A Journal for Western Man




Freedom to Criticize Islam

Alexander, Autonomist Member

Issue XLIX- February 14, 2006





I was extremely disappointed in Yiyi Chen's article in the Feb. 6 Kansas State Collegian. It was biased in favor of Islam and modern liberalism and made no effort to show the other side. In fact, on the article's webpage, the only links are Muslim in nature. The article properly belongs in the opinion section of the paper, with the slant it had.

Chen begins by citing excerpts from an interview with one Saeed Al Salim, presumably a Muslim, though such was not stated. In fact, no qualifications were stated for Al Salim. Apparently, readers were expected to make an inference from the name. The next person mentioned was Ebrahim Merza, secretary of the the Muslim Student Association. The last was Patrick Akard, assistant professor in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work. All three of them disapproved of the publishing of the cartoons central to the issue in Europe.

Let me cite some quotations and make some rebuttals. Al Salim said: "They should respect the difference between religions. They shouldn't draw Muhammed in this way."

The content/beliefs of a religion, like any other ideas, are subject to scrutiny and criticism. Why? Well, first, there's the issue of logical coherence and if it is in accord with reality (either one religion is correct, or zero are), but that's beside the point. Ideas are subject to scrutiny not only because they must be weighed by their merits, but because we [supposedly] have freedom of speech. Censorship by the government of any ideas espoused by those outside of government is slavery. The above quotation from Al Salim is politically correct rubbish that aids in obscuring the true issue.

What is the true issue? Well, if I were to tell you that people were being killed--gunned down, having their heads sawed off slowly by a dull knife, etc.; and that the killers were all adherents to a particular ideology; and that the basis of that ideology is found in a book; and that the book sanctions murder, rape, pillaging, stoning, war, and other such savage, subhuman acts (look both to the Koran and Old Testament for these)... what would you conclude? Certainly not that we must tolerate such acts and the people who perpetrate them, simply because their ideas and culture are different! Multiculturalism is a disease just like political correctness. Culture is simply how a group of people behaves and what their beliefs are. If they believe in the acts mentioned above--and proceed to do them--then their culture is not to be tolerated. It is evil. If they proceed to kill us, we must exterminate them like the pestilence they are. This is not a difficult issue.

In fact, I'm not even going to mention the other quotes. I think I can deal with the issue just fine without resorting to the agony of typing such hippie, retrograde, demeaning garbage. The Danish paper that originally published the cartoons did so, I am told, because people were afraid to do such, thinking they might be obliterated by suicidal, machine-gun-toting goat-herders screaming "Allah akbar!" The publication of those cartoons was a most profound demonstration of freedom of speech. As someone else quoted in the article said--but it was meant in a different way--"if you don't like them, don't make fun of them." Except, I would substitute "kill them or make hostages" for "make fun". That's what the enraged Muslim protestors and terrorists of the Middle East are doing. Should this type of behavior be tolerated? Nope.

Sympathizers and those who say we should respect a religion, without regard to its content or the culture spawned from it, are only aiding the terrorists in their plot to destroy us. The goal of terrorism is to terrify others into submission. Those who state that the cartoons should not have been published are either submitting themselves to the nonexistent mercy of the human meat grinders in the Middle East, or they are the human meat grinders, potential or actual.

"Give me liberty or give me death." Die by submission, die by blades and bullets, or live. What is your final answer? I bid thee adieu.

Alexander is a member of The Autonomist Forum. This article was originally submitted as a response to a pro-Islamist piece in the Kansas State Collegian. It was rejected by the politically-correct editors of said paper, so TRA reprints it here to render its message public.

Read Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, at http://www.geocities.com/rational_argumentator/rc.html.

Order Mr. Stolyarov's newest science fiction novel, Eden against the Colossus, in eBook form, here. You only pay $10.00, with no shipping and handling fees. You may also find free previews, descriptions and reviews of Eden against the Colossus at http://www.geocities.com/rational_argumentator/eac.html.

Click here to return to the Issue XLIX index.