And yet politically correct (PC) myths about Islam, preying upon notions of justice, kindness, and false analogies, are still being spread.
Radio talk show host Bob Siegel confronts head on some of these often repeated PC lies that some want to see become dogmas, with death penalty for those who dare to question it and thereby commit the "thought crime" of heretical blasphemy called "Islamophobia".
Some extracts from the article.
popular notions that Islam is a wonderful religion, mostly peaceful, yet distorted and misrepresented by a few terrorists
Are you denying the existence of peaceful Muslims?
Of course there are peaceful Muslims! [But] This collection of scripture really does call upon Muslims to conquer the world, offering "infidels" the choice of converting or dying (Surah 9). [There's a third possibility of becoming Dhimmis, or a subjugated and discriminated people.]*
But only terrorists take those words seriously.
Not so. It is true that terrorists (sadly) are interpreting the Koran accurately [but Muslims who are not terrorists also consider that same Koran sacred]
Are you saying there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim?
... certainly there are numerous Muslims who call themselves moderate. [But many who know nothing about Islam] rush to defend Islam and end up speaking in a vacuum ... There are many nominal Muslims who would be surprised at what their own holy book says.
[Some Muslims chose] to reinterpret some of the Jihad verses ... That’s a nice idea ... (even if it does force objective literary criticism to stand on its head.) ... but not at the expense of being naïve as to what those scriptures truly say.
Isn’t it possible that the “literal” Jihad verses are being taken out of context?
[There is a danger of it but] ... authentic context is verified by asking what a book’s original author honestly meant to say. Mohammad himself conquered with a sword. How do you think he took Mecca? [And the Arabian peninsula, and also the jihad terror conquest of his immediate successors, who had fought alongside Muhammad and obviously knew first hand what he meant, and the string of wars of later followers that continue to this day, that created a huge Islamic empire by invading the lands of Christians and other religions. Muslims attacked Christians first, long before the Crusades, which were a response to Muslim aggression.]*
Therefore, it is fairly obvious (albeit not Politically Correct) to understand that such Jihad commands were intended by Mohammed to be taken literally and not figuratively. [As if the words in the religious texts weren't clear enough by themselves already.]*
Many Americans have difficulty embracing this uncomfortable idea.
Note: Comments in square brackets [] followed by * in the quoted words are made by the author of this article and not by Bob Siegel.
[This is a nice short article, which should be read and shared. It deals with the standard taqiyya arguments that tries to hide the ugly and deadly truth about Islam by confusing it with nominal Muslims who are not terrorists and the intellectually dishonest twisted interpretation that tries to present Islam as what it obviously is not.]
Source: The Washington Times
[Some words about the "interpretation game" played by Muslims and their supporters whenever something like what Segel said is mentioned.
They will first defend by trying to limit and contextualize so that the beheadings and other terrorist acts ordered or approved by Muhammad only applies to very narrow isolated cases and situations. This will be followed by painting Muhammad's opponents as evil and deserving of terrorism, which is a very familiar terror justification theme that is heard daily and used by today's terrorists and their supporters.
Both of these require twisting and bending of religious texts, and the ignorance by non-Muslims of the facts of the whole situation, other corroborating information, and the bigger picture that clearly shows a trend of terror. It's like a jigsaw puzzle and sometimes a few pieces are missing but it is easy to guess what would be there.
The game sequence is; horrible text(s), limiting game (It's only then or in those limited situations), twisting game (Doesn't mean that and there are other supposedly nicer texts), demonize-the-victims game (They were evil.), and finally justification.
Many Muslims also use such out of context and isolated arguments to support terrorism and excuse all their faults by saying it was the result of this or that issue blamed on others. These individualized explanations themselves can easily be challenged, but also in the big picture, the pattern of terror correlates or matches clearly with Islam or the Muslim populations, no matter what excuse is given for each individual cases of horror.
The overall structure, without the need to fill in details, would be that there will be Muslims with some of them getting into some sort of conflict over some sort of issue, usually over attempts to impose Islam or version of Islam on other Muslim or non-Muslims, getting enraged and ending up with violence and terror by Muslims based on claims of persecution, if they are the weaker party, or imposing some sort of Islamic justice for some crime, if they are the stronger party. The script is already written. They will commit terrorism for ... [just fill in the blank, like a blank cheque for terrorism]. It's like "Just add water" and there you have it.
The second response involves using false analogies (also called "false moral equivalence arguments" or "leveling arguments"), regurgitating false atheist claims of the Christian Bible as encouraging violence just as Islamic texts do. The standard technique is to pull out some Old Testament passages.
The quick and easy reply to this false analogy is to simply ask, why then that there are not more Christian terrorists than Muslim terrorists, there being more Christians in the world than Muslims, if the two religions are equally violent. The fact of the matter, as even Muslims acknowledge, is that almost all terrorists are Muslims. This shows that despite claims of similarity, there appears to be something different in Christianity that makes Christians less prone to terrorism.
The second quick and easy reply, both to atheists and Muslims is to point out their complete ignoring, whether deliberate or accidental, of the New Testament which completes and replaces, in many ways, the Old Testament passages, which deal with certain punishments and prohibitions, that they take issue with. Put simply, they no longer apply since the time of Jesus while Islamic texts still do even today.
Unlike Muhammad's dubious claims of being persecuted, Jesus and early Christians were in fact persecuted, as recorded even by non-Christian sources, and yet did not resort to terrorism as Muhammad did. Nor did the early Christians spread Christianity with the sword, as the early Muslims did with Islam (something that continues to this day). This is not to say Christians should go to slaughter like lambs without fighting, or that there are no bad Christians. The question is whether how the believers of a religion behave are similar to the example set by the central figure of that religion. Muslim terrorists are quite similar to Muhammad where as Christians terrorists, if and when there are any, would be very different from Jesus.
By attacking the Bible, Muslims also shoot themselves in the foot (or head) since the Koran acknowledges the Bible as God's word. This acknowledgment was probably given due to Muhammad's ignorance - being illiterate and having only vague and mostly false second hand knowledge of it's contents from what he hears from others - and to lure ignorant Christians, who have never read the Bible, to his new religion at that time, by claiming that the Koran was a continuation of the New Testament in the way it was itself a continuation of the Old Testament, with Muhammad this time instead of Jesus. This is a classic cheap imitation religion or a "cargo cult". If it was in a business context Muhammad would be guilty of copyright infringement.
Muslims of course are then left later on, when they realized about it afterwards, with the problem of the Bible and Jewish scriptures contradicting Islamic teachings. They try to overcome it by making a U-turn and making schizophrenic claims of the Bible being "corrupted" and unreliable, even though the Koran had earlier said that it was God's word. While there are different versions of the Bible, the differences there are minor compared to the difference to the Koran, which is completely off the mark and is contradictory in almost all points and also includes strange additions.
There is a really nice short clip (probably made before the onset of PC censorship. Such honesty is rare these days and is discouraged through threats, intimidations and even actual violence) on Youtube showing a copycat cargo cult religion in Papau New Guinea. Please watch it and also read the article on cargo cults on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and note the similarities between the narrative of such cults, the stories they tell, it's practices and imitations, and the Islamic narrative (of world conquest and why the world belongs to them and why their failures are due to the infidels or Kuffar) and it's imitation of Christianity, Judaism and also pre-Islamic Arabian paganism.
Also note the primitive state of cultures where such cargo cults arise and the "primitive" (as Walid Husayin would say) or "primordial" (according to the U.N.) or "barbaric" (British Foreign Secretary William Hague and Brazilian president-elect Dilma Rousseff on, not Arab as such but Islamic Iranian practice of stoning adulteres to death) nature of the Arab culture where Islam arose. People are saying Islam is "backward" (Pim Fortuyn) and primitive and so on these days. So just imagine how worst it would have been 1400 years ago when Islam first started. Those with even a little information would be able to recognize that Islam is like a cargo cult Frankenstein religion, made up of stolen bits from all those other religions mentioned, with extra violence added in.]
No comments:
Post a Comment