Rushdie Attack Offers a Dose Of Islamic Reality
It is always intriguing to hear liberal advocates suggest a course of action be taken that conservative voices have long heralded. Liberal television host Bill Maher has repeatedly promoted leftist positions. But, in light of progressivism that has moved the Democratic Party far to the left, Maher’s opinions seem to have shifted right – i.e., still left but closer to the center. As is often the case for liberals, a dose of reality has been necessary to do so.
By way of background, liberals, like atheist Maher, have long demonstrated an intolerance for Christianity, despite it being a foundational belief upon which our Founding Fathers built America. Our Constitution prohibits government support for any one religion for the purpose of avoiding creation of a “state religion.” Liberals have done everything possible to keep Christian beliefs distinctly separate and apart from government.
When Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., a Muslim, took her oath of office, choosing to use the Quran rather than the Bible in January of 2019, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had a 181-year ban against members wearing headcoverings lifted to allow the Somalian-American legislator to wear her traditional headscarf. The ban was originally imposed in 1837 to move away from the British custom of wearing hats.
It is interesting that Pelosi saw Omar’s entry into the House as an opportunity to showcase a tolerance of Islam. One wonders whether it dawned on Pelosi that what she saw as an act of tolerance was viewed entirely differently by Omar.
As a Muslim, Omar embraces the Quran’s teaching that Islam stands above all other world religions. Accordingly, Islam divides the world into two parts – “Dar-al-Islam” (abode of Islam) and “Dar-al-Harb” (abode of war). Dar-al-Islam consists of all countries where Islam rules as the superior religion with other religions subordinate to it, evidenced by the mandate those other religions pay a tribute known as “jizyah.” Dar-al-Harb is Islam’s war zone, i.e. where Islam seeks to establish itself as the superior religion.
Apologists for Islam suggest the war Islam calls for is ideological and not a violent one. While many non-violent Muslims may believe this as well, the danger for the West is that Islamists promote just such a violent interpretation, even to the point of murdering fellow Muslims who oppose their beliefs. We should never forget how ISIS left a major bloodstain across the Middle East as it massacred thousands of Muslims including gays, men, women and children. To ISIS, such Muslims were infidels deserving of such a fate.
Islamists’ violent intentions for all other religions cannot be made any clearer. All Muslims, including Omar, believe Islam is the superior religion and, therefore, view the lifting of the head-covering ban in Congress as acceptance of Islam’s superiority to all Western religions.
Ironically, while these other religions recognize they exist independent of governmental endorsement, for Islam there is no separation of “church and state.” One is integral to the existence of the other. Where Islamic religion exists separately, Dar-al-Harb demands Islamic leaders and believers eventually achieve governmental control.
Sadly, this is what happened in Iran in 1979 when the shah was toppled by the people. While they had hoped doing so, allowing the mullahs to take power, would create a “kinder, gentler” government, it left them with a far more brutal regime – an Islamist theocracy.
Despite the mullahs’ brutality demonstrated both inside and outside Iran’s borders, most American liberals have turned a blind eye to their Dar-ul-Harb (war) intentions. So committed are the mullahs to the global rule of Islam, they will do whatever is necessary to achieve it, even killing Islam’s critics. This is why in 1989, after author Salman Rushdie wrote “Satanic Verses” criticizing Islam, Iran placed a $3 million bounty on his head for blasphemy.
On Aug. 12, 2022, Rushdie was attacked by Hadi Matar, 25, in Chautauque, New York, as the author took the stage to give a speech. Fortunately, Rushie survived the attack, although he has a long recovery time ahead of him. Matar’s parents, who are Lebanese, divorced in 2004. While his father moved to Lebanon, Matar grew up with his mother in New Jersey. She claims her son was a good Muslim until 2018 when he took a trip to the Middle East to visit his father. Upon his return, Matar told his mother he was unhappy she had “encouraged him to get an education instead of focusing on religion.” He came home radicalized after having established contact with members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Maher, who is good friends with Rusdie, condemned the attack, saying it raises the need to debate the “dangers of Islam” – a suggestion conservatives have strongly supported. Dismissing the typical claim liberals make against Islam’s critics as being Islamophobic, Maher says closer review of the religion is warranted by the Rushdie attack since the author had good reason to be fearful of it. Maher explained, “Islam is still a much more fundamentalist religion than any of the other religions in the world, and that means they take what’s in the holy book seriously and that has been dangerous for a long time. It’s still dangerous.”
The assassination attempt on Rushdie provides a dose of reality for the hatred Islamists promote against blasphemers, apostates, gays, infidels and anyone else denying Islam’s supremacy. While for Matar, the attempt may well have been both financially motivated by Iran’s bounty and by what he learned from the Quran, there is another dose of reality we should take away from this would-be assassin’s quick transition to radicalism: No matter how believers may interpret the Quran – whether giving it a violent or non-violent spin – that holy book has every potential to become a license to kill for any and all Muslims triggered into doing so.
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.