Now I’m confused: Can Muslims be Islamophobic?

August 9, 2010

I mean, that’s the only explanation why two Muslims would call the mosque to be built just a few hundred feet from Ground Zero a provocation, and that every Muslim knows that’s what it is, isn’t it?

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna”

And the Iranian Muslim-American woman who lost her mother when United 175 slammed into the South Tower, she must be an Islamophobe, too:

When I am asked about the people who murdered my mother, I try to hold back my anger. I try to have a more spiritual perspective. I tell myself that perhaps what happened was meant to happen — that it was my mother’s destiny to perish this way. I try to take solace in the notion that her death has forced a much-needed conversation and reevaluation of the role of religion in the Muslim community, of the duties and obligations that the faith imposes and of its impact on the non-Muslim world.

But a mosque near Ground Zero will not move this conversation forward. There were many mosques in the United States before Sept. 11; their mere existence did not bring cross-cultural understanding. The proposed center in New York may be heralded as a peace offering — may genuinely seek to focus on “promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture,” as its Web site declares — but I fear that over time, it will cultivate a fundamentalist version of the Muslim faith, embracing those who share such beliefs and hating those who do not.

The Sept. 11 attacks were the product of a hateful ideology that the perpetrators were willing to die for. They believed that all non-Muslims are infidels and that the duty of Muslims is to renounce them. I am not a theologian, but I know that the men who killed my mother carried this message in their hearts and minds. Obedient and dutiful soldiers, they marched toward their promised rewards in heaven with utter disregard for the value of the human beings they killed.

Liberal multiculturalists and “Big L” Libertarians tell us we’re being intolerant and somehow slighting the principles on which the US was founded when we say a mosque shouldn’t be built at Ground Zero, that it will only cause strife and be a symbol of victory for those Muslims who support the jihad against the West. They imply that we’re being bigoted, ignorant, and Islamophobic.

Yet when lifelong Muslims themselves say the same things, shouldn’t we listen?

LINKS: More from Hot Air.


Free speech on trial in The Netherlands

January 27, 2010

For the last several days, Dutch parliamentarian and head of the Freedom Party Geert Wilders, who has to live in hiding because of death threats from Muslims, has been on trial in The Netherlands for exercising his rights to free speech by criticizing Islam and Muslim immigration to his country.  He has been charged under laws against “inciting hatred,” which, in effect, criminalize thought and speech that deviates from a  politically correct norm. At the opening of his trial, Wilders made a statement using truth as a defense and asking how a fact can be illegal:

Whether one agrees with Wilders or not about the problems and challenges posed by aggressive Islam (and I largely do), I should think everyone concerned with the fundamental liberties we consider unalienable would be worried by any attempt to punish a freeborn citizen for his or her opinions.

At Big Journalism, Rich Trzupek looks at the Wilders trial and what it says about the decadent state of Liberty in The Netherlands, where it is permissible to criticize Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, or any religion, but criticizing Islam is somehow “hate speech.” He offers two reasons: first, the dead hand of politically-correct multiculturalism, which declares all cultures of equal worth and free of criticism – unless it is Western culture being attacked. The second is simple fear: criticism of Islam can result in threats, violence, and even murder from Islamic supremacists.

Both are at play, along with a supine unwillingness to stand for those liberties the West has spent millennia building as a civilization, to declare their value and, indeed, their superiority, and to defend them against those who would hide behind them to advance their own illiberal, fascist agendas. In short, surrender.

The Wilders trial, taking place in a small corner of the world, should be something watched by all concerned for civil liberties.

LINKS: You can learn more at Defend Geert Wilders.


Religion of Tolerance Watch

October 19, 2009

Dutch parliamentarian and head of the Freedom Party Geert Wilders recently visited London, where gave a news conference in a meeting room of the House of Lords. Wilders is (in)famous for his opposition to the Islamization of Europe and the spread of sharia law. In my opinion, he’s a staunch, if flamboyant, defender of free speech and Western liberalism against a new totalitarianism. Others see him differently, including many Muslims, who showed up to protest his press conference. That’s their right: even speech we deem hateful is protected, though the line draws near when that speech carries an implicit death threat:

So, let me get this straight:

  • The penalty for insulting the “prophets” is death.
  • Geert Wilders had better watch his back (or neck, as the case may be).
  • But the young Muslim at the start of the video isn’t threatening Wilders. Oh, no.

And lest you think I’m drawing too much from this, note the speaker’s reference to Theo van Gogh, the filmmaker murdered in Amsterdam by a devout Muslim for insulting Islam and Muhammad – by exercising his right to free speech. Van Gogh was Wilders’ countryman, and the Dutch lawmaker, who lives under police protection, knows exactly what message was intended.

But he’s an Islamophobe and overreacting; after all, Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and perfectly compatible with Western democratic liberties.

Care to buy a bridge?

(hat tip: The Jawa Report)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,853 other followers