faux-journalist and Islam apologist Amanpour exposes the truth
This is something for all those with an opinion on Islam to read.
Amanpour Inadvertently Exposes the Real Issue with Islam "Recently, Christianne Amanpour hosted a panel discussion meant to explore the misunderstood delineation between moderate and extremist Islam.
A dichotomy is certainly brought to light in discussion, but considering Amanpour is a staunch Islamic apologist, it is probably not the one she meant to expose. She likely sought to support the notion that Islam is peaceful, and to advance the belief that only a small contingent of radicals corrupts the faith. [...]
Americans are familiar with the strategy. It's the standard stuff that tends to make Christians look intolerant and Muslims look misunderstood.
But one portion of the discussion hurls a monkey-wrench into those plans. When Amanpour addresses the ideas of Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary, she has the audacity to question his ideas about Islamic domination. Choudary proclaims that he disagrees with the entire focus of the segment, and argues that the notions of moderate Islam or extremist Islam are nonsense. There is only Islam, whose followers 'submit to the creator.' Then, in an effort to convey that Islam can live in peace with the Western world, he concludes, 'We do believe as Muslims that the east and the west will one day be governed by the Sharia. Indeed we believe that one day the flag of Islam will fly over the White House.'"
(Here's the two minute video. What's fascinating and should be disturbing to all is that Amanpour never appears to challenge the fact that what the cleric claims will happen can only happen by force, by the destruction of our Constitution.)
"So a Muslim woman in the panel decided to take Choudary to task for his reckless and inflammatory statements, and she went on to instruct him that Islam is a faith of pluralism, and that it provides an allowance of other faiths to exist in a state of equal importance.
Had she been speaking to the panel's Christian reverend in that moment, she likely could have won the argument just as she has probably won countless others; by merely saying, 'I know better than you Christians do about Islam. I'm a Muslim.' But my guess is that she forgot that she was speaking with someone who had given far more study to the Quran and Hadith than most Christian theologians.
To her assumption of Islamic tolerance of other faiths and legal systems, Choudary simply suggests that she knows nothing of what Islam desires or requires; she doesn't even have the good sense to cover herself. Doesn't she know that the Quran forbids her appearance in that way? So in his eyes, she is not truly a Muslim [...] He even makes the comparison that she is a Muslim in the same way that a person who occasionally eats beef burgers is a vegetarian.
And she cannot argue. The holy book of her faith does explicitly forbid women to present themselves as she does."
"So in regards to the child in the Middle East watching this panel discussion on Al-Jazeera, who is he more likely to believe is correct in their way of thinking? The harlot who does not cover her chest and speaks of the equality of wretched infidels, or the cleric that espouses the will of the prophet?
And that is the true dichotomy exposed in this panel discussion. It is not as the title of the segment implies, 'Moderates vs. Extremists.' It would more aptly be called 'Fundamentalist Islam vs. the Western world.'
While it is important to note that moderate Muslims do exist, it is imperative that we keep that fact within the proper global context. Amanpour and liberal pundits the world over can host hundreds of panels comprised of thousands of Muslims that have embraced Western culture, and that will not change the fact that such voices are irrelevant in the Islamic world."
Until Democrats (Leftists) recognize this our suicide will continue. Unfortunately this alliance or forgiveness between dangerous Islam and the Left is the stuff of a century.
Amanpour Inadvertently Exposes the Real Issue with Islam "Recently, Christianne Amanpour hosted a panel discussion meant to explore the misunderstood delineation between moderate and extremist Islam.
A dichotomy is certainly brought to light in discussion, but considering Amanpour is a staunch Islamic apologist, it is probably not the one she meant to expose. She likely sought to support the notion that Islam is peaceful, and to advance the belief that only a small contingent of radicals corrupts the faith. [...]
Americans are familiar with the strategy. It's the standard stuff that tends to make Christians look intolerant and Muslims look misunderstood.
But one portion of the discussion hurls a monkey-wrench into those plans. When Amanpour addresses the ideas of Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary, she has the audacity to question his ideas about Islamic domination. Choudary proclaims that he disagrees with the entire focus of the segment, and argues that the notions of moderate Islam or extremist Islam are nonsense. There is only Islam, whose followers 'submit to the creator.' Then, in an effort to convey that Islam can live in peace with the Western world, he concludes, 'We do believe as Muslims that the east and the west will one day be governed by the Sharia. Indeed we believe that one day the flag of Islam will fly over the White House.'"
(Here's the two minute video. What's fascinating and should be disturbing to all is that Amanpour never appears to challenge the fact that what the cleric claims will happen can only happen by force, by the destruction of our Constitution.)
"So a Muslim woman in the panel decided to take Choudary to task for his reckless and inflammatory statements, and she went on to instruct him that Islam is a faith of pluralism, and that it provides an allowance of other faiths to exist in a state of equal importance.
Had she been speaking to the panel's Christian reverend in that moment, she likely could have won the argument just as she has probably won countless others; by merely saying, 'I know better than you Christians do about Islam. I'm a Muslim.' But my guess is that she forgot that she was speaking with someone who had given far more study to the Quran and Hadith than most Christian theologians.
To her assumption of Islamic tolerance of other faiths and legal systems, Choudary simply suggests that she knows nothing of what Islam desires or requires; she doesn't even have the good sense to cover herself. Doesn't she know that the Quran forbids her appearance in that way? So in his eyes, she is not truly a Muslim [...] He even makes the comparison that she is a Muslim in the same way that a person who occasionally eats beef burgers is a vegetarian.
And she cannot argue. The holy book of her faith does explicitly forbid women to present themselves as she does."
"So in regards to the child in the Middle East watching this panel discussion on Al-Jazeera, who is he more likely to believe is correct in their way of thinking? The harlot who does not cover her chest and speaks of the equality of wretched infidels, or the cleric that espouses the will of the prophet?
And that is the true dichotomy exposed in this panel discussion. It is not as the title of the segment implies, 'Moderates vs. Extremists.' It would more aptly be called 'Fundamentalist Islam vs. the Western world.'
While it is important to note that moderate Muslims do exist, it is imperative that we keep that fact within the proper global context. Amanpour and liberal pundits the world over can host hundreds of panels comprised of thousands of Muslims that have embraced Western culture, and that will not change the fact that such voices are irrelevant in the Islamic world."
Until Democrats (Leftists) recognize this our suicide will continue. Unfortunately this alliance or forgiveness between dangerous Islam and the Left is the stuff of a century.