Down with the PC Police and Muslim Butt-Kissers!

As we move along the post-Boston Marathon bombing period, I see that there is a lot of debate all around about terrorism issues. There are those who downplay the terror inflicted on the innocent people in Boston and that they blame the United States for its past (and present) atrocities. They seem to imply that such violence inflicted upon innocent Americans can be justified as mere retaliatory actions because they seem to suggest that the American government has terrorized and continues to terrorize more people around the world than these radical Muslims have done. I do not agree with these people but they are free to vent out their deep seated anger towards the American government and perhaps the American people as well. Imperialists… fascists… terrorists… whatever they call the American government or the American people, for me they can knock themselves out with their vitriol. However, what annoys me more is the Political Correctness (PC) police and the leftist peaceniks that seem so obsessed with being careful not to offend the feelings of Muslims. Who the heck are these folks trying to impress? Would jihadists really care and would they stop attacking America if Americans were only PC with their choice of words? I doubt it.

minaretSo before I get flak from the PC police, let me say that yes… I agree that not all Muslims are jihadists or Islamic terrorists. However, I think even the PC police would not make a stink about jihadists and Islamic terrorists all being Muslims. But what does being Muslim (or the religion of Islam) have anything to do with terrorism especially if not all Muslims feel the same extremist views and anger towards the West and non-Muslims? I think it is more of a matter of the core belief of Muslims that simply fosters and justifies violence in the name of their deity, Allah, and upon injunctions of their sacred book, the Quran. I may be wrong but their (recent) record sure does seem to suggest that violence is justified even for the silliest cartoon that they find offensive to their prophet. (Yes, even those who aren’t necessarily bomb strapping “martyrs” eager to get it on with 72 virgins in Paradise.)

The way I see it, Islam may very well be the worst amongst the major organized religions in the world today when it comes to threats to free thought and world peace. In 2004, Hirsi Ali (a former Muslim turned feminist and atheist activist) and film director Theo Van Gogh, released their film “Submission”. According to Wikipedia:

Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider!
Learn more

“The film tells the story of four fictional characters played by a single actress wearing a veil, but clad in a see-through chador, her naked body painted with verses from the Koran. The characters are Muslim women who have been abused in various ways. The film contains monologues of these women and dramatically highlights three verses of the Quran,(4:34 2:222 and 24:2) that allegedly give authority to men over women, by showing them painted on women’s bodies.
Hirsi Ali has said “it is written in the Koran a woman may be slapped if she is disobedient. This is one of the evils I wish to point out in the film”. In an answer to a question about whether the film would offend Muslims, Hirsi Ali said that “if you’re a Muslim woman and you read the Koran, and you read in there that you should be raped if you say ‘no’ to your husband, that is offensive. And that is insulting.”
On November 2, 2004, Theo van Gogh was assassinated in public by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim with a Dutch passport. A letter, stabbed through and affixed to the body by a dagger, linked the murder to Van Gogh’s film and his views regarding Islam. It was addressed to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and called for a jihad against kafir (Kafir is a disbeliever or infidel) against America, Europe, the Netherlands, and Hirsi Ali herself. Following the murder of Van Gogh, tens of thousands gathered in the center of Amsterdam to mourn Van Gogh’s death. There were fire-bombings of mosques and Muslim schools, and counterattacks against Christian churches. Besides Bouyeri, eleven other Muslim men were arrested and charged with conspiracy to assassinate Hirsi Ali.”

The motivation behind the killing of the film director was about Ali’s views regarding Islam. Notice too that in addition to the murder of the film director and threats to Ali’s life (Ali being one of the direct makers of the film), a jihad against entire countries and even a continent was declared! Such threats to parties not directly involved in whatever offended these Muslims are not new, of course.

In 2005, a Danish newspaper released editorial cartoons which depicted the Islamic prophet Mohammed. As seen in Wikipedia:

“The newspaper announced that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship.
Danish Muslim organisations that objected to the depictions responded by petitioning the embassies of Islamic countries and the Danish government to take some form of action in response, and filed a judicial complaint against the newspaper, which was dismissed in January 2006. After the Danish government refused to meet with representatives of the Islamic countries and would not intervene in the case, a number of Danish imams made trips to the Middle East during the autumn of 2005 to raise awareness of the issue.
After the issue received prominent media attention in some Islamic countries, Muslims held protests across the world in late January and early February 2006, some of which escalated into violence resulting in a total of more than 200 reported deaths, attacks on a number of Danish and other European diplomatic missions, attacks on churches and Christians, and a major international boycott.
Critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic, racist, or baiting and blasphemous to Muslims, possibly intended to humiliate a Danish minority, or as a manifestation of ignorance about the history of Western imperialism, double standards, and stereotyping.
Supporters generally said that the publication of the cartoons was a legitimate exercise of the right of free speech, regardless of the validity of the expression itself or that it was important to be able to openly and frankly discuss Islam without fear and that the cartoons made important points about topical issues.”

Please note that the publication in Denmark of the cartoons deemed offensive to Islam has resulted in violence with more than 200 deaths and destruction of many properties in many countries outside of Denmark. Offended Muslims (including the non bombing kind) do not seem to recognize international boundaries when it comes to engaging in large scale violence and mayhem when reacting to artistic expressions that they deem to be critical of their religion or their prophet.

Now, notice too that the Danish newspaper has also released “satirical cartoons depicting Christian figures”. But the reactions of the offended Christians did not result in the same magnitude (if any) as the case for the violent reactions of the offended Muslims. The Christians in the Netherlands, of course, have engaged in violence too as stated in the previous Wikipedia snippet in retaliation to the murder of Theo van Gogh. But to compare the scale of violence and destruction engaged by both sides in the van Gogh case and also of the Danish cartoon case, the Muslim side gave a larger scale.

Now who can forget the September 11, 2001 attacks? A summary of the motives behind the attack is as follows:

“Osama bin Laden’s declaration of a holy war against the United States, and a fatwā signed by bin Laden and others calling for the killing of American civilians in 1998, are seen by investigators as evidence of his motivation.
In various pronouncements before and after the attacks, al-Qaeda explicitly cited three motives for its activities against Western countries: the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. After the attacks, bin Laden and al-Zawahiri released additional video tapes and audio tapes, some of which repeated those reasons for the attacks. Two particularly important publications were bin Laden’s 2002 “Letter to America”, and a 2004 video tape by bin Laden.
Bin Laden interpreted the Prophet Muhammad as having banned the “permanent presence of infidels in Arabia”. In 1996, bin Laden issued a fatwā calling for American troops to leave Saudi Arabia. In 1998, al-Qaeda wrote, “for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.” In a December 1999, interview, bin Laden said he felt that Americans were “too near to Mecca”, and considered this a provocation to the entire Muslim world. One analysis of suicide terrorism suggested that without U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda likely would not have been able to get people to commit suicide in this way.
In his November 2002 “Letter to America”, bin Laden cited the United States’ support of Israel as a motivation: “The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its price, and pay for it heavily.” In 2004 and 2010, bin Laden again connected the September 11 attacks with U.S. support of Israel. Bin Laden claimed in 2004 that the idea of destroying the towers had first occurred to him in 1982, when he witnessed Israel’s bombardment of high-rise apartment buildings during the invasion of Lebanon. Several analysts, including Mearsheimer and Walt, also say one motivation for the attacks was U.S. support of Israel. In the 1998 fatwā, al-Qaeda identified the Iraq sanctions as a reason to kill Americans, condemning the “protracted blockade” among other actions constituting a declaration of war against “Allah, his messenger, and Muslims.”

Bin Laden’s big beef, according to the snippet, is the presence of infidels in Saudi Arabia. With infidels, of course he was referring to the soldiers of the Western powers headed by the United States stationed in Saudi Arabia. (He found issue with this but not with American liberation of Kuwait after being invaded by the ruthless Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein? Hmmm… anyway….) But why was Bin Laden and many like-minded Islamic zealots so anal about the US presence in Saudi Arabia?

Because of the presence of the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah in its midst, Saudi Arabia is the heartland and center of the Islamic world. Islamic scholar, Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi said:

“God wanted to give Avraham a double blessing, through Ishmael and through Isaac, and ordered that Ishmael’s descendents should live in the desert of Arabia and Isaac’s in Canaan.”

So Bin Laden, together with many other Muslims, consider Saudi Arabia as their god-given land. Anyone who does not honor or recognize their land benefactor (Allah) nor the veracity of their sacred text, the Quran, is considered an infidel. An infidel is basically a “non-believer”, not necessarily just an atheist but anyone who does not recognize Allah as the one true god nor revere the Quran as sacred. For these folks, the Quran says:

“So, when you meet those who disbelieve in war, smite at their necks (without giving them the opportunity to defeat you). At length, when you have sufficiently suppressed them (without continuing fighting), bind a firm bond of captivity on them. Then set them free either as a favor without demanding anything in return, or for ransom (which may consist of a reciprocal exchange of prisoners of war), so that the war may lay down its burdens (and come to an end). That (is God’s command). Had God so willed, He would certainly exact retribution from them (Himself), but (He orders you to fight) in order to try you by means of one another. As for those who are killed in God’s cause, He will never render their deeds vain.” (Quran47.4).
“Then, when the (four) sacred months (of respite, during which fighting with those who associate partners with God and violate their treaties was prohibited to you,) are over, then (declare war on them and) kill them wherever you may come upon them, and seize them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place. Yet if they repent and (mending their ways) establish the Prescribed Prayer, and pay the Prescribed Purifying Alms, let them go their way. Surely God is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate.”(Quran 9:5)
“Fight against those from among the People of the Book who (despite being People of the Book) do not believe in God and the Last Day (as they should be believed in), and do not hold as unlawful that which God and His Messenger have decreed to be unlawful, and do not adopt and follow the Religion of truth, until they pay the jizyah (tax of protection and exemption from military service) with a willing hand in a state of submission.”(Quran. 9:29)

So clearly the injunctions of Allah, through his words reflected in the Quran, mandate every “believers” to decapitate, slaughter, and make war on the infidels. How can any faithful Muslim, even those who are “peace-loving”, disobey their god? For those who follow the injunctions of this god, how can we even consider them as “good” or “peace-loving” given the brutal nature of injunctions such as the ones shared above? A review of Ibn Warraq’s book “Why I Am Not A Muslim” gives a good point stating:

“Good and bad people are distributed in equal proportions in all nations. Yet in Islam good people are often forced to do bad things and go against their conscience. They often convince themselves that in this apparent injustice there must be a hidden wisdom that they do not understand and that God knows better. Many good people who claim to be Muslims are often ignorant of true Islam and dismiss the real orthodox Muslims as hard-liners and fundamentalists. But as Ibn Warraq in “Why I am not a Muslim” points out, unlike Christianity, Islam does not leave room for leniency and tolerance. Islam and fundamentalism are synonymous terms. You have to break the laws of Muhammad, just to keep your humanity and be good. No amount of intellectual acrobatics performed by Muslim apologists can justify the intolerant and ruthlessness of Muhammad’s religion.”

Clearly it is understandable why a lot of Muslims resort to murder, violence and mayhem when it comes to what they perceive as an insult to their religion because not to do so would disobey the very injunctions of their god. Now, I recognize that not all or not even the majority of Muslims go chopping off people’s heads at a drop of a pen. However, the silence of these “non-violent majority” seems very deafening! Writer Frank Gaffney Jr. explains why:

“Since 9/11, many of us have wondered: Where are the moderate Muslims? If they are out there, why are we not hearing more, and getting more help, from them in the fight against our common foe — the totalitarian Islamists?

In recent weeks in this space, I have chronicled the saga of an effort to answer that question. It took the form of a 52-minute documentary I helped produce for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s “America at a Crossroads” series. The film, entitled “Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center,” features compelling stories of anti-Islamist Muslims who have had the courage to stand up to co-religionists who are using faith to accomplish political ends.

The documentary makes clear why the moderates are not more in evidence. Observant Muslims who dare to challenge the Islamists over ideological agendas pursued in the name of religion are shown being subjected to ostracism, intense coercion to conform and, in some cases, death threats. As long as these anti-Islamist Muslims are rightly seen as isolated, vulnerable and powerless, it would be foolish to believe that many of their co-religionists will want to emulate them.”

The PC police may argue that the majority (if not all) of the violence committed by the Muslim extremists are political and not religious in nature. I can meet them halfway on that. I am not entirely sold on that because we also have to acknowledge the fact that those crazy Muslim suicide bombers or “martyrs” have engaged in murder under the assurance that “God is on their side”, that the “infidels” deserve such death as stated in the Quran, and that their personal sacrifice will assure them of a free pass to Paradise with many 72 or so virgins for them. The PC police may say that the Islamic terrorist acts we often hear of are only committed by the fringe group who distort interpretations of the Quran to suit their ideology. Yes, I would agree with that. However, isn’t it almost always the fringe group who wreak havoc (Christian extremists included)? The PC police may also say that the root cause is in the interpretation of the Quran. However, this is the problem with most (if not all) religious texts. The Quran, like the Bible, contains a lot of verses that are just so susceptible for misinterpretation. One of my favorite authors, Bishop John Shelby Spong, has a book called “The Sins of Scripture” that exposes the “terrible texts” in the Bible that have been used by Christians to justify atrocities. But the level of violence committed by Christians in the olden days has decreased significantly more than the case for Muslims. Women’s rights, and human liberty, for instance, are now looked at with high importance and value within the Christian fold. I cannot say the same case for Muslims especially those who live under the Sharia law.

It is really amazing how the PC police would bend over backwards just to appease the feelings of Muslims to the point of even placing the terrorists amongst the Muslim fold on a higher moral pedestal than non-Muslims (such as non-Muslim Americans). Others, in the typical leftist peacenik fashion, have given a big stink against generalization. Thousands of lives have been killed and many properties have been destroyed in the name of Islam within just these few recent years. The September 11, 2001 Islamic-inspired terrorist attacks alone have claimed the lives of around 3,000 people in one day. With that, I am amazed that these PC police left-leaning peacenik bunch seem to be suggesting that generalization is a lot worse than killing 3,000 people in one day! Isn’t it funny how the PC police and the leftist peaceniks love to engage in Muslim butt-kissing despite the fact that Islam actually mandates that they (the non-Muslims within their fold) get killed for being infidels?

56 Replies to “Down with the PC Police and Muslim Butt-Kissers!”

  1. The irony is, the principles (gay marriage, respect for minority, women’s rights, freedom of the irreligious, etc…) these PC police leftists morons support are absent in Moslem countries. Heck, would they even be spared by their Muzzie bros if they will impose Sharia law in the US for example?

    1. Hi Truth Pundit,

      Thanks for reading. Yeah, that’s really ironic. Sometimes I cannot help but think that these PC police leftists are acting like a bunch of useful idiots. Oh well….

  2. Muslims just can’t take a joke.

    I was standing on a scaffolding when a young Asian girl went to
    walk under my ladder.
    “Stop there!” I shouted, “Don’t you know it’s bad luck to walk under
    a ladder?”
    “I don’t believe in that,” she said as she proceeded to walk under it,
    “I’m Muslim.”
    “That’s a shame,” I replied, as I dropped a concrete block on her

    I asked my co-worker ‘fat muhammed’ – he didn’t put the slim in muslim – why muslim women are so quiet when having sex.
    ‘ because they are taught not to speak to strangers’.
    And do they practice birth control i asked.
    ‘Yes, they remove their veils’.
    With that we went to the eat at the new franchise Burka King.
    One of his friends was there looking a bit upset.
    ‘What’s wrong’
    ‘I got home last night and my wife said she was leaving me’
    ‘She said i was a paedophile!’
    ‘What did you say’
    ‘That’s a big word for a 6 year old’

    1. >> One of his friends was there looking a bit upset.

      ‘What’s wrong’

      ‘I got home last night and my wife said she was leaving me’


      ‘She said i was a paedophile!’

      ‘What did you say’

      ‘That’s a big word for a 6 year old’


      Hilarious! 😀 LOL I believe prophet Mo married Aisha when she was around that age (6 years old). Thanks for reading, Libertas!

    2. I’ve read all the comments at this point of time.

      One thing I can share is my whole four years in Singapore.

      The way I see it, there is a competition of who is more attractive – Singapore Chinese or Singapore Malay (which are mostly Muslims).

      Singapore Chinese are attractive in a natural way. The Singaqpporean Malays are full bodied (read: really sexy).

      They wear their clothes all over their body but will leave nothing to your imagination. And they’re Muslim.

      1. Trosp,

        While in Singapore, did you ever happen to experience discrimination between Muslims? Not the enmity Muslims express for non-Muslims as part of their religious upbringing but discrimination within the Muslim community itself.

        I mean, for example, that as visitors or foreign “guest” workers in Saudi Arabia, Muslims within the Ummah (the global community of Muslims) are treated as “second class” followers of the religion by ARAB MUSLIMS. We hear a lot about how they are united in their belief. But the truth is if you observe how Arabs treat Muslim (workers) from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and the Sudan, it is not unlike the treatment of Black people in the United States before societal attitudes changed and Black-White segregation declined in the latter part of the 20th century. Even the international airports at Kuwait, Bahrain, Riyadh, Dubai, Abu Dhabi have separate customs and immigration counters for citizens of Gulf Coast countries and for those of other nations. In South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia, this policy was called “Apartheid” when it was practiced by their former White regimes.

        Seems like it will always be a part of Muslim belief to look upon others as inferior, even within their own ranks. So much for the Muslim claim of universal brotherhood of the Ummah.

        1. Wait…. doesn’t the Quran (Al-Hujurat: 13) say – “O mankind! We have created you from a single male and female and made you into nations and tribes so that you may know each other. The most honorable of you in the sight of Allah are surely the righteous.”? Don’t they use that to trumpet that racism isn’t taught in Islam? Oh well…. so much for that, I guess.

        2. @J. Saint

          I didn’t notice what you’re asking me. during the time I was in Singapore, I’m more focused the beautiful side of Singapore.

          “Seems like it will always be a part of Muslim belief to look upon others as inferior, even within their own ranks. So much for the Muslim claim of universal brotherhood of the Ummah.”

          In that one, I can agree with you.

        3. Trosp,

          Don’t get me wrong. There’re a lot of fascinating, beautiful things Muslim culture has transmitted to us. I especially appreciate Islamic architecture. If you’ve seen the Calat Alhambra in Granada, you’ll get a glimpse of the majesty of Moorish art and engineering.

          I only ask because that discrimination stuck with me and my co-workers as something that seems so incongruous with what Muslims preach. I suppose then that the discrimination (racism?) we observed is more inclined towards Arabs than Muslims from other parts of the globe.

  3. I personally believe that if a minority culture (say, Muslims) wants to be respected in a hegemonic culture (say, a predominantly secular American town), it’s the responsibility of the minority culture to integrate into the dominant culture. This doesn’t mean that the minority culture would divest itself of its unique identity; it means that it has to adopt the dominant culture’s traits and still engage and assert its identity in an assertive yet respectful manner. The Irish and the Asians did it in the United States, and I’m sure there are large numbers of Muslims who have integrated well there, too.

    (I’m at work; I’ll follow this up later.)

    1. I would word it as, “the minority should stop making demands of the majority to adjust to them, and should just carry out their business without demands to others.” Does this fit what you mean?

      I think the problem is looking for “special treatment,” and wanting to impose one’s own rules on other people who are not part of the same culture. This is always the problem with all other groups, including Christian conservatives. They want to impose their rules on non-Christians, for example.

      1. Hi Chino,

        Thanks for reading. I also think that they have to be reasonable when requesting for some special treatment. For example, in Canada they allow the cops belonging to the Sikh religion to wear their turban even though turbans are not part of the official uniform for cops. This is out of respect for their religious tradition, of course. However, I think it wouldn’t be reasonable if they demand that their turbans not be scanned should there be any reasonable suspicion that something harmful may be hidden there.

        1. This remind me of my experience working in India. On their domestic airports, the Sikhs have a special lane in entering terminal. Apparently, the reason behind it is that the Sikhs (or perhaps the Sikhs in higher echelon) as part of their culture/religion are required to carry with them a dagger (of some sort) all the time. Another interesting thing is that, in a construction site the Sikhs are exempted from Health & Safety statutory requirement of wearing any hard hat (in lieu of their turban) for the same reason due to their culture/religion.

        2. Hi faux_ph,

          Yeah I heard about the daggers as well. Hmmm… I’m not sure how that works here in North America especially after 9/11. This is interesting… I might ask a former classmate of mine who is a Sikh if they are allowed to carry daggers with them when boarding airplanes here. I doubt that they are allowed to do so. Thanks for reading!

      2. For the most part, Christians can co-exist with other cultures. On the other hand, tolerance is not exactly a something you expect to see in Muslim communities. Take for example the suspension of equality between men and women which we are accustomed to in a democratic society. Female visitors to a mosque are required to cover themselves regardless of their beliefs. Female OFWs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are required to cover themselves and live as second class citizens, an imposition that democratic, Christian, societies do not compel Muslim visitors or workers to follow.

        What really offends me is the impunity that certain Muslim communities have in demanding special treatment in countries like the United States that imposes their culture and beliefs over and above the laws of the society they are inhabiting. Something these Muslims would never condone in their home countries. All the while expecting to be afforded the full rights of citizenship in that society.

    2. Minorities should accept the reality that their culture failed to make the societies where they are the majority a nice place to live in. As such they should be gracious to the society that hosts them by making themselves as little a burden to it as possible. That can be done without compromising one’s cultural identity and, if done properly, actually results in a significant contribution to the richness of their host society.

      1. Hi Benigno,

        Yes, I agree. If the minorities find it very difficult to adjust to the culture of their host country, they could consider going back to where they came from or at least to a place that closely resemble the culture of their homeland. What is bothersome in this Boston bombing case is that I heard the bombers were taken by the US as refugees and for quite some time they were getting welfare and other financial aid. Although nobody was really expecting them to pay back all the financial aid they received, it is just very disappointing that they returned America’s kindness to them with terrorism.

