Wednesday, 21 August 2013 06:45
Louis Palme
America
is a nation of immigrants. Our country is probably one of the most
tolerant—racially, religiously and culturally—of any nation in the
world. Our legal system reinforces this tolerance with laws against
discrimination of any kind, and the worst epitaph that can be meted out
to someone in this country is calling a racist or bigot. This is
America, after all.
So how does the author justify making
accusations against Islamists? Why have they become the exception to
America’s general tolerance of just about all life-styles, cultures, and
racial backgrounds?
The answer to these questions can be found in the answer to another, more general question: Is
there any other religious/cultural/political group in the U.S. today is
more intolerant on the whole than the Islamists and those who emulate
them?
Islamic ideology divides mankind into
Muslims and kufur (infidels), and treats them differently – both legally
and socially. Islamic ideology segregates women from men, and forces
women to wear distinctive clothing to show their rejection of non-Muslim
clothing and apparel. Sharia Law states that imitating non-Muslims is
an act of apostasy. [Reliance of the Traveler, para. e4.1(2)] Islamic ideology insists on serving special halal
food public food places, which can only be prepared by Muslims. Muslims
even refuse to pray in English, the American national language.
Americans’ tolerance of Islamic intolerance out of our embrace of
multicultural acceptance will lead to the disintegration of our
civilization and our heritage, as is happening today in parts of Europe.
In Los Angeles, where I live, we have
Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, Copts, Jews and even Communists. Their
religious worship and ideology is a private matter. In public, you can
rarely tell what ideology they follow. They do not have special liaison
offices with law enforcement, they generally do not form “religious”
Political Action Committees, they do not occupy streets to say prayers,
and they do not form “flash mobs” of protesters every time, there is an
apparent slight to their communities or ideology. But Islamists do.
Islamists have made themselves exceptional – in all the wrong ways.
Three Watershed Events in Islamic History
The three most defining events in the history of Islam’s origin, as recorded by Muslim historians, are:
- the emigration (hijra) of the first Muslims from Mecca to Medina,
- the Islamic ideology which was developed to justify aggression against non-Muslims,
- the Islamic purging the Arabian peninsula of all other religions.
Non-Muslims need to understand these seminal events so as to how Islamic intolerance that we witness today came about.
Refusal to assimilate: Muhammad
preached his new Islamic religion in Mecca for 13 years, but gained
only 100 or so converts there. Without any hope of success in Mecca,
Muhammad migrated to Medina in 622 AD, where the people were receptive
to his new faith. Muslim historian ibn Ishaq reported,
“[The people of Mecca] became distressed
by the trouble caused by the enmity between them and the apostle
[Muhammad] and those who accepted his teaching. . . . They said that
they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from
this fellow; he had declared their mode of life foolish insulted their
forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community, and cursed
their gods.” [The Life of Muhammad, para. 183]
Muslims immigrants of the West today
refuse to assimilate into their new host countries, rarely mix socially
with non-Muslim, and they insist on wearing distinctive dress to signal
their rejection of the local customs.
Justification for violence against non-Muslims:
As immigrants to Medina, the small band of Muslims was hard-pressed for
income. They decided to raid passing caravans for booty, but their
first successful raid took place during the “sacred month” of pilgrimage
(Dec. 623 AD) when all aggression and robbery were forbidden (as a way
of encouraging the lucrative pilgrim trade in the region). The surprise
raid resulted in the death of one pilgrim and the capture of two others
along with their possessions. But the sacred-month raid created a
massive scandal, with both Muslims and non-Muslims condemning it. So,
when the raiders brought the booty to Muhammad, he initially said: “I
did not order you to fight in the sacred month,” and he refused the
spoils. However, soon Muhammad received a new verse for the Quran,
2:217, which justified the raid as thus:
“They ask you concerning the sacred
month and fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and
hindering (men) from Allah’s way and denying Him, and (hindering men
from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of, are still graver
with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter.” (See Ibn Ishaq,
para. 426)
Of course, the caravan of pilgrims was
doing nothing to hinder Muslims or persecute them. This pretext for
killing and robbing became the institutionalized Islamic justification
for all aggression against non-Muslims. Today, Islamists urge their
followers to take firm action against any slight to their Prophet or
their religious sensibilities.
