Is this a small beginning, a sort of candle in the wind, in one corner of Europe to push back Islamization, or will this effort be quickly overwhelmed and condemned by the forces of political correctness? It remains to be seen. The newspaper picked a great target. Depictions of Muhammed are a big no-no. I am certain that if those artists lived in the headquarters of the religion of peace, Saudia Arabia, they would be off to the choppping block.

Posted by: maryrose at October 9, 2005 8:19 AM

Back to the future:

http://islamcomicbook.com/lyrics.htm

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 9, 2005 8:19 AM

Off topic, but can anyone tell me where I can buy a copy of Voltaire's Mahomet in English?

Posted by: Voltaire at October 9, 2005 8:20 AM

Hats off to the "Dirty Dozen":

'Twelve illustrators heeded the newspaper's call, and sent in cartoons of the prophet, which were published in the newspaper one week ago.'

-----------------------------------------

'Religious feelings cannot demand special treatment in a secular society,' he added. 'In a democracy one must from time to time accept criticism or becoming a laughingstock.'

India could learn a lesson from this statement instead of its constant appeasement of the muslim minority (their population isn't that small, to call them a minority is a misleading, they should be called a standing army wainting for orders from their caliphate). India claims to be secular but practices nothing secular, its just a Hindu-bashing title to protect the muslims.

Posted by: Gorkhali at October 9, 2005 8:22 AM

Here's what this imam has said before:

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/03/women-who-go-to-hairdressers-will-go.html

“Women who go to hairdressers will go to hell”

An imam has infuriated the nation during a Friday prayer session by insisting that Muslim girls should cover themselves from head to toe and condemning women who use perfume. Text of the sermon is to be sent to Muslim schools. Muslim girls should cover themselves from head to toe, and neither wear perfume nor go to the hairdressers if they want to have any chance of going to heaven.

The sermon at last week’s Friday prayer at Copenhagen’s Islamic Religious Community, one of Denmark’s biggest Muslim congregations, shocked the nation and generated angry responses from politicians and integration experts alike. Raed Hleihel, an imam visiting from Århus, told men at the congregation to go home and make sure their wives and daughters draped every inch of their bodies with clothing.

‘I would like a Muslim girl to name one heavenly wise man, who permitted her to wear only a light veil over her hair and claim she was veiled, although her body was visible,’ Hleihel said. ‘A woman who wants to call herself a believer must cover herself completely, according to the sharia rules.’ The imam went as far as saying that women who went to the hairdresser’s and wore perfume would go to Hell.

When news broke of the sermon, integration consultants and politicians rallied to denounce it as ‘medieval’ and ‘bigoted.’ The congregation’s spokesman, Kasem Said Ahmed, said the imam expressed his own personal views in his sermon. Nevertheless, the Islamic Religious Community taped the sermon and took it upon itself to distribute it to schoolgirls in Muslim private schools, so that they and their parents could follow Hleihel’s instructions, daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten reported on Monday.

Posted by: Fjordman at October 9, 2005 8:31 AM

The article has insulted every Muslim in the world.

What, all of them, even the ones who can't read?

“Women who go to hairdressers will go to hell”

He's not wrong there. I hate going to the hairdressers. Maybe it's a taste of the world to come:

Have you been on your holidays?
Who cut this before? What a mess.
Want to try our new conditioner? Only £25 a bottle.
Are you going on your holidays?
Ever thought about going blonde?
We're going to Ibiza. Dead posh there.
Did you see Big Brother last night?
Did I tell you about my mum's operation?
Have you been on your holidays?

I'm taking the shahada today.

Posted by: Interested at October 9, 2005 9:38 AM

This business of hairdressers being banned could eat into profits at assorted Marcels of Mayfair and Ginos of Georgetown, and all similar establishmeents with an Arab clientele. But perhaps one may take the occasion to note that Islam is a full-service belief-system, a Total Regulation of everthing, right down to solemn prescriptions about what kind of hairstyle is permissible, even if it a matter of do-it-yourself because apparently -- news to me -- hairdressers are haram. Among the hairstyles that are forbidden is that in which the hair has been arrranged in the shape of a "camel's hump." Whether Bactran or Dromedary is not specified. So no bouffant hair-dos in Annette Funicello c. 1958 style, please, and presumably, no pedal-pushers to go with them.

These kinds of prohibitions give new Muslim meaning to the old complaint that in shampoo ads (possibly for Redken? Or that other Romanesque shampoo that was once mentioned here, the second stap at Product Placement after those tentative M&M's?) is always being moaned: "My hair? I can't do a thing with it."

Quaere for Ask Mr. Fatwa:

Can an Hermes scarf designed, manufactured, and sold by Infidels, even if they do support Chirac and D. de V., be considered a permitted covering, or in order to be truly a halal hijab, must it be Muslim all the way back in the chain of production to the mulberry trees and the silkworms that supply the silk?

Questions for Study and Discussion.

Posted by: Hugh at October 9, 2005 10:16 AM

I would suggest that deliberately insulting the faith of anyone is provocative. If these oh-so-funny cartoons had been, say, of kosher butchers at work on a pig, or Christ yukking it up on the cross, reactions would be predictable (and justified, in my opinion). But when Muslims are delibetaely caused offence, somehow their reactions signify...what? That they want to fly planes into buildings?

This is really reaching for it, people. When you insult people, they get insulted. Quelle surprise.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 9, 2005 10:50 AM

I disagree Dr Dawq.

People don't live in fear of christians or Jews. They live in fear of muslims. That's why it was so important to have those drawings done, to make people realise that they don't need to live in fear.

Posted by: Voltaire at October 9, 2005 11:18 AM

Dr Dawa, as I understand it, the cartoons were "offensive" for no other reason than portraying Mohammed, not because they were "funny".

I think it was a brave step and, at this time, a necessary step. We simply can't afford to tolerate the situation where free-society westerners are constantly treading on egg shells for fear of "offending" Muslims. No. It's Muslims that need to be "house trained" to accept criticism and, yes, even mockery, of their faith on the chin. If it takes a bit of "provocation" to achieve this end, so be it, it's a small price to pay.

Posted by: spect8or at October 9, 2005 11:39 AM

Either my typing or a gremlin is having fun with my posts today. No matter.

I can't understand why deliberately insulting someone is supposed to be just ducky when it comes to Muslims, but outrageous when one does it to anyone else. And then, when they react predictably, it "proves" how evil they are.

Surely refraining from posting pictures of Mohammed is no more of an imposition than, say, mocking Christ on the cross. In Engliand in the 1970s, an anti=porn crusader named Mary Whitehouse managed to have a poet charged with "blasphemous libel" even for suggesting that Christ was gay. More recently, the National Endowment for the Humanities in the US was placed under legal restrictions in its grant-giving process after the famous "Piss Christ" affair. And in neither case was a deliberate insult meant--at least, I couldn't see that mocking Christians was the theme of either.

Did any of you here rise up and complain that Christians should "take it on the chin?" Just wondering.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 9, 2005 12:45 PM

Dr. Dawa:

Try this on for size:

Van Gogh is dead because he "offended" a Muslim.

Salman Rushdie is lives with the real threat of death.

Hirsi Ayaan Ali lives with a real threat of death

Taslima Nasrin lives with a real threat of death.

Why? They dared to critique Islam.

Offend and Muslim and expect violence, that is the message of the Van Gogh death. That is the intentional message of the Van Gogh death sent by the murderer. Death to blasphemers. Death to infidels. Death to the mockers.

The artists had every right to be afraid and this fear works to inhibit the criticism of Islam.

Tell me Dr. Dawa would YOU be brave enough to openly criticize Mohammed in public?

Posted by: Athena at October 9, 2005 1:12 PM

It's "Dawg," and I would have no reason to criticize Mohammed in a public place, or Christ, or Moses, or the Buddha, or Krishna, or any other religious figure, unless there were very special circumstances at work (say, a debate about atheism, something like that). It's not a matter of bravery, it's a matter of acting civilized.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 9, 2005 1:26 PM

I would suggest that deliberately insulting the faith of anyone is provocative. If these oh-so-funny cartoons had been, say, of kosher butchers at work on a pig, or Christ yukking it up on the cross, reactions would be predictable (and justified, in my opinion).

Yes, the reaction would be predictable. People would write angry letters to the newspaper, politicians might decide to look good by condemning the cartoons, and if it was sufficiently offensive, some people might show up outside the cartoon publisher with some signs saying some rather unflattering things.

What would not happen, I wager, is that someone would knock the cartoonist off his bike and cut his throat, then tell a court that his religion commanded him to do so.

Nobody is saying that Muslims have no right to disagree with these cartoons, or to protest about them, or even to petition the government to stop them being published. But murder is not an acceptable response to a cartoon. That we even have to discuss this in a modern western nation is a sign of the seriousness of the problem.

Posted by: Viking5 at October 9, 2005 2:28 PM

An apology?

OK... Here goes, but I somehow think that Muslims will not like what I am sorry about...

I am deeply sorry that Muhammad was such a PIG, and that the malignant "religion" he spawned has proved to be the scourge of humanity for so long. I am sorry that Islam continues to be protected by its intended victims in the West, and that it is so imbued with mechanisms to avoid at all costs self critical analysis of its abject failures that IT WILL NEVER REFORM ITSELF.
I am sorry that the only things I can think of to "fix" the threat that Islam poses to humanity is to eradicate it as an ideology -- I am sorry that over 1 billion humans have fallen prey to its malignancy, and I am sorry that its adherents are so blinded by Islamic lies and propaganda that they continue to defend and promote its malevolent dictates. I am sorry that Muhammad was ever born -- I am sorry that happenstance allowed that the Arabs inhabit most of the regions of the earth where oil is in such abundance -- I am sorry that we in the West ever did ANYTHING to empower Islam's revolting votaries and lifted them from the filth of the sewer they created for themselves over the course of 1400 years of depravity, destruction and mayhem.

I am truly sorry about all of these things -- but there is more...

I have little doubt that Muhammad probably embodied every iconic stereotype of an evil pointy eyebrowed hook nosed villainous sybaritic pirate... and that an accurate depiction of this evil historic character would look like a cartoon even if we were looking at a 1400 year old photograph --

I am sorry that the embarrassment Muslims feel over these truisms about their culture and their religion and their pustulant "prophet' of hatred doesn't translate into meainingful self reflection on the failures of said culture/religion/"prophet" rather than the ubiquitous lashings out and demandings of apologies and accommodations which we have come to expect from them....

To my friends, how's that for a run on sentence?

To the Muslims -- How's that for an apology -- I could go on and ON AND ON about how sorry I am that you embody such ugliness... but I won't -- it's axiomatic, after all...

Posted by: jsla at October 9, 2005 3:57 PM

There have been a lot of insulting artworks and oh so funny bits in television shows and movies about Christians. In just about any movie these days if a Christian is represented, they are either crooked or crazy. Christians are even thought to be unfit for the Supreme Court or political office to hear the Left talk.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 9, 2005 5:15 PM

in addition to my post... I haven't noticed any Christian fatwas against the movie makers or artists. We may say we are unhappy with "Piss-Christ", but we don't try to kill the artist.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 9, 2005 5:19 PM

http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/pages/serrano.html

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 9, 2005 5:21 PM

DR Dawq says "It's not a matter of bravery, it's a matter of acting civilized",ummm,since when has islam been civilized?How can you have a lier,thief,murderer,rapist,polygamist and paedophile as a prophet?Why do these trolls bother?

Posted by: D.T. at October 9, 2005 6:50 PM

Dr Dawq

Would publishing books calling for the murder of Muslims be considered legitimate?

Posted by: DP111 at October 9, 2005 7:06 PM

Off topic, but

can anyone tell me where I can buy a copy of Voltaire's Mahomet in English? Posted by: Voltaire

try here

Mohamet the Prophet, or Fanaticism
By: Voltaire
ISBN: 0804469601
Format: Paperback Pub. Date: January, 2000
Publisher: Ungar Pub Co
List Price: $1.95

Posted by: justamomof4 at October 9, 2005 8:02 PM

Voltaire

The book is out of print. Your best bet is to get your local library to get it from the National Lending library.

Posted by: DP111 at October 9, 2005 8:31 PM

My nearby university library has 3 different publications of Voltaire's Mahomet in English, as well as a couple in French. No longer having check-out privileges there, I'd have to go there and read it in a pleasant carrell somewhere. I might at least read the first couple of pages and see if I like it. My favorite philosopher, Eric Voegelin, however, thought very poorly of Voltaire's faculties of reason.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at October 9, 2005 9:27 PM

Dr. Dawg:

No, it isn't right for people to threaten to kill Muslims. No one has threated to kill Muslims.

Here is what the cartoonists did. They MADE FUN of Mohammed, they may have even insulted him. That is good, that is healthy. The point they made, without threatening violence, is that Islam DOES NOT GET A PASS. Islam is not separate from other religions, it does not get special the special privilege that it claims.

Those of us who are members of a religious faith in the United States have to put up with all sorts of ignorant mockery, but, we do not have the right to kill. Muslims think they have the right to kill.

Their religion teaches them that they have the right to kill someone who insults the "Prophet."

This really isn't difficult to understand Dr. Dawg. The cartoonists were making a point for freedom of speech, and I would say they were doing it in a rather mild way.

It is healthy and it is needed.

Posted by: Athena at October 10, 2005 3:35 AM

Dr. Dawg:

No, it isn't right for people to threaten to kill Muslims. No one has threated to kill Muslims.

Here is what the cartoonists did. They MADE FUN of Mohammed, they may have even insulted him. That is good, that is healthy. The point they made, without threatening violence, is that Islam DOES NOT GET A PASS. Islam is not separate from other religions, it does not get special the special privilege that it claims.

Those of us who are members of a religious faith in the United States have to put up with all sorts of ignorant mockery, but, we do not have the right to kill. Muslims think they have the right to kill.

