American cartoonist goes ghost over Muhammad cartoon

[Skybird]

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2010-09...ars-from-view/

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/daily...mmed_day_1.php

She was found guilty to have drawed this:



She also deserves death for having called for a "draw a picture of Muhammad" action day.

Both sides practice their according rights of freedom. The one more, and the other less. Which means on average the situation is pretty much okay.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Skybird

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2010-09...ars-from-view/

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/daily...mmed_day_1.php

She was found guilty to have drawed this:



She also deserves death for having called for a "draw a picture of Muhammad" action day.

Both sides practice their according rights of freedom. The one more, and the other less. Which means on average the situation is pretty much okay.

Ok Skybird.
Lets pretend Islam is as evil as you say it is.
So what the solution? deportation? segregation? Should we all become as radical as the radicals then and fight them to the death until only side one prevails?

As you say Islam is an ideology, so other than out right genocide how do you contain an ideology?
What do you actually want to happen?

[tater]

In this case, the West needs to entirely stop enabling this nonsense. The recent (idiotic) US "compromise" on the UN resolution to make religious defamation a civil rights violation. Free speech trumps that, period.

No more mincing around, no concern about their sensibilities. Treat them like grown ups, and if they respond with violence to words (and it affects people in the West) come down on them like ton of bricks (or preferably in the style of Curtis LeMay).

End the self-censorship, too.

In the long term, I think the proper thing is to debauch them out of their extant existence Bikini girls FTW!

In the long run, they are finished anyway, I think. The point of the most backwards parts of the religion is to hold back time, basically. At the time their religion was made up, people needed to have loads of kids (mortality being what it was). Ditto agrarian incentives for more kids. The modern, urban reality is that kids are dis-incentivized by simple economics. Holding women as childbearing/rearing prisoners is no longer needed, and those women with most of their lives free WILL demand freedom at some point. I think this is the real battle for Islam in the long run.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by tater

In this case, the West needs to entirely stop enabling this nonsense. The recent (idiotic) US "compromise" on the UN resolution to make religious defamation a civil rights violation. Free speech trumps that, period.

No more mincing around, no concern about their sensibilities. Treat them like grown ups, and if they respond with violence to words (and it affects people in the West) come down on them like ton of bricks (or preferably in the style of Curtis LeMay).

End the self-censorship, too.

In the long term, I think the proper thing is to debauch them out of their extant existence Bikini girls FTW!

In the long run, they are finished anyway, I think. The point of the most backwards parts of the religion is to hold back time, basically. At the time their religion was made up, people needed to have loads of kids (mortality being what it was). Ditto agrarian incentives for more kids. The modern, urban reality is that kids are dis-incentivized by simple economics. Holding women as childbearing/rearing prisoners is no longer needed, and those women with most of their lives free WILL demand freedom at some point. I think this is the real battle for Islam in the long run.

Yeah but to be fair Tater - The question is, out of the billions of muslims around the world how many of them have you actually decribed accuratly in that statment?
Are you telling us the above mostly on goes on in an Islamic society?

I agree with you on free speech, but its a complicated beast and it depends on the situation, but if you say something which is blatantly offensive to someone, you cant really deny them their right to be angry either.
If some one on the street in calls you a name for no apparent reason, what are the chances you might end up threating to punch him in the face?

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Yeah but to be fair Tater - The question is, out of the billions of muslims around the world how many of them have you actually decribed accuratly in that statment?
Are you telling us the above mostly on goes on in an Islamic society?

I agree with you on free speech, but its a complicated beast and it depends on the situation, but if you say something which is blatantly offensive to someone, you cant really deny them their right to be angry either.
If some one on the street in calls you a name for no apparent reason, what are the chances you might end up threating to punch him in the face?

Exposing the Myth of Moderate Islam
by Ali Sina, FaithFreedom.org, March 14, 2010

I have always maintained that “moderate Muslim” is an oxymoron. We have two kinds of Muslims: Terrorist Muslims and ignorant Muslims. The former are those who know Islam well and live by its dictums. The latter have no clue about their religion and have an idealized image of Islam that has no bases in facts.

Mr. Tarek Fatah’s editorial published in National Post on March 12, 2010 confirms my view. Fatah attended a debate between Dr. Wafa Sultan, the courageous ex-Muslim woman that shook the Arab world when in an Aljazeera televised debate she pointed out that the problem with the Muslim world is Islam, and Dr. Daniel Pipes, a scholar of Islamic history and the director of the Middle East Forum.

In this debate Pipes argued that Islam is not essentially an intolerant religion and that there have been instances when Jews who were persecuted in Christian countries had sought refuge in Muslim lands. Sultan disagreed and reminded her audience that Muhammad had raided several Jewish tribes who lived in Arabia, massacred their unarmed men and allowed his marauding band to rape their women, while always reserving the prettiest for himself.

Upon hearing these comments, Fatah was “traumatized”. “Even a hardened secular Muslim such as myself was deeply hurt by what I heard that evening,” wrote Fatah.

While acknowledging the validity of Sultan’s criticism of Islam, Fatah repined that “instead of using her newfound fame to challenge the established theocracies and corrupt kingdoms of the Middle East, Sultan veered off the deep end and could not resist the temptation of becoming the poster child of Islam haters, joining their ranks with the fervour of a convert.”

Why should Sultan challenge the established theocracies and corrupt kingdoms when these are the rotten fruits of the poisonous tree of Islam? The problem is Islam, these are the symptoms.

Fatah accused Sultan of fear mongering and telling to a predominantly Jewish audience, that Muhammad was a Jew killer. He wrote “Wafa Sultan delivered an astonishing account of how the Prophet had slaughtered Jews and then raped the wife of the defeated Jewish tribe.”

Astonishing account? These accounts were reported by early Muslim historians. If Fatah is astonished it is because he, like most Muslims, has not read the history of Islam. Few Muslims care to investigate their religion. The references to Muhammad’s raids, rapes and lootings can also be found in the Quran. Muslims chant the Quran for thawab (reward), but they don’t study it and often don’t understand what they read.

The hatred of the Jews is in the Quran. The first sura of this book is a prayer where Muslims supplicate to Allah “Show us the straight path. The path of those whom Thou hast favored; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.”

Muslims agree that “those whom Allah has favored,” are Muslims, “those who earn Allah’s anger,” and “those who go astray” are Jews, and Christians, respectively.

Jews are stereotyped as greedy in all Muslim countries. This is due to quranic verse that says Jews “cling to life more eagerly than any other people. …every one of them would love to live a thousand years,” but they will burn I hell. (2:96)

Many verses of the Quran portray the Jews as evil doers, wicked, transgressors, prophet killers, and despised by God. Because Muhammad hated the Jews, Muslims will always hate the Jews. This hatred is inseparable from Islam.

Fatah continued, “I left the synagogue deeply disturbed. In the fight against Islamofascism, Wafa Sultan’s hatred of Islam was cultivating the very forces she claims to be exposing. When a questioner asked her ‘What is the solution?’ she just shrugged her shoulders. Perhaps the answer she had in mind was too outrageous even by her own standards: Force Muslims to convert or die.”

Sultan has all the reasons to hate Islam. Former Muslims hate Islam because we hate discrimination against women, violence against non-Muslims, dictatorship and imposition of faith that characterizes the true Islam, and because we know the damage that his overgrown cult has done to our people, our culture and our countries. We don’t shrug our shoulders when asked for the solution. Obviously this “hardened secular Muslim” was so traumatized that he could no longer hear what Wafa Sultan was saying.

Former Muslims propose telling the truth as the solution. We believe that truth can set us free. Former Muslims do not advocate violence and hate against our own kin, brothers, sisters, parents, and loved ones. We strive for their freedom and their right to know the truth. We oppose censorship and political correctness that have enslaved the truth. Truth can hurt our feelings, but lies will kill us.

I do not disagree with Dr. Pipes’ historic account that sometimes Jews who were persecuted by Christians sought refuge among Muslims. However, I respectfully disagree with him when he presents this as evidence of the tolerance of Islam.

Islam is not tolerant because Muhammad was not tolerant. This does not mean all Muslims are intolerant. There have been many Islamic rulers who were tolerant, but they went against the canons of Islam, as many do today. That is why the jihadists who follow the true Islam are attacking these Muslim rulers.

Unlike the crusaders who wanted to convert everyone to Christianity, the jihadists don’t want to convert everyone to Islam. They want to establish the Caliphate and dominate the world. In an Islamic state, ruled under the Sharia, non-Muslims, particularly the people of Book, (Jews and Christians) are protected, as long as “they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Q: 9:29). This is no different from Nazism. Hitler did not want to convert everyone to Arians, nor did he want to exterminate all mankind. He wanted to dominate the world.

By drawing a distinction between Islamic terrorists and “moderate” Muslims Dr. Pipes is threading a dangerous path. One is either a Muslim, therefore emulates Muhammad and is a terrorist, or he is not a Muslim. Moderate Muslim makes as much sense as moderate Nazi.

Lies always come back to haunt us. A Muslim who does not practice Islam or believes Islam means peace is not a moderate Muslim, but a wishy-washy Muslim or an ignorant Muslim.

It is this myth that allows Glenn Beck to malign Geert Wilders and call him a “fascist,” or Jacqui Smith and other British officials to bar him from entering the U.K. There are countless good people who are harassed, prosecuted and called racists because of this myth.

I respectfully urge Dr. Pipes to stop promoting the myth of moderate Islam. I also cordially invite him to a written debate on this topic. Getting to the bottom of this matter goes beyond academic interest. This myth is endangering the lives of the critics of Islam and is violating their right to free speech. Good people are called islamophobe, bigot, racist and fascist because the world prefers politically correct untruths to the inconvenient truth. It is thanks to this myth that telling the truth has become the new hate speech.

Mr. Tarek Fatah proves my point that there is no such thing as moderate Muslim. He calls himself hardened secular, but cannot stand to hear a historic truth about his prophet. When he says, “Wafa Sultan’s hatred of Islam was cultivating the very forces she claims to be exposing,” he is talking about himself. Many honest Muslims prefer not to hide their heads in the sand; they face the truth and deal with it in a rational way.

I would like to remind the readers that virtually all Muslim terrorists come from a secular background. At one point they were just as “liberal” as Mr. Fatah is today until something happened in their lives and they turned to their faith.

Every “moderate” Muslim is a potential terrorist. The belief in Islam is like a tank of gasoline. It looks innocuous, until it meets the fire. For a “moderate” Muslim to become a murderous jihadist, all it takes is a spark of faith.

It is time to put an end to the charade of “moderate Islam.” There is no such thing as moderate Muslim. Muslims are either jihadists or dormant jihadists – moderate, they are not.

P.S.

A copy of this article was sent to National Post. Since they published Mr. Fatah’s attack on Dr. Sultan, I hope they would publish this response to him. However, if they refuse to publish it I won’t be offended. Most westerners have no problem shadowboxing the non-existing “political Islam,” as if dealing with a real entity different from Islam, but shun the real critics of Muhammad and Islam itself. This mighty task is left on the shoulders of the apostates of Islam and few heroic souls like Geert Wilders.

http://formermuslimsunited.americanc...oderate-islam/

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Exposing the Myth of Moderate Islam
by Ali Sina, FaithFreedom.org, March 14, 2010

I have always maintained that “moderate Muslim” is an oxymoron. We have two kinds of Muslims: Terrorist Muslims and ignorant Muslims. The former are those who know Islam well and live by its dictums. The latter have no clue about their religion and have an idealized image of Islam that has no bases in facts.

Thats was as far as needed to read before the smell of BS flooded my nostrils - thank you very much indeed.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Ok Skybird.
Lets pretend Islam is as evil as you say it is.
So what the solution? deportation? segregation? Should we all become as radical as the radicals then and fight them to the death until only side one prevails?

Interesting to see that you have nothing to say on the cartoonist'sneed to flee from Muslim anger, but that you immediately come to the defence of Islam, once again trying to render it has harmless. Who knows - maybe it even is the victim here, and the cartoonist deserves her fate well and justified...?!

As you say Islam is an ideology, so other than out right genocide how do you contain an ideology?
What do you actually want to happen?

Oh, I said that very often now (last time was replying to Steve three or four weeks ago in a very long and partially angry exchange), and if you still have not gotten it, then repeating it once again will not make a difference (I am also tired of writing the same long essay time and again). The real question is what people like you will do in the face of a threat like this. All we see from you and people like you is excuses why we shall not react, and why we should not do anything, and why we should continue to ignore it, and just sit and let things slide, meanwhile our policies and legislations get rewritten to meet Muslim demands more and more.

Your views, if one can call them so, - are part of the problem that is threatening us all. It wants us to just sit and do nothing, assuming that all is well. This attitude has served for example Germany not well 80 years ago. There, again too many people, starting with Brühning, just hoped to sit things out. One day they woke up and realised that they were living in a tyranny. It did not come over night, but years, but it was ignored. But the moment of truth is not a long period of time, but - a single moment. And when it comes to your mind, then it is already too late.

Conflict is part of life, because all things existing tend to crank against each other, and those having a stronger impulse tend to influence others, while those having a waker impulse tend to get influenced. That is elemental physics, but also elemental history. The clash of civilisdations is a clash of times, the greater primitivity (and lacking freedom, resulting in greater [enforced] unity) of the one sphere may serve it well because lacking complexity means greater robustness. Rome fell to an enemy that was stronger becasue it was less civilised. Violence and intolerance are powerful player in the game of history. They have caused more conquest and overthrowing in history, than pacifism and weakness ever did. And The Third reich was not beaten by shelling it with words and good intentions and invitations for "dialogue", but by becoming as brutal and violent as the Nazi armies acted themselves, kicking their backs and sending all Germany to hell, turning it into smoking rubble that way.

And we all benefit from that today. If Roosevelt and Churchill would have been pacifistic appeasers like Chamberlain, you and me today would not only be unfree but probably would also be unable by mind to have this debate, and maybe we would wear black uniforms with white skulls on the hats.

[Blood_splat]

You'd think any down to earth Muslims would want to distance themselves from Mohammed the crazy prophet.

[tater]

Religion deserves no special respect. The only thing I will grant it—being an American, after all—is the freedom to exist, and the freedom FROM it being imposed by the state.

Religion is nothing but a set of ideas people chose to hold. It is not an "indelible trait." Disliking it, even hating it is NOT racist—religion is a choice, not a "race." It is no different that membership in a political party. If you cannot hate or dislike a religion freely, then you cannot hate or dislike a political movement. It needs to be able to stand up as any other idea does. If it is so weak that it cannot survive scrutiny (or name-calling), then it's clearly not the strongest idea set.

Islam, IMO, is by far the worst of the world's religions. We'll have the "usual suspects" here leap in to defend Islam, as they always do. People will suggest that "not all muslims are extremist." Of course. Some don't actually practice Islam—and if you live in the muslim world and are not a strong believer you still have to fake it. The doctrines are clear, however, and the major branches (that contain the large majority of muslims) have regressive doctrines. A better way to look at things with an eye to a more statistically significant sets of people is to look for progressive, classically liberal NATIONS that are also muslim. Oh, wait, there aren't any.

That should be telling. The "west" has had monarchy, oligarchy, despots, plus several varieties of successful, secular liberal democracies. What % of the muslim world is the latter, historically? Zero.

The proof is in the pudding as they say. They've had a couple hundred years, plus "nation building" that did everything to encourage democratic, secular government. They invariably fall back into theocracy. The "light" of the muslim world democratically is Turkey—now with an islamist government.

[Castout]

Someday I'll fly out from here because of my God..maybe maybe not

either way it will be some ride as it has been.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Castout

Someday I'll fly out from here because of my God..maybe maybe not

either way it will be some ride as it has been.

I told you the only way you will get a seat on my spaceship is to keep mining that Uranium, now get back to work!

Originally Posted by tater

Religion deserves no special respect. The only thing I will grant it—being an American, after all—is the freedom to exist, and the freedom FROM it being imposed by the state.

Religion is nothing but a set of ideas people chose to hold. It is not an "indelible trait." Disliking it, even hating it is NOT racist—religion is a choice, not a "race." It is no different that membership in a political party. If you cannot hate or dislike a religion freely, then you cannot hate or dislike a political movement. It needs to be able to stand up as any other idea does. If it is so weak that it cannot survive scrutiny (or name-calling), then it's clearly not the strongest idea set.

100% Agree.
Smartest thing I've read so far today.