In his latest essay, Michael Copeland reminds us that Islam conceals its supremacist agenda under a cloak of victimhood.
Islam’s “Sensitivity” Scam
by Michael Copeland
Burning a book is harmless. No-one is injured. A point is made. It is an example of freedom of expression, as endorsed, and protected, by the constitutions of Western democratic states. Now, the burning of one particular book is being used as a pretext for threats of violence. The excuse is “sensitivity”. The burning is claimed to offend the “sensitivities” of the book’s adherents.
The book is the Koran, that text “dripping with murderous levels of hatred”, as one commenter put it. “Kill them,” it commands concerning non-Muslims, kafirs, “Kill them wherever you find them” (9:5). “Between us and you enmity and hatred forever” (60:4). “Let them find harshness in you” (9:123); “when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds” (47:4). Kafirs are filthy, “the vilest of beasts” (8:55). “Do not take them as allies” (4:89). Muslims are “the best of peoples raised up for mankind” (3:110). They are “merciful to each other” and “ruthless to the kafir” (48:29). It is no surprise that this book is not liked by kafirs, who are at the receiving end of all these murderous commands. The Koran is billed as “true from eternity to eternity,” explains Sam Solomon, ex-Muslim convert to Christianity, former professor of Islamic law. “None may change his words,” says Koran 18:27.
These commands in Islam’s book are not quaint Old-Testament-type exhortations from their historical time, like “Slaughter the Amalekites and Hittites”. These are current instructions of Islamic law.
“Muslims must kill kafirs wherever they are unless they convert,”
said Ali Gomaa, Grand Mufti of Egypt.
“Islam says: kill all of the kafirs. Jihad stands for killing all kafirs,”
proclaimed Ayatollah Khomeini.
“Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us,”
wrote Osama bin Laden.
“Jews and Christians are filthy. Their lives and property can be taken by the Muslims in jihad,”
preached Yasir Qadhi in Tennessee.
There is really no mistaking the recurrent message of the Koran — murderous intolerance and apartheid. What many people do not know is that all of the book forms part of Islamic law. Denying any verse instantly makes a Muslim an apostate, one who has left Islam. The punishment is death. The killing can be performed vigilante-style by anyone, and carries no penalty, “since it is killing someone who deserves to die” (Manual of Islamic Law, Reliance of the Traveller, o8.4). Islam is held in place by fear. “If they had gotten rid of the punishment for apostasy Islam would not exist today”, said the famous scholar and broadcaster Yusuf al Qaradawi.
For all the many kafirs in the world the Koran is the Book of Kill Them, the Book of Enmity and Hatred. Islam is opposed to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, in fact all other religions, as well as atheism: in Saudi Arabia atheists are beheaded. Islam is much more than prayers: it is a deen, to use the Arabic word, a system of governance, with its own body of laws. “Islam is not like Christianity,” explained Mullah Krekar, “Our Islam is political.” The Islamic deen is opposed to democracy, monarchy, and communism, in fact any kind of governance other than Islamic. It rejects “man-made laws”. “Islam is the perfect system for all mankind,” says the placard: “If anyone desire a deen other than Islam never will it be accepted of him” (3:85).
Islam Is The Perfect System For All Mankind placard
Islam means submission. Submission is, of course, one end of a relationship, the other end being control. Islam imposes control, and its control is tyrannical. In Tariq Ramadan’s favoured term, Islam is “all-encompassing”, that is, totalitarian. There is an order of superiority: Muslims submit to Islam, and kafirs must submit to Muslims. Islam has to be spread. This is to be “by persuasion or by force,” wrote the revered medieval scholar Ibn Khaldun. The ultimate aim is a global Caliphate, with the whole world under Islamic rule. No-one is allowed to criticise Islam or Mohammed. Islam has no freedom of expression.
“Freedom of Expression Go To Hell” placard
Incidents of burning the Koran are made the subject of a crafty ploy, intimidation while claiming victim status. Muslims claim to be victims of “hurt feelings” when their Book of Kill Them is burnt. Kafirs are supposed to apologise and conform to Islamic rules. Failure to do so brings violent hostility in the form of riots, car-burnings, attacks on police and firemen, setting fire to shops and houses — all this until the kafirs give way to Islamic demands. The fake victimhood ploy is used to draw attention away from the real message — “Do as we say or else.” It is designed to make the kafirs feel guilty, and induce them to cede ground.
When Western kafir politicians give way to Islamic demands, as has happened again and again, they are eroding Western democratic rights by self-infliction. Without realising it, they are fulfilling the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Secret Explanatory Memorandum. The goal of the Brotherhood, it explains, is “destroying Western civilisation from within… by their hands”.
The posture of injured “sensibilities” is bogus. The real message is the threat of violence. Islam has extremely cruel features — beheadings by sword or more slowly by knife, daughter-killing, stoning, amputations, slavery, wife-beating, throat-slitting of animals without stunning, lashes for drinking alcohol, and so on and so on. For exponents of these cruel insensitive actions to claim that they have “offended sensibilities” is extremely unconvincing.
“Democracy Go To Hell” placard
The violent rampages are decreed in the mosques. The ordinary Muslim has to be in submission and do as instructed. The revered twentieth century Islamic scholar Maududi wrote in his 1960 book, The Islamic Law & Constitution, “no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private.” The totalitarianism of God’s sovereignty, Maududi wrote, would “[bear] a resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states.”
When obedient Muslims, following their instructions, go on their criminal rampage, the tainted media persist in referring to the actions as “protests” or “demonstrations”. They are, in fact, low-grade war. Islam divides the world into two Realms. Where Islam rules is Dar al Islam, the Realm of Islam, and everywhere else is Dar al Harb, the Realm of War. “Britain has always been Dar al Harb,” insisted Anjem Choudary to a disbelieving BBC.
Sweden is currently facing much Islamic ill will for the Koran-burnings that have taken place there — protected under the constitution. Voices are being raised to give way to Islamic demands. Richard Jomshof, Chairman of the Swedish parliament’s Justice Committee draws the line:
“In this kind of situation, we must stiffen our backs and stand up for our society.”
Freedom of expression is not just a line in the sand for democracy: it is a defining requirement. Without it democracy cannot function. It is what has been defended in two World Wars. Democracy is under attack from Islam using subterfuges such as “offended sensibilities” and their attendant mayhem. As Eric Zemmour in France insists, “It is a civil war!” Democracy has to be defended if it is to survive.
References:
The Koran can be consulted online. corpus.quran.com has seven parallel English translations, verse by verse, and a Word by Word feature.
For previous essays by Michael Copeland, see the Michael Copeland Archives.
People who need to read this, won’t, because it hurts their own sensitivities of having been on the wrong track about it. Whether active out of political opportunism or just duped by the widespread narrative, they will rather stay on their line until it’s too late to correct than concede error. The pain of facing reprimands from the social circle they built around their set of beliefs is greater because it’s much more immediate than the apocalyptic vision of this book’s followers, even if it’s there free to read for everyone and not even trying to mince words. Humans do that sort of thing, ignore a big threat affecting everyone for a small one which affects them personally.
The World Wars having been fought for democracy… cough… that’s a different topic.
Nice summary, thank you.
Brutal, but true assessment of the nature of social man.
Why is it mainly christianity which is being destroyed?
Maybe because it’s true, and consequently the biggest threat to everyone who doesn’t believe.
As I have always said and truly believe, no more muslims =no more problems. God Bless the Crusades! Deo Volente!
The world is full of counterfeit religions, including islam and communism, hinduism, buddhism, sikism and roman catholicism.
It’s amusing in a sense that satan has many religions but Jesus Christ has only one, the true one, the faith in Him as our saviour and redeemer.
The counterfeit religions lead along the wide path to hell, as Jesus tells us in the Bible.
And the counterfeit, islam in particular, have no compassion and no forgiveness in them, just hatred and violence.
In addition, men and women get into Heaven one person at a time, along the narrow path. It’s not a group activity.
I think it needs emphasizing that Islam is not a religion of love, let alone peace.
The funny thing is John, the Catholic Church is gaining members from that blasphemous jumped up false church of little england, a false church if there ever was one. The Catholic Church has been around since the death/rise of Jesus, counterfeit my backside.
That is an untruth. The Roman Church was founded in 332AD, more than 300 years AFTER Jesus crucifixion, torture, dead and resurrection three days later.
It is a pagan church. It has NOTHING TO DO with Christianity. It is a death cult, putting bones underneath their altars to ‘sanctify’ it. One friend from years ago said that he meditated on the mummified toe of some ‘saint’.
The Roman church is LOSING members just like that dreadful Presbyterian Church USA. They turned against it because of their pedophiles, lesbian and homosexual leaders.
Sorry [ad hominem], but, the Catholic Church was founded by good ole Saint Peter, a apostle of Christ, you [epithets] of the lutherans? Centuries later calling yourself whatever you think is PC these days. As for the lavender mafia in the church? Their days are numbered.
+1 G.
The Koran is jibberish if read without explanatory commentary. The best and only, really, translation to turn to is Robert Spencer’s “Critical Koran.”
Brilliant essay. Blasts the official mainstream narrative on the Koran-burnings.
““protests” or “demonstrations”. They are, in fact, low-grade war.”
— A very important insight. And I would add that this low-grade war in Europe has been ongoing even without any Koran-burning — actually that’s how the “no-go zones” (in reality Sharia zones) have been created. These are Western territories already conquered by Islam. And even though this conquest is gradual, that does not make it moot.
Yet the enemy propaganda completely ignores the reality of permanent Islamic warfare, and portrays the Muslims’ behavior in connection with the Koran-burning sagas as a “reaction”. Which could not be farther from reality even if we consider it as a Mohammedan Rampage Warfare tactic, which it is. Because even in that case “incidents of burning the Koran are made the subject of a crafty ploy, intimidation while claiming victim status”, as Michael Copeland puts it — and not “reactions”. Part of that ploy is making Jihad look like a “reaction”.
Strictly speaking, Islamic Rampage Warfare could be redarded as a “reaction” only in one sense which is kind of “psychological”: Islam is akin to a wilde animal, a predator with a set of genetically pre-programmed behaviors. Which is being proven by the fact that in the Koran-burnings this predator “reacts” in a counterproductive way as it reveals its true face too early to the host societies it seeks to dominate and annihilate, thereby creating an opportunity for authors like Michael Copeland to blast the Narrative when the Muslims do not have the numbers yet and show off more power than they actually have. Which is of course a tactical mistake on the part of Islam — that goes to show that it indeed does not have freedom to act.
Islam is an automaton [of conquest].
Therefore Rasmus Paludan and all other Koran-burners in the West are geniuses of political warfare, heroic protectors of civilization, far ahead of their time. They would deserve a statue and they should indeed have one in the future: the Statue of the Koran Burner.
(Imagine erecting statues like that NOW, all over the West — what a stunt it would be.)
Wow! This response is brimming over with great points!
@ plum
Thank you. Knowing your great essays it’s a real compliment.
Islam is the Borg
You WILL be assimilated
No mercy
I would go further, start spray painting red and black crosses all over muslim areas and especially on their mosques, and start ringing the church bells when that GD caterwauling starts at their devil prayer time. keep provoking them so they act at every one of them. Throw the devils book doused in oil and gas on the doorstep of every mosque while you are at it.
This essay addresses a distinction I have thought about for a long time, especially when I hear the retort “but the Bible is violent, too.” The Old Testament exhortations to violence and warfare are specific to that particular moment in time. In those passages when God enjoins the Israelites to “kill the Canaanites or the Hittites or whoever”, any reader of those passages at ANY later date is reading history, not an exhortation for themselves to go out and kill Hittites. The Old Testament warfare recounted in the Bible is history. But what we read in the Qur’an are commands to be followed NOW.
Big difference.
@ plum
Absolutely. Good point.
Moreover, the claim of “but the Bible is violent, too” is a weaponized logical fallacy of several kinds in one: like that of the “red herring, “hasty generalization” and “appeal to ignorance”, as well as a “straw man” argumentation — with the goal of neutralizing defense against Jihad.
In this sense the claim in question is also Takiyya.
Because let’s presume Christianity was in fact “violent”, prescribed by the Bible. That wouldn’t eliminate the present existence and danger of Jihad, the central tenet of Islam.
Also, the problem is not “violence” in itself. To claim that it is, is a hidden strawman argument of the powerful and the enemy (pretty much overlapping today).
Violence as such has been demonized by the ruling classes in order to keep the populace in check. All forms of life in every single moment is violence, because without violence no entity can maintain its existence or equilibrium.
Violence taken without a motive is just power — that is neutral in itself. To demand that other people become non-violent is to deprive them from their power.
For violence to be morally wrong you need a motive that is morally wrong — i.e. evil. What makes violence morally right is the Golden Rule — which Islam misses completely, but our legal system and western religions intertwined with it do have it.
In the absence of the Golden Rule, Islam is psychopathic.
And therefore ANYTHING it does is evil, by definition. Because it has power (violence) combined with no good intentions. Islam is only harmless when it stops being Islam. But when Islam suspends violence it does not stop being Islam — it just switches on stealth mode when it’s too weak to dominate. Therefore Islam is always evil. To be born a Muslim is a moral burden.
Authocratic rulers clandestinely address the hidden moral vector of violence, positing that there can be no moral justification to violence whatsoever, under any circumstances: “all forms of violence are bad” is the norm they violently force on others.
What they really mean by that is the self-defense of the people to be conquered or ruled over, threatens the status quo of oppression; and that therefore the overclass should own the monopoly of violence. Unfortunately that monopoly takes both the individual and collective right to self-defense away — while the PTB deceptively reassure the hoi polloi that the state (whoever that is) will protect them from any danger. That of course empties the right for self-defense.
That mafia-like promise of “protection”, with a huge potential for blackmail, is the enemy goal –since it takes the power of the underclass away and shifts it to the overclass.
Now, because Islam is a WMD in the hands of the global overclass, it’s clear that Islam gets special powers in order to rule over Christians and others in the West. Islam is being used as an army and then as a police force when it is in — against the population. And ultimately to annihilate the West.
And THAT is the covert meaning of “but the Bible is violent, too”: that Islam should DOMINATE, and help the overclass dominate, being used as a weapon against its host societies.
Therefore, IMO, the right response to the fallacy of “but the Bible is violent, too” is “should Islam be allowed to dominate?”.
So the counter-argumentation should be centered around the real issue and enemy motive, which is DOMINATION by Islam (and by the Powers that are using Islam against the West).
Leaning on this new position one cannot lose the debate.
Especially because Islam means “Submission” — and also walks and talks like submission. While Christianity doesn’t.
It’s all about taking the debate out of the fake “moral” narrative (of “violence”) and transfer it to the real issue (of WARFARE). One can also point out that the function of the “moral” narrative is to derail the discussion about warfare.
Hence the fallacy of “but the Bible is violent, too” is a political warfare tactic. And as such, it enables Islam. Therefore the one using that fallacy is a traitor of human civilization — deliberately or not (no, Islam is not human).
I often accuse ignoramuses or Islamic apologists with betrayal — based on the above logic. It’s not nice but backing down in the face of Islamic deception is a mistake.
This has to be the best missive written on how things are that I believe I have read, well done Sir!
When I was still living in Cape Town and had to listen to the unhallowed wail of the call to prayer…….
“Devils in thrall to the rantings of a murderous Desert lunatic” went through my mind.
Although by the standards of my own erudition I know little of Islam – even though having read over the years their religious texts -, but I know more than enough to recognize a creed that is antithetical to higher reason and designed to excite and beguile the most primitive of minds, just as it is with Marxism and it’s different “religious” branches.
Is it then a wonder that those at the pinacle of Power and greed are pushing both onto us?
It’s just a tool for them, like it was designed for, to enslave humanity and kill all who disagree.
The degenerate holders of the reins in the West, are of little concern to the moslems, and really only a concern to us. But since moslems can roll with it and the degenerates for now, we have two hideous enemies, from within and without. I was willing to play live and let live until 9/11, but since then, and being educated about what slop islam is, not so much. My own govt. is even worse slop, being traitors. It will take more than harsh language and legislation to turn this tide, but they did it at Vienna, with help, and it can be done again. Prepare for stormy weather, hasan.
My awaking to islam began on the morning of 10/23/83 when my barracks blew up right in front of me. I learned everything I could about islam and it’s devil’s false profit Mo. I hate islam and all who follow it and all who excuse it, and have been fighting it ever since and I give absolutely no quarter to any of them for deader is always better where these devil worshippers are concerned and always make sure they know I was there, for when these bloody savages fear you, they respect you.
ISLAM IS LIKE A DOG WITH RABIES