Recently, there were two articles that piqued my interest and this entry will focus on one of them. It was by a man named Dean Obeidallah, an American-born Muslim of Palestinian and Italian descent. His biography claims that he is a comedian and "groundbreaking" in the sense that Lenny Bruce was groundbreaking. But, instead of using profanity and testing the limits of free speech, Obeidallah uses his comedy to dispel Muslim stereotypes and racism. For this, he has received several awards. He is also author of a blog called The Dean's Report which comments on topics of the day in the news. After perusing several of his blog entries (WARNING: Don't waste your time), I can safely say that he is neither funny nor intelligent. His take on constitutional law, the NSA and Eric Snowden, gay marriage and other issues is simply lacking in intelligent discourse unless you accept the possibility that his stupidity is deliberate in a sad attempt to be "funny."
His latest rant showed up on both the Huffington Post and the Daily Beast, two liberal outlets I regularly consult to confirm the fact that liberals are, in fact, nuts. His article is titled, "Rand Paul's Hate Speech Sounded Just Like Al Qaeda," which for a Muslim to equate Rand Paul with Al Qaeda takes some chutzpah. This was in response to Paul's speech before Value Voters summit recently held in Washington. The opening paragraph is summarily dismissive of Paul's speech because he addressed neither Obamacare, the debt limit or the government shutdown. Mind you, this summit is dedicated to and attended by socially (not fiscally) conservative groups, individuals and politicians. Thus, dismissing Rand Paul's speech because he addressed the Muslim war on Christians indicates Obeidallah does not know what this group even represents and, in fact, Paul's speech probably had more to do with the group than other speeches. The key word is "Value" in the group and Obeidallah and others just cannot get it through their heads that values derive from religious belief. In a country like the United States, socially conservative values derive directly from Christian religious beliefs. Although liberals may try to rewrite history, they cannot get beyond the fact that the United States was founded by rather religious people who espoused rather Christian religious beliefs and because of that, the United States is today probably the most religiously tolerant country in the world and certainly light years ahead of any Muslim country.
He later makes the broad assertion that besides Paul asserting there is a Muslim war on Christianity (actually, all things non-Muslim), he also states Paul apparently believes that birth control is immoral, as is gay marriage. That is a bit of a stretch since Paul did not address either of these issues in his speech.
He then goes on to discount Paul's hypothesis of this Muslim war on Christians by stating that Paul cites a few actions against Christians in a few Muslim countries. In other words, the few stories that actually do make the news are the outlying examples of Islamic extremism. As such, they should just be ignored which the mainstream does a good job in that area- ignorance. But, after accusing Paul of using these allegedly isolated instances of violence against Christians, he then uses a single isolated incident of Muslims in Peshawar, Pakistan banding together to protect Christians from radicals. Odeidallah leaves unmentioned where these Muslims were when a bomb exploded in a Christian church killing 171 innocent people. Its great that they banded together- after the fact. I guess we can all rest easier tonight knowing this.
He then goes on to state that 82-97% of the victims of Islamic violence are actually Muslims. First, that is a pretty large range- is it 82% or 97%? Actually, who cares? The operative phrase here is "Islamic violence." It may just be true that most victims are Muslim, but how does that excuse those acts of violence directed against Christians in the name of Allah? Because Muslims cannot get their sectarian act together in no way excuses the innocent deaths of Christians at the hands of Muslims- radical or not. In fact, this fact belies the other fact that Muslims have no trouble resorting violence. What is to stop a religion which has no compunctions against using violence against itself directing that violence towards us infidels?
The mindset of this belief is then set forth in his analysis of the Boston Marathon bombing. Here, he asserts that if the Tsarnaev brothers were committing an act of religious violence against Christians, then they could have more easily bombed a church- like in Peshawar. And the reason he believes this? Because Boston has no shortage of churches.
After the attack on Paul, he then equates the speech with one given by recruiters for Al Qaeda. In a weird attempt at the "poor, poor pitiful oppressed Muslim" line of attack, he states that if Paul gave a speech about acts of Jewish violence, he would be labeled an anti-Semite. In fact, he seems to believe that if any ethnic group was inserted into Paul's speech instead of Muslims, there would be outrage. But then he says that the Paul speech which, incidentally, received scant attention in the press would be and has been labeled "politically incorrect." He challenges that conclusion by asserting the Paul speech was "hate speech."
This is the problem with liberal thought or possibly, in Obeidallah's case, bad comedy. When truths are presented that do not quite fit their insulated world of thought, immediately there are cries of racism or Islamaphobia. How else can one explain an attack perpetrated by Muslims on a Christian church during services which left over 170 people dead other than an attack on Christians? This was not an attack on us imperialist Yankees. How else can one define the attack on the mall in Nairobi, Kenya where non-Muslims were singled out for torture and execution? How else can one define the brutal attacks on the Coptic Christian community in Egypt at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood after their poster boy hero, Mohammed Morsi, was deposed? How else can one define the almost daily slaughter of Christian ministers and school children in Nigeria which the mainstream press ignores? How else can one define the actions of the Muslim extremists currently composing the resistance against Assad in Syria where Christian villages are overrun while McCain's new best friends force people to convert to Islam lest they lose their heads at the end of a sword?
One needs to ask why liberals and especially their feminist allies are so silent against the debauchery of forced marriages involving eight-year-old girls in Yemen and elsewhere, the denial of rights we take for granted here (like going to school), and honor killings are so silent. There is the story out of Tunisia of a young 21-year-old girl who was sent to Syria under the promise of "paradise." That paradise involved having 152 "husbands." Put any other way, Muslim leaders in Tunisia simply pimped her out. Despite these atrocities against Christians, not a single Muslim head of state has stood up and denounced these actions because they are, at the end of day, nothing short of cowards.
Because he is American and lives in the United States, Obeidallah is entitled to his opinions and writing silly blog entries that attempt to educate us uneducated infidels about how peace loving Islam is. In the past ten years, the number of deaths in the name of Allah far outnumbers those in the name of Jesus Christ or Yawyeh. The three major religions may all be traced back to Abraham and his offspring, but two-thirds of his offspring matured or evolved beyond the violent responses more fitting of the Bronze Age.
No, Dean Obeidallah, there is a Muslim war against Christians and he can bury his head in the sand all he wants and dismiss these daily incidents as outlying extremists who do not truly represent the Muslim faith. If that is so, then one should challenge Muslim leaders to rise up and prove it. Instead, we have deafening silence and cowardice and excuses and ignorance- "Ignore that man behind the curtain!!" Jesus Christ taught one to turn the other cheek. Mohammed taught one to use a sword to cut off a head...or foot...or hand. Islam was born in violence and has not progressed much from there. Obeidallah can make all the excuses he wants to, but when push comes to shove, I doubt he would be one of those Muslims he talks about in Peshawar who defended Christian protesters who had the audacity to mourn the loss of 171 fellow Christians.
In the interim, all Americans should be thankful there is someone like Rand Paul who is not afraid to speak the truth. Ironically, that truth protects the speech of people like Dean Obeidallah. He should ask himself: would any of his blog entries be published in a Muslim country? Would he be an up-and-coming comedian in any Muslim country? My guess is that he would be an apologist for the actions of Muslims against Christians because he does a good job of it here in the United States.