2006 February 02 Thursday
Muslims Huff And Puff Over Cartoons And EU Mandarins Appease

Some EU mandarins do not like the decision of a Danish newspaper to publish cartoons which made fun of Islam's founder Mohammed.

The EU also entered the fray. Peter Mandelson, the trade commissioner, said that newspapers had been deliberately provocative in republishing the drawings. Franco Frattini, the EU justice commissioner, said that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten had been "imprudent" to publish the 12 cartoons on September 30. Publication was wrong, he said, "even if the satire used was aimed at a distorted interpretation of religion, such as that used by terrorists to recruit young people, sometimes to the point of sending them into action as suicide bombers".

Even Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, was drawn into the debate, saying that freedom of the press should not be an excuse for insulting religions.

But not everyone was acquiescent. France's interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said he preferred "an excess of caricature to an excess of censure".

But some European newspapers have awakened to the fact that an important principle is at stake.

The conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung went further, calling for the caricatures to be published in as many newspapers as possible. Urging "Europe-wide solidarity", it said: "Religious fundamentalists who do not respect the difference between satire and blasphemy have a problem not only with Denmark, but with the entire western world."

F.A.Z. doesn't go far enough. It should be entirely legal to blaspheme. So what if there is a difference between satire and blasphemy. That should be irrelevant.

In Britain the Labour government lost by 1 vote in an attempt to outlaw insults to religions. I think it should be perfectly legal to state that you hate a religion and to encourage others to hate it too. But in a close vote a religious hatred law almost passed the British House of Commons.

Austria's Foreign Minister is not being helpful either.

Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik said EU leaders have a responsibility to "clearly condemn" insults to any religion.

No Ursula, EU leaders do not have a responsibility to condemn insults to religions. We should be free to insult religions and say things that religious believers see as blasphemy.

A group of Muslims from Denmark went on a trip to the Middle East to drum up anger at the cartoons.

The cartoons row grew yesterday with sharp questions asked about a group of Danish imams who toured the Middle East denouncing their own country for allowing images of the Prophet Mohammed to be published.

The group created a 43-page dossier on what they said was rampant racism and Islamophobia in Denmark and took it to politicians and leading clerics in Egypt and Lebanon in a series of trips late last year.

Ahmed Akkari, a Muslim who lives in Copenhagen Denmark, is a spokesman for the Muslims who toured the Middle East drumming up anger at the cartoons. Akkari sees the killing of Theo van Gogh for his anti-Islam film Submission as "punishment".

Mr Akkari is the spokesman for a group of Danish imams and activists who brought the cartoons - plus three more offensive ones from an unknown source - to the wider attention of Muslims in trips to Egypt and Lebanon. One of the three new cartoons shows Mohammed with a pig's snout.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Akkari referred to the murder of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands in 2004. Mr van Gogh was shot and stabbed to death by a Muslim extremist as "punishment" for making a film about the repression of Muslim women that included images of naked women with Koranic verses on their skin.

The Danes ought to deport Akkari.

My definition of "Islamophobia": The recognition that Islam is incompatible with the Western notions of freedom of speech, press, and religion and the recognition that a significant Muslim minority in a country is a recipe for trouble.

EU workers who try to improve the lives of Palestinians are now in danger of getting kidnapped or killed.

A European Commission spokeswoman said: “Colleagues working in the region are usually there to try to improve the lot of Palestinian people, and those who make the threats should bear that in mind. We oppose all use of violence.”

In Pakistan 400 Muslim students shouted “Death to Denmark” and “Death to France”. They burnt Danish and French flags and an effigy of the Danish Prime Minister. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the chief of Pakistan’s main alliance of Islamic parties, said: “We have called for countrywide protests on Friday.”

Lesson: Do not try to help people who are not going to feel gratitude.

Danes, Norwegians, and French people would be wise to leave the West Bank and Gaza.

Two armed Palestinian groups have threatened to target Danes, Norwegians and French nationals in the Middle East.

“All nationals and those who work in the diplomatic corps of these countries can be considered targets of the Popular Resistance Committee and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades,” the groups warned.

Finnish Muslims are boycotting Danish products.

Khodr Chehab, the imam of the Islamic Society of Finland, told the Finnish News Agency (STT) on Wednesday that the depictions of the prophet Muhammed printed by Danish daily Jyllands-Posten in September were meant to offend Muslims.


Mr Chehab added that Finnish Muslims had already initiated a boycott of Danish products.

"This boycott is already taking place. All the Muslims, or lets say the majority of Muslims, in Finland are already boycotting Danish products."

I wonder if any Danish Muslims are doing their shopping in Sweden or Germany.

In Qatar foreigners are maintaining some demand for Danish products.

However, medium and smaller foodstuff outlets and grocery stores played down the boycott call given by Islamic scholars and said that foreigners were still demanding Danish products, especially butter, cheese and milk.

Smaller grocery stores said they did get enquiries about Danish products, but could not afford to remove Danish products from their shelves due to demand, particularly from non-Arabs, including Muslims.

Palestinians might start killing Danes, French, and Norwegians in their midst.

Gunmen in the West Bank city of Nablus entered four hotels to search for foreigners to abduct and warned their owners not to host guests from several European countries. Gunmen said they were also searching apartments in Nablus for Europeans.

Militants in Gaza said they would shut down media offices from France, Norway, Denmark and Germany, singling out the French news agency Agence France Presse.

"Any citizens of these countries, who are present in Gaza, will put themselves in danger," a Fatah-affiliated gunman said outside the EU Commission's office in Gaza, flanked by two masked men holding rifles.

If the European governments don't apologize by Thursday evening, "any visitor of these countries will be targeted," he said.

Europeans take note. Islamist and Prime Minister of Turkey Erdogan thinks that freedom of speech should not include freedom to insult Islam.

But the principle of freedom of speech was targeted by Egypt's Mubarak, who was quoted Thursday as saying that freedom of speech must not be used as an excuse to insult religious beliefs.

His views were echoed by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who condemned the cartoons as an attack on the spiritual and moral values of Muslims and said during a meeting with French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy in Ankara that the freedom of the press must have limits, Turkey's Andalou news agency reported.

If Turkey is admitted to the EU it will some day become the biggest population in the EU. Do Europeans want such an illiberal country in the EU?

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper whose publishing of the cartoons about Islam and Mohammed started off the latest escalation of conflict between Islam and the West, is the highest circulation newspaper in Denmark. The Jyllands-Posten political editor, Joern Mikkelsen, says that publishing the cartoons was worth it.

For his part, Mikkelsen also seemed at relative ease on Wednesday, at least given the stakes the crisis could have for Denmark's image abroad. It may be seen as a pariah in the Arab world, but the conservative Jyllands-Posten will be seen by some now as a trailblazer in the fight freedom of the press. "Was it worth it?" Mikkelsen asked rhetorically and pausing briefly before answering: "Yes, it was worth it."

Mikkelsen said the subsequent debate over who is or isn't entitled to criticize a religion only served to further legitimize his paper's decision to run the comics.

Mikkelsen said the paper had not violated ethics or even the law, but it had nevertheless apologized to all those who were offended by the caricatures. "Of course you can ask yourself if the drawings were a bit naive," he concedes. "But in the end, this doesn't have to do with the pictures anymore -- I mean, who has even seen them?" Instead, the issue has been transformed into a conflict of civilizations.

The Jyllands-Posten staff have evacuated their building multiple times due to bomb threats. The staff of the Norwegian publication Magazinet get death threats and their editor is under police protection. I wonder how many people in Europe are now under police protection due to Muslim death threats. At least several Dutch politicians are under police protection from Muslims.

Europeans, recent events are nature's way of telling you that you need to get your Muslims on outbound airplances. Europeans should pay Muslims to leave. Steve Sailer says his immigrant buy-out scheme could work. One fellow has proposed how to structure the scheme to get Muslims to leave.

Update: Michelle Malkin has pictures of Muslim protestors in London England. Their signs include "Freedom Go To Hell", "Be Prepared for the Real Holocaust", "Behead Those Who Insult Islam", "Massacre Those Who Insult Islam", "Exterminate Those Who Insult Islam", "Annihilate Those Who Insult Islam", and "Europe You Will Pay, Demolition Is On Its Way". I think mass deportation should be on its way.

Update II: The Muslims did make paintings and other visual representations of Muhammad/Mohammed/Muhammed in previous centuries.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 February 02 11:07 PM  Civilizations Clash Of

Max Spears said at February 3, 2006 2:29 AM:

These latest developments should ,one hopes alert the Europeans as to the mentality of the average Moslem mind.
Perhaps Mr Blair and Mr Straw, who are championing Turkey's entry into Europe, no doubt under strict instructuions from the Americans, should take note at Mr Erdogan's statements,look a little further afield than the ends of their noses,realise what the outcome will be, and put the interest of the British and European People first.

John S Bolton said at February 3, 2006 2:54 AM:

The EU is an enemy of freedom; a power-grabbing traffic pile-up which will try any means of generating intercommunal conflict that can be gotten away with. The moslems are waved-in, not in spite of, but because of, their hostility to freedom from aggression. The EU should be put down before it enlarges its vector function, relative to hostiles and undesirables in general.
It would be good to pay undesirables with usable foreign connections, other than illegal aliens to move out. No payment would be high enough to be used by those who actually are net taxpayers. Only the parasitical aggressor elements would use it, since their incomes are low, their time horizons short; and their countries of origin poor and cheap.
Recall, though, that this is a ruthless power struggle, with unprincipled power-hungering officials, using the increase of intercommunal conflicts via immigration, as their last-ditch method to get dicatorship.

Kenelm Digby said at February 3, 2006 5:17 AM:

As i've said many times before the so-called "Sailer buy-out plan" is trash, and will not work and cannot work.
Two points to consider:
1/. Most Muslims in western Europe were actually born on European soil, and this trend will only increase, to whence are they going to be repariated?
2/. The proposal simply does not make rational economic sense.As we know all humans are primarily driven by rational economic stimuli.The "bounty" that Sailer foolishly proposes does not cover three month's worth, let alone lifetime's benefits of the various cash subsidies and payments in kind that the Muslims receive *As of right* from western governments.
Soit's clearly a no-brainer.

The fact is, and the fact that you must face up to and reconcile with is that the Muslims are here to stay in western Europe.There are not going away.On the contrary, it is distinctly possible that Muslims, in tandem with other non-Whites will form the majority populations of many of the European states by mid-century.
My position on this is very clear and rational.This disaster was brought about by *deliberate policies, carried out with eyes wide-open and with ree-will, by the European political elites.As the saying goes "they made their beds now they must lie on it".
Perhaps it's just another expression of the Darwinian paradigm.
On the one hand I do have a sentimental attachment to the continuation of the distinct European genotype, but the hard, rational part of me schooled in the real world, the world of hard-knocks, sits back emotionally detached from the spectacle, saying to myself "let nature take her corse", "let the best man win" etc etc.

Bob Badour said at February 3, 2006 7:14 AM:
Khodr Chehab, the imam of the Islamic Society of Finland, told the Finnish News Agency (STT) on Wednesday that the depictions of the prophet Muhammed printed by Danish daily Jyllands-Posten in September were meant to offend Muslims.

Well, duh! No shit Sherlocke! I divide muslims into moderate and illiberal. Those who embrace freedom of speech and other core western values are moderate. I would like those who are offended by cartoons to leave the west. I say: "Let's offend them a lot more. Maybe they will leave!"

Even if they don't leave, they will do something stupid enough to justify deportation or incarceration. Where is the downside?

Colin Nelson said at February 3, 2006 8:26 AM:

Brilliant post - thanks.

This cartoon comedy is providing a perfect foil to expose the Muslims certainly, but it is serving a second and equally important purpose - to expose those who have forgotten just what freedom and democracy actually mean.

Those who currently rank high on the "forgotten" or "never knew" category are: Bill Clinton and K Annan.

A pox upon them - though I am sure that to wish a pox on somebody will cause their or others feelings to be hurt.


Matra said at February 3, 2006 10:35 AM:

Muslims Huff And Puff Over Cartoons And EU Mandarins Appease

Not just the EU. The US State Department has called the drawings "offensive". Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, spoke out against those newspapers on the continent that reprinted the pictures and praised the British press for being sensitive to Muslims. Protesters in Britain weren't quite as sensitive as the British press. According to the Daily Mail they held signs saying "Behead those who insult prophet" and "Free speech go to hell".


BO said at February 3, 2006 10:42 AM:

As a foreing woman living in Denmark I am shocked about this whole thing and how it is scalating day by day, It is really shocking and sometimes I have to thing is this the 21st Century or we are back into the Middle Ages??because some people still dont know that in Europa it is long time that we dont burn wiches in the name of religion or diferences in opinion. We have learn from our previous mistakes and we are above the INTOLERANCE, but it seems like other civilizations they are still there, 500 years ago. The saddest thing is that most of this people that want to attack our DEMOCRACY and our FREEDOM they dont even know what they are attacking...As a woman, I am totally againts any demostracion againts Women Rights but should I attack this muslim parents that put the veil to their young daughters? or that ones that choose a husband for their daughters instead of allowing them to choose their own one? Not I wont but I wont use violence but all the tools that the Democracy, because this is Europa and if somebody cannot accept it, better to go to their lands and live in the darkness and in the Middle Ages because dear Muslims the Inquisition was abolished here long time ago and some of us dont want it back.
In order to go forwards a society needs debate and oposition, if not, better to go back to the caves.

Pico said at February 3, 2006 10:55 AM:

Liberals should learn the lesson. Let Christianity flourish in your country. The alternative is much worse.

Pico said at February 3, 2006 10:59 AM:

It is strange there is no mention of the trial of Nick Griffin for criticising Islam in Britain. Today's VDARE column covers the strange silence of the US media on the Nick Griffin trial.

Richard the Lionhearted said at February 3, 2006 2:21 PM:

There is one sure place to deport the Muslims to.
The grave.
With a pork-chop in their mouths.

It is time for Westerners to call their 'leaders', whether Clintor, Blair
Bush or whatever EU leech last piped up, what they are: sellouts, whores for
globalism, multiculturalist traitors. Arise and save yourselves.

Bob Badour said at February 3, 2006 5:38 PM:

The Malkin update just shows how little the pinkos in Europe understand freedom of speech. Incitement to violence is not protected speech, while religious or political cartoons are protected speech.

The idiots over there have their heads so far up their asses they are showing their 'tolerance' by protecting incitement to violence while condemning political satire. The mind boggles.

Stephen said at February 3, 2006 6:06 PM:

Bob said, "Incitement to violence is not protected speech", hmmm, isn't that phraseology from First Amendment decisions/interpretations? Its not immediately clear to me how the first amendment applies in Europe.

Bob Badour said at February 3, 2006 6:39 PM:


It doesn't apply in any oppressive society and that includes Europe. However, we are either free to speak or we are not.

English history suggests we have the rights we are willing to kill for. The US Constitution and its early amendments merely record the outcome as of 230 years or so ago after almost a millenium of killing for rights. Europe, since that time, has regressed almost to feudalism--perhaps they should have emulated the US and put the contract in writing.

(Although, I admit my model has the flaw that eastern europe regressed all the way to feudalism and has since rebounded somewhat.)

The large european muslim population stands to push Europe the rest of the way back to medievalism.

In the end, I am left wondering what point you could be trying to make.

Stephen said at February 3, 2006 8:13 PM:

Bob, just having a go at you for calling people 'idiots' while in an earlier breath implying that the First Amendment applied inside other sovereign nations. I think you do your arguments harm when you pepper them with patently false characterisations of europe being an "oppressive society".

That said, all of the western democracies (ie those in europe, in the americas, in Australia etc) have essentially the same measure of free speech (+/- only a few percent), and every western democracy has essentially the same set of exceptions - incite to violence etc. Indeed, the few European ministers who are quoted as moaning about the cartoons are limited to doing nothing but moan because of that very same free speech.

Finally, a written constitution isn't the be all and end all (ref the protections enshrined in the soviet constitution). Rather, its the institutions/philosophy that are key (ref UK).

The bigger problem isn't going to be supression by the western governments, rather its going to be News Corp etc likely refusal to publish the cartoons.

gay cj said at February 3, 2006 9:05 PM:

Western notions of freedom of speech
ROFL, Europeans are in no position to lecture the rest of the world on freedom of speech; if this cartoon had been deemed 'anti-semetic' it would've been withdrawn and the paper would have fined heavily. You're either going to censor everything or nothing, no double-standards.

Bob Badour said at February 3, 2006 9:42 PM:


I conclude you are unaware of the laws limiting speech throughout much of europe and in Canada.

Let's consider Canada -- arguably closer to the US than Europe in more ways than one. Quebec has inherently fascist language laws, and Canada has explicit prohibitions against numerous types of essentially political speech including any speech arbitrarily labelled 'hate' speech.

With regard to oppression, need I remind you that wave after wave of european immigrants to the US from the puritans to the huguenots to the jews to the irish fled oppression? That England maintains the last vestige of its colonial past in parts of Ireland and the whole of Wales and Scotland? That the governing party in the UK just recently tried to pass laws prohibiting criticism of Islamism while apparently tolerating Islamist incitements to violence both in mosques and in public demonstrations?

Need I point out the rising anti-semitism in France? Or the nightmare of the holocaust throughout Europe including in Vichy France?

Need I compare the culture of Germany that states: "There must be a rule and that's the rule we have." vs the American concept that any unecessary rule is necessarily a bad rule?

Need I point out the recent censure in Italy of some notable figures?

And that's without even getting to the issue of the EU super-government.

I say that Europe is oppressive because Europe is oppressive. I don't see how speaking the simple truth diminishes my credibility. If you are so stuck in denial that you cannot even consider the simple truth, then you are not reachable in any case.

seelow heights said at February 3, 2006 10:07 PM:

Virtually all the European countries have "hate speech" and/or "holocaust denial" laws, and are therefore repressive to a degree. They are repressive because what constitutes "hate" is highly elastic and what constitutes "holocaust denial" has been interpreted to be virtualy any deviation from the consensus Official History that is seen to minimize the crimes of the NS regime. In addition it is openly declared that the truth is no defense in these cases.This does not mean that the Europeans sink to the level of true authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. The problem here is that Europe has assumed collective guilt for the crimes of the Nazi regime and has decided to continue fighting WW2 in the law courts 60 years after Hitler blew his brains out.

I don't think that the "Red Holocaust" deniers (of whom there have been many in academia) belong in prison any more than the pro-NS bunch. I think it is simple common sense for someone with respect for human freedom to consider the criminalizing of speech only in cases of imminent threat.The quite open incitement to violence exhibited by the London Muslim demonstrators does seem to cross the line, especially in light of 7/7. In a somewhat similar case a black sometime professor in the US recently called for the extermination of whites at a public meeting(broadcast on C-Span) and there were no repercussions.But then he did not appear to be calling for immediate action.

Kenelm Digby said at February 4, 2006 3:24 AM:

Let's put things into perspective.
The so-called "Sailer Plan" of paying Muslims to leave Europe is about as feasible and realistic as the State of California paying large cash sums to Mexicans in order to "entice" them home.

Eddie Breen said at February 4, 2006 5:40 AM:

Of course the religious do all they can to silence those who point out their delusions. Religion is so seductive, it provides all the answers and provides a blissful immortality. But it is also quite insane. As a US citizen, I've see my own country go from a secular to a theocratic society where anti-government views have become at best impolite and at worst, immoral.

I don't hate those who believe in the nonexistant God, but they clearly need to see mental health professionals before they hurt more people in his name. Perhaps get medication.

Bob Badour said at February 4, 2006 6:55 AM:


I disagree. Christians, in general, do not try to silence critics. At least, not anymore.

I suppose there was that whole Jerry Falwell/Larry Flint thing, but how did that turn out?

Nemo said at February 4, 2006 8:09 AM:

Gay CJ,

You're forgetting that the drawings were published in Denmark. The German Nazis can't publish anything, so they have it done in Denmark, where it's not illegal to be a Nazi, just as long as you don't express the intention or desire to kill muslims, jews, hindus or what have you.
Reading your post is like hearing muslim spokespersons on tv: "They would never have done it to the jews!". Well, here's news for you, they would and they have, but even if you showed such drawings to a muslim (and, mind you, in muslim countries there are much worse drawings of jews and christians) they'll say it made no difference. They use it as an argument, and if the argument backfires, well, then there's something else, or "in America they wouldn't".

Invisible Scientist said at February 4, 2006 8:24 AM:

The demographic trend in Europe is such that the number of European born Muslims will gradually become the majority. Therefore it will not be possible to deport them very easily on the basis of where they were born. All these arguments and discussions about whose religion is right or wrong, will be resolved by whose uranium is more enriched. Iran and several other Muslim nations will gradually acquire the ability to build nukes. After all, by the standards of the new millenium, even nukes can be considered low-tech weapons. But the important thing is that nukes are also becoming portable. Even 40 years ago both the US and USSR were able to fit these nukes in artillery shells or backpacks. The reason the Europeans are in complete agreement with Bush's dim view of Iranian nukes, is because they know that if Islamic countries get nukes, then this will somehow cause their European Muslim minotiries to become even more relevant, because they would demand increasingly more power (in Europe) on the basis of these nukes. Back to the basics: instead of philosophizing, let us notice that everything is very clear when we look at the world in terms of equations... Who is right or wrong is immaterial. What is relevent for the coming decades, is whose nukes are more powerful (the bottom line.)

Nemo said at February 4, 2006 10:39 AM:

CNN: "In Copenhagen, young Muslims clashed briefly with police after they were stopped from boarding a train to go to a demonstration north of the Danish capital. Some of the roughly 300 demonstrators threw rocks and bottles at police but no one was injured, officials said."
Reality: Most demonstrators were blond haired, blue eyed Danish "Autonome" whose raison d'être seems to be counter-demonstrations.

"At the demonstration later Saturday outside Copenhagen, right-wing extremists plan to protest the recent burning of Danish flags -- a gathering that could inflame tensions with the Muslims."
Yes, very inflamatory. They promised beforehand that there would be no burning of eighter the koran or national flags of muslim countries. Still, a few dozen muslims turned up to prevent it, and the "Autonome" mustered about 100 demonstrators, most of whom were arrested for disturbing public order. The 30 nationalists were bussed off to prevent clashes with the fascistoid "anti-fascists", who then picked a fight with the police.

"Although many of Denmark's 200,000 Muslims were deeply offended by the cartoons, mass demonstrations have not broken out."
Isn't that strange? Danish muslims travel the Middle East to get support against the Danish government, because the government won't break the law of the land, but in Denmark the reaction is luke-warm.

"CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam."
For fear of being banned from reporting from muslim countries, more likely. They don't mind sending reporters and photographers into harm's way, and they have shown outrageous pictures before, so what's stopping them now?

Randall Parker said at February 4, 2006 12:50 PM:

The Muslims insist in teaching us that they are illiberal to the core. Our so-called leaders do not want us to provoke the Muslims by speaking our minds about them. But it takes so little to set off the Muslims that this strategy on the part of our so-called leaders looks like it is failing big time.

The big upside of this episode is that it is highly educational for Westerners. The clash of civilizations is real. The sooner Westerners come to appreciate just how much is at stake the better off we will be.

Nemo said at February 5, 2006 1:11 AM:

The thing to understand about muslims is: God has told them that they are the true believers, and that all other faiths are false. Consequently, a muslim can never offend a non-muslim in religious matters, in fact God requires them to challenge all non-believers (in islam), if necessary to kill them. An insult against a single muslim by a non-muslim is also an insult against all muslims, but not vice-versa.
How can muslims insult christians and jews (or any non-muslim for that matter)? Well, they can't, because there's only one God, and only one true religion, and not belonging to that faith is in itself an insult to islam, and how can it be an insult to tell someone that they're wrong? It's an attempt to help them! That's also the reason muslims accept converts into islam, but kill christian missionaries, and especially those who convert to christianity, when they get the chance. They're doing God's work. If only they would leave it to God!

Bob Badour said at February 5, 2006 12:29 PM:

Returning to a comment I made about cultural differences between Germans and Americans, I note the difference shows up at the end of this WaPo article about the recent reactionary violence in the middle-east:

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier pushed for intercultural dialogue.

"We all agree that words and deeds that insult or ridicule other religions or cultures do not contribute to mutual understanding," he said at a security conference in Germany. "Both freedom of the press ... and freedom of religion are great liberties _ those who use them must use them with care."

The right to speak freely and to criticize is a right that protects liberty. We allow those who govern to do so on the condition that they respect and protect that right among others. The german phraseology suggests liberty is granted at the whim of government.

It is a privilege to use public roads, and one has an obligation to use them with great care. It is a duty to speak one's mind as one sees most fit. If one decides it is best to offend, then it is a duty to offend.

crush41 said at February 5, 2006 5:13 PM:

The proposal simply does not make rational economic sense.As we know all humans are primarily driven by rational economic stimuli.The "bounty" that Sailer foolishly proposes does not cover three month's worth, let alone lifetime's benefits of the various cash subsidies and payments in kind that the Muslims receive *As of right* from western governments.


Most people are not economically prudent, especially those with lower IQs. Recall the Standford marshmallow test showing that smarter, emotionally 'intelligent' kids waited and received two marshmallows while the less endowed grabbed up a marshmallow right away and got no more. Signing bonuses work wonders because of this. Americans spent more than they made this year--being in debt makes absolutely no sense economically. Lots of people still fall into it.

The Muslims in Europe are probably especially susceptible to being overwhelmed by a big upfront offer and taking it. I agree the Sailer strategy still doesn't seem conceivable without severe restrictions on reentry which is even tougher for the Europeans than us (politically and otherwise).

crush41 said at February 5, 2006 5:22 PM:


Here are some of those cartoons you speak of.

Nemo said at February 6, 2006 11:00 AM:


I had already seen those, but thanks anyway.

To those who feel that the muslims have a right to be offended, I say: Offended, yes. Not entitled to burn down embassies and destroy christian neighbourhoods. Even their boycott of Danish products makes no sense. If you blame all muslims for what a few muslims do, it's a crime. But if one non-muslim offends a muslim or islam, every non-muslim is to blame. They can't end their subscription on Jyllands-Posten, so instead they stop buying Danish milk. Go figure. If Denmark wants to "punish" them, she could stop foreign aid to the poorest muslim countries, but that would just be so unfair.

Try and show a muslim the pictures Crush41 links to, and hear if such attacks on other religions are acceptable. I'm pretty sure that, although all those cartoons probably came before the 12 drawings in Jyllands-Posten, they'll explain that they're not offensive, especially in view of the drawings of Muhammed. Muslims have to defend themselves and their faith. The rest of the world can just bend over and take it up the behind.

Nasir Jan said at February 7, 2006 9:30 AM:

I think you get good muslims and bad muslims, good christians and bad christians and good jews and bad jews.

there is a thin line between free speech and hate filled provocation.

Were hitlers speeches before ww2 justified because they constituted free speech?

Has the danish news media made and distributed cartoons about the holocaust?

The US media has refrained to print the cartoons - This is the home of freedom and liberty but they also have some sense which seems to be lacking in Norway

Bob Badour said at February 7, 2006 11:14 AM:
The US media has refrained to print the cartoons

I suggest it is time for Americans to start cancelling subscriptions.

Bob Badour said at February 7, 2006 11:16 AM:

I wonder what would happen if a newspaper published the allegedly non-provocative cartoons? I am almost certain some muslims would censure the paper anyway.

Jorge D.C. said at February 8, 2006 3:07 AM:

Today's VDARE column covers the strange silence of the US media on the Nick Griffin trial.

The silence is not "strange" in the sense that strange is defined as unusual. The US mainstream media is to a large extent homogenized pastuerized left wing agit-prop that has been omitting key world events from the headlines (ones that don't conform to the multicultural agenda) for many decades. Non-coverage of the Griffin trial is business as usual.

Example: The disintegration of Canada - meaning Quebec's separatist movement and referenda. Last time around independence was nearly declared by Quebec but hardly an alarm was sounded here by the networks or big papers. It was just a blip. And soon Quebec will vote again. And when Canada actually does disintegrate it will be reported as a shocking event that had no buildup, no precursors. Like the Hezbollah victory it will be reported as a surprise.

The Nick Griffin trial is a zero-sum game cultural conflict - sort of a microcosm of the Quebec separatist movement. Griffin is drawing a line between Christian Britain and Muslim Britain. He is putting multiculturalism on trial and winning. And whenever multiculturalism suffers a setback the coverage will be muted and then flushed down the memory hole.

The mainstream US media is hardly vast. Radical cultural marxists control the NYTimes, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, LATimes, ABCNews, NBCNews, CBSNews, CNN, FOXNews and MSNBC. Plus the DNC and the RNC. That is all you need for saturation media coverage and control of the country's past, future and present.

When independent thinkers bitch about both major parties being the same, they really are complaining about the cultural marxism that has infected both sides of the aisle in the USA.

benn johnson said at February 8, 2006 6:59 AM:

I really think its time to ban muslims in this country, if they don`t like the way we live , then they should fuck off back 2 there backward country`s, because in my mind they are all sad lunatics that should be banned from living in our country, just a word on there holy leader he is a fucking pooof

Nemo said at February 8, 2006 8:11 AM:

I think you get good people and bad people. Period.

Do you want me to tell a joke about jews that I heard i school some thirty-five years ago?

Anyone who gets offended by sectarian jokes: STOP READING NOW!


Hitler was at home baking, when Goering called him on the phone and asked if he would come over and play cards. Hitler answered: "No, I'm sorry, but I have a jew in the oven".
To those who read this far: I never heard or read anything of this calibre about muslims in Denmark, but we still have to hear all the stories about how easy we are on the jews. Well, most jews in Denmark are Danes with a jewish faith. Most muslims in Denmark are muslim Arabs or Turks with a Danish address.

To balance the above joke, here's another from the same period: Goering and Hitler were out for a walk, and Goering told Hitler that jewish shopkeepers were smarter than their arian counterparts. When Hitler refused to believe him, he first took him to an "arian" shop and asked for a left-handed cup. The shop-owner explained there was no such thing. They then went to a "jewish" shop and asked for the same. The shop-owner scratched his head and said: "I think we may have one out back", and left the room. He returned with a cup and said: "Here you are, gentlemen!". After they left the shop, Goering said to Hitler: "Now do you see what I meant?", and Hitler answered: "Oh, he may have been just plain lucky to have had one!".

Randall Parker said at February 8, 2006 7:04 PM:

Hey, I haven't done a post on Nick Griffin either. Meant to. But never got around to it.

I want to do a post on suppression of nationalists by Western governments. Need to find the time to do research. Any suggestions for episodes to mention in such a post would be appreciated. Post here or email to futurepundit [and then the at sign] futurepundit [and then the dot] com.

Jorge D.C. said at February 10, 2006 3:35 AM:

The fact is, and the fact that you must face up to and reconcile with is that the Muslims are here to stay in western Europe.There are not going away.On the contrary, it is distinctly possible that Muslims, in tandem with other non-Whites will form the majority populations of many of the European states by mid-century.

In just the past three years the far Right across Europe has made enormous strides. The political center is moving to the right quickly on the immigration issue in Europe and here in the US. Yet you discount this trend and predict a mid-century tipping point of non-white majorities in Europe.

I say recent events point to it being likely that extreme right wing movements will eventually be empowered to ethnically cleanse Europe back to a pre-Muslim demography.

Vicious race war mapped the entire known history of human civilization on planet earth. In fact it's theorized that the Neanderthals (last of the homo erectus?) were hunted to extinction by homo sapiens.

The least well thought out political theory bouncing around these days is the "Europe is dying" assumption. What garbage. The population of Europe has exploded geometrically over several centuries and is finally ebbing.

Alien pocket populations are unstainable long term. That is the racial history of the world. If Muslims can gain a critical mass in one location maybe they could hold out for a considerable period. But you'll notice the racial map of the world shows contiguous long term racial group populations. As the Jews have learned over and over again it's very difficult to sustain island or pocket populations of a separate ethnicity.

As far as all of Europe converting to Islam that is more unlikely than ever. It might have been doable in the 16th C when Islamic battlefied prowess matched the Europeans. But what is the conversion rate nowadays? Is there any trend in that direction? The answer is no. Europeans are not embracing Islam. And battlefield prowess has never been more lopsided in the Europeans' favor once it comes down to all out war and forced conversions.

When the gloves come off the Euros will chase out or exterminate the Muslims easily.

So the European population is contracting. Remember the same alarmists would be hysterical if Europe were expanding its racial territory. Get it?

Once the post-modern neocon or liberal society disengages from racial reality (Darwin), historic racial group competition behavior becomes taboo and flushed down the memory hole and out of our collective wisdom. Then the post-modern mind relieved of this racial wisdom naturally must assume European whites need to be saved from extinction like the Dodo bird.

What intelligent people should be bracing for is European whites going on a racial rampage when being pressed to a racial tipping point.

Russell Whitaker said at February 12, 2006 3:53 PM:

Blogger "The Dissident Frogman" actively maintains a posting with some very high quality "Support Denmark" graphics in multiple languages (the list of which is growing) such as English, French, Italian, Polish, German, Simplified Chinese, Spanish, and Romanian:


I recommend downloading and using these banners on our blogs

L. Chamieh said at February 14, 2006 11:41 PM:

Freedom of speech, democracy, etc. are very nice values but not when it is irresponsible speech, one-sided democracy, etc. You are free to talk against Muslims,BUT you are not free to defend fundamentalist Muslims (although I am totally against fundamentalism). The United States went to war in Iraq to bring the Western values of democracy and freedom of speech, BUT not if it is a democracy that does not approve of the occupation nor is it a speech against the Americans. The West claims to be teaching the Middle East democracy, BUT if "Hamas" wins in the free elections they boycott the Palestinian authority and stop aid to the poor Palestinians (again I am not a Hamas supporter myself). Finally, I can tell you I am a woman from the Middle East who would highly appreciate a really democratic and free society NOT A HYPOCRITICAL ONE IN THE WESTERN WAY.

Bob Badour said at February 15, 2006 6:01 AM:
BUT you are not free to defend fundamentalist Muslims

Horseshit. Every muslim I have ever encountered has exercised their right to free speech to defend the terrorists in one way or another.

BUT if "Hamas" wins in the free elections they boycott the Palestinian authority and stop aid to the poor Palestinians

Why should anyone feel sorry for the "poor" Palestinians who elected a government whose primary platform is genocide? We all make choices. Our choices have consequences. Where is the hypocrisy in that?

With all due respect, you are the hypocrite. You act to end the freedom of speech while claiming to support it.

fevzi ersoy said at February 15, 2006 10:09 AM:

While we, Turks have been protecting your back from Russians during Cold War as one of the most important members of NATO, there was no fuss about Turkey's geographical position. Now after the cold war international(!)oil companies and arm producers needed new enemies and on the other hand all oil fields happened to be in muslim territories. So suddenly they started to play with their history old toy: religion. Suddenly some powers started to boil up interreligious tension, of course with the great help of idiots like most of us.

Remember! geopolitics is a quite strange thing; if you have needed Turkey's help in the past, there is a good chance that you will need it some time in the future too.

If you have needed to pass through Gallipoli, with your gunships, it is quite likely that you will ask for it in the future too.

That time Turkey may be another Iran, even more powerful and even more hostile.

Think about it again!

Bob Badour said at February 15, 2006 4:38 PM:


I have thought about it, and that's exactly what worries me about the generals not coming out to stop the Islamists from coming to power this last time around. It seems Ataturk's oppressive policies that kept Turkey moving more-or-less in the direction of modernity have finally been abandoned.

I would be very sad if the Islamists take Turkey back to the middle ages and possibly force us to nuke it back to the stone age. I would find that very sad indeed.

L. Chamieh said at February 16, 2006 2:16 AM:


So every muslim you have ever encountered has exercised their right to free speech to defend the terrorists in one way or another? Have you only encountered muslims on radical TV channels or what? I live among a lot of muslims and, believe it or not, they do not defend terrorists and many of them consider terrorists as non-muslims because they kill innocent people.

Another piece of information for you: I freely argue about religion with muslims but I do not use such words as "horseshit" as a means of "free speech". I believe that is exactly the problem with the cartoons. A rational argument is acceptable but the cartoons are just like your saying "horseshit".

L. Chamieh

Bob Badour said at February 16, 2006 6:58 AM:

L. Chamieh,

I have known muslims in person, online and I have seen them in the major media.

I have yet to encounter any muslim who is willing to say:
Our religious institutions, our mosques, our media and many of our respected leaders share a core of intolerance that one can trace back to the earliest versions of our religion's base texts.

I have yet to encounter any muslim who is willing to say:
Yes, the terrorists are fundamentalist muslims who adhere to very literal interpretations of key passages in our religion's base texts.

many of them consider terrorists as non-muslims
This kind of duplicitous denial is exactly what I am talking about. The terrorists are muslims, and they follow a very literal interpretation of the Hadith and the Qur'an. The terrorists are fundamentalist muslisms as are the Saudi financed Imams who now dominate the world's mosques.

Denial is defense. And when someone makes a denial so ridiculous that I find it insulting, I reserve my right to call it what it is: horseshit. Or would you prefer I express my outrage at the insult by burning down your diplomatic institutions?

L. Chamieh said at February 19, 2006 12:37 AM:


One should get rid of the pre-assumption that the word "muslim" equals "terrorist" when discussing a sensitive issue like this. I can tell you in short, yes there are texts in every religion that sound strange or even unacceptable in the 21st century, and there are extremists who either misuse or misinterpret religious texts, in most cases for political reasons, in order to brain-wash young people and turn them into suide bombers. However, the extremists definitely do not represent all the believers of the religion.

Honestly speaking, it is a pity that few violent people have managed to spoil the image of all muslims in the world so much that there are people like you who have decided to judge all muslims to be terrorists. I know you disagree but there are a lot of tolerant muslims out there, just like there are a lot of intolerant non-muslims. I advise you to have a look at the abuse pictures of Abu Gharib prisoners.

L. Chamieh

Bob Badour said at February 19, 2006 7:59 AM:
One should get rid of the pre-assumption that the word "muslim" equals "terrorist" when discussing a sensitive issue like this

Since I never made that assumption in the first place, I fail to see a point in your stating it now.

I can tell you in short, yes there are texts in every religion that sound strange or even unacceptable in the 21st century

I find the New Testament entirely acceptable. I have not seen anything in those books that would cause a problem for me as an atheist. I find "turn the other cheek, walk the second mile and love your enemies" entirely non-threatening. I have seen no evidence that any other message in the New Testament even exists.

On the other hand, I find "cut off their heads and their fingers" quite alarming. Instead of trying to muddy the issue with non-muslim texts, of which I suspect you are entirely ignorant in any case, why not address the base texts of your religion.

Do you deny that modern violent muslim fundamentalists have followed the instruction to cut off heads? Where do you suppose they got that idea from?

there are extremists who either misuse or misinterpret religious texts

Are you suggesting that interpreting texts literally is a misuse or misinterpretation? I find Al-Anfal entirely repugnant and evil. What business does any religion have dividing up stolen goods seized from murdered victims?

However, the extremists definitely do not represent all the believers of the religion

Since I never claimed they did, I fail to see what point you are trying to make. I also find the characterisation of fundamentalists as "extremists" wrong-headed and deceitful. Are the Amish extreme? Is the Salvation Army an extremist organization?

The base texts ie. the founding documents, on the other hand, do represent something about the religion. Do you not agree?

you who have decided to judge all muslims to be terrorists

Frankly, I find that lie insulting, offensive and defaming. I have said nothing about "all muslims". I have discussed the factual evidence of the base texts of the religion. Why must you defame me for speaking objectively and honestly about what the Hadith and the Qur'an actually say? Are honesty and truth really that threatening to you?

I advise you to have a look at the abuse pictures of Abu Gharib prisoners

I have seen them. What of them? I have also seen the picture of the Christian schoolgirl lying beside her own head in a morgue in Indonesia. I have seen the pictures of people jumping off the WTC because a hundred story fall was preferable to burning alive. I have seen the caricatures of jews killing and eating babies that pass for editorial content in the middle-east. And I have read the Qur'an and the Islamic histories that portray Mohammed as a murdering rapist, and genocidal pedophile. What of those?

I am smart enough and informed enough to realise that the current demonstrations and violence by muslims have less to do with cartoons than with distracting muslims from Saudi indifference to human lives during the hajj.

You have confirmed exactly what I said above. You did not say the terrorists are fundamentalist muslims who take a very literal interpretation of the base texts of Islam. You called them extremists and tried to equate them with decidedly non-fundamentalist members of other faiths. I find that intellectually dishonest and overtly deceitful.

You side-stepped the issue of your religious institutions, which due to Saudi money, have been overrun by fundamentalist Wahabi clerics. Instead of acknowledging the problems in Islamic media, you tried to distract us with images from our own media. Instead of facing the intolerance of widely respected Islamic leaders like Khomeini, Sistani, bin Laden etc. and acknowledging the source of that intolerance, you tried to draw attention to some few tolerant muslims who do not occupy any position of authority or leadership.

And, finally, you engaged in character assassination instead of dialogue.

In short, you have defended terrorism and intolerance just like all the other muslims I have encountered.

bob_full_of_shit said at February 19, 2006 9:26 PM:

i just can't understand why people who are atheists think that they are smarter than others?! being smarter means that you have to do something that another one can't do. and what's so smart about saying that there's no god anyway?! YOU'RE ONLY PLAYING IN THE AREA where GOD MADE YOU PLAY IN: YOUR BRAIN. i want one of the atheist people when a flu virus comes to him to say : i'm smart, i don't beleive in god and i won't have the flu. :) or maybe while in his deathbed he'll say: "i'll not die, i'll wait until next year" or i won't be born in this family i'll be born in that rich family :)))) you idiots don't have control on yourselves, you just can't accept rules.
can't you fucks realize that you only refuse things that God GAVE YOU the option to choose wether to accept them or not?
can't you realize that you only wanted to live freeeeeeely, with no religion to tell you what to or not to do?! how can you say that all the world we live in with the complicated solar system, the oceans, the complicated human body with all the systems like digestive and nerves and blood, all the different kinds of animals, etc... can exist without a creator?!
do you need to see everything for yourselves to accept it?! ok... did you see your soul? or you don't beleive in souls too?!
wake up b4 it's too late. make up your decision, read in all religions and don't look to the followers attitude, u'll find your way

L. Chamieh said at February 20, 2006 2:48 AM:

"Turn the other cheek, walk the second mile and love your enemies"
Here are some quotations from the Bible for you, Bob. Please now show me how you will turn the other cheek and love your enemies. I know a good Christian would, but not someone like you. So I say sorry to all good Christians.

EZ 9:4-6 The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women ...."

DT 7:2 The Lord commands the Israelites to "utterly destroy" and show "no mercy" to those whom he gives them for defeat

DT 20:16 "In the cities of the nations the Lord is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."

1SA 15:3, 7-8 "This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass ....' And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."

JS 6:21-27 With the Lord's approval, Joshua destroys the city of Jericho men, women, and children with the edge of the sword

2KI 2:23-24 Forty-two children are mauled and killed, according to the will of God, for having jeered at a man of God.

LE 26:29, DT 28:53, JE 19:9, EZ 5:8-10 As a punishment, the Lord will cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and fathers and friends.

NU 25:4 (KJV) "And the Lord said unto Moses, take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun ...."

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Matthew 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Mark 9:43-49 Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell.

Mark 19:22-27 In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words of Jesus: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me."

Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

James 2:13 If you are merciless to others, God will be merciless to you.

Revelatin 11:9-10 The people ... shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth

Revelation 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Revelation 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

Psalms 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces.--

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Hebrews . 9:22 Almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Revelation 19:13 He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Revelation 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, ... he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Revelation 21:8 The fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.

*** The last verse is a gift especially for you Bob, before I say goodbye ***

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 6:08 AM:
how can you say that all the world we live in with the complicated solar system, the oceans, the complicated human body with all the systems like digestive and nerves and blood, all the different kinds of animals, etc... can exist without a creator?!

How can you diminish and dismiss the beauty, majesty, awesome power and rich complexity that is the universe by making it the creation of some petty human-like creature?

you only refuse things that God GAVE YOU

There is no God. If you choose to believe in silly ghosts, please do.

bob_full_of_shit said at February 20, 2006 7:23 AM:

I said:
"You only refuse things that God gave you the option to choose whether to accept them or not."
I mean that he gave you the choice. It's like if they tell you in prison that's either rice or bread. When you choose one of them, it's not bcoz u have the power, It's bcoz THEY GAVE YOU THE POWER OF CHOOSING.
I said:
I mean, God gave you the option to kill somebody or to kill yourself with a knife, that doesn't make you powerful, if you are powerful, then kill yourself by telling your heart to stop beating at this moment. =) .
And By the way like 30% of suicide attempts get aborted, like if someone takes his own life by cutting his blood vessels in his wrist, sometimes some passerby or a neighbor can still save him. So you also can't determine when to put an end to your life. YOU'R WEAK MAN.
Again, you've only chosen to refuse God bcoz he wanted us to believe in him voluntarily not reluctantly (by force)
God gave you the brain, so you can think, but you use it to think that there's no God!
And who told you that this universe is made by a human-like creature anyway?! Do you think really god exists in 3 forms bullshit and all?! If god wanted to forgive our sins, he didn't have to come to the earth and be crucified for us, he could have forgiven us while in heaven. And if say, he wanted to come to the earth to teach us something, why on earth did he start by being a fetus in his mom's uterus, then pass all the way through childhood, pee himself, cry and then teen aging difficult period and after 30 years or so he starts to preach us!!!!!!!!!! Bullshit.
There's only one god in heavens, who has neither sons nor companions

iambt said at February 20, 2006 7:26 AM:

Man, bob, you are truly incredible!!! Don't repeat your words over and over again. If you want to be like you said "open minded who don't hate anybody" so you have to listen and read more from different sources.
First of all, what's wrong with you and this Anfal-12 verse?! Why are you trying to say that this verse is like "whenever you see a kafer (atheist) in the street kill him and break his hand" do u only believe YOUR SOURCE of the explanation of the Quran. I agree with that guy "be fair" when he said that there are lots of verses with different meanings, he was right. But you were wrong when you replied : "I do not have to use one rare verse to temper dozens of others". That's 'coz we don't say that one verse is hostile then another one came to be friendly at the same situation. We say that the first one has an occasion and the other one has another occasion.
It seems that you hate the Islam so much but you still find the Christianity something nice. And you also take challenges that the bible will defeat the Quran in nobleness!! That's not the talk of an atheist, it's one of a Christian who can't accept religion's rules and heard the shitty things about Islam from people who also hate Islam!!!!!!
Don't take sides now; I'm not trying to convince you to be a Muslim nor to say what's better the Islam or the Christianity! I'm just trying to tell you the other side of the story.

befair said at February 20, 2006 7:46 AM:

Like 4 or 5 centuries ago, it was legal for a man to marry a 12 year old girl in Europe, with the acceptance of the church and her family.
If you measure that on a 12 year old girl from the 90s or from the new millennium, you'll find it disgusting. But back then Girls where fully mature by the age of 10 or 11 so they can be engaged.
How about 1500 years ago?! Who knows?!
Read some of the stories about Europe during these years and you'll find love stories between some forty something men with a 12 and 15 year old girls (and not stated as prohibited act) but a pure love story.

iambt said at February 20, 2006 10:01 AM:






Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 10:47 AM:

L. Chamieh,

EZ, DT, 1SA, JS, 2KI, LE, NU, PSALMS -- all Old Testament. While Christians include them in the Holy Bible, they were inherited from an earlier faith. The founding documents of Christianity are the New Testament.

Matthew 10 describes the violence that others will direct against Christians and specifically against the disciples. It does not direct Christians to take up arms against anybody--quite the opposite in fact. Christ directs his disciples to travel without provisions or arms. In Matthew 10:34-35 etc, Christ predicts that faith will divide households and cities etc. and instructs Christians to hold to their values and to their faith even in the face of pressure from their own families.

The clear message to Christians is to hold to one's values even in the face of persecution and never to offer up one's values to appease a tyrant. It does not instruct anybody to kill anybody else -- certainly not to kill one's own family-- and is nowhere near as violent as Al-Anfal 12.

Acts 3:23 quotes the old testament. It neither curses anyone nor commands any violent act. Although, I agree it says the souls of those who do not accept the messiah will be destroyed.

James 2:13 "For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment." In other words, God will judge the merciless without mercy and keep them from heaven. That's hardly anything so violent as telling followers to decapitate heathen.

Revelation 11:9-11 Satan will kill two prophets and people won't let anyone bury the bodies. I just don't see the part where God commands Christians to kill.

John 15 I do not consider the burning of branches violent. People burn plants all the time; although, I agree the burning is a metaphor for hell.

"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

Hebrews 9:22 The blood shed in Hebrews 9:22 is Christ's own blood. If Mohammed had offered to bleed for me, I would not be so alarmed as his insisting that I must bleed for him.

None of the above even begin to meet my challenge.

Revelation 21:8 Why did you leave part out? "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Did you leave those out because you didn't like what is says about abominable murders and liars? Because, you know, I kind of include Mohammed in those groups. Was that the gift you referred to?

Luke 19 Certainly the parable ends violently. One could, if one tried hard enough, construe that as an instruction to kill.

Revelation 19 Yes, the story of the final battle between good and evil is violent. I note that God does not instruct his followers to take up arms, but only to have faith in God. God sends his own champion, as described in Revelations 19:11, to do battle.

