Islamic Values Apparently Don't Allow Water Fights

A group of people held a big water pistol fight last week on a particularly hot day.

Hundreds of men, children and women in all-enveloping black chadors turned up. They gleefully soaked each other for two or three hours. Pictures showed families enjoying themselves. Finally the park managers turned the taps off and everyone went home. Nobody was hurt. Nobody complained.

But this didn't go over too well with various Iranian guardians of "Islamic values." Mohamad Taghi Rahbar, the chair of Iran's parliamentary legal and judiciary committee accused organizers and participants of "endeavouring to dilute our Islamic values," and warned that organizers would be dealt with "severely." One local official went so far as to describe the activities as "immoral." And people wonder why so many have negative views of Islam. The example of an entire country ruled by Islamic clergy where Islam is used to justify repression couldn't have anything to do with it. It must just be "Islamophobia."

Clergy Letters on Evolution

Back in 2004, Michael Zimmerman, a biology professor at Butler University started the Clergy Letter Project.

For too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith.

He has letters supporting the teaching of evolution for different religions, which are then signed by clergy. For example, the Christian letter has 12,722 signatures. He's just started one for Muslim clergy. Here's an excerpt.

We, the undersigned Imams of the mosques, assert that the Qur’an is the primary source of spiritual inspiration and of values for us, though not for everyone, in our country. We believe that the timeless truths of the Qur’an may comfortably coexist with the discoveries of modern science. As Imams we urge public school boards to affirm their commitment to the teaching of the science of evolution. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

It will be interesting to see how many imams sign up.

h/t ContraRarian

Why People Dislike Islam - Egyptian Edition

I've posted before regarding the contrived term of Islamophobia, which is used in an attempt to smear critics of Islam. Dislike of Islam is quite rational. There are a never-ending series of examples why. Most of them involve the actions of Muslims, who give the entire religion and its adherents a bad name. The latest comes from Egypt, where radical Muslim mobs have been attacking Christians, and enforcing their version of proper Islamic behavior on fellow Muslims.

Ultraconservative Islamists, known as Salafis, have taken to streets and mosques with fiery rhetoric. Stores selling alcohol have been attacked and a man accused of befriending prostitutes had an ear cut off by radicals. Muslim crowds stopped trains and protested in April against the appointment of a Christian governor in the southern region of Qena. ... Gunfire erupted. Coptic homes and shops were attacked and gasoline bombs hurled. A group of Muslim men reportedly broke off later and headed toward the Virgin Mary Church. They burned it and clashed with parishioners for hours.

This sort of vicious intolerance makes Islam look bad -- and such actions are hardly restricted to Egypt. You can find plenty of examples of other religious groups acting badly, but if you add them all together, the incidents won't come close to the sheer number from Muslims. This, not an imaginary "Islamophobia," is the primary reason why Islam has a bad reputation and some look upon Muslims with suspicion or outright dislike.

Sam Harris Echoes My Argument On Bin Laden's Burial

I don't always agree with Sam Harris, but we are on the same page regarding the ridiculous pandering to Islam surrounding the burial of Osama bin Laden. Here's Harris.

catering to the doubts of conspiracy theorists wouldn’t have been as craven as the pains we took to bury bin Laden in compliance with shariah law. Apologists for Islam insist that bin Laden was a terrible Muslim who represented no genuine strand of the faith. One wonders, therefore, who would have been offended if we had just kicked his corpse into the sea without a word. Indeed, one might wonder why our government wasn’t afraid to grant this ghoulish man full Muslim honors. Shouldn’t this have offended the true adherents of so peaceful and tolerant a religion?

In any case, it is time we ignored the fathomless depths of Muslim “sensitivity” on such matters. Anyone provoked by our denying bin Laden his last rites would have thereby declared himself an enemy of civilization.

Harris even takes it further than I did, in saying that if bin Laden isn't a "true" Muslim, Muslims should be offended that he was granted a Muslim burial. Good point.

Osama bin Laden's Burial at Sea

I have no problem with the administration's decision to bury Osama bin Laden at sea. There were pluses and minuses to whatever method they chose. But the usual pandering to Islam is ridiculous. Here's Counterterrorism Advisor John Brennan.

Because Islamic law mandates burial within 24 hours of death, there was no time for the US to ask other countries, counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said, according to the New York Times.

At a press conference Monday, Mr. Brennan assured reporters that his burial had been conducted "in accordance with the Islamic requirements."

In the previous post I pointed out that Obama has continued many of the positive policies of the Bush administration with regard to fighting Al Qaeda. But he's also continued some bad ones. One of the worst is the idea that we need to bend over backward to appease Muslims -- and not just any Muslims, but those essentially hostile to America. The last thing the U.S. should be worried about in deciding what to do with the body of an enemy like bin Laden is whether or not his burial conforms to "Islamic requirements." President Bush, and now Obama, have taken great pains to separate Al Qaeda from Islam. They've repeatedly made the case that he doesn't represent Muslims at all, and that our war against his organization is not a war on Islam. But as soon as he's dead, now he's back to being a Muslim and we have to give him a proper Muslim burial.

Trying to appease hostile Muslim opinion is useless and counterproductive. All it does is demonstrate weakness. Any Muslim who cares seriously about the disposal of a piece of garbage like Osama bin Laden is highly unlikely to be well-disposed toward the U.S. anyway. As I've argued on many occasions, it is good that such people are offended by our policies. If they aren't, we are doing something wrong. No matter how much we bow and scrape in an effort to appease them, it won't do any good. They'll still hate us. We should stop worrying about offending them. They are offended by our very existence.

Why People Dislike Islam -- The Latest Example

Since there are plenty of people who actually believe that the term Islamophobia has real meaning, as opposed to being a contrived term used in an attempt to smear critics of Islam, it is always worth pointing out reasons why many dislike Islam and have a negative opinion of Muslims. Those reasons revolve around the actions of Muslims. The latest in a never ending series of examples comes from Indonesia.

Irdayanti Mukhtar, 34, received nine lashes by Sharia Police for having a relationship with another man, even though she is said to be in the process of divorcing her husband. ... Mukhtar had been sentenced to the punishment the previous day by a Sharia court where prosecutors said that she was guilty of being in 'close proximity' to another man.

Yeah, that sounds like a reasonable punishment that fits the "crime." Not only did she receive this beating which caused her to collapse, but it was done in public, apparently to further humiliate her.

The jeering crowd recorded the brutal beating on their mobile phones and camcorders and shouted for more beatings in the strict Muslim city.

Incidents like this one, not bigotry or "Islamophobia" are why so many have negative views of Islam and Muslims. It's not just about terrorism. It is true that only a tiny fraction of Muslims engage in terrorist activity. But the bad aspects of Islam are hardly limited to terrorism. From Saudia Arabia to Indonesia to Pakistan to Afghanistan to Somalia to Iran and in many other Muslim majority countries, you can find similar barbaric acts carried out in the name of Islam, sometimes as in this case by actual agents of the Islamic religion. And Muslim bystanders cheer them on.

Daisy Khan Speaks Out Against Islamic Extremism

Daisy Khan heads the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), and is the wife of Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Park51 New York City project. She spoke last Thursday at a conference called, "Women, Islam and Peacebuilding" held at Arizona State University. I don't agree with everything she said, but I have to give her credit for being a high profile Muslim who is speaking out against violent extremism.

Khan spoke about the need for more female Muslim peace leaders, about denouncing violence against Muslim women and about the voice of a few extremists who have "hijacked" her religion.

Unfortunately although it's a minority, it's far more than just a "few extremists." But the condemnation is still welcome. She also addressed the issue of so-called honor killings including a specific case in the U.S.

Khan said the Muslim community has a responsibility to denounce these types of crimes. ... the death of a young woman and the destruction of a family should be seen as a moment for Valley Muslim community leaders to say, "This must never get repeated again. This must never be done in the name of our religion."

Khan also made another interesting point.

"Muslims . . . imams and the community . . . are extremely important to rooting out extremist ideologues because they know their community, they know how to counter this ideology,"

This is true, but the oppposite can also be the case. Imams can also be instilling a victim mentality, promoting Islamism, or in the worst case radicalizing young Muslims who then turn to the violent extremism Khan is denouncing.

