[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Update: Via Ed Driscoll there is some evidence that this is just site is parody. I would say look over the site for yourself and, well, given what I know about the ridiculousness of radical Islam, it’s hard to know. For instance on this page they call off a proposed march. But on the other hand, on this page they discuss the Islamic punishment for pedophilia, which is death. But then they suggest they do it by impaling them on top of the Washington Monument. Which sounds crazy, but, um… have you ever watched Memri for a week? Have you ever seen respected Egyptian academics suggest that Mossad is controlling sharks? Its really hard to know satire from reality with them.
So, I think the right answer is to classify this as a dubious story. Certainly I cannot stand behind it any longer. And it proves you can’t satirize something that is already ridiculous.
Update (II): The Jawa Report has an excellent post on this, including on the issue of it possibly being a satire.
Here’s a friendly tip to those who plan to march on Washington in favor of Sharia. It is pretty dumb to declare to the world that you would like to demolish the Statue of Liberty. From the organizers’ website:
The Statue of Liberty, designed by Frederic Bartholdi, stands on Liberty Island in New York Harbor; representing Libertas, the Roman (false) goddess of Freedom, it is symbolic of the rebellious nature of the US constitution that elevates the command of man over the command of God.
In Islam, the public veneration of idols and statues is strictly prohibited. This has forced sincere Muslims to develop realistic plans that will aid in the removal of the Statue of Liberty.
Post demolition, it is recommended that a minaret be built as a fitting replacement, allowing the glorification of God to be proclaimed daily as well as act as a powerful reminder of the superiority of Islam over all other ways of life.
But as dumb as that is, it is even dumber to suggest that in the interim that we put a burqa on this beautiful statue:
Due to the scale of the task at hand, it is highly likely that rigorous safety checks will need to be employed before the demolition of the Statue of Liberty can commence; thus as a temporary measure, it is proposed that a large burkha is used to cover the statue, thereby shielding this horrendous eye sore from public view as well as sending a strong message to its French creators.
And it is downright idiotic to accompany all of that with a photoshop of what Lady Liberty would look like in a Burqa:
Now, I know what you are thinking… “Really, Aaron? They really did that on their site?” Yes, they really did.
It’s also worth noting that this rule against idol worship is the exact same rule that declares it blasphemy to depict Mohammed even in a respectful way. For instance, this cartoon that appeared at my blog would be considered blasphemous and forbidden:
At that site, I even created a special category of posts containing cartoons that were solely offensive because they depicted Mohammed, here. Needless to say, a lot of other posts were objectively offensive well beyond the mere depiction of Mohammed, but yes, even that stick figure would be seen as offensive.
(We also had a special category called “The Dreaded Stick Figures of Blasphemy.” There was some overlap.)
So if the media is going to respect that rule of blasphemy, wouldn’t that require them to refuse to show any pictures of the Statue of Liberty from now on? Or do we say at some point that our faith in freedom is more important?
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]