• 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

The innocence of Muslims

by Daniel Greenfield

…..Americans died in Benghazi for the same reason that American hostages had been taken in Iran and for the same reason that Leon Klinghoffer had been murdered on the Achille Lauro and US Marines had died in Beirut. They died because their government had appeased Muslims, had given their terrorist groups hope that they could achieve their aims if they killed enough people, had saved them at the moment of their greatest weakness and had elevated them to power.

The innocence of Obama is intertwined with the innocence of Muslims.

If Muslims are innocent of terror, then so is the foreign policy that has empowered them. But if Muslims are guilty of terror then the politicians who have pandered to them are guilty of enabling their terror.

If Muslims are innocent of terror, then Obama is innocent of complicity in their terror. But if Muslim terror is a real thing, then the man who helped them unleash it by toppling stable governments and replacing them with Islamist movements and militias shares in their guilt.

The real censorship of the War on Terror is not the censorship of dissent from the policy of fighting terrorists. Such dissent can be found in every newspaper editorial office. It is the dissent from the policy of fighting the symptoms of terror, rather than the roots of terror, from the policy of not fighting Islamic terrorism, that is censored and punished, that is a firing offense and a locking away offense.

In the age of terror, the dangerous ones are not those who denounce the war, but those who denounce the lack of a war, who upset the balance of an inept policy that seeks a small controllable conflict by closing our eyes to the larger threat. It is these dangerous ones who must be censored so that we may go on safely losing our nation building wars, bringing home coffins, Korans and refugees without ever questioning whether this should be so.

The War on Terror has not impeded the civil liberties of those who oppose the war, but of those who oppose the terror.

In 1919, the same year that Goldstein’s appeal was being heard, the Supreme Court ruled on Schenck v. United States. The case is obscure, but it has given us a famous phrase from the legal mouth of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater.”

This timeless phrase, long since legally discredited, came to life when Muslims began burning embassies while the White House claimed that the fault lay not in its foreign policy, which had overturned allies and replaced them with murderous Islamists, but with a movie. Pundits dug up  Schenck and began penning essays suggesting that offending a Muslim should be as illegal as shouting fire in a crowded mosque.

Under the new civil liberties, the right of a Muslim to praise terrorists, upload videos promoting terrorism and even funding terrorist charities is sacrosanct, but make a movie mocking Mohammed and suddenly the Bill of Rights won’t be returning your phone calls as you are being frog-marched to your new cell.

In civil liberties circles it is claimed that the war against terrorism has deprived Muslims of their civil rights, but in reality Muslims have gained rights, while we have lost them. The balance between the civil rights of Americans and the need to avoid offending Muslims has been shifting their way and we all pay the price when we fly and we have begun paying it when we talk.

America’s first political prisoner in generations was arrested for offending Muslims as a cover for the failed policy of appeasing Muslims. If history is any guide, he will not be the last. The more bombs go off, the more buildings burn and the more questions are asked, the more Youssefs will be needed to deflect those questions and protect the innocence of Muslims and of their political panderers.

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater,” Holmes said, and modern day Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has suggested that burning a Koran may be considered a modern day version of the same thing.

But what if a man isn’t falsely shouting fire, what if there really is a fire? And what if the theater management has him dragged away for causing a panic even while the smell of charred flesh rises into the air and the red curtains around the screen begin to burn?

And what if after all the bodies are carried out on stretchers, the man is still brought to trial for shouting fire in a crowded theater, and in his defense he points to the burnt ruins of the theater as proof that there really was a fire, only to be told that if he hadn’t shouted, then there would have been no fire.

“There was only a fire because people panicked,” he is told, “and there was only a panic because you shouted. The thing to do was to remain in your seat and wait until the proper authorities had told you there was a fire. And if the authorities had determined that there was no fire, then it was your duty to remain in your seat and burn.”

Shout that Islam is violent and Muslims carry out violence and the fire marshal in charge of the tiny minority of fires arrives to inform you that if you had not shouted, they would not have turned violent. Whatever example of Muslim self-starting violence you may dig up, the fire marshal will find some first cause for it that began the violence, some offense committed by non-Muslims against Muslims, even if it was a shoving match a thousand years ago in Spain that started the whole thing.

The more fires break out, the more the fire marshal insists that fires do not begin unless someone notices them and warns other people. The more people die, the more the moral authority of the fire marshal depends on perpetuating the lie that fires are fueled by the human voice. And instead of a fire department, there is a department of silencing people who warn that a fire has broken out.

This is our War on Terror, a war which is waged to convince Americans that there is no such thing as Muslim terrorism and to convince Muslims that they should stop being terrorists.

The more people die of Muslim violence, the more the principle of the innocence of Muslims must be upheld, because it is no longer just the innocence of Muslims that is at stake, but the innocence of the political establishment that  looked away while the Muslim fires burned.

A political establishment determined to protect its innocence will go to any length, and political prisoners are the least of it.

After the Arab Spring and the Libyan War, it has become impossible to untangle the guilt of Obama from the guilt of Islamists. That is the dirty secret that the fire marshals of the establishment are determined to protect.

The cover-up of Islam’s conduct has become their cover-up of their own conduct as well. So long as Islam can claim innocence, they can claim innocence as well, and those who challenge the innocence of Muslims and by extension the innocence of the political establishment will become the first political prisoners.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-innocence-of-liberals.html

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation: Free Speech Implications of a Proposed Ban on “Islamophobia”

“Islamophobia” is a widely used yet vague and controversial term referring to anti-Muslim bigotry. In recent years, identifying, monitoring, reporting on, and working to ban Islamophobia worldwide has been a major focus of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

The OIC is an international body of 56 member states that is based in Saudi Arabia and active within the United Nations. While the United States has formally recognized its work in the past – US ambassadors have observed its sessions and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton co-chaired some of its meetings – American awareness of the organization remains scant.

In 2007, the OIC began issuing regular “observatory” reports on Islamophobia, and since 2009 has published monthly bulletins that cite primarily Western examples of Islamophobia.

Is Islamophobia a serious problem, or is the term itself an ideological cudgel designed to incite fear and criminalize dissent?  Dr. Mark Durie discussed these and other basic questions related to the OIC’s efforts to ban Islamophobia.  Click here for his PowerPoint.

Mark Durie is an Anglican pastor, theologian, author, and human rights activist. A fellow of the Australian Academy for the Humanities, he is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, a Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Islam and Other Faiths at the Melbourne School of Theology, and the Director of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness.

Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Religious Freedom Nina Shea moderated this discussion.

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=hudson_upcoming_events&id=1057

Tests for Defining the “Moderate” Muslim

IS THE MUSLIM in question an orthodox Muslim or a heterodox Muslim? And which teachings does the Muslim reject? These are vital questions for Muslims who wish to live in a non-Muslim country, and these are vital questions to know for non-Muslim countries when deciding who to allow to immigrate, to build mosques within our borders, to get jobs in government security, to join the military, etc.

How can non-Muslims discriminate between those who follow Islam’s prime directive, and those who have rejected it?

An organization called Former Muslims United has come up with one good possibility: A Muslim can sign the Freedom Pledge.

The 878-word Freedom Pledge outlines the principles of Islamic law under which apostates from Islam are subject to the death penalty. It notes that the four schools of Sunni Islam — Hanafi, Miliki, Shafi’i and Hanbali — “unanimously agree that a former Muslim male, also known as an apostate, must be executed” and that a woman, at best must be “imprisoned or beaten five times a day until she repents or dies” and at worst, like men executed outright. It then goes on to cite 1978 and 1989 religious rulings — from the Fatwa Council at Al Azhar University, the closest Muslim equivalent to the Vatican, and the Mufti of Lebanon, each, respectively consigning a renegade Muslim to death if they “do not repent.” Perhaps “a misunderstanding on his part may have taken place, and there would thus be an opportunity to rectify it,” intones the Mufti. But he must do so within three days, or die.

By signing the Freedom Pledge, a Muslim promises to “renounce, repudiate and oppose any physical intimidation, or worldly and corporal punishment, of apostates from Islam, in whatever way that punishment may be determined or carried out by myself or any other Muslim including the family of the apostate, community, Mosque leaders, Shariah court or judge, and Muslim government or regime.”

Only two of the 111 Muslim leaders in 50 U.S. Muslim organizations to whom FMU sent the Freedom Pledge actually signed it. Those two heroes are Zuhdi Jasser (American Islamic Forum for Democracy) and Dr. Ali Alyami (Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia).

The results of the FMU Freedom Pledge — to date sent to 163 American Muslim leaders at 50 organizations — show that less than 1.3% of American Muslim leaders are actually moderate.

Read the rest at http://dttj.blogspot.com/2010/07/way-to-tell-who-is-practicing-muslim.html

The OIC “Organizes” for Censorship

by EDWARD CLINE

….According Robert Spencer and David Horowitz’s 2011 publication, Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future:

 …A front group – the International Institute for Islamic Thought – invented the term “Islamophobia.

Abdur-Rahman Muhammad is a former member of the International Institute for Islamic Thought.  He was present when the word “Islamophobia” was created, but now characterizes the concept of Islamophobia this way: “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” In short, in its very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them.

The term occurs in the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” which details the means and ends of introducing Islam in the U.S. with the long-term end of colonizing it with immigrant Muslims and gradually and stealthily transforming it into an Islamic state. Kern quotes from the OIC report:

Islam and Muslims have increasingly been portrayed as representing violence and terror that seek to threaten and destroy the values of Western civilization and that the Muslim way of life is incompatible with Western values of human rights and fundamental freedoms. For Muslims, Islamophobia is a deliberate scheme to distort the teachings and principles of peace and moderation engrained in Islam. As part and result of this scheme, Muslims tend to be collectively accused for any violence that erupts in society and are seen as ipso facto potential suspects well ahead of any investigation. This negative stereotype causes Muslims to be subjected to indignity, racial discrimination and denial of basic human rights. (p. 11, OIC report)

Islam and Muslims are justifiably associated with violence and terror and as a threat to Western civilization. That is, after all, an article of faith expressed in the Muslim Brotherhood memorandum of 1991.

The Ikhwan [the Brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

And over all other ideologies, beliefs, and principles. There will be no arguing the point. Kern goes on about how that “grand jihad” is being carried out by calling for restrictions on speech that castigate or criticize Islam, and quotes from the report:

The chapter further underscores that increased hate speech and discrimination against Muslims is a major factor behind the rise of the phenomenon of Islamophobia. In this context, acceptance of various forms of intolerance, including hate speech and the propagation of negative stereotypes against Islam and Muslims in some western countries contribute towards proliferation of intolerant societies. This process is further supported by three main manifestations, namely: the exploitation of freedom of expression and perpetuation of an ideological context advocating an inescapable conflict of civilizations; the right wing parties have politicized Islamophobia and instrumentalized fear in the context of growing socio-economic instability as well as the erosion of human rights in the name of national security and the fight against terrorism. (p. 7, OIC report)

The report claims that the news media is largely responsible for contributing to the alleged environment of fear and trepidation experienced by Muslims….
More

From 2008: Appeasing Islam

Germany: Art studio bans nude sketches “out of respect for Muslims”

By Robert Spencer

Nude studies have been part of Western art from time immemorial, and have no intrinsic or inherent connection with lewdness or pornography. But the example of Michelangelo and everyone else goes out the window when it comes to appeasing Muslims. The principle is absolute: in Muslim countries, non-Muslims must conform their behavior to Islamic sensibilities. In non-Muslim countries, non-Muslims must conform their behavior to Islamic sensibilities.

“Berlin: Artist not allowed to show nude sketches ‘out of respect for Muslims,'” by Cheradenine Zakalwe for Islam Versus Europe, November 10 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

In the invitation to the private art show the project sounded really good. It sounded as if something good was being done for artists. Marzahn-Hellersdorf Adult Education Centre is giving artists the opportunity to present their works to a wide public on the floors of the institution. Creatives are brought together with citizens and thus exposed to criticism much more directly than in a commercial gallery. This is how the municipality describes its art exhibition space programme. “Imaginative & colourful paintings and drawings” is the name of the current exhibition of the Berlin artist Susanne Schüffel.The show was supposed to open with a celebration on Friday evening. But the private show was not held; the artist had cancelled. She was allowed to show only some of her pictures. Six nude pictures had been removed a few days before. She is raging….

More

Islamic Thugismo at Work

By DAVID SOLWAY

….Thus, such brawny Muslim organizations and their minions, initiating predatory  defamation suits, are able to flaunt their thugismo with almost total impunity. The same applies to Muslims acting as individuals, whether lawyers, imams or students, amplifying the nuisance factor until it reaches untenable proportions. A human rights suit filed against publisher and journalist Ezra Levant by Calgary imam Syed Soharwardy for reprinting the Danish cartoons in his newspaper, The Western Standard, cost Levant 900 days of litigation, over $100,000 — and The Western Standard. This despite the fact that Soharwardy ultimately withdrew his complaint.

Similarly, a suit lodged by one Mohamed Elmasry, an adjunct professor at the University of Waterloo and president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, against Canada’s largest weekly, MacLean’s magazine, for publishing a book excerpt by Mark Steyn about the Islamic threat to the West, led to the predictable result. The suit cost the magazine $2 million despite an eventual acquittal. Nonetheless, it was mission accomplished for the Islamic machine: MacLean’s now steers clear of sensitive Islamic subjects. (See Levant’s Shakedown for an account of these travesties of justice.) Under the peculiar laws governing the status of Canada’s human rights commissions, neither of the plaintiffs had to cough up a cent, enjoying a free ride on the taxpayer’s dime.

Civil suits are adjudicated differently, but those without deep pockets — that is, most of us — have little incentive and less chance of carrying on the fight indefinitely against obscenely wealthy Islamic organizations or individual Muslims who go proxy for them. They are very sure of themselves, strutting about the halls of power and justice like milites gloriosi in pinstripes. Indeed, the legal profession is brindled with Muslim lawyers who know the law intimately and are comfortable deploying it against non-Muslims who offend them, offering their services to their co-religionist clients at a reduced rate or even pro bono. In consequence, the verdict is largely predetermined: win or lose, the defendant’s life is almost always ruined. In my friend’s case, the plaintiff demanded exorbitant punitive damages and legal fees, as well as an over-the-top, reputation-killing retraction. The option of rejecting so outrageous a settlement and pursuing the matter in court is both too costly and too risky for the defendant, since the juridical apparatus in this country is weighted against the dispensation of elementary justice. Welcome to the Great White North.

“Suing over the back-and-forth of public discourse,” Steyn writes, “turns the entire citizenry into an enfeebled child.…To litigate every offence is to give a not especially distinguished judiciary the power to micro-regulate social relations.” Steyn knows whereof he speaks for he is once again being sued, not by a Muslim for a change, but by climate “warm-monger” and false Nobel laureate Michael Mann. Levant is also back in court, being sued by a former plaintiff in the MacLean’s burlesque, one Khurrum Awan, who is not a putative climate specialist but an actual Muslim. At least he is sticking to the standard plot line. Levant had called Awan “a liar,” an epithet corroborated by the fact that Awan, as Steyn comments, had been shown in the original proceeding to have “been guilty of telling an untruth about one of the central facts in the case.” Awan complained that as a result of Levant’s ostensible slur, he has been “shunned by his friends.” This palpably nonsensical, self-pitying and surely non-justiciable bleat may cost Levant another $100,000 in Canada’s superannuated justice system. “This is called lawfare,” Levant explains on his blog. “Muslim extremists who enjoy Canada’s free speech for themselves, seek to take it away from their Canadian critics. Using our own laws.” Once again, mission accomplished. Awan had boasted after the original trial: “We attained our strategic objective — to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material.”….

More

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,711 other followers

%d bloggers like this: