Filed under: Blasphemy laws, civlization jihad, Freedom of Speech, Islam, Jihad | Tagged: blasphemy laws, freedom of speech, Islam, Islamic jihad, sharia law | Comments Off on Deborah Weiss on “Freedom of Speech: Under Attack in America.”
by Denis MacEoin
….We know that Muslims and Muslim authorities are not robust in taking criticism or satire, but are, rather, seemingly hypersensitive to almost anything non-Muslims say of them.
The only conclusion one can draw from this is that the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/1 seems to have influenced Congress. Do not forget that the OIC is the only international religious body to have campaigned ceaselessly for legislation to protect believers of Islam from physical and verbal abuse, with verbal abuse determined according to shari’a principles rather than the traits of international or national democratic values.
In Great Britain, a landmark judgement was passed on January 5, 2016, in a court in Belfast, Northern Ireland, when a judge ruled that evangelical pastor James McConnell was not guilty of hate speech directed at Muslims. McConnell had been arrested last May after remarks during a sermon about Islam at his church. In his sermon, he had spoken of Islam as “satanic,” “heathen” and “a doctrine spawned in hell.” These may be sentiments with which most of the world would not agree, but entirely within the bounds of evangelical Christian theology, not least in that frequently bigoted region of fundamentalist, belief, where even the majority of fellow Christians are despatched to hellfire, with Catholics at the bottom of the heap. It is also not that different from what many Muslim clerics say about Jews and others.
As his sermon had been posted online, McConnell was charged under the Communications Act 2003 of making improper use of a public electronics communications network and of causing a grossly offensive message through those channels. But even though the judge found his remarks offensive, he was exonerated and walked out of a court a free man.
In Europe, criticisms of Islam have been met with a range of penalties. Individuals have been prosecuted and sometimes been found guilty of “Islamophobic” speech or writing — notablyElizabeth Sabatisch-Wolff and Susanne Winter in Austria, Geert Wilders and Gregorious Nekschot in the Netherlands, Lars Hedegaard and Jesper Langballe in Denmark, Michel Houellebecq and Brigitte Bardot in France, Oriana Fallaci in Italy, and others elsewhere. Some have been exonerated, others jailed or fined. Pastor McConnell has been fortunate in avoiding jail. So far the UK has been tolerant, but further trials — very often for what really amounts to nothing more than blasphemy as perceived by Muslim groups or individuals — are very likely. Today, more than ever, there are forces at work that seek to make these prosecutions a certainty, not just in Europe, but in the United States, Canada, and other countries in the West.
The threat to freedom of speech a comes mainly from one quarter: an international body known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). In recent years, one of the core activities of the OIC has been repeated attempts to introduce via the United Nations Human Rights Council a law forbidding any form of blasphemy, criticism, or negative comment, especially about the Islamic religion. To understand this, it is important to note that, from the time of the prophet Muhammad to the present day (and more strongly within modern radical Muslim movements), the Islamic religion has been predicated on a call for domination over all other religions and political systems. Here, for example, are some explicit expressions of that demand in radical websites: a YouTube video and a website linked to the British extremist,Omar Bakri Muhammad.
In the video, Omar Bakri declares “We must live by and make a domination and die (?) on in our da’wa (missionary work) and jihad in order to spread it [Islam] all over. The video page is entitled “Proclaim openly for Izharudeen”, meaning “proclaim openly for making the faith victorious over all others,” and displays a photograph of several Muslims carrying placards declaring “Islam will dominate the world: Freedom go to hell. A website publishing extracts from the classical Qur’an commentary of Ibn Kathir is headed with the words: “Islam is the Religion that will dominate over all Other Religions” and below that cites a Qur’anic verse declaring that God will “make it [Islam] victorious over all religions” before quoting several traditions declaring the same thing in various formulations. Finally, a Facebook page titled “In sha Allah, Islam will dominate the world” from which several more sites with the same statement are revealed below the main heading.
Islamic policy from the time of the seventh-century Arab conquests through the later empires was to set Muslim rulers above native populations, even if at first Muslims were in a minority. Pagans could choose to convert or die, but Jews, Christians, and before long Zoroastrians, were treated (under the oppressive terms of the Pact of ‘Umar) as dhimmi people, forced to pay a protection tax, the jizya, in order to preserve their lives and property. There were different laws for people of a different religion…
Filed under: Freedom of Speech, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Sharia Law, United Nations, United States law | Tagged: 1st Amendment, freedom of speech, Islam, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), useful idiots | Comments Off on Free Speech vs. Islamic Law?
