A Justified Intolerance of Islam

islam-0

Progressives and liberals do not tolerate beliefs or actions they consider unjust, yet they demand conservatives do so.  Nearly every criticism of Islam is met with a chorus of condemnation from Democrats (and distress from some Republican “moderates”).  This is not only wrong, but highly irresponsible.

Opposition to Islam is no different than opposition to communism, or fascism, or any other belief system that seeks to control human conduct.  Every American (indeed, every human being on Earth) has basic human rights — the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property — and every belief system with principles that violate these rights is unjust.  In short, anti-communism, anti-fascism, and anti-Islam are the logical, fact-based positions for every rational person seeking justice, whether in America or anywhere else in the world.

Nevertheless, Progressives and liberals personally attack the critics of Islam, vilify them, and falsely accuse them of “Islamophobia.”  Clearly, this accusation is nonsense.  Opposition to the beliefs held by an individual or group is not a phobia, nor is opposition to the actions of an individual or group, including the customs followed by people.

Progressives and liberals, though, insist that opposition to Islam is based on fear, or hate, or both.  Again, this is nonsense.  Opposition to Islam is based on knowledge, not fear or hate.

Ultimately, claiming that people who oppose Islam are “Islamophobic” is as ridiculous as claiming that people who oppose Marxism and Nazism are “Marxophobic” and “Nazophobic.”

Now, while many Progressives and liberals refuse to address the legitimate reasons why people oppose Islam, some take a different approach; basically, they acknowledge the dangers and injustices of Islam, but they also invoke the Protestant Reformation that occurred in the 16th century, and they argue that people in the West must wait — however long it takes — for some version of an Islamic reformation.  But this argument is false on many points; two in particular.

First.  The Protestant Reformation was marked by a rejection of relatively newdevelopments in Christianity; it did not involve a reinterpretation of Christ’s teachings.

Second.  The central text of Islam, the Koran, claims to be the final word of god.  So, while some Muslims have been trying for years to reinterpret the Koran and “reform” Islam, true believers have never and will never accept such a change because it would represent a rejection of their god.

The Koran simply cannot have a single error and still honestly be called the word of god, and the Koran’s original meaning (which also was its continued meaning, for century after century) cannot be erroneous, if Islam is true.  To clarify, Islam has always held that an angel (Gabriel) revealed the word of god (the Koran) to a prophet (Muhammad).  And indisputably, god would not have allowed either the angel or the prophet to make a mistake and then — in the name of god — spread a false message to the people of the world.

Notably, Christianity does not have this burden.  For example, the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) as written have been dated many decades after Christ’s resurrection, and none of the authors were prophets.  Therefore, for the sake of argument, it logically is possible for a Christian to believe that some of the specifics in the various Christian texts (written by men and not finally agreed upon by the church until centuries later) could be erroneous, while still believing (like the earliest Christians) that Christ is the Lord.

As for Islam, the Koran instructs Muslims to violate the most basic of human rights.  For example, among other things, the Koran instructs men to hit women, and not in the context of self-defense only when necessary, but merely for disobedience.  (See Koran 4:34.)  Additionally, Sharia law — derived from the Koran (and from the words and conduct of Muhammad) — imposes severe injustices.

With regard to relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, the Koran instructs Muslims to engage in jihad, which imposes a duty to fight nonbelievers (see Koran 2:216; 4:76; 9:5), and to continue fighting until Islam is supreme (see Koran 8:39; 9:29; 61:9).  Consequently, after the Koran was revealed in the 7th century, Muslims spread Islam with violence — by waging “holy war” against nonbelievers — throughout the Middle East, northern Africa, and southern Europe.  (For holy war, see Sahih Muslim 19:4294 and Sahih al-Bukhari 53:392.)

Furthermore, the Koran promises Muslims eternal paradise for killing, and being killed, in the fight against nonbelievers for Islamic supremacy.  (See Koran 9:111.)  This promise is a key source of the Islamic terrorism plaguing the world today.  Essentially, these Muslims are waging holy war against the United States and other nations in the 21st century, and they are doing so following the Koran as it had originally been interpreted by Muslims in the 7th century.

There was a time when some on the political left understood the dangers of Islam.  For example, Samuel P. Huntington, a highly-respected political scientist and lifelong Democrat, served in the administration of President Jimmy Carter.  In his 1996 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Huntington wrote, “Some Westerners, including President Bill Clinton, have argued that the West does not have problems with Islam but only with violent Islamic extremists.  Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise.”  He added, “The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism.  It is Islam.”  And he concluded, “Wherever one looks along the perimeter of Islam [Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa], Muslims have problems living peaceably with their neighbors.”

In the years since Huntington provided the West with that warning, the situation has become even worse, especially in Europe.

Unfortunately, the current Progressive-liberal positions on Islam are not based on reality.  History has shown that when people wait too long before facing unpleasant facts, the consequences are deadly.  In the 1930s, as the Nazis in Germany were preparing for conquest, the leaders in the United Kingdom and France adopted policies of appeasement, based on their hope for peace and their belief that confrontation would provoke the fascists into committing further injustices.  One voice of reason, Winston Churchill, repeatedly spoke in favor of the United Kingdom taking strong measures to counter the dangers of fascism.  For several years, though, Churchill was denounced by the political establishment, the media, and the public.  However, time proved Churchill right and his detractors wrong.

A key lesson from history for dealing with an unjust belief system like communism, fascism, or Islam is the importance of describing the system with complete honesty and developing policies based on that honest description.  During the Cold War, roughly one-third of the world was communist, yet that did not stop Ronald Reagan from labeling communism a disease, and then as president, labeling the Soviet Union an evil empire.  Reagan was denounced by Progressives and liberals who claimed that such comments were endangering America by making communists more hostile than ever.

Today, when attacking the critics of Islam, Progressives and liberals are using (with slight variations) many of the arguments that were used against Churchill and Reagan.  Moreover, President Trump’s efforts to date have been met with protests and the use of slogans like “hope over fear” and “love trumps hate.”  But hope is not a policy.  Neither is love.  And to repeat, opposition to Islam is based on knowledge, not fear or hate.

The clock is running; the time to accurately describe Islam and develop policies accordingly is long overdue.

Paul Pauker is the author of Morality and Law in America. He also runs asite dedicated to advancing the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

The Muslim Face of the New Democratic Party

keith-ellison-1

Blacks, women, Millennials – liberals in each sub-group are now led by an uncompromising cadre of the hard left, who through their “mass actions” are attempting to turn the country against Donald Trump and brand him an illegitimate president.

Most Americans are concerned about unvetted refugees from jihadi countries.  Those who are Democrats have no say in their party anymore.  Obama yanked the party hard left.  He personally championed the jihadi movement, be it by trying to install the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or giving the pariah state Iran billions of dollars and the obsequious Iran deal.

Obama’s legacy: Hard-left Muslim-Americans are rising to positions of prominence in the Democrats’ grassroots organizations.  This alliance between Western socialists and Islamists dates back to the Cold War, but it has gained traction in America since 9/11.

One case, among countless others: The anti-Trump women’s march was co-led by an Islamist in a hijab.  It is well worth reading the front-page exposé on Linda Sarsour, because she is a leader of so many of the causes that Obama promoted as president: Occupy Wall St., BDS, Black Lives Matter, the Muslim Brotherhood.

After 9/11, Sarsour rose in power by promoting the jihadi fiction of “Islamophobia.”  The Democratic Party uses this accusation to fight Republican national security measures and accord itself unmerited moral superiority.

Sarsour’s Islamic group was a big success.  It prevented the New York Police Department from conducting surveillance of Muslim groups and mosques the police suspected of promoting terrorism.

For her work, Ms. Sarsour was honored by President Obama as a “White House Champion of Change” and was invited to the White House seven times.  She was a delegate to the Democrat National Convention.

Sarsour is a radical Palestinian who supports international terrorism and the destruction of Israel.  There are photos of her on the web flashing the ISIS sign.

Sarsour is, as the New York Times puts it, “deeply involved in the Black Lives Matter movement,” a movement founded by three self-identified Marxist revolutionaries who revere the convicted cop-killer and longtime Marxist fugitive Assata Shakur.

Sarsour supports sharia law in America.

You’ll know when you’re living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound [sic] nice, doesn’t it?

There are outstanding Arab-American women fighting the jihadi threat here at home, having suffered firsthand from Muslim barbarism in their native countries.  Most prominent are Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brigitte Gabriel.  President Obama and the Democrats consider them enemies.

Here is a tweet from Obama’s White House Champion to these moderate Muslim women:

Sarsour’s attack was especially cruel because in her memoir, Infidel: My Life, Ali describes how her grandmother, against her parents’ wishes, cut off her clitoris and sewed her vagina shut.  Somali culture requires that girls be maimed so that their vaginas appear smooth as the palm of your hand.  (This horror is being done, as you read this, here in the good old U.S. of A, by Somali and other African- and Arab-Americans.  Shame on us for not stopping it.)  Brigitte Gabriel is a Christian Lebanese, whose life story, told in Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America, made me think of an Anne Frank who survived.

Ali finally had an opportunity to respond [on Fox.] … [S]he slammed Sarsour’s “fake” feminism and asked why these women at the march haven’t activated to march against “mass rape,” attacks on religious minority Yazidi women, mass gendercide in China or for the victims of FGM [female genital mutilation], which she rightfully categorized as being part of the “real war on women.”

According to an American researcher in Cairo, Cheri Beren, there were 100Muslim Brotherhood front groups who took part in the Women’s March.

Cheri Berens describes the scene in a coffee shop in Cairo, staying up all night to watch Trump’s inauguration and the Democrats’ post-inauguration protest – as did thousands of Egyptians.  She writes a fascinating account on her blog:

The coffee shop roared loudly with cheers when Trump said “radical Islam will be eradicated from the planet”. We here in Egypt have experienced many terror attacks and all of us have experienced the death of a friend or family member … who fight ISIS[.]

On the third night … we sat in silence and horror[.] …

[W]e saw protesters smashing windows and torching cars.

Hushed murmuring began around me as every single Egyptian in the coffee shop could be heard saying the words: “Muslim Brotherhood”. …

Then on the TV we began to see video of the “Women’s March”.

The entire coffee shop gasped in disbelief at the vision of American women donning the headscarf. And worse, some of the headscarves were made of the American flag. …

The women in the coffee shop began to get visibly agitated. …

“The headscarf will take your rights!” one woman shouted at the TV.

Democrat champion Linda Sarsour is not a fluke.  She did not sneak into the White House or get placed on the podium of the Women’s March by mistake.  The Democratic Party rejects moderate Muslims and is happy to ally itself with Muslim-American radicals.

Calling President Trump, and all Republicans, racist and Islamophobic has become a central weapon for Democrats on campuses and among coastal and media elites.  This is the political context for the extraordinary – some would say extralegal – decision of two liberal West Coast courts to bar our president from regulating immigration to protect our national security.

The new head of the DNC is likely to be Keith Ellison, another anti-Semitic Muslim who supports cop-killers and is funded by Muslim Brotherhood groups.

Linda Sarsour is the face of Barack Obama’s new Democrats.  Expect to see more of her and others like her.  She is one of many.

President Trump Should Reject The Failed Peace Process

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

President Trump has made a lot of bold moves in his first few weeks in office. Judged by the mainstream media’s lies, fake news, distortions, and hysteria, his executive actions on immigration, oil pipelines, rolling back federal regulations, and firing an insubordinate acting Attorney General are on the money. But a few of his foreign policy moves are questionable.

Most troubling is the statement on Israel’s announcement about new settlements. “While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal.”

This Delphic announcement has provoked differing interpretations. On the one hand, it correctly rejects the false global consensus that peace would break out in the region if only Israelis stopped building “illegal settlements” on “occupied territory.” On the other, the White House repeats the hoary cliché that settlement construction isn’t “helpful in achieving” peace, implying that settlement developed should be slowed or halted. The statement may just be diplomatic triangulation, an attempt to assure both Israelis and their enemies while the president determines a new approach. But Trump’s repeated statements about forging “peace” between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs suggest he may be trapped by long-exploded assumptions about the crisis, at a time when what we need are blunt truth and decisive action instead of more failed diplomacy.

Take the incoherence of the statement. If “settlements” are not an “impediment” to peace, then how exactly can they “not be helpful”? Because they anger the Arabs and Israel’s other enemies? To think this is to validate the Arabs’ duplicitous pretexts for violence, and to appease their irrational passions––approaches that have distorted our policies in the region for seven decades. And it takes at face value the false assumptions that all the Palestinian Arabs want is their own nation and self-determination, and that their violence and murder are understandable reactions to Israeli intransigence.

But the Palestinian Arabs have rejected multiple opportunities to achieve their own state, starting in 1947-48 when they answered the offer of a nation with a war on Israel that killed 20,000 Israelis. They answered the Oslo Accords of 1993, a framework for creating a Palestinian state, with continued PA corruption and terrorist violence that killed 269 Israeli civilians and soldiers in seven years. In 2000, Arafat rejected Bill Clinton’s plan, and followed up with terrorist attacks that by 2013 had killed 1,227 Israelis. In 2008 Ehud Olmert offered “moderate” Palestinian honcho Mahmoud Abbas another state comprising 97% of the disputed territories, and once again Israel was rebuffed and subject to even more terrorist murder. And for all that time the PA has continued to incite violence against Jews, reward the families of murderers, and brainwash children with virulent Jew-hatred.

The historical pattern is clear: when offered a state, the Arabs respond by killing Jews. To paraphrase Einstein, repeating the same failed policies over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of foreign policy insanity.

Clinging to the “two states living side by side in peace” wishful thinking obscures other clear evidence that the Palestinian Arabs prefer killing Jews to building a viable state.  Why, after billions in foreign aid––eleven times more per capita than eight other poorer countries that receive foreign aid––have the Palestinian Arabs not used that bounty to build economic and government institutions? Could it be because in its 2016 budget, the Palestinian Authority paid more than 500 full-time government functionaries to oversee stipends for the families of dead terrorists, spending $315 million, one-eighth of its GDP, to reward murder? Why does this imagined Palestinian state have to be ethnically cleansed of all Jews, when 1.4 million Arabs live as citizens of Israel? How come the holiest site in Judaism, the Temple Mount, has to remain under the control of the descendants of conquerors and occupiers? Why should Jerusalem, for 3000 years the center of Jewish history and faith, be shared with these same scions of imperialists and colonists?

And don’t forget, Israel has already gone down the road of “land for peace.” In 2005 it evacuated 8,500 Israelis from Gaza and turned it over to the terrorist Hamas regime. Instead of building a functioning state, Hamas has spent its money on building tunnels for infiltrating Israel to commit terrorist attacks and kidnap Israelis, and on buying rockets and mortars, 15,000 of which it has rained down indiscriminately on Israeli civilians. Why would Israelis even think about giving Judea and Samaria to an enemy whose missiles and rockets could reach every square foot of Israel? No nation in the world would make such a suicidal concession.

The dominant narrative of “land for peace” and “two-state solution” is dead, kept on life-support by the endless kabuki theater of “diplomatic engagement” intended to avoid meaningful action, or to undermine a vibrant democracy that is ruled by law and recognizes human rights. So what should Trump do?

Announce that the old “peace process” is dead. No more complaints about “settlements,” no more “shuttle diplomacy,” no more “special envoys,” no more “summits” or “conferences” that bestow international prestige on corrupt thugs and inciters of terror. Tell the Palestinian gangster regime it will not receive one more dime of U.S. taxpayer money, whether through direct payments––$5 billion since the mid-nineties––or through international agencies like the corrupt United Nations Relief Works Agency, to which the U.S. contributed more than $350 million in 2015. Tell the U.N. that the U.S. will withdraw completely and withhold funds from the anti-Semitic U.N. Human Rights Council. Make it clear that an attack on Israel will be considered an attack on the U.S., to be met with the full force of American military power. And back it all up with military deeds the next time Hamas or Hezbollah starts firing rockets or mortars into Israel.

Of course the State Department will squeal, the Europeans will fret over lost business deals and their own volatile Muslim immigrants, and the Arab world will issue condemnations filled with blustering vocatives. Chin-tugging foreign-policy clerks will recycle received wisdom, false assumptions, and tired clichés. They should all be ignored. For the simple fact is, there will be no peace for Israel, no “two-state solution,” because Israel’s enemies want to destroy it, not live side-by-side with it. And they want to destroy it because its existence is an affront to Allah and the faithful, whose prophet beheaded 600-900 Jews after the Battle of the Trench in 627, and whose Koran calls Jews apes and pigs.

The so-called “international community,” and too often the U.S. as well, has enabled this faith-based revanchism for seven decades. Rather than continuing the failed policies that reward the murders of our allies and harm our national interests, it’s time to face reality with bold words and bolder deeds.

Share

The Supreme Council of Cyberspace

%d bloggers like this: