[Rushtalk] It's Dangerous to Call Muslims Dangerous - Are You Brave Enough to Do it?

John A. Quayle blueoval57 at verizon.net
Fri May 16 21:16:46 MDT 2014

It's Dangerous to Call Muslims Dangerous

Whitley / 15 May 2014 / 
Share680 Tweet78 8 Reddit2 7
Print Friendly and PDF

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.”

boko haram
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 . . . "

muslim march2
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
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.

What Arianna and nearly all liberals refuse to 
understand about Muslim jihad, violence and 
killing, is that it is the foundation of the 
religion. The jihadists are not wayward souls 
going off the deep end. These are the fellas who 
are swimming in the deep end, committed to being 
like Muhammad. The jihadists are living up to the 
standards of their religious texts by acting in 
the same feral and barbaric ways of its founder. 
The Qur'an sanctions the violence seen in Muslim 
nations, and that is now spilling onto the shores of the (disbelieving) west.


The Christian Bible does not sanction terror or 
violence or compulsion, some even claim it is 
pacifistic. So while individuals of faith might 
do violence -- only the Qur'an advocates for it. 
The Holy Bible is the instrument by which the 
whole world can make moral proclamations -- 
knowing goodness and justice. The differences 
between Christ and Muhammad are as stark as love 
and hate, as stark as the texts of their 
revelations and the actions of their followers. 
That is the ultimate and final difference between 
what can be known about Islam and the stupidity of those who defend it.

Read more at 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20140516/5443a639/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list