Sharia Comes to Pennsylvania
A Muslim judge [apparently not; see the UPDATE] recently dismissed a case against a Muslim who attacked an athiest wearing a costume of Mohammed (specifically a “Zombie Mohammed” costume) in a Halloween parade. The Muslim judge berated the athiest, called him a “doofus” for not learning about Mohammed, and told him that the First Amendment does not allow him to “piss off” people from other cultures. Here is a local news report:
Andrew McCarthy sums up the case as follows:
The victim, Ernest Perce, wore a “Zombie Mohammed” costume and pretended to walk among the dead (in the company of an associate who was the “Zombie Pope” — and who, you’ll be shocked to learn, was not assaulted). The assailant, Talag Elbayomy, a Muslim immigrant, physically attacked Perce, attempted to pull his sign off, and, according to police, admitted what he had done right after the incident. The defense argued that Elbayomy believed it was a crime to insult the prophet Mohammed (it is, under sharia law), and that because he was in the company of his children, he had to act to end this provocation and set an example about defending Islam.
The actual audio from court is online here:
McCarthy has made a transcript of the judge’s comments. Here are some of the highlights. Play the audio and start listening at 28:32:
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. Kinda 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 punished 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 with 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. I find what’s on the other side of this very offensive.
But you have that right, but you’re way outside your bounds on First Amendment rights.
Having established his bias in favor of sharia law, the judge then goes on to ignore the evidence available to him and conclude that the evidence is insufficient — which is what factfinders tend to do when they don’t want to find a guilty person guilty.
This is highly disturbing on several levels: the ignorant comments about the First Amendment; the elevation of sharia principles above American law; the judge’s pride in his own bias . . . the list goes on and on. I think this has the potential to be a big story — but then again, I am sometimes very wrong in my judgment of what people find significant.
Thanks to Simon Jester and Milhouse.
UPDATE 2-25-12: Andrew McCarthy has a post that casts doubt on the conclusion that the judge is a Muslim. Despite the seemingly clear audio, his court staff is apparently denying it. I couldn’t care less whether he is a Muslim or not — what Martin said is the issue, not his religion — but I am linking McCarthy’s post to set the record straight. Thanks to Dana.
There is so much about this story that is disturbing it’s hard to know where to begin.
Patterico (17e5f6) — 2/24/2012 @ 1:10 pmThis is very frustrating.
I don’t think the victim of the attack has much recourse. I guess he could sue in civil court, but really, he needs some justice in criminal court.
So we’ve got a Zombie Pope and a Zombie Mohammed. Why would a Muslim or a Catholic not laugh that off? Or if they were offended, why not just use your words and say it’s offensive, and stop short of striking someone physically?
Of course the Pope wasn’t harmed. Catholics are assimilating to a culture that has long explained that we must tolerate speech we disagree with. I know many Muslims who also have assimilated into a culture where they tolerate speech they disagree with… you just don’t hear about them on TV.
This judge and others who tolerate violence in the name of Islam are actually defining Islam in the worst way. It’s bad for everyone, including Muslims.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/24/2012 @ 1:16 pmTHis had to be some parodic performance art.
JD (318f81) — 2/24/2012 @ 1:23 pmSo he’s got some thin skin.
But Mr Thin Skin doesn’t criticize killing people for blasphemy?
Did he spend any time explaining how wrong it is to hit people who dress as Mohammed? Do we need ‘Everyone Dress as Zombie Mohammed’ day?
These idiots need to stop defining the obligations of Muslims this way. What is their long term vision here?
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/24/2012 @ 1:28 pmAnd the quacking birdbrains at MSNBC continue to bash things such as Oklahoma’s attempt — blocked by a Federal court for the most specious of reasons — to ban Sharia Law from its court system. “it’s a non-issue!” they will quack. Apparently, it’s just like voter fraud . . . doesn’t exist.
Icy (c2d1be) — 2/24/2012 @ 1:32 pmThe limits on free speech are “imminent lawless action”. Used to be clear and present danger. I guess the judge flunked law school or has no knowledge of Brandenburg.
Sue the judge!
Corky Boyd (96df15) — 2/24/2012 @ 1:41 pmThat’s a great point, Icy. This kind of egregious abuse of our system is possible.
When people mock efforts to prevent such abuses, the cry is that it’s too extreme to be a realistic problem. Well, why not make the reform anyway? Sharia is a major aspect of Islam, and Islam is highly evangelical. Better to establish its place… outside our legal system, before it’s not possible to do so.
Europe is seeing now that you can’t just kick the can down the road.
And this is good for Muslims, too. Those Muslims who do not define their religion as a takeover of others’ lives have assimilated. Many religions have had to do it. Let’s favor that interpretation.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/24/2012 @ 1:41 pmShari Law in your court rooms today. The Plaintiff is lucky he still has his head. The DA won’t bring anymore charges up against Muslims, he might lose his head.
Sanmon (4d4ad9) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:00 pmUh, it was Halloween. It wasn’t supposed to be historically accurate.
Over and above all the rest of it, a judge who does not understand the secular holiday of Halloween has serious deficits.
Pious Agnostic (40011c) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:04 pmA bit of Devil’s Advocate:
Was Rick Monday wrong to rescue the American flag form being burned? If flag-burning is free speech that could be so. Was the venue (the middle of a baseball game) such that Monday’s act was correct when it might not have been in a public place?
How is an American’s natural reaction to flag-burning different that a Muslim’s reaction to desecration of his religion? At what point does mandatory tolerance end? Does the tolerance of one religion (Christianity) to assaults on it require other religions to have the same level of tolerance?
I don’t think the answers are so obvious.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:10 pmJudge Martin’s view seems rooted entirely in whether someone was blasphemous. I would say it’s time to take a close look at all the other cases he’s handled. It sounds like he is irrational.
And I agree, his taking a halloween costume so seriously shows he’s an idiot. He’s only a bit different from Talag Elbayomy (the guy who physically attacked Perce).
In fact, I think Judge Martin is the worse of the two.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:10 pm#10 Did Rick Monday attack the hippy?
The charge was akin to assault in this case, was it not?
Pious Agnostic (40011c) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:11 pmRick Monday flag incident (wikipedia)
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:12 pmi submit that this hypersensitivity of the moose slimes to everything remotely resembling a possible insult to their moon god and the bloody cult founded by Mad Mo the child molester is just a chink in the armor of the head bangers amongst us.
joke them if they can’t take a joke.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:13 pmIf he just starts beating the crap of the person who burned the flag, then yes, he’s wrong.
But someone trespassing onto a ballfield to make the event a desecration of the flag can be stopped by those who have a right to be on the field without it being intolerance.
If I ran onto a baseball field and planted a flag in on the pitcher’s mound and saluted it, would they take it down?
Yes. The tolerance in our culture is *right*. Insofar as our legal system has some basis in Christian values of tolerance, yes, that means others in our legal system can’t beat people who offend them.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:14 pmA good baseball player and you’ve spurred some fond memories of “back in the day”, Kevin M. Thanks!
Colonel Haiku (447f50) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:16 pm@KevinM: if the flag burning was protected political speech, so was Monday’s rescue of the flag. they were both demonstrative acts to express a certain POV.
all he did was run up and snatch the flag, without getting into a physical altercation with the douche bag. besides, the jerk was trespassing by being on the field, so his rights, as i understand it, were constrained by his initial illegal act.
had he been in his front yard, and Rick just passing by, then you’d have a much stronger case that Monday’s actions were inappropriate.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:18 pmCharles Blow… call for you on the white phone at the front desk!
Colonel Haiku (447f50) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:18 pmI don’t think the answers are so obvious.
Comment by Kevin M
You can burn the Flag Supremes upheld that right. So you should Be able to dress up a Zombie Mohammed without losing your right against being assaulted.
Sanmon (4d4ad9) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:20 pmIn a case like this, can the prosecutor appeal the acquittal on the grounds of judicial misconduct?
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:21 pmIf he just starts beating the crap of the person who burned the flag, then yes, he’s wrong.
Sure. But what I read above suggests that the Muslim was attempting to remove the sign identifying the zombie as Muhammad. I see nothing about attempting to beat the crap out of him, or that the attack wasn’t limited to forcibly removing the sign.
True, Monday removed the flag while it was lying unattended, but his actions would have been as righteous had it been in the grasp of one of the flag-burners and required force to remove.
When you trash other people’s deeply-held symbols and beliefs, not everyone may react as rationally as you expect. Not sure how I’d react to “Piss Jesus.”
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:24 pmBut Kevin’s comparison brings up a lot of good points.
I think we have to constrain ourselves to criticism of flag burners, and people like Obama’s pal Ayers standing on the flag in that 9/11 vanity pictorial.
I’ve seen flag burners in person, and it can be extremely difficult not to react to that with a lot more than verbal condemnation. I guess that’s what it’s like for some Muslims to see someone dress up as Mohammed and walk around. It’s what it might be like for my to see someone mock Jesus (Which is something we see all the time).
It’s not like Christians were all universally followers of John Stuart Mill, happily tolerating all speech. We had to assimilate to such a practice. It’s good for everyone, and I know it’s completely realistic to expect Muslims in America to behave the same way.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:24 pmYou’ve got me there, Kevin. I shouldn’t have expanded this. I was confusing this with another story, and I don’t know how I made the error.
You are right. When you’re provocative, you may provoke. Sometimes this is for a larger good (like the drawings of Mohammed, meant basically like a sit-in against terrorist threats). Sometimes it’s just douchey bigotry meant to insult someone (like saying I belong under the boot because I’m middle eastern).
It’s very hard for even reserved people not to react very badly when someone knows exactly what button to push and then hits that button with a sledge hammer.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:27 pmSteven
there might be a double jeopardy problem with that.
But if i was a federal agent, i would be looking into civil rights charges against this judge. and Pennsylvanians should impeach him, immediately.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:28 pmAaron Worthing The state can’t appeal a bench trial as opposed to a jury trial that they can appeal
Sanmon (4d4ad9) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:33 pmThis F@#4Tards logic, makes it perfectly OK for me to attack any DOOFUS, that makes sport of CHRIST JESUS.
Gus (694db4) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:36 pmBy his logic, yes, I guess you’re right. And of course, if that happens it will be presented as a massive tragedy and extremely wrong.
Because his REAL logic is that we all should bow to his religion, and only that religion.
Of course, Christians turning the other cheek are doing something good that goes beyond the day to day tit for tat.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:40 pmAnd let’s not forget that the kinds of people who attempt legal shenanigans are often incredibly insincere.
A great example of this is those terrorist detainees who defaced their Qurans to communicate with eachother, and then when those communications were destroyed crying about how offensive it is to deface a Quran.
It’s more about how some people are fair game, sometimes.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:45 pmDustin, there is no LOGIC in the F@#$Tards belief that MOHAMMAD is PREFERRED UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAW.
That isn’t logic at all. To a heroin addict, another HIT is logical, it isn’t.
If this situation was seen in reverse, if a Christian had attacked someone making FUN of Christ, the MEDIA would have SHAT themselves by now.
There is no logic in this.
Gus (694db4) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:48 pmTrue.
When these people try to suggest they are arguing for not offending Muslims, indeed you’re right they aren’t showing a coherent logic. That’s what Judge Martin did, so I see that your point holds.
But their hidden logic… the one they are too dishonest to just say straight, is that if something offends Islam, that is especially bad, and things that offend us about some Islamic practices (such as the executions Judge Martin reference, or the intolerance Talag showed) is not that bad because that is their idea of glorifying Islam.
Which I think is continuing to do damage to Muslims who should assimilate into our culture because we’re quite right about the value of a freedom to offend.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/24/2012 @ 2:53 pmI’ve forwarded several blog posts about this to my state rep (central PA region).
RB (e7b1bd) — 2/24/2012 @ 3:25 pmsharia law is gayer than buying a “p-town with putin” groupon getaway
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/24/2012 @ 3:31 pmComment by Dustin — 2/24/2012 @ 2:10 pm
Just when did the Federal and State Constitutions charge the courts of the U.S. to enforce sectarian law?
Just another judge that deserves impeachment, and tar & feathering.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 2/24/2012 @ 3:32 pmIf the activists keep trying to push the envelope, they’re going to eventually run up against the barrier of Rule-7.62 – but it is a rule they respect!
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 2/24/2012 @ 3:37 pmI honestly think there should be some serious legal penalty that goes beyond losing the judgeship for such openly unfair rulings.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/24/2012 @ 3:42 pmSteps to take regarding said “judge”:
1. Impeach;
2. Convict;
3. Apply tar and feathers;
4. Run out of town on rail;
If 1 and 2 are unavailable, move straight on to 3 and 4.
MSE (afdf9c) — 2/24/2012 @ 3:43 pm1. The “judge” needs to be impeached/recalled or whatever they do in PA to idiots who fail to follow US LAW as defined by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Note there is nothing about Sharia law in the Constitution. If you want to live under that code, go to someplace where it reigns. It is NOT (yet) the United States. Liberals and leftists may THINK they want it, but woe unto them when they are forced to abide by the tenets of Mohammed – no pbuh from me.
2. As regard the assaulted party – this happens, although less frequently, in Texas. Why? Concealed Carry. “An armed society is a polite society.” The only thing better is open carry, where there is no question about who should not be messed with.
Kbob in Katy (b132af) — 2/24/2012 @ 3:44 pm__________________________________________
Meanwhile, folks in the US military tiptoed around Nidal Hasan until the day of the Fort Hood massacre, while a good portion of the public in general has shrugged off the “goddamn America,” humble-Islam-fighting-brutal-Western-imperalism nature of the guy now in the White House. Much of this is rooted in the pathetic “I’m okay, you’re okay,” “tolerance is next to Godliness,” “liberalism is a wonderful altar to pray to” mentality throughout the Western world.
If the Sharia-law ethos in the future ever meets head-on with the secular liberalism so pervasive throughout places like the US and Europe, I’ll have a hard time either rooting for or jeering the two sides.
Mark (31bbb6) — 2/24/2012 @ 4:20 pmOh dear Oh Dear!!!! The UNCIVIL TONE!!!
You CONS, sound like Sarah Palin!!
And she got Gabbie Giffords KILLED!!!
Hahahahahahahahahhaahahaa. KILLED!!!!
Gym Hoft (694db4) — 2/24/2012 @ 4:31 pmWhen MUZZTARDS murder because of the KORAN being abused. Our Comrade in Chief apologizes to anyone and everyone.
Gus (694db4) — 2/24/2012 @ 4:33 pmWhen our FLAG is burned by OCCUPOOOPERS or stomped on by BILLY BOOM BOOM AYERS.. Our COMRADE in CHIEF has KOBE for dinner.
Boy, that’s hilarious.
Aaron, I’m aware that ordinarily an acquittal is permanent because of the “double jeopardy” provision in the Constitution. But I thought that in cases of egregious judicial misconduct that a prosecution appeal was permitted. The appeals court could declare a mistrial and order another one.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 2/24/2012 @ 4:35 pmI hope that’s what happens, Steven. This was a mistrial. Whether the courts rule it one is another matter.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/24/2012 @ 4:36 pmOne could reasonably argue that double jeopardy doesn’t apply here–as with this utter tool on the bench engaging in PC apologetics for attempted murder (um, strangulation is kind of a classic murder method, in case someone hasn’t heard), a conviction was never going to be in the cards.
MSE (0b24a5) — 2/24/2012 @ 4:53 pmThis sin’t about freedom of speech, respect for people’s beliefs, or rule of law.
This is about fear.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 2/24/2012 @ 5:04 pmBTW, the only implication of the 1st Amendment here would have been the judge’s actions with respect to the victim, not the defendant’s, since the defendant is not bound by “Congress shall make no law”. Reading what the judge said, he does appear to be sanctioning the victim based on his speech, and further finding that the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to offensive speech. Pretty sure that’s wrong.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 2/24/2012 @ 5:34 pmOne might even call this Judge-based nullification. I hope I remember this the next time I’m tempted to argue nullification is a good thing.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/24/2012 @ 5:48 pmhttp://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/24/video-a-personal-apology-to-the-president-of-afghanistan/
Saul Alinsky (87e966) — 2/24/2012 @ 5:50 pmAlso, remember that under Islamic law, that a kafir cannot testify against a muslim. Therefore, the muslim judge, in his ruling wasn’t even considering the testimony of either the victim or the officer since they were both kafirs. That’s why he didn’t want to say that this was a “he said, she said” situation. Thus he only gives credence to the muslim perps’ version.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 2/24/2012 @ 6:12 pmThe prosecutor would need to show that the judge was bribed by the defendant for a retrial.
nk (3e8b77) — 2/24/2012 @ 6:22 pmI just had a discussion with someone who thinks this is no big deal, that it was probably misrepresented in the press, and people are overreacting. Where did I go wrong???
sockpuppet to protect the innocent and guilty (3d3f72) — 2/24/2012 @ 6:44 pmHere’s another kind of interesting “law” story. A 351 year old will sparks bitter dispute in Massachusetts. Note that the AG involved, Martha Coakley, is the Dem beaten by Scott Brown in the 2010 Senate race. I know what I think about all this, but would be interested to hear what others, and especially some of the attorneys who post here have to say.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120224/business/702249622/
elissa (d1b74b) — 2/24/2012 @ 6:54 pmCome on, Kevin M, the two things are not at all similar. Rick Monday took the flag away from a guy who was trying to burn it, but he didn’t assault the would-be flag burner. There’s a big difference, and you should know better.
Chuck Bartowski (ae4cc4) — 2/24/2012 @ 7:15 pmThanks to Simon Jester and Milhouse. [UPDATE: And to MD in Philly!]
Patterico (17e5f6) — 2/24/2012 @ 8:22 pmYou can’t convince someone who doesn’t want to believe someone. If you have ANY faith in the person’s objectivity and/or intellectual honesty, send them here and tell them the freaking court audio is online. They can listen with their own ears.
My bet is that once they get the sense from you that it has NOT been misrepresented, they will suddenly lose interest.
Please do report back and let me know if they behave as expected.
Patterico (17e5f6) — 2/24/2012 @ 8:24 pmWhat we’ve got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it… well, he gets it. I don’t like it any more than you men.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/24/2012 @ 8:27 pmI think the judge’s behaviour is far far worse than what the attacky muslim dude did
this loser judge is pissing on the whole concept of the rule of law
someone should key his car
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/24/2012 @ 8:28 pmIt’s shocking how rare intellectual honesty is.
Show someone that they’re wrong, and 99 percent of the time they will choose a disingenuous response.
Patterico (17e5f6) — 2/24/2012 @ 8:33 pmSteven
I’ll tell the truth, its been a good 10 years since i studied the issue, so i don’t know. but i bet patrick does. Hint, hint…
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/24/2012 @ 9:40 pmhttp://www.therightscoop.com/newt-owns-piers-morgan-over-obama-koran-apology/
Saul Alinsky (87e966) — 2/24/2012 @ 10:01 pmWe’ve seen the first completely Sharia based verdict in this country rendered by a Muslim (recent convert) judge. Be afraid, very afraid. Judgy-pudgy-wudgy should get his backside kicked off the bench.
{+,+} Bleah!
jbd (d55daf) — 2/25/2012 @ 3:25 amThe only doofus I saw was the judge.Judge, you are a fricking idoit rag-head dip$hit that don’t know anything about law.
bob Heb (4cb87a) — 2/25/2012 @ 5:11 amSo what’s next for this judge? Will honor killings will be forgiven in his courtroom? The left are destorying the fabric and culture of our country. This is America not some third world islam country. If you don’t like our laws then leave. take your mumbo jumbo somewhere else.
Shawn (80e822) — 2/25/2012 @ 5:15 amIs there any doubt the ruling would have not been the same had the “offended party” been a Jew or a Christian?
It is beyond obvious that this judge needs to be removed from the bench.
IrateNate (83c29b) — 2/25/2012 @ 6:27 amIf I was dictator of America, judges who employed non-relevant dicta from the bench would be subjected to severe criminal penalties.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/25/2012 @ 6:41 amI agree that this is wrong and would be grounds for voting against the judge (if PA is a state which votes on judges). But i don’t think it’s sharia. It simply is *not* an attempt to apply Islamic religious law in the US courts. It’s a decision by a judge to decide that an assault was justified because the victim’s behavior offended his sensibilities.
This is a matter of linguistic precision: I think it’s important that we not conflate general bad behavior by muslims with an attempt to make islamic legal principles the law of the land. He didn’t cite islamic law or religious court decisions, he didn’t clap the victim in irons for blasphemy, etc.
The linked article suggests that the reliance on sharia comes from the defendant’s claim that he was acting to end the provocation (of insulting Mohammed) and set an example about defending Islam. True, the defendant made that claim. But the judge’s rhetoric doesn’t seem to rely on anything intrinsic to Sharia law (like the illegality of insulting Mohammed); instead, he seems to be asserting a general defense to harassment that the harassment was based on an “intent to try to have the offensive situation negated.”
Criminal harassment in Pennsylvania is defined as “intent to annoy or alarm the other person by repeatedly commiting acts that serve no legitimate purpose”. I don’t understand why this was treated as harassment instead of assault; it seems like ‘repeatedly’ would be difficult to demonstrate in this case. But anyway: the judge seems to be saying that preventing someone from insulting Mohammed is a legitimate purpose, and that the elements of harassment are therefore not met.
He’s *wrong*. But it seems to me that he’s wrong in his interpretation of American law, not in an attempt to impose foreign law.
(I completely agree that the judge had no business ridiculing the victim and lecturing him about the requirements of Islam, etc.)
aphrael (d46bb0) — 2/25/2012 @ 6:43 am______________________________________________
I just had a discussion with someone who thinks this is no big deal, that it was probably misrepresented in the press, and people are overreacting
I’m curious what that person’s political leanings are. I notice that a non-insignificant number of liberals in this country and throughout the Western World tend to be emotionally less bothered by acts of religious fundamentalism when it’s associated with people and societies of Islamic/Third-World/Middle-Eastern background. Or the types of “progressives” who perhaps will be a bit more troubled over the idea of government (eg, at the city or state level) displaying a creche or Christmas tree during December.
Mark (411533) — 2/25/2012 @ 7:01 amI suppose Muslims would get all upset and mad and stuff if we took up some of their ways and started killing non-Christians.
bobdog (166386) — 2/25/2012 @ 12:58 pmAnd the wise people of Oklahoma voted to disallow the use of Sharia Law in the courts. Now we know the real reason a judge immorally, arrogantly, and illegally struck down the people’s will. Judges already approve and apply Sharia Law. The wise vote of the people of Oklahoma was too late.
ErisGuy (66584b) — 2/26/2012 @ 5:15 amhttp://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-martin-responds-on-zombie.html
I have been reporting (to be fair) that Judge Martin responds on the Zombie Mohammed case (pointing out the Volokh Conspiracy link in the link above). Judge Martin, a Iraq and Afghanistan combat reservist, claims he is not a Muslim convert, that he was only trying to explain to the victim why he was offensive, and that the evidence did not support assault under the circumstances. This still does not make sense. Even if the comments on the victim’s tapes of the hearing were taken out of context, do they square with what Judge Martin is saying now? It is unusual and not at all proper for a judge to act the way Judge Martin did. And free speech (in this context) does absolutely trump any offense the Muslim immigrant had to the depiction of Mohammed. It does not look like the protester was hurt, but if this was reversed and some offended citizen assaulted a flag burner…do you think that offended citizen would be given the same deference by Judge Martin’s as this Muslim defendant was?
EBL (f71fce) — 2/26/2012 @ 8:21 amOne thing muslims and atheists have in common is the need to force their beliefs on others. Too bad the muzzie and the zombie “doofus” didn’t beat the crap out of each other and let it go at that.
Mike Uro (18c7f7) — 2/26/2012 @ 9:17 amWhen I first read anything about this, I thought there’s a piece missing. I found it. And amazingly, no one else has brought it up. I knew what I was going to find when I googled Halloween sharia fatwa, but I googled it anyway.
Why was Talaag Elbayomy at a Halloween parade? Sharia forbids muslims to celebrate Halloween, or any other pagan, or non-muslim holiday or celebration. See http://jihadology.net/2010/10/31/halloween-special-recent-article-from-umar-bakri-mu%e1%b8%a5ammad-halloween-trick-or-shirk/ for confirmation, or google it yourself. Lots of info out there.
If Talaag Elbayomyhad not been violating sharia, he would not have been in a position to be offended by a zombie Mohammed. He further compounded his sharia violation by having his child there, helping him to learn how to celebrate pagan holidays. For this, Allah will not forgive him, according to the above reference.
What else might offend a good muslim who accidently chanced upon a Halloween parade, for no good Muslim would be at one on purpose? My personal favorite, and the only reason I would watch one- scantily clad females in provocative costumes! How dare Talaag Elbayomy expose his child to such views! And then, there would be humans in animal costumes, perhaps even as pigs, Porky or the Three Little. Humans dressed as PIGS! OMG! The horror!
Judge Martin, who has violated his oath of allegiance to support and defend the U.S. Constitution in his ruling and tirade, who presented himself as an expert on Islamic Law and Justice in his tirade, apparently missed this important item- that Halloween is forbidden to Muslims, and Talaag Elbayomyhad should not have been there.
Remember to visit webpages of PA legislators and call for the impeachment of Judge Mark Martin, violator of his sworn oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator/#address
Harold (17e939) — 2/26/2012 @ 9:28 amVolokh has a supposed response from presiding judge in this case. It’s not verified that it is him, but it makes for an interesting read.
Dana (4eca6e) — 2/26/2012 @ 11:13 am
Well, he admits what people are accusing him of, and perhaps even admits to doing what he is accused of – in a manner of speaking.
AD-RtR/OS! (7d4e01) — 2/26/2012 @ 11:19 amBut, in any case, as a Muslim, he is encouraged by the Koran to lie to infidels to advance Islam.
So, that being said, can we believe anything that he says that even just tangentially connects to his faith?
I don’t think so.
He needs to be removed, and disbarred.