A note from Radarsite: In a recent article posted at Stop the ACLU, titled "We Are Losing the Global War on Terror", I received the following comment: "A lot of our allies in the War on Terror are Muslims. In fact we probably be doing a whole lot worse without them. Iraq and Afghanistan would both be loss causes." There was just not enough room in the comments section to adequately reply to this familiar challenge. But, I believe, a reply must nonetheless be made. This comment, along with so many others in a similar vein, proves to me that despite Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the horrors of 9/11, the Madrid Atocha Bombings, the London Bombings, etc., etc., in all these years we have learned virtually nothing new about our enemies. We still cling hopefully to those useless and ludicrous paradigms which have long ago been discredited. We are it seems no closer to appreciating the true menace of Islam than we were pre- 9/11. We still choose to live with our discredited illusions rather than face the cold hard truth.
The following original Radarsite article was first published by Political Grind on October 31, 2007. I am posting it here again in the hope that it might reach some of those people who -- like our liberal-minded STACLU commenter -- still believe that we can somehow be saved by those illusive 'moderate Muslims', or that this latest violent Islamic jihad was of our own making. And that possibly, just possibly, it may give them pause to rethink their opinions of Islam and of Muslims. For those of you who have already read this piece, feel free to just skip over it. - rg
Wrestling With Mohammed
Is Islam a religion of peace or an imminent fascist threat?
This may very well be one of the most crucial questions of our era. Is there actually a definitive, clear-cut answer to this monumental question?
Yes, there is, but it is buried in a miasma of misinformation and religious apologetics. Also, unfortunately for some, there is no shortcut to understanding the true nature of Islam, just as there is no shortcut to understanding the true nature of Christianity. You will not get your answers by reading your local newspaper or by listening to the evening news. Knowledge, like any other worthwhile goal, must be earned, you must work for it. In the case of Islam, the answers lie in the Qur’an and in the accompanying expository texts. The answers lie in that abundance of Islamic literature, and in the pronouncements of its leaders and in their actions. The answers are there for all to see. They are clearly stated and unequivocal. But you must take the time to read them and to listen.
However, given the reality of our hectic lives, few of us have the space, or even the inclination to devote precious hours of our free time to this laborious and relatively abstruse quest. For most of us, this means that we have to rely on others to help us form our opinions. Generally, we tend to gravitate toward those opinions which fit most neatly into our own personal worldview. Or, put another way, into the rhetoric of our particular political persuasions. Thus, we rely for the exposition of truth on those purported experts who, whether overtly or covertly, have a personal agenda of their own.
What then, might you ask, is my personal agenda? Did I suddenly wake up one morning and decide to devote the rest of my life to denigrating one of the world’s major religions?
Did I suddenly wake up one morning to find that our country had just been attacked and thousands killed by a group of young Middle Eastern hijackers who just happened to all be Muslim?
Yes. And I have devoted a major portion of my life since then trying to better understand the true nature of this religion and of this threat.
Opinions, unlike principles, are not sacred possessions to be protected, locked away and defended from all intruders. Rather, they are, or should be, living and evolving attitudes, constantly subjected to rigorous revision and adjustment — or, when necessary, quickly abandoned for some more plausible or cogent truth.
Is there perhaps a better way to understand this debate, without having to rely on the questionable opinions of others, while avoiding that impracticable investment of time and energy?I believe that there is. I believe that all it requires of us is the acceptance of the following simple and straight-forward premise: It is possible to understand the fundamental nature of a religion by judging the character of its founder. If one accepts the fairness of this premise, then our task becomes a little easier. Fortunately, there is an abundance of literary evidence devoted to the lives of both Jesus Christ and Mohammed. The problem for us is that, while almost all of us have a comfortable familiarity with the narrative of the life of Christ, few of us could relate the life of Mohammed with the same confidence. Therefore, when we are told that Islam is a religion of peace, we tend to accept this statement at face value; all that we can equate it to are those religions with which we are familiar, which, for most Christians is Christianity, which in its present form is basically peaceful.
The contrast between the lives of these two monumental figures could not be more striking or more enlightening. The basic facts of their lives are well-documented and attested.
There are, to the best of my knowledge, no surviving texts which document Christ either injuring or killing any living creature, let alone another human being. Mohammed slaughtered dozens of his unfortunate enemies, personally decapitating his rival Abu Jahl. Again, to the best of my knowledge, Jesus Christ never participated in any acts of piracy, rape, plunder, kidnapping or thievery. Mohammed did.
It has never been substantiated that Jesus Christ had ever had any physical relationship with any contemporary female or participated in any form of pedophilia. Mohammad had eleven wives, whom he sometimes enjoyed all at once — including nine year old Aisha. When Mohammed took the child Aisha to bed he was fifty-three years old. He also took the wife of his adopted son to bed for his amusement. Conveniently, for justification of these questionable acts he invariably claimed to have received some form of special divine encouragement or dispensation in the form of a vision from Allah.
Since its inception, two thousand years ago, Christianity has evolved and refined itself through a whole series of reformations and readjustments. The episodic violence of its early years has given way to a generally peaceful coexistence with secular authority.
Islam has never changed — except for the negative effects of Wahhabism, which only succeeded in turning Islam further in on itself and away from the world of progress and enlightenment.
Christianity has brought the world the message of kindness and charity. If the world has at times chosen to ignore this message, that is not the fault of Christianity but, rather, a testament to the weakness of human beings. Over the years, Christianity has unquestionably inspired untold numbers of artists, sculptors, writers and musicians to produce some of the most marvelous creations the world has ever known.
Islam has brought the world polygamy, forced female genital mutilation (an estimated 135 million to date, with 2 million young girls presently at risk), forced marriages, pedophilia, officially-sanctioned rape (804 documented cases in the year 2000 in Pakistan alone), along with those wonderful family values, such as honor killings and the total brutal subjugation of all of its second-class females, and has infected the world with it’s most virulent form of anti-Semitism. And let us not forget those unquestionable benefits of global terrorism (between the years 1960 and 2000, 95% of all terrorist attacks were the result of Islam). Here, my friends, is the holy voice of Allah exhorting his followers to terrorism: “I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.” (Qur’an 8:12) In the immortal words of Edward Gibbon, from his monumental “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, long before this cowardly age of Political Correctness: “His [Mohammed’s] voice invited the Arabs to freedom and victory, to arms and rapine, to the indulgence of their darling passions in this world and the other…”
Perhaps the most illustrative example of the character of Mohammed in our current age would be a cross between Pol Pot and John Gotti — although, to his credit, John Gotti never had any incestuous or pedophilic relationships that I am aware of. The deadly Fatwas issued in Mohammed’s name, or in the name of one of his mullahs, are morally identical to a mob-sanctioned contract, and should be treated with the same contempt.
If my characterization of this “peaceful religion” appears to some as harsh and brutal, it is because this terrible “religion” is harsh and brutal. However, everything that has been stated above can be readily substantiated with their own writings and in their own words.
But what, then, of those “Moderate Muslims”? What of those decent Muslims who claim that they are fighting back against those particularly violent precepts of Islam? To these valiant apostates I can only answer, if you are truly willing to disassociate yourselves completely from the divinely perfect words of the Prophet, if you are truly willing to turn your backs on the entire force of the argument of his criminal life, if you are truly willing to accept without qualification the natural equality of women, and the right to the existence of a viable Jewish state, then I welcome your rebellion and bow to your courage.
