He discussed “Hillary Clinton’s War On Free Speech”:
by Phyllis Chesler
Special to IPT News
February 19, 2015
Brookings Institution Center for Middle East Policy Fellow Shadi Hamid recently criticized the West as “illiberal” for refusing to accept the fact that Muslims, both in the West and globally, aredifferent from Westerners.
It was an unusual argument, one for which The Atlantic devoted 3,400 words.
Although President Obama insists that the “fight against terrorism is not a religious war,” Hamid seems to disagree with him.
According to a variety of polls, Hamid is right. For example, while a 2009 Gallup poll shows European Muslims overwhelmingly reject violence, they are far more religious than those who live in secular Europe (France, England, and Germany), and are more strongly opposed to homosexuality than are secular Europeans. In addition, young, second or third generation European Muslim men favor veiling for women, polygamy, the execution of apostates, and favor prohibiting Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men.
Muslims are more likely to view “blasphemy as unacceptable,” Hamid wrote. He described Muslims as “deeply conservative” and, to varying extents, wanting “the application of Islamic law.”
The liberal West believes in criticizing everything, especially religion, beginning with Judaism and Christianity. Extending this right-to-criticize, satirize, or examine Islam has led to major Muslim meltdowns.
Creative and scholarly exposures of Islam’s history and practices amount to shaming and therefore are impermissible, especially when infidels are doing the exposing.Lawsuits, assassination attempts, lynch mobs, and political murders have been the radical Muslim response to books, films, lectures, and cartoons that detail Islamic gender and religious apartheid.
Documentation of normalized daughter-and wife-beating, child marriage, forced veiling, forced marriage of adults, polygamy, pedophilia, FGM, and honor killing has led to cries of “Islamophobia” and “blasphemy.”
In a recent conversation, Israeli Arabist and counter-terrorism expert, Mordechai Kedar said: “Why would anyone get so outraged by a cartoon unless they believe that the cartoon is telling the truth? They are angry because it is the truth.”
According to a 2006 Pew poll, 79 percent of French Muslims blamed the 2005 cartoon controversy on Western nations’ “disrespect for the Islamic religion.” The general population blamed “Muslims’ intolerance.”
This is completely foreign to the West’s post-Enlightenment culture. Many Muslims are very clear on this point.
Hamid writes that French Muslims are “more likely to believe that attacks on the Prophet Mohammed and the Quran should be criminalized as hate speech and incitement, much like denial of the Holocaust is.”
This is a shocking but familiar false equation. Jew-haters and Islamists minimize, disbelieve, but deeply envy the Jews as victims of the Holocaust. But they covet the reverence for sacred victim status that they believe Jews have—ostensibly via trickery. Islamists invented the false allegation of “Islamophobia,” positioned the Palestinians as the “new Jews,” and appointed the Jewish Israelis as the “new Nazis.”
Unfortunately, many Europeans signed onto this lethal narrative in the hope that doing so would appease their hostile, unassimilated Muslim citizens. Also, latent European anti-Semitism happily found a new outlet in anti-Zionism, which is the new anti-Semitism.
Are Muslims being falsely accused and even persecuted? Can one even ask this question in an era when Muslim-on-Muslim, Muslim-on-infidel, and Muslim male-on-female barbarism is borderless, boundary-less, and beyond surreal?
Nevertheless, the false concept of Islamophobia – often defensively raised when the discussion focuses on radical Islamic ideology – has become equal to real concepts such as homophobia, sexism, and anti-Semitism. Despite FBI verification that hate crimes against Jews are far greater than those against Muslims, Muslims continue to insist that they are being racially and religiously targeted.
Islamophobia is worse than anti-Semitism, according to Hatem Bazien, the founder of Students for Justice in Palestine and the director of Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender, in a 2011 report co-sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Bazian concluded that, on a scale from 1 (best situation for Muslims) to 10 (worst possible situation for Muslims), “Islamophobia” in America stands at 6.4. One does not know how to greet such brazen foolishness.
Globally, Islamists demand that the West, which has separated religion and state brilliantly, accept and accommodate an aggressive and entitled theocratic state—not only abroad but in its midst.
In Hamid’s view, real “moral courage” in France would consist of a “major political party” calling for “a rethinking of laïcité [secularism], and for the broadening, rather than the narrowing, [of] French national identity.”
Challenging the “tolerant” West to accommodate an intolerant Islam is the tried-and-true Islamist method of hoisting the West by its own petard. Sophisticated Islamists are trying to use post-Enlightenment laws to achieve the right to practice pre-medieval and barbaric customs. Western political leaders and the intelligentsia are flirting with cultural suicide and siding with barbarism over civilization.
Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and the author of 15 books, including The New Anti-Semitism and An American Bride in Kabul. She is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum, writes regularly for Israel National News and Breitbart, and is the author of three pioneering studies about honor killings.
National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy, Feb. 16, 2015:
Roger Kimball highlights a Gatestone Institute report by the editors of Dispatch International about the explosion of rape in Sweden. As the country’s make-up has dramatically changed due to mass immigration, particularly from Muslim countries in the Middle East and northern and eastern Africa, the number of rapes reported to police has increased by an astonishing 1,472 percent — from 421 in 1975 to 6,620 last year.
Note that conspicuous by its absence is any mention of who it is who is committing the rapes. Gatestone quotes Michael Hess, a local politician from the Sweden Democrat Party: “When will you journalists realize that it is deeply rooted in Islam’s culture to rape and brutalize women who refuse to comply with Islamic teachings. There is a strong connection between rapes in Sweden and the number of immigrants from MENA-countries [Middle East and North Africa].”
For that bit of plain speaking, Hess was handed a fine and a suspended jail sentence by a Swedish court. Was what he said untrue? Truth was not something the court cared about: “The Court [Tingsrätten] notes that the question of whether or not Michael Hess’s pronouncement is true, or appeared to be true to Michael Hess, has no bearing on the case. Michael Hess’s statement must be judged based on its timing and context.”
Now, as I’ve related here a number of times, President Obama, with energetic assistance from Hillary Clinton, has been trying to saddle the United States withsharia blasphemy standards since taking office in 2009. Strategically, the administration pushes for these speech restrictions, which violate the First Amendment, in the context of violence committed after the publication of words, exhibitions or artistic representations that are unquestionably insulting toward Islam. In actuality, there is more insult to Islam in the administration’s intimation that barbaric Muslim reactions to merely obnoxious speech are to be expected. But I want to focus, once again, on free expression.
We need to understand that, contrary to Obama administration suggestions, what is at stake is not just speech that almost all of us would agree is in bad taste and that would not be missed if it were barred. What is at stake is the ability to tell the truth. What is at stake is the ability of a free society to engage in robust discussion in order to develop public policy, particularly security and crime-prevention.
As I wrote here after jihadists carried out the Charlie Hebdo massacre:
The Islamist–progressive alliance I explored in The Grand Jihad would have you believe that accommodating sharia blasphemy rules would result in only a narrow limitation on free expression crudely obnoxious toward Islam, the sort of thing few of us would lament — e.g., expression analogous to the nauseating Piss Christ. This, however, is simply false.
Sharia forbids any speech — whether true or not — that casts Islam in an unfavorable light, dissents from settled Muslim doctrine, has the potential to sow discord within the ummah, or entices Muslims to renounce Islam or convert to other faiths. The idea is not merely to ban gratuitous ridicule — which, by the way, sensible people realize government should not do (and, under our Constitution, may not do) even if they themselves are repulsed by gratuitous ridicule. The objective is to ban all critical examination of Islam, period – even though Islamic supremacism, a mainstream interpretation of Islam, happens to be a top national-security threat that we sorely need to examine if we want to understand and defeat our enemies.
The Swedish prosecution of Michael Hess that Roger and the Gatestone report discuss usefully highlights this problem. Hess did not gratuitously insult Islam or Muslims. He addressed the cause of a surge in rape, a phenomenon that profoundly affects public safety in Sweden and that (as noted by those of us who have discussed the nexus between rape and jihad) is promoted by a scripturally-based interpretation of Islam. Yet the court silenced him, not because what he said was false or slanderous, but because saying it might promote hostility toward Islam.
This is exactly what President Obama and Mrs. Clinton have tried to do, particularly in their collusion with Islamist governments in U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which aims to prohibit any speech that casts Islam in an unfavorable light (under the guise of “inciting hostility” to religion).
As we saw again this weekend, this time in Copenhagen, Europe is now living with the consequences of welcoming massive immigration from sharia cultures, tolerating the demands of Islamic leaders that Muslims resist assimilation, passively watching the inexorable rise of radical Islam, and cracking down only on Europeans and others who dare to raise questions about the wisdom of it all.
Don’t think it can’t happen here.
by Mark Steyn
February 15, 2015
The dead of Valentine’s Day in Copenhagen have now been named:
Dan Uzan was a 37-year-old Jew – sorry, I mean “member of the random community” – and he died outside the synagogue serving as a “security guard” for a Bat Mitzvah.
That’s part of the problem – long before anybody starts killing the security guards. In Europe in the 21st century, a young girl’s Bat Mitzvah can only take place behind a security perimeter. What a sewer the EU elites have made of their Eutopia. The state church – the Church of Denmark – does not require security guards, nor elsewhere on the Continent do Catholic churches. But Jewish religious and social life in Copenhagen and across Europe is now possible only behind a barrier of security. Laura Rosen Cohen has a useful round-up of those foot-of-page-17 news stories that chart, remorselessly, the social disintegration of Denmark – from the security perimeter, to the advice to Jews not to wear identifying marks of their faith when they leave the house, to the exclusion of Jewish children from public schools.
As to the “randomness” of the attack, there are only a few thousand Jews remaining in Denmark, and therefore not a lot of Bat Mitzvahs. I am disinclined to believe the killer just got lucky. As with the attack on the free-speech event, he knew exactly where he was going.
As Laura says, “What starts with Jews never ends with Jews.” Many Europeans dislike Jews, and many others are indifferent to their fate. But it helps to keep a sense of self-interest about these things: The man who killed that Jew wants to kill you, too.
The first victim yesterday was Finn Nørgaard, a 55-year-old film maker attending the conference on “Art, Blasphemy and Freedom of Expression”. Mr Nørgaard directed the 2004 documentary Boomerang Boy, produced the 2008 film Lê Lê, and occasionally appeared in front of the camera, too. It will be interesting to see whether the self-pampering A-listers of the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Scientists will managee to squeeze in a mention of him at this month’s Oscars during the teary montage of deceased artists. A decade ago the Academy couldn’t find room, amidst George Clooney et al congratulating themselves on their “courage” for making the umpteenth dreary film on McCarthyism, to namecheck Theo van Gogh, who was pumped full of bullets, semi-decapitated and had a gloating note from his killer pinned through his chest by a dagger – all because he made a film. Messrs van Gogh and Nørgaard weren’t blacklisted, they weren’t reduced to working under a pseudonym or (horrors!) in television. They died for their art. George Clooney was happy enough to latch on to the #JeSuisCharlie shtick at the Golden Globes. If he means it, he’ll ensure poor Finn Nørgaard gets a nod in among the orgy of backslapping at the end of this month.
Mr Nørgaard’s film Lê Lê is the tale of four siblings who fled Vietnam and wound up running one of the most successful restaurant businesses in Scandinavia. One assumes that’s the sort of thing David Cameron had in mind when he issued the following response to the slaughter in Copenhagen:
Denmark and Britain are both successful multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracies and we must never allow those values to be damaged by acts of violence like this.
