Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

AS usual in agreement with you. I just wanted to clarify though, the not allowing businesses to open on sunday was religion based. It's supposed to be the day of rest, so says the bible. Although some sects celebrate sabath on saturday, and others on sunday.

reply to post by joewalker


The Judge made an error when he disregarded state law concerning assaults, and instead state the man has a right as a Muslim to attack him for insulting Mohammed. Under US law its not permissible to assault another person unless done so in self defense.

The law is blind and is based on the concept of you dont assault your neighbors, they dont assault you. The law does not permit one person who is Muslim to assault another person who is not Muslim because the Muslim found his actions offensive.

The ability to attack a person for insulting Mohammad is found in the Islamic faith, and is justified in the Islamic faith.

By ignoring State law, by referencing that the man had a right to attack people for insulting Islam, the Judge ignored the law, as well as violated the mans constitutional rights, by stating the Muslim was justified in his actions based on his faith.

That is not how our legal system works, and its a violation severe enough that the judge should be disbarred and removed from the bench. That ruling established a precedent, and that precedent is a Muslim can attack any person whom they view as insulting their religion. It also now allows any other religious group, including atheists, to be able to attack other faiths / views on the basis that it offends them.

Originally posted by joewalker
reply to post by Maslo

 

it changes nothing about the assault on such a person being illegal

What assault?

By placing his ands on the individual dressed as the Prophet, is in fact an assault under PA law. Any unwanted physical contact coupled with a person who is expressing his view on Islam, which is protected speech under the 1st amendment. The Muslim attacked him, resulting in the police showing up and arresting him for the assault.

Attempting to use the judges position / ruling in this case to somehow justify the actions of the Muslim is not going to work. The Judge made a massive error in judgment and law. It doesn't matter who the guy insulted by dressing up as the prophet, he is protected by the 1st amendment to do so.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The Judge made a massive error in judgment and law. It doesn't matter who the guy insulted by dressing up as the prophet, he is protected by the 1st amendment to do so.

I was going to make a long reply but Xcathdra took the words right out of my mouth with their two posts. As offensive as it was, there was no act of aggression or threat deserving an assault. The judge is saying that if one disagrees with opinion, he is permitted to violently censor that opinion. That is a dangerous precident to set.

This is not a muslim / non-muslim issue. So do not make it that. It was a judge bringing his personal religious beliefs into the court room. This also happens with Christian judges, it's just not often reported because Christians are the majority in the US. However, it is just as equally dangerous.

Hate to disappoint the ever-eager islamophobes in their eternal quest for reasons to hate islam but;

Here is the video of the event: youtu.be...

and here is the judge statement on it's value as evidence: "Judge Mark Martin threw out a grainy video of the attack and explained that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict Elbayomy of the harassment charge."
news.yahoo.com...

I agree with the judge since the plaintiff doesn't miss a beat in his protest march and appears to be less molested than the average subway rider on his daily commute.

news.yahoo.com...

It looks to me like the assault charge was filed with insufficient evidence

Originally posted by joewalker
Hmmmm.From *shudder* Fox News.com:

Judge Mark Martin said there wasn't enough evidence to convict Talaag Elbayomy of harrassment. Although there was grainy video of the incident, it was ruled inadmissible, leaving the case one man's word against another's, the judge said.

Source: www.foxnews.com...
So the Judge decided the evidence was inadmissible and it was a he said/ she said? Has the 'grainy vid' turned up anywhere or is the fella keeping it back for the civil Courts?

EDIT: Found it, how did that incident ever get into a court

.

Edit..and Im also wondering why the press chose to report only some of Judge Martins words. Meh.

edit on 26-2-2012 by joewalker because: ask a question.

edit on 26-2-2012 by joewalker because: Added extra information

Posted basically the same thing after you so quoting you to give you props

reply to post by Xcathdra

The harrasment charge that was thrown out due to conflicting evidence? You claim there was an assault under PA law and yet, the charge was harrassment wasnt it? Who decided upon the charge?

