Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Question of the Whenever # 2

Michael Lumish

Nazism was an Aryan supremacist philosophy.

So, was opposing Nazism the same as unjust bigotry toward Germans?

If not, how come opposing Sharia law - a Muslim supremacist philosophy - is considered the same as unjust bigotry toward Muslims?


21 comments:

  1. A couple of years ago, I attended a town hall at the Islamic Center of Orange County in Garden Grove. The head imam there is Muzammil Siddiqi, past president of the Islamic Society of North America and also head of the Shura Council of SoCal. The topic was sharia and how it is perfectly compatible with the US Constitution (which it is not). It was a who's who of panelists including Maxine Waters, Sheriff Lee Baca (now indicted), Cong. Judy Chu and Loretta Sanchez, the then US Atty in LA, Andre Birotte Jr and LAPD commander of anti-Terror Mike Downing among others. They all told us that sharia was right in line with US law. Of course they didn't mention hudud sharia, which outlines punishments for "Crimes against God" including adultery, homosexuality, apostasy and blasphemy-all punishable by death.

    After the event, I talked to Downing and told him that in 1992 Siddiqi had hosted Omar Abdel Rahman, the terrorist "blind sheikh"{ at his mosque and had translated his sermon about jihad into English. Downing's response?

    "Well, you know, Gary, some people change over time."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey man, thanks for dropping in. I appreciate it.

      Y'know, it's one thing if people do not wish to join the discussion concerning the meaning of Sharia to US immigration policy, but they need to stop telling the world that those of us who are concerned with this matter are a bunch of bleeding racists.

      It's a significant part of the reason that Hillary got beat.

      Delete
    2. Gary,
      Some people do change over time, and that is probably what Siddiqi and company have been hoping for, and it looks like they're having success. But it's the wrong people.

      Delete
    3. Jeff,

      I have listened to Siddiqi speak about 5 times. I have spoken with him one on one and asked him questions on subjects like death for apostates. He was evasive. I have given him Nonie Darwish's Freedom letter a simple request to the leading Muslims in the country to say that American apostates should not be harmed. He has refused to sign the statement claiming there is no death for apostates under Islam. In short, he is a dissembler.

      Delete
    4. Thanks Mike. You do good work. Your article with Cinnamon was excellent.

      Delete
    5. Jeff,

      I have listened to Siddiqi speak about 5 times. I have spoken with him one on one and asked him questions on subjects like death for apostates. He was evasive. I have given him Nonie Darwish's Freedom letter a simple request to the leading Muslims in the country to say that American apostates should not be harmed. He has refused to sign the statement claiming there is no death for apostates under Islam. In short, he is a dissembler.

      Delete
  2. Islamic fascists, BLM and neo Nazis have a tenuous but real connection to one another that only strengthens with time. And give the level of Jew hatred in leftist circles you often see those people together that the same events. We're already beginning to see holocaust denial attaining polite tolerance. I am sure that de facto holocaust denial will soon be taught at American universities as 'another competing narrative'. And in keeping with the 'horseshoe theory' of political extremism, academics like Gar Alperovitz who have made a career out of condemning American actions in the pacific in WW2 as solely driven by racist genocidal urges against a largely benign Japan, you'll begin to see them link arms with neo Nazis who suggest that maybe the wrong side lost WW2. Even the Howard Zinn Stalinist left will sign on and lie that the eastern front was made worse than it would be w/o those awful Americans getting involved.

    Soon you will see the SJW left attacking anyone who attacks Nazis with the same fervor they attack anyone who criticizes Islamic terrorists.

    We need to remember that Hezbollah really IS neo Nazi and that American professors like Steven Salita openly support them. We need to remember that Mein Kampf and jihad literally mean exactly the same thing in their respective languages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Democrats are doing the country a terrible disservice by not allowing the conversation to even take place. From the hard-left to the center-right the conversation around Sharia and immigration runs the gamut from verboten to strongly frowned upon.

      And so ends up formulating the discussion?

      Breitbart and those guys.

      People voted terrorism and immigration only second to economics. By making the center feel like a bunch of assholes for even raising the question, they just drove millions of people into the arms of Donald Trump.

      By the time that Obama referred to Fort Hood as "work-place violence" it was already very clear that those guys were entirely out to lunch on this issue.

      Delete
  3. You know what country has Sharia Law? Israel http://www.justice.gov.il/En/Units/ShariaCourts/Pages/default.aspx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not surprising, I suppose. The last time that I was there, a few years ago, I forgot about the rule against bringing Jewish religious items up onto the Temple Mount and they confiscated a shofar that I had purchased until I came back down.

