Condescending Arrogance Combined With Ignorance

Saturday

IN AN ARTICLE in the Huffington Post, Nancy Graham Holm wrote one of the most idiotic articles I've seen in awhile, and she did it with an appalling degree of arrogance. The article is entitled, Three Questions to Ask Geert Wilders About Anti-Islam Hate Speech. Her point is that when Geert Wilders talks about Islam, he only causes problems and doesn't help anything.

Holm takes it for granted that limiting (or God forbid, STOPPING) Muslim immigration to a Western nation is such a ridiculous notion it is not even worth arguing about. Wilders has suggested in many times, and with good reason, but she dismisses it as an idea unworthy of consideration.

She first says that some Muslims out there are so "short-fused" that they "would rather kill and be killed than tolerate Wilders' brutal humiliation." When I read that, it startled me. I am in the middle of reading Unbroken right now, the true story of an American captured by the Japanese in World War II. He was deliberately starved for years, tortured, brutally beaten almost every day, and intentionally humiliated. THAT was brutal humiliation. A politician talking about the hate-filled passages of Islamic texts may be insulting, but "brutal humiliation" goes way overboard. That was in her first paragraph.

It gets worse.

Her grasp of Islamic doctrine is basically non-existent, and yet she writes about the issue with a condescending arrogance that defies comprehension. She mentions an opinion piece Wilders wrote wherein he suggests outlawing the Koran in the Netherlands. "Mein Kampf" is outlawed, says Wilders, because of its Jew hatred. If the Dutch are to be consistent, then, the Koran should be outlawed.

Nancy Graham Holm, of course, thinks this is "provocative" and clearly believes the allegations are preposterous. Of course, she doesn't have a clue about the work of Bill Warner, who simply counted up how many incidents of Jew hatred are in Islamic texts and Mein Kampf. What did he find? There is far MORE Jew hatred in Islamic texts than Mein Kampf, so Wilders has a point and Holm should be embarrassed. Check out the proportions:


Another provocative thing Wilders said was that Muhammad was a "barbarian, a mass murderer and a pedophile." According to Islamic history, and using our modern definitions of barbarism, mass murder, and pedophilia, Wilders is simply stating a fact. She is assuming it can't possibly be true (or that facts that some would consider provocative should not be spoken in public, in which case Holm should be silent because she is definitely provoking me).

I agree with her about one thing, though. It would be a terrible thing to say if it weren't true. However, she could easily discover for herself that Wilders is speaking accurately. The information is available in every bookstore. The information is not difficult to find at all. It is not a secret. And it can be found in Islamic texts themselves, not mean non-Muslims writing about Islam in order to denigrate it.

It sometimes feels as if I'm in a crazy world where someone can write an article ABOUT Islam without knowing the first thing about Islam, all the while criticizing someone who knows a lot about Islam, and criticizing what he says about Islam! And all this published in a well-known, well-respected, mainstream magazine, who no doubt have fact-checkers on staff. How does this happen? How is it possible? Have I fallen into a rabbit hole and don't know it?

Holm writes, "Geert Wilders does not acknowledge the profound reform movement that is under way in contemporary Islam." I have been studying and writing about Islam for ten years. While I am aware of some Islamic reformers, characterizing it as a "profound reform movement" is stretching it. The problem, which Holm is apparently unaware of, is that "reforming" Islam means to deny or reject a substantial amount of basic Islamic doctrine such as the 527 unabrogated passages in the Koran advocating intolerance or violence toward non-Muslims, or the 91 passages telling Muslims they must take Muhammad as an example (a "beautiful pattern of conduct"), which means a reformer who would wish to create an Islam that is no longer a threat to non-Muslims would have to seriously edit the Koran or seriously edit the Sunnah and Hadith, which are mostly about Muhammad's egregious example. And such editing is strictly forbidden since the Koran is the word of Allah.

In her final two paragraphs, she asks four questions of Wilders. I will answer them here. Wilders can probably answer them better and I hope he does, but here's mine:

1. Does your hate speech produce physical or mental suffering or does it increase safety and quality of life? By the way, she asks these questions with a self-satisfaction which I'm sure makes her feel as if she "won her case."

There is a presupposition in her question, sort of like asking, "Do you still beat your wife?" I have listened to many speeches by Wilders and he doesn't do "hate speech." And in his first movie, Fitna, which created so much controversy, all the "hate speech" in the movie is done by Islamic doctrine and Muslims themselves.

But let's set that aside and answer her question, put in my language: Do Geert Wilders' speeches produce suffering or does it increase safety and quality of life? Answer: If he was heeded, it would increase safety.

2. Have you considered the available alternatives and compared them in terms of benefit to harm ratio? Yes.

3. Which alternative produces the best ratio? Making accurate knowledge widespread.

4. What good can come of Wilders saying the things he does? If people listened to him, they would have a better grasp of the real situation (rather than the situation we might wish for), and if there is a problem to be solved (and there is) a good place to start is with the facts.

7 comments:

Ramachandra 3:46 AM  

Perhaps the best way to reply to Nancy Graham Holmes would be to quote from works by former Muslims like Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish and others.

Rob 10:34 AM  

Hi Citizen warrior,
Another great article by commenting on, yet another, example of our self-hating & suicidal msm. Since I know you are aware of Bill Warner, I will use one of his terms to make a point. In his essay, 'An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam', he identifies both the 'Far Enemy and 'The Near Enemy'. Here is his short definition, 'We have two sets of enemies. The far enemy is the politics of Islam. The near enemies are the dhimmi apologists, fueled by ignorance and multiculturalism and political correctness.'

I believe that we must somehow go on the attack against the msm. They are the ones who need to be exposed, defeated and then brought back into their rightful place as matter of fact truth tellers. They are the ones who keep the people ignorant of the facts, whether it is regarding islam, or Obama and his evil agendas. How to do this is the question?
All the best,

Rob

Citizen Warrior 11:37 AM  

Someone emailed this comment:

And this is all coming from a woman? ...who should be deathly worried about the ascendency of islam anywhere ,especially in the free west !

Islam presents a mortal danger to all women and children ! ...and of course all non muslims - period ! Where are the feminists when we need them most ?

We are indeed our own worst enemies ......the minions of mohammad don't need guns or swords, all they need are more useful idiots to help them march into the gates of Vienna (figuratively speaking).

Reality Check 6:48 PM  

Liberals believe in NO discrimination, at least from minority groups. There are no exceptions! No matter how hateful and racist that group is.

Alia 3:44 AM  

did Bill Warner find this?

the word “love” in the Qur’an appears on over 90 places but interestingly it doesn’t define the word love but speaks about the very first consequence of love…”committing.” Islam talks about commitment; if you truly love, then commit, if you do not commit then your claim of love is not real.

~Sheikh Yassir Fazaga

Citizen Warrior 12:14 PM  

Alia, I don't know if Bill Warner has seen this, but he has certainly written about love. This is an excerpt from an article of his which you can find here:


There is a concept in Islam called al-Walaa wal-Baraa. Walaa is basically allegiance or love (for Muslims). Baraa is enmity or hate (of kafirs). So the concept is to love Muslims and Islam and to hate kafirs and their civilization. Walaa and baraa are love and hate, Islamic style.

Since Islam is based upon submission and duality, walaa and baraa are the perfect illustration of duality. To love believers and hate kafirs is pure dualism. But how important is walaa/baraa? A study of the Koran shows that its priorities are:

· Allah is the only god
· Mohammed is Allah's prophet
· walaa/baraa

It is a core principle of Islamic political doctrine. The Koran devotes over half of its words to how foul and evil the kafirs are. There is not one good or sympathetic word for the kafirs. If you don't believe Mohammed, then Allah hates you:

40:35 They who dispute the signs of Allah [kafirs] without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers.

If Allah hates, then a Muslim should hate, as well. This hate is not due to moral failings. No, a kafir is hated for the simple reason that the kafir does not think that Mohammed is a prophet. [If Mohammed is not a prophet, then the Koran is fiction, and Islam is meaningless.] In the Sira we find that Islam destroys cultured, wise people of high moral standards because they do not believe Mohammed. It is not personal; it is simply Islam.

The greatest Islamic sin is not mass murder, rape, theft or child molestation. No, becoming an apostate (one who leaves Islam to become a kafir) is the greatest evil in the sight of Allah. So if Abdullah leaves Islam to become a Christian (or an atheist), he is worse than Hitler. The hatred of an apostate is another example of baraa.

Alia 11:07 AM  

Thanks for clarification Citizen Warrior. You expressed it clearly. I am Muslim by birth but we are very liberal and never read Quran and lived in non-muslim area. I read many things in internet but always felt that Muslims are loving people. So am I. And love is mentioned so many times in Quran. But then the other things are mentioned too which I am slowly realising. For me God cannot love one and hate another. I am really getting skeptical on this and i need to go deep.

Copyright

All writing on CitizenWarrior.com is copyright © CitizenWarrior.com 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on CitizenWarrior.com is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.


Citizen Warrior Heroes

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Citizen Warrior Heroes.

No More Concessions to Islam

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Concessions to Islam.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP