Five Reasons Why Islam is a Cult

death cultby Bob Smith:

1. A Muslim who quits Islam has to worry about being killed by another Muslim.

This is the first rule of Islam. This is why so few Muslims quit the faith. This simple fact — alone — makes Islam a cult. It is hard to understate the significance of this cold hard fact about Islam.

This practice is widely followed today throughout the Islamic world. The most frequently quoted Islamic theological source is Sahih Al-Bukhari Number 6922:

Allah’s apostle said, “if anyone changes his (Islamic) religion, then kill him.”

WikiIslam.net says the following: “the rejection of faith, is a serious offense in Islam. The punishment for apostasy as prescribed by Prophet Muhammad is death”.

Don’t let any Muslim try to deny this fact by quoting the Islamic phrase “there is no compulsion in religion”. All Muslims know the Islamic doctrine of “abrogation” negates this phrase. And Muslims only use this phrase when they are trying to deceive non-Muslims

In Afghanistan, NATO had to use a promise of asylum in Europe to get Said Musa out of prison for the crime of converting to Christianity.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI.org), in clip #3926, translated a broadcast from Al-Arabiya TV on June 14, 2013, which quotes Egyptian Islamist Abu Al-’Ela Abd Rabbo, one of the assassins of secularist Farag Foda in 1992:

Interviewer: What was the religious justification for the assassination of Farag Foda?

Abu Al-’Ela Abd Rabbo: The punishment for an apostate is death, even if he repents.

Need more proof? Simply Google “quit Islam” or, click the this link for an insightful discussion on the issue.

2. Muslims are encouraged to commit violence in the name of Islam.

Muslim theological documents — the Koran, Hadith, and Sunna — are filled with statements which encourage devout Muslims to commit violence in the name of Islam.

Here are just a few:

  • Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them(2:191)
  • Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood (9:123)
  • When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them (9:5)
  • Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)
  • Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable (3:85)
  • The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30)
  • Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam (5:33)
  • The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque (9:28)
  • Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies (22:19)
  • Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them (47:4)
  • The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them (8:65)
  • Muslims must not take the infidels as friends (3:28)
  • Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an (8:12)
  • Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels

In addition to the Muslim theological documents mentioned above, Islamic social norms encourage violence. It is widely noted that Friday is the most likely day when jihad attacks will occur within Muslim society. This is because the mullahs use their Friday pulpits to encourage their flock to commit violence in the name of Islam.

In Muslim societies, even the media become involved in the incitement to violence. MEMRI.org has translated thousands of articles from print and electronic media. These translated articles are filled with direct incitement to commit violence in the name of Islam.

Remarkably, some of the most glaring examples of incitement to violence come from new “converts” to Islam. Why would a new convert to Islam commit violence? The obvious answer is the “theological” incitement from their new religion — Islam’s core texts.

There is an unfortunate PC effort to deny, ignore and whitewash this Islam inspired violence. The amount of violence committed worldwide since 9/11 is simply too high to overlook.

The web site The Religion of Peace has been collecting, counting, and publishing a list of deadly Islamic terror attacks worldwide since 9/11/2001. As of January 1, 2014 the number was 22,178. Don’t let the PC crowd tell you it is just the same as the Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or the Jews — make them prove it. Only an intellectual buffoon would try to deny the relationship between Islam and violence.

3. Islam does not allow criticism or change.

Islam considers anyone who criticizes or tries to change Islam guilty of blasphemy. And blasphemy is an capital crime under Sharia law. As a result any Muslim who even critiques or attempts to change Islam has to worry about being murdered by some devout Muslim.

In Denmark in late 2013, an 18-year-old Muslim named Yahya Hassan received numerous death threats after reading one of his Islam-critical poems on TV.

It is bad enough that Muslims can’t criticize Islam, but this rule even applies to non-Muslims in non-Muslim societies. Just look at what happened to Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam. He made a short movie about women in Islam. As Van Gogh walked to work one morning, he was murdered by a devout Muslim named Mohammed Bouyeri. At his trial the murderer told the court Van Gogh had insulted Islam. “What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith,” Bouyeri went on. “I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet.”

The Comedy Central series “South Park” parodied Islam in a couple of 2010 episodes. What happened? According to the New York Times:

Mat Stone and Trey Parker the creators of South Park were threatened by the Islamic web site RevolutionMuslim.com. It warned Mat and Trey “what they are doing is stupid, and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

In Seattle, the cartoonist Molly Norris thought she could counter Islamic reality. She declared May 20, 2010 “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”. She published a cartoon with a number of household items (a spool of thread, a cup and saucer, a domino…) all claiming to be Mohammed. Within a week Norris had received numerous death threats. Eventually the Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki put a fatwa on Norris’ head. After talks with the FBI she ultimately had to implement her own “cartoonist protection program”. She has reportedly changed her name, left Seattle, and gone underground.

To make matters worse, Islam encourages devout believers to be “self-initiating” in the enforcement of Sharia law. This means any devout Muslim believer anywhere might commit violence in the blink of an eye, if he finds you doing something he considers offensive to Islam.

4. Muslim theology teaches hatred of non-Muslims.

This practice is widespread within Islamic society. It has been documented by numerous authors literally thousands of time. (See a long list of articles below.)

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI.org) has recorded and translated hundreds of television broadcasts in which Muslim religious leaders encourage hatred and violence against non-Muslims, and especially the Jews.

Here is a screen shot from one:

To make matters worse, this Islamic hate-theology is being taught right here in Western society right under the noses of politically correct governments.

In the United States, the Freedom House Center for Religious Freedom published in 2005 an investigative report titled “Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques”. This extensive analysis states: “The Saudi Arabian publications in this study, which espouse an ideology of hate and purport to be the authoritative interpretation of Islam, continue to be in plentiful supply at some of our nation’s main mosques and continue to be used as a principal educational resource on Islam for Muslims in America”. (Is there any wonder how the Boston Marathon bombers got their ideas?)

Read more at Gates of Vienna

Falsely Accused of Blasphemy, Source of Islamist Outrage: Just Another Pakistani Christian’s Story

Twenty-six year old Adnan Prince (Adnan Masih), falsely accused of blasphemy and imprisoned in Pakistan. (Photo credit: The Voice Society via World Watch Monitor)

Twenty-six year old Adnan Prince (Adnan Masih), falsely accused of blasphemy and imprisoned in Pakistan. (Photo credit: The Voice Society via World Watch Monitor)

by  (@Cuchulain09)

World Watch Monitor (WWM), a service that provides news on worldwide persecuted church, on December 16, 2013 reported on a visit with Pakistani Christian Adnan Prince (or Adnan Masih) at his jail cell in Lahore.

Prince, aged 26, was arrested under the dreaded charge of blasphemy, Pakistan Penal Code’s Section 295, parts A, B and C – for allegedly outraging religious feelings, defiling the Koran and defaming Mohammed. This easily-manipulated charge, under which so many Pakistani Christians (not to mention many Muslims) have suffered, carries a sentence of either life imprisonment or execution.

LeT flagWWM reported that the accusation came when Prince found a copy of a book written by Maulana Ameer Hamza, the leader of Jamat-ud-Dawa (JuD), a political arm of the jihadi organization Lashkar-e-Taiba, which claimed responsibility for the Mumbai bombings, while he was filling in for his brother at the Diamond Glass shop in Lahore on October 7, 2013.

Prince, who has a Master’s degree in English literature and training from United Pentecostal seminary, began to read Hamza’s book entitled  I asked the Bible why the Qur’ans were set on fire (Urdu: Mein ney Bible sey poocha Qur’an kyun jaley), and take notes inside it.

Literature majors the world over will know the impulse to underline and take notes while reading a book. If, however, one is in Pakistan, and particularly if one is Christian, one should be very circumspect about writing in any book, let alone a book with the word Qur’an in the title.

Sure enough, a Muslim co-worker saw him, and, says WWM – using the phrase repeated o’er and o’er — “took offense.” The man, Abid Mehmood, reported Prince to the local police station for marking the book with “abusive words against the Prophet of Islam,” Prince recounted to WWM. Morning Star Newsanother Christian news service, reported that Mehmood also notified the JuD, who issued a fatwa against Prince.

The young Christian, who is married and the father of two little girls, told WWM that he had done nothing wrong. He explained, “I found the book quite erroneous, giving incorrect information about Christianity. So I wrote comments with Biblical references in several places, but no abusive language was used.”

Once the declaration of blasphemy has been made in Pakistan, no amount of factual evidence, rational thought, or logic ever seems to make a difference in how things play out. Prince fled for his life, but returned to Lahore on November 6, after police arrested his mother, brother, aunt, and uncle and warned they would not be released until he turned himself in.

Read more at Juicy Ecumenism

Video: Brooke Goldstein and Megyn Kelly discuss Obama’s silence on violence against Christians in the Middle East

download (58)Yet another Christian in Egypt is massacred at a wedding and this incident sparks deep concerns. Brooke Goldstein (The Lawfare Project Director) joins The Kelly File to speak out on this most recent attack.

Humor-gate, Free Speech Intimidation in Manchester TN

383401_535108533201484_1714780002_n

Political Islam, by Bill Warner:

On June 4 the FBI and DOJ (Department of Justice) appeared at a meeting called by AMAC (American Muslim Advisory Council — Muslim Brotherhood) in Manchester, TN. The meeting was due to a joke posted by a Coffee County Commissioner on Face Book. The DOJ Assistant Attorney General said in a newspaper interview that the joke might be classified as hate speech and a crime. Below is a political leaflet handed out to the over a thousand attendees at the meeting. (A note: there are only 10,000 people who live in Manchester, TN)

This event which uses the full Federal powers of the corrupt Department of Justice to suppress free speech and shape domestic politics will not be the last. The DOJ is now a full partner with the Muslim Brotherhood.


Fast and Furious, Benghazi-gate, DOJ Reporter-gate,
IRS Suppression of Free Speech and now—

Humor-gate, Free Speech Intimidation in Manchester TN

Why has Obama shaped law enforcement into agencies of intimidation of our political speech? It all starts with the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) in the UN with Resolution 16/18 that criminalizes any criticism of Islam since it blasphemes Islam. Blasphemy punishment is pure Sharia law. There is NO free speech in Islam, since it does not allow any criticism of Islam. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, worked for 3 days in NY with the OIC to find a way to accommodate Islamic blasphemy and slander laws in America. Tonight is the fruit of that labor.

Government agencies are trained about Islam according to Muslim Brotherhood standards. They are taught that Islam is a religion and that Muslims are just like everybody else. It is forbidden to discuss Islam as a political system. Language is controlled and jihad doctrine cannot be used in the analysis of Islamic violence.

Look at tonight’s event. The AMAC (American Muslim Advisory Council) is a political group and this meeting is political, yet the government gives all Islamic politics the cover of religion. Religious Islam disguises political Islam and tries to enforce Sharia law.

You will be told tonight that the problem with Muslims in America is how they are victims of bigoted oppression. Victimhood is a feature of Islam. Mohammed was portrayed as a victim, without any fault. Therefore, Islam is without fault and Muslims are victims. As an example, on 9/11 Muslims were the real victims, because it made some Americans criticize Muslims and Islam.

The movie shown here tonight, Welcome to Shelbyville, is pure propaganda. Why don’t they show the fact-based film, Losing Our Sons? According to our government, a joke about Muslims is a more serious problem than Carlos Bledsoe (Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad) attempting to assassinate a rabbi here in Tennessee and his murder of our military in Arkansas. Did you know that there are no jokes about Mohammed in 1400 years? Political humor such as the Mohammed cartoons can result in riots and death. In America we can tell jokes such as Jesus, Tiger Woods and Moses are playing golf…. But, can we tell a joke about Mohammed and Aisha playing golf…? Not if it offends Muslims.

When Coffee County Commissioner Barry West posted his political satire on Face Book he found out that Islam never changes. Humor about anything Islamic has been forbidden by Sharia law for 1400 years, and it will not be tolerated now. The dhimmis (Kafirs, non-Muslims, who serve Islam) rush forward to placate a humorless Islam. This is all about the Islamists making a molehill out of a mountain.

This night is an example of how Obama’s Federal government is suppressing critical thought and forcing us to submit to an Orwellian authority. Facts are bigotry. Truth is hate.

 

Shadowing Europe with the ‘Islamophobia’ Canard

20130411_shadow_report_2011-12by ANDREW E. HARROD:

On March 21, 2013, the United Nation’s observed its annual International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, commemorating the anniversary of the 1960 apartheid massacre in Sharpeville, South Africa.  Attempting to draw a parallel with the massacre, the Non-Governmental-Organization (NGO) grouping European Network Against Racism (ENAR) issued its Racism in Europe:  ENAR Shadow Report 2011-12 on racism in Europe the week earlier.  In the report’s associated Key Findings on Muslim Communities and Islamophobia, ENAR, an entity linked on its website to George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, calls upon European Union (EU) institutions to “recognize Islamophobia as a specific form of racism.”  ENAR’s cavalier invocation as “racism” of what has been analyzed as an Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) developed “thought crime of the totalitarian future” portends problematical developments with respect to the treatment of Islam amidst its critics in Europe.

Relating “racism” to Islam asks the obvious, “are Muslims a race?”  The Shadow Report does little to clarify the confusion, stating (page 2) that “Islamophobia describes an irrational fear, prejudice and hatred towards Islam, Muslims or Islamic culture.”  ENAR thus condemns not just animus against Muslim individuals, but also any undefined “irrational” opposition to Islam as an idea in faith or culture.   Accordingly, the report condemns as “Islamophobia” (13) not simply “criminal damage to Islamic buildings and violence against Muslims” but also “opposition to, as well as protests against, the building of mosques,” irrespective of any individual criticism of such mosques like the proposed New York City Ground Zero Mosque.

The Shadow Report similarly bemoans the poor public relations (PR) image concerning Islam and Muslims in Europe.  While noting (4) that the “news media plays a critical role in shaping public opinion,” the Shadow Report declares without any empirical substantiation that “news reporting of ethnic minorities…is generally negative and distorted.”  The report complains of a “tendency for the media to blame migrants and asylum seekers for high rates of unemployment and criminality.”

In contrast, the Shadow Report recommends (5) that supposedly objective journalists “[u]se positive terminology and encourage positive media reporting about ethnic and religious minorities and migrants to emphasize their economic, social and cultural contributions to European societies.”  This would be part of what the report (5) describes as a desired “ethical journalism, protective of values such as equality and dignity.”  Similarly (6), the report calls upon authorities to “[r]eview school curricula to ensure that they take into consideration the presence of minorities and migrants and their contribution to culture and society, and contribute to overcoming stereotypes and promoting inclusion.”

While promoting positive speech about Islam and Muslims along with other minority groups, the Shadow Report disturbingly calls for restricting negative speech on these matters.  The Key Findings and the report (5) both advocate a “courageous approach to tackling hate speech and racist rhetoric in the public discourse” and a “zero tolerance policy to stigmatizing comments and terminology likely to incite violence, racism or other forms of discrimination.”  While most EU members (4) “have legal provisions in place for tackling hate speech…in some cases they are insufficient or ineffective.”

Thus the report, in reiterating this charge on page 30, states that “[i]n some cases measures still need to be brought in.”  In particular, the report (5) deems “regulation of the internet” as “seriously inadequate and often completely lacking” even though “[s]ocial media and social networking sites have become a growing space for disseminating xenophobic, Islamophobic and racist discourse.”  EU members should accordingly “[r]einforce legislation to monitor hate on the internet and in the media.”

The report (30) identifies Austrian politicians, “particularly from far-right parties,” as “regular perpetrators of hate speech.”  The report references the October 14, 2011, acquittal of the provincial Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partie Österreichs or FPÖ) chairman in Styria, Gerhard Kurzmann, of incitement charges.  The Styria FPÖ had posted on its website a game entitled Moschee Baba (Austrian slang for “Mosque Goodbye”) in which players targeted mosques, minarets, and muezzins on screen, something that brought prosecution accusations of replicating a shooting gallery.  The Shadow Report finds that this case “demonstrates the difficulty in successfully prosecuting hate speech in Austria, especially when the perpetrator is a public figure.”

Read more: Family Security Matters

Andrew E. Harrod serves as a Legal Clerk for The Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum. Mr. Harrod is also a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. This article was commissioned by The Legal Project.

 

Through A Projector Lense Clearly

images (38)By Andrew Bostom:

Andrew Harrod has revealed the sad reality which marred an otherwise remarkable event at The Heritage Foundation,  “Silent Conquest: The End of Freedom of Expression in the West”: the Muhammad images under discussion were blurred out, effectively kowtowing to the very Islamic “blasphemy” law being decried.

One day later (Wednesday, March 20, 2013), I participated in a stirring event with my colleagues and friends, Rabbi John Hausman, Lars Hedegaard, Robert Spencer, and Tiffany Gabbay. The video of that forum and discussion, can be seen here.

Our event also included specific shots from “Silent Conquest” with the unblurred images of Lars Vilks’ cartoon , and the more renowned Jyllands-Posten Danish cartoons.

That video snippet is embedded, below:

 

 

 

 

Shariah’s Assault on Free Speech: Warriors Who Refuse to be Silenced

CSP-hedegaard-web

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to broadcast Shariah’s Assault on Free Speech: Warriors Who Refuse to be Silenced, a program of the Irwin M. and H. Ethel Hausman Memorial Free Speech Speakers’ Series in Stoughton, Massachusetts on Wednesday, March 20, 2013. The event will begin at 7:00PM.

To attend in person, please purchase tickets and RSVP.

Also being made available live on youtube for free:

About the Speakers

12Lars Hedegaard is a portrait of courage, tenacity, and wit, under even the most trying circumstances.  Hedegaard is President of the Danish Free Press Society, a historian and a journalist. He is also the survivor of a recent assassination attempt on his life last month in his home in Denmark.
Lars Hedegaard in the Wall Street Journal Lars Hedegaard and the Enemies of Truthfulness

16 Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of twelve books, including two New York Times bestsellers, The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (both Regnery). His latest book is Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins (ISI).

19Tiffany Gabbay serves as Assistant Editor and Foreign Affairs Editor for TheBlaze and has been a writer for over a decade. Her passion for politics and expertise in Middle East affairs was fostered at an early age by her father, a successful entrepreneur and Israeli war hero. Previously, Tiffany worked as a journalist on Capitol Hill where she interviewed some of the Beltway’s biggest names including Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Sen. Dick Durbin and many others.  She is a graduate of the National Journalism Center in Washington, D.C. and studied communications at the London Institute – University of the Arts, London.

21Andrew G. Bostom (MD, MS) is an author and Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University Medical School. He is also well known for his writings on Islam as the author ofThe Legacy of Jihad (2005), and editor of 2008 anthology of primary sources and secondary studies on the theme of Muslim antisemitism,The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History. In October 2012 Bostom published his third compendium Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism (Prometheus Books).

Michael Graham is a talk radio host, writer, and conservative political commentator. The author of four books, including the first major publisher book on the Tea Party movement-”THAT’S NO ANGRY MOB, THAT’S MY MOM!” (Regnery, 2010)-Michael is also a columnist for the Boston Herald.

Muslims Pressing for Blasphemy Laws in Europe

by Soeren Kern

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim countries, is pressuring Western countries into making it an international crime to criticize Islam or Mohammed – all on the name of “religious tolerance.”

The Dutch parliament has approved a motion to revoke a law that makes it a crime to insult God.

Free speech activists say the move represents a significant victory at a time when Muslim groups are stepping up pressure on European governments to make it a crime to criticize of Islam or the prophet Mohammed.

Article 147 of the Dutch Penal Code was drafted in the 1930s and had not been used for half a century; leading legislators said there was no longer a need for it. The decision to abolish the law follows national elections in September 2012, in which two liberal parties (the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) and the Labour Party (PvdA) emerged victorious.

The issue was brought to the attention of the Dutch parliament in June 2011, when Geert Wilders, a MP who crusades for free-speech, was acquitted after facing trial on charges of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims. The judge ruled that Wilders had the right to criticize Islam, even though his opinions may have insulted many Muslims.

Wilders, who leads the Freedom Party, had described Islam as “fascist,” and compared Islam’s holy book, the Koran, to Adolf Hitler’s political manifesto “Mein Kampf.” Amsterdam judge Marcel van Oosten said Wilders’s statements were directed at Islam, not at Muslims, and ruled that the statements were “acceptable within the context of public debate.”

Wilders said at the time that the verdict was “not only an acquittal for me, but a victory for freedom of expression in the Netherlands.” But many European countries still have blasphemy laws which restrict freedom of expression, and in some cases, such laws have been replaced with more general legislation that criminalizes religious hatred.

The decision to scrap the country’s blasphemy law has been hailed internationally by activists, who have long called it outdated and a threat to free speech.

The Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters, issued a report about “The Issue of Regulation and Prosecution of Blasphemy, Religious Insult, and Incitement to Religious Hatred.” The report noted that, in Europe, blasphemy is an offense in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands and San Marino.

In addition, “Religious Insult” is a criminal offense in Andorra, Cyprus, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland.

Britain, for example, abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales in 2008. But in 2006 the British government enacted the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which created a new crime of intentionally stirring up religious hatred against people on religious grounds. The new law has led to zealousness bordering on the irrational.

In Nottingham, for example, the Greenwood Primary School cancelled a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha. In Scarborough, the Yorkshire Coast College removed the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar not to offend Muslims. In Scotland, the Tayside Police Department apologized for featuring a German shepherd puppy as part of a campaign to publicize its new non-emergency telephone number. As Islamic legal tradition holds that dogs are impure, the postcards used in the campaign were potentially offensive to the city’s 3,000-strong Muslim community;

In Glasgow, a Christian radio talk show host was fired after a debate between a Muslim and a Christian on whether Jesus is “the way, the truth and the life.” In Birmingham, two Christians were told by police “you cannot preach here, this is a Muslim area.” In Cheshire, two students at the Alsager High School were punished by their teacher for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. Also in Cheshire, a 14-year-old Roman Catholic girl who attends Ellesmere Port Catholic High School was branded a truant by teachers for refusing to dress like a Muslim and visit a mosque.

In Liverpool, a Christian couple was forced to sell their hotel after a female Muslim guest accused the pair of insulting her during a debate about Islam. In London, Rory Bremner, a political comedian, said that every time he writes a sketch about Islam, he fears that he is signing his own death warrant. At the same time, Scotland Yard says that Muslims who launch a shoe at another person are not committing a crime because the practice is Islamic symbolism.

In recent months, however, Muslims have been lobbying to reinstate blasphemy laws in Britain. A petition reportedly sent to British Prime Minister David Cameron reads: “It is axiomatic that Great Britain is a key player in global harmony. British parliamentarians have made outstanding progress in eradicating racism, anti-Semitism, discrimination, inequalities and other factors causing hurt to all citizens. The trust and hope of millions of British Muslims is placed in yourselves as representatives and Members of Parliament to call for changes in the law to protect the honor of Faith Symbols of Islam and other faiths.”

In February 2012, it emerged that a Muslim activist group with links to the Muslim Brotherhood had asked the British government to restrict the way the British media reports about Muslims and Islam.

More recently, a Muslim lobbying group called ENGAGE launched an exhibition and a month-long campaign “Islamophobia Awareness Month,” highlighting the spread of “Islamophobia” in Britain. The exhibition was held in the British Parliament and ENGAGE activists pressed Members of Parliament to strengthen the existing religious hatred law to provide more protections for Muslims.

In Ireland, a new blasphemy law went into effect in January 2010. The Irish Defamation Act, which created the crime of blasphemous libel, makes “publication or utterance of blasphemous matter” punishable by a fine of up to €25,000 ($32,500).

According to the Irish Times, Ireland’s blasphemy law is being cited by Islamic states “as justification” for persecuting religious dissidents. Pakistan, for example, has cited the Irish statute at the United Nations to support its own blasphemy laws.

In Denmark, blasphemy is outlawed by Paragraph 140 of the penal code, which states: “Anyone who publicly mocks or insults the tenets of faith or worship of any religious community existing in this country legally will be punished by fine or imprisonment for up to four months.” The law has not been used since 1938. Measures were proposed in 2004 to abolish the blasphemy article, but the proposals were not adopted and the law remains on the books.

The rules against hate speech and racism are set down in the infamous Paragraph 266b of the Danish penal code, which states: “Whoever publicly, or with intention to disseminating in a larger circle makes statements or other pronouncements, by which a group of persons is threatened, derided or degraded because of their race, color of skin, national or ethnic background, faith or sexual orientation, will be punished by fine or imprisonment for up to two years.”

Free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard was prosecuted under this statute for remarks made to a blogger in December 2009 criticizing Islam. He was finally acquitted by the Danish Supreme Court in April 2012, which ruled that it could not be proven that he intended the statements to be published.

Also in Denmark, Jesper Langballe, a Danish politician and Member of Parliament, was found guilty of hate speech in December 2010 for saying that honor killings and sexual abuse take place in Muslim families.

Langballe was denied the opportunity to prove his assertions: under Danish law, it is immaterial whether a statement is true or false. All that is needed for a conviction is for someone to feel offended. Langballe was summarily sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 Danish Kroner ($850) or spend ten days in jail.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

Muslim Riots Reach Europe: Part II

by Soeren Kern:

Abu Assad al-Almani asks Muslims in Germany to attack any German citizen who supports the film by “cutting their heads from their bodies and capturing it on film so that it is accessible to the public, so that the whole of Germany, and even the whole of Europe, knows that their criminal games will be thwarted by the sword of Islam.”

 

Muslim protests over an American-made anti-Islamic YouTube film, Innocence of Muslims, have spread to more European cities. Muslim rioters had initially clashed with police in Belgium, Britain and France, but since then, protests have spread to Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Norway, Serbia and Switzerland.

 

In Germany, while thousands of Muslims took to the streets in various cities, the biggest demonstration took place in the Dortmund, where 1,500 Muslims holding Turkish flags marched through the city center on September 22. In Hanover, protests involved about 1,000 Muslims on September 23. In Baden-Württemberg, North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony police reported protests involving 1,600 people. Protests were also reported in Bergisch Gladbach, Cuxhaven, Münster, Freiburg and Karlsruhe.

 

A radical Islamist, Abu Assad al-Almani, has called for bombings and assassinations in Germany after it emerged that the actor who plays Mohammed in the anti-Islam movie was allegedly German. In an 8-page document, entitled “Settling Scores with Germany,” and posted on the Internet on September 25, Abu Assad states: “In addition to the ugly cartoons, now the Americans have produced a film in which those pigs poke fun at our dear prophet and insult him.”

 

Abu Assad continues: “The one who played our noble Messenger was a German;” he then calls for revenge attacks. He asks Muslims in Germany to attack any German citizen who supports the film by “cutting their heads from their bodies and capturing it on film so that it is accessible to the public, so that the whole of Germany, and even the whole of Europe, knows that their criminal games will be thwarted by the sword of Islam.”

 

The Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) says the document has been produced by a group called the Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF), the European propaganda arm which supports Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic organizations. The BKA says it is taking the threat “very seriously.”

 

In Berlin, Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich has postponed at the last minute a poster campaign aimed at countering radical Islam for fear it might have incited violence by extremists. The posters had been due to go up as of September 21in German cities with large immigrant populations. The posters were aimed at those who suspected that a friend or family member might be drifting towards radical Islam.

 

In another sign that German officialdom is coming unhinged by political correctness, the ruling Christian Democrats (CDU) lashed out at Baden-Württemberg’s Integration Minister, Bilkay Öney, for stating what many Germans believe is obvious, namely that “Islam tolerates no criticism.” She also said it was easier to dialogue with Muslims in Germany because they are relatively well educated. “In other parts of the world,” she said, “some take to the streets and set fire to embassies.”

 

CDU regional director Thomas Strobl rebuked Öney, a Turkish-born German politician, saying: “What Mrs. Öney says is surprising and shocking. Such remarks are unacceptable, as they emphasize what divides us, instead of linking and integrating.” Strobl wondered how Öney, who is a Muslim, could hold such politically incorrect views about Islam.

 

Elsewhere in Germany, more signs emerged that the threat of Muslim violence is endangering free speech in Germany. Development Minister Dirk Niebel (FDP) called for a ban on broadcasting the anti-Islam video in Germany. “Such a film should not be shown. We should not be adding fuel to the fire,” he told the newspaper, Bild. “The person who demands limitless freedom of expression has no idea what conflicts can be provoked by it,” Niebel said. His comments follow similar statements by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle and Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich.

 

In Greece, the center of Athens (recently dubbed the “New Kabul”) turned into a war zone (videos here) on September 23, when more than 1,000 Muslims — mostly immigrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh — hurled bottles and other objects at police, who were trying to prevent the rioters from descending on the American Embassy.

 

Protesting Muslims, chanting “All we have is Mohammed,” gathered in Omonia Square holding banners reading, “We demand an immediate punishment for those who tried to mock our Prophet Mohammad.” Shouting “Allah is Greater,” they then assaulted police with stones, bottles and slabs of marble they broke from the sidewalks.

 

When Greek riot police used tear gas to control the protesters and protect the security zone they had established around the embassy, infuriated Muslims responded by vandalizing streets and buildings in downtown Athens, as well as by setting fires to trash bins, smashing shops and display windows and vandalizing automobiles. Around 30 Muslims were arrested.

 

Also in Athens, Muslim inmates at the Korydallos prison (Greece’s main prison, in which an estimated 70% of the inmates are Muslim) went on a rampage and protested the anti-Islam video by burning mattresses, sheets and clothing. Security officials at the prison brought the situation under control after using teargas to force the rioting inmates to return to their cells.

 

In Austria, some 700 Muslims descended on the American Embassy in the Alsergrund district in downtown Vienna on September 22. They carried banners and shouted slogans of protest against the film, and called for the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate. The protests were well organized: some Muslims wearing orange vests were waiting at the nearby metro station to guide protestors toward the embassy. According to the Austrian newspaper Tageszeitung Österreich, one young woman wearing a headscarf said, “The film has triggered such a rage in me, I had tears in my eyes.” Other protesters wondered how it was possible that the film portrayed “our beloved prophet as a child molester and misogynist.”

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

Conservative’s Anti-Jihad Subway Ad Leads to New Policies: NYC Authority Can Now Ban Ads That Could ‘Incite or Provoke Violence’

By :

The epic battle between American Freedom Defense Initiative executive director and blogger Pamela Geller and The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) culminated with a court decision that forced the transit authority to permit the display of controversial ads about radical Islam. But the story didn’t end there. As TheBlaze reported this morning, Geller’s case caused the MTA to rethink the manner in which it handles First Amendment issues, leading to the adoption of some potentially-controversial measures.

(Related: Read TheBlaze‘s initial report about the MTA’s changes here)

On Friday, TheBlaze spoke with a spokesperson who confirmed some of the details surrounding the case, while clarifying the new changes that passed on Thursday. As noted, one of the emergent provisions that was added into the public company’s advertising standards in the wake of the Geller debate allows the MTA to deny ads it believes could incite violence (this was not mentioned in the press release the agency put out about the changes).

As previously noted, a document, reflecting yesterday’s changes, was provided by the MTA to TheBlaze this morning. It highlights the transit authority’s advertising standards and reads, in part, “The licensee (‘advertising contractor’) shall not display or maintain any advertisement that falls within one or more of the following categories.” One of the category sections reads:

The advertisement, or any information contained in it, is directly adverse to the commercial or administrative interests of the MTA or is harmful to the morale of MTA employees or contains material the display of which the MTA reasonably foresees would incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace, and so harm, disrupt, or interfere with safe, efficient, and orderly transit operations.

It is the portion presented in bold that is new to the regulations. It’s inclusion is interesting for a number of reasons. On the surface, it appears oddly placed in the list of grievances that could lead to the banning of an advertisement. Furthermore, there is some ambiguity regarding what led to the inclusion of the “violence” reference in the first place.

Read more at The Blaze

Muslim Rage over ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Film: Should Deference or Factuality Act as Cover for Defense?

By Louis Palme:

If factuality would be the cover for defence, a defamation case against the “Innocence of Muslims” film-maker in a court of law would not stand a chance…


September of 2012 will go down in history as a month of rioting, murder, and intimidation over a poorly-produced 14-minute trailer about Islam’s prophet Muhammad.  Over fifty people – among them Libya-based American Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three colleagues, the rest Muslim – were killed, Muslim-owned businesses were torched, and numerous pundits and scholars were forced to go into hiding. Meanwhile, Muslim nations in the U.N. and the O.I.C., as well as many Muslim organizations, have called for international laws to criminalize any defamation of Muhammad, the Quran, or Islam. Fatwas and rewards have been posted calling for the assassination of those involved in the notorious YouTube clip. Even the bounty for the head of Salman Rushdie, who had no connection with the film, was revived and increased.

There is scarce acknowledgement, however, that most of the crudely-dramatized vignettes in the video were taken directly from highly-respected hadith and biography accounts of Muhammad (see Analysis of ‘Innocence of Muslims’ film below). The outrage was not over the inaccuracy of the portrayals, but rather about the exposure of the shameful side of a man, whose reputation has been protected through extreme deference by faithful Muslims. For their part, the producers of the clip would probably argue that uncritical reverence for Muhammad has allowed militants to parley his violent pronouncements into an international call-to-arms that threatens all non-Muslim civilizations. So the question becomes, “Should respect for X prevent the public from knowing about the imminent danger of blindly respecting X?

Consumers Union and its publication, Consumer Reports, have provided American with a world-renown product testing and evaluation for over sixty years. Engineers and scientists purchase products and put them through rigorous tests to determine, if they are safe, if they have hidden defects or hazards, and if they own up to the manufacturers’ claims. In 1988, while testing the compact SUV Suzuki Samurai, engineers found they could easily cause the vehicle to tip over while navigating their standard short, “avoidance maneuver” course. As a result, the prestigious magazine deemed the Suzuki Samurai “Not acceptable” – the only car in history to earn such a rating. Suzuki auto sales in the U.S. plummeted. Suzuki sued the Consumer Union for $60 million in damages and unspecified punitive damages for what Suzuki claimed was willfully fraudulent testing. While the suit was developing and progressing through the courts, Suzuki rollover incidents resulted in 213 deaths and 8,200 injuries. Suzuki’s own internal documents confirmed that they were aware of the serious safety problem in the vehicle’s design. In 2004, the lawsuit was dismissed with no penalties paid by the Consumer Union. Meanwhile, Suzuki partnered with General Motors to develop a new SUV model that met or exceeded all the national auto safety standards. The moral of this story is that speaking up truthfully about something that is dangerous saves lives and is to be commended, not condemned.

Islam might be called the Suzuki Samarai of religious ideologies. Analysis of the film trailer below will show how everything portrayed in the movie was accurate. Therefore, any case against the film-maker, claiming defamation of Islam and Prophet Muhammad in the court of law, would not stand a chance like the faulty Suzuki Samarai car case.

Analysis of the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ film

Was the “Innocence of the Muslims” video trailer inaccurate?

Most of us have seen “Innocence of the Muslims”, the film trailer that sparked rioting resulting in over 50 deaths and damage of properties worth millions of dollars. Here is the link, just in case:

Listed below are the scenes (by time-stamp and theme) along with the references to Islamic sacred texts that provide support for the assertions:

3:02 – Muhammad’s father is unknown. (His father died before he was born, and his mother never raised him.) Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, para. 105

3:45 – Young Muhammad taking orders from and married to older Khadija – Ishaq, para. 120

4:43 – Muhammad buries his face in Khadija’s garments to determine if visions are divine or satanic – Ishaq, para. 154

5:24 – Khadija’s cousin Waraqa is a Christian scholar who helped Muhammad – Ishaq, para. 121

5:43 – Muhammad’s revelations stopped when Waraqa died, prompting him to consider suicide – Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, No. 478

6:27 – Muslims used booty for their income – Quran Surah 48:20

6:35 – “Muhammad is our messenger and the Quran is our constitution.” – taken from the Muslim Brotherhood oath

7:19 – Muhammad given special privileges regarding women and marriage – Quran Surah 33:37-38

8:37 – Muhammad is linked to Allah in authority and worship – Quran Surahs 3:32, 4:80, 8:20, 9:71, 24:47, 24:54, 47:33, 61:11, 64:8, 64:12, and many others

9:11 – Abu Bakr gives his 9-year-old Aisha in marriage to 53-year-old Muhammad – Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 5, No. 234

9:27 – Muhammad and Omar are “gay”. (With nineteen wives and concubines, Muhammad had very few children and no male heirs.) References to bizarre sexual behavior can be found in Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 4, No. 143, Sahih al-Bukhari, No. 2393, and Sahih Muslim, Nos. 3663 and 3674. The story about Omar apparently comes from this Shiite cleric’s speech: http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2012/06/london-based-shiite-cleric-yasser-al.html

11:15 – An elderly woman, Umm Qirfa, is torn in two by two camels – Ishaq, para. 980

11:32 – “Whoever refuses to follow Islam has only two choices – pay extortion or die.” – Quran Surah 9:29

12:38 – Torture of Kinana bin al-Rabi (a Jew) in front of his wife, Safiya, who Muhammad later raped – Ishaq, paras. 764 – 767

13:10 – Fight between Muhammad and two of his wives – Hafsa and Aisha – when he is caught in bed with Hafsa’s Coptic slave Maryah after he had promised not to sleep with her.  This is the subject of Quran Surah 66.

13:43 – “Every non-Muslim is an infidel; their land, women and children are our spoils.” – Ishaq, para. 484

Several scholars, who have studied the origins of the Quran, have concluded that the traditional Islamic claim of the Quran being the “verbal word of God”, transmitted to Muhammad by Angel Gabriel, is not true. For example, the quotations enshrined on the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem do not match the canonical texts of the Quran. The Quran seems to be a collection of religious and political statements from various sources that was assembled in its final form as an Arab national religious text during the rivalry between Caliph Abd al-Malik and Abdullah ibn As-Zubair around 685 – some 53 years after Muhammad died (See “Did Muhammad Exist?” by Robert Spencer, pg.58). Prior to that time there is no clear reference to Muhammad as a prophet of Islam in either Islamic or secular accounts.

Read more at Islam Watch

Don’t Make Fun of Muhammad

David Wood:

Muslim protesters have been trying to send the world a message: “Don’t make fun of Muhammad . . . or else!”

 

For those who would like to verify the sources I cited, here you
go:

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah.

Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers
who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.

Qur’an
48:29
—Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are
severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.

Qur’an
98:6
—Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur’an and
Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)
and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of
creatures.

Sahih Muslim 33—“I have been commanded to fight
against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah.”

Qur’an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the
Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you
takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not
guide the unjust people.

Sahih Muslim 4366—It has been narrated
by ‘Umar b. al-Khattab that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon
him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and
will not leave any but Muslim.

Qur’an 4:34—Men are in charge of
women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because
they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the
obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from
whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge
them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever
High, Exalted, Great.

Sahih Muslim 2127— . . . [H]e (the Holy
Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O Aisha, that you are out of
breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware
would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom
for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of
your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest
which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle
would deal unjustly with you? . . .

Qur’an 2:223—Your women are
your tilth, so come into your tillage how you choose; but do a previous good act
for yourselves, and fear God, and know that ye are going to meet Him; and give
good tidings unto those who do believe.

Qur’an 2:282— . . . and
call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two
men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be
witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the
other . . .

Sahih al-Bukhari 2658—The Prophet said: “Isn’t the
witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said: “Yes.” He
said: “This is because of the deficiency of her mind.”

Qur’an
70:29-30
—And those who guard their private parts, except in the case of
their wives or those whom their right hands possess—for these surely are not to
be blamed,

Qur’an 4:24—And all married women (are forbidden unto
you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of
Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek
them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye
seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And
there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath
been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

Sunan Abu Dawud
2150
—Abu Said al-Khudri said: “The apostle of Allah sent a military
expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their
enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of
the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with
the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So
Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, “And all married women (are
forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess” [Qur’an
4:24]. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting
period.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 4200—Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered
the Fajr (morning) prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said,
“Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation
(to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.” Then
the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their
warriors killed, their offspring and women taken as captives. Safiyya was
amongst the captives, she first came in the share of Dihya Al-Kalbi but later on
she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her Mahr.

Al-Tabari, Volume 39, p. 185—Ibn ‘Umar [al-Waqidi] – Kathir b.
Zayd – al-Walid b. Rabah – Abu Hurayrah: While the Prophet was lying with
Safiyyah Abu Ayyub stayed the night at his door. When he saw the Prophet in the
morning he said “God is the Greatest.” He had a sword with him; he said to the
Prophet, “O Messenger of God, this young woman had just been married, and you
killed her father, her brother and her husband, so I did not trust her (not to
harm) you.” The Prophet laughed and said “Good.”

Al-Tabari, Volume
39, p. 194
—The Prophet admired Umm Ibrahaim [Mary the Copt], who was
fair-skinned and beautiful. He lodged her in al-Aliyah, at the property nowadays
called the mashrabah of Umm Ibrahim. He used to visit her there and ordered her
to veil herself, [but] he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his
property.

Read more

Google Exec Arrested in Brazil Over Mohammed Video

By Daniel Greenfield:

Sharia law… it’s everywhere you want to be. Even in Brazil.

Brazilian authorities detained the country’s Google chief after the company failed to remove YouTube videos that the court ruled violate Brazilian electoral law despite a judges order.

The detention came as another court ordered YouTube to remove clips of an anti-Islam film that has been blamed for deadly protests by Muslims around the globe, both joining a spate of court-ordered content-removal cases against Google’s video-sharing website in Brazil.

The arrest of Google executive Fabio Jose Silva Coelho was announced in Säo Paulo. A press release issued by the federal police said he was not expected to remain in jail and should be released later in the day after signing a document promising to appear in court.

How did this come about? Thank your local neighborhood Muslim Censorship franchise.

Sao Paulo-based judge Gilson Delgado Miranda gave the site 10 days to remove video clips from “Innocence of Muslims,” which has angered many Muslims around the world by its depiction of the Prophet Mohammed and his followers as thugs. After the 10-day window, Google will face fines of $5,000 a day for every day the clips remain accessible in Brazil, according to the statement on the court’s website.

The “Innocence of Muslims” ruling resulted from a lawsuit by a group representing Brazil’s Muslim community, the National Union of Islamic Entities, which claimed the film violates the country’s constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all faiths.

In a statement on the group’s website, Mohamad al Bukai, the head of religious matters for the Sao Paulo-based organization, hailed the ruling.

“Freedom of expression must not be confused with giving disproportionate and irresponsible offense, which can provoke serious consequences for society,” al Bukai said.

But don’t worry, according to the judge this isn’t censorship.

“This type of jurisprudence cannot be confused with censorship,” Miranda is quoted as writing. In the excerpts, the judge defines censorship as “the undue restriction of the civic consciousness.”

Mohamad al Bukai is a Syrian export to Brazil. Here’s an actual quote from him on the success of Islam in Brazil. “The 9/11 attacks were key in arousing people’s curiosity towards Islam, now some 15 per cent of our community are non-Arabs.”

Leaders of Kansas City Muslim group petition Obama to limit free speech of American citizens

By Patrick Poole at PJMedia:

The leadership of the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City have launched an online petition campaign for President Obama to back a bill to limit the free speech of American citizens they deem offensive.

The petition states:

The undersigned Board Of Directors and members of the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City (ISGKC) urges you to sponsor a bill that outlaws any action that may insult one’s religion.  We utterly disagree with the violence that has taken place and the death of United States Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and other members of the United States embassy staff in Libya.  We support the apprehension and conviction of those responsible for such acts.

We understand the First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and, as such, prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, etc., but when the allowance of “free” speech incites violence it should be banned.

The film behind the violence that is occurring in part of the Muslim world, “The Innocence of Muslims”, although it may be amateurish, its contents are very disturbing and insulting to the religion and has ignited an already volatile part of the world.  The film is repulsive to the sensibilities of Muslims and offends the religion of Islam in multiple ways; by denigrating the seriousness of Islam, our Prophet and the Muslims in general.  We believe that it would be in everyone’s interest to ban such actions from reoccurring.

Actions as such should not be tolerated as they are very offensive.  The violence that has taken place as a result of this film is very alarming.  As Muslims, violence of any sort is prohibited in our religion.  Those people who are carrying out these acts cannot possibly call themselves devout Muslims as they are acting out of pure rage and not out of religious duties.  We condemn the violence and feel that, in spite of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, action may be necessary to pass such a bill or, at least, censure such actions in order to calm the current situation as well as prevent future re-occurrences.

American Muslims are hard-working, law abiding, and tax paying citizens.  Everyone respects freedom of speech and the First Amendment in general, however, when freedom of speech results in defaming and insulting others and provokes the killing of innocent people, it should be outlawed.  In light of the recent situation, the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City hopes you may take up this cause and urge other representatives to do the same.  We appreciate your time and efforts.

ISGKC Board of Directors:

  • Board Member: Abdul Gafoor Akram
  • Board Member: Raqibul Huq
  • Board Member: Rushdy El-Ghussein
  • Board Member: Dr. Mohammed Kohia
  • Board Member: Russel Mohammad
  • Board Member: Ibrahim Morad

Lest anyone think that the ISGKC board has gone rogue, a link to the petition is featured prominently on the group’s website, stating:

ISGKC is sponsoring an online petition to establish a law against insulting one’s religion. Please click the link below and sign the petition. Thanks for your support.

The position of ISGKC is particularly curious, and outright hypocritical, since they have hosted internationally renowned hate sheikh Khalid Yasin. When Yasin started his 2010 Kansas City tour, he began at ISGKC:

Sh Khalid Yasin started the tour with a Khutbah at the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City (ISGKC) Masjid on Friday followed by a lecture, “The Challenges facing the Muslim family and community in America” after Maghrib prayer at the Masjid. The attendance exceeded all expectations with about 350 people for the lecture. The Sheikh stressed on the importance of the Muslim community in the west and how to safeguard themselves against the social evils that the western world offers to Muslims especially our youth.

Among Yasin’s positions:

According to the ISGKC,  making a 14 minute movie trailer, and anything else that provoke Muslim rage, should be banned despite the First Amendment protections because it incites Muslim violence. But endorsing the death penalty for gays and lesbians, as well as anyone else guilty of capital crimes under Islamic law, is a view embraced by the same group.

So far, the petition has 155 signers from Kansas City; Albany, NY; Orlando, FL, Annandale, VA; San Antonio, TX; Apex, NC; Broken Arrow, OK; Canton, MI; among many other locations.

Patrick Poole is a national security and terrorism correspondent for PJMedia. Follow me on Twitter.

Behind Muslim “Hurt Feelings” Is Islamic Law

By David Reaboi

If you’ve been  paying any attention to the media (not just this week, but for at least  the last several years), you might get the idea that Muslims in the  Middle East are pretty excitable people, given to quick offense and  “hurt feelings” at any slight against their prophet, holy book or legal  code. The very same “hurt feelings” emerge when the pretext is a  cartoon, a book, or even US counter-terror policy, like outlawing  material support for terrorist organizations. Over years, Islamist  pressure groups in the US have taught the Obama administration how to  apologize for every slight to Islam’s honor; the US government has  learned it so well, they’ve internalized the process of continuous  apology and have endeavored to preempt the “hurt feelings” of Islamists  at home and abroad.

But Muslims are really no more  sensitive and fragile than the rest of us. “Hurt feelings,” is what the  western media needs to label something they don’t understand, and are  afraid to learn.

Last week’s violence in the Middle East–  and, indeed, so much of it for the last several years– is only because  this movie (or whatever pretext, cartoons, etc.) runs afoul of  mainstream Islamic shariah law of slander and blasphemy. “Hurt feelings”  or “feeling offended” is the way the west processes this phenomenon,  but it’s far from what we, in our world of conflict resolution,  psychotherapy, and Montessori education have come to understand as such.

Regardless  of the actual history and provenance of the film (and we should not  discount the possibility of it being concocted by Salafists as a kind of  blasphemous false flag), “Innocence of Muslims” appears to violate a  principle absolutely clear to any practicing Muslim who knows the law.

How  Islamic law on blasphemy gets to be what it is is interesting in  itself. Briefly, the consensus of scholars in Islam (i.e., what is  required to establish a final, unalterable ruling on a subject) have  agreed that, one who blasphemes against Islam, in effect, engages in  slander against the religion (“Slander [ghiba] means to mention anything  concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike,” according to a  canonical Shaf’i jurist al Misri) and places a Muslim in the category of  apostate, for which the punishment is death. An example (not from the  misty past, but from 2007) illustrates this concisely:

If  a Muslim commits blasphemy against the Prophet, this is an act of  disbelief which takes him out of the fold of Islam. Allaah Says (what  means): {Make no excuse; you have disbelieved [i.e. rejected faith]  after your belief. If We pardon one faction of you—We will punish  another faction because they were criminals.}[Quran 9:66] If joking is  considered as an act of apostasy, then it is more confirmed for one who  is saying it intentionally. If the blasphemer does not repent, he should  be killed for his apostasy. However, if he sincerely repents to Allaah,  Allaah will accept his repentance. Repentance expiates all sins, even  Shirk (associating partners to Allaah). Allaah Knows best.” [Blasphemy  against the Prophet is an act of apostasy. Islam Web Fatwa Center, Fatwa  No. 17316, December 11, 2007]

Again, the  legal rulings on this point are consistent. A very helpful digest on the  Islamic legal rulings is here:  http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Freedom_of_Speech#What_is_Blasphemy.3F

By  this definition, “Innocence of Muslims” is cut-and-dry blasphemy. And  that the real source of those “hurt feelings,” however articulated.

Of  course, not everyone in Egypt is ready to commit violence to further  shariah, but nearly everyone is aware of what the appropriate punishment  under Islamic law is, and has very little legal basis on which to argue  against it. Perhaps the most they can say is that the penalty must be  carried out by the Islamic state rather than vigilantes. But,  essentially, they are either in agreement with the legal principle (like  a scholar at al Azhar, a Salafist or a Muslim Brother) or have a  general but acute awareness of the law’s existence. For example, an  illiterate Egyptian or Libyan, unschooled in the details of Islamic  jurisprudence would understand this the way an American citizen would be  familiar with the First Amendment but not necessarily with the  historical and philosophical puzzle-pieces required to justify it. But  it does not make that citizen’s devotion to its contents any less real.

This  is why you see so much Islamic outrage over “offenses” like this. Don’t  let the media or the Obama administration tell you it’s simply “hurt  feelings.”