You are here > Home / Opinion / Politically incorrect with perigo / Death to Islamofascism, Pt 2
Death to Islamofascism, Pt 2
I note that apologists for Islamofascism have gotten their tea-towels in a twist over my article, “Death to Islamofascism”.
Shanim Homayun, Cultural Officer for Muslim Students, concludes from what I wrote that I can’t possibly have known any Muslims in my life and invites me to join him for a cup of tea in order that I might discover firsthand how polite and decent a Muslim can be. As it happens, I have been on the receiving end of that kind of forced genteelness, and had the same urge that I get on those rare occasions when I attend a Christian church service—to fart loudly. I see the flip side of the same murderous savagery of which I wrote. Some good, robust sodomy as the Muslims bend towards Mecca would go some way towards attenuating both their anal-retentiveness and their murderous savagery—though as things stand, of course, I risk decapitation for merely proffering such helpful advice. Nonetheless, I’m prepared to take Shamim up on his invitation, on two conditions—that he keep in check any urge to slice my head off, and that it be a glass of wine rather than a cup of tea.
Wine is an excellent aid in the acquisition of a sense of humour, which Muslims uniformly lack. I’m sure Allah will forgive him this one indulgence in a holy cause.
I don’t think I’ll risk a date with Arnaz Amir, though. With him, the murderous savagery is barely disguised. “Have you not learnt that Muslims do not take very kindly to deliberately injurious and unfair representations of their religion?
How do you think they would react to Islam being reduced to a stinking, stupid superstition? It is counterproductive to allow for such uneducated, hateful discourse.” Whoa! Can’t you just hear the scimitars being sharpened? Can’t you just see the writing on the placards, same as in London: “To hell with freedom of speech!” “Death to those who insult Islam!” And note the unmistakable subtext to Salient—“close Perigo down!”
Not once does either of the apologists even pretend to address the substance of my article. Not once do any even pretend to defend the tenets of stinking, stupid superstition, or Sharia, or Jihad. Most tellingly, not once doe they even pretend to condemn the beheaders, the car-bombers, the suicide pilots or any other variant of stupid, stinking, superstitious terrorist in his ranks. There are well over a billion people in the world now in thrall to this barbarous superstition, and, as noted previously, it is the world’s fastest-growing throwback to the theological ooze.
Just imagine if all these folk were committed to enlightened secularism, reason and freedom! What a different world it would be! Instead, they genuflect five times a day to a non-existent god and a pedophile prophet, and surrender their independent judgement to the dictates of bloodthirsty, lice-ridden old mullahs for whom soap and toothpaste are western bourgeois decadences.
What, I wonder, would Shamim and Arnaz have to say to Ayaan Kirsi, the Somali woman who fled to the west in retreat from the daily atrocities of Islam? Excerpts from her most recent article, “My View of Islam”:
On the issues of holy war (jihad), apostasy and the treatment of women, the Koran and Sunna are clear. It is the obligation of every Muslim to spread Islam to unbelievers first through dawa, or proselytizing, then through jihad, if the unbelievers refuse to convert. … As for the treatment of women, in the Koran and more elaborately in the Sunna, Islam assigns to girls a position in the family that requires them to be docile, makes them dependent on their male relatives for money and gives dominion over their bodies to these same male kin. …The goal of education given to girls under Islam is the achievement of control over female sexuality. The result of this indoctrination is that Muslim girls believe legitimate and often vocally defend their position of subordination.
The lengths a Muslim society will go to in the pursuit of sexual control often cross into the territory of the absurd and, by western standards, criminal. In Islam the minimum age of marriage for a girl is after her first menstruation. Muhammad was engaged to his wife Aisha when she was six years old, and he married her (had intercourse with her) when she turned nine. Millions of Muslim men across the world follow Muhammad in this deed, one of the most prominent examples being the late Ayatollah Khomeini.
Under Sharia law (Islamic law), such as governs in Saudi Arabia, Iran and parts of Nigeria, the civil rights of women are dramatically reduced. Threat of violent punishment in the form of whipping and stoning makes the prospect of financial independence and sexual freedom for women all but impossible … [T]he western world would be wise to recognize the realities of Islam, a religion laid down in writing over a millennium ago with violence and oppression at its heart.
Shamim and Arnaz couldn’t possibly suggest Ms. Kirsi has had no experience of Islam or Muslims—she was raised one, and, these days, regularly receives death threats from them.
I’ll make one concession only. I routinely refer to “Islamofascist filth.” I take it back. The term “filth” is redundant.
- Article tagged in: Politically Incorrect with Perigo
113 Comments
3 Sep, 2007 at 4:36 pm
For the record, I abhor any group that seeks to deny any individual the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, including the KKK, right wing totalitarians, left wing totalitarians, and Islamic totalitarians. If you’re going to slander me, back it up or shut up.
Ricky: “god, put the fucking thesaurus away, Kathryn, you boring cunt.”
Another blistering retort from an intellectual midget.
3 Sep, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Yeah, you zing em, Glenn. Uppity students with their “internet”.
I thought Perigo’s column was pretty good this week. Still don’t quite understand why someone - anyone - outside of Victoria is writing for Salient, but they’re interesting reads none the less.
3 Sep, 2007 at 5:05 pm
The columns, that is. I’m sure the only time I’ll ever get to “read” Perigo is if a posthumous Ann Rynd work surfaced that described in vivid detail the cordial joys of having a psych -reading done by the sports columnist of a student magazine.
But stranger things have happened!
(I was in trouble about three words into that sentence…)
3 Sep, 2007 at 8:00 pm
“Whatever semantics you use, it does not change the fact that Muslim Peoples are being subjected to scapegoating and hate crimes, due to their ‘religion’.”
Fair point, and there are people out there that feel that because of the actions of Islamic terrorists, they have the right to physically attack any Muslim and/or their property in retribution. And THAT is a load of stinking horseshit, it’s a crime, lock those pricks up, punish them, what they’re doing is goddamn wrong! However, the question of the appropriateness of Perigo having a column in Salient aside, I see little that is wrong with the Death to Islamofascism articles. Offending people is not and should never be a crime (to be clear I’m not saying you said it should, I’m referring back to what I wrote above), it isn’t racist to verbally attack a religion or its adherents.
There seems to be an unwillingness here to separate race from religion though, an attack on Islam is apparently an attack on Arabs, Lindsay Perigo is white, Arabs are brown, therefore LP is a racist/fascist/Nazi.
“I’d like him, for example, to focus his arguments on a critique of Christianity.”
Yeah sure, why not, Christianity are just as stupid and superstitious as Islam. So why the negative reaction when it’s about Islam and Muslims? It’s just a religion, as flippin stupid as the rest of them.
3 Sep, 2007 at 8:03 pm
“Christianity are just as stupid and superstitious as Islam.”
Read “Christianity ‘is’ just as stupid and superstitious as Islam” damn no edit button. I originally wrote Christians are just as stupid and superstitious as Muslims, but in the interest of having a reasonable discussion and not being overly antagonistic, I changed the wording.
16 Sep, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Arguments do not have ages or hair and cannot be measured in kilograms.
You people are university students, that should mean you have the faculties to engage Linz’s argument, to research facts and offer counter-facutals but instead you throw in insults about Linz’s age, hair line and weight!
That said, I do think that Linz wrote this article deliberatly seeking a raise. The tone and the angle he came from is my basis for thinking that along with his use of ad hominems and the uneccessary inflamatory remarks he knows full well are insulting to Muslims but Linz knew what he was doing and he is more than up for getting a raise. Getting a raise is often a good way of stirring things up so that the real issues can be brought out, discussed, dissected and debated and on this topic there are real issues that need to be aired and not swept away in the name of PC-ness.
If Christians were blowing civilians up, committing acts of terrorism, trying to convert people by force and generally affronting morality in a serious way in this current day and age in large numbers and were loudly using the Bible to justify their actions I would be speaking out and so would my entire church. I have a public track record of doing just that and so does my church.
It could be that they are loudly doing this and that the media is not giving them a voice but I doubt it. When I spoke publicly about my former Christian friend who committed unspeakable atrocities on children and tried to defend himself from the Bible the media fell all over themselves to give me a voice, to explain how wrong his claims were that the Bible gave him any justification.
But this is by the by. I think the real issue here is what does Islam teach? Clearly there are some tenets of Islam that are supportive of violence, conversion by force and the subjugation of women. A simple analysis and comparison of Christianised countries v Islamised countries shows up the differences in the guiding principles. Where the Christian church got these things wrong the followers of the church overthrew them - you don’t see churches today as a whole committing or endorsing suicide attacks, converting people by force and making the status of women unequal - feminism grew out of the church. By contrast you do not see muslims challenging their leaders and demanding an end to suicide attacks, you do not see them demanding an end to conversion by force or giving women equal rights.
So Lance I would appreciate it if you and others would not dump Christianity in with Islam.
Before nit picking what I wrote please keep in mind that there are individual ‘evil’ splinter groups/examples in every corner of society including, atheism and libertarianism, and every group has had moments when their forward growth has not been as strong as it could have been. What I wrote was in generalised terms so a response citing the inquisition will not rebut it.
16 Sep, 2007 at 4:27 pm
To perhaps make my point plainer: compare the Declaration of Independance and the US Constitution, notions of free speech, freedom of religion and conscience, equality, fair trials for examples of public policy spawned out of Christianity and Sharia Law for examples of Islam public policy and then think about which system of law you would rather live under before you try to put Christianity and Islam’s social and political policies in the same basket.
16 Sep, 2007 at 4:52 pm
“…before you try to put Christianity and Islam’s social and political policies in the same basket.”
I did no such thing, I can see how it could be construed that way though as I did not clarify. I only meant that they were both as stupid and superstitious at the most basic “invisible sky fairy” level.
The point was that people who don’t like hearing Islam criticised as it upsets their fuzzy wuzzy sensibilities, invariably say “oh oh but but what about Christianity?” and to that I say sure, Christianity is a stupid set of superstitions too.
17 Sep, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Christianity is a stupid set of superstitions too.
Do you have an argument to go with that assertion?
17 Sep, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Superstition: A belief in something not justified by reason or evidence.
Stupid is of course made somewhat redundant by ’superstition’, but provides a nice alliteration and reinforcement.
I see on your blog though:
“Matt holds a PhD from the University of Otago and specialises in Philosophical Theology and Applied Ethics.”
So I won’t waste time by laying down the standard atheist 101 arguments. I’ve read in depth debates with theologians and such arguments are generally brushed aside by arguing semantics and ‘god is not x god is y’ and suchlike. I’m sure someone who has studied to be (or is married to) a philosophical theologian has become extremely adept at rationalising their position.
So I stand by Christianity being “A belief in something not justified by reason or evidence.” on face value. Though I’m sure a philosophical theologian would be quite capable of putting forward a different view.
18 Sep, 2007 at 10:34 pm
LOL
Putting aside you definition of Christianity for the moment, humour me with an answer to the following:
Is there something wrong with holding to the occaisional belief that is not justified by reason or evidence? Are you claiming you hold to no beliefs whatsoever that cannot be justified by reason or evidence?
19 Sep, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Ooooh you’re a clever one! You know full well that’s not my “definition” of Christianity, that’s a description of it.
And I’d hardly call it an occasional belief. It’s a life-long commitment no?
I’ve genuinely thought long and hard about your question and I have to say that anytime I might believe something that cannot be justified by reason or evidence, I’d at least try and find some or let go of the belief.
24 Sep, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Lance
*I’ve genuinely thought long and hard about your question and I have to say that anytime I might believe something that cannot be justified by reason or evidence, I’d at least try and find some or let go of the belief.*
Well this seems to me to be mistaken,
1.If you have evidence for a belief, then that would usually consist of something else you believe to be the case. In which case you must have evidence for this, which would be something else and so on, ultimately you will have to believe some things without evidence otherwise you’ll have to give up everything.
2. Consider the claim “one should not believe anything unless there is evidence for it” should I believe this? Well if its true I should not because so far you have not provided any evidence for it and hence it should be rejected.
See for example my http://mandmandmandm.blogspot.com/2007/09/on-believing-without-proof-some.html for some articulations of the other problems with this sort of stance.