Tuesday, April 19, 2016

... on Mahomet and Mahometans and Freedom of Speech

Robert Spencer: How islam killed free speech in 30 years
Vlad Tepes

Listened up to 19:01. Not yet knowing all rest of content.

9:38 I was not aware of Rushdie basing the story of his novel on a story from Islamic tradition.

I am not very pro-Islamic, being from a family with some relation to brewery, I find it a VERY bad light when Muslims themselves tell the story of Mohammed answering a question "yes, earlier al-sharab was allowed" and then answering the request "ok, you may drink, but you may not" giving three interdictions, two of which were against stealing and against lechery with a woman not married to him, not sure if first was less serious or instead last was more serious, before the evening the man had done that, and pleaded "drink made me do it" and then Mohammed concluded or everyone concluded for him that drink was indeed henceforward forbidden.

  • 1) Denies miracle of Cana.
  • 2) Denies counsel of St Paul.
  • 3) Denies the wisdom of Noah in allowing moderate drink after he had accidentally become drunk by immoderation beyond limits he was beforehand unaware of.
  • 4) Blasphemes the Eucharist.
  • 5) Shows how either Mohammed or some demon manipulating him into being a manipulator was VERY manipulative.

Because otherwise it would have been very ill of providence to hand these men just that one example by sheer accident, unless it was to show Mohammed was very capable of hasty judgement, of panicking from a single case to an overheated principle.

But I think rather that man who did these things after drinking was either bewitched or an accomplice in a con game.*

When I heard of Rushdie's novel, I was ill at ease, I could not believe Muslims themselves had told a story of Satanic verses. To me it was as if he were insulting BOTH Muslims (in saying Mohammed had had a revelation from Satan on one occasion) AND Christians (in saying Mohammed had had his revelations from God the rest of the time, including presumably for Surah 5 which blasphemes Divinity of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ).

However, I would like to have some precise reference to:

  • 1) story as existing previous to Rushdie - from Islamic sources;
  • 2) Surah and Ayah for "there is not a prophet that Satan doesn't interfere in his message". Or other reference if I misunderstood and it be a hadith.

I think Muslims like Mormons are wrong, but I like to be fair to Muslims like I like to be fair to Mormons.


The Christians killed after in the riots have more sympathy from me than Danish cartoonists. I tried to voice their exasperation over cartoonists provoking what targetted ultimately them. But occasion shows Muslims today very capable of extreme hasty judgement.

I mean, Denmark and Sweden are, with Norway (whose police was hasty enough in judgement to give first day news Breivik was a "Christian Fundamentalist" which he was NOT) as un-Christian as you get in the West. Unless UK and Netherlands have passed beyond.


I can mention one day the blog stats showed Saudi Arabia on my blogs.

I don't think they liked it.

Perhaps the abbreviation "nov9 blogg9" ticked off an association with "99 names" when final raised "9" (shape, not numeric symbolism) was a medieval way of writing "-us" (reads "novus bloggus").

Perhaps that other blog which compared Mohamed and Joseph Smith as not necessarily both con men but at best both deluded by demons (at least both would have considered other so and neither gave a better proof).

Or that third one, where I had linked to a video by what was his name Ahmed Deedat (or someone else's blog post) and actually gave Christian ANSWERS to what were made and meant as unanswerable rhetorical questions showing how Christianity is supposed to be absurd.

Some time later, the sack I carry as a homeless man was suddenly too large for entry at Georges Pompidou library to be allowed. And as a homeless man, I depend on libraries for blogging.

19:01 "no matter what I say or do"?

There are in fact provocations against which one is obliged to take action, unless one is going to be subjected to continuous harrassment.

Say a man starts pushing me about in corners, I can't get beside him, I can't turn and run, it is then NOT my fault if I for instance hit him or am rude to him, or if he is stronger than I even draw some kind of weapon. It is perhaps in a sense still my choice, but it is not my obligation to stand reacting "normally" in face of continued abnormal provocations.

Muslims abused the principle and "targetted" people totally disconnected with provocation, but the principle remains a true one.

* Bewitched pawn or willing accomplice, in other words. As Mohamed for Satan.

No comments: