Storm Track Disinformation: Ignorance & the Usual Apologist Response

Two editorials caught my attention of the weekend. One from Dar Al Hayat, a Lebanese newspaper, and the other from the Magic City Morning Star.

In a column in response to a previous column, a Mr. Aboo Mohammed took issue with a letter from a Michael Devolin in which Devolin wrote about ‘apologists for Islam’. After doing the required duty of inviting Devolin to Islam, Mohammed started to take issue with some of Devolin’s comments. One of which was the comparison of the Islamists to the Nazis, which I have also stated here in my blog, and comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf.

Mohammed’s response was classic apologist. He pleaded ignorance and replied that he never read Mein Kampf. This in itself is no excuse since one doesn’t have to read Hitler’s tome to understand what it preached and predicted. The Internet, cable TV, and many references in who knows how many books and movies should have provided Mohammed with enough information to understand Devolin’s comparison – agreed to or not. Perhaps Mohamed should have taken his nose out the Koran and read a little bit of history.

But I digress.

Mohammed then goes on with another classic apologist statement saying that Hitler was a Christian. He definitely was not. The Nazis persecuted all faiths and sought to displace them with the new ‘Religion of the Blood’ – the religion of the Master Race. German school children were taught to worship Hitler as their God. Here’s an example.

At a Christmas celebration in 1926 he thought it appropriate to compare his own historical importance favorably with that of Jesus. Christ had changed the dating of history; so would Hitler, for his final victory over the Jews would mark the beginning of a new age in the history of the world. "What Christ began," he observed, he, Hitler, "would complete." And in a speech on 10 February 1933 he parodied the Lord's Prayer in promising that under him a new kingdom would come on earth, and that his would be "the power and the glory, Amen."

Mohammed then alluded to writings in the Bible preaching violence and such but he does not confront the issue that the negative teachings in the Judeo-Christian Bible are not fully practiced today and are kept in check by secular law. The only religion today that practices the violent teachings – unrestrained – in its ‘book of faith’ is Islam.

Then we have the thoughts of Ayoon Wa Azan in the Dar Al Hayat. This a classic example of the phrase, “When you find yourself in a hole – stop digging.” The writer here takes issue with Daniel Pipes excellent take on the less visible threat of Islamism. Pipes is running Islamist Watch whose objective is to "combat the ideas and institutions of non-violent, radical Islam in the United States and other Western countries. It exposes the far-reaching goals of Islamists, works to reduce their power, and seeks to strengthen moderate Muslims."

Me thinks the writer protests too much. Instead of taking issue with the litany of examples that Pipes uses to prove his case, the writer reports on Pipe’s stand – and does little to refute it. Instead, like a petulant child (remember Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s comment about being treated by the West like a 4 year old?) he resorts to name calling.

It’s difficult to have a rational logical discussion with Islamic appeasers and apologists if they don’t know their history and resort to using words like racist and Islamophobe.