• Religion Of Peace

  • Archives

  • 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

Watch What Happens When 3 Muslim Spokesmen Are Asked About Islam’s Death Penalty for Apostasy

By Robert Spencer

A recent episode of the BBC program The Big Questions was anomalous: instead of pumping out more of the usual fog of obfuscation and denial regarding the aspects of Islamic law incompatible with Western standards of human rights and human dignity — as do most BBC shows — it actually featured an honest discussion of Islam’s death penalty for apostasy.

Or it would have, that is, if the Muslim spokesmen on the show had been remotely honest about that penalty. Instead, they offered an instructive case study in how Islamic supremacists deal with uncomfortable aspects of Islam when speaking with infidels.

Despite denials from Muslims in the West, Islam’s death penalty for those who leave the faith is abundantly established.

The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated:

The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.

There is only disagreement over whether the law applies only to men, or to women also — some authorities hold that apostate women should not be killed, but only imprisoned in their houses until death.

The BBC program begins with ex-Muslim Amal Farah of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) and several Muslim spokesmen discussing Islamic law’s death penalty for apostasy. Farah, despite her affiliation with CEMB — which is often more concerned with smearing and demonizing genuine critics of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism than with actually defending apostates from Islam — is the one sane and rational voice in the discussion.

The Muslim spokesmen, by contrast, practice various forms of evasion and deflection, claiming victim status repeatedly. Abdullah al-Andalusi of the ironically named Muslim Debate Initiative is the worst, ascribing Islam’s death penalty for apostasy to “Victorian translations,” claiming that it is only a law in “post-colonial secular states,” and pouting that the BBC is conducting an “Inquisition court.” Note also how he dodges the question of whether or not he condemns the words of UK imam Haitham al-Haddad, who has defended the death penalty for apostasy…

More

The vast Empire of Censorship in Europe – and how to fight it

by Brendan O’Neill

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I have to tell you that freedom of speech no longer exists in Europe.

In almost every European country in 2015, there are individuals who are in prison or doing some kind of community service or paying off a fine simply for something that they said, simply for expressing themselves.

In Scotland, birthplace of so much of the Enlightenment, a man is currently in jail for the crime of singing an offensive song.

The man is a 24-year-old fan of the largely Protestant football team Rangers. And he was recently found guilty of singing a song called “The Billy Boys”, which is an anti-Catholic song that Rangers fans have been singing for years.

Under Scotland’s Orwellian Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, he was sentenced to four months in jail for songcrimes. We’ve had thoughtcrime and speechcrime — now we have songcrime.

In Sweden, which many view as the Mecca of liberalism, the happiest, fairest nation in Europe, a man was recently released from a six-month prison sentence for producing offensive art.

His name is Dan Parks. He’s a painter. He does paintings which he says are designed to challenge political correctness and to rattle the authorities. And they can certainly be described as offensive and racist works. For this, he was sent to jail for six months at the end of last year and his artworks were destroyed by the Swedish state.

In the past, Europe burnt allegedly corrupting books; now it incinerates or pulps offensive art.

In Spain, a rapper called Pablo Hasel was recently released from a two-year prison sentence for the crime of singing songs that contained violent lyrics.

Hasel is a communist who raps about how much he hates the People’s Party of Spain and how angry he is about the imposition of austerity in Spain. In one of his raps he went so far as to praise al-Qaeda and ETA. For this, for praising those groups, he was sent to jail.

In France, which still presents itself as the guardian of man’s rights, three people are currently paying off fines imposed on them for making homophobic comments on Twitter.

In January, these three individuals became the first in French history to be found guilty of anti-gay hate crimes, not for attacking anyone or damaging anyone’s property, but simply for expressing themselves on the internet.

In Turkey, the Dutch journalist Frederike Geerdink is currently under investigation for crimes of “terrorist propaganda”. What she actually did is post comments on Facebook and Twitter expressing support for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which is banned in Turkey.

She faces up to five years in jail for this, for the crime of expressing a political view.

Some people say Turkey isn’t fit to become a full member of Europe because it’s too authoritarian. On the contrary, Turkey’s willingness to punish and fine and imprison people for speechcrimes shows that it has all the necessary credentials to be European in the 21st century.

In Germany, a 74-year-old woman is currently struggling to pay off a fine imposed on her by the courts for the crime of carrying an offensive placard.

She was on a march against immigration when she held up a sign that said “The arrogant Turks and Muslims are threatening Europe”. For this, for expressing her quite hardcore, not-very-nice political views, she was convicted of incitement to hatred and fined 1,000 Euros….

More

The Glazov Gang-Jihad on the Offensive

Front Page Mag

“…you realize then that most of the trouble comes from the hardcore.  Now, our problem is we don’t know how large that is out of 1.5 billion Muslims.  It doesn’t have to be huge, does it?  Because 10 percent of that is 150 million Muslims, so whether it’s a majority or a minority, if we trust pew polls, which consistently show high levels of support for things like Sharia Law, etc. it might be bigger than that, and it puts me in mind of something that William Sherman said during the Civil War.  Sherman had lived in the south and was living in the south when the war broke out, so he knew the southern people, and at some point in a letter he said there are 300,000 southerners that you’re going to have to kill.  Right?  There’s nothing that’s going to get them to change their mind.  You’re not going to convert them by argument.  You’re not going to bribe them.  There’s no inducement you have.  He said they’re good riders, good fighters.  They’re brave men.  They have to die.  When they die, then the others who may agree with them and their principles will give up, and I think we have something of the same today, only I think the proportion would be much higher in terms of the Muslim world.

And just let me finish with a melancholy fact of history is that when you have two different ideologies, whether religious or the slaveocracy ideology, race based or whatever it is, or Nazism versus liberal democracy, or Communism versus liberal democracy, those kinds of disputes are not settled through negotiation.  They’re not settled through finding common ground.  They’re only settled by force.  They only are settled by killing lots and lots of people until you killed enough to where they will give up.  That’s how World War II was fought.  The only reason that the war of Communism didn’t follow that pattern is because there was a mutually assured destruction, and both sides had an interest in not settling it that way, but Communism was an atheist ideology in which there is only this world.  Iran has a particular brand of Islam that is messianic and apocalyptic, and we can sit here and wonder whether they really don’t believe in what they say they believe in, but we should have learned from our experience in the ’30s when every atrocity that Hitler and the Nazis ended up doing was all laid out in “Mein Kampf” and then was repeated during the early ’30s at the party rallies in Nuremburg and nobody took it seriously.  Said well, they don’t really mean that.  I think it’s the idea that when they say, particularly if you’re Israel, if they say we want to wipe you off the map, you better believe they want to wipe you off the map, and then you’d better do something about it.

Jamie Glazov:Thank you so much, Bruce.  Robert?

Robert Spencer: Well, I hate to bring bad news, but that’s really all I do, actually.  The fact is people have been asking me yesterday and today, as well as at pretty much everywhere that I speak, what can we do to encourage the moderates?  And I’ve got to tell you that there are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.  That is an unpleasant fact, but it is a fact, and I’ll explain.  Now, moderate Muslims, people usually assume that that means Muslims who believe different things from the Jihadis, that they don’t believe that it is part of their religious responsibility to wage war against unbelievers.  They don’t believe that they should hate Jews and kill them.  They don’t believe that they should subjugate women and non-Muslims as inferiors in the society under an institutionalized system of discrimination and harassment.  There is actually no such Islam….”

More

Muslim Holidays in New York Public Schools: Why Not?

by Robert Spencer

New York City officials announced last Wednesday that public schools in the city – the nation’s largest school district – will now be closed for the Muslim holidays of Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. Multiculturalist leftists, of course, are thrilled, and tarring anyone who isn’t as a racist, bigoted Islamophobe – but the decision may not have been as wise and commonsensical as its supporters are claiming.

Far-Left New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was, predictably, among those waving pompoms and lighting sparklers to celebrate (champagne, of course, was out of the question). “This is a common-sense change,” he declared, “and one that recognizes our growing Muslim community and honors its contributions to our city.”

What contributions to New York City have Muslims made? De Blasio, alas, didn’t say. He might have noted the sharp new security procedures that have made the simple act of walking into a building a much more complicated procedure than it was before September 11, 2001. He could have mentioned the inspiring new 9/11 Memorial and Museum. He could have pointed to architectural improvements: the new high-rise building that is marginally less ugly than the Twin Towers that it replaced. But on this key question, he was mum.

Others, meanwhile, had their mind on more practical matters. New York City Schools Chancellor Carmen Farina said: “Muslim students and their families who observe Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha shouldn’t have to choose between an instructional day and their religious obligations. This new addition will also enable a teachable moment in the classroom for our students to learn about religious tolerance and the societal contributions of various cultures.”

This is absurd, of course. Missing a couple of days of public school is hardly a major catastrophe for any child, and people of all beliefs and perspectives and religions have to keep their children out of school now and again for various reasons, with no harm done. If these children wanted to observe these holidays by staying out of school, they could have done so, without imposing the holiday on the non-Muslim students.

The Muslim population of New York, while it is growing, is hardly large enough to justify this. If it’s discrimination against Muslims to have school on Muslim holidays, why isn’t it discrimination against Hindus to have school on Hindu holidays? Because Hindus don’t have loud, aggressive advocacy groups claiming victimhood status and trying to deflect attention away from numerous mass murder attacks and plots in New York City that were inspired and incited by their religious texts…

More

Denying the real motivation for Islamist terrorism

The call to violence is found in a literal reading of the Koran

By Brooke Goldstein

Illustrations on the violent implications of the Koran by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times

Islamists are winning their war to silence critical commentary in the West about Islam. So says Flemming Rose, culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which originally published the now-infamous images of Muhammad, in his recent book, “The Tyranny of Silence.”

Whether motivated by a cowardly nature or by an obsequious desire to be nice, much of the media and the Obama administration now adhere to a common vocabulary when discussing violence motivated by Islamist theology. There is simply no reference to the theological motivations so relevant to the perpetrators of religiously inspired terror.

We are told that The Islamic State is not Islamic (rather a terrorist “jayvee team”), the Taliban is not an Islamist terrorist group (rather an “insurgency”), the Charlie Hebdo massacres were not coordinated by radical Islamists (rather “individual terrorists”), the Fort Hood murders were not acts of terror (rather “workplace violence”), the terrorist attack on our embassy in Libya was not instigated by imams preaching Islamic blasphemy laws (rather by our own exercise of free speech) and so on.

In fact, the U.S. government has purged the worlds “Islam” and “jihad,” and any language deemed “Islamophobic,” from counterterrorism training manuals, thereby neutering the ability of U.S. law enforcement to identify the motivational factors behind Islamist terrorism.

However, the ad nauseam repetition that “Islam is a religion of peace” every time a terror attack is carried out in the name of Islam no longer has any traction. Even some who, in the past, felt impelled to employ fatuous statements about the lack of Islam’s responsibility for Islamist terrorism seem recently to have constrained themselves. For instance, at a recent panel discussing the “Causes of Radicalization” at the National Press Club, Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institution commented that he no longer feels comfortable employing this phrase. Muslims must admit that for many, terrorist violence has become Islam, he said, adding, “ISIS has emerged out of a particular context.”

No matter how much the White House wants to deny it, the Islamic State group version of Islam is very real for its crucified and decapitated victims. Saudi Arabia’s version of Islam is very much a reality for the homosexual teenagers publicly hung for defiling Wahhabi Islam. Boko Haram’s version of Islam is very real for the children slaughtered while attending schools deemed too westernized for the group’s convictions. And the Taliban’s version of Islam is very real for the women put to death for being raped or walking without a male escort, both violations of the Pushtun traditional social code of honor as encapsulated by Shariah law. These violent versions of Islam, prevalent in the Muslim world to varying degrees, must be studied, debated and taken very seriously, especially within our counterterrorism apparatus….

More

The Evil Done by Good Men

Warnings with George Igler

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,759 other followers

%d bloggers like this: