• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Hypocritical Charlie Hebdo suspends journalist who criticized Islam

May 17, 2015 7:19 am By Robert Spencer

Not really
Not really

These are defining days. Many, many people whom I had thought to be clear-sighted, strong and courageous have proven to be cowardly, pusillanimous and self-serving, eager to betray the supporters of free speech and free society in exchange for a few more years of their miserable slave existences. Even Charlie Hebdo, the international symbol of defiance against violent intimidation and censorship-by-murder, has folded and submitted to the jihad force.

Well, it’s their loss. I don’t care if the whole world submits. I will die standing up. For whatever it’s worth, I will be among those who will not go quietly into the darkness. I know Pamela Geller will be with us as well. I know there are many others. But these are the days when even the most stalwart are faltering. These are the defining days.

And particularly for those Christians out there who are sitting in their armchairs and tut-tutting at us for being so lacking in civility and respect that we would actually insult Muhammad and Islam, hear this: I didn’t co-sponsor the show to insult Islam and embarrass the Church by being uncharitable. I did the show in part for the sake of the Church and the Christians of the future — so that they wouldn’t live as slaves, so that they wouldn’t be cowed and intimidated into submission by thugs, so that they would be able to practice their faith freely without having to curb their observance of it in order to avoid offending Muslims who demand respect at gunpoint. But as it turns out, the Church, or large portions of it, is eager to submit, eager to kneel and bow to the oppressor. I do not believe that is charity. I do not believe that is a responsible thing to do, or a wise thing to do, or a good example to set for the future. I do not believe that helping ensure that our children and our children’s children will live as slaves is in the slightest accord with true Christian charity. Turning the other cheek does not mean submitting to evil and allowing it to triumph; it is, rather, an act of quiet defiance, of showing that evil will not conquer one’s soul no matter what pressure is applied. That’s exactly what we were trying to show in Garland.

“Charlie Hebdo accused of hypocrisy as it suspends journalist after death threats over her articles attacking Islam,” by Jenny Awford, MailOnline, May 16, 2015 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

Satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been accused of hypocrisy after it suspended a journalist who has received death threats for her articles attacking Islamic extremism.

Zineb El Rhazoui, 33, was called to a preliminary dismissal hearing to remind her of her ‘obligations’ towards the French weekly following ‘numerous incidents’.

The French-Moroccan columnist accused her employers of trying to ‘punish her’ for speaking out about the direction of the magazine four months after the jihadist attack which left 12 dead.

‘I am shocked and appalled that a management that has received so much support after the January attacks could show so little support for one of its employees, who is under pressure like everyone in the team and has faced threats,’ she told Le Monde.

‘My husband lost his job and had to leave Morocco because the jihadists revealed his workplace. I am under threat and having to live with friends or in a hotel and the management is thinking of firing me. Bravo Charlie.’

The move has prompted outrage on social media with thousands calling the decision ‘absurd’ and bewildering’.

Mrs El Rhazoui and her husband, Moroccan writer Jaouad Benaïssi, received death threats on Twitter from people claiming to be from Islamic State in February.

Photoshopped images of the couple dressed as ISIS prisoners about to be executed emerged on social media along with a map showing the places the journalist often visited….

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: dhimmitude, Featured, free speech, Uncategorized Tagged With: Charlie Hebdo


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. rev g says

    May 17, 2015 at 7:39 am

    Fear is powerful. Islam counts on it.

    • Darren says

      May 17, 2015 at 3:25 pm

      Indeed it is, I being a science fiction nerd of the highest order will quote from the book Dune.

      “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

      Though I understand that sometimes it’s too much for people, we are all human. Not everyone has the die on your feet live on your knees mentality. I don’t look down on people who don’t either anymore, since at the end of the day until you were in their shoes you never know how you would react. It’s easy to talk big and act tough, but once you are in the firing line you never know how you would react. I’m not trying to insult anyone or cast dispersions on anyone, I’m simply stating the reality of the situation and human nature. I might have done the same given the situation too, I’m as human as anyone and as flawed, I am aware of my own short comings. At the same time submitting to this evil is wrong. This is a great victory to those who feel terrorism works, which is a damned shame.

      • John Boston says

        May 17, 2015 at 4:13 pm

        Of course I am afraid also, but am still moving forward. I have ordered a T-shirt with the infamous “bombhead” Mohammed cartoon on the front. If the company will print it, I will wear it.

        I still believe we are free to express ourselves in this nation, despite even some “conservatives” being cowards (Bill O’Reilly, et al). and turning on Pamela Geller. I fully support Pamela, Robert Spencer, and Zineb el Rhazoui.

        I decry Charlie Hebdo management for cowardice and hypocrisy for firing Ms. Rhazoui. Perhaps they will recant and show they have a backbone. As for me, to quote Patrick Henry, “give me liberty, or give me death.”

      • gravenimage says

        May 19, 2015 at 12:35 pm

        Excellent post, Darren.

        • Darren says

          May 20, 2015 at 4:08 pm

          Thank you for your compliment.

  2. Liam1304 says

    May 17, 2015 at 7:42 am

    It is not right for me to commit murder simply because I have my most cherished beliefs insulted.

    It’s as simple as that.

    As the Lord once said to his discouraged prophet: I have reserved for myself yet 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to baal nor kissed his lips.

    You are not alone.

  3. Islam_Macht_Frei says

    May 17, 2015 at 7:43 am

    I heard about this the other day – not sure all the facts are in. I think there might be something else going on here..

    • tilda says

      May 17, 2015 at 8:12 am

      You might be right.

      RFI has an article which says in part: “Rhazoui believes that she is being punished for being one of 15 of Charlie Hebdo’s 20 employees who publicly called for an equal share in the paper’s ownership.”

      http://www.english.rfi.fr/africa/20150515-charlie-hebdo-takes-disciplinary-action-against-moroccan-journalist

      • PRODOS says

        May 17, 2015 at 12:18 pm

        Thanks Islam_Macht_Frei and tilda.

        It is not at all clear to me that Zineb El Rhazoui is in trouble with Charlie Hebdo management BECAUSE she’s criticised Islam — neither from the link posted by Robert Spencer nor the link posted by tilda.

        • PRODOS says

          May 17, 2015 at 11:32 pm

          Christ writes: “We do not need to insult Islam, we just need to make the the world understand what Islam is and what it means to be a Muslim. Just say it like it is. Let everyone read the Koran and they should know ISIL is Islam. ”

          True.

          But to state accurately and clearly — and without mockery — what Islam says or what Mohammed did or said AND to have an unfavourable view of it is considered SLANDER in Islam.

          In any case, I agree 100% that showing Muslims and non-Muslims what the Islamic texts actually say, actually mean, actually advocate, is essential.

        • PRODOS says

          May 17, 2015 at 11:34 pm

          Oops! Typo.

          I accidentally wrote: “Christ writes: “We do not need to insult Islam …””

          Of course that should be “Chris writes …”

    • spot on says

      May 17, 2015 at 8:17 am

      This is bad news for them and everyone else.

  4. WhatsUpDoc says

    May 17, 2015 at 7:56 am

    I have been made victorious by terror. I wonder who said this???

  5. Arasu says

    May 17, 2015 at 8:05 am

    Robert,
    I am a Christian,and I am 100% with you. We need more people like you with the courage to expose the hypocrisy of the Islamo-Fascists and their leftist allies.
    May the Lord be with you every step of the way.

  6. Georg says

    May 17, 2015 at 8:36 am

    This is sadly consistent with neoliberals (is that a term yet?). There is some perverse psychology of contrarian sanctimony. Once criticizing Muhammad and Islam became [sort of] normative, and didn’t offer the purveyor a bully pulpit of holier-than-thou-ness, it loses its appeal.

    We are dealing with children who seek only to stigmatize reactionaries whatever the facts or ethical circumstances. An archetypal narcissism gets in the way of pragmatism, with the former sometimes being mistaken for the latter, as increasingly seems to have been the case with Charlie Hebdo. They were right for the wrong reasons.

    Throwing this woman to the fascist supremacist Islamists fits with all the current rage, as it’s been with Ayaan Hirsi Ali; see her appear in front of champagne neoliberal Jon Liebowitz:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71dBK0iCRro

    It’s a fucking disgrace.

    • Georg says

      May 17, 2015 at 8:56 am

      To those who are offended by cursing, I only mean to express myself and not to offend.

      But I would like to begin the use of the term “neolibs”.

    • Mirren10 says

      May 17, 2015 at 9:23 am

      ”Throwing this woman to the fascist supremacist Islamists fits with all the current rage, as it’s been with Ayaan Hirsi Ali; see her appear in front of champagne neoliberal Jon Liebowitz”.

      I watched the clip, Georg.

      It didn’t seem to me that Liebowitz was doing what you suggest. I thought he made, in fact, a very good point. The **Christian** Reformation was a movement to get rid of man made accretions, such as, for example, the sale of Indulgences, the corruption of the Church hierarchy etc. That is, to get back to basics; the Scriptures. Which resulted, as Liebowitz points out, in persecution and violence directed at the reformers, or protestors (hence Protestants) by the established Catholic Church.

      A ‘reformation’ of islam would therefore, given what reformation means, be a going back to basics also; ie going back to the pure koran. And the basic koran mandates violence.Which is precisely what the IS is carrying out.

      I haven’t yet read the book, but intend to. I will be interested to see what Ayaan puts forward.

      • Georg says

        May 17, 2015 at 11:05 am

        When I say he throws her to the Islamic supremacists I say so because he refuses to stand with her and instead takes exception with her taking exception with Islam. It’s maddening because there isn’t a mainstream ideology on Earth more antipodal to liberalism than Islam.

        Getting back to the basics of Christianity, as was the attempt of those Christians pursuing The Reformation is VERY different in nature and behavioral manifestation than it is with Islam. Why? Because there are differences between Christian and Islamic doctrine which are of tremendous moral consequence, however much Leibowitz hates/denies it and attempts to make Ali out to be the bigot for recognizing Islam’s doctrinal bigotry and violence. To stigmatize Ali for pointing out this objective and crucial observation, particularly considering what she’s gone through, is the height of cowardice, arrogance and stupidity.

        The persecution and violence in Islam’s Islamic State-led “reformation” is not directed at reformers (the militants) at all, as it was with Protestants in The Reformation, but against heterodox Muslims attempting, in the face of Western liberal contempt, to move away from Islamic literalism, which is an effective/implicit critique of Islamic doctrine, however much spin one puts on it.

        Liberals have no leg to stand on when it comes to refusing to criticize the moral deviance of Islam. Notice when Leibowitz mocks Ali about Christians not admitting the Bible is man made he does so with suppressed glee and humor, which the audience articulates with chuckling. And the same occurs when he mocks her assertion that Christians are [more] tolerant of homosexuality. However, when it comes to Muslims taking exception with each, it suddenly becomes a very serious topic whereby the ethnic heritage of Muslims must be treated with kid gloves. I maintain that treating the same issues so differently depending upon which group is being discussed has its spawn in Liebowitz’s, and neolibs’, racism.

        • Georg says

          May 17, 2015 at 11:24 am

          Sorry to double-post, but you’ve got me thinking.

          I’d like to summarize and add something else. During The Reformation much of the angst and violence was perpetrated by the establishment against the reformers. With Islamic State the reformers are perpetrating violence against the establishment. The Islamic reformation Ali talks about gets away from Islamic doctrine while The Reformation sought to move closer to Christian doctrine.

          I wish Ali hadn’t used to loaded and historical term reformation. Islam needs to change in a modern direction.

        • Mirren10 says

          May 17, 2015 at 11:33 am

          Agreed, Georg.

          As I said, I haven’t as yet read the book, but I cannot see how islam can be reformed, or, indeed, changed. To do so would be to reject 90% of the koran, and the sharia.

          Perhaps that is what she means ?

        • Georg says

          May 17, 2015 at 12:02 pm

          To say with The Reformation the violence was perpetrated by the establishment against the reformers is an oversimplification, and there was of course much violence perpetrated by reformers against the establishment, etc. Eh… that’s why I think the term is both inaccurate given the historical baggage and thus unhelpful.

          Their exchange is handicapped throughout because when Ali says reformation she means irreligious modernization while Stewart keeps meaning Islamic State fundamentalist aims, and Ali doesn’t make a point of correcting him by saying that is not what she means by reformation… The waters of the exchange are very muddied, and I think a bit cynically so by… Stewart. I call him Liebowitz out of disrespect because I feel he’s often very disrespectful. When he gets some humility, or at least perspective, I’ll stop.

          Anyyyyyway, you are exactly right, Mirren10. Islamic doctrine cannot be changed or else it is no longer Islamic doctrine. This is a critical problem with the idea of infallibility. She very much means that shariah must be practically abandoned. This is what she expresses when she says 7th century morality is not relevant today.

        • RonaldB says

          May 17, 2015 at 3:38 pm

          I’m not entirely sure what this whole debate is about.

          John Steward (I don’t understand the Liebowitz appellation) is playing the function of an interviewer: trying to pull out his interviewee without actually putting words in her mouth. He picks up right away on her assertion that the Islamists are actually following the Islam of the Koran.

          Also, Ayaan clearly states that her objective in reform is not to bring Muslims back to the Koran, since the IS is correctly using the Koran, but to get Muslims to acknowledge the non-sanctity of the Koran and its irrelevance today. Stewart gives her an appreciative reception on this claim.

          I don’t see any problem in the interview at all, or in Ayaan’s responses.

          Of course, once you remove Muhammad, the Sira, and the Hadiths from Islam, what do you have? But, Ayaan’s message is for the West, anyway. The chances of a structural reform of Islam is zero, but if you can get the West, and it’s voters, to acknowledge openly that fundamentalist, modern, reformed, canonical, and modified Islam is unremittingly vicious and totalitarian, you may deal with it in the only sensible manner: total exclusion from Western countries.

        • Georg says

          May 17, 2015 at 4:09 pm

          Basically Mirren and I seem to have come to agreement that the Christian Reformation isn’t in any useful way germane to whatever is going on in the Islamic world right now. I disagree that Stewart is behaving in an impartial way. He does not acknowledge that IS is simply following the Koran, only that they are following their interpretation and implementation.

          Stewart gives her a hard time about what is really only comparative religion when he tries to pin her on the, and I paraphrase, “You seem to suggest Islam is different from other religions” rhetoric. Islam has a name which other religions do not because it is its own, different religion. Ayaan cannot engage his accusation genuinely because he’d simply make her out to be a bigot and she knows this so essentially ignores his rhetorical accusation.

          “..since the IS is correctly using the Koran…Stewart gives her an appreciative reception on this claim..” Again, Stewart points out it is only their interpretation and implementation, interrupts her when she says it’s being carried out my Muslims, interjecting that “Muslims suffer from it”. Yes, we are aware Muslims suffer from it, but may she finish her breath about it being purveyed by Muslims before Stewart interrupts on behalf of Muslim victimization and grievance?

          “…if you can get the West, and it’s voters, to acknowledge openly that fundamentalist, modern, reformed, canonical, and modified Islam is unremittingly vicious and totalitarian, you may deal with it in the only sensible manner…” Do you feel Stewart allowed for or was receptive to this argument in the interview?

        • RonaldB says

          May 17, 2015 at 7:02 pm

          “…if you can get the West, and it’s voters, to acknowledge openly that fundamentalist, modern, reformed, canonical, and modified Islam is unremittingly vicious and totalitarian, you may deal with it in the only sensible manner…” Do you feel Stewart allowed for or was receptive to this argument in the interview?

          That wasn’t Ayaan’s message for this interview. Her message was that Islam has to jettison the Koran and Muhammad. She did get that out during the interview and yes, he allowed her to.

          I don’t agree that Islam is salvageable but I highly respect Ayaan for her work, and Stewart for giving her the interview. I don’t expect an interviewer to be completely pliable or to push the point of view of the person he’s interviewing. Do I think he gave her the opportunity to be heard? Yes. If she wanted to say that Islam is beyond saving, she would have.

        • vlparker says

          May 17, 2015 at 11:21 pm

          I saw it the way you did, Georg. He kept bringing the conversation back to the 400 year old sins of Christianity while glossing over what islam is doing today. And he kept saying that he got the impression that she thought there was something wrong with islam that wasn’t wrong with other religions. She should have screamed, “YES, there is.”

          Then when he engaged in the moral equivalence argument and started talking about Christians in the Central African Republic beheading gays, she should have said that they are committing sins in Christianity whereas the beheaders in IS are not commiting sins in islam. I really didn’t think she did a very good job in the interview. She had a chance to blow him out of the water and didn’t do it.

          I think her hope for a reformation in islam has a slim to none chance of ever happening. There is a major difference between the two situations. The Catholic church was going against its own teachings and against everything Jesus stood for, which is why it needed reforming. The jihadists, on the other hand, are doing exactly what their prophet did, commit mass murder. Apples and oranges. To think you can reform islam the way Christianity was reformed is IMHO a pipe dream. But I admire her courage and hope she is right and I am wrong.

        • Georg says

          May 18, 2015 at 6:36 am

          @RonaldB

          That someone could both attend the Garland event and think that was a wonderful interview is very confusing to me, but alas, so is the discourse these days. To each his own, I guess…

        • Georg says

          May 18, 2015 at 7:18 am

          Thank you, Vlparker, I couldn’t agree more that his selective outrage, look at the histrionics he demonstrates when talking about beheadings of Muslims in the Central African Republic, is just intolerable and wrong. As for CAR, Sad? Yes. Wrong? Of course? 1/1,000 the problem it is with Muslims and nearly as relevant? Sadly, absolutely not. So why mention CAR’s violence and not Syria’s? Or Saudi Arabia’s? Or Afghanistan’s? Or Karachi’s? I wonder what it could be. And yes, he’s off before the starting shot with anything and everything having to do with painting Christians out to be all the savage Muslims are– and even with doctrine (at least implicitly). Again, I could not agree with you more there is an ENORMOUS difference between Islam and Christianity. Christianity is a much, MUCH more ethical religion. I am an atheist and I can find nary a thing Christ says in the Bible that I take exception with. On the contrary, I find him to be a kind of genius. It’s shocking to me someone could have had the historic gall to stand up to both Romans and an abusive/complicit Jewish establishment in that time period and place. To me, he really does seem to be a martyr for a transcendent love and principle of justice.

          And I don’t appreciate one bit comparing the quest of Islamic State with that of Protestants, thank you very much. And in case I haven’t mentioned, I’m an atheist. I’m a relatively disinterested party. The morality of Protestants was far superior to that of Islamic State. That shouldn’t even be a debate it’s so apparent. Oh, but it is nowadays! Isn’t that wonderful? I feel embarrassed that there are people, true asylum seekers seeking refuge from Islam and its associated cultural cancers, who come here and have to listen to champagne neolibs so belittle their plight and throw a wrench into a TRULY progressive, in the dictionary sense of the term, argument for improvement that has people’s very lives at stake. Their impeding the conversation as they do is, in my opinion, highly immoral, as well as ridiculous and violently retrograde. As we know, words do matter, and retarding the discourse regarding Islam as they do has dire results that they don’t have to live under, and thus my labeling them champagne neolibs. There’s a saying, “My neck is a theory to you, but it’s a reality to me.” That’s all I can think of when it comes to their sanctimonious crap in refusing to acknowledge the moral turpitude of Koranic verse and its resultant behavioral manifestations so many are plagued with.

          “…she should have said that they are committing sins in Christianity whereas the beheaders in IS are not commiting sins in islam.” ABSOLUTELY right. She was off her game in this interview. It’s because of Stewart’s tremendous popularity and the knee-jerk enthusiasm with which his audience will undoubtedly jump upon her and with Stewart that leaves one very exposed in that milieu. Additionally, Ali is an intellectual. Although Stewart is undoubtedly brilliant and with superlative charisma, I doubt if he’s as high-wattage as Ali. Keep in mind she’s on her third or fourth country and language here. Who knows, she may even have PTSD relating to Islam. It must be very unsettling to be in her seat. Regardless, I think such an intellectual would often be a bit put-off with his boorishness. I don’t mean so much boorishness limited to this exchange, but the boorishness for which he is so popular of which Ali is surely aware.

          Reposting because it’s gold::

          “I think her hope for a reformation in islam has a slim to none chance of ever happening. There is a major difference between the two situations. The Catholic church was going against its own teachings and against everything Jesus stood for, which is why it needed reforming. The jihadists, on the other hand, are doing exactly what their prophet did, commit mass murder. Apples and oranges. To think you can reform islam the way Christianity was reformed is IMHO a pipe dream. But I admire her courage and hope she is right and I am wrong.”

          Just one thing, though: Ali knows what she’s up against with her “reformation”. Let’s please get away from the grievous mistake of her having used that title and the term in her arguments and maybe just call it a “revolution”, or, as I’d like to think of it, “change”. For her to push the discourse where she knows it must go for the sake of humanity she cannot start at the finish line. She can’t come out of the gate saying exactly what she thinks about Islam and convince practicing Muslims of anything. The water has to start dripping on the stone. I think it’s a thing of any progress is better than no progress, and perfect progress unachieved is hardly beneficial.

        • vlparker says

          May 18, 2015 at 8:05 am

          @ Georg

          I’m a Deist. Imagine that, a Deist and an atheist defending Christianity. What’s the world coming to? I wonder if RonaldB is a Christian. Now that would really be ironic.

          I’m with you on Jesus. I think he was a good and extraordinary man who confronted the tyrants of his day and got himself executed for it. Definitely a man of courage and someone to look up to.

          Ataturk was successful in Turkey, after the fall of the Ottoman empire, in getting Turkey to become much more secular. So, it can happen. But as long as we have weak western leaders who refuse to face the realities of islam and mohammad’s pathologies, as long as we keep deluding ourselves of the moral equivalency of islamic culture to western culture, western leaders will continue to engage in their multi-culti fantasies and keep importing muslims by the thousands to the detriment of our countries. Our number one battlefield should be in our own countries. We need to stop the flow of muslims to America and deport all muslims who are not US citizens. We need to close all mosques that are preaching jihad. I don’t see anyone in Washington with the gonads to do that. We are being led by a bunch of PC cowards. If there is no push from the west any change in islam is very unlikely IMHO. I don’t know what the answer to the problem is. I don’t know if there even is an answer.

        • rev g says

          May 18, 2015 at 9:12 am

          Jesus, a good man, though either a pathological liar of epic proportions, or a lunatic, considering He chose death over giving up the facade.
          Or He could be who He claimed to be…

        • Arasu says

          May 18, 2015 at 9:22 pm

          @rev g : This is what the Apostle Paul says in 1Cor Ch1:
          20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

          22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

        • Georg says

          May 18, 2015 at 8:15 am

          Here you are, Vlparker:

          http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/ngl48j/ayaan-hirsi-ali

          A joyous interview to remedy the taste of the previous drivel. And Ayaan, I presume, is here the Ayaan you’d wished for previously. 🙂

        • Georg says

          May 18, 2015 at 8:30 am

          @ Vlparker,

          I’m sorry to have posted without acknowledging your previous post. I had a response queued up as I was searching for the Colbert interview to share with you.

          A Deist, eh?? Very nice. Haha, if RonaldB is a Christian we’ve really found ourselves in the midst of an… unlikely exchange, to say the least.

          Continuing onward with the “moral relativism” of which many are getting sick to the back teeth is certainly the marinating disaster we are trying to prevent. And yes, Ataturk accomplished great things and, I’d assume we both agree, led the way to a saner world. I sometimes think of the Kurds as a hopeful example, but I’m ignorant enough about their history and culture that I admit it may be unfounded/misguided/premature.

          Yes, anti-Western Muslim supremacist Wahabbi dens need to be treated as white blood cells treat a pathogen. Otherwise, we are sick.

          As for the PC crowd. We have a Secretary of Homeland security who has said he will do what he can to give voice to the plight of Muslims in America.

          GAZZZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA???!!!!?!?!?????????????

          Sorry, I just had a small stroke. We’re in this deep at the moment. As is, there’s no solution, but there’s no reason tomorrow has to be like today, and hopefully the political tremors in Europe will continue to roil and reach our shores.

        • vlparker says

          May 18, 2015 at 9:59 am

          @ Georg,

          Great interview. She was superb in that one.

          @ rev g,

          Not really. Jesus left no writings of any kind. The only evidence we have that he claimed to be the divine Son of God is hearsay evidence from other people. For all I know he made no such claim.

        • rev g says

          May 18, 2015 at 11:30 am

          The same can be said for a great many persons of antiquity. The period of time elapsed between Jesus’ life and the existence of writings on him is tremendously short in comparison, and authorship is by his contemporaries. Not a common feat in history of the era.
          So I take it you discount most of history as hogwash as well? Selective application of criteria is telling.
          Just saying….

        • rev g says

          May 18, 2015 at 11:36 am

          Written testimony of witnesses is not hearsay.

        • vlparker says

          May 18, 2015 at 2:37 pm

          @ rev g,

          OK. Hearwrite then. I stand corrected.

          Actually, I take all history with a grain of salt. Historians always inject their own biases into the story. It is human nature.

        • rev g says

          May 18, 2015 at 5:44 pm

          Not necessarily true. Of course, readers of history are as liable to color the events with biased views as any commentator. When the reader, from a vantage point millennia removed from the event, proposes that they know the truth better than those much more contemporary to the event, they are fooling only themself.

        • vlparker says

          May 18, 2015 at 8:53 pm

          I never said I knew anything about any event. I said I disbelieve that Jesus was divine. I can’t prove he wasn’t and neither you or anyone else can prove he was.

          I don’t believe in the 12 labors of Hercules either, but using your logic I guess maybe I should.

        • rev g says

          May 18, 2015 at 11:43 pm

          Very little of history can be “proven”. That is why rules of evidence exist. As to the abos of Hercules, you would have to examine the texts. I was under the impression that the tale was written to be legendary, not authoritative or biographical.
          A poor choice for use as a comparison.

        • vlparker says

          May 19, 2015 at 12:03 am

          If very little history can be proven then according to you my view of Jesus is perfectly valid.

        • rev g says

          May 19, 2015 at 2:16 am

          No, it is not. Even islam in the attempt to dispel only adds credence to the Gospel narrative. You can rationalize all you like, but the evidence supports only one concusion. Claiming to have reached a reasoned conclusion, yet that conclusion flying in the face of the evidence, is denial with theatrics. “Testimony of the Evangelists” covers this well. Proof, in the scientific, irrefutable sense is elusive. That doesn’t mean that the preponderance of evidence leads to a single conclusion. Even tbe contrary evidence belies blatant attempts at cover-up, thus actually reinforcing the point. It takes much more than skepticism to reach another conclusion.

  7. Papa Whiskey says

    May 17, 2015 at 8:42 am

    One of the two vermin who carried out the January atrocity shouted, “We have killed Charlie Hebdo!” Hope they can get themselves straight on this. It would be grim to see the killer’s boast borne out.

  8. Don McKellar says

    May 17, 2015 at 8:47 am

    The assassinated at Charlie Hebdo were the brave French who died resisting the Nazis. Those who run Charlie Hebdo now are the Vichy.

    • Georg says

      May 17, 2015 at 9:03 am

      Here’s how they could be really irreverent:

      Put on the cover caricatures of the remaining staff looking on nervously holding a sign reading “Je ne suis pas Charlie”.

  9. Col says

    May 17, 2015 at 8:58 am

    Caving in to the jihadis is just reinforcing the behaviour – they know that it works and will just keep doing it till all there demands are met!

  10. TheBuffster says

    May 17, 2015 at 9:09 am

    What’s truly marvellous is the courage of Zineb El Rhazoui and her husband.

    It’s “easier” – in a way – for individuals on their own, rather than organizations, to be courageous in the face of such barbaric enemies, because the individuals can take responsibility for their own risks and not worry about the people working for them.

    It’s different with an organization that has been formed specifically to confront the Islamic threat, where everybody is voluntarily there to do that dangerous job – as with everyone who was at the Texas cartoon event (including the security people).

    Of course, one could say that the “Charlie Hebdo” management could let go anyone who didn’t want to risk their lives, and keep or take on people who are willing to fight a full-on defiant battle.

    But some people – the management perhaps – are not cut out for living under constant threat. They just can’t do it on an ongoing, unrelenting basis. Some people have the nerves to keep functioning and fighting until their last breath. Other people have nervous breakdowns and need medication.

    Some people choose to join the military, and some people can’t and shouldn’t, and by their temperament would be a liability.

    I’m grateful to every person who can and does accept the kind of risk and the kind of life this fight requires.

  11. B says

    May 17, 2015 at 9:10 am

    I think there is a bit more to this story than appears here. However this Moroccan woman is clearly courageous in taking on the Jihadists. One of the cartoonist has already said he won’t draw Mohammed again, looks like the Pope will on the cover fairly regularly now.

  12. Jack Holan says

    May 17, 2015 at 9:14 am

    Robert & Pamela disappointingly you are spot on regarding the current management of Charlie Hebdo are not only disrespecting what their colleagues died for and stomping on their graves. I’ll spare everyone the lecture about cowering to terror and how that promotes more terror. The most compelling imagery of bravery & strength of faith and character is the ISIS Photos of executing 25 Copt (Christians) unwilling to say no to God and convert to Islam; knowing full well that they were now dead men. People need to decide on the level of Importance of God and other beliefs are to them. Once they show their cowardice and if they are allowed to live the demands of change all only become more extreme. Islam will not tolerate any deviance from you. Is this what you want for your future? A great part of our military prowess is the strength of our convictions. As a Jew I’m sailing on the same ship that you are and want to see us float not sink. Sinking=death. How dare you fire thIs employee for her article about Islam? Do you have a written policy against this? Why did the editor allow the article to go through if this is inconsistent with policy at Charlie Hebdo? Was he/she fired? By Labor Laws you would by unconscionable not to fIre the Editor and any other employee who needs to sign approval prior to print.

    • Mirren10 says

      May 17, 2015 at 9:50 am

      ”How dare you fire thIs employee for her article about Islam? Do you have a written policy against this? Why did the editor allow the article to go through if this is inconsistent with policy at Charlie Hebdo? Was he/she fired?”

      From reading the article, Jack, it would appear she has been called on the carpet for chronic absenteeism, and wanting a share in the magazine’s revenue.

      These may only be excuses of course. It would certainly appear that the Charlie Hebdo management is busily backtracking, and if so, how utterly sickening, and an unconscionable betrayal of the brave murdered cartoonists.

      As Robert points out, these are defining times.

  13. Dan says

    May 17, 2015 at 9:46 am

    I’ve often wondered if “Turning the other cheek” really means to give your assailant, verbal or otherwise, the benefit of the doubt that you may have misunderstood their intention.

    If your “Other cheek” is not assaulted, it was a misunderstanding.

    If it IS assaulted, you know their intent is real, and must act, plan, or decide accordingly.

    If such is the case, Islamists have without doubt proved intent a few hundred thousand cheeks ago.

    Also, turning the other cheek deals with an assault upon YOUR person.

    If you witness others being attacked – and I MAY be wrong here but – I’m pretty sure the Bible says, “Getous your backside in there and protecteth.”.

    • PRODOS says

      May 17, 2015 at 11:54 am

      My understanding of “turn the other cheek” is that it refers to insult — not to being physically assaulted.

      The striking of the cheek referred to in this passage of the Bible is done with the backhand — which is meant to demean, rather than physically injure.

      Regarding physical violence: Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

      i.e. The state must do its job. Namely, to retaliate against those who initiate force.

  14. Mirren10 says

    May 17, 2015 at 9:57 am

    ”Well, it’s their loss. I don’t care if the whole world submits. I will die standing up. For whatever it’s worth, I will be among those who will not go quietly into the darkness. I know Pamela Geller will be with us as well. I know there are many others. But these are the days when even the most stalwart are faltering. These are the defining days.”

    Brilliant, Robert ! Hear hear !

    I stand with you and Pamela. Better far to fight on one’s feet, than to die on one’s knees.

    Never, ever, ever surrender !

  15. KrazyKafir says

    May 17, 2015 at 10:11 am

    So, they betrayed their co-workers who died standing up to religious fascism, making them a particularly low form of, gutless dhimmi cowards.

    • Darren says

      May 17, 2015 at 3:45 pm

      I will play Devils Advocate, not because I like the devil, but for the sake of discussion. Not all humans are hardwired the same, and very few people want to be martyrs no matter how just the cause. Are they right if this article is true? no, but at the same time, they did hold their own for a very long time, even after facing death. At the end of the day we are all human, and some of us can only tolerate so much. I still give them credit for putting themselves on the firing line. I wonder if I was in their situation what I would do.

      Mr. Spencer does the same so he has earned my respect besides being a good writer and fighting for a worthy cause, he has tenacity, but at the same time who wants to live in constant fear of death, and could you given their situation be able to cope with the stress for a prolonged period of time? I’m just saying it’s easy to talk tough and big behind the safety of our keyboards, but until you are on the firing line yourself maybe we should at least give them credit for doing the best they could. I know my position will be unpopular, (what else is new,) but I’m just throwing this out there for the sake of discussion.

  16. Tom O'Farrell says

    May 17, 2015 at 10:46 am

    Robrt Spencer & Pamela Geller & Bosch Fawstin, & others are actually fighting the good fight. All the other commentators here are egging them on. In fact egging everybody (but themselves) on. Quit your sanctimonious babbling and actually do something yourselves. Like start your own on-line publication, or at least a blog which is really easy, with many Mohammad graphics & articles about Muslims.

    • Mirren10 says

      May 17, 2015 at 11:26 am

      ”In fact egging everybody (but themselves) on. Quit your sanctimonious babbling and actually do something yourselves.”

      You have absolutely **no** knowledge of what commenters here are doing to fight jihad, and the spread of sharia and islam, unless they choose to tell us. I know for a fact that many commenters here do a great deal, and that includes running blogs, writing books, spreading knowledge of the contents of the koran and hadith, the life of mohammed, and in several cases, putting themselves into actual danger, not to mention incurring social opprobrium by so doing.

      Why don’t you quit *your* sanctimonious babbling, and tell us specifically what **you** do ? With some links ?

      Waiting.

      • Georg says

        May 17, 2015 at 12:29 pm

        At which blog can I egg you on?

      • Wellington says

        May 17, 2015 at 3:05 pm

        With you again, Mirren.

      • Angemon says

        May 17, 2015 at 3:25 pm

        Exactly, Mirren – assuming that posting at JW is the limit of any JWer counter-jihad efforts is silly, at best.

    • gravenimage says

      May 19, 2015 at 12:54 pm

      Tom, Mirren is right. There are posters here who also blog against Jihad; who organize marches and rallies; who contribute as journalists, writers, and artists; and those in the military, in security, and law enforcement. There are many ways to contribute.

      Here’s some of my Anti-Jihad artwork, including some work which appeared at the cartoon art show:

      http://s478.photobucket.com/user/gravenimageartist/library

  17. Cecilia Ellis says

    May 17, 2015 at 11:01 am

    Isn’t it a harbinger of increased Muslim violence that a courageous few, who overtly debate “the Religion of Peace” paradigm, are stigmatized as “Islamophobes,” while those who — both in the name of and in imitation of the Prophet — commit egregious atrocities are caveated as not reflective of Islam?

    Shame: That Abbas was recognized as an “angel of peace” by none other than Pope Francis.

    Shame: That the murderous acts of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were presented as “not Islamic” by U. S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz.

    Shame: That Franklin Graham felt it necessary to inform the world that he understood why Muslims were offended by the Draw Muhammad Contest in Garland.

    Shame: That President Obama, against the brutal evidence demonstrated daily against non-Muslims simply because they are non-Muslim, continuously and adamantly proclaims that Islam is a religion of peace, a mantra echoed by the majority of press reports filed throughout the free world.

    Shame: That people of religious, political, academic, or economic status refrain from addressing the problematic elephant in the room: Islam.

    Shame: That people of all religions are silent in the face of daily reports of massacres by jihadists, beheadings, burnings alive, kidnapping and trafficking of young girls, rape, sharia punishments, etc.

    According to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak; not to act is to act.”

    Thank you, Robert, for not “going into the darkness quietly.” Fear not. You are not alone.

  18. Richie says

    May 17, 2015 at 11:06 am

    The editors are afraid, They don’t want to be murdered by Islamic barbarians.. Unfortunatly the Muslim savages have won the battle if people have been intimidated into silence.
    Muslims use violence or the threat of violence to assure compliance and obedience.

    Nowhere in the world will you find a religious cult that is so utterly fascist in its methods

    • Georg says

      May 17, 2015 at 12:23 pm

      If someone no longer wishes to “stay in the fray”, so to speak, because they fear retaliation by extremists that is perfectly understandable. My only qualm is when staff acts as though, eh, we’ve suddenly decided criticizing Islam or drawing Muhammad is now less relevant than criticizing Christianity and drawing Jesus.

      • Darren says

        May 17, 2015 at 4:00 pm

        Maybe they are trying to curry favor with the people trying to kill them. It could be a survival tactic you never know. Though it usually never works, and they will still kill or want to kill you anyway. I used to be a downright self righteous ass in every sense of the word, but I have since changed my way of thinking, and accept we are all human, and to focus on more than just the ideal, to see the broader picture and surroundings.

        I try to be less critical since it’s easy to talk tough behind a keyboard, but if you or I were on the firing line directly there is no telling what we may or may not do. I still respect them for putting themselves on the firing line, if the stress and paranoia finally got to them it’s understandable. I’d say the paranoia would be the worst part, the weight of it can crush even the broadest shoulders. I think all any of us can do is try the best we can given our own abilities and try to make some positive contribution to what I and many feel is a worthy and just cause worth fighting for.

  19. Theodoric says

    May 17, 2015 at 11:28 am

    If all of us who are determined to preserve our most precious possession, the freedom of speech, were to post a link to a “Prophet” Muhammad cartoon everyday, they would become so ubiquitous that it would become obvious even to the Islamites that the idea of stopping the cartooning with jihad attacks was a lost cause. Free Speech lovers outnumber the Islamites by far. Let’s take advantage of it and put an end to this barbaric lunacy.

    https://drawthevileprophet.wordpress.com/2015/05/07/preserve-freedom-of-speech-draw-the-vile-prophet-muhammad/

    • Georg says

      May 17, 2015 at 12:50 pm

      http://fatpigeons.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/a_stick_figure1.png

    • Westman says

      May 17, 2015 at 1:36 pm

      http://cartoons.internet-share.com/2015/01/14/the-cartoons-made-me-do-it/

      http://soopermexican.hammerapp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Muhammad03.jpg

      http://www.peacewithrealism.org/images/simon01.gif

      http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/files/2012/06/burkha3.jpg

      • RonaldB says

        May 18, 2015 at 9:48 pm

        Fantastic cartoons.

        A bit off track for this particular thread, for those who wondered, I am an atheist. But, I made no argument concerning god or religion when I talked about the Stewart interview, so I don’t see the relevance. My arguments are either logical or not logical.

        Second, I see it as a positive that an interviewer allows a person like Ayaan to speak her piece. It’s not so important whether the interviewer is totally compliant or knowledgeable. We can win a debate that is ongoing. The biggest problem is the totalitarian fascists who shut off all debate and discussion. Ayaan can handle Stewart when he brings up a counter-point, agree or not, and allows her time to reply:

        ” Beginning in 2011, the Muslim Brotherhood convinced the White House to ban Coughlin and put an end to his briefings. The move was in keeping with shariah concepts of slander that seek to blindfold America to certain realities that render us defenseless against a threat made existential by the very ignorance it gets our leaders to enforce. In times like this – when the White House’s former counterterrorism strategist can declare it unconstitutional to allow national security analysts to look to Islam to understand jihad – there’s an urgent need to pull away the blindfold so we can see and confront the threat.”
        http://www.amazon.com/Catastrophic-Failure-Blindfolding-America-Jihad-ebook/dp/B00X6GH8PA/ref=tmm_kin_title_popover

        “Duke students and faculty blast Hough last week, and the school told The News & Observer of Raleigh that he was placed on leave and that 2016 will be his last year at the school.”
        http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/17/duke-professor-responds-to-criticism-about-online-comments-made-regarding/

        Marquette political science associate professor John McAdams wrote a blog post criticizing Abbate for refusing to allow criticism of same-sex marriage in class discussions and quoted the conversation Abbate had with the student. He then found himself the object of illiberal scrutiny. … While the university brushed off the student’s complaints of being silenced, the administration became vigorously engaged when the illiberal left complained about McAdams’s post. Incredibly, the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences sent McAdams a letter informing him he was “relieved of all teaching duties and all other faculty activities, including, but not limited to, advising, committee work, faculty meetings and any activity that would involve your interaction with Marquette students, faculty and staff.”
        http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/

        All the references and quotes I gave involve the silencing of opposing arguments, not the debating of them.

  20. Richie says

    May 17, 2015 at 11:46 am

    For many people, living in countries filled with hostile Muslims, openly coming out against Islamic savagery could put ones self and family at risk of being killed. Even in countries where Muslims are not in control, if leftists are in charge, standing up against Islam could be career suicide. I find inspiration in the bravery of people like Robert spencer, Pamela Gellar and Geert Wilders- they have taken the first brave steps- there is strength in numbers- what can we all do to help? In Europe a person can be arrested for speaking the truth about Islam.
    \What steps should people take to defend freedom- even when the local law does more to protect those who would take away our freedoms?

  21. PRODOS says

    May 17, 2015 at 12:06 pm

    Robert Spencer wrote: “I don’t care if the whole world submits. I will die standing up.”

    Don’t die. Stay alive. It’s better.

  22. Reg Johnston says

    May 17, 2015 at 12:28 pm

    I’m with you Robert. I too, will die standing before capitulating to the insanity of islam. It is disheartening to see so many strongholds, actually ex strongholds. concede to this nightmare.

  23. Prinz Eugen says

    May 17, 2015 at 12:41 pm

    Should have realized from the start that the French would not be firm in their stance of islam. The firmest advocaty? Sultan Barry Sotero, he remains firmly on the side of islam, iran and the raghead caliphate. Will be interesting (and most likely highly disappointing) to see what wimp Cameron does to “oppose” (???) islam in the UK.

  24. JohnM says

    May 17, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    Je ne suis pas Charlie

  25. Mo says

    May 17, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    “Turning the other cheek does not mean submitting to evil and allowing it to triumph; it is, rather, an act of quiet defiance, of showing that evil will not conquer one’s soul no matter what pressure is applied. That’s exactly what we were trying to show in Garland.”

    Absolutely right. There are many people who stand with you, Robert and Pamela, and all those who continue to stand for freedom!

    Robert sounds a bit weary or discouraged here. I don’t blame him. This is an exhausting fight. But hang in there. Remember that despite any setbacks, Good and Right WILL eventually win out.

    I hope you take some time out for rest and recuperation as well. (Both physical and mental.) Don’t worry, this battle’s not going anywhere. It will still be here when you get back.

  26. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    May 17, 2015 at 1:16 pm

    We do not need to insult Islam, we just need to make the the world understand what Islam is and what it means to be a Muslim.

    Presenting what Islam is amounts to an insult to Islam, so we in fact *do* need to insult Islam. It is the only belief system in the history of the world to collectively fly into a homicidal rage when you hold a mirror up to it so they can see themselves.

    In this way, as in so many others, Islam is special. Moslems are special people.

    • PRODOS says

      May 17, 2015 at 11:39 pm

      Alarmed Pig Farmer wrote: “Presenting what Islam is amounts to an insult to Islam, so we in fact *do* need to insult Islam.”

      Spot on.

      Anyway, any ideology or religion that can’t handle criticism or mockery is unfit for civilization.

      How a person or a movement or a religion or ideology deals with disagreement and dissent tells you everything you need to know about it.

      It’s The Big Test.

  27. Kepha says

    May 17, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    This is why I doubt that the Left will ever truly resist Islam.

    • Wellington says

      May 17, 2015 at 3:15 pm

      I share that doubt, Kepha. I fear antipathy towards the traditional West by the Left will always trump a non-Western menace like Islam, stupid though it be. Hell, I’m not even certain about much of the Right. Just look at how many on the Right like O’Reilly, Ingraham and Graham reacted to the events down in Garland, Texas earlier this month.

      • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

        May 17, 2015 at 6:34 pm

        Hell, I’m not even certain about much of the Right.

        There has bee near total silence on Moslems by the Republican presidential candidates. The only comment thus far was Rand Paul asserting that dictatorships in Dar al-Islam are preferable to democracies, a refreshing insight by him and something I’ve always said. Beyond that, not a peep from the Right, which is notable in the light that at least a third of news entertainment content nowadays is in one way or another connected to Islam.

        • Kepha says

          May 17, 2015 at 8:37 pm

          Actually, much of the Right’s silence about Islam may be simple prudence. How often have we around here been utterly embarrassed by liberal commentators bloviating, “Blowing up a dozen people while shouting Alllahu Akbar and seeking to be a shaheed has nothing to do with real Islam blahblah yadayada”? I’d rather some silence from our politicians when it’s warranted than something that leads one to think that a donkey has learned to walk on two legs.

  28. voegelinian says

    May 17, 2015 at 3:17 pm

    Insult — Gross abuse offered to another, either by word or act; an act or speech of insolence or contempt; an affront; an indignity.

    Gross — “great, palpable, serious”

    Abuse — Vituperative words; coarse, insulting speech; abusive language; virulent condemnation; reviling

    Vituperative — Uttering or writing censure; containing, or characterized by, abuse; scolding

    Meanwhile, if we recall the latter part of the original definition of Insult — “an act or speech of insolence or contempt; an affront; an indignity.”

    Insolence — The quality of being insolent; pride or haughtiness manifested in contemptuous and overbearing treatment of others; arrogant contempt; brutal imprudence.

    Contempt — …the feeling with which one regards that which is esteemed mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn.

    Affront — Contemptuous or rude treatment which excites … resentment; marked disrespect; a purposed indignity

    Which leads us finally (though we could go on all day, as the detailed analysis of dictionary definitions interestingly lends itself to seemingly circuitous, if not circular, garden paths of one word leading to the next):

    Indignity — Any action toward another which manifests contempt for him; an offense against personal dignity; unmerited contemptuous treatment; contumely; incivility or injury, accompanied with insult.

    Analysis:

    Other than most of Insolence and parts of Indignity (viz., “an offense against personal dignity; unmerited contemptuous treatment”), everything else that flows lexically and semantically from the primary word and act which Robert Spencer loftily eschewed — Insult — I have no problem with, and I think the Counter-Jihad should have no problem with, and should be as much a matter of principle in defending for our freedom to do it as the more mature and dignified behavior of the Garland event. But naturally, the mainstream has been treating that restrained event as though it were pretty much evincing all the negative connotations from all the definitions of Insult detailed above; bringing up the related question I have asked many times over the years of the Counter-Jihad: you know, the old “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t” question — a question rendered particularly acute given that “doing” — i.e. insulting Islam — in this case is so richly deserved.

    Which in turn brings me to my main point here. Robert Spencer wrote:

    And particularly for those Christians out there who are sitting in their armchairs and tut-tutting at us for being so lacking in civility and respect that we would actually insult Muhammad and Islam, hear this: I didn’t co-sponsor the show to insult Islam and embarrass the Church by being uncharitable

    Given what we know about Islam, and after digesting the definition of the word “insult”, one reasonably wonders, Why not insult Islam? For two reasons:

    1) Islam is eminently, richly, massively deserving of insult (with the minor caveats I noted above aside).

    2) The free speech issue which Spencer and Geller have been defending before, during — and particularly after (in light of the mainstream criticisms of them) — the Garland event, would still apply to an insult of Islam.

    Once again, for the umpteenth time, Spencer and Geller are comporting themselves in an impeccably restrained manner, and the mainstream behaves as though they were pigs splashing around in mud. If it’s clear after years that the name of the game is Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, I say let’s stop anxiously worrying over what the mainstream thinks of us and take the gloves off — and subject Islam to the criticism, condemnation, and contumely it so richly deserves.

    What’s that you say? Contumely…?

    Contumely — Rudeness compounded of haughtiness and contempt; scornful insolence; despiteful treatment; disdain; contemptuousness in act or speech…

    For, as the great Edmund Burke (PBUH) wrote:

    “Nothing aggravates tyranny so much as contumely.”

    • RonaldB says

      May 17, 2015 at 3:59 pm

      I would say that Spencer has been doing exactly what you advocate: “subject Islam to the criticism, condemnation….”…well, Robert may not have shown contumely (haven’t seen that word since Hamlet). But, you’re asking for an emotion to be conveyed, while Spencer has given us great intellectual ammunition to use in every encounter with Islam and with prevaricating Muslims.

      You yourself seem the least emotional of commentators, so it’s rather strange to see you criticize Robert for not displaying enough emotion…but, to each his own.

      I was at the Garland event, and there wasn’t a bit of restraint there, other than good taste. It was definitely a G-rated event, with the more lascivious parts of the cartoons not so artistically covered with electrical tape. Spencer spoke there, Geller spoke, and Wilders spoke as the unannounced star who brought the house down.

      And you had the people there, the ones who expected to leave at 7pm and ended up staying until 11 or 12 pm under police guard, unable to pick up their cars until the next day. And every one there saying they would attend another exhibition tomorrow, if it were held.

      • voegelinian says

        May 18, 2015 at 3:40 pm

        a) One doesn’t have to be emotional to vigorously support those who are and to support the principle of its (i) free speech protection, and (ii) its rightness;

        b) the various denotations and connotations I palpated out of the word insult — which Spencer loftily rises above — do not necessarily entail emotion. Indeed, much robust substance of insult can be communicated without “emotion” (though it may be more difficult the more one is an anger-management blowhard trying to trumpet his Counter-Jihad cred with histrionic chest-thumping braggadocio whilst otherwise promoting asymptotic hedge-betting).

        Spencer continues to refrain from simply saying that Islam itself is to be condemned, and that all Muslims who support Islam must be condemned. Pretty much all the unofficial luminaries & leaders of the entire Counter-Jihad movement (such as it is) refrain from pronouncing those sentences emphatically (and I’ve noticed to my dismay over the years that quite a few civilians of the Counter-Jihad follow suit, either actively or passively (or passive-aggressively)). They are either afraid of PC MC, or they actually do not believe in the purport of those sentences. There is no third explanation.

        • Angemon says

          May 18, 2015 at 7:58 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “Spencer continues to refrain from simply saying that Islam itself is to be condemned, and that all Muslims who support Islam must be condemned. Pretty much all the unofficial luminaries & leaders of the entire Counter-Jihad movement (such as it is) refrain from pronouncing those sentences emphatically (and I’ve noticed to my dismay over the years that quite a few civilians of the Counter-Jihad follow suit, either actively or passively (or passive-aggressively)). They are either afraid of PC MC, or they actually do not believe in the purport of those sentences. There is no third explanation.”

          Actually, there is at least another explanation. It’s directly tied to the credibility and analytical capabilities of someone who understands saying “violence is an emergent property deriving from Islam’s inherently intolerant precepts and dogma” as”adroitly (or ineptly) avoiding…the reasonably inferred conclusion we must draw that there is something in normative ordinary Islam that makes Muslims like ISIS“.

          “Oh, but Robert never said such and such”, as if Robert Spencer, of all people, either on his books, articles or public speaks, never, ever condemned the teaching of islam, jihadis, and muslims who, willingly or not, support jihadis. And that mindset is part of the reason you were banned so many times. Nothing like putting (or in this case, denying) words in Robert’s mouth or side-snipping and deriding from the sidelines, right, voeg?

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/uk-muslim-leader-maajid-nawaz-isis-style-slavery-beheading-lashing-amputation-are-in-the-quran-and-must-be-rejected/comment-page-1#comment-1121565

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/reza-aslan-claims-anti-fascist-pope-pius-xi-was-a-fascist#comment-1078602

          Of course, perhaps I’m attributing to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity…

        • John Boston says

          May 19, 2015 at 8:22 am

          All of this discussion of freedom of speech and of the press is necessary and well done, but action also has to be taken. I have ordered a T-shirt with the infamous “bombhead” Mohammed cartoon on the front. If the company will print it, I will wear it.

          I will not wear it proudly, though, but gratefully, that I live in a nation where freedom of expression is still the law of the land. I realize that the image on the shirt may offend many people, but that is what free speech is all about. If it doesn’t offend someone, it’s not really free speech.

          I would like to know what people think of this self-worn Mohammed cartoon display. Is it wise, unwise, or what kind of reaction can I expect?

        • Mirren10 says

          May 19, 2015 at 9:13 am

          ” I have ordered a T-shirt with the infamous “bombhead” Mohammed cartoon on the front. If the company will print it, I will wear it.”

          Good for you, John Boston ! What company did you order it from ? If you post a link, I’ll order one as well. **And** wear it ! I’ll probably be arrested, living in the UK, which would be rather fun.

          ”I would like to know what people think of this self-worn Mohammed cartoon display. Is it wise, unwise, or what kind of reaction can I expect?”

          I have a Tshirt. with the slogan ”Wherever Israel stands, I stand.” I’ve frequently worn it, and the only negative responses I’ve received have been from mohammedans, who hissed ‘yahud’ as I passed by.

          If I can get the Tshirt you describe, it’ll be very interesting to see what happens when I wear it.

  29. Ming the Merciless says

    May 17, 2015 at 4:40 pm

    The communist rag already have apologized to the muslims for the cartoons
    but they never did for the far more offensive anti-christian slurs…Fact,
    their subsidiary “Hara-Kiri was so extremely seditious as the government had to interduict it…

    Frankly, Ms Geller anti-muslim cartoons are kind of lame…for the real anti-islamic drawing.look up Ali Dilem, who live in Algier, in the heart of darkness:

    A drawing is better than a long speech:
    http://www.francetvinfo.fr/image/754ub6ny3-62d2/1000/562/5483765.png

    • Porky The Crusader says

      May 18, 2015 at 8:54 am

      Hara-Kiri was very good and funny, Charlie Hebdo not really, for me it was a mediocre mag.

    • gravenimage says

      May 19, 2015 at 1:05 am

      Ming the Merciless wrote:

      Frankly, Ms Geller anti-muslim cartoons are kind of lame…
      ………………………..

      Really? You find this “lame”?

      http://s478.photobucket.com/user/gravenimageartist/media/AishasWedding-1.jpg.html

  30. Enragedsince1999 says

    May 17, 2015 at 4:43 pm

    Yes, Charlie hebdo has a mixed and contradictory record. During the Kosovo war in 1999 it devoted 3 covers to demonizing the Serb people as “genocidal Christians”, jumping at a chance to bash the Christian religion. All those accusations against the Serbs had turned out to be total lies. And now, it cowarded out in the face of Muslim threats and deserted the side of those who courageously came out in support of it.

    Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

    • duh_swami says

      May 17, 2015 at 4:48 pm

      Heeeey Ruslan…where have you been? Glad to see you posting…

    • Lia Wissing says

      May 18, 2015 at 5:54 am

      I love the concept of ‘coward’ becoming a verb!!!!

    • Shane says

      May 18, 2015 at 11:43 am

      I’m not surprised the Charlie Hebdo is cowering in the wake of the Muslim attack. Liberals are cowards who usually attack people who will not or cannot fight back. Look at how they attack Christians who do not want to service gay weddings, but they are silent about Muslim bakers who also refuse to service gay weddings.

      Gay Wedding Cakes at Muslim Bakeries?

      • Lorna Salzman says

        May 18, 2015 at 2:03 pm

        The Serbs were loved by the left despite their atrocities against the Muslims because Milosevic professed to be a “socialist”. Of course he was just a authoritarian modern Nazi. The Croats who were persecuted and murdered by the Serbs were not liked because they were pro Nazi in WW11. Of course it is no longer wartime and the Croats of that era are long dead. Milosevic was supported by the extreme American left (Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, et al). But the evidence against him and the Serbs has been proven despite attempts by both right and left to distort it. Much fraudulent information and photos were circulated to try and cleanse Milosevic and the crimes of the Serbians. To turn this into anti Christian bigotry is simply another distortion. If you want to read an objective viewpoint, read Tony Judt’s book PostWar, where he indicts the Serbs. Their crimes are
        well established.

        • Maria says

          May 19, 2015 at 12:16 pm

          the atrocities that where committed by Croats and muslims in ww2 far outweigh what Serbs where accused of doing in ww2 croats systematicly massacred 2 million Serbs and jews in jasenovic concentration camp in jasenovic the majority of victims where Serbs whom the ustasa wanted to kill the Croats totured and killed the serbs milisovic was not a war criminal theres no proof he was he was he was only fighting the KLA which was backed by the West and other finatics

        • Lorna Salzman says

          May 19, 2015 at 2:07 pm

          It is now seventy years since the war ended so it is time to stop dredging up all the anti Croat stuff. The Croats today werent even born then. And yes, Milosevic is a mad Nazi, just like Saddam Hussein was, and has blood on his hands. You obviously don’t know your history. You are just spouting the same propaganda that has been definitively debunked. You need to find some new sources of the truth.

        • Maria says

          May 21, 2015 at 7:16 am

          Croats commited ethnic cleansing of serbs its fact and commited attrocities 70 years ago agasint Serbs its a Well known fact in fact the ustasha was worse then nazis the type of crimes they commited on Serbs milosevic was not a NAZI the nazis are the Western Goverments and finatical muslims and you are just there mouthpiece the hague court is not recognised by every countrie in the world its a puppet court of the West and

  31. shoehorn of africa says

    May 17, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    Terrorism works.

    • mortimer says

      May 17, 2015 at 6:31 pm

      Heinous. Contemptible. Cold-hearted.

    • Marty says

      May 18, 2015 at 5:12 am

      Took the very words out my mouth.
      France is now no better than the UK as far as comment is concerned.
      But they still have the courage to ban the burka, unlike UK.

  32. Ming the Merciless says

    May 17, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    Thanks for the article, her firing has been canceled and Gharlie-Hebdo has apologised!
    http://www.rfi.fr/france/20150516-charlie-hebdo-sanction-levee-journaliste-zineb-el-rhazoui-france/

    Selon Zineb El Rhazoui, la tentative de la licencier était une façon de sanctionner sa prise de position qu’elle réaffirme aujourd’hui sans hésitation. « Aujourd’hui, cette direction doit comprendre que ce que Charlie Hebdo symbolise c’est quelque chose qui ne lui appartient pas à elle. Charlie Hebdo a été au cœur d’un immense élan de soutien à la fois moral et matériel. Il est évident que cet argent qui a été envoyé par les uns et les autres, il a été envoyé pour aider les familles des victimes, pour aider les blessés, pour permettre à ce journal de perdurer. Cet argent-là ne peut pas rester concentré entre les mains de deux actionnaires. Il faut faire évoluer cette situation-là vers une situation d’entreprise plus sociale, plus collective et plus transparente ».

    La semaine prochaine, Zineb El Rhazoui doit rencontrer Riss, le directeur de Charlie Hebdo, pour évoquer avec lui l’avenir du journal, qui depuis l’attentat de janvier a recueilli près de 30 millions d’euros.

    • gravenimage says

      May 19, 2015 at 1:12 am

      Good to hear.

  33. Carlos Abert says

    May 17, 2015 at 4:58 pm

    It is not about Islam as much as about money, Charlie hebdo engaged in the business of caricaturing Mahomet whose profits went into the share holder’s pocket at a hefty 3.5 M € over the years 2006-2012 otherwise the journal would have been largely broke. It was only after Mrs Zineb El Rhazoui asked the 30 Millions gifts for the murder of her twelve collegues go this time to sustain the journal in the long run, that she received the treat to be fired.

    So yes Charlie is a hypocrit but not religiously.

    Dear Robert Spencer you have recently put your life and those of your friends in danger, please let do professionnal politicians and the armed forces do the job they are being paid for next time you engage a crusade, you must have lost the sense of how dangerous a muslim could get to engage in such a rash provocation, probably because you are living six thousands km from their coast. I mean the Garland event would have been deemed crazy was it organized the way it was in any other part of the world, it was childish, you knew you would get into trouble but still you went and now there seems to be a fatwa on Pamela Geller’s head, and the public is left at risk of loosing valuable supports against islamic rethoric, which I lament the most.

    Greetings from Spain via France

    • RonaldB says

      May 18, 2015 at 8:33 am

      So, you’re saying Spencer and Geller should not have organized the exhibit to satirize and criticize Muhammad, because they might be killed, and they are needed alive so they can satirize and criticize Muhammad.

      Good thinking.

      • John Boston says

        May 18, 2015 at 9:53 am

        I assume that last comment was sarcasm.

    • logoman says

      May 18, 2015 at 12:07 pm

      You should be on your knees thanking Robert Spencer and other for literally putting their lives on the line. Leave it to politicians? Politicians in the west have given away their countries to this evil, brutal, violent oppressive cult. My thanks to Robert, Pamela Geller, Brigette Gabriel and Ayaa Kirsi Ali for your courage

    • gravenimage says

      May 19, 2015 at 10:26 am

      Carlos Abert wrote:

      It is not about Islam as much as about money, Charlie hebdo engaged in the business of caricaturing Mahomet whose profits went into the share holder’s pocket…
      ……………………………..

      Here’s the usual bizarre claim—that no one creates cartoons of Muhammed or criticizes Islam out of conviction or to uphold freedom of speech, but just because they are mercenary and want to make big money. Not only are there easier—and God knows *safer*—ways to make money, but this never explains who, exactly, is supposedly ponying up all this hard cash for this work, and what *their* motives might be.

      More:

      Dear Robert Spencer you have recently put your life and those of your friends in danger, please let do professionnal politicians and the armed forces do the job they are being paid for
      ……………………………..

      Firstly, the idea that concerned citizens should never stand up for what they believe in and that any matter of conscience should be left to the professionals is sickening. You also appear to assume—for some reason—that our politicians are actually actively defending our freedom of speech against Muslim threats.

      The fact is that very few of them are. One of the very few, in fact, is the Netherlands Geert Wilders, and he *attended* the Garland event as keynote speaker.

      And it was not Robert Spencer who put people at risk, as though he showed up at the show with assault rifles bent on mass murder. Instead, the would be killers were pious Muslims determined to shut people up.

      As for leaving things to the professionals, that is *exactly* what Spencer did when it came to security—and they came through brilliantly, dispatching the gunmen.

      More:

      next time you engage a crusade, you must have lost the sense of how dangerous a muslim could get to engage in such a rash provocation, probably because you are living six thousands km from their coast.
      ……………………………..

      You consider holding a cartoon show a *crusade*? In that case, how many other peaceful things would be considered a “rash provocation”? In many places, this can be no more than saying Islam has a violent streak, or perhaps just wearing a yarmulke or a cross.

      I participated in the cartoon art show myself—I contributed seven entries—and was proud to have done so.

      And the idea that Robert Spencer, who has been dealing with Muslim death threats and ’round the clock security for years, is naïve about Muslim violence is just ludicrous.

      More:

      I mean the Garland event would have been deemed crazy was it organized the way it was in any other part of the world…
      ……………………………..

      Isn’t this *a problem*? Instead, you seem to consider it the good and proper norm that so much of the world is under de facto Shari’ah norms. *Ugh*.

      More:

      …it was childish, you knew you would get into trouble but still you went and now there seems to be a fatwa on Pamela Geller’s head, and the public is left at risk of loosing valuable supports against islamic rethoric, (sic) which I lament the most.
      ……………………………..

      Exercising your freedom of speech is “childish”? No wonder the West is in so much trouble…

      And the way you are blaming the victim for the threats of violence against her is simply sickening. Would you have the same attitude towards Jews during the Holocaust—that they had “provoked” the Nazis into violence against them?

      The last is the most ludicrous of all—that you threaten freedom of speech if you dare exercise it.

      This, of course, is false—this incident just shows how far the defense of freedom of speech has eroded in the West; it did not create this appalling situation.

      More:

      Greetings from Spain via France
      ……………………………..

      Why would you want to advertise the region this appalling dhimmitude issued from? There might be some good freedom-loving people remaining in Spain and France, and you wouldn’t want to see them tarred with the same brush, and have people assuming that they are all craven defeatists counseling surrender such as yourself.

  34. Joe Shmo says

    May 17, 2015 at 6:10 pm

    Good for you Robert. You won’t be standing alone.

    Btw it seems we need less church and more Churchill (in terms of attitude in any case).

  35. More Ham Ed says

    May 17, 2015 at 6:27 pm

    The “be nice to the terrorists” mentality seems to be coupled to the moral-equivalence thing among other reasons (islam is some kind of “race”, those poor chaps had bad economic luck, I’m a liberal I hate Christianity, etc. among other so-called reasons).

    • Georg says

      May 17, 2015 at 7:13 pm

      Right. And this with the oil.

    • John Stefan Obeda says

      May 18, 2015 at 6:25 pm

      Am I right? A Christian is a member of two kingdoms, the kingdom of Caesar and the kingdom of God. As a member of the kingdom of Caesar I will support the army and a war, if necessary, to battle the Islamists forever to preserve the freedoms with which God has blessed me, the freed of speech and democracy and liberty and freedom of thought, etc. And as a member of the kingdom of God I will not trust in my works for salvation, but rather trust Jesus Who has come from heaven and who by His suffering and death and resurrection has won for me and the world the forgiveness of my sins and won for me eternal life by the grace of God through my faith in my Saviour that God has given me.

      It is a very sad mistake for the pope to put his arms around him that represents the greatest evil in the world since sin and death came into the world. Let me quote from the apostle Paul who tells Christians very clearly what our attitude and actions ought to be: “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said . . . ” and then here the apostle Paul quotes Leviticus 26:12 and Isaiah 52:11. A faithful Christian has the duty to fight evil and then be ready to pay the consequences which, of course, hurts us. Our enemy and God’s enemy may kill us. God help us.

  36. Dag says

    May 17, 2015 at 6:54 pm

    It’s one thing to live in the Amazon jungle and publish books ridiculing Mohammed. It is something else again to go to amazon.com and order my books in America. Today, 14 people did just that. Obviously I am not publishing Motoons to get rich. I do hope to show the world that we can, do, and will continue to stand up and shout, scream, do whatever it takes to overpower the fascist left and their Muslim proxies, and that writing and publishing books is one good way to do so. Here is a link to my current effort.

    http://www.amazon.com/Snootom-D-W-Walker/dp/0987761587

    Thank you to all who support my efforts.
    Dag Walker
    Iquitos, Peru

  37. Julia says

    May 17, 2015 at 7:22 pm

    Very well written piece! Robert and Pam will not be the last ones standing for freedom. I can’t speak for everyone who reads jihadwatch, but I will stand with them for freedom, come what jihad may.

  38. Angela says

    May 17, 2015 at 11:23 pm

    I read the Daily Mail article that Robert linked to. I read it three times, and I didn’t read anything about the journalist being suspended for her anti-jihadist writings at all. But the article does say:

    “The human rights campaigner was one of 15 Charlie Hebdo writers, editors and cartoonists who wrote an open letter criticising the magazine’s owners and management in late March.

    They raised fears that the left-wing and anti-religious magazine might succumb to the ‘poison of the millions’ of euros that had flooded in since with terrorist attack in Paris in January.

    The group called for the magazine to become a ‘co-operative’ and asked for its new found riches to be placed in a trust to guarantee the magazines’ survival for ’30 years’.

    Killers Saïd and Chérif Kouachi targeted Charlie Hebdo after the controversial paper published cartoon images of the Prophet Mohammed.”

    She was suspended because she criticized the direction that Charlie Hebdo is going to after having received millions of euros since the Jan. 7 deadly attack. My question, why was she the only one suspended when others is the group had also criticized the magazine?

  39. Ren says

    May 18, 2015 at 12:11 am

    If death threats succeed in cowarding people into silence then islamic extremists have triumphed. Don’t give up the fight for freedom of speech!

  40. Optimist says

    May 18, 2015 at 12:15 am

    The French government deserves most of the blame because it did nothing to defend Charlie Hebdo in the first place, and finally Charlie Hebdo became demoralized and it cracked under pressure. Whether Charlie Hebdo was cowardly or not, initially it was defiant, but a few months later, it became clear that only Geert Wilders and a few others are exceptionally resilient enough to go from one secret safe house to another day after day, but most people cannot endure such suspense forever, especially when the government is abandoning its citizens like the journalists at Charlie Hebdo. It seems to me that Charlie Hebdo became demoralized precisely when it understood that the French government is not supporting them.

    • RonaldB says

      May 18, 2015 at 8:42 am

      Thank you for your letter.

      The inexorable logic is, either we totally stop any Muslim immigration, or we eventually give up our freedoms, as it will be impossible for the government to give 24-hour protection to everyone who speaks against Islam.

      And don’t talk to me about expelling Muslim citizens. It’s totally unnecessary right now, if we completely and immediately halt Muslim immigration.

      However, our government is secretly bringing in thousands of Muslims every month.
      https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/author/acorcoran/

      • voegelinian says

        May 19, 2015 at 12:10 pm

        The reasonable supposition, given all the evidence from which we can infer about our Western governments and culture, is that immigration is not going to be stopped for years; and that furthermore, millions of additional Muslims will stream into the West during that time (and the millions already here will continue to have babies). By the time the West is even ready to entertain “stopping” immigration, we will have probably double the millions of Muslims already inside the West — and the volatile, metastasizing situation of the global revival of Islam will be that much worse (which includes the likelihood that the resident populations of Muslims inside the West will be that much more a powderkeg — not that they aren’t already now). At that point, when our West has come to the decision to stop immigration (which likely would entail many other decisions and attitudes by that time), it would be like closing the barn door AFTER the wolves have already gotten in. Then what?

        You JW Softies just don’t think things through.

        • Angemon says

          May 19, 2015 at 1:19 pm

          Huh?

          Voeg, the only possible conclusion to your “logic” is that we shouldn’t strive to end muslim migration into Western countries because they’re already here.

          Exactly what side are you on?

  41. John says

    May 18, 2015 at 4:25 am

    Could someone please provide links to Zineb El Rhazoui’s supposedly offensive articles? If she is being persecuted for writing them, the least we can do in solidarity is to try to bring the articles to a wider readership.

  42. Georgina says

    May 18, 2015 at 5:57 am

    To all atheists:

    According to islam the fact that you are breathing is offensive. [Sahih Bukhari 9:84:57]

    Stop it at once.

  43. jack sowers says

    May 18, 2015 at 6:32 am

    WW III

    – from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
    World War – noun: a war involving many nations of the world.

    The goal of Islam is to conquer the world, and Islamic militants are waging war in many countries, including the US (see handbook for war in the west – a guide for 1 and 2-person Muslim cells) and various countries in the Mid-East, Asia, Europe, and Africa. Islamic militants comprise Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, Haqqani, and Hezbollah, connected by Islam, covering the globe.

    World War III has started.

  44. shrugger says

    May 18, 2015 at 8:32 am

    It’s impossible to stand by your principles when you haven’t got any. They are all Leftists at Charlie Hebdo after all.

  45. Porky The Crusader says

    May 18, 2015 at 8:51 am

    I knew it since the beggining, they were all hardcore Leftarded, the end was easy to predict.

  46. sidney penny says

    May 18, 2015 at 8:54 am

    To debate of not to debate,that is the question..

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5778/uk-hate-groups

    “Well-intentioned activists often treat the notion of “dialogue” as an unassailable good. More often than not, however, Islamist groups merely regard these activists as useful dupes on whom to advance extremist agendas. Unfortunately, as history shows, providing extremists with a platform only serves to legitimize “anti-racism” and interfaith initiatives that openly promote illiberal and anti-democratic agendas.”

  47. supajohnny says

    May 18, 2015 at 9:47 am

    Robert, I support your work, your stand for freedom and always will. Please, in the name of Jesus, protect Pamela, as I know you will, and never, ever stop fighting for Freedom. It is all we have left.
    G-d Bless you an your work, Sir.
    PS, I am British and ashamed of our Nations ban on you and Pamela. But we all know why May did it. She’s afraid of the Ummah.

    • Betty says

      May 18, 2015 at 4:37 pm

      I miss getting Pam’s site don’t know what the trouble is. haven’t received her mail in almost a week now sure hope she is ok. is there any one else having trouble getting it? if so let me know please and thank you.

  48. Lorna Salzman says

    May 18, 2015 at 9:51 am

    I am surprised you take a Daily Mail story at face value. There is a lot more to this story about the
    firing (later changed to suspension) of a staff member. She was a member of a group seeking to turn Charlie Hebdo into a “collective” using the money flowing in. A collective is the fastest way to turn something into a squabbling bunch of hens that can’t decide whether to lay an egg or wait until everyone agrees. This superficial article is another attempt to depict the French as elitist and authoritarian. The Daily Mail is at the bottom of the miserable heap of yellow journalism in Great Britain. There is a larger story and background to this and with luck someone honest and impartial will dig it up and publish it. I am surprised that critics of Charlie didn’t understand that those behind collectivization are from the extreme left. I wouldn’t trust them to feed the rest of the hens. Charlie Hebdo is now rightly supported by hundreds of thousands of new subscribers. It is a beacon of free speech and of the even handed satire that all religions and ideologies and fanatics deserve. There is no reason to change its
    purpose or direction. Ulterior motives were behind this whole affair and I am really surprised Jihad Watch fell for it hook, line and sinker.

    • PRODOS says

      May 18, 2015 at 1:21 pm

      My research on the issue agrees with Lorna’s.

      I couldn’t find evidence supporting Robert Spencer’s view that Charlie Hebdo’s problem with Zineb El Rhazoui relates to her criticism of Islam.

      A couple of others on this thread have also brought this up.

      • voegelinian says

        May 19, 2015 at 12:14 pm

        Not only that — her name is Zineb El Rhazoui, for crying out loud. She must be a Moderate Muslim, eh?

  49. John Boston says

    May 18, 2015 at 10:05 am

    I have ordered a T-shirt with the infamous “bombhead” Mohammed cartoon on the front. If the company (Custom Ink) will print it, I will wear it. The purpose of this shirt display is not to offend Muslims, but to show the quislings, the Islamofascists’ enablers, that we do have freedom of speech and I will not submit to any form of shari’a. I have been advised what may happen to me if I go around with a Mohammed cartoon on my chest. I will wear it anyway; as Patrick Henry said, “give me liberty or give me death”.

  50. Gordon Miller says

    May 18, 2015 at 10:15 am

    Mr. Spencer, have you considered hooking up to the Disqus system for postings. It seems to work quite well and would make things less awkward for us commenters? Thanks for your consideration.

  51. Khagaraj Sommu says

    May 18, 2015 at 11:35 am

    Charlie Hebdo is not alone.Ever since 9/11 the Islamists have successfully compromised the Western media to the extent of making it sing their own jihadist tunes.Western democracy is something else these days because of this development.

  52. Canto28 says

    May 18, 2015 at 7:00 pm

    Surprising how many in France just cave in out of fear. IMO this is the case even with the famous author Michel Houellebecq suggests in his book and by his interview (http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/01/02/scare-tactics-michel-houellebecq-on-his-new-book/ ) that accommodating Islamic rule (sans jihad) is a viable way for France to save itself, although he admits women won’t like it. After all, he says, the Enlightenment is dead (he rejects its convictions) and re- reading the Koran convinced him it’s not so bad. A disgusting failure of nerve.

    Thanks heaven for the dependable brave like Robert & Pamela – heroes to millions.

  53. gravenimage says

    May 19, 2015 at 12:52 am

    Hypocritical Charlie Hebdo suspends journalist who criticized Islam
    ……………………..

    Now not even Charlie Hebdo can say “Je Suis Charlie”…

    But as Robert Spencer notes, some us us are still standing up in defense of freedom of speech.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • gravenimage on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • Walter Sieruk on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • James Lincoln on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.