Dennis Prager wonders why “Few in the West Are Serious about
Islamist Terror,” and I have an answer for him. It is that there is no such a
thing as Islamist terror. He made his views known in an article that came by
that title, a piece that was published on July 19, 2016 in National Review
Online.
If the most terrorizing act in life is to stone a woman for
committing adultery, the West and the rest of the World have learned that this
barbarity is a basic tenet of the Jewish religion, and never has been that of
Islam or Christianity. Whereas the Christians and the Muslims have said “let he
who has never sinned throw the first stone,” the Jews have been throwing stones
left and right as if they were as sinless as a child that's living in a world
as sinful as the savage Jewish settlers who terrorize the Palestinians in their
country, in their towns and in their homes.
And while the Jews say they adhere to the law that says an
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, they practice the rule that says this
must be the minimum pain they inflict on those they suspect to have hurt them …
whether or not guilt is established. Thus, the Jews regularly engage in sprees
to gouge as many eyes as they can, and pull as many teeth as they have the
strength to do … as long as the world will let them.
This being Judaism, Dennis Prager provides proof that you
cannot cure a Jew of it anymore than you can cure a Nazi of his Nazism. Here is
what he complains about now: “The universities teach students the falsehood
that there is no moral difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism.”
It is his way to stress the point he has been making over and over again, to
the effect that Judaism stands supreme over the other religions. And here he
is, placing Islam at the bottom of the ranking system he devised.
That's bad enough, but does not in itself designate Dennis
Prager as equal to the Nazis. What takes him there is what he says next. Here
it is: “to deny there is something Muslim about the theology of those who
commit atrocities against 'infidels' is to deny an important truth about
Islamic terror. It therefore prevents the only solution to Muslim violence”.
With that, Prager alludes to the fact that Christianity, as
an institution, was as brutal as some of today's Muslim kids. The point being
that because Christianity was reformed, it is now a more gentle religion. And
so, he makes clear that once we stop denying that Islam needs to be reformed,
and the Muslims get on with the business of reforming it, Islam will become as
gentle as Christianity. Okay. But what about Judaism? It has been around for
something like 15 centuries longer than Christianity, and something like 20
centuries longer than Islam? Has it reformed? Can it be reformed? Or is it
impossible to reform Judaism as it is to reform Nazism?
Dennis Prager does not come close to answering those
questions, but makes arguments that reveal which way he leans. He does so by
blaming the bad behavior of the Muslim kids on America 's Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton, as well as Angela Merkel of the European Union. He complains that
Obama refuses to blame Islam for what a few Muslim kids do. He also complains
that Clinton wants to take Syrian refugees into America . And he
complains that Merkel took many refugees into Germany already, and plans to take
even more.
But these are the qualities of mercy that separate the noble
people from the Nazis. They also separate the world of Christianity and Islam
from the world of Judaism. If this is a harsh assessment of the Jewish
character, consider what Dennis Prager says at the end of his article: “Most
people in the West do not share its elites' broken moral compass”.
What he is alluding to is what the Nazis were saying. They
believed that human compassion was a weakness of the moral compass that kept
many a nation from progressing. For this reason, the Nazis exterminated the
weak in their midst and distributed the resources that were allocated to them,
among the remaining strong. And this, my friend, makes it imperative that
Dennis Prager should come out and clearly explain if he wants to exterminate
the compassionate Europeans the way that the Nazis exterminated the weak among
them.
The way things look now is that he believes the nation can
stay strong only if the public will maintain its moral compass intact. And the
way to do this is to rid the population of compassion.