Is Islam winning?

This is a copy of an open letter sent to the prime minister of Canada and copied to a number of members of parliament as there is a motion to outlaw criticism of Islam after the brutal murders of a number of innocent Muslims in a Quebec City mosque. I condemn the murders but I also condemn the response by our government. Censorship is never a good solution to any problem.

Two months have passed and not a word in reply from our leader or the people who work for him. The determination of this government to appease Muslim voices appears unstoppable. The ‘all cultures are equally valid’ argument continues to win the day. Western culture and values, while at stake, seems to find few defenders.

Just what do we say about a club that sets and enforces a rule calling for the death of anyone who quits the group?

What about a group of men setting up a court that considers a woman’s words to be only half as credible as a man’s. And what if that court implemented a law that considers stoning to death the proper punishment for feminine infidelity?

What if this same group of men took the view that your life is of no value and they could lie and cheat you with impunity – that even taking your life was not held to be a crime?

Would you welcome these people into your home …your city …your country?

Are you certain we are not doing so as I speak?

The above phrases are based directly on verses from the Koran, the official holy book of Islam.

And is now our government preparing the ground-work legislation that will penalize anyone speaking ill or, if you will, criticizing Islam? What does it mean if one is not free to criticize? Or if one may criticize only some things but not others? Are there ideas that may not be challenged?

Why, in your M-103, is Islam singled out as the religion we may not criticize? Why may we not speak the truth? Beheading and stoning would be utterly condemned in Canada, so why are both barbaric practices excused by far too many politicians when practiced elsewhere?.

The mark of civilization is that in disagreements, dialogue will rule the day, that we’ll discuss and argue points, remembering that our views need to be sold to an audience before any change can take place. To restrict free expression means that force will be used to stifle thought as speech is the action produced by thinking.

When the rule of law was fully in effect, we brought punishment to those who initiated violence but not to those who spoke. That is what we have been deserting. We now try to legislate niceness.

Of course I condemn the brute who walked into a peaceful assembly and shot innocent people. That was a true mark of barbarism. Yet while there’s no excuse for the Quebec massacre, to outlaw free speech won’t solve an problems but it will make out society worse. Eliminating the criminal will make the world better.

A civilized person will listen and hear what was said; a barbarian just reacts with force. Let us not revert to barbarism by restricting free speech. Ask the real refugees from Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Wafa Sultan, why they criticize the religion they left.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s