Jasin wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 10:01pm:



Brian?
Would you take a chance on him? 


Erasure - Take A Chance On Me

Mohamad did it - it's in the book:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 4:31pm:



What’s acceptable to criticize about Christianity is not acceptable to criticize about Islam. While a Christian woman who chooses to stay home with her children indicates the sexism inherent to the religion, pointing out the ubiquity of child brides, female genital mutilation, poor education for girls, and unequal treatment under the law in the Muslim world is considered “anti-Muslim extremism.” This double standard hurts Muslims, too, and Muslim women most of all.

Christians are rhetorically flogged routinely and publicly, and their beliefs called antiquated, bigoted, and sexist by a liberal mainstream media. But there’s no outcry from academics and intellectuals about the violation of these Christians’ rights. Christians themselves don’t claim these criticisms might provoke violence or amount to hate speech that ought to be banished. They accept that this is the price of freedom of conscience and expression. So why should Islam be any different?
https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/02/leftist-group-saying-islam-problems-makes-t...

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 6:28pm:

People Who Talk Are Bad, People Who Shoot Misunderstood
But if Hirsi Ali, who has called for an Islamic reformation, is tantamount to a terrorist, then what does that make the Orlando shooter or the San Bernardino attackers? We’ve reached a point of absurdity in our national conversation on Islam, where religious terrorists are just misunderstood or mentally ill, but activists working against the persistent problem of violence in Islam are terrorists.

The Left shies away from terms like “Islamic terrorist,” and “Muslim extremist,” opting instead for the uber-sensitive and inchoate “violent extremism,” as though one could be an extremist about nothing in particular. That’s because they reject any association between Muslims and violence, no matter how many terrorist attacks are carried out in the name of Allah. Because groups like the SPLC refuse to acknowledge this relationship, even in its weakest form, they consequently view any mention of it as anti-Muslim.

This of course doesn’t mean that all Muslims are terrorists. (That should go without saying, but given the new standard for “extremism,” one can never be too careful.) Yet that’s the view the SPLC wants you to think these intellectuals are advocating. It’s in the best interest of Islamists, and those defending them, to pretend there’s one monolithic “Islam,” and people like Hirsi Ali are nothing but Islamophobes.

By doing this, they can make legitimate criticism of the practices of some, or even many, Muslims into a blanketed attack on the entire religion. From there, they can call those critics “anti-Muslim,” detracting from any meaningful conversation about the threat of a legitimate strain of Islam—namely Islamism.

The Real Bigotry Is Making Excuses for Muslims

The 15 people on the SPLC list are accused of inspiring violence, a vague but ominous crime. This same argument has often been used to defend censoring images of Mohammed, especially critical ones. Leftists, and many Muslims around the world, consider any criticism of Islam the same as inspiring violence, and they use this to shut down speech. But fear of violence, or fear of being called a provoker of such violence, shouldn’t deter what and whom we criticize. Especially not in America, where freedom of expression has been enshrined in our Constitution.

The SPLC holds a double standard for Muslims.

https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/02/leftist-group-saying-islam-problems-makes-t...

And so do you, Bbwiyawn.

Jasin wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 6:34pm:

Then there's that...

Frank wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 6:36pm:


And we both knew he wouldn't confront that in his next post. He's got no balls of his own, except someone else's in his mouth. Probably his parade officers?😆