The Washington Post argued for Shariah restrictions on free speech in a wildly dishonest, silly and illogical Religion News Service article that ran in Wednesday's religion section, headlined "Internet hate speech can lead to acts of violence."
The article's author, Omar Sacirbey, promotes the mythical "anti-Muslim hate" narrative that is skillfully used by Shariah advocates to silence the truth about Islam. According to Sacirbey, free speech is a dangerous thing. Sacirbey wants Internet speech to be restricted, because if free speech goes unchecked, it could lead to ______ (fill in the blank – make it up as you go along). He cites a "report" from the "Muslim Advocates" that claims "anti-Muslim hate speech on the Internet is commonplace and can motivate some people to commit acts of violence against Muslims." Operative word: "can."
"Can" or "could" is just plain hogwash. What is real is the hate speech in the Quran. What is real is the massive slaughter, oppression and subjugation of non-Muslims and secular Muslims, as commanded under Islamic law. What is real are the 250-plus young Christian girls who were recently kidnapped and likely sold into sex slavery in Nigeria. What is real is the leader of the devout Muslim group responsible for that abomination, who said he acted "by Allah." What is real is Sept. 11, Jul. 7, March 11 and the other 23,000 deadly Islamic attacks, each one committed by devout Muslims quoting chapter and verse of the Quran. That is real hate speech.
Who do Omar Sacirbey and Muslim Advocates think they're kidding? The editors of the quisling Washington Post, no doubt.
The notorious Farhana Khera, president of Muslim Advocates, is known for her pro-terror activism. Khera attacked successful FBI stings as "entrapment operations" targeting innocent civilians (who wanted to blow up buildings, bridges etc.). Khera accused the FBI of "planting informants" in "American Muslim congregations" "without evidence of wrongdoing." Khera defended Foad Farahi, the Miami imam who had known links to terrorists. And she supported the terror-linked imam Ahmed Afzali, who tipped off the Sept. 11 subway bomb plotter Najibullah Zazi – a plot that would have slaughtered thousands in New York City on an anniversary of the Sept. 11 attack. There's much more on this jihad supporter here.
What is the conclusion of the Muslim Advocates' smear report? They instruct readers to report any and all postings that offend Muslims. They give step-by-step instructions on how to do that. So while they try to legislate free speech, they use other mechanisms to shut down the last refuge for truth seekers.
Sacirbey claims that "the report contains examples of hate speech and how it can lead to violence." He cites attorney Madihha Ahussain, the lead author of the Muslim Advocates report:
Ahussain said that anti-Muslim websites give like-minded people a place to gather and at the same time win new supporters through their posts. As an example, Ahussain cited the Facebook page of anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller, which she said grew from roughly 19,000 followers in July 2013 to some 78,000 people as of late April.
Actually, Omar, it's 85,000 people. Muslim Advocates got that wrong, along with the spelling of my name and just about everything else, too. (I wrote to Post's national editor asking for an opportunity to respond; no one at the Post deigned to answer.)
The report also cites the example of Robert James Talbot Jr., a Texas man who created a Facebook page for the American Insurgent Movement, whose stated aim was to start a revolution and overthrow the U.S. government. Talbot was a regular reader of Geller's Atlas Shrugs blog.
How do Omar Sacirbey and Muslim Advocates know that? They don't. I never heard of Robert James Talbot, Jr. He never commented at Atlas Shrugs, as most regular readers do. So how does Muslim Advocates come to such an unsubstantiated conclusion? They just made it up. And Omar repeated it in Religion News Service and the Washington Post. Talbot would post links to news items on his Facebook page (like so many Facebook users) from all different news sources. He posted one link to an Atlas Shrugs news item, along with hundreds of others. And the Washington Post runs this smear unchecked?
Why didn't Omar and Farhana Khera throw in every other news source Talbot cited? Because that would have been honest, and it would have completely collapsed their "theory."
If Talbot really were a regular reader, he would know that I never advocate for violence. I am a free speech activist, and unlike jihadists, we use words to advance our ideas, not machetes.
It is ludicrous to try to make me responsible for other people's actions. Arguments that try to blame me can be used against anyone of any ideological perspective. They strike at the very heart of the freedom of speech. By their logic, no one should be critical of anything, for fear that some evil person will misunderstand that criticism and commit violence because of it.
Comments that call for violence are not tolerated on my site. Omar knows that. Muslim Advocates knows that. Here is my comment policy:
Comments at Atlas Shrugs are unmoderated. Posts using foul language, as well as abusive, hateful, libelous and genocidal posts, will be deleted if seen. However, if a comment remains on the site, it in no way constitutes an endorsement by Pamela Geller of the sentiments contained therein.
Speaking of hate speech, where is Muslim Advocates' policy condemning the violent imperatives commanded in jihadic doctrine?
This is all in the pursuit of their agenda: imposing Islam on America. Some lunatic "whose aim was to start a revolution" posts a link (out of hundreds of other news links) to an Atlas news story, and that's reason enough to go after the First Amendment. But dare to tie Islam to jihadists who themselves quote Quran chapter and verse for their acts of violence, rape and murder, and you are a racist-islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot-hater.
They pound bold-faced lies and defamation to advance their hate fiction – and get a column in the Washington Post to spread their propaganda. Will the Washington Post permit me to rebut this fallacious narrative? Not on your life.
Note to the Washington Post: It's not "Internet hate speech can lead to acts of violence," but adherence to Islam that actually leads to acts of violence.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.