04 May, 2006

More Cartoon Controversy

Page 3 of the Gulf News today
Shocked residents find anti-Islamic pamphlets on their car windscreens

Dubai: Anti-Islamic pamphlets were discovered on car windscreens in Bur Dubai yesterday morning.

The comic book tells the tale of a conversation between a Muslim and a Christian man discussing the difference between the two religions, and ends with the Muslim converting to Christianity and denouncing his faith. In the course of the conversation, the "Christian" man insults Islam, describing Muslims as "moon worshippers" and claims that Islam is a fake religion. The "Muslim" meanwhile insists that the "Islamic flag" will fly over the White House by the year 2010. Muslims will kill all "infidels" then, the book says.

The actual cartoon is not on the Gul News site. Did anyone get one in the wipers?
Posted by grapeshisha at 2:20 pm

11 comments:

nzm said...

It is available for viewing here on chick.com

That's if it's not blocked.

I give the link so that interested people may view it. Please do not think that I agree with what it says.

My personal view upon seeing it is that it's just a piece of propaganda - much like the Germans/English/Americans throw out of planes during wars to try to create hysteria or get the locals to succumb/surrender.

Ridiculous.

04 May, 2006 14:51
nzm said...

BTW - I'm currently in Germany so I can see that link.

Apologies if it is blocked in the UAE, but you're seriously not missing out on much.

04 May, 2006 14:52
redstar said...

Chick and his tracts are ridiculed across most of the Christian world and his view of Christianity is a very narrow and unpopular one, to the best of my knowledge.

That sort of nonsense doesn't go down well in most Christian countries - I'm surprised anyone's bother with it in Bur Dubai.

04 May, 2006 16:41
secretdubai said...

Chick is not christianity it is hate masquerading as religion.

It's not only Islam it defames - the stuff it has against other christian denominations is just bile-raising.

04 May, 2006 17:01
Anonymous said...

chick! ya know it;s short for chickenshit! toodles!

04 May, 2006 17:47
Anonymous said...

nzm! yep,it's not blocked!

05 May, 2006 01:03
Anonymous said...

Ha! I guessed it was Jack Chick when I read this post. I was right!

He has, as redstar mentioned, been mostly ignored by the rest of the Christian world. He has a lot of misplaced fervor.

If muslims are offended, they should see what his views are on the Catholics (his favourite target).

Check out his info on wikipedia.
h??p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Chick

Hmm...will UAE boycott the USA now? If not, will Denmark will cry foul?

Btw, what exactly is the point of this word verfication system? I've never really understood it!

05 May, 2006 06:56
John B. Chilton said...

The question I ask is, is it good enough for Christians to simply ignore the likes of Chick? I will allow that it may even be best to ignore him because giving him attention is what he craves to promote his message. As long as he's hardly noticed, that may be the best policy. But if he attracts enough attention, then Christians need to be make a clear statement disassociating themselves from his ideas and methods.

If we ask that Muslims speak out against those that hijack their religion, shouldn't we be asking the same of Christians?

05 May, 2006 12:58
Anonymous said...

Mr. Chilton:

When Jack Chick's disciples start blowing up trains and buses, flying planes into buildings or taking hostages and sawing their heads off on the internet, then it will be necessary for "real" christians to actively disassociate from him. Until that point, silence is the best option.

Your ire would be better directed to people like Fred Phelps and Richard Butler.

05 May, 2006 15:54
John B. Chilton said...

Mr. Bartman:

I get your point, but maybe we should take a tip and not wait until we get to that point.

Also, what's the difference between
1. A Christian
2. A real Christian
and
3. A "real" Christian.

Mr. Bartman uses form 3. I used form 1.

It's true that Christians are pretty fragmented and one Christian's definition of Christian can rule out others who call themselves Christian. Living with and allowing that ambiguity is inseparable from what it means to be a Christian - hence, I refrain from the use of form 3.

That does not absolve us of the responsibility of speaking out when someone who calls himself a Christian is really promoting hate.

05 May, 2006 16:16
Anonymous said...

Chick targets Catholics. (And Muslims, etc.)

Chilton targets Chick.

Chilton wants everyone else (claiming similar nomenclature) to target Chick.

Are you even remotely aware of the number of "Christian" denominations and permutations of rituals and doctrines and views and dogmas, Chilton?

Where exactly do we achieve closure, Chilton?

06 May, 2006 16:04

Post a Comment

NOTE: By making a post/comment on this blog you agree that you are solely responsible for its content and that you are up to date on the laws of the country you are posting from and that your post/comment abides by them.

To read the rules click here

If you would like to post content on this blog click here

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)