Saudi Arabia - Denmark, a love story?

[schmosef]

Danish Imams Busted!

Do these two photos look similiar?



They should because they are the same! No, not a satire of Mohammed nor any other sacred Islamic figure but a photo of Jacques Barrot, a pig squealing contestant at the French Pig-Squealing Championships in Trie-sur-Baise’s annual festival. NeanderNews discovered this photo, taken by Bob Edme of AP, posted on an August 15, 2005 AP story seen here on MSNBC’s website.

As Gateway Pundit, Counter Terrorism Blog and others have reported Danish Imam Ahmad Abu Ladan, leader of The Islamic Society of Denmark, toured the middle east to create awareness of supposed anti-Islamic cartoons and included the above black and white photo as well as two other undocumented examples. Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the tour, explained that the three drawings had been added to “give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims.”

Akkari claimed he does not know the origin of the three pictures. He said they had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. However, when Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet asked if it could talk to these Muslims, Akkari refused to reveal their identity. BBC World aired a story on 1-30-2006 showing the three non-published images and claimed they had been published in Denmarks Jyllands-Posten, these images however had never been published in Jyllands-Posten.

NeanderNews wonders if Jacques knows what he has started? A big kudos to ‘The Celtic Semite’ for this great lead.

from the comments section...
Neanderman- as far as relevance, I think the original discovery of this photo that was added to ‘Danish Imam’s Islamic Rage Campaign Tour December 2005′ posed many questions. The first one should have been, “Is this photo even a satire on Muhammad? And if not, where did the photo come from?” And now that we know where it came from, it poses other thoughts. One is, “If any random rendering or photo with porcine features is considered this dangerous in the Islamic world, how close are we to dialog with them?”

-your reader and jounalistic operative, The Celtic Semite

[schmosef]

And look at this one

EXPLICIT CONTENT!
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/4...lenigga6st.gif

ok, I laughed at that.

Aside for the minor humour, what's the context of the image? Just a backlash?

Cyb, that's not your penis is it?

Edit: I just had a funny thought.

The perfect caption for that image is "behead those who insult the Holy Bible"!

[TransformX]

NOW I finally get it !!!

I was always in the dark as to why does the media refer to those people as 'freedom fighters', now all of a sudden it's so clear to me!
They're fighting (against) freedom !!!

[KvHagedorn]

I read a report by AP today that featured this:

There were several other small protests across Afghanistan on Wednesday, including one in Kabul. Hundreds of university students, including women, marched peacefully through the capital, chanting "Death to the Danish! Death to Americans!"

Since when are death threats peaceful? Since the nutless liberal media dubs them so!

[TransformX]

http://supportdenmark.com/

[schmosef]

[schmosef]

In case you guys haven't been following the latest I wanted to post this update.

It turns out that an Egyptian newspaper published the Mo cartoons in OCTOBER 2005 with narry a peep from the Islamic community.

It's becoming very evident that this Cartoon Jihad has been manufactured. The timing, months and months after the original puclications, seems to serve the Iranians most. It serves to draw attention away from the nuke issue.

Anyway, here's a link to one of the blogs that broke the news:

This is one more story that was dropped by the MSM and broken by the blogsphere.

http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html

[Umfriend]

So what did the paper say about these?

[TransformX]

Whatever that paper said, it was in OCTOBER.. 3 months before the riots started..

[Umfriend]

I know that. That's exactly why I am interested to know how they viewed this back then, hence my question. Egypt was, actually, already involved in October and speaking out against the cartoons.

[Jammrock]

I know that. That's exactly why I am interested to know how they viewed this back then, hence my question. Egypt was, actually, already involved in October and speaking out against the cartoons.

Obviously not bad enough, so they had to be enticed to riot.


So I was thinking ... which I'm sure caused such an imbalance in the universe that several stars went supernova ... about the whole Muhammad cartoon issue last night after the evening news, which led to a giant hypocritical catch-22 of Islamic law. Follow the vain attempt at logic with me...

1) Islam decrees no pictures of Muhammad are allowed because they fear it will lead to idol worship.

2) Denmark, and later much of the Western World, publishes the cartoons.

3) Idolatry is defined as: 1 : the worship of a physical object as a god; 2 : immoderate attachment or devotion to something.

4) After 5 months of nothing riots begin, threats are screamed, people are killed, buildings are burned to the ground, etc, etc, etc ... why? Because of the desicration of the image of Muhammad.

So in essence, those who are rioting about the Muhammad comics, and those who are exciting the riots, are in fact, by definition, idolaters. And thus we are introduced to the greatest hypocrisy of the riots. The fact that Islam forbids idol worship of Muhammad, but the reaction that much of the Muslim world is having about the cartoons is in fact proof positive that they are idolaters because they are rioting over the "desecration of the image of Muhammad." Thus they are breaking the laws of Islam to protest the breaking of Islamic law.

How does that work?

[Umfriend]

Obviously not bad enough, so they had to be enticed to riot.

Which, IMO, makes it especially interesting to know what the paper said about the cartoons back then.

1) Islam decrees no pictures of Muhammad are allowed because they fear it will lead to idol worship.

AFAIK, this is not correct. There is the notion of not having graven images as it may lead or constitute idoltry. This is probably copied from the OT-commandment. A picture of big ole M is forbidden (depending on era, sect, way of portaying etc) because it is blasphemous and disrespect to the guy is a definite no-no. So although there may be a link (in origin) between the rule on images in general and images of the pwofeth, they are in fact seperate rules.

[Jammrock]

AFAIK, this is not correct. There is the notion of not having graven images as it may lead or constitute idoltry. This is probably copied from the OT-commandment. A picture of big ole M is forbidden (depending on era, sect, way of portaying etc) because it is blasphemous and disrespect to the guy is a definite no-no. So although there may be a link (in origin) between the rule on images in general and images of the pwofeth, they are in fact seperate rules.

Maybe so, but I've heard the idolatry part from a lot of sources. Looking around it seems to be dependant on the Islamic sect you belong to as to how the law is interpreted.

Islamic law, based on clerics' interpretation of the Quran and the sayings of the prophet, forbids depiction's of the Prophet Mohammed and other major religious figures -- even positive ones -- to prevent idolatry. Shiite Muslim clerics differ in that they allow images of their greatest saint, Ali, the prophet's son-in-law, though not Mohammed.

source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe...rap.friday.ap/

Much has been made of the fact that Islamic law is seen as prohibiting the making of images of the Prophet Muhammad on the grounds that it could lead to idolatry. But that conviction is held more firmly by Sunni Muslims. Most Shi'ite groups object less; and the area of the mystical sects of Sufi Islam has long featured images of the Prophet. The more potent reason for Islamic anger over the drawings is probably less theological: the cartoons are plainly intended to be derogatory and, some would say, racist.

source: http://goasia.about.com/od/countriesaz/a/cartoons.htm

Jammrock

[schmosef]

Obviously not bad enough, so they had to be enticed to riot.


So I was thinking ... which I'm sure caused such an imbalance in the universe that several stars went supernova ... about the whole Muhammad cartoon issue last night after the evening news, which led to a giant hypocritical catch-22 of Islamic law. Follow the vain attempt at logic with me...

1) Islam decrees no pictures of Muhammad are allowed because they fear it will lead to idol worship.

2) Denmark, and later much of the Western World, publishes the cartoons.

3) Idolatry is defined as: 1 : the worship of a physical object as a god; 2 : immoderate attachment or devotion to something.

4) After 5 months of nothing riots begin, threats are screamed, people are killed, buildings are burned to the ground, etc, etc, etc ... why? Because of the desicration of the image of Muhammad.

So in essence, those who are rioting about the Muhammad comics, and those who are exciting the riots, are in fact, by definition, idolaters. And thus we are introduced to the greatest hypocrisy of the riots. The fact that Islam forbids idol worship of Muhammad, but the reaction that much of the Muslim world is having about the cartoons is in fact proof positive that they are idolaters because they are rioting over the "desecration of the image of Muhammad." Thus they are breaking the laws of Islam to protest the breaking of Islamic law.

How does that work?

The riots are over a perceived slight against Mo, not the belief that he's been turned into an idol, of course, that is the slippery slope that they wish to avoid.

What's interesting is that the Danish Imams who went around the middle east trying to drum up support for their cause definitely perpetrated the worst of all insults to Mo by taking a completely unrelated picture and representing it as if it was of him (and then lying about where the picture came from). In other words, they, the Danish Imams are guilty of not only creating an image of Mo but characterising him as a pig. Under Sharia, in any Islamic state, they'd be put to death.

[schmosef]

Which, IMO, makes it especially interesting to know what the paper said about the cartoons back then.

The linked blog in my post refers to another blog called "Freedom For Egyptians" that talks about what the Eyptian paper wrote:

Cartoons were Published Five Months ago in Egypt

The Egyptian paper critcized the bad taste of the cartoons but it did not incite hatred protests, so what is happening now? BTW, it is not my idea to bring the details of this Egyptian paper, it is Gateway Pundit’s. I think it is important to reveal that the timing of this outrage is irrelevant. It would have been better that this holy war against Denmark be launched during the holy month of Ramadan as many Muslims believe that Jihad during Ramadan would have been more worthy.

This irrelevant outrage timing is but a sign that this violent response to the cartoons is politically-motivated by Muslim extremists in Europe and the so-called secular governments of the Middle East. I want also to mention that despite the fact that all editors who tried to reprint the cartoons in the Middle East nowadays were arrested, the Egyptian editors went unharmed. I will try to get the pages of the paper scanned.

AFAIK, this is not correct. There is the notion of not having graven images as it may lead or constitute idoltry. This is probably copied from the OT-commandment. A picture of big ole M is forbidden (depending on era, sect, way of portaying etc) because it is blasphemous and disrespect to the guy is a definite no-no. So although there may be a link (in origin) between the rule on images in general and images of the pwofeth, they are in fact seperate rules.

AFAIK you're not correct.

The issue very much is tied to the whole graven images and false idols debacle.

It's further exacerbated by the fact that Islam goes to great lengths to declare Jesus as a prophet of G-d but not G-d himself and that the worship of Jesus is one of the reasons that the Christians have lost favour with Allah. So in Islam, Muslims want to make double sure that they don't follow down that path. Graven images are super bad. But graven images of Mo are extra super bad.