Intolerance of other religions:
When Muhammad and his followers arrived in Medina, it was inhabited by
five tribes – 2 Arab (Pagans) and 3 Jewish. And once in Medina, he never
tried to assimilate to local culture and tradition. Instead, he invited
and then insisted the native Pagans and Jews convert to his imported
faith. The Pagans were more receptive to his creed and converted, but
the Jews rejected his call to Islam. Under this situation, as soon as
his community gained some strength, he drove out or exterminated the
Jewish tribes one-by-one on flimsy charges. Six to nine hundred men of
the Banu Qurayza Jewish tribe —all there grown-up males—were. (Ishaq,
para. 690)
And, on his deathbed, Muhammad’s last
wish was: “Let not two religions be left in the Arabian peninsula.” (Ibn
Ishaq, para. 1023) Fourteen hundred years later, there is still no
church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia, despite the presence of over a
million Christian immigrant workers living in the country.
Those three events in Islamic history
are not just anecdotal: They constitute the basis for Islamic
intolerance and violence toward non-Muslims that we witnessed all over
the world today. The Islamic code of ethics is based solely on emulating
Muhammad’s actions and his decrees in the Quran. He told his followers,
“If I forbid you to do something, then keep away from it. And if I
order you to do something, then do it as much as you can.” (Sahih hadith
of Bukhari, No. 9:391)
The Islamist Pity Party
Psychologists who have studied
Muhammad’s biography have concluded that he was a sociopath who suffered
from complex partial seizures and had a narcissistic personality
disorder – a person who had no empathy for the feelings of others. (See
Dede Korkut, “The Medical Case of Muhammad,” and Ali Sina,
“Understanding Muhammad – a Psychobiography.”) After Muhammad ordered
the assassination of critic Asma daughter of Marwan who had five sons
and was stabbed to death in her sleep, he was asked if he would bear any
evil consequences. Muhammad replied, “Two goats won’t butt their heads
about her.” (Ibn Ishaq, para. 996) In her book, “The Sociopath Next
Door,” Psychologist Martha Stout observes that what sociopaths crave
most is for people to feel sorry for them. (p. 107) Pity from good
people absolves the sociopath of any wrongdoing.
How do Islamists play the pity card?
“Islamophobia is Racism” --
The Islamists’ most egregious pity ploy is to equate opposition to
Islamist ideology with racism. Here is their convoluted logic: They
argue that the race and ethnicity-based racism of the 19th Century has been replaced by culture-based racism in the 20th
Century. So opposing Islam is racism. The flaw in this logic is that
true, biological racism is abhorrent because people cannot change their
biological background. A person’s culture, on the other hand, is a
personal choice. The old expression, “When in Rome, do as the Romans
do,” still applies. So the Islamist pity party makes their refusal to
assimilate into a racial trait, and instead of being seen for what they
are – intransigent --, they become the “victims” of racism. There is
no “Muslim race,” as people of all nationalities and races call
themselves Muslims.
The term “Islamophobia” was introduced
to the present-day discourse in the 1990’s by the U.S. organization, the
International Institute of Islamic Thought, as a way of making Muslims
into victims of an irrational phobia against them. In their view, any
concerns against the ideology that inspired some Muslims to perpetrate
massive terror attacks against Americans (1993 and 2001), Spanish (2004)
, British (2005), Indians (2008), and Nigerians (2012) could not be
rational or fact-based according to the Islamists, and so Muslims have
been maliciously demonized and victimized by this irrational fear.
“Muslims are the victims of the 9/11/01 attack on New York and Washington” -- The American Muslim Political Action Committee has announced a “Million Muslim
American March Against Fear” to Washington, D.C., this coming September
11 to draw attention to the Muslim “victimization” by the Islamist
terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, resulting in
over 3,000 innocent American deaths. On the anniversary which should
provoke shame and apologies, Muslims exploiting the date to demand their
own version of “social justice” (i.e., Sharia Law) from U.S. government
leaders. So far, the response to this march has been underwhelming.
Using Human Shields to Evoke Pity
-- Nothing is more offensive to public sensitivities than the death of
innocent civilians in military attacks. In most conflicts extra care
is taken to make sure that civilians are removed from the battlefield,
but with regard to Islamists, the opposite is usually the case. In the
Palestinian Second Intifada,
human shields were used
to prevent Israeli attacks or at least to increase the number of
civilian casualties if attacks occurred. Terrorists in Afghanistan and
Pakistan
surround themselves with women and children to maximize the public outcry against drone attacks. And with regard to the recent violence in Egypt, Islamists brought
women and children deliberately to the battle lines
to help protect them from military attack. By increasing the outcry
over “innocent, non-combatant casualties,” the goals of the Islamists
are often achieved despite their political or military weaknesses.
Pretext – what doesn’t offend Muslims?
Islamists consider any opposition to
Islam as an affront to them and to their god, Allah. They claim that
the 26 raids or battles Muhammad fought in during the last 10 years of
his rule were all “defensive” battles. While the Battle of the Trench,
where the forces of Mecca tried to wipe out Muhammad and his followers
for good, was clearly a defensive engagement, none of the other battles
even came close. Here is a summary of his first major engagement
against Christians from Ibn Ishaq: In 630 A.D., Muhammad mustered an
army of 12,000 men and marched 275 miles from Medina to Taif, which had a
Christian Byzantine garrison there. This was an unprovoked surprise
attack, and the Muslims besieged the garrison for 20 days. As it turned
out, Taif sustained the siege, so Mohammad and his men cut down all of
the vineyards and went elsewhere to capture booty. (Ibn Ishaq, pare
870ff) The only “pretext” for this aggression was a rumor that the
Byzantines were planning to attack Muhammad.
Often, the pretext for Islamist outrage
is quite flimsy. In 2005, a spread of 12 cartoons about Muhammad drawn
in a Danish newspaper threw Muslims into such an outrage that some 200
people died and millions of dollars of property was destroyed in the
ensuing violence. It turns out that the truly
insulting cartoons were “inserted” into the cartoon portfolio five months later by Islamists themselves to agitate the masses.
Apparently non-Muslims exercising their
freedom of speech and freedom of the press constitute one of the
greatest threats to the Islamists. The following list shows some of the
incidents that provoked street demonstrations, lawsuits, and even
assassinations:
- Mohammad, Messenger of God (film, 1977, United States, Libya, UK and Lebanon)
- The Satanic Verses controversy (novel, 1988, global, several of those involved were assassinated)
- Submission (film, 2004, the Netherlands, producer Theo Van Gogh was assassinated.)
- Fitna, 2008 Dutch film about Islam, which led to worldwide Muslim protests and a hate speech trial)
- GregoriusHYPERLINK
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorius_Nekschot" HYPERLINK
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorius_Nekschot"Nekschot (cartoons, 2008, Netherlands)
- Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (2010, United States, forced cartoonist Molly Norris into hiding)
- Dove World Outreach Center Quran-burning controversy
(2011, United States, Pastor Terry Jones stopped by U.S. government
intervention, but he plans to burn 2,998 Qurans, one for each of the
9/11 victims, on 9/11/13)
- Charlie HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo"Hebdo (France, cartoon controversies, 2011 and 2012. Offices firebombed.)
- Innocence of Muslims (film, 2012, United States, film producer put in prison)
In this week’s conflict in Egypt, the
Muslim Brotherhood has falsely blamed the Christians for the ouster of
Mohammed Morsi. As a result, in just 24 hours some 53 churches were
torched, in addition to Christian businesses, schools, and cultural
centers. Christians make up only about 10 percent of the Egyptian
population, and they were not involved in the overthrow of Morsi which
was ordered by the military.
There are so many things that offend the
Islamists, it would be hard to compile a comprehensive list. In just
the past two months, the Malaysian government has jailed three people
for “disrespecting Muslim sensitivities.” One Muslim woman was charged
with disrespecting Muslim sensitivities by celebrating the end of the
Muslim fasting month with her dogs, which Muslims consider unclean. In
the most recent case, a
hotel owner was punished for allowing Buddhists to use an “Islamic” prayer room. Those charged face up to eight years in prison if convicted.
Islamist Prerogatives to Ensure Special Treatment
Islamists insist that they are merely
exercising their First Amendment right to practice their religion when
they insist on numerous prerogatives that have nothing to do with the
mosque or religious worship. In order to carve out their own special
turf, the Islamists are mindful of the provision in Sharia Law which
states, “...it is clear that there is virtually no country on the
face of the earth where a Muslim has an excuse to behave differently
than he would in an Islamic country, whether in his commercial or other
dealings.” [Reliance of the Traveler, para. w43.5(c)] Note in the
foregoing statement that religion isn’t even mentioned. Non-Muslim
politicians who have only a cursory understanding of Islam often cave in
to those demands when, in fact, those requirements aren’t even mandated
by Islam in the first place. They are, instead, political demands that
either ensure favorable treatment for Muslims or help to separate
Muslims from the non-Muslims for whom the Islamists have shown contempt
since the beginning of Islam. The following is a list of special
prerogatives that Islamists have weaseled out of politicians and
employers across the United States. After each special privilege is the
Sharia Law exception that makes those requirements optional for Muslims. Politicians are being duped.
Face-veils for women –
Looking at a woman is permissible for testimony in court, for
commercial dealings, and so forth, in which cases looking is permissible
to the degree required. (Reliance of the Traveler, para. m2.11)
Exemption from sterilizing between patients for nurses – Same exemption applies.
Footbaths for ablutions prior to prayer
– When one lacks both water and earth, one is obliged to pray the
obligatory prayer by itself, and later make up the prayer when one again
find water or finds earth, if in a place where dry ablution suffices as
purification for prayer that need not be made up later. (R of T, para.
e12.15)
Halal meat -- “Say: ‘I
find nothing in what has been revealed to me that forbids men to eat of
any food except carrion, running blood, and the flesh of swine – for
these are unclean – and any flesh that has been profanely consecrated to
gods other than Allah. But whoever is constrained, intending neither
to sin nor to transgress, will find your Lord forgiving and merciful.’”
(Quran, Surah 6:145)
Work breaks for prayers --
A Muslim may postpone one or more of his/her five required daily
prayers and join it to another prayer for many reasons, including travel
and rain. The Hanbali (Wahhabi) School of Sharia Law also allows this
for “someone who fears for himself, his property, or his reputation, or
who fears harm in earning his living if he does not join prayers; the
latter is giving leeway to works for whom it is impossible to leave
their work.” (R of T, para. f15:18(5))
Separate burial grounds for Muslims –
Islamic scholars agree that there is no problem with burying Muslims in
non-Muslim cemeteries, because the primary considerations are respect
for the deceased and proximity to the survivors so they can visit the
grave. “Land does not sanctify anybody, but a person’s own deeds
sanctify him.” (mentioned by Malik in al-Muwatta, No. 2232)
When people are engaging in a con game,
the best way to break the cycle is to expose the con. Non-Muslims are
being “worked” by Islamists to their advantage. We should call their
game, and insist on a level playing field for all people regardless of
religion, race, or culture. No false pity, no invented pretexts, and no
extraordinary prerogatives. After all, this is America.
No comments:
Post a Comment