The Quelling of Free Speech at the Hands of Islam

This is a long post, but please take the time to read it, as it contains several different points of common interest.
The Islamic world continues to threaten violence against anyone who challenges any aspect of their faith system. Free speech in Islamic controlled countries is practically nonexistent, while the media in European countries, with large Islamic populations, pull articles critical of Islam and apologize for any supposed slights against Islam.
Islamic Terrorist reside, alive and well, in all these places, as they continue on a course, proven effective by the appeasers, of threatening, violence and death to all who oppose them.

Three European newspapers banned for “offending Islam”

Reporters Without Borders today condemned the Egyptian government’s decision yesterday to ban the sale of three recent issues of European newspapers containing articles which it considered “offensive to Islam.”
“Some people may indeed have felt offended by these articles but censorship is never an acceptable response,” the press freedom organisation said. “It is up to readers to form their own opinions and to have a debate about them, if they want. But it is not the job of the authorities to decide which information may or may not be made available to the public.”
Information minister Anas Al-Fekki issued a decree banning the sale of the 19 September issue of the French daily Le Figaro, the 16 September issue of the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and the latest issue of the London-based Guardian Weekly.
Le Figaro’s 19 September issue had already been banned in Tunisia on the same grounds. It contained an op-ed piece by philosopher Robert Redeker headlined: “What must the free world do in the face of Islamist intimidation?”
The ban on the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung was prompted by an article in its cultural supplement on Islam and the recent controversy about Pope Benedict’s comments.

Teacher in hiding after attacking Islam

A French philosophy teacher has gone into hiding under police protection after receiving death threats for an article he wrote attacking Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.
The teacher, Robert Redeker, was writing in response to the angry reactions around the Islamic world to a lecture by Pope Benedict XVI two weeks ago, in which he drew a link between Islam and violence.
His article, describing the Koran as “a book of incredible violence”, sparked death threats against Mr Redeker, and fuelled fears of rising tensions between supporters of free speech in secular western societies and their resident Muslim populations.
These concerns led to the removal of a controversial Mozart opera from the programme of Berlin’s Deutsche Opera this week because of fears the show, adapted to include a scene showing the Prophet Mohammed’s severed head on stage, would be targeted by Islamic extremists.
Dominique de Villepin, France’s prime minister, asked about the death threats against Mr Redeker on French radio, said: “It’s unacceptable and shows that we are living in a dangerous world, too often intolerant, and the extent we must be vigilant to have total respect of others in our society.”
Le Figaro on Friday published a front page editorial declaring: “We condemn as resolutely as possible the serious attack on the freedom of thought and the freedom of speech that this affair has provoked.”
Mr Redeker’s article, entitled “Faced with Islamic intimidation, what should the free world do?” was published in Le Figaro on September 19. In it, he attacked the Prophet Mohammed, saying: “Pitiless war leader, pillager, butcher of Jews and polygamous, this is how Mohammed is revealed by the Koran.” Tunisia and Egypt banned the issue containing the article.
Mr Redeker, who has not returned to his class in Saint-Orens-de-Gameville, a village near Toulouse in south-west France, since his article was published, claims to have received letters saying an order to kill him had been signed and his would-be assassins knew his address.
The philosophy teacher, who has earned a reputation for his outspoken anti-Islam views, complained he had become “homeless in the French republic, while all I did was exercise my constitutional right to freely express my opinion on a religion.”
However, he received only partial support from his boss, Gilles de Robien, education minister, who declared his “solidarity” with Mr Redeker, but argued that “a public employee should be prudent and moderate in all circumstances.”
Dailil Boubakeur, the moderate head of the French Muslim Council, condemned the death threats. “They are not Muslims threatening him, they are extremists, radicals. We leave them to take responsiblity for their threats, they do not represent us,” he said.
But one of Mr Boubakeur’s advisors told the Financial Times that Mr Redeker had a reputation for being “ideologically committed” to the theory of a clash of civilisations between Islam and the west.
As French state schools are part of the domain of the secular state, they are meant to be free of all religious influence. This concept led to France’s controversial ban on students wearing visible religious symbols, including the hijab, or Islamic headscarf.

Here is the English translation of Robert Redeker’s article:

What should the free world do while facing Islamist intimidation?

The reactions caused by Benedict XVI’s analysis of Islam and violence highlight the underhanded maneuver carried out by Islam to stifle what the West values more than anything, and which does not exist in any Moslem country: freedom of thought and expression.
Islam tries to impose its rules on Europe : opening of public swimming pools at certain hours reserved exclusively for women, ban on caricaturing this religion, demands for special diets for Muslim children in school cafeterias, struggle to impose the veil at school, accusations of Islamophobia against free spirits.
How can one explain the ban on the wearing thongs on Paris-Beaches* this summer? The reasoning put forth was bizarre: women wering thongs would risk “disturbing the peace”. Did this mean that bands of frustrated youths would become violent while being offended by displays of beauty? Or were the authorities scared of Islamist demonstrations by virtue squads near Paris-Beaches?
However, the authorization of the veil on the street is more disturbing to public peace than wearing a thong, because it invites complaints against the upholding the oppression of women .This ban represents an Islamization of sensibilities in France, a more or less conscious submission to the diktats of Islam. At the very least it is the result of the insidious Muslim pressure on the minds: even those who protested the introduction of a “Jean Paul II Square” in Paris would not be opposed to the construction of mosques. Islam is trying to force Europe to yield to its vision of humanity.
As in the past with Communism, the West finds itself under ideological watch. Islam presents itself, like defunct Communism, as an alternative to the Western world. In the way of Communism before it, Islam, to conquer spirits, plays on a sensitive string. It prides itself on a legitimacy which troubles Western conscience, which is attentive to others: it claims to be the voice of the oppressed of the planet. Yesterday, the voice of the poor supposedly came from Moscow, today it originates in Mecca! Again, today, western intellectuals incarnate the eye of the Koran, as they have incarnated the eye of Moscow. They now excommunicate people because of Islamophobia, as they did before because of anti-communism.
This opening to others, specific to the West, is a secularization of Christianity that can be summarized thus:the other person must come before myself. The Westerner, heir to Christianity, is the that exposes his soul bare. He runs the risk of being seen as weak. With the same ardor as Communism, Islam treats generosity, broadmindedness, tolerance, gentleness, freedom of women and of manners, democratic values, as marks of decadence. They are weaknesses that it seeks to exploit, by means of useful idiots, self-rigtheous consciences drowning in nice feelings, in order to impose the Koranic order on the Western world itself.
The Koran is a book of unparalleled violence. Maxime Rodinson states, in Encyclopedia Universalis, some truths that in France are as significant as they are taboo. On one hand: “Mohammed revealed in Medina unsuspected qualities as political leader and military chief (…) He resorted to private war, by then a prevalent custom in Arabia (….) Mohammed soon sent small groups of partisans to attack the Meccan caravans, thus punishing his unbelieving compatriots and simultaneously acquiring the booty of a wealthy man.”
There is more: “Mohammed profited from this success by eradicating the Jewish tribe which resided in Medina, the Quarayza, whom he accused of suspect behaviour.” And: “After the death of Khadija, he married a widow, a good housewife, called Sawda, and in addition to the little Aisha, barely ten years old. His erotic predilections, held in check for a long time, led him to ten simultaneous marriages .”
A merciless war chief, plunderer, slaughterer of Jews and a polygamist, such is the man revealed through the Koran.
Of , the Catholic church is not above reproach. Its history is strewn with dark pages, for which it has officially repentaed. The Inquisition, the hounding of witches, the execution of the philosophers Giordano Bruno and Vanini, those wrong-thinking Epicureans, in the 18th century the execution of the knight of La Barre for impiety, do not plead in the church’s favor. But what differentiates Christianity from Islam is obvious: it is always possible to go back to true evangelical values, the peaceful character of Jesus as opposed to the deviations of the Church.
None of the faults of the Church have their roots in the Gospel. Jesus is non-violent. Going back to Jesus is akin to forswear the excesses of the Church. Going back to Mahomet, to the conbtrary, reinforces hate and violence. Jesus is a master of love, Mahomet is a master of hatred.
The stoning of Satan, each year in Mecca, is not only an obsolete superstition. It not only sets the stage for a hysterical crowd flirting with barbarity. Its importis anthropological. Here is a rite, which each Muslim is invited to submit to, that emphasizes violence as a sacred duty in the very heart of the believer.
This stoning, accompanied each year by the acciedental trampling to death of some of the believers, sometimes up to several hundreds, is a rite that feeds archaic violence.
Instead of getting rid of this archaic violence, and thus imitating Judaism and Christianity (Judaism starts when it abandons human sacrifice, and enters civilization; Christianity transforms sacrifice through the Eucharist), Islam builds a nest for this violence, where it will incubate. Whereas Judaism and Christianity are religions whose rites spurn violence, by delegitimizing it, Islam is a religion that exalts violence and hatred in its everyday rites and sacred book.
Hatred and violence dwell in the book with which every Muslim is brought up, the Koran. As in the Cold War, where violence and intimidation were the methods used by an ideology hell bent on hegemony, so today Islam tries to put its leaden mantel all over the world. Benedict XVI’s cruel experience is testimony to this. Nowadays, the West has to be called the “free world” in comparison to the Muslim world; likewise, the enemies of the “free world”, the zealous bureaucrats of the Koran’s vision, swarm in the very center of the frre World.

Link to Le Figaro.

Teacher who attacked Islam: ‘alone and abandoned’

Robert Redeker, 52, is receiving round-the-clock police protection and changing addresses every two days, after publishing an article describing the Koran as a “book of extraordinary violence” and Islam as “a religion which … exalts violence and hate”.
He told i-TV television he had received several e-mail threats targeting himself and his wife and three children, and that his photograph and address were available on several Islamist Internet sites.
“There is a very clear map of how to get to my home, with the words: ‘This pig must have his head cut off’,” he said.

Read the rest of the article.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.

And I say to the Islamic Terrorist:
“Lan astaslem!!!”
“I will not submit!!!”

Lan astaslem, I will not Submit

10 Responses to “The Quelling of Free Speech at the Hands of Islam”

  1. M S Sheikh says:

    Invitation to Muslims for a debate is welcome but the invitations are coming one after the other through our windows written on bricks.

    Compare Dr Naik’s civilised invitation to the Pope to a debate with the so-called invitation by the Pope delivered in Germany. Also note there has been little mud slinging at the Pope when there is ample material available to Muslims regarding Pope’s past namely his membership of the German Nazi Youth and his unbelievable role regarding the protection of child abusers by churchmen.

  2. Steve says:

    M S Sheikh,
    Thank you for the comment.
    Not being Catholic, I’m not real big on defending the Pope or the Catholic Church. In my eyes, the Pope is only human.
    But with that said, I will defend his right to say what he wants without fear of being terrorized and killed in the name of religion. That is what Islam is doing. Any logical, rational human can see that if someone calls a religion violent and that religion responds by threats and acts of violence, then that religion has substantiated the remark and proven that they are violent.
    I hope that the violence, in the form of bricks through your windows, ceases immediately. And if these brick throwers are Christians, then I rebuke them, because they are NOT following the will and words of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
    I also ask you keep historical relevance in mind concerning Nazi Germany. If a person was selected for the Hitler Youth, he was expected to serve. If he turned down the “invitation”, both he and his family were “black listed”. As the war years wore on, being “black listed” by the Nazis could not only get the youth killed, but his whole family as well.
    Again, I will not defend the policies or people of the Catholic Church, only their right to say anything they want to, without fear of violence. Beware of Moral Relativism. Saying that the Pope hid or defended child molesters (which is also debatable, but you need to take that up with a Catholic) does not remove the fact that Islam responded to the Pope’s comments with threats of violence, blood shed, death and destruction.
    They proved that the comments made by the Emperor the Pope quoted were true.
    The crux of the matter is Freedom of Speech.

  3. M S Sheikh says:


    “They proved that the comments made by the Emperor the Pope quoted were true.” But the Pope does not agree with that!

    I condemn violence from any quarter. So, I condemn violence, you condemn violence, all of us condemn violence but it still goes on. Why? Because there are people out there who abuse their power and there are people out there who abuse freedom of speech. Perhaps today we need to civilise freedom of speech and the un fettered power that is pushing us all towards destruction.

    Let us look at a couple of other freedom. The freedom to eat in the street. No problem there. Now let us consider freedom to eat anything. No problem here either. One can eat anything legal and I mean anything legal in privacy. But when someone wants to exercise the two freedoms together they may come unstuck depending on what they are eating. What I mean by anything I leave it to readers’ imagination.

    Back to the so-called freedom of speech that the west cherishes so much how do you reconcile it with the ban on “debating” Holocaust?

  4. M S Sheikh says:


    “I also ask you (to) keep historical relevance in mind concerning Nazi Germany. If a person was selected for the Hitler Youth, he was expected to serve. If he turned down the “invitation”, both he and his family were “black listed”. As the war years wore on, being “black listed” by the Nazis could not only get the youth killed, but his whole family as well.”

    When caught or exposed all German, Poles, Italians etc etc or should I say Christians as they were/are Christians, said that and continue to say that even today to defend their past.

  5. Steve says:

    “When caught or exposed all German, Poles, Italians etc etc or should I say Christians as they were/are Christians, said that and continue to say that even today to defend their past.”

    As do all Muslims when confronted with being active terrorist or terrorist supporters.

    “I condemn violence from any quarter. So, I condemn violence, you condemn violence, all of us condemn violence but it still goes on. Why?”

    I’m so glad you are against violence. So that means that you were present when the Muslims of Amsterdam demonstrated against the terrorist who blew up innocent people in Israel? Oh wait, there wasn’t any demonstartion of the Muslims in Amsterdam after the last attack against innocent people in Israel. As a matter of fact, the silence from the Muslim community is deafening.

    Debating the Holocaust? What exactly is there to debate about the holocaust? The holocaust did happen, even if a mad man in charge of Iran doesn’t want to admit it.

    The Muslims could learn a lot from Christians about God. You see, my God is big enough to stick up for himself. He doesn’t need me to defend Him and use threats of violence to make people believe in Him. He can take care of Himself. His message to people stands on it’s own merit, and is not accepted because of a death threat. People accept my God becuase He loves them and they love Him back. Everyone is accountable to God. In the end, everyone has to give an accounting of themselves to God. God will have the final say in all things.

  6. M S Sheikh says:

    Hi Steve,

    “As do all Muslims when confronted with being active terrorist or terrorist supporters.”

    Remember we started with the Pope’s past and you defended that with the implication that he had no choice in joining the Hitler Nazi Youth. I then said all those who were convicted at Nuremburg and since give the same reason but still they are punished. (These were not my exact words but I was very obviously referring to the trial etc). Why then Pope should be an exception?

    “As do all Muslims when confronted with being active terrorist or terrorist supporters.”

    To their credit of course they don’t and make the task of the prosecutors easy. They have the courage to tell the truth, the truth that helps put them behind bars. Would you rather they say, oh I was forced to bomb, my family was in danger and go Scot-free? I fail to understand the logic behind your argument.

    “Debating the Holocaust? What exactly is there to debate about the holocaust? The holocaust did happen, even if a mad man in charge of Iran doesn’t want to admit it.”

    “A mad man in charge of Iran …..” is a red herring. You know exactly whom I had in mind about holocaust. But if you still insist that you have no idea help is here. He is a historian. An English man named David Irving who is rotting in Austrian jail for using his right to freedom of speech.

    Read this also.
    Irvin to admit denying Holocaust

    VIENNA AFP 20/02/2006 23:07
    British historian David Irving appeared in court in handcuffs, saying he would admit having denied the Holocaust in 1989 even though he no longer holds that view.
    What a shame, a historian is held in 2006 because in 1989 he spoke his mind about an event and then his admission that he did not hold that view any longer did not matter.
    Now are you or are you not for freedom of speech?

    “The Muslims could learn a lot from Christians about God. You see my God is big enough to stick up for himself.”

    Yeh big enough to be shopped to Romans and if the Gospel of Judah is to be believed then note your god committed virtual suicide. You know why? Because he was disappointed in you as you had left him to defend himself alone.

    Your love for your god is negative. You express it in a strange way. You are happy that he paid for your sins present, past and future! Someone else paying for my sins and that too in advance so that I can sin freely without any fear of punishment is an unfair and un acceptable concept. My God says you and only you will pay for your sins. On the Day of Judgment not even your close relatives will be able to help you. You will have to answer for your acts yourself.

    Regarding Muslims speaking up against extremism and terrorism Muslims do write about it in ethnic press and distance Islam and themselves from extremism and terrorism. But I agree we should do more and publicise it. At the same time no matter how abhorrent and condemnable extremism and terrorism are they are connected with the conditions under which Muslims are living. Carrying on without factoring that in is not going to help anyone.

  7. M S Sheikh says:

    Another free thinker hits the dust.

    First David Irving and now Professor Robert Faurisson and god knows how many others who don’t get the attention of the biased western media hit the dust when they exercise the freedom of thought and speech.

    French academic convicted for Holocaust denial
    PARIS (AFP) – 4.10.06: Retired literature professor Robert Faurisson, 77, was convicted for Holocaust denial by a Paris court Tuesday over remarks he made on Iranian television, and given a three month suspended prison term. Faurisson, who is well-known for his evisionist views, was also fined 7,500 euros (9,500 dollars). Speaking on the Sahar 1 satellite channel in February 2005, Faurisson said there “was never a single execution gas chamber under the Germans… So all those millions of tourists who visit Auschwitz are seeing a lie, a falsification.” Faurisson was found guilty of “rcomplicity in contesting the existence of a crime against humanity”.

  8. Steve says:

    OK, here’s the deal…
    This blog will not argue the fact that there was a holocaust and that people were killed in gas chambers. there was, they were and that is that.
    I don’t believe that people should be charged with holocaust denial…they should have the right to say what they want, but if they want to be idiots by denying the obvious (the holocaust), so be it. They only make themselves look stupid by denying it.
    I choose to believe the actual survivors who witnessed the events as opposed to some modern day revisionalist historian.

  9. M S Sheikh says:

    I personally don’t doubt the Holocaust. I believe it did happen. But I want to say two things about it. One it has been exaggerated. The natural phenomenon that history is written by the victors is partly responsible for that. Two why Palestinians/Muslims have been paying for the inhumanity/crimes committed by the Europeans/Germans/Christians?

    The issue is not denial of Holocaust but denial of freedom to explore, discuss, disagree and challenge something

  10. Steve says:

    I agree that you should be allowed explore, discuss, disagree and challenge the Holocaust.
    The only point of challenging the Holocaust is to try to prove that the “Palestinians” are some kind of oppressed people.
    Let’s discuss the “Palestinians” a moment. Joseph Farah says it well:

    “The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. The
    first time the name was used was in 70 A.D. when the Romans committed
    genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of
    Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be
    known as Palestine. The name was derived from the Philistines, a
    Goliathian people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier. It was a way
    for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the
    name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying

    Palestine has never existed — before or since — as an autonomous
    entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian
    crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after
    World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to
    the Jewish people as their homeland.

    There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct
    Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine
    governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from
    Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.
    Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East
    lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.”

    Let’s also look at Jerusalem:

    “What about Islam’s holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem.

    Shocked? You should be. I don’t expect you will ever hear this brutal
    truth from anyone else in the international media. It’s just not
    politically correct.

    I know what you’re going to say: “The Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the
    Rock in Jerusalem represent Islam’s third most holy sites.”

    Not true. In fact, the Koran says nothing about Jerusalem. It mentions
    Mecca hundreds of times. It mentions Medina countless times. It never
    mentions Jerusalem. With good reason. There is no historical evidence to
    suggest Mohammed ever visited Jerusalem.

    So how did Jerusalem become the third holiest site of Islam? Muslims
    today cite a vague passage in the Koran, the seventeenth Sura, entitled
    “The Night Journey.” It relates that in a dream or a vision Mohammed was
    carried by night “from the sacred temple to the temple that is most
    remote, whose precinct we have blessed, that we might show him our
    signs. …” In the seventh century, some Muslims identified the two
    temples mentioned in this verse as being in Mecca and Jerusalem. And
    that’s as close as Islam’s connection with Jerusalem gets — myth,
    fantasy, wishful thinking. Meanwhile, Jews can trace their roots in
    Jerusalem back to the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

    And I’m sure you’ve heard this information before, but here it is again:

    “Alphonse de Lamartine visited the land in 1835. Mark Twain In his book, Recollections of the East, he writes “Outside the gates of Jerusalem we saw no living object, heard no living sound..” None other than the famous American author Mark Twain, who visited the Land of Israel in 1867, confirms this. In his book Innocents Abroad he writes, “A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action. We reached Tabor safely.. We never saw a human being on the whole journey.” Even the British Consul in Palestine reported, in 1857, “The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population.”

    In fact, according to official Ottoman Turk census figures of 1882, in the entire “Land of Israel” [“Palestine” on BOTH sides of the Jordan River… see, there were only 141,000 Muslims, both Arab and non-Arab. This number was to skyrocket to 650,000 Arabs by 1922, a 450% increase in only 40 years. By 1938 that number would become over 1 million or an 800% increase in only 56 years. Population growth was especially high in areas where Jews lived. Where did all these Arabs come from? According to the Arabs the huge increase in their numbers was due to natural childbirth. In 1944, for example, they alleged that the natural increase (births minus deaths) of Arabs in the Land of Israel was the astounding figure of 334 per 1000. That would make it roughly three times the corresponding rate for the same year of Lebanon and Syria and almost four times that of Egypt, considered amongst the highest in the world. Unlikely, to say the least. If the massive increase was not due to natural births, then were did all these Arabs come from?”

    And Arafat himself, the very “King” of the Palestinians, admitted in an interview back in the 80’s that the Palestinian people were made up and only purpose was to be a means to “destroy Israel”.

Leave a Reply