…That is, if by “debate on religious freedom,” one means “debate over where it’s proper to kill an apostate whore, Allah be praised…” From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
A community debate over religious freedom surfaced in Western Pennsylvania last week when Dutch feminist author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee who has lived under the threat of death for denouncing her Muslim upbringing, made an appearance at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown.
Islamic leaders tried to block the lecture, which was sponsored through an endowment from the Frank J. and Sylvia T. Pasquerilla Lecture Series. They argued that Hirsi Ali’s attacks against the Muslim faith in her book, “Infidel,” and movie, “Submission,” are “poisonous and unjustified” and create dissension in their community.
Although university officials listened to Islamic leaders’ concerns, the lecture planned last year took place Tuesday evening under tight security, with no incidents.
Imam Fouad ElBayly, president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, was among those who objected to Hirsi Ali’s appearance.
“She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death,” said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976.
[…]
In some Muslim countries, such as Iran, apostasy—abandoning one’s religious belief—and blasphemy are considered punishable by death under sharia, a system of laws and customs that treats both public and private life as governable by God’s law
— and which, evidently, is like religious fly paper: once one comes into contact with it—even by accident of birth—one is committed to adhering to it, on penalty of death.
And really, what could be more peaceful than a rigorously enforced consensus—one that weeds out the trouble makers by slitting their throats? “Under sharia, the trains run on time! Or at least they will, once we get out of the 7th century and discover the steam engine!”
But I digress.
Sharia is based largely on an interpretation of the Quran, the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed, a consensus of Islamic scholars and reasoning, according to the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. In some countries, sharia has been associated with stoning to death those who are accused of adultery, flogging for drinking wine and amputation of a hand for theft.
One of the most noted cases of apostasy in recent years involved author Salman Rushdie, whose novel “The Satanic Verses” offered an unflattering portrayal of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed. The book prompted Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to issue a fatwa—a religious decree—in 1989 calling for Rushdie’s assassination.
Although ElBayly believes a death sentence is warranted for Hirsi Ali, he stressed that America is not the jurisdiction where such a crime should be punished. Instead, Hirsi Ali should be judged in a Muslim country after being given a trial, he added.
“If it is found that a person is mentally unstable, or a child or disabled, there should be no punishment,” he said. “It’s a very merciful religion if you try to understand it.”
Well, either that, or your head explodes while you are trying to get the idea of “mercy” and “peace” to jibe with a death sentence for “defaming” a religion one doesn’t adhere to.
Writes an incredulous Ace:
Can you imagine if non-adherents of the Religion of Peace began advocating openly in a similar manner for the deaths of Islamist “clerics”?
I’m pretty sure you’d be arrested, or at least subject to a roto-rooter investigation.
But adherents of the de facto state religion are permitted a bit more latitude on such matters.
And why not? It’s not like the guy put up one of those gaudy manger scenes in his front yard.
And besides, these people—from an ancient, exotic, storied culture—are entitled to do their own thing. It’s called tolerance. Try splashing some on, Mr Judgmental. Might keep you from sounding so pissy.
(h/t LGF)
****
update: Michael Ledeen:
One wonders what ever happened those people who wanted to punish hate speech. You know, the ones who wanted to expel an undergraduate (in Pennsylvania, if memory serves) for calling women “buffaloes.”
I hasten to add that I am not one of those; I am pleased to have the imam speak his mind. It helps clear ours, if you see what I mean…
Yeah, I see what you mean. HOW DARE YOU ADVOCATE FOR SELF-INCRIMINATION!
See also, Hot Air, Jawa Report, and Riehl World.
Notice, not “our” faith. “The” Faith.
Oh yea, then the death threat. Nice. Send him back.
Suppose you have your hand cut off for wearing a pigskin glove, (e.g.), would you then be entitled to say “Sod this Islam caper” secure in the knowledge that as you are now “disabled”, you would be exempt from decapitation under the mercy ploy?
furriskey,
Whether or not you’re considered disabled depends on if it’s the left or right hand. One more reason I wouldn’t want to be a washroom attendant in Tehran.
“And are you then a bailiff?”
“Aye,” said he.
He dared not, no, for very filth and shame,
Say that he was a summoner, for the name.
“In God’s name,” said this yeoman then, “dear brother,
You are a bailiff and I am another.”
Chaucer, The Friar’s Tale
Hirsi Ali might
Wouldn’t want to create any “moderate” Muslims, now, would we?
It’s good to see a paper covering this, but how much play beyond that and the blogosphere do you think this will get?
I use the right personally, which makes the whole handshake experience rather satisfying, in a sick sort of way.
Of course, anyone could cop the insanity defence. The very fact that you have apostased clearly proves that you must be mad as a badger, so they can’t touch you.
I’m confused: Imus is expelled from the face of the earth for a moronic insult; Harvard bans stage weapons from plays; this imam issues a death threat freely and publicly and isn’t arrested.
Nope, that’s all I got–confusion.
“values26″–how does it do that???
Poor little Imam.
He’s getting Swiftboated.
Now, lessee…
The pope can’t quote someone else who is dead and lived hundreds of years ago, who criticized Islam.
Hirsi cannot criticize Islam, since she once belonged to it.
Sounds to me like you can’t criticize Islam directly, indirectly, dead, alive, or whether you belonged to it or not.
The perfect contemporary liberal and fascist tactic: silence criticism. Throw in that most Muslims want all Jews to be dead, and I can understand why contemporary libs and fascists think so highly of Islamists.
Interesting that at Riehl’s site, the only defender is a lib. It’s the old “you’re cherry-picking their comments!” argument, never mind that this is something the guy said to a reporter. And that the guy’s the chosen leader of an Islamic community.
Meanwhile from the left, crickets. The tolerant liberal policy of conscious avoidance of intolerant Islamic attitudes continues apace. Perhaps ElBayly woke up on the wrong side of the bed or was merely hungry? I think I know where he can get a nice Maine ham steak!
Rob, stop cherry-picking Fliberal tactics! Just bend over and grab your toes.
Equally interesting (and just as predictable) was that bright ball that floated up above the eastern horizon a few hours ago. It appears to be passing across the sky towards the west.
This.
Is.
Who.
They.
Are.
This.
Is.
What.
They.
Do.
Being a complete leftie (as regards hands, not politics), I really had to watch myself when I sat down to a meal. The one time I forgot myself, you’d a thought I spat in the lamb chunks.
Nothing like creating dissension.
This story illustrates the limits of accommodation to Islam western culture can afford. At some point, religous tenants directly conflict with the law. You can’t beat your wife, plain and simple. You can’t commit murder. I’d like to see the left try and justify spousal abuse and murder as religous freedom.
I don’t foresee the militants ever trying to pass themselves off as moderates. I only hope that the blatant incompatibility of sharia law and western law is illustrated poignantly enough, early enough that we not embark down that road at all.
“Fortunately, Imam, the barbaric customs of your diseased homeland hold no sway here in the land of the free. Now – who wants a BLT?”
It’s hard not to applaud the imam for his frankness about the sanctions Islam puts on apostates. It takes some real guts to utter such a batshit statement as that to someone you know will publish it.
That said, ElBayly is clearly a major24 nutball.
Like Solidarity was the labor union any wingnut can love, it seems like Hirsi Ali is the atheist any wingnut can love. Can’t we all?
I have a friend who lives in Johnstown and is a member of the local temple. He is also a proud Murtha-ite mainly because of the jobs his Pork has brought to that smallish city. I wonder if he knows this guy lives near him?
Looks like we had a shift change in the pointless troll department.
Hey! Some of my best friends are athiests. It’s the proselytizing athiests I don’t like.
If you don’t believe (as I don’t)that’s fine, but why do you care what others believe? Why create your own version of religionless sharia?
Silly wingnuts. Clean your own houses before you go picking on a holy man.
