<< OUTLAW EARL ~ MAIN ~ TWICE AS FISKY >>
ISLAM DEFENDED
Islamic reader Ahmed emails:
I am writing this letter in regards to your article on the prophet cartoons. You say that Muslims are vicious to other religions and disrespectful to western culture, but I am telling you we are not.
We are not spiteful to other religions but those who invade our land, rape our sisters, mothers, wives, and kill us; but still we do not disrespect them or their religion, but their belief—“Zionism”, not the Jewish religion or their Prophet, because it is against our beliefs and our moral values to disrespect someone on the basis of religion or to disrespect a messenger of God.
Mr. Blair, you think that we disrespect western culture (by the way, I don’t believe in Sheik Khalid Yasin’s comments) but what has western media done to our faith and religion? Islam is known for a man being able to marry 10 or more wives, oppressing women, terrorism, etc.
As a Muslim I was brought up to love all three main prophets: Abraham, Jesus, and Mohamed, who brought upon us the three holy religions. We as Muslims respect these prophets not for respect for Christians or Jews, but because we believe in them as prophets and respect them as such.
It is also not a matter of freedom of speech, it’s a matter of respect. Displaying cartoons of our beloved prophet is the same as insulting Muslims. Is anyone allowed to insult a race, religion, or group of people on the media? Why is that not allowed? Because it is wrong. You cannot argue that it is a matter of freedom of speech.
I’ll give you an example of something sensitive and close to your heart so you’ll know how deeply these cartoons affected us Muslims. Say if someone drew cartoons about the Bali bombings, making fun of the dead. Or the tsunami victims. Won’t you be deeply offended and hurt? It is wrong and there is no excuse for it.
All religions and their prophets should be given some respect. The prophet of any religion is their symbol. People believe in his or her word and devote their life to the sayings of their prophet. If you insult the prophet, you have disrespected the whole religion and made the prophet look small and demeaned him as a prophet or a man with such dignity, respect and love from his followers.
I hope I have changed your mind about the awful pictures of our beloved prophet.
No, you haven’t; but you have provided an absolutely brilliant example of how to respond to criticism of Islam. Argument—as much as I disagree with claims that Zionists are murdering land-invader sister-rapers—beats threats. For that matter, argument beats torching embassies and calling for a 9/11 attack on Europe. More argument; less arson.
UPDATE. And from reader Amanda, independent of the above, but related:
I’m Jewish, but consider myself number one as Australian, above and beyond all else. There are many things in the media which are unfavorable to Jews (and Christians, etc.), but as far as I’m concerned, one needs to cop it sweet, and respond with intelligence and dignity (or not at all), rather than with unjustifiable violence.
It is vitally important that as Australians we ensure that our kids can grow up with the knowledge that free speech is a right. Racial vilification issues aside, the whole world needs to focus on this point more strongly than ever.
Agreed.
Here is idiot that can see his point. If this isn’t the worst appeasement I’ve ever seen. But what do you expect from the socialist left.
The Professor of History at the University of Michigan suggests that there maybe more to this than just straight religion. Take the point that Syria and Iran are police states, and the activity/protests there could only have occured if it was allowed by the state. Got to http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/ to get the link to the Prof.
Posted by WeekByWeek on 2006 02 06 at 10:54 AM • permalinkOf course, putting aside the anti-Semitic cant, Ahmed ignores the fact that there were Islamic cartoons and TV features celebrating 9-11, (toignore the unwashed mobs dancing and chanting in the streets of Palestinian cities that depend on our charity to exist, so it would not surprise me in the least to learn there were the same concerning Bali.
In short, Ahmed treats an actual event as a hypothetical, and proves once again that Muslims don’t even believe they owe non-Muslims the courtesy of an honest debate.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 06 at 11:09 AM • permalinkMore proof Islam isn’t compatible with civilized culture.
Posted by swassociates on 2006 02 06 at 11:11 AM • permalinkI fully agree with Amanda, recently when Michael Luening in The Age, drew an extremely offensive cartoon of Ariel Sharon on his deathbed,was there any violence? Protest through letters and conversation maybe, but violence? No, We just “copped it sweet”. But the Islamic people must roit and scream bloody murder, something or someone must stand up to these people and put them in their rightful place…before its too late
As a Catholic, I take offense at irreverant and blasphemous attacks against my religion, too; however, as the Bible says, “God is not mocked”. Nothing that an “artist” or “cartoonist” can do can genuinely alter or damage what the faithful take to be the dignity and truth of the sacred. The proper response is peaceful protest, letters to the editor, and boycotting of those who provide an outlet to the offender. What is disturbing in the response of many Muslims - the violence and the threats of more to come - is the almost inescapable conclusion that the adherents of Islam suffer from a massive insecurity complex when it comes to their religion. Do they really believe that the truth of their beliefs can be undermined by a guy with some color pencils?
I am writing this letter in regards to your article on the prophet cartoons. You say that Muslims are vicious to other religions and disrespectful to western culture, but I am telling you we are not.
Right! Islam is all sunshine and candy.
what has western media done to our faith and religion? Islam is known for a man being able to marry 10 or more wives, oppressing women, terrorism, etc.
Damn the filthy JEWS-media and their lies!
It is also not a matter of freedom of speech, it’s a matter of respect. Displaying cartoons of our beloved prophet is the same as insulting Muslims. Is anyone allowed to insult a race, religion, or group of people on the media? Why is that not allowed? Because it is wrong. You cannot argue that it is a matter of freedom of speech.
Blah blah blah respect blah blah blah.
Full marks for not pinning the message to Mr. Blair’s chest with a knife, but the content is still shit.
Posted by Drunk Fade on 2006 02 06 at 11:33 AM • permalinkGood to know.
Coz I can’t sleep, I’ve fisked the letter.
I am writing this letter in regards to your article on the prophet cartoons. You say that Muslims are vicious to other religions and disrespectful to western culture, but I am telling you we are not.
Hang on, what happens if we present evidence to the contrary?
We are not spiteful to other religions but those who invade our land, rape our sisters, mothers, wives, and kill us; but still we do not disrespect them or their religion, but their belief—“Zionism”, not the Jewish religion or their Prophet, because it is against our beliefs and our moral values to disrespect someone on the basis of religion or to disrespect a messenger of God.
Then why do you have those passages where stones and trees will claim a jew is hiding behind them, and urging Muslims to kill them? Why do we have to put up with Muslim tales of Jews killing non-Jewish children to make passover bread? Why do Islamic stores sell crude forgeries like ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’.
Mr. Blair, you think that we disrespect western culture (by the way, I don’t believe in Sheik Khalid Yasin’s comments) but what has western media done to our faith and religion? Islam is known for a man being able to marry 10 or more wives, oppressing women, terrorism, etc.
Islam is known for oppressing women and terrorism because that is the reality. Laws against women in Arab countries are well known, and as for terrorism, well there was a little matter of some planes flying into a building not so long ago…
As a Muslim I was brought up to love all three main prophets: Abraham, Jesus, and Mohamed, who brought upon us the three holy religions. We as Muslims respect these prophets not for respect for Christians or Jews, but because we believe in them as prophets and respect them as such.
Right you respect these religions so much Islam has the concept of dhimmitude to enforce a second-class status on them.
It is also not a matter of freedom of speech, it’s a matter of respect. Displaying cartoons of our beloved prophet is the same as insulting Muslims. Is anyone allowed to insult a race, religion, or group of people on the media? Why is that not allowed? Because it is wrong. You cannot argue that it is a matter of freedom of speech.
Err, yes I can. Muslims wish to convert others to their faith, so they are basically in a marketplace of ideas. And all ideas that you wish to convince on other people have to be open to discussion and criticism. The fact that you wish to remove my right to discuss your ideas is disturbing to me. And as for respect, there is respect and respect! To be truly respected, as in, looked up to and admired, you have to earn respect by both words and deeds. Deeds like burning down Danish embassies do not earn respect; quite the contrary.
I’ll give you an example of something sensitive and close to your heart so you’ll know how deeply these cartoons affected us Muslims. Say if someone drew cartoons about the Bali bombings, making fun of the dead. Or the tsunami victims. Won’t you be deeply offended and hurt? It is wrong and there is no excuse for it.
We certainly would be hurt, but we would protest at the verbal level, not indulge in the wild over-reaction that we’ve seen in relation to these cartoons. Generally we fight ridicule with ridicule. This blog is a living exercise in this concept.
All religions and their prophets should be given some respect. The prophet of any religion is their symbol. People believe in his or her word and devote their life to the sayings of their prophet. If you insult the prophet, you have disrespected the whole religion and made the prophet look small and demeaned him as a prophet or a man with such dignity, respect and love from his followers.
Again, with respect, you have to earn it. I would put it to you that the actions of Muslims these past few years have actually reduced the respect of non-Muslims towards your prophet and your religion. I would say that it is Muslims that have made him look small. That is my opinion, and I’m free to exercise it.Taqqiya.
No, Achmed, Islam DOES NOT respect other religions and never has. Why, Muslims are taught that Moses and Jesus were Muslims - even though they lived centuries before Islam was invented by (or revealed to, take your pick) an Arabian warlord - and certainly DOES NOT show any sign that it considers Christianity or Judaism holy! Perhaps you should read up on objective history: Islam was spread by invading, conquering and subjugating Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Bhuddist lands. Islam has made war on non-Muslims for its entire history. How would you and your fellow Muslims feel if the Grand Mosque in Mecca were leveled to the ground and a Church or Synagogue were built in its place?
