Why we need anti-Sharia laws: Muslim judge enforces Sharia in case of Muslim attacker on mocker of Muhammad

If this judge is a moslem why is his understanding of islam so shaky?

Also why does he keep saying 'they' when referring to other moslems?

Something isn't right.

I'll be contacting as many people on this as I can. Absurd!

Having listened very closely to that particular portion of the audio, I'm nearly certain he says "I'm not musilim". The factual and gramatical correctness of that statement may be questionable, but I don't believe he has confirmed himself to be a muslim.

DISGUSTING.

Muslims are liars and cheats and this judge is no exception to this rule. The judge should be impeached right away as he has violated his oath of upholding US constitution and US laws.

Dear Brothers

I am praying for you in the situation that is in America today, keep posting videos and articles in what is happening very supportive in what is happening today.

http://www.maghrebchristians.com/2012/02/24/world-watch-algeria/

This is a video in how God is touching the Algerians today in Algeria.

Blessings

Youssef

This judge must be removed from the bench.

How dare he ostracize the victim of this attack!!!

How conveniently he can disregard the way Christians are treated in Saudia Arabia and are not even allowed in Mecca, how there Bibles,and jewelry with crosses on them are destroyed and they are arrested even if they are caught praying privately in a residence. Imagine if Christians took the same actions toward Muslims in Western nations.

THIS JUDGE DOES NOT BELONG AN AMERICAN BENCH, HE NEEDS TO REMOVED!!!!!

We already know that not a thing will be done. To do anything would be a prohibited species of Islamophobia.

The real question is the formulation of an argument that CAIR can emit that will get us to take our Sharia medicine in its less sugar-coated form, as here. What does CAIR have to say?

(The controversy made it to the Volokh Conspiracy. All free speech controversies are like voyeurism into the minds of others. We can punish only conduct, not wild thoughts -- but remain hopelessly curious.)

I agree that this man needs to be removed from the bench forthwith. He is clearly judging him not on the law but judging him with personal motivations. What a disgrace.

"This is where to send polite and courteous complaints"

In my opinion, this guy's conduct calls for impeachment, not mere complaints. How do we trigger the impeachment process? There need to be serious consequences for this kind of behavior.

We should also use this guy as the poster boy for anti-sharia legislation - the next time some clown like Jon Stewart giggles about how anti-sharia legislation is unnecessary, we need to raise this guy's conduct as an example of what will happen if we let things slide.

Though I don't agree with most of Law Professor Johnathon Turley's liberal politics,I think his article on this case is almost spot on.

Here is a good legal assessment just posted by professor of law Johnathon Turley this morning regarding the actions o Judge Mark Martin.

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24/pennsylvania-judge-throws-out-charge-for-harassing-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/

I have contacted the Pennsylvania court system and I encourage others here at JW to do the same. As Robert Spencer has already indicated, keep any communication polite and courteous. Brevity would probably be a good thing too.

The judge is no judge, nor a hero. Just a common traitor to his country. His decisions and cases almost certainly should be vacated, all his clients cases should be up for judicial examination, at the least, and he should be impeached and serve time in jail, for acting as a judge, while a muslim, acting as a judge, while under the influence of an alien gang brainwashing. Which ought to be a jailable offense, if it is not in some other name. He acts in the manner of the principle of the fruit of the poison tree--the hate filled brainwashed gang of islam. Everything he has touched at law, is contaminated.

He is so full of judicial errors, a kid in grade school could not do worse acting as a judge!!! And if it's an atheist or Judeo Christian child, he or she probably would be fairer.

The Mohammed zombie was not "harassed" he was assaulted, and for that the muslim attacker should have been punished. What if he bloodied the victim, would that still be excusable? Or how about a knife? Gun?
What this judge did, was set a precedent that muslim violence over Islamic ridicule is acceptable and excusable.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
We also faxed a copy of the Bill of Rights to Judge Mark Martin

"The victim is incorrect in claiming that the Qur'an says that Muhammad rose from the dead, but that is not important."--Robert

It shouldn't be important. I initially thought the Muhammad zombie thing was just a fantasy idea that Perce came up with for the purposes of the Halloween parade. Unfortunately in his statement Perce opened himself up to have his credibility challenged by making the completely unnecessary claim that the Quran says Muhammad rose from the dead etc. The judge could then use that erroneous claim to try to create the impression that Perce lacked credibility for making a false claim.

What the Quran does say is that the believers will be resurrected on Judgement Day. Muhammad is a believer, so the inference available is that Muhammad will be resurrected too. The Hadith is explicit: There is at least one hadith that says Muhammad will be resurrected on Judgement Day.

Anyways, it is totally surreal and inappropriate that the judge would be arguing about any such claims at all, since (a) they are irrelevant, and (b) Perce is entitled to interpret the ambiguous Quran whichever way he wants and an American court is no place for theological disputes.

It occurs to me that the probability of getting a Muslim judge is quite small. The probability of an American in Pennsylvania wearing a Muhammad costume in a parade and getting attacked by an angry Muslim by that is also quite an unusual event. It may well be a first.

The probability of this incident and getting a Muslim judge is extremely small. It is reasonable to suppose that some intentional effort, some deliberate actions were taken, to get this Muslim judge.

To my fellow JWers: Any legal opinions on how judges are selected for cases might help us understand how this wildly improbable event came to be.

Ernest Perce said during the Holloween parade "I am the prophet Mohamend". I see absolutely nothing wrong in the context it was used and intended. However, this specific statement provokes/incites Muslims no end and they want to fight for that. Unfortunately the Court recognizes a series of exceptions to provisions protecting the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. While freedom of speech in the United States is a constitutional right, these exceptions make that right a somewhat limited one. Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, "fighting words and offensive speech", threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections.

"Fighting words": "Fighting words, are intended to cause the hearer to react to the speaker."

Except the BS the judge told about Muslims, otherwise we have a problem within the First Amendment, and the Judge has the law on his side.

How many other likes of "Judge Mark Martin" are around in the States? It is difficult to imagine he is the only one invoking Sharia. I can imagine this case is going to escalate. We need to win.

The defendant said that he makes a point of teaching his children to "respect everybody", and yet he physically attacked the plaintiff who was marching in the parade! ..and RIGHT in front of his own children, too! I found that particular statement from the defendant really shameful and ironic in light of the crime that he had committed.

Can't this be tried again with another judge? The victim did not get any justice and he is the one who's the victim.

This guy needs a good layer and a lot of publicity about this case.

I posted this before. However I feel it's important enough to post again: It's actually two messages:

This country is going absolutely f-ing insane. "We've got Predator Prosecutors and Judges trying twelve year old children as adults for murder. (See Angela Corey) Fathers by the millions are having their children stolen from them and subjected to economic genocide (Read "Taken Into Custody") If they're boys they're being turned into girls. (Read “The War Against Boys”) The Better Homes and Gardens Gestapo in the forms of deviants Code Enforcement Nazi Bobby Bowen and Fascist Judge David Dugan put a man Robert Biel in Prison for some broken down pickup trucks in his back forty. It's no longer the Home of the Free. It's “Are You In Compliance?” (Read “One Nation Under Arrest”)This current government is begrudging the Jews one sliver of land in a burning haystack of Arab hate. (Read “The Haj” by Leon Uris) Apparently this Muslim Judge has totally forgotten the words “God Bless America”. That's if he ever knew them. I'd dearly love for him to hear one word from me; “Gitarope”.

I would like to comment on something else. Everybody has been assaulted by these scumbags in their loud “Boomer Cars”. And it is an assault. As much as if someone were to come up and spit in your face or slap you in the head. It's beyond obnoxious behavior. If there were ever a poster boy or description for “Disturbing the Peace” this would be it. Where did acceptance for this rudeness come from. To me this is just another symptom of the disease that is destroying this country. I commented on a web site in response to a Muslim judge who had dropped the charges against a muslim man who assaulted somebody wearing a “zombie muhommed” costume. The judges excuse, and I wouldn't stoop to calling it an explanation, was that that's the way the accused would have acted in his own country. Even chiding the victim telling him he would have been killed, (justifiably in the judges mind) in the muslim mans home country. My comment was that this country is going insane. Would this kind of behavior, and I'm talking about the noise now, been tolerated in my Dad's time? These guys would have been hauled out of their cars, had the shit kicked out of them and the cops would have come along and shaken their hands. Today, if I were to mete out the justice some asshole deserved for literally pounding me insensable with their noise I would be the one going to jail. In a word; It's Insane. When I went to the City of Rialto here in Ca to complain about this problem the city and the cops turned and ganged up on me. For reals. After complaining at a city council meeting I found myself surrounded and threatened by two Captains and three other cops. The answer to why these scumbags are allowed to run rampant and destroy your quality of life, pound the walls of your house and rattle your windows while you try to live in peace and quiet in the privacy of your own home, ( Which isn't really yours. It belongs to the governt. See “Robert Biel”), is as I said the fault of our so-called leaders and those sworn to “Keep the Peace”. Well, you can kiss that little dream goodbye thanks also to “representatives” like Darrell Issa. Republican Congressman from Cal. Who, as the chairman of the powerful Consumenr Electronics Association, used it's financial muscle to lobby against local ordinances protecting peace and quiet.

So while you're fighting against Sharia and Islam what we like to call “the fabric” of our society, our whole way of life is literally being torn to shreads. And that's not all. You may say I'm just whining. But there's a lot to be said for reading books. For example I preach to people like I'm handing out religious flyers Leon Uris' book “The Haj”. Because I don't think there's a better book that will explain Israels history and the sham that is the so-called Palestinian “Right of Return”.

In the same way I suggest a book that explains one of the reasons one parent households are becoming a way of life in this country and the Family Unit is becoming a thing of the past: “Taken Into Custody” I beg people to at least Google this book and read the Introduction. Please, please believe me when I tell you that you have no idea just how out of control our government is. You only think you're knowledgable about what really threatens this country. I'm here to tell you that you have no idea. I also recommend the “Preface” in Christina Hoff Sommers “The War Against Boys”, if you want to know who's to blame for our boys being turned into girls in our public schools. Sharia Indoctrination via CAIR is just one of the problems.

We as a people have got to “Man Up”. Even at the local level we are in the grips of a Police State where our country's motto is no longer “Don't Tread On Me”. It's “Are You In Compliance?” The Better Homes and Gardens Gestapo, better known as Code Enforcement has the last word when it comes to what used to by your private property. Of course, like Martin Niemoeller who said “First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out”. It hasn't “affected” you yet. Or you are fatally ignorant of what's going on. And I wonder about people who have never been to a city or county meeting. Never seen the smug contempt coming from a local politician while he's looking at a citizen exercizing his or her right to “Public Comment”. Almost reading their mind as they're thinking how you're wasting their precious time.

Slowly but surely we are self-destructing. You've heard it before; “The Home of the Free” is being replaced with “Home of the Fee”. People, these aren't just cutsy, humorous, amusing sayings anymore. Like my “Noise” issue, slowly but surely our way of life is disappearing. The government is becoming More. And we are becoming Less.

As an American, my culture - my very essence & my very being - is the United States Constitution. First and foremost in that Constitution, is my right to express my opinion on religion.

This judge has trashed my essence, my very being. I find it very, very, very offensive.

By Mark Martin's legal reasoning I now have the right to assault him. I wouldn't, of course, because civilized people don't behave that way.

But this magistrate has set precedent for conditions that would allow "offended" people to physically attack others. In his ruling, he stated that attacking someone to "harass, annoy, or alarm" is a crime. However, attacking someone to "negate" an offensive situation is not a crime.

This is an injustice. This is sharia.

ACLU (Pennsylvania) - file a complaint:

http://www.aclupa.org/legal/fileacomplaint.htm

No doubt, Obama's Department of Justice will be working overtime on "supporting and defending" the Constitution from the clear violation of the victim's (not the defendant) First Amendment right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion (atheism is a belief system), and freedom of assembly. Well, actually, skepticism is merited.

