Tag: anti islam

California Prosecutes Man For Criticizing Islam On Social Media

By Emily Merrell | CALIFORNIA

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is putting 41-year-old Mark Feigin for prosecution for criticizing Islam on the Islamic Center Of Southern California’s Facebook Page in Fall 2016.

The office of the Attorney General claims that Feigin’s posts were made to “annoy and harass” through “repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device”, which is a violation of Cal. Penal Code § 653m(b). Reason.com reports Feigin wrote on the 17 and 25 of September:


“THE TERROR HIKE…SOUNDS LIKE FUN.” (In response to a hiking announcement)


“Filthy Muslim shit has no place in western civilization.”

Islam is dangerous – fact: the more Muslim savages we allow into America – the more terror we will see -this is a fact which is undeniable”

The office of the Attorney General argues that the comments were “made with intent to annoy and harass members of the ICSC,” Feigin “was not trying to engage in any kind of political discussion but instead trying to vex members of the ICSC with his thoughts about their religion.” The posts are a crime because they show “repeated harassment from those who intend to mock and disparage the religion.” and that Feigin was “cruel and pointedly aimed at dismissing an entire religion and those who practice it.”

The state of California also makes it clear that they’re in support of prosecuting Feigin for the content and reasoning behind what he said: “The mere content and nature of the posts establish that they are not made in ‘good faith’ as the Defendant suggests but are intended to annoy and harass.” The office went on to mention that just because the Facebook page was public doesn’t mean the ICSC can experience harassment.

Becerra is also “leading the resistance’ against Donald Trump as he is the son of Mexican immigrants. His anti-free speech views line up with the views of younger Californians that want to repeal free speech based off of a poll:


George Orwell sure was right, if we say something that offends people the state will come after us. But no matter if it was a free speech issue or not, should the state really be in charge of what is put on Facebook? Facebook should have made whatever actions they wanted to take and have it left at that. If we keep letting this happen soon the state will control even more of our lives than they already do.


The Truth Regarding Sharia Law

By Michael Kay|USA

One of the most common phrases uttered during Muslim migration debates is “We cannot let them in, because they want to bring Sharia law to America!” Interestingly, neither side actually analyzes what Sharia law is. The left says that Sharia law is just a set of peaceful moral codes, while the right insists that Sharia law is basically a Bible for murderers and terrorists. It is in fact neither, and in this article, I will explain Sharia law, and how we can better use it to understand the problems in the Middle East (and now, domestically).

So first, what does “Sharia Law” mean? Sharia literally translates in Arabic to “Law”, which means that when we anglicize it, we are saying “Law Law”. Nonetheless, Sharia Law functions very differently from our version of laws, and even from the British version of common law. Sharia is effectively a hierarchy of interpreting the Islamic laws, which dictate the rules for much of the Islamic world. As I explain how complex and confusing it can be, it will begin to make sense as to why the Qur’an is often misconstrued and misinterpreted.

Sharia separates law into a five-part hierarchy, including the Quranic verses, the lessons of the prophet, higher scholars, lower scholars, and individual morality. I’m going to explain each of these partitions, and how they actually play out in the real world.

At the top of the list is the Quranic verses. The Qur’an is written almost like a series of poems that rarely explicitly state laws, but rather discuss moral stories and ideas, making the text quite unique along the lines of religious texts. However, there are certain cases in which it is direct, such as the act of homosexuality, which is vehemently opposed. When the Qur’an is explicit, it becomes a commandment for all Muslims to follow (perhaps in my next article, I’ll discuss the different sects of Islam), and this makes it the final word on that issue.

Though such strong condemnation of a practice does occur in a Quranic verse, it is quite rare. The rest of the cases are decided based on the teachings and life of the prophet, Muhammad. This is where Islam becomes complicated because the next three hierarchies are often drawn from simultaneously. As the teachings of the prophet (and the Qur’an) are often unclear, educated religious figures interpret the Qur’an and the life of Muhammed in terms that a commoner can better understand. These individuals, known as higher scholars, spend years studying the religion and are often very politically connected. The higher scholars are essentially used as consultants for high ranking citizens. For example, if a politician wants to know if non-Muslim marriage is permissible, he will go to the upper scholars of the country (in Muslim majority countries), and he will ask the scholar to interpret Muhammad’s life to find out. The scholar’s decision will ultimately become law, which can cause some inter-regional conflict due to a variance in this interpretation. An example of such a discrepancy is the hijab, burqa, and niqab, which are three different acceptable veils for women to wear in public, found in three different regions.

However, the average Muslim cannot usually go see an upper scholar, as few of the men exist. They must then resort to seeing a lower scholar. These lower scholars are often much less informed on the issues, and come to decisions for personal reasons. For example, if a man comes to a lower scholar, and asks “Is smoking legal?”, it gives all the power over the law in the town to this scholar. If the scholar enjoys cigarettes, he may say it is legal, and if not, he may decide not. This means that laws become loosely dictated, as they change based on the interpretations of singular individuals. Lower scholars have another important job, which is the Muslim education of young boys (in Muslim schools known as madrasas). This is where major problems start, because often scholars are highly tied to politics. The more radical young boys become, the less rational they become, this making them easier to control. It is for this reason that these madrasas often teach more violent, radical forms of Islam. So while I still think that the religion of Islam itself still has inherent violence prescribed in it, I think the effects of this are exacerbated by radical madrasas (and could be curbed by peaceful madrasas).

Finally, lowest on the Sharia hierarchy, is personal morals. This one is pretty self-explanatory. If no scholar had ruled on something, you may exercise your own judgement, and decide on the issue. But this happens incredibly infrequently, as most issues are decided long before this stage. This can have numerous problems, such as the inability to comply with the west. It means that if a radical government comes to power, they can put in place upper scholars for the country that act very much like the Supreme Court, in that they serve for life, determine the laws of the state, and are often selected on the basis of their political leanings. If a man in power desires a radical set of laws, he may choose radical high scholars, who choose and teach radical lower scholars, who teach and radicalize the next generation.

So how do we best solve this issue? If religion is so entrenched in these countries’ democracies that we can’t have a separation between Church and state, and the religion is so opposed to our way of life, how do we find peace? This is a hotly contested issue, but I believe that the answer lies in the madrasas. If we fund madrasas that teach peaceful versions of Islam, we can mitigate the problem. Islam will still be inherently violent, but this violence may be adequately curbed.

Trump’s Wednesday Anti-Muslim Tweet Storm and Why People Have a Right to be Upset

By Benjamin Lemley | USA

On Wednesday US president Donald Trump’s took to Twitter and unleashed what can only be described as re-tweet storm from #MAGA hell. And while it’s true that these actions have been normalized in parts of the American right, people from all sides of the isle seemed disturbed the ladder part of this week by the strange and insensitive remarks that President Trump seemed to echo and endorse. So what exactly happened?

Here are the facts:

On Wednesday trump took to Twitter and the result was him retweeting the following videos posted by UK politician (and part-time criminal, Jayda Fransen)

Reading from an article published by The Independent,

“The first video, originally shared by deputy leader Jayda Fransen’s account, claimed to show “Muslim migrants beating up a Dutch boy on crutches.” A second re-post was captioned ‘Muslim destroys statue of Virgin Mary’, while a third read “Islamist mob pushes teenage boy off roof and beats him to death.”

Now a bit of background on Fransen. Fransen is the deputy leader of ‘Britain First’. The group, as much as it pains we to confine their unsettling action into one sentence: An authoritarian, pro-fascism wing or Britain’s political scene who claims Muslims or anyone or Arab descent to be a horrible rapist and who believes in using government powers to deport Muslims who live in the UK. So needless to say the fact that the leader of the Free world, a supposed promoter and spokesperson of peace took to Twitter seemed to promote this action group.

Now a bit more Fransen herself. Fransen has said that Muslim men force women to cover up “because they cannot control their sexual urges” adding that “that’s why they are coming to my country raping women across the continent”. Fransen has a history of using her platform to spread these messages. While her rampant discrimination is to many an outage, her party’s fascist advocacy has had even more concerned.

Britain First has come out of basically supporting the deportation of all muslin’s from the UK permanently. Basically, BF is a group which advocates for the government to be used a mechanism to fuel their racist worldview. If that’s not fascism, someone explain what is. Now let’s get to the aspect of this that has really concerned most Americans.

Was President Trump’s re-tweet of these videos somehow an endorsement of these ideals. The answer is both yes and no. Trump likely only read the tweet and watched the videos they contained. So I think it’s fair for us to assume that he basically believes these videos are true and agrees with the message they send. As for the idea that he was endorsing the ideal of Britain First or Jayda Fransen, it’s complicated. It’s unclear whether or not the president knows the background here. I think it’s fair to assume at this point he didn’t. Does that make this acceptable? Hell no. A US president obviously needs to be informed about the things he’s promoting, on special media especially. With this said, I think it’s time we admit that Trump didn’t necessarily have fascist motivations behind these re-tweets.

So what does all this mean? While some sources push this story as Trump showing his inner self (and this is clearly true regarding the discrimination), but we must understand that these re-tweets need to be taken in context. Specifically the context of president Trump’s Twitter history. We know Trump can’t contain himself. At this point it’s so sad we must try to excuse his actions by the fact that he seems to be outright dumb, but in this case, we can see that Trump didn’t know what he was doing. Instead of taking this as a call for fascism, let’s take this to be what it really is: Another example of Trump’s incompetence.

5 Nationalist Movements to Watch

By Colin Louis | U.S.

All around the globe nationalism is on the rise. The ideas of right wing populism and nationalism are starting to grow into large movements all over the free world. People are beginning to shift to these ideas. The following five countries are turning nationalist.

5. The UK

Recently, the U.K has shown signs of shifting further to the nationalist right. The Brexit vote provided evidence that the UK is moving further towards nationalism and populism. Brexit clearly signals that nationalism and euroskepticism is on a significant rise in the U.K. The recent UKIP leadership election could help them continue this.

4. Ireland

Irish politics serves as a reminder that nationalism comes in different forms. In the case of Ireland, it’s left nationalism with much momentum. The concept of left nationalism is a form of socialism mixed with nationalism, not to be confused with National Socialism, which is a far more authoritarian belief. Sinn Féin, led by Garry Adams, won around 14% of the vote in the recent 2016 election. Sinn Féin did very well compared to its past performance and that of other less nationalist parties. 14% might not sound like much, but the ruling party, Fine Gael, only received around 36% of the vote.

3. Germany

In the most recent German elections, the new nationalist party, Alternative Für Deutschland (AFD), won a considerable amount of seats in the German parliament. This sent a signal to incumbent Chancellor, Angela Merkel, that the German people are moving further from the European Union and her administration. Germany has always attempted to stray away from their Nazi history and refrain from nationalist movements. Although the election of AFD provides evidence that Germany is losing this mindset.

2. America

The recent election of Donald Trump as President of the United States signals a shift further towards his movement of American nationalism. The policies Trump promised he would put in place, such as protectionist trade deals with China, are designed to put America over the rest of the world. The movement Trump sparked now runs rampant through the Republican Party. The Republican Party didn’t necessarily hold these views until Trump nearly hijacked the party. His America first movement destroyed the Party establishment and put these ideas into action.

1. Netherlands

The one that may surprise people the most is the Netherlands. The once center left nation recently took a swing right in the 2017 elections when Garret Wilders and the Party for Freedom ran a hard anti Islam and European Union campaign. Wilders has come out in support of banning the Koran, even going as far as to compare the book to Mein Kampf. Wilder’s Party won enough seats to place them as the opposition party in the Dutch House of Representatives. Even parties that have never run a hard line anti- Islam campaign are shifting in support of more nationalist ideas. Prime Minister Mark Rutte put out an advertisement that stated, “act normal or leave.” Rutte later said that this wasn’t meant to attack ethnic groups, but instead people who did not share their values. This signals that Wilder’s nationalist movement has spread most everywhere in the Netherlands.