I will grant that you found 3 violent passages and even that one of those, Revelation 19, approaches the violence of Al-Anfal 12. None of the violent passages you found in the New Testament, however, clearly instruct Christians to kill.

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 11:13 AM:
you have to listen and read more from different sources.

With respect to Islam, what's wrong with the original sources: the Hadith and the Qur'an ?

We say that the first one has an occasion and the other one has another occasion.

With all due respect, I reject any occasion for cutting off my head or the head of any other innocent person regardless of religious affiliation. You will find nothing similar in the New Testament.

That's not the talk of an atheist

Au contraire. An atheist looks at the New Testament or the Qur'an as a book that others use for moral instruction. At a minimum, these books are useful for comparing my morals with the morals of others as well as comparing the morals of those around me with each other.

Looking over the shoulder of the Christian, I see good and moral lessons that pose no threat to me whatsoever. Looking over the shoulder of the Muslim, I see evil and violence. I see instructions to the faithful to lie to me and to try to deceive me, which I take into account when weighing credibility. I see violent instructions that play themselves out on the nightly news, and I better understand world events as a result.

Further, those books shaped history and continue to shape history, and one cannot really learn about history without learning something about the actors in it. To me, it's as clear as night and day why Christianity created a great and modern civilisation while Islam sank into destitute petulance.

If you are a muslim, how do you propose to bring your faith into the modern era and stop your co-religionists from decapitating innocent schoolgirls?

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 11:29 AM:

With respect to IslamOnline, Maulana Muhammad Ali was born 1004 years after Bukhari died.

With respect to authenticity, I will stick with the original and not what some johnny-come-lately said more than 1000 years after the fact. After all, that's exactly what the terrorists do and what Khomeini does and what Sistani does etc.

L. Chamieh said at February 21, 2006 5:24 AM:


I had intened to end this argument, but I just couldn't help thanking you for admitting that

Revelation 19 approaches the violence of Al-Anfal 12

Oh! Isn't that the same Anfal you described earlier as "entirely repugnant and evil"?

Although Revelation is in the New Testament, you are so hypocritical to throw all the blame on the Old Testament. It is as important as the New Testament for Christians. Jesus says,
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
and he said, “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

Don't these examples from the New Testament sound like Bin Laden's rules:
Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Again in Mark 19:22-27 in the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words of Jesus: "bring them hither, and slay them before me."

As you have mentioned the decapitating of innocent schoolgirls, do you know why "Andrea Yates" killed her five innocent children all under seven years old? It is because of her Christian belief. She told her jail psychiatrist,
"It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates

You also deny that the Bible commands you to kill family members.
Whereas Jesus criticizes people for not killing their disobedient children according to the Old Testament law.
Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)
“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

I tell you something, Bob, you don't know whether to criticize Islam or the Old Testament and now, after this,probably the New Testament. You say you're an atheist, so why don't you stop arguing with the believers. We don't care what people like you think, we still believe in the one GOD who loves us all, whatever religion we belong to as long as we believe in the same one and only GOD and we want to live together in peace. We know that violent religious texts, in all the Holy Books, are connected to the situation at the time and no longer apply to our world of today.

Shem said at February 21, 2006 12:42 PM:

Chamieh, Please read some of the other related blogs. You will see Badours name pop up everywhere. This site is set up by his friend Randall and it is a small amusement park for atheists. They enjoy riling the believers irrespective of religon, and currently Islam and its emotionally charged, faithful to a fault, die hard islamics are there targets. It's fair to assume that Bob, outside this domain is no doubt a nice guy, but in here, he will stop at nothing but to upset with extremist views, and finally realise this. He is no better than those who he resents.

By the way if you go to gooole, type in Bob Badour, see what comes up.

Randall Parker said at February 21, 2006 5:13 PM:


My blog is an amusement park for atheists? You are either intellectually lazy or just engaging in wild exaggeration.

I do not happen to be an atheist myself. I think atheism and theism are both acts of faith and, well, I see faith as an absence of reason and reason as our only way to understand reality. Atheists are making an error just as religious folks are. I do not know why the universe exists. I treat the question of why we exist at all as a mystery we can't answer right now and perhaps not ever. I refuse to dream up delusions masquerading as answers.

I agree with Sam Harris (see The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason) that the widespread embrace of faith as a virtue is an error and a dangerous one at that.

As for riling up religious believers: They do that to themselves.

As for people who get upset at those who mock, insult, and criticise religions: I do not buy the arguments of religious people that their beliefs deserve to be looked up to on a pedestal just because their beliefs are about the supernatural realm and some creator entity.

Years ago I read Roger Zelazny's Creatures Of Light And Darkness and it dawned on me while reading it: If some entity is in charge of the universe that entity might not be who created the universe. Either entity might not be loving, kind, or benevolent. In fact, there's plenty of evidence around us to suggest such entities, if indeed they exist, are not any of those things.

Consider this possiblity: A supernatural being exists who will judge harshly all those who embraced man-made religions.

Bob Badour said at February 25, 2006 5:46 PM:

L. Chamieh,

Revelation 19 approaches the violence of Al-Anfal 12

Oh! Isn't that the same Anfal you described earlier as "entirely repugnant and evil"?

Yes, Al-Anfal is repugnant and evil. Revelations is violent. Revelations describes a psychedelic fantasy of world-shattering proportions. What it does not do is instruct anybody to kill anybody else. It does not describe humans becoming possessed by "angels" or "demons" or any otherworldly apparition commanded to cut off the heads of non-Christians.

Al-Anfal is repugnant and evil. Both Al-Anfal and Revelations are violent.

Andrea Yates

With all due respect, Andrea Yates has nothing to do with Al-Anfal 12 or the Islamic instruction to decapitate non-muslims. Or are you suggesting that contrary to Islamic doctrine Andrea Yates is yet another prophet? Are you suggesting that Christianity is about to be overrun by infanticide by legions of Andrea Yates's the way Islam has become overrun by legions of Jihadists?

You say you're an atheist, so why don't you stop arguing with the believers. We don't care what people like you think

And if I think the solution to the problem of Islamic terrorists is to offer all muslims three choices: apostacy, death or restricted subservience, will you care what I think?

I care what the Hadith and the Qur'an say because they are vile and extremely violent. Now that you have taken on the first part of my challenge, take on the second part: quote the New Testament out of context and in any order you want to construct a similar document even one tenth as damning as Prophet of Doom. After all, if Islam is morally equal to Christianity, it should be easy enough to do.

we want to live together in peace

That's not what the Qur'an says. According to Islamic law, Islam wants Christians and Jews to live in subservience to Islam and does not want we atheists around at all.

We know that violent religious texts, in all the Holy Books

That would make more sense of any of the other Holy Books were anywhere near as violent as Islam's.

L. Chamieh said at February 25, 2006 11:05 PM:

Thank you, Shem. I have noticed that.

L. Chamieh

NICOLAS said at May 1, 2008 2:41 PM:

From 1998, I made several investigations & researches regarding the Chamieh & Maamari Family tree in Majdelioun - Eastern Saida-LEBANON since 1715.

If you know anyone from these families, please contact me via the email nicolaschamieh@hotmail.com or phone 009613855132, in order to extend the tree to all the members.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©