There are plenty of imams throughout the world who uphold and promote doctrines subjugating women, hostile attitudes toward non-Muslims, death for apostates and blasphemers, and other odious elements of the practice of Islam as it exists in various places. Fortunately this appears to be rare in the U.S. But, here's what Khan says about the King hearings which she opposes.

he is stereotyping and isolating a community as well as opposing the work of countless peaceful Muslims. ... The hearings risk portraying all Muslims as the enemy, when the common enemy of peaceful people is extremists

Unfortunately like many Muslims Khan has it exactly backward. What risks portraying Muslims as the enemy are the actions of Muslims throughout the world. Hardly a day goes by without some atrocity committed in the name of Islam.

"I am an American," she said. "Why should an entire community have to suffer for the evil committed by a few?"

Life isn't fair. If you are part of a minority religion that happens to be noteworthory for inspiring acts of terrorism, and highly visible for other barbaric practices regularly committed in its name, you are going to be colored with the taint of how that religion as a whole is perceived.

I believe that Daisy Khan is correct in that the mainstream American Muslim community itself can be our best line of defense against acts of Islamic terror. But that requires cooperation with police and surveillance measures, and active steps to identify and isolate extremists, not excuse-making and pretending that American Muslims are somehow being persecuted -- which is what we see all too often. Stop seeing suspicion of Muslims as based solely on prejudice and bigotry, and start recognizing that the acts of your fellow adherents of Islam are primarily to blame.

One final point... Regardless of my disagreements with Daisy Khan, it is worth noting that she is a prominent Muslim who is speaking out publicly against extremism. There are some on the right who won't credit that, and will claim she's being disengenous, engaging in "taqiyya," or whatever. I'm not one of them.

Best Article I've Seen on the Peter King Hearings

Since Congressman Peter King (R-NY) announced that he wanted to hold hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims he's come under constant attack from the usual suspects, who scream "Islamophobia" whenever anyone points to any connection between radical Islamic terrorism and Islam. The Daily Caller has an excellent article about the situation called, "Radical Islamists condemn hearings into radical Islamists."

Congressman King is holding hearings on the radicalization of young American Muslims. This is considered selective prosecution if one ignores the fact that the profile being looked at by Congressman King belong to the people actually fitting that very profile.

As the article notes, since radical Muslim terrorism tends to be committed by Muslims, any investigation into it is naturally going to have to focus on the Muslim community. This sort of basic logic escapes the various useful idiots screaming about Islamophobia. The vast majority of the time you hear anyone using the made-up term of Islamophobia it's in an attempt to silence legitimate criticism of Islam and the actions of various Muslims. The Daily Caller hits the nail on the head on multiple points. The whole thing is worth reading.

UPDATE

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post has another good column on this issue.

God Isn't Great

I know I'm hardly the first person to point this out. Christopher Hitchens wrote an entire book about it. But it's worth reiterating again in the wake of yet another set of killings by a fanatical Muslim.

A gunman shouting "Allahu Akbar" opened fire on a bus carrying U.S. airmen in Frankfurt, Germany, killing two and wounding two others before his gun jammed and he was subdued, officials said.

Assuming that God even existed -- a gigantic assumption -- the Islamic version, like the others, certainly doesn't appear great at all. Why does he need murderous followers screaming "God is great" all the time? If he really was great, wouldn't it be obvious? How does this type of attack demonstrate his greatness? Why is God too weak to destroy the infidels himself? Shouldn't he be able to make the entire U.S. military drop dead just by willing it to happen? It appears that he's even too weak to prevent an inopportune gun jam.

On the other hand, maybe he's really upset that radicals are perverting his religion of peace -- as some would have you believe. But it seems he's just not strong enough to do anything about that either. All these people running around killing people shouting his name and claiming he's great are giving him and his religion a bad reputation. Couldn't he at least rein them in a bit? Maybe the gun could have jammed before two people were killed and two wounded? Is that really too much to ask from a great God?

UN Votes for Suppressing Free Speech and Against Condemning Killing Gays

Two UN votes in the past two weeks demonstrate yet again why the UN represents no source of moral leadership whatsoever, and is worthy of no respect. Last week the General Assembly passed its regular condemnation of "extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions," which is pretty funny in and of itself, since many of the countries doing the condemning are the same ones carrying out the executions. But this meaningless resolution went too far for some nations, who successfully removed language condemning killing based on sexual orientation.

Morocco and Mali introduced an amendment on behalf of African and Islamic nations that called for deleting the words "sexual orientation" and replacing them with "discriminatory reasons on any basis."

They are willing to condemn other killings even while continuing to carry them out, but they can't even give lip service to the idea that people shouldn't be murdered over their sexual orientation.

And today there was another UN vote. This time it voted for a resolution calling on states to provide "protection" against "vilification" of religion. Morocco once again took the lead. Reuters notes that support for the resolution was lower this year, but it still passed. There's your UN General Assembly: taking action to remove any condemnation of killing people for being gay, while trying to suppress well-deserved criticism of Islam. Oh yes, and there was this noteworthy passage, just in case anyone was wondering if Islamic states even grasp the concept of free speech. 

Islamic states say such resolutions do not aim to limit free speech but to stop publications like those of the Danish cartoons showing the Prophet Mohammed

The Juan Williams Political Correctness Firing

I was going to write more about this incident, but Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic, someone I often disagree with, has the best piece I've seen about it. As he calls it, "Juan Williams Fired by NPR For No Particular Reason." Williams made the fatal mistake of admitting that he gets nervous seeing Muslims on a plane, and that's essentially what got him fired. Here's Goldberg.

The first quotation reflects the views, I'm guessing, of the vast majority of people who fly in this country (and in Europe and Asia and other parts of the world, as well). With some regularity, Muslim men associated with radical Islamist organizations have been trying to kill American civilians, here and abroad. A group of 19 Muslim men succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in their mission nine years ago. The majority of Muslims abhor terrorism, and Muslims are the disproportionate victims of Muslim terror, but the essential truth remains that most of the world's spectacular terrorism today -- thwarted and achieved -- is committed by Muslims. Juan Williams misunderstands one crucial fact: Muslim terrorists who are attempting to commit acts of terror seldom if ever dress in "Muslim garb"; they dress, for obvious tactical reasons, in a manner meant to help them blend in with surroundings. So Williams is wrong, I think, to be particularly suspicious of traditionally-dressed Muslims. But is he wrong to worry about Islamist terrorism? Of course not.

Fear and nervousness as a reaction to seeing something are not the same as cool rational analysis. The reason many people instinctively associate Muslims with terrorism is not bigotry, it's because of the numerous terrorist acts and attempted acts of terrorism committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. But Juan Williams should have known better than to dare admit that he shares this reaction to Muslims on a plane. When you work for a liberal outfit that puts a premium on political correctness you know that you have to censor yourself.  Free speech is not valued on the left at all, unless it is speech they agree with. Daring to offend groups the left panders to, which definitely includes Muslims, simply cannot be permitted.

New Ad for Burn a Koran Day

h/t In My Copious Free Time

Laughing at Colin Powell

Colin Powell spoke out in favor of the proposed mosque near Ground Zero. I know, what a surprise. But here's what he said,

"The terrorists win if we become terrified and . . . change who we are and what we are," Powell said, as he argued that it is crucial for Americans to remain true to the values that set the country apart from the rest of the world.

Two posts ago I mentioned how liberals like to lecture Americans with exactly this sort of argument, and here's former Republican Colin Powell to provide a handy example. And without appearing to have the slightest clue that he's contradicting himself, he then said this.

Powell also addressed Florida pastor Terry Jones' plans to burn copies of the Koran on Saturday and warned that Jones' plans could put American troops in harm's way. "If we let Islamophobia go across this country, we put General Petraeus in a very, very bad situation,"

Colin Powell is apparently "terrified" of one man burning a Koran. Now it's ok to be afraid and to put aside our values. Leaving aside that "Islamophobia" is a made-up term used primarily to silence any criticism of Islam, one radical, religious nutcase does not indicate anything going "across this country." Powell's comments deserve nothing but derisive laughter.

Must-read from PZ Myers on Koran Burning

PZ Myers is probably one of the best-known atheist bloggers. I appreciate his knowledge of biology and debunking of creationist nonsense, but he's well on the left politically. Other than evolution and atheism, I rarely agree with him. Myers gained some notoriety for publicly desecrating communion wafers, an act similar to Koran burning. I looked through his site earlier, and was surprised that he hadn't found the time to post about the ridiculous overreaction to the planned Koran burning. In fact, I was just about to write a post called, "Where are the Atheists"? Most atheists, who have no problem offending Christians, seem to take a much softer approach -- some might even call it spineless -- with regard to Muslims. But before I wrote my post, I went back to Pharyngula to see if I might have missed a post, and found a new one titled, "Setting the Koran on fire, vs. setting personal liberties on fire." Some excerpts:

I'm something of an expert in the public desecration of sacred objects, and I'm seeing the same madness going on right now with Terry Jones and his plan to burn copies of the Koran that I saw in the response to throwing a cracker in the trash — only amplified to a ludicrous degree. People just aren't getting it; they're so blinded by an inappropriate attachment to magic relics that they're missing the real issues.

AND

The problem isn't the desecrators. The problem is the people who have an unwarranted sense of privilege, that their beliefs wil not be questioned or criticized, ever, by anyone.

AND

I'm looking at this recent episode with Terry Jones — a fellow I don't like at all, and I think he's a fanatical goofball — and I see that the serious problem here isn't Jones at all…it's all the lunatics who are insisting that burning the Koran is a major international catastrophe. 

It's just a frackin' book, people.

The whole thing is an outstanding take down of the hysteria over this issue.

Hypocrite in Chief

As everyone knows, President Obama recently spoke out with regard to the Park51 project,  a project that roughly 70% of America feels is tasteless or offensive and should be moved elsewhere. Here's what he had to say about it.

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," ... "That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

He later expanded on those remarks, but continued to emphasize the rights of the developers to proceed regardless of public opposition.

But now we have another situation involving the first amendment, with a small religious group wanting to burn a book on their own private property. This action is even more unpopular than the proposed Islamic community center near Ground Zero. But since the president is such a strong supporter of the first amendment naturally he took the same position. Wrong.

I just hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values of Americans. That this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance. And as a very practical matter, as commander of chief of the Armed Forces of the United States I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan. ... it is frustrating. Now, on the other hand, we are a government of laws. And so, we have to abide by those laws. And my understanding is that he can be cited for public burning. But that's the extent of the laws that we have available to us. You know, part of this country's history is people doing destructive or offensive or harmful things. And yet, we still have to make sure that we're following the laws. And that's part of what I love about this country. [emphasis mine]

Where's our valiant defender of the first amendment now? He's bemoaning the fact that our laws inhibit him from taking action to shut down the Koran burning. Now the first amendment is a problem. He mentions citing him for "public burning." Apparently the administration has been searching for ways to suppress the religious freedom and free expression of this church. It's just too bad that the first amendment stands in its way. 

Remember all the times the public has been lectured by liberals like Obama about how we can't let fear of terrorism compromise our rights and freedom? Remember all the talk about "fearmongering," and how if we give in to fear, and compromise our principles Al Qaeda wins? But now one person plans a calculated act designed to offend Muslims, and suddenly fear of their reaction means that the entire force of the government must be directed at intimidating him into changing his mind. It's doing everything possible to figure out how it can get around the first amendment to shut him down. Obama is a gutless hypocrite.

Military Religious Freedom Foundation Wants to Distribute Korans

Seriously. An organization supposedly dedicated to the First Amendment, and keeping religion a private matter within the military, is actually organizing a drive to give Korans to the Afghan Army.

After being contacted by scores of our active duty military clients asking us to do something in response to Terry Jones’s planned “Burn A Koran Day,” MRFF has decided that the most appropriate response would not be to try to stop Jones, but to donate to the Afghan National Army, as a gesture of good will and a statement of opposition to this entirely un-American act of religious bigotry, a new Qur’an for each one destroyed by Jones and his followers.

They are responding to an actual exercise of freedom of religion -- albeit an obnoxious one -- by promoting the Islamic scriptures. According to their own mission statement,

No religion or religious philosophy may be advanced by the United States Armed Forces over any other religion or religious philosophy.

So why are they going to distribute Korans? What does the Afghan Army have to do with a single civilian Christian fanatic making a symbolic personal statement inside the U.S.? This organization that is supposedly so concerned with equality among religious beliefs within the U.S. military is pandering to Afghans where Islamic supremacy is the rule.

What are the odds of the MRFF ever distributing Bibles to the U.S. Army under any circumstances whatsoever, even if Muslims fanatics burned a 10,000 Bible pyramid in downtown Kabul? The Military Religious Freedom Foundation -- except when religious freedom involves doing something that offends Muslims. Then it's the Military Koran Distribution Foundation.

h/t Friendly Atheist

Burning the Koran

By now everyone probably knows about a small church in Florida that plans to burn the Koran on 9/11. I've looked through various posts and comments on this story, and something is missing. Where are the sanctimonious, self-appointed defenders of the Constitution and religious freedom? Why aren't they vigorously defending the obvious first amendment right of free expression involved in this case, and demonizing critics as anti-Christian bigots? Could it be that they care very little about the Constitution or religious freedom, and much more about silencing people they disagree with? Few of the same people so eager to aggressively defend religious freedom have had much to say in supporting the rights of a small group of Christians who merely want to destroy some paper & ink as a symbolic gesture. Now all of the sudden they seem to understand that having the right to do something that is tasteless and offensive to some, and the wisdom of actually doing it are two different things.

Having a public Koran burning is obviously in poor taste, and clearly offensive to Muslims. But what's more offensive are people who respond to symbolic attacks on their religion with threats of death and violence. What's also more offensive is the best-known U.S. general, General Petraeus, actually trying to silence a small American religious group for fear of offending the tender sensibilities of Afghan Muslims.

I'm not a big fan of book burnings of any sort. Religious books should be read in order to point out the absurdities of religion. One of the main reasons I'm an atheist today is because I did so much reading & studying of the Bible. But there's no right not to be offended in the Constitution. It doesn't matter if the offense is to your religion on anything else. Get over it. That goes for Christians whining about offensive art and hostile depictions in popular culture, Muslims whining about pretty much any offense real or imagined, or any other religious type that can't deal with the fact that others just don't respect their beliefs. The very last thing we need is to give credence to the idea that certain topics are off-limits to free expression. That's a far more dangerous thing than burning a couple of books.

As for foreigners who are supposedly going to hate America because a single radical church burns some Korans, I personally welcome their hate. If that's all it takes to inspire hatred of America, if it wasn't this, it would be something else. There's no reason to pander to ignorant, fanatical religious barbarians at the expense of our own free expression. Americans are free to burn the Koran, the Bible, any other so-called holy book, or even our own flag. It's too bad our gutless hypocritical defenders of the Constitution aren't interested when it doesn't involve a politically correct position.

UPDATE

Giving credit where it is due... NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has publicly defended the Florida pastor's right to burn the Koran.

"In a strange way, I'm here to defend his right to do that. I happen to think that it is distasteful. I don't think he would like it if somebody burned a book that in his religion he thinks is holy," the mayor said following a news conference about the progress of the reconstruction at the World Trade Center site.

He emphasized that Jones' planned act is protected by free speech rights. "We can't say that we're going to apply the First Amendment to only those cases where we are in agreement."

Bloomberg = not a hypocrite.

Get Ready For A New Round of Smears

Construction equipment at the site of a planned mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee was set on fire last night in an apparent act of arson. A project sign was also vandalized.  The determination of arson was a preliminary ruling and an investigation is ongoing. Nothing is yet known about who might have set the fire. Will this stop left-wingers from smearing anyone opposed to the Ground Zero mosque as accessories to the crime? Of course not. 

The last smear campaign, launched immediately after the stabbing of a Muslim NYC cabbie, quickly fizzled when the perpetrator turned out to be a member of a liberal, pro-mosque organization. But that won't stop the usual suspects from doing the exact same thing. Check Memeorandum. They've already started. Smearing opponents is all they know. 

Defenders of the Ground Zero mosque are horrified at the notion that -- as they see it -- all Muslims are being lumped together with a small minority of extremists. But they are perfectly happy to smear all opponents, even those who offer the most mild objections to a mosque in one specific location, as promoting violence and bigotry against Muslims in general. Guilt by association, even of the most utterly illogical variety, is quite alright as long as they are the ones assigning the guilt. Let's pretend that the person responsible for this arson is exactly what they are hoping for, a rabid bigot who hates all Muslims, opposing all mosque-building anywhere, and is the ultimate caricature of a so-called "Islamophobe." Even if that were true, committing an act of arson would also make him a violent extremist -- by definition a member of a tiny minority. There is simply no connection between an arsonist in Tennessee and the majority who just think the Park51 project near Ground Zero is in poor taste and should be located elsewhere -- none whatsoever. 

It shouldn't even need to be pointed out, but there is also a huge difference between peaceful protest -- for whatever reason -- and violence. People peacefully protesting a mosque in Tennessee or anywhere else, even if their motives really are based on dislike of Muslims, are not in any way equivalent to arsonists or other perpetrators of violence. Those conducting the smear campaigns are not defending freedom, or standing up for the Constitution as they like to claim. They are in fact trying to suppress free expression and free speech that they disagree with, as is often the case with the left. Smears, name-calling and ridiculous attempts at guilt-by-association are not debate, they are a form of ad-hominem in an attempt to delegitimize and silence opponents. They can keep trying, but it's not going to work.  

What Actual Persecution of Muslims Looks Like

A Pakistani-American returned to Pakistan after 20 years in the U.S., only to be murdered. Why? Because he was the wrong type of Muslim. The former native of Germantown, PA, Habib Peer was an Ahmadiyya Muslim, a minority sect that has four million adherents in Pakistan.

That nation's four million Ahmadis are forbidden by law to publicly practice their religion, and they can be jailed for blasphemy if they greet Sunni or Shiite Muslims with the traditional "salaam alaykum" or wear Muslim garb.

Mainstream mullahs and imams denounce Ahmadis, with some blaming their presence for the floods ravaging Pakistan.

Mujeeb Chaudhary, Philadelphia resident, Ahmadiyya Muslim and brother-in-law of the slain Peer, said that some non-Ahmadi Islamic religious leaders even tell their followers that it is their duty to kill Ahmadis. Interestingly, Chaudhary was asked his opinion about the Ground Zero mosque issue.

Although some Muslims are upset by the resistance to a proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero, Chaudhary said he welcomed such debate as "proof of America's freedom of speech and freedom to practice religion."

It's good to see a Muslim speaking out in favor of free speech and debate, instead of demonizing critics as Islamophobes in an attempt to silence them, as with many mosque supporters. Chaudhary also noted that a new mosque will be going up in Philadelphia.

the Philadelphia-area Ahmadi community plans to break ground for a new mosque, with dome and minaret, on West Glenwood Avenue near Temple University. The plan, he said, has encountered no hostility from the neighborhood.

There's been quite a bit of nonsense lately bemoaning how Muslims are treated in America, when in fact most are far better off here than in their own Islamic homelands. There's unfortunately a certain level of bigotry, prejudice, discrimination and harassment of minorities here in the U.S. But it's useful to keep it in perspective. It's nowhere near what those who delight in condemning America would have you believe.

Smearing People As Accessories to Murder

Some maniac attempted to kill a Muslim cab driver in New York City. His vicious attack appeared to be motivated by hatred of Muslims. As soon as I saw this story, I wondered how long it would take left-wingers to start smearing critics of the Ground Zero mosque project as accessories to the crime. Since smears are a standard leftist tactic, I figured it wouldn't take long, especially since it has happened pretty much any time some nutcase with arguably anti-government or right-wing views has committed a crime. The story has been up for only 20 minutes on Memeorandum, and already the leftists are swarming. Here's left-wing propagandist Juan Cole, a member of what Robert Gibbs called the "Professional Left."

The slasher was apparently “very drunk,” but what does being drunk do to a person? Makes them suggestible, lets primal emotions come to the fore. Newt Gingrich and Rick Lazio may as well have kept Enwright in their basements in chains and whipped him into a frenzy as to spew their hatred on the airwaves.

One guy in a city of millions attacks a Muslim, and suddenly we have "pogroms" according to Cole. Leftists love the "blood on your hands" smear, regardless of how utterly illogical it might be. Cole libels the entire Republican party for good measure.

A New York cabbie came close to dying for the sake of the G.O.P. Tuesday night. ... Shame on you, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Lazio, and Sarah Palin, and all the other hatemongers. You have blood on your hands,and will have more if you go on this way.

If you've ever read any of Juan Cole's garbage, you'd be aware that he's much more of a "hatemonger" than any of the people he's attacking. And it's pretty funny to write a post practically seething with hatred while calling others "hatemongers." But then again, people who want reasoned, logical analysis don't read blogs by people like Cole.

When you constantly demonize your opponents as racists & bigots over any political disagreement, it's not much of a leap to start pretending that they are somehow responsible for the crimes of random lunatics. After all, you've already built them up in your own mind as monsters.