Tag Archives: Liberals

Islamic Carnage and 12 Kinds of Liberal Complicity

The liberal position on Islamic terrorism, unchallenged by the media, and shared not only by most on the political left but also by some on the right (including Republican “moderates”), relies on the following arguments:

1. Islam (as practiced by the vast majority of Muslims) is a peaceful religion.

This is a logical fallacy, known as missing the point.  Basically, even if correct, this conclusion is completely irrelevant because it fails to address the actual issues.  Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if 99 percent of the world’s (estimated) 1.8 billion Muslims opposed acts of terrorism committed in the name of Islam, there still would be (approximately) 18 million Muslims who supported terrorism.  And in reality, the number is much higher; reputable polls have repeatedly shown that 10 percent to 40 percent of Muslims from various nations in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa support terrorism.  In the United States, nearly 10 percent of Muslims have consistently said that suicide bombings against civilians are justified “often” or “sometimes.”

2. Islamic terrorists are reinterpreting the Koran.

This is demonstrably incorrect.  The Koran not only instructs Muslims to engage in Jihad and fight nonbelievers until Islam is supreme, but also promises eternal paradise to Muslims for killing, and being killed, in this fight.  Therefore, after the Koran was revealed in the 7th century, Muslims waged “holy war” against nonbelievers, spreading Islam — with violence — across the Middle East, northern Africa, and southern Europe.  In short, the Muslims (and particularly the Islamic terrorists) who are waging holy war against the United States and other nations today are following the Koran according to both its literal interpretation and its original interpretation by Muslims in the 7th century.  (For fighting nonbelievers, see Koran 2:216; 4:76; 9:5.  For Islamic supremacy, see Koran 8:39; 9:29; 61:9.  For eternal paradise, see Koran 9:111.  For holy war, see Sahih Muslim 19:4294; Sahih al-Bukhari 53:392.)

3. Like the Koran, the Bible also contains violent passages.

This is a false analogy.  To repeat, the Koran (specifically, Allah, the god of Islam) instructs Muslims to fight nonbelievers until Islam is supreme; the instructions apply to past, present, and future Muslims.  The Bible simply does not contain any comparable instructions to present or future Christians; the Koran’s timeless instructions to Muslims are fundamentally different from the Bible’s description of events where people (Israelites) of a past era, under the command of God, engaged in violence, or where God (in judgment of people) inflicts or threatens violence.

4. Like Muslims, Christians also have engaged in violence.

This is another false analogy.  Again, the Muslims who are committing acts of violence in the name of Islam are interpreting passages of the Koran (instructions from Allah) according to both their literal and original meanings.  In contrast, Christians who committed acts of violence in the name of Christianity disregarded the words of Christ; both their literal and original meanings.  The early Muslims engaged in violence, spreading Islam by attacking non-Muslims, whereas the early Christians endured violence, including being thrown to the beasts (wild animals) by non-Christians (Romans).

5. Like the Islamic world, the West also has produced terrorists, including the United States, which has produced domestic terrorists (both left wing and right wing).

This is a “red herring,” a separate argument that liberals introduce to divert attention from the actual issues.  Among other things, domestic terrorists from any one nation, by definition, are only a threat to the people in that nation, whereas Islamic terrorists are posing a threat to the people in many nations.  Therefore, domestic terrorism in one nation does not require a response by any other nation, whereas Islamic terrorism requires a response by many nations.  Additionally, as a result of the decades-long influx of Muslim immigrants and refugees to non-Muslim nations, Islamic terrorists are increasingly also domestic terrorists in non-Muslim nations.  Yet liberals support policies (such as continuing to accept immigrants and refugees from Muslim nations) that prevent the United States, and Western nations in general, from effectively dealing with the Islamic threat.

6. An underlying cause of terrorism is the failure of Muslim nations to provide Muslim youth with alternatives to Islamic groups like al Qaeda and ISIS.

This is an unfounded assertion.  The premise is that certain factors in Muslim nations (such as poverty, injustice, and instability) are root causes of Islamic terrorism.  However, in other regions of the world, non-Muslims also live under these kinds of severe conditions, and they have not responded with this kind of terrorism.  Ultimately, the Koran, the collections of hadith (the reported words and conduct of Muhammad, the last prophet of Islam), and Islamic history are the root causes of Muslims waging holy war against nonbelievers today in what is a timeless struggle to make Islam supreme.

7. Another underlying cause of terrorism is the use of military force by Western nations in the Middle East and northern Africa.

This is a classic example of a “half-truth.”  Indisputably, there have been, and still are, Muslims motivated by the actions of the West, but this is a secondary, not underlying, cause of Islamic terrorism, which is a crucial difference.  With regard to policy, the West cannot successfully use military force to change people who have resisted change for over a thousand years, but the West can successfully use military force, in targeted operations, when necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks.  Nevertheless, there is a lack of consensus among both the political left and right on when military force is necessary; most recently, some opposed, while others supported, the use of military force by the West in Syria.  Furthermore, even the use of military force, limited to targeted operations, only when necessary, will still provoke Muslims.  Every possible course of action or nonaction by the West will have consequences, and liberals offer criticisms, not solutions.

8. Yet another underlying cause of terrorism is the failure of Western nations in Europe to provide social and economic opportunities to Muslim immigrants, refugees, and their descendants.

This is pure speculation.  The facts tell a different story.  In Europe, large blocs of Muslims, concentrated in cities, have chosen to isolate themselves, by refusing to adopt their European nation’s culture, and instead adhering to Islamic culture.  In the end, the main problem is that many practices and principles of Islam are incompatible with Western civilization.

9. The threat of terrorism increases when Western nations implement policies that are directed at Muslims.

This is a revealing assertion.  The premise is that certain policies (such as the surveillance of activities at mosques, the enhanced screening of Muslims at airports, or a travel ban on foreigners arriving from Muslim nations) incite, or will incite, so-called “moderate” Muslims to join Islamic groups like al Qaeda and ISIS.  But what type of person (moderate person, no less) can be incited by such policies to savagely attack other human beings?  The answer, following liberal reasoning, is a person already predisposed to violence; namely, a moderate Muslim.

10. Opposition to Islam is based on fear and hate; the individuals who oppose immigration from Muslim nations or who oppose accepting refugees are Islamophobic.

This is a blatant lie that also employs a personal attack.  Like opposition to communism and fascism, opposition to Islam is based on knowledge, not fear or hate; like communism and fascism, Islam is a belief system with principles that violate the rights of individuals.  Opposition to the beliefs and actions of an individual or group is not a phobia; such opposition is legitimate.

11. We cannot allow the terrorists to divide us.

This is a raw appeal to emotion.  If worded honestly, this statement would assert, “We cannot allow the terrorists to wake the public up to either the dangers or injustices of multiculturalism.”  Essentially, what liberals want is for people from all cultures and regions of world, no matter how incompatible their belief systems, to live together, in the same nation, right now.  And if the result is carnage, so be it.  The slaughter of civilians, including children, by Muslim immigrants, refugees, or their descendants is a price that liberals are willing to pay: a sacrifice at the altar of multiculturalism, faithfully suffered in the name of such ideological concepts as diversity, openness, and tolerance.

12. The terrorists will never win; our values and our way of life will prevail.

This is rhetoric.  Often, when used by politicians, “our values” means, first and foremost, the liberal value of multiculturalism, and “our way of life” means aliberal way of life in a multicultural society.  Indeed, the way of life enjoyed in the West since the close of World War II has already deteriorated in sections (controversially described as “no-go zones“) of numerous cities in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, and other European nations, while politicians have been working to lull the public into a passive acceptance of this (entirely avoidable) decline, by saying things like terrorism will be “part of our daily lives” and “we should learn to live with terrorism.” And in the United States, the federal government’s policies of the last several decades, especially on immigration and refugees, have the American way of life set on this same downward course.

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.


Celebrating French Dhimmitude at the New York Times



1348425635-hardline-islamists-protest-outside-the-french-embassy-in-london_1467284Last week, under the headline “A French Town Bridges the Gap Between Muslims and Non-Muslims,” New York Times reporter Alissa J. Rubin celebrated what she depicted as the multicultural harmony of Roubaix, a heavily Muslim burg in northeastern France. Muslims, she raved, “feel at home here,” largely because Roubaix “has made a point of embracing its Muslim population, proportionately one of the largest in the country.”

This deliberate “embrace” of Muslims, Rubin explained, distinguishes Roubaix from other French municipalities, where, she maintained, Muslims are systematically made to feel like “outsiders” by bigoted natives. (At the Times, of course, the only problem relating to Muslims in Europe is Islamophobia.) In France, Rubin lamented, anti-Muslim crimes have “increased 28 percent this year.” (There was no mention – surprise! – of crimes committed by Muslims, which vastly outnumber those committed against Muslims and have turned more and more French neighborhoods into no-go zones.)

Okay, so how has Roubaix succeeded in not alienating its Muslims? By breaking, Rubin said, “with a rigid interpretation of the country’s state secularism” and promoting “an active Muslim community.” Meaning what, exactly? Well, things like this: the town hospital has a Muslim chaplain; the mayor’s office helps Muslims find places to worship. Then there’s the town’s “consortium” – an official board whose members, representing various religious constituencies, try to figure out how “to respond to the needs of different groups.”

And that was about it. Rubin’s piece was bafflingly short on convincing details illustrative of Roubaix’s Muslim “embrace.” But whatever Rubin was praising, her bottom line was clear: Roubaix should be a role model for other French towns and cities. “Roubaix is a cradle…Roubaix is representative of living in harmony,” a Muslim activist told her. A mayoral spokesman called the town “a laboratory.” And Farid Gacem, the full-bearded, jellaba-wearing president of Roubaix’s Abu Bakr Mosque, pronounced that he was “comfortable in these clothes here in Roubaix.” Rubin concluded by introducing us to Josiane Derenoncourt, a French widow who long ago “converted informally” from Christianity to Islam, her late husband’s faith. “Is she Christian or Muslim?” asked Rubin, who answered her own question: “In this corner of France, she can be both.”

Thus ended Rubin’s piece – with the absurd claim that in a town that “embraces” its Muslim population, a person can somehow be both Christian and Muslim at once. Does Rubin really not know that for a Muslim to call himself a Christian amounts to apostasy, and that Islam regards apostasy as a capital crime? Does she realize that untold numbers of Muslim-born individuals throughout the Islamic world are executed annually for saying that they’re now something other than 100% Muslim? Or can it be that she’s fully aware of this fact, and is simply hoping that her readers will be unaware of it, so that they’ll buy her pretty – but preposterous – picture?

Does Rubin not know – or does she know, but not want us to know? This, as it happens, is the question one keeps asking throughout Rubin’s piece, almost every sentence of which is the product of either wholesale dishonesty or thoroughgoing ignorance. But which? Does Rubin know, for example, that Islamic militants in France call Roubaix “le beau jardin de l’islamo-gauchisme” – “the beautiful garden of Islamo-leftism”? Or did she leave that out on purpose? Does she know that as long ago as 2003, it was an established fact that the town’s Dawa Mosque is run by Salafists? Is she aware that, as I wrote in my 2006 book While Europe Slept, a public official once “met with an imam at the edge of Roubaix’s Muslim district out of respect for his declaration of the neighborhood as Islamic territory to which she had no right of access”?

The list goes on. Does Rubin know that, in partnership with the town government and with a Palestinian “charity,” the Roubaix Association of Encounter and Dialogue (ARD) – which would appear to be the “consortium” Rubin praises as central to the town’s successful multiculturalism – solicited donations in 2006 for “Palestinian orphans” who turned out to be the children of shahid (i.e. suicide bombers)? Does she know that that fundraising campaign was part of a broader venture run by radical cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and that the donations were channeled to Hamas? Does she know that in 2004, after Le Figaro unearthed a recording of a vile anti-Semitic rant by radical cleric Hassan Iquiossen, the ARD chose not to cancel but just to postpone an event featuring Iquiossen – an ARD leader explaining that he wasn’t put off by Iquiossen’s anti-Semitism but was merely responding pragmatically to “the unleashing of the media machine”?

Then there’s the president of the Abu Bakr Mosque, Farid Gacim, who told Rubin he felt comfortable wearing his jellaba in Roubaix. Does Rubin know that Gacim’s mosque was the subject of a headline-making 2010 documentary directed by Jean-Paul Lepers for France 4? Is she aware that Lepers spoke in the documentary to Gacim himself, who confessed his longing for a more “normal” society than that found in France – by which, he explained, he meant a social order of the sort imposed by the Taliban, including the enforced wearing of burkas and the stoning of transgressors?

Is Rubin even unaware of the French newsweekly Marianne’s alarming four-page report about Islam in Roubaix? Marianne’s article, published in 2006, painted a picture very similar to that painted by Lepers’s TV program – and very different from Rubin’s. In Roubaix, according to Marianne, “the Republic is losing ground” because “the proponents of hard-core Islam are rampant and enjoy complete impunity.” A Roubaix resident told Marianne that Roubaix is dominated by something he called “Islamo-Roubaix leftism” and that the town serves as an incubator for “violently anti-Republican” politics. Roubaix’s elected leaders, he complained, had “long given their blessing, and tens of thousands of dollars in annual subsidies, to associations whose objective is to promote political Islam.” Chief among these groups, he said, was the ARD, which had sponsored talks not only by Iquioussen but also by Tariq Ramadan, the dodgy grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Bana. When Marianne’s reporter phoned Ali Rahni, the head of the ARD, Rahni reacted belligerently, warning: “If you play with fire, you’ll get burned!” Like Lepers’s documentary, Marianne’s article received widespread attention. It’s available online in its entirety. And yet Rubin is silent about it. Why?

If Rubin wasn’t aware of these and the other sources I’ve cited (despite the fact that a quick Google search of “Roubaix” and of words like “mosque” and “Islam” will turn all of them up in a trice), it means one thing: she did virtually zero research for her piece, relying entirely on the testimony of a few Muslims in Roubaix and their political allies. If this is the case, it’s more than fair to ask: Why? This was, after all, a non-deadline article for the august New York Times. Couldn’t she spare an hour or two to read the materials I’ve cited? If, on the other hand, she has consulted these sources, why isn’t there any trace of that reading in her piece? Doesn’t she think it’s relevant that, for example, the charming imam who told her he was at ease wearing his jellaba on the streets of Roubaix is an advocate of Taliban-style justice?

What the Lepers documentary, the Marianne article, and the other sources I’ve cited make abundantly clear is that Roubaix is indeed a model – a model of rank, shameless official dhimmitude. Roubaix has attained social harmony – if you want to call it that – by selling out completely to the proponents of sharia. This, it would appear, is the achievement that Rubin was celebrating in her article. But the question remains: is she an outright liar who deliberately whitewashed the reality of Roubaix in order to disguise the fact that what she was celebrating was nothing more or less than dhimmitude? Or is she an utter fool, who honestly doesn’t recognize that what she witnessed in Roubaix is not some kind of triumph of multicultural concord but an ignominious capitulation?

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.