A Most Significant “Gaffe”

Has everyone finally recovered from his New Year’s Eve revel? Good. Here’s the choicest plum of the day:

A Muslim cleric who preaches from certain passages of the Koran could be caught in the “broad” net of the government’s new anti-terror law, Islamic leaders have warned.

Grand Mufti of Australia Ibrahim Abu Mohammad and the Australian National Imams Council have called for the offence of “advocating terrorism” to be removed from the so-called Foreign Fighters Bill, currently before Parliament.

Wait: haven’t we been told repeatedly that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are “moderates” who abhor terrorism just as much as any Christian? Then why...oh, I see:

It is documented the al-Qaeda handlers of the 9/11 suicide pilots had urged them to dwell on passages in the Koran in which God promises to "cast terror into the hearts of those who are bent on denying the truth; strike, then, their necks!"...

In its submission, the Islamic Council of Victoria said the new law would incriminate Muslims who support "legitimate forms of armed struggle", including resistance to the Assad regime in Syria and the Palestinian conflict with Israel....

"Criminalising the act of 'advocating terrorism' adds another layer of complexity to this issue. The scope of what constitutes 'advocating terrorism' is unclear."

The council identified what it says is a double standard in Muslims wanting to go to Syria and Iraq to provide aid having their passports cancelled "while ignoring the travel of Zionist Jews wishing to travel to Israel – a state which illegally occupies Palestinian territory with intention of fighting in a war against Gazans and has been accused of war crimes".

So when Muslims commit violence intended to terrorize others into submitting to Islam and Islamic prescriptions, it’s not terrorism, eh? But when an American Jew travels to Israel, perhaps merely as a tourist, that’s terrorism!

This is a classic gaffe in the Kinsleyan sense: “when a politician accidentally tells the truth.” It’s not quite as blatant as it might have been but it’s close enough to the American standard for such things, which casts a wide and “tolerant” embrace.

Applause to Keith at Crusader Rabbit for the link.

Daniel Greenfield at Front Page Magazine comments thus:

They have a point. It’s just usually one that they aren’t willing to admit in public. The Jihad comes from the Koran. Every act of Muslim violence that is religiously sanctioned, from terrorism to rape, is derived from the Koran. If you ban incitement to violence against non-Muslims, you criminalize the Koran.

No quantity of varnish can conceal the essential facts, which appear in every copy of the Koran every printed: Islam is a violent, irrational creed designed to seduce a violent, unthinking people. It is terroristic to its core. But style such a creed a “religion” and suddenly the whole schtick about “religious freedom” and “tolerance” comes into play. Imagine what Hitler could have achieved in America had he insisted that Nazism is a religion!

There’s a reason why the majority of converts to Islam in America come from our prisons…but no one wants to think about that for very long either, do they?

A moment, please. I need more coffee.

---

One of the factors that make it possible for Muslims to propagate the lie that “Islam is a religion of peace” is the general unawareness of the chronological development of the Koran over the course of Muhammad’s life. The suras are not arranged in chronological order, but in order of their length. That conceals the time spans and correlated events that distinguish the suras from the earlier “Meccan” period, before Muhammad added violence and conversion by the sword to his “religion,” from the later “Medinan” period, when he prescribed all manner of violence, fraud, and intimidation as acceptable – even mandatory – methods for enlarging dar al Islam. Nor are Muslims happy to discuss the Islamic doctrine of naskh or abrogation, under which the later suras supersede and nullify the earlier, more tolerant ones.

The great irony here is that according to Islamic doctrine, the Koran is the perfect and inerrant word of Allah himself, has existed throughout all of time, and is not to be interpreted by human agencies! Yet it contradicts itself in more than a hundred places, and invokes naskh to do so:

"We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?"- Koran, Sura 2, verse 106

The naive Westerner who reads an English-language translation of the Koran is all too easily made to overlook those contradictions. Helpful imams will rationalize them away, or steer the reader’s attention in some other direction, never, ever allowing the subject of the hegira and its effects upon Muhammad’s attitudes to come into the discussion.

You cannot get a Muslim to admit that the Koran sanctifies the enslavement of non-Muslims.

You cannot get him to admit that it says that lying to a non-Muslim, or breaking one’s promises to a non-Muslim, is acceptable.

You cannot get him to allow that sharia law, the political component of Islam, decrees adultery and homosexuality to be capital crimes.

You cannot get him to admit that Islam declares women to be too inferior to men to give trustworthy testimony before a court – or that four male Muslim eyewitnesses to the act are required to sustain a charge of rape.

You cannot get him to admit that murderous violence committed by a Muslim who shouts ”Allahu Akhbar!” as he kills has any slightest connection to the Koran, to Islam, or to the goals of the worldwide Islamic movement.

That “tolerant, peaceable” Muslim neighbor of yours? The one you keep referring to whenever your “Islam means peace” notions are challenged by someone like me? How does he treat his wife and children? Where do his “charitable contributions” go? What do you know about the mosque he attends and what’s preached there? Just how certain are you, should a jihadist demand his assistance in some violent campaign, that he would staunchly refuse it, despite the peril to him and his family?

And just how certain are you, should he and his co-religionists come to be as numerous here in America as they are in Britain or France, that their aggregate behavior and influence on American society would remain as “tolerant” and “peaceable” as he seems today?

Just a few warm, fuzzy, supremely “tolerant” thoughts to kick off the New Year.