Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Why Do They Hate Us? (Part 2)

If you haven't read the first part of my response to Qasim Rashid's attempt to explain to us why Muslims hate us, please do so now. Spoiler alert: It's our fault.

Where we left off last time was about "Innocence of Muslims," and Mr. Rashid makes it clear that he expects us to give up freedom of speech, even though he just said that it should be protected:
"Americans must recognize that our free speech model is unique--and not just unique from the Muslim world. European nations, for example, impose limitations that Americans would consider First Amendment violations. In Germany, publicly denying the Holocaust earns a prison sentence. The United Kingdom enforces anti-trolling laws, making it illegal to create a website for the sole purpose of mocking a living person. Citing cultural supremacy, France has banned Muslim women from wearing a veil in public--enforcing a government-mandated dress code. (Yet, France strangely applies a different standard to justify publishing vitriolic anti-Islam cartoons)."
On the surface, this seems like a legitimate point. But there's one little problem: Germany doesn't ban Holocaust denial because they are afraid they don't Jews around the world will riot and kill Germans. No matter what the Huffington Posters may think, there is no "pressure" on Germany to do this and no fear of consequences should they change their mind. Should America ban "things that offend Muslims," and that would be the qualifier make no mistake, we wouldn't be doing it for peace love and harmony. We would do so because we are scared of the consequences of disobeying Muslims. And I for one would never encourage such a decision.

As for France, they banned the burka (face covering). That's not a dress code, and it's not even a Muslim thing as so many people have pointed out. Why? Because in French society people have freedom of speech but they don't believe in oppressing women with 13th century forms of dress. That isn't hypocrisy, nor is it "cultural supremacy," it's the way they choose to run their country. After all, I don't see Mr. Rashid criticizing Iran for taking the opposite approach and forcing all women to wear the burka. Maybe it's because Iran aren't infidels.

Finally we get to the point of the article, that this is all America's fault:
"Our image in many Muslim majority nations is that of a people who support dictators when convenient for oil and economic gain and overthrow them when not--all the while preaching the free speech, democracy, and freedom that we don't practice."
First of all, epic irony alert for whining about "free speech" and "freedom" after you just freaking called for things that bother Muslims to be banned, Mr. Rashid. Well done.

Secondly, that image may be all very well and good but it remains hypocritical. Iran and the Arab League are sitting there and doing nothing about Syria. The Arab League was responsible for the genocide in Sudan. And do you really think that the Muslim majority nations were working ever so hard to secure the freedom and liberties of all those poor suffering Muslims living under those dictators?

Of course they weren't. That's one of the rules: You don't support non-Muslims over Muslims. Hey, America may only be interested in oil, but what's Iran's excuse for keeping Assad propped up? Besides naked power over the region of course.

But that's all right. Like I said last time: It's not what the actions are, it's who is committing them. And if Mr. Rashid feels like being honest, he would at least admit that much. But instead, after generalizing Muslims for about six paragraphs, he tries to walk back from it:
"But lest we be guilty of speaking in generalities, "they" who hate us, still actually represent the vast minority of the Muslim world. Last June, several dozen Muslim leaders representing numerous different Islamic organizations convened at a Capitol Hill summit on Islam and world peace. His Holiness, Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, head of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim Community delivered the keynote address..."
Ooh, so close! For those of you who don't know what the Ahmadiyya are, let me remind you: They are a sect of Islam that originated in the 19th century, and the vast majority of Muslims find them to be heretical and non-Muslim. This would be like a Jew for Jesus speaking on Capitol Hill representing Jews. He may technically be a Jew (or not) but he certainly doesn't speak on behalf of all of them. Nor could anybody speak on behalf of all of them since there are so many and there is no central leadership. It almost makes the Catholic Church look easier to deal with in comparison, and that's something that I never thought I would say.

Fortunately at this point Mr. Rashid again walks back from what he said earlier: that America should in fact free speech and Muslims should "educate themselves" about how freedom works. But he makes a mistake:
"Ignorance to America's free speech principles and anger at America's unjust foreign policy are not excuses for Muslims to respond to mockery with violence. Islam categorically forbids such violence."
Forbid violence? That is absolutely not true. All three Abrahamic religions endorse violence about all manner of things. In Islam you can kill someone for not being a Muslim anymore and as I linked earlier anyone who insults the Prophet is fair game for a stoning.

Not that Judaism is any better, in some sections of the Talmud it says you're supposed to kill someone for working on the Sabbath. The difference is that not even the most extreme Jew you can find would actually endorse doing that. But let's not pretend that the dirty laundry of these religions don't exist.

Here is Mr. Rashid's conclusion:
"So please, enough of the questions. Muslims do not hate America. Muslims in the East, like non-Muslim Americans in the West, both hate injustice. Peace is possible despite free speech differences--but only by joining together against injustice."
Have you got that? After writing an entire article explaining why Muslims hate America, he now turns around and declares that (surprise!) Muslims actually don't. Are you confused? Don't worry about it, just make sure you don't offend Muslims and keep voting Democrat and everything will be fine.

As for this claim that Muslims "hate injustice," that's also a load. No Muslim lifted a finger at the imprisoning of Walid Husayin. And once again the slaughter in Syria undermines all the classic talking points. If injustice really bothers Muslims in the East and the West, they'd actually be doing something about it. But I can't help but wonder if to Mr. Rashid that word is, like for the anti-Zionists who flaunt it on a daily basis, nothing more than a talking point.

1 comment:

  1. "Not that Judaism is any better, in some sections of the Talmud it says you're supposed to kill someone for working on the Sabbath."

    It's always a mistake to quote something out of context, especially when neither you nor your readers understand the context. There is NOTHING in the Talmud that claims that an individual is supposed to kill someone he sees working on the Sabbath. In theory, a court with the appropriate authority could do it (and no such court has existed in 2000 years), but the conditions under which it could happen are so extreme that in practice, it's impossible.


Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.