Friday, November 22, 2013

Islam and its Enabling West




Islam’s agenda is world domination, but why are the Western elites enabling them? In his “must-read” book, Raymond Ibrahim explains:

  • Christian persecution is perhaps the most obvious example of a phenomenon the mainstream media wants to ignore out of existence – Islamic supremacism. Vastly outnumbered and politically marginalized, Christians in the Islamic world simply wish to worship in peace, and yet they still are hounded and attacked; their churches are burned and destroyed; their children are kidnapped, raped, and enslaved…they must be subjugated, according to Sharia’s position for all others, for all infidels…If the mainstream media were to report honestly on the persecution of Christians under Islam, the obvious implications that Islam is dangerously hostile to all non-Muslims would be inescapable. Hence, journalists develop an instinct – or make a deliberate choice – to ignore or minimize these uncomfortable facts. (Crucified Again, 232)

Some horrific stories are merely ignored or denied, like Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti’s statement that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches” in the Arabian Peninsula (223). Islamic acts of genocide are often described as “sectarian strife” (227).

What then is the agenda – the cultural bias – of the Western media? The liberal bias that we can all live peacefully together under secularism! Ibrahim’s book is partially an expose’ of this faulty, insupportable narrative:

  • The abuse of Christians where Muslims are in power has the capacity to completely undermine the liberal narrative that has dominated politics for decades. Muslim violence in Europe or against Israel poses no challenge to that narrative: in both cases, Muslims are seen as the underdogs, who may be sympathized with no matter how much they lash out. They may be screaming and rioting, firing rockets, and destroying property – all while calling for the death and destruction of the “infidel” West or Israel’s Jews to cries of “Allahu Akbar!” Still the bloodlust can be portrayed as a natural byproduct of the frustration Muslims feel as an oppressed minority, “rightfully” angry with the “colonial” West and its Israeli proxy.

Sadly, many well-meaning Christians are reluctantly complying with the liberal narrative in hope of not stirring up more genocidal attacks. Robert McManus, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, stated on February 8, 2013:

  • "Talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims."

However, this is reminiscent of the Pope’s misguided Concordant with Hitler. He had been ignorant of Hitler’s ultimate plans and thought that he could placate the idealistic Hitler. However, there is no placating the designs for world domination, especially when it is fueled by a racism or chauvinism that regards the infidel as worthy of death. This is something that liberalism refuses to see, as Ibrahim points out in many areas:

  • As far as former U.S. president Bill Clinton is concerned, “inequality” and “poverty” are “what’s fueling all this stuff” – a reference to Boko Haram’s jihad to enforce Sharia and eliminate Christians. Clinton further called on Nigerians to “embrace the similarities,” adding, “It is almost impossible to cure a problem based on violence with violence” – apparently a suggestion that Nigeria’s government not retaliate with any severity in response to Boko Haram’s mass murderers. (241)

Denial is not a good way to deal with reality. Denial had been the solution of Neville Chamberlain. Fortunately, there was also a Churchill!

8 comments:

  1. Remember this:
    Jens Orback , a former Swedish government minister, famously said: "We must be open and tolerant toward Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so toward us."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Larry, Such a hope reveals a profound ignorance of Islam and an unwillingness to see anything outside of one's own philosophy.

      Delete
  2. Daniel, while I agree with you that Islam is a violent religion that seeks to impose Sharia law onto everyone, and that there are many liberals that are bending over backwards for it, I do not think secularism is to blame. If these African and Middle Eastern countries adopted secularism, there wouldn't be governments supporting radical Islamic clerics and groups. That would be forbidden.

    Secularism means freedom of religion because religion is not allowed to be controlled, supported or used by the government. If you are against secularism, then you are for theocracy. Is it really that you want a Christian form of government, like they have in the Middle East with Islam? What's your alternative?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael,

      You place a great deal of faith in your monolithic secular state achieving peace by suppressing religious expression:

      • Secularism means freedom of religion because religion is not allowed to be controlled, supported or used by the government. If you are against secularism, then you are for theocracy… What's your alternative?

      Now, with Islam in our living room, alternatives are not easy or clear. However, your secularism is just another religion. While I am religiously motivated to vote against abortion and SSM, you, by your secular religion, are religiously motivated to vote for these institutions. What’s the difference!

      You feel comfortable with today’s secularism because it is your religion, but you write as if it’s religiously neutral.

      In order for your secularism to achieve this “peace,” it must retract our constitutionally protected rights, and it is – insipient totalitarianism! I’m surprised that you are so myopic in this regard. Eventually, you too will turn against it, but then it will be too late, and your secularism will turn against you! (Or perhaps, by then, it will be Islam!)

      Delete
    2. Wow Daniel, was that a serious reply? Or was it just an angry rant? Because it is wrong on so many levels.

      The fact is we've both got to deal with a growing religion that wants to impose its will onto us and is willing to use violence to achieve this. Neither of us want this to happen.

      We can agree here so far.....I hope.

      My solution is to strengthen secularism, both here in the US (because it is constitutionally mandated) and abroad where it will prevent Islamists from establishing Sharia states. What's your solution?

      .....crickets.....

      You don't offer one. My guess is that you'd prefer a Christian theocracy in place of an Islamic one. In other words, you'd simply just want a Christian version of what the Islamic Jihadis want. Am I correct?

      Finally, secularism is definitely NOT a religion. That's a talking point backed up by no argument. It is a principle that religion and government should be separate. It is not a worldview, or a religion, or a moral philosophy. It is just a political principle. Please understand this.

      "While I am religiously motivated to vote against abortion and SSM, you, by your secular religion, are religiously motivated to vote for these institutions. What’s the difference!"

      Being that secularism is not a religion, I cannot be religiously motivated to support SSM or abortion, I'm motivated by facts and my morals. If you are against these things, you must appeal to something other than religion to back them up, that's what secularism means. I'm surprised that you're myopic in this regard since you fail the elementary test of being able to properly define secularism.

      Now these are very important issues Daniel, let's please make sure that we define our terms and get our facts correct.

      Delete
    3. Michael, While we agree about the problem, we are miles apart about the solution.

      Your secularism will grant us freedom of religion only behind closed doors (and closed mouths). Neither Christian nor Muslim will countenance your hegemony.

      Delete
  3. "Your" secularism? Really? On what facts do you base this accusation on? Can you point to ANYTHING I've written on my blog that states I want to publicly silence all religious expression by law? I don't think you even want to have a serious, fact based discussion on this topic, you simply want to make outrageous and unsupported claims because it's easier.

    A few months ago I asked you to give me a few examples of secularism infringing on religious rights and one of your examples turned out to be based on lies told by Fox News - it was a total fabrication. I fear you base many of your ideas on sensationalized or misreported news reports that cater to conservatives like yourself who will not fact-check anything.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Michael, You have absolutely no respect for me. Why then continue this meaningless "exchange!"

    ReplyDelete