Sharia States: Totalitarian to the Core
He draws largely from historical sources. Bostom cites 19th century academic William Gifford Palgrave, for example, who traversed Arabia’s then virtually unknown heart disguised as a Muslim physician. Palgrave observed and studied Islam in situ, and describes its divine law (sharia) as “a pantheism of force,” with god acting as “a tremendously sympathizing autocrat,” very “jealous of his creatures,” delighted by making them all his complete slaves. [iii] And he was hardly alone in deriving a negative assessment of Islam from primary experience and Islamic sources alike. As Bostom previously observed:
Repeatedly for 100 years, between the mid-19th through mid-20th centuries, important scholars and intellectuals — for example, the historians Jacob Burckhardt, Waldemar Gurian, and Karl Wittfogel, philosopher Bertrand Russell, [modern analytical psychiatry founder] Carl Jung, Protestant theologian Karl Barth, sociologist Jules Monnerot … [pre-eminent Islamic law scholar] G.H. Bousquet, and even the contemporary Western eminence grise on Islamic civilization, Bernard Lewis – have all referred to Islam as a despotic or totalitarian ideology.
Like Bostom’s two previous landmark studies on Islamic jihad and antisemitism (Legacy of Islamic Jihad: Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims and Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History), his third adds significantly to our knowledge base. Often, contemporary scholars contend that Islam grew hateful upon absorbing Nazi anti-Semitism in the 20th century. Yet Bostom shows, even in the Nazi era, intellectual luminaries saw the truth as quite the opposite. Like “Islam of old,” Barth warned in 1939, National Socialism’s political experiment promised to those willing to participate; but when resisted, it could “only crush and kill.” Nazism, he wrote, was best understood as “a new Islam, its myth a new Allah and Hitler as this new Allah’s Prophet.”
Muslim totalitarianism across the ages
A host of important Muslims, across time, thought likewise. Totalitarian terror, for example, pervaded “heavenly,” peaceful Andalusia. Spain’s purportedly enlightened Um ayyad conquerors were notoriously brutal, observed historian Evariste Levi-Provencal (1894-1956). They established strict Malikite Sunni doctrine, championed “jealous orthodoxy” and “fiercely opposed innovations”; their totally “immobile doctrine suspected and condemned in advance for the slightest attempt at rational speculation” (p. 368). In 1914, Miguel Asin Palacois saw Muslim Spain in the same light, as had Cordovan Muslim al-Kinani (d. 901), a student of “scholar of Spain par excellence” Ibn Habib (d. 853). When walking outdoors, al-Kinari noted, Jews were required to wear patches bearing the image of an ape, and Christians, patches picturing a pig. In about 1000, Muslim jurist Ahmed ibn Said ibn Hazm (of Hispanic Christian descent) reported that an infidel who did not pay his annual “head tax” (jizya) risked execution or sale into slavery, and put his entire coreligionist community at risk of losing their “protection.” Muslim rulers could impose the same penalties for “public outrage against the Islamic faith,” e.g. exposing a cross or wine jug (pp. 368-375).
In Granada, Jewish viziers appointed to protect their community were assassinated between 1056 and 1066. After the murders of Samuel ibn Naghrela and his son Joseph, a fiery anti-Jewish “ode” by Muslim jurist and poet Abu Ishaq filtered through Muslim Granada. Very possibly, the hateful “ode” incited the Muslim pogrom that then annihilated Granada’s entire Jewish population of up to 5,000 — as many or more than the number of Jewish people reportedly killed during the First Crusade’s pillage of the Rhineland some thirty years later (pp. 176-177).
Ottoman Turkey 400 years later similarly fostered totalitarian Islamic dogmas. Molla Khosrew (d. 1480) — celebrated writer, Hanafi jurist and cleric to Sultan Mehmed II — rested his jihad directives on them. Religious obligation (fard al-kifaya) requires jihad and one must “begin the fight against the enemy, even when he [the enemy] may not have taken the initiative to fight,” Khosrew instructs. Early on, he reasons, Mohammed allowed Muslims only self-defense, but later on:
He ordered them to take the initiative at certain times of the year, that is, at the end of the haram months, saying “Kill the infidels wherever you find them.” (Q: 9:5) He finally ordered fighting without limitation, at all times and in all places, saying “Fight those who do not believe in God and the Last Day” (Q: 9:29) (p. 178).
Fast forward 500 years to 1948, when English-speaking Arab League Office member Aboul Saud described Islam to investigative journalist John Ray Carlson:
You might describe Mohammedanism as a religious form of State Socialism. … The Quran gives the State the right to nationalize industry, distribute land, or expropriate the right to nationalize industry, distribute land or expropriate property. It grants the ruler of the state unlimited powers, so long as he does not go against the Quran. The Quran is our personal as well as our political constitution (p. 256).
An interview with the late Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al Banna led Carlson to conclude average Egyptians “worshiped the use of force,” given that “terror was synonymous with power.” This also explained both the sensational rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the near universal popularity of Nazism in Egypt.
Strict dogma survives and thrives
The 1918 demise of the Ottoman empire and dissolution of the last Islamic Caliphate hardly assuaged Islamic totalitarianism. Rather, Muslim fervor rose to reestablish a new and stronger translational religious superstate — and with it rose individual and Islamic societal yearning for a totalitarian, sharia-based cultural regimen, including discriminatory governance of non-Muslims.
A 1979 treatise on jihad warfare by Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik reflected the bedrock Islamic ideas as had others centuries before. Published in Lahore, the book was prefaced by former Pakistan advocate general Allah Bukhsh K. Brohi:
Islam views the world as though it were bipolarized in two opposing camps — Darul-Salam (Islam) facing Darul-Harb — the first one is submissive to the Lord in cooperating with God’s purpose … but the second one … is engaged in perpetuating defiance of the same Lord. Such a state of affairs which engages any one in rebellion against God’s will is termed as “Fitna” [which] refers us to misconduct on the part of a man who establishes his own norms and expects obedience from others, thereby usurping God’s authority — who alone is sovereign (p. 201).
Hanafi judicial school founder Abu Hanifa (d. 767) designed the bifurcated Muslim worldview, which others widely distributed too, including Muslim historian and Quranic commentator Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 923) in the Book of Jihad. Al-Tabari includes Abu Hanafi (and followers’) extracts “affirming the impunity with which non-combatant ‘harbis’ — women, children, the elderly, the mentally or physically disabled — may be killed” (p. 62).
The biggest failure of western democracies, particularly in the U.S., has been their willful blindness towards Islam, all in the name of multicultural, PC inclusion/delusion.
In fact, Muslim Brotherhood Mafia operatives count on said delusions, to aid them in their infiltration/penetration. In effect, if there ever was an example of a civilization’s implosion from within, this is it.
Bostom, and several others, has led the way, but it is doubtful that many are absorbing the lessons needed for collective survival.
In any case, this is another one – out of many others – to add to the mix -
http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/25/the-muslim-mafia-aka-the-brotherhood-their-overarching-plan-what-it-means-for-americas-future-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
To stay alive, one must be willing to learn.
It is about time that someone told the truth about the curse of islam.
What i cannot figure our is why liberals hate Christianity so much when it truly is a religion of love as well as peace & yet love Islam which is a way of life that is violent, dishonest, cruel, intolerant, has caused incredible suffering through the ages and treats women like pigs. You’d think that they would think it through, but then again they ARE liberals!
The left’s attack on Christianity is a natural condition of collectivism. The democratic Ideaology is anything but democratic. In order to succeed it is neccessary to hijack basic human rights from those who: “..hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” People who believe that their rights are bestowed by God are far more likely to engage in armed rebellion whenever those rights are threatened. By eliminating God from the equation Basic human rights cease to be rights and become instead a consequence of political whim to be expanded or eliminated as suits the state.
The left’s hatred of Christianity comes from not that far afield. Given my recent exchange with a totalitarian bible-banger in a subject not yet a week old, I can attest that the zealots of Christianity are an irritating lot. But what they fail to realize is that Christianity has room for the devout as well as the “casual observer” while asking (not demanding) that you consider walking in the path of Christ.
I included in my statement to the zealot how I was rabidly solicited by fellow military members to become “saved”, a routine I found very annoying and unwelcome. But from their standpoint, how could I possibly be angry with them for their “trying to help”. I wasn’t into drugs, drinking, carousing, etc. and perhaps they felt that was the mark of a true “candidate”. However, I found them rather narrow-minded, insular, clique-ish and aloof as well as arrogant.
No thanks. Their brand of Christianity didn’t match any of the catechism I had as a youngster in church.
Expanding on that theme, many of the left-wing moonbats were raised in some fairly strict homes, from a religious standpoint and during their hippie rebellion days found that pot and other drugs and screwing around were more fun than going to church socials and square dancing. Sadly, that’s still pretty much the way things are and though I don’t criticize it for being so, the removal of rock and roll music, some adult beverages and such is not chartered anywhere in any bible I ever read.
So though I understand on at least one level why the left hates Christianity, it doesn’t explain to me why they would categorically deny it to others, or why embracing islam is somehow “better”. or is it that they see all religions as the same or is it more they support islamists because it pisses off the conservatives so much, which is what I think the real driving mechanism must be.
You make some good points. A leftist would set their own face on fire if they thought it would piss off a conservative and/or a Christian, particularly an annoying zealot. Their own self absorption is their ultimate curse and a roadmap for their demise.
Oikophobia.
When confronted with stories about Islamist atrocities, liberals usually revert to the tired old tactic of talking about what the Christians did during the Crusades, and then concluding that both religions are violent. So it seems to me that it is not helpful to talk about atrocities perpetrated by the followers of Mohammed 1000 years ago, except from a historical perspective. We need to concentrate on what they are doing now. An excellent example would be Malala Yousufzai, the Pakistani girl shot in the head by the Taliban for supporting education for girls. Or maybe Neda Agha-Soltan, the young woman killed in 2009 by the Iranian military.
18 USC 2385 makes it a crime to advocate the overthrow of our government. It seems to me that this statute would be a good place to start moving against those who are trying to bring back the Caliphate. They are using their religious freedom as a weapon. Let’s use the Constitution as a better weapon.
The critical difference is that the actions of the jihadists are rooted in the fundamental teachings of Islam and they will cite you chapter and verse to support them. There is no way to reprimand a jihadist using the tenets of his religion.
On the other hand, the actions of the Crusaders (which, BTW, were initially aimed at saving the Holy Land from Muslim invaders), especially any atrocities, cannot be defended by the teachings of Christianity. Jesus has some rather pointed things to say about how to act towards your enemies (with proper recognition of the doctrine of roles and vocations). If a person claims to kill in the name of Christ, or commits some atrocity, it is fairly easy to find a number of reasons why he is wrong.
The confusion about (to be kind) or surrender to (to be less so) Islam among some American-based Christian denominations shows just how far the rot has spread. As a traditional Epscopalian, with a strong attachment to the Anglican tradition, I am continually horrified by the concept of “interfaith understanding” in my church being carried to the extreme is now faces: The blurring of the lines between Christianity and Islam (“we’re all monotheists! We all worship one God!”). Although I have been fighting this locally, as a Vestryman in my own parish, I am increasing discouraged as I see this spread to the level of dioceses and even the national church. This review has invigorated me to renew my resistance. As H.L. Menken said (I’m probably mis-quoting): “There are times when a man must spit on his hands, raise the black flag and go a-pirating.” It’s just about time to call for a new Crusade.
‘interfaith understanding’ is a Baha’i concept. The Baha’i Faith promotes the idea of Unity in Diversity (multiculturalism). The Baha’i Faith is the root of the problem. Besides that, the Baha’i Faith is a Progressive Religion. It is based on the idea that mohammad has been ‘trumped’ by a new prophet, Baha’u'allah. Baha’u'allah claimed to be the second coming of Isa (muslim jesus). Thus Baha’i are messianic muslims.
I wonder what those “churchmen” who call for such “understanding” actually believe. The two religions are mutually exclusive. Islam has some rather harsh things to say against the doctrine of the Trinity, one of the fundamental teachings of Christianity. Also, whereas Jesus plainly says that “all who believe and are baptized shall be saved”, the only way that any Muslim can know for certain that he will enter Paradise – even though he follow the 5 Pillars his entire life – is to die in Jihad. This, by the way, explains why so many young Muslims are so eager to sign up to be suicide bombers!
Leyendo los comentarios,no me sorprende que EEUU sea el pueblo mas odiado del planeta.Ignorancia, prepotencia y violencia es lo que os define
What really disturbs me lately is the active, and constant push on TV to read, learn and live by the koran. The tv commercial here in california is disguised as something ‘so beautiful’ and educational and, as the ad says ‘changes you to want to learn the koran’.
It’s sick, really – not sure who pushes it though.
Leyendo tu comentario no me extraña que los guanches estuviesen en la edad de piedra alla por el siglo XV. T ademas de atraso mental eres un cobarde que comenta en castalleno para eviatar lma rplica. Y no solo eso sino que eress despreciable: miilones de mujeres victimùas de violaciones conygales, millones de ninya
millones de ninyas abusadas a partir de los nueve anyos para que un hijo de la fgran p.. pueda darselas de avanzado”. Sino fuera porque poquisimos saben quien es son los gua,nches serian el pueblo mas desprecuado del planeta.
Read the Koran – with Robert Spencer’s Infidel’s Guide to the Koran (as well as his more recent book, Did Mohammed Exist?
I recently read that a public school 5th grade teacher in Virginia insisted on saying her Mohammedan prayers in front of the class and punished her pupils for not being Islamic. The parents of one of the pupils whose hand was cut by the teacher complained to the school board – which replied that there was no prohibition to using Arabic in the schools! What about the prohibition against religion in the classroom, the separation of church and state? The teacher should have been at least disciplined, if not fired.
The pro-Mohammedanism in government especially, comes from President Barack Obama, who may well be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He defended Huma Abedin, close aide to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose family are members of the Muslim Brotherhood and who herself has written for them. See Andrew McCarthy on this.
“It prohibits political freedoms as well as freedoms of conscience, faith, and expression (both oral and written). In Islamdom, one expresses personal views at great risk.” Except for the hint “Islamdom” I would have thought you were talking about modern liberalism.
That’s a reason for why the latter embraces the former. Progressives (I refuse to call them “Liberals”) refuse to believe that anyone could take any religion seriously. They thus figure that Muslims are really Progressives in disguise. Also, since the practices of the two are so similar, and Progressives have no qualms about having to follow the 5 Pillars of Islam so long as they don’t have to really believe in Allah or change how they live (you’d be surprised at what the Muslim Arabs get away with outside of the mosque – see “The Arab Mind” by Raphael Patai) they figure that they might as well get credit for being religious.