Have a read.
If the pope called for the destruction of all the mosques in Europe, the uproar would be cataclysmic. Pundits would lambaste the church, the White House would rush out a statement of deep concern, and rioters in the Middle East would kill each other in their grief.
Putting it mildly.
But when the most influential leader in the Muslim world issues a fatwa to destroy Christian churches, the silence is deafening.
This is not a small-time radical imam trying to stir up his followers with fiery hate speech. This was a considered, deliberate and specific ruling from one of the most important leaders in the Muslim world. It does not just create a religious obligation for those over whom the mufti has direct authority; it is also a signal to others in the Muslim world that destroying churches is not only permitted but mandatory.
Clearly the Washington Times has been overtaken by islamaphobia. Or maybe this is like the idiots in Tuhoe, where it’s all just big talk we should all laugh off? Perhaps we need some apologies for the crusades? Or withdraw some support for Israel?
Regardless of the particular excuse that liberals will use to brush this under the carpet, it’s a certainty that they will.
I don’t have time this morning to do much more than link to this, and suggest that there are some very serious issues here.
I mean, the guy was jailed because of a crime they thought he might commit.
Jones said he approached the barricade to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with opponents, but witnesses said the pastor appeared to egg them on, opening his palms in a provocative manner.
Media bias. Sometimes is just so subtle!
Well, this is a pleasant surprise.
Muslims at New Zealand’s largest mosque claim its Pakistani imam taught jihad or holy war and preached on the need for men to make as many babies as they could with burqa-wearing women.
Muslims involved claim imam or mufti Abdul Qadir Siddiquei preached jihad against members of Islamic sects he did not approve of and ran a madrasa or school for boys on jihad at the mosque.
Pleasant on two points:
- It forces people out of the “oh, it’s not here in NZ” attitude. Quite why people think radical Islam isn’t already present here is beyond me.
- It has become public, which suggests that there are muslims who are prepared to break ranks and not tolerate radicals in their midst. That is a very good sign.
See context here.
PS Just had this message from Rushdie: “I’ve always liked Stewart and Colbert but what on earth was Cat Yusuf Stevens Islam doing on that stage? If he’s a “good Muslim” like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar then I’m the Great Pumpkin. Happy Halloween.”
A few years ago I saw a documentary on TV. They had Stephens talking about how naive he was and how he never really wanted Rushdie dead. Interesting the bloodthirsty quotes they never mentioned – I was given the impression that he gave a “yes” to a single question and regretted the headlines they gave the next day.
Some useful statistics in this post.
Does it sound counter intuitive to say there are no “anti-Islam events” going on around the country? In actuality it isn’t. We have but to check the FBI’s hate crime statistics to see this fact born out. The FBI shows that it is far more likely that you’ll be discriminated against if you are Jewish then if you’re a Muslim.
The last year that the FBI has released full data for hate crimes is 2008, but it shows that hate crimes against Jews far out number those against Muslims. The stats I had the other day once again come in handy…
FBI Hate Crime Statistics: Religious bias
Of the 1,732 victims of anti-religious hate crimes:
- 66.1 percent were targeted because of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
- 7.5 percent were victims because of an anti-Islamic bias.
- 5.1 percent were victims because of an anti-Catholic bias.
- 3.6 percent were victims because of an anti-Protestant bias.
- 0.8 percent were targeted because of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
- 2.8 percent were victims because of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
- 4.0 percent were victims because of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
But let’s face reality, here. As I said, there is a lot of disgruntled talk among Americans in general against Islam. This is only natural due to the provocations Muslims have indulged. America didn’t just wake up one day and decide to hate Islam. Islamists have for 50 years been doing their best to provoke that hate. They started the ball rolling by blowing people up, cutting off people’s heads, stoning women, hanging gays, destroying world art treasures, killing American soldiers, “honor” killing children, and generally making a hazard of themselves. Then they have the gall to say WE are the ones in the wrong? Points to them for blatant arrogance, I guess.
Whenever any Muslim leader cries “islamophobia”, a red flag called “possible radical” goes up in my mind. Any leader of a group that is as connected to terrorism as Islam ought to be worried about his own house before complaining about other people. Yet, it’s often very had to find an Islamic leader who is prepared to unconditionally condemn violence against innocent civilians such as Hamas commits.
The other irony is of course that as hard as the Islamic community cries about discrimination, it’s a well known fact that their community has at least some responsibility for the problem of anti-semitism – a problem ten times as big against a demonstrably smaller and more peaceful community internationally.
“moral guilt fully belongs to those who commit actual murder in response to mere symbolism.”
From this post, which continues…
They’re not just talking about burning our flag. They’re doing it. Are we behaving like packs of animals and going around killing people? No. Because we’re not savages. And the radical Islamists are.As Dafydd notes: “After such a Koran burning, Moslem insurgents will attack our troops. But of course, it’s also a 100% certainty that if the burning is called off — Moslem insurgents will attack our troops. So it goes.”
I’m glad the guy’s not going to burn the books. But the murderers will murder and attack no matter what. If they can’t blame it on this, they’ll find something. They can always justify their violence.
Exactly. You don’t want to inflame a radical, but you must remember that first and foremost that person is a radical no matter what you do.
And sometimes the only way to deal with that is confrontation.
Trick is to pick your battles.
That settles it.
Rauf says the reason he can’t move the Islamic center now is because of national security concerns, saying parts of the Muslim world would be violently inflamed at the news of the center’s relocation. “The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack… (there’s) the danger of the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security, to the national security of our troops,” he said. “If we do move,” Rauf continued, “it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit, and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.”
So if Christian offends Islam, people will die. If a moderate* imam compromises, people will die.
Sorry, that is just a pathetic excuse. I simply don’t believe he is incapable of selling a moderate compromise to his fellow Muslims, I believe he doesn’t want to try.
But think about that for a minute. Why would Islamic radicals be upset by a simple location shift? Answer: because Islamic radicals want the current location. If this guy is a moderate, why is he claiming radical backing for his plans, instead of standing up to them?
*for the sake of argument.
The Koran burning has been called off.
GAINESVILLE, Florida (Reuters) – A U.S. fundamentalist Christian pastor on Thursday called off his plan to burn copies of the Koran on Saturday.
Terry Jones, who heads the tiny, little-known Dove World Outreach Centre church based in the Florida university town of Gainesville, said an agreement had been reached with Muslim leaders to move the controversial location of a planned Islamic cultural centre and mosque in New York.
It would be moved away from the site of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
Reports question this however. We shall see if the mosque is moved.
One wonders if this was the goal all along – creating leverage against an entrenched insensitive position with a form of (fake?) extremism.
- Am I the only person who thinks this sounds a whole lot like a moderate call to arms?
- Does that even make sense?
The opposition to the Ground Zero mosque isn’t going to go away. I’m not saying that because I’m behind it, but as a simple statement of fact – it won’t.
Therefore, the only people who can defuse the situation are those building it. If they moved the project a few blocks further away, they would undercut most criticism – not all, but most. They would then have their community center, and those who continued to oppose the project would cease to have the moral mandate they do now.
It would be a good way to go I think, a real win-win. You complete the project and have an object lesson in compromise and tolerance to teach Muslim youth. Ground zero would be the perfect place to make such a gesture towards the feelings of Americans who feel that Islam attacked them. It would say “we disagree with you, but respect that there are sensitivities here”.
So why are they digging in?
Update: This was written before the developments this morning.
Only too true sadly.
9/11 made it clear that you must not just brush off those who say “death to the west”. It was a lesson that some took to heart, and others chose to forget as quickly as their conscience would allow.