Free Speech, “But” – Paris, Copenhagen, Now Garland Texas

by Sundance:

Considering the jihadist attack in Garland Texas, it will not take long for the professional left to begin espousing the familiar tome: “free speech, but“….

There is no “but” in any sentence about “free speech”.  It is, it exists, -or-, it is not, it does not exist.  It is that simple.

Mohammad-Contest-Drawing-1-small

The fact that a simple event depicting pictures of Muhammad needs to spend $10,000 to hire security -IN AMERICA- should be the real story.  The fact that a simple event depicting pictures would be considered “controversial” -IN AMERICA- should be the sub line of the real story.  Alas, these simple considerations will be lost amid the “but” crowd.

“But”, free speech does not protect offensive speech – is another familiar, perhaps the most frequent, refrain from the “but” crowd.  Insufferably wrong.   The only speechthat needs first amendment protection is “offensive speech”, if your speech wasn’t controversial or offensive it would not need protection.

As BigFurHat accurately opines:

[…] This event was to see if ordinary Americans could draw a F*CKING CARTOON without the penalty of death.

Apparently not. So why would you be sympathetic to hair-trigger unreasonable monsters in our midst? Why would you cower, rather than say, “ya, right, if I doodle your prophet I’m going to die. Not in America, Omar.” (link)

And, in a larger sense, showcasing this absurdity is exactly the purpose of the event.

Texas Muhammad

Why do marchers march?  Why do protesters protest?  Why can every American carry their soapbox to any street corner or public square and stand atop it?  Because the central tenet of our foundational principles says We Are Free To Speak.  Period.

“But”, you must accept the consequences therein – yet another similar refrain.  And what “consequences” should be allowable? “Consequences” yes, but drawing out those consequences while contrast against the foundational principle of freedom is exactly what the event was highlighting.

Authentic Islam, carried out to it’s fullest political construct, is antithetical to our U.S. constitutional freedom.

If the central tenet of any belief commands a person to kill another person for drawing a picture – it’s the belief that must be confronted within a society that values freedom, not the artist drawing the picture.

But”, other progressive societies restrict “provocative speech – another espousal from the “But” crowd.   We are not ‘other societies’, we are a formed national society based on valuing ‘individual freedom’ not ‘collective freedom’.  Our foundation puts the freedom of speech as the first freedom, the first amendment – a bill of unalienable rights endowed not by government or man.

We, our nation, were born as a constitutional republic, not a democracy.  The outlined rights of the individual are embedded as more valuable than the rights of the state, so long as the expression of those individual rights does not impede upon the same rights of another – nor form a delivery obligation unto another individual.

But”, your expression of freedom (drawing a picture), is by measure and consequence, having an impact upon my ability to believe in my religion.   A statement finally reached when having a conversation with anyone practicing Authentic Islam.

This is where it is claimed that the tenet of their belief demands they must not allow depictions of the Prophet Muhammad; and therefore an individual freedom of expression or belief is impacting their first amendment right to their religious belief.

That part of the argument is exactly evidence that Authentic Islam is antithetical to our U.S. constitutional freedom.

That part of the argument is exactly what the purpose of the event in Garland Texas was drawing out.

The Heroine For Freedom - Pam Geller Wins First Amendment Case In Washington DC

Free Speech, you either have it or you don’t….

….there is no “but”.

The Unwavering Failsafe – Just to make sure there never would be a “but” our forefathers cemented the first amendment with the establishment of the second amendment to protect it.

Last night in Garland Texas their foresight worked seamlessly.

Also see:

Video: Robert Spencer on Hillary Clinton’s War On Free Speech

11436The following is the video of Robert Spencer’s recent talk at the Freedom Center’s Wednesday Morning Club on April 14, 2015.

He discussed “Hillary Clinton’s War On Free Speech”:

Under Sharia Speech Law that Europe Has and Obama Wants, Truth Is No Defense

Obama-muslim2National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy, Feb. 16, 2015:

Roger Kimball highlights a Gatestone Institute report by the editors of Dispatch International about the explosion of rape in Sweden. As the country’s make-up has dramatically changed due to mass immigration, particularly from Muslim countries in the Middle East and northern and eastern Africa, the number of rapes reported to police has increased by an astonishing 1,472 percent — from 421 in 1975 to 6,620 last year.

Roger observes:

Note that conspicuous by its absence is any mention of who it is who is committing the rapes. Gatestone quotes Michael Hess, a local politician from the Sweden Democrat Party: “When will you journalists realize that it is deeply rooted in Islam’s culture to rape and brutalize women who refuse to comply with Islamic teachings. There is a strong connection between rapes in Sweden and the number of immigrants from MENA-countries [Middle East and North Africa].”

For that bit of plain speaking, Hess was handed a fine and a suspended jail sentence by a Swedish court.  Was what he said untrue?  Truth was not something the court cared about: “The Court [Tingsrätten] notes that the question of whether or not Michael Hess’s pronouncement is true, or appeared to be true to Michael Hess, has no bearing on the case. Michael Hess’s statement must be judged based on its timing and context.”

Now, as I’ve related here a number of times, President Obama, with energetic assistance from Hillary Clinton, has been trying to saddle the United States withsharia blasphemy standards since taking office in 2009. Strategically, the administration pushes for these speech restrictions, which violate the First Amendment, in the context of violence committed after the publication of words, exhibitions or artistic representations that are unquestionably insulting toward Islam. In actuality, there is more insult to Islam in the administration’s intimation that barbaric Muslim reactions to merely obnoxious speech are to be expected. But I want to focus, once again, on free expression.

We need to understand that, contrary to Obama administration suggestions, what is at stake is not just speech that almost all of us would agree is in bad taste and that would not be missed if it were barred. What is at stake is the ability to tell the truth. What is at stake is the ability of a free society to engage in robust discussion in order to develop public policy, particularly security and crime-prevention.

As I wrote here after jihadists carried out the Charlie Hebdo massacre:

The Islamist–progressive alliance I explored in The Grand Jihad would have you believe that accommodating sharia blasphemy rules would result in only a narrow limitation on free expression crudely obnoxious toward Islam, the sort of thing few of us would lament — e.g., expression analogous to the nauseating Piss Christ. This, however, is simply false.

Sharia forbids any speech — whether true or not — that casts Islam in an unfavorable light, dissents from settled Muslim doctrine, has the potential to sow discord within the ummah, or entices Muslims to renounce Islam or convert to other faiths. The idea is not merely to ban gratuitous ridicule — which, by the way, sensible people realize government should not do (and, under our Constitution, may not do) even if they themselves are repulsed by gratuitous ridicule. The objective is to ban all critical examination of Islam, period – even though Islamic supremacism, a mainstream interpretation of Islam, happens to be a top national-security threat that we sorely need to examine if we want to understand and defeat our enemies.

The Swedish prosecution of Michael Hess that Roger and the Gatestone report discuss usefully highlights this problem. Hess did not gratuitously insult Islam or Muslims. He addressed the cause of a surge in rape, a phenomenon that profoundly affects public safety in Sweden and that (as noted by those of us who have discussed the nexus between rape and jihad) is promoted by a scripturally-based interpretation of Islam. Yet the court silenced him, not because what he said was false or slanderous, but because saying it might promote hostility toward Islam.

This is exactly what President Obama and Mrs. Clinton have tried to do, particularly in their collusion with Islamist governments in U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which aims to prohibit any speech that casts Islam in an unfavorable light (under the guise of “inciting hostility” to religion).

As we saw again this weekend, this time in Copenhagen, Europe is now living with the consequences of welcoming massive immigration from sharia cultures, tolerating the demands of Islamic leaders that Muslims resist assimilation, passively watching the inexorable rise of radical Islam, and cracking down only on Europeans and others who dare to raise questions about the wisdom of it all.

Don’t think it can’t happen here.

Islamic Murder By Ritual Purification — on The Glazov Gang

newsdetail-450x225Frontpage:

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Dawn Perlmutter, the Director of the Symbol Intelligence Group and one of the leading subject matter experts (SME) in symbols, symbolic methodologies, unfamiliar customs and ritualistic crimes. She designed and developed Jihad-ID, a symbolic database of the signs, symbols and identifiers of global jihad.

Dawn discussed Islamic Murder By Ritual Purification, taking us behind the scenes of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. The discussion occurred within the context of how Jihadists view blasphemy against Islam.

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.

The Ghost of Charlie Hebdo and the Purple Beret (David Wood)

Published on Jan 15, 2015 by Acts17Apologetics

http://www.answeringmuslims.com
On January 7, 2015, two Muslim terrorists stormed the Paris headquarters of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. After killing numerous people, the jihadists yelled “Allahu akbar!” and “We have avenged the Prophet.” Politicians, the media, and numerous Muslim organizations united in claiming that the attack had nothing to do with Islam. But is this correct? In this video, David Wood shows that Muhammad orders his followers to kill those who insult Islam

Also see:

Wave of Blasphemy Arrests, Riots Against Christians in Pakistan

police in PakistanBY RYAN MAURO:

Prosecutions based on blasphemy laws continue to skyrocket in Pakistan. Four evangelical Christians have just been arrested, shortly following the pressing of blasphemy charges against 86 lawyers. These incidents come after the May 7 murder of a defense attorney whose client was charged with blasphemy.

International Christian Concern reports that the four Christians, consisting of three women and a pastor, were arrested on May 18 after they distributed religious material at a railway station. A group of radical Muslims confronted them, at which point the police intervened and arrested the Christians and charged them with blasphemy.

An eyewitness says that hundreds of Islamists assembled after the Christians were taken away and “attacked” the local Christians in the city of Mirpus Kas. They also staged protests demanding their prosecution and that the police transfer custody to the “faithful” to be dealt with.

The complaint was filed by a leader of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat,another name for Sipah-e-Sahabah, which is formally banned in Pakistan. The group has carried out dozens of attacks on Shiites and is linked to Al Qaeda, but is still permitted to participate in elections and its leader even won a seat in parliament.

The charges stem from a protest by the lawyers against a senior police official named Umar Daraz earlier this month. The lawyers were upset because seven police officers were arrested for illegally arresting one of their colleagues and physically abusing him, but Daraz was left unscathed.

During the protest, the lawyers called Daraz a dog and referred to him by his first name, Umar. Again, a member of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, exploited Pakistan’s blasphemy law. He said that the lawyers defamed Islam by using Daraz’s first name because it is also the first name of the Second Caliph. As ridiculous as that is, charges were filed on May 13.

Read more at Clarion Project

The Hypocrisy of Anti-Blasphemy Laws

love_prophet-450x307By Rachel Molschky:

Saudi Arabia is calling for anti-blasphemy laws in Norway, where“too little has been done to counter criticism against the prophet” and Muslim citizens have been victims of “hate crimes,” according to the nation of Muhammad’s birthplace. It has asked for the UN to review the situation.

Without knowing the specifics of the “hate crime” charges, it is difficult to surmise, although if there were serious attacks occurring, the people involved would be crying bloody murder. Case in point: Central African Republic. As blogger Blazing Cat Fur put it, “Muslims Attack Christians, Christians Retaliate, Amnesty [International] Labels It Ethnic Cleansing of Muslims!” And if the “hate crimes” are anything like what Britain’s Tell MAMA was reporting, they could be nothing more than name calling on social media- and that goes both ways.

As for a country like Saudi Arabia calling for anti-blasphemy laws in Norway, the chutzpah is astounding. In Saudi Arabia, no other religion can publicly exist. If you are not Muslim, you’d better not live there, and even travelers must follow strict rules. They are not permitted to carry Bibles, crosses or any other religious paraphernalia. Jews and people with “Jewish-sounding” names are not allowed entry.

The demand for anti-blasphemy laws gains momentum whenever something is blown out of proportion in the Muslim community like the “Innocence of Muslims” film or the Muhammad cartoons. However, it is always up for debate, and Saudi Arabia is appealing to the world’s love of “human rights” in order to push the issue. The trouble is, Saudi Arabia and “human rights” do not belong in the same sentence.

Sharia law is the law in Saudi Arabia, so everyone must abide by Islamic law, and the crimes of adultery, homosexuality and apostasy will get you beheaded. Alcohol consumption will land you in prison or will get you flogged. Drug dealers will often get a death sentence. Thieves will typically get one hand and one foot chopped off. If a woman is raped and reports the rape, without four male witnesses, she may be convicted of adultery, which carries a death sentence. Women have also been convicted of sorcery, another crime in Saudi Arabia where “witches” are beheaded with a sword.

But of course, insulting Muhammad in Norway is a “human rights” violation.

Pew Research did a study on blasphemy laws for the year 2011. The results showed that in the parts of the world where there is a concentration of Muslim countries, there are anti-blasphemy laws:

“Anti-blasphemy laws are particularly common in the Middle East and North Africa; 13 of the 20 countries in that region (65%) make blasphemy a crime. In the Asia-Pacific region, nine of the 50 countries (18%) had anti-blasphemy laws in 2011, while in Europe such laws were found in eight out of 45 countries (18%). Just two of the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa – Nigeria and Somalia – had such laws as of 2011.”

The study also found that apostasy was outlawed in 20 Muslim countries but nowhere else.

It is the hypocrisy of these laws that is worth noting. While it is blasphemy in Islam to insult Muhammad, and Muslims are adamant that the rest of the world respect their prophet, it is this very same prophet who called on his followers to massacre the unbelievers.

“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” Qur’an 8:12

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

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: