New Threats to Free Speech
The problem with Islam is that Muslims riot and burn and kill those who repeat what is already in their scriptures.
When the life and acts of Mohammed were written and documented by Muslims, it was a source of pride for them; but in the 21st century it has become a source of shame, and now they cannot go back and remove what they already have written about the actions of Mohammed, so all they can do is riot burn and kill anyone who speaks about it. Their prophet has done a lot of unholy acts, but speaking about Islam and Mohammed's actions in an analytical way has become a crime. United Nations Resolution 1618, "The Istanbul Process," sponsored last December in a three-day, closed-door meeting in Washington D.C. by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, attempts to make it an international crime to discuss "religion" -- code for Islam. This proposal to criminalize free speech was repeated in September at the UN by the Ambassador from Pakistan, its sponsor; and repeated again by Egypt's new President, Mohamed Morsi.
The scary part now is that the U.S. president seems to agree.
It was difficult to listen to the President of the United States recent statement at the United Nations, that, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." The president of the United States was declaring to the world that critics of Mohammed are wrong; that they do not have a rightful cause; that they must not be heard, respected, taken seriously, and that they will have no future in America.
For thirty years, I grew up hearing similar threats from Islamic sheikhs across the Middle East. They told us, "You insult the prophet Mohammed, you die" -- as the Islamic law of Sharia requires. There are still Sharia books bought and sold in America; they clearly say: "The penalty for insulting the prophet is death, even if one repents." What constitutes "insulting the prophet" could be anything minor, such as saying that Mohammed married a nine-year-old -- a fact -- but if the remark is stated in way that might be perceived as critical, it is considered an "insult."
Sharia law also condemns to death – or, as Obama states, "must have no future" -- those who leave Islam, or even simply state they have left Islam -- and why. Islam considers stating why a person leaves Islam also to be an "insult," as well as subversion of the Islamic State; it, too, constitutes a capital crime.
Even though Obama's threat was subtle -- he did not use the word "death," but instead, "no future," -- the statement sounds just as threatening, especially to former Muslims, who daily receive death threats from members of the Religion of Peace. After Obama's UN speech, this author, and several other former Muslims, concluded that we do not feel safe under this administration. And now we are being told by the President of the United States to be silent about the religion we were born in and escaped from.
A former-Muslim friend, who said he wishes to stay anonymous, went so far as to say that he was afraid the Obama administration could leak information about us, such our addresses. He said sees who members of the administration listen to, and can only conclude that the President is ill-disposed, if not hostile, to outspoken former Muslims in America. Leaks and other hostile behavior by the Obama administration have hurt many: there have been leaks about Israel; leaks about the Navy SEALS, and even devastating leaks about the Pakistani doctor who is now in jail for helping the U.S. find Osama Bin Laden.
Political power to the Obama administration has become more important than the safety of the American people, as the recent terrorist attack in Libya has proven true.
It was also alarming to see the producer of the video, "Innocence of Muslims," being dragged away in the middle of the night by American police -- conveniently, after Muslim riots -- for a so-called "parole violation." The shameless administration probably wanted a photo-op of the producer in handcuffs to show and tell Muslim world, "I am tough on those who insult Mohammed."
Now Obama has announced to the world that our constitution comes second to speaking the truth about a prophet. Obama is catering to a culture desperate for respect and legitimacy from the rest of the world; a culture that kills its own children, men and women in order to protect the shady reputation of its prophet.
The U.S. President should have learned the hard way from the events in Benghazi. Incidentally, the word Benghazi in Arabic means "Sons of Invaders." The President should have learned that the Muslim world will never love him just because his father was a Muslim; even if he were to declare that he himself is a Muslim, it will not matter to the Islamists because what they want is world domination, and anyone or any Muslim leader, who stands in the way of the Ummah, will be taken out, and "have not future." Sadat, Mubarak, the Shah of Iran and Gaddafi were all Muslims and we all know how they were treated and how many Muslim leaders were dragged in the streets of Islamic capitals by the savages if they deviated from Sharia law and were perceived by the Islamists in their countries as "Not Muslim Enough."
