What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.
 

Apr. 22 2010 - 12:58 pm | 2,518 views | 0 recommendations | 48 comments

Did South Park surrender to Muslim death threats?

So the Prophet Muhammed didn’t appear in a bear suit after all? I didn’t catch last night’s South Park episode, but apparently the word “Prophet Muhammed” were bleeped out, and instead of Muhammed in a bear suit, viewers saw Santa Claus.

Muhammed the Bear’s (peace be upon him) non-appearance came after South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone received a veiled (no pun intended) threat from radical Muslims. The Revolution Muslim blog, based in New York City, warned that “it is likely the creators of South Park will indeed end up like Theo Van Gogh”, the Dutch filmmaker who was assassinated by Muslim extremists after producing a film that showed nude women with Quranic verses projected on on their bodies.

“How do you think Obama would feel if the flag of Al-Qa’ida was stamped on his coffee mug and there was nothing he could do about it? The issue of the honor of our Prophet (peace be upon him) is an issue of honor for this entire nation. Perhaps honor is a dead value in the West, but it will never die in the hearts of this Ummah (nation).”

How do I think Obama would feel about an Al Qaeda flag on his coffee mug? I think he’d toss out the mug, but he wouldn’t assassinate the manufacturer. What’s scary about these people is that they truly believe that murder is the appropriate response to speech they find offensive. Curious, isn’t it, that fundamentalists like Revolution Muslim complain that free speech “is interpreted as the right to promote pornography, homosexuality, slander, and libel against even that which is considered sacred.” And yet for the sake of a joke, these fanatics give themselves the right to rescind the most sacred value of all – human life.

Perhaps South Park’s creators were frightened. Perhaps they thought that the publicity alone was a successful strike against religious censorship. I have no right to ask Trey Parker and Matt Stone to risk their lives. People have been murdered for less than they have done. But I hope they continue to be the bulls in the religious china shop. Fundamentalists don’t fear death. They fear laughter.


Comments

Active Conversation
15 T/S Member Comments Called Out, 48 Total Comments
Post your comment »
 
  1. collapse expand

    “Perhaps South Park’s creators were frightened.”

    Hardly. It was Comedy Central that censored the episode after it was delivered by Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

    Comedy Central did the same thing in 2006.

    Apparently only Christians, Buddhists, Jews and every other group can be parodied; Comedy Central is run by hypocrites.

  2. collapse expand

    you should have watched all of the South Park episodes. In the cartoon wars episodes (2006) the whole town of South Park is in fear of apocalypse because “Family Guy” refuses to censor the image of the prophet Muhammed. After refusal Family Guy errors the episode uncensored but Muhammed is censored by Comedy Central… Besides I’m pretty sure that Matt and Trey are used to death threats by now…

  3. collapse expand

    The last line in your article is spot on perfect. Nothing irritates a fundie more than laughter at the absolute absurdity of their drivel.

    I highly doubt it was Parker/Stone who censored the episode. Comedy Central has done so in the past. It is ridiculous pandering to a very small, but vocal, minority. By caving in, CC merely gives these people more power instead of diffusing the situation.

  4. collapse expand

    The second part sort of sucked. Did comedy central actually beep out all references to the holy prophet (pbuh) and the dialogue at the end or was that a joke? If it was a joke, it was a bit too subtle.
    So I guess the bottom line is, the taboo still stands. The holy prophet (may peace be upon him) remains safe from ridicule on all major media (unless you count the fringes of the internet as “major media”). Well, thats not really true. The first episode was hilarious and most people would correctly regard that as ridiculing the notion of his (pbuh) inviolability, if not his actual historical memory (pbuh). But round two goes to the Islamists.

  5. collapse expand

    We do not live in an Islamic Republic. The United States constitution allows freedom of religious expression but it respects no one religion above all others.

    Isn’t this Revolution Muslim threat to Stone and Parker a “hate crime”? Certainly this group’s spokesperson telling the creators of South Park that they will end up like Theo Van Gogh should have some of these radical Muslims is jail, yesterday.

    No one is allowed to threaten violence or death to another citizen because they feel offended. There are legal channels in place if a grievance is legitimate. And taking this group of radicals seriously only grants them more power by allowing their religious preference to trump the First Amendment rights of other Americans.

    These people from Revolution Muslim need to be put in jail after being firmly reminded by police and attorneys that they are NOT in Saudi Arabia and this shiznit doesn’t fly in Western countries.

    • collapse expand

      I’m not sure whether the Revolution Muslim blog crosses the line between free speech and incitement to murder. If this were a Christian posting in almost any Muslim society, there would be no question. The bloggers would be executed for blasphemy. However, Revolution Muslim was careful to say that they were not calling for death, but that Islamic law is clear that death is the penalty for “cursing” Muhammed is death. A debatable point even among many Muslims. If Trey Parker or Matt Stone are murdered by Muslim extremists, I wonder if they could be found liable in a civil suit?

      In response to another comment. See in context »
    • collapse expand

      Not in hussein Obama America

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  6. collapse expand

    I can take freedom of religion up to a point. When that religion encourages others to violence due to perceived offenses, then I have to wonder if it is just a religion, or if it is a militant cult.

    We sure don’t tolerate ultra right wing Christian cults that threaten others. Why do we allow these idiots to openly threaten others?

    Why haven’t the idiots behind this threat been arrested –for sedition and RICO if nothing else?!

    • collapse expand

      To be fair to Muslims, fundamentalist Christians incite violence against abortion doctors and gays. Ultra-Orthodox Jews attack women who don’t sit in the back of Jerusalem buses. So if Islam is a militant cult…

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        That’s not the whole truth. I don’t deny that there are extremists who commit these acts. But where possible, we prosecute them. I won’t speak for what Israel does with their ultra-orthodox Jews, but I suspect they’re not well tolerated either.

        So I still have to ask the question: Given that we’re at war with Al Qaida, why hasn’t Zach Chesser been prosecuted for sedition and incitement of violence?

        In response to another comment. See in context »
  7. collapse expand

    Sharif don’t like it! (You know he really hates it!)
    Rockin’ the Casbah, Rockin’ the Casbah.

  8. collapse expand

    History is littered with fundamentalists from all religions sacrificing those who dare question or rebel from preceived religious blasphemy. The real issue is how can we teach those with fundamentalist beliefs as well as agnostics and atheists to be tolerant of all other non violent beliefs? Also we don’t need to “poke the bear” by being disrespectful to all those who follow the true teachings of the Prophet Muhammed. To paraphase the “gospel according to Homer Simpson” concerning the consumption of beer, “religion, the cause of and answer too most of the worlds problems”.

    • collapse expand

      Good point. The right to mock religion doesn’t mean that all mockery of religion is right. Some of the anti-religious comments from atheists (“oooh, you believe in invisible men in the sky”) are just as bigoted as those from fundamentalists.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        In my opinion, there is a huge difference between atheists mocking a set of beliefs based entirely on what amounts to here-say printed in a book, and religious people suggesting that someone should be put to death for depicting a figure of said here-say.

        Imagine walking into court and trying to contest even something as insignificant as a parking ticket by saying you have a book that was written by people who aren’t around to be questioned, and that the book says you were not parked in that spot at that time.

        The judge would laugh in your face. But yet religious people get a police escort standing outside a gay soldiers funeral holding signs that say “God hates fags”. Seriously?

        It’s time we stop giving religion so much leeway. We live in the 21st century, we don’t need mystics and books (written when blood-letting was valid medical practice and the world was KNOWN to be flat) telling us how to live.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          So I take it atheists holding signs proclaiming “Priests are Pedophiles” are also not entitled to police protection? I’m not equating mockery of religion to a fatwa. I am saying that I’ve seen atheists behave just as intolerant and dogmatic as religious fundamentalists. I will also that while religion has done much harm, it has also inspired people to do much good. Intolerance isn’t good just because it’s directed at religion.

          In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          I know this is really, really deep, but Mr. Peck is suggesting (work with me here) that some atheists are making false charges. As in, incorrect.

          Such as the braindead “invisible man in the sky” we hear 24/7 from the Dawkins set. Or Variation 5,467 on the even more braindead FSM routine. It’s also a logical fallacy to suggest that all people (in any group) are the same across the board.

          What aren’t you following? And why not?

          I, too, regret the police protection given Fred Phelps and his mutant minions, but these folks speak for a minority of Christians, just as your brand of lock-step atheism speaks for a minority of nonbelievers. And stop whining about leeway given to religion when every bigoted swipe at faith gets a free pass in the media. Lost are sane, reasonable voices as the provocateurs and bullies hog the microphone. Anyone who imagined Internet technology would correct this situation were in for a sad awakening.

          In response to another comment. See in context »
        • collapse expand

          Dear Mr. Campeau,
          Very rational, but one billion Muslims disagree with you. A few million of them want to take away your right to express your atheism. The others will do nothing to stop the bombers to threaten you. They are afraid too and they half believe that blasphemy should be punished by death. You are vulnerable and freedom is vulnerable if you and I do not try to persuade them they are mistaken. If they have even one serious doubt, it changes their ability to believe in Islam. I hope you will consider finding the ’serious doubt’ that Muslims need to abandon the death cult.

          In response to another comment. See in context »
  9. collapse expand

    The point of the episode is that people are over-protective of the muslim religion out of fear of the extremists.. This was the point of “Mecha Streisand” the celebrities were using violence to gain censorship from ridicule…

  10. collapse expand

    $100 bucks says the atheists are right. Also, all Muslims aren’t extremists. Just like all Christians aren’t dumb ass rednecks. Just seems that way. Also, it’s just a friggn’ cartoon. Let’s all lighten up.

  11. collapse expand

    Mr. Peck!

    You find it ’scary’ that disagreeing with Mohammed in the public domain calls for a death sentence in Islam? This is not ‘opinion’…it is normative Islam, not ‘fundamentalist’ as you suggest. The word ‘fundamentalist’ is your attempt to understand Islam: the word simply does not apply. Mohammed is the only authority on Islam.

    Islam is clear about the death sentence: “And fight them (all infidels) until there is no more fitnah (disagreeing with Allah/Mohammed) and the religion (all-pervasive lifestyle and system of Sharia law) will all be for Allah alone (in the whole world). But if they cease (to disagree with Allah/Mohammed) then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.” (Koran 8.39)
    “(Allah) sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the kafirs may be averse.” (Koran 9.33)

    “After today there will no longer be two religions existing in Arabia. I descended by Allah with the sword in my hand, and my wealth will come from the shadow of my sword. And the one who will disagree with me will be humiliated and persecuted.” (Ibn Hisham, The Life of Muhammad, 3rd ed., pt. 6, vol. 3 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar-al-Jil, 1998), p. 8, author’s translation)

    Islam has no tolerance whatsoever for expressing a thought that is different from that of Mohammed.

    All utterance must agree with Mohammed or execution is compulsory.

    Islam is totalitarian and supremacist in all expression in the public domain.

    • collapse expand

      There are passages in the Old Testament that order the murder of gays and adulterers. Christians found theological justification for the Crusades. There are plenty of Muslims – though not enough – who argue that the fundamentalist Wahabbis (our friends, the Saudis) have got it wrong.

      This isn’t about religion. It’s not even about Islam as a religion. It’s about intolerance and fundamentalism. Let’s not aim at the wrong targets.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Mr. Peck,
        Islamic jurisprudence is very precise on this matter. There is no wiggle room, as you surmise. Islam has painted itself into the corner of executing critics. You should not be guessing. The terrorists know proper Islam. They are not making up their ideas. Islamic jurisprudence was complete in 1111 AD and cannot be ‘reformed’. That is the problem. There is no ‘interpretation’ as you surmise.

        The word ‘fundamentalist’ does not apply to Islam. You must educate yourself on this point. Ignorance of this matter is very dangerous, make no mistake! There is only Islam.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Mr. Peck,
        You need to learn how Islamic jursiprudence and ‘consensus’ works. You should not guess and speculate and invent facts.

        No Islamic doctrine is built on one or even a few Koranic or hadithic verses. The consensus of jurisprudents is what matters. This cannot be changed.

        Some thoughts providing the basis of the ruling to execute (or murder) insulters of Islam are the following.

        In Shari’a law, examples of mocking Muhammad are legal precedents to punish someone who has mocked him. Anyone who insults Mohammed or Islam is ‘Mubaa’…his life is unprotected and ‘licit’ for the taking.

        Even if the following hadith is not 100% authentic, it still exists and jihadists can use it: ‘If anyone insults me, then any Muslim who hears this must kill him immediately.’

        Some hadiths allow vigilante action:

        “Sufyaan Thawri and Malik ibn Umayr reported that a man came to Muhammad (saw) and said I met my father from amongst the pagans I heard very bad things from him about you. I could not take it anymore so I threw my spear at him and I killed my own father Oh Messenger of Allah. Muhammad (saw) replied He had no sanctity.

        Ibn Qani’ related that a man came to the Prophet and said, “Messenger of Allah, I heard my father say something ugly about you, so I killed him,” and that did not distress the Prophet”

        Ishaq: 551 “Another victim was Huwayrith. He used to insult Muhammad in Mecca. Huwayrith was put to death by Ali. The Messenger ordered Miqyas’ assassination only because he became a renegade by rejecting Islam.”

        Ishaq: 414 “If you kill us, the true religion is ours. And to be killed for the truth is to find favor with Allah. If you think that we are fools, know that the opinion of those who oppose Islam is misleading. We are men of war who get the utmost from it. We inflict painful punishment on those who oppose us…. If you insult Allah’s Apostle, Allah will slay you. You are a cursed, rude fellow! You utter filth, and then throw it at the clean-robed, godly, and faithful One.”

        Ishaq: 131 “Hamzah came with his bow slung over his shoulder. He was a great hunter, the strongest man of the Quraysh. A woman rose up and said, ‘If only you had seen what your nephew Muhammad had to endure just now before you came. Abu Jahl spoke to him offensively. Hamzah was carried away by a fury, as it was Allah’s will to honor him this way. [In Islam, it is an honor to be furious.] He went off quickly, not stopping to speak to anyone. Instead of circumambulating the Ka’aba, he was ready to attack Abu Jahl when he saw him. When he entered the mosque, he saw him sitting among the people. Hamzah raised his bow and gave Abu Jahl a blow which split his head open in an ugly way. He said, ‘Do you insult him when I am a member of his religion? Hit me back if you can.’”

        Killing Yusayr b. Rizam
        Reason given: Mohammed did not order this one. The Muslims with Yusayr “sensed” that he had second thoughts about making peace with Mohammed, so they killed him. Mohammed in al-Tabari vol.9 p.120
        “It is reported about Yusayr b. Rizam, the Jew, that he was gathering Ghatafan in Khaybar to attack the Messenger of God, so the latter sent ‘Abdallah b. Rawahah with a number of his companions, among whom were ‘Abdallah b. Unays, an ally of the Banu Salamah.” The urged him to come to Mohammed with them, which he started to do. On the way he regretted it, and they sensed it, so they attacked him and his Jewish companions and killed them. al-Tabari vol.9 p.120

        Volunteer Assassin – Murder Approved by Mohammed

        Extracts from the momentous book Raising the Sharp Sword Against Those who Insult the Messengers [Al-Saarim Al-Maslool Ala-Shaatim Al-Rasool] written by Sheikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah [d.728 AH] have been used to clarify the position of those who insult any of the Prophets of Allah (swt).

        The Sword of Ikhlaas (from ibn Taymiyya)
        Some deviants say we cannot apply the Hukm of killing unless we have an Islamic State (Khilafah) how ignorant is the one that talks like this. Umayr ibn Adi (ra) (who was a blind man) said he heard that Asma the daughter of Marwan insulted Muhammad (saw) in the battle of Badr. He said, ‘Oh Allah, I have a vow on my neck if I return I will go to Medina to kill her. He went to Medina without the permission of Muhammad (saw) and killed her whilst she was suckling her child. He came back and told Muhammad (saw). Muhammad (saw) said to his companions: If you wish to see someone who supports Allah and the Messengers by the Ghaib (without informing or asking or telling anyone) look at Umayr ibn Adi. [Ibn Hishaam and Ibn Saads Kitaab Al-Tabaqaat Al-Kabeer]. In other words you don’t need Allah’s (swt) permission (for killing one who insults the prophet), which has already been established and that is all you need.

        (cf. Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq, volume II part 1 & 2 pages 30-31. SARIYYAH OF ‘UMAYR IBN ‘ADI) (abbr. Ibn Sad, Tabaqat v2.pt1.p.30-1)

        A man was brought in front of Umar ibn Khataab (ra) who had insulted Muhammad (saw) and Umar (ra) killed him and said anyone who insults Allah (swt) or Muhammad (saw) or any Prophet he should be killed. Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) said Any Muslim who insults Allah or any Prophet he therefore disbelieves in Allah and the Messengers which is equated to apostasy and he must be punished for it. And anyone from the citizens (Dhimmi) of the Islamic State (Khilafah) insults Allah or any of the Prophets or he declares that (publicly) then he violates his contract, violates his treaty, violates his covenant therefore he must be punished and killed.

        Mr. Peck, don’t guess and make up facts! LEARN the primary sources and juridical basis of Islam.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Fundamentalists see everyone else in their own image, and then they compose long, circular comments to support their circular view. Not that jswift has necessary done thi….

        Oh, wait. Yeah, I guess he did. I just scanned the rest of the thread.

        Anyway, your point was lost on jswift, as are all or most points, I suspect.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
  12. collapse expand

    You are Not an uncommon item in this world. The ‘item’,is a person who thinks that there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim. There are NOT. A muslim that follows the faith is NOT a fundamentalist.HE is a Muslim.There shall be NO OTHER religions but mine “koran”.
    If you are scared,say so,stop blaming a so called fringe.Stop being like a Dem at a T/Party congress.

    • collapse expand

      Dear Captain,
      You are right in a sense, but I want to recommend a nuance: While there may be ‘moderate’ Muslims, there is no ‘moderate Islam’. There is only Islam, the complete system or not. Mohammed did not allow for there to be more than one Islam. He is the only authority on Islam.

      Those who call themselves ‘moderate’ Muslims are merely lax, unobservant Muslims.

      Islam calls them ‘hypocrites’ and deals with violently by means of vigilante groups which have sanction in the Koran from Almighty Allah.

      There is no mechanism for reform in Islam.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  13. collapse expand

    I see much more sense in calling all religions ridiculous than to say one religion is the “only way”.. If you resort to killing people then I think you have a mental problem..

  14. collapse expand

    We owe humans respect as humans. Any religion which cannot PROVE its tenets with empirical evidence deserves only disdain, mockery, and, yes, hatred.

  15. collapse expand

    We owe respect to humans as humans, so long as they deserve it. We owe NO respect to ANY religion which cannot prove its tenets with good old empirical evidence. We owe religions, therefore, mockery, disdain, and, yes, hatred–a very salutary emotion, as in I hate cruelty or I hate injustice.

  16. collapse expand

    Mr.Peck,
    It is unhelpful to think of Islam merely as a religion, because Islam is a ‘complete system’ of governance, law, culture, manners, armed forces, including religious rules and practices. Islam is an imperial movement of which all fit Muslim males are automatically jihadists-on-call. There is no way to compare this ‘complete system’ to Presbyterianism (which possesses ‘fundamentalist’ loonies and nice, reasonable liberal-minded people like yourself). Nice liberal-minded Muslims are called ‘hypocrites’ or ‘apostates’ in Islam.

    All Islamic countries use Islamic governance on the model of a plenipotentiary caliph-for-life. The only way to vote him out of office is civil war and assassination.

    ‘Fundamentalist’ does not apply to political Islam. You either practice Islam or you don’t. It is a complete system.

    ‘Moderate’ Muslims only share their thoughts in free democracies, not in Islamic dictatorships.

    Vigilante street justice against critics is normative Islam, not ‘fundamentalist’.

    Because Islam is perfect, all criticism is considered ‘hate speech’ or ’satanic’. Satan must not be given a voice in the perfect state.

    • collapse expand

      Obviously you have spent a great deal of time reading the Koran and not unlike many radicals of religion choose to highlight only those passages that work for you in condeming an entire faith and it’s followers. The same can be done with the Torah and the New Testiment.
      We tend to catagorize groups as being of one mind when quite the opposite is true. All of us, as flawed individuals,tend to judge others based on their religious or political beliefs from our own biased generalizations. Yet we as individuals become quite offended when someone tries to catagorize us based on what church we do or do not attend and who we voted for in the last election. Do you believe all liberals are commies or that all Catholic Priests are pedophiles? I hope not, but this is what your prejudice mind is doing to one particular faith.
      May I suggest that you get away from your computer, go out and meet people of the Muslim, Jewish, and various Christian faiths as well as agnostics and atheists and judge them all as individuals based on their words and deeds and not simply catagorize them into an easily definable group.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  17. collapse expand

    The question as I see it is, can Islam reform itself as Christianity and Judaism have done? Yes, the Old Testament commands us to stone adulterers, but we haven’t done that in quite a while, while it’s still practiced in Iran, for example. Well, two questions: is it likely, or even possible, that in Christianity and Judaism, fundamentalist interpretation could become mainstream, as it is in Islam? Answering those questions can help us determine whether it is one religion (Islam) that has this problem, or whether all religions have the potential to become that way.

    • collapse expand

      Dear Layla, You are assuming that Islam is merely a religion, when it is actually a universal political system endorsed by Almighty Allah. Islam actually did reform itself by purifying itself of historic accretions and recovering the pure Islam of the pioneers (first 3 generations) of Islam. During the first 3 generations, Muslim armies conquered from China to central France. They followed the PURE Islam of Mohammed, not ‘moderate’ Islam of liberal-minded modernists. Look up the names of Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (b. 1703) and Sayyid Qutb (b. 1906). These are the Martin Luthers of Islam. They gave birth to the modern jihadist movement which is puritanical Islam…which they called the revival of pure monotheism. This puritanical revival of real Islam is defended and spread by the sword and through verbal jihad (disinformation). The terrorists and bombers of today are merely jihad do-it-yourselfers. They obey Allah directly, rather than waiting for orders from corrupt secular Islamic rulers.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        jswift, is this your belief and experience with the Wahhabi Muslims or is it also encompassing of all Muslims, even those who have Westernized and come to the U.S. from Iran, for example, where the literacy rate is quite high and the mindset is more progressive than say, Saudi Arabia?

        It is enjoyable to read comments here of the depth you provide and I am grappling with the idea of Shia interpretation of Islam being more moderate or tolerant of other Christian and Jewish cultures. Or do you feel, strongly, that the idea of a watered-down version like ‘Islam-Lite’ is not only impossible but is a misunderstanding of how Mulims wish to be perceived in Belgium, France, Italiy, UK and US for example?

        In response to another comment. See in context »
  18. collapse expand

    Prejudice is the lazy mans way of coping with all of the worlds problems!

  19. collapse expand

    Dear Mr. Ruark,
    Our problem is not with ordinary Muslims who care very little and know much less about the system which demands their allegiance from birth. Most Muslims (85%) do not practice. They go to work and try to put their children through college and pay the mortgage. The problem is the constitution of Islam which is deeply flawed and prejudiced against all ‘others’. Islam’s constitution is a trilogy of documents (Koran, Sira and Hadiths) plus the official commentaries on them, plus the consensus of jurists up to the year 1111 AD. At that year, legal development of Islam was frozen in time.

    Ordinary Muslims do not practice Islam, but ignore it as much as possible. They observe a minimal outward show of allegiance, while they try to integrate. But, having said that, please realize that integrating with kafir society is treason against the universal Islamic state, so lax Muslims play a dangerous game which can get them killed!

    I do not appreciate you suggesting that I am out of touch! Once again, please be aware of ‘verbal jihad’ which is all around us. Muslims do not tell the truth to kafirs. Disinformation is essential in keeping kafirs unaware of the world dominance agenda of Islam. Muslims will almost never discuss this with kafirs any more than they would discuss the future with a cow! Kafirs are used in Islam to do dangerous, dirty and menial jobs and to provide tax money through jizya. The US pays jizya to many Islamic states to buy their cooperation.
    You are referring to the ‘nice Muslim at work’ argument which is based on a naive ignorance of taqiyya (sacred lying) and al-Walaa wal-Baraa (the sacred hatred of all kafirs for the sake of Allah). Fourteen verses in the Koran forbid Muslims to be friends with kafirs. Many rulings forbid Muslims from socializing with kafirs outside the workplace.
    Gender apartheid and kafir apartheid are normative Islam.

  20. collapse expand

    m ruark wrote: ‘Prejudice is the lazy mans way of coping with all of the worlds problems’

    I totally agree with this and thus I have spent thousands of hours studying the political doctrines of Islam and how they came into existence. I wish every politician in free countries could put in the same amount of time to studying this world conquest cult which depends on its success by threats of violence, shutting down free expression and repressing women and ‘others’.
    All the above is solidly supported by quotes from Islam’s primary sources and valid consensus of its universities and ’schools’ of interpretation.
    It is only by researching the inner commentaries of Islamic jurists that one learns the truth of political Islam. This information is not shared with kafirs, since that alerts them to the world conquest plan and strategy of normative Islam.

  21. collapse expand

    Mozza wrote: jswift, is this your belief and experience with the Wahhabi Muslims or is it also encompassing of all Muslims, even those who have Westernized and come to the U.S. from Iran, for example, where the literacy rate is quite high and the mindset is more progressive than say, Saudi Arabia? It is enjoyable to read comments here of the depth you provide and I am grappling with the idea of Shia interpretation of Islam being more moderate or tolerant of other Christian and Jewish cultures. Or do you feel, strongly, that the idea of a watered-down version like ‘Islam-Lite’ is not only impossible but is a misunderstanding of how Mulims wish to be perceived in Belgium, France, Italiy, UK and US for example?”

    Dear Mozza,
    Shi’ites are just as totalitarian and supremacist towards ‘others’ as are the Sunnites. In some ways, they are worse at the present time. The persecutions of other faiths in Iran at this moment are heart-rending and unspeakably cruel. In most Muslim countries their are very few minorities because they have mostly fled the persecutions (aided and abetted by the authorities…at least little is done when a minority member is unfairly treated). (Research the persecution of Bahai’is in Iran.)
    Iran is a powder keg waiting to explode. The growing educated classes (and large numbers of educated women) want change and real democracy. This may come following the deaths of the present mullahocracy whose fascist authority cannot be challenged due to bully squads that could number as many as one million. It is like Hitler’s SA brownshirts.
    Where is the tolerance?

  22. collapse expand

    Savio wrote: “Fundamentalists …compose long, circular comments”

    Who is a fundamentalist? The term does not apply to the totalitarian, supremacist political Islam of the terrorists that we are talking about.

    Have you studied the primary sources of Islam? Have you read one book about political Islam? Do you get all your information from TV?
    Where is the circular argument?
    If you cannot name the circular argument you are claiming, you suggest merely that you enjoy name-calling.

    • collapse expand

      “Who is a fundamentalist?”

      Someone who reads spiritual text in a literal, everything-must-mean-precisely-what-it-says fashion. I.e., someone who treats a religious document no differently than a shopping receipt or a stock report. And who obsessively corrects anyone who fails to read things as bone-literally as he does. Therein lies the circularity. What’s too hard about this, my friend?

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        Re “name-calling,” I called you no names. I simply described your brand of reading and thinking. I didn’t make up the f-word or create its definition.

        Your paragraph of insults (“Have you…”?), on the other hand, constitutes personal attack, i.e. name-calling. I know–how dare Mere I question the Great You. Life’s tough in cyberspace.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
  23. collapse expand

    Savio wrote: ‘Your paragraph of insults (“Have you…”?), on the other hand, constitutes personal attack, i.e. name-calling. I know–how dare Mere I question the Great You. Life’s tough in cyberspace.’

    Dear Mr. Savio,
    Please discuss the topic. Your opinion of me is irrelevant to facts. Have you something to say about political Islam and its attacks on free expression?

  24. collapse expand

    It seems like Islam is a religion and social structure that’s so weak that it can’t handle any criticism or anyone else in the world that doesn’t follow it.

  25. collapse expand

    Support South Park in Australia by reading this and post a comment. Censorship is ugly, whatever the form…

    http://ausmediawatch.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/south-park-offends-muslims-jews-christians-no-sht/

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook
 

My T/S Activity Feed

 
     

    About Me

    I'm a writer in the not-so-sunny Northwest. My work has appeared in USA Today, the Washington Post, Wired.com, the Philadelphia Inquirer, National Defense and the Military Times magazines.

    I like to blog about national security and foreign affairs, though I'll write about any topic on which I have a strong opinion (which is most anything). I'm a bit of a contrarian, which drives people crazy. That's a good thing.

    Tips? Comments? Contact me at uncommondefense@gmail.com

    See my profile »
    Followers: 52
    Contributor Since: December 2008
    Location:Oregon