4INTERNATIONAL SALUTES PAMELA GELLER
FIGHT TO DEFEND FIRST AMENDMEND
Islamic supremacist journalist Mona Eltahawy was arrested today after assaulting a defender of freedom who caught her in the act of vandalizing one of AFDI’s pro-Israel ads in the New York Subway Stations.This again proves the Islamic supremacists and the Leftist thugs are dedicated to shutting down free speech. Anti-Israel ads ran all over the country without a murmur of protest; but this pro-Israel ad was hardly up an hour before fascist thugs like Eltahawy went to work to deface it.
Shortly thereafter, she was about to spray paint over AFDI’s pro-Israel ad in a subway station when freelance journalist and pro-freedom blogger Pamela Hall stood between her and the ad. Eltahawy thereupon sprayed Hall with paint; Eltahawy was arrested and Hall is pressing charges.
The attack was witnessed by Georgette Roberts of the New York Post. We look forward to the Post’s full report, since Roberts witnessed this entire incident.
This criminal behavior and fascism will be lauded in Leftist circles.
Eltahawy’s thuggish behavior is a telling indication of how relentlessly opposed the left and Islamic supremacists are to the freedom of speech, and how desperate they are to keep any pro-freedom, anti-jihad message from getting out.
AFDI’s ad reads: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.”
Eltahawy’s behavior is all the more ironic in light of the fact that she was viciously sexually assaulted by “protesters” in Cairo’s Tahrir Square last year, and subsequently wrote a searching piece about the misogyny that is inherent in Islamic law. But she was roundly attacked by her fellow Islamic supremacist writers for that article, and made a full retreat. Now, in a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome, she is defending the same savages who brutally attacked her in Tahrir Square.
AFDI calls upon the NYPD to prosecute Eltahawy for her assault on Pamela Hall to the fullest extent of the law, and to guard the pro-Israel ads from further Leftist/Islamic supremacist vandalism.
A brief update on the big story from yesterday: the arrest of Islamic supremacist journalist Mona Eltahawy after she spray painted our AFDI pro-freedom ad and assaulted blogger Pamela Hall in a New York subway station.
Why would a renowned and respected journalist resort to a juvenile act of vandalism and persist even when confronted? Here’s a clue: reading this ABC News report on the arrest, these lines leapt out at me:
“This is non-violent protest, see this America” Eltahawy said in the video as police officers were arresting her. “I’m an Egyptian-American and I refuse hate.”
You can see Eltahawy saying that in Pamela Hall’s video, above.
Now, in my May 31 piece for PJ Media, I wrote this:
Mona Eltahawy’s piece in the May/June issue of Foreign Policy criticized a series of practices that are justified in Islamic law, including child marriage, wife-beating, and female genital mutilation. Counter-jihadist activists and writers have been calling attention to these human rights abuses for years, but Eltahawy’s piece was singular in that she is a Muslim journalist….Harvard professor Leila Ahmed confronted Eltahawy on MSNBC:
Mona, I appreciate what you do. I would love it if — I understand if you want to get your message across. It’s an important message. But if possible [you should not] give fuel, fodder to people who simply hate Arabs and Muslims in this climate of our day.
Eltahawy, you see, told unwelcome truths about Islam and was accused of spreading “hate” — which is exactly what the Left and the Islamic supremacists do to those of us who have been telling those truths for years. But this was something new for Eltahaway, who had reliably been on the Left’s media reservation throughout her career. Now she was suddenly being criticized by her old friends, probably not invited to the best parties, etc.
So instead of having the courage of her convictions, Eltahawy folded, and cast about for a way to distance herself from counter-jihad freedom activists and prove that she was on the right (Left) side and would not make waves again. What better way than to vandalize our pro-freedom message, all the while accusing us of the “hate” she was accused of when she told the truth about Islam?
The arrest, even if she didn’t expect it or plan it, was icing on the cake: because of it, now she will be lionized as a hero and martyr by the very people who were shunning her for her Foreign Policy piece: the hate-filled Leftist totalitarians who despise free speech anyway.
Mona Eltahawy could have been a journalist of integrity, and almost was, for a brief moment. Instead, she is a fascist brownshirt.
RAYMOND IBRAHIM WRITES
As the Islamic world, in the guise of the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation, continues to push for the enforcement of “religious defamation” laws in the international arena—theoretically developed to protect all religions from insult, but in reality made for Islam—one great irony is lost, especially on Muslims: if such laws would ban movies and cartoons that defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, have to ban the religion of Islam itself—the only religion whose core texts actively defame other religions.
If films and cartoons defame Islam, the Quran itself defames other religions.
To understand this, consider what “defamation” means. Typical dictionary-definitions include “to blacken another’s reputation” and “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.” In Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.
However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC maintains that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam. Accordingly, the OIC is agreeing that any expression that “slanders” the religious sentiments of others should be banned.
What, then, do we do with Islam’s core religious texts—beginning with the Quran itself, which slanders, denigrates and blackens the reputation of other religions? Consider Christianity alone: Quran 5:73 declares that “Infidels are they who say Allah is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity; Quran 5:73 says “Infidels are they who say Allah is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary”; and Quran 9:30 complains that “the Christians say the Christ is the son of Allah … may Allah’s curse be upon them!”
Considering that the word “infidel” (or kafir) is one of Islam’s most derogatory terms, what if a Christian book or Western movie appeared declaring that “Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God—may God’s curse be upon them“? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the Quran defames Christians and Christianity.
Similarly, consider how the Christian Cross, venerated among millions, is depicted—is defamed—in Islam: according to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus supposedly will destroy all crosses; and Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, ordered someone wearing a cross to “take off that piece of idolatry.”
What if Christian books or Western movies declared that the sacred things of Islam—say the Black Stone in the Ka’ba of Mecca—are “idolatry” and that Muhammad himself will return and destroy them? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the hadith defames the Christian Cross.
Here is a particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment, especially to the millions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians. According to Islam’s most authoritative Quranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad is in paradise married to and having sex with the Virgin Mary.
What if a Christian book or Western movie portrayed, say, Muhammad’s wife, Aisha the “Mother of Believers,” as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam’s most authoritative Quranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.
Nor does such defamation of Christianity occur in Islam’s ancient texts only; modern day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree that it is permissible to defame Christianity. Qatar-based “Islam Web” even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity.
Now consider the wording used by Muslim leaders calling on the U.N. to enforce religious defamation laws in response to the Muhammad film on YouTube, and how these expressions can easily be used against Islam:
The OIC “deplored… an offensive and derogatory film on the life of Prophet Muhammad” and “called on the producers to show respect to the religious sentiments held sacred by Muslims and those of other faiths.”
But what about the “offensive and derogatory” depictions of Christianity in Islam’s core texts? Are Muslims willing to expunge these from the Quran and hadith, “to show respect to the religious sentiments held sacred … by those of other faiths,” in this case, Christians?
Turkish Prime Minister Erodgan said the film “insults religions” (note the inclusive plural) and called for “international legal regulations against attacks on what people [not just Muslims] deem sacred.”
Well, what about the fact that Islam “insults religions”—including Judaism and all polytheistic faiths? Should the West call for “international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred,” in the case of Christianity, regulations against Islam’s teachings which attack the sanctity of Christ’s divinity, the Cross, and Virgin Mary?
Even Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti—who a few months ago called for the destruction of all Christian churches in the Arabian Peninsula (first reported here)—is calling for a “global ban on insults targeting all” religious figures, while the Grand Imam of Egypt’s Al Azhar is calling for “a U.N. resolution outlawing ‘insulting symbols and sanctities of Islam’ and other religions.” Again, they, too, claim to be interested in banning insults to all religions, while ignoring the fact that their own religion is built atop insulting all other religions.
And surely this is the grandest irony of all: the “defamation” that Muslims complain about—and that prompts great violence and bloodshed around the world—revolves around things like movies and cartoons, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves; on the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns—in a word, defames—all other religions, not to mention calls for violence against them (e.g., Quran 9:29).
It is this issue, Islam’s perceived “divine” right to defame and destroy, that the international community should be addressing—not silly cartoons and films