Mahmoud Alkhazaleh stood in the street, and wouldn't get out of the way of traffic. When the driver honked, Alkhazaleh didn't move. The driver tried to go around him, but Alkhazaleh allegedly started to hit him and throw rocks at him. Then three of Alkhazaleh's sons started to beat the driver, spit on him, and throw rocks at him.
Alkhazaleh's sons have been charged with felony aggravated battery. Good. But a "hate crime"? Come on. That charge comes because apparently Alkhazaleh called the driver a "blue-eyed devil."
Now, I have no idea why Mahmoud Alkhazaleh wouldn't get out of the middle of the street. Maybe it really did have to do with some deep hatred of American blue-eyed devils, but I couldn't care less if it did. The only thing the law should be concerned about here is that he and his sons apparently gratuitously beat up this driver. He should be prosecuted fully for that, and deported if he is not a citizen. If he called the driver a "blue-eyed devil" and the driver called him a "Pakistani [expletive]," their mothers should remind them that "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me," and that should be the end of that.
The hate crime charge is why this story is here, not because Mahmoud Alkhazaleh is a Muslim. I don't post here any crime committed by any Muslim, but only those which have something to do with jihad activity. The key element of this story is the hate crime angle. If people can be prosecuted for insulting words, we are all in trouble. Soon they will begin prosecuting those who commit "Islamophobia," as the Organization of the Islamic Conference wants Western countries so very much to do. After all, why do you think CAIR and co. so consistently and indefatigably labels all Islamorealistic discourse as "hate speech"? They want to make it illegal for the kuffar to dare to point out that Muhammad and the Qur'an preach the subjugation of the Infidels under Sharia. Then it will be against the law to discuss the motives and goals of those who would conquer and subjugate us. And one of the last defenses against that conquest will have fallen.
And make no mistake: this is coming fast. The UN's "Deep" Doudou Diène is working on it, and American Muslims are helping him. Pakistan just asked the EU to restrict freedom of expression so as to curb "offenses to Islam." Finland just gave a blogger 2 1/2 years in prison for "insulting Islam." Mark Steyn is on trial in Canada for essentially the same thing. Yet the worldwide assault on the freedom of speech is completely off the mainstream media radar, and even most large American blogs are consumed with the election and trivia and have paid it little notice. We could very easily fall into a situation where it becomes a prosecutable offense to discuss the war that is being waged against us, and the big blogs have stories about space tourism and Dennis Kucinich's latest impeachment effort (uh, Dennis, the guy will be gone in 6 months). Nice going.
Prosecute Mahmoud Alkhazaleh, but drop the hate crime charges. And repeal the hate crime laws. Before it's too late.
"Father, 3 sons charged in attack on motorist: Man also accused of using hate speech," by David Heinzmann for the Chicago Tribune, June 11 (thanks to Cindy):
A Northwest Side man was charged with a hate crime and his three adult sons were charged with felony aggravated battery in an alleged attack on a motorist in which racial epithets were shouted, prosecutors said.Mahmoud Alkhazaleh, 53, of the 5500 block of North Mango Avenue also was charged with aggravated battery and vehicle invasion in a June 9 attack on a man who allegedly had honked his horn to prod Alkhazaleh to step out of the path of his truck, according to court documents.
Alkhazaleh called the victim a "blue-eyed devil" and an " 'American [expletive]' during a physical attack that included throwing rocks and spitting," according to court documents.
Alkhazaleh has denied using such language and said the incident started when the driver nearly ran him over.
[...]
The motorist was driving his truck on Mango Avenue on Monday when the elder Alkhazaleh stood in the street blocking the vehicle's path, prosecutors said. The driver honked, but Alkhazaleh did not move. The driver then tried to go around Alkhazaleh but could not pass, and Alkhazaleh allegedly started to strike him and pelt him with rocks, prosecutors said.
As the driver tried to call 911 from his cell phone, Alkhazaleh yelled out for three of his sons to join him in the street, prosecutors said. They ran out of the apartment and started to beat the victim, spit on him and throw rocks, prosecutors said.
Alkhazaleh, who was released Wednesday night from the Cook County Jail, said he did not use any hate speech during the incident, and claimed the driver started the fight. The whole thing started, he said, when the driver "came up the street, he almost hit me."
The two men exchanged words and, he said, the driver called him a "Pakistani [expletive]."
"I'm not even Pakistani," he said....
