The Shotgun Blog
« Cartoons debate | Main | FORKs vs. Colleen »
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
T-shirt Anyone?
Demonstrating Support for Denmark
What is the most effective way to demonstrate solidarity with Denmark's position on freedom of the press? What is the most effective way to demonstrate that the fear of violent reactions to the exercise of freedom of the press must not be allowed to affect our decisions? The Italian Reform Minister, Roberto Calderoli has one suggestion [link courtesy of SmartEconomist]:
Roberto Calderoli, Italy's Minister for Institutional Reform and a member of the anti-immigrant Northern League, has been reported as saying, "I've had T-shirts made with the cartoons that have upset Islam and I shall start wearing them today". Mr Calderoli also offered to hand out the T-shirts to anyone who wanted them.
My preference (in addition buying products produced in Denmark)would be to sew the Danish flag onto a sleeve or on the back of my jacket, to wave the Danish flag at the Olympics, etc. Close friends tell me I'd be a fool to wave a Danish flag at the Olympics. I guess they would prefer I be a free-rider, but I disagree: others must join the likes of Ezra Levant in taking a stand against using the threat of violence to impede freedom of the press.
Posted by EclectEcon on February 15, 2006 in Current Affairs, International Affairs, Western Standard | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834744f2653ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference T-shirt Anyone?
Demonstrating Support for Denmark:
Comments
Anyone watch Mike Duffy today? The press gallery at the Parliment may have to find other jobs, it seems that if the PM will not talk to them they and 400 hundred support staff may be on the soup line. Where else would such a useless bunch find jobs.
Posted by: barrie | 2006-02-15 4:34:17 PM
Muhammad T-Shirts (cost about $20):
http://www.shopmetrospy.com/cgi-bin/sc-v4/shopmecprod2.pl?client=shopmetro&catid=54&PRID=361
http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=586
Posted by: kazemi | 2006-02-15 5:08:47 PM
Join the likes of Ezra Levant? No thanks. We can now add insensitivity to aboriginal people to his list of bigotry. Who's next, Ez?
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/15/western-standard-060215.html
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-02-15 5:33:59 PM
Mark Logan....maybe you can buy a Che Guerva t-shirt instead? More along your thinking lines, perhaps?
Posted by: John Luft | 2006-02-15 5:49:13 PM
Ezra Levant is an idiot publicity seeker. The Western Standard is nothing more than a tabloid, no one should expect anything but articles for simpletons.
Posted by: Lawrence | 2006-02-15 5:55:02 PM
Mark Logan, "insensitivity"? Is there a political definition of this term that you throw at people so callously? Or is that you wish to silence those who you disagree with, using some lowly political correctness argument?
What is wrong to be "insensitive"? Is that a violation of what? Why is it insensitive to discuss unsavory facts about Prophet Muhammad?
If anything, you have been insensitive to billions of people who cherish the freedom to discuss and criticize, as that is what makes a society function, and which happens to be a god given human right.
Posted by: kazemi | 2006-02-15 5:58:42 PM
Lawrence, and the billions of people who cherish freedom, open society, and the right to discuss and criticize - what are they? Simpletons?
Stop insulting billions who demand freedom of expression.
Lets see you defend Islam. If you can't then, Ezra has made his point.
Posted by: kazemi | 2006-02-15 6:02:15 PM
...all this prodding of muslim extreemists gives new meaning to 'pig-n-poke'.
Like can we move on? We know these rent-a-dolts are a few fries short of a happy meal, so what do we get off saying "do this" or "do that" to prove something we already know.
If we have to 'keep' proving it, do we really have it?
In other news, a Calgary candidate's husband has pleaded guilty to ballot box stuffing and only gets fined $4,000. Now if that isn't a miscarrage of justice and democratic freedom, I don't know what is.
But it doesn't garnish the same amount of attention and subscriptions ya know.
Posted by: tomax | 2006-02-15 6:02:24 PM
I hope the Muslims are braced for the real onslaught of blow - up sex dolls and halloween costumes , rag head jokes and the like, because just as there are anonymous thousands out there trying to come up with the newest computer virus just to p--s off the establishment , so too will they be hard at work , yanking the Muslim turban . It all comes down to the lowest common denominator , doing the most damage and that is just a fact of this century ; it wasn`t possible in the 11th century , where these intolerants want to remain , but we can`t put the genie [ or imman ] back in the bottle .
At least Duffy and company have something to harp on , because they are finally being treated as they deserve ; as irelevant.
Posted by: dave h | 2006-02-15 6:03:53 PM
I have e-mailed all of your advertisers asking them to withdraw their support to your racist and anti Islamic paper - you respect nothing and it's truly sad this is happening in Canada.
Posted by: Sam | 2006-02-15 6:08:49 PM
Long time reader, first time poster. An advocate of the politics and defense of freedom espoused by the writers of the Western Standard. Utterly disgusted by the comments about Mrs. Klein and the subsequent defense of those comments. That this publication has now stooped to the lowest possible level has equated it to nothing more than a cleaning rag. It's comments like these that tarnish the name of good conservative minded moderate Albertans. Prejudicial comments like these are what perpetuates the stereotype that Albertans are nothing but a bunch of bigots.
Posted by: Ian | 2006-02-15 6:09:36 PM
Sam, Muslims do not make a race. There are Arabs, Persians, Turkomans, Hurrians, Anglo Saxons, Thais, Indonesians, Khazaks, Indians, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Bangladeshis, Berbers, negros, Ghyrgyz, Uzbeks, and a variety of other races that make up Islam.
It is ignorant to believe Muslims make a race.
"anti-Islamic"? And what is wrong with that? Islam is an ideology that has some very nasty tenets. What is wrong with criticizing Islam?
Posted by: kazemi | 2006-02-15 6:17:07 PM
I keep buying Danish-made cheese.
Havarti. Mmmmmm.
Blue. Mmmmmm.
This controversy better end soon or there will be dairy flowing in my veins instead of blood.
Posted by: Matthew Vadum | 2006-02-15 6:21:51 PM
I'm printing up T-shirts too !
It has a picture of our fearless leader Ezra with the caption:
I'm a rude little hateful man too !!
100 % cotton. Most sizes, most colours.
Question for all you who absolutly must see these cartoons-
Do you not only claim the right to free speech but also the right to determine if others should be offended ?
Posted by: Nbob | 2006-02-15 6:48:14 PM
I, as I am sure many other Canadian applaud Your magazine for not being cowardly affraid of a bunch of islamic loony's who would like nothing better then to dictate the the rest of the world how to live.
I will subscribe to your magazine, and yes i will buy a lot of havarti. SKOL....
Dani
Posted by: dani | 2006-02-15 6:57:50 PM
Thank you for keeping this issue in the light. The muslim world has been pushing hard for a long time, and it's time to push back, hard. I'm an agnostic who grew up in a tolerant Christian society. I respect Christians and Jews for their great spirit and drive to achieve. Think of all the accomplishments our "western society" has achieved. The airplane, the computer, the polio vaccine, the automobile, the telephone, etc. The non-muslim eastern world also deserves credit for some of these achievements. Lets make a list of Muslim achievements. ??????????????????? I'm drawing a blank. Someone give me some hints please.
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-15 7:06:03 PM
Nbob
There is in our charter of rights freedom of speech. There is no freedom to not be offended.
Also if you think people will be offended by these pictures then you obviously havent even seen them.
Posted by: WinnipegLibertarian | 2006-02-15 7:11:18 PM
Islam is a murderous cult founded by a violent murdering looting degenerate!!
What's wrong with stating the obvious!!
Just talk too ex muslims about Islam....they will give you an earful...
And for you gutless liberals, prove too me that Muhammed was not a murdering bastard and I will shutup??
Thanks
Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-02-15 7:32:58 PM
Dan, how about mathematics, astronomy, architecture, and preserving Greek and Roman writings for centuries while Christianity was busy bashing heads and excommunicating one another? Most of the innovations you mentioned were built on work either done by or protected by Muslim scholars.
Posted by: Greg | 2006-02-15 7:38:36 PM
So Sam is emailing all the advertisers of Western Standard whining, eh? Well, Sammy boy, I'm doing the same thing and congratulating them all of advertising in Western Standard and that I will support them in any way I can.
As for Sam's idiotic remark that its "truly sad this is happening in Canada", I ask "WHAT is happening in Canada?" The freedom to report was is happening? Is that what's so sad? I guess that would be a terrible blow to politically correct goons like Sam!
Posted by: John Luft | 2006-02-15 7:47:59 PM
Greg
I am pretty sure that astronomy and matematics are older than islam, in fact they are even older than christianity
Posted by: WinnipegLibertarian | 2006-02-15 7:59:17 PM
Greg: Do you care to cite what theorems in mathematics originated from the Muslims? How many? Now compare that to the body of mathematics created by the rest of the world, including East Asians. There is very little Islamic mathematics.
And "preserving Greek and Roman writings" ey? So the Muslims get the credit for translating the work and creation of others? An ideology (Islam) must be in real bad shape that it has to claim the credit for some Greek and Roman creations for itself.
How about the persecution of Muslim philosophers such as Avicenna (actually a scientist) and Averroes and Khayyam and many others by Muslims? Why is it that when they persecute the mathematician, you are quiet. And then Islam receives credit for the victim's accomplishment?
Posted by: kazemi | 2006-02-15 8:00:30 PM
Good post Kazemi.....indeed, I rather doubt the Cult of Islam is responsible for anything original save for stealing from other cultures ie Byzantine, Hindu, Persian etc etc....
The only thing Islam is responsible for is 1400 years of murder and bloodshed and enslavement as per the teachings and example of its founder, Muhammed!!
Hey Greg...come on buddy...prove that Muhammed didn't murder all those Jews and poets, and that he didn't teach the beating of wives or that he didn't marry a 6 year old girl whilst in his 50's!
Or that he didn't teach the rape of captive women or stealing from other tribes..
Come on Greggy....prove to us that Muhammed wasn't a depraved murdering personality...
Will shut up if you can prove that he was indeed a peaceful loving chap ......
Let me guess....you've never read the Quran, Sira or Hadiths right???
From a mocking Darul Harbian
Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-02-15 8:07:57 PM
@Nbob
Typic to defenders of Islamic atrocities, you seem to confuse freedom of speech with the right to attack a person.
You have no right to attack Ezra and libel him or slander him. There are laws against that.
However, you have all the right to attack, libel and slander a PUBLIC FIGURE, A HISTORIC FIGURE, or a HOUSEHOLD NAME. Go read the law.
That is why making parody of Prophet Muhammad is entirely within the limits of civil society, (and should be encouraged for ethical reasons). However, attacking Ezra like they way you do is considered slander and will be breaking the law.
Posted by: kazemi | 2006-02-15 8:08:22 PM
Good points Albertanator. Prophet Muhammad is known to have approved the murder of a poetess and other dissidents, whose only crime was to criticize Muhammad.
And this from a self-proclaimed prophet that has ordered all of humanity TO OBEY his immutable and absolutely correct edicts, until eternity, at the risk of the sword.
At least he could have conducted himself decently.
Posted by: kazemi | 2006-02-15 8:16:24 PM
This message is for Dan who asked about Islamic science.
I've been doing some research on this and there is not much to tell about. The so-called "muslims" were actually Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians who managed to survive after the conquests and change of official religion. None can be considered the work of Islam because the works would have been translated into whatever was the lingua franca of the day (cf. Latin translations of Arabic works).
There is a book that you can read (in fact several) but this one is better than the rest. It explains why a Scientific Revolution didn't happen in Islam or China. It's called "The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West" and it's by Toby E. Huff.
I hope this helps.
Posted by: Ibn Rushd | 2006-02-15 8:23:32 PM
I agree 100% with what the Western Standard is doing, the muslims need to be stood up to. We can't give in to the other cultures that are infiltrating our canadian society.
Posted by: mark s | 2006-02-15 8:27:05 PM
Some Muslim fanatic here in Calgary has now filed a complaint with Alberta Human Rights complaining the cartoons promote hatred. No idiot, what promotes hatred is flying airplanes into buildings, filming the decapitation of innocent civilians, and trying to force your warped values on the rest of the world. Western countries must stand up to these thugs, maybe we should stop letting them into our countries to spare them the trauma of being offended by our rights !
Posted by: JRob | 2006-02-15 9:25:07 PM
Re: Greg on Muslim mathematics
Greg apparently mixed up "Muslim" and "from the country or region with predominant Muslim population today". The bloom of science in Central Asia took place before Islam was adopted there. Moreover, the science and independent thought in these countries started to deteriorate quickly with arriving of Islam: scientists and scholars were prosecured by Muslim clerics, the scientific texts banned, etc. No any significant scientific schools have ever emerged since that in any country under Islamic rule.
