Clarion Project: Why do you think liberals in America have had such difficulty supporting atheists in Muslim majority societies, despite the obvious persecution they face?
Aki Muthali: Liberals in America have difficulty supporting atheists in Muslim-majority societies because they not only have a lower expectation of how Muslims can behave as rational people, but they also erroneously conflate the anti-Muslim bigotry faced by Muslim minorities in the West to how Muslims abuse atheists and non-Muslims in the East.
Their narrative has been, for a long time, that Muslims are always the victims regardless of where they reside. They justify this dishonest narrative with everything from the Christian conquest of Spain in 1492, to the birth of Israel in 1948, to white guilt and Western imperialism. There’s no limit to how far a Western liberal will betray actual liberal values to make up for the guilt they erroneously feel towards their own country.
Their priority is consoling their indignation (regardless of how misplaced it is) — not human rights.
Ed: Mmmm, not sure how she grounds “human rights” within an atheistic framework, given that atheism provides no foundation for objective morality. If objective morality is not exist in real reality, then morality has to be subjective, in which case why is she criticizing Muslims for practicing subjective morality?
This is one of the best Islam-Christianity short talks we have ever heard, in which two different concepts of God are compared and contrasted.
Dr. William Lane Craig clearly shows how the God of Islam is morally deficient, while by contrast the God of the Bible is morally perfect. This perfection is brought into focus in particular within the trinity.
This last point about the trinity is especially interesting because Muslims are often quick to attack the trinity, while Christians are often reluctant to defend the trinity before Muslims. Dr. Craig shows that, in fact, the trinity is a great asset to Christianity as a cohesive and coherent set of beliefs.
Here is his book Grand Central Question (great title) on Amazon.
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.
The caption from one of the article’s photos:
Bernard Haykel, the foremost secular authority on the Islamic State’s ideology, believes the group is trying to re-create the earliest days of Islam and is faithfully reproducing its norms of war. “There is an assiduous, obsessive seriousness” about the group’s dedication to the text of the Koran, he says.
Yet Obama and his fellow demagogues assure the ignorant masses that ISIS is not Islamic. Another caption reads:
Anjem Choudary, London’s most notorious defender of the Islamic State, says crucifixion and beheading are sacred requirements.
From “Son of Hamas” Mosab Hassan Yousef’s blog:
Wherever I go in the world, people ask me about ISIS. And I advise them to ignore the endless debates about the peaceful versus violent nature of Islam and take a long, hard look at the Islamic State. ISIS is Islam, exposed in all its cruelty and ugliness, unchanged since Muhammad.
The atrocities committed by ISIS are merely an extension of the atrocities committed by Islam’s prophet.
The true Five Pillars of Islam are: Slaughter, Intolerance, Oppression, Hatred, and Global Dominion, because Muhammad was a slaughterer, intolerant, oppressive, hateful, and drove his armies to destroy everything and everyone that stood in the way of his establishment of a world caliphate.
Muhammad said to the people of Mecca, “I have brought slaughter to you,” then he beheaded every male, young and old.
Choose Islam, and you choose ISIS, because they are indistinguishable. Reject ISIS, and you reject Islam, because they are one.
ISIS must be stopped, yes. But the Islamic State is not an international problem. It is an Arab problem. And the armies of Jordan, Egypt, UAE, and others are well equipped to deal with it. Western intervention will only create more chaos and reinforce the illusion of a Middle East/Western conflict.
Like Libya and Yemen, ISIS is a tribal conflict, not a political one. The Islamic State is the Sunni backlash against domination and persecution by minority Shi’a Muslims in Iraq and the ruling Alawite minority of Syria.
Islam hates everything that is not Islam. And just as fresh water and salt water cannot flow from the same spring, love and goodness cannot flow from a religion that is established on hatred and violence.
As long as Muslims refuse to take a strong and aggressive stand against terrorism, they must share responsibility for the continuing atrocities. The hour has come for every Muslim to choose to be human or inhuman, noble or criminal.
The Crusades are used again and again to slash at Christians, but according to scholar Rodney Stark (Amazon book), most of what we are told in popular culture about The Crusades is false. Here are some resources for the apologist from another scholar, Thomas F. Madden (website):
- The Real History of the Crusades (Thomas F. Madden, Christianity Today)
- Getting Medieval: Let’s leave the Middle Ages out of discussions of modern Islam (Thomas F. Madden, National Review Online)
The Islamic world ended the year by butchering more of their own (and others) in unimaginable numbers. For thinking Christians and those with a Judeo-Christian worldview this seems beyond bizarre and apocalyptic. And what will plummeting oil prices do for global Islam?
- Taliban Massacre 145 in Attack on School in Pakistan (Clarion Project, December 16, 2014)
- Boko Haram unrest: Nigerian militants ‘kidnap 200 villagers’ (BBC, December 18, 2014)
- Cold blooded assassination in the US: New York Shooter Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley Posted Quran Verse on Terrorizing Enemies of Allah — compare this to the BBC article which fails to use the words “islam”, “muslim” or “quran” (BBC, December 21, 2014)
- This is a bit older but a good read: I’m sorry, but we have to talk about the barbarism of modern Islamist terrorism (The Telegraph, UK, September 28, 2013)
And a few other things:
- The Christian Apologetics Alliance Facebook community has continued to make great progress and members have released two Equipped journals
- The Christian apologetics book count has continued to grow and the number is now quite astonishing
- William Lane Craig and Ratio Christi have continued to thrive as have many other ministries
A Muslim preacher is secretly filmed urging followers to take benefits from the state to fund a holy war.
Anjem Choudary was secretly filmed mocking non-Muslims for working in 9-5 jobs their whole lives, and told followers that some revered Islamic figures had only ever worked one or two days a year.
“The rest of the year they were busy with jihad [holy war] and things like that,” he said. “People will say, ‘Ah, but you are not working’.
“I legally accuse Iran of infiltrating several South American countries to install intelligence stations” — Alberto Nisman, Prosecutor.”
Mr Nisman is investigating a bomb attack that killed 85 people in a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires in 1994.
Iran has always denied involvement in the attack.
But in an indictment handed to a federal judge in Buenos Aires on Wednesday, Mr Nisman repeated the often-made claim that Iran sponsored the bombing.
And he accused Iran of a nefarious project in the wider region.
“I legally accuse Iran of infiltrating several South American countries to install intelligence stations – in other words espionage bases – destined to commit, encourage and sponsor terror attacks like the one that took place against Amia,” Mr Nisman was quoted as saying, referring to the Jewish centre bombed nearly 20 years ago.
LONDON — British police investigating the savage killing of an off-duty soldier in London have arrested three more suspects.
Scotland Yard said counter-terrorism officers arrested two men, aged 24 and 28, at a residential address in southeast London.
A third man, 21, was arrested separately on a London street at the same time.
Police said Saturday they used a stun gun on two of the suspects. All three were detained on suspicion of conspiracy to commit murder.
Here at the Guardian (3,868 comments and counting)
A long overdue debate breaks out about whether rational atheism is being used as a cover for Islamophobia and US militarism
Two columns have been published in the past week harshly criticizing the so-called “New Atheists” such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens: this one by Nathan Lean in Salon, and this one by Murtaza Hussain in Al Jazeera. The crux of those columns is that these advocates have increasingly embraced a toxic form of anti-Muslim bigotry masquerading as rational atheism. Yesterday, I posted a tweet to Hussain’s article without comment except to highlight what I called a “very revealing quote” flagged by Hussain, one in which Harris opined that “the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.”
Shortly after posting the tweet, I received an angry email from Harris, who claimed that Hussain’s column was “garbage”, and he eventually said the same thing about Lean’s column in Salon. That then led to a somewhat lengthy email exchange with Harris in which I did not attempt to defend every claim in those columns from his attacks because I didn’t make those claims: the authors of those columns can defend themselves perfectly well. If Harris had problems with what those columns claim, he should go take it up with them.
Wow, this got really heated, and the personal correspondence between Sam Harris and Glenn Greenwald was also posted. Someone should mention to the neo-atheists that their beloved secular Europe is falling to Islam in large part because secular atheistic Europeans are failing to breed fast enough. Survival of the fittest anyone? Someone should also mention to Harris that he spends too much time moralising, and that he should grow up and be a real atheist and speak honestly as Will Provine does (2 minute video).
That said, what I did say in my emails with Harris – and what I unequivocally affirm again now – is not that Harris is a “racist”, but rather that he and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism. I’ve long believed this to be true and am glad it is finally being dragged out into open debate. These specific atheism advocates have come to acquire significant influence, often for the good. But it is past time that the darker aspects of their worldview receive attention.
Yes, Harris and his mates attack Christians with lines like “science flies rockets to the moon while religion flies planes into buildings” which is of course a veiled attack against Islam, while also being an attack against logic, akin to saying that all atheists are like the darwinist Adolph Hitler.
And, although Mr. Wilders was eventually acquitted by his kangaroo court, the determination to place him beyond the pale is unceasing: “The far-right anti-immigration party of Geert Wilders” (The Financial Times) . . . “Far-right leader Geert Wilders” (The Guardian) . . . “Extreme right anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders” (Agence France-Presse) is “at the fringes of mainstream politics” (Time) . . . Mr. Wilders is so far out on the far-right extreme fringe that his party is the third biggest in parliament. Indeed, the present Dutch government governs only through the support of Wilders’ Party for Freedom. So he’s “extreme” and “far-right” and out on the “fringe,” but the seven parties that got far fewer votes than him are “mainstream”? That right there is a lot of what’s wrong with European political discourse and its media coverage: Maybe he only seems so “extreme” and “far-right” because they’re the ones out on the fringe.
And so a Dutch parliamentarian lands at Heathrow to fulfill a public appearance and is immediately deported by the government of a nation that was once the crucible of liberty. The British Home Office banned Mr. Wilders as a threat to “public security” — not because he was threatening any member of the public, but because prominent Muslims were threatening him: The Labour-party peer Lord Ahmed pledged to bring a 10,000-strong mob to lay siege to the House of Lords if Wilders went ahead with his speaking engagement there.