Dearborn: "Sharia is coming, baby!"

correction to the above. I meant to include an asterisk in the above as follows, indicating that the it referred to sharia:
"It* will cut my head off"
---------------------------
*[Sharia as applied]

You summarize everything about Muslim supremacism in a single short paragraph.

templar, you said

...terms like "kicking ass" are just as often used as figures of speech for things like getting trounced in debate...

Templar, if three unfriendly looking Muslims approach you as a Christian at a festival, and one of the larger ones starts angrily talking about your ass getting kicked, do you think it is reasonable to take that as a reference to getting beaten in debate? If so, then you really must not know what is happening all around the globe to Christians at the hands of Muslims.

...even countries with the most advanced free speech traditions - among which the U.S. certainly has a leading position - place legislative limits on it.

The First Amendment permits Christians and anyone else to peaceably communicate beliefs in public spaces in the U.S., whether Muslims like it or not. The reason the Christians brought cameras is that they found, from earlier experience in Dearborn, that the Festival security and certain police, to justify arresting the Christians, would lie outrageously about what the Christians were doing. Indeed, one of the reasons these Christians were acquitted in a recent case was that they had documented on film everything that they were doing, and the video ran directly counter to what the police and security were claiming. At earlier Arab festivals, the Dearborn police, who serve, among other groups, perhaps the largest Muslim population in the United States, in effect tried to enforce Sharia law against Christians, arresting them and taking them to jail for a night for daring to peaceably exercise basic First Amendment rights in an Islamic context. Not only were the Christians in the case acquitted, but a massive 96 page lawsuit has now been filed against the City of Dearborn for the illegal actions of police and the mayor. If you dislike Sharia, you had better hope that the civil rights lawsuit against Dearborn wins.

One prominent example is speech that disrupts a religious service. Where I sit (Canada) it would be illegal to disrupt such a service with a political protest or with proselytizing for another religion

In someone else's private space -- a church is the private space of a religious group/institution -- you do not have free speech rights except at the sufferance of the owner of that private space. The Dearborn Arab Festival is not a private space. It takes place in public space. If what they were doing were illegal, they would have been arrested, because the Dearborn police watch proselytizing Christians at the Festival very closely, because the police are terrified, evidently, that crowds of Muslims -- including many young males -- at the Festival might resort to violence against Christian missionaries.

Shipping a Canadian citizen back to Canada ...for the offence - if that's what a legal ruling from a court were to call it - of causing a disturbance at a private event...hardly seems like a draconian punishment or a violation of human rights.

You are blinding yourself to the clear purport of the Muslim man's gestures and demeanor. Telling the Christian to "go back to Canada" was talk thinly veiling physical intimidation.

Moreover, I'd like to think that the big Arab guy would uphold the same view of things against the recent Salafist activity in Germany (and even more strongly since those activities have been accompanied by threats of violence and sedition against the German state). Would he do so? Given that nothing like that enters into their conversation, we simply don't know, but perhaps he would. Little or nothing in the video provides clear evidence to the contrary.

The ease with which that big Muslim man, in a public space, in a context of global Islamic violence against free speech and non-Muslims, demands the Christian leave, talks about kicking the Christian's ass, looks forward to the Christian getting his head cut off, etc., shows that, at a minimum, he was what I'll call Muslim-chauvinist, i.e., "Islam and Muslims, right or wrong!" I didn't see self-restraint or any questioning in him, but a bullying, threatening approach, and if it were not happening in the U.S. with Muslims a minority and a camera on, I could easily see him moving to use of force.

He seems to articulate the same standard for everyone (@ 3:34 - 3:42) "If you're a Christian, keep it to yourself; if you're a Muslim keep it to yourself").

You must learn to watch what people do, less what they say. He is clearly intimidating and threatening. He is demanding the Christian leave a public space. Why does a Muslim get to physically dominate public space, and the Christian must disappear? How is that the same standard for everyone?

I think the guy is possibly just expressing the annoyance that so many people feel with street preachers. Their views are legitimate for them to hold but the ways in which they express them and the venues in which they choose to do it are often inappropriate and, it can be argued, in some cases a tasteless and offensive abuse of free speech.

He is doing more than expressing annoyance. He is acting instinctively out of the Islamic culture and ethos, which is formed out of the core texts of Islam. He may know little about those core texts, but he has taken in with his mother's milk the manner of dealing with things inculcated by those texts, as taught by imams and passed on by imams to the Umma. He has learned it by example (not necessarily by study) from his parents, his uncles, his Islamic social setting.

As for tastelessness and offensiveness, no First Amendment would be necessary for speech that no one found tasteless or offensive. Speech considered tasteless and offensive is precisely what the First Amendment is there to protect from bullying and threatening thugs.

Templar, your desire to give the benefit of the doubt to the the Muslim man is admirable. Now add to that a more accurate knowledge of the details of the situation.

dumbledoresarmy,

Good. I hope your idea goes viral. I think it could, if promoted well.

templar,

There are indeed some weaknesses in this evidence. However, I would note that the main points here are largely unaffected and remain valid despite your objections.

1. The large Muslim enthusiastically endorsed sharia, when he could have dismissed it as absurd or undesirable. He could have used the statement about sharia to ridicule the Christian as paranoid, Islamophobic, etc. Instead, he endorsed sharia and used the prospect of sharia to threaten the Christian. The Muslim appealed to sharia, and did not appeal to any local, state, or federal law.

2. The Christians did not disrupt any event. There is no American law that says people can't talk about or engage in persuasion about religion or politics when milling around at a festival. When the Muslim talks about the Christian being expelled for talking about religion, this is an appeal to a lesser penalty in sharia. The Muslim acts as though he thinks he has authority to tell the Christian to leave, when in fact, in American law, he has no such authority.

3. The Muslim enthusiastically endorsed the classic sharia punishment of death for proselytizing to Muslims. (A standard method of killing in sharia was [and in some places still is] beheading, which the Muslim enthusiastically endorsed). He could have ridiculed the Christian's claim, or he could have appealed to the lesser punishment he'd earlier suggested (i.e., expulsion), but he did not. Thus, execution by beheading is what this Muslim prefers and indeed "hopes" for.

The Muslim's enthusiastic endorsement of death by beheading as a punishment for proselytizing also invalidates, or at least renders extremely unlikely, your suggestion that by threatening the Christian with getting his ass kicked, he was threatening him with being defeated in an argument. Also, contrary to your claim, the Muslim did not engage in any substantive argument as such, apart from making various kinds of threats and irrelevant comments; nor did he make any suggestions that the Christians engage in debate. On the contrary, his comments suggest he wants a strict segregation between Muslims and Christians, at least at this festival. Lastly, beatings of non-Muslims are permitted in Islam according to the principle of commanding the right and forbidding the wrong; if a Muslim sees something wrong, he may in some cases use physical force to "correct" or "stop" that wrong, and that includes beating and capturing and subduing people who are making un-Islamic expressions or proselytizing to Muslims.

"There are indeed some weaknesses in this evidence. "

Now there's a shock...no? Really? On this blogg?

Amen! What a great idea! Until there are Church bells left!

"templar" wrote:

Granted that it's always alarming to hear someone say something like "F*** free speech" or "you'll get your ass kicked if you say that to ...", no one - Muslim, Christian or any other - responds well to an obnoxious harangue...
.........................................

The only one engaged in an "obnoxious harangue" here is the *Muslim*.

More:

...and terms like "kicking ass" are just as often used as figures of speech for things like getting trounced in debate...
.........................................

Well, this is true. But is referring to having someone's head cut off *also* just a common figure of speech? Not so much...

More:

...and even countries with the most advanced free speech traditions - among which the U.S. certainly has a leading position - place legislative limits on it. One prominent example is speech that disrupts a religious service. Where I sit (Canada) it would be illegal to disrupt such a service with a political protest or with proselytizing for another religion, and I don't think there's anything shocking about that from a pro-free speech, pro-liberty, pro-human rights perspective.
.........................................

Since when did Dearborn's Arab Festival become a Muslim religious service? This is a *very* odd statement.

More:

Additionally, I point out several things about the big Arab guy's apparent defence of Sharia law:

First, it seems to have about it an air of exasperation as of a situation where a person feeling provoked simply says something perverse to their opponent...
.........................................

They only reason this Muslim felt "provoked" was because Christians were proselytizing in the vicinity of Muslims, which is forbidden under Shari'ah law.

More:

I point out that the first one to mention Sharia in the conversation was the street preacher, not the Arab guy.
.........................................

The first *specific* mention of Shari'ah law, you mean. The Muslim was already suggesting the Christians had no right to speak in front of Muslims, and that *is* Shari'ah law.

And characterizing the Muslim as the "Arab guy" is ridiculous, since both the Muslims *and* the Christians here appear to be Arabs. In fact, one of the Christians makes a point that there are many Christian Arabs.

As a matter of fact, the Arab Festival was begun by Christian Arabs, and most Arabs in the United States *are Christian*. Even though the Muslim population of Dearborn has mushroomed, this *is not* a Muslim festival—nor is Shari'ah law in effect anywhere in the United States.

More:

Shipping a Canadian citizen back to Canada (which is what he initially proposes as the appropriate response to the preacher's activity) for the offence - if that's what a legal ruling from a court were to call it - of causing a disturbance at a private event (not unlike disrupting a religious service in a church) hardly seems like a draconian punishment or a violation of human rights.
.........................................

This is ridiculous. His telling the Christian to "go back to Canada" meant "get out of here" and "we don't allow this here". He was not suggesting that the Christian be legally deported.

Also, are you now suggesting that people should be deported for preaching Christianity at a public event?

More:

Moreover, I'd like to think that the big Arab guy would uphold the same view of things against the recent Salafist activity in Germany (and even more strongly since those activities have been accompanied by threats of violence and sedition against the German state). Would he do so? Given that nothing like that enters into their conversation, we simply don't know, but perhaps he would. Little or nothing in the video provides clear evidence to the contrary.
.........................................

What utter crap. When the Christian suggests that Shari'ah would "cut my head off", the Muslim replies, "I hope it does".

And this leads you to believe that a Muslim who at least verbally agrees with death for proselytizing Muslims would disagree with Muslim violence *how*?

It seems more likely to suspect that he would be in agreement with those Salafists. Certainly, the idea that he would assume that Salafists should be beheaded under Shari'ah law for championing Shari'ah law makes little sense of any kind.

More:

He seems to articulate the same standard for everyone (@ 3:34 - 3:42) "If you're a Christian, keep it to yourself; if you're a Muslim keep it to yourself"). I think the guy is possibly just expressing the annoyance that so many people feel with street preachers. Their views are legitimate for them to hold but the ways in which they express them and the venues in which they choose to do it are often inappropriate and, it can be argued, in some cases a tasteless and offensive abuse of free speech.
.........................................

You seem to believe that preaching is a "tasteless and offensive abuse of free speech", but agreeing that someone should be beheaded for preaching *is not* a "tasteless and offensive abuse of free speech"?

Just so we're straight on that.

I have another question. Given your views, why do you call yourself "templar"? This seems ironic at best.

Thank you, John.

I should be concise more often.

Thanks for your reply, templar.