• Religion Of Peace

  • Archives

  • Oct 7 2014 Come Meet Brigitte Gabriel in Houston

    Click image to download event flyer

    Click image to download event flyer

  • Elisabeth was found guilty of hate speech crimes for speaking the truth about Islam. Click to donate to her legal defense fund

  • Categories

  • Meta

  • This blogsite / website is not the official website of ACT! for America, Inc. This blogsite / website is independently owned and operated by that ACT! for America chapter named on this site. The statements, positions, opinions and views expressed in this website, whether written, audible, or video, are those of the individuals and organizations making them and and do not necessarily represent the positions, views, and opinions of ACT! for America, Inc., its directors, officers, or agents. The sole official website of ACT! for America, Inc. is www.actforamerica.org
  • Statements, views, positions and opinions expressed in articles, columns, commentaries and blog posts, whether written, audible, or video, which are not the original work of the ACT! for America chapter that owns and operates this website / blogsite, and is named on this website / blogsite are not necessarily the views, positions, and opinions of the ACT! for America chapter that owns and operates this website / blogsite

MUST READ: ‘Free’ Speech at Yale

By David Gelernter

To the Yale Muslim Students Association and its many sister organizations that have co-signed a letter protesting Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s lecture on Monday:

I love your new free-speech concept! Obviously this woman should have been banned from campus and had her face stomped in; why couldn’t they have just quietly murdered her in Holland along with her fellow discomfort-creators? These people are worse than tweed underwear! They practically live to make undergraduates uncomfortable. But let’s deal with the harsh realities. Your inspired suggestion, having Official Correctors speak right after Ali to remind students of the authorized view of Muslim society, is the most exciting new development in Free Speech since the Inquisition — everyone will be talking about it! You have written, with great restraint, about “how uncomfortable it will be” for your friends if this woman is allowed to speak. Uncomfortable nothing. The genital mutilation of young girls is downright revolting! Who ever authorized this topic in a speech to innocent Yale undergraduates? Next thing you know, people will be saying thatsome orthodox Muslim societies are the most cruel and benighted on earth and that Western societies are better than they are (better!) merely because they don’t sexually mutilate young girls! Or force them into polygamous marriages, countenance honor killings, treat women as the property of their male relations, and all that. Can’t they give it a rest? You’d think someone was genitally mutilatingthem.

We all know that Free Speech doesn’t mean that just anyone can stand up and start spouting. Would you let your dog talk for an hour to a Yale student audience? What’s next, inviting Dick Cheney? Careful study of contemporary documents makes it perfectly clear that when the Bill of Rights mentions Free Speech, it is alluding to Freedom of Speech for the Muslim Students Association at Yale. We all know that true free speech means freedom to shut up, especially if you disagree with your betters. And true free thought means freedom to stop thinking as soon as the official truth is announced by the proper Authorities — and freedom to wait patiently until then.

Now take this Ayaan Hirsi Ali. First of all, she’s a black woman, and they’re not quite ready for prime time, know what I mean? And she’s against the systematic abuse of women in Muslim societies. What about people who are for the systematic abuse of women in Muslim societies? Furthermore, she lacks “representative scholarly qualifications.” Want the whole campus flooded with quacks expressing their so-called opinions based on “experience” and “knowledge” instead of academic authority? And she’s Dutch. More or less. Enough said.

Thank you for protecting us from having to listen to uncensored ideas and make up our own minds, Yale Muslim Students Association. Or at least trying. We will treasure your letter and keep it under our pillows forever.

— David Gelernter is a professor of computer science at Yale University.

Link

Turkish ex-mufti on Muhammad: “So many people can’t live properly because of him”

By Robert Spencer

turandursun12

….But his main estrangement from Islam happened when he compared the Quran with other ‎religious books. ‎

‎”Then I realized how Muhammad transferred some of the writings of the Torah and Bible to ‎the Quran. I was so frustrated and angry. I could not live my childhood and youth properly ‎because of him. So many people can’t live properly because of him. So many people are ‎sufferers of his disasters. So many people know what’s right as wrong and what’s wrong as ‎right because they think the darkness that he chose exists. Human emotions and human ‎creations haven’t progressed in many ways because of him. I have found no disease, neither ‎cancer nor AIDS, and no disaster more horrid than the effects of that religion. And at that ‎moment, I decided to start a fight,” Dursun said.‎

Dursun also gave up his job as a mufti, which he carried out for 14 years, to dedicate himself ‎better to his cause.‎

‎”I gave up my job to be able to fight. I was on top of my career. I was not an ordinary mufti. ‎People knew and respected me. But I had to leave that job. Because I thought that if I was to ‎fight, I could not do that with my current job because that would not be honest. I have always ‎been consistent. I never want a difference between what I think and what I do.”‎

Dursun said that he first lost his faith in Muhammad, then he deeply thought about it, reading ‎extensively in anthropology, and in a few years time he lost his faith in God, as well. ‎

With these changes, Dursun’s father and brothers were gradually estranged from him.‎

Then he started writing. His first problem was that no media outlet or publishing house ‎wanted to publish his articles. ‎

In the preface to “This is Religion — Part 1,” he explained that period: “I tried so hard to ‎publish these articles. I rang many bells. My attempts continued for months, if not years. They ‎all turned me down. [These articles] daunted even people known as ‘progressives’ or ‎‎’intellectuals.’ Even when my most moderate articles were presented to them, some of them ‎said, ‘They can stone us to death if we publish them.’ Some of them were even scared of ‎being bombed, let alone being stoned. Some of them responded with the same rhetoric of ‎tactician politicians: ‘We respect the religion. We do not support offending religious feelings.’‎

‎”Every time I was turned down, I thought: If they can’t risk offending feelings, how can ‎struggle against darkness be possible? Can new steps in the field of civilization be taken ‎without offending feelings? How can changes that aim to reach a more beautiful, civilized, ‎and humane world take place without offending feelings? What novelty or reform has been ‎introduced without offending feelings? Have human beings not offended religious feelings as ‎they have changed themselves and the nature? I always thought about these questions. But ‎still found no entrance to our ‘liberal’ (!) printed press. ‎

‎”So before our country and the world, I would like to document this (situation) and blame the ‎‎’intellectuals’ who function as stern wardens that are not very different from the sovereigns of ‎the oppressive regimes that they accuse and as taps that prevent water required for liberation ‎from flowing,” Dursun said.‎

Finally, Dursun was able to find a magazine to publish his articles and then a publishing house ‎to print his books.‎

Among the many subjects he wrote about were violence in Islam, Shariah law, the status of ‎women in Islam, the private life of Muhammad, contradictions in the Quran, “Satanic verses” ‎and the vengefulness of Islamists. He also focused on what he called “the unscientific and ‎irrational matters in the Quran.” He wrote countless books and articles in the 1980s.‎

His son Abit Dursun said that every single article his father wrote fell like a bombshell. “My ‎father heartily dealt with taboos that no one in Turkey had ever dared discuss,” he said.‎

Thus, Turan Dursun often received death threats and was exposed to verbal attacks. ‎

‎”Even a fatwa requiring my father’s execution was proclaimed. Then the magazine for which ‎he wrote made a call to all Islamic scholars to join a debate program on TV with my father. ‎But none of them volunteered because they knew that my father was one of the most ‎outstanding scholars of Islam, not only in Turkey but throughout the world. And my father ‎was fearless,” said Abit Dursun.‎

Turan Dursun’s knowledge was great and so was his bravery. But he did not write to harm, ‎coerce, destroy or kill anyone. He had a cause, which he believed was to enlighten and liberate ‎people to create a better world, where freedom and humanity would prevail. And his only ‎weapon was the eloquence of his pen. ‎

But his opponents did not share the same human values. As if to prove Dursun right about the ‎violence of Islamic teachings, they did not confine themselves to verbal or psychological ‎attacks. ‎

At age 56, Dursun was brutally assassinated by two gunmen in front of his house in ‎Istanbul on September 4, 1990. ‎

After Dursun’s murder, a book titled “The Holy Terror of Hezbollah” was found on his bed. ‎Family members said that the book did not belong to Dursun and was left on his bed as a ‎message by the people who entered their house….

….Dursun was killed years ago, but the silence and indifference of the West — the free world — ‎in the face of Islamism remains deafening.‎

The term “Islamphobia” has been invented to muzzle the critics of Islam so that Islamists’ ‎feelings will not be offended. Even genuine supporters of this term must be well aware of the ‎fact that the slightest, mildest criticism of Islam can cause violent reactions from “peaceful” ‎Islamists.‎

That is why Alan Dershowitz was so right when he said, “The threat or fear of violence should ‎not become an excuse or justification for restricting freedom of speech.” ‎

Why do we fear a violent reaction from Muslims if we make any substantial critique of Islam? ‎Is Islam not a religion of peace, as many claim it to be?‎…

More

The Watchman: The Brutal Rise of ISIS

The ‘Brave German Woman’ and Europe’s Islam Question

by Raymond Ibrahim

CBN-Heidi-Mund-700-Club

Several are the important lessons learned from last year’s “Brave German Woman” incident.

Context: On November 10, 2013, a Muslim imam was invited to give the Islamic call to prayer inside the Memorial Church of the Reformation in the city of Speyer, Germany—a church dedicated to honoring Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation.

“When the brave German woman, whose real name is Heidi Mund, heard about the event, she prayed,” reports CBN News.  Not sure what she would do upon arrival, she grabbed her German flag emblazoned with the words “Jesus Christ is Lord” and headed for the concert:

“Until the imam started with his shouting [“Allahu Akbar!”], I did not really know what to do. I was just prepared for what God wants me to do,” she told CBN News.

Then the Muslim call to prayer began, and Heidi said she felt something rising up inside her.

“I would call it a holy anger,” she recounted. “And then I rose with my flag and I was calling and proclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord over Germany”…

And she repeated the words of Martin Luther in 1521 after he refused to recant his faith in scripture alone: “Here I stand. I can do no other” and “Save the church of Martin Luther!”

Video shows another concert-goer trying to calm her by saying, “This is a concert for peace.”

Mund can be heard responding in German, “No it’s not! Allahu Akbar is what Muslims scream while murdering people! Don’t be fooled! Don’t be fooled! This is a lie!”

She was thrown out of the church….

More

Bill Warner Islamophobe

Bill Warner on supporting Paul Weston and civil disobedience

Islam for Dummies: A Journalist ‘Guide’ Whitewashes Islam

by ANDREW E. HARROD

“[U]ninformed, inaccurate or consciously provocative journalism” concerning Islam worries Lawrence Pintak, founding dean of Washington State University’s Edward R. Murrow College of Communication.

Unfortunately, Pintak’s remedy to this problem, the online guide “Islam for Journalists” edited by Pintak, betrays an absurdly benign understanding of an Islam whose apparent only fault is being slandered by others.

“Across the Muslim world today,” Pintak’s introduction notes, “extremists are wielding their swords with grisly effect, but the pen…can be just as lethal.”

The 2012 “lewd cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad” in the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, for example, receive Pintak’s censure while, like many journalists today, he uncritically applies the honorific “Prophet” to Islam’s founder. Charlie Hebdo’s editor had condemned the weapons used in violent reactions to the anti-Muhammad “Innocence of Muslims” internet movie trailer preceding his cartoons. Yet the “weapon he controlled can do far more damage,” Pintak warned in equating speech with the violent reactions of others, then “evident in the conflagration…erupting across the Muslim world.”

Screenshot of the "Innocence of Muslims" portrayal of Muhammad. (Image: YouTube screenshot)

Screenshot of the “Innocence of Muslims” portrayal of Muhammad. (Image: YouTube screenshot) 

“A commitment to press freedom is in my blood,” Pintak qualified against suspicions of censorship. Yet speaking of the 2005 Danish Muhammad cartoons and their violent response, Pintak showed sympathy for those who refused their publication.

“[M]any Muslim journalists,” Pintak related in denying these “Motoons” any news value, “simply couldn’t understand why Western news organizations would republish the offensive images just because” of a legal right. Yet “journalism is not supposed to be a weapon” but rather “to inform, not inflame; to understand, not distort,” in contrast to “propaganda.”

The Danish cartoons exhibited “in our increasingly interconnected world,” writer Jonathan Lyons similarly relativized, “a number of central issues.” These included the “proper extent of press freedoms; minority rights; the shifting landscape of blasphemy laws and prohibitions; and the history of Muslim grievance toward the West.”

Rather than criticize Muslim rioters, Lyons complained that “almost no one reported on…the Danish media and its supporters as cynical provocateurs motivated by domestic political concerns.”

Beyond free speech controversies, “Islam for Journalists” favored Islam with numerous biased and false statements.

After discussing how Islam “roughly translates as ‘surrender’ or ‘submission’…to the will of Allah,” Pintak noted that Muhammad in Islam, “although he is not divine, he is considered ‘the Perfect Man.'”…

More

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,709 other followers

%d bloggers like this: