Sharia is censorship

No. 2,578

It is virtual common knowledge that the tech giants – Google, Facebook, Twitter, and a few other, smaller “free expression” Internet platforms, such as Patreon – are engaged in a concerted, partnered campaign to erase “hate speech” from the public discussion of speech.  That is, they disagree with what is said about certain individuals, issues, or entities, and wish people to remain ignorant of what others may say or that opposition may exist to what the MSM may say. Especially taboo is any criticism of Islam, whether it’s a scholarly essay or expressing a fear of Islam (“Islamophobia”).

The censorship amounts to compliance with Islamic Sharia law. That these tech giants are in cahoots with Muslims who want to impose speech-quashing  Sharia law should be no surprise to readers. Robert Spencer has published an article on Jihad Watch and Front Page about the cozy relationship between Facebook, Twitter, and CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations).

Now it is becoming clear why Facebook and Twitter have for so long been harassing, shadowbanning, and blocking foes of jihad terror and Sharia oppression. Journalist Jordan Schachtel revealed in Conservative Review Tuesday that “the Hamas-tied Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which is best known as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing case in U.S. history, appears to have access to high-ranking Facebook and Twitter executives and has communicated with these individuals about who should be allowed to stay on their platforms.”

This doesn’t come as any surprise given the eagerness of both Facebook and Twitter to be Sharia-compliant. Facebook’s Vice President Joel Kaplan traveled to Pakistan in July 2017 to assure the Pakistani government that it would remove “anti-Islam” material. And Facebook has done so assiduously, banning numerous foes of jihad terror and twice now blocking the Jihad Watch Facebook page on spurious technical grounds.

According to Hasan al-Banna, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” The Muslim Brotherhood’s founding manifesto clearly and unapologetically states its tenets:

“Allah is our goal,

the prophet our model,

the Koran our constitution,

the Jihad our path

and death for the sake of Allah the loftiest of our wishes.”

As a “toxic” American male, novelist, atheist, and a practicing “Islamophobe,” what I have to say about those tenets is this:

All of Islam can be encapsulated in the “tenet,” boast, or threat: “We love death more than you love life!" Who said it? In April 2011 The National Post  had a revealing article on the statement:

In 2007, two years before he killed thirteen people and wounded twenty-nine at Fort Hood, Texas, Nidal Malik Hasan prepared a slide show In 2007, two years before he killed thirteen people and wounded twenty-nine at Fort Hood, Texas, for his fellow Army doctors on the subject of Islam. One of his last points read: “We love death more than you love life!”

The sentence originated with a 7th-century Muslim commander who threatened his enemies with the prospect of “an army of men that love death as you love life.” As if to prove that, at least in the Middle East, there is nothing new under the sun, Hassan Nasrallah employed the phrase in a 2004 interview to explain why Hizballah, the organization he heads, is destined to prevail over Israel:

“The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win, because they love life and we love death.”

The one sentence in Hasan’s slide show that is relevant to Islam is about what the purpose of jihad is: “An individual’s striving for spiritual self-perfection.” [Slide no. 5]

A Muslim’s “spiritual self-perfection” apparently is death in the act of killing infidels and other unbelievers. Martyrs are rewarded by Allah with 72 virgins and eternal beach time in Paradise. That’s for the male “martyrs.”

What about female martyrs? What are female jihadists promised if they’re declared “martyrs” ? 72 virgins? If they are (and the query has never been answered, to my knowledge), can it be logically inferred that they’re lesbians? The assumption that female “martyrs” qualify for rewards by Allah-Walla defies the bizarre “logic” in Islam. But then, there is no logic in the whole deranged corpus of Islam.

Sharia commands that one submit to the whole illogical, anti-reason, and life-hating existential philosophy of Islam. It should be no surprise, either, that the big tech companies would bow to Islam. For all we know, their executives abide by the Five Pillars of Islam, which are:

The Shahada, i.e., kneeling, raising one’s derriere to Casper the Merciful Ghost (it’s a form of devote mooning), and banging one’s forehead on the ground or floor until it’s black and blue; a discolored forehead on a Muslim is a mark of distinction and piety;

Prayer, i.e., holding one’s hands out like a beggar, and hoping with all one’s might that Casper is pleased with one; if he’s not pleased, he will sentence one to an eternity in the box;

Zakat, i.e., giving money to the needy, such as poor jihadists, so they can kill infidels and apostates and attain self-perfection and earn their 72 virgins;

Fasting; or giving up halal sweets and falafel for a month, from dawn until sundown, abstaining from food, drink, and sexual relations. But pigging-out after sundown is permitted; Casper can hear a believer’s stomach growling and is merciful;

Pilgrimage; to Mecca, at least once in one’s lifetime, and spend a lot of money (remember, all your wealth is Casper’s, you’re just holding it in trust), and enrich the coffers of Islamic authorities.

Imagine the big tech executives beginning their days at the office performing the Shadada (renamed for the occasion, with the right moves, the Shanana). But no matter how they “bust their moves,” they’ll still want to affix duct tape over your mind and mouth. Casper and CAIR will it in the name of “freedom of speech,”  which they profess to believe in, but really don’t tolerate.

Neither does Nancy Pelosi. See my column about her designs on Freedom of Speech.