…WESTERN ISLAMOPHILIAC APOLOGETICS AND PC propaganda notwithstanding, the original sources for “true” Islam—the Kuran and Hadith—provide ample and detailed evidence on Muhammad’s ideology and subsequent Shari’a practice regarding women. Muhammad, in the Kuran, is unambiguous: “Men are in charge of women because Allah has made the one of them excel the other.” (4:34) They are a step above women. (2:228) “Your wives are as a soil to be cultivated unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.” (2:223) According to al-Bukhari, Muhammad had a vision of hell—and the majority of its dwellers were women, because “they are not thankful to their husbands.” The disobedient wives are to be beaten. (4:34) The Kuran also acknowledges the lesser worth of daughters: “And when a father is given the good tidings of a girl, his face is darkened and he chokes inwardly.” (16:48) A son gets double the inheritance of a daughter; and a man’s witness is worth twice that of a woman’s. (2:282) Islamic marriage does not envisage any consent from the bride if she is still under paternal control: Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s friend and early follower, thus wed him to his daughter, Aisha, when she was nine and Muhammad 54. Islamic marriage does not produce any community of property between husband and wife. The latter is permanently dependent on the support of her husband, which may be withdrawn at any moment. When asked who among women is the best, Muhammad replied: “She who gives pleasure to him (husband) when he looks, obeys him when he bids, and who does not oppose fearing his displeasure.” Man’s sexual urge has to be satisfied immediately and unquestioningly: “When a man calls his wife to his bed, and she does not respond, the One Who is in the heaven is displeased with her until he is pleased with her.” On the other hand, “if a female dies while her husband is pleased with her, she will enter Paradise.”
ISLAMIC DOGMA, TRADITION AND PRACTICE are the foundation of a coherent and consistent outlook that has generated its own reality, visible in each and every traditionally Muslim country—and evident in the Islamic diaspora in the West. The mayhem in Cologne and elsewhere in Europe faithfully reflects that outlook.
The treatment of women might be expected to make Islam questionable from the liberal elite’s point of view. This has not happened, for a good reason: Muslim teaching on women, marriage and the family undermines the traditional European concept of matrimony. Islam thus becomes an “objective ally” of the postmodern Cultural-Marxist ideology that relativizes gender, sexuality, marriage and family. It should come as no surprise that Cologne’s leftist mayor Henriette Reker—a mass immigration enthusiast—decided to blame the victims for the assaults. She declared that women and girls should abide by a “code of conduct”—“stay at arm’s length!”—so that “such things [rape, sexual assaults] do not happen to them.” But they will happen, becauserape is endemic to Islam. The only way to avoid “such things” would have been to keep the offenders a few thousand miles away. It may be too late for that…
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of last week’s events is that many ordinary Germans are no longer afraid to voice their opinions, in spite of their country’s draconian “hate speech” laws. Check out, for example, a new Facebook group, “Düsseldorf passt auf”—its call for citizens to organize themselves into vigilante groups has attracted eleven thousand supporters in five days. Its goal is to organize patrols in the city on holidays and at various events, so that “our women can safely walk in our city.” The group’s members have no confidence in the police and the state, according to last Friday’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Similar groups are rapidly popping up all over the country. On Saturday police clashed with 2,000 protestors opposing immigration from Muslim countries in Cologne, using water cannons to disperse the crowd calling for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ouster….
By Robert Spencer
December 17, 2015 ought henceforth to be a date which will live in infamy, as that was the day that some of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor of the destruction of the First Amendment. Sponsored by among others, Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, as well as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Loretta Sanchez, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy, Al Green, Judy Chu, Debbie Dingell, Niki Tsongas, John Conyers, José Serrano, Hank Johnson, and many others, House Resolution 569 condemns “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
That’s right: “violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric.” The implications of those five words will fly by most people who read them, and the mainstream media, of course, will do nothing to elucidate them. But what H. Res. 569 does is conflate violence — attacks on innocent civilians, which have no justification under any circumstances – with “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric,” which are identified on the basis of subjective judgments. The inclusion of condemnations of “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric” in this Resolution, while appearing to be high-minded, take on an ominous character when one recalls the fact that for years, Ellison, Carson, and his allies (including groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR) have been smearing any and all honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite hatred and violence as “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric.” This Resolution is using the specter of violence against Muslims to try to quash legitimate research into the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy us, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed….
Filed under: Freedom of Speech, Islam, Stealth Jihad, Western Civilization, Willful Blindness | Tagged: freedom of speech, hate speech, House Resolution 569, Islam, sharia law | Comments Off on HOUSE DEMOCRATS MOVE TO CRIMINALIZE CRITICISM OF ISLAM