Friday’s “Rally Against Hate” in front of the Islamic Center of America is being portrayed in the media as a peaceful protest of the “Innocence of Muslims,” and an example of the unity, peace, and mutual sweetness that is and has always existed amongst the great religions of the world.
But the real purpose of the rally is to inveigh against free speech, or specifically, against speech that criticizes Islam. For instance:
“’We need to draw the line between freedoms of expression and hate speech,’ said Sayed Hassan al-Qazwini, imam of the Islamic Center on the border of Detroit and Dearborn.” (“250 rally at Dearborn mosque against worldwide violence”).
Last week Qazwini “urged the U.S. to do more to stop the people behind the video and those who are promoting it.” He believes the “U.S. response should be much more stronger [sic] than verbal condemnation." (“Dearborn imam: Violence not what Islam preaches”).
Stronger than verbal condemnation? The government’s verbal condemnation was a positive disgrace.
Government responses to speech that are stronger than verbal condemnation would have to mean civil or criminal sanctions, including anything from levying fines to capital punishment – absolutely none of which could be promulgated without violating the Bill of Rights (unless . Qazwini would be familiar with strong sanctions, because, before he came here to “be a part of the Islamic frontier in this country,” he experienced Saddam’s persecutions of his father, who had to flee with his family, first into Kuwait, and then to Iran. He certainly knows the meaning of government displeasure in forms “stronger than verbal condemnation.” What he clearly had no concept of, nor interest in, is freedom of speech.
Also featured at the rally was Reverend Edwin Rowe, of Central United Methodist in Detroit, who told the crowd:
that the blame of the escalating violence should be placed on those individuals who were responsible for creating the movie first and foremost. "Blood is on their hands. There is absolutely no way we can call this anything close to free speech. In fact, if you know the action that you are going to create is going to result in violence and death, then you are responsible for the blood that it causes and I pray that these folks will be brought to justice.” (“Interfaith leaders condemn hate speech at ICA rally”).
Whenever a Christian leader mentions praying for justice without also praying for mercy, it’s reasonable to question his religious seriousness. (On the other hand, Reverend Rowe’s credentials as a social gospeller and curator of Sixties leftism are absolutely solid!). Reports don’t tell us if Reverend Rowe was equally vociferous in praying for justice on any of the – by now – hundreds, if not thousands of Islamist community organizers who, unlike the movie creators, have explicitly called for violence in more than twenty nations, and many of whom also have blood on their hands -- literally.
Dawud Walid was on hand, naturally, director of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and, as CAIR is only its front, as representative of the Muslim Brotherhood (Motto: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."). Walid “said that violent Muslim protesters are actually acting against Islam.
"We can't take the law into our hands," Walid said. "The prophet Muhammad never returned insults with injury."
We never know when Walid is being serious, so we assume he never is. For an example of one of the better-known instances of Mohammed’s response to an offense, consider the slaughter of the Jews of Banu Qurayza.
The Brotherhood had a second representative at the rally, Imam Mustapha Elturk, of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). As we have written elsewhere:
ISNA was explicitly named as a Muslim Brotherhood front group in the “Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America” introduced as evidence during the 2007 Holy Land Foundation Hamas-financing trial. The kernel of that strategic goal is anchored on this blog right below DU’s masthead, where you can read about the Brotherhood’s “Grand Jihad” in “destroying Western civilization from within.” (“FBI’s Mueller to Brotherhood’s ISNA: ‘I’m Your Puppet’”)
Elturk said on Friday that, "We urge all Muslims to peacefully oppose any provocative or aggressive acts against their faiths."
Elturk we know is lying when he calls for peaceful opposition to “aggressive acts.” The rules of war laid out in the Quran forbid aggression, but provide an absolute right to self-defense against “those who attack you.” Calling any action that offends a Muslim an “aggression” or “attack” automatically makes it a justifiable act of self-defense to attack the source of the offense – through jihad. The Quran specifically command Muslims to “Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. . . [Otherwise] slay them wherever you find them . . . if they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded”. Surah 2. All the violence – all of it – that we’ve seen acted out in the Middle East since the 11th can be traced back directly to this doctrine. And of course Walid and Elturk know it perfectly well.
When Pakistani Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf “demanded the international community to declare blasphemy a punishable crime on the global level” on Friday, he deliberately called the video an “attack”: “an attack on the Holy Prophet (pbuh) was an attack on the core belief of 1.5 billion Muslims, and was unacceptable.”
He regretted the violence of his people so much that he gave them the day off so they’d have more time to do it.
Which is why we can’t believe a word of what these people say.