TheLogician.net © Avi Sion, 2012-3.
The essence of Islamic discourse
Abstract: Islamic discourse both internally and externally consists mainly of violent acts, threats of more violence, lying and pretending. These are its main ‘arguments’, through which it hopes to take over the world and rule it.
According to the testimony of a police informant, the
terrorist Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif (aka Joseph Anthony Davis), referring to
the murder of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, by another terrorist a couple
of years earlier, argued a fortiori as follows (presumably in English): “If
one person could kill so many, three attackers could kill many more!” He
intended “to storm a Seattle military recruitment center with machine guns
and grenades,” but was arrested before he could carry out his plot Evidently, although Islamic terrorists, and the
‘theoreticians’ of Islam who encourage them, are mentally deranged,
suffering from severe dysfunctions of their emotional and rational faculties,
they are quite capable of making inferences within the framework of their
deadly belief-system. Just as the Nazis or Communists were capable of
reasoning to some extent, enough to produce their tanks and concentration
camps, so today’s Islamists are able to manipulate mobile phones and hi-tech
guns. This is reason in the service of madness. Everyone, or almost everyone, has the capacity to
reason to some extent – but the question is always: to what extent?
Obviously, people whose commitment to reason is very tenuous and
circumscribed, consisting of occasional ad hoc reasoning acts, cannot
rightly be called rational. Only people whose commitment to reason is firm
and consistent can rightly be characterized as rational. This brings us to
the issue of the essence of Islamic discourse: is it rational or irrational?
Although, as we have seen, Islam has a tradition of genuine logic, it must
be said that the overarching ‘arguments’ of Islam, the principal means of
its propagation, are and have always been violence and threats of violence,
and lying and pretending. We shall now expose this fact. Islam’s favorite ‘arguments’. In any study of the logic of a particular culture, it
is important to draw a distinction between its essential means of discourse,
through which the culture is principally formed and sustained, and the
relatively incidental aspects of its discourse. The logician cannot merely
list forms of argument, without critical consideration of their effective
hierarchy. His analysis must aim for the essence of the matter. Let us, then,
be frank. The essence of Islamic discourse is, evidently, violence and the
threat of more violence, and lying and pretending. Comparatively, all other
forms of argument used in Islam pale into insignificance. It is not an
accident that Islamic discourse today is so charged with anger, hatred and
aggressiveness – these qualities are already manifest in Islam’s founding
document, the Unholy Koran. Today’s Islamic discourse is just reviving and
mimicking the tone and tactics exemplified in the Koran. The primary ‘argument’ of Islamic logic is—physical
intimidation, i.e. the explicit or implicit threat of violent reprisal
if you disagree with Islam in any significant way. This ‘might is right’
argument is evident in many statements and stories in the Koran and the
hadiths (the oral traditions of Islam)[2],
and in consequent Islamic law (Sharia), and the consequent behavior
throughout history and today of Islamic régimes and groups[3].
The physical intimidation argument is used on Moslems (e.g. apostates risk
execution, so-called honor killings are tacitly encouraged), and against
non-Moslems when these are under their power (Jews and Christians are forced
to convert or at least pay ‘protection money’ (jizya) or be executed,
while other non-Moslems[4]
must either convert or face death). When non-Moslems are not under their
power, they threaten them with deadly riots or terrorist acts. Of course,
verbal threats have no persuasive power if not backed up by actual violence
now and then. And it works! Witness the way today most Western
governments, academics and journalists are cowed into praising Islam and
disapproving of anyone who criticizes it. Of course, these people do not
admit themselves as intimidated; their mentality is that of people with the
‘Stockholm syndrome’. They are hostages who are so thoroughly cowed that,
instead of turning their wrath on the thugs victimizing them, curse and
oppose the heroes who try to resist and oppose the thugs. Such people think
that denial, passivity, appeasement and accommodation will save them –
whereas it is precisely such timid responses that will cause their perdition
and enslavement to the proponents of this evil doctrine, which aims at world
domination and totalitarian control of everyone’s life, and not incidentally
intends to attempt another Holocaust of the Jews[5]. Another ‘argument’ of Islamic logic is—deception,
i.e. Moslems lying and pretending so as to gradually subdue their potential
victims without their true intentions and identity being evident[6].
They may lie by commission (takkiya) or by omission (kitman).
This non-violent tool of persuasion is used in conjunction with that of
violence and threats of violence, so as to psychologically allow the
submissive victims (who may already be characterized as dhimmis, the
name given to second-class citizens in a Moslem state) to maintain an
illusion self-esteem. In this context, the predators pose as innocent
victims of those who resist them and appeal to the scared portion of their
prey for protection against the resistors[7]. One of the most successful acts of deceit is recent
times has been the cunning redefinition of ‘terrorism’ by Moslems (and their
‘leftist’ sympathizers), as referring to acts of violence aimed at civilians,
or at least with civilian casualties (even if they are incidental to a
military operation). But this is not the essence of the matter. What
distinguishes terrorism is that it involves the initiation of violence,
or even the initiation of a threat of violence. It is the use of violence as
an ‘argument’ against people who were not using force against the
perpetrators. Thus, a soldier may be a victim of terrorism. When the
intended victims are civilian, this is just a greater degree of terrorism.
But violence aimed at combating terrorism is not terrorism. There is no
‘moral equivalency’ between thugs and police forces. The issue is always:
who started it, really? Islamic terror, although it pretends to be defensive,
is always aggressive – simply because it is triggered and driven by a
perpetual religious imperative of global conquest. Terrorists usually give
pretexts for their heinous acts, but their real motive is always ideological,
viz. “holy war” (jihad). The purpose of such redefinition is to blur the
distinction between terrorism and anti-terrorism in the public’s mind. Those
who murder in the name of Islam are presented as freedom fighters struggling
against imperialism and colonialism, or racism, while their victims are
depicted as callous oppressors who ‘had it coming’. Using their positions of
influence and considerable propaganda skills, Western leftists[8]
help to create and confirm this upside-down narrative. Moreover, anyone who
dares to challenge it, demanding truth and justice, is slandered and
diabolized as a ‘right-wing extremist’ or ‘Islamophobe’. This is social
intimidation, aimed at silencing opponents through fear of disrepute and
ostracism. This is also a form of terror, of course—terror being action
intended to cause governments and populations to fearfully submit to
overt or stealthy aggression. Nowadays, even our judges and police are not
immune to such insidious pressures, allowing illegal acts from Moslems they
would never allow from others[9]. Note well the inversion: Islam, an utterly oppressive
and intolerant, fascistic and bloodthirsty movement is presented as
‘politically correct’, while those who bravely denounce it and oppose it are
reviled. Those who do the reviling categorically refuse to admit, or even
consider the possibility, that the religious and political teaching of Islam
is the cause of the crimes of Moslems who engage in jihadi terrorism
or other inhumane acts[10].
Such people shunt aside all evidence brought to their attention of the
criminality of those they passionately defend, preferring instead to ‘shoot
the messenger’, i.e. to attack those who present them with the facts. They
conceal the facts from people and even make efforts to excuse crimes, so as
to grant them no reality. Not psychologically disposed to admit their
cowardice, they simply deny its object. Leftists who perform this sleight of hand are scared
stiff that if they acknowledged that Islam is a menace, they would be
obliged to do something about it, which would stir up still more trouble and
make yet more demands on them. They apparently think that if they are sweet
to the fundamentalist Moslems, they will be spared from their wrath. As a
result, ‘Islamization’ is proceeding apace, unhindered, indeed aided by
them. Europe and North America are hurtling towards what promises to be one
of the darkest, most horrific periods in human history. When the Moslems
come to power, as could happen within a few short years at the rate things
are going, the leftists will be among the first victims of their cruel
tyranny. The leftists’ collaborationism will certainly not save them, since
their ideology is objectively incompatible with that of Islam. They will be
remembered by those they helped to come to power as ‘useful idiots’. Physical intimidation and deception are ‘arguments’ in
the sense that they are used to make others submit to certain demands or
adopt certain beliefs and practices. But of course, they are not rational
arguments[11].
People resort to such irrational means when they believe reason to be
incapable of moving their respondents, because these lack the requisite
intelligence or honesty – or when they have no rational arguments to offer
them. Moslems, believing that Islam is Divinely-ordained, think that all
people who refuse to submit to its dictates must be stupid or evil. But of
course, their blind faith in Islam is not rational justification for the
violent and dishonest means they use to propagate it. Therefore, it is they,
rather than the victims of their intolerance, who are deficient in
intelligence and/or goodness. The logical flaw, the contradiction, in the Islamic
rationalization is that you cannot force or trick a volitional being into
being moral, since morality depends on the free exercise of freewill.
An act of will performed under coercion or ruse cannot constitute a moral
act; people must choose to be moral. It is therefore unthinkable that
God enjoins forcing or tricking people into (allegedly) moral behavior.
Moreover, if Islam does not believe in human freewill, as seems to be the
case, it cannot claim to be an instrument of morality. If human behavior is,
as Islam apparently advocates, predestined (Moslems often say maktoob
– meaning, ‘it is written’), then there is logically no such thing as good
or bad. Then anything goes, i.e. force and trickery are not reprehensible,
although not morally justifiable. Thus, underlying Islamic use of coercion
and ruse is a profound contempt for humankind, a denial of human dignity.
Either way, Moslems who indulge in such practices, and those who effectively
support them, cannot claim to be defending morality. Islamic logic does also make use of rational or
rational-seeming arguments in circumscribed contexts, but its overarching
arguments – the arguments through which it has taken power and continues to
spread – are the said irrational ones. These are very powerful arguments –
even I, as I write these few lines, wonder whether some mad-as-hell Moslem
fanatic will try to murder me when I publish them, or whether some people in
authority subject to the Stockholm syndrome will try to suppress their
publication. People who submit to such fears, and allow others to intimidate
or fool them without reacting, effectively rush headlong like lemmings to
their own destruction. Where there’s no will, there’s no way. By refusing to
confront the ongoing world jihad head on, by first acknowledging its
religious source and motive and then reacting as necessary, they hasten the
realization of the nightmare global dictatorship it aims for. Some reflections on current
events. If things go on like this, future historians will say that the
super-powerful West was defeated by a mere handful of Islamist terrorists in
a single day, on September 11, 2001. True, the Americans and some of their
European allies at first responded forcefully to the aggression, by
attacking Afghanistan and later Iraq. But under pressure of their mainstream
media, their defiance and determination soon flagged, and they chose instead
a course of resolute self-deception and self-paralysis. They opened the way
to their own total defeat, by refusing to even name their enemy (Islam) let
alone take all necessary action to decisively neutralize him. They now
behave like prey frozen with fear, ready meat for the ruthless predator. Such fearfulness is contrary to logic, which teaches
that before one can solve a problem, one has to acknowledge its existence
and identify its true nature; then one must respond accordingly, or face
defeat. The lessons of history are clear on this point: denying reality and
refusing to act in accordance with it is a sure way to self-destruction. A
danger won’t go away by being carefully ignored; it will only grow and grow.
The enemy advances step by step; each step is too little to make much of,
but the advances soon add up. This is clear with the now proverbial Munich
agreement of 1938, between Chamberlain and Hitler[12]. The policy of appeasement and accommodation towards
Islam started with U.S. President George W. Bush, even though his opponents
paint him as a warmonger. Bush was of course only reflecting American
‘public opinion’, which was well orchestrated by the major (mostly leftist)
media. These same forces soon replaced Bush with the more photogenic and
likeminded Barack Hussein Obama. Even if Obama claims to be a Christian, the
fact remains that he is a Moslem according to Islamic law, because his
father was one. Moreover, he had some Moslem education in his youth (in
Indonesia), and has never publicly renounced Islam[13].
Indeed, instead of denouncing its brutality and hegemonic ambitions, he
loudly praises it. He does not seem very concerned with the persecution of
Christian and other minorities in Moslem lands. But most importantly, his
behavior since he became U.S. President (in 2009) shows he has considerable
sympathies with Moslem causes both nationally and internationally. Thanks to
his policies, the Islamic grand project is moving forward on all fronts.[14] The election of an Islam-friendly President after 9/11
was surely no ‘accident’, but a statement by the people who brought him to
power that they were duly impressed by that mega terrorist act and similar
expressions of hatred, and wished to express their ‘friendliness’ to those
responsible. I am not suggesting that Obama was a ‘Manchurian candidate’
injected by pro-Moslem conspirators; his is more likely a lone-wolf plot.
But I am saying that his election was uncannily timely, effectively allowing
the cowed portion of the American public to send a message of capitulation
and abject submission to their aggressors[15].
It is significant that those who had doubts about Obama’s constitutional
eligibility to run for the office of President (due to questions regarding
his birthplace and his father’s nationality) were never allowed their day in
court. Amazingly, no one in the U.S. judiciary was the least curious about
what might very well turn out to be the biggest scam and usurpation of
power in world history! We may well wonder, in view of this, what future
there is for the rule of law and democracy in America. The above remarks are perhaps as much a commentary on
the sick ‘logic’ of Western cowards as on Islamic ‘logic’. As regards the
latter, physical intimidation and deception have, to repeat, proved very
successful. As for rational or pseudo-rational arguments, they are used
within Islamic societies for purposes of control, and not as in Western
culture for the purpose of discovering truth or developing useful gadgets.
Their main use is of course to develop Islamic law, based on the Koran and
the hadiths; but these are composed of dogmas immune to rational criticism,
forever closed to revision or repeal. Within this limited framework, there
may well be some logical thinking[16]
– although we must never forget that even if the form is logical, it does
not follow that the content is logically sustainable let alone objectively
true. The use of some logic does not vindicate the whole enterprise. Looking at the history of Islamic societies, what is
evident is how little they have contributed to the welfare and advancement
of mankind. They have, to be sure, made some contributions to philosophy and
mathematics way back in the Middle Ages, following their encounters with
Greek and Indian thought. But their rationalism, creativity and productivity
soon petered out, for the simple reason that their founding doctrine is
essentially reactionary and repressive. Without freedom of thought, freedom
of speech, and freedom of conscience (choice of this or that faith or even
of non-faith), human welfare and progress are impossible. Logic can only
properly function within a free mind, in a free society. To mention one
statistical index – consider how very few Nobel prizes (just two) have been
awarded to Moslems for contributions to science or technology[17].
It is shocking that a cultural group that is currently at the very back of
the class nevertheless wishes to take over the world and rule it. And of
course, loot it. Prospects. As we have
seen, Islamic discourse, whether intended for internal or external
consumption, consists mainly of violent acts and threats of more violence,
and lying and pretending. These are its main ‘arguments’, through which it
has progressed in the past and through which it lately again hopes to take
over the world and rule it. Whether out of intellectual mediocrity or out of moral
cowardice, Moslems very early in their history lost their intellectual and
other freedoms. They had only themselves to blame. Now, driven by the
intense inner suffering their religion causes them, by confining them in one
of the dreariest forms of existence ever devised by men, more and more of
them want to impose the same suffering on the rest of humanity. People who
feel miserable are always looking for others to blame for their pain, and so
are easy targets for hate-mongers. A happy person simply cannot feel the
sort of malevolence they are taught. Admittedly, Moslems are not all the same. As in any
religion, the adherents range in degree of commitment from zero to extreme.
A few, a very few, born Moslems have the wisdom and courage to criticize and
even actively combat Islam[18].
Many Moslems are Moslem only in name – their religious practice is
perfunctory, if not nil. Many others, no doubt, practice out of conformism,
i.e. to signal their inclusion in the society around them. Still others, no
doubt, feel an emotional attachment to God, and know of no other way to
express it than through practicing the religion they were born into. Some of
the preceding may become more devout out of personal need for
self-discipline and a purpose in life. Some of those may go much further and
become fanatics, driven by the desire to surpass and dominate their
neighbors. Evident in the latter are grave psychological problems: lacking a
sense of identity, they seek to be acknowledged members of a group; and
lacking self-respect they yearn to be feared by everyone. Clearly, not all Moslems are actual terrorists, or even
incipient ones. Some Moslems may well be considered as “moderate,” not
because normative Islam is moderate, but because they wisely don’t really
buy it. However, ultimately the true test of moderation is opposition to
extremism. If ordinary Moslems remain silent and passive in the face of the
jihadists’ excesses (to put it mildly), they become effectively accomplices.
It is primarily their responsibility to loudly condemn and resolutely eject
from their midst the bad apples, who are enemies of all humanity. In any
event, some Moslems, though not themselves actual terrorists, do
ideologically or financially positively support terrorism, or at least
secretly take pride in the actions of the terrorists; these certainly cannot
be called “moderate,” even if there is no visible blood on their hands –
they are de facto accomplices to terrorism. And a big problem for the world
right now is that the latter group seems to be growing. Moreover, even if
most Moslems do not yet engage in terrorism, the fact remains that most
terrorists nowadays are Moslems[19].
Since they are people who engage in terrorism in the name of Islam, it is
true to say, and it would be a lie to deny, that there is a causal
connection between Islam and terrorism. And indeed if one examines Islamic doctrine honestly,
one cannot but be struck by its extreme virulence. Moslems who become
terrorists are radicals – people who take the imperative of violent jihad
literally and wish to put it in practice fully. Therefore, the doctrine they
refer to is the main cause of their savagery; it is not merely an
accidental conjunct, as wishful-thinking apologists claim. The problem with
Islam is not the divinity and religious rituals it advocates – who cares,
nowadays? Everyone has a right to believe and worship as they see fit, so
long as they hurt no one else. The problem with Islam is that its most
radical adherents, the so-called Islamists, try to force less convinced
Moslems as well as all non-Moslems to believe or do as they want them to.
This is the problem – force. These people have not yet understood
that other people have natural rights to life and liberty, and to their own
conscience. That is why Islamists and those who cheer them on deserve to be
described as uncivilized. To be intolerant of Islam does not constitute
religious or racial intolerance – it is wise intolerance of brutal
intolerance; the action and the reaction are morally very different. Jihadists evidently imagine that God is pleased with
their orgies of massacre and mayhem. They could hardly be more stupid. God
is surely utterly disgusted by their wanton destruction of human life and
property, and all the more so because it is alleged to be done in His name.
God is not vain; He does not need of the flattery of criminals. These people
must be quite deluded to think that God, Who created this world and humanity
out of love, and Who delights in the peace and welfare of His creatures,
would condone such insane behavior[20].
In the Torah of Moses, God commands: do not kill, do not steal, do not covet[21];
do not hate, do not bear a grudge, but love your neighbor as yourself[22].
A psalm[23]
of David urges: seek peace and pursue it. The Mishnaic sage Hillel taught:
do not do to your fellow that which is hateful to you[24].
Likewise, the Talmud teaches that indulgence in anger is equivalent to
idolatry[25].
It also teaches that wisdom departs from an angry sage, and his prophetic
powers depart from an angry prophet[26].
Truly, the angry are mad – anger is madness. God certainly prefers a
peaceful “unbeliever” to a murderous “believer.” Islam has, through the misdeeds of its fanatics, given
itself a lasting bad name. These people claim to be fighting for God and
religion, but in fact the effect of their cruel deeds is to turn decent
people away from religion and even, by association, from God[27].
Unfortunately, for various reasons already mentioned, Islam seems to be
currently waxing rather than waning. I solemnly pray to God that Moslems who
take part in this calamitous revival wake up soon, and shake off the
ignorance and blind hatred that currently afflicts them, and keeps them very
far from spiritual enlightenment and liberation. They need to muster a
healthy dose of critical thought, and have the courage to question and
reject the many elements of mainstream Islamic doctrine that enjoin
propagation by brute force. Do not allow your minds to be poisoned by this
ideology. Be honest and think rationally. The antagonistic spirit of radical
Islam may have seemed normal a millennium ago, but it is certainly outdated
and utterly wrong today. God would surely never enjoin such animosity and
ferocity; it is the invention of men craving to kill, plunder, rape, and
enslave. I often reflect that Moslems could learn much from
Buddhism, regarding the futility of worldly desires and the value of
self-control of one’s passions[28].
To give an example, briefly: instead of hiding women from the sight of men,
so as to avoid illicit sexual relations, they should teach men to control
their own lust on the grounds that women are human beings with independent
rights. They (the men in power) force the women (all of them) to hide their
faces and stay indoors, when it is the men (mostly) who act irrationally.
This means that they preemptively imprison the potential victims, and let
the potential aggressors wander around with all their sick inner urges
intact! This is patently unfair, and a very bad solution to the problem at
hand. Another example is, of course, that of wrath. Buddhism rightly teaches
the ugliness, evil and self-destructiveness of hatred, anger and violence.
Yet, Islam goes to great lengths to cultivate these very vices in Moslems,
teaching them: to consider themselves as superior to non-Moslems, and to
hate them all and especially Jews; to engage pitilessly in “suicide
bombings” and other forms of terror, with a view to ultimately conquer and
enslave the world for Islam; to kill apostates, heretics and “blasphemers,”
i.e. the critics in their midst; to stone, burn, amputate or whip people
they disapprove of; to mutilate the sex organs of Moslem women, and to beat
and imprison them, so as to tame them and use them at will; to indulge in
“honor” killings of relatives, or even of strangers[29];
so forth. Such inhumane acts are not only permitted, but enjoined by Islam;
and they currently frequently occur[30]. Clearly, Moslems need to cultivate the fine art of
self-improvement; and for that, they must practice humble self-scrutiny.
This is most easily achieved through regular meditation. If one wishes to
become wise, one must be already at least intelligent enough to be able to
discern which teachings are wise, and to avoid foolish ones. Buddhist
psychology and ethics point the way to self-understanding and wise conduct.
I am not, needless to say, advocating that Moslems bow down to Buddha
statues. Buddhism is spiritually deficient with respect to such idolatry
and, in my view, to its rejection of monotheism[31].
But these are minor sins, to be sure, compared to the major sins of
unchecked rage and cruelty common in Islam. When in the Jewish Bible
prophets condemn idolatry, their main focus is always on the misconduct
of the idolaters who in those days practiced human sacrifices, sexual
depravity and other immoralities. Buddhism, though idolatrous in some
respects, repudiates such lowly practices. Islam, on the other hand, though
not idolatrous (though that is debatable, in view of the Moslems’ de facto
excessive veneration of Mohammed), countenances some very immoral behavior
patterns, as just explained (and of course, this is largely due to their
imitation of Mohammed). God has surely made clear throughout the Scriptures
of His love of harmonious living, and His profound contempt for
troublemakers. This is by far more important to Him than worship, although
worship of Him is certainly recommended as highly beneficial spiritually. The Left of the West. I also fervently pray that Europeans, North Americans
and other Westerners soon become aware of the great danger to their
civilization and personal freedom that today’s Islam constitutes, and do
whatever is necessary to prevent its implantation in the West. In particular,
the Leftists who effectively support the current Islamic onslaught need to
look in the mirror and ask themselves what motivates them to do this. Up
till now, they posed as opponents of religion, “the opium of the people.”
Suddenly, they have become its most passionate defenders, so long as it is
called Islam. They cannot but fail to see that every concession they make to
Moslem demands relinquishes oh so precious freedoms of ours, which it took
Western civilization centuries of courageous struggle to win and defend. It
is true that the Left yearn for omnipresent world government, but do they
really want to end up living in a totalitarian Islamic society? The political left in the West has, in the past century,
and especially since the 1968 cultural upheaval, notwithstanding the
collapse of Marxism in 1991, managed to sell itself to the public as
‘progressive’. This fantasy image has attracted a great many people with
very conventional minds, who saw in adherence to its values a quick and easy
way to feel and to seem avant-garde, intelligent and firmly on the moral
high ground. Leftists are essentially dull and narcissistic people, which is
why they have great difficulty facing reality and stopping to cling to the
dogmas they have built their identity around. One can only hope and pray
they will wake up and get wise before it is too late. Oh, have pity on your
children! Consider that they will lose all human rights, and be at the mercy
of merciless barbarians. If you do not take stock of what is happening and
do something about it in time, our civilization is very likely to collapse
and be replaced by a truly horrible régime – namely, the global Caliphate
that many Moslems so fervently yearn for and some of them kill for. If (God forbid) this historical disaster occurs, it
will have done so, not because of cultural or moral inferiority by the West,
as the Islamic supremacists claim, but because of the West’s absurd self-delusion,
self-abasement and lack of political will in the face of open and covert
aggression. This analysis needs to be known far and wide.
Download the .Pdf file of this essay and send it to your correspondents
(pro or con) ! Or e-mail them a link to the present page. Or mention it (and the link to it) in Internet
blogs,forum discussions and talkback comments.
[1] He was “arrested in
June 2011 and indicted the following month.” This information is drawn
from a report by Reuters on Dec. 6, 2012.
[2] See examples at:
wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad.
[3] Such violent
tendencies are admittedly apparent in all the major religions at
different periods of history; but what distinguishes Islam is that that
it has them still today, in the 21st century, and
in a big way. So much so, that it is a direct threat to world peace
and security, affecting everyone’s lives and liberty daily. See the
arguments at:
wikiislam.net/wiki/Are_Judaism_and_Christianity_as_Violent_as_Islam%3F.
[4] This refers to non-monotheists
– that is: pagans, polytheists, idolaters, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists,
etc. When the Moslems conquered India, they exceptionally did not
universally enforce the ‘convert or die’ rule, simply because there were
too many Hindus around. One blogger (Bill Warner) has estimated that
Islam has over the fourteen centuries of its existence caused the death
of some 270 million non-Moslems, including 120m Africans, 60m Christians,
80m Hindus and 10m Buddhists:
www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad/.
[5] Islam is as rabidly
anti-Semitic as Nazism was, one of its oft-declared ultimate goals being
the mass murder of all Jews on this planet. A hadith has Muhammad saying
that “the last hour” will not come unless the Muslims fight the Jews and
kill them all (Sahih Muslim, book 41, no. 6985). There are many
Muslims today just aching to carry out this genocidal programme, judging
by declarations published (in writings, recordings or videos) on the
Internet. Ultimately, all non-Moslems risk persecution, to be sure; but
Jews are the most passionately hated.
[6] See some recent
examples at:
wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslims_Caught_Using_Deception.
[7] Read for instance the
work of Robert Spencer on this topic, Stealth Jihad: How Radical
Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs. (Washington D.C.:
Regnery, 2008), and look for daily updates on the subject in his
website,
www.jihadwatch.org, and that of
his close colleague
Pamela Geller,
www.atlasshrugs.com, for
examples (see other links there). For a deeper understanding of the
essentially political nature of Islam from its inception, do also read
Spencer’s works: The Truth about Muhammad, The Complete
Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, and Did
Muhammad Exist?
[8] Let us call the non-Moslem
de facto defenders of Islam ‘leftists’, for we need to give them some
name, and most (though not all) of them come from the left side of the
political spectrum, i.e. they incline towards socialism or communism.
[9] And as everyone knows,
when the law is not equitably enforced, the end of the rule of law is in
sight. When Moslems commit violence or threaten it, the authorities
blame their victims and turn a blind eye to the aggressors. Seeing such
criminals treated with kid gloves by the authorities, ordinary citizens
feel more and more unprotected, and naturally some of them are
eventually tempted to take the law into their own hands.
[10] For example, the
increasingly common kidnap and gang-rapping of non-Moslem children or
youths to “groom” them for sex-slavery or prostitution.
[11] They are fallacies.
Forcing and threatening force are traditionally referred to as the
argumentum ad baculum. Lying and pretending might be classified
as ignoratio elenchi, in that they aim at disinformation. Those
who use such means think that they have ‘won the argument’ if they have
succeeded in killing or cowing or fooling their opponents.
[12] But looking back
further, consider the feeble response of Montezuma, the Aztec emperor of
Mexico, who could muster an army of some 300,000 men, to the invasion by
a Spaniard force of only some 600 men led by Cortés in 1519-20.
Reflecting on this enigma, in his account of the episode, Hammond Innes
wrote: “Moctezuma’s policy was one of appeasement, but now he must have
begun to realize that the road of appeasement is a long one that leads
finally to degradation.” Moctezuma sought “to buy time and wait upon
events;” “but the door of appeasement, once opened, is not easily shut.”
And: “The wretched king was now so deeply involved with the Spaniards
that he was apparently willing to buy peace at any price.” The
Conquistadors (London: the Book Club Associates, 1972): Pp. 148,
149, 151.
[13] Which is perhaps why we
almost never hear Moslems accusing him of apostasy.
[14] For a detailed exposé
of Obama’s Islamic connections and tendencies, I recommend Pamela
Geller’s The Post-American Presidency (New York: Simon & Shuster,
2010). And of course her website, at:
www.atlasshrugs.com. Concerning
Obama’s failure to produce a birth certificate and other documents, see:
atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/obamas_birth_certifcate_forgery/;
reading these blog posts leaves one with zero doubt that this president
is illegitimate.
[15] Needless to say, though
alleviating the terrorist threat was an important (albeit largely
subconscious) motive for the election of Obama in 2008, it was not the
only motive; another was, of course, the desire by many voters to turn
America into a socialist state. The latter motive was even more evident
with his reelection in 2012, although by then Americans should have been
intensely alarmed by his Islamic inclinations.
[16] Although in a past
essay and in the previous sections of the present chapter I have
detailed various logical practices and doctrines found in Islam, and
this material is of interest to logic history, it should not be used to
dignify Islam as a rational doctrine. Islam remains an essentially
emotional doctrine, driven by hatred.
[17] Here, a distinction
must obviously be made between Moslems educated in the West and those
trained in Moslem countries. Only two Moslems have to date won a Nobel
Prize in physics or chemistry, and both were based in the West. Do not
be fooled by the image propagated by certain media of rich Arabians with
engineering degrees from prestigious American and European universities
driving fancy cars and using mobile phones. Arabian wealth derives
principally from oil revenues, and thereafter to some extent from
commerce; it is not based on scientific research and technological
creativity. There are only some 600 universities in the 57 countries
with Moslem majorities, for a combined population of 1.4 billion. About
six out of ten Moslems are still today illiterate (i.e. cannot even read).
Compare these figures to Western ones, or even to those for India and
China, and you realize the immensity of the problem these people pose in
today’s world.
[19] Moslem terrorists have
murdered over 20’000 people across the world in the less than twelve
years since Sept. 11, 2001. This statistic is given at
www.thereligionofpeace.com,
which has been keeping track of terrorist acts. This is 95% of all
terrorism in the world; there is no comparable figure for any other
violent group. See also:
wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Terrorism.
[20] The Torah decries human
sacrifice, e.g. the interdiction of sacrificing children to the pagan
god Moloch (Lev. 18:21). But Islam still today entices its sons and
daughters to prove their faith by killing innocent people; in view such
terrorist tendencies, Islam can surely be characterized as a religion
that practices human sacrifice, i.e. ritual murder. The people who thus
kill fellow human beings out of selfish desires (for promised material
or even spiritual rewards) have not “misunderstood” Islam, as the PC and
takkiya crowd would have us believe; they have all too well
understood it and taken it at its word.
[21] Ex. 20:12-13.
[22] Lev. 19:17-18. All the
commandments and words of wisdom reproduced here are lessons in morality
intended for all mankind, not just for Jews. And the list here proposed
is, of course, far from exhaustive.
[23] Ps. 34:14.
[24] Shabbat 31a. Or more
accurately said: Do not do unto others that which you would not have
them do unto you. Notice that the golden rule is not: Do to your
fellow what you would have them do unto you. It is not an instruction to
lay your trip on others, but one to respect the space of others.
[25] Shabbat 105b. Anger is
comparable to idolatry because it is effectively a denial of God’s
control of the world.
[26] Pesachim 66b. See also
Rashi’s commentary to Num. 31:21.
[27] There is Judaism a
concept known as Chillul Hashem – desecration of the name of God.
This is the grave sin of people who commit atrocities allegedly in God’s
name, and so turn people off from spiritual pursuits, thinking that such
disgusting behavior is where such pursuits inevitably lead. This is
based on Lev. 22:32.
[28] They should read, for a
start, the Dhammapada, a treasury of wise insights attributed to
the Buddha.
[30] It could be said that
Islamic preachers who encourage Moslems to hate, kill, plunder, destroy,
enslave, rape, etc. their non-Moslem neighbors, and even engage in
various crimes and depravities against other Moslems, are cunningly
exploiting the lower natures of their fanatic disciples. The fanatics
respond enthusiastically, because they perceive in the call of Islam
opportunities to engage in all sorts of obviously vicious deeds with
a good conscience. That is surely one aspect of their motivation,
one of the twists and turns in their sick psyche.
[31] Needless to say, that
is their own business: it does not give Moslems a moral right to engage
in violent acts against them.