Muhammed Cartoons Appeared In Egyptian Newspaper In October 2005 - There Was No Reaction Or Protests (Updated) :: Understanding Islam

« Blatant Hypocrisy - Egyptian Newspaper Published Danish Cartoons Last October (Summary of previous post) | Main | Jihadi Hackers Of Jyllands-Posten Has Links To Tampa, Florida »

February 8, 2006

Muhammed Cartoons Appeared In Egyptian Newspaper In October 2005 - There Was No Reaction Or Protests (Updated)

Topics: Understanding Islam

Freedom for Eyptians scanned the images from the Oct 17, 2005 edition. He also notes that the editor in chief of Al Fager wrote an article expressing his surprise that the fatal riots have been suddenly being launched after four months.

Egyptian Sandmonkey emailed us this afternoon that the Egyptian Newspaper Al Fagr had published the Danish cartoons of Mohamed - back in October 2005, in the middle of Ramadan, and nothing happend. There was no outrage, no protests, nothing in the way of a Muslim reaction:

Egyptian Sandmonkey says that this proves once again that the entire campaign "of outrage" was instigated by the Danish imams and our arab islamic governments for their own political purposes.

[The arrows point to the date and one of the cartoons - The text says in Arabic that a special report is inside. Importantly, this occurred during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan. While Muslims are worshipping in this holy month, not a single protest was called in Cairo against Denmark or the newspaper.]

Egyptian Sandmonkey writes:

(...) Freedom For Egyptians reminded me why the cartoons looked so familiar to me: they were actually printed in the Egyptian Newspaper Al Fagr back in October 2005. I repeat, October 2005, during Ramadan, for all the egyptian muslim population to see, and not a single squeak of outrage was present. Al Fagr isn't a small newspaper either: it has respectable circulation in Egypt, since it's helmed by known Journalist Adel Hamoudah. Looking around in my house I found the copy of the newspaper, so I decided to scan it and present to all of you to see.

E.Sandmonkey has more images and links to enlargements for better resolution.

As Egyptian Sandmonkey suggests, and as evidenced by information in our previous post (and accompanying links) and elsewhere, the violent outrage exhibited by Muslims worldwide has been orchestrated initially by Danish jihadist imams who presented themselves as moderates to the non-Islamic world, while preaching and instigating jihad and violence to the Muslim world. The violent Muslim reaction was subsequently fueled by Arab islamic governments for their own political purposes.

In other words, we've been had, and the American media bought it all - hook," lying," and sinker!!!

Update: Tim (a Hyscience co-poster) just emailed this in - Re: Zombie's comment (a commenter at LGF) - this hypocracy is beyond words:

An image of MO (Muhammad). . ." is hosted on the Web site of the Iranian newspaper Hamshahri, which is sponsoring a contest of cartoons about the Holocaust as an outraged reponse to the publication of the Mohammed cartoons in the West. Yet the newspaper itself is currently displaying this depiction of Mohammed. "

Tim adds (via email): Riots around the world--promoted by Al Qaeda and its sympathizers--have claimed a dozen lives. Jihadists claim to be offended by cartoons of Mohammed that originally appeared in a Danish newspaper. What's most interesting is to see the timidity of the mainstream media here. The New York Times declines to publish the offending cartoons--but does not hesitate once again to run a photograph of an "artist's" rendering of the Virgin Mary, done in elephant dung. The Boston Globe and The Los Angeles Times shied away from offending Muslims, but re-published pictures of a crucifix immersed in urine. Editors of The Washington Post sanctimoniously tell us they prefer to "refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols." Oh, really?

The Post gave a roost for half a century to Herblock. His vicious cartoons never shrank from showing contempt for Christians. One of his efforts showed George W. Bush putting a church steeple atop the White House. Another depicted a Baptist deacon in a knee-length frock coat, out at the elbows, with a snake in his pocket. The Post sneeringly referred to Evangelicals as "poor, uneducated, and easy to command." Let's be honest: the reason liberal editors stick it to Christians while avoiding criticisms of Islam is that they know we won't cut off their heads or burn their news rooms - and they fear jihadists will.

Update 2: In The Bullpen, a fellow blogger in "The Anti-Terror Coalition of Blogs," wades in on the Islamic hypocrisy and phoney pretense for outrage.

Big Hat Tip to Egyptian Sandmonkey

Related: HT: Michelle Malkin

Posted by Richard at February 8, 2006 5:45 PM

Articles Related to Understanding Islam: