In the politically-correct world,
the doctrines of Christianity
can be freely criticised and ridiculed
- which is fantastic, and a hard-won freedom
that cost the lives of many
atheist and freethinking
But you can't do the same to Islam.
Leftists will call you a "racist" if you try to criticise
any religion other than Christianity.
The free (Creative Commons) online Flash game
Gods and prophets engage in hand-to-hand combat,
Jesus, Buddha, Muhammed and the
Flying Spaghetti Monster.
This game shows the problems for reactionary Islam in the modern globalised world.
It is true that Islam
(and not Christianity)
threatened the makers of this game,
and forced them into
grovelling apologies and censorship.
In their grovelling, they even disparage
"the one-way islamophobic satire of the Danish Mohammad cartoons".
They do not defend the artistic freedom of others,
but rather submit to the religious bullies, and admit they were wrong.
But who would blame them.
They don't want to get killed.
They carry on with extended grovelling:
"we are aware that muslims are victim of widespread racism in the western world. This islamofobia is functional to the imperial interests in Middle East and all over the world."
Grovel, grovel, grovel.
But again, my criticism of their rubbish about "imperial interests" will be limited
because they had the guts to make this game in the first place.
And they don't want to get killed.
And maybe the more positive story is that millions of Muslim youth online,
who are somewhat negative or indifferent towards the clerics that have been browbeating them
all their lives,
will laugh at games like this
and other forbidden fruit online.
will have a hard time
passing on the faith unchanged to its young people
in the onslaught of the Internet and other media
in the 21st century.
UK and Irish laws against criticising religion
Both the UK and Ireland have introduced terrifying new laws recently,
which, depending on how they are prosecuted,
may outlaw criticism of religion.
These laws are an offense against the concept of a free society.
do anything genuinely brave and daring.
Christianity, Judaism, America, Britain, Israel, capitalism, zionism and neo-conservatism
is safe, risk-free, and likely to win praise from your peers
and money from grant bodies.
If artists were
genuinely brave and daring,
they would insult and criticise people for whom there is some element of risk attached
- for example, Islam, Scientology, the Nation of Islam, cults,
living dictators, and third-world revolutionaries
such as the Palestinians.
Mocking Christianity is not daring. Mocking Islam is.
- boring, boring!
Why don't you do something risky?
A boring, brain-dead attack on conservative religion
(but not on religion itself)
by people devoid of history or philosophy, or culture, or real emotion.
Pro-religion, in a stupid, trendy, foulmouthed sort of way
(the director, "Silent Bob" Kevin Smith, attends church weekly).
In short, a movie for left-wing theists, not for atheists like me.
Humourlessly pee-cee too.
(God is a woman! Jesus is black! An abortion clinic worker will save the world!
Oh shut up you sanctimonious preacher.)
Kevin Smith acknowledges my central point
in discussing a sequel:
"Scary thing is this: the film would have to touch on Islam. And unlike the Catholic League, when those cats don't like what you do, they issue a death warrant on yer ass (see Rushdie). And now that I've got a family, I'm not as free to stir the shit-pot as I was when I was single, back when I made "Dogma". I mean, now I've gotta think about more than my own safety and well-being."
Full marks for honesty.
But your film is still shit.
It's so cowardly to attack the church when we won't offend Islam
- Nick Cohen
on Gilbert and George.
"The gallery owners know that although Catholics will be offended, they won't harm them.
That knowledge invalidates their claims to be transgressive.
An uprising that doesn't provoke a response isn't a 'rebellion',
but a smug affirmation of the cultural status quo.
If they were to do the same to Islam, all hell would break loose."
"in the Western world "artists" "provoke" with the same numbing regularity
as young Muslim men light up other countries' flags. When Tony-winning author Terence McNally
writes a Broadway play in which Jesus has gay sex with Judas, the New York Times and Co.
rush to garland him with praise for how "brave" and "challenging" he is.
The rule for "brave" "transgressive" "artists" is a simple one: If you're going to be provocative,
it's best to do it with people who can't be provoked."
However, this isn't the whole story.
Terrence McNally was under no threat from Christians,
but surprisingly he got
(because to Muslims Jesus is still a holy prophet).
So maybe mocking Christianity does
mean you are brave after all.
Oddly, Islamists may be the ones to defend Christianity
with violence, since Christians (thankfully) won't.
I started reading
Dead Air (2002).
I initially enjoyed the hedonistic hero,
but I eventually had to abandon the book because I found the hero's
self-righteous leftie politics insufferable
- and it was clear that these are Iain Banks' own politics.
He clearly thinks the
root cause of 9/11
is US foreign policy.
"officials at Burlington Township High School enlisted the help of two local policemen
to carry out a mock 'hostage situation' drill at their school.
the student body was told that the alleged gunmen were
"members of a right-wing fundamentalist group called the 'New Crusaders'
who don't believe in separation of church and state."
The drill organizers explained that the supposedly Christian gunmen
'went to the school seeking justice because the daughter of one had been expelled for praying before class.'"
School Superintendent says, "We need to practice under conditions as real as possible"
Mocking Christianity is important, but less important now
that Christianity is tolerant.
Supposedly "daring" modern artists ridicule Jesus and Mary
and other Christian figures,
showing crucifixes in urine,
or Jesus having sex,
and so on.
Of course there is nothing daring about it,
because modern Christianity tolerates criticism.
If they were really daring, they would do it to Islam.
You're joking if you think this is satire
- Mark Steyn
mocks a supposedly "daring" song called
"We're Sending You A Cluster Bomb From Jesus."
- "You can sing "We're
Sending You A Cluster Bomb From Jesus" because there are no
"fundamentalist Christians" within 20 miles of the Birmingham Rep -
or at least none that is going to be waiting for you at the stage door.
"We're Sending You A Schoolgirl Bomb From Allah" might attract
notice from a livelier crowd. If you're going to be provocative, it's
best to do it with people who can't be provoked."
- Mark Steyn
on the movie Saved!,
set in a Christian high school,
"American Eagles Christian High".
- "USA Today called it "irreverent" and "subversive".
Au contraire, if you wanted to be irreverent and subversive,
you'd have set it at American Eagles Wahhabi Madrassah
... deriding Christians is obvious and risk-free".
I agree, and I am not a Christian.
A True Islamic Reformation
by Ibn Warraq
complains about how the left protects Islam from criticism:
"we who live in the free West and enjoy freedom of expression and scientific inquiry
should encourage a rational look at Islam, should encourage Koranic criticism.
Instead, political leaders, journalists and even scholars are bent on protecting the tender sensibilities
of the Muslims. We are not doing Islam any favors by protecting it from Enlightenment values."
Artists too frightened to tackle radical Islam, November 19, 2007
- At least Grayson Perry is honest:
"I've censored myself. The reason I haven't gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.
With other targets you've got a better idea of who they are but Islamism is very amorphous. You don't know what the threshold is. Even what seems an innocuous image might trigger off a really violent reaction so I just play safe all the time."
talks about a "daring" art display in Glasgow, by artists working
"in association with organisations representing gay Christians and Muslims",
where people are encouraged to deface ... the Bible.
Spencer points out that by using the Bible, but not the Koran,
the exhibit does not have quite the meaning the artists think it has:
"They didn't offer a Qur'an for defacing. And so their entire absurd exhibit
demonstrates anew that Leftists don't believe their own rhetoric
about Christianity and Islam being equally likely to incite believers to violence."
Even people trying to praise Islam are at risk:
Polish techno DJ and musician
Jakub Rene Kosik
produced a track called
in Dec 2009, which was meant to be a tribute to Islam:
"my composition was supposed to be a tribute to their culture.
I'm atheist. But I was raised with respect to different religions and philosophical opinions."
Much to his surprise, it led to death threats.
But it includes no image offensive to Islam.
It does not include the Muhammad Cartoons.
Comedian Stewart Lee
illustrates the cowardice
of Western comedians.
co-wrote the blasphemous
Jerry Springer: The Opera,
which horrified Christians.
But when challenged to also mock Islam, he completely chickens out.
This is his
Pathetic and cowardly.
Slagging off Christianity because slagging off Islam is too risky (and too accurate):
The Onion (click to play) does a parody
about a Christian church that only wants to give to
and "non-Muslim" earthquake victims.
Of course, Christian charities are not like this.
Christian charities are notable for providing aid to people of other religions and none.
Often in fact they end up feeding people who persecute Christians.
The Onion doesn't have the guts here to face the real issue - that exactly these kind of charities exist
- indeed are the norm - in the Islamic world.
Zakat (Islamic "charity").
The normal interpretation is that charity is
for Muslims only.
PBS, Recruiting for Islam
by Daniel Pipes, December 17, 2002.
In America, it is illegal for taxpayers' money
to be spent on missionary films for Christianity.
But only Christianity.
The leftist world view is such
(and I don't understand why)
that taxpayers' money
can be spent on missionary films for Islam, like this one.
of Karen Armstrong's book "Islam: A Short History"
by Daniel Pipes,
- "Armstrong goes out of her way to soften every hard edge,
explain away every unpleasantness, and hide what she cannot otherwise account for."
Karen Armstrong: Islam's Hagiographer
by David Thompson
- "Islam's foremost hagiographer and shill
has found an audience among Muslims and those on the left with
little appetite for unflattering facts
and a preference for being told whatever they wish to hear."
Efraim Karsh, Sept 25, 2006,
on Karen Armstrong's whitewashings.
He talks of "Muhammad's wisdom".
He absurdly claims Muhammad was a "restorer of justice".
"Muhammad and Washington taught their peers to improve relations with others by using kindness and positive words.
Ultimately, Muhammad and Washington were gentlemen of the highest degree."
This is Muhammad he is talking about - a man who murdered his critics.
They would never publish similar apologetics for Christianity.
Considine gushes about his hero Muhammad:
"Muhammad's beliefs on how to treat religious minorities make him a universal champion of human rights,
particularly as it pertains to freedom of conscience
My research has also highlighted how Muhammad had similar beliefs to that of George Washington
my research into the Prophet's life has showed me that he is a role model for both Muslims and non-Muslims".
do not agree that Muhammad believed in
or "freedom of conscience":
"Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali
and he burnt them.
The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas
who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of
'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'""
Has Considine never heard of these hadiths?
Craig Considine noticed this page in June 2013.
but declined to link to this page
or tell his readers what site it is.
Screenshot but no link - that's how to treat the evil counter-jihad!
Nor did he engage in debate
when I tweeted him.
No platform for racists who dislike the great Muhammad!
The ludicrous keywords on the above show clearly the left's name-calling rather than debate.
he declines to debate, Apr 2015.
He seems to approve of the thuggish suppression of the pagan religion of Arabia
by a new religion
that was equally idiotic but much more violent.
had hundreds of idols representing many gods.
Muhammad destroyed them all.
Muhammad ended religious freedom.
And Considine supports that?
"A Duck Napping"
(and more search),
"duck beheading" video
by students from Brookville Hall at
the C.W. Post campus
of Long Island University,
A spoof of jihadi beheading videos.
Hurray for anyone who pokes fun at maniac religious killers.
National Lampoon's 72 Virgins:
OK, I don't actually find National Lampoon's
humour very funny.
It's too simple and obvious.
But fair play to them for making this.
Braver than most.
"Have I Got News for You", BBC TV, June 2011, has a funny joke about Islam and its relationship with terror.
described the Dostoevsky metro station
... as the Mecca for suicides.
Not to be confused with the Mecca for suicide bombers - which is Mecca."
she received threats from Muslims for joking that their religion is not peaceful.
Yes, death threats will prove Islam is peaceful!
She ended up issuing a
"I am anti any prejudice of any kind. And particularly the generally lazy media portrayal of Muslims or any blanket negativity towards Islam. ...
Any of the comments on here, which are suggesting I am racist or in any way anti-Muslim are a load of nonsense. ... Really hope that people understand this and stop threatening me."
By the way, are we allowed mention in passing that
Islamic suicide bombers actually
bombed Moscow metro stations (though not Dostoevsky station) in
He hilariously insults him:
"Can I give you guys a word of advice: Lose the beards.
Because your king Osama looks like a kind of dirty wizard or a homeless Santa.""What exactly did he just say?""He says that your King Osama looks like a dirty wizard or a homeless Santa Claus."
Cohen is a Jew, from Britain, who has lived in Israel.
Very edgy and very brave.
Is Ayman Abu Aita linked to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades?
Is Ayman Abu Aita linked to the terrorist group the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades?
Yes he was, according to reports.
And yes he still is, in the sense that he is linked to their political wing Fatah.
Links to Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades:
says he used to be in the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades:
"Aita served in the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades from 2000 until 2003,
after which he did a two year stint in Israeli prison on accusations he was involved in shootings against Israeli soldiers operating in Bethlehem."
says he admits he used to be in the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades:
"But he insists he is no longer involved with the group".
Links to Fatah:
He then became a representative of Fatah, the political wing of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.
He openly admits he is in Fatah:
"he insists he is no longer involved with the [Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades] group,
and is only a Christian Fatah representative for the Fatah movement's political wing."
The Guardian defends him,
but admits he is in Fatah:
"He is a Christian Fatah representative – of the movement's political wing, he stresses – for Bethlehem district."
Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades issued death threats against Cohen:
"We reserve the right to respond in the way we find suitable against this man [Cohen].
This movie was part of a conspiracy against the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.
This was a dirty use of our brother, Aiman.
This joke is very dangerous. We are not in the United States, we are not in Europe, we are in the Middle East, and the world operates differently here."
It sure does. That's why your world is so fucked up, and our world is so lovely.
The Brigades statement admits Ayman Abu Aita is part of Fatah, the political wing of the Brigades:
"Aiman is part of the political level of Fatah in Bethlehem,
part of the leadership of the political apparatus of Fatah.
He is not a member of the Brigades."
Ayman Abu Aita
is a board member of the Holy Land Trust
That is, this "non-violent" "charity" has open links to Fatah.
said in 2009 that
she believed more in dinosaurs than the Bible because "it is hard to believe in something written by people who drank too much wine and smoked herbal cigarettes."
For such harmless statements, that would have been made by any deist in the 18th century,
she was prosecuted in Poland!
She was convicted in Jan 2012 of "offending religious sensibilities"
Shame on Poland.
What would they do with
who said that the
Book of Revelation was:
"merely the ravings of a maniac,
no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences
of our own nightly dreams."
The cover of the banned issue of "Clareification".
The "Clareification" controversy,
Clare College, Cambridge, Feb 2007.
A student is forced into hiding from death threats
for criticising Islam.
The university, instead of supporting him,
shuts down the paper,
stops its funding,
recalls and destroys the issue,
forcing him to apologise
under threat of expulsion.
The UK police question
the student, and may press charges
(if they are idiots).
The college promises to take action to prevent a similar incident occurring.
The National Secular Society:
"We are shocked that the staff and even the students union at this
supposedly liberal college have joined the attack on this student
because he had the temerity to poke fun at religion.
Free expression is such a precious commodity and is under such ferocious attack at present
from religious interests that it is disgraceful that no-one is standing up for
this young man's right to be rude about religion - even about Islam.
Satire aimed at religion is no different to satire aimed at any other ideas and should not be punished or restrained."
It is true.
Why should people be allowed to
poke fun at atheism and Darwin
if we are not allowed to poke fun at Islam and Muhammad?
On the threats to the student:
"This episode demonstrates terrorism in action.
If critics cannot be silenced by reason, then they must be silenced by intimidation - real or imagined."
What Cambridge is doing is teaching ultra-right-wing Muslims that
the threat of violence works,
and so keep it up, and expect more.
Before we were allowed see some of the issue, I said:
It is hard to form an opinion on this
since we are not allowed to see the censored work.
the piece said
"I hate Islam",
which sounds stupid but legal.
After all, it is legal to say "I hate atheism".
Anyway, knowing the intelligence and wit of most ultra-smart Cambridge students,
I doubt very much that this was simply a bald statement: "I hate Islam".
Again, one would want to see the whole piece.
Apparently, the piece also implied (via a switched pictures joke) that the Prophet was
"a violent paedophile", which again is perfectly legal,
even perhaps uncontroversial.
After all, it is legal to say that Moses was a violent rapist
(because he was).
Again, one would want to see the whole piece, but it sounds like harmless satire
if this is the worst they can dig up.
My instinct was right:
We are finally allowed see
some of the banned content
and it is not brain-dead BNP-style abuse,
but rather intelligent, witty satire.
what one would expect from super-smart Cambridge undergraduates.
Some of the banned issue.
Intelligent, witty satire, poking fun at
the touchy, aggressive, violent, sanctimonious, hypocritical
cuts the head and limbs off priests
in protest at suggestions that Islam is violent.
Such satire is badly needed in these times of dour, humourless religious fanatics.
If this material is banned at Cambridge, then
Cambridge is no longer a free university.
If this material is banned in Britain,
then Britain is no longer a free country.
The Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina
has written a script for the first ever proper movie about Muhammad.
A Movie about Muhammad: An Idea whose Time Has Come, Ali Sina, February 28, 2012.
"We need to make a motion picture about Muhammad – a biopic that reveals the details of his life.
The true story of Muhammad is untold. It is available in the books of Siras. But those are voluminous books. Combined, they are thousands of pages. I read them all and have condensed them in a script. This biopic starts with Muhammad’s childhood.
The movie shows Muhammad’s raids, plunders, massacres, rapes, assassinations and other crimes. A small subtitle in the lower right corner of each scene will give reference to the source of the story. This movie is entirely factual. Wherever possible, I copied the Quran, the Sira and the Hadith verbatim. It is a riveting story.
I am not thinking of a high budget movie, but given the subject matter, it can become one of the most seen motion pictures ever.
When the world discovers the truth about Muhammad, Islam’s days will be numbered. I have led thousands of Muslims out of Islam. I know truth sets people free."
What movie has ever shown the life of Jesus or Moses?
What movie has ever been made showing a realistic
account of the life of
Showing what actually happened.
That he was just a preacher who was brutally executed.
That, like all humans,
his mother was not a virgin,
and he had a human father.
That no kings appeared at his birth, and
there was no massacre of new-born children.
That he preached, but worked no miracles, healed no sick
and cast out no demons, for demons do not exist.
That he believed he talked to God, but was mistaken, for there is no such being.
That he died and that was that.
Like all humans, he did not rise from the dead.
That despite all this, his religion grew because it filled a need.
Because it was a good meme.
That hearsay and rumour got written as fact.
That the gospels are not true.
Will anyone ever make a straightforward film that shows what actually happened?
If you know of one,
tell me here.
What movie has ever been made showing a realistic
account of the life of
Showing what actually happened.
That he was an intolerant religious fanatic, tyrant,
murderer of innocent women and children.
And he never talked to God, but was deluded that he did.
For God is not there.
That he did not receive commandments from God on Mount Sinai.
And there were no selective plagues,
no striking down of the first-born,
no parting of the Red Sea.
These things do not happen in real life, only in stories.
The children's animation
The Prince of Egypt (1998)
is perhaps the worst whitewash ever
of this intolerant, hate-filled killer.
Will anyone ever make a film that shows what actually happened?
If you know of one,
tell me here.
Innocence of Muslims riots of Sept 2012,
announces that Nick Jr. is temporarily
suspending production on its forthcoming children’s program
"The Almighty Muhammad’s Porkalicious Toon Jihad".
"While we still believe that thousands of young viewers would really enjoy seeing Muhammad go on his weekly pilgrimages to his big bacon mosque with his rabbi friends Hershel and Moishe, our company nonetheless believes it’s best to indefinitely postpone the show’s release.
Hopefully, when the international climate is slightly less volatile,
children will be able to enjoy all of Muhammad’s hijinks ..."
It is satire, but it has a serious point.
Someday, when we are free, people will be able to make such a program
without fearing for their lives.
It will be a great day for the planet when that is possible.
Jesus and President Bush crap all over the American flag and all over each other.
Al-Qaeda's "retaliation video"
in South Park's
Cartoon Wars Part II (2006).
No Christians rioted and killed in response.
This is because Christianity is far more advanced than Islam.
"Criticism of religion is not only the starting point of all criticism. It is the prerequisite of any kind of criticism."
- Lars Hedegaard
sums up the Enlightenment.
"The college is now arranging a meeting for next term to discuss
the problem of maintaining free speech while avoiding offence."
Clare College, Cambridge, 16 Apr 2007,
after disciplining a student for criticising Islam,
show they have no idea what "free speech" actually means.
Who I block on Twitter:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who:
(a) target my job,
(b) target my appearance, or:
(c) libel me.
Also, since 2016, abusive reporting has become a thing.
I was targeted with abusive reporting by
an Israel-hater pretending to be "Jewish".
So I now also block:
(d) any account that even hints that it reports its enemies,
(e) any Israel-hater that claims to be Jewish.
It is just self-defence.