Jon MC

Recently, I came across the article “75 Reasons Why Muslims Must Stop With Their Terrorism Condemnation Ritual” by Ismail Ibrahim.

I thought it deserved something of a reply.

In the interests of brevity (how well achieved you may decide) I will not go through it point by point, rather I will group the “75 reasons” under heads, thus I regret that you will have to look at the original article to follow my reasoning.

A. Tu-toque reasoning. Otherwise “It's ALL the fault of the West.”

Points #1, 16, 33, 37, 39, 40, 41, 59, 61-a classic, 65. (10 instances.)

B. Irrelevancy.

Points #2, 19, 67. (3 instances.)

C. Muslim supremacy aka “we're fine as we are and don't need to change”.

Points #3, 8, 29, 30, 35, 51, 57; (6 instances.)

Write comment (10 Comments)

What do the following organizations have in common?

Al-Qaida, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Boko Haram, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Abu Nidal Organisation, Abu Sayyaf, Aden Abyan Islamic Army, Al-Badr, Al-Nusrah Front, Al-Shababb, Ansar al-Sharia, Ansar al-Islam, Ansar al-Deen, Army of Islam, Boko Haram, Great Eastern Islamic Raiders Front, Harqat al-Jihad al-Islamic, Palestine Liberation Front, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Taliban.

I'm sure you know.

These are just a few of the many Islamic terrorist organizations slaughtering Christians and Jews, other non-Muslims, those belonging to other Muslim sects and even those of their own sect whom they consider “not Muslim enough”.

Their overall aim is the violent imposition of Sharia law wherever they can; as Boko Haram, IS, and Al-Shabab have done in northern Nigeria, Iraq-Syria and Somalia respectively.

Most are off-shoots of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) aka “Ikwan”, though the MB will often disown them publicly.

Write comment (40 Comments)

It seems that diversity and multiculturalism, along with political-correctness, form the “core ethos” of Western societies.

Despite brave words by the former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and German Chancellor Angela Merkel about the “failure” of multiculturalism, nothing has changed – except for the worse.

Brown's words were lost when he left office. Merkel on her part clearly “repented” of her statements by opening the borders of her country to >1 million Muslim migrants in 2015 alone.

Francois Hollande said he was in war with Islamic terrorism after the Paris attacks, and then proceeded to 'fight' it with “solidarity” marches (we now know where we went wrong with Germany's Hitler, a few marches through London would have stopped his attack on Czechoslovakia cold).

Write comment (10 Comments)

I was recently (Jan.2016) talking with a friend of mine on a wide range of issues. We had moved onto a discussion of Islam in light of the recent (Jan 1st 2016) mass sexual attacks in Cologne and (as we subsequently found out) other German cities.

My friend said “the Islamic extremists are just a tiny minority of course.”

My reply, made without much thought, was “I don't believe that.”


Having had time to think about that I would now say that we were both right, because it depends on what you mean by “Islamic extremist” and a “tiny minority”.

Without definitions of those terms to give a common frame of reference any discussion becomes pointless.


Write comment (10 Comments)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the words freedom, liberty, oppression and persecution have the following meanings:

Freedom: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants. The power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity. (Literalistically) The state of not being imprisoned or enslaved. The state of being unrestricted and able to move easily. Unrestricted use of something.

Liberty: The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s behaviour or political views. (Literalistic) The state of not being imprisoned or enslaved. The power or scope to act as one pleases. (Philosophical) A person’s freedom from control by fate or necessity.

I have always liked Thomas Jefferson's definition of liberty: “Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” -- Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819.

Jefferson makes two vital points (1) an individual's freedom/liberty is (or should be) constrained by the “equal rights of others”. Here by “equal rights” Jefferson clearly means the liberty of others to exercise their freedoms. Implicit then is that all people have “equal rights” or, to put it in more “Jeffersonian” language equal scope to exercise their freedoms and liberties. (2) That law per se does not properly constrain liberty. An unjust or discriminatory law is just that – aka “the tyrant's will”.

Write comment (89 Comments)
Joomla templates by a4joomla