You are on page 1of 3

Muslim Judge Frees Attacker In Pennsylvania, a Muslim judge named Mark Martin freed another Muslim who admitted

to a attack and was video taped beating up an atheist! The atheist was in a parade marching down the street when out of nowhere a angry Muslim proceeded to attack him simply because he was wearing a Zombie Mohammad Costume! And the police came afterwards and arrested the man who admitted to the act. He did so in front of his young nine year old son. People also video recorded the attack. But according to this fanatical Muslim judge who should be disbarred, there was not enough evidence to convict the man! Therefore this biased judge dismissed the case. But not before telling the atheist that he should have not disrespected the Muslim! Really? Yeah you cannot make this up. It's an outrage to say the least. Whenever you this type of incident one can only say what is wrong with America! In America, according to the First Amendment to the Constitution, everyone and not just Muslims have the right to freedom of worship. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (Amendment I) If an atheist wants to parade around like a zombie Jesus - I might not like it, but I certainly would not attack the man. It's a fact that if we don't all go around supporting one another, our rights will slowly disappear. While I might not like another person's actions towards my religion, there's no way should I beat him up or assault them. Dialogue or open discussion without any harmful results to any party involved would be the best idea in any situation like this and not open violence! Perhaps it is alright to kill or beat up someone else in Iran because they are not Muslims, but not here in America. If you like that type of religion, why not just move there instead of forcing your particular beliefs upon another. Here are some of this judge's statements and what happened in that court room. Remember that it was here in America where the assault happened. The transcript: "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 elses religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. That 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 punishable 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. Its unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I dont think thats what our forefathers really intended. I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did. I dont think youre aware, sir, theres a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity uh, I understand youre an atheist. But, see, Islam is not just a religion, its their culture, their culture. Its 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 theyre speaking to each other, its 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 youve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. Im a Muslim, I find it offensive. FIm a Muslim, Id find it offensive. [Unintelligble] aside was very offensive. But you have that right, but youre way outside your bounds on First Amendment rights. This is what as I said, I spent half my years altogether living in other countries. When we go to other countries, its not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans. This is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because were so concerned about our own rights we dont care about other peoples rights. As long as we get our say, but we dont care about the other peoples say. All that aside Ive got here basically I dont want to say, He said, she said. But Ive got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other. I understand Ive been at a Halloween parade, I understand how noisy it can be, how difficult it can be to get a [unintelligible]. I cant believe that, if there was this kind of conflict going on in the middle of the street, that somebody didnt step forward sooner to try and intervene that the police officer on a bicycle didnt stop and say, Hey, lets break this up.

[Unintelligible]. You got a witness. [Unintelligible response. Judge Martin then continues:] The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof is that the defendant it must be proven that the defendant did with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person The Commonwealth, whether there was conflict or not and, yes, he should be took [sic] putting his hands on you. I dont know I have your story he did and his story that he did not. But another part of the element [of the offense charged] is, as Mr. Thomas [the defense lawyer] said, was Was the defendants intent to harass, annoy or alarm or was it his intent to try to have the offensive situation negated? If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would have been a little bit more of an altercation. Something more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict. Because there is not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment. Therefore I am going to dismiss the charge."