USA Today column: Why did France allow satirists to attack Mohammed?

[Valin]

Hot Air:

Ed Morrissey

January 8, 2015

 

USA Today caused a stir last night when they published a column from Anjem Choudary, whom they describe as “a radical Muslim cleric” from London specializing in shari’a law. Earlier in the day, the Financial Times attracted a raft of criticism for publishing a column that insinuated that Charlie Hebdo‘s staff brought on their massacre themselves, but Choudary doesn’t even bother with a sop to free speech, which he dismisses as a non-Islamic concept. Instead, Choudary blames France for not protecting “the sanctity of a Prophet,” and says we should not expect anything else other than murder from Muslims when that doesn’t happen:

 

 

Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”

 

However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.

 

 

Critics slammed USA Today for publishing Choudary at all, but it might have been a public service. Critics of militant Islam had been making this same argument in the aftermath of the massacre in Paris, only to get accused of Islamophobia. It’s interesting to see one of the prominent Islamists in Europe make that same case, and to argue that “many” of his co-religionists don’t feel themselves bound to the laws of the nations in which they live. How many, of course, is up for debate, and it’s worth noting that Choudary isn’t exactly leading a throng.

 

(Snip)

 

[snowfall]

Many years ago, right around 9/11 that Bridget Gabriel was telling someone on foxnews about ever creaping sharia. At the time I thought to myself, no way I would live long enough to see it. Yet here I am.

[Valin]

Many years ago, right around 9/11 that Bridget Gabriel was telling someone on foxnews about ever creaping sharia. At the time I thought to myself, no way I would live long enough to see it. Yet here I am.

 

 

Thing is there is a difference between want something & having an icecubes prayer in hell of getting it.

[Valin]

Homegrown terrorists and what to do about them

Paul Mirengoff

January 8, 2015

 

Andy McCarthy has written two good posts taking on the concept of homegrown terrorism. Andy argues that what grows a terrorist in Paris or New York, London, Madrid, Hamburg, etc. is not his environs; it is Islamic supremacist ideology which is decidedly non-Western.

 

Moreover, to suggest that terrorists residing in the West are homegrown is to imply that it is something innate in America (and the West) that is catalyzing extremism our culture, our economy, our foreign policy, our past sins, etc. This, says Andy, is willful blindness. In reality, the extremism is of a very specific kind Islamic extremism. It is catalyzed not by the West but by the anti-West Islamist ideology.

 

All true. But Muslims living in the West compare that anti-West Islamist ideology to the prevailing ideologies they encounter in, say, America.

 

On a radio interview with Andy this morning, Bill Bennett argued that anti-West Islamist ideology is succeeding with Muslims in the West because the West has lost its cultural confidence. Andy takes the point. As he puts it:

 

 

Western education and popular culture inculcates in students the belief that Western principles and the policies of Western governments are the main cause of the worlds problems that they are more of a threat than violent extremists who are simply reacting to oppression.

 

The Wests lack of cultural confidence may be contributing to the radicalization of young Muslims in western countries. But I doubt that even a culturally confident West would prevent that a substantial amount of radicalization.

 

(Snip)

[Cyber_Liberty]

I have no problem with USA Today printing this. We have free speech, and that's the whole point. As the author points out, they're doing us all a service by letting the Imams themselves illustrate their deficiencies.

[Valin]

I have no problem with USA Today printing this. We have free speech, and that's the whole point. As the author points out, they're doing us all a service by letting the Imams themselves illustrate their deficiencies.

 

Good Point.

 

And You're right they do have the right to print this.....just as I have the right to call this guy a slimy POS

[SrWoodchuck]

 

I have no problem with USA Today printing this. We have free speech, and that's the whole point. As the author points out, they're doing us all a service by letting the Imams themselves illustrate their deficiencies.

 

Good Point.

 

And You're right they do have the right to print this.....just as I have the right to call this guy a slimy POS

 

 

Yeah, I don't have a problem with publishing it either. It's in the Bill of Rights...when it's convenient & falls into lock-step with the authorized government position.

 

I'll just pretend that we have an unco-opted "fourth estate" that rigorously pincushions all political entities....and then let's readers make up their minds based on those obscure things called facts, instead of feelings.

 

As long as we have the PC progressive media to continually chastise our clunky & backward beliefs...we'll continue to need their reminder that Islam is "peaceful"...but has every right to cut your head off with a dull knife...on purpose...because they'll brook no satire about their right to do so....or their 7th Century murdering pedophile, "perfect man."

[righteousmomma]

USA Today caused a stir last night when they published a column from Anjem Choudary, whom they describe as “a radical Muslim cleric” from London specializing in shari’a law.

 

 

I have no problem with USA Today printing this. We have free speech, and that's the whole point. As the author points out, they're doing us all a service by letting the Imams themselves illustrate their deficiencies.

 

 

Moreover, to suggest that terrorists residing in the West are homegrown is to imply that it is something innate in America (and the West) that is catalyzing extremism our culture, our economy, our foreign policy, our past sins, etc. This, says Andy, is willful blindness. In reality, the extremism is of a very specific kind Islamic extremism. It is catalyzed not by the West but by the anti-West Islamist ideology.

Hear! Hear!

Several times in the last couple days and again this morning while watching Fox cover the scene in Dammartin - en - Goele several "expert" pundits have said that these guys (and 1000s of others) have arisen because of France 's failure to "culture rize" Muslims into French society.

While there are some valid aspects to the reality of this kind of thinking.............

"anti-West Islamist ideology" plus hard core jihad believers with more being radicalized every day makes culture integration jargon sound naive with

[Valin]

Destruction Because of Offense
Erick Erickson

Jan 09, 2015

 

It is a growing phenomenon, and it was on visible display last week. A group of terrorists was so offended by a publisher that the publisher had to be destroyed publicly as both an act of vengeance and an act of instruction.

 

The act of vengeance was directed against the publisher directly. He came under attack for his personal actions. He published something that offended the group. He published something that enraged them and, consequently, he needed to be punished.

 

(Snip)

 

While much of the world focused on terrorists killing cartoonists in France for offending their religion, last week in Atlanta, Georgia, the mayor of Atlanta fired the city's fire chief, Kelvin Cochran, for his Christian faith. The mayor claimed it was not Cochran's faith, but Cochran's judgment. The mayor's excuse is hard to believe.

 

In November of 2013, Kelvin Cochran, a former Obama administration official turned chief of the fire department in Atlanta, Georgia, published a book titled "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" The book expounded on the fire chief's faith and encouraged people to turn their lives over to Christ.

 

In the book, Cochran said his chief end was "to glorify God." He said that was his first duty even in his job at the fire department. A reflection of the Westminster Catechism, it is also a summation of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Street Sweeper" speech. In that speech, Dr. King said that men needed to worship God and turn their lives over to God.

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

The left rushes to sympathize with Paris terrorist after he claims Abu Ghraib radicalized him
Noah Rothman

January 8, 2015

 

Here we go.

It has always been difficult for Westerners to understand a murderous, illiberal ideology of Islamist extremism. The torturous course of self-examination in which liberals engage in the wake of this kind of a terrorist attack has become a familiar ritual. This customary practice following the deadly assault on the offices of Charlie Hebdo began just 24 hours after the bloody attack.

 

In a profile published in the French center-left paper Le Monde, one of the two French brothers responsible for the massacre of 12 and the injury of 11 others on Wednesday reportedly cited the abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison facility in 2004 as the impetus for his radicalism.

 

Indeed, Sharif Kouachi was no stranger to Islamist militancy. He was tried in 2008 for assisting in the recruiting and funneling of French fighters into Iraq to aid in the insurgency.

 

“It was everything I saw on the television, the torture at Abu Ghraib prison, all that, which motivated me,” said Kouachi, according to an associate’s recollection.

 

And we were off to the races.

“Like the leader of ISIS, Paris terrorist was radicalized by Bush’s Iraq War and Abu Ghraib torture,” wrote attorney Hal Dockins.

 

(Snip)