War and Peace — and Deceit — in Islam (Part 2)
Reciprocal treatment or religious obligation?
Why did Osama bin Laden, who firmly believes in the division of the world into two entities — Islam and the rest — which must war until the former dominates the globe, attack the U.S.? The following anecdote sheds some light: after a group of prominent Muslims wrote a letter to Americans saying that Islam is a peaceful religion that wishes to coexist with others, seeking only to “live and let live,” bin Laden, thinking no non-Muslim would see his letter, castigated them as follows:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: “We [Muslims] renounce you [non-Muslims]. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — till you believe in Allah alone” [Koran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility — that is, battle — ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [i.e., taqiyya]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! … Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them (from The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).
It bears repeating that this hostile weltanschauung is well supported by mainstream Islam’s schools of jurisprudence (i.e., there is nothing “radical” about it). When addressing Western audiences, however, bin Laden’s tone drastically changes; he lists any number of “grievances” for fighting the West — from Palestinian oppression, to the Western exploitation of women and U.S. failure to sign the Kyoto protocol — never once alluding to fighting the U.S. simply because it is an infidel entity that must be subjugated. Indeed, he often initiates his messages to the West by saying, “Reciprocal treatment is part of justice” or “Peace to whoever follows guidance” — though he means something entirely different than what his Western audience thinks.
This is of course a clear instance of taqiyya, as bin Laden is not only waging a physical jihad, but one of propaganda. Convincing a secular West (whose epistemology does not allow for the notion of religious conquest) that the current conflict is entirely its fault only garners him and his cause more sympathy; conversely, he also knows that if Americans were to realize that, all political grievances aside — real or imagined — according to Islam’s worldview, nothing short of their submission to Islam can ever bring peace, his propaganda campaign would be quickly compromised. Yet the fact is al-Qaeda is motivated more by religious obligation than reciprocal treatment. Hence the constant need to lie, “for war,” as their prophet asserted, “is deceit.”
It should be added that, though the vast majority of the world’s Muslims are not active terrorists, bin Laden’s list of grievances against the West is paradigmatic of the average Muslim’s grievances. However, if they are unaware that, according to Islam — not bin Laden — animosity towards infidels transcends time, space, and grievances, and that religious obligation commands the war continue till “all religion belongs to Allah,” they are either ignorant of their own faith, or — taqiyya?
With friends like these …
Associated with Hamas, denounced by American politicians for “pursuing an extreme Islamist political agenda,” its members arrested for terrorism-related charges — the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is another Muslim group which appears to be less than sincere to its non-Muslim audience; situated in the U.S., it is also much closer to home. When it comes to the issue of jihad, perpetual warfare, even doctrines such as taqiyya — indeed, all that has been delineated in this essay — CAIR has been at the forefront of not only denying their existence, but accusing of “Islamophobia” and threatening with lawsuits anyone alluding to them, thereby censoring any critical talk of Islam.
Could CAIR be taking lessons from the Muslim convert Masud, whom Muhammad urged to go and live among the Confederate infidels, solely in order to mislead and betray them, so that Islam might triumph?
The most obvious example of taqiyya, however, comes from an entire nation: Saudi Arabia. If any nation closely follows Sharia — including, but not limited to, the division of the world into two perpetually warring halves, Islam and infidelity — it is Saudi Arabia, a.k.a. America’s “friend.” According to Sharia, for instance, the Saudis will not allow the construction of a single church or synagogue on their land; Bibles are banned and burned; Christians engaged in any kind of missionary activity are arrested, tortured, and sometimes killed; Muslim converts to Christianity are put to death.
Yet for all that, in their attempt to portray Islam as a “tolerant” religion, a religion that, once again, merely seeks “peacefully coexist” with others, the Saudis have been pushing for more “dialogue” between Muslims and non-Muslims, specifically Christians and Jews (ironically, those two peoples who are currently much more powerful than Islam). Rather tellingly, however, Saudi Arabia refuses to host any of these conferences; after all, their prophet Muhammad’s deathbed wish was to expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian peninsula; how to re-invite them now and talk of peace and tolerance? Moreover, surely the Saudis fear that a real “debate” — not just the perfunctory talk of “mutual understanding” that permeates these farces — might take place, once the non-Muslim participants discover that they are not free to practice their faiths on Saudi soil? The most recent interfaith conference was held in Madrid, where King Abdullah, despite all the aforementioned, asserted, “Islam is a religion of moderation and tolerance, a message that calls for constructive dialogue among followers of all religions.”
