Insulting Islam
By Dave Hitt on May 6, 2008 in QH Podcasts, Religion
It doesn’t happen often. It’s a very rare event. But yes, there is a new article on The Hittman Chronicle. It’s titled “Insulting Islam,” and has the audacity to suggest that when it comes to Islamic demands on Western Society we need less tolerance, not more.
It’s also available as a podcast.
This post is to provide a place for public comments. E-Mails are also welcome, of course.
could not agree more. i have zero patience for ANYONE who tells me some invisible voice told them such and shit. normally we show pity on those so dellusional and assist them with drugs and psychotherapy. god doesn’t tell anyone anything… so called preists, prophets, sharmans tell the ignorant what will keep said “seers” in power, affluence and influence while the sheep claim their “relgion” or “insight” are more “truer” than the others and so the others are not “special”. religion is NOT “the opium of the masses”. it has been used throughout history to keep the masses compliant..do so and so ,miss out on the pleasure of heaven , spend eternity in the pain of hell!was it hobbs that said “life is nasty, brutal and short”? and life was.. and is. on the subject of islamism..they wish to live in the 7th century, yet 21st century technology is used to spread the ideology.islam is no region of peace or tolerance:apostates die. mohammad uses the sword.
mikej | May 6, 2008 | Reply
That was one of the best podcasts you have ever done hands down and I agree with you 100%. It’s great to finally hear someone saying the things I’ve been thinking for a long time.
asdf | May 6, 2008 | Reply
I agree with a lot of what you say in this article. That said,
When fundamentalist Muslims do something, you say Islam is bad. When fundamentalist Christians do something, you say “fundys” are bad. Christianity isn’t generally as violent or misogynistic as Islam, and probably a smaller proportion of its adherents are fundamentalists, but it’s still intolerant and dangerous when taken too seriously — this blog provides plenty of examples of that.
And in pretty well every one, you say “fundys” rather than “Christians”. Doesn’t that seem like a double standard? It does to me, especially given the kind of ridiculous pro-Christian legislation that gets passed routinely in America’s supposedly “secular” democracy. If Christianity is a harmless religion with a few fundamentalists, then do the moderate Christians just never vote or something?
Andrew | May 6, 2008 | Reply
I think all religion is dangerous, but it is a matter of degree. I’m not afraid that the garden variety non-fundy Christian is going to be doing lots of evil in the name of their god, but they still make bad decisions based on their belief. The biggest religious danger we have in the US is fundy Christians – they have an inordinate amount of political power. Since they’re the most dangerous, they’re the ones that require the most opposition, and deserve the most derision and ridicule. Non fundy Christians deserve it too, but not nearly as much.
I prefer “fundys” to “Christian” for two reasons. I try to use it accurately, only against real fundamentalists. I define fundamentalists by their behavior, not necessarily their theology. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for instance, are not technically fundamentalist per their doctrine. They don’t believe in hell, the trinity or being born again. If you call them fundamentalists they’ll lecture you on your error. However, their *behavior,* the techniques they use to control their members, and their uncompromising faith in {their version of} The Bible, makes them fundies in my book.
I do try to use the term accurately – for instance, I don’t refer to Catholics as fundys, even though a very few Catholic sects are. They are in the minority, a trivial few. Che number of lives their pedophile priests ruined with the help and wink-wink nudge-nudge attitude of the regular church proves it’s not necessary to be a fundy to be an evil Christian.
I also use the term because it’s demeaning and insulting, which is in keeping with the theme of the article. I try to be an equal opportunity offender.
Far too many of them vote based on their religious beliefs. The percentage of them who would vote for an atheist, no matter how well qualified he was, is so low it’s within the range of polling error. So sure, there’s plenty of vileness to go around, even among moderate Christians. But when talking about moderate Christians I don’t feel the need to put the word in quotes, like I do whenever I’m writing about Muslims.
Hittman | May 6, 2008 | Reply
I’m with Andrew on this one. Also, “It is based, at its core, on murder, terrorism, extreme racism, extreme misogyny, incredible intolerance, and a willingness to use brutal violence to spread their beliefs world wide” is a hard one to justify. Very few muslims that I know hold this at the core of their beliefs. My wife’s family is muslim and they are progressive. I’ve never met anybody in her family or her community who have this at the core of their beliefs. Their beliefs are centered mainly around charity, education, and similar values. There are a few crackpots, but they don’t seem out of proportion to the Xian crackpots who think Jesus is coming in ten years (and they don’t get invited to a lot of parties). It’s important to distinguish the crackpots from the moderates/progressives. Dave, you should go out and meet some muslims instead of just watching TV about it. Since you’re convinced Islam is not a religion of peace, they probably won’t change your mind on that, but it might at least demonstrate that you need to separate the radical views.
Even if you disagree, I hope this helps you at least understand another’s point of view. Smartenizing is a two-way street.
Dan Pearson | May 7, 2008 | Reply
Dan:
My wife is from Indonesia, and most her friends and family are also Muslim. While I wouldn’t call most of them “progressive,” none of them have expressed any desire to try to force anyone to believe as they do. Maybe I’m just naive, but all too often what I’ve seen on TV and what I’ve witnessed in real life are two different things. Yes, there have been horrible acts commited in the name of Islam. Yes, this must change if Islam is to survive at all. But there are many within the Islamic world working hard for this change. They understand that, like any other religion, Islam must adapt or die.
Dave:
I get confused when you say that Islam is racist. Care to elaborate? Intolerant? misogynistic? OK, I can understand that point of view, if not fully agree. I’ve seen the inside of a mosque, though, and I’ve seen people there from across the racial spectrum. Perhaps there is a passage in the Koran that elevates one skin color over another that I missed?
Tim Sivert | May 8, 2008 | Reply
Dan, have you asked any of them what they believe happened to the 9/11 highjackers when they died? I’d be interested in their responses.
Yes, there are Muslims who are regular, everyday people who don’t harbor ill will and hatred toward unbelievers. Lots of them. But I’m not convinced they’re in the majority.
Tim, what do they think of the Jews? The entire second book of the Koran, The Cow, is a long list of why Jews suck, and an exhortation to kill them. That sounds pretty racist to me.
Dave Hitt | May 8, 2008 | Reply
Dave,
My apologies for not replying sooner, work got busy last week.
I’ve talked to my wife about Jews and Judiaism, and frankly, neither she or her family thinks of them much one way or the other. Indonesia is 88% Muslim, but Hinduism, Budhism, and several flavors of Christianity also thrive there, and are well tolerated for the most part. Of course, this is SE Asia as opposed to the Middle East; from my limited observation even though these regions share a religion their cultures are vastly different. There simply is no Jewish presence in Indonesia to speak of.
I’m well aware that many Muslims hate Jews, but I don’t classify that as racism, since it involves cultural and religious differences as opposed to differences in skin color. I think it is bigoted and intolerant, but not racist. Perhaps my definition of racism is too narrow.
From what I remember of the Quran’s second chapter, the dire predictions were made for non-belivers and hypocrites — those who said they believed in their respective religious laws but did not really observe them. Also, these consequences were to take place in the Hereafter, not on earth administered by other men. Verse 62 addresses those Christians and Jews who actually believe in God:
“Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians — any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work in righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”
Also, there is verse 256:
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out from Error: whoever rejects Tagut (other gods) and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah knows and hears all things.”
I’m still looking for the verse that orders Muslims to go out and kill Jews. I’m not trying to be a smartass, or deny that there is terrible intolerance for Jews in some sectors of Islam; I simply don’t remember where it says that.
I’m not going to argue with you that fundamental changes need to take place in many Islamic cultures for the religion to survive. The rest of the world simply will not put up with what has been going on the last few decades. Whether these changes take place remains to be seen.
Tim Sivert | May 15, 2008 | Reply
I guess our definitions are different. I don’t care why someone hates a particular race – if they do, I consider them a racist.
Most of their exhortations to kill don’t mention a specific race, but lump all unbelievers together.
2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
8:12 Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you:
give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers:
smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”
8:67 It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land.
9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.
The other two “great” religions went thorough their violent adolescence, but have pretty much grown out of it. I do hear a few Muslims saying it’s time for them to do the same thing, but they better hurry up. The world is running out of patience.
Hittman | May 15, 2008 | Reply
Dave,I really don understand what your going on about,not being a smartass or anything,but have u studied history at all>?
Where did christianity arise from>?Sword or word of peace>?Jews from mouth of peace>?
History has arisen from bloodshed,.
Every race,culture,civilization,nation,sector,cult,Will have violence to the base of your own perception which will not nor less convince you nor change ur perception as they will see nothing wrong.With the Verses you have just stated,You should put the Verse before.Too justify what it is talkin about.Thanks,Peace
Ramsey | Jan 14, 2009 | Reply
Ramsey,
This article/podcast is specifically about Islam using the tolerance of western culture as a tool to further their goal of destroying western culture. That doesn’t negate the fact that Judaism and Christianity also have a long history of violence, genocide, racism, misogyny and war. To cite just one example, imagine where our technology and society would be if it weren’t for the Dark Ages. Christianity cost us 500 years of human progress.
Nearly all wars in history have been the result of religion, big government, and quite often, both working together. The world would have been a much better place with no religion and very little government. I think we need to get there if humanity is to survive, but the next step, sadly, will be fighting World War IV: Islam v. Civilization.
Dave Hitt | Jan 14, 2009 | Reply
This is the best podcast I have listening on Islam. I have telling my friends and associates about the dangers of radical Islam.They don’t seem to listen to me. I going to have some of them listen to your podcast.Here in Phoenix a member of Islam ran over and killed one of his family members.Another honor killing. The news media wouldn’t tell us that he was a Muslim. Did you read about in the New York Times?
Joe Green | Feb 27, 2010 | Reply