This is from BuzzFeed, and so the vicious bias is not surprising, but this is a particularly striking, and revolting, example of a hard-Left propagandist running interference for the imposition of Sharia blasphemy laws. Muslim MP Anne Aly explains that “anti-Muslim hatred” should be considered racist.
No violence against any innocent person is ever justified, whether it’s called “racism” or not. The problem here is that numerous Islamic groups have made clear that in referring to “anti-Muslim hatred,” they mean not just attacks on or harassment of innocent Muslims, but also any honest analysis of how jihad terrorists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims. Thus to label this racist is an attempt to shut down all critical analysis of the jihad terrorists’ motivating ideology; they will then be able to advance unopposed and unimpeded.
Anne Aly would have you believe that those who oppose jihad terror and Sharia supremacism “have the same motivations as racism.” Yes, that’s right: in Anne Aly’s world, opposing jihad terror and speaking about its Qur’anic justifications stems from the same impulse as segregated drinking fountains. She doesn’t even entertain the possibility that someone might oppose jihad terror and Sharia oppression out of a concern to preserve and defend societies that respect human rights and the freedom of speech.
More below.
“This Muslim Politician Nailed Why The ‘Islam Is Not A Race’ Argument Doesn’t Work,” by Mark Di Stefano, BuzzFeed, April 1, 2017:
Last week Labor’s Dr Anne Aly sparked conservative outrage as parliament debated reforming Australia’s Racist Discrimination Act, by suggesting attacks aimed at Muslims should also be covered under the law.
Aly sat down for the latest episode of BuzzFeed Australia’s political podcast Is It On?, laying out *her* argument for anti-Muslim hatred being considered racist.
BuzzFeed wouldn’t dream, of course, of letting opponents of her measure explain themselves.
She is also well aware of the “but Islam is not a race” retort used by trolls online:
You see, it’s only “trolls online” who dare to assert that Islam is not a race. No serious person would think such a crazy thing.
Aly explains:
Because (attacks on Muslims) have the same motivations as racism and the same impacts of racism. So you can define racism as only being about a certain category or in terms of its mobilisers and its impacts. If you look at its mobilisers then you would consider hate speech against Muslims, racism.
BuzzFeed then bats down another objection to Aly’s absurd argument:
Dr Aly, who worked as de-radicalisation expert
On “deradicalization,” see here.
before entering parliament last year, brushed off a claim by Liberal MP Tim Wilson that she’s actually arguing for blasphemy laws.
She pointed to the fact that hatred against Jewish people and Sikhs could both be protected under the Act’s controversial 18C, despite neither being “a race”….
Australia needs to clarify what exactly a “race” is, and how it proposes to distinguish between legitimate criticism and “racism.” In any case, if Aly’s proposal is adopted, it will be the death of Australia as a free society.
Juan Jeanniton says
A certain female Mahometudinarian (muslimah) Leftist politician, named Dr Anne Aly, the first Mahometan female politician and MP in Australia, is only using Taqyyieh (which is an Islamic law which permits Muslims living in a country ruled by non-Muslims to lie, dissemble, or conceal their Islamic faith in order to weaken the defenses of the non-Muslim nations against Islam). Furthermore she says, “Because (attacks on Muslims) have the same motivations as racism and the same impacts of racism. So you can define racism as only being about a certain category or in terms of its mobilisers and its impacts. If you look at its mobilisers then you would consider hate speech against Muslims, racism.”
This may be true _de facto_ (i.e. in actual practice) of many of the “pogroms” and “riots” against Muslims, but there is one crucial factor this female Muslimah politician has not taken into account. But before that, I would like her to note that her “rebuttal” is fallacious. It is known as the fallacy of Bulverism. Bulverism consists in _assuming_ that your enemy is wrong, and based on that assumption, attempting to explain _why_ he chose to make that error – usually by attacking your enemy’s _motives_.
Dr. Aly has engaged in Bulverism by saying that the “attacks” against Muslims are motivated by the same motivations for racism. While this may be true in many cases, this does not address the most _fundamental_ reason _why_ the conservatives and Tories in the UK are motivated to defend themselves and the UK against Islamic ideology. The reason is because of the precepts of the Islamic sharia law themselves. They are intrinsically incompatible with the British constitution. Furthermore, the Quran and Sunnah strictly DEMANDS jihad warfare against non-Muslim nations, and is therefore a threat to the existence of the UK. Furthermore, the Sharia Law strictly FORBIDS women to hold public office of any kind!
Jami` at-Tirmizi Book 31 Hadiss 2262:
Abu Bakrah said:
“Allah restrained me with something that I heard from the Messenger of Allah (Sallal-Lahu Aleihi Wassallam [which means May the Salutations and Peace of Allah be upon him]). When Kisra was destroyed, he said: ‘Who did they have to succeed him?’ They said: ‘His daughter.’ So the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: ‘A people will never succeed who give their leadership to a woman.'” He said: “So when ‘Aishah arrived – meaning in Al-Basrah – I remembered the saying of Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him), so Allah restrained me by it.”
Abu Eisa said: This Hadith is [Hasan] Sahih [i.e. it is genuine and authentic].
If this Dr Aly had dared presume to exercise even 1 part in 1000 equal parts of the liberties [given to women only because of the Woman Suffrage movement] in strict muslim nations like Iran and Saudi-Arabia she enjoys in the British Commonwealth of Nations, every Islamic CLERIC in the WORLD would declare JIHAD war against her!
If this reason I am giving against Islamic ideology were truly motivated by the motivations of racism, then I would be moved to discriminate against them even if they were Christians or Jews who didn’t even BELIEVE in Sharia Law! But because I don’t discriminate against Christians (nor against Jews) from predominately Islamic, Middle Eastern, or Asian countries on the grounds of their skin color or ethnicity, therefore Dr Aly’s argument is fallacious. It misses the point entirely.
Furthermore, she twists the meaning of “racism”. The _true_ definition of “racism” is this:
“1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race [and which beliefs often make the tacit assumption that these races are discrete, eternal, Platonic, mutually exclusive unchanging and unchangeable essences] 2: racial prejudice or discrimination”.