Islam is infiltrating the regressive left’s feminist movement, which, if allowed to continue, could lead to the eventual tearing down of the most vital elements in our democracy. Islam has found a hole in our society in which there is an amenable group of people all too willing to accept their discriminatory beliefs. Though diversity is at core of our society and is something I strongly advocate, American citizens need to ask themselves 1. Is there any group we would not accept? and 2. If so, what are the features of a group we would consider so heinous as to restrict entry into our country? I hope the answer to the former would be no, not just any group should be permitted entry. Simply acknowledging that there is indeed a line to be drawn is critical; that yes, it is possible to be overly accepting, to be too liberal in our acceptance and that we should not accept all groups into our society. To maintain our democratic society, we cannot tolerate the intolerant.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. — Karl Popper

Regressive leftists have a difficult time accepting this. Just take a look at the knee-jerk reaction of labeling any imposed limitations as discrimination, as we see with the overreaction to President Trump’s executive order to temporarily ban refugee entry into the U.S. The media completely overlook the fact that Obama issued six similar orders during his reign (source 1). Also, lest we forget the criticism of George Bush 16 years ago of his negligence and lack of a thorough vetting process to prevent radicals from entering the country (source 2); in terms of Presidential criticism, it’s a catch-22.

These protestors are people that genuinely believe they are doing something lofty, morally just; that they are assisting the downtrodden who can’t fight for themselves. Indeed, the vast majority of refugees are innocent families seeking safety. However, what needs to be weighed is the threat of terrorist attacks ravishing the country versus the suffering and displacement of these families seeking safety. But, what outlet has even raised this question? It’s most certainly a gray area and a difficult decision to make, one that can rightfully be disagreed with on solid grounds, but it is not nearly as cut and dry as simply labeling this executive order an act of discrimination as the legacy media would have you believe. The far left’s narrow-mindedness is damaging, and I fear it will only continue as long as Trump is the one issuing the orders. Trump could end world hunger and the legacy media would create a false narrative and gullible headliners and article-only readers would protest it to their very death if it came to it. A sad state of affairs. This executive order deserves a great deal of criticism, but fair criticism.

Feminists standing up for this religion is perhaps the most obvious incongruity of beliefs in our modern age. They are strengthening the very people they should, by definition, be opposing. A group formed on the basis of opposing the patriarchy welcoming a patriarchy; and not just any patriarchy but the most oppressive of them all. Regressive liberals, though well intentioned, are aiding a group that seeks ultimate political control, and if ever achieved, would return the favor by subjecting non-Muslim women to the oppressive Sharia Law. This is the ultimate irony.

For example, take the Women’s March on Washington, a most illuminating event. Linda Sarsour was one of the main organizers of the event, yet she also subjects herself to Sharia Law, which sees women as lesser beings than men (source 3). The American Flag Hijab poster was promoted as one of the main symbols of the march, which may be the dumbest, most hypocritical, image ever to be layed out in red, white, and blue (though it does allow us to easily identify those individuals that have gone full #REEEEE). More interestingly, the woman in this image has appropriated the American flag and subordinated it as an article of clothing, the hijab. I see this as a striking metaphor for the goal of political Islamists to subject the country to Sharia Law. As Keiler keenly points out,

Islam doesn’t recognize the separation of church and state, so while a naïve American might see this as a “patriotic Muslim” image, it really is anything but that. In the Islamic view, church and state may only be properly combined in an Islamic state (source 4).

Propaganda such as this is a tactic designed to impose guilt. What do you mean you don’t want to help these innocent people? What kind of person are you? These shameless methods only strengthen the far left’s staunch refusal to implement common-sense restrictions on people coming from Muslim controlled States where terrorists are born and bred.

Radicals do not wish to live and let live. Their objective is to establish an Islamic State. It is not simply a religion, but a political ideology that seeks legal control over others, and they believe Allah has ordained them to accomplish this. Suicide bombings, honor killings, forced marriage, sexual slavery; all acts committed in the name of their God. Are these only examples of extremism or is this an endemic problem? I pose the question that if it is only extremists, why are moderate Muslims not vocal in their disapproval of these atrocious acts committed in the name of their same God? Surely they see it as desecration, right?

Aayan Hirsi Alli is a former Muslim woman now deemed an apostate and lives under a fatwa for speaking out against the religion. In her book Heretic: Why Islam needs a Reformation now, she provides a handful of historical examples of when leading Muslim clerics spoke out against violence, offering a more peaceful interpretation of the Quran. In each instance, the individuals were murdered for doing so. All previous attempts at reforming Islam have been met with violence. The solution to the problem of radical Islam must come from within the religion itself; a decision to be peaceful, to not seek world domination and 100% conversion of all human beings into Islamists. No external force can accomplish this.

If this were the 1930s I would tout the same opposition to the Roman Catholic Church for its open alliance with the Third Reich. It just so happens Islam is currently the most dangerous of all religions; the one that poses the greatest threat to democracy, the First Amendment with its prohibition on criticism and cartoons of its Prophet, and the lives of American citizens. Valid criticisms of Islam are dismissed as “Islamaphobic” when actually they are an objection to the oppressive beliefs of an extremist, primitive, absolutist religion.

Since November 9th at 2am, Democrats have switched to protest mode. I challenge them to argue their stance based on pure logical grounds and just for a moment table their “feelings” and halt the autistic screeching.

If upheaval of our democracy occurs during Trump’s rule, it will be due to the overreaction to fabricated media narratives. Ditch the conversation stopping chants and argue a point to its fullest extent on its own merits. This is the only way a democracy can survive.

Facts exist. Reality exists. Feelings do not override these things. Please join the campaign of opposing legacy media propaganda. Research, write, share your findings. If you would like to support my work, you can do so on Patreon: https://patreon.com/user?u=4902584

Sources