Draw Muhammad Day: Censorship, Sabotage, Threats & Murder

Draw Muhammad Day is not an assault on Islam or Muslims, and certainly not on Arab people of any nation. The protest is not racist or ethnocentric. The protest is not an attempt to infringe on the rights of others or curtail any individual’s religious freedom. The protest is in defense of individual freedom of expression. The protest is against one group forcing its religious doctrine on everyone, and censoring other’s rights of free speech and expression.

The protest was launched because serious threats were issued by Islamic Fundamentalists against the creators of South Park after an episode was aired showing a cartoon depiction of Muhammad.

Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, aka Zachary A. Chesser of Virginia, took exception to Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s satire of Muhammad and immediately launched a campaign of intimidation.

On April 15, the day after the first of two episodes of South Park featuring Muhammad aired, Chesser made his first comment about the program through his Twitter feed. “May Allah kill Matt Stone and Trey Parker and burn them in Hell for all eternity. They insult our prophets Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses…” Chesser posted similar entries to his Mujahid Blog as well as the Revolution Muslim website later that same day. The post included a graphic picture of the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh laying dead on the ground with a knife in his chest after he had been assassinated by a Muslim extremist in 2004. Under the photo was the caption: “Theo Van Gogh – Have Matt Stone And Trey Parker Forgotten This?”

In the same post, Chesser provided the address to Stone and Parker’s offices in California, telling readers to “contact them” or “pay Comedy Central…a visit.” He also posted the link to a Huffington Post article that described a Colorado retreat owned by the two men. Chesser also noted: “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh if they do air this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

The threats resulted in Comedy Central censoring the episode and removing it from online distribution.

If an individual wants to create some depiction as part of their own personal expression, that act deserves the same tolerance and freedom from persecution as those who accept, as part of their own religious idiology, that they are not allowed to make such a depiction. In a democratic society that protects the equal rights of individuals; if Muslims are to ensure that their own rights are protected, they must work just as hard to protect the same rights for all, whether they agree with them or not. To be the recipients of religious tolerance does not mean that you have the right to impose religious dogma on individuals that do not adhere to your belief system.

There are many individuals of other faiths and world views who do not agree with the doctrines of Islam and who diligently defend the rights of Muslims to practice their own religion without persecution or oppression. These same individuals have the right to eat pork, draw Muhammad, engage in intimate relations with same gender partners and declare that they have negative feelings about Islam. These rights too must not only be tolerated, but vigorously defended if the right of Muslims to practice their religion is to also be ensured.

America is by no means alone in dealing with the public imposition of Sharia law within a democratic society. Discord has been growing in England as laws requiring Muslim Prayer rooms in public buildings, including privately owned work places, must be provided at tax payer or employer expense. Also causing disharmony has been the establishment of Muslim only swim days at public community pools. Apparently non-Muslims may only attend if they wear traditional Muslim dress, otherwise they will not be allowed to participate.

As Muslim immigration increases throughout Europe conflicts of this nature increase. In 2004 Theo Van Gogh was brutally murdered because of a film he made that Muslims found insulting. (See Photo above)

Van Gogh’s film Submission aired on Dutch television August 29, 2004. The film depicted four semi-nude women in dark, opaque veils, who had texts from the Qur’an written in calligraphy on their bare skin. The women had what appeared to be red whip marks on their backs and legs, on which were written Qur’anic texts that described the physical punishments prescribed for disobedient women. The highly controversial 10-minute film sparked outrage from the Muslim community.

On November 2, 2004, at approximately 8:45 am, an unknown assailant dressed in a traditional Moroccan “djelleba,” viciously attacked Mr. Van Gogh as he bicycled to work in central Amsterdam. The attacker shot and repeatedly stabbed him in the chest despite his pleas for mercy. Mr. Van Gogh struggled against his injuries to flee and managed to get as far as the other side of the street before his attacker shot and stabbed him yet again. The assassin then slit Mr. Van Gogh’s throat with a butcher knife as shocked onlookers screamed in horror.

On January 2 of 2010 a Danish cartoonist was attacked in his home by an ax wielding assailant intent on carrying out a fatwah that called for the mans death. Kurt Westergaard, a cartoonist who had received death threats for publishing images of Muhammad, managed to survive the attack by hiding in a secure panic room until police were able to detain the would-be assassin.

What has resulted from these attacks is terror, not tolerance. The use of violence has defined threats by members of the Muslim community as definite statements of intent rather than specious rhetoric uttered in a moment of passion. Rather than change a television channel, close a book, fold a newspaper or leave a theatre, some members of the Muslim community are deliberately choosing to expose themselves to material that contravenes their religious doctrine, then violently attacking whoever they deem culpable for offending their sensibilities.

On May 11 of this year, just last week, Lars Vilks was offering a lecture on free speech at Uppsala University in Sweden. Immediately after the start of his presentation Mr. Vilks was physically assaulted by a contingent of Muslim attendees. Rather than leave the voluntary lecture these individuals assaulted Mr. Vilks, hitting him on the head and punching him in the face, breaking his glasses. As police officers attempted to end the attack and rescue Mr. Vilks, they too were hit and kicked. Two individuals were arrested. The Muslims present hurled threats and profanity at Mr. Vilks until the lecture had to be cancelled because of security concerns. I young Swedish woman who tried to plead for the lectures continuation, and the freedom of speech of all the others present, was shouted down by the aggressive Muslim mob.

This is not an issue of religious tolerance. Religion should be tolerated and allowed to be exercised and expressed by its adherents as long as it does not violate other’s rights by forcing them to adhere to its doctrine. What religion cannot do in a democratic society, where all individuals enjoy equal protection under the law, is act as a political or legislative entity that dictates laws for all.

Sharia law is completely anathema to the American Constitution and the principles of democracy. Law based upon democratic principles are offensive to Islam because such law is based upon people. Sharia law is based upon the Qur’an and the writings of Mohammed, which Muslims believe to be the only perfect guidance. Therefore, Muslims consider it an offence to Islam for Muslims to live under democratic constitutional law. Sharia law openly despises democracy because it comes from man whereas American Law and the Constitution are based on the principle of governance of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Islam is primarily a political system. The Islamic legal code is called Sharia, meaning the way. The source of the Sharia is the Qur’an and the Sunna (found in the Sira and the Hadith). Sharia law covers all aspects of life including how a man and woman should have sex.

Sharia Law is based upon dividing all actions into forbidden (haram, haraam) and permitted (halal). Islam demands that Muslims form their own political units without influence from non-believers. Under Sharia Law non-believers are second class citizens, dhimmis, not given all the same rights as Muslims yet required to live by Sharia Law.

Pakistan, an Islamic country that operates under a somewhat informal application of Sharia Law, responded to the “Draw Muhammad day’ campaign on Facebook by blocking access to Facebook for the entire country beginning May 19 and lasting through the end of the month. The proclamation issued by the Lahore Court includes not only Facebook but any other sites or links that may feature such images and allows that the ban be extended past the end of May at the discretion of the court.

There are 1.8 million Facebook users in Pakistan, not all of them Muslim, but all of them subject to the censorship imposed by the court.

The official PR notification as reproduced by Aamir Attaa at ProPakistani is as follows:

In compliance with the orders of Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore, on the Writ Petition No.10392/10, dated the 19th May, 2010, the Ministry of Information Technology has issued a directive to Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to block the ‘Face Book’ and all other internet links displaying sacrilegious caricatures of the Holy Prophet.
Ministry of IT has also directed the PTA to remain alert and watchful and block all such links displaying the profane caricatures immediately.
Ministry of IT has requested public at large to contact a dedicated Telephone No.0800-5505 and e-mail address: complaint@pta.gov.pk , to transmit necessary information, should anything to the effect of objectionable caricature get displayed/propagated at any website.

Although the Facebook ‘Draw Muhammad Day’ page is up and running, as of the writing of this article the DrawMuhammadDay.com website is down. It has been intermittent throughout the day but seems to have finally succumbed. It has been rendered inaccessible by an apparent campaign to crash the site. ‘Youfan’s blog‘ and the ‘It’s All What You Want‘ website have been offering instruction on how to help take down the site and are publicly celebrating their cowardly violation of freedom of speech and expression. Although not causing personal injury or death on this occasion, the impact on the rights and freedoms of others is no less violent.

Samuel Langhorne Clemens, aka Mark Twain, once wrote; “Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only sure defense. True irreverence is disrespect for another man’s god.” These statements, irreverent though they are, represent key principles of a free society. The acts of criticizing, satirizing, and mocking are part of process that removes pomp and circumstance from an issue, allowing us to see more clearly and comprehend. The ability to challenge and test the veracity of our most sacred thoughts and beliefs is not merely a privilege but a shared duty.

The constitutionally protected right of free speech provides the cornerstone to a democratic society where derision and disagreement fuel the process of negotiation, discovery and cooperation. Our individual as well as societal growth and development are aided by access to the opinions and criticisms of others. Every idea, belief or endeavor benefits from the collective input of our society whether it is solicited, welcomed, encouraged or feared.

Free speech promotes development where a strong foundation is present, and exposes weaknesses where they either hide or lay undiscovered. Free speech is loved by the strong and feared by the weak. Truth welcomes free speech and accepts the strengthening process of criticism, where lies and falsehoods are unable to withstand its trials. It is for this reason that corrupt systems of thought, and the organizations, institutions and regimes built on them, will do anything possible to prevent this powerful force from exposing their masquerade.

Often time, the more ridiculous an assertion is, the more violently it is defended. When something is unable to withstand any questioning or criticism, it’s proponents seek to quell any dissent by any means necessary. In cases such as those mentioned, when both the assertion and the proponents are lacking in strength, the ridiculous is defended with the extreme. This unintended admission of weakness seeks to replace the strength of an enduring truth with lies wrapped in the protective cocoon of terror.

The rights of a free society cannot be allowed to wither and die in the shadow of threats. Terror cannot be allowed to subvert liberty. It is a constant battle that must be attended, and where an inch is given it must be reclaimed. Freedom cannot be allowed to erode by the giving of ground in the face of an irrational and tyrannical onslaught. In the name of freedom of expression; pick up a pen, pencil or crayon and draw your best Muhammad whether it be a portrait or a stick figure. Photograph it or scan it and upload it to the Facebook page and then pin it, tack it or tape it up for all the world to see.

Happy Draw Muhammad Day.

Editor’s Note: Liam Fox will be discussing his article this afternoon on NPR’s “All Things Considered”. The News Junkie Post will post the audio clip of the interview when it becomes available.


290 Responses to Draw Muhammad Day: Censorship, Sabotage, Threats & Murder

  1. -9 Vote -1 Vote +1Tabish
    May 20, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    Islam is fixed, stable, ordered and disciplined, and so are Muslims.

  2. +1 Vote -1 Vote +1HomoHammad
    May 21, 2010 at 6:06 am

    I love how these Muslims are taking advantage of “freedom of speech” in an attempt to deprive us of OUR freedom of speech.
    They can do it, but we can’t.
    From a people that threaten violence over a drawing, I don’t expect any different.
    I’ve been wonder though….
    If I drew a picture of Mohammad, How would you even know it was him?…’Cause you all f-ing look the same!

    • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Oliver
      May 21, 2010 at 5:14 pm

      Who is “these Muslims”? And how can they deprive you of your freedom of speech? The freedom of speech granted by the US constitution someone could only be deprived of by abolishing the first amendment – which has no relevancy whatsoever for Pakistan, which is a sovereign nation.

      The issues of sovereignty and the actual democratic principlies that give sovereignty of the people are unfortunately actually not only ignored but scoffed at by the article. It declares the US Constitution and the weights it gives to rights and values as the defining characteristics of a democratic system, which is spitting into the face of all other democratic nations and their people, whether in America, in Europe or elsewhere in the world, many of which attribute weight to different rights quite differently in situations where one right clashes with another.

      The second grave mistake the article makes is to confound Islam and Sharia law, totally ignoring the fact that there are plenty of Muslim nations in which Sharia law is not practiced or at least not endorsed by political authorities. If the government is not able to enforce the rule of law in every remote area and thus some tribes or groups practice Sharia, that’s quite a different issue, and one that one should be hesitant to judge from a cozy armchair in a developed nation.

      • +2 Vote -1 Vote +1adhitlerum
        May 22, 2010 at 10:37 am

        tldr these muslims mean these muslims

        • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1eric
          May 22, 2010 at 3:24 pm

          “these muslins” he was refering to are insatiable muslim radicals. however, he was wrong that they are depriving us of our freedom of speech. they are threatening death upon us for practicing our freedom of speech here in the US, which isn’t much better.

          • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Oliver
            May 24, 2010 at 9:54 am

            When you’re being slandered as murderous scum anyway, it doesn’t really make a difference if you comply with the stereotype. You are wrong to differentiate his claims more than he does – he clearly writes of “a people”. He’s not differentiating between radicals and moderates, not between Shiites, Sunnites or any other group, not between Palestinians, Iraqis, Indonesians or Malaysians, or even Americans of Muslim faith. He’s simply speaking of “these Muslims” as “a people threatening violence”.

            Precisely in which way is this testimony religious (or anti-religious) fanaticism he displays any better than any other form of fanaticism depriving other people of their dignity and demonizing them summarily?

            • Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
              May 24, 2010 at 5:42 pm

              Oliver said:
              “When you’re being slandered as murderous scum anyway, it doesn’t really make a difference if you comply with the stereotype.”

              If someone claims that you are a murderer, then it doesn’t really matter if you ACTUALLY ARE a murderer?

              Are you serious?!?

              Or worse, perhaps you are suggesting that if someone accuses you of being a murderer, then it is now acceptable for you to go out and commit murders.

              Once again, you seem to fail to understand the difference between words and actions.

              Of course, you are very wrong.

              As to whether someone is slandering you, it is irrelevant.

              Your own words and actions should always be a true reflection of your deepest beliefs and values.

              • Vote -1 Vote +1Oliver
                May 26, 2010 at 3:40 pm

                “If someone claims that you are a murderer, then it doesn’t really matter if you ACTUALLY ARE a murderer?

                Are you serious?!?”

                I didn’t say that at all. I spoke about threats and wishes.

                “Once again, you seem to fail to understand the difference between words and actions.”

                No, you do. You invent me talking about actions when I am talking about words.

                “As to whether someone is slandering you, it is irrelevant. ”

                So says someone who obviously has very little respect for the law himself.

                “Your own words and actions should always be a true reflection of your deepest beliefs and values.”

                Shouldawouldacouldanaive baloney. The moon is made of cheese, children are brought by the stork and the tooth fairy really exist.

                Wake up. This is the real world. The patience of people has limits and anyone will break in one way or the other if pushed hard enough.

                Demanding that other people should behave at their best to tolerate your behaving at your worst is neither democratic nor social, its antisocial and dictatorial.

            • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
              May 26, 2010 at 9:18 pm

              Oliver said:
              “You invent me talking about actions when I am talking about words.”

              You were NOT talking about words. You said that it didn’t matter if the person accused of murder complied with the accusation. Compliance, in this situation, denotes action — the “accused” acts in compliance with the accusation. Thus, when said to be a murderer, the accused commits murder.

              That was the clear and direct meaning of the words you used. If you actually meant to say something else, please explain. But THAT is what you said.

              Oliver said: “So says someone who obviously has very little respect for the law himself.”

              Yet again, you confirm that you know precisely NOTHING about me. In fact, it seems as though you are just reaching at straws, trying to throw some sort of insult towards me. In doing so, you show yourself as the fool.

              Oliver: “…anyone will break in one way or the other if pushed hard enough.”

              That may or may not be true, but we are talking about people who “break” (e.g., commit grievous violence against others) in response to a simple DRAWING.

              Anyone who can’t maintain their civility in response to a snide cartoon is unworthy of my respect. They have shown us all that they, as individuals, are small-minded, intolerant, and brutal.

              Oliver: “Demanding that other people should behave at their best to tolerate your behaving at your worst is neither democratic nor social, its antisocial and dictatorial.”

              I certainly make no demands upon people. And even if I did, it would not require them to behave at their best. It would, however, require them to not violently attack and kill others… not try to suppress their ideas, words, and drawings.

              And as for my behaving at my worst…? Do you truly believe that making a drawing of some child-raping, mass-murdering psychopath is me behaving at my worst?

              Compare that to the numerous acts of extreme violence that occurred in response to the original “Muhammad” cartoons.

              Let’s see…

              A few snarky drawings which offended some hyper-sensitive brain-dead religious fanatics.


              Those same fanatics burning down buildings, murdering innocent people, and insisting upon the elimination of freedom of speech.

              How do those things compare, to you?

    • -5 Vote -1 Vote +1Nadeem
      May 22, 2010 at 12:15 am

      Dear friend,

      just tell me one thing what is your objective behind drawing pictures of our Prophet,,,a simple question??

  3. +10 Vote -1 Vote +1The Infidel Alliance
    May 21, 2010 at 6:17 am

    What exactly made Muhammed so great?

    His sexual gluttony and perversion? His lust for stolen booty? His embrace of human slavery? His obsession with torture and decapitation?

    No…what made Muhammed great was his evil legacy which he inflicted upon the world. His greatness is a greatness akin to Adolph Hitler, Ghengis Khan, Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin….a legacy of killing and terror.

    As horrible as his evil bretheren were, Muhammed is the gold medal grand champion because his legacy was the most insidiosly evil.

    Muhammeds legacy was nothing less than:



  4. +10 Vote -1 Vote +1The Infidel Alliance
    May 21, 2010 at 6:30 am


    It is Islam against everyone, everything, everywhere that is not Islamic. It is Dar al-Islam against Dar al-Harb. Islam against us, not us against them.

    THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR, inspired by Allah, mandated by Muhammed, commanded in the Koran & this hadith: Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle Muhammed said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'”

    The FACTS speak for themselves:

    Islam against:
    – the Catholics in the Philippines (routine slaughter & beheadings)
    – the Christians in Indonesia (routine slaughter & beheadings)
    – Australian tourists in Bali (blown up…..TWICE)
    – the Buddhists in Thailand (routine slaughter & beheadings)
    – the Hindus & Sikhs in India (hundreds of years battling the Islamic Jihad)
    – the Jews in Mumbai (slaughtered)
    – the Zoroastrians & Baha’i in Iran (virtually exterminated)
    – Islamic converts to Christianity in Afghanistan (death fatwa)
    – ancient Buddhist statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan (blown up)
    – the Chaldean Christians in Iraq (routine persecution, slaughter & church burnings)
    – the Jews in Israel (routine attacks against civilians, threat of 2nd genocide)
    – the Jews in Yemen (nearly exterminated)
    – S. Korean & German tourists in Yemen (kidnapped, blown up)


    • Vote -1 Vote +1European
      May 23, 2010 at 3:31 pm

      “- the Jews in Mumbai (slaughtered)”.
      167 innocent people located at more then ten targets were slaughtered i Mumbai!
      About 100 were hindus, about 50 were muslims, about ten were of other beliefs and SIX were jews (all at one spot, Nariman House)!
      Still you describe the Mumbai massacres as if it was all about the jews, as if the other 161 innocent victims had no value!
      Shame, shame, shame on you!

