| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Worth a trial? Worth killing for?
He says they're misusing Islam. That's not enough for them. More on this story. "Danish cartoonist, editor: We're ready to face Jordan court," from DPA, August 14 (thanks to Block Ness):
Amman - The Danish cartoonist who drew caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed three years ago which sparked worldwide protests by Muslims and a boycott of Danish products said he was ready to defend himself in an Amman court, Jordanian media reported Thursday. "I would like to go to Amman to stand trial. However, what I fear is that I would be convicted in advance," Kurt Westergaard told the Jordan Times in an interview that was conducted in Copenhagen earlier this week.On June 3, Amman Prosecutor Hassan Abdullat subpoenaed Westergaard and 20 other Danish journalists and editors involved in the republication of the 12 controversial images that were originally published in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten in September 2005.
The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed in April by a coalition of media outlets, professional syndicates and political parties.
The prosecutor's move was based on articles in the Jordanian penal code and the country's Press and Publication Law.
Westergaard said he had learnt that he had been subpoenaed by the Amman prosecutor, but that he had not been officially notified of the subpoena.
Asked about the rationale behind the pictures, the 73-year-old artist said, "I made the cartoons to highlight that there are some terrorists who misuse Islam and they take it as their spiritual ammunition."
"I wanted to depict the terrorists as if they were taking the Prophet Mohammed as a hostage. I have no problems with Islam but with the terrorists."
Westergaard described himself as an atheist and stressed his respect for Islam and all religions, but refused to apologize.
"I respect Islam and its followers and I have nothing against it. However, I will not apologize. We have freedom of the press and religion in Denmark," he said....
At least for now.
Posted by Robert at August 14, 2008 4:30 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Why recognize this usurpation by a Jordanian (frankly sectarian) court of our inviolable human freedom? To Hell with their blasphemy laws!!
Posted by: John C![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 14, 2008 4:56 PM
What jurisdiction does Jordan have over me? Over Mr. Westergaard? Absolutely none. Why do anything more to acknowledge their charges than pass gas in their general direction?
Posted by: MP at August 14, 2008 5:01 PM
Why is Westergaard bothering? And it would just be a Kangaroo Court, anyway.
Also, Westergaard said, "I respect Islam." Oh, really? Well, that's bothersome. I fear W'gaard may be becoming a Dhimmi.
He should be ignoring this insanity from Jordan alltogether.
Posted by: darcy at August 14, 2008 5:02 PM
"..what I fear is that I would be convicted in advance,"
He is already convicted in advance. Is he too dumb to understand that? He was also silly enough to give Geert Wilders trouble for using his cartoon in Fitna, instead of showing solidarity.
Westergaard is full of illusions, he thinks he can deal with reasonable people. They are not...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 14, 2008 5:07 PM
Hey Jordan - I consider Islam to be blasphemy.
You like that?
Posted by: darcy at August 14, 2008 5:07 PM
>>He is already convicted in advance. Is he too dumb to understand that? He was also silly enough to give Geert Wilders trouble for using his cartoon in Fitna, instead of showing solidarity. --shiek yer mami
That is so right, shiek. I was shocked about that. Sorry, but stupid Westergaard.
Posted by: darcy at August 14, 2008 5:09 PM
I think it'd be wrong for them to accept any trial, for that'd extend Jordanian (or Islamic) jurisdiction to become international, regardless of how they'd fare in this particuar trial.
That is something WE DO NOT WANT.
Posted by: Henrik at August 14, 2008 5:10 PM
If he respects islam so much why does he not face a muslim court and see islam up front in your face. islam is not a respectable relgion, this man needs to read JW!
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 14, 2008 5:28 PM
"I wanted to depict the terrorists as if they were taking the Prophet Mohammed as a hostage. I have no problems with Islam but with the terrorists." - Westergaard
If he is an atheist then why call Mo a Profit? And what kind of respect does he has for Muslims? There is something wrong with this guy. He should stick to his gun.
Why don't they stand trial the Egyptian Imam who created about twenty Motoons and distributed them in the Islamic world? BTW- I've learnt the E-Imam lives in Denmark on the Governmental budget. A bunch of true Jihadies, the host country doesn't kick-em out.
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at August 14, 2008 5:35 PM
I don't suppose one of us could sponsor Mr Spencer to send to Mr Westergaard a signed-by-the-author copy of "The Truth About Muhammad", with a suitable covering letter?
Another copy to go to the Queen of Denmark for the Royal Library, and another for the Danish Prime Minister?
Paging all Danes - there must be at least one Dane who reads here, surely - is there any way we can get either an official or a samizdat Danish translation of Mr Spencer's key works - Onward Muslim Soldiers, Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades, and Truth About Muhammad - made and set it circulating in Denmark?
Mr Westergaard appears to be as confused about Islam in general, as many others are.
Nevertheless, he seems to be clear enough about *this*:
"I will not apologize. We have freedom of the press and religion in Denmark."
Is there any way he can be sent letters or postcards or emails expressing support for that statement? If he is to stick to *that* line - 'freedom of the press and religion' - he needs encouragement by the bucketful.
Perhaps via the newspaper that originally published his drawing?
at August 14, 2008 5:46 PM
Don't do it, Kurt! Don't legitimize those shmucks!
I'm afraid that subconsciously you feel guilty about your great motoons. What are you, some kind of Danish Woody Allen? Be proud and hold your head up.
You may think it's brave to face a trial, but it's much braver to take you middle finger and raise it proudly.
at August 14, 2008 6:02 PM
"Paging all Danes - there must be at least one Dane who reads here, surely" --DDA
"Holger Dansker" who posts here is a Dane.
Posted by: darcy at August 14, 2008 6:03 PM
Interesting stats from Denmark:
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Denmark: Women having more children
Danish women are giving birth to more kids than just 20-25 years ago. With an average of 1.85 children per women Denmark is at the top of Europe's fertility list. Other Scandinavian countries also top the list, while German women are down at the bottom with 1.32 children on average.
Denmark Statistics reports that women are becoming mothers at a steadily older age and that the average age for first time mothers is now 28.9.
Though the women are having more children, the number of children has gone down since 2000.
While Danish women are having more children, the average number of children by non-Western immigrant women has dropped dramatically from 3.41 in 1983 to 1.97 children per woman today.
Source: Berlingske (Danish)
at August 14, 2008 6:03 PM
I think it would prove a point. But.....just don't do it Kurt!!! It just doesn't seem right. He has guts though, no? I do admire Kurt. We really, really need more people with the courage he has!!
Posted by: Thorum at August 14, 2008 6:33 PM
I'm Danish, and have personally translated parts of the Sirat (Ibn Ishaq) into Danish, given a copy to each member of parliament, the libraries, journalists, university etc.
As for translating the Spencer books, I've looked at it, and found it not necessarily worthwhile. We have an English literacy of some 80-90 %, and among the people of influence it's very close to 100 %. We can use English language copies just fine.
Translating into German (much larger language group) and Russian would probably be much more important in the long run.
Westergaard is probably some 80 % clear bout Islam, and has been standing up pretty well ridiculing the thugs who wanted to kill him. He doesn't know the nuance that it'd be better to avoid showing 'respect' for the religion or the finesse about not yielding jurisdiction to a Jordanian court, but those are minor points. He's kind of iconic up here.
In case anyone wants to write to the newspaper (Jyllands-Posten) who commissioned and published the Motoons, the address is: jp@jp.dk
Back to the Spencer books: If anyone would sponsor a stack, I'd gladly take care of distributing them to key persons.
Posted by: Henrik at August 14, 2008 6:43 PM
The great Danish linguist, Tina Magaard, has nailed it well (from Fjordman):
"Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions, concludes Tina Magaard. She has a PhD in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, and has spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten religions. “The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with," says Tina Magaard. Moreover, there are hundreds of calls in the Koran for fighting against people of other faiths. “If it is correct that many Muslims view the Koran as the literal words of God, which cannot be interpreted or rephrased, then we have a problem. It is indisputable that the texts encourage terror and violence. Consequently, it must be reasonable to ask Muslims themselves how they relate to the text, if they read it as it is," says Tina Magaard."
at August 14, 2008 6:53 PM
So are the Jordanian courts also going to subpoena the Muslims who vandalized the embassies and issued death threats in the Motoons aftermath? Or is there nothing in the Jordanian penal code that addresses such acts?
Posted by: yadayada at August 14, 2008 6:56 PM
Yadayada: Nah. The international diplomatic system is nothing compared to their Precious Prophet.
The penal code is quite likely OK. They just don't use it for such matters, as religion is more important that small matters of international civilty and friendly relations.
MeThinks the world is losing sanity by the hour...
Posted by: Henrik at August 14, 2008 7:03 PM
"....that there are some terrorists who misuse Islam and they take it as their spiritual ammunition."....from headline.
Misuse Islam? Huh?!
I would have to completely disagree with the cartoonist by saying that these terrorists did not "misuse Islam". These terrorists did exactly what their holy books instructed them to do. These terrorists are devout - not devoid - of Islam's teachings.
at August 14, 2008 7:33 PM
... misuse Islam and they take it as their spiritual ammunition.
That *is* misuse! There's nothing spiritual about Islam.
I once asked a lecturer if Islam had a spiritual dimension. That caused some interesting confusion. He had just recommended that one reads the life stories of the religions' founders, to which I naturally responded with asking if he had read that of Muhammad.
It is amazing how ignorant persons they'll put on stage to lecture about religion...
Posted by: Henrik at August 14, 2008 7:39 PM
I think I've figured out where the spirituality of Islam lies (no pun intended). It's at the beginning of each Sura, except one, I think. It's the part that lauds Allah as beneficient, wise, benevolent, merciful, etc. Then the Sura goes downhill from there.
Mr. Westergaard... I don't know what to think. On the one hand, he would be calling Jordan's bluff, with the world looking on (I hope).
But, on the other hand, of course we all know he's already been convicted. The only remaining question, if he humors Jordan's asinine subpoena, is what his punishment will be.
He's brave. The schoolyard bully needs to be confronted. But, I hope he's set to take a "lickin'".
He's had time to think about this thing. Maybe he has something up his sleeve.
Posted by: Abscedere at August 14, 2008 8:14 PM
Misuse Islam? Huh?!
I would have to completely disagree with the cartoonist by saying that these terrorists did not "misuse Islam". These terrorists did exactly what their holy books instructed them to do. These terrorists are devout - not devoid - of Islam's teachings.
Posted by: champ at August 14, 2008 7:33 PM
So right.
If W'gaard thinks that the MoToon Terrorists were "misusing" Islam, then obviously he knows nothing about Islam.
at August 14, 2008 8:15 PM
Thanks, Darcy, at least you understood my drift! :-)
Posted by: champ at August 14, 2008 8:20 PM
Thanks, Darcy, at least you understood my drift! :-)
Posted by: champ at August 14, 2008 8:20 PM
Oh yeah. Completely.
But I don't think Mr. Westergaard does.
Posted by: darcy at August 14, 2008 8:25 PM
Motoonist to Jordan: Go ahead, put me on trial
.......................
Kurt Westergaard is my hero! He's in his 70s, and not in the best of health, but he is braver than most men half his age. He rocks! Is it too early to nominate him for JW International Anti-Dhimmi of the year?
"However, I will not apologize. We have freedom of the press and religion in Denmark". More Westerners need to affirm this.
Of course, as many posters have noted, he is not entirely clear on some points, and still emphasises that he "respects Islam". Even so, on the most important issues he is strong and clear. A lot of people in his threatened position--most, perhaps--would either be abjectly apologizing, or in deep hiding.
I agree with Henrik, who wrote:
Westergaard is probably some 80 % clear bout Islam, and has been standing up pretty well ridiculing the thugs who wanted to kill him. He doesn't know the nuance that it'd be better to avoid showing 'respect' for the religion or the finesse about not yielding jurisdiction to a Jordanian court, but those are minor points. He's kind of iconic up here.
...................
I do hope he is not serious about the idea of going to Jordan. One should only trust in the truth prevaling when dealing with a rational legal system. This is not the case, by definition, with anyone accused of "blasphemy".
"I would like to go to Amman to stand trial. However, what I fear is that I would be convicted in advance"
OK--maybe he does understand that it would be a kangaroo court. Long live the MoToons.
Posted by: gravenimage at August 14, 2008 9:47 PM
Henrik - thanks for your interesting post, with its update on the counter-jihad campaign in Denmark. Your efforts are inspiring to us all.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 14, 2008 10:30 PM
Our law, descending from Roman law, is based on reason.
Jordanian law, like any islamic influenced law, is islamic and thus programmaic at rock bottom.
at August 15, 2008 7:05 AM
I think I've figured out where the spirituality of Islam lies (no pun intended). It's at the beginning of each Sura, except one, I think. It's the part that lauds Allah as beneficient, wise, benevolent, merciful, etc.
The exception is sura 9, presumably because Muhammad had doubts as to wether Ar-Rahman and Al-Rahim were really gods or not.
For, if left untranslated, the intro actually praises three distinct gods. Which is utterly suicidal to Islam as a monotheistic religion, but that's just another self-contradiction. There's more to it:
If one goes into the early parts of the Sirat, it will be clear that Muhammad and the early Muslims did not worship Allah, they mocked him. Allah (the name is possibly a contraction of Al-Ilah, or 'Top God'), was part of the Arab pagan pantheon, and worshipped for at least five generations, probably nine or more, before Muhammad entered the stage.
Muhammad called his followers to allegience to someone else, specifically Ar-Rahman, which is a 'god' (I can't stand calling all these fake objects of worship 'God' - sorry 'bout it) traceable to the Hanif religion in Yemen.
This can be seen in interesting details of the Sirat that the editors were not smart enough to throw away. There's one debate between a pagan 'Abd Allah' ("Slave to Allah") and a related Muslim, who wants to change his name to 'Abd Ar-Rahman' ("Slave to Ar-Rahman"), which the pagan relative utterly rejects. The compromise becomes 'Abd Ilah' ("Slave to God"), which is acceptable for both of them.
Notice the relationship they both have as 'slaves' of their gods? Somewhat familiar to modern fundamentalists, I should say.
Now, in what is known as the 'Satanic Verses', Muhammad accepted Allah and the other pagan gods of ancient Arabia, and probably worshipped those for some three years - the sources are utterly silent about that period. Then he was kicked out of Mecca, fled to Medina, but kept the invocation at the beginning of eacy sura mentioning the three main gods, two Arab and one Yemenite.
Fast forward to AH 6, where at the treaty of Hudaibayah, Muhammad wanted to insert that opening line known from each sura (except 9) in the introduction of the treaty. The PAGAN Arab counterpart refused to recognize these as gods, and it was removed. Muhammad then finally accepted one of the Islamic tenets, the oneness of Allah.
Wicked, isn't it?
The two spare gods were relegated to becoming adjectives to Allah. Given the nature of what Allah commands and how his adherents behave, it might be quite approproate to use the term 'lie' to describe the relationship between the adjectives and Allah :)
For some genuine Quranic beauty, don't miss sura 55, named Ar-Rahman. It's probably lifted from the Hanif's, for it is very different from the rest of the book.
Posted by: Henrik at August 15, 2008 9:18 AM
Islam begs for blasphemy and its followers encourage it and justify it. Islam is so prone for critisizm that is cannot escape blasphemy. Islam invites blasphemy thru its followers deeds of terrorism.
Posted by: American at August 15, 2008 9:57 AM
Thanks, Henrik :-)
I didn't know which Sura was without the description of the glorious Allah. My memory isn't what it used to be.
Very interesting history behind that Sura; I'll have to read it again.
Posted by: Abscedere at August 15, 2008 12:07 PM
Has any SIOE chapter in Britain, France, Denmark,... thought of filing a hate charge against the Koran and call for its ban? That would be very fitting and turn the table on the green slimes.
Posted by: IndianTiger at August 15, 2008 2:07 PM
To any and all Danes on this forum: please know that we infidels are with you. In India, I have "converted" many fellow Hindus into supporting Denmark with their pocketbooks. We buy Danish products whenever possible (cheese, cookies, beer, etc). With my favorite Tuborg in hand: cheers, Denmark! May you produce more cartoonists!!
Posted by: IndianTiger at August 15, 2008 2:12 PM
IndianTiger, thanks :)
If you see something good done by Danes, please steal the idea and emulate us! No copyright charges will be filed, for sure.
Gates of Vienna has some 20 % of its traffic from Denmark. We need others to be as audacious and 'insensitive' to 'religious' feelings as we are.
BTW, for real religious feelings, I recommend Christianity. Don't accept fake religions. They only do harm.
Posted by: Henrik at August 15, 2008 4:21 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.)