Robert Spencer’s support for Harry’s (Dhimmi)Â Place “unwanted and unneeded”
Dhimmitude is no defense: Hamas UK sues dhimmi blog
At the UK blog Harry’s Place, it is slowly dawning upon them that not just “Robert Spencer and his ilk” are responsible for people getting the idea that the Islamic concept of jihad may have something to do with terrorism. Somehow it seems to have escaped their notice — up until that item was posted in May 2008 — that Muslims are not committing acts of terror around the world because I told them to, but because they are able to explain and justify those acts of terror to peaceful Muslims by reference to the Islamic jihad theology that is embedded within the Qur’an, Sunnah, and rulings of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence (madhahib).
Over at Harry’s Place, however, they still think that “jihad is what you make of it,” as if words have no meaning and Islamic theology has no content — as if you could easily read The Brothers Karamazov as a cookbook or Mein Kampf as an adventure novel, or of course the Qur’an and Sunnah and rulings of all the madhahib as not counseling warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. And they approvingly quote the mendacious Sheila Musaji as an authority for all this. Now they have been appropriately rewarded for their cluelessness and dhimmitude: Harry’s Place is being sued by a jihadist.
Details here.
Even (proudly) clueless dhimmis have the right to free speech, and if it is curtailed for them, it is curtailed for everyone. Thus Harry’s Place deserves the support of all free people.
UPDATE: With customary graciousness, Harry’s Place says our support is “unwanted and unneeded” — without, of course, specifying anything we say or have ever said about Islamic jihad as inaccurate, and tarring us with the familiar “Islamophobia” brush that jihad propagandists and their witless dupes (like Harry) wield against anyone who speaks accurately about the elements of Islam that jihadists use to incite violence. Harry asks if being a clueless dhimmi is a “bad thing.” Yes, Harry, it is, and the fact that you don’t know why is only the beginning of your troubles.
Ingrid Mattson vs. Freedom of Speech
by Robert Spencer
The idea that Wilders’ straightforward film against Islamic jihad terrorism constitutes a “racist and hateful” attack on the Muslim community echoes the statements of Islamic leaders worldwide, as they push for international restrictions on free speech. “In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film ‘Fitna’,” explained Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of Organization of the Islamic Conference, in June 2008, “we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.”[7]
* Does the fact that the dominant media from the BBC to CNN, from The Guardian to The New York Times – those cowards that refuse to republish the twelve original Muhammad cartoons – have offended our religion, our traditions, our values in the past, mean that we now have to submit to a “deadly serious religion that answers insults with “action?”
Continue reading Freedom of Expression or Slavery under Islam?
















