Muhammad: The "Banned" Images
shows the challenge of free speech to Islam this century.
The Internet and globalisation
represent the first serious intellectual challenge Islam has ever faced
in its history
(because previously it killed or silenced all critics).
Belief in Islam will falter in this century
once young Muslims hear, for the first time ever,
alternative ideas while they are growing up.
Welcome to the land of free speech:
This billboard caused controversy when it was erected in Indianapolis in June 2017.
It is certainly rude about Muhammad, but is anything on it actually false?
explain in detail why the statements are true, citing the Islamic texts.
In the modern world,
these challenges to Islam will occur again and again,
and they cannot just be whitewashed away.
Pathetic article at Snopes claims the statements are false.
They credulously repeat the religious apologetics of devout Muslims.
Snopes burns a lot of credibility by publishing junk like this.
They are fine on urban legends and simple factual issues.
But this article shows they cannot be trusted on politics and religion.
Muslims worldwide support the death penalty for apostasy.
Poll of 2012, released Apr 2013.
Egyptian cleric Mazen Al-Sarsawi, Jan 2011, openly says that Muslims are not allowed to leave Islam.
"God says that there is no coercion in Islam. One is free to be a believer or an infidel. That is the starting point, but is someone who converted to Islam allowed to change his mind? No, he is not.
That is a completely different story. Someone who converted and got a taste of the perfection of Islam is not allowed to leave the fold of Islam whenever he feels like it."
Richard Dawkins, Jan 2008, nails the slippery British Muslim,
Chairman of the Association of Muslim Schools,
on the penalty for apostasy in Islam.
He finally admits that it is death.
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali
and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas
who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of
'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
- The Hadith,
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57.
Search for more.
There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa.
asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed.
This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases)
and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed.
- The Hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari,
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58.
said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
- The Hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari,
Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17.
Syrian Muslim turned atheist, forced to leave Syria because of bigotry,
moved to the US.
Like so many people who have known tyranny, he loves western freedom:
"I came here for freedom. I love this country more than any place else. ... Of all the people I've met, Americans are the best people."
For the above innocuous interview, he received
from violent Muslims.
I will stop thinking Islam is a violent, intolerant religion
when Muslims stop making death threats to apostates.
points out that Husibi does say some rubbish, such as referring to
"fundamentalist Christians like
[who was not a fundamentalist Christian]
"and fundamentalist Jews who kill Muslim children in the Gaza Strip".
[What incident is he referring to?]
Incidentally, she and her family are refugees from the
racist mass murderer
Her main point is that the
Islamic world needs a Reformation
like the Christian one
that led ultimately to the Enlightenment,
and that the Islamic Reformation must begin
among Muslims in the West and
spread from there.
She calls on non-Muslims to
support the reformation of Islam and not to be cowed by
fear of being called racist.
"But, for all of the threats, there's good news:
I'm hearing more support, affection and even love from fellow Muslims than I thought possible.
Two groups in particular - young Muslims and Muslim women -
have flooded my Web site with letters of relief and thanks.
They are relieved that somebody is saying out loud words they have only whispered,
and grateful that they're being given the permission to think for themselves."
She thinks that
"Muslims in the West ...
are best poised to revive Islam's tradition of independent reasoning.
Why in the West? Because it's here that we already enjoy the precious freedoms
to think, express, challenge and be challenged - all without fear of state reprisal."
The primitive savages of
"Sharia 4 Belgium"
disrupt a talk by Irshad Manji
in the Netherlands, Dec 2011.
Every member of
"Sharia 4 Belgium" should be deported.
A true Arab hero
- Arab-American psychologist
declares on Al Jazeera television:
"I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew.
I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural"
To the response of her ignorant Islamic cleric questioner, she says:
you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me.
You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern,
whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary,
or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs."
What a hero!
Such delicious disrespect to an Islamic cleric.
She is brilliant on the modern war with Islamism:
"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions,
or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras.
It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages
and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century.
It is a clash between civilization and backwardness,
between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.
It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship.
It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand.
It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings."
Wafa Sultan, 4 Mar 2008,
takes on an Islamist thug who calls for attacks on the West because of cartoons.
Wafa Sultan says:
"All religions and faiths, throughout the history of humanity, have been subject to criticism and affronts. With time, this has helped in their reform and development. Any belief that chops off the heads of its critics is doomed to turn into terrorism and tyranny. This has been the condition of Islam, from its inception to this day.
The Muslims must learn how to listen to the criticism of others, and maybe then they will reexamine their terrorist teachings. When they manage to do so, the world will view them in a better light".
Her father was head of Egyptian military intelligence in Gaza and Sinai
in the 1950s.
He started a campaign of
terror attacks on Israeli civilians
for the thug dictator
Israel assassinated her father in 1956.
We were brought up to hate - and we do
- article on her upbringing in Egypt.
"Sadly, the way I was raised was not unique. Hundreds of millions of other Muslims also
have been raised with the same hatred of the West and Israel as a way to distract from the
failings of their leaders. Things have not changed since I was a little girl in the 1950s."
She is great.
She refers to
"the Islamo-fascist president of Iran".
Refreshing to hear that from an Arab Muslim woman.
And some lefties say "Islamo-fascist" is a
term that we cannot use.
"I was born and raised as a Muslim in Cairo, Egypt and the Gaza Strip. I attended Gaza elementary schools where I learned hatred, vengeance and retaliation. Peace was never as an option; it was considered a sign of defeat and weakness. Those who wanted peace and compromise were called traitors. Jews were described as monsters, apes and pigs and the enemies of God from the pulpits of mosques.
The teachers filled our hearts with fear of Jews, which made hatred come easy and terrorism tolerated. The propaganda of jihad, hatred and anti-Semitism was everywhere and not just in schools; it was in mosques, newspapers, movies, by politicians, in the arts and in many Jihadist songs over the radio."
"I moved to America in 1978 and was glad to leave the culture of jihad, dictatorships and police states behind."
an Iraqi Muslim immigrant to America
who wrote a pro-Israel poem on Nonie Darwish's
"Arabs for Israel" site,
was attacked in Missouri in Aug 2011.
Islamic fascists, who due to some appalling error were let into the United States,
carved a Star of David on his back.
Nonie Darwish on
She makes the point that the global Islamic jihad has a dynamic of its own,
and wars with free peoples because it must,
not because of anything the free peoples have done.
"There's something every American must understand,
after 9/11 especially.
There is nothing that America has or has not done
that causes terrorism."
Shamefully for Austria,
she was convicted on 15 Feb 2011 of "denigration of the teachings of a legally recognized religion" -
as if that should be illegal in any Enlightenment country!
She was fined.
But the shame all belongs to Austria.
Specifically, Judge Bettina Neubauer
it is illegal in Austria to say or imply that
Muhammad was a paedophile.
Judge Bettina Neubauer (a woman!)
was impressed by the fact that
"He was still married to Aisha when she was 18."
So she ruled that Muhammad was not a paedophile,
and that the Austrian state should be able to force everyone by law to agree!
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, 16 Feb 2011, on the judge's ruling:
"The reasoning used in her judgment is despicable, and a slap in the face for every woman and girl, from every race, religion, or nationality.
Marrying and molesting a child is not to be tolerated, not in the 6th century, not in the 16th century, and definitely not in the 21st century. One would expect a woman, let along a judge, to know this."
Mark Steyn, 19 Feb 2011, says Judge Bettina Neubauer is giving a green light to paedophiles.
"I mean, it's not like she'll be a child forever, right?"
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff loses appeal, Dec 2011, in a further bizarre ruling.
Now the court says it is ok to say Muhammad had sex with a child,
but it is not ok to "ridicule" Muhammad!
They're making it up as they go along.
A New "Silent Night" Descends on Austria, Diana West, December 23, 2011.
"Freedom of speech no longer exists in Austria
It is wrong, according to the Austrian court, to look down on sex with children if the alleged perp, centuries ago, was the Islamic prophet.
That the verdict .. actually imperils the most innocent and vulnerable among us - little girls whose molestation the courts have implicitly excused as a religious rite - only underscores the depravity of the Vienna high court."
Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
She calls on the west to help Muslims reform:
"They know that Muhammad calls for the slaughter of infidels;
they know that the open society rightly condemns the slaughter of innocents.
They are caught in a mental cramp of cognitive dissonance and
it is up to the west to support the reformers in trying to ease them out of that painful contradiction.
The western cultural relativists, who flinch from criticising Muhammad for fear of offending Muslims,
rob Muslims of an opportunity to review their own moral values.
this attitude betrays Muslim reformers who desperately require the support
- and even the physical protection
- of their natural allies in the west."
She is so wonderfully optimistic:
"Perhaps thinking of the Iraq war, Mr. Gourevitch suggested that a foreign Enlightenment
can't be fast-tracked onto another culture. Ms. Ali replied smoothly that the Arab world
has managed to borrow many things from the West, such as cars and clothing styles,
so she saw no reason why they couldn't borrow values as well."
She understands the west, and the left, so well:
"'My criticism of the West, especially of liberals, is that they do take freedom for granted,'
Ms. Ali responded. She noted that Western Europeans born after World War II are unused to conflict.
'They have lost the instinct to recognize that there can be such a thing as an enemy
or a threat to freedom'".
Some people complain that because ex-Muslims
like Ayaan are now atheists,
they will play no role in the reform of Islam.
But this discounts what happened with Christianity.
It was the
pressure from years of ex-Christian and semi-Christian
deists, agnostics, atheists, dissenters, and freethinkers
of all sorts, that made Christianity liberal and tolerant,
almost as much as any liberal movement within orthodox Christianity.
Christians did listen to ex-Christians and lapsed Christians,
and did change their actions in response.
So that today Christians have a firm belief in freedom of religion
whereas once they opposed it.
So the ex-Muslims, if they are allowed to speak (and live),
will have a major role to play in forging a more tolerant Islam
that we all hope to see.
"The western cultural relativists, who flinch from criticising Muhammad for fear of offending Muslims, rob Muslims of an opportunity to review their own moral values. ... this attitude betrays Muslim reformers who desperately require the support - and even the physical protection - of their natural allies in the west."
- Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Protesters against Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
Seattle, Sept 2010.
On the one hand, someone who believes in and champions the Western Enlightenment.
On the other, third world religious nuts from the 7th century AD.
Oh, it's so hard to choose.
Critics of Ayaan Hirsi Ali
It is true that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has used language I would not use.
But she is basically a western secular liberal,
not a would-be totalitarian.
See what you make of the following.
"The plot to murder Muslim soldiers in the British Army is consistent with the purest teachings of Islam, which encourages you to kill Muslims who join the infidel army. Violence is inherent in Islam - it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder. ... the battle against terrorism will ultimately be lost unless we realise that it's not just with extremist elements within Islam, but the ideology of Islam itself."
She also says:
"Islam is the new fascism. Just like Nazism started with Hitler's vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate - a society ruled by Sharia law - in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism. Young Muslims need to be persuaded that the vision of the Prophet Mohammed is a bad one, and you aren't going to get that in Islamic faith schools.
We have to persuade young Muslims that liberal democracy is superior, that what the Prophet Mohammed said is not right, that the Koran is a man-made brutal doctrine of death whose time has long passed. We have to show the next generation of Muslims, the children, that they have a choice and to do that - to have any hope whatsoever - we have to close down Islamic faith schools."
I don't agree with everything she says here.
But none of it is beyond the pale of robust debate.
Reason: "Should we acknowledge that organized religion has sometimes sparked precisely the kinds of emancipation movements that could lift Islam into modern times? ... Do you think Islam could bring about similar social and political changes?"
Hirsi Ali: "Only if Islam is defeated. Because right now, the political side of Islam, the power-hungry expansionist side of Islam, has become superior to the Sufis and the Ismailis and the peace-seeking Muslims."
Reason: "Don't you mean defeating radical Islam?"
Hirsi Ali: "No. Islam, period. Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It's very difficult to even talk about peace now. They're not interested in peace."
Reason: "We have to crush the world's 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, "defeat Islam"?"
Hirsi Ali: "I think that we are at war with Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they're the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, "This is a warning. We won't accept this anymore." There comes a moment when you crush your enemy."
Hirsi Ali: "In all forms, and if you don't do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed."
Reason: "Are we really heading toward anything so ominous?"
Hirsi Ali: "I think that's where we're heading. We're heading there because the West has been in denial for a long time. It did not respond to the signals that were smaller and easier to take care of.
... There is no moderate Islam. There are Muslims who are passive, who don't all follow the rules of Islam, but there's really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There's nothing moderate about it."
Reason: "So when even a hard-line critic of Islam such as Daniel Pipes says, "Radical Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution," he's wrong?"
Hirsi Ali: "He's wrong. Sorry about that."
Again, I don't agree with what she says here.
It is full of flaws.
But I find it symbolic rather than literal.
She does not really support any program of oppression and genocide.
Peaceful Ahmadi Muslim
Kashif N. Chaudhry,
30 Apr 2014, compares her to the Taliban for the above statements.
But, while it is fine to attack her views and language,
to defend such a comparison
he needs to show that she supports
a campaign of violence against random innocent Muslim people.
He needs to show that she supports
random bomb attacks on innocent Muslims.
Otherwise she is not like the Taliban at all.
Kashif N. Chaudhry, 21 June 2014,
compares Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sam Harris to Taliban killers and Soviet killers.
They are both western liberal democrats.
To defend his comparison,
Chaudhry needs to show that Hirsi Ali and Harris support
rounding up Muslims and putting them in camps.
Otherwise they are not like the Soviet atheists at all.
grew up in one of the world's freest and most tolerant societies,
won after hundreds of years of struggle,
yet rejected it and turned to medieval
hatred and religious fascism.
instead of leaving
and going to some tyrannical hellhole where he would be happy,
he stuck around Holland and tried to attack it.
In future, could people like these
The world is a big place, and there are lots of medieval hellholes where you could be happy.
The Mayor of Rotterdam, a Moroccan Muslim immigrant, tells Muslims who don't like the Netherlands to leave it, Jan 2015.
"It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom
But if you donít like freedom, for heavenís sake pack your bags and leave.
There may be a place in the world where you can be yourself, be honest with yourself and do not go and kill innocent journalists.
And if you do not like it here because humorists you do not like make a newspaper, may I then say you can fuck off.
This is stupid, this so incomprehensible. Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here."
Wilders is clearly non racist.
He wants to liberate Muslims from Islam:
"Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. That is a shame, because free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world."
There is clear water between me and Wilders:
Wilders has said:
(a) the Koran "incites hatred" and
"promotes violence", and:
should be outlawed
in the Netherlands:
"I have had enough of the reverence for Allah and Mohammed in the Netherlands: There should not be even one more mosque. I have had enough of the Koran in the Netherlands. Ban that wretched book.
Enough is enough."
Point (a) seems obviously true, but
I disagree that the Koran should be banned,
on the grounds of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
There are no grounds on which you could ban the Koran
that would not also
ban the hate-filled, bloodthirsty
Wilders, Apr 2009, says:
"We should also stop pretending that Islam is a religion, sure, it has religious symbols, but it's not a religion. It is a totalitarian ideology and the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam."
I absolutely reject this idea.
Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of the West.
We should not toss it away lightly.
Geert Wilders speech in London, Mar 2010. Most of it is fine, except then he says he wants to ban mosque building:
"Fifth, we will have to forbid the construction of new mosques. ... there should be a mosque building-stop in the West."
A ban on any more Muslim immigration for 10 to 20 years, until the current Muslims integrate better, would be perfectly reasonable, and I would vote for it.
But any restriction on the religious freedom of Muslims who are already in the West would be totally illiberal.
I would agree with
Rusty Shackleford, 30 Apr 2009, on Wilders:
"Geert Wilders appears to be stuck with the same European mentality which wishes to ban any movement that it sees as dangerous or antisocial.
What we need in the fight against political Islam are not laws making us less free.
... We didn't ban the CPUSA, yet we won the Cold War anyway."
reconsiders his view, not on bans, but on Wilders.
I think he was right first time.
Wilders speech at Ground Zero, 11 Sept 2010. I still don't agree with him about blocking the mosque, but
he has a nice line on New York:
"When the forces of Jihad attacked New York, they attacked the world.
Among those lost were people from 55 nations, people of every religion and every persuasion. No place on earth had a more multi-ethnic, multi-racial, and multi-lingual workforce than New York's proud towers.
That is exactly why they were targeted. They constituted an insult to those who hold that there can be no peaceful cooperation among people and nations without submission to Sharia; to those who wish to impose the legal system of Islam on the rest of us.
But New York and Sharia are incompatible. New York stands for freedom, openness and tolerance."
a short film criticizing the Quran, Mar 2008.
Fitna is not a bad film, but it muddies the waters,
as Wilders does,
by presenting this as a war with all of Islam.
I deny this.
The situation is not as hopeless and desperate as that.
Only Islamism has to be defeated, not all of Islam.
Wikileaks hosted the film
and, in an early sign of their crap politics,
insisted on bundling it
with an ignorant, pathetic Saudi Muslim reply called "Schism".
Taliban kill Dutch troops
in response to Fitna:
"The Taliban were so offended that Wilders linked Islam to violence, that they killed two Dutch troops over it.
Proving definitively that Islam is in no way, shape or form an inspiration for violent actions."
"The problem is not, as is often alleged, that governments cannot afford to protect every person who speaks out against Muslim intolerance. The problem is that so few people do speak out. If there were ten thousand Ayaan Hirsi Ali's, the risk to each would be radically reduced.
The lesson we should draw from the Fitna controversy is that
we need more criticism of Islam, not less. Let it come down in such torrents that not even the most deluded Islamist could conceive of containing it. As Ibn Warraq .. said in response to recent events:
'It is perverse for the western media to lament the lack of an Islamic reformation and willfully ignore works such as Wilders' film, Fitna.
How do they think reformation will come about if not with criticism?' "
"Wilders's populist and nativist politics are exactly opposed to my own views, and entirely beside the point. ...
Mockery and denunciation of what others hold literally sacred will inevitably cause anguish and outrage. And faced with mental suffering on the part of some of its citizens,
a free society must do nothing at all. No one is entitled to restitution for hurt feelings: not now; not ever."
They want to make it illegal to compare
Should it also be illegal to compare Christianity to Nazism?
As I say above, I do not agree with everything Wilders says.
But all of it should be legal in a free society.
on the double standards:
"the reason he's being prosecuted is because his critics reacted violently".
Wilders is charged with saying:
That the Koran is like Mein Kampf.
Not only should this be legal to say, but evidence could even be found for it.
For example, the Koran has probably inspired more,
not less, killing of innocents.
Anyway, even if the statement is nonsense, it still should be legal.
That the Koran should be banned.
but saying this should be legal.
As Mark Steyn says, 14 Jan 2010:
"I don't happen to agree with banning either the Koran or Mein Kampf. .. But, once you accept the principle that it is acceptable to ban certain books (as Mein Kampf is banned in many parts of Europe), why should it be a crime to propose additional titles?"
That Dutch borders should be closed to all non-western immigrants.
I disagree with this (the West should let in non-Muslims, and Muslim liberals and dissidents),
but saying this should be legal.
That Holland needs to end "the Islamic invasion".
Most people in the West would agree that Islamic immigration should be scaled back
until Muslims integrate better.
As Mark Steyn says:
"In other words, this court is explictly attempting to criminalize the political opinions of a large swath of the Dutch electorate. That doesn't seem a smart move. Whatever it does to Wilders, it risks delegitimizing the state itself. Even by European standards, the Low Countries have too narrow a political discourse, and whenever somebody comes along to broaden the discussion, they either get killed (Pim Fortuyn), banned (Belgium's Vlaams Blok), or prosecuted (Geert Wilders)".
Interviewer: "You said that the Wilders Trial reminds you of justice in your country of origin, Iran. Is that not somewhat exaggerated?"
Afshin Ellian: "The Netherlands, of course, is not comparable with Iran, but it's about perception. If you cannot say that Islam is a backward religion and that Muhammad is a criminal, then you are living in an Islamic country, my friend, because there you also cannot say such things. I may say Christ was a faggot
and Mary was a whore, but apparently I should stay off of Muhammad."
Douglas Murray, January 28th, 2010. The trial:
"is not just about whether our culture will survive, but whether we are even allowed to state the fact that it is being threatened.
The whole thing is so farcical that it would be funny. If it weren't for the fact that it is real. The most popular elected politician in Holland is on trial for saying things which the Dutch people are clearly, in large part, in agreement with. Things which, even if you don't agree with them, must be able to be said.
Whichever way the verdict goes, it can't do anything but good for Wilders's poll ratings. But it is a terrible day for democracy. A political class so intent on criminalising the opinions of its own people cannot last very much longer."
Incredible. The Dutch court, Oct 2010, allows statements from anonymous Muslims claiming they "no longer feel safe" because of what Wilders says.
First, they might be making it up. They are anonymous, so we will never know.
Maybe they are really Islamist activists. We are not allowed know.
Second, has Wilders attacked them?
Has he encouraged anyone to attack them?
Of course not.
Has anyone even attacked them?
Is all speech critical of group X to be illegal because there is a single attack on X?
Then there should be no speech critical of
and anti-jihad activists
because of the long history of violence against them.
All left-wing speech must be made illegal
by these criteria.
(By the way, I oppose that, if you are slow.)
"When a court can take seriously a complaint that Muslims no longer "feel safe" in the Netherlands because of Wilders, the rule of law is on the ropes. Law based on feelings is no law at all; it is just a club to beat the opponents of the elites and the protected classes."
Of course, the anonymous Muslim is not living under police protection.
It is Wilders himself
who is living under police protection from death threats.
For example, a Dutch Muslim "rapper" threatened to kill him:
"This is no joke. Last night I dreamed I chopped your head off".
Has Wilders issued a threat like that to the anonymous Muslim complainer?
I don't agree with Wilders. But making his speech illegal?
That is sharia.
Lebanese-Dutch Islamist rapper
Hozny El Asadi
makes a video
depicting the jihadist execution of
Typical of how Islam deals with its critics.
El Asadi should be arrested, stripped of citizenship and deported to the Lebanon.
2015 video by Wilders about the Muhammad cartoons.
Islam needs to grow up and accept this kind of thing.
It will be a better religion when it does.
"There are people who claim that democracy is incompatible with Islam. But the truth is that democracies, by definition, make a place for people of religious belief. America is one of the most -- is one of the world's leading democracies, and we're also one of the most religious nations in the world. More than three-quarters of our citizens believe in a higher power. Millions worship every week and pray every day. And they do so without fear of reprisal from the state.
In our democracy, we would never punish a person for owning a Koran. We would never issue a death sentence to someone for converting to Islam.
Democracy does not threaten Islam or any religion. Democracy is the only system of government that guarantees their protection."
Speech by President George W. Bush in Egypt, May 2008.
"What is needed from the supporters of this very confident faith is more self-criticism and less self-pity and self-righteousness."
- Christopher Hitchens
sums up the problem with Islam.
Who I block:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who do the following:
(a) Make threats.
(b) Accuse me of crimes.
(c) Comment on my appearance.
(d) Drag in stuff about me not related to the topic. (My professional career, my personal life.)
(e) Complain to my employer.
Yes, people do all these things.