Attempting to use the judges position / ruling in this case to somehow justify the actions of the Muslim is not going to work

You mis-judge me X, my thoughts on the 'harrassment' are clear...the muslim fella is an idiot but this should'nt have been anywhere near a courtroom, it should've been dealt with at the time imho.
My problem (if any) is with the reporting and reaction.

From your earlier post:

by referencing that the man had a right to attack people for insulting Islam, the Judge ignored the law, as well as violated the mans constitutional rights, by stating the Muslim was justified in his actions based on his faith.

Where does the Judge state this? I've seen it implied that the Judge came to that conclusion but no evidence...I have read where the Judge references the first amendment and his interpretation of the law.

Isnt that what Judges are paid for? To interpret the Law.

reply to post by stanats


Americans have been pussified. Call the cops for any old thing, like little kids telling mommy and daddy. This is what happens when you brainwash people into relying on authority figures for everything.... They act like children and tell on everyone for the smallest things.

reply to post by stanats

If that video was the only evidence, I would have tossed it out too. A shaky video with some captions, you can't even see anything.

WOW...where to start being pissed about this??? Oh, I know...

If you (meaning the group to which you belong) wants to destroy a more powerful group (lets say...the USA), you know you can not win by shear might. It would be a slaughter. So you study your enemy, you find their weaknesses and you realize that this battle will take decades...not months. In the case of the USA, you find the weakness of soft boarders and political correctness. You find an enemy that "invites" you into their kingdom and backs you up when an American curses you. So you move some of your group into the kingdom and settle in for the long haul. Then you move in more. You be nice and quiet, never breaking laws or causing problems...you know...like the 9/11 attackers did. You merge with society, get jobs of some importance, etc. proving that you are "just trying to enjoy the freedom this country you love offers".

Then you activate the cell...you allow them to impose their original laws and beliefs as your group has grown in size. Look over to the UK and ask them how that is working out...but back to America. Now with a few judges, politicians etc. in power, you begin enacting laws that further your position. Oh...and that "position" is obvious...you live and die by the word of your God and prophet...convert all others or take them over or eliminate them...by all means...lies...death...all means.

So where is this leading? Do I really need to say it out loud and worry about being called a racist? A fear-monger? Or can I just leave this as it is and allow you to figure it out yourself? I am not suggesting any particular action, nor am I stating that I am definitely 100% correct. But consider this...doesn't this seem possible and isn't it nothing more than a larger, longer term version of the 9/11 attackers group? Come here...be quite...get some power...then strike.

reply to post by joewalker


The victim recorded his court room encounter. The Judge has since threatened to hold him in contempt of court for posting this to the internet.







Partial Transcript

Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in a predominantly Muslim country, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Koran here, and I would challenge you, sir, to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammed arose and walked among the dead.

[Unintelligible.] You misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. That makes you look like a doofus.

And Mr. Thomas [Elbayomi's defense lawyer] is correct. In many other Muslim speaking countries – excuse me, in many Arabic speaking countries – call it “Muslim” – something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society, in fact, it could be punishable by death, and it frequently is, in their society.

Here in our society, we have a constitution that gives us many rights, specifically, First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers really intended. I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – uh, I understand you’re an atheist. But, see, Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca. To be a good Muslim, before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you cannot because you are too ill, too elderly, whatever. But you must make the attempt.

Their greetings, “Salaam alaikum,” “Alaikum wa-salaam,” “May God be with you.” Whenever — it is very common — their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, “Allah willing, this will happen.” It is — they are so immersed in it.

Then what you have done is you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. F’Im a Muslim, I’d find it offensive. [Unintelligble] aside was very offensive.

But you have that right, but you’re way outside your bounds on First Amendment rights.

This is what — as I said, I spent half my years altogether living in other countries. When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as “ugly Americans.” This is why we are referred to as “ugly Americans,” because we’re so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights. As long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say.

All that aside I’ve got here basically — I don’t want to say, “He said, she said.” But I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other. I understand — I’ve been at a Halloween parade, I understand how noisy it can be, how difficult it can be to get a [unintelligible]. I can’t believe that, if there was this kind of conflict going on in the middle of the street, that somebody didn’t step forward sooner to try and intervene — that the police officer on a bicycle didn’t stop and say, “Hey, let’s break this up.”

[Unintelligible]. You got a witness.

[Unintelligible response. Judge Martin then continues:]

The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof is that the defendant — it must be proven that the defendant did with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person — The Commonwealth, whether there was conflict or not — and, yes, he should be took [sic] putting his hands on you. I don’t know — I have your story he did and his story that he did not.

But another part of the element [of the offense charged] is, as Mr. Thomas [the defense lawyer] said, was — “Was the defendant’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm — or was it his intent to try to have the offensive situation negated?”

If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would have been a little bit more of an altercation. Something more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict. Because there is not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment. Therefore I am going to dismiss the charge.

The youtube video contains the testimony of the Sgt. who responded to the call after the assault. The defendant also stated he wanted the Police to stop the individual who was dressed as the prophet because its against his religion. The suspect then decided to try and stop the victim on his own by confronting him and trying to rip the sign away.

In Pennsylvania, any unwanted physical contact is assault.
The intentional destruction of someone else's property, namely the sign / costume, is illegal as well.
Another person was dressed as a Zombie Pope - Catholics didn't attack him,


The judge is an idiot and should be disbarred and removed from the bench.

Originally posted by stanats

and here is the judge statement on it's value as evidence: "Judge Mark Martin threw out a grainy video of the attack and explained that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict Elbayomy of the harassment charge."

You missed out the next sentence of that yahoo report

Judge Martin further dressed down Perce for his insensitive behavior, going so far as to call him a doofus and telling him that in Muslim societies he could have been put to death for mocking Muhammad.

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam,” Martin said.

“In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. It makes you look like a doofus…

In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.”

news.yahoo.com...

Judge Martin is a apparently Muslim convert who appears to have allowed his Muslim faith get in the way of his duty to be impartial.

UPDATE TO MY POST: Just posted my rant and looked up at the TV. Fox News (yes...I know) is reporting that Iran claims to have suicide bombers in the US, who got in through the Mexican border...ready to attack if war breaks out. Just thought it was interesting timing.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Anyone wondering, can skip to the 28:45 to see the judges ruling.

From what I have seen, I agree. It was dismissed because the judge felt the case was not proven.

Oh nice, you added it to the bottom, good job. Makes it easier than trying to FF to the right place in the video

reply to post by Xcathdra

Xcathdra I'm on a rubbish ISP connection with a 6 yr old laptop that is heating up big time. Rather then watch a 36 min vid can you give me a time stamp and I'll have a listen later or, even better, point me in the direction of transcript which will back your claims up.

reply to post by joewalker


28:45 courtesy of TKDRLabove your post.

I also posted part of the transcript under the video post.

As far as dismissing the charges for lack of evidence, the suspect is changing his story / account. He first stated he made contact and under cross examination changed his story.

Setting aside the legalities, the guy had no right to confront the Zombie Prophet - period.

The excuse that his actions are allowed in his country, and that he is new to this country, is not relevant either. To sit there and lecture the victim for his actions and to point out the reaction in a Muslim country, is hypocritical.

In those Muslim countries its irrelevant if you are not familiar with the law, they will still kill you. Just as they tried to do with the nurse who handed out a Mohammed teddy bear to a child because she thought it would help calm kids down. The wing nuts didn't see it in that manner and wanted her executed for insulting Islam.

Is there any reason the suspect was not dressed down and lectured about the laws in the US?

Im tired of the PC police trying to downplay these incidents. We have laws in this country that protect our freedom of thought / expression / religion / etc. No where in our laws does it say one religion has more protection than another religion.

If people wish to live their life under Islam / Sharia law thats fine and is there choice. However they must understand that they are still subject to the laws of the City / State / Federal. If that is something they don't want to abide by, then feel free to move to a different country that is more in line with your line of thinking.



ETA - At around the 26 minute mark you can here the lawyer restating how the events went down, pointing out that the suspect did in fact state he had physical contact with the victim, and that his story changed once in court.

Originally posted by stanats

Hate to disappoint the ever-eager islamophobes in their eternal quest for reasons to hate islam

How should we judge Islam?

Can we do it on the basis of the behaviour of its founder, Muhammad?

Was he a man of peace?

Muhammad fought 8 major battles, led 18 raids, and planned another 38 military operations where others were in command but operating under his orders and strategic direction.

Military History

No, he was cleary a man of violence.

Did he force others to worship?

Muhammad orders his men to burn alive those who do not present themselves at the mosque for prayer.

Bukhari (11:626) - "The Prophet said, 'No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr and the 'Isha' prayers and if they knew the reward for these prayers at their respective times, they would certainly present themselves (in the mosques) even if they had to crawl.' The Prophet added, 'Certainly I decided to order the Mu'adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses.'"

www.islam-watch.org...

By the way, the Bukari is a religious Hadith text which is sacred to Sunni Muslims who make up 80 to 90% of all Muslims globally.

So Muhammad, as revealed in the sacred Hadith, ordered people burnt to death for not praying.

Was he pro or against slavery?

"The apostle of Allah imprisoned the Qurayza in Medina while trenches were dug in the market-place. Then he sent for the men and had their heads struck off so that they fell in the trenches. They were brought out in groups, and among them was Kab, the chief of the tribe. In number, they amounted to six or seven hundred, although some state it to have been eight or nine hundred. All were executed. One man turned to his people and said, 'It matters not! By God's will, the children of Israel were destined for this massacre!’ Then he seated himself and his head was struck off... ...Now the apostle distributed the property of the Banu Qurayza, as well as their women and children, to the Muslims, reserving one-fifth for himself. Every horseman received three shares, one for himself and two for his steed, and every foot soldier one share. There were thirty-six horses present on the day of the Qurayza. The apostle dispatched an emissary to Najd with the prisoners, to barter them as slaves in exchange for horses and camels. The apostle of Allah selected one of the Jewish women, Rayhana, for himself, and she remained with him as his slave until she died. He had suggested marriage to her, that she should wear the veil (to separate her from all other persons, as his wives did), but she replied, 'Rather allow me to remain thy slave; it will be more easy for me, and for thee.'"

Life of Muhammad (768)

So Muhammad was a slaver who kept at least one slave himself.

Did Muhammad execute POWs?

The Koran itself mentions the incident where he ordered the execution of the 800 males of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe

33:26 He also brought down their allies among the people of the scripture from their secure positions, and threw terror into their hearts. Some of them you killed, and some you took captive.

33:27 He made you inherit their land, their homes, their money, and lands you had never stepped on. GOD is in full control of all things.

Note the source is The authorized translation of the Koran. www.submission.org...

The Life of Muhammad, see above, provides a deeper explaination.


So the founder of Islam was a warlord, burnt people for not worshiping, executed POWs, sold women and children into slavery and kept slaves himself...

...but you call me a islamophobe.

You aren't a devout Muslim by any chance?

I suspect you would like it if I was not allowed to tell the truth about Muhammad on the grounds that Muslims found it 'offensive'.

§ 2709. Harassment. (a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person: (1) strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; (2) follows the other person in or about a public place or places; (3) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which serve no legitimate purpose; (4) communicates to or about such other person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings or caricatures; (5) communicates repeatedly in an anonymous manner; (6) communicates repeatedly at extremely inconvenient hours; or (7) communicates repeatedly in a manner other than specified in paragraphs (4), (5) and (6).

Link

Seems like harassment to me, the Muslem guy followed him for blocks until he found police. I am surprised they couldn't get any witnesses from the parade? Not many people wanting to side with the Athiest I guess.

this is what happens when beliefs affect irrational people and potentially (quite literally in this case though) make them dangerous. religion is all good and well in the hands of rational people. but in the hands of someone who isn't ideas can become very dangerous. Assault is assault regardless of what you believe in. human behaviour is quite ridiculous sometimes.

A judge should always be unbiased, yes that's true. If a Muslim never insults Jesus, Moses, David or Solomon; then why does the followers of Jesus/Moses/David/Solomon insult Prophet Mohammad (or even his followes)?

Apart from the decision this judge took (even if you recall it as biased), Christians and Jews from all around the world have always been unsympathetic with Muslims, isn't this also a fact?