Thursday, July 16, 2009

The Islamic Singularity

In mathematical terms, a singularity is a point within the domain of a function at which the value of the function is undefined. At a typical singularity, the function “goes to infinity”: that is, in the area around the singularity, the value of the function greatly increases the closer it gets to the singularity.

In astrophysics, a black hole is also referred to as a singularity. When matter in a collapsed star is compressed past a certain point — known as the Schwarzschild radius — it becomes impossible for anything to escape the body’s gravity well, and all electromagnetic energy and matter within that radius must continue to collapse, producing a point-mass of infinite density. From the point of view of the rest of the universe, within such a singularity the laws of physics are no longer applicable.

So there’s a resemblance between Islam and this type of singularity. When the density of a Muslim population reaches a certain point, nothing can prevent a general collapse into a sharia singularity, within which normal political processes are no longer applicable.

Islam is, of course, singular in another way: it’s different from all other religions. Its apologists maintain that Islam is just like Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and all the others. So what if it has a different holy book and its own unique religious precepts? To them, it’s still essentially the same.

But this is not true: Islam is a singular religion. Its texts very specifically mandate not just a rigorous moral code, but a particular political structure, a system of jurisprudence, and an elaborate social regimen that directs the minutiae of daily life down to the finest details.

In addition, the core doctrines of Islam — as written in the Koran — insist that it be spread to non-believers aggressively, and with violence if necessary. The scripture of no other major religion requires that non-believers be converted, enslaved, or killed. This is unique to Islam.

Islam is a singular religion.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The occasion for this observation is the appearance at Gates of Vienna of a “moderate” Muslim named Solkhar. He brings a welcome contrarian voice to our comment threads, since he is willing to debate our regular readers in an intelligent and civil manner.

By his own description,

Solkhar is the pen-name of a retired western diplomat and a specialist on tracking of terrorism financing. He is a liberal Sunni Muslim by choice since the age of 17 and is now a permanent resident of the Moroccan city of Marrakech. He continues to provide advice and consulting services to governments in North Africa.

There has been an extensive exchange between Solkhar and several other commenters on two recent threads, “Sharia in the Netherlands” and “Killing the Golden Goose”. Readers are advised to consult these comment threads in their entirety, since I have only reproduced below a selection from the exchanges.

Before I quote from Solkhar and his interlocutors, I’ll throw in my own two cents’ worth. His arguments against Gates of Vienna’s positions fall into four general categories:

1. The extreme or fundamentalist version of Islam is not representative of Muslims in general.

According to Solkhar, the fundamentalists who have hijacked discourse about Islam with their violent behavior are a small splinter group and have no relation to mainstream Muslims, who are average people like most non-Muslims, and just want to live a normal and prosperous life under peaceful conditions.

2. Tu quoque: “You, too.”

This argument asserts that the Bible, the Torah, and other religious scriptures are essentially the same as the Koran, and contain just as many inconsistencies, fallacies, and obnoxious doctrines as does Islamic scripture. It also maintains that the behavior of Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc., can be shown to display as much intolerance, bigotry, and violence in the name of their religions as does the behavior of Muslims.

3. The historical fallacy.

Solkhar relies on historical events involving non-Muslims — the Crusades, kamikaze fighters, Tamil suicide bombers in Sri Lanka, etc. — to demonstrate that the behavior of Islam’s adherents is no worse than those of other religions.

4. The statistical fallacy.

The statistical fallacy is best illustrated by an old chestnut: “I don’t think cigarettes are bad for your health — Grandpa smoked three packs a day for seventy years and lived to the ripe old age of 89, when he was killed in a meteor strike.”

This argument asserts that a single counterexample — or a selection of counterexamples — is enough to disprove a general argument about the behavior of Muslims acting on the precepts of their religion.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

I’ll tackle each of these debate strategies in depth:

1. The extreme or fundamentalist version of Islam is not representative of Muslims in general.

This is frequently asserted by Muslims and their leftist enablers in an attempt to squash the depictions of Islam as a violent and dangerous political ideology. But how true is it?

First of all, non-extreme Muslims have little apparent influence in international Islamic proselytization. Fundamentalist Muslim da’wa materials overwhelm in their numbers any reasonable or mild Islamic tracts. This may be due to Saudi and Iranian funding of such materials, or it may be inherent in the Islamic faith itself.

As Laine points out in some of the comments reproduced below, “moderate” Muslims do not make their voices heard when massive atrocities are committed by fellow Muslims in the name of Allah. The mass slaughter in Darfur or Nigeria carried out by Muslims on religious pretexts goes virtually without notice in the “Muslim street”. Yet that same street is filled on numerous occasions with tens or hundreds of thousands of angry believers whenever any real or perceived slight, no matter how trivial, is directed at Islam.

Furthermore, public opinion surveys — which are virtually the only way to evaluate the sentiments of Muslims, given the repressive political conditions under which most of them live — routinely reveal that large numbers, often a majority, favor strict sharia law, death for apostasy, suicide bombing for the purpose of killing infidels, and all the other violent repertoire of radical Islamic behavior that has become so familiar during the last decade.

So where is the evidence — actual evidence, not simple anecdote — that “mainstream Islam” differs fundamentally from the radical version?

2. Tu quoque: “You, too.”

If we rule out historical cases (which I will address in #3 below), what evidence is there that Christians, Jews, and Hindus behave like radical Muslims?
- - - - - - - - -
So what if the Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka invented suicide bombing —who uses it now? Taoists? The Russians invented the AK-47, but how does that address the behavior of the Janjaweed when they employ the weapon to such notable effect in Darfur?

Which religion routinely amputates hands and feet, beheads blasphemers, hangs homosexuals, and stones adulterous women to death? What’s the record of Mormons and Buddhists vis-à-vis these practices?

Above all, which religion mandates and carries out a death sentence for apostasy on a regular basis? Do Christians do this?

3. The historical fallacy.

I have consistently maintained that it is the behavior of Muslims now, today, in the 21st century, that is the problem. If the violent and intolerant nature of Islam had gradually disappeared centuries ago, then Islam would not be an issue. Unfortunately, the last thirty years or so have demonstrated that as soon as the forcible suppression of Muslims by infidels ceases, violent jihad resumes with a vengeance.

It doesn’t matter what Christians did a thousand years ago during the Crusades. It’s not relevant that the Inquisition burned heretics at the stake.

The issue is what’s occurring right now. And Islam is the sole religion whose followers today behave en masse in such a violent and barbaric manner. Nothing that Christians, Jews, Hindus, Jains, and Jehovah’s Witnesses do can remotely compare.

4. The statistical fallacy.

Bad deeds are indeed committed by Christians and Jews. But how many?

In the last twenty years, out of all the people intimidated, threatened, assaulted, maimed, tortured, and killed in the name of religion, what percentage were so victimized by non-Muslims?

You can always cite an abortion doctor shot by a Christian fanatic, or a Palestinian assaulted by irate Jews, or a Muslim woman stabbed to death by a secular European in a German courtroom.

Yet these incidents are notable for their rarity. Muslims all over the world mounted public demonstrations after the murder of the “hijab martyr”. But literally tens of thousands of non-Muslims have been massacred by Muslims since the beginning of the new millennium, and it has caused scarcely a ripple of public attention in the Muslim world.

Why is that?

And, above all, why don’t prominent Islamic scholars and clerics appear on television in Muslim countries and denounce the barbarous behavior of their co-religionists?

Statistically speaking, what proportion of Muslims have publicly objected to Islamic violence?

I’d like to see the figures.

The unfortunate fact remains that today, in the 21st century, Muslims have a virtual monopoly on mass religious violence. No other religion can even get into the game.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

There are other issues that could be discussed — for example, taqiyya, zakat, and the sura and verse of relevant Koranic scripture — but I’ll leave that up to Solkhar and the other commenters.

I have compiled a selection of the relevant commentary below. Certain of Solkhar’s arguments are listed first, followed by those of his opponents. Robert Marchenoir did not want to leave such a long response in the comments, so he sent it by email instead.

These comments are drawn from both posts. Each individual entry is separated using the author’s name as a header. I have edited them only for spelling and punctuation:

Solkhar

Certain things need to be clarified and the first two things are:

1) Most actual Muslim countries do not use Sharia courts but secular systems with most having Sharia inspired courts. And,

2) There is no singular Sharia Law. What a Moroccan Maliki-Sunni considers Sharia is different to those of Turks, Hannafis in South Asia, the Shi’ites all have different variations.

Thus, what extremists such as Wahhabists (like Bin Laden) would claim something that would be at odds to the existing Sharia Court system in Saudi Arabia and it would be again different to say what the fundamentalists in the UK would consider Sharia, the Taliban with their mix of local tribal culture and what they “think” is Islam again is completely different again.

Thus I find it even ridiculous that there are communities trying to install Sharia courts in European countries when in fact those courts would not even be accepted let alone recognised in the Muslim World itself.

Solkhar

If you read my posting correctly, you will note that I do not support Sharia Law as a legal system for a number of simple reasons.

1. There is no single codex, it is based on the various interpretations of what is mostly Hadith and not Qur’an.

2. Those countries that put full Sharia Law place clerics as judges and not professionals, clerics in all religions by nature are mostly ultra-conservatives and in the Muslim world, Fundamentalists.

3. The Hadith were created by “men”, perhaps with best intentions but still by “men”.

Like another posters mentioned, Sharia Inspired secular courts are mostly created from western based systems. So was that to be a criticism? Most western secular courts copied their systems from one or the other until the as-best-as possible system is running and following European tribunal systems over the lesser US/Brit/Australian jury system. Again, Sharia in most of the Muslim Countries only “inspires” morality elements in secular legal systems.

I think many of the posters here read to many of your own websites and the rantings of westerners with agendas or third-fourth-party errors. Sharia certainly does not put non-Muslims as second class citizens. It certainly distinguishes between who is and who is not a Muslim for the purpose of Zakat, responsibilities. Please do not discuss ancient history of what or how non-Muslims were treated in some forgotten land, the response about the inquisition, treatment of indigenous peoples up to and including the 1970s is easily thrown back — the selfishness of man, often in the name of God is simple history.

Solkhar

As for redeeming features of Islam — I can immediately think of family values, civic responsibility, charity, respect for the elderly, personal challenges and development and there are much, much more but will not spend the time here.

Of course do not confuse these aspects in the Qur’an with the words and deeds of men, be they murderous militants or extremist fundamentalists who do not represent most of us Muslims, even though they wish it or would force it.

Solkhar

[S]uicide bombers are actually a Tamil separatist invention in Sri Lanka and southern India. Crashing planes deliberately into targets as a weapon was done by the Japanese military in the later part of WWII in the 1940s.

Concentration camps were invented by the British during the Boar War in the first decade of the 1900s.

There is no doubt and I do not deny that it is militant fundamentalists abusing the name of Islam that is the great threat at the moment.

But what I am saying is that playing the blame game on the entire religion or one group, apart from being blatant bigotry and incorrect only makes the matter worse by diluting an effort on identifying and dealing with the real threat and alienating the entire community and thus making the matter worse.

Solkhar

You wish to imply that suicide attacks are the invention and the sole ownership of Muslims was incorrect and it needed to be pointed out clearly.

Of course these monstrous extremists, militant fundamentalists are doing it all now, maximizing the most horrible and effective methods of terror.

I am the first to agree with you that the Muslim moderates sit back and do almost nothing to fight it, and for me it is a painful point and all the causes, reasons and excuses still do not justify the point that still nothing is really being done. No argument there.

From my own background and work, I can tell you even more — the embarrassment that fundamentalists in Europe do to the name and reputation of Muslims world-wide — they would never dare do, claim or demand what they do in an “actual” Muslim country — simply because they would be caught out with their lies.

So really, the question comes to mind — what is your point? If you think it is Islam that is at fault, you are completely wrong. If you blame extremists and fundamentalists using and abusing the name of Islam — then you would be correct.

If you believe that there is some great religious conspiracy to change the world into some Islamic Caliphate, then the answer is that perhaps those fundamentalists have that pipe-dream and they may even try it by force — but they are a small albeit dangerous minority.

Lastly, it is all well and good to be concerned, if not worried about the actions of these fundamentalists, the dangers they pose are more than real, they are a day-to-day reality for many millions of people. But attempting to assume, presume and fabricate on what actually is Islam, the ideals, aspirations, objectives, faith, and the habits of Muslims from a comfortable chair and desktop comes out as rather embarrassing and silly to an actual Muslim who actually lives the life and lives there.

Solkhar

There is no denying that Fundamentalists in the Muslim World are a huge danger, problem and it is the Muslims themselves that live in those countries dominated or run by them who suffer the most. It is an issue and it is the Muslims themselves that must change it.

But the article is simply another one of those attempts to simplify, generalize and imagine rather than reflect any reality.

There was no reflection in the item that the bulk of the Muslim world lives within the developing world, harsh lives, poor education — that results in their reliance on the only form of education — madrasas and ironically — do not care for nor are bothered to even think about world domination, Caliphates and all the paranoid west thinks about. But having said that, they believe what fundamentalists clerics tell them.

The real Muslim world is something very different to that article.

Most Muslims wherever they are, live their life, try to improve it, only turn up at a mosque at prayer times and go back to what they are doing and only a handful remain to “chat” to the Imam or Mullahs there.

The article assumes that the Muslim world is dominated by these Fundamentalists and that their actions represents all of Islam and Islamic ideals — it is simply not the case.

They are prominent because of their violence and because the very foolish western governments in the 1970s let the real nasty ones into the UK, US and other countries without thinking why the host country was targeting them. They did so as a political game that backfired.

30 years of establishing themselves, building networks, targeting conservative immigrant groups. These fundamentalists you see in these countries demand things that are NOT ACCEPTED in the actual Muslim World and yet it is writers, bloggers and other agenda based groups that seem to think that they represent the entire Muslim World!

This article assumes that some 70yr old Berber lady in the Atlas Mountains with her apple trees along with some 70yr old Indonesian rice farmer and a 10yr old boy in Bangladesh with his ox are all conspiring somehow.

Solkhar

The typical and predictable use of taqiyya (i.e. no matter what I say you will thus say I lie) does not stick, it denigrates the common sense of readers and is just a last resort and rather lame excuse that somehow you know Islam better than Muslims themselves.

As for westerner, born in Leidschendam near Rotterdam in The Netherlands. Educated at Erasmus College Den Haag, member of the foreign service for 22 years, serving in numerous postings representing my country which I am proud of — your fear laine is realised, a Muslim who was brought up in the west AND represented it and yet is a Muslim is able to read through your hype.

The examples of a Moroccan, Indonesian and a Bangladeshi stick — and your retort only shows you have no knowledge of the real world. A Bangladeshi boy in a village would rather drown in a pond then ever turn up in Pakistan, he is more likely to die of a water-born disease or drown in the next cyclone. The old man in Indonesia may perhaps only visit a big city once in his life and the old lady in a Berber village in the mountains gives her zakat to a poorer neighbour. Your lack of awareness of the life or plight of other people is an endemic example of western ignorance.

I have made it clear in all my postings that fundamentalists are a real and present threat, particularly to those that have to suffer its day to day abuse. What I am saying and have made it just as clear is that the arrogance and bigotry of those that push the paranoid agenda that you are, distracts from the real threats, proves the arguments that some of them give to the conservative mass that westerners hate Muslims and wish to start a holy Crusade. Thus you wittingly or unwittingly (to use your phrase) is in fact supporting the efforts of fundamentalists. Great, thank you on behalf of humanity!

The reality of fundamentalists in Europe and the US is a very sad case, whom much of the blame should be on the authorities themselves. Why is it that in the 1970s that thousands of asylum seekers from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran and other locations were allowed in without check? It was a political game and it has backfired. These refugees were in fact hard-liner fundamentalists who were a danger to everyone.

What you avoid in your ranting is the fact that the fundamentalists in the west are demanding, pushing and demonstrating for so-called “rights” that in fact are not accepted back home in the Muslim World. That says it all.

Your simplification of issues is just as bad as your painting broad strokes, you cannot claim that the emotions of youths are a reflection of one issue…. the argument of Israel/Palestine automatically produces extreme opinions on most people, the war in Iraq, 9/11 or simply unemployment in France and so forth — then you have an understanding of “opinion polls”.

Lastly, I have stated it already twice now on this blog — yes there is no excuse that the moderate Muslim is not fighting back adequately or overtly to battle against fundamentalism. They are as human as the rest of the world, their own politics, nationalism (which shows the concept of Caliphate is a pipe dream and boogey man only), ethnicities and sheer desire to survive all have an input into why they stay silent — still no excuse and I certainly am amongst the first to condemn that.

To thus repeat — give it up laine, your repetitive and rather nauseating agenda is clear and does not stick as valid but rather stick as something that smells on an out-house door. In the end, the subject is about fundamentalism and right-wing bigotry versus liberalism and people trying to get on with their lives……

Solkhar

The language, emphasis and conceptuality of the Torah, Qur’an and Bible are much the same, to say otherwise just shows that your just another western arm-chair pretend-theologian. Just as Christianity followed the Hebrews, Islam continues the faith of the People of The Book.

The Hadith should not even be uttered in comparison with Holy Books and has no relevance, it is the words of men of the time and depending on which community/sect/region you are from, its importance varies.

I suggest you study history before you even start the game of justifying acts of men from one time and not from the present, emotionally giving examples of atrocities now as some ridiculous proof. We should all be honest with ourselves, the acts of men of all religion has caused countless “hell” for everyone at various times through history and to make something horrible in a simple phrase — right now it is Muslim fundamentalists who are doing so.

I find your presumptive position that you can tell a Muslim what his or her religion is rather pathetic just as much as your assumptions about what my contribution to society is. To add to that your question regarding why I even post on a blogsite like Gates of Vienna is more than obvious — the time for self-confirming, self-feeding paranoia is over — shock/horror a real Muslim is watching and he can point out all the gossip, confusion, lies and myths.

VH

1) That is because many of those countries still benefit from Western law (based on Roman law and/or Common law) as introduced in the past (19th century). Apart from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, to name a few, and parts of Nigeria and Indonesia (Aceh, and don’t forget archipelago-wide attempts like the Porn Bill), etc., there at least is Islamic family law in most OIC member countries.

To note here: Don’t forget that there are no less than thirteen member states of the OIC (out of 56, thus a quarter) that do not even have a Muslim majority. Gabon for instance has only 1% Muslims and Surinam even has a substantial Christian and Hindu majority. Six other OIC members count between 50% and 75% Muslims of which most are just over the 50% barrier. Only 66% of the OIC member countries (37) have some sort of a ruling Muslim majority.

On the other hand, in countries like the Philippines and Singapore to name a few, who certainly are not Muslim countries, there is a dual system. As is the case in Singapore, it is to keep the Muslims both happy and under control. It has limits to its jurisdiction and is under strong supervision of the President, who is not ignorant and knows what they have to deal with. As you also will know, Islam starts with taking a finger and when successful, goes for the hand and the rest. Banning criticism of Islam accompanied with death threats is according to Shariah and one of those fingers, or maybe even the hand.

2) Of course there is one Shariah. Shariah is tribal law based on the interpretations of the (inconsistent) Qur’an and Sunnah, and in some cases extended with the somewhat evolving part: fiqh. Interpretations might vary a little, as does the scope. But comparing Taliban Shariah to UK Shariah, is not about a different Shariah, but about more or less Shariah. If you desire, it may even address how to go to the toilet.

Robert Marchenoir

Solkhar: your argument is an oft-repeated one. It looks superficially reasonable. Alas, it carries no weight.

You say that most Muslims live their lives and try to improve them. And? How is that supposed to assuage our legitimate fears about Islam?

100 % of people on earth live their lives and try to improve them. And, while doing so, a significant number of them manage to wreak havoc on their neighbours, invade them and kill them. Both are perfectly compatible.

Indeed, it’s precisely because some of those people want to “live their lives” unhindered and “improve them” in a parasitic way that they find, collectively (a key word here), that a convenient way of doing so is to colonise the West through immigration.

You say that fundamentalists are but a minority, and that many Muslims do not accept them in Muslim countries.

Quite right.

But the issue here is not whether fundamentalists are a minority or a majority; it’s not whether they are accepted or rejected by a significant number of Muslims.

It’s whether their strategy and actions are scoring points or not.

Are the fundamentalist-rejecting Muslims having any success in their rejection? Not any that I can see.

Are they having any success doing so in the Western countries where they live? Quite the contrary: Muslim communities in Europe and the US radicalise by the day; their hostility to natives and local institutions is growing by the day; their acts of aggression, looting, arson, rape and murder are getting more numerous and more violent by the day.

Those “fundamentalist-rejecting Muslims” look quite powerless to me. And that’s the kindest opinion I can offer. The other one involves a healthy dose of double-talk, otherwise known as taqiyya.

All this smooth talk about “majorities” and “minorities” conveniently avoids the fact that wars, riots and revolutions are not fomented and won by “the majority” or by “70-year old Berber ladies in the Atlas Mountains with their apple trees”, or by “70-year old Indonesian rice farmers”, or by “10-year old boys in Bangladesh”.

They are fomented and won by ruthless politicians and warriors, using great masses of 70-year old ladies and 10-year old boys (plus everybody in-between), plus their national and tribal interests, plus strong ideologies, values and beliefs (and Islam certainly qualifies in that department).

I’m sure there were plenty of nice 70-year old ladies and cute 10-year old boys in Nazi Germany, and that most Germans at the time essentially “lead their lives” and “wanted to better them”.

And? So?

Does that mean that it was wrong for the Allied powers, during WW II, to do everything they could in order to crush Germany — and not only a “tiny minority of SS fundamentalists”, who, you know, completely misinterpreted the genuine, peaceful, tolerant German spirit, and were even opposed by part of the German population?

Actually, there’s one part of your comment that makes me think that you are, yourself, a fundamentalist in disguise. A moderate radical, if you will.

You say that the blame for the radicals’ influence must be borne by Western governments. Bingo! How convenient.

That’s the perennial Muslim way of thought. A Muslim is always right. If anything goes wrong, it’s always someone else’s fault. The Joooz’, the capitalists’, the Western governments’, the racist white Americans’ or Europeans’… whatever.

Muslims never, ever admit an ounce of responsibility for their failures or wrongdoings.

I’ll believe in your peaceful statements and loyalty to the West when you stop putting the blame on us, and start talking about ways to fight Muslim supremacy, and defend Western values.

Until then, you’re on the list of suspects, as far as I’m concerned.

You see, it’s not only Muslims who can divide the world between believers and kuffar. When push comes to shove, we can also drop the nice talk about democracy and human rights, and start counting up friends and enemies.

And remember: we have a long experience doing quite horrible things to our enemies. I wouldn’t push your luck if I were you.

laine

“This article assumes that some 70yr old Berber lady in the Atlas Mountains with her apple trees along with some 70yr old Indonesian rice farmer and a 10yr old boy in Bangladesh with his ox are all conspiring somehow”.

But they are conspiring, wittingly or unwittingly as long as they are guided by the supremacist take-over documents the Koran and hadith. They are a part of the billion whose sheer number is used to boggle the western elite’s mind.

And the other necessary half to bring the plan to fruition is the naiveté of Solkhar assuming he/she’s a westerner and if it is in fact naiveté and not deliberate taqiyya to advance the Muslim cause.

I lean toward taqiyya artist because of the manifest manipulation of choosing three thumbnail sketches of Muslims designed to make them look innocent as lambs. The 10 year old Bangladeshi may well end up in a Pakistani madrassa, still illiterate but indoctrinated while memorizing the Koran in Arabic of which he cannot understand a word to become a human bomb. The rice farmer may have joined the Muslim street in the semi-regular protests against the latest Western “insult” to his religion like cartoons or Teddy bears. The old lady’s zakat goes to arm the militants etc.

But Solkhar sings his Lorelei lullaby. Everyone go back to sleep until western civilization founders on Islamic rocks. Listen to the fairy tale that Muslims are just old and young people in far off places, living pastoral lives of simplicity and grace…and conversely, anyone who lumps these people in with the activist fundamentalists whom Solkhar minimizes as so few in number (instead of at least 10% of a billion) is way off base.

No mention of the much more typical Muslim with whom most westerners now have personal experience:

He’s urban, congregates in Muslim ghettos, knows of suspicious types hanging out at his mosque but lets them and the imam get on with it. She’s mummified to her eyeballs and wears the religiously unnecessary “uniform” to get in westerners’ faces and occupy territory visually. The daughter rebelled briefly against the hijab, but was brought into line with news of honor killings in her city. The son gets his hours of hate lessons daily on the Internet. The uncle has initiated a frivolous human rights complaint that will cost taxpayers thousands and advance the constraints of sharia on non-Muslims. With his multiple wives and children all drawing Welfare he is a one-man drain on social services that the rest of the family will never make up in taxes.

No mention of the Pew poll showing over 20% of young American Muslims agreeing that suicide bombing is justified and those were only the ones who admitted it.

Conversely, the mythical moderate Muslims who do NOT work toward sharia in every Western country have yet to show up in any numbers. They are a brave few but impotent, shunned by the Ummah as apostates. Not a single congregation has ejected their Saudi-provided firebrand clerics as “too fundamentalist” for their tastes. Instead, the few moderate members of the congregation who speak up are ostracized or ejected.

Give it up Solkhar. The training manual and blueprint for Muslims is the same no matter how old they are or how far away. That you refuse to read them is one thing. That you try to throw desert sand in the eyes of those who have read and understood their significance makes you either a liberal whose sloppy sentimentality and refusal to do his homework endangers all of us or more likely committing taqiyya for the unholy alliance of Islam and Leftism.

laine

Hell hath no fury like the taqiyya artist scorned.

The “credentials” you present are irrelevant when you tell a whopper like Islam not being a supremacist religion and comparing the Koran and believers’ attitude toward it to the Bible or Torah. This invalid comparison of the Koran set in stone in the stone age and believed to be the immutable word of Allah by every practising Muslim, to be followed slavishly along with the warlike example of Mohammed in the hadith, this comparison to how contemporary Christians look and act on the Bible and Jews the Torah is shameless. It has been refuted thousands of times by people well versed in these matters. There is not a single Muslim country that is not ruled by sharia except for Turkey strong armed by Ataturk into the twentieth century and even it keeps trying to revert. Conversely, there is not a single majority Christian state where there is NOT secular government. Do not take other people for fools especially on this site.

You embroider the alibis of your three unrepresentative Muslims to no purpose. You chose them to illustrate the canard of Islam as a religion of peace. Every day’s newspaper brings fresh evidence of that lie, evidence, not fairy tales of how you perhaps would personally like Islam to be (your truculent attitude hardly deserves the benefit of a doubt).

As soon as Jews and Christians go about blowing up civilians including women and children in thousands of incidents in dozens of countries around the globe in the name of their Gods without the worldwide Jewish or Christian community raising their voices except to whine about disrespect to their religion, then they can be described as “crusading”. Even the original crusades were merely an attempt to take back by force what Muslims had stolen by force. You cannot use “crusade” as shorthand for Christian wrongdoing here as on a leftist site. Your fellow Muslims are committing ongoing racial genocide of Sudanese blacks of all religions with a death toll over 400 000 and counting which perturbs you not a whit. Historical Christian sins pale by comparison.

Oh and let us not forget the obligatory name calling of bigot (definition: non-Muslim who’s winning an argument with a Muslim).

If you are indeed a western Muslim, you are part of the problem. Your pretense of disapproval for fundamentalists and chiding of the mythical moderate Muslims for not doing more (LOL how about doing ANYTHING) to counter their bloodthirsty brethren is hardly convincing when you simultaneously and aggressively promote taqiyya 101, the basics, not even an advanced form to non-Muslims at a site named Gates of Vienna for a purpose that appears to escape you.

I could almost feel sorry for you if you actually were one of the largely mythical moderate Muslims and felt caught between a rock and a hard place, afraid to confront the Muslim majority threatening your cushy western life by drawing westerners’ attention to Islam but resenting the justified suspicion their actions bring on their co-religionists. Islam just does not stand up to close scrutiny, does it, so you do your part to distract from its tenets and habits. However, your bullheaded Groucho Marx approach “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” and sense of entitlement to have your fantasies believed mitigate against sympathy. I know of some moderate Muslims by name and read their sincere and informative warnings to non-Muslims, and you are no moderate Muslim but an enabler of the fundamentalists on the front burner by fuming on the back burner at uppity infidels instead of the supposed “hijackers” of your religion/ideology.

And if this is your idea of serving your birth country, the Netherlands as a Muslim, then it goes a long way to explaining their present problems.

laine

That’s the only truth that you’ve spoken, that you’re a real Muslim.

And that’s your only worth at this site, to demonstrate what the West is up against, another type of actor who is no less damaging than the fundamentalists you pretend to decry while defending their koranic script. Are they or their educated handlers so stupid they’ve misread the script? If so, where are your religious authorities denouncing them in unison and repeatedly to get things back on track?

Let a Muslim run on long enough as you now have and the hatred of Jews starts seeping through. Your main objection to Wilders besides his being another truth teller about Islam is that he is a friend to Israel. Your own words betray you.

You are not even embarrassed at the logical incoherency of comparing what Christianity did centuries ago to what your ideology is doing in the present. What can that be termed but bald-faced taqiyya, comparing centuries’ old apples to contemporary oranges?

You have no moral explanation for the silence on Darfur of the same Muslim Ummah that has no trouble getting thousands to riot on streets around the globe about teddy bears and cartoons insulting your warlord prophet. Obviously Arab Muslims killing hundreds of thousands of other Muslims because they’re black does not insult your prophet or religion. In fact, Muslims are the largest killers of Muslims in the world today. They are also the largest persecutors of every other faith. Your illusion that the best defense is to go on the offense fools no one. Your religion is the one busy offending and physically attacking adherents of every other faith in every Muslim dominated country and even non-Muslim countries now (e.g. Mumbai, India) in thousands of documented incidents.

You express contempt for anyone who dares to make factually based observations on Islam that you prefer to keep in a cognitive “no-go” zone. You keep repeating how nervy it is for a non-Muslim to tell a Muslim about his own religion while making pompous pronouncements about Christianity and Judaism yourself. Hypocrite.

In fact, your vast sense of entitlement is also Muslim/Arab. You are not the almighty representative of all Muslims who cannot be contradicted and most of my information comes from trustworthy Muslims who unlike you are not continually trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes and dressing up the wolf of Islam in sheep’s clothing.

I take it as a given that there are nice Muslims who wish the West no active harm but they are part of a system that very much wishes us harm and if they do not stand up and oppose sharia creep in Western countries, they are part of the problem.

You are not even in that relatively benign category as you are actively trying to gain strategic advantage for Allah by misrepresenting Islam as you likely did during your entire career “serving” the Netherlands. Why you come here to the very Gates of Vienna where there’s a shortage of the gullible and the dhimmi-spirited is a mystery.

118 comments:

Richard said...

This has kept me reading on and on, making me run late for work, but I just want to compliment GoV for posting this interesting exchange.

Honestly, I am looking forward to Solkhars response.

Marian - CZ said...

Honestly, I am looking forward to Solkhars response.

I am too.

My impression of Solkhar is that he is a western Muslim who dislikes the medieval barbarity of the fundamentalists, but his Muslim identity is strong enough to prevent him from "going Rushdie" (or "going Ali Sina", etc.). To be fair, this is not an easy process: you lose many friends and relatives in it. So he points out some of the neutral or positive sides of Islam in order to justify his position. I can imagine that if I was born in Marrakech, I could be a very similar person.

To some degree, he may be right. There is nothing absolutely negative in this world. An example: my home country was under rule of brutal communist dictatorship in 1948-1989, but that dictatorship was capable of eradicating a lot of contagious diseases like polio (Czechoslovakia was the first country in the world to eradicate polio entirely).

Nevertheless, it does not mean that I would support communists, even though they have something positive on their record, because, in my view, their negative sides and effects far outweigh the positive.

Robert Marchenoir said...

When I wrote the above text, I wasn't aware of Solkhar's stated background (a Western retired diplomat and a Muslim convert by the age of 17). If this background is genuine (and that's a big if), my words hold on more than ever.

One more remark. By most accounts (coming from Muslims and non-Muslims alike), the contemporary surge of Islamic fundamentalism can be traced back to the foundation of Muslim Brothers (1928) and the work of Sayed Qutb (1906-1966 ; wrote "Social Justice in Islam" in 1949).

But Solkhar would have us believe that the unfortunate weight of Muslim radicals nowadays is due to "the very foolish western governments in the 1970s [who] let the real nasty ones into the UK, US and other countries".

You see, nothing happened between 1928 and 1970. Muslim fundamentalism was simmering and growing and getting stronger within the Muslim word for half a century, but nobody's to blame for that, since it was only the work of Muslims.

It's only when Western governments were "foolish" enough to admit a handful of them in their midst (the words "generous" and "hospitable" do not come to our visiting Jihadist's lips), starting in the 1970's, that blame can be attributed... to the West, of course, who else ?

James Higham said...

So there’s a resemblance between Islam and this type of singularity. When the density of a Muslim population reaches a certain point, nothing can prevent a general collapse into a sharia singularity, within which normal political processes are no longer applicable.

Which has begun over our way.

heroyalwhyness said...

Solkhar asks: "Please do not discuss ancient history of what or how non-Muslims were treated in some forgotten land"

Fine.

June 12, 2009: Pakistan: Muslims tell Christians to convert to Islam, pay the jizya, or die

June 6, 2009: Pakistan: Catholic leaders denounce imposition of religion-based tax

Fragile Muslim-Christian(Zebaleen/Zabbaleen/Egypt's rubbish people) peace crumbles in Egypt

The following video reports demonstrate the current and general tolerance of a Christian minority in Egypt:
The story of Milad

In this short film, Milad introduces the viewer to Egypt's Christian minority, the Zabbaleen, known as the 'rubbish people' of CAIRO.

Milad states that his humble career suits him and points out that there is equality among all . . .until . . .FF to 12:30 in video to see that he does not wish the same for his own children.
"I'm not greedy and I don't want much. I want my children to get a good education and stay off the streets. The most important thing is that they don't end up as 'Zabbaleen' ."

So much for equality.

FF 13:50
"I have been working hard in the rubbish for a long time, and I'm tired of it. I don't want them to end up like this. I want them to do something with their lives. I want people to understand from this film that we've always had hard times. . . "

He doesn't explain why the Christians have always had hard times.

". . .but we work hard and are resourceful. We have to live life one day at a time. I am proud, and the ship of God never sinks."

The film ends with this statement:

Due to housing problems and rising population, there are plans to move the rubbish pits out of Cairo. This will leave the 'Zabbaleen' with no livelihood.

Another documentary video Video: UK Channel 4's Unreported World ( "Egypt's Rubbish People" 24:16) demonstrates how fragile and un-equal the relationship between the Zabbuleen and the Muslim community currently is.

******

Another facet not mentioned in Baron's piece concerns the concept of abrogation or naskh in Islam. The dualism of political Islam (abrogation/naskh) allows for such deceptive games.


Quote from link: "Our first clue about the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later). The insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by resorting to “abrogation”. This means that the verse written later supersedes the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is “better,” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation of dualism. Both verses are “right.” Both sides of the contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used."

heroyalwhyness said...

James Higham said...". . .When the density of a Muslim population reaches a certain point, nothing can prevent a general collapse into a sharia singularity. . ."

Demographic Jihad by the Numbers: Getting a Handle on the True Scope

******************

In response to this thread re:Sokhar, here's a link to a recent lecture given by Hugh Fitzgerald,
Strategies of Denial posted at The Iconoclast - New English Review

Jeff said...

I think it's WONDERFUL that Solkhar is here TALKING.

Keep it up, guy; don't get discouraged.

The worst thing about Islam in public discourse is: You can't discuss it with Muslims! Unless you are very careful what you say.

That shouldn't be the case. We should all be able to criticize religions and say what we think of them. As a Catholic, it's my responsibility to answer charges and questions, not to get up on my high horse and refuse to talk because my feelings are hurt.

One thing I have noticed among those who criticize Islam is that they often fail to give ANY weight to the positive things that attract people to it. Most converts to Islam don't convert because they want to blow up a bus. They convert because they admire the dignity and morality that they see in it: prayer five times a day, regularity of family life, etc.

PapaBear said...

The United States Army is a peaceful organization. Only a small minority in the Army actually fire weapons.

The rest of the Army is engaged in the totally peaceful occupations of feeding, clothing, housing, transporting, and otherwise dealing with the needs of the members of the Army which actually fire weapons. Most of the Army is "moderate".

One could say that the Ummah is similarly peaceful and "moderate". Only a tiny minority actually engage in violence. The rest of the Ummah merely supplies the funding and support for the jihadis. They pay the zakat that goes for creating radicals in the madrassas. They provide cover for the jihadis among them, allowing them to blend in among the moderates. They agitate in favor of Islamic rights and intimidate the authorities into not investigating radical Islam too closely. Etc, etc.

If things degenerate into total war, the position of the moderates will be similar to the moderates in Japan and Germany in 1945. It is possible that a large number of residents of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were not enthusiastic supporters of the war. That did not save them.

Jason_Pappas said...

I applaud both GoV and Solkhar for the civil debate. I hope Solkhar realizes that we’ve come to our positions after extensive study.

I want to pick one small point that suggest Solkhar isn’t facing the reality around him within the Islamic world. The Western term “fundamentalism” comes from a specific form of Protestantism and doesn’t have a counter-part in Islam. In the Islamic world the phrase is Islamic Revival. This term is favored by scholars and those sympathetic to the recent revival. It has the proper implications that Muslims are returning to their religion after a period of lax or moderate practice during colonial times. I discuss the phrase here and its implications.

Sebastian said...

Is it it me or do all Muslim apologists sound the same? Deliberately deceptive and in extreme denial. They each seem to want to hold onto to something in Islam, and be loyal to it in their own way and end up doing it by defining and redefining Islam according to themselves, their own feelings and the way they choose to live which is Western influenced. They always end up trying to describe Islam as some sort Christianity or Buddhism, because deep in their hearts that is what they want it to be and actually believe is reasonable and right.
The problem is that Islam historically and according to its authoritative texts doesn't mean that or match it and so again they are"forced" into saying this is the way they practive it and mean it, this is what Islam means to them.
They bascially ignore all the evidence and evil that is around them, evident in their native cultures.
The problem for them is that Islam and no religion for that matter is properly defined by its professing adherents wants or feelings it is defined by its own texts. That is also the strength of the Islamic fundamentalists position. The fundamentalist person stands by Islam warts and all, while so called liberal and modern Muslims who do not practice the faith as it was handed down to them yearn to redefine it and understandbaly so. Yet in turth and in a strange way they are apostates who are unable to come to terms with their own position.
I mean you either believe Moh was inspired or not, you either believe in the authority of God or not and if you say you do I see no way but to accept Islam as it is, if you claim to be a Muslim.
To take it a step further, if Islam were true and Mo its prophet and the Koran were really the words of God then there really is nothing wrong with it, unbelievers are evil and should be punished, converted, submitted or killed. I hate to say that for fear of provoking some "liberal" Muslim into becoming a real Muslim.
In the end the problem is Islam for "modern Muslims" and non Muslims alike, contrary to what Solkar wishes to believe. For me there is only one Islam, the real, original Islam handed down from Moh and authoritative tradition, just as there is only one Christiianity and so on.
To change your practice of Islam, to pick and choose what and how you will follow is not traditionally Islamic and so is considered illegitimate and that is the weakness of the "liberal" position.
No doubt many people born into Muslim world wish to live in peace and prosper but again the problem is Islam, authoritative, real, and original.

Robert Marchenoir said...

Sebastian :

"Do all Muslim apologists sound the same ?"

No. Actually, this one sounds rather different to me.

I find that another type is more common on the Internet : this other variant is very polite, friendly and moderate at first, and may remain so for a long time, even several days. His aim is to test the waters and see how people react to him.

It's only when he finds himself repeatedly challenged by some robust arguments that he drops any pretense of "moderation", and launches into a tirade on the lines of "we're going to subdue you anyway" and "there's nothing you can do".

Many hardcore Mulsims are so vain that it's easy to nag them into losing their nerve : they will always, at some point, prefer to defend their perverted sense of "honor" by insulting you and confessing to their fantasies of world domination, rather than doing the intelligent and strategical thing, which would be to keep pretending they are tolerant and peaceful.

Richard said...

Something which sunk in when I was driving to work was how Solkhar admits that the only way to have a Muslim population without it escalating is by keeping close scrutiniy of everything that happens within that community.

On the other hand, in countries like the Philippines and Singapore to name a few, who certainly are not Muslim countries, there is a dual system. As is the case in Singapore, it is to keep the Muslims both happy and under control. It has limits to its jurisdiction and is under strong supervision of the President, who is not ignorant and knows what they have to deal with. As you also will know, Islam starts with taking a finger and when successful, goes for the hand and the rest.

Basically, to live in peace with a Muslim population, we need to subdue them and transform our free countries into a police state, at least partially.

And this is the problem. If we have to choose between this limiting and expensive option and not tolerating Islam at all... Well, I'll feel more comfortable with door number 2.

laine said...

Except as a case study in takiya, I see no value in Solkhar's comments to date.

There is not a single point he's made that has not been refuted on this very site dozens of times. It is takiya 101, very basic except for a sophisticated overlay of language.

Every minute spent reading and considering his stale apologia for Islam is one less minute available to read researchers and truth tellers such as Hugh Maclennan. Thank you to Herroyalwhyness for the link to Maclennan's recent speech in her post above at 08:41. It's highly recommended as a good cold shower to clear away the cobwebs of the mind that it is Solkhar's purpose to spin.

Clever Robert Marchenoir noticed that Solkhar manages to make even the actions of Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists the fault of the West. This deflection of all responsibility even for policing Muslim extremists onto the West is a dead tell-tale that the deflector is himself a radical who happens to be wielding the "pen" or keyboard instead of the sword but to the same purpose, to spread the influence and territory of Islam. Guilting the West is a prime weapon in their arsenal.

Other tell tales of a Muslim fundamentalist are:

the hypocritical huff about a non-Muslim daring to "tell a Muslim about his religion" while Solkhar feels free to pronounce on Christianity, Judaism etc. His word is to be final on Islam because he is Muslim.

-read his little rant on Wilders to see the first Jew hatred seep through the contrived mask. It's actually a little surprising to see that Islam can indoctrinate even a late teenage convert in its systemic anti-semitism but perhaps it was merely an overlay onto a European version and may have even been an attraction to convert.

Papa Bear's analogy to the army is accurate in that it is a Muslim conceptualization that the world is divided into the Land of "Peace" Dar el Islam and the Land of War "Dar el Harb". What a self-flattering construct since Muslims in Muslim dominated areas war with each other and are indeed the biggest killers of Muslims. Despite this internal battling, Muslims still see themselves as an army to their God, warring with infidels until all lands are restored to Allah in whatever way suits their talents best, including a Goebbels like propaganda wing. As Maclennan points out, there are thousands of Muslim- on-Muslim sites still accessible to researchers such as himself where the unvarnished conversation is very different from the prettified tales told by Muslims for infidel consumption.

Time spent bringing this Muslim agenda of jihad to light is better spent than wasting it on reading dime a dozen fairy tale versions of Islam contradicted by the daily news.

Salim Mansur who still considers himself a practising Muslim is worth reading for those who want to hear what a real moderate wounds like. Unlike Solkhar, he actually takes Muslim fundamentalism which he admits is ascendant to task rather than direct his pique as Solkhar does toward non-Muslims who don't buy his paeans to Islam.

spackle said...

Islam = Black Hole/ Singularity

Western Culture = White Hole

One Creates, the other destroys. I wonder if this could be translated into some kind of Mathmatical equation? Something this man with Dyscalculia cant fathom.

Proud Infidel said...

I have to agree with laine on this. While Solkhar has been polite and is trying to have an intelligent discussion, his responses sound too much like what we've already heard from other Muslim apologists.

Like many here, I reached my conclusion that Islam is a cruel and intolerant religion not from what critics of Islam say, but rather what I've read so many Muslims themselves say. Especially when they think no Infidels are listening. Some time ago I joined a Muslim website and pretended to be Muslim, after a while I gained access to the Muslims only section and was appalled at what I read. Many who had seemed moderate in the general section were speaking like seasoned Fundamentalists, full of hate and rage at anything non-Muslim. This and other things I've read made me reach the conclusions I now hold.

Trust me, I wanted to believe Islam is a religion of peace that is being abused by a fanatical minority, as Christianity once was. Reality has beaten that illusion out of me. Sorry, Solkhar, I know too much now to be fooled by the song and dance of Taquiya.

Kenny said...

I came into contact with Solkhar not too long ago. He started posting at The Lambeth Walk and all he seemed interested in doing was attacking Geert Wilders.

Solkhar claimed that Wilders had presented decontextualised verses from the Koran, and misrepresented what the Koran actually said. I spent a little time on Solkhar's claim, and exposed it as a set of lies on Solkhar's part about his own religion. Here's the post on my own blog.

That was just the start of it though. Solkhar ran off and began his own blog, and immediately started attacking the owner of The Lambeth Walk. I questioned whether this was a profitable way to go, and took Solkhar's claims about the other blog apart. Here's the link to that post.

I then spent a little time going over the opening paragraph of his first comment on that thread on my own blog. I don't think there's any substance to Solkhar was saying at all. Btw, when I started analysing what Solkhar had said, suddenly I got the Geert Wilders/Lambeth Walk treatment on his own blog. What a thrill, eh. Anyway, here's the link to the first of that series of posts on my own blog, where I take Solkhar's opening comment apart. And the next one. And the next one. And the next one. And the next one. And the next one. And the final one. I knew that philosophy degree would come in handy one day!

See what you think - I'd appreciate any feedback, since for some reason Solkhar stopped commenting on my blog, lol ... On Solkhar's own blog, he says that he regrets every trying it on with me. Aye, because I was quite willing to have a decent conversation with him, but when he started with his arrogant, illogical rubbish I called him on it. And as soon as I did that, Solkhar spat out his dummy.

Oh well ... it was a useful experience, but not, I wager, in the way that Solkhar would have liked. :-)

Kenny said...

My own blog is The Frozen North btw, which anyone will be able to see if they click on any of the links in the previous post. If anyone's interested I've uploaded a few good blues tracks which the handy little Wordpress widget lets you play on a blog - so any fans of Lester Butler or Paul deLay can check that out when they're at it.

Kenny said...

"You express contempt for anyone who dares to make factually based observations on Islam that you prefer to keep in a cognitive “no-go” zone. You keep repeating how nervy it is for a non-Muslim to tell a Muslim about his own religion while making pompous pronouncements about Christianity and Judaism yourself. Hypocrite.

In fact, your vast sense of entitlement is also Muslim/Arab. You are not the almighty representative of all Muslims who cannot be contradicted and most of my information comes from trustworthy Muslims who unlike you are not continually trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes and dressing up the wolf of Islam in sheep’s clothing.

I take it as a given that there are nice Muslims who wish the West no active harm but they are part of a system that very much wishes us harm and if they do not stand up and oppose sharia creep in Western countries, they are part of the problem." - laine.



Solkhar tried his routine out over at Richard Dawkins' site as well. Check out how the poster j.mills takes him to task.

Solkhar didn't stay long after that.

Chechar said...

Thanks a lot for this fascinating exchange! I’ll spend most of this day reading and re-reading it.

O yes, about the iterated sentence—:

So there’s a resemblance between Islam and this type of singularity. When the density of a Muslim population reaches a certain point, nothing can prevent a general collapse into a sharia singularity

—Nop! Defeating Islam is, in fact, very easy. As you guys have discussed it here (for an abridgement see this entry), Islam, not the West, would collapse overnight after nuking Mecca and Medina. It’s necessary to repeat this obvious psychological truth as often as I find it suitable.

Every morning I see my face in front of the mirror covered with shaving cream I cannot help but mumble: “If only Bush nuked those sites just after 9/11…”

Kenny said...

"1. The extreme or fundamentalist version of Islam is not representative of Muslims in general.

This is frequently asserted by Muslims and their leftist enablers in an attempt to squash the depictions of Islam as a violent and dangerous political ideology. But how true is it?

First of all, non-extreme Muslims have little apparent influence in international Islamic proselytization. Fundamentalist Muslim da’wa materials overwhelm in their numbers any reasonable or mild Islamic tracts. This may be due to Saudi and Iranian funding of such materials, or it may be inherent in the Islamic faith itself.

As Laine points out in some of the comments reproduced below, “moderate” Muslims do not make their voices heard when massive atrocities are committed by fellow Muslims in the name of Allah. The mass slaughter in Darfur or Nigeria carried out by Muslims on religious pretexts goes virtually without notice in the “Muslim street”. Yet that same street is filled on numerous occasions with tens or hundreds of thousands of angry believers whenever any real or perceived slight, no matter how trivial, is directed at Islam." - Baron.

"when you attack my core faith as being evil, dangerous or perverted, you are making a personal attack on me. You will find that feeling will exist with all liberal moderate Muslims." - Solkhar.

I've said to Solkhar that if he thinks Geert Wilders is wrong in what he's saying, then he should perceive Wilders as someone who has made an intellectual error. But Solkhar continually makes the philosophically fatal mistake of believing that those who criticise Islam are not in error, they are morally deficient.

This is a catastrophic intellectual mistake for Solkhar to make; one cannot help think of John Stuart Mill's pointing out that not everyone can benefit from free speech, that there are backward people in this world, who are simply unable to think rationally.

What we have seen in recent years is people like Robert Redeker, Michel Houellebecq, Oriana Fallaci, Kurt Westergaard, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and yes, Theo van Gogh all suffer because of the mistake made by Solkhar, and according to him, by every "liberal", "moderate" Muslim in the world today.

What is a "moderate" Muslim anyway? Do moderate - as any morally sane person would understand the word - Muslims even exist?

Baron Bodissey said...

I notice that Solkhar is avoiding this post, the very thread that’s dedicated to him.

I find that intriguing. He has added a few recent comments here and there on earlier threads, but is ignoring his very own post.

In his latest comments on the other posts, he keeps returning to some of his earlier themes — for example, how well the Jews are doing in Morocco. He presumably picks that example because it is the only case where Jews are treated well in a Muslim country. He doesn’t mention that they have all but disappeared from Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, and all the other Muslim countries where they used to live in large numbers. And now they are rapidly disappearing from the Islamic Republic of France.

Another howler left on a different thread states that only in Somalia and Iran are non-Muslims discriminated against, and that Muslims and non-Muslims have equality under the law in all other Muslim countries. This is patent nonsense, and if VH shows up again, I’m sure he can cite title and statute in (say) Malaysia to demonstrate the opposite.

I tend to agree with laine — engaging in debate with someone as slippery as Solkhar is a waste of time. He always changes the subject rather than reply to the difficult questions put to him. It’s the same modus operandi employed by Tariq Ramadan and other smooth-talking “moderate” Muslims in the West.

They’re not used to encountering infidels who are well-versed in Islamic scripture and history. Their talking points rely on the usual PC dhimmi “respect for cultural differences”, so being refuted is unexpected and difficult to deal with. The normal reaction is to retreat into a redoubt of hostility and self-righteousness, without ever dealing with the points raised by their critics.

Birkebeinr said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkebeinr said...

Brilliant thread,

I have to call Solkhar on this statement:

"But attempting to assume, presume and fabricate on what actually is Islam, the ideals, aspirations, objectives, faith, and the habits of Muslims from a comfortable chair and desktop comes out as rather embarrassing and silly to an actual Muslim who actually lives the life and lives there."

So it is that many a young European like myself have no choice but to do that. And what we experience on a daily basis is disencouraging.
Our (soon to go) socialist rulers have been telling us that we now should be experiencing "cultural enrichment" that should enhance our lifes. The kebab seems to be the greatest muslim invention. And somalian folk dance does'nt really do that much for me.What young indigenous people are experiencing is; violence, hate, envy and terror by the muslim/arab immigrant kids.

This is my first hand observations and I'll take the liberty to speak for thousands of other Europeans born in the seventies and eighties, living in the bigger cities of the continent:

We know what celebrating diversity is - be prepared for violence - don't get yourself blindsided.

Independent Accountant said...

Coptic Christians are discriminated against in Egypt. Is this news?
In reading Solkhar, I kept thinking, he's a "takiwa master".

Robert Marchenoir said...

Baron, this should go into "Important posts".

Solkhar said...

Kenny - who is Nick or whatever name he choses has proved himself well enough -

http://solkhar.blogspot.com/2009/06/lie-well-worded-does-not-truth-make.html

explains it all clear enough, just his own word games with actually no tackling of subjects.

Solkhar said...

The Baron assumes of course that I spend my time reading the Gates of Vienna to reply to his post when he wants. There is a world out there other than this thread.

I am heartened that a number of comments here have common sense attached to it rather than simple agenda pushing, they seem to get the point that my objective is to point out some realities from comments, errors in factual details, to show what a myth is compared to fact, those incorrect assumptions and statements that are obvious bigoted crap.

Though spouted, the first and most critical thing here is that I represent myself, like all of you represent your own opinions and any claims to represent the mass or bulk is a fools game. We can argue facts, we can assume but in the end to coin a classic Monty Python phrase 'we are all individuals'.

Now having said that, we base our knowledge on experience, facts and examples, thus for me the initial two phrases of the Baron's "singularity" line has already gone off track.

There is no denying, doubt or excuses that can take away from the fact that in this present world, extremist fundamentalists and militant Islamists are a threat to us all. The examples are everywhere and this morning in Indonesia the Ritz and Marriott hotels were bombed. I was posted in our embassy there and know the country well enough - it hits perhaps even more so when you know a place. For your information, I have a permanent scar and disability on my left wrist from a letter bomb, also sent by a fundamentalist many years ago.

The core issue here is for me three points here:

1) Is Islam a religion and is it linked as it claims to Judaism and Christianity?
2) Does the Qur'an spout evil and those that follow it create evil and horrors in the world?
3) Presuming yes, what should be done about it?

I think that sums it up well and I will answer that, rather than attempt to respond to the mine-field set by the Baron that no matter what is answered he will do the pathetic Laine trick and claim no-matter-what taqqiya (which he is unable to spell correctly).

Thus to the first - regardless of what agenda based websites will spouse, Islam is directly linked to the Judaic-Christian faiths, following the same prophet lines, religious texts to the point of which of the three you follow. Any argument to the contrary automatically falls into conflict with the other two - thus Jews can say that Christians and Muslims are wrong, Christians will accept Judaic texts but not Islamic and Muslims will accept all three.

To continue on this and breaking into the second point - of the five main schools of thoughts (based in the oldest of Universities), only the Shi'ite school in Qom will push any line that is anti-Semitic and that is considered a political move since it was changed in 1979 during the revolution in Iran and that says a great deal.

Those that wish to argue that case that Allah and God is not the same thing will have to some how come to term with the reality, as we Muslims praise the Prophets Moses, Abraham, Jesus etc as much as those active Jews and Christians do. The Pope, the main Jewish Patriarchs, Eastern Patriarchs, Copts and the Anglican Archbishop all accept that.

Islam is a religion and a part of the Hebrew-Christian heritage that we refer to as The People of The Book.

....continued

Solkhar said...

part 2 of 3....

Second Point - No there is no evil in the Qur'an at all and note that I did not say or mention the Haddiths and that is the point. Quickly, the Qur'an has a Message, a history of the events and examples and reading it as the three is how to do it correctly and to understand it, to do otherwise gets you lost. So it has examples of the wars that were waged on the Muslims during the first few years, and as all wars are it is brutal. So you see texts were Mohammed said kill them all, a typical order of battle in that era. So why do agenda based blogs claim that as proof of evilness? In fact they avoid stating that it also says in that same surah that "God loveth not the aggressor" and "God loveth not the oppressor" which is an instruction. No, to claim the Qur'an is evil then the same will have to be done with the Torah and the Bible - Genesis and many other areas have a lot of blood and violence, including divine destruction of cities.

What is important here is the subject of Haddiths, often claimed to be divine and a part of the Qur'an when they are not. I absolutely find it amusing when people say but it is considered Apostasy or Heresy to not accept Bukhari - but of course those that follow it will but that claim on it. The Torah, Bible, Qur'an and many other books will all start by saying that "this is the true word of God", thus should we believe it all?

The reality is that Maleki Sunnis here in Morocco accept certain Haddiths as true, others as contextually important and others as just historical documents with no value for today. Hannafi Sunnis will view things differently as will all variations. Fundamentalists by their very nature, pick and chose which Haddith to follow and in fact folllow that book to the letter and almost never read the Qur'an itself! Thus Wahhabists like Bin Laden have chosen Bhukari as being more than what most think it is - the viewpoint of the time but written by a man, not God. If we are to believe what the Baron and others wish to say, then we are all following Bhukari and would stone adulterers and set the world backwards to the time of Bhukari himself - far from the truth and reality - not many Muslim countries consider stoning a correct or "halal" punishment.

Thus in summary - there is no Evilness in the Qur'an but there is a lot of evilness associated with any form of fundamentalism.

The third point of what should be done about it is mute because Islam is not evil so the real question is what should be done with these murderous and evil Muslims fundamentalists?

That is the more difficult question to answer - the first is to purge them from the west, rethink a relationship with Muslims in the west to gain their support, acknowledge their existence and rights as other westerners (and not more) and then together take out and outlaw fundamentalism in the west.

The second is to support war efforts like in Afghanistan, take the war to Somalia and place pressure on those nations that still have and allow militant fundamentalism that it is unacceptable - support the moderate clerics and Schools of Thought to encourage them to take a front-seat and not a silent one that is so embarrassing.

I do not give a crap about left/right in politics and US politics but I support one single point that Obama and his Administration has done - he has correctly said that what is important is to recognize that there is a world outside the west and it has both different and similar values and structures. That to gain respect you must also be able to give it.

That has already opened many doors and more than likely was the catalyst for change in Iran. To say it in another way, every step forward to constructive engagement with the Muslim World as a whole by the west has a profound result in the arguments that Islamists have that the west is out to get us all.

....continued

Solkhar said...

Part 3 or 3.....

Of course, the bulk of the work needed to eliminate fundamentalism in the Muslim World has to come from the Muslims themselves and the result has been nothing short of pathetic. I am the first one to say that and though I am only a single person, I do say it and do not fear for my life as some commenter’s think. I do talk in forums here and in the region for my work and I tell them that such forums and their battle-plans to fight terrorism is not going to win without the effort from the religious community as a whole, and that that the time for Fatwas (religious edicts) on the subject is now.

This response is lengthy as so the list of points by the Baron.

The one point above all in the Barons that is not responded above is the point-of-no-return when Sharia takes over. That is to be honest - crap. I use this word because it belongs in that smelly bucket, the great word used as a boogey-man by those anti-Islamic agenda based groups to raise fears and make themselves look like important message bearers.

Let us get the facts straight. Yes the fundamentalist demand it, but they are what they are and should be put down like the disease they are. But what version of Sharia are they and in fact the Baron talking about?

The Wahhabists and Salafists in London want a Sharia that even the Saudis do not accept. The Sharia court of Malaysia is not the same set of Sharia principles that the Iranian Courts have, or in Saudi, Sudan or those few that actually have them. The reality is that most Muslim countries do not have a Sharia court system at all but a secular court with the moral codes reflecting the religious values of the country (like all countries do), which in this case is Islam. Even secular Turkey has in its legal system a moral code based on basic Islamic morals that the people follow.

As discussed above, the Baron has started asserting claims that the Qur'an demands forcible expansion - it does not so we can assume it is a deliberate lie or just pure ignorance - which is why I am on this blog to point out. He can say admit this error in his reply.

His reference to that no other religion claims to covert, enslave or die of course if wrong because Islam does not but if we follow his line of examples in history to justify his point, the tit-for-tat battle will start as there are just as much examples in most faiths.

But the Baron will fall on wanting to use now as the example and that is fine as long as everyone does so. Yes, right now militant Islamists have caught on and used the Tamil invented suicide bomber to horrific effects, they have used the WWII Japanese idea that flying a plane into a target has the most terrible consequences, that the use of the internet to post propaganda works wonders in confusing matters and distilling hate.

To finish - there is a great issue here, a terrible war going on between religious fundamentalism and liberalism. Political scientists, sociologists and historians are agreeing now that the usual swinging pendulum of the two that flows in approximately 12yr cycles has been disturbed. How?

In 1979 the Iranian Revolution created the first uniting of religious fundamentalism and militant extremists that gave the green light to every other mad-cleric in the world to seek out an armed support group. To add to that the age of global communication to support and influence the masses and even nations also changed. Some would argue that a void from the collapse of global communism had an influence. This debate is interesting and will continue.

No matter what, I would be the first to say that things will get worse before it gets better - at some time the "singularity" will occur when the fundamentalists have gone to far.

www.solkhar.blogspot.com

Solkhar said...

Independent Accountant,

The reference was about official or constitutional discrimination, not what goes on in the street.

Both of course are important and it should be pointed out that "in the street" Muslims in many parts of Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia are being discriminated to varying degrees. Sunnits are being discriminated in by Shi'ites in Iran and visa versa in other locations - this is all the most base human selifishness that works.

But getting back to the point, officially Egypt does not discriminate and that has been proven by an above-average participation in government service.

Solkhar said...

Robert Marchenoir,

The problem with comment sections is space to explain things to the full.

I was refering to a critical point, the mistake by many western nations as part of their political-diplomatic games with some nations that they accept "political refugees" which diplomatically is a way of saying you are a bad and represive state.

This has now proved to be an error that some countries, such as the UK that has blown-up in their face.

In the early 1970s when fundamentalism was at a low-point, these villians were being rounded up in countries such as Saudi, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran and given assylum without realising why they were a menace - in fact the worst sort. Now they have had 30 plus years to establish themselves and a base of support to catastrophic results, as proven in the UK for instance.

As the cold-war continued and allowed for hugely corrupt puppet states like in the Shah of Iran, there was a fundamentalist revolution, that not only screwed up Iran but panicked conservative nations like Saudi that then gave-in to local fundamentalist powers like the Wahhabists there.

If we should be wondering anything, what would have happened if the Iranian revolution did not happen, perhaps Saudi would have been different - but we cannot go back in time so it is a mute issue.

Solkhar said...

For Marian - CZ, Jeff and Jason_Pappas

Marian, Intersting how you said going Rushdie or Ali Sina. My comments and views are in fact popular amongst most moderates and purist-liberal Muslims and I am not in an theocratical state to risk anything. But the Icon that I use in my Blog is Ibn Sina because he was a purist-liberal thinker that I admire and to be honest follow. He was a "Qur'an Only" follower and took no importance at all to the Haddiths as anything other than important historical records of the time for individuals to follow and judge.

Jeff - talking is more than important than can be stated.

Jason_Pappas - yes Fundamentalism is not the correct word but the realization that this is what people understand is why I use it. For example if I use the technical term used by governments as "radical Islamists", some do not understand or miss the point between Islamic and Islamist.

In my own blog I quoted Professor David Watt http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/origins/article.cfm?articleid=15&articlepage=1&altcontent=no that also discusses the terminology.

Frankly speaking terminology is important in official documents for specific purposes but in the end for blogs like these, the objective is for the reader to understand and considering my English is not so great, I find that hard enough.

Swordsman of Fingal said...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/206230

^^^

It seems Newsweek doesn't think Eurabia is a possibility, calling it a myth! Perhaps no surprise given who they are...

Chechar said...

Solkhar: Please do not paste long URLs; use the proper format instead (as I do below).

"It seems Newsweek doesn't think Eurabia is a possibility, calling it a myth!" - Swordsman of Fingal

Have you read the retort at Jihad Watch?

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

Attention, Solkhar!

DIRECTLY FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH

From the Al-Azhar University in Cairo DR.Maryam Jameelah (Margaret Marcus,Jewish,USA)teaches us and you how we can be certain that Islam is the only infallible Truth. Her short treatise has the title:
ISLAM VERSUS AHL AL KITAB PAST AND PRESENT
She finishes her enlightening exposition as follows:
[...]
On what foundation can a lasting reconciliation between Muslims, Jews and Christians be based? We must realize that under the existing circumstances, no friendship is possible. Jewry and Christendom have joined hands to destroy us and all we cherish. Zionism, freemasonry, Christian missionary activity and Orientalism have combined to annihilate us religiously, culturally and even physically. It would be sheer folly to kiss the hands that are beating us!

Peaceful relations and mutual respect among us can only be achieved through strength. We must cease indulging in apologetics and present the Islamic message to the world honestly and forthrightly. Before we can hope to succeed with Tabligh on a large scale, we must first convert the nominal Muslims into true believers. We must establish a full-blooded Islamic state where the world will witness our precepts translated into action. Finally, we must crush the conspiracies of Zionism, free-masonry, Orientalism and foreign missions both with the pen and with the sword. We cannot afford peace and reconciliation with the Ahl al Kitab (“People of the Book”) until we can humble them and gain the upper hand .
- - - - -

Solkhar said...

I am not an internet or comuter savy person and do not know much about links but I will try my best, please excuse the url issue until I got that working.

Chechar said...

Just use the format you see every time you post, after the words: "To add a link in a comment, use this format: [...]"

Solkhar said...

Anti Islamist (still an apt name),

I see no point from your posting the item from Maryam Jameelah as it just shows that there are in educational institutions varying degrees of views from ultra-liberal to ultra-conservative. Put it this way, former Bush Ambassador to the UN John Bolton is able to mouth of going to war with Iran, regime change and multiple hawkish policies which many would consider war-mongering, dangerous and certain to cost the lives of thousands of US soldiers if played into. He is also a fellow of some Institute, places items in various educational and political websites etc.... same thing. The Maryam Jameelah item just shows how dangerous fundamentalists are if power is given to them.

So your point is?

Solkhar said...

Regarding Newsweek, this brings up the agenda based supporters instantly. An article does not support your doom & gloom conspiracy theory and automatically that journal was "never like them anyhow".

I think the item points out something that we all know but GoV does not want to admit to.

Though there are all these conspiracy theorists, hate-mongerers and basic anti-Islamic bigots spouting various images to suit what-ever there various needs are - the bulk of the world, almost every diplomat, most academics all disagree with those claims from the noisy conspiracy theorists.

Authors (failed journalists) with nothing better to do than try and sell books and of course scandal sells better so they do it that way, but of course this feeds the hungry bigots and the unsure Joe the Plummers to a point that they are confused.

Simply put, they are all now but ignored in government, civil service and academia as for what they are - fictional trash.

Yep face it, the guy in Newsweek hit it on the head and I should add one important but sour note - the amount of effort put by what is mostly the far right of politics on matters that are incorrect and that causes confusion, hatred and increased tensions only falls into the hands of extremist Islamists and terrorists because it is in turn used to show the masses of confused Muslims (for the same problem exists in our world if not worse) that the west, the US and others are out to destroy Islam.

Zenster said...

Solkhar: I think that sums it up well and I will answer that, rather than attempt to respond to the mine-field set by the Baron that no matter what is answered he will do the pathetic Laine trick and claim no-matter-what taqqiya (which he is unable to spell correctly).

You do yourself (and your credibility) no favors by resorting to the favorite Muslim past time of blame and misdirection.

The Baron has not set any "mine field" for you. If anything, you have set one for yourself by continuing to use tu quoque and misdirection when confronted with questions that rely upon direct answers for clarity.

It is only another dose of misdirection for you to criticize laine for what you percieve as misspelling the word "taqiyya". Muslims continue to perpetrate every conceivable fraud upon the West through interminable re-spelling of their names or places or origin. What's more, there are just as often numerous spelling variants for almost any Arab word of more than one syllable.

Therefore, your attempts to blame or belittle those who challenge you by using such weak and irrelevent counter-arguments represent nothing more than another ration of the same old manure that nearly all of us here at Gates of Vienna have seen countless times in this same situation.

I will certainly give you credit for making some sort of attempt to engage in what we all hope will be a productive exchange. Still, it is hoped that you will please avoid such shopworn Muslim ploys as those above. They do not serve you or Islam at all well.

Since you have noted how easily anything you mention can be dismissed as taqiyya, I invite you to describe some constructive way by which any or all of us here at Gates of Vienna can be persuaded that you are genuinely sincere about having your words taken as truth.

It is my own position that taqiyya irrevocably damns Islam and that it represents a supreme ethical crime. Before we re-engage on the topics left hanging from our previous discussion, it would be very illuminating if you would please consider presenting your own opinion of taqiyya, its acceptability to yourself as a Muslim, how it reflects upon Islam in as a whole and what, if any, role it should or does play in how Islam functions at present.

Robert Marchenoir said...

Hahaha, such an obvious bit of double-talk coming from Solkhar (let's not use Arab words for once) :

1. "Though there are all these conspiracy theorists, hate-mongerers and basic anti-Islamic bigots spouting various images to suit what-ever there various needs are - the bulk of the world, almost every diplomat, most academics all disagree with those claims from the noisy conspiracy theorists."

2. "I see no point from your posting the item from Maryam Jameelah [of Al-Azhar university] as it just shows that there are in educational institutions varying degrees of views from ultra-liberal to ultra-conservative."

So, when academics (supposedly) disagree with the views expressed here at Gates of Vienna, it proves that those views are false.

However, when one academic from the nadir of Muslim wisdom and influence fully confirms the views of Gates of Vienna, it just means, you know, that some academics say some things, some others say other things, what's the big deal, dude ?

Of course, whereas Anti-Islamist quotes a precise source with impeccable and verifiable credentials, Solkhar dispenses altogether from providing any evidence in support of his sweeping statement than "most academics" agree with him.

And that's in two consecutive comments, 7 minutes apart.

A typical example of warped Muslim "logic".

In English : double-talk.

In Yiddish : chutzpah.

In Arabic : taqqiya (no smart-alec remarks about spelling, please).

You see, we're not bigots.

By the way, Solkhar, you're welcome to direct us to those "ultra-liberal" Muslim academics lurking in remote corridors of Al-Azhar of which we are not aware, according to your comment.

Feel free to enlighten us with names, quotations, whatever might enhance our frail wisdom.

Chechar said...

Solkhar: (1) “hate-mongerers and basic anti-Islamic bigots… (2) the noisy conspiracy theorists… (3) Simply put, they are all now but ignored in government, civil service and academia as for what they are - fictional trash.”

(1) The “hate-mongerers and anti-Islamic bigots” accusation is pure rhetoric. I know my feelings and I know I don’t hate Muslims, not even the fanatics. Muslims are behaving as they have behaved for more than a millennium. I reserve my hate for those white Westerners who have betrayed their culture. I must iterate: I know my feelings and no one has the right to tell me what do I actually feel.

(2) I don’t believe in any conspiracy theory. Yes: France may have played a major role in the Eurabianization of Europe, but not in the sense of a classic, under-the-table, utterly secret politics (e.g., the JFK or the 9/11 conspiracy theories) that crank theorists lucubrate.

(3) We are being ignored. So? Intellectuals who flourished in the Roman Empire such as Celsus and Porphyry of Tyre were also ignored. This resulted in the cult of the Galileans taking over the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Dark Ages: which will happen again when Islamists take over Europe.

Baron Bodissey said...

Solkhar, good to see you back for this thread.

Your comments have many long and involved points. I’ll only address a few of them.

First of all, I’ll refrain from theological arguments, because – although they are interesting and informative, and can provide illuminating background information – they are ultimately not the point.

The point is the behavior of large numbers of Muslims today, whether their scriptures justify their actions or not.

Whether Islam is theologically related to Christianity or Judaism is irrelevant. If a crazed splinter sect of Presbyterians were engaged in this same kind of mass violence, I would have the same issues with it, even if its religion were 90% the same as that of other Christians.

I believe that “by their fruits ye shall know them.” By its fruits – whether or not its scriptures agree – Islam is a violent, intolerant, misogynistic religion. I base this conclusion on the behavior of hundreds of millions of its adherents, and not on what the Koran says.

It’s interesting that you eschew the hadith. I’d wager that such a restriction puts you at odds with 90% of practicing Muslims. Do you ever read those online Islamic advice forums operated out of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc.? The resident imam usually cites a verse from the Koran, and then follows it with a “sound” hadith citation to clarify it. This is a routine practice, and you are the odd one out.

The reference was about official or constitutional discrimination, not what goes on in the street.

By that standard, the Soviet Union practiced free speech: its constitution guaranteed it.

But even so, what you say is not true. As an example, a number of Muslim countries make it illegal to convert from Islam to another religion, but not vice versa. That is discrimination, and it has the force of law.

I would be interested to see statistics that demonstrate that “fundamentalist” Muslims are a small group. I would also be interested to see statistics that demonstrate that Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. have committed more than 2% of the religious violence that has occurred in the last 10 years.

The Religion of Peace, as of the last time I checked the site, has documented more than 13,000 deadly terror attacks in the name of Islam since 9/11. What are the comparable statistics for non-Muslim religious groups?

I assert that at least 95% of the avowedly religious violence in the world is committed by Muslims in the name of Allah. Can you refute this?

If not, how do you account for it?

There are more Christians in the world than Muslims. Why, then, is religious violence so overwhelmingly Islamic?

Do Christians, Jews, and Hindus somehow use mind control to force Muslims to commit violent acts?

I’d be interested to see specific answers to these specific questions, and not a change of subject. No fair sidestepping into a different topic!

As evidence, I’d also be interested to see facts concerning events that took place no more than 20 years ago. Not from the Crusades, or the Middle Ages, or the colonial period, or even from World War II. Just current events.

I’d also be interested to see your answers backed up by statistics and cited, sourced facts. Not anecdotes and assertions. And especially not comparative theology.

But simple, clear, verifiable facts.

Mind you, I’m not holding my breath.

Solkhar said...

As I am preparing to respond to you Baron I am watching BBC World, at present they are showing riots in Jerusalem/Al Qods - how the ultra-orthodox Jews are burning, throwing stones and promisses of more because they are unhappy that the one of their numbers was arrested for basically letting her child starve to death. Declaring it an invasion of their rights.

Why am I saying this? Simply because if you imagine a group similar to this being in charge of a country or controlling communities because they dominate the clerical field - and this is what Islam is suffering.

Your comments about how the vast majority of terrorism is done by Muslims is not being disputed, not at all - facts are facts. There are other cases and they should not be forgotten and judged for its events but yes the Muslims world in many locations is engulfed. I never argue this but I do highlight when I see incorrect presumptions by some that the entire Muslim World is like this everywhere when it certainly is not.

There is no point in my mentioning the violence of Rawanda and that technically speaking both communities are considered strongly Christian, the events by Catholic Croations, Orthodox Serbs and Bosnian Muslims against each other, with the Serbs' ethnic cleansing reaching well documented levels - in what is Europe. I experienced the aftermath as being a part of the commission of inquiry into Dutch accountability in the Srebrenica massacre of over 8,000 muslim men and boys.

Mentioning the above, or this years attacks on Christians by Hindu radicals in India would not make a difference because the topic here is Muslim extremist violence - of which I agree is there. The issue for me is causes and solutions.

Baron, you said you really do not care if it is religious or not, it is being done and thus Islam is a violent religion - that for me is a simplistic view that results in no solution and increased anamosity. But taking your line as best as possible, I would continue to argue that it is a radical element that dominates a critical area of the "religious establishment" that is to blame, with the other half of that establishemnt sitting on their backsides and doing nothing about it that is the real error and that is where the blame should be focused - as much as on the perpetrators themselves. I certainly am the person to put blame on that establishment as being complisant to the same level as the terrorists that they support.

Your comments about "mind control" to create suicide bombers is interesting and to place it as being a "Muslim thing" is certainly wrong. Fanatacism to the point of willingness to sacrifice one's life has existed throughout history and continues to do and probably will in the future for whatever "political, social, cultural or religious" purpose espoused if done correctly. Remember that Tamil Tigers were the originators of the suicide bomber vest, the Japanese did so militarily, proud and honourable soldiers in all conflicts have sacrificed their lives for their commrades. Right now, Islamist clerics tell others to disobey the Qur'an and of course sit comfortably at a safe distance.

.... continued

Solkhar said...

.....

Frankly speaking Baron, it is the night before I leave on a three week holiday in southern Morocco and I am not inclinded to look up stats and references - I may do so during the break as I will take my laptop with mobile internet, but off the top of my head (and I do still work in the detection and tracking of terrorism-financing) which is pretty accurate is this breakdown.

15 per cent of Muslims are considered radical/fundentalist.
50 per cent are considered strong-conservative.
20 per cent are considered Moderate or liberal
15 per cent are considered irreligious/do not care/non practicing (most in the west, balkan states and in East Europe)

Having said the above, clarification is quickly needed if you want more accurate numbers.

Of 1.6 billion Muslims, 50 per cent are taken out as being Women, elderly and children that do not have an impact in subjects such as political or religious activism which is what we are interested here.

So of the 800 Million that now count as being potential, cut half of them again as being in areas that make them not relevant - in the Malinese desert, starving in the Sudan or Erritrea, up in a mountain or in a jungle and so on.

Thus the figure of 400 Million people being potentially aware or political issues. Many would argue that the figure is still double of what it should be, but I am happy to work with this larger figure, we can say that:

60 million people live under or follow out of belief or necessity radical fundamentalist Islam.
60 million are agnostic, do not care and are basically out of the picture and not interested to be linked with faith at all
80 million are moderate and/or liberal but sit on their backsides and do nothing, not to mention that they are the bulk of the middle-class and public service of all the above nations... and
200 million are strong conservative Muslims, not interested in violence but getting on with their lives BUT as they are almost all poor and living in the developing world with little access to education, they listen to the fundamentalists via the Mosque and Madrassas.

It is that 50 per cent that will make the difference in any change and at present they are not listening to the moderates and their usual desire to be better-off and dream about being "western" has gone out the door due to the success of the radicals in convincing them that the West is evil and out to destroy Islam.

I have no problem in pointing out how bad it is. That is also why I will point out that views that the entire Muslim World is violent and destructive or worse only makes the gulf between the Muslim World and the West even larger as it gives more ammunition to the leadership of that fundamentalist element - such as Maryam Jameelah who will claim it is now impossible to reconcile with the Christians.

Baron to finish as I am tired and need to help my wife pack bags, you remarked about how those sites and religious centres answer questions and give simple fatwas by reciting the Qur'an and Haddiths - to the poor and iliterate for them that is all important and the only source of "teachings and values" but to many, it is ignored as much as the average Christian going and asking his priest for advice and that is how the moderate Muslim values it. Certainly the bulk of Muslims consider Haddiths very important - but again I stress the question of which one? As a package they conflict with each other and it has split the religion in the past as badly as the reformation, the arrival of Martin Luther and more.

I will be watching and hope you all have a good holiday season.

Solkhar said...

Chechar, your missing the point - what is being said is (and I support) that the view of Eurabia and some Islamic take-over is not real. The bulk of authorities and academics agree and as much as you like it and scoff - you are in a minority.

Your reference to "Roman Empire such as Celsus and Porphyry of Tyre were also ignored" only confirms that you are a conspiracy theorist even if you deny it.

Solkhar said...

Robert,

"However, when one academic from the nadir of Muslim wisdom and influence fully confirms the views of Gates of Vienna, it just means, you know, that some academics say some things, some others say other things, what's the big deal, dude ?"

Sorry, Maryam Jameelah's item was posted because of the political need to have an item from the Muslim American Society, and to play more into it is stretching things. She is a radical fundamentalist, that is clear, her background confirms it and if we wish to go down your path then we can say that by default the far-right of US politics is linked with racism because a number of websites and its mouthpiece FOX allows the former leader of the KKK speak and comment.

Chechar said...

Your reference to "Roman Empire such as Celsus and Porphyry of Tyre were also ignored" only confirms that you are a conspiracy theorist even if you deny it.

Wow! What an absolutely silly non sequitur...

Baron Bodissey said...

Solkhar, it’s good to see you admit one of my basic points here, that the vast majority of religious violence in the world today is committed by Muslims in the name of Islam.

However, I notice that you reverted to the historical fallacy (Japanese kamikazes, the Tamils inventing suicide bombing) when answering me.

Also, you continue to use anecdotal counterexamples. These are not germane. One can always discover them, but what do they mean?

On the one hand, there are Muslims blowing up hotel guests in Jakarta. On the other hand there are Christians who murder abortion doctors, and Orthodox Jews who violently protest a parking lot. It seems to make an equivalence, yes?

But it doesn’t: There are 10,000 or 100,000 murderous Muslims for every murderous non-Muslim.

That’s why I require statistical counterarguments, which you have so far declined to provide.

Your asserted statistics about radical Muslims are intriguing. I hope that when you return from your travels you will provide URLs or print references for them.

But even they do not address the core statistical question, which is:

What percentage of Muslims either support the actions of violent radicals or are willing to passively accept them?

My guess is that the answer is well over 50%.

And here’s another one for you: what percentage of educated Muslims – doctors, lawyers, engineers, university professors, etc. – are willing to go on the public record denouncing the violence of the radicals, without equivocation, without mentioning Israel or casting blame on other non-Muslims?

In my experience there are only a few, very few, who do that. And some of them have to go into hiding after they do it.

Solkhar said...

Baron, I am starting to lose what the actual point is here. There is no argument that extremists in the Muslim world is dominating the terrors that are happening and that most if not the vast majority of Muslims sit on their backsides doing nothing.

I will get you those UN and InterPol stats when I get back, they are not on my computer and can also fournish some breakdowns on terror groups and which particular group/philosophy covers were.

My question back to you is why is there still assumptions that Islam and the Qur'an is evil? Why are we focusing on Islam instead of the mad elements that usurp it and endanger all of us?

Bed-time - good night.

Baron Bodissey said...

Solkhar –

My question back to you is why is there still assumptions that Islam and the Qur'an is evil?

I do not assert this. You are putting words in my mouth.

I judge that evil exists, based upon its fruits. The hundreds of thousands of hideous, vile crimes committed in the name of Islam point back towards an evil cause.

I see these evils occurring, and I ask, “Why?”

If the Koran does not inspire these evils, then what does?

The people who commit such acts – and there are many thousands of them – publicly proclaim that they are doing their deeds for the sake of Islam.

Are they deluded? If so, why are so many Muslims suffering from psychopathic delusions?

What is it about Islam – right now, in the year 2009 – that causes so many people to act violently in its behalf?

Why does this happen in Islam and not in other religions?

Kenny said...

And Solkhar, when you address what the Baron just said, remember to take into account your own stated position on "moderate" Muslims:

"when you attack my core faith as being evil, dangerous or perverted, you are making a personal attack on me. You will find that feeling will exist with all liberal moderate Muslims." - Solkhar.

I don't really care if you try to define "moderate" with reference to a group of extremists who carry a backpack of explosives into public areas and deliberately murder innocent people. Saying that a "moderate" person is someone who doesn't do that, really isn't saying much.

It would be interesting to try and define a "moderate" Muslim who lives in the West in terms of their outlook on, and actual beliefs about, whatever society they're living in.

Watching Eagle said...

People may ask me why I write this way, when many books have been published on the subject. Most books start from the assumption “The Problem is Islam! What are we going to do to get Islam to catch up to the 21st. Century!?” I think this is the wrong question for the following reasons. First, keep in mind that the West had been pushing back Islam and conquering Muslim lands ever since 1683, and that a few decades ago, all Muslim lands were Western colonies or heavily influenced by the West. We come to the question “Why now” have things changed?
Sun Tsu said “If you know the enemy and you know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every battle you win, you will lose a battle. If you do not know either the enemy or yourself, you will be imperiled in EVERY battle.
Well, Islam hasn’t changed that much through the Centuries. So maybe we should ask “Has the West gone wrong in the past 50 years? If so, how?” How well do we know ourselves now? Do we westerners really have an accurate assessment of our society today? To what extent are our assumptions about other societies correct?

Let Hirsi Ali have a word on this point:
“But I don’t even think that the trouble is Islam. The trouble is the West, because in the West there’s this notion that we are invincible and that everyone will modernize anyway, and that what we are seeing now in Muslim countries is a craving for respect. Or it’s poverty, or it’s caused by colonization.

The Western mind-set — that if we respect them, they’re going to respect us, that if we indulge and appease and condone and so on, the problem will go away — is delusional. The problem is not going to go away. Confront it, or it’s only going to get bigger.”

Solkar has pointed out some things that are true. We are deeply concerned because WE HAVE A Feeling for HOW WEAK THE WEST HAS BECOME.

Watching Eagle said...

Why the Caliphate is possible (in spite of what Western Diplomats and Scholars Think)--
Part 1

We now turn to some of the basic misconceptions that make the West so weak. I will quickly deal with 3 of them here.

1) The West is the most advanced society, and thus ALL cultures will adapt to it, and it can’t pass away, it can only “improve”.

The problem with this is that I am sure Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome thought that there greatness was going to last forever just before they fell (after all, things had gotten better for a long time, and they were so “sophisticated”). However, this kind of thinking is dangerous, because real problems are not taken seriously, and they are allowed to accumulate. The society then collapses. I learned in Economics that there is usually a point of negative marginal returns (that is, if you add another worker, you will end up producing LESS product than before the worker was added). Societies also reach a point of negative marginal returns (changes in the same direction cause society to GET WORSE), which I maintain the West has already reached.

2) The West is rational, and other people (especially religious people) are irrational.

The problem with this is that it makes us think that we don’t have to CHANGE ANYTHING (in our thinking) to survive, and that we JUST have to get those irrational people (Muslims in the blog here) to be rational, and then all will be fine. Another problem is that this type of thinking leads to ‘ideological racism’ [rampant among “secular progressives”] which substitutes ideology for genetics, but the SS Nazi racist theory is the same. Ideological racism says “different cultures have different levels of advancement and different ideologies. Therefore, certain people (such as secularists) are more “psychologically advanced” than others (such as ‘religious’ people [which are judged to be more ‘psychologically primitive’]). This theory makes it impossible for secular westerners to really understand what Muslims think, and makes them condescend to Muslims (rather than respect them as serious, intelligent people). But the concept has further dangerous effects, in that it is the basis of the “Master Race Management” theory of the Left (which believes that Secular Westerners really ARE the master race, but that westerners MUST NOT FIGHT NON-WESTERNERS because ‘it wouldn’t be fair to ‘roll over’ these ‘psychological primitives’. [Racism? I’LL SHOW YOU RACISM! This concept IS UBER-RACISM!!]

The truth is the West (because of a lack of historical understanding and being full of itself) is being very irrational when facing its civilizational challenges, while the Islamic world (which had been recently subjugated and humiliated by colonialism) is far more reasonable in facing situations than we would like to admit.

to be continued...

Watching Eagle said...

Misconception # 3

3) Technology drives cultural change, and so other cultures will adapt to Western ideals.

