Much as I find right-wing jargon to be mindlessly jingoistic and childishly reactionary, they were onto something when they coined the term "Islamofascism." Here are two reports of the oppressive, totalitarian practices of this depraved religion in action.
- Dog walking banned in Riyadh on the grounds it leads to flirting and, possibly, cooties. Here's something boggling to contemplate about Islamist states. Most totalitarian regimes are run by angry, lonely little pricks who spend their working days in offices thinking up ways to keep people from being happy, ever. But bring Islam into the picture, and your list of "harmless fun activities magically morphed into arrestable offenses" suddenly includes having a pet and meeting girls. And I suppose I would find the concept of an actual division of law enforcement named The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice more laughable — let alone the idea that walking your dog could possibly be something anyone would be demented enough to consider a vice of any kind — if it weren't for the very eerie likelihood that there are Dominionist Christians in this country who are smacking their foreheads and saying, "D'oh! Why didn't we think of that?"
White Europeans continue to prove themselves complete pussies when confronted with the spectre of pissed-off guys with beards. (And allow me to forestall enraged replies from white Europeans who aren't afraid to stand up to Islamist incursions upon your rights, and are embarrassed by those in your cultures, official or unofficial, who let fear conquer them: by all means, feel welcome to sound off in the comments.)
The thing that radical, Great-Satan-hating Islamofascists have learned all too effectively is that nothing scares citizens of (what said citizens like to think are) free Western democracies than the idea that a Muslim is primed to go batshit bombthrowing crazy at the drop of a hat. Confession time: when I was a younger and callow chap, I was in a psychologically abusive relationship with a woman whose tool of control was her temper. I never knew what I might say to cause her to go off like a fragmentation grenade, and so I said very little, even on days which seemed perfectly normal and on which no argument had yet ensued. Everything could be perfectly pleasant, then I could make some innocuous statement about nothing in particular, and within seconds I'd find myself being screamed at, at window rattling volumes. It was, shall we say, an unpleasant period of my life.
Islamists like to use a similar tool of control to stifle freedom — free speech, criticism of their beliefs or their politics, artistic expression — in countries that, remarkably, aren't Islamist theocracies and in which they're even minorities in the population. Ever since 9/11, the new normal has been that anything could drive a Muslim into a homicidal rage at any moment, and you don't have any clue what it is, so it's better not to take chances. Okay, so that may be a stereotype that the vast majority of non-batshit-bombthrowing-crazy Muslims resent, but it's certainly proven useful to the real agitators among them.
The latest victim is a novel, The Jewel of the Medina, by debut writer Sherry Jones, which was slated for publication in the UK weeks from now, only to be pulled at the eleventh hour due to fears that the subject matter — the protagonist is one of Mohammed's child brides — would lead to a Satanic Verses fatwa redux. Isn't it convenient for Islamists that they no longer even have to fight the "War on Terror" any more? The West just hands it to them.
Remarkably, the person who sounded the klaxon of fear regarding Jones's book was not only a Westerner, but a college professor from UT-Austin, Denise Spellberg. Professor, you're a disgrace to our town. Just like that, all that was needed was the teeniest, tiniest fear that the book might "incite acts of violence by a small radical segment," and presto, bye bye freedom of expression and speech!
Okay, so Jones's novel does sound like lurid crap, in the few excerpts that have appeared online. But if it's going to be denied publication, at least do so for the right reasons.
I'm with Pat Condell on this one. I see no reason to be respectful or tolerant towards a religion that condones "honor killings" and thinks walking your fuckmothering dog is some kind of threat to civilization itself. This kind of barbarism earns no respect, none, not even a smidgen. And I also stand with old Ben Franklin, whose famous line about how folks who are willing to surrender a little freedom in exchange for a little security don't deserve either resonates today more than it ever has in history. So, in the spirit of fair play, and as a sop to all those whiny Christians who like to throw the "you only attack us because you're too scared to go after Muslims" line at us, allow me proudly to strike this blow for freedom!
Now if you'll pardon me, my dogs want their walkies.
Let's not forget Jesus and Mo: http://www.jesusandmo.net/ReplyDelete
This should be fun.
Yes, Mr Condells rants cover my opinions on the matter nicely.ReplyDelete
Although many call his opinions bigoted racist hate speech, I think he is dead on and his detractors are just having some kind of a knee-jerk reaction to any form of criticism of religion and 'exotic culture'.
Of course, there's that classic picture of the Muslim demonstrator holding up a sign that read "Behead those who say that Islam is violent." I still suspect though that the man was an infiltrator.ReplyDelete
Hortan: Some people don't realize Islam is not a race.ReplyDelete
Tommy: I suspect Poe's Law applies to radical Islamists too.
I see no reason to be respectful or tolerant towards a religionReplyDelete
I'm willing to cut off the statement right there. The only respect to be given the respect to the right of others to have the belief. Religion itself, under any useful definition, I don't see a situation in which it would be worthy of respect.
That said, using Islam as a basis for banning dog-walking is pushing it to a whole new level of ridiculous. Maybe eventually they'll just ban children altogether and there will be noone left.
Yes, that's the weird thing. Walking a dog could lead to Muslim boys and Muslim girls meeting and producing more Muslims! So clearly, they have to ban it? Oddness.ReplyDelete
Not only is walking your dog banned, but buying a dog OR A CAT as a pet is now banned, too.ReplyDelete
I'm just waiting to hear of the reports of pet-dog-and-cat roundups and slaughters now...
Hell, China already has routine pet-dog-roundups in some provinces, with the added attraction that said pet dogs are then beaten to death with clubs, often in front of the weeping owners. I'm surprised Riyadh hasn't adopted the practice themselves, since the pets now apparently promote vice and discourage virtue.
I must protest your usage of the accursed cartoons of His Holy Visage...Hahahaha! Kidding! Those ridiculous pics sparked riots? Somebody hit the button, this planet needs a reboot.ReplyDelete
Non-appeasing White European here. (btw, if you're looking for more of them, look at Greece. The only reason they're not appeasing however is because they're about as Christian as the US, only Orthodox)ReplyDelete
I'm with Pat Condell as well. He's the voice of reason.
PS: One-time awareness link for blogspot users.
The Jewel of the MedinaReplyDelete
It's good that this book was dropped, but for the wrong reasons. It's childporn. The description of Mo deflowering Aisha is disgusting. Aisha was 9 years old when that scumbag raped her and she turns it to some porn for frustrated housewives. I wrote her on her blog and to her defense she said, in her book Aisha was 14, like that would make it much better. As if a 14 year old has nothing better to do to long for a 50+ year old prick to have sex with her. (Her blog is now gone, btw, seems like too many of us FFIers wrote her. *snicker*)
ixolite: "It's good that this book was dropped, but for the wrong reasons. It's childporn. The description of Mo deflowering Aisha is disgusting. Aisha was 9 years old when that scumbag raped her and she turns it to some porn for frustrated housewives."ReplyDelete
At the risk of becoming hated by every reader, I'm going to have to say that that kind of thinking is pretty stupid. It's just as ridiculous to say that words are child pornography as it would be to say that "Silence of the Lambs" is torture and murder. I don't believe descriptions or even depictions of heinous activities constitute a crime(your local, state or federal laws may disagree, though). As disgusting as the material may be, I don't see how it can be a crime if there isn't an actual person being harmed and so far I've never heard anyone make sense of the "grooming" or "copycat" arguments.
Your attitude is no less nonsensical than that of the "Defenders of Public Morality." Those moronic, odiously-pious crusaders and their "won't somebody please think of the children!" mentality who want to ban everything they find "icky."
Though the book may very well be a piece of sensationalist thrash so pathetic that it makes Dan Brown's "magnum opus" seem like brilliant literature, I still think banning books is deplorable(or in this case, caving to a bunch of Islamotards).
That's just my opinion, of course. What do I know? I'm just a dumb high-schooler. =D
Divided By Zer0 :ReplyDelete
Another non-appeasing white European here, and a Greek to boot.
I concur with you assessment, although I am hoping that the ubiquitous nature of the Greek Orthodox Church will taper down to CoE apathy. Heck, the GOC priests here are civil servants.
Ixolite, one word: Lolita.ReplyDelete
Salman Rushdie's comments on Random House's bedwetting behavior are wonderful - it's not like the islamic world has any use for literature. I mean, not to knock down Sufi poetry or anything, but it's not like Muslims actually read fiction (why dishonor Allah by presuming any human expression could rival his works - Creation and the Koran? That's just asking for a fatwa.)ReplyDelete
I'm no fan of the Malkinite "He-Man Anti-Islamofascist Club", but I do agree that Islam presents a dual threat to liberal Western democracies in the form of thin-skinned concern-trolls whinging about racism and insensitivity and their kissing cousins, the violent nutjobs.
The West needs to buck up and firmly communicate that everyone gets freedom of conscience, but not freedom of behavior, and certainly not freedom from offense. And if the Islamists or any of the other People of the Book don't like it, they can Fuck Right Off. Jews, Catholics, Protestant, Jains, Zoroastrians, Pastafarians - whatever - get with the program or don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
I'm really amazed at how little coverage the Jewel of Medina story has gotten, especially in the atheosphere, so I'm glad to see it mentioned here. We got into it on AGP and one of the big things is your local girl Spellberg is getting a pass except for in the crazy right wingnut media (who, btw, are covering this story but for all the wrong reasons). The woman fomented Muslim anger and then told Random House they better watch out. Wtf?! And don't even get me started with Random House pussing out. This is indeed the War on Terror and apparently we're losing. You can't say we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here if we can't even safely publish a book here. Once again, wtf?!ReplyDelete
Mohammed had pet cats.ReplyDelete