Pat Robertson Is Right!

The Los Angeles Times, of course, thought it was enjoying mud-slinging as usual by trying to demonstrate what an old fool Pat Robertson is. As usual, they failed.

I hasten to say that I seldom agree with Pat Robertson about anything. He and I are philosophical opposites, never the twain to meet. However, Pat is right about Islam and Muslims.

Here's a fragment of the LA Times article.

Robertson...is wary of having Muslims as U.S. judges, by Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer, May 2, 2005

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Robertson — who founded the Christian Coalition — also said he would be wary of appointing Muslims to top positions in the U.S. government, including judgeships. His comments on Islam drew a heated response from Muslim leaders, who criticized them as racist and inaccurate. "They have said in the Koran there's a war against all the infidels," he [Robertson] said. "Do you want somebody like that sitting as a judge? I wouldn't."

The comments drew immediate fire from Islamic organizations. "Pat Robertson has taken his far-right-wing rhetoric to absurd levels," said Arsalan Iftikhar, national legal director for the Council on American Islamic Relations. "He is trying to perpetuate this notion that Islam is a monolithic entity inherently at odds with modernity and democracy. That is absolutely false…. American Muslims have long been contributing members of American society. And I guarantee to Mr. Robertson that Muslims will one day become part of the federal bench — whether or not he likes it."

Note how these "Muslim 'leaders'," address what the LA Times characterize Robertson's remarks that "he would be wary of appointing Muslims to top positions in the U.S. government, including judgeships" as "racist and inaccurate." As long as they keep misstating, we will keep correcting them, in the interest of reality and reason: Since when is "Muslim" a name for a race? Does that mean that a "Christian" is a member of the "Christian race"? Of course not; only Muslims expect special dispensations.

Of course, the Kingdom of Boors, CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations), like their Russian communist intellectual relatives, rose immediately to bellow and roar. From their own lips so-to-speak:

CAIR,
CAIR Calls on Leaders to Repudiate Evangelist's Remarks

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 5/2/05) - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on mainstream political and religious leaders to repudiate “hate-filled” remarks by evangelist Pat Robertson who said on Sunday that Muslims should not serve in the Cabinet or judiciary. The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said Pat Robertson told “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” he would be wary of appointing Muslims to positions in the U.S. government, including judgeships. “This type of hate-filled rhetoric deserves repudiation from all who respect America's long-standing tradition of pluralism,” said Rabiah Ahmed, CAIR's communication coordinator. Ahmed added that many Muslims already serve with distinction in many levels of government, including judgeships at the state and local level.

Yeah, yeah, yeah; yada, yada, yada; S. O. S. (and I do not mean the international distress signal). If you want your eyes opened about Muslims in American government, read Paul Sperry's Infiltration, which we just reviewed on 6th Column Against Jihad.

Part of CAIR's "smoke blowing" attempt to rebut Robertson's remarks in the LA Times is their assertion that "Islam is [NOT] a monolithic entity inherently at odds with modernity and democracy." Boy, do they have a vested interest in pushing that line! Islam does not belong in the same sentence with either "modernity" or "democracy." See what Andre' Servier wrote about this, over 80 years ago.

Just as there is no "moderate Islam," so there is no definable entity of "moderate Muslims." "Moderate Muslim" are an inherent contradiction, and any Muslims that deviate from Islam to become "moderate" are pariahs within Islam. Islam is as Islam was, and Islam is what Islam is. And, since the very doctrines of Islam, which CAIR fully supports, call for converting the USA into a Muslim state, run by shari'a, Robertson's concern is very well placed. Who could trust a Muslim not to revert, at who-knows-what stimulus, to orthodox Islam and jihad? How does anyone separate fifth columnist Muslims (working the covert jihad) from the so-called "peace-loving" and beatifically passive Muslims, if there are any?

By the way, where are all of these "fellow American" Muslims, loyal to America? Where are those that, according to CAIR, are "American Muslims [who] have long been contributing members of American society"? Who are and where are those American Muslims serving "...judgeships at the state and local level"?

Robertson knows Islam well enough to know Islam for what it really is. On the other hand, CAIR wants to blow smoke to obscure the real meaning and history of Islam. CAIR plays on the widespread ignorance about Islam in government, academia, journalism, and in the general populace--CAIR tells what it wants the gullible to believe.

Some of us, however, read.

CAIR goes on in its article to try to smear Robertson with these comments:

In the past, Robertson has made similar hateful comments toward Islam and Muslims. During a 2002 appearance on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" program, Robertson smeared both Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. About Muhammad, Robertson said: "This man was an absolute wild-eyed fanatic. He was a robber and a brigand. And to say that these terrorists distort Islam, they're carrying out Islam...I mean, this man (Muhammad) was a killer. And to think that this is a peaceful religion is fraudulent." Robertson also called Islam "a monumental scam" and claimed the Quran, Islam's revealed text, "is strictly a theft of Jewish theology." Robertson has also repeatedly defamed Islam and Muslims on his Christian Broadcasting Network "700 Club" program. He called Islam the "religion of the slavers" and said Americans who converted to Islam exhibited "insanity."

This "smear" attempt backfires because Robertson is telling the truth. Pick up the core documents of Islam, easily available, and read them. There's nothing complex about Islam, so it will be easily graspable. Islam's own words will tell you exactly what Robertson says, and much more. There is much that is worse about Muhammad and the nature of Islam. Even semi-objective histories of Islam shows Islam for the parasitic doctrine it is: Judaism- and Christianity-LITE. Islam lifted from them, and perverted what it plagiarized.

Of course, if you look at Islam, its behavior, and its history through the deformed mental prism of Islam, then Islam will look good, and the West will measure up as bad by Islamic standards; but this is not a normal, objective way to look at anything. People who are morally uncertain and influenced by multiculturalism will easily fall into this trap of seeing Islam the way the Islamists want you to see it.

As for the "insanity" part of Robertson's remarks, that might be true for some who convert. Mostly, however, I think that conversion to Islam reflects efforts of individuals who are attempting to fulfill pathological needs.

If Islam changes any, according to Islam, it ceases being Islam, because it allegedly comes from "Allah," to persist in perpetuity without change; changing Islam in any way is blasphemy, according to them. All of the factual details about Islam, however useful, do not address its roots, its fundamentals. The key to understanding what one needs to know about Islam once and forever more, is to know its fundamentals. One need not read four dozen Qur'an translations, all the Ahadith, and every volume ever written by any significant historian of Islam to grasp these fundamentals solidly.

Islam's PHILOSOPHICAL fundamentals expose it for what it is. That is why Robertson is right.