This is a key assumption that Westerners make, but woefully misinformed. It works like this: Most Westerners would agree with the idea “Times change, and our values must change to match the times”. When we think about this a little deeper, what it REALLY means is that technology changes how we live our lives, and we must have values consistent with how we live our lives. This may be taken for granted by most Westerners, but not all cultures think this way. Islam, in particular, believes that all must submit to the Shariah and the deen of Al-Islam (at least the 65% of Muslims who are ‘fundamentalists’ and ‘strong conservatives’) and thus we must find proper rules for each new technology (proper application of Shariah to the modern world). If intelligent robots were invented, Westerners would think “How can this technology make life easier?” while Muslims, guided by the Ulema (religious judges) would be concerned about making sure the intelligent robots where operated in a halal manner. This is quite a different concept (based on different political experiences in the past 200 years as much as Islam itself), but before you snort at this ‘primitive’ approach to technology, consider the weakness of the Western approach. If technology drives culture and ethics (apart from absolute ethics), then a society has no absolute values, and people don’t know what to believe. Indeed, if it were not for this phenomenon of Western culture, we probably would NEVER have accepted that which ‘Secular Progressives’ have foisted upon us in the name of ‘keeping up with the times’. Many science fiction stories are about machines taking over (2001: A Space Odyssey, and I, Robot (2004) come to mind.) But what happens when a culture that wants to control technology with its values interacts with a society that allows its cultural values to be determined by its technology?

“People of the West:

Your culture is determined by your technologies,

Our culture will teach us how to control your technologies.

Therefore, we are the ones who will learn to control YOU.

Your culture will adapt to service ours.”

Watching Eagle said...

The Problem of "Secular Progressivism" (really a virulent form of "Virtual Polytheism" )

We now come to the issue of why western leaders are so irrational and delusional in facing the West's present challenges. The answer lies in the RELIGION of "secular progressivism".

By "secular progressivism" I do NOT mean just anybody who chooses NOT to believe in God. I mean a POLITICIZED SECULARIST (one might say a SECULAR THEOCRAT) who believes in making all areas of life conform to his own views [which in current times amount to the belief that the West is "racist, imperialist, oppressive, and bigoted" among other things]. Such a person believes that "BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, I AM FREE FROM THE SHORTCOMINGS OF HUMANITY" and thus leaves critical reasoning and moral conscience ON THE SHELF. The problem is that one MUST REALIZE that being an athiest does NOT MEAN you can't think up BAD IDEAS {and being 'religious' {even a 'fundamentalist' does NOT MEAN your ideas can't be right}. Concerning the last point, have not religious ideas stood the tests of time and MARGINAL environments? Modern 'secular' ideas have been created in an area of abundance, along with the assumption that things will always get better-- they haven't REALLY BEEN TESTED YET.

That aside, the confession of "secular progressives" is the BLASPHEMOUS STATEMENT "We and our ideas are the true gods, and we are our gods' priests and prophets"(!!!!!!!)

Thus, "Secular Progressivism" [SP] could RATIONALLY BE DEFINED as "Virtual Polytheism" [VP] (Mushrikeen) in which the devotees PUSH the policies they adopt in the spirit of "We must make these SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS TO OUR gods."(!!!!!)

When this is understood, it becomes clear why reason does NOT WORK with "secular progressives". They are none of the things they say that they are (THEY ARE NOT EVEN WHAT THEY THINK THEY ARE).

This is to say, I don't think that SPs are consciously religious. However, their actions are best understood if you see that they are practicing 'virtual polytheism' non-consciously.

"Secular progressivism" was developed in the 20th. Century, and did not come to power in the West until the Western Cultural Revolution (1963-1979). Meanwhile, Christianity had lost its cultural relevance. (During the 1st and
2nd. Jihads, and even during most of the Western Colonial area, Christianity was a guide for how people were to live their lives, not just a collection of "personal, religious beliefs") This was partly due to the 'Enlightenment', partly due to political and technological dominance, and partly due to some other factors (I will discuss it in other posts).

to be continued...

Watching Eagle said...

If we can understand these facts, it also explains why SPs are so dominant when they are so irrational (organization and focus on society, versus the lack thereof in Christians). I testify to the fact that Christianity is far less culturally relevant to even most "Christian fundamentalists" than Islam is culturally relevant to most 'mainstream' Muslims (we're talking in the 21st Century).

I even think that 'radical' or 'strong conservative' muslims find their faith more culturally relevant than SPs (really VPs) find their "faith" to be.

Of course, at the moment, muslims have only a vague understanding of what "western secularism" REALLY IS. When they 'get it'-- Oh Dear, (It will be --We MUST HAVE THE EURABIAN CALIPHATE AT ALL COSTS!!!)

I hope this post shows how the West is seriously different today from MOST OF its history. Worse yet, "secular progressivism" is a deeply 'governing class' religion (it requires one have social power to really be devoted to it). The masses of western society, though influenced by this faith, are not true believers in VP, but are angry, frustrated, and confused (such is the vacuum in Western Society today).

The Problem with SP (VP) instead of an Islamic Caliphate is that a Caliphate cannot get worse than what the Quran and Sunna prescibe, but SPs can JUSTIFY ANYTHING they want to do (no matter how harmful or irrational) as 'progress' [think about Communist dictatorships]. We are not there yet, but it COULD happen. Thus, if Islam disappeared tomorrow, The West WOULD STILL BE IN BIG TROUBLE. Islam may even save the West, if the masses get organized and SMASH all the VP idols (ideas)[Drive them from power]. Otherwise, a Eurabian Caliphate is likely. "We fix it, or Islamists will HAPPILY fix it for us."

I have more explanations and commentary for why the Eurabian Caliphate is possible, but I must go now. I have written enough for now for everyone to absorb, and comment upon.

Zenster said...

Watching Eagle, I hope that you might appreciate why I have placed such emphasis upon the absence of cliché in your previous comments.

Do you honestly think that Solkhar would have (justifiably or otherwise), responded in any constructive or similar sort of productive manner to a tirade that included mention of "The Borg" or being asslaminated by any type of entity other than a conventional geopolitical force currently in discussion?

Solkhar said...

Actually Zenster, the chances of a Eurabian Caliphate is about as high or as relevant as the existance of the Borg - fictional madness.

Hitting the road, long drive ahead.

laine said...

I had hoped that Solkhar wouldn't come back to consume intellectual energy that would be better spent on reading more honestly informative Muslims or ex-Muslims. Personally from now on I'm going to scroll by his tedious takiya screeds (as Zenster points out it has several alternate spellings and I care not a whit what the self-styled Pope of Islam Solkhar demands. He made a similar demand about his preferred spelling of the Koran). I rely on the Baron to mine any inadvertent nuggets from the dross. He's a bigger optimist than I am that anything Solkhar says can actually be a help to our cause of cultural survival than a calculated hindrance.

Regardless of what percentages are played with to present Muslims as majority moderate or not, does anyone on this thread expect that any Muslim, even the so-called MINOS (Muslim in name only) will not suddenly become "born again Muslim" wherever Islam even threatens to dominate? They would be irrational not to, considering what a raw deal non-Muslims get from Muslims in power. As the countless examples of "cultural enrichment" demonstrate, Muslims typically start persecuting non-Muslims when they're just a sizable minority themselves! And you don't have to imagine the treatment when they're fully in the driver's seat. Observe the Judenrein middle-east and the marginalization and persecution including killing of Christians, Hindus and Buddhists in Muslim states. Just repeat the magic code words, the Shahada,
"There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah" and you're safe, or at least safer than an infidel. Eventually Muslims get around to killing each other but first they unite to subjugate the kuffar.

The Baron has pointed out the poisonous fruits who claim Islam as their nourishing root without significant contradiction from Islamic authorities.

How about the dog that doesn't bark?

Where is the "moderate Muslim" counter-force joining western counter-terrorism initiatives as translators, turfing their hate-spewing Saudi funded imams and informing on shady characters in their mosques, helping close down Islamic financial practices supporting terrorists or heaven forfend, joining western armed forces to fight against these supposed hijackers of peaceful Islam? Oh, that's right. They don't exist in measureable numbers.

Muslim fighting Muslim is A-OK in Sudan (well, it's more of a one-way slaughter), so clearly the religion doesn't proscribe it, yet there are no Muslim takers to fight against the fundamentalists who are "not representative" of the faith.

On the other hand they do spend a lot of time chewing out infidels critical of Islam and telling them black is white.

Only one logical conclusion. Liar liar pants on fire.

Incidentally, did people notice the inflated figure of 1.6 billion Muslims that Solkhar picks and how the female half of that number got tossed off the top as completely irrelevant to the direction Islam takes? He's so Muslim, he can't even comprehend how a westerner would look on that.

Except as a case study of the stubborn blindness and propagandism the West is up against, not much to see here folks.

Zenster said...

Solkhar: Actually Zenster, the chances of a Eurabian Caliphate is about as high or as relevant as the existance of the Borg - fictional madness.

So should we all be amazed that NOWHERE have I mentioned anything more than as an aside any sort of "Eurabian Caliphate", nor has there been mentioned "the Borg".

Still, let's make sure that Solkhar is not prevented from making an entirely uninvited or irrelevant mention of this unrelated topic lest it prevent him from achieving his otherwise impertinent point.

Chechar said...

Watching Eagle:

Although I am not a religious person I liked what you said, especially your 3:27 AM post and illuminating quotations of Sun Tsu and Hirsi Ali. I liked it so much that I’ll use it in a forthcoming GoV entry. (I’d only recommend avoiding distracting capital letters: italics do the job and they’re much better for the eye.)

Baron Bodissey said...

laine --

You can tell the MINOs who will not revert to Ummah when pushed by their conspicuous courage.

Some, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have become outright atheists, and are no longer really MINOs.

Others, like Wafa Sultan, continue to call themselves Muslims. They endure death threats and risk physical attack every day. Ms. Sultan had to go into hiding for awhile, yet she continues to speak out against Islamic poison publicly, under her real name.

Such people are notable for their rarity. I don't know exactly how many there are, but I don't think there could be more than a few dozen out of the world's 7.6 quintillion Muslims.

That fact alone -- the 1:100,000,000 ratio -- tells us a lot about Islam.

Robert Marchenoir said...

Again, a festival of Solkharian twisted logic.

1. Solkhar admits the existence of Muslim fundamentalists and the danger they represent (in spite of them being, according to him, a minority, and not representative of true Islam).

2. He recognizes that they have infiltrated the West (but that's the West's fault, he says).

3. But he flatly denies that there is any chance of Europe becoming Eurabia.

Once again, no facts, no arguments are offered in support of such a blunt statement. We're just asked to believe point n°3, while point n°1 and point n°2 seriously suggest the opposite possibility.

But no, you'll have to take it on Solkhar's word.

1. A reader here provides a quotation by Lady X, a Muslim fundamentalist from Al-Azhar university, which confirms what GoV says about Islam.

2. I take Solkhar to task for his double-standards treatment of Lady X, whose opinions he dismisses as unimportant, and of other, unquoted, anonymous academics whose supposed opinions suddenly become very reliable and very important, because they happen to support Solkhar's views.

3. Solkhar answers that Lady X is a Muslim fundamentalist, ergo her opinion should not be taken into account.

How bloody convenient.

You see, that's the way it works :

1. Yes, fundamentalists do exist ;

2. Yes, their deeds are repugnant and dangerous ;

3. However, they do not represent true Islam ;

4. Therefore, nothing they say or do can be taken into account when discussing Islam, even what they have to say about Islam.

That's the core of the Islamic fallacy and taqqiya. That's the way Muslims make sure they are always right, whatever happens and whatever they do.

Fundamentalists are always right : they act according to their violent and supremacist view of Islam. No surprise here.

If they win, it proves Allah knows best. If they fail, it proves the kuffar is evil ; they themselves will go to heaven, and Allah will prevail in the end.

"Moderates" are always right. If fundamentalists fail, it proves Islam is a peaceful and tolerant creed.

If fundamentalists win, well, it's not true Islam, you see, so the "moderate" does not have to take the blame for it. He can just lay down quietly (sorry, Christian folks, it's not me, it's those evil fundamentalists), while not doing anything to attract the fundamentalists' wrath (just being a Muslim and shutting up on Muslim issues will do).

He can also choose, at that point, to switch his loyalty (or speak his true mind), and join the fundamentalist crowd, now that's there's no more risk involved in doing it.

That's the reason why fundamentalists and "moderates" are in cahoots. The Islamic system itself makes it happen.

The only way this catch-22 can be broken is if a significant number of Muslims chose to take the Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali way (which is the opposite of the Solkhar and Obama way).

It's difficult. It may not be likely. But it's possible. And it certainly is, ultimately, in the Muslims' best interests.

Not to mention the West's.

Solkhar said...

Robert Marchenoir has I think rather proved my point, or at least confirmed what "agenda" is.

As he puts it:

1. Yes, fundamentalists do exist ;

2. Yes, their deeds are repugnant and dangerous ;

3. However, they do not represent true Islam ;

and that is correct.

The basics are simple, the rest of what Robert says though drowns out and confuses the matter with a lot of presumptions. Firstly, I am expressing my opinion and though some are automatically assuming that I represent Islam with some great authority are deluding themselves as I have never claimed such. Just as most of you on GoV are a minority but with strong views, so am I.

What I found "so bloody convenient" to use Roberts words is the easy choice that horrible violence exists and thus all of that group must be condemned, rather than even attempting to concider all the variations of history, global politics, economics, sociology, etc, etc but instead go for the "bloody convenient" easy answers.

Robert's easy answer is also to through the wait of blame entirely on the target and accuse (again with a broad brush on all) Muslims of denying any culpability or blame. I certainly never denied blame at all and actually place a lot of it squarely on the Muslim's themselves. I guess it was "bloody convenient" to avoid that point in his comment.

What is even more ludicrous is to accuse someone of putting one view above another in importance, though Roobert is doing that constantly (in fact we all do), just like some posters assume that a politician like Geert Wilders is right but over 83 per cent of the Dutch population and the governments of now and the past think he is both wrong and dangerous. But of course, people like Robert will put views of some as of more value than others.

In the end though, Robert simply shows his colors and his agenda in a simple statement that tells what angle he is coming from when he says "which is the opposite of the Solkhar and Obama way". I do not take sides in US politics and consider myself a sharp-swinging centrist in my own political views, but find Robert's comments in fact gratifying and confirms that even he acknowledged that my views represent the "moral majority". Thanks Robert, I appreciate that very much.

As a last comment which I think will result in many more posts (sorry blog owner) but I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a cultural sell-out and I do not like her personally as well.

Remember that I spent 22 years as a Dutch diplomat and thus have met her on a number of occassions and I can say that on the last time I told her what I thought when she made the mistake of implying at a conference that any "white-covert" is by nature an extremist. She was looking at me at the time.

Thus when it was "question time" I asked if "selling-out" her culture and personal faith for the benefit of selling books and public appearance was not shameful. I think I got at least 75 per cent applaus from the mostly non-Muslim but ethnic mixed audience and a former Dutch PM told me that she got it coming.

Anyhow, time to go out and look for food, it was a 6 hour drive through mountains this morning.

Robert, thanks again for the endorsement.

Baron Bodissey said...

Solkhar --

I notice that you respond to what you perceive as personal slights directed at you, but not to substantive questions raised by me and other commenters. You take umbrage at insults and engage in counterattacks, all the while deftly sidestepping reasonable and civil questions about facts and statistics.

That’s why I refrain from personal attack – I find it to be a non-productive way of engaging an opponent.

On the other hand, it has so far failed to evoke a response. Do you avoid responding because you find the questions difficult to answer? Or are there other reasons?

I listed several reasonable questions earlier in this thread, all of which you declined to answer. Do you need me to repeat them here?

Or perhaps I should repeat a single, simple question:

Why is religious violence in the 21st century – that is, violence committed expressly on behalf of a particular religion and its deity – so massively and overwhelmingly Islamic?

I’d be curious to read a response that addresses this question only, without reference to the similarities between Islam and Christianity, or the Crusades, or kamikaze pilots, or Tamil suicide bombers. An answer that doesn’t slide off into digressions about the relative numbers of “fundamentalist” Muslims.

Just this one question. A clear and frank answer might convince me that you are, in fact, commenting here in good faith.

Solkhar said...

Baron,

The question you ask has not been avoided, but rather I claim distraction with what is personal attacks by a number of other commentators - and it certainly is easy to fall into the trap of returning pettiness when it is delivered.

Before answering, I reply with he subject of kamikaze, Tamil bomb jackets to point out the often made error that it is an Islamic invention, that is the only point for mentioning that and it certainly is not to distract from anything else.

As for statistics, I just arrived on a holiday and will be unable to provide any such statistics during these three weeks in Agadir where I am now staying. But that will not stop me from answering your question which certainly you have politely asked.

"Why is religious violence in the 21st century – that is, violence committed expressly on behalf of a particular religion and its deity – so massively and overwhelmingly Islamic?"

The basis for why the fact that during the last 30 years Islamist violence and extremist regimes have flourished is a combination of modern history such as decolonization and the cold-war, the vast majority of Islam living in the developing world, a significant element of Islam (including Saudi Arabia) having an oppressive tribal culture and a direct result of the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

To start of, so-called fundamentalism (the word is actually meant for Christianity but I will use it here) has always existed and should have mostly disappeared in the post WWII period like it has done in the west but factors explained below did not allow for that. Additionally, as Islam is a "whole-of-life" religion, the number of active followers is by nature large. Now - getting to the points.

Historical Factors - Decolonization and Cold-War.

The industrial revolution and military power became the strength of the Christian West; its subsequent carving up of the rest of the world into colonies and dominions is well known history. Its relevance is critical here as the Muslim world was taken under such control and in this case the period after WWI up to the late 1950s as with many other peoples, the act of decolonization be it by force, voluntary or pact resulted in resource exploitation, puppet regimes and enforced borders and nation creation that was doomed to failure. Though a middle and upper-class was created mostly in the western-image that the bulk of populations did not understand or objected to - the fact was that these nations remained illiterate, economically crippled and often with disenfranchised populations.

....Continued....

Solkhar said...

....part 2 or 3....

The cold-war added to the problem with new nations having to "chose sides", dictators and corrupt leaders created from the previous colonizing nations (or from cold-war inspired coups) grew fat and powerful as long as the support remained, and failure resulted in more coups or civil wars. This is the modern history of most Muslim nations.

At the same time, the single unifying factor - Islam was continuing its slow but steady break-up into regional variations, remembering that there is no single religious school or authority that controls all of Islam except the hajj process to Mecca. A part of the regional variations came not from Islam though but from existing culture and that a large portion of Muslims came from tribal culture - tribal influences infiltrated Muslim life to a point were locals presumed what was a cultural or tribal habit - had nothing to do with actual core Islamic principles. Sexism, the Burqa, honor killings, genital mutilation are all cultural tribal customs that are not Islamic and are followed in many non-Muslim cultures (ie it crosses religious boundaries).

These historic and regional/cultural factors had already an impact by the mid 20th century with "revivalists" and "purists" from a middle-class that was educated within the colonial system into organized structures - Brotherhoods. Politics instantly played as much a part as their various versions of Islamic belief.

Two events though changed everything, the creation of the State of Israel and even more importantly, the Iranian Revolution. The creation of Israel became a rally-cry for Arab nationalism and of course those "fundamentalists" made maximum value of it and still do to this day.

But the major impact that has the single greatest influence on why Islamist terror is so great now is the Iranian Revolution. Why?

Ultra-conservative religious extremism mixed itself with a militant political cause.

Iran was a perfect example of a long-history of meddling by other nations, from Britain in he early part of the century to the United States in the latter (now admitted as forcing a coup) as well as the propping-up of an incredibly out-of-touch Monarch whom rewrote the meaning of corruption. The strong conservativeness of the population that was suffering turned towards their religious leaders whom were extreme and they linked themselves to growing revolutionary militancy - a toxic mix that we have all are suffering from to this day.

......continued

Solkhar said...

Part 3 or 3...


How come such an affect?

As a direct result of the revolution, every other extremist cleric searched out for militant groups to support their extreme views (which many are fused with tribalism). A direct result of this was that Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia that was being ignored and suppressed was given free-reign as the Saudi King feared a similar revolution - a caved in to allow the religious courts to be taken over by the Wahhabists that changed everything, giving them access to huge reserves of funding and resources. In the early 1980s an attempt to clamp-down resulted in an Osama Bin Laden to condemn the Saudi State as being "un-Islamic" and he abandoned the country for good and Al Qaeda was born to dramatic affect.

The sick mix of tribalism continued to flourish - Taliban tribal values have not the slightest link to core Islamic belief but try telling that to a locally-bred cleric who does not know or is not interested in the difference. Thus the crime for being caught with a boy alone resulted in a sentence of rape by council tribal elders, only one of countless examples.

The end result is that militancy mixed with radical clerics whom feed of the ignorance and poverty of the poorer populations whilst existing organizations worked hard at preparing ground work for organized terrorism.

Another sad reality is that it had taken by surprise the moderate middle and upper class Muslims whom in the early 70s had enjoyed life with their heads in the sand or "in the west". No doubt the leadership of many of these nations was corrupt and responsible for the revolutions and hatred for them and their backing by the west - from the poor - the food of terrorism.

This is the causes. Simplified due to time restraints but the concept is correct. The influences from these causes are for my part undeniable, it does put the blame on the west as it was one of many factors - the reality is that there is no coordinated or significant effort "now" from the Muslim World and that is inexcusable.

A last comment, I have absolutely no problem with the existence of the State of Israel. It is a simple reality. I believe in the two-state solution and that it will require a sacrifice by all parties involved, regional as well. I mention this because many believe that being a Muslim I am automatically anti-Israel and at war with Jews which is not the case.

Watching Eagle said...

Concerning what laine said about Solkar overestimating the number of muslims, my research says he did not. There were 1.3 Billion Muslims about 10 years ago. The world Muslim population grows by more than 30 million every year. Thus, there are now between 1600 Million and 1700 Million Muslims in the world today (as of 2009), and there will likely be about 2 Billion (2000 Million) in 2020.

It is funny that one would think that we could discount the Muslimas (Muslim women), since their role in conquest is as important (if not more important)than the role of Muslim men. The Muslimas wielding ACDs/PRSDs (Advanced Cloaking Devices/ Personal Revolutionary Struggling Devices), aka niqabs and burqas, are effective at prodding Westerners into submission, just by walking around (much more than terrorists could ever be).

Concerning Chechar, I am glad you liked my post. I repeat that the problem is NOT 'non-religious people', but 'secular progressivism' (politicized secular theocracy) that practically has evolved into anti-West hatred and delusional irrationality (PC MC). My point is that if you do not understand the changes in the cultural relevance of Christianity in the West, and the religious [Virtual Polytheistic] nature of 'Secular Progressivism', you cannot understand either the religious nature of Islam in the 21st Century (the 65% of Muslims who are 'fundamentalists' or 'strong conservatives', NOT the 'Moderate minority' of Muslims), or the governing classes' response to it.

My point is that Christianity's cultural relevance (in the West)changed in the past few centuries [due to political and technological factors, as well as the 'Enlightenment' and radical secularist thinkers{Marx, Freud, Gramsci, etc.}] while Islam did not (due to history of the retreat of their civilization during that time).

I look forward to reading Chechar's posts and answering his questions. I am sure he agrees that the way we have been taught to view the world (by Leftists) does not make rational sense, and that our 'governing class' is acting highly irrationally.

Watching Eagle said...

Concerning what laine said about Solkar overestimating the number of muslims, my research says he did not. There were 1.3 Billion Muslims about 10 years ago. The world Muslim population grows by more than 30 million every year. Thus, there are now between 1600 Million and 1700 Million Muslims in the world today (as of 2009), and there will likely be about 2 Billion (2000 Million) in 2020.

It is funny that one would think that we could discount the Muslimas (Muslim women), since their role in conquest is as important (if not more important)than the role of Muslim men. The Muslimas wielding ACDs/PRSDs (Advanced Cloaking Devices/ Personal Revolutionary Struggling Devices), aka niqabs and burqas, are effective at prodding Westerners into submission, just by walking around (much more than terrorists could ever be).

Concerning Chechar, I am glad you liked my post. I repeat that the problem is NOT 'non-religious people', but 'secular progressivism' (politicized secular theocracy) that practically has evolved into anti-West hatred and delusional irrationality (PC MC). My point is that if you do not understand the changes in the cultural relevance of Christianity in the West, and the religious [Virtual Polytheistic] nature of 'Secular Progressivism', you cannot understand either the religious nature of Islam in the 21st Century (the 65% of Muslims who are 'fundamentalists' or 'strong conservatives', NOT the 'Moderate minority' of Muslims), or the governing classes' response to it.

My point is that Christianity's cultural relevance (in the West)changed in the past few centuries [due to political and technological factors, as well as the 'Enlightenment' and radical secularist thinkers{Marx, Freud, Gramsci, etc.}] while Islam did not (due to history of the retreat of their civilization during that time).

I look forward to reading Chechar's posts and answering his questions. I am sure he agrees that the way we have been taught to view the world (by Leftists) does not make rational sense, and that our 'governing class' is acting highly irrationally.

Kenny said...

"when you attack my core faith as being evil, dangerous or perverted, you are making a personal attack on me. You will find that feeling will exist with all liberal moderate Muslims." - Solkhar.

"Thus when it was "question time" I asked (Ayaan Hirsi Ali)if "selling-out" her culture and personal faith for the benefit of selling books and public appearance was not shameful." - Solkhar.

Despite "selling out" his own culture and adopting an alien religious faith, Solkhar sees fit to criticise other people for moving to another country and trying to become successful. Just a tad hypocritical, no?

Solkhar neglects to mention that Ayaan Hirsi Ali no longer believes that Mohammad flew around the sky on a horse, or that Mohammad is any more a prophet than Joseph Smith was. That alone would be a sufficient condition for anyone to leave the religion they had been brought up with.

And being forced to undergo FGM (we're told this is a cultural issue, after all) would be a perfectly good reason for someone to leave the "culture" responsible at their stern as they journeyed through life.

Of course there's the matter of people simply trying to improve their life, something Solkhar claims every good Muslim tries to do on a daily basis.


If I saw an opportunity to go and live in another country where I would make more money and have a higher standard of living, and I went and did so, then there would be nothing wrong with that. Solkhar's own brother, he tells us, now lives in Australia, and I assume he enjoys living there, & has benefitted from doing so.

Apparently it's ok to move abroad to try to improve your life, it's just not okay to leave Islam.

Solkhar's use of language here is interesting too. He sees anyone leaving Islam as having "sold out".

We appear to have been given a little glimpse of Solkhar's true agenda here. And it's not a pretty sight.

I wonder how Solkhar really stands on the predicament people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Redeker and Kurt Westergaard have found themselves in. Apparently criticising Islam can be construed by Solkhar, and by every "moderate" Muslim on the face of the planet, as a "personal attack."

And we've all seen behaviour from "moderate" Muslims which flows from that kind of thinking. Riots, beatings and murder.

Behold the religion of peace.

Watching Eagle said...

---Robert Marchenoir said

One more remark. By most accounts (coming from Muslims and non-Muslims alike), the contemporary surge of Islamic fundamentalism can be traced back to the foundation of Muslim Brothers (1928) and the work of Sayed Qutb (1906-1966 ; wrote "Social Justice in Islam" in 1949).

But Solkhar would have us believe that the unfortunate weight of Muslim radicals nowadays is due to "the very foolish western governments in the 1970s [who] let the real nasty ones into the UK, US and other countries".

It's only when Western governments were "foolish" enough to admit a handful of them in their midst (the words "generous" and "hospitable" do not come to our visiting Jihadist's lips), starting in the 1970's, that blame can be attributed... to the West, of course, who else ?

My response is that Solkar is reasonably accurate and that Robert is misinformed.

To start, the Caliphate fought on the side of the Germans in WWI. In the aftermath of WWI, Most of the Middle East was colonized (except Saudi Arabia), Zionists got the Balfour Declaration, and Kemal Ataturk [the 'English Agent'] abolished the Caliphate and established a Secular state of Turkey (in 1924). I will lay out the cause for this happening in another post.

The point is that this caused a profound shock among Muslims and a drift by the majority into a weak form of westernization (between the 1920's and 1960's). This is the reason that Jihad was an unknown word in the West during this point. Unfortunately, this is when most Western adults grew up, so the West has a totally inaccurate perception of Islam.

Had colonialism continued, Islam might have moderated further in time. However, it was NOT to be.

The founding of the Muslim Brotherhood was a response to the collapse of the Caliphate. There were two major thinkers whose writings turned the tide (along with 20th Century events). They were Syed Qutb [from Egypt] and Syed Maududi [from India].

Watching Eagle said...

What they basically said was that the Muslim world had been humiliated because Muslims had been insufficiently pious, and that when Muslims "got back to basics, and planned to submit the modern world to the deen of al-islam", Then Islam would return to its golden age. Maududi studied Soviet tactics for revolution, and assimilated them into Islam (made them Shariah-compliant). He also invented "Islamic Economics", and influenced Qutb. [This was occuring in the 1940's -1960's] The result was a modern revolutionary Islam that led to the Iranian Revolution to start with.

Well, while Qutb and Maududi were writing, oil was developed in Saudi Arabia, and colonialism was ended. Qutb's and Maududi's supporters took these facts and told the Ummah, "See, we are right, our prescription is working before your own eyes!!" Meanwhile, the Saudis, as Wahhabis, looked at Qutb and Maududi's (Q&M's) ideology and said, "Now you're talking!" and spent BIG money to spread their ideas throughout the Ummah. This REALLY took off after the oil embargo in 1973, when the oil money started to really flow.

There was another key development at this time-- Europeans spooked by the embargo, and suffering from French egoism, started the "Euro-Arab Dialogue"[EAD], in which they agreed to 'supply technological aid and weapons exports to the Arab World in exchange for oil and "manpower reserves" [Migrants], and "respect Arab culture and tradition in Europe". They also coined the term "Eurabia" at this time. (Just read the book Eurabia--Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Yeor).

This is how "the very foolish western governments in the 1970's let the real nasty ones [agressive Muslims] into the UK, US, and other countries."

One last point, I never referred to Muslims as "the Borg", but rather to the total of the Jihad/ Al-Hijra (JAH) Force, that fights for Islam as "the Reality Borg". This is to try to get past the ideological racism of most westerners (who are woefully ignorant of history). The "Eurabian Caliphate" is a concept that the EU will evolve into a reestablished Caliphate, with either London or Rome as its capital(Brussels might be a distant third possibility.)

Thank you for commenting on my posts.

Baron Bodissey said...

Solkhar --

Yes, I thought that “colonialism” might be the preferred explanation for Islamic violence. But that rationale just won’t wash.

It’s true that up until about 1960 almost all Muslims had lived for varying periods of time under colonial rule. However, the most radical, extreme, and violent Muslims come from Saudi Arabia, which was barely colonized at all, and only for a short period of time. Until the need for oil arose, there was nothing in the Rub al Khali worth colonizing it for.

But that’s a side trip. The real problem is that colonization doesn’t explain religious violence; it explains ethno-nationalist violence. If colonialism were responsible for religious violence, then Buddhists and Hindus should be out there detonating themselves in hotels and beheading foreign businessmen to make snuff videos.

But they aren’t. Only Muslims do that.

Why?

You still haven’t answered my question. Something makes Islam different, and the history of racist exploitative Europeans does not account for it. If it did, then one could expect the Yoruba to be vicious killers of anyone who doesn’t believe in any of their 401 deities.

But that doesn’t happen.

No former colonials commit carefully planned mass murder in the name of Krishna, the Buddha, Jesus Christ, or Huitzilopochtli.

The overwhelming majority of violent religious acts by former colonials are committed in the name of Allah.

Why?

islam o' phobe said...

WE,

To supplement your dead-on accurate observations of the petrodollar-funded Arab financial colonisation of the West, here is a clip of one of my favourite scenes from the film Network:

The Arabs are simply buying us

Unfortunately the first mintute of this clip is visually garbled but the audio works fine.

Robert Marchenoir said...

His Excellency seems annoyed by my alleged "pettiness", and feels obliged to return it.

You see, Your Excellency, we Christians also have our "feelings". It's not only Muslims who are entitled to protest when "offended" over their ever-so-delicate "sensitivities". The difference is we don't burn down schools, shoot policemen and beat up old people when doing so. We only take excellencies to task on the Internet.

Of course, you'd be hard-pressed to find any "pettiness" or "personal attacks" in my comments. I was just taking apart your arguments, and the longer this is done, the more your "tolerant" and "peaceful" facade is crumbling down.

Speaking of "personal attacks", how do you call your own following comments ?

"Your lack of awareness of the life or plight of other people is an endemic example of western ignorance."

"The arrogance and bigotry of those that push the paranoid agenda that you are..."

"What you avoid in your ranting..."

"To say otherwise just shows that your just another western arm-chair pretend-theologian."

"Give it up Laine, your repetitive and rather nauseating agenda is clear and does not stick as valid but rather stick as something that smells on an out-house door."

His Excellency's feathers seem to be ruffled when I write "How bloody convenient". But he thinks nothing of disparaging an argument by saying that it smells of excrement.

Muslim double-standards, as always.

Speaking of "pettiness", His Excellency seems to have scored a record in that department, when, by his own admission -- nay, boasting --, he asked Ayaan Hirsi Ali "if 'selling-out' her culture and personal faith for the benefit of selling books and public appearance was not shameful".

Now, here we have a woman who has decided to risk being murdered every day of her life for the sake of her ideas, and this Excellency has the gall to tell her, on her face, that she is doing that for the benefit of selling books and public appearance ? How's that for "pettiness" ?

Still more Muslim double-standards.

Note how His Excellency thinks he has the God-given right to give a public dressing-down to another person because of what religion she chooses to believes in -- or not. Oh, but I forgot : this religion is Islam, and that person is a woman.

The fascinating aspect here -- and a discussion with a proselytising Muslim always reaches that point eventually -- is that the facts put forth by His Excellency to support the idea that Islam is tolerant and peaceful, and that he himself is a moderate, prove exactly the opposite.

Instead of telling Hirsi Ali that she misrepresents Islam and explaining why, he tries to shame her in public because she left her religion. Thus confirming the totalitarian nature of Islam, the fact that apostasy is a crime, and the fact that Muslim men have the right and duty to act in public, towards any women of their community, as members of the morality police.

What Solkhar did there is not different from what bearded “fundamentalists” do everyday in French streets of city estates, scolding unknown women of Muslim appearance because they eat during the ramadan.

It’s much worse, actually. As a Dutch diplomat, he’s a Muslim figure of influence. Delivering this accusation in public towards Ayaan Hirsi Ali is akin to sticking a target on her forehead.

Oh, he won’t be firing the gun himself. He’s a “moderate”, you see.

By the way : I’m still waiting for that list of “ultra-liberal” Muslim academics. As far as I’m concerned, Wafa Sultan might qualify, but I’m not sure Solkhar had her in mind when he mentioned that elusive group.

His Excellency thinks he’s delivering a damning accusation against me by allegedly discovering that I have an “agenda” As if His Excellency did not have an agenda himself, proselytising for hours on end in favor of Islam on Gates of Vienna.

Muslim double-standards, again.

Yes, Your Excellency, I have an agenda. It’s called survival. Survival for me, my family and my civilisation. And I will let no one dispute its legitimacy.

Solkhar said...

Robert, I might remind you that your reference to "Muslim double standards", "taqqiya" and such is also an insult and to my faith and therefore to me, as well your talking about my posts in the same breath - certaily is a personal attack on me - thus I reciprocate.

I am happy for a sesibile discussion as long as remains such. The problem here of course is the "no matter what" excuse that you somehow presume on me - re fundamentalists and moderate" - you automatically are assuming in your post that no matter what I say, it is eather clever taqqiya or some other agenda - thus it rather makes responding to your comments fruitless as is with Laine and Kenny/Nick and simply I do not bother with.

Solkhar said...

Baron, colonialization has a significant impact but by certain not the most important, I am certain I made that clear.

You said "However, the most radical, extreme, and violent Muslims come from Saudi Arabia, which was barely colonized at all, and only for a short period of time. Until the need for oil arose, there was nothing in the Rub al Khali worth colonizing it for."

That is incorrect in a number of areas and I will not go into length for a number of reason, I should point out that I did my MA at the ULB/VUB in Brussels on decolonization in North Africa and the Middle-East (MENA).

First of all, amongst the most radical of Islamists come from a number of countries, not only Saudi Arabia, with the creation of organisations over 60 years in Egypt and what is now Syria and Iraq. Concentrating on one group of extreme violent groups and not others detracts from a dangerous reality. British and French colonializm inspired nationalistic groups with strong religious views that are now the parents of the modern Muslim Brotherhood, Baathism and other groups that all blew out of proportion after the Iranian 79 revolution's example.

As for Saudi, it has always been important with obvious oil making it even more so. It was strategically important because of trade routes and the need to have Mecca's colaboration to ensure other Muslims nations can not argue religious causes. To use a common example, during war the Lawrence factor showing the need for strategical support against Ottoman influence.

You also said that "colonization doesn’t explain religious violence; it explains ethno-nationalist violence." I would argue it does. That the current Muslim violence - I do not accept the phrase Islamic violence at all - is in fact ethno-nationalist. As I wrote, decolonization was one of many factors, others were cultural and tribal. Add to that the Iranian Revolution turning point and that is why you have what you got.

As the leaders of the militancy are hard-line religious extremists - there is no doubt that the method, propoganda and so-called cause is going to be religious.

As a clarification also, decolonization in the old British India ended up with the partition of India/Pakistan that resulted in how many hundreds of thousands of deaths - in the name of culture, religion? It was a joint Hindu/Muslim effort.

Your "Only Muslims do that." regarding horrible acts is also generalist and wrong. Yes predominantly it is the those radical extremist Islamists are doing that but not "only". Again, the blowing up in a crowd was not invented by Muslims so it was done already, chopping off of heads done in many cultures and locations by terror groups be it in Central/South America by revolutionary groups, ethnic buthery in Rawanda for being the wrong tribe. The word "only" is wrong.

....continued

Solkhar said...

....continued from above...

"Something makes Islam different", is an interesting point though and the realities of what is happening today has to be addressed and understood, that is why I am willing to spend the time discussing this (and that you allow the conversation in your blog go to such lengths).

Islam is certainly different, in that the bulk of Muslims are strongly faithful and not lacks or slack as often is the case in the west. The expectations of Muslims upon themselves and others is high, praying five times a day, not saying anything in future-tense without "inshallah" (God willing), eating halal/no pork, with probably Jews being the closest to the same level.

I would say that the combinations of histories, economics, events, the tribal influences etc, has certainly made the Islamic world more senstive to A) what the clerics say and B) worried about questioning them and both are for my part a failure.

It is the combination of them all that has created this. I wonder though, what a Christian, Jewish or Hindu world would be like if they allowed their clerics to create a Theocracy as a nation - how quickly it would squash human rights, wage wars based on theological principles and how well representing such a state is on the entire faith?

I noticed this comment: "No former colonials commit carefully planned mass murder in the name of Krishna, the Buddha, Jesus Christ, or Huitzilopochtli."

It should be pointed out that the attempt to create a Greater Serbia by the Bosnian Serbs and Serb nationalists in Belgrade was to produce an ethnically pure Serbian Christian state and local religious leaders were implicitly involved, though condemned by their leadership.

Hope this clarifies how much of this is ethnicity, tribalism and extremism that all has causes. Again, this is not to lessen the impacts of what is happening and certainly I continue to stress that in the end it is these Muslims that are committing these acts. As for Islam the faith, I continue to argue that it is not the religion itself, its core principles founded in the Qur'an that causes this and if circumstances allow for it, who knows which group and what religion may be doing the same thing in the not-so-far distant future.

Solkhar

Marrakech
(currently sunburnt already in Agadir)

Zenster said...

First things first:

Dear Baron, thank you so much for devoting an entire post to this particular exchange.

While I most clearly do not agree with Solkhar, I still feel that it is of the utmost importance to have even remotely lucid debate of this sort given the largest possible audience. For that you have my thanks.

Kenny: I've said to Solkhar that if he thinks Geert Wilders is wrong in what he's saying, then he should perceive Wilders as someone who has made an intellectual error. But Solkhar continually makes the philosophically fatal mistake of believing that those who criticise Islam are not in error, they are morally deficient.

There seems to be a Muslim weakness for demonizing those who cannot be refuted with any ease. Furthermore, Solkhar makes another mistake when he typecasts "the bigot known as Wilders".

Let's examine the proper definition of the word, "bigot":

--------------------------

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
[emphasis added]

--------------------------

Here, it becomes absolutely vital to include a definition of the word "prejudice":

--------------------------

Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
Pronunciation: \ˈpre-jə-dəs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment — more at judicial
Date: 13th century
1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights ; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
[emphasis added]

--------------------------

From the above definitions it becomes rather clear that Solkhar's charges of bigotry against Wilders are baseless. Wilders opinions of Islam are formed with entirely justified grounds and sufficient knowledge to preclude any notion of prejudice. Further, any hostility demonstrated by Wilders most certainly is not irrational. The murder of Theo van Gogh and perpetual Muslim demands for the death of Danish cartoonists and Wilders alike provide a clear basis for reciprocal distrust, bias and hostility.

Kenny: This is a catastrophic intellectual mistake for Solkhar to make; one cannot help think of John Stuart Mill's pointing out that not everyone can benefit from free speech, that there are backward people in this world, who are simply unable to think rationally.

While it is tempting to assign simple irrationality to the actions of many Muslims, it is more often the case of selective rationality, where connected thinking is only utilized or displayed to one's advantage and then abandoned whenever it might cause any unreasonable expectations of lucid conduct at all other times.

Muslims know damn well what they are doing and do it for very well-defined reasons. It is foolish in the extreme for non-Muslims to excuse the routine demonstrations of chaotic behavior exhibited by Islam's followers. They are a smokescreen for a very calculated agenda that has everything to do with Muslim ascendancy and nothing to do with either religion or peace.

Baron Bodissey said...

Solkhar --

I wouldn’t say that your response clarifies anything except for the lengths that you will go to avoid directly addressing the things I am asking.

First of all, amongst the most radical of Islamists come from a number of countries, not only Saudi Arabia...

This is disingenuous. All but two of the radical Muslims who took down the Twin Towers were Saudis. That’s enough of an indication.

The Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia are the most extreme Muslim fundamentalists, followed closely by their cousins in Yemen and Egypt and the Deobandi of Pakistan.

Your "Only Muslims do that." regarding horrible acts is also generalist and wrong. Yes predominantly it is the those radical extremist Islamists are doing that but not "only".

This is true. Overwhelmingly and predominantly, the violence committed today in the name of religion is Islamic. My shorthand for that situation is “only Muslims do that”. It takes less time to type, and the meaning is still clear, yes?

You can find a handful of exceptions to the rule, but for practical purposes, the word “only” should suffice.

Islam is certainly different, in that the bulk of Muslims are strongly faithful and not lacks or slack as often is the case in the west.

Now we’re getting to the heart of the matter.

You have acknowledged that it is the strongly held faith of Muslims which causes them to do violence.

Presumably you consider that Hindus are not as “strongly faithful”, and therefore don’t commit violence.

So are you asserting that all those hundreds of millions of Hindus in India who are not violent towards Muslims are pacific because they are not strongly faithful?

I assert the contrary: hundreds of millions of devout Hindus are non-violent precisely because of their strongly-held faith.

Just as hundreds of millions of devout Muslims are violent because of their strongly-held faith.

These issues come back to the tenets of the religions themselves. The tenets of Islam are violent, as recorded in scripture. I can cite sura and verse of the Koran – not the hadith, mind you – to support my position.

But even without the scriptural evidence, by their behavior alone, it is plain to see that devout Muslims are more likely to be violent than devout believers of other religions.

It should be pointed out that the attempt to create a Greater Serbia by the Bosnian Serbs and Serb nationalists in Belgrade was to produce an ethnically pure Serbian Christian state and local religious leaders were implicitly involved, though condemned by their leadership.

But that, once again, represents an ethno-nationalist response. Religion is part of the mix, but it is not by any means the whole explanation, or even the most important factor. Being Orthodox is part of being Serbian, but being a Serb – including language, history, culture, and religion – is the primary feature of Serbian nationalism.

* * * * *

To sum up the core of your arguments so far:

Muslims are disproportionately violent because they recently emerged from colonialism, and because their religious faith is strong.

I refute these assertions by a single example: the Hindus of India.

They were as thoroughly colonized as their Muslim cousins in Pakistan, and yet they are far, far less violent.

And if you insist that they hold their faith less strongly than do the Muslims, then I think you are doing a grave injustice to the Hindus, whose devotion to their faith is well-documented.

There is something else about Islam that promotes and encourages violence. If the answer does not lie in Islamic scripture, then where is the explanation to be found?

Chechar said...

“If the answer does not lie in Islamic scripture, then where is the explanation to be found?

The explanation is found in a psycho-historical understanding of the Muslim psyche, of course.

Solkhar said...

Baron,

"All but two of the radical Muslims who took down the Twin Towers were Saudis. That’s enough of an indication.

The Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia are the most extreme Muslim fundamentalists, followed closely by their cousins in Yemen and Egypt and the Deobandi of Pakistan."

No, to judge incorrectly whom are the most dangerous by which group the 9/11 bombers allows for the grave mistake of underestimating how affective and bad some groups are.

We can go through the proscribed terrorist lists if you like, they are easy enough to find on the web but I would argue that the clerics based in Europe are by far the most dangerous individuals of all - mostly Egyptian by nationality, they are the indoctrinators, organizors and personalities that created the bombings in the UK, Spain and elsewhere on behalf of the militant groups that subscribe to their following. Western governments consider them dangerous but because of local laws are often unable or unwilling to tackle the problem of outlawing, imprisoning or banishing them. That is were the focus should be and they are also the cause for the radical examples and behaviours of their followers in the west. Most of them, by the way, would be considered criminals in the actual Muslim World, dare not go back and their demands for Caliphates, Sharia etc are not accepted over here as well.

Baron, you said "Muslims are disproportionately violent because they recently emerged from colonialism, and because their religious faith is strong." is your words, certainly not mine and incorrect. I said that it was one factor why Islam is perhaps different - that the subject of religion means a great deal and is a part of the daily life of all active Muslims. The relationship with clergy, mosque etc is very important and close to each. It makes for strength and I would accept it makes for fragility when things go wrong.

When I refered to Hindus, I refer to the events of the partition in the Sub-continent - ethno-cultural as you put it and not religious - I would agree, as is most of what you consider Muslim violence.

...continued

Solkhar said...

continued....

You have now hit the nail on the head when it comes to core disagreement and basis for your own argument - that there are elements of the Qur'an that espouses violence - and that there is so much examples.

My response is clear, something that I have done countless times and I can respond easily. Go ahead, start your quotes and if you wish to do a nother dozen posts on this thread I will argue each and everyone of them as not having to do with violence.

Simply put, to save you time, quoting historical examples of events at the time are just that - not divine messages. Be sure that you do not quote one line and ignore those before and above it - which is unfortunately done by many with agendas.

The Qur'an is divided into three elements, the Messages, historical events of the time and references within it to other events and times. Thus when there is a line in the Qur'an that says 'kill them all' it refers to a battle at the time and frankly speaking in 7th century warfare that was a command often given. That is quoted often and even the opening lines to many anti-Islamic websites - but of course if you go to the proceeding lines of the surah it makes it clear and as an instruction that God loves not the aggressor or the oppressor and that is aimed at everyone.

Unfortunately, like Jahova Witnesses and radical evangelicals who spend thousands of hours and invest into reinterpreting, quoting texts and scriptures of those that they do not like to ensure the best looking argument to support thier needs, there are countless ones that try and play the word-game on the Qur'an that simply is for thier own audiance but not for anyone else. In the end it comes down to the fact that there is as much material that can be viewed in what-ever light you wish as their is in the Torah and Bible and if you condemn one you condemn all three as they are interlinct.

If you queston the Haddiths - then go for it and I probably will agree with many complaints but also will point out that they "should have been" read for what they really are - examples of the decisions of "men" at that time and place.

The explanation of Muslim violence that you seek is there in front of you - the sum total of a huge complicated number of events and processes, not some simplistic answer that if followed will eventually lead to bigotry.

Solkhar said...

Chechar siad “The explanation is found in a psycho-historical understanding of the Muslim psyche, of course.

7/19/2009 2:53 PM

So there you have it, just another hate-site blog with the solution to everything - nuke them.

So much for "pyscho-historical understanding".

I find this response like the one from the poster known as DP111 who basically said that all Muslims should be expelled from the west and those that do not go voluntarily should be executed.

For me I immediately think of Bill Engvall's catch-phrase - "There's your sign!"

Watching Eagle said...

Readers,

What I said is that the DE-colonization of the Muslim world was what catapulted Qutb and Maududi's thinking into the mainstream. Then the western cultural revolution (1963-1979) smashed traditional western culture, and gave us PC MC virtual polytheism ("Secular Progressism"/ Leftism). The Left can't help but assist jihadi/Al-Hijra forces (pro-Shariah and pro- Eurabian Caliphate) because it looks at them and thinks "Wonderful!! These are third world strugglers for social justice!!". In doing so, they have marginalized, betrayed, and stabbed in the back (so to speak) moderate muslims.

Baron Bodissey said...

My response is clear, something that I have done countless times and I can respond easily. Go ahead, start your quotes and if you wish to do a nother dozen posts on this thread I will argue each and everyone of them as not having to do with violence.

Simply put, to save you time, quoting historical examples of events at the time are just that - not divine messages. Be sure that you do not quote one line and ignore those before and above it - which is unfortunately done by many with agendas.


This is why I won’t get into a Koran-quoting contest with you. The result would be that we would duke it out down an endless scriptural hall of mirrors, and thus divert ourselves from the main point.

The Koran says what it says, and verse for verse is more violent than any other scripture in the world. It is also prescriptively violent, which makes it different from the Hebrew Bible. The Torah often describes violent behavior by the followers of Yahweh, but does not mandate it as a holy duty.

The Koran also instructs believers not to take Jews and Christians as friends. This is the Koran, mind you, not the hadith, that officially demands discrimination.

If you queston the Haddiths - then go for it and I probably will agree with many complaints but also will point out that they "should have been" read for what they really are - examples of the decisions of "men" at that time and place.

Whether I (or you) question the hadith – or the Koran, or the sunna, or the writings of Sayyid Qutb – is irrelevant.

What is relevant here is which scriptures inspire millions of Muslims in their daily behavior, and in particular what drives them to commit violence.

The vast majority of Muslims read, cite, and are inspired by the “sound” hadith. They consider them authoritative. Do you disagree with this assertion?

If not, then it’s irrelevant whether you or I consider the hadith to be valid Islamic scripture. The vast majority of Muslims do so, and that’s all that matters.

The explanation of Muslim violence that you seek is there in front of you - the sum total of a huge complicated number of events and processes, not some simplistic answer that if followed will eventually lead to bigotry.

OK, so it’s right here in front of me. But assume I’m stupid, and explain it to me in words that I can easily make sense of.

In particular, why are Hindus and Pakistani Muslims so different in their behavior?

Until the Urdu-speaking Muslims of Pakistan were converted to Islam – violently and against their will, I might add – they were part of the same ethnic group as the Hindus. Even now Urdu and Hindi are almost the same language.

They were both exploited to the same degree by the same colonial oppressor.

And yes, when freed of that oppression a violent confrontation ensued, until enough slaughter and transfer of population had occurred and the two separate nations were established.

But today the Muslims of Pakistan remain much more violent than their counterparts across the border in India. Not only that, they have ethnically cleansed Pakistan of almost all the remaining Hindus, while the percentage of Muslims in India has actually grown since 1947.

So enlighten me about this. Explain it in simple terms that even an American can understand:

Why is the religious behavior of Pakistani Muslims and Indian Hindus so different?

If it doesn’t have anything to do with Islam, then what does it have to do with?

Zenster said...

Time for some unfinished business:

Solkhar: As for redeeming features of Islam - I can immediately think of family values, civic responsibility, charity, respect for the elderly, personal challenges and development and there are much, much more but will not spend the time here.

Let's take these supposedly redeeming features in the order that Solkhar mentions them:

Family Values: If one is able to dismiss over half of this world's population and the human rights of those individuals, then I suppose "family values" might have some place in this discussion.

Instead, women, without whom there would be no families, are degraded, kept as chattel and generally held in almost continous contempt by a vast majority of Muslim males.

Yusuf Al-Quaradawi, widely recognized as both a moderate and "the Pope of Islam", recommends that wives should be beaten by their husbands.

"It is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts. In no case should he resort to using a stick or any other instrument that might cause pain and injury.". [emphasis added]

Regardless of culture or nationality, wife-beating continues to be one of the most disgraceful forms of domestic violence and Al-Qaradawi's sanctioning of this and other despicible Muslim practices casts serious doubt upon exactly how respectful Islam might be concerning "family values"

Furthermore, any sort of "family values" that look kindly upon the murder of a daughter for harmlessly flirting with boys or defying a father's demand to marry someone whom she does not love, shows a distinct devaluation of human life, family included.

Civic Responsibility: Civil society relies upon many things in order that it may function. A respect for the rights of others is paramount among them. Those rights include freedom of religion, speech, artistic expression and the right to be free from violent aggression.

To varying degrees Islam abrogates all of these fundamental human rights. In a huge number of Muslim majority nations the practice of a faith other than Islam is an open invitation for institutionalized discrimination, unfair taxation, restrictions of mobility or the construction of temples and any open demonstrations of personal faith if they are not in compliance with Islamic notions of acceptability.

Even the most basic freedoms such as wearing the apparel of one's choosing, sporting hairstyles or makeup and comporting oneself with the company of one's own choice are frequently regulated with harsh penalties for any non-conformity.

That Muslims in general support such undue constraints upon basic human liberties can hardly be construed as any sort of commendable "civic responsibility".

That is, of course, unless you are meaning Muslims living in their own exclusive shari'a ruled societies where such compliance is interpreted as pious behavior despite persistent violations of ordinary human rights at a number of significant levels.

[to be continued]

Chechar said...

"So there you have it, just another hate-site blog [my blog] with the solution to everything - nuke them." - Sokhar

Of course: by these words I know you didn't read any of the two articles: Godwin's and the "nuke'em" article (actually an abridgement of another Gov thread). And it is *not* hate what moved Truman to nuke Hiroshima. Once more: claiming to telepathically know what do I actually feel.

Zenster said...

Before I continue with additional challenges to the content in discussion, it is incumbent upon me as a thinking person to thank Solkhar for his courage in working so hard to present most favorably what he considers his personal faith.

To do otherwise would be a defeat of what Gates of Vienna stands for and all of us should be grateful for the opportunity to examine what Solkhar, as a proponent of Islam, declares most worthy about his faith.

If we cannot do so, then the bulk of our protests and objections are without meaning. Here's hoping that Solkhar will rise to the challenge and provide all of us with a particular vision of Islam that can be examined and reviewed for everything of worth that it has to offer.

Solkhar said...

Baron,

I notice that you rightly do not wish to go into the Qur'an quoting method because that will in the end result in nothing. I agree, but you have gone as far still to say about the Torah athat it does "not mandate it as a holy duty" implies that you believe that the Qur'an does - so for me you have started it and though I am not interested in a tit-for-tat quotign game I will dispute that entirely.

You say "The vast majority of Muslims read, cite, and are inspired by the “sound” hadith. They consider them authoritative. Do you disagree with this assertion? "

I agree to a point, based on the situation that has now occured, yes. No doubt. It is worth noting that what is "sound" differs between communities but in a generalized form - yes.


Your remark "OK, so it’s right here in front of me. But assume I’m stupid, and explain it to me in words that I can easily make sense of."

I am not calling you stupid but do remember that I think in Dutch and French, not English, I write, transate and rewrite to produce my postings. I thought though it was clear - the situation as it stands is based on historical, cultural, tribal, economic and particular significant events that has created the violent world that has engulfed the Muslim World. That it is not Islamic doctrine or text but the above events producing a dangerous and significant elemnt within the Muslim World, particularly amongst clerics and their mix with militancy.

I hope that makes it clear.

Why Pakistanis are so violent and Hindu Indians are not? I presume you mean Muslims as there are over 100 million in India as well.

The quote in the previous point sums it up strongly there. As I think also it is tribal/cultural to a degree, I would argue that if the situation arrises, that you will find that the economically poor and illiterate Hindu Indian population can also rise to massacres and that Hindu-Chauvensim (that is the term for extremist Hindus) will encourage it into a violent religous path. That was shown a number of times in recent history, the destruction of the Ayodia Mosque, the mass killings of Christian in Assam earlier this year, the Tamil-Hindu violence and terrorism in Sri Lanka (which started the process of sacrificing young girls by drugging them and putting explosive vests on them). That history is clear and it is still a posibility if the fragile Indian democratic experiment hiccups.

Solkhar said...

Watching Eagle, I find your points interesting and though I personally do not subscribe that the "left" is doing so, the subject of marginalization of the moderate Muslim is very correct.

I would be interested perhaps in your definition of what you consider this "left"?

Baron Bodissey said...

Solkhar --

I agree, but you have gone as far still to say about the Torah athat it does "not mandate it [violence] as a holy duty" implies that you believe that the Qur'an does - so for me you have started it and though I am not interested in a tit-for-tat quotign game I will dispute that entirely.

Oh, but the Koran is quite clear on the topic. Or had you forgotten?

“Seek out your enemies relentlessly.” (Sura 4:103)

“Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.” (Sura 5:51)

“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” (Sura 8:36)

“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them.” (Sura 9:121)

Concerning Pakistan and India:

As I think also it is tribal/cultural to a degree, I would argue that if the situation arrises, that you will find that the economically poor and illiterate Hindu Indian population can also rise to massacres and that Hindu-Chauvensim (that is the term for extremist Hindus) will encourage it into a violent religous path. That was shown a number of times in recent history, the destruction of the Ayodia Mosque, the mass killings of Christian in Assam earlier this year, the Tamil-Hindu violence and terrorism in Sri Lanka (which started the process of sacrificing young girls by drugging them and putting explosive vests on them).

Yes, this is quite true. Hindus and even Buddhists commit massacres from time to time.

But, as I keep pointing out, the existence of a counterexample is not a sufficient argument. Statistically speaking, Muslim violence dwarfs the incidence of violence committed by other religions. Even in India I would expect the level of Muslim-on-infidel violence to be at least two orders of magnitude higher than that of its converse. Do you have any statistics that show otherwise?

Especially when lethality is factored in, the atrocity level of Muslims on a per-capita basis far exceeds that of their counterparts in other religions.

And yet, except for religion, culturally and linguistically Hindus and Muslims in Pakistan and India are almost the same. How do you explain the difference in their levels of violent and deadly behavior?

Chechar said...

The massive cognitive and moral breakdown of Westerners has been recently portrayed in a single paragraph way above:

The West had been pushing back Islam and conquering Muslim lands ever since 1683, and a few decades ago all Muslim lands were Western colonies or heavily influenced by the West. We come to the question “Why now” have things changed? Sun Tsu said: “If you know the enemy and you know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every battle you win, you will lose a battle. If you do not know either the enemy or yourself, you will be imperiled in every battle. Well, Islam hasn’t changed that much through the centuries. So maybe we should ask: “Has the West gone wrong in the past 50 years? If so, how?”

If the above fairly portrays present-day Westerners, in this thread Baron Bodissey asked the right questions that characterizes many Muslims:

Why is religious violence in the 21st century—that is, violence committed expressly on behalf of a particular religion and its deity—so massively and overwhelmingly Islamic?… No former colonials commit carefully planned mass murder in the name of Krishna, the Buddha, Jesus Christ, or Huitzilopochtli. The overwhelming majority of violent religious acts by former colonials are committed in the name of Allah. Why?

This post is just to check and see if Gates of Vienna’s readers find Robert Godwin’s psycho-historical answer (linked below) sufficiently intriguing. If so, in the near future I may publish here, with permission of the Baron, a book (about 20 short chapters) I wrote on the subject.

Using the yardstick of how cultures treat their women and children, the book is a vindication of Western culture. When compared not only to the Muslim world but other cultures of the past and present, Western childrearing methods are far less abusive. In the book I and several authors (quoted at length) argue this is reflected in the comparatively integrated psyche among present-day Westerners in contrast to the dissociated minds of, say, tribal people. More to the point, some passages of the book not only respond to Bodissey’s questions by fully explaining the premises upon which the Godwin article is based. It also responds the question raised in the first quotation at the top of this post: Why has the West lost its mind in the past fifty years?

To my mind, this is the single most important question to understand why Europe is allowing the current Islamization of its land and culture.

I am relatively new to this forum. I think and write in Spanish. I would not like to bother English-speaking Gates of Vienna readers with a translation of my book if there is no interest in such psychological approach to Islam. This post is only to ponder if at least some commenters find the Godwin article sufficiently intriguing as to merit discussion in a different thread.

Watching Eagle said...

Chechar,

I would reccommend that you publish the book. Your English is very good. I am working on a book concerning the psychological development of civilizations.

I think Confucius said, "know thyself" (first). I will give some quick points about my thesis for you to thnik about.

First, it is sort of like quantum mechanics-- one must understand Islamism as a theocratic, theistic Ideology;

one must understand PC MC "Secular Progressivism" as a deeply irrational, virtual religion (a religion practiced unconsciously),

and one must understand how Christianity's cultural relevance in the West has been reduced from what it was historically, leaving a vacuum in the life of the masses.

One must also understand where Marxism went wrong (they believed falsehoods), and how Marxists wanted to change the power structure of the West and that the new power structure changed them instead.

The operational concept from which my thesis springs is Manslow's hiearchy of needs applied on a class / societal level. I'll discuss it in further posts.

But the key to realize is that civilizations develop differently based on what happened in their histories and how they perceive it. Islamic civilization developed differently from Western civilization. Therefore, trying to fit them into Western developmental patterns is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Watching Eagle said...

Quick Nature of the "Left"

I will try to define the "Left" again. First, I realize that modern Islamism is NOT precise 7th. Century Islam, but a (now) widespread understanding on how to apply 7th. Century Islam to the 21st. Century (tactics and technologies were added along the way). I also understand that muslims went through a process of westernization (moderation) of sorts between 1924-1960s.

The "Left" I refer to is often called "Secular Humanism" or "Secular Progressivism". It is often thought of as an ideology related to both Communism and Nazism, but it is, at heart, a virulent, virtual polytheist religion of master warriors, priests, and idols.

Marx, Freud, Darwin, the Huxleys, Bertrand Russel, John Dewey, Antonio Gramsci, Saul Alinsky, and Betty Friedan were some of its founders and thinkers.

Its Blasphemous confession would read "We and our ideas are gods, and we are our gods' priests and prophets"!!

It basically makes its followers think that they are like Greek gods, simply because they deny belief in monotheism; and the secular government, the thinkers and leaders, and the ideas are worshipped as gods. It also involves acts of sacrifice and offerings, such as abortion, homosexuality, peace activism, environmentalism, welfare state, fornication, gambling, pornography, etc. (they politically fight for these things, but they are really treated as sacrifices to their gods).

They are completely impervious to reason and logic, and will not change their positions on political issues any more than a muslim would disown the five pillars of Islam (and still be a Muslim).

The religion developed in the first third of the 20th. Century.

It really came to power in the West during a period known as the Western Cultural Revolution (1963-1979). It developed the Doctrine of Multiculturalism (every other culture is 'moral equal' than western culture). It developed the belief that ALL problems in the world stemed from "western imperialism".

Well, the Wahhabi/ Salafist Muslims started arriving in Europe in the 1970's. The 'Secular Progressives' decreed that they were 'misunderstood minorities' who were 'victims' of "western oppression". Thus, when the "smart and very dangerous [Wahabbi-influenced] clerics" tested them out and started 'rabble-rousing', they said, "Oh, we decree that these people are strugglers for 'social justice'. They have been oppressed, and it obviously is the West's fault. We must help them and make sure they are not offended with us."

Well, the said clerics organized and billed themselves as "official representatives of the Muslim communities, dedicated to civil rights for Muslims (Shariah)". The "Secular Progressives" fell for it like charmed snakes (they heard what they wanted to hear), and they believed that these clerics were primitive, silly clowns (since they think of themselves as gods). Thus, the genuine moderate muslims have been sidelined, ignored, betrayed, and "stabbed in the back" by the "Secular Progressives". Meanwhile, under the guise of 'diversity' and 'civil rights' the "ultra-conservative clerics" have gotten one concession to Shariah after another {Without the "progressives" understanding what is going on}. As a result of this circus, many Muslims are becoming more confident that a Caliphate in Europe is possible.

Knowing how treasonous, foolish, and delusional the "secular progressives' are, I am concerned about a Eurabian Caliphate being possible.

Solkhar said...

Baron,

You chose to quote and immediately I question the context that you put them in.

"Oh, but the Koran is quite clear on the topic. Or had you forgotten?

“Seek out your enemies relentlessly.” (Sura 4:103)

“Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.” (Sura 5:51)

“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” (Sura 8:36)

“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them.” (Sura 9:121)"

The quotes here are representing the era and the events at the time, not commandments for the future, and some of them if you quote the full Surah you will find better explanation then those you have simply chosen to cut & paste.

I have not the time now, but will come back with full examples if you like - but then I thought you were not interested in a quoting the Qur'an game.

You said: "And yet, except for religion, culturally and linguistically Hindus and Muslims in Pakistan and India are almost the same. How do you explain the difference in their levels of violent and deadly behavior?"

Culturally they are different because of the history of Islam within those Muslim communities, the factors that I have explained now a number of times that makes the differences (history, culturaly, tribal factors and the power of clerics - especialy more important the lower the literacy) makes that difference.

That you easily wave aside the chances of Hindus going on the rampage is in fact more important, as the power of religous leaders amongst Hindus may in fact do the same if things go wrong... making for the Islam only view just a factor of "now".

Solkhar said...

Watching Eagle,

intersting reading and thanks for your breakdown of "left". I have read a number of views similar to yours, though I personally disagree with the risk of a Eurabia. I have no time now to explain why but perhaps later.

Chechar said...

Hi Watching Eagle,

You won’t believe it, but since I discovered the subject of the West’s Islamophilic suicide last October I’ve changed my worldview so drastically that previously perceived foes (Pat Robertson, the Pope, etc.) are now my hope. Yes: Marxists didn’t win the Cold War, but they won the Cultural War. They, more than Muslims, are our common enemy as you can see in these quotable quotations: "Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder" – Arnold Toynbee. "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within" – Cicero.

I wouldn’t advice to call this left as "secular humanism". Paul Kurtz is the head person of the foremost secular humanist society in the US. I know him personally and treasure many Prometheus Books, the publishing house founded by Kurtz. In Free Inquiry, a freethinker magazine I used to subscribe, Kurtz has this critical article on Islam as a featured article.

Similarly, Darwin ought not be considered a foe. In this I disagree with the notable blogger Lawrence Auster. Russell is a more complex case, a man full of contradictions and flaws but not a foe. Self-hate white Westerners, our common enemy, the people I do hate (not Muslims, Sokhar!) belong to an altogether different kind.

Of course, our point of view is different but compatible. Before publishing my book (quite a major translating enterprise!) I would like to see if, in a different thread, Godwin’s article, linked above, picks sufficiently the interest of GoV readers.

I have not read yours. But the root cause of Westerners’ self-hate is missing in every single theory or model I know so far. That’s why I would like to introduce the GoV readership to “psychohistory”, the subject of my book, starting with the Godwin article.

Keep posting your theory in GoV threads. I find it fascinating. (Most curious, isn’t it, that from now on I will be on the same wavelength of conservative Christians and Jews, although remaining secular?)

Solkhar said...

Chechar,

"Self-hate white Westerners, our common enemy, the people I do hate (not Muslims, Sokhar!) belong to an altogether different kind.

Could you clarify for me/us what is a Self-hate white Westerner please? I am certainly intersted.

Secondly, your actual opinion of the concept of "nuke em first" as in the articles you have given.

Thanks and cheers

Chechar said...

Could you clarify for me/us what is a Self-hate white Westerner please? I am certainly intersted." - Solkhar

They are the extreme Leftists. They tried to destroy the West during the Cold War. They are the radical feminists. They forgot the reproductive role for women and this resulted in the no replacement rates. They're those whites who are allowing Eurabia to grow.

Baron Bodissey said...

Solkhar --

…but then I thought you were not interested in a quoting the Qur'an game.

I referred to the fact that the Koran mandates violence against the infidel, and you responded by saying that you “dispute that entirely”. Hence I cited sura and verse.

The quotes here are representing the era and the events at the time, not commandments for the future, and some of them if you quote the full Surah you will find better explanation then those you have simply chosen to cut & paste.

The examples I gave are clear and sufficient, and there are numerous additional ones.

Here you are doing exactly what you insisted that the rest of us must not do: engaging in the practice of exegesis with respect to the Koran.

For that is exactly what the hadith do: they explain, amplify, and extend the words of the Koran to make it easier for the devoted Muslim to understand more clearly the meaning of the verses and put them into practice more readily.

So this is what we’ve come to — you are saying in effect:

“I, Solkhar, understand the Koran better than you do, and I will explain it so that you will see that it does not mean what it says. But disregard the hadith — they were written a long time ago by people who know less than I do. Therefore accept my exegeses and not theirs.”

This requires that we accept you as a valid authority on what the Koran means, yet we must discard, for example, Bukhari.

This is not only unreasonable, it violates what the majority of the world’s 1.6 billion other Muslims believe. They follow Bukhari, and not Solkhar.

As a matter of fact, your attempts at itjihad would be considered blasphemous in certain parts of the Muslim world, and you would be at risk of severe punishment if you uttered your opinions in those circles.

Baron Bodissey said...

Solkhar --

Culturally they are different because of the history of Islam within those Muslim communities, the factors that I have explained now a number of times that makes the differences (history, culturaly, tribal factors and the power of clerics - especialy more important the lower the literacy) makes that difference.

Then you have thus acknowledged that Islam is the significant factor explaining the massively more violent behavior of Muslims in Pakistan (or India) as compared with Hindus.

There is no other cultural difference between the two groups. Islam was violently imposed on a portion of the Hindu population (at the expense of many millions of deaths, as Zenster has pointed out), who then became the Muslims of the Punjab and other areas. Their descendants are much more prone to violence than their Hindu relatives, who are descended from those who were not forcibly converted by the Moghuls.

That you easily wave aside the chances of Hindus going on the rampage is in fact more important, as the power of religous leaders amongst Hindus may in fact do the same if things go wrong...

I don’t “wave them aside”, I simply insist that they be embedded in a statistical account rather than an anecdotal one.

I assert that Muslim “rampages” are 100 times more likely to take place than Hindu ones. I base this on statistical records. Can you refute this? If so, please cite sources.

I have never denied that Hindus (or Christians, or Buddhists) sometimes commit atrocities.

The important fact is how infrequent they are per capita compared to Muslim ones. Statistically speaking, they are negligible.

If you are to refute this, it must be through statistics — incidence and severity of attacks over the last 10 or 20 years — rather than through anecdote.

The anecdotal defense is the last refuge of someone who is losing an argument.

Solkhar said...

Baron, you said:

“I, Solkhar, understand the Koran better than you do, and I will explain it so that you will see that it does not mean what it says. But disregard the hadith — they were written a long time ago by people who know less than I do. Therefore accept my exegeses and not theirs.”

Those are your words and definitely not mine, this is the second time you have tried to assume to much. If you want a quote based on the above then this is what you would get:

"I Solkhar, believe as many Muslims do, that the Holy Qur'an is not evil, its components of events, examples and its Holy Message are clear. That I believe the Haddiths are written by men and not divinely inspired and that they represent the time and place that they were written and thus can not always be relevant to this modern day."

I have made it clear that I am a liberal-Sunni who unashamadly follows the example of Ibn Sina whom rejected the words of "men" and only the Qur'an held value.

I think your convenient distinction between anecdotal and statistical does not carry weight. It is obvious and it has not been denied that the power of radical Islamists hold sway and that this is the defining factor as to why violence is mostly in the hands of Muslims. The factors for that dominance by radicals I have already explained why.

I still state that your using historical examples to justify that it is an inate Islamic trait though does not in my view stand as justified, go back a few hundred years and you will find communal violence in that region or another under the name of a different diety. Also that the recent spread of terrorism - which is the real issue here - is from a short span of time and it is fare to go back that same amount from 1979 to now that is 30 years and you consider the violene from 1949 to 1979 such as wars in Korea, Vietnam, coups, the Cold-War, the almost WWIII in Cuba, Malaya and often violent decolonization. Thus I believe that 30 years from now things may be much different, it may be other religions or ideals, anarchists or whatever that may be the horror of that time. Christianity in Africa may splinter and metomorphasize, Cultists in Korea, anarchists in Russia or whatever.

Right now it is militant and radical Islamists that are a scurge to us all and the focus needs to be on them and them alone, not on trying to simply the matter unto one of the great faiths of this world.

Baron Bodissey said...

Solkhar --

"I Solkhar, believe as many Muslims do, that the Holy Qur'an is not evil, its components of events, examples and its Holy Message are clear. That I believe the Haddiths are written by men and not divinely inspired and that they represent the time and place that they were written and thus can not always be relevant to this modern day."

All right, that’s clear.

But you must also acknowledge that your interpretations of the Koran are also not divinely inspired, and are therefore at least as fallible as Bukhari’s hadith. Not only that, the majority of Muslims disagree with your version and prefer Bukhari’s.

Right now it is militant and radical Islamists that are a scurge to us all and the focus needs to be on them and them alone, not on trying to simply the matter unto one of the great faiths of this world.

But once again, why are Islamic radicals in the ascendant now, while radical Hindus are in decline?

Why is Islam different?

We go around and around on this without your ever directly addressing the question.

I think your convenient distinction between anecdotal and statistical does not carry weight.

I disagree. The world is large and populous enough so that a counter-example for virtually anything may be found. Only statistical facts – facts aggregated into larger units to demonstrate trends – are useful in this sort of argument.

If this is your opinion, then I don’t think any further discussion on this topic is particularly useful, since you and I are working from entirely different premises.

Kenny said...

And yet, Solkhar, when I or anyone else explains to you that our view of your religion comes from independent study, supplemented somewhat by anecdotal evidence based on our own personal experience of how Muslims behave, this isn't good enough for you. Talk about double standards!

As j.mills said to you on Richard Dawkins' site ..

laine said...

I highly recommend the Godwin article at Chechar's link above. It's long but well worth the time, unlike trying to mine Solkhar's self-serving justifications for anything of value to us.

The Godwin piece will blow your mind as far as explanatory power of how Islam infantilizes the believer's mind at a more primitive cognitive state. Every section is good but the analysis of male hatred and fear of the female as well as perpetuation of the cult by childhood mental abuse is priceless.

Chechar, I would be most interested in your book.

Solkhar, pickled in Islam is literally incapable of understanding the Baron's arguments as he cannot acknowledge that the religion and scriptures he adopted and apparently customized for himself in the hands and heads of the vast majority of Muslims actively condone and lead to violence against both non-Muslims and Muslims. As Samuel Huntington said, "Islam's borders are bloody, and so are its innards".

If Solkhar actually believes the personalized version of Islam he's given above, prepared to explain all the violent suras away as merely historical descriptions and not prescriptive, then he is an apostate to the devout majority.

Ordinarily I feel sorry for such conflicted people but not when they purposely (if it's takiya) or inadvertently (if it's psychological denial that one's soother is a thorn) serve the purposes of the violent jihadis and their back up hordes by misrepresenting what the vast majority of Muslims think. His boutique cherry-picked version of Islam may be preferable to the real thing but has no traction whatsoever among Muslims.

For someone who seems more genuinely and bravely though impotently trying to herd some of the Muslim masses into the old non-violent itjihad channels, Irshad Manji, a Canadian Muslim lesbian is a far better bet. As the title of her book "The Trouble with Islam" suggests, she spends her energy trying to convince other Muslims to be more constructive. Solkhar instead harangues non-Muslims to believe his fantasy of what Islam is and wastes our time and whatever knowledge or influence he has.

Scroll past Solkhar and read Chechar's Godwin link. You'll be glad you did.

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

MA Khan, author of the new book Islamic Jihad, in a conversation whith Bill Warner:

"What might work, something that has not been tried, is what I personally call 'shaming the Muslims out of Islam'. Islam is a horrible and shameful ideology, unfit for the civilized world. But most Muslims, who are average human beings, do not know what is actually in the Quran and Sunnah, or, they have never analyzed the contents of Islam's fundamental texts critically. They have no idea what it means to be a true Muslim and how shameful it is in the modern civilized conscience. If they are made aware of the true nature of Islam, they will leave this barbaric and dehumanizing cult in large numbers. Islam will be condemned to the dustbin of history where it always belonged."

"If you look closely at the history of Islam, you would realize that Islamic orthodoxy, with its violent underpinnings of Jihad, has tremendous resilience. As elaborated already, every attempt to reform it from within was followed by its resurgence with greater ferocity. From the 19th century onward, the European colonial powers did effect significant changes in the Islamic world like the equality of religions, liberation of slaves, and the ideas of secularism, progressiveness and modernity. But after colonial withdrawal, these positive changes are all being over turned. Humanity is now being threatened by Islamic orthodoxy and its Jihadis, on a scale unprecedented in history."

"What these factors tell us is that attempt to reform and secularize Islam is not only doomed to failure, but its survival in any form will turn calamitous to humanity. So those, who care for our progressive and modernist civilization, particularly those in position of power, must understand this critical factor while dealing with Islam. We probably have time, this time round, to save humanity from the ongoing scourge of Islam, albeit sustaining damages of whatsoever scale it may be, we will be left with no such option if Islam has another opportunity to strike."

"So the need of the hour is to break the back of Islam once and for all. And here comes into play the idea of 'shaming the Muslims out of Islam'. What we need is to discredit Islam root and branch, to the level of cells and atoms. This is not difficult to achieve...."

shaming-the-muslims-out-of-islam

Zenster said...

ANTI-ISLAMIST: [citing Bill Warner] "What might work, something that has not been tried, is what I personally call 'shaming the Muslims out of Islam'. Islam is a horrible and shameful ideology, unfit for the civilized world. But most Muslims, who are average human beings, do not know what is actually in the Quran and Sunnah, or, they have never analyzed the contents of Islam's fundamental texts critically. They have no idea what it means to be a true Muslim and how shameful it is in the modern civilized conscience. If they are made aware of the true nature of Islam, they will leave this barbaric and dehumanizing cult in large numbers. Islam will be condemned to the dustbin of history where it always belonged.".

As with most theories, Warner's idea looks better on paper than it is in real life.

The concept of "shaming the Muslims out of Islam" faces a major obstacle in the form of Islamic piety.

Examine some of the golden opportunities that Muslims have had to reapppraise or critically re-evaluate their faith.

Arab Muslims have routinely lost battles to tiny Israel despite a tremendous numerical advantage. It is the equivalent of Costa Rica repeatedly beating America's military machine.

Arab Muslims are still unable to industrialize their nations. Remove all petroleum-related income and the MME (Muslim Middle East) has a total GDP of $500 million. The Finnish telecom company, Nokia, realizes a similar profit each year.

The distinct paucity of Muslim Nobel Prizes is only more glaring when compared to those won by Jewish people. The imbalance is a stark indictment of just how wretched Muslim schools are.

The endemic corruption, regardless of GDP, that permeates the MME is another indicator of how backward and ineffecient Muslim societies are.

The categorical violation by shari'a law of nearly every human right imaginable somehow escapes the notice of Muslims around the world. Even Solkhar seems reluctant to recognize this simple fact.

Taken individually or in combination any of the above facts would appear adequate to the task of "shaming the Muslims out of Islam".

Instead, the almost unanimous response from Muslims is that these ills befall them due to, insufficient piety.

How can you shame someone out of something that they view as the end-all and be-all of human existence? You may as well try to shame a surgeon out of using a scalpel.

The idea is not without any truth to it. Throughout the MME humiliation is regarded as being worse than death. But what's to be done with people who are entirely immune to any sense of shame, be it over slaughtering innocent civilians by the thousands, using women and children as human shields, calling the Kuta bombing "The Battle of Bali" as if such mass murder were some sort of glorious wartime victory?

If such atrocities cannot evoke any sense of embarassment, what hope is there that Muslims can be shamed away from the very scriptures and dogma that incite such barbaric conduct?

There are probably many parallels between Muslim adherence to Islam and the physical addiction of hardcore drug users. Islam purposefully centers itself in Muslims as the locus of all self-worth and basic raison d'être. Remove it and you let slip a Muslim's entire mooring to reality. This certainly explains much of how Islam is able to inspire such unbelievable cruelty and barbarism. Unquestioning Muslim belief transcends even the most basic forms of human dignity and compassion.

Zenster said...

laine: The Godwin piece will blow your mind as far as explanatory power of how Islam infantilizes the believer's mind at a more primitive cognitive state. Every section is good but the analysis of male hatred and fear of the female as well as perpetuation of the cult by childhood mental abuse is priceless.

Agreed. Good catch, Chechar!

Solkhar said...

Baron, I also agree that this thread is at its end in our discussion because we are certainly coming to a round-about point of agreeing to disagree.

I will however try one more time to answer the repeated question that I think I have answered by quoting what I said on another thread of this blogsite about why there is so much violence and no change. The item was on the Roleback thread and my response was to a weak argument from ChrisLA, it is my last paragraph that is important here and for me sums it up perfectly:

"The only correct statement you made was probably targetted for the wrong reason. That there is no self-assessment and criticism and that is absolutely correct. Extreme and radical Islamists dominate the theological community in Islam and instantly drown out or condemn questions and thought and even governments are not willing to enter the debate because of the hold the clergy have over the illiterate masses - that is the entire problem with Islam - and only that."

Baron, I thank you for your allowing these conversations, it shows a willingness to debate and not just condemn that other blogsites have shown or how some like to allow as long as they think they can easily ridicule and then cut future postings.

I will write about GoV in my own blog and note that appreciation. I direct these comments to your blog and obviously not to some of the regular posters whom I have no respect for and have come accross many of them on other sites, all with the same cut&paste one-liners.

Be sure I will time to time respond to items, you know my own clear agenda - condemn extremists and repugnant behaviour by Muslims anytime and I will even join you and give you probably worse examples that I have come accross or even experienced, but if the item considers it Islamic or Qur'anic, I may respond to it.

Robert Marchenoir said...

One of the most obnoxious things about Muslims is that they force you to talk and think extensively about Islam, even when they are only a "tiny minority of moderates" among Western countries.

Soon, without realising it, you eat Koran, read Koran, speak Koran, debate Koran from dawn to midnight.

Soon, you find yourself engulfed in backwardness, dragged down to Islam's level, and forget everything about beauty, goodness and your own civilisation. Which, obviously, is the aim of the game.

So let's open up windows and let some fresh air inside, by quoting one of our own great thinkers, instead of the enemy's. One who has already said so much in so few words, happily contrasting with the verbal diarrhoea inflicted upon us by argumentative Muslims all over the Internet : Pascal, the French mathematician and philosopher.

His main work, "Pensées" (1670), purports to explain why Christianity is the only true religion. He had very little to say on Islam in this book. The Mohammedan religion is discarded in a few curt sentences.

"The other religions are false. Mohammed has no authority. His reasons should be very powerful, since they can only rule by their own force. What does he have to say ? That one should believe him."

"One should not judge Mohammed by what is obscure in his sayings, and which is supposed to bring the benefit of mystery, but by what is clear, by his paradise and all the rest. That is what makes him ridiculous. That is why it is a mistake to see depth where there is obscurity : his clarity is full of silliness."

And this last one, which I think pretty much sums up the issue :

"Any man can do what Mohammed did. No man can do what Jesus-Christ did."

Robert Marchenoir said...

I'm not sure contemporary French novelist Michel Houellebecq had Pascal in mind when he said basically the same thing a few years ago, with only slightly harscher words : "L'islam, c'est quand même la religion la plus conne."

"One must admit that Islam is but the stupidest religion."

"Conne" is a bit more offending than "stupid".

Chechar said...

Thanks laine for your comment way above. I do believe that Robert Godwin’s article is a good starting point to explain why psychohistory is so relevant in Islam studies, especially to understand the current clash of civilizations.

I’ll start translating the preface of my book and then send it to the Baron. But I guess rebutting Solkhar will still consume most of the commenters’ time in the near future? Anyway, reading both Godwin and his antipode will surely enrich our understanding of Muslims.

Since the word “Godwin” is often repeated in this thread but only linked once to the blog’s article, I am linking it again.

Zenster said...

Robert Marchenoir: One of the most obnoxious things about Muslims is that they force you to talk and think extensively about Islam, even when they are only a "tiny minority of moderates" among Western countries.

Soon, without realising it, you eat Koran, read Koran, speak Koran, debate Koran from dawn to midnight.

Soon, you find yourself engulfed in backwardness, dragged down to Islam's level, and forget everything about beauty, goodness and your own civilisation. Which, obviously, is the aim of the game
.

Bravo, Monsieur! I am heartily sick of what an attention whore Islam has made of itself. A colicky baby requires less consideration and generally exhibits a far better disposition.

It is the constant demand of notice and violent insistence upon intruding itself upon daily life that has contributed to me rethinking my position on the first-use of nuclear weapons.

The entire world's quality of life has been degraded by this one entity. Just the diversion of funds alone necessary to fight Islamic terrorism represents a horrendous financial burden and such monies could be so much better spent on curing AIDS, fighting illiteracy and hunger plus a host of other more worthy causes. Instead, we are obliged to play constable because Islam refuses to uphold or respect International Law.

Islam as a collective body needs to shut up, sit down and indulge in some serious self-examination before it makes any more criticisms of the West's behavior. The Islamic terrorist atrocities that have already been inflicted upon our world are enough reason to dismantle this festering dungheap of a pseudo-religion for all time.

The notion that our world will likely have to undergo more of this carnage before Islam finally is brought to heel goes beyond appalling.

Muslim inaction in the face of Islamic terrorist atrocities can no longer be construed as anything but tacit support for such mass murder. The only acceptable response from Islam is the immediate execution of their entire jihadist movement. This is something that has not begun even in its most rudimentary form.

Watching Eagle said...

quickly,

It is true that not all muslims in the west want what the likes of Anjem Choudary want. The problem is that the "governing class" of "Sec Prog" doesn't really want a moderate Islam. What they want is an "exotic" force of 3rd worlders who will "struggle" against "Western Imperialism". Well, the "smart and very dangerous clerics" are providing the "governing class" with what they think they want (and they don't need taquiyya either).

Meanwhile, Chechar, I am interested in your book, but I want to point something out. Natural Selection does not care which culture is "more advanced", "more pleasant", or more "technologically sophisticated". If we approach the situation with the preconceived idea that the West is fine and normal and Muslims are doing everything wrong, we will not make the changes necessary for survival.
Can you explain why Muslims don't seem to have a problem with loyalty, while the western Leftist leaders want to surrender our society (without knowing it) to enemies out of fear that if we don't, non-westerners would suffer from "Western Imperialism"? Why is treason so allowed in our society?

Finally, Solkar, could you lay out a case as to why the Eurabian Caliphate is impossible? This I GOT to see.

Baron Bodissey said...

OK, when people start calling other commenters "scum", the comment thread is officially dead. It's time to cauterize the thread and closer the comments.