Muslim Fanatic Defends Savage Murders by Fanatical Murderous Muslim Savages

Posted on Comments

Muhammad was a bloodthirsty polygamous warlord and also the prophet of a religion that commands the murder of non-believers:

USA Today caused a stir [Wednesday] night when they published a column from Anjem Choudary, whom they describe as “a radical Muslim cleric” from London specializing in shari’a law. . . . Choudary blames France for not protecting “the sanctity of a Prophet,” and says we should not expect anything else other than murder from Muslims when that doesn’t happen . . .

Most people don’t know what Islam actually teaches, and those who tell the truth about Islam are often denounced as warmongers, bigots and even “racists.” Islam is a religion not a race, of course, and Muslims of every race murder non-believers of every race. Some of the most dreadful savagery committed in the name of Islam has been perpetrated against Africans. The claim that critics of Islam are “warmongers” is even more absurd: Islam is at war with us, whether we fight back or not.

The most influential Muslim leaders are determined to annihilate every Jew in Israel and, because the United States is Israel’s strongest ally, America has been branded “The Great Satan.”

Nothing we say or do as Americans — no policy of our government — can ever appease our Islamic enemies. Even if we were to abandon our alliance with Israel, the resulting slaughter of every Jew in Israel would only be the prelude to our own slaughter. Islam commands this, it requires this, and we should be grateful to the editors of USA Today for allowing Anjem Choudary to tell us the truth:

Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.
Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.
Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.
The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national security.
So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?
It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world’s population was protected.

Damn your honor and damn your Prophet, you murderous savages.

“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786





 

150 comments

  1. John Quincy Adams on Islam [re-paragraphing mine]:

    In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar (mohammed), the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth.

    Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent god; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust
    by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind.

    THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE…Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon the earth, and good will towards men.

  2. Stacy, you seem kind of wishy-washy on this. Some time in earnest contemplation might be in order.

    In the mean time, perhaps feminism can save us…

  3. “Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. ”

    Choudary is wrong about this, at least in practice. He’s projecting a Judeo-Christian approach (that people do things as holy obligations because God commands them) onto Islam.

    Almost all of these terrorists claim that they are doing something *for* Allah. That is, that Allah is an impotent god and needs believers to act for him.

    In fact, Allah is different in nature from the Jewish or Christian gods in that Allah is totally aloof to the goings-on of man.

  6. I think you’ve got that backwards. While Allah may not need protection from the acts of men, he still commands the acts of men. His commands have no moral underpinnings in the western sense but that doesn’t mean they have no structural underpinnings. Murder and adultery are forbidden and immoral, but they are not forbidden because they’re immoral. They are immoral because Allah forbids those acts. Throw in all the caveats and there are no moral limitations at all.

  7. Freedom of Speech is it’s own virtue and requires no other justification, certainly not to these savages.

  9. ” Islam is a religion not a race”
    But it’s not just a religion. It is a totalitarian social, economic, educational, political and religious governing philosophy. In theory the Ummah requires no government other than the Caliph at all.

  11. Arrogantly dumb I might add and he has a legion of just as stupid folks retweeting in agreement.

  14. I agree with you McCain, but spouting off about what I really think of islam and muslims in general would test the limits of your patience. I’ll confine myself to just saying that, at the very least, I believe islam is evil incarnate.

  18. what a filthy degenerate Choudary is. What a ludicrous concept of God that He would be pleased with machine gunning unarmed civilians. The pseudo god of Islam is like the murderous Old Testament idol Molech. His followers will join the Molech worshipers in hell. Not soon enough for my thinking.

  20. These days if one tell the truth about something one is called a hateful (insert word here)phobe

  22. In social justice warrior-land the idea of an ideology comes and goes. Men=ideology. Islam=not. Lone wolves=ideology. Ideology=lone wolves. Gamergate=ideology. Radical feminism=the gals. SJWs are some of the dumbest stumps in the Western world, and liars. Honor killings=something or other. Rape=all men.

  23. Gee, thanks for clarifying nothing. Like I give a shit why they kill. It’s enough to know they do and in who’s name.

  24. “Radical Muslim” is the most misused term on the planet. A Muslim who kills innocent people in the name of his phony “prophet” is not a “radical” Muslim but one who takes his religion seriously. Muslims who do not believe in violence are ridiculous hypocrites who are ignorant of their own religion. They are the radical ones.

  26. So I just did some googling of all the usual sources: Memeorandum, Google News, Breitbart’s Big Government, and also several leading Republican names, specifically.

    You’ll all be shocked to know that apparently few of the Republican or Democrat leadership have anything to say on this topic.

    I’m sure the White House has released some statement calling it a tragedy. But since barack’s go-to plan whenever terrorism happens is to hit the links or go to a fundraiser to party, you know he probably isn’t aware of whatever statement his flunkies released.

    Choudary belongs in Gitmo.

  31. I have to admit, I didn’t understand the newspaper’s thinking here: were they genuinely taking the approach that “free speech” meant this piece belonged here, or was this a strategic “giving him the rope to hang himself with”?

    It’s more honest, I suppose, than the perpetual mantra that “real Islam is nonviolent.”

    I do believe that there are plenty of Muslims who have no interest in subjugating their non-Muslim neighbors. But based on all that I’ve read, I’m not sure that this “moderate Islam” is particularly consistent with their own scriptures and theology, and am wondering whether the “moderates” have any solid theological underpinning to their “moderation” — or whether they do believe that, in the long term, Islam should dominate, but the time isn’t ripe.

    http://janetheactuary.blogspot.com/2015/01/what-does-or-would-moderate-islam-look.html

  32. Well put. Succinctly well put.

    I believe this is why Mohammedism can be seen as an Ideology. Like an Ideology, it makes it’s own rules that have no basis in Reality, that do not take into account Human Nature.

  37. How could terrorists do this? Doesn’t France have gun control? /bittersarcasm

    One more time for stupid people: Terrorists and criminals DON’T OBEY LAWS.

  43. That is a bit broad. Most religions have some component of ideology to them. People have bias. The difference is Judeo-Christian is right and everyone is wrong.

    You can break it down further from there. As the Narrator Norman quoting the Reverend Maclean said in “A River Runs Through It”: “They were Methodists, a denomination my father referred to as Baptists who could read.”

    But don’t worry, I won’t shoot you, cut your head off, or even be a wee bit violent if you disagree!

  44. “In our family, there was no clear line between religion and fly fishing. We lived at the junction of great trout rivers in western Montana, and our father was a Presbyterian minister and a fly fisherman who tied his own flies and taught others. He told us about Christ’s disciples being fishermen, and we were left to assume, as my brother and I did, that all first-class fishermen on the Sea of Galilee were fly fishermen and that John, the favorite, was a dry-fly fisherman.”

  47. I thought they had automatic weapons. I also heard something about an RPG which should be available to the public but unfortunately aren’t.

Comments are closed.