Why All Muslims Benefit From TerrorismBy David Wood
My hungry toddler woke me up this morning. After making his breakfast, I turned on my computer and found that London had just been struck by terrorists. As I watched news clips for the next few hours, I noticed that, for many in the West, the terror attacks brought back painful memories of September 11th, 2001. For me it was a little different. My thoughts weren’t drawn to the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but to an attack on a local mosque that took place shortly thereafter.
Following the 9-11 attacks, a few enraged vandals smashed the windows of the Islamic Center near Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. When the pastor of a nearby church saw the students vandalizing the mosque, he called the police. Later in the day, police and school officials held a meeting to help ease some of the tension. After the meeting, an angry attendee caused a brief panic when he claimed that Islam is a religion of violence and bloodshed, and that the terrorists were only doing what they were commanded to do in the Qur’an. Several people (including myself) argued against him, confidently assuring the man that Islam is actually a religion of peace.
My beliefs about Islam have changed since then (mostly because I’ve studied Islam). Nevertheless, I recently realized why I had been so quick to defend the Muslim religion. Over the years, I’ve known several Muslims, and they have all been kind, peaceful individuals. Indeed, despite the popular portrait of Muslims burning flags and desecrating images of George Bush, the majority of Muslims are normal, faithful, peaceful people, going about their daily lives with no intention of blowing up buildings or of burning anyone’s flag. Many in the West deny this, but they typically do so because they have never so much as talked to a Muslim.
The benevolent nature of these Muslims has a profound psychological effect on Westerners. It causes us to say, "Wait a minute. Islam can’t be bad, because Muslims are such nice people. Thus, the terrorists who blow up buildings and subways must be extremists." Once we have convinced ourselves of this, we may even find ourselves defending Islam, as I once did. We know that people are angry at terrorists, and we know that some of these angry people may want to take out their anger on Muslims. So we end up defending Islam in order to protect our Muslim friends. While protecting people is certainly a noble goal, defending Islam is an entirely different story.
If someone were to ask me, "David, do you believe that Islam is a religion of peace?" my answer would not be "Yes" or "No." Rather, my response would be, "First tell me what you mean when you say ‘Islam,’ for it is a term that is used in different ways." If by "Islam" we mean the religion that is practiced by more than a billion people around the world, I could reasonably answer with a qualified "Yes," because it is a religion of peace for many people (though not for all). But if by "Islam" we mean the religion taught by Muhammad, I would have to respond with a resounding "No."
At this point my Muslim readers will be saying to themselves, "What does this infidel mean? There is only one Islam, perfectly preserved in the Holy Qur’an from the time it was given to Prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel." However, much like the idea that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved, the idea that Islam has only one face is completely false. There has always been a psychological crisis in Islam, and if I were to diagnose it as having a particular mental illness, I would probably argue that it suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder. Islam has never been able to decide whether it wants to live in peace with unbelievers, or to pile their severed, unbelieving heads into a giant pyramid. I’m sure many would disagree here, but they would be disagreeing with one of the most empirically verifiable facts in the universe. Think about it. One Muslim beheads an innocent woman to protest the war in Iraq, while another Muslim curses him for slaying the innocent. One group of Muslims flies an aircraft into a building, while another group condemns the attack. One Muslim detonates a bomb on a bus filled with passengers, while another Muslim says on the evening news, "Islam is a religion of peace." Each side quotes the Qur’an to support its actions. However, it may be even more important to note that each of them is following the example set by Muhammad.
The reason that Islam suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder is that its founder also suffered from this disorder. I don’t mean this to be taken literally, of course. It is only meant to describe a peculiar phenomenon that went on in Muhammad’s head. When Muhammad first began receiving his "revelations," many of his neighbors in the city of Mecca took it upon themselves to mock and persecute him. Muhammad was a threat both to their immoral lifestyles and to their source of wealth (the pagan idols of the city brought plenty of revenue), and so he had to be stopped, or at least discredited. During this period, Muhammad was humble, devout in many ways, obedient to the message handed down to him, faithful in giving to the poor, and, in general, a fine moral example. In essence, he was like the many fine examples of dedicated Muslims we see in the world today. He preached a religion of peace, and the hadiths we have from this period reflect his peaceful temperament.
Then something happened. Muhammad fled Mecca and moved to Medina, where his political power rapidly increased. Soon he and his followers began raiding caravans to support the fledgling religion,[1] and, while Muhammad’s enemies multiplied, so did his followers. What followed can only be described as a reign of terror for those who refused to submit to Islam. Both men and women were slaughtered for writing satirical poems against Muhammad, and those who left the Islamic faith were exterminated. One woman was murdered in the dark for writing a poem against Muhammad; after she was slain, Muhammad declared that "Two goats won’t butt their heads about her."[2] Hundreds of Jews were beheaded (after surrendering) for standing against Muhammad, and their wives and children were sold into slavery.[3] A blind man who was reportedly more than a hundred years old had his head split open for saying that, if he could only see, he would throw a handful of dust at Muhammad.[4] When a man named Uqba was about to be killed by Muslims and showed concern for his family by asking, "But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?" Muhammad answered by telling the doomed man that Hell would take care of them.[5] (For more on Muhammad’s violent acts, see "Murdered By Muhammad.")
There are, of course, far more examples of violence than the ones listed here, but these should be sufficient to provide a picture of Muhammad’s idea of how Muslims should treat those who refuse to submit to Islam. Was Islam a religion of peace for the 600-900 Jewish men and boys whose heads were piled into trenches after they had surrendered? Was Islam a religion of peace for the woman who was stabbed to death in the midst of her five children? Was it a religion of peace for anyone who dared to speak out against Muhammad? No, it wasn’t. When Muhammad finally had a band of dedicated followers who would obey his violent commands without question, Islam was not a religion of peace.
Notice that we have approached this question regarding the nature of Islam using a basic historical analysis. Discussions about Islam typically revolve around certain verses in the Qur’an, but such discussions are often fruitless. The reason for this is that the Qur’an is very inconsistent in its approach towards unbelievers, due in large part to Muhammad’s own inconsistency. In conversations about Islam, a Muslim may argue that, according to the Qur’an, "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256). A critic may reply with a very different passage:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (9:29).
To this the Muslim replies, "Yes, it says to fight those who do not believe, but it is referring to unbelievers who attack Islam." Thus, according to many Muslims, Islam fights, but only in self-defense. So who’s right? The solution to the debate can be found in a historical examination of Islam. It is true that Muslims are only permitted to attack when threatened, but history shows what the early Muslims considered a threat. Anything other than complete submission to Islam was regarded as a threat to Islam, and so anything other than complete submission was met with extreme hostility. Even poetry and song lyrics, when used against Muhammad, were enough to warrant a sentence of death.[6]
Hence, the verses in the Qur’an that teach Muslims to live in peace should be examined within the historical context of Muhammad’s life, for it is this life that sheds light on an apparently ambiguous message. This historical context also sheds light on modern aspects of Islam, which ultimately derive from the life of its founder.
For instance, more than thirteen centuries ago, the relatively peaceful Muhammad fled Mecca because of intense persecution. As he fled the city, he left the path of peace farther and farther behind him. He eventually returned at the head of an army, and few were brave enough to oppose him. Islamic law was suddenly supreme, with a host of bloody tales to warn its enemies. A similar phenomenon occurs in the world today. When Muslims are in the minority (as they are in America) the message is always "Let us live in peace with one another, for Islam is a religion of tolerance and understanding." Then, once Islam has spread throughout the country, the message suddenly changes to "Anyone who stands against the Prophet is worthy of death!"
Oddly enough, this tactic has been remarkably successful for Islam. Despite more than a thousand years of bloodshed, many people are convinced that Muhammad was a gentle, humble man who never harmed anyone, and that Islam teaches its followers to be at peace with everyone who hasn’t declared war on them. Then, when someone like Osama bin Laden organizes a group of Muslims in an attack against thousands of innocent people, everyone says that he must be insane, and people around the world rush to defend Islam.
The result is simply amazing. Muslims commit acts of terror in Russia, Spain, America, England, Israel, and countless other countries around the world, and it actually causes certain people to support Islam even more! Think about it. A Muslim blows up a bus, but people don’t want other Muslims to be persecuted for it, so they start defending Islam. Legislators are among the most active in this regard. Laws threatening free speech about Islam are popping up everywhere (even in the United States and Great Britain[7]), declaring that statements against Islam will not be tolerated. Indeed, Australia is on the verge of sending pastors to prison for quoting passages of the Qur’an![8]
Today’s terrorist attacks in London, strangely enough, will help Islam grow even stronger. There will be a brief period of outrage against Islam, but once the smoke has cleared (both literally and figuratively), the world will once again rush to defend Islam, and more bills will be passed, "protecting" Muslims from those who would speak out against Muhammad’s "religion of peace." No matter how violent Islam becomes, as long as people fail to recognize that its two faces are part of the same head (and that both faces are calmly smiling as new laws make Islam untouchable), Muhammad’s empire of faith will thrive in a world of false tolerance.
