Translate

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Director of CAIR in St Louis Wants Critics Prosecuted

Hat tip Creeping Sharia

“Report anti Islamic and anti Muslim content on the internet to appropriate authorities to take action to remove it and go after those who post it online and prosecute and take actions according to the Shariah ruling.”

Faizan Syed is the Pakistani-born director of Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR)  in Missouri. Just days ago, he was featured at a forum on sharia law at Webster University. According to the below article, he has called on people (using the Internet and social media) to report those who speak out against his religion to the "appropriate" authorities for prosecution under sharia.

http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2013/02/director-of-cair-missouri-wants-to.html

This is highly troubling, but it seems Syed may have left himself a little wiggle room here. Is he talking about suggested activities only in the US or in other countries-knowing our laws about free speech? Even if he is talking about countries that would actually arrest and prosecute people under sharia for offensive speech, it is still troubling. There is nothing wrong with recruiting people to respond to criticism and defend their religion, but reporting them to the authorities for prosecution-anywhere- is outrageous and against what this country stands for.

Syed quotes the Israel Project as an example that could be emulated, but nowhere do I see the Israel Project calling for people to report criticism of Judaism to the "proper authorities" for prosecution.

Mr Syed has some explaining to do.

9 comments:

Squid said...

Nice try Syed! First there has to be a determination if the content on the internet is anti-Islamic is actionable. If what is offensive is considered fairgame under First Amendment rights, Syed is dust. As for Sharia law used for prosecution, it is impossible under our current Constitutional system of laws. Dusted again Syed.

Squid

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Jewish organizations who refer to any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, and call upon university authorities to protect them from such speech, because it is allegedly anti-Semitic, bear some philosophical resemblance to what you critique here. Its not the same, but it is similarly troubling.

As for the director of CAIR... while his words are troubling, remind yourself, as well as him, that we DO have a First Amendment. Christians have to put up with seniors at public universities producing "Corpus Christi." He may be shocked by that, but that's our fundamental law -- and he has no more cause of action than they.

Saddam Hussein once asked Diane Sawyer, "In America, those who insult the president are not punished?" Obviously, he had never read Fousesquawk.

Miggie said...

If Syed gets his way this site will be among the first to go.. I wonder if it will be to a re-education center or a gulag compound or something worse. I wonder if they will go through a trial or if just the word of some devout but offended Muslim will be all that is necessary.

Findalis said...

When Muslims have nothing to fear from retribution they start making their demands that the infidels conform to Shar'ia law. Thus it has begun and if not blocked and stopped we will be doomed to Shar'ia.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

It was blocked in 1789 Gary. He can talk until he's blue in the face, in America, he has no cause of action. Squid has this one exactly right.

elwood p suggins said...

Are "Jewish organizations who refer to any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic" in any way analagous to libs/Dems/MM outlets, et al, who refer to any criticism of Obama as racist?? Just curious.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Of course they are elwood.

As I've said many times in this very space, I don't believe criticism of Obama is primarily motivated by racism. I believe Republicans and what passes for "conservatives" are motivated by a sense of wounded entitlement.

Since 1980, this political species has been claiming entitlement to a Thousand Year Reich, or at least a Republican Century, which they would dominate and rule and which they anticipated would be supported by a substantial majority of American voters.

Darn if those voters didn't flip the script and vote in Democrats now and then. NO FAIR!

Of course some critics simply differ on matters of policy. But they aren't the voices that get the attention, nor are they the loudest voices in the public square.

elwood p suggins said...

Is a "Republican Century" anything like a "Democratic Half-Century", which they essentially had, at least Congessionally, from the
1950's until 1994, I believe, and for which they had/still have exactly the same "entitlement mentality" Siarlys ascribes to Republicans??

Just curious.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

The Democratic half-century was bequeathed to them by voters, for half a century, but what voters give, voters can take away. Democrats seem to have begrudgingly acknowledged this, but Republicans assumed that the people would always be with them.

Incidentally, I've been reading up on the 1956 election, when the Republican candidate for president drew 39 percent of the black vote. That was a high water mark for the years since 1932. The party squandered it.