Yesterday we had a bit of self-examination occasioned by that ridiculous pseudo-exposé by Bill O'Reilly of allegedly hate speech on Free Republic. What are the bounds? Is it okay so long as it's employed only against Muslims?
Posted on 08/02/2007 10:08:19 AM PDT by Ghayyour
During the greater part of last week, Slate's sister site On Faith (it is jointly produced by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, both owned by the Washington Post Co., which also owns Slate) gave itself over to a discussion about the religion of Islam. As usual in such cases, the search for "moderate" versions of this faith was under way before the true argument had even begun. If I were a Muslim myself, I think that this search would be the most "offensive" part of the business. Why must I prove that my deepest belief is compatible with moderation?
Unless I am wrong, a sincere Muslim need only affirm that there is one god, and only one, and that the Prophet Mohammed was his messenger, bringing thereby the final words of God to humanity. Certain practices are supposed to follow this affirmation, including a commitment to pray five times a day, a promise to pay a visit to Mecca if such a trip should be possible, fasting during Ramadan, and a pious vow to give alms to the needy. The existence of djinns, or devils, is hard to disavow because it was affirmed by the prophet. An obligation of jihad is sometimes mentioned, and some quite intelligent people argue about whether "holy war" is meant to mean a personal struggle or a political one. No real Islamic authority exists to decide this question, and those for whom the personal is highly political have recently become rather notorious.
Thus, Islamic belief, however simply or modestly it may be stated, is an extreme position to begin with. No human being can possibly claim to know that there is a God at all, or that there are, or were, any other gods to be repudiated. And when these ontological claims have collided, as they must, with their logical limits, it is even further beyond the cognitive capacity of any person to claim without embarrassment that the lord of creation spoke his ultimate words to an unlettered merchant in seventh-century Arabia. Those who utter such fantastic braggings, however many times a day they do so, can by definition have no idea what they are talking about. (I hasten to add that those who boast of knowing about Moses parting the Red Sea, or about a virgin with a huge tummy, are in exactly the same position.) Finally, it turns out to be impossible to determine whether jihad means more alms-giving or yet more zealous massacre of, say, Shiite Muslims.
Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable? Something, furthermore, that can turn in an instant into a license for murder and rape? As one who has occasionally challenged Islamic propaganda in public and been told that I have thereby "insulted 1.5 billion Muslims," I can say what I suspect—which is that there is an unmistakable note of menace behind that claim. No, I do not think for a moment that Mohammed took a "night journey" to Jerusalem on a winged horse. And I do not care if 10 billion people intone the contrary. Nor should I have to. But the plain fact is that the believable threat of violence undergirds the Muslim demand for "respect."
Before me is a recent report that a student at Pace University in New York City has been arrested for a hate crime in consequence of an alleged dumping of the Quran. Nothing repels me more than the burning or desecration of books, and if, for example, this was a volume from a public or university library, I would hope that its mistreatment would constitute a misdemeanor at the very least. But if I choose to spit on a copy of the writings of Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or James Joyce, that is entirely my business. When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran? We do so simply out of fear, and because the fanatical believers in that particular holy book have proved time and again that they mean business when it comes to intimidation. Surely that should be to their discredit rather than their credit. Should not the "moderate" imams of On Faith have been asked in direct terms whether they are, or are not, negotiating with a gun on the table?
The Pace University incident becomes even more ludicrous and sinister when it is recalled that Islamists are the current leaders in the global book-burning competition. After the rumor of a Quran down the toilet in Guantanamo was irresponsibly spread, a mob in Afghanistan burned down an ancient library that (as President Hamid Karzai pointed out dryly) contained several ancient copies of the same book. Not content with igniting copies of The Satanic Verses, Islamist lynch parties demanded the burning of its author as well. Many distinguished authors, Muslim and non-Muslim, are dead or in hiding because of the words they have put on pages concerning the unbelievable claims of Islam. And it is to appease such a spirit of persecution and intolerance that a student in New York City has been arrested for an expression, however vulgar, of an opinion.
This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.
It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it. For all I know, this commonplace observation could be true. But, if so, it must cut both ways. How about reminding the Islamists that, by their mad policy in Kashmir and elsewhere, they have made deadly enemies of a billion Indian Hindus? Is there no danger that the massacre of Iraqi and Lebanese Christians, or the threatened murder of all Jews, will cause an equal and opposite response? Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.
Yesterday we had a bit of self-examination occasioned by that ridiculous pseudo-exposé by Bill O'Reilly of allegedly hate speech on Free Republic. What are the bounds? Is it okay so long as it's employed only against Muslims?
Because they’re scary lunatics.
As for "African Americans." Can you or anyone show me one single person, (if Africa is indeed the "cradle of civilization") that is not a descendant of African ancestors? And if my contention is true which of you American citizens, regardless your skin color, isn't an "African American?"
I think it's time we grow up and start to recognize people for what they do and identify them accordingly. If they don't like being identified in a particular manner then let them change their behavior because I have to tell you, I am not ashamed of my behavior and I will not apologize to some whiny arse whiner-baby simply because I choose to condemn their choices and life-styles.
Muslims as a whole do not have any problems with their more fanatical sects killing innocent men women and children. Until they do begin to have problems with the image given them by their Jihadists (soldiers) and begin to condemn them then in my tiny little mind there is no difference between them and their Jihadists.
After all... isn't that how they see Jews and Americans? According to them we are all soldiers in the war against their terrorism whether or not we sport a military uniform or a diaper. Their mission is to see to it that each and every non-Muslim die. They have no interest in living in peace with the rest of the world and they will do whatever they can to force us to live according to their tenets or they will kill us.
They deserve no treatment less than that they dole out.
IMHO!
5.56mm
That last one is NOT true. It's to pay "zakat" tax. Then the Mullah Mafia supposedly takes care of the needy- themselves.
"An obligation of jihad is sometimes mentioned"
SOMETIMES? It, only after belief in Allah and Mohammad is his messenger, it the second most important thing in Islam.
Bukhari:V1B2N25 "Allah's Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?' He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.' The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next best in goodness?' He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah's Cause.'"
and some quite intelligent people argue about whether "holy war" is meant to mean a personal struggle or a political one. No real Islamic authority exists to decide this question, and those for whom the personal is highly political have recently become rather notorious.
Talk about being afraid to talk about! Hypocrite! How about using the Koran itself to answer this question?
Noble Qur'an:2:190 Footnote: "Jihad is holy fighting in Allah's Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite."
"Personal struggle" indeed.
It's called predestination. Whether you go to allah's whore house or not is already decided for muslims before they are hatched.
Bukhari:V6B60N473 "Every created soul has his place written for him either in Paradise or in the Hell Fire. His happy or miserable fate is predetermined for him."
Tabari I:306 "The Messenger said, "Allah created Adam and then rubbed Adam's back with his right hand and brought forth his progeny. Then He said, ‘I have created these as the inhabitants of Paradise.' Then he rubbed his back with His left hand and said, ‘I have created those for the Fire, and they will act as the inhabitants of the Fire.' A man asked, ‘O Messenger, how is that?' Muhammad replied, ‘When Allah creates a human being for Paradise, He employs him to act as the inhabitants of Paradise, and he will enter Paradise. And when Allah creates a human being for the Fire, He will employ him to act as the inhabitants of the Fire, and will thus make him enter the Fire.'"
Bukhari:V4B54N430 "Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, ‘Regarding the matter of the creation of a human being: humans are put together in the womb of the mother in forty days. Then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period. He becomes a piece of flesh for forty days. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things: the new creature's deeds, livelihood, date of death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched. He will do whatever is written for him.'"
Kinda makes the whole cult of Islam, praying 5 times a day, going on a pilgramge and running between two mountains, tossing pebbles at Satan, "circumnabulating the Ka'ba (rock god house) and kissing a black rock rather pointless.
It must be so because Mohammad inspired by allah said it. Any muslim who dares argue this will be beheaded.
No wonder they breed like rabbits.
A few generations ago, our (appropriate) response was to then kill more of THEM.
Guess we degenerated over time. We are turning into Euroweenies.
This gentleman understands - he gets it.
Moral equivalence. The perennial Islamic terrorism around the world cannot be compared to the complaints of "minority groups" in this country. It's this kind of thinking that must be challenged and exposed,
By definition, moral "equivalence" means that one makes one value the relative equal of the other and thereby imply that it should be excused. I did no such thing. I said they both pursued the same goal and condemned them both.
When you say, a thing "cannot be compared" to another thing you must mean that one side of the equation has been falsely stated otherwise there can be no comparisons of any kind whatsoever. In my view it is a truism that both Islamic terrorists and American minority groups pursue the goal of mind control. You can tell me that my analysis is faulty but you cannot say that it cannot be made unless you first take the trouble to show where is faulty.
Moral equivalence means that one bad thing justifies another bad thing. I gave you no warrant to come to that conclusion about my remarks for I have condemned both bad things, which is more than I can say for you who has left the door open to condone the political correctness of minority groups in America because the evil they do might be lesser in degrees in the evil done by terrorists.
That is precisely moral equivalence and you have committed it.
Question- May one ‘offend’, reject, sneer at , be disgusted by an individual identifying themselves as a believer in Nazism?
Must we stop to consider the individual personality of a person wearing a huge swastika?
Why then must such tender, ‘fair’, latitude be given Muslims?
Islam and Nazism are the same. Hatred of all who will not obey, and world domination is the stated goal at the core of both. Revere the Koran- revere all that it says, and that IS what it says.
I will go out of my way to offend a Muslim just as I would a Nazi. Society supports me in my revulsion of Nazis. Why not Muslims?
Because we are afraid of dying and unsure that we will be supported when they come for us.
Like Germans with the Nazis in the 30s.
“No human being can possibly claim to know that there is a God at all”
Hitches admits he’s an agnostic, not an atheist.
Is that all it takes? That could catch on, particularly if the society’s rules don’t apply to your particular “oppressed group”./s/
OK. Sorry for the inapt usage. How’s apples & oranges work?
If any of you know of a Muslim that needs to be offended, please have them get in touch with me.
Practicing with unflagging resolve...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.