The OFLC finding said the sheik's calls to "jihad" and "martyrdom" were ambiguous.

Wankers.

Posted by: Sheik er' Bouti at April 14, 2007 3:45 PM

I hate the way these stories are always constructed as a battle between Islam and Judaism, as if other non-Muslims aren't or shouldn't be concerned about "martyrdom" and "jihad." It's hard to believe we're still having these ridiculous discussions parsing the meaning of jihad in the context of martyrdom.

Uh, it's bombing soft civilian targets, stupid. Willful blindness is less curable than the real thing.

Posted by: Beagle at April 14, 2007 4:06 PM

Only a few days ago our Attorney General promissed a much tougher stand on all Jihadi videos and books
Link.
And now we get this.
Nice touch indeed.

Posted by: Roland at April 14, 2007 4:12 PM

Nervously LOL. I don't know why I'm laughing at this ridiculous decision.

Posted by: wrathofasma at April 14, 2007 4:27 PM

'... mitigated by the context.'

Ah, the context. The good old context. That makes it quite all right then.

Not that these execrable dhimmis and jihad-enablers have any idea at all of the real context.

Posted by: Dane at April 14, 2007 4:55 PM

"And it found that comments vilifying Jews as an "army of pigs" and saying "behind me is a Jew, come kill him" were mitigated by the context."

In my experiences with children, they often miss "context." I always thought that was because their brains weren't fully developed to think critically yet.

Australian children must be more precocious than American children.

Posted by: CJ at April 14, 2007 5:03 PM

To be fair, it doesn't sound any worse than the koran, so why hasn't that been questioned?

Posted by: Celsius at April 14, 2007 5:05 PM

I'm curious what they could possibly mean by "mitigated by context". Does anybody know? Is the OFLC report available?

Posted by: billposer at April 14, 2007 5:33 PM

It is becoming increasingly clear that insurrection will have to come to fight for freedom , the governments will line up behind Islam to protect it out of fear and guilt.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at April 14, 2007 5:47 PM

"The OFLC finding said the sheik's calls to "jihad" and "martyrdom" were ambiguous.
And it found that comments vilifying Jews as an "army of pigs" and saying 'behind me is a Jew, come kill him' were mitigated by the context."
-- from the article above

Years ago, when I first learned about the writer Karl Kraus, and his one-man journal, Die Fackel, in which he would smite hip and thigh those who in Austrian public life, including journalists, whom he regarded as insufferably stupid and often dangerous, one of his techniques was not to comment at all, but merely to hold up for closer inspection, by publishing it in his magazine, a particulary choice example of idiocy.

He felt commentary was unnecessary and would be de trop. Just putting it up was enough.

I never understood that method.

But now I do.

Posted by: Hugh at April 14, 2007 5:53 PM

Indoctrination from cradle to grave. Complete with the blessings of the Australian film industry. Making good use of Australia's freedom of religion laws no doubt. I wonder whether this would 'slip through' in the U.S.?

Posted by: Pere des lumieres at April 14, 2007 6:03 PM

This item, and a few recent ones on dhimmiwatch, touch on a central concern: how best should the forces of anti-dhimmitude respond in the culture wars?

In popular culture, film is by far the most influential and pervasive medium. Two recent mass-market films---'V for Vendetta', and 'Children of Men'---deal with terrorism. In 'V for Vendetta' (if I remember) there is no indication of Muslim terrorism; the fear of terrorism is all concocted by the evil Gummint, and the actual terrorism likewise is perpetrated by the Gummint. In fact, in that film, the Qur'an is pointedly referred to only as a source of poetry, by a gay character murdered shortly thereafter (not by Muslims of course). In 'Children of Men', references to Muslim terrorism are more pointed, but still it's stated clearly that terrorism is being carried out by the Gummint. One scene features a procession of very orderly Muslims chanting 'Allahu Akbar', firing all of their guns vertically, and bearing a dead body on an upheld stretcher...the clear implication of course being that they are entirely justified in these actions because of the death (never explained) of a comrade. And both films are chock-full of modern self-hating references; orange jumpsuits, Abu Ghraib echos, ironic use of the phrase 'Homeland Security' etc. etc.

I enjoyed both films a lot, but only as visceral experiences. As intellectual experiences they absolutely sucked.

