The march of militant atheism continues unabated with the newest attack on God and those ignorant enough to believe in Him, resting on the mistaken belief that it is religion and God that establish the morality of a people. Of course this, like so many positions held by the glitterati rests firmly on ignorance and the absence of critical thinking. It would seem self-evident that the morals of a culture are established by the individuals that make up that culture. For example, (and I am not making this up) it is considered bad form to kill and eat your neighbor in most Western Cultures, but to the Cannibals of New Guinea, this is acceptable and indeed – expected. In some cultures it is an accepted practice for a man to have multiple wives while in most Western Countries it is frowned upon – outside of Utah. The point is that the atheists have started with a false assumption and that is that the morality of a culture is based in religion. It seems more likely that it is the religion that reflects the morality of the culture not vice versa.
Nevertheless, there does appear to be certain universal beliefs that are common to all cultures. For example, murder is not condoned by any human society but is prevalent in the animal kingdom. Adultery is another moral concept that seems to be common, even in those societies where multiple wives are permitted. So while there may be a fundamental moral code common to human society that still does not make morality and religion synonymous. The morals of a society may be related to the religion but the morality of that society is still reflected by those who do not believe in the religion. Thus the question becomes, without religion would a society degenerate into barbarism? This may be an unanswerable question since no known society exists that has no religion, even the Neanderthals seemed to have believed in a higher power. Even the most secular power today, has laws that govern that society that reflect the religious beliefs of the founders.
However, this opens the question “can a religious based society be barbaric” and act in an inhumane way. In effect, can religious people act in an immoral way in the name of God? Obviously this answer is yes, because we have many historical examples from all parts of the world. The Catholic Church persecuted Protestants, the Spanish Inquisition tortured and killed Jews as well as witches and heretics; the Protestants persecuted and killed Catholics. Even the Hindus have a violent record. Since the Western World has separated church and state, these religious persecutions have largely stopped today, except for Islam.
Islam purports to be more moral and virtuous than all other religions and has the objective of converting the world to Islam. Islam does not separate church and state, and the church is the state. Therefore, in the Muslim countries the morality of those countries is rooted directly in the religion. The most visible evidence of this is in the veil worn by women. Even in the more enlightened Islamic countries the women wear head scarves instead of the Burqua. But the question becomes does this enforced “modesty” indicate a higher level of virtue than that shown in Christendom or is it merely a reflection of the lack of freedom? The argument mounted my Muslims is that if freedom permits immodesty then freedom is wrong.
Does a woman who chooses to not wear a headscarf – as in the West – act immodestly? Does a man who chooses to shave his beard less manly or immodest? Do Draconian punishments for petty crimes, like cutting of the hands of thieves, make the Islamic countries more virtuous? Is the person who has the freedom to choose between modesty and immodesty, but chooses modesty more virtuous than the person who is forced by law to be “modest”. Is that person who is acting under duress even modest or is he simply enslaved? These radical Muslims – more accurately Islamofascists – clearly think that their opinions of what is “proper” transcend freedom of the press, speech, religion, and assembly. Clearly, in their eyes enforced “virtue” is to be desired and any person who chooses to deviate from their view of conduct must be harshly punished according to Shar’ia Law.
The reality is that morality is established by the society and while the morality of the culture can stem from religion, that religion cannot triumph over personal freedom. This means that the while the militant atheists are entitled to their opinions, they do not have the right to dominate or eliminate religions practice. It also means that the enforced modest and virtue associated with Islam is equally wrong because religion cannot overcome individual freedoms.
Showing posts with label Islamofascism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamofascism. Show all posts
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Comments on Afghanistan
Afghanistan is a land locked country that is in reality a country in name only. It has vast mineral wealth which has never been exploited because this pseudo-country is peopled with tribes and clans still living in the seventh century. These tribes and clans are thoroughly anchored in Islam and dominated by frictions, revenge, and issues of honor going back hundreds if not thousands of years. They have little interest in the outside world or its technology – unless that technology is military in nature. Yet America has been obsessed with Afghanistan for 30 years and directly and indirectly engaged in war there for all of that time. There is an American obsession with Afghanistan and the war there never seems to get better and never seems to end – it just expands and contracts.
The first phase of the Afghan War began with the Soviet invasion in December 1979. At the time it seemed to be in the strategic interest of America to thwart the Soviets and to keep them distracted from other activities more strategically valuable to the US. So the US with the support of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan organized resistance to the Soviets in the form of the Mujahedeen. These fighters were fighting the Soviets so little attention was given to the fact that they were motivated by Islam and fighting the Infidels – not so much the Soviets. All that America cared about was that they were fighting the Soviets and blocking them from creating a base for further expansion in the area. Plus these fighters were keeping the Soviets bogged down in a guerilla war, which the US gleefully aided and abetted. This first phase of the Afghan War lasted roughly ten years and ended in 1989 with the withdrawal of Soviet Troops.
The second phase of the Afghan War really was more like a civil war with the US and our allies observing as the local clans and tribes – armed and trained by the US went back to their favorite past time – fighting each other. Although the US did not actively take part in this war it did exert some influence through third parties – primarily Pakistan. More importantly the US was willing to accept that some group of the Mujahedeen—whom they had trained and armed – would govern Afghanistan. Eventually with Pakistani support a group called the Taliban took power in 1996 and established an Islamic State. But the Taliban were not just Islamic they were fundamentalist who were determined to rule according to the Koran. With the Taliban in power Afghanistan became a sanctuary for the extreme Jihadists in general and Al Qaeda in particular, which created tensions with the US since Al Qaeda had been attacking US facilities. With the arrival of Bin Laden in Afghanistan phase two of the Afghan War ended and the third phase began.
The third phase began with the attack by Al Qaeda on the World Trade Center which was in fact an act of war between Al Qaeda and the US. Although Al Qaeda is not a country it is Islamic in nature and in Islam there is no distinction made between Islam and a nation. Given that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had established their headquarters in Afghanistan, the US launched military operations intended to destroy Al Qaeda and dislodge the Taliban from power. This operation began within 30 days of the attack by Al Qaeda and it can be argued that this was not enough time to effectively develop a long range strategy. Instead the US drew on allied support both internationally and within Afghanistan itself – such as the Northern Alliance. It also included other Afghan groups who remained close to the Iranians, Pakistani’s, plus others. This was a rather unsteady alliance whose main unifying factor – in typical Afghan fashion – was hatred of the Taliban or due to substantial bribes paid by the US.
Once the war started it escalated as the US deployed more ground forces and significant air power. But Al Qaeda is not a country and the Taliban had no more legitimate claim to Afghanistan that any other group, so both the Taliban and Al Qaeda simply melted away into the countryside. Historically the cities in Afghanistan do not control the countryside it is the tribes and clans in the countryside that allow the cities to exist.
Militarily what happened is the US was prepared to fight a war which the Taliban refused to fight on the US terms. Instead they dispersed, regrouped, and moved into the countryside which they could control and isolate the cities which has been the historical precedent. The result has been a war without any end in sight but the Taliban has been weakened and Al Qaeda has no longer been capable of launching any attack of significant size. The US then attempted to establish a government which has increasingly been exposed as almost a comic opera version of a government. It is corrupt and has very limited power over the country primarily because there really is no country of Afghanistan – just a group of tribes and clans heavily infiltrated by the Taliban.
These first three phases of the American obsession with Afghanistan first relied on the Mujahedeen to fight the Russians, the second phase relied on Pakistan to oversee the Afghan civil war as the tribes and clans fought for control. In the third phase the US relied on the Afghan forces to fight the Taliban but that proved to be a poor strategy which dragged the US into what has become the Afghan War. But this was a war with limited objectives other than maintaining the Afghan government and containing Al Qaeda.
The fourth phase of the Afghan War began when the new Obama administration shifted priorities away from Iraq and onto Afghanistan. The argument for this shift in strategy was that the Iraqi war was a mistake because there was never any strong connection to Al Qaeda in Iraq and that Afghanistan was the home base of Al Qaeda. With this shift in strategy the US became the main force in Afghanistan whose initial focus of defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban has become increasingly fuzzy and of questionable value.
This is a land locked country of no real strategic value in and of itself. Al Qaeda has dispersed and fragmented into local groups affiliated with Al Qaeda but no longer under any central command. Al Qaeda is not a country it is an organization like any multi-national corporation and due to American actions in Afghanistan it has moved on to Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. The Taliban is the old Mujahedeen with a new name. Whether they rule Afghanistan or some other clan or tribe is of little consequence to America. While Islam continues to be at war with America this is really a war against Infidels being waged by Muslims but the Taliban have not been actively engaged outside of Afghanistan. The most they have done is to tolerate Al Qaeda and give them a safe harbor. But somehow America has let Al Qaeda move out of Afghanistan and left us fighting the Taliban without any purpose other than to support a shaky government in a country that has never actually been a country in any real sense of the word.
At this point it seems that the current administration is trying to turn over the fighting to the Afghan military with an objective of reaching a coalition government between the Karzai government, the Taliban, and the Northern Alliance and then to exit as gracefully as possible. Perhaps that is the best anyone can hope for or expect. President Obama has been criticized for establishing 2011 as the date of withdrawal for American Troops. This was probably intended to motivate the Karzai government to ramp up its military but it has also given the Taliban a reason to not negotiate any coalition government. The problem is the Afghan Army is composed of men from the various tribes and clans and as those tribes and clans go – so goes the Afghan Army. The Obama government seems faced with the same decisions that faced Richard Nixon as he brought the Viet Nam War to a close. Hopefully, the Obama Administration will be able to withdraw from Afghanistan with some dignity and end America’s obsession with it.
The first phase of the Afghan War began with the Soviet invasion in December 1979. At the time it seemed to be in the strategic interest of America to thwart the Soviets and to keep them distracted from other activities more strategically valuable to the US. So the US with the support of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan organized resistance to the Soviets in the form of the Mujahedeen. These fighters were fighting the Soviets so little attention was given to the fact that they were motivated by Islam and fighting the Infidels – not so much the Soviets. All that America cared about was that they were fighting the Soviets and blocking them from creating a base for further expansion in the area. Plus these fighters were keeping the Soviets bogged down in a guerilla war, which the US gleefully aided and abetted. This first phase of the Afghan War lasted roughly ten years and ended in 1989 with the withdrawal of Soviet Troops.
The second phase of the Afghan War really was more like a civil war with the US and our allies observing as the local clans and tribes – armed and trained by the US went back to their favorite past time – fighting each other. Although the US did not actively take part in this war it did exert some influence through third parties – primarily Pakistan. More importantly the US was willing to accept that some group of the Mujahedeen—whom they had trained and armed – would govern Afghanistan. Eventually with Pakistani support a group called the Taliban took power in 1996 and established an Islamic State. But the Taliban were not just Islamic they were fundamentalist who were determined to rule according to the Koran. With the Taliban in power Afghanistan became a sanctuary for the extreme Jihadists in general and Al Qaeda in particular, which created tensions with the US since Al Qaeda had been attacking US facilities. With the arrival of Bin Laden in Afghanistan phase two of the Afghan War ended and the third phase began.
The third phase began with the attack by Al Qaeda on the World Trade Center which was in fact an act of war between Al Qaeda and the US. Although Al Qaeda is not a country it is Islamic in nature and in Islam there is no distinction made between Islam and a nation. Given that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had established their headquarters in Afghanistan, the US launched military operations intended to destroy Al Qaeda and dislodge the Taliban from power. This operation began within 30 days of the attack by Al Qaeda and it can be argued that this was not enough time to effectively develop a long range strategy. Instead the US drew on allied support both internationally and within Afghanistan itself – such as the Northern Alliance. It also included other Afghan groups who remained close to the Iranians, Pakistani’s, plus others. This was a rather unsteady alliance whose main unifying factor – in typical Afghan fashion – was hatred of the Taliban or due to substantial bribes paid by the US.
Once the war started it escalated as the US deployed more ground forces and significant air power. But Al Qaeda is not a country and the Taliban had no more legitimate claim to Afghanistan that any other group, so both the Taliban and Al Qaeda simply melted away into the countryside. Historically the cities in Afghanistan do not control the countryside it is the tribes and clans in the countryside that allow the cities to exist.
Militarily what happened is the US was prepared to fight a war which the Taliban refused to fight on the US terms. Instead they dispersed, regrouped, and moved into the countryside which they could control and isolate the cities which has been the historical precedent. The result has been a war without any end in sight but the Taliban has been weakened and Al Qaeda has no longer been capable of launching any attack of significant size. The US then attempted to establish a government which has increasingly been exposed as almost a comic opera version of a government. It is corrupt and has very limited power over the country primarily because there really is no country of Afghanistan – just a group of tribes and clans heavily infiltrated by the Taliban.
These first three phases of the American obsession with Afghanistan first relied on the Mujahedeen to fight the Russians, the second phase relied on Pakistan to oversee the Afghan civil war as the tribes and clans fought for control. In the third phase the US relied on the Afghan forces to fight the Taliban but that proved to be a poor strategy which dragged the US into what has become the Afghan War. But this was a war with limited objectives other than maintaining the Afghan government and containing Al Qaeda.
The fourth phase of the Afghan War began when the new Obama administration shifted priorities away from Iraq and onto Afghanistan. The argument for this shift in strategy was that the Iraqi war was a mistake because there was never any strong connection to Al Qaeda in Iraq and that Afghanistan was the home base of Al Qaeda. With this shift in strategy the US became the main force in Afghanistan whose initial focus of defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban has become increasingly fuzzy and of questionable value.
This is a land locked country of no real strategic value in and of itself. Al Qaeda has dispersed and fragmented into local groups affiliated with Al Qaeda but no longer under any central command. Al Qaeda is not a country it is an organization like any multi-national corporation and due to American actions in Afghanistan it has moved on to Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. The Taliban is the old Mujahedeen with a new name. Whether they rule Afghanistan or some other clan or tribe is of little consequence to America. While Islam continues to be at war with America this is really a war against Infidels being waged by Muslims but the Taliban have not been actively engaged outside of Afghanistan. The most they have done is to tolerate Al Qaeda and give them a safe harbor. But somehow America has let Al Qaeda move out of Afghanistan and left us fighting the Taliban without any purpose other than to support a shaky government in a country that has never actually been a country in any real sense of the word.
At this point it seems that the current administration is trying to turn over the fighting to the Afghan military with an objective of reaching a coalition government between the Karzai government, the Taliban, and the Northern Alliance and then to exit as gracefully as possible. Perhaps that is the best anyone can hope for or expect. President Obama has been criticized for establishing 2011 as the date of withdrawal for American Troops. This was probably intended to motivate the Karzai government to ramp up its military but it has also given the Taliban a reason to not negotiate any coalition government. The problem is the Afghan Army is composed of men from the various tribes and clans and as those tribes and clans go – so goes the Afghan Army. The Obama government seems faced with the same decisions that faced Richard Nixon as he brought the Viet Nam War to a close. Hopefully, the Obama Administration will be able to withdraw from Afghanistan with some dignity and end America’s obsession with it.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Iran and American Foreign Policy
There has been growing concern over Iran and the possibility that Iran will become a nuclear power. These concerns are well founded, especially since the UN has proven time and again to be totally ineffective in every endeavor but especially in its peace keeping efforts. It is worth pointing out that the USSR developed nuclear capability because of the traitorous activity of some liberal scientists who felt America couldn’t be trusted with such power. Since that time America has continued employing immigrants in sensitive positions because these people have become American citizens. The result has been the spread of nuclear weapons including India and Pakistan. The real threat really isn’t whether or not the Iranians develop nuclear weapons the issue is will the terrorists supported by Iran gain control of them? It is highly unlikely that any nation state will employ nuclear weapons even under attack, but it is an almost certainty that the various Islamic terrorists organizations would use them at the first opportunity, because they would have no fear of reprisal. After all who would you attack?
Recently the fear has been that the Israeli’s will bomb the Iranian nuclear sites using American bunker busters and this threat is now increased with the recent election of President Obama who has made it clear his policies will not favor Israel. Therefore the threat of an attack on Iran prior to Obama taking office is greatly increased, but is the Iranian militancy just saber rattling or does it pose a real threat? Deception and posturing is endemic to Islamic culture but generally misunderstood by the West. It was Saddam Hussein who made a big show out of working on nuclear weaponry and developing weapons of mass destruction when as it turned out, most of this was just to impress his Islamic neighbors and to threaten the US. Now Iran is trying the same tactic by leading the West to believe that they are actually developing nuclear weapons and have the means to deliver those weapons. This was evidenced by their release of the test firing of four long range missiles, which turned out later to be three missiles and on even further analysis only one missile and it was not an intermediate range missile. So Iran’s ability to deliver nuclear weapons or any weapon at all is highly suspect and probably non-existent at least in the near term. So the question remains – why is Iran acting is such a provocative manner knowing what happened to Saddam Hussein?
The answer to the question cannot be known outside of Iran but an examination of the current situation in Iran is certainly warranted and may give some insight into why they are provoking the US. The Ayatollah Khomeini was not so much of a religious leader as he was a revolutionary and he was convinced that when the US allowed the Shah to fall that the Islamic world was ripe for revolution and that his revolution would sweep all before it. Of course this isn’t what happened. Instead he found that while Iran was ready for a change it wasn’t ready for his extreme ideas. Nevertheless, much like Lenin, Robespierre and Hitler the people realized too late that they had changed one tyranny for another. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein wasn’t in any mood to allow the Ayatollah’s to take over his country. The result was a war instigated by Hussein on the mistaken assumption that the people of Iran wouldn’t tolerate the religious fanaticism installed by Khomeini. He was wrong, but there is a lesson there should be heeded. Hitler was convinced the Russians would rise up against Stalin when he invaded Russia but instead he ignited a battle that ultimately brought him down. The same occurred with Iran because the Iranians did not rise up against Iraq but instead rallied together to fight the invader.
The situation in Iran today is very unstable and the Ayatollah’s retain only a very tenuous hold on the government. They try to maintain the facade of a democratic government but they arrest opposition leaders or simply disqualify them from running for office, a process historically used by dictators. The result is a highly unstable government which has grown even more unstable in recent weeks as the demand for oil declines along with oil revenues. The current President of Iran – Ahmadinejad has squandered the oil revenues on the assumption that these would continue indefinitely. As the world demand for oil declines and the dollar strengthens the Iranian government finds itself under pressure internally because it can no longer meet the demands of their infrastructure. They have succeeded in suppressing internal dissent but that can only be a short term strategy. Thus is seems that the best strategy would be to provoke the Israeli’s or the US into attacking them and the best way to accomplish that would be to create the belief that they have nuclear weapons and the means to fire them at Israel. This would provoke Israel into attacking them which would entangle the US and rally the people to resist the invaders. At this juncture it seems the best strategy for the west is to do precisely nothing other than to continue economic sanctions as long as Iran continues their provocative behavior, but to do nothing else. The USSR collapsed due to internal economic pressures and it is very possible that the current Iranian regime could collapse for the same reasons.
Recently the fear has been that the Israeli’s will bomb the Iranian nuclear sites using American bunker busters and this threat is now increased with the recent election of President Obama who has made it clear his policies will not favor Israel. Therefore the threat of an attack on Iran prior to Obama taking office is greatly increased, but is the Iranian militancy just saber rattling or does it pose a real threat? Deception and posturing is endemic to Islamic culture but generally misunderstood by the West. It was Saddam Hussein who made a big show out of working on nuclear weaponry and developing weapons of mass destruction when as it turned out, most of this was just to impress his Islamic neighbors and to threaten the US. Now Iran is trying the same tactic by leading the West to believe that they are actually developing nuclear weapons and have the means to deliver those weapons. This was evidenced by their release of the test firing of four long range missiles, which turned out later to be three missiles and on even further analysis only one missile and it was not an intermediate range missile. So Iran’s ability to deliver nuclear weapons or any weapon at all is highly suspect and probably non-existent at least in the near term. So the question remains – why is Iran acting is such a provocative manner knowing what happened to Saddam Hussein?
The answer to the question cannot be known outside of Iran but an examination of the current situation in Iran is certainly warranted and may give some insight into why they are provoking the US. The Ayatollah Khomeini was not so much of a religious leader as he was a revolutionary and he was convinced that when the US allowed the Shah to fall that the Islamic world was ripe for revolution and that his revolution would sweep all before it. Of course this isn’t what happened. Instead he found that while Iran was ready for a change it wasn’t ready for his extreme ideas. Nevertheless, much like Lenin, Robespierre and Hitler the people realized too late that they had changed one tyranny for another. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein wasn’t in any mood to allow the Ayatollah’s to take over his country. The result was a war instigated by Hussein on the mistaken assumption that the people of Iran wouldn’t tolerate the religious fanaticism installed by Khomeini. He was wrong, but there is a lesson there should be heeded. Hitler was convinced the Russians would rise up against Stalin when he invaded Russia but instead he ignited a battle that ultimately brought him down. The same occurred with Iran because the Iranians did not rise up against Iraq but instead rallied together to fight the invader.
The situation in Iran today is very unstable and the Ayatollah’s retain only a very tenuous hold on the government. They try to maintain the facade of a democratic government but they arrest opposition leaders or simply disqualify them from running for office, a process historically used by dictators. The result is a highly unstable government which has grown even more unstable in recent weeks as the demand for oil declines along with oil revenues. The current President of Iran – Ahmadinejad has squandered the oil revenues on the assumption that these would continue indefinitely. As the world demand for oil declines and the dollar strengthens the Iranian government finds itself under pressure internally because it can no longer meet the demands of their infrastructure. They have succeeded in suppressing internal dissent but that can only be a short term strategy. Thus is seems that the best strategy would be to provoke the Israeli’s or the US into attacking them and the best way to accomplish that would be to create the belief that they have nuclear weapons and the means to fire them at Israel. This would provoke Israel into attacking them which would entangle the US and rally the people to resist the invaders. At this juncture it seems the best strategy for the west is to do precisely nothing other than to continue economic sanctions as long as Iran continues their provocative behavior, but to do nothing else. The USSR collapsed due to internal economic pressures and it is very possible that the current Iranian regime could collapse for the same reasons.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Christendom and Islam
Western governments simply do not understand Islam or the Muslim countries. These Islamic countries were created by the West in what they thought was the best interest of the people and certainly in the best interest of the West but these are fragile creations that have only the most tenuous hold on reality. Christendom is essentially composed of all of the Westernized and Christian nation states but there is no centralized authority or unifying force. Any unifying Christian force ceased with Martin Luther and certainly ended altogether with Henry VIII who split from the Pope altogether. While loyalties to family, church, ethnic group or other organizations exist in Christendom, these loyalties are always subservient to the nation state. This is not true in Islam. In Islam loyalties are to the family, the clan, the tribe, and Islam in that order with any loyalty to such a thing as a nation state being of secondary importance if it exists at all. In fact the internal politics of these Islamic states tends to be tribal in nature and this can be seen in the internal conflicts that plague all of the Islamic states. These Islamic states are really tribal organizations – essentially “tribes with flags” with a seventh century ethos, where blood feuds are common and personal honor paramount. But whatever they are these Islamic states are not nation states in the Western model and to continue to view their governments as having the same level of authority and respect as Western governments is a major error in judgment.
From a Western perspective these Islamic states are truly barbarous where they stone adulterers and homosexuals to death, lash miscreants for minor offenses, maim others for things such as theft, deny equal rights to women, and see it as their duty to kill all infidels. Recently there was an explosion in an Iranian Mosque and the authorities initially thought that the arms and ammunition stored in the Mosque were not handled properly and exploded. As it turned out this was not the situation but the fact that it was the initial reaction is very telling, when you consider their reaction to any damage to a Mosque by the American Military. Furthermore, Muslims consider it their duty to destroy all Christian Churches and to kill all Christians and this is currently going on in many if not most Islamic countries. For most Christians it would be unthinkable to use a church as an ammunition dump, but to Muslims it is routine practice, particularly due to the fact that the morally superior western democracies would never attack a Mosque. The whole moral structure of Islam is almost totally opposite of that in Christendom. In Saudi Arabia the mere possession of a Bible is a capital offense. All of this moral ambiguity is well known in the West but Westerners continue to see Islam as having equivalent morality and the Islamic countries as nation states with authority. In fact they have only limited authority and are heavily influenced by various religious leaders who may not even be citizens in their countries.
What is not recognized in the West is that since the fall of the Ottomans there has been a power struggle going on throughout the Muslim world as various groups and individuals compete to unify Islam under one central authority—the Caliphate. The Islamic concept of ummah ( cultural unification) actually presupposes the illegitimacy of the nation state but this ummah or unification can only be accomplished through the actions of a strong core state or group, which does not currently exist. However, shortly after the death of Mohammed Islam spread across all of North Africa and culminated in the first central authority in the form of the Umayyad Caliphate whose capital was Damascus (Syria did not exist). This was followed by the Abbasid Caliphate with a capital in Baghdad. This was followed by other Caliphates beginning in the tenth century, but by the thirteenth century the Ottoman Turks rose in the Middle East, conquered Constantinople and established a new Caliphate that stood until the end of WW I. With the fall of the Ottomans the Western Powers created these arbitrary states in the Western model without regard to tribe, clan, or religious grouping and since that time Islam has been without a core state and unstable as the various factions vie for supremacy while some, such as the Kurds, vie for autonomy.
This power struggle is obscured by the American presence in Iraq, but it is being played out in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. The Shiite’s represent only a small percentage of Muslims, but they currently dominate Iran and Iraq and are easily the most organized and heavily armed. But the Sunni majority will not tolerate Shiite control or a Shia Caliphate so it is unlikely that any religious leader in either of these Shiite dominated countries can muster enough support to unify Islam and restore the Caliphate. However, the power struggle is increasingly violent with each group blaming the US in order to disguise their violation of Islamic law in their fight for supremacy. This is apparent in the recent battles between the Iraqi government and the Iranian backed Militia’s, which are actually power struggles between two Shiite groups, with the US backing one side and the Iranians the other. Because these are both Shiite groups the Sunni majority isn’t happy with the US support of the Shiites so Iraq remains unstable. The problem actually stems from the failure of the US to recognize that a democratic government is totally alien to the Islamic World and supporting the government is actually viewed as supporting a specific Shiite group. It would have been better to have established an authoritarian government but since that didn’t happen, it might be better to allow a military dictatorship to evolve that would be pro-American. A failure to resolve this problem can only allow time for a strong Islamic leader to emerge and that could be in Turkey.
There is growing unrest in Turkey as the Western Powers continue to treat Turkey as a second class country. The Ottomans joined the Germans because they were poorly treated by the British and it seems we are making the same mistake again. If Turkey rejects the secular government established by Ataturk, then they could easily become the stable government that could form the foundation for another Islamic Empire equivalent to the Ottoman Empire, but richer, more stable, and more heavily armed. This would be a disaster for the West and would certainly pit Islam against Christendom once again.
From a Western perspective these Islamic states are truly barbarous where they stone adulterers and homosexuals to death, lash miscreants for minor offenses, maim others for things such as theft, deny equal rights to women, and see it as their duty to kill all infidels. Recently there was an explosion in an Iranian Mosque and the authorities initially thought that the arms and ammunition stored in the Mosque were not handled properly and exploded. As it turned out this was not the situation but the fact that it was the initial reaction is very telling, when you consider their reaction to any damage to a Mosque by the American Military. Furthermore, Muslims consider it their duty to destroy all Christian Churches and to kill all Christians and this is currently going on in many if not most Islamic countries. For most Christians it would be unthinkable to use a church as an ammunition dump, but to Muslims it is routine practice, particularly due to the fact that the morally superior western democracies would never attack a Mosque. The whole moral structure of Islam is almost totally opposite of that in Christendom. In Saudi Arabia the mere possession of a Bible is a capital offense. All of this moral ambiguity is well known in the West but Westerners continue to see Islam as having equivalent morality and the Islamic countries as nation states with authority. In fact they have only limited authority and are heavily influenced by various religious leaders who may not even be citizens in their countries.
What is not recognized in the West is that since the fall of the Ottomans there has been a power struggle going on throughout the Muslim world as various groups and individuals compete to unify Islam under one central authority—the Caliphate. The Islamic concept of ummah ( cultural unification) actually presupposes the illegitimacy of the nation state but this ummah or unification can only be accomplished through the actions of a strong core state or group, which does not currently exist. However, shortly after the death of Mohammed Islam spread across all of North Africa and culminated in the first central authority in the form of the Umayyad Caliphate whose capital was Damascus (Syria did not exist). This was followed by the Abbasid Caliphate with a capital in Baghdad. This was followed by other Caliphates beginning in the tenth century, but by the thirteenth century the Ottoman Turks rose in the Middle East, conquered Constantinople and established a new Caliphate that stood until the end of WW I. With the fall of the Ottomans the Western Powers created these arbitrary states in the Western model without regard to tribe, clan, or religious grouping and since that time Islam has been without a core state and unstable as the various factions vie for supremacy while some, such as the Kurds, vie for autonomy.
This power struggle is obscured by the American presence in Iraq, but it is being played out in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. The Shiite’s represent only a small percentage of Muslims, but they currently dominate Iran and Iraq and are easily the most organized and heavily armed. But the Sunni majority will not tolerate Shiite control or a Shia Caliphate so it is unlikely that any religious leader in either of these Shiite dominated countries can muster enough support to unify Islam and restore the Caliphate. However, the power struggle is increasingly violent with each group blaming the US in order to disguise their violation of Islamic law in their fight for supremacy. This is apparent in the recent battles between the Iraqi government and the Iranian backed Militia’s, which are actually power struggles between two Shiite groups, with the US backing one side and the Iranians the other. Because these are both Shiite groups the Sunni majority isn’t happy with the US support of the Shiites so Iraq remains unstable. The problem actually stems from the failure of the US to recognize that a democratic government is totally alien to the Islamic World and supporting the government is actually viewed as supporting a specific Shiite group. It would have been better to have established an authoritarian government but since that didn’t happen, it might be better to allow a military dictatorship to evolve that would be pro-American. A failure to resolve this problem can only allow time for a strong Islamic leader to emerge and that could be in Turkey.
There is growing unrest in Turkey as the Western Powers continue to treat Turkey as a second class country. The Ottomans joined the Germans because they were poorly treated by the British and it seems we are making the same mistake again. If Turkey rejects the secular government established by Ataturk, then they could easily become the stable government that could form the foundation for another Islamic Empire equivalent to the Ottoman Empire, but richer, more stable, and more heavily armed. This would be a disaster for the West and would certainly pit Islam against Christendom once again.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Historical Roots and Islamofascism
The moderate Muslims – assuming there are some – continue to assure the West that Islamofascism is not based on Islam but is a perverted form of it – a cult—based on radical ideologies more akin to Bolshevism and the Nazi Socialists than Islam. This cult like figure known as Osama bin Laden has created a fantasy world that rejects all of modernity, a reactionary who clearly wants to be the Caliph of a seventh century realm. In reality Osama bin Laden is much closer in outlook to the Unabomber than he is to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim head of state. His fantasy world is wrapped up in the trappings of Islam and his goals are to overthrow all secular governments – including Muslim ones – and to install an all powerful Caliphate over the entire world or what is left of it after they destroy Christendom. However, while Osama bin Laden is living in a fantasy world much of the Islamic world isn’t far behind. They intend to stamp out the only democratic government – Israel, that has a sound economy and a non-authoritarian government. To date their success in this unrealistic endeavor has been rather pathetic. The history of the Islamic World shows that it is not only trapped in its tribal culture but that their internecine battles have made them impotent relative to Israel and centuries behind everybody else. It is this lack of unity, their tribal culture, and their irrational behavior toward Jews and Israel that has left the Islamic World in poverty and squalor – enter the Ottomans—just as anti-Semitic but much more successful.
The Ottoman Empire ruled the Islamic World for four hundred years and during that time there was no Renaissance, no Reformation, no Industrial Revolution, and in fact there was no real improvement in medicine, hygiene, or public health, instead there was a long slow and inexorable decline. The Ottomans were ruthless conquerors of the Islamic Empire created by Saladin, and they crushed any opposition. They liked the quiet life and they maintained it. They did not subscribe to capitalism, socialism, Marxism, representative government, or any of the trendy western political philosophies. They avoided all of these intellectual fads of the West but once the Ottoman Empire fell and was partitioned up by the Western Powers in 1917 the carnage began. The first blunder of the West and the one that continues even today is that the Muslims are desperate for a western style democracy but nothing could be further from the truth. The Ottomans unlike the western powers never allowed anyone to think that they would provide freedom of any kind or any kind of wealth instead they kept everyone in line with ruthless efficiency. They did this by maintaining strict control over the religious leaders and any rabble rouser was either eliminated or exiled. A historical lesson ignored by their successors who should never have allowed Ayatollah Khomeini or al Sadr or any of these radical Islamic clergy into any Islamic country. Of course this is outright oppression and dictatorship, which makes the liberals in the west very queasy but authoritarian governments seem to be the only ones that are successful today just as they have been in the past. It is the misguided policies and philosophies of the West that have laid the groundwork for the Islamofascists that plague us today. And yes the radical Muslim clergy is a problem but not the only problem – enter Yasser Arafat – a man more accurately described the destroyer of Arabic cause or gang leader. Awarding this man the Nobel Peace Prize was a travesty but representative of the ability of the West to ignore facts in favor of their wishful thinking.
Perhaps the first thing to remember is that until 1947 Palestinians were Jews, not Arabs. When the state of Israel was established the Jews became Israeli’s and the Arabs ceased being Arabs and became Palestinians except for those who remained Arabs – it is all very confusing. The New Palestinians became “refugees” and have remained in self-inflicted limbo ever since. These refugees formed the power base for Yasser Arafat who led the Palestinians for forty years and led them into one disaster after another with flags flying and drums beating. The only person to gain from his leadership was Arafat himself and everyone else suffered. He initially described the PLO as a Marxist Socialist Revolutionary movement which gave him support from the USSR, but that was never his true leanings. He actually was a member of the semi—secret Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in the 1920”s and has been dedicated to the extermination of the Jews ever since. The Muslim Brotherhood supported Hitler and have practiced assassination and disinformation ever since in their drive to eradicate Jews.
Most of the Arab leaders hated Arafat and distrusted him – which is saying a great deal in a society not noted for its truthfulness. Arafat was a poor administrator and even worse organizer and was generally viewed by his “allies” as little more than a gang leader who was a master of the shakedown – an art he practiced with great result on America, the Saudi’s, and Gulf States. The fact is that Arafat was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and the failure by any Arab leader to support him and his causes opened them to political unrest stirred up by Arafat or worse their assassination by his Fatah thugs. Perhaps the greatest irony here is that when the USSR imploded and their secret files became available photographs were discovered that had been taken by the Romanian Secret Police. These photos – taken at different times – showed that Arafat was a homosexual who cavorted with his body guards. This information has been available since the Reagan Administration but no one ever used that information to leverage Arafat. Considering the attitude of the Arabs and Islam in general, this would have been a substantial lever, but blackmail is such a dirty word.
Arafat seemed to be a compulsive liar and he certainly was corrupt. Much – if not most – of the aid money flowing into his hands was siphoned off into Swiss Bank Accounts. Much of this money was then used for arms which killed thousands of Israeli’s as well as maintaining his “bride of convenience” in Parisian splendor. Even though he demanded and got concessions from just about everyone it was never enough. He was in the terror business and it was a business he liked. The reality is that he led the Palestinians into one defeat after another and has left the Palestinians worse off. After billions of dollars have been sent to the Palestinians they lack an economy, have dismal medical facilities, have no schools other than the ridiculous Madrassa’s, they have no electric generation capability, and in general there is rampant unemployment and unhappiness in an area maintained by armed gangs. The more Arafat and his Fatah gang attacked the Israeli’s the stronger they got, the weaker the PLO got and the more discredited thier cause became, ultimately resulting in the Hama’s coup. Arafat was a murderer and a disaster for the Arabs and Palestinians.
The current policy of the West is doomed to failure as it always has been because the Western States are convinced that the Islamic States are desperate for Western democracy. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have described Iraq and Syria as “failed states” without regard to the historical facts. While it is true both of these countries could not be described as bastions of liberty, they were stable and yes it is true that both Saddam and Assad have murdered thousands of their citizens in their determination to maintain power, have the western powers done any better? Are things more or less stable? Does democracy work or not? Unfortunately, the bet is that once West leaves Iraq another general will arise and overthrow the government and things will go back to what they were.
The Ottoman Empire ruled the Islamic World for four hundred years and during that time there was no Renaissance, no Reformation, no Industrial Revolution, and in fact there was no real improvement in medicine, hygiene, or public health, instead there was a long slow and inexorable decline. The Ottomans were ruthless conquerors of the Islamic Empire created by Saladin, and they crushed any opposition. They liked the quiet life and they maintained it. They did not subscribe to capitalism, socialism, Marxism, representative government, or any of the trendy western political philosophies. They avoided all of these intellectual fads of the West but once the Ottoman Empire fell and was partitioned up by the Western Powers in 1917 the carnage began. The first blunder of the West and the one that continues even today is that the Muslims are desperate for a western style democracy but nothing could be further from the truth. The Ottomans unlike the western powers never allowed anyone to think that they would provide freedom of any kind or any kind of wealth instead they kept everyone in line with ruthless efficiency. They did this by maintaining strict control over the religious leaders and any rabble rouser was either eliminated or exiled. A historical lesson ignored by their successors who should never have allowed Ayatollah Khomeini or al Sadr or any of these radical Islamic clergy into any Islamic country. Of course this is outright oppression and dictatorship, which makes the liberals in the west very queasy but authoritarian governments seem to be the only ones that are successful today just as they have been in the past. It is the misguided policies and philosophies of the West that have laid the groundwork for the Islamofascists that plague us today. And yes the radical Muslim clergy is a problem but not the only problem – enter Yasser Arafat – a man more accurately described the destroyer of Arabic cause or gang leader. Awarding this man the Nobel Peace Prize was a travesty but representative of the ability of the West to ignore facts in favor of their wishful thinking.
Perhaps the first thing to remember is that until 1947 Palestinians were Jews, not Arabs. When the state of Israel was established the Jews became Israeli’s and the Arabs ceased being Arabs and became Palestinians except for those who remained Arabs – it is all very confusing. The New Palestinians became “refugees” and have remained in self-inflicted limbo ever since. These refugees formed the power base for Yasser Arafat who led the Palestinians for forty years and led them into one disaster after another with flags flying and drums beating. The only person to gain from his leadership was Arafat himself and everyone else suffered. He initially described the PLO as a Marxist Socialist Revolutionary movement which gave him support from the USSR, but that was never his true leanings. He actually was a member of the semi—secret Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in the 1920”s and has been dedicated to the extermination of the Jews ever since. The Muslim Brotherhood supported Hitler and have practiced assassination and disinformation ever since in their drive to eradicate Jews.
Most of the Arab leaders hated Arafat and distrusted him – which is saying a great deal in a society not noted for its truthfulness. Arafat was a poor administrator and even worse organizer and was generally viewed by his “allies” as little more than a gang leader who was a master of the shakedown – an art he practiced with great result on America, the Saudi’s, and Gulf States. The fact is that Arafat was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and the failure by any Arab leader to support him and his causes opened them to political unrest stirred up by Arafat or worse their assassination by his Fatah thugs. Perhaps the greatest irony here is that when the USSR imploded and their secret files became available photographs were discovered that had been taken by the Romanian Secret Police. These photos – taken at different times – showed that Arafat was a homosexual who cavorted with his body guards. This information has been available since the Reagan Administration but no one ever used that information to leverage Arafat. Considering the attitude of the Arabs and Islam in general, this would have been a substantial lever, but blackmail is such a dirty word.
Arafat seemed to be a compulsive liar and he certainly was corrupt. Much – if not most – of the aid money flowing into his hands was siphoned off into Swiss Bank Accounts. Much of this money was then used for arms which killed thousands of Israeli’s as well as maintaining his “bride of convenience” in Parisian splendor. Even though he demanded and got concessions from just about everyone it was never enough. He was in the terror business and it was a business he liked. The reality is that he led the Palestinians into one defeat after another and has left the Palestinians worse off. After billions of dollars have been sent to the Palestinians they lack an economy, have dismal medical facilities, have no schools other than the ridiculous Madrassa’s, they have no electric generation capability, and in general there is rampant unemployment and unhappiness in an area maintained by armed gangs. The more Arafat and his Fatah gang attacked the Israeli’s the stronger they got, the weaker the PLO got and the more discredited thier cause became, ultimately resulting in the Hama’s coup. Arafat was a murderer and a disaster for the Arabs and Palestinians.
The current policy of the West is doomed to failure as it always has been because the Western States are convinced that the Islamic States are desperate for Western democracy. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have described Iraq and Syria as “failed states” without regard to the historical facts. While it is true both of these countries could not be described as bastions of liberty, they were stable and yes it is true that both Saddam and Assad have murdered thousands of their citizens in their determination to maintain power, have the western powers done any better? Are things more or less stable? Does democracy work or not? Unfortunately, the bet is that once West leaves Iraq another general will arise and overthrow the government and things will go back to what they were.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Islam Today
The drum beat of multi-culturalism continues unabated throughout the liberal world. We are told that we should honor all cultures and they are all morally equivalent. Hence the native headhunter who wears a discreet loin cloth is equivalent to any Wall Street banker because they are both hunters one of men and the other of men’s money. This lunacy is extrapolated to all cultures including even those whose very foundation is based on hatred of all who differ and the sworn destruction of those they oppose and their societies. Of course this refers to Islam and the constant stream of excuses and assurances that not all Muslims are like the Islamofascists and there are good ones – who can best be described as the silent minority. Without doubt there are exceptions – there always are – but the silence of the Islamic community relative to the murder and destruction being wrought by Muslims worldwide is thunderous. Of particular interest is the internecine warfare going on between the Shi’ia Muslims and the Sunni’s. This is equivalent to the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s with the US Military playing the part of the Federal Agents. True to form the guilt and blame lies not on the irrationality of the Muslims but is laid on the US and the US Military.
This internecine warfare has been going on since the death of Mohammed and is really nothing more nor less than a battle over the successor to the Caliphate – a battle that has lasted over a thousand years and one that shows no signs of abating. In fact this ongoing battle is encouraged by the Saudi’s – the keepers of the Holy Places of Islam. A close look at the situation reveals some very interesting – and speculative – motives. First until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1917 Arabia was really not a country and it was inhabited by various Bedouin Tribes who can best be described as nomadic goat herders. When the Ottoman Empire was carved up by those ever helpful British and French governments, SAUDI-Arabia was created with the House of Saud put in charge. The discovery of oil changed everything and the goat herders were separated into the Royal Family and everybody else. Things have gradually improved but Arabia continues to be an absolute Monarchy governed by Shar’ia Law which can only be described as draconian. Under Shar’ia women have few rights and true Muslims are sworn to the destruction of all unbelievers. Thus this commandment was the driving force behind the massacre of Hindu’s by the Muslims when India became independent and the genocide carried out by the Muslims in Armenia, and Bosnia. This commandment to kill all unbelievers continues to justify the murder and destruction being carried out by Muslims worldwide even today. Ironically it is also the justification for the blood feud between the Shi’ia and the Sunni’s.
It seems the enlightened and ever faithful Saudi’s provide capital for the construction of Mosques and textbooks to be used to teach Muslim children. Of course the multi-culturists in the West would never think to look at these textbooks to see what the Saudi’s are teaching – that’s too bad because the Saudi’s talk out of both sides of their mouth. According to the official Saudi (religious) teachings, it was the Jews who were behind those who became the Shia. It was the Jews who conspired to divide Islam and to plant Jewish thoughts into the minds of Muslims and these apostate Muslims became the Shia. This is used by the Saudi’s today to justify their continuing subjugation of the Shiites who have few rights in Saudi Arabia and cannot be represented in Saudi Courts because they are considered Jews -- so much for the Saudi view of human rights and cultural diversity.
But the Saudi’s are really the driving force behind Muslim extremism and the root of the Islamofascists whom they publicly repudiate on one side and quietly support on the other. We wonder why the Islamic community is so silent regarding the murder and mayhem being conducted in their name – look no further than the Saudi’s. In the textbooks being provided by the Saudi’s to Muslim children in America we find the following quote “The unbelievers, idolaters, and others like them must be hated and despised. We must stay away from them and create barriers between them and us.” So while the simple minded westerners continue to preach multi-culturalism and love of all, the Muslims are teaching isolationism and hate. The unbelievers and idolaters they are sworn to destroy consists of everyone except Sunni Muslims – and this means YOU.
But the hypocrisy of the Saudi’s and the Islamic states goes even deeper. First, despite vast sums of revenue and huge tracts of unoccupied land, the Saudi’s will not accept any Palestinian as a citizen. Instead they contribute money to train and arm suicide bombers and reward the families of suicide bombers. Lebanon has actually passed legislation that prohibits any Palestinian from working full time, purchasing land, or becoming a professional. These are Muslims but no Muslim nation will accept them so they deliberately remain marginalized as refugees and a destabilizing force throughout the Middle East as a government policy of the Muslim states. The Muslims seem to thrive on lies, libels, and ignorance and blame everyone but themselves for their poverty, misery,and lack of success. They blame the Jews for their plight rather than themselves and the rigidity of Islam.
To this day there are many Arab politicians, journalists, and “intellectuals” who tell their audiences, which are largely illiterate Arabs that Jews are Nazi’s because they siphon the blood of non-Jewish children for their religious observances. Incredible as it may sound this ridiculous libel has been stated publicly by the Syrian Defense Minister. The Arab Lawyers Union has circulated posters showing a vampire toothed Israeli Soldier with Nazi Flags standing guard over a boarded up Palestinian Office, where the boards formed a swastika. There are many of these types of things being circulated by Muslims, the same Muslims who rioted all over the world because of a cartoon showing Mohammed as a bomber - a double standard that is tolerated by the politically correct media, politicians, and multi-culturalists.
Islam today is firmly anchored in the sixth century and continues its tribal orientation. It is an exclusively male society where masculinity is demonstrated through the obligatory moustache and domination of women. They suppress their women and exercise such control over them that they are little more than sex slaves. Islam today has no room for equal rights for women or freedom of religion, speech, or the press. Islam today is a petrified religion that must either change or fracture and increasingly it appears it will never change because change requires enlightenment and reformation, neither of which can happen as long as they fail to accept responsibility for their plight.
This internecine warfare has been going on since the death of Mohammed and is really nothing more nor less than a battle over the successor to the Caliphate – a battle that has lasted over a thousand years and one that shows no signs of abating. In fact this ongoing battle is encouraged by the Saudi’s – the keepers of the Holy Places of Islam. A close look at the situation reveals some very interesting – and speculative – motives. First until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1917 Arabia was really not a country and it was inhabited by various Bedouin Tribes who can best be described as nomadic goat herders. When the Ottoman Empire was carved up by those ever helpful British and French governments, SAUDI-Arabia was created with the House of Saud put in charge. The discovery of oil changed everything and the goat herders were separated into the Royal Family and everybody else. Things have gradually improved but Arabia continues to be an absolute Monarchy governed by Shar’ia Law which can only be described as draconian. Under Shar’ia women have few rights and true Muslims are sworn to the destruction of all unbelievers. Thus this commandment was the driving force behind the massacre of Hindu’s by the Muslims when India became independent and the genocide carried out by the Muslims in Armenia, and Bosnia. This commandment to kill all unbelievers continues to justify the murder and destruction being carried out by Muslims worldwide even today. Ironically it is also the justification for the blood feud between the Shi’ia and the Sunni’s.
It seems the enlightened and ever faithful Saudi’s provide capital for the construction of Mosques and textbooks to be used to teach Muslim children. Of course the multi-culturists in the West would never think to look at these textbooks to see what the Saudi’s are teaching – that’s too bad because the Saudi’s talk out of both sides of their mouth. According to the official Saudi (religious) teachings, it was the Jews who were behind those who became the Shia. It was the Jews who conspired to divide Islam and to plant Jewish thoughts into the minds of Muslims and these apostate Muslims became the Shia. This is used by the Saudi’s today to justify their continuing subjugation of the Shiites who have few rights in Saudi Arabia and cannot be represented in Saudi Courts because they are considered Jews -- so much for the Saudi view of human rights and cultural diversity.
But the Saudi’s are really the driving force behind Muslim extremism and the root of the Islamofascists whom they publicly repudiate on one side and quietly support on the other. We wonder why the Islamic community is so silent regarding the murder and mayhem being conducted in their name – look no further than the Saudi’s. In the textbooks being provided by the Saudi’s to Muslim children in America we find the following quote “The unbelievers, idolaters, and others like them must be hated and despised. We must stay away from them and create barriers between them and us.” So while the simple minded westerners continue to preach multi-culturalism and love of all, the Muslims are teaching isolationism and hate. The unbelievers and idolaters they are sworn to destroy consists of everyone except Sunni Muslims – and this means YOU.
But the hypocrisy of the Saudi’s and the Islamic states goes even deeper. First, despite vast sums of revenue and huge tracts of unoccupied land, the Saudi’s will not accept any Palestinian as a citizen. Instead they contribute money to train and arm suicide bombers and reward the families of suicide bombers. Lebanon has actually passed legislation that prohibits any Palestinian from working full time, purchasing land, or becoming a professional. These are Muslims but no Muslim nation will accept them so they deliberately remain marginalized as refugees and a destabilizing force throughout the Middle East as a government policy of the Muslim states. The Muslims seem to thrive on lies, libels, and ignorance and blame everyone but themselves for their poverty, misery,and lack of success. They blame the Jews for their plight rather than themselves and the rigidity of Islam.
To this day there are many Arab politicians, journalists, and “intellectuals” who tell their audiences, which are largely illiterate Arabs that Jews are Nazi’s because they siphon the blood of non-Jewish children for their religious observances. Incredible as it may sound this ridiculous libel has been stated publicly by the Syrian Defense Minister. The Arab Lawyers Union has circulated posters showing a vampire toothed Israeli Soldier with Nazi Flags standing guard over a boarded up Palestinian Office, where the boards formed a swastika. There are many of these types of things being circulated by Muslims, the same Muslims who rioted all over the world because of a cartoon showing Mohammed as a bomber - a double standard that is tolerated by the politically correct media, politicians, and multi-culturalists.
Islam today is firmly anchored in the sixth century and continues its tribal orientation. It is an exclusively male society where masculinity is demonstrated through the obligatory moustache and domination of women. They suppress their women and exercise such control over them that they are little more than sex slaves. Islam today has no room for equal rights for women or freedom of religion, speech, or the press. Islam today is a petrified religion that must either change or fracture and increasingly it appears it will never change because change requires enlightenment and reformation, neither of which can happen as long as they fail to accept responsibility for their plight.
Friday, December 14, 2007
The Brutality of Islam
Today brings us news that a devout Muslim father has murdered his 16 year old daughter for not wearing her head scarf to school. He had previously beat her for “not being Muslim enough” and the girl had told her friends that she thought if she didn’t meet her father’s standard of “being a good Muslim” he would kill her. Killing her was required by Islam because she was apostate. The Saudi Court sentenced a young girl to 90 lashes after she was gang raped by four men. When she appealed the sentence the court raised her sentence to 200 lashes and six months in prison. The men received two years in prison and the rationale for the girl’s punishment was that she had been in the company of an unrelated male prior to the attack. Reading between the lines you can see that because she was with a boy – not related to her, she was seen as a whore and thus available to the boys who raped her. A British school teacher is sentenced to 40 lashes because she allowed her 7 year old students to name their Teddy Bear “Mohammed”. Of course the multi-culturists are doing their best to spin these atrocities into something less brutal and primitive but the reality is Islam is a barbaric religion that is anchored in the seventh century and doesn’t seem likely to join the modern world anytime soon.
Few of the apologists for Islam seem to have actually read the Koran or have any idea of what it says, but in Chapter 24:2 it calls for the fornicatress and adulteress to be lashed on the body 100 times and this is noted as the extreme limit. Please note that the Saudi Court sentenced the unfortunate victim of rape to 200 lashes. Also note that the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) or any official Islamic spokesman has failed to condemn this sentence or called on the Saudi Court to pardon the girl. This silence is telling because the Muslims -- even in the west -- place Shar’ia Law above secular law. To condemn this court would have been anti-Muslim. It should also be noted that Chapter 24:3 goes on to permit the fornicator and adulterer (males) to have sexual relations with a fornicatress, an adulteress, or a polytheistic (non-Muslim) woman. Therefore, rape of non-Muslim women is forgiven and it is easy to see why the girl who was raped had to have been condemned as a fornicatress and girl of low morality (she was in the presence of an unrelated male) because this justified the rape. For this girl to have been found innocent – a very unlikely event – it would have been necessary for her to produce four witnesses (all male) who would testify to the fact that she was forcibly raped. In effect she was guilty until proven innocent.
The Muslims all over the world demand to be treated equally with regard to the local laws but deny equal treatment in the Islamic states. No Jews or Christians are allowed in Arabia and Bibles are forbidden and possession could result in severe punishment including death. There is no freedom of religion in Islam – that is a Western concept which is enjoyed by Muslims but which they deny to others. But the fundamental hypocrisy of Islam and Muslims is visible everyday in the news as we observe Muslims killing other Muslims something strictly forbidden in the Koran – but the real hypocrisy is in Chapter 2:191. In this verse Muslims are forbidden to fight in the Holy Mosque but as we see these hyper-religious Muslims spout the Koran while using their “holy” Mosques as ammo dumps and fortresses from which they attack others – namely American Soldiers. But the irony goes on because in Chapter 2:193 where the Muslim is enjoined to fight their persecutors until religion is freely professed for Allah. How the Muslim community attacks those who believe differently and then call that “persecution” and then deny religious freedom is a blatant example of their hypocrisy and failure to live by the very dictates they profess.
In chapter 2:216 the Koran states that Muslims are expected to fight “Fighting has been ordained for you”. In this chapter the word “love” appears but the Koran is fascinating because in the few instances where this word "love" appears it never is used in reference to loving mankind – only loving God or something and in this chapter it references something you may desire that is bad for you. This failure to preach love of mankind should be contrasted with the New Testament where the underlying theme throughout is to love all mankind and to forgive your enemies. Instead the Koran is filled with references to killing, beheading, fighting, and destruction of all infidels. Islam is a brutal religion anchored firmly in the tribal culture of the seventh century and practiced by tribal people today who place tribe and religion above everything else and who have little to no loyalty to any secular authority other than military and even that is problematic. Women have very few rights in Islam and are treated as little more than property. They are married off independent of their wishes. Recently there has been a spate of female suicide bombers and these are passed off as dedicated Islamic women. The actual facts are that these are women who have been condemned to death by stoning or flogging for violating Shar’ia Law. They are given the option of dying in the name of Allah or in shame. The supreme irony here is that the “Traditions of the Prophet” clearly and unequivocally condemn suicide in any form. This is supported by the Prophet himself who quoted God as saying to a man who was morally wounded and killed himself to shorten the pain “My servant has pre-empted me by taking his soul with his own hand: he will therefore not be admitted to paradise”. So you wonder just how pure these Islamofascists are relative to their religion when they dupe malleable people into carrying out their murderous schemes. According to the Koran and Islam suicide is forbidden so why is this being ignored in the name of Allah when it is a clear violation of God's will? The simple answer is that these people are after power and they are willing to use any monstrous lie or deception and are willing to go to any extreme to achieve this power. These are brutal people who are using a brutal religion to achieve their desire for power – God has nothing to do with it.
Few of the apologists for Islam seem to have actually read the Koran or have any idea of what it says, but in Chapter 24:2 it calls for the fornicatress and adulteress to be lashed on the body 100 times and this is noted as the extreme limit. Please note that the Saudi Court sentenced the unfortunate victim of rape to 200 lashes. Also note that the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) or any official Islamic spokesman has failed to condemn this sentence or called on the Saudi Court to pardon the girl. This silence is telling because the Muslims -- even in the west -- place Shar’ia Law above secular law. To condemn this court would have been anti-Muslim. It should also be noted that Chapter 24:3 goes on to permit the fornicator and adulterer (males) to have sexual relations with a fornicatress, an adulteress, or a polytheistic (non-Muslim) woman. Therefore, rape of non-Muslim women is forgiven and it is easy to see why the girl who was raped had to have been condemned as a fornicatress and girl of low morality (she was in the presence of an unrelated male) because this justified the rape. For this girl to have been found innocent – a very unlikely event – it would have been necessary for her to produce four witnesses (all male) who would testify to the fact that she was forcibly raped. In effect she was guilty until proven innocent.
The Muslims all over the world demand to be treated equally with regard to the local laws but deny equal treatment in the Islamic states. No Jews or Christians are allowed in Arabia and Bibles are forbidden and possession could result in severe punishment including death. There is no freedom of religion in Islam – that is a Western concept which is enjoyed by Muslims but which they deny to others. But the fundamental hypocrisy of Islam and Muslims is visible everyday in the news as we observe Muslims killing other Muslims something strictly forbidden in the Koran – but the real hypocrisy is in Chapter 2:191. In this verse Muslims are forbidden to fight in the Holy Mosque but as we see these hyper-religious Muslims spout the Koran while using their “holy” Mosques as ammo dumps and fortresses from which they attack others – namely American Soldiers. But the irony goes on because in Chapter 2:193 where the Muslim is enjoined to fight their persecutors until religion is freely professed for Allah. How the Muslim community attacks those who believe differently and then call that “persecution” and then deny religious freedom is a blatant example of their hypocrisy and failure to live by the very dictates they profess.
In chapter 2:216 the Koran states that Muslims are expected to fight “Fighting has been ordained for you”. In this chapter the word “love” appears but the Koran is fascinating because in the few instances where this word "love" appears it never is used in reference to loving mankind – only loving God or something and in this chapter it references something you may desire that is bad for you. This failure to preach love of mankind should be contrasted with the New Testament where the underlying theme throughout is to love all mankind and to forgive your enemies. Instead the Koran is filled with references to killing, beheading, fighting, and destruction of all infidels. Islam is a brutal religion anchored firmly in the tribal culture of the seventh century and practiced by tribal people today who place tribe and religion above everything else and who have little to no loyalty to any secular authority other than military and even that is problematic. Women have very few rights in Islam and are treated as little more than property. They are married off independent of their wishes. Recently there has been a spate of female suicide bombers and these are passed off as dedicated Islamic women. The actual facts are that these are women who have been condemned to death by stoning or flogging for violating Shar’ia Law. They are given the option of dying in the name of Allah or in shame. The supreme irony here is that the “Traditions of the Prophet” clearly and unequivocally condemn suicide in any form. This is supported by the Prophet himself who quoted God as saying to a man who was morally wounded and killed himself to shorten the pain “My servant has pre-empted me by taking his soul with his own hand: he will therefore not be admitted to paradise”. So you wonder just how pure these Islamofascists are relative to their religion when they dupe malleable people into carrying out their murderous schemes. According to the Koran and Islam suicide is forbidden so why is this being ignored in the name of Allah when it is a clear violation of God's will? The simple answer is that these people are after power and they are willing to use any monstrous lie or deception and are willing to go to any extreme to achieve this power. These are brutal people who are using a brutal religion to achieve their desire for power – God has nothing to do with it.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Foreign Policy
Recently we have been treated to a virtuoso display dissimulation by the Prime Minister of Iran and a breathtaking display of the anti-American attitudes found on the liberal campuses of America. Coincidentally I have been asked to sit in on a discussion of American Foreign Policy by a private discussion group who are increasingly concerned about several foreign policy issues, but first Iran.
Iran
There is no doubt but that Iran is a terrorist state established by and in control of Islamofascists. But of all of the Islamic States Iran is perhaps the one with the largest educated population. Their population is relatively young on average, generally pro-west if not pro-America, and very restive. While the world is focused on the Iranian Government and its drive to gain nuclear weapons and drive the Americans out of Iraq, the Iranian government is struggling internally to maintain control and that is becoming more difficult everyday as the youth of Iran resist the Mullahs and their strict moral codes that are not shared by more educated people.
The danger is that if the Iranians gain nuclear capability before a more secular government comes to power, then Hamas and other terrorists organizations will gain that capability and would certainly use it against Israel and America. It should be noted that it is quite possible that the Iranians are using their nuclear program to distract America and the UN from the underground nuclear development effort going on in Syria. The Israeli’s bombed this facility but whether or not it was destroyed remains unknown. If this secondary nuclear development can go forward, then the Iranian government may be more open to UN inspections and loosen their control over their people in order to stabilize their government without sacrificing their nuclear ambitions and objective of bringing down America.
China
This is a very interesting topic considering two things -- 1) Bill Clinton is the one who allowed free trade status to the Chinese. He was financially supported by Hsu as was Hillary. Connecting these dots may be impossible but given the sleaziness of the Clinton's it is easy to conclude that there was a Quid Pro Quo between the Clinton's and China. However, China is far from a free or even capitalist society, although it is no longer a pure Marxist state. It is more like the old imperial china than the worker’s paradise promised by Mao and Lenin. The people have few civil rights and although the government is more open to entrepreneurs it is worth noting that they are the major source for copyright violations, product knock offs, and violation of almost every standard of production and safety. They are a rogue nation relative to business standards, civil law, and human rights. The American government as well as the UN gives lip service to China’s violation of human rights and the use of slave labor but no meaningful action has been taken nor is likely to be taken. But this flouting of standards and safety is beginning to catch up with them but I note the US Government is making more excuses than taking any effective action.
Venezuela
Hugo Chavez is a Marxist and only a thinly veiled one at that. He is systematically raping the industry of Venezuela in his drive to redistribute the wealth. He is a living example of how to gain power by promising the take the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor. This was tried by the Roman Emperors and failed. It was tried by Lenin and failed. It has been tried in France and failed. It was tried in Cuba and failed. It has been tried numerous times in Mexico and has failed every time. The reality is that poor people are poor for a reason and taking the wealth away from those who create the jobs and their wealth and giving it to the poor assures the politician of their votes while giving the poor a few dollars and temporary relief. In the long term, the entrepreneurial class is destroyed, the means of wealth generation is destroyed, and the entire country sinks further into poverty. This is true of Venezuela today just as it is of Cuba. For America the problem lies mostly in the production of oil because under Chavez the production has declined dramatically and will probably sink further as he and his Marxist/Socialist cohorts mismanage the oil fields.
Saudi Arabia
The House of Saud has a tiger by the tail. The situation there is analgaous to an obscure protestant sect of snake handlers got control of the US Government and used their resources to convert everyone to their way of thinking. They have created a monster and they don't know what to do. If they stop funding these terrorists they face a civil war which they will certainly lose -- and they may have one anyway. If they continue funding these Madrassas and thus indirectly the terrorists, they risk losing support of the West and thus instigating a civil war. The Saudi Government is VERY UNSTABLE and I seriously doubt they can remain in power much longer. Once they fall, the Muslims will have a choke hold on Western Society -- especially Europe. This will give the Russians an upper hand in Europe and they will become resurgent politically and economically. This is a problem that will be exacerbated if Putin becomes dictator which seems to be his plan. America's dependence on foreign oil will be a problem because much of our oil comes from Venezuela but the mismanagement by Chavez has reduced their output but he is heavily dependent on American oil revenues.
It should be noted that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Baharain, Quatar, the Emirates, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Turkey plus all of North Africa represent the old Islamic Empire that stretched from Spain to India. The Muslims are trying to re-establish that empire under the Caliphate, which historically was seated in Baghdad and unter the Ottomans in Constantinople. The war against the West is only part of the issue because these various leaders are vying for power and the position of Caliph, which is what Saddam was after. It seems clear to me that Spain has already succumbed to the Muslims in all but name and France isn't far behind. The western powers continue to view these countries as countries with secular governments but that is a false assumption. Islam does not recognize any secular power and they make no distinction between the Mullahs and the government. People like Maliki are shams because they have no real power unless the Mullahs say they do.
We are engaged in a religious war and no Muslim can be loyal to ANY government and remain a Muslim. This means that all of these Muslims who exist in our midst represent a huge and growing threat to our stability because when challenged they must side with Islam and NOT the government- any government. Just because these people are American or French, or German citizens does not mean they would support those governments over Islam and the Mullahs. Saudi Arabia is a problem but Iran, Syria, and Palestine are much greater problems right now. There are laws government sedition and it is long past time when those laws should be enforced in America.
Iran
There is no doubt but that Iran is a terrorist state established by and in control of Islamofascists. But of all of the Islamic States Iran is perhaps the one with the largest educated population. Their population is relatively young on average, generally pro-west if not pro-America, and very restive. While the world is focused on the Iranian Government and its drive to gain nuclear weapons and drive the Americans out of Iraq, the Iranian government is struggling internally to maintain control and that is becoming more difficult everyday as the youth of Iran resist the Mullahs and their strict moral codes that are not shared by more educated people.
The danger is that if the Iranians gain nuclear capability before a more secular government comes to power, then Hamas and other terrorists organizations will gain that capability and would certainly use it against Israel and America. It should be noted that it is quite possible that the Iranians are using their nuclear program to distract America and the UN from the underground nuclear development effort going on in Syria. The Israeli’s bombed this facility but whether or not it was destroyed remains unknown. If this secondary nuclear development can go forward, then the Iranian government may be more open to UN inspections and loosen their control over their people in order to stabilize their government without sacrificing their nuclear ambitions and objective of bringing down America.
China
This is a very interesting topic considering two things -- 1) Bill Clinton is the one who allowed free trade status to the Chinese. He was financially supported by Hsu as was Hillary. Connecting these dots may be impossible but given the sleaziness of the Clinton's it is easy to conclude that there was a Quid Pro Quo between the Clinton's and China. However, China is far from a free or even capitalist society, although it is no longer a pure Marxist state. It is more like the old imperial china than the worker’s paradise promised by Mao and Lenin. The people have few civil rights and although the government is more open to entrepreneurs it is worth noting that they are the major source for copyright violations, product knock offs, and violation of almost every standard of production and safety. They are a rogue nation relative to business standards, civil law, and human rights. The American government as well as the UN gives lip service to China’s violation of human rights and the use of slave labor but no meaningful action has been taken nor is likely to be taken. But this flouting of standards and safety is beginning to catch up with them but I note the US Government is making more excuses than taking any effective action.
Venezuela
Hugo Chavez is a Marxist and only a thinly veiled one at that. He is systematically raping the industry of Venezuela in his drive to redistribute the wealth. He is a living example of how to gain power by promising the take the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor. This was tried by the Roman Emperors and failed. It was tried by Lenin and failed. It has been tried in France and failed. It was tried in Cuba and failed. It has been tried numerous times in Mexico and has failed every time. The reality is that poor people are poor for a reason and taking the wealth away from those who create the jobs and their wealth and giving it to the poor assures the politician of their votes while giving the poor a few dollars and temporary relief. In the long term, the entrepreneurial class is destroyed, the means of wealth generation is destroyed, and the entire country sinks further into poverty. This is true of Venezuela today just as it is of Cuba. For America the problem lies mostly in the production of oil because under Chavez the production has declined dramatically and will probably sink further as he and his Marxist/Socialist cohorts mismanage the oil fields.
Saudi Arabia
The House of Saud has a tiger by the tail. The situation there is analgaous to an obscure protestant sect of snake handlers got control of the US Government and used their resources to convert everyone to their way of thinking. They have created a monster and they don't know what to do. If they stop funding these terrorists they face a civil war which they will certainly lose -- and they may have one anyway. If they continue funding these Madrassas and thus indirectly the terrorists, they risk losing support of the West and thus instigating a civil war. The Saudi Government is VERY UNSTABLE and I seriously doubt they can remain in power much longer. Once they fall, the Muslims will have a choke hold on Western Society -- especially Europe. This will give the Russians an upper hand in Europe and they will become resurgent politically and economically. This is a problem that will be exacerbated if Putin becomes dictator which seems to be his plan. America's dependence on foreign oil will be a problem because much of our oil comes from Venezuela but the mismanagement by Chavez has reduced their output but he is heavily dependent on American oil revenues.
It should be noted that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Baharain, Quatar, the Emirates, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Turkey plus all of North Africa represent the old Islamic Empire that stretched from Spain to India. The Muslims are trying to re-establish that empire under the Caliphate, which historically was seated in Baghdad and unter the Ottomans in Constantinople. The war against the West is only part of the issue because these various leaders are vying for power and the position of Caliph, which is what Saddam was after. It seems clear to me that Spain has already succumbed to the Muslims in all but name and France isn't far behind. The western powers continue to view these countries as countries with secular governments but that is a false assumption. Islam does not recognize any secular power and they make no distinction between the Mullahs and the government. People like Maliki are shams because they have no real power unless the Mullahs say they do.
We are engaged in a religious war and no Muslim can be loyal to ANY government and remain a Muslim. This means that all of these Muslims who exist in our midst represent a huge and growing threat to our stability because when challenged they must side with Islam and NOT the government- any government. Just because these people are American or French, or German citizens does not mean they would support those governments over Islam and the Mullahs. Saudi Arabia is a problem but Iran, Syria, and Palestine are much greater problems right now. There are laws government sedition and it is long past time when those laws should be enforced in America.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Are There “Moderate” Muslims?
Is there such a thing as a “moderate” Muslim or is this an oxymoron? Even a quick review of the Koran will show that a Muslim cannot continue to call himself Muslim if they tolerate anyone who is not Muslim. In fact they are instructed to kill all infidels. Sura 9:5 says “Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and see them, belittle them and lie and wait for them in every strategy of war”. For the people who resist Islam – meaning all non-Muslims—the Koran instructs Muslims in Sura 5:33 “Their punishment is execution or crucifixion or cutting off of hands and feet from the opposite sides or to be exiled from the land”. This is merely a small sample of the violence that permeates the Koran. This “Holy” text is filled with exhortations to kill all infidels. Based on the Koran itself a person cannot be “moderate” and still be Muslim because anyone who even considers an non-Muslim as a friend or ally is not Muslim but has become heretic and apostate. The next time you are called upon to view your Muslim neighbor as a friend think about that because in a Muslim society he must kill you or himself be killed.
