In The American Thinker today, Pamela Geller says of the rush to exonerate Islam and jihad after the Fort Hood massacre: "Shariah law forbids criticism of Islam. And here we are....This is well beyond political correctness. We are enforcing Shariah law."
Sharia does indeed forbid criticism of Islam, but this is nevertheless hyperbole, no? Well, no. There is an avalanche of articles appearing like this unsigned editorial from the Seattle Times: "Do not slander Islam after Fort Hood," November 10. Would the Seattle Times have published such an editorial after any conceivable atrocity committed by a Christian believer? What do you think?
Do not compound the atrocity at Fort Hood with loose, slanderous talk about religion, conspiracy and political motives.ALL of the horror and heartache of the Fort Hood shootings should not be compounded by labels and assumptions seeking motives to explain a heinous, irrational act.
The same restraint is also appropriate with a suspect in custody for the murderous assault that claimed the life of one Seattle police officer and wounded another.
The Fort Hood attack took 13 lives and wounded 41. There is a rush to link Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, with Islamic extremists and generally defame his faith by association.
Of course, Hasan himself made the link. He is the one who passed out Korans and then started shooting people. But the Times, of course, sweeps that under the rug.
Religious and political affiliations make for easy, slanderous links that can be pointedly selective. Little time was spent exploring Timothy McVeigh's Catholic and Republican connections after he slaughtered 168 men, women and children and wounded hundreds more with a truck bomb.
Never mind that he was an avowed atheist at the time of the attack and only became a Catholic later. Never mind that even if he had been a Catholic, there is nothing in Catholic teaching that exhorts believers to warfare against unbelievers, while there is plenty in Islam that does so exhort believers. Why should the Seattle Times worry about all that? Anything is good for a smear.
There is no more justification for Hasan's crimes in Islam than there was in the religious teachings of McVeigh's Christian faith....
Unsupported assertion. Here is some evidence to the contrary. There is plenty more, also. Here is some of it.
Care with words is essential because they have enormous power. If Hasan was an observant Muslim, then he violated his faith. The Seattle police are investigating what amounts to a murky personal grudge.
He violated his faith in what way? Again, an unexplained, unsupported assertion.
'If Hasan was an observant Muslim, then he violated his faith.'
Excuse me.......Hassan WAS an observant muslim (evidence: his lecture on islam in the guise of a medical lecture, his refusal to go and kill other muslims even though as a soldier it was his duty, his distribution of korans, his shouting allah-akbar as he opened fire..........all point to his being an observant muslim) and that is why he did not violate his faith. He did exactly as his faith asked him to do. Kill infidels and do not raise arms against fellow-muslims.
The bias of MSM makes me sick.
They are only being good dhimmis. Perhaps they are inspired by the Obamahdi's example.
Distressing as it is to see the continued denial by the LMSM of the obvious about Nidal Hasan's religious motives for carrying out his attack, the fact that the subject is front and center in so many news stories is actually an improvement over its previous status of being simply ignored. While it might be too much to hope that the present generation of apologists will ever shuck their rose colored glasses or suddenly have an epiphany that maybe, just maybe, people like Robert and Nonie Darwish and Ralph Peters have a point that there actually is something to the charge that Islam will never be able to play nice with anyone else, there are plenty of others who are increasingly becoming alerted to the problem and these people need to be given voices and not constantly shoved aside or marginalized. Ways need to be found to replace the apologists who presently control the public narrative with articulate observers with a better grasp of the situation, and who will be necessary for halting the slide toward MC PC-induced suicide and building the necessary apparatus to stop Shariah creep. (Slightly OT, but it would be helpful if Pat Robertson would refrain from saying anything at all about this (today's news). He contributes nothing that is constructive to the discussion, in my opinion, and would be more effective working in the background than using this as an opportunity to proselytize.)
It's not "slander" if it's true.
Can you believe that people are telling me that in Islam "terrorism always exceeds the limits set by Allah, because terrorism deliberately intends to kill innocent people" and then quote the Qur'an 2:190.
Do these self-loathing journalists not realise that they are writing their own destruction? How can you not associate this mans mass murder with his religion, when he does?
It always amazes me how the PC media show their total ignorance of Islam. All they have to do is read the Koran and Hadith to see the truth. Or if that is too much for them, just look at Islamic countries and communities around the world.
If Islam had been a predominately white religion I feel sure these same journalists would not hesitate, for a second, to associate this religion with Nazism or fascism or racism and call for it to be wiped out, as they so often do with Christianity.
Newsprint is dying by the lying.
Half truths, misleading Headlines,thinking replacing knowing. There was a time one would give you a Penny for your thoughts. Now a days, they label them hate speech and expect tribute.
Newsprint is dying by the lying.
Half truths, misleading Headlines,thinking replacing knowing. There was a time one would give you a Penny for your thoughts. Now a days, they label them hate speech and expect tribute.
Newsprint is dying by the lying.
Half truths, misleading Headlines,thinking replacing knowing. There was a time one would give you a Penny for your thoughts. Now a days, they label them hate speech and expect tribute.
Apropos the entire MSM response to the Fort Hood massacre:
"... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
"Slightly OT, but it would be helpful if Pat Robertson would refrain from saying anything at all about this (today's news). He contributes nothing that is constructive to the discussion, in my opinion, and would be more effective working in the background than using this as an opportunity to proselytize."
Eastview, Sorry to disagree, but what I heard him say,(the clip was played on Fox last night's "Factor"), was indeed correct, and should be said from the rooftops. Right after they played his video clip, Bill stated that it was not helpful, and wrong to place radicals along with peacful muslims, in the same boat, to which Jane Skinner agreed.
If Pat said the truth, which he did (IMO), then his words need to be heard. If he is wrong, show us why in your opinion. We need the truth, regardless where, or who it comes from.
Islam is a cult,(Death cult is accurate) that needs to be banned and controlled in it's content from within this country.
To Seattle Times editor:
Of course not you asinine ninny!
The Catholic church and the Republican party and their functionaries are not stomping around praising the virtues of blowing up innocents with truckbombs!
And if they were you can bet time would have been spent "exploring" those connections, as would have been appropriate.
There ARE mosques by the hundreds, all over the world, promoting the murder of, well ... us, you moron! Are you getting the connection yet? Or is that too complicated and abstract for you?
Why is it that J-school produces such a seemingly endless parade of lack-wits that couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag?
"Never mind that he [McVeigh] was an avowed atheist at the time of the attack and only became a Catholic later."--Robert
Where is the evidence that McVeigh said he didn't believe in god? Actually, McVeigh said he did believe in god, and his somewhat ambiguous statements point toward some kind of deism or loose agnosticism, not atheism as such. In any case, there's no evidence that McVeigh's beliefs regarding religious matters were related to his motive for killing.
They will do, and because few non-Muslims know anything about Islam these days, they can't get it into their heads that when a Muslim condemns the killing of innocent people, he or she is only referring to the killing of fellow Muslims, and not infidels, because according to the teachings of Mohammed, only Muslims are innocent, and not infidels.
Islofob, it's not that I disagree with Pat Robertson. In fact, I completely agree with him on matters pertaining to Islam, as will virtually all of his TV audience and almost everyone here. It's just that I don't think he will be very effective in reaching those outside of his audience who need most to be reached. Robertson is a good and decent man, but to many he is viewed as being a little like the guy on the street corner with the sandwich board urgently announcing that the end of the world is nigh, so repent! In fact, that is exactly what he (and many other televangelists) does preach in some of his TV shows. He also has a history of doing things like claiming success in deflect hurricanes with prayer http://mediamatters.org/research/200505020002 and other crazy things. This partly accounts for the brush off he effectively received from Fox.
The danger of his being pushed forward for this views on the subject is not that his message is incorrect. It is rather of him becoming an unwitting tool of the Leftists, being offered up as exhibit A proving the craziness of the religious right (their characterization, not mine). It is for these reasons that I wonder if his public pronouncements might actually be counterproductive. He'll certainly be enthusiastically agreed with by many, including me. But he doesn't need to preach to the choir. It's everyone else I'm worried about who might miss the message because of the messenger who's bearing it.
Islofob, it's not that I disagree with Pat Robertson. In fact, I completely agree with him on matters pertaining to Islam, as will virtually all of his TV audience and almost everyone here. It's just that I don't think he will be very effective in reaching those outside of his audience who need most to be reached. Robertson is a good and decent man, but to many he is viewed as being a little like the guy on the street corner with the sandwich board urgently announcing that the end of the world is nigh, so repent! In fact, that is exactly what he (and many other televangelists) does preach in some of his TV shows. He also has a history of doing things like claiming success in deflect hurricanes with prayer http://mediamatters.org/research/200505020002 and other crazy things. This partly accounts for the brush off he effectively received from Fox.
The danger of his being pushed forward for this views on the subject is not that his message is incorrect. It is rather of him becoming an unwitting tool of the Leftists, being offered up as exhibit A proving the craziness of the religious right (their characterization, not mine). It is for these reasons that I wonder if his public pronouncements might actually be counterproductive. He'll certainly be enthusiastically agreed with by many, including me. But he doesn't need to preach to the choir. It's everyone else I'm worried about who might miss the message because of the messenger who's bearing it.
Somehow my extended reply disappeared, and I don't have the energy to reconstruct it. Basically, I don't disagree with anything Pat Robertson had to say. It's just that he is not the best person to make the case that needs to be made. Anyone with his record of making such dubious claims as being able to divert hurricanes by prayer http://mediamatters.org/research/200505020002 will inevitably be met with derision by those who will use him as Exhibit A for proof of the craziness of the Religious Right (their characterization, not mine). It's not the choir he preaches to that needs to be reached, but others. He is viewed by many as the equivalent of the guy on the street corner with the sandwich board announcing the end of the world is night, so repent! This accounts for why he received the brush off on Fox.
Well, I see that my original post DID appear after I mistakenly assumed the dog must have eaten it (but in my defense, I would note that there is a 15 minute difference in the post times). My apologies.
I wonder if Marisol or whomever is running this comment board could summarize somewhere what the actual procedures are for posting comments. Are they held after submission and then reviewed before being released, or is the delay due to server response time, or what?
Believer in Sharia should be declared potential enemy combatants by the U.S. govt. and deported, period.
http://go.to/islamhistory
Eastview, your posts were fine, I understand your position. Pat's statement worked for me, even if some find him to be a bit "out there". I don't listen to him regularly, but his clip was right on, and it got out to millions.
Thats good news for this battle, and I hope his clip adds to the fight a few, or thousands more Americans to our ranks.
Thanks for your responce, your reasoning got through just fine.