Half of US Muslims: Criticism of Islam Should be a Crime

[East of Eden]

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/29 ... sts?page=7

Not only do half of US Muslims think criticism of their religion should be a crime, 40% want to be ruled by Sharia Law, not our Constitution.

One in five could not agree those who criticized Islam should be spared the death penalty.

Does anyone think this is not a problem?

[micatala]

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/29 ... sts?page=7

Not only do half of US Muslims think criticism of their religion should be a crime, 40% want to be ruled by Sharia Law, not our Constitution.

One in five could not agree those who criticized Islam should be spared the death penalty.

Does anyone think this is not a problem?

If it is true, it would be somewhat of a problem.


However, I am not seeing where you get the 40% number.

Here is the page provided for that particular question.

http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/10/WenzelMuslimsQ6.pdf


I see 73% supporting the U.S. Constitution, and less than 7% saying Sharia Law.

Also, your paraphrase of the question is a bit skewed. It doesn't say what should "rule", the question asks what should a Muslim follow.

If a person wants to follow Sharia Law, or Mosaic Law, or Pastafarian Law, the Constitution says they are free to do so, provided they do not violate U.S. law in doing so. If people want to voluntarily follow Sharia law under these caveats, I am not sure what the problem is.




I would say those that think criticism of Muhammed or Islam should not be allowed are expressing an opinion profoundly at odds with the U.S. Constitution. In a pluralistic society, one cannot be so sensitive. Fortunately, the constitution is not likely to allow outlawing of such criticism. Muslims, like Christians, cannot expect their religion to be immune from criticism. That is just not reasonable.

[micatala]

I see goat has provided some sources on the unreliability of WND, and some sources that question Wenzel, the pollster.


However, even taking the numbers at face value, I think it is worth noting the following.


http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/10/WenzelMuslimsQ12.pdf



62% or more of the respondents disagree with the notion that Muslims should be tried in Sharia courts. Only 25% agree, with less than 10% strongly agreeing.



48% strongly agree and an additional 18% agree that Israel has a right to exist. That is 66% total. 18% disagree, roughly evenly split between strongly and somewhat.

Now, that is behind results I have seen for all Americans, but not severely so.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/most-americ ... t-1.278655

Here, 81% of Americans think Palestinians should recognize Israel's right to exist. A large majority, but no unanymous.


Here are some results from a Pew poll.

There isn't as much public polling available of American Muslims on the Israel-Palestine question. But what we can see is that 62% of American Muslims in a 2011 Pew poll believe there is a way for Israel to exist and Palestinian rights to be "taken care of". That is nearly equal to the 67% of the general population in the US on the same issue. It's also far higher than Muslim populations throughout the world – including only 16% in the Palestinian territories.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... stine-gaza

American Muslims on this question do not seem to be that different from the population at large.


A Rasmussen poll says 71% of Americans thinking recognizing Israel's right to exist should be part of any negotiated solution.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethm ... gotiations



I am not seeing that these poll results are all that astonishing. Are Muslims more likely to be less supportive of Israel and more supportive of Sharia law, etc., than Americans at large? That would hardly be surprising if it were true. The fact that the Muslim results seem not to be that much different on many of these questions than all Americans would indicate there is not a huge problem here.

[micatala]

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/29 ... sts?page=7

Not only do half of US Muslims think criticism of their religion should be a crime, 40% want to be ruled by Sharia Law, not our Constitution.

One in five could not agree those who criticized Islam should be spared the death penalty.

Does anyone think this is not a problem?

If it is true, it would be somewhat of a problem.


However, I am not seeing where you get the 40% number.

Here is the page provided for that particular question.

http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/10/WenzelMuslimsQ6.pdf


I see 73% supporting the U.S. Constitution, and less than 7% saying Sharia Law.

Also, your paraphrase of the question is a bit skewed. It doesn't say what should "rule", the question asks what should a Muslim follow.

If a person wants to follow Sharia Law, or Mosaic Law, or Pastafarian Law, the Constitution says they are free to do so, provided they do not violate U.S. law in doing so. If people want to voluntarily follow Sharia law under these caveats, I am not sure what the problem is.




I would say those that think criticism of Muhammed or Islam should not be allowed are expressing an opinion profoundly at odds with the U.S. Constitution. In a pluralistic society, one cannot be so sensitive. Fortunately, the constitution is not likely to allow outlawing of such criticism. Muslims, like Christians, cannot expect their religion to be immune from criticism. That is just not reasonable.

OK. I found where the 40% number is coming from.

http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/10/WenzelMuslimsQ10.pdf


However, we still have 73% of respondents supporting the U.S. constitution.


It would seem a good portion of the respondents think Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution are consistent with each other. This would point to there being different understandings of what Sharia law is. I don't see anything in the survey which indicates that, or that indicates all the respondents agree on what Sharia is.



Does Sharia law include allowing men to have more than one wife? If so, 80% of respondents disagree with allowing Sharia law, at least in this instance.

http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/10/WenzelMuslimsQ7.pdf

Only 20% say Muslim men should be allowed to have more than one wife. That would seem to be quite inconsistent with any implication that 40% of Muslims want to impose some kind of Muslim theocracy on the U.S.




Also, 90% of the respondents agree or strongly agree with the First Amendment in general. That a majority seem to think criticism of Muhammed or Islam should not be allowed would seem to indicate a fair amount of confusion on the part of the respondents, or some other problem with how the survey was done.

[East of Eden]

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/29 ... sts?page=7

Not only do half of US Muslims think criticism of their religion should be a crime, 40% want to be ruled by Sharia Law, not our Constitution.

One in five could not agree those who criticized Islam should be spared the death penalty.

Does anyone think this is not a problem?

If it is true, it would be somewhat of a problem.


However, I am not seeing where you get the 40% number.

Here is the page provided for that particular question.

http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/10/WenzelMuslimsQ6.pdf


I see 73% supporting the U.S. Constitution, and less than 7% saying Sharia Law.

Also, your paraphrase of the question is a bit skewed. It doesn't say what should "rule", the question asks what should a Muslim follow.

If a person wants to follow Sharia Law, or Mosaic Law, or Pastafarian Law, the Constitution says they are free to do so, provided they do not violate U.S. law in doing so. If people want to voluntarily follow Sharia law under these caveats, I am not sure what the problem is.

I agree, the problem is when they want Sharia courts, as they are pushing for in Europe and many other places where their numbers are growing. They need to assimilate or leave.

I would say those that think criticism of Muhammed or Islam should not be allowed are expressing an opinion profoundly at odds with the U.S. Constitution. In a pluralistic society, one cannot be so sensitive. Fortunately, the constitution is not likely to allow outlawing of such criticism. Muslims, like Christians, cannot expect their religion to be immune from criticism. That is just not reasonable.

Exactly.

[East of Eden]

Criticism of any ideology, religion or philosophy has to be protected free speech. If it is true that a significant number of Muslim citizens of a free country believe that free speech should be curtailed, then that would certainly be a problem.

Thank you.

I am unaware of any atheist this century or last century who think that criticism of atheism should be a crime. Please provide examples.

Here's one of many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

Let's see, in 1939, there were 500 Orthodox Churches operating in Russia. Under Stalin, that increased to 22,000.

That doesn't seem to me that those statistics support your claim.

You can't be serious. Under what government did the number of churches plunge?

"Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed."

[East of Eden]

I would like to see the actual Poll, who conducted it, what the methodlogy was.

http://www.wenzelstrategies.com/

World News Daily is not the most accurate source. They are well known for their very anti-Islamic stance too,

Cite or retract.

as well as bigoted against other minorities.

Cite or retract.

Sorry.. but saying someone from WND said something is not... well backing up the claim very well.

Ad hominem. Someone has to publish stories like this since much of the MSM doesn't have the integrity to do so.

East of Eden might recall that I documented some of the egregious practices of WND in a number of other threads that he has participated in. He should be well aware of them by now.


It is NOT and Ad Hominem to point out such practices. An Ad Hominem is using an irrelevant characteristic of a person to avoid addressing the substance of the persons argument.

Pointing out egregious inaccuracy and other extremely poor journalistic practices on the part of an organization that purports to be journalistic, and using those facts to justify questioning or even dismissing what that organization reports is not Ad Hominem.

Can you stop dodging my questions and tell me:

1. Are you for Sharia Law? If not, wouldn't that make you anti-Muslim according to your source?

You might be confusing what somebody else wrote with me. I am not "for" Sharia law. I am not sure what source you are referring to.

One of your left-wing sources telling how bad WND was said it was partly because they were anti-Sharia. That would make you anti-Muslim too, correct?

2. What news sources and polling organizations are impeccable?

Moving goalposts. I don't expect impeccability.

However, if impeccable is 10 on a scale of 10, WND is probably 1 or 2. They don't just make mistakes.

They deliberately and repeatedly distort the truth in extreme ways. They present speculation and innuendo as fact, repeatedly. They often omit most of the facts from a case to make a point entirely at odds with reality.

Examples:

1) They have published many birther articles. As one example, they claimed to have interviewed a person who lived near Mrs. Obama shortly after Barack was born. The person couldn't recall seeing a young baby around the neighborhood. This was offered as proof Obama was not born in Hawaii.

2) Of course, all birther articles that do not take into account repeated attestations by numerous Hawaiin officials up to the top levels of state government that Obama had a legitimate birth certificate, that do not take into account the two announcements that appeared in the newspapers their in August of 1961, etc. are practicing either deliberate distortion or incompetence.

3) WND published an article saying Obama had forbid naval cadets from wearing ceremonial swords because he was supposedly afraid for his own security. This was false on a whole host of levels. One: the ban on such swords went back to previous administrations. Two: It was a decision made by the military themselves, not any Administration.

4) Shortly before the last election, they published an article claiming Obama had a long history of gay lovers. The article was entirely speculation and innuendo with no actual evidence to support the contention. It amounted to nothing more than a cheap smear.

You mean this?

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthpla ... 45894.html

I don't know whether it's true or not, but real journalists would look into it. I don't normally sit on a couch holding hands with a guy, do you?

This is just a small sampling of their problems. This is not a case of occasional lapses. It is a pattern of repeated egregious lack of any journalistic competence or integrity.



Now, if you want to pick sources for their ideological viewpoint rather than reliability or truthfulness, that is your choice. I just don't see why you would want to support your positions with sources that are so obviously and repeatedly severely at odds with reality.

You continue to dodge my question, there is NO news source that has never been wrong, and I didn't claim WND was perfect. For Pete's sake, here's the boss of ABC news admitting their bias:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/d ... ock-426328

The MSM 'presstitutes' are so far in the tank for Obama its sickening, yet you have to single out WND.

Why don't you address the poll as Micatala is doing?

[micatala]

I would like to see the actual Poll, who conducted it, what the methodlogy was.

http://www.wenzelstrategies.com/

World News Daily is not the most accurate source. They are well known for their very anti-Islamic stance too,

Cite or retract.

as well as bigoted against other minorities.

Cite or retract.

Sorry.. but saying someone from WND said something is not... well backing up the claim very well.

Ad hominem. Someone has to publish stories like this since much of the MSM doesn't have the integrity to do so.

East of Eden might recall that I documented some of the egregious practices of WND in a number of other threads that he has participated in. He should be well aware of them by now.


It is NOT and Ad Hominem to point out such practices. An Ad Hominem is using an irrelevant characteristic of a person to avoid addressing the substance of the persons argument.

Pointing out egregious inaccuracy and other extremely poor journalistic practices on the part of an organization that purports to be journalistic, and using those facts to justify questioning or even dismissing what that organization reports is not Ad Hominem.

Can you stop dodging my questions and tell me:

1. Are you for Sharia Law? If not, wouldn't that make you anti-Muslim according to your source?

You might be confusing what somebody else wrote with me. I am not "for" Sharia law. I am not sure what source you are referring to.

One of your left-wing sources telling how bad WND was said it was partly because they were anti-Sharia. That would make you anti-Muslim too, correct?

I think you are confusing me with goat here, for one.

Secondly, you are conflating ideology with accuracy. My issue with WND is not that they are conservative, it is not even that they 'make mistakes.' It is that they have repeatedly engaged in extremely poor journalism and engage in practices for which there is no reasonable explanation other than blatant dishonesty. Their practices show absolutely no regard for telling the truth.


If WND wants to argue against implementing Shara in the U.S., that is fine. I think they are arguing against a possibility that is so remote it is not worth taking very seriously, but if that is their concern, I have no problem with that per se.

If their way of going about it shows no regard for the truth, and if they engage in smear tactics that demonize anyone who is a Muslim, then I will argue against them.

From the standpoint of this debate, I just don't understand why you would cite such an incredibly ridiculous excuse for journalism. There are plenty of reputable conservative commentators, organizations, and media outlets. The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, George Will, David Brooks, even Charles Krauthammer are just a few examples of sources that do not engage in the kinds of completely ridiculous practices that WND does.

2. What news sources and polling organizations are impeccable?

Moving goalposts. I don't expect impeccability.

However, if impeccable is 10 on a scale of 10, WND is probably 1 or 2. They don't just make mistakes.

They deliberately and repeatedly distort the truth in extreme ways. They present speculation and innuendo as fact, repeatedly. They often omit most of the facts from a case to make a point entirely at odds with reality.

Examples:

1) They have published many birther articles. As one example, they claimed to have interviewed a person who lived near Mrs. Obama shortly after Barack was born. The person couldn't recall seeing a young baby around the neighborhood. This was offered as proof Obama was not born in Hawaii.

2) Of course, all birther articles that do not take into account repeated attestations by numerous Hawaiin officials up to the top levels of state government that Obama had a legitimate birth certificate, that do not take into account the two announcements that appeared in the newspapers their in August of 1961, etc. are practicing either deliberate distortion or incompetence.

3) WND published an article saying Obama had forbid naval cadets from wearing ceremonial swords because he was supposedly afraid for his own security. This was false on a whole host of levels. One: the ban on such swords went back to previous administrations. Two: It was a decision made by the military themselves, not any Administration.

4) Shortly before the last election, they published an article claiming Obama had a long history of gay lovers. The article was entirely speculation and innuendo with no actual evidence to support the contention. It amounted to nothing more than a cheap smear.

You mean this?

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthpla ... 45894.html

I don't know whether it's true or not, but real journalists would look into it. I don't normally sit on a couch holding hands with a guy, do you?

Really. This is laughable. Honestly. Why on earth would you take this seriously?

It is not at all clear, as the author here seems to think, that there is even hand-holding going on. Are any of the people quoted in this article credible? I think most people would understand Larry Sinclair is not. The author himself says "in my opinion" the visit to the pizza shop was not unscheduled. And why should we give this guy's opinion and credibility?


We are supposed to take unverified quotes that gays in Chicago are afraid of getting murdered if they suggest Obama is gay seriously?

I note Jerome Corsi, author of one the articles linked to, was still pushing birtherism even after Trump had been humiliated by Obama providing, yet again, his birth certificate.


Good journalists do not put out unverified quotes, many of which are anonymous, without checking out their veracity. What you have here is a guy willing to put down anything anybody says in print, without regards to checking it out or not, and then piling in a lot of his own opinion about what this alleged facts mean.

This is just a small sampling of their problems. This is not a case of occasional lapses. It is a pattern of repeated egregious lack of any journalistic competence or integrity.



Now, if you want to pick sources for their ideological viewpoint rather than reliability or truthfulness, that is your choice. I just don't see why you would want to support your positions with sources that are so obviously and repeatedly severely at odds with reality.

You continue to dodge my question, there is NO news source that has never been wrong, and I didn't claim WND was perfect. For Pete's sake, here's the boss of ABC news admitting their bias:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/d ... ock-426328

The MSM 'presstitutes' are so far in the tank for Obama its sickening, yet you have to single out WND.

Why don't you address the poll as Micatala is doing?

[/quote]

Yes, I micatala did address the polls. You again might be confusing me with goat.


You again are moving the goalposts and trying to create a false equivalence.


An occaisional error is not the same as systematic disregard for the truth.

Bias is NOT the same as egregious inaccuracy.

I certainly would not fault East of Eden or anyone else for citing sources that are not perfect. However, I would think that, for the credibility of your own argument if nothing else, you would want to avoid a source that so clearly has no regard at all for accuracy or getting a story right.


Really. ANY organization that publishes article after article supporting the birther conspiracy does not deserve to be taken seriously. A guy like Jerome Corsi who publishes a whole book on that non-topic clearly does not have an accurate view of reality.

See here for more on Corsi.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/24 ... jer/192363


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-kre ... 62492.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-kre ... 07141.html

This last one discusses how even his fellow birthers could not swallow Corsi's claim that Obama has worn a ring that bears the inscription "there is no God but Allah" for thirty years. They claim (and these are his fellow birthers mind you) that the photos Corsi claimed as proof were photo-shopped.

If you need yet another indication of problems with WND, the article you cite quotes Pam Gellar. I have previously given you a whole list of problems with her statements. To add another fact, Pam Gellar is so extreme she was not even invited to CPAC this year.

Her response? She thinks CPAC has been infiltrated by anti-American Muslims!!!



I will quote another of the sources you frequent to document this.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ela-Geller

The liberal press concurs.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/0 ... n-for-CPAC

This includes a link of Gellar accusing conservative stalwart Grover Norquist of being a Muslim Brotherhood stooge. Right.







Now, you and I agree that Muslims need to accept that people might criticize their religion and their prophet. We agree that Sharia law, however you define it, should not trump the U.S. constitution. We agree it is ridiculous for Muslims to expect people who slander Mohammed be jailed. We agree that the U.S. should and is justified in taking appropriate actions against Muslim terrorists.




I am not sure why any of this requires us to entertain ridiculous conspiracy theories peddled by so-called journalists who have a long track record of being wildly out of touch with reality.

[East of Eden]

I would like to see the actual Poll, who conducted it, what the methodlogy was.

http://www.wenzelstrategies.com/

World News Daily is not the most accurate source. They are well known for their very anti-Islamic stance too,

Cite or retract.

as well as bigoted against other minorities.

Cite or retract.

Sorry.. but saying someone from WND said something is not... well backing up the claim very well.

Ad hominem. Someone has to publish stories like this since much of the MSM doesn't have the integrity to do so.

East of Eden might recall that I documented some of the egregious practices of WND in a number of other threads that he has participated in. He should be well aware of them by now.


It is NOT and Ad Hominem to point out such practices. An Ad Hominem is using an irrelevant characteristic of a person to avoid addressing the substance of the persons argument.

Pointing out egregious inaccuracy and other extremely poor journalistic practices on the part of an organization that purports to be journalistic, and using those facts to justify questioning or even dismissing what that organization reports is not Ad Hominem.

Can you stop dodging my questions and tell me:

1. Are you for Sharia Law? If not, wouldn't that make you anti-Muslim according to your source?

You might be confusing what somebody else wrote with me. I am not "for" Sharia law. I am not sure what source you are referring to.

One of your left-wing sources telling how bad WND was said it was partly because they were anti-Sharia. That would make you anti-Muslim too, correct?

I think you are confusing me with goat here, for one.

You are right, sorry. I must have been confused by the thread hijacking ad hominems and refusal to name a reputable journalism source.

Secondly, you are conflating ideology with accuracy. My issue with WND is not that they are conservative, it is not even that they 'make mistakes.' It is that they have repeatedly engaged in extremely poor journalism and engage in practices for which there is no reasonable explanation other than blatant dishonesty. Their practices show absolutely no regard for telling the truth.

I think your problem is with their ideology, as you focus like a laser on them and FOX while ignoring the biased MSM and their multiple errors. Since you refuse to name a reputable news source, now about the NYT? I guess not, they had the Jason Blair scandal, they had Paul Krugman blaming Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Party for the shooting of Rep. Giffords, when actually the killer liked to read Karl Marx. Not to mention their 'journalists' of the 1930s who shamefully lied on behalf of the mass murderer Stalin.

If WND wants to argue against implementing Shara in the U.S., that is fine. I think they are arguing against a possibility that is so remote it is not worth taking very seriously, but if that is their concern, I have no problem with that per se.

They're reporting a poll, not arguing for anything. Good for them, the MSM didn't or wouldn't report a poll like this, IMHO.

If their way of going about it shows no regard for the truth, and if they engage in smear tactics that demonize anyone who is a Muslim, then I will argue against them.

Smear tactics and demonizing? Pot, meet kettle.

From the standpoint of this debate, I just don't understand why you would cite such an incredibly ridiculous excuse for journalism. There are plenty of reputable conservative commentators, organizations, and media outlets. The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, George Will, David Brooks, even Charles Krauthammer are just a few examples of sources that do not engage in the kinds of completely ridiculous practices that WND does.

If the above people mentioned the poll instead of WND, what difference would it make on this thread other than your ad hominems? Facts are facts whatever the source.

Really. This is laughable. Honestly. Why on earth would you take this seriously?

It is not at all clear, as the author here seems to think, that there is even hand-holding going on.

Uh, look at the blow up of the photo, Micatala. Got any similar photos of Romney, for instance, holding hands with a guy on a couch. If photographic evidence is meaningless for you, let's just end the conversation now, shall we?

Are any of the people quoted in this article credible? I think most people would understand Larry Sinclair is not. The author himself says "in my opinion" the visit to the pizza shop was not unscheduled. And why should we give this guy's opinion and credibility?


We are supposed to take unverified quotes that gays in Chicago are afraid of getting murdered if they suggest Obama is gay seriously?

Your call, I for one don't give Obama much credibility. There are some interesting facts on this subject, that a real journalist would follow up on:

http://patdollard.com/2011/11/mother-of ... speaks-up/

Of course when it comes to things like this and Obama's unsavory associates, the MSM clams up, when it is Sarah Palin running for instance, planeloads of reporters are sent to AK to go through her garbage to try to dig up dirt. What would it matter if Obama did have gay relationships? He approves of that behavior, and has admitted his drug past.

I note Jerome Corsi, author of one the articles linked to, was still pushing birtherism even after Trump had been humiliated by Obama providing, yet again, his birth certificate.

You're really reaching, Corsi wasn't mentioned in the OP.

Good journalists do not put out unverified quotes, many of which are anonymous, without checking out their veracity. What you have here is a guy willing to put down anything anybody says in print, without regards to checking it out or not, and then piling in a lot of his own opinion about what this alleged facts mean.

Ready to tell me what you consider a good news source?

Yes, I micatala did address the polls. You again might be confusing me with goat.

Yes, I applaud you for that part, you stated the obvious that Sharia Law is incompatible with US freedoms. Apparently that is controversial to some here.

Bias is NOT the same as egregious inaccuracy.

Bias when claiming to be objective is a lie.

Really. ANY organization that publishes article after article supporting the birther conspiracy does not deserve to be taken seriously. A guy like Jerome Corsi who publishes a whole book on that non-topic clearly does not have an accurate view of reality.

Again, what does Corsi have to do with the OP?

See here for more on Corsi.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/24 ... jer/192363

Media Matters, what a junk, biased source they are. Here's a partial list of their lies:

http://mediamatters.blogsome.com/

If you need yet another indication of problems with WND, the article you cite quotes Pam Gellar. I have previously given you a whole list of problems with her statements. To add another fact, Pam Gellar is so extreme she was not even invited to CPAC this year.

Her response? She thinks CPAC has been infiltrated by anti-American Muslims!!!

I don't know about that, I do know CAIR and other such groups routinely put pressure on views they don't like, i.e. that tell the truth.

I will quote another of the sources you frequent to document this.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ela-Geller

The liberal press concurs.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/0 ... n-for-CPAC

You're funny, the Daily Kos is now a good source? You mean the people who said Sarah Palin's daughter was actually the mother of Trig, Sarah's son? Can we call them 'birthers'?

Now, you and I agree that Muslims need to accept that people might criticize their religion and their prophet. We agree that Sharia law, however you define it, should not trump the U.S. constitution. We agree it is ridiculous for Muslims to expect people who slander Mohammed be jailed. We agree that the U.S. should and is justified in taking appropriate actions against Muslim terrorists.

I'll just leave it at that and say we do agree on those things.

[Choir Loft]

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/29 ... sts?page=7

Not only do half of US Muslims think criticism of their religion should be a crime, 40% want to be ruled by Sharia Law, not our Constitution.

One in five could not agree those who criticized Islam should be spared the death penalty.

Does anyone think this is not a problem?

It is an axiom of Islam that;

"Death is better than persecution"

The Muslim definition of persecution is anything or anyone who opposes Islam. This includes statements of criticism whether they be true or not. Such criticism may be spoken by a Muslim, but not by a dhimmi(1).

The punishment or reaction to 'persecution' is jihad. Jihad is by definition 'struggle' and may take any form including but not restricted to violence and murder. In western nations the jihad has been known to take the form of litigation and sponsorship of bills to introduce forms of sharia law.

Uninformed non-muslims believe that Islam may be softened in the twenty first century even though there is no evidence of such an internal trend. In point of fact there are many Muslims who believe that jihad should be added to the existing five pillars of Islam(2) - making 6.

Reaction to persecution commonly takes the form of 'honor killings' where persons recognized as being opposed to Islam (cartoonists, novelists, journalists, etc.) and even innocent bystanders are murdered in the street. Honor killings have been common and frequent in European nations such as Denmark, Holland and France. England is now experiencing a wave of these honor killings and some have been recorded in the United States. When these happen, police do not interfere. In the rare circumstances when the authorities do become involved public mention or media reference to the religion is omitted.

In the United States, the Supreme Court has already established that local police are under no obligation to defend citizens.(3)

A form of political correctness (PC) called Islamophobia has been established by Muslims to mock those who even speak against Islam in a polite manner - such as Internet forums. Additionally PC sympathy for persecution of Islam has been tied to racism - even though Islam does not consist of any single ethnic group at all.

Finally, it should be noted that the kinder forms of non-muslim punishments are reserved for the 'people of the book'(4). The most severe punishments are commanded for persons such as homosexuals(5) and atheists(6).

Innocence will not save you, dear reader. It's time to either convert to Islam or work against it, including but not limited to bearing arms for self-defense.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

(1)
A dhimmi is any non-muslim. Dhimmitude is second class treatment experienced by a non-muslim living in a country under sharia law. This includes the payment of a head tax or religious tax. Payment of this tax has been known to be accompanied by humiliating treatment including but not limited to physical beating by the tax collector during payment.

(2)
The Five Pillars of Islam
Summarized in the hadith of Gabriel.

1. Shahada – the creed of Islam
“There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is His prophet.�
2. Salah/salat – daily prayers (5); dawn, noon, afternoon, evening & night.
3. Zakat – alms giving
4. Ramadan – the monthly fast
5. Hajj - Pilgrimage to Mecca at least once during one’s life.

(3)
Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

(4)
Ahl-Al-Kitab (People of the book) - Christians & Jews

"And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit."
- [Quran 29:46]

(5)
"Whoever you find committing the sin of the people of Lut, kill them, both the one who does it and the one to whom it is done."
Fatwa on Homosexuality from IslamOnline.net

(6)
"This-- taste it, and (know) that for the unbelievers is the chastisement of fire."
- [Quran 8:14]

[The Ex-Mormon]

It is a problem of the western societies how they shall react to it. And it is a problem of the Islam (to be exact, the orthodox Islam); changing their mind.
On the other hand western countries should not feign either, however.
It has not been a long time yet that the RCC had an authority which was called "sacred Inquisition". It was permitted to these to kill dissidents and heterodox or to force them to faith change. There were the witch trials of Salem and politically the McCarth (e) y era in the USA. Salafists have if the news tried to murder political opponents.
It is a problem! And, if the Islam is not ready to reform himself for a long time, it always will remain a problem!