On the recent beheading of a teacher in France by The Usual Suspect ("French Man")

This is about the recent beheading of Samuel Paty (teacher) in Paris France by a Moslem parent. Then this FB moslem man wrote a post - and I thought you’d like to read it. Here goes (begin Facebook post):

On the French Terrorist Attack "A teacher has been killed in France by a lone Muslim after displaying provocative cartoons in his classroom. Every time such an incident happens, the same groups respond in the same manners. Almost all people have an instantaneous emotional reaction, and very few are able to take a step back and look at multiple facets in this complex narrative. For Macron and the anti-Muslim Far Right establishment, this isolated attack fits perfectly into their broader narrative of the incompatibility of Islam in their society. Hence, Macron jumps on this murder and politicizes it immediately, fully aware that he is going to rise in the polls as a result. For disenfranchised Muslims, some of whom are sympathetic to the attack itself, quoting snippets of fiqh works and hadiths out of context is sufficient to legitimize this act. These individuals have neither studied uṣūl al-fiqh (which would preclude vigilante justice in all circumstances) nor give any weight to the concept of maṣāliḥ and mafāsid (as there is no question that the harms to come out of such attacks to the entire Ummah far outweigh the harms of the initial, localized provocation - what would have potentially emotionally hurt a few people in a classroom is now going to backlash on an entire nation's community and policies). For the conspiracy theorists, any and all such incidents are plots of the CIA, Mossad, or other shadowy nefarious entities that somehow control every leaf that falls. For these people, no Muslim is ever to blame and no extremism actually exists. To compound this narrative, there are undoubtedly some confirmed incidents of government provocation, hence one is genuinely confused as to what to say or not to say; but no person can deny that there is a real trend of extremist thought within our ranks, no matter how small it might be (even as we acknowledge that at times certain entities entrap or entice such behaviour for their own purposes). For most mainstream Muslims who condemn, the condemnations are simply worthless, and they realize it. No matter what they say or do, the Right has already made up its mind and such 'apologies' fall on deaf ears, and the Left understands that most Muslims are not blood-thirsty killers hence no need for the disclaimers. If they don't condemn, they are called out for their silence; if they do condemn, it's not good enough: damned if you do damned if you don't! As well, the more such mainstream Muslims condemn this terror, the more some members of their own community begin turning away from mainstream body due to the servile nature of these apologies. "Does the Establishment ever apologize to *us* for what they have been doing for the last two centuries?" they bellow. Frankly, such disavowals from the 'moderate' Muslim leaders directly fuel the anger in a small minority, who already view the mainstream Muslim community as being sell-outs and liberal Muslims in the first place. To compound this problem, many mainstream leaders (and even some clerics) don't directly address the fiqh texts involved, and simply proclaim liberalist views as being fully Islamic. There are texts and fiqh issues that need to be discussed frankly- hardly anyone has done that (still!). What needs to happen is a more balanced narrative: one that takes time to explain, and requires an open heart and mind to listen to. In the absence of either of these two factors, it is almost impossible to begin a fruitful conversation. This random act is not stemming from a classical ruling on blasphemy. Such provocations against our religion and Prophet have happened constantly around the globe for the last millennia. Rarely are they met with such violence. This act needs to be understood in the broader socio-political framework of French Muslims vs. the French Establishment. The visceral anger and rage that causes one to 'snap' doesn't happen by reading a fatwa on blasphemy: it comes from a lifetime, or even generations, of systematic dehumanization and rejection. This is not to justify the attack; it is to contextualize it. Where does one begin? France's invasion of Algeria, and the murdering of over 1.5 million of its inhabitants during its colonization, is just a brief over-looked chapter in French history books. The sheer brutality with which the French dealt with their Algerian citizens needs to be learned by all of us (side note: 'The Battle of Algiers' is a great award-winning movie to introduce this subject). As well, the visceral hatred and disdain that the French had and continue to have, and display at all levels, for the cultures and religion of the very populations that they pillaged and raped, and the second-class citizenship that N. African Muslims occupy in that country to this day, are more direct cause for the violence than any verse or hadith. The blatant hypocrisy of "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" as these three factors are constantly denied to the Muslim citizens of that land all exacerbate the feelings of anger, frustration, and disenfranchisement. The ghettoization of the community, and the social barriers placed on them from birth, education, university placement, jobs, promotions, and social status are well known. In my own travels across Europe, and from my anecdotal encounters with European and Western Muslims, I know of no Western society that is more anti-Muslim than France. Simply put: one cannot discuss or understand (much less prevent) such isolated attacks without a discussion of the broader treatment of North Africans, and even of the religion itself, in that land. Sadly, the knee-jerk reaction from both sides typically further entrenches the stubborn attitudes and reinforces the narrative of each side. It's a complex situation, and one that does not bode well for civil society unless it is resolved with wisdom, foresight, and a long-term commitment to the greater good of all parties involved." — (end post).
  

The post (a link) above was tweeted by this man Roshan Salih - what he said in his tweet was a threat!! 

So as usual, the ever-erudite Dajjal gave us the real answer:

'Slimy shitspew: al-Taqiyya!! Now, by pdf, I show you page 717 of Ash-Shifa. Chapter (2) The Proof Set for Making it incumbent to Kill the One Reviling or Dishonouring the Prophet (pbuh) With respect to the proof set from the Qur'an, it involves that Allah the Supreme curses those who offend the Prophet (pbuh) in the worldly-life and the Hereafter, and makes anything detrimental to the Prophet (pubh) be linked with being offensive to Him. Thus, there is no discord as to killing the one who abuses Allah, and that Allah's Curse gets due on the disbelieving one, and thereby the legal judgment concerning him is to be killed.

Allah the Supreme said, 'Verily, those who annoy Allah and His Messenger (pbuh) Allah has cursed them in this world, and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating torment"( 1}

As well, respecting the killer of a believer (intentionally without right) the same is applied and the curse upon him in the world denotes killing him. Allah the Supreme said, "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for illegal sex), and those who spread false news among the people in Medina stop not, We shall certainly let you overpower them : then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbours but a little while. Accursed, they shall be seized wherever found, and killed with a (terrible) slaughter."

Regarding those who wage war against the Prophet (pbuh), Allah s Statement reads, "the recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides. Get the book from the archive and read the entire chapter, there is a list of a coupla dozen Moe ordered or approved of. 

Isdamnic law: Reliance Of The traveller: [@ IS FROM A SOURCE HTML, CHAPTER LETTER O IS LOWER CASE] @O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. @O8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed. @O8.3 If he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (def: o17) (O: for arrogating the caliph's prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties). 20 Acts & attitudes entailing apostasy are listed, a sample:

@O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah; -2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief; -3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as ``Allah is the third of three,'' or ``I am Allah''-unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief; -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace); -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1); -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat; -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

That only applies to slimes, right? Wrong!!!! @O11.9 If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: o11.11) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone). @O11.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people: -1- commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her; -2- conceals spies of hostile forces; -3- leads a Muslim away from Islam; -4- kills a Muslim; -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam. @O11.11 When a subject's agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14). *2*Chapter O12.0: The Penalty Isdamn is Isdamn, as Moe preached and practiced it. It is a continuing criminal enterprise, not a religion. Its mission is mercenary and its method is martial. Killing critics is sunnah!! Moe asked "who will kill" and "Who will rid us of", resulting in the murders of Kab Ashraf and Asma bint Marwan.

Muslims lie, like a fine Persian carpet. If their lips are moving, they are spewing al-Taqiyya. Another book: "Ash-Shifa" has, beginning on page 717, a long treatise on the legal necessity of executing anyone who disses Moe. The treaties includes a list of about two dozen killings ordered or approved by Moe.