Jesus was executed by the Romans at the behest of the Sanhedrin because he was a threat to the stability of the region. Jesus was a rebel in the sense that Gandhi was a rebel. Jesus never raised a sword in anger nor did he oppose Rome. In fact when asked Jesus said “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s” In effect Jesus was actually supporting the Roman administration by not overtly opposing it – so what about Mohammed?
Mohammed was in fact a “warlord” not a man of peace by any stretch of the imagination. He preached violence and was directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people who either followed him or were killed. He participated in 78 battles, a fact proudly proclaimed by Muslims who retain the same level of morality that one associates with tribal societies, Nazi’s, and other fascists. Mohammed approved the beheading of prisoners of war – a feature of Islam – the religion of peace – that continues today. He approved the assassinations of all who opposed him and instructed his followers “Whoever relinquishes his fait – Kill him”. So when Buddha and Jesus are contrasted to Mohammed who is preaching peace and who is preaching death and destruction?
The Muslim community preaches that it was they who salvaged the knowledge of the world and it was their Arabic scholars who contributed the tradition of education while Europe languished in the Dark Ages. Whether this is true or not is arguable since with the fall of Byzantium the Muslims inherited the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans, which they protected. Even if we simply accepted this claim by the Muslims then the question immediately becomes – what happened? If the Arab community was so focused on learning and education why is the illiteracy rate in the Arab World not only higher than the world average but even higher than developing country’s? Illiteracy in the Arab World is more than three times higher than in Latin America and the Caribbean (think Haiti, Dominican Republic) and Arab illiteracy is actually increasing. In fact, over one third of Arab men and half of Arab women were illiterate in 2002.
The scientific and technical contribution by Islamic countries is less than one percent of the world’s total. In fact about 330 books are translated into Arabic by the Arab world in contrast to 1500 books translated into Greek and 100,000 translated into Spanish each year. In 1998 three patents were granted to the entire Arab World while The Republic of Korea was granted 779 in the same period. From 1980 until 2000 the Arab World was granted a total of 370 patents while South Korea alone was granted 16,000 in that same span. Does this sound like a society thirsty for knowledge? Does it sound like a society or culture intent on growing and becoming a contributing segment of society or does it sound like an introverted and perverted society, incapable of mixing with any society other than own?
Islam is a society that still believes in “honor killing” and even a more westernized country like Jordan still considers murder for reasons of honor to be justified. Islam is a society where women are considered property, where females must be virgins at marriage or be branded whore and killed by their male relatives. These are the attitudes and practices dictated by the Koran. These are the beliefs of Muslims worldwide – including your neighbors and the storekeeper on the corner. These are the people who maintain they are “moderate” and “loyal” citizens but that cannot be true because either they are indeed “moderate” and “loyal” or they are “Muslim” they cannot be both. These are our neighbors, neighbors who glorify Ayatollah Khomeini who said “The purest joy in Islam is to kill and to be killed in the name of Allah”. Were the 19 Muslims who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center extremists or simply practicing Muslims?
Jesus was executed by the Romans at the behest of the Sanhedrin because he was a threat to the stability of the region. Jesus was a rebel in the sense that Gandhi was a rebel. Jesus never raised a sword in anger nor did he oppose Rome. In fact when asked Jesus said “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s” In effect Jesus was actually supporting the Roman administration by not overtly opposing it – so what about Mohammed?
Mohammed was in fact a “warlord” not a man of peace by any stretch of the imagination. He preached violence and was directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people who either followed him or were killed. He participated in 78 battles, a fact proudly proclaimed by Muslims who retain the same level of morality that one associates with tribal societies, Nazi’s, and other fascists. Mohammed approved the beheading of prisoners of war – a feature of Islam – the religion of peace – that continues today. He approved the assassinations of all who opposed him and instructed his followers “Whoever relinquishes his fait – Kill him”. So when Buddha and Jesus are contrasted to Mohammed who is preaching peace and who is preaching death and destruction?
The Muslim community preaches that it was they who salvaged the knowledge of the world and it was their Arabic scholars who contributed the tradition of education while Europe languished in the Dark Ages. Whether this is true or not is arguable since with the fall of Byzantium the Muslims inherited the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans, which they protected. Even if we simply accepted this claim by the Muslims then the question immediately becomes – what happened? If the Arab community was so focused on learning and education why is the illiteracy rate in the Arab World not only higher than the world average but even higher than developing country’s? Illiteracy in the Arab World is more than three times higher than in Latin America and the Caribbean (think Haiti, Dominican Republic) and Arab illiteracy is actually increasing. In fact, over one third of Arab men and half of Arab women were illiterate in 2002.
The scientific and technical contribution by Islamic countries is less than one percent of the world’s total. In fact about 330 books are translated into Arabic by the Arab world in contrast to 1500 books translated into Greek and 100,000 translated into Spanish each year. In 1998 three patents were granted to the entire Arab World while The Republic of Korea was granted 779 in the same period. From 1980 until 2000 the Arab World was granted a total of 370 patents while South Korea alone was granted 16,000 in that same span. Does this sound like a society thirsty for knowledge? Does it sound like a society or culture intent on growing and becoming a contributing segment of society or does it sound like an introverted and perverted society, incapable of mixing with any society other than own?
Islam is a society that still believes in “honor killing” and even a more westernized country like Jordan still considers murder for reasons of honor to be justified. Islam is a society where women are considered property, where females must be virgins at marriage or be branded whore and killed by their male relatives. These are the attitudes and practices dictated by the Koran. These are the beliefs of Muslims worldwide – including your neighbors and the storekeeper on the corner. These are the people who maintain they are “moderate” and “loyal” citizens but that cannot be true because either they are indeed “moderate” and “loyal” or they are “Muslim” they cannot be both. These are our neighbors, neighbors who glorify Ayatollah Khomeini who said “The purest joy in Islam is to kill and to be killed in the name of Allah”. Were the 19 Muslims who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center extremists or simply practicing Muslims?
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Freedom, Virtue, and Morality
The march of militant atheism continues unabated with the newest attack on God and those ignorant enough to believe in Him, resting on the mistaken belief that it is religion and God that establish the morality of a people. Of course this, like so many positions held by the glitterati rests firmly on ignorance and the absence of critical thinking. It would seem self-evident that the morals of a culture are established by the individuals that make up that culture. For example, (and I am not making this up) it is considered bad form to kill and eat your neighbor in most Western Cultures, but to the Cannibals of New Guinea, this is acceptable and indeed – expected. In some cultures it is an accepted practice for a man to have multiple wives while in most Western Countries it is frowned upon – outside of Utah. The point is that the atheists have started with a false assumption and that is that the morality of a culture is based in religion. It seems more likely that it is the religion that reflects the morality of the culture not vice versa.
Nevertheless, there does appear to be certain universal beliefs that are common to all cultures. For example, murder is not condoned by any human society but is prevalent in the animal kingdom. Adultery is another moral concept that seems to be common, even in those societies where multiple wives are permitted. So while there may be a fundamental moral code common to human society that still does not make morality and religion synonymous. The morals of a society may be related to the religion but the morality of that society is still reflected by those who do not believe in the religion. Thus the question becomes, without religion would a society degenerate into barbarism? This may be an unanswerable question since no known society exists that has no religion, even the Neanderthals seemed to have believed in a higher power. Even the most secular power today, has laws that govern that society that reflect the religious beliefs of the founders.
However, this opens the question “can a religious based society be barbaric” and act in an inhumane way. In effect, can religious people act in an immoral way in the name of God? Obviously this answer is yes, because we have many historical examples from all parts of the world. The Catholic Church persecuted Protestants, the Spanish Inquisition tortured and killed Jews as well as witches and heretics; the Protestants persecuted and killed Catholics. Even the Hindus have a violent record. Since the Western World has separated church and state, these religious persecutions have largely stopped today, except for Islam.
Islam purports to be more moral and virtuous than all other religions and has the objective of converting the world to Islam. Islam does not separate church and state, and the church is the state. Therefore, in the Muslim countries the morality of those countries is rooted directly in the religion. The most visible evidence of this is in the veil worn by women. Even in the more enlightened Islamic countries the women wear head scarves instead of the Burqua. But the question becomes does this enforced “modesty” indicate a higher level of virtue than that shown in Christendom or is it merely a reflection of the lack of freedom? The argument mounted my Muslims is that if freedom permits immodesty then freedom is wrong.
Does a woman who chooses to not wear a headscarf – as in the West – act immodestly? Does a man who chooses to shave his beard less manly or immodest? Do Draconian punishments for petty crimes, like cutting of the hands of thieves, make the Islamic countries more virtuous? Is the person who has the freedom to choose between modesty and immodesty, but chooses modesty more virtuous than the person who is forced by law to be “modest”. Is that person who is acting under duress even modest or is he simply enslaved? These radical Muslims – more accurately Islamofascists – clearly think that their opinions of what is “proper” transcend freedom of the press, speech, religion, and assembly. Clearly, in their eyes enforced “virtue” is to be desired and any person who chooses to deviate from their view of conduct must be harshly punished according to Shar’ia Law.
The reality is that morality is established by the society and while the morality of the culture can stem from religion, that religion cannot triumph over personal freedom. This means that the while the militant atheists are entitled to their opinions, they do not have the right to dominate or eliminate religions practice. It also means that the enforced modest and virtue associated with Islam is equally wrong because religion cannot overcome individual freedoms.
Nevertheless, there does appear to be certain universal beliefs that are common to all cultures. For example, murder is not condoned by any human society but is prevalent in the animal kingdom. Adultery is another moral concept that seems to be common, even in those societies where multiple wives are permitted. So while there may be a fundamental moral code common to human society that still does not make morality and religion synonymous. The morals of a society may be related to the religion but the morality of that society is still reflected by those who do not believe in the religion. Thus the question becomes, without religion would a society degenerate into barbarism? This may be an unanswerable question since no known society exists that has no religion, even the Neanderthals seemed to have believed in a higher power. Even the most secular power today, has laws that govern that society that reflect the religious beliefs of the founders.
However, this opens the question “can a religious based society be barbaric” and act in an inhumane way. In effect, can religious people act in an immoral way in the name of God? Obviously this answer is yes, because we have many historical examples from all parts of the world. The Catholic Church persecuted Protestants, the Spanish Inquisition tortured and killed Jews as well as witches and heretics; the Protestants persecuted and killed Catholics. Even the Hindus have a violent record. Since the Western World has separated church and state, these religious persecutions have largely stopped today, except for Islam.
Islam purports to be more moral and virtuous than all other religions and has the objective of converting the world to Islam. Islam does not separate church and state, and the church is the state. Therefore, in the Muslim countries the morality of those countries is rooted directly in the religion. The most visible evidence of this is in the veil worn by women. Even in the more enlightened Islamic countries the women wear head scarves instead of the Burqua. But the question becomes does this enforced “modesty” indicate a higher level of virtue than that shown in Christendom or is it merely a reflection of the lack of freedom? The argument mounted my Muslims is that if freedom permits immodesty then freedom is wrong.
Does a woman who chooses to not wear a headscarf – as in the West – act immodestly? Does a man who chooses to shave his beard less manly or immodest? Do Draconian punishments for petty crimes, like cutting of the hands of thieves, make the Islamic countries more virtuous? Is the person who has the freedom to choose between modesty and immodesty, but chooses modesty more virtuous than the person who is forced by law to be “modest”. Is that person who is acting under duress even modest or is he simply enslaved? These radical Muslims – more accurately Islamofascists – clearly think that their opinions of what is “proper” transcend freedom of the press, speech, religion, and assembly. Clearly, in their eyes enforced “virtue” is to be desired and any person who chooses to deviate from their view of conduct must be harshly punished according to Shar’ia Law.
The reality is that morality is established by the society and while the morality of the culture can stem from religion, that religion cannot triumph over personal freedom. This means that the while the militant atheists are entitled to their opinions, they do not have the right to dominate or eliminate religions practice. It also means that the enforced modest and virtue associated with Islam is equally wrong because religion cannot overcome individual freedoms.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
How The World Turns
I am not a political analyst nor am I a military strategist, but I do read a great deal of history in terms of both subjects. Therefore, as I observe global events over the past several years I am beginning to wonder how much most Americans understand what is behind these events and their headlines. It seems to me that most Americans, like most Westerners, tend to think in terms of their culture and experience rather than historical perspectives, so I thought some insight might be in order.
History
Africa is a mess and it has always been a mess. The African Natives are tribal, they have always been tribal and continue as tribes even today. When a Westerner looks at Africa he sees a continent made up of various countries, but these countries are creations of the European Imperial Powers and bear no relationship whatsoever to the historical tribal boundaries. The result has been off and on again conflict between tribes and countries dominated by various tribal strongmen. It is also worthwhile noting that while the Europeans capitalized on the slave trade, the reality is that trade was going on between various African Tribes and the Arab Muslims to the East before the Europeans came on to the scene. Furthermore this trade continued up until the 1960’s when it was “officially” banned by the Saudi Government but there is every reason to believe it continues even today.
The countries across North Africa, with the exception of Egypt and possibly Ethiopia are creations of the Imperial Powers. Most of these countries as well as those of the Middle East didn’t exist until France and England carved up the Ottoman Empire. It is worth noting that the Ottomans controlled all of what is now known as the Middle East, all of North Africa, Spain, (until the 15th Century), much of the Balkans, Turkey, and Persia. This Empire was larger than the Roman Empire and was Muslim, although Christians and Jews were permitted to live within the Empire. Although the Ottoman Empire was viewed as a political entity by the West, in reality it was a Theocracy dominated by various Emirs, Aga’s, and other Religious leaders, it was never a political organization as experienced in the West.
Then we have the problems associated with the Pacific Rim. China is technically a “communist” nation but in reality it is simply following the historical pattern of a strong central government. It used to be an Imperial Nation but the strength of the central government has always ebbed and flowed dominated now by warlords and then by a strongman. The difference between the old imperial system and the current “communist” system is virtually invisible. The same is true of India, which has historically been fragmented into small states until the British came. Since that time they have more or less been forged into a nation but they continue to teeter on the brink of re-fragmentation. The more interesting point here is that both China and Japan have considered Korea to be source of slaves, to be exploited by first one then the other. Koreans are looked down upon by both the Chinese and Japanese. Until the 1950’s Korea was an insignificant backwater and the incursion of the Chinese Communists have left us with North Korea, which is led by a central figure Kim Il Jong, who is bent and determined to establish himself as a major political figure. All of these are historical perspectives that seem to be lost on the public at large.
Christendom
In this context Christendom includes Christians, Jews, Atheists, and all others who are not Muslim. Christendom is characterized by a series of nation states, some democratic and some not, but all easily distinguished by borders and some sense of national identity. With some minor exceptions these nation states fight each other over various issues, usually regarding territory or economics, but rarely over religion. While it is true that when the West was emerging from the dark ages religion and religious wars were fought,but these largely disappeared by the 1600”s. The result is that today the West is comprised of nation states whose governments have authority and can be relied upon to act with authority.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the flaw in how the West is approaching the war on terror. For the typical Westerner, wars are fought between nation states over territory, economics, or resources, but never over an abstraction like freedom or religion. Because of this ingrained idea, the West continues to perceive Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Syria, and virtually all of the “nations” of the Middle East and Africa as “nations” run by a central government. They attempt to negotiate with these entities and to sign treaties without recognizing that these governments are inherently weak and are not viewed by the Muslim population as being independent of Islam or speaking for them.
The reality is that the Muslims have been dedicated to erasing all people and religions and are not interested in establishing any government other than an Islamic one based on Shar’ia Law. They are not interested in educating their people other than in Islam so they have no interest in technology, economics, education, or any culture other than Islamic. They do not believe in freedom of any kind and are dedicated to enforcing their view of the world. Most recently Israel gave up land to the Palestinians in a futile effort to buy peace and left behind green houses, buildings, and infrastructure. The Muslims came in and promptly destroyed all of it and continued to use the land to attack Israel. The strategy of “Land for Peace” failed and it will continue to fail because the Muslims do not want to create a modern state but want to destroy everything that is not Islamic. They want to return to the seventh century and “pure Islam”.
It is widely recognized that Iran is behind most – if not all – of the terrorism today, but rather than taking the battle to the Iranians, the West continues to focus on the offending “countries” as if the government of these “countries” had any authority over the people.
Islam
Iraq has historically been the seat of the Caliphate and thus the heart of Islam. It has been the seat of Muslim art and culture and has historically had a highly educated population. However, Muslims in general are not a highly educated people but that seems to be more of a symptom than a root cause of the anger and instability that characterizes Islam today. In fact there are two sides to the Islamic issue. On the external side there is the anger aimed at the West that is being channeled through religious activism. On the surface this appears to be the continuing effort by Islam to convert the world and stamp out all other religions. But to a large extent, this is really a ploy being used by Islamic leaders to distract their people from the gross mismanagement of their only revenue source which is oil. In the classic strategy of demagogues these religious leaders are using the West and Christendom as scapegoats for the appalling conditions that exist in most Muslim countries and this represents the internal conflict that is raging throughout Islam.
Islam is actually divided into the Sunni and the Shi’ia and this schism goes back to the 8th Century and rests on the dispute over who was (is) the true successor to Mohammed. Throughout history the Sunni’s have been the minority, but also the dominant sect who have exploited and abused the Shi’ia. With the overthrow of Shah the Shi’ia became the dominant sect in Iran. Iraq was a Sunni nation and Hussein attacked Iran for many reasons, but certainly one was to re-establish the Sunni dominance. When Saddam was overthrown that unleashed the Shi’ia who are out for revenge. But beyond this mundane seeking of revenge, behind the scenes is a power struggle that is raging over the leadership of Islam – the Caliphate. Osama bin Laden was well on the way to becoming the Caliph but when he was forced into hiding his power began to wane and others are attempting to establish their right to the Caliphate by attacking the West and indirectly the Sunni’s or the Shi’ia depending on which sect they belong to. The West is caught in the middle of this power struggle and until that is resolved it is unlikely the Muslims will stablize.
History
Africa is a mess and it has always been a mess. The African Natives are tribal, they have always been tribal and continue as tribes even today. When a Westerner looks at Africa he sees a continent made up of various countries, but these countries are creations of the European Imperial Powers and bear no relationship whatsoever to the historical tribal boundaries. The result has been off and on again conflict between tribes and countries dominated by various tribal strongmen. It is also worthwhile noting that while the Europeans capitalized on the slave trade, the reality is that trade was going on between various African Tribes and the Arab Muslims to the East before the Europeans came on to the scene. Furthermore this trade continued up until the 1960’s when it was “officially” banned by the Saudi Government but there is every reason to believe it continues even today.
The countries across North Africa, with the exception of Egypt and possibly Ethiopia are creations of the Imperial Powers. Most of these countries as well as those of the Middle East didn’t exist until France and England carved up the Ottoman Empire. It is worth noting that the Ottomans controlled all of what is now known as the Middle East, all of North Africa, Spain, (until the 15th Century), much of the Balkans, Turkey, and Persia. This Empire was larger than the Roman Empire and was Muslim, although Christians and Jews were permitted to live within the Empire. Although the Ottoman Empire was viewed as a political entity by the West, in reality it was a Theocracy dominated by various Emirs, Aga’s, and other Religious leaders, it was never a political organization as experienced in the West.
Then we have the problems associated with the Pacific Rim. China is technically a “communist” nation but in reality it is simply following the historical pattern of a strong central government. It used to be an Imperial Nation but the strength of the central government has always ebbed and flowed dominated now by warlords and then by a strongman. The difference between the old imperial system and the current “communist” system is virtually invisible. The same is true of India, which has historically been fragmented into small states until the British came. Since that time they have more or less been forged into a nation but they continue to teeter on the brink of re-fragmentation. The more interesting point here is that both China and Japan have considered Korea to be source of slaves, to be exploited by first one then the other. Koreans are looked down upon by both the Chinese and Japanese. Until the 1950’s Korea was an insignificant backwater and the incursion of the Chinese Communists have left us with North Korea, which is led by a central figure Kim Il Jong, who is bent and determined to establish himself as a major political figure. All of these are historical perspectives that seem to be lost on the public at large.
Christendom
In this context Christendom includes Christians, Jews, Atheists, and all others who are not Muslim. Christendom is characterized by a series of nation states, some democratic and some not, but all easily distinguished by borders and some sense of national identity. With some minor exceptions these nation states fight each other over various issues, usually regarding territory or economics, but rarely over religion. While it is true that when the West was emerging from the dark ages religion and religious wars were fought,but these largely disappeared by the 1600”s. The result is that today the West is comprised of nation states whose governments have authority and can be relied upon to act with authority.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the flaw in how the West is approaching the war on terror. For the typical Westerner, wars are fought between nation states over territory, economics, or resources, but never over an abstraction like freedom or religion. Because of this ingrained idea, the West continues to perceive Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Syria, and virtually all of the “nations” of the Middle East and Africa as “nations” run by a central government. They attempt to negotiate with these entities and to sign treaties without recognizing that these governments are inherently weak and are not viewed by the Muslim population as being independent of Islam or speaking for them.
The reality is that the Muslims have been dedicated to erasing all people and religions and are not interested in establishing any government other than an Islamic one based on Shar’ia Law. They are not interested in educating their people other than in Islam so they have no interest in technology, economics, education, or any culture other than Islamic. They do not believe in freedom of any kind and are dedicated to enforcing their view of the world. Most recently Israel gave up land to the Palestinians in a futile effort to buy peace and left behind green houses, buildings, and infrastructure. The Muslims came in and promptly destroyed all of it and continued to use the land to attack Israel. The strategy of “Land for Peace” failed and it will continue to fail because the Muslims do not want to create a modern state but want to destroy everything that is not Islamic. They want to return to the seventh century and “pure Islam”.
It is widely recognized that Iran is behind most – if not all – of the terrorism today, but rather than taking the battle to the Iranians, the West continues to focus on the offending “countries” as if the government of these “countries” had any authority over the people.
Islam
Iraq has historically been the seat of the Caliphate and thus the heart of Islam. It has been the seat of Muslim art and culture and has historically had a highly educated population. However, Muslims in general are not a highly educated people but that seems to be more of a symptom than a root cause of the anger and instability that characterizes Islam today. In fact there are two sides to the Islamic issue. On the external side there is the anger aimed at the West that is being channeled through religious activism. On the surface this appears to be the continuing effort by Islam to convert the world and stamp out all other religions. But to a large extent, this is really a ploy being used by Islamic leaders to distract their people from the gross mismanagement of their only revenue source which is oil. In the classic strategy of demagogues these religious leaders are using the West and Christendom as scapegoats for the appalling conditions that exist in most Muslim countries and this represents the internal conflict that is raging throughout Islam.
Islam is actually divided into the Sunni and the Shi’ia and this schism goes back to the 8th Century and rests on the dispute over who was (is) the true successor to Mohammed. Throughout history the Sunni’s have been the minority, but also the dominant sect who have exploited and abused the Shi’ia. With the overthrow of Shah the Shi’ia became the dominant sect in Iran. Iraq was a Sunni nation and Hussein attacked Iran for many reasons, but certainly one was to re-establish the Sunni dominance. When Saddam was overthrown that unleashed the Shi’ia who are out for revenge. But beyond this mundane seeking of revenge, behind the scenes is a power struggle that is raging over the leadership of Islam – the Caliphate. Osama bin Laden was well on the way to becoming the Caliph but when he was forced into hiding his power began to wane and others are attempting to establish their right to the Caliphate by attacking the West and indirectly the Sunni’s or the Shi’ia depending on which sect they belong to. The West is caught in the middle of this power struggle and until that is resolved it is unlikely the Muslims will stablize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)