Killing Homosexuals an Islamic Law (Sharia), not a Terrorist Law

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
For nearly 25 years, we’ve been clinging to the fiction that groups such as ISIS are anti-Islamic. 

Various reports indicate that the death toll from the jihadist attack overnight at a popular gay club in Orlando may exceed 50 people, with more than 50 others wounded.



The terrorist’s identity has been reported: He is Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old American citizen and devout Muslim from Fort Pierce, Fla., the son of immigrants from Afghanistan. The FBI has indicated that Mateen, who was killed in a shootout with police at about 5 a.m., was an Islamic extremist. Representative Peter King (R., N.Y.), who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, says the shooter was “trained in the use of weapons.”

As we have noted here many times, military training is generally the key that separates competent terrorists from wannabes. But whether actual or would-be jihadists, these Muslims are motivated by Islamic supremacism, the belief that sharia, Islam’s ancient, totalitarian law, must be imposed on society. Based on all this, there is abundant Washington and media speculation that the attack is “ISIS-inspired.” This is consistent with the bipartisan, government-approved inanity we have been following for a quarter-century, what I often call the political class’s concoction of “An Islam of Their Very Own.” It goes something like this: Islam is a religion of peace, period. End of discussion.

“Violent extremist” outfits such as ISIS and al-Qaeda kill wantonly, with no real ideological motivation. ISIS and al-Qaeda are thus not Islamic, but actually anti-Islamic — and if they cite Islamic scripture to justify their atrocities, they are “hijacking” and “perverting” Islam. Because we must see these groups as “anti-Islam” rather than Islam, it is acceptable to call a mass-murder attack “terrorism” only if law-enforcement develops some plausible tie to these groups. Otherwise, if a Muslim is involved, stick with “workplace violence” and the like.

Finally when an attack committed by a Muslim is too obviously terrorism to deny, call it “ISIS-inspired,” or “al-Qaeda-inspired,” or “Hamas political resistance,” etc. — but by all means do not, absolutely do not, ascribe it to Islam in any way shape or form. This is idiocy. Will today’s event, the worst mass shooting in American history, help us see that?

We need to consider separately Islam and its sharia law. There are various ways to interpret Islamic scripture in order to attempt to evolve it out of violence. This, of course, does not change the fact that supremacist, fundamentalist Islam is a legitimate, mainstream, virulently anti-Western interpretation of Islam; but it does at least mean that there can be other mainstream versions of Islam that reject violence and Islam’s politico-legal system.

Sharia, on the other hand, is basically set in stone. (Or should I say “stoning”?) Even most Islamic reformers acknowledge that it badly needs reform — not that it can be reinterpreted, but that it needs to be changed. Its provisions and especially its draconian punishments were largely fixed a millennium ago. The mandate that homosexuals be killed is not from ISIS or al-Qaeda. It is from sharia — which draws on Muslim scripture. 


al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt

 I’ve observed several times, an English version of the classic sharia manual Reliance of the Traveller has been endorsed by scholars of al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning since the tenth century; by the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Muslim Brotherhood think tank that is influential in Washington; and by other influential Islamic governments and commentators.

Here is its teaching on homosexuality, found in the chapter on “Enormities” — the most grave offenses:

Sec. p17.0: SODOMY AND LESBIANISM 

Sec. p17.1: In more than one place in the Holy Koran, Allah recounts to us the story of Lot’s people, and how He destroyed them for their wicked practice. There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of all other religions that sodomy is an enormity. It is even viler and uglier than adultery [AM: which is punished brutally, including by death]. 

Sec. p17.2: Allah Most High says: “Do you approach the males of humanity, leaving the wives Allah has created for you? But you are a people who transgress” (Koran 26:165-66). 

Sec. p17.3: The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him.” “May Allah curse him who does what Lot’s people did.” 

“Lesbianism by women is adultery between them.” 


Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi

As I noted many times, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi may be Sunni Islam’s most influential living sharia jurist.

Here, as reported by the Middle East Forum, is Qaradawi’s teaching on homosexuality: 

We must be aware that in regulating the sexual drive Islam has prohibited not only illicit sexual relations and all what leads to them, but also the sexual deviation known as homosexuality. This perverted act is a reversal of the natural order, a corruption of man’s sexuality, and a crime against the rights of females. (The same applies equally to the case of lesbianism.) 

The spread of this depraved practice in a society disrupts its natural life pattern and makes those who practice it slaves to their lusts, depriving them of decent taste, decent morals, and a decent manner of living. 

The story of the people of Prophet Lut (Lot), peace be upon him, as narrated in the Koran should be sufficient for us. Prophet Lut’s people were addicted to this shameless depravity, abandoning natural, pure, lawful relations with women in the pursuit of this unnatural, foul, and illicit practice. That is why their Prophet Lut, peace be on him, told them, “What! Of all creatures, do you approach males and leave the spouses whom your Lord has created for you? Indeed, you are people transgressing (all limits)!” (Koran, 26: 165–166) 

The strangest expression of these peoples’ perversity of nature, lack of guidance, depravity of morals, and aberration of taste was their attitude toward the guests of Prophet Lut, peace be upon him.

Muslim jurists have held differing opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death? While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements.


Ayatollah Ali Sistani

Since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, there has been no shortage of praise for Ayatollah Ali Sistani, whom the Bush administration frequently lauded as a “moderate” and a supporter of “democracy.” (We critics countered that Sistani is a fundamentalist sharia-supremacist who supported “democracy” — meaning popular vote — in a Muslim-majority society because that was the most direct, efficient way to impose sharia.)

Sistani is as influential a Shiite sharia authority as there is. As I have previously recounted, when asked, “What is [Islam's] judgment on sodomy and lesbianism?” Sistani replied: “Forbidden. Those involved in the act should be punished. In fact, sodomites should be killed in the worst manner possible.” Yup, let it sink in: “killed in the worst manner possible.”

The inspiration for Muslims to brutalize and mass murder gay people does not come from ISIS. It is deeply rooted in Islamic law, affirmed by many of Islam’s most renowned scholars. This is why, wherever sharia is the law, homosexuals are persecuted and killed. See, for instance, this 2014 Washington Post report listing ten Muslim countries where homosexuality may be punished by death (Yemen, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Iraq — notwithstanding its new, U.S.-supported constitution). Note, again, that Omar Mateen is the American-born son of immigrants from Afghanistan, where homosexuality may also be punished by death — notwithstanding American nation-building efforts there for the last 15 years.

 As I have argued before, while a categorical ban on Muslim immigration would be bad policy, our immigration law must distinguish between Islam the religion and Islamism, the sharia-supremacist political ideology, which tends to grow strong support wherever Muslims form a critical mass.

There absolutely should be severe restrictions on immigration from countries, regions, and communities (e.g., in Europe) in which sharia standards are de jure or de facto imposed. The problem with mass immigration from sharia enclaves is not merely that trained terrorists may infiltrate the immigrant population. It is that sharia-adherent, assimilation-resistant Muslims will form sharia enclaves in the U.S., as they have throughout Europe, where young Muslims will be “radicalized” under our noses in the years to come.

Today, we have gotten another glimpse of radicalization, which is not “homegrown” but rather fueled by a foreign, anti-American, anti-liberty ideology.

 — Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

FBI Released Omar Mateen Because They Thought His Co-Workers Were Bigots

BOB ESCHLIMAN


Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee shared some hard truth about the FBI's 2013 investigation of eventual Orlando mass murderer Omar Mateen. (Reuters photo)

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee offered up some harsh truth about the FBI's failure to prevent the Orlando mass murderer Omar Mateen, despite having him under investigation for nearly a year.

"If you're wondering how such an obvious ticking time bomb as [Mateen] was somehow overlooked by our massive federal security apparatus, it turns out that was deliberate," he wrote on his website Tuesday.

Huckabee pointed to a FOX News report that, in a closed-door meeting Monday, FBI Director James Comey confirmed to reporters there was a 10-month investigation of Mateen in 2013. It was initiated after his co-workers reported statements he made that concerned them. Federal agencies have repeatedly told Americans "If you see something, say something," and it would appear these co-workers did exactly that. Which begs the question why, then, the FBI decided not to take further action.

"They bought his claim that he was teasing his co-workers because he thought they were trying to marginalize him for his Muslim faith," Huckabee wrote. "In other words, they were more willing to believe that all his American co-workers were bigots than that he might be a danger to society. He'd learned to speak the language of political correctness well and used it to manipulate guilty liberals.

"At the same time that the Obama administration was arguing for the right to gather electronic data on every U.S. citizen, including reporters, it was abandoning real leads, killing a serious terrorist investigative unit and deleting its files, and removing experts and training materials on how to identify threats, all because those things might be seen as culturally insensitive to Muslims. This is how political correctness kills, and it just set a new U.S. record."

He then added he could sum up the Obama administration's counter-terrorism policy in just 13 words:

Feds: "If you see something, say something!"

Citizen: "I see something."

Feds: "Bigot!"

Father of Paris Terror Attack Victim Sues Facebook, Twitter, Google

By Amy R. Connolly 

The father of Nohemi Gonzalez, (right), a California college student who was killed in the November terrorist attacks in Paris, sued Twitter, Facebook and Google. Photo courtesy Strate Ecole de Design/Facebook

LONG BEACH, Calif., June 16 (UPI) -- The father of a California college student who was killed in the November terrorist attacks in Paris sued Twitter, Facebook and Google, saying the social media sites have allowed members of the Islamic State to use the social media platforms to further their reach.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California, alleged the companies provide "material support" to the IS, also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh. Reynaldo Gonzalez said the companies allowed the IS to prepare and carry out "acts of international terrorism," including the attack that killed his daughter, Nohemi Gonzalez. The 23-year-old from El Monte, Calif., was the only American killed in the attack that left another 129 dead.

"Without Twitter, Facebook and Google (YouTube), the explosive growth of ISIS over the last few years into the most-feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit said as of December 2014, the IS had an estimated 70,000 Twitter accounts, with at least "official" accounts. It posted "at least 90 tweets every minute."

Google, which owns YouTube, said, "Our hearts go out to the victims of terrorism and their families everywhere.

"While we cannot comment on pending litigation, YouTube has a strong track record of taking swift action against terrorist content. We have clear policies prohibiting terrorist recruitment and content intending to incite violence and quickly remove videos violating these policies when flagged by our users," the company said.

Twitter and Facebook officials did not comment.

Gonzalez was a California State University-Long Beach senior majoring in industrial design. She was one of 17 students attending Strate College of Design in Paris as part of a semester-abroad program. She was killed while eating with friends at La Belle Equipe.

I've been wondering why Twitter and Facebook haven't been nailed for their supporting role, not just in attacks but also in recruitment for ISIS. This is a conversation that is long overdue.

Fox News Host Shocks Audience by Asking: ‘Do We Need AR-15s?’

Fox News host Gretchen Carlson caused shock on Wednesday by calling into question whether Americans should be able to purchase AR-15s, a semi-automatic rifle that has been used in several recent mass shootings.

“Yes, the Orlando massacre was terror, but there is no doubt that Omar Mateen was able to kill so many people because he was firing an AR-15. A military-style assault weapon. A weapon easier to buy in the state of Florida than buying a handgun,” she said.

While many news outlets have reported that Mateen used an AR-15, he actually used a Sig Sauer MCX, a similar weapon.

Carlson pointed to the fact that Florida has a three-day waiting period for handguns, but there is no waiting period “for any gun that requires two hands to hold.”

“Here’s my question today. Do we need AR-15s to hunt and kill deer? Do we need them to protect our families?” she asked.

“Yes, I’m in favor of people being able to carry. I think some of these mass shootings would have been less deadly if that were the case," she said. “But I’m also with the majority today taking a stand. Can’t we hold true the sanctity of the second amendment while still having common sense? That brings us to our question of the day. Should congress reinstate the assault weapons ban?”

Carlson received praise – as well as a lot of hate – for expressing this opinion before Fox’s conservative audience.

Tim Murphy @TimMurphy50
@GretchenCarlson @FoxNews Needs to be Fired for her LibTard Misunderstanding of the 2nd Adm#AirHeadBeautyQueen #tcot 

Tim, do you really think we should fire people for asking questions or stating an opinion? Don't we have the right to free speech?



So, who is it you are afraid of? Is it the government? This is paranoia fed by arms merchants and manufacturers. If the government wants to kill you, an AR15 is not going to stop them. 100 million AR15s wouldn't be able to stop them, they can just drop bombs and blow you to hell.

Milosz Feigin @FeiginMilosz
@GretchenCarlson @FoxNews you need to go hang your self and move over with the commies on CNN - drop dead
14 Jun
This is very disappointing in that there seems to be no room for debate in Fox's audience. Free speech only if you say what I want to hear. Social media has spoiled us from critical thinking. We unfriend anyone who disagrees with us, so we never hear the other side of an argument. If you can't defend the things you believe in, they are not of much value.

 Nate Hermes @natehermes
@GretchenCarlson @FoxNews thank you for speaking from your heart. i too support a ban on or extremely strict regulations on assault weapons.
22h

 John Boy @GovCorrupted
@jefsauce @SquirellE1 @GretchenCarlson @FoxNews Purpose is irrelevant. A RIGHT IS A RIGHT IS A RIGHT & no gov can take it away! Period!

So, do you have the right to carry grenade launchers, flame-throwers? You have a right to free speech but can you destroy someone's life by lying about them?

You are treating your 2nd Amendment rights the same way abortionists treat abortion. It's a woman's right! Does the baby have a right to live? Apparently not! That right is trumped by a woman's right to her own body, as insane as that is.

Did the children at Newtown have a right to live? Apparently not! That right is trumped by your paranoia over your gun rights. That's just as insane as the abortionists.

Abortion became a right because of the heavy lobbying of women's rights groups. Owning assault weapons became a right because Congressman and Senators were bought off by those who make money from the deaths of innocent children and adults.

Carlson finished her statement by taking a look at a Fox News Twitter poll on the issue, in which viewers voted overwhelmingly (89 to 11 percent) against the idea of barring Americans from buying the weapons.

“That’s what makes America great,” Carlson concluded.

That's what she said, but I doubt that that is what she wanted to say. I suspect she wanted to say that the poll results were disgusting. Arms merchants, the NRA have you so twisted, so paranoid, that mass murders have little or no effect on you. They are laughing all the way to the bank.

Obama's Avoidance of Term 'Radical Islam' Draws Praise and Scorn

U.S. president takes on critics who say his careful parsing is a sign of over-caution

By Mark Gollom, CBC News 


U.S. President Barack Obama has dismissed criticism over his avoidance of the phrase 'radical Islam' as a 'political talking point' and Republican 'yapping.' (Susan Walsh/Associated Press)

I'm leaving aside the issue that many people think that Obama is a closet Muslim for another day. That subject deserves its own article.

U.S. President Barack Obama is being hailed by some for his spirited determination to avoid using the term "radical Islam" to describe the enemy in the ongoing battle against ISIS. But he's being criticized by others who believe the phrase does carry significance.

"Words do matter. And I think it's an apt definition," said Bill Roggio, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, a Washington, D.C.-based national security think-tank. "It's a radical aspect of a religion."

Precisely! So why try to hide the fact that religion is involved?

"Is it inaccurate? We have to define it as something. To call it violent extremism, what does that mean to anyone? To me, our political leadership has dodged that issue that Islam plays within this conflict."

​Republicans have repeatedly said that Obama's careful parsing to avoid using the term is a sign of over-caution and political correctness that demonstrates denial about the groups responsible for the extremist view.


'Ridiculous' position

Elliott Abrams, the former deputy national security adviser to former president George W. Bush, said that Obama's position on this issue is "ridiculous" —  as is the president's view that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam.

"You can call it a corrupted or extreme version of Islam, but to suggest that there is no link at all between such groups and Islam is absurd," Abrams said.

On Tuesday, Obama addressed the debate, specifically taking on presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's charge that the president's policies have been hampered by his refusal to use the phrase "radical Islam."

Following the Orlando club shooting early Sunday, Trump released a statement saying Obama had "disgracefully refused" to use the term and "for that reason alone, he should step down."

The president has dismissed the criticism as a "political talking point" and Republican "yapping," saying "there is no magic to the phrase 'radical Islam.' "

"What exactly would it change?" he said. "Would it make [ISIS] less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above."



Republican presumptive presidential candidate Donald Trump says that the president's policies have been hampered by his refusal to use the phrase 'radical Islam.' (Chuck Burton/Associated Press)

And that, according to American University associate professor Jordan Tama, is exactly right, and all this talk about the phrase is just a way for Republicans to accuse Obama of not doing enough to protect the U.S. or fight against terrorism.

"Saying 'radical Islam' is not going to make U.S. counterterrorism policy more effective or somehow enable us to eliminate more terrorist leaders or defeat ISIS more quickly," Tama said.

But it does feed a narrative that there's a religious clash going on and it can alienate some Muslims needed in this battle against ISIS, he said.

Trump's call to use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" is particularly problematic, Tama said, because the term could imply that terrorism is somehow Islamic by nature.

Excuse me! What! Are you suggesting that terrorism is not Islamic by nature, or that Islam is not at all responsible for terrorism? What planet are you from? More than 90% of all terrorist acts committed on Earth are committed by Muslims. Most of them are done by people committed either to a literal interpretation of the Quran and Mohammed's teachings, or they are committed to a group that is and are motivated to form a global caliphate under Sharia Law. 

Literal interpretation of the Quran and Mohammed's teachings mean reading them just as Mohammed and others wrote them. Such has been the motivation for well over 500 wars in the last 1400 years and billions of deaths. How do you not see that terrorism and Islam are symbiotic.

Instead, the phrase "violent Jihadism" would be more accurate and avoid suggesting that Islam is equated with terrorist attacks, he said.

Well we can't have Islam equated with terrorism, except that if we did equate Islam with terrorism, maybe they would take some ownership for the violence that is spawned by the Quran and Mohammed. To not implicate Islam leaves them off the hook with no real compulsion to do anything about it.

This is not a small band of radicals we are talking about here. There may be few who have the courage or commitment to get physically involved with terrorists, but there are many, many more who sympathize with what they are doing. The money to support these terrorists comes from countries that are in agreement with the terrorist's goals, but present themselves as 'moderate'. 

"This debate about whether to use the term radical Islam or Islamic terrorism really distracts attention from what we're actually doing, what are our policies," Tama said, "because our actions are much more important than what words we use."

Colin Clarke, an associate political scientist specializing in insurgency and transnational terrorism at the Rand Corporation, a California-based global policy think-tank, said he can see both sides of the debate.

Technically, as it pertains to ISIS, this is an issue about a specific form of terrorism, salafist jihadism, a term which is likely too confusing and opaque for Americans, Clarke said

"But I think it's important to the extent that we're all on the same page, Americans and the West, in knowing exactly what we're fighting against. And that's where I think terminology would be important."

'A lot of nuance'

And he agreed with Tama that Obama likely refrains from using the term because he is mindful of not alienating the broader Muslim community whose help is needed in identifying people who are undergoing the radicalization process.

"I think he's right in that respect. There's a lot of nuance that goes into this stuff."

However, Clarke was of a similar mind as Obama, asking what purpose does calling it "radical Islamic terrorism" serve in the battle being waged.

"Does it get us any closer to defeating it? I have yet to hear a cogent explanation that we need to call it this because that will get us closer to defeating it."

With files from The Associated Press

Kremlin Critic's Movie Trashes Bill Browder's Claims About Magnitsky's Death

'He was not killed, he died':

Kremlin critic’s Magnitsky movie 

premiers in US, exposing Browder

Sergei Magnitsky. © Wikipedia

Despite threats of a libel lawsuit, a documentary about the Magnitsky case by a prominent critic of the Russian government has been shown in Washington. The film rejects the narrative about the case accepted in the West, on which the US Magnitsky Act is based.

The film, titled ‘The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes’, was presented to the public for the first time on Monday at the Newseum, a private museum dedicated to the news industry and freedom of speech in Washington, DC. The two-hour production is part documentary, part dramatization of the events that surround the death of Russian lawyer Sergey Magnitsky six years ago.

Magnitsky worked as an accountant for US-British investor William F. Browder, who made millions in Russia during the 1990s, but was later accused of tax evasion and fled the country. The lawyer was detained by the Russian police as part of a separate fraud investigation and died in police custody in November 2009.

Read also: Who's Bill Browder and Why Does He Want to Bring Down Putin

Bill Browder

Browder claimed that Magnitsky had been investigating corrupt police officers and was thrown into jail and murdered by them. He declared a crusade against what he called endemic corruption in the Russian government and lobbied across Europe and the US for punishment of the individuals whom he accused of involvement in Magnitsky’s death.

In 2012 the US passed an act named after the Russian lawyer, which imposed sanctions against 40 Russian citizens – a move that Moscow saw as blatantly anti-Russian, and apparently retaliated against by banning the adoption of Russian orphans by US citizens.


‘Story of coming together with lie, selfishness & cynicism’

Director Andrei Nekrasov struggled for months to have his controversial work shown to the public. Scheduled screenings in three European venues, including the European Parliament, were canceled because Browder threatened multimillion-dollar libel lawsuits against producers or would-be broadcasters of the film.

Browder opposes the film because he believes it to be “a calculated attempt to harm our campaign and to make people doubt the legacy of Sergey Magnitsky,” as he told euobserver.com back in April.

Newseum was threatened in the same way, but rejected the pressure, saying that publishing Nekrasov’s film was an issue of freedom of speech.

“This is a core issue about getting points of view into the public domain,” investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who moderated the event, told the audience before the screening.

Nekrasov says he wanted to make a docudrama film about Magnitsky ever since he heard of his story. He received funding for the project from eight European film foundations and state broadcasters and got in touch with Browder as part of his work.

But he found inconsistencies in the evidence presented by Browder’s campaign to back his story, saying most of it was circumstantial at best. When he confronted the businessman about them, he said Browder broke off all contact and started to oppose the film.

The director believes that the narrative of Magnitsky as the brave whistleblower killed by corrupt Russian cops, as it was accepted in the West, is a scam by Browder, who capitalized on the lawyer’s death to shield himself from all past and future accusations from Russian law enforcement, which he could claim to be politically motivated.

"I believe Magnitsky died," Nekrasov told journalists in response to a question on whether he believed the lawyer was killed or died. "Questions remain, but the fact that he was not killed, as Mr Browder says, by the same people who investigated his case and had a 'motive' to make him silent as a whistleblower – this is totally certain."

“The story of Magnitsky turned out to be made-up,” Nekrasov told journalists as he commented on revelations he made during the making of his film. “I saw facts that do not add up, that prove that the story of Magnitsky was faked by Browder,” he added.

Documents show that the evidence presented by Browder as proof that Magnitsky was a whistleblower was in fact a transcript of Magnitsky’s interrogations, which were conducted before he made his statements, Nekrasov claimed, stressing that police officers had no motive for killing Magnitsky as he did not expose them.

“There is no evidence that he [Magnitsky] was killed or even was beaten,” the film director told journalists.

“I am a critic of the Russian authorities … and I continue to be this critic, but in this particular case, the West made a mistake by adopting the Magnitsky Act and the Magnitsky resolutions, as they are based on a made-up story,” Nekrasov said, adding that “it is not in the interests of the US to remain trammelled by prejudice against Russia.”

“I thought I was filming about the great whistleblower Magnitsky. But it became my story of coming together basically with a lie, and with a lot of selfishness, and cynicism,” Nekrasov told RT in May, when the screening of the film was cancelled at the last moment in Brussels.

The director’s view didn’t go well with some of the first viewers of the film, including Russian opposition politicians and rights activists.

“You have become a foot soldier of the propaganda war,” exclaimed Ilya Yashin, a veteran opposition figure in Russia. “I am ashamed for you, Andrei. You will have to live with that.”

The outcry was perhaps to be expected. Nekrasov himself has been a critic of the Russian government for years. Some of his earlier works explored alleged involvement of the Kremlin in very serious issues, including the Chechnya war, the murder of Aleksandr Litvinenko, corruption in security agencies and others.

His documentaries, both political and otherwise, were praised by critics and won a number of awards, including the prestigious German Grimme-Preis award. Georgia named him person of the year 2009 for a film about the 2008 war against Russia.

“I am a critic of the Russian regime and still am. I had a sort of political affiliation to Browder and his friends,” Nekrasov said of his latest film. “It goes against your ideology and your worldview to say that actually the Russian cops did not kill Magnitsky, the Russian cops didn’t steal the money. Russia is still a very corrupt country, but in this case it was different.”

The Next Front in the War on Christianity - Thanks to Islam and Us

ANALYSIS - After Orlando, time to recognize that anti-gay bigotry is not religious freedom

Will targeted nightclub shooting begin an overdue conversation about religions' attitudes toward gays?

By Neil Macdonald, CBC News
Senior Correspondent

Neil Macdonald is a Senior Correspondent for CBC News, currently based in Ottawa. Prior to that he was the CBC's Washington correspondent for 12 years, and before that he spent five years reporting from the Middle East. He also had a previous career in newspapers, and speaks English and French fluently, and some Arabic.

In December 1989, Marc Lépine armed himself with a Ruger Mini-14 semiautomatic rifle and headed off to Montreal's École Polytechnique, hunting women.

He separated male and female students and ordered the men to leave. He then killed the women, execution-style.

By the time he turned the weapon on himself, he'd slaughtered 14 young women for the offence of being women, earning himself a place at the apex of misogynistic violence.

Lepine's suicide note read, in part:

"I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker … The feminists have always enraged me." 

The atrocity, and its stated motivation, immediately triggered an angry and overdue conversation in Canada about misogyny and collective male guilt.

Men who'd never as much as lifted a hand to a woman in their lives were told that even so, if they'd ever smiled at a sexist joke or tolerated discrimination against a woman, they'd done their bit to shape a culture that culminated with the funerals of those 14 women in Montreal.

It was hard to swallow, but only a dullard could reject the logic outright.

And, at least partially as a result, open sexism and misogynistic humour became far less okay after Polytechnique, at least in polite company. It was a transformative moment.

The Orlando gunman has been identified as Omar Mateen, of Fort Pierce, Fla. Police say he was killed in a shootout with SWAT team members. (Omar Mateen/MySpace)

Now, after Omar Mateen armed himself, reportedly professed allegiance to ISIS and went hunting gays in an Orlando night club, could there possibly be a better time to have the same conversation about organized religion, and what responsibility it bears for the pain and misery and death inflicted on gays for so many centuries in the name of god?

And not just the Muslim god. That is happening now because of Mateen, and deservedly so, but restricting the discussion to Islam is far too easy.

Islam may be more overt about its homophobia than the other major religions — anyone who's worked in the Middle East has heard some fool in high office declaring that there are no gays in Islam, and therefore no AIDS — but the fact is, conservative iterations of all the monotheistic faiths are deeply and actively and systemically anti-gay.

The sacred monotheistic texts contain prohibitions that would by just about any legal definition be considered hate speech in the modern secular world.

The Old Testament Book of Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

The Old Testament Book of Leviticus, like other OT books presented the Mosaic Law as handed down from God. I know you don't believe in God, Neil, so that is all just foolishness to you, as is all religion. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were first told in the OT - God Himself providing the fire and brimstone.

That was OT. With the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God completely changed the playing field. The only deaths at the hand of God in the New Testament happened to two people who chose to lie to the Holy Spirit. There is no mandate in the NT to punish anyone outside of the church; the mandate is to love them. To show them the love of Christ Who died for us while we were yet sinners.

I admit we do an abysmal job at that. Many 'Christians' want to invoke OT laws in an attempt to create a Utopian society. They are completely wrong and they alienate those who most need salvation. This is the opposite of what Christ taught us to do and is the reason why the church has rendered itself unChrist-like and incapable of carrying out the Great Commission.

The Qu'ran proscribes sex between Muslim males, and mandates punishment, although it does sometimes allow for leniency. Elsewhere, though, it cites the destruction of Sodom, held as divine punishment for homosexual sex, as a lesson.

And the Hadith, the Qu'ranic commentaries, contain references to punishing the "abomination" of gay sex with stoning or immolation.

Mohammed, 1400 years ago, reversed the message of grace in the NT and returned people to OT legalism. Jesus did not suffer and die so God could put the world back under legalism. This apparent reversal of direction for God only serves to verify that Islam's Allah is not the God of the Bible and not the God of Abraham. He is, in fact, not a god at all!

Such prohibitions could be dismissed as antediluvian anachronisms, not to be taken seriously in the modern world.

But of course they are taken quite seriously. Deadly seriously.


Rights and religious freedom

Fundamentalists and traditionalists of all three faiths not only regard such passages as divine instruction, they actually portray their homophobia as a matter of religious freedom; something noble, protected by constitutions and essential to democracy, when in fact they are working to oppress and deny fundamental rights to people based solely upon the sexuality with which they were born.

As a Christian of some 30 years and a veteran of more than a dozen churches and several denominations - I have never viewed homophobia that way, nor have I ever met anyone who did.

There is no scientific proof that anyone was ever born gay. The dean of gay genetic research, the guy who started the lie that gays are born gay, Dean Hamer, now has stated that the majority of gays are NOT born gay. 

If being gay was inherited it would have bred itself out of existence long ago.  The majority of gays, at least, are gay because of environmental factors in their childhood - very dominant mother, very weak father, distant or unknown father, abusive father, etc.


Supreme Court Gay Marriage What Might Happen


California's Proposition 8 to overturn the state's legalization of same-sex marriage passed with the support of major churches in 2008, but was later overturned in the courts. (Rich Pedroncelli/AP)

A perfect example is Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative whose purpose was to block the advance of same-sex marriage, on the grounds that it would somehow harm or invalidate heterosexual marriage, and would result in schoolchildren being taught that gay sex is normal and acceptable.

Prop 8 proponents included the Roman Catholic Church, the Knights of Columbus, the California Catholic Conference of bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), the Union of Orthodox Jewish Organizations of America and assorted evangelical Christian groups. Together, they poured a fortune into the campaign. The Mormons alone provided $20 million.

They won, then immediately lost when the initiative was vacated by secular courts.

Since then, organized religions have continued their anti-gay activities, often going to court to ensure their right to discriminate against gays in hospitals and schools and other religiously affiliated institutions.

Yes, it is true that Pope Francis has softened his church's line on homosexuality. But his tolerance is only remarkable in contrast to his hardline predecessor, and church doctrine remains unchanged.


Nightclub Shooting Florida


Kelvin Cobaris, a local clergyman, consoles Orlando city commissioner Patty Sheehan, right, and Terry DeCarlo, an Orlando gay-rights advocate, as they arrive on the scene near where a mass shooting occcured in Orlando, Fla., Sunday. (Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel via Associated Press)

It is also true that the Reform and to an extent the Conservative streams of Judaism have moderated their tone where gays are concerned.

Not so Islam. That religion remains largely hostile to gays, and anti-gay sentiment is woven into the laws of many Muslim countries.

Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar, a British-born physician and imam, has spoken at public venues in the United States, softly and diffidently asserting that as a matter of compassion, homosexuals should be put to death.

There are many, many other sheikhs like Farrokh Sekaleshfar.

And while evangelical Christians don't seek the death penalty for homosexuality, many do want it punished. In 2004, Dr. Richard Land, the Oxford-educated former president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, told me on camera he thought gay sex should be outlawed. 

This is very unfortunate that a man with those credentials could be so unlike Christ. Christ didn't outlaw anything; He concentrated solely on spiritual aspects of life. It is to our own shame that so few of us Christians follow His example.

In any event, this much is singularly true: the worst mass murder in American history was directed at one group, and it was done by some one who had sworn allegiance to a fundamentalist religious group.

If casual misogyny and sexist humour helped create Marc Lépine, then organized religion must reflect on helping shape a culture that will this week have led to 50 funerals in Florida. It's not just the extremists who want to deprive gays of human rights.

People of faith might ask themselves this: even if they've never so much as lifted a hand to a gay person, have they smiled at a homophobic joke? Or overlooked mistreatment? Or nodded during an anti-gay sermon?

And if so, wouldn't this be a good time to speak up?

I am speaking up, but if Christians won't listen to God, they are not likely to listen to me.