Posted by: Dane at April 14, 2007 6:31 PM

"Not that these execrable dhimmis and jihad-enablers have any idea at all of the real context." -- Dane

Well thought.

One woman says, "I might care about Islam if I had people in the Middle East." Others say: "All religions are good at the start" or "The real problem is fundamentalism of any kind." And one can repeat the reassuring coments of Condoleeza or the GW Bush.

Will the Republican front-runners tell the tale? They'd be attacked as "undermining the Muslim moderates" or of being "alarmist"; but wouldn't the truth of the issue come out over the long election season, so that either the Democrats would begin to veer toward protecting us (not talking much about their position on profiling) or they'd be seen as weak-thinking liberal bureaucrats, silly.

What do you think? Is there a wedge issue here, with Republicans benefiting if they tell the simple truth, simply?

Posted by: StillBreathing at April 14, 2007 6:47 PM

This makes perfect sense, a G rating would mean all are welcome and we know for sure the Jews are not welcome. An R rating would mean restricted and they don’t want to restrict us from converting. Now PG is as you know Parental Guidance, well don’t the islamists use PG from the time their yout’s are toddlers forward to indoctrinate them? So PG makes perfect sense in their senseless minds.
A moderate islamist is one who hasn’t yet become an extremist, no doubt they have yet to fully grasp the uncovered meat (no pun intended) of the ideology.

Posted by: tgusa at April 14, 2007 6:58 PM

Surely the point of this ruling is there's no religious freedom, it's all one way.
Yes allow this film, and it's message, unadorned to be shown.
However, also allow films depicting Islam as the hate filled sewer of human expression it is. The problem is, if I produced a film that showed Islam, complete with all my biases and hates, making no effort to be in anyway "fair", then it would probably be banned, no one would be allowed to see it at all. It's a freedom of expression issue, not a content issue. It's only racist if your white.
The analogy I use in the uk, in countless arguments is this,
If I was at a party, full of public sector workers, generally left wing liberal types, smoking pot, and being oh so daring, and loudly proclaimed that I believed; a woman's place was in the home, her job is to have babies and bring them up, she should respect her man, and obey her man in all things, rape in marriage is an absurd abomination of the natural order of things, and property should in all cases be owned by the man and not the woman, who should rely solely on her husband for everything, the way it was intended by God and nature, I'd be condemned as a mysoginistic primitive throwback, a hate filled death merchant, and a masculine pig.
Unless I was asian, or from some other ethnic minority, then it would be ok.

Posted by: Ian at April 14, 2007 6:58 PM

And it found that comments vilifying Jews as an "army of pigs" and saying 'behind me is a Jew, come kill him' were mitigated by the context.

Ofcourse, the context is that Mohammed said it, and there lies the mitigation. If this were not accepted as "mitigation", then the texts of Islam would be deemed illegal, and that is not a road that the authorities wish to go down at the moment.

Posted by: DP111 at April 14, 2007 7:06 PM

Australians are not making progress against jihad. Take one step forward, and two steps back.

Posted by: Pelayo at April 14, 2007 7:11 PM

Thank you, Dane, for those movie suggestions. I haven't seen either of them. You also have hit on the main problem of dhimmitude. Most of the people in the West, at least the ones in charge of things, seem to be in a psychological cage with respect to Islam and various other related things.

how best should the forces of anti-dhimmitude respond in the culture wars?

I think that we must have the courage to stand up publicly and denounce very clearly and loudly those things we believe threaten our culture. Portrayals that are false in movies, music, literature, or any other form of material made available for public consumption should be noted and spoken out against. Some are doing that now but more would be better. We need as many people doing this as possible to increase effectiveness.

I also believe that to truly understand the Muslim, or anyone else, we must first understand his worldview. All worldviews can be summarized as follows:

1. Theism: An infinite and personal God exists beyond and in the universe. (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all fall into this worldview)

2. Atheism: No God exists beyond or in the universe. (Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, etc.)

3. Deism: God is beyond the universe, but not in it. (Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, etc.)

4. Pantheism: God is the universe. (Hinduism, Zen Buddhism, Christian Science, etc.)

5. Panentheism: God is in the universe, much like a mind is in a body. (Alfred North, Shubert Ogden, etc.)

6. Polytheism: Many Gods exist beyond the world as well as in it. (Mormons, ancient Greeks, neo-pagans, etc.)

7. Finite Godism: A finite God exists in and beyond the universe. (John Mill, Peter Bertocci, etc.)

With one exception (pantheism/polytheism), no one can consistently hold more than one worldview. This is true because the central premises of each are mutually exclusive. Logically, only one worldview can be true.

If we are people of good will, then we will try to convince the Muslim why his beliefs are wrong. No easy task to be sure, but some, hopefully many, could be reached. Far more could be reached by logical reason rather than name-calling. I think so any way.

I'm in a good mood today, don't ruin it by flaming me. :)

Posted by: Pere des lumieres at April 14, 2007 7:15 PM

This is going to be another shot that backfires:

I suspect that it will be guys like us that cop it when we put these videos up, while the Muslims go scot-free, just like the Victorian vilification laws worked against the 2 pastors from the 'Catch the Fire' ministries.

By all means, confiscate this shit and demand that the MSM plays it 24/7 ,- until the last feral, the red-green brownies and the ball-game obsessed bushwhackers understand what we're up against.

But if it simply empowers the government to use these proposed laws against freedom of expression it should be nipped in the butt.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 14, 2007 7:23 PM

Pere des lumieres,
Could you give us one example of islamist logical reasoning? Just one will suffice. It sounds great but you go first, if you survive then maybe we will try it ourselves. Logic does not work when dealing with illogical minds. If you attempted to use logic in a mental institution how far do you think that would get you?

Posted by: tgusa at April 14, 2007 7:45 PM

And this is coming from the "least" dhimmi of western nations? Limiting and keeping under strict control mass immigration from islamic areas would be terrific, but jesus f^^king christ when can we at least start with treating incitement to mass murder from the muslim world lke we'd treat incitement to mass murder from any other religous or nationalist group. It's currently too much too ask for for our nations to monitor TV shows, websites, movies, madrassas, religous insititutions and anything else from the islamic world, and banning them and expelling their creators as needed. Sometimes it's depressing how much work still has to be done.

Posted by: maxwell46&2 at April 14, 2007 7:53 PM

Yes, tgusa, I've read your comments here and elsewhere. Feminism seems to be your main objective. That and sexual insults etc. etc. And that is not an insult to you, only an observation. Am I wrong?

I see no reason to address you at all since for you no Muslim, absolutely no Muslim is capable of logic. You effectively end all discussion with a comment like that. All that is left is name-calling. Back and forth between Muslim and non-Muslim continually.

I'm off now to the Dinesh thread to see the comments there... I wonder what will I find?

Posted by: Pere des lumieres at April 14, 2007 8:08 PM

Austrailian tidbit: Radical Austrailian clerics being paid salaries via Saudi embassy. One Muslim cleric is currently under investigation for not reporting this income to Aussie tax authorities

And his day job was working in the Canberra Tax Office! (Just the place to conduct identity theft, among other things)

Posted by: PapaBear at April 14, 2007 8:10 PM

StillBreathing.

I don't know if this is germane to this thread but I think it worth discussing so why not here.

The republican candidates who have announced so far all support the war effort in Iraq and approve of the "democracy project in Iraq". None has indicated any special knowledge about the threat of Jihad as is discussed at this site.

IMHO, we must hope for a "messaiah", someone with the bravery and courageousness ( like Rep. Susan Myrick) to step up and call out Islam for what it truly is. If we are still stuck in Iraq in Nov 2008, no republican president will be elected. I don't know why any of the current candidates are even putting forth the effort given their positions on Iraq and "War on Terror". They, like me just months ago, seem comfortable with believing Bush's promises that Islam is a "Religion of Peace" and was "hijacked by extremists...yada, yada yada..." I don't understand why any of the republican candidates bother to run.

The majority of Americans want this war over with and will vote for whoever gets them there the quickest. Thus, I believe, unless someone from the Republican side jumps in with a fresh and different perspective, Clinton Era II shall commence Jan. 2009.

IF however, if a candidate commited to the race advocating withdrawal on "Seperationism" policy ( look here for a definition http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006854.html )
promising to get out of tarbaby Iraq so we can concentrate on other pressing issues (Iran , Pakistan, Eurabia) , I think that Republican candidate has better chance than any existing candidate from either party.

Two candidates who have not yet announced are considering, Newt and Fred Thompson. Newt is a Professor of History. Hugh pointed out weeks ago the value of knowing and appreciating history in addressing current policy issues. I agree 100%. But Newt is viewed as arrogant, abrasive and divisive- and there are personal isues too. I think he does have the courage to take bold and extreme views that he believes in. If he would only take the time to view a little more history of Islam and self educate himself, he could jump on board and have a fair chance.

Fred Thompson could be the horse to pick in this race if he would just commit. He has good numbers in the polls and he has not even announced. People are looking for a messiah that will lead us out of Iraq with some semblance of dignity. He is a contributing writer for the American Enterprise Insitute conservative think tank (Ayaan Hirsi Ali belongs too) and his review of the book "Infidel" contains some harsh criticism of radical Islam that I have not seen from other candidates. He also recently wrote a article against the flying imans case.

I believe both Thompson and Newt need a hook, something that can set them apart from the existing crowd, before they will commit. I think Americans from BOTH sides of the political spectrum will support a candidate who will lead us out of Iraq and who explains to them in a calm and forthright manner, why the crisis we face is bigger than just some "war on terror" and re-identifies the real enemy and resets priorities.

For a candiadte to advocate withdrawal and "Seperationism" policy, it will be a huge risk but the reward can be great. He will be villified by many ( just as Rep Myrick will be soon).

I have written Fred Thompson and tried to get some discussion goinf at a website encouraging him to run. (the anti-jihad thread I started was pulled by the web admin- topic was getting to controversial!!!).

If anyone has suggestions on who else to support I for one would like to hear your ideas.

Posted by: Al E. Baba at April 14, 2007 8:29 PM

Elsewhere?
Yeah right I don’t post anywhere but JW/DW. I’m a feminist you say, boy you are sharp. However, what is wrong with that, oh that’s right you guys hate women. I use islamist when I refer to those who threaten us, but being an islamist or apologist I’m not surprised you would insert your own description. Can’t you even answer a simple question, never mind I already know the answer. In the future don’t waste your time addressing me while not addressing me. Heres a tip (no nothing sexual in that) the sex thing is a dead giveaway.

Posted by: tgusa at April 14, 2007 8:42 PM

i don't think newt is a likely nominee (for reasons you described, though you never know, and he is a smart man). could be guliani... and could be thompson:

(to see this interview, place the content on one line):

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/528aylls.asp?pg=1

Posted by: StillBreathing at April 14, 2007 10:18 PM

I think that film was first shown here in the UK, Its called undercover mosque. The most damaging documentary to Muslims. But who cares what kuffar think of Islam and Muslims anymore. I used to in the past but not anymore.

Posted by: Abdullah at April 14, 2007 10:38 PM

I wish Abie wouldn't use phrases like 'here, in the UK.' Muslims in this country inhabit a space-time dimension of their own - they might as well be living on another planet.

Posted by: wallyUK at April 14, 2007 11:07 PM

"...The most damaging documentary to Muslims. But who cares what kuffar think of Islam and Muslims anymore. I used to in the past but not anymore.

Posted by: Abdullah "

No documentary can do as much damage to muslims as you guys do to yourselves.

Just look all over the world's trouble spots: there is one common denominator:islam.

Every country where there is an islamic presence is a disaster whether it is in the west or in the east.

It absolutely disgusts me what muslims are doing to other muslims in Iraq. Sure,,you will blame the US for that. Won't work for me. Saddam killed many muslims, and he used muslims to do his dirty work. And let us not forget he used his own blood to write a copy of the koran. So there goes the theory of him being secular.

Posted by: Gramfan at April 14, 2007 11:24 PM

Thanks for the suggestion - here are the links to the videos for those that missed them:

Undercover Mosques Part 1

Undercover Mosques, Part 2

Undercover Mosques, Part 3

Undercover Mosques, Part 4

Undercover Mosques, Part 5

Undercover Mosques, Part 6

http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D7489128737211826486%26q%3DI%252C%2Ba%2BMuslim%26hl%3Den&usg=AL29H22wL31ru6wRp6XYIPY2Ljz4Ojc8DQ">I, a Muslim

http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DrVgRytJFYb4&usg=AL29H223PJIJSGTNXHr6g8ywrA7nu6r21A">CNN - The War Within Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DEUwa2BR-LJs&usg=AL29H20qaiLJxv9aHb-s3T6wd5o8x6t4dg">CNN - The War Within Part 2

Duplicity in Sermons

Posted by: justamomof4 at April 14, 2007 11:46 PM

Not sure if anyone brought up this item. Off topic from Norway:

Norway: Islam critic beaten unconscious

Ummah News Links

Posted by: ummahnewslinks at April 15, 2007 12:03 AM

Ian: "However, also allow films depicting Islam as the hate filled sewer of human expression it is. The problem is, if I produced a film that showed Islam, complete with all my biases and hates, making no effort to be in anyway "fair", then it would probably be banned, no one would be allowed to see it at all. It's a freedom of expression issue, not a content issue. It's only racist if your white."

One way to go about illustrating this double-standard would be to produce an exact replica of this film in which all the Muslim characters would be replaced by native Australians urging eachother to martyr themselves by killing Muslims. That would be expensive however. A cheaper idea is to produce a "reverse-Koran", in which every reference to the infidels or unbelievers would be replaced by the word Muslims. "Kill the Muslims wherever you find them...", "Behind me is a Muslim, come kill him, etc.". Then the infidels could treat the book as holy by demanding it be put on the top shelf of bookstores and prosecuting Muslims who deface it for hate crimes and so on. One thing that might be interesting about the reverse Koran idea, if Muslims actually made a stink about it, would be that it would make people more familiar with the Koran and just how many hateful passages there are in it. Since so many western liberals seem to shrug their shoulders and be indifferent to the implications of the sheer amount of hate in Islam, presumably because it is directed towards them (and they hate themselves anyway?) one way to get their attention about how hateful Islam is, would be to reverse all the hate at Muslims, using Muslims' own words. Would they object then? Actually, I suspect so. But on what grounds could they defend those objections without being forced to confront their double standards head on?

Posted by: Caroline at April 15, 2007 12:07 AM

Stillbreathing said:

"The republican candidates who have announced so far all support the war effort in Iraq and approve of the "democracy project in Iraq". None has indicated any special knowledge about the threat of Jihad as is discussed at this site.

IMHO, we must hope for a "messaiah", someone with the bravery and courageousness ( like Rep. Susan Myrick) to step up and call out Islam for what it truly is. If we are still stuck in Iraq in Nov 2008, no republican president will be elected. I don't know why any of the current candidates are even putting forth the effort given their positions on Iraq and "War on Terror". They, like me just months ago, seem comfortable with believing Bush's promises that Islam is a "Religion of Peace" and was "hijacked by extremists...yada, yada yada..." I don't understand why any of the republican candidates bother to run."
------------------------------------
There is one Republican candidate who I believe is fully aware of the dangers of radical Islam. This article is mainly about McKinney, but it mentions Giuliani-- this article was written hortly after 911 (Oct 2001):

"Take McKinney's pandering letter to Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, in which she apologized for the valorous actions of New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Talal, nephew of Saudi King Fahd, recently visited New York to see the World Trade Center remains and gave Giuliani a $10 million check for relief efforts. Then, the prince released a statement full of moral equivocations, rationalizing the murder of 6,000 innocent Americans and blaming U.S. foreign policy, "suggesting" it be changed.

It's hard to ignore a $10 million dollar suggestion, no matter how ridiculous and immoral.

But not for the valiant Giuliani. In the highest act of moral and civic courage, he promptly returned the check with a statement: "There is no moral equivalent for this attack. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification when they slaughtered 5,000, 6,000 innocent people ... Not only are those statements wrong, they're part of the problem."

link: http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/schlussel/schlussel_001.htm

I don't remember him making any direct statements about the dangers of radical Islam...but when it is necessary, I believe he has the cojones to stick to his principles.

Posted by: Krishna109 at April 15, 2007 12:20 AM

Al E. Baba - don't forget Tancredo. He may turn out to be the biggest separationist of the lot. I haven't heard him say too much specifically about islam though, since his somewhat off-handed proposal some time back to nuke Mecca as a MAD-type deterrant. Nevertheless, that one comment would suggest that he isn't the type to toe the PC line.

Posted by: Caroline at April 15, 2007 12:31 AM

Caroline,

Tancredo's platform is single issue IMMIGRATION, mainly from south of the border. I have not heard another position taken by him. I did read a transcript of a radio interview w/ HughHewitt at Townhall.com and frankly, I was less than impressed, he was evasive and obstinate.

Krishna109,

Guiliani has already committed to support the War in Iraq. I don't think he is likely to change course and while campaigning.

But, anyone can change, anything can happen from now until Nov 2008, particularly regarding this crucial issue.

Posted by: Al E. Baba at April 15, 2007 1:23 AM

A cheaper idea is to produce a "reverse-Koran", in which every reference to the infidels or unbelievers would be replaced by the word Muslims. "Kill the Muslims wherever you find them...", "Behind me is a Muslim, come kill him, etc.". Then the infidels could treat the book as holy by demanding it be put on the top shelf of bookstores and prosecuting Muslims who deface it for hate crimes and so on. One thing that might be interesting about the reverse Koran idea, if Muslims actually made a stink about it, would be that it would make people more familiar with the Koran and just how many hateful passages there are in it. Posted by: Caroline

This idea was also suggested in FaithFreedom, while trying to persuade an apologist reader about the evil in Islam.

I am on record as tweaking this a bit. You might note that quite a few people, notably Rush Limbaugh, suggested that on the issue of illegal immigration, we simply take Mexico's draconian immigration laws and apply them here. Under the same analogy, I've advocated that we take Shariah law, invert it, and then apply it to Muslims (within the realm of infidels, things remain unchanged, such as men and women are still equal under the law). Some effects:

• Muslims women have half the rights as infidels, and Muslim men have half the rights as Muslim women;
  
• No Infidel shall be allowed to convert to islam. If one tries it, one would either be imprisoned, or sent to a mental institution. (Converse of apostacy laws) However, no Muslim can do anything to prevent another Muslim from converting to Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, et al.
  
• If a Muslim marries a non-Muslim, (s)he must convert to the non-Muslim's religion. Alternatively, they may convert to a third religion, but under no circumstances can that couple stay Muslim;
  
• In any court of law, no testimony from a Muslim can be accepted when the subject of the case is an Infidel. Also, the evidence of one Infidel would equal that of two Muslim women, and that of four Muslim men;
  
• If a Muslim man is charged with rape, he must have four witnesses, one of whom must be the accuser, who are willing to testify to his innocence. None of the witnesses can be Muslim men.
  
• Mosques may not be built or repaired. Mosques in disrepair must be demolished as per the appropriate civic code in the place in question.
  
• Muslims must pay a special tax for the well being of Infidels. Infidels wouldn't have to pay those taxes, and in fact, taxes that Infidels pay - income tax, sales tax, property tax, et al, should all be minimized or eliminated, and the deficit made up of taxes on Muslims.
  
• If Muslims flee the West to avoid such taxes, the bills need to be paid by OPEC and the OIC, so that Infidels continue to prosper
  
• Blood money rules need to be instituted as far as deaths of Muslims are concerned.
  

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 15, 2007 1:26 AM

Office of Film & Literature Classification

Office address:
23 - 33 Mary Street
Surry Hills
Sydney NSW 2010

Postal address:
The Director
Locked Bag 3
Haymarket NSW 1240

Telephone: 02 9289 7100
Fax: 02 9289 7101

Email form: http://www.oflc.gov.au/special.html?n=1&p=227

The Attorney-General (Minister responsible)

The Hon Philip Ruddock MP
Title: Attorney General.
Party: Liberal Party of Australia

Parliament House Contact
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Tel: (02) 6277 7300
Fax: (02) 6273 4102

Email: P.Ruddock@aph.gov.au

Posted by: Ozi_bloke at April 15, 2007 1:52 AM

Infidel Pride - frankly your ideas would be the fastest solution possible to realizing the ultimate aim of separationism! There was a time when I would have been horrified by your proposals but no longer! I've been forced to grow up like millions of other people who are paying attention. I especially like item #1, where Muslim men are granted half the rights of Muslim women. It serves as a reminder that islam is first and foremost about Muslim males asserting their claims to dominate everyone else on the planet, beginning with women. Once you take the Muslim women and children out of the equation, it becomes all the starker that so many people are pandering to a self-selected "elite" group of supremacist males.

As to the reverse-Koran, thank you for that FFI link. I don't recall seeing it before (and don't see a date). I did post the idea once before in June of last year:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012024.php#c236925
Either I saw it on FFI and forgot or great minds just think alike :-). Seriously though, I think it actually IS a good idea to produce such a book because I think it could wake some comotose PC patients out of their stupor. You just know that the usual useful idiots would object to the incitement of hatred towards Muslims in such a book. It would be amusing to hear infidels defending the book by saying that the hateful phrases towards Muslims were being "taken out of context". Or infidels could even burn the reverse-Koran. That would be confusing! It just seems that the whole venture could serve as a very useful and enlightening PR stunt to get a conversation going about double-standards. The Imus issue has made that a hot topic right now. Maybe it's time to pile on!

Posted by: Caroline at April 15, 2007 2:22 AM

Caroline

That was a great rebuttal of Haidon - the post where you plug the reverse-Quran, not the one you cited. I found his exchange with Abul Qassam of Islam-Watch interesting, where Abul Qassam pretty much tells him how his own personal Islam is really blasphemy, in so many ways (at the time of writing, only parts 1 & 2 are out).

Back to the movie rating topic above - I think that the Islam-Watch book about Allah should be made into a movie. I'd give it a PG rating. Btw, highly recommended reading - a satire well done.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 15, 2007 2:44 AM

IP - thanks for that link to the Haidon-Kasem exchange. I hadn't seen it before. I don't know what to make of Haidon. I notice in the exchange that a major thing he likes about Islam (one of the only things when you get down to it) is its purported non-racism (but isn't this a feature of all other major religions as well so why the big deal?). I wonder if Haidon is black? Or is he just a typical hopeless 60's liberal? Whatever it is, obviously he's a good person but I attribute that entirely to his Christian upbringing. His persistence though is puzzling. If he's going to run the usual risk of being a radical Muslim reformer, why not just go all out and apostasize? Is it really all that more dangerous to take the latter path than the former?

(P.S. IP, a bit late to comment but I did see the point you were making at IW about Haidon's comment about Jesus and whether he was referring to the Christian or the Muslim Jesus. It was a good point, and one he never answered. It is my personal suspicion that he was referring to the Christian Jesus - the one he was raised with and has informed his moral sensibilities which he keeps so stubbornly trying to project onto Islam. The question may have thrown him so hard that he simply couldn't answer.)

Posted by: Caroline at April 15, 2007 3:47 AM

Here is an update: sorry, I have no URL as yet.
Let's hope it happens!

Pro-terrorism films banned within a fortnight

April 15, 2007 05:22pm

Article from: AAP

THE Federal Government hopes it will be able to ban pro-terrorism films within a fortnight, following the classification of a race hate DVD urging children to martyr themselves.

The film, which calls for the murder of infidels and describes Jews as "pigs'', received a PG rating from the Office of Film and Literature Classification, making it suitable to be bought and watched by children.

News of the classification brought swift condemnation from the Federal Opposition, the NSW Government and the Jewish community, as well as by Attorney-General Philip Ruddock.

The film is contained in a package of DVDs prepared by Australian-born Islamic cleric Sheik Feiz Mohammed, who is currently in exile in Lebanon, but reported to be still preaching jihad to his Australian followers by telephone.

His film calls for the murder of non-believers in Islam's war on the west, News Limited reported today.

Mr Ruddock said he had instructed his officials to seek agreement from the states within two weeks to urgently change censorship laws so that hate films praising terrorists could be banned.

He said Sheik Feiz's film "clearly advocates terrorism acts'' but the classification authority suggested "the law did not give them sufficient capacity to refuse classification of this particular product''.

The current test of whether a publication promoted, incited or instructed people to perform a criminal act was inadequate and material which advocated terrorism should be refused classification, he added.

Mr Ruddock said the states had agreed to toughen laws for material that praised terrorism following passage of federal terrorism legislation in 2005, but that there should be no further delays in the states enacting the changes.

If the states and territories continued to resist, as they had done for more than a year, then he might be forced to go it alone and make the relevant change to the Commonwealth's Classification Act, he said.

NSW Jewish Board of Deputies chief executive Vic Alhadeff said it was an "outrage'' that such material could be allowed into the country.

"One has to seriously question the guidelines which allow such offensive material to be allowed into our country and be distributed,'' Mr Alhadeff said.

"For even one person to see this is one person too many because of the race hate that it preaches and the damage that can flow from that.''

Mr Alhadeff said the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies would meet soon to consider making a formal complaint.

Acting NSW Premier John Watkins called on Prime Minister John Howard to take action to ensure the film could not be seen by children.

"It's disgusting and I advise any parent to ask their child not to go and see the film,'' he said.

Federal Opposition legal affairs spokesman Senator Joe Ludwig said the PG rating was "completely unacceptable''.

"Mr Ruddock must explain how a Jihad video by Sheik Feiz Mohammed was given the same rating as The Neverending Story and Back to the Future parts 1, 2 and 3,'' Senator Ludwig said.

He said Mr Ruddock was one of only four people with authority to seek a review - the others being the publisher, the person who applied for classification and a person who has been seriously aggrieved by the material.

Posted by: Gramfan at April 15, 2007 4:57 AM

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21560497-2,00.html
here is the URL

Posted by: Gramfan at April 15, 2007 5:52 AM

Good idea Caroline, lol.
Although I think the thing to do is to just promote democracy, and free speech. How about next time there's a row about cartoons, or someone saying something nasty about "the mighty prophet", wouldn't it be refreshing if our leaders actually just shrugged their shoulders and said so what, that's life in the West, if you don't like it leave.

I can't get my hat off to the way the Left(and I regard myself as a socialist, in so much as I believe in social justice), are stunningly silent on these issues. Not just with Muslims but with most of the imported ethnic minorities. Point out the terrible record on human rights(honour killings, mysogynistic mind-sets, treating your daughter as no better than a chattel, while praising the masculine to the heavens), and there's an embarrassed silence, it becomes an "unfact".
They seem to have developed a mental blindness when it comes to ethnicity, that excuses anything.
Whilst denying all other factors in human behaviour other than the economic: genetic predisposition, cultural memes, and the thousand and one other things that make up the various huma tribes, they then contradict themselves by praising ethnic diversity, ignoring the economic. It's cognitive dissonace as a way of life.

Time to wake up now.

Posted by: Ian at April 15, 2007 6:30 AM

While I'm in full rant mode.
In the uk we have a law against sexual tourism. A good thing, it means men who jet of to Cambodia, Thailand or whatever, for a happy time having sex with the prepubescent can be, and sometimes are prosecuted. A debatable law, but one with it's heart in the right place, I'd say.

But, how many asians (Muslims, Hindus et al) have been taken to court for taking their prepubescent daughters back to the home country for an illegal marriage to some illiterate peasent, so they can get some money, and he can get a passport? Not many. Why is that do you suppose. Perhaps as a special ethnic group, they should get a special law passed just to proscecute them, it would make them feel special.
For all asians living in the uk, who act like normal human beings, I'm sorry to be so sweeping.

Posted by: Ian at April 15, 2007 6:57 AM

Hi All,

The rating board got it wrong. It should be labeled PC instead of PG.

Those who create, import and distribute such films should be considered supporters of the Jihad, and thus enemies of the State. Why are they not incarcerated for aiding and abetting the enemy, and committing treason?

After serving time, the non-citizens should be deported. After the end of WW II some propagandists for the fascists who were citizens of the allies were hanged. What is the the problem this time?

Magooey

Posted by: magooey at April 15, 2007 8:31 AM

"I think that film was first shown here in the UK, Its called undercover mosque. The most damaging documentary to Muslims. "

the truth is always damaging to the muslims lies disguised as a religion

Posted by: FedUpagain at April 15, 2007 10:00 AM

Just wondering what, if anything, you powerful women are going to do about this? Keep talking about it?

Get used to it if that's all you got.

(I know that will not set well on a femi site like this, but hey, talk is cheap)

Posted by: Charley at April 15, 2007 10:09 AM

I learned a long time ago that one of the key differences between men and women was that women will talk, endlessly, witout actually doing anything. They just like to talk about problems.

What's even freaker is men (very rare) who do this to.

Posted by: Charley at April 15, 2007 10:12 AM

I would have thought it should have gotten a PIG rating, for accuracy's sake.

As noted, the Koran itself would have to be banned if its contents become know to Oz.

As the playbook of a pedophile warlord teaching intolerant, terroristic tyranny.

But, hey, I only read the damned thing.

Something far too uncommon Down Under so far.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 15, 2007 1:28 PM