UI – Part 502 – Persecution of Muslims
Definitions (primarily from the Oxford Dictionary)(Italics my own for emphasis)
Persecution – hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs. And to persecute is to subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their race or political or religious beliefs.
Under persecution let’s add believers. When a religion is persecuted, it is the believers that are persecuted. Also within a religion believers may be persecuted by the hierarchy of the religion itself. Persecution does not entail punishment or chastisement.
Criticism – the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes, or, the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work
Islamophobia – dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force
Christianophobia – (Urban Dictionary) – irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Christianity or Christians
Intolerance – unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own.
Phobia – an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something
Dislike – a feeling of distaste or hostility.
Scrutinize – examine or inspect closely and thoroughly.
Punishment – the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense
Chastisement – verbal punishment, or, a rebuke for making a mistake
Offense – a breach of a law or rule; an illegal act, or, annoyance or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard for oneself or one’s standards or principles.
Sexism – prejudice or discrimination based on sex; (especially – historically) discrimination against women.
These definitions provide a basis for this discussion. It was interesting that there was only one dictionary, the Urban Dictionary, that offered a definition for Christianophobia.
From these definitions nothing suggests Islamophobia is a crime. Nor does it suggest ‘hatred.’ The use of the word ‘fear’ raises the issue of concern, a disquiet towards practices engaged or suggested that could have a harmful impact. The definition of ‘Islamophobia’ itself avoids the term ‘fear,’ which is the primary basis for a ‘phobia.’ ‘Dislike’ and ‘fear’ are different, I feel.
In Canada laws have been passed to persecute Islamophobia by making it a crime to ‘dislike’ Islam, or have ‘hostility’ towards Islam. They go so far as to suggest it is hatred (a hate crime) toward a race. Muslims are not a race as they are as diverse as all society can be. The young Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, suggests opposition to the legislation is an example of ‘sexism.’ Is he showing a lack of knowledge, a poor grasp on his native language, or a liberal contorted prejudice by his use of the word, ‘sexism,’ in an attempt to justify a position for which he feels he has voter support as a Social Justice Warrior (SJW)? Is he now adding to Muslims as a race, Muslims as a ‘sex’?
So often, and now liberals have become conditioned to the point the truth, the facts, are ignored, and just about any adverse term, such a ‘sexism’ by the PM, can be applied to make those considered Islamophobes faulty in their concerns.
Inequality of Muslims
In America scrutiny and criticism of any religion has never been deemed a crime. So what Canada has proposed, and other areas as well, such as the UK, is for Islam to be immune from criticism, and not equal to other religions. That is not freedom of religion. It is freedom from free speech and in this case the ability to criticize. In so doing these Countries are catering to the objective of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) to Islamize the world by giving Islam the ‘superior’ status it claims for itself (in the Quran). Agents for the OIC are the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), C.A.I.R., ISNA, and on college and university campuses, the MSA (Muslim Student Association, an arm of the MB).
It is the objective of the OIC and its agents to stifle debate about Islam, also to eliminate any negative commentary. Curbing free speech does that. Calling those with opposing viewpoints ‘Islamophobic’ is an attempt to shame them. For the jihadists and Islamists it creates a safe space, allowing them to proceed with their obedience to the Quranic directives to imperialize the world for Allah, at all costs, including the heads and lives of non-Muslims, as well as moderate Muslims.
Language is the only weapon in a war of ideas. To curb the use of debate, even doubt or concerns, is to effectively shoot down the opponent, clearing the way for an easier path to Islam for everyone, whether they like it or not. No religion is to be protected, separated or isolated, from criticism. If that criticism is considered ‘persecution,’ so be it, deal with it, enter into the discussion, defend your faith. Curbing free speech is no defense; it is only a strong-arm approach to achieve a narrative that is adhered to, or forced upon a congregation, that lacks the ability to support itself with open dialog.
What about scrutinizing Islam? I read recently the comment (by Christine Douglass-Williams) that, “Given the global crimes against humanity committed by jihadists and Islamic supremacists today, it is fundamental to scrutinize them.”
In scrutinizing, examining closely, questions will arise, comparative differences with other religions (in the case of Islam) will require debate and discussion, and doubts may occur as to the intent of those who authored documents. Is the effort to express concerns and seek clarification ‘persecution?’
On Sept 13, 2017 Christine Douglass-Williams wrote on jihadwatch.org, Trudeau: Opposition to “anti-Islamophobia” motion is sexism, “Questioning and public scrutiny of Islam are not the same as attacking all Muslims, and to criminalize so-called “Islamophobia” is an affront to democratic principles: free-speech is a cornerstone of any Free society. Canadians are not hate mongers, but are generally peaceful, excepting and tolerant. To impose anti-Islamophobia motion M–103 is a sad commentary on what the Trudeau government thinks of Canadians.”
Is Intolerance towards Muslims also to be considered criminal?
The definition of ‘intolerance’ suggests an arrogance, a flat out refusal, but what if someone is well informed and has cogent apologetics to defend their position. Are they still intolerant, even if they are willing to listen to the counter-arguments, objectively, and still find disagreement with which they are able to offer commentary? What if the other side, the labeler of the ‘intolerant’ is unwilling to listen? Who then is ‘intolerant?’
I do not care for the use of the word ‘unwillingness’ in the definition. A tolerant person may be ‘willing’ to accept another point of view. What they are really, is accommodating of other views and able to live among and be among those with opposing views respecting their freedom of choice and opinion.
Applied to Islam if an individual through study, discussion and experience does not find Islam the ideology they want to guide how they live, how they honor the rule of law, how they honor God and their view of an individual’s responsibility to achieve salvation, they are intolerant. I disagree. They are simply not Muslims. If they can live side-by-side with a Muslim and do not feel threatened, or believe a terrorist is dwelling among those that make for a diverse peaceful environment, they are tolerant, yes, and objective. Even if the neighbor was a known activist with Black Lives Matters or ANTIFA, they could be tolerant (there are progressive liberals everywhere), but if they know those persons are participants in protests resulting in violence, then their tolerance level may diminish to the point of intolerance. There is logic in that.
Persecution of Muslims
Everyone is persecuted at some point in their lives, some more than others.
Jews have been persecuted daily. Anti-semitism is nothing new. Muslims in the UK upset with the term ‘Holocaust’ feel Jews are given unique status as victims, a status they feel strongly should be accorded Muslims. Considered ‘corrosive envy,’ by Pascal Bruckner, his article, There’s No Such Thing as Islamophobia, City Journal, Summer 2017, the Muslims want to be remembered like Jews, but the circumstances are different, for sure.
Christians today may be the most persecuted of religious followers. In the entire majority Muslim world heads are turned away from crimes against Christians, the burning of churches and the killing of persons worshipping or expressing their faith. Converts to Christianity become targets, to be punished for their apostasy, their choice (not free), by death squads (made up of any available Muslim fundamentalist). Even in the free world progressive liberals, secularists, those on the forefront of the sexual revolution, find Christians that remain dedicated to biblical directives ‘intolerant’ of the narrative and preferences they embrace. What is odd is the liberal position toward Islam.
Fat people are persecuted, the handicapped are persecuted, dwarfs and short people are persecuted, ugly or too beautiful, persecution can follow, the weak are bullied (persecuted) by the strong, and so on….
Muslims, the moderate Muslim, any who seek a new way to follow Allah, less violent and more tolerant, become potential victims. The Ahmadis are a prime example. They are persecuted by other Muslims. The term Islamophobia is applied to their actions in opposition to fundamentalist views and interpretations, as stated by Pascal Bruckner (see prior reference), “to forge a weapon of enforcement against liberated Muslims, who dared to criticize their faith and who called for reform of family laws and for equality between the sexes, for a right to apostatize and to convert, and for a right no longer to believe in God and not to observe Ramadan and other rites. Such renegades must face public condemnation, in this imperative, so as to block all hope of change.” Oddly any who define ‘true Islam’ differently from another is critical, or persecuting those who see Islam’s truth in another fashion.
Do individuals have a right to religious indifference? The answer should and must be, “Yes!”
The effort to criminalize religious indifference when it comes to Islam is an affront to any intelligent human being. Bringing theological laws and penalties into a free society, and somehow convincing liberal progressives to allow this, and legislating penalties, sanctioning objection or resistance to a faith (the Islamic faith), emboldens the Islamists, the Imams and ulema of Islam to create even more pressure to recognize Islam as superior.
Such actions cater to the OIC wanting to Islamize the entire Western world.
Islam launched their crusades 1400 years ago, in 630, and have not stopped. The Muslim imperialists failed in 732 to invade Europe through Spain, their progress stopped in Poitiers, France. The Ottoman’s tried twice to invade from the east, through Vienna, and their final attempt failed (Battle of Vienna) in 1683. It was “a turning point in history, after which ‘the Ottoman Turks ceased to be a menace to the Christian world’” (from Wikipedia). The Muslims were warriors in battle gear then, but now they come by boat as refugees, and freely travel about the EU (due to the Schengen Agreement). Their presence is to “convert Europe to the true faith (Islam) in part by transforming the law and the culture,” in the words of Pascal Bruckner. If successful, with funding by the Arab world through the coffers of the OIC, the same tactics will be used in Canada and the USA. It seems to be ahead of schedule in Canada.
The OIC has been successful. Even in free America liberals, to include academics, the media, Hollywood, and even in corporate advertising, have altered their methods and programming in many instances. Packaging is being designed to not insult Muslims. The US Government has had training manuals cleansed of comments regarding Muslim groups. Even police departments have removed references to Islam and Muslims that could be offensive to them, at the urging of political leaders. Hollywood is trending away from having Muslim bad-guys in their films. And in many schools and colleges Islam is only portrayed in a positive light, its history scrubbed of brutal attempts and successes to imperialize areas not already dominated by Allah and blaring of the adhan 5 times daily. Many artists, cartoonists, writers and journalists are careful not to offend for fear of repercussions, such as Charlie Hebdo, Salman Rushdie (The Satanic Verses), the Danish newspaperJyllands-Posten, Draw Muhammad contests, film-maker Theo van Gogh, and the list goes on and on.
Be Strong in what You Believe
It is important that we the people, those indifferent to Islam, become stronger in what we believe, a faith in God, as Christians, or sectarians who objectively embrace the freedom of all religions, as well as freedom of speech, expression and thought. We as a community, a governing body, cannot protect or cater to any one specific ideology. We must remain tolerant to a variety of narratives, even respecting those less open to the sexual revolution and all that seems to politically accompany the formation of victim groups for liberals to pursue. And it is important that the truth be told and we remain honest to history. Remaining tolerant means peaceful co-existence. It does not take away the right of an individual to believe as they prefer, their conscious choice derived intellectually, and freely. Independent thinking, freedom of conscious and thought, is essential. An ‘intolerance’ that is not imperfectly defined by a prejudiced slanted terminology of ‘unwillingness’ must be permitted. It cannot be a fact that acceptance of another ideology is to be ‘tolerant.’ ‘Accommodating’ may come closer, but ‘tolerance’ cannot assume agreement.
The world will never be free of prejudice. We need to temper our feelings and be more objective and accepting of other opinions, even when in complete disagreement. Dialog, debate, and an effort to have the ‘truth’ as universal, and common ‘truth,’ not individual preferred truths, is a realistic goal. Our college and university professors, students on campuses, in the hallways of our legislatures, in the political parties, at home and in community settings, discussions can be civil, even when what is said is not what many might prefer to hear. They will have their turn. Listening with an open objective mind might surprise a few to realize their bias may have flaws.
Grace and Peace