|
 THE FOLLOWING was sent by ACT! for America to its subscribers a few days ago. If you have not yet subscribed to their free email updates, I strongly recommend it. They will not overwhelm you with too much information, but they consistently send out good stuff. Anyway, here is the update (slightly edited):Any critique or expose of Islam is usually met with name-calling (e.g., “Islamophobia”) from Islamists and their enablers, rather than rational or factual responses and rebuttals. There are at least two reasons for this. First, Sharia law does not provide for nor protect free speech. Criticism of Islam, Allah or Mohammad is a criminal offense. When Muslims attempt to suppress free speech critiques of Islam they are abiding by Sharia law, and insisting that we non-Muslims bow before Sharia law as well. They frequently get furious when we refuse to do so. Second, as two examples below will attest, public discourse and debates about radical Islam reveal the truth that Islamists don’t want Americans to see. Hence, they rant, rave, and name call in the hopes of demonizing those who dare to expose the truth so as to keep the truth from the American people. Two recent events reveal why Islamists and their enablers avoid genuine debate. * A recent event held in Des Moines, Iowa, entitled “A Forum on Being An American Muslim,” produced a very illuminating exchange, where ACT! for America chapter leader Steve Kirby’s question about Sharia law and free speech was completely ignored by the Muslim moderator. The moderator went so far as to prevent Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a reformist Muslim, from answering the question by taking the microphone from him! To read Steve’s short summary of this incident, please click here. (You will need Adobe Acrobat to open the PDF). Prior to the debate, the audience members were polled as to their position on the motion. 41% were for the motion 25% were against the motion 34% were undecided After the debate, the audience was polled again. Check out these eye-popping results! 36% were for the motion (a decrease of 5 percentage points) 55% were against the motion (an increase of 30 percentage points) 9% were undecided In other words, after seeing only one debate, most of the undecideds and some of those who initially agreed that “Islam is a religion of peace” changed their positions to opposing the motion. Small wonder we see so few Muslims willing to step forward and defend Sharia law and the ideology of radical Islam! Truth and the facts are stacked so heavily against them they can only hope to “win” by suppressing speech that exposes the truth. A similar result was obtained in another debate that used this as its proposition: Islam is Dominated by Radicals. Before the debate, the audience held these positions: 46% were for the motion 32% were against the motion 22% were undecided After the debate, the audience was polled again. The results were: 73% were for the motion 23% were against the motion 4% were undecided Again, a huge jump in people who grasped the real situation: Islam is dominated by radicals. Even if the majority of Muslims are peace-loving people, they are essentially irrelevant because they have so little impact on any of the realities non-Muslims must live with, they have no voice, they are politically inactive, and they are not stopping the devout Muslims pursuing Islam's prime directive. Islam is, in fact, dominated by radicals. When people are given the chance to hear both sides, to really listen to a full explanation and not merely soundbites, innuendo, or ad hominem attacks, the reality of the situation shines through clearly. In an upcoming article, we're going to explore the implications of this insight. Stay tuned...  |
| Email delivery powered by Google | |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment