Cowering Under Islam’s Presence is Becoming the Norm
Cowering Under Islam’s Presence is Becoming the Norm
Recently, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller learned they were not welcome in the UK. Apparently, they are haters because they tell the truth about Islam. Muslims like Anjem Choudary objected, yet continue their own hatred toward anyone who disagrees with the tenets and history of Islam. One can only continue to wonder why Islam is being given a free pass with its adherents allowed to say what they say and do what they do. In spite of the terrorist activities by those within Islam and the inciting by people like Anjem Choudary, they are allowed to speak freely, but others cannot.
What seems unclear to those in authority who made the decision to ban both Spencer and Geller from entering the UK, is abundantly clear to others. Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party of The Netherlands issued a statement condemning the UK decision. “The British government shows itself once again to be made up of Islamophiles by objecting to speech by critics of Islam. It shows the weak knees it showed in 2009 when turning down Geert Wilders for entry into England; this time, the U.S. critics of Islam Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are banned. It seems that the British government has a short memory…forgetting that Geert Wilders made an English court drop that entry ban a few months later.”
The real tragedy is what Islam continues to do to freedom in society. The idea that people who have committed no crime (except the perceived crime of telling the truth) can be kept out of a country is abysmally evil. It is profoundly wicked. It is bowing to Islam.
Our government bows to Islam as well. In one recent case, “The Pentagon directed an Air Force Base to remove a video tribute to First Sergeants because it mentioned the word ‘God’ and might be offensive to atheists or Muslims…”
One “Airman who reached out to Fox News said Air Force leadership is ‘hypersensitive to anyone who says they feel like their rights are being violated’.” Obviously frustrated, the Airman further asked, “If our chaplains cannot speak the name of God, let alone Christ, why have them?”
Though there are restrictions on Christians, do the same restrictions apply to Muslims? If we consider the Ft. Hood shooting alone, we learn several things about the perpetrator, Nidal Malik Hasan, a 39-year-old U.S. Army major who was serving as a psychiatrist at the time of the shooting. Apparently, Hasan had communicated with the Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki before the shooting (it was learned afterwards).
It’s interesting to note that on at least one occasion, Hasan, while giving a lecture on psychiatry, “talked about Islam, and said that, according to the Koran, non-believers would be sent to hell, decapitated, set on fire, and have burning oil poured down their throats.” Later that year, he was transferred to Ft. Hood but was this event discussed? Was he warned that he could not share his beliefs?
As far back as 2000 to 2002, “Hasan expressed admiration for the teachings of Anwar al-Awlaki, the imam at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia.” After the Ft. Hood massacre in (November, 2009), Anwar al-Awlaki praised Hasan for his murderous actions and condemned Obama for his unwillingness to release the emails that had been exchanged between Hasan and al-Awlaki. “Until this moment the administration is refusing to release the e-mails exchanged between myself and Nidal. And after the operation of our brother Umar Farouk the initial comments coming from the administration were looking the same – another attempt at covering up the truth. But Al Qaeda cut off Obama from deceiving the world again by issuing their statement claiming responsibility for the operation.”
It was reported that “After Hasan wrote nearly 20 emails to him between December 2008 and June 2009, Hasan was investigated by the FBI. The fact that Hasan had ‘certain communications’ with the subject of a Joint Terrorism Task Force investigation was revealed in a FBI press release made on November 9, 2009…” Was Hasan censured? What happened?
Could Hasan have been stopped? It would seem so, if measures had been taken to stop him. It was not as if he was happy-go-lucky, friendly, and peaceful and then one day simply turned. There were signs, but in many ways, though the signs were seen, they were ultimately ignored.
After the Ft. Hood terrorist event, Mr. Obama was very quick to bow to Islam, calling the tragedy “workplace violence.” This was in spite of the fact that Sen. Joe Lieberman, “Michael Scheuer, the retired former head of the Bin Laden Issue Station, and former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey also described it as a terrorist attack.”
In spite of the history, too many preferred not to “jump to conclusions” about Hasan’s possible motives. They wanted to rule out terrorism since they could not find any direct connection with al-Qaeda. The problem of course is that there does not have to be a direct connection with al-Qaeda in order for a Muslim to strike out at infidels. Not all Muslims have a direct connect with terrorist groups, though some certainly do. If we are using that as a criteria for determining what constitutes a true terrorist act, we have lost already.
To thinking people, what happened in Ft. Hood was obvious, but once again, those in leadership positions refused to admit the truth, preferring to offer their own lies as truth. They then walked away from the situation. As far as they were concerned, they dealt with it and moved on.
For one reason or another, many leaders refuse to stand up to Islam, preferring to placate or even ignore problems associated with it. Part of it is due to political correctness. But I believe there’s something else afoot as well. Until these people stop bowing to Islam and start standing up to it, we will continue to see Islam being given a wide berth throughout global society.