And, might I suggest, that we honor this great internal theological jihad of yours by allowing those munificent Saudis to erect a Grand Mosque in New York City, as they still plan to do in London. I propose that the construction of this Great Monument to Islam coincide with the ground-breaking ceremony for that first great synagogue in Riyadh or with the inauguration of that first magnificent Roman Catholic Cathedral in Cairo. Further, I support the opening of innumerable Islamic Madrases throughout the United States, immediately after our own Pastor Ed is allowed to conduct his first Christian History classes in Damascus. I also believe that it is only fair and right that we provide those Muslims in our midst with their religious foot baths in our universities and our airports, right after that first Christian Science Reading Room opens its doors in Yemen. And, to be completely fair, we should allow full native Muslim dress in all of our schools and universities, just as soon as those Iranian women are allowed to wear short skirts and uncovered hair to the University of Tehran.
Lastly, to the question of whether Islam is or is not a fascistic threat, consider this: according to my dictionary’s definition, fascism is “a governmental system (remember, there exists no distinction in Islam between religion and government) led by a dictator (Mohammed or his imams) having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.” Could there be any more precise description of our current threat?
I rest my case and patiently await those inevitable cries of prejudice and racism. And perhaps a stray fatwa.
Originally published by Political Grind - October 31, 2007
Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, d. 996, maliki. Cit. ur Leon Bercher, La risala ou epitre sur les elements du dogme de la loi d’Islam (Algiers 1945).
Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax, short of which war will be declared against them.The Malikis issue their invitation to embrace Islam, emulating their Profit, then, if Dawa is rejected, they attack, as per the orders given in Muslim 19.4294.The quote does not disguise the fact that Islam initiates hostilities, verifying the fact that Islam engages in offensive wars of aggressive conquest. -- Posted By Ben to Take Our Country Back at 1/09/2009
And also from Ben at Take Our Country Back:
Stop Muslim Immigration to the United States
WE HAVE NO way of determining which Muslims subscribe to pure Islam. The reason this matters is that pure Islam is seditious. Islamic doctrine is more political than religious, and its sole political goal is the domination of Islam over all over religions and all governments.It is a Muslim's religious duty to achieve that political goal.When Muslims move to a country, a certain percentage of them start agitating for special considerations. They start to organize and influence the nation politically in a way that is good for Islam and bad for freedom and equality. When the percentage of the Muslims in a nation's population becomes high enough, they gain so much political power that freedoms and rights begin to disappear. (Watch this video to learn more.)Given all this, until we have a way of determining who is dedicated to pure Islam, no more Muslims should be allowed to immigrate into free countries.Does this seem extreme? It's not as bad as it might seem. We already choose who can immigrate and who cannot. We make the rules. This is our country, after all. We are not under any obligation to allow anyone to immigrate who wants to. They do it with our blessing or they don't do it.So this policy is simply adding to the already-existing filter.This is not racist. Islam is not a race; it's an ideology. The policy of stopping Muslim immigration is simply acknowledging the reality of the Islamic teachings. I know there are Muslims who reject the violent and intolerant verses of the Qur'an. But Islam also teaches taqiyya and we have no way of knowing who is sincere and who is deliberately deceiving us.We should not take the chance, at least until we find some way to discern between people who genuinely reject the political goals of Islam and those who do not. In the meantime, we should stop all immigration into free countries by Muslims while we can. You can get the process started right now by signing this petition.Does signing a petition do any good? According to ThePetitionSite (the organization I used to create this petition), the answer is: "Yes — often, but the answer really depends on a number of factors. In general, the more a target organization is impacted by public opinion, the more effective are the petitions. In addition, ThePetitionSite enhances the credibility of online petitions by centralizing signature collection, structuring/regulating signature data collection and output, facilitating communication of petitions via fax, email, etc. and by using fraud-reduction technology. Remember — the effect of a petition usually goes far beyond the actual list of signatures. Journalists write stories about the petitions, signers get inspired to take additional actions, and other "potential targets" conform their behavior to avoid being a target."Petitions can also exert an influence through two powerful principles of influence: Social proof and commitment and consistency. Petitions have been known to ignite important public debates.When this petition reaches 50,000 signatures, I will make sure each member of the House and the Senate finds out about it. And I will make sure newspapers and magazines all over the country find out about it. Your signature will make a difference. Sign the petition today: No More Muslim Immigration.