Mere days later, it was revealed that Saudi children’s textbooks still call Christians and Jews “infidels,” the “hated enemies,” and “pigs and swine.” A multiple choice test in a fourth-grade book asks Muslim children, “Who is a ‘true’ Muslim?” The correct answer is not the man who prays, fasts, etc., but rather, “A man worships God alone, loves the believers, and hates the infidels” — that is, those same people the Saudis want to “dialogue” with.
Clearly, then, when Saudis — or other Sharia-following Muslims — call for “dialogue” they are merely following the aforementioned advice of Muhammad’s friend, Abu Darda: “Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”
Implications
There is also a troubling philosophical — again, specifically epistemological — aspect to taqiyya. Anyone who truly believes that no less an authority than God justifies and, through his prophet’s example, sometimes even encourages deception, will not experience any ethical qualms or dilemmas about lying. This is especially true if the human mind is indeed a tabula rasa shaped by environment and education: deception becomes second nature.
Consider the case of Ali Mohammad — bin Laden’s “first trainer” and longtime al-Qaeda operative. Despite being entrenched in the highest echelons of the terror network, his confidence at dissembling enabled him to become a CIA agent and FBI informant for years. People who knew him regarded him “with fear and awe for his incredible self-confidence, his inability to be intimidated, absolute ruthless determination to destroy the enemies of Islam, and his zealous belief in the tenets of militant Islamic fundamentalism.” Indeed, this sentence sums it all: for a “zealous belief” in Islam’s “tenets,” which, as seen, legitimize deception, will certainly go a long way in creating “incredible self-confidence” when lying.
The bottom line is, any Muslim who closely observes Sharia law — and that is, incidentally, the definition of a Muslim, “one who submits to (the laws of) Allah” — laws that, among other bellicosities, clearly and unambiguously split the world into two perpetually warring halves — such a Muslim will always have a “divinely sanctioned” right to deceive, until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Koran 8:39). All Muslim overtures for peace, dialogue, or even temporary truces must be seen in this light.
I have posted Part 1 on my Facebook page and now want to post Part 2, but when I attempt to do that, I continue to get ONLY Part 1… please have a look and see if you can fix this quickly. Thanks.
suzanne
Because the koran is vicious, cruel and demands
submission of all non muslims to islam, all non muslims must utterly destroy the evil of this
threat. islam is incompatible with peace and
an insanity and mockery of goodness; an evil.
Thanks for being a vital voice we need to hear.
I remember watching the news on CNN during the second intifada and they would broadcast the news of the Middle East while showing a map of Israel looming large, cruel, and powerful, overwhelming the weak tiny Muslim World. It was only those who have a healthy skepticism and like to do some research on their own, who are curious enough to look at a REAL map and see how small the Nation of Israel is, surrounded by great looming Islamic Nations who wish and hope that Israel is driven to the sea and wiped from the face of the earth.
There are many who want to cover up the light but it always seems to find a way to shine through.
Decorum prevents me from saying what should be said, and many other posts here have it right. In short, one should not subscribe to former President Bush’s naive statement of “Islam is Peace.” History has shown that is not so.
The name “Council on American-Islamic Relations”
must of necessity mean that America and Islam are incompatible.
If Ibrahim is anywhere close to being right (and he appears to be precisely on target), then any Muslim who behaves in an ethical manner is apostate.
Deceit cannot be limited to non-Muslims simply because what is overt to one must be overt to all and what is covert must be covert to all.
This means that those people cannot behave correctly towards each other let alone towards anybody else.
By behaving (just barely) well enough to insure
their own survival they must violate essential elements of their religion. Anybody else’s survival is out of the question.
And should their religion ever dominate the world, the continued existence of the human species would be grounds for eternal damnation.
There is but one explanation for Islam. Lucifer.
President Bush’s naive statement of “Islam is Peace.”
Obviously, Bush’s actions proved that he didn’t believe this statement. If he had he might foolishly suck up to terrorist nations like Iran or broadcast on live Muslim tv channels to demonstrate is unending love for this religion of hate and murder.
our Muslim-in-Chief’s actions demonstrate that he is the real believer of a statement like this.
And the TRUTH shall set you FREE.
Thank you, Mr. Ibrahim for an honest look at an EVIL mindset.
So given the information in your article, the only two outcomes is that Muslims conquer the “West” or the “West” destroys Muslims?
Can I change your comment please:
So given the information in your article, the only two outcomes is that Muslims conquer the “West” or the “West” destroys Islam?
“We say that the world will not live in peace as long as the blood of Muslims continues to be shed.”
Given that Muslims continue to shed Muslim blood, I guess the world will never live in peace. “Woman suicide bomber kills 35 in Iraq”
An educated Roman Catholic or other Christian who is literate in both theology and biblical studies, who juxtaposes the Qur’an, Sunnah, and Sira with our traditions can only come to one conclusion. And it is the correct conclusion, although I get into trouble all the time when I express it. Yet, it’s the truth:
“Allah” is Satan. And Muhammad was one of history’s most monstrously evil men.
Therefore, heed my syllogism: Islam + Marxism = The Mother of All Totalitarianisms
This alliance of Marxism and Islam is a sword hanging over our heads. God help us all if we don’t fight back and allow it to prevail.
To the Sons of Allah, peace is submission. For the Western World, peace is one of the benefits given to all creatures
when truth and freedom overlap.
The West will never, to its credit, accept such a limited definition of peace as what the Sons of Allah have trapped themselves into.
Furthermore, it is the provincialism of the Sons of Allah, which result in their conclusions that they are oppressed.
“Oppression” to Muslims means the condition in which Sharia Law is not supreme in those places where they live outside of dar al Islam. Thus, we “oppress” Muslims because we don’t live under Sharia Law. Their understanding of the meaning of “oppression” is not at all like our understanding of the word. But that’s one codeword they use which the stupid Marxists fall for, and over which they have tea.
If Islam does succeed in its quest for the world this article points out some of what women can expect in this vulgar environment.
ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF PEACE!
Founder of Network Promoting Positive Muslim Image Arrested — For Beheading Wife
By Matthew Balan | February 13, 2009 – 16:46
The Muslim founder of BridgesTV, a cable network whose slogan is “connecting people through understanding” and which tried to “improve the image of Muslims in the United States,” was arrested on Thursday, for allegedly killing his estranged wife in a manner normally associated with Islamist terrorists — chopping off her head.
Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher, reported on Friday that Muzzammil Hassan, “a prominent Buffalo area businessman who founded the BridgesTV network to improve the image of Muslims in the U.S.,” had been charged with second-degree murder in the beheading death of his wife Aasiya Z. Hassan. Mitchell quoted from the network’s website, which described Mrs. Hassan’s “instrumental role in the creation of BridgesTV since she came up with the idea for the network.” The picture of the couple is still up on the website.
Chris at #4. I will not discuss this subject with decorum but will confront the ideology head on. To paraphrase Marcus Porcius Cato, Islam delenda est!
I don’t take this position lightly. It took me quite some time after 9/11 to come to this conclusion. After reading Koranic verses and comparing them with Christian and other religious doctrine, I have found the inherent animosity and intolerance in Muslim doctrine to be completely and utterly incompatible with Western civilized tradition. The incompatibility is even more pronounced when compared with America’s founding principles.
The nation building experiment in Iraq, may have been the only humanistic alternative to Cato’s stark assessment. I hope it works for the sake of the individual Iraqi and his family. To implant a concept of liberty, consensual government and rule of law in a deeply Islamic society and having it take root and grow seems the only possible way to avoid destroying an Islamic civilization. We are seeing some success. But can it last? Perhaps we could isolate Islamic societies if they are violent towards us. But the problem really doesn’t go away. In the end, I think, the great experiment in Iraq will confirm my convictions that Islam must be destroyed. That is, unless, Islam is fundamentally reformed from within by its own adherents.
