“It is not an attack on free speech or the silencing of controversial ideas or criticism.”
It most certainly is. As I have pointed out many times, truth is the new hate speech. The enemies of freedom brand opposition to jihad “hate speech,” and now they’re working toward criminalizing it. They’re racing against time: as the jihad in Europe and the U.S. grows more aggressive, the truth of what I have said for years is becoming increasingly obvious. So they’re trying to clamp down hard and hang on to power, and keep on implementing their suicidal policies.
Sina Dehghan, sentenced to death for “insulting the prophet” of Islam when he was 19-years-old, was tricked into signing his confession, an informed source told the Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI).
Despite the severity of the charge, a court-appointed attorney who failed to defend him properly represented him during his trial, added the source, who requested anonymity for security reasons.
It is the fear of this violence, torture and death, wielded by extremist Muslims, that keeps every person desperate to obey.
If liberals are in favor of freedom of speech, why do they turn a blind eye to Islamist governments such as Iran, which execute people for expressing their opinion? And why do they not let people in the West express their opinion without attacking them or even giving them the respect of hearing what they have to say? They seem, in fact, like the autocratic people from whom I was fleeing, who also did not want their simplistic, binary way of thinking to be threatened by logic or fact.
As, in Islam, one is not allowed to attack except to defend the prophet or Islam, extremist Muslims need to keep finding or creating supposed attacks to make themselves appear as victims.
Finally, a short message to liberals might go: Dear Liberal, If you truly stand for values such as peace, social justice, liberty and freedoms, your apologetic view of radical Islam is in total contradiction with all of those values. Your view even hinders the efforts of many Muslims to make a peaceful reformation in Islam precisely to advance the those values.
We see jihad take two forms, based on the relative strength of the Muslim population in an area. Where non-Muslims rule, the attempt is to gain control over the levers of power, and to be in charge. The aim is to overthrow kafir rule. There is no direct attempt to convert, but the war is a war for territory. Where Muslims rule, the aim is to apply Shari'a in its entirety. The hope or end state is for a pious, just, ruler who can make Muslims strong and rich and who can end their divisions. The end state of both is however a global caliphate. The Caliph rules over all the peoples of the world and implements Shari'a law in its entirety.
It is now glaringly evident, the sharp twist of the drifting to religious extremism in the case involving the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is fast becoming, following the employment of aspects of the incompatible Sharia law by his trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako, in the argument against masked witnesses coming to testify against Kanu and other three defendants.
The Indigenous people of Biafra (IPOB), knows the entirety of humanity is aware of the ongoing genocide in Nigeria against Christians who in this case are predominantly Biafrans, but like the "fence-sitter" has decided to stay neutral and watch event as it escalates.
These links and any other content or links on this website are provided for information only. No warranty is provided regarding their accuracy, and no liability is accepted for reliance on them. Sharia Watch UK Ltd. is not responsible for the content of external sites. We do not necessarily endorse any or all of the views expressed on these external sites.