… Perry told the Times, admitting that he treads lightly around radical Islam. “With other targets you’ve got a better idea of who they are but Islamism is very amorphous. You don’t know what the threshold is. Even what seems an innocuous image might trigger off a really violent reaction so I just play safe all the time.” Self-censorship thus boils down to self-preservation. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”
better to die as a man than live as a dhimmi,
No, kid, you haven’t censored yourself – touve been censored. They put the FEAR in ya, and you folded up like a sleeve.
I thought the media line was, “Christians are sometimes violent, too” — in fact, I saw a sub-headline in the once-conservative and now veering to the left National Post sometime in the last month or so to this effect.
Not violent enough to worry about, apparently.
Hence, the gap between liberal theory and practice.
The CBC shows the same deference. I’m looking forward to its ground-breaking “The Pagan Mohammed”, coming to a pre-Ramadan near you.
Well the reason people don’t print or say what they want about Islam is because they are cowered by fear, and when the Muslim slits someone’s throat, the masses do not go into a rage about it – we just put up with it and don’t want to get involved. Maybe we need some rage happening – sooner than later. Unfortunate for the nutjobs, the western world is far superior at rage than they will ever be.
In this case,I think the beheaders born of radical Islam may actually be doing christians a favor too.
I blogged about this guy and his wimpiness months ago.
Where’s my PJ Media check at?
Well, David, things aren’t going to work out any better for me if in exercising my free speech I slap my “Go To Hell Mohammed” vanity plates on my car. It’s a bigger picture than the art community dhimmis, never afraid to offend non-threatening Christian targets, are now cowered by. It’s hard to feel their pain.
Best response in the comments:
David Rusin,
In your excellent article, you ask,
“Will Europe ultimately choose to preserve the foundational values of classical liberalism forged during its Renaissance and Enlightenment?” The irony of your question, is that the mindless decadence, moral cowardice, and fawning dhimmitude evident in so many European intelligensia, is really due to their rejection of the very same element glaringly absent in your question. It was the Reformation and the rediscovery of Christian principles that truly led to what we know as “classical liberalism.” The Enlightenment without the leavening effect of Christianity only gave Europe the Terror, the Triumverate, and Napoleon. The 21st century West’s wistful desire to eat the fruit while severing off the root, to have their cake and eat it too, will only result in more Mohammed Bouyeris sneering with utter contempt at our utter lostness, and with bloody knives and suicide jackets, challenging a decadent culture that is barely surviving by feeding off the bare remains of past generations’ moral, political and spiritual capital.
……Bravo! and to which most of the art community would draw a blank stare.
More confirmation that their strategy works. Why on earth would they cease as long as they get the desired results at very little cost or effort to themselves?
I do however give him credit for being honest, for I find it even more sickening when voluntary dhimmis claim they are only respecting the sensitivity of Muslims.
Hauling someone before a Human Rights Tribunal is another form of intimidation.
Remember that when some leftard “artist” or Hollywood Halfwit is patting themselves on the back for bravely “telling truth to power” by bashing Bush or slagging Christians.
Mohammad enjoyed freedom of speech, but he murdered anybody else over the same freedom.
Why artists ought to be afraid:
One of his disciples, Amru ibn al-Aas’s testimony of Quraysh leaders’ discussion about Muhammad one day: “Never have we had to tolerate from anyone what we have had to tolerate from this man. He slanders our fathers, criticizes our religions and divides our people, and blasphemes our gods. Such grievous things have we tolerated from this man…” The Prophet who was nearby and hearing this conversation, responded, “Men of Quraysh! I will surely repay you for this with interest.”
In trying to prevent Muhammad’s insults, the Quraysh requested him to desist from reviling and speaking evilly of their Gods. They offered to worship his God for one year, if Muhammad would reciprocate by worshipping theirs for the same period. He seriously considered doing this (so much for his one god ideal) and even came up with verses to justify it (the Satanic verses) But ultimately rejected the offer. In rejection, he responded [Q 109:1-6]: “Oh unbelievers, I worship not that which ye worship… To you your religion and to me my religion.” (Which is the correct context for this verse, which Muslims continue to use to prove Islamic ‘tolerance’)
Mo preached his religion in Mecca for 13 years, insulting their Gods, customs, and ancestors and never did he receive any physical assaults of serious nature if at all. In 622, he went to Medina and started up his full fledged terrorist cult.
After his relocation, Mo called the treatment of his community by the Quraysh “tumult and oppression,” which was deemed “worse than slaughter.” In revenge, the Islamic deity revealed a series of verses, sanctioning Holy war against the Quraysh [Q 2:190-193], until the religion was Allah’s [Islam] alone. Muslims must slay the idolaters [the Quraysh] wherever found [2:193]. They must fight the infidels even if they did not like it, because Allah only knows what is best for them [Q 2:216]. They must “fight in Allah’s cause, and slay and be slain” [Q 9:111].
So, as one can see, Mo began conveniently creating verses attributed to his god, but in actual fact to avenge his own personal ego (and hence, all this honour crap that goes on with muslims).
After a lot of people were slaughtered by Mo and his band of murderers, he started to take a liking to killing artists. Meccan poet Al-Nadr bin al-Harith, who distrusting Muhammad’s messages, used to say: “By God, Muhammad cannot tell a better story than I, and his talk is only of old fables which he has copied as I have,” was the first that Mo beheaded.
The massive bloodbath that Mo was waging, rare in Arabia – especially of Mo’s own kinsfolk – caused much revulsion among the people. Abu Afak, an elderly poet of 120 years of age, wrote poetic verses condemning the cruelty of Muhammad. Muhammad ordered the poet’s execution. One of Muhammad disciple slyly entered Afak’s house at night and dispatched him in his sleep [Ibn Ishaq, Oxford, Karachi, p675].
In condemnation of the elderly poet’s death, Asma bte Marwan, a poetess and mother of five, wrote verses denouncing Muhammad’s heinous act. Muhammad ordered her execution, too. His blind disciple named Umayr, belonging to Asma’s tribe, entered her house one night, removed her suckling baby from her bosom and plunged his sword into her breast with such force that it got stuck onto the couch. Prophet thanked Umayr for the job well-done [Ibn Ishaq, p675-6]: “You have helped God and His apostle, O ‘Umayr.” The blind assassin for his great service received the honorific, ‘Umayr the Seeing.’
Another famous poet to fall pray to Muhammad’s sword was Ka’b ibn Ashraf, a Jew. Hearing about Muhammad’s victory at Badr, he traveled there. Witnessing the ghastly bloodbath, he traveled down to Mecca, and wrote a poem, lamenting over the dead Quraysh and inveighing Muhammad’s unjustified barbarity.
Once it reached Muhammad’s ear, he said [Ibn Ishaq, p367]: “Who would rid me of [Ka’b] Ibnu’l-Ashraf?” Muhammad’s disciples, including Abu Naila and a foster brother of Ka’b, volunteered for the job. The assassins, with permission from Muhammad, befriended Ka’b by saying bad things about the Prophet (examples of Mo sanctioned taqiyya). Then on one moonlit night, Abu Naila went to Ka’b house calling him to come out to devise some plan to counter Muhammad. Ka’b’s newly married wife warned him: “By God, I can feel evil in his voice.” Ka’b answered to his wife: “Even if the call were for a stab, a brave man must answer it.” Then he went out with Abu Naila, who enticed him to go walking around while talking about their plan. A pleasant little proposal on a moonlit night as it was, Ka’b came along. Once they arrived at the right place, Abu Naila and his four accomplices fell upon the naïve poet with their swords and dagger and butchered him. Al-Tabari records, they brought Ka’b’s head to Muhammad and the Prophet duly thanked them for their service to Allah.
When Mo captured Mecca in 630 CE and destroyed the idol Gods of Ka’ba, he ordered the execution of 10-12 people who had criticized, apostatized from, or overtly opposed his creed. Among them, were two singing girls, who had composed songs ridiculing Muhammad’s messages more than a decade earlier during Muhammad’s preaching in Mecca.
So it’s no surprise todays Muslims continue to kill artists and freedom of speech as they’ve been so expertly instructed.
“So it’s no surprise todays Muslims continue to kill artists and freedom of speech as they’ve been so expertly instructed.”
Irwin,
It’s the RADICAL Muslims !
If it were ALL Muslims killing artists there wouldn’t be any left on the globe, you bigotted twit.
Many thanks, penny @ 2:21.
Bravo as well! I couldn’t agree more.
Many many thanks, irwin daisy, for all the information you provide to us, which I very much appreciate.
teddy, I often appreciate your contributions but not the totally undeserved insult to irwin daisy.
He wrote, “So it’s no surprise todays Muslims continue to kill artists and freedom of speech as they’ve been so expertly instructed.” This grammatical construction IN NO WAY implies all Muslims.
Perhaps, teddy, you need to explain yourself.
I get a kick out of so called “artists”.The bastions of free speech except when that free speach threatens their life.They would have been the” kapos” in the concentration camps.
Teddy, have you read “Infidel”? If not, do before you make a silly statement like its the radical muslims. Hirsi Ali gives you an insight into this violent, tribal theocracy that ET and Irwin has expounded on at length. As she eloquently writes Islam fears any exposure of its followers to western ideals hence they are congregating in no-go areas as in Britain to keep this exposure to a minimum. All muslims are taught from birth to hate the infidel. As ET has noted muslims only trust their family members and their clan. With constantly shifting alliances today’s friend is tomorrow’s enemy as you see in Gaza where Hamas butchers Fatah or any muslim country. The true muslims commitment is to Allah and Mohammed, all the rest is just details.
If we constantly back up and try to appease them we are finished.
Attack and ridicule those you know won’t hit you back and cower before the ones you know that will.
So Christians and Jews become fair game but run before Muslims. Typical of the ‘bully’ modus operandi.
“Theo van Gogh succumbed to a rain of bullets…Mohammed Bouyeri proceeded to slash his victims neck to near decapitation…”
And the largest and most famous self- congratulatory party for the artists, the Acadamy Awards, wouldn’t…couldn’t mention his name.
ALL of them…COWARDS!!
The quote at 2:21 so accuratly tells the tale. We live today on the borrowed credit of the generation before us.
And the Teddy’s of the world today…….
teddy. read the bloody koran. this bullshit about moderate islam is just bullshit. i for one will fight back and not with words.
“If it were ALL Muslims killing artists there wouldn’t be any left on the globe, you bigotted twit.”
teddy, you have the IQ of a freshly clubbed baby seal.
To make matters worse, you triumphantly expose it over and over.
Did you read the post? Do you understand that Mo’s words and actions are a vital part, in fact the heart of Islamic ideology? The reference, obviously for anybody with a brain, is to those Muslims emulating the words and actions of Mo. Which all Muslims are commanded to do. But, thankfully, the majority do not.
It appears, you don’t like facts. In your world, feelings trump facts. So therefore, you think you can discredit facts by deflection and insult.
Your lack of comprehension, irrationality, debating tricks and behaviour is normal for leftists. And Islamic apologists.
lookout,
To you I would be glad to explain.
Firstly,I do not apologize for throwing names irwin’s way.As they say on the schoolyard…’He started it’.I believe you are aware name-calling is not something I normally lower myself to.But I sometimes tire when I try to offer my opinion on something and am summarily called a leftist,amongst other things,and told to stop posting here.
Secondly,my intent,as other occasions I have challenged irwin,is NOT to defend Islam.I personally have little use for any religion,especially for one that has inspired so much death and suffering.I have not even challenged his POV on the poison that can be concocted from it.
My entire point is to stop the hate-mongering that results from people such as irwin who insist on painting an entire,immense,group with one narrow brush.
You see,I now know 3 muslims(yup…3 whole ones),one of them quite well.He is as against radicalism and the death and destruction it causes as irwin is.If you want to meet someone who truly loves and respects the freedom of democracy….you should meet this man.His wife gushes about her newfound freedoms and is angry her religion is used for such evil.Yet they are both painted as a hateful monsters everytime the likes of irwin put finger to keyboard.
He simply refuses to see that I generally do not argue with his POV.I take him to task on his use of absolutes.
For it is simply stupid to talk in absolute black and whites and deny any grey even exists in this world.Especially when we are talking of untold millions of individuals here.A few qualifiers is not too much to ask.
Because these people have proven to me there are many shades of grey indeed.
To judge them by the actions of either ‘a few’,’some’,’many’,’most’ or even ‘almost all’,if that is what you believe,is the very essence of bigotry.
I hope this helps you,and anyone else who cares,understand my reasoning.
“Firstly,I do not apologize for throwing names irwin’s way.As they say on the schoolyard…’He started it’.”
Really? Let’s check this thread and see for example.
“I believe you are aware name-calling is not something I normally lower myself to.”
In fact, you do it quite a bit.
“But I sometimes tire when I try to offer my opinion on something and am summarily called a leftist, amongst other things,and told to stop posting here.”
Your debating tactics are typical of leftists. You do not debate by rationally challenging facts. You debate by deflection, trumpeting your feelings and personal attacks. I, for one, have never asked you or anybody else to stop posting. It is not my right.
Once again, and as I’ve stated too many times to count, the problem with Islam is the foundationally violent ideology as expressed in the Islamic trilogy; and the commands and rewards for all Muslims to emulate Mo and carry out violent acts until the whole world is for Allah, his religion and his messenger.
On topic, the violent end of free speech in Mo’s time is shown in the historical facts I presented. This is the impetus for the same vicious attacks that are being carried out today.
Some Muslims choose to follow the ideology precisely. The majority do not. Most were simply born Muslim and either don’t know, or pay little attention to the ideology.
However, there is only one Quran and accompanying books of the Hadiths and Sira.
Regardless of the ‘vast majority of moderate, peace loving Muslims,’ there is no moderate Quran to support the concept of moderate Islam.
This is the problem.
Perhaps rather than irrationally arguing and then having to explain yourself, you should pay attention and learn.
irwin,
You prove my point about your bunkered mentality better than I ever could…thank you.
Geez…anyone who dares offer any other viewpoint MUST be a lefty.
BTW…You started the childish and immature rants at me weeks ago,the first time I pointed out your bigotry.
After all my above explanations…you still don’t have the vaguest f*cking clue what my point is…do you?
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, or if it matters to you, but you don’t have a point.
At least you can now understand why most of the Muslim world is silent. If the radicals exercise such power here, imagine what they do in the ME.
As I have to travel to Asia and am subject to Sharia law when there, I have to also be careful of what I say.