The Islamist Muzzle

We often hear that 'Moderate' Moslems are the majority and that terrorist supporters are a minority extremist fringe. However, when genuine Islamic moderate leaders stand firm against terrorism, we do not see majority Moslem support of their views. To the contrary, such moderates are shouted down and even condemned by Islamists, who seem to be the only vocal Moslem group on our college campuses.

Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi, Director of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community and a vocal critic of militant Islam, was a guest speaker on March 4th at the University of California in Santa Barbara. His speech, which focused on his opposition to terrorism, made clear that Palazzi considers suicide and murder of civilians to be an aberration to Islam. The remarkable Italian-Moslem cleric, whose support for Israel has been the subject of many articles, voices a minority opinion; yet he does not stand alone. A number of non-Arab Moslem leaders share his support for Israel. He often mentions verses in the Quran on God's Covenant with Israel; "Children of Israel, remember the favor I [Allah] have bestowed upon you, and that I exalted you above the nations". [Qur'an, The Cow, Sura 2:47]

I had the pleasure of speaking at the UCSB event in support of Sheikh Palazzi. I told the audience of the indoctrination of hate I experienced in Gaza as a child. One would think that UCSB's Muslims, who proclaim Islam as a religion of peace, would be appreciative of Palazzi's message. However, the Muslim Students Association at UCSB disrupted the event during the question and answer period, criticizing Sheikh Palazzi for not starting his speech by saying "In the name of Allah and his Prophet Mohamed." In doing so, they ignored the fact that the Sheikh was not addressing Muslims in a mosque.

Some of the students were holding Islamic prayer beads and clothing that is usually worn when attending a mosque. They were loud, rude, "in your face" and obviously did not want to ask questions, but came only to be disrespectful to Professor Palazzi.

Two men who claimed to attend an Afghani mosque used their time at the microphone to give their own speech against the Sheikh. When they were politely asked to state their question, they refused, claiming freedom of speech.

A female Muslim student expressed her support of terrorism by asking, "If not terrorism, what would Palestinians then do against the oppression?"

In addition, the Muslim students yelled "we cannot live with Zionism" and even told the professor "You are finished, man!" The Muslim students' leader then called on his group to leave the hall and as they did they were hurling insults at the Sheikh.

On the other hand, the other students in attendance, many of whom were Jewish, were extremely respectful and were going out of their way to be polite to the Muslim students.

Having witnessed this disturbing event, I could not help but ask myself a question: Why did these Muslim students choose the U.S. for their education? As evidenced by their attempts to silence Sheikh Palzazzi, they obviously have no respect for our system and the way Americans channel dissent. Whether these students are naturalized citizens or here on student visas, they should be sensitive to the U.S., which suffered greatly from the unprecedented terrorism of 9/11 (which, after all, was the product of the Arab culture of indoctrination against non-Muslims).

Having grown up in the Arab world myself, I believe that expectations in the Muslim world are often hypocritical. Arab Muslims especially do not reciprocate much of their demands from the West. They demand tolerance for Muslims in the West while their religious leaders call on the murder of infidels. They demand freedom to build mosques in the West, but prohibit the building churches and synagogues in Muslim countries. They jail and kill missionaries in the Muslim world, while they freely preach Islam and extremism to our citizens, even to our vulnerable and angry prison population.

Moreover, Muslims demonstrated all over the Arab world against France's decision to prohibit wearing any religious symbols, including Hijab, in French public schools. France is trying to keep their public schools free of religious bias; Muslim demonstrators want just the opposite. There is something very wrong with this picture and many Arabs and freedom-loving Americans don't see it. It is time for Americans to wake up.

Those who demonstrated against Sheikh Palazzi's presentation could have learned from his message against terrorism. Many U.S. politicians say that Islam is a religion of peace, but I sadly felt that the Muslim students at UCSB rejected the courageous message of peace offered by Professor Sheikh Palazzi. The world is waiting and hoping to see the humane and tolerant side of Islam, yet Muslims never miss an opportunity to prove otherwise. It is essential now that Moslems work to elevate their religion from being associated with terror and hate.

Nonie Darwish is an Arab-American freelance writer and speaker of Muslim background. Her website is WWW.noniedarwish.com and her e-mail is noniedarwish@hotmail.com

Become A Member

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

We have an interesting dicotomy here. I was listening to Michael Savage the other evening and he said something that to me boiled down the situation on this war on terror to it's essence.

We have a society, a nation founded on laws and freedoms that we all enjoy. Such things like freedom of religion, freedom of speech and such like.

Then we have a group of people who practice a religion in its strictest sense that advocates killing 'infidels' which to them are defined as anyone who does not subscribe to their religion. This group we can divide into to two packages, ones who are citizens of this country and ones who are here on visas, i.e. as guests.

Now, given this situation, we have those who are very serious about their Islamic beliefs. These hate and intend to destroy all who are not Islamic. These people have come to understand the legal structure of this country, the social structure which holds very dearly our freedoms. They intend to use those same freedoms and protections of our laws and set themselves up to plan and carry out their murderous schemes.

So, we have a problem. How do we defend ourselves or are we doomed to be destroyed because those who hate us have legal protections, privacy rights that allow them to carry on right under our noses. And we have these people who are preaching this crap openly at our colleges and universities and they have even the further audacity to tell us openly they want to destroy us and we can't do anything about it because of "FREE SPEECH"????

How am I doing so far??? Doesn't anyone else out there have a problem with this picture???? JimRob help me out here, Admin Moderator smack me, straighten me out. Where am I wrong??? What is THE SOLUTION?????

Where am I wrong??? What is THE SOLUTION?????

When that conundrum first raised its head at the beginning of the war, I began thinking about freedom of religion versus the Mormons. In 1890 after a nearly 30 years of court cases, the Supreme Court finally slammed polygamy as not being part of freedom of religious expression and sustained the anti-polygamy laws as constitutional.

And on this point there can be no serious discussion or difference of opinion. Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind. [Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 341-43 (1890)]

So, if a part of religious expression can be restricted with the justification that civilized nations consider those expressions - like blowing up women and children because they're Jews and Christians and inciting more people to become walking homicide bombs - to be crimes and if allowing that expression of religion offends commons sense of mankind - like extorting crowds that Allah commands them to kill Jews and Christians - then it is a no freaking brainer that freedom of religion stops when murder and inciting murder starts.

Where am I wrong??? What is THE SOLUTION?????

"Victory has a thousand fathers, defeat has none."

We win. The wishy-washy will get on board.

Their grandchildren will never know what cowards their grandfathers were.

It was always so and will be until the end of time.

If you doubt this, try to find some Kaiser Wilhelm sympathizers.

Thank you Ophiucus, you have brought some clarity to the matter.

You're welcome - BTW, the second paragraph was supposed to be a blockquote from the Court decision. I messed up the tag. Oops.

There really no such thing as an unlimited freedom. The basic idea being that my freedom ends where yours begins. Responsibility is the fundamental limitation to individual freedom. A society's fundamental codes of behavior, themselves codified in law, are inherent limitations to freedoms within and between groups of that society. So a religion can not claim freedom to act contrary to the limitations of basic behavior standards....like blowing up Jewish school buses because the religious writings demand it.

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.