From here:
Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/40147/islamic-supremacism-the-true-source-of-muslim-grievances-opinion/#kymdbarw1wiXDAYB.99
In
the ongoing debate (or debacle) concerning free speech/expression and
Muslim grievance—most recently on exhibition in Garland, where two
“jihadis” opened fire on a “Prophet Muhammad” art contest
organized by Pamela Geller—one thing has become clear: the things
non-Muslims can do to provoke Islamic violence is limitless—and far
exceeds cartoons.
[Pamela] Geller, and not the jihadists who sought to kill those with whom they disagreed, was supposedly at fault. Her critics could not figure out that radical Muslims object not just to caricatures and cartoons, but to any iconographic representation of Mohammed. Had Geller offered invitations to artists to compete for the most majestic statue of the Prophet, jihadists might still have tried to use violence to stop it. Had she held a beauty pageant for gay Muslims or a public wedding for gay Muslim couples, jihadists would certainly have shown up. Had she offered a contest for the bravest Islamic apostates, jihadists would have galvanized to kill the non-believers. Had she organized a support rally for Israel, jihadists might well have tried to kill the innocent, as they did in Paris when they murderously attacked a kosher market.
But
it’s even worse than that. The list of things that
non-Muslims can do to provoke Islamic violence grows by the day and
accords with the list of things subjugated “infidels” must never
do, lest they provoke their Islamic overlords as laid out by Islamic
law, or Sharia.
As
such, the West needs finally to come to terms with the root source of
these ubiquitous, easily sparked “Muslim grievances.”
Enter
Muslim supremacism.
Islamic
doctrine—which teaches that Muslims
are superior to non-Muslims, who are
further compared
to dogs and cattle—imbues Muslims with this sense
of supremacism over the rest of mankind. And a good
portion of Islamic history—when Muslims were for centuries on the
warpath, subjugating large swathes of the Old Word—further enforced
it.
This
sense of Islamic supremacism was dramatically humbled after European
powers defeated and colonized much of the Muslim world. Bred on
the notion that “might makes right,” Muslims, for a
time, even began emulating the unapologetic and
triumphant West. Turkey, for example, went from being the
epitome of Islamic supremacy and jihad against Christian Europe for
five centuries to desperately emulating Europe in all ways.
By the mid-1900s, Turkey became perhaps the most Westernized/secularized “Muslim” nation.
By the mid-1900s, Turkey became perhaps the most Westernized/secularized “Muslim” nation.
Today,
however, as Western peoples willingly capitulate to Islamic mores—in
the name of tolerance, multiculturalism, political correctness, or
just plain cowardice—Muslims are becoming more emboldened, making
more demands and threats, as they realize they need not militarily
defeat the West in order to resuscitate their supremacist
birthright. (More
appeasement from the bullied always brings about more demands from
the bully.)
To
understand all this, one need only look to Muslim behavior where it
is dominant and not in need of pretense, that is, in the Muslim
world. There, non-Muslim minorities are habitually treated as
inferiors. But unlike the many Western appeasers who willingly
accept a subservient role to Islam, these religious minorities
have no choice in the matter.
Thus
in Pakistan, as Christian children were singing
carols inside their church,
Muslim men from a nearby mosque barged in with an axe, destroyed the
furniture and altar, and beat the children. Their
justification for such violence? “You are disturbing our
prayers…. How
dare you use
the mike and speakers?”
And when
a Muslim slapped a Christian and the latter reciprocated, the Muslim
exclaimed “How
dare a Christian slap me?!”
Anti-Christian violence immediately ensued.
All
of this revolves around what I call the “How Dare You?!”
phenomenon. Remember it next time “progressive” media,
politicians, and other talking heads tell you that Muslim mayhem
and outbursts are products of grievances against the West.
Missing from their rationale is the supremacist base of
these grievances.
The Conditions
of Omar,
a foundational medieval Muslim text dealing with how subjugated
“infidels” must behave, spells out their inferiority
vis-à-vis Muslims. Among other stipulations, it commands
conquered Christians not to raise their “voices during prayer or
readings in churches anywhere near Muslims” (hence the axe-attack
in Pakistan). It also commands them not to display any signs of
Christianity—specifically Bibles and crosses—not to build
churches, and not to criticize the prophet. (See Crucified
Again:Exposing
Islam’s New War on Christians for
my translation of “The Conditions of Omar.”)
If
the supremacist nature of Islamic law is still not clear enough,
the Conditions literally commands Christians to give
up their seats to Muslims as a show of respect.
By
way of analogy, consider when Rosa Parks, a black woman, refused to
give up her bus seat to white passengers. Any white supremacist
at the time had sincere grievances: how
dare she think
herself equal?
But
were such grievances legitimate? Should they have been accommodated?
Are the endless “grievances” of Muslims legitimate and should
they be accommodated? These are the questions missing from the
debate about easily bruised Muslim sensitivities.
One
can go on and on with examples from all around the Islamic world:
In
Turkey, a Bible publishing house was once stormed and three of its
Christian employees tortured,
disemboweled, and finally murdered.
One suspect later said: “We didn’t do this for ourselves, but for
our religion [Islam]…. Our religion is being destroyed.”
In
Egypt, after a 17-year-old Christian student refused to obey his
Muslim teacher’s orders to cover up his cross, the teacher and some
Muslim students attacked, beat, and ultimately murdered
the teenager.
These
Turkish and Egyptian Muslims were truly aggrieved: Islamic law
makes clear that Christians must not “produce a cross or
Bible” around Muslims. How dare the Egyptian
student and Turkish Bible publishers refuse to comply—thus grieving
their Muslim murderers?
In
Indonesia, where it is becoming next to impossible for Christians to
build churches, Christians often congregate outside to celebrate
Christmas—only to be attacked by Muslims hurling
cow dung and bags of urine at
the Christians as they pray.
These
Muslims are also sincerely aggrieved: how dare these
Christians think they can be a church when the Conditions forbid
it?
In
short, anytime non-Muslims dare to overstep their Sharia-designated
“inferior” status—which far exceeds drawing
cartoons—supremacist Muslims will become violently aggrieved.
From
here, one can begin to understand the ultimate Muslim grievance:
Israel.
For
if “infidel” Christian minorities are deemed inferior and
attacked by aggrieved Muslims for exercising their basic human
rights, like freedom of worship, how must Muslims feel about Jews—the
descendants of pigs and apes, according to the Koran—exercising
power and authority over fellow Muslims in what is perceived to be
Muslim land?
How
dare they?!
Of
course, if grievances against Israel were really about justice and
displaced Palestinians, Muslims—and their Western appeasers—would
be aggrieved by the fact that millions
of Christians are currently being displaced by Muslim invaders.
Needless
to say, they are not.
So
the next time you hear that Muslim rage and terrorism are products of
grievance—from cartoons to territorial disputes and everything in
between—remember that this is absolutely true. But these
“grievances” are not predicated on any human standards of
equality or justice, only a supremacist worldview.
Reprinted
with author’s permission from Front
Page Mag
-------
The Qur’an clearly and specifically tells muslims the Bible is wrong and also that all Christians and Jews are infidel criminals who worship a false god, and who must therefore be extorted, enslaved, and murdered for their “crime” of not being muslims:
Sura (Chapter) 47:1-4 of the Qur'an:
1: non-muslims are bad, because they insult allah by dividing his nature;
2: muslims are good, because to them allah is the cause of everything;
3: Allah made them both like that;
4: So muslims should chop off the non-muslims' heads.
(Allah could have done it himself, but he wants you muslims to do it for him)."
...
It's all right there, in context: islamic violence is entirely general doctrine-driven, and not at all specific grievance-driven.
(And chapter 47 isn't by any stretch even remotely the worst, most violent chapter; that honor goes to either chapter 8 or 9).
...
So, if and when you consider islam to be a religion, you must agree with it’s main tenet: that God is a violent murderer who wants his muslim tribe to violently conquer the world by extorting, enslaving, and murdering all the non-muslim humans, right?
At WORST, all REAL religions only say:
"Obey our silly rules, or GOD (/'the gods') will get you!"
...but ONLY islam says:
"Obey our silly rules, or WE will get you ('for god')!"
A forced 'Faith!' ISN'T a "Faith!" at all - it's only extortion, and extortion is always a CRIME.
Bottom line: If you decide to believe in "allah," you have declared yourself a criminal, and so must be arrested, indicted, tried and convicted. Your confession of "faith" in your crime-god will help us to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment