"You never see the Pope or Jews caricatured and insulted in this manner."
When I was an undergraduate, the university newspaper published a centre page spread of a naked man wearing a condom, with Pope John Paul II's face superimposed.
For caricatures of jews as blood sucking, greedy, money hungry, child killing vampires see the online arab press - mostly controlled by arab goverments.
Damian:
Personally, I'm amused by the defense that one must judge the activities of the crowds, not as a reflection of Islam, but the deranged actions of a few.
At the same time, it is ISRAEL that bombs civilians, engages in Jeningrad, etc.
Similarly, THE WEST needs to recognize the offenses it has committed against the Islamic world (and brought upon itself such vengeful behavior), but it is only a few misguided protestors who burnt down embassies.
And, besides, those few individuals really are reflecting the overall frustration of the many with the disrespect shown all of them.
In short, Islam must be referred to in the individual (protestor) AND aggregate (offended people), in whichever context sheds worst light on the West (as a whole).
Great post. Scorsesee never had his house burned down! Many depictions of Our Lord have been deeply offensive toi many Christians so we write letters or protest peacefully.
Posted at 2006-02-06 16:10:12 [PermaLink]"If only the most inoffensive opinions are protected, what's the point?"
Spot on. Freedom to express oneself within set boundaries of discourse is no freedom worth the name.
My penn'orth:
A society should be judged not by the character of its media per se; but rather the circumstances under which that media operates.
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand why I need to praise someone for printing nasty, offensive cartoons just because someone else has published nastier, more offensive ones. I fully defend people's right to be idiots; that doesn't mean they're _not_ idiots.
Posted at 2006-02-06 16:35:57 [PermaLink]If publishing _crude, ugly_ cartoons was a crime, the guy at the Toronto Sun who keeps the inexplicable Donato on staff would be in jail for life.
The only person's career most mystifying to me than Donato's was Al Jolsons...
"Crude and disgusting"...a picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban? Now, if the cartoon had depicted, say, Mohammed pleasuring an American Jew whilst being sodomized by a pig holding a urine-soaked Qu'ran on fire, I could see that, but thats not the case.
If you want to see cartoons that are REALLY offensive, why not check out the media in the Islamic world, or the "works" of Steve Bell, Ted Rall, or Latuff
Thirty years ago I was rolling on the floor to Cheech and Chong's Pope skit; still am:
"And she can havva bigga tittsa, boomba boomba."
Now lets all go burn Canadian flags (source of comment) and boycott maple syrup.
But Dave will still not be here.
Mark
Ottawa
Damian,
The people making the excuses know damn well what a thin gruel they're advancing. But if they're gonna both appease and save face at the same time, what choice do they have?
Sometimes I think the rest of us should just offer to make slaves of the appeasers for ourselves, starting right away. I mean, they're on a path to be somebody's slave soon, and I think I'd be a pretty good master, better'n a lot of ME sheikhs, for example.
"At the same time, it is ISRAEL that bombs civilians, engages in Jeningrad, etc"
Muslims haven't been carrying out suicide bombings and flying planes into buildings right?
"Similarly, THE WEST needs to recognize the offenses it has committed against the Islamic world (and brought upon itself such vengeful behavior)"
Is this guy on crack?
I'm part of "The West" and I didn't do anything to the Islamic world, but since I live in the West and won't submit to the bogus muslim religion I could be blown up by some yellow belly who does'nt have the balls to put on a uniform and fight like a soldier.
its kinda sad, really that the entire non-muslim mass media doesn't collectively thumb their noses at the 'outraged' muslims. Are they gonna boycott everybody's goods? burn every countries embassy's?....close all ties with all non-muslim countries?
The non-muslim world had such a great oppotunity to show them what we really think of their childish and violent nature. WE should boycott all exports to these countries for as long as it takes to bring them out of their delusional and phsycotic(sp) behavior. No UN security counsel resolutions....just a collective, unified response of disgust.
Hey, Damian, and your stuff is nothing more than what your site is, 95 per cent of the time: anti-Islam bigotry.
That's who you are. A bigot.
Uh, Damian...a bigot? Sorry, Warren, but, if you had bothered to read Damian's blog beyond a select few posts you would very clearly see that Damian has nothing but the most positive views towards PEACEFUL Muslims in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and elsewhere. The decidedly NON-peaceful Muslims he very rightly mocks and opposes. Please go troll somewhere else.
Posted at 2006-02-06 20:00:58 [PermaLink]Warren K. calling Damian a bigot. That's rich.
Posted at 2006-02-06 20:08:09 [PermaLink]That's WK's modus operandi. If you disagree with Liberal (and liberal) orthodoxy as iterpreted by Warren, you're a bigot. I am surprised that he didn't include his usual appeal to (his own) authority: "I wrote a book about bigotry, so I am entitled to use the term freely." That and 'racist' are the two definitive discussion-stoppers available to the appeasers, so I expect to see a lot of them both.
No doubt, the cartoons were of varying quality, and may have been offensive to some; but so is Al Franken - and free speech means we have the right to ignore them (or their authors), or even complain about them; we don't have the right to burn their house down or call for them to be put to death.
AS USUAL ROBERT FISK GETS IT RIGHT
Don't be fooled, this isn't an issue of Islam versus secularism
ROBERT FISK
So now it's cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed with a bomb-shaped turban. Ambassadors are withdrawn from Denmark, Gulf nations clear their shelves of Danish produce, Gaza gunmen threaten the European Union. In Denmark, Fleming Rose, the "culture" editor of the pip-squeak newspaper which published these silly cartoons - last September, for heaven's sake - announces that we are witnessing a "clash of civilisations" between secular Western democracies and Islamic societies. This does prove, I suppose, that Danish journalists follow in the tradition of Hans Christian Anderson. Oh lordy, lordy.
What we're witnessing is the childishness of civilisations.
So let's start off with the Department of Home Truths. This is not an issue of secularism versus Islam.
For Muslims, the Prophet is the man who received divine words directly from God. We see our prophets as faintly historical figures, at odds with our high-tech human rights, almost cari-acatures of themselves. The fact is that Muslims live their religion. We do not. They have kept their faith through innumerable historical vicissitudes. We have lost our faith ever since Matthew Arnold wrote about the sea's "long, withdrawing roar". That's why we talk about "the West ver-sus Islam" rather than "Christians versus Islam" - because there aren't an awful lot of Christians left in Europe.
There is no way we can get round this by setting up all the other world religions and asking why we are not allowed to make fun of Mohamed.
Besides, we can exercise our own hypocrisy over religious feelings. I happen to remember how, more than a decade ago, a film called The Last Temptation of Christ showed Jesus making love to a woman. In Paris, someone set fire to the cinema showing the movie, killing a young man. I also happen to remember a US university which invited me to give a lecture three years ago. I did.
It was entitled "September 11,2001: ask who did it but, for God's sake, don't ask why". When I arrived, I found that the university had deleted the phrase "for God's sake" because "we didn't want to offend certain sensibilities".
Ah-ha, so we have "sensibilities" too.
In other words, while we claim that Muslims must be good secularists when it comes to free speech - or cheap cartoons - we can worry about adherents to our own precious religion just as much. I also enjoyed the pompous claims of European statesmen that they cannot control free speech or newspapers.
This is also nonsense. Had that cartoon of the Prophet shown instead a chief rabbi with a bomb-shaped hat, we would have had "anti-Semitism" screamed into our ears - and rightly so - just as we often hear the Israelis complain about anti-Semitic cartoons in Egyptian newspapers.
Furthermore, in some European nations - France is one, Germany and Austria are among the others - it is forbidden by law to deny acts of genocide. In France, for example, it is illegal to say that the Jewish Holocaust or the Armenian Holocaust did not happen. So it is, in fact, impermiss-able to make certain statements in European nations. I'm still uncertain whether these laws attain their objectives' however much you may prescribe Holocaust denial, anti-Semites will always try to find a way round. We can hardly exercise our political restraints to prevent Holocaust deniers and then start screaming about secularism when we find that Muslims object to our provocative and insulting image of the Prophet.
For many Muslims, the "Islamic" reaction to this affair is an embarrassment. There is good reason to believe that Muslims would like to see some element of reform introduced to their religion. If this cartoon had advanced the cause of those who want to debate this issue, no-one would have minded. But it was clearly intended to be provocative. It was so outrageous that it only caused reaction.
And this is not a great time to heat up the old Samuel Huntingdon garbage about a "clash of civilisations". Iran now has a clerical government again. So, to all intents and purposes, does Iraq (which was not supposed to end up with a democratically elected clerical administration, but that's what happens when you topple dictators). In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood won 20 per cent of the seats in the recent parliamentary elections. Now we have Hamas in charge of "Palestine".
There's a message here, isn't there? That America's policies - "regime change" in the Middle East - are not achieving their ends. These millions of voters were preferring Islam to the corrupt regimes which we imposed on them.
For the Danish cartoon to be dumped on top of this fire is dangerous indeed.
In any event, it' s not about whether the Prophet should be pictured. The problem is that these cartoons portrayed Mohamed as a bin Laden-type image of violence. They portrayed Islam as a violent religion.
It is not. Or do we want to make it so?
"Hey, Damian, and your stuff is nothing more than what your site is, 95 per cent of the time: anti-Islam bigotry. "
Alastair Cooke once defined a 'fascist' as someone who had just won an argument with a student. The word 'bigot' now means someone who has exposed a hypocrite.
If religions were dog breeds... Islam would be the Pit Bull... Not all bad, but enough are bad to make the religion pretty scary.
Posted at 2006-02-06 20:54:13 [PermaLink]Hey Warren K, good to see you're making time in your hectic schedule of publically ridiculing Christians to call Damian names and defend embassy-burning thugs.
So many "bigots" to denounce, so little time. No one is safe in the world of the Warrenator, defender of certain oppressed peoples, champion of defamation lawsuits everywhere, defaming everyone in his path.
When you're in the West, you are secularist.
How odd, no idolatry, but all this brouhaha, threatening to cut off heads, hands, etc. and naming children after Mo might be considered idolatry.
Warren K is no different from our resident Islamic nut or Dara......they scream racist in the hope of shutting down debate.......this has been successful for decades but the ruse is losing its power and thankfully so...
It's funny how stupid libs and islamists are.....I hadn't realized that Islam was a race when I debunk this vicious ideology?? Imagine my surprise at that???
Is Warren K in fact Warren Kinsella? That would make sense, since Kinsella indeed believes in censorship by his own admission. Typical for liberals. Censor the "hate" they don't like. Promote the hate they do. Hating a religion isn't exactly bigotry anymore than hating communism. Both of which I do despise.
Posted at 2006-02-07 00:17:00 [PermaLink]A REALLY gutsy woman speaks out:
[External Link]
One of the most courageous women of our age, and one whose lovely visage immediately refutes the silly and stupid canard that opposition to the jihad supremacist ideology is "racism," speaks truth to power in Der Spiegel:
SPIEGEL: Hirsi Ali, you have called the Prophet Muhammad a tyrant and a pervert. Theo van Gogh, the director of your film "Submission," which is critical of Islam, was murdered by Islamists. You yourself are under police protection. Can you understand how the Danish cartoonists feel at this point?
Hirsi Ali: They probably feel numb. On the one hand, a voice in their heads is encouraging them not to sell out their freedom of speech. At the same time, they're experiencing the shocking sensation of what it's like to lose your own personal freedom. One mustn't forget that they're part of the postwar generation, and that all they've experienced is peace and prosperity. And now they suddenly have to fight for their own human rights once again.
SPIEGEL: Why have the protests escalated to such an extent?
Hirsi Ali: There is no freedom of speech in those Arab countries where the demonstrations and public outrage are being staged. The reason many people flee to Europe from these places is precisely because they have criticized religion, the political establishment and society. Totalitarian Islamic regimes are in a deep crisis. Globalization means that they're exposed to considerable change, and they also fear the reformist forces developing among émigrés in the West. They'll use threatening gestures against the West, and the success they achieve with their threats, to intimidate these people.
SPIEGEL: Was apologizing for the cartoons the wrong thing to do?
Hirsi Ali: Once again, the West pursued the principle of turning first one cheek, then the other. In fact, it's already a tradition. In 1980, privately owned British broadcaster ITV aired a documentary about the stoning of a Saudi Arabian princess who had allegedly committed adultery. The government in Riyadh intervened and the British government issued an apology. We saw the same kowtowing response in 1987 when (Dutch comedian) Rudi Carrell derided (Iranian revolutionary leader) Ayatollah Khomeini in a comedy skit (that was aired on German television). In 2000, a play about the youngest wife of the Prophet Mohammed, titled "Aisha," was cancelled before it ever opened in Rotterdam. Then there was the van Gogh murder and now the cartoons. We are constantly apologizing, and we don't notice how much abuse we're taking. Meanwhile, the other side doesn't give an inch.
SPIEGEL: What should the appropriate European response look like?
Hirsi Ali: There should be solidarity. The cartoons should be displayed everywhere. After all, the Arabs can't boycott goods from every country. They're far too dependent on imports. And Scandinavian companies should be compensated for their losses. Freedom of speech should at least be worth that much to us.
Read it all.
Svend White nails the hypocrisy of the Danish paper in question
[External Link]
A thought provoking analysis.
A lamentable gulf between worlds
Ottawa Citizen, 02/04/06
By Riad Saloojee, Executive Director of CAIR-CAN
Also published in the Edmonton Journal, Montreal Gazette, Saskatoon Star
Phoenix and Vancouver Sun with slight editorial variation.
The Denmark cartoon saga seems Shakespearean in proportions: hubris, a rush
of madness, ensuing tragedy. If history is any guide -- Salman Rushie and,
more recently, the Nigerian beauty pageant rioting -- the fallout seems
entirely foreseeable: Disrespect the Prophet Muhammad, reminded one author,
and "you're playing with fire."
I have seen the cartoons. They range from benign (man in desert) to
ambitious (a face framed by a crescent and star), to the euphemistic
word-of-the-day, "offensive": a Hollywood hook-nosed Arab bracing a scimitar
and flanked by two chadared women; a man telling a willing and murderous
entourage to wait a second because the sketch is only from a Dane; a man on
a cloud telling a legion of suicide bombers that virgins are all stocked
out; and a man with a fuse-lit, bomb-shaped turban.
One cartoon had the cartoonist sweating over his depiction in worry. An
ironic omen of things to come, or a faux pas in the making?
The cartoons don't make the grade for good satire; they are, quite simply,
gratuitous. They don't further any intellectual debate or scholarly
discussion. Trading in a hypothetical venture to capture the Prophet's image
is hardly the mandate of an esteemed fourth estate.
The cartoons merely represent the historical Orientalist polemic against the
Prophet: he was violent, militaristic, scheming (fill in your belligerent
word of choice).
All of which puts the cartoonists in the recent, Muhammad-is-evil company of
Jerry Falwell, John Ashcroft, Pat Robertson and Jerry Vines, among others.
"There they all go again," say Muslims. Would any other personality or icon
be treated with such disparagement?
It helps little that the debate has retreated into a freedom-of-expression
defence. Certainly, offensive expression is not necessarily illegal
expression, nor is offensive expression hate speech.
But legal journalism is also not necessarily responsible journalism; nor is
it journalism that advances a common humanity, creates a more informed body
politic or pushes us beyond alienation and apathy.
And though we in the West may export freedom of expression as an absolute
value, we frequently balance it at home with reference to other principles,
say privacy rights or national security. Why can't the sacrosanct of 1.2
billion people be given, if not a successful hearing, then a respectful one?
It is difficult to fully appreciate the centrality of the Prophet in the
Islamic world-view. For starters, representing him (or other prophets --
Jesus, Moses, Abraham) is a no-no for fear of either subtle or explicit
idolatry. When Muslims utter the Prophet's name, they do so with a
benediction (as they do for other Prophets), "peace and the blessings of God
be upon him."
The Prophet is the quintessential moral personality, the central icon of the
faith, the guide, the "way" to the Divine. The reaction of a Muslim,
observant or not, to a denigration of the Prophet is usually visceral. An
analogy might be a brazen slur to someone near or dear -- but even that is
not really comparable. The Prophet holds a place in the heart of the
faithful unlike any other.
Unfortunately, though, while the living have recourse to libel and
defamation law, there's no restrictions on attacking the dead.
Without doubt, the reaction of some Muslims has been deplorable. If the
Prophet were alive, he would certainly disavow the indiscriminate violence
or threats that have been made against Danes, their government or the
newspaper itself. Redress, and there are many options -- a series of
enlightening op-eds would be my weapon of choice -- should be demanded from
the paper itself.
More sadly, how have we as Muslims preserved the Prophet's legacy, which the
Koran calls "a mercy to the world"? His narratives teach mercy first,
forbearance always, gentleness as your primary life transaction.
We have become so vicious in our sense of victimization that we are blinded
to these attributes, and blinded, further, to self-assessment. Do we marshal
the same moral indignation when individuals in positions of power deny the
Holocaust?
At another level, the debate spotlights a disconnect. In the Western,
post-Enlightenment world, the sacred has receded in meaning and in our
consciousness. Max Weber called this the disenchantment of the world. We
have few things that we hold as taboo.
If anything, this incident speaks to a lamentable gulf between worlds. Some
in the Muslim world can get their hot buttons pushed by cartoons; some in
the Western world find within them only a cold dismissal of the sacred space
of others: grow up; smarten up; fix your fixations.
Where are the genuine efforts at human understanding? We can't demand a
pound of flesh from each other and continue to live together. We need a
prospective vision.
Sure, history in hindsight is 20/20. But we're going to have to gaze forward
with the eyes of our hearts, too.
DaninVan, is it possible to get a copy of the movie "Submission"? First time I heard of it.
Posted at 2006-02-07 00:39:09 [PermaLink]Uh, no, actually the prophet used violence as a tool to spread his newly created cult. He could not have spread it so fast otherwise.
Posted at 2006-02-07 00:40:46 [PermaLink]Faramir: Your wish is my command O Exalted One!
(just kidding...)
Here's a bit of it--
[External Link]
Not sure where you'd get the whole thing.
Here's another site, Faramir:
[External Link]
[External Link]
What do the votaries of free speech have to say now?
If it weren't so serious it would be funny. There was a moron Islamist wearing a bomb belt in London at the rally. He actually said: "I never meant to offend anyone."
Who would have ever thought that an Arabian moon cult would cause so much pain and anguish in the world.
ajsuhail:
You come on here and talk about Danish hypocrisy, yet you will not address your own. You complain about being labled by a small minority in your religion.... and speak about how you and other muslims should not be punished for the actions of a small minority.... yet come come right back and advocate punishing a huge majority of Danish, based on the actions of a small Danish minority.... How can you not see the hypocricy?
Aj CAN see the problems with his comments. He DOES understand the inconsistencies. He's on the web because he needs to make sense of the world.
He's educated, intelligent and here.
I think he can to... His views add alot to the site.... and he's not some rambling idiot. He adds alot ot the debate.... But I'm sure I'll be having him thinking like Hirsi Ali before his time is up here.
Posted at 2006-02-07 05:52:00 [PermaLink]Was Fisk saying that it was bad to blow up that cinema in Paris but Okay to march through London with posters declaring death, extermination and beheading to opponents -- because the protesters really believe in God?
He might be right about the comparison to a hypothetical cartoon of a militant rabbi. And right in pointing out that "The West" contains religious militants too.
But why does he seem to be justifying the mental demonstrations we're seeing now? I don't get it.
Re Warren K. Is that really him? If so, Damian, I can understand why he's angry. Did you have to name your band TFWK? Oh, sorry, I forgot; that wouldn't bother him.
There's nothing in this universe that is so sacred that you can't draw a stupid cartoon about it. To me, the very idea of such a limitation is an offence.
[External Link]
Allan MacInnis: you said
I'm sure I'll be having him thinking like Hirsi Ali before his time is up here.
Inshallah I will never become like her. After all she is an apostate and I am not.But I am glad that you think that I add something to this debate.I have tried to be civil except for the spats I have had with bigots like Kathy Shaidle, who will get as good as she gives.
I am also going to try to answer some of the questions posed by the others.I admit that they have been overwhelming not just because of their number but also due to the fact that they have popped up in different commenting boxes.So here goes
One visitor talked of Islam and misogyny. Islam is a religion that gave women rights 1400 years ago that were given to women in Western countries only a few hundred years ago.For example, the right to vote. In Islam a woman has absolute ownership of her property, the full right to education and employment, the right to take part in the political process, the right to contract her own marriage,the right to divorce.In fact,Islam has accorded all these and more as even a cursory reading of the Quran will prove.Even as far as polygamy is concerned, it is only Islam that actually RESTRICTS the number of wives to 4. No other religion places such a restriction and countries rely on their own statutes and laws to deal with this issue.Hardly misogynistic is it?
Another visitor talked about slavery.I am convinced that the spirit of ISLAM is against slavery.Again, it is only Islam that honestly grapples with this issue.Both the Old and the New Testament have never proscribed slavery.The fact is that slavery is dead in Islamic countries in tune with the spirit of Islam which right from its inception encouraged their manumission.
I believe that yet another question related to violence against Non Muslims. Again, I can do no better that refer to the Quran that clearly states among other things there is no compulsion in religion, commands Muslims to not commence aggression,to refrain from ridiculing the beliefs of others and finally advises us to inform Non Muslims that their faith is theirs and ours Islam and we respectfully differ.All this can found in the Quran;there is no hidden text. At the same time, Islam is not a religion of pacifists.We are commanded to fight when attacked and till 'tumult and oppression are no more'.Remember, the Muslims bore the persecution of their enemies for 13YEARS, not months, not weeks but Years BEFORE they were commanded to fight. And this when they were still vastly outnumbered.Self defence is a right that all nations recognise so why the objection when Islam preaches the same thing?
If I have not answered any other questions, please send them again.
If you tell the moron bully on the street he is in fact a moron and a bully, you will probably have to take a few blows (or worse) for the privilege. That's the cost of saying whatever you want - - you have to face the consequences, whether its with your friends, your enemies or whomever. It might be worth it or it might not. But you have to pay the bill and pretending free expression does not have consequences is infantile.
Posted at 2006-02-07 07:52:43 [PermaLink]ajsuhail:
You never answered my concern... which was this... maybe you did on another threat, but I've never seen it.
"You come on here and talk about Danish hypocrisy, yet you will not address your own. You complain about being labled by a small minority in your religion.... and speak about how you and other muslims should not be punished for the actions of a small minority.... yet come come right back and advocate punishing a huge majority of Danish, based on the actions of a small Danish minority.... How can you not see the hypocricy?"
Ajsuhail, I don't really won't to get into a big debate over the old testament, the koran, the new testament, the torah... because frankly, they're all bullshit to me. Can you tell me that as an intelligent individual you never looked at stories like Noahs ark or what ever and thought to yourself..."What a bunch of bullshit".... It's funny for the last 3 weeks, jehovah's witness's have been coming to my apartment... I don't know why I still let them come in... But I must say I love challanging their core beliefs... last week they brought a young hot chick in an attempt to try to convert me.... It is pretty fun arguing with them and looking up contradictions in their beliefs and hammering it to them... I guess that's why I still let them come up... round 3 is schedualed for wednesday.
ajsuhail: Saudi Arabia seems to have seen the light on slavery rather later than the rest of the world. The slave trade in the Kingdom was not proscribed until 1936 (under British pressure) and slavery itself only abolished in 1962.
[External Link]
Mark
Ottawa
What we are seeing here is concrete proof that the moral cowardice of the "progressive" West goes hand in hand with physical cowardice.
They will mock, challenge and insult Christianity and Judaism because they know there is little if any chance this will cause them any physical risk.
They are silent on Islam because, for all their cant to the contrary, they don't believe the same is true...
ajsuhail:
What is your personal opinion of Hirsi Ali? Should she be punished for leaving the faith? Also living in a Muslim community (I'm assuming you do) do you see Muslims that leave the faith here? You see that alot in traditional Christian communities here... would it be the same in Islamic ones?
ajsuhail:
Re: "Islam is a religion that gave women rights 1400 years ago that were given to women in Western countries only a few hundred years ago.For example, the right to vote"
Interesting since I have read many well constructed arguments by Muslims that democracy and Islam are incompatible. The Koran would be the basis for all government. The Baluchistan Post published that argument some time ago and it has been repeated many times by other Muslims. Besides, democracy in the Muslim world - where?
Re: "The fact is that slavery is dead in Islamic countries in tune with the spirit of Islam which right from its inception encouraged their manumission. "
Are you serious or this more taquiya? Right now there is a conference at the University of Toronto where the speaker yesterday was a former slave taken by the Muslims in Sudan. In his own words:
"Simon Deng, who was kidnapped and enslaved by Arabs at the age of nine in Sudan, has spoken out against radical Islamists at conferences around the world, including at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva in May."
"During his speech at the St. George campus, Mr. Deng criticized Muslims and others for inadvertently condoning these acts of terror by not speaking out against them."
"Muslims themselves are the victims. These things are making your religion look bad," said the Sudanese human rights activist. "In particular I'm urging the other Muslims ... speak out against [the radicals]. Your silence is wrong."
"When he was nine, Arab troops raided his village, Mr. Deng told the crowd of about 75. "I watched as childhood friends were shot dead" and those who were unable to run, the elderly, were burned alive in their huts, he continued."
"He was abducted and given to a radical Islamic family as "a gift," Mr. Deng said. He was severely beaten "time and time again for no reason at all," he explained, and was forced to survive off the scraps of my "masters" and sleep with the animals."
[External Link]
Allan MacInnis:
Hirsi Ali WILL BE PUNISHED on the Day of Judgement.I for one am content to let her enjoy a brief reprieve till then.Regarding the boycott, I have already answered that in another post relating it to the attitude of the Danish govt. I am sure it is still there.
John B - what you have mentioned is an isolated incident that is the handiwork of individuals. The overwhelming majority of scholars and laymen agree that slavery is now a thing of the past in accordance with the spirit of Islam. The example set by the Prophet(peace and blessings on Him)bears eloquent testimony to this.He was personally responsible for the emancipation of many slaves using his own money to buy their freedom.And if could read the Quran in its entirety you would be able to shed your obsession with the concept of Taqiya.It is an open book and we have nothing to hide or apologise for.
ajsuhail: The world would be far better if your description of Islam were even close to accurate. I have no idea whether you believe what you have been writing. If so, you need to brush up on your history. It is simply a fact that Islam was spread mostly by the sword in its early centuries. It is simply a fact that Islam assumes that women are inferior. And it is also simply a fact that, since about 1900, the nations that have slavery on a large scale are either Muslim, fascist or communist.
And it is also simply a fact that most Muslims are indifferent to atrocities perpetrated by Muslims, even on other Muslims. When Muslims like yourself begin to worry one tenth as much about the ongoing massacres in Darfur as you do about some mostly harmless Danish drawings, I will take your arguments more seriously.
So, tell us: Have you done even one thing about those Darfur massacres?
Jim Miller - any quotes from the Quran or other sacred texts to back up your outlandish claims?
Posted at 2006-02-07 09:58:54 [PermaLink]Islam is a religion of peace and its adherents will kill you if you say otherwise
Posted at 2006-02-07 10:00:02 [PermaLink]*Spit Warning*
"....the full right to education and employment"
Allan M. said:
"You never answered my concern... which was this... maybe you did on another threat,..." Threat?
I'm guessing inadvertantly, but LOL! My morning is complete :)
Damian:
We had an Omen about you years ago. Expect a fatwa, oh you Spawn of Satan, in 5..4..3..2..
(Excellent post. Keep up the good work. Defend Freedom.)
ajsuhail, a religion is what its worshipers do, not what its Holy texts say. Islam is a religion of honor killings, slavery, intolerance, terrorism and lots and lots of silence.
Reversing that silence could change everything, but the rest of the world waits and waits and sifts through excuses and can only believe the silence denotes some kind of approval.
>you expect Muslims to just quietly accept this gross insult to their faith
The correct response to that is "No, we expect them to be very vocal about it; however, we don't expect them to utter death threats."
If a Christian, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Muslim, etc each uttered a death threat against you, would you treat them equally seriously? If not, then ask yourself the truth about why you feel that way. Why would you hold a bias, except with some sort of cause based on a generalization?
Muslims are attacking the publication of these images based on ignorance. Leftists are attacking their publication based on cowardice. The first problem will be addressed with time. The second is intractable and a far more serious threat.
Posted at 2006-02-07 12:47:29 [PermaLink]I'm in no position to say with any authority what is true or untrue about Islam. But I have some difficulty accepting Ajhusail's arguments.
Sure the Koran may say all of the great things Aj claims it does, but what the Koran says and what Muslims do today in the name of their religion are not necessarily the same thing.
The complaints and protests in the West about Islam are not directed at the idealized Islam as put forth in the Koran, but with the bastardized, violent, and unjust Islam we see and hear about - not just in the Western media but also in Arab media (via Memri and the like).
I wish Aj would put aside his defense of the ideal, and instead get his hands dirty dealing with the real world today.
I have some questions for Aj:
Islam proscribes illustrating the prophet Muhammad. Is this in the text of the Koran, or a tradition?
Is it proscribed for anyone to create such an image? Or is it wrong only for a Muslim to do so. Of course, a sin is a sin no matter what the religion of the sinner - but the earthly punishment for a non-believer surely must be nothing more than he had coming anyway. If it's "death to the cartoonist" for his drawing, wouldn't it be "death to the cartoonist" for simply not being a Muslim?
ajsuhail: I am sure you will agree that the Saudi Kingdom is fervently Islamic. Why then did it not abolish the slave trade, indeed slavery itself, until well into the 20th century (see my comment at 2006-02-07 08:10:36)?
And what about the Muslim-run East African slave trade:
"The Indian Ocean Slave trade evolved around the Indian Ocean basin. Slaves were taken from mainland East Africa and sold in markets in On the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf...
...Indian ocean slave traffic was sporadic and small in volume with two exceptiuons during the eigth to ninth centuries and the nineteenth century.1 During the 8th and 9th centuries labor demands increased with the reclamation of marsh land in Southern Iraq. In the 19th century the volume of slave traffic began to rise due to the demand for slaves on plantations on Zanzibar, Pemba, Reunion, Mauritius and Madagascar...
Most slaves were captured in the lake Nyasa area of the Great Lakes region, the Bahr el Ghazal region and in areas of Ehtiopia. Slaves were taken to entrepots on the coast of East Africa like Zanzibar, Kilwa and Quilimane and then shipped to points in Asia like Turkey, India, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Iraq, Iran. During the 19th century most slaves were destined for points off of the East African coast like Pemba, Madagascar, Reunion and Zanzibar..."
[External Link]
Mark
Ottawa
Thanks DaninVan.
So the Moslems didn't like the truth portrayed on the big screen? Here's an idea. Don't watch it.
Have you guys ever slipped a BLT to a muslim co-worker just to watch him freak out when you tell him? I thought so.
Posted at 2006-02-07 14:06:30 [PermaLink]Moslems approve of what is happening in Darfur. We are their pigs they wish to pen. Christian, animist, Jew, Hindu. It doesn't matter. Moslems are persecuting non-Moslems as we speak in their own nations, and expect us to apologize for what - a cartoon?
Posted at 2006-02-07 14:08:32 [PermaLink]You know, I really do believe in freedom of speech, and that it extends even to hateful blasphemy.
But you seem to be saying that, if I am effectively to defend your freedom to publish hateful blasphemy, I must myself publish hateful blasphemy.
Let's all hope that I'm never called upon to defend your freedom to make love to your wife.
ajsuhail:
Why is that when an evil act is perpetrated by Muslims (see the slavery example above) it is attributed to individuals but when it committed by non-muslims, it attributed to infidels in general?
ALso, given the slave trade as evidenced by Mark in his post above, what happened to all of the slaves. There certainly don't seem to be many around today in the middle east (Prince Bandar excepted - his mother was slave). Throughout the Americas descendants of slaves are commonplace forming a large percentage of the population of countries such as Cuba, Brazil, etc. I see no such thing in the middle east. Why? What happened to them?
In addition to the African slave trade, the Islamic world (Barbary coast) also raided Europe for slaves including as far north as Britain and Iceland. These raids took place well into the 18th century and the number of slaves captured was likely over 1 million.
[External Link]
Regarding your response to Jim Miller - why does he need the Koran to back up his "outlandish" claims. It is a verifiable historical fact that Islam was almost exclusively spread by war.
Aj... You happen to be so fond of Fisk and Dwyer. Great!
For all their faults, did you know that neither Robert nor Gwynn are big fans of SLAVERY? Nope. Not them.
Dig... Neither of them tolerate the sort of mindless sexism your old-school chums teach. Hey... They are both opposed to honour killings too. Imagine that, Aj.
And Mr. Bronfman, whom you've quoted twice in these pages... is opposed to "holy war". And he is opposes racism. He believe that all people of all races and all religions are EQUALS. Men and women, both, Aj.
You seem to be quoting selectively from people who oppose the vast majority of your deeply held bigotries. I find that amusing. How about you, Aj?
equitus you asked
Islam proscribes illustrating the prophet Muhammad. Is this in the text of the Koran, or a tradition?
Is it proscribed for anyone to create such an image? Or is it wrong only for a Muslim to do so. Of course, a sin is a sin no matter what the religion of the sinner - but the earthly punishment for a non-believer surely must be nothing more than he had coming anyway. If it's "death to the cartoonist" for his drawing, wouldn't it be "death to the cartoonist" for simply not being a Muslim?
It is in a Hadith, not the Quran. it applies only to Muslims .There is no penalty for drawing an image of the Prophet(peace and blessings on Him) by a non muslim.
Preserved Killick: you asked
You seem to be quoting selectively from people who oppose the vast majority of your deeply held bigotries. I find that amusing. How about you, Aj?
What Bigotries? Where have I said that I support Honor killings or that women are inferior to men? If deceit and deception are the only weapons you can resort to then it is futile to reason with you.I have quoted from the Quran and been candid in my replies but it seems to have gone over your head.Sad,just like the other time you called me a troll and then tried to stupidly justify it by claiming that I had not used " marks.
I cant believe that you got the cheek to defend what is obviously disrespectful and wrong. Two wrong do not make one right and how can a rational thinking person even defend such disrespectful actions? I guess you are defending them just for the sake of defending them.
Posted at 2006-02-08 05:09:26 [PermaLink]Aj, you very specifically put down Kathy by telling her that you believe women to be inferior. That was a troll attitude. You introduced yourself by calling us all here bigots.
I'm glad to hear that you do not support honour killings... but your attitude towards women in general and Kathy in particular is bigotry.
If you did not mean what you said about Kathy as a put-down, then send her a note with an apology and consider mine sent as well. You can post it here. I then will retract my 'troll' accusation. IF YOU DO NOT APOLOGISE TO KATHY FOR YOUR UNTRUE AND UNKIND WORDS, PLEASE CONSIDER YOURSELF A TROLL.
We respect women and men here as equals, treated with equal due respect. Those are the rules around here. Anyone who puts down another on the basis of gender becomes, well, you get the point, yes?
I'm baffled as to what Robert Fisk thinks he is arguing. First, the whole thing is "childish". Well, it's utterly stupid and insane, but hardly childish to set fire to embassies and call for cartoonists to have their heads lopped off. And anyway, who is being "childish" here? Not Western civilisation, really.
Secondly, Robert argues that well, their religion is alive and well and ours (I assume he means Christianity, because he can't surely mean Judaism) in collapse because of our wicked doubting ways. Oh great, now Robert is proselytising for Islam. So maybe burning embassies is a justifiable religious reaction to cartoons of your Prophet?
Thirdly, the cartoons do not deserve free speech protection because they are crap and add fuel to the fire. This doesn't hold up because the cartoons were published in Denmark last September to zilch reaction from anyone. Because they are crap, presumably. It wasn't until certain imams (and we know whicch Muslim group they represent) decided to e-mail them and dispatch briefing kits to Muslims worldwide, many months later, that they somehow became a casus belli. It isn't about cartoons and Fisk knows it isn't.
It's nice to be reminded why Robert's name has been immortalised in a recently coined term for demolishing an argument ...
Preserved Killick
You are either obtuse or plain stubborn.
FOR THE LAST TIME, ALL I DID WAS REPRODUCE KATHY'S COMMENTS VERBATIM LIKE I DO WITH OTHERS IN ORDER TO REPLY TO THEM ON SPECIFICS.THIS IS CALLED COPY AND PASTE AND SOMETHING THAT ANYONE WITH EVEN A RUDIMENTARY KNOWLEDGE OF MS WINDOWS CAN DO. IF YOU CARE TO READ THE COMMENTS ONCE AGAIN YOU WILL NOTICE THAT I HAD REPRODUCED KATHY'S COMMENTS BY COPYING AND PASTING THEM AFTER WHICH I HAD SARCASTICALLY COMMENTED ON HER ATTITUDE.YOUR ATTITUDE IS NOT ONLY TRUCULENT BUT PUERILE.IF ENGLISH IS NOT YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE THEN HAVE SOMEONE TRANSLATE THIS FOR YOU.ONCE THIS IS DONE, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GROVEL BUT AN APOLOGY WILL SUFFICE THANK YOU.
And if you still don't get it, I suggest you get your head examined for early signs of Dementia.
ajsuhail: Slavery? (Posted at 2006-02-07 13:52:44)
Mark
Ottawa
WD-40 for that Shift key, A.?
Oh sorry, just realized, you were screaming...:)
Aj... I checked it and you are right, 100%. I messed up with *my* cut 'n paste. A TROLL's error, I'm sad to admit, putting the text into an editor for "organization", and wrongly put your name above Kathy's comments in prep.
Please accept my apologies for the offense and the unkind comments. I. Was. Wrong.
Thank you for pointing out my error.
Preserved Killick,
I accept your apology in the spirit it was tendered.And no hard feelings on my side.
What about the three cartoons which are being circulated by the Copenhagen cleric ( of guy wearing a mask which makes him look a pig , ,etc.) trying to claim was published in Denmark?
Posted at 2006-02-13 04:53:13 [PermaLink]