Not Insulting the Prophet of Islam: How do you define "Insult"?

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. Quran 48:29

Do not let Obama or Islamists deceive you: the Qur’an is very clear about the double standards and the discriminative theology of Islam.

Can we all agree on one thing: that it is never acceptable to put an individual to death over an insult? Would it be fair to say that exercising such restraint is a foundation of modernity? Among civilized societies, the answer is an unequivocal yes.

However, the belief that insulting the Prophet of Islam is a capital offense is nearly ubiquitous among Muslims, whether Shiite or Sunni. The only real point of contention isn’t whether the offender should die, but rather what gyrations must take place before their throat is opened to the afternoon air.

Many Imams and Muslim commentators who decried the attack on Charlie Hebdo did so not because they believed the murder was wrong, but instead that the miscreants should have been arrested, tried in an Islamic court and then killed, which of course is so totally different.

Does this mean that hundreds of millions of Muslims would kill over a cartoon? Of course not. It does mean, however, that hundreds of millions of Muslims are ok with the more “devout” among them doing so. Indeed, those we label “moderates” frequently provide financial support, certifying their approval by their silence.

Why? How do otherwise normal people go from zero to lunatic in an instant? How does a well-educated physician or engineer wrap their head around the murder of people for, essentially, being rude?

The simple truth is: because Mohammed did, and Mohammed (as the perfect man of Islam) is worthy of direct emulation in all things. Mohammed killed over insult, so Muslims today follow his example.

In the year 624, Mohammed was not without his detractors. Many of his contemporaries recognized the blood-lust that animated all of Islam after the Muslims relocated to Medina and did what they could to discredit it.

History tells of three such people who used songs and poetry and other arts to mock Mohammed, who quickly proved he not only had no sense of humor, but was also no patron of the arts. He ordered them killed for their insolence, and the precedent was set.

Now, fast forward about 1400 years and we discover that the lack of reform in Islam has allowed deeply anachronistic and utterly barbaric practices to remain valid in the mind of Muslims.

Among western nations, the ideas of freedom of speech and expression are sacrosanct, recognized as essential to the function of a free society. This belief is as widespread among westerners as the opposite belief is among Islam. To us, the idea of killing over an insult is not only repugnant, it is ridiculous. Sanctioning murder over cartoons is rightly considered to be seriously aberrant behavior among civilized societies.

Here is where we stand and fight. Not against Islam per se, but against its totalitarian attempt to decide our thoughts for us. These violent attempts to veto our speech and expression are no different from previous efforts to supplant liberty with fear.

We’ve battled this sort of oppressive, stunted mindset before – Nazism and Communism – and have been victorious. The only difference is that this time the hoary evil is couched in religion, not just politics.

While the circumstances appear novel, the threat is distressingly familiar, begging a more consequential response than thus far offered by our leaders. It accomplishes nothing to decry the behavior in one breath, then excuse it in the next by admonishing free people to self-censor to avoid further disturbing the already deeply disturbed.

The warped principle of murdering over insults is the weakest point of Islam, the soft underbelly if you will, where even the most ignorant of observers will find it easy to draw the line. Unfortunately, our side is letting this most teachable of moments slip away.

Our American media quailed before the challenge of confronting this outrageous concept by showing the depictions that led to the death of 17 in Paris. They failed to stand against violent intimidation and through their self-censorship, they have granted a veto to Islam. Even our own President, through his spokesperson, suggested that he would use the power of government to prevent others from insulting Islam.

He claimed to be trying to protect American military personnel who might be harmed by the psychotic weird-beards who predictably explode over every provocation, but in reality, he is missing a rare opportunity to separate the true moderates in Islam from those who need to be removed from our societies. Permanently.

Before a Muslim can “radicalize” to the point of terrorism, he must first accept the idea that murder is a legitimate expression of faith. He has to adopt the thinking of Mohammed, that insult is enough to warrant death.

While careful observers of Islam have long understood this, finding a useful mechanism for distinguishing between Muslims willing to cross that line and those who won’t has proven more elusive.

I propose an acid test. Print the cartoons everywhere. Show them on every channel, again and again. Draw many more of them, and make them as available as a Starbucks in Seattle. Expose the Prophet of Islam to at least the same level of ridicule as routinely experienced by Christians and Jews…and don’t stop.

Many Muslims will be deeply offended (and I do sympathize) but they’ll have t0 get over it — just as Christians and Jews have done.

Those who don’t get over it, those that freak out and go “full Mohammed” on us will reveal themselves to everyone, self-identifying themselves as unfit for civilized coexistence. At the very least, this will force Muslims to reflect on their own beliefs, and to decide on which side of sanity they wish to reside.

Think about it – before you can plant bombs, commit stabbing attacks or join ISIS, you must first accept this most indefensible concept. It’s time to force the issue before even more lives are lost to a misguided political correctness.

This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have
ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long,
easy to understand, and well worth the read.

The author of this email is DR. EMANUEL TANYA, a well-known and well-
respected psychiatrist. A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior
to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When
asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can
guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of
German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who
just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back
and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had
lost control, and the end of the world had come.
My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies
destroyed my factories.’

We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is
the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to
live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is
entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better,
and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the
globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is
the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting
wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or
tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire
continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder,
or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque.
It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims
and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to
become suicide bombers.

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ‘silent
majority,’ is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of
Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were
responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority
were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese
Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people..

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering
sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia
in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million

Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can
forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the
majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers
of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because
like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the
fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans,
Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have
died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

Now Islamic prayers have been introduced into Toronto and other public
schools in Ontario , and, yes, in Ottawa too while the Lord’s Prayer was
removed (due to being so offensive?) The Islamic way may be peaceful for the
time being in our country until the fanatics move in.

In Australia , and indeed in many countries around the world, many of the
most commonly consumed food items have the halal emblem on them. Just look
at the back of some of the most popular chocolate bars, and at other food
items in your local supermarket. Food on aircraft have the halal emblem,
just to appease the privileged minority who are now rapidly expanding within
the nation’s shores.

In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there are now
dozens of “no-go” zones within major cities across the country that the
police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the
Muslim community in those areas refuse to acknowledge British law.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group
that counts — the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

From the Hadith

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
We arrived at Khaibar, and when Allah helped His Apostle to open the fort, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtaq whose husband had been killed while she was a bride, was mentioned to Allah's Apostle. The Prophet (ﷺ) selected her for himself, and set out with her, and when we reached a place called Sidd-as-Sahba,' Safiya became clean from her menses then Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) married her. Hais (i.e. an 'Arabian dish) was prepared on a small leather mat. Then the Prophet (ﷺ) said to me, "I invite the people around you." So that was the marriage banquet of the Prophet (ﷺ) and Safiya. Then we proceeded towards Medina, and I saw the Prophet, making for her a kind of cushion with his cloak behind him (on his camel). He then sat beside his camel and put his knee for Safiya to put her foot on, in order to ride (on the camel).

The Muslims captured the Jewish town of Khaybar, killed the men, and took the women and children as slaves. Mohammad was impressed with the beauty of one newly-wedded Jewish girl(Safiya), and took her for himself.

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.