Pamela Geller’s New Ad Campaign: The Winning “Draw Mohammed” Cartoon On Public Buses
[guest post by Dana]
Pamela Geller is making yet another stand in her fight to protect freedom of speech in America. The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), which she co-founded with Robert Spencer, has announced its new ad campaign with a statement from Geller:
“[b]ecause the media and the cultural and political elites continue to self-enforce the Sharia without the consent of the American people by refusing to show any depictions of Muhammad or showing what it was in Texas that had jihadists opening fire, we are running an ad featuring the winning cartoon by former Muslim Bosch Fawstin from our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas.”
The application for the ads to run on buses and trains in the D.C. area is currently under standard review by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA).
According to Geller:
Let the American people see what the cowardly press is censoring in accordance with the blasphemy laws under the sharia (Islamic law).
Drawing Muhammad is not illegal under American law, but only under Islamic law. Violence that arises over the cartoons is solely the responsibility of the Islamic jihadists who perpetrate it. Either America will stand now against attempts to suppress the freedom of speech by violence, or will submit and give the violent the signal that we can be silenced by threats and murder.
Reactions to her plan are about what you would expect: hysterical headlines and tiresome arguments, such as this one from Juan Williams:
“I think Ms. Geller is doing it intentionally to provoke a controversy,” Williams said. “I think that’s what happened down in Texas.”
“It is fierce bullies like Juan Williams who want to impose the Sharia,” Geller responded. “This is the Sharia, Juan.”
Geller then mentioned a comment Williams made in 2010 about how he gets “nervous” when he sees “people who are in Muslim garb” on airplanes. Geller said she found that remark “offensive.”
“This has nothing to do with that,” Williams responded. “What I see you doing, I think, is trying to provoke, unnecessarily, controversy, and at times offending and demeaning Muslims who regard your actions as not only provocative but offensive.”
Geller said that Williams comments were more offensive than her planned bus ads.
“Muslims that support free speech will not be offended. Muslims that want to impose the Sharia will be offended. And frankly, your offensive remarks are far more humiliating to Muslims than my running ads about a cartoon that the media refuses to run,” she said. “I did not make the cartoons a flashpoint. The jihadis made the cartoons a flashpoint.”
Geller sums it up:
“There is nothing about this cartoon that incites violence. It is within the established American tradition of satire. If America surrenders on this point, the freedom of speech is a relic of history,”
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (86e864) — 5/27/2015 @ 6:00 pmPeople are not endowed with the right to not be offended. Plain and simple.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/27/2015 @ 6:05 pmthe wider point:
http://www.steynonline.com/6965/there-is-no-more-molly-or-luz
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/27/2015 @ 6:37 pmhey, thanks for the steyn link.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/27/2015 @ 6:59 pmI see there is a big climate change conference in DC that he will be at in June
anyone want to meet up there??
I’m glad that someone is standing up for free speech.
aunursa (be35b6) — 5/27/2015 @ 7:01 pmThe progressive left thinks the assassins and the thugs should define the limits of free speech.
Because they aspire to be the assassins and the thugs.
Steve57 (4f6474) — 5/27/2015 @ 7:01 pmno, they think they will be eaten last,
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/27/2015 @ 7:04 pm@7, the campus sandanistas have convinced themselves they’re tough, narciso.
Mostly because their antics work in their bubble.
Steve57 (4f6474) — 5/27/2015 @ 7:12 pmone is reminded Mayor Bane* was once one of them,
*my nick for Deblasio, he’s as destructive to Gotham, as Batman’s archnemesis
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/27/2015 @ 7:17 pmIf you note, the report at the “hysterical” headline link is authored by none other than SEK. I guess I’m not surprised.
Dana (86e864) — 5/27/2015 @ 7:24 pmI’m glad that someone is standing up for free speech.
aunursa (be35b6) — 5/27/2015 @ 7:01 pm
Of course, to far too many Americans – and sadly so – she isn’t standing up for free speech so much as she’s standing there in a really short skirt, asking for it.
Dana (86e864) — 5/27/2015 @ 7:26 pmI remember Boehlert now at Media Matters. was in Salon in the late 90s, poo pooing the notion of a mass terrorist attack, and ridiculing any attempt to identify the plotters as ‘racial profiling’ Kauffman, Barrett Brown, they all seem to get around don’t they?
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/27/2015 @ 7:29 pmSteyn mentioned Gustave Doré.
kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 5/27/2015 @ 8:29 pmhttp://www.danshort.com/dc/page1.php?p=56
Juan is the typical ignorant liberal.
Without the absolute protection of the First Amendment, Martin Luther King would never have been allowed his marches or his speech on the Mall. The Civil Rights movement would have been crushed quite legally because it was “controversial and provocative” – many described its leaders as “agitators” who “try to stir things up” – but he denies the same protection to Geller and others because he doesn’t think their speech is “appropriate.”
Someone should slap both his faces.
Estragon (ada867) — 5/27/2015 @ 9:06 pmSounds like the best way to get around the censors would be to run a guerrilla art campaign, slapping up the contest images if the legal ad campaign gets shot down.
Dejectedhead (ec3741) — 5/27/2015 @ 9:16 pmWake up. Since the moment OBLAHBLAH “I won”, the useful idiots have felt emboldened to shyte on America, the Constitution and any form of DISSENT. Friends, we need to understand our LEFTIST, MORONIC, YOUTHFUL and COMMUNIST opponents. They DO NOT CARE what you think, they do not CARE what the CONSTITUTION says/is, and they DO NOT FEAR, the consequences of their ACTIONS.
Gus (7cc192) — 5/27/2015 @ 10:06 pmIt’s going to get VERY UGLY within the next 10 years. OR, the GOP can continue to screw us too.
Either way, at some point. American’s will stop allowing lawlessness, VIA lawlessness.
this will mean more jobs as armed police will have to be put on buses!
more jobs! (cf1274) — 5/28/2015 @ 12:42 amShe should stick with Texas, or somewhere else where people shoot for fun.
steveg (fed1c9) — 5/28/2015 @ 2:47 amI’ll bet that most NYC cops shoot on the range because they have to. Texans also shoot for fun on their days off.
Lately their shooting against homegrown jihadis has been superb
I have a 2′ x 3′ poster of mohamhead with the bomb in turban. My caption reads – Hey Harvard this is what Free Speech looks like. First time I used it was at Harvard when ayatollah khomeini came to speak. I drive around with it occasionally, just to piss liberals off. And some give me thumbs up.
mg (31009b) — 5/28/2015 @ 3:04 amYes MD, I would go.
well, mg, I would love to go, I’ll have to scratch my head and think if I can make it happen
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/28/2015 @ 5:07 amGeller is a nut, but this time she’s right. Some of her ads are insane, and some are just false and counterproductive, but this one is right and necessary. The cartoon in question doesn’t even attack Moslems, and can’t be objectionable to anyone but a would-be censor. It directly makes its own case for why it needs to exist and to be seen — to defy the censors.
Milhouse (bdebad) — 5/28/2015 @ 5:28 am“There is nothing about this cartoon that incites violence. It is within the established American tradition of satire. If America surrenders on this point, the freedom of speech is a relic of history,”
’nuff said.
alanstorm (cb237b) — 5/28/2015 @ 7:08 amMilhouse @21, how is that ad “insane?”
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2012/11/hamas-killing-jews-is-worship-of-allah.html
And by “attack” I assume you mean “expose” because the Quran does tell Muslims to kill Jews and Christians. It along with the ahadith also tells Muslims to enslave non-Muslim women as war booty and that they are entitled to rape them as much as they like.
We have far too many people willing to lie to cover for Islam and what it actually preaches. Like our Preezy, and just about every European head of state. And their functionaries, Like Richard Brennan of RAND.
The liar here is Richard Brennan.
I won’t provide the links; just qoogle quran and then the verse number and it will take you to the Sahih international online version.
Surat An-Nisā’ (The Women) 4:24
Note the exception to the Islamic prohibition against adultery i.e. sex with a woman married to another man. Those your right hand possess are your slave women. This “revelation” was in response to some Muslims asking Muhammad if it was permissible to rape their war captives in the presence of their husbands (previously they had killed all the men). The answer is, of coarse.
Besides, their marriages are not valid anyway. We have numerous modern fatwas from Egypt and Saudi Arabia that make that explicit. Modern as in from the 1990s and later.
Here are more verses from the Quran justifying sex slavery:
Surat Al-Ma`ārij (The Ascending Stairways) 70:22-30
This is the default Sahih International transliteration. Ohter transliterations of the Quran are more explicit. But then some Muslims have the good sense to be ashamed of what it’s advocating.
The Muhsin Khan transliteration makes things more clear:
Lusting after other women, “whoever seeks beyond that,” is unlawful. But raping your wives and your sex slaves is fine. And I do mean rape. To digress briefly from Islam’s mandate (not mere justification) to enslave captured infidel women for labor and for sex slavery, this verse justifies rape based merely on the general inferiority of all women:
Surat Al-Baqarah (The Cow) 2:223
This concerns times, places, and positions. A wife cannot refuse her husband anything, and a slave of course can never refuse her master anything. As Muhammad said in the hadiths, if a man and his wife were riding a camel and the husband demanded sex then and there the wife would have to perform then and there.
This is why UN envoy Zainab Bangura, who traveled to refugee camps to interview surviving Yazidi women reported that ISIS burned one 20 y.o. woman alive for refusing to perform “extreme” sex acts. Women, especially sex slaves, have no right to refuse. She’s nothing more than a field to be plowed however her master desires.
Which brings us back to the sex slavery.
(Muhsin Khan)23:5-6
And perhaps these are the most important of all:
(Muhsin Khan) Surat Al-‘Aĥzāb (The Combined Forces) 33:50
Admittedly this verse gives Muhammad special privileges (There are many such self-serving “revelations) but being permitted to take as many sex slaves captive from the kuffar is not among them. All Muslims are permitted to do this. In fact required to do it, as they must follow Muhammad’s “perfect” moral example. And they are required to kill and/or humiliate non-Muslims whenever they are in a position to do so.
Surat At-Taĥrīm (The Prohibtiion) 66:1-5
These verses have to do with sex slavery, although that isn’t immediately apparent. The governor of Egypt had sent him two Coptic Christian slave girls, Miriam and her sister Sirin. Muhammad gave Miriam as a servant to one of his wives Hafsah. But Miriam was too hot for Muhammad to resist. So one day Muhammad sent Hafsah on a false errand and raped Miriam (since a slave can’t refuse it is always rape). Hafsah, though, realized Muhammad had tricked her and returned to her house to find Muhammad and Miriam in her bed. Hafsah flew into a rage and told Muhammad’s favorite wife Aisha (these are the two wives who need to repent). Together his wives extracted a promise that he’d stop having sex with the slave girls.
The verses above are Allah’s rebuke to Muhammad for promising to stop doing what Allah has made lawful just to make his wives happy. See, it’s his duty to have sex with his slaves, and if his wives don’t like it then Muhammad should divorce them and get a more obedient set of wives.
The bottom line is that ISIS is practicing the heart and soul of Islam when they capture Yazidi women for sex slavery. They are in fact following the false prophet’s example, as they are commanded to do. In fact, it isn’t just them. Recall when the Muslim Brotherhood set out to rewrite the Egpyptian constitution they started by eliminating the clause that outlawed slavery. Saudi men routinely rape their foreign domestics. As far as they’re concerned there is no difference between a domestic servant and a slave. So they seize their servant’s passports and consider them property.
As far as I know no one has ever been prosecuted for this. It may even be technically illegal, but enslaved domestic servants have been rescued from Saudi diplomatic compounds, and Saudi royals have been arrested for the practice that is so routine to them they don’t think twice about practicing it abroad.
Muslims would call this an attack on their religion. No, the proper word is expose.
Steve57 (4f6474) — 5/28/2015 @ 8:20 amThat guy Richard Brennan is probably responsible for this bit of misinformation in that Daily Mail article.
That’s not what it means to Ahlus Sunnah wal Jema’ah, the adherents of the Sunnah and the congregation, or in more familiar English Sunni Muslims. It isn’t “a way of life” but Muhammad’s way of life. Actually it would be better translated as Muhammad’s “well trodden path” since Muslims are supposed to follow in his footsteps.
One wonders if Richard Brennan is a Muslim convert since he is so zealously lying and misleading people about just how much religious authority ISIS has for what it’s doing. And naturally by misleading people about what the Sunnah is, it makes his job easier to lie about what the Quran authorizes Muslims to do when it comes to sex slavery. Muslims love to argue that people are taking verses out of context. And the Quran provides almost no context. But the Sunnah does provide context. Plenty of context. And context makes it clear that the verses are just as awful, if not even worse, than they fist appear. For instance, take verse 4:24 above. Here’s the context:
http://www.sunnah.com/abudawud/12
Oh, yeah, and the Sunnah teaches, among other things, that if you want to get the highest price for your captured slaves either to ransom them back or to sell them on the slave markets then it’s OK to practice coitus interruptus.
And Richard Brennan claims there’s “no way to square these things – forcing people to be slaves and raping them – with the Koran. It’s not Islamic.” We need more people around to expose liars like him, and to tell the truth about what Islam preaches.
Steve57 (4f6474) — 5/28/2015 @ 9:18 amThank you Steve57.
njrob (a048a4) — 5/28/2015 @ 9:36 amFinding a way out of their conundrum
Dana (86e864) — 5/28/2015 @ 7:39 pmFrom the article. In which the Transit ads admits it isn’t banning issue ads. It’s banning ads based upon viewpoint.
So, Geller no doubt has a good case that they can not ban these ads. The permitted issue ads up until they received her application to run the “draw Muhammad” ads. They were never contemplating banning all issue ads before. And they are working on a procedure to ban certain ads based upon viewpoint.
And we all know why.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/28/of-course-d-c-metro-suspends-all-issue-oriented-ads-for-the-year-so-that-they-wont-have-to-run-pam-gellers-mohammed-cartoon/
Paul Duggan @dugganwapo
Metro official says agency fears a cartoon ad of the Prophet Muhammad would make buses and subway stations “terrorists targets.”
1:20 PM – 28 May 2015
Catch liberals off guard and they will reveal they know the party line that Islam is a religion of peace and therefore the people who’d shoot up a subway over this are just random crazies and can’t be real Muslims.
Because then, why would a non-Muslim be upset over a picture of Muhammad? And of course it doesn’t jibe with the second liberal tenet of faith; of course Pamela Geller is just asking for it (as Dana observes @11).
In fact, true Muslims do believe they are authorized to kill if someone insults their false prophet. Why? Because Muhammad would order his cult followers to kill critics. And Muhammad said it was not a crime if someone killed another person on their own initiative for insulting Muhammad.
http://www.sunnah.com/abudawud/40
Sunan Abu Dawud compiled one of the six authoritative Hadith collections accepted by all Sunni Muslims (there is some debate about which volume comprises the sixth volume depending on which school of Islamic law you adhere to, Sunan ibn Majah or Muwatta Malik, but there is no debate about Sunan abu Dawud). Volume 40 is titled “Prescribed Punishments.” Chapter two of that volume is “The ruling regarding one who reviles the prophet.”
You have three guesses as to what the penalty is for that crime, and the first two don’t count.
So the next time Imam Kerry or Imam Obama go on TV and pronounce after a Muslim slaughters people because someone insulted Muhammad or Islam that “no religion teaches that” you know there is in fact a religion that teaches that. Islam.
Which is why we can’t allow craven officials like the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority to create rules to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws.
Steve57 (4f6474) — 5/29/2015 @ 6:01 amon a related note:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/un-compares-israel-to-boko-haram-in-new-report/
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/29/2015 @ 6:24 amBut what about the Crusades?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/29/2015 @ 7:05 am“As Muhammad said in the hadiths, if a man and his wife were riding a camel and the husband demanded sex then and there the wife would have to perform then and there.”
Question… would that technically make it a threesome?
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/29/2015 @ 7:12 amI guess, coronello, sometimes plowing your field any way you like can include the use of livestock.
Steve57 (4f6474) — 5/29/2015 @ 7:23 amUseful information shared..Iam very happy to read this article..thanks for giving us nice info.
Vincent (485024) — 6/12/2015 @ 6:29 pm