As “blasphemers” face execution in Muslim countries, Washington Post claims “blasphemy charges pervert Islam’s teachings”


At first glance this looks like the Religion News Service and the Washington Post giving space to a thoughtful moderate Muslim speaking up sensibly for the freedom of conscience. Unfortunately, that is not exactly what this is. Qasim Rashid, for all his pious posturing, is a spectacularly unpleasant, nasty, rude, arrogant human being, with a long record of dishonesty. He has lied about the Islamic justifications for jihad violence and publicly objected to a piece calling upon peaceful Muslims to fight actively against jihad terrorists. He has lied about the Qur’an’s sanction of deception of unbelievers; lied about the presence of violent passages in the Qur’an; lied about the Qur’an’s sanction of beating disobedient women; lied about the nature of Sharia; and called for limitations on the freedom of speech and expression to outlaw behavior and speech some Muslims may find offensive.

And now he is lying about the basis that laws calling for the imprisonment and/or execution of blasphemers have within the Qur’an and Sunnah. Here is the difference between reform and deception: a sincere reformer will confront and refute the arguments that support the doctrine he is trying to reform; a deceiver will ignore those arguments, not mention the scriptural passages or other teachings that support the doctrine in question, and pretend that the doctrine doesn’t exist at all. That’s what Qasim Rashid does here. He assembles a case for why “blasphemy charges pervert Islam’s teachings” without ever mentioning the Islamic foundations for blasphemy laws, thereby leaving a massive gaping hole in his own case by leaving unanswered this question: if “blasphemy charges pervert Islam’s teachings,” why are there so many perverts? If the Qur’an and  Muhammad taught the freedom of conscience so clearly, why do so many Muslims misunderstand what they say, including the Islamic governments of Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere?

Indeed, if the Qur’an and Muhammad taught the freedom of conscience so clearly, why did this article need to be written at all? The Washington Post doesn’t feel itself compelled to publish articles about how blasphemy charges pervert Christianity’s teachings. That’s because Christians aren’t prosecuting people for blasphemy nowadays; such an article might have been useful a few hundred years ago, but not now. And why is this one useful at all, since it ignores all the Islamic justifications for blasphemy and thus doesn’t contain a single thing that would convince a Muslim who approves of blasphemy laws to change his mind? It is fairly clear that Qasim Rashid’s purpose here is to lull non-Muslims into complacency about the steady stream of prosecutions and executions for blasphemy that we see in some Muslim countries; blasphemy laws “pervert Islam’s teachings,” you see. Not to worry. No need to speak out against these prosecutions or do anything to end them: cooler Muslim heads will eventually prevail.

If they ever do, however, it will be no thanks to Qasim Rashid, who does absolutely nothing in this smoothly deceptive piece to counter Islamic justifications for the prosecution of blasphemers.

“COMMENTARY: Blasphemy charges pervert Islam’s teachings,” by Qasim Rashid for the Religion News Service via the Washington Post, February 3:

Sentenced for professing his atheism, Alexander Aan was recently released after 18 months in an Indonesian prison.

Masood Ahmad has already served over two months in a Pakistani prison for reading the Quran as an Ahmadi Muslim.

Pastor Saeed Abedini languishes in an Iranian prison for preaching Christianity.

They are but a sliver of the ongoing persecution, including murders, of Ahmadi Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and atheists at the hands of extremists claiming Islam requires death for apostasy and blasphemy.

The famous Indian poet Sarojini Naidu once wrote, “(Islam) was the first religion that preached and practiced democracy ….” A glance at the aforementioned atrocities and one wonders how Naidu arrived at her conclusion.

Indeed. Especially since there has never been a single functioning Sharia democracy in the history of Islam. Turkey has been a democracy since the 1920s, and is still (for now), but it is a secular one, not an Islamic state. In fact, Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, moved explicitly to restrict the political aspects of Islam, and for doing so is reviled as an apostate and an enemy of Islam by hardliners to this day.

Naidu and countless scholars throughout history including George Bernard Shaw, Alphonse de Lamartine, Mahatma Gandhi, and Annie Besant arrived at similar conclusions by studying Islam’s authentic sources — the Quran and Prophet Muhammad. Both champion universal freedom of conscience and free speech. Nothing in Islam endorses, much less commands, death for apostasy or blasphemy, or vigilante justice for childish cartoons.

Regarding blasphemy, the Quran implores Muslims at least seven times that if offended — ignore and move on: “And when thou seest those who engage in vain discourse concerning Our Signs, then turn thou away from them until they engage in a discourse other than that.”

Regarding free speech, the Quran recognizes and protects free speech and expression in more than 40 instances.

Qasim Rashid mentions, not surprisingly, only verses from the Meccan period, during which Muhammad taught tolerance. Rashid doesn’t mention that in the Medinan suras of the Qur’an, which are generally considered by Islamic scholars and religious authorities to take precedence over the Meccan ones, the teaching is very different. And even in a Meccan sura, the Qur’an says this: “Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in the world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained. And those who malign believing men and believing women undeservedly, they bear the guilt of slander and manifest sin. O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbours in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.” (Qur’an 33:57-61)

A late Medinan sura: “And of them are those who vex the Prophet and say: He is only a hearer. Say: A hearer of good for you, who believeth in Allah and is true to the believers, and a mercy for such of you as believe. Those who vex the messenger of Allah, for them there is a painful doom.” (Qur’an 9:61) Is that “painful doom” for those who vex Muhammad solely hellfire in the next world, or execution in this one? Since 33:57 says Allah has cursed those who malign Muhammad in this world as well as in the next, it is easy to see how some Muslims could have gotten the idea that blasphemers should be killed.

And Muhammad’s example only reinforces this. Qasim Rashid says:

Muhammad’s example as Medina’s ruler echoes this teaching. Muhammad forgave and led the funeral prayer for Abdullah bin Ubay bin Salul, who was guilty of sedition and also advanced the slanderous claim that Muhammad’s wife Aisha was not chaste. Let alone capital punishment, Muhammad did not order any punishment and permitted free speech.

Muhammad established the Charter of Medina, a secular constitution between Muslims and Jews. The charter ensured equality, universal religious freedom, and free speech for all Medina’s residents.

Rashid doesn’t mention a few inconvenient other stories from Islamic tradition about Muhammad. Abu ‘Afak was a poet who was over one hundred years old, and had mocked Muhammad in his verses. Muhammad asked his companions: “Who will avenge me on this scoundrel?” One of them murdered Abu ‘Afak in his sleep. Likewise with another poet who mocked him: the poetess ‘Asma bint Marwan. Muhammad on another occasion cried out, “Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” One of Muhammad’s companions, ‘Umayr ibn ‘Adi, went to her house that night, where he found her sleeping next to her children. The youngest, a nursing babe, was in her arms. But that didn’t stop ‘Umayr from murdering her and the baby as well. Muhammad commended him: “You have done a great service to Allah and His Messenger, ‘Umayr!” (Ibn Ishaq, 674-676)

Then there was Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf, another poet whose crime was mocking Muhammad. Muhammad again asked his companions: “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” One of the companions, Muhammad bin Maslama, answered, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” When Muhammad said that he would, Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).” Muhammad responded: “You may say it.” Muhammad bin Maslama duly lied to Ka’b, luring him into his trap, and murdered him. (Bukhari 5.59.369)

Rashid also doesn’t mention that the Constitution of Medina is of doubtful authenticity. Like so much of what we “know” about Muhammad, it is first mentioned in Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad, which was written over 125 years after the accepted date for Muhammad’s death. Unfortunately for Rashid, Ibn Ishaq also details what happened to three Jewish tribes of Arabia after the Constitution of Medina: Muhammad exiled the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir, massacred the Banu Qurayza after they (understandably) made a pact with his enemies during the pagan Meccans’ siege of Medina, and then massacred the exiles at the Khaybar oasis, giving Muslims even today a bloodthirsty war chant: “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.” Funny how we never hear Muslims chanting, “Relax, relax, O Jews, the Constitution of Medina will return.”

Then Rashid turns to make a sly case against free speech: “punishment is warranted if an individual threatens the state due his advocacy of terrorism or incitement to pre-emptive war” — in other words, any speech that the state finds threatening to itself, it can proscribe. That was just what the Founding Fathers sought to prevent by devising the First Amendment: it was a safeguard against tyranny, not a license for tyrants such as what Rashid is advocating.

Islam limits free speech on the same premise that the U.S. Supreme Court has also banned the utterance of inflammatory speech. Punishment is warranted if an individual threatens the state due his advocacy of terrorism or incitement to pre-emptive war. It is upon this premise that citizens were punished in Muhammad’s time — be they Muslim or Jewish. At least 15 European nations have laws punishing certain types of blasphemy — something Islam’s original sources do not have.

Rashid concludes by tossing a few red herrings to the kuffar, brushing aside “kill them where ye find them” (Qur’an 2:191, 4:89, and 9:5) by airily waving in the direction of “context” without bothering to explain what that context is (although he claims to below, he only actually supplies a flat and unsupported assertion), and following that up by claiming that the Qur’an teaches only defensive warfare:

But what of those allegedly violent Quranic verses that declare “kill them where ye find them?” Yes, any six-word excerpt can seem violent when the reader is not aware of the context.

In Chapter 22:41 the Quran explains, “Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged ….”

The Quran then specifically obliges Muslims to protect, “churches, temples, synagogues, and mosques” from destruction.

Thus, Islam permits defensive battles to ensure universal freedom of conscience. The proper context of “kill them where ye find them,” therefore, is in self-defense to kill those who persecute and kill others for their faith. Moreover, the Quran further commands Muslims “but if they desist fighting, then you too desist,” demonstrating that Islam actively requires reconciliation.

Sure. If the Infidels surrender and submit to Islamic rule — “pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29), then there is no need to fight them, and they can keep their churches and synagogues as long as they pay that jizya into the Muslim state’s treasury. Muslims are commanded to fight “until religion is all for Allah” (Qur’an 8:39) — that is, until Sharia reigns supreme.

Furthermore, Islam’s rules of war are more advanced, compassionate, and humanitarian than anything any nation on Earth today employs. Even in self-defense, Muslims may only engage those actively engaging them first. Islam categorically forbids treachery; mutilation; killing women, children, or the aged; burning trees; slaying livestock; or harming monks and ministers. Thus, concepts such as drone strikes, nuclear attack, or collateral damage all violate Islam’s rules of war.

Here again: why, then are there so many Misunderstanders of Islam? Why do so many Muslims, including the most devout and pious, transgress against or ignore or deny these rules of warfare? And what is Qasim Rashid saying to them — or is his audience made up solely of credulous infidels?

No Qasim Rashid farrago would be complete without a paragraph or two proselytizing for Ahmadi Islam — without bothering to mention, of course, that it’s a minority sect considered heretical by both Sunnis and Shi’ites and violently persecuted in Pakistan and Indonesia. In the West, Qasim Rashid smears and demonizes those who speak out against this persecution, and sides with his oppressors, while strutting around thumping his chest about his superior knowledge and wisdom. His unstinting rudeness and arrogance shows up his ostentatious religiosity to be just another layer of deceit from this desperately deceitful man.

Far from the barbarism of Taliban and some Muslim-majority regimes, Muhammad’s example of compassion is unmatched. He peacefully endured persecution for a dozen years in Mecca, then fled to Medina to escape an assassination attempt, and finally fought defensive battles on the outskirts of Medina. After the Meccans broke yet another peace treaty, Muhammad marched back to retake Mecca.

Mecca surrendered immediately, leaving Muhammad as the de facto ruler. With the city in hand and the opportunity to exact retribution on all those who murdered his family and companions — Muhammad did something incredible. He declared to the Meccans, “I speak to you as Joseph spoke to his brothers. This day there is no reproof against you. You are free.”

This was Muhammad’s unbreakable allegiance to justice and universal freedom of conscience.

This Islamic spirit of justice still exists today. In 1900 Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim Community wrote, “If (religion) has to make up for its weakness in argument by handling the sword, it needs no other argument for its falsification. The sword it wields cuts its own throat before reaching others.”

Likewise His Holiness the Khalifa of Islam Mirza Masroor Ahmad recently declared, “Khilafat has no relation to government or politics. We believe entirely in a separation of religion and matters of state.”

The Quran is clear: “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” Thus, in stripping Alexander Aan, Masood Ahmad, and Saeed Abedini of their freedom of conscience, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Iran have only succeeded in stripping Islam of its most noble quality.

Universal freedom of conscience is the very root of Islam — for all people of all faiths, and for all people of no faith.

UK's Guardian campaigns against female genital mutilation while whitewashing Islamic justifications for it
Detroit News lauds billboards touting Islam without mentioning sponsoring group's ties to Muslim Brotherhood
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. John Spielman says

    Reporters from the WaPo should go to Iran orPakistan and carry a sign saying that “Mohammed was a pedophile” and see what happens

  2. jihad3tracker says

    Qasim Rashid will soon know about Robert’s shredding of his WashPost item.

