Friday, May 21, 2010

Mad Rant: Draw Mohammad Day

Yesterday was “Draw Mohammad Day” and, fortunately in my view, it fell flat. Now, for the benefit of my adoring fans who think I am a Muslim, let me state a few facts first. I know as well as anyone what this was all about and I do find it cowardly, hypocritical and abhorrent that in western society it is perfectly acceptable to mock and ridicule other religions, particularly the Christian religion of the majority, while staying away from Islam and the Prophet Mohammad out of fear of terrorist retaliation. To my mind all this really does is send the message to other religions that, if you want to avoid disrespect, killing innocent people is the answer; it will get you want you want. However, while I think there should be no double-standards I do NOT think that means it should be acceptable to ridicule the Prophet Mohammad but rather that it should be considered unacceptable to ridicule Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary or the Buddha for that matter.

Most of these ‘artistic standoffs’ with Islam have come, let us be honest, not from Christians but from areas and peoples of the formerly Christian world who have embraced secularism and have no religion at all. Unlike these people I do NOT consider it an integral part of my culture to profane that which is sacred -to anyone. What does anyone gain from insulting Islam? Sure, it may be thrilling to annoy the Islamic terrorists but what about the Muslims who are just as aghast at these criminals, just as threatened by them and just as repelled by their methods as people in the west are? Is a symbolic tweaking of the terrorists worth offending and aggravating the majority of Muslims who do not share their murderous views? Profaning the sacred should not be part of “western culture” whether it is an insulting drawing of Mohammad or a theatre piece which portrays the Virgin Mary as a lesbian. Respect can only exist if it is reciprocal.

Now, this does not mean that I agree with bending over backwards to please everyone. For instance, I find it to be in appallingly poor taste to build a mosque next door to where the World Trade Center once stood. I do not think we should allow Saudi Arabia to build Muslim schools in western countries, claiming a right for themselves they deny to others. I am reminded of the time the Saudi King asked Benito Mussolini for permission to build a mosque in Rome. The Duce replied that he would gladly give permission if the Saudis would permit the Italians to build a Catholic Church in Mecca. Obviously the matter was dropped. Today of course there are many mosques in Rome but still absolutely no Christian churches anywhere in Saudi Arabia. I do not favor discrimination, I do favor fairness and consistency and, I would add, when I have seen Christian symbols attacked and profaned it has been done by western secularists and atheists -not by Muslims or members of some other religion. Rather than needlessly antagonizing Muslims westerners should try to be respectful of religious faith -perhaps starting with their own. No one *needs* to mock Mohammad anymore than anyone *needs* to mock the Pope (or their monarch for that matter) and these juvenile jibes at religion do not make me feel satisfied in any way they just make me mad. Terrorists should be fought openly, honestly and with stunning violence on the battlefield, not given more ammunition by further examples of godlessness and religious disrespect. I don’t see where it gets us anywhere. And no, reader who knows who you are, I am not a Muslim. I am … the Mad Monarchist.


  1. In this case, MM, I disagree. Muslims are "offended" simply when someone points out the truth. Consider how Theo van Gogh and Pym Fortyn were murdered simply for calling out Islam on its oppression of women and its nigh-totalitarian control of everyday life through Sharia. Consider how Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Geert Wilders require protection just for pointing out Islam's darker side, and the basis of that dark side in the Quran.

    Not to mention that an apostate from Islam is liable to be murdered, and under Sharia, they'd get away with it.

    I personally feel that the world would actually be a much better place without Islam. But I am no fool either - I know that secularism cannot replace Islam. They've already tried that in Turkey and Indonesia, and it's not a long-term solution (it's dubious that it'll last in the West either, though Christianity will reassert itself much more slowly, since it is by nature a much nicer, more peaceful religion). The solution is to literally convert more people from Islam to Christianity (or any other religion; I'll admit a bias to Catholicism though).

    However, I do agree that more respect is due to religion. We should not be above criticism that is justly placed, but nor should we be treated with contempt. Then again, the secularists are generally those with the lowest birth rates, so I suppose evolution might just do the trick to them.

  2. There are churches in S. Arabia---for the Christian Philippino workers and the expats.

    Islam/Muslims are constantly criticsed in the West, often their freedom are curtailed under one pretext or another.

    I agree that the mark of a "civilized" culture is one that promotes the higher values of tolearance, respect and compassion, rather than trampling these values for the "entertainment value" of offending another.
    This does not mean that constructive criticsm that offends should be curtailed----it means that we should use our intelligence to so that we can make use of our freedoms for the benefit of all in our societies.

  3. Now now Mr Wells, I never said anyone should not point out the truth -what I am against is useless, symbolic antagonism. In the case of someone like Rushdie his writings are fiction -he did not *need* to write them any more than Dan Brown *needed* to write 'The DaVinci Code'. Nor did I even go so far as to say this sort of thing should be outlawed, just that it should be considered ill-mannered, ignorant and not done for the reasons stated.

    For example, some priests have molested children. I don't think the way to respond to that is by painting all priests with the same brush or making cartoons mocking the Pope. No one is going to be properly brought to justice in that way. This stuff gets on to pretty uncomfortable ground for alot of people. It depends what one decides to point out from holy books. The Bible says if you have some disobedient children you can stone them to death. Now I'm certainly not trying to say all religions are the same or even equal (I havn't heard of any cases of Christians stoning children) but I wouldn't want someone using a verse like that to paint all Christians just as I wouldn't like people to think the "God Hates Fags" Baptists represent mainstream Christianity.

    As for the world being better off without Islam -well, of course if everyone agreed with me on social, political and religious issues everything would be perfect and I could die happy lol. If you were a Protestant you might feel different (though I doubt Protestants give it much thought these days) since it is extremely possible that had Islam not been attacking from the south the Catholic powers could have stamped out Protestantism in its infancy. But of course that is always going to be speculative to one degree or another.

    So, again, I'm not saying hard facts should not be dealt with and I'm not saying Muslims or anyone else have a "right" not to be offended by anything. What I AM saying is that silly things that accomplish nothing but inflaming decent and violent Muslims alike should be avoided and do not speak well of western "freedom of speech". Pornography is considered "freedom of speech" too I don't think that speaks well for the west either.

  4. Oh, and be careful about relying on natural reproduction. Muslims have far higher birthrates than Christians as well as secularists. Many have said that the native population of Europe has already passed the point of no return as far as demographics go.

  5. the middle east is mixed when it comes to monarchy and republics.

    Egypt is a republic, and saudi arabia is a kingdom, and they both treat christians bad.

    Syria is a republic, and jordan is a kingdom, and syria treats christians good (since the rulers of syria are alawi muslims, who have had better relations with christians than other muslims, and because its ruled by the nationalist baath party, which was founded by a christian, Michel Aflaq), and jordan treats christians "fine" allowing them to build churches and not alot of harassment happens there unlike egypt.

    syrian religious education says that christians and muslims will go to heaven, and that atheists, jews, and pagans will go to hell.

    saudi religious education says muslims will go to heaven and everyone else burns in hell.

    of course Syria's stance on jews is intolerable and should not be ignored.

  6. In the quran, it says christians, jews, and sabians, who worship god have nothing to fear form allah and will be rewarded in heaven in surah 2.62 and surah 5.69.

    then a few verses down, it says they will burn in hell.

    it depends on what country your in, syria, saudi arabic, etc., that determines what their religious authorities say. not all muslims are the same.

    the reason jews are excluded in syria is political, because of israel.

    arab christians and jews in arab countries also call their god allah, so its not a good idea to blaspheme that either, which alot of people seem to think its fun to do.

  7. I disagree withthe Mad Monarhcist in one regard. I disagree that the people who attack Muhammad and Christianity are those who lack a Religion.

    On fo the great deceptions pulled off by Secularistss is that they are not Religious. The truth is, they are. Secularism as it is undertsood today is really modled after the Enlihtements ideals, and is a form of Humanism, which took its final absolute ofrm in the Early 20th Century.

    A Religion is not a ebelif in a god or gods, or even a SUpernatural order. A Religion is simply a set of beelifs regardign the Fundamental nature of our existance. Despite claimign to be a Herd of Cats, a collectionf o Freethinkers hwo arrive at their own ideas, most Secularists simply parrot the same doctriens about Materialism, Evolution ( And I dont mean simpley the theory in Sicnece byt the enture Mythos about Eovlution and hwo they sem to project it onto literally everything and use it o define everyhting) and the Values of Human Freedom comign from their seual Libertine moral codes.

    If you follow them long enough you can peice togather a pretty coherant Philosophial system that exits as the abis of theor morals and ethics, and determiens how thy understand and relate to the world arodn them. It functiosn int he same way a Religion would. Why woudl I see this as anythign but a Religion in and of itself?

    Whats even stranger is the assumption that if I am not Religious, I have to agree with them and follow all of these beleifs. They don't simply say that their beleifs aren't Religious, they actually say that their elefis define what it means to be no -Religious. its ot the point to were if you hold to a view outside of the expected Liberalism and Hmanism they hodl to, tis a "Religioux" View.

    Example: ABortion. Beign Pro-Life is takignt he Relgiious side, beign Pro-CHocie is the Non-Religiosu side.

    Its all just smoke and mirrors. Nonsense.

    The Secularists are really just pushign a Relgiion and using Semantics to say they arent a Relgiion to give themselves a Faovured position. this is also why they depict their beleifs as Enlgithened and advanced, and Relgiion as TRetrograde, and poepl who are Relgiiosu as Les sintellegent.

    That said, I agre wihthte rest. Insultign Islam for no reason whatesoever is CHildish.

  8. My distaste of Islam remains, but you are right MM. I missed that last night. We'll do this right and proper or not at all, since I condemn Islam for its many, many, many double standards, and thus should take care not to indulge in them myself.

    Regarding a world without Islam, I was actually being quite serious. Islam is fascism dressed in a veil of religion. I could go on and on about how it is a dictator's dream (legalising revolution to take power no less!), virtually imprisons its followers souls on pain of death (apostasy does equal death in Sharia), and enhances inequality based solely on ones faith and sex (one law for Muslims and a second for infidels who pay the Jizya - basically a protection payment to a mafia - and there are also distinctions between men and women). But I won't. There are plenty of other places that put up such information and more.

    Islam is fundamentally unlike any other religion on the planet in that it alone exhorts its followers to spread it by the sword, and that such expanionism is rewarded by guaranteed access to heaven (and those 72 virgins). It accepts nothing but domination, and this is reflected in Sharia and Islamic theology. Its disappearance from the world would not be a bad thing.

  9. I've never read the Quran (and don't really care to) so I can't speak as to what it says. I just don't see where the mockery of Islam gets us anywhere. It inflames the radical ones, alienates the decent ones, will have no impact on the western sympathizers who will ignore the information and those that already oppose it don't need it. As has been said, secularism will not be a match for Islam so, as I see it, the west would be better served by a revival of Christianity than by further antagonism with another religion. Countries that wish to be Christian (or whatever religion is the case) should be Christian and either not allow Muslim immigration or submit to open competition between the religions. So far the west has largely abandoned Christianity, allowed Muslim immigration but because the so many in the west cannot seem to make up their mind what "western culture" is they welcome Muslims on the one hand and then mock them on the other -not recipe for success in my view. It's rather like my annoyance with those who blame "American culture" for all modern woes. If you don't like it -reject it. Be proud of your own culture instead of tearing down America. In the same way, build up your own religion instead of tearing down that of another. I don't like the way things are going by any means, I don't want to see the west 'Islamicized' (though demographics may do the job in any event) but as often as not I look at modern problems and am as likely as not to fault the west for losing its religion rather than the Muslims who are faithful to their own no matter what I may think about it in itself.

  10. you got the wrong message from my comment. I was explaining why the position in syria and saudi arabia varied, i wasn't trying to get you to read the quran.

    anyway, the general point i was trying to make was not about europe, but about the middle east, that Saudi arabia may be better off becoming a republic like syria (definetly not like egypt)

  11. That response was not so much directed at your comment but just a statement that, not having read the Quran I cannot address passages from it in context. I have heard too many people take Bible verses (like killing off whole populations or dashing children against stones) toconsider such quotes a valid argument. However, I do not agree that Saudi Arabia would be better off as a republic for the very reason that it would not be a humane or tolerant one. In my view there is no doubt that if the Saudi monarchy were to fall it would be replaced by a Sunni version of Iran -perhaps with Osama as dictator or one like him. Osama is an enemy of the Saudis exactly because he considers them not 'radical enough' and too friendly with the west.

  12. The Baron was tolerant of muslims, because some Mongols in china were muslims, like the dongxiang, and other mongols in china were muslims too. His attempts at uniting the mongosl would not have succeeded if he did not take the muslim mongols into mind. He expected the "chinese mohammedans" (most likely refering to the uighurs) to join in his campaign to restore the qing emperor.

    the only uighur monarch was Maksud Shah, the uighur khan of Kumul, and he lived around the same time as the Baron. The han chinese governor of Xinjiang, Yang Zengxin, tolerated the khanate, and said he was content to let the nomadic people live their own ways, rather than trying to import more han people into xinjiang.

    During the fall of the qing dynasty, Yang attacked both the qing forces AND the revolutionaries in his bid to seize xinjiang.

    Yang was quite a nasty guy, during Yuan Shikai's attempt to restore the empire, Yang publicly supported him, and he beheaded several pro republican rebels in 1916 for attempting to oppose Yuan. Yang was a feudal mandarin, having served in the Qing civil service, and believed monarchy was the best system, since he left the local uighur khans and nobles in place.

    Yang was very anti soviet, and was friendly with the british consulate.

    Maksud Shah was not a very devout muslim, since he kept a massive storeroom of alcohol which he drank. He was also sinicized, speaking uighur with a chinese accent and wearing chinese clothes.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...