Posted on 01/28/2015 9:27:46 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. Quran 48:29
America’s greatest threat is climate change. Obama, 2015
Do not let Obama or Islamists deceive you: the Qur’an is very clear about the double standards and the discriminative theology of Islam.
Can we all agree on one thing: that it is never acceptable to put an individual to death over an insult? Would it be fair to say that exercising such restraint is a foundation of modernity? Among civilized societies, the answer is an unequivocal yes.
However, the belief that insulting the Prophet of Islam is a capital offense is nearly ubiquitous among Muslims, whether Shiite or Sunni. The only real point of contention isn’t whether the offender should die, but rather what gyrations must take place before their throat is opened to the afternoon air.
Many Imams and Muslim commentators who decried the attack on Charlie Hebdo did so not because they believed the murder was wrong, but instead that the miscreants should have been arrested, tried in an Islamic court and then killed, which of course is so totally different.
Does this mean that hundreds of millions of Muslims would kill over a cartoon? Of course not. It does mean, however, that hundreds of millions of Muslims are ok with the more “devout” among them doing so. Indeed, those we label “moderates” frequently provide financial support, certifying their approval by their silence.
Why? How do otherwise normal people go from zero to lunatic in an instant? How does a well-educated physician or engineer wrap their head around the murder of people for, essentially, being rude?
The simple truth is: because Mohammed did, and Mohammed (as the perfect man of Islam) is worthy of direct emulation in all things. Mohammed killed over insult, so Muslims today follow his example.
In the year 624, Mohammed was not without his detractors. Many of his contemporaries recognized the blood-lust that animated all of Islam after the Muslims relocated to Medina and did what they could to discredit it.
History tells of three such people who used songs and poetry and other arts to mock Mohammed, who quickly proved he not only had no sense of humor, but was also no patron of the arts. He ordered them killed for their insolence, and the precedent was set.
Now, fast forward about 1400 years and we discover that the lack of reform in Islam has allowed deeply anachronistic and utterly barbaric practices to remain valid in the mind of Muslims.
Among western nations, the ideas of freedom of speech and expression are sacrosanct, recognized as essential to the function of a free society. This belief is as widespread among westerners as the opposite belief is among Islam. To us, the idea of killing over an insult is not only repugnant, it is ridiculous. Sanctioning murder over cartoons is rightly considered to be seriously aberrant behavior among civilized societies.
Between these two concepts there can be no common ground, only a choice.
Here is where we stand and fight. Not against Islam per se, but against its totalitarian attempt to decide our thoughts for us. These violent attempts to veto our speech and expression are no different from previous efforts to supplant liberty with fear.
We’ve battled this sort of oppressive, stunted mindset before – Nazism and Communism – and have been victorious. The only difference is that this time the hoary evil is couched in religion, not just politics.
While the circumstances appear novel, the threat is distressingly familiar, begging a more consequential response than thus far offered by our leaders. It accomplishes nothing to decry the behavior in one breath, then excuse it in the next by admonishing free people to self-censor to avoid further disturbing the already deeply disturbed.
The warped principle of murdering over insults is the weakest point of Islam, the soft underbelly if you will, where even the most ignorant of observers will find it easy to draw the line. Unfortunately, our side is letting this most teachable of moments slip away.
Our American media quailed before the challenge of confronting this outrageous concept by showing the depictions that led to the death of 17 in Paris. They failed to stand against violent intimidation and through their self-censorship, they have granted a veto to Islam. Even our own President, through his spokesperson, suggested that he would use the power of government to prevent others from insulting Islam.
He claimed to be trying to protect American military personnel who might be harmed by the psychotic weird-beards who predictably explode over every provocation, but in reality, he is missing a rare opportunity to separate the true moderates in Islam from those who need to be removed from our societies. Permanently.
Before a Muslim can “radicalize” to the point of terrorism, he must first accept the idea that murder is a legitimate expression of faith. He has to adopt the thinking of Mohammed, that insult is enough to warrant death.
While careful observers of Islam have long understood this, finding a useful mechanism for distinguishing between Muslims willing to cross that line and those who won’t has proven more elusive.
I propose an acid test. Print the cartoons everywhere. Show them on every channel, again and again. Draw many more of them, and make them as available as a Starbucks in Seattle. Expose the Prophet of Islam to at least the same level of ridicule as routinely experienced by Christians and Jews…and don’t stop.
Many Muslims will be deeply offended (and I do sympathize) but they’ll have t0 get over it — just as Christians and Jews have done.
Those who don’t get over it, those that freak out and go “full Mohammed” on us will reveal themselves to everyone, self-identifying themselves as unfit for civilized coexistence. At the very least, this will force Muslims to reflect on their own beliefs, and to decide on which side of sanity they wish to reside.
Think about it – before you can plant bombs, commit stabbing attacks or join ISIS, you must first accept this most indefensible concept. It’s time to force the issue before even more lives are lost to a misguided political correctness.
“insult” = Any statement that doesn’t actively promote.
You can’t insult someone who is no longer alive.
This is just an excuse for the bearded savages to rampage, burn, destroy, slash, rape, maim and murder.
Whaddya think?
RE: Any statement that doesn’t actively promote.
So, are the following considered insults?
I AM A CHRISTIAN
I AM A HINDU
I AM A BUDDHIST
I AM A JEW
I AM AN ATHEIST
I AM GAY
Forget about it. The Western world will always be hated. These savages have nothing else to do but hate, kill and be miserable.
Radical Islam is a great life!!
” It does mean, however, that hundreds of millions of Muslims are ok with the more “devout” among them doing so.”
They ALL suck!
mohammed was a child rapist.
I’m glad you captioned the top one.
I thought it was a bear pooping in the woods.
Meanwhile, no one seems to worry one whit about offending Christians.
Islam defines it as anything less than absolute worship. Sort of like Kim Dong Ill of the NORKS: If you don’t go over the top and show amazing emotion you will be killed.
One can not Insult, what is it self an Insult.
“Does this mean that hundreds of millions of Muslims would kill over a cartoon? Of course not.”
Patently false.
Hundreds of millions of muslims have the islam virus so badly that they would happily kill over a cartoon.
All sorts of polls of muslims show that.
“Not Insulting the Prophet of Islam: How do you define “Insult”?”
The same way you know Obama is lying...he’s talking.
Very Islamic honor killing and Islamic suicide bombing is an insult against humanity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.