Their religion teaches them that they have the right to kill someone who insults the "Prophet."

This really isn't difficult to understand Dr. Dawg. The cartoonists were making a point for freedom of speech, and I would say they were doing it in a rather mild way.

It is healthy and it is needed.

Posted by: Athena at October 10, 2005 3:35 AM

Dr. Dawg:

No, it isn't right for people to threaten to kill Muslims. No one has threated to kill Muslims.

Here is what the cartoonists did. They MADE FUN of Mohammed, they may have even insulted him. That is good, that is healthy. The point they made, without threatening violence, is that Islam DOES NOT GET A PASS. Islam is not separate from other religions, it does not get special the special privilege that it claims.

Those of us who are members of a religious faith in the United States have to put up with all sorts of ignorant mockery, but, we do not have the right to kill. Muslims think they have the right to kill.

Their religion teaches them that they have the right to kill someone who insults the "Prophet."

This really isn't difficult to understand Dr. Dawg. The cartoonists were making a point for freedom of speech, and I would say they were doing it in a rather mild way.

It is healthy and it is needed.

Posted by: Athena at October 10, 2005 3:35 AM

Thanks everyone for your help.

Posted by: Voltaire at October 10, 2005 6:46 AM

Thanks everyone for your help.

Posted by: Voltaire at October 10, 2005 6:47 AM

"One year ago, he became the target of criticism from Muslims and non-Muslims alike, when he said in a sermon during Friday prayer, that Danish women's behaviour and dress invited rape."

King: I thought this line deserved a bit of the limelight rather than being buried at the bottom. Indeed, this guy is no different than other religious clerics who demand apologies for all sorts of "insults" to their religion or idols and draws criticism from within his onw ranks as well.

Allow me to be intellectually honest once again:

1. Catholic Church protested the movie the Godfather for the controversial baptism sequence and demanded that its own followers boycott the movie.

2. Religious right in the US and UK protest each and every release of the Harry Potter books and protest book stores that sell it since they find the book "evil" and "anti-Christian."

3. Children's shows are routinely scrunitized by Christian right wing in the US as either being too gay (Tele-Tubbies or Sponge Bob) or evil and mystical (Pokemon).

Indeed, living in a deomocracy places folks in a position of having to give and take and tolerate freedom of speech and choice but I remind you that there is PLENTY of whining coming from the Christians in the West for the very same thing this article tries to point out here.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 10, 2005 8:23 AM

How can this insult every Muslim in the world when the majority of them can't read, and are still hoping for running water?

Posted by: DCWatson at October 10, 2005 9:00 AM

It's "Dawg," and I would have no reason to criticize Mohammed in a public place, or Christ, or Moses, or the Buddha, or Krishna, or any other religious figure, unless there were very special circumstances at work (say, a debate about atheism, something like that). It's not a matter of bravery, it's a matter of acting civilized.

-posted above

I do not see how Mo stands in the same level as
`or Christ, or Moses, or the Buddha, or Krishna, or any other religious figure,`

None of them instigated murder rape and mayhem. I do not subscribe to an idea that accepts and promotes genocide in the name of religion.
I think it is evil others may think it `civilized`.

Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 10, 2005 9:07 AM

I can't actually remember the last time a Catholic or any Christian actually beheaded someone because that someone had offended their diety / god / religion / paedo prophet.

& I don't remember Christian Fatwas being issued ordering the death of JK Rawling or any other author for their work....

..in fact, I have never heard a militant, death curdling peep out of the "Christian right" in England....

....the 7th century suicide death cult called Islam that masquerades as a religion on the other hand......

In a state of permanent appeasement & giving in, the West has not civilised Islam or one of its followers one iota - in fact, like disruptive children who always get those sweeties at the checkout from an under pressure Mum, they have learnt that making a fuss works against the weak...

Tolerating the intolerable is a western weakness that will, like all poor policy, come to an end.

I look forward to the return swing of the pendulum & the exciting possibilites of Justice & Political pay back that it heralds.

Posted by: albion at October 10, 2005 9:45 AM

Relax, folks! Political correctness is officially DEAD! How do I know? Because I have just declared it to be so!

The Angel Gabriel appeared unto me in the night and said:

Iqra! Iqra! Recite! In the Name of the Lord Thy God! Verily, I say unto you: Political correctness is officially dead! Your Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful, Benificent!

And lo and behold! The Angel of the Lord didst disappear!

Naturally, I was overcome with fear! But I feel I have to share!

Posted by: Mark at October 10, 2005 10:20 AM

A few of the dimmer comments here require a reponse:

"No, it isn't right for people to threaten to kill Muslims. No one has threated to kill Muslims."

Nor did I claim any such thing. Most Muslims, incidentally, don't threaten to kill non-Muslims.

"Here is what the cartoonists did. They MADE FUN of Mohammed, they may have even insulted him. That is good, that is healthy."

Why? Deliberately insulting people is "healthy?" Have a chat with your therapist.

"I do not see how Mo stands in the same level as
`or Christ, or Moses, or the Buddha, or Krishna, or any other religious figure,`

"None of them instigated murder rape and mayhem. I do not subscribe to an idea that accepts and promotes genocide in the name of religion."

Ah. Crusade-denial. Inquisition-denial. Abortion-clinic-bombing denial. "Lebanese Christian militia" (now, there's an oxymoron for you) denial.

What "genocide" has Islam ever supported? What over-the-top nonsense.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 10, 2005 10:37 AM

Dr Dawg posted: Most Muslims, incidentally, don't threaten to kill non-Muslims.

That is hardly the point. What I asked is, if you condoned any book or publication that advocated the murder of muslims.

From your reply it is obvious that you evaded the question. I will take the best interpretation and assume that you dont support such a book or author and would condemn both the book and the author.

The question now arises why you should hold that right for yourself but deny it to others who find the violence that is inherent in the koran, most objectionable. The advocacy of murdering the Infidel is quite clear and stands for all time.

Responding your Most Muslims, incidentally, don't threaten to kill non-Muslims. It is good that most of them dont take the koran to heart. But quite a few do and they take countless innocent non-muslim lives.

So I totally condemn mohammed for his book and also the present publishers of the koran. This book encourages the believers in their wanton cruelty towards Infidels and their murder.

And Dr Dawg, if you dont like the unrestrained and rumbustious exercise of freedom of expression, you dont have to live in the West.

Posted by: DP111 at October 10, 2005 11:10 AM

Dr. Dawq,

you wrote:
It's not a matter of bravery, it's a matter of acting civilized.

"Acting civilized" doesn’t mean accepting, ignoring, explaining away, or glossing over the most evil barbarism. On the contrary.

We do condemn, criticize, jail and, until quite recently, used to hang human ogres.

Hitler was adored by many millions Germans, and not only Germans, ready to kill and sacrifice their lives to follow his prophetic vision. But I am sure you’d agree that hadn’t he beat us to it we would have hanged him without damage to our civilization. In fact it would have been “acting civilized”.

The fact that mohammed is revered by a billion, or so people doesn’t change the fact that the man was a psychopathic murderer and an initiator of historical calamity that brought endless murder and most terrible suffering to untold millions of humans.

Today, Islam - the monstrosity started by mohammed is alive and well and as deadly as ever.
If we believe in objective reality of good and evil we need, especially out of human solidarity with Moslems, to expose the satanic character of mohammed and evil nature of Islam whenever possible.
A drawing hinting at mohammed's undeniable wickedness is but a small contribution to that task.

It is more than “acting civilized”. It is acting righteously.

Posted by: thomas. h at October 10, 2005 11:31 AM

KT:"Allow me to be intellectually honest once again:"

Of course, Christian leaders do not demand the authors of these works be killed - a key distinction that anyone with any real interest in "intellectual honesty" would not fail to note.

Posted by: spect8or at October 10, 2005 11:55 AM

spect8or: "Of course, Christian leaders do not demand the authors of these works be killed - a key distinction that anyone with any real interest in "intellectual honesty" would not fail to note."

King: Hmmm. I've read and re-read this article several times and for the life of me, cannot see where it is said that the cartoonist (or anyone for that matter) should be killed. Perhaps you are mistaking my intellectual honesty (and balance) with your own prejudicial thinking?

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 10, 2005 12:22 PM

Mohammad's dead.

So how is insulting in any way, wrong or unhealthy?

Can't one make fun of anyone, dead or alive? Doesn't making fun of people happen on comedy programs?

Posted by: Voltaire at October 10, 2005 12:41 PM

"The question now arises why you should hold that right for yourself but deny it to others who find the violence that is inherent in the koran, most objectionable. The advocacy of murdering the Infidel is quite clear and stands for all time."

Well, no, actually. I amy as well go through this exercise one more time: please provide your Qur'anic sources for the above statement. (Warning: if you are referring to the "idolators," be assured that I can provide equally lurid quotations from the Bible.)

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 10, 2005 12:44 PM

Voltaire: "Mohammad's dead. So how is insulting in any way, wrong or unhealthy? Can't one make fun of anyone, dead or alive?"

King: I support free speech and therefore think that anyone or anything can be poked fun at. Humor is in the eye of the beholder and thinking something is not funny is equally OK with me. It is also OK with me to voice your opinion as to why you think something is not funny or offensive. The situation described above is not unique, it happens with many religions all over the world. Dialogue and understanding is the key here. Indeed, Muslim immigrants need to understand their host nation's cultural norms as it pertains to humor and also understand that there will be times that the humor bone may be tickled at their expense. That's pretty much it.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 10, 2005 12:48 PM

By the way - Welcome Dr. Dawg. I've visited your Blog Spot and find your perspective refreshing.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 10, 2005 12:57 PM

I never had Kin Tolerance down as a Teletubby fan!
Big Hug! Say Eh-oh!

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at October 10, 2005 1:00 PM

"I never had Kin Tolerance down as a Teletubby fan!"

King: Sure I am! I particularly love it when the Christian right winged lunatics get whipped into a merangue over a children's show claiming it promotes homosexuality.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/1999/02/10/national0333EST0476.DTL

Or that Harry Potter is not a literary device but promotes witchcraft: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/012/34.113.html

You may go on ignoring the facts and substituting the cheap laugh in lieu of appropriate argument.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 10, 2005 1:12 PM

"By the way - Welcome Dr. Dawg. I've visited your Blog Spot and find your perspective refreshing."

Many thanks, King--a tail-wag to you.

I'm fairly new here--I guess it's Kathy Shaidle's fault. She keeps referring to this place, which is certainly dim and dank enough, with many spider-webs and odd smells.

I dislike the "clash of civilizations" meme, which is why I show up to such places with my hip waders and a flashlight from time to time.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 10, 2005 1:19 PM

Yep - spider webs, odd smells and lots and lots of painting with giant paintbrushes. Stick around long enough and I think you'll be irked and entertained simulataneously.

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 10, 2005 1:26 PM

Ah, now my Vicar preached recently on Harry Potter as a good example of good triumphant over evil. Quite apt in the present climate really, when we need our defence against the dark arts and all that.

Now which Tubby are you? I reckon you're Tinky Winky - all royal purple and handbag.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at October 10, 2005 1:31 PM

One could ask you which form of Witchcraft you support yourself? "Granny." How high is your pointed hat? "Granny." When will you ever make a point worthy of anything other than playing games? "Granny."

Posted by: KingTolerance at October 10, 2005 2:16 PM

High enough to get up your nose, obviously!

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at October 10, 2005 2:18 PM

Dr.Dawg,

What we really need to do is to give your death cult a double dose of jihad. You all go around screaming jihad this, jihad that, jihad them. I am sure some major attack will happen in the west and then you can forget about us being polite with your stupid a** belif system that you call a religion. Untill then, keep right provoking 80% of the worlds population. I hope that you are offended. There is no guarantee in life to not be.

Posted by: Truth at October 10, 2005 2:27 PM

'This type of democracy is worthless for Muslims,' Imam Raed Hlayhel wrote ..

get used to it..hopefully things will daily become
more and more humiliating until, finally, you and the rest of your insane clown posse return
whence you came..

Posted by: otterfisher at October 10, 2005 4:41 PM

Dr Dawg

I would be grateful if you could remove the cobwebs from the four corners of my room by answering these four points:

1. If you consider that making fun of a religion is not "acting civilized", as it may offend those who follow it, do you also consider that criticizing a religion is also not "acting civilized", as it may also offend those who follow it?

2. If you consider that criticizing a religion is "not civilized", am I to take it that you do not believe in free speech, as it is accepted in the West? If you consider that criticizing a religion is acceptable, what argument would you give to those of a religious persuasion who would be offended by your comments, to justify that you have such a right to air your views? How do these arguments not apply to those who are merely making fun of a religion?

3. Sometimes, people make fun of a person with the intent of getting them to rethink their beliefs. Do you consider this acceptable, or not? Would this count as a criticism or making fun? Do you consider that your comment about odd smells and cobwebs is making fun of those who post here? If not, why not? If you do, surely it follows that your own comment is "not civilized", as it is mocking the beliefs of those who do comment on this website? Or are only religious beliefs to be respected in this way? If so, why?

4. How do you consider that the ad hominem arguments that have been employed against Christianity in this thread justify the violent quotations in the Qur'an? If we suppose that two separate ideologies incite hatred, would you not agree that both should be critized, as opposed to merely arguing that one therefore justifies the other? (I am not suggesting here that Christianity does incite violence).

Finally, you also wanted a list of quotations from the Qur'an that incite the faithful to violence. Here are some:

2:191, 2:216, 8:12, 8:15-16, 8:39, 8:60, 8:65, 9:5, 9:111, 9:73, 9:123 and 47:4

If you disagree that these quotations incite violence, then please offer a refutation for each verse, based solely on Islamic teachings, to prove that they are peaceful.

Well, I've aired my thoughts now. If anybody is offended by my comments, then please feel free to threaten me with violence or legal action. I will then mumble a humble apology, withdraw them most hastily, and promise not to fall out of line again. Oh, the joys of free speech!

Posted by: Amicus at October 10, 2005 5:03 PM

Touché Granny

Best regards
Albion

Posted by: albion at October 10, 2005 5:03 PM

Touché Amicus

Best regards
Albion

Posted by: albion at October 10, 2005 5:09 PM

Qur’an 9:5 "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Qur’an 9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”

Now let us see if you can show where in the Bible Jesus taught his disciples to fight, slay, make them pay for their freedom etc.

The tragedy for muslims is that they are unable to see the great evil their mohammed is.

Posted by: DP111 at October 10, 2005 5:12 PM

Dr. Dawg

What "genocide" has Islam ever supported?

Do try to crack a book once in a while. Start with the Koran, which explicity endorses killing Jews en masse.

Posted by: Beagle at October 10, 2005 5:37 PM

From Dr. Dawg's site,
For the life of me, I can't see what Elmasry said that was so wrong. He's speaking as a moderate but observant Muslim, about anti-Islamic currents within the community--much like Christian leaders going on about "secular humanism." The Jihadwatch fellow is on a mission of his own, but even he has to acknowledge that Canada is a different context for such remarks than, say, Iran. Connecting Elmasry's comments to the death penalty and so on is a bit like connecting the Pope to Operation Rescue.
Dr.Dawg | Homepage | 10.08.05 - 12:33 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr.Dawg: As you must know Elmasry is the Canadian Muslim leader who publicly said that all Israelis over 18 were justified targets for suicide bombers.

And Elmasry in the story above uses the terribly negative word--from the Muslim point of view--"crusade" to describe the actions of those Mulims in Canada (mainly women) who went public in their protest again the possible introduction of Shariah Law in Ontario. (By the way, surely you do not really consider those protests to be "anti-Muslim currents within the community", as Elmasry clearly does?)

If these are the sorts of things that qualify as "moderate" then the Muslim leadership problem is serious indeed.

-------
Dr. Dawg is apparently an apologist for islam.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 10, 2005 5:43 PM

Amicus writes:

"1. If you consider that making fun of a religion is not "acting civilized", as it may offend those who follow it, do you also consider that criticizing a religion is also not "acting civilized", as it may also offend those who follow it?"

Mope. I'm pretty critical of all organized religions myself.

"2. If you consider that criticizing a religion is "not civilized", am I to take it that you do not believe in free speech, as it is accepted in the West? If you consider that criticizing a religion is acceptable, what argument would you give to those of a religious persuasion who would be offended by your comments, to justify that you have such a right to air your views? How do these arguments not apply to those who are merely making fun of a religion?"

Well, to make a long story short, I have no difficulty sustaining an argument in favour of rational criticism of, say, Islam. But I do have some difficulty with the notion that gratuitous insult is equivalent to reasoned criticism.

"3. Sometimes, people make fun of a person with the intent of getting them to rethink their beliefs. Do you consider this acceptable, or not? Would this count as a criticism or making fun? Do you consider that your comment about odd smells and cobwebs is making fun of those who post here? If not, why not? If you do, surely it follows that your own comment is "not civilized", as it is mocking the beliefs of those who do comment on this website? Or are only religious beliefs to be respected in this way? If so, why?"

I don't have too much trouble with making fun of you, as a person, or me, for that matter--happens on occasion. :) I have more of a diffuclty with deliberately mocking a person's religious beliefs--not because I hold a brief for any religion, but because I prefer to avoid simply offending people for the sake of offending them. It's essntially uncivlized to do that.

"4. How do you consider that the ad hominem arguments that have been employed against Christianity in this thread justify the violent quotations in the Qur'an? If we suppose that two separate ideologies incite hatred, would you not agree that both should be critized, as opposed to merely arguing that one therefore justifies the other? (I am not suggesting here that Christianity does incite violence)."

I would agree that any religion that incites hatred, or the subjugation of women, or a number of other evils, ought to be criticized. That's entirely reasonable. Perhaps, though, as an aside, you could tell me what an "ad hominem argument against Christianity" is?

"Finally, you also wanted a list of quotations from the Qur'an that incite the faithful to violence. Here are some:

2:191, 2:216, 8:12, 8:15-16, 8:39, 8:60, 8:65, 9:5, 9:111, 9:73, 9:123 and 47:4

If you disagree that these quotations incite violence, then please offer a refutation for each verse, based solely on Islamic teachings, to prove that they are peaceful."

I'll get to that when I have a little more time. At this point let me note that most of the exhortations to violence are in the context of self-defence, as Surah 2:191 (and 192-194) certainly is. It's considered unIslamic to initiate aggression.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 10, 2005 6:56 PM

Amicus, that's "Nope." No "Moping" here!

In any case, some more "dim-itude" to respond to:

"Do try to crack a book once in a while. Start with the Koran, which explicity endorses killing Jews en masse."

That's an outright lie. I like your reference to the Nazi Holocaust as Islamic, though. You people don't lack for inventiveness. (One Grand Mufti does not Islam make, any more, I suggest, than Cardinal Stepanic's infamous "Hitler is an emissary of God.")

"And Elmasry in the story above uses the terribly negative word--from the Muslim point of view--"crusade" to describe the actions of those Mulims in Canada (mainly women) who went public in their protest again the possible introduction of Shariah Law in Ontario. (By the way, surely you do not really consider those protests to be "anti-Muslim currents within the community", as Elmasry clearly does?)"

Please don't plagiarize Mark Collins--he's an opponent I respect. But you might at least have posted my reply to him, as intellectual honesty dictates.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 10, 2005 7:15 PM

(One Grand Mufti does not Islam make, any more, I suggest, than Cardinal Stepanic's infamous "Hitler is an emissary of God.")

Clumsy phrasing. I meant to write:

(One Grand Mufti does not Islam make, any more, I suggest, than Cardinal Stepanic spoke for Christianity when he said "Hitler is an emissary of God." Pope John Paul II beatified this man, incidentally.)

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 10, 2005 7:24 PM

Dr. Da'wa:

"... get to that when I have a little more time. At this point let me note that most of the exhortations to violence are in the context of self-defence, as Surah 2:191 (and 192-194) certainly is. It's considered unIslamic to initiate aggression..."

You will never get there, Dr. Da'wa.

Islamic "self-defense" as we know it:

Bali, Beslan, Madrid, 9/11, London, just for starters. Add to that 1350 years of relentless Jihad warfare, since the filthy profit Moe started his head-chopping conquest of Jewish, pagan and infidel lands in order to spread the poison of Islam. Chechnya, Cashmir, nearly all of Africa, Thailand:

All of it, when looked at with blinkers and coffee-filter is- of course- "self-defence"...????

We have had many trolls like yourself on JW/DW, Dr. Da'wa. They tend to stink around for a while, but when cornered, they usually just vanish in the ozone.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 10, 2005 7:59 PM

Heh. If I'm a "troll" for thrwoing a few facts into the discussion instead of being insulting, then I suggest you look the word up.

You obviously know very little about the Qur'an, which I thought was what some of us were discussing. But by all means try to "corner" me. Lol.

As noted, I'll get to those passages in good time. I don't need prompting from lame Islamophobes to do so.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 10, 2005 8:27 PM

And one mo thing Dr Da'wa:

Just in case you're not familiar with what the Koran has in store for the Jews on 'the very last day':

Like Alice in the Wonderland, the stones will talk, and the trees will talk: "Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind/under me, come and kill him..." Not true?

That is a call for genocide, not "self-defence".

The 164 Jihad verses combined with all the other rubbish that call outright for the killing of infidels and Jews, that is 'the "pinnacle" of Islam, as they teach it in every mosque and in Al Azhar "university" in Cairo.

Not true? Your coffee-filter is not big enough to cover it up, Dr. Da'wa,.

Try a burkha, "portable seclusion"...

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=875

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?me

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/transcript_1883.aspnuID=2&subID=46

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 10, 2005 8:27 PM

Amicus:

Note Dr Dawg's response is the old "out of context" routine. It is the typical response of a muslim.

I know a couple of ex-muslims who have escaped the binds of islam, and they live in continuous fear. This BTW is in Britain. I really do feel sympathy for muslims. How do we help them escape from this death cult without endangering their lives?

The violence that the koran inculcates in muslims is now beginning to affect many people. Below is an excerpt from

http://uppompeii.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------
Last night I was in the Pub, my wife was with me, we struck up a conversation with an elderly man, he was from India and had been in the UK for over thirty years.

After some general chat about his mobile phone(he was having difficulty in using it), he brought up the subject of religion, his voice lowered to a whisper, he said we must be quiet when we speak about this.

I asked him why, "you never know" was his reply, he continued "these people wait for you and they will harm you" and in an even lower whisper he said "Muslims".

This elderly man was frightened, frightened by what may happen to him if he spoke out about something he was concerned about.

Why should this be, why should any person in this country be afraid to speakout and have a discussion.
-------------------------------------

Islam spreads fear whereever it goes or is allowed in. It uses that fear to paralyse individuals and then society as a whole. The ritual murder of Theo Van Gogh served that purpose i.e., to terrorise writers or artists from writing anything that would cause offence to a muslim.

Now coming back to the main topic of this thread. What the Daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten was trying to do, was to break the silence from fear that Van Gogh's murder had engendered. It is a correct response. Someone had to do it or else freedom of expression would die. It is severely compromised anyway because of the presence of muslims in the West. Jyllands-Posten's actions go someway to re-assert the basic freedoms we had taken for granted.

sheik yer'mami posted: They tend to stink around for a while, but when cornered, they usually just vanish in the ozone.

Precisely. Dr Dawa evaded all questions that were put, even the ones that were just a single question. Somehow even a single short question in one post escaped him. This is typical muslim behaviour. It is so disheartening to see a human perverted to becomne the slave of a death cult ideology.

As I posted before - how do we help muslims without endangering their lives? How do we bring them back to the fold of humanity?

Posted by: DP111 at October 10, 2005 8:30 PM

"Just in case you're not familiar with what the Koran has in store for the Jews on 'the very last day':

"Like Alice in the Wonderland, the stones will talk, and the trees will talk: 'Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind/under me, come and kill him...' Not true?

"That is a call for genocide, not 'self-defence'."

Good grief. That's not from the Qur'an. That's a hadith. And its context is a battle, not an attempt to murder a peaceful people.

If you want to discuss this stuff, do you mind doing a little basic research? For example: does the Qur'an, like the Bible, advocate stoning as a punishment?

PS: Your last two links don't work. The first is an interview with a religious nutcase. Here's a Christian one in return:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 10, 2005 8:35 PM

"Dr Dawa evaded all questions that were put, even the ones that were just a single question."

That's "Dawg." And a lie. What question have I evaded?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 10, 2005 8:36 PM

OK, here are my responses to the Qur’anic references that Amicus provided. I provide missing context in some instances:

2:191 (dealt with above)

2:216 Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

2:217 They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.
****
In other words, in context, we see that the injunction is to those who have oppressed the followers of Islam.

8:12 When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
8:13 This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.

****
Context, again: if people make war against the followers of Islam, they shall be met with force. Certainly not a Christian message, no turning the other cheek here, but hardly an injunction to commence aggression.

8:15 O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them.
8:16 If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!

****
The Unbelievers in hostile array—again, a case of meeting force with force.

8:39 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.

****
Fight them until persecution is no more. No explanation necessary here.

8:59 And let not those who disbelieve think that they shall come in first; surely they will not escape.
8:60 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

****
Again, self-defence.

8.61-65
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing. And if they intend to deceive you-- then surely Allah is sufficient for you; He it is Who strengthened you with His help and with the believers And united their hearts; had you spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allah united them; surely He is Mighty, Wise. O Prophet! Allah is sufficient for you and (for) such of the believers as follow you. O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.

****
See why context is important? Either the Unbelievers have peaceful intentions, or they don’t. If they don’t, Allah is on the Muslims’ side.

9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

****
You’ll find a number of passages in the Bible that are similar, particularly with respect to idolaters. If you want, I’ll dig them up for you.

9:111, But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity, they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.

*****
Again, every organized religion carries with it this sense of rightness. That’s why I don’t follow any of them.

9:73, O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed.

*****
See Revelation 21:8 for even more fun and joy.

9:123 O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

****
"Gird you about." Getting the point now?

47:4 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

****
Again, an injunction in the heat of battle.

It is in fact quite unIslamic to initiate aggression. That doesn’t mean that there are not extremists who do precisely that; but that was not what we were discussing.

So here's what I'm getting at. I don't think you will find the root cause of subway bombing in the Qur'an. It's simply silly to contend that it's the religion itself. That's a completely wrong-headed approach to analyzing current events.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 10, 2005 8:59 PM

Just in case you're not familiar with what the Koran has in store for the Jews on 'the very last day':Like Alice in the Wonderland, the stones will talk, and the trees will talk: "Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind/under me, come and kill him..." Not true?

That is not from the Qur'an, it's from the Hadith. Get it right before you accuse others of ignorance or trolling.

Dr Dawg, you point out that there are many Bible verses that call for violence. I don't agree that it follows that Christianity is equivalent to Islam in its capacity to inspire violence. Christian theology has evolved to the point where nobody can credibly use the Bible to endorse terrorism or theocracy. The violent passages in the Bible are accepted by almost all Christians as belonging to the context in which they occurred. Most majority Christian countries are now secular democracies, and the one Jewish state is not going to institute Mosaic law any time soon (they don't even have a death penalty).

At present Islam is in a different state, the terrorists and the oppressive governments of the Islamic world regularly use the Qur'an and Hadith to justify their actions. Most Muslims do not heed the call to jihad of Bin Laden and his friends, and an interesting question is why that is. My current bet is that it's because most Muslims are decent human beings like the rest of us, who don't really want to kill and subjugate people. But a fraction of any population are true believers, who will do anything for their religion. If these people are to be dissuaded from acts of violence, it's essential that the theological arguments of the terrorists be met head on and refuted. I've not seen this happen.

This is the big difference between modern Islam and Christianity, as I see it. If someone tried to quote the Bible to justify terrorism, Christians would be quick to argue against it in Christian terms. But can the arguments for terrorist jihad and Sharia states be refuted using Islamic theology? If so it would be an interesting item to discuss here. There are plenty of Muslim condemnations of terror, but they do not address the central arguments put forward by the pro-terror fatwas. It's not enough for Muslims to be against terror, or against imposing Medieval Sharia laws on modern populations, they must show that Allah is against these things. Have you seen this done?

Posted by: Viking5 at October 10, 2005 9:03 PM

8:39 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.
****
Fight them until persecution is no more. No explanation necessary here.

I would like an explanation of the "religion is all for Allah" part. You can't tell people off for ignoring context and then chop sentences in half!

Posted by: Viking5 at October 10, 2005 9:09 PM

Dr Da'wa:

The Sharia is what you want, is it not? Are people stoned to death in countries where the perverted cult of Mo rules or not?

Are people stoned in countries where "man-made" law and democracy are implemented? No, Dr. Da'wa, they are not.

Whatever the bible says, WE don't do these things, we have EVOLVED. You are trying corrupt our scriptures to justify your perverted cult.

Mohammedans are stuck in the 7th century, they DO believe all the superstition and the idiocy that the Koran "is from God"- when it is nothing but the invention of a philandering bandit-chief.

And look at the posts above, what have you answered? Nothing, zero, zilch. You are evading, deflecting, (its not the Koran, its the hadith, gagaga) And tell me: What happened to the non-muslim populations of the conquered countries? They all just willingly "accepted- reverted" to Islam? Just like that, without being killed in "every stratagem of war?"
Co'mon, Mr. coffee-filter, you can do better than that!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 10, 2005 9:09 PM

Dr. Da'wa can't open the link. Bashir is a "good" muslim, is he not?

A chilling message for the infidels

Just six weeks before last Saturday's terrorist atrocity in Bali, in a jail cell in Jakarta, I interviewed Abu Bakar Bashir, the alleged spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), al-Qa'eda's main ally in the region, and the group on which western attention is focused in the hunt for culprits.
Bashir was celebrating the news that an Indonesian court had agreed to reduce his 30-month sentence for conspiracy in the 2002 Bali bombings by more than four months, meaning that he will soon walk free.
Ever since the first bombings, in which 202 people died, Indonesian authorities have been woolly in their response to terrorism for fear of alienating a largely anti-American population. Nothing illustrates this better than the appeal court's judgment on Bashir's early release - they took the decision even though he was implicated in a JI plot to
overthrow Indonesia's previous government, and despite independent testimony from senior JI operatives in custody that he had approved the 2002 bombings.
At 66, Bashir is a lanky, bespectacled Hadrami, who, like Osama Bin Laden, traces his family back to the Hadramawt region of Yemen. Surrounded by acolytes - including known JI bombers - serving him dates, he answered questions with a strong voice and easy laugh.
Scott Atran: What are the conditions for Islam to be strong?
Abu Bakar Bashir: The infidel country must be visited and spied upon. If we don't come to them, they will persecute Islam. They will prevent non-Muslims converting.
SA: What can the West, especially the US, do to make the world more peaceful?

ABB: They have to stop fighting Islam. That's impossible because

it is sunnatullah [destiny, a law of nature], as Allah has said in the Koran. If they want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam.
SA: What if they persist?
ABB: We'll keep fighting them and they'll lose. The batil [falsehood] will lose sooner or later. I sent a letter to Bush. I said that you'll lose and there is no point for you [to fight us]. This [concept] is found in the Koran.
SA: Have you met Osama Bin Laden?
ABB: No, no. I want to though. After my release, I hope I can meet him.
SA: Where will you find him?
ABB: If he still exists - but how could I? I have sympathy for his struggle. Osama is Allah's soldier. When I heard his story, I came to the conclusion that he's mujahid, a soldier of Allah.
SA: You will always be on his side?
ABB: His tactics and calculations may sometimes be wrong, he's an
ordinary human being after all. I don't agree with all of his actions. Osama believes in total war. This concept I don't agree with. If this occurs in an Islamic country, the fitnah [discord] will be felt by Muslims. But to attack them in their country [America] is fine.
SA: So this fight will never end?
ABB: Never. This fight is compulsory. Muslims who don't hate America sin. What I mean by America is George Bush's regime. There is no iman [belief] if one doesn't hate America.
SA: How can the American regime and its policies change?
ABB: We'll see. As long as there is no intention to fight us and Islam continues to grow there can be peace. This is the doctrine of Islam. Islam can't be ruled by others. Allah's law must stand above human law. There is no [example] of Islam and infidels, the right and the wrong, living together in peace.
go back... page 2 of 2

‘I hope I can meet Osama Bin Laden. I have sympathy for his struggle. Osama is Allah’s soldier’

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 10, 2005 9:27 PM

Mo's soldier, Dr Da'wa sez:

"Fight them until persecution is no more. No explanation necessary here..."

Sheik yer'mami sez:

"Fight them in every stratagem of warfare, until Islam is no more in the lands of the infidels. Arrest them, intern them, deport them and raze the mosques wherever you find them...

...So that democracy can flourish, so that freedom is not used to undermine freedom, so that terror is banished to the desert-lands of the camel-abusers, and if they remain stupid and poor so be it, in the name of Al-ilah, the blood-god who will them at each others throats rather than being a danger to us..."

Get my drift?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 10, 2005 9:40 PM

Ah! Someone who actually wants to debate. Thank you.

"8:39 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.
****
"Fight them until persecution is no more. No explanation necessary here.

"I would like an explanation of the "religion is all for Allah" part. You can't tell people off for ignoring context and then chop sentences in half!"

That's fair. I suspect that what is being said here is that, if attacked, muslims have the right not only to fight back but to impose Islam as the dominant religion--not, however, by forced conversion, which as you know the Qur'an explicitly proscribes.

On the wider question that you raise above--the essential differences between Christianity and Islam--I'm not sure matters are all that clear-cut. Take the US, for example. Nearly half of the population thinks that man walked with the dinosaurs. President Bush's world-view is fundamentalist Christian. He is waging a "crusade" against terrorism. This is "one nation under God," remember, with a "manifest destiny."

"It's not enough for Muslims to be against terror, or against imposing Medieval Sharia laws on modern populations, they must show that Allah is against these things. Have you seen this done?"

That is a fascinating point. Certainly the Qur'an teaches that there shall be no compulsion in religion, and that initiating aggression is contrary to the will of Allah. I'm not sure that's sufficient to stop Al-Qaeda, though, any more than an injunction to turn the other cheek would have much effect on Bush. The main difference between the two religions, as I see it--well, one of a few--is that Muslims do not believe in that turning of the other cheek, but of actively resisting aggression.

Now, we both know that religions can be used to excuse every vile act imaginable. I am just saying that there is nothing in Islam that I can find from which I can trace a direct line to 9/11. I just think it's the wrong way to come at current geopolitical issues.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 10, 2005 9:49 PM

Sheik yer'mami sez:
"Fight them in every stratagem of warfare, until Islam is no more in the lands of the infidels. Arrest them, intern them, deport them and raze the mosques wherever you find them

Wonderfully put Sheik!

Perhaps you should have added: “Until persecution is no more”.

Posted by: thomas. h at October 10, 2005 9:56 PM

Dr. Da'wa:

Muslims are "attacked???"

Muslims have attacked other people and subsequently destroyed all subjugated peoples cultures in 1400 years of Jihad warfare!

Bashir is right: "Muslims must hate infidels and Jews, salvation for the unbelievers lies in "reverting or accepting" Islam or to become "Kufr-dhimmis" who have to pay the Jiziya, subjugated people must be humiliated "until they feel themselves subdued"-

Mohammedans are commanded to fight the unbelievers "until all religion is for Allah" and those who do not lie down and submit are "oppressing" the sons of Allah, so that they are justified to chop off their heads in order to make snuff movies...

"No compulsion in religion"- You are a lier, Dr. Da'wa, kitman & takiyya spindoctor.

Wherever you have Islam take hold, you have conflict and civil war-like conditions, until all "religion belongs to Allah..."

Great numbers of Mohammedans will get roasted in the process, Dr. Da'wa. Infidels will not take your expansion- drive much longer.

Our little grass-roots movement will be just like Pelayo's "mustard-seed" we will blow you away!

Awareness is everything.

If infidels knew (and education about Islamic Jihad, Koran, Sira & hadith is the key) what Mohammedans have in store for them, in case we continue allowing Islamic Infil-traitors to overrun our countries,- there would be blood in the streets already...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 10, 2005 10:13 PM

"'No compulsion in religion'- You are a lier[sic], Dr. Da'wa, kitman & takiyya spindoctor."

Surah 2:256.

Troll. And learn to spell.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 10, 2005 10:16 PM

Surah 2:256

http://rds.yahoo.com/;_ylt=AjWc1LtwwWTVdbdbrAHJdhpXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0YTJxNTRjBGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDNARzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANCVlRfNg--/SIG=12emm6b76/EXP=1129084295/**http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.fortunecity.com%2Fsitaram%2Fpage232.htm

My links above work. I checked them out. Update your computer!

Troll:

http://rds.yahoo.com/;_ylt=ArwSXeDmYbh0NX.U7m5DbG1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0aWgxbmkxBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANCVlRfNg--/SIG=19mn567sv/EXP=1129084579/**http%3A%2F%2Frdre1.yahoo.com%2Fclick%3Fu%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FInternet_troll%26y%3D021337F54692191A%26i%3D565%26c%3D11388%26q%3D02%255ESSHPM%255BL7kmpss6%26e%3Dutf-8%26r%3D0%26d%3Dwow%7EBVT-en-us%26n%3DE9AK5H4V2P5K7297%26s%3D29%26t%3D%26m%3D434B2523%26x%3D0108815A8C0C4A4B

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 10, 2005 10:37 PM

Dr.Dawg,

While living here on planet earth for right now, if someone is seeking wisdom, islam is the stupidest way. Sure you might think that it is easier because you get to kill, rape & plunder others, but you have false doctrine!

Posted by: Truth at October 10, 2005 10:44 PM

Dr. Da'wa:

You know that you are a lier and/or liar whichever way I spell it!

Do you deny that Islam seeks world-domination?

Do you deny that Islam wants to wipe Israel from the face of the earth?

Do you deny that Mohammed was a pedophile, a caravan- raider, a torturer, arsonist, mass-murderer who invented his cult for booty, conquest and slaves?

Do you deny that Mohammedans want to establish the "Calipha" from "Al Andaluz" to Indonesia (and of curse in every country that allowed Mohammedans to infiltrate?)

Do you deny that terror is a strategy of Mohammedan warfare since Mo invented the cult?

Do you deny that Mohammedans intend to out-breed us in our own countries in order to make "all religion belong to Allah..."

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 10, 2005 10:47 PM

Ah, I thought I detected a...rival religion at work, Sheik. There's a certain style to it.

I'm glad you looked up a comprehensive definition of "troll." Now read it, please, and mend your ways.

Do you deny, in the meantime, that your comments about "Mohammedans" [sic] are raving wingnuttery?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 10, 2005 11:27 PM

See "Dr." Da'wa, spin-doctor Da'wa:

No answers, no debate but personal attacks.

How very typical of a Mohammedan "slave of Allah!"

From a post above:

"Ah. Crusade-denial. Inquisition-denial. Abortion-clinic-bombing denial. "Lebanese Christian militia" (now, there's an oxymoron for you) denial."

"What "genocide" has Islam ever supported? What over-the-top nonsense.

The crusades were defensive wars.

The inquisition (after the moors were expelled from Spain) was applying what the sons of Allah had taught the Spanish...

Is your heart bleeding for a few moros who got roasted in the process?

"Abortion-clinic-bombing? "

What a pathetic example! To even mention it discredits your argument! A few nuts bomb an abortion clinic and you use that in order to justify Islamic terror!

"Lebanese Christian-militia"

It bothers you that some fight back? Good!

You see, I give you answers, Mr. Spin-doctor.

Islam over the 1400 years of its bloody history has wiped out many cultures and peoples, from 60 to 70 million Hindus in India to the Armenian genocide 1915, your blood-cult is a disgrace for humanity and must disappear from the face of the earth!

I don't like the word "Muslim" Dr. Da'wa. You are a follower of the cult of Mohammed, therefore you are a "Mohammedan" slave of Allah for me.

For your reading pleasure:

Quote from Ali Sina:

"I don’t care about Muslims giving pledge of allegiance to America. Muslims do that only to gain their footholds. You must never trust the pledges of Muslims. Muhammad signed treaties with his opponents only to break them when he became powerful. Pledges and treaties for Muslims mean buying time. It only binds you but not them. They even can pretend to have converted to Christianity to gain your trust and fool you. This is all part of the game of deception. It is called taqiyyah.

Muslims must leave Islam; Islam must be declared a dangerous cult. It must be recognized as the enemy, just as communism was considered the enemy during the Cold War. Mosques must be closed. Their assemblies must be outlawed. Preaching Islam means preaching terrorism; it must be banned. Why do you think the Islamists on campuses target Muslim kids to make their da’wah (religious invitation)? They are already Muslims. Why not give the da'wah to non-Muslims? The reason is they want to convert the practicing Muslims into terrorists. Preaching Islam is against the national security. It must be stopped. The Quran is no different from Mein Kamph. Islam is no different than the racist Creativity Movement. Islam must occupy its own place among dangerous cults and not among legitimate religions. Freedom of speech must be guaranteed so people can criticize Islam. If anyone promotes hate, he should be kicked out or jailed. This means the Imams who teach the Quran could lose their freedom.

All these measures may seem drastic, but the alternative is worse."

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 10, 2005 11:53 PM

Dr. Dawg

One Grand Mufti does not Islam make

I'll keep adding Muslims who supported the holocaust as long as you keep lying.

This could take a while.

I notice you dropped the Armenian genocide without admitting I could show at least one Muslim genocide. It appears to me you have the zealotry of a convert. Just blow yourself up and get it over with.

Posted by: Beagle at October 11, 2005 12:24 AM

Perhaps the good DR Dawg can tell us about Al-Mahdi and whats going to happen when he/she shows up. 'She', wouldn't that be ironic. How about that Kingky, could you go for a female Mahdi???

Posted by: duh_swami at October 11, 2005 12:28 AM

"I'll keep adding Muslims who supported the holocaust as long as you keep lying."

Idiot. I can match you Christian for Muslim. The record of the Catholic priesthood in the Balkans (under the rule of the nazi Croatian puppet-state) was especially notorious.

"I notice you dropped the Armenian genocide without admitting I could show at least one Muslim genocide."

I didn't drop it. I took a little time to think about it. There was certainly a genocide: but it doesn't appear ithat it was motivated by religion. For example, the Wikipedia states:

"Following the Ottoman Empire's entry into World War I, Imperial Russia invaded Eastern Anatolia, where the Armenian and Muslim communities were interleaved. Taking advantage of common religion and the recent discomfort of the Armenian community in the Ottoman Empire, Russia promoted Armenian nationalism, and there were many Russian-Armenians in the Russian army. At the same time, some Armenians had begun advocating an independent state."

It would appear that political, economic and national considerations were paramount. The Young Turks did not appear to be religious zealots, but nationalists:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1908youngturk.html

I'd advise a cooler head on your part--it might allow you to think.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 11, 2005 12:36 AM

"See "Dr." Da'wa, spin-doctor Da'wa:
No answers, no debate but personal attacks."

PKB. Now, begone. I've wasted more than enough time on you.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 11, 2005 12:39 AM

"Dr." Da'wa sez:

"Ah, I thought I detected a...rival religion at work, Sheik. There's a certain style to it..."

A "rival religion?" You make me laugh. That's the best you can come up with?

What you have is not "religion", Dr. Da'wa:

Religion, basically any religion, is for spiritual enlightenment, as in "do not do to others as..." also known as the "GOLDEN RULE".

Mohammed's cult is a violent ideology in the guise of religion! No more, no less. A strategy of war to make booty and slaves.

There is NO spiritual enlightenment in Islam, in fact there is NOTHING spiritual in Islam. There are promises of hellfire and 72 virgins,

(lets not forget the 24 boys! you might prefer that!)

If it wasn't for Jihad warfare, death and destruction and hatred we wouldn't have this "discussion!"

For a "Dr". you have rather poor debating skills. Must be an Islamic Dr.- title, no?

As I said: Trolls come on the scene, they stink around for a little while, they get roasted and then they just fade away.

What will you be when you blow up?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 11, 2005 12:40 AM

Slave of Allah, "Dr. " Da'wa:

Why don't you answer the questions?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 11, 2005 12:47 AM

sheik yer'mami:There is NO spiritual enlightenment in Islam, in fact there is NOTHING spiritual in Islam.

Aint that the truth. Islam produces wolves in sheeps clothing, but it does not produce enlightenment. Repeticious praying will not bring it about, nor will pius recitations of the Quran nor clean liveing,(whatever that is). Islam is part of that wide road leading to Hell that Jesus mentioned, you know , the one with all the people on (muslims) it gnashing their teeth. No one on the road to hell ever became enlightened or a saint. People who gnash their teeth never become saints. The chances of a muslim becomming a saint is almost nil. The chances of British knighthood are better.
There is one Muslim Knight but you will never see a muslim saint. Not as long as they gnash their teeth anyway...

Posted by: duh_swami at October 11, 2005 1:10 AM

Thanks, duh-swami,

More cartoons and some songs:

http://islamcomicbook.com/lyrics.htm

http://www.terrorists-suck.org/fight/winds_of_jihad.html

http://www.terrorists-suck.org/fight/the_shoe_bomber.mp3

http://www.putrid.com/taliban.htm

http://www.cafepress.com/shop/rice/browse/store/aaronscase/789410

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 11, 2005 1:21 AM

"Islam produces wolves in sheeps clothing"

What is the status of wolves in Islam? Does anyone know?

Dogs are haram of course, even cute spitz breeds with curly tails and glossy brown and white coats.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at October 11, 2005 2:58 AM

That's fair. I suspect that what is being said here is that, if attacked, muslims have the right not only to fight back but to impose Islam as the dominant religion--not, however, by forced conversion, which as you know the Qur'an explicitly proscribes.

I agree. The modern jihad is a defensive jihad (in the words of Al Qaeda), and they want to impose Sharia on their enemies. Of course, there will be no forced conversions (I'm not sure if the "polytheists" such as Hindus and atheists are covered by this), but there will be dhimmitude. I think it's important that everyone hears and understands this point, because it explains why the terrorist threat was not going to be defeated by an invasion of Iraq, and also why a withdrawal from Iraq will not bring an end to the jihad. Likewise, ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not bring an end to the jihad, certainly not if the conflict is settled in terms acceptable to the West (ie, Israel survives in some form). We should do our best to bring about a just peace for Israel and Palestine, not because it will save us from jihad but because it is the right thing to do.

There is also offensive jihad, but that requires a Caliph to declare. From what I've seen the concept has little if any Qur'anic support.

On the wider question that you raise above--the essential differences between Christianity and Islam--I'm not sure matters are all that clear-cut. Take the US, for example. Nearly half of the population thinks that man walked with the dinosaurs. President Bush's world-view is fundamentalist Christian. He is waging a "crusade" against terrorism. This is "one nation under God," remember, with a "manifest destiny."

Americans might have funny ideas about dinosaurs, but you would have a hard time selling them a constitutional amendment imposing a discriminatory tax on non Christians to make them "feel subdued". Muslims also believe in creationism. Unfortunately that's not the only unlikely thing they believe, 86% of Pakistanis believe that Muslims were not responsible for 9/11. I suppose if they are in such denial, they must recognise the evil of the act, schadenfreude notwithstanding.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,659181,00.html

Bush might be a radical Christian, but I've never heard him use the Bible to justify his policies. He may talk in vague terms about his Christian motivations at election time, and recently it has been claimed that he believes God ordered him to invade Iraq and establish a Palestinian state. But the Islamic terrorists are not just Islamic in a touchy-feely, "I've given my heart to Allah" way. They are out there quoting the Qur'an and Hadiths at length to explain why the west must be fought and why the Caliphate must be restored. I see a difference there. I don't know what Bush thinks about the Bible but he would not dare to get into a theological debate over whether Jesus endorses his policies.

At the end of the day, the Iraq war is not a war on Muslims or on Islam, whatever fantasists like Zarqawi might say. The ability of westerners to divorce religion and politics is a major difference between modern Islam and Christianity. It is not a new crusade. Bush has no plans to turn Iraq into a Christian land. You might doubt the authority or the wisdom of America for going to Iraq, but you can't say that the actions of Bush and Al Qaeda are equivalent in their intentions.

Certainly the Qur'an teaches that there shall be no compulsion in religion, and that initiating aggression is contrary to the will of Allah. I'm not sure that's sufficient to stop Al-Qaeda, though, any more than an injunction to turn the other cheek would have much effect on Bush. The main difference between the two religions, as I see it--well, one of a few--is that Muslims do not believe in that turning of the other cheek, but of actively resisting aggression.

So do most Christians. There aren't that many full-blown pacifists around. I will leave you with the text of a fatwa issued in response to the July 7th bombings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4697365.stm

Note that it makes one quotation from the Qur'an,

"Whoever kills a human being, then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life, it is as though he had saved all mankind." (Koran, Surah al-Maidah (5), verse 32).

If you look this verse up online you will see that this verse has been edited. I think that speaks volumes about the problem we face. Instead of quoting the verse completely, and dealing honestly with its contents, the scholars decided to snip a clause to make it fit their purposes. That might convince a non-Muslim who has never read the Qur'an, but surely the target of fatwas against terror is not non-Muslims, but Muslims who must be taught that terror is against the will of Allah. And I see no hope of Muslims being convinced of that while the fatwas chop bits out of the very text they claim to be explaining.

Now, we both know that religions can be used to excuse every vile act imaginable. I am just saying that there is nothing in Islam that I can find from which I can trace a direct line to 9/11. I just think it's the wrong way to come at current geopolitical issues.

I would agree that Islam alone does not explain the world. I see Islam more as a catalyst, rather than a source, in various conflicts, not all of them involving the US, and I think that role will continue until a peaceful interpretation of the Qur'an becomes sufficiently widely accepted that violent groups will not see any benefits from using it as a recruiting tool.

Posted by: Viking5 at October 11, 2005 5:51 AM

Dr. Dawg

Idiot.

I think you're a coward, hiding behind your monitor.

Posted by: Beagle at October 11, 2005 6:04 AM

Dawa is so fond of islam that he can only be a muslim. Yet at first he was pretending to be something else.

If muslims such as he think that islam and the society it begets is so good, why are they here in the West in millions? If they were forced to go back, then we will see the rapid conversions to Christianity.

Muslim fanatics such as Dawa, are simply taking advantage of our tolerance. In their own muslim lands, while in their lands religious minorities are viciously persecuted.

Posted by: DP111 at October 11, 2005 8:06 AM

Dawa is so fond of islam that he can only be a muslim. Yet at first he was pretending to be something else.

If muslims such as he think that islam and the society it begets is so good, why are they here in the West in millions? If they were forced to go back, then we will see the rapid conversions to Christianity.

Muslim fanatics such as Dawa, are simply taking advantage of our tolerance. In their own muslim lands, while in their lands religious minorities are viciously persecuted.

Posted by: DP111 at October 11, 2005 8:06 AM

DP111

Well put.

I believe that Dr Da'wa is KT is Dr Da'wa is KT.

Best regards
Albion

Posted by: albion at October 11, 2005 8:29 AM

Idiot. I can match you Christian for Muslim. The record of the Catholic priesthood in the Balkans (under the rule of the nazi Croatian puppet-state) was especially notorious. - posted above by a Dr. Dawa

BULL. The genocide of 60 million hindus by muslims is a better score. Do not interfere with India`s lead on the subject.

If the stupid white man wants to beat India`s record then let more muslims into your countries.

Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 11, 2005 9:24 AM

But maybe Europe can survive by killing off the remaining Jews:

"The Muslims' War is with the Jews"
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17836_The_Muslims_War_is_with_the_Jews#c0296

Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 11, 2005 9:25 AM

Alright folks, I hope you enjoyed the entertainment.

I'll post my questions again for the trollish Dr. Da'wa:

You know that you are a liar whichever way I spell it!

Do you deny that Islam seeks world-domination?

Do you deny that Islam wants to wipe Israel from the face of the earth?

Do you deny that Mohammed was a pedophile, a caravan- raider, a torturer, arsonist, mass-murderer who invented his cult for booty, conquest and slaves?

Do you deny that Mohammedans want to establish the "Calipha" from "Al Andaluz" to Indonesia (and of curse in every country that allowed Mohammedans to infiltrate?)

Do you deny that terror is a strategy of Mohammedan warfare since Mo invented the cult?

Do you deny that Mohammedans intend to out-breed us in our own countries in order to make "all religion belong to Allah..."

Those of you who wish to continue with this BS may contact
"Dr." Da'wa on his blog and chase him for answers.

Dr. Da'wa, to his credit, stopped short of calling me "racist" and ""islamophobic" which is always the last straw for KT and other intellectually challenged creeps.

But those of you, who had the patience to follow the thread, I sincerely hope you learned something and hopefully you know how to apply it yourself next time a troll comes along...

Thank you for coming to the concert, good night!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 11, 2005 9:58 AM

sheik:

You forgot "bigot".

Honestly, with all the moral equvalence crap, tu quoque arguments and ad hominem attacks I don't know why you guys bother with the you-know-whats. Remember, feeding them only encourages them to come back, like stray cats.

I figured out why KT resolutely stays away from JW and only posts on DW. It's because he can't argue against the FACTS of what the jihadists have done as posted on JW, he can only pick on the victim's responses to the outrages as posted on DW. What a coward.

BTW, I don't respond to trolls.

Posted by: CGW at October 11, 2005 11:07 AM

Dr. Dawg (DD) writes
"I can't understand why deliberately insulting
someone is supposed to be just ducky when it comes to Muslims, but outrageous when one does it to anyone else. And then, when they react predictably, it "proves" how evil they are."

I can't understand what you don't understand. Mocking the religious sensitivities of others is
"just ducky" in the US. My religious sensitivities are mocked all the time, and I don't threaten to kill or injure anyone who does so, though I would
be annoyed if my tax dollars fund it.

Muslims, including so called moderates, insist on
special dispensation for their prophet/deity, and
threaten those who transgress with death. This
isn't theoretical; the Rushdie affair cast a chill
over freedom of expression in the West. If you don't see this, or see that muslims elicit a special fear in the supposedly brave artistic community, and thus merit singling out (until such time as they do not) then I doubt any conversation with you is likely to be fruitful.

Probably the most effective weapons to use against
islam are ridicule, mockery, humor, and the like.

DD "Surely refraining from posting pictures of Mohammed is no more of an imposition than, say, mocking Christ on the cross. "

Its been done. And burning the flag has been done
too. While Europeans and Canadians may not understand the visceral distaste many Americans have for the burning of their flag, I do. But,
I completely oppose any attempt to make it illegal. Flag burners are a$$holes, but it is a
right to be a harmless ass.

Also, it is more of an imposition, obviously. The
correct analogy would be that refraining from mocking Muhammad would be no more.But since mocking Christ is routine, and, frankly, usually quite boring (there are exceptions) I don't see
why muhammadans need to be treated with kid gloves.

DD "Did any of you here rise up and complain that Christians should "take it on the chin?" Just wondering."

