Ezra Levant vs Islamic contributions to free speech

Muslim prof in Kansas: Muslims should ask Congress to outlaw Qur’an-burning — because it incites violence (JW)

Liaquat Ali Khan teaches commercial law, arbitration and international law at Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas. He argues here that Muslims should petition Congress to outlaw the burning of the Qur’an because doing so incites violence — in contrast to the burning of the American flag, which, he says, the Supreme Court declined to outlaw because “no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur.”

And so here we have a vivid example of how the stealth jihad and the violent jihad go hand-in-hand, support each other, and are two aspects of the same effort. Muslims go crazy and kill innocent people over a burned Qur’an, and their useful idiots in the mainstream media blame the Qur’an-burner instead of the Muslims who behaved violently and irrationally. Then a smooth and rational voice — a law professor — says that because burning the Qur’an leads to violence, it must be outlawed.

The whole thing is based on a false premise: that someone who burns a Qur’an is responsible for the violent actions of someone protesting the burning of the Qur’an. That is not remotely true.

Just the other day a Muslim woman wrote that a couple of my books should be burned; making fun of the conventional wisdom on who bears the responsibility for Qur’an-burning, I said that if she did burn my books and I killed some people after that, the blood would be on her hands. And that is just as absurd as saying that the freedom of expression should be limited because some people react violently at some forms of freedom of expression. They should be called to behave rationally and responsibility, rather than restricting the freedom of expression, which is a free society’s foremost defense against tyranny.

But restricting the freedom of expression regarding Islam is a foremost Sharia objective, and is being pushed aggressively today by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and its minions. That is the agenda that this calm law professor, Liaquat Ali Khan, is serving.

“Petitioning Congress on Qur’an Burning,” by Liaquat Ali Khan in MWC News, April 19:

[…] In the language of law, Qur’an burning would be an expressive conduct. The First Amendment is generous in protecting oral and written word. It is less so with respect to expressive conduct. The First Amendment shelters expressive conduct if it does not threaten to disturb the peace. The United States Supreme Court declined to outlaw the burning of an American flag because, “no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur.”The flag precedent does not apply because Qur’an burning is an expressive conduct that incites actual violence. So far Qur’an burning has produced instantaneous violence outside the United States. Given the presence of a growing population of American Muslims, Qur’an burning threatens domestic peace. Media and blog invectives may have forced Justice Stephen Breyer to retract his otherwise sound intuition that the First Amendment would not protect Qur’an burning.

Invoking their constitutional right, American Muslims should petition the United States Congress for a redress of grievances. They must demand constitutionally sound legislation that outlaws desecrations of the Qur’an. For Congress, such legislation will demonstrate to American Muslims that the United States is prepared to break away from the medieval custom of assaulting the dignity of the Qur’an. It will also send a powerful message to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and the entire Muslim world, that the U.S. is neither Islamophobic, nor anti-Islamic, a move that can undermine terrorist threats to homeland security.

Time to submit:

To their credit, Western European nations have adopted anti-hate statutes, which would proscribe burning of the Qur’an. A few days ago, the British government arrested a Welsh politician who allegedly burned a copy of the Qur’an. The British government has also banned Pastor Jones from entering the United Kingdom.

Yes indeed. The British gubmint is a disgrace to the free world.


Here’s a very incomplete list of organizations or people self-censoring, or hiring bodyguards, or going into hiding, or taking other precautions, and sometimes getting killed or wounded after receiving death threats and violence from Muslims following the example of Muhammad, who said there would be no punishment for murdering someone who had insulted him.

Yale University Press (self-censored in response to Muslim death threats);

Metropolitan Museum of Art (self-censored in response to Muslim death threats);

National Archives of Canada (self-censored in response to Muslim death threats);

Director of the museum in the Hague, Wim van Krimpen(self-censored in response to Muslim death threats);

State Senator Greg Ball;

2010 Tennessee candidate for Congress Lou Ann Zelenik;

Barrister Tom Zreika;

Murdered Japanese translator Hitoshi Igarashi’s publishers, and Japanese bookstores;

Norwiegan translator William Nygaard (shot);

Italian translator Ettore Capriolo (knifed);

French singer Veronique Sanson (self-censored in response to Muslim death threats);

Artist Molly Norris (self-censored in response to Muslim death threats, changed name, went into hiding);

The producers of South Park (self-censored in response to Muslim death threats);

Journalist Lawrence O’Donnell (self-censored in response to Muslim death threats);

Cartoonist Lars Vilks (house firebombed);

Philosopher Robert Redeker (in hiding, under government protection);

Filmmaker Theo Van Gogh (murdered);

Author and former member of Dutch parliament Hirsi Ali (full-time bodyguards);

Author Salman Rushdie (in hiding, under UK govt. protection);

Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten (bodyguards hired);

And again Jyllands Posten (target of a planned terror attack by five jihadists planning to shoot as many people as possible);

Atheist Sabri Husibi;

Lyricist Javed Akhtar;

Cartoonist Kurt Westergaard almost killed by a Muslim with an axe;

Director of the film 2012; the comedian Penn Jillette; the British potter Grayson Perry(all three self-censored in response to Muslim death threats);

Lawyer Majed Moughni;

Author Taslima Nasreen (self-censored in response to Muslim death threats);

Disc jockey/musician Jakub Rene Kosik (self-censored in response to Muslim death threats);

Coptic Orthodox priest Zakaria Botros (Al Qaeda bounty of $60 million on his head);

Pop star Deeyah (hires extra bodyguards);

Politician Shiria Khatun (forced by Muslim threats to her children to dress in a “less Western” manner);

Christian minister Dr. Peter Hammond

Actor Omar Sharif;

Artist Sooreh Hera (self-censored by Muslim threats and forced into hiding);

Artist Sarah Maple (gallery workers threatened, gallery window smashed, 24-hour police protection);

Beatle Paul McCartney;

150 Austrian Coptic Christians (Austrian interior ministry found list targeting each of them for attack);

100+ Canadian-Arab Christians (each one targeted on an Al Qaeda website);

Volvo and Ikea;

UK teacher Gary Smith
(face slashed, skull fractured);

UK Muslim scientist Usama Hasan (self-censored in response to Muslim death threats);

Islam expert Robert Spencer; and again Robert Spencer; and again Robert Spencer; and again Ro…well, you get the idea.

And countless others have been subjected to similar threats and violence.

The lights are going out. The growth of Islam means the death of civil liberties. It’s time to resist.

Want more? Here’s more:

And, at greater length, here is what one Fr J L Menezes, a Catholic priest who spent many years among Muslims in India, had to say on the subject of Islam.

“The Mahommedan religion on the whole with all its dogmatic and moral principles, and with all its positive and negative laws has been a curse to human society.

Mahommed pretended to confer by his religion a boon, at least on his own countrymen, by giving them in place of gross idolatry a purer faith, and surer moral habits, but in this attempt he has miserably failed and has hopelessly fallen into the very sin he so vehemently assailed.

Mahommedanism has penetrated into barbarous countries and has forced its inhabitants to accept it as their saving religion, but in doing so it has not succeeded in elevating man’s condition to a higher level – or at least to a level any higher than that of Arabia in Mohammed’s time.

‘The Partial and specious reforms which it may have attempted to effect, are vitiated by the fact that they tend to exclude the higher and nobler virtues;

‘and as their inner life of families, the whole, the whole tone of society and the intellectual and moral standard of a people depend on the principles of the ruling religion,

‘it is hopeless to expect that Islam will ever cease to be what it hitherto proved,

‘**the most formidable obstacle to the dawn of a progressive and enlightened civilization** {my emphasis – dda}.

‘How can it be otherwise?

‘No permanent house can be built on a foundation of sand; what permanent civilization and progress then can be expected from a people professing a religion founded on fatalism, polygamy and slavery?

‘Their blind belief in inevitable fate, and their antagonism to liberty of thought and action have rendered reform next to impossible; and the professors of this religion seem never to realize their obligation and duty towards the people under their rule, of spreading true civilization, good government and the cultivation of the peaceful arts.

‘The natural consequence of this ignorance and blindness has been despotism, mal-administration, bigoted persecution and oppression of their co-religionists.

‘In the countries of the Mahommedan world

‘anarchy, rapine, revenge, strife and murder are the order of the day,

‘thieving, lying, usury and oppression are looked upon more as virtues than vices;

‘unrestrained licentiousness is carried to unimaginable excess…

‘They are generally illiterate and at the same time self-conceited

‘and their vainglory in their religion and the nothingness of their own acquirements makes them scorn every other religion;

‘the meager education which they generally receive when young, makes them believe that there is not much left for them to learn in the world.

‘In short, Mahommedan countries are the chosen homes of
ignorance, bigotry, tyranny and brutal vice,

‘and rendezvous for a filthy, unprincipled people, as well as for brigands, felons and freebooters.

‘While all other countries not influenced by Islam have made rapid progress in every direction and enjoy the blessings and peace of true civilization,

‘Mahommedan countries have remained absolutely opposed to change and reform;

‘nay, rapacity and extortion have reduced them to a most deplorable state.

‘Such is the boon conferred on human society by the Mahommedan religion, and what a benefactor Mahommed has been to his country!

‘Who was pleased to give to his country, nay, to the whole world, a religion which,

‘ claiming a divine origin as the final and irrevocable standard of morality,

‘has kept its followers sunk in ignorance and barbarism, and has become an insuperable barrier to the regeneration, civilization and progress of the Eastern world.”
– from THE LIFE AND RELIGION OF MOHAMMAD. By J. L. Menezes, 1912 (reprinted in 2005).


5 thoughts on “Ezra Levant vs Islamic contributions to free speech”

  1. What stands out here is this:

    “medieval custom of assaulting the dignity of the Qur’an.”

    The Koran is dreck from the 7th century. It is an insult to modern man that there are people in this world trying to force the lunacy of a genocidal bandit on us this day and age.

    “Given the presence of a growing population of American Muslims, Qur’an burning threatens domestic peace.”

    That can be changed in a flash.

    What a sorry excuse for a law professor. But isn’t the O’turd also a Muslim and a law-professor?

  2. So what else is new?
    This is how Isalm has been spread for 1400 years or so.
    They whine, complain, and then riot when they are offended by something as silly as burning one of their stupid “Satanic Verses” books.

    Allah, a.k.a. Muhammad must be Satan. I can’t think of another personification for evil that fits the Islamic ideology.

  3. I just got mailed the most hateful message on Soda Head, I have ever recieved because I suggested that people were going around in circles trying not to state the obvious about the vicious tempers of offended Muslims, and yet insisting that critics be held accountable for the violence that they inflamed in the enraged Muslim.

    Pretty much this girl from the UK mailed me, personally, used profanity and suggested that the Muslims would “take care” of people who abused the beloved prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him.

    I must say it gave me some pause for thought. How lucky the progressives are that understand this kind of justice. They go blissfully about their lives, blaming non-Muslims for the violence of Muslims, and all is right with the world.

    I however, was left gasping for breath.

  4. We are dealing with an Inbred mentally defective population, that married first cousins for tribal security, over thousands of years.
    Only fear of an impure death for the Jihadists and supporters, as well as targeting their core of agitation, their Mullahs and the Koran, developed by a pedophile War Lord.
    Time for total War against this pestilence on this Planet.

    For starters sign the “Ban Islam” petition at: http://www.petitiononline.com/MYSTIC/petition.html



    KEEP ON TELLING IT LIKE IT IS!!! We must NEVER tone down our speech to suit others because in doing so, we surrender the rights of free thinkers everywhere and aid in the destruction of Democracy.

Comments are closed.