For four years, the Obama policy was not on the side of America, where it should be: he spoke softly to enemies of America while holding a stick to the American people and America's allies – not only Israel, but also Poland and the Czech Republic, whose defense shield he cancelled. He has been experimenting with America's adversaries such as Russia, with whom, as we all now know thanks to an open microphone, he hopes to have "more flexibility" after the election. He has been pleasing and appeasing the Muslim world while gambling with the safety and security of America. He seems to believe that his unique background will make Muslims love him and perhaps love America, but the Muslim world did not love either. He told us that only he understood what the Muslim world needed: simple respect. But Obama's actions told the Libyans that he trusted the lives of the US embassy staff to the Libyan people, and he refused to provide serious security in an al-Qaeda-infested area of Libya, the country he helped liberate. The terrorists in Benghazi, however, lived up to their name, and effectively told Obama, "Thanks, but no thanks. We would rather be the jihadists we are meant to be."
Obama's legacy will be empowering radical Islam, both in the Middle East and inside America, at the expense of American power and freedom of speech. Future generations will suffer to get back what America has lost under Obama. He never even achieved the love and harmony he had hoped for from the Arab street: it is just chanting, "Obama, Obama, we are all Osama."
Nonie Darwish is President, FormerMuslimsUnited.org, and author of The Devil We Don't Know.
Reader comments on this item
|Our politicians have kicked the can down the road for over 226 years now! [263 words]||Frank Livingston||Nov 3, 2012 08:10|
|Pray that Romney wins and will have more sense about Islam [43 words]||Diann||Oct 17, 2012 10:12|
|Liberty to the captives [189 words]||Joshua Schonfeld||Oct 16, 2012 20:00|
|You're so right! [63 words]||Michael Hefets||Oct 15, 2012 21:31|
|Obama is a nihilist [146 words]||Edward Cline||Oct 15, 2012 10:24|
Comment on this item
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Pierre Rehov
For terrorists, the death of innocent children is irrelevant. In a society that promotes martyrdom as the ultimate sign of success, the death of innocent children can sometimes even be seen as a public relations blessing.
In every action, intent is paramount. There should never be a moral equivalence painted between the deliberate killing of civilians, and a retaliation that tragically leads to casualties among civilians.
There is, however, one small difference: in the Middle East, reporters are threatened, except in Israel. Their choice becomes a simple one: promote the Palestinian point of view or stop working in the West Bank. Keep the eye of the camera dirty or lose your job. This show should not go on.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Since 1948, the Arab countries and government have been paying mostly lip service to the Palestinians.
"They have money and oil, but don't care about the Palestinians, even though we are Arabs and Muslims like them. What a Saudi or Qatari sheikh spends in one night in London, Paris or Las Vegas could solve the problem of tens of thousands of Palestinians." — Palestinian human rights activist.
"Some Arabs were hoping that Israel would rid them of Hamas." — Ashraf Salameh, Gaza City.
"Some of the Arab regimes are interested in getting rid of the resistance in order to remove the burden of the Palestinian cause, which threatens the stability of their regimes." — Mustafa al-Sawwaf, Palestinian political analyst.
"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders, who are struggling to survive. These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority." — Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
"The Arab leaders don't know what they want from the Gaza Strip. They don't even know what they want from Israel." — Yusef Rizka, Hamas official.
by Soeren Kern
European elites, who take pride in viewing the EU as a "postmodern" superpower, have long argued that military hard-power is illegitimate in the 21st century. Unfortunately for Europe, Russia (along with China and Iran) has not embraced the EU's fantastical soft-power worldview, in which "climate change" is now said to pose the greatest threat to European security.
For its part, the European Commission, the EU's administrative branch, which never misses an opportunity to boycott institutions in Israel, has issued only a standard statement on the shooting down of MH17 in Ukraine, which reads: "The European Union will continue to follow this issue very closely."
The EU has made only half-hearted attempts to develop alternatives to its dependency on Russian oil and gas.
by Shoshana Bryen
Proportionality in international law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about [equality of] firepower. Proportionality weighs the necessity of a military action against suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in the vicinity.
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable does not constitute a war crime.... even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)." — Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Court.
"The greater the military advantage anticipated, the larger the amount of collateral damage -- often civilian casualties -- which will be "justified" and "necessary." — Dr. Françoise Hampton, University of Essex, UK.