Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

Originally posted by Chickensalad
I find it funny(not haha funny) that so many posting, feel that the assault was morally wrong. And the judge seeing it as "ok" is wrong. But, by the same token are expressing that the judge be reprimanded with even more violent acts.

Yeah... I agree with ya.

I just wonder if I can now get pissed, assault a Muslim sympathizer wearing a Judge "costume", and get the charge dismissed afterwards because he offended my belief in our Judicial system. That would work for me.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by milkyway12

Man , where is the white house on this. How dare a judge enforce Sharia Law in the United States of America.

Do you really think we should get Mr. Obama involved?

I'm sorry to hear about your brothers. In my book, THEY ARE HEROES!

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by Rockpuck

That's no different than black people being allowed to attack a white person for saying the N word. Or a Mexican being permitted to attack someone against illegal immigration.

I agree, but they are ALL miscarriages of justice.

See ya,
Milt

I am sick of the double standard here. I didn't serve ten years for my country to see our freedoms be trampled upon! This is why I carry a pistol. If one these idiots attacked me, I would stomp a mud hole in him and walk it dry. He would definitely be messing with the wrong bull. I believe in Jesus Christ as my savior. However, I wouldn't mock someone else's beliefs, it is that person's right to express themselves how they like to as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of someone else, but I wouldn't have done this. The judge should be disbarred and the muslim should be dealt with in the judicial system correctly. Justice should be blind. When will everyone learn that Islam is violent? God help us!

reply to post by NoSoup4U


I say god help the muslim,cause when the American people wake up. The muslims

are going to have hell to pay.If they can't play by our rules then send them back.

One way or the other we need to eradicate the muslim infection that has pledge

the free world.

reply to post by Chickensalad


So it is legal for a muslim to attack anyone who they believe to be insulting or shaming their god..

Muslims started a riot down here in AU for spitting on a couple of bikini clad girls on a sydeny beach.. Excuse, their exposed flesh was an insult to Allah. They were there to enjoy a beutiful day on the beach and were confronted by a number of young women with skimpy bikinis, so the muslim men assaulted them.

Though they were totally owned by the rest of the people on the beach, I can see that if judges start accepting muslim revenge/honor attacks in western countries, TSWHTF in a big, big way eventually one side or the other will totally crack..!!

The solution is simple... If you want to live under Islam, go live in an islamic counrty or abide by the laws and freedoms of the western country you live in. And stop trying to impose your laws on the rest of us, which is mainly what muslims do. Even when just visiting a western country, they expect us to behave by their laws... sooo freaking arrogant..!!

reply to post by Chickensalad


The title of the thread is pretty misleading. You get the idea this is a new law on the books making it legal for Muslims to attack people for insulting Mohammad when that is not exactly the case. Judges make poor decisions all the time but clearly there are aspects to this case we are not privy to which made the judge render this verdict.

I will bet that if any Muslims attack anyone regardless of the reasons they will suffer the same penalty anyone else gets...unless they are a rich Muslim and they can buy their way out of time by getting an attorney to argue the case for them.

I really cannot express how disgusted I am by this.

What happened to "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me?"
People need to get over their $?@*# and stop being offended.

You're offended? No one gives a crap. Now stop being such a soft $%&@? and grow a pair.

The thing that really got me about this article is the following quote:

‎"Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people."

reply to post by newcovenant


Ahhh but it rally dosen't have to be a written or recorded law.

If a muslim man beheads his daughter for refusing to marry a muslim man, in down town NY city, he can say it was a shame to Islam and his lawyers could quote this case. He could get off on religious grounds, etc, etc, etc..

Not likely to ever happen, but this is fundimentally one way prior judicial descisions can affect and change (ammend) laws.

reply to post by Rockpuck


I remember in HS a female classmate was pissed at me and some other boys and tried hitting us.
I either blocked or stepped into the punch the result being her sprained wrist.
She cried to some guy 2 grades up and he came charging at me yelling about hitting women.
I said if she attacked me again I would defend myself again and that's when he went ape sh** and attacked me.
I beat him in less than 2 minuets and he ran crying to a teacher.

He picked the wrong teacher they got in trouble and I was just warned that I should let them land a few more punches so I don't look completely like the bad guy.

To bad the rest of the world has gone all PC.

Beating someone up for their opinions is just as wrong as being beat up for your race religion or creed.
It's time PC BS was done away wiht.

Hmmmm.From *shudder* Fox News.com:

Judge Mark Martin said there wasn't enough evidence to convict Talaag Elbayomy of harrassment. Although there was grainy video of the incident, it was ruled inadmissible, leaving the case one man's word against another's, the judge said.

Source: www.foxnews.com...
So the Judge decided the evidence was inadmissible and it was a he said/ she said? Has the 'grainy vid' turned up anywhere or is the fella keeping it back for the civil Courts?

EDIT: Found it, how did that incident ever get into a court .

Edit..and Im also wondering why the press chose to report only some of Judge Martins words. Meh.

reply to post by joewalker


Here is the video:

video

Not much to see, but there were witnesses all around.

reply to post by Maslo

Heya Maslo, we've talked before bud but its been a while, hope alls good.

Mate, its handbags, we've both seen worse worse on a Friday night lol...remember the charge was harrassment not assault. British Police would've laughed and sent em on their way.In opposite directions obviously.

Heres a bit of the Judges speech the press didnt report:

Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures – which is what you did.

Now, the muslim fella is an idiot for getting vexed but, is free speech simply the licence to insult?

reply to post by joewalker

Mate, its handbags, we've both seen worse worse on a Friday night lol...remember the charge was harrassment not assault. British Police would've laughed and sent em on their way.

Now, the muslim fella is an idiot for getting vexed but, is free speech simply the licence to insult?

I really do not like how you trivialize the incident. Violence should not be tolerated in any civilised society. Even a bar brawl on a Friday night should be seriously investigated, if charges are pressed. And this was no stupid bar brawl, but a religiously motivated harrasment aimed to restrict freedom of expression.

We all know that in Britain, freedom of speech nowadays is more of a lip service, which may not apply for example when you hurt someones feelings. Luckily, not in America.


Anyway, if the charges were sincerely thrown out due to lack of evidence, then I guess the ruling is technically good.

reply to post by Chickensalad


If the judge is a Muslim convert, he is reflecting the views of many Muslims who believe that people should not be allowed to insult Islam

Poll of UK Muslims

• 68% believe that people who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted.

• 62% believe that freedom of speech should not be allowed if it insults Islam.

CBS

The Koran and Hadiths are clear that rights of Islam over-rides the rights of Kafirs (non Muslims).

AS the influence of Islam grows, expect incidences such as this to increase.

reply to post by Maslo

I really do not like how you trivialize the incident

Just saying as I see it fella.

Even a bar brawl on a Friday night should be seriously investigated, if charges are pressed. And this was no stupid bar brawl, but a religiously motivated harrasment aimed to restrict freedom of expression.

We both agree about violence although it will be noted that you didnt answer the question.
Or have you...

We all know that in Britain, freedom of speech nowadays is more of a lip service, which may not apply for example when you hurt someones feelings. Luckily, not in America.

So in your view, freedom of speech is a Right without a responsibillity...all incitement is free speech...Interesting.
Oh and reports of Britains demise are greatly exaggerated..

Anyway, if the charges were sincerely thrown out due to lack of evidence, then I guess the ruling is technically good

Aye, still wondering why the media didnt report all the fellas speech though, its almost as if there is some kind of agenda .

reply to post by Chickensalad


Muslim states have been pushing for the UN to make any criticism of Islam illegal anywhere in the world.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted - for the fourth straight year (2009) - a resolution prepared by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference calling upon all UN nations to adopt legislation banning the "defamation" of religion.

NY Daily News

Islamic states want any criticism of Islam to be illegal around the world.

reply to post by ollncasino

Hey Ollin, Boxers, quite poss the best dog in the world. Used to have a White one back the days when they were put down at birth.

If the judge is a Muslim convert, he is reflecting the views of many Muslims who believe that people should not be allowed to insult

Not really relevant Ollin as the Judge is framing his thoughts in terms of the US Constitution not the koran.

reply to post by Chickensalad


Muhammad wasn't very tolerant of criticism of himself or Islam.

• Muhammad authorised the murder of a number of poets (male & female) who had mocked him. One poet was a mother sleeping with her young children. The Muslim assassin had to move a child aside before thrusting his dagger into her chest. Another victim was a male poet who was, according to Muslim sources, over 100 years old. Mohammed then absolved the Islamic murderers of any wrong doing.

• He was also an accomplished caravan raider who had the propensity to execute prisoners who had been political opponents in the past. One such man had fallen foul of Muhammad when Muhammad was in his early days due to being a better story teller than Muhammad,. "Who will look after my young daughter?" cried the man, moments before he was executed. Muhammad then cursed him.

The Life of Muhammad (768 AD) by Ibn Ishaq

Muhammad led the 'perfect' life. The closer a Muslim emulates his deeds, the better a Muslim he is.

reply to post by Chickensalad


See that's what happens when people let RELIGION(S) control their life, ALL them not just Muslims I just thank god I am an athiest