"Easter Egg" Found in Parade Story

From time to time (read: on at least a near-weekly basis), the multiculturalists at the Houston Chronicle have to remind their loutish subscribers that Moslems are "just like us" by white-washing some aspect of the "religion of peace".

Recently, for example, there was a story about an anti-cartoon "rally" in downtown Houston. A protestor was pictured with a sign that gratuitously blamed a "shrine" bombing in Iraq on the fact that the Western press dared to show images of my blog's mascot, the "prophet" Mohammed. The reporter covering this parade of idiocy helpfully captioned the picture "Educating the Public". And, of course, the rest of the reporting was just as in-depth and tough-minded. In other words, whatever the Moslem interviewees wanted to say about my mascot and their religion was repeated verbatim and without question.

Yesterday, another gathering of Moslems was reported, this one scheduled to occur today, as a celebration of the birth of Mohammed, the anniversary of whose unfortunate arrival actually is Tuesday, according to the lunar calendar used by Islam. The initial paragraphs should convey the sort of gutsy, hard-hitting reporting that it takes to collect a paycheck in the newspaper of America's fourth-largest city.

The celebration of the birthday of Islam's Prophet Muhammad, long observed in homes, mosques and community centers, moves to the streets downtown Sunday as Muslims of different stripes gather to express unity and admiration for the faith's founder.

The gathering and parade, which starts in Market Square, has been organized by an umbrella group of the Houston area's Sunni and Shia Muslim communities, groups that in other parts of the world are sometimes at violent odds.

Stop the presses! After reading that other news story, the admission that Moslems are ever violent is a veritable gale of fresh air! Maybe someone at the Chronicle read my other blog entry and decided that they needed to do something to keep readers like me from rolling our eyes and flipping the page too quickly. Well, it worked! And the effort of reading further was somewhat rewarding, but not in they way they hoped. I found the Easter Egg that was hidden in their story.

Of course, before we get to the good stuff, we have to hear more undiluted praise for the man whose minions slew 3,000 of my countrymen nearly five years ago.

"Prophet Muhammad is not a person who gives anything else but peace and love, and in our opinion he is the best example of living as a human being," said Imran Rizvi, a Shia. "Staying in the mosque we can not share that with other cultures and other religions." [link added]

Yeah, and in other parts of the world, staying in mosques can be a deadly proposition when other followers of Mohammed follow his example and ambush them. But we'll get back to that train of thought in a moment.

A short moment, for the next subsection title is a howler: "Conservatives steer clear".

In general, more conservative adherents of the faith, such as those of the conservative Salafi tradition common in Saudi Arabia, steer clear of the observance, said David Cook, an assistant professor of religious studies at Rice University.

In Islam, Muhammad is considered the last messenger of God who received revelation that became the holy book, the Quran. Muhammad is not considered divine himself but a human being whose life is considered a model for Muslims.

"You will find celebrations of the prophet's birthday in any Muslim country that is not inordinately influenced by Salafis," Cook said. "There will not be a celebration in Saudi Arabia." [link added]

So Moslems are doing something here that would be verboten in Saudi Arabia, our self-proclaimed "ally" against terrorism, de facto hosts of the World Cup, and homeland of at least 12 of the September 11 hijackers (not to mention Osama bin Laden): They are using the birth date of the "prophet" Mohammed as an excuse to cavort about like Americans! Don't they know that, "There is no fun in Islam"?

Why would that be permitted -- aside from the fact that in America, the celebrants have something, government recognition of their freedom of speech, they don't have in most Islamic states? More to the point, what might a bunch of religious authorities stand to gain from such Western behavior by a bunch of their own followers? The same thing perhaps, that the reporters of the Chronicle seem so willing to give them: Namely, the appearance of being genuinely "peaceful".

Let's stop for a moment to consider what "peaceful" really means. And whether islam really can be a "religion of peace". Dictionary.com gives us a few worthwhile definitions to start out with.

1. Undisturbed by strife, turmoil, or disagreement; tranquil. See Synonyms at calm.
2. Inclined or disposed to peace; peaceable.
3. Of or characteristic of a condition of peace.

We get into trouble instantly with the first definition as soon as we leave the confines of the United States of America and consider recent examples of Islamic behavior! Why might that be?

Consider first what Ayn Rand had to say in her lecture "Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World" on the matter of men resorting to force as a means of dealing with one another.

I have said that faith and force are corollaries, and that mysticism will always lead to the rule of brutality. The cause of it is contained in the very nature of mysticism. Reason is the only objective means of communication and of understanding among men; when men deal with one another by means of reason, reality is their objective standard and frame of reference. But when men claim to possess supernatural means of knowledge, no persuasion, communication or understanding are possible. Why do we kill wild animals in the jungle? Because no other way of dealing with them is open to us. And that is the state to which mysticism reduces mankind -- a state where, in case of disagreement, men have no recourse except to physical violence. And more: no man or mystical elite can hold a whole society subjugated to their arbitrary assertions, edicts and whims, without the use of force. Anyone who resorts to the formula: "It's so, because I say so," will have to reach for a gun, sooner or later. [bold added]

Indeed, considered by that standard, there is no such thing as a "religion of peace"!

And now, consider what one interviewee in the Chronicle story had to say about celebrating Mohammed's birthday.

Rodwan Saleh, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, does not participate in celebrations of the prophet's birth. Indeed, the society, one of the largest Muslim organizations in Houston, is not sponsoring any events.

As Saleh sees it, celebration of the prophet's birth is an innovation in the faith -- not something practiced by Muhammad or his earliest followers.

"The fear is that by celebrating the day of his birth, we lose sight of the importance of what his message was," said Saleh, a New York City native. "His message was not to celebrate his date of birth but to follow the commands." [bold added]

And so we have, as an "Easter Egg", the answer to the question our guileless reporter failed to ask. Might it be that Moslems resort to so much violence against non-Moslems because they have only commands, but no arguments? And might this further explain why deadly inter-sectarian violence among Moslems is conspicuously absent from the bowels of the "Great Satan", where some even have the temerity to celebrate the "prophet's" birthday while others can only grouse about it? Might some practicioners of the "religion of peace" want us to forget what peace really requires, so they can get us to stupidly accept the yoke of dhimmitude before we completely understand what it means? America's founders, influenced by the Enlightenment, understood the importance of reason, and created a government premised on the notion that men should be free to use their own minds, that their rights -- including freedom of expression -- had to be protected.

Note that CAIR, normally so litigious, has strangely failed to file an injunction to stop this parade, even though it undeniably offends the sensibilities of some (cough) "conservative" Moslems! Might it be that some hope most Americans will see the parade and, helped along by useful idiots like reporter Tara Dooley, give Islam the pass, having somewhat forgotten (they hope) the grief from that terrible day in 2001? The end of the story certainly makes it seem so to me.

[Rafat] Jilani remembers that when she was a child in Pakistan, celebrations of [Mohammed's birthday] were public occasions. People would put lights on their homes and gather in public parks, she said.

"To us, it is a good deed if we are doing it outside and whoever is walking can come and join," Jilani said.

Yeah. Bask in the warm glow of the freedom my forefathers died for. Spread the word that Islam is a "religion of peace" while not making a big fuss out of harmless "conservatives" like Rodwan Saleh, who at least speak the true nature of Islam. And ignore the results of Islam put into practice everywhere else in the world, Pakistan included.

We are seeing a reporter -- whose livelihood depends upon the protection of freedom of speech -- missing the big story by a mile and, in the process, becoming a part of it. Reporters like her are helping Moslems pretend that their religion is no threat to life, liberty, and happiness. Indeed, this reporter doubtless feels goodwill towards the Moslems she covered and yet misses a point that should give her pause. If our nation slowly succumbs to Islamic law, as has started with the Danish cartoons, all of us, including these Moslems, will pay for it.

For once, I find myself in full agreement -- although for entirely different reasons -- with a "conservative" Moslem: Mohammed's birthday is nothing to celebrate.

-- CAV