Banner Rotate

Logo by Julian Spanos

Antitheistic. Long. Perplexing. Offensive. Whatever.

Warning: This blog does not cater to your whims. If you are offended, then I am not obliged to care. It ain't personal until otherwise stated.

Random Quotes

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Discussion Regarding Islamic Extremism in British Schools – Why One Should Never Trust an Apologist

I recently got the chance to watch an episode of BBC's The Big Questions. The episode was a discussion that centred around the recent controversial issue of Islamic extremism being syphoned into certain schools. As always, the discussion degraded swiftly into a mishmash of obfuscation and tacky evasion at the hands of the Islamist apologists who tend to come to the table with a disgusting confirmation bias, which dictates that their puritanical ideology can do no wrong and if stoning women is deemed Halal/Kosher by their select cabal of scholars, then the rest of the world is at fault for having an issue with such Draconian penalties. My immediate thoughts on the entire video went like this: "Apologist pricks are apologist pricks."

The video involved the stereotypical Islamist extremists, cloaked in the equally unflattering veneer of shameless apologists, and engaged in the pathetic demonstration of obfuscative rhetoric.The one particular moron who made a spectacle of himself, began his intrusive and digressionary rants during a discussion that involved Maajid Nawaz, a reformed Moslem with genuinely secular and moderate views. An individual who--in my opinion is one of the few among the silent moderates of his creed--is taking active action against the militant and reactionary element of Islam through The Quilliam Foundation. He is by no means an apologist or another shameless Islamist showman, avoiding the task of answering some serious questions regarding the incompatibility of theocratic Islam and the modern world. Upon this fundamental pretext, naturally speaking, Maajid Nawaz tends to wind up the large herd of backward-minded apologists in the Islamic camp when he makes the very real case that modern and liberal societies should not regress on their progress by reverting to Sharia law, or to entertain the musings of regressive theocratic maniacs and dogmatic preachers, most of whom generally come from the extreme-side of the Islamic paradigm. This is where the moron in question--the rather well-known Islamist and apologist, Adnan Rashid--could not help his own backward sensibilities from getting the better of him as he started to express disjointed objections to what was being discussed. 

Adnan Rashid started rambling incoherently against Maajid Nawaz on serious questions about old-world Draconian theocratic policy, such as the stoning of women, but being very mindful of not slipping in his own ideological views on the matter. After all, what self-serving apologist would engage in honest transparency when he can spend the majority of the discussion time engaged in deceptions, digressions and feeble mudslinging. Adnan Rashid dumped a repeated cyclone of outdated red herrings regarding Jewish law and how criticising Islam is hypocritical since such policies come from the Old Testament, and therefore, through some cosmic leap and defiance of all modernity and religious reform, every Jew now happens to subscribe to the same backward policies as extreme Islamists; talk about having a warped world view. He also seems to have missed the point where no modern civilisation condones or endorses practices such as stoning women, or persecuting--and imposing death sentences--upon homosexuals, apostates and blasphemers. In the civilised world occupied by many religious and ethnic groups, every one, regardless of their opinions, ideology or sexual orientation, have their freedom of speech, choice and conscience outright protected by law. How else could a scoundrel ideologue like Adnan Rashid have such a platform to express their nauseating ideological poison? This utterly mediocre malcontent thrives and barters off the very system that he seeks to condemn and destroy.

Anyway, Maajid Nawaz finally reached the end of his patience and soberly confronted Adnan Rashid on the question of whether Adnan Rashid--with his personal spirituality and theology--agreed with the idea of stoning women under Sharia law. What did Adnan Rashid do in response to this question? Did he bravely and firmly give an obvious answer condemning the concept in a manner that any civilised person from any spiritual mindset would give?! Oh! Ha! Ha! Ha! Hell no! He deflected entirely and avoided answering the question. What a fucking self-serving apologist prick!

Since the previous video was taken down, I found a suitable replacement by way of StopSpamming's critical commentary on the same show. Definitely give his channel, blog and podcast, The Jinn and Tonic Show, a look for some excellent discussions, analysis and debates on Islamic apologetics.

How many Islamist apologists does it take to make a circle jerk? Just one: He'll talk his head up his own ass and still avoid answering the question.

Never trust or bank upon the intellectual integrity and honesty of an apologist!

This session goes on to reinforce a long-running concern among staunch secularists regarding a certain element of conservative Islam that seems to go unquestioned under the overly prudish and multicultural--not really multiculturalism at all, but extreme insulation--social liberal movement. An element within this cult of backward apologists that aims to dodge serious questions about their ideology. We are talking, of course, about the kind of questions that would expose the very obvious issues with their ideology and why indeed a lot of the criticism levied at Islam as a political ideology is actually very much justified and warranted for further social progress.

The contents of this video also support my personal and long-standing view that has been repeatedly expressed on this website for around a decade. I'll continue to maintain that the disgraceful display in this video is exactly why such apologists can never be trusted on their word or should be entertained or taken lightly when it comes to political discourse. They are indeed revisionist agents of a barbaric era looking to realise this era as antagonists of modernity and reason. They're the worst form of intellectual scum and a reason why younger, impressionable minds fall into philosophical myopia with no clear idea of what they  might be unwittingly supporting.

Humanists, and modernised theologians alike, need to expose these scoundrels on such basic questions and demand straight answers from them on such heinous subject matters so that the entire world can get a direct appraisal of the kind of ideology these maniacs promote. The Quilliam Foundation has sought to not only bring a more nuanced approach to understanding Islam and separating the genuinely peaceful and quieter element of secular and modernised Islam from its barbaric counterpart, but they have also taken on the due diligence of combating this element. 

Do I hear you screaming 'Islamophobia'? Well, if that's the case, then I say Islamofascism!

I shall conclude this entry on an important note of my own, because speaking of nuanced approaches, something needs to be said about our crippled ability to address the serious issues that are presently inherent within certain religious and political ideologies. Let us not mince words here or become emotionally unhinged in a loss of perspective, because the extremist elements in Islam do need direct and solid confrontation, and we need to accept the abject reality that religious ideology--to an extreme--does play a very fundamental role in legitimising the twisted world view and blood thirsty convictions of the Islamic dogmatists. There isn't a religion or ideology on the planet that is free of this problem and to pretend otherwise is an exercise an circular idiocy and pointless appeasement. 

As citizens of the world, where we have the privilege of free speech and conscience as our fundamental rights, we should be addressing these problems at face value rather than treading gently around them like a bunch of inept twits because of simple-minded, knee-jerk, pseudo-liberal, spineless rebukes, predicated on that tiresome first-world colloquial paper tiger that is Islamophobia. Yes, Islamophobia, a near-myth that Andrew Cummins quite accurately summed up as, "A word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons." Well, two can play at that; try Islamofasicm! 

This utterly neurotic, soft-touch guilt complex of the quasi-tolerant liberals has resulted in a form of self-imposed fascism while dangerous ideas and thoughts go unquestioned and unchallenged -- this is a functional death sentence to democracy and the free market of speech and ideas. The overly dramatic, self-loathing element of the left, needs to stop invoking the word 'phobia' so loosely where there is hardly any kind of irrational fear–or phobia–involved. It utterly fails to counteract some very real, legitimate and practical concerns that are being raised about a certain death cult of barbarians. After all, we are dealing with an ideologically totalitarian movement seeking  to thwart the entire world back into the dark ages, ruled by the blood-stained swords and legacies of tyrannical and morally deplorable demagogues who'll forever remain beyond any semblance of account or reproach due to political ineptitude, cowardice and patronising levels of cultural appeasement.

No comments: