Those who followed the Mohammed Cartoon Caper will remember Danish imam Raed Hlayhel. After the Motoons were published last year in Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, a carefully staged uproar started in the Danish Muslim community.Now flash back to Editors Weblog, October 14, 2005:
Yesterday, a group of 16 Muslim organizations demanded the paper to apologize for printing the cartoons, reports Aljazeera. The group said, “The newspaper has with its action deliberately stepped on Islam’s ethical and moral values with the purpose of contempt and ridiculing Muslims’ feelings, their holy sites and their religious symbols”. The Islam bans any depiction of the prophet. Jyllands-Posten, which received several threats after publishing the cartoons, said it would not apologize for the cartoons and cited the freedom of speech, writes The Guardian.
Already last week, Imam Raed Hlayhel criticized the publication. He stated, “This type of democracy is worthless for Muslims. Muslims will never accept this kind of humiliation. The article has insulted every Muslim in the world. We demand an apology!”
It’s not surprising that the more militant Danish Muslims would find democracy “worthless”, is it? After all, it doesn’t advance their Islamist aims or hasten the ascendancy of the Caliphate.
Hlayhel had gained notoriety in Denmark back in 2004 for his assertion that Danish women, with their provocative dress and lascivious manner, were inviting rape.
After the cartoon crisis erupted, Hlayhel went on a tour of the Middle East with the Motoons, adding a few bogus ones of his own for their enhanced inflammatory content. The predictable brouhaha followed, with Western dhimmis falling all over each other to abase themselves before the defenders of the Prophet.
Now Sugiero has this update on Imam Hlayhel:
The following article, containing segments from a Friday Prayer held by imam shaykh Raed Hlayhel March 31, was published in Jyllands-Posten May 20. I’ve found it worth translating, because it shows how the despicable Danish imams took advantage of the cartoon controversy.
Via JP, hattip Polemiken:
“The Muhammed controversy was a sign from Allah and a test for the believers. The whole case has been good for the Muslims because it has revealed the infidels, hypocrites and the arrogants. It has also given us, the Muslims, an opportunity to profile ourselves”, imam shaykh Raed Hlayhel stated during his Friday Prayer.
“Good for the Muslims,” indeed. This Danish imam and his colleagues have played the gullible Western press like a ukelele. Erect the hoops, and we’ll jump through them, one after the other.
And we’re not done with the Motoons yet. Expect them to be dusted off when the Iranian crisis really heats up. Look for spontaneous outpourings of righteous Islamic rage carefully targeted to gain the most leverage over the Europeans when the time comes.
As the Saudi Gazette has pointed out, there is scriptural justification for taking action against the blasphemous cartoonists:
Due to the seriousness of the crime of insulting the prophets, scholars concur with the verdict given by Ibn Hazm in his Muhallâ: It is therefore proven that whoever insults the Prophet (peace be upon him) is an unbeliever and an enemy of Allah. Therefore, it is proven that anyone who blasphemes against Allah, insults an angel, calumniates a prophet or mocks him, or makes fun of the verses of the scripture or the divine legislation is an apostate.
It is as stated in the Qur’ân: And if you ask them, they will surely say we were only conversing and playing. Say, Is it Allah and His verses and His messengers that you were mocking? Make no excuse; you have disbelieved... [Surah al-Tawbah: 65-66]
Theo Van Gogh was murdered. The Danish cartoonists went into hiding. Comedy Central censored South Park’s episode ridiculing Mohammed, citing their fear of Muslim violence.
Is it any wonder the Islamists think they’ve got us on the run?
2 comments:
Is it any wonder the Islamists think they’ve got us on the run?
They detect weakness in how the West is dealing with this war.
Baron,
A fine blog, but do you mind if I try to clarify one point?
We all tend to use the word "democracy" as if it were an unqualified good thing.
I am pretty sure that when people use the term "democracy" they don't mean it in the dictionary sense (this is from Encarta):
"The free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the people."
Sounds great. But it is only part of the story.
The outcome of a simple democratic process is majority rule. Still sounds great - but then you start throwing in things like "51% of the people want to kill all the Jews" (more than that in some Islamic countries!) and that sort of thing.
An unrestrained democracy is nothing if it isn't mob rule.
It is proper for a society to have the participation of all its citizens, but that participation must operate within a framework that guarantees the protection of the rights of each citizen.
That, at least in the case of the United States, is the function of the Constitution (a "constitution" is a document that describes the relationship between an organization and its membership), especially the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights.
Afghanistan's constitution doesn't protect the rights of evey citizen - remember the guy who barely escaped with his life because he wasn't a Muslim?
Iraq's is no better.
We must understand that democracy is only one aspect of a proper societal organization - that in order to avoid terrible violations of rights, the rights have to be 1) understood, 2) defined, and 3) published for all to see and protect.
Upon leaving the meeting where the U.S. Constitution was written, a woman asked Ben Franklin what sort of government the new United States had been given; he replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Later, he described democracy: "A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Post a Comment