This Sunday Morning, before I share my thoughts, I would to share the following op ed which I read on ChristianPost.com, written by John Stonestreet and G. Shane Morris. I found it to be very interesting.
We think of Europe as secular, progressive, and confidently post-religious. But try criticizing Islam.
Should governments be in the business of protecting people’s feelings? Most Americans, I think would say no. The European Court of Human Rights, however, thinks otherwise. In a historic move last month, the international court affirmed a conviction by a lower court in Vienna against a right-wing speaker who criticized the prophet Muhammad.
Identified only as “E.S.,” the woman, at a seminar in Vienna in 2009, described the founder of Islam as a “pedophile.” According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad was in his fifties when he married his third wife, Aisha, who was six years old at the time. Tradition also says Muhammad waited to consummate their union until the girl was nine.
For describing this relationship in direct though accurate terms, “E.S.” was reported to Austrian authorities, who charged her with “publicly disparaging religious doctrines,” which, believe it or not, is illegal in that country. The Austrian court convicted, describing her statement as “a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance,” which was “capable of hurting the feelings” of Muslims, and of putting religious peace in Europe at risk.
After a lengthy appeal, the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed this troubling verdict, ruling that the speaker’s remarks about Muhammad were not only “without factual basis,” but went “beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate,” thereby putting religious peace in jeopardy. So, peace is in jeopardy because Muhammad is critiqued, and not because of how his followers react to the critique?
Set aside for a moment the factual basis of Muhammad’s treatment of his nine-year-old child bride, and the fact that child brides are still shockingly common throughout the Muslim world. The rationale behind these rulings is genuinely scary for another reason.
This idea that speech should be illegal because it threatens “religious peace” is a capitulation to religious violence. Islamic extremists are well known for rioting and even killing whenever they believe someone has “insulted” the prophet Muhammad. Exhibit A: Asia Bibi, the woman who was just acquitted by the Pakistani supreme court and taken off death row, where she sat for eight years after an alleged slight against the founder of Islam. Bibi now faces the very real possibility of retaliation or assassination by Pakistani radicals and remains trapped in the country.
What the European Court of Human Rights has essentially done is enact a blasphemy law like Pakistan’s, only in the West! Extremists who get violent over perceived insults have been granted veto power over citizens’ free speech. This, just a few years after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in which twelve people—including journalists—were gunned down in Paris over cartoons mocking (ironically!) the violent tendencies of Muhammad and many of his followers.
If guarantees to freedom of speech—which Europe has—do not include the right to say offensive things about religion, such guarantees are not worth the paper they’re written on. If anyone can shut someone else up simply by complaining of hurt feelings, your society is a dictatorship of the easily offended, not free. Caving to the threat of violence will ultimately embolden the violent, not appease them.
Protecting members of a minority religion from hurt feelings is unique to the West. Islamic extremists take advantage of Europe’s indulgence, demanding legal penalties against anyone who criticize Islam. They won’t, of course, ever return the favor. In countries like Saudi Arabia—the birthplace of Islam—a Muslim who converts to Christianity still, to this day, faces the death penalty.
Of course, religious tolerance and free speech arise historically from only one religion, and it isn’t the one founded by Muhammad. Those who think giving up freedom of speech will preserve peace in the long term aren’t insulting our religion. Just our intelligence.
Very well written and spot on, isn’t it?
European Leaders have surrendered their countries and culture to Islamic “Migrants”.
They should have listened to United States President Ronald Reagan when he warned that
To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.
If America’s Far left Democratic Party had their way, we would be in the same position as Europe.
Lord knows, Former President Barack Hussein Obama tried….but he failed. And, there is a good reason why he did.
Islam and Christianity present two very different Deities, who may share some similarities, but who have different identities and ultimately different standards. To pretend they are the same is not only to be clueless of the faith of 75% of the citizens of this nation, but, to be ignorant of an integral part of our American Heritage, the legacy of Christian Faith, which our Founding Fathers bequeathed us.
Back when he was a Republican Presidential Candidate Hopeful, Dr. Ben Carson, got a lot of attention from hang-wringing Liberals in the Main Stream Media, the Democratic Party and among the Vichy Republicans, also, when he said that a Muslim should never be President of the United States of America., because Sharia Law is incompatible with The United States Constitution.
He was absolutely right.
The Center For Security Policy issued the following PDF, ” “Sharia Law Vs. The Constitution”,
Article VI: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land
- Constitution: Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”
- Shariah: “The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah.” (a1.1, Umdat al-salik or The Reliance of the Traveller, commonly accepted work of Shariah jurisprudence); “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” (Seyed Qutb); “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” (Seyed Abul A’ala Maududi)
First Amendment: Freedom of religion
- Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ”
- Shariah: “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.” Quran 4:89 ; “Whoever changed his [Islamic] religion, then kill him” Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:57. In historic and modern Shariah states, Shariah law enforces dhimmi status (second-class citizen, apartheid-type laws) on nonMuslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, building or repairing churches, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells; if dhimmi laws are violated in the Shariah State, penalties are those used for prisoners of war: death, slavery, release or ransom.(o9.14, o11.0-o11.11, Umdat al-salik).
First Amendment: Freedom of speech
- Constitution: First Amendment: Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech.”
- Shariah: Speech defaming Islam or Muhammad is considered “blasphemy” and is punishable by death or imprisonment.
First Amendment: Freedom to dissent
- Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
- Shariah: Non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.
Second Amendment: Right to self-defense
- Constitution: Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
- Shariah: Under historic and modern dhimmi laws, non-Muslims cannot possess swords, firearms or weapons of any kind.
Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments: Right to due process and fair trial
- Constitution: Fifth Amendment: “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime… without due process of law.” Sixth Amendment: guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury.” Seventh Amendment: “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”
- Shariah: Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari: Muhammad said, “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” Non-Muslims are prohibited from testifying against Muslims. A woman’s testimony is equal to half of a man’s.
Eighth Amendment: No cruel and unusual punishment
- Constitution: Eighth Amendment: “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
- Shariah: Under Shariah punishments are barbaric: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” Quran 5:38; A raped woman is punished:”The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes” (Sura 24:2).
Fourteenth Amendment: Right to equal protection and due process
- Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “
- Shariah: Under dhimmi laws enforced in modern Shariah states, Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims before the law. Under Shariah law, women, girls, apostates, homosexuals and “blasphemers” are all denied equality under the law.
Given this incompatibility between Sharia Law and the Constitution of the United States of America, which our Freedom and our System of Laws are based upon, if given the choice, which would Muslims currently living in the Land of the Free and the home of the Brave choose to be faithful to?
Back on June 23, 2015, the Center for Security Policy released the following findings for a poll they took of 600 Muslims, who current live in America.
The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities.
Overall, the survey, which was conducted by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), suggests that a substantial number of Muslims living in the United States see the country very differently than does the population overall. The sentiments of the latter were sampled in late May in another CSP-commissioned Polling Company nationwide survey.
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.
These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey. It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”
Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.
In conclusion, I am not saying that every Muslim is on a jihad against “the infidels”, and, wish to invade our Sovereign Nation and over-throw our Government.
However, there is a difference between being an average Christian American and a Muslim, living in America.
When Christians become “radicalized”, we want to share the testimony of what God has done for us through His love, with everyone we meet. We get involved in our local church and we become better fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and American Citizens.
When Muslims become “radicalized”, they want to “kill the Infidels” in the name of “Allah the Merciful”.
In the case of the Chechen Muslim brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon, their immersion into Radical Islam led them to “kill the infidels” that horrendous day.
In the case of the barbarians of ISIS, it turned them into doppelgangers of the Nazi Butchers of Dachau.
For Liberal leaders in both Europe and America to deny that, is disingenuous at best, and just plain dangerous at worst.
Until He Comes,