| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
We recently learned that a British children’s concert banned the three little pigs, renaming them the three little puppies, for fear of offending Muslims. The perpetrators of this insanity backed off in the face of public ridicule, but the attitude that prompted their initial decision is still very much with us. Some may recall, for example, the brouhaha a few years ago, discussed at this website, about the suggestion made in England that all "Saracen's Head" pubs be renamed so as to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities. (Google "Saracen's Head" and "Jihad Watch" for more.)
But this Three Little Pigs affair poses a much bigger problem. All over the Western world, and no doubt even in Tokyo, there are restaurants that in tribute to the Parisian original at Les Halles (and possibly to pick up some reflected gourmet glamor), go by the name Au Pied de Cochon. The original Paris restaurant, though it may not have three Michelin stars, is or was memorable. It certainly enjoys as much fame among tourists as, say, Le Train bleu, that celebrated restaurant in the Gare de Lyon.
Those who, just as they would make a point in London of going to that roast-beef-and-Yorkshire-pudding establishment that does such a land-order business with tourists because of its having more than two centuries ago been frequented by Samuel Johnson, in Paris simply must eat at Au pied de cochon, will not take kindly to attempts to change its name.
Of course, all of this both emblemizes and yet at the same time misses the point. The point is not the word "pig" or the word "Saracen." The point is that everything about Islam, its teachings, its inculcated attitudes, its atmospherics, is collectivist where we place great store on the individual and individualism. Islam discourages free and skeptical inquiry, which is the great and main reason for the West's astonishing achievements. Islam limits artistic expression, while the West is deeply reluctant to do so. The West believes that the legitimacy of government is not to be found in despotism, or a theocracy, or the Divine Right of Kings, but in the expressed will of the People, while Islam locates political legitimacy not in the expressed will of mere contemptible mortals, whose duty is to be "slaves of Allah" and to submit to his will, but in the will of Allah as expressed in the Qur'an, and further glossed by the Hadith and Sira.
There is nothing that connects Islam to the Western world, or almost nothing, except centuries of aggression by Muslims, first in the Middle East and North Africa (which shared the same early Christian civilization with Western Europe), and then in the Iberian peninsula even into France, and then in the east, in the unsuccessful early assault by Arabs on Byzantium, followed centuries later by a much more successful assault by Turks (Seljuk and then Ottoman), and then deep into Europe as far as the gates of Vienna, unsuccessfully laid siege to twice, the second time in 1683. And all during this period Muslims raided up and down the coasts of Europe, even as far as Limerick, in Ireland, and once in Iceland. They raped, they destroyed, they captured and took back as slaves perhaps a million people from Western Europe. They did something of the same in the Caucasus and Russia, with several million more European victims there. And this does not include the tens of millions of black African victims of Arab slavers, who preferred to seize young boys and castrate them in the jungle, and then march those who survived (about 10%) to the slave markets of Islam.
"Three Little Pigs" are merely a symbol. And they are a symbol, if they stay and further such concessions are not made, of a refusal to change one whit for the Muslims who happen to have managed to settle deep behind what they themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines. And if they go, if not in this case but in others, they will be a further symbol of a desire to please that merely masks a dangerous, and self-defeating, pusillanimity. No concessions should be made -- anywhere in the Western world -- to Islamic demands. And here, where the demands are merely anticipated and proleptically yielded to -- "for fear of offending Muslims" was the phrase used in a "Daily Mail" article -- by Westerners cravenly eager to please, it becomes intolerable. No, it doesn't become intolerable. It is intolerable.
Posted by Hugh at March 18, 2007 6:14 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Tony Blair recently apologized for the slave trade, which is as ridiculous as the Scandinavians apologizing for the Vikings.
The point is that the establishment are addicted to self shaming much in the same way manic depressives love being miserable.
We can't stop there addiction so we must replace it. Make them feel guilty for systematically dismantling western culture and tradition and for the Stalinist rewriting of history. Make them feel shame for the ethnic cleansing of native western peoples.
They are only capable of thinking in terms of "the good guys" and "the bad guys". We have to show them that 'three little pigs' are the good guys and the 'behead those who insult Islam, crowd' are the bad guys.
Posted by: BlowHammed![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 18, 2007 7:09 AM
It all comes back to the liberals being filled with self hate, allying themselves with these people who want to destroy us and erase us from history... After history starts after the conquest. doesn't it?
Posted by: lonewolf at March 18, 2007 8:51 AM
The Muslims made the worst massacre of African slaves in history at the Zanj rebellion.
The Muslims hated Ethiopia, despite their king having protected the first of their kind, and surrounded and attacked this African Kingdom in murderous wars recorded by Ahmed Gragn, who casually writes about how he slaughtered thousands of Ethiopians for being infidels.
Has any Islamic leader apologized for that?
Posted by: rocky at March 18, 2007 9:19 AM
These people , liberals whatever you want to call them who are so keen to profess sorry to the Islamic world are no better than any other traitors that have seen the light of day.
Their objective is the deconstruction and eventual destruction of everything that we hold dear.
They are haters in the true sense of the word and are now completely in the enemy camp. There is no debating or reasoning with them and consequently they deserve a traitors sentence - when we finally get round to kicking out the muslim hordes that have invaded our civilised lands maybe we can give these people, so enamoured of muslim sensibilities, the offer of leaving with their muslim brothers - an offer they wont be able to refuse!!
at March 18, 2007 9:32 AM
"liberals or whatever you want to call them..."
-- from a posting above
How about dividing the world, not between so-called "liberals" (which liberals? John Stuart Mill or Jimmy Carter?) and so-called "conservatives" (which conservatives? Edmund Burke, or Pat Buchanan?), but between the intelligent, and the un-intelligent. That's the kind of division that is most useful.
Posted by: Hugh at March 18, 2007 9:58 AM
The point about this silliness is that it can go on almost without limit or end.
How did the school teachers imagine that they could ever do enough to avoid offending those Muslims who wish to be offended ?
Yes, pigs are unclean, but so are DOGS, even guide dogs, especially if the offended Muslim is a taxi driver.
The children where going to SING. Muslims are somewhat more divided on this point, but some feel strongly enough to plant bombs over it.
The children presumably include GIRLS, whose education is another controversial issue amongst Muslims, and again but some feel strongly enough to plant bombs over it.
So while the school teachers were taking counsel from their fears, why did they not go the whole hog (as we say in my country) and just call the show off completely ?
at March 18, 2007 11:58 AM
Never mind the puppies. If they really wanted to make the story acceptable for a certain audience, all they had to do was change the story to "The Three Little Jews."
And to answer the tuneful queston "who's afraid of the big bad wolf?": apparently, the dhimmis are.
Posted by: scaramouoche at March 18, 2007 12:23 PM
It goes deeper than non-intelligence vs. intelligence. Islam is a powerful force that intelligent parties use to their own ends. Some agendas:
1. Arab elites use Islam to spread their racism as they sip their Jack Daniels in the company of blondes.
2. The leadership of leftist political parties see a solid block of dependent voters with IQs solidly in the 80s. As a politician’s defined job is to get more votes than his opponent, Islam and socialist political parties are natural allies in a democracy.
3. Pensioners see Islam as an ally that will keep the checks showing up in the mail long enough for them to make it to the boneyard.
4. Losers in life’s lottery see Islam as their best bet to change the Western power structure and punish ‘the man’.
5. Intelligent, but sheltered, people of privilege can search for meaning in their lives by showing compassion for the downtrodden and misunderstood Muslim.
While a true liberal would stamp Islam out of his country in a heartbeat, many intelligent leftists use Islam as a tool. Unfortunately for them many of their statements are on the record and, when the money runs out, they will have a lot to answer for.
Expect to see a growing market for bounty hunters in the Caribbean region.
Posted by: pez at March 18, 2007 12:54 PM
Pez wrote:-"3. Pensioners see Islam as an ally that will keep the checks showing up in the mail long enough for them to make it to the boneyard."
I take great exception to that statement,matey!
Just what do you base this scurilous attack on senior citizens on?
at March 18, 2007 1:16 PM
Because:
Collectivists, progressives, Communists, socialists and the rest have for a century proven themselves not the champions of equality, as their forebears surely were, but as furious philosophical enemies of the West.
Islam's aggression would normally be a joke. A healthy West--unshackled from its army of fifth columnists--would swat away the Jihad and set about the honest work of taking back the Mediterranean and the Levant.
(All this is not to rule out civil debates about school vouchers, graduated taxation and affirmative action.)
The fact remains. The source of our weakness in the face of jihadism, violent and slippery, is not Islam's ferocity. It is a product of the effete Left's unwillingness to allow that the West has a right to exist--in Israel or elsewhere, ultimately.
at March 18, 2007 1:39 PM
Rookie; Not all pensioners, just those who vote to maintain unsustainable social programs that will eventually bankrupt what should otherwise be healthy economies. When this voting block allies itself with the Islamic voting block, it threatens the fabric of democracy. No offense intended to the millions of pensioners who vote for their culture instead of their own wallet, of whom I'm sure you are one.
Posted by: pez at March 18, 2007 1:57 PM
Lost in the cultural translation by the sensitive dhimwits who sought to change the Three Little Pigs to the Three Little Puppies, is that Muslims also find dogs equally najis and haraam....ask a Somali taxi driver in Minneapolis to take you and your three little pugs home from the airport....hmm. Pugs would have been an hilarious change. Sounds like pigs + are dogs = repulsive to Muslims...Hell to the yes, I would gladly see a production of the Three Little Pugs.....they are so cute.
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at March 18, 2007 2:05 PM
Oh, M. Alcontent beat be to the punchline, and then heaped it on in true infidel fashion. Darn my tardiness! But I would still go and see the 3 Little Pugs, starring singing boys and girls every day of the weak....yeah, I meant to spell it that way.
at March 18, 2007 2:09 PM
Thank you Pez. No offence taken, in fact my apologies for reacting half-cocked. This fight is much bigger than my hurt feelings. P.S. I have already bought my place in the Boneyard. (joking)
Posted by: rookie at March 18, 2007 3:15 PM
We in the West believe that self-improvement often requires self-criticism. Both for individuals and for whole societies.
We regard the right to dissent and to offer fresh ideas and debate them openly as a strength of our society. So that when we make mistakes, which fallible humans inevitably must, we discuss those mistakes and then correct them.
But the Muslim world seems to believe that this is a sign of weakness. They never engage in self-criticism of themselves, only of the West. And the West does its own, well-intentioned self-criticism, which combined with Muslim criticism of the West results in the West being permanently on the psycho-moral defensive.
The obvious fix is for the West to engage in psycho-moral criticism of Muslims. But as we have discussed on JW numerous times, there are lots of reasons why the U.S. Government has evidently taken that option off the table.
at March 18, 2007 3:55 PM
I could not agree more rocky !! When are they going to apologize ? Never I would bet.
I do hold out hope though for the innate goodness in all people. Call me an optimist, but I am one that believes the Jews and Christians and Muslims will become true brothers and sisters as they should be. We all have some atoning to do if we are honest. Peace is a two-way street. The unity of all people, free of imagined differences, will prevail!
WJLB 97.9 FM
at March 18, 2007 4:06 PM
If I may politely disagree, Stephen L., the obvious fix is for the descendents who have profited from imperialism to apoligize for the suffering and enslavement of peaceful people everywhere but especially in Africa, the cradle of all mankind. We have to start somewhere so why not start at the beginning? It will only hurt for a minute. I promise.
From there, we can begin to address other issues. All of which rose off of the backs of those people. If you are going to get right, get right there first.
WJLB 97.9 FM
at March 18, 2007 4:18 PM
You get no argument from me J. Long over due IMHO. I love everyone but that is just me of course.
Posted by: hook at March 18, 2007 5:00 PM
The fact remains. The source of our weakness in the face of jihadism, violent and slippery, is not Islam's ferocity. It is a product of the effete Left's unwillingness to allow that the West has a right to exist--in Israel or elsewhere, ultimately.
Posted by: counterjihadi
TAKE THAT TO THE BANK!
This should be printed BOLDLY on Page ONE of every school book in the West. Until the day that it is no longer necessary :-)
Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 18, 2007 7:14 PM
OT Anyone see this post at LGF...
The Doha debate...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24837_The_Doha_Debates-_Suppression_of_Women_Good_or_Bad
Notice at 34.00 the speaker who is dressed 'modestly', and also 40.30 when Reem says to "endear us to them and then bring them closer and closer to our ways. Basically, pretend to be moderate and once you win them over then go more and more back to your old ways. That's how to get along in the west.
Posted by: Borg at March 18, 2007 9:02 PM
It's funny that the people who changed the pigs to dogs still don't know, all these years later, that dogs are offensive, too.
That is why the muslims said this decision was silly.
If they had changed it to something else, like cats, would they have said it was silly?
Posted by: Borg at March 18, 2007 9:05 PM
"Three Little Pigs" are merely a symbol. And they are a symbol, if they stay and further such concessions are not made, of a refusal to change one whit for the Muslims who happen to have managed to settle deep behind what they themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines.
Speaking of cowardice, the Minneapolis Red Star and Tribune ran an in-depth profile of the “no pork” Moslima Target checkout girls in yesterday’s paper. Top of the front page, four columns on the continuation on page 10 of the front section.
As a pig farmer up here in Minnesota, I frowned in alarm when the story broke last week about the Moslimas refusing to handle pork at a Target Store. I scowled reading yesterday’s article.
Some snippets:
In the wake of community criticism, Target is reassigning its Moslem cashiers who refuse to ring up pork…
The Red Star did not cite who in the community criticized Target (which is headquartered in Minneapolis.
Nor does it question why the Moslimas were ok handling pork products the past two decades. Could it be the same Moslem Brotherhood front organization that organized the Halal Hacks at the Mpls.-St. Paul Airport cab stand?
Listening to a number of local talk radio stations, all I heard was calling for their firing and even deportation back to Somalia.
After the story appeared, Target asked Muslim cashiers who refuse to handle pork to wear gloves or transfer to other areas of the stores. In some cases, Muslim cashiers will be given the option of transferring to other stores. "We are confident that this is a reasonable solution for our guests and team members," Target spokeswoman Paula Thornton-Greear said in a statement. It remains unclear whether wages would be affected by any job transfers; cashiers are generally entry-level positions at Target
In other words, the Moslimas will get a raise for their insubordination.
The Red Star did not question whether it’s religious discrimination to give these Moslimas promotions for their insubordination when such behavior by a non-Moslem would’ve resulted in immediate firing.
The move is an effort by Target to balance the religious rights of its employees with customer demands for prompt service. However, some Somali Muslims in the Twin Cities said that the retailer is overreacting to public pressure and that stores should be able to accommodate Muslim cashiers without disrupting service.
"This is being blown way out of proportion," said Abdi Sheikhosman, a professor of Islamic law at the University of Minnesota Law School. "Pork products represent a very small percentage of Target's overall products. ... Accommodations could have been made."
All the MSP Moslem community is asking that a national retail chain permanently alter its retailing system to accommodate Sharia. Moslem leaders are unhappy with the raises and transfers for the insubordinant Moslems.
And that makes sense: If Target makes permanent the “no handle pork call the manager” pork workaround the Moslimas initiated a couple of weeks ago, and the historically multiculturalist company may end up doing just that, it would be the most successful form of Lesser Jihad in America to date.
Many Muslims believe the pig is an unclean animal and consider it a sin to eat pork. The Qur'an has multiple passages in which Allah instructs believers to avoid eating pig flesh. It is so core to their beliefs that some consider it sinful to sell the meat, because that encourages others to participate in a sinful act.
The Red Star does not mention that the fundamental goal of Islam is to impose itself onto all of mankind by way of relentless obtrusion accompanied by woe-is-me whining and, of course, the implicit threat of violence.
at March 18, 2007 9:44 PM
What is intolerable Hugh is you and your constant diatribes. Perhaps you forgot an important fact about this factual scenario, Muslims played a significant role in condemning the mockery that this situation became.
Posted by: Haidon at March 19, 2007 12:24 AM
"Diatribes"?
There is nothing remotely tribal about them. And even if in this case the damage was undone, so what? The demands, and the proleptic yielding to felt demands, continue.
In the Spiritual-Search-and-Personal-Anguish Department, where do you stand these days? Working Within the System to Reform It? Wanting to Get Out But For Occupational and Physical Safety Don't Dare? Raising the Kids as Non-Muslims and Wishing You'd Never Gotten Into the Whole Damn Thing in the First Place? Thin-Skinned About the Whole Thing, and Wishing to Persist in the Delusion, Rather Than Sensibly Taking the Route of the Signers of the St. Petersburg Declaration, and Getting for God's Sake Out? Where, exactly?
Posted by: Hugh at March 19, 2007 11:23 AM
one other thing - this story reminded me of a man who did so much to get us to this unhappy state of affairs: Dr Kalim Siddiqui.
it was he who laughed as he told us that Muslims would huff and puff and blow our house down. an interesting Freudian slip, i thought at the time.
10 years after his death, how much progress has been made !
at March 19, 2007 7:07 PM
Many Muslims believe the pig is an unclean animal and consider it a sin to eat pork. The Qur'an has multiple passages in which Allah instructs believers to avoid eating pig flesh. It is so core to their beliefs that some consider it sinful to sell the meat, because that encourages others to participate in a sinful act.
The best explanation I've ever read for the commandment to not eat pork is that pigs require lots of water that could be better used quenching people's thirst. A much more mundane, but sensible reason that that Allah commanded it.
If I may politely disagree, Stephen L., the obvious fix is for the descendents who have profited from imperialism to apoligize for the suffering and enslavement of peaceful people everywhere but especially in Africa, the cradle of all mankind. We have to start somewhere so why not start at the beginning? It will only hurt for a minute. I promise.
The assumption that imperialism led to "profit" is on shaky empirical ground. Imperialism ended up being quite costly to Europe in the long run, which we are now seeing as it is overrun by its former imperial subjects' ancestors. What followed upon imperialism wasn't non-imperialism, it was an anti-imperialism against the presumed "imperialist" at home, the native population, by a faction of the native population as power-hungry as the former imperialists. This "imperialism" will also, in all likelihood, not be profitable for Europe.
at March 20, 2007 1:24 AM
Greetings Hugh
You wrote:
In the Spiritual-Search-and-Personal-Anguish Department, where do you stand these days? Working Within the System to Reform It? Wanting to Get Out But For Occupational and Physical Safety Don't Dare? Raising the Kids as Non-Muslims and Wishing You'd Never Gotten Into the Whole Damn Thing in the First Place? Thin-Skinned About the Whole Thing, and Wishing to Persist in the Delusion, Rather Than Sensibly Taking the Route of the Signers of the St. Petersburg Declaration, and Getting for God's Sake Out? Where, exactly?
Hugh not all of the St Peterspurg declaration signers are truly secular Muslims, some are devout Muslims and you know that. So where do I stand? I am Muslim, and a Muslim I remain. I am not seeking to leave Islam, but to change it (Yeah, what a great job I'm doing I know). Im actually working with the UN in Jakarta Indonesia and have discovered some hope for Islam. Culture can have a positive (or negative) impact on how Islam is practiced. Im going to conntinue to wrok with Muslims like Sheikh Ahmed Mansour to advocate for a Qur'anic based vision of Islam which is guided by a new tafsir, based on modern principels of interpretation that de-literalise violence in the Qur'an as contextual. I am working on a manuscript on this topic at the moment. I hope when I complete it, that you will read it with an open mind.
Posted by: Haidon at March 20, 2007 2:19 AM
And by the way Hugh. I support the St Petersburg Declaration in its entirety. But that will never be good enough for you. The only good Muslim in your view is an ex-Muslim. I will continue to work with ex-Muslims but I will never recant my faith and leave Islam. Not because I am afraid of physical or career repurcussions, but because I believe in Islam's central tenets and because I wish to see Islam transformed to a belief system consistent with human rights instruments. Which is possible, despite your denials and those within Islam who do not wish to see a reformation.
Posted by: Haidon at March 20, 2007 8:08 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)