The proof of the necessity of killing anyone who curses the Prophet or finds fault with him

Whoever curses a Prophet, kill him.”

motoon.paul_.green-1_zpsx6pjooow-640x836

“The Future Must Not Belong To Muslims Who Murder Christians For Being Christian”
If you’re waiting to hear Barack Hussein Obama make that statement, I wouldn’t hold your breath. (Scaramouche)
10846194_1499951586935637_5540689294101714239_n

Mohammed Ansar gets preachy:

The answer to hate has to be to increase love, peace, tolerance and coexistence

The haters are of curse not Mohammedan head choppers, but truth tellers like Spencer & Geller: Massive ‘Islamophobia industry’ flourishes in US— who’d have thought?

Rick “Jews Run the Media” Sanchez Says Mohammed Cartoonists are Bigots

Here, an editorial from fired CNN anchor Rick Sanchez. A guy who was fired from CNN for being a bigot shouldn’t shout “bigot”. Perhaps he is just looking for a job with al Jizz.

My Man Omid!
DUKE University Islamic Studies professor blames critics of Islam for Muslim violence
The Islamic Studies Center of Duke University has a message for critics of jihad: When terrorists decide to murder you for what you say, it’s your fault. Omid Safi, Director of Duke’s Islamic Studies indoctrination….

Shame on the NatPo For Running a WaPo Hit Piece on Pam Geller

Scaramouche

It’s the pinnacle of laziness for the National Post to carry a WaPo article about Pamela Geller and the Charlie-Hebdo-that-wasn’t-‘cuz-Texas-security-packs-heatsituation. Surely the NatPo couldn’t have assigned its own reporter the story. But noooo! Instead we have WaPo scribbler Lindsey Bever beavering away at theaccepted mainstream narrative about Geller–that she’s a Hatey McHaterson:

Islamization, she has said, is not something that will happen overnight. “It’s a drip, drip, drip, drip,” she told The New York Times in 2010 as she fought against the so-called ground zero mosque. “The mosque-ing of the workplace where you’re imposing prayer times on union contracts, non-Muslim workers have to lengthen their day. . . . These demands are a way of imposing Islam on a secular society.”

Such wild rhetoric prompted the Southern Poverty Law Center to add her to its list of “hate groups” leaders, calling her the “anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead.” “She’s relentlessly shrill and coarse in her broad-brush denunciations of Islam and makes preposterous claims,” the center said.

The mosque-ing of the workplace? That’s crazy talk!

As for being relentlessly shrill and coarse, the far-left SPLC is nothing if not that. The Center, which, pace the “poverty” in its name is immensely wealthy in a Bill Clinton Foundation/Scrooge McDuck kind of way, and which is rich, too, when it comes to ignorance about Islam, is quick to affix the label “hater” to anyone on the right with whom it disagrees. It would sooner tolerate the intolerance written into Islam and the theology that gives rise to global jihad and Islamic supremacism than it would the likes of Pamela Geller, a warrior for freedom who is neither shrill nor coarse, and whose claims are, in fact, the opposite of preposterous.

I expect to see such character assassination in the WaPo, not in the ostensibly conservative (or conservative-ish) NatPo.

Update: Anthony Furey, a columnist for NatPo rival the Toronto Sun, writes:

It’s also completely wrong to label the Garland drawing competition as provocative, which many out there are doing. The Boston Globe has a piece online titled “Pamela Geller, organizer of Muhammad cartoon contest, has history of provocation.”

If you know Geller’s work, it’s fair to say she is rather provocative. But so what? It’s pretty sad that some people can be provoked by something as benign as a cartoon contest.

We don’t have an obligation to not be provocative. This is especially true when someone’s barometer for offence is so low that almost anything can provoke them. It’s too limiting.

Limiting for us. Devotees of sharia, on the other hand, welcome such limitations.

5 thoughts on “The proof of the necessity of killing anyone who curses the Prophet or finds fault with him”

  1. WHO EITHER CURSES OR FINDS FAULT WITH THE PROPHET ! Where do you start? This desert dwelling, war mongering, killer, rapist, pedophilic donkey F**KER has enslaved a third of the worlds population with religious crap that any person with an ounce of brains could see comes from the mind of somebody who was a delusional unhinged psychological megalomaniacal psychopath.

    1. One fifth!

      Good heavens, Muslims are not one third of the world populace. Not yet.

  2. 1. “KILL THOSE WHO CRITICISE ISLAM”.

    2. CRITICISE PEOPLE WHO CRITICISE ISLAM.

    3. CRITICISE PEOPLE, WHO CRITICISE PEOPLE WHO CRITICISE ISLAM.

    The first is NOT hate speech – its ia act, and is therefore allowed.

    The last two are hate speech, and thus not allowed.

    From which we gather, that one is allowed to kill for Islam, but not allowed to talk of killing or criticise killings.

  3. “Mohammed” can’t be criticized because he probably didn’t even exist.
    Muslims know “Mohammed” is a lie which is why they’re so “sensitive” about the whole issue.
    Criticize “Mohammed” and what you’re really criticizing is the universal mental illness of Muslims.

Comments are closed.