Pa. Court: Judge Uses Sharia Law to Free Muslim Assailant

Pa. Court: Judge Uses Sharia Law to Free Muslim Assailant

thenewamerican.com

And with an admission of guilt by the assailant and video of the incident, it should have been an open-and-shut case.

But that’s not how it turned out.

As Andrew McCarthy at National Review reports:

Magistrate Judge Mark Martin, a veteran of the war in Iraq, ruled that Talag Elbayomy's sharia defense — what he claimed was his obligation to strike out against any insult against the prophet Mohammed — trumped the First Amendment free speech rights of the victim.

Yes, you read that correctly.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is the most alarming thing I've read. I imagine, this was a lower court and will be overturned. BUT, it has to be addressed by the American people if such a thing does not occur.

And of course looking for trends is important.

When I post this, this is not due to not having respect and unconditional love for all people including muslims. Far from it.

But it is being posted because fascism seems to be on the rise in the west, and we are not going to adopt any form of Sharia and most westerners oppose this completely.

This is not meant to promote war, or any form of attack on another country, but its meant to educate people to a possible trojan horse in our own countries, or just an out and out miscarriage of justice, if it remains singular over time.

thenewamerican.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

repost

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Where is the thread? I searched the breaking news, and the recent posts and even did a search on top. Would love a link to this hard to find thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

He might be refering to this one. Just a couple of post down from yours.

reply to post by milkyway12


Well its good its reported via another outlet, I searched "judge uses sharia law" for my search and didn't notice the different wording.

I'll add this to the other thread and ask that a mod close this one down.

The judge is wrong in this decision. No matter what, attacking a person for wearing something offensive should be a crime punishable by the appropriate penalty.

The 1st amendment in this country is sacrosanct. It may be unpopular to folks. (mostly right wingers) but the freedom of speech and expression is the greatest thing this country has to offer. And for the judge to violate that sacred trust with the people means the terrorists win.

reply to post by HauntWok


I would direct this to the other thread kindly linked above. I have written to a moderator asking how to close this one down.

Please add any comments to the existing thread found here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thread closed.