Location; Location; Location: Which is Better; Mecca or Jerusalem

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Jun 17, 2021 at 12:40

Once again, reader Prashant offers an astute observation regarding what might be called a de facto status quo, that while Muslim status of citizenship in Israel is one of 'inconvenience' in comparison to their fellow Muslims elsewhere (anywhere else; as a matter of fact, how is it that Muslims such as Keith Ellison or Ilhan Omar fare pretty well in a society that tolerates their hatred for things American), the preference to maintaining that seems easy to accommodate, when even allowing for an occasion of unruly conduct.
Strangely, this mimics the same set of circumstances when looking at similar attitudes and conduct from the leftist secularistic humanists in free society situations; their attitude towards liberty is baffling, since that freedom is used to argue against said liberty. Go figure. But to Prashant's point, do they expect to have the same benefits if, for some extreme set of circumstances, Israel capitulates (which will never happen) and the Quran becomes the rule of law?
Beyond that expectation, humanity is already in a worsened state of incomprehensible uncertainty where the main point of Prashant's narrative is about a society of sinners - all have sinned. The answer to that predicament is one that if it is not recognized for what the message said, all will perish and it will make no difference if a Muslim lives in Medina, Mecca, Kabul or Teheran; they will never have it as good as they do in Israel, which survives. What's the point of loyalty then?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".