Western Resistance

« World: Kofi Annan, Shill for Mohammad | | Iran: Another Cartoon Controvery Brews »

February 12, 2006

World: al-Reuters Defends Islamic Violence

This is the most naked, disgusting piece of propaganda masquerading as news I have ever seen. The friend who sent it writes; "I wonder how
hard Reuters tried to find not just idiots who would say such things,
but people so dishonest, morally depraved and lacking any sense of
pride in their civilization." Unfortunately, I don't think they had to try that hard. Here is the mother of all dishonest news stories: Mohammad cartoon protests aren't unique to Islam

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The violence linked to cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad is not unique to Islam, experts say, and the protests reflect political and cultural passions more than the faith's core values.

Looking for distinct features that would make Islam liable for the cartoon-related violence around the world does little to explain it, said the Rev. Patrick Gaffney, an anthropologist and expert on Islam at the University of Notre Dame.

"There are parallel behaviors in every tradition," he said. "Buddhism has a violent strain despite its pacifism ... You think about Hinduism and nonviolence but (Mohandas) Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu."[...]

What is different about Islam, Father Gaffney, is that "the violent strain" is the religion itself, inspired by the doctrines of Jihad and the legal system of Shar'ia. There are no similar institutions in any other major religion.

Ruediger Seesemann, a professor of religion at Northwestern University, said the present situation has exploded because beyond whatever offense the cartoons carry, "Muslims feel under siege."

On top of the "physical occupation of Iraq," he said, the cartoon controversy came "at a moment of time when it's the straw that broke the camel's back."

And here I was thinking it was the Muslims doing the siege, not the besieged.

"It is often said in the media that Islam prohibits images of the Prophet," Seesemann said. "This is not correct. Muslims themselves have portrayed the Prophet.

This is when you know the good professor is utterly dishonest. Although opinions differ and there have been "bad" Muslims that have ignored the prohibitions, a plain reading of Islamic Law shows pictures are prohibited. As my copy of The Reliance of the Traveller puts it:

w50.2 The reason for the unlawfulness of pictorial representations is that it imitates the creative act of Allah Most High, as is indicated by the hadith related by Bukhari and Muslim that 'A'isha (Allah be well pleased with her) said, "The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) returned from a trip, and I had draped a cloth with pictures on it over a small closet. When he saw it, re ripped it down, his face colored, and he said,

"A'isha, the people most severely tortured by Allah on the Day of Judgement will be those who try to imitate what Allah has created,[...]'"

How come a professor of Religion at Northwestern University doesn't know that? The op-ed article continues:

Juan Cole, a professor of history at the University of Michigan, said in a commentary on his Web site that the current controversy "must be understood in historical context."

"Most Muslim societies have spent the past two centuries either under European rule or heavy European influence and most colonial masters and their helpmates among the missionaries were not shy about letting local people know exactly how barbaric they thought the Muslim faith was," he wrote.[...]

It is all about colonialism! (According to the previous commenter, it was all about discrimination and the Iraq war.) Juan Cole's commentary gets physically disgusting after those two paragraphs, read it at your own peril. Now let's go to our next professor:

John Esposito, a professor at Georgetown University and author of "What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam and Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam," agrees that there is nothing in the faith that makes its adherents prone to reacting differently to ridicule.

Martin Luther King Jr., he said, once called riots the voice of the voiceless.

"From my point of view this is a lot more about the context in which this is occurring than about the blasphemy," he said in an interview.[...]

Yeah, the context is called Islamic supremacism and Western cowardice, you over-educated moron. (Only a highly educated "intellectual" could say something that stupid.) And notice how the Martin Luther King quote is designed to justify the violence, and condemn European societies. These professors as well as author Michael Conlon, are enemies; let's not forget that fact.

Posted by Ruy Diaz at February 12, 2006 12:04 PM

Comments

Post a comment