Importing Islam’s Feuds

Capture-4 (1)By CounterJihad, April 8, 2016:

Yesterday, we reported on the vast increase in crime in Germany associated with Muslim migrants.  Police cannot keep up with the wave of assaults, according to their internal memos, because Islam’s sectarian feuds have come with the refugees:

The previous year, that police agency had responded 93,000 times to assaults sparked by Muslim migrants.  Most of those were not sexual assaults, but violent clashes brought on by the imported ethnic and sectarian hatreds the migrants brought with them.  In addition, the report noted, Islamist recruiting was flourishing in migrant camps.

The story played out this Easter in Glasgow, Scotland.  There Asad Shah, a Muslim man who was a good neighbor and a beloved shopkeeper, was murdered because of an ethnic feud imported from his native Pakistan.  Tanveer Ahmed, a Sunni Muslim also from Pakistan, traveled 200 miles to kill Shah.  Shah’s crime was partially that he wished Christian neighbors a happy Easter.  But his bigger crime was belonging to a persecuted Islamic minority, the Ahmedi Muslims.

Maajid Nawaz reports:

[O]nly the stone-cold and heartless could ignore the campaign of persecution that has been unleashed since upon Ahmadis by my fellow Sunni Muslims… [W]e would prefer to assume the best in Muslims, and insist that the extremists are but a “tiny minority.” A closer look reveals a dispiriting and disturbing truth.

Just how widespread and institutionalized this persecution is, are questions that few want to ask.

This is because, as the previous case of Salmaan Taseer highlighted, to defend “blasphemers” in Pakistan is likely to get you killed even if you’re the powerful governor of Punjab, Pakistan’s richest province. Taseer’s killer, Mumtaz Qadri, was recently executed by the Pakistani state, but nevertheless glorified and anointed by the inquisitor mullahs…

After Qadri’s execution… Muslim leadership held widespread street protests in Pakistan’s capital Islamabad, demanding that the government accept a list of their demands. These included imposing their version of Sharia as law, to immediately execute all blasphemers… the immediate release of all those convicted for killing to defend the “honor of the Prophet”… to expel all members of the Ahmedi community from Pakistan (that’s 2 percent of the population), and to terminate immediately the positions of Ahmedis working in government departments.

There’s a modest list of demands.  The institution of sharia law, the execution of blasphemers, pardons for murders of ‘those who slander the prophet of Islam,’ and nation-wide ethnic cleansing.

Bring them in, and you’re bringing this with them.  And remember:  their children will probably become more radical than the ones you brought in ever were themselves.

Blasphemy Convictions Intensify in Sisi’s Egypt

Gatestone Institute, by Raymond Ibrahim, April 6, 2016:

  • “There have been more blasphemy cases and convictions during the Sisi era than during the Morsi era.” — Ibrahim Eissa, Muslim television host in Egypt.
  • Their crime was to have made a 20-second video on a mobile phone mocking the Islamic State — an act interpreted as mocking Islam. In the video, the boys appear laughing and joking, as they pretend to be ISIS members praying and slitting throats. “The judge didn’t show any mercy. He handed down the maximum punishment [five years].”
  • Egypt is becoming more like Pakistan. Although that nation also prohibits the defamation of all religions, only Christians and moderate Muslims are targeted and imprisoned; some, such as Asia Bibi, a 50-year-old Christian woman and mother of five, are on death row. Conversely, Muslims who openly defame Christianity — and they are many — are regularly let off.

Despite Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s many pluralistic words and gestures, which have won him much praise from the nation’s Christians and moderates, he appeases the Islamist agenda in one very clear way: by allowing the controversial defamation of religions law, colloquially known as the “blasphemy law,” to target Christians and moderates in ways arguably worse than under the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi.

Last month three Christian teenagers were jailed for five years for breaking the defamation of religions law. A fourth defendant, 15, was given juvenile detention for an indefinite period. [1]Earlier, they were detained for 45 days and subjected to “ill-treatment,” according to a human rights group.

Their crime was to have made a 20-second video on a mobile phone mocking the Islamic State — an act interpreted as mocking Islam. In the video, the boys appear laughing and joking, as they pretend to be ISIS members praying and slitting throats. The Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms, an independent rights group, confirmed that the four teenagers were performing scenes “imitating slaughter carried out by terrorist groups.” Even so, according to their defense lawyer, Maher Naguib, the Christian youths “have been sentenced for contempt of Islam and inciting sectarian strife…. The judge didn’t show any mercy. He handed down the maximum punishment.”

Considering that even Egypt’s Al Azhar — the Islamic world’s most prestigious university —refuses to denounce the Islamic State as being un-Islamic, it is not surprising that mockery of ISIS is being conflated with mockery of Islam.

The Christian youths made the brief video in January 2015, when three of them were aged 17 and one 15. It is believed that the court kept delaying their case until the three 17-year-olds turned 18, so they could receive the full penalty as adults. Their teacher, who also appeared in the video, had earlier been sentenced to three years in jail.

Despite Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s many pluralistic words and gestures, he appeases the Islamist agenda by allowing the “blasphemy law” to target Christians and moderates. Pictured above: Sisi became the first Egyptian president ever to visit the St. Mark Cathedral during Coptic Christmas Eve Mass, on January 6, 2015. (Image source: YouTube video screenshot)

Several other Christians have been prosecuted under Sisi’s tenure for insulting Islam and Muslims. One young Christian man was sentenced to six years for “liking” an Arabic-language Facebook page administered by Muslim converts to Christianity. A female Christian teacher was imprisoned for six months after Muslim parents accused her of insulting Islam and evangelizing.Bishoy Armia Boulous, a Muslim convert to Christianity, remains behind bars on trumped up charges of blasphemy, according to his lawyer.

While Christian minorities are the most prone to being targeted by the blasphemy law, secular Muslim thinkers and writers are also on the hit list. In January, Muslim writer Fatima Naoot was sentenced to three years in prison after she criticized the sadistic slaughter of animals that takes place during the Islamic festival, Eid al-Adha. The month before that, television host Islam al-Behairy was sentenced to one year in prison for questioning the validity of some of the sayings (hadiths) attributed to Muslim prophet Muhammad.

Although Egypt’s constitution outlaws the “defamation of religions,” the plural indicates that, along with Islam, Judaism and Christianity are protected. In reality, however, the law is almost exclusively used to prosecute Christian minorities and secular Muslims. Despite the fact that there are many more Muslims than Christians in Egypt, rarely are Islamists arrested and prosecuted for defaming Christianity.

In this, Egypt is becoming more like Pakistan. Although that nation also prohibits the defamation of religions — which technically includes Christianity — only Christians and moderate Muslims are targeted and imprisoned; some, such as Asia Bibi, a 50-year-old Christian woman and mother of five, are on death row. Conversely, Muslims who openly defame Christianity — and they are many — are regularly let off one way or the other. A few weeks ago, a Muslim broke into a church and proceeded to burn its Bibles. Although several Christians caught him and handed him over to police, the perpetrator claimed he was mentally unstable and could not stand trial. In another case, a Muslim shopkeeper started selling shoes that depict the Christian cross on their soles. Christians demonstrated but police did nothing.

On January 26, soon after the sentencing of the writer Fatima Naoot, another moderate Muslim and television host in Egypt, Ibrahim Eissa, scathingly criticized the Sisi government, including by saying that “there have been more blasphemy cases and convictions during the Sisi era than during the Morsi era.” He continued:

There is no greater contradiction between what the state says and claims about itself and the reality on the ground… The Egyptian state is schizophrenic because it says what it does not do…. It’s amazing and baffling to see a state who’s president regularly preaches about the need for religious discourse and renewal — and yet, during Sisi’s 18-19 month tenure, the nation has witnessed more reports, cases and convictions, and the imprisonment of writers, in the name of defamation religions than during the one year tenure of the Muslim Brotherhood president…. The [Sisi] revolution dropped the Brotherhood but kept the ideology unchanged.

Raymond Ibrahim is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (a Gatestone Institute and Regnery publication, April 2013).


[1] Although only now making English language media, this story was translated here in April 2015, soon after riots and attacks on Christians broke out when Muslims learned of the video.

Video: Deborah Weiss on “Freedom of Speech: Under Attack in America”

OIC bookThis special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Deborah Weiss,  a Human Rights lawyer who is an expert on the subject of free speech and terrorism related issues.  She is the author of The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech.  Visit her website at vigilancenow.org.

Deborah came on the show to discuss Freedom of Speech: Under Attack in America, unveiling how the U.S. is submitting to Islamic blasphemy codes and the high price it will pay for doing so.

When Muslims Assassinate

danish_cartoon_protest

Political Islam, By Bill Warner:

When Muslims assassinate Kafirs who offend Islam, they are following Mohammed’s perfect example.  Any Muslim is permitted to carry out the death sentence, vigilante justice. This is why there was an attempted assassination at Pam Geller’s Garland, TX event.

But what is the perfect Sunna on assassinations? There are five examples of Mohammed ordering people to be murdered because of what they said about him. There was a Jewish poet, an Arab poetess, dancing girls who sang satirical songs, a tribal chief who was planning to fight Mohammed and another Jew who offended Mohammed.

So the next time a Kafir who offends Islam is killed, it is because of Mohammed’s standing orders.

Winner of “Draw Mohammed” contest Bosch Fawstin speaks out

My Winning Mohammad Contest Drawing

Bosch Fawstin, winning Garland “Mohammed” cartoonist: Polls show “far more Muslims are bloodthirsty than act on it themselves”

***

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/bosch.fawstin?fref=ts

More videos here:

Videos! Media firestorm over Geller and Spencer’s tactics in the fight to protect free speech

Educating CNN and Fox News About Pamela Geller and the Sharia Assault on Free Speech in Garland, Texas

Fawstin_Mohammad-Contest-Drawing-1-small-1024x814By Andrew Bostom, May 5, 2015:

Today we are getting confirmation (here; here) of potential direct ISIS involvement in the jihad terror attack on a Garland, TX free speech gathering, Sunday May 3, 2015. Mercifully, the jihadist assault-weapons wielding attackers were slain by an intrepid handgun-wielding policeman before they could complete their Sharia (Islamic Law)-compliant act of carnage.

Veteran journalist, author, and brave activist par excellence, Pamela Geller, organized the Garland event which featured artistic cartoon depictions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad. The conference was assembled in direct defiance of the Sharia’s First Amendment/ free speech-crushing blasphemy law—a form of medieval cum modern Islamic obscurantism, “enforced” by murderous violence, or non-violent coercion.

Geller’s courageous and informative effort (view the full 3-hour event here)—nearly terminated via jihadists desirous of mass-murdering “blasphemous” innocents—has been ignorantly misrepresented not only by the likes of Alisyn Camerota on CNN, but also Martha MacCallum, and even to a lesser extent, Megyn Kelly, of Fox News. More egregiously, neither of these networks have displayed the thoughtful Muhammad cartoon drawn by artist Bosch Fawstin, a former Muslim freethinker of Albanian descent, whose depiction (above) was awarded first prize at the free speech exhibition. Indeed, Mr. Fawstin was told specifically not to show his cartoon drawing, prior to his interview with Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren (see my twitter exchanges here, here, and here with Fawstin and Van Susteren).

Sam Sorbo graciously provided me a radio forum to attempt to educate news media talking heads Camerota, MacCallum, Kelly, Van Susteren, and their ilk. Over 13-years after the murderous jihad cataclysm of 9/11/2001, these news intermediaries evidence a woefully deficient understanding of the living Islamic doctrinal and historical basis for behaviors such as the thwarted Garland, TX attack. They are equally oblivious to hard contemporary data on both global, and U.S. Muslim attitudes toward such critically relevant matters as “blasphemy,” as well as what a preeminent, mainstream North American Muslim jurists association opines about “punishment” for criticism of Islam’s prophet. This professional knowledge deficit—a dereliction of journalistic duty—is manifest in their coverage of the free speech event, and/or their interactions with Ms. Geller.

The yawning gaps in Camerota’s, MacCallum’s, Kelly’s, and Van Susteren’s understanding are summarized in the following bullets, and within the Sam Sorbo interview (embedded below), and elaborated here, and here:

  • Muhammad’s prototype behaviors which sanction violent jihadism, non-Muslim (especially Jew)-hatred, misogyny, and lethal attacks on his—and Islam’s—critics.
  • Sharia, and Sharia-based blasphemy law, per Muhammad’s example, and its contemporary manifestations, include: widespread application in Islamic societies; the ominous support for Islamic blasphemy amongst U.S. Muslims—58% rejecting free speech criticism of Islam 45% wanting such “blasphemers” prosecuted, and 12% supporting lethal punishment for “blasphemy”; and sanction, i.e., a formal fatwa (Islamic legal ruling) by the mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America that killing blasphemers remains valid for North American Muslims.

Finally, Sam Sorbo and I also discussed the issue of so-called “provocation,” versus rational, informed assessment of Muhammad’s pious Muslim biography, and the intimately related Sharia. This concluding exchange riveted upon demonstrable facts, not wishful, defensive, and accusatory ignorance.

***

See more videos here

Videos! Media firestorm over Geller and Spencer’s tactics in the fight to protect free speech

freedom_of_speechI like Phyllis Chesler’s even handed assessment of this debate –

Many elitists and scholars favor  “nuance;” “sensitivity;” “anti-racism,” “inter-faith dialogue.” But they should favor freedom more and double standards less. Westerners have absolutely no trouble criticizing Christianity and Judaism. Why so much angst about criticizing one religion only: Islam?  If what Geller, Spencer, and Wilders have just done advances the cause of freedom of speech, we may not all have to follow their tactics, but we should at least acknowledge that we support their goals.

If not, what exactly are our alternatives?

There are so many videos coming out that I decided to post them all here. I’ll be adding more as they become available. If you see any good ones, please post them in a comment.

Update, May 6: 16 videos and counting! Some very good discussions going on. Say what you will about Geller – she has jump started the mainstream media into covering the threat to free speech! The people who attended the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest did so voluntarily with knowledge of the risk. And AFDI paid for their own security. I myself would not have used such a tactic but Freedom of Speech is an idea worth dying for. This is an opening to educate the public on just how close we are to losing it. It is interesting that Geller in the past has come out against Quran burning as being unnecessarily provocative and has said that book burning is not the answer…more speech is the answer. Going forward, I think it will be hard for her to pull off another event like this due to the cost and finding a willing venue. Spencer said it cost about 50 thousand dollars in all.

Update, May 10: Pamela has been pointing out something completely missing in the Garland jihad attack coverage –

If we had a responsible media, they would report more of the positive developments in light of the terror attack. The jihadists were the end of the line. By drawing them out, we exposed their network. We were able to expose the network without getting anyone killed. The FBI are now going after the sources. They are gleaning intel from their computers as we speak. We smoked out a terror structure.

The FBI has put more American terror suspects under constant surveillance following the deadly attack. Every city across US had “subjects of concern.” The military is taking the threat seriously enough to raise the threat level to one of the highest levels it has reached since 911.

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