Cartoon Riot.

[Lonesome Cowboy Bill]

so when is it all about respect? Seems kinda petty for a an almighty God whether ink on paper symbolized to represent something justifies murder.. hmm...

 

 

but I notice lately Dawood has been quoting so-called Muslim scholars. didn't he say before that the Koran written in ancient Arabic is the only word of god and anyone who interprets it falsifies God? With that reasoning anything any sheik or iman says it really just a human saying his own agenda...

 

 

so this really has nothing to do with Islam, rather it is political/religious leaders afraid of their mases questioning the validity of their power, eh?

[Flavicon]

They are insecure, they know that they don't stand a chance to the forces of secular culture. I am sure they will gain more power, much like Hamas in palestine, but it will not last for long. Like the far right in this country, the fanatics are in their last throws. Give em about five years and the fire that burns in their belly's will be doused by the waters of reason. It won't be hard. Television and western media does a fine job of this. The children of Islam don't stand a chance.

 

 

 

Sex, drugs, & Rock and Roll bitches

[Ishbel Bullen]

its just people who want an excuse for violence really. i mean im pretty sure that HAMAS, etc. have published cartoons of the holocaust and you dont see us going apeshit

[Dawood]

Originally posted by Lonesome Cowboy Bill@Feb 13 2006, 10:00 PM

so when is it all about respect? Seems kinda petty for a an almighty God whether ink on paper symbolized to represent something justifies murder.. hmm...

 

 

but I notice lately Dawood has been quoting so-called Muslim scholars. didn't he say before that the Koran written in ancient Arabic is the only word of god and anyone who interprets it falsifies God? With that reasoning anything any sheik or iman says it really just a human saying his own agenda...

 

 

so this really has nothing to do with Islam, rather it is political/religious leaders afraid of their mases questioning the validity of their power, eh?

Quoted post

 

No, anyone who interprets the Quran in a way other than the way the prophet Muhammad interpreted it lies on God.

Nobody becomes a sheikh without knowledge. The scholars have something called "ijmaa" meaning whatever the majority of them agree on based on clear evidence from the quran and the way of the prophet Muhammad , then the muslims accept it generally.

We don't follow humans beings. We follow what is in the quran and the authentic traditions of the prophet. And if anyone comes saying something different than that, then it is rejected.

[Dawood]

Originally posted by Ishbel Bullen@Feb 14 2006, 01:11 AM

its just people who want an excuse for violence really.  i mean im pretty sure that HAMAS, etc. have published cartoons of the holocaust and you dont see us going apeshit

Quoted post

The cartoons controversy is not about freedom of expression. It is about how a segment of European society views religion in general and Islam in particular.

 

Western 'liberals' who have chosen to defend the vilification of the Prophet Muhammad in caricatures that first appeared in a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, in September 2005 and which were subsequently reproduced in various dailies in a number of other countries, argue that their media are free to publish anything and do not impose restrictions upon themselves. This is not true at all. Elite and corporate interests, the dominant worldview prevalent in society, certain notions of the well-being of the majority and specific circumstances have always conditioned the freedom of the media.

 

Double Standards

 

Isn't it because of elite interests that in a democracy like Italy where the majority of the people were opposed to the invasion of Iraq very few anti-war intellectuals were interviewed in the mainstream print and electronic media? Isn't it because of a worldview that is skeptical of Islam that almost every newspaper editorial in France --- the nation that gave birth to the 'Rights of Man' --- bemoaned the electoral victory of the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria in 1992 and endorsed obliquely the usurpation of power by the military junta? Isn't it because of a specific circumstance Ã? a deep seated collective guilt arising from the holocaust --- that the European media hounds and harasses anyone who dares to raise even the slightest doubt about that terrible tragedy?

 

What this shows is that there are issues that the Western media deliberately suppress --- in spite of their professed commitment to freedom of expression --- because they do not dovetail with the media's worldview or their interests.

 

Secularism in the West

 

It so happens that religion is one of those subjects that is at odds with the worldview of a lot of Western media practitioners. Often vehemently secular in outlook, sometimes contemptuous of matters of faith, they have no qualms about deriding the Sacred and the Transcendent. It is not surprising therefore that Christianity has been lambasted at some time or other in almost every major European newspaper and, on numerous occasions, Jesus Christ has been lampooned in films, cartoons and articles. This has caused grievous hurt to practicing Christians in the continent.

 

It is partly because of this attitude towards religion in general on the part of the media that Islam has also been targeted. But the vilification of Islam is also a consequence of other factors. With the dramatic growth of Muslim minorities in almost every European country in the last 20 years, the majority community has become more and more negative towards their presence, reflected in the rise of the phenomenon known as Islamophobia. While a degree of Muslim exclusivity has contributed towards this, it is the utter inability of the European to accord respect and equality to 'the other' in the socio-psychological sense which is the main problem. In an earlier period Jews had also been the victims of Europe's discrimination and demonization.

 

Stereotyping of Islam & Muslims

 

There is perhaps a more important reason for the demonization of the religion. It is the baneful impact of 911 and the war on terror upon Muslims and their subtle stereotyping in the media as a people prone to violence. Though most Western political leaders are careful to distinguish the Muslim fringe that resorts to violence in pursuit of its political objectives from the rest of the community, television images and media commentaries have often reinforced the erroneous equation of the religion with terror. It explains why some of the offensive cartoons of the Prophet published in the Jyllands-Posten made that link.

 

Equating Islam and Muslims with violence and terror is not new. It has been going on for a thousand years. It began with distorted and perverted biographies of the Prophet in Latin in France and Germany in the tenth and eleventh centuries and has continued into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries through the writings of men like Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes.

 

Historical Anger

 

In the past, Islam was equated with violence partly because of the anger and antagonism generated by both the Muslim conquest of large parts of Europe and the defeat of Christendom at the hands of Muslim defenders of Jerusalem at the end of the crusades. The power and glory of Islamic civilization between the eighth and fourteenth centuries --- especially its pioneering role as the founder of modern science --- when much of Europe was shrouded in the darkness of the middle ages also caused a great deal of envy and resentment which European folk literature expressed through negative stereotyping of Islam and Muslims. This stereotyping with the emphasis upon 'Islamic violence' reached its zenith during the colonial epoch when Western powers ruled the roost.

 

Oil & Zionism

 

It is not just the residue of this huge historical baggage that colors Western perceptions of the Muslim world today. It is significant that it was when certain Muslim states began to exercise control over their oil from the early seventies onwards, thus challenging the Western grip over this vital commodity, that pejorative portrayals of Arabs and Muslims became rife in the mainstream Western media. Similarly, as Zionist influence over the critical sectors of American society increased and the Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation intensified in the sixties, the American media accelerated its imaging of 'Muslim terror.' It is undeniably true that the politics of Israel and oil has been at the root of much of the stereotyping of the religion and its adherents in recent times.

 

Role of Media

 

Since the politics of Israel and oil is entrenched within a global hegemonic structure of power, it is doubtful that the mainstream Western media will cease to equate Islam with violence in the near future. For the media themselves are part of this hegemony. This is why one has to depend upon the alternative media and dissident civil society actors to present a balanced perspective on how the religion views violence and what the historical record has been on this score.

 

Bridge-Building

 

It is encouraging that there have always been non-Muslim writers in the past as in the present, from Wolfgang Goethe to Karen Armstrong, who have attempted to provide an honest picture of Islam to the public. It is bridge-builders of their kind who are crucial for inter-civilizational harmony between Islam and the West.

 

Unfortunately, most Muslims are not aware of the work of these bridge-builders. What they have been witnessing especially in the last few years are the stark consequences of global hegemony reflected in the slaughter of innocent Muslims in Palestine and Iraq; in the humiliation of occupation and subjugation; in the treachery of double standards; in the machinations of exclusion and marginalization. It explains to a great extent the explosion of violent fury in different parts of the Muslim world over the abusive caricaturing of the Prophet. It is anger that is driven by more than their boundless love for Muhammad.

 

Violent protest is not the way

 

However, what the cartoon protesters do not realize is that by resorting to violence they have unwittingly reinforced the worst prejudices of those detractors of Islam who are only too willing to link the religion to terror. Peaceful protest would have served the cause of Islam better. Such protest calls for a certain degree of restraint. It is true that in some of the protests Muslims have shown remarkable control over their emotions. But it should have been the norm.

 

After all, when the Prophet was hurled with abuse and taunted with insults --- even when he was physically attacked --- he displayed tremendous restraint. Surely, the least that those who are protesting in his name can do is to try to emulate his example.

[Dawood]

The following audio link is a recent Jumu'ah Khutbah, in English, at Masjid as-Salafi in Birmingham UK.

 

The sermon explains:

 

 

 

The exalted character and nobility of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

 

Why Muslims are so offended at the mockery of the Prophet.

 

That Muslims find the mockery of ANY Prophet unacceptable.

 

The media has no right to slander and lie upon the Messengers.

 

The Messenger was no terrorist!

 

Shaykh Rabee’ bin Haadi’s response to the caricatures.

 

Freedom of speech gone too far and double standards.

 

Street demonstrations are not from Islaam and not a means of rectification.

 

Burning down of embassies is not Jihaad!

 

 

 

CLICK HERE:

 

SalafiAudio.com :: Love of the Messenger and his Defense

 

 

 

OR GOTO:

 

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sad/...scn=dl&LeID=136

 

 

 

****there is an arabic introduction at the beginning but it goes into english.

[Flavicon]

"The media has no right to slander and lie upon the Messengers."

 

Actually, it does

[Dawood]

WHO GAVE IT THAT RIGHT?

[Milton]

My take is this:

1) The liberals loved Islam. They were very pro-Paltestine, anti-Israel. They hate that globalization is encroaching on the Middle East. They love falafal, etc.

2) The protestors are now dividing the "liberal" camp between those with libertarian leanings and those with more "bleeding heart" stances by striking out against freedom of speech. With the libertarian lefties going with the papers and the bleeding hearts going with "cultural sensitivity."

3) This is kind of stupid because the liberals were their strongest supporters in the Western World. The right never really supported Islam. Now, half the left is dropping them. They're causing their own problems... Mark my words. (No, thats not a threat.)

[Guest WHOWHAT]

hmmmmmmmmmm

[lord_casek]

http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/

 

 

 

 

In the middle of all the mayhem surrounding the Danish cartoons controversy, a group of Arab and Muslim youth have set up this website to express their honest opinion, as a small attempt to show the world that the images shown of Arab and Muslim anger around the world are not representative of the opinions of all Arabs. We whole-heartedly apologize to the people of Denmark, Norway and all the European Union over the actions of a few, and we completely condemn all forms of vandalism and incitement to violence that the Arab and Muslim world have witnessed. We hope that this sad episode will not tarnish the great friendship that our peoples have fostered over decades.

 

 

 

The problem with media representation of such issues tends to be that the media only picks up the loudest voices, ignoring the rational ones that do not generate as much noise. Voices that seek tolerance, dialogue and understanding are always drowned out by the more sensationalist loud calls, giving viewers the impression that these views are representative of all the Arab public’s view. This website is a modest attempt at redressing this wrong. We would appreciate it if you could forward the word to as many of your friends as possible.

 

 

 

We will note that we find the cartoons to be incendiary, insulting and very abrasive. We also take issue with the general stance of the Danish Newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which has a reputation for publishing inflammatory material. Yet, it would be wrong to take away their freedom of expression, regardless of how horrid their material is. We affirm our belief in freedom of expression and people’s right to express whatever opinions they hold. However, at the same time there is a need to realize that freedom of expression is a responsibility that should not be used to gratuitously insult people’s beliefs.

 

 

 

When confronted with such a situation, we deplore the use of violence in all its forms, as well as threats of violence and derogatory and racist remarks being thrown in the opposite direction. We condemn the shameful actions carried out by a few Arabs and Muslims around the world that have tarnished our image, and presented us as intolerant and close-minded bigots.

 

 

 

Anyone offended by the content of a publication has a vast choice of democratic and respectful methods of seeking redress. The most obvious are not buying the publication, writing letters to the editor or expressing their opinions in other venues. It is also possible to use one’s free choice in a democracy to conduct a boycott of the publication, and even a boycott of firms dealing with it. Yet an indiscriminate boycott of all the country’s firms is simply uncalled for and counter-productive. We would be allowing the extremists on both sides to prevail, while punishing the government and the whole population for the actions of an unrepresentative irresponsible few.

 

 

 

We apologize whole-heartedly to the people of Norway and Denmark for any offense this sorry episode may have caused, to any European who has been harassed or intimidated, to the staff of the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish Embassies in Syria whose workplace has been destroyed and for any distress this whole affair may have caused to anyone.

 

 

 

There is a strong tradition of friendship and cooperation between the Norwegian and Danish people and Arab people. Of most note is the continued support that these governments give to the Palestinian people in their struggle for freedom and liberation, and the brave stance that these governments have often taken to defend Palestinian rights. We sincerely hope these special bonds will not be broken. We hope that our Scandinavian friends would not be convinced by the actions of a few to believe that this is how Arabs and Muslims feel about them. There are racists, bigots and criminals in all countries, and it is the duty of the respectful and reasonable to reach out to each other.

 

 

 

Let us hope that instead of emboldening the bigots, this sorry affair will bring all open-minded, tolerant and reasonable people from the Arab, Muslim, Norwegian, Danish and European communities together to unite in a continued struggle of reason against prejudice, open-mindedness against bigotry and humanity against racism.

[Dawood]

thats exactly what I've been saying. There is no excuse for violence and rioting for this, but , on an individual level (not to defend the rioters) , but, if someone depicted one of your mothers in a way that you found offensive, and after you asked (in a nonviolent way) for that person to apologise and make amends for disrespecting your mother, how many of you wouldn't clock someone who was in your face taunting you about the disprespectful comments about your mother?

 

I'm not saying it's the right and moral thing to do, but how many of you wouln't clock him?

[Flavicon]

that analogy is very silly.

[Dawood]

silly or not, I'm just trying to simplify things so you understand what's going on. answer the question, would you clock him?

 

also, you have to understand that the reason the muslims in some regions of the world react violently when something like this happens is because of the enviroment of oppressive, violent regimes and occupied nations that they've lived in for generations. People in the middle east have not had the luxury of living in the comfort zone of America where we just watch the news and destruction on TV, they actually live that mayhem that you watch while chilling on your couch eating cheeto's . It has nothing to do with what Islam teaches them to do. The prophets endured insults during their times and they didn't react with violence.

 

 

the prophet Muhammad said

 

"Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should only say what is good or keep quiet, and whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should not hurt (or insult) his neighbor; and whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, should entertain his guest generously." -Bukhari

 

Allah's Apostle neither talked in an insulting manner nor did he ever speak evil intentionally. He used to say, "The most beloved to me amongst you is the one who has the best character and manners."

-Bukhari

 

But Allah said about their insults

 

And never came a Messenger to them but they did mock him. (Al-Hijr 15:11)

 

Al-An'am - 6:5

Indeed, they rejected the truth (the Qur'an and Muhammad SAW)when it came to them, but there will come to them the news of that (the torment) which they used to mock at. (Al-An'am 6:5)

 

And indeed (many) Messengers were mocked before you, but their scoffers were surrounded by the very thing that they used to mock at. (Al-An'am 6:10)

 

And indeed (many) Messengers were mocked at before you (O Muhammad SAW), but I granted respite to those who disbelieved, and finally I punished them. Then how (terrible) was My Punishment! (Ra'd 13:32)

[Flavicon]

if my mother was a prominent figure like, say, HIlary Clinton or Mother Terresa or something like that then...

 

OF COURSE NOT YOU FUCKING MEATHEAD!

 

* edit

 

if they were LITERALLY in my face, then maybe, but not just for talking smack.

[Flavicon]

if i went outside and some guy ran up to me and was all up in my grill talkin smack about my mom, then yeah, I'd do somethin.

 

but your analogy is still dumb

 

Mouhammad is not your moma

 

(at least I hope not)

[Milton]

It's not that I think Moslems are violent as a group. In fact, I have many a Moslem friend. But when large groups burn things down and other Moslems try to justify the conduct saying "I don't condone it, but it's understandable," it makes all Moslems seem like they are prone to violence. This combined with the fact that many Arabs hold the view that they can or should try to convert as much of the world as possible further perpetuates the image of the Muslim invader. The problem here is that the culture that the Muslim world represents (religion centered, communitarian, moralistic) is at odds with the Western, especially European culture (secular, individualistic, amoral). The Western World does not want to convert, just as the Muslim world does not want to be "encroached on."

[Milton]

There is a difference between face-to-face insults aimed at inciting violence and a newspaper publishing something you find offensive. I hope Allah has more of a sense of humor than you all make him out to or heaven has got to be one boring place...

[Flavicon]

***

[lord_casek]

i really wonder if this hasn't been used as propaganda to incite muslims to

violence?

 

it was published four months ago.

 

it was also picked up by israeli papers a couple fo months ago.

 

just now we hear about it and it brings debate to the table on every tv news show on cable and air?

 

what the fuck?

[!@#$%]

Originally posted by Dawood@Feb 14 2006, 10:45 AM

thats exactly what I've been saying. There is no excuse for violence and rioting for this,

 

, but, if someone depicted one of your mothers in a way that you found offensive, and after you asked (in a nonviolent way) for that person to apologise and make amends for disrespecting your mother, how many of you wouldn't clock someone who was in your face taunting you about the disprespectful comments about your mother?

 

I'm not saying it's the right and moral thing to do, but how many of you wouln't clock him?

Quoted post

 

 

hmm, so i could prove how important his views are about my mom

that i would need make him apologize, and if he didn't, then i'd fight this guy?

 

haha what kind of world do you live in?

when some asshole says my mom is a ho

and i go to him and ask him to 'make amends' ??

 

hahahaaa that is so fucking ridiculous.

 

[sarcasm]it's so difficult to even hear another opinion

much less tolerate it.[/sarcasm]

 

that's what morality is to me

living my life as i see fit

and allowing others to do the same

 

but allah knows, that shit is so wrong.

[!@#$%]

Originally posted by lord_casek@Feb 14 2006, 11:48 AM

i really wonder if this hasn't been used as propaganda to incite muslims to

violence?

 

it was published four months ago.

 

it was also picked up by israeli papers a couple fo months ago.

 

just now we hear about it and it brings debate to the table on every tv news show on cable and air?

 

what the fuck?

Quoted post

 

 

an egyptian paper published tham and it wasn't a huge problem

danish clerics kept coming back to egypt saying, but it's horrible what they are saying of islam

 

and when no one got crazy

the clerics added in more offensive cartoons, i think one included butt fucking

and then distrivuted them to the public en masse

to incite violence

[lord_casek]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=48718

 

One of three especially inflammatory but undocumented Muhammad images distributed by a Danish imam as an example of an "anti-Muslim environment" in the European country turns out to be a poorly reproduced copy of an Associated Press photo taken at a French pig-squealing contest.

 

The weblog NeanderNews pointed out the image used by Imam Ahmad Abu Laban was a faxed copy of AP's Aug. 15 photo of Jacques Barrot competing at the annual French Pig-Squealing Championships in Trie-sur-Baise.

 

Since last week, Muslims throughout the world have engaged in protests and deadly riots in response to 12 cartoons caricaturing Islam's prophet Muhammad published in September by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and three much more provocative images that Muslim leaders have been unable to document.

 

One of those images of mysterious origin, which never were published, is from the AP photo. Another depicts Muhammad as a pedophile demon and a third has a praying Muslim being raped by a dog, according to the weblog Gateway Pundit.

 

Abu Laban, leader of the Islamic Society of Denmark, took the images on a tour of the Middle East in December to rally support for his protest against the newspaper and Danish government. Tour spokesman Akhmad Akkari explained the three drawings had been added to "give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims."

 

Akkari claimed he didn't know the origin of the three images, saying they had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. But he rejected a request by the Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet to speak with the people who supposedly received them.

 

In a television interview, Abu Laban told Fox News the cartoons came from threatening letters, but he has not replied to the network's request to provide copies of the letters.

 

A profile of Abu Laban Friday night on Danish television documented his close ties to the Egyptian terrorist group Gamaa Islamiya.

 

Another program the same evening showed him speaking in English on Danish television in condemnation of the boycott of Danish goods, then, in an interview with the Middle East news channel al-Jazeera, happily remarking in Arabic about how well the boycott was going.

 

Walid Phares, senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, asked in an article published on Counterterrorism blog, "Why did it take five months for what Western media dubbed 'instant reactions to the insult' to materialize?"

 

Leaders of the Muslim community in Denmark said they attempted to resolve the matter locally by asking the newspaper or government to apologize.

 

But some analysts, Phares said, "see more of a greater agenda: taking advantage of the harm made by the pictures to impose a new political order in that Scandinavian country, and beyond."

 

Abu Laban seemed to affirm that in the interview with Fox News, which was noted by Gateway Pundit.

 

The Muslim cleric told reporter Jonathan Hunt of his demand that Danish leaders "within their abilities and competence and within the concept of dynamism of liberalism to create … a new set of rules. … "

 

Hunt: So, you want a new set of rules for the way Western Europe lives?

 

Abu Laban: Yes.

[lord_casek]

Originally posted by symbols+Feb 14 2006, 11:51 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (symbols - Feb 14 2006, 11:51 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-lord_casek@Feb 14 2006, 11:48 AM

i really wonder if this hasn't been used as propaganda to incite muslims to

violence?

 

it was published four months ago.

 

it was also picked up by israeli papers a couple fo months ago.

 

just now we hear about it and it brings debate to the table on every tv news show on cable and air?

 

what the fuck?

Quoted post

 

 

an egyptian paper published tham and it wasn't a huge problem

danish clerics kept coming back to egypt saying, but it's horrible what they are saying of islam

 

and when no one got crazy

the clerics added in more offensive cartoons, i think one included butt fucking

and then distrivuted them to the public en masse

to incite violence

Quoted post

[/b]

 

 

 

i keep wondering about this. nothing makes much sense any more.

 

[Flavicon]

Originally posted by Dawood@Feb 13 2006, 10:34 PM

WHO GAVE IT THAT RIGHT?

Quoted post

 

 

freedom gave it that right

 

 

/hahaha, sounds corny but it's true

[lord_casek]

freedoms just another word for

nothin' left to lose...

 

haha janice joplin.

she was a good drunk.

[Lonesome Cowboy Bill]

why is it that muslim countries want us to change our culture, but they at the same time are the most culturally insensitive... yeah most Americans hate seeing bitches with those viels on, but they tolerate it..but take your girl to any muslim country and try walking around in a bikini or w/o a viel or drinking beer etc etc..Good luck finding a bar and rib joint in Bagdad or Tehran...Those are both extremely multi-cultural societies except that they seem to allow nothing except muslim law...

[lord_casek]

their culture is older than ours.

 

respect.

 

 

 

there are two reasons.

[Smart]

I heard in 'the media' that this was all because of 'you people'...

[Cracked Ass]

Originally posted by Dawood@Feb 8 2006, 11:29 PM

This Scholar and former professor at the University of Madinah explains the Islamic viewpoint concerning this issue.

 

 

 

In Defense of the Prophet Muhammad

 

 

By Shaykh Rabee' ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee

 

 

Let it be known that never did Muhammad (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace), nor his righteous successors or any of his honorable companions, ever establish factories for even the most primitive of weapons, like swords and spears, let alone atomic bombs, long-range missiles, or any other weapon of mass destruction.

 

Never did Muhammad (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) build a single weapon factory.  Rather, he was sent as a mercy for the entire creation, to guide all Mankind towards happiness in their worldly lives and in their hereafter, such that they fulfill their Creator’s right upon them, for it is He who created them to worship Him alone.  Whoever rejects this is truly a criminal deserving punishment in this life and the next, by the Lord of all that exists, the Creator of this universe and its Master.

 

As for you O Westerners, claimants of civilization, you have constitutions and statutes that destroy upright moral character and permit all kinds of forbidden acts, the likes of fornication and homosexuality, as well as usury which destroys the economies of entire nations, and the eating of improperly slaughtered animals (dead meats) and pork, something that causes the loss of concern for women's values, and thus a man does not feel protective of his wife, sister, or daughter, and thus she fornicates with or intimately befriends whomever she pleases. 

 

Written by: Shaykh Rabee' ibn Haadee 'Umayr al-Madkhalee

1426/12/28 (corresponding to 2006/1/28)

 

Quoted post

 

I don't have all day to shoot holes in this guy's swollen blimp of hypocrisy, but I'll take a couple of the most obvious shots:

1. If Muhammad is such a pacifist who didn't build any sword factories, why do his defenders call for the death of the cartoonists by beheading? You need two things to chop off somebody's head: a sword, and a disregard for the words of prophets preaching nonviolence. This is maximum hypocrisy.

2. Since when does Islam give a fuck about women's values? Forcing women to hide their faces and bodies from the light of day is "something that causes loss of concern for women's values". Again, maximum hypocrisy.

3. Dude has some misconceptions about how protective we "westerners" are about our women. If somebody rapes my wife, sister, or daughter, I'll blow their fucking brains out.

 

I could go on all day with Islamic law's self-serving inconsistencies, but instead I'll address a different point. Dawood is mostly correct when he compares insulting the prophet Mohammad to jumping off a cliff: you know you'll get hurt, so don't do it. The trouble is, when rational people are confronted with this kind of extremist threat, they understand that they have no choice but to defend themselves with violence. I have long been a tolerant atheist, meaning that I believe in freedom of religion so long as those freedoms do not interfere with my right to believe in no religion. I'm willing to live in a country where people have different customs for themselves. When those customs threaten me, I will take up arms and defend myself.

Crowds of violent protesters of cartoons, demanding the deaths of nonbelievers, force me to dismiss them as ignorant barbarians. If you spit on my tolerance, then fuck yourself, it's war.