Patterico's Pontifications

1/10/2015

Moderate Muslims Criticize the Charlie Hebdo Attacks

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:18 pm



This piece collects several quotes, but let me give you excerpts from each, for the non-clickers among you.

Dr. Tariq Ramadan (but see UPDATE below):

Contrary to what was apparently said by the killers in the bombing of Charlie Hebdo’s headquarters, it is not the Prophet who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted. My condemnation is absolute and my anger is profound (healthy and a thousand times justified) against this horror!!!

Dr. Khaled Hanafy:

I was shocked by the brutal, terror attack in Paris that killed 12 people. I categorically condemn this act no matter who is responsible for it and whoever the victims are.

. . . .

I call on Muslims to stage demonstrations that denounce this aggression. I urge Muslim Imams and leaders to take all the necessary actions to denounce the incident, to reassure the Europe community, to actively participate in protecting Europe media institutions against any threat and to denounce extremism and terror.

Dr. Yasir Qadhi:

Loving the Prophet (salla Allah alayhi wa sallam) is a necessary requirement of Iman. Defending his honor is a sign of belief. This is done by following his teachings and practice, not by murdering in his name.

. . . .

Muslims: get your act together!! Such acts of terror are not only haram and spill innocent blood, they will come back to harm you and your communities in the short and long run.

In fact, Muslim communities all over the world share the pains and sadness with the victims’ families and friends. Our hearts bleed for their loss and pains.

The deadly attack on the Paris office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which led to the killing and injuring of tens of innocents, is a horrible, barbaric crime that its perpetrators should be held accountable for it. Such crimes against humanity are not justified by Islam and all world religions and laws. Those criminals cannot be true believers of any faith.

Dr. Wael Shihab:

The deadly attack on the Paris office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which led to the killing and injuring of tens of innocents, is a horrible, barbaric crime that its perpetrators should be held accountable for it. Such crimes against humanity are not justified by Islam and all world religions and laws. Those criminals cannot be true believers of any faith.

Sheikh Omar Suleiman:

What is more insulting to the Prophet (peace be upon him) than satirical cartoons are those who murder innocent people in his name.

So, when you say: where are all the moderates condemning attacks like this? . . . there are some right there.

ON THE OTHER HAND: Bill Maher recently argued that “hundreds of millions” of Muslims support attacks like this. This Daily Beast article takes him to task, performing an analysis that concludes that probably only about . . . 195 million Muslims support suicide bombing:

[T]hat means about 195 million Muslims worldwide support suicide bombing and other acts of violence against civilians.

So Bill Maher is just barely wrong. There are not “hundreds of millions” of Muslims who support attacks like that against Charlie Hebdo. Of course, if you round to the nearest hundred million, then Maher is right.

Reassuring! Assuming that these are all adults, compare that 195 million figure to about 242 million adults in the United States. It’s almost enough suicide-bombing lovers to fill up our entire country.

Also, Qahdi, one of the scholars quoted above, also says:

And even for those who believe that the penalty for blasphemy should be death: by unanimous consensus of ALL the scholars of Islam, this must take place after a legitimate trial, by a qualified judge, appointed by a legitimate Islamic state. Under NO circumstances does Islam allow vigilante justice, for to open this door leads to chaos, confusion and bloodshed.

I’d rather he say: “And to those who believe that the penalty for blasphemy should be death: time to come out of the Dark Ages.”

Here’s my feeling: there are moderate Muslims. In this country, for cultural reasons, there is a far higher percentage than in Europe. We need those people as allies in the war against the crazies. They will be our allies if we don’t smear them all with the same broad brush.

Also: criticizing the religion itself is (in my view) uncalled for. Religions do not deserve to be judged by the least charitable readings of cherry-picked passages from their holy texts, whether the religion is Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or any other.

That said, as the numbers above show, there are far too many Muslims in this world with illiberal beliefs. There are entire societies, like Saudi Arabia, that have a dysfunctional and sick way of treating women. Saying these things is not bigoted. It is just saying the truth.

Thanks to an unnamed reader for the link.

UPDATE: A couple of folks have made the point that Tariq Ramadan is not a moderate. I confess to being previously unfamiliar with him, assuming (it appears incorrectly) that his words of condemnation made him an ally of the moderates. He may, as a correspondent suggests, simply be a deceiver. This video appears to show him praying for the victory of Muslims on battlefields everywhere, including people fighting for jihad. It does not seem unfair to call it a pro-jihad prayer.

That said, I still think it is positive that even a somewhat radical Islamist can publicly denounce these attacks, even if he does so because he feels some kind of pressure to do so. Whether the denunciation is genuine is a fair question.

116 Responses to “Moderate Muslims Criticize the Charlie Hebdo Attacks”

  1. So says me.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. as a moderate muslim i find myself somewhat critical of the charlie hebdo attacks

    these attacks, they lacked a certain panache

    i’m not trying to say i felt the attacks lacked enthusiasm, it’s just…

    i dunno

    i mean c’mon it’s paris

    wow me

    happyfeet (831175)

  3. …Also: criticizing the religion itself is (in my view) uncalled for. Religions do not deserve to be judged by the least charitable readings of cherry-picked passages from their holy texts, whether the religion is Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or any other…

    I just have to disagree with this.

    Because it’s wrong. And intellectually lazy.

    There is no amount of evidence that someone can’t discount under the obstinately ignorant POV that whatever the other person is saying, it must be cherry-picked.

    The key to sticking to the position that someone else is cherry-picking is to never actually know what you’re talking about.

    Steve57 (be0b5f)

  4. A chainsaw, Mr. feets.

    I’m thinking that was the touch that was lacking.

    Stylistically.

    Steve57 (be0b5f)

  5. well, let’s get all the moderates together someplace, then slosh the rest with Martinis…

    😎

    redc1c4 (34e91b)

  6. criticizing the religion itself is (in my view) uncalled for. Religions do not deserve to be judged by the least charitable readings of cherry-picked passages from their holy texts, whether the religion is Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or any other…

    Contrary to Steve 57, I agree with this. Religious beliefs are very close to one’s personal sense of identity. It is, at the very least, extremely ungracious to take something that someone considers sacred and treat it in a profane way.

    But of course — of course — they have the right to do it. Not least because religions are ideologies, and ideologies have to be criticizable in a free society. If you put limits on this (by saying only some ideologies can be criticized, or they can only be criticized in a good-natured way, or whatever) you will find it difficult to find a justifiable stopping point.

    Jim (a95060)

  7. Jim (a95060)

    happyfeet (831175)

  8. Of course, there is more to be said here: are the criticisms really “the least charitable readings of cherry-picked passages from their holy texts”? Perhaps a religion’s teachings (or any ideology’s) really do allow for, and even encourage, violence. But that discussion requires a free society in which people can, and know they can, say whatever they want about any ideology they want.