Perhaps Osama bin Laden isn’t as crazy as everyone thinks, for his plan seems to be working perfectly. His attacks are strengthening Islam’s position in the world. In a curious way, bin Laden is more dedicated to true Islam than most Muslims are. If Muhammad told Muslims to fight in the name of God and demonstrated his meaning by killing men, women, and children for even minor resistance, what should a dedicated Muslim do? Should devout Muslims live in peace with the infidels around them, or should they follow Muhammad’s example by murdering the infidels in their beds?[9]
I’m very happy that most Muslims are willing to live in peace with their neighbors. Yet we have to be honest here. Benevolent Muslims aren’t peaceful because they are following the example set by Muhammad. They are peaceful because they’ve chosen to do what’s right, and because they are willing to live far better lives than Muhammad himself lived. In fact, many Muslims are such kind, peaceful, and gentle people that they seem to be following the example set by another great religious leader—one who died on the cross for the sins of the world and rose from the dead to prove his message. This man gave his listeners a sober warning: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them" (Matthew 7:15). And, may I add, we should also watch out for false religions, which come to us crying "Peace! Peace!" when they are built on a foundation of murder and bloodshed.
Further reading: The Agenda of Islam
Video: A Warning - A voice speaking of our future
UPDATE
Courtesy of Jock McDoc
This article about 'two faces of Islam' highlights the dualism or often contradictory statements that appears throughout the Koran. I think a good example to understand what dualistic logic in Islam means is (taken from http://www.probing-islam3.org.uk/islam.htm ):
"On Logic, the Koran is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early life of Mohammad) and the Koran of Medina (later). Insight into the “logic” of the Koran comes from studying the large number of contradictions in it. Islam on the surface “resolves” these contradictions by resorting to “abrogation”. This means a verse written later supersedes the earlier verse. But since the Koran is believed by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are “sacred and true”. The later verse is “better” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong, since Allah is perfect. Both sets of verses are “right”. This is the foundation of dualism. Both sides of the contradiction are true, in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used. "
Another article I found was from the csmonitor at ( http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0830/p09s01-coop.html?page=4 )
"The Koran says in 14 verses that a Muslim is not the friend of the kafir. This is pure dualism. The entire world is divided between Islam and the kafirs. The dualism of the Koran has no universal statements about humanity except that every person must submit to political Islam.
Ethics is the membrane between religion and politics. Islam has two sets of ethics. One set is for Muslims and the other set is for kafirs; this is dualistic ethics. A Muslim should not harm another Muslim, but the kafir can be robbed, killed, or cheated to advance Islam. Islamic political dualism is hidden by religion. The "good" verses of the Meccan Koran cover the verses of jihad in the Medinan Koran. Thus religious Islam shields political Islam from examination. "
IMHO, how this dualistic logic of Islam can be kept for together for so long without tearing itself apart is in the very nature of Islam. To be a believer you have to submit to Allah. It abdicates personal responsibility from the individual person to the belief in the will of Allah. In effect, all Moslems make decisions in their lives good or bad but it is in the confines decided by the Qu'ran. Any qualms that Moslems have about these contradictions is defined as "inshallah"
Unfortunately, in this country we are seeing this effect only too well with the Labour government where through political correctness we are being told what to think and almost daily the definitions of what is right and what is wrong is changed to suit whichever way the political wind is blowing. The state plays an ever increasing part in our lives, personal responsibility is slowly and surely being taken away from us by the laws they pass. This fatalism which I described by moslems as "inshallah" that nothing can be done can be seen in the UK today where a lot of people say nothing can be done and this does steam from the the fact that a lot of people have changed their views of the welfare state as a last resort to one of dependence where acceptance of benefits is viewed as a right.
I compared this viewpoint t "Islamic thought" to the events that is what happening here in the UK today is because it is an objection I have with Islam is it's close alignment with the political left. The liberal left has for decades derided Christianity and taken it out of our institution in the name of secularism. What is happening is that after our society has been purged of one religion it will be replaced by another. The start of it is being seen where we are being softened up by figures claiming that parts of Islamic law should be incorporated into British law but IMHO as political Islam and the political left are ideologically similar that a convergence will happen, if not already, and full Islamic law will be inevitable.
blog posts
27 comments:
What an excellent piece. No one could of put that better.
Thank you for sharing this LH. Oustanding!
This article about 'two faces of Islam' highlights the dualism or often contradictory statements that appears throughout the Koran. I think a good example to understand what dualistic logic in Islam means is (taken from http://www.probing-islam3.org.uk/islam.htm ):
"On Logic, the Koran is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early life of Mohammad) and the Koran of Medina (later). Insight into the “logic” of the Koran comes from studying the large number of contradictions in it. Islam on the surface “resolves” these contradictions by resorting to “abrogation”. This means a verse written later supersedes the earlier verse. But since the Koran is believed by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are “sacred and true”. The later verse is “better” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong, since Allah is perfect. Both sets of verses are “right”. This is the foundation of dualism. Both sides of the contradiction are true, in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used. "
Another article I found was from the csmonitor at ( http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0830/p09s01-coop.html?page=4 )
"The Koran says in 14 verses that a Muslim is not the friend of the kafir. This is pure dualism. The entire world is divided between Islam and the kafirs. The dualism of the Koran has no universal statements about humanity except that every person must submit to political Islam.
Ethics is the membrane between religion and politics. Islam has two sets of ethics. One set is for Muslims and the other set is for kafirs; this is dualistic ethics. A Muslim should not harm another Muslim, but the kafir can be robbed, killed, or cheated to advance Islam. Islamic political dualism is hidden by religion. The "good" verses of the Meccan Koran cover the verses of jihad in the Medinan Koran. Thus religious Islam shields political Islam from examination. "
IMHO, how this dualistic logic of Islam can be kept for together for so long without tearing itself apart is in the very nature of Islam. To be a believer you have to submit to Allah. It abdicates personal responsibility from the individual person to the belief in the will of Allah. In effect, all Moslems make decisions in their lives good or bad but it is in the confines decided by the Qu'ran. Any qualms that Moslems have about these contradictions is defined as "inshallah"
Unfortunately, in this country we are seeing this effect only too well with the Labour government where through political correctness we are being told what to think and almost daily the definitions of what is right and what is wrong is changed to suit whichever way the political wind is blowing. The state plays an ever increasing part in our lives, personal responsibility is slowly and surely being taken away from us by the laws they pass. This fatalism which I described by moslems as "inshallah" that nothing can be done can be seen in the UK today where a lot of people say nothing can be done and this does steam from the the fact that a lot of people have changed their views of the welfare state as a last resort to one of dependence where acceptance of benefits is viewed as a right.
I compared this viewpoint t "Islamic thought" to the events that is what happening here in the UK today is because it is an objection I have with Islam is it's close alignment with the political left. The liberal left has for decades derided Christianity and taken it out of our institution in the name of secularism. What is happening is that after our society has been purged of one religion it will be replaced by another. The start of it is being seen where we are being softened up by figures claiming that parts of Islamic law should be incorporated into British law but IMHO as political Islam and the political left are ideologically similar that a convergence will happen, if not already, and full Islamic law will be inevitable.
Islam is a doctrine of world domination achieved by violence and deceit. There is no duality, only the appearence of duality since all the peaceful verses of the Koran have been abrogated by the later violent verses.
What is a moderate Muslim? When you can determine what a moderate Nazi was, you will have your answer.
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5320.3614.0.0
"Winston S. Churchill: The Leader
July 14, 2008 | From theTrumpet.com
Winston Churchill rescued Western civilization from the grips of Nazism. Today the world is drifting toward another holocaust, and not a single person has the quality of leadership to do anything about it."
"Winston Churchill was a magnificent watchman."
The above statement in this article made me think of you Lionheart - a Watchman.
guy -
"What is a moderate Muslim? When you can determine what a moderate Nazi was, you will have your answer." by guy
Very good point.
LH, thanks for putting my post as an update.
guy @ 14-Jul-2008 22:25:00
IIRC from another website I had read, the argument concerning Dualistic logic is a scientific viewpoint of the Koran's inconsistencies.
Going back to article, as I mentioned, acceptance of Islam in the UK is dependent on what values you hold. While I have stated I am against the left's policy of encouraging the dependence culture I am also against the right's insistence on unfettered capitalism to the detriment of society itself.
This can be seen with their I'm all right Jack attitude where they are obsessed with cheap labour for big business despite the enormous social and economic consequences for ordinary Britons. This can be seen with their urging of the acceptance of Islamic Turkey into the EU. This can be seen by this article:
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=135350
"But the work is not yet done. The hope of becoming - one day - a member of the EU is encouraging economic and political reform in the post-war Balkans. The prospect of eventual Turkish membership is hugely important - not just for Turkey itself, but to demonstrate to the Muslim world that the EU is not an exclusive Christian club."
How can the EU be described as an exclusive Christian club? This is another reason why we need to get out of Europe as it values it's interests as a world political power above those of it's constituent nations.
I'd like to give warning to the English males after taking a look at the past. Sharia Law certainly has preference for males, but male infidels will most likely be killed and their females will become the possessions of Muslim men. If the English haven't enough motive to fight for their women's rights and lives, they may have a little more incentive, at least, to fight for their own lives.
All immigrants should be judged under English Law, as it were, not as it has become now. England needs to revert back to its laws and freedoms and judge everyone accordingly. England should never have tolerated any wickedness in the first place.
The left has always hated Christians, so much blind hatred that their trade for another - Islam - will mean the end of them and the rest of us. Have you ever hated something so much that you would put the lives of others and your own in peril.....because you just didn't care less? This speaks to the left's psyche.
Bring on Sharia law and my passive thoughts may become active thoughts.
In general, Muslim's are cowards, they shout, rant and rave, it's in their blood. Go to any Arabic country, they are all the same. Even into Europe in places such as Cyprus & Greece, the mentality is all the same as the Arab. But this front of shouting, ranting and raving soon silences when they are confronted. History has shown the Muslim to be a crap warrior.
I really would like to see the Muslim communities kick off here. Trouble is they won't, they are cowards.
Thank you for posting this LH. as I have said before I am just learning. I have less then a year of learning under my belt. so pardon any errors in my thinking. my gram told me there was no such thing as a silly ? so here we go.I do not think there is such thing as a peaceful musslime. some may be still for now kind of in a sleep state but when push comes to shove they will be musslimes. because the ones who do not agree know that they will be viewed as a apostate and be killed. so I think given this there are no peaceful mussilmes in the end. am I wrong? and if so why?
Miles you are so right. you hit the nail on the head. but there must be some muslims who actually dont want this jihad against us and would be happy to co-exist but like you say if they speak out they will be killed. they are too scared to stand up to their religious leaders and say...
"hang on, why cant we just get on and live side by side with other religions"?
To muslims there is no other religion.
The "less extreme" muslims should take back their hijacked religion
and learn to tolerate others beliefs.
If you are saying that all muslims are at war with us then we have a fight ahead of us.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=20260757633
Take care.....
Magnacarta, you were correct in your comment regarding muslims to some degree. They do make crappy warriors. And they mostly rant, rave and so on and then eventually backdown. But, sometimes they do become braven and will do an act.
It's why the muslims rely on terroristic acts. Because they're aware their no match to take our nations on conventionally. And even if they do have a decent standing milititary. They not good at that either or anything else to be honest.
The reason muslims aren't good at many things is due to allowing religion to be in the forefront of all aspects of their lives. And then the rest of the stuff that makes a well rounded person is simply ignored or never learned. Also, they're a lazy bunuch of people, as well as being arrogant. Many muslims believe that certain jobs are beneath them. And then when it's time to be trained and learn a new skill set. They take no interest and use religion as an excuse to get out of learning something new. Then you have the select few in power...who want to keep their people, un-informed, lazy, complacent and even poverity stricken because it's much easier to control the masses. Opposed to if they were the opposite and suddenly assembled and brought on change. History has reflected that you cannot surpress of hold people back when their well educated or the regime uses violence. Therefore, the govts., use the aforementioned tactics.
I was in Saudi Arabia with a group of people from my govt agency to help train the Saudi Police in how to properly investigate a crime. How to handle the chain of evidence and how to interview/interogations techs. etc. And these people had no clue in the first place and held no interest. In fact one of their commanders stated we just beat the shit out of a prepetrator till we get a confession...and torture never works in these situations. Since a person will tell them what they want to hear so the pain and sufferring stops. The Saudi's were unable to comprehend that you need to psychologically get into their head and befriend them to some degree to garner some trust between suspect and investigator. But, then these people are too lazy to put forth the effort to gain a successful admission.
They would constant have the religious police (who yield a lot of power) interrupt our training sessions. Or use some religious excuse to leave the training grounds. After just 3 weeks of putting up with this BS. We reported back to our superiors this arrangement wasn't going to work for the reasons mentioned above. To me and my units surprise we were told to come back home.
Upon getting home and being de-brief. We were told that this action was to be expected. But, now the Saudi govt. couldnt bitch or complain that we didn't offer assistance and that it's their fault. So, essentially I went and was forced to live in a hell environment for 3 weeks of my life. But, at the sametime I also learned more than I could imagine about my enemy.
The enemey doesn't have the mental fortitude to do what is necessary to achieve their objectives. But, you will always have enough people who will do cowardly acts of terrorism. So in the end most will rant and scream and cry a good game. But when it comes to all out action they fall flat on their faces. Since they have no idea how to execute what must be done so their objectives are successful.
By all means I am not underminding the threat of the muslim world. They're still a force to be contended with. And you always have to think the worse case senerios so we are properly prepared. Like the old says says: "Constantly prepare for warfare to ensure peace," And that is something the western nations have embraced and adopted.
Lets examine the Iranians. They fought the Iraqi's for approximately 2900 days which ended in a draw. Whereas, in the first gulf war we took iraq in 4 days. And the current war we had a majority of control in roughly 21 days. Yet the Iranians truly believe they could take on America or UK forces if it came down to conventional warefare. This is where there actions wouldn't do them any good. Even the the recent missle test proved they're idiots. Like no one was going to figure out that the outdated missles they got from russia was photoshopped so it appeared more than it really was. Maybe the Iranians should look into become illusionist for entertainment purposes...lol they would probably screw that up too.
If you ever notice not one muslim nation over the last 200 years has invented or innovated something that contributes to all of humanity. And these last 200 yrs have produced some wonderful things that have benefitted all. But, these innovations came from western nations. Iran doesn't even have it's own oil refiner to convert oil to gasoline. They have to send their oil out to have this done. When a muslim nation has an important engineering project. They always retain westerns to design and put the thing together. And they just provide the labor. So, these people are 1000 yrs behind us in creating and being innovative. And this will be their downfall. Islam will implode upon itself hence destroying islam. The big questions is do we have the time to wait this process out. This writer believes that we Don't have the time. And action must be taken NOW and not later.
The UK is in a very serious situation and cross roads as we speak, which puts the UK's sovereignty on extremely dangerous ground. And the rest of Europe isn't far behind either. Then it's a matter of time that it cross the atlantice to the Americas. Therefore, we must take this situation very serious and not sit with our heads in the sand and continue to remain in denial. Sure some would say people like me, LH and his fan base are just paranoid. But we're not. We're just people who can see the writing on the walls now and know that potentially this can spiral out of control at a very rapid pace. And then what do we do. It's always better to nip these things at the bud before it morphens into something which will be more difficult to deal with later on. You pay no matter what. Do we want to pay a little now or a hell of a lot later on. I am more for paying a little now opposed to the later.
We the people are our govt. And in a sense we allowed our govts to highjack what is suppose to ours. So, first we must demand our govt do what we want done since the politicians work for us and not the other way around. Once this is achieved then we must get organized and come up with a solid game plan and then execute that game plan. Can this be done....sure but it will take a lot of hard work to achieve it.
Islam is no friend of non-muslims no matter what anyone tells you. Being politicially correct is such BS and the politicians know we can see how transparent they are being. I'm optimistic that we will succeed but it will be a long and hard road we will have to take. But, one big difference between us and them. Is we do have the "resolve" to carry out what we say we will do when the time eventually comes. Whereas, the muslims huff and shout and rant and then don't follow through. All they do is use rhetoric which never will defeat an action.
hellbellz
I believe what you are talking about with the Saudi Police officers can be referred to Jahiliya. According to wiki, it is the concept of ignorance of anything Islamic. The wiki link is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliya
Scots troops have had a similar experience trying to train the Afghan army where the Afghan simply refuse to adhere to basic training like patrol formation. The link is here:
http://www.scotsman.com/afghanistan/Culture-shocks-in--killing.4129988.jp
To quote parts of article
"He has refused to break his patrols into three columns, something the British do for increased protection, and his troops rarely wear body armour.
"You ask them why they're not wearing it, and it's like, 'God will protect me'," explained Ranger James Wright, at the same patrol base in the Gereshk valley.
Some of the British have dubbed their Afghan colleagues the "Inshallah army" for their nonchalant acceptance of death as part of Allah's plan.
...
...
When they do come under fire, they invariably reply with a barrage of loosely aimed automatic fire, a tactic known as "spray and pray"."
I found another article about Jahiliya:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-islamicworld/article_103.jsp
To quote article:
"The new definition of jahiliya was formulated by Sayyid Abu Ala al-Mawdudi (1903-79), the influential Indo-Pakistani Islamist ideologue and founder of the Jamaat-i-Islami, the Pakistani version of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was adopted by the Egyptian revolutionary ideologue Sayyid Qutb (1906-66) who saw jahiliya everywhere: “Humanity today is living in a large brothel! One has only to glance at its press, films, fashion shows, beauty contests, ballrooms, wine bars, and broadcasting stations! Or observe its mad lust for naked flesh, provocative postures, and sick, suggestive statements in literature, the arts and the mass media! And add to all this the system of usury which fuels man’s voracity for money and engenders vile methods for its accumulation and investment, in addition to fraud, trickery, and blackmail dressed up in the garb of law…”
“Today we are in the midst of a jahiliya similar to, or even worse than the jahiliya that was ‘squeezed out’ by Islam. Everything about us is jahiliya: the concepts of mankind and their beliefs, their customs and traditions, the sources of their culture, their arts and literature, and their laws and regulations. [This is true] to such an extent that much of what we consider to be Islamic culture and Islamic sources, and Islamic philosophy and Islamic thought… is nevertheless the product of that jahiliya.”
People on this thread are saying that Muslims are lousy fighters, merely bullies.
Who are you kidding? They blew up out of a sparsely populated part of Arabia and took over the whole of North Africa, Spain and the Middle East by warfare in 150 years. Muslims in a small backwater called Afghanistan saw off the British Empire in the 19th century, the Soviet Empire in the late 20th century and are now seeing off the Americans - three prime superpowers. They can fight alright.
About Islam being in two minds - there is only one Islam, and that is the Islam of Muhammad. The reason for the diversity that David Wood sees is that many Muslims are, thankfully, disobedient to Muhammad's commands.
Gospeller
Gospeller
David Wood's article and my post on it was about the contradictions in the Koran. What you are saying that many Muslims are disobedient to Muhammad's commands is incorrect, Muslims are not being disobedient when taking the example from the website I provided that they either follow the "Koran of Mecca 73.10: Listen to what unbelievers say with patience and leave them with dignity" or the "Koran of Medina 8.12: Give strength to believers, I will send terror into the unbelievers’ hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers."
The point I am making is that Muslims accept this without taking responsibility for their actions much in the same way that I see in parts of Scotland where I live that people are willing to vote for a certain political party who they have elected for the last 40 years who have not improved their situation and yet vote them for because their parents voted for them and even if when they do know that the political party is no good they still vote because it is the best of a bad lot.
It is a abdication of responsibility and I can't see any hope of any serious reform of Islam that will break the continuous cycle of peaceful periods turn to violent periods when tensions between the Islamic and non-Islamic worlds escalate.
Dear Jock
I could not agree more that there are contradictions in the qur'an - a clue, one might think, that it is not written by an all-knowing, all-wise god. But Muhammad called those of his followers who would not fight "hypocrites". He did not call some to peace and some to war. So far as I am concerned, the more of those hypocrites, the better!
Gospeller
Gospeller @ 17-Jul-2008 19:15:00
When quoting parts of texts, it is hard to know what context to take it for example a rebuttal to this from this site
http://www.answering-christianity.com/prisoners_of_war.htm
Quote:
"Another example is when some of the hypocrites during Prophet Muhammad's times used to falsely embrace Islam to be accepted among the Muslims, and then later try to create conflicts among Muslim men and cause them to revenge from each others, because they belonged to tribes that had bloody wars with each others before they embraced Islam."
The problem I have is the way Islam splits the world into Moslems and non-Moslems which brings this chip on the shoulder attitude of "Moslems will live in peace as long as non-Moslems respect Islam".
I'm not an expert on theology but is does not Christianity only deals with Christians and to deal with non-Christians to love thy neighbour?
Dear Jock
I don't fully understand your question, so I'll answer what I think you are getting at, but if I've misunderstood then feel free to ask me further questions (supposing it is OK with Lionheart, whose blog this is).
People who claim to follow Muhammad but are not up for fighting are frequently called "hypocrites" in the qur'an. That is what I was talking about. Muhammad may have called other people hypocrites for different reasons - I haven't checked.
I think that "context" and "interpretation" can be overdone. It is an insult to the intelligence of Muslims to suppose that "Fight and kill the unbelievers wherever you find them; seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategy of war" (qur'an 9:5) and "Fight… until there is no more resistance… and the only faith is that in Allah" (8:39) need explaining. Their meaning is crystal clear. All that remains for a Muslim is to decide whether to obey them.
In the New Testament, Christ claims authority over all humanity but imposes his authority on nobody. He wants people to accept him by their own free choice, for only in that way can the relationship between him and the believer be a relationship of love. Christians (I am one) have Christ as their role model. In contrast, Allah claims universal authority and seeks to impose it by force.
Do not decide between Christ and Allah on the basis of who sounds nicer. Decide on the basis of *truth* - and you will be in for a nice surprise.
Gospeller
gospeller, you say that Muslims can fight, this may have been true in the first two hundred years of the war-like spread of Islam throughout he Mid-East and Persia etc, but today, they want the same Earthly pleasures as we do, and you can see the evidence in the UK Muslims love of showy cars and big houses.
Today they prefer to watch the You Tube videos of British and US troops being blown up, and when it comes to fighting, they like the principle of 10 against one.
Dear Anon of July 17th, 21:12
Liking showy cars and big houses is hardly unique to Muslims!
The Afghans, in a 3rd world backwater, saw off the might of the British Empire and the Soviet Empire and are now humiliating the American military. I would hate to live there, but they can certainly fight. And, frankly, it is a category error to call suicide bombers cowards. They are incredibly brave - just evil with it.
Gospeller
Gospeller @ 17-Jul-2008 21:03:00
Let's take it back to your original comment that I was replying to:
"About Islam being in two minds - there is only one Islam, and that is the Islam of Muhammad. The reason for the diversity that David Wood sees is that many Muslims are, thankfully, disobedient to Muhammad's commands."
I have to apologise, I'm a bit of scatterbrained thinker at times but I get there in the end.
I was trying to point out that you were asking a question that is irrelevant.It is not about what a Moslem choosing what to follow but the "them and us" attitude that is not present in Christianity that you answered in your post by saying "In the New Testament, Christ claims authority over all humanity but imposes his authority on nobody. He wants people to accept him by their own free choice, for only in that way can the relationship between him and the believer be a relationship of love. Christians (I am one) have Christ as their role model. In contrast, Allah claims universal authority and seeks to impose it by force."
Do you agree that Moslems profit in the attitude of "Moslems will live in peace as long as non-Moslems respect Islam" which IMHO is what the main article is trying to say?
Dear Jock
I agree that SOME "Moslems will live in peace as long as non-Moslems respect [their freedom to adhere to] Islam". Those are the ones that Muhammad called hypocrites, and that I call Muslims having weak faith in their god. The more who are like that and the fewer that obey Muhammad's call to violence, the better!
Gospeller
Gospeller
You don't really understand.
"Moslems will live in peace as long as non-Moslems respect Islam" is a threat, putting [their freedom to adhere to] in it still doesn't detract that it is still a threat.
I'm not really sure where you are coming from? From what I read of your comment you agree with me that Dualism in Islam?
Dear Jock
I see only one Islam - that of Muhammad - but I distinguish nominal and faithful Muslims. The nominal ones are peaceful (and were denounced as hypocrites by Muhammad), the faithful ones are violent. I acknowledge that the qur'an has peaceful verses which contradict the warlike ones, but Muhammad opted for war later in his life. I think that my position differs a bit from David Wood's, but we all understand the challenge of Islam.
The "respect" issue is complex to analyse, so I'll leave it at that for now.
Gospeller
Another example of the political duality of Islam
http://islamic-political-system.com/
quote:
"Political Duality
In the Sunna—the part of the Trilogy that records Mohammed’s actions—jihad, slavery, killing, and oppression are clearly considered ethical when used to advance Islam. It is this “us” and “them” mentality that results in an ethical inequality, the duality, that is inherent in Islam. And, according to Muslims, the laws of Islam are eternal and cannot be changed, reformed or altered. It is permanent and universal. No one has the right to amend or reform it.
The Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira all emphasize that the only politics recognized by Allah are the politics of Islam. From that viewpoint, all governments must become Islamic in order to preserve peace, because Muslims can use the violence of jihad on any Free who do not submit.
Mohammed was a master of this dualistic thinking. He used the tribal jealousies and conflicts to convert, conquer, and unite on a global scale. Populations quickly recognized that they would fare better as Muslims under Islam, than as “others,” or unbelievers.
While the Free are unimpressed by Islam’s threats of Hell, they do care about how they are treated ethically and legally in this plane of existence. However, Islam declares that all non-Muslims are second-class citizens.
In the Islamic Trilogy, the Free can be treated well only if they submit to the demands of Islam. The sacred texts of Islam are adamant that the Free must submit to Islam.
islamic-political-system.com logo
Stages of Duality
Islam has two modes of Koranic behavior—the Koran of Mecca and the Koran of Medina. In Mecca, Mohammed was weak and Islam was beginning and the Koran of Mecca is religious.
Bear patiently with what the unbelievers say, and leave their company without recrimination. Leave to Me those that deny the Truth, those that enjoy the comforts of this life; bear with them yet a little while.
Koran of Mecca 73:10
Mohammed is the perfect Muslim. At first he was nice, then demanding, then violent. Demanding as in: if you don’t do what Islam dictates, first come the threats and then comes the violence.
So the “good” Muslim is a Meccan Muslim.
In Medina Mohammed transformed the religion of Islam into a political system. Killing, theft, and rape became sacralized. He became powerful and the Koranic message changed. A terrorist follows the Koran from Medina, a Medinan Muslim.
Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate.
Koran of Medina 66:9
These Koranic verses contradict each other. How do you tell which one to follow? Simple. According to the Koran, the later verse replaces the earlier verse. And wherever there is contradiction, the later Koran of Medina abrogates (annuls or cancels) the earlier Koran of Mecca. [This rule of abrogation is given in the Koran]
But knowing which verses to follow is much more complicated than that. The “nice” Koran of Mecca is still to be used if Islam is weak in political power. When Islam has the strength—force is the answer; use the Koran of Medina. All verses can be used as needed. The Koran is dualistic.
The Koran also establishes a different form of logic. Since the Koran is both true and contradictory it violates the normal rules of logic. In unitary logic if something is contradictory it is false. But the Koran is contradictory and true. This is dualistic logic. So Islam operates under a different form of reasoning than the rest of the world.
islamic-political-system.com logo
The Practice of Islamic Politics
The practical outcome of this dualistic political thinking is the following:
Force, pressure, demands, and violence are always options.
Sharia (Islamic) law must replace all other forms of law and government.
Jihad must be practiced by all Muslims.
Jihad must be everywhere, in all aspects of private and public life in the dar al harb (land of war).
The jihadists must imitate history’s model of the perfect political Muslim: Mohammed."
moslems like many/most eastern people only pretended to be "nice" when they are weak in power and wealth. the fact they have always depended on western civilisation and make use of western civilisation to prop them up. all they ever did was borrowed and stole from the west and tried to claim all the credit. even a large part of saudi modern hospitals was built by western tchnology.
Post a Comment