I Hope That N***** Obama Gets Assassinated, But I'm Not a Racist Bigot or Crazy... Honest!!!

Well, that's basically what Denise Helms, a 22-year-old from Turlock, is telling us after her clearly racist and crazy Facebook post received a little more attention that she had originally hoped.

What I find more crazy than her comments is the denial, something that appears to be common among racists. Similar to Whoopi Goldberg with her obscene "rape-rape" comment, they don't seem to understand that you do not have to physically lynch someone before being a "real" racist. No, calling someone a n****** and hoping they're murdered is enough. And to top it all off, some people, including Helms herself, are trying to make this into a free speech issue.

From the Associated Press:

"TURLOCK -- A Turlock woman who posted inflammatory comments on Facebook about President Barack Obama has been fired from her job and reported to the U.S. Secret Service.

Turlock resident Denise Helms, 22, posted shortly after the president's re-election Tuesday on her Facebook page, "And another 4 years of the (n-----). Maybe he will get assassinated this term..!!"

The post quickly made the rounds on social media, prompting Sacramento TV station Fox 40 to interview her about her comments Wednesday night. She told the Fox 40 reporter: "I didn't think it would be that big of a deal. The assassination part is kind of harsh. I'm not saying like I would go do that or anything like that, by any means, but if it was to happen, I don't think I'd care one bit."

Helms has since deleted the post and posted again about the incident. It reads: "So apparently my post last night about Obama got onto Twitter and Fox 40 came and interviewed me cause apparently a lot of people in Sacramento think I'm crazy and racist. WOW is all I got to say!! I'm not racist and I'm not crazy. just simply stating my opinion.!!!"

But the incident and surrounding outrage caused her to lose her job at Cold Stone Creamery, where she had worked for less than a year. Store director Chris Kegle said he was shocked to read her racist slur and see her accompanying interview.

"We found her comments to be very disgusting, and they do not reflect our opinions here,"Kegle said.

When he arrived Thursday at the store, he said, there were more than 20 angry voicemails about Helms.

"We made the decision because of her comments, but also the community feedback," he said.

Helms also caught the attention of the Secret Service. Agent Scott Gillingham from the Sacramento office said he was not familiar with Helms' case specifically, but he would check out her posting and the Fox 40 report. He said threats against the president are a felony under U.S. Code Section 871.

It reads: "Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Gillingham said his office would be assigned to review any report from Turlock, but he would not comment further on any possible investigation into her posting.

"We get a lot of these kinds of referrals, especially off of the Internet," he said.

Helms graduated from Placer High School in 2008, according to her Facebook page, and has the Romney/Ryan 2012 page among her "likes." She is not listed as a registered voter in the state registry database.

Helms could not be reached for comment by The Bee. She told Fox 40 she wasn't aware she could be investigated by the Secret Service for her post.

"OK, but what did I do wrong? That's fine if they want to," she told the reporter. "But I don't understand what I did wrong.""

"...From the Buddhist Point of View Islam is Demonic and Perverse, A Perfect Anti-Religion..."

Those are the words of Professor John R. Newman, a historian of religions at the New College of Florida who specializes in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. His words are taken from the Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, and summarizes the Kalacakra tantra's perception of Islamic beliefs.

His words may sound harsh to you, but they are nothing when compared to what Buddhist scripture actually has to say on Muhammad and Islam. You can read the paper here (Vol. 21, No. 2, 1998), and below is WikiIslam's page on the subject (visit the original page for references):

"The Kālachakra Tantra is a 9th century Tibetan Buddhist text that contains passages which discuss the religion of Islam in a negative manner and refer to a man named Madhumati (i.e. Prophet Muhammad) who would be a "false impostor, wreaking havoc" on the Buddhist world.[1][2]

Like the Hindu Bhavishya Purana, it describes Muslims as invading "barbarians" (Skt. mleccha, from two words "Malina" meaning lowly, dirty, filthy, impure, wretched, unchaste, unclean, admixed, adulterated, contaminated, corrupt, immoral, decadent, infected, obscene, tainted and "CCha/CCheetkara" meaning abhorrence, loathing, disgust, abomination, repugnance)[3] and contains the prophecy of a holy war between the followers of Islam and Buddhism.

It refers to Islam as "mleccha-dharma", the barbarian religion, describing it as a religion of violence ("himsa-dharma") that advocates savage behavior ("raudra-karman"), and characterizes Allah as a barbarian god, who is a merciless deity of death ("mara-devata"), a god of darkness comparable to Rahu, the demon who devours the sun and the moon.[4]

One passage of the Kalachakra states that the powerful, merciless idol of the barbarians, the demonic incarnation (i.e. Muhammad) lives in Mecca.[5] Another reads, "The Chakravartin (i.e. universal ruler) shall come out at the end of the age, from the city the gods fashioned on Mount Kailasa. He shall smite the barbarians in battle with his own four-division army, on the entire surface of the earth."[6]

According to Professor John R. Newman, a historian of religions who specializes in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism,[7] "We may summarize the Kalacakra tantra's perception of Islamic beliefs and practices as follows: from the Buddhist point of view Islam is demonic and perverse, a perfect anti-religion which is the antithesis of Buddhism".[4]

Similarly, the late 14th century Uighur Insadi-Sutr also contains Buddhist denunciations of Islam, describing Muhammad as evil, and expressing messianic hopes that Maitreya the future Buddha would soon return and even win over the kingdom of Baghdad.[2][8]"

A Time for Reflection: My Disappointment With "Anti-Islamist" Right-Wingers and Their Racist Hypocrisy

Over the past few years since my apostasy, I have written a lot about Islam. Much of it has been very popular among "anti-Islamists" on the Internet and what you see on this blog is only a tiny fraction of the sum total. Throughout this time, I've been on a roller-coaster of a ride. Starting off as a staunch theist and ending up as an agnostic who just couldn't give a damn about whether God exists or not. But two thing that have been a constant is my dedication to speaking the truth unclouded by any sectarian biases, and the belief that we as human beings are all born equal, separated only by our adherence to unequal ideologies.

Naturally, I was aware that things I write may be used by individuals who I do not necessarily agree with. For example, something I wrote was once used by a Zionist Israeli politician. I wouldn't of minded this so much if they hadn't plagiarized my words without attribution. But, politicians, what else can you expect from them? What eventually did prompt some "soul searching" was when I noticed my work being linked to and used by white supremacists on stormfront.org and other similar sites. The reason I started writing about Islam was in solidarity for the millions of voiceless individuals who are relentlessly persecuted by its adherents. It was certainly not to be in league with right-wing white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

Partly in response to this soul searching, I created this blog. Keeping it within the framework of a site critical of Islam, I have used it at times as a platform to denounce the BNP (something that hasn't stopped their moronic supporters from linking to it), voice my disapproval of the EDL and to cover the media's slandering of Asians. All the while hoping that there will eventually appear a notable critic of Islam who does not carry the baggage and bigotry that accompanies almost every notable, and unfortunately very right-wing, critic of Islam. Then along came Eric Allen Bell.

Him being a critic of Islam from the left of the political spectrum, made me quite excited at the prospect of this new voice. Unfortunately, there seems to be an unwritten rule that every critic of Islam must be an intolerant right-wing Zionist, something that Eric is beginning to imitate frighteningly well. An ex-Muslim and close friend of mine who goes by the pseudonym, "Issy Jones", posted a couple of anti-Zionist comments denouncing the Israeli media's vilification of the Arab race/ethnicity (something similar to the UK media's vilification of Asians) on Eric's Facebook page. What do you think happened to them? Yes, you've guessed it. Even the uniquely American worship of freedom of speech didn't save it or him from the ban-hammer. So an anti-Zionist and anti-racist comment is not welcome, but the countless racist/bigoted comments from his followers are? One example of this hypocrisy would be the user Cindy Krobe, who refers to American Muslims on Eric's Facebook page as "turbine[sic] wearing, smelly people!" Someone seriously needs to tell this women that it is the Sikhs who wear turbans in America, not the Muslims. And considering it's the Muslims, not Western whites, who actually clean their backsides properly after defecation, it's hardly Muslims who are the "smelly" ones.

When it's pointed out that Asians are being maligned by the mainstream media by having religiously motivated hate-crimes attributed to their race, there is no objection from the "anti-Islamists". Unfortunately, this is not the case when the same is pointed out for the Arabs. The message I'm getting is that bigotry and racism is fine, so long as the source of this hatred is Jewish or Israeli. Today, when people kidnap and rape children as part of their "Eid celebrations", they are not "Asians". Today, when people riot on the Temple Mount to screams of "Allahu Akbar", they are equally not "Arabs". The use of their race to describe the perpetrators behind these crimes is inaccurate because their race, something that they cannot change, was irrelevant to their motivations. It is also a display of utter hypocrisy when critics of Islam who happen to be Christian are up in arms if a Muslim desecrates a Bible, attacks a fellow Christian or kills homosexuals, but remain silent when a Jew desecrates a copy of the New Testament, attacks a fellow Christian or kills homosexuals.

And then there is the issue of President Barack Obama (oops! Sorry right-wingers. I meant President Barack HUSSEIN Osama). As I noted previously, Muslims aren't alone when it comes to ridiculing Obama's race by referring to him as an "ape" (right-wing US loons and even the left-leaning New York Magazine have had their turn), but what also worries me is the use of "anti-Islamism" as one of the reasons to justify their hatred. I rarely participate in discussions on blogs or forums, but did start one on an obscure Wordpress blog when I took offense at a racist video about Obama. Ironically the video was produced by a Jewish white supremacist. You've probably also guessed that, being ignorant of the fact that I have spoken out against anti-Semitism on this blog, they tried to smear me (through my supposed silence) as a hypocrite.

Don't get me wrong, I have no particular love for President Obama. In my humble opinion (as someone who has little interest or knowledge of American politics), his love affair with genuine Islamists and his "radical" policies have set American race-relations back a hundred years. That is not to say that I think all of his policies and stances are necessarily bad, I just wish this "change" hadn't come to America from its first ever black president. If there is anything positive to come out of Obama's victory in securing a second term in office, it is the knowledge that millions of white supremacists are now wallowing in self-pity.

In summation, I think it's about time that many in the "anti-Islamist" movement took part in some thorough soul-searching and spoke out against the never-ending conflation of race with religion, and religion with politics. Criticism of Islam is more important now than it has ever been, and the need to be responsible in our critique is even greater. We need to be aware that every action has a reaction and act accordingly. As good a place to start as any would be getting rid of our racist cheerleaders, and the Robert Spencers of this world finally washing there hands of organizations such as the EDL who may come across as "freedom-fighters" on paper but in practice are nothing more than violent, drunken, racist football hooligans.


Additional Notes

1. Issy Jones' comments were posted on an Eric Allen Bell's Facebook photo page (the picture in question was of Pam Geller's controversial "Support Israel, Defeat Jihad" ad http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=383203221757672&set=a.279367345474594.64794.173682399376423&type=1)

The exchange in full:

Issy Jones:

"I'll start supporting Israel when they stop labeling Palestinian/Muslim terrorists “Arabs” and stop treating Christians like shit." 

Erick Morgan:

"Issy Jones, thank you, Israel doesn't need the support of misinformed idiots. You can continue following Pallywood and Arab propaganda.

And speaking of people who treat Christians like shit...

http://www.sodahead.com/living/christianity-is-now-the-target-of-persecution/question-2868235/?link=ibaf&q=&imgurl=http://www.pittsreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/205112_149906428408139_100001663472455_32097 "

Issy Jones:

"Misinformed idiot? I'm not some American idiot that cares more for Israel than my own country and ignores Israel's treatment of non-Jews. They are savages in their own country, just like Muslims, and liberal, terrorist sympathizers in America.  http://realchristianity.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/christian-persecution-in-israel/ " 

2. My comments concerning President Obama were posted on a Wordpress blog (the post in question has now been deleted, but the original URL was http://coffeeandsleeplessnights.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/the-mad-jewess-confronts-barack-hussein-osama/#comment-4675 ) 

Islamo-Criticism :

"0:31 …I hate your PURPLE LIPS…

1:03 …talking MONKEY boy…

Considering the fact that Jews are probably more hated than blacks, you’d think the “Mad Jewess” would choose her words more carefully. In another of her videos, Obama tells his wife she looks like a “GORILLA” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWMzC2mozXU). You should add an extra tag to this video: RACIST"

coffeeandsleeplessnights :

"If you’ve got a problem with the video feel free to take your offended liberal sensitivity issues up with her."

Islamo-Criticism:

"LOL. No, I have issues with racism, not an “offended liberal sensitivity issue”."

coffeeandsleeplessnights: 

"LOL Afraid of confronting the Mad Jewess?

And I don’t like racism either but race has been made into this huge fucking issue since Obama became president – all I have fucking heard the past 4 years is a bunch of stupid bullshit from fucking narrow-minded Democrats pertaining to race instead of addressing IMPORTANT characteristics like ethics, morals, and values.

Oh, and I’m not so sensitive that I can’t take a fucking joke or find humor in something like this video."

Islamo-Criticism :

"Afraid of confronting the Mad Jewess? Hardly. I watched that video HERE, not on YouTube. Also, my YouTube account has been suspended because I didn’t provide Google with my real name (I’m an ex-Muslim whose work is pretty well known among anti-Islamists, i.e. I don’t have a death wish).

I’m glad you “don’t like racism either”, but that’s hardly reflected by your comments to me. The bottom line is that video refers to Obama as a “talking MONKEY boy (1:03)”, a “GORILLA (0:54)” from Kenya, who has ugly “PURPLE LIPS”. If you are not racist, you would never refer to a black/brown person as any of those things (or at least I hope you wouldn’t). If you would never refer to a black/brown person as any of those things, why propagate this shite racist video?

Additionally, why brush off my legitimate objections with ad-hominem? So when I criticize Islam, I’m a “raving fundie”, and when I point out racism, I’m an “offended liberal” with sensitivity issues?. LOL I’m not a Democrat, I’m not an American. I’m not even “Western”. I can take a joke, but there’s nothing funny about a Jew referring to a black guy as a talking monkey. If you can’t see that, then it’s not me with the issues."

Redneck Dixie Warrior: 

"If it offends you then don’t watch it! If it offends you…suck it up and move on…..nobody has a gun to your head making you watch it over and over!

BTW…..when Michelle Obama wears a t-shirt with “Get Whitey” on it then it’s about race isn’t it? Why don’t you write her and tell her she’s being racist!

Since you are not Western, not American and not a democrat ….what business is it of yours if someone is voicing their frustration over their President? Jews have been called many names lately by Muslims and others alike. Anti-semitism is on the rise! Do you call people out over that also?

Take your issues with the video up with the Mad Jewess…..let her know what you think of her video. You don’t have to go to youTube to do it….You just have to go to her Blog! Google it!"

Islamo-Criticism:

""If it offends you then don’t watch it!"

I watched it because I thought it would be funny. I see no warning on the title saying: Dont watch this video if you're offended by overt racism towards black people.

"If it offends you…suck it up and move on…..nobody has a gun to your head making you watch it over and over!"

This blog states, 'Comments Are Appreciated'. If it offends me, and if the blog owner allows me to, I will voice my thoughts. Rather than tell me to not 'watch it' or 'suck it up and move on', maybe you should listen to some of your own advise?

"BTW…..when Michelle Obama wears a t-shirt with “Get Whitey” on it then it’s about race isn’t it?"

Yes, that sounds racist to me. American politics is not a subject I'm well versed in or overly interested in, hence I had no idea she done that. But how is that relevant to this racist video? If you don't know what a "Tu quoque" argument is, you should read my blog. I cover that a lot.

"Why don’t you write her and tell her she’s being racist!"

Because I don't read her blog. That's why. Again, how is any of this relevant to this racist video? And just so your Royal Ignorance is aware, I also object to racism against whites on my blog (see here: http://islamo-criticism.blogspot.com/2012/03/muslimwiki-narsaksaslee-and-jagged-85.html )

"Since you are not Western, not American and not a democrat ….what business is it of yours if someone is voicing their frustration over their President?"

It's my "business" because this blog supposedly allows and appreciates comments. And it's not simply "voicing their frustrations", it's overtly racist. Do you now understand, or do I have to spell it out to you in some other language?

"Jews have been called many names lately by Muslims and others alike. Anti-semitism is on the rise! Do you call people out over that also?"

Your ignorance is sickening. Read my blog before making your self look like an ignorant fool (e.g. see here: http://islamo-criticism.blogspot.com/2012/03/jew-quoque-truth-about-infidels-lying.html.)

"Take your issues with the video up with the Mad Jewess…..let her know what you think of her video. You don’t have to go to youTube to do it….You just have to go to her Blog! Google it!"

Thanks."

The following comment was something I was going to post the next day but the blog post in question was deleted before I could:

"Well, I found the right page on her site after you (coffeeandsleeplessnights) edited your post to include a link to it. My comments would obviously not be welcome. In fact it would be against the the site's policies (See: "RULES FOR LEFT WING LUNATICS" http://themadjewess.com/2009/06/08/muslim-woman-punches-street-preacher-in-the-face/), so why is everyone telling me to post there?

I also notice you posted on her blog about her "unhappy fan" (i.e. me), but considering she has no problem openly referring to black people as "N!GGERS" ( http://themadjewess.com/2010/04/27/message-to-people-that-read-my-site-the-mad-jewess/ ) I highly doubt she gives a crap about someone calling her video racist....

Anyway, what a waste of time it would be to tell a racist what she obviously already knows (that her video is racist)."

3. "Inside the Christians United for Israel rally: Unconditional support for Israel" & "Settler admits to murder, series of bomb attacks"

4. "Arabs Riot for Third Day on Temple Mount" & "Five men jailed for sex attacks on two teenage girls in Birmingham"

Rejecting Dr. David Liepert's Apologetic Myth that Aisha's Age is in Question

I have not yet watched the "Innocence of Muslims" clip, and doubt that I ever will. This is because I can think of better ways of spending a spare quarter-hour than staring at rubbish. The film includes references to the Prophet Muhammad's 9-year-old child bride, Aisha. I know this because people in the skeptics community are asking, how factual is this movie really? And some well-intentioned people are replying with claims that "not one thing in the movie is factual", that , "Most scholars for the last 1200 years suggest Aisha was 11-14", and one person even provided a link to an apologetic piece by a Muslim named Dr. David Liepert at the Huffington Post titled, "Rejecting the Myth of Sanctioned Child Marriage in Islam".

Apparently the arguments raised by Liepert and others have given many the false impression that Aisha's age is a long contested issue in Islam, and that it is a valid argument over interpretation that could eventually lead to reforms within mainstream Islam. The problem I have with this, is that it is certainly not an argument over interpretation. The text clearly say one thing and one thing only. For anyone with a little knowledge on the subject and who has actually read the source material, it is disingenuous to claim otherwise. For people like Liepert, simply lying about what sources say may be effective in apologetic pieces, but they are useless if the intentions behind them are to reform the religion.

To explain in a language my readers may understand better; there are valid theological or factual arguments/disagreements, and then there is absurd nonsense that is not worthy of being entertained. For example; there are lots of creationists who claim evolution is not factual because "monkeys still exist, so we haven't evolved from them!!!", and other such ignorant rubbish. Scientists schooled in evolution (in fact, anyone with an ounce of knowledge on the subject) will either laugh or feel pity for those gullible enough to fall for these arguments. The last thing they or anyone will do is claim evolution is in doubt because there are some non-peer reviewed arguments to the contrary posted by obscure loonies on the Internet.... 

Can you see where I'm going with this?

The claim that most scholars for the last 1200 years have suggested Aisha was 11-14 at the time of her marriage to Muhammad is blatantly in error. To the best of my knowledge, the first ever pro-Muhammad and provably faulty objection raised to Aisha's age was by Maulana Muhammad Ali who lived from 1874 to 1951 (see here). He is a nobody as far as mainstream Islam is concerned, since he belonged to the Ahmadiyya whose beliefs drastically differ from them (think of the difference between Judaism to Christianity, or Christianity to Islam, and you're on the right track). The Ahmadiyya and their writings are heavily focused on missionary work (see here for a previous response to a disingenuous Ahmadiyya missionary at the Huffington Post, where I touch upon some of the major differences).

Then there is Habib Ur Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi who in his Urdu booklet, "Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat" (English trans. 1997), laments that he is "tired of defending this tradition" that is "laughed" at and "ridiculed" by English-educated individuals he meets in Karachi who claim it is against "sagacity and prudence" and "preferred English society to Islam over this", and he readily admits his "aim is to produce an answer to the enemies of Islam who spatter mud at the pious body of the Generous Prophet". Unsurprisingly, a posthumous fatwa was issued against him in November 2004, labeling him a "Munkir-e-Hadith" (hadith rejector) and a "Kafir" (infidel) on the basis of being a rejector of hadith.

More recently, we have Moiz Amjad (who refers to himself as "The Learner"). He readily admits to having lifted these faulty arguments from them, summarizing and presenting them in response to a Muslim asking him how he can respond to Christians who called Muhammad a pedophile (i.e. all of his arguments, like Ali's and Kandhalvi's before him, were apologetic in nature rather than scholarly). It was at this very recent point in history that the arguments originating from the Ahmadiyya in the 1920s and 1930s finally achieved some limited popularity among a few orthodox Muslims on the Internet. Clearly a knee-jerk reaction to the avalanche in criticism of Muhammad's life, as opposed to any real significant shift in beliefs.

Since then, his arguments have been rehashed by countless apologists on the Internet with the same missionary and apologetic focus. Dr. David Liepert's copy of these arguments are clearly aimed at Christians and other "Islamophobes"  (apparently, he cannot envision a fourth reason for disagreeing with his ignorance, e.g. for the reason of Intellectual honesty). The funny thing about these people is that they have evidently not read the source material, or are not knowledgeable on the subjects they discuss with such feigned authority, because, even though Liepert claims his "conclusions [are] little more than simple common sense", they lift these highly convoluted arguments based on assumptions from Moiz Amjad with all of their obvious lies and faults intact. Additionally, since these 'arguments' are so specific, their original source is obvious, but Liepert and others never choose to reveal this to their readers. Instead they play on their target audience's ignorance, choosing to peddle it as their own 'research' (only recently, I dealt with another apologist doing the very same thing. After I replied to him, he deleted his article within 2 hours).

What I'm saying is, there is not a single serious Muslim scholar (someone who is not considered a complete kook by mainstream Muslims or has less knowledge of the sources than a layman like myself) who would repeat these arguments. Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad, who was listed amongst the inaugural "500 most influential Muslims in the world" (p. 94), is a Muslim scholar who is taken very seriously by mainstream Muslims, and deserves my respect simply for taking a stand against Salafi fundamentalism without having to lower himself to the standards held by the likes of Dr. Liepert and others. He responded to Amjad's polemics more than 5 years ago and it has remained unanswered. There has never been a response to "Our Mother A'isha's Age At The Time Of Her Marriage to The Prophet". I've presented it to many apologists and they have never countered any of it, simply because they cant. Shaykh Haddad's response is quite literally the "be all and end all of the argument". Including many facts that are easily verifiable for those who have access to the hadith and sira literature, he annihilates the lies and distortions being spread by apologists.

Fact; Liepert is lying through his teeth when claiming there is only 1 chain of narration for Aisha's age. There are in fact multiple reliable narrations from many different chains of narrators (lifting their classification from sahih to mutawatir, the highest class of narrations). I've read at least 4 different narrations in Sahih Bukhari and 3 in Sahih Muslim that state she was 9. There are many others in Abu Dawud, Ibn Ishaq, Al Tabari's History, etc., that state the same thing. There is none to the contrary.

Fact; even though he claims "it is a matter of incontrovertible historical record", Liepert is lying through his teeth when claiming Aisha took part in the Battle of Badr and Uhud, and thus was fifteen years of age. Sahih hadith state the exact opposite, that she only bid farewell to the combatants of Badr and only carried water skins back and forth to the combatants of Uhud (the age restriction applied only to combatants. It applied neither to non-combatant boys nor to non-combatant girls).

Fact; Liepert is lying through his teeth when claiming Aisha accepted Islam shortly after it was revealed -- 12 years before her marriage. Nowhere does Ibn Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah say this. Rather, Ibn Hisham lists Aisha among "those that accepted Islam because of Abu Bakr." Abu Bakr being Aisha's father, the first Rightly-Guided Caliph of Islam.

Liepert shamelessly spews lie after lie and distortion after distortion, but rather than me going through every single one of them, I suggest reading Shaykh Haddad's unanswered reply to Moiz Amjad, and WikiIslam's and MuslimHope's article on the same subject. 

Some of the things that are not covered in those replies include:

Liepert's claim that "the Quran doesn't condone wife-beating either. In pre-Islamic Arabia, men did not need permission to beat their wives. And although the Arabic root Dzaraba does mean "beat" it also means "heal." Dzaraba denotes action for a higher purpose, such as "striking (or minting) a coin," or "striking out on a new path." Note that Liepert's deception is two-fold here. Not only is he playing on his target audiences ignorance of the Arabic language, he is also playing on their ignorance of Arabian History.

His first claim was lifted from another American Muslim apologist named Laleh Bakhtiar. "Dzaraba" and its usage in Qur'an 4:34 linguistically does not leave room for any other meaning than to physically beat someone. His second claim is not original either. Muslim apologists love to exaggerate the so-called "Period of Ignorance" (Jahiliyah), painting all pre-Islamic Arabians as backward, cave-dwelling Neanderthals. This is a view that is contradicted by Islam's own text. In Sahih Bukhari 7:6:715, a Muslim woman complains to Muhammad about her husband beating her until her skin literally turned green. Muhammad refuses to condemn this behavior. Instead choosing to provide his tacit approval of wife-beating by siding with the husband. Ironically, it is the young Aisha who refutes Liepert's claim when she exclaims, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" This of course means Muslim women in Arabia were being treated worse than their pagan and Abrahamic Arabian counterparts.

Liepert claims that "the Sunnah confirms that both Aisha's betrothal and consummation occurred with Aisha's enthusiastic agreement. In fact, some even imply she went against the initial wishes of her Dad!". This is a blatant lie. In Islam, a bride's father or father's father may "compel their charge to marry... without her consent." In fact, Muslim scholars are "unanimously agreed that a father may marry off his young daughter without consulting her". This is all based on the unquestionable fact that Aisha did not give her consent to the marriage. 

Liepert also claims that Christians attack Islam for pedophilia, but Muslims never attack Christianity for it. This is, once again, a provable lie. Muslims often attack both Christians and Jews with the accusation that their faiths allow pedophilia. Most Western Christians are either too stupid or too infatuated with Zionism to care less, but I have several pages that destroy their very silly and desperate arguments (for example; see here, here and here). Not only do Muslim apologists erroneously accuse Judaism of permitting pedophilia, they actually go one step further than the Christian "Islamophobes" and accuse the Christian god himself of being a pedophile (how's that for some Muslim "Christophobia"?).  

Liepert amazingly blames "Islamophobes", in addition to blaming Muslims (including imam Bukhari, who is considered to be one of the greatest Muslims to have ever lived), for perpetuating child marriages in the Muslim world. Well, I have news for him. The blame squarely falls on one individual. With an age difference of 45 years, this individual married a child 6 times younger than himself (Aisha was 9 and he was 54). Because of this individual's actions, millions of young girls today are forced into pedophilic child marriages by individuals, and even entire nations, who explicitly use Aisha's relationship with him as justification. Yes, this man is none other than Prophet Muhammad. Someone who more than a billion people believe is the greatest and most moral man to have ever walked this earth.

If anything today is helping to perpetuate the existence of pedophilic child marriages in the Muslim world, it is the lies peddled by these shameless individuals. Change and reform is a result of honest discussion and criticism, the same honest discussion that these people are trying to avoid through inventing false myths, and the same honest criticism that these people are trying to stifle by smearing everyone who raises them as "Islamophobic" bigots.  Change and reform is also the result of human self-reflection, the same self-reflection that these shameless people are trying their damnedest to isolate and immunize the Muslim world from.

I can understand creationists and religious zombies repeating rubbish as facts without doing any fact-checking, but it is not something I expect to see from skeptics. There seems to exist a collective fear that the truth may be too "Islamophobic" for us to acknowledge, so people tend to accept any excuse, any lie, put forward in defense of Islam. If the truth is too Islamophobic, then maybe we should reconsider flinging such a word so frivolously at anyone who criticizes Islam. Maybe it is about time we all got ourselves educated on Islam, on what its texts actually say, and on the views the majority of the world's Muslims still hold today. For this, we certainly do not need to waste precious time on reading fanciful fairy-tales written by apologists or watching trash like "Innocence of Muslims".


Additional notes

1. Since writing this response to Liepert, WikiIslam's article, "Refutation to Muslim Apologetics against Aisha's Age of Consummation", has been updated to include much of my information and commentary on the origins and history of the "Aisha was older" apologetic argument.

2. From my tone in this piece, you've probably guessed I do not hold a positive view of this "Innocence of Muslims" clip. I personally have nothing against satire aimed at religious or political beliefs (e.g. see here and here), but even I have my standards.

3. For examples of people claiming  "monkeys still exist, so we haven't evolved from them!!!" , just Google: http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=monkeys+still+exist,+so+we+haven't+evolved+from+them

4. Considering that Liepert is a "National Board member of the Canadian Islamic Chamber of Commerce" and is involved with many other Canadian-based Islamic initiatives, some may think my comparing him to "obscure individuals on the Internet" is unfair. But, in the grander scale of things, an "obscure individual" is in fact a very good description of what he actually is. According to a 2011 Pew Report, only "3% of the world’s Muslims live in more-developed regions, such as Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan." Only three percent. If we consider Canada on its own, that figure drops below single digits. Why is this statistic important to us? It is important because these provably false "modernist" claims are almost exclusively entertained by Muslims in these "more-developed" secular regions of the earth. Even within these secular regions, many, if not the majority of Muslims, still hold on to the mainstream Islamic views concerning Aisha's young age. Outside of this measly 3%, we have the other 97%, the 1.5 billion Muslims of the Middle-East, Africa, and Asia. Now, we evidently have these two opposing Muslim groups, but which of the two is more representative of mainstream Islam; the tiny percentage within an already tiny 3% or the 97+%? Make no mistake, the unorthodox views espoused by the likes of Liepert and other apologists are highly controversial, even among their Western co-religionists. For example, take the case of American Muslim apologist Laleh Bakhtiar whom I mentioned earlier. Liepert conveniently borrows her "Dzaraba" argument to deny that wife-beating is approved by the Qur'an. However, not so long ago, this very same argument landed Laleh Bakhtiar in hot water. In fact her claim was so controversial among the "moderate" Muslims of Canada, that the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) refused to sell her translation in their bookstores. So, when all things are considered, we can conclude that, certainly they, i.e. the Muslims that actually matter, overwhelmingly agree on Aisha's age and couldn't care less about what an obscure, white, convert in Canada has to say regarding their beliefs.

5. Text from, "Age of Aisha (ra) at time of marriage",  by Zahid Aziz that discuss Maulana M. Ali: "It appears that Maulana Muhammad Ali was the first Islamic scholar directly to challenge the notion that Aisha was aged six and nine, respectively, at the time of her nikah and consummation of marriage. This he did in, at least, the following writings: his English booklet Prophet of Islam, his larger English book Muhammad, the Prophet, and in the footnotes in his voluminous Urdu translation and commentary of Sahih Bukhari entitled Fadl-ul-Bari, these three writings being published in the 1920s and 1930s. In the booklet Prophet of Islam, which was later incorporated in 1948 as the first chapter of his book Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad..." 

6. On the major differences between mainstream Islam and the Ahmadiyya: the Ahmadiyya have an additional Prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and some additional religious texts (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's writings). So they are as different to mainstream Islam as Islam is to Christianity. After all, Islam is simply an additional Prophet (Muhammad) and some additional religious texts (Qur'an and Sunnah). Accordingly, Ahmadis are widely persecuted in Islamic countries because they are viewed as infidels by Muslims. In fact, they are often viewed as more heretical than Christians and Jews. Likewise, according to Ahmadi beliefs, only those who accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's prophethood are considered Muslims.

7. All  Habib Ur Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi quotations are taken from the Preface of the 2007 English translation of his Urdu booklet, "Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat", translated by Nigar Erfaney and published by Al-Rahman Publishing Trust under the title, "Age of Aisha (The Truthful Women, May Allah Send His Blessings)"

8. The fatwa in full, branding  Habib Ur Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi's beliefs outside of Islam, thus making him a 'kafir', from "Fatwa's on hadith rejectors?": "QUESTION: A book by the name of 'Mazhabi Dastanain Aur Unn Ki Haqeeqat' comprising of four volumes. This book is authored by Habib ar-Rahman Siddiqui Khandhalvi. Is the afore-mentioned person a Munkir-e-Hadith (Hadith Rejector) or a Pervaizi or does he in reality hold any scholarly status? Please tell me briefly about him. In this book, many views that are contradictory to the Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah are written, for example denial of Imam Mahdi and denial of Hazrat Ali being the 4th Caliph etc. What is the ruling for such a person and those who agree with his views, follow or propogate them?

ANSWER: Habib ar-Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi is a Pervaizi (Munkir-e-Hadith). And Pervaiz and his adherents (Parvezi's) - the Ulema have declared them as Kafirs, on the basis of being rejectors of hadith. Habib ar-Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi [deceased] is the son of a renowned scholar of Islam, Ashfaq ar-Rahman Khandhalvi. Ashfaq ar-Rahman Kandhalvi is famous for his book Hujjat-al-Hadith. Both of them are relatives of Sheikh-ul-Hind Muhammad Idrees Khandhalvi (Sheikh-ul-Hadith). We do not know anything about Habib ar-Rahman Kandhalvi's scholarly status [calibre, competence, qualification] and neither are we aware of any details in regards to his Shuhrat [recognition, popularity, reputation] and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Answer is correct/approved: Mufti Hameedullah Jhaan, Darul Iftaa Jamia Ashrafia Lahore, Pakistan November 5th 2004".

9. For the apologetic article that really started it all, see: "What was Ayesha's (ra) Age at the Time of Her Marriage?", by Moiz Amjad. And for examples  of Moiz Amjad's arguments being rehashed by countless apologists on the Internet with the same missionary and apologetic focus, see: "Ayesha’s Age: The Myth Of A Proverbial Wedding Exposed," by T.O Shanavas; "What Was The Age of Ummul Mo'mineen Ayesha (May Allah be pleased with her) When She Married To Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)?," by 'Imam' Chaudhry (word-for-word plagiarism of Amjad's work); and "Of Aisha’s age at marriage," by Nilofar Ahmed.

10. The  only 3 reasons behind disagreeing with apologetic lies and ignorance,  according to Liepert are, "Either you are such a crazy Islamophile that you are willing to go to your grave insisting Muhammad could do whatever he wanted, or you are such a crazy Islamophobe that you want to insist he did, or you are such a weirdly religious sex-crazed pervert that you hope accusing him makes it OK for you to do it too. There is absolutely no other reason to either make or repeat that disgusting claim." This is of course a false dichotomy, meant to smear anyone who speaks honestly about what Islam's sources say as either a bigot or pervert.

11.  All of the ages for Aisha provided by the major hadith collections and the sira literature agree on her age at consummation. However, a Wikipedia article claims Tabari states  Aisha was 10 at consummation. The reference given for the claim is Tabari, Volume 9, Page 131; Tabari, Volume 7, Page 7. I own all 40 volumes of Tabari's History. Opening up both pages, Volume 9, Page 131 says she was aged 9. Nowhere does it claim she was 10. Volume 7, Page 7 says she was 9 three times. Nowhere does it claim she was 10. 

Aisha's Age, "Islamophobic Propaganda" and Tayyab Tanvir's Shattered Faith

This is a quick response to a Facebook note published by Tayyab Tanvir on Saturday, 25 August 2012, titled "Aisha's Age and Islamophobic propaganda"

Slander & Attacking a Strawman

Tayyab Tanvir says:

"Islamophobes always come up with this discussion to degrade Mohammad(PBUH). Ironically enough they always quote an article from WikiIlsam. I have to admit the first time I came across WikiIslam and read the article about Aisha's age, it seemed like everything I believed in shattered. My mind could not accept that my Prophet(PBUH) would force a six year old girl to marry him. So I read few more articles on the website including one about how Quran encourages Muslims to kill non-believers. The author supported his argument with various Quranic verses. The interesting thing I noticed about them was that he intentionally left out important parts of the verses to support his faux argument. This made me realize how the author is manipulating Quranic verses and Hadiths only to spread confusion and degrade Islam."

This is not only an unsupported slandering of critics, but also a strawman argument. He is discussing an article titled "Aisha's Age of Consummation". The article "discusses the DMS (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) of mental disorders and cites sahih hadiths to prove that Muhammad was a pedophile according to clinical definitions."

It does not argue the age of Aisha since mainstream Muslims (Sunni Islam i.e 80-90% of all Muslims) whole-heartedly accept that Aisha consummated her marriage to Prophet Muhammad when she was nine (the other 10-20%, the Shi'ites, say she may have been 9-10). It is only heretical Muslims, those who are not even considered Muslims by most (e.g. Ahmadis and so-called "reformist"), that argue she was an adult.

Taking Credit for Other's Work

Tayyab Tanvir says:

"Few days ago I was engaged in a debate on a facebook page. Admin of the page stated that Muslims can’t carry out a decent conversation and support it with facts but instead they would accuse “open minded” westerns of racism and send out hate mails and death threats. So I spent hours researching for data and hadiths to answer their claims, only to get banned in the end because somehow my comments were getting more likes than theirs."

He presents 10 different arguments against the young age of Aisha as the result of his "hours researching for data and hadiths". 

His friends are apparently impressed by "his" hard work. For example, Aymen Siddiqui says, "I am out of words for the amount of effort and research you have presented. Brilliant job !!!" And Owais Tahir says "I am amazed at the extensive research you have done , not a lot of people pay attention to matters like this . May Allah bless you".

But they are praising the wrong man. None of the claims presented in that page were thought up by Tayyab Tanvir. They are the work of Moiz Amjad, "The Learner".  Tayyab Tanvir is dishonestly taking the credit for someone else's work.

Tayyab Tanvir's Arguments Refuted 

Tayyab Tanvir's arguments, no, I mean Moiz Amjad arguments have all been refuted in an article titled "Refutation to Muslim Apologetics against Aisha's Age of Consummation".

For Muslims who may not trust critics, you can read "Our Mother A'isha's Age At The Time Of Her Marriage to The Prophet", Shaykh Gibril F Haddad's unanswered reply to Moiz Amjad.

Disingenuous & Cowardly Behavior

He complains about allegedly "being banned", but the fact that Tayyab Tanvir has been attacking a strawman, has been taking the credit for others work and has already been refuted, has been pointed out twice by a user named Issy Jones and once by me. And every single time, our comments have been deleted:

Conclusion

It is a fact that every single sahih hadith narration on Aisha's age when she had sex with Muhammad says she was nine-years-old.

So when Tayyab Tanvir claimed "I have to admit the first time I came across WikiIslam and read the article about Aisha's age, it seemed like everything I believed in shattered" he was either lying about Aisha's age making a difference to his faith, or his faith had been shattered but he's too indoctrinated to care.

Either way, this exposes the false protests made by shameless Muslim apologists who will shout "Islamophobe!!!" at anything they perceive as a threat to their missionary work, even if those "threats" simply repeat what the vast majority of the world's Muslims actually believe.

Resources on Aisha's Age

From Critics:

1. A’isha: Mohammed’s Nine-Year Old Wife
2. Aisha's Age of Consummation
3. Refutation to Muslim Apologetics against Aisha's Age of Consummation
4. Responses to Apologetics: Muhammad and Aisha
5. Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Aisha
6. Controversies about the age of Aisha 
7. Aisha the Child Wife of Muhammad
8. Moral Evaluations of the Marriage of the Prophet with Aisha 
9. Muhammad, Aisha, Islam, and Child Brides
10. An Examination of Muhammad's Marriage to a Prepubescent Girl and its Moral Implications
11. Aisha — 9 year-old bride
12. Was Muhammad a Pedophile?
13. Really, really wishing Aisha weren't nine

From Muslims:

1. Our Mother A'isha's Age At The Time Of Her Marriage to The Prophet
2. Child marriage in Islam
3. I would like to marry a woman who is 12 years old, her father and she has also agreed. What is your advise?
4. Ruling on marrying young women
5. Is it acceptable to marry a girl who has not yet started her menses?

Britain's Sikhs Reeling from Wisconsin Attack (& Personal Update from Me)

Lately, as you have all probably noticed, I have not been posting regularly. This is because I am working on a new project with some fellow South Asians. We are a varied bunch --Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and freethinkers-- but we all share some common values and goals. I will still make a few posts here and there, maybe respond to some Muslim apologetics, but not very often at all. This is a big project that will take up a lot of my spare time, but I thought I'd make this final post before I say goodbye.

When I first heard of the Wisconsin terrorist attack, I thought (like millions of others, I'm sure) this is either the work of a white, far-right, convert to Islam nut-job or a white, far-right, Neo-Nazi nut-job. Both have a lot in common, but it is mainstream Sunni Muslims (especially the converts) who far outperform their Neo-Nazi counterparts in violence (Sunni Muslim terrorists committed 8,886 [more than 70% of the total] terrorist murders in the world last year. Neo-Nazi/Fascist/White Supremacist groups committed 77 murders). Attacks on South Asian minorities living in the West by  far-right Muslims is also not uncommon (e.g. there are many examples in the UK, Australia's oldest Hindu temple [situated in a "Muslim area"] was also sprayed with bullets, an armed group of Muslims in Denmark attacked a Hare Krishna temple, and there was also a massive terror plot targeting 4,500 Hindus and Sikhs in Toronto), so there is little wonder that I assumed the former and was surprised that it turned out to be the latter. Nevertheless, acts of terrorism  committed by anyone, for any purpose, is as worthy of condemnation as the next. As always, regardless of their beliefs, my thoughts go out to the victims and their loved-ones.

From Reuters:

Devastated by the massacre of their brethren across the Atlantic, Britain's vast Sikh community blamed ignorance and racism for a rise in attacks on members of their religion since the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

Sikhs say they have been singled out increasingly for harassment around the world since September 11, with attackers believing incorrectly that they are Muslim extremists because of their turbans and beards.

In the paranoid environment just after the 2005 London suicide bombings, many Sikhs were spotted wearing badges and stickers saying 'Don't freak, I'm a Sikh'.

Sunday's attack - in which a gunman killed six people at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin - has only confirmed their worst fears.

"It's just devastating," Ranjit Kaur, a Sikh mother of four, said as she reclined on the floor of one of Europe's biggest Sikh temples, known as Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha, located in the ethnically mixed suburb of Southall in west London.

"Since 9/11 there is just no awareness as to who we are. Somehow people categorize us as Muslims, or radical Muslims. (My neighbors) here are a bit confused. A lot of them would come up and ask: 'Are you Muslim?'"

The confusion itself does not bother Kaur and other community members in Southall, where many spoke warmly about their Muslim neighbors and emphasized that a similar attack against a mosque would have been equally devastating.

But the Wisconsin massacre still sent a chill through the community where exactly a year ago a wave of violent riots in London prompted Sikh men to grab their ceremonial swords to protect their property and temples.

In Southall, one of Britain's most densely populated Sikh areas, Sikhs have lived peacefully for generations alongside other South Asian diasporas, Muslim and Hindu.

Sikh cafes and sari parlors stand next to Muslim butchers and kebab shops.

The Sikh temple's white and gold domes glitter in the sun above the bustling street, with white-bearded Sikh men in black turbans, women in pink and orange saris and Muslim men in flowing white robes rushing about on daily errands.

VULNERABLE

Indarjit Singh, a lawmaker in Britain's House of Lords who was the first Sikh to wear a turban in the upper house, said it was ignorance about their religion that worried him most.

"What concerns Sikhs is that, because (Osama) bin Laden wore a turban where most Muslims don't, people assume that Sikhs and Muslims are all the same," said Singh.

He said the Sikh community - which numbers about 330,000 people in Britain - has felt much more vulnerable since September 11, adding that he and many others had been taunted by people, while temples have been defaced and people threatened.

Some Sikhs in Southall said they tried not to venture out outside their community because the reaction of other Londoners was more unpredictable.

"In Southall, yes, it's all good, but in other places it's different," said Sukhraj Singh, a lanky teenager of 15, his head wrapped tightly in a black turban.

"Some friends of mine had a bad experience. In central London, if you walk with the turban, you might get discriminated, like, people would say something rude, young kids. But here it's all fine, people get along."

His mother, Binder Singh, standing next to him, looked worried as she listened to her son and shook her head. Asked about her view, she just said: "If it happened in America, it could happen in London.

But many community members emphasized that the long-standing presence of Sikhs in Britain meant the average British person knew more about them.

Sikh bikers in turbans are exempted from wearing crash helmets in Britain. Sikhs, whose religion was founded by Guru Nanak Dev in Punjab in the 15th century, also fought alongside British troops in the Burma campaign of World War Two.

Those warm memories are still intact, and many Sikhs said a Wisconsin-style attack could not happen in Britain.

"Britain and Sikhs have a long history stretching back over 200 years, so there is a far better understanding of Sikhs in the UK, but when you go across to Europe confusion persists, while in the US it is the worst," said Gurmel Singh, Secretary General of Sikh Council UK.

In Southall, the idea of unity among religions and ethnic groups runs deep among community members.

A giant colorful mural depicting communal scenes from mosques, Sikh temples, churches and libraries dominates one of the central streets, and members of various religious groups could be seen shopping in local stored together.

"There is freedom here. Sikhs, Muslims, Hindu, we are all fine," said Adnan Sayed, who runs a Muslim halal meat shop. "After the night service at the mosque, people go home and there is never a problem. In this area there will never be a problem like that."

France: Muslim Mob Rule, Police Attacked Doing Burka Check, Attackers Released Without Charge

From Islam versus Europe:

There have been a few attacks on police in France and Belgium while they were conducting burka checks. But this is the first time the state has taken the side of the attackers. With a 40% Muslim demographic in Marseilles and 93% of Muslims voting Socialist, the police can expect a lot more betrayal from Socialist politicians, including the new Hollande government.

In the restive port city of Marseille, police fear that the release of four people arrested for allegedly attacking officers during an ID check on a woman wearing an Islamic veil will undermine their fight against violent crime in the city.

By FRANCE 24 (text)

Marseille police say three of its officers were injured in the early hours of July 25 when a mob of some 50 people tried to prevent them from checking the identity of a woman who was wearing a full Islamic veil.

Under a controversial law passed in 2010, wearing a full veil or covering one’s face in a public place is illegal in France and offenders must submit to ID checks.

According to the police, the woman was stopped just after midnight near a city mosque and refused to cooperate with the officers.

A man accompanying her as well as a large group of bystanders came to her aid and three officers were “lightly injured” in a scuffle.

After police reinforcements arrived, four people, including the 18-year-old woman named only as “Louise-Marie”, were arrested for allegedly assaulting the officers – but were promptly released with a warning on the orders of the city prosecutor.

According to an AFP source, the decision was “a gesture of appeasement during the holy [Islamic] month of Ramadan.”

‘Astonished’

“What kind of message does this send out?” asked David-Olivier Reverdy, head of the Alliance police union. “We are absolutely astonished.”

He told FRANCE 24 the prosecutor’s decision would have “heavy consequences” in a city where “gun crime and ultra-violence is common” and where relations between city residents and local law enforcement are “particularly tense”.

“The prosecutor has given carte blanche to criminals in Marseille,” he said. “The message is that they can behave with impunity. It is extremely worrying.”

FRANCE 24 contacted the Marseille prosecutor but he was unavailable to comment when this article was published.

Marseille has a long history of criminality associated with its status as a port city.

Particularly worrying for law enforcement authorities has been the proliferation of firearms which has given Marseille the dubious distinction of being the Kalashnikov capital of France.

The police have been fighting back, and in the first five months of 2012 seized 261 firearms in the city, compared to a total of 309 for the whole of 2011.

Reverdy said the efforts had reduced the number of armed robberies in the city by 25% - a reduction of around 100 in the first half of 2012.

‘The law of the Republic’

He told FRANCE 24 that he and his fellow officer believed leniency after an alleged attack on policemen risked undermining recent progress.

“It is the law of the Republic [that ID checks are made on people wearing veils] and whether we like it or not we have to be seen to be enforcing it,” he said.

Reverdy’s feelings were backed up by Marseille’s deputy mayor Nora Présozi.

“If we want to avoid an explosive situation the police must be allowed to apply the law,” she told weekly news magazine Le Point. “Every citizen is obliged to submit to identity checks when required, as was the case in this disgraceful incident.”

The 2010 law, which came into effect in April 2011, bans the wearing of any garment that prevents easy identification of an individual by police in a public place.

As well as ski masks and balaclavas, the law also applies to Islamic “niqab” and “burka” veils.

Refusal to remove veils in public or to comply with ID checks is punishable by a 150 euro fine, while people who force others to cover their faces in public face fines of 30,000 euros and a year in prison.

Source: France24

See here for more detail on this story.