| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the cartoon controversy in light of the larger jihad:
A poster at this website has asserted: "The reaction from Muslims is quite natural because it is their religion that has been made fun of. Consider a cartoon portraying Nazism in a favorable manner or even a cartoon that makes fun of Judaism."This is worth considering, since it is certain that many Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide, including Western countries, think the same way. The "reaction" by Muslims deemed "quite natural" by this poster so far has consisted of the following:
1) The forging and wide dissemination by Muslims themselves of three cartoons of Muhammad far more offensive than the very mild cartoons published in the Danish newspaper.
2) Demands for "apologies" from the newspaper and from the government of Denmark.
3) Economic boycotts, all over the Arab Muslim world, of Danish goods.
4) The recall of the Saudi and Libyan ambassadors to Denmark.
5) The demand by various Muslim states to meet with the Prime Minister of Denmark to express their displeasure.
6) The demand by the O.I.C. that there be a reckoning, and an apology, from Denmark.
7) The issuance of death threats to those at the newspaper, requiring the evacuation of the newspaper building.
8) The insistence that U.N. take up the matter and outlaw all such mockery of what the Muslims call a "religion."
Is that a perfectly "natural" reaction? Is that how Christians and Jews have reacted to the daily Der-Stuermer like cartoons directed at them, and the editorials, and the staged atrocities (in Iraq or "Palestine") shown on Al-Jazeera, or the Internet sites where you can see Muslims proudly beheading Infidels, so proud in fact that they use these as recruiting advertisements for the Jihad? Did Christians issue death threats when "Piss Christ" was constructed, and even put on display at a major exhibition? Do Jews issue death threats to the myriad promoters of antisemitism, not least in the Arab and Muslim world?Is this a "natural" reaction? And why should the Western world, with its standards, change them in order to accommodate people whose ideas of human rights flatly contradict, at every point, the ideas enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Why would we wish to go backwards, to become more primitive, simply to accommodate those who, almost as an oversight by the Western world, managed in some numbers to settle behind enemy lines? If they continue to behave as the wild enemy, they risk being in the end be removed in the same spirit of justified self-protection that was invoked by Benes and Masaryk in 1946 for the Benes Decrees -- by which more than 3 million Sudeten Germans were evicted from Czechoslovakia, an undertaking that no prominent Czech, nor any Western statesman, found fault with at the time, and come to think of it, none has since.
As for those "cartoons portraying Nazism in a favorable manner" -- you can find those on the websites of crazed rightists in all sorts of places. And since the Nazis have a recent, well-established track record in mass murder, it is not inappropriate for Germany to ban their antisemitic propaganda. But cartoons about Muhammad are like cartoons about Jesus or Moses or Gautama Buddha. And entitled in the non-Muslim lands, at least, to the same freedoms. It is too bad that within the Lands of Islam, there is not the hint of an inkling that what ails Muslims is embedded deeply within Islam itself. A little making fun, or even mockery, should not only not be punished but should be protected from the punishment meted out by murderous vigilantes. It would be a good thing, a step up on the phylogenetic scale of civilization.
The same poster here continued: "If you slander me or my beliefs whatever they may be, I would do all in my power to stop you. We should not use free speech/press to hurt others and infringe on their rights."
He is in the wrong country, and possibly the wrong part of the world. If that is his idea of what "free speech" is, he has not quite grasped the concept. In fact, it has eluded him entirely -- and, no doubt, many other Muslims in the West as well.
Meanwhile, the egregious Diane Eck defends to the death, in the pages of The Boston Globe, the right of a known taqiyya artist, Tariq Ramadan, to enter the United States to conduct his soft-voiced propaganda. A true rustic, somehow Diane Eck managed, with her travelogue of a year in Benares, to climb that greasy pole and graspingly get tenure. She has done everything fashionably right. She is not a scholar of Hinduism, however (ask real Hindu scholars). She is a Defender of the Faith, the faith being Islam. With William Graham, the Dean of Harvard Divinity School, a man who never managed to receive tenure even from his own Middle Eastern Department, but as an administrator has apparently managed to pocket something like tenure (that's the Modern University Today) and is himself not only a tireless defender, with Eck, of Islam, but simply a handpuppet manipulated, by all accounts, by the sinister smiling Egyptian Leila Ahmad, who has single-handedly prevented anyone semi-decent from being appointed as a scholar of, rather than an apologist for, Islam.
All over the Western world, the freedom to discuss, or to study, or even to mock if one wishes, Islam, is being suppressed, little by little by little. Muslim states boycotting Denmark and uttering warnings, Muslim mobs attacking EU sites in Gaza -- Muslims all over Europe and outside Europe are attempting to change the most essential freedoms of Europeans within Europe. This includes even the plausible con-men like Tariq Ramadan. (And no one should be permitted to express, or even form, an opinion about Tariq Ramadan without having read both "Frere Tariq" by Caroline Fourest and the "Lettera aperta a Ramadan" by Magdi Allam, an Egyptian Muslim who, just like Ramadan, but from quite a different perspective, understands fully the aims and varied means of the Muslim Brotherhood.)
From the Saudis recalling their Ambassador and boycotting Danish goods, to those who have willingly been stooges for agents of the Jihad, this cartoon controversy is a worldwide campaign. What happens in Iraq will do nothing about that campaign, will have no effect. The Bush-Rice team does not understand this. It does not begin to understand the other instruments of Jihad. It cannot look beyond the Middle East and focus on the most important theatre -- Western Europe. This shows the ignorance, the obstinacy, the narrowness, the ineffectiveness, of the worldview of those who now presume to defend us without understanding, without being able to identify properly or to speak openly and lucidly about the very menace that supposedly they have properly identified and are entrusted with dealing with, and according to them dispatching, for they tell us they will settle "for nothing less than victory" or even "total victory." In this context, either phrase could be uttered only by fools, and believed by other fools.
There are plenty of those to go around.
Posted by Robert at February 2, 2006 10:17 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Waaaah!. (Thanks to Drunken Blogger.)
Posted by: Interested![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 2, 2006 10:28 AM
The terms they are a' changing. In this Cowardly New World, one of the strings attached to Mideast oil will be the restriction of free speech... at least when it comes to the hairy Islam.
MORE KORANS MORE HADITHS MORE SIRATS MORE MOSLEMS MORE ISLAM MO! MO!
Islam is special. Don't you dare forget that. And if you don't like this new arrangment, well, Moslems will be happy to cut your throat for your trouble.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 2, 2006 10:35 AM
its interesting how this cartoon thing has prompted MORE cartoons , especially on blogs like the one linked above.
if the muslims just ignored it, shrugged their shoulders, then pretty much nearly everyone wouldnt have even HEARD of the danish cartoons in the first place.
instead, their reaction has lead to the cartoons spreading even further, with millions upon millions of Europeans seeing them.
the nasty face of Islamic intolerance has been laid bare for the entire world to see.
A cartoon as our WMD against Islamic Jihad?
who would have thought!
at February 2, 2006 10:36 AM
From today's newswire:
"In Beirut, the leader of Lebanon's Shi'ite Hizbollah said the row would never had occurred if a 17-year-old death edict against British writer Salman Rushdie been carried out.
The late Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called on Muslims in 1989 to kill Rushdie for blasphemy against Islam in his book "The Satanic Verses." Rushdie went into hiding and was never attacked."
Notice how the muslim's view of the situation is exactly the same as a Mafia Don's? But I think it would be instructive to turn this around. What if the British had arrested khomeini and brought him back to London to face charges pertaining to ordering the death of a lawful British subject? What if the clown who is running Iran has been arrested as soon as he deboarded at JFK a couple months ago and made to answer for kidnapping and terrorizing Americans in 1979 - 1980? These arse-holes continue to threaten because they are never held accountable.
at February 2, 2006 10:37 AM
APF,
Yes, Islam is special. Islam is the short bus in the school bus parking lot.
at February 2, 2006 10:42 AM
Unfortunately the cartoon's have lead to physical responses on the ground. I get a newsletter regarding Christian persecution around the world.
###
"Many Christians in Iraq are connecting this week’s church bombings with the growing furore across the Muslim world caused by the publication of some cartoons caricaturing Muhammad in a Danish newspaper on 30th September 2005.
On the same day, 29th January, Christian students at Mosul University were beaten up by Muslim students. Some days earlier a number of fatwas had been issued by sheikhs in Mosul, acting in response to pressure from Islamic militias in the city. The fatwas called for their followers to “expel the crusaders and infidels from the streets, schools and institutions because they insulted the person of the prophet in Denmark”.
Yesterday, 1st February, a Kuwaiti newspaper reporting on the Danish cartoons stated that Islamic cleric Sheikh Nazem Mesbah had issued a fatwa calling for the killing of people who insulted Muhammad in this way."
###
I tell you, I live in the UK and I'm scared - proper scared - of critiquing Islam. If I feel this way, I wonder how everyone else feels? We need someone in power to put their head above the parapet and take a stand, clearly and openly, against Islamic totalitarianism
Re: Robert on the BBC – go, go, go ! This is an absolutely great thing to happen. Finally, we have movement in the UK and can start to discuss Islamic teachings in the open.
at February 2, 2006 10:48 AM
Diana Eck is an airhead. I documented some of her stupidity in an article I wrote for Sixth Column Against Jihad. Mind you, this is not one of my better articles, but it does supply good information and references on the mindset of the useful idiots that are linked to the Islam Project. Here is the passage:
Diana Eck is director of Harvard’s Pluralism Project. In a speech at the U.S. embassy in Malaysia in 2002, Eck claimed the U.S. was “part of the Muslim world” (10). She also equates a list of Islamic Society of North America guidelines for public schools that include separate classes for boys and girls and only male/female instructors for the respective group to demands that are commonly associated with Evangelical Christians (11). Consistent with her abysmal lack of perspective is her postmodernist criticism of the president for his use of the term “evil” to describe those responsible for 9/11; “The more we describe persons as ‘evildoers,’ and think we know what we mean, the more we alienate all the things that are abhorrent to us from our own understanding” (12). Strident multiculturalists like Diana Eck probably regard Islamist organizations like the ISNA as a welcome “counterweight” to the dreaded Christian Right.
And here is the link:
http://www.6thcolumnagainstjihad.com/Rublev_P4.htm
Posted by: Andrei Rublev at February 2, 2006 10:55 AM
Islamic whiners DEMAND apologies, DEMAND this, DEMAND that. Who are they to DEMAND anything?
Christian students are beaten in response to Musim's hurt feelings? This is unfortunate for the Christian students but wonderful for the cause of letting everyone know what this "religion" is all about. The cartoon hysteria is the BEST thing that ever happened to the fight against jihad, against dhimmitude.
Keep drawing pictures and keep sending out this information to all your friends and family. Those who are close to me who looked at me funny when I told them about Islam several months ago are now calling and e-mailing me to let me know what's going on. It's wonderfaul that it is coming full circle.
I love the Internet!!!
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 2, 2006 11:01 AM
Hi mazztr
Polish Infideless and I have both had that one today, and she posted it on another thread.
It's not on the website yet but I am expecting to see the February prayer update later today or tomorrow.
at February 2, 2006 11:01 AM
Hi Granny,
Im glad others on this site read - and think - the same things. And I'm sooo glad Robert's on the BBC - it really will be a turning point (I pray) in UK political and cultural dialogue. Lets hope they give him some real exposure and proper time to discuss the real issues.
