Cartoon Rage vs. Freedom of Speech

Front Page Magazine ^ | 02 February 2006 | Robert Spencer

[unionblue83]

Muslim rage over cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad published in early October in a Danish newspaper continues to grow worldwide. Here they are:

[backhoe]

Skip to "comments," then go to "last" and work back for numerous links, quotes, and comments on the Mad Mo cartoon flap:

-Islam, a Religion of Peace®? Some links...--

[N. Theknow]

If the turban fits.....

[dennisw]

In the immortal words of Mick Jagger - F*** 'em if they can't take a joke-

*** Jagger said this in 1978 when the Rolling Stones "Some Girls" album came out and Jesse Jackson objected to some of the lyrics

[Vaquero]

somebody here a FR has a tagline that reads:

"Radical Islam is an insane murder cult.
Moderate Islam is its Trojan Horse in the West."

Thats about how I see it. we need to kick all non citizen Islamics out NOW. and while were on it, its time to CLOSE THE FRIGGIN BORDER too.

[9999lakes]

I don't get it.

Can someone please explain to me what the big deal it.

These cartoons seem pretty tame.

[Beckwith]

These cartoons seem pretty tame.

You come to that conclusion because your not a whacked-out muslim but a reasonable human being.

Just imagine if Christians held the same world view as muslims. What would have been the Christian response to the Piss Christ or Manure Mary if they were as screwed up as the muslims.

[backhoe]

I don't get it. Can someone please explain to me what the big deal it. These cartoons seem pretty tame.

Well, as someone who grew up reading parodies like "Son O God" comix,
( "True Salvation can't be bought,
Twelve Apostles, that's a lot!" )
they look pretty tame to me, too.

But since there are fewer things with less sense of humour than a religious fanatic, it makes a certain warped sense.

[USF]

Spencer: Noting, as some of the cartoons do, that there is a connection between the teachings of Muhammad and Islamic violence, is simply to manifest an awareness of what has been repeatedly asserted by Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Omar Bakri, Abu Hamza, Abu Bakar Bashir, and so many others. Do all these men and so many, many others misunderstand and misrepresent the teachings of Muhammad and Islam?

Right on target, again.

Multiple LINKS

And finally, for Tatiana Soskin:

[steadfastconservative]

The reaction of Muslims to these cartoons is proof that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western civilization. If Muslims cannot tolerate the freedoms of the West, then they should leave.

[libstripper]

In college I got many laughs out of the "One Nation Under God" poster, the homosexual pornographic content of which you can imagine. Since the Mudslimes can't take these mild cartoons, they are truly a bunch of subhuman savages.

[siunevada]

Can someone please explain to me what the big deal it.

They are iconoclasts. No depictions of any living beings. Of couse, it's not actually in the Koran. It comes from the later hadiths (reported sayings of the 'prophet').

Pretty typical Eastern dispute during the early centuries. Christians went through something similar in Constantinople destroying mosaics depicting Christ and later putting them back up. Not a little blood was shed over that, it wasn't a polite debate.

Oh yeah, no dogs in the house for the same reason. (Mo said so.)

[Mad Dawg]

The author wrote (and quotes in this article:

“The question here is one of proportionate response. If a Qur’an had indeed been flushed, Muslims would have justifiably been offended. They may justifiably have considered the perpetrators boors, or barbarians, or hell-bound unbelievers. They may justifiably have issued denunciations accordingly. But that is all. To kill people thousands of miles away who had nothing to do with the act, and to fulminate with threats and murder against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged act, is not just disproportionate. It is not just excessive. It is mad. And every decent person in the world ought to have the courage to stand up and say that it is mad.”

If rabies were affordably curable, we would not kill mad dawgs. What should we do if we could cure it, but the dawgs preferred to remain mad and, being mad, preferred to mutilate bodies, target and kill innocents, threaten diplomats, and tried again and again to destroy all that makes the delicate commerce of nations possible?

Those Muslims who do not loudly and repeatedly disassociate themselves from this poisonous lunacy are complicit in it, and forfeit not just the courtesies but the protections of civilization.

And we must not let them use our own inclination to patience and tolerance against us. While they continue hold and act on, for example, the delusion that executing women for defending themselves from rape is reasonable, we have a duty to insult them.

[SMARTY]

Western culture has grown out of the classical Greco/Roman tradition. No so the Arab world. If nothing else, Islam was the political and social reaction to the prevailing Greco/Roman status quo. It's now gone global with obvious and predictable results. What Muslims did from the beginning to their near neighbors, they now carry out globally. Nothing new... however, the 'west' has sat on its hands long enough. That Islam, as a 'faith' like any other, was a thin veneer polished to a blinding glare and successful in fooling intellectuals for so long ought finally to be put aside. The West has been lazy about the Muslim violence for centuries. Well, like the man said..."Sloth is more than the laziness of mind and body. It is the total poising of the will to the place where we acquiesce to evil and error in the name of 'tolerance'." Now we pay.

[Kozak]

You've insulted Pigs everywhere.

[USF]

You've insulted Pigs everywhere.

But at least the pigs will behave better and not issue fatwahs or threaten to cut innocent peoples heads off with rusty knives.

[SMARTY]

'Poisoning': correction

[Gritty]

Freedom of speech encompasses precisely the freedom to annoy, to ridicule, to offend. If it doesn’t, it is hollow. The instant that any person or ideology is considered off-limits for critical examination and even ridicule, freedom of speech has been replaced by an ideological straitjacket.

That is precisely where the Muslims are determined to put it.

[USF]

That is precisely where the Muslims are determined to put it.

We should ask ourselves why.

The islamic response or threats and boycotts just goes to highlight exactly what their cult is all about. Fear, and intimidation.

The cartoons are so offensive because they reflect facets of the truth, and this is what they do not want revealed. Instead of having the courage to face up to the truth about their so-called "prophet," his rape, his terror, his genocide, his pedophilia, and the present day outcomes of following his vile ideology, they try to hide the truth in the dark and "shoot the messenger" who reveals it instead.

Now why would someone so to such great lenghts to do this?

Because they know then man and the facts surrounding him are the basis for the whole pack of lies that the house of cards called islam is based on. If mohammMAD is exposed, the entire house of cards based on his lies and will come down.

Spread the truth, let muslim and non-muslim alike read for themselves the history of mohamMAD.

Freedom of speech is a right and will set them free. They should learn to live with it.

Imposing restrictions on images of mohamMAD is enforcing elements of sharia in the west. The dhimmis do not understand this angle, but many RoPers do and will marvel at the powers of allah over the unbelievers. This will reinforce and encourage their beliefs. Today it's cartoons of Mo, tomorrow it will be something else.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Irony...