It told her she'd get no argument from me. We agreed that the problem with Islam is that, as a religion, it's committed to the destruction of liberty and freedom. Islam's apologists will be quick to hysterically scream, "But that's not true of the moderate Muslims!"
Really?
Here's where my conversation partner made an interesting point. She said, "I'm a Christian. I would never sympathize with, nor in any way support, a group that, in the name of Christianity, blew up buildings or murdered people they considered infidels. Those things anger and upset me no matter who does them. But I'd be outraged if it was done in the name of a religion that I value and support, Christianity."
There's the answer to those who complain that moderate Muslims are getting a bum rap.
How many moderate Muslim organizations are protesting in the streets over the actions of those who terrorize (and promise to terrorize) in the name of Islam? If Islam is such a religion of peace, as both our current and previous Presidents have claimed repeatedly, then where are the moderate Muslims? And I don't mean some kind of safe, tepid statement made at some meeting in Washington D.C., probably at the behest of some politician to ensure that the taxpayer loot keeps coming. I mean real, honest, spontaneous and principled opposition.
If I were Muslim and really believed Islam was a force for good, I would consider those promoting evil in the name of Islam to be the worst type of people imaginable. What would it say about my integrity if I refused to stand up to them? What would it say about my actual beliefs if I really didn't have enough of a problem to speak out against them?
If Islam were really a religion of peace, the actions and statements of Muslims -- starting with 9/11, but so much else past, present and undoubtedly future -- would lead to such a state of revulsion on the part of those majority, peace-loving Muslims that you'd be hearing about it all the time. You hear Christians, for example, condemning the hypocrisy of fellow Christians who condemn people for being gay, or for having abortions. But you never hear Muslims talking about the outrageous behavior of their fellows who say things like, "There was no Holocaust," or, "Israel should be nuked off the face of the map, and will be."
Have you heard Muslims strongly opposing terrorism? Have you seen them calling for boycotts of those who in any way support terrorism in the name of Islam? Of course you haven't. In fact, merely expecting them to do so is in itself an unspeakable act of -- well, nonliberalism, which to liberals is the ultimate unthinkable thing.
Keep in mind that Islam also holds one distinction that no other religion, to my knowledge, shares: To impose its religious laws on the population. Conservative Christians get a lot of flak for trying to impose their will on the whole population about homosexuality and abortion. I share in giving them that flak. But when those who oppose conservative Christians on these points look the other way at Muslims who propose the same thing on a much, much wider and more hideous scale -- what gives? Republicans favor laws outlawing abortion and trying to make marriage only between a man and a woman. Liberals and Democrats are outraged, and I agree. But these same liberals and Democrats know full well that gays are executed in the public square and women are treated, literally, as property in Islamic countries ... and to point this out is condemned as intolerant!?
I also think about this issue with respect to the recent Lowe's controversy. The Lowe's home improvement store chain has withdrawn its advertisements for a pro-Islamic show. This is their right, is it not? Not according to Islamic law, which would put to death anyone who dares defy its will. But also not according to liberals who now scream about the lack of tolerance displayed by Lowe's in this instance.
Lack of tolerance? Excuse me? Why should Islam be tolerated? Islam is a religion openly dedicated to the annihilation of liberty, freedom and all things non-Islamic. Islam, left free to impose its will, would (like a tidal wave) wash away any notion of separation of Church and state, a bedrock of American liberty even (I thought) according to socialist liberal Democrats who run most of our society now. Again, what gives?
I've often thought that liberalism is motivated not just by intolerance and hypocrisy, but by a profound and almost bottomless emotional pit of self-hatred. Liberals, for example, despise capitalism and private property, yet they benefit from that social order (insofar as we still have it). Most liberals are very happy to enjoy their millions or even billions, when they have it. The ones who don't have it take to the streets, as in the Occupy "movement," urinating and defecating on the sidewalks and calling it principle. The greatest supporters of Obama and all things socialist are very well off.
These same liberals who are intolerant of those who won't endorse or promote the most intolerant group of people in all of human history -- the Muslims -- are the ones with the most to lose by the fundamentalist society Muslims seek to impose by force. Few people are more secular in their lifestyles and attitudes than liberals and Democrats. (And I'm all for being secular, by the way.) So why is it so important to liberals that Islam, with all its intolerance, be allowed to impose its will without restraint or even question?
Inconsistency and self-hatred on such a scale, as liberal excuse-making for fundamentalist Islam, is too sick and twisted for even a psychologist to further contemplate.
The Shocking Truth about Lowe's and All American Muslim
by Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack
So you're watching a soccer game in Dearborn, Michigan between Al-Tadamun and Chelsea, a game that was advertised in public leaflets and on the Arab American website; it was dedicated to something termed, “The Day of Jerusalem.” The thought of incorporating such a slogan into promotional material about a sporting event puzzles you. What is this “Day of Jerusalem” all about? Later, you discover that the game was hosted by Husham Alhusayni – the main spiritual leader of the Karbala Center in Dearborn – who was thanked by Samir Al-Jabiri and Muhammad Alhasayni who said the victory was “dedicated to honor the souls of the martyrs of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa...”
These are clearly terrorists who murder civilians; such a dedication should spawn outrage but it did not.
The sound of silence in response to such a thing echoed throughout Dearborn's Muslim community. Why did no one object to such hatred, religious bigotry and open support for terrorism?
Husham Alhusayni is not just the imam at Dearborn's Karbala Center; he is also featured in All American Muslim, which airs on The Learning Channel (TLC). In the program, Alhusayni is seen presiding over marriages within Muslim families in Dearborn, whose day-to-day lives are portrayed as they interact in English.
When Sean Hannity attempted to extract a confession from Alhusayni, the double speaking slick-Willy, Alhusayni, repeatedly refused to denounce Hezbollah. Americans were left to wonder if he had decided to plead the fifth, which involves no incrimination. Conversely, when people like Alhusayni have their Arabic translated into English, those same Americans are struck with both shock and awe. Open declarations of public support for Hezbollah to millions is given but is done so in Arabic, of course.
Alhusayni is a signatory to the Jerusalem Document of 2009, which reads more like Mein Kampf. It refers to the war on Zionism as a war between “good and evil.” Zionism is considered an “aggression” that is infecting “the entire human race.” Muslims are told to “get ready for the holy Jihad.”
If one is inclined to believe this is the “struggle within” version of Jihad, the reading of the following phrase after translation should prompt a re-evaluation:
“We remind our sons to get ready to carry out their duty in Holy Jihad and continue the path which our young valiant men in Hezbollah began in Southern Lebanon.”
This message was not given to Muslims in Lebanon but is “essential for the Iraqi community living in the Diaspora,” which includes Dearborn. Several of the top Muslim leaders in the US endorsed this document, like Fadel Al-Sahlani, the official representative of Iraq’s leading Shia religious authority and Muhammad Zaki al-Souajh who was the leading imam of the Muslim community in Houston, Texas for several years, as well as Murtada Qazwini.
It is not just about the dog which the Catholic convert to Islam in All American Muslim had to get rid of because his new Muslim family could not tolerate dogs, which are considered unclean in the Islamic culture; the document also refers to completely ridding the world of Zionism:
“The struggle between good and evil is not measured by a generation. It does not circulate on a specific land. Jerusalem is an Islamic destiny that stems from ancient history into the future indebted to 1/5 of humanity. What it suffers from Zionist aggression does not only encompass the Palestinian borders but the entire human race. It is time for the nations concerned which have influence, that is the US and all its allies, to reconsider their position regarding Zionist aggression.”
The cancer of Zionism does not only concentrate on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but is considered an infection within “the entire human race.”
If Americans question my translation from Arabic, they can watch for themselves as the All American Muslim Alhusayni lets a few words slip in English (watch 9:24 mark) while appearing to make the point that evil exists in “every nationality” before speaking broadly about the Zionists and equating them with Timothy McVeigh and Jeffrey Dahmer:
“In America, there is Timothy McVeigh... he's evil. Jeffrey Dahmer... he cut the heads off of children and put it in the refrigerator... he's a criminal. Saddam, he's a criminal, killing innocent people. So many Zionists in Palestine, killing innocent people.”
Perhaps a nuanced show consisting of the real American Muslim at the Karbala Center would have provided a more accurate portrayal of beliefs – political aspirations and all – including the all black cloaks that cover each woman entirely, save for a small portion of the face—a far cry from the decorative attire that appears on the television show. I would certainly not object if the show included the photos taken inside the center with men participating in self-flagellation (video here and here) repetitively whipping and scourging themselves with self-inflicted abuse to memorialize the killing of the Prophet Muhammad's grandson, Imam Hussein by the Sunni Muslims.
What they do not tell you on the show is that most of these Muslim families are primarily of the Shia sect. Indeed, these individuals denounce Al-Qaeda, not primarily for carrying out 9/11 but for its connection to Saudi Wahhabists, who were behind destroying Shia national monuments in Samarra.
Americans do not understand the link and this is why Al-Husayni speaks against the Wahhabists for being the instrument of terrorism “against the Shia.” He iscontinually seen (see 6:50) identifying Al-Saud as a “shame to the world,” and“Arabs are Kaffirs,” referring to them as “the residue of Zionism who rejects the birth of Jesus and the awaited Mahdi.”
Am I saying that all Muslims and Arabs practice doublespeak and have an agenda? Hardly. Nadia Mahdeed from AlSharq Al-Awsat (Middle East News) entered the Karbala Center to interview Alhusayni; she was struck by how many people approached her for not adhering to the dress code:
"I was not wearing a black sheet that women who came to prayer are supposed to wear.”
Mahdeed then relayed what she was told by worshippers:
“The people who came to pray all told me that they have no trust in America. I am amazed since they all enjoyed living in it.”
When she interviewed Alhusayni, she said to him:
“Your followers insisted I mention to you that they hate Saddam Hussein but that they also have no trust in America.”
Alhusayni, a master of political rhetoric, cleverly replied by adding the word ‘policy,’ thereby softening the claim:
“Not many of us trust in the American policy.”
Indeed, doublespeak artists live by double standards. As if underscoring the reality that Alhusayni only wanted to convey a peaceful perception while seeming to support something else entirely, the conflict between the two was not lost on Mahdeed:
“Despite his gracefulness, when I walked out of there, my mind was charged with the slogans of war, not the tranquility of peace that is supposed to exist inside such a place.”
Lowe's Home Improvement, which has found itself at the center of controversy for pulling its advertising from All American Muslim, is right; it is behaving as Americans ought to, engaged in a righteous struggle with the outcries of so-called All American Muslims unleashing their only sanctioned dog—CAIR. The Council of American Islamic Relations swiftly acted as the Muslim ACLU, barking out attacks of “racism” and “bigotry” with threats from Rep. Chris Murphy D-CT indicating he and other House members would be sending a letter to Lowe’s on the issue.
Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer (CA), Chuck Shumer (NY) and Dick Durbin (IL), hardly right-wing hawks, all have said that CAIR is closely connected to terrorism.
So is Alhusayni of TLC's All American Muslim.
All-American Muslim: Religion of Protest
By Daniel Greenfield
Obama’s attitude shows the paradoxical attitude of liberals to All-American Muslim. They want to see a show like it exist, but they just don’t want to watch it. For week after week, Front Page Magazine has been the only site covering All-American Muslim. The media outlets that kicked into hysterical witch hunt mode last week after Lowe’s pulled its ads from the failing, viewer-deprived series never actually bothered to tune in to the show.
The liberal attitude toward All-American Muslim reveals something darker about their exploitation of Muslims. They are only truly interested in them when they can use them as a cudgel or as a badge of tolerance. After a single episode of All-American Muslim their tolerance was affirmed and they were free to go back to watching Homeland, a show that tries to marry the political incorrectness of Islamic terrorism and a politically correct insistence on exploring its ambiguities. It was only when Lowe’s was targeted for pulling its ads that they suddenly became interested in the show again; not the actual show, but the idea of the show as a “tolerance test.”
At the Washington Post an editorial suggests that “All-American Muslim fans” should invade Lowe’s with signs protesting against the home shopping giant. But how many of those fans are there? The series has fallen out of the Top 100 cable shows for two weeks running. It was the lowest-rated series even before that. But the editorial highlights the problem. Liberals are only interested in Muslims as a means of fighting a culture war against the bogeymen of American “intolerance.” All-American Muslim isn’t interesting to them except as a vehicle for another protest movement.
The left needs an “Other” to justify its war against American traditions and values. Muslims conveniently provide that “Other,” a role that they began to fill after September 11. Even as the left denounces the right for “Otherizing” Muslims and associating them with terrorism, it is the left that is truly guilty of it. If the attacks of September 11 had never taken place and the War on Terror had not followed, then the left would have as much interest in Muslims as they do in Hindus or Baha’i or any number of other world religions.
All-American Muslim has included the usual complaints about prejudice and discrimination, but not nearly enough of it to interest the left, which doesn’t want to hear a lot talk about the virtues of the hijab; they want to see men driving pickup trucks with confederate flags on them shouting at women wearing hijabs. They don’t really want to see a show about Muslims, any kind of Muslims, they want to see a show about how awful Americans are.
That is why All-American Muslim truly failed. But its failure is reviving its purpose. The Jihad against Lowe’s reminds liberals of why they were interested in the show, not for its content, but as a cause for another round of the culture war. Probably the only honest corporate response to All-American Muslim came from KAYAK’s CEO who explained why his company was pulling its ads from the series by saying, “I watched the first two episodes. Mostly, I just thought the show sucked.” And it does.
Astoundingly few media outlets can admit something so simple as that. They would rather ignore the show except when it’s a convenient way of picking a fight. But admitting that All-American Muslim isn’t very good requires being critical of something involving Muslims, even if it is something as a minor as a television show. And that is something they simply cannot and will not do.
Sunday’s episode, “A Chance at Redemption,” continues cribbing from “Fordson: Faith, Fasting and Football,” the documentary on the Fordson High School football team. It’s material that the show returns to often because it’s the only part of the narrative that goes anywhere. And yet at a time when Tim Tebow is being widely ridiculed for his religion, it’s surreal to watch a celebration of Islamic religion interlaced with football. If it’s somehow wrong for Tim Tebow to combine religion and football, why celebrate the Islamic version of Tebowing at Fordson High?
The entire existence of All-American Muslim is a testament to the fact that some religions can be promoted more than others. A show following around Christian football players that was as enthusiastic about its subjects as All-American Muslim is about its team is all but inconceivable on TLC or anywhere else. But All-American Muslim’s football players face no such obstacles. It is enough to make you wonder who the real victims of discrimination are when Christians get “Jesus Camp” while Muslims get “All-American Muslim.”
All-American Muslim is a conscious case study in the politicization of religion, but to what end? The underlying premise of All-American Muslim has always been that Muslims are the victims of ignorance and discrimination. But the dangerous question is: are they really the victims and, if so, whose victims are they?
The Muslims of All-American Muslims are certainly not the members of an underclass. They are successful members of their community who nonetheless make their token complaints about being discriminated against. They are the stars of a television series that failed on its merits but is being deluged with advertising dollars from advertisers who want to show off their tolerance. They are privileged. But that privilege is also a double-edged sword.
The left doesn’t need All-American Muslims, it needs marginalized Muslims, it needs suicide bombers and protesters. It needs people who are being oppressed and whose physical violence can justify their political activism. In return for privilege, Muslims act out the role of the oppressed, but the act is unconvincing. As All-American Muslim passes its sixth episode, its continuing existence despite its poor ratings and the firestorm of controversy aimed at advertisers who dared to pull out of the series is a testament to the privileged status of the All-American Muslim.
No comments:
Post a Comment