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".

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.

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

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

12 Que?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

24 I'm with Max! . . . .

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.