Say if someone drew cartoons about the Bali bombings, making fun of the dead.
As Amanda points out, Christianity and Judaism are mocked, belittled and ridiculed in the media every day. But do the Christians and Jews riot and call for mass murder? Bali, and 9/11 and the Madrid and London train bombings are CELEBRATED all over the Muslim world - why do you call them the “Magnificent 19” ot the “Fantastic 4”? That is far worse than “making fun of the dead”.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 02 06 at 11:56 AM • permalinkNo hate mail, well, that surprises (and encourages) me. Maybe Australian Muslims are more reasonable on the whole than I suspected.
I can sympathize with Ahmed and his fellow Muslims who were offended by the Danish cartoons. Nobody likes to have their religion or their culture insulted (even though those cartoons were pretty mild compared to the hateful stuff that pours out of the Middle East). But Ahmed completely misses the point.
What most people dislike about Islam is the constant violence, the burning of buildings, the beatings, the beheadings, the riots in the streets and the placards threatening death for even the mildest of offenses. Even more so, we dislike the unquestioned assumption that the entire world must become Muslim in order for there to be peace. We do not want to be Muslim. We do not want to subject ourselves to Arab culture, which is what Islam largely is. And for this offense, you offer us violence, the burning of buildings, beatings, beheadings, riots in the streets and placards threatening death.
Prove me wrong.
Rebecca
If u are Aussie, you will see how this proves you wrong:
From the pen of Keyser, Aussies friendly muslim spokesman:
“our ideology is the best salvation for the people of Australia, and the people of the world in general. Yes, we are a threat to the culture of drunkenness, paedophilia, and mostly we are a big threat to the culture of ELITISM.”
“In a way, they feel safe because of the quantity of water which surrounds this country, so they feel fortified behind this great body, it gives them a feeling of security. But the reality is, the land belongs to God, not to them, and if those foreigners, whom they fear as migrants are not permitted to enter as migrants, they will come as settlers, in numbers so large that they will not be able to process them, hold them, or stop them. What will they do then? If these foreigners who are restraining themselves, because they see a legal hope, that they can come to this vast mainly uninhabited land for whatever reason, are told that there is no longer a legal way to come here, what will they do?”
Sounds like the answer to Keysers Question is Jihad on Australia.
http://www.islam.org.au/articles/16/RACISM.HTM
and also this:
FORUM AT UWS BANKSTOWN,
28th June 2002
“Islam & Homosexuality, an Islamic, Scientific and Logical Approach”DEFEND THIS
Two killed in Afghan anti-cartoon protest
By South Asia correspondent Geoff Thompson
Two protesters killed in Afghanistan are believed to be the first deaths associated with the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed.
Protests have flared across parts of Afghanistan in recent days, as they have in many Muslim countries.
Hundreds turned out in the eastern Afghan city of Mihtarlam and shouted “death to Denmark” and “death to France”.
But when a police a station was targeted, police fired at the demonstrators and one person was killed at the scene.
Another died after being taken to a hospital in the nearby city of Jalalabad.
There have also been protests in Kabul.
Hundreds of people also protested in the southern capital, Kandahar, shouting “death to the enemies of Islam, long life to Islam”, an AFP correspondent said.
Denmark has more than 170 troops in Afghanistan, helping to stabilise the country after the ouster of the Taliban four years ago, and plans to expand the force this year to 360.
Emotions were high among the demonstrators in the birthplace of the ultraconservative Taliban regime and hundreds of police and army were on the streets to control the crowd.
Hundreds of protesters also gathered in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif and burnt the flags of France, Denmark and Norway.
There were reports of demonstrations in Kapisa province, also adjoining Kabul.
In the capital Kabul, NATO-led peacekeepers and Afghan police were deployed outside the Danish embassy with intelligence officials saying similar demonstrations were expected.
Hundreds of people marched in similar demonstrations in northern Kunduz and other provinces at the weekend.
- with AFP/Reuters
http://jihadwatch.org/I can understand how many Muslims become angry at statements and images they perceive as disrespectful towards their religion. I feel the same way when I see a rock star tearing up a photo of the Pope (and I’m not even Catholic) or “high art” depicting a crucifix emersed in a jar of urine.
The difference is, I direct my anger in nonviolent channels. If Muslims would reach out to Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other peoples in a peaceful and constructive manner, their message will likely be heard and considered.
For now all we can hear are the sounds of suicide bombings, gun fire, and the slicing off of heads of the infidels.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 02 06 at 12:42 PM • permalinkThese Muslim “moderates” directing their vaguely reasonable fire against non-Muslims—let them advocate reason & respect to islamists & Muslim extremists!
Hamas is teaching children to aspire to conquer Spain in order to restore the “lost Paradise” of Al-Andalus http://www.spainherald.com/2414.html. Yet another offense against Islam to be corrected and avenged! Islam seems to exist in order to be offended.
How would Muslims like it if non-Muslims took an interest in restoring the “lost paradises” of Eastern Hindustan, Persia, Anatolia, Christian Egypt, etc., which all fell to the ruthless sword of Islam, their very scripts now a dance of scimitars.
Ahmed,
We actually do see offensive cartoons on a daily basis attacking our religions, our culture and our leaders. Many of these appear in Muslim Arab countries (where free speech and Christian churches, by the way, are not ever allowed). And please ask the Danish imams where they got the three fake cartoons! Is he being respectful of your religion?I don’t blame you for being insulted by the cartoons, but is your religion so weak that it cannot withstand some offensive drawings?
We believe that once control starts, it never ends, and that’s why the cartoons are important. Perhaps Muslims are too accustomed to rigid and controlled societies to ever successfully adapt to living in the West. If you do want to live in the West, it will be up to you to find a way to live here without burning buildings and killing people when you are offended, even deeply so.
Fox News just reported that Iran (also known as I-Ran judged by their 8 year battle with their powerful neighbor Iraq, but I digress)
Iran has cut ALL TIES with Denmark…Good news Denmark, keep up the good work.
Actually, I didn’t know ‘they’ (I-Ran) had that many ties, I’ve never seen pictures of them wearing….ties.
Ahmed: “You cannot argue that it is a matter of freedom of speech.” Well, that is exactly what it is all about. It’s about not letting threats of murder, kidnap, child suicide bombers and other vicious intimidation force us to submit to the belief of religious madmen and force us to give up freedoms fought hard for us by those who came before.
I wonder if you even have a vague idea of the meaning and practice of freedom of speech. In the last blog, your co-religionist, #221 hanawat, wrote to ilustrate The Prophet’’s employment of “freedom of speech”: “He was great in the way he believed in freedom of opinion. In the Battle of Badr, he changed the location of the battlefield upon the advice of a soldier. This is how he respected freedom of speech 1400 years ago!”
Clearly, there is no suggestion here that there is any understanding of the give and take required in a free society when it comes to opinion making. Good taste in doing so is preferred, but when one group resorts to beheading, and other non-verbal attacks, insult is required.Ahmed is right we are insensitive :
1. A Danish newspaper runs offensive cartoons so Iran run a Holocaust cartoon competition.
And the link is?
Must be missing like Ahmed’s brain.
2. 90% of current conflicts involve Muslims and (Insert name here)
I suppose they are all rapists etc etc
3. A cartoon appears in a Danish newspaper so the Danish embassy gets torched in Syria, Lebanon runs riot, people die in Afghanistan etc etc.
You can see why we love Muslims so much.
4. A sensitive touch in England was the suicide bomber imitator - Sure the family and friends of 7/7 victims felt great empathy.
Problem is you could go on and on ad nauseum about this garbage.
I agree it’s more than Freedom of Speech versus Responsibility it’s about realising that anything can set off these powderkeg eggheads.
Any pretext will do.
Rob Crawford 1
No insult—being defined as a false, defamatory statement
Now there’s a tactical-looking definition-of-convenience if I ever saw one. Since when do insults have to be “false”?
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 06 at 02:39 PM • permalinkIslamic reader Ahmed
We are not spiteful to other religions but those who invade our land, rape our sisters, mothers, wives, and kill us; but still we do not disrespect them or their religion, but their belief—“Zionism”, not the Jewish religion or their Prophet, because it is against our beliefs and our moral values to disrespect someone on the basis of religion or to disrespect a messenger of God.
Trans.: “Spitefulness is bad. Those filthy Jews are spiteful. We’re not like that.”
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 06 at 02:45 PM • permalinkKeyser, Aussies friendly muslim spokesman:
“our ideology is the best salvation for the ... the culture of ... paedophilia, ...”
[dismissive snort/]
So the antidote for paedophilia is Mohammed, with his 9-year-old wife? Yeah, that works.
[/dismissive snort]Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 06 at 02:56 PM • permalinkIs anyone allowed to insult a race, religion, or group of people on the media? Why is that not allowed?
Unsurprisingly, Achmed doesn’t seem to grasp the difference between “not allowed” (the Muslim way) and “not condoned” (the separation-of-church-and-state way).
You cannot argue that it is a matter of freedom of speech.
All that this sentence is missing is indignant footstomping. Those infidels, daring to argue something that they simply cannot.
Many people have made the point on this and the earlier threads by now - more and more it appears that the majority of Muslims simply doesn’t understand the concept of free speech at all (among other concepts, but this one’s the mothership). I’m hardly an isolationist, but seriously - If you can’t take the heat, Muslims, kindly fuck off back to a country where you’ll be “free” to live under the yoke of a benevolent (or not so benevolent) dictator who will shield you from anything that might be upsetting to you.
#17 RebeccaH: Maybe Australian Muslims are more reasonable on the whole than I suspected.
I’d go as far as “smarter”, in that somebody like Ahmed apparently realizes he can’t just go and torch Tim’s house (and so do most others, judging from Tim’s lack of hatemail), but the various nasty undercurrents in his email make me strongly doubt that he’s more reasonable than you suspected. Spiny Norman got it in one - Ahmed’s mail is simply an above-average exercise in taqqiya.
Ties are banned in Iran because the’re considered “a sign of the cross.”
Man, that’s just nuts! How does a necktie represent a cross? Is it the knot, with the “noosey” part extending away from the knot like arms, or something? Or do the Iranians think that the 12 apostles went “semi-formal” to the Last Supper? If the latter, the joke’s on the Persians: everybody knows the apostles wore formal evening attire, which means white bow ties.
The Muslims are right about one thing. Many of us have no respect for the pedophile false prophet Mohammed (pig feces be upon him).
Live free or die.Posted by packsoldier on 2006 02 06 at 03:25 PM • permalinkSeen on BBC, in London:
“Behead those that insult Islam”
“Kill the Kafir”
Posted by ausdiplomad on 2006 02 06 at 04:08 PM • permalink‘Pakistani medicos boycott Euro drugs in protest at cartoons’
Oh yeah, that’ll show those dumb infidels.Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 02 06 at 05:16 PM • permalinkpaco: What is disturbing in the response of many Muslims - the violence and the threats of more to come - is the almost inescapable conclusion that the adherents of Islam suffer from a massive insecurity complex when it comes to their religion.
This is a little too Freudian for me, in the sense that it ignores the obvious and points to a conclusion opposite to that suggested by the facts. I think the Muslims you’ve pointed to are quite secure in their religion - they are also secure in the thought that any insults to their religion must be avenged by the spilling of blood. The Muslim universe does not include freedom of thought or expression - the view here is that if you insult Islam, you could just as well have massacred a bunch of Muslims and done less to offend them. Worshipping Allah is more important that the lives of any number of infidels. Insecurity isn’t the word I would use. The fact is that Muslims are different and have a whole different concept of the world. Bottom line - inside every Muslim isn’t an American struggling to get out.
As an American I will ignore the obvious chip on Zhang Fei’s shoulder :-) and respectfully disagree. America was founded (however imperfectly) on the belief that all healthy humans have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that all healthy humans desire this to some degree. If Muslims don’t, it’s not because they’re “different” but because their societies have become too ingrown and unhealthy to foster this basic human instinct (and if Zhang Fei has to narrow such a universal instinct down to the phrase “Americans struggling to get out”, well, oh-kay.) But I refuse to say Muslims or anybody else aren’t capable of it or that none of them want it. Part of the reason so many of them are abjectly miserable and angry is that they do want it, but aren’t allowed to have it.
That Ahmed is one tough dude - not content with killing hundreds of infidels in the Bali bombings, he now threatens to publish cartoons about the victims!
Surrender, Australia, before it is too late! Perhaps you consider yourselves strong, but just a few derisive carttons and you’ll crumble as rapidly as have the Zionists!
Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2006 02 06 at 06:35 PM • permalinkNo, paco’s right. What we’re seeing here is ill-disguised panic—the psychosocial equivalent of the pufferfish. It’s only when you’re not sure about something that you go into such a desperate frenzy to silence the tiniest (and you don’t get much tinier than a handful of Danish cartoons) challenge to it. They may be sure of their ability to terrorize anybody who so much as seems to impugn their religion, but that’s not the same thing as being secure in that religion.
That’s the flipside of Islam’s inescapable twinning of religion and government…when somebody rightly points out that the Arab peninsula has been an abject failure for the last 500+ years (the last half-century worth of oil money notwithstanding), he’s not merely criticizing a succession of incompetent governments, he’s shaking the very foundations of Islam. Add in somebody else taking the shortcut and right having a go at Islam itself (as with the cartoons), and the powder keg promptly blows up. No, Arab Muslims are certainly not secure in their religion, mostly because there isn’t a single contemporary thing that might be able to make them feel secure in it.
In that, they’re not so much petulant children (the usual comparison, which I’ve used myself), but probably more akin to the 40 year old guy who’s been a total loser his entire life.
Is anyone allowed to insult a race, religion, or group of people on the media?
Yes. For instance:
1. Americans (for being stupid, warmongering, hamburger-eaters)
2. Jews (for everything that is wrong with the world)
3. Christians (since they have beliefs, they are extreme and scary)
4. Catholics (just because we can)
5. Mormons (see #4, and no, I don’t want to start an argument about whether Catholics or Mormons are Christians—just mentioning that it’s generally accepted to be ok to attack them)
6. Republicans
7. Conservatives
8. Red-staters (what a bunch of hicks)
9. Anyone who doesn’t live in a big city (see #8)
10. The Irish
11. The French
12. Asians (for being so smart—but why that’s an insult I don’t know)
13. SUV drivers
14. Blondes
15. Men
16. Pro-lifers (as closed-minded—also not trying to start a debate here)I’m sure there are more. These are just a few I thought of quickly.
Just on the midnight news here: “Demonstrators” in Teheran burning various flags in front of the Austrian (not a typo) embassy, and shouting “Death to Germany” and “Death to England”, according to the voiceover. This stuff is rapidly descending into self-parody…can’t they just come out and say what they’re really thinking, which is “Death to everyone who’s not like us”?
what they’re really thinking, which is “Death to everyone who’s not like us”
Why should garbage like that be left to unchecked? The reason people like Atta did what they did was because for the previous 30 years, every time some camel pestering nut bag threatened America, the media and political elite did nothing and were content with the old “It’s just rhetoric” excuse.
IMO, the frigging Danish airforce should have napalmed that crowd in Beirut with super-heated Jarlsberg.
#40 “Part of the reason so many of them are abjectly miserable and angry is that they do want it (the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), but aren’t allowed to have it.”
So they want to make sure nobody else is allowed to have it either. It’s like the communist outcome - we must all be equally poor.
‘Pakistani medicos boycott Euro drugs in protest at cartoons’
Damn. That could throw off Mark Steyn’s predictions, if it catches on…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 06 at 08:45 PM • permalink...the media and political elite did nothing and were content with the old “It’s just rhetoric” excuse.
Actually I meant the Islamist protesters should come out and say what they’re really thinking. Call me oldfashioned, but I watch the news for the news, not for readymade reinterpretation of what in fact happened, even if I might agree with that reinterpretation. If they’re idiotically shouting “Death to Germany” in front of the Austrian embassy, that’s what I want to know, not what the newscaster thinks might have happened.
I am not sure of Tim ever linked to this Hugh Hewitt interview. But the thoughts of Pope Benedict, albeit secondhand, seem to provide an explanation for the current irrational reaction to the cartoons.
Well, the thesis that was proposed by this scholar was that Islam can enter into the modern world if the Koran is reinterpreted by taking the specific legislation, and going back to the principles, and then adapting it to our times, especially with the dignity that we ascribe to women, which has come through Christianity, of course. And immediately, the Holy Father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said well, there’s a fundamental problem with that, because he said in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it’s an eternal word. It’s not Mohammed’s word. It’s there for eternity the way it is. There’s no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism’s completely different, that God has worked through His creatures. And so, it is not just the word of God, it’s the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He’s used His human creatures, and inspired them to speak His word to the world, and therefore by establishing a Church in which he gives authority to His followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there’s an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations. I was…I mean, Hugh, I wish I could say it as clearly and as beautifully as he did, but that’s why he’s Pope and I’m not, okay? That’s one of the reasons. One of others, but his seeing that distinction when the Koran, which is seen as something dropped out of Heaven, which cannot be adapted or applied, even, and the Bible, which is a word of God that comes through a human community, it was stunning.
Simply put the argument is that Islam is prescriptive. There is no room for debate or entertaining interpretation, let alone criticism.
Ahmed doesn’t seem to get that bombings and the tsunami actually happened and left real victims, whereas the holiness of Mohammed and Islam are nothing more than unsubstantiated beliefs.
Posted by Stone Cold on 2006 02 06 at 09:33 PM • permalinkMany comments above ignore Tim’s point in publishing Ahmed’s letter.
When a comment makes a statement like ‘Islam is this’ or ‘Muslims are that’, the writer dismisses every muslim that ISN’T in fact supporting those generalised comments. This is not fair; it’s like the fever swamp liberals slagging every gun owner as a potential mass murderer, every white male as a potential Timothy McVeigh, and every Vietnam vet as a baby-killer.
Personally I join Tim in thanking Ahmend for his letter, while disagreeing with some of the views in it.
I also think that as the liberal media are proven effective in guiding the talking points of terrorists, we RWDBs equally can build up the position of the majority Muslims that do not support indiscriminate murder by not p*ssing on their feet like some of those comments above.
Now there’s a tactical-looking definition-of-convenience if I ever saw one. Since when do insults have to be “false”?
You’re right that the dictionary definition of insult doesn’t mention falsity, but while the truth can hurt, I don’t think a hurtful truth is all that disrespectful.
In other words, if I say something that is true, and you take it as an insult, I don’t think the problem is with me.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 02 06 at 11:13 PM • permalink#39: Zhang Fei -
Then, if I take your meaning correctly, what you’re saying is that the Muslim is moved to violence not because he sees the ridicule of his religion as a threat to his own self-esteem, but because a violent response is simply a theological imperative of Islam, faith in which is essentially “bred in the bone”. That’s a fair point. But I still think that feelings of psychological, political or even (as Rushdie has opined) sexual inadequacy dovetail rather neatly with the dictates of a triumphalist religion, providing the believer with the additional animus required to engage so willingly in acts of violence.
Kudos to Ahmed for at least trying to debate the issues. Many of his points have already been addressed.
Regarding his call for respect. After vilifying Jews he says
“but still we do not disrespect them or ther religion, but their belief-”
So Ahmed, you do disrespect them. You disrespect them for their belief.
And later:
“We as Muslims respect these prophets not for respect for Christians or Jews…”
So Ahmed, your respect the prophets adopted my Islam but do not respect the Christians or Jews.( I will leave it to a Christian to say whether it is insulting for Jesus to be relegated to a second string prophet.)
As to media reports of “protesters” and “demonstrators” - call them what they are: criminal rioters.
As to Denmark launching an air strike with super-heated Jarlsberg ( which is Norwegian cheese), surely part of the point of this whole debate is that the Danes are too civilised to consider using violence to prove a point.
As long as the outraged muslims dont mistake the ‘Australian Embassy’ for the ‘Austrian Embassy’ things’ll be sweet.
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 02 07 at 02:15 AM • permalinkAhmed: Can it be that you do not know about the vicious anti-Semitic cartoons that have been coming from Muslim countries for years? Have you not heard Muslim ‘clerics’ calling Jews ‘monkeys’ and ‘sons of swine’? Have you not heard and read the insults directed at Christianity and other religions by Muslim ‘clerics’? No?
When we see Muslims rioting in opposition to the murderous terrorists in their midst; when we see Muslims rioting about the worldwide slaughter in the name of Allah; when we see Muslims rioting about the things that matter - then we perhaps we will believe your protests.
Until that time - please dont insult our intelligence.
#57. Dandrew, As a catholic (and as a christian lol), the Islamic teachings that Jesus is not the Son of God and did not die on the cross are blasphemous and most offensive.
That said, I couldn’t be bothered taking it personally, because it’s up to God to deal with it later. I can let it slide and not lose sleep.
It’s when muslims start making an issue of my beliefs and telling me what I should be thinking and saying that I start getting antsy.
And that goes for the scientologists, the mormons, the protestants, the hindus, the nazis, pretty damn near anybody.
By all means, dunk the crucified Christ in a jar of urine and call it art - I find that grossly offensive and beyond the pale, but I’ll just boycott it. Mr Cerrano can sort it out in the Hereafter with the Boss.
Expect me to pay for it or go and see it in a gallery and you’ve got another think coming. Won’t happen.
Right about now, I’m happy to turn the other cheek - the one with “Bite me” on it.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 02 07 at 03:18 AM • permalinkAhmed, if we assume that all Muslims are peaceful, respectful of each other, tolerant of others and their religions, never riot or kill or maim others, and just want to be left alone. If all those and the many other issues were off the board, it’s still about freedom of speech. You telling me what I may or may not think, talk, draw, or write about. That is more offensive to me than any possible way you can mock me or my religion. Regards
#53 ChrisPer: I also think that as the liberal media are proven effective in guiding the talking points of terrorists, we RWDBs equally can build up the position of the majority Muslims that do not support indiscriminate murder by not p*ssing on their feet like some of those comments above.
Well, I’m sorry to say, but I find the quoted letter by Ahmed still pretty repugnant in its undercurrent of Jew-hatred and the complete denial of objective reality, and I don’t feel compelled in the least to support that guy’s position just because he writes well and because there are other Muslims who hold even worse beliefs. If that guy is indicative of that “Muslim majority” you refer to, then thanks for nothing.
with regard to the quote that muslims feel insecure about their faith, i dont believe that that is the issue.. i believe and know from personal experienece that the real problem is a lack of listening ears. i dont agree with violence and neither does islam. islamically u cant burn down embassies, or kill civilians. while westerners may have lost a sense of loyalty to their faith, muslims believe strongly in defending islam when it is seen to be ridiculed. far from feeling insecure they r voicing their loyalty.. in the wrong way.
and as for islam oppressing women.. pfft.. how come im on the net? y have i got equal rights with all my family members? y can i go out when i want? its not islam that oppresses women, it may be a “muslim” country, but who said their laws were islams laws???