Emma will take care of the Imam, who is simply suffering from a lack of rhetorical polish. She’ll teach him the proper way to frame Muslim grievance, so that he doesn’t get himself into so much trouble next time.
Least she can do after all these years of colonialist US aggression by the warmongering, oilsucking robber barons of the right.
What I don’t understand is why emmadine thinks it’s an issue that Hirsi Ali’s an atheist.
Whoops… atheists not athiests.
Anyhow don’t sell Emmadine short. She’ll be ready to lobby the Islamists for tolerance on behalf of atheists everywhere. I’m sure they will see the error of their superstitious ways and begin to treat the “spiritually challenged” with respect and dignity.
Because to deny the faith means DEATH!
I’ll take a ham and cheese.
Well, if someone threatened my life, thereby threatening the life of my family, it certainly would deserve some response to protect myself. Restraining order and any other legal means for sure, but in this country, shit can fly both ways and the aggressor should keep mind of his own household, before it like, burns down or something.
the aggressor should keep mind of his own household, before it like, burns down or something.
Eek. Not a direct threat, but a little close to the line, IMO.
Cuz it won’t be us “wingnuts” firing the first shot, yo. We got lives to lead.
“What I don’t understand is why emmadine thinks it’s an issue that Hirsi Ali’s an atheist.”
Isnt the capital crime she’s accused of apostasy or something like that?
“Emma will take care of the Imam, who is simply suffering from a lack of rhetorical polish. She’ll teach him the proper way to frame Muslim grievance, so that he doesn’t get himself into so much trouble next time.”
yes yes. the much better way for a theocrat to frame one’s dislike for unpopular atheists is about the allah, st. peter, the rapture or zeus or whatever judging said atheist.
But accusing someone of a capital crime because of their words? Terrible business this intolerance, this disrespect for mere ideas. Who cares who they dishearten or embolden, or what constitutionally defined crime people feel they commit.
Hirsi ali is awesome. Didn’t she lie on her immigration papers too? Whatever it takes. To immigrate to more secular, more progressive pastures.
All snark aside, how does one become a Imam? Is it like a degree or educational equivelence or informal vocational title? Likewise, is there some type of certification or or religious government to which Imams adhere or answer to?
Why, it’s almost as if wingnuts admire those who stand up, at great personal risk, to uphold the principles of liberty!
Hmmm.
I’m pretty sure that if I just started talking out of my ass publicly that someone needs to die, that the police would be coming round to have a word with me about making “terroristic threats”.
Did anyone understand anything in that last response from emma? Is it, like, free verse or something? Should I care?
I agree with emmadine. Those nasty, unwholesome, truculent peices of meat known as brown women must be kept in their place (and by in thier place I mean under a virile, mysoginistic jihadi’s sandal) by any means necessary. Where we part ways is that emmandine would grow greatly distressed if something similar happened to a woman who wasn’t of color or of a certain political point of view. But that’s okay. I’ll take my willing accomplices where I can find them.
Hmmm.
Well I think Islam is non-hierarchal, unlike Catholicism, which is why there isn’t an overall structure to Islam and why every bloody twit in Islam seems to have “Imam” or “Mullah” or “MulletHead” as a prefix.
Considering that Al-Sadr in Iraq has claims to Islamic scholarship, and he doesn’t look that bright to me, it’s probably a self-defined title.
So call me Ishmael. Or failing that, call me Imam Memomachine.
Just don’t call me late for dinner.
She had her head in the dialectic. That means context does not matter since noise having the mere appearance of a sentient source can increase dialectic agitation.
Should you care? Only if it actually gains political power. Then things like Cuba and the U.S.S.R. can occur.
No, why you think it matters to us:
I guess you have this caricature of a “wingnut” that you argue with, because no one here gives a rat’s ass.
Aw, c’mon, guys. Are you saying she’s not allowed to “disagree with [our] zeitgeist”?
We’ll make it a new form of address, here: “Dude, what’s the zeitgeist?”
Who wants to invest in my Mullah by Mail scam?
God bless you, Dan.
Vitamin C will help cure that up. Zinc helps too.
Emmadine your comments lack a logical flow so I’m having difficulty addressing your comment as whole. Do you like Hirsi Ali? Are your against this Islamist? Is this all sarcasm?
The one thing I do know is that lumping Islam, Christianity and Greco/Roman religiousity into the same basket is stupid and shows tremendous ignorance. The tolerance for atheism and atheist strains of philosophy(as well as other religions), stem directly from the humanism that developed in Europe as part of the Rennaisance and Protestant Reformation. This in turn owed much to the work Of Greek and Roman philosophers.
On the other hand Islam and the East, not so much. Progressives make so much of the pedantic observation that “we are no better than the other.” As individuals that is unarguable, but nobody is arguing the individual worth of people. The argument is about whether the ethics and sytems of government of one society are better than another. Judging by Imam ElBayley’s comments this merits some discussion.
Progressives mock conservatives for their supposed bigotry, then make reductionist comments conflating Islamists with Evangelicals and Zues worshippers. Are you incapable of self-examination? Or is your irony meter just off?
“No, why you think it matters to us”
Because its the truth. She’s an atheist that breaks immigration laws to get into more secular and more progressive societies. What a hero! Some of these societies don’t end up beign so progressive, and deport her based on these immigration law violations. Boo on them.
“I guess you have this caricature of a “wingnut†that you argue with, because no one here gives a rat’s ass.”
Arguing? I’m agreeing with them!
Because Canada wasn’t secular or progressive enough? And are you really attacking a woman for lying to avoid a forced marriage to a cousin?
So, basically, emmadine, you don’t care for Hirsi Ali, and consider our admiration of her to be some sort of hypocrisy?
Or are you merely incapable of expressing a thought clearly, and prefer to leave a cloud of snark behind you like a startled octopus?
“Because Canada wasn’t secular or progressive enough?”
It was holland, I believe.
“And are you really attacking a woman for lying to avoid a forced marriage to a cousin?”
I’m commending her defiance and heroism. But I think the arranged marriage was part of the lie.
In other words, yes, she’s attacking Hirsi Ali for wanting to escape the culture that mutilated her.
Assimilation must be a slow process for some. ElBayly has been in the U.S. since 1976. At least he has absorbed enough of our legal system to realize that head lopping, shots to the back of the head in stadiums, stoning, or hanging are not typical punishments for apostasy in the U.S. He also realizes that death sentences are rarely carried out with dispatch in this country, requiring endless rounds of appeals, often stretching decades into the future. Such a delayed timeframe for justice is not suitable for the Religion of Peace so therefore ElBayly takes a page from Al Gore’s book in the above quoted article and suggests that a program of RENDITION must be used to bring the Prophet’s (PBUH) justice to people such as Hirsan Ali.
And people thought the only legacy of the Clinton years was blowjobs!
Nope. Holland is plenty progessive. Which just means the liberty is one of those relative concepts to be tossed asside if needed to save one’s ass. Remember “Better Red than dead.” from those halcyon days of the Cold War?
She needed to go to a less “progressive” society where concepts like libery didn’t seem so archaic.
“In other words, yes, she’s attacking Hirsi Ali for wanting to escape the culture that mutilated her.”
See, here is the disconnect. I don’t think saying that someone immigrates illegally, or lies to immigration authorities, is an attack. Not in this case, when its done by someone that want to enter a more progressive more secular society in which to better themselves. I think more people should be doing this.
What on earth is em trying to write about?
Geez,
She’s advocating a very strict policy toward illegal immigration: if you lie, even if returning you would mean your certain death, you’re SOL.
No it wasn’t.
Interesting premises:
1. All “wingnuts” who are not on the Left are religious and intolerant of atheism.
2. “Wingnuts” who support Hirsi’s right to speak without incurring a death sentence are taking a position that seems incoherent to you, since you assume they are supposed to choose sides based on sectarian/tribal loyalties rather than principle.
Right. I think I get it.
The wingnuts could support Solidarity because it faced down a totalitarian communist regime.
The wingnuts can support Hirsi because she criticizes wanna-be theocratic totalitarians.
Really, I have no problem with that at all.
Basically Mikey, Emma assumes that we are all Christians here. And, following the law of identity politics that governs politics on the Left, Emma assumes that Christians should cheer when an atheist is sentenced to death.
I wasn’t very clear in my last comment, but I was trying to point out that this makes two false assumptions:
1. We are all intolerant Christians here.
and
2. We all take positions based on our identities rather than our principles.
“No it wasn’t.”
I couldn’t find an article that gets beyond what her family says now and what she said on an application back then. But apparently she wasn’t in hiding.
“She’s advocating a very strict policy toward illegal immigration: if you lie, even if returning you would mean your certain death, you’re SOL.”
Thats a terrible policy. It is close one implemented by Sensenbrenner’s REAL ID act: .
Terrible.
Emmadine, all Hirsi Ali has to do to prove abuse is bring a note from her doctor.
Mikey, emmadine,
The jihaid is the ultimate in oppressed freedom fighters. Supporting him frees you from the need to hide your hatred of the jew and the brown woman. Indulge your true natures. It will surprise no one.
Oh, now I see. She’s thinking that conservatives are being inconsistent about illegal immigration. Well I can speak for me at least on this. I would lie to come here also. I understand and sympathize with most immigrants illegal and otherwise.
Now as to the idea of allowing millions to poor over the border because of the social and gonvernmental inadequacies of our neighbors. That I’m not so sure about.
That may seem a little inconsistent on the surface but it isn’t.
There is no dispute over the arranged marriage. The false statements on herself application made it seem as if she were fleeing persecution in her home country, when in fact she had already left her country and was fleeing from the arranged marriage.
I think the gist of it is that Em just doesn’t like strong women. The Somali woman is the wrong kind of feminist victim.
Mike I think a better example would be someone fleeing Cuba for reasons of freedom and someone coming to America from Mexico looking for a job.
They should first try to be marked for death. Wanting to work, or get elected to congress, isn’t enough.
I’m thinking we see eye to eye Rusty.
Of course I’m not sure what conservatives alleged inconsistencies about immigration or Ali’s immigration status have to do with this post. Since it is really about the intolerance shown by this Imam in Johnstown PA of all places, and the collective yawn it seems to generate.
Yeah, man…like those folks sawing Volkswagens in half in hopes of floating to Miami away from a nation idolized in progressive sportswear…and those Vietnamese boat people? No different than the guys chillin’ outside of Home Depot. No separation allowed. We’re talking potential voting blocs here, people.
Because of the LABEL!
The way libs are kicking this lady to the curb one that think that Bill Clinton had raped her or something.
I think you have to grow a beard and wear a hat.
I am entirely consistent about illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants should be deported and any property in their possession seized upon detection.
I’m all for immigrants. (All but one of my grandparents was an immigrant – the other, my maternal grandmother, was full-blood Native American.) Page Emma Lazarus.
But the difference is a simple, but crucial one: each of my immigrant grandparents signed the guestbook on the way in…
No. we’re trying to determine what Em is going on about. I think she has the hots for the Imam. ‘cause,ya know, HE’S authenic.
Would it be possible to get a better quality troll here? This “emmadine” person is really lame.
Poor emma, so boring now.
How much more predictable can a leftist get than to, when faced with a choice between a murderous thug wanting to kill a dissenter against misogyny and people who have a philosophical disagreement with her who support the dissenter, her very first action is to attack those who support the dissenter.
Because, of course, people who don’t support her political agenda are far more of a threat than people who want to enslave or kill her.
(Emmadine’s crazy.)
Hey, I live in Johnstown (irony of ironies, Murtha’s hometown), and I never heard of the Johnstown Islamic Center, which, btw, isn’t even in Johnstown, but in a small boro of Windber. Given the number of armed yahoos (all of whom I love dearly) in that area, I think the Imam would have done better to keep his yap shut.
emmadine, do you know something about Hirsi Ali’s status in the US that we don’t know?
emmadine seems to be trying to assume the alfi mantle of deconstructionist gibberish, automatic denial and contrary asininity. Also he seems to be in the grip of serious mind-bending substances.
It’s a shame, because there are at least two very serious points to be addressed here.
1. Is a human who is being persecuted by a dogma to which she does not subscribe entitled to seek sanctuary in the land of the free and the home of the brave?
2. Is another human who has elected to migrate to said land entitled to bring with him the baggage of his murderous dogma of origin and to promote it over the clear law of the country to which he has immigrated?
Maybe emmadine could drink a strong cup of coffee and answer those two questions.
Just….wow.
<blockquote>Before anybody gets into the relations with Islam…you don’t get into the relationship with Islam […] what Ali did is called corruption on earth. It is worse than murder. She was disturbing the peace. That is not a peaceful life.
“1. Is a human who is being persecuted by a dogma to which she does not subscribe entitled to seek sanctuary in the land of the free and the home of the brave?”
Certainly. Though our asylum laws only give the AG the discretion of admitting them, not require that of him.
“2. Is another human who has elected to migrate to said land entitled to bring with him the baggage of his murderous dogma of origin and to promote it over the clear law of the country to which he has immigrated?”
I don’t think his speech was illegal. It might be in places without a first amendment.
“emmadine, do you know something about Hirsi Ali’s status in the US that we don’t know?”
I don’t think so, you think i’m talking about her immigration to the US?
Maybe in places without laws against issuing threats and inciting murder. But since this was in Pennsylvania, not San Francisco, there ARE laws against that kind of behavior, which DOES make it illegal, and you are wrong.
As usual.
Only when you were actually mentioning her immigration to the US, of course…
(Do you practice to be this stupid? Or is it a natural gift?)
TW: A real work of art74 percent of the time.
Clearly, his speech was illegal. But that wasn’t the question I asked. Would you like to try to answer that one, emmadine?
Is it your position that he is so entitled?
Threatening to kill people is against the law Em. Just so you know.
So you believe it’s legal to make statements calling for the murder of, say, Hillary Clinton?
“Maybe in places without laws against issuing threats and inciting murder. “
Threats and incitement, those are going to be read according to brandenburg v. ohio. You’re going to need direct threat, and likely to cause imminent lawless action. Thats not going to be the case when someone says that a politician or political figure should be tried for a capital crime and receive that punishment in another country.
Its not going to be the case even when someone says that about judicial action here. If someone were to say that ollie north should be tried and hung for treason for selling missles to islamists? Protected speech. Same with whatver politician’s words people are disliking today, whatever the bloggers are hyperventialiting about.
Now, of course, if you’re sending out orders to people, and they’re likely to follow them, that passes brandenburg. At a certain point of direction you become an accessory. Some loudmouth in Pennsylvania? Creepy. Wrong. Like most that feel their opponents should receive a death penalty simply for their political words. But not illegal.
“Only when you were actually mentioning her immigration to the US, of course…”
Because when I’m talking about lying to immigration authorities, I’m talking about the lies she told to get into Holland.
“Is it your position that he is so entitled?”
I dont’ think people are entitled to illegal speech
Well, this is where she lives these days, so I don’t see why you’d be harping on a Dutch issue, particularly when it’s been resolved and her Dutch citizenship remains intact.
Is there a particular reason for doing that, other than some visceral dislike of Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Or is that all it is?
“Is there a particular reason for doing that, other than some visceral dislike of Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Or is that all it is? “
I point to it because I commend her example. More people should do what she did in order to get to secular progressive societies and better themselves. It’s not tied to the United States. But we should be welcoming too. I’m happy we have her. I hope we take in more.
How about some Imam in Pennsylvania? At what stage, in your opinion, does an exhortation by a Muslim prayaer leader to his congregation take on the characteristic of a fatwa?
“At what stage, in your opinion, does an exhortation by a Muslim prayaer leader to his congregation take on the characteristic of a fatwa?”
I don’t know what legal significance there would be in whether it fits the definition of “fatwa.” I do know about the brandenburg test. You can too. Find brandenburg v. ohio in wikipedia, that will have a link to the opinion or just the relevant quote:
“the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
So in order to analyze whether this “fatwa” was illegal, you’d have to look for 3 things: intent, imminence, and likelyhood.
And what is the likelyhood of a radical muslem killing someone, especially in Holland? I mean, come on.
Looks like we got a winner, then.
Intent: he meant what he said; the farthest he’s distanced himself from the comment is to state that it’s what the Koran requires.
Imminence and Likelihood: Hirsi Ali’s received death threats from inside the US. Her collaborator on a film was knifed to death in the middle of a city street. There have been Islamically-motivated murders in the US.
There’s a reason she travels with bodyguards, and this “holy man” is one of them. He’s given religious sanction to anyone who murders her.
“And what is the likelyhood of a radical muslem killing someone, especially in Holland? I mean, come on.”
As a result of this speech in Pennsylvania? Yeah. Come on. But doesn’t hirsi ali live in the US?
“Imminence and Likelihood: Hirsi Ali’s received death threats from inside the US. Her collaborator on a film was knifed to death in the middle of a city street. There have been Islamically-motivated murders in the US.”
Imminence here is that people left the speech and went out and tried to kill her, or began to plot to kill her. And that they were likely to. Try comparing it to Brandenburg. That was a Klan rally—there have been plenty of Klan terrorist murders in the US—and yet that incitement was not immminent. Here the imam said there should be a trial and legal process in another country. Imminence is not how that is described.
Its a nice argument you have there. It just won’t work. It doesn’t work to say that there are lots of islamic murders in the US and thus this one is likely. The analysis is goign to depend more on the facts of this case. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
I have a question. Does this mean Barrak Obama should be killed since he is no longer a “practicing” muslim?
According to shairia(sp?) law, yes. As I have brought up before, I think it most interesting that the party of diplomacy first would pick a heretic to be its head negotiator. Not showing much sympathy or respect to the other, if you ask me.
It does work. It is such a clear parallel that only someone setting out to be deliberately obtuse and contrary could fail to see that.
I am curious as to why you choose to defend the hate speaker and attack the victim.
A brief excursus: the incident to which Ledeen refers was at Brown. Responding to late-night noise, a student yelled at the noisemakers and called them water buffaloes. He got in trouble because water buffaloes have brown skin, making it a racist insult. For this hate crime, they actually held a hearing. Weirdly enough, he was exonerated. These days, he would have been lynched, being Israeli.
“It is such a clear parallel that only someone setting out to be deliberately obtuse and contrary could fail to see that.”
Parallel to what? I compared it to the Klan rally in brandenburg. Clear parallel. That was not punishable speech.
“I am curious as to why you choose to defend the hate speaker and attack the victim.”
I’ve said above that what he did is creepy and wrong like most that feel their rhetorical/political opponents should receive death. But it is legal. We can’t ban that sort of speech that falls short of brandenburg incitement.
I’ve also said that what she did is right. That more people should do what she did. That she is a hero to be commended. But it is illegal.
You can figure out who is being attacked and defended there. All you have to do is understand the difference between right/wrong and legal/illegal.
The parallel is between the murder in Holland of her filming partner following a fatwa and the statement by el Bayly that she should be killed because of her apostasy.
Death threats are not “creepy”. This isn’t a girls school pyjama party. Death threats are illegal and cannot be condoned nor made light of.
And it is not legal.
I think my moral compass is a good deal more stable than yours.
Bleepless–
He was also accused on the basis of water buffalo being native to Africa, which they are not.
“Death threats are not “creepyâ€Â. This isn’t a girls school pyjama party. Death threats are illegal and cannot be condoned nor made light of. “
Oh this is illegal? Oh that settles everything!
“I think my moral compass is a good deal more stable than yours. “
Its not about moral compass. Its not about telling right from wrong. Its about noticing that right/wrong are not the same as legal/illegal.
Yes. It does.