UI – Part 474 – Liberals & Muslims, Odd Company
The contrast is stunning. Liberals support Islam, reject Islamophobia, and defend their politics. The major difference is liberals reject conservative ideas when it comes to homosexuals, abortion, free love, or adulterous affairs, while the Muslims hatred and contempt for homosexuals, adultery, open displays of affection, and even abortion doesn’t matter. The liberals see Islam as a Religion of Peace, while the Muslim males, culturally insecure, rape and strike in anger and then claim it is because of their religion, and the liberals defend them. The contrast is stunning.
Resistance Towards Reading The Quran
Robert Spencer speaks out about Islam and many times his comments are simply readings from the Quran or other tenets of Islam. In so doing he all too often meets with resistance, similar to that of the Democrats, the liberals, protesting against Trump due to his victory. They harbor hatred for hatred sake. Liberal audiences condemn Spencer’s talks trying to inform others about Islam, calling out “Islamophobia,” as if it were hate or racist speech. It is not, as Muslims are not the target of concern, it is the ideology of Islam, and Muslims are not a race. Besides in many cases what is presented is not opinion, it is simply what is recorded in the Scripture of Islam. Why should that not be allowed, or why should liberals, the protestors, find offensive a reading from the texts of Islam that they are attempting to defend. After all it is the words of Muhammad as recorded. It is being read, shared, for others that may have never read or heard it before, what is being studied and is the primary guide to the Islamic religious world. Where is the common sense in condemning readings from the Quran? What do they fear? What is their concern?
Liberals Love Islam
From the jihadwatch website (www.jihadwatch.com) a recent posting entitled, “Leftists Misguided Love Affair with Islam,” (Read here) a few poignant comments are offered. 1.) “Why do so many liberals praise a religion that, at its root, is quite conservative, if not fundamentalist? Why do they defend a faith that would not defend them? Worse still, why do they defend a faith that, in some cases, would do violence to them?” 2.) “Why in the world would groups like this (a pro-Hamas, anti-Israel rally led by feminists and LGBT activists, among others on the left) support Hamas, which would kill or imprison them for their beliefs (and their sexual or romantic proclivities)?” 3.) “These students (University of Buffalo protestors) have been hoodwinked into thinking that ‘Islamophobes,’ rather than jihad terrorists, are killing people around the world.” 4.) “By shutting down any discussion of the motivating ideology of the jihad threat and consigning it all to the realm of ‘hatred’ and ‘bigotry,’ the student mob at the University of Buffalo enables that threat to grow. One day, the Leftists who screamed, heckled, and booed as I (Robert Spencer) tried to speak may very well experience the consequences of their actions, carried out by those with whom they thought they stood in solidarity.”
What is happening in Canada is well worth understanding too.
Islam is an ideology opposing freedom, as it exposes Muslims to temptations that are taboo in their required way of life. It is an ideology that is not independent or separate from governance, a theocracy. The spiritual and temporal meet and are regulated by the theocratic, the rules as promulgated by Muhammad. Muhammad, the self-proclaimed prophet, or messenger of Islam, with no witnesses, received dictations second hand (via Gabriel) from Allah, so he claims, which became, absent many lost verses, the Quran. But the Quran was also peppered with modifications from the first three Caliphs after Muhammad’s death, and then a final compilation was decided upon by Uthman (Caliph #3), the others destroyed.
The Quran and a few associated documents (the Hadiths) comprise the religion (which I see as an ideology which as a religion is a ruse) and the oversight, governance, of those who practice the ideology. The laws of the land of the Muslims, which I refer to as Islamaland, are created for Muslims, may apply to non-Muslims (who recognize Muslims as superior) and for any who are born into this ideology or join this ideology. If members/followers of this ideology then decide, thinking and researching independently, that it is not the path for them, they are condemned, by order of Quranic (Sharia or Islamic) Law, to die. The scholars of Islam, the teachers, the Imams, the Mullahs, the Khomeini’s are in charge. The rulers, autocratic or dictatorial, are to cater to the theocratic.
In most majority Muslim countries residents must carry ID cards. On those cards their religion is noted. If someone changes their religion, they must change their card. When they do so, as a Muslim no longer, they are clearly an apostate. In some countries they can be jailed. It is like putting a target on their backs. For the Islamic enforcer those with the targets are as game in the forest. The difference is they are to be killed, but not eaten.
Constitution Not for Liberals
The liberals on the other had have a problem with the Constitution, the guiding document of the United States, which insures equal rights, proper treatment of all humans, male and female, and protects different ways of believing, be that in God or not, through laws applicable to everyone. Those laws are influenced by the universal rights of all humans as well and the ethical and moral principles put forward in the bible, but that is the extent to which it is bound by any theocratic controls. God is not in charge of America, the elected politicians are, who in turn are bounded only by the constraints in the Constitution. Those constraints, I must add, are mostly an insurance policy on the freedom of the individual, such as a right to bear arms, to believe as they prefer, to be protected by the laws (equally), to be protected from an overly zealous government, protected too by checks and balances on the branches of government (Executive, Judicial and Legislative), some limits on terms of those elected, the process for representation, elections, and more. Free speech, thought and conscious is also to be protected.
The liberals seek even more freedoms, basically as secularists, to find truth as what the individual believes, as society believes, without any outside force, especially the supernatural incomprehensible creator kind. That would even be more problematic for Muslims. The odd contrast for the liberal is a penchant to repress the speech of those who disagree with their narrative or agenda. A similar stance is taken by the Islamist.
The liberals want gun control. Take away everyone’s access to guns and personal protection. It is a choice. Some like guns, some do not. Who then defends the individual? Who defends the individual against those who get guns anyway, stealing or buying from third party black market vendors? Will Americans be safer without their guns? But try to take away a liberal’s right to have an abortion, the killing, as many believe (pro-lifers), of a human being? Liberals have found comfort in defining a human, as a ‘person.’ Only when a human can make choices on their own are they a ‘person,’ otherwise they have no choice, they can be aborted. But the ‘person’ who can make choices should not have a gun. And they should not even be able to read from the Quran if it suggests bad thoughts about Islam. What?
The Infidel Liberal
The liberal is an infidel. Infidels are to be hated by the Muslim, unless, please note, they cater wholly to the Islamic way, never to interfere with Islam’s progress or intentions. So is it out of fear, cowardice, or simply ignorance and complacency that the Liberal opens its doors to the Islamic?
What our Constitution protects the Islamists want destroyed in favor or Sharia Law. Sharia or Islamic Law confronts the freedoms liberals seek to broaden every day, even to the extent of taking God out of any equation via a more secular focus on living and government. However the Islamist currently use our Constitution against us to gain a foothold so they can in turn change the Constitution to meet their demands, their Sharia. The conflict the liberals seem to miss is what the Islamists want to change in the Constitution makes the individual unable to do and live anyway they want. Chaos awaits, so too revolution. The Muslims want to change the Constitution to have individuals live only as the Quran permits. God would be gone and Allah would take charge. Hijabs and Burkas here we come. With Allah in charge homosexuals would be caned or thrown from the roofs of multistory buildings. No drugs, alcohol or gambling would be allowed. No hand holding in public or other displays of affection. Your pet dog, forget about it. No tattoos. And the list goes on. And the human Islamist strongman becomes the enforcer, the executioner, as Allah’s aide. Is this what the liberals are really defending or just showing their ignorance?
As I have said, the contrasts are stunning.
Freedom and Christians
Christians, I must comment, have their concerns also about the extent to which freedoms in our society invade their religious ideals. They may condemn them, in fact should be permitted to express their views and their beliefs, even read from their texts, but they cannot prevent them if society as a whole permits. What they teach their children and share within their church and community is to be permitted, and the constituents allowed to make their own decisions. They just live according to their beliefs, protected by the Constitution’s freedom of speech, and they should not be prevented from sharing their expressions of right and wrong. Christians are encouraged to evangelize, to share the freedoms they enjoy, the joy and hope of a life eternal because of the saving grace of the Lord. But Christians are also to respect their governments, their leaders. They lead their lives as an example to others, aware others may not be living their lives as a Christian.
I must admit there are Christians that go too far by taking aggressive actions to prevent others from committing the sins they consider wrong. We are all sinners. A Christian is to recognize they sin, it is the Bad News. Christ provided the means for their salvation by dying on the cross, taking the punishment they deserved for the sins and providing forgiveness. Christians, those having faith in Christ, have been made right with God. That is the Good News. But those that do take action against others, they are wrong, they are self-righteous, not in what they believe, but in how they act. The overly zealous are not being Christian.
Christianity today, even in the United States, is challenged. America, the US, is a union founded with laws predicated on Judeo-Christian values, that is the moral and ethical values put forth in the bible. Yet the Christian is challenged and treated as if they are fascists, bigots and haters. The platform of the Islamist, whose conservative principles are enforced by their Islamic Law, is restrictive in many more ways than the platform for the Christian. We do not live under Christian Law. So explain to me why the liberals embrace the Islamist whose ideology condemns what the liberal, the Democrat, the progressive, sees as their open-door-anything-goes pathway to life, while attacking the Christian, or conservative, from even speaking in the public square, the Christian who has no design on killing those who are not Christian.
The Company You Keep
The liberal and the Islamic union is indeed odd. A Muslim male may sleep and marry a non-Muslim woman, only to have her convert. They can rape a non-muslim woman, that’s permitted. The liberal woman can even become a Muslim male’s slave. Think how the concept of slavery alone offends a liberal. A Muslim woman is not to marry, let alone sleep, with a non-muslim male. So little freedom, so much for loving what they each do. There is much more to this accord, so much that I haven’t a clue. If you can explain please do.
Grace and Peace
One thought on “Liberals & Muslims, Odd Company”
Right on Tom! Our Western liberals, God bless their hearts, are so deficient in worldly wisdom and informed judgement (naive). You have accurately commented on the beliefs of Islam, even those who would describe themselves as “moderates”.