COMMENT: Wow, who let the J-W wackos out?

Wow, I feel like I'm surrounded with JihadWatch wackos.

A number of comments to my previous post (including one Kevin from Canada) challenged me to provide proof that a figure of speech is in fact a fact when taken literally.

Gee, that's really smart, Kevin. Is English your first language?

And if I tell you that my figure of speech was in fact a figure of speech, what will you say in response? That I am a liar for using figures of speech?

Jose Borghino and I interviewed Ayaan Hirsi Ali for NewMatilda.com. You can download (albeit an edited version of) the interview from their website. Hirsi Ali clearly states that the Islam of bin-Ladin is the dominant Islam across the Islamic world.

Now tell me what bin-Ladin stands for if it isn't violence? And tell me that the only time Hirsi Ali has said this was to Borghino and I.

Let's get back to the topic of my previous post. What symptoms do we look for when identifying SJS? The Washington Times report talks about people with "an affiliation with Islamic supremacy".

What does this mean? What is an affiliation? What is Islamic supremacy? Does this include people who feel intellectually and emotionally convinced that Islam is the only faith providing absolute truth?

So does that mean that I am only free from being affected by SJS if nothing I have ever said or written suggests or infers a belief that the Islamic faith as I understand it is the only faith that provides absolute truth?

And what is so dangerous about believing that one's beliefs are better than others? Or is this only dangerous if Muslims are involved? If so, why?

"Because Islam is violent and your holy men were child molesters," say some members of the lunar-Right.

Of course, Christianity has never had a history of violence. We know for a fact that Buddhists were responsible for the Holocaust. We also know that American Hindus dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And those nasty Jains committed atrocities at Abu Ghraib.

And we all know that Christian churches had nothing to do with the sexual abuse of children, let alone the virtual elimination of indigenous peoples across all American continents, Australia, etc.

The fact is that all major monotheistic faiths have a history of aggression and bloodshed at some stage of their history.

"But these days, most terrorists are Muslims. That's the difference."

Really? So have you done your own demographic study based on a detailed examination of all terrorist acts across the earth? Over what period? What was your research methodology? Where can I find your research findings published? In which peer-reviewed academic journal?

Or are you suggesting that the people from FARC have abandoned Marxism? Have the RSS decided they don't want to be Hindu anymore?

Even if it's true that most terrorists are Muslims, it's also true that the vast majority of victims are Muslims. But they're the victims you never hear about. You rarely see their relatives weeping on TV. You rarely read of how they're feeling in the papers.

When some foreigner detonates a suicide vest and kills 50 Iraqi civilians in the process, do we get the kind of saturation coverage we got from elements of the allegedly conservative media when the bombing plot in the UK was foiled?

I guess what it boils down to is that some victims are more important than others ...

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious