed because of their religious beliefs.
If Islamic violence had remained in the past, more people might have come to terms with its existence. Instead today's Muslims are busy throwing their burkhas over women and demanding that we change our laws and our way of life all for them. A British Muslim who had his license revoked for excessive speeding got it back by telling the judge he needed it to commute between his two wives and the loss of his license would infringe upon his freedom of religion!
Muslims today are hung up on Saladin and the violence wrought by the crusaders ten centuries ago. They forget that one reason for the crusades was the violence wrought by the Arab conquerors in the prior three centuries but that's a story for another day.
Muslims today are the ones who are damaging their religion and making it all but impossible for anyone else to coexist with them. The Crusaders didn't set out to destroy Arabia. Today's Muslims just might destroy Islam. We might see that as a good thing but that's not the point. They think their religiosity will preserve Islam but their own excesses will end up destroying it.
at April 9, 2008 11:19 AM
OIC... UN... what authority do these groups have? NONE, NADA!!!
These groups can even clean the ... err… STUFF... off their own faces from all the scandals they have been in. (Oil for Food, just one example) They have no moral authority and most definitely no legal authority in this either, and let us make sure we keep it that way! And tell them NEVER, NUNCA, JAMA!!!
(One more reason never to let the UN gain any taxing authority, because what you can tax, you can destroy)!
at April 9, 2008 11:23 AM
"Fitna" is 95% a jihad promotional piece, so how can Muslims really object to it?
It is only the little bit of commentary against using the Koran for terror that irks them.
They don't like that dogmatic truth becoming commonly known by the infidel dogs while their slow motion invasion is going on in the West.
Dumb infidels are easier to conquer.
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 9, 2008 11:33 AM
IRONY. The brazen chutpah of the OIC beggars belief! Among proofs of a purported campaign against Islam that so troubles these tyrants and theocrats is
"The repeated widespread claim that Muslims are hijacking the human rights issue to suppress free speech."Posted by: John C
at April 9, 2008 11:38 AM
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon dubbed the film “offensively anti-Islamic” and declared: “There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here.”In fact he may be right on this point, that “free expression is not at stake here”, if one considers that the “free expression” shown in Fitna is “their own words”. So the Islamists are free to express themselves with hate speech, and hateful violent deeds, and there is no conflict with freedom of speech. What Fitna does with concise brilliance is play it back to them. Any complaints regarding “free expression” should then be directed not at the short clip but at the speakers themselves. If the spoken words of hate by practitioners of Islam are to restrict hate speech, or bigoted speech, or hateful violent actions, their attention should be directed not at Fitna’s replay of their own but at their own for doing so. However, this takes an act of reason to which the Islamics and their sympathizers seem unable to grasp. What is “offensively anti-Islamic” is their own words and deeds.
All Fitna does is play it back at them. So “free expression” is not at stake here, since Fitna’s short clip accurately and truthfully plays back their words and deeds, where the Islamic fanatics are exercising their “free expression” in doing so. If Ban-Ki-moon finds the short clip “offensively anti-Islamic” he should contact the speaker and evil doers portrayed, not Geert Wilders. Talk to the Islamic zombies in Fitna, or Obsession, and ask them if their “freedom of speech” was violated by playing it back to themselves. But since these zombies are devoid of reason we can already guess their response. They don't want to hear it, because in Ban Ki-moon's words: "There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence."
at April 9, 2008 12:27 PM
With political Correctness the West began to abandon the idea of freedom of speech years ago. No wonder they accept this 'Trojan Horse' via the UN.
Of course the Western media will remain asleep to the 'edifying and complimentary' (not!) remarks about the West made on Arab/Islamic TV.
ShariaVision coming to a TV near you.
Robert you made a mistake in the article it should be the: UNHuman Rights Council !
Posted by: James at April 9, 2008 2:23 PM
There has be demos,in Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia and Africa, but because of the rising price of basic foods.
This could be a simple reason why they are not out rioting this time around
CAIRO:
Bread prices have increased following a similar trend in global wheat prices. This global price hike also coincided with the US — a major wheat exporter — decision to produce biofuels using wheat.
Prices of cooking oil, rice and other staples have nearly doubled since the beginning of the year and there are widespread shortages of government-subsidized bread throughout the country of 76 million people. Nearly 40 percent of Egyptians live under the internationally defined poverty line of $2 a day. Complaints that the government is not doing enough to help the poor have turned simmering dissatisfaction with repression and lack of economic opportunity into rare open unrest.
Thousands of demonstrators torched buildings, looted shops and hurled bricks at police in the Nile Delta city of Mahalla al-Kobra on Sunday. Nearly 100 others were arrested elsewhere in protests over economic problems. Thousands skipped work and school and hundreds protested.
Several hundred young men massed in Mahalla al-Kobra's main square on Monday, throwing rocks at a billboard of Mubarak and slashing it with knives before toppling it.
Riot police charged the group, firing heavy volleys of tear gas, pulling some of the men to the pavement and beating them with batons or fists. Protesters threw stones or canisters of tear gas at the police.
At least 25 people were arrested, and 15 protesters and five policemen were hurt, security officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press.
The government appears worried by the unrest and lifted import duties on some food items last week in an effort to lower prices. It strongly warned citizens against participating in the strikes and demonstrations, which are illegal in Egypt.
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2008/04/let-them-eat-crude-oil.html
Posted by: InfidelK9 at April 9, 2008 2:38 PM
The knee jerk reaction of the OIC, the UN, and Dutch government, and many Muslims around the world after Wilders' clip was released, leads me to wonder just how many have actually WATCHED it. My guess, and that's all it is, is that most of them have not and they are merely parroting the views of the PC crowd or their exhaulted imams.
Why don't some of our leaders question the Poo Bahs behind the OIC and UN resolutions about the the matter, i.e., just what parts of the clip, specifically, do they object to? Although I would not expect honest answers to be forthcoming from committed Islamists, it is not with the expectation of receiving honest answers that the questions need to be asked. Rather, it is a way to smoke them out of their protected positions and forced to publicly take responsibility for the ridiculousness of their claims.
The patient efforts of Robert and Hugh to educate the West are starting to have an effect and I trust they will keep the pressure on. JW/DW is an invaluable public service necessary to the ongoing education of the West (I don't know what its tax status is, or whether the intent is to provide a public service, but the more fact of its being on the web makes it so, independent of legal classifications).
Posted by: Eastview at April 9, 2008 3:49 PM
PMK said
Why should a religion need the state to defend its beliefs, as opposed to its people, from the words, as opposed to the deeds, of others? Surely beliefs that run so deep and are so personal are able to withstand the musings of others.
Of course Mohammad was the first Muslim to be unable to withstand the musings of others. Mohammad, the Perfect Example for All Time, was the first Muslim to come up with "a battle plan" to defend Islam "from political cartoonists and bigots". And surprisingly enough, his "battle plan" didn't involve a thoughtful, well-informed debate to clear up the misunderstandings of how Islam is actually a tolerant Religion of Peace. When poets and songwriters and cripples said things that Mohammad didn't like, he didn't "turn the other cheek". He didn't reason with them. He didn't try to understand their point of view. He had another way to deal with them. Over 500 years after the death of Jesus, Allah had revealed the correct way to deal with critics: Hunt them down and kill them.
Bukhari:V4B52N270 “Allah’s Messenger said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.’ Maslama got up saying, ‘Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet proclaimed, ‘Yes.’ Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to lie so that I will be able to deceive him.’ Muhammad said, ‘You may do so.’”
Ishaq:551 “Another victim was Huwayrith. He used to insult Muhammad in Mecca. Huwayrith was put to death by Ali.”
Ishaq:597 “When the Apostle returned to Medina after his raid on Ta’if, word spread that he had killed some of the men who had satirized and insulted him. The poets who were left spread in all directions.”
Ishaq:676 “‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said. ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’ ‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’”
Tabari VII:112/Ishaq:372 “When a blind Jew became aware of the presence of the Messenger and the Muslims he rose and threw dust in their faces, saying, ‘Even if you are a prophet, I will not allow you into my garden!’ I was told that he took a handful of dirt and said, ‘If only I knew that I would not hit anyone else, Muhammad, I would throw it in your face.’ Sa’d rushed in and hit him on the head with his bow and split the Jew’s head open.”
Tabari VIII:179/Ishaq:550 “Among those who Muhammad ordered killed was Abdallah bin Khatal. The Messenger ordered him to be slain because while he was a Muslim, Muhammad had sent him to collect the zakat tax with an Ansar and a slave of his.... His girls used to sing a satire about Muhammad so the Prophet ordered that they should be killed along with Abdullah. He was killed by Sa’id and Abu Barzah. The two shared in his blood. One of the singing girls was killed quickly but the other fled. So Umar caused his horse to trample the one who fled, killing her.”
at April 9, 2008 5:09 PM
Muslims who are calling for the murder of Geert Wilders (and those who would try to carry that out) are only following mainstream Islamic teachings.
If you think that it was wrong for Mohammad to kill people who satirized or insulted him, then you are a blasphemous Islamophobe and a racist.
Posted by: special_guest at April 9, 2008 5:17 PM
“a battle plan” to defend Islam “from political cartoonists and bigots”
Seems perfectly appropriate for a warrior death cult that is Islam.
Posted by: DP111 at April 9, 2008 6:16 PM
More and more, Islam embeds itself in theatrics. The only reason to riot in protest to Fitna is to divert attention from the real problems in that country. Poor leadership, economic stagnation, high unemployment, etc., etc. The only defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination against Muslims is being brought on by themselves. Any group that moons the rest of the world will be laughed at.
Posted by: DeadRecknoning at April 9, 2008 7:52 PM
special_guest,
Thank you for exposing Mohammad as the rabidly-sensitive-to-criticism murderer that he was!
How can ANY thinking human being, after reasing the passages that you cite, not recoil in horror?
at April 9, 2008 9:13 PM
If the UN is so concerned with free speech rights, let us see them tell the fine Human Beings in Tibet to shut up. Ooopps, sorry, they are not Muslim. Silly me.
The UN is very handy for the House of Islam. There are so many Skunks nested inside, it has become an air quality issue in NYC.
It really is time for Animal control to do something.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at April 9, 2008 9:42 PM
How can ANY thinking human being, after reading the passages that you cite, not recoil in horror?
Posted by: Lex
And not only that, there are more incidents like those in the life, and career, of the perfect man and roll model, Mohammad...
Posted by: duh_swami at April 10, 2008 12:50 AM
I agree with Lex and duh_swami. I recoil in horror every time I read from the Qur'an and the hadiths. They are literally filled with positively horrifying ideas, words, and deeds.
Anyone who could claim a similarity between the beliefs of Islam and the beliefs of any other mainstream religion either know nothing about what Islam actually teaches, or they know nothing about what other religions teach. Or both.
Posted by: special_guest at April 10, 2008 1:39 AM
I think the reason for the muted reaction to Fitna is the world-wide influence of people such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and links he has with associates worldwide.
In lookingfromthebalcony.blogspot.com is a recent quote from al-Qaradwai on al-Jazeera:
Uthman: You are calling upon the Ummah to not respond (in violent demonstrations) as some of them did the last time. Is this in accordance Quran 25:63 that says the Muslims greet the ignorant with a greeting of peace?
Qaradawi: Yes, as well as 6:108 that says, “Do not curse those who call on someone other than Allah, lest in their ignorance they curse Allah”, and the verse that tells us to “involve the Ummah in more important matters”. We of course condemn this this matter, and call upon rational people in Europe and the European Union to produce legislation condemning it. Freedom of expression is one thing, but to curse and insult me is something else. Freedom of expression does not give you the right to insult my parents and my family. But that is nothing in comparison to your insulting my Prophet and my religion and my Quran! I ask Europe to look into this matter wisely so that it does not produce more bloodshed and violence. Why do they say there is violence and terrorism in the world? This is the type of thing that produces violence. What do you say to young enthusiastic people when those people despise our Prophet? They only use force against us, and we must meet force with force.
.....
The fact that he is calling for a non-violent reaction does not mean there is no reaction. He and his cohorts are working hard to initiate legislation in Western countries that could prosecute people for "insulting Islam".
ed
at April 10, 2008 11:04 AM
the creative people among us should produce a plethora of documents, films and other mass media showing the truth of Islam and how it degrades civilization.
Posted by: winta at April 10, 2008 2:03 PM
>>It often strikes me that Islam is like a spoiled child.
The interior world of the spoiled child that is Islam:
As the child carries on more and more, and is never reprimanded, he sees indeed that he IS special. After all, he is treated differently than others and can get away with poor conduct and outrageous demands and accusations. The fact that he gets away with it proves his specialness; and fitting it is that the princes of Allah get special treatment. It is the will of Allah. The more they succeed the more it becomes apparent to them that Allah's favor shines upon them. Pathetic westerners, whom Allah shuns, are the losers, and that is only right. Every success of the Ummah is proof that they are righteous and that their coming supremacy is ordained. Intrinsic is the idea that the hands that make the bombs and the hands that cut the throats are the hands of Allah. They say it themselves. Such is the narcissism that empowers their murderous killing sprees.
The antidote to this worldview is utter defeat for Islamic expansionism. That defeat is on its way. Allah will fail them in the end.
at April 10, 2008 7:26 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)