Armed clash over black mosque triggers anger in South Dallas

[rangerrebew]

Armed clash over black mosque triggers anger in South Dallas
Sarah Mervosh Follow @smervosh Email smervosh@dallasnews.com

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2016/04/tense-anti-mosque-protest-draws-armed-demonstrators-in-south-dallas.html/

Published: April 2, 2016 1:43 pm

 

Krystal Muhammad with a shot gun and other members of the New Black Panther Party stand guard across the Muhammad Mosque in Dallas, Saturday, April 2, 2016. (Jae S. Lee/The Dallas Morning News)

Armed with a shotgun, Krystal Muhammad stood guard with other members of the New Black Panther Party outside a mosque Saturday in South Dallas. (Jae S. Lee/Staff Photographer)

Racial tensions in South Dallas almost exploded at an anti-mosque protest Saturday afternoon before quickly dissolving when the protesters retreated.
Related

    Gun-wielding protesters want Irving mosque to ‘Say No to Syrian Refugees’
    Armed mosque protesters publish Irving Muslims’ home addresses

A few hundred South Dallas residents, mostly black, flooded Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to oppose a planned demonstration by a mostly white group that routinely protests outside mosques.

Both sides were armed.

Dallas police stood guard on a funeral home’s roof as black counterprotesters swarmed the parking lot of Eva’s House of Bar-B-Q, vowing to defend their streets and chanting “black power.”
A police officer uses a binoculars across the Muhammad Mosque in Dallas, Saturday, April 2, 2016. (Jae S. Lee/The Dallas Morning News)

A police officer uses binoculars across from the Muhammad Mosque to monitor the situation. (Jae S. Lee/Staff Photographer)

“This is what they fear — the black man,” said activist Olinka Green. “This is what America fears.”

The anti-mosque group showed up in camouflage, carrying guns and an American flag, FOX 4 reported. They left soon after and the protests ended without incident.

“It’s a people’s victory here in South Dallas today,” said Yafeuh Balogun of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club, named for the founder of the original Black Panther Party.

Balogun, who helped organized the counterprotest, added that he wasn’t “surprised” the group withdrew when confronted by the emotional crowd.

“Would you come out and face them?”

The Bureau of American Islamic Relations, or BAIR, had planned to protest against the Nation of Islam mosque at 1 p.m.

The group rallies against what it calls radical Islamism. Its name riffs on the national Muslim advocacy group CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. BAIR has protested multiple times outside the Islamic Center of Irving and had threatened a protest outside the Nation of Islam two weeks ago, but no one showed up.

The group decided to protest at the Nation of Islam on Saturday, accusing the mosque of “promoting violence against Americans openly and publicly,” according to a Facebook page about the event.

“We cannot stand by while all these different Anti American, Arab radical Islamists team up with Nation of Islam/Black Panthers and White anti American Anarchist groups, joining together in the goal of destroying our Country and killing innocent people to gain Dominance through fear!” the event invite says.

The Huey P. Newton Gun Club and the New Black Panther Party were among those to come out in opposition. They, too, wore full gear and carried rifles.

Krystal Muhammad, national chair of the New Black Panther Party, accused BAIR of trying to “intimidate and bully” the mosque. She and others lined Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, armed and dressed in black, because “no one else will protect our people.”


Down the street, in the barbecue restaurant’s parking lot, anger at Saturday’s anti-Islamic outsiders quickly bubbled into shouts about racism and classism in America.

A chorus of voices cried out in support of “black power.”

They bellowed to shield their home from white infiltration: “Whose streets? Our streets?”

One man swore at a white TV reporter and later shouted, to no one in particular, that “we got the right to shoot back” if tensions escalated.

Robert Greaves, who lives in South Dallas, said his community owed no explanation for its anger and frustration.

“This is the black America that white America made,” he said.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Crazy. Two heavily armed groups protesting. Shame they can't both lose.

And no, I"m not in favor of accepting the refugees. But protesting mosques is stupid IMO. We have freedom of religion in this country.

[rangerrebew]

Religion yes; theocracies no and a theocracy is what muzzies want.

[Smokin Joe]

Crazy. Two heavily armed groups protesting. Shame they can't both lose.

And no, I"m not in favor of accepting the refugees. But protesting mosques is stupid IMO. We have freedom of religion in this country.

In 1632, the Maryland Colony was founded by Catholics with the fundamental right of freedom of religion its hallmark. In the interest of maintaining that Right, other religions were permitted in the colony.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Revolution_%28Maryland%29

The Protestant Revolution of 1689, sometimes called "Coode's Rebellion" after one of its leaders, John Coode, took place in the Province of Maryland when Puritans, by then a substantial majority in the colony, revolted against the proprietary government, led by the Roman Catholic Charles Calvert, 3rd Baron Baltimore. The rebellion followed the "Glorious Revolution" in England of 1688, which saw the Protestant Monarchs William and Mary replace the Catholic King King James II. The Lords Baltimore lost control of their proprietary colony and for the next 25 years Maryland would be ruled directly by the British Crown. The Protestant Revolution also saw the effective end of Maryland's early experiments with religious toleration, as Catholicism was outlawed and Roman Catholics forbidden from holding public office. Religious toleration would not be restored in Maryland until after the American Revolution.

During that time period, Catholic Manor Lords had Mass held in their homes by itinerant priests, one of whom sold himself to an ancestor to avoid being hanged by "reformers" (he became property of the Manor Lord and untouchable under English Law without the Manor Lord's permission).

In effect, the religion of those who founded the Colony was driven underground by people who gained admission under the principle of freedom of religion.

Those who will not learn from history will be doomed to repeat it. I would caution, that even for the church burnings and other atrocities of the Protestant Reformation in Maryland, an Islamic takeover would make that look like a Sunday picnic.

[Fishrrman]

Weird wrote:
" I"m not in favor of accepting the refugees. But protesting mosques is stupid IMO. We have freedom of religion in this country."

Then ultimately we will lose.
By providing islam with "freedom" of religion, we will give them the ability to amass strength until the time comes when they will take away -ours-. And it won't only be the freedom of religion that gets taken.

islam must be opposed in The West in any and all circumstances.

It won't be pretty and it won't necessarily be peaceful.
But we of The West have no choice if we wish to preserve what our forefathers have built here.

And that's why this:
"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."

Should be changed to this:
"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. The followers of muhammed are specifically excluded and denied the protections of this amendment along with any and all other Constitutional protections. Neither the United States nor the Several States will offer such protections or liberties to the followers of muhammed."

[Smokin Joe]

I think the question would be one of whether or not Islam is, in fact, a religion or a theocratic culture. We have prohibitions in the First Amendment to keep the US from becoming a Theocracy, in that there shall be no State Religion. That would conflict with the Islamic idea of making all others convert, submit, or die and making religious judges and pronouncements have weight of secular law (Sharia).

Nowhere does our Constitution state that we have to accept those refugees or parties otherwise who are at odds with that Constitution In fact, to admit those who by definition, have only enmity for our form of Government is folly.