The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

Thursday, 21 April 2011

Endless 'offences' and 'insults' against Muslims? - An excuse for Jihad and Islamisation

Let's face it, many Muslims need fuel (or an excuse) for the jihad. That is, Muslims simply can’t survive without the latest ‘offence’ or ‘insult’ against Islam. It’s called victimhood. It is ever-present and ubiquitous. It is what unites Muslims (along with anti-Semitism).

More than that, defence against insult or offence is the best form of attack for Muslims. When Muslims are insulted or offended, soon after there are riots, killings and bombings. Not only that, governments tend to bend over backwards, legally and in other ways, to guarantee to their Muslim voters that such things will never happen again.

Think here about the widespread bits of legislation which were brought into being after the Bradford Muslim riots. And the Muslim Council of Britain was formed by the Government and Islamists largely in response to the Rushdie's Satanic Verses riots and other overreactions to ‘insult and ‘offence’.

Are these offended or insulted Muslims psychotic or something? No? Then why are they so easily offended and insulted? Why are they always so angry? It is because Islam is an eggshell? An eggshell religion needs to be protected in every which way. Protected by jihad or by government legislation against ‘hate speech’ (such as the Sharia Blasphemy Law sentence against Andy Ryan in Carlisle).

Islam has lasted for so long because of these overreactions to all and every criticism – or ‘offence’ or ‘insult’. Criticism of Islam was never allowed within the Islamic world. That’s why it survived. Death for ‘apostasy’ also helped it survive and spread. Even train spotting would survive and prosper if all criticism - or ‘insults’ - were declared illegal. Train spotting would also survive if becoming an ex-train spotter resulted in one’s head being chopped off.

Forget about non-Muslim-on-Muslim violence, Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq blow mosques up. They blow Sunni mosques up if they are Shia. And they blow Shia mosques up if they are Sunni. So let’s get things in perspective here. Let’s us hear just one example of British Muslim anger at Muslim-on-Muslim mosque bombings or Taliban acid-throwing instead.

But of course we won’t.

Muslim-on-infidel violence is OK.

Even Muslim-on-Muslim violence is OK.

However, infidel-on-Muslim violence is most certainly not OK.

Isn’t Islamic logic painfully simple?

No comments:

Post a Comment