Posted on 01/24/2005 9:07:31 PM PST by indcons
A note on the Armanious case
At Jihad Watch we have received a large number of inquiries, both sober and frenzied, about the Coptic family found murdered in Jersey City last week.
As is well known, the Copts in Jersey City and elsewhere have many suspicions about this crime. But when they have voiced these suspicions, they have been frequently denounced as Islamophobes; an all-purpose term of abuse used to silence criticism of Islam and of Muslims. And Hudson County Prosecutor Edward DeFazio is dismissive of the idea that the killings were religiously motivated: “Is it possible? Yes. Do we have anything that gives us reason to believe this is what it was, factually? No. Nothing indicates that was the prime motivation for this. That we can clearly say.”
Nothing? Law enforcement officials have received information from at least one Copt; a close friend of the Armanious family — indicating that the crime was indeed religiously motivated. This family friend has said that an imam in Jersey City declared this Christian family’s blood “halal,” (i.e., licit to shed), because of their proselytizing activities among Muslims. He has named — by name — a suspect in this crime, whose motive was religious and who has fled the country.
Perhaps there is nothing to this. Perhaps the man who has fled is innocent. But even if he is, the Copts have had perfectly cogent reasons for their suspicions. The Armanious family was outspoken in trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. Hossam Armanious vigorously spread his faith at PalTalk, and his 15-year-old daughter Sylvia displayed similar zeal at Dickinson High School. There is credible evidence that for this activity the family received a death threat. In light of all that, it may be that what needs to be justified is the idea that their deaths were in fact unrelated to that proselytizing activity. Islamic law, the Sharia, has traditionally made it a capital offense both for a Muslim to leave Islam, and for a non-Muslim to attempt to convert a Muslim. Many Muslims take such laws very seriously. The Theo van Gogh murder in the Netherlands indicates that at least some will not hesitate to enforce Sharia penalties even in the lands of the infidels.
But if the killer is never caught, which is a distinct possibility since he could be half a world away by now, Muslim spokesmen will attribute the suspicions of the Copts to a “climate of hysteria” against Muslims, and portray themselves — as they do so often — as victims.
Still, a larger question remains. If the Armanious family did in fact receive a death threat related to their proselytizing on Pal Talk, what are the implications for our free society? If the murders were indeed, as many Copts suspect, a warning to them not to proselytize among Muslims, what does that mean for the free exchange of ideas that has always been one of the central values perhaps the central value of the American polity?
The mainstream media has done a poor job of covering this case. It has not bothered to explain that the difficulties Copts experience in Egypt are not old or even centuries-old (as the New York Times put it); they are as old as when the Muslim invaders first conquered Coptic Christian Egypt. They don't come from anything Copts have said or done to Muslims, but from the supremacist nature of Islamic beliefs. But in the media in general there has been no understanding of this and no discussion of the Sharia or of how apostates in Islam are to be treated, or of what punishment is to be meted out to those who dare (as the Armanious family dared) not to act as the despised and cowed minority they were in Egypt, but as free and equal and proud citizens of this country.
No statement has come from the Hudson County Prosecutors Office that shows any sign that that Office has considered these questions, or fully investigated the Copts' suspicions and allegations. This may not have been a Sharia-inspired killing on American soil, but nothing that has yet come from Edward DeFazio or anyone else seems to deal adequately with the indications that it was. White House Wilsonians seem intent on bringing democracy to Iraq, as if that will somehow solve the problem of Islam, and of the jihad that they persist in identifying solely by one of its tools, terrorism. Meanwhile, an unknown number of Muslims in the United States; possibly including the killer of the Armanious family; are working to solve the problems of Islam by laboring, in one way or another, to bring Sharia to this country.
But few are paying attention to that.
arab and persian moslems that i've known in los angeles tend to identify with american blacks, even tho' they come from the middle or upper classes of mid-east countries and have sought safety for their monies in the states.
they feel discriminated against on historical grounds of colonization.
copts that i've known tend to be, in contrast to moslems, quieter. they keep a lower profile because of historical persecution by moslems in egypt.
but in contrast to moslems, whom i've known by scads, i've only known one copt family. he was my egyptian hierogyphics teacher in college. he did not teach. he said next to nothing.
when the egyptian copt family had their baby a local church provided assistance because the mother knew nothing about infant care.
copts are not allowed to participate in egyptian society.
that's right.
but see how the american left's "victimhood" is spread around the world, convenient to hate whitey and the abstract big, bad america in general.
Shame on our stalwart guardians of equal rights - the mainstream media & civil rights industry - for ignoring this watermark tragedy.
If they don't stand against what really is brutal oppression, at last a modern example of a real lynching and clear example of what they adoringly call a 'hate crime' - their self proclaimed raison d'etre - WTH good are they?
Worthless pretenders.
Jan:
Hopefully the AG will let all the facts be known in due time.
Sadly, I do not see that happening as all the politicos are worried that might cause people to see islam as something other than a 'religion' of 'peace'.
In the end, as we well know, this is pulling a Neville Chamberlain appeasement act---getting the people to believe that 'peace' with the islamofascists will exist 'in our time' This will only cause further and larger problems down the road.
Hopefully the Copts will make sure that the truth comes out for all to see, so that folks can make up their own minds.
One can hope for that, at least....
FAS
Amen!
We must NEVER Forget---or we WILL repeat!
Of course, there are still those apologists here that think that Islam is sooooo peaceful that it's misunderstood. The ones that claim that not trusting islam makes us racists.....
*sigh*
Chemistry Geek should be along soon spreading his deceptions and falsehoods and trying to defend the indefensible.
An excellent point that no doubt will fall on some deaf ears.
Typical of the left is the desire to claim bigotry and racist---just to attempt to stifle free speech and opinion.
Certain people on this thread have attempted it for even more sinister reasons, or so I think.
Imagine this: A person that posts at FR who is actually a person looking to shut FR down---if they claim racism enough, that could very possible give others the reason, evenwithout any merit, to do so.
This would be awful by virtue of not only being a lie---but also by squelching freedom of speech.
In a larger, NATIONAL sense, if someone were too intimidated to report a 'odd' happening(s) for fear of being labelled as such--we might end up with another 9/11.
And THAT is frightening........
See the following:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327823/posts?page=58#58
post 54
It says pretty much how I feel about the troll
If the accusation of bigotry were accurate, it would be a reasonable and, possibly, effective defense. Since, in this case, it is untrue, it is only a personal attack masquerading as a legitimate defense.
The best defense against a personal attack is to either ignore it and let it be seen for what it is or respond calmly with an empirical argument.
In this case, it strikes me that the accuser knows the accusation is unfounded but, with no way of winning the argument legitimately, the accuser is trying to destroy the debate itself by reducing it to a name calling contest (which is a victory of sorts).
Cooler heads prevail. LOL
See my 53 on that thread. Are you currently on a sub?
Really! The apologists can't win, so they are trying to ruin the debate, hoping that onlookers get bored and leave.
You know they can't ruin our debate because we have the Truth on our side. ;0)
No, I'm retired.
:-(
My elder boy is finishing up Nuke training down in Charleston and will enter Prototype training this spring probably in NY state. He is sick of all the training since they are pumping knowledge in with a fire hose.
Please do not change titles.
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.