Selective first amendment

It’s so strange what some people will use the first amendment for, besides toilet tissue.

Just ask Pamella Geller, or her art exhibit in Texas. Well, let’s get something straight, there are no safety zones for the first amendment. So Geller knows this full well. Regardless, she had the exhibit/contest anyway. Now the post exhibit is being scripted, and it ain’t pretty.

Now that it’s over, and we all know the shooters who attacked it were stopped before carrying out their apparent mission, we have a new discussion. One on the first amendment. Sure, before the exhibit many complained about her holding something so controversial, if dangerous. No such controversy over the Muslims holding a “stand with the prophet convention” with all the characters it had — the one place guaranteed not to have a suicide bomber crash the party or a terrorist attack. Media wasn’t in a feeding frenzy over that.

Since the exhibit and the events are now history a new phenomena unfolds. That’s right, the fallout in the media and talking-head establishment over the exhibit. Sure they can gang up on Pamella Geller and actually blame her for what did happen. Let’s not misplace any of that venomous blame on exactly the right parties, Islamists. Instead let’s blame Geller for holding the event in the first place. Surely she knew something would happen. Surely she knew it would inflame radical Muslims. She was courting disaster. Surely she new the potential harm that it could attract. Right?

Check, check, check. She knew alright. And she went ahead and held it anyway, shrug. Why? What’s wrong with her? Is she just doing it for publicity? What a stunt, they say. Well, notice anything in all this criticism? Yes, it is the first amendment rearing its ugly head, once again,. I don’t mean that she had the event, I mean their criticism about it.

See article at Pamela Geller’s website.

After that came the denunciations. No, not against the Islamic fanatics. But against Geller.

From all across the Liberal dials, plus The New York Times, came blasts of outrage against Geller for being “provocative” and “asking for trouble.”

See, they can all come out safely to criticize her with their first amendment “rights”. Oh, that’s the thing to do now. But as to her taking a stand in defense of the first amendment? Not so much. Though they are right on board with calling her out or blaming her for the fallout from it. They’ll even claim it is the responsible thing to accept the criticism for it.

So let me understand the issue correctly. The guys with hoods and machetes get to define free speech. Then, as a course of action against would be assailants who don’t fall in line, hold them up to ridicule in the very-vocal and critical mainstream media. So the cries of outrage come against any cartoonists or a person who would hold such an event.

But Muslims and Islamists holding a “stand with Prophet Muhammad” and rally against “Islamophobia” that is perfectly acceptable and receives no criticism. Follow that with a cartoonist draw contest and the long knives come out. (pardon the pun)

Now class, we have our lesson on the first amendment. Thou shall not criticize the Prophet Muhammad, Islam, or any Muslims, Sharia Law, or whatever hateful genocidal deeds they do. Got that class? Oh there will be tests on it too. But it is alright to use Islam in any way to condemn, attack, promote bigotry and hatred, or otherwise assault anyone else or their freedoms. In fact, not to worry, media and lots of outraged mouthpieces will make excuses for their right to do it. And media will question the motives of anyone who would criticize Islam. This is very important class, so I hope you’re taking notes and getting all this.

In the event of misconduct, such as the cartoonists or others, the first amendment shall be used to condemn the offender for his wrongful, provocative misuse of the first amendment. So everyone can now apply their first amendment toward criticizing the organizer of an event, but not to defend or sympathize with the offenders. Isn’t it funny how they were absolutely chomping at the bit to apply their first amendment toward the offender, yet cannot muster any defense for the accused. Oh, and the accused shall just be pronounced guilty — as if it is even possible to prove his/her innocence.

See they weren’t willing to use their first amendment to support Geller’s first amendment. But they are happy to use their first amendment to attack and condemn her — something Islamists also wasted no time in doing.

If the lips are moving, part 2 – Taqiyya

Would you like a little more detail to go with your Jihad?(or taqiyya) If in doubt check the research. From a double entendre to your ‘pants on fire’ variety, it covers it all.

Taqiyya: for whatever ails you. Want fries with that?

The argument goes, according to apologists, that it is permitted only in a preservation of life scenario, even then in the most basic forms. You guessed it, that’s Taqiyya. You’ll get the hang of it after seeing examples. You probably heard that Islam is synonymous with honesty, that there are only a few exceptions to justify deception. Not that basic or simple. It pays to understand. Kids, don’t try this at home.

This expert in Mid East explains in detail the meaning and uses, to set the record straight. Here are some excerpts. This was written as a critique based on what they say verses what is actually correct, that was his format.

Taqiyya about Taqiyya

By Raymond Ibrahim on April 12, 2014 [see site for *footnotes]

To many Muslims, jihad, that is, armed struggle against the non-Muslim, is the informal sixth pillar. Islam’s prophet Muhammad said that “standing in the ranks of battle [jihad] is better than standing (in prayer) for sixty years,”* even though prayer is one of the Five Pillars, and he ranked jihad as the “second best deed” after belief in Allah as the only god and he himself, Muhammad, as his prophet, the shehada, or very First Pillar of Islam.*

All this indicates jihad’s importance in Islam—and thus importance to this case, since, as shall be seen, taqiyya is especially permissible in the context of jihad or struggle to empower Islam and/or Muslims over non-Muslims.

As for the Islamic prophet himself—whose example is to be upheld as closely as possible by Sunni Muslims (sunna meaning “example”)—above and beyond the aforementioned, according to a canonical hadith, it is well known that he permitted lying in three scenarios: to reconcile quarreling parties, to one’s wife, and in war, or jihad.*

It is the third of these categories, jihad, that is relevant here.

According to one Arabic legal manual devoted to jihad as defined by the four schools of Sunni Islamic law, “The ulema [“scholars”] agree that deception during warfare is legitimate … deception is a form of art in war.”* Moreover, according to Dr. Mukaram, the foremost expert on taqiyya, this deception is classified as taqiyya: “Taqiyya in order to dupe the enemy is permissible.”*

This Muslim notion that “war is deceit” goes back to the Battle of the Trench (year 627), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against several non-Muslim tribes known as Al-Ahzab. One of the members of Ahzab, Na‘im ibn Mas‘ud, went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam. When Muhammad discovered that the Ahzab were unaware of his conversion, and thus defection, he told Mas‘ud to return and try to get the Ahzab forces to abandon the siege. It was then that Muhammad memorably declared, “For war is deceit.” Mas‘ud returned to the Ahzab without their knowing that he had switched sides and intentionally began to give his former kin and allies bad advice. He also went to great lengths to instigate quarrels between the various tribes until, thoroughly distrusting each other, they disbanded, lifting their siege.*

Accordingly, normative Islam teaches that deceit is integral to jihad: Ibn al-Arabi declares that “in the Hadith [sayings and actions of Muhammad], practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than the need for courage.” Ibn al-Munir (d. 1333) writes, “War is deceit, i.e., the most complete and perfect war waged by a holy warrior [mujahid] is a war of deception, not confrontation, due to the latter’s inherent danger, and the fact that one can attain victory through treachery without harm [to oneself].” And Ibn Hajar (d. 1448) counsels Muslims “to take great caution in war, while [publicly] lamenting and mourning in order to dupe the infidels.”*

In short, the earliest historical records of Islam clearly attest to the prevalence of taqiyya—deception and betrayal, as in the case of the poet Ka‘b —as a form of Islamic warfare against the non-Muslim infidel. And this is still a legal strategy for Muslims vis-à-vis non-Muslims—especially if the lying is rationalized as a form of jihad to empower Islam or Muslims.

Furthermore, early Muslims are often depicted in early Islamic texts as lying their way out of binds—usually by denying or insulting Islam or Muhammad—often to the approval of the latter, his only criterion being that their intentions (niya) be pure.* During the centuries-long wars with Christians, whenever and wherever the latter were in authority, the practice of taqiyya became even more integral and widespread.

*/*

Some of Sunni Islam’s four schools of law (or madhahib), such as the Hanafi, assert that Muslim leaders may abrogate treaties merely if it seems advantageous for Islam.* This is reminiscent of the following words of Prophet Muhammad as found in a canonical hadith: “If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better.”*

*/*

In other words, like Muhammad, Arafat gave his word only to annul it once “something better” came along—that is, once the opportunity to renew the offensive to empower Islam came along.

In short, the idea of making covenants with non-Muslims revolves around Muslim capability. This is made clear in an authoritative Sunni legal text, Umdat as-Salik, compiled by a 14th century Egyptian scholar, Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri: “There must be some benefit [maslaha] served in making a truce other than the status quo: ‘So do not be fainthearted and call for peace when it is you who are uppermost’ [Qur’an 47:35].”* More

RightRing | Bullright