CAIR Mourns Charlie Hebdo, Yet Advocates Censorship

Cair posterAmerican Thinker, By Andrew E. Harrod, Jan. 25, 2015

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas-derived “civil rights” group, “repeated its defense of freedom of speech” in a baffling January 7 press release that “condemned” the Paris jihadist Charlie Hebdo massacre. A trip down a bad memory lane, though, is necessary in order to evaluate critically CAIR’s commitment to free speech rights with proverbial grains of salt equivalent to the Dead Sea’s renowned salinity.

CAIR, an unindicted terrorism coconspirator, and “defense of freedom of speech” simply do not match. CAIR, for example, has unsuccessfully tried to stop critical commentary on Islam in an American public library and school. CAIR has also harassed a Michigan individual who opposed a mosque construction with frivolous subpoenas, ultimately quashed. One 2012 article on the CAIR-Chicago affiliate website discussed how the First Amendment has “been manipulated to make America the catalyst for unjust hate.”

Nihad Awad

Nihad Awad

Accordingly, CAIR executive director Nihad Awad sounded an uncertain free speech trumpet when presenting the press release that noted Charlie Hebdo’s “derogatory references to Islam and its Prophet Muhammad.” Awad equated “extremists of all backgrounds who seek to stifle freedom and to create or widen societal divisions,” placing thereby Charlie Hebdo’s victims on a level with their murderers. Similar analysis had appeared in a 2006 CAIR press release concerning the Danish cartoons, even as CAIR, the 2015 press release recalled, “rejected the sometimes violent response to Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad.”

“We all value freedom of expression,” Awad had written to the Danish ambassador in 2006. “But we should also use good judgment and common sense to avoid actions” that are “intentionally insulting” or “promote hatred.” Awad proposed CAIR “as a bridge between the Muslim community worldwide and the government of Denmark” in “offering proactive educational measures.” CAIR could therefore exploit the affair to present Islam in a positive manner and effectively proselytize.

At the same time, Parvez Ahmed, CAIR’s then chairman and a Hamas/Hezbollah apologist who had also extended a speaking invitation to a neo-Nazi while leading CAIR’s Florida chapter, expressed support for blasphemy laws. Ahmed wrote on his website that a “connection between terrorism and a venerated religious figure such as Prophet Muhammad transgresses all bounds of decency.” “Free speech, like every other freedom, comes with responsibility,” Ahmed intoned, and the “affair was avoidable had all sides approached the issue wisely.” Ahmed demanded the “same zero tolerance for Islamophobia as… anti-Semitism” while painting dark scenarios of speech inciting violence. He feared “plunging the world into the abyss of a clash between civilizations.”

Ahmed Rehab, CAIR-Chicago’s director and a similar Hamas and Nazi apologist, also discussed “racism targeting Muslims” during a 2008 radio interview on republishing the Danish cartoons. “The majority of Muslims are both against the cartoons and, of course, against death threats,” was Rehab’s immoral equivalence. America does not have “absolute freedom of speech” allowing pornography on daytime television, for example, but a “responsible tradition of free speech.”

The Danish cartoons were a “red flag” for Rehab who, like Ahmed, falsely analogized criticizing Islam to anti-Semitic prejudice. “Long before there was any indication of gas chambers,” European Jews confronted bigoted “freedom of expression.”  The “demonization of a particular faith community or race-based community,” Rehab hyperbolically warned, can incite “further violence against that group or… discrimination.” “Just because one has a right” to speak, Rehab added online in 2010, “does not make it the right thing to do” under a “standard of decency.”

The strategies of CAIR et al. to equate criticism of Islamic ideas with prejudice against individuals and warn of non-Muslim speech inciting Muslim violence have not been without effect. President Barack Obama condemned the Charlie Hebdo assault as an “attack on our free press,” but in 2012 an Obama spokesperson had doubted the magazine’s “judgment” in publishing Muhammad cartoons. Days later Obama infamously declared before the United Nations General Assembly that “future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s fifty-seven member states, meanwhile, have advocated for years legal suppression of “Islamophobia” as a “crime against humanity” resembling anti-Semitism. Countries like Denmark have obliged with hate speech prosecutions against Islam’s critics, something not protested by CAIR. Private news organizations also often refrain from showing cartoons offensive to Muslims, while showing no such scruples towards Christians.

Under CAIR’s standards, individuals touching the third religious rail of Islam might escape with their lives, but not their liberty. If social ostracism does not suffice to silence those irreverent towards Islam, groups like CAIR will not refrain from seeking where possible legal instruments of censorship. While trying to talk a good talk on liberty, CAIR’s past shows all too clearly where it is heading.

Islamist Panel Approaches Self-Parody in Hebdo/Radicalization Talk

IPT News
January 23, 2015

1118A panel discussion Thursday hosted by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) promised to plumb the “the root causes of radicalization” in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks at Charlie Hebdo magazine and a kosher market.

It turns out the problem is not Islamic theology or radical Muslim ideology. It’s all the things the West does wrong. Fix those problems, panelists said, and things get better.

During the 90-minute program at the National Press Club, no speaker discussed the Quranic verses invoked by terrorists in the Islamic State or al-Qaida to justify their actions. Instead, speakers emphasized a host of grievances that they say lead young Muslims to believe that peace and democracy will not lead to the changes they desire.

Muslim immigrants must be treated with more dignity and equality, said CSID founder Radwan Masmoudi. “Basically you must end all forms of racism, discrimination and hatred directed against Europeans of Arab descent or of the Islamic faith.” The West also must end the war in Syria and denounce the ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood regime by Egypt’s military in July 2013.

Dalia Mogahed, a pollster and former White House adviser, took issue with the public reaction to the attacks. Defending the right to offend people as part of free expression plays into the terrorists’ agenda, she said. There is such a right, but society normally polices “incredibly offensive depiction(s)” of minorities. She wasn’t offended by the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as a Muslim, but she was “disgusted” by them as an American.

"All is forgiven"

“All is forgiven”

“The correct question isn’t, ‘can we?'” she said, “the correct question is ‘should we?'”

Mogahed called the attack on Charlie Hebdo “a very strange event” because it came at a time in which there were no protests. “The shooting literally came out of nowhere. It was a calculated act of provocation on the part of terrorist organizations. This was not an organic, or even fanatical, response of just rage and anger against cartoons.” This ignores the magazine’s history of satirizing all faiths, generating no violence from Christians or Jews. Last week, 10 people were killed in Niger when protesters angry at the latest Charlie Hebdo cover torched churches.

The assertion is puzzling because, as a pollster, Mogahed has monitored attitudes in the Muslim world for years. As such, she is well aware that the Paris attacks did not happen in a vacuum. In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered on an Amsterdam street by a radical Muslim angered by van Gogh’s film, Submission, which focused on Islam’s treatment of women. In 2010, Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard survived a home invasion attack by an ax-wielding Somali with ties to the Islamist terrorist group Al-Shabaab.

American Colleen LaRose, known as “Jihad Jane,” is serving a 10-year prison sentence in part due to her plotting to travel to Sweden to kill another cartoonist, Lars Vilks. That murder, she wrote in an email obtained by federal investigators, would be “my goal till i achieve it or die trying.”

There are numerous other examples of plots and attacks targeting people for their depictions of Islam’s prophet.

But the intent behind the attacks, Mogahed said, “was for Europe to respond essentially exactly as it did – to assert the right to offend by reprinting the cartoons.”

That certainly is a point of view. Another is that the terrorists hoped to intimidate others from showing images of Muhammad under any circumstance. Given that major American news outlets, including the New York Times, CNN and Fox and others have refused to show the Charlie Hebdo images, the attacks succeeded.

The focus on radical Islam and defense of free speech that resulted from the Paris attacks gave the terrorists “the rhetorical victory they desired,” she said. A better response would have been “to reassert the place of French citizens of Muslim faith in the republic.”

Mogahed and others repeatedly expressed resentment that the terrorists’ beliefs were being conflated with the beliefs held by 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide. They provided no examples to show this is what people mean when they talk about Islamic extremism.

Whatever the merits of Mogahed’s argument, it seems to have little connection to the causes of radicalization, which is what the panel was supposed to discuss.

In a podcast Wednesday, atheist writer Sam Harris slammed an emphasis on the West’s flaws in analyzing the Paris terrorist attacks as “completely insane.” After slaughtering the Charlie Hebdo staffers, Harris notes, Cherif and Said Kouachi yelled, “We have avenged the prophet.” They did not lament racism, disenfranchisement or any other grievance.

“That’s what causes someone to grab an AK 47 and murder 12 cartoonists and then scream ‘Allahu Akhbar’ in the streets,” Harris said facetiously. “It is a completely insane analysis. Even if you grant everything that’s wrong with capitalism and the history of colonialism, you should not be able to deny that these religious maniacs are motivated by concerns about blasphemy and the depiction of the prophet Muhammad, and consider their behavior entirely ethical in light of specific religious doctrines. And it’s a kind of masochism and moral cowardice and lack of intelligence, frankly, at this point, that is allowing people to deny this fact.”

Harris argued that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons were not racist. But even if they were, emphasizing the offensive nature of the images shows someone “has completely lost the plot here.”

“[P]rotecting this speech becomes important when you have one group of people – ‘radical Muslims’ – who are responding to this offense with credible threats of murder in every country on earth. We can’t give in to this.”

“People have been murdered over cartoons,” he added. “End of moral analysis.”

Not for Nihad Awad, co-founder and executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). His prepared remarks at the radicalization forum focused on the frustration he said Muslim American youth feel for constantly having to condemn the actions of others and for drawing disproportionate law enforcement attention.

“Islam has been blamed for the recent events, not the terrorists themselves,” Awad said. The media’s focus on the religious motivation inspiring terrorists and references to a war of ideas within Islam “is very offensive to me, to implicate the entire Islamic faith and the 1.7 billion people into accusing them of being inherently violent and warring among themselves. I believe this is dishonest discourse.”

Awad’s assertion is contradicted by other Muslims who believe the only way to stem radicalization is by modernizing and reforming Islam, steering away from strict, literalist interpretations. In addition, those most offended by cartoons or commentaries need to learn more peaceful ways to express their frustration.

Read more (with video)

Feeling the Pinch on Free Speech

free spCSP, by Kyle Shideler, Jan. 22, 2015:

An article in USAToday by Dean of Journalism DeWayne Wickham calling Charlie Hebdo’s decision to feature another image of Mohammed on its post-attack cover, “fighting words”, not protected by the 1st amendment reminds us how badly damaged Free Speech protections have become.  Much of the free world claimed to rally around Charlie Hebdo crying JeSuisCharlie, in the wake of the brutal terror attack perpetrated by jihadists aligned with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The world was rightly outraged that these people were killed for having the temerity to publish cartoons. The problem is that as outrage fades, few people are paying attention to the continued efforts to use the attention that violence wrought to achieve Al Qaeda’s goals, without violence.

For example by the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s effort to see Charlie Hebdo prosecuted:

“OIC is studying Europe and French laws and other available procedures to be able to take legal action against Charlie Hebdo,” he said. “If French laws allow us to take legal procedures against Charlie Hebdo, OIC will not hesitate to prosecute the French magazine,” he said. “This (the publication by Charlie Hebdo) is an idiotic step that requires necessary legal measures,”[Secretary General] Iyad Madani said on his Twitter account while condemning the republication of the anti-Islam cartoons.

The Organization of the Islamic Cooperation has led the charge to see the criminalization of defamation of religion (interpreted by the OIC to mean Islam only) enforced by governments. Unfortunately the U.S. State Department has cooperated with implementing these efforts under the “Istanbul Process” for the past several years.  Wickham’s claim that because violence against the speaker will inevitably result, the publication of images of Mohammad are not protected speech is the exact line of thinking represented by the Istanbul Process’s “test of consequences” concept and shows how successful the OIC’s effort to peddle this narrative has been.

The OIC’s ]continued efforts have been backed by Muslim Brotherhood chief jurist Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, whose International Union of Muslim Scholars, also announced renewed support for criminalizing free expression:

Influential preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi wants a law to be brought in by the UN to forbid the “contempt of religions,” according to an article he wrote, which was published on the organization’s website. “The Union calls on Islamic countries to submit a global law draft criminalizing the defamation of religions and the prophets and the holy sites of all, through a global conference to discuss clauses in complete freedom,” the preacher added. He condemned the decision by the French journal to publish the cartoon saying that it gave “credibility” to the idea that “the West is against Islam,” AFP reported.

The irony of course is that OIC member states, including Jordan, Egypt, U.A.E., Algeria and Turkey (putting the Istanbul in the Istanbul Process) all attended the Paris Unity Rally following the Charlie Hebdo attack, taking credit for standing against terror and in favor of free speech. The same is true for some supposedly “moderate” Muslim organizations in Europe. For example, the French Council on the Muslim Faith (CFMF), which condemned the attacks, calling them, ““an attack against democracy and the freedom of the press” while at the same time CFMF’s membership includes the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, whose leaders have had close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and Qaradawi. The same is true of the Muslim Council of Britain, considered to have links to Jamaat-e-Islami, the Pakistani Islamist group which has held massive protests against Charlie Hebdo in Karachi.

What needs to be recognized is that as horrific as the attacks were, they are not the main effort against free speech. It is not terror attacks like the Paris assault that will ultimately diminish free speech. Terrorism is, as in death by lethal injection, only the painful pinch of the needle that you feel. It does no good to address that threat, but ignore the efforts of groups like the OIC that represent the pressing of the plunger to finish the job.

Also see:

Radical Muslim Scholars Demand UN Impose Worldwide Ban on “Contempt of Religion”

muslim-protest-prophet-AFP1-640x480Breitbart, 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 DarwishM.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.

Video: Texas Showdown – Sharia vs. America

Streamed live on Jan 19, 2015 by theunitedwest

First of all, who in their right Islamic mind would present a conference that seeks to suppress free speech, right after the Islamic slaughter of free speech cartoonists in France? Who, the supremacist Muslim Brotherhood, that’s who! In a bizarre event that featured terrorist Siraj Wahhaj and useful idiot Islamic apologist, John Esposito – the good patriots of Texas assembled, 2000 strong, to reject Islamic shariah and call all Muslims to separate the Mosque from the state, reject their tribal allegiance and integrate as true Americans who honor the US Constitution. Today’s show features our own team of Alan Kornman and Damon Rosen who covered the anti-free speech Muslim fiasco and we feature, skyped in LIVE, the brave and courageous Pamela Geller who was one of the leaders of the protest against shariah and for free speech. Finally, we skype in LIVE, Muslim leader-activist Saba Ahmed, who is given an opportunity to “defend Mohammed,” and explain why more Muslims do not follow Muslim Reformer, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser.

Also see:

Pamela Geller: “Free-speech foes attack my website” — temporary site is up

 

Breitbart Texas - Lana Shadwick

Breitbart Texas – Lana Shadwick

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, Jan. 19, 2015:

In her WND column this week, Pamela Geller expatiates on both the attack against her website, which is ongoing, and the rally in defense of free speech last Saturday in Garland, Texas. Meanwhile, she has set up a temporary site here until her main site is up and running again.

This assault on the freedom of speech, and war on the truth about jihad, must not stand. Please help Pamela get her site back up and running: contribute via PayPal to writeatlas@aol.com.

Anti-free speech thugs are at it again. My website, Atlas Shrugs (PamelaGeller.com), was taken down by a massive DDoS attack last Thursday, and as of this writing on Sunday afternoon, the attack is still metastasizing. This attack is unprecedented in its size and scope. Jihadis and their leftist errand boys are so desperate to silence me and my message that they have devoted tremendous resources to taking down my site, which is devoted to honest news reporting about jihad activity.

Leftists and Islamic supremacists do this on all fronts. On Saturday, I organized a rally against an anti-free speech Islamic conference, and the leftists were in lockstep, goosestep, with the Islamic supremacists – as the media coverage from leftist outlets demonstrated.

My site host, Media Temple, said they couldn’t cope with the attack against my site. They had never in their history seen anything like it. The DDoS attack didn’t just take down my site. It also took down Media Temple and threatened all of their clients, and even attacked the servers that Media Temple uses at Net Data Center, a service provider that promises “uninterrupted operations.” Net Data Center could not handle the massive traffic that the attackers were sending to my site to take it down, and finally had to pull the plug on Atlas Shrugs.

The timing was noteworthy. Our ads calling attention to Islamic Jew-hatred in San Francisco have gotten an immense amount of national and international press. And above all, our free speech rally last Saturday to counter the “Stand with the Prophet” anti-free speech conference in Garland, Texas, got the foes of freedom riled.

Leaders of the Muslim community in America held their “Stand with the Prophet” conference in Garland, in support of Muhammad and the restriction of “Islamophobic” speech – working for the same goal as that which was held by those who killed 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris last week: the punishment of criticism of Islam and Muhammad, including even examinations of the motives and goals of terrorists.

The event featured John Esposito, head of the Saudi-funded Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown; and Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and close friend of the mastermind of that bombing, the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman. Saturday’s “Stand with the Prophet” event sought to combat “Islamophobes in America” – including me. This is in line with Islamic supremacist groups’ longstanding objective of defaming, smearing and marginalizing anyone who opposes the jihad agenda. They said they wanted to defend Muhammad – which means to silence those who notice that defenders of Muhammad just murdered 16 people in Paris and tens of thousands worldwide since 9/11.

Nevertheless, the superintendent of schools allowed this anti-American group to hold this conference agitating for an abridgment of the First Amendment – despite the mass slaughter of the Charlie Hebdo staff for violating the draconian Shariah blasphemy laws, mandating death for criticism of Islam. The Islamic law restricting free speech has no place in the American public sphere. It is anathema to the principles upon which this great nation was established.

Pamela Geller’s commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books – featured at the WND Superstore

But we were unbowed. Saturday in Garland, Texas, thousands of freedom-loving Americans took a stand for the freedom of speech. Block after block, row after row, Texan after Texan, American after American, said no to the restrictions against free speech as mandated under Islamic law (Shariah).

The rally was an enormous success. Thousands of Americans joined us in Garland, Texas, to oppose the most radical and extreme ideology on the face of the earth, Islamic law (Shariah). They demonstrated their indomitable commitment to freedom. We will never give in, and never submit, and never be subjugated.

The media coverage of our rally was vicious, ugly and dishonest. It’s extraordinary in the wake of the Paris jihad attack, where journalists were mercilessly slaughtered in cold blood, that journalists are covering and advancing the most extreme and brutal ideology on the face of the earth. The jihadists screamed in the streets (while making a Nazi salute, by the way), “We have avenged the prophet.” This conference was the same kind of initiative: It was called “Stand with the Prophet.” And what did the media call it? A “peace conference.” One headline blared, “Muslims group gathers for peace, faces threats, protest.” And the news story features only smiling young women wearing hijabs.

This coverage, the “Stand with the Prophet” conference and the attack on my site are all part of the same anti-free speech initiative. The Islamic supremacists are out for blood, determined to criminalize criticism of Islam (and opposition to jihad terror) under the guise of fighting against “Islamophobia” and “hate speech.” The media cover for them. And on the eve of their “Stand with the Prophet” event, their fellow foes of free speech took my site down.

My website reaches close to 100,000 readers a day. No wonder they want so very much to take it down and keep it down. Our rally, like my website, stood for the freedom of speech against all attempts, violent and stealthy, to impose Islamic blasphemy laws on Americans and stifle criticism of Muhammad and Islam. As Muhammad’s followers kill more and more people, we need critics of him more than ever – and free people need to stand up against these underhanded attempts to stifle all criticism of Islam, including honest investigations of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify Jew-hatred, violence, supremacism and oppression.

The foes of free speech never give up. And neither should its defenders. As of this writing, the DDoS attack against my website continues, and there is no end in sight. I am working furiously to move the site and get back online. The costs associated with the move, the server, and the IT expertise are staggering. You can rest assured that I’ll be back online – with a righteous vengeance.

We need to get the message out and cover the news the media won’t cover – especially now when the jihad is raging. I need your help. If you believe that Atlas Shrugs must survive, contribute via Paypal to writeatlas@aol.com, here.

The visual portion of this video is a bit subpar, but the audio is very good, and so far this is the only video of the speech that I gave that has surfaced. I speak starting at the 8:44 mark.

 

Alternate video of Pamela Geller’s speech can be found here.

This video thanks to Kymberly.

Also see:

Meet the honor brigade, an organized campaign to silence debate on Islam

Asra Q. Nomani

Asra Q. Nomani

January 16 at 8:01 PM

Asra Q. Nomani, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is the author of “Standing Alone: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam.”

“You have shamed the community,” a fellow Muslim in Morgantown, W.Va., said to me as we sat in a Panera Bread in 2004. “Stop writing.”

Then 38, I had just written an essay for The Washington Post’s Outlook section arguing that women should be allowed to pray in the main halls of mosques, rather than in segregated spaces, as most mosques in America are arranged. An American Muslim born in India, I grew up in a tolerant but conservative family. In my hometown mosque, I had disobeyed the rules and prayed in the men’s area, about 20 feet behind the men gathered for Ramadan prayers.

Later, an all-male tribunal tried to ban me. An elder suggested having men surround me at the mosque so that I would be “scared off.” Now the man across the table was telling me to shut up.

“I won’t stop writing,” I said.

It was the first time a fellow Muslim had pressed me to refrain from criticizing the way our faith was practiced. But in the past decade, such attempts at censorship have become more common. This is largely because of the rising power and influence of the “ghairat brigade,” an honor corps that tries to silence debate on extremist ideology in order to protect the image of Islam. It meets even sound critiques with hideous, disproportionate responses.

The campaign began, at least in its modern form, 10 years ago in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, when the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — a mini-United Nations comprising the world’s 56 countries with large Muslim populations, plus the Palestinian Authority — tasked then-Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu with combating Islamophobia and projecting the “true values of Islam.” During the past decade, a loose honor brigade has sprung up, in part funded and supported by the OIC through annual conferences, reports and communiques. It’s made up of politicians, diplomats, writers, academics, bloggers and activists.

In 2007, as part of this playbook, the OIC launched the Islamophobia Observatory, a watchdog group based in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, with the goal of documenting slights against the faith. Its first report, released the following year, complained that the artists and publishers of controversial Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad were defiling “sacred symbols of Islam . . . in an insulting, offensive and contemptuous manner.” The honor brigade began calling out academics, writers and others, including former New York police commissioner Ray Kelly and administrators at a Catholic school in Britain that turned away a mother who wouldn’t remove her face veil.

“The OIC invented the anti-‘Islamophobia’ movement,” says Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a frequent target of the honor brigade. “These countries . . . think they own the Muslim community and all interpretations of Islam.”

Alongside the honor brigade’s official channel, a community of self-styled blasphemy police — from anonymous blogs such as LoonWatch.com andIkhras.com to a large and disparate cast of social-media activists — arose and began trying to control the debate on Islam. This wider corps throws the label of “Islamophobe” on pundits, journalists and others who dare to talk about extremist ideology in the religion. Their targets are as large as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and as small as me.

The official and unofficial channels work in tandem, harassing, threatening and battling introspective Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere. They bank on an important truth: Islam, as practiced from Malaysia to Morocco, is a shame-based, patriarchal culture that values honor and face-saving from the family to the public square. Which is why the bullying often works to silence critics of Islamic extremism.

“Honor brigades are wound collectors. They are couch jihadis,” Joe Navarro, a former supervisory special agent in the FBI’s behavioral analysis unit, tells me. “They sit around and collect the wounds and injustices inflicted against them to justify what they are doing. Tragedy unites for the moment, but hatred unites for longer.”

In an e-mail exchange, the OIC’s ambassador to the United Nations denied that the organization tries to silence discussion of problems in Muslim communities.

The attacks are everywhere. Soon after the Islamophobia Observatory took shape, Sheik Sabah Ahmed al-Sabah, the emir of Kuwait, grumbled about “defamatory caricatures of our Master and Prophet Muhammad” and films that smear Islam, according to the OIC’s first Islamophobia report.

The OIC helped give birth to a culture of victimization. In speeches, blogs, articles and interviews widely broadcast in the Muslim press, its honor brigade has targeted pundits, political leaders and writers — from TV host Bill Maher to atheist author Richard Dawkins — for insulting Islam. Writer Glenn Greenwald has supported the campaign to brand writers and thinkers, such as neuroscientist and atheist Sam Harris, as having “anti-Muslim animus” just for criticizing Islam.

“These fellow travelers have made it increasingly unpleasant — and even dangerous — to discuss the link between Muslim violence and specific religious ideas, like jihad, martyrdom and blasphemy,” Harris tells me.

Noticing the beginnings of this trend in December 2007, a U.S. diplomat in Istanbul dispatched a cable to the National Security Council, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and various State Department offices. The cable said the OIC’s chief called supporters of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad “extremists of freedom of expression” and equated them with al-Qaeda.

Most of the criticism takes place online, with anonymous bloggers targeting supposed Islamophobes. Not long after the cable, a network of bloggers launched LoonWatch, which goes after Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists and other Muslims. The bloggers have labeled Somali author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a born Muslim but now an atheist opponent of Islamic extremism, an “anti-Muslim crusader.” Robert Spencer, a critic of extremist Islam, has been called a “vicious hate preacher” and an “Internet sociopath.” The insults may look similar to Internet trolling and vitriolic comments you can find on any blog or news site. But they’re more coordinated, frightening and persistent.

Read more at Washington Post

Free Speech and Muslim Rage

Pakistan-demo-antiCharlieHebdoBy Justin O. Smith

In the wake of the deadly terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo, the satirical Paris newspaper, and the kosher grocery in Porte de Vincennes (France) between January 7th and January 9th, in which seventeen innocent Parisians were murdered, approximately three million French people, four by some counts, and forty world leaders, without U.S. President Obama anywhere in sight, marched through the streets of Paris to show unity against Islamic terrorism and their support for freedom of expression. For this one day, they did not allow their liberty to be constrained, but the messages emanating from this “Cry for freedom” unity rally are mixed at best.

Shortly after the first attack, an estimated 35,000 people appeared in east Paris at Place de La Republique. Some chanted “Charlie, Charlie” or held signs reading “I am Charlie” __ the message posted on the newspaper’s website.

On Friday, January 9th, the iconic Arc de Triomphe on Champs-Elysees lighted with a banner reading “Paris is Charlie” in reference to Charlie Hebdo.

When Charlie Hebdo first published as L’Hebdo Hari Kari, its only mission was to be as “dumb and nasty” as possible (their words). And they succeeded, as millions from all faiths and all walks of life, including myself, found them to be beyond offensive.

Most notably, Charlie’s reprint of Jyllands-Posten’s (Dutch newspaper) cartoon that depicted the Prophet Mohammed negatively saw them prosecuted in 2005, for violating France’s “hate-speech” laws, representing a terrible assault on free speech. Ultimately they were acquitted through France’s freedom of expression laws. Even so, they never should have been charged, and their crime of “blasphemy” certainly did not warrant their death sentences.

Muslims, on a large scale, have raged against the U.S. and the West in their demands for justice. In their minds, justice entails the destruction of Israel and a blanket prohibition of any criticism of Islam (e.g. the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights and UN Resolution 16/18); and, despite Mahmoud Abbas’ recent statements that “human life is sacred” and the Grand Mosque of Paris’ condemnation of the Islamic terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo, they reserve the right in their Sharia law to mock other religions, to repress and murder non-Muslims and to destroy objects of other faiths.

Historically, totalitarian movements, such as the Islamic ideology, have advanced by restricting free speech, and unbelievably, most of the European Union now enforce laws in line with UN Resolution 16/18, which criminalizes any criticism of Islam. The Obama administration has advocated its adoption in the U.S. since 2009.

In April 2013, Paul Weston, the leader of the LibertyGB party was wrongfully arrested under Britain’s “hate-speech” law, Section 4 of the Public Order Act. His “crime” was that he read a forthright description of the true nature of Islam, from ‘The River War’ (1899) by Winston Churchill, as he stood on the steps of the Winchester Guildhall.

Similarly, one of fifty-four people arrested for “condoning terrorism”, the comedian Dieudonne, an “anti-Zionist”, was arrested 48 hours after the Paris rally for free expression on the weight of one sentence: “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly”, a play of words on Charlie Hebdo and the terrorist Amedy Coulibaly.

Amedy Coulibaly, loyal to the Islamic State, was the terrorist who murdered four French Jews at the grocery in Portes d Vincennes, just hours before the Jewish Sabbath began. He died in the ensuing gun-battle with French security forces.

Dieudonne’s expression was certainly reprehensible and disgusting, but if anything, it should have simply targeted him for further scrutiny and investigation by the authorities. This same statement would not have warranted an arrest in the U.S., because it did not represent a “clear and present danger” to the public (Schenck vs U.S _ 1919), above making people feel afraid.

U.S. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. suggested that the basis of our First Amendment is not “free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.”

However, this does not mean that a Muslim living in the U.S. can say anything without consequences, or that we must continue down this one-way road of tolerance. The U.S. must prosecute and deport anyone supporting Islamic terrorism and the implementation of Sharia law in the U.S., since advocating sedition and the destruction of our Constitutional Republic is an anathema to free speech.

Fear was precisely the entity these Muslims hoped to instill in people worldwide, by murdering Charlie Hebdo editor-in-chief Stephane Charbonnier, Jean Cabut (Cabu), cartoonist Bernard Verlhac (known as Tignous), Georges Wolinski and thirteen more unfortunate souls. These Islamic terrorists, Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi, who were born in France, wanted everyone to understand that criticizing Islam could result in a critic’s murder.

Fears of more attacks remain. Early Sunday, January 11th, Hamburger Morgenpost, a German newspaper that reprinted Charlie Hebdo cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Mohammed, was a victim of arson, without any injuries. The Brussels offices of the Belgian newspaper Le Spir were also evacuated after receiving a threat. And at this writing, anti-terrorism raids are occurring all across Europe.

Cowering in fear behind their political correctness and multiculturalist nonsense, the New York Times was the only major newspaper that did not run the Charlie Hebdo images, which are central to the story. By refusing to publish them, they admitted their fear and allowed freedom of the press to be held hostage by murderers, an unequivocal win for the Islamic terrorists.

Acting in the manner of responsible news outlets and in defense of freedom of the press, the remaining top U.S. newspaper editors published images from Charlie Hebdo on their covers, soon after the Paris attacks. The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, L.A. Times, the New York Post and the New York Daily News published them, taking a stand for liberty everywhere.

Liberty and our sacrosanct rights to freedom of speech and the press __ all we hold dear __ are under assault by Islamic terrorists, proponents for Sharia law, and this is a dangerous juncture for all free societies, in a real cultural battle between the Western civilization and Islam, with all its inherent evil. Americans must demand respect for our basic values and the right to criticize and even mock others, with or without Europe, and we must continue to speak the truth about the dark world of Islam, with its hate, intolerance, human rights violations and indiscriminate murder. And however we must defend it, through speech or force of arms, America must not allow Liberty to be held hostage by Islamic terrorists.

“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” __ Thomas Jefferson

Activist Pamela Geller to head to Texas rally for Free Speech and protest Islamic Conference

Screen-Shot-2015-01-15-at-10.29.19-AMBreitbart,  by Merill Hope, Jan. 15, 2015:

In response to public outcry, local grassroots groups will join forces to stand for free speech and peacefully protest the Islamic fundraiser, Stand with the Prophet in Honor and Respect on Saturday, January 17, outside of the Curtis Culwell Center in the Dallas suburb of Garland, starting at 5pm (CT). The effort will be headed up by nationally recognized human rights activist Pamela Geller.

Breitbart Texas –> reported <– that the event center housing the Islamic fundraiser is located on Garland Independent School District (ISD) property and, in 2002, the $30-plus million multi-purpose center was funded by the property taxpayers primarily through revenue bonds. Eyebrows have more than raised by the fact that a taxpayer funded facility was rented out by school district officials to hold a vitriolic event that features New York City Imam Siraj Wahhaj.

The Counterterrorism Blog called Wahhaj the “unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing” who has reportedly called for replacing the US government with an Islamic caliphate.

In response, the grassroots from across Texas and the nation have solidified to exercise their First Amendment rights. Geller’s group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) is leading the charge.  AFDI President Geller will be in Garland at the Curtis Culwell Center. On her longstanding Atlas Shrugs blog she posted, “Meet me in Texas.”AFDI will kick off their free speech rally at 5pm (CT).

Our AFDI rally,” Geller wrote for Breitbart News, “will stand for the freedom of speech against all attempts, violent and stealthy, to impose Islamic blasphemy laws on Americans and stifle criticism of Muhammad and Islam. As Muhammad’s followers kill more and more people, we need critics of him more than ever – and free people need to stand up against these underhanded attempts to stifle all criticism of Islam, including honest investigations of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify Jew-hatred, violence, supremacism and oppression.”

Geller told Breitbart Texas in a statement, “In the wake of the jihad slaughter in Paris, an Islamic conference in America should stand for freedom of speech not the savage legal system (Sharia) that calls for the death penalty in order to ‘avenge the prophet’. We must stand against this hate and movement to crush free speech.”

She emphasized that the objective of these “islamophobia” conferences are “ultimately to shut down free speech.”

Geller also told Breitbart Texas,  “Islamophobia” is a cultural device designed to crush any criticism of Islam (in accordance with Islamic law). It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia.”

Dallas-based Ken Emanuelson, who is affiliated with the Grassroots Texans Network, is helping to spread the word about AFDI’s rally. He told Breitbart Texas that their demonstration is to show support for freedom of speech being threatened by Islamic activists.

“Whether one agrees with a particular message or opposes it, we should all be able to come together around the idea that every human being has a right to speak his or her mind,” Emanuelson said.

Overpasses for America – Texas is another group whose statewide members are attending.  They will begin to assemble at 3pm (CT). They highlighted on their Facebook event page, “The Garland Police Department (PD) is bringing in additional officers for this event so please drop by and thank them for providing protection at this event. Our law enforcement officers have been going through their own rough time so let’s let them know how much they are appreciated.”

Non-sponsoring grassroots groups like the Garland Tea Party are a few among the many expected to attend the peaceful demonstrations.

Follow Merrill Hope on Twitter @OutOfTheBoxMom.

freedom-rally-afdi-texas-481x600

Largest Islamic Body in the World Calls For More Anti-Free Speech Laws In Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack

oic-erasing-freedom-of-speech-edited (1)PJ Media, By Patrick Poole, On January 12, 2015:

Last week’s terror attack targeting French magazine Charlie Hebdo’s office in Paris has sparked a global conversation about the nature of free speech, with the “Je Suis Charlie” hashtag in support of the murdered Charlie Hebdo staff going viral and becoming the most used hashtag in the history of Twitter.

But this afternoon, the UN representative for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Ufuk Gokcen was expressing another view with respect to free speech.

The OIC is comprised of the 57 Muslim-majority nations and the Palestinian Authority. They are the largest bloc at the UN, and when they meet on the head-of-state level, they literally speak for the Muslim world.

So it is noteworthy that after the Charlie Hebdo attack, Gokcen was tweeting out calling for more speech codes and ‘defamation’ laws that would limit the very type of speech that Charlie Hebdo engaged in:

oic3

The timing of Gokcen’s call could be more perfect.

Today, University of Tennessee law professor Robert Blitt (a colleague of our own Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds) had an oped published in USA Today calling out the OIC for its retrograde views on free speech and how they fuel Islamic extremism:

The OIC, whose member states range from moderate U.S. allies such as Jordan to adversaries such as Iran, describes itself as the world’s largest international body after the United Nations. For more than a decade, “the collective voice of the Muslim world” has spread the belief that any insult directed against the Muslim faith or its prophet demands absolute suppression. Quashing “defamation of Islam” is enshrined asa chief objective in the organization’s charter.

With countless internal resolutions, relentless lobbying of the international community and block voting on resolutions advocating a prohibition on defamation of religion at the U.N., the OIC continuously pushes to silence criticism of Islam.

Translated into practice inside Islamic nations and increasingly elsewhere, this toxic vision breeds contempt for freedom of religion and expression, justifies the killing of Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and casts a pall of self-censorship over academia and the arts.

By building the expectation that dissent or insult merits suppression, groups such as the OIC and the Arab League have emboldened extremists to take protection of Islam to the next level. With the most authoritative Muslim voices prepared to denounce violence but not to combat the idea that Islam should be immune from criticism, a meaningful response to counteract the resulting violence continues to be glaringly absent.

An OIC statement released after a 2011 Charlie Hebdo issue “guest-edited” by the prophet Mohammed typifies this troubling position: “Publication of the insulting cartoon … was an outrageous act of incitement and hatred and abuse of freedom of expression. … The publishers and editors of the Charlie Hebdo magazine must assume full responsibility for their … incitement of religious intolerance.”

As Professor Blitt notes in his oped, the OIC has been the international driving force behind the passage of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which was co-sponsored by Pakistan and the United States and passed in December 2011.

When passed, Resolution 16/18 was billed by the Obama administration as an improvement over previous “defamation of religion” resolutions. But the effort immediately came under fire by religious liberties and free speech experts:

In the view of veteran international religious liberty analyst and advocate Elizabeth Kendal resolution 16/18, “far from being a breakthrough for free speech … is actually more dangerous than” the religious defamation resolutions.

“Indeed, the strategic shift from defamation to incitement actually advances the OIC’s primary goal: the criminalization of criticism of Islam,” she wrote.

The OIC’s push to criminalize ‘defamation of Islam’ goes back to the OIC’s 10 Year Plan of Action adopted in 2005. Under the section “Countering Islamophobia” (VII), the plan says:

3. Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.

In their published implementation plan for their 10 Year Plan of Action, they are more clear that combating ‘defamation of religion’ is not what they were after, but criminalizing ‘Islamophobia’:

OIC-implemenation-Islamophobia2

Which is effectively what they’ve accomplished with the generous assistance of the Obama administration. Just two months before the passage of Resolution 16/18, senior Justice Department officials were meeting with US Islamic groups discussing that very thing.

In fact, in my annual “National Security ‘Not Top 10′ of 2011″ (no. 7) here at PJ Media I noted the active cooperation of Hillary Clinton and the State Department in working with the OIC as part of their “Istanbul Process” to that end.

And in November 2012 when I reported here that US Embassy in Saudi Arabia Consul Anne Casper was going to be addressing the OIC’s symposium on “defamation of Islam”, the OIC quickly scrubbed any reference to her appearance.

My colleague Stephen Coughlin has posted a video lecture outlining how the OIC’s efforts with respect to Resolution 16/18 are really rooted in Islamic law’s codes prohibiting blasphemy:

It’s hardly surprising that even after the Charlie Hebdo attack the OIC is not content to abandon their decade-long effort to criminalize “Islamophobia.” But what the OIC might find is how, much as Professor Britt has warned in his oped today, by doing so they are pushing the global Islamic community further away from the rest of the world.

Video: Sharia No-Go Zones Threaten Free Speech and Breed Jihad

Robert Spencer on Hannity, January 9, 2015 on Sharia No-Go Zones as Incubators of JIhad:

Published on Jan 12, 2015 by JihadWatchVideo

*****

Sharia & No-Go Zones Threaten Free Speech:

Published on Jan 12, 2015 by act4america
****
Also see:

Nicholas Kristof & the Spirit of Charlie Hebdo

by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
January 9, 2015

1113On the day when journalists were massacred in Paris, while blood still ran wet where they had fallen, and as eye witnesses described the killers’ shouts of “Allahu Akbar” – “Allah is great” – the New York Times‘ Nicholas Kristof asked the world not to judge the killers too quickly: most urgently, he said, don’t jump to the conclusion they are Muslims.

Really? Even when they sounded the Muslim prayer? Even when they called their deeds, loud and clear in the streets of Paris, “vengeance for the Prophet”?

Here’s what Kristof did not do: condemn the killings. Praise those who had been slaughtered. Express horror at their execution. And admit that men who praise Allah after committing mass murder are, religious profiling or not, probably going to turn out to be Muslim.

It just kind of is that way.

(Interestingly, in listing a number of Islamic terrorist attacks on Western targets, he also failed to mention that Muslims were involved in the attacks of 9/11. Ask yourself why.)

Instead, he begged his readers not to judge. He repeated the clichéd platitudes about the “majority of Muslims” having nothing to do with Islamic extremism, and praised, not the editors and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo, but non-Muslims who rose to the aid of Muslims who feared reprisals after the recent (Muslim-led) hostage crisis in Sydney, Australia.

What he might have done, but didn’t, was take a lesson or two from the New Yorker‘s George Packer, a man who actually knows a thing or two about Islamic extremism, and about the courage of journalists confronting it: he was one of them. At around the same time Kristof seems to have been penning his column, Packer wrote:

“[Today’s attacks] are only the latest blows delivered by an ideology that has sought to achieve power through terror for decades. It’s the same ideology that sent Salman Rushdie into hiding for a decade under a death sentence for writing a novel, then killed his Japanese translator and tried to kill his Italian translator and Norwegian publisher. The ideology that murdered three thousand people in the U.S. on September 11, 2001. The one that butchered Theo van Gogh in the streets of Amsterdam, in 2004, for making a film. The one that has brought mass rape and slaughter to the cities and deserts of Syria and Iraq. That massacred a hundred and thirty-two children and thirteen adults in a school in Peshawar last month. That regularly kills so many Nigerians, especially young ones, that hardly anyone pays attention.

Because the ideology is the product of a major world religion, a lot of painstaking pretzel logic goes into trying to explain what the violence does, or doesn’t, have to do with Islam. Some well-meaning people tiptoe around the Islamic connection, claiming that the carnage has nothing to do with faith, or that Islam is a religion of peace, or that, at most, the violence represents a “distortion” of a great religion. (After suicide bombings in Baghdad, I grew used to hearing Iraqis say, “No Muslim would do this.”) Others want to lay the blame entirely on the theological content of Islam, as if other religions are more inherently peaceful—a notion belied by history as well as scripture.

A religion is not just a set of texts but the living beliefs and practices of its adherents.”

Not, apparently, for Kristof. Saying nothing about the disgusting filth of the murders, he asked for love and tolerance – an entreaty that evidently seemed appropriate to him at the time. And yet, I imagine that, at the time of the Newtown massacre, he would have had few words to offer about the millions of “nice people” with automatic weapons in their homes, or the gentle souls who would never dream of turning their Kalashnikovs on young children.

Instead, unlike the editors of the Hartford Courant, who called the killers “craven monsters” who “claim to be connected to Al Qaeda,” Kristof wrote all about the nice Muslims he knows, as if believing, somehow, that to condemn the killers is to malign all Muslims. It is the classic approach of those who reflexively view any criticism of any Muslim as “Islamophobia.”

I have news for these people: the vast majority of reasonable people in the world do not think every Muslim is a terrorist. And I have news, too, for Mr. Kristof: the people who actually do think this, don’t read your column anyway. Ever. And they probably never will.

Yet on and on he goes, pointing to the many Muslims on his Twitter feed who expressed dismay at the attacks, deducing (I don’t know how) that therefore “most” Muslims must be against them. The fact that he does not subscribe to the Twitter feeds of those likely to praise such an attack did not seem to occur to him. But there were, in fact, plenty of Western, even French, Muslims who did so, with remarks like, “Those Charlie Hebdo sons of bitches deserved 100 deaths. Serves them right,” and, “This makes me so happy, ha ha ha, those sons of bitches, ha, ha, ha, I’ll go visit their graves and laugh.”

Were there more of one kind of post or the other? I didn’t count; and, I wager, neither did Nicholas Kristof.

The truth is, whether they are in the minority or not (let’s face it – we don’t really know: who has polled the population of Saudi Arabia on apostasy? Who has polled Somalis on their views about lampooning the Prophet Mohammed? Or Afghanistan? Or Iran?), there are in fact millions of Muslims in the world who believe that apostasy should be punishable by death; who believe that women should be forced to have sex on demand and punished if they refuse. There are also thousands, if not millions, of people in the world who think that depicting the Prophet should be punishable by death – just look at the riots around the world following the first publications of these cartoons in 2005 and 2006, if you don’t believe me.

And all of these people subscribe, as Packer says, to a certain ideology.

So it doesn’t really matter if you call that ideology “Islam” or not. There are also millions of Muslims who do not subscribe to the same ideas; and by all means, we should embrace them. Think of the protesters at Gezi in 2013. Think of Malala Yousafzai. Think of Zuhdi Jasser.

Or just listen to Maajid Nawaz. He used to embrace many of the same radical Islamic beliefs as terrorists today, dreaming of a global Islamic society. After a stint in an Egyptian prison, he renounced that ideology and started a UK-based foundation to combat it. Appearing on the BBC after the Charlie Hebdo massacre Wednesday, he said Muslims and liberal westerners have failed “to challenge Islamist extremism, to challenge the way in which we’ve been eroding our values. And everything that the Islamists have wanted to achieve in the way they’re dividing communities, they’ve been getting away with so far” as a result.

Kristof diminishes this call for introspection with his column.

January 7, forever a day to be remembered along with 9/11 and 3/11 and 7/7 and far too many others, was not a day for that message, any more than the Holocaust was a time to editorialize about all those nice Germans, or the killing of four black girls on Birmingham Sunday, or of Eric Garner last July, days for writing about all those nice white people in America.

Muslim terrorists killed the staff of Charlie Hebdo.

And Muslim extremists in the West are threatening the lives of every man, woman and child in the West who believes in what Charlie Hebdo stood for.

Say it.

Because words are the strongest weapon in the world.

And so Charlie Hebdo lives on.

Also see:

NOTORIOUS MUSLIM WARNS U.S. MEDIA

anjem_choudaryWND, 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.”

Je suis Charlie! The cry of defiance: Vast crowds rally across the world to condemn the gun massacre as Francoise Hollande declares tomorrow a day of mourning

  • As darkness fell on Paris, people carrying placards, candles and French flags gathered in the Place de la Republique
  • Protesters carried signs with words #JeSuisCharlie – I am Charlie – in support of murdered Charlie Hebdo journalists
  • Thousands also gathered in French cities of Nice and Rennes – and outside French embassy in Berlin 
  • Masked gunmen stormed the satirical weekly’s office in the capital with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades
  • Attackers reportedly heard shouting ‘Allahu akbar!’ and ‘the Prophet has been avenged’ as they stalked building 
  • Newspaper had earlier posted a picture of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on its Twitter account
  • Publication’s offices were previously firebombed in 2011 for publishing satirical cartoon of Prophet Mohammed
Unity: Protesters hold up their phones at a vigil held in Toulouse. Francoise Hollande has declared tomorrow a day of national mourning

Unity: Protesters hold up their phones at a vigil held in Toulouse. Francoise Hollande has declared tomorrow a day of national mourning

As darkness fell across Europe, tens of thousands took to the streets of Paris to show their solidarity with those killed by gunmen at the offices of satirical French weekly Charlie Hebdo.

The scenes were replicated across France, in London and around the world with crowds holding placards bearing the slogan #JeSuisCharlie, which means ‘I am Charlie’ in French. Others were seen carrying enlarged versions of the some of the newspaper’s anti-Islamist cartoons.

Meanwhile the website of French newspaper Le Monde last night showed an interactive map of vigils being held across the world in Dublin, Edinburgh, Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid, Rome, Berlin, Vienna, Moscow, and as far afield as Tunis, Lima, Rio de Janeiro and Madagascar.

In London, hundreds of people filled Trafalgar Square at a silent vigil for those killed when masked gunmen stormed the newspaper’s headquarters. Many held pens, pencils and notebooks in the air to show their support for the journalists, cartoonists and police officers who lost their lives.

The gatherings were held as French President Francoise Hollande declared tomorrow a day of national mourning tomorrow in respect for the victims of this morning’s attack.

Touching: The steps of a public building in Lyon are lit with candles as thousands of people gather to show support for Charlie Hebdo

Touching: The steps of a public building in Lyon are lit with candles as thousands of people gather to show support for Charlie Hebdo

Basic right: Standing in support of the freedom of the press, these protesters hold an illuminated sign at a gathering in the centre of Paris

Basic right: Standing in support of the freedom of the press, these protesters hold an illuminated sign at a gathering in the centre of Paris

Tribute: Outside the EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, protesters held paper lanterns as they met to remember those who have died

Tribute: Outside the EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, protesters held paper lanterns as they met to remember those who have died

Barcelona: In a sign of support of the journalists who lost their lives today, protesters held pens, pencils and notebooks in the air

Barcelona: In a sign of support of the journalists who lost their lives today, protesters held pens, pencils and notebooks in the air

Unity: Tens of thousands of people have tonight joined peaceful rallies in support of the people killed at the massacre in central Paris

Unity: Tens of thousands of people have tonight joined peaceful rallies in support of the people killed at the massacre in central Paris

At the Place de la Republique, in central Paris, less than half a mile from the Charlie Hebdo offices, protesters stood shoulder to shoulder, proudly holding ‘Je Suis Charlie’ signs above their heads.

In central London, the mood was sombre as a large crowd gathered in front of The National Gallery, to express a mute horror at the events in the French capital. Dozens of French people were among them, along with those of other nationalities who came to show they would not bow to terrorism.

Vigils were held into the night across France, including gatherings in Marseille, Nice and Rennes – with more than 10,000 people congregating to mourn in both Toulouse and Lyon.

And in a show of support for the European neighbours, Germans gathered outside the French embassies in Berlin and Madrid tonight – signs illuminated by candlelight.

The crowds were gathered in support of 12 people – including four of France’s most revered cartoonists – who were executed by masked attackers, brandishing Kalashnikovs, who burst into the Charlie Hebdo headquarters, opening fire on staff after seeking out journalists by name.

Witnesses said the suspected Al Qaeda gunmen were heard to shout ‘the Prophet has been avenged’ and ‘Allahu akbar!’ – Arabic for ‘God is great’ – as they stalked the building.

They headed straight for the paper’s editor and cartoonist, Stephane Charbonnier, killing him and his police bodyguard. The security had been recruited to protect him after extremists firebombed the offices in 2011 over a satirical cartoon about the Prophet Mohammed.

A year later, Mr Charbonnier famously dismissed threats against his life, declaring: ‘I would rather die standing than live kneeling.’

The militants also killed three other renowned cartoonists – men who had regularly satirised Islam – and the newspaper’s deputy chief editor.

See more breathtaking pictures and video at Daily Mail