…but I think this is what Maha and her ilk are inadvertently getting behind when they claim themselves to be “intolerant of intolerance.”
Though Maha and other progressive crusaders bent on ridding the world of the scourge of “giving offense” — being the civilized sort — would likely choose a pen rather than a sword, and would of course happily donate a quarter of any “bounty” they collected to, say, the Edwards campaign. Provided the donation was tax deductible.
But that’s just a difference in style, isn’t it?
(via RWS; see also, Don Surber)
The Danish cartoons were, generally, funny and not demeaning to Islam and Mohammed.
Their original publishing in Jyllands Posten didn’t cause much furor, until a (radical type) Danish Imam took them (and reportedly some disgusting Mohammed drawings that didn’t appear in the paper) around the Middle East some months later.
At that point, following INTENTIONAL incitement, all hell broke loose.
The Swedish case is different in that it seems like the artist, Mr. Vilks, went out of his way to make an insulting drawing.
Social activists offend me every day, but they would consider themselves quite abused if they were punished for it.
Social reformer: he who demonstrates his love for humanity by tormenting his contemporaries.
From the Timesonline link:
“Islam forbids as idolatry any depiction of Muhammad…”
Ole Mo’s been depicted a lot over the centuries.
And, near as I can tell, nobody rioted over his depiction.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2468964.ece
These types of things point out the fundamental difference between Islam and Chistianity. A cartoon about Mohammed leads to a bounty being placed on someone’s head and riots. Piss and shit on a picture of Christ, some evil Southern Baptist spinster will write a letter to the editor of her local paper.
JD
I think some Muslims (especially in Europe) are intentionally using stuff like the cartoon depictions to call for more repression of speech and laws on the books against “insulting” religion.
Al Qaradawi has issued a fatwa for such kinds of laws in Europe.
IOW, there’s more to these cartoon flaps (and other flaps) than meets the eye.
Some orchestration.
Here is a link to the text of the fatwa.
As well as you can see the Swedish cartoon.
http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2007/09/swedish_artist_forced_into_hid_1.php#commentForm
Rantburg had a post about this yesterday. It was posted under the correct, but nondescript, title Meanwhile, in Bizarro world…:
They followed that with some blather about the need to de-link religions and “extremist terrorism”, the usual stuff.
But the core of it is this — the Muslim world does not want us talking about their faith, their actions, and how the two are linked. They’ve realized the way to bring this about is to guilt-trip the weak-minded among us.
“They’ve realized the way to bring this about is to guilt-trip the weak-minded among us.”
Seems to be working.
I suppose in the best of all possible worlds, I’d be taking moral direction from Ayatollah Khomeini, who, reportedly had some “interesting” fatwas regarding sex with animals and rules about deriving sexual pleasure from infants.
Of course, following the example of “The Prophet”, marriage at age 9 would be permissible, as well.
And how could I leave out one of my favoUrite websites for one branch of Islam ?
You want PATHOLOGY ?
Read some under”peculiar personal problems…” (esp. “cleaning”)
http://anwary-islam.com/index.htm
Mohammed Atta himself was something of a fetishist.
His diary (or the post-apocalypse writings he left behind) directed that no pregnant woman should touch his dead body.
(not to mention, there was no dead body to touch)
Osama bin laden (aka “the purist”) reportedly turned his head away when his sister (or sister in law) answered the door unveiled when Osama dropped by.
Dr. (Mengele) Zawahiri reportedly would bring back mandatory female circumcision in any “Islamic state” he succeeded in establishing.
Every day in mosques in Great Britain the “truth” of female inferiority is drummed into the heads of potential suicide bombers.
This kind of weird stuff is more important to “understanding” these creeps than most people are willing to admit.
(adios)
Did you see that guy’s picture? My first thought was, “Dude, cut back on the Meth!”
Seriously this idea of widespread outrage at Muhammed depictions is a relatively recent phenomenon. I couldn’t find it at IMDb but there was a movie made about Muhammed in the late sixties or early seventies starring Anthony Quinn (of course!) I remember some small Middle Eastern complaints about Muhammed being portrayed by an actor (even though his face is never shown and no credit was given to the actor) but no world wide riots, burnings or other nasties. The current twitchy outrage is a progression of the Qutb/Muslim Brotherhood/Khomeini escalation of “western outrage against Islam.” It is a most convenient presentation of the Wahabbi view of idolatry that the Iranians adopted as a visible outrage maker (even though Shia has a history of icons and symbols.)
Muhammed graces many public buildings, artworks and literature all over the world beacuse most Muslims aren’t the least bit concerned. Even CAIR hasn’t attempted to have the visage of Muhammed removed from The Supreme Court Building!
It’s one big jihadist publicity/recruitment/victimization/guilt mongering game.
*Piss and shit on a picture of Christ, some evil Southern Baptist spinster will write a letter to the editor of her local paper.*
Similar to the contrast of how Christians and Muslims react to homosexuality – christians can love the sinner, hate the sin and oppose gay marriage, whereas more radical muslims cut through all that BS in the middle and just behead the sinner.
But Christians are the extremists.
Well, Matt, Rosie Gravy Stains said that this is the first time in history that fire has melted a Christian.
……
Or was it that we have real problem with steel radicals in this country?
Free radicals?
I’ll get back to you…
https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=9843#comment-247896
Well put.
“The North Frieze on the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC features a bas-relief sculpture of Mohammed, among several other historical law-givers.
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/misc_mo/
And scroll down for some other images of the dude over the centuries.
“…whereas more radical muslims cut through all that BS in the middle and just behead the sinner.”
Actually, there are two punishments for the homosexual in, I believe, the Koran.
1) You can cause a bldg. to fall on him; or 2) you can throw him over a cliff.
Beheading is for adultery and maybe stuff like being Jewish, like what happened to Daniel Pearl.
But I think in Saudi Arabia the adulter-ESS is buried up to her neck and her head is stoned and the adulter-ER is shot in the head.
Something like that It’s hard to keep up with all these fine points of “justice”.
Thinking on it, Mohammed had a lot more cachet in the world, more respect, before all these crazed morons of today started “defending” The Prophet.
“You want PATHOLOGY ?
Read some underâ€Âpeculiar personal problems…†(esp. “cleaningâ€Â)”
The acceptable way to clean oneself after pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia. That is beyond just being fucked up, words really fail me after that.
tanstaafl and B Moe – I have not clicked on that link, nor do I intend to. Please tell me you are just kidding about how to properly cleanse oneself after pedophilia, beastiality, or necrophilia. Please. The only proper way I could imagine to cleanse myself after ass raping a dead baby goat would be to strap on a suicide vest and kill me some Jooooooooooooooos. Obviously, I jest. Good Allah, that is sick.
Nope, it is all right there. I have been a staunch supporter and defender of moderate Muslems, and trying to keep them separate from the jihadists and knuckledragging savages, but if they don’t start doing something to clean up their religion they are going to lose me. And I don’t think I will be alone.
No JD it was just about “cleaning” in general, not after acts with animals and dead people and so forth.
It’s a separate topic than things like Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwas having to do with what happens to the camel or the cow after you’ve had your way with the poor beasts.
I cited it as an example of the depths of obsession in some practices of some branches of Islam.
Dude,
“RULES REGARDING BATH
6 : If the male organ is inserted into the private part of an animal or a dead person or a minor girl who is not fit for sexual intercourse. then bath will not be necessary without discharge of semen.”
http://anwary-islam.com/life/men_wonem_wudu.htm
Now I am going to go take a shower.
Those crazy dead baby camel fuckers !!! Good Allah, surely Big Mo is rolling over in his heavenly grave, eating a fig, shaking his head at his harem of virgins, and trying to figure out what the fuck to do with these crazy fuckers. That is some really sick shit.
My mistake.
I haven’t read about “wudu” in awhile.
This should be mandatory reading for all of the terrorist sympathizers.
Again, “anwary” is a sect, I don’t know how widespread the practices are.
I tried to drag out of a Muslim “blogger” from Britain whether or not (following the rules of “wudu”) he wears his hat and shoes when taking a leak :-)
But he wasn’t forthcoming, imagine that !
It’s likely not correct to ascribe those “wudu” practices to Islam in general, but they’ve got some pretty weird rules.
Like “rulings” can be made by recognized Ayatollahs on pretty insignificant stuff…indicating the obsessive and co-dependent aspects of Islam.
(buenas noches)
#’s 3,4, & 7 under Wudu are fairly humorous? When in the world is a stick required to push the anus back in place?
“Similar to the contrast of how Christians and Muslims react to homosexuality – christians can love the sinner, hate the sin and oppose gay marriage, whereas more radical muslims cut through all that BS in the middle and just behead the sinner.”
Cutting to the chase by using Achmed’s Razor, eh?