"Western Values" and Islam

The media, these days, engage in the endless propagation of outright falsehood. This is no more clear then where the topic of discussion touches on some minority. (Minority, of course, in terms of the demographics of the civilized Western countries people actually want to live in, not the world at large. Liberals rarely acknowledge this world, or that anything there matters.) If one is a minority, the media will air almost any collection of lies that you can deliver with a straight face and, if the demoralized men of the West offer up any resistance, relentlessly attack the "racists" who disagree.

Rabia Chaudry recently wrote an interesting piece on the recent Bill Maher/Ben Affleck Islam dustup. The interesting part comes from the fact that nearly everything she says actively contradicts her point, which is that Islam is supposedly in line with Western liberal values.

While your host may also be said to be not in line with Western liberal values, and takes no small bit of pride in that fact, he also looks poorly upon the barrage of mistruths spread by the politically correct media, as well as the growing insistence in America that anything which a minority says must be taken as unassailable gospel. As such, I am going to forget all mercy and dissect this article point by point.

"Putting aside the unavoidable optics and dynamics of a conversation about Islam that excluded Muslims (oh, and women too)"

...Like Islam itself? Where apostasy is punishable by death, and women must remain securely in their homes, or under the tutelage of a male relative? I think Mr. Maher is simply playing by the rules as set forward.

"[...]the absolute inefficacy of an argument that he could win only if 1.6 billion people suddenly decided to abandon the religion."

Plenty of religions have been eradicated throughout history. You don't see anyone worshiping Ra anymore, do you? Dagon? Thought not. Western Civilization has had a long history of massive shifts in religious belief, a good example being the many competing mystery cults at the time of Christ. None of them still exist.

Additionally, and more tellingly, Islamic apologists often deny that their religion spread solely by the sword. They point out the pro-social aspects of Islam: the ability to deal productively with those not of your clan, a more humane tax system than those of their rivals, and the inner peace that comes from being in line with the divine aims.

If that is so, well, those 1.6 billion people weren't all atheists before becoming Muslim, were they? If they could be convinced to join Islam, they can just as easily be convinced, with the right argument, to leave it. Just because something is hard doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

"Muslim women around the world are fighting for their rights in societies that have marginalized and oppressed them by reviving the Islamic tradition of gender equity and inclusion."

Are these, per chance, Muslim societies? Full of Muslims? Who follow the teachings of Islam?

"Muslim religious leaders of all ethnicities and nationalities have spent the past decade articulating every conceivable scriptural argument against violence and terrorism and condemning it from an Islamic perspective. Hundreds of fatwas against violence have been issued in this time."

And they have all failed. While the effort and those making it must be appreciated, it would seem that these scriptural arguments are of limited efficacy. Is that because, as liberals argue, the root causes of violence are not religious, or because making a case for non-violence from Islamic sources is a non-starter? You decide.

"Muslims are advocating for the rights of minorities in their societies and even paying for it with their lives."

Again, these men and women must be held in our highest esteem. These are people whose sense of decency and strong conscience outweighs all of the pressure of their society. It is certainly they of whom Christ says "And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward."(Matthew 10:42)

However, where Ms. Chaudry again goes astray is in failing to note the religion and motivations of those whom our Good Samaritans are protecting minorities against. Her own citation shows that these people too are Muslims. And given the prevalence of violence in the Muslim world and the great number of attacks that couldn't be prevented, it would seem that Good Samaritans are markedly in the minority.

The next two points have to be taken together to fully enjoy.

"Armed forces of Muslim majority countries are fighting terrorists and dying across the region because the citizens of these countries are the greatest victims of terror. 

Muslims are fighting against corrupt autocratic, despotic regimes that often crush the practice of faith, from China to Egypt, and further crush the involvement of faith-oriented parties and players in any kind of democratic process."

So the Muslim governments are both the good guys AND the bad guys? Notice these two points are made right next to each other. If there was any chance that we would ignore that Ms. Chaudry defined both sides in the endless Muslim civil wars as proof of the religion's virtue, the ordering of her points destroys this.

"Muslims are fighting poverty and hunger, both in the U.S. and globally, as a religious duty."

Ok, zakat is an important Islamic religious duty. That's a fair assertion, and I'm going to give her a point. I suppose I haven't set aside all of my mercy today. Moving on though...

"Muslims in the U.S. are part of law enforcement, the military, and every domestic and foreign security and intelligence agency in the land."

Did she seriously just try to paint infiltration as a virtue? While Major Nidal Hassan may be in a minority, the widescale use of German troops in the late Roman Empire comes to mind for me immediately. How did that work out for them? (Actually pretty well. Early Germanic culture was praiseworthy in a number of ways, and gets an undeserved bad rap as "barbarians" compared to the oppressively tax-farming decadence of Rome -- But that's beside the point.)

"Under Maher’s construct, Islam itself is the culprit. It’s not an issue of terrible Muslims, it’s an issue of a terrible system [...]racial equality[...]"

 Why yes. Islamic cultures are observably bad. Environmental factors can be ruled out, as Islam camps on lands that were once the heart of the civilized world. As such, its either inferior culture or inferior genes that cause Muslims to lag behind the West. I don't care which you choose, but you must choose one.

"As if racial equality, women’s rights, social justice, charity, minority protections, and the avoidance of conflict were ideas generated in the liberalized West that Islam missed completely 1,400 years ago."

Well no, these were "ideas generated in the liberalized West that Islam missed" around 100 years ago, not 1400 years ago. Aside from that, this is a big grab bag of unrelated ideas that came about due to unrelated causes. Some are good, some are bad, some depend on how they are used. All, with the exception of charity, are significantly more common in the West than in dar al Islam.

Thanks to the extreme rhetoric around the dangers of ISIS to the homeland, Muslims in the U.S. are already facing increased threats. 

As opposed to Christians in Iraq, who are already facing death from ISIS.

"When the fear-mongering against Muslims on the political right starts being echoed in the political left, you can be assured a serious attack or attacks in this country against Muslims will happen. It’s no longer a matter of if, but when."

Of course, serious attacks by Muslims against the political right (the military, see again Mjr. Hassan) and the political left (NYC) have already happened, and are likely to continue to happen.

"Likewise, as Maher and others step up attacks on Islam, it feeds directly into the narratives used by terrorists and extremists abroad to justify attacks on any Muslim person or institution seen as a Western apologist. Those of us who firmly believe that “liberal” Western values are part and parcel of Islam are viewed as apostates by extremists[...]"

So... basically Maher is right, and liberal Muslims are a despised minority. Also, we must refuse to promote liberal values in order that you might promote liberal values? Makes sense, in no way whatsoever

"I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for not knowing what he doesn’t know about Islam, but I can’t give him a pass for not making a genuine effort to fill in his knowledge gaps.I won’t be surprised if Maher shows up soon wearing a 'I learned everything I need to know about Islam on 9/11' t-shirt."

Is anyone else sick and tired of the left accusing anyone who doesn't knuckle under to their latest insanity of being ignorant? Most of the time, it is because one is not ignorant that they reject the left's latest blind assertion. Personally, I did learn everything I needed to know about Islam on 9/11, and the other 9/11, and 9/27, and 10/7, and the dates of every other act of unprovoked Muslim aggression against us.

By their actions, they have declared themselves our eternal enemies. We are wise to listen to their deeds, and not empty words such as this.