Over at PJM I discuss the charge that our free speech event that was attacked by jihadis in Texas was needlessly provocative.
Islamic jihadists tried to commit mass murder at the American Freedom Defense Initiative/Jihad Watch Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest that Pamela Geller and I hosted in Garland, Texas, last Sunday. Media pundits across the political spectrum have decided: it’s our fault. We provoked them, you see.
“Of course we have a right to draw what we want, but we also have an obligation not to be irresponsibly provocative,” said the ex-Catholic author of Why Catholics Are Right, Michael Coren.
“It’s needlessly provocative,” said New York Representative Peter King, whose hearings on Muslim radicalization back in 2011 were widely termed “provocative.” He said he thought our event was “insulting someone’s religion.”
Coren and King were expressing the dominant view, which is essentially that if Pamela Geller and I had just left well enough alone, all would be well. The police officer who was shot in the ankle by one of the jihadis would still be walking without difficulty, and the two jihadis, Ibrahim (formerly Elton) Simpson and Nadir Soofi, would still be breathing air.
The unspoken assumption here is that if only we hadn’t cooked up this cartoon exhibit, Simpson and Soofi would no doubt be on their way to becoming loyal, patriotic, law-abiding American Muslims, living demonstrations of the compatibility of Islam and democracy and of the ability of America to embrace people of diverse perspectives. All we have to do to achieve this utopia is just give a little. And what non-Muslims have to give is the right to draw and publish cartoons of Muhammad. After all, why would anyone want to be “provocative”?
The first problem with this rosy little scenario is that these jihadis in particular, and Islamic jihadists in general, are already “provoked.”
Ibrahim Simpson wasn’t “radicalized” by our cartoon contest.
Long before it took place, he was in touch with jihad terrorists who encouraged him to carry out a jihad attack. If he hadn’t opted to attack our heavily guarded event, he might have chosen a softer target, as did his fellow jihadists Amedy Coulibaly, who murdered four Jews in a kosher supermarket in January, and Man Haron Monis, who took hostages (of who two were subsequently killed) in the Lindt Chocolat Café in Sydney, Australia last December.
What’s more, the Islamic State, to whom Simpson pledged allegiance before his attack, is already “provoked.”
On September 21, 2014, long before our event was scheduled or even thought of, Islamic State spokesman Abu Muhammad Adnani issued a lengthy and remarkable statement calling Muslims in the West to jihad.
In it, he said that the West was not as strong as it seemed to be: It was, rather:
… a conceited and brash encampment of falsehood, which demonstrates itself to be powerful, and subduing, one that no conqueror can dominate nor any defender withstand. But the reality is they are fearful and terrified, humiliated and left with a weak plan, shaken and defeated, despite their uninhibited movement throughout the lands.
He declared that the warriors of jihad would overcome this weak force:
We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted. This is His promise to us; He is glorified and He does not fail in His promise. If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.
He called for jihadis to commit mass murder:
If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be …
The weapon didn’t matter, only the outcome:
If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him. Do not lack. Do not be contemptible. Let your slogan be, “May I not be saved if the cross worshipper and taghut (ruler ruling by manmade laws) patron survives.” If you are unable to do so, then burn his home, car, or business. Or destroy his crops.
If you are unable to do so, then spit in his face. If your self refuses to do so, while your brothers are being bombarded and killed, and while their blood and wealth everywhere is deemed lawful by their enemies, then review your religion. You are in a dangerous condition because the religion cannot be established without wala’ [loyalty to believers] and bara’ [disavowal of unbelievers].
An Islamic State e-book, Black Flags for Rome, sketches out a scenario in which Islamic State partisans sow murder and mayhem on the streets of Europe and America. It contains advice on how to obtain weapons and instructions on how to build bombs.
In the face of this threat, which is only growing, is not being “provocative” really going to accomplish anything?
When the Islamic State boasts of the West’s societal and cultural weakness, is it really wise to give them another example of it?
But why add fuel to the fire? Precisely because the jihadis have threatened to kill those who draw Muhammad, and made good on that threat in January in the Paris offices of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine. To stop drawing Muhammad in the face of these threats and violence will only send the signal that threats and violence work — and that will bring even more threats and violence.
Read the rest here.
Richie says
The narratibe Muslims and the left want to pushis that Muslims are ALWAYS the victim, and if they kill, its somebody elses failt
Remember,, in islam, they believe if men rape women, the rape victims brought it on themsleves
Jae M says
Exactly. They never think themselves accountable for their actions.
William Lucas Harvey Jr. says
“Jihadis? Here’s News: They Were Already Provoked”.
This IS absolutely TRUE.
The Pamela Geller Incident just gave the Jihadi’s and the Radical Islamist Pandering News Media another EXCUSE to “Blame the Messenger”, and divert the attention from the REAL reason for the Islamist’s Bloody Murdering Savagery, which IS the way of Islam, when the Messenger was ONLY exposing the well DOCUMENTED, in Words, Videos, Pictures, and Actions, TRUTH about Islam.
EYESOPEN says
Yep. Kudos to Pamela, Robert, Geert, and all who submitted cartoons, as well as all who attended the contest. Thank you all!!! BTW, I know of some current and former Green Berets who would be more than happy to supply security – free of charge – for any future contests held in Arizona!
Shane says
Yes, these two guys were already radicalized because they actually studied the Koran and wanted to be like Muhammad. Also, the idea of getting 72 virgins if they died fighting in jihad is a very powerful motivator, as it was meant to be.
Muhammad Did Not Create Islam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9lIuUjPs0
spot on says
Muslims are like killer bees. They have a hair trigger any time for anything. Pamela and Robert are great.
vlparker says
… a conceited and brash encampment of falsehood, which demonstrates itself to be powerful, and subduing, one that no conqueror can dominate nor any defender withstand. But the reality is they are fearful and terrified, humiliated and left with a weak plan, shaken and defeated, despite their uninhibited movement throughout the lands.
They’ve got Bill O’Reilly pegged.
Paul says
Big talk…heard it before.
rhondakelly07 says
DEMOCRATIC VOTERS every color are SATAN”S ARMY
RonaldB says
I looked at the Michael Coren article, thinking to myself….”That guy has exactly the same name as the commentator on SUN news that used to bring Spencer regularly on the show to talk about radical Islam, which is canonical Islam”.
You could have bowled me over with a feather when I realized, seeing Spencer’s comment on him, that this was the same Michael Coren. What gives? The same guy who sponsored Spencer week after week to show how Islamic doctrine resulted in Islamic actions, now criticizes Spencer and Geller for exercising their freedoms to express their views satirically.
To all those who criticize the exhibit as being “needlessly provocative”: the exhibit needed to be held. It’s views were substantive. They brought to consciousness the reality of Islam: it’s doctrines, history, and consequences. These are ideas which are not easily expressed in the United States.
So no: the cartoons and the exhibition were not “needless”. On a substantive basis, they were extremely necessary. They served the purpose of opening up debate. Let those who criticize the exhibit debate the ideas. Don’t stand behind the claim that it angers Muslims. Debate the ideas.
Michael Coren argued that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons were a substantive contribution to an on-going European debate, while the cartoon exhibition was simply a provocative action devoid of deeper significance in any context. He was 100% incorrect in this assessment, as can easily be shown. The real question is, why would he make such an empty, ridiculous statement in the first place?
EYESOPEN says
Perhaps for the same reason why the “reverend” Franklin Graham has previously stated that izlam is evil, izlam is not the way to God, restrict muzlim immigration; and then turns around and does an “about face” about Pamela’s cartoon contest: plain and simple cowardice, because it (the attacks) are hitting too close to home.
I say, either grow a pair and remain consistent – or grab a big cup of STFU.
EYESOPEN says
Oops. Should read: “because they (the attacks) are hitting too close to home.
Angemon says
RonaldB posted:
“I looked at the Michael Coren article, thinking to myself….”That guy has exactly the same name as the commentator on SUN news that used to bring Spencer regularly on the show to talk about radical Islam, which is canonical Islam”.
You could have bowled me over with a feather when I realized, seeing Spencer’s comment on him, that this was the same Michael Coren. What gives? The same guy who sponsored Spencer week after week to show how Islamic doctrine resulted in Islamic actions, now criticizes Spencer and Geller for exercising their freedoms to express their views satirically.”
Same here. That’s not something I’d expect to hear from him.
Mark says
For all the ones that claim its provoking them. Its a bit like when the police set up a chat online acting as an under age girl, then a peadophile arrabges to meet them and the police are waiting when the peadophile turns up. The peadophile is still a peadphile regardless of being prevoked or not.
dumbledoresarmy says
Exactly.
Joanne says
I’m not shocked by Michael Coren’s betrayal. He seemed to be playing a role on Sun News to further his career. He’s a very phony person. A Jew who becomes a Catholic, then leaves the church, then goes back and becomes an expert on Catholicism. Like a con artist, he’ll mirror the people he’s intent on using to achieve his own advancement. As a Brit, even though he grew up in a slum, he’s snobbish toward North Americans – especially Canadians – his thinly-veiled condescension undeniable. Hence, Charlie Hebdo, being European and French, “has its roots in the Gallic philosophers of the 18th century, the atheism of the revolution and a muscular separation of church and state.” Say what? Not like those rubes in Texas.
The irony is that, contrary to Sir Michael’s view, the Garland shooting may very well be the event that really “starts the conversation” about enforcement of Sharia in the West, not by Islamists, but by western elites and media potentates and irrelevant Quislings like Michael Coren.
Liam1304 says
The right thing was done here.
Certainly the common complaint is the “needless provocation” of the event. But surely the need for it was very quickly shown by the murderous response. The threat is here & now and it’s real. Should we just shut up, sit on our hands and let the forces of goodness and niceness, like gravity, win through in the long run? But: If not now then when? If not us then who? The longer such “insults and provocations” are delayed the more anemic and flaccid the response to any Muslim attacks on them are. We, the West, weaken by the day. Better to make the point now while there is still some hope.
In part the event was a response to being told to sit down and shut up by those in power when reasoned and scholarly enquiries were made and uncomfortable questions were asked. Inevitably the suppressed questions MUST come out somewhere. We note that they did not come out in a violent manner but in an intellectually challenging manner. Well some of us note this anyway.
Meanwhile Islam keeps playing its “Good cop, Bad cop” routine:
“Look, I don’t like the cartoons/criticism/reminders of my prophets actual character but I’m not going to do anything to you, I’ll just look like I’ve got very very hurt feelings when I’m in public. My friend over there though – boy he’s so volatile! I really can’t control him. Nobody knows what he might do to you. Of course if he does do something really bad it’s nothing to do with me or Islam! So as a friend I say: maybe for your own sake you should calm down the criticism, hmm?”
Wilders spoke at the event and he is on al-qaeda’s hit list. Al-qaeda’s! These are the people we should be trying to not offend? Spare me! Of course the vast peaceful majority of Muslims totally condemn AQ’s rhetoric and actions! Oh of course, of course! But where are they when they should be standing at events like this AGAINST the likes of AQ, whom they so publicly and volubly condemn? Out getting pizza…
Meanwhile Yazidis, Mandeans, Baha’is, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Atheists and Christians DIE. I for one have had enough TALK from our “moderate Muslim” friends who say they are just-like-me-only-we-dress-differently. Enough talk please. DO SOMETHING. Someone has to.
I’m glad Spencer and Geller had the guts. Thank you both. We desperately need you.
EYESOPEN says
A big AMEN here!
Oppressaphobe says
It’s scary as hell that Americans cannot think logically anymore. Perhaps it’s that video games don’t require the forethought that chess took, back in the day. Our Sesame Street Gang has to have everything in 10 second soundbytes:( !0, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1!!!)
But I don’t blame Oscar or Cookie Monster…at least I forgive them. They were pre-911 and could not be held responsible. Today’s American CAN and SHOULD be held accountable.
When will we see this as our moral obligation to our children and to God to fight this evil?
I know the answer; After we have a tragedy that lasts longer than 10 seconds and the pain is more than Oscar stubbing his toe.
R Cole says
Remember the first threats of violence that western society was aware of was for a satirical book by Salman Rushdie – where he focused on touchy feely points that go to validity of Islamic history. So incensed they reacted by trying to kill him.
Teaching Islam’s history as originating from the Kaaba, with its many gods and goddesses [including Allah] – and not from the Abrahamic tradition – might also be seen as a provocation – that one could be put to death for.
In Saudi Arabia – praying as a Christian or Hindu might be seen as a provocation – if found out you could face imprisonment or even death – especially if you are a Saudi convert from Islam.
Indeed try building a church in Arabia – is an act of provocation.
There was a university built in Saudi Arabia – where there was mixed sexes and subjects taught were outside of the confines of acceptable Islamic knowledge – had to be situated within fortress-like boundaries – obviously this was a provocation.
So we go from Saudi students in mixed classes – to an exhibition of satirical or protest images featuring the founder of the Islamic faith – both needing the same level of protection.
When you go down the list of things which are provocative or offensive to Islam and deserving of death – what begins to emerge is an image of the extent to which the use of violence is an integral part of the Islamic tradition. It can even be said that Islamic violence and coercion defines the Islamic order. Far more damning than any Muhammad cartoon sketch.
Oppressaphobe says
There was a day when Christians would be offended by using the name of the Lord in vain-as our most basic theology teaches us to be.
Now Hollywood loves the expression and nobody bats an eyelash.
Can anybody tell me what the difference is between drawing mohammed and profanely using the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?
The example of the cross in urine is a bit of an unusual example but how bout this one? What is their stupid answer to that?
Bezelel says
That’s my point as well, The notion that there is some parameter of safety in which we can all co-exist with sharia is B.S. And if you are Jewish? Same deal the nazi’s offered. I’ve heard some “commentators” suggest that the proper thing to do is water down the Free Speech so that’s less effective. Already provoked No Doubt.
cheesecake says
The left-wing think kowtowing and tolerance are the same thing and letting people get away with crimes because of their religion or colour is ok.
the danish free speech debate was provocation to Muslims that’s why they attacked it and just to make sure they attacked a synagogue too.
arish says
What is the difference between Jihadi and cartoonist. jihadi want to kill the cartoonist while Cartoonist want all to have fun in life .Who has right to live, Cartoonist or Jihadi who want to kill and destroy. Put these Jihadis behind Jail to stop destruction . Our leaders are part of our death and destruction. Jihad should have no freedom to kill
Ricky Black says
Beer and dogs offended Muslims, should we get rid of beer and kill all dogs? Muslim men can not see a woman while chanting to the meteorite in mecca five times a day, should we get rid of all women? I might provoke the Religion of hate to kill somebody.
underbed cat says
Artwork is a expression, a form of communication..the artwork at the contest had a theme of freedom of speech protected by the constitution. I believe it was in support of Charlie Hebdo using art or cartoons ( which to some seems offensive, and to the people who will use violence to suppress information) to communicate and inform visually, information that is suppressed. What information? That the word slander to westerners means to defame someone a person, or spread lies about them. The word slander is totally different in Islam. One cannot draw an image of the their prophet or use any adjective to accurately describe him, or expose any truth, if they do they have by sharia law just committed a crime punishable by death. It sounds crazy,is not defensible to most westerners unless their government allows it which is happening in Europe. When Iranian leaders call for the death of America and it is published they are using free speech. in our country …in this case it should alarm our government and we should be protected from harm. When buliding can be used for meeting in the U.S. and groups can geared up to suppress our speech, we have a right to defend our speech in the same location. The islamic jihadist arrived with guns to suppress our free speech and then they once again use freedom of expression to deny the connection to a religion (?). What did they use to justify their violence….well our free speech. Why ? To cause fear and to shut us up and take away our freedom of speech. So Micheal Cohen knows this, but he lives in a different country….and like most people I believe does not want violence…so he thinks the event provoked them. LIke Robert Spencer says, they are always provoked….it does not justify criminal reactions or terror…these are our laws. Strong armed violence is against our law. This event clearly communicates why we need freedom of speech and we need leaders who will defend the U.S. .
Angemon says
Here’s another cartoon exhibit that’s likely to “provoke” jihadis:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-launches-antiisis-cartoon-competition-to-expose-true-nature-of-islamic-state-10275768.html
Of course, no one in the Western left will speak against it – why would they, when the goal of that “contest” is to propagate the idea that the islamic state is a tool of Israel and the US?