Robert,
I agree with you 100 percent. On a normal basis, such interactions in a big city would be mostly a non-issue. The perpetrator(s) of an unprovoked assault would be "taken care of."
But I would to state that several of your points stated above do, indeed, summarize the most terrifying aspect of this whole story:
Just how long is it going to take -- 4, 8, 20, 50 years? -- before a strong American leader, nay, any Western leader, has the fortitude to finally stand up to these slimy bastards and declare:
Enough is Enough!
Here's a comment from the article:
"I used to live on 5400 N. Spaulding. My wife and I were driving North on Kedzie, just crossing Lawrence when this Arab gentleman throws his hand up and walks right in front of me. This was not the first time I had experienced this, and I said to the gentleman that you need to stop doing this, and he whirled around and threw a huge set of keys into my car door denting and told me to come on he would kick my butt. I got out of my car and was surrounded by 5 men who proceeded to attack me. My wife got out of the car and we held them off until pedestrians got between us and we got back in our car and drove off unhurt. We were called monkeys and the N word during the scuffle. I have no doubts that this happened, it happened to me."
Wonder if it's the same guy, and how much the police know about the situation.
Wow!
In Chicago!
But one man's jihad is another Muslim's freedom. After all: who are we to judge...?
Once a law is not enforced, it is no longer a law.
Hate crime legislation was a big mistake. Repeal it.
I agree that the whole concept of "hate" crime is bogus, and have always questioned its legitimacy.
On the one hand, most crimes of passion have some "hate" involved. Otherwise, it would never escalate into a crime.
On the other hand, the labeling of "hate" crimes has always been subjective, and based solely on an unspoken hierarchy of victim groups.
If the "victim" is a racial, religious or sexual minority and the "perpetrator" belongs to a (so-labled) "more privileged" group, then its automatically a "hate" crime.
I am reminded of the case where an African-American man went randomly shooting white people, and even specifically told an African-American woman that she did not have to worry -- he was only shooting white people.
The police's immediate reaction was that this was NOT a hate crime, despite the contrary evidence. It was only after tremendous public outcry that the police eventually charged him with a hate crime.
And we regularly see cases where Moslems clearly commit hate crimes and are not so charged.
My only concern in the current case, is that -- unless we totally eliminate the concept of a "hate crime" -- it should be applied equitably.
When someone shouts "blue-eyed devil" at a person from a different racial group, and then calls in a group of relatives to surround, beat, spit and throw rocks at the victim -- yes, I think that is a "hate" crime.
How can spitting on a victim NOT be interpretted as a sign of hatred????
If we are going to prosecute white heterosexual males for "hate crimes", we should also prosecute non-white, non-heterosexuals and non-males for hate crimes as well, using the same (albeit subjective) criteria.
But ultimately, I do believe we should throw out this subjective "crime" classification altogether.
The NY Times has an article about free speech and how the US approach is different from other Western countries: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
It refers to some of the same subjects you talk about here.
It started with "hate speech" codes on college campuses. Liberals running the campuses saw nothing wrong with it. Conservative professors felt it best to hide their affiliations until they received tenure.
Hate crime legislation is inherently unconstitutional because the same crime is treated differently depending on the ethnicity of the people involved. It makes a mockery of equal treatment before the law. It criminalizes thought.
I can't add much more to the discussion except for my agreement that "hate crimes" should be permanently lost.
Well, that and the lack of maturity in a 53 year-old man who throws rocks, curses and spits on another person, is striking.
Little kids regularly engage in the same behaviour, with "I'm going to kill you!" thrown in for extra flavor. This mainstream Muslim guy is just like them. Mainstream Muslims shouldn't be allowed to possess weapons, any more than little kids should possess weapons, and for the same reasons.
Two words for the assaulted driver: Pepper spray. It can be had in containers designed to take the temperature extremes in an automobile, and still function, with an agreeable effect. Hey, it's just a fair exchange of fluids, right?
"Hate crime legislation is inherently unconstitutional because the same crime is treated differently depending on the ethnicity of the people involved. It makes a mockery of equal treatment before the law. It criminalizes thought."
Posted by: PMK
That has to be one of the best thought-out reasons for abandoning hate-crime legislation I've ever read, PMK!
How long before finishing an argument with "drop dead!" will be considered a hate crime?
I am growing comfortable with 'place crimes'. For example: criminalize the presence of muslims in our place. Make it a deportable offense.
These people have overstayed their welcome.
Turn the other cheak...Civil society.
lay in wait for them....Muslim society.
Muslims are not tought basic respect for others. To assume they have it is folly.
You know you live in a completely insane society when words outweigh actions, when thoughts trump deeds and where hurt feelings outrank bloody wounds.
I can see why prosecutors would like hate-crime laws - it gives them more mud to fling at the wall in hopes of something sticking. And it gives them more bargaining chips for negotiating a plea.
For victims, it does have the benefit of ratcheting up the severity of vandalizing a house of worship, where walls inside or out are spray-painted with filth, artwork is destroyed, valuable items used in services are damaged, and the like.
And, of course, if you really want to riot and kill people, it's great to have excuses that range all the way down to cartoons published thousands of miles away that poke fun at a man who's been dead for quite some time and was in no way divine himself (because Allah has no peers, relatives, or anyone else with whom to share godhood).
All in all, though, I think that hate-crime laws are going to be huge problems for American non-Muslims.
the whole incident was a set up, the Muslims were looking for a fight.
pulsar - I think you're right.
There's more to this than just the 'hate speech' angle.
The Muslims are claiming 'right of way'; possession of the road. They are demanding that kafir shall, at all times, and in all places, humbly give way to Muslims; that if a Muslim chooses to jaywalk, kafir drivers shall stop and wait, or meekly drive around him. That a Muslim on foot can stop a kafir driver in his tracks, at will, anywhere, anytime. It's about asserting dominance. 'I own the road. I can do and say anything I like to you and HOW DARE YOU TRY TO STOP ME!'.
If the positions were reversed, of course, a jihad/sharia-minded Muslim would feel completely entitled to drive right over the top of any kafir unlucky enough to get in his way (and I understand there have been 'hit and run' incidents in the UK, involving Muslim drivers and kafir victims).
The Muslims in this incident, and in that described by PRCS, are blatantly disobeying the kafir laws that regulate the interaction of drivers and pedestrians.
Further: I think this incident, and the other incident described in the comments to the article (brought to us by PRCS) and incidents that have been reported here by people such as Dominic and by other posters on this comments floor, from time to time, perhaps need to be understood in the light of a passage from the Hadith, Sahih Muslim, as cited in Ibn Kathir's classic exposition of the line 'and feel themselves subdued', from Surah 9:29 of the Quran:
" (and feel themselves subdued.)" - disgraced, humiliated and belittled.
'Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.
'Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,
«لَا تَبْدَءُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى بِالسَّلَامِ، وَإِذَا لَقِيتُمْ أَحَدَهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ فَاضْطَرُّوهُ إِلَى أَضْيَقِه»
(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.)".
Another poster here [ploome, on June 16 2004, at 3.45 pm] unearthed the following:
"In 1772 a Muslim scholar in Cairo was asked how Jews and Christians should be treated.
'The answer is found in this selection, issued four years before the American Declaration of Independence."
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/1772-jewsinislam.html
"....."One may read that which follows in Bukhari and Muslim [religious authorities of the ninth century]:
'Jews and Christians shall never begin a greeting;
'if you encounter one of them on the road, push him into the narrowest and tightest spot.'
'The absence of every mark of consideration toward them is obligatory for us; we ought never to give them the place of honor in an assembly when a Muslim is present.
'This is in order to humble them and to honor the true believers".
As for the name-calling, spitting and stone-throwing, this may not have been simple 'road rage' (such as may happen between two kafir drivers). Within Muslim tradition, their theologians and jurists and 'saints' have explicitly prescribed that Muslims are to actively insult kafir and show contempt toward them.
Here is one example of such advice, in a thoroughly ugly text (originally brought to our attention here by Sheikyer'mami) that I have posted in various threads, at various times, but which may, just possibly, indicate the kind of worldview underlying the behaviour of Mr Alkhazaleh -
'The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs.
'One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims...
'The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur.
'They should constantly remain terrified and trembling.
' It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.--
Sufi saint Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624), letter #163.
Of course, not being a good dhimmi, rather than cowering and trembling in silence, under the tongue-lashing and physical chastisement of his Muslim overlord, the kafir motorist in this story had a few choice insults of his own to hurl right back, and then called in kafir law enforcement to end the physical assault.
The other kafir driver who commented on the article, and his wife, had also given as good as they got, and with the help of other passing kafir, were able to rescue themselves and foil one more attempt by Islam 'to dominate and not be dominated'.
100% RIGHT.