Friday, May 15, 2015


I once thought Chicago-based rabbi Harry Maryles was a pretty good blogger on many pressing issues. There were some points on which I disagreed with him, but overall, he did seem to be on the mark with many topics.

Unfortunately, he's now thrown away much of what I would like to appreciate about him for the sake of attacking Pamela Geller (and by extension, Robert Spencer), by accusing her of being an inciter, and otherwise letting jihadists off the hook:
I don’t know whether Pamela Geller is a fool or just plain evil. But one thing she is for sure is wrong. And I am outraged by her tactics.
But you're not outraged at the twosome who tried to murder people at the convention, Maryles?
There are few rational people in the world that justify what these 2 terrorists tried to do. Including the vast majority of Muslims. They were unquestioningly evil - despite the fact that they believed they were defending the honor of Islam. But does that make what Pamela Geller did OK? Not in my view.
Uh oh. Here's where he goes soft as mud on Muslims as a whole, and ignores what's said about how there may be moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam. It gets worse:
The attack was precipitated by Ms. Geller and friends by basically spitting in the face of Islam and calling it free speech. She may have that right. Free speech is protected in this country no matter how hateful it is. Unless it can cause harm to the public. Like yelling ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater when there is no actual fire. The question is, was that the case here? Was what Ms. Geller did here comparable to that?
Gee, what about all the times when Islamofascists did worse than spit, by murdering Jews in the name of the Koran? Maryles misses the point by galaxies - Geller and company were trying to send a message that they will not let Islamic violence silence or intimidate free people. They were also running the contest as a special form of support for those murdered in the name of jihad, like Charlie Hebdo's contributors. And instead of appreciating the idea they had in mind, all he can do is say just what the left would want to hear? Maryles is one of the dumbest people I've ever known.
The event she and others hosted was a contest to see who would create the best caricature of the Islam’s founder, Muhammad. Drawing images of Muhammad is at the very least frowned upon if not outright forbidden by Islamic law. And if it is done in any kind for disrespectful way, it is a cause of great outrage.

Which will inspire a few of the Jihadists among them to try and murder those who do . By now that is no secret. That’s what precipitated the massacre at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo last January in France. Over the years they had published a series of embarrassing caricatures of Muhammad. And they were not the first to experience terror as the result of insulting Islam’s founder.
Excuse me? Here's where a flaw turns up: EVERY way Muhammed were to be drawn is considered disrespectful to Muslims. In the mind of an Islamofascist, drawing Muhammed at all is haram (taboo). The most telling sign Maryles is badly informed (and uses the wrong booleans - "for" instead of "of"). And he doesn't make it any better when he dismisses Charlie Hebdo's caricatures as mere embarrassments.
What possible motive could she have had in holding a competition like this? Protecting free speech? Free speech was doing just fine before she started disparaging other religions. By holding this competition she is perceived even by decent Muslims to be spitting in their face! It is pure folly to do that, not only because you are daring extremists to massacre you, your fellow organizers and participants... but because it is reprehensible to publicly disparage the icons of other religions. It spreads hate and generates retaliation from Jihadists all too eager exact revenge. Which is what happened at Charlie Hebdo in France. And was attempted in Garland, Texas.
Oh really, is it? You have cases of gays and lesbians suing Christian businesses for daring to object to their lifestyle and mentality, while otherwise ignoring Muslim businesses for the same. And, you have CAIR suing writers for exposing their own evil deeds. What else doesn't Maryles understand in his poor education? What he's doing is just what evil misogynists who believe women are to blame for sexual assault because of how they dress or look. In fact, one of the commenters asked:
Here's a similar question:

Suppose signs were posted in a predominantly muslim neighborhood in America that warned that any woman wearing shorts or a tank-top would be subject to beating. Suppose that women have been beaten and murdered when they ignored the signs. Would not the proper response to that be to keep organizing marches through the town with women wearing shorts? Until it became clear that it was safe for them to do it even when alone? Would you consider it wrong to organize that march?

Set aside the issue of whether Geller is self-serving, unlikable or unintelligent, and tell me whether you would call the 'women in shorts' marches evil, despicable, and reprehensible, or whether the marches would be exactly what's needed.
Yes, I want to know what this two-face would say if women were to protest a horrific murder/rape with a special march through a Muslim neighborhood. Maryles is the same man who allegedly finds Haredi extremism reprehensible, but his comments about Geller's contest put that in doubt.

Clifford May had a much better argument than Maryles, and said:
There can be no exceptions to protect the sensibilities of those perceived as "marginalized, ‎embattled, and victimized," nor to mollify Islamic State terrorists -- who have issued a ‎communiqué threatening to "slaughter" Geller -- and such characters as Anjem Choudary, ‎the British Muslim activist who on television last week asserted that by now everyone should ‎understand that drawing Muhammad "carries the death penalty in Islam." His further ‎implication: Islamic law now applies to everyone everywhere. Obey or die.‎
Is that what Maryles wants people to think he favors? For now, I've concluded that most of his arguments on extremism in the Haredi world are unconvincing, and most of his tone way too soft.

No comments: