web analytics

Don’t Miss an Update! -Subscribe:

Follow AforFaith on Twitter

Categories

vineyard-roll.gif

Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Malware Free Guarantee

SiteLock

Join Our Facebook Network

Visitor Map

Locations of visitors to this page

-Paris Terrorism and Western Cave-Ins to The Islamists

by Dr. D ~ January 15th, 2015

peppa-pig-300x174

Oxford University Press to Censor References to Pigs (Peppa Pig)


We all saw the huge marches on TV in Paris where the hundreds of thousands of folks showed up to support free speech and demonstrate against the terrorists. In the process the French Prime Minister even declared war on radical Islam. Meanwhile there are also dozens of examples of cave-ins to the terrorist demands that Islam and Muhammad be respected and off-limits to any criticism or what many Muslims consider as ‘blasphemy.’ The following are a few examples:

First of all, President Obama did not attend the march in Paris last weekend which included nearly all of the Western leaders and didn’t even bother to send a representative. Then when asked about the French PM’s declaration, the White House responded by saying that it would escalate their efforts to promote the ‘real tenets’ of Islam and that the terrorist actions had nothing to do with the Islamic religion even though they shouted “Allahu akbar” and claimed to be avenging the prophet Muhammad. The administration response was reflective of what Obama said a couple of years ago in a speech before the UN:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

But even more, according to the administration it is the duty of the President to encourage journalists to refrain from angering Muslims. So rather than marching with those who want to support free speech our own administration would like to curtail it when it comes to Islam.

Today while in route to the Philippines, Pope Francis said that free speech was a human right but it should have some ‘limits.’ He proposed that a line needed to be drawn when it comes to insulting or ridiculing someone’s faith. Earlier he had criticized the Paris terrorists for the killings and reached out to Muslim leaders asking them to condemn those actions but now seems to be caving-in to their demands and agenda.

A recent editorial in the Financial Times called for ‘common sense’ and self-censorship when it comes to alienating radical Muslims:

…some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims….

The New York Times in a number of different articles failed to even mention the terrorist’s connection to Islam or their possible religious motives for their actions. But the worst cave-in from the ‘paper of record’ came in an article that claimed that Islam is a religion of peace and not any more violent than any other religion. From “Raising Questions Within Islam After France Shooting,” by David D. Kirkpatrick:

The majority of scholars and the faithful say Islam is no more inherently violent than other religions.

The article goes on to blame and excuse Islamic terror as being caused by poverty and authoritarian rulers:

“the sources of the violence are alienation and resentment, not theology.”

This week as an act of self- censorship, the Oxford University Press caved-in to radical Islam and the terrorists by announcing that they would no longer publish books or pictures, which contained any references to ‘pigs’, ‘pork,’ or ‘Sausage’ since it might be offensive to Muslims.

Then there are also dozens of examples where nearly every TV news station and American newspapers self-censored themselves by deliberately blurring the cover pictures of the Charlie Hebdo magazine.

Just in case you might be uncertain about the Muslim connection and motives of the Paris terrorists (after all of the efforts to apologize for Islam and combat ‘Islamophobia’), here is a clear statement published in USA Today from a ‘radical Muslim cleric’ in the UK condoning and identifying the Islamic basis for the terrorist actions:

Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression…

…the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."

So hundreds of thousands of regular people in Europe along with Western leaders marched for ‘free speech’ while most of the Western press began to self-censor themselves in deference to Muslim sensibilities. Yes, a few did republish the Charlie Hebdo images in support of free speech but that effort quickly dried up after one German newspaper which published the cartoons was bombed.

This week the most popular response and word du jour is- ‘Islamophobia.’  There are literally hundreds of articles in the media and on the Internet calling for Islam to be respected and better understood in order to combat the possible rise of so-called ‘Islamophobia.’ In spite of the marches last week, the cause to curtail free speech in deference to Islam and Muhammad has been advanced, endorsed, and validated. The terrorists have actually won.            *Top

>>>Don't Miss an Update!**CLICK NOW**Get ANSWERS For The Faith by email<<<

2 Responses to -Paris Terrorism and Western Cave-Ins to The Islamists

  1. Brian

    The Oxford University Press will no longer publish books containing the words “pork”, “pig” or “sausage”?? Well, I note that that OUP is a major publisher of dictionaries – – I assume those definitions will be deleted?

    It also publishes a series of atlases — I suppose Pig, Kentucky will be omitted?

    One of its recent publications is “the Oxford Companion to Food” — will it be censored?

    And think about dogs -they are unclean in Islam – let’s delete all references to dogs.

    But, I am being facetious. The Oxford press currently has 1,554 books in print on Christianity and 556 on Islam. Many expound on topics that would be offensive to at least some Muslims. If the mere presence of the word “pig” in an otherwise innocuous book is sufficiently offensive that it must be removed, how can one justify publishing any book critical of Islam?

  2. Dr. D

    Brian, of all of the responses the OUP is the most shocking which is why I put the picture at the top of the article. If they really intend on no longer publishing any book that may be offensive to Muslims then they will have to stop publishing most of their Christian books particularly the ones featuring theology. Obviously this decision will not stand if they still have any concerns about academic freedom or scholarship and economic viability.

Leave a Reply