It’s Dangerous to Call Muslims Dangerous

The Washington Times headline, “Bill Maher: Liberals too soft on Islam” (May 10, 2014) caught my attention because Maher, for all his usual crazy liberal insanity, has got the Islam issue right.

Maher’s cable show had three combatants recently when they discussed Islam and the kidnapping of the 300 school girls in Nigeria. Arianna Huffington, President of the Huffington Post online, Comedian Baratunde Thurston, and Matt Welch editor of They exchanged opinions like little school kids trading marbles and with the same results, nothing substantial gained when it was all done.

Huffington started off the quibbling by saying she believes it’s “dangerous” to stereotype all Muslims as terrorists. Agreed, but a flimsy straw man argument at best, because no one claims all Muslims are terrorists. Nothing more satisfies a liberal than beating a straw man like a piñata to prove a point that no one holds.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Eagle Rising updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Now, of course she’s right about stereotyping in general, making a blanket statement about an entire group of people is nearly always going to be incorrect. But what she claims to defend isn’t an issue that needs defending because nobody holds that claim. But she appreciates the liberals who nod incessantly as if to agree with her pointless babble.

noislamArianna’s other point, the one she wasn’t making, is true. Like a broken clock that’s correct a couple times a day, she hits the mark, but that doesn’t mean she hit the target she was aiming at, just as the clock showing the right time doesn’t mean it’s working properly.

Defenders of Islam often speak with an ignorant and sometimes arrogant confidence that seems to impress others, but it’s void of the facts of what Islam actually says about things like jihad. Liberals like Arianna say the terrorists are not true Muslims (how does she know this?) and cannot be following true Islam (how does she know that?) and thus she concludes the jihadists are simply a crazy fringe who sully the reputation of peaceful Islam and good Muslims.

Her words may be of comfort to some and they may fit the description of what we know about nearly every single other demographic group regarding stereotyping. However, if she read the Qur’an, she would find that Islam is unique in that it is the only religion that advocates, commands, for its adherents to engage in violence and war. Martyrdom is encouraged. What other sacrament does Islam have other than violence through jihad?

islamrage2Those ignorant of Islam seem more concerned with those who are critical of Islam than those perpetrating jihad in the name of Islam. They want the Islamophobes to go away or have their free speech revoked through “hate speech” legislation. They seem to have little energy to decry the kidnappers and the killers. They never refute the jihadists with scripture. They never refute the so-called “Islamophobes” with scripture. The kidnappers and killers are never given the same energy and focus and calls to stop — as is given in trying to silence those who point out the correlation between the Islamic texts and the actions of jihadists.

What we have here is a giant leap of faith by the defenders of Islam. They refuse serious discussion, they dismiss the passages in question, they don’t research the texts to see if it says what the jihadists claim it says. It’s the jihadists who make the claim that they are doing the work of Allah; nobody is putting words in their mouth. So how can they be wrong if the text agrees with them? We naturally want to agree with the peaceful Muslim that the text is also peaceful — but one cannot come to that conclusion after reading it.

The reason so many default to the answers they give in defense of Islam is due to the fact that they come to the discussion with their mind already made up about one very important point: Islam is a legitimate religious faith. So they accord it value and respect. This mindset comes from the subjective worldview liberals have been feeding us for years that says all opinions are valid, equal, valuable, all perspectives must be tolerated and understood, that all faiths must be respected. This view has corrupted the mind of man and has polluted our ability to see fallacy and evil and declare it so, with confidence.

What strikes me so deeply about Arianna’s answer is how right she is beyond what she was attempting to convey in her answer. Unbeknownst to her it is far more “dangerous” in terms of real bodily harm to be critical of Islam or Muhammad at all, for the very Muslims whom she defends as not being extreme will threaten a person for denigrating Islam or Muhammad. Everyone knows this. So the bottom line is, it’s very dangerous to be critical of Islam or Muhammad at all, because by doing so many (mainstream) Muslims will want to do you (the kafir) harm or will at minimum attempt to murder your reputation.

islam2But no need to take my word for it, just ask any of these brave souls, like author Salman Rushdie, author Robert Spencer, comedian Penn Jillette, actor Omar Sharif, Beatle Paul McCartney, television host David Letterman, coptic Christians across the Middle East, Pamela Geller, Brigitte Gabriel, author Nonie Darwish, Ibn Warraq, former terrorist Walid Shoebat, Raymond Ibrahim, Zuhdi Jasser, Daniel Pipes, Honor Diaries star Ayann Hirsi Ali, or, well, you get it, the list could go on and on. Speak ill of Islam or Muhammad and you just might find out how dangerous free speech really is and how peaceful and tolerant and supportive of the First Amendment Muslims really are.

Perhaps liberals do get it but are simply too frightened by the realization that since they don’t believe in the Second Amendment — they’re pretty much like gold fish in a bowl, at a house party of cats. Remaining silent, through self-censorship is a pretty good game plan for them, for now. But, like the Nazis or the communists, eventually they will come for you too.

Matt Welch, one of the panelists, mentioned that the Boko Haram kidnappers had ties to Islam and that Islam “is providing a disproportionate share of radical nut bags killing people.”

So what makes Boko Haram “nut bags?” Because they are so far off the reservation of decency and virtue? Perhaps? But religiously they’re only “nut bags” if they don’t have real marching orders. Qur’an 9:111 tells us what their marching orders are: “Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden (Paradise) will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain.”

boko haramComedian Baratunde Thurston and Arianna Huffington both echoed again the same liberal defense that the religion as a whole should not be condemned because of a few radicals. I don’t condemn Islam because of any radicals, Islam’s texts condemn Islam, the radicals are simply the fruits of the text. The jihadists agree with the text. It’s the liberal defenders of Islam that are putting America and the world at risk, not those riding in the night like Paul Revere trying to wake up the people to what lies in store if we continue on the path of appeasement.

Liberals and defenders of Islam are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It all seems so small and far away to them. It always will until someone tells them to turn it over. Perhaps the Jay Leno led protest of the Beverly Hills Hotel (owned by the Sultan of Brunei and his Sharia tyranny) will help.

Funny man Thurston even tried to spread around some equality of violence (liberals love equality) by mentioning that radical Christians perpetrated violence in the past. He didn’t give an example but you remember the Inquisition, don’t you? The Salem Witch Trials? What Islam does in a year — the Inquisition couldn’t in 500. I think some liberals need to go back to school and crack open a few books on history. And by the way, where in the Gospel is this behavior sanctioned?

Maher surprisingly defended the Christian west and sited one poll that suggested “something like 80 or 90 percent” of Muslims in Egypt agree that death is the appropriate penalty for leaving Islam (being an apostate). Now while this is an important point and a sick realization of the mindset of the Egyptian people, they didn’t just come up with this on their own. It is Islamic scripture. It’s doctrine that they are following. These are the beliefs of believers. Qur’an 4:89 “But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them . . . ”

muslim march2According to Dr. Bill Warner the Qur’an commits 64% of its text to the Kafir (non-believer) and it says that the Muslim must not take the Kafir as a friend, (Qur’an 4:144 “Believers! Do not take unbelievers as friends… Would you give Allah a clear reason to punish you?”). Then it says in Qur’an 4:93 “He that kills a believer (Muslim) by design shall burn in Hell forever.” Why not simply condemn all murder (as says the 6th Commandment)? Are Muslims more valuable than non-Muslims? 2 Peter 3:9 says “The Lord… is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Are we to believe the Qur’an when it says to kill the kafir rather than to be patient? Did God change his mind or is the Qur’an a corrupt work?

Maher continued “If 84 percent of Brazilians thought that death was the proper penalty for leaving Catholicism, wouldn’t that be a bigger story?” It would be, because liberals in the west love hypocrisy. The liberal media would be all over such news, A) because it would give them a chance to denigrate the religion of the west and B) it would give them the opportunity to link Catholics / Christians with an insane, inhumane, irrational, illogical position. In other words, the west loves to make unsubstantiated correlations when it comes to Christians, but they defend the Muslim from the same charges — even when we have the Qur’anic scriptures are provided to prove it.

Say something vile about Jesus, draw a caricature, put a crucifix in a jar of urine and no one, literally no one, fears harm from Christians. Draw a cartoon of Muhammad or say something ill of the prophet or point out that he married a 6 year old girl or that he beheaded 700 Jews in Bani Qurayzah, or that he took many wives, or sold captives as slaves, or allowed wife beating, or used terror as an instrument to spread Islam… and you will not only hear about threats of violence, you will get violence. You will have streets closed, events cancelled, demonstrations, property damaged, rioting, calls for apologies. If you’re real lucky you could even get a fatwa on your head.

But this is where the rubber meets the road in this whole debate. This is where the defenders of Islam and those that want to equate Christian violence with Islamic violence have it all wrong. The two religions have almost nothing in common. The violence committed by Christians is condemned by the Bible — there is no distinction between the believer and the unbeliever. The violence committed by jihadists is a command in the Qur’an and Hadith and is a tactic of Islam evangelism through terror.

What Arianna and nearly all liberals refuse to understand about Muslim jihad, violence and killing, is that it is the foundation of the religion. The jihadists are not wayward souls going off the deep end. These are the fellas who are swimming in the deep end, committed to being like Muhammad. The jihadists are living up to the standards of their religious texts by acting in the same feral and barbaric ways of its founder. The Qur’an sanctions the violence seen in Muslim nations, and that is now spilling onto the shores of the (disbelieving) west.


The Christian Bible does not sanction terror or violence or compulsion, some even claim it is pacifistic. So while individuals of faith might do violence — only the Qur’an advocates for it. The Holy Bible is the instrument by which the whole world can make moral proclamations — knowing goodness and justice. The differences between Christ and Muhammad are as stark as love and hate, as stark as the texts of their revelations and the actions of their followers. That is the ultimate and final difference between what can be known about Islam and the stupidity of those who defend it.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

About the author

David Whitley

David is a deacon at his local church and a perpetual student of religion, politics and American history. Author, speaker, blogger, David lives in Southern California with his wife and their three children. You can follow him on Twitter @cogitarus or online at He's available for speaking engagements upon request.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to a friend