Anti-Islam statements should disqualify Trump’s pick for U.N. migration post - The Washington Post

Quote, from The Washington Post: [this colour/indented, from Wapo.  My comments black]
Ken Isaacs, has an unfortunate record of bigoted statements against Islam.
Really?  Let's see
Isaacs has in recent years repeatedly posted statements online reflecting the view that Islam is a religion that is inherently violent and inextricably linked to terrorism.
Well, yes it is.  Read the Islamic Trinity of Koran, Hadith and Sirah (Life of Muhammad).  There's no need to cherry-pick, because it's pretty much all "cherries", steeped in violence towards and hatred of the kuffar (non-believer). The Hadiths reinforce the Koran, and the Sirah is a litany of Muhammad's 27 battles, including his personal beheading of enemies. Its links to terrorism are surely too obvious to be denied.  Of the terrorist organisations in the world, 94% are Islamic.
In September of that year [2016], he tweeted that "Islam is 7th Century violence and bullying." 
Well again, that's all true.  Muslims are enjoined to take Muhammad as their role model of the "perfect man", and Muhammad is a person of the 7th Century.  Pious Muslims across the world — Salafis, Wahabbis, for example — call on Muslims to study the "rightly guided Caliphs' of the 7th century and to go back to the beginning of the religion for inspirations. "Bullying"? Muhammad was himself a bully, as attested to repeatedly in the Hadith and his Sirah.  One example: his persecution of poets who had made fun of him. For his treatment of some of them, "bullying" is hardly the word: torture and killing are the more accurate
In a June 2017 tweet, he commented on a CNN International report quoting the bishop of Southwark Cathedral in London after terrorists killed eight people in that city. According to CNN, the bishop stated that the attack and the killings were "not what the Muslim faith asks people to do." Isaacs responded, "Bishop, if you read the Quran you will know 'this' is exactly what the Muslim faith instructs the faithful to do."
Isaacs is correct and the Bishop is wrong.  That's just plain fact.  The Washington Post is also wrong. Because it posts the above clearly thinking that it’s the Bishop who’s right. Yet he’s not. Again, see the Islamic Trinity.  The Bishop and the Post are ignorant and wishful thinking.
And in Twitter replies to expressions of sorrow about the 2016 Orlando nightclub terrorist attack, he simply tweetedthe hashtag #Islam.
The Left and Islamopologists try to paint this attack as an anti-LGBTQ+ attack.  It was not, as proven by statements from the perpetrator himself.  It was done in the name of Islam.

What's happened here is a surfeit of honesty from Ken Isaacs. Perhaps ill-advised honesty, given his public profile and what he must know of what happens to critics of the ideology of Islam — smeared as  "Islamophobes" -- in today's perfervid climate.  But his statements, honest as they are, are certainly not bigoted. Nor are they "...appalling by themselves."

What is "appalling" is how a quality newspaper such as the Post can allow itself to run such specious and politically correct nonsense.

Popular Posts