Atheists who assist the jihad 20

We are often more provoked by atheists on the Left than by believers on the conservative Right.

Leftism is a religion. And it is promoting the worst religion of all – Islam.

Douglas Murray writes at Gatestone:

Who has the “right” to talk about Islam? The question arose thanks to the response of a Muslim student society at an American university.

Last week saw the latest in the apparently interminable efforts to make the Somali-born human-rights activist and author Ayaan Hirsi Ali into some kind of pariah. Readers will recall the atrocious treatment of Hirsi Ali by Brandeis University earlier this year, when the “liberal arts university” invited Hirsi Ali to speak and then withdrew the invitation at the behest of certain Muslim students and anti-free-speech activists among the university’s faculty staff. As said at the time, the university’s dropping of Hirsi Ali was a classic case of dropping a firefighter in order to appease arsonists.

The latest round has already kicked off. The William F Buckley Jr Program at Yale University actually asking Hirsi Ali to speak and did not rescind the invitation. On this occasion, an American university managed to hold firm and not bar Hirsi Ali, but the reactions of two types of students were especially intriguing.

First – and of most interest to the press covering this kind of dust-up – was that among the usual criticisms of Hirsi Ali, this time the attacks also came from members of the Yale Atheists, Humanists and Agnostics society. Ahead of the event, those students posted on Facebook that:

“We do not believe Ayaan Hirsi Ali represents the totality of the ex-Muslim experience … Although we acknowledge the value of her story, we do not endorse her blanket statements on all Muslims and Islam.”

What kind of atheists are these who can tolerate any aspect of Islam? Islam is doctrinally intolerant, and intolerance is not to be tolerated.

The very fact that the pro-Islam factions at Yale want to silence a critic proves Islamic intolerance – if proof were needed in a world assailed by jihad.

It is hard to know which of these witless statements to unpick first. The statement as a whole constitutes a motorway pileup of moral confusion. Just take the first point – the possibility that Hirsi Ali does not represent the “totality of the ex-Muslim experience.” That is true. It is also something that Hirsi Ali would probably be the first to admit to. But it is also true of absolutely everybody. Nobody represents the “totality” of any experience. Yale Atheists, Humanists and Agnostics might some day realize that not even they represent the “totality of the atheist, humanist and agnostic experience.” Not even among students. In the Yale area.

And then there is the other group who, rather more predictably, complained about Hirsi Ali speaking at all. The Yale Muslim Students Association wrote to the “Yale community” as well as the Buckley program heads and staff in particular to say that:

“Our concern is that Ms. Hirsi Ali is being invited to speak as an authority on Islam despite the fact that she does not hold the credentials to do so. In the past, under such authority, she has overlooked the complexity of sociopolitical issues in Muslim-majority countries and has purported that Islam promotes a number of violent and inhumane practices.”

It is important to recognize what is true here before getting on to what is false. It is true that Hirsi Ali has, in the past, pointed to teachings and practices that are violent and inhumane in many Muslim-majority countries. Rather than being part of some intolerable smear-campaign, there may of course be a reason for this: which is that there are a vast number of practices that are indeed violent and inhumane in Muslim-majority countries. …

Islam is violent and inhumane.

How about the laws in multiple Muslim-majority countries which punish homosexuals with death by hanging, among other means? What about the laws in many Muslim-majority countries which – if exercised at Yale – would see the execution or imprisonment of members of the university’s Atheists, Humanists and Agnostics society?

But, as with the other petition, the question is posed as one of authority. Hirsi Ali is not meant to speak about Islam because “she does not hold the credentials to do so.” It is an interesting, sly way in which to frame a censor’s argument.

It is also untrue. … Even were it not the case that Hirsi Ali has actually lived the Muslim life, with the personal story she has to tell as a result, any independent person would surely recognize that, if anything, she is somewhat over-credentialed. Hirsi Ali has authored multiple books and written hundreds of original and important articles on Islam. She has been published in every major newspaper in the Western world. She has a university degree from one of the oldest and most distinguished universities in the Netherlands. She has held positions at some of the most important universities and think-tanks in the world. As an extraordinary immigration success story, she was elected to Parliament in the Netherlands in her early thirties and one of the most important figures in the debate on integration in Europe as well as America.

If she is not qualified to speak about this subject, then who is?  … There is a reason why she continually draws – even in America – this type of pushback. It is because anti-reformist Muslims everywhere …

Are there Muslim reformists? Into what could Islam be “reformed”? What would be left of Islam if the violence, intolerance, cruelty and lies were taken out of it?

… realize that she presents to their literalist faith a type of poison for which they have absolutely no antidote. Her criticisms are often raw because they are true. Able to do nothing about the truth, they try to silence the truth-teller.

One grows to expect this from Muslim associations. But the atheists? If these students truly believe in education and enlightenment, I would suggest they organize a trip around North Africa and the Middle East. Their experiences may never represent the “totality” of anything. But, especially if they wear their society’s logo on T-shirts, it might give them a personal insight into one of the many points Hirsi Ali has brought to the world’s attention – a point they might one day see is worth their attention, too.

Douglas Murray is reminding atheists that in most of not all Islamic countries, known atheists are punished with imprisonment, or flogging, or execution – often all three.

But few Leftist intellectuals of the Western world ever subject themselves to the regimes they theoretically support or endorse. As everyone knows, some who have actually ventured to put themselves at the mercy of Islam have recently had their heads sawn off.


[Request to readers: if anyone finds a transcript of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s speech at Yale, please bring it to us.]


Posted under Atheism, Commentary, Islam, Jordan, Muslims, United States by Jillian Becker on Thursday, October 2, 2014

Tagged with , ,

This post has 20 comments.

  • liz

    Talk about “jaw dropping”. It’s hard to believe any atheists – even leftist atheists, could be this pathetically, embarrassingly stupid.
    But wait – that’s exactly the mentality of our current President, who may well be an atheist, but who is, first and foremost, Leftist numero uno.


      Wait a minute!!!! Wait a minute! I have a father-in-law who fits this description, liz!

      As far as Obama being a “closet Atheist” I prefer to believe that by his past actions hes closer to a “closet Muslim.”

      • liz

        Well, true, he could be a Muslim. (Obama, not you’re father in law!) I would much prefer it if he were. He’s a leftist first, though.

        • REALBEING

          LOL!! Believe me when I tell you that my father-in-law, if given a choice to either become a Conservative Republican, or a Muslim, would choose the latter rather than the former………And he hates any and all religions!

          • liz

            Wow. You have my sympathy…!

            • REALBEING

              Well……we haven’t talked since I sent him an email reply to one he sent me expounding on the “great benefits” of raising the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour.

              I simply asked him if next year it would need to be raised to $20.00, $30.00, or even $40.00 per hour.

              I then asked him if he wanted to pay $10.00 for a loaf of bread…….Crickets……..

            • Don L

              They can never answer the question…”Well if it has no effect on the economy, since it just comes out of some capitalist’s profit, why not go all the way and make it $100 or $1000/hr?”

              I’m afraid to ask…he thinks FDR saved the world from the depression? Rhetorical.

              Like Liz…sympathies!

            • REALBEING

              Don……….Please do not refer to him as F.D.R.!

              John would call him “Saint Franklin!!!” LOL!!!!

        • He’s probably just a “liberal Christian.” Religious liberalism frantically works to keep in step with political liberalism. And it also sees all religions as “worshiping the same god.” Divisive distinctions are errors of “fundamentalists.” Or as one conservative reflected (if I remember it correctly) on his liberal Episcopal upbringing, it was ok to believe in anything, as long as you did not believe it too strongly.

          • Please – who exactly are you saying is a “liberal Christian”?

            • I was alluding to our President.

            • You really think he is liberal? And a Christian? Not an Islam-loving “progressive” – ie socialist-communist?

            • When I write “liberal Christian,” I mean liberal only in a religious sense. This means very ecumenical–searching for compromise that ignores religious doctrine and finds unity on love, the golden rule, etc.That is the take I get from his book. I just finished reading his “Audacity of Hope” which I picked up in a used book store for 25c. I am not sure that his father dressing him in Muslim or Indonesian garb means much as far as understanding Obama. But as you note, in a political sense his is a progressive–not a liberal.

            • My quote regarding Episcopals and liberal relgion was a quote by someone about their own experience, not Obamas. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

            • Ah, I see now that that is what you said.

              They are retreating far, theologically speaking, aren’t they? They’re down to the wire with their “intelligent designer”. And morally speaking hanging on to the golden rule. No such thing in Islam. Nor love.

            • He lied a lot in his books. (I read both of them and noticed they were as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.) He didn’t actually write them, of course, but he did draft them. (I can’t prove that, but I believe the rumors, for various reasons.) It’s necessary for his political ambitions to seem to be a Christian. The church he attended was Jeremiah Wright’s – preacher of hate for America. A “progressive”? Was Saul Alinsky a progressive? I’ve read his book “Rules for Radicals” and I’m fairly sure he was a revolutionary communist. Obama never actually met Alinsky (as Hillary Clinton did), but he was employed by Alinskyites as one of their “community organizers” – euphemism for rabble rousers, agents provocateurs.

          • liz

            He could be that, too. Whatever he is, it’s not nearly as important to him as pushing his radical leftist agenda and destroying as much of what’s left of capitalism as he can while he’s in office.
            As Don noted earlier, leftism is a religion, and I’m sure it’s his.

  • Don L

    An FYI aside: Gretchen Carson, of FOX News, recently showed a chart of a survey of the political leanings of college professors: 3% Extreme Left; 50% Liberal, 25% Middle-of-the-Road; 20% Conservative; and, 2% Extreme Right.

    Left is a religion, and just like the theist religions, reason does not count! Consequently, a leftist atheist is not an atheist as reasoned arrival at the disbelief in mysticism is missing. Or, reasons for not accepting theism WOULD NECESSARILY result in not accepting leftist/collectivist ideologies.

    Leftism is mystical as it, like theist religions, lacks basis in reality, has been shown to be failed/false and exists solely on blind faith. Leftism does not have a ghost in the sky…its supreme leaders are real life kooks: Marx, Lennin, Krugman, Obama, John Kenneth Galbraith, Mao, Hitler…too many to list but gods to lefties none the less.


      This is a really great observation, Don! Bravo!!

    • liz

      I wish this could be made to stick, because it’s true. But they’ll just continue giving all atheists a bad name.
      Meanwhile, christians, who are quick to see and point out that leftism is a religion, will continue to remain blind to the fact that irrationality applies to ALL religion, and therefore to them.
      They will also continue to perceive all atheists as leftists, helped along by the leftists who have hijacked atheism.
      What a mess.