Posted by: Bob B | 2006-02-15 10:03:25 PM
I am still waiting for a response from Ezra Levant. I suggested that he continue to explore freedom of the press by printing the following pithy cartoon:
Jesus Christ on a white stallion with a crown of ammunition belts, scattering and trampling Muslims as he gallops to save ... an oil well ... and there's George Bush gleefully hiding in Christ's skirts!
This is just as "innocuous" as Muhammad the suicide bomber, and guaranteed to be "spicy" news too!
And then Moses ... well... I'll leave that one to you.
Whassamatter Ezra? Does you definition of "freedom of the press" only include cartoons against Muslims? Come on! That's discrimination! Share the free press! Insult all the religions equally or insult none! Otherwise, it will look like you are only hiding behind "freedom of the press" to impose your own personal prejudices.
Freedom of the press my a**!
Freedom of the obnoxious bigot is what you are looking for ... and it does not exist in Canada.
I hope you enjoy your opportunity to learn more about Canadian laws! It's about time!
Posted by: An Easterner | 2006-02-15 10:21:20 PM
How sad that personal promotion and self-interest seem to be stronger motivators for Mr Levant than those of decency, compassion and the importance of respect for fellow human beings - both in the case of publishing the cartoons and comments alledged to have been spoken about Mrs. Klein. I consider Mr. Levants motives suspect. The cartoons reflect a level of basic stupidity and ignorance to outright hatred. Mr Levant deserves to be charged with proferring material that promotes hatred and misunderstanding towards a sizable community in our country.
I don't believe in outright censorship but I cannot help but reflect on how effective the Nazi's use of cartoons were to promote hatred towards the Jews in Germany prior to the World War II. Characterizations that promoted fear, hatred and misconceptions were used to support a latter campaign of dehumanization and annihilation that saw the destruction of Jewish communities across Europe. You would think we would have learned by now.
There seems no apparent interest in expressions of humanity and compassion or looking for means to bridge our differences, reaching beyond our own deep-seated prejudices and ignorance. Of course that doesn't make the news and sure wouldn't sell your magazine would it!
Posted by: risa | 2006-02-15 10:27:43 PM
Yo Kazemi - dude I am a lawyer so lemme clear up a little of the confusion you seem to have with freedom of speech with the right to attack an identifiable group.
1. Whether or not he has a right to say it - ain't a court o'law in this land that won't find those cartoons rude.
2. Targeting / using innocent people to wage a "war" against some perceived "oppressor" - say by flying them into office towers - is hateful. And- although the atrocities and the affront to human dignity occasioned by such tactics is worse by a factor of at least a million- it is well with in the bounds of fair comment to suggest that attacking the dignity of the billion or so innocent followers of Islam as a pretext to striking a blow against some oppressive radicals might also be motivated by hate.
3. You might have missed buddy's name all over the WS. Maybe you don't read his columns in the Calgary Sun ? Perhaps you have missed the many media appearances he's recently made ( most of which he's linked to here ) ? Dude- that makes buddy a PUBLIC FIGURE.
I do not think the publication of the cartoons crosses the threshold into criminal hate speech --although it comes close and some of the stuff on the Shotgun is well over-- but I do think there is a strong case to be made that he has contravened the Alberta Human Right, Citizenship and Muticulturalism Act. If any one has broken the law it is him.
This is not a clash of cultures it is a clash of prejudices. In the same manner that Osama et. al have hijacked the doctrines of Islam so have Levant and his ilk hijacked the doctrines of free speech. The world should stand for neither.
While we're on the topic of Dis'n Brave Sir Ezra - in my book a coward is the guy who calls a bully a sissy from two blocks away and expects his big brother to step in and fight him.
Posted by: Nbob | 2006-02-15 10:31:14 PM
Does the N stand for Neil ?
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-02-15 10:51:28 PM
If I told you I'd have to kill you ...what with me being in the witness protection program and all ..... really though ? No it doesn't
Posted by: Nbob | 2006-02-15 11:05:07 PM
An Easterner,
if Christians and Jews were going around burning down embassies, threatening death to those who originated the cartoons and rioting you can bet your bottom dollar that they would be published here. Why? Because it is a "NEWS STORY."
There are all kinds of examples of desicration of the cross, Jesus, and Mary. The difference is that those who are offended by it very rarely commit fanatical acts. For those that do they are condemned and villified for doing so and if they have broken the laws, murder,arson,vandalism etc., they will be tried and if found guilty punished to the full extent of the law. How many Moslims have been arrested and charged for their behaviour? None that we can tell, but then again these are Islamic countries so there isn't any laws against this sort of behaviour when directed toward the infidel. That is the whole point of the cartoons being published.
Posted by: Lemmytowner | 2006-02-15 11:34:03 PM
Nbob,
Since when are Muslims an identifiable group? What is their race? Does it have a name? What is their ethnicity? Does it have a name?
Nobody is trying to incite hatred. That is your lousy ignorant interpretation. We have the right to express our opinion on Islam and on Muhammad the pedophile. If some idiot takes offense of that, then he is well advised to figure out why he is so unsure of his own beliefs, and since he has voluntarily adopted said beliefs, if it bothers him so much, then he should consider dropping said beliefs which he is unable to defend without silencing others.
In the same manner that I do not tell what others (Muslims) should believe in, neither do I want other to tell me what I can express or not express. If Muhammad committed crimes, which he did in abundance, then you sure bet that it will be discussed and he will be criticized.
Posted by: kazemi | 2006-02-16 2:28:00 AM
Kazemi, you ARE inciting hatred by calling Muhammad a pedophile
Posted by: colin | 2006-02-16 9:12:23 AM
Since when are Muslims an identifiable group?
Dude - yer thick as a brick
Posted by: Nbob | 2006-02-16 9:12:48 AM
Thanks for the history lesson Greg. I didn't know until now that Pythagoras and Euclid were Muslims. Besides being handy with numbers, they could also see 800 years into the future. Thanks also to some of the responders who, like me were mistaken about Muslim science. We all could use some history lessons. I guess now the Pope will take credit for the Roman Empire, and so on.
I will admit that early in the Christian movement there were some terrible assaults on modern science. The Spanish inquisition, and the destruction of Aztec and Mayan culture. The difference I see is that Christians made a shift toward tolerence three centuries ago. Without that shift we would still be in the conditions that plague the Muslim world. Since the Muslim movement started half a century after the Christian movement, can we expect another 400 years of intolerence and hatred from that group?
I do not belong to any religion, so I believe I am objective to a point. All my friends, relatives and associates are of Christian origin, so I tend to follow their rules. I am thankful that they are tolerent enough that I don't have to hide my beliefs.
One last thought for Greg: Though the origins of math and science are found in the Middle East, Modern physics is found in the western world. Without the support of free minded societies the secrets of the ancient world would have been lost forever.
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-16 9:58:38 AM
Nbob,....dude...
Like man are you a real lawyer? Dude!!!! I wish I was a lawyer dude! Yo. Like man I took too many shots to the head. Dude!!!! Yo!!! Like when you talked about that Alberta human rights and multicultural stuff dude like I didn't know that stuff even existed! Dude!!!!
Like dude I heard my homeboy Willie is a lawyer. Dude he took more shots than me. Like man I bet he wins a lot of cases with that wicked left hook to the body....dude....yo dude...yo.
Dude you're like the first Jethro Tull fan I've met since I moved out here. Dude did you know that thick as a brick's flip side is just side one in reverse? Dude ... what a genius!!!
Dude I'm serious. Can you like put in a good word with the head lawyer dude? If Willie can do it maybe I can dude!!! Yo dude like thanks
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-16 11:08:26 AM
Well I've decided to subscribe since you are practically the only publication in Canada to stand up for freedom of the press. Not impressed by the great silence from the academic world either, especially those with tenure.
Great recent editorial cartoon by Aislin in The Gazette in Montreal. It featured the Little Mermaid on the rock, the symbol of Denmark, covered in one of those black extreme Muslim outfits from head to tail. You should reprint it.
Posted by: nicola | 2006-02-16 7:17:28 PM
Every one, the issue here is not freedom of speech alone. The real issue is to expose the violent and anti non-Muslim and in-humane nature of cult of Islam. Claim of Muslims sound like Nazis claiming that their feelings are hurt by critical examination of their cult. Christianity and Judaism for long are being examined and criticized without such ugliness as a result. We need to understand Islam and there are now resources available to help you examine A-Z of Islam. http://www.faithfreedom.org. Here is link we need to follow and forward to all. I have pasted below an article from this website. The fact is that the real depiction of this cult that was founded on murder, rape and looting is finally getting exposed.
Hypocrisy is that in the past few weeks only about 38 people died in Pakistan.
Yes, they were Muslim sects practicing true Islam upon each other!!!!
Why have we not heard or seen any major protest carried out against this violence like we have seen against the cartoons??? Why, why, why?
Spread this link http://www.faithfreedom.org and support all those who have courage to expose the true nature/face of this religion which is a disguise of Arab Imperialism. We should WELCOME and be looking forward to going to court against any claim by Muslims that these cartoons have incited hatred. We need only to produce Koran as an evidence as a real book of hatred and violence. Western Standard can ask for help the ex-Muslims at http://www.faithfreedom.org/ for specific evidence of spreading hatred and declaring non-Muslims as filth and fuel of hell. The article below is just one example.
There Is Something Healthy in the State of Denmark
by Srdja Trifkovic
2006/02/13
Denmark’s government, her media and the public at large, continue to defy the prevalent spirit of Western decrepitude by refusing to eat humble pie over some half-dozen mildly satirical cartoons of Muhammad, the inventor of Islam. Every American by now has heard about those cartoons, but very few have actually seen, thanks to our mainstream media’s strange view of what actually constitutes “all the news fit to print.” The cartoons, originally published in the Jyllands-Posten, have prompted a fresh round of anti-Western rage in the Muslim world and among Muslim immigrants in Europe. It looks like there will be no apology coming from Copenhagen, however, no matter how many Danish consulates burn in Dar al Islam, or how resolutely Iranians and others pursue their announced boycott of Danish products (which is unlikely to hurt anyway: being "pious" they don’t consume Tuborg or Carlsberg, and they wouldn’t touch the succulent, lightly smoked Crown ham.)
The U.S. State Department, by contrast, has effectively sided with Jihad by condemning the newspapers in Denmark, Norway, and elsewhere in Europe that have published those cartoons. On February 3 a State Department press officer, one Janelle Hironimus, declared that “inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable.” “We call for tolerance and respect for all communities,” she went on, “and for their religious beliefs and practices.”
Ms. Hironimus and her bosses are guilty of a fourfold blunder. First of all, they are guilty of gross misrepresentation of fact: The cartoons in question do not incite hatred—religious, ethnic, or any other. Muhammad telling suicide bombers arriving in heaven to stop coming as he’d ran out of virgins, or wearing a turban containing a stick of dynamite, is somewhat funny and mildly satirical. It is not outrageous by any sane standard.
They are also guilty of arrogance: it is not the job of a foreign ministry to pass judgments on cultural matters, or to set standards of “acceptability.” Its job is to promote the country’s interests around the world. In this particular case those interests entail siding with a brave, little fellow-Western society in defending freedom of speech against crude intimidation by our common enemies.
Even more troubling is the hypocrisy, endemic in Washington anyway. The U.S. government did not comment when far worse cases of inciting religious and ethnic hatred occurred here in America, notably when an NEA-funded “artist” submerged a crucifix in his urine, when the Chicago Tribune published a cartoon in 1992 depicting “the Serbs” as a pig emerging from a latrine, or when a winner of the Turner Prize depicted Holy Virgin Mary using “polyester resin, map pins, and elephant dung on linen.” Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as “anti-Christian images, or [those insulting to] any other religious belief,” Ms. Hironimus’ colleague Sean McCormack declared at a State Department press briefing on the same day (February 3), but he was not telling the truth.
And finally, we are witnessing the ongoing delusion at Foggy Bottom about the effect U.S. appeasement will have on the Muslim world. If the State Department believes that it will earn some brownie points for America in the streets of Cairo or Peshawar by betraying the Danes, it is merely repeating Clinton’s Balkan folly of the 1990s and Brzezinski’s Afghan blowback a decade earlier; and “not to learn from history is to be a child for ever” (Cicero).
While Danish artists have every right to draw and publish cartoons that mock Muhammad, and while various bien-pensants, busybodies and jihad’s fellow-travelers who suggest otherwise deserve our studied contempt, the entire debate is based on flawed assumptions.
The real problem is this: a figure as disturbing as the founder of Islam should not be gently made fun of, at least not until his remarkable career has been given a vigorous public treatment in the Western world.
The trouble with those cartoons is not at all that they offend fervent Muslims—that sort are offended by our very existence—but that by their placid humor they humanize a man with a hugely problematic legacy, and thereby offended the memory of untold millions of victims of Jihad through the ages.
Ahmed Akkari, spokesman of the Muslim organizations in Denmark, said that Muslims all over the world want the “truth” about their prophet to become known to the rest of the world. “We want respect for Muhammad restored and we want him to be described as the man he really was in history,” he declared.
In the spirit of multicultural tolerance and interfaith dialogue we willingly take the challenge. We’ll briefly examine Muhammad as “he really was in history,” relying exclusively on the orthodox Islamic sources: the Kuran and the hadith, or recorded “traditions” about the prophet. Those sources provide an account of uncertain historical accuracy, but that account is regarded as true by all true Muslims and it provides the scriptural basis for the Muslim faith and the Islamic law.
Muhammad was both the prophet of the religion he invented cca. 610 AD and the creator of a political ideology and a social program associated with it. He also remains, to all true Muslims, the paragon of goodness. Imitatio Muhammadi is reflected in the prevalence of his name in the Muslim world. Understanding him is the key to grasping the Muslim world outlook.
Of Muhammad’s life we are informed from the Kuran (English convert Marmaduke Muhammad Pickthall’s 1930 translation is still the best by far) and the far more voluminous hadith, recorded “traditions” about the prophet. Those sources provide an account of uncertain historical accuracy, but it is regarded as true by all true Muslims and it provides the scriptural basis for the Muslim faith and the Islamic law.
Muhammad was born around AD 570 in the city of Mecca, a place of pagan pilgrimage focused on the temple of Kaaba (“cube”) that sheltered a revered black stone. The dominant pagan deity was the moon-god whose title was al-ilah—“the chief among gods”—shortened by frequency of usage to Allah. Mecca, close to the seaport of Jeddah and halfway between Yemen and Syria, was a large trading center and Muhammad’s tribe, the Quraysh, included many affluent and politically influential merchants. His own family was poor, however. Orphaned at an early age, he grew up on the social margins and lacked formal education. Muhammad’s later bitterness towards his native city and its social and spiritual structure reflected a resentful and marginalized young man’s sense of powerlessness and alienation.
At 25 Muhammad met a wealthy widow, Khadija, 15 years his senior, and entered her service as a camel driver, soon rising to become her partner and eventually husband. But his enduring detachment from Meccan society and from the Quraysh tribe prompted the development of his contemplative side. He would often wonder in the hills around Mecca, meditating in solitude. One day in AD 610, coming out of one of his hallucinatory trances, he confided to his wife that he was visited by a majestic being—whom he identified as angel Gabriel—with a call to prophecy: “You are the Messenger of God.” That “Night of Power” marked the beginning of his career as messenger of God—rasul Allah—or Prophet, nabi. Starting in 610, at increasingly frequent intervals until his death 12 years later, Muhammad received “revelations” or verbal messages that he claimed came directly from Allah. Around 650 AD they were collected and written in the Kuran, and eventually codified in the form that has endured until today.
Three years after the first supposed revelation Muhammad decided to go public. His initial teaching was simple, focused on the submission to one transcendent Allah, on the end of the world and the Day of Judgment, on the subsequent delights of paradise for the virtuous and torments of hell for the sinners. In the early days the revelations were delivered in the tone of warnings and appeals rather than threats. (Kuran, sura 46, verse 12; hereafter denoted only by numbers). But the Meccan leaders sneered at the audacity of this common man, with no natural claim to authority or prestige, whose attack on the divinity of old idols could deny the Quraysh their profits derived from the guardianship of the temple of the Kaaba. This was taken as a proof of the upstart’s disregard for the interests of his community and his obligations to the tribe. The initial humorous contempt for Muhammad’s claims eventually turned to indignation and enmity.
Muhammad felt offended by the scorn of his native city, and his wrath brought an early revelation that was harshly violent in tone. It was directed against his uncle Abu Lahab and aunt Umm Jamil: “May the hands of Abu Lahab perish! May he himself perish! Nothing shall his wealth and gains avail him. He shall be burnt in a flaming fire, and his wife, laden with faggots, shall have a rope of fiber around her neck!” (111:1-5) For the first time Muhammad’s family problems were thus echoed by Allah, but certainly not the last.
Muhammad’s fortunes changed in June 622, when a group of 75 people from the fertile settlement of Yathrib, 200 miles north of Mecca, came to him professing acceptance of his faith and inviting him to come to them. In his subsequent escape from Mecca Muhammad was joined by a small group of seventy muhajirun who were all intensely loyal to him personally. This was the hijrah and Muhammad’s arrival in Yathrib on in September 24, 622, marked the beginning of the history of Islam. From that time Yathrib became the city of the prophet, Medinnet el Nebi, which has been shortened to Medina. Significantly, just prior to leaving for Medina, Muhammad received first revelations allowing him to fight the Meccans. (22:39-41)
Once physically secure in his new abode but always short of funds, Muhammad ordered armed raids against Meccan caravans passing near Medina on their way to Syria. An early raid, at Nakhla, took place in the sacred pagan month of Rajab, when no Arab was permitted to raise arms in battle. Not only Muhammad’s foes, but his followers, too, were likely to be scandalized by the wanton violation of sacred trust, so he promptly received a revelation from Allah that the raid enjoyed divine sanction. (2:214) From that moment on, the morality based on pre-Islamic concepts and scriptures, in custom and in natural human sensibility, was to be abrogated in favor of what was advantageous to Muhammad and his followers.
In 624, at Badr, his men killed over forty Meccans in a single razzia that fortified Muhammad’s power in Medina. Yet again, however, divine justification was required for ambushing and murdering one’s own kinsmen, which was repugnant to an Arab. Yet again it was duly granted. (3:123-125) Allah’s alleged messages grew more bellicose at this time: “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them.” (8:12) The “messenger” gloated in the spectacle of his slain enemies and ordered execution of several prisoners who had crossed his path back in Mecca. From the victory at Badr on, to quote Ayatollah Khomeini, “Islam grew with blood.”
At that time Muhammad made the prospect of booty and ransom legal to his followers. This powerful inducement to endemic warfare was so important that it merited a separate sura in the Kuran (the eighth). In the division of the spoils, every man was allowed to retain the plunder of those whom he had slain, with the rest thrown into a common stock. From the proceeds one fifth was Muhammad’s, as condoned by Allah. (8:41) Once the loot was divided it was time to relax: “Now enjoy what ye have won.” (8:69) The promise was reiterated in other verses: “Allah promiseth you much booty that ye will capture.” (48:20-21) Muslim warriors desire the lure of this world, so “enjoy what you have won as lawful and good.” (69:30-37) As for the fallen, a very tangible, X-rated paradise filled with virgins “unouched by man” (52:17-20, 55:56-77) and “fresh” pre-pubescent boys (52:24, 56:17, 76:19) awaits them immediately.
At Badr the simple preacher of yore finally morphed into a vengeful warlord, who jubilantly exclaimed that the spectacle of severed enemy heads pleased him better than “the choicest camel in Arabia.” Killing prisoners was divinely condoned by Allah (8:68) and urged by Muhammad. Fresh revelations described the unbelievers as “the worst animals” (8:55) and “the vilest of creatures” (98:6) undeserving of mercy. The prophet was the “enemy of infidels” (2:90) and his enemies’ heads were to be cut off. (47:4) Killing, enslaving and robbing them was divinely sanctioned and mandated.
When Muhammad returned from Badr to Medina in triumph, he proceeded to settle old scores with his detractors. An atmosphere of fear and foreboding descended on the city. His first victim was Asma bint Marwan, a poetess who had mocked him in verse; she was slain while nursing her baby, and the surviving members of her family “willingly” accepted Islam the following morning. Abu Afak, an elderly Jew who dared question Muhammad’s methods, was the next victim of Muhammad’s hit squads, immediately followed by yet another unfriendly poet, Kab bin al-Ashraf. Artistic expression and freedom of speech were thus given a distinctly Islamic interpretation by the religion’s founder himself.
In the morning after Ashraf—a Jew—was killed, Muhammad told his followers to “kill any Jew you can lay your hands on.” One Muhayyisa bin Mas’ud, to prove his devotion, killed Jewish merchant Ibn Sunayna, his ex-employer. When six of Muhammad’s henchmen murdered an elderly Jew by the name of Abu Rafi in his sleep, they argued whose weapon had actually ended the victim’s life. The prophet decided that the owner of the sword that still had traces of food on it was entitled to the credit: Abu Rafi had just eaten his dinner before falling asleep, and the fatal slash went through his stomach.
Muhammad’s attack against the Jewish tribe of Banu-’l-Mustaliq was the next step towards his Endloesung. His followers slaughtered many tribesmen, looted thousands of their camels and sheep; and kidnapped 500 of their women. The night after the battle, Muhammad and his brigands staged an orgy of rape.
In Mecca Muhammad had hoped to be accepted as God’s messenger by the Jews, but he underestimated their allegiance to their scriptures. His superficial, second-hand knowledge of the Bible made it impossible for him to argue on par with the learned merchants of Medina steeped in their Tradition. The result of their unsurprising refusal to give it up in favor of the claims of a poorly educated refugee was that Muhammad’s earlier, favorable pronouncements about the Jews evolved into a harshly hostile position. The result is summarized in a chillingly euphemistic account by a Muslim scholar: “the final result of the struggle was the disappearance of these Jewish communities from Arabia proper.”
This “disappearance” was not a spontaneous phenomenon but the result of ethnic cleansing and genocide, culminating in the attack the last surviving Jewish tribe in Medina, Banu Qurayzah. Accused of treachery and forced to surrender, some 600 and perhaps up to 900 men were decapitated in front of their women and children. “Truly the judgment of Allah was pronounced on high,” Muhammad gloated, and Allah responded by praising him for the way “he struck terror into their hearts.” (33:25) The women were subsequently raped, of course; Muhammad chose as his concubine one Raihana Bint Amr, whose father and husband were both slaughtered before her eyes some hours earlier. Such treatment of captive women had already been sanctioned by prophetic revelation, and applied to the captive women of Banu-’l-Mustaliq.
Around that time Allah’s messages concerning “the infidel” grew ever harsher: “Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire.” (69:30-37) Others “will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off.” (5:33-34) In this world for the captured infidel “We have prepared chains, yokes and a blazing fire.” (76:4) In the hereafter things get even worse: “garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted . . . And for them are hooked rods of iron.” (22:19-22) One single Kuranic verse, “the Verse of the Sword,” (9:5) Islamic scholars agree, abrogates 124 earlier verses—the ones that are quoted most regularly by Islam’s character witnesses and apologists to prove its alleged tolerance and benevolence.
The image of a victorious leader, merciless with the defeated infidel and feared by his foes, worked wonders for Muhammad. On January 12, 630, he marched into Mecca in triumph, having violated the ten-year truce of Hudaybiyya signed two years previously. That violation was predictably condoned by Allah. (60:10) Ever since, the view of Islamic jurists has been that truces with the infidel could only be temporary and that their only permissible objective was to enable the Muslim side to gain strength for a new onslaught.
Muhammad’s progression from a marginalized outsider to a master of life and death produced a transformation of his personality in the decade preceding his death in 633 AD. Allah was invoked as the authority supporting the prophet’s daily political objectives and his personal needs. Nowhere was this more obvious than when it came to his exaggerated sensuality.
Contrary to his own regulations he had at least fifteen wives. The youngest was Aisha, a daughter of his close aide and the first caliph Abu Bakr, who was seven years old “and with the dolls” when Muhammad—44 years her senior—“married” her. Two years later, when she was 9 and he 53, the “prophet” consummated the “marriage,” i.e. raped the little girl. Some years later he came up with a Kuranic verse approving his nightly trysts with an Egyptian slave girl, and admonishing his jealous wives for their objections to the practice. (66:1-3) Allah’s revelation also enabled Muhammad to take his daughter-in-law Zainab as a wife when he lusted after her. (36:37)
Many commands of the Kuran and Muhammad’s actions and words recorded in the Traditions are morally abhorrent and/or criminal by the standards of our time. But even in the context of 7th century Arabia they were often considered repugnant. Muhammad had to resort to “revelations” as a means of justifying his actions and suppressing the prevalent moral code of his own society. Attacking caravans in the holy month, taking up arms against one’s kinsmen, slaughtering prisoners, reserving a lion’s share of the booty, murdering people without provocation, violating treaties, and indulging one’s sensual passions, was also at odds with the moral standards of his Arab contemporaries. Only the ultimate authority could sanction it, and Allah duly obliged him.
Muhammad’s practice and constant encouragement of bloodshed are unique in the history of religions. Murder, pillage, rape, and more murder have “impressed his followers with a profound belief in the value of bloodshed as opening the gates of Paradise” (cf. Margoulith 1914) and prompted countless Muslim governors, caliphs, and viziers, to refer to Muhammad’s example to justify their treatment of the infidels. Allah’s order to “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” is an injunction both unambiguous and powerful. The word “genocide” was not even coined when Muhammad conveyed Allah’s alleged dictum, “When we decide to destroy a population . . . then we destroy them utterly.” (17:16-17) Disobedient people “we utterly destroyed.” (21:11)
The lives of the unconverted captives could be spared if they pay a tribute to the Muslims: “Fight those who do not profess the true faith till they pay the jiziya [poll tax] with the hand of humility.” (9:29) That Islam sees the world as an open-ended conflict between the Land of Peace (Dar al-Islam) and the Land of War (Dar al-Harb), which must be conquered by jihad, is the most important bequest of Muhammad to his heirs. That “Allah is great, there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger” was easily grasped by the coarse nomads of the desert, especially when the celestial reward was preceded by the tangible earthly loot divinely sanctioned. Charles Manson had met John Gotti; the results were phenomenal.
JIHAD, war in the path of Allah with the objective of converting, killing, or else subjugating and taxing the “infidel,” is Muhammad’s most significant single contribution to the world history. It defined Islam in its earliest days, it has defined the relations between Islam and other religions and cultures ever since, and it continues to define the mindset of Islam today. Muhammad’s followers and successors were accustomed to living by pillage and the exploitation of settled populations. Islam provided a powerful ideological justification for this mindset, a justification inherently global in scope and totalitarian in nature.
The view of modern Islamic activists, that “Islam must rule the world and until Islam does rule the world we will continue to sacrifice our lives,” has been solidly rooted in traditional Islam ever since the early divine sanction of violence that came to Muhammad in Medina: “O Prophet! Rouse the Believers to the fight,” the Kuran orders, and promises that twenty Muslims, “patient and persevering,” would vanquish two hundred unbelievers; if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand. (8:65) Allah further orders the faithful to fight the unbelievers and be firm with them, (9:123) “and slay them wherever ye catch them.” (2:191) The end of the fight is possible only when “there prevail justice and faith in Allah”—everywhere. (2:193)
Muhammad made Islam different from Judaism and Christianity in creating the foundations for a theocratic universal state with unlimited aspirations. From his second year in Medina on, Islam combined the dualism of a universal religion and a universal state and became “Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers.” Muhammad postulated the fundamental illegitimacy of the existence of a non-Muslim world. Jihad did not necessarily mean permanent fighting, but it did mean a permanent state of war. Only after the universal Islamic Empire is established, the notion of an “inner” jihad—one’s personal fight against his sinful desires—may come into play. “My livelihood is under the shade of my spear,” from booty and poll tax, Muhammad declared, and the faithful followed his example. They could contemplate tactical ceasefires, but never its complete abandonment short of the unbelievers’ abject submission. This is the real meaning of Jihad. (4:76)
The conquered peoples were “protected persons” only if they submitted to Islamic domination by a “Contract” (Dhimma), paid poll tax—jizya—and land tax—haraj—to their masters. The resulting inequality of rights in all domains between Muslims and dhimmis steadily eroded the non-Muslim communities, but in this age of victimology the persecution of Christians by Muslims has become a taboo subject in the Western academe. 13 centuries of discrimination, suffering and death of countless millions, have been covered by the myth of Islamic “tolerance.”
On its own admission Islam stands or falls with the person of Muhammad, a deeply flawed man by the standards of his own society, as well as those of the Old and New Testaments, both of which he acknowledged as divine revelation; and even by the new law, of which he claimed to be the divinely appointed medium and custodian.
The problem of Islam, and the problem of the rest of the world with Islam, is not the remarkable career of Muhammad per se, undoubtedly a “great man” in terms of his impact on human history. It is the religion’s claim that the words and acts of its prophet provide the universally valid standard of morality as such, for all time and all men.
The cartoon controversy confirms the validity of Bat Ye’or’s warning (in 1993) that no “Europeanization” of Islam is on the horizon anywhere: there is no move or gesture that would be expressed in “a self-critical view of the history of Islamic imperialism, an acceptance of the principle of equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, a retroactive recognition of the rights of the peoples decimated and degraded by the system of dhimmitude, and an attitude of moral humility—a necessary stage on the path toward reconciliation between peoples. We are light years away from such a development.”
The experience of France last November and Denmark today raises the issue that America, too, ought to ponder: how far is a receiving country expected to go in order to accommodate the religious, moral, and political demands of often inassimilable and hostile immigrants? And why should it do any such thing at all? A further question (courtesy of Chilton Williamson) is where exactly one-billion-plus members of the biggest cult on earth get off telling the rest of us their “prophet” must not be criticized under pain of death: “It is, of course, an insane position. Has any other ‘religion’ in the history of the world made such a claim? Not to my knowledge anyway.”
Our judgment on Muhammad rests on evidence of his followers and faithful admirers—and those who rage against the Danish cartoons can scarcely complain if, even on such evidence, the verdict of the civilized world goes against their “prophet.”
That verdict, once it is passed—and it will be passed—will make the gentle mockery of Muhammad in those cartoons appear as inappropriate as it would be inappropriate today to lampoon Adolf Hitler for his out-of-wedlock trysts with Fräulein Braun, or for his inability to control flatulence.
Posted by: Vcitims of Islam | 2006-02-17 5:16:21 PM
Two men in my ancestry are responsible for many Muslim deaths and I am damn proud of them! Who are they, you ask?
1. President Thomas Jefferson: sent a fleet of America's finest and most powerful frigates to destroy the captured USS Philadelphia and free her crew from the Muslim Barbary (butt)Pirates. The US Navy and Marines, on that day, also guarateed that noone would ever have to pay tribute to those ragheads ever again. To this day, we still don't!
2. French Admiral, Comte de Tourville: freed 700 Christian slaves from their Muslim Algerian captors. He also levelled the port of Algeria. The Algerian Muslims are now France's bitches...which doesn't say much!
I LOVE BUSH!!!
Posted by: ChiefKickingAss | 2006-02-17 8:36:13 PM
It's time for a "reality check".
I saw the cartoons many months ago. Relatives in Denmark brought them to my attention, and as I was born in Denmark and can read Danish, I was able to understand the cartoons. They were mildly amusing, but definitely in “bad taste”, and probably offensive to some, but in these days of rampant political correctness, there is little that someone will not find offensive.
Some thoughts…
Islam has been hijacked by religious zealots, much as Christianity was hijacked first by the Crusades and then the Inquisition. It is interesting that these events have occurred at similar times in the "life-cycles" of these religions, and for similar reasons. Space does not allow for a proper discussion as to the motives for these events, but they are as much, if not more, about territorial control and expansion as they are about religion. It is much easier to justify a “holy war” than it is to justify a war conducted for economic or territorial reasons.
As much as the west, or more accurately, Christendom, finds the current state of affairs abhorrent, the events that unfolded during the Inquisition were no less abhorrent.
There has been little, if any discussion in the media as to how the Muslim world became aware of the cartoons. To the best of my knowledge, the Muslim world does not read Danish or receive Danish newspapers on a regular basis. The only reasonable conclusion is that Muslims in Denmark or Europe passed on the cartoons to the Middle East to incite the riots and demonstrations that have taken place.
The depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist is not totally inaccurate. Islam was not born out of pacifism, but by the edge of a sword. Jesus was a pacifist; Mohammed was anything but.
If the current activities of some of the Muslim world are truly rooted in Islam, how can the Prophet be depicted as anything else but a terrorist? Depicting Mohammed as a “man of peace” would beg the question as to why are some of his followers so violent. In short, it is the activities of Islamic zealots that have defiled the name of the Prophet. He has been “tarred” by their own brush, not by that of the cartoonists.
And just how many of the demonstrators or others denouncing the cartoons have even seen the cartoons.
If violence is committed in the name of the leader, must the leader then not also be violent?
Finally, let’s remember what most of us were taught in school, namely that “Two wrongs do not make a right”.
As offensive as the cartoons may have been, they do not justify the violent reaction. The demonstrations, riots, and the destruction of property are all offensive. The loss of life as a consequence of the riots is extremely offensive. The non-stop media clips of demonstrators burning the Danish flag are probably extremely offensive to all Danes, but the North American media does not appear to be sensitive about these depictions.
The North American media in general has therefore decided for the North American public that the cartoons are offensive, and somehow justify the violent responses, instead of allowing the public to make that decision for themselves.
This is not only censorship; it is also a suspension of our belief in “innocent until proven guilty”. The North American media in general has judged the Danish newspaper to be “guilty”, so there is no reason for a “trial”.
Therefore the North American media should publish the cartoons if they are going to publish the burning of the Danish flag, or publish neither. Or are bias and injustice no longer “offensive”.
Some history…
There is evidence that the reasons for the Crusades were not so much religious as political. The Arab world (and Islam) was expanding its political control, so Europe had to stop the “invasion” before it occurred. Europe wanted, for very obvious reasons, to maintain control over their territories and support their allies.
It is therefore important to consider the role the west, or Christendom, has had in the Middle East since the end of WWI. Christendom has essentially controlled the politics of the region and benefited immensely from the region’s major resource, i.e., oil. Much as agreements or treaties with aboriginal peoples around the world have been ignored, so were the agreements made for the Arab world following the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
There now exist two major hegemonies. The west, primarily Christian, wants and needs to control the Middle East and its resources. The Middle East, primarily Muslim, wants to control the Middle East and its resources.
The political and economic leaders in these two hegemonies have hijacked two of the world’s major religions to meet their respective territorial and economic objectives. The truth, ethics, morality and values have also been hijacked, as there is much in the media that suggests that the conflict is based on the differences between the hegemonies in these areas. Yet the numerous similarities in the religions and their respective belief systems are rarely discussed.
However, the history of the Christian world is that very rarely do the political or economic leaders keep their word. They have lied to the world and their own people on far too many occasions. So there is little reason for a Muslim to trust a Christian on “faith”.
Perhaps it is time for the ultimate reality check; an honest disclosure about the true motive.
We are at “war” over oil. The stability of supply and price is essential to the west; it is the “blood” that keeps the western economies running. The Middle East could easily decrease output with comparatively minor damage to their economies; a situation could devastate the west.
The fallacy that has been perpetrated on the “Peoples of the West” by both their political and economic leaders is that the Middle East knows little if anything about supply/demand economics, and that in any event, these economic theories do not apply to oil, even though they apply to all other commodities.
I doubt that there is a company in the west that would not reduce its output by 10% if it could maintain its revenue level. The prospect of a higher return on investment is a no-brainer. This is one of the underpinnings of capitalism. And is there a worker anywhere in the world who would not prefer to work 36 hours/week for a 40 hours/week wage? Right…
Why should the Middle East and oil be any different?
In conclusion, religion and societal values are not the core issue. It’s all about “money”.
And I suspect that neither party has “God” on their side, simply for the fact that they are not on God’s side.
For if both fail to follow their basic commandments, how can they be on the side of God?
What a world we live in.
Two major belief/economic systems at war, run either by heretic religious zealots, or unethical, unprincipled and immoral business leaders; and sometimes by both.
I can only hope and pray that peace and understanding will come in my lifetime, Inch’Allah.
Posted by: Dansker | 2006-02-19 11:02:11 AM
What, exactly, are the sins of the Inquisition?
You, as a non-Catholic, must surely have the answer. Wait, don't tell me: we killed numerous Jews and Muslims and tortured many, many people.
Actually, the Inquisition was directed at people within the Catholic Church who were suspected of spreading heresy. Some of these people, unfortunately, were Jewish "converts" to Catholicism and Muhommedans, also supposed "converts" who were believed to have been spreading heresy among Catholics. As well, the engines of torture were RARELY employed, except for extreme cases. No, the Inquisition was not opened purely against Jews and Muslims: it was opened to prevent the spreading of such heresies as Arianism, Manacheism, *Liberalism, and *Atheistic Communism.
* 19th and 20th centuries
Posted by: ChiefkicKingAss | 2006-02-20 2:12:20 PM
Dansker,
I agree that much of the problem is that "root of all evil": money. Oil-for-Food is a good example of that, I suppose.
Posted by: ChiefKickingAss | 2006-02-20 2:23:14 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.