Pauline’s ‘good Muslims’ comment twisted out of context by legacy media. By Mark Powell in The Spectator.

Senator Pauline Hanson recently made headlines for comments she made about radical Islam’s incompatibility with the values of Western democracies such as Australia. While many in the media have taken her words out of context to imply that she said there were ‘no good Muslims’, it is important to listen to what she actually said. …

Senator Hanson: … I’ve got no time for the radical Islam, their religion concerns me because of what it says in the Quran. They hate Westerners, and that’s what it’s all about.

You know, you say, ‘O there’s good Muslims out there.’ Well, I’m sorry, how can you tell me there are good Muslims if jihad is ever called …

What’s a good Muslim?

• Hanson was saying it’s “someone who obeys the Quran.” Which implies that Muslims can be good people if they do not follow the Quran too closely.
• The legacy media imply she meant “a good person”, and that therefore she was saying no Muslims are good people.

Where would the narrative people be without lying and twisting the words of their opponents?

Uh oh:

What does it mean though for someone who submits to the religion of Islam to live as a good Muslim? In particular, will the practice of their Islamic faith result in them seeking to ultimately implement Sharia law upon the rest of society such as the wearing of a burqa for all women? In short, will these ‘good Muslims’ seek to express their faith theocratically as they have done so repeatedly in history, and are currently still doing throughout the world?

This is where it is crucial to understand the symbiotic relationship between ‘Islam’ and ‘Sharia’. As the Middle East expert and author Dr Raymond Ibrahim helpfully explains … the term ‘Islam’ is the descriptive name of the religion, ‘Sharia’ is the prescriptive way of upholding it.

 

 

Ibrahim:

Here at last we come to the root problem. The Muslim way of life is in many respects antithetical to the Western way of life. Not least in the latter was — at least in its origins — based on the Christian way of life.

Think about it. Hate for, discrimination against and jihad on non-Muslims, wife beating, polygamy, even sex slavery, draconian punishments for including execution of those who blaspheme against Muhammad, or try to apostatise from Islam.

All of these are part of Sharia. That is all of these are part of the Muslim way of and to life no less than Islam’s so-called five pillars, prayer, fasting, etc.

In short, to be a practising Muslim is to be a Sharia-compliant Muslim. They are one and the same.

Powell again:

Are there morally upright citizens in Australia who are Muslim? Of course there are! But are those who are good Muslims — just like someone might be a ‘good’ Catholic or a ‘good’ Jew — actually good for the nation state of Australia?

Well, that’s a very uncomfortable question, but it is also an increasingly important debate that we clearly need to have.

Especially if we believe that criticism of Islam does not nullify the core democratic value of free speech.

And only Pauline Hanson had the courage to wade in headfirst.