Sunday, September 02, 2007

Dog Muhammad

Let the insanity begin!

The Swedish artist Lars Vilks made a line drawing of Muhammad (spelled Muhammed in Swedish apparently). Big surprise! Two hundred quintzillion Muslims around the world are displeased with his effort. (Background from NRO.) But the Swedes have undergone a national spine transplant and are not prostrating themselves before the OIC. A major Swedish newspaper wrote that the country would not apologize. The artist also refuses to apologize. Several newspapers have reprinted the cartoon of Mohammad (or is it Mohammed or Muhammed?) with the body of a dog. Add this to the list of 10 Million Things That Offend Muslims.

Over the next week or two Muslim activists, imams and dictators will whip up the mob. Islamic Rage Boy and his posse will get some press, no doubt in fine form, super-duper mega pissed off at the unspeakable blasphemy of a pencil drawing in a country thousands of miles away whose language they can't read. Feel the sincerity.

Well, never let it be said that I missed a chance to pile on while the piling is good. Yesterday I posted Muhammad the Dog, my variation on the original drawing, the body of a canine with the head of the first Muslim. Now I give you the Big Mo, not with the body of a dog but as a dog, complete with all the dog parts, enjoying a fine bowl of pork. He may be cute but he's not housebroken.

I have a few more planned including one extra-offensive cartoon guaranteed to give Islamic Rage Boy a stroke. While you're here you can view my cartoons from the first Cartoon War. Leave your angry sputtering crazy-talk in the comments or email me in my secure undisclosed location at As usual, those who threaten me will receive public mockery in return; those who try to convert me will get a laughter and derision. Happy typing.

Labels: ,


Blogger alpha9884-google said...

Mohammed, peace be upon his (her?) doggieness, is a Dog!!! Hurray!

Repent Muslims, you have too long been remiss in not properly showing respect for the prophet Mohammed, peace be upon her doggieness!! Woof! !

8:38 PM  
Blogger Mjolnir said...

hey, this one is even better than the other one...I'm inspired. Gonna have to get out the pencil and paper...Muahahahaha.

9:26 AM  
Blogger Susan said...

This is beautiful, Thomas.
I love dog Muhammed!

5:53 AM  
Blogger Citizen Warrior said...

You are AWESOME! I just came across your writings at the Infidel Blogger's Alliance, and your attitude is just what we need in this war of memes. I hope you continue your work. Excellent.

10:49 PM  
Blogger miriam said...

Mahmoud is yet another variant spelling for Mohamed. They can't even agree on how to spell his name!

The Arab gene pool is very shallow.

PS--Love the pup!

2:06 PM  
Blogger M.M.S. FATAH TRADING said...


We have seen that the Old Testament has suffered interpolations
and changes in form as well as matter. It is possible no
longer to use it as a guide. Let us turn now to an examination
of the New Testament.
The books collected into the New Testament do not constitute
the utterances of Jesus nor of his disciples. Jesus was
a Jew and so were his disciples. If any of Jesus' utterances
were to be found preserved in their originality, they could
only be in the Hebrew language. So also with the utterances
of his disciples. But no copy of the New Testament in ancient
Hebrew exists in the world. The old copies are all in Greek.
Christian writers try to cover this grave defect by saying that in
the time of Jesus the language in general use was Greek.
This is impossible for more reasons than one. Nations do not
easily give up their language. It is for them as valuable an
inheritance as any property or other possession. In Eastern
Europe there are people who for three or four hundred years
have lived under Russian rule, but their languages remain
intact to this day. France has ruled over Morocco and Spain
over Algiers f o r a long time. Yet the language of these subject
peoples is still Arabic. Two thousand years have passed since
the time of Jesus. Yet the Jews have not forgotten their
language. Even today in parts of Europe and America, Jews
speak Yiddish, a corrupt form of ancient Hebrew. If this long
time spent amongst other peoples has not destroyed the Jewish
language, could a brief association with the Romans destroy it ?
Let us remember that Roman rule in Palestine had begun only
about fifty years before the advent of Jesus. This is not long
enough for a people to forget their language. But there are
other important considerations also to be kept in view :
(i) Nations which attain to any importance in history do not
give up their language, and the Jews were a very important
people indeed.
(ii) The religion of the jews was recorded in Hebrew, and
for this reason particularly, it was impossible for them to give
up their language.
(iii) In the scale of civilization and refinement, the Jews did
not regard themselves as inferior to the Romans, but rather
superior, and this must have made them proud of their language
and reluctant to give it up.
(iv) The Jews entertained hope for the return of their political
power. Nations which fear the future become pessimistic
and therefore tend to lose pride in their language. But the
Jews in the time of Jesus were awaiting the advent of their
King who was to re-establish Jewish rule. Looking forward to
such a future, they could not have been so negligent in protecting
their language.
(v) Jewish authors of that time wrote in their own language
or in some corrupt form of it. If their language had changed,
we should have had books of the time written in a language
other than Hebrew.
(vi) The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are in
Greek. But in the time of Jesus, the Roman Empire had not
become divided into two halves. The centre of the Empire wasstill Rome. The Roman and Greek languages are very difficult.
If Roman influence had at all penetrated Jewish life, it should
have resulted in the assimilation of Latin (and not Greek)
words into the Hebrew language. Yet the oldest manuscripts
of the Gospels are all in Greek. This proves that the Gospels
were written down at a time when the Roman Empire had
become divided and its eastern possessions had become part of
the Greek Empire, so that the Greek language had begun to
exert its influence on Christianity and its literature.
(vii) Phrases such as the following which are preserved in
the Gospels in their original form are all Hebrew phrases.
(I) "Hosanna " (Matthew 21 : 9) ;
(2) "Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani" (Matthew 27 : 46) ;
(3) "Rabbi" (John 3 : 2) ;
(4) "Talitha cumi" (Mark 5 : 41).
(viii) From The Acts (2 : 4-13) it appears that even after the
crucifixion, Jews spoke Hebrew :
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to
speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out
of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised
abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded,
because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another,
Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans ? And how
hear we, every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born ?
Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in
Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and
Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of
Libya about Cyrene, and in strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Cretans and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our
tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all
amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What
meaneth this ? Others mocking said, These men are full of
new wine.
It is evident that at this time the language spoken in Palestine
was Hebrew. Speaking any other language was extraordinary.
Among the names mentioned is Rome, which means that
the Roman language was not spoken in Palestine and whoever
spoke it seemed a stranger. We are not concerned here with
the merits of the narrative but we only wish to point out that
this passage from The Acts proves conclusively that even after
the crucifixion the language of the Jews was Hebrew. Those
who knew other languages were exceptions. When some of the
disciples spoke these other languages-among them Latin,
some people thought they were drunk and talking nonsense.
If the country as a whole used Roman or Greek, no such
reaction was possible.
It is clear, therefore, that the language which Jesus and his
disciples spoke was Hebrew, not Latin or Greek. So copies of
the New Testament written down in Latin or Greek must have
been written down long after the time of Jesus, at a time when
Christianity had begun to penetrate into Roman territory and
Roman imperialist power had become divided into the Italian
and Greek parts. Books of this kind, composed one or two
hundred years after Jesus by unknown authors and attributed
by them to Jesus and his disciples, can be of little use to any
believer today. It was necessary, therefore, that we should
have had another book sent to us from Heaven, free from these
defects and one which readers could regard with certainty as
the very word of God.

2:10 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home