A road raging Muslim recently got a taste of Texas hospitality after spouting off at another driver.
The incident took place in Houston, Texas, where two drivers reportedly became entangled in a verbal altercation over who had the right of way. For reasons still under investigation, 42-year-old Ziad Abu Naim – the Muslim — got out of his car “swinging” and approached the car of Robert Craig Klimek, 43.
However, the chaos quickly ended as onlookers noted hearing a single pop. As it turns out, Klimek had shot Naim in the face, fully neutralizing the threat. Emergency services took the body of the Muslim man to Memorial Hermann Hospital, where they explained he was partially paralyzed and was being kept alive only through the assistance of machines.
In the meantime, Klimek was taken into custody for an investigation into the shooting and was eventually charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. However, he and his lawyers are claiming it was self-defense as Naim was attacking him.
Naim eventually passed away on account of the injuries sustained, and the district attorney says that they may up the charges to murder. In the meantime, the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) has coincidentally come forward with damning evidence that they’re saying is indicative of a hate crime.
According to CAIR, they were able to find a witness who states that Klimek shouted, “Go back to Islam,” before the physical confrontation began. Of course, they’re now spouting off about a hate crime and saying how this man intentionally shot another human being because he was Muslim.
Unfortunately for the radicals from CAIR, in America we have the First Amendment, which gives us the right to say just about anything we want. However, what free speech does not grant is the right to not be offended and physically attack another man because something “offensive” was said.
Furthermore, many on the Internet are refuting the claims, saying that such an accusation actually makes no sense. According to Bare Naked Islam reader JRH:
Truth be told, it’s extremely unfortunate that human life was lost over such a miniscule and meaningless disagreement, but it’s everyone’s right to protect themselves when they’re being attacked. The best message you can share with anyone who acts like Mr. Naim is probably something your mother said to you as a child — “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”
Words are words, but a physical threat is something else entirely. Nothing constitutes violence in my book, unless you’re confronted with it. In that case, the aggressor deserves anything that comes his way, even if that means death, so long as it is carried out in self-defense.