    Jim (a95060)

  9. And…I have no idea how comment 7 got in there.

    Jim (a95060)

  10. Oh, that’s not me. All’s good. Consider it snapped out of.

    Jim (a95060)

  11. You cannot co-exist with those who refuse to co-exist with you.

    gahrie (12cc0f)


  12. Dr. Yasir Qadhi:

    Loving the Prophet (salla Allah alayhi wa sallam) is a necessary requirement of Iman. Defending his honor is a sign of belief. This is done by following his teachings and practice, not by murdering in his name.

    Tell this to the Qurayza, Yasir! Believe it, I think they will not!
    In AD 627, Muhammad committed an atrocity against the last remaining major tribe of Jews in Medina: the Qurayza. He beheaded the men and the pubescent boys and enslaved the women and children.

    Yoda (d89de1)

  13. Only following in the exact steps of a murderer they are!

    Yoda (d89de1)

  14. Peaceful religion, my arse! It began with a pedophilic murderer, and still is followed by pedophilic murderers!

    Yoda (d89de1)

  15. Hear of Taquiyah have you? Some or all of those quoted are practising it I think.

    Yoda (d89de1)

  16. Our esteemed host wrote:

    Here’s my feeling: there are moderate Muslims. In this country, for cultural reasons, there is a far higher percentage than in Europe. We need those people as allies in the war against the crazies. They will be our allies if we don’t smear them all with the same broad brush.

    Just as we needed all of those moderate, and even liberal Germans as our allies to rise up and throw the Nazis out of power? Perhaps we might ask the Israelis how cooperative the moderate Muslims have been about turning in Hamas.

    Also: criticizing the religion itself is (in my view) uncalled for. Religions do not deserve to be judged by the least charitable readings of cherry-picked passages from their holy texts, whether the religion is Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or any other.

    If that is our criteria, then perhaps we can look at the Reverend Fred Phelps and his cult church. They were basing their beliefs, in large part, on the biblical condemnation of homosexual activity, and they took the utterly lethal terroristic activity of picketing funerals. That same condemnation is in the Quran, but in Iran, nobody pickets their funerals; the government arranges the necessity for homosexuals to have funerals.

    I hear that the Ultra-Orthodox don’t consider Reform Judaism to be Judaism at all, but, oddly enough, I’ve missed all of the stories about the riots and murders committed by the Haredi.

    The problem isn’t whether there are parts of any particular religion’s holy books which are illiberal, but how the people who believe those books act in support of them.

    The coldly realistic Dana (1b79fa)

  17. Our esteemed host wrote, in a comment on another thread:

    And if people are threatening to kill people over speech, those who defend enlightened liberty are more likely to publish that speech, as a statement of its own, even if they might not absent the threat. Because they consider the need to stand up to the threat to be more important than whether the speech is always in the best of taste.

    If Christians started killing people over “Piss Christ” I would probably publish the image here.

    The sarcastic Dana . . . who wonders if our host was being sarcastic as well (1b79fa)

  18. Patterico is a national treasure on the order of Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter.
    He is a fearless protector of the truth. I only learned of his existence when he took on the LA Times reporter who snarked about Sarah Palin.

    Thank you, Patrick, for what you do.

    Air Crew

    Bill Scholz (012e61)

  19. Excellent article!

    Air Crew (012e61)

  20. Since almost all believers have their lifelong religious affiliation imposed directly from their parents, it’s absurd to assume adherents have chosen to follow the tenants of any one belief system over others, or to discuss religion as if it’s strictures weren’t binding on individuals no matter what their personal preferences might be, and that’s if they’re among the few even able to form opinions which conflict with orthodoxy.

    Religious affiliation may not actually be coded in an individual’s DNA, but for most practical purposes it might as well be. Religion is a cultural phenomena, and cultures are locked in conflict, individuals are mere temporary carriers of portions of those cultures, and it’s about as difficult for individuals to change their religion as it is for them to abandon the family that raised them and to learn a new language.

    ropelight (539464)

  21. “Religions do not deserve to be judged by the least charitable readings of cherry-picked passages from their holy texts”

    No they don’t, they deserve to be judged by the actions of their followers … and by that standard Islam needs to be condemned …

    you do realize that all those “doctors” are considered un-believers by most Imams …

    without violence there would be not cult called Islam today … it was founded with violence, expanded with violence and stays relevant today thru violence …

    It is these moderate muslims that have cherry picked the passages from the Koran that fit their vision of modern society and willfully ignored to larger number of barbaric passages contained in the Koran …

    KaiserDerden (faa0ee)

  22. 13. Only following in the exact steps of a murderer they are!

    Yoda (d89de1) — 1/11/2015 @ 12:45 am

    I expect to lose. People want to say good things about Islam. Which necessitates not knowing anything about it.

    The a$$hole, I a m. I read the holy books. I read ’em so much I could have double majored in religious studies. There are good things in that book.

    Lots of bad s### though. Lots.

    Steve57 (be0b5f)

  23. another Islamic “Dr.” killed 13 people at Fort Hood …

    KaiserDerden (faa0ee)

  24. 16.
    There have been riots by UltraOrthodox, and a couple of murders (of Arabs) too. And throwing stones at other Jews driving on the Sabbath. But in general this happens only in Israel, so it usually does not show up in the American press.

    kishnevi (3719b7)

  25. Defending his honor is a sign of belief. This is done by following his teachings and practice, not by murdering in his name.

    Only problem is they, in actuality, are using the template set forth by Mohammed:

    answering-islam.org: What is authentic Islam? This is a question that Muslims may disagree about too, but it certainly is valid to consider the life of Muhammad, the founder of Islam. In fact, any definition of Islam that excludes Muhammad is false. The earliest biography (sirat) of Muhammad’s life is the work of Ibn Ishaq (85-151 A.H.) who was born in Medina. In this we learn how Muhammad dealt with those who opposed him. Here are two examples.

    Abu `Afak was one of B. (tribe) `Amr b. `Auf of the B. `Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Samit… The apostle said, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” Whereupon Salim b. `Umayr, brother of B. `Amr b. `Auf one of the “weepers”, went forth and killed him.

    Abu `Afak, was a…an old man, [and] spoke out against Muhammad and encouraged his tribe to resist him. When his actions were brought to Muhammad’s attention Muhammad’s response was simple, he said, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” Salim b. `Umayr fulfilled Muhammad’s wishes by killing Abu `Afak.

    Ibn Ishaq’s account continues with another example:

    She was of B. Umayya b. Zayd. When Abu `Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. `Abdullah b. al-Harith b. al-Fudayl from his father said that she was married to a man of B. Khatma called Yazid b. Zayd. [She blamed] Islam and its followers…

    When the apostle heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” `Umayr b. `Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O `Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her,” so `Umayr went back to his people.

    There are several interesting observations from these events. The first is about Muhammad’s character. Muhammad was the type of man who used assassinations to remove opposition. Whether it was an old man like Abu `Afak, or a woman like `Asma bint Marwan, if they opposed him he had them dealt with. There are more examples of Muhammad doing this and he also used torture. In this regard Muhammad is just like most rulers who have used murder and intimidation to establish their rule. It is no wonder that as Muhammad conquered he said:

    I extend to you the invitation to accept Islam. Embrace Islam and you will be safe. (Sahih Muslim, book 19, number 4380) [3]

    [I]t shows us one way in which Islam spread to the early Arab tribes. The account specifically says that after these two murders, “Islam became powerful among B. (the tribe of) Khatma”. In fact, “The day after Bint Marwan was killed … (the tribe of) Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.” What was the “power of Islam” they saw? It was the power to kill its opponents.

    Religions do not deserve to be judged by the least charitable readings of cherry-picked passages from their holy texts

    To say that about Islam is doing a back flip to rationalize away its underpinnings, namely that of the behavior and philosophy of its founder. That ain’t no cherry picking.

    Mark (c160ec)

  26. “I call on Muslims to stage demonstrations that denounce this aggression. ”

    Has anyone seen those demonstrations ?

    Me neither.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  27. Patterico,

    read the koran. It’s not cherry picking. The book was written by a delusional, bloodthirsty savage who lived by the sword and raped children. It’s madness to call this cult of personality and violence a religion.

    NJRob (904e37)

  28. What’s very telling is if Kum-ba-yah-ism about religion and religiosity is going to emanate from folks as otherwise reliable and sensible as Patterico, or George “Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace” Bush right after 9-11, add that to what will be springing forth from the blatantly, recklessly politically-correct crowd, and the saying that comes to mind is: This isn’t going to end well.

    Mark (c160ec)

  29. Muslim father catches his son masturbating. He says, “Don’t do that my son, or Allah will strike you blind.” The child says, “Abu, I’m over here.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  30. I don’t know the rest by name but Tariq Ramadan a ‘moderate’ is an assault on English usage and taqqiya in practice.

    DNF (b04f89)

  31. Q. What do Muslim men do during foreplay?
    A. Tickle the goat under the chin

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  32. Muslims in this Country are no more moderate than those in Syria. Please don’t confuse what they talk about in polite society with what they believe at their kitchen table.
    While I don’t think it needed to insult people, the fact they are being insulted is necessary to force THEM to make choices.

    For far too long (and many other examples exist), Muslims have been allowed to sit around saying “not me” while their families and friend go around doing some awful stuff. Then when confronted most offer bad justifications — from cultural sensitivity, to Islamophobia, to blasphemy laws, to Sharia justice when it suits them.

    The first rule to defeating an enemy is to make the people providing succor to the enemy an unpleasant environment to live in. Muslims being offended while also being horrified is essential. Walking patty cake around this is a mistake.

    Learn one lesson from Germany and Japan, whupping their ass made them great friends. That included inflicting pain to the very “moderate” and “innocent” people. Then once done, being good neighbors and not imposing penalties on the vanquished.

    Everybody has got to choose side, letting them sit out cost-free makes no sense to me in getting this ameliorated.

    Rodney King's Spirit (8b9b5a)

  33. #32 let me correct, insulting people is not telling them the truth. Insulting people is calling them silly kiddies name.

    The fact muslims are offended by facts are of no consequence and as I state it is NEEDED to get folks to change.

    Pictures of the Third Reich killing people in Concetration Camps was needed regardless of how “offended” the German people are. Same goes for the Japs with Korean women and their treatment of POWs.

    The fact is makes them feel awful is a good thing.

    making Muslims feel awful about their religion and how its practiced is a really good thing. No need for name calling in the public square however to achieve this.

    Rodney King's Spirit (8b9b5a)

  34. Never misunderestimate this president’s narcissism or his penchant for prematurely declaring victory over a far-from-vanquished enemy.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  35. When I was growing up in Chicago, all of us Irish Catholics knew which bars to go to so we could donate to the cause, which at that time was the IRA. Of course it was disguised as donations for the orphans and whatever, but one would be a fool not to know the truth. When I went to Ireland later in life, a friend there told me that one reason The Troubles went on for so long, even without the support of the Irish people who pretty much did not want to unite with the dismal North, was that the IRA did not want to give up the money pouring in from America. Apparently, after 9/11 our State Department said, sorry boys, it’s over, and so it ended.

    So that is probably going on to some extent with Muslims, and it must stop. The marches today and the sentiments expressed the world over are touching. The attendance by world leaders, who are surely risking their lives to be there and who will have to answer to the radicals in their own land, was laudable.

    But tomorrow will be the test. What are we going to actually do?

    Patricia (5fc097)

  36. There is nothing wrong with “cherry picking” religious passages to critique a given religious because this is how you address the problematic aspects of this religion. We need this type of courage in contrast to the so-called “dialogue” between the Catholic church and faux moderate Muslims. These amount to Kumbaya circle-jerks have done more harm than good because these situations favor the deceivers. If we lack the courage (due to political correctness or terrorism) to put moderate Muslims on the spot, then we deserve neither security nor freedom.

    Tony (2a43e2)

  37. His policies – and the fact that he is in way over his head in virtually any critical situation – will adversely affect the U.S. for decades to come.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  38. 34. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 1/11/2015 @ 8:37 am

    Never misunderestimate this president’s narcissism or his penchant for prematurely declaring victory over a far-from-vanquished enemy.

    I think actually that was caused, not by narcissim, or optimism, but by a desire to fulfill a campaign promise before his eight years are up. That’s why he declared victory.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  39. Whether it’s your IRA “orphan’s fund”, Al Sharpton’s “activism”, global warming “carbon credits”, open sea piracy, or kidnapping “foreigners”, it’s always really mostly about the money, isn’t it, Patricia?

    elissa (371d62)

  40. I read that Cherif Kouachi said he was financed by Anwar Al-Awlaki, which sounded strange, since he was killed 3 years ago (What?! Does Western Union have an branch office in Hell, or are they lying or misinformed?) but in actually Cherif Kouachi was probably talking about his trip to Yemen in 2011.

    Here is a translated excerpt from his interview Friday with French TV:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/paris-killer-cherif-kouachi-gave-interview-tv-channel-he-died-n283206

    Kouachi: We’re telling you that we are the prophet’s defenders peace and blessings be upon him, and that I, Cherif Kouachi, was sent by Yemen’s Al-Qaeda. OK?

    Interviewer: OK, OK.

    Kouachi: I went there and it was Anwar Al-Awlaki who financed me.

    Interviewer: And how long ago was this?

    Kouachi: It was before he was killed.

    Interviewer: ok, so you came back to France not long ago?

    Kouachi: No, a long time ago…I know the secret service, don’t worry about it. I know very well how I was able to do things well.

    Interviewer: Ok, and now there’s only you and your brother?

    Kouachi: That’s not your problem.

    Interviewer: But do you have people behind you, or not?

    Kouachi: That’s not your problem.

    Interviewer: Ok, but do you plan to kill again in the name of Allah or not?

    Kouachi: Kill who?

    Interviewer: I don’t know, I’m asking you the question.

    Kouachi: Did we kill civilians during the two days you’ve been looking for us?

    Interviewer: You killed journalists.

    Kouachi: But did we kill civilians? Civilians or people during the two days that you looked for us? Or people during the two days you’ve been looking for us?

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  41. Al Qaeda in Yememn has ince claimed responsibility.

    Claims of responsibility, I think, are only made to protect the guilty.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  42. There are a million people marching in Paris, including world leaders, including Benjamin Netanyahu – and Mohammad Abbas.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  43. Even non-moderate Moslems are condemning the attack on Charlie Hebdo:

    Hezbollah chief says terrorists damage Islam more than cartoons

    Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said what he called “takfiri terrorist groups” had insulted Islam more than “even those who have attacked the messenger of God through books depicting the Prophet or making films depicting the Prophet or drawing cartoons of the Prophet.”

    Takfiri is a term for a Muslim who accuses others, including another Muslim, of apostasy. Hezbollah considers members of ultra-hardline Sunni-dominated groups like al Qaeda and Islamic State to be takfiris.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  44. problem for these people is that this take place in Paris against a magazine that is not identified as a Jewish publication.

    Don’t recall any of this in response to any attacks in Israel, not even Har Nof.

    seeRpea (3524c3)

  45. But in Afghanistan there was a demonstration in support of the Charlie Hebdo killers.

    Afghanistan rally hails Charlie Hebdo attackers as ‘heroes’

    KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) – Hundreds in southern Afghanistan rallied to praise the killing of 12 people at the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo, calling the two gunmen “heroes” who meted out punishment for cartoons disrespectful to Islam’s prophet, officials said Saturday.

    The demonstrators also protested President Ashraf Ghani’s swift condemnation of the bloody attack on the satirical newspaper, according to the officials in Uruzgan province.

    The rally came after worshippers left Friday prayers at a local mosque in Chora district and swelled to several hundred people, said Chora police chief Abdul Qawi…

    … Provincial police chief Matiullah Khan said that police had been informed in advance of the demonstration, which was allowed under the Afghan constitution’s free-speech provisions.

    “They provided good security and it was peaceful,” he said…

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  46. 44. Right, of course.

    And it will be interesting to see how many people mention the kosher grocery. French Predident Hollande did.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  47. “I think actually that was caused, not by narcissim, or optimism, but by a desire to fulfill a campaign promise before his eight years are up. That’s why”

    Meh. So what was Obama’s reason for deriding ISIS as the “junior varsity”, Sammy?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  48. Has anyone seen those demonstrations ?

    Me neither.
    Mike K (90dfdc) — 1/11/2015 @ 7:28 am

    Saw those demonstrations I have! Remember do you not the muslims all over the world dancing in the streets when the Twin Towers came down? Oh wait, not demonstrations, celebrations they were!

    Yoda (d89de1)

  49. Yes, elissa, for the sad sack foot soldiers who sign up for terrorism, it’s mostly money. For others, it’s the ecstasy of hate.

    BTW the touching Paris march has accomplished very little in real terms. A German paper was firebombed last night for printing the cartoons.

    Don’t get me wrong: I am not brave, and so I do not condemn the Euros. But the truth is, a war has begun.

    “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

    Patricia (5fc097)

  50. There is a reason the large Christian story is made up of two very different compilations of small stories.
    Christians used to get stuck on the “laws” in Genesis, Exodus, Levitcus with a predictable resulting dysfunction. They’d missed the point. Too many ridiculous laws result in a shambles of nonsense where you have to consult with the priest class to figure out how many times you can hit your slave with a switch AP style. It is intentionally evermore ridiculous and impossible. Those stories set the stage for the second part of the book where the burden of all these laws are lifted… its why the priest class (levites?) hated Jesus. He took away their laws and their sacrifice rituals, their livelihood and replaced it all with Love your God with all your body, mind, spirit (in other words, stomp on the gas pedal and get all the horsepower you’ve been given into it) and here is key to the difference with Islam.. Love your neighbor as much as you love yourself.
    After condensing the ten commands into two, there is no way to translate those two commands as justifying starting holy war against infidels. Not to say it hasn’t been done a few times, but Most Catholic (most of France for example) and Protestants around the globe have come to terms and know that their God does not need their vengence when God is blasphemed. Jews also are fine letting G-d sort it out for himself. You can fight in order to not be enslaved or exterminated, but God has his reputation covered.

    The Christian story does end in a great bloody shrieking mess of a fight where there is an attack; the spiritual battle bubbles out onto the surface. (Think Lord of the Rings middle earth bubbling up into Mesopotamia). Blood runs knee deep in the valley. Its life, light and freedom vs. dark bondage to the law of a false prophet. The battle is not a crusade, but a response to an attack by those who wish to enslave or exterminate. Freedom means fighting for it to the depth of the soul maybe even giving ones life… Christians believe there is an enemy at large spreading darkness, hate, violence and enslavement that needs to be countered with light, freedom and love. And sometimes hate wins and good people die at the hands of evil. It’s a real fight and you may die.

    I think the law within the religion of Islam has enslaved even the moderates. A greater prophet than Muhammad never emerged to free them from adherence to ridiculous laws and the cult of vengence. The sin of blasphemy would be seen as a slow spiritual death and the people at Charlie Hebdo would be seen as withering spirits; risking their soul, rather than as people to be murdered.

    Unfortunately I think there will be a shooting war until the desert tribal bandit cult Islamists change or die. B-52’s sound neighborly to me.