        Thanks for reading!

      2. MNLF, then the MILF! They all want a piece of real estate to call their own in a place that is predominantly christian. Then, the peaceniks of manila fell for their veiled threats and now is ready to grant them full autonomy as an independent state the areas they claim to be theirs including the adoption of a state religion.

    3. Hi MidwayHaven,

      Yes, agreed. I also know a lot of Muslims who are peaceful and who get along well with the non-Muslims around them. I can sympathize with the majority of the non-wacko Muslims who live peacefully (and intend to remain to live peacefully) with the rest of the population… I heard that a lot of them are feeling bad about the stigma against Muslims as a result of the terrorist acts perpetrated by a few bad apples within their religion. However, I think part of the problem is that the moderate majority within their fold aren’t doing enough to stifle or discourage the actions of the nutjobs within their ranks. Sometimes we hear lipservice but that’s obviously not enough. Compared to the Christians, if a wack job Christian fundamentalist were to do (or say) something really outrageous, a lot of Christians would speak out and act to condemn and put their fellow Christians in place. For example, the case of the Westboro Baptist Church and their blatant homophobia. That Church got quite a drubbing and their message of hate was nipped at the bud before it spread to contaminate more folks. I don’t see or hear about this kind of “policing within their ranks” within the Muslim fold.

      Thanks for reading!

      1. Hector, “However, I think part of the problem is that the moderate majority within their fold aren’t doing enough to stifle or discourage the actions of the nutjobs within their ranks.”

        I agree, if you look at the Catholic Church and how it was forced to reform because they had to compete with the Protestant Church, in the 15th to the 19th century, who was offering a way to worship that they felt was closer to the Gospels and preached love your neighbor. Then the Catholic Church in turn to keep the ranks then took on a much softer and inclusive tone.

        1. Hi Jim,

          Thanks for reading!

          You know author Mark Goldblatt has an interesting take on this. He said:

          “The short answer to that is that Islam took a wrong turn at the Enlightenment. If you like your truth straight up, with no special pleading or apologizing, there it is. The Muslim world never absorbed the moderating spirit of rational inquiry and religious tolerance that allowed the Christian nation states of Europe and America to flourish; that’s the main reason the West left Islam in the dust, literally and figuratively, a quarter of a millennium ago. Until then, Islam and Christianity were careening side by side down the same hellish highway, exchanging bloody crusades, enslaving conquered and helpless peoples, burning and mutilating nonbelievers. Then came the exit marked Enlightenment. Christianity got off … and got on the twisting, bumpy road to the modern world.

          Islam missed the turn altogether.

          Thus began that religion’s long, dreary slide into civilization’s Dumpster, the current residence of more than a billion Muslims. What is the state of Islam, now? It’s four centuries and counting of degenerate theocracies, military dictatorships and cultural wastelands in which the only reliably inspiring question has become “Who did this to us?”

  4. Generally I am neutral with all of the articles I’ve read in Get Real Philippines, except this one. It’s because it’s like calling the kettle black. There’s the Christian Bible and the old testament. And especially the crusades, in which two races are killing each other in the name of the same God.

    1. But there is a difference, do you see any Christian declaring a crusade or burning people who disagree with them today and even if there are fanatic Christians you can be assured that there will be denunciations form sane-minded Christians. Speaking of killings can you give an example? I just might have an answer for you.

    2. Hi Stridervm,

      I’m sorry to see that you didn’t like what I wrote. But please note that I did briefly mention in my article about Christianity’s ugly past and I even mentioned a book by Bishop John Shelby Spong that talks about “terrible texts” in the Bible that were used to justify atrocities. But the critique for Christianity’s past would probably take another whole article (or even a series of articles). This article was intended to discuss some of the issues with Islam and the violence committed under its name, especially for the more recent period. I am not a religious person and I do not intend to defend the Christian Church. I consider myself more of an agnostic (although I admit that I do have a soft spot for Christianity as that is the faith tradition I grew up in). Thanks for reading!

  5. Hector,

    So you finally wrote it… 😉

    Here’s my two cents.

    The passages you quote from the Q’uran are indeed an exhortation to “make war” on non-believers. Just to clarify — the first move is to invite non-believers to convert. This once they (non-believers) have been subjugated after a war. If those called to convert refuse to do so, and refuse to pay the poll tax (jizyah), the Q’uran compels faithful Muslims to “kill them wherever you may come upon them, and seize them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place.”

    “The PC police may argue that the majority (if not all) of the violence committed by the Muslim extremists are political and not religious in nature.”

    That is naive thinking at best.

    The Islamic state is by its very nature a THEOCRACY. The political structure is part and parcel of the religious hierarchy. One cannot exist without the other. Its principal supremacist and expansionist function is to put Allah’s law into practice — “to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world.” (War and Peace in the Law of Islam, 1955) There is no tolerance for other faiths nor any possibility for co-existence with non-Muslim communities except as subordinate entities. “Jihad” is therefore an instrument to establish an imperial world state practicing a universal religion — Islam; the imposition of Islamic law and culture over unbelieving societies.

    And the jizyah? That is only imposed once the unbeliever has been subjugated and placed under a state of abasement — “with a willing hand in a state of submission” — i.e. disgraced, humiliated and made miserable. The infidels MUST humble themselves before the Muslims.

    This is the object of Islam’s existential war on non-Muslims. Not because of a misinterpretation by “radicals” or “extremists,” but, according to Islamic theology, BECAUSE FUNDAMENTAL ISLAMIC IMPERATIVES COMMAND THEM TO DO SO.

    1. Johnny Saint,

      Yup… finally wrote it. Actually this is pretty much a rehash of a previous article I wrote in my now defunct Multiply blog. Good thing I kept a copy of that article in my hard drive so I was able to copy and paste a lot of the material there for this one. But due to my recent experience with a reader who lambasted me on my mistake on a punctuation mark, I had to do some checking in the quotes I used. And good thing I did before I submitted this for publication! I noticed that some of the quotes I had back in 2010 (from Wikipedia) have been modified and no longer reflected the exact same wording (and perhaps same punctuation marks). So I had to update the quotes in this article to reflect the more recent version. Gee…. I hope I was able to review and update everything I copied and pasted from my original version (in my former blog).

      Anyway, thanks for reading and thanks for sharing your thoughts on the Islamic State and its fundamental imperatives. I’m not sure if you’ve read this already but I would also recommend the book “Why I am Not a Muslim” by Ibn Warraq.


  6. Robert Spencer has a lot to say about the subject of Islam. I recommended reading his books and listening to radio show. My cousin listens to him and when I first heard it I was surprised that some of Islamic practices which seems benign on the surface have a very, very depth when examined closely.

      1. Yes it is one of his books. Robert Spencer is also the founder of Jihad Watch. I’ll tell you this I was listening to one of Robert’s radio program where he was debating with two very fundamentalist imams. Listening to the whole one hour program I can say that Robert’s arguments against Islam is very scholarly and coherent and logical. As for his two opponents, lets just say that that their arguments are like a certain troll here in GRP.

        1. Might that troll’s name start with an “e”? 😉

          I imagine Spencer receives a lot of fan mail from CAIR as well as recognition from the mainstream media in the US 😉

        2. I’m also familiar with Robert Spencer. It’s due to his role (and of his fellow like-minded writers) that a few Muslims actually stood up and left Islam, even though apostasy from Islam is punishable by death.

    1. Ever wondered why Islamic punishments are draconian in nature? According to Robert Islamic faith lacks the concept of freedom of choice or at least force the faithful not to leave the faith. Christian can leave the faith if they want to and they need not fear the punishment of death because of their actions.

    2. Hi Lord Chimera,

      Thanks for reading!

      I am not familiar with Robert Spencer and I would like to thank you for mentioning him here. I started watching Youtube videos of him showing his talk and debates about Islam. Very interesting fellow with very insightful thoughts.

  7. To use re;igion to kill innocent people is insane. The radical Islamic thinking of killing Infidels, in order to go to Paradise is out of our times. Jihadists should be examined in the head. Suicide Bombing in order to get to Heaven is insanity. Blow yourself and the infidels and get to Heaven. Tell their leaders, to blow themselves first…

      1. Hector, Hyden,

        I wouldn’t go that far. It’s easy to label something as “crazy” if you don’t understand it. If it’s far removed from what we recognize as the norm.

        In the case of the jihadist, the explanation isn’t that they’re crazy. At heart they’re all sociopaths — obsessed with the desires of their own group. They are utterly incapable of showing compassion to anyone who isn’t a member of their group. If you aren’t one of them, you are beneath them, a lesser being. And thus you are seen as deserving to be treated any way they see fit. In their minds, ANY horrendous act they commit — blowing up planes, explosives at a public event, shooting up a hotel — now becomes justifiable.

