A Subway Murder and the ‘Islamophobia’ Industry
Moghul insists that “Islamophobes” give short shrift to the fact that peaceful Muslims have a different interpretation of the Qur’an from that of the violent ones. That may well be, although the violent interpretations are far more mainstream than he lets on; in any case, the existence of the peaceful interpretations doesn’t cancel out the existence of the violent ones, just as Hamas-linked CAIR’s ad campaign that tries to sell the idea that jihad is helping your sixth grader with her homework and playing hopscotch with her when she’s done doesn’t do anything to address the inconvenient fact that a significant number of Muslims believe it involves warfare against and subjugation of infidels. The people who need to be convinced — the Muslims who believe in violent jihad — aren’t being addressed.
The common claim that the “Islamophobes” endorse the view of Islam of the “extremists” and ignore “moderate” versions ignores the deep traditional roots that offensive jihad for the subjugation of infidels has in Islam. Those who hold to the “extremist” view are actually quite mainstream. Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was not an “extremist” by anyone’s account, and yet he wrote that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, he added, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
In modern times, Majid Khadduri, an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law, wrote this in his 1955 book War and Peace in the Law of Islam: “The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state.” Was Khadduri, a scholar of international renown, an “Islamophobe” who was cravenly endorsing the “extremist” view of Islam in order to dehumanize Muslims? Come on.
But Moghul rejects any connection between the Qur’an and violence, asking, “Imagine how we’d react to the proposition that reading the Bible explains George W.’s war against Iraq?” Well, if “George W.” had said that the Bible explained his war in Iraq, we would be remiss if we not only refused to look in the Bible to try to understand what George was up to, but vilified those who did look in it as haters of George. But that is the situation we are in today: Islamic jihadists explain and justify their actions with reference to the Qur’an, but those who look in the Qur’an and Islamic teaching to try to understand them, and who call for reform and reevaluation of the teachings they use to justify their actions, are vilified and demonized as “Islamophobes.”
Then when we look at the “moderate” Muslim establishment in the U.S., we see Muslim Brotherhood ties, open cheer-leading for the murderers of Hamas, and the like. It does not, to say the least, inspire confidence.
Haroon Moghul could have really struck a blow against any actual “Islamophobia,” i.e., the things that really make people dislike Islam: the bombings, the beheadings, the murders by Allahu-akbaring hordes. Instead, he is enabling them, by doing all he can to destroy their opposition.
****
Image courtesy shutterstock / Marcio Jose Bastos Silva
For those of a certain age the memory of dear old dad saying something like: “Just keep it up and I’ll give you something to really cry about” is small comfort for what is owed to the jihadists who infest our shores.
One hopes that somewhere, dear old dad is getting the belt ready.
“Haroon Moghul could have really struck a blow against any actual “Islamophobia,” i.e., the things that really make people dislike Islam: the bombings, the beheadings, the murders by Allahu-akbaring hordes.”
Unfortunately these are the things that make Islam, Islam; these are the things that Mohamed did and called on his followers to do. There is no alternate Quran nor is there an alternate interpretation of it. Islam is irredeemable.
To paraphrase Dizzy Dean: “It ain’t a phobia if they really are trying to kill you.”
Recognizing Islam as a bad thing is not Islamophobia, it is seeing the obvious. Islam is inimical to the Constitution. It should surprise no one that our President and Secretary of State, Constitution haters both, are Dhimmis.
POTUS is a Muslim and SoS is surely a Dummie and a Dimmie, along with a liar, a drunk and a assessory to murder, many times.
The ignorant Hispanic bitch kills a Hindu and thinks Hindus were responsible for 9/11. Soon after 9/11, a Sikh was shot and killed by a redneck who figured that since he (the Sikh) wore a turban, he must be a terrorist. America has a lot of ignorant lunatics at large. Treat the lunatics and teach the ignorant. Before the lunatics and the ignorant kill the educated and hardworking.
Yes, I am from India and my ancestors were Hindus. And, yes, my fore-fore-fore fathers were chimps !! Cheers !!
Perhaps you find it amusing to fling around words like bitch and redneck while demanding special comsideration based on your race.
Good for you if you are hardworking, but you should not ask for what you will not provide in return in terms of courtesy and respect from your chosen fellow countrymen.
You may feel that brown-skinned men are particularly victimized. That isn’t true. Women are the category, bitches as you choose here, of random crime victims chosen most frequently for their identity. Yet they are not counted as victims of so-called hate crime because the activists – the shouters of homophobia and racism and islamophobia – don’t want to “dilute” the power of the message and their special status – by counting mere bitches. It’s nothing more than identity politics imposed on the law.
So stuff the special outrage. You won’t win if you want to turn this into a numbers game. Me, I prefer equal treatment under the law, and not politicizing any crime. Kill a man, woman, Sikh, Jew, black, white –it’s murder. Why trust the words of murderers and madwomen? This offender has assaulted several other people. Only when she succeeded in committing murder and used a magic word did anybody care to stop her. It is her prior victims – white men – who were denied justice. If those crimes had been taken seriously, even though mere white men were the victims, her latest victim would be alive today.
I don’t believe she killed this man because he was brown-skinned. I think she is insane and evil and wanted to get attention for doing something. Thus she chose a public crime that would frighten everyone. If we bow to the interpretation dictated by the hate crimes industry, only brown men should be nervous when someone threatens them on the subway now. Is that reality? Of course not. It’s exploitation of a horrible crime for political ends.
The killer’s view of things should not be validated by our courts — only her actions should count. Otherwise, we decide some murders are worse than other murders, and that is real prejudice. You can’t condemn prejudice in the mind of madwomen and then practice it in the courts with differential sentencing based on the color of the chosen victim’s skin, or whether a color was chosen at all.
Unless you favor prejudice, or at least the ones that benefit you.
“America has a lot of ignorant lunatics at large.”
Thanks for providing an example, Carlos!
Until we get State Control of our education we will continue to have morons coming from our houses of learning. Get the Fed out of all State business and we will have most of our problems solved.
All of our ills come from the overbearing Federal Government. Is anyone thinking about Article V of the Constitution? Read it and you will see the solution to the problems of the Nation….
If you are an infidel/kuffer/non-believer and call attention to the hostile passages directed at you in Islamic texts then you are an Islamophobe. If you are a Muslim and feel uncomfortable with these hostile passages and would like to see them edited out then you are an apostate with a price on your head.
BINGO!
The ‘peaceful ones” here are between a rock and a hard place….
As with all “Racial Politics” in the West, they cant ever go against their backward tribe.
But they also know if they show too much concern for the Infidels, they’ll be beheaded WITH them when “the day comes”.
Some of them are just laying low, hoping to get to Sharia without getting their hands dirty.
If you wear the garb and perform the abulations then you are following the Koran. There is no other way.
Those who profess peace and goodwill toward Christians and Jews are performing according to the Koran. The Koran specifically says ‘Lie, Cheat, Steal and Murder in the name of Allah and you are a good Muslim for you are doing all things to further Islam.
A Muslim is a Muslim, you either are, or you are not. If you were, and now you are not, then you are an apostate and marked for death by the mob of Muslims.
Don’t give me any of this peaceful cr*p, it does not exist. Those who claim it are liars for the name of Islam. Read the Koran….. there is no wiggle room.
the non-muslim purveyors of the islam version of reality need brain surgery to remove the obvious tumor growing in their heads. islam’s murderous hatreds are not “extreme”, they are ordinary islamic teachings in which muslims believe. like slitting the throats of 3-month olds in their cribs and entire jewish families, while the scum fakenstinians name town squares after the killers.
those who squash the truth about islamics, will be the first ones in the ovens. you won’t have to be jewish.
While in the other side of the coin, the Islamism think that the non Muslim has the tumor so the proceeded to get rid of it by beheading them.
A moderate Muslim is one that’s out of ammo!
Remember, before Menendez staged the attack on the elevated platform, she attacked a New York City firefighter who was about as light-skinned as you can get.
She’s violently crazy. And violently crazy people can think up all sorts of ‘logical’ arguments for their violent actions. Islamic groups using her as some sort of cudgel to claim widespread hate towards them over 9/11 should also ask themselves why Erica Menendez hates the agency that lost over 300 of its members in 9/11.
I’m not an expert on Muslim culture – if there is such a thing among such a diverse subset of humanity – but my impression is that many Muslims feel defensive when outsiders criticize their radical co-religionists. Among themselves, they may fight bloody battles over doctrinal issues or tribal and political allegiances. On the other hand, they seem reluctant to give the appearance of standing with unbelievers against their fellow Muslims. They may admit that these people “sometimes go too far,” but I get the impression there’s always a reluctance, a shadow of a doubt, a hedging of bets: What if it turns out the radicals really ARE good Muslim jihadis doing God’s work?
And of course there are grievances. Radical Muslims have actual injustices and deaths, past and present, that they want to avenge. They really do want non-Muslims to stop interfering with life in Muslim countries. We can agree or disagree about the validity of these issues, but they’re real to the people who shoot rockets and blow people up. And, to some degree, they’re real to “moderate” Muslims as well. Non-Muslim Americans may believe our intentions are always good, and we regret the unfortunate “collateral damage” from our wars and drone strikes. But to a Muslim, our collateral damage is infidels killing other Muslims. So I think there’s a tendency at least to wonder if the avenging radicals might actually have a point. Again, there’s the uncertainty, the hedging of bets, the suspicion that the radicals might be doing the right thing after all.
I think some Muslims are troubled by these complications and uncertainties. They feel non-Muslims are pressuring them into declaring “which side they’re on.” They react defensively, seeing “islamophobia” everywhere they look. Of course, there are real incidents of discrimination against Muslims, but they are just that – incidents. I don’t believe there’s any deep-seated hatred of Muslims in this country or in Europe, certainly no systematic attempt to marginalize them. Immigrant groups in the past were treated much worse than people from Muslim backgrounds are today. And whatever CAIR says, there’s no parallel between modern “islamophobia” and historical racism against black people. American Muslims have never had to suffer like that.
Face it, we can’t win. If we leave Muslims alone, we are accused of being indifferent to their suffering. If we try to help, we are interfering or only in it ‘for the oil’.
As for asking Muslims to declare ‘which side they’re on’, why don’t we have that right? Islam is fundamentally hostile to secular government. Islam (not necessarily all Muslims) sees a non-sharia government as illegitimate. Islamic doctrine denies equality to all who are not Muslims. Why should our soldiers die for people who don’t believe in or respect human freedom and who view those who don’t have the same belief system as inferior and worthy of being killed?
Muslims voluntarily immigrated to a country where religious law is not supreme. They have to accept that or leave. If they’re hedging their bets, let them do it in a Muslim country.
For now, we can put the brakes to Muslim immigration. Until Muslims decide that those who advocate violence don’t represent them and until they are willing to take a stand on that issue, they should not enter a non-Muslim country. They may want to live in dar-al-Islam, but I don’t want the US in that empire.
For hundreds of years, people felt the same way about Catholics. Some people still do. Specifically, it was believed that a Catholic’s first loyalty was to the Pope and the rest of the Church hierarchy. This was a real problem when The Church was, in fact, a major political, military, economic, and cultural power. There were governments and parties who openly professed loyalty and submission to the Church – Spain being perhaps the most obvious example. Thus many Catholics living in Protestant-majority countries were suspected of divided loyalties, even of being agents – a fifth column working for the Pope and/or Spain.
Today, of course, that’s not so much of a problem. The situation evolved; the Church, while still a powerful player, is not seen as a real threat to other countries independence or their political systems. But I think we’re starting to see a similar attitude with regard to Islam and Muslim immigrants. Many of them come from countries that are officially Muslim, some in which Muslim clerics are an integral part of government and whose decisions are made into the law of the land. And certain strains of Islam are openly expansionistic, insisting that infidels must be converted and non-Muslim countries accept Sharia-based government. Given the number of Muslims in the world, and the fact that some Muslim countries are extremely wealthy and powerful, it seems no wonder that people are concerned – just as they were hundreds of years ago about the Pope and Spain.
Unlike sixteenth-century Spain, Muslim countries don’t have the military strength to pose a direct threat to the enlightened West. But they have people and they have money and they have our enlightened laws to use against us if they choose. Question is, are actually doing so? And if they are, how do we stop them? Obviously the methods used by Henry VIII and Elizabeth I against the “Catholic threat” won’t do anymore.
I hate them.
A “radical Muslim” is someone who wants to kill you. A “moderate Muslim” is someone who wants someone else to kill you.
Perfect!
The moderate Muslim is a Muslim who has not yet heeded the holy korans commandment to kill all the infidels.
my, how even handed. muslims, have grievances that they seek to avenge, according to you. oh, wait. they haven’t murdered enough, beheaded enough, committed heinous crimes enough, raped enough. they feel stifled (except throughout eurabia). reason enough to gently admonish the cultists.
It is ironic, given all the anti-American propaganda from that quarter, that the best country in the world to live in if you’re Arab is quite probably the United States.
This has everything to do with gun rights. I am sure Leftists would definitely be on board with Moslems should not be on board with the violent actions of a few (even those done with high powered weapons). Yet these same liberals have no problem clamping down on every American when someone who uses a gun does something that does not represent Americans at all. They will also use clear hate speech before they install their more legalistic methods. We all agree Erika Menendez should not have a gun but she should also not have a subway platform available, kitchen knife in her hand, be driving an automobile, have a bottle would could be broken and become sharp, etc. Some people are simply dangerously deranged and their penchant for violence means that if they carry on normal life they will be in contact with the means to hurt others.
My thoughts exactly, regarding gun control. I can’t think of one of the dems issues, when they are not found to be hypocrites in some way. Really, off top of my head, not one.
- Moghul portrays the deranged killer Erika Menendez as holding Muslims “collectively responsible for the actions of a few,” which he and his ilk frequently complain is what “Islamophobes” supposedly do: blame all Muslims for the actions of a few “extremists.”
- Moghul complains that for “Islamophobes,” “all Muslims are on the hook for what some Muslims do, and must constantly distance themselves from other Muslims—as if the whole must bear responsibility for the acts and faults of individuals.
But if one insane mass murderer has a gun, then all gun owners must be punished and/or treated as possible/probable mass murderers! Call it “gunownershipaphobia”. With that reasoning, all mental health patients must also be punished and/or treated as possible/probable mass murderers, and we’ll call that one “mentalimbalanceaphobia”.
Actually, it’s called HYSTERIA. Without quotes, because it’s true.
There is a the problem for “Moderate” Muslims. If you read the Koran and the Hadith (and believe them), it is impossible to conclude that the “extremists” are wrong. The radicals nuts are the ones obeying their scriptures.
I agree with The Architect’s number 9 statement 100%
There are certainly mosques in the US and abraod that attack Wahabist teachings. The problem is that there aren’t a lot in the US or outside of moderate Mulism countries like Morocco because Saudi Arabia funds the teaching of Wahabi doctrine and its got a lot of money. This funding is why (for example) the largest mosque in Seattle is named after a Saudi King and why most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi. Turn off the money funding Wahabism and we’ll see a huge decrease in Islamic terroism.
the problem tad, is that they may attack wahabist teachings (although I don’t see any evidence of that), But islamic teachings in general are the problem, not just wahabi teachings.
Who were all these folks dancing in the streets all across the mideast after the 9/11 attacks. These were of course the moderate muslims, I would guess. Any person that would celebrate the devastation that occurred that day can hardly be considered human. Yet the bleeding hearts of our country prefer that we should kiss their ass. You’re either with the terrorists or you’re with us. Whoever us is nowadays.
It would be interesting to hear what Mr. Spencer suggests our response should be to Islamic fundamentalism, rather than just the same recycled fear-mongering about Islam that he has been pedaling for years. Always warnings, never, ever, solutions. The “Islamaphobia industry”? Mr. Spencer is it, dining out on the evils of Islam, with no solutions. Be afraid, very afraid! And then what?
We will continue to divide ourselves into tribes,clans and even gangs. Why? Because islamists make the differentiation between muslim and infidel paramount. You can pretend otherwise, but islam regards non-muslims as the other and will have it no other way.
This type of tribalism has been mainstreamed over time, i.e., blacks who, in the mind of other blacks aren’t “authentic” enough or academics who proclaim their PC bona fides regardless of their discipline.
People who never wanted to think of themselves as particulaly representative of a group are facing that possibility whether they want to or not. If you love the Constitution and the idea of individual rights, well, you’re an angry white guy… or somebody who likes angry white guys. You cannot simply be, in the minds of many, someone who loves liberty and the rule of law. If you don’t name yourself someone will do it for you.
Muslim is’nt a race. It’s a religious group. There are no ‘moderate’ muslims. Their deadly religion doesn’t allow for it. All muslims maintain that their holy book is the quran, they live to obey it’s teachings. All muslims worship allah.
The proof of who and what muslims are, is in the pudding. One need only research the quran.
if you claim membership in a club, you claim it’s beliefs. Would you join a meat lovers club if you were a vegan? Would you reference any other book as your main ‘holy’ book but the satanic bible if you were a satanist? No, of course you wouldn’t, not unless you had an agenda, an ulterior motive.
Anyone who claims islam is a religion of peace, is a liar. Anyone who claims the quran doesn’t call for the destruction and butchery of non-believers, ia a liar.
Yet muslims claim to be like every other American.
They rest in the protection that being ‘moderate’ affords them, while they are in the minority. All the while proselytizing in prisons, flea markets, college campuses/schools, and in mosques that quickly spring up. They seek out those who have no god or hate their own country. Working tirelessly, they gain a foothold in society. Quietly growing in numbers.
With the help of treaturous political leaders, judges and law enforcement they begin to gain legal rights outside of the Constitution. They begin positioning themselves in governing bodies. They gain authority to influence laws and gain rights to live under, and inflict sharia law. Which is where muslims in America are right now, as more judges nationwide basing their rulings dealing with muslims on sharia law instead of American law.
Finally, they will easily and very quickly take control. Barbarism will be unleashed without end until every non-muslim is converted, jailed or killed.
muslim prick who pushed the korean fellow onto the subway tracks and to his death