    By the way, I read that Obama has triggered over 3300 airstrikes on the bandit Islamists in Syria and Iraq. We were told early on that there were 10-12,000 fighters. The math says we’ve killed about 1/4 of the very unneighborly ISIS, but there must be more fighters than were thought, or else we are hitting a lot of empty buildings and vehicles.
    My best guess is that Obama lied and put out a very minimized number so he could work the “JV Team” statement into something more… like in the interim “ISIL” recruited a dream team of leadership and Ali Baba’s came flooding in from Europe and as well as from every desert village, so now there are 50,000 fighters. That would mean drone strikes are not keeping up with the inflow of new fighters, so that message will need to be spun and reshaped.

    steveg (794291)

  51. Moderate Muslims? Really?

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1884

    When speaking to Western audiences, Ramadan preaches an amicable message of unity and mutual respect. But to Arabic-speaking audiences, he vents his deep-seated hatred of the West and his endorsement of Wahhabism, the most extreme form of Islam. Moreover, Ramadan has numerous connections to fundamentalist Islamic militants and is suspected by U.S. intelligence agencies of maintaining ties with the terrorist group al Qaeda.

    Ramadan’s maternal grandfather was Hasan al-Banna, who in 1928 founded the Muslim Brotherhood. Ramadan’s father, Said Ramadan, led the Brotherhood throughout the 1950s and then was exiled from Egypt to Switzerland, where Tariq was born in September 1962.

    When asked whether he would condemn his own brother’s statement that stoning a woman for adultery was an acceptable punishment as prescribed by Islamic law, Ramadan said only that he would ask for a moratorium on stoning.

    pst314 (ae6bd1)

  52. Also: criticizing the religion itself is (in my view) uncalled for. Religions do not deserve to be judged by the least charitable readings of cherry-picked passages from their holy texts, whether the religion is Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or any other.

    Criticizing the religion itself is uncalled for? Then tell me how many innocent people and how many more Americans need to die for it to become called for? Religions need to be and should be judged by the nature of their doctrines, their good deeds and the actions of their followers. Islam fails on all counts. Islam is a barbaric cult of oppression and subjugation wrapped in the cloak of a religion and nothing more. It is no more a legitimate religion than nazism or communism and we need to face that fact and deal with moslems the way we’d deal with Nazis.

    All this Western leftist PC crap side stepping the words “radical” and “terrorist” only serves to weaken us. There is no other so-called religion on earth that has 10% of their adherents running around wanting to kill everybody. And I find it difficult to believe that we have conservatives on this site who refuse to see the truth about this “religion”. I thought dumbass suicidal opinions were the purview of the left.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  53. Basic Islamic doctrine, in ALL its mainstream and traditional schools of thought, call for Islamic supremacism, jihad, the killing of “blasphemers” and apostates, etc, etc.

    Criticizing Islam itself is ENTIRELY called for.

    pst314 (ae6bd1)

  54. But…but….that will anger them, and then what will we do?

    askeptic (efcf22)

  55. No more COEXIST bumper stickers.

    pst314 (ae6bd1)

  56. Need to dip bullet-points in pig-lard.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  57. Actions speak louder than words,
    we need to see if further statements and actions in the coming weeks from these people stay true to this theme.

    More thoughts here, FYI:
    http://patterico.com/2015/01/09/new-york-times-editor-calls-marc-cooper-an-asshole-for-criticizing-papers-failure-to-publish-mohammed-cartoons/#comment-1728314

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  58. My friend who was a long-term missionary in a North African country differentiates between “Islam” and “Muslims”, saying Islam is a terrible enslaving ideology,
    but many “Muslims” are not beholden to the ideology and live in fear of those more strict in the application.

    FWIW, I and many other Christians I know chose what we believe and did not “grow up this way”,
    and for that matter, I have no interest and believe it is folly to train my children to think like me. What I have done and will continue to do is give them the kind of information I have found compelling and try to be a good illustration of what and why I believe.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  59. re #50: What are you talking about? Jewish people lived for thousand of years with the “shambles of nonsense” even though the people were persecuted , vilified and without a Holy Place. Even now with the so called enlightenment opening up societies to non observant and non religious Jews (and allowed Jews to not even identify themselves as Jews), there are millions of Jews successfully living with the rules and commandments of the Bibles.

    Your post comes across as a Jew Hating Christian, which I hope was not the intent.
    But if you really do feel that way, you actually have my sympathies.

    seeRpea (3524c3)

  60. seeRpea-
    I’m not sure steveg professes to be a Christian. I may be wrong, but I thought I remembered him as being not particularly religious of any stripe.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  61. as for Quadhi:

    Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man who, on Christmas 2009, with a bomb in his underwear, tried to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 with nearly 300 people onboard during a suicide mission for al-Qaida, attended many of Qadhi’s lectures.[11] Qadhi said of Abdulmutallab that he was “a very quiet individual, tight-lipped and shy, and he did not ask a single question during the discussions. He barely interacted with the other students at the conference.”[10] Qadhi recalled speaking to Abdulmutallab, and remembered that he was “very reserved in his responses”.[10] Abdulmutallab also attended two seminars organized by the AlMaghrib Institute in London in the months before the event in Houston. After the Houston event, Qadhi added, Abdulmutallab did not sign up for further AlMaghrib events, perhaps an indication that extremist ideas were beginning to influence him.[10]

    narciso (ee1f88)

  62. And I find it difficult to believe that we have conservatives on this site who refuse to see the truth about this “religion”. I thought dumbass suicidal opinions were the purview of the left.

    Oh, I agree. I have visited Muslim countries and we try to adapt, like the women wearing head covering into mosques. I think a lot of people would like to think that that Muslims are just like us. I think there are some who observe the religion in public but don’t in private but I have no idea how many these are. Some think that, if Muslims move here, they will be under less pressure to conform but we keep seeing these examples of “sudden jihad syndrome” so I don’t trust any of them. Some of those “moderates” are doctors but then we have Hasan and the radical doctors who tried to attack Glasgow Airport.

    Another eyewitness said that the man was throwing punches and repeatedly shouting “Allah”. The man was arrested and later identified as Bilal Abdulla, a UK-born doctor of Iraqi descent who was working at the Royal Alexandra Hospital.

    The other jihadist was an engineer. These people are mostly educated and middle class so the leftist excuse of poverty is ridiculous. Maybe the immigrant line at the airport should have a slab of bacon as a gate.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  63. problem for these people is that this take place in Paris against a magazine that is not identified as a Jewish publication.

    No, but they spared all the women — except the Jewess.

    Don’t recall any of this in response to any attacks in Israel, not even Har Nof.

    Indeed.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  64. Patterico, the question is which passages are cherry-picked, and which are representative. I think it’s clear that in the case of Islam it’s the peaceful passages that are cherry-picked and unrepresentative. See also my comment here.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  65. There have been riots by UltraOrthodox, and a couple of murders (of Arabs) too. And throwing stones at other Jews driving on the Sabbath. But in general this happens only in Israel, so it usually does not show up in the American press.

    The Sabbath stone-throwing is a very different kind of phenomenon, for a number of reasons. The most obvious one is that it is condemned by every rabbi, without exception, in the stone-throwers’ own communities, not rival communities that can be expected to criticise it. Apart from anything else, stones may not be handled on the Sabbath. The stone-throwers are basically bored youths who are not particularly religious, have no respect for religious authority, and are just looking for some “action”.

    But a more fundamental difference is that these communities really don’t care about Sabbath-violation, so long as it happens somewhere else, not in their neighbourhoods. They have no interest at all in recruiting more people to their way of life; as far as they’re concerned the rest of the country can fall into a black hole, so long as they can continue to live as they have always done. They just don’t want cars driving on their streets; they want to be able to walk in the street and let their kids play in the street, and pretend not to know that a few blocks away there’s a world where the Sabbath doesn’t seem to exist.

    Another fact to consider is that the Sabbath demonstrations are coordinated in advance with the opposition and the press. Normal drivers know not to drive through those neighbourhoods on the Sabbath; those who drive there do so for the express purpose of provoking demonstrations and getting publicity. But one Sabbath about 20 years ago the morning services went on a bit longer than usual, and the secular drivers showed up while all the religious people were still at synagogue, and had to drive up and down empty streets waiting for some opposition to materialise. So after that the two sides started meeting on Friday to arrange a time for the “action”, and to alert the press to be there. (I got this information from an interview I read with a woman who had been Ornan Yekutieli’s secretary, and saw these meetings happen every Friday in his office.)

    In any case, there can be no comparison to Moslem terrorism.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  66. When Hamas fires thousands of missiles into Israel, or sends snipers to shoot up a wedding there etc., you don’t hear anyone saying Hamas isn’t really Muslim. Also these demonstrations are not, AFAIK, about what happened at the kosher deli in Paris, only about Charlie Hebdo. What can we conclude from that?

    Gerald A (d65c67)

  67. Another seldom addressed issue is that of ‘abrogation’. Allah is beyond the reproach of his prior pronouncements. He is free to take back his solemn words.

    Thus many of his kinder statements are thought to have been given thru PBUH during the initial residence in Mecca, viz. ” in religion there is no compulsion”.

    On return from Medina, however, quarter was never given.

    DNF (5e8377)

  68. well there is that quibbling detail, but baby steps,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  69. Gerald A (d65c67) — 1/11/2015 @ 6:39 pm

    Also these demonstrations are not, AFAIK, about what happened at the kosher deli in Paris, only about Charlie Hebdo. What can we conclude from that?

    It’s pseudo bravery.

    Certain subjects are more touchy, or would disrupt the unity.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  70. It would seem to me that every human being on earth could identify with innocent people being attacked while buying food, and that Charlie Hebdo would be the specialized taste. My guess is that it’s because “journalists are more equal”. Plus (that’s a French word), they control who gets bad press and who gets good press.

    Abbas. Bah! It’s public relations nothing more. Remember Arafat donating blood?

    nk (dbc370)

  71. Or maybe not. It came out later that Arafat might have had AIDS so that could have been sincere — an opportunity to do biological terrorism.

    nk (dbc370)

  72. Actually Arafat only faked donating blood. Which, if he had AIDS, is just as well.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  73. I think it is a reasonable goal to not “declare war” on over 1 billion people, many, many of which live in the US, if we do not have to.
    I believe there are “translations” of the Koran from Arabic into other languages now (though I don’t think they are called “translations” and I think they aren’t considered the “equal” to the Koran), but I believe there are many people who consider themselves Muslims who are not familiar with the original writings of Islam.
    Which is why I think articles educating and explaining what Islam teaches is more helpful than disrespectful cartoons. A person can see a disgusting cartoon and be offended and you’ve made an enemy. A person may read something about Mohammed that they never knew and maybe you’ve made a person think, “I’m not following that”.

    As I said above, let people be judged by their actions and their words when they are speaking to their “friendly” crowds. People who advocate replacing the US Constitution with sharia should not be allowed to stay in the US. There will be some who are happy to reject the idea of sharia and will wish to stay here. There will be some who say they reject sharia but in reality want to stay here and advocate for it. They will need to be found out. Everyone will need to sort themselves out as to whether they are eager to oppose or support sharia.

    As to the practicalities of such a proposal, start with deporting the worst offenders.

    If such a process was started (which I don’t think will happen anytime soon) I do not know if deporting 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, or more will be what would need to happen.
    Would some threats be missed? Sure, but I think the over all effect would be to build ties among people of “Muslim background” who want western style freedom and not sharia and marginalize (at least those in the US) those who want sharia.

    Of course, none of this will even begin to happen as long as people somehow blindly think people advocating sharia should be free to exercise their “religion”.
    For reasons discussed at length already by many, I do not think one can analogize Islam and Christianity as broadly equal, but if there was a group of people who claimed to be Christian and advocated replacing the US Constitution with a theocracy and they were not US citizens, I don’t think they would be tolerated.
    To clarify, I do not think working to elect people and work within the Constitutional framework to pass laws that reflect cultural standards constitutes a theocracy or sharia.
    (Would it be legal to pass an ordinance that says certain magazines, etc., should be displayed in such a way as to not show the covers? People have the right to buy Cosmo, etc., but do they have the right to have a seductive pose of a scantily clad woman and a headline about 50 more new tricks in the bedroom at eye level at the check out line of a grocery store?)

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  74. well I concur, md, this is why I thought ‘the innocence of muslims’ was a wasted opportunity, then again, to hear Tom Holland, tell it, in the Journal, his very erudite critique wasn’t taken particularly well, Houllebecq, who was the subject of that last Charlie cover, is an interesting fellow, his ‘Submission’ isn’t necessarily a cautionary tale, but what he thinks is almost an inevitability,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  75. The magazine thing is done now, in Chicago, MD, and it’s Constitutional because it’s phrased, roughly, “so as not to be viewed by a person under the age of eighteen”. My local 7-11 keeps them behind the counter next to the liquor and cigarettes. The adult book stores, not many these days, have no display windows. You cannot see anything inside from the street and a big sign says you need ID to enter. But we’re talking about northern Europe where forty years ago that I know, and I’m sure going further back, brothels in port cities had display windows with the live women lounging behind them and displaying their wares to passersby.

    nk (dbc370)

  76. 76. It’s sharia based vigilantism – actually even worse than that because they’re not really following their law – that you need to worry about, not people who would propose sharia law because nobody’s going to do it.

    Even where they have it they don’t carry it out fully.

    There’s the death penalty for a Moslem who converts. But it seems like even when sentence is pronounced in one of those countries that has it, like Afghanistan, it isn’t carried out. Either the Moslem recants, or they arrange for him to emigrate to another country. (unofficial atheism seems not to get people in real trouble)

    In Pakistan the blasphemy laws are applied to people who are innocent, and didn’t do what they are accused of, and you have vigilantism.

    Sammy Finkelman (6b5229)

  77. Thanks nk,
    What I was specifically thinking of was if a predominantly Muslim part of a city campaigned to not allow the covers of such magazines to be visible, I would NOT see that as some sort of attempt at sharia, but recognizing a legitimate request to enforce a cultural standard.

    yes, “window shopping” in Amsterdam. my wife (long ago, before we were married) spent a summer there with a mission agency running a coffee house outreach.
    Walking with head down looking at their feet along the sidewalk they did, Yoda.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  78. The problem is, none of those people speak for islam. They are outcasts from islamic society, unwelcome in “real” islamic circles with the movers and shakers. Who cares what they say. If anything it gives a false impression that there is a peaceful islam hiding in there somewhere, behind the murders, just waiting to come out if only these bad men would stop murdering people.

    Mr Black (dd0b88)

  79. We don’t need moderate Muslims for anything.

    Comment Monster (897983)

  80. What should be the penalty for blasphemy? How are anti-homosexual, anti-feminists, anti-Obamunists treated in the USA? Prosecution, fines, and re-education. Would that be acceptable, to hand over Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists for diversity seminars and to fine them?

    ErisGuy (76f8a7)

  81. Way I understand it, a living person can’t be held liable for attacking the character of a dead person.
    It’s why queers spend time and energy denigrating the reputation of their betters on Huffington Post.

    Doesn’t cost anything, and they kid themselves into feeling good about their own degeneracy.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  82. Mohammad is still a dead guy. If he ever existed in the first place.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  83. This article is fully erroneous, and worse, it possesses a cheeky feel-goodism that stems from ignorance. First, you must understand takkiya — that is, the official sanction Muslims have to lie to their enemies when they feel threatened. That explains most moderate Muslims. Second, you must understand that the Koran is regarded by Muslims as being Mohammed’s only miracle — not one word of it can be changed. So what Mohammed said and instructed remains forever. The last verse of the book he wrote was the verse of the sword, and that abrogates all other peaceful verses. This principle of abrogation governs how Muslims understand the Koran. It’s been taught way since close after Mohammed’s death. Third, because we’re dealing with a religion that has declared war on all non-believers, we must get educated on what Islam teaches. Places like Jihad Watch are instrumental. Fourth, the only path forward that reformers have to Islam lies in repudiating the concept of Koranic perfection — Ibn Warraq’s book — Which Koran? or by deconstructing Mohammed — Did Mohammed Exist?. It is extremely unlikely either of these two things will ever happen in Islam.

    InRussetShadows (7b08a4)

  84. Christians don’t recognize Mohammed.
    Jews don’t recognize Christ.
    Baptists don’t recognize each other in the liquor store.
    Can’t we all just e pluribus unum?

    nk (dbc370)

  85. 86. There’s also this which I read in the Saturday/Sunday January 10/11 Wall Street Journal.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-i-questioned-the-history-of-muhammad-1420821462

    So there’s a whole literature like this.

    This article mentioned two books, the author of the article, British scholar Tom Holland, wrote, which he doesn’t name, but might be “Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic” and “In the Shadow of the Sword: The Birth of Islam and the Rise of the Global Arab Empire.”

    By Roman Republic I think he means the early byzantine empire, which called itself, not the Roman Empire, but the Roman Republic.

    The books went over with no real trouble, only bad reviews, but he got death threats from Muslims when Channel 4 in the U.K. did a documentary about Islam in 2012 which he narrated and authored.

    But this idea that there was no Mohammed, or that Mohammed was not in Arabia is preposterous. These claims, if false, would have been challenged at the time, certainly by Christians.

    That there may not really be any good surviving biographical data about Mohammed, or at least something reliably sourced to a contemporary, and that many false stories were told about Mohammed and false claims of descent made…or that there may be variants in the Koran, and maybe even later forgeries included – because it was reconstructed or pieced together later…is one thing.

    That Mohammed and his capture of Mecca and Medina, and his religious revolution, didn’t happen is another.

    It’s like saying that because the histories of the Russian Revolution under Stalin were unreliable, and Stalin even lied about the year he was born, that there was no Bolshevik Revolution, but some other people took over power and the figure of Lenin was invented, or he was not a figure in the history of Russia.

    Sammy Finkelman (be6791)

  86. I understand the idea of Muslims being allowed, even encouraged to lie in the cause of Islam,
    but what about the fellow in Saudi Arabia recently jailed and whipped weekly for having a dissenting blog site? If he declared himself to not be Muslim, I would have assumed he would have been executed, and he certainly doesn’t seem to be “faking” being a “moderate Muslim”. Would you have a problem with this guy living in the US while claiming he was Muslim?

    I can’t see how a person like this would be a threat, but would be an asset.
    I bet he wouldn’t even vote for Obama.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  87. “Religions do not deserve to be judged by the least charitable readings of cherry-picked passages from their holy texts…

    Except, my dear friend Mr. Frey, the barbarism of Islam is not gleaned by cherry-picking through their holy texts. The religion is at its base a violent, proselytizing one. It sees religion not as a compact between individuals and their God, but between only their God and all of mankind. There is a community and fellowship sense in Christianity, but the basis of faith is the deeply personal relationship of each person.

    With Islam’s myopic view, these is no room for other than their interpretation, and they claim a mandate to violently exterminate all else.

    If, when, the larger Muslim community forces open the 10th century closed Gates of Ijtihad, they may be able to bring that religion into the civil norms of modern society. But opening that gate may have unintended consequences, as well. Even if all goes as well as hoped, it is likely that the world will see “true believers” of the violent faith as now written for centuries.

    NeoCon_1 (f22b7b)

  88. Well, I don’t think this lady is doing her part to improve the image of Islam in the West. http://i.imgur.com/dEzb7YX.jpg

    nk (dbc370)

  89. LOL

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  90. @MD 79

    Wow.

    People who advocate replacing the US Constitution with sharia should not be allowed to stay in the US. There will be some who are happy to reject the idea of sharia and will wish to stay here. There will be some who say they reject sharia but in reality want to stay here and advocate for it. They will need to be found out. Everyone will need to sort themselves out as to whether they are eager to oppose or support sharia.

    As to the practicalities of such a proposal, start with deporting the worst offenders.

    Can anyone here think of something more unamerican than this? People are free to advocate for anything they like. Freedom of speech, association, and religion come to mind. For example: You are currently advocating deporting people because of their “dangerous ideas”.

    Gil (27c98f)

  91. I think the only thing that will save Islam is when the Hindus and Budhists decide it is not right for the Muslims to have all the fun. And they go after their Islamic neighbors.

    seeRpea (3cc998)

  92. 91. And the bag is from an Israeli store (that is the cursive form of Hebrew with the store’s name and address at the bottom. Unfortunately my Hebrew is too weak, and the photi resolution too low for me to translate.)
    Well, at least she does not support the boycott movement.

    kishnevi (a5d1b9)

  93. I find it incredibly ironic that Gil would object to someone discriminating against others because of their beliefs.

    JD (86a5eb)

  94. re #91: lots of Arabs use Jewish stores in Israel. She may even be a citizen.
    Actually the bag is kind of funny – here she is riding on an Israeli bus with a bag that has a cartoon bomb on it :)
    (definitely hebrew but the light and resolution make it so i can not read it)

    seeRpea (3cc998)

  95. re #93: treason is not an allowable idea, and i too believe that anyone who wants sharia to replace the Constitution should be deported.

    seeRpea (3cc998)

  96. @JD

    It seems to be even worse than that! Rereading MD’s post this sticks out:

    There will be some who say they reject sharia but in reality want to stay here and advocate for it. They will need to be found out.
    Sounds like we are going to additionally need some kind of thought police board to determine who really means what they say.

    Gil (27c98f)

  97. You can save them the trouble since you already know what other people really mean.

    JD (86a5eb)

  98. @JD

    How true! I may have that coveted government job lining up even as we speak.

    Gil (27c98f)

  99. (definitely hebrew but the light and resolution make it so i can not read it)

    The first line is a slogan. Even with the pole blocking some of the letters, i think it says “Yoter ofna, pachot kesef” or “More fashion, less money”. The next line is an address. It starts to get hard here but the first two letters “samech, daled” are a common abbreviation for “sderot” basically like “St.” means street. I think its “sderot ha-atzmaut” i cant make out the city, the rest is a telephone number.

    Gil (27c98f)

  100. re #102: you can see a yud in the first word? wow, i can barely make out a reish.
    Pochus Kes [something] and Suf Sofyk makes sense to make it Kesef.

    So i’m guessing the ‘BOOM’ is just a logo? Having it mean big pop for the money would make sense in English, not so sure about in Hebrew.

    seeRpea (3cc998)

  101. (Please consider me self-denounced well in advance … for what I am about to type (and you may be about to read …) may the Lord et cetera)

    nk #91 – and you think that is a picture of a lady, why ?

    (given what he appears to have in his left hand …)

    (blush)

    Alastor (2e7f9f)

  102. Where’s her burka?
    What is she doing riding a bus unescorted?
    With Jews!
    Jewish men!
    With her face uncovered!
    After shopping at a Jewish store!

    I’ll give you some hints.
    Radical Islam: Wahabism
    Base: Saudi Arabia
    Political protection: Saudi royal family and nearby kin
    Money: Gulf oil
    Missionaries: Everywhere
    Missionaries’ influence from: Gulf oil money
    Enemies: Baath Party, Western civilization, local ethnic Islamic cultures, Shiites, Israel

    nk (dbc370)

  103. Gil,
    You’re missing the point and the context. I am actually being less severe than many. Some want to deport all Muslims. I just want to deport the ones in favor of overthrowing our government.
    And no, one doesn’t need thought police but to pay attention to what people say and do when they aren’t giving pr statements to the press.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  104. A different kind of suspicious package, Alastor? Could be NSFW. http://i.imgur.com/El4C4lk.jpg

    nk (dbc370)

  105. 104… good catch, Alastor!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  106. All I know is they ain’t makin’ Jews like Jesus anymore…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  107. Duh!

    nk (dbc370)

  108. UPDATE: A couple of folks have made the point that Tariq Ramadan is not a moderate. I confess to being previously unfamiliar with him, assuming (it appears incorrectly) that his words of condemnation made him an ally of the moderates. He may, as a correspondent suggests, simply be a deceiver. This video appears to show him praying for the victory of Muslims on battlefields everywhere, including people fighting for jihad. It does not seem unfair to call it a pro-jihad prayer.

    That said, I still think it is positive that even a somewhat radical Islamist can publicly denounce these attacks, even if he does so because he feels some kind of pressure to do so. Whether the denunciation is genuine is a fair question.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  109. Patterico,
    At the very least, you need to take the word of a public spokesman for Islam like you take something President Obama would say, you believe it when you see evidence that supports it.
    President Obama is not the only one who will say one thing in public then talk about “bitter clingers” to his friends.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  110. That said, I still think it is positive that even a somewhat radical Islamist can publicly denounce these attacks, even if he does so because he feels some kind of pressure to do so. Whether the denunciation is genuine is a fair question.

    Patterico, his “denunciations” are not genuine. They are taught to lie and to deceive in the name of Islam. How many times must you and good folks like you be deceived by these animals before you understand the nature of the beast?

    There will be some who say they reject sharia but in reality want to stay here and advocate for it. They will need to be found out.
    Sounds like we are going to additionally need some kind of thought police board to determine who really means what they say.

    No we don’t Gil, we just need to face the fact that there is no reason for a moslem to be here. Any moslem. They have nothing in common with our country, refuse to assimilate, segregate themselves, fail to adapt our culture, politics, traditions and can only be here for one reason. See if you can guess what it is. Therefore, we don’t need thought police to determine what they “really” mean, we need the out. Now!

    Every western country they invade they undermine, destroy, consume the resources, murder and blow up. Why do we need them here? What do they bring to the table here? Nothing! Have you learned nothing from France and England?

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  111. Hispanics who peruse conservative sites must be feeling left out this past week. I can picture them asking sadly, “When are they going to start hating us again?”

    nk (dbc370)

  112. When a Muslim denounces terrorist attacks, is he/she also renouncing the dogma behind the attacks?
    I refer for example to :
    dhimmi – the labeling, subjugation and humiliation of non-Muslims within a Muslim-majority society; jizyah – the onerous taxing of non-Muslims, under threat of death;
    Dar Al-Islam Dar Al-Harb – the division of the world into two parts viz Muslim and war;
    maghazi – the use of military campaigns to extend the borders of Islam;
    taqiyya – the authority for Muslims to deceive/mislead non-Muslims to further the interests of Islam.
    Unless and until these are renounced any pronouncements about the terror attacks are quite hollow.

    kenbro (091668)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.2098 secs.