Est. May 2008

16 September, 2012

Those ‘Muslim-baiting’ ‘Islamophobes’!!!!


September 11, 2012.  Islamists attacked the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya; four Americans ended up dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.  And the usual suspects hunted down their ‘excuse’: some guy in California made a really bad YouTube vid allegedly ‘defaming’ Mohammed.

And that’s not all, folks.  Now we’ve got ‘Christians’ blaming evangelicals for ‘Muslim-baiting’ and for being ‘Islamophobic’.

Three problems immediately arise from these claims.

1) ‘The movie caused the attack’

Well, according to ABC, Fox News, the Associated Press, and Reuters, the consulate attack looks to have been planned before this video became the focus of blame; even al Qaeda is calling it ‘revenge for the killing of the network’s number two Sheikh Abu Yahya al-Libi’.

So the video provoked the attacks?  Right.

Here are another couple of questions: which video or movie did the Copts produce that provoked the Islamists to burn their churches and butcher them in the street?  Which movie or video provoked the Islamists to fly air-liners into the WTC and Pentagon?  Which video or movie provoked the Mumbai bombings, the Indonesian club bombings, and the London transit bombings?

Stuck for an answer?

2) ‘Islamophobia’

I’ve always found that term interesting.  Whoever first used it (some say the Muslim Brotherhood, some say other things), it’s come to mean an irrational fear of Islam and the people who practice it.

Does the term ‘irrational’ apply when the list of Islamic terror attacks since 1980 is so appreciable?

‘Islamophobia’ is a wonderful word when you’re faced with facts (like those at the above link) and can’t possibly come up with a rational defense against them; in that way, the term is a lot like ‘racism’ – it’s designed to make your opponent feel guilty and to shut your opponent up, as well as to taint them in the eyes and ears of others.

3) ‘Muslim-baiting’

David Gushee, founder of the organization Evangelicals for Human Rights and professor at Mercer University, says:
"We certainly need to have no participation in what you might call 'Muslim-baiting.' If we know that attacks on the character of the prophet Muhammad evoke predictably violent reactions, it's just foolish and unwise and immoral[.]”
Generally, I would agree with Mr. Gushee that it’s not wise to poke the bear; the problem is, the mere presence and/or existence of non-Muslims seems to ‘bait’ Islamists, thus ‘poking the bear’.

How do I know?  Three words: Egyptian Coptic Christians.  How about five more words: Islamist persecution of Christians in Islamic countries?

Which movie or video provoked the Islamists to do these things? 

None; it was the mere presence of non-Muslims.

So let’s stop with the finger-pointing and blame-gaming and ‘Islamophobia’ and the ‘Muslim-baiting’ talk and lay the blame squarely at the feet of those who are guilty, shall we?

2 comments:

Right Truth said...

Well said. These are terms that are throw-away terms. Don't have an argument? Toss out 'racism', or 'islamophobia'. Another term I'm beginning to hate is "offended". The LGBTQ folks get offended, the muslims get offended, the atheists get offended. There is no law against getting offended. Well, not officially.

Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

Opus #6 said...

It is not a phobia when they really ARE trying to kill you.