All the best
AP.
Posted by: mazztr at February 2, 2006 11:08 AM
I find it so typical of the left and the useless UN
while tens of thousands are slaughtered in the sudan, the UN finds itselft being asked to allow the Muslim sudan north to run the Human rights council...
The Usless UN is so toothless that all of the arabs know the only few states that will stand up to islamic terrorism.
The United States
Great Britian
Poland
Japan
South Korea
and believe it or not a lot of very small ex soviet states.. are the only ones with the Guts to take on the Islamo faschists..
The FACT that Islam has to go running to the UN for protection proves just how WEAK and insecure Islam is...
So i say go ahead run to the UN...
WE dont CARE!!!
Islam is still a DEATH cult started by a child molesting psychopath...
Wait until Americans start showing their tre feeling about islam in cartoons...
You think your offended NOW!!!!
Posted by: jingoist at February 2, 2006 11:10 AM
"We should not use free speech/press to hurt others and infringe on their rights."
What in the world makes this person think he or she has a "right" not to be hurt?"
at February 2, 2006 11:23 AM
"What happens in Iraq will do nothing about that campaign, will have no effect. The Bush-Rice team does not understand this."
Although the Light onto Muslim Nations is not workable, there are palpaple gains being made in Iraq that may ultimately be helpful in the long term fight against the jihad. For example, this morning the Washington Post reported this:
"So far, two Iraqi battalions, roughly 1,500 men, have been given authority over sectors of the city formerly patrolled by American units. U.S. commanders plan to put a third battalion in charge of another area soon. If all goes as planned, Mosul and surrounding Nineveh province will be in the hands of 24,000 Iraqi troops by November"
This is evidence that ordinary Muslim Iraqi's are willing to defend their country against Zarqawi type jihadists. Why? Why arent they doing their religious duty and fighting the infidels? They might be acting in the spirit of duplicity due to their relatively weak position in relation to the infidels. Or perhaps one of the reasons is that many Muslims are indifferent to their religious duty to wage jihad. If the latter is partially correct--and there are in fact many Muslims who are either indifferent to their religious duty to fight jihad or have constructed their own peaceful version of Islam--than the Iraq project may have long term palpable benefits, such as lessening the power of those who follow the true tenets of Islam, while simultaneously strengthening Muslims that have constructed a peaceful, albeit fallacious, version of their faith.
There are other gains being made in Iraq that may help the West in the long run. This was posted in todays Washington Times:
"Iraq's Sunni leadership presented the majority-Shi'ite government yesterday with a 10-point ultimatum that they said would either end the violence or lead to a national strike and widespread street demonstrations.
It was the first time the Sunni minority has publicly offered conditions to end a bloody insurgency that has left thousands of Iraqis dead. However, it was not clear how much control the political parties have over the insurgents, who include foreign terrorists and disgruntled former members of dictator Saddam Hussein's military."
This is evidence that some Sunni's are warming to the idea of forming a coalition govt (they dont have a choice because with the Shiites holding 124 parliamentary seats, the Sunni's will have to form a coalition with the Kurds). A coalition government that could provide a semblance of a constitutional democracy
will not change the Quran's and Hadith's jihadist imperative, although it may empower those elements in the Muslim world that are either indifferent to their religious duty to fight jihad or have constructed their own version of a peacful Islam.
As Daniel Pipes stated (and which was cited in Robert's politically incorrect giude to Islam) 10 to 15 percent of the worlds Muslims support the jihad against the West. Thus it is possible that a majority of Muslims, whether in Iraq or elswhere, do not follow the true tenets of their religion, and, if they can be empowered, than West's long term security can be enhanced
at February 2, 2006 11:33 AM
"In Beirut, the leader of Lebanon's Shi'ite Hizbollah said the row would never had occurred if a 17-year-old death edict against British writer Salman Rushdie been carried out."
This Shia leader is either unaware of or unsatisfied with the fact that dozens of people (including Muslims) have died indirectly because of this fatwa+fury against Rushdie. In addition, two of Rushdie's publishers were attacked and/or shot and another publisher was assassinated.
I think part of the problem with this whole blasphemy-against-Islam business is that we've indulged them for too long. There shouldn't have been a handful of westerners putting their lives on the line for free speech. There should've been an army of them. We should've had the Mohammad cartoon craze in 1989.
We've had at least 3 decades now of publicly irreverent attitude toward religion and politics in the west, but Islam has been an exception. Islam has been coddled. This is why they have such a semi-psychotic hate/fear reaction on the rare occasion that their beliefs are actually challenged. Islam suffers from a condition known as infidelophobia. A well-established cure for a specific phobia is to expose the patient to the aversive stimuli (e.g., blasphemous words, images, and deeds), showing the patient that no real harm will come from the stimuli. The exposure starts with minor aversive stimuli, or even the imagining of the stimuli, and then progresses to increasingly aversive stimuli. The patient comes to learn that the fear is irrational and, in any case, simply gets used to or habituated to the stimuli in question. (The patient, of course, has to be motivated to learn, and must see the fear/hatred as problem to be solved. Islamists don't see it that way, but if we step up the pressure, at some point they might get motivated).
Who coddled Islam? Who's blocking the effective treatment of its infidelophobia? Over the past few decades, Islam has been coddled by self-righteous and hopelessly, dangerously foolish people who believe they are being tolerant, politically correct, respectful. At the same time, these same people have worked to reduce the very healthy and realistic fears that westerners have of Islamists. For all the so-called dialogue that has taken place between Muslims and westerners, Muslims have not been challenged about their attitudes and beliefs about westerners, while the latter have been not only challenged but scolded for anything less than a completely positive view of Islam and Muslims. The unstated rule of the dialogue is that you can criticize the west but you cannot criticize Islam. This is part of what sustains their infidelophobia.
Bottom line: We need to put much more pressure on them, many more cartoons, much more exposure and criticism. If we fail to cure their infidelophobia we will have at least woken up the non-Muslims.
Posted by: Archimedes at February 2, 2006 11:54 AM
The NY Sun has printed two of the Mohammed cartoons. Michelle Malkin has a scan of the paper at her website. Michelle is also reporting that at least some of the cartoons are to be printed in the LA Times this weekend. Will the New Duranty Times follow suit?
Posted by: Roxane at February 2, 2006 12:25 PM
Excuse me while I sxpress my right to free speech:
To whom it may concern - if you take issue with these illustrations - tough shit. If you are against the concept of free inquiry - express your rejection of freedom of though by keeping your mouth shut, your voice unheard and your opinions to yourself.
Stay silent, be invisible, remain uncounted.
If on the other hand you regard freedom of speech to be an irevokable human right then either look and consider what others are communicating or do not observe the illustrations at all.
Ignorance to others words, thoughts and artwork is also your right.
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at February 2, 2006 12:45 PM
Scattered news reports suggest to me than many newspapers are printing these photos, thus providing a silver lining to Hugh's bloomy prognosis. More importantly, the issue of PC and Islam has exploded onto the frontpages of major newspapers everywhere, instead of being confined to backwaters of the web, such as this site. (That's a good-natured joke, folks!)
at February 2, 2006 12:47 PM
Islam is a "peaceful" religion we are told. Makes one think when one watches the reactions of offended Muslims.
It also highlights how Islam as religion/ideology is state-sponsored when Muslim leaders all react on this issue. It illustrates that every Muslim state makes sure everyone stays in line and expects non-Muslims to do likewise.
Posted by: Gerry at February 2, 2006 1:43 PM
The Drudge Report is on the story now. The pic of Mo with the "turban bomb" is on his web site together with a link to the other pics including links to stories around the globe.
Posted by: omvi at February 2, 2006 1:54 PM
Here's hoping this whole episode will put the P.I.G back on the best-sellers list!
"If you can't take a joke, don't be one"
Posted by: Infidel33 at February 2, 2006 2:19 PM
For those interested in more about Leila Ahmad, one of whose shticks is to announce that she was once "tempted to become a Christian" but thought better of it -- a good way to demonstrate that you are an open-minded Muslim, who at one time did share a certain discontent, but redisvoered the beauty, the power, the rightness of the faith -- do google her name and "Jihad Watch." The same for Eck, she of the grant-getting Pluralism Project, which appears to be based on two things: first, the unremarkable idea that many religions or belief-systems are now represented in the United States and 2) somehow they all equally share in, have a stake in, "pluralism." I don't have to add that there is one particular belief-system whose adherents, even if they will take advantage of the pluralistic tolerance we all imbibe on, have nowhere demonstrated a commitment to it in their own Muslim-ruled lands. That Eck has never even recognized this as a problem, as something she herself has to find out about (she might start by reading Bat Ye'or's books, but with one thing and another, with all those projects and defenses of Ramadan and still sending thank-you letters to all those who appeared at her recent wedding including a special guest, one Karen Armstrong, there just isn't time for much study, so Bat Ye'or, and "The Legacy of Jihad," and Snouck Hurgronje, and Joseph Schacht, and Armand Abel, and another few dozen Western scholars of Islam will just have to wait. Anyway, she has Graham and Ahmad to tell her things, and then there is always Karen Armstrong. This is Harvard Divinity School today. Even 20 years ago, it was different. Fifty years ago -- a different world. Now unrecognizable.
But the Development Office doesn't want alumni to know that.
Posted by: Hugh at February 2, 2006 2:29 PM
In the eighth cartoon down, the lineup, is that mug sixth in line Robert Spencer?
Posted by: Mike_W at February 2, 2006 3:10 PM
Hugh. Bravo, you are right on point!
Posted by: epg at February 2, 2006 3:46 PM
Hugh,
Good article, but one small point:
"And no one should be permitted to express, or even form, an opinion about Tariq Ramadan without having read both "Frere Tariq" by Caroline Fourest and the "Lettera aperta a Ramadan" by Magdi Allam"
Posted by Hugh Fitgerald, above
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression"
From article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
I'm sure there's a contradiction somewhere in the two references above, but I just can't quite seem to be able to put my finger on it. In the meantime, I'm off to learn French, so I can read "Frere Tariq", so I can have an opinion on Tariq Ramadan.
at February 2, 2006 5:01 PM
It's taking time, but the mainstream media is getting to look more and more like JihadWatch. Yahoo's list of news events at the moment is:
- Rep. Boehner elected House majority leader
- Iran threatens full-scale enrichment work
- France deports first youth tied to riots
- Outrage spreads over Muhammad caricature
- Enron's Skilling misled analysts - witness
- Two bombings in Baghdad kill 11 Iraqis
- Militants silencing villagers in Thailand
5 out of the 7 top news stories relate to the violent tendencies of Islam.
at February 2, 2006 5:22 PM
Interested, congratulations on your cartoon! I would like to draw one as well - my idea is Mo holding the head of Asma bint Marwan, a poetess who made fun of him in verse, with her mouth taped and an inscription saying: "That's how I deal with freedom of speech". I am not talented enough so can someone do it for me, please? Interested Interested?
Posted by: Polish infideless at February 2, 2006 5:58 PM
Archimedes:
"Who coddled Islam? Who's blocking the effective treatment of its infidelophobia? Over the past few decades, Islam has been coddled by self-righteous and hopelessly, dangerously foolish people who believe they are being tolerant, politically correct, respectful. At the same time, these same people have worked to reduce the very healthy and realistic fears that westerners have of Islamists. For all the so-called dialogue that has taken place between Muslims and westerners, Muslims have not been challenged about their attitudes and beliefs about westerners, while the latter have been not only challenged but scolded for anything less than a completely positive view of Islam and Muslims. The unstated rule of the dialogue is that you can criticize the west but you cannot criticize Islam. This is part of what sustains their infidelophobia."
You have discovered more laws than one!
Spot on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
at February 2, 2006 6:10 PM
Found this on a Danish web forum. http://www.topix.net/forum/world/denmark/TV4UE9GH34SO2UJ1U
DANISH IMAMS TRAVELS MIDDLE EAST SHOWING HOMEMADE PROPHET
CARTOONS TO FUSE HATRED AGAINST DENMARK
________________________________________ ________________________
SEE THE DANISH IMAMS HOMEMADE PROPHET-PICTURES FOR YOURSELF AS YOU FOLLOW THE LINKS IN THE ARTICLE BELOW
________________________________________ ________________________
Let me lead your attention to a group of Imams in Denmark whom shortly after new year travelled to several middle east countries to present the cartoons. The imams did not just bring a copy of the newspaper - NO - THEY BROUGHT THEIR OWN, HOME-MADE PICTURES OF THE PROPHET!
The Imams wanted to fuse hatred against DENMARK - THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO RESIDE - and to seek goodwill and economical support for themselves.
These Imams are today under substantial press from a (Syrian/Palestinian) Member of the danish Parliament.
The MP says, that these radical fundamentalists does not represent the majority of Moslems in Denmark.
Read the following article from danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet, and look up the links.
________________________________________ ________________________
When the Islamic Society in Denmark toured the Middle-East to create awareness about the cartoons, they also brought 3 additional images. The first of the three additional pictures, which are of dismal quality, shows Muhammad as a pedophile demon [http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninge...], the second shows the prophet with a pig snout[http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninge...] and the third depicts a praying Muslim being raped by a dog[http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninge...].
Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the 21 Danish Muslim organizations which organized the tour, explained that the three drawings had been added to “give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims.” Akkari claimed he does not know the origin of the three pictures. He said they had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. However, when Ekstra Bladet asked if it could talk to these Muslims, Akkari refused to reveal their identity. These images had however never been published in Jyllands-Posten. The society also allegedly exaggerated its membership and the hardships of Muslims in Denmark, for instance claiming to represent 200,000 angry Muslims, when the actual number was in fact less than 15,000.
MOSLEM MEMBER OF DANISH PARLIAMENT MANU SAREEM: UNFORGIVEABLE STUPIDITY!
"It is unforgiveable stupidity to travel around showing such pictures. They are in no way connected with the cartoons in JyllandsPosten. These danish Imams of this delegation are bombing immigrant integration years back and fuses hatred as they use these pictures. But I guess that is excactly what thy want to do. The live out of hatred," says Manu Sareem, who for years has fought for the integration of ethnic minorities in Denmark.
Posted by: herself at February 2, 2006 7:00 PM
Hilarious mohammed photoshop contest..
http://retecool.com/comments.php?id=13539_0_1_0_C
Posted by: hammerhead at February 2, 2006 7:51 PM
All of you have written great comments!
How long is it going to take till the West
"gets it"???
What will it take?? Another Bali? Another 9/11? Worse than all that?
Like many of you I am hoping that this will help wake up the world, coming shortly after the election of hamas - yet another piece of lunacy, thanks a lot to Ms Rice.
Also ,,,,Jingoist: Please add Australia to your list. We belong there.
(If anyone hasn't yet been to Ali Sina's website I recommend it!!)
www.faithfreedom.org
at February 2, 2006 9:38 PM
Mr. Fitzgerald,
I am looking for your article "Islamophobia: Oh Really?" which I cannot seem to find anymore. Any help?
Posted by: ChinCheck at February 2, 2006 10:44 PM
I must say it is quite an honor to have my post discussed. Although once again I am inclined take back my previous stance some notches. Most other groups would not protest in such a manner. Death threats and terrorism over cartoons is simply ludicrous stupidity and extremism. Also blaming the Danish people as a whole is not fair. However, I do still believe that we must at times self censor ourselves and our media to avoid offending others. Belief systems no matter how different or contrary to one's sensibilities should remain sacred. I still stand on the belief that the cartoons are intentionally offensive and targeted at specific group of people and therefore slanderous against them. So likewise I believe, Christianity, Satanism (and or cults), Buddhism, Judaism, and Hinduism should not suffer assaults against them. I, myself, am an atheist I criticize religion in general, but no matter my opinion I would not dare to express in such a manner. When addressing other's beliefs and criticizing them I go through great lengths to be "politically correct" and polite. In fact, I generally get through to them better this way then through openly attacking and harrasing them about the stupidity and obstinancy of their views.
I would also like insert my belief on Islam and Muslims in general. Much has been made about the violent quotes and beliefs inherent in Islam. However, despite what many have said I do not know of a single Muslim who actually follow those beliefs. I do believe that yes, many Muslims are brain washed especially those in repressive M-E countries, but I think that they can be moderate if they are taught to understand certain western concepts.
at February 2, 2006 10:46 PM
article found :)
Posted by: ChinCheck at February 2, 2006 10:53 PM
"Much has been made about the violent quotes and beliefs inherent in Islam. However, despite what many have said I do not know of a single Muslim who actually follow those beliefs."
-- from a posting above
No -- not one? Never come across the merest hint that such people might exist, from events of recent years, pictures of mobs in Rawalpindi or Ramallah or Fallujah, writings of Al-Qaradawi or Khomeini or Sheik Bin Baz, sermons by a thousand clerics, many of them translated, literally, without comment, at www.memri.org or, for that matter, at a thousand Muslim websites? Not one?Must all be figments of someone's perfervid imagination?
Perhaps you might find www.faithfreedom.org enlightening -- one of the many websites run by apostates, ex-Muslims, defectors from the army of Islam. Or the scholarly articles at www.secularislam.org. See if you run across any information that might possibly led you to believe that there really are Muslims who do act on their beliefs, who do see the world as divided, essentially, between Believer and Infidel. And the next time you are assured by an affable, smiling, plausible fellow that it is all nonsense, head for the nearest bookstore or library, and buy "The Legacy of Jihad" (Andrew Bostom) and read what Ibn Khaldun, Al-Ghazali, and other figures in Islamic history had to say about the duty of Jihad, and then read the dozens of Western scholars of Islam who wrote at a freer time, when scholarship could be conducted without the kind of fears, and careerist calculations, so necessary today. And finally, you might find "The Dhimmi" and "Islam and Dhimmitude" and "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam," all by Bat Ye'or, enlightening, as is her scholarly website, www.dhimmitude.org. Perhaps, after that cursus studiorum, you will begin to think that perhaps, just maybe, it could possibly be, that one or two Muslims over time and through space have indeed taken the violent and aggressive passages in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira to heart.
It just might be.
Posted by: Hugh at February 2, 2006 11:36 PM
CBS and NBC evening news programs tonight both mentioned the crazed Islamic reaction to the ongoing Cartoon Jihad, but BOTH were too cowardly to show even ONE image.
(I thought they would at least pick out one of the 3 phonied-up, Muslim-created "Mohammad with pig snout" type cartoons and show it ...to be as accurate and anti-Western provocative as they usually are.)
Aren't they supposed to report the news, not censor it?
Yesterday they BOTH showed an innocent guy being shot by an out-of-control cop in Los Angeles who told the cowering guy to "Get up!" and then shot the guy (a U.S. serviceman home on leave from the Middle East) three times... FOR GETTING UP!.
BOTH MEDIA OUTLETS found nothing too offensive in that.
I guess they think that Americans find images of a nutjob shooting someone okay, but editorial comics allegedly "blaspheming" the "prophet" Mohammad (pb&j) would be just too offense.
Slimy invertebrate weasels!
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 3, 2006 12:11 AM
In a speech at the U.S. embassy in Malaysia in 2002, Eck claimed the U.S. was “part of the Muslim world” Posted by: Andrei Rublev
The U.S. Constitution proves Eck wrong:
Article. VII
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven {that year signifies only one possible Lord for this Constitution] and of the Independence of the United States of America.
The Son of God is an abomination in Islam 019.088 and Muslims are commanded to slay His followers.
and believe it or not a lot of very small ex soviet states.. are the only ones with the Guts to take on the Islamo faschists.. Posted by: jingoist
That's probably more true than most realize. President Putin spoke against Islam. I can not quote him. But he clearly spoke against it. The Russians have endured many sickening bloody acts - mostly by the Muslim Chechens.
Posted by: Beth at February 3, 2006 12:15 AM
profitsbeard, I saw the report of that poor man being shot 3 times. Those sorts of things upset me. People being hurt, brutalized or murdered. How one can get so distressed over cartoons or even ordinary pictures of mohammed is beyond me. Yet many Muslims cheered at the sight of 9/11, and those unfortunate people being beheaded. Where were the violent protests after the people were beheaded to the shouts of Allah Akbar? Especially since, they kept insisting, what they were doing wasn't Islamic, and Islam was tolerance and peace and didn't believe in killing innocents, blah blah blah.
It's frightening how they are so desensitized to, even happy at, the murder of non-Muslims yet feel such offense at pictures of their prophet. It makes absolutely no sense at all.
We don't think like them. And thank God for that.
Posted by: feralee at February 3, 2006 1:06 AM
Polish Infideless,
Thanks.
Re Cartoons: I think it would be useful for people to post their ideas for cartoons, as you have done above (Asma bint Marwan idea). I believe there are several posters/readers here with artistic skill who may be inspired by these ideas.
Posted by: Archimedes at February 3, 2006 2:03 AM
Skeptic,
“However, I do still believe that we must at times self censor ourselves and our media to avoid offending others.”
At what price? The Koran allows Muslim men to take girl-slaves and captives for sex. (23:1-6, 33:50-52, 4:24, 70:30) Abul Kasem’s article covers many of these issues. http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sexinislam.htm
Should Muslims be offended at me, or should they be offended at their own immorality and stupidity for accepting such abomination as the law of (a wise and just) God? This was practiced by Islamists in their rape of 200000-300000 women in Bangladesh in the early 1970s. This is still in effect in Sudan, Algeria, etc. This is unacceptable!
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3371:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
“Belief systems no matter how different or contrary to one's sensibilities should remain sacred.”
You are a moral relativist. “Sacred”? You are a self-described skeptic and atheist who bows down to divine command theory of some sort? Sacred according to Mohammad means rape, kill, strike terror, loot, etc.! This is just absurd.
“I still stand on the belief that the cartoons are intentionally offensive and targeted at specific group of people and therefore slanderous against them.”
You obviously haven’t seen all twelve cartoons. At least one of them makes fun of the newspaper, not Mohammad. Another is a neutral drawing of Mohammad in front of a desert background.
As for most of the others, they are about Mohammad and those who follow his/Allah’s teachings. It’s about people such as those who follow terrorism, misogyny, and who want to put excessive restrictions on freedom of speech with respect—and only with respect—to Mohammad, Muslims, Islam, Allah, Koran, etc. I suppose it is more accurate to say the cartoons are directed at those people who follow those elements of the belief system. They are often called “Islamists.” The cartoons were published in a conservative Danish paper, but are directed to the full audience, non-Muslims and Muslims alike.
Like the Muslims who are overeacting due to their enormous self-importance/pride/egotism/vanity, you think that these drawings are mere juvenile insult. This is a vain and superficial assessment. They are cartoons, yes. But what about the content of the cartoons? Cartoons make social commentary, in this case w/ regard to women's rights, terrorism, and freedom of expression--all topics addressed in the substance of these cartoons. You think the impoliteness of the cartoons is more important than the subject matter? Do you have any idea of how tame these cartoons are compared to what Mohammad was really like according to the Islamic texts?
And have you the checked definition of slander? If it’s true, it’s not slander. What is represented in the cartoons is at least generally true about Mohammad and Islam. Mohammad was a terrorist by his own account; he cited terror as one of the secrets of his success. As for suicide attacks, Allah says “slay yourselves” (4:66; 4:66-4:77; also 9:111) in Allah’s cause—which is to conquer all religions and destroy all disbelief. Other verses say use any strategem (9:5) and use whatever in your power to the utmost (8:60; 9:41) to fight in the way of Allah. As for misogyny/subjugation of women, the cartoons are accurate in this sense too, with regard to Islam (4:34). As for freedom of expression, the Islamic texts say those who criticize or mock the prophet are to be executed. (Sources: http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/index.html , http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/free_speech.htm , http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm . ). The Koran is also clear that (male) Muslims must emulate the example of the prophet Mohammad (33:21), who assassinated nad executed those critics/mockers.
“So likewise I believe, Christianity, Satanism (and or cults), Buddhism, Judaism, and Hinduism should not suffer assaults against them.”
You are suspending moral judgement and blithely claiming all of these ideologies are equal. You are abandoning moral thinking altogether.
“I, myself, am an atheist I criticize religion in general, but no matter my opinion I would not dare to express in such a manner.”
You don’t sound to me like either an atheist or a skeptic. Rather, you strike me as someone who worships at the alter of political correctness.
“When addressing other's beliefs and criticizing them I go through great lengths to be "politically correct" and polite. In fact, I generally get through to them better this way then through openly attacking and harrasing them about the stupidity and obstinancy of their views.”
I will agree on the need for a certain amount of diplomacy, but in this case the diplomacy must be firm and clear. And diplomacy is not the only way of communicating. Sometimes satire works wonders.
“I would also like insert my belief on Islam and Muslims in general. Much has been made about the violent quotes and beliefs inherent in Islam. However, despite what many have said I do not know of a single Muslim who actually follow those beliefs.”
Do they think they’d tell you what they really think of you as kufar, anymore than you would tell them about the “stupidity and obstinancy of their views”? Anyways, look at the results of anonymous surveys (e.g., PEW results).
“I do believe that yes, many Muslims are brain washed especially those in repressive M-E countries, but I think that they can be moderate if they are taught to understand certain western concepts.”
Of course, but the trouble again is Islam, the clerics, the traditions, the political leaders, etc. This is why we need to break the ice with exercises such as these comics.
at February 3, 2006 3:09 AM
Did anyone else notice the CNN report on cable? They pixellated the green star cartoon of Mohammad while reporting the story.
I was sitting in Sbarro's on campus shaking my head.
Pathetic
at February 3, 2006 3:40 AM
Archimedes, you bring up many good points. In fact I agree with most of them. Islam is violent in nature and their traditions are likewise. However, you highlighted correctly my approach to conflicts and such issues when you said that I was being "diplomatic". I do not "worship political correctness", rather I use it as a tool to negotiate and promote my own views. I battle with words and if I were a world leader, I would appear to be appeasing them on the outside but in reality get under their defenses and turn them slowly to my way of thinking. It was done in Iran for a while, it can be done again. Sounds like a slow and almost farfetched policy, but I believe that with patience we can win. The best way to solve a conflict is to keep agression out of the picture. As for being a "religious relativist" that I may be indeed. I do respect other cultures (even the violent and perverted ones) because I feel that each culture and religion has it's weaknesses (that is why atheism is best) and I can also understand the other side's viewpoints. Am I an apolegist? Maybe, depending on how define it. Do I sacrifice my views? No. If you understand the others viewpooints you will delve deeper into them and then you can see the holes and punch through when the time is right. Bottom line is: know and love thy enemy.
Once again I reiterate my belief that Muslims and Islam in general can be westernized. As for the fact that Muslims are terrorists at heart as you imply, it is simply too much of a generalization. I do not believe that all or even most Muslims would condone terror, no matter what they learn from the Koran. I am also not aware of the survey that you refer to, can you please provide me with a link?
Lastly, these cartoons serve no purpose. They may be true in nature, but seek only to promote a "reaction" from those they target. The author knew what would happpen, it was an experiment. However, an ill timed and tactless experiment; in the end it will cost us.
at February 3, 2006 3:23 PM
Skeptic,
"As for the fact that Muslims are terrorists at heart as you imply, it is simply too much of a generalization. I do not believe that all or even most Muslims would condone terror, no matter what they learn from the Koran."
I didn't say or imply that all Muslims were terrorists at heart. The distinction I make has been stated best by Ibn Warraq (to paraphrase): There are some moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. Anyways, here's what I actually said: "I suppose it is more accurate to say the cartoons are directed at those people who follow those elements of the belief system. They are often called “Islamists.” The cartoons were published in a conservative Danish paper, but are directed to the full audience, non-Muslims and Muslims alike."
One element of the Islamic belief system includes being willing to "slay oneself" (4:66) in Allah's cause (which is to make Islam conquer all other religions and to destroy disbelief; or to defend Islam), and to use any available means within one's power (8:60, 9:41, 9:5) to kill and be killed (9:111) for Allah. This holds for all time until the Last Day, and according to Sura 9 is obligatory. Some Muslims follow this, some don't.
(Those who don't agree with this policy cite other verses that state that suicide of Muslims is forbidden. However, those verses that forbid suicide do not refer to jihad, where, obviously, Muslims must put their lives on the line). The cartoons are not about moderate Muslims. Most of the offending cartoons are about social-political Islamists and jihadists; and one of them as I said was a neutral drawing of Mohammad; and two of them poke fun not at Mohammad but at the newspaper itself.
It is also clear that the cartoons are quite mild overall compared to what Mohammad was like in the Islamic texts. He was by his own account a terrorist. He was a rapist. He had sex with a 9-year-old girl. He massacred Jews. He owned slaves. He raided caravans. He assassinated and executed critical poets and singers.
"I am also not aware of the survey that you refer to, can you please provide me with a link?"
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248
Follow the links to the different parts of the study there. Note that the approval of attacks against civilians would be higher among the Muslims surveyed if (a) the question specified that only non-Muslims would be killed, and (b) does not involve suicide of a Muslim. Also note that Saudi Arabia and Palestine were either not sampled or are just not listed.
It is clear enough to me that you are adopting some kind of a 'please everyone' approach that I find relativistic. Not all moral systems are equivalent. Islam is basically divine command theory with a 'preserve the in-group and destroy the out-group' mentality. Tolerance is fine but we should not be stupid and we should not tolerate hate. We are dealing with people who think that killing non-Muslims is the greatest most joyous thing that can ever happen. Most Muslims hate us with a passion. If you don't see this, you are willfully blind.
"Lastly, these cartoons serve no purpose. They may be true in nature, but seek only to promote a "reaction" from those they target. The author knew what would happpen, it was an experiment. However, an ill timed and tactless experiment; in the end it will cost us."
Again, you like so many, seem to subscribe to the draw-string theory: The theory that Muslims have no control over their own anger, but that non-Muslims have access to a draw-string on the Muslims' backs, and by pulling this draw-string we cause them to be uncontrollably angry. It's our fault, you say. I say no it isn't. If I produce a cartoon that makes fun of you, and then you, believing you have an exhalted status that makes you above criticism, respond violently, how is this my fault? It's your fault for overreacting. Muslims are trying to use an appeal to a special status to say that they and their beliefs are legally immune from criticism. This is nothing but sheer egotism and narcissism. No one is immune from criticism in our society. Muslims are simply trying to impose their own blasphemy law on the entire planet. They are making a power-grab.
I'm not a Muslim. I am not subject to Islamic law. I would not simply offend someone pointlessly. But there is far more at stake here than mere offence. Our civilization is being threatened. If I want to communicate something true but unflattering about Islam, then I have a right to do so. That right has been compromised by Islamists who issue death threats. We need to regain our freedoms. We also need to act responsibly. The most responsible thing we can do in this case is to expose Islam. The most irresponsible thing in the case would be to hide what Islam is really about. (You aren't helping Muslims by hiding these problems either. Think about the restrictions on freedom in Muslim countries.)
Anyways, if I did depict the prophet, I have every right to do so because I have not chosen to be a Muslim. If I was a Muslim, and that was the rule, I would either follow it or seek to change it.
You have not yet grasped that our very existence as non-Muslims is considered a provocation to the people who are now revolting so violently. The Koran says Muslims must hate the non-Muslims for all time until the latter convert to Islam (60:4). Why do non-Muslims ignore this? Do you think the clerics ignore these parts of the Koran?
You have to read the Koran. Here is an online annotation http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
Regarding the approach used in the cartoons, I think most of them were okay. I think only two or three of them were deliberately provocative. (And what is wrong with that? Provoke people to criticize and reject the bombers? How is that a problem?) There was nothing inaccurate about them though. And zealous Muslims have simply proved, by their reaction, that the comics were correct. I would add that the furor world-wide may not even be based on these comics at all. Imams went to the Middle East and circulated fake comics which depicted the prophet being raped by a dog etc., and they lied, claiming that these comics were published in the Danish paper. Therefore, it is still not clear whether the original Danish comics caused this anger draw-string to be pulled.
I wouldn't have done it this way, but I do think we need to expose Islamic ideology. The cartoons have accomplished the task of getting non-Muslims to wake up a little. I would have done cartoons to expose the hypocrisy of the Islamic apologists, who talk about how Islam is tolerant, while hiding the dozens of atrocious insults in the Koran which demonize all non-Muslims. I've cited it probably 100 times on this website, but here is a sample list again:
The Koran says that disbelievers (non-Muslims): are “worst of created beings” (98:6), are “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55), are the worst beasts in Allah’s sight (8:22, 8:55); (Christians and/or Jews are) turned into “apes and/or pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166); (idolaters are) unclean (9:28); “evil” is upon them (16:27), evil (2:91, 2:99); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); the “wrong-doers” (42:45, 2:254, 5:45); evil-doers (42:44); they have no good in them (8:23); are “guilty” for disbelieving (45:31, 83:29); on the side of Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); of the party of Satan (58:19); Allah assigns them devils for protecting friends (7:27); they choose devils for protecting friends (7:30); are partisan against Allah (25:55); “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); disgraced lives (22:9); hypocrites (4:61); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); are ill (84:20); deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no sense (2:171); deaf and dumb and in darkness, Allah sends them astray (6:39); have no sense (5:103); a folk who do not understand (9:127); their fathers were unintelligent and had no knowledge or guidance (2:170, 5:104); are “a folk without intelligence”/ “most ignorant” (8:65, 6:111); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6), and deceived by Satan (4:60); liars/they lie (2:10, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11) “losers” (7:179); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19), in false pride and schism (38:2), the lowest of the low (95:4-6).
In contrast, there are no positive adjectives to describe disbelievers anywhere in the Koran. This is what Muslim children learn from day 1.
Posted by: Archimedes at February 4, 2006 4:42 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)