That’s the usual Cameronian bollocks. As recently as the late Eighties, over 90 per cent of Danes were (albeit highly residual) members of the Church of Denmark, so it wasn’t that “multi-faith”. In reality, for almost their entire history, both Denmark and Britain were mostly ethnically homogeneous societies that admitted small numbers of immigrants who generally assimiliated and sometimes, as in Lê Lê, distinguished themselves. And then, a generation or so back, the Cameronian elites in Britain and on the Continent committed themselves to a process of mass, transformative immigration on a scale unknown to any society in human history outside of conquest. “Multiculturalism” is a Trojan horse Europe gave itself in an act of moral vanity, and waiting inside was Islam.
Mr Cameron now insists that the lesson of yesterday’s attack is that “we must never allow” what he dignifies as his “values” to be “damaged” by such “acts of violence”. His counterpart in Copenhagen, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the tasty Danish pastry he and Obama spent Mandela’s funeral doing selfies with, professed herself mystified by the slaughter:
We don’t know the motive for the attacks but we know that there are forces that want to harm Denmark, that want to crush our freedom of expression, our belief in liberty.
Hmm. “Forces that want to harm Denmark”, huh? Any chance of pinning it down a little? It’s not much of a “freedom of expression” or a “belief in liberty” that can’t even talk honestly about its enemies, is it?
I would like to ask Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt what’s their happy ending here? What’s their roadmap for fewer “acts of violence” in the years ahead? Or are they riding on a wing and a prayer that they can manage the situation and hold it down to what cynical British civil servants used to call during the Irish “Troubles” “an acceptable level of violence”? In Pakistan and Nigeria, the citizenry are expected to live with the reality that every so often Boko Haram will kick open the door of the schoolhouse and kidnap your daughters for sex-slavery or the Taliban will gun down your kids and behead their teacher in front of the class. And it’s all entirely “random”, as President Obama would say, so you just have to put up with it once in a while, and it’s tough if it’s your kid, but that’s just the way it is. If we’re being honest here, isn’t that all Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt are offering their citizens? Spasms of violence as a routine feature of life, but don’t worry, we’ll do our best to contain it – and you can help mitigate it by not going to “controversial” art events, or synagogues, or gay bars, or…
I said above that waiting inside multiculturalism’s Trojan horse was Islam. Not “Islamism”, or “radical Islam”, or “extremist Islam”, or “violent extremism” or “extremist radicalism” or “radicalist violentism” or anything else: just Islam. As I wrote yesterday:
This is usually the point at which we’re expected to do the not-all-Muslims-want-to-shoot-you-dead shtick. And that’s true. But Islam itself has no feeling whatsoever for the spirit of free speech.
The more Islamic a society gets, the less free speech it has – the less intellectual inquiry, artistic achievement, contrarian spirit. Most western Muslims are not willing themselves to open fire on synagogues or Lars Vilks, but they help maintain the shriveled definition of acceptable expression that helps license the fanatics of Copenhagen and Paris. Muslims in Europe, North America and Australia will pay lip service to “free speech”, and then promptly re-define it as excluding speech that “blasphemes” or “insults” their faith – which is to say them. Which is to say the great vulgar, brawling, free-for-all of free societies does not apply to them. So, when, say, France’s Muslim population reaches 20 per cent, you will need to have the support of three-quarters of the remaining 80 per cent to maintain even a bare popular majority in favor of free speech.
Is that likely? Or will there be more and more non-Muslims like the wretched quisling Welsh bishop, the Right Reverend Gregory Cameron, frantically arguing that if you hadn’t been so “offensive” you wouldn’t have caught their eye? Islam and free speech are, as His Miserable Grace implicitly recognizes, incompatible. And ultimately, therefore, you have to choose between liberty and mass Muslim immigration.
The reaction of David Cameron and Helle Thorning-Schmidt suggests they have made their choice. I think, somewhere deep down, they know it’s a recipe for slow societal suicide. And I wonder if, even deeper down, they also know that it won’t be that slow.
~For my immediate reaction to the attack on the Lars Vilks event, see here.
~For my immediate reaction to the attack on the synagogue, see here.
CSP, by Kyle Shideler, Feb. 14, 2015:
Police in Copenhagen are currently searching for two gunmen who opened fire with automatic weapons on a cafe in the Danish capital, killing one and wounding several including police. At the time of the event, Lars Vilks, a Swedish artist best known for his cartoon of Mohammad as a “roundabout dog” (an iconic Swedish image), was in attendance.
Vilks, who police believe was the target of the attack, has previously survived prior plots on his life including an attempted arson, and a plot involving American Islamic convert Collen Rose (aka “Jihad Jane”). The French ambassador to Denmark was also in attendance, and security was tight with multiple armed policeman providing security.
The topic of the presentation was on free speech, and the BBC noted the principal question focused on, “whether artists could “dare” to be blasphemous in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo terror attacks by Islamist gunmen in Paris last month.”
With suspects not yet in custody (as of this writing), it’s too early to speculate whether the attackers will be linked to a jihadist organization such as Islamic State or Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (as the Charlie Hebdo attackers were), or if they will turn out to be “Known Wolves“, already on the radar screens of European intelligence.
But it is worth noting that the recent publication of the Islamic State’s “Dabiq” magazine Issue 7 focused extensively on the Charlie Hebdo attack and issued numerous and specific threats against supposed blasphemers, including U.S. citizens, and U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials should take seriously threats made against Americans for having violated sharia “blasphemy” laws. Like the Charlie Hebdo attack, today’s incident appears to be less about terrorism, than sharia enforcement. As a result, the response must include not only the full force of Western law enforcement capability targeting the individual terrorists, and their networks, but also a reiteration, by politicians and society more generally, of full throat-ed support for Western principles of free speech and a refusal to submit to the imposition of blasphemy laws, whether through violence, through international forums such as the Istanbul Process, or out of self-censorship.
- Copenhagen shootings suspect was ‘known to police’ (theguardian.com)
By Raymond Ibrahim, Feb. 12, 2015:
Soon after Muslim gunmen killed 12 people at Charlie Hebdo offices, which published satirical caricatures of Muslim prophet Muhammad, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)—the “collective voice of the Muslim world” and second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations—is again renewing calls for the United Nations to criminalize “blasphemy” against Islam, or what it more ecumenically calls, the “defamation of religions.”
Yet the OIC seems to miss one grand irony: if international laws would ban cartoons, books, and films on the basis that they defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, have to ban the entire religion of Islam itself—the only religion whose core texts actively and unequivocally defame other religions, including by name.
To understand this, consider what “defamation” means. Typical dictionary-definitions include “to blacken another’s reputation” and “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.” In Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.
However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC cynically maintains that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam (even as Muslim governments ban churches, destroy crucifixes, and burn Bibles). Disingenuous or not, the OIC’s wording suggests that any expression that “slanders” the religious sentiments of others should be banned.
What, then, do we do with Islam’s core religious texts—beginning with the Koran itself— which slanders, denigrates and blackens the reputation of other religions? Consider Christianity alone: Koran 5:73 declares that “Infidels are they who say God is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity; Koran 5:72 says “Infidels are they who say God is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary”; and Koran 9:30 complains that “the Christians say the Christ is the son of God … may God’s curse be upon them!”
Considering that the word “infidel” (kafir) is one of Islam’s most derogatory terms, what if a Christian book or Western cartoon appeared declaring that “Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God—may God’s curse be upon them”? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the Koran defames Christians and Christianity.
Indeed, it is precisely because of this that some Russian districts are banning key Islamic scriptures—including Sahih Bukhari, which is seen as second in authority after the Koran itself. According to Apastovsk district RT prosecutors, Sahih Bukhari has been targeted because it promotes “exclusivity of one of the world’s religions,” namely Islam, or, in the words of Ruslan Galliev, senior assistant to the prosecutor of Tatarstan, it promotes “a militant Islam” which “arouses ethnic, religious enmity.”
Similarly, consider how the Christian Cross, venerated among millions, is depicted—is defamed—in Islam: according to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus (“Prophet Isa”) will destroy all crosses; and Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, once ordered someone wearing a cross to “throw away this piece of idol from yourself.” Unsurprisingly, the cross is banned and often destroyed whenever visible in many Muslim countries.
What if Christian books or Western movies declared that the sacred things of Islam—say the Black Stone in Mecca’s Ka’ba—are “idolatry” and that Muhammad himself will return and destroy them? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islamic teaching defames the Christian Cross.
Here is a particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment, especially to the millions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians. According to Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad is in paradise married to and copulating with the Virgin Mary.
What if a Christian book or Western movie portrayed, say, Muhammad’s “favorite” wife, Aisha—the “Mother of Believers”—as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.
Nor is such defamation of Christianity limited to Islam’s core scriptures; modern day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree that it is permissible to defame and mock Christianity. “Islam Web,” which is owned by the government of Qatar, even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity. (The Qatari website also issued a fatwa in 2006 permitting burning people alive—only to take it down after the Islamic State used the fatwa’s same arguments to legitimize burning a Jordanian captive pilot.)
The grandest irony of all is that the “defamation” that Muslims complain about—and that prompts great violence and bloodshed around the world—revolves around things like cartoons and movies, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves; on the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns—in a word, defames—all other religions, not to mention calls for violence against them (e.g., Koran 9:29).
It is this issue, Islam’s perceived “divine” right to defame and destroy, that the international community should be addressing—not silly cartoons and films.
CSP, by Kyle Shideler, Jan. 26, 2015
The leader of Pakistani Islamist organization Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) says that cartoons of Mohammed may lead to war:
“The path that the West has chosen will take the world to a third world war,” [JI chief Sirajul Haq] said on Friday. He was addressing thousands of people at a rally, organised to protest against the insulting caricatures published in Western publications, particularly French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. The JI chief demanded that the United Nations make laws to discourage blasphemy of all religious personalities. He said France must apologise for hurting sentiments of billions of Muslims across the world.
There have been several major protests in Pakistan organized by JI to protest the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, some of which have turned violent.
Jamaat-e-Islami may also have been behind the recent Stand With the Prophet Rally and fundraiser, held at the Curtis Cuwell Center in Garland Texas, January 17th. The event,which was billed as an effort to “build a movement”, and compared those who drew cartoons of the prophet with ISIS terrorists.
While most of the coverage of the event focused on the attendance of controversial imam and unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing Siraj Wahhaj, few noted Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid, the founder of Soundvision, the group which organized the event, has his own troubling ties.
Mujahid is the past president of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) which was founded on the principles of ,and which is widely considered a front group, for Jamaat al-Islami (JI) in the United States. ICNA formally joined with the Muslim Brotherhood to present a united front in the 1990s, according to Holy Land Foundation Trial documents. ICNA is believed to have solicited donations for Pakistani charities known to have donated to Hamas. ICNA’s founding secretary general was convicted of war crimes for engaging in genocide against Bengalis when Jamaat al-Islami militias fought on behalf of Pakistan in Bangladesh’s war of liberation. ICNA’s showed its true nature in 2010 when it published a handbook which contained the stated goal of establishing Shariah law and Islamic rule through a worldwide Caliphate.
Given the views expressed by JI’s chief, it’s no surprise that a former ICNA president’s organization would also describe the issue of “defaming the prophet” in terms of war metaphors like describing cartoons of the prophet as “attacks, which are no accident.”
Although Mujahid hasn’t always been metaphorical, having reportedly encouraged Muslims to fight jihad in Bosnia by telling a 1995 ICNA convention audience:
“Qital [killing] is an essential element of Islam. And sometimes you don’t like it. Qital is ordained upon you, though it is hateful to you, but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you…. And one example is, now we have 60 or so Muslim countries, and not a single one of them wants to go for Qital and Jihad for Bosnia. Qital is ordained upon you though it is hateful to you.
In addition to Mujahid, Stand With the Prophet speaker Sheikh Alauddin Al Bakri has also been associated with JI. In a tour of India, Al-Bakri spoke at a “Jamaat-e-Islami hind” (JeI of India) convention. Al Bakri was also the speaker at a meeting of the Student Islamic Organization of India (SIO) reportedly a JI front. At that meeting Al Bakri emphasized, “ that time of talking and time of complaining has gone; now is the time of action.” Al-Bakri is a book editor of Iqra Publications that produces Islamic texts for K-12th grade students. Included on Iqra’s site are offerings of quran translations by Jamaat-e-Islami founder and infamous Islamist scholar Abul A’la Maududi and Zaki Hammad, member of the Quranic Literacy Institute, which was connected to Hamas in civil court.
While the organizers of the Stand with the Prophet Rally may color up their support for a sharia blasphemy-based approach to make it palatable for an American audience, their Pakistani counterparts appear to have no such compunction about stating their position, or the threat they pose to the West.
This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Dawn Perlmutter, the Director of the Symbol Intelligence Group and one of the leading subject matter experts (SME) in symbols, symbolic methodologies, unfamiliar customs and ritualistic crimes. She designed and developed Jihad-ID, a symbolic database of the signs, symbols and identifiers of global jihad.
Dawn discussed Islamic Murder By Ritual Purification, taking us behind the scenes of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. The discussion occurred within the context of how Jihadists view blasphemy against Islam.
Breitbart, by Phyllis Chesler, Jan. 22, 2015:
Earlier this week, the Qatar-based international Union of Muslim Scholars– headed by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual guide of Egypt’s banned Muslim Brotherhood– called upon the United Nations to make “contempt of religions” illegal.
In a statement released on Tuesday, the Union said that there should be “protection for ‘prophets’” and urged the UN to issue a “law criminalizing contempt of religions and the prophets and all the holy sites.”
The Muslim scholars also urged the West to “protect Muslim communities following the attack on French magazine Charlie Hebdo.”
This is very strange. Jews, Christians, Hindus, and atheists have not been attacking Muslims.
On the contrary, Muslims have been rioting, shooting, stabbing, beheading, and blowing up other Muslims and infidels, especially Jews and Christians, in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Nevertheless, these Muslim scholars seem to believe that Muslims are being violently persecuted.
When Muslims honor kill a daughter or a wife, they say they did so in “self-defense.” When a female relative allegedly commits any act of disobedience, she has shamed and attacked her family. This means they had to kill her in self-defense. These were the very words used by Palestinian Abu Nidal terrorist Zein Isa, when he and his wife killed their 16-year-old daughter, Palestina Isa, in St. Louis, Missouri.
Some experts (Dr. David Ghanim) and memoirists (Nonie Darwish, M.H. Anwar andAruna Papp) suggest that the normative physical, sexual, and psychological child abuse which, with exceptions, describes Arab and Muslim or tribal child-rearing styles, may also account for such behaviors.
Westerners who take free speech and the right to criticize religion for granted have not been able to understand the fury that accurate criticism of Muslim practices (persecution of infidels, persecution of the “wrong” kind of Muslim, persecution of women, etc.) can arouse. Westerners have found it even more difficult to comprehend that the “Islamic street” will riot and murder in response to cartoons. Cartoons?
In a recent, private conversation with my friend and colleague, Israeli Arabist, Dr. Mordechai Kedar, he said this:
Arabs and Muslims know that their civilization has failed. They are unconsciously filled with shame about it. They know that our critique of their culture is true and they cannot bear being exposed by infidels (or by Muslim dissidents or apostates) whom they envy, fear, and despise. If the criticism was not true—they would laugh it off. But if it is true, they are exposed in all their shame for the entire world to see.
If Dr. Kedar is right (and I think he is), such dishonoring is a “killing” offense and treated as such.
It is no surprise that the Union of Islamic scholars, and before them, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), have, since 1999, been trying to impose Pakistani, Saudi, and Iranian style “blasphemy” laws on the infidel world and using the UN to do so. The UN is a world body, much like the Muslim Ummah (“nation” or “people”) is supposed to be. Unfortunately, the UN is largely symbolic, has little supra-power over individual member states, has failed its mission as a peace negotiator, is corrupt and hypocritical, and has been effective in one thing only: It has legalized anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
For years, resolutions to condemn “blasphemy” passed in the United Nations. The OIC wanted to impose criminal penalties for “blasphemy.” Finally, in 2011, the measure failed.
According to Nina Shea, these resolutions were inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini’s “infamous 1989 fatwa, directing ‘all zealous Muslims to execute quickly the British author Salman Rushdie and others involved with his book The Satanic Verses.’” In 2005-2006, in the era of the Danish cartoons, Pakistan re-introduced the anti-blasphemy resolution in language calculated “to appeal to Western liberals.” By 2007, support for such measures “declined.” In Shea’s view, “this sudden shift came about because, in 2006, the Bush administration took the lead in defending free speech, energetically pressing Council members to oppose the resolution. The EU also became engaged, emphasizing the need to “protect individuals.’”
President Obama has, Clinton-style, “felt the pain” of each and every “offended” Muslim and has taken great pains to defend what he believes is a “peaceful” Islam. He views Muslim violence as either non-existent or as justifiably “provoked” by mocking infidels. His administration claimed that the carefully planned assassination of our Ambassador and Marines in Benghazi had been “provoked” by an anti-Islam video.
Unbelievably, Obama’s administration sent no one of standing to stand with France and with the right to free speech after the assassinations at Charlie Hebdo and in the kosher supermarket.
In the past, President Obama has made some pro-free speech statements. According to Counter Jihad, in 2012, Obama was quoted as saying “The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech.”
Did he mean it, does he still mean it?
The White House has welcomed members of the Muslim Brotherhood for a long time. Now, their ostensible spiritual leader has spoken out. One wonders where Obama currently stands on Al-Qaradawi’s call for a worldwide blasphemy law.
On January 7, 2015, two Muslim terrorists stormed the Paris headquarters of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. After killing numerous people, the jihadists yelled “Allahu akbar!” and “We have avenged the Prophet.” Politicians, the media, and numerous Muslim organizations united in claiming that the attack had nothing to do with Islam. But is this correct? In this video, David Wood shows that Muhammad orders his followers to kill those who insult Islam
- Muhammad Orders the Execution of Critics (answeringmuslims.com)
UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 8, 2015:
In another offensive against the West, two Muslim jihadis killed twelve (12) people in Paris yesterday at the offices of the satirical media outlet Charlie Hebdo. American Leaders responded by calling the attacks anything but Islamic jihad (or even terrorism).
