Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Muslim Cleric Says Pamela Geller Deserves Death

Muslim Cleric Says Pamela Geller Deserves Death

Guess who blames the victim.

By now, you’ve no doubt heard that Pamela Gellar hosted a free speech event in Texas which focused on cartoon images of Mohammed and that an Islamist terror plot to kill attendees was foiled.

Many in media – and not just liberals -have gone out of their way to blame the victim, Geller and those attending the event, and have even gone so far as questioning the limits of free speech in America.

A writer at the Washington Post wondered why Geller didn’t apologize. CNN’s Chris Cuomo argued that ‘hate speech’ isn’t protected by the First Amendment which was so dumb he was even called out by the far left site Salon.

Geller appeared on the Sean Hannity show Wednesday night and confronted the British Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary, who openly called for her death on national television.

If you watch the Hannity show, you’re probably familiar with Choudary. Allahpundit of Hot Air jokes that Choudary has probably appeared on the show more times than Alan Colmes.

The exchange is over 10 minutes long but you should watch the whole thing:

Despite threats Geller has received, she said federal security agencies haven’t contacted her.

Daniel Halper of the Weekly Standard:

Pam Geller: No Contact from FBI, Homeland Security Since Terror Attack

Pamela Geller, the woman targeted by terrorists in Texas over the weekend, says the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have yet to contact her after the thwarted attacked. She made the comments last night in an interview with Sean Hannity.

“This is a serious threat,” said Hannity. “Basically a Fatwa, a death threat, has now been issued. Your reaction to that? Have you had any contact with the FBI?”

“They have not contacted me, but of course we’ve now increased my team. I have a team now, private security, and NYPD counterterror has been in touch with me,” said Geller.

“Did you reach out to the FBI?”

“I did,” Geller confirmed.

Hannity followed up, “Homeland Security hasn’t gotten ahold of you, the FBI hasn’t gotten ahold of you?”

“No, and this is interesting because this is a terrorist threat. And the FBI, President Obama should provide security. There’s no question about it. Because he created an environment that raised the stakes on this,” Geller said.

If you don’t grasp how serious this is, allow me to remind you. In 2010, a liberal cartoonist from Seattle named Mollie Norris decided to promote an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” meme on the internet.

She’s still living in hiding.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

legacyrepublican | May 8, 2015 at 7:19 am

You know, if Geller put the Koran in a bottle of her urine or had people stomp on a flag with a crescent moon on it, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

I will pray for her protection since the left wishes to throw her to the wolves for having the remarkable courage to defend free speech.

The people claiming that Pam is provoking the jihadis were probably very quick to hand over their lunch money to the bullies in school.

“Heckler’s veto” is now the “mass murderers’ veto.”

Kudos to Pam Geller for not bowing down. Kudos to her also for exposing the blatant hypocrisy of the left, and particularly the leftist media, on this issue.

The NY Times, which praised the Broadway play “The Book of Mormon,” which mocks and ridicules the religious beliefs of Mormons, expressed disgust and outrage that Pam Geller would sponsor a cartoon contest mocking the beliefs of “millions of innocent Muslims.”

In “progressive” America, all pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others, right NY Times?

Vancomycin | May 8, 2015 at 7:53 am

I hope everyone is paying very close attention. The SJWs and communists are showing everyone exactly what is needed to stop them.

I posted the following comment on Powerline’s article on this same subject (Won’t happen again, duplicate commenting that is!): “The NYT almost makes me wonder why we Christians didn’t go after the “artistes” that created various versions of “Piss Christ” or a crucifix in a jar of urine. Maybe then the NYT would have criticized those who dared to besmirch Christianity. Wouldn’t they have done that?

Also, why hasn’t the NYT, and others like them, gone after Islam for daring to make women second class citizens, or for Islam openly restricting the rights of non-Muslims in Islamic countries, or for the sheer homophobic approach Islamic countries have towards those who engage in same sex practices (Killing those who do so.)?

Could it be that the NYT is following the course of inaction best suited to those who dare not offend the easily offended? IOW, NYT is run by cowards, with big deep yellowish stripes running down their collective backs, leaving a huge stench where they have been.”

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Doug Wright Old Grouchy. | May 8, 2015 at 2:47 pm

    That makes them accomplices in the cleric’s hate crimes and hate speech.

    Don’t you know they’re just burning! Especially because it was a woman who is revealing their evil and causing their fall!

Ragspierre | May 8, 2015 at 8:42 am

Geert Wilders, the flamboyantly coifed far-right Dutch parliamentarian who is Geller’s partner in crime, has announced that we need more Prophet Mohammad cartoons to combat the failed attack in Garland. This really is the inexorable collision of two rival clowncarts throwing up cultural and physical shrapnel to innocents around them, two sides that can’t exist without each other and by any reasonable standard shouldn’t exist at all.
—Josh Marshall, Toilet Paper Mau-Maus (TPM)

See how that works? Geller and Wilders are “criminals”. ISIS and Geller/Wilders are moral equals, but “clowncarts”. They BOTH are hazarding everyone else who are “innocents”, and wouldn’t exist without the other. And, really, honey, they shouldn’t exist at all in “reasonable world”.

This guy is a perfect example of the cowardice that lies at the root of all this attack on Geller.

Is she some kind of Islamophobic monster, as she’s depicted, throwing off hateful stunts that “hazard innocents”?

No. That is entirely a lie. First, she isn’t even anti-Islam per se. She’s anti-sharia, and anti-jihadist. She is PRO a secular Islam that can exist in Western cultures.

She “provokes” radical Islamist just by living and being a Jew.

Geller 2; ISIS 0

NeoConScum | May 8, 2015 at 8:49 am

Mister Choudary: It would be such a pleasure to bring some Texas to the middle of your insipid, smirky, patronizing forehead,’Yo. Ms.Geller “deserves death”, you POS..?

Baa-Daa-Bing. Like dat. Aaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh….Nice.

Within the context of the topic of free speech: regarding moral self-restraint and impiety I believe it was Chesterton who said (I’m paraphrasing from memory), “Even artists have to draw the line somewhere.”

Funny how just crickets from feminists about Anjem Choudary threatening the “Patriarchy” against Pam Geller…why is that?

Midwest Rhino | May 8, 2015 at 9:56 am

O’Reilly said Jesus wouldn’t have done this event … though Bill only pretends to speak for Jesus.

Jesus actually directly confronts church leaders, when he could have walked away and not provoked them. Jesus even states the Pharisees (church “lawyers”) seek to kill him for what he says (blasphemy laws?) … yet he kept speaking.

I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

… Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.

So 700 years later along comes Mohammad and another group of murderous “church” leaders. Jesus did not condemn followers, he condemned the actions of the leaders. In Mohammad’s case, he led their war, and apparently wrote the rules for death and subjugation of infidels, by the sword.

But if today’s followers of Islam reject those ideas, they should not be incited by Rushdie or Geller, they would surely join them in calls for an Islamic reformation. They should join us in demanding these imams be defrocked for their murderous jihads on innocents.

A lot of people in history have been told to shut up. The witnesses in Ferguson were told “snitches get stitches”, just shut up and don’t incite the gang. Don’t wear an American flag shirt to school on Cinco de Mayo. Don’t tell the truth that you’re a little nervous if a few middle aged men in Arab garb are on your plane, right Juan Williams? you might incite NPR to fire you.

The draw Mohammad contest did not call for cartoonists to mock or incite, but to draw … To educate and illuminate, expose that dark side.

(They did in due time kill Jesus, via government. Of course JC had a special mission. The relevance of confronting murderous powers still stands, but today we can shoot back. JC said he could have called a legion of angels, but had a higher calling. He was not a “victim”, but a payment for the first Adam’s sin, as the story goes. He was the final payment on the passover lamb plan. 🙂 )

    objection in reply to Midwest Rhino. | May 8, 2015 at 1:06 pm

    Jesus was crucified because he was provocative. This modern day channeling of Jesus can be downright offensive.

I’m trying awful hard to get listed by SPLC but no luck so far
Lets see if this helps, note the actual url

I kept begging Hannity to shut off that guy’s mic so I could hear Pam Geller.

    She kept repeating herself when he talked over her. The same sentence 3-4 times. You didn’t miss much.

    Personally, I’m glad Hannity didn’t cut the Imam’s audio feed. We Americans deserve to know in no uncertain terms what radical Islamists – even ones ostensibly from Western nations – think of us and our freedoms.

I’ve heard it said that the ‘Draw Mohammed’ contest served no useful purpose and therefore should never have been held. Of course, lots of speech serves no ‘useful purpose’, but we don’t ban it.

In this case, however, the speech served an extremely important purpose. It drew the line where it should be drawn (pun intended). Today the Muslims and progressives are demanding that Islam should not be insulted in the public sphere. As bad as this is, if they get away with it, tomorrow they will be demanding that Islam not be criticized at all. What next? Sharia law for Muslims in this country?

I hate to say it, Islam is incompatible with Western democracy and values. Europe has possibly passed the point of no return in their surrender. Unless we start taking some serious action, we will be joining them soon.

    Observer in reply to topcat69. | May 8, 2015 at 10:52 am

    What’s next? Maybe we’ll have a U.S. president, who claims to be an expert in constitutional law, who will tell the world that “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

    Oh no, wait. That can’t be next. Because that has already happened.

    “I hate to say it, Islam is incompatible with Western democracy and values.”

    Why would you hate to say that? It’s an honest truth.

    Here’s another: Radical Islamists hate America and Americans … because it’s America and we’re Americans. Supposing we convert to Islam and follow Sharia law to the letter (right down to female genital mutilation and stoning rape victims for adultery), it’s still not likely to save us in their eyes. We’d still be apostates and infidels, because we’re Americans. So why bother? Why kowtow to their demands if, given the chance, they’d kill us anyway?

    Don’t ever hate or fear to speak the truth. If you do, the jihadists win.

Simply put, to know jihad is to hate jihad. And if you hate jihad, you will likely do more to help actual Muslims — to save them from death and misery — than the most politically-correct newspaper editor or the most hand-wringing academic.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/418067/im-more-hateful-pamela-geller-david-french

Read the whole thing. If you don’t hate jihad, you don’t love people. If you can’t condemn jihad, you don’t know reality.

This question for those blaming Geller: by saying that it is morally impermissible to express an idea that may provoke violence, are you not also saying that it is morally permissible to threaten violence to deter such expression?
Perhaps not, but that seems to be the crux of the argument.

    SDN in reply to jem927. | May 8, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    Da Tech Guy provided an excellent answer:

    Imagine a Gay couple comes into a Christian Bakery asking nay DEMANDING that on pain of the penalty of law they MUST bake a cake for their wedding as is their constitutional right. I can picture the baker smiling sweetly and giving, with profound regret, this answer:

    ” You know I understand that while I disagree with what you are doing and it violates my faith you certainly have a right to demand a wedding cake from me and I deeply sympathize. But there are Christians, some of them violent and radical like those who have attacked abortion clinics, who would be quite offended if I did so. I can’t take the risk of provoking such people into violence against either you or me.”

    Can’t wait to hear the shrieking.

Midwest Rhino | May 8, 2015 at 10:53 am

Jihad has silenced many westerners, even to the point they will attack Geller. The IRS and JustUs under Holder, have silenced many tea party groups and John Does, more than we can know.

The collectivist PC religion is even more dangerous, as they walk among us, pretending to be the “free thinkers”.

nordic_prince | May 8, 2015 at 11:19 am

Oh, I wanted to slap that grinning Muslim idiot upside the head. The world doesn’t play by your stupid Islamic rules, you 7th century throwback. Mohammed wasn’t a “prophet,” and there’s no reason why anyone should “respect” him ~

Pamela Geller is being blamed for causing a terrorist attack by hosting a competition for artists, the subject being the perfectly legal (per American law and Western history) drawing of Mohammed. Back in 2012, the now-defunct blog Modicum of Insanity wrote about the film-maker the White House blamed for causing the Benghazi massacre.* The blogger made the following excellent statement:

“If we don’t protect these filmmakers’ freedom of speech, we are no longer free, but ruled by mobs of religious fanatics oceans away.”

While defending the right of free speech is an important objective in the Geller debate, I am concerned that not many people are paying attention to the larger issue, including our right to freedom of religion. Why should the non-Muslim Western world in general, and Americans in particular, be expected to comply with the rules of an alien** religion? The progressive left is adamant about not wanting American law and culture to conform to the Christian values that have successfully guided our country for two centuries. Why do they not show the same resistance to conforming to Islamic religious law? They loudly proclaim the right to freedom FROM religion, most especially freedom FROM Christianity. Well, don’t we non-Muslims have the right to freedom FROM Islamic religious law?

Muslims are certainly free to practice their own religion, but I see no reason why we should be expected to alter our Christian values to comply with sharia law, or even with American progressive ideology. Indeed, Hillary (among others) has said that Christians need to revise the basic tenets of Christianity to bring it up to date with modern progressive ideals (gay marriage, for a primary example). I guess we need to show obeisance to many masters not of our choosing, no matter how much they conflict with our own religious heritage and political standards.

If Muslims believe that drawing a picture of Mohammed is heresy, then they should certainly not draw such pictures and they are free to criticize or punish other Muslims who violate this Islamic standard. Under no circumstances, however, should non-Muslims be required to adhere to Islamic law. We can respect the right of others to follow their own religion, but we do not have to abandon our own religion and laws to follow theirs. Civil disobedience has a long and honored history in America, and Geller’s art competition is an act of civil disobedience to the expectation that we should all comply with Islamic law.

Geller did nothing illegal. In a sane world, criticism would focus on the criminals who sought to shoot up a roomful of law-abiding people.

*Modicum of Insanity is no longer online, but you can read the original post via the Wayback Machine. Scroll down to September 16 at the following URL:
http://web.archive.org/web/20121114143619/http://modicumofinsanity.blogspot.com/

**Obama has it wrong. Muslims had no role in the founding of America or in the development of the underlying philosophy that made our system of government possible.

Did this “Imam” just make a credible threat against a woman’s life on national television? If so, why is no action being taken?

    walls in reply to objection. | May 8, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    ‘Cause he’s in Britain, and they’re just as pussified as we are.

    randian in reply to objection. | May 8, 2015 at 4:40 pm

    Aside from the “Islam” exception to laws against making death threats, it’s probably not seen as credible because he personally couldn’t execute it. If somebody does murder Pamela he will deny any involvement.

It drew the line where it should be drawn…

Exactly: on the sidewalk outside the building.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend