Saturday, June 29, 2013

What's "Hate" Got To Do With It?

A common, by now trite, notion bandied about by PC MCs for years now is that criticism of Islam constitues "hate". 

Even worse, one sees signs, all too often, within the Counter-Jihad, of acquiescing to this PC MC charge -- through the seemingly noble and ethical stance usually formulated as "I hate Islam, I don't hate Muslims".  Of course, the Counter-Jihad person taking this stance thinks he is outwitting the PC MC charge, when in fact he is letting the PC MCs set the rules of the game, by acceding to their terminology.

And not only terminology is afoot here, but the very conceit of the TMOEWATHI meme used by PC MCs -- namely, that the problem is really only one of a Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Are Trying to Hijack Islam -- is being implicitly (if not even sometimes explicitly) conceded by the Counter-Jihad folks who anxiously wish their PC MC Masters to know that they don't "hate" Muslims, even if they do "hate" Islam.

But the PC MCs aren't idiots (though they may be in thrall to a disease of the mind): they can see that the stance of hating Islam but not hating Muslims is essentially incoherent -- for it is Muslims who put Islam into practice; it is Muslims who the world over doggedly defend and support Islam; and it is even seemingly reformist and secularist Muslims who end up enabling Islam through their tap-dancing prevarications when confronted with challenges to roundly condemn their extremist co-religionists and to articulate, frankly and coherently (for a change), their own supposed reformism that is supposed to reflect the "true" Islam. 

But I say we should scrap this silly word "hate" altogether.  It is beside the point -- the point being that Muslims are dangerous seditionists in any land they visit or inhabit that is not obeying the laws of Islam set forth by Mohammed in the Sunna and enshrined in the Koran and explicated by Islamic ulema (legal scholars) throughout the world.  It is as silly to "hate" Muslims or to "hate" Islam as it would be to hate the wolves who are endangering your farm and family or, by extension in the same analogical scenario, to hate the canine species or wolfdom.  One simply takes measures to protect one's farm and family from those wolves, by wising up intelligently to just how they constitute a threat, then by taking measures to counter that threat as effectively as possible.  And, of course, we remember that analogiae claudicant ("analogies walk with a limp" -- i.e., they can never be perfect), and so we adjust the "wolves" appropriately, since Muslims are human beings, and the measures we take must therefore balance a consideration of the threat in its actual dimensions (rather than what we would wish it to be), with an ethical consideration of the conceivable limits we could put on those measures while still minding our primary priority: the safety of our societies.

To "hate" them would be a distraction.  The Counter-Jihad's motto should be: We're not haters, we're lovers -- lovers of human rights.  And since any intelligent study of Islam will reveal that Muhammad, the most revered human being by Muslims, and the Islam he spawned, enshrine a hatred of human rights as we know them, where would our love of human rights lead us then?  An intelligent study of Islam will also educate us to know that when Muslims claim that Islam is compatible with human rights as we know them, they logically have to be either strangely ignorant of their own Islam, or lying to us.  And then we recall from our intelligent study of Islam that lying is permissible in Islamic culture in order to advance the interests of Islam when Muslims perceive themselves to be surrounded by a stronger enemy.

So I say, leave "hate" out of the discussion and don't let the PC MCs and their Leftist and Muslim friends control the conversation.  

Or, better yet, turn the tables on the Islamopologists (whether they are Leftists, PC MCs, or Conservatives -- for all three, unfortunately, abound in great numbers throughout the West) Concentrate exclusively on how Islam cultivates hate, in a myriad ways, astronomically more than any other group on the planet -- beginning at the fault line by which they divide the globe into the Dar-al-Islam (the Realm where Islamic law reigns) and the Dar-al-Harb (the Realm of War); and guess where you and I live, according to Muslims...? 

Then there's the deeper fault line based in the Koran and Sunna, dividing humanity into Believer and Non-Believer, with the latter deemed to be "filthy".  Guess which one you and I are, according to Muslims...?

Now, when the typical Western PC MC would call our mere act of calling attention to the hatred in Islam as itself an act of "hate" -- that's something really worth hating...


Anathematic Action said...

"Of course, the Counter-Jihad person taking this stance thinks he is outwitting the PC MC charge, when in fact he is letting the PC MCs set the rules of the game, by acceding to their terminology."

Indeed, this doesn't make any sense, as you have so brilliantly outlined in the succeeding paragraphs. Displaying realism with regards to Islam constitutes hate speech, these days. Basically we are like scientists: we analyze the constituent core elements of Islam's totalitarian doctrine, which is, ironically, making us the pariahs in a sea of disdainful ignorance and wanton kowtowing to something that should be both subjectively and objectively disavowed for its irrational consequences: the multiculturalist scam we are spoonfed with by the authorities.

Anonymous said...

The problem is Muslims and their faith - Islam. They have no business in the West, period.

Sadly, Spencer and company won't admit this nor that every Muslim male is a potential soldier for Islam and that Islam is political movement that pretends to be a religious movement.

Here's how Karl Denninger laid it out:

"we would have to admit that there is a material component of Islam that is a political and therefore MILITARY organization and it has as its goal the overthrow of competing military and political organizations as by its own words it refuses to co-exist in peace with those other political organizations on this planet called "Earth."

Look folks, I can call the US Military a religion but that doesn't make it so. The United States Military is an extension of the political organization called "The US Government." It exists to defend and protect the interests of said government (and the people who empower it, which are the citizens of this nation.)

Likewise an entity that plans, foments and executes military operations against others is not a "religion." It is an extension of a political organization that is dedicated to the replacement of competing political organizations by its own declaration with the goal of becoming the only political organization worldwide.

Putting up buildings in which people pray does not change the tenor or character of that organization. An organization is defined by what it does, not what it says."