« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Radical Islam? Never Heard Of It.

Today Is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

This is a few days old (ancient in blog years) but it’s instructive nevertheless:

.

This position is the inevitable refuge: simple denial. Once it becomes clear that a truth cannot be assimilated into his leftist worldview, he simply Ministry of Truths it out of being. There is a lot of whitewashing going on during this euphemism-prone administration, but self-appointed Imam Alan Colmes’ declaration of final arbitration on who is allowed to believe what about their own faith really takes the cake.

Today, many blogs and websites are participating in “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” Some object on the grounds that deliberate offense is ugly and nothing to celebrate. That argument takes place in a vacuum, however. The kind of vacuum Religious Scholar Alan Colmes and many of his fellow travelers are desperate to maintain.

As usual, Mark Steyn gets right to the point in discussing the event:

I’m bored with death threats. And, as far as I’m concerned, if that’s your opening conversational gambit, then any obligation on my part to “cultural sensitivity” and “mutual respect” is over. The only way to stop this madness destroying our liberties is (as Ayaan Hirsi Ali puts it) to spread the risk. Everybody Draws Mohammed Day does just that. Various websites are offering prizes.

Spreading the risk is an important point. The west bows ever lower before the demands of Islam, both radical and vanilla. The fewer who have the courage to resist, the easier to hurt the few who have it. But I also think the mutual respect point is exceedingly important. If we are at a ball game and I accidentally step on your foot, I’m going to say “sorry.” But if your response is to try to kill me, well you just lost your right to sorry. Welcome to [words I can't post at RedState] you!

At Reason, Editor Matt Welch addresses it this way:

At the L.A. Times these arguments lost out to one main consideration: We don’t know what sets these people off, so who are we to play with fire by gratuitously inflaming them with crudely provocative art? Or in the case of Comedy Central these days, with something so offense-less as discussion about the controversy?

This well-intended paternalism is where the argument gets a bit personal for me. What kind of undifferentiated mass of simmering, modernity-hating humans have we allowed ourselves to believe the world’s billion-plus Muslims have become?

[snip]

We are having an Everyone Draw Mohammed Contest tomorrow not to gratuitously insult my old pals or any other practitioners of a richly diverse religion, we are doing it as a simple declaration that depiction and caricaturization is within the bounds of acceptable discourse, that nobody owns the images of historical figures, and that free-speech backsliding in the West ultimately threatens all of us much more than isolated acts of semi-suicidal bravado from the pathologically aggrieved. I refuse to believe we are sharing the planet with 1 billion sleeper agents, ready to be activated by a cartoonist’s pen.

Is this not a point compatible with progressive values? Even the moronic religious proclamations of the learned Alan Colmes (peace be upon him)? Colmes is saying Radical Islam isn’t even Islam. By that calculation, ought he not support the solidarity with the cartoonists and the spreading of risk, the standing for freedom in the face of tyranny? After all, those who would respond in violence don’t even count, right Alan? They’re not “real”.

I find the arguments of progressives with regard to terrorism and radical Islam to be exhausting and more than a little disingenuous. That is, unless I missed all the pleas for mutual respect and understanding regarding tea partiers. No? Didn’t think so.

Sigh. But there are those with sincere objections. From Ann Althouse:

People need to learn to deal with getting mad when they hear or see speech that enrages them, even when it is intended to enrage them. But how are we outsiders to the artwork supposed to contribute the the process of their learning how to deal with free expression? I don’t think it is by gratuitously piling on outrageous expression, because it doesn’t show enough respect and care for the people who are trying to tolerate the expression that outrages them.

It is a fair point that if indeed an image is deliberately sacrilegious or deeply offensive, it’s antagonistic to wave it in the face of those who are making their best effort to tolerate it. In a vaccuum, this might be the deciding point. But again, we are not in a vacuum. We are where we are. It has come to this. There are lots of things we wish weren’t so, but that doesn’t make them not so.

Steyn is correct. In light of the rioting and death and destruction, in light of the bullying and threats, in the context of all that has gone before, it is time to say enough. And Everybody Draw Mohammed day does just that.

Everbody Draw Mohammed Around The Web:

COMMENTS

  • EagleWatcher

    Say it!! 2+2=5

  • bobojake
  • discerningconservative

    ________________
    / \ \
    | \ |
    | \ |
    | `???- |
    | `????/|
    | @@@@@ |
    @@@@@@@@@@
    @ ____ ____ @
    /____\ /____\ \
    \ @ / \ @ / |
    ??? \ ??? |
    \ \
    / _ | _ \
    | / \___/ \ |
    \ @@@ @@@ @
    @@@@@@@@@
    @@ ________ @
    @@ @@ @@
    @@@@@@@@
    | @@@@@@@ |
    | @@@@@ |
    ??/ \??-

    • Mark D

      But it’s still fun to see ASCII art.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    —————————–\
    —————————–/
    \
    \
    ( )( )\
    ——-/

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    without tripping over his shoelaces or falling into nonexistent potholes.

    • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com Conservative Phantom

      ,,,his is the face of the leftist, pro-Obama, pro-abortion, marching-in-lockstep secular Jewish voter.

      Stuck.

      On.

      Stupid.

      • stephaniet

        stuck on Band-Aids! At least the damage caused by ripping them off is easily healed. The damage from stupid takes decades.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    nt

  • usedtobelib

    and didn’t know where else to go.

    Today Rush played the audio of a Wolf Blitzer interview with Mexico’s Calderon, an interview in which Blitzer pinned Calderon down on his own country’s procedures concerning illegals trying to cross Mexico’s southern border. Obviously, Rush was pointing out the supreme irony of Calderon’s criticism of the AZ law (and by extension, American concerns about border control) versus his pride in his own country’s requirements of aliens trying to enter Mexico.

    I have searched and searched for that CNN interview on the net. I think I found what is a portion of it (it aired yesterday), but the portion I found only shows Blitzer’s questioning Calderone on the violence on the border and covers the disappearance of Caleron’s friend. The part Rush played isn’t on it.

    Can anyone provide me with a link that covers the portion Rush played? I am listening to Hannity’s radio show even as I type, and while he has, of course, dealt with Calderon’s speech to Congress, he hasn’t mentioned the part Rush played AT ALL. I can’t believe that. This piece ought to be played over and over and over again on EVERYTHING until election day!

    Thanks.

    • fotophun

      http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052010/content/01125106.guest.html

    • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

      you requested, I believe.

      For Liberty,
      ColdWarrior, PC (that?s ?precinct committeeman,? not ?political child!?)
      Conservatives, UNITE! CHANGE the Republican Party and save the world by UNITING INSIDE the Party as precinct committeemen. NOW!

  • fotophun

    I’m sure he has heard of radical Christians and Tea Partiers
    and let us not forget the radical right or conservatives

    how is it that these mosques are being built near WTC,
    but a Christian cannot even pray at his school

    The rights of Muslims are growing everyday, while us that are law abiding citizens, observing the Constitution and Bilble believers are put down daily…while OUR rights are being taken away

  • romeg

    Sign up for Rush 24/7.

  • Raven

    The terrorists are saying they do it for Allah, for Islam. If, as Alan Colmes says, they are not radical extremists, then, well…

  • ghostship

    Despite how violently ill the very thought makes me, in a way Alan Colmes is right and I’m going to have to agree with his statement that there is no Radical Islam.

    However, it’s not in a way he would agree with. The truth is that it’s not Radical Islam but just plain old everyday Islam that’s the ideology of the Jihadists.

    I think I have run to the bathroom and puke my guts out now for agreeing with his words if not his meaning behind them.

    • skorrent1

      over the exchange, Alan is saying that those who do bad things have nothing to do with Islam, the REAL Islam as defined by Imam Alan, therefore you can’t call it Radical Islam.

      • tlhanger

        Radical Islam is just plain old Islam. When I studied it, it is when at the end of the book all the “radical” things are proclaimed, but that has a word for it and it is the end which is proclaimed right.

  • usedtobelib

    I did a bunch of searching and finally found it….

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wolf-blitzer-puts-president-felipe-calderon-on-the-defensive-over-mexicos-immigration-laws/

    Scroll down to the lower part for the video that works.

  • Scope

    was elected to the presidency of the US? Or, that his handlers are radical islamists?

  • america1st

    . . . of the theory painting a mouth on an irregular mass containing nearly pure vacuum will cause it to speak, however nonsensically, I give you alan colmes. I was of two minds when he wilted off the show with Sean Hannity: 1) pleasure where I’d not need to endure the twit’s vacuous babbling any longer and 2) some regret, because I reveled in watching Ann Coulter reduce him to a bowl of quivering yellow gelatin with a sentence or two. To me he epitomizes the wisdom of abandoning the weak, unproductive and incompetent to their fates rather than suffering them to reproduce yet more liberals.

  • RedBeard

    We’ve always known Colmes to be a raging leftist, but now he reveals the fact that in order to be a raging leftist, one must first be an imbecile.

  • pantera

    hes right…what is described as radical islam is really just islam..
    the terrorist are the good muslims…
    the moderate muslims are the sinful muslims…

    like billy graham is a good christian and jeramiah wright is a bad christian…

    • thomasgipper

      If being a good member of the religion means following the ancient texts, Pantera is right. I’ve said before, the Koran commands its followers to kill non-believers and jews; and teaches that it’s ok to deceive non-believers when dealing with them. So yes, per the Koran a good muslim would do those things.

      Now the culture of the followers of a religion may well change, notwithstanding the ancient texts. Christians generally follow the teachings of the New Testament, with its message of love, and still revere the Old Testament but don’t take literally the very rare scattered passage in the Old that would be disturbing by modern standards. Clearly some followers of Islam are taking the above passages in the Koran too seriously. But who knows what percentage of the culture (about 1.8 billion), thinks it’s ok to follow them; and what percentage think it’s not.

      For those who want to kill you (usually young men), sensitivity-training sessions aren’t going to talk them out of it. No, those types need to be dealt with the old fashioned way; they need to know that America will be the cause of their destruction and ruin — them, their families, and their countries, if they continue with their murderous behavior. Good luck getting that message sent by Comrade Obama.

  • whatsupjacques

    Because someone doesn’t understand the tenets of his religion doesn’t mean its abuse doesn’t exist. To Colmes’ mind, there would have been no such thing as the Inquisition.

    Islam is unique in that there are no clergy. It is interpreted by “learned ones” who get others to follow what they think it means. Without a body of ordained leaders to intervene, Islam itself is wide open to be interpreted as pacifist, or jihadist, and everything in between. Therefore, anything goes, but it all exists.

    Maybe because Hannity mopped the floor with Colmes intellect so many times that they had to dissolve Hannity and Colmes because there’s no such thing as a liberal logic.

  • dwscho

    Alan seems to frequently get hung up splitting hairs and misses the entire point of the discussion. While it’s true there isn’t a religion of radical Islam as such but, there are Muslim who practice Islam in a radical way. But the point is these people would do us harm and while he has the freedom to sit around and split hairs, other Americans are serving and dying to protect his right to do so. Perhaps, we should put Alan and people like him on the front lines for one year and see what views they hold afterwards.

  • justfedup

    The likes of Holder & Colmes can just say “Necromongers” instead of jihadists, radical muslim or anything else they find offensive. For those unfamiliar with the name, it’s from a Vin Diesel movie “The Chronicles of Riddick”. If they cannot convert you, they kill you. Sound familiar. The left loves Hollywood, right? Isn’t that the goal of the jihadist,”convert you or kill you”?

    • stephaniet

      I want a house with impenetrable defenses and bulletproof windows–oh, and a Gatling gun on the roof. These jihadists would have to get past all that first, and I doubt it’d be easy. If I got my way, my house could withstand any manner of explosives, just short of a nuclear warhead.

      Unfortunately, I very rarely get my way.

  • tlwinslow

    It’s funny that until the 16th-17th centuries Muslims drew pictures of Muhammad themselves all the time, but Islam is about supremacy of Muslims over non-Muslims, so when non-Muslims do it, that’s different. All non-Muslims must show Muslims that the original total supremacy version of Islam is dead by standing up to any and all supremacist demands in this shrinking world.

    Don’t be an Islam history ignoramus any longer when it’s so easy to master all of Islam’s history free online anytime with the Historyscoper. To get started click http://go.to/islamhistory

  • callmeroy

    Alan, I know how you can become rich, rich, rich. It just hit me, I know what kind of television comedy / reality show that could become #1, let’s have Jon Stewert interview Obama, Karzai, Karza’s brother, and the Taliban while their picking the poppys in the fields for the heroin that they ship to America. What do ya think people? Since Jon and Comedy Central have proven that nothing is sacred for satire and that they will even give in to the threat by a group of radical muslims (like the press likes to call them) or just radicals (like Barry Hussen “the Anointed One” likes to call them) or toilet paper (like Americans like to call them), it could be a hit. Hollyweird would go wild. One additional thought, to make it hit #1 internationally over the globe, let’s have the United Nations thrown in to be interviewed. Well, come to think of it, maybe that’s not such a good idea, if the U.N. is involved, they will steal everything and then say the the US took it. Never mind

  • callmeroy

    The Most Enduring Legacy Of Nazi Hate by David Stokes
    And he had been preparing the hearts and minds of the Muslim world for many years. Jeffrey Herf, a professor of history at the University of Maryland, has written an eye-opening book about the effectiveness of Nazi ideas in the Middle East during the Second World War called, ?Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World.? In it, he describes the Nazi campaign for the minds and hearts of the Arab world in great detail?particularly the Axis radio programs that ran in Arabic around the clock from late 1939 until March of 1945.
    These broadcasts spewed venomous anti-Semitism and pushed every demagogic button imaginable. They were also highly effective. In fact, long after the last vestige of Nazi rhetoric faded from consciousness in Europe, the poisonous seeds planted back then are still bearing deadly fruit.
    The mind-set that gave way to the Third Reich is very much alive and well in the Muslim world of the Middle East.
    When those two senatorial strange-bedfellows offered their visionary resolution in 1944 about a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the ?Axis Broadcasts in Arabic? were way ahead of the story. Mr. Herf has accessed a significant cache of transcripts and leaflets produced by the Nazis during the war?materials that have not been adequately examined?until now.
    So back in 1944, any hopes a couple of well-intentioned voices in Washington might have had to garner widespread national support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine were dashed by forces largely influenced by the hate-speak of Nazi propagandists. Berlin, broadcasting in Arabic, referred to Taft and Wagner as ?criminal American senators,? while announcing, ?a great tragedy is about to be unfolded, a great massacre, another turbulent war is about to start in the Arab countries.?
    And in phraseology that sounds eerily familiar to what we still regularly hear from Islamists, the Nazis described the stakes as kill or be killed:
    ?Arabs and Moslems, sons of the East, this menace threatens your very lives, endangers your beliefs and aims at your wealth. No trace of you will remain. Your doom is sealed. It were better if the earth opened and engulfed everybody; it were better if the skies fell upon us, bringing havoc and destruction; all this, rather than the sun of Islam should set and the Koran perish…Stir up wars and revolutions, stand fast against the aggressors, let your hearts, afire with faith, burst asunder! Advance your armies and drive out the menace.?
    Bear in mind that this is a Nazi broadcast to the Arab/Muslims in Palestine. Of course, the relationship between Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti in Jerusalem, is well known and documented (see my article: ?Hitler?s Favorite Jihadist?), but the broadcasts from Berlin to Palestine are just now beginning to be examined. And what is being found is further evidence that to refer to Islamists as Nazi or Fascist-like is no smear?or stretch.
    The rhetoric broadcasted to the Middle East 70 years ago is still being noised about?and even more pervasively and effectively. Back then, the attitudes it reinforced, complete with distortion, hate and prejudice, caused U.S. officials, from FDR on down, to ?go wobbly??as Margaret Thatcher would say.
    It is sadly clear that the most lasting impact of the Nazi propaganda machine is that murderous ideas espoused back then are alive and well in our day and age and still being used to threaten and kill Jews?while nouveau wobblers turn away.

  • callmeroy

    The Real Reason They Hate Us
    by Frank Gaffney
    For the first time in its history, the United States is trying to wage and win a war without accurately identifying the enemy or its motivations for seeking to destroy us. That oversight defies both common sense and past military experience, and it disarms us in what may be the most decisive theater of this conflict: the battle of ideas.
    Such a breakdown may seem incredible to veterans of past military conflicts. Imagine fighting World War II without clarity about Nazism and fascism, or the Cold War without an appreciation of Soviet communism and the threat it posed.
    Yet today, the civilian leaders of this country and their senior subordinates – responsible for the U.S. military, the intelligence community, homeland security and federal law enforcement – have systematically failed to fully realize that we once again face a totalitarian ideology bent on our destruction.
    That failure is the more worrisome since the current ideological menace is arguably more dangerous than any we have faced in the past, for two reasons. First, its adherents believe their mission of global conquest is divinely inspired. Second, they are here in the United States in significant numbers, not just a threat elsewhere around the world.
    What, then, is this ideology? It has been given many names in recent years, including political Islam, radical Islam, fundamentalist Islam, extremist Islam and Islamofascism. There is, however, a more accurate descriptor – the one its adherents use. They call it “Shariah.”
    (Continued)

  • callmeroy

    Perhaps the most important thing to understand about Shariah is that it is authoritative Islam, which presents itself as a complete way of life – cultural, political, military, social and religious, all governed by the same doctrine. In other words, this comprehensive program is not simply the agenda of extremists hunkered down in caves in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Neither can its directives be attributed to deviants hijacking Islam.
    Rather, Shariah – which translates from Arabic as “path to God” – is actually binding law. It is taught as such by the most revered sacred texts, traditions, institutions, top academic centers, scholars and leaders of the Islamic faith. Fortunately, hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world do not wish to live under a brutally repressive, woman-demeaning, barbaric and totalitarian program. Such Muslims are potentially our allies, just as those who do adhere to Shariah are our unalterable foes.
    The immutability of Shariah-adherent Muslim hostility toward the rest of us derives directly from the central tenet of Shariah: Muslims are explicitly required to seek the triumph of Islam over all other faiths, peoples and governments.
    The ultimate objective of Shariah is the establishment of a global Islamic state – Sunni Muslims call it “the caliphate” – governed by Shariah. The means by which this political outcome is to be achieved is called “jihad.”
    Since 9/11, many Americans have become unhappily acquainted with the terrifying, violent strain of jihad. Under Shariah, violence – often described by non-Muslims as “terrorism” – is the preferred means of securing the spread and dominion of Islam, as it is the most efficient.
    While Shariah deems jihad to be the personal obligation of every faithful Muslim capable of performing it – man or woman, young or old – they can forgo the violent form when it is deemed impracticable. In such circumstances, the struggle can be pursued through means that are, at least temporarily, non-violent. Taken together, the latter constitute what renowned author and expert Robert Spencer calls “stealth jihad.” Adherents to Shariah call it “dawah.”
    Examples of stealth jihadism abound in Western societies, notably Europe and increasingly in the United States. They include the demand for symbolic and substantive accommodations in political, economic and legal areas (for example, special treatment or rights for Muslims in the workplace, in public spaces and by government); the opportunity to penetrate and influence operations against government at every level; and the insinuation of the Trojan horse of “Shariah-compliant finance” into the West’s capital markets.
    (Continued)

  • callmeroy

    If stealth jihad seems less threatening than terrorism, the objective is exactly the same as that of violent jihad: the subjugation to the Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) of all non-Islamic states that, like the United States, make up the Dar al-harb (House of War). It follows that those who seek ostensibly to impose Shariah through non-violent techniques – notably in the West, the organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood – are our enemies every bit as much as those who overtly strive to defeat us by murderous terrorism.
    Many Western elites, including the Obama administration, have been seduced by the seemingly benign quality of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, we know from the 2008 prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation – the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history – that the Muslim Brothers’ mission in the United States is “a kind of grand jihad to destroy Western civilization from within … by their own miserable hands.”
    Another Brotherhood document, titled “The Rulers,” was seized in a 2004 raid and describes how the organization will try to overthrow the U.S. Constitution in five phases:
    Phase I: Discreet and secret establishment of elite leadership
    Phase II: Gradual appearance on the public scene, and exercising and utilizing various public activities
    Phase III: Escalation, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through the massmedia
    Phase IV: Open public confrontation with the government through the exercise of political pressure
    Phase V: Seizing power to establish an Islamic nation, under which all parties and Islamic groups will become united
    “The Rulers” makes plain that all the above-mentioned phases “are preliminary steps to reach the (fifth) phase.”
    The Muslim Brothers know that by masking their ideological agenda as a religious program, they can use Western civil liberties and tolerance as weapons in their stealthy jihad. For this strategy to succeed, however, they must suppress any discussion or understanding of the true nature of Shariah.
    (Continued)

  • callmeroy

    What is at stake in this war? Look no further than The American Legion’s Americanism Manual, which defines Americanism as “love of America; loyalty to her institutions as the best yet devised by man to secure life, liberty, individual dignity and happiness; and the willingness to defend our country and Flag against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
    Such values cannot coexist with Shariah, which demands the destruction of democratic nations like the United States, its governing institutions and liberties. Shariah would supplant them with a repressive, transnational, theocratic government abroad and at home.
    The extraordinary reality is that none of this – the authoritative and malevolent nature of Shariah, its utter incompatibility with our civilization, and its adherents’ determination to force us to convert, submit or die – is concealed from those willing to learn the truth. To the contrary, the facts are widely available via books, the Internet, DVDs and mosques, both here and overseas. Interestingly, on Dec. 1, 2005, Gen. Peter Pace, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called on his troops to expose themselves to precisely this sort of information: “I say you need to get out and read what our enemies have said. Remember Hitler. Remember he wrote ?Mein Kampf.’ He said in writing exactly what his plan was, and we collectively ignored that to our great detriment. Now, our enemies have said publicly on film, on the Internet, their goal is to destroy our way of life. No equivocation on their part.”
    As it happens, Maj. Stephen Coughlin, a lawyer and Army Reserves intelligence specialist recruited by the Joint Chiefs to be their expert on the doctrine and jurisprudence of jihad, took Pace’s admonition to heart. He wrote a master’s thesis inspired by the chairman’s quote, titled “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad.”
    Coughlin’s briefings explicitly and repeatedly warned military leaders of the enemy’s “threat doctrine” – drawing from, among Islamic texts, passages the Fort Hood suspect used to justify his massacre. Unfortunately, engaging in such analysis, let alone acting on it, was powerfully discouraged in January 2008 when Coughlin was dismissed from the Joint Staff after he ran afoul of a Muslim Brother then working for Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England.
    In short, we are today confronted by the cumulative effect of a sustained and collective dereliction of duty, one that is putting our country in extreme peril. Our armed forces – like their counterparts in the intelligence community, Department of Homeland Security and law enforcement – have a professional duty to know the enemy and develop appropriate responses to the threat doctrine. If this dereliction is allowed to persist, it is predictable that more Americans will die, both on foreign battlefields and at home.
    The American people also need to become knowledgeable about the threat of Shariah and insist that action be taken at federal, state and local levels to keep our country Shariah-free. This toxic ideology, if left unchecked, can destroy the country and institutions that are, indeed, “the best yet devised by man to secure life, liberty, individual dignity and happiness.”