Yes. Jews, Hindus, atheists, everyone. Though
"taking it on the chin" is nonsense. Here in
the Home of The Brave, there is an expression that
goes "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." No one is marching through Dearborn with "kill the muslims" banners,
which would be uncivilized, yet groups like the ACLU defended the rights of Nazis to march on Skokie.

Posted by: American at October 11, 2005 1:22 PM

American: What's sauce for the goose id sauce for the gander. I am just as opposed to gratuitously mocking Christians or Jews as I am Muslims. This is a matter, as I said earlier, of acting civilized. By the way, I parted company with the ACLU on the Skokie affair. I believe, incidentally, that they lost damned near half their membership over it.

Leavingtheleft: 60 million Hindus? What utter crap. You're referring, no doubt to the partition. Here's a source for the death toll of this civil war:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm

You will note that the median estimate is 0.5 million--including both sides.

Viking5: Thank you for your reasoned response. Your best point is that Bush has no intention of making Iraq Christian--an important point, although I would still argue that religious fundamentalism is a significant element of the American ethos and, in practical terms, of its behaviour on the world stage.

Your point about the truncated Qur'anic verse was interesting. It refers to the "children of Israel," rather than to Muslims, but this is at the point that Cain slew his brother, well before Islam and its Messenger, or indeed before Christianity. Here it is:

"For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land."

The next verse, speaking of amputations and crucifixions, refers directly to "mischief in the land," so it does seem to me that the prohibition remains as it was at the time of Adam, and the editing of the verse doesn't really change its intent. (On the other hand, the definition of "mischief in the land" comes to mean making war on Muslims specifically.)

With respect to a peaceful interpretation of Islam, I would only observe that explosive issues such as the invasion of Iraq, the treatment of Palestinians on the West Bank and so on, offer aid and comfort to nutcases like Osama who would otherwise have been largely ignored. One is compelled to add to this, however, that the socio-economic structure of countries such as Saudi Arabia breeds a lot of disaffected, alienated young people, from whose ranks the majority of the 9/11 bombers came from, and for whom the plight of Palestinians and Iraqis give some sense of mission.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 11, 2005 4:05 PM

Dr Dawg,

Further to my previous post, I must disagree with you concerning some of your interpretations of the Qur'an. These are as follows:

1. "There is no compulsion in religion"
Sura 2:256

This does not mean that all people are free to practice any religion in the world today, as you have surmised. This quotation specifically relates to the Dhimmis living under Islamic rule, who as long as they pay the Jizyah and Kharat Tax (which Muslims themselves do not pay), as well as the other restrictions placed on them (see Bat Ye'or’s book on Dhimmitude), are not to be forcibly converted to Islam. Dhimmis can only be Christian's or Jews, though this was later extended to the Zoroastrians as well. Christianity and Judaism are the only religions recognised in Islamic Jurisprudence; all others are considered paganism or idolatry. All non-muslims who do not belong to these two religions are to be converted or killed. This conversion is shown in Sura 9:5 when it says "Slay the Unbelievers wherever you may find them... if they repent and establish prayers (i.e convert to Islam) then open the way for them".

I would also like to point out that Apostasy is punishable by death under Islamic Law (see Saudi Arabia and Iran's legal rulings on the matter). This is stipulated in the Qur'an in verse 4:89 and is also backed up in the Bukhari collection of Hadith, where the prophet Muhammed (peace wasn't upon him) said "If somebody discards his religion, then kill him" (Vol 9, Book 84, Number 57). Clearly then, the argument that there is "no compulsion in religion" is false.

2. You justify the violence encouraged in Sura 2:216 by merely stating Sura 2:217, but these two verses do not go together. They are from different sections of Sura 2 (sections 26 and 27) which would have originally been compiled separately and were later placed next to each other when the Qur'an was finalised. Sura 2:217 is also talking specifically about the "sacred month", which is Ramadan and not generally, for all times of the year. Therefore, unfortunately, your argument is not valid.

3. One of the posters above also mentions Sura 9:29, which you have not addressed. For your reference, this reads as follows:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the last day....even if they are people of the book, until they pay the Jizyah tax in subjugation, being inferior"

This verse, as well as Sura 9:5 are direct commands which in no way are defensive only, as you have concluded. Muslims are instructed to fight pagans and idolaters until they are converted or killed, while people of the book have the third option of being granted limited rights, as noted in point 1. Thus I dispute your assertion that Jihad is to be waged for defensive purposes only. Also, Jihadists would argue that they are waging war on unbelievers as they threaten the security of the Ummah. Thus they could say that their war is defensive, as it is protecting the Islamic community. This is another way that Jihadists can and do justify their religious war, a point that you also must refute if you would convince anyone here of your view that " it's considered Un-Islamic to initiate aggression". Also, who exactly considers this to be the truth?

Finally, my comment on the fallacy of ad hominem attacks on Christianity, which you asked me to explain, applies to arguments employed by Islamic apologists, who instead of attempting to justify Islamic teachings when they come under criticism (which you did actually try to do, to your credit), merely attack Christian teachings in their response and in no way attempt to justify what is in the Islamic canonical texts. The poster "Viking 5" has shown in one of his entries above, the weaknesses in this line of argument, as did I in point 4 of my previous post.

I have taken time to respond to you as I think you are generally interested in debating this matter, as was shown by you attempting to interpret various verses in the Qur'an. A troll in my definition, just simply would not have bothered to do this, and instead would have just prattled on about Western aggression or Christianity, as King Tolerance has done, without referring to the teachings of the Qur'an, Hadith or Sira even once.

Posted by: Amicus at October 11, 2005 4:09 PM

Dr. Da'wa sez:

"Leavingtheleft: 60 million Hindus? What utter crap. You're referring, no doubt to the partition. Here's a source for the death toll of this civil war:.."

Why don't you answer the questions I posted to you, Dr. Da'wa?

Leavingtheleft was not quoting "utter crap" and the "death toll from the civil war" due to the partition'- he was -of curse- referring to the Mughal rulers who invaded India and deliberately build mosques over Hindu-temples (for centuries) and systematically wiped out 70 million Hindus in the process.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 11, 2005 4:52 PM

Amicus:

1) On the issue of compulsion: Muslims pay the Zakah--different word, essentially the same tax. It's low compared to the Christian tithe, but it's similar in nature. I had thought, by the way, that Sabians were also included as Dhimmis. (Incidentally, until relatively recently, Jews did better under Islam as protected Dhimmis than they did in old Europe, where they had no protection at all.) I can't really argue with your interpretation of what Islam thinks of pagans, but how do you square this with Surah 109? Or Surah 10:99? Or Surah 11:28? On apostasy, I have no counter-argument.

2) I don’t "justify violence," and I read Surah 2:216 a little differently from you. Perhaps, to begin with, you could provide a reference (or a better argument) for severing this verse from the very next one, which refers specifically to persecution? In any case, 2:216 prepares Muslims for war, but not necessarily for aggressive war. I have never claimed that Muslims are pacifists!

3) On jihad, please take into consideration that two other words ("harb" and "qital") mean war, while "jihad" is more of a general striving, or struggle: and indeed war is a "lesser jihad." I would agree that what is defensive or offensive is contested, just as it is in the case of various American "pre-emptive" wars, for example. But that is interpretation, not a Qur'anic injunction to attack peaceful unbelievers (in the case of Muslims). 2:190 enjoins Muslims from going too far in responding to attacks on them.

4) Finally, I am moved to involve myself in these debates because of the notion that the roots of Islamic extremism can be found in the Qur'an. I think that's a wrong-headed approach to geopolitics, and it smacks not a little of religious intolerance. Hence I respond to over-the-top attacks on the Muslim religion in that spirit. Yes, there's some hair-raising stuff in the Qur'an. But, just to conclude, there are some bloodcurdling verses in the Bible, too. Here's a sample, provided only for balance--I do not mean to suggest that every modern Christian lives by them, any more than people should suggest that the average Muslim lives by notions of crucifixion, slaying idolaters and whatnot.

Luke 12:46
The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and
assign him a place with the unbelievers.

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Proverbs 23:14
Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

Luke 12:46
The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

2 Corinthians 6:14
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Leviticus 21:9
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Deuteronomy 12:3
And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of
their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

Joshua 8:8
And it shall be, when ye have taken the city, that ye shall set the city on fire: according to the commandment of the LORD shall ye do. See, I have commanded you.

John 10:31
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

John 10:33
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

2 Thessalonians 1:9
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 11, 2005 5:56 PM

Albion

Thank you.

To illustrate the effect of islam, it is interesting to consider two similar communities, India and Pakistan, that separated at birth but are quite distinct now. The only difference at start was that one declared itself a secular democracy and the other assumed an islamic identity.

V.S.Naipual writes in this context in Beyond Belief.

This distance has grown with independence; and it is this -more even more then religion now - that at the end of the twentieth century, has made India and Pakistan quite distinct countries. India, with an intelligentsia that grows by leaps and bounds, expands in all directions. Pakistan, proclaiming the faith and then proclaiming the faith again, ever shrinks.

If ever an example was required that clearly shows the inadequacy of islam as a text for governance, this is it.

The DT has an editorial that implicitly recognises the difference between these two nations.

Posted by: DP111 at October 11, 2005 6:12 PM

Dawa

John 10:31
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

John 10:33
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Is this what Jesus said? And if not what is your point?

The teachings of Jesus define the Christian faith. His was a message of non-violence even to the extent of forgiving those who crucified him. The same cannot be said for mohammed by any stretch of the imagination.

Yet the essential point is not about Christianity or islam, though the koran is the most violent religious text that I have read. It is that muslims are murdering innocent civilians explictly using the koran as the basis for such mass murders. This distinguishes them above all. In your view they maybe wrong, and if so then it is incumbent on you that you go to jihadi websites and prove to them that the koran does not condone or encourage their acts. If you are brave enough you could even reveal your true identity.

Posted by: DP111 at October 11, 2005 7:04 PM

Yet the essential point is not about Christianity or islam, though the koran is the most violent religious text that I have read. It is that muslims are murdering innocent civilians explictly using the koran as the basis for such mass murders. This distinguishes them above all. In your view they maybe wrong, and if so then it is incumbent on you that you go to jihadi websites and prove to them that the koran does not condone or encourage their acts.

No need to get mixed up with jihadists, Robert Spencer is also interested in such proofs, and invites articles that prove terrorism and/or dhimmitude to be against the Qur'an to be sent to director@jihadwatch.org.

Posted by: Viking5 at October 11, 2005 7:17 PM

sheik yer'mami posted - referring to the Mughal rulers who invaded India and deliberately build mosques over Hindu-temples (for centuries) and systematically wiped out 70 million Hindus in the process.

They were only defending islam from the Hindus who invaded India. Even now there are Hindus living in Kashmir despite the actions of islamic freedom fighters.

Posted by: DP111 at October 11, 2005 7:23 PM

viking5

You are right. I forgot that Mr Spencer is also looking for this touchstone, this philosophers stone, that will transmute the koran from a jihadist manual to something else.

BTW, there has also been a death threat against a blogger

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17840#c0052

The whole purpose of such threats, even if they are not credible, is to strike fear. This is similar to the situation in Germany in the '30s in the time of the Brownshirts. People were too scared to criticise the Nazis, and look what happened. Though it goes without saying that all precautions are taken by all bloggers.

These death threats to any who criticise the koran is also an indication of the mindset of muslims. They get this mindset from the teachings of the koran. Now any good lawyer can turn any speech or text to mean anything that is in the interest of the lawyer. Dawa does the same. But any honest reading of the koran leaves one in no doubt of the implacable and murderous hatred of non-muslims that is to be found. The injunctions are too clear, the motive, the intent and the capacity to wage war in the interest of booty, rapine and plunder, is there in quite clear language. Mohammed went with his barbaric instincts and in mitigation pleaded that allah had told him to do so. Such mitigating circumstances are currently used by lawyers to get a murderer let off the sentence and confined to a mental institution.

Goodnight all.

Posted by: DP111 at October 11, 2005 7:38 PM

Dr. Dawg,
The point you are not addressing is that the
paper was not "gratuitously" (IMO, of course)
choosing to offend muslims, but does so because of
the pall cast over free expression by the implicit
threat of violence from murderous muslims.Did you read the part about why they are doing it?

You may choose to think that this is an overblown fear of a tiny minority of extremists, but the facts of the Rushdie case, Theo Van Gogh, Hirsi Ali, etc., etc. convince me that it is not.
I believe that the number of actual potential killers may be small, but that the larger muslim community generally approves of the killers.

If muslims were not widely known and appreciated
as being of murderous intent towards those who mock their faith, I'd agree with you that mocking someone's faith (or lack of faith) publicly would be boorish behavior. However, that isn't how I
see things now. People are intimidated by the
menace that is islam, and I think those who are
doing the "mocking" (or just drawing mo) are on the side of the angels.

I recall working with a muslim in graduate school, a so called moderate. The guy thought Rushdie should be killed, of course, but didn't see why it was such a big deal. I think he sucks
as a writer, but for me lit crit doesn't imply
capital punishment.

I was also among those who dropped my ACLU membership over Skokie, though in retrospect I never should have joined, as the organization
is anti-American, and, well, you can guess from
my signon name.

Posted by: American at October 11, 2005 8:00 PM

Dr. Dawg

I have read through all the postings and you have presented yourself poorly. You’ve convinced me that all I am seeing is taqiyya.
I do see that everyone has successfully rebutted your arguments, from genocide to the failure of current Islamic societies of the Middle East. So much oil, so much poverty…
But this isn’t why I chimed in.
1. Dhimmi is the most insulting, degrading, and patronizing concept formalized in any religion with the exception of Hindu caste and the unclean of Japan during its feudal period, neither are acceptable practice today, but dhimmi is still embraced by Islam. The fact that it leaves all other religions as fair game to destroy simply adds to my disgust. That at some time in the past the Jews were treated better under Islam might keep you warm, but I doubt that it did the Jews of that period, given that the more correct view is that they weren’t treated as badly. Currently, the greatest volume of anti-judaism comes from Islam. It started long before Israel was founded.
2. The “it’s the fault of the West” is simply convenience. The Palestinians would have had a homeland long ago if the UN Trans-Jordan solution had been accepted by the Arabs, their fellow Muslims cheated them. The attacks on America started long before Iraq (Kenya, the Cole, the Twin Towers?). Really, this comes down to Islam viewing the world as either Islam or the rest to subdue (see dhimmi above) so that Islamic peace may reign.
3. Which leads to “oppression” and “self-defense”. One could easily argue that where Islam does not dominate, it is oppressed (dhimmi again, need I explain?); when it is insulted it is attacked; and in both it must defend itself.
4. Slavery. Still practiced in some Islamic countries. The sound of Muslim protest is deafening. I realize that Christendom is too quiet on the subject also. However, that epithet of abuse “racism” stills many a Western tongue. Please don’t bring up American slavery, too many died to end it, and Jim Crow has been dead since 1969 (the last miscegenation law was overturned then if memory serves me). Although, Jim Crow’s religious relative Dhimmi still lives.

I do realize that it is a minority of Muslims that support terrorism. I also realize that, being neither Christian nor Jew, or of any other religion Islam condescends to "protect", I would suffer greatly under Islam. I am an atheist and know that any religion that believes it is above criticism, that cries insult too often, that self-servingly glosses over its past, and believes not in democracy but theocracy, is a religion that would not suffer me to live. Christianity has come a long, painful way in self-reflection, self-criticism (perhaps too far) and modernization. I respect the Christian for that long road taken, as I respect the Jew for the suffering he has endured with so little bitterness and so much humor.

Thirty years ago, I told shipmates that Soviet Communism wasn’t the issue, but that Islam was. No prescience here, an economic system that claimed superiority but was so damned inept was bound to die, but that an Islam that still angrily brings up the Crusades of a millennium ago has some major issues.

Posted by: Ariel at October 12, 2005 4:11 AM

DP111 (and why not drop that "Dawa" nonsense? Namecalling is troll-behaviour):

"John 10:31
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

"John 10:33
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

"Is this what Jesus said? And if not what is your point?"

I realized I had omitted something from y origianl message: I was referring to both Christians and Jews, of course, not merely Christians. And my point was that, no matter which holy text one wants to look at, some rather hair-raising passages can be found. And that this does not mean that most Christians, most Jews or most Muslims live by them.

Again, my underlying point in all this--in fact, the reason I wandered over here in the first place--is that the current geopolitical situation is not best addressed by saying, "My religion is better than yours." Religion is the cloak for practical misdeeds of all kinds. It's usually not the motive for them. And I think we are getting seriously sidetracked if we interpret Middle East and other related events in terms of deficiencies in the Qur'an.

American: We don't, obviously, share the same politics if you consider the ACLU to be "anti-American." As a Canadian, I find this "anti-American" label, or the "unAmerican" one, tossed about a little too freely in your country to silence opposition instead of debating issues. ACLU was dead wrong on Skokie, in my opinion, but that doesn't make them wrong on everything. Indeed, their rather radical views on free speech seem to put them in the same camp as yourself. Let me explain.

We both disagreed with the defence of Nazis strutting through Skokie, a Jewish area in which Holocaust survivors lived. Why? I suspect because we agree that this deliberate affront was an uncivilized thing to do, well beyond the bounds of free speech or expression, and simply can't be defended.

But then, in what appears to me to be an inconsistent if not contradictory stance, you argue for the right of a newspaper to outrage, deliberately, the faith of a section of the population, most of whom, I suggest to you, have no truck with those who threaten people with death, throw bombs into subways, issue fatwas against writers, or fly planes into buildings. They have been caught up in this confrontation, if you can call it that, between a newspaper editor and his cartoonists on the one hand, and loons making death threats on the other. I see them as innocent victims--the target of insults that they did nothing to deserve.

I agree that we are viscerally stirred when people tell us to shut up, or threaten us: we're no doubt alike in that respect. We tend to rise to that challenge, not run away. Be surely we have to be judicious about it, and avoid widening the quarrel. I think the newspaper editor in this case acted injudiciously.

Ariel: If I have been rebutted on issues I never even spoke to, that startling event is worthy of a little explanation, it seems to me, not mere assertion on your part.

On dhimmitude per se, I would agree that it is an anachronism these days, a mediaeval holdover. I was speaking to its history, though, and I believe that I made my point: Jews over the centuries did better under this second-class citizenship than they did throughout European history, until relatively recently. I wouldn't have thought this point was controversial.

The incidents that you raised occurred after Iraq. The first Iraq war, that is. At least try to be accurate. In the context of Islam, I think it is, first of all, a mistake to personalize "Islam" as though it were some unified, malevolent, conscious force. It's a religion, observed by 1.2 billion human beings, of whom only a tiny minority are extremists. I think it's important to restore the human dimension to this, rather than getting into pointless arguments about whose religion is best.

I suspect I would not fare well under a strict Muslim regime either. Or a strict Christian one. Or a strict Jewish one. But these fears can get out of hand. If it isn't the "yellow peril," it's communism. If it isn't communism, it's Islam. There's always some force out there that's threatening to take us over--or allegations of such that serve interests that are not mine. I would rather look at geopolitics rationally and analytically, than succumb to paranoia about the Other.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 12, 2005 10:20 AM

Are Christians & Jews actually engaging in expansionist activity in this day & age using their Holy Books as manuals of terror?

In this modern age are they spreading out in the Western World demanding that we accommodate their customs, traditions & practices?

Are Jews & Christians beheading those that disagree with them anywhere in the world today, using their scriptures as divine permission?

Posted by: albion at October 12, 2005 11:44 AM

Albion:

"Are Christians & Jews actually engaging in expansionist activity in this day & age using their Holy Books as manuals of terror?"

Bush is an evangelical Christian in world-view and political base, who has no compunction using words like "crusade" and Biblical injunctions such as "If youy aren't with us, you're against us." He is the President of a country that has a somewhat expanded view of "manifest destiny" these days, and nearly half of whose citizens take the Bible literally. The US can't seem to get through a decade without making war on some other country.

As for Jews, let's make the distinction, first of all, between the state of Israel and Jews per se. But Israel is a self-defined Jewish state, and its settlements on the West Bank, which are actually growing (never mind the sad diversion in Gaza)says all that need to be said about "expansion."

"In this modern age are they spreading out in the Western World demanding that we accommodate their customs, traditions & practices?"

That's an interesting question. If you mean, are they insisting that others live under a Christian or Jewish religious regime, then the answer is, obviously not. But the US, with its notion of how to run a state, is presently engaged in an experiment in "guided democracy" in Iraq, imposing its values upon the people there--which will have, I believe, dire results.

"Are Jews & Christians beheading those that disagree with them anywhere in the world today, using their scriptures as divine permission?"

Why, no. They are bombing, shelling, bulldozing and shooting instead--on the West Bank, in Iraq, in Afghanistan....The second part of your question, though, is a crucial one. I don't really believe that religion, as I said earlier, is much more than a mask for that sort of thing, which is usually motivated by more material considerations. Yes, there are religious fanatics around, and the newsworthy ones these days are Muslim, but they get their power, authroity and support when there are legitimate (and non-religious) grievances to exploit.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 12, 2005 11:58 AM

Dr. Dawg,
My (post Skokie) beef with the ACLU has been with their not so hidden enmity with Second Amendment rights. I suspect that you would
label yourself "progressive" (OK, I peeked) or some such pleasant sounding term, and I think the issue is off topic for jihadwatch, but I think the Second Amendment is a fundamental part of the US Constitution. Just explaining, no need for a
discussion!

I'm sorry you're bummed out by the use of the term UnAmerican down here, but I'm offended by a
lot of stuff about Canada too. We'll just both have to live with it, eh? Also, you will note that
I would not seek to ban "unamerican" speech or
even flag burning, but if someone seeks to burn
the flag at a July 4th parade, there is a notion of "disturbing the peace" or "fighting words" which can be applied. Standing outside a mosque
with pornographic pictures of muhammad porking
ayesha would be similar, but publishing a comic book with the same, while crude, is not. Nazis
are free to march (and do!) in many places here
in the USA, but Harlem is (and should be!) off limits, not because they aren't free to speak,
but because they aren't free to say anything anywhere they want at any time. This is all obvious, no?

In any case, little can be inferred about my
decision to drop ACLU membership from that. I may
prefer to direct my money to organizations fighting more important free speech battles, in the same way that I'd rather fund the Nature Conservancy than Greenpeace.

The difference between Skokie and Jyllandsposten is that muslims don't have to buy the paper that has pictures of muhammad. That's a bit different from neo-Nazis marching down your street in a Jewish neighborhood? Do you appreciate the difference? If not, no point replying, it's more than politics and a border that separate us,
and the rift is too wide. As I alluded to before,
the proper analogy to Skokie would be if some
group which thought all muslims should be gassed were to march in, say, Dearborn. Why is this
so hard to understand?

Jyllandsposten is more like Monte Python's "Life
Of Brian". Should that movie have been made? How
about "The Last Tempattion Of Christ"? And has it
ever crossed your mind that while Rushdie and translators of his work live in fear, NO CHRISTIAN OR JEWISH ORGANIZATION of any note called for
the execution of people involved in those works.
My suggestion is that if you are a thin skinned Christian or Jew, don't see these movies!

Also, as neither one of us does know what fraction of muslims supports these fatwas, my
guess (from talking to actual muslims who appear
moderate) is at least as good as yours. The ones
I've talked to, with one exception, thought Rushdie should die, and have justification from the life of muhammad on their side. So, I don't
take your suggestion, but my own experience.

I'm getting a bit tired, since I originally thought, despite our obvious political differences
(I'll classify myself as a libertarian leaning
centrist in the US political landscape),that you could perceive how this is different, and as a
self identifying "progressive", understand that
it is a free speech issue, on which we might have some common cause, but now I wonder.

Posted by: American at October 12, 2005 3:08 PM

American:

Jyllands-Posten is Denmark's largest newspaper. If the country is anything like ours, people buy newspaper subscriptions, rather than purchasing from newsstands every now and then. Our household has two papers delivered in the early morning, plus the Sunday New York Times.

Now, we are both speculating a little, but, just for the sake of argument, consider the possibility that a significant number of the country's 210,000 Muslims subscribe. Not knowing what was coming, they had no choice to decline receiving the paper that day, or consequently to avoid being upset when they turned to the editorial page. In that respect, then, their situation was a little closer to that of the inhabitants of Skokie than you might care to admit.

Of course, it may well be the case that Muslims are not assimilated into Danish culture, and thus have no subscriptions to Jyllands-Posten, and, voila, problem solved. Sort of.

As I get older, I tend to be more open on free speech issues, but I have never considered it (and neither do you) an absolute right. The Life of Brian (and for that matter, for us agnostics, The Passion of the Christ) could certainly offend some, but that doesn't make me want to ban them. On the other hand, I could sympathize with a Christian who opens up his copy of The Ottawa Citizen to find a mocking cartoon of Christ on the cross. I think, then, that the only rift between us on this specific issue may be one of degree.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 12, 2005 3:56 PM

Dr Dawq posted: I realized I had omitted something from y origianl message: I was referring to both Christians and Jews, of course, not merely Christians. And my point was that, no matter which holy text one wants to look at, some rather hair-raising passages can be found. And that this does not mean that most Christians, most Jews or most Muslims live by them.

That is precisely the point. You omitted a lot. Not only that but missed the central point of the debate.

The passage that you quoted from the Bible was a deliberate attempt by you to give the impression that Christianity encouraged violence, when in fact the lesson is quite contrary to what you wished others to assume. OTH islam is a religon that endjoins its faithful to war against non-muslims.

It was a piece of dissimulation and you were caught out. I think that a fuller apology would be more appropriate.

No matter how much dressing you put on the koran it still is a book bereft of sense and extremely violent to boot. It is not a coincidence that muslims colectively or individually, are engaged in killing non-muslims. They even go as far as beheading innocent civilians while chanting "allah akhbar". How absoltely disgusting.

As for Christians bombing and shelling Afghanistan - what utter rot. It is not a Christian state but a secular republic that is taking action to stop Jihadis becoming a bigger pest they already are. There are Athiests, Christians, Jews, Hindus and even muslims in the US forces, and they all do what is required of them. In fact the most Christian churches are opposed to the war in Afghanistan.

Posted by: DP111 at October 12, 2005 5:02 PM

Dr. Dawg,
I think the only rift between us on this specific issue is that "all other things are not equal" with islam and muslims, and that propensity to violence of that community is so much greater than that of surrounding communities that it needs
to be confronted aggressively, hence the actions of the newspaper, rather than being gratuitous, were in fact the epitome of civic virtue.

There are far more Christians than Muslims in
the US, and many Christians were greeted with pictures of piss Christ in newspapers, TV, etc.,
on a daily basis, and as far as I know, the "artist" doesn't live in seclusion out of fear for his life. That level of tolerance does not exist in any muslim community anywhere. Before Theo Van Gogh pissed off muslims, he used to annoy Christians and Jews in Holland. The kind of fear that acts like that engender is what the newspaper
was combatting. You appear to think that all other things are equal, and that muslims are just like Christians and Jews and Hindus and Bahais and Buddhists and ... in the West. If that is so,
that is another point of disagreement, as none of
those communities is producing their version of
jihad killers.

In short, I think your efforts to convince people to be tolerant would be better spent with muslims.

Posted by: American at October 12, 2005 5:12 PM

Oops, I wrote:

pissed off muslims, he used to annoy Christians and Jews in Holland. The kind of fear that acts like that engender is what the newspaper

insert the sentence:

But when he insulted islam he was murdered by a
Dutch born and raised muslim.

