In the wake of the terrorist attack on the offices of French satirist paper Charlie Hebdo, one Muslim cleric justified the murders under Islamic law.And which cleric might that be?
USA today published a column by avowed “radical Muslim cleric” Anjem Choudary. The piece titled “People know the consequences” asks why France would allow the paper to mock Islam, and further excused the systematic murders as justified under Islamic law:
Why does England allow this so-called person to spew his vitriol every time guys with turbans and automatic weapons kill a few unarmed people?
“Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves.
That means absolute squat to the civilized world.
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.
The strict punishment for murder in the civilized world used to be the death penalty, occasionally imposed in various artful ways. The guillotine was said to be the quickest, most effective, and probably the most merciful. If it was good enough for Charlotte Corday it should be good enough for Anjem Choudary, so I think the Queen should buy one.
This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
The Messenger Moe may have had a dog in the fight. Since he was a "prophet" that mean no one should insult him. But I'm something of a prophet myself, so if anybody insults me just go right ahead and kill him.
“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.”But we live in relatively civilized times, so keep in mind that we're not allowed to just murder each other at random. If you have a nice, satisfying duel before breakfast one morning and your opponent doesn't survive the experience they're gonna haul you off to jug, even if he did point out that yer mudder wears army boots.
The contention that mass murder is in any way an appropriate response to being personally offended is a dangerous slope on which to tread.
There are a billion and a half Moslems at the foot of that slope.
There is no doubt that some of these cartoons can be seen as offensive to certain people, but that same sentiment can be asserted on nearly any form of speech, especially in politics. Hence, the reasoning behind and the sanctity of the Constitution’s first amendment.
When people rediscover Sobieski the Euromoslem population will either become wine connoisseurs and sausage makers and extol the beauty of their women, or they can skulk back to the Islamic paradises from whence they came, only this time they can live in UN-sponsored self-governing Ein el-hellholes. That's if they're lucky. If they rediscover Ferdinand of Aragon and Torquemada all bets are off.Choudary then reversed the blame for the attack away from the three terrorists themselves and onto the French government:
Oh, well. How could it be the fault of Moslems? They have a dispensation from civilized behavior.
“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?”
Maybe because Charlie has the right to print anything he damned well pleases and Moslems don't have an inborn right to murder anyone.
This kind of blame shifting is also intellectually perilous. Placing the onus of speech on the any secular government is asking for abuse. But, if Choudary had his way, the government of the Islamic State would tightly control speech and punish transgressions with death.
Under the right of reciprocity, the civilized world will have a perfect right to punish Moslem transgressions with death. The difference is that we, as a society, hate to do it.
Choudary’s entire argument excusing the Paris attack reveals the fundamental disconnect between views of civilizations.
Well, he is a loon, isn't he?Radical Islamists have no intention of assimilating into their respective cultures or contributing to any kind of meaningful dialogue about religion and free speech. They are intent on terrorizing western citizens out of exerting their rights. Their plan of terrorism and intimidation, with the ultimate goal of imposing their religion on others is fundamentally anti-American and is not meant for the 21st century.
Make that "anti-Civilization." The sooner we realize it the better.