Posted by proud2be@muslimah on 2006 02 07 at 09:02 AM • permalinkYou did imply that we ought to “build up the position of the majority Muslims”, presumably like Ahmed. I’m simply saying I have no interest at all in building up his position because “slightly less unpalatable than the guys who burn embassies” simply doesn’t cut it. Show me a Muslim who manages to cut out the casual Jew-hatred from his thought processes and manages to acknowledge those pesky Facts On The Ground, and maybe then I’ll be interested.
PS…The reason it doesn’t cut it is the following: As long as “moderate” Muslims spend more time defending themselves against the evil-and-oh-so-wrong accusations by non-Muslims rather than being proactive and doing something about the murderers in their midst, it’s very hard to shake the impression that the fundamentalists are merely the convenient footsoldiers for the “moderates” such as Ahmed who don’t need to get their own hands dirty that way. And the fact that he’s mostly mouthing the same viewpoints in his letter that I can get from any run-of-the-mill fire-breathing imam only reenforces that impression.
If you’re naive enough to believe that the difference between Ahmed and the embassy burners is one of kind, and not merely one of degree, you haven’t been paying attention the last 4 years.
the real problem is a lack of listening ears.
And just whose ears would those be? And listening to to what?
i dont agree with violence and neither does islam. islamically u cant burn down embassies, or kill civilians.
And yet Muslims just keep doing those very things. In droves, and to very little censure, let alone actual opposition, from the alleged silent moderate Muslim majority.
while westerners may have lost a sense of loyalty to their faith, muslims believe strongly in defending islam when it is seen to be ridiculed. far from feeling insecure they r voicing their loyalty.. in the wrong way.
That’s the exact point we’e trying to get across, P2B. They’re voicing their loyalty in the wrong way because they feel insecure in their faith. You, secure in your faith, don’t feel the need to murder any and everyone who expresses a view contrary to (or simply different from) it. You can handle the fact that other people have found other answers. They can’t.
and as for islam oppressing women.. pfft.. how come im on the net?
Because you don’t live in Afghanistan under the Taliban? (A fact you can thank George W. Bush for, btw). Because you’re not one of the millions of women in Africa variously suffering oppression, outright slavery, and often genital mutilation courtesy of Islam? Because you haven’t been killed by a male relative to ‘restore the family honor’ after a guy looked at you the wrong way?
Rob Crawford 54
You’re right that the dictionary definition of insult doesn’t mention falsity, but while the truth can hurt, I don’t think a hurtful truth is all that disrespectful.
Is a hurtful truth more disprespectful, or less disrespectful, than a hurtful fib? I persist in my semantic quibble, in. re. yr post #1 above, that the truthfulness of an insult is independent of its disrespectfulness. That IS a semantic quibble purely, because your main point in post #1 is one with which I agree.
In other words, if I say something that is true, and you take it as an insult, I don’t think the problem is with me.
It kind of depends on how you present it.
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 07 at 04:03 PM • permalinkAchmed argues in his letter:.” Say if someone drew cartoons about the Bali bombings, making fun of the dead.”
Woops, see bali dead + lamb cutlets
This exhibition of art included one piece showing our Bali dead as a plate of raw lamb cutlets. It was in a NSW-government funded art gallery . (pursue the links to find the actual painting
There was not one demonstration or riot. The show ran until it expired. If this isn’t tolerance (as distinct from approval)
I don’t know what is.A sensitive touch in England was the suicide bomber imitator - Sure the family and friends of 7/7 victims felt great empathy.
A lesson here for future suicide bombers in England: Openly wear your bomb to a protest, and the authorities will assume it’s part of the protest and turn a blind eye, allowing you to get closer to your target than you might be able to if you tried to conceal your activities.
Actually, I’m surprised that terrorists have not already tried something like that. They must not have been paying attention to the lesson from actions by organisations and individuals including Fathers 4 Justice , Greenpeace, and Aaron Barschak: That the British police and security services are powerless in the face of people wearing stupid costumes and/or carrying banners.
Here is some good news though: It turns out that Mr Fake Suicide Bomber served time for drug dealing (Islam frowns on drug use, doesn’t it?), and his actions violated the terms of his parole, so he’s going straight back to jail.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
No insult—being defined as a false, defamatory statement—can make a truly great man small. What the Muslims are trying to suppress are the true statements about Mohammed that make it clear he was not a great man.