| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The always perceptive David Thompson discusses the implications of the Charlie Hebdo verdict. Be sure to go to David's site and follow the links, which I have not included here.
Further to this piece, and this and this, the BBC reports that the editor of the satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, has been acquitted. A French court rejected accusations by the Grand Mosque of Paris and other Islamic groups who claimed the magazine had “insulted Muslims” and had incited “hatred” against them by reprinting cartoons of Muhammad. Of the blog posts I've seen reporting this news, Oliver Kamm makes the strongest point, and one that's all too rarely heard:“Note, however, one aspect of the judgement, according to the BBC report, that troubles me: ‘The cartoons were covered by freedom of expression laws and were not an attack on Islam, but fundamentalists, it said.’ Do freedom of expression laws not cover an attack on Islam? It is essential that they should. There is nothing wrong with an attack on Islam (or any other sacred belief). There is nothing wrong with giving offence to religious groups. The judgement appears implicitly to reject these principles. Defenders of a free society must assert them militantly.”Let me repeat some of that, because it bears repeating, and probably more than once:
“There is nothing wrong with an attack on Islam (or any other sacred belief).”One of the creeping, unanalysed myths of our time is that it is somehow wrong to dislike Islam, or any part thereof, and wrong to take a dim view of its tenets and demands, and wrong to take a still dimmer view of the figure who founded it. I can practically hear the distant tutting and grunts of disapproval. Poor Islam. Poor Muslims. Their beliefs are being mocked. How hurtful. How 'racist.' How terribly unfair.
No. It's not unfair at all. What's unfair is a demand for unearned deference and a unilateral exemption from the testing of ideas. What's unfair, indeed despicable, are efforts by Islamic groups to cow dissent and stifle criticism with a well-rehearsed pantomime of victimhood and the projection of false motives. Pretending to be hurt in order to assert one's will over others, even violently, or to gain unreciprocated favours, or to exert control over what others may say and think, is cowardly and malign. Let me say that once again. It's cowardly and malign.
Bravo. Read it all.
Posted by Robert at March 23, 2007 11:47 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Why should I like a "religion" that demands I submit, convert or die?
Posted by: Elric66![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 23, 2007 12:00 PM
Islam is a political ideology. We should be free to criticise it just as we can criticise the beliefs of Republicas or Democrats without fearing for our lives.
PS, can someone tell this to Gordon Brown, Primeminister in waiting in the UK. He intimated that the law may have to be changed after Nick Griffin, leader of a perfectly legal political party, was acquitted by a jury after describing islam as a wicked faith.
PPS Griffin was prosecuted after the BBC secretly filmed him with an undercover expose. Shame they didn't have the balls for a Channel 4 Dispatches programme about hatred preached in mosques.
Posted by: Celsius at March 23, 2007 12:07 PM
I didn't like Moloch,
And hated old Baal,
While Islam's strange Allah
Can go straight to Hell.
Burma Shave.
(Sequential roadsigns on the path to anti-dhimmitude.)
THE FREEDOM TO CRITIQUE, MOCK AND DISSECT ARE ESSENTIAL TO INTELLECTUAL AND SPIRITUAL LIBERTY.
Any limitations are the first of the tyrannical Sharia camel's nose under the West's human rights tent.
Hit it with a satirical shovel and hobble it with
humor.
Or prepare to pay.
(Jizya, and worse.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at March 23, 2007 12:17 PM
I criticize Christianity, Judaism, Buddism, Bahaism, other faiths and even atheistic secular philosophies. I will not make any exceptions for Islam. That's how it should be in the free and open society.
Posted by: Syndic Nuruodo at March 23, 2007 12:34 PM
WITH STATEMENTS LIKE "had incited “hatred” against them"
you have to really wonder about the mental health of muslims,
Clue:
its not to cartoons that causes hate its the reaction to the cartoons,
Its the beheading of school girls the shooting of truck loads of workers the burning buildings ad the dead bodies . on top of the false outrage that causes the hatred.
at March 23, 2007 12:37 PM
From an interfaith point-of-view, it seems very tolerant and friendly to want to acknowledge and appreciate all faiths, UNTIL, one reads what the definitions of these words really are.
Oxford defines acknowledge as:
recognize, accept, admit the truth of, express appreciation of, recognize the validity of
Appreciate means:
esteem highly, value, be grateful for, be sensitive to, ...
at March 23, 2007 12:49 PM
MUHAMMAD HAD ONE DEFENDER: ABU TALIB (HIS UNCLE)
EVERYONE ELSE IN HIS CLAN AND TRIBE HATED HIM!
from the Sira:
But Abu Talib, uncle of the apostle, defended him. Several nobles of the Quraysh, including Utba and Abu Sufyan, went to Abu Talib and said, 'Your nephew has insulted our gods and condemned our religion. He considers our young men to be fools, and our fathers to have erred. You must either restrain him or allow us free action against him, since your religion is the same as ours, opposed to his.' But the apostle continued to preach the religion of Allah and to seek conversions, and the people hated him. Again they went to Abu Talib and said, 'You are aged, noble, and highly respected among us, and we have already asked you to prohibit your nephew from offending us. But you have not prohibited him, and, by Allah, we shall not overlook his insults unless you guarantee his future good behaviour. Otherwise, we shall fight both him and you.' After this they departed, and Abu Talib was much grieved by the enmity of his tribe; but he could not surrender or desert the apostle of Allah.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sira/03.htm
at March 23, 2007 1:14 PM
Islam insults our God!
Islam considers us to be fools!
Islam says our ancestors erred.
Islam condemns our religion and way of life!
==================================
Like Muhammad's own tribe, we have no choice but to hate Muhammad and to fight him and his intolerant creed!
at March 23, 2007 1:29 PM
What I may or may not hate should not be a government's concern. The concept of "hate crime" is a very dangerous one, as it is the close cousin of "thought crime". Actions such as assault, arson, rape and murder are in and of themselves felonies.
Posted by: MP at March 23, 2007 1:31 PM
In the old days, it was much easier to believe in Islam. Heck, I would have submitted too if I had seen this with my own eyes:
From the Sira:
Muhammad said: 'I shall show you something wonderful still, if you will promise to fear Allah and to follow my religion. I shall call out to this tree here and it will come to me.' Accordingly he called it, and it approached till it stood fast before the apostle of Allah; then he said to the tree, “Return to thy place!” and it returned to its place.
=============================
alla-cadabra knows best!
at March 23, 2007 1:36 PM
I am disliking it already.
Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at March 23, 2007 2:10 PM
“There is nothing wrong with an attack on Islam (or any other sacred belief).”
-From the article
Good, that is a relief. I thought I was becoming an Islamophobe.
Posted by: awake at March 23, 2007 2:12 PM
Especially since Islam almost certainly dislikes YOU!
Posted by: pythagoras at March 23, 2007 2:31 PM
Islam Expert: Netherlands Tolerates Muslim Excesses
Posted by: ummahnewslinks at March 23, 2007 2:51 PM
Pretending to be hurt in order to assert one's will over others, even violently, or to gain unreciprocated favours, or to exert control over what others may say and think, is cowardly and malign. Let me say that once again. It's cowardly and malign.
Bravo, indeed. Excellent article.
Not only is it okay, but it is absolutely mandatory to dislike, despise and abhor Islam. This religion cannot be reformed or moderated, but only renounced and abrogated.
Posted by: US_infidel at March 23, 2007 3:08 PM
Don't - ever - underestimate the power of the 'weak'.
Posted by: Daisytoo at March 23, 2007 4:22 PM
"The devil is a proud spirit and cannot abide being mocked" - Martin Luther.
So if Muslims insist that Muhammad, Islam, or their own perfect selves, must NEVER be laughed at...we may draw our own conclusions. (I don't much like being made fun of, myself, but I see that as a flaw in my character...a weakness, not a strength).
I'm reminded of the boggarts in Rowlings' Harry Potter books. We need the RIDDIKULOUS! charm.
We need MORE cartoons. We need the indefatigable Mr Bean to make a movie in which Mr Bean - all oblivious - thwarts all sorts of jihadist plotters without even knowing he's doing it. We need some brave indy film-maker to turn Chesterton's "Flying Inn" into a movie musical - set in modern Britain, not the 1920s. (For anyone who doesn't know - Flying Inn is a novel about an attempted Muslim takeover - it's also a picaresque 'road movie' in which the main characters flit about dispensing alcohol and singing LOTS of songs about beer, wine, rum - e.g. "the rolling English drunkard made the rolling English road".)
English folk: dig out those old Mummer's Plays that feature St George and Saracens.
Note: laughter promotes learning and creativity, and reduces perception of pain.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at March 23, 2007 6:00 PM
The link to download "The Flying Inn"
http://www.lib-books.com/author/chesterton_gilbert/chesterton_gilbert_the_flying_inn/
Download the rtf.zip file
Also on the site is G K Chesterton's "The Ball and the Cross". Search on the site and download the rtf.zip file
Posted by: DP111 at March 23, 2007 8:34 PM
It's Okay to Dislike Islam
I don't dislike islam i detest it. Has no social redeeming value
Posted by: OLD SARGE at March 23, 2007 8:38 PM
Bravo indeed!
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
never MOCK Islam...
.
at March 23, 2007 8:57 PM
Yes, a movie. I was thinking of something like the Life Of Brian. Just imagine the treatment Monty Python could give Mo. Working title 'The Warlord and the Nine Year Old'.
Posted by: Shakey_Premise at March 23, 2007 9:57 PM
Islam? The simple rituals are good; but the belief system misrepresents the nature of God.
Posted by: StillBreathing at March 23, 2007 10:03 PM
I believe with my whole heart that islam is from the pit. It was an "angel of light" who spoke to mohammad in that cave.
" For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light." - 2 Corinthians 11:13-14
WARNINGS IN BIBLE
"If you, My children, read the true Book of life, your Bible, you will find that many warnings were given by Our prophets to you, warning of these days that you are living in. You were to beware of false prophets and false teachers. They will come to you as angels of light with ravenous hearts. They will be members of the synagogue of satan.
at March 23, 2007 11:13 PM
Oh my God! Profitsbeard! Welcome back!
From Oliver Kamm: "‘The cartoons were covered by freedom of expression laws and were not an attack on Islam, but fundamentalists, it said.’ Do freedom of expression laws not cover an attack on Islam?"
If anything, the freedom of expression laws ought to cover an attack on Islam even MORE so than an attack on fundamentalists, because Islam is an impersonal ideology, which can not suffer in any way, shape or form by being attacked or "abused" while fundamentalists are actual human beings who could presumably suffer due to being attacked, so if anything there is certainly less direct harm caused in attacking an ideology than attacking actual human beings, no matter how vile the latter might be.
Re the title of the peice: "It's OK to dislike Islam" - that this even needs to be said is rather absurd. It basically comes down to a defense of "Islamophobia". And defending Islamophobia is something everyone should have been doing from the outset. Muslims somehow imagined that westerners could be so cowed by charges of something sounding vaguely like racism that they invented this absurd term. The proper response all along to such attempted manipulation was to completely neutralize the charge by actually embracing the charge instead of buying into the notion that it actually meant anything that should cause anyone to be embarassed or ashamed by the charge and to say instead, darned right, we're Islamophobic. The statement, "it's OK to dislike Islam" is pretty much the same as saying "it's OK to be islamophobic". Which of course it is! And it's about time someone said it. (Not meaning to put words into David Thompson's mouth but IMHO that's basically what it amounts to.) In any case, kudos to David Thompson, who has produced a very eloquent series of essays on the matter of Islam.
Posted by: Caroline at March 24, 2007 12:09 AM
Hi guys!
Where you been, profitsbeard?
Just to give you an update on things downunder:
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/03/24/blogging-off-to-hatred/
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 24, 2007 2:50 AM
Regarding the case against Charlie Hebdo, this should be widely known: the French Government backed it and Jacques Chirac offered the services of his personal lawyer for the prosecution.
Philippe Val, editor and pubisher,
" Before publication, I was pressured not to go ahead and summoned to the Hôtel Matignon [the residence of the French Prime Minister] to see the prime minister's chief of staff; I refused to go. The next day, summary proceedings were initiated by the Grand Mosque of Paris and the Union of Islamic Organizations of France to stop this issue of Charlie Hebdo from hitting newsstands. The government encouraged them, but their suit was dismissed.
After the cartoons appeared, the Muslim groups attacked me by filing suit against me on racism charges. President Jacques Chirac, who campaigned for this just-completed trial, offered them the services of his own personal lawyer, Francis Szpiner. Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of the Grand Mosque, who always took orders from the Élysée [the residence of the French President], was apparently not convinced this case was necessary; he told me as much several times. But Mr. Boubakeur was under pressure from the fundamentalists at the UOIF (Union of Islamic Organizations of France), who had come to dominate the French Council of Muslim Worship, which he heads, and Mr. Chirac.
Before publication, I was pressured not to go ahead and summoned to the Hôtel Matignon [the residence of the French Prime Minister] to see the prime minister's chief of staff; I refused to go. The next day, summary proceedings were initiated by the Grand Mosque of Paris and the Union of Islamic Organizations of France to stop this issue of Charlie Hebdo from hitting newsstands. The government encouraged them, but their suit was dismissed.
After the cartoons appeared, the Muslim groups attacked me by filing suit against me on racism charges. President Jacques Chirac, who campaigned for this just-completed trial, offered them the services of his own personal lawyer, Francis Szpiner. Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of the Grand Mosque, who always took orders from the Élysée [the residence of the French President], was apparently not convinced this case was necessary; he told me as much several times. But Mr. Boubakeur was under pressure from the fundamentalists at the UOIF (Union of Islamic Organizations of France), who had come to dominate the French Council of Muslim Worship, which he heads, and Mr. Chirac.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2001
Posted by: Silvester at March 24, 2007 7:29 AM
Caroline-
Well said. An "impersonal ideology".
That 1.2 billion take very personally.
sheik yer'mami-
Working on a project that parallels the thrust of this site and yours which absorbed my time more thoroughly than Zam Zam water into the Sahara, but hopefully will be tasty.
(The iconoclasts of Islam will not be pleased.)
Thanks for the link!
at March 24, 2007 10:53 AM
Keep your chin up Sheik.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at March 24, 2007 3:39 PM
As strange as it may sound, I dislike Islam chiefly for its explicit, clear-cut rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord and Son of God. Islam demotes Jesus to merely a prophet. Jesus did not want to be viewed as merely a prophet. Islam says it respects Jesus very highly as a prophet but in Jesus' eyes, this respect would not have been nearly enough. He wanted to be the only way to the Father. Something Islam rejects. He wanted to be viewed as the narrow door. Other faiths may reject Jesus' titles implicitly, but Islam says point blank that those who believe Jesus to be Son of God are deluded from the truth and they totally eff up the Trinity.
Actually, I don't have an inherent antipathy for other faiths as I do for Islam. The other reasons for disliking Islam are a lot more than this, but believe it or not, the inability to accept Jesus as Lord is something that I can't accept.
Posted by: RaggedyAnn at March 24, 2007 5:35 PM
Ok maybe I am being subjective in that response as to why I do not like Islam but it still irks me when Islamic apologists claim that both Christianity and Islam "believe in Jesus" and that the 2 faiths are "brethren" and believe in the same God, etc. It's one of my biggest pet peeves of all time to see people say that.
Posted by: RaggedyAnn at March 24, 2007 5:46 PM
But to be fair to Muslims, they are encouraged in this by Christians and Sikhs(you never hear much of Hindus do you?), et al, who all claim special status for their own particular superstitious belief systems. They all can't have it all ways, although being religious that's how they want it. All religions, must be up for grabs and criticism. Which they all hate because it means they have to defend their stupid doctrines.
Free speech is either free or it isn't, there's no third way.
It should be free.
at March 24, 2007 6:31 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)