The issue for Western civilization is, “Are we willing to fight to preserve our way of life?” This may mean having the stomach to do some terrible things. For us here in America, we are not close to that point yet. But it may come to that someday. So again to quote another historical character, “It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it.”
We need to assist Islam in outgrowing its fondness for war. I will bring the plows and salt.
Old_Airman_2000,
I completely agree with all of those thoughts. Every single one.
But right now I don’t think, overall, our civilization has a consensus to preserve itself, its heritage, and its values. Go on EVERY BLOG, including Robert Spencer’s jihadwatch.org, and you will inevitably find at least one (and often more) commenter who will put any and all of the excuses that are used to give Islam the benefit of the doubt and cast us into the role of the bad guys. We are really up against it, because maybe most of our own people are in a fog about this, and a solid minority of that group is on the side of the jihadists.
I am convinced beyond all doubt that we will never be able to effectively deal with this threat to our civilization by Islam until we have dealt decisively with our internal enemies. That Fifth Column, both Marxist and Islamic, has a k-bar knife right against our carotid artery.
“all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah”
Everything belongs to allah, whats wrong with that, the muslim and the non-muslim, east and west, slave and master. allah, god, almighty. Understand the spirit of the verse.
—————-
“If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath.” The prophet further encouraged Muslims to do the same: “If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better.”
this talks about an oath between you and yourself. meaning if you say, I will do this and this if this happens. ( if a boy is born to me I will stop my trade)
or I will divorce my wife if I loose in this game(a game between him and his friends)
oaths with other parties should be respected.
an example is when one immigrater came to medina, he told the meccans I wont rais my sword agianst you, so they let him leave to his fellow muslims in medina, but when war time came between muslims and meccans, he told the prophet about the oath, so the prophet told him to stay and not fight the meccans. its a hadieth also.
so please spare us your ignorance.
if you understand that your wrong, please stop, if you dont understand your wrong, then try to improve yourself.
15. Old_Airman_2000,
*nods head*
Yes, sir. What you said and with intelligence and level-headed passion.
Thank you so much. It is with a heavy heart such conclusions must be met head-on because our choice to remain free from tyranny is frighteningly running short on time.
Delia
David W. Lincoln, #12: To the Sons of Allah, peace is submission. For the Western World, peace is one of the benefits given to all creatures when truth and freedom overlap.
The West will never, to its credit, accept such a limited definition of peace as what the Sons of Allah have trapped themselves into.
Alas, I’m not quite as confident about this as you are, David. If Islam indeed demands a permanent state of war between Muslims and non-Muslims as long as any of the latter continue to exist, the upshot is that there are only two ways this war can be ended once and for all:
[a] The West submits to/is destroyed by Islam, OR
[b] The West wipes Islam completely off the face of the earth – i.e. genocide on a scale that would dwarf the combined body counts of the fascist and Communist regimes of the 20th century, and would by necessity not be limited to the “Muslim world”.
[b] is out of the question for obvious reasons, leaving endless war, with all that that entails according to Mr. Ibrahim, as the only other option for avoiding [a] – and many Western nations (or at least their leaders and gov’ts), including our own, have strongly signaled their weariness of endless war.
I would like to suggest a third way to the stark alternatives above. We need not prosecute a genocidal war against Islam. The trick is to to understand how their theology operates, getting inside their heads, so to speak.
From Muhammad’s days at Yathrib (Medina)the proof of “Allah’s” (in reality, Muhammad’s sock puppet)supremacy was the fact that “Allah” gave them victory and booty. Victory establishes the veritas of Islam. The Achilles Heel of Islam is apostasy, which will occur if and when we inflict hard, military catastrophe against them, short of genocide. It means smashing their ability to wage war, and it means devastating their key shrines, like Mecca. Deprive them of victory and show them that “Allah” is impotent, in a steady drumbeat of defeat, and you will cause an internal collapse of Islam.
20. fred,
Sounds like a plan! Hey, at least we’re having a dialogue with concrete ideas on this troublesome and scary subject.
Excellent post, Sir.
Thank you, muchly.
You fellas ROCK!
Delia
To: Arabian (17)
Your efforts to persuade and or dissuade are belied by three words in your opening paragraph, namely:
“all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah”
Everything belongs to allah, whats wrong with that, the muslim and the non-muslim, east and west, SLAVE AND MASTER, allah, god, almighty. Understand the spirit of the verse.
Slave and Master? Yes, I indeed understand the spirit of the verse!!
Please send your interpretation/version of the oath Hadith to Hamas, Bin Laden, MPAC, CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood et al, they seem to be labouring under a misinterpretation.
To: Old_Airman_2000,
Well said!
To Arabian at #17:
My assumption is you are Muslim. You are my enemy. I will not submit and be your dhimmi. I am bringing my plows and salt. And I will remind you that no one believes in Baal any more. Perhaps Mohammad has had his day in history.
Raymond Ibrahim:
I’ll bet a pickle, you get a lot of threats and hate mail from the Islamic factions who consider themselves to be true believers.
I have been studying Islam, the Koran, and Muhammad for some time now and what you have so succinctly written in this article about sums it up.
The distrust I hold for anything Islamic has been ingrained and shall continue to remain thus.
I’m not a big fan of Islam I don’t think they like me either!
DoubleTapper
DoubleTapper@gmail.com
DoubleTapper, blogging on Guns Politics Defense from Israel
20. Fred wrote:
“Victory establishes the veritas of Islam.”
That is precisely my impression, too, Fred.
In reading Rodney Stark´s magnificent book titled “Discovering God” (chapter 8 – Islam: God and State), I realized that, contrary to what mostly happened in Christianized lands, in Islamized ones a Muslim military conquest, with the subsequent political supremacy, always came before the gradual Islamization of the subdued population.
Worse still, Islam came upon Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, whose respective faiths were centuries-long established traditions, each of which with a much more sophisticated theology and a far better moral code.
Whereas in pre-Colombian America, to give an example of military conquest preceding the spread of Christianity through peaceful preaching, martyrdom or free reasoning, the Christian faith replaced satanic cults, much to the relief of enslaved and opressed peoples; or introduced itself to cannibalistic warring tribes all across South America.
The more I read and ponder about the prophet Muhammad and Islam the more I wonder who actually was the angel who took Muhammad through his “Night Journey” in 620 CE.
#17 arabian – And why did Mohammed tell him to remain behind? Because of his oath (which, mind you, was given unto someone else)? Or was it in case they were unsuccessful and needed agents in Mecca, afterwards?
Your position is ridiculous. We in the West value our oaths. Such things are one of the foundations of a civilized society. If I promise you, or myself, something, I must do all I can do to follow through. Do I fail, then I must do all I can to make amends, to atone. It s called honor. It is not your hubris-filled Islamic version of honor. It is about my integrity, being true to myself. It is a matter of character.
When other men can depend upon you to honor your word, then they can make plans of their own with greater certitude. They may undertake greater risks, because the risk is diminished. This is why the West has dominated the rest of the world. We can accomplish greater things, because we can work together in confidence.
One can do no such thing with a Muslim. They smile in your face and rage in their hearts. Like Lucifer. Like Mohammed. Snakes.
If Satan is the prince of lies who is this Mohammad guy again? It seems like his native tongue is lies too.
We need to stop with this equating Islam with evil and Satan, and this war mongering towards all Muslims. I sense a great deal of hatred towards Muslims from all these comments and it does not help our cause.
Even though everything in Ibrahim’s articles are no doubt true and Islam is indeed a warlike and xenophobic religion, outright saying these things and accusing Islam of being a illegitimate religion and evil simply crystallizes western hatred of muslims and muslim hatred of westerners.
This in turn makes the clash of civilizations inevitable. Why is that bad? Because we in the modern west do not have the unity or capacity to win such a war. We will not unite together with the liberals and the Europeans to destroy Mecca, attack 1 billion people, and basically fight World War II against all the Muslims of the world. This will simply not happen because we are not all conservative Christians in the west. There are agnostics, not so conservative Christians, Jews, Atheists, liberals, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. who will not be united by the idea of Islam as a monolithic Satanist religion. The Muslims will ultimately wear us down while winning the hearts and minds of various marginalized peoples.
This fight does not have to be the West vs. Islam. Rather it can be a fight of Modern Islam vs. Medieval Islam. Medieval Islam is the true nature of Islam that everyone has been talking about in the comments that is deceitful in war and xenophobic. Worse, it is the Islam that is practiced by a large proportion of Muslims, but that does not mean that it cannot be defeated by ways other than outright war. Modern Islam is weak and powerless, but it does exist in some sects (Ismaeli Shia, Sufism, and another sect which I cannot recall right now). The existence (no matter how small a number) of modern, tolerant, integrated Muslims suggests that we may propel it to prosperity through socioeconomic and hearts and minds operations. Determined military resistance against Medieval Islam combined with strong support for Modern Islam can succeed in convincing Muslims to join more successful modern sects. Oh, and somehow fixing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would probably deprive radical Islam of many recruits (this is obviously a very difficult, but necessary part of this effort)
We should not allow Islamic xenophobia to trigger a similar medieval hatred of Muslims in ourselves (this would be victory of Islamic medievalism over us). After all, we live in the modern west. We must utilize our modernity to our strength and not fight a medieval style war against medievalists.
-Parthicus
*heavy sigh*
Please read ALL when you have the time and inclination:
http://michellemalkin.com/2006/09/29/the-forbidden-op-eds/
This is the Word of the Lord, which Moses delivered to the people of Israel, concerning oaths: all oaths taken by men are binding, even if spoken in haste. God will judge you a liar (and a blasphemer if His Name was taken in the oath) if you violate that oath. A woman could be released from an oath if her father (if she is unmarried) or her husband forbade her from carrying out the oath, but otherwise, the oath was binding for women as well. Mohammed (cursed be his name) is the scum of the earth.
Parthicus:
You can not be a serious student of even the most basic tenets of Islam; great God, its very existence. You sport an elementary understanding of Islam much like our newly elected President; believing we will be able to reason with so-called modern Islamic intellectuals. Or more accurately, ‘vicious brutes hiding behind a religious zeal for Allah’.
By what measure, is it so difficult to understand that the canons of Islamic sharia law do not allow for any other existence, other than Islam, that is. The Imams hold your average Muslim’s feet to eternal fire and damnation if they don’t show or profess the same zeal for Islam and jihad as their most ardent followers. When you have that kind of brainwashing, you don’t need restraints or drugs. Especially when people want to be on good terms with God. In this case, it happens to be Muhammad’s interpretation of God. …That’s a whole ‘nother discourse.
No doubt, holding their hand and sermonizing about their barbaric methods will cause them to cease and desist.
With such gentle chastisement, my barbaric response earlier is drowning in fuzzy feelings of love. Could this be remorse I’m feeling, no… wait… yup, it’s the barbecue pork I ingested earlier by the bucketful.
Try asking the Israelis how far they’ve gotten. Ask the Twin Tower survivors and the victims families. Knock it off Parthicus, Islam doesn’t need another useful idiot.
Please do not mistake me for some liberal jihad apologist, some closet anti-semite, or some naive multiculturalist. I have not come here with some stealth agenda to convince you people that Sharia and the original medieval Islamic principles are not a threat to the west. Nor am I here to disagree with the idea that a large proportion of Muslims are fundamentalists or closet fundamentalists.
I read Jihad watch and I’m fully aware of the verse of the sword and the policy of abrogation. I strongly support Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I’ve also studied the military history of Islam and am fully aware that it is spread almost entirely by conquest. And, I’ve been watching the Israeli Palestine conflict since I was 8, and my support for the Israelis is iron clad.
When I say moderate muslims, i don’t mean CAIR or MSA or all those sunni muslims groups funded by the Saudis that run around pretending to be moderate but actually practice stealth jihad. Anything funded by the Saudis or following a Sunni literal interpretation of the Koran will ultimately be a fundamentalist organization masquerading as moderate. When I say moderate, I’m talking about Shia groups that believe in the “hidden” meaning of the Koran beyond the literal interpretations. Take the Nizari Ismaili sect under their Aga Khan IV for example, I have found no evidence of any fundamentalism or stealth jihad within this sect. Do not take my word for it, for I will admit that while I personally know members of this sect, I have not done thorough research.
From a practical stand point, all this “islam is satanic” and “islam is warlike” talk simply drives us into a corner. It is difficult for western society to equate Islam with Communism or Nazism because it is a religion (even though the levels of anti-semitism and the political nature of fundamentalist Islam do indeed make a as large a threat to Western values). I think it would be more practical to ban Saudi Wahhabi funding and fund our own moderate muslims (that are not closet fundamentalists).
Now, someone is going to say that I’m ridiculous because there are almost no moderate muslims. There are still at least 30 million moderate muslims out of 1 billion. And possibly another 100 million + that can be swayed if we put our full effort into breaking the Wahhabi Saudi monopoly on Islamic funding. These people are considered apostates by the Saudi monopoly on Islam and I believe are not even allowed to go on the Hajj. Is that not worth the effort to bring these people actively over to our side and fund and insurgency against the Wahhabis? 130 million + allies is a great deal, even if it is not enough to prevent the clash of civilizations. It is too early to write off all the Muslims as our enemies. Even Nazi Germany had partisans.
-parthicus
#33 Parthicus – I appreciate that you are educated in this area, and realize the threat. However, I ask you this: If these modern Muslims repent of Medieval Islam, which is most of the Koran, why not just leave the faith? If I found most of the Bible repugnant, I certainly would no longer be a Christian.
Now, I appreciate that there is a small group of Muslims who are too decent to adhere to jihad, but I am not interested in reaching out to them to attempt to “modernize” Islam. That is a fool’s errand. Islam itself is just too deeply flawed. It is violent, barbaric evil. If you want to reach out to these modernists, have them repent of Islam and convert to another faith.
The fear of us getting into a clash of cultures is likewise ridiculous, for we are already there. Islam, by its nature, is at war with the world. That’s the reality. I can’t tell if your plea is merely ignorance, or more taquiyya. “Oh, please, sir, don’t hold all Islam as bad. There are 30M of us who are good. That’s a whole 2%! There might be another 6% out there, too!” Color me underwhelmed.
#34 Marc Malone -
It’s not taquiyya because I’m not Muslim (I’m an agnostic, patriotic American, though some raving anti-semitic actually accused me of being an Israeli cyberwarrior on defensetech, which I find hilarious). If it comes to the clash of civilizations, you won’t find me with the protesters, but rather on the battlefield doing my duty as an American.
I also agree with the idea that perhaps the number of true moderate muslims is as small as 2%, but that should not deter an effort to “reach out”. The effort I describe is actually not “reaching out” at all. It is a pure lobbying effort.
Here is an analogy: congress repeatedly bails out the auto industry because the auto industry lobby is the only force throwing money and opinion at the problem. The auto industry has money, influence, and has seized legitimacy. Is congress inherently bad and unworthy of any counter lobbying attempt because it has been blinded by the auto industry lobby consistently?
Similarly, the Saudi lobby is the only lobby with money, influence, and has seized legitimacy. It lobbies the American congress, but more importantly, it lobbies the Muslim people in every mosque and madrassah it funds. As to having Muslims repent and convert to another faith, that’s called apostasy and it’s punishable by death in a society that has been totally poisoned by Saudi Wahhabism. Even if some other form of Islam tried or attempted to gain ascendancy, it would quickly be flattened by the Saudi lobby. (this is starting to sound like one of those delusional anti-israeli lobby rants except it’s an anti Saudi rant, lol)
solution: wipe out the Saudi lobby, supply funds to appropriately researched true moderate sects that have long been oppressed by the Wahhabis. All we have to do is make the soil fertile for other options and the seed of freedom will sprout.
(as to how to practically negate the Saudi lobby, their madrasahs, and their mosques: ideas are welcome)
-Parthicus