US judge rules that Muslims are legally allowed to attack “infidels” who insult Muhammad

By the Full Metal Patriot

Just keep repeating what CAIR and American Muslim Association apologists have been saying; there's no need to worry that Muslims might institute Sharia law here in the America.

Oh wait. Strike that. Reverse it. [emphasis added below]
Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.

The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police.

Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a "doofus." In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin's view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment.

…It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.

Cases like this are precisely why states have begun to introduce legislation that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts.

The First Amendment clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”  There are no special provisions in the Constitution for when Muslims become angered by a non-Muslim. District Judge Martin should have recused himself in the case since he was clearly unable to be impartial. His ruling was biased respecting an establishment of religion: Islam. And after this travesty of justice, Judge Martin needs to be immediately removed from the bench for violating his oath of office.

Here is a recording of the court proceedings:

Excerpt:  (full transcript here)

Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in predominantly Muslim countries, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Quran here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Quran that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus. …

In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and 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 intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures – which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘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’s, they’re so immersed in it. And what you’ve 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. [Note: Judge Martin is now denying being MuslimI find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights. …

I’ve spent about seven years living in other countries. When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ‘ugly Americans.’ This is why we hear it referred to as ‘ugly Americans,’ because we’re so concerned about our own rights, we don’t care about other people’s rights. As long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say.

I don't condone insulting or confrontational behavior by any group; religious, atheist or otherwise — but I CERTAINLY won't ever support the substitution of Sharia Law for U.S. law and the Constitution in a United States courtroom! I personally don't care much for the atheist victim, but he at least deserved justice from the court and did not get it.

Muslims are welcome to immigrate to America and to worship here as they please. But they must abide by United States Constitutional law, just like anyone else. They have no right to not be offended, nor do they have any special rights accorded them by Sharia. If the can't live here under the same conditions as every other U.S. citizen, they are free to move to any Muslim country where Islamic law is already in place.

Cross-posted at Full Metal Patriot


  1. "...but I CERTAINLY won't ever support the substitution of Sharia Law for U.S. law and the Constitution in a United States courtroom!"

    And there it is.

    I could care less, myself, about some ignorant atheist, but when the US Constitution is set aside for Sharia Law, um, Houston- we have a problem.

    Creeping Sharia, indeed.

    Oh, the Judge is not a Muslim convert. See here:

    1. Why am I not surprised by this?

      I am in absolute awe at how fragmented and ridiculous our country has become. I ask myself how this judge actually receives a paycheck for rendering this type of judgment... but then again... I must remember that this is a country that gave the President his first job.

  2. Uh, who won the war on terror again?

  3. In some respects, this is just proving the point that, in every profession, including the judiciary, you can have blithering idiots who make a mockery and embarrassment of the profession with their complete inability to do their job. In this case, a judge critically failed to uphold the law, and should be removed from his position immediately (at the minimum), as he's clearly incapable of performing the duties of such.

    As an aside, though, this is exactly what I don't like about Rick Santorum (ie: the forced infusion of religion into our government, and the endorsement and support of particular religious beliefs, in direct opposition to the Constitution). I've been personally debating the hypothetical (I'm in California, so my political voice is drowned out anyway by the legion of idiots here, voting legally and otherwise), but I think I'd have to say Obama would be better for the country than Santorum, based primarily on Santorum's theocratic views. You wouldn't think it would be too hard to find someone better than Obama to run against him, but I guess this is proving intractable for the GOP.

    1. Your bigoted fear of Santorum and like-minded Christians is amazing. This irrational fear of imaginary theocratic Christian boogeymen is the product of pathological paranoia. It usually comes from social progressives like you, who aren't as bothered by religious rhetoric and government-imposed morality, as long as it comes from radical leftists like Barack Obama.

    2. Hahaha... thanks for the chuckles. As a word of advice, though, you may want to at least casually glace at my blog before assuming I'm an Obama supporter. Also, not that it's necessary, but because it adds to the humor value, it may be amusing to note that both my entire family and my wife's entire family are Christian; imagine the self-loathing I must have to deal with every day. One wonders how I even function in society.

      Note to zealots: just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't make them pathological paranoid bigots. Although, I'm sure there were plenty of people who said the same thing to the founding fathers when they decided to separate religion from government... I wonder if that gave them pause, or made them more confident that they had made the right decision for the country. Food for thought, if it's comprehensibly digestible.

  4. Excellent post and comments.

    Swallowing very hard I agree with Nick's point with respect to Santorum
    - vs- Obama.

  5. The so-called "invocation of Sharia law" Turley mentions was more subtle and insidious. I listened to the entire recording of the hearing and the judge held that the attacker could not have formed a criminal intent to harass because he believed the victim -- Zombie Mohammed -- was breaking the law. It's a "justification" defense piggy-backing on a "mistake of law" defense (which is hardly ever applicable in a criminal case, and certainly not applicable here).

    Look for more defenses like mistake of law, justification and necessity in Muslim cases in the future. They don't work for "regular" religions -- for example, in the pro- and anti-abortion violent tussles. But hey, if Mohammed is your defense, anything's possible.

    1. LM,

      I liked your comment so much I copy/pasted it onto a similar thread on Western Hero, giving you full credit, of course.

      This is a brilliant comment. Brava!


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.