Yet the Western media still tells us that the vast majority of Muslims abhor the massacre of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and support the freedom of speech. Where are they marching?
“Charlie Hebdo protests erupt across southern Asia,” by Khurram Shahzad, AFP, January 23, 2015 (thanks to Lookmann):
Tens of thousands across Afghanistan, Pakistan and Muslim-majority Indian Kashmir took to the streets on Friday for southern Asia’s biggest protests yet against satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed.
Up to 20,000 demonstrators in the western Afghan city of Herat and 15,000 in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, burned French flags and chanted slogans calling for France’s downfall, while a smaller Pakistani protest saw an effigy of France’s President Francois Hollande set on fire.
In Srinagar, the largest city on the Indian-controlled side of the disputed region of Kashmir, police clashed with a contingent of around 3,000 demonstrators after shops and businesses were ordered to close by a leading Muslim organisation and several separatist groups.
The clashes broke out when police fired smoke canisters and shot into the air to disperse a group of protestors who began chanting “Down with Charlie Hebdo” after emerging from mosques.
Islamist gunmen stormed the offices of French weekly Charlie Hebdo — which has published controversial cartoons of the prophet on several occasions — in Paris on January 7, killing 12 people.
In response, Charlie Hebdo last week published a “survivors” issue with an image of the Prophet Mohammed weeping on the cover, which has led to small, sporadic protests across Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Friday’s rally in Islamabad was led by the hardline Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) party, and though peaceful demonstrators burned French, British and American flags, while urging Pakistan to cut ties with Paris and calling for a boycott of French products.
Carrying placards and banners, protesters in Islamabad chanted “death to France”, “our prophet, our honour” and “death to the blasphemers”.
Jamaat-e-Islami chief Siraj-ul-Haq called for a UN ban on blasphemy, while Khawaja Saad Rafique, a federal minister in the Pakistani cabinet, also condemned the depiction of the prophet by Charlie Hebdo as “hate speech, journalistic terrorism”.
So far public displays of anger against the magazine, which is not available in Pakistan either in print or online, have largely been limited to followers of religious parties.
Around 4,000 people rallied in Karachi, while protests in Quetta — where the Hollande effigy was burned — as well as the northwestern city of Peshawar, the eastern city of Lahore and Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, each drew around 2,000 activists. No violence was reported from any of the Pakistani rallies.
Meanwhile in Afghanistan, protesters in the capital of Kabul held posters depicting a red heart and the name of the Prophet as they marched on the streets, while an AFP reporter at the scene in Herat and the provincial governor’s spokesman Ehsanullah Hayat said the crowd there was at least 20,000 strong.
“No Muslim can tolerate insults to our beloved prophet Mohammed, we demand the French government apologise to all Muslims and punish those who have insulted Islam,” said one protester in Herat.
A small number of demonstrators threw stones at the French embassy in Kabul, prompting guards to fire one or two warning shots.
Thousands of miles away, 800 people also took part in an anti-Charlie Hebdo protest in Sydney, Australia, carrying “Je suis Muslim” signs in what police said was a peaceful rally.
“They force their world view onto us: ‘We are the arrogant West and you Muslims have to accept our world view, you have to accept our freedom… to insult your prophet’,” demonstrator Sufyan Badar told the crowd. “But we rejected freedom yesterday, we reject freedom today and we reject your freedom tomorrow.”
In Abidjan, the main city of Ivory Coast, west Africa, between 200 and 300 people protested the cartoons amid a heavy police presence Friday, a security source said. Muslims have a slender majority over Christians in Ivory Coast and the two communities live mostly in harmony….
Angemon says
Exactly how many of them actually saw the cartoons? And why didn’t they protest when the cartoons came out? Why are they protesting now, when, as far as I can tell, most people in the West stand against the killers?
Shane says
These people are ignorant savages and we should never bow down to their demands.
Peter Buckley says
“The clashes broke out when police fired smoke canisters and shot into the air to disperse a group of protestors who began chanting “Down with Charlie Hebdo” after emerging from mosques.”
Isn’t it odd how all these “violent eruptions” seem to occur after “Friday prayers”. People might get the impression that what is being taught in these mosques isn’t “peace and love”, as is customarily claimed:
http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/57141/
EYESOPEN says
Bingo!
Mo says
45,000?! So much for the “tiny minority of extremists”!
And yet they cannot manage to get together even a couple hundred Muslims to protest the endless atrocities committed by their coreligionists. (You know, those atrocities they claim to not support.)
Enough already.
If you’re a Muslim and you are not speaking out forcefully and protesting the murderous actions of your co-followers of the warlord and child rapist, Mohammad, then as far as I am concerned, you support these murderous actions.
Prove me wrong. I dare you.
Zebo says
25000 muslim terror attacks in 14 years:
Muslims protesting(real “no faked cheap PR” protests)=ca. 20(when the soldier in England was beheaded)
1 charly Hebdo Cartoon with Mohamed+one tear+”je suis Charlie”
tens of thousands of muslims protesting for weeks
That’s muslim arethmetics and logic and empathy.
Sadly i’m no cartoonist.
I’d draw mohammed raping his childbride aisha and saying “Je suis merde”
mortimer says
Muslims want censorship, because that’s what Mohammed did. Sharia law demands the murder of anyone who verbally resists the supremacism of Islam…especially through satire!
Where do Muslim terrorists get their deadly ideas?
From Islamic Commentaries:
-“Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is one of the worst of forbidden actions… whether done seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be EXECUTED even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir.” – Ruling on one who insults the Prophet, Shaykh al Munajid, Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 22809
– “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes chose to forgive those who had insulted him, and sometimes he ordered that they should be executed, if that served a greater purpose. But NOW HIS FORGIVENESS IS IMPOSSIBLE because he is dead, so the EXECUTION of the one who INSULTS HIM REMAINS the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the believers, and the one who deserves to be executed cannot be let off, so the punishment must be carried out.” – Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438
-as-Suyuti writes: “(If they break their oaths…) This ayah (K. 9:11-12) is used as a proof by those who say that if a dhimmi attacks Islam (verbally) or the Qur’an or MENTIONS the Prophet in a bad manner, HE IS KILLED, whether he has broken a treaty or not. Those who say that his repentance is accepted use as a proof, ‘hopefully they will stop.’”
-“(And if they) the people of Mecca (break their pledges) which are between you and them (after their treaty (has been made with you) and assail your religion and DEFAME THE RELIGION OF ISLAM, then FIGHT (Arabic: kill ‘q-t-l’) the leaders of disbelief: Abu Sufyan and his host. Lo! they have no binding oaths in order that they may desist from breaking their pledges.” – from Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
– Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: “Muhaarabah (waging war against Islam) is of two types: physical and verbal. Waging war verbally against Islam may be worse than waging war physically – as stated above – hence the Prophet used to kill those who waged war against Islam verbally, whilst letting off some of those who waged war against Islam physically. This ruling is to be applied more strictly after the death of the Prophet. Mischief may be caused by physical action or by words, but the damage caused by words is many times greater than that caused by physical action; and the goodness achieved by words in reforming may be many times greater than that achieved by physical action. It is proven that waging war against Allaah and His Messenger verbally is worse and the efforts on earth to undermine religion by verbal means is more effective.” – Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 3/735
-“It is related that a man forged lies against the Prophet and he sent ‘Ali and az-Zubayr to KILL him. Ibn Qani’ related that a man came to the Prophet and said, “Messenger of Allah, I heard my FATHER say something ugly about you, so I KILLED HIM,” and that did not distress the Prophet. – Hadiths
From Koranic Verses Censoring Criticism of Islam:
-K.2:193. “And FIGHT (q-t-l) them until there is no more Fitnah” (disagreeing with Mohammed), i.e. fight and KILL disbelievers until no one expresses disagreement with Mohammed.
-K.9:11-12 “But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and TAUNT YOU for your Faith, – FIGHT (and KILL) ye the chiefs of Unfaith, for their oaths are nothing to them, that thus they may be restrained.”
-K.11.173 “Believers, RETALIATION is decreed for you in BLOODSHED.”
-K.58:5 “Those who oppose Allah and His Messenger will be laid low”…with violence.
From Approval of Vigilantism by Top Islamic Religious Authorities
In 1993, top Sunni religious authorities from Al Azhar University confirmed that vigilantes may commit murder in the enforcement of Sharia law if the state does not do it. This means every single Muslim has implicit authorization from Islam’s top authorities to commit vigilante killing to defend Islam.
From the Sharia law manual Reliance of the Traveller:
Sharia permits the murder of anyone who verbally opposes Islam, since they are at war with Islam:
“There is no indemnity obligatory for killing a non-Muslim (harbi) at war with Muslims.” -Reliance of the Traveller, o4.17, p.593
From Islam’s top authority, Al Azhar University:
In 1992, Islamist militants gunned down Egyptian secularist and sharia law opponent Farag Foda. Before his death he had been declared an apostate and foe of Islam by ulama at Al Azhar. During the trial of the murderers, Al-Azhar scholar Mohammed al-Ghazali testified that when the state fails to punish apostates, somebody else has to do it. Al Azhar’s Dar al-Ifta department is the highest authority on Sharia law in Islam.
dlbrand says
“Muslims want censorship, because that’s what Mohammed did. Sharia law demands the murder of anyone who verbally resists the supremacism of Islam…especially through satire!”
Indeed, Mortimer.
And, as you ask and then show –“Where do Muslim terrorists get their deadly ideas?”—from their so-called “Holy Prophet.” And from whence does Shariah come (which, of course, I know you know)? From the Qur’an and the sunnah of the alleged prophet of Islam.
Muhammad’s Allah’s Qur’an commands, “Obey Allah and His Messenger.” It asserts, “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah.” (3:32, 4:80.) That self-claimed Messenger commands his followers, “Take your practices from me.” (al-Bakhari, as provided in Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, Intro, P. 41.)
For such reasons, as al-Qurtubi provides, the doctrine of Islam asserts, as “Sahl ibn ‘Abdullah said, ‘Salvation lies in three things: consuming halal, performing the obligations and imitation of the Prophet.’”
(Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, Classical Commentary of the Holy Qur’an, Translated by Aisha Bewley, Vol. I, Dar Al-Taqwa, Ltd. 2003; 2: 166 – 168, P. 422.)
As the same revered source asserts, “…the Book became the basis and the Sunna its clarification and the deduction of the scholars its exposition and elucidation.” (Ibid, Intro. P. 3.)
Therefore, the following:
For such reasons, the indispensability, in ones effort to know Islam, of the exegeses of the revered scholars; for such reasons, the same of that on the pages and in the volumes of ahadith, sira, and al-Maghazi.
Sunna defined is “the customary practice of a person or group of people. It has come to refer almost exclusively to the practice of the Messenger of Allah … but also comprises the custom of the First Generation of Muslims in Medina.” (Ash-Shifa, Glossary, P. 455.)
Given salvation of the soul, according to Islam, is only possible by imitating their claimed prophet, then it stands clear, his deeds, words, judgments, etc., must be known.
Where does one find the clear delineation of those words, deeds, judgments, etc.?
I will tell you where: they are spelled out on the pages of sira, in the volumes of hadith, in the pages of the chronicles of al-Maghazi.
Truth on Islam is, in short, obedience to the so-called prophet, thus adherence to his sunnah. As spoken to above, doing as and what he did. Therefore every act the Muslims does must agree with sunna of their beloved so-called prophet, or it is rejected by Allah.
While “we” all pretend, truth on Islam is the garbage we hear on various news outlets, as the “Moderates” step forward, informing us on their din; telling us, the acts of the jihadi of day, week or month, has nothing to do with Islam; truth on Islam is easily found and easily understood.
Easy, that is, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
For such reasons, this assertion, which we read in ibn Kathir’s rendition of The Life of the Prophet Muhammad. Ibn Kathir stating, commenting on those battles and expeditions in the early days of Islam, “This is an area of expertise requiring care and proper training.”
To which he then adds, “Muhammad b ‘Umar al-Waqidi related, from ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umar b. ‘Ali, from his father, who said, ‘I heard ‘Ali b al-Husayn say, “We used to teach the military expeditions of the Prophet (SAAS) just as we would chapters from the Qur’an.”’”
(The Life of the Prophet Muhammad, Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya, Ibn Kathir, Translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Reviewed by Dr. Muneer Fareed, Garnet Publishing, 1998, Reprinted 2002,2004,2006, Lebanon. Vol. 2. P. 258.)
Yet, knowing that, rarely, if ever, do Muslims, in their supposed aim to teach others the precepts of their din, place the attention of the hearer or the reader squarely on the sunnah—his life, words, deeds, approval, stated and tacit one’s, etc.– of their claimed “prophet.” When it is only in looking to that sunnah–that man’s life—one gets clarity and understanding on the precepts of the Qur’an.
Take, for example, these verses:
In lines following we will allow the explainer of the Qur’an to explain the meanings and injunctions in those verses and others like them.
It is past high time, we had better level with the fact, if we elect to allow Muslim to practice their faith in our nation, killing those that offend their beloved so-called prophet is a basic tenet of their faith.
Therefore, when and if it becomes clear that Muslim, here in our homeland, have killed because someone offended their prophet, found fault in him or his din and stated just that; then, we must regard, they killed only enjoying our freedom of religion laws. We must further regard, for us to charge them as having committed any crime whatsoever in the aforementioned lethal act is for us to disallow the Muslim the right to practice, here in our nation, in total, the tenets of his din—a disallowance, mind you, that just might be, minimally, worthy of our serious consideration.
Nonetheless, that aside for now.
As Qadi Iyad provides, as so do other reliable Islamic sources: “it is a specific obligation to establish the due of the Prophet … to protect his honor … whether he is alive or dead. This is the duty of every believer.”
(Muhammad Messenger of Allah, Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad Ibn Musa al-Yasubi, Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley translation, Medinah Press, Cape Town, South Africa, Seventh print, 2008, 1429H. Part Four: The judgments concerning those who think the Prophet imperfect or curse him; Chapter One: CLARIFICATION ABOUT CURSING THE PROPHET OR SAYING THAT HE IS IMPERFECT BY ALLUSION OR CLEAR STATEMENT; SECTION 8: The judgement regarding someone who quotes such words from someone else; P. 395.)
Moreover, for every duty that Muhammad’s Allah has laid upon the believers and followers of Muhammad to execute, just as the Qur’an asserts, for such, the believers “have an excellent model in the Messenger of Allah.” (33:23.)
Therefore, to that “excellent model”: the following, the teacher teaching, the clarifier clarifying, the explainer explaining the words and injunctions in Muhammad’s Allah’s Qur’an, concerning those who harm “Allah and his Messenger”:
Therefore, winding up this post, this consensus of the learned in Islam:
Dajjal says
3:32. Say (O Muhammad ): “Obey Allâh and the Messenger (Muhammad ).” But if they turn away, then Allâh does not like the disbelievers.
33:21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much.
9:38. O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allâh (i.e. Jihâd) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter.
9:39. If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allâh is Able to do all things.
9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious – see V.2:2).
Islam commands obedience to Allah and emulation of Moe. Allah commanded Jihad under penalty of eternal damnation, local disbelievers first. Moe conquered the local Jewish settlements in the Hijaz.
How then can we be expected to respect and tolerate Islam? We must amend our organic law to state flatly: “No person enslaved by Allah and under orders therefrom to attack, rape, plunder and enslave those of us nearest them shall enter or reside within the borders of the United States of America and no Islamic institution shall remain or be established within those borders. The manifesting, practice & propagation of Islam are felonies punishable by de-naturalization and expulsion.”.
dlbrand says
Amen, Dajjal.
cs says
Pretty interesting, I am going to read with calm.
Salah says
“No Muslim can tolerate insults to our beloved prophet Mohammed,…said one protester in Herat.”
If this is the case, then no Muslim will ever tolerate reading his own islamic “holy” books!
They don’t read because they don’t want to discover the ugly truth.
Too many books? too much to read? OK, here’s a nice short “summary”:
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/12/perfect-man-of-islam.html
Michael says
Muhammad —
Muhammad – the false prophet.
Muhammad – the perversion of the Word.
Muhammad – the infidel.
Muhammad – the antithesis of Christ.
Muhammad – the pawn of Satan.
Muhammad – the molester of women and children.
Muhammad – the illegitimate son of an Arab whore.
pongidae rex says
‘Allahu Akbar’ is the “Seig Heil’ of the 21st century. The contexts in which it is used, and the ideological goals that it pursues, are identical. In the 1930s Nazis wore swastika armbands, in the 2015s they wear hajibs and beards with too-short trousers. The sybmolism of the dress is identical.
Same monster, different face.
dlbrand says
Yup. In a word.
Gary Fouse says
This is highly illustrative. Here in the US, we are being subjected to panels being held by imams and organizations like CAIR each of whom are telling non-Muslim audiences that these horrors are in contravention of Islam. They condemn the perpetrators but carefully point out that these acts are condemned by the Koran. Of course, they ignore the verses that call for such acts, verses that were written later in Mohammad’s time and which abrogated all those loving verses written earlier before Mohammad took up the sword. But no matter: The Prophet Mohammad was a forgiving man, they say. When he was insulted, he made sure that the man was allowed to walk away unharmed. We are assured that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject these atrocities.
Yes, the majority of Muslims are decent and peaceful, I won’t belabor that point. However, it is disturbing to see so many crowds protesting cartoons and Western “blasphemers”while ignoring the terrorist acts, hate, religious persecution, and murder. Indeed, where are the thousands of Muslims marching and proclaiming, “Death to terrorists”? Where are the boycotts of mosques where hateful preachers incite hate and violence? One would assume that such imams would find themselves preaching before empty mosques. Why is it that in virtually every Muslim majority country on Earth, religious minorities are persecuted? Not just discriminated against, mind you, but flat out persecuted.
Why is it that a man like Yusuf al Qaradawy is considered one of the most highly regarded Islamic scholars in the world in spite of his calling the Holocaust “God’s punishment for Jews, his expressed wish to die fighting the infidels, and his calls for every last Jew on Earth to be killed?
I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy it. Not only are there too many horrors being carried out on a daily basis, but there is too much religious hate, too many mobs, and beyond all that-too much silence,
At some point, we have to believe our lying eyes.
katnis says
Is anyone offended over the mohammed toilet paper? Since it’s 2-ply, it must be OK.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=985_1378020268