    Why? Nathan Lean and Reza Aslan Lean check here at JihadWatch obsessively around the clock.

    Nathan — the secret sissy-boy & human sea urchin — begs for scraps in the office of seditionist taqiyya-mongering John Esposito.

    Reza — pussy-whipped by his high maintenance wife Jessica Jackley — is so lonely for friends that he drowns in “spare time”.

    So they hover around an actual scholar like Spencer — never having the testicles to engage in debate.

    Pathetic but true of Muslim organizations with a pretense of media activity : strategy is to appear for 10 minutes in a restricted “press event” which is totally bogus, and then retreat back to seclusion for another 30 -0 60 days.

    I often ask myself, ” Do these people actually think Americans NEVER search the web for truth about Islam ? Does CAIR really believe what they say gets into the minds of anyone ?

    Here is why they continue such stupidity — a secret, so keep it quiet : this is the only path to get themselves a salary ! USELESSNESS is primary reality at CAIR and its fellow traitors…

  3. mortimer says

    Clueless editors without any religious knowledge!

    How do editors know what is true and what is rubbish if they haven’t studied Islam? Islam is a vast subject requiring several years of intensive study to have a true assessment of it. The reason is that so much of Islam is intentionally hidden from public view by the mullahs.

    Western editors need to do their jobs or hire someone with a complete knowledge of Islam. They wouldn’t hire someone without qualifications to cover science, medicine or computers. Why do they get lazy about Islam?

    • Shane says

      The publishers of WAPO are cowardly dhimmis who are afraid to print the truth about Islam and the Pedophile Muhammad.

  4. Cornelius says

    ROBERT: “Especially since there has never been a single functioning Sharia democracy in the history of Islam. Turkey has been a democracy since the 1920s, and is still (for now), but it is a secular one, not an Islamic state. In fact, Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, moved explicitly to restrict the political aspects of Islam, and for doing so is reviled as an apostate and an enemy of Islam by hardliners to this day.”

    In actuality, the system that Ataturk constructed, while indeed being secular, was more autocratic than it was democratic. After his death, Turkey has been ruled in turn by both the military and democratic governments.

    Just trying to keep you on your toes, oh fearless leader….to keep you sharp for the haters/apologists.

    • Defcon 4 says

      The Istanbul Pogrom was carried out w/the connivance of the all muslime authorities there. Then there’s Turkey’s invasion and subsequent ethnic cleansing of the najjis kaffir from 40% of Cyprus. Then there’s the mild punishment meted out to the Turkish muslime conspirators who blew up two synagogues in the early 21st century and have already been released (I wonder what would’ve happened if two mosques had been similarly demo’ed?). All this happened in “secular” Turkey.

    • says

      “the system that Ataturk constructed, while indeed being secular, was more autocratic than it was democratic”

      Of course it was autocratic. With a Demos as diseased as Muslims tend to be (given their diseased culture of Islam), a Muslim-majority polity cannot sociopolitically practice basic human rights without imposing them upon a people who do not want them (i.e., Muslims).

      And for those JW Softies who may pop out like the Pillsbury Doughboy to insist that the majority of Turks are “secular” (just as they’d likely insist the same about the “Persian People” if not also the majority of “secular Egyptians”), I’d have them heed the words of this Turkish woman — a Catholic nun who fled Turkey to live in Germany, Hatune Dogan is a Turkish-German Orthodox Christian nun. She grew up in Turkey, now lives in Germany. She travels widely (she recently toured the Middle East bravely to see with her own eyes the persecution of Christians by Muslims). In this video, she describes her experiences in Turkey, and at one point, she says:

      “The Turkish people are the most fanatic there is… To others — when they speak — it’s secular, liberal, European rights, but when they act, it’s the most fanatic people on earth.”

      Watch it all:

      I’d trust the words of Sister Hatune over a JW Softy any day.

  5. jewdog says

    I have no love for jihadis, but when it comes to Islamic doctrinal interpretation, I’ll trust them far more than WAPO.

  6. Wellington says

    WAPO—another useful idiot. Qasim Rashid—another taqiyya specialist.

    Perfect together.

  7. Champ says

    “And now he is lying …”

    muslims lie; since their unholy quran instructs them to lie …something we’ve seen time after time from muslims.

  8. No Fear says

    LOL. He uses Theosophist spruiker Annie Besant as some sort of advert for Islam. Annie Besant along with Charles Leadbeater constructed the Star Amphitheatre at Balmoral Beach in Sydney. It was meant to hold sessions by the “World Teacher” Krishnamurti, but there is an urban myth that Annie and Charles eagerly awaited the second coming of Jesus and the Amphitheatre was to provide a view of Jesus sailing through Sydney Harbour.
    Using Annie Besant as an advert for Islam is like using Donald Duck as an advert for Islam. Quack !

  9. Jay Boo says

    Since all TRUE Muslims are blasphemers by following a blood drenched hate manual the Quran and by doing so the commit the greatest insult to Islam when they pretend to HELP Allah of which they claim is the Almighty shouldn’t they be
    BEHEADING THEMSELVES first of all.

    I suspect that is how Muhammad actually died.
    He realized his sin and did one honorable deed in penance.

    As for the pandering dhimmi doos
    When they are no longer needed, they will find themselves tied to a ritual beheading post in an honor-killing pit hollering “What the % #@6!% is going on dear Muslim friends.”

    The Islamists will be asking themselves, “why did we wait so long.”
    (A dhimmi dummy when no longer needed is just a disposable kafir).

    • Defcon 4 says

      The pandering, apathetic, amoral, craven cowards that constitute the apologists/collaborators of islam0fascism today will convert to islam long before they face a beheading. All the islam0fascists would have to do is threaten to take away their lattes and they’ll be banging their heads on prayer rugs like a fish takes to water.

  10. Jay Boo says

    The Insult / blasphemy excuse

    This is the Kaaba stoning rock foundation of Islam
    In other words it might appear dishonorable to:
    Murder, Pillage and Rape
    Unless of course one is protecting God’s (Allah) honor.

    Bear witness to the BEAST that was spawned from
    the Serpent of Satan ,,, Muhammad

  11. Jay Boo says

    Majeeb Bhutto
    was not banned in Britain

    Former UKIP spokesman was kidnapping gang ‘boss’
    Majeeb Bhutto at one point threatened to have Ahmed Naeem’s head cut off
    and sent to his father, according to court evidence.

    Bhutto once arranged a mosque visit for UKIP leader Nigel Farage

  12. mortimer says

    Qasim Rashid does not speak for Sunnite Islam because he an Ahmadi and as such does not accept ‘abrogation’. All the contradictory verses of the Koran have equal contradictory value…adding to the questions of what the heck they believe! Apparently, whatever is convenient at the moment. Though in practice Ahmadis have been peaceful, they believe in violent jihad when ‘necessary’, but they don’t kill apostates.

    The sad part is that uninformed Westerners will believe what they want and assume (without checking) that Rashid speaks for ‘real Muslims’ and they can go back to slumber while Rome burns with fires set by the jihadists.

  13. Jay Boo says

    Muslims are afraid.
    That is why they go for the throat.
    They are afraid of the VOICE of truth.
    The devil wants to snuff out the message that reveals
    that Islam is nothing but vanity embracing hate.

  14. says

    As “blasphemers” (5:72-3) face execution in Muslim countries, …

    … and after execution the 5:73 “grevious penalty” for “blasphemers” goes on forever to Allah’s sadistic Qur’an 4:56

    As “unbelievers” face execution through beheading (Q8:12, 47:4) & mutilation 5:33 in (also non-)Muslim countries

    … The Quran is clear: “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” Thus, in stripping Alexander Aan, Masood Ahmad, and Saeed Abedin …

    Muhammad (aka Allah), the treaty breaker Tafsir 9:5 (nearly) latest Qur’anic paragraph “… means, on the earth in general … This way, they will have no choice, but to die (through mutilation 8:12, or 5:33) or embrace Islam” — which cancelled (the early Medina verse, when Muhammad was driven out of Mecca) 2:256 “There is no compulsion in religion”

    Jesus commanded the faithful to turn the other cheek, not to “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Koran 9:5)”

    … in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood

    Fascist(98:6 “worst” vs. 98:7 “BEST”) Allah declares war on anybody who “reject his signs (Quran)” 7:103 -> punishment is 5:33 “crucifixion”

  15. says

    By the way, this verse HAS a context, and it should NOT taken generally:

    2:256 “no compulsion in religion” said Muhammad only to the Christian women who should took care of the Muslim boys, cause their fathers were in war on behalf of Islam (Jihad), and the Christian women want to know to eductate in their Christian values.

  16. RodSerling says

    Muslim propagandists in the West, when they get opportunities to write articles in the media, usually pack in so many falsehoods and irrelevancies that it is simply impractical for even a knowledgeable person to address them all in a reasonable length of time.

    Rashid: “Muhammad established the Charter of Medina, a secular constitution between Muslims and Jews. The charter ensured equality, universal religious freedom, and free speech for all Medina’s residents.”

    In fact, there is no mention, much less mention of protection, of free speech in the document. It is, however, loaded with warnings that those who “sin” and so forth aren’t protected, and that believers are obligated to fight such sinners, and the Qur’an cites the expression of disbelief as the worst thing, the worst sin or crime, that anyone can do.

    Rashid: “Islam categorically forbids treachery; mutilation; killing women, children, or the aged; burning trees; slaying livestock; or harming monks and ministers.”

    Every single one of the claims jam-packed into that sentence is false and directly contradicted by Islamic scripture and law. In fact, the laws of jihad permit Muslims to kill women, children, monks, etc., (a) collaterally, (b) if they try to defend themselves or their people from being attacked by Muslims, and (c) if they express any words against Islam or Muhammad. Moreover, there is no punishment for killing a non-Muslim in jihad.

    “Blasphemy charges pervert Islam’s teachings”

    Distraction, of the form “Forget about the problems with what Muslims actually believe and do, let’s instead talk about my own idiosyncratic wonderful interpretation of Islam, wherein all such problems can be made to disappear, miraculously, before the ignorant kuffar’s very eyes.”

    The reality of what Muslims actually believe and practice today is that most of them want blasphemers to be punished, and that Muslim countries do punish blasphemers. Rashid takes a detour away from all of that, leading the kuffar down the meandering garden path of (apologetic claims about) Islamic doctrine. Thus Rashid simply uses the terrible fact that people are being killed, imprisoned, tortured, mutilated, threatened for blasphemy, as an opportunity to expound on the wonders of Islam. It is utterly remorseless, conscienceless Islamic image management; cynical, opportunistic da’wa, at best. He shows no interest in actually doing anything to counter the kinds of human rights violations that he cites at the beginning of the article. Indeed, as Robert notes, Rashid himself hints strongly at supporting blasphemy punishments, under a different labeling.

  17. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    Qasim Rashid, for all his pious posturing, is a spectacularly unpleasant, nasty, rude, arrogant human being, with a long record of dishonesty. He has lied about the Islamic justifications for jihad violence and publicly objected to a piece calling upon peaceful Muslims to fight actively against jihad terrorists.

    Lying has emerged as the key new tool for opinion programming. It used to be that, if you indisputably caught telling a lie, you were discredited and your thesis was impugned for its apparent need of falsehoods about key facts.

    Being able to do this requires the population having existing knowledge, or readily access to knowledge, on a particular subject. It worked that way for millennia, albeit with variability in how much bull was fed the population, or hidden from them, and how much of it they swallowed as true.

    Prez Barack is a liar, and that’s a plain fact. Undeniable. He lied to help fix the election, and the news entertainers helped pave the way. When reality set in, he made a fake apology and away we go. All the ulema and Moslem apologists are liars, they must be because of the bad facts, very bad, that sit so near the surface of its contents.

  18. says

    Rashid has obviously never heard of the sociopath MUHAMMAD who PERSONALLY decapitated 900 UNARMED JEWS in 627…Do you really think so? Or do think he privately wishes to emulate the sociopath MUHAMMAD and decapitate 900 unarmed Jews himself?

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      That sunny day at Banu Qurayza was a busy one. And don’t forget that the wives, daughters and prepubescent boys were brought forward to personally witness the head loppings of Dad and big brothers. Also don’t forget that the wives and daughters were sold as sex slaves after the grand blood letting. The boys were sold as slaves, too, although we’ll never know about the sex part. My guess is yes the Jew boys were well loved by the Moslem Arab men who took ownership of them, too. And don’t forget that old Mo watched the proceedings from a throne he had brought to the edge of the death pit.

  19. DEWDDS says

    I posted a comment on the article at WaPo, but mysteriously the comment section has disappeared. I guess the thin skinned author brooks no criticism of his demonstrably wrong ideas about Islam being tolerant and accepting of other beliefs and ideas. That piece was yet another cherry picked, apologist’s approach to what Islam should be rather than what it is both in theory and practice.

    Perish the thought of a Muslim commentator who actually confronts the parts of Quran, Hadith and Sira that show Islam to be extremely and vehemently opposed to the concepts of religious liberty and free speech!