Why We Won Draw Mohammed Day by Thunderfoot

Thunderfoot: "Free Speech is non-negotiable."

Thunderfoot's Why We Won Draw Mohammed Day video

Thunderfoot's South Park vs Islam video

Response To A Muslim Extremist

thewayofthetruth1 is a Muslim who posted recently to AvC and made the following comments:

it is obvious that this repulsive cartoons depicting the Prophet have violated the sanctity of 1.5 billion Muslims around the world and their feelings....

This has exposed those who are actually promoting extremism, violence and hatred between peoples and i emphasized the need to activate international resolutions that condemn and punish such crimes as defamation of religions and prophets.

and i think that any type of art that portrays the image of any prophet is an offense...we can observe and note the behavior that follows after such act.

Take for instance the picture of Jesus (pbuh)...how many times have you seen "his" image on the media being mocked at ? in many occasion "his" image has even been created into a cartoon to humor people...this is absolute disrespect...in any circumstances we should not allow any type of mockery of any prophet (pbuh and Allah's mercy).

and i belive also that Western countries and organizations were adopting double standards on the issue of Danish cartoons allowing abuse of Muslim sanctities and their Prophet by claiming that this the freedom of speech but where is this freedom when dealing with the holocaust not by denying it by just saying that the number of people killed in this sad accident is exaggerated !!!

My (Trance Gemini of AvC) response follows:

thewayofthetruth1. If you are truly seeking the way of the truth, I'd like to point something out to you.

We, in North America, have laws which respect the human rights and dignity of all.

This includes the Muslim community.

You, as a Muslim have the following rights:

1. To practice your religion fully.
2. To never be harassed because of your faith.
3. To never be discriminated against because of your faith.
4. To live in dignity according to your beliefs.

If anyone attacks you on this basis or physically attacks you because you are a Muslim or physically attacks your Mosque because it is a Muslim place of worship, that person will be not only be put in jail, but will receive a longer sentence because to launch an attack based on religious belief is a Hate Crime.

North American secular law gives you these rights if you live anywhere in North America.

You, as a Muslim, are afforded similar rights in Europe and the UK.

Now, to say that we do not respect Muslims and their beliefs as you can see by the facts I've shown you is simply not the case.

Not only that but, I as a non-believer have fewer rights than you because I'm not religious and therefore am not covered by the above.

If I'm attacked physically or for my beliefs the person will be jailed under normal criminal law.

Now, on top of this, you are demanding that those who are non-believers should also be required to recognize your laws and religious requirements and follow them.

That is what you are asking us to do when you attempt to restrict our freedom of speech in accordance with your religious requirements.

Not only do you demand this, but others in your community back your demands with threats of violence in the form of fatwahs against those who have stood up against these demands of yours. People have been murdered, forced into hiding, forced to live in fear of being killed or otherwise victimized.

We, in the West, respect the Muslim community and their right to their beliefs. That is a fact whether you agree with it or not.

You, as a Muslim, on the other hand, do not respect our right to not believe and not to follow your religious restrictions by making the demands on us that you make to restrict our freedoms.

Respect in any society is a two way street. It must occur both ways, if it doesn't inequalities occur.

Secular societies work to eliminate inequalities.

We respect you, your culture, your religion, and your rights.

We want you to do the same and respect us, our culture, our beliefs, and our rights.

Is that really too much to ask?

Why Does The Qu'ran Say Kill Infidels And Others? : The Full AvC Thread

Danish Cartoons 8 to 12

Danish Cartoon 7

Danish Cartoon 6

Danish Cartoon 5

Danish Cartoon 4

Danish Cartoon 3

Danish Cartoon 2

Mohammed Cartoons And Civil Rights In Canada

Well all hell is breaking loose in Canada right now with regard to the Mohammed cartoons.

Quote.
Ezra Levant was one of the few publishers in Canada to reprint the notorious "Mohammed cartoons" in 2006. Two years later, he's been hauled before a "human rights officer" to explain why offending the delicate sensibilities of sharia-minded imams is
legal, legitimate and necessary.
End Quote.

Quote.
The Suicide of Reason in Canada by Heather Cooke

Everyone remembers the Mohammed cartoons. Those ten cartoons, each with its own level of offensiveness towards Muslims. Each an affront to anyone professing to believe in Islam and Mohammed as the messenger of Allah.

Very few publishers in North America chose to reprint the cartoons, which originally appeared in the Danish newspaper Jylland Posten in September 2005. Ezra Levant of the
now-defunct Canadian magazine, The Western Standard, was one. Known for his controversial conservative commentary, pro-Israel stance and libertarian beliefs, Levant believed that publishing the cartoons was a necessary exercise in free speech.

On the very day that the Western Standard with the infamous cartoons was being printed, Levant appeared on Calgary radio to debate Syed Soharwardy, an imam trained at an anti-Semitic Saudi university, who advocates Sharia law in Canada. The debate centered around the cartoons and all the accompanying shouldas, wouldas and couldas. Soharwardy did not know that Levant was about to publish the cartoons (a.k.a. offend Mohammed), but that did not matter. Levant was the clear winner in the debate and that offended Soharwardy, who marched down to a Calgary Police station and demanded that they arrest Levant for offending him during the debate and simply discussing the cartoons in the media.

After the officers explained that they didn't do that in Canada, Soharwardy filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The Commission is made up of individuals appointed by the government to hear human rights complaints. The commissioners are a mish-mash of lawyers, nurses, politicians, engineers, who may or may not have direct legal experience.

It costs nothing to file a complaint, so Soharwardy could avail himself of it at no charge while the defendant bears the cost of his defense.
End Quote.

Source: Suicide of Reason

I, personally, am hoping that this case goes to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that, apparently is Mr. Levant's intent.

Why should secular democracies be held hostage to the religious and their draconian sensibilities?

If it's offensive to a Christian that women wear heels and a short skirt, are we going to be forced to wear knee length tweed and flats?

If it's offensive to a Jew that someone eats pork in a restaurant, do we stop serving pork?

If it's offensive to a Hindu that someone kills cows, do we stop killing cows, and eating beef?

If it's offensive to a Sikh that we walk around with nothing covering our hair, do we all have to wear hats and head scarves?

If it's offensive to a Muslim that innocuous caricatures of Mohammed are published, do we stop publishing cartoons of Mohammed?

Does anyone else see the ridiculousness of this?

Especially directed to the religious folk.

Do you think this is reasonable?

Why should those of us who are not religious be victim to having others religious sensibilities imposed on us in a secular democratic society?

Written by Trance Gemini of AvC

Danish Cartoon 1.

Some background on the Danish cartoons controversy from Wikipedia:

On September 30, 2005, the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten ("The Jutland Post") published an article entitled "Muhammeds ansigt"^[12] ("The face of Muhammad"). The article consisted of twelve cartoons (of which only some depicted Muhammad) and an explanatory text, in which Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, commented:

The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. [...]

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Those Controversial Danish Cartoons Depicting Muhammed :)

Nothing pisses me off more than feeling like my freedom of speech is being taken away from me.

This trend amongst the extremists in the Islamic religion to issue Fatwahs and complaints every time someone does something that offends their delicate fucking sensibilities is becoming tiresome and ridiculous in the extreme.

We live in a democracy and we're allowed to offend, criticize and parody.

To really emphasize this point I'm planning (and have already started) to post anything that has resulted in a Fatwah or some kind of censorship.

This was the reason for the second post, an embedded video of the film, Submission. A film which resulted in Fatwahs issued for the Producer, Van Gogh and the Writer, Ali. Van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim extremist and Ali is currently in hiding.

Starting with my next post, I'll be periodically posting all twelve of the controversial Danish cartoons parodying Muhammed. ;)

And as per usual I won't be identifying myself on any of these posts :).

Submission by Theo Van Gogh

Submission produced and directed by Theo Van Gogh, written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Submission, is a very powerful 11 minute short film which condemns the hypocrisy of religion, particularly Islam, from the point of view of Muslim women.

Theo Van Gogh, a film producer, nephew of the famous Dutch painter, Vincent Van Gogh, and an atheist, paid with his life to produce this short film and Hirsi Ali was forced into hiding after receiving death threats.

He was brutally murdered (stabbed and shot) by an Islamic extremist, jihadist, Mohammed Bouyeri in 2004.

Source: Theo Van Gogh Wiki article.

It's a truly sad state of affairs when the expression of controversial opinions in a free and democratic society results in death threats and murder.

And it's the reason, that I don't identify myself as the author of this post.