Monday, March 15, 2010

Barking up the Wrong Tree (Again)

Update: Interestingly enough, the Mopiggie image has now been removed from the pdf file available at the link below (hat tip TB).

I wonder why? Didn’t the OIC pay any attention to my analysis that proved their actions were not blasphemous?

Fortunately I saved a local copy, so I can look at the OIC’s defamation of the prophet whenever I like.

First there were the Motoons in Denmark. Next came the Modoggies in Sweden. More recently we had the Mopiggie in Norway — which was actually a drawing by a young Israeli woman who spent two years an Israeli prison for her blasphemy against Mohammed.

Mohammed Pig

We need a nice abbreviated Mo-word as a handy descriptor for all phenomena that constitute “Visual Depictions of Mohammed Which Arouse Muslims to Uncontrollable Rage”. If we restrict ourselves to animals, “Monagerie” should do the job. But what about the general case — “Morony”, perhaps?

Mohammed the Pig was back in the news yesterday after Tundra Tabloids broke the story that a report (pdf) on recent examples of Islamophobia by the OIC’s Islamophobia Observatory contains the screen shot of Mohammed the Pig that appeared in a Norwegian newspaper last month. The image appears on page 8, along with this text:

Norwegian Security Services Facebook Promotes Muhammad Cartoons — Earlier this week Abid Q. Raja (Norwegian Liberal Party) voiced his concern about a link on the PST (Police Security Service) Facebook page to a cartoon portraying Muhammad as a pig writing in the Koran. He said he received phone-calls from Muslims who were deeply and intensely insulted and sad about it. He said he himself, as a very liberal Muslim, felt the cartoon in his heart, spine and soul. He said it was a scandal the PST did not realize the explosiveness in this cartoon and was afraid that it could cause violence in both Norway and Pakistan.

The sensation over the OIC’s use of this image — our Danish correspondent Kepiblanc tells me that it’s all over the news today in Denmark — focuses on an apparent contradiction: Muslims condemn the blasphemy and Islamophobia of Mohammed the Pig when he appears in Dagbladet, but the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has no problem with publishing the same image in its own report.

However, to view this as an inconsistency or as evidence of a double standard is to miss the point. No double standard is involved. In Islam there can be no double standard, because Islam is the only standard. That which advances Islam is good, and is to be promoted. That which damages Islam is evil, and must be exterminated.

It’s a simple rule, but the application of it can become quite complex. In order to understand what’s going on here, it’s necessary to examine Islamic law on its own terms, and learn to think like a Muslim.

The OIC tells us:

Under the Charter [pdf], the Organization [OIC] aims, inter alia, to… Protect and defend the true image of Islam, to combat defamation of Islam and encourage dialogue among civilizations and religions; …

That’s what the Islamophobia Observatory is all about: detecting and punishing defamation of Islam. But what does it mean by “defamation”?
- - - - - - - - -
“Defamation” and “slander” are well-defined terms under sharia, but they don’t mean the same thing to Muslims that they do to us. One of the best resources for sharia law is Reliance of the Traveller (’Umdat al-Salik), which was written in the 14th century by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri. It is a thorough treatise on Islamic law as understood by the Shafiite School, and the other three major schools agree on the essentials concerning slander. Thus Reliance of the Traveller serves as a useful proxy for the “consensus of the scholars”, the general agreement among sharia authorities about what constitutes universally applicable Islamic law (at least for the Sunnis).

In Book R, “Holding One’s Tongue” Reliance of the Traveller tells us:

Slander and talebearing are two of the ugliest and most frequently met with qualities among men, few people being safe from them. I have begun with them because of the widespread need to warn people of them… Slander (ghiba) means to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike… As for talebearing (namima), it consists of quoting someone’s words to another in a way that worsens relations between them… The above define slander and talebearing. As for the ruling on them, it is that they are unlawful, by the consensus… of Muslims. (r2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4)

Here al-Misri tell us that there is scholarly consensus on the issue of slander, which means it is an absolute rule, and not subject to dispute. Additionally:

In fact, talebearing is not limited to that, but rather consists of revealing anything whose disclosure is resented… The reality of talebearing lies in divulging a secret, in revealing something confidential whose disclosure is resented. A person should not speak of anything he notices about people besides that which benefits a Muslim to relate or prevents disobedience. (r3.1)

Thus, under the clear guidelines of Islamic law, it is entirely possible that if someone says something factually true, but which does not benefit Islam, that person can be judged guilty of slander under sharia. This is the net that has snared Geert Wilders: the Amsterdam court is implementing sharia on behalf of the Muslims of the Netherlands, and therefore the truth is no defense.

Now let’s apply the same rules to Mohammed the Pig. The republication of the drawing in Norway is deemed harmful to Islam. Therefore the image has defamed Islam, which makes those who display it guilty of blasphemy under sharia. By a strict application of the law, the offending parties must be put to death.

But the OIC’s use of the same drawing is not harmful to Islam: it is intended to explain to faithful Muslims the iniquitous behavior of the infidels, and to illustrate the dangerous blasphemy in which they are engaged. The OIC is acting in the interests of Islam, for legitimate and sharia-approved reasons, and its actions benefit Islam. Thus no slander or defamation is involved in the Islamophobia report.

There are no contradictions, no double standards. Everything makes complete sense, and is as clear as a bell.

But only if you think like a Muslim.

There’s no point in going into high dudgeon over incidents such as this one. No useful purpose is served by waving our arms and asserting that Islam is being hypocritical. Our triumphant “gotcha!” moment is significant only to fellow Westerners who analyze political and cultural events solely within a Western framework.

Applying Western concepts to Muslim behavior is a fruitless and quixotic endeavor. It’s a waste of time and energy, and nothing worthwhile will be accomplished by it. Westerners who pay attention to such things already agree with us, and any Muslims who hear us will only be confirmed in their view of the stupid and ignorant infidel, who is incapable of understanding even the simplest of concepts.

To fight this war, we have to get inside the enemy’s mind and understand how he thinks. If we fail to do that, we will lose.


linbetwin said...

Mopets? Mohavatars? ProphArt? Modoodles? AniMo? Motoons, Mo' Problems?

Fjordman said...

The Muslim mindset is extremely different from our own, but if you try to understand it it is rather primitive and highly predictable. Muslims like to brag that they are not scared of dying while fighting the infidels. Maybe not, but they are afraid of a whole lot of stuff that we aren't scared of at all, including evil Jewish jinns sneaking in at night. We come from a civilization that has split the atom and explored the Solar System. They come from a culture where Adolf Hitler is a great guy, Miss Piggy is the embodiment of evil and Mickey Mouse is a Zionist agent. You cannot deal rationally with such a culture.

When dealing with magical thinking you must respond by applying magical thinking against your adversary. Everybody is scared of something. Find their pressure point and squeeze. The worst thing that can happen to a Muslim male is that the Jews and Crusaders steal his penis. We should circulate a rumor that the Mossad have created a special squad of Jewish women who are trained to steal the penises of unsuspecting Muslims. All Muslim men who don't leave the Western world within 48 hours will lose their penis. Trust me, it would lead to mass panic. Fight fire with fire.

ɱØяñιηg$ʇðя ©™ said...

At least old mo got his mojo working - a lot.

ɱØяñιηg$ʇðя ©™ said...

Fjordman, your conclusions of the muslim mind-set was nothing less than bloody brilliant! It also gave me a late night laugh! :)

In Hoc Signo Vinces† said...

In hoc signo vinces

"Islamophobia Observatory"

Is this for real, somehow I missed this watch (mo)dog being setup, must not have been paying close attention.

Looks like Canadian cartoonist Terry Mosher has just aroused more uncontrollable muslim rage with a veil motoon.

laine said...

Motoon is the best choice for describing cartoons of Mohammed because it makes clear that to a non Muslim, he's just Mo, nothing special, no one who should receive a respectful honorific of "prophet" placed in front of his name by the same western leftist dhimmi editors who take every opportunity to degrade Christ and Christians.

Fjordman is right about the irrationality of Muslims. That's why I suggested months ago that westerners brandish their piggy banks, British flags and other paraphernalia with crosses on them, bacon and pork sandwiches in communal lunch rooms, unfriendly looks to the husbands of mummified women etc. etc. with the aim of giving the cold shoulder instead of a welcome to one's colonizers i.e. chill the atmosphere.

However, the critical point is what Denmark has hit upon. Take away their Welfare. This will discourage a large number of Muslims who in Europe at least are laggards who never had any intention of supporting themselves but are making their "contribution" to jihad by sucking as much money from the West as possible.

We have some insane practices of our own. Start with the polygamists. It is ridiculous that the West basically gives an indigent parasite a harem of up to four wives that Muslim countries do not. Only men wealthy enough to support them without state money have this "privilege" in Muslim countries.

mace said...

Do Moslems worship Allah or Mohammed?

Iconopathology? Those afflicted with the disease are 'iconopaths',as they can be very dangerous.

Dymphna said...


Your term has the advantage of being a Western medical diagnosis of something that has gone seriously wrong.

I love 'iconopaths' can almost picture them...Rage Boy is probably the examplar.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

rebelliousvanilla --

You know better. C'mon everybody, I'm tired of deleting comments today.


rebelliousvanilla said...

Fjordman, you mean the Jewish women that Muhammed raped stole his penis that had the strength of 30 men? God, I cracked up when I read that Hadith - I wonder what kind of insecure about his sexuality man would fabricate such a rumor. But again, he created a political imperial project based on maximizing the ammount of [female generative organ] his followers got. lol

I agree with you though, most Westerners make the mistake of not understanding that Islamic logic is dual, unlike ours. They also don't internalize the Muslim narrative in order to understand how Muslims think.

Anonymous said...

Baron, I apologize, I just didn't know that the word I used is bad. :)

Zenster said...

That’s what the Islamophobia Observatory is all about: detecting and punishing defamation of Islam. But what does it mean by “defamation”?

Anything it bloody well likes and in whatever way suits it at that particular moment. Within Islam, facts and truth enjoy a special measure of elasticity that not even the West's own traitorous media can duplicate to any convincing degree. Kitman and taqiyya are symptomatic of a far deeper pathology which enables the comfortable accommodation of cognitive dissonance at levels more typically associated with aneurysm-inducing psychotic breaks.

This yawning intellectual void represents one of the most fertile sources of pliable zealots that are capable of wreaking mayhem and havoc in ways that would make the Devil himself flinch again and again.

boru said...

Voila..Terry Mosher's (Aislin) "reactomo"..

If something happens to/in Montreal..faire attention..

hadley said...

I don't see any moral inconsistency in OIC printing Motoons and them being angry with non-Muslims printing Motoons. Do you? Really?

For example, in America black people can say "nigger" all they want: nigger this, nigger that, nigger, nigger, nigger, and white people cannot say "nigger" at all, even if they mean it in a neutral or even friendly way, such as " Whassup, my nigger?".

And we accept that hypocrisy, that double standard, simply because black people tell us "nigger" can only do its Evil Magic when white folks say it.

Worse, we accept the special offense that certain words will have even when everyone grants there is no evil intent and where offense is only taken if the speaker is believed to be white.

In fact that is precisely why this "nigger" comment is going to be removed. Not because I am trying to provoke or incite black folks as I would be by writing "You stupid dumb@ss nigger!" on a black weblog -- which would be like that Jewish girl putting up the Motoons poster -- but simply because I am white and using "nigger" in ANY context.

How can we honestly accuse others of a hypocrisy we practice every single day?

Baron Bodissey said...


I'm not going to delete your comment because:

(a) Your use of any possibly offensive terms is not an insult directed at anybody, but is employed descriptively to make a point.

(b) Your point is a good one.

As others have pointed out, sharia law and PC are already fully compatible, because they share the same ground rules.

When the time comes to switch from the PC/MC regime to sharia, the conversion will be seamless.

Zenster said...

Baron, your ability to discern and identify the merit of Hadley's comment is, quite simply, what makes Gate of Vienna one of my primary Internet destinations.

Hadley's point goes to the heart of what you have said about the Left's demonic convergence with Islam. Indeed, you note it by saying, "When the time comes to switch from the PC/MC regime to sharia, the conversion will be seamless."

What this observation beggars is, not just the profound cognitive dissonance of Liberals, but the question of exactly how that "seamless" conversion will take place.

As Yuri Bezmenov notes (time point 02:54 in the linked video), when the Left's "true believers" (i.e., those who are able to ignore Islam's total revulsion at everything that Liberalism stands for), suddenly discover that empowered Muslims are leading the Left's pet homosexuals and feminists to the wall for execution how, then, will they reconcile their enabling of Islam?

More importantly, it is difficult to imagine how these Liberals manage to delude themselves that the barbarians they've let inside the gates will just as readily politely step aside and let these Leftists assume power once the system has been collapsed.

As Bezmenov says, these enablers will be rewarded with the swiftest executions of all and quite deservingly at that. However, by then it will be too late for the rest of us.

As you yourself have all too often observed, Baron, many Liberals in positions of power regard themselves as totally indispensible and it can only be this towering sense of self-importance that permits such people to overlook just how thoroughly opposed actual Liberalism and Islam really are.

So, while the mindsets of Liberals and Muslims share many congruencies, they are as much alike as a human being and a doughnut, in that both have a toroidal geometry but the similarity ends there.

As is so often the case with Islam, all of this points towards an exceptionally disappointing conclusion for at least one or more of the parties involved. What it will take for Liberals to understand that Islam must be the loser continues to elude the descriptive ability of rational minds.

ɱØяñιηg$ʇðя ©™ said...

Hadley, in Sweden we have something called CMR (Centrum Mot Rasism = Center Against Racism). Oh God, I don't even know where to start. As late as of last year the city Karlstad in the region of Värmland had a city block named Kvarteret Negern. It had have that name since the mid 19th century. However, when CMR discoverd that there was a city block with the word negro in it, they immediately started a media campaign against it. It took a few months but Kvarteret Negern is no more. The local politicians decided to appease CMR as to not being branded as racists.

A few years ago they where campaigning against a small cake called negerboll (negro ball) and it has since then beeen renamned into chocolate ball although the old name can be traced at least back to the early 20th century. About the same time the waged war against an ice cream popsicle named Nogger Black. Gosh, nogger has absolutely nothing to do with nigger at all, the name just hints at nougat which is one of the ingredients and the black part because it was covered with licorice. But nonetheless, the ice cream was racism according to CMR and the popsicle was eventually banned. Swedes in general associated the word with nougate just as intended and not with nigger as CMR claimed. But now many swedes use the word nogger as slang for blackswhich didn't happen before the debacle started by CMR. So it appears they have shot thesleves in the foot in this case.

They are still waging campaigns against the popular graphic novel character Tintin or rather one of the early albums Tintin in Kongo. They demand this album, which belgian artist Hergé made in the 30's be banned from the public because negroes according to them are portrayed as stupid and juvenile. So far their campaigns has been unsuccesful. This is not the only literary figure they have been attacking. They are even attacking the iconic figure of Pippi Longstocking simply because her father the sea-captain is also king of a tribe of negroes. Well, as you can imagine CMR does not like that at all and want her dad's title changed to something more politically correct. So far they have failed in this task too.

Here I have given you a few examples of what is going to happen if you let immigrants and PC MC's run rampant through your society.

gsw said...

@Robin Shadowes.

The UK is no better, as anyone who ever collected Robinson's Golliwog badges knows. (Never did manage to get a complete set- overnight PC said NO MORE!)

And I think renaming the Agatha Christie novel to "And Then There Were None" was also a big mistake.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

rebelliousvanilla --

Please don't paste long URLs into the comments; they make the post page too wide and mess up the appearance of the permalink page.

Use link tags; the instructions are at the top of the full post's comment section.


rebelliousvanilla said

Photo link

Considering that that is in the middle of my city and thousands of people pass by it daily, I can not fail but crack up, even though it's sad at the amount of PC ridiculousness you experience in the West.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"I wonder why? Didn’t the OIC pay any attention to my analysis that proved their actions were not blasphemous?"

Well maybe thats exactly what made them remove it again. While it would be perfectly understandable to print it (seen from an islamic viewpoint) perhaps they simply forgot to think about how their enemies (that would be us among others) would interpret such an act!(=a license to draw and publish)

"Fortunately I saved a local copy, so I can look at the OIC’s defamation of the prophet whenever I like."

I forgot to do that myself. Cant you share it with us so that we always have the possibility to watch and enjoy our "license to draw"?


Baron Bodissey said...

TB --

It's a large file, and I don't really have a good place to store it.

BUT... Vlad has it.

Anonymous said...

Great! Thanks!