The quotes in the Jihad Watch article are not verbatim, though that does not detract from the substance: e.g.,

Actual quote:

“Our forefathers intended that we use the first amendment so that we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people, other cultures, which is what you did.”

Judge: "To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you cannot because you are too ill, too elderly, whatever, you must make the attempt."

Well, judge, statistically speaking (this is using reason, logic, math, facts, inquiry): roughly 90% of living Muslims will never be able to undertake the Hajj because Mecca's carry capacity during the pilgrimage season is limited, even with Saudi expansion plans.

So, I guess that means allah is telling the "believers" that they are destined to be too ill and/or poor to undertake the Hajj.

This should be yet another factual example of why Islam is man-made nonsense. Why else would a Muslim's odds of being able to fulfill one of the five fundamental "pillars," a fundamental religious obligation or duty, be a 90% impossibility.

ISLAMIC INJUSTICE IN US COURTS

How, I wonder, would this Moslem judge rule in a case where a rightwinger blows his cool and assaults a leftist for desecrating the US flag because it offended his patriotism? Would he acquit the attacker like he did the violent Moslem? Be that as it may, this judge's ruling will embolden US Moslems to violently attack any American they believe is offending Islam.

Someone needs to send this judge a complimentary copy of Thomas Paine's Common Sense.

"Mark Martin: "I'm a Muslim. I find it offensive.""

To qadi wannabe Mark Martin, I kindly suggest you drop this and find a new hobby. Being a judge is a very serious and important role. If you're that offended--and it is clear from this report that you are--you need to excuse yourself from issuing. You need to grow up and make a choice as to whether you want to implement sharia or American justice. If the former, kindly GTFO.

edit: you need to excuse yourself from judging in this case.

I don't see that it serves any useful purpose, except to vent one's personal spleen, to march in a Halloween parade as Muhammad. It does not in any way contribute to persuading Muslims their religion is a false one. Indeed it is likely it only seves to confirm them in their false belief.

I follow this site with interest regularly, and am grateful for the service. You don't know anyone who wants to live under Sharia less than I do. Partly for that reason, I want to encourage everyone who is hyperventilating here to count to a million, come back, and listen carefully to the entire proceeding, especially the last couple of minutes.

The case is NOT, repeat NOT, actually decided using any principle of Sharia law. To say that it is takes us into territory that can do no good.

Is there a lot wrong? Absolutely. The judge probably should have recused himself for being too much in sympathy with the defendant, by his own admission it seems to me. He should probably be disciplined on that basis alone.

He reduces the case to "he said/she said", disgracefully ignoring the police officer's testitmony that he interviewed the defendant on scene, and the defendant himself described his actions as being approximately what the complainant reported. Not exactly, and there's room there to play with, but the officer's testimony was simply given to credence whatsoever as to physical confrontation having occurred. That might warrant a discliplinary tap on the noggin.

The bizarre and complete lack understanding of the First Amendment is disgraceful, surely worth a disciplinary stint back in Constitution 101. Maybe with all that together, you could make a case for dismissal, but that's a much higher barrier to get over. The stroll through laws elsewhere, as if that had anything at all to do with murisprudence in that court, would hopefully be covered in Constitution 102, where we review the court system in detail.

That little excursion might have been appropriate if he had been talking to the defendant, to commisserate with him, to say, "I understand that you were upset because etc etc etc..." as long as the next statement was "But you see, here in America, under our Constitution . . . "

There's plenty to complain about, disciplinary action called for, perhaps even an appeal if it's worth the defendant's time and effort, but this case, as it's being commented on here and elsewhere, is not the case we're all dreading. It's not so far from it as to make me at all comfortable, but it's not that case. To say that it is will do nothing but provide fuel for the opponents of clarity and Constitution-based law, who will find these errors and use it (rightly, I think) as proof of the shrill hysteria that erupts from the very mention of Islam. You know that that is exactly what will be made of it.

We don't need that. We need every ounce of credibility we can maintain, because we have to keep the case we're dreading from ever happening if that's possible, or be completely credible when it does come and it's time to raise Hell if necessary to correct it.

"to credence" should be "no credence"

"to credence" -> "no credence",
"murisprudence " -> "jurisprudence"
"use it" -> "use them"
sorry

Rick,

I listed to the proceeding yesterday, and have read about it.

"The case is NOT, repeat NOT, actually decided using any principle of Sharia law."

We don't know for sure what was on the judges' mind. But certainly letting someone off the hook for an assault, where it is a Muslim assaulting a non-Muslim who insulted Islam or Muhammad, is consistent with sharia principles.

Favouring the one Muslim's testimony over that of two non-Muslims is also consistent with sharia principles.

Regarding "offense" toward insult of Muhammad as a legitimate and mitigating factor is also consistent with sharia principles.

The judges' verbal reprimands and insults toward the non-Muslim plaintiff for disrespecting Muhammad is consistent with sharia principles.

I will grant this: "judge" Martin didn't apply the letter of sharia law in this case. Not because he didn't want to, but because it wouldn't be possible for him to do so here in America. He did about as much as could do, in defense of Islam and Muhammad, and get away with it. That's all a Muslim is required to do when living in non-Muslim lands--another principle that is consistent with sharia.

@Kinana: Thanks for careful reading and careful comments. You certainly are not wrong in your remarks. I only maintain that strictly speaking this one can be (and will be) put down to bad judgment, a brief misstatement, a little bit of over sensitivity trying not to offend someone, etc. There is just enough wiggle room on this that I don't think we can nail this as "the application of Sharia law in the US", and to try to do will cost us. Consistent with it mostly, but quite it.

The judge should definitely be disciplined, set up for review of Constitutional understanding, and possibly dismissed, if a pattern along this line can be presented as evidence of unfitness to render judgment consistent with the US Constitution.

I will confess that seeing this report I am absolutely dumbfounded, and far more alarmed than I was previously. I knew that there were efforts here and there in this country, following some successes in England apparently, I just had no idea that there was a sitting judge anywhere who would apply this view to a case. Breathtaking. I was concerned already. This cranked the level up quite a bit.

Update:

Looks like the assumption that most of us had, myself included, that this judge is a Muslim, is incorrect. He did say in the recording (approx. 30:30) that he was a Muslim and was offended. However, in a subsequent letter he is claiming he is a Lutheran, with the implication that he is not a Muslim. (See link below). His dressing down of the plaintiff is consistent either with him being a Muslim or someone who has adopted the same attitudes as most Muslims in regards to provocative expressions about Muhammad; that is, that you've done something very seriously wrong if you engage in such expressions.

"(Fact: if anyone cares, I’m actually Lutheran, and have been for at least 41 years)."
http://volokh.com/2012/02/25/zombie-mohammed-judge-responds/

Assuming this letter is correct and the judge is being honest in the letter, I think the only possibilities that could explain the audio recording ("I'm a Muslim") are that he misspoke, or did not speak clearly, or the audio is bad, or the audio was tampered with.

At any rate, if he is not a Muslim, the pro-Islamic and pro-religious bias is still apparent. Indeed, I can't say that the attitudes he expressed in what I heard on the audio are any different from what I would expect from an average Muslim living in the west, i.e., they would like some blasphemy laws, they know they don't have them here yet, so they do what they can to try to stop such expressions. I still get the impression that Martin would prefer to have a blasphemy law (excuse me, a law preventing offensiveness towards religion) and is frustrated by the fact that he doesn't have one to work with. If he's not a Muslim, the lengthy lecture about respecting Islam, and about the way the laws are in Islamic countries is frankly even more absurd. If he doesn't believe in Islam, why does he sound like he does believe in Islam? Whether he believes in it or not, why is there this discussion about Islam and respect of religion and so on? Does he not think the plaintiff was aware that some people take great offense and become very angry when their religion is mocked?

Somehow I can't help thinking that if it were just the "Pope" character who was assaulted by an enraged Catholic, that this story would be prominently splashed all across the mainstream media.