Washington Post Publishes Muslim’s Sly Case Against Free Speech

9


JWHeaderAS3

Washington
Post Publishes Muslim’s Sly Case Against Free Speech

By Robert Spencer

Ahmadi spokesmen like the strutting Qasim Rashid and the
execrable Harris Zafar, the author of a recent Washington
Post op-ed
, carry water for the same Islamic supremacists who would
cheerfully slit their throats if they were back in Pakistan, and instead target
those who stand up for the Ahmadis and decry their persecution. In the WaPo,
Zafar offered a manifesto for the destruction of the freedom of speech worthy
of a true totalitarian – and emblematic of the Islamic supremacist war on free
speech and all criticism of Islam.

Story continues below advertisement

“The difference between Islam’s view on free speech and the
view promoted by free speech advocates these days,” Zafar asserts, “is the
intention and ultimate goal each seeks to promote. Whereas many secularists
champion individual privileges, Islam promotes the principle of uniting mankind
and cultivating love and understanding among people. Both endorse freedom for
people to express themselves, but Islam promotes unity, whereas modern-day free
speech advocates promote individualism.”

This glossy Orwellian language, “uniting mankind and
cultivating love and understanding among people,” actually means “imposing
Sharia upon mankind, and subjugating non-Muslims as inferiors under its rule.”
That’s the unity Zafar envisions, as the Ahmadis teach Sharia supremacy even as
they eschew violent jihad. Zafar makes this clear when he says that “the
ultimate goal of Islam is to unite mankind under a single banner of peace.” The
only unity of mankind that Islam’s core texts envision is that of the rule of
Islamic law and the concomitant denial of basic rights to non-Muslims.

“In order to unite mankind,” Zafar continues, “Islam
instructs to only use speech to be truthful, do good to others, and be fair and
respectful. It attempts to pre-empt [sic] frictions by prescribing rules of
conduct which guarantee for all people not only freedom of speech but also
fairness, absolute justice, and the right of disagreement.”

Actually, Islam doesn’t allow for the freedom of speech at
all. And its idea of “fairness” and “absolute justice” includes the death
penalty for apostates and institutionalized discrimination against non-Muslims
and women.

Zafar attempts to base his argument on Islam’s foundational
book: “The Koran instructs people to speak the truth (33:71), to speak in a
manner that is best (17:54), to speak to others kindly (2:84) and to refrain
from inappropriate speech (4:149). With Islam’s guidance to purify our
intentions, it promotes free speech when our intention is to serve a good
purpose, promote peace, bring people closer to God and unite mankind. If,
however, our intentions are to insult others or promote disorder or division, we
should refrain.” He does not, however, mention Koran 3:28, which warns
believers not to take unbelievers as friends (َأَوْلِيَا — a word that means
more than casual friendship, but something like alliance), “unless you have a
fear of them.” This is a foundation of the idea that believers may legitimately
deceive unbelievers when under pressure. The word used in the Arabic is tuqātan
(تُقَاةً), the verbal noun from taqiyyatan — hence the familiar term taqiyya.
The Koran commentator Ibn Kathir says that the phrase rendered here as “unless
you have a fear of them” means that “believers who in some areas or times fear
for their safety from the disbelievers” may “show friendship to the
disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded
that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, ‘We smile in the face of some people although our
hearts curse them.’ Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, ‘The Tuqyah [taqiyya]
is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.” While many Muslim spokesmen today
maintain that taqiyya is solely a Shi’ite doctrine, shunned by Sunnis, the
great Islamic scholar Ignaz Goldziher points out that while it was formulated
by Shi’ites, “it is accepted as legitimate by other Muslims as well, on the
authority of Qur’an 3:28.” The Sunnis of Al-Qaeda, among others, practice it
today.

With evident distaste, Zafar claims that “the most vocal
proponents of freedom of speech, however, call us towards a different path,
where people can say anything and everything on their mind. With no restraint
on speech at all, every form of provocation would exist, thereby cultivating
confrontation and antagonism. They insist this freedom entitles them the legal
privilege to insult others. This is neither democracy nor freedom of speech. It
fosters animosity, resentment and disorder.”

Note the sleight of hand: “With no restraint on speech at
all, every form of provocation would exist, thereby cultivating confrontation
and antagonism.” Zafar is implying that the Muslims who riot and kill because
of perceived affronts to Islam are not responsible for their own actions, but
that those who supposedly provoked them are. This is an increasingly widespread
confusion in the West, willfully spread by people like Zafar and his Islamic
supremacist allies. In reality, the only person responsible for his actions is
the person who is acting, not anyone else. You may provoke me in a hundred
ways, but my response is my own, which I choose from a range of possible
responses, and only I am responsible for it.

But having established that if someone riots and kills in
response to someone else’s speech, the fault lies with the speaker, not the
rioter, Zafar drives his point home: speech must be restricted in the interests
of “world peace”: “Treating speech as supreme at the expense of world peace and
harmony is an incredibly flawed concept. No matter how important the cause of
free speech, it still pales in comparison to the cause of world peace and
unity.”

And who will decide what speech accords with “world peace
and harmony,” and what speech does not? Why, Islamic supremacists like Zafar,
of course. The argument that calling attention to the motives and goals of
jihadists and Islamic supremacists so that free people can more effectively
resist them will be dismissed out of hand.


But Zafar doesn’t want us to worry about that, for he
assures us that “Islam does not prescribe any worldly punishment for unseemly
speech. So people who insult should not be persecuted. Islam grants everyone
the right to express disagreements with others. After all, the Prophet Muhammad
called differences of opinion a blessing in society and never sought to censor
or threaten those who verbally attacked him.”

Actually, according to a manual of Islamic law certified as
reliable by al-Azhar, the foremost institution in Sunni Islam, Islam mandates
death for non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state who mention “something
impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or
Islam” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o11.10).

Zafar plows on, however, as his argument becomes ever more
fanciful, false, and divorced from reality: “According to the Koran,
disbelievers called [Muhammad] ‘a mad man,’ ‘a victim of deception,’ a ‘fabricator’
and treated him as a liar. Some claimed he was taught by another person instead
of receiving revelations from God. They called the Koran ‘confused dreams’ and ‘mere
stories of the past’ and even tore it into pieces. Through this all, he
courageously endured all verbal assaults. Rather than calling for any
punishment, the Koran instructs us to ‘overlook their annoying talk’ and ‘bear
patiently what they say.’ The lesson here for all Muslims is that we are not to
be afraid of insults. Rather, we must have the same courage as our Prophet to
face such insults in the eye and respond with forbearance and calm, righteous
speech. Muslims must learn how their faith instructs them to respond when they
are verbally attacked. No riots; no violence. We respond to speech with speech,
but our speech is to be better and more dignified.”

This sounds great, except for the fact that none of it is
true. Actually, Muhammad responded to insults by ordering the murder of those
who insulted him, including Abu ‘Afak, who was over one hundred years old, and
the poetess ‘Asma bint Marwan. Abu ‘Afak was killed in his sleep, in response
to Muhammad's question, “Who will avenge me on this scoundrel?” Similarly,
Muhammad on another occasion cried out, “Will no one rid me of this daughter of
Marwan?” One of his followers, ‘Umayr ibn ‘Adi, went to her house that night,
where he found her sleeping next to her children. The youngest, a nursing babe,
was in her arms. But that didn’t stop ‘Umayr from murdering her and the baby as
well. Muhammad commended him: “You have done a great service to Allah and His
Messenger, ‘Umayr!” (Ibn Ishaq, 674-676)

Then there was Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf. Muhammad asked: “Who is
willing to kill Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?"
One of the Muslims, Muhammad bin Maslama answered, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would
you like that I kill him?” When Muhammad said that he would, Muhammad bin
Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).”
Muhammad responded: “You may say it.” Muhammad bin Maslama duly lied to Ka‘b,
luring him into his trap, and murdered him. (Bukhari 5.59.369)

Perhaps mindful of such material despite his denial that it
exists, Zafar then slyly calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech of
those whose speech he finds offensive – all in the name of “uniting people,” of
course: “So while antagonists and enemies of peace create slanderous videos,
cartoons or advertisements – like the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ film, Pamela
Geller’s new ignorant NYC subway ads and Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon about Prophet
Muhammad – let us not fall for their claim that an individual’s privilege to
say whatever they want is more important than the higher principle of uniting
people and saving this planet from a path of animosity, hatred and destruction.
Rather than falsely accusing Islam of censorship, let us understand the beauty
of giving higher consideration to mankind over our own personal privileges. And
let us listen to the wisdom of the Khalifa of Islam, His Holiness Mirza Masroor
Ahmad, who said: ‘Let it not be that in the name of freedom of speech the peace
of the entire world be destroyed.’”

Instead, Zafar and Ahmad would have it that authoritarian
controls on speech be imposed in the name of a spurious Islamic peace.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad
Watch
and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam
(and the Crusades)
and The Truth About Muhammad. His
latest book is
Did Muhammad Exist?.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding. Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on
Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.

If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mzungu
mzungu
11 years ago

I couldn’t finish reading. They are so full of BS that their pants are down, everybody with brains can see it, and it isn’t pretty.
The pictures of hulled out cities of Syria and other places of dominant Islam are trophies of how well Muslims get along with themselves. No thanks. It would be interesting to set up a time-lapse system of photos of Dearborn, MI over the next 10 years.

mzungu
mzungu
11 years ago

Let me add one more point about immigration. I’ve been through 2 previous mass migrations in my home state. One was Cuban and the other Vietnamese. The towns I’m familiar with are beautiful and peaceful. Our culture was enriched, the people assimilated and better than all that are the restaurants that sprang up. I do not remember any lawsuits, honor killings, nor any other trappings of arrogance. This speaks volumes about Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Catholicism the dominant religions associated with those migrations.

ApolloSpeaks
ApolloSpeaks
11 years ago

This fine article is summed up by the fact that insecurity is at the heart of every totalitarian system. Freedom is the enemy of falsehood disguised as truth. Islam’s unifying idea that the Koran is God’s ultimate revelation for man is so preposterous and senseless to most human beings that it can only prevail by military force, subversion and suppression of free speech.

RCCA
RCCA
11 years ago

I agree wholeheartedly with ApolloSpeaks. Since the ultimate ideal in Islam is submission, freedom is the last thing Muslims want to encourage whether in thought, word, or deed. It is interesting how true believers of all cults and totalitarian systems, whatever they are, convince themselves their way of life is a solution for the world’s problems, if only everybody would believe (fill in the blank).
This goes beyond politics or political systems though. Freedom and personal responsibility are also the ultimate teachers in every authentic spiritual path. That’s why we see so many variations within Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. and no violence. Maybe Islam is not yet fully developed as a religion since the fanatics continue to kill each other with no end in sight.
People with consciousness can never allow free will and freedom of expression to be extinguished for the sake of compliance to a false peace, to get along. That would be outrageous.

Face_The_Truth
Face_The_Truth
11 years ago

If there is FREE speech in Islamic countries, there will be NO Islam on earth.
Islam cannot and will NOT survive too long, if FREE speech is allowed in Saudi Arabia, Islamic Republic of Iran, and Pakistan. Muslim politicians and Muslim leaders know that very well.
Muslims are very clever people when it comes to protecting their Islamic cult in various forms of its existence and manifestations.

vincent bruce
vincent bruce
11 years ago

Pam
You are leading a fine group of freedom fighters here, the previous comments on this post are all beautifully logical.
Love is at the root of all that is God.
I have no expertise in communications or deep philosophy, but I am an expert on the 6 X 12 billiards table, and I always prophessed the theory of proportion, which means to me to become part of the game , be a billiardists using all your senses, play the game with love in your heart, and then find where the human can fit in and be part of the magic that intrigues some people, to diccover how it feels to become one with the art of pool, all of us are gifted by God and we must be free to discover lifes treasures of love and joy.
We are only beginning to perfect a society, which can allow all humans to be free to find their own place in this realm, but a pedophile as the foundation of a religion is not a fit in anyones mind unless they want an evil world. islam is death. death is what islam will have.
If humans allow evil to be a legitimate partner in negotiations then the evil has won, islam must be completely unacceptable to all humans, we are as strong as our weakest links and these links must be cured of their evil, totally removed and decontaminated, and be understood for what it is, God’s rejection of allah satan. lucifer , and any other name for God’s outcasts.

KKKK
KKKK
11 years ago

the Washington Post publishes Muslim propaganda? the LAMEstreamMedia isnt that for nothing.

Kufar Dawg
Kufar Dawg
11 years ago

Islam, like any fascist, totalitarian, supremacist ideology, is anathema to free speech.

format pc
format pc
11 years ago

Not a bad post,in fact relaly fine.but I relaly miss that you didn’t express your opinion in detail, but its ok you just have different approach to writing.

Sponsored
Geller Report
Thanks for sharing!