Killing Homosexuals Is Not ISIS Law, It Is Muslim Law

by Andrew McCarthy

About the author: Andrew C. McCarthy III is a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. He led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and of planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks. He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003. He is a contributing editor of National Review and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

For nearly 25 years, we’ve been clinging to the fiction that groups such as ISIS are anti-Islamic. Various reports indicate that the death toll from the jihadist attack overnight at a popular gay club in Orlando may exceed 50 people, with more than 50 others wounded. The terrorist’s identity has been reported: He is Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old American citizen and devout Muslim from Fort Pierce, Fla., the son of immigrants from Afghanistan.

The FBI has indicated that Mateen, who was killed in a shootout with police at about 5 a.m., was an Islamic extremist. Representative Peter King (R., N.Y.), who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, says the shooter was “trained in the use of weapons.” As we have noted here many times, military training is generally the key that separates competent terrorists from wannabes. But whether actual or would-be jihadists, these Muslims are motivated by Islamic supremacism, the belief that sharia, Islam’s ancient, totalitarian law, must be imposed on society.

Based on all this, there is abundant Washington and media speculation that the attack is “ISIS-inspired.” This is consistent with the bipartisan, government-approved insanity we have been following for a quarter-century, what I often call the political class’s concoction of “An Islam of Their Very Own.” It goes something like this:

Islam is a religion of peace, period. End of discussion. “Violent extremist” outfits such as ISIS and al-Qaeda kill wantonly, with no real ideological motivation. ISIS and al-Qaeda are thus not Islamic, but actually anti-Islamic — and if they cite Islamic scripture to justify their atrocities, they are “hijacking” and “perverting” Islam. Because we must see these groups as “anti-Islam” rather than Islam, it is acceptable to call a mass-murder attack “terrorism” only if law-enforcement develops some plausible tie to these groups. Otherwise, if a Muslim is involved, stick with “workplace violence” and the like.

Finally when an attack committed by a Muslim is too obviously terrorism to deny, call it “ISIS-inspired,” or “al-Qaeda-inspired,” or “Hamas political resistance,” etc. — but by all means do not, absolutely do not, ascribe it to Islam in any way shape or form.

This is idiocy. Will today’s event, the worst mass shooting in American history, help us see that?

We need to consider separately Islam and its sharia law. RELATED: Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth — the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate There are various ways to interpret Islamic scripture in order to attempt to evolve it out of violence.

This, of course, does not change the fact that supremacist, fundamentalist Islam is a legitimate, mainstream, virulently anti-Western interpretation of Islam; but it does at least mean that there can be other mainstream versions of Islam that reject violence and Islam’s politico-legal system. Sharia, on the other hand, is basically set in stone. (Or should I say “stoning”?) Even most Islamic reformers acknowledge that it badly needs reform — not that it can be reinterpreted, but that it needs to be changed. Its provisions and especially its draconian punishments were largely fixed a millennium ago. The mandate that homosexuals be killed is not from ISIS or al-Qaeda. It is from sharia — which draws on Muslim scripture.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436505/mass-shooting-florida-anti-gay-violence-rooted-muslim-law

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Killing Homosexuals Is Not ISIS Law, It Is Muslim Law

  1. Chris says:

    “The mandate that homosexuals be killed is not from ISIS or al-Qaeda. It is from sharia — which draws on Muslim scripture.”

    The mandate that homosexuals be killed is also found in Christian scripture.

    What is his point? That a holy book written thousands of years ago has passages that are bigoted and violent? Is this news to any halfway educated person?

    His point seems to be that we should identify violence committed by Muslim extremists as an inherent part of Islam–this justifying the narrative of those very extremists and giving them the legitimacy they crave. Plenty of other national security and foreign policy experts disagree, which is why the Bush administration stopped referring to these cretins as Islamic terrorists in public. But this is semantics; we know what they are. Does McCarthy really think calling them by the name they want to be called will make a difference? Like that will stop them? It’s ridiculous.

    If we want reform in Islam we cannot allow attacks like this to widen the gap between Muslims and others. Some are using this as an excuse to pit Muslims against gays. But gay Muslims exist. They are the voices that should be highlighted right now. They are the ones who should be given credibility, not the assholes who crave martyrdom.

  2. Tina says:

    “The mandate that homosexuals be killed is also found in Christian scripture.”

    You need to stop showing so much ignorance regarding the Christian faith. And you have got to stop drawing these ABSURD equivalencies!

    Christians follow Christ; nowhere does Christ instruct people to murder or to murder gays.

    In fact although homosexuality is considered a sin it is no greater a sin than adultery or any other sin. Retribution, if there be retribution, is in Gods hands not ours. That is made very clear: “…vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.” Christians are instructed to love, even our enemies.

    The Bible is both history and instruction, don’t confuse the two.

    Christians, like all humans, are flawed and guilty of the deadly sins and so sometimes err in their thinking. Creationliberty.com: “…Christians tend to puff themselves up when they are Saved, and do so by losing humility, pridefully claiming the righteousness of Christ for themselves, and forgetting how they too are wicked sinners. The love of our Lord and Savior cannot be demonstrated by carrying signs that say “God hates fags” because that is a lie, and the truth of God is not in them who do those things.”

    Even so, until Christians begin murdering people en masse and declaring an intention to oppress the world, please refrain from making this ridiculous equivalence argument.

    The point in the article Chris, is not only that these passages are in the Kuran, but that they are part of modern day instruction, practice, and law in many Muslim nations and in Mosques across the globe.

    An article by John Fund in National Review addresses the fact that this administration refuses to name the enemy:

    Obama found time on Sunday to mention the need for gun control and the attack’s impact on the gay community, and he did note that “the FBI is appropriately investigating this as an act of terror.” He neglected, however, to mention that Islamic extremism played a role, despite clear evidence that the killer called 911 and had pledged allegiance to Isis. “Facts don’t seem to matter to this administration, in this matter,” James Woolsey, who served as director of the CIA under President Bill Clinton, told Fox News after Obama’s statement. “This reluctance is doing real damage. You can’t effectively fight something if you can’t discuss it.”

    Nor are other Democrats any more willing to say that the U.S. is at war with “radical Islam.” Incredibly, Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal, who was once Connecticut’s attorney general, issued this statement: “The Senate’s inaction on commonsense gun violence prevention makes it complicit in this public health crisis.” In a Democratic debate last November, Hillary Clinton challenged the premise of CBS’s John Dickerson that the U.S. was at war with radical Islam. She instead urged outreach to Muslim countries — ironically, many of which recognize that perverted strains of Islam are indeed at war with their own countries and with modernity itself. In that same debate, Bernie Sanders went so far as to claim that climate change was the greatest threat to American security.

    There is good reason not to keep up a constant drumbeat emphasizing radical Islam’s ties to terrorism: We need the help of the world’s Muslim populations, and the last thing we want to do is drive them away by implying that they’re all our enemies. But the Obama’s administration’s PC attitudes come across as a sign of weakness to both friend and foe alike. As Sebastian Gorka, a security specialist and author of Defeating Jihad, has asked: “Did we talk about ‘hatred,’ when we faced the Nazis? Did we talk about ‘hate,’ when we faced the Soviets?”

    The answer is no. We stood united to defeat the b’*ards.

    • Chris says:

      Tina: “The point in the article Chris, is not only that these passages are in the Kuran, but that they are part of modern day instruction, practice, and law in many Muslim nations and in Mosques across the globe.”

      Then that point was unclear, especially when McCarthy pointed out that the commandment to kill homosexuals is found in Muslim scripture. Pointing out that this same commandment is also found in Christian scripture is not an “equivalence,” it’s a fact. And it renders *this particular aspect* of McCarthy’s argument irrelevant. (You always neglect the specifics for the larger “point,” ignoring that inaccurate or irrelevant specifics weaken that point.) It literally doesn’t matter that this commandment is found in scripture; what matters is how Muslims interpret that commandment.

      I’m well aware that we face a greater danger from Muslim fundamentalists than Christian fundamentalists, and that anti-gay bigotry is more prominent in mainstream Islam than mainstream Christianity. But McCarthy’s argument could just as easily be, “Killing gays isn’t Lord’s Resistance Army law, it is Christian law.” Arguing that hatred and violence toward gays is inherent in Islam isn’t helpful toward the reformation effort; it’s only helpful if the goal is to demonize Muslims and make people suspicious of them as a group.

      Again, right now it’s more important than ever that we highlight the voices of reformation. The voices of LGBT Muslims who have spoken out against the attack. The Muslims who have donated blood to the victims. Ive seen that in other places. I haven’t seen that here; instead, I’ve seen more and more credibility given to the enemy, more and and more talk of how this killing represents Islam, which is exactly what the extremists want people to believe. I’ve seen an attempt to use this incident to drive more of a wedge between Muslims and gays, and Muslims and everyone else. Why not look for the helpers?

      • Tina says:

        “Then that point was unclear, especially when McCarthy pointed out that the commandment to kill homosexuals is found in Muslim scripture. ”

        It IS…And They ARE!

        Christians are not, regardless the few passages in the Bible condemning the ACT.

        ” Arguing that hatred and violence toward gays is inherent in Islam isn’t helpful toward the reformation effort; it’s only helpful if the goal is to demonize Muslims and make people suspicious of them as a group. ”

        The fact that you cannot discuss this threat without bringing all of your favorite agenda items to the forefront of the discussion shows just how dishonest, un-serious and totally PC you are. Your party is exactly the same. Our leader is emotionally distant regarding these monsters. His remarks today sounded like he was speaking about wonky specifics about budget items unless he was pointing to gun violence or bigotry toward the LGBT community (By Americans not Islamists)

        Your party is morally bankrupted; totally lost in the politically correct agenda maze of its own construction. Too invested in the pursuit of power to think clearly and succinctly. Certainly too invested for the American people to invest in you for another term. You aren’t even morally strong enough to take responsibility for this!

        “…it’s only helpful if the goal is to demonize Muslims and make people suspicious of them as a group.”

        You WANT TO BELIEVE THAT! You want it to be true that these problems have increased because of anything but the leadership. You want it to be true that these problems exist because of right wing “hate” rather than the divisive nature of our leaders’ remarks and actions. You refuse to relent. Well you are wrong. Obama has been a disaster as a leader and divisions in America have not been at this level since the sixties. How could they not when your leaders keep telling you the problems are huge and the right wing is wrong. did he think we would sit and take that forever? Do YOU? This tactic is pure EVIL…pitting groups against each other with lies, exaggeration, and inference is EVIL!

        “…instead, I’ve seen more and more credibility given to the enemy, more and and more talk of how this killing represents Islam, which is exactly what the extremists want people to believe. I’ve seen an attempt to use this incident to drive more of a wedge between Muslims and gays.”

        That’s EXACTLY what you want to see. YOU are the one obsessed with the idea that America is a nation of groups, some more important than others. WE are saying this is America. These monsters attacked Americans. We need to describe and target this enemy and the only way to do that is to be HONEST about the source of this evil, name it, and then set out to destroy it. Our Muslim allies want us to do this…they, more than any, have been harmed by the feckless, nonchalant approach to fighting the battle. The leadership is more concerned about legacy…everything they do and say is about their legacy and power. I’m thoroughly disgusted with Obama, Hillary, Kerry, and all who give them fawning, unquestioning support.

        “Why not look for the helpers?”

        Helpers? How can we “look for the helpers” when we, conservatives and PS, are being attacked with more strength and energy than you give to Islamic terrorists!?!

        And who says we DON’T look for helpers? We’ve illustrated the difference between covert Muslim dialogue that argues America is compatible with Sharia law (It’s not) and Muslim dialogue that demonstrates pro-American values and ideals. We have introduced and praised the work of Rudy Jasser, a Muslim American that is working tirelessly to reform his religion and promote a form of Islam that is absolutely compatible with the American values of freedom and individual rights.

        • Chris says:

          Tina:

          “Christians are not, regardless the few passages in the Bible condemning the ACT.”

          You called me ignorant of Christianity earlier, but you don’t even know what is in your own Bible. The Bible does not merely condemn the “act,” it advises followers to put homosexuals to death. (Did you miss the article I posted yesterday about the Christian pastor using scripture to advocate the death penalty for homosexuals?)

          “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Leviticus 20:13

          Again, I am not saying this is commonly practiced in the Christian religion. Certainly it is more common in Islamic countries. But that’s why McCarthy’s point that this commandment is found in the Quran is irrelevant; Christians are able to ignore such a passage in their holy book, and Muslims can do the same.

          The rest of your comment is incoherent. You once again refuse to acknowledge the anti-Muslim bigotry that is promoted here. Jack falsely claimed that 75% of Muslim men beat their wives; without any factual basis, this statement is obviously bigoted. As is the proposal to ban all Muslim immigrants, which both you and Jack support. Accusations of bigotry against you are thus not part of any liberal conspiracy. They are an accurate description of your statements and views on Muslims.

          • Jack says:

            Chris, you keep beating to death what I said about the majority of Muslim men approve of beating their wife/wives and you offered not on shred of justification for rejecting that, you just did it out of hand. That’s just plain stupid and exposes your own liberal bias which is just another form of bigotry. I don’t like doing your homework all the time. If you don’t like something I said you do your own research and refute it. Don’t DEMAND that I support every single thing I say in the form of a college level research paper. That’s stupid and I won’t be tricked into wasting my time. I challenge you to prove to us that I am wrong, that the majority of Muslim men do not believe in corporal punishment on the wife or wives as the case may be. DO IT OR SHUT UP.

            By the way, in support of what I said, its a fact that 6 Muslim countries believe that anyone who leaves the Muslim faith ought to be killed and 80% of their population agree. They subscribe to Sharia law, which includes ways to beat your wife. 80% believe in death for apostasy! That pales by comparison to wife beating.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/02/what-the-muslim-world-believes-on-everything-from-alcohol-to-honor-killings-in-8-maps-and-4-charts/

          • Chris says:

            Jack: “By the way, in support of what I said, here’s a bunch of stuff that doesn’t support what I said.”

            Fixed it for you.

  3. Libby says:

    Oh, please. Try telling our own fundamentalists that the groady stuff in the Old Testament has to come out.

    It’s the fundamentalist psychology that needs attention. The text they fasten onto is very nearly irrelevant.

    But McCarthy is a lawyer, and they don’t do psychology.

    • Tina says:

      The Bible doesn’t need to be altered, Libby. It needs to be read and understood correctly. Christians who act against the teachings of their Christian faith and commit murder or other crimes (and sins) against gays need to be prosecuted just as any atheist, Wiccan, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jew who does the same.

      We are not dealing with random criminal acts, religiously based or not. We are dealing with enemy combatants that are part of a vast unconventional war…a war being waged against Muslims as well as the West and western thought.

      “The text they fasten onto is very nearly irrelevant. ”

      Is that true? I think not. To one degree or another Muslims in America believe things that are not compatible with American thought and values. One of the prominent security think tanks recently advised: 51% of Muslims here want the choice of sharia law; 63% agree that the U.S. Constitution protects speech that offends Muslims (read citizens should be prosecuted just for “insulting” Muslims); 25% agree that violence should be used to impose sharia law on all Americans.

      We have been careless about who we bring to these shores because we have been stupid and dishonest about the culture, practices and ways of the Muslim community. Yes, there are wonderful Muslim people who come here for freedom and the safety and openness that our more civilized ideals afford them and their children. But not all who come here think in those terms. We need to know the difference and become more selective.

      “But McCarthy is a lawyer, and they don’t do psychology.”

      Obama is a lawyer. Michelle Obaam is a lawyer. Hillary is a lawyer. Bubba is a lawyer. American Thinker points out: Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate.) Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.

      Is that what’s wrong with your party?

      • Libby says:

        Why do you always take up something beside the point? Of course you’re not going to edit the Old Testament. That’s the point. But there is a lot of groady stuff in there which has many times incited violence against gays, women, people in general who are not Christian. It’s the psychology of these sickos, Christian or Muslim, that is the problem.

        McCarthy’s going: if the law is bad, change the law. That s not gonna fly with somebody’s holy texts. An Islamic reformation would be nice, but it has to come from within.

        And then, for pity’s sake, you can tell me what, in the freakin’ hell, the number of lawyers in the Dem has to do with the proposition that a lawyer will be more inclined to legal solutions than psychological ones?

        • Tina says:

          “…there is a lot of groady stuff in there which has many times incited violence against gays, women, people in general”

          By large organized groups dedicated to imposing their ideas on everyone in the world? Not in modern times.

          It definitely isn’t what’s happening now so why do you bring it up? I’ll tell you. To try to establish moral equivalence so we can continue to ignore the fact that the problem right now is Muslims waging war on the west. (Yes we know its not all of them. Muslims know its not all of them but they aren’t fooled by PC attempts to silence and cower those who are willing to fight against the monsters!

          McCarthy being a lawyer doesn’t preclude his being wise or informed about whatever “psychology” might or might not be going on. I just asked if “lawyering” was what was wrong with your party.

          The problem is still the fact that we have Muslims that are dedicated and ruthless; they do not need therapy, nor would they accept your big idea.

          • Chris says:

            Tina,

            There is a difference between “the problem right now is Muslims waging war on the west,” which I cannot dispute, and “Islam is inherently evil.”

            McCarthy’s “scriptural” argument about death to gays falls squarely into the latter category, which is why I objected to it and pointed out that Christian scripture has the same command. It’s not to draw a moral equivalence between modern Christianity and modern Islam. It’s to demonstrate that there is nothing “inherently” evil about either religion, and that Islam can change just like Christianity can.

            Does that make sense?

    • Post Scripts says:

      Libby, you are attacking the messenger, not the message. McCarthy is right and Obama is trying to soft pedal Islamic terrorism into just terrorism. But, we ain’t but what he is sellin. Their religion is behind the terrorism, almost 100% of it, but of course not all Muslims are terrorists are they? No. just enough are to make it painfully obvious that too many of them and their Imams are stuck in the 10th century. Why don’t you progressives help them come into the modern world with your values towards gays and sex, lets see how well you do! You really should do that too, because its the far left that has stirred up a lot fundamentalist Muslim hatred over your decadence.

      • Chris says:

        Jack,

        Can you explain why Obama avoids the term “Islamic terrorism,” citing his actual explanation, and the explanation of his foreign policy advisors?

        I think you can, but you’d rather not. Why is that?

      • Libby says:

        I’m not attacking, I’m observing. McCarthy’s approaching the thing, Sharia, like its a constitution that can be amended. It’s not, and even if it were, we will not be able to persuade them to do it. It has to be their own idea.

        And did you read my position paper here? I don’t want to change their culture. Their culture is their business. But should some person or persons decide to misbehave … ok, try this … they believe they embody the will of Allah … and you believe they believe that they embody the will of Allah … me, I believe they, for reasons entirely their own, which lengthy psychological therapy might be able to address, just want to misbehave. But for the time being, they will be tracked down, taken into custody, and punished by law.

  4. J. Soden says:

    And our serial liar-in-chief as well as is presumptive Demwit replacement STILL cannot speak the words “radical islamic terrorist.”
    TheDonald has it right!

    • Chris says:

      J. Soden, Obama was advised–as was Bush–that “radical Islamic terrorist” is exactly what these groups want to be called, and that refusing to describe them as Muslim and Islamic–and, in fact, claiming that they are not “true” Muslims–actually helps delegitimize them and weaken their recruiting efforts. It also helps us get more Muslim allies on our side. Bush listened to this advice in his last few years of office, and Obama has continued.

      This has been public knowledge for years, and yet many conservatives still tell themselves that Obama avoids this phrase out of “political correctness,” I guess because that makes you feel better and helps strengthen your in-group identities with each other. That’s a nice feeling, I understand, but it isn’t reality. You’re beating up a strawman to feel better about yourselves. However nice it must feel, from the outside it looks sad.

      Do you have any rebuttal to the national security experts who have said avoiding the term “Islamic terrorist” is an important strategy in the war on terror? Or would you like to keep pretending their arguments don’t exist?

    • Libby says:

      “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, ….”

      You really want this boor in the White House, somebody should close his Twitter account.

      • Chris says:

        Libby, I remember when a big critique here was that Obama makes everything about himself (there was even an article here that went as far as counting the number of times he used the word “I” in a speech–which, of course, made no comparison between his use of the word and that of past presidents, because real analysis of data is for nerds.)

        And now they’re ready to elect the most narcissistic man who has ever run for the office, who can’t go two seconds without bragging about his money (and has even bragged about his penis in a debate), who says that everything he does is the best and the greatest and everyone else is a loser. Trump making this shooting into an “I told you so!” moment is disgusting, and not even logical; the shooter was American born, so how would Trump’s plan to ban Muslim immigration have helped? The man doesn’t think. He just says stuff.

      • Post Scripts says:

        That’s the spirit Libs, take away his Twitter account, deny the guy his free speech. How very progressive of you! lol

        • Chris says:

          I think Libby meant someone in charge of his campaign should take down his Twitter, but I’m not sure.

          That said, you do know that Donald Trump does not support free speech, right?

          From the Conservative Review:

          Last week Hillary Clinton threatened a conservative political action committee with a lawsuit, angrily boycotted Fox News, complained about unflattering media photos, and demanded that a National Review editor be fined for making politically incorrect comments about her.

          Oh, wait. That wasn’t Hillary Clinton doing any of those things. That was Donald Trump.

          Trump’s seemingly endless capacity to bully and insult his critics has been entertaining, sure, but is quickly becoming dictatorial. His calls for (mostly conservative) political pundits to be silenced, fined, and boycotted should give pause to anyone in America who cares about free speech.

          The Club for Growth, a political action committee dedicated to supporting free-market, limited-government conservatives recently produced an ad critical of Trump over his past comments promoting a socialized healthcare system, higher taxes, and Wall Street bailouts. How did Trump respond? With a cease and desist letter warning that a lawsuit would follow if the ads didn’t stop.

          Trump also launched a boycott against Fox News this week because the network had allegedly been “unfair” In its coverage. The issue? The network reported CNN poll numbers that found Trump’s winning margin over the other Republican candidates dropping from 35% to 24%.

          In response, Trump said he’s refusing interviews until he is guaranteed favorable coverage. One Fox source told The Hill Trump decided to boycott because he “doesn’t seem to grasp that candidates telling journalists what to ask is not how the media works in this country.” Despite the boycott, Trump was still watching and dictating orders from afar. Last Wednesday, National Review Editor Rich Lowry made a somewhat crass remark about Donald Trump’s manhood on Fox News. Trump responded with a furious tweet: “Incompetent @RichLowry lost it tonight on @FoxNews. He should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him!” (Never mind that the FCC doesn’t issue fines against cable news.)

          There you have it. In just a few days, Trump offered three draconian responses to political speech he deemed unfriendly. And that barely scratches the surface. He also went on a tirade against CNN, the New York Times, Politico, and the Associated Press for citing the empty chairs at a campaign event in South Carolina. And who can forget his calling Fox’s Megyn Kelly a “bimbo,” and his endless stream of insults against well…any idiot loser who fails to clap loud enough every time Trump speaks?

          Although he’ll use any format to issue broadsides, the courts are, by far, Trump’s preferred remedy for conflict.

          https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/09/trump-is-a-danger-to-free-speech#sthash.zRS3rqAU.dpuf

        • Libby says:

          It was just, you know, if you wanted the office for your candidate. Me, I’m very much enjoying the show.

  5. Libby says:

    “Obama found time on Sunday to mention the need for gun control and the attack’s impact on the gay community, and he did note that ‘the FBI is appropriately investigating this as an act of terror.’ ”

    Damned straight. Feeding the ISIS ego is NOT on the agenda. You want to hear some railing from the pulpit, you go to your staple source for that sort of thing, Fox News.

  6. Jack says:

    Chris you said, “The mandate that homosexuals be killed is also found in Christian scripture.” What is his point? That a holy book written thousands of years ago has passages that are bigoted and violent? Is this news to any halfway educated person?