        1. Well, I’m a simple man and I think I will still see blowing themselves up in the name of religion (or whatever ideology) to be crazy even if I get an in-depth education on Islam. 🙂 hehehe But as I shared with Jim, author Mark Goldblatt offers an interesting perspective on why Muslims have been left behind. Here’s the link to what I shared with Jim.

    1. “Tell their leaders, to blow themselves first” Indeed that is one of the hypocrisy of guys, but of course they will say something like “it is not Allah’s will…..yet.”

  8. Hi Moonlight Bomber,

    I remember seeing a video of Richard Dawkins debating a Muslim imam and he did point out (which the imam could not effectively deny) that apostasy in Islam is punishable by death. I’m not exactly a fan of Richard Dawkins but I thought he was able to drive his point across regarding violence and lack of freedom of thought in Islam. Thanks for reading!

  9. The excuse people use for hating each other is not necessary, but there is a general feeling that somehow hatred must be justified and so it is usually an insult against a particular belief that starts the blood-fued. It would just be totally refreshing if:
    A)people could actually care about each other and ignore the hatred.
    B) just forget waiting for the anticipated insult and come out and express there hatred outright, no bull-shit!

    1. Hi Gerry,

      Thanks for reading! I like the points you raised. To add to your points, a lot of people say that all we need is “tolerance”. There’s this blog that explains that what we need is “acceptance” rather than “tolerance”. I think the writer’s take on it is very interesting. Here… have a look at it and perhaps you’ll enjoy it as much as I have, as well.

  10. And they say that Islam is the religion of peace. Jury’s (if there is one or even allowed in a sharia law) is still out on this.

    1. Unfortunately, there is no jury under Sharia law. Instead, judges rely on hadiths, which are interpretations of the law by scholars; these are not bound by previous decisions to use specific interpretations. Unlike the system we in democratic societies are familiar with that rely on previous case law as bases for legal decisions. And the the parties involved in the legal proceedings do not have lawyers; they represent themselves. So it’s just your bad luck if your opponent has a better grasp of Islamic law. Basically it means, in Islamic courts, they make it up as they go along. :-/

      1. That Lucman guy in the GRP FB page, keep spewing that crap about the Jabidah massacre, proof that Muslims in the South has longer memories than every”non-Bangsamoro”, he keep spewing that Jabidah Massacre is can be brought to ICC/ICJ, as if MILF is not even responsible for any war crimes they committed. I even try to debate this guy about it but well Eduardo-like responses keep me from confronting him again.. Oh no, I say the name of that TROLL again, lol!

        1. *that Jabidah Massacre can be brought to ICC/ICJ, as if MILF is not even responsible for any war crimes they committed

    2. Hi Jeanne,

      From the Koran

      “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them. And seize them, beleaguer them. Lie in wait for the in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Surah 9:5)[6]

      Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, even if they are of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with will submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Surah 9:29)

      Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive and struggle with your goods and your persons, in the Cause of Allah. (Surah 9:41)

      The infidel is to be ” killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land . . . and in the hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.” (Surah 5:33)”

  11. Objectively, I think that terrorists are terrorists regardless of their religion. We should also note that these muslim terrorists mentioned are radicals and do not represent all muslims. In fact, I do not think that the majority of muslims support them or what they are doing. These terrorists claim to be doing jihad; if it were legitimate/true jihad I bet all the muslim leaders would have backed them up.

    And on tolerance, I think countries which are predominantly muslim really do not tolerate other religions in there country but they are tolerant in the sense that they are not forcefully converting foreigners or other countries to Islam.

    This is my take on tolerance. I think that there is really a silent war among all religions. Let’s face it, major religions all believe in heaven and hell. And to be saved (or get to heaven) one must be part of that religion otherwise one will be deemed a non-believer and will be damned to hell. For example if the muslims have the right god only they get to be saved, or if the christians are right then only they get to be saved. Isn’t this ironic? But there is an exception, the Catholic Church believes in the universality of salvation. That means that as long as you do good there is hope. I’ve been to other christian sects and do they do not share the same concept.

  12. This is not complete — …Bin Laden’s big beef … is the presence of infidels in Saudi Arabia. With infidels, of course he was referring to the soldiers of the Western powers headed by the United States stationed in Saudi Arabia….”

    Non-believers = infidels… to include Bible-quoting Filipino OFW’s who like to congregate during Sunday masses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.