Authorities identified the men as Said and Cherif Kouachi (brothers), both French, and Hamyd Mourad, 18, whose nationality has not yet been made public. At the time of this posting, U.S. Counterterrorism officials are saying that one of the three has been killed by French security services, and French officials are reporting Hamyd Mourad has surrendered, but neither of those have been confirmed.
Shouting “allah u abkbar” the jihadis were dressed in tactical gear and armed with AK-47’s. They moved through the offices of the media outlet Charlie Hebdo and killed the editor and several of the leading cartoonists at the publication which humorously criticized everything under the sun – including Islam. The difference, however, is that the Islamic Law of Slander – cloaked by the term “Islamophobia” – mandates capital punishment for anyone who says anything about the prophet or Islam “which a Muslim would dislike.” Paris is learning what it is to face the penalty of violating Sharia’s Slander law in Islam.
Strikingly, the day before the attack in Paris, Turkish President Erdogan called on the European Union to “crack down” on Islamophobia, which is jihadi speak for “Silence all who slander Islam, or else.”
[This, by the way, is also one of the many points where the political Left shares common ground with jihadis – trying to silence all “offensive” language (read: “language that is truthful and counters our agenda”). In both cases the objective is the destruction of individual liberty and power to the State.]
In September of 2012 at the United Nations, President Obama stated – for all the world to hear – “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet.” Comments like these provide a green light for the Islamic jihadis to go forward and kill in the name of Islam for those who slander the prophet Mohammed.
The response from America’s leaders to the Paris attack has been to call them anything but jihad or even terrorism, and outlandishly claim these attacks have “nothing to do with Islam.”
On CNN, Chris Cuomo asked White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest “Do you see this as an act of terrorism?”.
Earnest’s response is telling. “I think, based on what we know right now, it does seem like that is what we’re confronting here,” he replied. “And this is an act of violence that we certainly do condemn. And, you know, if based on this investigation it turns out to be an act of terrorism then we would condemn that in the strongest possible terms, too.” What is the confusion here that in the moment the Obama administration cannot call this obvious jihadi attack in Paris Jihad or Terrorism?
Hillary Clinton previously stated we must “empathize” with our jihadi enemies, respect their point of view, and not “leave anyone on the sidelines.” Secretary of State John Kerry called the attack “extremism” while key Democrat strategist and leader Howard Dean said Wednesday that the men who perpetrated the attacks in Paris are “about as Muslim as I am.” He further stated he has read the Quran and it doesn’t support this kind of behavior. It is clear Mr. Dean is either lying about reading the Quran or has significant reading comprehension issues.
Which brings us back to the crux of the issue – America’s leadership does not actually know the teachings of Islam because they continue to rely on Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas/Al Qaeda operatives in advisory roles inside our government to tell them what it is instead of doing their due diligence as professionals. Besides being completely unprofessional and negligent, this approach to our enemy has left many Americans dead in places like Boston, Fort Hood, Little Rock, and elsewhere because of our leaders willful ignorance. We put doctors and lawyers in jail for that.
The representative for the President, Press Secretary John Earnest, made it very clear that the ignorance of our enemy is complete.
“The other thing we have tried to do is to work with the leaders in the Muslim community, both here in the United States and around the world to try to counter those violent messages. We’ve seen ISIL distort the name of a peaceful religion, distort the tenants of an otherwise peaceful religion, to try to inspire people to carry out acts of violence. That’s why its incredibly important that we see leaders in the Muslim community stand up and speak out about the true teachings of Islam are.”
I am curious which part of “Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war” (Quran 9:5) our leaders do not understand. I guess the President’s Islamic advisors have not made it to the point of sharing this core Islamic teaching with the Administration, FBI, CIA, DHS, Pentagon or others.
Mr. Earnest has clearly demonstrated the entire U.S. decision-making process and the leaders participating in it are completely and utterly unprofessional OR are knowingly aiding and abetting the enemy and concealing the true nature of their intentions.
100% of Islamic doctrine from first grade text books to Al Azhar University in Egypt – the oldest and most authoritative school of Islamic jurisprudence in the world – state that Islam is a “complete way of life” governed by Sharia (Islamic Law). 100% of all published Islamic Law in every century and in every language states the purpose of Islam is to wage jihad until the world is subordinated to the Sharia and a global Islamic state (Caliphate) is established. 100% of all published Islamic Law (Sharia) only defines “Jihad” as “warfare against non-Muslims.”
The problem is that Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and all the other jihadi groups are getting their “version” of Islam correct. Here is the challenge: you can go to any mosque book store in the world or even amazon.com and purchase authoritative Islamic Law written by recognized Muslim authorities written for Muslim audiences (important that the book is not written for a non-Muslim audience) which all state what has been stated above about Islam. There is no such thing as a book of Islamic Law that says otherwise. Those of you who are wanting to scream “racist/bigot/islamophobe” right now, please produce the name of one such book of Islamic Law that instructs the Muslim community to “love” non-Muslims and to “peacefully exist with them” where all groups of people have equal rights under the law. You won’t find it because it doesn’t exist.
National Review Online, by Fred Fleitz, Jan. 8, 2015:
Some media outlets in the United States and Europe today honored the Charlie Hebdo journalists killed or injured by radical-Islamist gunmen yesterday by publishing some of theCharlie Hebdo cartoons satirizing the Prophet Mohammed that led to this vicious attack.
National Review Online, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, the Weekly Standard, Bloomberg, the Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, Getty, and some other U.S. media outlets ran one or more of the cartoons today.
In the U.K., the Guardian, the BBC, and the Times of London ran the cartoons. TheFinancial Times ran them on its website. Spain’s El Pais and Germany’s Berliner Zeitungalso ran them.
Noticeably absent from this list are the New York Times, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and the Associated Press. These U.S. media outlets chose to self-censor their coverage of theCharlie Hebdo killings by not running the controversial cartoons of Mohammed because of intimidation by radical Islamists.
The New York Times said its decision not to run the Charlie Hebdo cartoons is because “Under Times standards, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities. After careful consideration, Times editors decided that describing the cartoons in question would give readers sufficient information to understand today’s story.”
Give me a break. The New York Times never hesitates to run material offensive to Christians. Moreover, as a former intelligence officer, I find it hypocritical that the Timeseagerly runs stories revealing classified material causing serious harm to U.S. national security in the name of freedom of the press but refuses to run Charlie Hebdo cartoons that go to the heart of this freedom.
When asked about his decision to run cartoons satirizing Islamists in light of death threats,Charlie Hebdo editor Stéphane “Charb” Charbonnier — who was killed in the attack yesterday — said, “I prefer to die standing than living on my knees.” National Review and some other media outlets stood with Charbonnier’s deep commitment to the freedom of the press today by running Charlie Hebdo cartoons. By choosing not to run them, the New York Times, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and the Associated Press are appeasing radical Islamists and telling the world that their decisions to run material that may offend certain groups is driven by political correctness and not principle.
Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst, is a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy.
- AP Won’t Publish Muhammad Cartoons, Will Gladly Sell ‘Piss Christ’ (truthrevolt.org)
“They may have silenced a few pens, but they’ll never extinguish the light of Liberty” says Two Time Pulitzer Prize Winning Political Cartoonist, Michael Ramirez on Fox & Friends
“Don’t these murdering a**holes know that when you kill cartoonists we’ll only target you even more?”
Cartoonist from around the world reacted to today’s terror attacks by drawing a variety of cartoons showing their grief and solidarity for the members of Charlie Hebno and posting their drawings on Twitter.
Here is a list posted by Newsweek.
Here’s my latest Mohammad drawing, in honor of those, like the staff of Charlie Hebdo, who Refuse to submit to Islam/Islamic intimidation and choose to live their lives as free men and women, writing and drawing whatever the hell they damn well please. I especially honor them for doing so while those who are charged to protect them are only interested in protecting Islam.
WND, Jan. 8, 2015:
Britain’s most notorious Islamic cleric has taken to the U.S. airwaves to issue a warning to any American news outlet thinking about depicting Muhammad or mocking Islam.
Doing so will most likely result in a jihadist attack similar to the deadly massacre at the Paris office of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, declared radical British Muslim preacher Anjem Choudary.
Choudary warned Americans to take lessons from the case of Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim in 2004 after making a film critical of Islam.
Choudary was speaking today to weekend talk radio host Aaron Klein of New York’s AM 970 The Answer, who this week launched a daily audio online feature.
Klein had referred to complaints in the wake of the Paris attack that Comedy Central had censored a 2010 “South Park” episode that originally was slated to depict Muhammad. In response to threats from Muslims, the episode was altered, and the Muhammad figure was obscured with the word “uncensored” in a black rectangle.
Klein stressed Comedy Central had not taking any move to air the episode uncensored. He asked Choudary whether or not such a move would result in attacks against the network.
“Yes, I think there is a very strong possibility of a very severe reaction if that were to take place,” Choudary said. “What I would say is that people have been hiding under these euphemisms of freedom of speech, the right to be satirical. There are sensibilities and emotions of people around the world which I’ve taken into consideration.”
Continued Choudary: “Perhaps we can have a moral relationship between the people of France and Muslims. But if they continue down this line of provocation, and if the Americans and ‘South Park’ as well go down that line, I think it can only have really one repercussion. We saw it in Paris. I think that people will come out. They will want to defend the honor of the prophet. Remember they consider the honor of the prophet even more dear to them than themselves, let alone their own parents or children.”
Choudary went on to warn that any American media outlet that depicted Muhammad or insulted the “honor” of Islam would face similar consequences to that of Van Gogh or the Charlie Hebdo staff.
Klein asked Choudary to clarify: “What you are saying is that if any American news agency or whatever it is, if any American news network depicts the prophet Muhammad, you do expect, to be clear, that they would face the same consequences as Charlie Hebdo? Meaning that they can be attacked?”
“I believe so,” replied Choudary. “I believe that that would have severe consequences. You know, I am not in charge of Muslims, for example, or how they would react. But one thing can be clear: that the divine text is not subject to change or amendment.”
He added: “What can be changed is man-made laws. People make up laws as they go along. They move the parameters of acceptable behavior. They put curtailments on freedom of expression. And I think in the current climate of insecurity and instability it was about time the honor of the prophet was defended and protected. And people need to take the lesson of what took place yesterday and that has taken place previously as we have already said with people like Theo Van Gogh.
“You know, people are willing to die to defend the honor of the prophet and the sanctity of the Quran. I mean, these are extremely serious values for Muslims. People fight for freedom and democracy. They fight for different things. Muslims fight to defend the prophet’s honor.”
Klein conducted the interview to air on his weekend radio show Sunday as well as for posting today on a new subscription service that offers daily audio updates for his listeners at ConnectPal.com, a recently launched online content marketplace.
In the wake of the Paris attack, as WND reported earlier Thursday, some in the media are recalling Comedy Central’s controversial decision to censor the 2010 episode that was slated to depict Muhammad.
Writing at IndieWire.com, blogger Sam Adams complained: “It doesn’t take fanatics with guns to suppress free speech, just media conglomerates with stockholders where their spines should be.”
Time Magazine media writer James Poniewozik said “the Charlie Hebdo attackers were attacking you too.” He wrote that “unless all of us reject the kowtowing and the playing-it-safe, it absolutely has worked and will work again,” referring to the “South Park” case.
Continued Poniewozik: “No one had to physically attack Comedy Central to make this happen; to this day, you can’t stream an authorized version of “201” online. Ironically, part of the program that was censored was making the point that suppressing speech with violent threats works.”
“The killers in Paris may have been lashing out at cartoons you never saw and would never have wanted to. But the same attack was also against something you would be interested in. You just may never know it, because you’ll never get to see it.”
by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
June 11, 2014
You could say it is a new form of Islamic honor crime: the silencing of those who dare besmirch the honor of Islam or its prophet, except the suppression now doesn’t come from Muslims only. These days, it’s the work of secular groups and governments: theaters in Germany, prominent publishers in England and the USA, of public prosecutors in the Netherlands, and most recently, of the Spanish Supreme court.
On May 30, that court ruled that Pakistani refugee Imran Firasat be stripped of his refugee status and deported. A Pakistani Muslim apostate, Firasat for years received death threats for marrying a non-Muslim, and for his outspoken criticism of Islam. In 2006, he received amnesty in Spain, a country where he was guaranteed the glorious freedoms unavailable to him in his homeland – freedoms enshrined in the foundations of any Western democracy: of religion, of opinion, and of speech.
But evidently he was not.
In 2012, Firasat produced a film critical of Islam in which he included footage of the attacks of 9/11, along with subsequent Islamic terrorist attacks in London and Madrid. According to a report from Gatestone Institute, “Shortly after Firasat’s film was released, Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel García-Margallo and Spanish Interior Minister Jorge Fernández Díaz initiated a process to review his refugee status.”
The reason? Garcia-Margallo had determined that Firasat’s film created a security risk from Muslims who might be angered by its content. (That those Muslims themselves posed a risk seems not to have entered the discussion.)
The Supreme Court’s decision, which affirms the ruling of a lower court, reflects the growing influence of an anti-blasphemy measure introduced to the United Nations in 2011 by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), comprised of the 56 Islamic states. That measure, Resolution 16/18, aims to limit – even criminalize – speech that can be understood as “discriminatory – which, as I wrote at the time, “involves the ‘defamation of religion’ – specifically that which can be viewed as ‘incitement to imminent violence.'”
But nearly anything can be called “incitement to imminent violence,” just as a woman walking the street without covering herself ankle to brow in a niqab could be called an “incitement to imminent rape.” Who decides what “incitement” and “imminent” are? Should we now arrest all non-veiled women in the West? Has Spain become another Sharia state? Has UN Resolution 16/18 marked the end of freedom as we know it in the West?
In fact, as the Heritage Foundation recently reported, “throughout Europe, in Canada, and even in the United States, judicial systems in countries with large Muslim minorities are under pressure to adopt Sharia free speech restrictions. As a result, in many places, including Denmark, it is now a crime to say anything negative about Islam or the prophet Mohammed, regardless of whether such statements are factually true or not. The concept that even offensive speech is protected—so fundamental to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment—is collapsing.”
Such attacks on democratic values – and their success in destroying them – are what have many experts, human rights groups, and politicians concerned about multiculturalism in the West. The idealized model – in which multiple cultures coexist peacefully within the same society – simply doesn’t work; the conflicts of values are too extreme.
True, it would be easy enough to wave off such incidents of censorship if they were limited to a mere one or two: but they aren’t. In 2010, for instance, Comedy Centralpulled a “South Park” episode satirizing the violent reactions to depictions of the prophet Mohammad after a New York-based Islamic group, Revolution Muslim, threatened the show’s writers with death.
Four years prior, the Berlin-based Deutsche Oper cancelled its run of Mozart’s “Idomeneo,” in which the severed heads of Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed are placed on chairs onstage. Explaining their decision, the organizers of the opera, which was first performed in 1781, cited warnings from the police that “the publicity surrounding the play would severely heighten the security risk.” (Neither Buddhist nor Christian groups, it should be noted, expressed any discomfort with the production.)
And there are others: the extended criminal case against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders for his statements against Islam and his film “Fitna,” which, like Firasat’s, focused on a recent history of Islamic terrorism and various calls for violence written in the Quran; or (also in the Netherlands) the arrest, at the demand of a radical imam, of pseudonymous cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot for sketches deemed “insulting” to Muslims.
America has hardly been immune: in 2008, Random House publishers cancelled publication of The Jewel of Medina, described as “a fictional account of the life of Mohammed’s wife, Aisha.” A year later, Yale University Press deleted images from a book about the so-called “Danish Cartoons” – a series of cartoons that ran in Denmark’s Jyllands Post in 2005, citing fears of “insulting Muslims” and – there it is again – a risk to national security.
And earlier this month, the New York Times demanded that the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) revise an ad slated to run on the Gray Lady’s web site, claiming that there had been numerous complaints about a previously approved, full-page version of the ad in the print edition of the paper. Explained the IPT at the time, “The NYT ordered us to insert the word ‘radical’ before the term ‘Islamist groups,’ so that it read, ‘Stop the radical Islamist groups from undermining America’s security, liberty, and free speech.'”
That change was not as minor as it might at first seem, argued IPT Executive Director Steven Emerson in an editorial for the IPT website. It suggested that Islamist groups who are not radicalized – like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – are not dangerous. And yet it is precisely these organizations worldwide which often exert the kind of pressure that results in censorship of speech, in the subjugation of the arts, in the compromise of truth.
Fortunately, America’s capitulation to pressure on this issue has been limited to the private sector. But Firasat’s story should be taken as a warning, as much for the U.S. as for Europe, of the damage Resolution 16/18 and similar efforts are having on our culture – and on our future.
One week after the Spanish court robbed Firasat of his democratic rights in a democratic country, President Barack Obama stood on the beaches of Normandy and spoke to those gathered to mark the 70th anniversary of D-Day. On that day, he said, the world marked the moment of “commitment” to liberty and freedom; and since then, “From Western Europe to East; from South America to Southeast Asia; seventy years of democratic movements spread. Nations that once knew only the blinders of fear began to taste the blessings of freedom.
That would not have happened without the men who were willing to lay down their lives for people they’d never met, and ideals they couldn’t live without.”
Those ideals still remain our ideals. We still cannot live without them. We cannot give up the fight.
Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.