Robert Spencer

|

Pamela Geller

|

Bat Ye'or

|

Brigitte Gabriel

|

Daniel Pipes

|

Debbie Schlussel

|

Walid Shoebat

|

Joe Kaufman

|

Wafa Sultan

|

Geert Wilders

|

The Nuclear Card

Daniel Pipes: A Muhammad Cartoon A Day

Posted on 22 September 2012 by Ilisha

Our Leader

Afghans hold placards reading: “Our leader Mohammed” during a protest against an anti-Islam film in Kabul, Afghanistan, Thursday, Sept. 20, 2012. (AP Photo/Ahmad Jamshid)

On Friday, Youm-e-Ishq-e-Rasool (pbuh) [love of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Day] was observed throughout Pakistan. Many demonstrators  carried signs with red hearts bearing the Prophet’s name and inspiring slogans (“Our leader Muhammad” and “Honor Our Prophet”). This positive theme had great potential, but unfortunately, was marred by more violence.

A  thousand peaceful protests can be overshadowed by a single protest turned deadly, especially with the media so eager to highlight episodes of violence. Loons can hardly contain their glee.

In fact, Daniel Pipes wants to see more violence and mayhem. A lot more, until the so-called “Islamists” are finally tamed.

In his recent article published on mainstream conduit of hate, Fox News, Pipes has dipped into the historical archive and culled together an assortment of events, including the controversies over Salmon Rushdie’s lackluster book more than two decades ago, the Danish Cartoons of 2005, the nutty antics of the infamous “Reverend” Terry Jones, Qur’an burnings, and the recent provocations by the French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hedbo. He clearly relishes each and every incident that reinforces the notion of perpetual “Muslim outrage.”

According to his cynical interpretation of events, Muslims aren’t protesting because they’re defending their beloved Prophet Muhammad and their routinely maligned faith, Islam. Rather, Muslims, or “Islamists” in loon parlance, are protesting violently because they want to take over the West and abolish free speech.

Despite Pipes hateful motives and cynical exploitation of tragic events, he’s right about one thing: Provocateurs cannot be stopped by protests, and a violent backlash will only encourage more provocations. The right to free speech and exercising that right in a moral or responsible way are two different things, but it isn’t practical to legislate kindness and decency.

Many Muslims are quite understandably sickened and angered by attacks on their faith and the prophet they revere, but Islam is a religion of love and mercy, not of anger and revenge:

And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend. Qur’an 41:34

And the servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, “Peace!” Qur’an: 25:63 

You are neither hard-hearted nor of fierce character, nor one who shouts in the markets. You do not return evil for evil, but excuse and forgive.  The Prophet Muhammad

These outrageous provocations will not end until they cease to generate sensational headlines, or in Pipe’s own callous words, ”until the Islamists [sic] become accustomed to the fact that we turn sacred cows into hamburger.”

A Muhammad Cartoon a day

by Daniel Pipes, Fox News

When Salman Rushdie mocked Islamic sanctities in his magical 1989 realist novel “The Satanic Verses,” Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini did something shockingly original: He issued a death edict on Rushdie and all those connected to the production of his book. By doing this, Khomeini sought to impose Islamic mores and laws on the West. We don’t insult the prophet, he effectively said, and neither can you.

That started a trend of condemning those in the West deemed anti-Islamic that persists to this day. Again and again, when Westerners are perceived as denigrating Muhammad, the Koran, or Islam, Islamists demonstrate, riot or kill.

Khomeini’s edict also had the unexpected side effect of empowering individuals – Western and Islamist alike – to drive their countries’ policies.

Fleming Rose, a newspaper editor, created the greatest crisis for Denmark since World War II by publishing 12 cartoons depicting Muhammad. Florida pastor Terry Jones sowed panic among American commanders in Afghanistan by threatening to burn a Koran. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula and friends prompted a crisis in U.S.-Egyptian relations with his amateurish “Innocence of Muslims” video. And the satirical French weekly Charlie Hebdo caused the French government to temporarily shut down diplomatic missions in 20 countries. Plans by the German satirical magazine Titanic  to publish attacks on Muhammad likewise led German missions to be closed.

On the Islamist side, an individual or group took one of these perceived offenses and turned it into a reason to riot. Khomeini did this with “The Satanic Verses.” Ahmad Abu Laban did likewise with the Danish cartoons. Afghan President Hamid Karzai goaded his people to riot over burned Korans by American soldiers, and Egyptian preacher Khaled Abdullah turned “Innocence of Muslims” into an international event.

Any Westerner can now buy a Koran for a dollar and burn it, while any Muslim with a platform can transform that act into a fighting offense. As passions rise on both sides of the divide, Western provocateurs and Islamist hotheads have found each other, as confrontations occur with increasing frequency.

Which prompts this question: What would happen if publishers and managers of major media outlets reached a consensus — “Enough of this intimidation, we will publish the most famous Danish Muhammad cartoon every day, until the Islamists tire out and no longer riot”? What would happen if Korans were recurrently burned?

Would repetition inspire institutionalization, generate ever-more outraged responses, and offer a vehicle for Islamists to ride to greater power? Or would it lead to routinization, to a wearing out of Islamists, and a realization that violence is counter-productive to their cause?

I predict the latter. A Muhammad cartoon published each day, or Koranic desecrations on a quasi-regular basis, would make it harder for Islamists to mobilize Muslim mobs. Westerners could then once again treat Islam as they do other religions – freely, to criticize without fear. That would demonstrate to Islamists that Westerners will not capitulate, that they reject Islamic law, that they are ready to stand up for their values.

So, this is my plea to all Western editors and producers: Display the Muhammad cartoon daily, until the Islamists become accustomed to the fact that we turn sacred cows into hamburger.

 

  • Sir David

    Dan
    I am not so sure , have you ever tried to read Satanic Verses?
    Pure gibberish , unreadable never mind the religious stuff. So maybe written by a fish

    Sir David

  • Dan Dorfman

    Eh, don’t you mean “SalmAn” Rushdie, not “SalmOn” Rushdie? I’m pretty sure Mr. Rushdie is not secretly a saltwater leaping fish.

  • Ahmed

    Afxi Ahmed.

    You seem like a uncle tom why else would you love Goodman’s narrow minded opinion that Israel be allowed to have nuclear weapons and Iran shouldn’t.

    You wouldn’t happen to be related to Akbar Ahmed would you?
    He’s another uncle tom always seeking the zionist’s approval.

  • http://musemash.tumblr.com/ David D. Fowler

    Sir David: Thanks for your kind comment. It’s nice to know I didn’t do all that work in vain! You might be interested to know that one of my postings got censored by YouTube – the very people who are so adamantly championing the ‘right’ of free speech in the case of the anti-Muslim movie. I posted a comment on the trailer for the film ’2016: Obama’s America’, and included a link to a satirical blog post I did about the right-wing Christian opposition to Obama. The automatic YouTube posting mechanism responded with an ‘Error’ message. So I tried posting my comment without the link, and it was accepted. Very strange. As you probably know, they allow all sorts of nasty comments on YouTube, from angry people saying stupid things. My comment was harsh, but not profane. I guess they have a policy prohibiting a poster from including a link to another site. But this is still censorship, and therefore makes YouTube look rather hypocritical in its support of ‘free speech.’ If you want to see my 2016 satire, it’s at this link: http://musemash.tumblr.com/post/30967255765/gods-country-a-modest-proposal Regarding the anti-Islam kerfuffle: Loonwatch just posted a link to a Guardian article about upcoming films, available here:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/sep/26/muhammad-movies-planned?intcmp=239
    Looks like we may be in for more stupid, inept attacks on Muslim beliefs. As a believer in Jesus, I have no problem with intelligent critics of Christian faith. I would also have no problem with a film which attempts to sort through legend and myth, and present a fair-minded critique of Muhammad and Islam. Those topics are also fair game for intelligent satire — but not nasty, mean-spirited slander in the name of parody. I’d like to think that most of the people posting on this thread — including Muslims — would agree with this, intellectually. God help us all, as the clowns take over the circus.

  • Afxi Ahmed

    @Yitzchak Goodman…i love ur analysis and ur opionion! I am a muslim and i promote love n peace! I LOVE Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)and all others before him(MAY GOD BLESS THEM ALL) n i just urge people to get past the hatred n promote love like our Prophet did:)

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32)

    David Fowler
    I thought it a good post making many valid points I espicially like your last line

    “There will never be religious tolerance in this world if insult is the language of choice.”

    Unfortunetly for Pipes and his ilk it has always been their language of
    choice.
    I still believe that the full film will never be shown simply because it was never made , oh I think it was paid for, the trailer has been seen , riots a plenty and the money is now far, far away . Others names not yet known have seen to that . Remember Mel Brooks “the producers” ?

    Sir David

  • http://musemash.tumblr.com/ David D. Fowler

    I was looking for intelligent rebuttals to Daniel Pipes’ astonishing editorial, and stumbled upon this website. My compliments, for providing a worthwhile forum for such an explosive topic. It is great to see so many people discussing this issue – and for the most part, doing so in a respectful and enlightening manner. I’d like to weigh in on the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ issue by including a link to a blog posting I recently did, which includes my views on the Pipes commentary. I hope my heartfelt (and rather strongly expressed) opinion will stimulate further worthwhile discussion. I would welcome any reasoned response, positive or negative. Here’s the link: http://musemash.tumblr.com/post/32379999740/disgracing-freedom-of-speech

  • Dawahfilms

    Who cares anymore? Seriously. These people are only provoking Muslims to fill the void in their meaningless existence. They know their societies are on the verge of collapse so theyre trying to find someone to blame other than themselves.

  • RDS

    Sadly, Dan Pipes’ comment about sacred cows ring disturbingly close to some people who just wants a license to stir up trouble with impunity; whether they’re of the faithful or the faithless.

    Some people really do think that the way to convert other people is to barrage them with the antithesis of whatever it is they hold dear. If they crumble, mission accomplished; if they retaliate, they’re barbarians. This very self-centered method of communication (if it can be called that) is not even concerned about results.

    Maybe everyone will have to acknowledge that deep down, they have this little piece of hatred against anyone or anything that just wants to be set free, and discrimination just becomes its easiest outlet. Hence “turning sacred cows into hamburgers.”

  • Jai

    ”@Ilisha, of course I reject the divinity of jesus. However what I reject or don’t reject isn’t under discussion. We are discussing the ridiculous notion of blasphemy. Muslims can revere anybody they like however the islamic version of jesus is not the christian version of jesus and thus the islamic version is blasphemous to christians, similarly christians reject the prophethood of mohammed which is, I assume, blasphemous to muslims. Frankly it is all very silly.”

    Steve’s “response” above completely avoids answering the actual question.

    So, let’s repeat the question yet again:

    Which of the following two stances is actually far more insulting to Christians and a far more hostile denial of Christianity’s central tenets ?

    Islam’s tremendous reverence for the historical Jesus as a genuinely divinely-inspired prophet and a great saintly figure ?

    Or the alleged “atheist” Steve’s denial of God’s very existence, with the implication that the historical Jesus was not divinely-inspired at all, and was therefore severely delusional at best and a fraudulent liar at worst ?

  • http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

    @Goodman

    “I don’t want that regime to have nukes.”

    A fair attitude would be that NO ONE has nukes.

  • http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

    Yitzchak,

    Have a blessed Yom Kippur!

  • http://judeopundit.blogspot.org Yitzchak Goodman

    It is now Erev Yom Kippur, so I won’t be posting any further comments to this thread even though I see some things were responses addresed to me. If anyone here is observing Yom Kippur: have an easy fast.

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32)

    Yitchak
    OK so the question is why does you think Isreal has atomic weapons ?
    I will make it easy for you and make it muliple choice

    a) because its soooo fashionable this year along with the colour toupe and wearing a snood

    b) we just found them in the desert along with the secret dead sea scrolls

    c) to scare the hell out of the neighbours

    I think its C How about you.

    In reality and being serious its how the prime minister of Isreal, the current one and the ones in the future think. There is the problem as I think you may be a reasonable guy but the current prime minister? and who ever is the next prime minister ?

    Sir David
    Angers

  • Steve

    @Ilisha, of course I reject the divinity of jesus. However what I reject or don’t reject isn’t under discussion. We are discussing the ridiculous notion of blasphemy. Muslims can revere anybody they like however the islamic version of jesus is not the christian version of jesus and thus the islamic version is blasphemous to christians, similarly christians reject the prophethood of mohammed which is, I assume, blasphemous to muslims. Frankly it is all very silly.

  • Géji

    By the way Goodman, speaking of predicting what the “intend” of a particular group would be, wasn’t that precisely the bigoted Nazi way at predicting what Jews “intend” would be? hummm!

  • http://judeopundit.blogspot.com Yitzchak Goodman

    Why don’t you just come out and flatly say that Muslims shouldn’t have nukes while Jews should because that is what you truly believe in

    Here’s an English sentence from Fars News (June 27th, 2012):

    Iranian First Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi condemned Zionists for inciting global drug trade and addiction in a bid to annihilate non-Jewish communities in accordance with Talmudic teachings.

    I don’t want that regime to have nukes.

Advertise Here
Advertise Here