Yesterday afternoon it looked, for a time, like the first official fatwa had been issued against The Jawa Report's own Dread Pundit Bluto. On closer examination it turns out that Bluto gave himself a fatwa. Doesn't he know that fatwaing yourself makes you go blind?

Here is some more fatwa worthy material. Again, if you sit on a Shura council or are a Mullah, please be specific as to which Jawa Report author gets the fatwa. If you are one of the elusive 'moderate' Muslims we keep hearing about, then sorry to offend you. But, better to offend the moderate and expose the extremist than to forever pretend that the extremist doesn't exist.

(NSFW) Pigs and Muhammed (follow link) and Muhammed eating flying pigs.

A goat and Muhammed over at No Mayo.

Since Zombie's server got overloaded our good friend Beth backed up the archive of Muhammed images through history.

Remember Piss Christ? Sobek has Piss Muhammed.

Art: Muhammed and 'Virgin'

Posted by: Rusty at 08:10 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 2 kb.

(Cairo) All contact with the Egyptian cruise ship Salaam 98 was lost shortly after it left the Saudi port of Dubah on the Red Sea coast.

From WCBSTV.com:

Egyptian maritime officials say lifeboats containing people have been spotted in vicinity of where cruise liner was last seen on radar.

The ship Salaam 98 disappeared from radar screens shortly after sailing from the port of Dubah, western Saudi Arabia, at 7 p.m. local time on Thursday night, maritime officials in Suez said.

They spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to address the media.

The ship was due to have arrived at Egypt's southern port of Safaga at 3 a.m. local time, but did not, the officials added.

[Update] Another report has been filed with more detailed information.

From CNN.com:

State-run Nile Television, quoting the Red Sea governor, said the ship was carrying 1,415 people -- 1,310 of them Egyptians.

"Our understanding now is that there are survivors," said Egyptian Minister of Transport Mohamed Loutfy Mansour, who said the reports came from helicopter pilots.

"The Coast Guard is doing everything in its power to try to rescue the people." Four frigates were expected to arrive at the site soon, he added.

Helicopters have spotted bodies floating on the sea and one lifeboat carrying three people in the vicinity of where the ship was last seen on the radar screens, maritime officials told The Associated Press.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 05:13 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 3 kb.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, writing in Commentary, examines the question that should have been the hot topic in the mainstream media for the past month: did the New York Times violate the Espionage Act in printing James Risen's story about surveillance of international calls and emails from al Qaeda suspects to people inside the United States? more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:01 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 3 kb.

1 If you want to read the Gray Lady's article for free, you can click right here. For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that anything in this article damages national security. The existence and use of this capability was widely known prior to 9/11; the only thing in this article that is really new is the fact that warrants aren't being issued prior to surveillance. Unless terrorists have somehow comprormised the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, (or Gawd forbid, the National Security Agency) it's very hard to see anything in here that actually compromises national security. Someone should explain this argument -- in some detail -- if it's going to hold up to scrutiny.

Posted by: IO ERROR at February 03, 2006 12:52 AM (FVbj6)

2 Bluto He's got a point. NYT is many things but stupid isn't one of them. They had their lawyers all over this for a year prior so they could find the gray areas and cover their asses. They probably expected (and wanted) a legal confrontation on this from the start. This type of case by nature is very difficult to pursue. They would then use the proceedings as a rally point for their overall agenda - and as a massive high profile PR generator. I believe this is what they want - and I don't want to give it to them! There are other options - continue the program - don't back down - hammer on the key facts ... 1) FISA overwhelming adhered to - these are necessary exceptions. 2) target specific - AQ and possible associates within US all reference War On Terror 3) not issue of Law - issue of ongoing pursuit of War to disrupt/prevent enemy actions within US 4) begun in ernest immediately following 9/11 and very important ... 5) No further attacks - and program key element to that SUCCESS! At this point, we can afford some degree of release of info on successful ops which are currently classified - I'm hoping Congressional Hearings will "see to that". Just a taste is all that is required. This is not a battle for the courts (advantage them)- it is a battle for public opinion! (advantage us) NYT and the Lib/Left have an agenda - so do I! While politizing National Security is generally not an overall good thing - its happening anyway - so - play the game. We got a strong hand here, and they're the ones who have to push, pull, twist, and exaggerate this to sell their fears to the American public. We already know what they are gonna sell - Their fears and visions of AMERIKA THE POLICE STATE - but they have been playing that song for 40 years and it doesn't work outside a leftist dance club. (some might hate my following terminology, but so what! - I'm being blunt - deal with it) We will sell them a Raghead! - with a desire to kill, the capability, and a PROVEN track record. Let the public decide - its all politics in the end - and all numbers. What's that Karl? Did I forget something? ...

Posted by: hondo at February 03, 2006 02:05 AM (3aakz)

3 I think it's the intent that matters, and the intent was to damage the war effort. If the NYT is so worried about civil rights, where were they after Vicky Weaver was murdered by an FBI sniper, or Janet Reno's BATF Nazi's were using a freaking Abrams tank on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, where dozens of innocent people, including women and children, were burned to death, then both cases blatantly covered up? Slimy liberal traitors and the bastards in government that are in collusion with them should all be shot.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 02:11 AM (0yYS2)

4 Hondo is right. The NYT's wants nothing better than to get in a court fight with the Administration looking like the victim of the police state. We are winning in the court of public opinion and we need to stay there. This thing would drag out in a court of law for years, with the Times getting the free publicity for their side. This could turn the tide against us.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 03, 2006 05:18 AM (rUyw4)

5 I think it should take years in court, and hopefully draw lots of attention, so as to spotlight the leftards' treasonous ways. Remember that the light of day is the best weapon against this scum.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 08:55 AM (0yYS2)

6 Maxie How can you shine the light of day on something that's been out in the open glowin' like the sun for nearly 40 years? Technically, it ain't treason unless your working for the other side - and they are not - they are working for themselves - their agenda - its a whole nuther ballgame. Maxie - you seem obsessed telling all that the sky is blue and the world is round.

Posted by: hondo at February 03, 2006 10:42 AM (3aakz)

7 If I am, it's because everyone seems to have forgotten.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 11:11 AM (0yYS2)

8 In fact, I believe that the NYT will not be called on this because of the obvious 'graymail' issue. I thought I stated that pretty clearly. IO ERROR, you are in error. Surveillance was widely suspected prior to the NYT story. The NYT put terrorists on notice that their chances of being monitored were much greater than they had thought.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 03, 2006 12:26 PM (RHG+K)

9 Bluto, whatever do you mean? Your blog's already a star. Just for the record, I'm not at all convinced that this program is in any way illegal. A few aspects of it, and things that have come out since, give me reason for concern, but I suspect the program will be vindicated in the end. That doesn't mean the NYT compromised national security by reporting on the legal questions surrounding the program -- which was, after all, the thrust of their reporting. Merely knowing it exists hardly jeopardizes anything, except perhaps a few highly placed people's political careers. Of course the terrorists had reason to believe that they would be under surveillance. Remember Clinton launching a cruise missile at Osama bin Laden in 1998? He stopped using his satellite phone because of that. In any case, what seems to have happened is that since then, they got sloppy. Michael Hayden in his Jan. 23 press conference said that "they don't always act like they know they're being monitored." So essentially at this point we're catching terrorists because they've gotten slow and stupid. I fear for what might happen if the terrorists become smart and fast again.

Posted by: IO ERROR at February 03, 2006 02:48 PM (vhWf1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Posted by: Vinnie at 07:15 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Lots of debate in an earlier post concerning the horrendous stick figure caricatures that are being posted here. The general concern seems to be that us Louvre-bound artists may alienate moderate Muslims. You know, our allies.

So, let's check in with our most moderate of Muslim allies, Turkey.

Via the blog grandfather:

ISTANBUL, Turkey (Feb. 2) - In the most expensive Turkish movie ever made, American soldiers in Iraq crash a wedding and pump a little boy full of lead in front of his mother.

They kill dozens of innocent people with random machine gun fire, shoot the groom in the head, and drag those left alive to Abu Ghraib prison - where a Jewish doctor cuts out their organs, which he sells to rich people in New York, London and Tel Aviv.

"Valley of the Wolves Iraq" - set to open in Turkey on Friday - feeds off the increasingly negative feelings many Turks harbor toward their longtime NATO allies: Americans.

Down at the bottom of the story:

But Topbas and other Turks at the premiere weren't too concerned about how the movie would be perceived in the United States.

"There isn't going to be a war over this," said Nefise Karatay, a Turkish model lounging on a sofa after the premiere. "Everyone knows that Americans have a good side. That's not what this is about."

I'm feeling fairly alienated by our moderate Muslim allies at the moment. Anyone up for a little rioting and Turkish flag burning?

I'm not surprised by Busey and Zane's involvement. Busey went out of his way to belittle our military in the wretched Seagal flick "Under Siege" and Zane was nothing if not the epitome of eeevil conservative rich white guy in Titanic.

Posted by: Vinnie at 06:23 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

The great thing about Palestinian terrorists is that there is always another Palestinian terrorist group around to free the hostage taken by the original Palestinian terrorist group. The anti-hostage terror groups in Palestine know its bad PR. That, and they really need Europe's money.

Xinhua:

A German citizen was released Thursday night after being briefly kidnapped by Palestinian militants in the northern West Bank city of Nablus, Palestinian witnesses and security sources said.

A group of masked militants broke into the al-Yasmin Hotel in Nablus and forced the German citizen, who was staying in the hotel, to go with them, said the witnesses.

The hostage, identified as Christoph Kasten, a 21-year-old who teaches English in Nablus, was later handed over unharmed to the Palestinian police, said well-informed sources.

Fifteen minutes later, the German was released by police. Witnesses said that no one claimed responsibility for the abduction, but added that militants of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed wing of the Fatah movement, were searching hotels in Nablus for Europeans on Thursday night.

The group issued a leaflet in Nablus, which denied its involvement.....

Shortly before the kidnapping of the German national, another group of militants stormed into the French cultural center in Nablus, said Palestinian security sources, adding that the police managed to expel the militants.

Earlier in the day, militants in Gaza broke into the European Union headquarters in the Gaza City and shut it down after firing in the air.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:35 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

...but it should be. Cindy Sheehan receives apology from Capital Police. When do we get an apology from Lynn Woolsey for bringing a tin-foil wearing Zionist conspiracy America-hater to Congress? A woman who just a week before was kissing a modern Peronist fascist? Pleeeaase!

Posted by: Rusty at 05:01 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

A reader sends these cartoons depicting Muhammed. They wish to remain anonymous for fear of life and limb. Fine, throw away a perfectly good opportunity to get a fatwa. More for me. Please issue fatwas care of Rusty Shackleford and visit our gallery of fatwa worthy cartoons here.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:29 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 2 kb.

Is Laura Alito truly hot? When Rob Port says the daughter of a Supreme Court justice is hot you never really know--let's face it, the long North Dakota winter will do that to a guy. But when Jonah Goldberg agrees? How you gonna argue with that?

But, er, you guys do realize she's still in high school? This is wrong on so many levels.....

Posted by: Rusty at 04:03 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

Is that pronounced "boner"?

Posted by: Rusty at 03:48 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Stop the ACLU chronicles two of the latest examples of the deterioration of the anti-American Left. Cindy Sheehan (if anyone is still listening) goes all Ward Churchill on the President:

George Bush, a few weeks ago, said “oh I donÂ’t know, 30,000″, innocent Iraqis. Well, even if we take his estimation into consideration and say “ok, it was 30,000″ Â… On September 11, one of the most tragic days in American history that we will all never forget, 3,000 Americans were killed, so does that make George Bush ten times a bigger terrorist than Osama bin Laden? (Applause)

Posted by: Bluto at 02:41 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

British Muslims honest enough to tell us what Muhammed and his followers did to those who blasphemed: killed them. Funny, I don't recall reading any stories of the Buddha killing the Hindu Brahmans who scorned him, nor do I recall stories of Jesus murdering the Pharasees. I thought all religions were basically the same?

Via the Blogfather Charles Johnson who got it from HNN, this interesting post by British Jihadis. It is appropriately titled Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad:

At the time of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) there were individuals like these who dishonoured and insulted him upon whom the Islamic judgement was executed. Such people were not tolerated in the past and throughout the history of Islam were dealt with according to the Shariah. KaÂ’ab ibn Ashraf was assassinated by Muhammad ibn Maslamah for harming the Messenger Muhammad (saw) by his words, Abu RaafiÂ’ was killed by Abu Ateeq as the Messenger ordered in the most evil of ways for swearing at the prophet, Khalid bin Sufyaan was killed by Abdullah bin Anees who cut off his head and brought it to the prophet for harming the Messenger Muhammad (saw) by his insults, Al-Asmaa bintu Marwaan was killed by Umayr bin AdiÂ’ al-Khatmi, a blind man, for writing poetry against the prophet and insulting him in it, Al-Aswad al-Ansi was killed by Fairuz al-Daylami and his family for insulting the Messenger Muhammad (saw) and claiming to be a prophet himself. This is the judgement of Islam upon those who violate, dishonour and insult the Messenger Muhammad

Shortly after these incidents the people began to realise that insulting the Messenger of Allah (saw) was not something to be taken lightly and that by doing so would mean that you would be killed for it, a concept that many have seem to forgotten today

The insulting of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) is something that the Muslims cannot and will not tolerate and the punishment in Islam for the one who does so is death. This is the sunnah of the prophet and the verdict of Islam upon such people, one that any Muslim is able execute. The response of the Muslims all over the world shows us the inability to deal with such people, the kuffar are attacking our Messenger and are allowed to get away with it whilst the Muslims have no power to do anything about it. The leaders of the Muslim world have no care for the deen of Islam as they are busy cementing their seats content with their power and wealth. Where are the Muhammad ibn MaslamahÂ’s of our ummah who will defend the honour of our beloved Messenger and rise the banner of Tawheed high?

But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions). [9:12]

And just in case they try to deny that they wrote this when the British authorities come knocking at the door, I've backed up the original webpage here. Simply click on the screen shot below of al Ghurabaa's home page to see the archived original:

more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:21 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 775 words, total size 6 kb.

1 The fine fellow you speak of Rusty says horrid things about me Gran and how he wants to "gasp" put something in her Batty hole what ever that means. So I found out where this goat shaving pimp actually sends out his hate filled spew and it is in Birmingham UK at a learning center for Kids.(with a program for adults) I would like to punish this ass like we did Wasim. Any ideas?

Posted by: Filthy Allah at February 02, 2006 12:05 PM (5ceWd)

2 Let me think about it for a bit. Any British readers in Birmingham would be welcome to go down and check out the premises, though.

Posted by: Rusty at February 02, 2006 12:18 PM (JQjhA)

3 Good Lord.

Posted by: Oyster at February 02, 2006 12:36 PM (5pqct)

4 Holy crap. To think we are allowing such folks to immigrate to our countries in such large numbers. Frightening. WAK UP WHITE PEOPLE!!!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 12:57 PM (8e/V4)

5 And *I'm* the one accused of having inflammatory views.

Posted by: Vinnie at February 02, 2006 01:00 PM (f289O)

6 OT: Is anyone able to get to LGF?

Posted by: Ariya at February 02, 2006 01:41 PM (uxW3N)

7 "...I don't recall reading any stories of the Buddha killing the Hindu Brahmans who scorned him, nor do I recall stories of Jesus murdering the Pharasees. I thought all religions were basically the same?" No, you didn't One of the distinguishing things about Islam as practiced today is that it demands respect. Dr. Shackleford's remarks reveal moral values that even religions are subject to in the West. Man judges God, and if God demands unniceness, God is shown the door. And that's how I like it. It's been many years (and happy ones at that) since any church in these parts managed to evoke serious killings for Jesus from the congregation. Even hinting at it is mighty fringe. Nobody sings "Onward Christian Soldiers" if he ever intends to hold public office in the U.S. While I like this, I wonder if the modern unwillingness to kill heretics, heathens and witches for the Church reflects a decline in zeal that will end in unwillingness to kill for the right to *go to* church. For whatever faults they may have, this isn't going on with the Muslim. Quite the contrary. They demand respect for their religion, and they get it. Just ask our recently unemployed French newspaper editor. They get respect from me too. I respect Islam, the power of nature, rattlesnakes, and a big, drunk trucker whose wife I bumped into. A wise man might make jokes about these things, but only from a safe distance. It doesn't look like Europe will be safe enough.

Posted by: ShannonKW at February 02, 2006 01:42 PM (dT1MB)

8 Several websites I visit have been flakey all day. LGF also off and on

Posted by: Howie at February 02, 2006 01:47 PM (D3+20)

9 Great article. Anyone care to discuss what they think is the difference between free speech and hate speech? As a firm believer in free speech and an incredulous observer of recent events regarding those very unexciting cartoons, this seems very important. Brad Pitt poses as Jesus Christ without much comment, and yet handdrawn silly cartoons of you-know-who causes riots and death threats?????? And the "accepted" rationale (by some) is that the cartoons are somehow "hate speech?" --something is seriously out of whack. In the West, I think we work under the assumption that you shouldn't engage in hate speech. SO this hate speech rationale is currently being used by some to justify the censorship of free speech. So, it is important to decide: when does something become hate speech? Is it in the eye of the beholder? or is it the intent of the speaker? Or, is it the norm of the day which sets the standard? Are there different norms for different groups? (OK to satirize Christians, not ok to satirize Muslims) etc.

Posted by: Patty at February 02, 2006 01:51 PM (aH6Zf)

10 I started to get worried when the tree I was hiding behind started to shout "THERE IS A JEW HIDING BEHIND ME!" *yawn* My second amendment rights are there to protect my first amendment rights.

Posted by: Laurence Simon at February 02, 2006 02:05 PM (uBCxH)

11 Actually Shannon, the muslims aren't demanding respect for their religion, they're demanding FEAR of their religion, there's a difference. Respect is a two way street. If that's what they were looking for, they would seek to achieve it by showing tolerance and co-operation with other religions and the laws of their adopted countries. When violence is used or even merely threatened, debilitating fear is the goal. If that rattlesnake, or even the big, drunk trucker moved onto your property and started restricting your movement and activities, would your "respect" keep you from doing anything about it, or would you make a stand?

Posted by: Graeme at February 02, 2006 02:10 PM (CQyra)

12 "...when does something become hate speech?" Maybe classifying hostile talk as "hate speech" and banning it is a bad idea in the first place. You can't keep people from hating each other. We should encourage them to announce their hatred and whom they hate. Wouldn't you rather know who your enemies are? Besides, it's a big help to the boys at Homicide. The concept of hate speech has mommy-thinking written all over it. There is a certain kind of domesticated, overcivilized person who thinks that if you force everyone to talk nice to each other that means we're all friends. It probably explains why hate speech has caught on among the Euros more than the Americans.

Posted by: ShannonKW at February 02, 2006 02:13 PM (dT1MB)

13 This is the MSM elite liberals fault, and Clinton! Just wanted to get that of the way to clear up the discussion. Carry on.

Posted by: Human-Animal-Hybrid at February 02, 2006 02:34 PM (YClF7)

14 No, it's clearly "Bush's" fault, and "Pat Robertson's" fault. Islam is coming out of the closet. If Libtards still can't see it, it's because they don't want to see it. Because they see the world as they wish it were, not as it is.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 02:37 PM (8e/V4)

15 Graeme, Of course not, but then again I'm wierd. I'm trying to keep alive the ancient tradition of respecting my enemies. So, the interloping big, drunk trucker on my property would get not mockery and insulting jokes from me, but a shotgun blast to the chest. That's my idea of respect. It's interesting that you should point out the distinction between fear and respect. In religious context they traditionally mean the same thing. The last passage in the Old Testament (if memory serves) "Fear God and keep the commandments" is a fine example. I think modern Christians are prone to distinguish fear from respect in this case, but I suspect the cartoon-raging crowd does not.

Posted by: ShannonKW at February 02, 2006 02:37 PM (dT1MB)

16 Sounds like if cartoonists kill Muslims it should be considered self-defense now. As far as Hate Speech goes, I find it funny that the only people who practice hate are only in White Face, never in a turbin with a koran or anyone else. How odd that liberals would conjure up such a phrase and only use it against one group to berate them. How very odd for them to call themselves tolerant too. Also how odd they call for toleration of everything that is intolerable, least you be called a "hater." Sounds like this "tolerance" they prattle about is really a clarion call for being a sniveling coward in the face of an enemy that has openly said they'll kill you. Time for the balls to drop and become men again.

Posted by: Andre at February 02, 2006 02:40 PM (bQ3vG)

17 Don't be dissin' Mo n' his homies or day be bustin' caps on yo ass n' all over da place! PEACE V Violence and fear of violence - that's Islam's answer - to cartoons. Respect us and don't do anything to offend us in our home (or your home for that matter) or we will hurt you! Some answer - says a lot about them. Anyone want to dance around this - the violence and threat of - IS REAL! Interesting part is whether it works or not. I think it will with the Euros and other similars around the world. And the next issue that comes to the surface - say like honor killings - then what? Violence and the threat of violence does work and is an effective tool in dealing with the weak of knee and spirit.

Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 02:41 PM (3aakz)

18 I hope the local 'slamotards get uppity, but this is the South, so they probably know better.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 02:51 PM (0yYS2)

19 Well, I'm only asking us to clarify "hate" speech versus "free" speech because Clinton is getting press and he is basically claiming that the publication of the cartoons constitutes "hate" speech. He's the only politician I see saying anything about this and he's on the wrong side - watch this become the topic of MSM discussion rather than the reality that there are a group of madmen afoot who terrorize for submission.

Posted by: Patty at February 02, 2006 03:09 PM (aH6Zf)

20 Like beauty - it is in the eye of the beholder - or in his particular case - the opportunist.

Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 03:14 PM (3aakz)

21 I feel a "No, I am Spartacus" moment coming on. Been reading about alot of other papers now publishing the cartoons. Maybe I'll make a few copies myself for distribution here and there.

Posted by: Patty at February 02, 2006 03:24 PM (aH6Zf)

22 This website has been called a 'hate' site because we hate the religious fascism of Sharia. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

Posted by: Rusty at February 02, 2006 03:25 PM (JQjhA)

23 Gawd, calling this a hate site. The people who do that should get off their soapbox and the dole, get out experience life, get a job and a life too.

Posted by: Andre at February 02, 2006 03:28 PM (bQ3vG)

24 I understand what Shannon is saying about "respect". He means respect in same manner I do; having a healthy respect for what they are capable of rather than they themselves or the ideology. And keeping an equalizer close at hand. Meet Señor Glock!

Posted by: Oyster at February 02, 2006 03:40 PM (5pqct)

25 Ah, Senor Glock, meet Socom. He is your daddy! And perhaps we now know why no radical Muslims in the US are making death threats. They are used to making every kind of threat in Britain with nothing being done, but threats here in the US will land them in jail or on the virgin train.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 03:45 PM (rUyw4)

26 Give hate a chance Sad day when an anti-Sharia site is considered a "hate" site. Under Sharia, I would have no freedom at all. In fact, I believe I would be chattel. That's a very frightening and humbling thought which is why i thank you for this site.

Posted by: Patty at February 02, 2006 03:48 PM (aH6Zf)

27 oh, Patty, you're just being ethnocentric. Try not to be so close-minded and intolerant about it. It's their "culture", which means it's all good.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 04:13 PM (8e/V4)

28 Hate is an emotion that keeps us from being suckered by liberals.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 05:47 PM (0yYS2)

29 I prefer common sense and faith Maxie - hate doesn't do anything for me.

Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 07:23 PM (3aakz)

30 They are an entire race of sociopaths. Islam represents the last holdout of the caveman. The world would be so much better off without it and muhammad and allah.

Posted by: antimuhammad at February 03, 2006 12:27 AM (ifHl0)

31 Common sense and faith are what keeps civilized people from doing what they desperately need to do. Hate is the safety valve to keep everyone from being slaughtered like sheep by the barbarians of the world. Islam is a plague, and if more decent people don't embrace a healthy hatred of islam, we will keep allowing the plague rats to scurry amongst us.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 09:32 AM (0yYS2)

32 03FEB06 I came across the news item about "the world's 1.2 billion Muslims" being enraged by the cartoon depicting Allah in a Danish news paper back in September. (Interestingly, I can't find it anywhere so as to take a look at what all the fuss is about.) It appears many of these (Muslims) now feel justified in calling for the perpetrators of said affront to Islam to be hunted down and killed. What we increasingly seem to be dealing with is - an issue of soverignty. Does Islamic law supercede the laws of the West and those of other cultures? If I'm not mistaken, they (the Muslims) seem to think so. They do not make the distinction between politics and religion and believe it is their Manifest Destiny (sound familiar to you Americans?) to impose their grotesquely violent, hypocritical, pious, medieval Islam on Allah's Allah-Forsaken Earth. Can they dissuaded from following their jihaddist path? Can they be persuaded to be tolerant of others and their beliefs? Can they be persuaded to integrate their culture with the other cultures of the world community? What have we seen since Usama declared jihad on America? What have we seen in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Iran, Palestine, and Syria? Should we continue to sit on our thumbs? Most hormonally imbalanced, ignorant male Muslim jihaddists don't live long enough to see their 40th birthday, they are always eager to go out and kill where they think the odds are in their favor. Like all people their age they think they are indestructable because they are both stupid and ignorant. Eventually, they wake up dead. Interstingly, when the old Islamic degenerates pulling the puppet strings survive an attempt on their lives they are more than willing to adopt the enlightened philosophy of negotiation and compromise or at least affect to do so. They'll do anything to keep things exactly so that they can continue to be in charge and alive. Either Islam will have to change or it will have to be eradicated like Islam has attempted to eradicate Zoroastrianism. The change will have to come from the top down, like everything else in a medieval society, and will have to be enforced upon the Islamic elite with the very methodology used in imposing Islam upon others: violence and death.

Posted by: Don R. d V. at February 03, 2006 09:42 AM (DHx5e)

33 Graeme put it right: Respect needs to be earned. Respect to me means sensing an essential goodness in a person, e.g. love, compassion, generosity and truthfulness. Jesus Christ, Buddha or Ghandi, for instance, command my respect. Fear, on the other hand, is much easier to obtain, any school bully with a baseball bat can do the trick. No matter how much fear threats against "kuffar" will be able to incite, they will not bring forth even one grain of respect. Quite the contrary.

Posted by: No to Sharia at February 26, 2006 03:31 PM (OXXW/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

How apropos.

GAZA CITY — Armed militants angered by a cartoon drawing of the Prophet Muhammad published in European media surrounded EU offices in Gaza on Thursday and threatened to kidnap foreigners as outrage over the caricatures spread across the Islamic world.

Like they really, really need an excuse to kidnap foreigners.

These guys, they're ready for anything. Look how they dress up to post leaflets at the EU office in Gaza. Maybe they're afraid a cow might be catapulted out of the building onto them, and they armed themselves appropriately.

Posted by: Vinnie at 10:35 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Foreigners in Gaza are also virtually all sympathic to their "cause". Should prove interesting.

Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 11:05 AM (3aakz)

2 I donÂ’t know Rusty, are you sure you have this right? Those look like Catholics at the doors of the studio demonstrating against the release of the Da Vinchi Code movie staring that piece of shit Tom Hanks. I get my wires crossed sometimes too. ItÂ’s just so hard to tell them apart since there is absolutely no difference between those right wing Christian fanatics and the oppressed and misunderstood Islamic fundamentalists. Both will kill you over what they perceive as the slightest insult to their faith. Yep, IÂ’m sure those are Catholics.

Posted by: Brad at February 02, 2006 11:06 AM (BJYNn)

3 I'd like to see this cartoon... if you have it please send it to my email or post it on your blog :]

Posted by: Billy Faeth at February 02, 2006 11:06 AM (Lc35u)

4 Let me repeat again for anyone, like the lady who read my comments and emailed me: Muslims are scum and should be exterminated like the vermin they are.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 11:10 AM (0yYS2)

5 http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698 NEVERMIND I found them all there half way down the article. 12 of them Thanks anyways

Posted by: Billy Faeth at February 02, 2006 11:21 AM (Lc35u)

6 Brad, I think the give away are the AK-47's but then again the IRA used them as well, aren't they Catholic? Hmm.... Oh wait, it's the head scarves. Got to be the head scarves. Yeah, just the other day I told an off color joke about a priest, a rabbi and a Baptist minister. Unbeknownst to me, there were several Baptists in the group. They threatened to kill me and rape my wife and daughters.

Posted by: WunderKraut at February 02, 2006 01:37 PM (3dJYw)

7 Mohammed is in hell right now cooling off satans hot member.

Posted by: Andre at February 02, 2006 02:47 PM (bQ3vG)

8 Kraut, Your little attempt at humor would get you beheaded at my Parish.

Posted by: Brad at February 02, 2006 03:27 PM (3OPZt)

9 Brad, No, no. The priest came out good in the joke. Now the Baptist.....

Posted by: WunderKraut at February 02, 2006 03:38 PM (3dJYw)

10 >>>Foreigners in Gaza are also virtually all sympathic to their "cause". Should prove interesting. It'll be interesting to watch the Libtards defending the slamotards even as their heads are getting sawed off. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 03:45 PM (8e/V4)

11 The boys posting the note have their faces covered. Now how is the great prophet going to know who the little punks are when they get in line for the 72 raisins?

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 03:50 PM (rUyw4)

12 C'mon guys, don't you see? It's Luther nailing his theses to the Wittenburg door. Man, now I know why Palis are the favorite pet cause of Berkeley-ites; they're intellectual peers.

Posted by: Gordon at February 02, 2006 04:54 PM (i0N3d)

13 Ok, ok, sarcasm off. Nice talking to everyone, but I’ve got to run. The wife and I are actually on vacation and she wants me to get off this computer. We have been enjoying the sights in the beautiful city of Riyadh. Saudi Arabia is such a beautiful country and we have plenty more to see. I'm a little concerned. I have not missed mass in a while and so far, have been unable to locate a Catholic church. That reminds me of a funny little story: I asked the concierge at the hotel where the closest parish was and I thought he replied: “I will feed your testicles to my pig and rape your wife with my sandy broomstick”. Man, it’s amazing how screwed up a translation can get with one of those Arabic-Infidel dictionaries they give you at the hotel. Oh well, I'm sure I'll stumble across one by Saturday evening. We’re both looking forward to a good meal this evening followed by a movie. That new western is playing here and I'm told it's very good. Heck, 8 Oscar nominations it should be huh? Hope everything is going well in the States. Brad

Posted by: Brad at February 02, 2006 05:05 PM (3OPZt)

14 On vacation in Saudi Arabia????? Please clarify.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 05:44 PM (rUyw4)

15 Brad, Next time the boss wants to go to lunch, just say no to Makers Mark. A few beers is just fine. Man, 3 hours and who knows how many doubles later we get back to the office and I start writing about a vacation in Saudi Arabia. Like the concierge would actually have a pig. More like goat right? I wish I had one of those women who wear berkka and spoke only when spoken to. My wife is going to be pissed.

Posted by: Braaan at February 02, 2006 06:06 PM (3OPZt)

16 I've been to Saudi Arabia on vacation too. It's beautiful. And the people are equally nice. Boy, they sure are misunderstood in our part of the world!

Posted by: Mia at February 03, 2006 10:16 AM (dMWB/)

17 But, Mia, where would I go to church on a Sunday morning? And I take my Bible everywhere I go. Would it be allowed there? I think there are other beautiful places in the World that have advanced out of the Dark Ages. I'll go to those places, thank you very much.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 03, 2006 10:34 AM (rUyw4)

18 FUCK IRAQ AND ALL THOSE GODDAMN MUSLIMS. I HOPE THEY ALL DIE WITH SHIT ON THERE FACES. I'm gonna go eat some bacon now.

Posted by: Marvin Woods at February 03, 2006 04:55 PM (OYAE5)

19 Fuck'em if they can't take a joke.

Posted by: Bill at February 03, 2006 06:24 PM (f6PWQ)

20 Remember when they ordered the death of SALMON RUSHDE over his books THE SATANIC VERSUS? this is very simular

Posted by: sandpiper at February 03, 2006 08:23 PM (sUgrV)

21 If Muslims have never depicted Mohammed, how do they know those cartoons are him?

Posted by: Ginny at February 03, 2006 10:47 PM (0WUmx)

22 Yo guys, really like the drawings. And NO, we're not outta virgins. Unfortunately the remaining has beard, but wth. Shooting innocent defenceless danes isn't worth much - Mohammed

Posted by: Mohammed at February 04, 2006 02:53 PM (IEbE9)

23 This is a great website, I like all the comments, I thought I was alone but now know I am not, thanks again for great reading, press on...

Posted by: Zakky at February 04, 2006 11:54 PM (nUbkE)

24 KILL Those who have no sense of Humor. Mutilate their children. Sodomize their camels with their severed penises and deliver the penises to their mouthes. An Arm For An Eye. A Life for a cartoon. I learned this from the muslim example. I promise I will do you Psycopaths proud. Muhammad was a camel humper. He sucked baby penises. He wore poop masks!

Posted by: Liv4Evr at February 05, 2006 12:51 AM (K9axD)

25 Bravo Denmark

Posted by: jacky at February 11, 2006 11:40 PM (YjHJb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

This is a comment left on my post here:

I am an avid supporter of free speech. However, anyone can express an opinion,
the real question should be how informed is that opinion or expression.

There is a point where the speech produced has no constructive value to our
society and is nothing but mere baseless and crass vitriol that doesn't befit as
advanced a civilization as the West.

Many Western countries draw a limit on the freedom of speech when it comes to
the identity of child rape victim, slander and libel. Another main exception
that some countries have adopted is hate speech. Hate speech is speech which
condemns or dehumanizes the individual or group; or expresses anger, hatred,
violence or contempt toward them.

Depicting the Muslim's prophet as a terrorist, with absolutely no corroborating
or intellectual support or discourse, is hate speech.

I do not believe Christianity teaches us to dehumanize nor express hatred,
anger, violence, or contempt against an individual or group.

Such behaviour fails to show even the slightest modicum of decorum and civil
behaviour. Jesus would be ashamed.

The commenter's email is appropriate. "despondant." If there is a group that is perpetually despondent, it's the left.

But, I wanted to respond to what I highlighted. Apparently, my happy commenter has never bothered to read the Koran.

Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and hypocrites, and deal sternly with them. —Koran 66:9

God has promised you rich booty, and has given you this with all promptness. He has stayed your enemies' hands, so that He may make your victory a sign to true believers and guide you along a straight path. —Koran 48:20

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. -Koran 9:29

And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! - Koran 9:30

Still think there's no corroborating evidence? You still want to discuss "hate speech?"

Posted by: Vinnie at 10:20 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Where was this great champion against "hate speech" when they were sticking Christ in a jar of piss and smearing Mary with dung? --probably defending "free speech".

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 10:27 AM (8e/V4)

2 The Prophet is just a gay butt pirate. Islam is a 3rd world religion with 3rd world ideas. Hell they still live in the freaking 5th Century and we are supposed to give then credibility? CAIR and all the other pro Islam organization can just eat shit and die as far as I am concerned. A World without Islam is the first step to World Peace.

Posted by: Andy at February 02, 2006 10:50 AM (tMU4W)

3 The capacity for liberals to justify murderous scumbags is truly astonishing.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 11:12 AM (0yYS2)

4 You all know I am a longtime Jawa Report reader and supporter. However, I disagree with the JR on this one. The actual Danish cartoons are a legit news story now and if a venue wants to republish them go ahead. I draw the line with the JR made cartoons. Why? It is because I don't want Jamal Muslim to be pushed from supporting the GWOT against Radical Islam to neutrality or worse. If good Muslims decide the West is not fighting just Radical Islamists but Islam itself then those good Muslims could very well decide to join up with the Radicals or at least sit on their hands when we need them to perform some acation against the Radicals. As with all criticisms of speech I include all the standard disclaimers, but we need to be careful that our speech is thought out and not just a jerking knee. The Jawa Report continues to be one of my regularly visited blogs and remains on the Blogger Beer blogroll. I really enjoy this blog.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at February 02, 2006 11:19 AM (Ox5i9)

5 Free Speech = Hate Speech ... its just a question of subjective interpretation ... which is why Hate Speech Laws are such a threat to fundamental freedom. JC - when those two items you refer were here in NY, I was tempted to join some who wanted to use the hate speech law approach - it was classic hate speech speech art directed at Christians and Catholics. But I changed my mind - didn't want to use the left dickhead approach in dealing with some fringe left assholes who were already marginal to start with.

Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 11:21 AM (3aakz)

6 Of course there are no similar passages in the bible. well I guess maybe there are a few. Here are a few in this link.Some are pretty funny. http://www.evilbible.com/

Posted by: john ryan at February 02, 2006 11:35 AM (TcoRJ)

7 John R Not going to bother - but I'm willing to bet that anything remotely similar will be found solely in the OT. An interesting distinction in the development of Christianity. Am I right? The passages are easy to quote John.

Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 11:42 AM (3aakz)

8 Free Speech ?? But there is no tellings where that might lead. First dogs and cats living together and before you know it gay marriages.

Posted by: Joseph Cavalletto at February 02, 2006 11:51 AM (TcoRJ)

9 I'm with Marcus on this. It really does get to the point where the subject matter has been addressed and beyond that it just becomes an irritant for no other purpose than to be provocative. Believe me, I fully understand the concept of being free to say and do things of this nature. And I fully understand the difference in the reactions; death threats versus peaceful protest. I just don't see what we hope to achieve with it beyond what has all ready been achieved.

Posted by: Oyster at February 02, 2006 11:55 AM (5pqct)

10 Depicting the Muslim's prophet as a terrorist, with absolutely no corroborating or intellectual support or discourse, is hate speech. Hmmmm.... Depicting Christ as a homosexual, with absolutely no corroborating or intellectual support or discourse, is hate speech. No, I just can't see that argument going over. And before someone jumps on me -- no, gays aren't the equivalent of terrorists. Just pointing out that objections to Corpus Christi could be phrased similarly, and would be just as invalid.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at February 02, 2006 11:57 AM (n5eDP)

11 Jesusland Carlos: It's sad the way Jesus Christ is depicted by some people. It's rude, insulting and degrading. However, I'd offer that when you encourage artist's renditions of revered figures, you're bound to see degrading renditions as well. That's not a justification, just a possible explanation. Frankly, as a Muslim, I'm offended by the portrayal of Jesus in popular media. He's been turned into a total joke, and it pains me that the larger Christian populace is okay with this. Certainly violence isn't a civlized response, but Christians are well within their rights to demand a respectful portrayal of Jesus, as Muslims are well within their rights to demand a more respectful portrayal of Muhammad. And allow me to comment on the verses you've quoted, Vinnie. 66:9 - What you've translated as "make war" is actually the Arabic "jihad" which in general means struggle -- physical struggle/opposition is but one of its meanings. According to the Holy Quran, fighting oppression and warring against injustice is a duty (one that even America sees fit to carry out), but as clarified in a tradition of the Holy Prophet, physical struggle is the "lesser jihad" (words of the Holy Prophet) as opposed to self-purification (the greater jihad/struggle). You've deliberately chosen to translate "jihad" as war in this instance, however it is more accurately translated as "struggle" or "strive against" in the broader sense (as opposed to other verses that are specifically mentioning war or rules of engagement). This view is corroborated by a wider reading of the accompanying verses and the whole chapter. A simile is setup in which the example of the disbelievers is given in the wives of Noah and Lot (who refused to believe the warning given by the prophets), and examples of the believers are Mary, mother of Jesus, and the wife of Pharoah. This is interesting because you'll take care to note that Noah and Lot did not engage in physical struggle with their wives (the disbelievers). And among the belivers the wife of Pharoah was counted, who was not actually a follower of Moses, but a kind person. So this chapter qualifies believers as any person (even non-Muslims) but that are good and kind in nature, and declares that the disbelievers should be warned and struggled against, but their punishment in the end (if that's what they deserve) is with God. Another corroborating fact is that the disbelievers are mentioned alongside the hypocrites. Throughout the Quran, only Mulims are referred to as hypocrites (those Muslims who though Muslim in name were not regarded by God as such). Note that the hypocrites were never fought against by the sword. This further clarifies that "jihad" here is being used to mean a non-physical struggle, more a verbal chastisement, much like Noah and Lot would've done with their wives. Again, the simile being drawn here needs to be recognized. Reading in context is one of the important things to keep in mind when studying the Quran. It is a very layered text that is composed beautifully and those that are concerned with discovering truth, and reflecting upon wisdom often find the Quran appeals to them. 48:20 - In quoting this verse I take it to mean you want to cast Muslims in a poor light, as people that were fighting for wealth. This is absolutely incorrect. In fact, the booty or spoils of war mentioned here were rather used to take care of the Muslim population and to build their nation. Remember, the Muslims were an oppressed minority for the early part of their existance. At one point during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, the Meccans (the chief anti-Muslims at the time) sought out Muhammad and offered him wealth, land, women, etc. just so he would stop his preaching. He refused them. If he were interested in such material things, he would've taken them up as they were much more powerful and more wealthy than he was. But in keeping with his humble nature, he spent most of his life in relative poverty, sharing or giving away what he had. After marrying Khadija, his first wife, who was a reasonably well off business woman, he gave away most of their wealth as charity (of course, by Khadijah's permission). The spending of wealth is very clearly outlined in the Quran, and most of all, charity is encouraged. That is how one spends in the way of God, so it does not follow that the Muslims sought the spoils of war for purposes of accumulating personal wealth. Again, this is a verse you've clearly misrepresented. 9:29 - I offered a sufficiently detailed explanation of this verse in a comment on another mypetjawa thread: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/131494.php Please see the explanation in the comment dated November 8, 2005 05:59 PM. 9:30 - I'm not sure what you mean to say by quoting this verse. This verse is commenting on how much God dislikes having partners or literal children attributed to him. I'd hardly qualify it as hate speech. It is interesting that you've chosen a deliberately unflattering translation though. Given how inaccurate the other verses you've quoted are, I would encourage you to seek out a better translation. Here is an alternate translation of 9:30: And the Jews say, 'Ezra is the son of Allah', and the Christians say, 'the Messiah is the son of Allah;' that is what they say with their mouths. They only imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them. Allah's curse be on them! How they are turned away! The translation I've used is by Maulawi Sher Ali, fyi. In summary, I hope it's clear that your translations appear to be deliberately inaccurate and are obviously leading to misconceptions supported by those illiterate and unwise Muslims that prefer violence to rationality. I believe the explanations I've given are more representative of the "intelligent support or discourse" that despondant was encouraging. I hope you'll reconsider your inflammatory view following this, or at least produce a clearer understanding of Quranic text than you have thus far. I would like to add that not just Jesus, but Muhammad as well would be ashamed at what's become of the Christian and Muslim nations. Clearly, both need to practise a little of that greater jihad.

Posted by: Sohail Mirza at February 02, 2006 12:03 PM (SHPL6)

12 Que?

Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 12:07 PM (3aakz)

13 Marcus makes a legit point. It's counterproductive. Yes, folks have a right to print whatever they want, but simply for the purpose of offending? I'm not too keen on that. And other folks (the muslims) have a right to object to these cartoons (non-violently, of course, and without government censorhip). The muslim boycott? Valid-- it's their right. Our counter-boycott? Also valid. It's called the marketplace of ideas. Muslim threats of violence? Invalid. Regardless, I don't think we should go out of our way to offend people just for the heck of it. Yes, it's funny to see them throwing hissyfits, but I can't justify it ethically.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 12:08 PM (8e/V4)

14 JC! Very levelheaded and quite reasonable. Your gonna upset Maxie.

Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 12:39 PM (3aakz)

15 Well best things to buy from Denmark are baby back ribs (which of course actually come from mature swine) and cod (mostly caught off Greenland) They used to be one of the best sources for porn but hey that was before the internet.And why are there no cartoons attempting to offend Buddhists ? Perhaps one showing how he died. Also lets remember that Islam is sort of a newcomer. The christians had a 600 year head start in social development. Up until 300 years ago they were still burning witches. We just have to give the muslims a few more centuries to catch up. The trucial states didn't even get rid of slavery until 1962.

Posted by: john ryan at February 02, 2006 12:41 PM (TcoRJ)

16 I'll reconsider my inflammatory view when airliners aren't flown into buildings, bombs detonated at churches, synagogues, pizza parlors, and hotels. I'll reconsider my inflammatory view when Hamas changes its charter and quits calling for Israel to be eradicated. I'll reconsider my inflammatory view when Iran's president renounces the same. I'll reconsider my inflammatory view when I stop seeing hate spewed from Friday sermons at mosques around the world being translated by MEMRI. I'll reconsider my inflammatory view when I stop seeing riots erupt over rumors, as in the Koran flushing idiocy. I'll reconsider my inflammatory views when Christianity and Judaism can be openly practiced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, etc. etc. etc. etc. Actions speak louder than words, and I'll reconsider my inflammatory views when Muslims the world over start proving your words by halting their actions. So give up trying to lecture me. Clean your own house first.

Posted by: Vinnie at February 02, 2006 12:42 PM (f289O)

17 Sohail, I am well aware the only valid version of the Qur'ran is the version in the Classical Arabic, all translations are considered corrupt. The problem is Classical Arabic is along the lines of Latin a language long gone from common usage. So not only do those of us who do not speak Arabic have to depend on a translation we must also depend on a translation that tries to match up a dead language with the current version of Arabic. There is quite a bit of argument over the word jihad and its meaning. Perhaps like many words in English the exact concept it represents depends very much upon the context. The common meaning I hear good Muslims impart to us is jihad is an internal struggle to do right and avoid evil. Of course, when Abu Musab Zarqawi uses the word jihad I hear "kill kaffirs". Abu Musab Zarqawi's meaning gets a lot more attention because it is much more immediate and easier for people to understand. The Zarqawi type is in the stronger position (initially) because most people do not want to come to a premature ending and will knuckle under to the Zarqawist demands. This is what worries me about gratuitous potshots at Islam. That people like yourself are going to see the current struggle not as The West and moderate Muslims vs. Radical Tyrannical Islam but The West vs. Islam.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at February 02, 2006 12:44 PM (Ox5i9)

18 well no more blogging time to enjoy a nice motorcycle ride. This global warming thing does have an upside: Feb biking in New York without a full winter suit. I think the northern blue states might have to reconsider their opinion on green house gases. current NYC temp is 52F

Posted by: john ryan at February 02, 2006 12:45 PM (TcoRJ)

19 Vinnie: That's your perogative but it won't achieve anything except the exact opposite of what you want. You'll only distance Muslims and yourselves even more, not to mention be spreading factually incorrect, irresponsible and disrespectful views. If that's your rational response to terrorism, then so be it. Also, let it be known that the "civilized" nations have their own history of terrorizing people. They aren't without blame, so please don't take such a one-sided stance on the international situation. I hope you'll hold Western leaders to equally high standards and scrutinize their actions as just as well. Marcus: Classical Arabic isn't that forgotten a language We can speak and understand Latin can't we? Classical Arabic has the added benefit of there always having been a portion of the populace that can speak it, understand it's meaning and have memorized an entire book in the language. It was never forgotten, it's just not spoken in common langauge anymore. That said, I can appreciate the confusion over the meaning of "jihad", yet the fact remains that it has multiple meanings. To think of it in terms of modern language, it's common meaning is simply "to struggle or strive against". It's application, as preserved in the Quran, is both to physical and spiritual struggle, the goals of which are also preserved in the Quran. Some of the actions of the West (and certainly the sentiment on JR) leads one to believe that often the fight is the West vs. Islam. I know that's not the complete story though. There is also Islam vs. the militants. As I actually discussed in the JR thread I linked to earlier, the situation will require time, understanding, knowledge, money, and lives to correct. There are injustices being committed by both the West and the militant Muslims... plenty of blame to go around. Really, a discerning individual will see that the bigger struggle for Muslims is against ourselves rather than against the West, but the West should adopt the position of doing everything it can to not inflame the situation. The West needs to offer respect for a serious chance at peace. Likewise the Muslims need to wisen up. There is a serious need for education and englightenment both amongst Muslims and amongst the ilk that hang out on JR.

Posted by: Sohail Mirza at February 02, 2006 01:40 PM (SHPL6)

20 >>>it pains me that the larger Christian populace is okay with this. No, we AREN'T ok with it. We make our opinion well known-- even resorting to boycotts. Leftwing christophobes have a right to practice their hate, and we have a right to strenuously object. But we draw the line at death threats and terrorism.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 01:59 PM (8e/V4)

21 Sohail, Some of the actions of the West (and certainly the sentiment on JR) leads one to believe that often the fight is the West vs. Islam. I know that's not the complete story though. This is exactly what I am warning against. I see some people here as being against Islam in toto but I do not see that as the predominant sentiment here at the Jawa Report. In some of the other blogs I read commentators want the President to be more forthright in naming the enemy, and many take this as a sign of weak resolve to fight the war. I take it as prudent speech not as weakness or cavving into PC pressure. For too many it seems hear "Radical Islam" as "wha-wha-wha Islam" and miss the true target of the full label. That said, I am in full support of the Danish newspapers and newspapers that are reprinting the original cartoons. I decry the cartoons (if one can call them that) being put up here as knee-jerking. As far as your complaint about our tolerance of how we tolerate blasphemous depictions of Jesus and other co Biblical and Qur'ranic figures well... I do not much care for those insults. The problem is we are not about to go and violently put an end to the works. I work for ending the public subsidies such artists receive, I work to pressure galleries to not display such crap (by persuasion), and I use other non-violent tools to express my displeasure. But I am not about to issue threats or to try to encourage others to act out violently against the "artists". If Theo Van Gogh were still alive how many of us would know about the work that he and Ayan Hirsi Ali created?

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at February 02, 2006 02:12 PM (Ox5i9)

22 Sohail, I agree much of the fight is actually a fight amongst Muslims. One writer (IIRC it was David Frum) noted there is a struggle within Islam to reform itself. However, Mr. Frum went on to note the side analgous to Christianity's "Martin Luther" is not winning, i.e. the Bin Ladenites have the upper hand.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at February 02, 2006 02:19 PM (Ox5i9)

23 I will stop calling for the extemination of muslims when they stop calling for the extermination of everyone else. Until then, they are all my enemies. Islam is at war with civilization, and we don't have the luxury to differentiate between those who are trying to kill us, and those who merely actively or passively support the former.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 02:56 PM (0yYS2)

24 I'm with Max! . . . .

Posted by: large at February 02, 2006 03:12 PM (fEUSs)

25 If more Muslims were like Sohail I don't think we would be having this conversation. I wonder, Sohail, if you were to criticize the radicals for their behavior in all this brewhaha, would you feel safe? Could you go into a mosque in Britain, for instance, and decry the threats of violence made by some of the radicals? Just curious, because my position has always been that Islam will have to be remade in order to exist with the modern world.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 04:12 PM (rUyw4)

26 Improbulus: Please refer to the conversation here: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/131494.php Any war you want to wage will be unsuccessful. You are more apt to destroy all of humanity before you destroy the terrorists. Their will is not weaker, their resolve is no less than yours, their claims are no less valid than yours, they are no less human. They have their ideologues, we have ours. They don't like incursions on their land, and neither do we. We are effectively fighting ourselves. If you push to fight fire with fire, then you are pushing towards WW3, and in the nuclear age, that means everyone loses. Marcus: I like that you have a balanced view of this. I too support pushing for change via non-violent means. As far as that goes, we're in complete agreement. Where we disagree though is in our approach to the problem. The militants are a problem, but make no mistake about it, a direct war or confrontation cannot be successful in changing hearts and minds. In fact, we can quite easily observe the exact opposite. The Muslim nations, through a combination of internal corruption and external meddling feel that they have been marginalized and taken advantage of over the last century (or more). To address this, respect and education need to be brought to the forefront. When you listen past the bomb threats and what-not, Bin Laden and his cronies really appear to be fighting for self-determination, and that's what makes him and his ilk so popular amongst a certain segment of the Muslim populace. By meddling further, attempting to force democracy, thinking we can direct the development of that region of the world, we are again marginalizing that populace. Tolerant attitudes cannot be brought about through conflict. We need to withdraw our presence in that region of the world (with a carefully but clearly drawn out plan) because clearly they want self-determination, and frankly our presence is complicating the situation there, even for those that appreciate the American presence. For their part, the militants need to give some assurance that they won't try to dismantle all the governments of the Middle East overnight. But seeing as how it's a cycle of violence and meddling supporting each other, it makes even more apparent the fact that war and conflict is not a solution. We need to step back and take the high road here. This ties into these disrespectful cartoons because Muslims see people, free speech or not, going out of their way to insult the Muslim world. Free-speech does not mandate that everything that can be said is worth saying, and even if it did, certainly the sensitivities of an already disaffected Muslim populace needed to be considered. All in all, this paints the West in a pretty bad light with the Muslim world, not the militants are equally painting Muslims in a bad light. And I disagree that the militants are winning. They're louder, but they're not winning. Like I said though, if conflict reigns, they will just get more support and then everyone loses.

Posted by: Sohail Mirza at February 02, 2006 04:25 PM (SHPL6)

27 Jesusland, I do criticize the radicals. It's one of the reasons the sect I belong to has been outcast by the entire Muslim world And we will keep criticizing them, although we pick our forums and we know it is a long term effort. Change is difficult for some to accept, so it requires patience and fortitude, whether it costs me my life is irrelevant.

Posted by: Sohail Mirza at February 02, 2006 04:30 PM (SHPL6)

28 That said, I can appreciate the confusion over the meaning of "jihad", yet the fact remains that it has multiple meanings. To think of it in terms of modern language, it's common meaning is simply "to struggle or strive against". It's application, as preserved in the Quran, is both to physical and spiritual struggle, the goals of which are also preserved in the Quran. Like when they "struggle and strive" against a KFC franchise owned by Pakistani's with a car bomb, or when they "resist" against an unarmed reporter, by kidnapping and then severe his head with a bowie knife? that sort of thing, or have I got the wrong meaning again?

Posted by: dave at February 02, 2006 04:37 PM (CcXvt)

29 Yeah, Marcus does make a pretty good point. However, thankfully I'm not a politician. Let Bush and Condi deal with diplomacy. I only wish to deal in the truth as I see it. And the truth as I see it is that Muslims are whiny bitches about insults and totalitarians at heart. And to Sohail, I'm glad to see you disclaiming the hadiths that clearly teach that Muhammed was a mass murderer. It's good that you recognize your own minority standing, though. As you know, such is the view of the major schools of Islamic thought. Hopefully your view will become the majority view some day. The ancient religion of the Hebrews seems just as barbaric as mainstream Islam does to me. The minority view of not taking the Mosaic Law literally eventually came to dominate and I now greatly admire modern Judaism. However, a lot of things happened in the intervening time to convince Jews not to take the command to stone Sabbath worshippers to death literally (even if that was a maximum penalty rarely imposed it is still evil).

Posted by: Rusty at February 02, 2006 04:46 PM (JQjhA)

30 Sohail must be sufi. Which means he's the good kind of muslim. Gentle as lambs, I'm told.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 02, 2006 04:50 PM (8e/V4)

31 Sohail, arabs specifically, and muslims generally, have been at war with the civilized West since islam began. I don't want to resolve anything, I just want to see muslims piled in mountains of corpses until they learn they can't defeat civilized people. You may be a good person, but you're still a member of a cult that has sworn death to anyone who will not surrender. I say give me liberty, or give me death.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 05:50 PM (0yYS2)

32 Sohail, actually we've talked before, as I now recall, perhaps on Jihad Watch. It's always nice to talk to a Muslim who doesn't call for my death simply because of a perceived insult. You remind me very much of my Muslim friends from Malaysia who are very worried about the radicalization now happening in their country. They are very concerned about part of their family who are ethnic Chinese and not Muslim. It's not that I don't trust your judgement, Sohail, but moderate Muslims seem to be dwindling both in numbers and influence. I am not at all confident where Islam is going in the short term, and perhaps a convergence of war and radicalism is fated. I hope not.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 06:01 PM (rUyw4)

33 Max, I hear you man! The song with the words "Aint no mountain high enough" comes to mind and I'll be right there with you and yours as long as there is air to breathe. "We don't need no steenkin' badges" or bullets to rock their world one neck at at time. That said, Sohail has, as he says separated his family from the mindless drones and seems to be trying to be a bridge to "normalize" relations between clear thinkers of all faiths and I for one, will extend a hand in friendship, in the effort to bring about understanding and peace for all. Trust is the issue and the proof is in the actions, good and bad. I'll shoulder, but I'm still locked and loaded because of the history.

Posted by: forest hunter at February 02, 2006 09:01 PM (Fq6zR)

34 I'm still having a little trouble with the statement "their claims are no less valid than yours,". And the "incursions" thing. Because before there was an incursion we watched planes run into buildings here and nearly 3,000 people died who did nothing more than go to work one day. Has Sohail forgotten that part? What should our response have been ? A great gathering of westerners to contemplate "Gee, those people must have deserved it somehow. We must Islamize our people more thoroughly to make sure they're safe from foreigners coming here to kill them indiscriminately" ? Because that's exactly what they're demanding. That's exactly what they say is their goal. To crush the west and bring them under Sharia rule and make the world a giant caliphate. I'm taking them at their word. That's valid? Oh, and I'm not done yet. The only other "incursion" was simply being non-Muslim and standing on their "sacred" ground. Because God forbid anyone should utter a word that that might put ideas into anyone's head over there like women's rights or freedom to worship as one sees fit or have the temerity to question their absolute authority on every single aspect over one's life. God forbid someone might find out that their precious frigging oil is the means by which they gain more power over the world and manipulate the price like pulling puppet strings. It kills me to listen to the claims of US Imperialism, which on it's face is a bald-faced lie while they outwardly admit their own goals of exactly that. It's hypocrisy at it's finest when they talk about the unjustness of the disparity between the powerful and the weak in the west as they crush the spirit and will of their own under onerous laws and threats of life and limb. Many Muslims are of the belief that Judaism and Christianity are religions of which Islam is the culmination and thereby superior. Agreements (the dhimma) are then drawn up only to the extent that if one is not Muslim they were "protected" only from annihilation if they adhere to those laws laid down by the Muslim community. Ridiculous laws with no other purpose than to establish that Jews and Christians are a sub-species; pigs and apes. In decreeing that even the poorest Muslim is superior to the richest Jew through the dhimma, they successfully solidify relations between the haves and the have-nots in the Muslim community. Through the dhimma, the upper Arab classes can keep support of the have-nots and retain extreme wealth and absolute power. Disparity of power and wealth, eh? That's valid? Life is only marginally better even for Muslims there than others. There is a mulitude of Mosque preaching Imams that drill into them that the only honor worthy of a Muslim is not an inner struggle but an outer forceful struggle to bring everyone under the same crushing authority. It far outweighs and far outreaches anything as honorable as one's own inner struggle to be just be good. The cognitive dissonance it creates is astounding. I'm deeply sorry for those who are trapped there under that weight who simply want to live their own life without being told day in and day out that the west wants to destroy them and they must fight an imagined enemy. It must be awful for them. The vast majority of Muslims here in the US were lucky enough to escape that and be free to go on with their "inner struggle" in peace. Those truly moderate and lamb-like Muslims are who we fight for. The extremists won't give them up without a fight. The ruthless and hypocritical upper ruling class Mulsims won't either. And they've made damn sure their "subjects" are confused as to who their enemy is.

Posted by: Oyster at February 03, 2006 06:04 AM (YudAC)

35 Are you Sufi Sohail? If so, you're not really a muslim then, at least not by the mainstream definition. If you are a Sufi, then don't take anything I've said to pertain to you, because I like Sufis and even have read Rumi. If you're not a Sufi, however, and since you do seem to be a good person, you must ask yourself if you can be a true muslim, since you're obviously not abiding by the teachings of the koran.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 09:44 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

How else do you interpret the news that the French newspaper France Soir, which published blasphemous cartoons of Muhammed, fired the editor that had run them? If not a capitulation to threats of violence by intolerant Muslims, then what?

It's not like France's large Muslim population hadn't gone on rampages before. And if there is a single one of you who would be shocked to find Jacques Lefranc murdered in the streets of Paris, then you truly are ignorant.

Update: Le Monde bucks the trend and stands up to radical Muslims! (with pics)

BBC:

France Soir originally said it had published the images in full to show "religious dogma" had no place in a secular society.

But late on Wednesday its owner, Raymond Lakah, said he had removed managing editor Jacques Lefranc "as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual".

Mr Lakah said: "We express our regrets to the Muslim community and all people who were shocked by the publication."

The president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), Dalil Boubakeur, had described France Soir's publication as an act of "real provocation towards the millions of Muslims living in France".

Captain Ed has this:

These cartoons have been privately drawn and published by privately-owned enterprises. That is the essential nature of free speech. The Danes understand that, and I find the European impulse in supporting them the most hopeful sign from the Continent in a long time, Soir's surrender notwithstanding.

UPDATE: In a shocking turn of events, Christians and Jews go on bloody rampage over depictions of Jesus!

Posted by: Rusty at 08:56 AM | Comments (71) | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 3 kb.

Just another misunderstanderer of the true meaning of jihad, I guess. Notice the progression from collector of beheading videos and terror propaganda to a terrorist set on killing a fellow Briton because the man was a soldier who had fought bravely in Iraq. A Muslim with a collection of beheading videos is like a child who tortures animals: a sociopath in the making.

Not satisfied with stalking a decorated war hero, the misunderstanderer also was collecting information about prominent Hindus and Jews in the community.

Perhaps the most troubling part in all of this is that the would-be jihadi only gets 6 years for his treason.

Bexley Times:

A TERRORIST who planned to 'hunt down' and kill a decorated British soldier was jailed for six years last Thursday.

Abu Baker Mansha, 21, of Harold Wilson House, Arnott Close, Thamesmead, obtained the address of Corporal Mark Byles, 34, after reading a newspaper report on his killing of at least three insurgents in Iraq.
...

Mansha had amassed a collection of 'virulent' anti-west propaganda with stacks of DVDs, including one of the hostage Kenneth Bigley, pleading for his life before being beheaded.

Others featured Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader. Police also found a blank-firing pistol which somebody had attempted to convert into a lethal working weapon.

Last month, Mansha was convicted by a Southwark Crown Court jury of possessing a document containing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.

He denied the offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 which carries the maximum term of up to 10 years in jail....

"Also found were requests by you about information on prominent members of the Jewish and Hindu communities.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:36 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

All praise be to Rusty for the Fatwa This! gallery. I want to say how much fun I had being creative.. so much so that I just had to enter another one. I feel that it is a compliment to my first offering to the Moon God.

Posted by: wineaholic at 08:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Inspired by my fellow Jawa authors, we've opened a new Fatwa This archive. The archive will be dedicated to pushing the tolerance limits of the few misunderstanders of the religion of peace. Check it out to see our growing number of blasphemous representations of Muhammed.

If you are a Muslim cleric here to issue a fatwa, please be specific as to the author. General fatwas against The Jawa Report won't do. You see, it's kind of a competition......

Posted by: Rusty at 08:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

(Baghdad) A few hours ago, terrorists abducted two journalists from a car traveling the streets of Baghdad.

From Aljazeera.net:

Police and station officials said on Thursday that Reem Zaid, 23, and her colleague Marwan Khaza'al, 25, were returning to the offices of Sumariya TV in Baghdad on Wednesday after attending a press conference when they were kidnapped by gunmen.

A station official who spoke on condition of anonymity said: "They were in a car with two cameramen and their driver when another car blocked them. The five gunmen took the correspondents and their car and left the two cameramen."

Many Iraqi media outlets are also controlled by various political factions inside and outside the government, but the Sumariya official said that the station was privately owned by Iraqis and had no links to any political group.

As journalists, Zaid and Khaza'al apparently were targeted and tracked. Evidently the terrorists recognize that the media exposure associated with kidnapping journalists is exponentially greater than what occurs with businessmen, politicians, or military personnel. Consequently, the terroists are capitalizing on the situation and making journalists their preferred hostages.

Even so, I have to wonder why they didn't take the cameramen also. After all, they too are journalists.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 05:32 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

From Insight On The News:

The U.S. military has been developing a gunship that could literally obliterate enemy ground targets with a laser beam.

The laser could have tremendous repercussions on the battlefield, particularly in urban warfare in such countries as Afghanistan and Iraq. "It's the kind of tool that could bring about victory within minutes," an official said.

But suppose a weapon really were developed that completely eliminated collateral damage. That would mean the end of most of the anti-war movement, right? Wrong, the so-called anti-war movement in this country has never been about preventing deaths; it was and is about advancing a political agenda. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:35 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 2 kb.

1 We need many of those giant "lasers". (I wonder how they'd perform shooting through a smokescreen)

Posted by: Ariya at February 02, 2006 12:52 AM (uxW3N)

2 Bluto No offense - but standard PR spin for R&D and funding from the contractors and Pentagon. Its just a "selling point" for what may or may not be an effective weapons system. Bad Approach - telegraph placing a priority on collateral damage - simply pushes opposition to insure same as operational policy. Even gives them an additional goal to exploit as a "weakness". Even has that kinda Green Evironmentally Friendly pitch to it - see it a lot in government spending.

Posted by: hondo at February 02, 2006 02:54 AM (3aakz)

3 Once they perfect the lazer beam, they should mount them on sharks.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 07:32 AM (0yYS2)

4 hondo, I think I covered that in the post. The real point, though, was to explore the concept of collateral damage as it applies to ultra-leftists' inflicting gross mental stress on the families of servicepeople, all in the name of their own scorched earth, anti-American jihad.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 02, 2006 12:48 PM (RHG+K)

Hide Comments | Add Comment