Posted by: American at October 12, 2005 5:14 PM

"The passage that you quoted from the Bible was a deliberate attempt by you to give the impression that Christianity encouraged violence, when in fact the lesson is quite contrary to what you wished others to assume."

No, these passages had no such intent--quite the contrary. They, shorn of context, carry a violent message, and so do many others; they also refer to violent events based upon religion (in the case of the two references to Jews that I quoted). Quoting bits and pieces of the Qur'an out of context amounts to the same thing. As I stated before, most Christians, Jews and Muslims do not find justiciation for violence in their holy books.

What I have been endeavouring to show--but this seems to have gone right over your head, despite the numerous precise refernces that I have provided--is that the Qur'an, while not providing a "turn the other cheek" message by any means, tends to set violence in the context of self-defence, while geberally discouraging excess and unprovoked aggression. I think I've made that point, while agreeing that a) the urging of violence towards apostates is troubling, and b) that Pagans do not necessarily come under the "no compulsion in religion" edict. (At the same time, as at least one of the passages from the Bible that I quoted indicates, idol-worshippers did not fare well under Judaism or Christianity either).

Finally, there is no holy book that is not susceptible to extremist interpretation; extremists and fanatics will find what they want in them. I am merely suggesting that the Qur'an is no worse in this respect than the Bible, and no less vulnerable.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 12, 2005 5:16 PM

I can't really argue with your interpretation of what Islam thinks of pagans, but how do you square this with Surah 109? Or Surah 10:99? Or Surah 11:28?

posted by Dr Dawg

Dr Dawg,

The answer to that question is in Sura 2:106

"None of our revelations do we cause to abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar: knowest though not that Allah has power over all things"

This verse is the basis for the doctrine of Naskh or Abrogation, in Islamic Jurisprudence. The revelations of the prophet Muhammad are often contradictory, and it would otherwise be unclear what the correct ruling is. This verse ensures that the later revalations of the Prophet are to be taken over the earlier ones, if there is any conflict. This is why drinking is forbidden in Islam, despite the fact that Sura 2:219 states that you may spend money on wine that is beyond your needs. That verse is abrogated by Sura 5:90, which was revealed later on.

Sura 109 is indeed a peaceful Sura, and it comes from the Meccan period of Muhammad's life (where in fact most of the peaceful verses come from). Unfortunately, the last two Suras to be revealed were Suras 8 and 9, which contain most of the Jihadist verses we have already discussed (9:5, 9:29 etc). Therefore Sura 109 would be abrogated in this instance. By all means, check up on this doctrine, if you are in any doubt.

This is how the Jihadists can justify their actions today, in line with Islamic Jurisprudence. In fact, one genuine modern day moderate muslim (as opposed to the taqiyya spin doctor type) , Thomas Haidon, attributes this as one of the main problems facing serious Islamic reformers today. I agree with this formulation, as one needs only look at Islamic Jurists in the past and see what they have said on this issue. Here are two examples:

"The verse of the Sword (sura 9:5) abrogated every agreement of peace between the prophet and any idolater, every treaty and every term"

Ibn Kathir, commenting on the works of Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim

"This verse (Sura 9:5) abrogates every peace treaty in the Qur'an"

"Surat at-Tawba:Repentance" Tafsir (commentary) by Ibn Juzayy.

I would urge you to read further on the violent Jihad ideology and how it is entrenched in Islamic teachings in Robert Spencer's book, "Onward Muslim Soldiers". This gives a far more thorough analysis than I am able to do. If you still disagree with what I have said after reading this, then e-mail him and give him your arguments why you consider teachings from the Qur'an and Hadith are non violent. He put forward the challenge for those who think they can do this yesterday on the Jihadwatch website, which is referred to in a post somewhere above in this thread.

Now the evening is late and my frantic typing must come to a close. Goodnight and don't let the Jihadists bite.

Posted by: Amicus at October 12, 2005 6:09 PM

I am merely suggesting that the Qur'an is no worse in this respect than the Bible, and no less vulnerable.

That is mere equivalence in addition to taking a . You might as well say that Buddha's teachings are just as susceptible to violent interpretation. Reason is not the only tool but it has to be applied with common sesnse. There is no question varying "interpretations" of the violent verses in the koran, which explicitly call for the ambush and murder of infidels and the seizure of their goods. Highway robbery with divine license! They are explicit and quite clear. There can be no misunderstanding.

Inabilty to make a judgement when the koranic verses are so clear, is a dereliction of duty that no honest person should ever do.

Death threats have forced daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten to hire security guards to protect its employees, after printing twelve cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed.

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/91408.html

Here we go again. Death threats just as mohammed would have liked it.

We in the West have a democracy that enshrines freedom of expression. If muslims dont like it then it would be better for them, and for us, for muslims to go back to islamic nations.

Enough of this nonsense of threatening the lives of authors and artists. What next? If a historian showed conclusively that the koran was a lie from start to finish, would his life be under threat?

Dr Dawq, it is time to stop this charade. Life is more important. Truth and freedom of expression are important, and if muslims take offence at any slight to their religious beliefs (which afterall are just unsubstantiated assertions), and threaten the lives of artists, then civilisation will come to a halt. Enough is enough.

Posted by: DP111 at October 12, 2005 6:23 PM

re; previous post - complete of sentence is

That is mere equivalence in addition to taking a non-judgemental view, whic serves no purpose.

Posted by: DP111 at October 12, 2005 6:29 PM

Amicus:

I was aware of al-nasikh wa al-mansukh, but blissfully unaware that the Surahs were non-chronologically arranged! That's an elementary error, and thank you for pointing it out.

I will only note at this juncture that Biblical tradition, while not containing (to my knowledge) this doctrine of abrogation, seems to be to seize on the verses of one's choice. Just take Fred Phelps as a clownish example of that, or Pat Robertson as a more serious one.

Again, though, my main point: comparison of these holy books, and those who wave them around for extremist purposes, is not the way to do geopolitical analysis. Muslims are human beings too, and enjoy peace and security as much as anyone. If we start from what I believe to be the mistaken "clash of civilizations" perspective, where does this lead? To a kind of binary thinking in which one side or the other is completely vanquished? The heck with that--it sounds too "jihadist" for my liking.

DP111:

I wouldn't agree that Buddhist scriptures are susceptible to interpretation as inciting violence. That's the one religion that doesn't appear to produce terrorists. However, as I noted before, the Bible has been used as a justification for violence for centuries. But let me conclude by agreeing with you, unequivocally, that death threats to writers and artists are unacceptable, from any quarter, and should be dealt with as such.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 12, 2005 6:53 PM

Amicus, American, DP111 etc:

I admire your patience in feeding the "Dr.Da'wa" poser, who, like many before him,- makes the most ridiculous acrobatics and never ceases to put lipstick on this wild boar of his, which he calls "Islam".

Dr. Da'wa:
This is not "christian watch" or "Jew-or Buddhist or Hindu watch", Jihad Watch & Dhimmi Watch are helping, making people understand that the "root-causes of terror" are found in the Koran, -the official guide-book to terror,- and sira and hadith confirm it.
Zarqawi, OBL and Zawahiri confirm it. "Honest Muslims", if there is such a thing, confirm it.

Your "clerics" confirm it daily!

Mohammedans who try to pull the wool (or burkha) over the ears of those who are to lazy to inform themselves, the kitman and taqiyya spin-doctors, the calls for "politeness" or "tolerance" for the absurd, the violent and macabre teachings of this bloody cult, are wasting their time and should be ridiculed to even try.

Our Christian-Judeo scriptures may be (more or less accurate) records of a distant, violent past. Not more, not less.

They are not inciting violence -here and now- like the Koran very explicitly does. To compare is absurd.

There is nothing that compares!

Why did you not answer the questions I posted for you?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 12, 2005 7:07 PM

Amicus:

One glaringly obvious correction must be made to my statement that "abrogation" does not exist in the Bible--the New Testament "letter killeth" and the abrogation of Levitican dietary and other restrictions (i.e., wearing cloth of two fabrics, etc.)The new dispensation, in other words. It's been a long day.

Incidentally, some sources claim that abrogation applies only to pre-Qur'anic texts. But this does not appear to be the dominant view. I would suggest in any case that, as world conditions improve, interpretations of the Qur'an will more and more emphasize the positive.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 12, 2005 7:20 PM

Dr Dawq

There is Jainism which is also non-violent.

Dr Dawq posted:However, as I noted before, the Bible has been used as a justification for violence for centuries

Indeed the Bible has been used as a justification for war. However this happened at a time when most of the population could not read and the Bible was in Latin. When the Bible became generally available, and the populace at large could read the inherently pacifist teachings of Jesus, it became quite impossible to use the Christian Bible to justify war or violence. And in this context, not the Bible as a whole but the teachings of Jesus, which is what defines Christianity, as a tool to justify war, became impossible. It is the opposite with the koran.

I'm delighted that you agree that death threats to artists and writers is unacceptable. It is the writers and artists task to challenge our prejudices and pre-conceived notions, as civilisation advances only by such means. In this, it is inevitable that they will sometimes stray a bit too far, but death threats can never be condoned or accepted.

The outrage of muslims in Denmark for what seems to be a fairly trivial slight, leads me to believe that far from the artists having strayed too far, it is the muslim community that is in dire need of having their prejudices challenged. I'm afraid that challenges to their prejudices/faith, is going to occur with increasing frequency and with far greater intellectual force then a few cartoons. Now mohammed himself did not take too kindly to writers, and had a female poet assasinated. So if muslims are following his example, I would suggest they take care. There are just so many Theo Van Goghs the West is prepared to tolerate, before state action becomes inevitable. And it will not be the Christian Bible that will be used as justification (as it is quite impossible to do so) but the defence of Freedom and democracy.

Muslims had better start getting used to ever increasing questioning, criticisms, and even lampooning, and other critiques on their faith. Christianity had to stand it for centuries, and islam will have to do so as well or else it will be consumed in the fire of ridicule.

It is getting very late here. Goodnight

Posted by: DP111 at October 12, 2005 7:46 PM

"One glaringly obvious correction must be made to my statement that "abrogation" does not exist in the Bible--the New Testament "letter killeth" and the abrogation of Levitican dietary and other restrictions (i.e., wearing cloth of two fabrics, etc.)The new dispensation, in other words. It's been a long day."

Not entirely true. Even a casual perusal of the NT will indicate that Jesus does indeed refute some of the OT punishments. Stoning, for example.

The truly unfortunate fact of islam is that abrogation invariably occurs in favour of violence.

Prophet Geoff
BBUH

Posted by: Geoff at October 12, 2005 8:12 PM

Prophet Geoff: You are correct, of course: the new dispensation did more than change the eating habits of the faithful. Sloppy of me.

But help me out here, if you can: I've been doing some reading about abrogation, and Muslim scholars do not seem to agree either on what's been abrogated or what verses do the abrogating. So what is your source for claiming that the abrogation is always in the direction of violence?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 13, 2005 11:45 AM

Dr Dawg

Again, the answer to your question is in Sura 2:16. It says that later verses abrogate the earlier ones, if there is a contradiction. It does not specifically state that violent verses abrogate the peaceful ones. However, as the last Suras to be written, which are 5, 8, 9 and 47 are the most violent, this has had the effect of the peaceful verses being abrogated by the violent ones.

If you managed to find a peaceful verse which was written after (chronologically speaking) a violent one, you would have a sound basis in Islamic Jurisprudence to argue that the violent verse is abrogated, assuming that the peaceful verse is itself not abrogated by a later violent one. But as I've noted above, the last four Suras written pretty much put an end to that. If you do manage to come up with something though, post it to Robert Spencer, as I am sure he would be very interested to see it. I've given up trying myself, though.

Incidentally, the ordering of the Suras in the Qur'an is based on nothing more than their length, with the longest at the start and the shortest at the end! The only exception to this is Sura 1, which is itself one of the shortest. It would be silly though to have that Sura, which is called "the opening" at the end!

Posted by: Amicus at October 13, 2005 3:23 PM

Dr Dawg,

Sorry, that's Sura 2:106, not Sura 2:16. Oh, the joy of typos.

Posted by: Amicus at October 13, 2005 3:27 PM

Amicus: Thanks for the explanation about the ordering of the Surat; I got there finally, as I was reading up on the specifics of abrogation.

It would appear that there are varying interpretations of abrogation, as I noted earlier; indeed, at least one commentator thinks that Sura 2:106 means simply that the Qur'an as a whole abrogates pre-Qur'anic texts. There's an interesting disquisition on abrogation here:

http://www.islambasics.com/view.php?bkID=65&chapter=6

I would suggest that the kindlier interpretations might be holding sway were the world situation different.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 13, 2005 4:12 PM

"I would suggest that the kindlier interpretations might be holding sway were the world situation different".

Posted by Dr Dawg

In a nutshell, I think that is where our point of view differs. For I believe that the world situation would be different if the kindlier interpretations were holding sway.

I am pleased you found our discourse on this thread helpful. Still, I am sure we will end up arguing with each other on other threads sometime in the near future! However, as Westerners, we can do that. Please just spare a thought for those living under Islamic Rule (such as those in Iran and Saudia Arabia) who cannot enjoy this basic human right.

I definately think that Thomas Haidon has it right. Most of it stems down to the abrogation issue. If the Meccan Sura's abrogated the later Medinan ones, I'm sure things would be a lot better, to the point that this website probably would not be needed.

Well, this thread is getting old, and I'm sure we can both enter the fray on newer articles. Farewell for now!

Posted by: Amicus at October 13, 2005 6:38 PM

Good debating with you, Amicus. Wander over to my place from time to time. This issue does keep coming up--indeed, there's a discussion going on right now on related issues.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at October 13, 2005 6:41 PM

Great blog!

Posted by: NewsGuy at October 13, 2005 10:55 PM

Abrogation?

I thought that the koran was the timeless and unchanging word of allah.

One cant have it both ways.

Posted by: DP111 at October 14, 2005 8:54 AM