Posted on 01/12/2015 7:22:57 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
To helpfully explain the Charlie Hebdo attack to us, USA Today published a guest “opposing view” column from Anjem Choudary, a British radical Islamist preacher who is described as “a lecturer in sharia,” Islamic law.
And boy does he provide an illuminating little lecture. He clears everything up right off the bat, letting us know the totalitarian outlook of the Islamist creed.
Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires. Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
The title USA Today gave the piece is, “People Know the Consequences.” Mr. Choudary isn’t exactly threatening terrorism, you see, it’s just that it’s a nice little magazine you’ve got here. Be a shame if something were to happen to it.
The decision to publish Choudary is questionable to say the least, given that he used space in a national newspaper to issue a veiled threat of terrorism. On the other hand, his arguments are the kind that are not likely to convince anyone who is not already converted, and for everyone else, it’s a wakeup call to remind them that Islamists have no concept of freedom or individual rights and are perfectly happy murdering to impose their creed on the entire world.
And you know what? I’m starting to think there’s an element of truth in Choudary’s position. People should know the consequences. Maybe he’s right about that. Actions do have consequences, and people should be responsible for them.
Except that I interpret this a little differently than he does.
For example, when you shoot a bunch of magazine editors and cartoonists, we will hunt you down and shoot you, too, as the French just did with the Kouachi brothers. So people should know the consequences.
If Muslims in the West don’t make sure to educate their children to respect freedom of expression, and if they don’t rigorously police the radicals among them, they have to expect that they are going to experience a backlash, that they are all going to find themselves objects of suspicion, even hatred, that they are going to be blamed for the attacks mounted by their neighbors and fellow Muslims. That’s tough for them, but people should know the consequences.
If those who seek to indoctrinate Islamic fanatics, excuse their crimes, and incite them to murder—people like Anjem Choudary—find themselves shunned, hounded, imprisoned, or deported, they will now be really clear on the consequences, won’t they?
If foreign states sponsor jihadist attacks on the West, or if Islamic militants insist that the need for “submission to the commands of Allah” permits them to seize “infidel” women and sell them into sexual slavery—well, then, they just might find Western bombs falling on their heads or Western troops going house to house through their cities and villages, hunting them down. If they then scream about Western “imperialism”—well, they should have known the consequences.
And if some of these miscreants are captured, should they be sent to an isolated prison like Guantanamo? If they have vital information, should they be waterboarded and subjected to “enhanced interrogation”? It’s a nasty business, to be sure, but hey—people should know the consequences, right?
See how liberating this idea can be?
Choudary asks: “So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?”
In return we might ask why Anjem Choudary encourages radical Muslims to continue to provoke the West, thereby placing his followers at risk.
At this point, my readers will object that people Choudary are emboldened precisely because there often are no consequences for them. Don’t I know it. The self-hating outlook of the Western left is that every other culture and creed has a right to impose its own values, but we have no right to defend ours.
Moreover, the values we are defending are those of individual liberty and tolerance. So out of our own abhorrence of arbitrary violence and collective punishment, we choose to respond to our enemies with less brutality than they would use in attacking us. But the defense of freedom does not imply pacifism. It implies vigilance and a responsibility to use all legitimate means to protect it.
So perhaps we should take a page from Sir Charles Napier and tell radical Muslims: you may act to impose your values, and we will act to defend ours.
And there are a few more consequences we should keep in mind—the very widest consequences of our actions and theirs.
We know that allowing unfettered free expression creates a vital society full of energy, invention, and new ideas. Even if that means we will be attacked, even if it means we are going to have days when we suffer horrible blows and take painful losses, remaining free to think and live as we want is more than worth it. We also can observe that the kind of places that impose total submission to the creed of the Islamists are dominated by poverty, ignorance, and a pathetic, backward weakness. It is something we have taught them every time we’ve faced them in a head-on fight, and this knowledge is perhaps the real source of their rage against us.
If we know those consequences, we will know with certainty that it is better to fight than to submit.
And you know what? We also know that this makes our values much more appealing than theirs—and our civilization much stronger and more powerful than theirs. So powerful that we will win any conflict, over the long run. And the less we are held back by our own toxic self-doubt, the faster we will win.
So yes, we know the consequences, Mr. Choudary. Do you?
“So yes, we know the consequences, Mr. Choudary. Do you?”
Are there any consequences for him? I haven’t seen any. He hasn’t been deported back to whatever hellhole served him up, nobody has put a bullet in his head. His mosque hasn’t been reduced to rubble. He faces no consequences at all.
Status quo all over again.
Did he explain why it is that allah is so weak he needs human help to enforce his will?
I, for one, am glad USA Today published it.
People need to see the true face of the enemy.
That's because Chaudry is doing what his God wants him to do.
What does your God want you to do?
Turn the other cheek?
Pray for him?
Forgive and forget?
All of the above? - tom
He’s doing what his book is telling him to do.
I’m pretty sure that “my God” doesn’t want me to let my family die or become slaves for being infidels. If you think that He does, you need to read the Bible again.
Yes, all of the above, and to implore his repentance to boot... but also to protect the innocent from his depredations if repentance isn’t in the cards.
Why is he still sucking air?
Not yet anyway.
The guy is an abomination. I don’t understand why nobody has beat him into a pulp, yet. Here in the States, these Wahabbis get their heads kicked in (with minimal media/police involvement). That way, we keep them from making trouble for everybody.
Here it all works. Overseas, maybe the wahabbis are more numerous than normal Muslims. I don’t know.
I think something is wrong in Europe, because we don’t put up with that wahabbi supremacist crap around here.
If a Christian can be punished for hate speech for reading passages in the Bible which condemn homosexuality ...
Then can a Muslim, especially a Mullah, be punished for reading passages from the Quran which advocate killing infidels? Or Jews? or homosexuals?
Mack— Choudhary is the Al Sharpton of the British radical Muslim scene. As to specific quotations of the Bible or Quran, yes they can be used to inflame.
It is an interesting question— because in shutting him down, you could easily hand the left a permanent victory against religious speech they feel is politically incorrect.
That’s why I think the solution to Jihadists like Choudhary is not speech codes— but rather an honest beatdown.
I am obligated not to respond out of ego to injury. I walk away. But - I am obligated to defend the innocent through all means including violent suppression of evil.
If it is about me - I need to respond with as much love as possible. If it is about defending a woman being raped or a culture being raped then it is my duty to stop the rapists by all means necessary.
To walk away from either the woman or society is an act of cowardice and is the epitome of depraved indifference. It is immoral. Yes, Western culture is sick but it still allows the light. Islam is the definition of darkness.
Rise up people. It is time to defend the faith. Now, the message itself does not need defense. But an environment that allows the faith to be presented must be maintained.
Preach that next Sunday.
I live in Houston and we are overrun with scowling, hate filled muslims. There are no beat downs. No one does anything except cower.
I’m sorry about Houston. Here in CT, things have been a bit different.
We do like to handle things quietly though. Not big on the media.
Are they largely Sunnis in Houston? Lot of Saudi money sloshing around? That’s the usual symptom.
It’s interesting the way socialists approach theological concepts but when it comes to Islam they are not the only ones who refuse to approach the issue. That even includes leading Christian clergy including Pope Francis.
Followers of Mohammed not only claim, but truly believe that God has authorized them to kill those who refuse to submit to their version of God’s will. That is a basic tenet of that religion. A claim which goes unchallanged. While it’s understandable for atheists which most socialists are, not to approach that claim on a theological basis. It’s bewildering why any Christian clergy refuse to admit it even exists and is a basic part of Islam creed and worse yet are unable to condem it.
The Koran and its enforcement of sharia law is a pseudo religious concoction using monotheistic selected texts taken and misconstrued from the new and old testaments. Both of which followers under the severest of penalties are forbidden to read. That institutionalizes disgusting arab tribal views, observances,and customs. Claiming adhearants are authorized by our Creator to demand submission to it or suffer an ignominious death administered by its followers.
://www.theusmat.com/islamandfreewill.htm
BTW— I’m a Muslim. I thought things were pretty good between Muslims and Christians down in Dallas. I mean, life is good pretty much across the country. We don’t have issues with one another like in Europe.(By God’s grace)
Everybody enjoys each others company, or at the least, we all mind our business.
Didn’t know about Houston. Will explore.
Actually, you’re catastrophically wrong, poet. The modern day iteration of Islam is a regurgitation of pre-Islamic mores, that Mohammed tried to destroy. As much as Jesus tried to destroy the power of the Jewish elites who had reduced Judaism to endless legalism
ISIS is pagan Mecca, trying to garb itself in the cloak of Mohammed’s monotheism, with an almost Talmudic adherence to the law.
Basically, its the Sanhedrin gone wild. So, obsessed with legalisms that they cant see the forest for the trees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.