Maher's cable show had three combatants recently when they discussed Islam and the kidnapping of the 300 school girls in Nigeria. Arianna Huffington, President of the Huffington Post online, Comedian Baratunde Thurston,
Read more at http://eaglerising.com/6169/dangerous-call-muslims-dangerous/#eVO5XbH9RSIitxUE.99
/
The Washington Times headline, "Bill Maher: Liberals too soft
on Islam" (May 10, 2014) caught my attention because Maher, for all his
usual crazy liberal insanity, has got the Islam issue right.
Maher's cable show had three combatants recently when they
discussed Islam and the kidnapping of the 300 school girls in Nigeria. Arianna
Huffington, President of the Huffington Post online, Comedian Baratunde
Thurston,
and Matt Welch editor of Reason.com. They exchanged opinions like
little school kids trading marbles and with the same results, nothing
substantial gained when it was all done.
Huffington started off the quibbling by saying she believes it's
"dangerous" to stereotype all Muslims as terrorists. Agreed, but a
flimsy straw man argument at best, because no one claims all Muslims are
terrorists. Nothing more satisfies a liberal than beating a straw man like a
piñata to prove a point that no one holds.
Now, of course she's right about stereotyping in general, making a
blanket statement about an entire group of people is nearly always going to be
incorrect. But what she claims to defend isn't an issue that needs defending
because nobody holds that claim. But she appreciates the liberals who nod
incessantly as if to agree with her pointless babble.
Arianna's other point, the one she wasn't
making, is true. Like a broken clock that's correct a couple times a day, she
hits the mark, but that doesn't mean she hit the target she was aiming at, just
as the clock showing the right time doesn't mean it's working properly.
Defenders of Islam often speak with an ignorant and sometimes
arrogant confidence that seems to impress others, but it's void of the facts of
what Islam actually says about things like jihad. Liberals like Arianna say the
terrorists are not true Muslims (how does she know this?) and cannot be
following true Islam (how does she know that?) and thus she concludes the
jihadists are simply a crazy fringe who sully the reputation of peaceful Islam
and good Muslims.
Her words may be of comfort to some and they may fit the
description of what we know about nearly every single other demographic group
regarding stereotyping. However, if she read the Qur'an, she would find that
Islam is unique in that it is the only religion that advocates, commands, for
its adherents to engage in violence and war. Martyrdom is encouraged. What
other sacrament does Islam have other than violence through jihad?
Those ignorant of Islam seem more concerned with
those who are critical of Islam than those perpetrating jihad in the name of
Islam. They want the Islamophobes to go away or have their free speech revoked
through "hate speech" legislation. They seem to have little energy to
decry the kidnappers and the killers. They never refute the jihadists with
scripture. They never refute the so-called "Islamophobes" with scripture.
The kidnappers and killers are never given the same energy and focus and calls
to stop -- as is given in trying to silence those who point out the correlation
between the Islamic texts and the actions of jihadists.
What we have here is a giant leap of faith by the defenders of
Islam. They refuse serious discussion, they dismiss the passages in question,
they don't research the texts to see if it says what the jihadists claim it
says. It's the jihadists who make the claim that they are doing the work of
Allah; nobody is putting words in their mouth. So how can they be wrong if the
text agrees with them? We naturally want to agree with the peaceful Muslim that
the text is also peaceful -- but one cannot come to that conclusion after
reading it.
The reason so many default to the answers they give in defense of
Islam is due to the fact that they come to the discussion with their mind
already made up about one very important point: Islam is a legitimate religious
faith. So they accord it value and respect. This mindset comes from the
subjective worldview liberals have been feeding us for years that says all
opinions are valid, equal, valuable, all perspectives must be tolerated and
understood, that all faiths must be respected. This view has corrupted the mind
of man and has polluted our ability to see fallacy and evil and declare it so,
with confidence.
What strikes me so deeply about Arianna's answer is how right she
is beyond what she was attempting to convey in her answer. Unbeknownst to her
it is far more "dangerous" in terms of real bodily harm to be
critical of Islam or Muhammad at all, for the very Muslims whom she defends as
not being extreme will threaten a person for denigrating Islam or Muhammad.
Everyone knows this. So the bottom line is, it's very dangerous to be critical
of Islam or Muhammad at all, because by doing so many (mainstream) Muslims will
want to do you (the kafir) harm or will at minimum attempt to murder your
reputation.
But no need to take my word for it, just ask any
of these brave souls, like author Salman Rushdie, author Robert Spencer,
comedian Penn Jillette, actor Omar Sharif, Beatle Paul McCartney, television
host David Letterman, coptic Christians across the Middle East, Pamela Geller,
Brigitte Gabriel, author Nonie Darwish, Ibn Warraq, former terrorist Walid
Shoebat, Raymond Ibrahim, Zuhdi Jasser, Daniel Pipes, Honor Diaries star Ayann
Hirsi Ali, or, well, you get it, the list could go on and on. Speak ill of
Islam or Muhammad and you just might find out how dangerous free speech really
is and how peaceful and tolerant and supportive of the First Amendment Muslims really
are.
Perhaps liberals do get it but are simply too frightened by the
realization that since they don't believe in the Second Amendment -- they're
pretty much like gold fish in a bowl, at a house party of cats. Remaining
silent, through self-censorship is a pretty good game plan for them, for now.
But, like the Nazis or the communists, eventually they will come for you too.
Matt Welch, one of the panelists, mentioned that the Boko Haram
kidnappers had ties to Islam and that Islam “is providing a disproportionate
share of radical nut bags killing people.”
So what makes Boko Haram "nut bags?" Because they are so
far off the reservation of decency and virtue? Perhaps? But religiously they're
only "nut bags" if they don't have real marching orders. Qur'an 9:111
tells us what their marching orders are: "Allah hath bought from the
believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden (Paradise) will be
theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain.”
Comedian Baratunde Thurston and Arianna
Huffington both echoed again the same liberal defense that the religion as a
whole should not be condemned because of a few radicals. I don't condemn Islam
because of any radicals, Islam's texts condemn Islam, the radicals are simply
the fruits of the text. The jihadists agree with the text. It's the liberal
defenders of Islam that are putting America and the world at risk, not those
riding in the night like Paul Revere trying to wake up the people to what lies
in store if we continue on the path of appeasement.
Liberals and defenders of Islam are looking through the wrong end
of the telescope. It all seems so small and far away to them. It always will
until someone tells them to turn it over. Perhaps the Jay Leno led protest of
the Beverly Hills Hotel (owned by the Sultan of Brunei and his Sharia tyranny)
will help.
Funny man Thurston even tried to spread around some equality of
violence (liberals love equality) by mentioning that radical Christians
perpetrated violence in the past. He didn't give an example but you remember
the Inquisition, don't you? The Salem Witch Trials? What Islam does in a year
-- the Inquisition couldn't in 500. I think some liberals need to go back to
school and crack open a few books on history. And by the way, where in the
Gospel is this behavior sanctioned?
Maher surprisingly defended the Christian west and sited one poll
that suggested “something like 80 or 90 percent” of Muslims in Egypt agree that
death is the appropriate penalty for leaving Islam (being an apostate). Now
while this is an important point and a sick realization of the mindset of the
Egyptian people, they didn't just come up with this on their own. It is Islamic
scripture. It's doctrine that they are following. These are the beliefs of
believers. Qur'an 4:89 "But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of)
them and kill them wherever you find them . . . "
According to Dr. Bill Warner the Qur'an commits
64% of its text to the Kafir (non-believer) and it says that the Muslim must
not take the Kafir as a friend, (Qur'an 4:144 "Believers! Do not take
unbelievers as friends… Would you give Allah a clear reason to punish
you?"). Then it says in Qur'an 4:93 "He that kills a believer
(Muslim) by design shall burn in Hell forever." Why not simply condemn all
murder (as says the 6th Commandment)? Are Muslims more valuable than
non-Muslims? 2 Peter 3:9 says "The Lord… is patient toward you, not
wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." Are
we to believe the Qur'an when it says to kill the kafir rather than to be
patient? Did God change his mind or is the Qur'an a corrupt work?
Maher continued “If 84 percent of Brazilians thought that death
was the proper penalty for leaving Catholicism, wouldn’t that be a bigger
story?” It would be, because liberals in the west love hypocrisy. The liberal
media would be all over such news, A) because it would give them a chance to
denigrate the religion of the west and B) it would give them the opportunity to
link Catholics / Christians with an insane, inhumane, irrational, illogical
position. In other words, the west loves to make unsubstantiated correlations
when it comes to Christians, but they defend the Muslim from the same charges
-- even when we have the Qur'anic scriptures are provided to prove it.
Say something vile about Jesus, draw a caricature, put a crucifix
in a jar of urine and no one, literally no one, fears harm from Christians.
Draw a cartoon of Muhammad or say something ill of the prophet or point out
that he married a 6 year old girl or that he beheaded 700 Jews in Bani
Qurayzah, or that he took many wives, or sold captives as slaves, or allowed
wife beating, or used terror as an instrument to spread Islam... and you will
not only hear about threats of
violence, you will get violence. You will have streets closed, events
cancelled, demonstrations, property damaged, rioting, calls for apologies. If
you're real lucky you could even get a fatwa on your head.
But this is where the rubber meets the road in this whole debate.
This is where the defenders of Islam and those that want to equate Christian
violence with Islamic violence have it all wrong. The two religions have almost
nothing in common. The violence committed by Christians is condemned by the
Bible -- there is no distinction between the believer and the unbeliever. The
violence committed by jihadists is a command in the Qur'an and Hadith and is a
tactic of Islam evangelism through terror.
No comments:
Post a Comment