And takes aim at a couple of apologists for Islam. “What a Waleed! With an Aly Like This Guy, Who Needs Enemies”. ‘Our intellectual superiors have raised …Read More… fisked by by Christina McIntosh
Full post below the fold.
And takes aim at a couple of apologists for Islam.
‘Our intellectual superiors have raised the alarm.
‘Worried by how all of us terrible oiks are responding to murderous Islamic terrorism, they’ve declared there should be limits to what we say about murderous Islamic terrorism.
‘Following what co-host Waleed Aly described as “one of the heaviest weeks we’ve lived through in a long time”, the ABC’s Minefield radio program last Thursday “took a hard look at the negative effects of ‘free speech'”.
‘Waleed’s co-presenter Scott Stephens, editor of the ABC’s Religion and Ethics website, kicked things off:
“There’s something quite disturbing about our response to the events we’ve witnessed in places like Orlando or Nice.
Not ‘events’. Barbaric mass-murderous Muslim attacks on Infidels – CM
“I’m hearing things being said that not that long ago would’ve been unthinkable.”
As far as I’m concerned, Mr Stephens, I find this – if you are referring to the fact that someone like Sonia Kruger is prepared to come right out and say on-air that she would like a halt to Muslim immigration – heartening, not disturbing. – CM
‘Now, a normal person might choose to focus on the events themselves, which left a total of 133 people dead through the vile deeds of Islamic maniacs.
Through the vile deeds of Muslims obeying to the letter the jihad doctrine of Islam. – CM
‘Their thinking might go something like this, “There’s something quite disturbing about the events we’ve witnessed in places like Orlando or Nice. I’m seeing things that not long ago would’ve been unthinkable”.
Or, at least, unthinkable in the heartlands of the Western world, in places such as France and the United States. No Muslim jihad raider had ever managed to mass-murder American infidels on American soil until September 11 2001. And the French homeland itself – at any point in time between the victory of Charles Martel over an invading Muslim army at Tours/ Poitiers in 732 and that point in the mid-20th century when the French foolishly began to admit within their gates large numbers of Muslim fifth columnists, whether from Iran or from the Maghreb or from “Palestine” or from anywhere else – also remained relatively free from direct experience of Muslim savagery. – CM
‘By contrast, not a solitary person has been killed by the response to those murders.
‘Stephens broadened his concern to include speeches made at last week’s Republican National Convention in Cleveland, from the parents of children killed by illegal immigrants. “The whole point of it was to demonise a particular group”, Stephens claimed. “The whole point of it is to do a certain violence against the dignity of fellow citizens and fellow human beings”.
‘As opposed, I guess, to the actual deadly violence committed by terrorists (that is: by Muslim jihad terror raiders – CM) and illegals, which appear for Stephens to rank below the horrifying use of words.
There is, of course, a distinction between mere criminality as perpetrated by some non-Muslim illegal immigrants, and the ideologically-driven sacralised barbarism of Islam, perpetrated by Muslims (whether such Muslims get in legally or illegally), which is intended to force non-Muslims to Submit to Muslim rule, whether as converts to Islam or as near-slave Dhimmis. – CM
“We’ve been hearing about calls for a ban on Muslim immigration”, he fretted, referring to television presenter Sonia Kruger’s recent remarks.
And what’s wrong with that? People are noticing the obvious – got Muslims? got Jihad – and have been drawing the obvious conclusion, that it might be a good idea to stop importing Muslims and thereby reduce the incidence of jihad. – CM
“In the national broadsheet this week there was a letter published calling for Muslim internment.
We interned Aussies of German descent during both WWI and WWII, and they had done far less to prompt that precautionary measure than have far too many from among our expanding, vociferous and ever more aggressive Muslim colonies. Why should not internment be at least raised as a possible response to the proliferation of (so far, fortunately-foiled) jihad plots, the attacks – Lindt Cafe, the murder of Curtis Cheng, the attempted stabbing murder of two policemen – that have already taken place, the endless incitement, the publicly-made threats, and the numerous Aussie-passport-holding Muslims who have rushed off to join Islamic State (and how many more entertain similar ideas but are lying low as yet?). – CM
‘There have been expressions of unvarnished racism and sexism.
What do either racism or sexism have to do with people noticing and discussing the specifically Muslim – orthodox Muslim – motivations of the Muslim mass murders of Infidels at the Charlie Hebdo offices, the Bataclan theatre, the Brussels airport, Orlando, or Nice? What is ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’ about wanting to reduce the probability of similar ideologically-driven mass-murders taking place in future, by putting a stop to Muslim immigration into western countries, and by interning the Muslim fifth columnists already present? Both of those measures, by limiting the power and presence of Muslims, would in fact make the streets of Infidel countries safer for a/ Jews (since there is a vicious Jew-hatred hard-wired into Islam, and Jews have been violently attacked – and not a few murdered – by Muslims in France, and threatened and attacked by Muslims in other European countries as well) and b/ women (given the misogyny of Islam that manifests in such things as the Muslim ‘grooming’ gangs that raped and pimped thousands of non-Muslim girls in the UK, the multiple sexual assaults upon German women and girls by Muslim migrants in Germany earlier this year, and the Lebanese and Pakistani gang-rapes of young girls in Australia not so very long ago). – CM
“We’ve seen over the last year chest-beating advocacy of the restoration of torture….
As opposed to the open and unashamed practice of gruesome tortures – far, far worse than mere waterboarding – and of cruel and unusual punishments and methods of execution, by Muslim states – such as Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia – and by Muslim jihad entities such as Islamic State, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, and the rest? – CM
‘Stephens offered this thundering conclusion.
“I’m wondering whether we as moral agents can still be trusted with the privilege of freedom of speech. I think we’re at the point where we (who is ‘we’, here, Mr Stephens? –CM) have to re-examine what we mean by that and if there is a deeper moral obligation that puts constraints on what we ought to be able to say in public.”
A deeper moral obligation…? Perhaps Mr Stephens should be sweetly asked whether he thinks that the murdered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, or the murdered Theo Van Gogh, or Robert Redeker (who wrote one article, just one, that trenchantly and accurately criticised the “extraordinary violence” of the Koran and the deplorable character of Mohammed, and as a result lost his job, was deluged with death threats, and fled into hiding), or those pesky Bangladeshi atheist bloggers so recently hacked to pieces by gangs of pious Mohammedans, or that outrageous Christian matron, Asia Bibi, who sits on death row in Pakistan for having dared to tell her Muslim tormentors that she preferred Jesus to Mohammed, or dastardly Salman Rushdie who should have bitten his tongue rather than mention the ‘satanic verses’, or… or those evil, evil, evil rabble-rousing critics of Islam and of Mohammed and of Muslims, the Muslim-assassinated poets of pre-Islamic Arabia, Asma Bint Marwan, Abu Afak and Kab bin Ashraf, one and all, deserved what they got? Does Mr Stephens – and his co-host Mr Aly – believe that all these people should have obeyed the ‘deeper moral obligation’ to remain silent, or else to only say nice, sweet, flattering things to and about Muslims, and about wonderful, wonderful Islam? – CM
‘It might have been fun to turn Stephens’ microphone off mid-rant. No more freedom of speech for you, mate, especially not on the taxpayer’s dime.
‘Waleed Aly went along with most of this, so long as Stephens confined his comments “to the moral realm”, wherever that is.
‘Perhaps it should be Radio National’s new name.
‘Listeners then heard from Aly himself.
“Certain speech and the proliferation of certain speech can have real world harms”, the Gold Logie winner said. “It’s part of whipping up a mood that has seen people bashed and may well see more people bashed”.
‘In fact, certain speech and the proliferation of certain speech can cause real world deaths.
‘Much of that speech comes from the Koran (and the Sira and the Hadiths and the mainline interpreters thereof both past and present, not to mention 1001 Muslim clerics and Muslim pundits of all sorts and condtions, from all over the dar al Islam, upon whose rabid rantings – thanks to the labours of MEMRI – the curious infidel may eavesdrop whenever we so choose. – CM), which has been whipping up quite a mood of late in Syria and Northern Iraq.
And in many other places also. – CM
‘We’ve also seen a little Koran-inspired mood-whipping locally.
‘Recall the violent Sydney riot of 2012, where signs reading, “Behead all those who insult the prophet”, were prominent?
‘One year after that riot, and immediately following the Boston Marathon bombings – which he absurdly suggested may have been committed by “self-styled American patriots” (but which turned out to have been committed, surprise, surprise! by Chechen Muslims who had gained entry into the USA by claiming to be “refugees” – CM) Aly wrote: “Terrorism is a perpetual irritant, and while it is tragic and emotionally lacerating, it kills relatively few people and is not any kind of existential threat”.
‘The victims in Orlando and Nice (and in San Bernardino, and Paris, and Northern Nigeria, and Kenya, and in many, many, many other places – CM) might disagree.
‘Too bad their freedom of speech has been permanently revoked…”.
Here’s Hirsi Ali encouraging people to protect their turf by remaining steadfast in their defense of free speech (which, in and of itself, is “blasphemy”):
[I]f you believe that the idea of Islamic law is a bad idea, you must defend the freedom of speech. The other side either calls it “Islamophobia” or the classic name: blasphemy. If you say this about the prophet, it’s blasphemy. (“Islamophobia” is a very new term. When did it come into sway? 2006? 2005? It’s a very young idea. But before Islamophobia came around, it just used to be called blasphemy.)
One fifth of humanity is labelled Muslim. And the Medina agenda [of dawa and jihad] is to co-opt them: it’s to convince them that Sharia law, Islamic law, unreformed, is the best idea. That the idea of America is very bad. And that they should submit to Islam. Major resources for this cause are being pushed by countries like Saudi Arabia, where our president is. If you want to defeat or even engage with the idea of Islamic religion and Islamic law, the way to go is blasphemy. I believe in blasphemy. In fact, Surah 25, Chapter 25 of the Quran is called The Criterion, and portends to be the distinction between right and wrong. So The New Criterion, even the name itself, is blasphemic.
In many ways I think it’s comical that I’m being recognized for saying men and women should be equal before the law. That’s what I’m being recognized for, pretty much. That’s what it amounts to. And that idea that men and women are equal before the law is blasphemic to Islamic law. The fact that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be equal before the law is blasphemic to Islamic law. The fact that people of different religions—Jews, Christians, those who have no faith—are equal before the law is blasphemic to Islamic law. The idea that human beings, men and women, can make their own laws based on reason, not shackled by divine law, is blasphemic to Islamic law.
The idea of America is secular. It is about the fact that we are created equal. That we make and amend our own laws. What is blasphemy to them is valuable and is law to us. And I took an oath when I became an American citizen. And my oath in my heart was: that is what I’m going to defend. Hear, hear, blasphemy.
|Some enthusiastic anti-“blasphemy” fans express support for the
sharia-decreed punishment for the “crime”.