The Left and pro-"Palestine" groups combine to condemn criticism of Islamic doctrine and the critic of doctrine to be motivated by "racism". Criticism of Islam is equated, bizarrely, with "pro-Zionism".
In early 2013 Geert Wilders visited Australia to lecture on Islam. As a result protests were organised by the Students for Palestine. Protesters equated criticism of Islam with Palestinians; with the claim being made that criticism of Islam is racist. Sue Bolton, a socialist councillor, joined in the protest.
In a video posted on Youtube made by the Green Left, Socialist Councillor Sue Bolton is protesting outside the venue where Geert Wilders was due to speak about Islam.
The video includes placards that proclaim that criticism of Islam is racist.
Very near the end Bolton starts the chant "Racism no way, we're gonna fight it all the way".
This chant is taken up by another of the protestors on a megaphone and the crowd then chants the same message. The camera pans past former Yarra councillors/candidates Anthony Main and Mel Gregson, as well as past Alex Sproule.
This point is relevant in our situation:
Wilders criticises Islam by quoting Islamic doctrine, the Koran, and for this, over a document that is of no race he is called "racist".
The Koran is not brown or white or black, it is a book, not a race. And followers of the precepts prescribed by the Koran are not prevented from either believing them or following them on condition that they have to satisfy some criterion of needing to be brown or white or black. That is, race is not a criterion for selection to be Muslim; the Koran is not a race.
The protest against Wilders was organised by Students for Palestine organisation. That is, in a lecture in which the doctrinal elements of Islam are discussed, the issue of Palestine and Israel and "occupation" become the catalyst for the protest over Wilders.
This happened to us during our exhibition Humanist Transhumanist in 2009 where the gallery owner, Robert Cripps, objected to criticism of Islam. He declared that criticism of Islam unfairly portrayed Muslims as the perpetrators of violence in Palestine, a topic that was not mentioned anywhere in the exhibition. Cripps' claim was that quotes from the Koran would cause a reader to blame Muslims for conflict in Palestine and not Jews (admitting that he hated Jews and that this was racist, and that he was a racist). And, to reiterate, the context of the criticism I made was with regards to religion and religious values versus values we arrive at by the application of our reason. My criticism was of Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, as well as Islam, and not just Islam. But only criticism of Islam was claimed to constitute "racism".
The objective of those who turn criticism of Islam into an issue of racism turns out to always be the same; such criticism intends to prevent knowledge of what the Koran (and the hadith) urge followers to do, which in Islam is a legal obligation, Sharia. If knowledge of the Koran or the hadith is suppressed, and the only religious text one is familiar with is the Bible, then, the source of violence will be sought in the Bible, specifically, the Old Testament. The objective to not having Islam criticised is to allow for only the Jews to be criticised. This is racist: such people hate Jews and only want to blame Jews and call for the suppression of information that would expose the racism behind their stance.
With regards to Sue Bolton's protest in this instance, she champions her (her party's) stance against a Nazi bookshop that had opened in the electorate (or neighbouring electorate?) some time in the past. This she equates to her stand against Geert Wilders.
However, the Nazis allied themselves to Islam and among the Nazis was al Husseini, an Arab Muslim. Arab-language Nazi radio used the passages of the Koran to incite hatred against the Jews, in the way that Hitler used biblical passages in his Mein Kampf, and in his speeches against Jews. Geert Wilders criticises the passages that I too criticise, and both he and I are deemed “racist”, even though my criticising the Biblical basis of Hitler’s actions and beliefs is considered a deserved criticism of Judaism and Christianity.
Muslims and Nazi have a shared objective
Sue Bolton supports Muslims. However, Islam's cause is to commit genocide of the Jews. Bolton also campaigns against Nazis (in the form of a Nazi bookshop). However, the Nazis, like her, supported Muslims and their objectives.
Arab Muslim Nazi al Husseini, left, facing German Christian Nazi Hitler, right. Sue Bolton supports Muslims (followers of the doctrines of Islam), but at the same time does not support Nazis?
Arab Muslim Nazi al Husseini, left, shaking hands with German Christian Nazi Himmler, right. Sue Bolton supports Muslims (followers of the doctrines of Islam), but at the same time does not support Nazis?
Sue Bolton supports Muslims (followers of the doctrines of Islam), but agitates against Nazis. The headline to the article above: "Nazism, Islam shared common enemies - the Jews".
Islam and Nazism share a common goal
"NEW YORK – A newly released report by the US National Archives details the close collaborative relationship between Nazi leaders and the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, indicating that Nazi authorities planned to use Husseini as their leader after their conquest of Palestine." ( http://www.jpost.com/International/Nazism-Islam-shared-common-enemies-the-Jews )
Al Husseini is a Nazi war criminal who evaded prosecution at Nuremberg.
"The report, Hitler’s Shadow: Nazi War Criminals, US Intelligence and the Cold War, was prepared on the basis of thousands of documents declassified under the 1998 Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act." (The US report is free as a pdf. It is compelling reading. Yes, I printed it, saved a copy, and have read it.)
In 2009 I, an atheist critiquing Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism was declared "racist" for critiquing Islam. The person who made this accusation claimed that it was "insensitive to Palestinians" and that it would make the Jews victims of Muslims, and he would rather believe it was otherwise. To date we have encountered various levels of incredulity to the notion that a critique of religion, in which Islam is but one of a number of religions critiqued, could de-evolve into a discussion about Jews in Palestine. After-all we don't mention this conflict anywhere. So, how, or for what purpose, and on what grounds could "Palestine" enter into any debate?
email author ophion at internode.on.net
No comments allowed? If you are passionate and want to comment, there is nothing that prevents you from writing your own blog. I have a disdain for the kind of commentary made by those who hide behind an avatar.