Tag: mohammed

Why did France allow the tabloid to provoke Muslims?
-by Anjem Choudary, may his name be well known.

Mr. Choudary has risen in defense of the murderers in the Charlie Hebdo massacre:

Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.

Anjem Choudary obviously feels quite strongly about the 12 people murdered at Charlie Hebdo. How else to explain defending the murderers by saying Islam sanctions murder via divine inspiration? He portrays Muslims as mind numbed robots, in thrall to an interpretation of the supernatural unchanged since the 7th century, and which can apparently justify any imaginable atrocity.

How can Muslims be expected to behave about a drawing? Well, badly, but that is their duty. And, anyway, it’s France’s fault.

Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Although?? As in, “Although Muslims are commanded by their religion to kill those whose speech they dislike, some non-Muslims agree speech you don’t like should be limited?” What does this sentence even mean? It’s peculiar nonsense as a justification for murder by a farrow of fanatics.

Choudary assures us, as a matter of principle, that Muslims CAN NOT agree that freedom of speech should be tolerated, and your exercise of that freedom is justification for killing you. The responsibility of Muslims is to kill you, sooner rather than later, unless you observe your responsibility to shut up.

Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.

The religion of psychotic overreaction.

However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.

The religion of honor killing.

To what secular law does one hew when commanded by Mohammed to honor him with murder? This is not “taking the law into their own hands.” There is no such law to take into one’s hands, and there can be no such penalty prescribed by it.

Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.

Some liberal democracies don’t have such laws, and even those who do have this quaint notion of “justice” to contend with. Those liberal democracies with thought crime laws are reaping what they sowed, both in blood and in giving encouragement to Islamofacist apologists such as Mr. Choudary.

The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national security.

Such as the freedom of movement to fly airliners into the Twin Towers? Perhaps Choudary has confused cause and effect.

So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?

Umm, because the French government, so far, and in spite of your efforts, is not an Islamofascist state? Because they still can’t quite believe how unhinged you are?

It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world’s population was protected.

It is time that the murderous thugs who believe in the sanctity of this particular “Prophet” were prevented from committing murder so that one-quarter of the world’s population no longer suffers under their yoke. It’s time Mr. Choudary realized what he has written is protected by the same principles he would like destroyed.