From the Qur'an:
"He is who sent his messenger with the guidance and the religion of the truth so that he may make it triumph over every religion, even though the polytheists hate it." 61:9;
"He is who sent his messenger with the guidance and the true religion so that he may make it prevail over every other religion, even if the polytheists hate it." 9:33;
"Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah ... Fight them until there is no more Fitnah, disbelief in Allah, and all submit to the religion of Allah alone." 8:39.
The Prophet said, "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me [that] I am the Messenger and in all that I have brought." (Muslim: C9B1N31)
In his volumes of Hadith, Bukhari recounts the murder of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, a Jewish poet who wrote verses about Muslims that Muhammad found insulting, "He [Muhammad] asked his followers, 'Who will rid me of this man?' and several volunteered. Al-Ashraf was stabbed to death while fighting for his life." (Bukhari 3, 69)
The United States Constitution's First Amendment guarantees free speech. Offensive cartoons have been and still are part of the American culture. Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, Cabinet members, politicians, religious figures and celebrities are fodder for cartoonist whose work appears in daily newspapers, magazines and on TV. Yet somehow the media, who will scream if their articles or cartoons are censored, accepts that Islam is exempt.
A Muhammad cartoon contest with a prize of $10,000 was held and the award ceremony occurred on May 3rd in Garland, Texas. If the contest had been about any other person or subject, the event would have gone off as planed. Instead, two jihadis from Colorado drove 1,000 miles with real assault rifles (automatic, not semi-automatic) to kill the event's attendees. Fortunately, an off duty policeman hired as a guard killed both of them.
How did the media, politicians and pundits view this real act of Islamic terrorism? Did they place the blame on Islam's fundamentalists who demand supremacy for their religion? Did they point out that Islam's blasphemy laws violate our Constitution? Were the two jihadists immediately identified as Islamic terrorist?
No, blame was directed at the contest and its sponsors, American's expressing their Constitutional right to free speech. The contest provided an excuse for an act of terrorism, and American's were blamed for instigating the violence perpetrated against them. Does this mean that violence is now acceptable if one's belief has been criticized?
The Washington Post wasted no time in blaming Pamela Geller, for the deaths of two Muslim jihadis, killed by police while trying to kill Geller and other notables attending a cartoon contest award ceremony. Geller's sin was sponsoring a "Jihad Watch Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest" in Garland, Texas. The Washington Post's lead story screamed "Pamela Geller, the incendiary organizer of Texas 'prophet Muhammad cartoon contest.'" Noting that Geller is the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), and Stop Islamization of America, the Washington Post article describes Geller is a "wealthy house-wife turned blogger," who has become one of the "loudest voices" against the creeping "Islamization of America."
In short the Washington Post placed the blame for the attempted murders on the contest sponsors and contestants, implying that the terrorists actions were justified. In other words, watch what you say, or draw, the Washington Post concluded.
Donald Trump and two FOX News hosts got into the act by essentially stating the same thing. Trump said,
"It looks like she's just taunting everybody. What is she doing? Drawing Mohammed and it looks like she's actually taunting people...You know, I'm one that believes in free speech, probably more than she does. But what's the purpose of this?"
Greta Van Susteren used her monolog to scold Geller for putting the lives of police officers on the line at an Sunday event in Garland, Tex. "Everyone knew this event would unglue some who might become violent. ... Yes, of course, there's a First Amendment right and it's very important, but the exercise of that right includes using good judgment," said Van Susteren.
Later in the evening, Bill O'Reilly joined Greta in scolding Geller and the AFDI. In his introduction O'Reilly said, "Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid."
Apparently the media, bloggers, and politicians believe freedom of speech grants artists the right to create works that denigrate Christianity, Judaism, Jesus and his mother Mary, or to deface churches and synagogues with anti-Semitic graffiti, or for college students to stomp on Old Glory, our American flag. Where is the outrage over those atrocities? These acts offend Americans, but none have killed or attempted to kill the perpetrators.
Apparently, bashing any religion except Islam is acceptable. Americans must watch what they say, write or draw if it involves Muslims, Islam, and Islam's Prophet. In short, the message from the pundits is: violence trumps the First Amendment when Islam is involved. Police must not be placed in harms way protecting free speech, if it in any way criticizes Muslims and Islam. Do not offend peaceful Muslims because doing so could (or will) result in provoking them to violence.
This is appeasement.
If you accept that you must stifle your right to say or draw anything that might offend Muslims, Islam, or Islam's Prophet, you have acknowledged Islam's superiority. You have accepted Shariah law as superior to our Constitution, bringing you one step closer to becoming a dhimmi, a subjugated person under Islamic rule.
Perhaps we should amend the 1st amendment as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, except that insulting Islam or its Prophet is prohibited; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Islam proclaims itself superior to all other religions, and therefore must become the religion of the world; a world governed Shariah law and ruled by a caliph. Some infidels may be allowed to keep their religion and become dhimmis, subjects of the caliph who must follow strict rules, accept second-class status and pay a protection tax; others will be slaves. Every time Westerners cower before Islam's wrath, they have taken one more step down the road to dhimmitude.
Robert Spencer writes,
"The question is clear: are Americans going to stand for the freedom of speech and tell these offended Muslims that they're just going to have to put up with being offended, as the rest of us do, or are we going to place cartoons of Muhammad off-limits, thereby submitting ourselves to Sharia blasphemy laws?"
The battle rages on between supporters of free speech, those of us who believe the Constitution is the basis for all law in the US, and appeasers whose idealism blinds them to the danger of allowing religious blasphemy laws to trash our freedoms. It is happening on college campuses. A poster for a campus forum on the limits of free speech set off a debate at the University of Minnesota—about the limits of free speech. The poster, which first appeared last January, prompted hundreds of complaints from Muslim students and others for reproducing a controversial illustration of the prophet Mohammed from the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo. After initially demanding that the posters be taken down, university officials quickly rescinded the ban, calling it a mistake. Then the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action investigated and advised the dean of liberal arts to disavow the use of the offending image and "use your leadership role to repair the damage" it caused in the Muslim community. Damage? Was the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action referring to damaging the Firist Amendment? No, of course not. OEOAA was referring to damaging the Muslim community's concept of superiority. The poor things might have to contemplate that Islam and Shariah law is not superior after all.
College Muslim Student Associations, the forerunners to the Muslim Brotherhood in America, have successfully shut down free speech and blocked speakers. Only Muslim supporters and apologists are welcome. Shariah law is stifling free speech on our college campuses.
The sad truth is that Muslim immigrants tend to bring their religion, and thus their ideology, with them. Theodore Roosevelt expressed his ideas on the subject in a speech on Immigrants and being an American in 1907, "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Immigrants must assimilate, become Americans, and nothing but Americans, have no divided allegiance. Any person who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. Muslims must accept the Constitution is superior to Shariah law: Accept or leave. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any person who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.
It is time for Americans to choose: freedom or dhimmitude.