If a Muslim Speaks 'Hate' in a Primeval Canucki Forest Full of 'Hate' Laws and 'Human Rights' Bodies, Does It Make A Sound? (Nope. Not a Peep)

In an screed excoriating those who would dare cast aspersions on a conference featuring a devout bunch of preachers, the editor of a local Muslim rag seeks to, ahem, clarify the anti-gay stance of one Bilal Philips. He argues that Philips' statements elucidating the sharia-decreed punishment for gayness--i.e. death--are perfectly fine because, for the time being, they cannot be put into effect. Furthermore, when that time does come, only those gays who act gayly in public, and whose behavior is seen by at least four male witnesses, will be punished; those who limit their activity to the private realm will be left alone. In other words, "no" to Pride parades, "yes" to hanky-panky among consenting adults in their own domiciles.  

Had the writer ended it there, he might have sounded perfectly reasonable (sort of, not really). Alas, he took it further--to its "logical" sharia conclusion--thereby hanging himself:

Let me analyze Bilal Philips’s statement even it is true as it is quoted. He is not allowing public to kill gays. If the [Toronto Star] writer misunderstood it, he must correct it. Killing of any person without authority and jurisprudence is haram (illegal) in Islam. Mr. Bilal Philips knows it. He is suggesting death penalty by the jurisprudence “in countries governed by Islamic law.” There is not a single country on this earth at present is governed by 100% Islamic law. There may be one or two countries where a partial Islamic law is implemented. The truth is that majority of Muslim countries are governed by ant-Islamic laws or non-Islamic laws. Muslim states without Islam or partial Islam are most dangerous and brutal states. The migration of large numbers of Muslims from those Muslim states is solely due to non-Islamic Muslim rulers’ destructive governance.

Here Mr. Bilal Philips is suggesting a law for the future Islamic governments who will decide to implement Islamic law in their countries. Although, there is no clear-cut verse in Qur’an that categorically suggests killing of homosexuals, sayings of Prophet Muhammad suggests three types of sentences, and among that one is death. Bilal Philips is suggesting, based on his opinion on the Qur’anic/Prophetic principles of society. He is not advising the Islamic judiciary to kill any gay person they found, but what he is “suggesting” is judicial punishment of death sentence for those who confess or are seen “performing homosexual acts” by “four reliable witnesses without any doubt.”

The essence of Islamic laws is to protect the life of human beings. And it happens that sometimes killing of a person can save thousands and sometimes millions of lives. The Islamic judiciary can punish a person with death sentence to save others’ lives.

In other words, Bilal Philips is saying that an Islamic society will not tolerate homo-sexual acts in public (where minimum four witnesses see the sexual performance) to save future generations. That means from Bilal Philips’s viewpoint (as it was quoted in Toronto Star): 1. There is no danger of life of any homosexual from public in anywhere of the world 2. There is no danger of life of any homosexual by the judiciary of those Muslim States not governed by Islamic law. 3. In future, when Islamic laws will be implemented in any country, all those homosexuals who will perform homosexual acts in private will be saved. 4. Only those homosexuals living in Islamic law-governing society will be punished who will perform homosexual act in public (four witnesses required for proof).

In conclusion, Bilal Philips’s viewpoint is not endangering any homosexual life in near future. However, the promoters and propagators of gay culture and gay agenda are endangering the life of whole human race, particularly white species (due to large acceptance of gay lifestyle in whites)...

Er, isn't that what Hitler used to say about the Jews--that their very existence "endangered" the "human race"? (Why yes, yes it is. And it's the reason he gave for wanted to do humanity a favour by ridding it of the scourge of Jewry, a rationale that's been dubbed "redemptive anti-Semitism.")

I'm no supporter of our current hate speech laws/"human rights" code censorship provisions, but I'm pretty sure that's much worse than anything Guy Earle said to the Lesbians at that Vancouver comedy club, or the words that got Rev. Stephen Boisson in hot water with the Alberta "Human Rights" Commission. Hands up anyone who thinks anyone in the gay community (where are you, Susan G. Cole?) is likely to take on this "clarifier " (or any other Muslim); or that the local constabulary, which races to the scene when someone detects a swastika scrawled in a public loo, would ever--ever--charge this chap with a "hate" crime; or that a "human rights" tribunal would ever agree to hear a case of this sort?

Funny, I don't see a single hand.