      • +7 Vote -1 Vote +1The Infidel Alliance
        May 23, 2010 at 9:11 pm

        Dear ‘European’,

        In the line immediately above my reference to the Jews being slaughtered in Mumbai, I stated:

        – the Hindus & Sikhs in India (hundreds of years battling the Islamic Jihad)

        I’m not diminishing the loss of the Hindus and others in Mumbai, but I specifically pointed out the Jews to emphasize that they are unsafe from jihadi attacks anywhere in the world, even a small group in Mumbai.

        • +3 Vote -1 Vote +1European
          May 24, 2010 at 7:33 am

          We are ALL – also moderate Muslims – unsafe from attacks by extremist Islamists, – meaning in particular violent Wahhabists!

          Lashkar-e-Taiba (responsible for the Mumbai massacres), Taliban and the entire Al-Qaida network are Wahhabists, – an expansionist Muslim sect intolerant of both Shi‘ite Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism. Wahhabists reject all non-Wahhabi Islam. In their minds only those following the strict teachings of al-Wahhab are true Muslims, all others are considered infidels and licit to kill. Hence, moderate Muslims (non-Wahhabi Muslims) are no safer from violent jihadist attacks than anyone else. Rather the contrary as the majority live in countries where Wahhabists murder scores of “infidel” moderate Muslims on a daily basis (Pakistan, Afghanistan etc.).

          Claiming it’s an “Islamic world war” is a false generalization and a huge unright to all moderate Muslims.
          (Are all moderate Christians – or the Bible – to blame for murderous attacks planned/done by US’ Hutaree, Army of God, Christian Identity, the Lambs of Christ, Concerned Christians, Ku Kux Klan etc.?)

          Non-muslims’ general lack of such knowledge – and moderate Muslims failing to teach us – is as big a threat as the Wahhabist jihadists themselves. Generally blaming Islam/Allah/Muhammed/the Quran/all Muslims for the atrocities done by Wahhabists, only strengthens the growing differences and misunderstandings between the Muslim world and “the others”. It is literally to gift the Wahhabists the weapon they need to convince young, unsecure Muslims that all non-muslims are their enemies.

          As a survivor who witnessed tens of murders and executions – including my friends’ – in the Mumbai massacres, understanding as much as possible of the “who’s and why’s” has been imparative for my emotional healing and for me to be able to reclaim my life.
          The key word is *knowledge*.
          Lack of knowledge makes “us” fail to understand that extreme, violent Islamists are Non-muslim’s and moderate Muslim’s common enemy. Rather than uniting to gain force to figh the Ismist extremists, “we” let ourselves be fooled by our common enemy’s divide & conquer strategy and turn against eachother! This has got to stop!

          Please take some time to read Islam Daily (only one among many informative websites on the subject), especially the chapter on Wahhabism http://www.islamdaily.net/EN/Contents.aspx?AID=289

        • Vote -1 Vote +1European
          May 24, 2010 at 8:02 am

          You might also wish to read this briefing written by Stephen Schwartz, senior policy analyst with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies based in Washington, DC.


  5. +9 Vote -1 Vote +1The Infidel Alliance
    May 21, 2010 at 6:39 am


    Islam against:

    – the Coptic Christians in Egypt (routine persecution, slaughter & church attacks)
    – the Christians & animists in Sudan (stoning, amputation, genocide)
    – the Christians in Kenya (constant Jihadist threat from Obama’s homies)
    – the Christians in Nigeria (routine Jihadist attacks)
    – U.S. embassies in Tanzania & Kenya (blown up)
    – the athiests in Europe (the prime target)
    – the native French in Paris (torched car terrorism)
    – Jews in Paris (read the grisly story of Ilan Halimi, a Jewish shop clerk who was kidnapped, tortured and killed in 2006)
    – the native Swedes in Malmo (Islamic rape brigades)
    – the native Dutch in Amsterdam (routinely terrorized)
    – Dutch politicians (Geert Wilders & Ayyan Hirsi Ali – death fatwa)
    – Dutch cinematographers (Theo vanGogh savagely murdered by an Islamist in broad daylight)
    – Dutch cartoonists (Kurt Westergaard – death fatwa)
    – Dutch newspaper editors (Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten’s culture editor – death fatwa)
    – Train commuters in Spain (blown up)
    – Tube commuters in London (blown up)
    – Airports in Scotland (blown up)
    – Jews in Argentina (blown up)
    – Jews in Caracas (blown up)
    – Twin Tower office workers in N.Y. (blown up….. TWICE!)
    – Defense workers in the Pentagon (blown up – airliner jihad)
    – Army/Navy military recruiters in Little Rock (gunned down by an Islamist)
    – Soldiers in F.t Hood Texas (gunned down by an Islamist)


  6. +10 Vote -1 Vote +1The Infidel Alliance
    May 21, 2010 at 8:18 am


    Islam against:
    – Delta Airlines Passengers on Christmas day (underwear bomber)
    – Times Square patrons (SUV bomber)

    The list goes on, and on, and on……..

    THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR – It’s real – Inspired by Allah, mandated by Muhammed, commanded in the Koran, here in this hadith: Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle Muhammed said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'”

    Islam has been dutifully following this mandate for 1,400 years, since the time Muhammed left Mecca for Medina. What we are facing is nothing less than an ISLAMIC WORLD WAR that rages on every continent except Antarctica, against everyone and everything “non-Islamic”.

    It is not a ‘War on Terror’. It is not a small bunch of Islamic ‘extremists’. it is the prime directive, indeed the very core, of Islamic doctrine.

    THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR – Muhammeds evil legacy.

    ~ The Infidel Alliance

  7. Vote -1 Vote +1Zubair
    May 21, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Freedom of Speech is one thing. Provoking and blasphemy is another. Why mix the two. There are people who hold their ideals sacred. Others should respect that.

    • Vote -1 Vote +1bill macmasters
      May 21, 2010 at 12:18 pm

      Zubair, which is more offensive? satirical DRAWINGS criticizing the violence committed by muslims, or the actual riots, looting, arsons, assaults, death fatwas, and murders committed by muslims offended that their religion is being depicted as violent and fanatical?

      no matter what i say, there is someone, somewhere, that will be deeply offended by it, and there is a high likelihood that that offended person will be a muslim and that they will consider those words to be provacative, obscene, or blasphemous. probably a more conservative or fundamentalist muslim, but a muslim nonetheless.

      in fact, zubair, i don’t know whether you are muslim or not. but i assure you that there are things you have done and said that would be considered provocative or blasphemous by a sizeable number of people, including a significant number that would probably consider themselves “true muslims.” should you “respect that” and stifle yourself because of it?

      if we were to limit freedom of speech only to that which does not significantly offend anyone, there wouldn’t really be any true freedom of speech whatsoever.

      “The freedom of speech is the freedom to offend. Without the other, neither can exist.”
      -Mark Twain

      • Vote -1 Vote +1Oliver
        May 21, 2010 at 5:01 pm

        But we do. That’s why there are laws against libel and slander. Mark Twain was a great author, but I wouldn’t cite him as a constitutional expert or a sociologist. Nor as an expert on how a society works. He had his own share of problems with society.

    • Vote -1 Vote +1Imnodhimmi
      May 21, 2010 at 12:30 pm

      yes, people should respect your ideals. However, the whole point of free speech is that while you may disagree with the idea, they should be allowed to say it. Christianity gets ripped on all the time, the difference is that Christians are not cutting off people’s heads and blowing themselves up

      • Vote -1 Vote +1Oliver
        May 21, 2010 at 5:07 pm

        They aren’t? What about Yugoslavia? What about WWII? If anything, a lot of Christians have learned from the excesses of the past that this path leads nowhere.

        The whole point of free speech is that the right to voice disagreement also means that others have the right to disagree with your criticism, and to communicate that criticism in any legal way they want. If that means a boycott of anything you produce, that’s their right. If you voice a disagreement, you have to live with the consequences.

        More: Criticism and disagreement can be communicated in a way that at least minimised the chance to offend. If one knowingly and willingly chooses a way that will offend, it’s pretty poor style to complain about vociferous reactions – in which I explicitly don’t exclude violence. But if you set out to rile up people, don’t complain if they get riled up. And if you set out to rile up millions of people, statistics says the chance there’s a few crackpots among them who will scoff on the rules of the game and what’s permissible is pretty high. Doesn’t say anything about the other millions in that group.

  8. Vote -1 Vote +1Sam
    May 21, 2010 at 11:13 am

    What did Muhammad teach anyway? See: http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/adab_of_islam.htm

  9. +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Usman Masood
    May 21, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    1 Corinthians 14:34
    Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.
    1 Timothy 2:12
    And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

    And u guys claim Islam doesnt giv women their rights…widout quotes.
    Here is ur bible …women rights violated much???

    • Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
      May 21, 2010 at 9:34 pm

      Thank you for your insightful comments, Usman. You remind us, once again, that all of the Abrahamic religions should be equally regarded as dangerously retrograde threats to civilization.

      • -2 Vote -1 Vote +1Usman Masood
        May 22, 2010 at 1:51 am

        The Bible has been changed by man…
        And so hav the other scriptures.
        While the Quran hasnt been changed since frever=)

        So read the Quran…If u find ANY verse that is a threat…feel free to contact me @

        I will be more then happy to explain to u how this worKs.

        Before posting…atleast think…
        Think of something logical to say…and not hateful.
        If u dont hav anything nice to say shutup

        • +3 Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
          May 22, 2010 at 11:35 am

          Qur’an 24:2

          “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.”

          translation: Yusufali

        • +2 Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
          May 22, 2010 at 11:52 am

          Further, the Qur’an consistently supports the institution of slavery. For some strange reason, the Unchangeable Word of God wasn’t quite able to mention that the enslavement of human beings was, perhaps, not such a moral and proper action for the devout.

          Muhammad, himself, owned many slaves.

          And let us take it even further. The Qur’an not only supports slavery, but sexual slavery. It speaks quite openly of female slaves whose masters may take them as concubines, at his discretion. In other words, he can rape them any time he feels like it.

          The Qur’an supports slavery and rape. It does not condemn these disgusting and barbaric practices. Instead, the Qur’an clearly and undeniably supports and promotes slavery and rape.

        • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
          May 23, 2010 at 3:15 pm

          Usman? Are you going to explain these?

          The Qur’an commands the infliction of cruel, torturous punishment upon people for fornication (e.g., consensual sex between unmarried persons).

          And at the same time, the Qur’an supports SLAVERY and RAPE.

          Please help me understand how these things can be part of your “religion of peace.”

          • Vote -1 Vote +1Oliver
            May 24, 2010 at 9:47 am

            The same way they can be of any text written in the 7th century. If you want to understand, may I suggest you go and read a history book? Your lack of education isn’t a justification for slandering others

            • Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
              May 24, 2010 at 4:32 pm

              Oliver, you know virtually nothing regarding my level of formal or self-directed education. If you have a meaningful response to my queries, feel free to share. But I find no value in your snide (and implicitly self-congratulatory) insults.

              Put up or stfu.

            • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1The Infidel Alliance
              May 25, 2010 at 4:05 pm

              Dear ‘Oliver’,

              The truth is not slander.

              ~The Infidel Alliance

    • Vote -1 Vote +1TruthorNot
      May 22, 2010 at 12:00 am

      Tabari IX:113 Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.”

      Bukhari:V1B22N28 “”The Prophet said: ‘I was shown the Hell Fire and the majority of its dwellers were women who are disbelievers or ungrateful.’ When asked what they were ungrateful for, the Prophet answered, ‘All the favors done for them by their husbands.'”

      Tabari I:280 “Allah said, ‘It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid.”

      • -2 Vote -1 Vote +1Usman Masood
        May 22, 2010 at 1:49 am

        i said do not post hadith…cuz their is always some doubt over their legitness…
        I repeat…Islam is not governed by Hadith but by the Quran….a LOT of ppl quote hadith which arent true.
        Quran however wud be better.
        Quote something from the Quran.
        It just so happens…
        that the Bukhari one u just posted:
        Its abt husbands doing UN-LAWFUL things to please their wives…its in that context. that women who will make their husbands do unlawful/dishonest stuff…like corruption..

        Post A Quranic verse…not Hadith…
        I posted from the Bible…

        • +6 Vote -1 Vote +1The Infidel Alliance
          May 25, 2010 at 4:10 pm

          Dear ‘Usman Masood’,

          You know that Islam cannot stand on the Koran alone. The Koran demands clarification by the Ahadith. The Koran, Ahadith and the Sirah Rasul Allah form the foundation for Sharia law.

          You cannot seperate the Ahadith from Islam, otherwise you also have to seperate Sharia law from Islam.

          ~The Infidel Alliance

  10. +2 Vote -1 Vote +1bill macmasters
    May 21, 2010 at 11:40 pm

    “Oh, and remember when Iran, in response to the Jyllands-Posten cartoon Islamic cartoon controversy, ran a Holocaust Cartoon Contest [http://www.israelnewsagency.com/iranholocaustcartoonsisraelseo48480207.html]. In response, Jews all over the world…went about their day — yes, most amazingly, instead of blowing up Muslims’ places of business or trying to behead the cartoonists.” [http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/05/20/draw_mohammed_d.html]

    • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Usman Masood
      May 22, 2010 at 1:55 am

      For Gods Sake…
      IRAN isnt ISLAM…
      ther is a DIFFERNCE.
      Dont even look at K.S.A (Kingdom of Saudi-Arabia) for Islam.
      Becuz Kingdoms isnt the way of Islam.

      For Islam…just look at the Quran..
      Not us Muslims
      Not a Country.

      I dont belive in branding Jews and Israel as one.
      They are seperate entities.
      I do not agree wid the Gaza settlements.
      I do not agree wid the human rights violationg by Israel.
      I do not like the murder of children by Israel.
      But belive me…Im okay wid Jews at large.

      The LARGEST population of Jews in South Asia is WITHIN iran itself….ever heard even the slightest of complain from them???

      • Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
        May 24, 2010 at 6:01 pm

        “IRAN isnt ISLAM… ther is a DIFFERNCE”

        The Islamic Republic of Iran is one shining example of the glorious, peaceful nature of Islam. At least, that is what the Iranian authorities would tell us.

        You say that it is not fair to make this comparison.

        Why is it unfair?

        Apparently, the Unchanging Word of God is not clear enough, not helpful enough, not powerful enough to provide proper guidance on the manner in which to run an Islamic nation?

        Do the Iranians not understand Islam? Are they not TRUE Muslims?

  11. Vote -1 Vote +1TruthorNot
    May 22, 2010 at 12:14 am

    Did Jesus or the apostle Paul every command this?

    Tabari IX:113 “”Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.”

    Type in “How to Beat Your Wife.” on Youtube and a nice cleric will teach you how to beat your muslim wife. Christian books do not speak of beating your wife.

    The Hebrew and Greek Scriptures speak of the wonderful nature of women and tell you to treasure them. To attribute ill to Paul’s words is what we Christians expect from those who kill Christians and others. So much freedom of expression is expected from the Infidels yet, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan and Saudi Arabia do not allow free speech and do not tolerate freedom of religion. The women of these countries are not in an enviable position. The movie “The Stonning of Soraya M.” should be enough to shake most humans into thinking. The apostle Paul was very kind to women and history confirms this. As for Islamic writings here is another qoute.

    Muslim:B1N142 “O womenfolk, you should ask for forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell.’ A wise lady said: Why is it, Allah’s Apostle, that women comprise the bulk of the inhabitants of Hell? The Prophet observed: ‘You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. You lack common sense, fail in religion and rob the wisdom of the wise.’ Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense? The Prophet replied, ‘Your lack of common sense can be determined from the fact that the evidence of two women is equal to one man. That is a proof.'”

    • Vote -1 Vote +1Usman Masood
      May 22, 2010 at 2:19 am

      Once again…u post hadith..which hav arent valid.
      Quran= IslaM.
      A hadith is only considered valid when it doesnt go against Islam….ur posts sadly do.

      Becuz in the Quran it is stated

      And do not covet that by which Allah has made some of you excel others; men shall have the benefit of what they earn and women shall have the benefit of what they earn; and ask Allah of His grace; surely Allah knows all things.

      “I shall not lose sight of the labor of any of you who labors in My way, be it man or woman; each of you is equal to the other (3:195)”

      It is important to note that the Prophet (PBUH) has also strongly disapproved of beating ones wife. We find a hadith in authentic collections, which is as follows: “Could any of you beat your wife as he would a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?” And according to hadith in Abu Da’ud, Nasa’I, Ibn Majah, Ahmad bin Hanbal and others “Never beat God’s handmaidens” i.e. he forbade to beat any woman.

      here u go a hadith that actually is in line wid the Quran.
      before posting check authenticy.
      everyone knows…the QURAN is supreme..and unchanged.
      While ppl can make up hadith…or they are subject to change.

      • +2 Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
        May 22, 2010 at 11:32 am

        Surah 4:34
        An-Nisa (Women)

        “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”

        translation: Shakir

        • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1TruthorNot
          May 22, 2010 at 2:45 pm

          Is this the Quran or do I have this wrong too?

          Qur’an 4:3 “If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with orphans, marry women of your choice who seem good to you, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to do justice (to so many), then only one, or (a slave) that you possess, that will be more suitable. And give the women their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, eat it with enjoyment, take it with right good cheer and absorb it (in your wealth).”

          Qur’an 4:11 “”Allah directs you in regard of your Children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…. These are settled portions ordained by Allah.”

          Qur’an 4:43 “”Believers, approach not prayers with a mind befogged or intoxicated until you understand what you utter. Nor when you are polluted, until after you have bathed. If you are ill, or on a journey, or come from answering the call of nature, or you have touched a woman, and you find no water, then take for yourselves clean dirt, and rub your faces and hands. Lo! Allah is Benign, Forgiving.” [The Qur’an claims women are unclean and polluted – worse than dirt.]

          Qur’an 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them.”

        • Vote -1 Vote +1Oliver
          May 24, 2010 at 2:28 am

          Question: What precisely is it that you find remarkable about a 7th century document stating such things?

          I mean, you DO know the Qur’an was not written in 2001, do you?

        • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
          May 24, 2010 at 6:13 pm

          7th century or 21st century… It makes no difference what year it was written down. Because the claim is that the Qur’an is a timeless, perfect expression given to us by an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being.

          If the the words and message are perfect and unchanging, then they should be immediately and unmistakably clear to all persons who encounter such a message. A “perfect” communication is not confusing. It cannot be understood differently by different people. If those differences occur, then that is direct evidence that the message was not perfect.

          Like all “holy books”, this one was conceived in the minds of men… written by men… and was generally designed to expand their personal power and glory.

          Such a surprise.

    • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Oliver
      May 24, 2010 at 2:39 am

      “The Hebrew and Greek Scriptures speak of the wonderful nature of women and tell you to treasure them. ”

      What a bunch of baloney. The Islamic scriptures claim the same about themselves. Jewish and Christian tradition blamed all women through Eve for the corruption of man throughout plenty of history. Eve, being made of “part of Adam”, was not considered a full human being. That continued all the way into the 20th century. In some Christian countries, women didn’t get a right to vote until just a handful of decades ago. And if you believe they are treated as full equals, how many women are there in leading position in politics, business etc.?

      How is it that you think revisionism and whitewashing of your own are arguments against Islam?

      • Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
        May 24, 2010 at 5:21 pm

        Thank you for your insightful comments, Oliver. You remind us, once again, that ALL of the Abrahamic religions should be equally regarded as dangerous, retrograde threats to civilization.

        • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1The Infidel Alliance
          May 24, 2010 at 7:51 pm

          Dear ‘mammal’,

          You couldn’t be more incorrect in your position. While we all will admit there is plenty of violence and primitivism in the Old Testament, reflecting the violence and primitivism of the time, it did lay down the basic rules for modern civilization.

          Christianity was a radical evolution of this philosophy which replaced revenge and an eye for an eye with forgiveness, hate your enemy with love your enemy, love one another as you would love yourself, and the a vengeful god with a loving god.

          Simply put, Christianity was a radical reformation of Judaism, but Judaism provided the foundation for Christianity.

          About 600 years after the birth of Christianity, Muhammed came along with his philosophy of Islam. Islam was a retrograde philosophy that reverted to the barbarity of ancient times and even notched it up by establishing violence, the Jihad and global domination by martial force as its prime directive.

          Compare the teachings and actions of Jesus with the teachings and examples of Muhammed and this will become crystal clear.

          The atrocities committed in the name of Christianity are done in spite of the teachings and examples of Jesus, but the atrocities of Islam are done in direct accord with the teachings and examples of Muhammed.

          Thus, if you examine the teachings and examples of Jesus (the ‘Christ’ of Christianity) you will see that Christianity is not dangerous. You are confusing ‘Churchianity’ with ‘Christianity’, and the two are not necessarily the same thing.

          If you examine the teachings and actions of Muhammed (the ‘holy prophet’ of Islam), however, you will see that it is innately dangerous, and the violence of ‘Mosqueianity’ and Islam are inseperable.

          ~ The Infidel Alliance

          • Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
            May 25, 2010 at 10:27 am

            There are huge segments of the Christian and Jewish populations who are loving, peaceful, and reasonable. They generally do not support rape, slavery, and other forms of violence. But that is only because

            * they simply IGNORE many of the atrocious, pathological teachings found in their special book *

            I think that the same is true for many Muslims.

            Personally, although I am glad that these millions of people do not actually follow the teachings found in their books, I wish they would take the honorable next step and admit to themselves and others that they are, in truth, not in agreement with many of the ideas and instructions in their various holy books.

            • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1The Infidel Alliance
              May 25, 2010 at 4:19 pm

              Dear ‘Mammal’,

              Pleace cite for us any reference where Jesus condoned slavery, murder, rape, looting, global jihad, or any of the other virtues of Islam.


              ~The Infidel Alliance

            • Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
              May 26, 2010 at 11:02 am

              OK, if you like…

              Matthew 5:17-20

              From “The Sermon on the Mount”, wherein Jesus states directly:

              “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

              Now, in case you’re not familiar with it, the “Law” and the “Prophets” is a direct reference to what we generally call the Old Testament. Jesus wholly supports and promotes everything in the Old Testament. And he makes it clear that these are to remain fully in effect “until heaven and earth disappear.”

              So, would you like me to pull up some of the Old Testament Laws that Jesus said everybody should obediently follow?

              Or are you already familiar enough with the OT’s page after page, book after book, of rape, torture, and ruthless God-commanded genocide?

  12. -4 Vote -1 Vote +1true believer
    May 22, 2010 at 10:34 am

    usman, great job brother.. that guy truthornot is very stupid and he cant argue with u coz he cant show any kind of evidence of wat he’s talkin about…. big up brother may Allah reward u and make all people know the true religion (islam) and not just reading from anti-islamic sources, like the article above..

    • Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
      May 22, 2010 at 12:06 pm

      You, who are a true believer, please tell me about Islam’s loving stance regarding homosexuals.

      Should they be loved, celebrated, ignored, tolerated, imprisoned, beaten, or publicly executed?

      Tell me this about your “religion of peace.”

      • Vote -1 Vote +1Oliver
        May 24, 2010 at 2:30 am

        LOLOLOL. Tell us about US Christian loving stance regarding homosexuals. Are they loved, celebrated, ignored, tolerated, imprisoned, beatan, or tied with a chain to a pickup and dragged to death? Oh, wait, I remember reading about the latter happening. Not to mention that they are considered second-grade human beings by a large part of the armed forces.

        But hey, it’s nice to point with fingers at others, detracts from one’s own bigotry, hatred and disregard for human life.

        • Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
          May 24, 2010 at 5:17 pm

          Clearly, Oliver, you are not very familiar with the United States. And you certainly know nothing about myself.

          First of all, the U.S. government did not torture and murder Matthew Shepard; two psychopaths committed that atrocity. And those two men were arrested, placed on trial, and found guilty of murder. Each man received a jail term of two consecutive life sentences.

          Additionally, in 2009, the Matthew Shepard Act was passed by the U.S.Congress thereby expanding the federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

          Compare that to the laws and actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, where young men are publicly executed for engaging in consensual homosexual acts.

          Also, if you’d bother to read some of my earlier posts (above) you’d notice that I’m not a fan of Christianity or Judaism, either.

          However, although there are many Christians and Jews in the US, and elsewhere, who are intolerant and homophobic, there are also millions of them who are openly accepting, supportive, and loving towards their LGBT brothers and sisters. Can you show me that the same is true amongst Muslims? Please, I would like to know.

          Finally, I challenge you to convincingly explain — specifically, with details — the ways in which my posts have expressed “bigotry, hatred and disregard for human life,” as you so claimed. If you are honest, you will not be able to fulfill my challenge.


  13. Vote -1 Vote +1Page Faulkner Mordecai
    May 22, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    I know Molly Norris. She is my friend and my former college student. I also live at ‘ground-zero’ of the EDMD, Seattle, WA: FRACAS-CITY.

    Molly Norris sent her now infamous cartoon to Dan Savage, national blogger, and sex advice columnist for “The Stranger,” Seattle’s alternative weekly. Although Molly asked Savage to withdraw her cartoon, he ran with it for his own agenda; EBMD on Facebook.

    For those of you unfamiliar with the antics of Dan Savage, let me give just one example: he publicly boasted ‘attempting to infect a Republican public figure with his flu virus!’ Do your homework: (this from a professor); then decide if this is REALLY the cause for which so many people have suffered lately.

    Although I can’t speak for Molly Norris personally, I can tell you that her original intention has been wildly compromised. I was horrified to see the bigotry and hatred, and even violence spurned by all the depictions of EBDM.

    I am ashamed to be an American. I feel great compassion for those who have been scape-goated by the antics of fundamentalists and fanatics from the full spectrum of the political agenda. What good can come from juvenile, mean-spirited cartoons that incite violence and further censorship?

    “We the people” are ALL reasoned people who, from whatever religion or politic, who respect each other enough to have a dialogue. “They” are all the fanatics who hope to win, ‘by any means necessary–‘ even violent means.

    This isn’t ‘free expression:’ this is Political-correctness! Ironically, this ‘blogger-fest’ dares to quote Ghandi, the champion of Non-violent protest, while inciting violence through hate speech. Political-correctness IS censorship because it is about AGENDAS, NOT FREEDOM. It is ALWAYS about AGENDAS, NOT PEOPLE.

    Do you honestly believe that this will somehow liberate humans from the barbaric acts of fanatics (of every religion), or further the cause for freedom?
    Here’s a question for my next quiz: Does anybody remember why we were looking for Osama Bin Laden, or where he’s hiding-out now? (HINT: probably not on FB)
    The Front Porch Talker

  14. -4 Vote -1 Vote +1Pedro Gomez
    May 23, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Muhamad (May Piss Be Upon Him) was a fool. Islam is an ass backwards cult of death! Any complaints wiet to: elcastigador5@hotmail.com. Se if I care for any Islamic fool!
    Muhamad (May Piss Be Upon Him), as far as Im concerened, was living proof that Islamists were into screwing camels.

  15. Vote -1 Vote +1Mike Jones
    May 24, 2010 at 6:07 pm

    Where do faith-based terrorists come from? Are faith-based terrorists born that way? No, they are indoctrinated into faith-based terrorism.

    People are born without faith, then convert–the beginning of faith. The faith eventually grows and some grow into fundamentalists and others become full-fledged terrorists.

    The pool which terrorists are recruited from are liberal, moderate and fundamentalist Islamic followers. All faith-based extremists come from the pool of the non-extremist faithful.

    The solution? All Islamic liberals, moderates and fundamentalists need to admit their faith is mythology. This is the only way to take away the fuel from terrorists.

    The time is now (due to religious extremists & the scientific age we live in) for every person of every faith to admit their faith is false, simply ancient mythology of old. The world would immediately become a better place.

    If this happened–imagine–religion would never divide friends, families, partners, potential partners, co-workers, communities or nations, ever again.

    What happens when kids realize Santa Claus is not real? Do they suggest a moderate belief in Santa Claus? I’ll believe in the reindeer and the sleigh but not the man? No, they go on to lead productive adult lives. They can live without their belief.

    • Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
      May 24, 2010 at 6:20 pm



      His Holy Reverence, Father Rudolph of the Glowing Nose, does hereby issue a sentence of death upon the evil blasphemer, Mike Jones. Also, he shall receive a lump of coal in his stocking.


  16. +1 Vote -1 Vote +1bill macmasters
    May 27, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Non-offensive speech doesn’t need any protection. Who cares? Nobody’s going to try to restrict it. But freedom of speech that offends somebody has to be protected. Why? Because we want to give offence? We want to be obnoxious? Of course not. What we want to do is make sure that we are not tyrannized. We want to be able to make sure that we can have political dissent. We want to make sure that no group gains a protected status and gives a hegemony over other groups so that it can impose its point of view upon the rest of us and thereby have unbridled power. I believe in the freedom of speech as a fundamental bulwark against that kind of tyranny. I don’t believe in authoritarianism or totalitarianism. I believe they crush the human spirit. I believe that free dissent and free inquiry are absolutely essential to the life and health of any society thats going to do anything in this world to allow people to live a life thats worth living. And so, that means we all have to put up with some things we don’t like. There are plenty of things that offend me in this world and I’ll tell you something: never am I going to raise my voice and say that that has to be silenced. I’d say ‘Bring it on, let’s talk about it’, and then usually they don’t want to talk and they boycott instead. Now look, the Islamic law says that if you say something impermissible about Allah, Muhammad, or Islam, then you can be killed. That is not something out of a dusty law book that nobody pays attention to. The Organization of the Islamic Conference [OIC] is 56 Islamic countries plus the Palestinian Authority and it is the largest voting bloc since the collapse of the Soviet Union at the UN [United Nations]. It can pretty much do anything at the UN it wants as long as one of the states with a permanent seat on the Security Council doesn’t veto. And every year since those “Muhammad” cartoons were published about 5 years ago, every year the [OIC] member states have introduced resolutions at the UN trying to compel member states of the United Nations to criminalize Islamophobia, being defined broadly as some sort of hatred of Islam. I can’t understand why telling the truth would be considered an act of hate by anybody except by those who fear that truth. But in any case, be that as it may, nobody here is in favor of hateful speech, of gratuitous insult, of mockery. But once you start to outlaw those things, and make them criminal offenses, then we are all in trouble and we are all at risk. Because then, totalitarian rulers and authoritarian rulers can take those provisions outlawing hate speech and religious hatred, Islamophobia, whatever, and use those provisions in order to crush dissent. The [OIC] is trying to bring that provision of Islamic law into the west, and they are having very great success. They have passed it at the UN every year as a non-binding resolution. But there is a little problem with the First Amendment in terms of bringing it here, at least so far. But in any case, if a cornerstone of a free society is free speech, and this organization wants to end that or wants to restrict it, then every individual, Muslim or non-Muslim or what-ever, ought to stand against that initiative in the name of freedom, of a a free society, in which people can live and prosper in a way that is in accord with their divinely-given human dignity. Look, the reality of the world today is that we all have different points of view; we’re not going to agree. It is just not going to happen. And so we have two choices. We can either have free speech and we all discuss things amongst ourselves and we have a free and open debate, and even a big and acrimonious one at times, and as long as we are not trying to impose our will upon each other, but we are working to convince one another of the rightness of our perspectives, and there’s nothing to be afraid of. or, one group can try to take hegemony over the rest and plant down and gain power such that everybody else is silenced, and that to me is the death of the human spirit, and that’s why I’m here and I call you all to join me in defense of these basic human rights.

    • Vote -1 Vote +1mammal
      May 27, 2010 at 10:22 am

      Well said, bill macmasters.

      I give you three thumbs up! 8~D

    • Vote -1 Vote +1bill macmasters
      May 27, 2010 at 11:11 am

      This was transcribed from part of a presentation by Robert Spencer given to Florida State University’s Law School on March 30, 2010.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login