    The point is. . . Christians today do not kill homosexuals as a matter of religious practice, but Muslims do.

    Maybe you missed the news about government hangings and beheadings of gays in middle eastern countries, but it’s a matter of common practice. That would be the point too.

    When a religion openly advocates for murder over sexual orientation. . . it’s kinda a big deal.

    If Christians were doing that we would be just as opposed to it, but they are not. Their message on this is mixed, from one of acceptance and tolerance to praying for their healing so they can enter heaven, but they haven’t been hanging or beheading anybody because the pastor ordered it for quite awhile. Muslims have yet to get up to speed. That’s a problem. Its a problem that is compounded by people like you that are quicker to criticize a Christian than a Muslim who believes in Sharia law.

    People killed in mass 900 years ago over religion verses people killed in mass yesterday over religion are somehow not differentiated in moral equivalency by liberals. That’s a bit nuts.

    • Chris says:

      Jack: “The point is. . . Christians today do not kill homosexuals as a matter of religious practice, but Muslims do.”

      That wasn’t what he said, though. He said that such religious practices are inherently Islamic, because they are found in Islamix scripture. That’s the argument I’m saying doesn’t make sense. Religions abandon parts of their scripture all the time. Islam can (and will) do the same.

      I’m of course aware that mistreatment and violence toward gays is more prominent in Islam than in Christianity.

      The reasons I find myself criticizing Christians more than Muslims are:

      1) Christians are more powerful in this country, and have a greater effect on my country’s policies.
      2) Repeat number 1 forever or until you understand this is the one and only reason I need.

      “a Muslim who believes in Sharia law”

      Redundant. Sharia means “God’s law,” so all Muslims believe in sharia. They have different interpretations of it, but they each believe their interpretation is sharia. Anti-Muslim conservatives have done a great job of branding sharia as a spooky scary evil, when we should be promoting the more egalitarian views of sharia that the reformers preach.

  7. Chris says:

    Jack: “You keep beating to death what I said about the majority of Muslim men approve of beating their wife/wives and you offered not on shred of justification for rejecting that, you just did it out of hand… I don’t like doing your homework all the time. If you don’t like something I said you do your own research and refute it.”

    Fine, Jack.

    But only if you refute the following accusation:

    75% of Californian guys named Jack Marshall beat their wives.

    I don’t have to provide any evidence of this claim–you have the responsibility to refute it. If you reject it out of hand, you are bigoted against me. It is your responsibility to prove a negative, and I have no obligation to prove a fake statistic that I just made up.

    This is what you are saying. Can’t you see that? Aren’t you embarrassed?

  8. Libby says:

    “The point is. . . Christians today do not kill homosexuals as a matter of religious practice, but Muslims do.”

    No, they do not “as a matter of religious practice” do any such thing. What the hell is the matter with you?

    Some damned white boy was arrested with the very same intent, inspired by Christianity, on the same bloody day ! They’re both deranged, decidedly anomalous fellas.

    And Muslims do not beat their wives. Nor do Christians beat their wives. MEN beat their wives.

    • Chris says:

      Libby, I haven’t heard that the Santa Monica man was motivated by Christianity. Where is your evidence for that? Last I heard, the initial reports overstated their case and it isn’t even clear that he planned to harm anyone at the Pride festival. Not ruling it out, but I don’t think we have that kind of info yet.

      Your point about gender is a good one–if we used the same logic regarding gender as we did about religion, we’d be talking about banning all male immigrants, not all Muslim immigrants. But conservatives blanch at the idea of critiquing or reforming masculine culture.

      • Libby says:

        No, of course …

        “Officers arrested Howell about 5 a.m. PT after getting a call about a prowler, Los Angeles Interim Undersheriff Neal Tyler said. Howell told police he was looking for a friend to attend the LA Pride festival in West Hollywood, Tyler said.

        Police found him sitting in a car registered in Indiana and a search turned up three assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, ammunition and a 5-gallon bucket with chemicals that could be used to create an explosive device, officials said.”

        Perfectly sensible stuff to have in your car on the way to a parade, or anything else,

        And American homophobia is founded somewhere other than the Judeo-Christian tradition?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *