War and Peace — and Deceit — in Islam (Part 2)
Al-Qaeda, the Palestinians, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations have all perfected the use of deception to advance Islamist goals.
Click here to read part one.
War is eternal
The fact that Islam legitimizes deceit during war cannot be all that surprising; as the saying goes, all’s fair in love and war. Moreover, non-Muslim thinkers and philosophers, such as Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, all justified deceit in war. The crucial difference, however, is that, according to all four recognized schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity — until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Koran 8:39). In its entry on jihad, the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam simply states:
The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.
Moreover, going back to the doctrine of abrogation, the vast majority of the ulema agree that Koran 9:5, famously known as ayat al-saif — the “sword verse” — has abrogated some 124 of the more peaceful Meccan verses.
The obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam’s dichotomized worldview that pits Dar al-Islam (the “realm of submission,” i.e., the Islamic world), against Dar al-Harb (the “realm of war,” i.e., the non-Islamic world) until the former subsumes the latter. Internationally renowned Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) articulates this division thusly: “In the Muslim community, holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups [specifically Christianity and Judaism] did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
This concept is highlighted by the fact that, based on the ten-year treaty of Hudaibiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his Quraish opponents in Mecca, ten years is, theoretically, the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels. Based on Muhammad’s example of breaking the treaty after two years (by citing a Quraish infraction), the sole function of the “peace treaty” (or hudna) is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup before going on the offensive once more. Incidentally, according to a canonical hadith, Muhammad said, “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.”
After negotiating a peace treaty criticized by Muslims as conceding too much to Israel, former PLO leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat, speaking to Muslims in a mosque and off the record, justified his actions by saying, “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish in Mecca.” In other words, like his prophet, the “moderate” Arafat was giving his word only to annul it once “something else better” came along — that is, once Palestinians became strong enough to renew the offensive.
Most recently, a new Islamic group associated with Hamas called Jaysh al-Umma (Islam’s army) stated clearly, “Muslims all over the world are obliged to fight the Israelis and the infidels until only Islam rules the earth.” Realizing their slip, they quickly clarified: “We say that the world will not live in peace as long as the blood of Muslims continues to be shed.” Which is it — until Muslim blood stops being shed in Israel or “until only Islam rules the earth”?
These are all clear instances of Muslims feigning openness to the idea of peace simply in order to buy more time to build up their strength.
Here, then, is the problem: If Islam must be in a constant state of war with the non-Muslim world, which need not be physical, as the ulema have classified several non-violent forms of jihad, such as “jihad-of-the-pen” (propaganda) and “money-jihad” (economic); and if Muslims are permitted to lie and feign loyalty, amiability, even affection to the infidel, simply to further their war efforts — what does one make of any Muslim overtures of peace, tolerance, or dialogue?
This is more obvious when one considers that, every single time Muslims “reach out” for “peace,” it is always when they are in a weakened condition vis-à-vis infidels — that is, when they, not their non-Muslim competitors, benefit from the peace. This is the lesson of the last two centuries of Muslim-Western interaction, wherein the former have been militarily inferior and thus beholden to the latter.
One wonders if the reverse would hold true. If, for example, the Palestinians suddenly became stronger than Israel and could annihilate it, if Israel reached out for peace or concessions, would the (overwhelmingly Muslim) Palestinians grant it? In fact, the answer to this question is evident in all those countries where non-Muslim groups live as minorities among Muslim majorities: while living in constant social subjugation (according to Koran 9:29) they are also sporadically persecuted and killed — such as the Christian Copts of Egypt who, after merely assembling for prayer in a condemned factory, found 20,000 rioting Muslims surrounded them, screaming the Muslim war cry, “Allah Akbar,” while throwing stones at them.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Raymond Ibrahim is the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
35 Comments
1. suztours: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
Feb 13, 2009 - 3:07 am 2. D. Grant Chee----:Because the koran is vicious, cruel and demands
Feb 13, 2009 - 6:28 am 3. LynnS: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.
Feb 13, 2009 - 6:35 am 4. CHRIS: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.
Feb 13, 2009 - 7:22 am 5. Dave: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.
Feb 13, 2009 - 7:27 am 6. Scott: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.
Feb 13, 2009 - 9:11 am 7. Delia:And the TRUTH shall set you FREE.
Thank you, Mr. Ibrahim for an honest look at an EVIL mindset.
Feb 13, 2009 - 9:54 am 8. WJ:So given the information in your article, the only two outcomes is that Muslims conquer the “West” or the “West” destroys Muslims?
Feb 13, 2009 - 10:06 am 9. David H: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?
Feb 13, 2009 - 10:27 am 10. John from Toronto:“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”
Feb 13, 2009 - 10:54 am 11. fred: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.
Feb 13, 2009 - 12:17 pm 12. David W. Lincoln: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.
Feb 13, 2009 - 12:27 pm 13. fred:“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.
Feb 13, 2009 - 1:02 pm 14. gboisjo: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
Feb 13, 2009 - 2:58 pm 15. Old_Airman_2000: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.
Feb 13, 2009 - 5:19 pm 16. fred: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.
Feb 13, 2009 - 6:23 pm 17. arabian:“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.
Feb 13, 2009 - 6:25 pm 18. Delia: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
Feb 13, 2009 - 7:00 pm 19. Joshua: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.
Feb 13, 2009 - 8:08 pm 20. fred: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.
Feb 13, 2009 - 8:35 pm 21. Delia: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
Feb 13, 2009 - 8:50 pm 22. Sue: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!
Feb 13, 2009 - 11:33 pm 23. Old_Airman_2000: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.
Feb 14, 2009 - 10:54 am 24. Briney: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.
Feb 14, 2009 - 12:04 pm 25. DoubleTapper:I’m not a big fan of Islam I don’t think they like me either!
DoubleTapper
Feb 14, 2009 - 3:01 pm 26. Al Fontaine: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.
Feb 14, 2009 - 4:01 pm 27. Marc Malone:#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.
Feb 14, 2009 - 5:09 pm 28. Rignerd:If Satan is the prince of lies who is this Mohammad guy again? It seems like his native tongue is lies too.
Feb 15, 2009 - 3:41 am 29. Parthicus: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
Feb 15, 2009 - 1:14 pm 30. Delia:*heavy sigh*
Please read ALL when you have the time and inclination:
http://michellemalkin.com/2006/09/29/the-forbidden-op-eds/
Feb 15, 2009 - 2:41 pm 31. myth buster: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.
Feb 15, 2009 - 7:22 pm 32. Briney: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.
Feb 15, 2009 - 7:56 pm 33. Parthicus: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
Feb 16, 2009 - 12:34 am 34. Marc Malone:#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.
Feb 17, 2009 - 3:01 pm 35. Parthicus:#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
Feb 18, 2009 - 6:10 pm