Freedom vs. Sharia
Garland, Texas: Picture This!
Muslims Demand No One Be Allowed to Draw
A Picture of Muhammad—Including Americans in America
- January, 2015: Paris France
Jihadists attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine and killed 12 people for depicting Muhammad in cartoons.
- February, 2015: Garland, Texas
Muslims held a “Stand with the Prophet” event to defend and honor Muhammad.
- May, 2015: Garland, Texas
Muslims attacked a “draw Muhammad” carton event which resulted in the deaths of two Jihadists
The incredible controversy surrounding these events, which culminated in Garland Texas on May 5, 2015, has a lot of us wondering exactly what those events are all about and what is really at stake in light of America’s free speech. There are no quick sound bites or quick fixes regarding this matter, but if we truly have a desire to understand what is at the root of all this swirling controversy—with its back and forth accusations being played out in the media—then this article is for you. However, if you just like to be spoon-fed information and not have to bother yourself with too much study, then I would not recommend you continue reading.
In order to know our adversaries, we must find out what they believe—what lies at the very heart of their being—and what it is that they believe so strongly that they are willing to die for it. Religion and love are hard to dissuade.
In order to precisely understand, we must first educate ourselves about the history of Muhammad and his teachings.
Are the events we see unfolding around the world really the results of Muslims becoming radicalized, or are Muslims just reacting to what is encapsulated at the very heart of their religion and responding to the West in a manner compatible with the example and teachings of the Quran and the Hadith? Perhaps Muslims around the world are taking an example from the Christians and asking themselves what would Muhammad do, then acting accordingly.
On the Muslims’ side we will look at the historical back ground regarding the treatment of people who depicted Muhammad in a negative manner—or in any manner.
Let me begin by saying that I take no pleasure in making fun of anyone’s religion or religious icons—even if that religion attacks my Lord, Jesus, and calls Him a liar and casts Him in the role of second rate prophet behind their religion’s prophet—in addition to denying that He was crucified, died, buried, then rose again from the dead for the salvation of mankind.
The religion I am referring to is Islam and in order for their prophet to be relevant in light of the Bible and the ministry of Jesus, it would necessitate that somehow Jesus must become subjected to Muhammad—thus the revelations given by Muhammad literally rewrote Scripture and exposed Islamic ignorance through the Qur’an.
Gospel means good news, and the good news is that God took on the form of man in order to save mankind from their sins by becoming a final sacrifice for mankind on the cross. The Qur’an must reject this teaching in order for Muhammad to ascend in relevance and become the savior of mankind.
Despite this, I see no reason to insult or poke fun at someone—in this case Muhammad—who is dead and cannot defend himself. That is not to say that—based upon research—I won’t point out the areas of conflict with what Islam claims to be truth and what the Bible, history, science and archeology show to be the facts.
However, when a religious system threatens the liberties our Founding Fathers gave us through our Constitution—a Constitution based upon our Judeo-Christian beliefs—then we have a problem. Some have argued that our country was not founded on Christian principals, but the evidences speak otherwise. Our Declaration of Independence incorporates an entity referred to as God, not Allah or Brahman, but God.
Based upon Isaiah 33:22, our Founders created America’s three branches of government:  “For the Lord is our Judge,” The Judiciary Branch;  “the Lord is our lawgiver,” The Legislative Branch, and  “the Lord is our king,” The Executive Branch; thus our government was divided into a Trinity with checks and balances because our Founding Fathers understood the biblical nature of man.
It might be good to pause and remember that America’s laws are based on the Ten Commandments. Accordingly, inside the Supreme Court of the United States there is a depiction of Moses and the Ten Commandments above the Justices’ seats, and chiseled in stone on the East Portico outside, again we see Moses the Law giver—not Muhammad and the Quran.
Finally, consider that our Constitution was not signed by Congress in 1787 with just the day, month and year—or in the year of the Lord—but signed specifically, “in the year of our Lord”–who would have to be Christ Jesus because of the system of years used to date the document.
The first act of the Continental Congress on September 6, 1774, was a call to prayer and three years later, on September 11, 1777, the Continental Congress approved the import of 20,000 copies of the Holy Bible for the Indians in the Northwest Territories to enable them to learn about Christ. On September 10, 1782, the Congress of the Confederation approved, “…a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use in schools.” Congress’ endorsement appeared on the book’s front page.
The events which occurred in Garland, Texas, are merely a predictable progression under the Islamic onslaught of imposing Sharia Law—a law that is already infiltrating our legal system. One example can be found by doing an Internet search for “Sharia Financing,” where Muslims in America can acquire interest free loans from a federally licensed bank for their homes or business. An unknown fact is that many American Banks offer Sharia financing as well—as long as the business does not sell alcohol, pork or non-Halal foods.
It’s hard to believe, but even our various city governments have submitted to and embraced Sharia Law by offering Sharia financing. The National Journal reports: “Since 2006, Minneapolis has loaned more than $1 million to Muslim business owners through a program which complies with Sharia Law.” That’s right. American cities are becoming Sharia compliant, so what’s next? To answer that, we could continue with how our government and public schools are succumbing to Sharia Law, but then I’d be writing a newspaper—not an article.
Let’s revisit the events which happened in Paris, France, on January 7, 2015, which led to what we are presently experiencing in the United States.
A satirical publication, Charlie Hebdo—a magazine which pokes fun at celebrities, politics and religious institutions, including the Catholic Church—published cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad. As a result, Islamic fundamentalists murdered a dozen people in retaliation of its caricatures of Muhammad. (Islamic fundamentalists are those who read the Quran and the Hadith and are faithful to follow its instructions and the examples given by Muhammad.)
Ten days later, on January 17 in the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, fundamentalist Muslims held, “Stand with the Prophet in Honor and Respect,” a “movement, not an event” as the organizers described it, to not only defend their prophet, but to combat the American media and so-called Islamophobes who have tuned the Islamic Prophet Muhammad into an object of hate.
The event was a thinly veiled response to the bloody reaction against the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in France and their demands that such depictions of their Prophet be stopped and no longer be permitted in America—despite the First Amendment’s protection.
Among the speakers at the event, according to World Net Daily, was the imam who has been linked as an unindicted co-conspirator to the deadly 1993 World Trade Center Bombing from Brooklyn. His name is Siraj Wahhaj and he once remarked, “It is my duty and our duty as a Muslims to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Quran.”
Also according to WND, “President Obama formally invited Wahhaj to give a ‘juma,’ or invocation, at the Democratic National Convention in 2012, but his invitation was withdrawn after public criticism of the decision became widespread.”
From the Islamic viewpoint, the attempt to censor any form of profaning Muhammad is nothing new. In fact, this was just another attempt to reinforce what Muslims were trying to do in 2012. That year the Organization of Islamic Cooperation called on the United Nations to pass a universal law which would ban anyone and any country from insulting the Prophet Muhammad—including America!
The Muslims’ event in Garland was, of course, the throwing down of the proverbial gauntlet in the face of the United States Constitution, so four months after the “Stand with the Prophet” event, Pamela Geller (a political activist, patriot, and defender of the First Amendment) hosted a contest in defiance of the Islamists’ demands to censor expression.
It was held at the Curtis Culwell Center, in Garland, Texas, in the very same room where the Muslims demanded respect and honor for their prophet from the media and “Islamaphobes” in an attempt to prevent caricatures of their Prophet.
The result was the same as it has been since the seventh-century: Muslims attacked with a vengeance in an attempt to kill those who would dare draw a picture of their Prophet, Muhammad. This time the jihadists died. From their point-of-view, it is a win-win because dying in an Islamic jihad is the only guarantee they will achieve paradise (Sûrahs 2:216; 3:157-158).
This supposed radical Islamic response is not so radical after all if we consider that it was Muhammad himself who initiated the tradition of beheading or killing anyone making fun of him.
During the seventh-century, thirteen hundred years ago in Arabia, they did not have Facebook or Twitter, but they did have a form of social media which was not only very popular, but very effective at getting the word out on subjects of interest.
That media was poetry and it was used very effectively in elevating or degrading persons of importance. Like the poetry of Homer, whose subjects became immortalized, the Arabian poets created great images of the tribal leaders of their time.
Conversely—like the political cartoonists of today—the double edged sword of a clever poet could be used to denigrate and lampoon a person which would result in making them look impotent and a fool who could not to be taken seriously.
A modern example would be Sarah Palin who, while running for Vice President of the United States, was lampooned by Saturday Night Live’s Tina Faye who bore a striking resemblance to Governor Palin.
On one of SNL’s comedy skits Tina portrayed the governor stating in a child-like tone, “I can see Russia from my house,” a quip which soon had people believing the real Sarah Palin said it. What Governor Palin actually said in an ABC interview was, “They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More