      I didn't like it then, either.

      But the point, of course, is that there is nothing the least bit racist in opposing the Jihad and until we acknowledge this we'll never be able to discuss this problem in a reasonable and fair manner. That's my main point, Joseph.

      Delete
    2. A clueless response that diverts from the point made.

      Israel accepts an extremely limited application of Sharia. That was the law of the Mandate since 1922. So what is the point or implication? That it is like Saudi Arabia or Mauritania?

      This line of reasoning illustrates why progressives are on a track to marginalization. It will be increasingly be the case if things get better with the new administration.

      People seem to know who puts out fake news. It will become more acceptable to challenge the progressive orthodoxy and its chokehold on media, culture and academia. Hopefully, it won't take too long for common sense to return instead of political religion.

      Delete
    3. Guess what country doesn't have Sharia Law?
      The United States of America. And there is no reason it should.

      Delete
    4. By the way, many Orthodox strenuously object to Jews going on the Temple Mount until the Messiah comes.

      Delete
    5. Joseph,

      it's unclear to me just what your larger point is.

      My point, clearly, is that there is nothing the least bit racist about opposing the advancement of Sharia (Jihad).

      If we wish to oppose the Jihad, which I do, the first thing that we need is to overcome the progressive taboo in even discussing the issue.

      The second thing that needs to happen is to convince those very same socially-frightened people that, perhaps, head-chopping Christians or destroying ancient antiquities or calling for the conquest of Jerusalem (and, thus, the genocide of the Jews) might be something that well-meaning liberals could bring themselves to oppose.

      Is there Sharia outside of Muslim dominated countries?

      Of course.

      But what is your point?

      Delete
  4. Not only do we have Sharia Courts in America, we also have Bet Din courts. Courts encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution systems because they view the justice system as overcrowded. Sharis Courts, along with the Bet Din, are available to anyone in this country as long as they agree to go there. Anyone can resolve, for example, marital issues there, but of course for administrative reasons, a divorce can only be granted by a civil judge. Similarly, the government will not agree to the resolution of a criminal matter in a religious court. Civil disputes, normally between members of the same religion, can be settled by a religious court. In fact, Spinoza may have been shunned by the Jewish community for going to a civil court rather than the Bet Din. In fact, today, we are obligated to go to the Bet Din first, for disputes between Jews, and only go to civil courts if we get permission from the Bet Din.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What does this have to do with the price of cheese?

      The point is that when religious law like Sharia is supreme, it provides the basis for inequality and oppression.

      To suggest that limited jurisdiction of religious courts, which remain under civil law, refutes the point made about Sharia, is an absurdity, and helps illustrate a mindset out of touch with reality.

      Delete
    2. http://islamqa.org/hanafi/daruliftaa/8502

      Delete
    3. Fail to see the point for the link, except as another example of a jaunt down diversion lane.

      The learned Iman repeatedly states that it is necessary by Shariah to abide by the laws of the country one lives in, regardless of the nature of the law, as long as it does not contradict Shariah.

      That does not even get to the substance of the laws themselves, which are highly discriminatory toward women and non-Muslims, and oppressive to all its adherents, even Muslims, despite the fact that people practice and obey.

      Delete
  5. A Bet Din is more like arbitration, which is also outside of any court. In fact anyone with a credit card has already agreed to settle all disputes via arbitration. But we Jews are keenly aware that Dina d'malkhuta dina. I do not believe such an edict exists in Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  6. btw, in case anyone is wondering, the real reason that western-leftists refuse to oppose the rise of political Islam is because of social cowardice.

    They know about what they do to Gay people throughout the Muslim world.

    They know that Jihadis want to murder Jews.

    They know that Islamists refuse to assimilate in Europe and are setting up independent and separate judicial systems throughout the continent that hold women in contempt.

    They know about the destruction of Palmyra and other sites of human antiquity and heritage.

    But, ya know what?

    They simply don't care.

    Why don't they care?

    Because they know that others will frown upon them, thus it's much, much easier to convince oneself that the real problem facing the world are those insidious white people.

    Just sayin.

    And yet they think of themselves as both morally and intellectually superior to these knuckle-dragging pig farmers who they believe represent the regular American public.

    And then these geniuses wonder how it is that a deplorable like Big Daddy could take the country from their control.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Arguing with many people on the left has become an exercise in arguing with people who are either psychotic or pretend to be. I can't have a useful dialog with someone who believes they were abducted by aliens and taken to visit Elvis on the moon. We can't get past that or around it. Yes the reason you hate Israel or Trump is because space aliens are beaming messages directly to your brain.

    Ok. Have a good time with that.

    ReplyDelete