From the Witless Moral Equivalence Department this morning comes this from Islamic supremacist pseudo-moderate Reza Aslan, who despite (or perhaps because of) his increasingly ridiculous statements is still a favored analyst in the circles of the hard Left.
This one is particularly clownish even for Aslan: he is equating the Republican Party with "Sharia & all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control," and yet he is anti-Republican Party and pro-Sharia -- or at very least, he has never met a Sharia state or Sharia advocate he doesn't like: he's a Board member of the National Iranian American Council, a group that genuine Iranian pro-democracy forces regard as an apologetic vehicle for the Islamic Republic of Iran. He has tried to pass off Iran's genocidally-minded President Ahmadinejad as a liberal reformer. He has praised Hizballah and the Muslim Brotherhood. He has spoken at events sponsored by the Muslim Students Association, a Brotherhood group.
So if he likes all those groups, and the GOP is like them, what's his beef with the GOP?
And as for the equivalence itself, let's see. Sharia calls for the devaluing of a woman's testimony, mandates the beating of disobedient women and the stoning of adulteresses, commands women to cover all but their face and hands when in public, doesn't allow them to go out of the house without permission from the male who has charge of them, allows for polygamy, and oppresses women in numerous other ways. It denies the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience. It denies basic rights to nonbelievers.
Is the Republican Party on board with all of that? Any of it? Uh, no, Reza.
But don't expect intellectual coherence from Reza Aslan. Back when Campbell's Soup partnered with Hamas-linked ISNA to certify its halal line, I wrote that "I couldn't care less if Campbell's Soup introduces a halal line....Nor is it a sign of Sharia coming to America...." Aslan represented that as "Spencer also believes that the decision by Campbell Soup to create a line of halal soups to accompany its kosher line is another sign of the Muslim takeover of America."
So this is a man who is simply not intellectually honest. I can only imagine the desperate insecurity of a man who knows -- he must know -- that he cannot defeat his opponents in a fair fight, and so he has to lie about the positions they take in order to score cheap points with the ignorant kneejerk Leftists who make up his audience. What a terrible feeling it must be, to know that the only way he can win is to cheat. And it is revealing of the intellectual vacuity and dishonesty of the Left and the mainstream media that this pathetic little Islamic supremacist is taken seriously by anyone at all.
During the most recent race riots in LA, wife beater and armed robber Rodney King axed, "Can't we all just get along?"
Well, apparently the answer is yes. We've come full circle now, with Debbie Wasserman Schultz in concord with the Mo-Bro-Hood that the majority of Americans still clinging to reason are misogynist totalitarians who would run a dictatorship if they could.
That's progress, such as it is nowadays.
Ouch.
Raisin Aslan is a delusional dishonest tool who should be the poster child for GoAway.com.
What a terrible feeling it must be, to know that the only way he can win is to cheat.
Not if one is muhammedan.
clown
If Michelle Bachmann is the candidate that Reza Aslan and other sharia-compliant sympathizers oppose, then she is the candidate anti-jihadists must support.
I hope people here do not think this is an extreme view that only a few people hold. It is not! It is very mainstream. Many leftists/liberals feel exactly the same way.
I am a conservative, pro-life woman. I have been told that I am not a real woman because of my views, and because I support Sarah Palin. I have been told not to procreate in order to not warp my children with such views. I have lost long-term friendship with leftists/liberals simply because I am pro-life, conservative and also speak out against the ideology of Islam.
If you do not support abortion, if you do not support Obama, if you do not support same-sex marriage, if you say anything at all negative about Islam - even just repeating their own teachings - any and all of this labels you a bigot, comparisons with the Taliban and all the rest.
Leftists hate people like me nearly as much as the jihadists do. The only difference is that they do not have the courage to openly threaten to kill us, or to actually kill us.
this guy really just a total joke, seeing as he s always griping islamophobia, i checked that out on the tube...
jeez :-)
not only does he talk total crap, but he gets a right beasting on his vlog comments too while he s doing it...hilarious
http://youtu.be/BgItO0vNxsU
http://youtu.be/xUUGfriWUxI
This pathetic little twerp should have his ears boxed then be sent to bed without supper...
Well, the Muslim Brotherhood would like to see their beloved Caliph Hussein Obama wins another 4 years of terror, thus, they play such dirty politics with such evil lies about the Republican party! No-nonsense Herman Cain for President - he's the best chance to defeat Caliph Hussein and is very anti-Islam! Islam has no place in the West to be dominant and aggressive - humanity, especially women/girls and non-Muslims are already suffering so savagely under Islamic rule and nations everywhere - at least in the West, there's still a great chance to safeguard freedom and justice as based on civilized Judeo-Christian values that founded modern Western civilization, especially for women/girls and non-Muslims!
Reza character is very vulgar and incapable of leading a civilized discussion on anything. The insults that he so lightly hurls at everyone who doesn't think just like him is a sign of obvious intellectual weakness as well as intolerance. I've read his vulgar, childish, and unseemly comments addressed to Mr. Spencer, and can only conclude that if he's the best muslim world can offer what is the worst?
Also the "lingo" he adopted is purely "liberal" and home grown. The liberals are also very quick to label anyone as being anti-(whatever... gay, muslim,abortion etc..) when they lose a logical argument. It is simply a form of intellectual VIOLENCE and a way to enforce single-mindedness in this country. Who cares what they think? They should be ignored.
Sharia demands commence once the slaves-of-allah form 5% of a population group. As small as that is, electoral candidates often need a margin, and will give up the ship to those who can deliver. Hence, GWB bought Grover Norquist's deference to islam, and all the political baggage that went with it. We need bi-partisanship to be able to quash shariazation. They tried to get islamic replacement of civil-law procedures in Ontario, Canada; it is ocming to your town. And all you need is a couple of political whores to get it. And where better to find whores than in politics?
I agree that Reza Aslan is a non-thinker and as Robert points out, it is absurd that he is unable to see the contradiction of attacking the GOP whilst being comfortable with a much more extremely intolerant system of Sharia.
As Mo aptly demonstrates, both Sharia and the GOP believe in blurring the lines between religion and politics by imposing rules of behavior on citizens in such personal areas as sexual identity and marriage.
So I do find it infuriating when knee jerk Leftists fail to distinguish the obvious differences between the conservatism of the GOP and the extreme level of intolerance of Sharia. But it is also equally disconcerting for me to observe the self righteousness and intolerance of those on the Right.
I keep wondering how those on the Right justify ignoring the Constitution on the primary issue of separation of church and state? Why this insistence on imposing your religious beliefs on others through co-opting the political process to that aim? Can't you live your life and practice your faith and allow others the freedom to live according to their conscience? And if you can't do that, aren't you ultimately just as bad as the Muslim supremacists?
What is the difference, as you see it, between Palin and Bachmann?
In what way do you see the Right imposing its religious beliefs on others?
GUYS!
I just discoverd that on August 5,at 9 pm EST,Friday there will be a:
Debate between Robert Spencer and Mustafa Zayed
THEME:
Does Islam guarantee Women Equality with Men?
http://youtu.be/ZnDMNU9oluk
YOU CAN SEE IT LIVE ON ABNSAT.COM (by clicking on the words "ABN Live")
http://www.abnsat.com/abnnew/
Who is Mustafa Zayed?
He debated Robert before and he wrote a book against Robert's The Truth about Muhammad that is called The Lies about Muhammad
His first debate with Robert was on the theme:Did Muhammad teach to subjugate unbelievers?
http://youtu.be/2CTKhBUZ82M
PLUS READ
Have you ever heard of the astonishing Ataturk who in a mere 15 years of rule(1923-1938) utterly revolutionized Turkey?
In reality all shows he didnt believe in Islam.Check it out:
http://www.antisharia.com/2011/07/16/mustafa-kemal-ataturk-and-the-creation-of-modern-turkeypart-1/
Jamadagnii, you said
Both the Left and the Right impose rules of behavior in personal areas having to do with sexual identity and marriage. They just impose somewhat different rules. Some on the Left (not all) arrogantly believe they impose nothing and stand only for what is objective, enlightened, universal. There is a terrible lack of self-knowledge and humility there.
The universal is indeed something good. But what if the Left doesn't have a monopoly on it? What if they are mistaken in some important ways, just like the Right?
You said
Painting with too broad a brush there. Some of the Right is neither self-righteous nor intolerant. There are many on the Right who are less self-righteous and intolerant than many on the Left. As for the part of the Right that is intolerant, at least they aren't in denial about it. Whereas significant parts of the Left, at the very moment of their greatest intolerance, congratulate themselves on how enlightened and tolerant they are! If only that evil scum of the Right could be as open and tolerant as we noble Leftists are! If only the Right, those demons, could learn from we Leftists how benighted it is to demonize others!The Left sometimes thinks itself to be of superior intelligence because it thinks only in shades of gray, supposedly never in black and white, and it implies that those who think in black and white are the blackest scum, and those who think only in nuanced grays radiate pure white rays. At least when the Right thinks in black and white, it does so consciously. The Left unconsciously thinks in black and white, while fancying itself above all that and thus infinitely superior. And what if the world contains not only grays, but also black and white, not to mention the color spectrum?
You said
Afraid I have to disagree with you on this one, too. The non-establishment clause is a wonderful thing, I agree, but so is the free exercise clause. I keep wondering how it is that many on the Left, in the name of separation of church and state, seek to restrict parental choice of schools. The value of non-establishment is that it produces freedom of choice. And yet you find a benighted liberal group such as the self-named "People for the American Way," trying to use the separation of church and state as a way to reduce the choices available to individual families. Talk about an Orwellian mystification of the First Amendment. It shows that many on the Left -- at least as many as on the Right, and probably more -- don't understand freedom. But we knew that already.How Reza Aslan whitewashes Muhammad's caravan raids
First, notice how Aslan, on pages 82 and 83 of his book No god but God, makes Muhammad's caravan raids look bloodless:
Why does Reza Aslan make no mention of what core Islamic texts say about those raids, for example, what happened at Nakhla, where for the first time Muslims succeeded in finding a caravan to target? See page 287 (425 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad:How Reza Aslan misleads about Muhammad's marriage to 9-year-old Aisha
Notice how Aslan, on pages 64 and 65 of his book No god but God claims that Muhammad did not consummate his marriage to Aisha when she was 9:
Why doesn't Aslan mention what the core Islamic texts tell us?
From Sahih al-Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:
-------------------------------------
Many other core Islamic texts could be quoted in a similar vein.
It should be noted that Aisha was nine lunar years old. Since a lunar year is about 355 days, Aisha may actually have been as much as several months short of her ninth birthday.
Reza Aslan is untrustworthy, at best.
If this debate comes off,(did you see the way Zayad ended up
last time, 3 words....egg on face :-).
What was most enjoyable, was hearing the callers join in on the fun on his,(lets just call it:-) literary credibilities demise.
What is the difference, as you see it, between Palin and Bachmann?
********
Ten years of education...
You mean he should be boxed and sent back to Iran, pronto.
Speaking about Reza Aslan's selective and biased description of early Islam; wednesday on BBC2 there was a programme presented by Rageh Umar (an actor, he was in "the day after Tomorrow" for instance) about the origines of Islam. Commentor were among others: Karen Armstrong and John Esposito. But to my surprise a very short episode of Robert Spencer was shown!
But, the story it was heavily in favor of the Muslim perspective, in that the Meccans were vilified as those who could not convince Mohammed to stop and then went on in a very vile way of treating him. According to the BBC-story that is.
Monday 17 july at 22.00 european time is the next part on BBC2, "the early wars". And I suspect in that part too the Muslim perspective will be given.
hey man.....i tried to get on the bbc message board, for it
to register a hearty rebuttal...hey ho there isn t one :-)
no surprises there, but while looking found a site exposing bbc bias, called biased bbc, excellent & no holds barred
I made my comment because I believe that we have reached the point where we as Americans concerned about the stealth jihad must go beyond the antipathy between Right and Left. Counter jihadists can be on the Right or Left -- it's really a matter of getting past the labels and learning what Islam is all about. I think that is important, but I am not sure how to get past the polarization.
Most of all I am talking about the people who would be considered to be on the Left, but who are not extreme. They are the vast center of self identified Independents. They are not atheists nor socialists. They are spiritually motivated, or perhaps not, but they believe in God, and they believe in Liberty and the USA. That means that personal matters like who you love, or marry, or how you plan your family is none of the government's business. If there is an agenda in that, it is simply to be free to pursue your own happiness. That is the highest value and I'd say it is an American ideal.
Charlatans such as Reza Aslan seize on this antipathy towards the religious Right who wish to impose their Christian values and limits, in order to obfuscate what the Islamic Jihad is attempting to bring about. Does he mind being dishonest? On the contrary, he's probably very proud of it.
Oh, thanks, I appreciate the response! Yes, I looked at that site. Nothing about the life of Mohammed on 13 july. Don't know if I want to go deep into their other issues with the BBC. But I remember and visit it from time to time. But I only very occasionally watch BBC, I am Dutch.
Hi Jamadagnii,
Ok, fair enough.
For now we'll have to agree to disagree on one or two points. I maintain that the Left wants to interfere with our lives at least as much as the Right, but in somewhat different ways.
In making another point, you said,
According to this article, Jamadagnii, independents are not mainly on the Left. They
oh there has been my friend, normally on the open thread
i think ep 2 is on Tuesday evening, just check it out next day...
greetings to Holland :-)
whoops :-) wrong link
155 comments
oh there has been my friend, normally on the open thread
i think ep 2 is on Tuesday evening, just check it out next day...
greetings to Holland :-)
hmmm last try
OPEN THREAD...
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
"I keep wondering how those on the Right justify ignoring the Constitution on the primary issue of separation of church and state?"
Instead of wondering in ignorance, why not do a little studying and try to learn what "separation of church and state" really means. Just because you're out of school for the summer doesn't mean you can't learn... With the exception of Muslims, nobody on the Right is violating that principle. Like the Left, you view any attempt to actually live according to ones moral beliefs as trying to impose them on others, and that is a misconception you and your comrades on the Left should work hard to correct. ...not to mention the ludicrous act of accusing the Right of ignoring the Constitution when our Leftist President would be happy to abolish the First Amendment altogether. Since he can't do it, he is content with whittling away at it in small and subtle but quite dangerous ways.
I know you may like the bliss of ignorance, and that is your right, but it does not make for a good foundation of support when trying to make a point to others. To persuade non-Leftists of your viewpoint, you will need more than soundbites and slogans based on ignorance, you'll actually need to learn how to think and argue rationally, plus educate yourself regarding the Constitution and other documents underlying it if you are going to make comments on that topic. Are you aware that 'separation of church and state' is not even specifically mentioned in the Constitution, although the underlying principle (very different than what you think it is) is stated clearly in the First Amendment. Here's an idea ... why don't you actually read that document?