Amira Nowaira shoots herself in the foot, projects Islamic hatred onto Lars Vilks

Iowahawk rips right into it:

Beyond parody

This post, by Iowahawk, on “Draw Mohammed Day” was satire, but readers could be forgiven for thinking it wasn’t, especially as it is not so different from hand-wringing dozy bint Amira Nowaira in The Guardian:

Projection, denial of reality and false accusations:  Standard Islamo- prop. Amira Nowaira tries hard, really hard, to blame the kafirs for self-inflicted Mohammedan Islamic grievance theater, and makes a mess of it.

Sura (8:55) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve….

Portraying Muslims as sub-human is not ‘free speech’

The depiction of Prophet Muhammad as a dog by a Swedish cartoonist has sparked off controversies and renewed debates on the limits to free speech. The incident at Uppsala University when Muslim protesters physically attacked Lars Vilks while giving a lecture on the limits of free speech is presented in the media as yet another instance of Muslim intolerance and violence.

So, the person who headbutted Vilks for explictly stated, Islamically justified reasons, was tolerant and non-violent? How is it not “yet another instance of Muslim intolerance and violence”? The guy is a Muslim. He was violent because he had failed to tolerate Vilks’ art. Furthermore, he didn’t attack Vilks for just any reasons. He explictly identifies his grievance and the grievance is entirely Islamic and supported by a huge number of other Muslims.

But let us first examine the subtext of the message that Vilks is trying to convey….

Muslims, in Vilks’s view, as represented by their prophet, are sub-human creatures to be looked down upon. They are perhaps the worst vermin that “nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth”, to use Swift’s phrase in a different context.

(The context, is of course Sura (8:55) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve…. and where do the sons of apes & swine come in? The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus.”)

In this respect, Vilks’s message seems fairly similar to that conveyed by the short “documentary” film Fitna produced by the Dutch politician Geert Wilders….

(Omar Bakri had no problem with it, Amira. He said it could be used to recruit jihadists for the caliphate)

But does Vilks realise the impact of this kind of representation on the lives of ordinary European Muslims going peacefully about their business? Does he realise that the image he has created feeds into the racial profiling and stereotyping targeting the Muslim population in Europe in particular? …

Lying is part of Islam just like terrorizing the unbelievers and all methods of da’awa.  Islam is not a race, its a violent ideology in the guise of religion. Where are those “ordinary European Muslims going peacefully about their business?”   There is no “racial profiling” and if Muslims would try stop whingeing and whining about “stereotyping” and focus on integration instead, perhaps there wouldn’t be a problem.

Comments:

Vilks has succeeded in gaining his moment in the spotlight. But the legacy of his action will be the perpetuation of a cycle of hatred and suspicion.

Unfortunately, and depressingly perhaps, we are left with one conclusion. Muslims, in Vilks’s view, as represented by their prophet, are sub-human creatures to be looked down upon. They are perhaps the worst vermin that “nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth”, to use Swift’s phrase in a different context

Errr no. He said nothing of the sort as far as I know so you have no right to infer that he did. The message is more likely to be “you may have a religious taboo about representing this man but we do not and the more you try to enforce this taboo on the rest of us the more we will kick back”.

Here’s an article about the Roundabout Dogs.
They’re creative and cute, using waste materials to create quirky public art.
Here’s the Vilks drawing.

Here’s the full post from Iowahawk:

Beyond Parody

This post, by Iowahawk, on “Draw Mohammed Day” was satire, but readers could be forgiven for thinking it wasn’t, especially as it is not so different from hand-wringing dozy bint Amira Nowaira in The Guardian:

The depiction of Prophet Muhammad as a dog by a Swedish cartoonist has sparked off controversies and renewed debates on the limits to free speech. The incident at Uppsala University when Muslim protesters physically attacked Lars Vilks while giving a lecture on the limits of free speech is presented in the media as yet another instance of Muslim intolerance and violence.

Those wicked media folks presenting it in that way, when we all know that assaulting someone is an act of peace and tolerance.

[L]et us first examine the subtext of the message that Vilks is trying to convey. When Voltaire said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, [Zzzzz - he didn’t say that, you ignoramus – M.J.] he was defending the right of all human beings to hold a viewpoint and express it, without fear or intimidation. But the questions that pose themselves here are: what exactly is the opinion that Vilks is presenting and defending? Does his cartoon present a reasoned, logical attitude that one can engage in and argue about? Does it throw light on the nature of the human belief system or invite us to see similarities we had hitherto been blind to? Does it represent a new departure in our thinking about a faith which, like it or not, is embraced by a billion people worldwide? Does it invite people to say “Wow! This is quite a revelation, for we had no idea that Muslims were a canine breed”? Does it offer a message that is edifying or enlightening in any way? Is the message so subtly witty or so roaringly funny that it would make us gape in admiration at the genius of its creator?

So, free speech is allowed only if it’s reasoned, logical or edifying? Like: “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them!” or “A shoelace of fire”?

The answer is unlikely to be a yes to any of the previous questions. Unfortunately, and depressingly perhaps, we are left with one conclusion. Muslims, in Vilks’s view, as represented by their prophet, are sub-human creatures to be looked down upon. They are perhaps the worst vermin that “nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth”, to use Swift’s phrase in a different context. In this respect, Vilks’s message seems fairly similar to that conveyed by the short “documentary” filmFitna produced by the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. The film starts with a ritual burning of the Qur’an and ends with alarming statistics about the growing number of Muslims in Europe aimed at instilling fear in the hearts of Europeans of the prospect, or the impending threat, of being swamped by Muslims.

Wrong again. These are pictures of Mohammed, not of Muslims, unlike the cartoons in Der Stürmer, which were of Jews. Most Muslims are far better people than Mohammed was, which makes their worship of him all the more perverse.

But does Vilks realise the impact of this kind of representation on the lives of ordinary European Muslims going peacefully about their business? Does he realise that the image he has created feeds into the racial profiling and stereotyping targeting the Muslim population in Europe in particular?

We can only speculate about Vilks’s purpose in creating this predictable furore. He knew he would get gain instant fame and publicity, and he did. Publicity is good for business any time, and the rewards are understandably huge. There is also the added bonus of being hailed as a champion of free speech, a latter-day hero to be looked up to and revered. In a sceptical world where heroism has become as hard to define as to attain, this is a chance not to be missed.

No doubt he enjoys the death threats. Who wouldn’t?

The Muslim reaction in these situations is often excessive, irrational and highly unacceptable.

“Unacceptable” – the mantra of the mealy mouthed. Don’t get carried away – you’ll be telling us it’s “inappropriate” next.

It is also frustratingly predictable. If Muslims are offended, they should take their case to court and sue “offenders” on account of instigating racial and religious hatred. This is a matter for the law to decide. Using violence or threatening to use it is as unlawful as it is self-defeating. It will only reinforce the stereotype rather than counter it. Better than anything, Muslims would be well advised to ignore these instances of “free expression” and just withdraw peacefully from any gathering or event in dignified protest. If they do that, they will stop the Vilkses of this world becoming undeserving heroes.

I think Vilks has succeeded in gaining his moment in the spotlight. But the legacy of his action will be the perpetuation of a cycle of hatred and suspicion.

Again this assumes that violence, rage and even lawfare are a proportionate and natural response to cartoons of a man long dead, who was in any case a tyrant, a murderer and a child-rapist. Riots and murder follow cartoons of the “prophet” as night follows day, and the Muslims cannot help themselves.

2 thoughts on “Amira Nowaira shoots herself in the foot, projects Islamic hatred onto Lars Vilks”

  1. I may be a pig in allah’s view, but I am redeemed by the blood of a Lamb.

  2. But does Vilks realise the impact of this kind of representation on the lives of ordinary European Muslims going peacefully about their business
    By using the plural muslims,Amira Nowaira makes the extraordinary claim that there is more than one muslim in Europe going peacefully about their business.This arch proponent of nazislam obviously learned from Herr Goebbels,”the bigger the lie,the more readily people will believe it.

Comments are closed.