The Muhammad Movie Riots: The latest battle in the Islamic war against the freedom of speech

"Free speech, insults and Islam"

By Ida Lichter.

[Excerpt]-

"Since 1999, resolutions on defamation of religions have been introduced repeatedly on behalf of the OIC in the UN Human Rights Council, and from 2005, in the UN General Assembly. These were aimed at making criticism of Islam an international crime. Limitations on freedom of speech were already manifest in 1990, when the OIC adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which declared, in Article 22, that everyone had the right to free speech as long as it was not contrary to Sharia law."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/world-commentary/free-speech-insults-and-islam/story-e6frg6ux-1226293822139

An excellent exposition of the current assault on free speech!

But in addition, the BBC has reported that if 'The Satanic Verses' by Salman Rushdie had been considered for publication today, the book may well have not been printed.

UN resolution on Free Speech...?

The Muslim Brotherhood said that “hurting the feelings of one and a half billion Muslims cannot be tolerated, and the people’s anger and fury for their faith is invariably predictable, often unstoppable,” and declared that “assaults on the sanctities of all heavenly religions” should be rendered illegal.

I should think the correct wording should be: "violent, riotous, and murderous response to any assault on religions should be rendered illegal" - and severely punished. But Muslims live in a different and inverted universe from the real world.

I have been pushing state authorities for years to enact legislation making it illegal to hurt my feelings...I'm sick of it, it happens all the time, even little kids point and laugh...How would you like that?...I'm tired of getting arrested for raging in the streets and assaulting people over hurt feelings...They would save themselves a lot of time and trouble, if they just made hurting my feelings a crime with a monetary fine, paid to me...
That's not asking for too much, is it?

Criminalizing "insulting" speech, visuals, whatever, of religions (read islam), in the US is not going to happen before the election because obama and his cowardly minions know they'd be looking for new jobs. If he's reelected the 1st Amendment will be serious jeopardy. He's completely prepared to give the jihadi supremasists exactly what they demand. The OIC knows obama is in their hands, just be patient for another few weeks, then victory will be theirs.

Then again, maybe not. I believe Americans, including military and police, will NOT accept such a situation, even if it takes violence in opposing it. I'm seeing revolt and revolution. We are a giant that is being wakened from a slumber. obama, etal., the ignorant and foolish lefties, the islamists, all are going to regret having underestimated the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

The West's political class and MSM seem to self-censor on the aims and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB); in particular, they seem to ignore
the MB's strategy, as outlined in its 'PROJECT':

"The Muslim Brotherhood 'Project'"

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readarticle.aspx?artid=4476

OBAMA'S GAY AMBASSADOR TO BENGHAZI


Obama vilifies a video which mockingly tells the truth about the Prophet Mohammed because it's deeply offensive to Moslem believers; but he sends a gay ambassador to a city of Moslem homophobes which is offensive to practically everyone living there. By doing this how did Obama show respect for Islam?

Lets see now, Allah is all powerful and nothing occurs but what Allah desires to occur and all of us, good or evil are merely carrying out Allah's will... So, where does the idea of punishing blasphemy come in? Can't Allah handle it Himself?
If all is as it is meant to be then am I not doing Allah's will by being an infidel?
oh yeah, the Imams are afraid (to the point of tear) that if they do not act to supress blashphemy Allah will punish them.. but the blasphemy occured because Allah wanted it to, and if you failed to act it was because Allah did not want you to act... surely the all merciful would not punish you for something HE made you do!

Let Allah Revenge Himself!

An argument has been flitting around the blogosphere that we have them in a gotcha moment. But we have to take advantage of it right now.

They have been saying they are offended because the film is insulting and libelous.

But not one single protestor or one single religious authority has actually given one single example of anything in the film that is libelous or offensive.

Think about that.

(and no reporter has taken a break from their steno journalism to actually examine the film to see if what is in it is true or not)

It now seems that it wasn't an oversight on their part. They intentionally didn't cite anything from the movie for a very good (very evil, rather) reason.

Muslims have been coming forward on blogs to say that much of what they saw in the movie so far came from the sira (and/or other books). It's not libelous at all.

The argument is very simple:

If it isn't libelous and they know it then they are lying to our faces about being outraged. All of them. Evey single imam, grand mufti, every head of state. They are lying.

And because it comes from the Sira it isn't libelous in the Islamic sense either. How can a statement be something that a person does not want said if it comes from the book that all islamic scholars have to read?

So even if they mean it that way they are lying.

But in any case they haven't in the last six days deigned to tell us the difference between their concept of liblel and everyone elses. So that's their problem and it's too late for them now.

The question comes down to tone only. But why the hell should we give up our first amendment rights because one filmaker might have used the wrong background music?

Bottom line they say it's libelous but they are lying. If it's not libelous then they are lying about being offended too.

The only possible defence for the religous and state authorities who've made pronouncements in regards to our first amendment is that they haven't actually seen the movie. Which makes them even more contemptable.

Whatever they say in responce will be seen as merely desperate prevarication.

If people think there is something to this then they should spread it about themselves too. But use your own words insted of cutting and pasting this. I could barely write this.

If the casus belli is delegitemised then the idea of accomodating for it becomes laughable.

In Islam there is only freedom of the for the imams and mullahs who only speak out propaganda for Islam. Any other kind of speeck is not allowed. This is because the foundations and doctrines of Islam are so weak that they cann't stand up to criticism.

"How the West is losing the cognitive war with Islamism and its death cults"

By Richard Landes.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardlandes/100181323/how-the-west-is-losing-the-cognitive-war-with-islamism-and-its-death-cults/

One of the reason that there is no freedom of speech in Islam is because there is no freedom of thought in Islam. This religion had total mind control over its followers. These people are mind progamed not to think for themselves.
The wisdom of the words of Thomas Jefferson very much may apply here. They are "I have sworn upon the alter of God eternal hostility aganst every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

"Is peace so sweet or life so dear, to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me - give me Liberty or give me Death!". Patrick Henry

Nothing wrong with Robert's analysis, yet I'd like to highlight two contrasting points of view that come with two different types of discourse about "govt. stupidity".
On the one hand, there's the "provoking blowback" line by the likes of Ron Paul, and on the other hand the "giving in to Islam, by surrendering free speech" perspective by Robert Spencer.

There's something with the underlying handwringing (for want of a better word) about govt. stupidity, from either perspective, that bothers me. I can't shake the feeling that it reinforces the idea about govt. acting sensibly, or, at any rate, with the concern of ordinary citizens at heart.
But why perpetuate this myth that if govt. policies are testimony to a blatant disregard of our best interests, it must be out of stupidity, historical short-sightedness or just plain old cowardice?

My reply to the handwringing:

RP pov: Maybe the ones currently in power aren't that stupid, i.e. Arab Spring(TM) "blowback" might just be exactly what they seek.

RS pov: Maybe the bigger picture is that our political overlords actively seek to surrender (our) freedom of expression.

Kind regs from / Amsterdam (clip) /, Holland,
Richard

"Islamic leaders worldwide called for an end to the freedom of speech. Dr. Ahmed el-Tayyeb, the grand imam of the most prestigious and influential institution in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar in Cairo, on Saturday asked the secretary general of the United Nations to pass a UN resolution that would “prohibit insulting symbols and sanctities of Islam by some fools and misguided, who do not know the value of social peace among peoples and agitate seditions among them.” Tayyeb called for “criminalizing insulting symbols of Islam and other religions” and “punishing those who committed such heinous acts and insulted Prophet Muhammad of Islam,” although he didn’t specify what punishments he had in mind.

Meanwhile, Arab News reported that Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, “called on the international community to criminalize acts of abusing great prophets and messengers such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.”

The Muslim Brotherhood said that “hurting the feelings of one and a half billion Muslims cannot be tolerated, and the people’s anger and fury for their faith is invariably predictable, often unstoppable,” and declared that “assaults on the sanctities of all heavenly religions” should be rendered illegal.

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), the 57-government Muslim body that has been pushing for years now at the United Nations for restrictions on the freedom of speech, was in I-told-you-so mode, saying that the violence “demonstrated serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression that OIC had consistently been warning against.”"

Maybe its past time the Muslims learn how to behave like civilized humans and not savages every time their "feelings" get hurt.

In PJ Media this morning I discuss the increasingly obvious overall motive of the Muhammad movie riots: to force the West into discarding the freedom of speech.
......................................

Well, yes. The whole point of violent Jihad—as much as pious Muslims *do* enjoy rioting, burning, and slaughtering infidels—is to impose Shari'ah law. And a major part of Shari'ah law is crushing any criticism of Islam—especially of the "Prophet".
More:

Meanwhile, Arab News reported that Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, “called on the international community to criminalize acts of abusing great prophets and messengers such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.”
......................................

Some people might assume that this Sheikh is "defending" Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but they would be wrong. Pious Muslims consider Abraham (Ibrahim), Moses (Musa), and Jesus (Isa) to be *Muslim* prophets. In other words, this is all about Islam.

More:

The Muslim Brotherhood said that “hurting the feelings of one and a half billion Muslims cannot be tolerated, and the people’s anger and fury for their faith is invariably predictable...
......................................

Well, *that's" true. But that just means Muslims are predictably barbaric.

More:

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), the 57-government Muslim body that has been pushing for years now at the United Nations for restrictions on the freedom of speech, was in I-told-you-so mode, saying that the violence “demonstrated serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression that OIC had consistently been warning against.”
......................................

This is a neat inversion. In other words, we are completely out of control, and can turn on you at any moment if we feel "insulted". Sounds like abuser behavior—nothing to brag about.

More:

In response to all this, Barack Obama did not reaffirm the importance of the freedom of speech. He did not explain that it is the right to say things that are unwelcome and unpopular that safeguards Western societies against authoritarianism and tyranny. He did not say that in pluralistic societies, we all have to put up with speech that we dislike without resorting to censorship or violence.
......................................

And it is shameful—and quite terrifying—that he has *not* said these things.