You might recollect the Danish cartoons that got the jihadists all crazy, and sparked a world-wide “Lego-burning” phenomenon. Well, I’m publishing them out of principle.

America has self-censored itself plenty, along with the rest of the world, because members of Islam are offended by cartoons. Muslims burn American and Israeli flags, and extremists incite violence and terror on the civilized world, yet the Islamic world takes offense when a Danish cartoonist draws their Prophet. They should take more offense when a suicide bomber blows himself up in the name of their religion, their prophet, and their Allah.

Can anything even come remotely close to this preposterous? I don’t mean to bash Islam–though I guess, actually, yes I do mean to bash Islam, in a sense. I mean to bash Islamism, which is the attempt by Orthodox Muslims and radicals to bring about a global Caliphate.

I’m not big on organized religion in the first place. Radical Christians scare me. There are plenty of moderate Christians, though, who can shrug off any satire of their religion. They may not like it, but they can take it with a grain of salt.

They aren’t too concerned that Jesus will be offended, using the logic that he is probably above such things, you know, being a divine entity and all….

Can’t You Take a Joke?

Muslims are so prickly when it comes to Muhammad that they threatened to behead a school teacher when she lets her class name a Teddy Bear after him. Half the Muslim world is named Muhammad but if you name a toy after the Prophet, that is obviously a crime against Allah, and punishable by lashings, imprisonment, and death.

Like Jesus, I’m pretty sure the Prophet himself wouldn’t have been too concerned with a stuffed animal sharing his name. He might have even thought of it as cute. What’s cuter than a Teddy Bear named after a Prophet? And after all, when Mr. Muhammad showed up on the Mesopotamian scene he came as a reformer.

Muslims today seem to forget this, using the inherent Orthodoxy of Islam, and the Prophet’s writings as a means to subjugate the masses, elicit violence, and justify all sorts of violence against women, members of other faiths, and innocents across the globe. You can even use the Koran to justify “wiping Israel off the map” if you try hard enough.

This is not to say that all Muslims are bad. Far from it. Many are educated and moderate.

But “many” here equates to a minority–at least in terms of the ripple effect that Islamism is having on the world, if not in actual numbers. Moderation is not accepted in this religion. Adherence to extremism, salafism, and blind orthodoxy are the status quo. Perhaps this isn’t the religion itself; perhaps Islam is undergoing its own Dark Ages.

Nevertheless, like the Catholic Crusades, the Islamism of today seeks to bring about the institution of Sharia, or Islamic Law, across the globe.

(more…)

There’s an impression that Muslims suffer disproportionately from the rule of dictators, tyrants, unelected presidents, kings, emirs, and various other strongmen - and it’s accurate. A careful analysis by Frederic L. Pryor of Swarthmore College in the Middle East Quarterly (”Are Muslim Countries Less Democratic?”) concludes that “In all but the poorest countries, Islam is associated with fewer political rights.”

The fact that majority-Muslim countries are less democratic makes it tempting to conclude that the religion of Islam, their common factor, is itself incompatible with democracy.

I disagree with that conclusion. Today’s Muslim predicament, rather, reflects historical circumstances more than innate features of Islam. Put differently, Islam, like all pre-modern religions is undemocratic in spirit. No less than the others, however, it has the potential to evolve in a democratic direction.

Such evolution is not easy for any religion. In the Christian case, the battle to limit the Catholic Church’s political role lasted painfully long. If the transition began when Marsiglio of Padua published Defensor pacis in the year 1324, it took another six centuries for the Church fully to reconcile itself to democracy. Why should Islam’s transition be smoother or easier?

To render Islam consistent with democratic ways will require profound changes in its interpretation. For example, the anti-democratic law of Islam, the Shari’a, lies at the core of the problem. Developed over a millennium ago, it presumes autocratic rulers and submissive subjects, emphasizes God’s will over popular sovereignty, and encourages violent jihad to expand Islam’s borders. Further, it anti-democratically privileges Muslims over non-Muslims, males over females, and free persons over slaves.

For Muslims to build fully functioning democracies, they basically must reject the Shari’a’s public aspects. Atatürk frontally did just that in Turkey, but others have offered more subtle approaches. Mahmud Muhammad Taha, a Sudanese thinker, dispatched the public Islamic laws by fundamentally reinterpreting the Koran.

ATATÜRK’S EFFORTS and Taha’s ideas imply that Islam is ever-evolving, and that to see it as unchanging is a grave mistake. Or, in the lively metaphor of Hassan Hanafi, professor of philosophy at the University of Cairo, the Koran “is a supermarket, where one takes what one wants and leaves what one doesn’t want.”

Islam’s problem is less its being anti-modern than that its process of modernization has hardly begun. Muslims can modernize their religion, but that requires major changes: Out go waging jihad to impose Muslim rule, second-class citizenship for non-Muslims, and death sentences for blasphemy or apostasy. In come individual freedoms, civil rights, political participation, popular sovereignty, equality before the law, and representative elections.

Two obstacles stand in the way of these changes, however. In the Middle East especially, tribal affiliations remain of paramount importance. As explained by Philip Carl Salzman in his recent book, Culture and Conflict in the Middle East, these ties create a complex pattern of tribal autonomy and tyrannical centralism that obstructs the development of constitutionalism, the rule of law, citizenship, gender equality, and the other prerequisites of a democratic state. Not until this archaic social system based on the family is dispatched can democracy make real headway in the Middle East.

Globally, the compelling and powerful Islamist movement obstructs democracy. It seeks the opposite of reform and modernization - namely, the reassertion of the Shari’a in its entirety. A jihadist like Osama bin Laden may spell out this goal more explicitly than an establishment politician like Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but both seek to create a thoroughly anti-democratic, if not totalitarian, order.

Islamists respond two ways to democracy. First, they denounce it as un-Islamic. Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna considered democracy a betrayal of Islamic values. Brotherhood theoretician Sayyid Qutb rejected popular sovereignty, as did Abu al-A’la al-Mawdudi, founder of Pakistan’s Jamaat-e-Islami political party. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Al-Jazeera television’s imam, argues that elections are heretical.

Despite this scorn, Islamists are eager to use elections to attain power, and have proven themselves to be agile vote-getters; even a terrorist organization (Hamas) has won an election. This record does not render the Islamists democratic but indicates their tactical flexibility and their determination to gain power. As Erdogan has revealingly explained, “Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off.”

Hard work can one day make Islam democratic. In the meanwhile, Islamism represents the world’s leading anti-democratic force.

~by Daniel Pipes

Dependence on foreign oil is a national security issue. Perhaps not coincidentally, most of the foreign oil we purchase is from States that are openly hostile to our interests, or who we probably should not be aligned with, such as the Saudis who have supplied many of the terrorists, extremists, and funding for terror against the United States and the West, not to mention their insistence on the spread of Wahabism through Suadi funded Islamic schools and mosques across the globe.

Other oil producers, like the UAE, are less radical in practice, but still represent a culture that America should hardly embrace or support–after all, we are supposed to represent freedom, personal security, and individual liberty. We are supposed to embody justice and economic prosperity for the masses, not just the elite oil cartels and dictators who populate the Middle-East leadership.

Then, too, there is Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, the Western Hemisphere’s answer to its relative lack of dictators and despots. Mr. Chavez is quite friendly with the rogue leadership of Iran, and further shows the fallacy behind so-called socialist States. Chavez should be decrying the inequity present in most Middle-Eastern States. After all, he is a populist and a champion of the little guy, right?

Nevertheless, as bad as Chavez may be, at least we aren’t supporting suicide bombers and the total repression of women when we buy his oil. We’re supporting his inflated ego, and we’re not really doing the world a service by inflating him further, but we’re not funding radical imams who incite violence against Western States and Israel….at least, I hope we’re not. Where Venezuelan oil profits go is a good question. Surely Chavez is aligned with some very unfriendly people. Should some of that money find its way into the hands of organizations whose intent is the destruction of Israel or the United States, no one would really be surprised.

The Price of Oil

Oil money is blood money, no doubt about it. I understand that right now, we have very little choice in the matter. Our economy depends on oil, sadly, and alternative energy sources are still in their infancy. This is one reason that I’m fully behind the reinstitution of Nuclear Power in the United States. New reactors should be built, and this should be done sooner than later. The more we can get away from oil and coal (which has its own long list of problems) the better.

The cost of oil is also paid by the people of the Middle-East, whose leaders maintain their tight grip in part due to their vast oil wealth. Using religion as their front, the leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria to name a few, manage strict, brutal control over their populations. Islam has been radicalized over the past 100 years, in part due to the natural reaction to Colonialism, but largely due to the rapid increase in wealth in the region, and the imbalanced way that wealth has been distributed. Lack of freedom, the radicalization of Islam, and an inherent yet reasonable mistrust of the West, all contribute to what has become the Iron Veil.

Religious Violence

Most of the religions of the world have embraced violence at one time or another. And most adherents to their religion have remained blessedly peaceful even during the darkest of times. Nevertheless, in Medieval Europe Christians allowed other Christians to kill millions of women in so-called witch hunts. The Spanish Inquisition was one of the bloodiest campaigns the world has ever seen.

In Spain peaceful Muslims and Jews were driven from their homes and exiled–or were put to the sword. This in the name of Catholicism. Christians remained silent as their leaders shored up power in the name of religion, using extreme ideologies to pacify their people and tighten their control. Vast wealth discrepancies existed between the peasantry and the elite, and these increased as Empires grew–the Spanish, the Austrian, each torch-bearers of the Holy Roman Empire.

Vast wealth and religious extremism cast Europe under a familiar cloud, one that can be seen above the region once known as Mesopotamia today. Gone are the days of Islamic glory–the Ottoman Empire is fallen; the Caliphates of old are no more. The height of Islamic splendor evidenced in Cordoba is a thing of the far distant past.

Perhaps colonialism left the region vulnerable for what is happening today. Perhaps globalism has followed too close on the heels of its predecessor, and now it is too simple to equate the two, and spread an anti-Western ideology that festers into hate and extremism. Then, too, there is a yearning for days gone by–for a mythical Islamic State that once existed in the form of the Caliphates of old. Islamism today is attempting to spread this Caliphate and with it Sharia or Islamic Law to all the countries where Muslim immigrants and converts have spread. The simplicity and idealism of Islamic Law ignores all the terrifying realities inherent in its practice–but a secular world, a global world, is a frightening thing. Fear of meaninglessness and a distrust of capitalism lead to the adoption of religious extremism. Sometimes this manifests peacefully–Buddhist monks who detach from society; the Amish who abandon technology–and sometimes it is a violent manifestation.

I have no doubt that most people just want to live–most Muslims just want to work, eat, love and build a life for themselves like anyone else. Family, security, stability, and though they may not understand it in some parts of the world, freedom. Freedom to achieve these things without the intervening hand of theocracy or despotism or ancient, brutal legal systems.

The Way Forward: Addressing the Issues at Hand

So from all of this–oil, poverty, economic imbalance, historical distrust of Western society, the equating of Colonialism with Globalism, social despondency–the extremists are able to grow new extremists, suicide bombers, the faithful but impoverished, the martyrs.

So can we combat this rise of extremism? Surely it cannot benefit either the West or the Islamic world. As I stated previously, I believe most Muslims just want to live and let live. The extremists poison the well. Yet, if this extremism is an effect of so many different causes, how can we ever hope to contain it, to quash it, to drive it back into the pages of history?

I think we can fight the spread of Islamism and accept the religion of Islam all at the same time.

First, we must find ways to break our ties with despotic regimes whose only connection to us is through the oil pipelines. Undoubtedly, our support of Saudi Arabia is hypocritical when we are so blatantly against the State of Iran. Both governments should be on our list of antagonist entities. Leveling the economic discrepancies in the Middle-East is vital to creating stability in the region. Dictatorships gorged and fat on their oil riches will never voluntarily move toward economic freedom, as it will invariably cut into their pocket books in one form or another.

Second, we must wage a war of ideas. Somehow we must debunk the notion that colonialism and globalism are one and the same. For one thing, globalism is here to stay. It is the way the world has evolved, and no matter what the isolationists here and abroad wish, there is no way to turn back the clock. We are stuck with a global economy for all the growing pains it may create. Friction is inevitable, but there is no reason it should spark such vehement resistance in the middle-east. The use of Islam as a fomenter of radicalism is one tool the anti-globalists in the Arab world have in their arsenal against the West.

Thirdly, we must maintain a strong military and do whatever it takes to provide stability for us and our allies, especially Israel who endures the most constant battering of terrorism. Any success the terrorists have against the West will serve only to further their cause and popular acceptance. I am an advocate of practical neoconservatism. I believe in the spread of security first, and democracy later. Security is far more important to those nations rising out of the clutches of despotism, than democracy–as is evidenced by the current state of affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan. No, neither of these wars, nor the larger war on terror can be won through military means alone, but that is no reason to abandon our military and intelligence efforts.

And lastly, we must champion womens’ rights across the globe. The lack of womens’ rights in many regions of the world has lead to the widespread poverty, increased childbirth rates, and yes, an expansion of radicalism. Promoting womens’ rights and education can combat these epidemics in a truly positive way.

The Muslim World

Democracy is important, but it is not the first priority in this war. Security, energy independence, and the continuation of the war of ideas and the war of truth against propaganda, the fight against inequality and social injustice, these are the most important factors in the war on terror.

Until these issues are addressed, the strife will continue. Islamists will continue to radicalize their religion, and dictators will continue to sap their populations and convince them at the same time that their woes are the effect of the West, of colonialism, of Israel.

The Islamic world has as much to gain in the defeat of their tyrants and extremists as the Western world, and the last step in fighting this long war must be taken by the Muslims themselves in decrying and ousting the radicalism from their own populations. It will be nigh impossible for the West to do this alone. A concerted effort by the Islamic world to end terror and accept modernity is necessary. I believe this can be done without sacrificing the culture or faith of Islamic society.

All these things must be accomplished, and we cannot give up on any front if peace is ever to be achieved.

~from Daniel Pipes

There is good news to report: The idea that “militant Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution” is finding greater acceptance over time. But there is also bad news, namely growing confusion over who really is a moderate Muslim. This means that the ideological side of the war on terror is making some, but only limited, progress.

The good news: Anti-Islamist Muslims have found their voice since September 11. Their numbers include distinguished academics such as Azar Nafisi (Johns Hopkins), Ahmed al-Rahim (formerly of Harvard), Kemal Silay (Indiana), and Bassam Tibi (Göttingen). Important Islamic figures like Ahmed Subhy Mansour and Muhammad Hisham Kabbani are speaking out.

Organizations are coming into existence. The American Islamic Forum for Democracy, headed by Zuhdi Jasser, is active in Phoenix, Arizona. The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism appears to be genuinely anti-Islamist, despite my initial doubts about its founder, Kamal Nawash.

Internationally, an important petition posted a month ago by a group of liberal Arabs calls for a treaty banning religious incitement to violence and specifically names “sheikhs of death” (such as Yusuf Al-Qaradawi of Al-Jazeera television), demanding that they be tried before an international court. Over 2,500 Muslim intellectuals from 23 countries rapidly signed this petition.

With time, individual Muslims are finding their voice to condemn Islamist connections to terrorism. Perhaps most outstanding is an article by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, a Saudi journalist in London: “It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists,” he writes, “but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims. … We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women.”

Other analysts have followed al-Rashed’s example. Osama El-Ghazali Harb writes from Egypt that “Muslim and Arab intellectuals and opinion leaders must confront and oppose any attempt to excuse the barbaric acts of these [terrorist] groups on the grounds of the suffering endured by Muslims.” From Virginia, Anouar Boukhars holds that “Terrorism is a Muslim problem, and refusal to admit so is indeed troubling.”

The bad news: There are lots of fake-moderates parading about, and they can be difficult to identify, even for someone like me who devotes much attention to this topic. The Council on American-Islamic Relations still wins mainstream support and the Islamic Society of North America still sometimes hoodwinks the U.S. government. The brand-new Progressive Muslim Union wins rave reviews for its alleged moderation from gullible journalists, despite much of its leadership (Salam Al-Marayati, Sarah Eltantawi, Hussein Ibish, Ali Abunimah) being well-known extremists.

Fortunately, the authorities kept both Tariq Ramadan and Yusuf Islam out of the United States, but Khaled Abou El Fadl got through and, worse, received a presidential appointment.

Even anti-terrorist rallies are not always what they seem to be. On Nov. 21, several thousand demonstrators, some of them Muslim, marched under banners proclaiming “Together for Peace and against Terror” in Cologne, Germany. Marchers shouted “No to terror” and politicians made feel-good statements. But the Cologne demonstration, coming soon after the murder of Theo van Gogh on Nov. 2, served as a clever defense operation. The organizer of the event, the Islamist Diyanet I?leri Türk-Islam Birli?i, used it as a smokescreen to fend off pressure for real change. Speeches at the demonstration included no mea culpas or calls for introspection, only apologetics for jihad and invocations of stale and empty slogans such as “Islam means peace.”

This complex, confusing record points to several conclusions:

• Islamists note the urge to find moderate Muslims and are learning how to fake moderation. Over time, their camouflage will undoubtedly further improve.

• Figuring out who’s who is a high priority. It may be obvious that Osama bin Laden is Islamist and Irshad Manji anti-Islamist, but plenty of Muslims are in the murky middle. An unresolved debate has raged for years in Turkey whether the current prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, is an Islamist or not.

• The task of identifying true moderates cannot be done through guesswork and intuition; for proof, note the American government’s persistent record of supporting Islamists by providing them with legitimacy, education, and (perhaps even) money. I too have made my share of mistakes. What’s needed is serious, sustained research.

  Technorati Tags: daniel pipes,islam,moderate muslims

Hizbullah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, speaking via satellite to a crowd gathered in Beirut asked an interesting question (and provided an even more interesting answer):

Can Israel disappear? A thousand times, yes.

Now, it’s true that the Jewish people have been cast from their homeland a few times, so perhaps the seeming discrepancy in Nasrallah’s logic isn’t so off-kilter after all. A thousand times, though?

The content of his speech, however, remains disgusting and fanatical no matter how you look at it. Nasrallah has shown himself to be little more than Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s mouthpiece and finger-puppet.

The two men certainly have their similarities. Nasrallah has said of the Jewish people:

If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. (Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002)

and

If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli. (New Yorker, Oct. 14, 2002)

Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric is less direct, but equally as virulent and reproachful. Of the Holocaust he has said that:

they have concocted a myth of deprivation and innocence for the Jews of Europe. They use this pretext of the innocence of Jews and the suffering of some Jews during the Second World War. Riding on the crest of a wave of anti-Jewish sentiments, they have laid the foundations for the Zionist regime.

Both of these cowards are heroes to many in the Islamic world. This is the sad state of affairs that the Muslim world faces. Their leaders are not only ignorant, they propagate terror, murder and genocide. Not content to wield power over the rest of the Middle-East, they must possess the tiny Jewish homeland as well. Having only the two Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina, not to mention the countless other Islamic sites that dot the region, they must also control Jerusalem, the historically Jewish Holy City. Islam is a much younger religion than Judaism, and any claims that religion makes to Jerusalem can in no way supercede the Jews’ claims.

For some reason, the Arabs feel they have more of a right to the Jewish homeland than the Jews themselves. This has nothing to do with Zionist tyranny or fascism as the Islamists and sympathizers call it. Muslims enjoyed more freedom and more prosperity under a Jewish State than under any of their oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia or Syria.

No, this is Antisemitism and Islamism combined. Islamism is a factor all over the Middle-East. Lebanon, which is heavily populated with Christians, is constantly under Syria’s control, with hired thugs like Nasrallah leading the continued campaign of fear and control. Christians, however, make much less appealing targets than Jews. Antisemitism is far more prevalent, and the concept of Zionism allows men like Ahmadinejad free reign to spew their hatred without actually saying that they hate Jews. One word replaces the other.

No, if Israel were a Christian nation the Arab governments would still try to destroy it–however they would meet with much stiffer world resistance from the rest of the world. Fortunately for Iran, Syria and the terrorists, they have the Jews to target instead, and two thousand years of worldwide animosity toward a people whose homeland was wrenched from them so long ago. Unfortunately for these States and the terrorists they sponsor–they sponsor terrorists because their attempts at actually attacking Israel militarily have been constant embarrassments–Israel has proved far more resilient than they hoped. The Israelis have turned out to be much stronger and much more strong-willed than the Arabs thought.

“The Zionists are the true manifestation of Satan” the Iranian President has told the world. He and his puppet, Nasrallah, and the terrorists they control are sure to fight Israel to the death (though surely not their own death, nor even the death of Iranians–they use pawns and so-called Palestinians to do their dirty work). There is no peace for such men. In another speech, Ahmadinejad said:

Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented

Are these the words of a man seeking peace? No, these are the words of a man seeking a cease-fire and a bit of breathing room to build up arms in Gaza and the West Bank. After all, if the end goal is the “elimination of the Zionist regime” aka Israel, then why should he want a cease-fire?

To re-arm and re-deploy terrorists, plain and simple.

It’s time the Israeli government, and the American government, woke up to the scary reality of the enemy. These are Hitler’s heirs, bent on the eventual destruction of Israel, and the elimination of the Jews. “If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide” Nasrallah said. And he means it.

The question is, will we let him get his wish, or will we stop the half-measures and ill-named “peace talks” and move on to a stronger policy? Will we allow the terrorism and rocket-fire to continue, broken only during “cease-fires” that allow the enemy to gather their strength or will we move toward a policy of overwhelming and nonnegotiable strength?

Sometimes the only way to save life and preserve the peace is to defeat the enemy once and for all, and leave them no room to continue their killing. Not through talks with liars like the men who lead Hamas. Only when the killing stops and the terrorists are broken will retaliation no longer be necessary. Only then can peace be achieved.

~by Churchill’s Parrot

“In history every nation that watered-down it’s Judeo-Christian heritage was taken over by Islam. Every single one.”
-Walid Shoebat, former Islamic terrorist, on The Gathering Storm Report 3/14/08
————–
Christendom - the concept of nations or families of nations united through their mutual devotion to the teachings of Christ and thus comprising a formidable foe to the forces of evil - is a concept which no doubt strikes terror in the hearts and minds of secularists and multi-culturalists presently at the helm of Western Civilization (and driving it straight into the wall.) For to them, if “evil” exists at all, it comes in no greater form than Christianity. In part, we feel their pain. The prevailing caricature of Christianity is that of a vapid, bubbleiscious, painted-smile cult offering all the spiritual depth of an Osmond family reunion on the Lawrence Welk show. To this we would most assuredly say, “no thank you.” We would also say to secularists as well as to Christians who have helped facilitate this caricature, this is NOT Christianity.
Even more terrifying for non-believers are proposals for the formation of some kind of structured world body defining and defending an official Christendom. “The Global Christian Alliance” as illustrated by Mr. Timothy Furnish, or the “Shire Strategy” of Mr. James Pinkerton. Both strategies, these gentlemen propose, would redefine the Judeo-Christian heritage shared by the vast majority of the free world and better enable it to defend itself against enemies of that heritage, most particularly Islam.

(more…)

~taken word for word from CNN

Swedish artist Lars Vilks says all he’s doing is taking a stand in the name of artistic expression. But because of that stand, on this afternoon he’s lying low — on the ground, in fact — looking for bombs under his car.

Al Qaeda has put a $100,000 price on his head and offered an extra $50,000 for anyone who murders him by slitting his throat after the eccentric artist and sculptor drew a cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a dog.

“I don’t think it should not be a problem to insult a religion, because it should be possible to insult all religions in a democratic way, ” says Vilks from his home in rural Sweden.

“If you insult one, then you should insult the other ones.”

His crude, sketched caricature shows the head of Prophet Mohammed on the body of a dog. Dogs are considered unclean by conservative Muslims, and any depiction of the prophet is strictly forbidden.

Vilks, who has been a controversial artist for more than three decades in Sweden, says his drawing was a calculated move, and he wanted it to elicit a reaction. Watch “I should slaughter you” »

“That’s a way of expressing things. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it. And if you look at it, don’t take it too seriously. No harm done, really,” he says.

When it’s suggested that might prove an arrogant — if not insulting — way to engage Muslims, he is unrelenting, even defiant.

“No one actually loves the truth, but someone has to say it,” he says.

Vilks, a self-described atheist, points out he’s an equal opportunity offender who in the past sketched a depiction of Jesus as a pedophile.

Still one could argue Vilks should have known better because of what happened in Denmark in 2005, when a cartoonist’s depictions of the prophet sparked violent protests in the Muslim world and prompted death threats against that cartoonist’s life.

Vilks’ cartoon, which was published in August by the Swedish newspaper Nerikes Allehanda, hasn’t reached that level of global protests, although it has stoked plenty of outrage.

Muslims in Sweden demanded an apology from the newspaper, which has stood by Vilks on his freedom of expression stand. Pakistan and Iran also lodged formal protests with Sweden.

One Swedish Muslim woman who lives just an hour-and-a-half drive from Vilks said she hopes to make good on the al Qaeda threat and slaughter Vilks like a lamb.

“I can do this in the name of Allah, and I will not fail. I could slaughter him in the name of Allah,” says the woman who identified herself only as Amatullah.

She adds, “If I get the opportunity.”

Dressed in a black burqa from head to toe and uttering death threat after death threat, the woman — a wife and mother — says she is defending her religion and her prophet if she manages to kill Vilks.

Amatullah has already been fined for issuing death threats. Still, she claims she will never stop taunting him.

Swedish police, who declined CNN’s request for an interview, have advised Vilks to abandon his home.

But the artist still works there by day and travels to a safe house by night. Vilks knows his defiance could get him killed, but he says his art is worth dying for.

As he sits at his computer, his phone buzzes with a text message. Another death threat has just come in, this one from Pakistan.

“I will kill you, you son a bitch,” he reads.