Saturday, September 29, 2012

Behind the Scenes at the UN

Diana West has a syndicated column up entitled The Anti-Blasphemy, Anti-First Amendment President that explores in more detail the President's UN Speech last week. Go read the article in full. She connects the dots between the Presidents speech, full of code words, and the behind the scenes action.

One of the things you need to understand about Islam is the type of reasoning used in Islam. I'll let Ms. West explain:
Of course, the Islam-Christianity comparison isn’t a perfect match, given the peculiar definition of “slander” under Islamic law (Shariah). According to such authoritative sources as “Reliance of the Traveller,” a standard Sunni law book approved by Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, “slander” in Islam includes anything Muslims perceive to reflect badly on Islam and its prophet, including the truth. In other words, any negative fact about Islam and Muhammad is, under Islamic law, deemed “slander.”
In the same way, the Koran does indeed seem to admonish Muslims to wage only defensive wars. But since not believing in Allah and Islam is sufficient to constitute aggression against Muslims, they are free to wage war on anyone anywhere at anytime. Problem solved!  Most of Islamic reasoning is like this, such that if you showed that Allah is not a god, but our Lord's opposer, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.  They can only maintain their totalitariam system by oppression and terrorism.

In my younger days as an engineer, I considered working for a year with ARAMCO, the Arabian, American Oil Company. It was paying seemingly incredible sums for engineers to come to Saudi Arabia for a year and work. I was tempted. Then I talked to someone coming back. He told a story of an American who was driving a car, and was hit in the rear end by a Saudi driving another car. When they went to court, the Saudi won, even though at fault. It seems that since if the American had not been there (by implication, where he didn't belong) the Saudi driver would not have hit him. Therefore, it was clearly the American's fault. One can see easily enough how such "legal" reasoning will go. I decided to stay home.

So, our President is indeed endorsing Islam, and raising it above Christianity and Judaism, and presumably the Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, Wiccans and various animists as well. In the process, he is betraying our First Amendment, once so jealously guarded by our legacy media, but now, not so much. The question is why?

Sharia law and our Constitutional law are wholly incompatible.  You can have one, or the other, but not both.  Recognize how dangerous this is for Constitutionalists.  If we are to preserve the Constitution, we can not allow Muslims to reach the tipping point in the country, which has been estimated at 3% of the population.  Living in a Muslim country where Sharia is enforced is like living in Nazi Germany, only now Allah is the Fuhrer.  There are plenty of holy men around to tell you what to wear, what and when to eat, when to pray, and pretty much everything else about your daily life.  Do they sound like liberals?  And of course, Obama and company would naturally be our earthly rulers, now protected against anything that might embarrass them.  Oh, and you better go to Friday prayers whether you want to or not.  You see, it's not about what you believe, or don't believe, as long as you conform to the outward picture of a pious Muslim and shut up.

Update:  Ok, if we understand why our elites seem to like Islam, why do liberals seem to love it?  They are always yammering on about diversity, gay rights, the environment, women's rights, and so on.  In particular, you might think the women's rights movement and the gay movement would have real problems with Islam.  But not a peep. Interestingly, Muslims feel entitled to be superior to other men (remember that they consider women to be like cattle) and become infuriated when you do not recognize their obvious superiority, rather like Muhammad himself. The Pact of Umar supposedly set the standard for all future treaties between Muslims and conquered peoples, and it clearly shows that Muslims are the ones in charge. But this piece at the American Thinker makes it very clear. Because they feel entitled to respect and to be the superior ones, each apology, each appeasement, only raises their ire.  

No comments:

Post a Comment