1 of 1
- Admin
- Administrator
Offline - From: Lake Park, Florida
- Registered: 10/02/2012
- Posts: 2,013
Persecution of Christians, Denial of Freedom of Conscience, and False
Persecution of Christians, Denial of Freedom of Conscience, and False Claims of Hate Speech Is Standard Muslim Modulus Of Operation:
INTRODUCTION:
Muslims continue to try and convert Christians on a daily basis, often by force, but want to put to death any Christian or Jew that tries to convert a Muslim. They believe only in religious freedom for Muslims, BUT NOT FOR OTHERS.
They also claim any cartoon or item telling unpleasant truths about their false prophet, Muhammad or their religion is ‘hate speech.’ But of course it is NOT; whereas, they routinely turn out torrents of vulgar venom, in speech and in pictures alike, against those who disagree with them.. In fact, they spew forth an avalanche of anti-Semitic cartoons in their newspapers and media sources in many Muslim countries. Their motto is, ‘we have the right to spill forth vulgar vermin against others, but they have NO right to do the same.’
First, an article by an other will detail how Christian persecution is done daily in some Muslim countries and they consider it okay, but then, claim persecution of Muslims is not okay – a two-faced arrogant approach that should be condemned.
Second, another article will closely delineate what hate speech is and expose the Muslim lie with respect to it. For example, they call the burning of Qurans hate speech, but routinely destroy and burn Bibles – a two-faced arrogant approach that should be condemned. However, instead of condemning this two-faced arrogant approach, the President of the United States had the nerve to ask Pastor Terry Jones not to burn the Quran, but did NOT take to task Muslims burning the Bible – what a travesty of reality.
FIRST ARTICLE:
The Tip of the Iceberg of Christian Persecution
by Raymond Ibrahim
Investigative Project on Terrorism, September 10, 2012
Two Christians living in the Islamic world under arrest and awaiting execution—the one charged with apostasy, the other with blasphemy—were just released.
According to a September 8 report on CNN, "A Christian pastor sentenced to death in Iran for apostasy was reunited with his family Saturday after a trial court acquitted him... Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, born to Muslim parents and a convert to Christianity by age 19, was released after being held in prison for almost three years under a death sentence.... Setting aside the death sentence, a trial court convicted Nadarkhani of a lesser charge—evangelizing Muslims—and declared that his prison sentence had already been served... His case drew international attention after his October 2009 arrest, and the 34-year-old pastor refused to recant his Christian beliefs."
In a separate story published the same day, "Pakistani authorities on Saturday released a teenage Christian girl detained over accusations of blasphemy," for allegedly burning pages of a Koran. Up till then, local Muslims were calling for the death of the 14-year-old Christian girl, Rimsha Masih, warning that, if released, they would "take the law into their own hands."
Why were these two Christians released—when both apostasy and blasphemy are great crimes in Islam, punishable by death? Is this a sign that Iran and Pakistan are reforming, becoming more "moderate"? One U.S. paper, for example, optimistically offers the following title, "Rescue of Christian Girl may be Turning Point in Abuse of Blasphemy Law."
Nadarkhani and Masih were certainly not released because their governments are acting according to universal standards of justice or reason. If so, they would not have been arrested in the first place. Nor do these releases suggest that Iran or Pakistan are rethinking their Islamic apostasy and blasphemy laws.
The fact is, there are many more Christians imprisoned in both countries for apostasy and blasphemy. Unlike Nadarkhani and Masih, however, the Western mainstream has never heard of these unfortunate Christians.
And that's the whole difference.
In Iran, where at least as early as 1990 a convert to Christianity, Pastor Hossein Soodmand, was executed by the state, apostates from Islam are under siege. A few examples from the last few months include:
• A six-year prison sentence for Pastor Farshid Fathi Malayeri—whose crime was to convert to and preach Christianity[M1] —was upheld last July following an unsuccessful appeal hearing.
• Another prominent house church pastor, Benham Irani, remains behind bars even as his family expresses concerns that he may die from continued abuse and beatings, leading to internal bleeding and other ailments. The verdict against him contains text that describes the pastor as an apostate who "can be killed." According to one activist, "His 'crimes' were being a pastor and possessing Christian materials." He is being beat in jail and getting sick, to the point that his hair has "turned fully gray."
• A woman, Leila Mohammadi, who had earlier converted to Christianity was arrested when security agents raided her house. Imprisoned for five months in Iran's notorious Evin prison without any word on her fate, she was later sentenced to two years in prison.
• A June 17 report [M2] indicated that, five months after five Christian converts were arrested, their condition and fate had remained unknown. They were accused of "attending house church services, promoting Christianity, propagating against the regime and disturbing national security." Being imprisoned for 130 days without word "is an obvious example of physical and mental abuse of the detainees…. one of the prison guards openly told one of these Christian detainees that all these pressures and uncertainties are intended to make them flee the country after they are released."
• A young woman, who had recently converted to Christianity and was an outspoken activist against the Islamic regime, was found dead, slumped over her car's steering wheel, with a single gunshot wound to her head.
Then there are Iran's many other faces of Christian persecution, including the shutting down of churches, regular crackdowns on house-church gatherings, detaining and abusing Christians, banning church services in Farsi, and confiscating Bibles and other Christian literature.
As for Pakistan's blasphemy law—which calls for the death penalty—here are a few stories from the last few months:
• A Muslim mob doused a man with gasoline and literally burned him alive for "blaspheming" the Koran (graphic picture here).
• A 26-year-old Christian woman was arrested after neighbors accused her of "uttering remarks against Muhammad." A few days prior, some of her relatives who converted to Islam had pressured her to do likewise: "She refused, telling them that she was satisfied with Christianity and did not want to convert." She was arrested of blasphemy soon thereafter.
• A female Christian teacher was targeted by Muslims due to allegations that she burned a Koran. A mob stormed her school in an attempt to abduct her, but police took her into custody.
• A Christian man was arrested and charged with "blasphemy" for rescuing his 8-year-old nephew from a beating at the hands of Muslim boys who sought to force the boy to convert to Islam. Later, "a Muslim mob of about 55 led by the village prayer leader besieged the Christian's house," and insisted that "the blasphemer" be turned over to them.
• A banned Islamic group attempted to burn down a Christian village after accusing a 25-year-old mentally retarded Christian man of "blasphemy."
• A 20-year-old Christian man was arrested and charged with "blasphemy" after Muslims accused him of burning a Koran soon after a billiard game. The Muslims kept taunting and threatening him, to which the Christian "dared them to do whatever they wanted and walked away." Days later came the accusation and arrest, which caused Muslim riots, creating "panic among Christians" who "left their houses anticipating violence."
In the last two decades, over 50 people have been murdered in Pakistan for blasphemy. Even the recent assassination of the nation's only cabinet-level Christian, Shahbaz Bhatti, was in retaliation for his being an outspoken critic of Pakistan's "blasphemy" laws.
In light of all the above, why were Pastor Nadarkhani and Masih, the Christian girl—whose fates were sealed—released? Because unlike the many nameless and faceless Christians persecuted for blasphemy and apostasy in Pakistan and Iran, not to mention the rest of the Islamic world, the mainstream media actually reported the stories of these two in the West, prompting much public outrage, international condemnations, and the threat of diplomatic actions and/or sanctions.
For example, Canada just cut relations with Iran, citing, among other reasons the fact that Iran is "one of the world's worst violators of human rights." It was the very next day that Pastor Nadarkhani was "coincidentally" released, even as the Iranian regime, playing the victim, accused Canada of being "racist."
These two particular Christians were simply too much of a liability to punish as Sharia law demands—the same Sharia, incidentally, that teaches Muslims to be lax and tolerant when in their interest. While it is good that Western outrage and condemnation was fundamentally responsible for the release of Nadarkhani and Masih, the West must learn that these two Christians merely represent the tip of the iceberg of Christian persecution in Muslim countries.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Related Topics: Anti-Christianism | Raymond Ibrahim This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
SECOND ARTICLE:
Learn what is and is NOT hate speech.
Mocking Muhammad Is Not Hate Speech
by Daniel Pipes
FoxNews.com, September 24, 2012
To stop Islamist violence over perceived insults to Muhammad, I argued in a FoxNews.com article on Friday, editors and producers daily should display cartoons of Muhammad "until the Islamists get used to the fact that we turn sacred cows into hamburger."
This appeal prompted a solemn reply from Sheila Musaji of The American Muslim website, who deemed it "irresponsible and beyond the pale." Why so? Because, as she puts it, "The solution to escalating violence and hate speech is not more hate speech."
Islamists want to remove a marble frieze in the U.S. Supreme Court building that dates from the 1930s and depicts Muhammad as a lawgiver.
That sounds sensible enough. But does mocking Muhammad, burning a Koran, or calling Islam a cult constitute hate speech? And what about the respectful representations of Muhammad in the buildings of the U.S. Supreme Court or the New York State Supreme Court? Even they caused upset and rioting.
Hate speech, legal authorities agree, involves words directed against a category of persons. Here's a typical definition, from USLegal.com: "incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like."
Attacking the sanctities of a religion, I submit, is quite unlike targeting the faithful of that religion. The former is protected speech, part of the give and take of the market place of ideas, not all of which are pretty. Freedom of speech means the freedom to insult and be obnoxious. So long as it does not include incitement or information that urges criminal action, nastiness is an essential part of our heritage.
On a personal note, I have had to learn to live with torrents of vulgar venom, in speech and in pictures alike, from those who disagree with me; you don't hear me whining about it. More broadly, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and other faith communities in the West have learned since the Enlightenment to endure vicious lacerations on their symbols and doctrines.
If proof be needed, recall Monty Python's Life of Brian, Terrence McNally's Corpus Christi, Andres Serrano's Piss Christi, and Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary. Or the avalanche of antisemitic cartoons spewing from Muslims.
For an over-the-top recent example, The Onion humor website published a cartoon under the heading, "No One Murdered Because of This Image." It shows Moses, Jesus, Ganesha, and Buddha in the clouds, engaged in what the caption delicately understates as "a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity." As the Onion mock-reportingly but accurately goes on, "Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day."
I asked for the cartoons to be published again and again to establish that Islamists must not chip away at the freedom to mock and insult by hiding behind bogus claims of incitement. Name an instance, Ms Musaji, when biting remarks about Muhammad, the Koran, or Islam have led to riots and murders by non-Muslims against Muslims?
I cannot think of a single one.
When attacks on Muslims take place, they occur in response to terrorism by Muslims; that's no excuse, to be sure, but it does indicate that violence against Muslims has no connection with lampooning Muhammad or desecrating Korans. Muslims need to grow thick skins like everyone else; this is one of the by-products of globalization. The insulation of old is gone for good.
To make matters worse, Islamists tell us Be Careful with Muhammad! and threaten those with the temerity to discuss, draw, or even pretend to draw the prophet of Islam, even as they freely disparage and insult other religions. I can cite many examples of actors, satirists, artists, cartoonists, writers, editors, publishers, ombudsmen, and others openly admitting their intimidation about discussing Islamic topics, a problem even Ms Musaji herself has acknowledged.
To cool the temperature, Muslims can take two steps: end terrorism and stop the rioting over cartoons and novels. That will cause the antagonism toward Islam built up over the past decade to subside. At that point, I will happily retract my appeal to editors and producers to flaunt offensive cartoons of Muhammad.
Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2012 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
Related Topics: Freethinking & Muslim apostasy This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Two Standards – Muslims Want Laws Against Insults, But Laws Should Also Apply to Them:
INTRODUCTION:
Muslims do not like it when they consider others have insulted them, but they routinely insult others.
They also claim any cartoon, film, or item telling unpleasant truths about their false prophet, Muhammad or their religion is ‘hate speech.’ But of course it is NOT; whereas, they routinely turn out torrents of vulgar venom, in speech and in pictures alike, against those who disagree with them.. In fact, they spew forth an avalanche of anti-Semitic cartoons in their newspapers and media sources in many Muslim countries. Their motto is, ‘we have the right to spill forth vulgar vermin against others, but they have NO right to do the same.’
Ok, why have they NOT removed the items insulting others from their Quran and Hadiths. Simple, they like to insult others, but do NOT like it when they are on the receiving end. In otherwords, insult of others is okay in their dysfunctional thinking, but it is wrong for others to insult them. How utterly arrogant.
Now here is an article by others detailing some of the ways they have been insulting others for centuries.
ARTICLE DETAILING HOW THEY HAVE BEEN INSULTING OTHERS:
How 'Religious Defamation' Laws Would Ban Islam
by Raymond Ibrahim
FrontPageMagazine.com
September 26, 2012
As the Islamic world, in the guise of the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation, continues to push for the enforcement of "religious defamation" laws in the international arena—theoretically developed to protect all religions from insult, but in reality made for Islam—one great irony is lost, especially on Muslims: if such laws would ban movies and cartoons that defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, have to ban the religion of Islam itself—the only religion whose core texts actively defame other religions.
To understand this, consider what "defamation" means. Typical dictionary-definitions include "to blacken another's reputation" and "false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel." In Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.
However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC maintains that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam. Accordingly, the OIC is agreeing that any expression that "slanders" the religious sentiments of others should be banned.
What, then, do we do with Islam's core religious texts—beginning with the Quran itself, which slanders, denigrates and blackens the reputation of other religions? Consider Christianity alone: Quran 5:73 declares that "Infidels are they who say Allah is one of three," a reference to the Christian Trinity; Quran 5:72 says "Infidels are they who say Allah is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary"; and Quran 9:30 complains that "the Christians say the Christ is the son of Allah … may Allah's curse be upon them!"
Considering that the word "infidel" (or kafir) is one of Islam's most derogatory terms, what if a Christian book or Western movie appeared declaring that "Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God—may God's curse be upon them"? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the Quran defames Christians and Christianity.
Similarly, consider how the Christian Cross, venerated among millions, is depicted—is defamed—in Islam: according to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus supposedly will destroy all crosses; and Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, ordered someone wearing a cross to "take off that piece of idolatry."
What if Christian books or Western movies declared that the sacred things of Islam—say the Black Stone in the Ka'ba of Mecca—are "idolatry" and that Muhammad himself will return and destroy them? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the hadith defames the Christian Cross.
Here is a particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment, especially to the millions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians. According to Islam's most authoritative Quranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad is in paradise married to and having sex with the Virgin Mary.
What if a Christian book or Western movie portrayed, say, Muhammad's wife, Aisha the "Mother of Believers," as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam's most authoritative Quranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.
Nor does such defamation of Christianity occur in Islam's ancient texts only; modern day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree that it is permissible to defame Christianity. Qatar-based "Islam Web" even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity.
Now consider the wording used by Muslim leaders calling on the U.N. to enforce religious defamation laws in response to the Muhammad film on YouTube, and how these expressions can easily be used against Islam:
The OIC "deplored… an offensive and derogatory film on the life of Prophet Muhammad" and "called on the producers to show respect to the religious sentiments held sacred by Muslims and those of other faiths."
But what about the "offensive and derogatory" depictions of Christianity in Islam's core texts? Are Muslims willing to expunge these from the Quran and hadith, "to show respect to the religious sentiments held sacred … by those of other faiths," in this case, Christians?
Turkish Prime Minister Erodgan said the film "insults religions" (note the inclusive plural) and called for "international legal regulations against attacks on what people [not just Muslims] deem sacred."
Well, what about the fact that Islam "insults religions"—including Judaism and all polytheistic faiths? Should the West call for "international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred," in the case of Christianity, regulations against Islam's teachings which attack the sanctity of Christ's divinity, the Cross, and Virgin Mary?
Even Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti—who a few months ago called for the destruction of all Christian churches in the Arabian Peninsula (first reported here)—is now calling for a "global ban on insults targeting all" religious figures, while the Grand Imam of Egypt's Al Azhar is calling for "a U.N. resolution outlawing 'insulting symbols and sanctities of Islam' and other religions." Again, they, too, claim to be interested in banning insults to all religions, while ignoring the fact that their own religion is built atop insulting all other religions.
And surely this is the grandest irony of all: the "defamation" that Muslims complain about—and that prompts great violence and bloodshed around the world—revolves around things like movies and cartoons, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves; on the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns—in a word, defames—all other religions, not to mention calls for violence against them (e.g., Quran 9:29).
It is this issue, Islam's perceived "divine" right to defame and destroy, that the international community should be addressing—not silly cartoons and films.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Related Topics: Freethinking & Muslim apostasy | Raymond Ibrahim This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
CONCLUSION AND BIG DIFFERENCE:
Others do NOT like the insults hurled at them by Muslims, but they do NOT go and riot and murder people over it. The big difference, of course, is that so called Christians and Jews are civilized, and act accordingly.
Think, when did you ever hear Methodist, Baptist, Catholics, Jews, etc. rioting and attacking other nations diplomatic offices and killing ambassadors? Simple, never because they do not commit such mayhem and criminal acts. Also, these groups expel members that would act in such a manner; whereas, Islam does not, i.e., they clean house and Islam does not. But what can you expect of a religion founded by a Seventh Century criminal and highwayman who robbed caravans and murdered people (for details see )?
Now to know the truth, go to:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!
1 of 1