IMPORTANT questions for Islamists and their appeasers
Our readers want to know…
by Donald Hank
The Organization of Islamic Conference now wants to sue people like Geert Wilders simply for his movie quoting the Koran against a backdrop showing actual footage of Islamic violence. And as long as treacherous appeasers wield their power in national governments, the OIC could win. Such censorship of the public has been accomplished in Canada, where religious freedom does not extend to those who disagree with other religions. In other words, where moral and religious equivalency is enforced. That’s right, the religion of post-modernism (=moral equivalency) is the only religion you may endorse in that country if you desire not to be sued, jailed or both. How’s that for freedom in a country that may soon share in the lawmaking decisions of the USA if G.W. Bush and the Globalist goons succeed in foisting the North American Union on us?
But there is a question the defenders of the “Religion of Peace” still need to answer: In a previous issue, I had quoted the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) stating that the then soon-to-be-released film by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders will have “serious repercussions which could get out of hand and would be difficult to control.”
In other words, if Wilders insists on showing the world how violent and unreasonable Muslims can be, the OIC, which represents them, threatens that these same Muslims may become violent.
I had pointed out how untenable that position is, since in effect, it expresses both indignation at the suggestion that Islam is violent and at the same time, a threat of violence to those who would dare suggest that it is violent!
Which is it? Are they offended because they are in fact non-violent or are they violent enough to kill and harm people who would suggest this just because they know their behavior won’t bear scrutiny and are sore losers? They seem to want it both ways.
On behalf of my readers, I now ask the Muslim community for an explanation, or at least a position on this.
Specifically:
How can you Muslims leaders, with a straight face, threaten people with violence for suggesting Muslims are violent?
Are you trying to confirm their accusations against you? Or hadn’t you noticed what message you are sending? What’s wrong with sending your co-religionists the message that they can’t afford to provide more support for Wilders’ argument by reacting violently, and that instead Muslims everywhere need to prove to the West that they represent the Religion of Peace?
If you are concerned about your image, please explain how threatening innocent people will help maintain that image. The rest of the world, which you are trying to convert to your “peaceful” way, wants to know.
Of course, the worst offenders are not the Muslims themselves but rather the European appeasers who think coddling bearded babies in bomb belts is the answer to the violence problem.
What strikes me as odd is that the world’s ultimate lesson in the failure of appeasement actually came from Europe itself in the late 1930s. Of course, we need to realize that the European education system has failed miserably to teach history to its young (to the extent that a sizeable fraction of polled products of that system actually think that Churchill was a fictitious character!), and that is probably not a mistake but rather a calculated strategy of the Left. After all, a populace that understands the history of the Left would never want to embrace that failed ideology any more than a seasoned woodsman would want to approach a skunk.
So here is my question for you promoters of dhimmitude in Europe:
If the appeasement approach failed so miserably in England under Neville Chamberlain, while the hang-tough approach was so successful under Winston Churchill, why do you favor the former approach and eschew the latter when confronting another threat to freedom and Judeo-Christian traditions, and yes, to the existence of Jews worldwide, that is remarkably similar to Hitler’s threat?
If it failed before, how do you expect it to succeed this time?
We cordially invite both groups (Muslims and dhimmis) to enter our forum and state their cases. If you are acquainted with Muslims who may be interested in this debate, or if you have a friend who believes in bowing to Muslim censorship demands in the interest of peace, please pass along the link to this column and invite them to post their response in the Comments box below (they will need to be patient. The comment will only show up after it is approved).
We would like to better understand these folks.
Even a no-show would speak volumes, now wouldn’t it?
HOLMEN cross:
My friend Anthony Horvath, whose ads appear at the top and to the right of our columns and whose columns grace our pages from time to time, has a story of a new cross display on public property that seems to be the latest casualty in the war against Christianity.
This is one of multiple examples in our nation of Christian symbols falling prey to the misinterpretation of the First Amendment, which was designed in part to protect religion from government but wound up being appropriated by the Left as an instrument against our godly heritage. An instrument wielded by secularists and atheists to do exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do.
Read about it here.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Are you a paleocon? Straussian? You seem to be opposed to the mentality of appeasement, which strikes me as being in the Keyes camp and not the Ron Paul camp. Is that correct?
March 29th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Hello Sean,
I am neither a Paleocon nor a Straussian.
I am a Gumpian.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
In case anyone cares, I have the Fina video embedded and available - despite Liveleak’s being forced to pull it down - over at http://blog.jonolan.net/religion/fitna-the-movie/
Personally I think the film is completely ham-handed and ridiculous due to it’s overly broad portrayal of Muslims as evil, but MP Wilder should certainly be allowed to air it!
Some people need to remember or learn that only unpopular speech needs protecting.
March 29th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Hello Jonolan,
Thanks for the link to your site.
I couldn’t help but wondering at first if Wilders wasn’t over the top with his call to ban the Koran as hate speech, but it ain’t going to happen, so it is a non-concern.
If it did, it would be awful because that would give the Left an excuse to ban parts of the Bible that certain orientations don’t like.
March 29th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Re my response to Sean:
By Gumpian I was referring to the movie Forrest Gump, one of the best films of the 20th century.
Forrest Gump expressed my sentiments when he said:
“I am not a smart man but I know what love is.”
The “smart men” in our world are the Harvard elites who think they can tell us all how to live our lives.
The Gumps are the rest of us who just want government to leave us alone, because without their fancy high-falutin’ “education,” we little people could do just fine.
The New Testament lists the best traits for human beings:
“…faith hope and love, but the greatest of these is love.”
If we know that much we need know no more.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I just happen to be a Sunni Muslim who takes his religion and faith in God quite seriously.
I don’t believe suing anyone who “offends” us should be sued. And violence won’t do anyone any good when it comes to restoring the honor of Muslims and Islam.
It’s up to us as Muslims to earn the trust and honor that we feel that we are entitled to by acting and thinking honorably. Violence against our critics, violence against women and children and the lack of tolerance for alternative points of view will end up destroying us. They are the direct result of following our so-called religious and political leaders like sheep.
Sic semper tyrranis!
March 30th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Hello Nabil,
Thanks for this thoughtful comment. I appreciate your taking the time to stop by.
I must admit I have spoken with a Muslim Arab who had spent 12 years in France and when we talked about the godlessness of that country — where he said, regretfully, that he had never met a single person who said they believed in God — I felt a certain kinship with him, at least on that level, because I share that regret that our European fatherland has fallen to such a level of godlessness.
One thing that amazes me is that Mohammed has said that Jesus is a prophet (we believe He is much more than that, of course), and yet, he has written some very negative things about Christians.
Likewise, he admits that many of the prophets mentioned in the Old Testament are also prophets of Islam, and yet he rejects the Jews so roundly.
I have never understood this apparent contradiction and this animosity. On the one hand, the Muslim faith seems to have been built on Judeo-Christian roots, and yet the one who interprets this religion for its followers in the Koran seems to be cutting himself and his followers off from that root. We Christians acknowledge our Jewish roots when we read the Old Testament and apply its wisdom to our lives (which is probably why you think of us as the People of the Book). We do not try to cut ourselves off from it and we do not dishonor the people who were chosen by God to write that book, even though we are sorry that they reject our Christ.
This is why we share their grief at the Holocaust, which was a great tragedy that I personally came to grips with on a visit to Auwschitz.
I wonder if you have any thoughts on any of these things.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Actually, the Bible itself has some pretty strong criticism levelled against the ancient Israelites and others who claim to follow God’s word but do not.
One must be careful not to jump to conclusions when finding passages in the Qur’an levelled against Jews, Christians and people of other faiths. The Qur’an also mentions that there are those Muslims who are hypocrites and is just as harsh on them.
On the other hand, the Qur’an also mentions that there are Believers among Jews, Chrsitians and even idolaters, and that they will be permitted to enter Paradise as well. God also forbade waging wars against those who have not attacked us on account of our faith, and that those who do are wrongdoers and may be punished for their crimes.
We do not look at Jews and Christians as they look upon us. As a Muslim, I see Islam as the original faith in God (we believe that Abraham was a Muslim in the true sense of the word; ie. one who submtted before God). I see Judaism and Christianity (along with Zoroastianism, Buddhism, Hindusim, etc.) as variants of Islam. The Qur’an mentions (if my memory serves me correctly) that God sent at least one messenger/prophet to every nation on the face of this planet at one time or another. The last of these was Muhammad. But I also believe that all of these messenger/prophets from God preached the same central message: That our God is One and the only One to be worshipped, that He is All-Knowing, All-Seeing, Just as well as Merciful. And that we should be just and merciful towards others.
Your Muslim Arab friend said that hardly anyone believes in God over in Europe. But most of them are Christian by origin. Perhaps it is these people who are being refered to in the Qur’an as “disbelievers”, along with Jews who don’t believe in God, either.
Now I have an interesting question for you: If you believe as a Christian that Jesus was the “son of God”, why is it that the Jews don’t? Jesus was one of their number. You share the same Old Testament. Could they be so blind so as not to be able see this? Or are they basically confirming what is already told to us in the Qur’an?
Take care.
March 30th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Hello Nabil,
Yes, that is an interesting question and I can’t speak for the Jews. Perhaps another reader can help us out.
As for blindness, I had mentioned in an earlier article that, according to my friend AR Horvath (Athanatos, or Sntjohnnys, linked to this site), the book of Daniel does in fact predict the exact dates of some events in the life of Jesus, and I think it is no doubt this kind of accurate prediction (of which there are several) that persuaded many of the early Christians to believe in Christ.
What you are suggesting would lead one to believe that Christians are closer to Muslims than to Jews.
Interesting indeed, although theologically, Christians stand apart from you both because we believe in salvation through grace rather than works. Christ said none is good but God. He meant that no one — neither Jew nor gentile — could ever be saved by good works.
I must admit, though, that I find it hard to call some people Christians who are persistently living in sin, and am impressed by the fact that many Muslims actually live clean lives, while many of the Judeo-Christian persuasion do not.
This is where I give you folks credit. Personally, if I were an Arab and saw Hollywood movies, I would probably think that America is the Great Satan, although I know that there are many decent people here who reject the Hollywood message, as I do.
The Apostle Paul says that all people of all nations know in their hearts the difference between right and wrong, both Jew and gentile, and he says there is therefore no excuse for sin.
However, there is redemption. NO ONE is excluded. All they need to do is accept the Savior’s blood as atonement. That is the good news!
March 30th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
This is a very interesting discussion. I am not an expert to answer the questions here. There are a few points I know of that I can address here.
The Jewish view, as I have studied some of Judaism, includes a concept that God does not like vanity. The bible teaches both Christians and Jews to condemn vanity. It is an ethics issue.
I know it is better to try not to say anything to harm anyone’s feelings. I also know that if I know what the truth is about something, then I should bring that to the light, as long as I can do that with out harming another person’s feelings. That being said, I know I must say the truth, which is that Abraham is the Patriarch of the Jews. In the Bible it states that Ishmael, the son of Abraham that was sent away with his Mother, Haggar, would have a great Nation given. That would be the Muslim faith as descendants of Abraham’s son, Ishmael. Human beings make mistakes. Sarah, the wife of Abraham, was taunted by Haggar, who was Sarah’s maid, for not having children. Sarah decided to allow Haggar to produce a child for Sarah through Abraham. Haggar persisted with her attitude, and her son, Ishmael was out of line. Then, when at the age of 100 years, God gave Abraham and Sarah, their son Isaac. Sarah did not wish to have Isaac be influenced by the behavior of Ishmael. Sarah also did not wish to continue to have Haggar continue with her behavior as well. Abraham abided by his wife Sarah’s advise and banished both Haggar and Ishmael. It is not easy to clear up the problems of vanity. Forgiveness is possible with human beings. I hope and pray that this ancient scenario be resolved with forgiveness because the vanity involved is addressed. The Christian view as stated in the previous posts, involve solving problems with love. The Judaeic concepts, when studying the same problems, bring about revealing and understanding the underlying necessities of behavior to be able to address the problems with love. I would venture to say that both Christianity and the Muslim faiths are sort of a shorthand of Judaism. Judaism is by far the most thorough, and therefore takes more study to grasp and it is truly the root, the original, the real beginning of these religions. These thoughts are from a person, who grew up a Christian and experienced a conversion to Judaism, returned to Christianity, and is now studying Judaism. My recommendation is for Muslim’s to study Judaism as well. The rewards are great in understanding. The task is however,a more difficult road to comprehend than Christianity.