| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Another provocative essay from Wolfgang Bruno (news links in the original):
A remarkable testimony to the power of the modern mass media revolution was noted in the complaints of an Egyptian cleric in 2005:Leading Egypt Cleric Wants Fewer Frivolous Edicts
The chief Muslim cleric in Egypt wants tighter controls on who may issue religious edicts, or fatwas. Egypt's Grand Mufti says more fatwas have been issued in the past 10 years than in the previous 1400 years. Modern technology has made it easier than ever to issue or receive a fatwa, one of the religious edicts that guide Muslims' interpretations of Islamic law. Someone with a specific question about what Islam allows can get a personalized fatwa on the matter over the Internet, through television or via cellphone. The number of religious edicts keeps growing, and because Islam has no central authority there is no set system for governing who is allowed to issue them.This explosion of unorthodox religious activity can only be compared to that of Christian Europe in the early 16th century. Just as Gutenberg’s invention marked the first mass media revolution in the West, the Internet and satellite TV are now doing the same thing in the Islamic world. However, the outcome may be very different, and the parallels between the Protestant Reformation and what is happening in the Islamic world now shouldn’t be pushed too far. The introduction of the printing press was delayed by several centuries in the Islamic world because of religious resistance and never had the same effect there as it did in the Christian West, which should strongly indicate that although technology is important, it isn’t everything. Culture matters. Islam does not have quite the same centralized hierarchy as the Catholic Church had in Europe, which means that the change cannot be linked to a specific date as it did with Martin Luther’s 95 theses. Although it did ultimately have consequences far beyond the borders of Europe, and although it did happen at a time of Ottoman Muslim expansion in the Mediterranean, the Reformation was primarily an internal, Christian and European affair. The turmoil in he Islamic world now affects more or less the entire world, and many of the critics are based in rival civilizations. And last, but not least: The religions are entirely different. Christianity was reformable, whereas Islam probably isn’t.
Does this mean that the current information revolution will destroy Islam? That is the view of David Wood:Islam Beheaded
The truth about Muhammad has been one of the world's best-kept secrets. For centuries, it has been virtually impossible to raise objections about the character of Muhammad in Muslim countries, for anyone who raised such objections would (following the example set by Muhammad himself) immediately be killed. Outside the Muslim world, there has been little interest in Islam. But things have changed. Now many people are interested in Islam, and Muslims aren't able to silence everyone. Moreover, with the advent of the Internet, it is now impossible to keep Muhammad's life a secret. The facts about the founder of Islam are spreading very rapidly, and Muslims are frantically scurrying to defend their faith. But the information superhighway is paving over the ignorance that has for centuries been the stronghold of Islamic dogma. In the end, Islam will fall, for the entire structure is built upon the belief that Muhammad was the greatest moral example in history, and this belief is demonstrably false.This optimistic view ignores several important facts. Many of the worst Islamists have above average education, as did many supporters of Communism in the West. Which shows that, unfortunately, increased knowledge does not always translate into increased wisdom. The second catch is that Muslims do not view the world in the same way as Westerners of infidels do. In his book The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, renowned cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi explains how Islam has restricted the authority to legislate the haram and the halal (forbidden and permitted), taking it out of the hands of human beings and reserving it for the Allah alone through explicit verses of the Qur'an and from clear ahadith of the Prophet Muhammad. The jurists' task does not go beyond explaining what Allah has decreed to be halal or haram. Prohibiting something which is halal is similar to committing shirk (idolatry).
According to traditional Islamic law, and confirmed by leading scholars today, it is perfectly allowed for a Muslim man to have forced sex with the infidel concubines he just captured by massacring their relatives in front of their eyes. Muhammad himself did this several times. You just shouldn’t wear a silk tie while doing it. Likewise, it is perfectly permissible, halal, to behead a Buddhist schoolteacher in southern Thailand, but haraam to wear a gold ring at the same time. This thinking is why slavery was eventually abandoned and forbidden by the Judeo-Christian West, where the emphasis is on what’s moral or immoral, but only banned through external pressure by the same West in the Islamic world, where the emphasis is on what’s permitted or forbidden. It also explains why Qaradawi himself is reputed to be married to a girl in her pre-teens, 60 years his junior. He is perfectly aware of the fact that Muhammad had sex with a 9-year-old child, and has confirmed, in Arabic, but not in English, that this is allowed even today. To say that “Muhammad was immoral” just won’t wash with a truly devout Muslim, who is trapped in a circular thinking where the very concept of “morality” begins and ends with the example of Muhammad, his Sunna.
The website Islam Q&A gives an explanation of why it is forbidden for Muslim men to wear silk in this life, but permitted in Paradise, just as the case is with wine, which is also forbidden on Earth but exists in abundance in the afterlife. Islam is adept at taking something away from its Believers, but promising lots of it to them after death. Again, it doesn’t matter to a true Believer whether this makes any sense. Islam means “submission,” so you should simply submit to the wisdom of Allah:
Why are men not allowed to wear silk?
It is not right to make following a command or prohibition dependent upon knowing the wisdom behind it; rather we should hasten to carry out the commands of sharee’ah, regardless of whether the wisdom behind it is clear to us or not. If it is clear, then praise be to Allaah, and if it is not, then the Muslim should not let the fact that he does not know it prevent him from acting in accordance with the ruling of sharee’ah. Islam means submission to Allaah, may He be exalted, and obeying Him. If a person makes his actions dependent on understanding matters which may or may not convince him, he is in effect following his own thoughts and desires, not his Lord and Master. (….) (silk) was basically created for women, as is the case with gold jewellery, so it was forbidden for men because it can corrupt them by making them resemble women. (…) when it touches the body, it makes a man effeminate and goes against his masculinity and manliness, so if he wears it his heart gains the characteristics of femininity and softness. There is no doubt that wearing silk will diminish manly characteristics(…) Whoever is too dense to understand this should just submit to the Wise Lawmaker.”
Yes, the Internet is important in this struggle, but it is at least as important for informing non-Muslims about the true nature of Islam as enlightening Muslims, many of whom will be mentally immune to criticism of Islam. Some of them, however, can be reached. There are approximately one billion nominal Muslims in the world. How many of these are secret ex-Muslims? Ibn Warraq has estimated that 10- 15% of the Muslims in the UK are actually apostates. If that percentage reflects the Islamic world as a whole, we are talking about a number of people the equivalent of a country the size of Japan. Even half of this is a country the size of Britain. Although only a (fast-growing) minority of Muslims around the world have access to the Internet, simple mathematics indicate that there are already hundreds of thousands, probably millions or maybe even tens of millions of ex-Muslims in cyberspace. This, as well as additional tens of millions of Muslims who already have at least some doubts, is the soft underbelly of Islam.
We’re now stuck in a race against time, and Muslims know it. That’s why they are working so hard to shut down freedom of speech and any “mockery” or rational criticism targeting Islam in infidel countries. Will Muslims bomb away freedom of speech in the West before we detonate this unexploded bomb underneath Islam’s feet? Every time they hit us with a terrorist attack, we should respond by increasing the volume of criticism of Islam in circulation on the Internet. Some would claim that this isn’t our fight. It is now. Ernest Renan has said that if there ever was something like a Reformation in the Islamic world, the West should gracefully stay out of it. However, he lived in the 19th century and could not have imagined that we would be stupid enough to let millions of Muslims settle in our major cities. We are implicated now, whether we want to or not. We are no longer just fighting against Islam but for our own freedom of speech, and thus democracy itself. Maybe we cannot slay this dragon, but we can certainly help the people who can.
Muhammad and his thugs went to great lengths already in the early days of Islam to shut up critics. The punishment for leaving Islam is death, a fact which has largely kept organized groups of ex-Muslims from forming. Until now. With a significant Muslim presence in the West, we see elements of such groups forming for the first time in history. Secret ex-Muslims around the world are quietly watching these developments. Some are stepping forward.
Dr. Wafa Sultan was a largely unknown Syrian-American psychiatrist living outside Los Angeles until she blasted Islam on Aljazeera. TV is a powerful medium, and has a stronger immediate impact than the Internet. However, many ex-Muslims will probably prefer to hide on the Internet rather than showing their face in front of millions of Muslims, many of whom think they deserve to die. It takes the extraordinary courage of someone like Wafa Sultan to do so, and it takes a TV station to air these views in the first place. For these reasons, this movement may best be nurtured and spearheaded through the Internet, the way Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq are doing now, and let the ripples spread to other media.
I have earlier stated that Islam is a “dinosaur in the age of mammals.” I believe this is true. However, it is still a big and bad beast, even more dangerous and angry now precisely because it is wounded. We cannot allow such a creature to roam the streets where our children are growing up. We need to cage it, and hope that rational criticism, which its immune system cannot in the long run withstand, will slowly wear it down. This is a world war, and the best thing we can hope for is a prolonged “cold” war, with many minor clashes but no huge, cataclysmic hot war. This will require a global containment of the Islamic world, the expulsion of any Muslims in the West deemed to be a security threat and strong support to the movement of ex-Muslims. All of these steps will have to be implemented soon, or we will have no other options left but a full-scale war, with massive casualties. We will probably win such a war if it comes to it, but the death toll will exceed that of any other war in human history, and leave scars for generations to come. Time is growing short. Are we up to the job?
Posted by Robert at March 30, 2006 3:24 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Concerning the immorality of Mohammed, I think we have got it all wrong. We shouldn't be arguing with Muslims in order to prove that Mohammed was immoral insofar as we are assuming that they think he was moral. I think the true situation is that Muslims know Mohammed was immoral and -- they like that. They revel in Mohammed's immorality. Mohammed's immorality makes them feel proud and strong. This mentality and psychology is similar to gang members who feel energized and inspired by the truculence and crimes of their leader.
Similarly with Islam being a "religion of peace and tolerance". Muslims know that Islam is not in fact a religion of peace and tolerance, but a religion of constant war and intolerance to anything that strays from a rigid dogma... and -- they like that. They revel in Islam's warrior nature and iron fist. It makes them feel proud and strong.
When, however, Muslims regularly make claims that Mohammed was moral and that Islam is peace and tolerance, they are simply putting on a mask to deceive us, because they have surmised that Infidels have these stupid & weak notions of morality, fairness, decency, and freedom.
Therefore, the primary focus of our counter-arguments about Mohammed and Islam should not be to exhort or dialogue or intellectually debate -- it should be merely to expose their deceit. I believe that with this adjusted focus in mind, the tactics of our polemics on the war-of-ideas front will be better served and more efficient.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 30, 2006 4:00 PM
Correction: Islam DEFINITELY isn't reformable!!!
You can 'probably' take that to the bank.
at March 30, 2006 5:19 PM
Didn't know about Qaradawi's alleged marital status. I do hope the British press shows interest in this the next time he visits London.
Posted by: Effractor at March 30, 2006 5:24 PM
So I guess we can tell the "good" muslims from the "bad" muslims.
The good ones wear silk and gold jewelry.
The men!! Not the women. One can't tell with them.
Posted by: freewoman at March 30, 2006 5:43 PM
Remember this story:
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/009391.php
The young man, Mr. Ragheh, who is being recruited as a would-be suicide bomber clearly recognizes the beheading of Nick Berg as a sin. I think that is a rather important observation. Presumably, Mr. Ragheh must already have been close to the world view of the militant Islamists but he was still capable of recognizing right and wrong.
I am naíve enough to believe that
1) Muslims are human beings too,
2) right and wrong is something written in human
hearts, not in books,
3) it takes a lot of effort for people who choose
evil to keep their consciences in check.
If that is true, then Muslims will also realize that wrongful acts are wrong - even if they were carried out by their prophet. A true prophet (if there ever were any) cannot define what is right and wrong, only remind us.
There are plenty of bad things in Islamic tradition, and when Muslims are confronted with them they will have to choose. They can either pretend that the bad things aren't there, or that they really aren't bad, or that Islam has (at least to a significant extent) been shaped by mere mortal humans. The first two possibilities won't stand up to exposure in the long run, whereas the third will open the door to change.
It may take a few generations yet, but eventually Islam will change or perish.
at March 30, 2006 5:53 PM
The lack of a "central authority" in Islam makes it a perfect hydra.
All that needs to be asked of this faith by any non-Muslim attending one of the endless "conferences"/ "interfaith dialogues"/ etc.:
Aren't you aiming at utter global domination by your religion?
Whatever else is pasted over this intolerant core ("compassion"; "no compulsion in religion"; etc.), isn't the central dogma of Islam to control the world under Sharia Law?
Nothing further needs be discussed once this is admitted by Muslim spokemen.
Because no one in the free world is willing to go back to the Dark Ages of Endless Religion Wars.
And this is all that Islam promises.
"Holy" war until the Earth is a subdued, submissive religious prison camp. With conqueror Mohammedans in the guardtowers.
Period.
Stated plainly, there is no attraction to- or sympathy for- Islam.
Not once its real motives are known.
It becomes one more joylesss, mindless totalitarianism threatening our survival.
Islam's apologists need to say plainly what they want, ultimately.
It ain't freedom.
The more people hear this from the lips of the front men for Islamic Imperialists, the less p.c. nonsense about Islam will be tolerated by Western audiences.
That Muslims claim they want to get to this religious terror state peacefully will be the first bit of bogus argumentation to be laughed out of history.
Who cares how you want us imprisoned.
That you want us there is all that matters to us.
Posted by: profitsbeard at March 30, 2006 6:05 PM
Muslims have put themselves in a bad position by silencing criticism in their "home" countries. Islamic apologetics is pretty weak and their criticisms of other Religions, namely Christianity is at about the level of sophistication of Jehovah's Witnesses, who are, because of the Internet incidentally declining. Other religious groups, because of competition in a pluralist society, have had to learn to cope and answer the criticisms of rival traditions as well as the worldview of the Enlightenment. Islam is fairly weak on that score. Since 9/11 Christian apologists have begun to take up the mantle and writer numerous, popular but widely distributed books critical of Islam. Atheists and Skeptics have begun this as well.
Perhaps it is it time to stop putting forth the Passover Plots and the DaVinci Codes every Easter and Christmass and start writing up stories showing that the Koran has been changed by some late archaeological discovery just "coincidentally" during Ramadan.
As C.S. Lewis wrote in his Screwtape Letters, one thing the devil does well is to get humans to worry about those things that they have least to fear while ignoring the greatest threats.
Posted by: American_Palamite at March 30, 2006 8:24 PM
There is so much that is RIGHT about this article that it is difficult to know where to begin. It could inspire a 100+-post thread but lately the jihad is getting so darned "hot" that the threads are getting buried in cyberspace before they can be properly digested by the slow posters among us.
I am quite familiar with the Wood article that Bruno cites because I posted it here several times. A critical point Bruno makes, which was made in the original Wood article is the essential "circularity" of Muslim reasoning, whereby infidel attempts to critique Islam by pointing out the patently obvious immorality of Muhammad himself fall upon deaf ears where Muslims are concerned because the idea that Muhammad is "perfect" is already assumed to be a given in this essentially circular equation.
Wood said:
“These details about Muhammad raise a very important question: What does a prophet have to do before Muslims will be willing to question whether he is truly the greatest moral example in history? Normally, when we say that someone is a moral person, we mean that he doesn't commit acts such as robbery and murder. Yet Muhammad did all these things and much more. It appears, then, that Muslims are using the term "moral" in a very unique way. In this uniquely Muslim sense of the term, the word "moral" is defined as "whatever Muhammad does." Thus, if Muhammad were to chop off the heads of hundreds of people (which he did), this act would still be defined as a moral act, since Muhammad did it, and anything Muhammad does is, by definition, moral.”
Bruno acknowledges the same when he writes, “To say that “Muhammad was immoral” just won’t wash with a truly devout Muslim, who is trapped in a circular thinking where the very concept of “morality” begins and ends with the example of Muhammad, his Sunna.”
Given this frustrating fact, I think Bruno is making an excellent point in emphasizing that a good deal of the battle ahead lies in educating other INFIDELS about the threat of Islam:
“Yes, the Internet is important in this struggle, but it is at least as important for informing non-Muslims about the true nature of Islam as enlightening Muslims, many of whom will be mentally immune to criticism of Islam….We’re now stuck in a race against time, and Muslims know it. Every time they hit us with a terrorist attack, we should respond by increasing the volume of criticism of Islam in circulation on the Internet.”
Which basically means that all of us need to just keep on trucking!
I also find Television's post above very interesting in the light of this obvious ‘circularity of Muslim reasoning problem.’ Television appears to be trying to “think outside the box” of the usual western way of seeing things.
Television: “ I think the true situation is that Muslims know Mohammed was immoral and -- they like that. They revel in Mohammed's immorality. Mohammed's immorality makes them feel proud and strong….Therefore, the primary focus of our counter-arguments about Mohammed and Islam should not be to exhort or dialogue or intellectually debate -- it should be merely to expose their deceit. I believe that with this adjusted focus in mind, the tactics of our polemics on the war-of-ideas front will be better served and more efficient.”
Good post TV - definitely food for thought...
at March 30, 2006 9:11 PM
Bruno quoted from Islam Q&A:
Islam Q&A:...If a person makes his actions dependent on understanding matters which may or may not convince him, he is in effect following his own thoughts and desires, not his Lord and Master...
So apparently one's "own thoughts" are not supposed to lead one. What role does that leave a person in life? Nothing but to be a somnambulist, whose limbs move according to the directives of some unknown hypnotist puppeteer. After all, if I shut down my thoughts, how will I know what I am submitting myself to? If I turn off my mind, what is to stop me submitting not to Islam but to some other cult or to any random con artist who happens along? The above block quote from Islam Q&A is so idiotic it is hard to comprehend. It is so self-contradictory that it tells you to think that you should not think.
How could the Islam Q&A website say nonsense so patent and still believe it? Is it that the writer at the site was raised in a setting where mindless obedience to an authoritarian religious ethos is so thoroughly institutionalized that he himself thinks like a somnambulist puppet, saying only what accords with the whim of a puppet master hidden parasitically inside the puppet? A puppet master who cares nothing for the inviolable integrity of each individual soul, but only for a domination so thorough that each soul can be manipulated like a marionette? Have terror and brutality so broken the IslamQ&A writer's spirit that he now enthusiastically assimilates himself into that which destroyed him? Without ever putting the thought to himself in clear consciousness, something less than half-articulate in him must dream that identifying himself with Islam's aggressive core will help him recover a sense of the self-mastery Islam brutalized out of him. (Shades of Freud's "identification with the aggressor.") But that dimly dreamed strategy, if it were indeed operative, would only deepen enslavement to the aggressor, and be just another part of the aggressor's plan.
Is not the Muslim Arabian culture often bizarrely self-alienated and somnambulist? Islam in certain respects is so fundamentally weak that the potential for apostasy in an open setting is huge.
Bruno is brilliant.
Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at March 30, 2006 10:10 PM
islamquest: "If I turn off my mind, what is to stop me submitting not to Islam but to some other cult or to any random con artist who happens along?"
Nothing. Enough said...
Posted by: Caroline at March 30, 2006 10:36 PM
Keeping the average Muslim ingnorant is power. Power to the rulers and clerics. How many Muslims truly knew what the cartoon riots were about. This was organized and controlled by the clerics to demonstate their power. The west does not have to attack them, or call them names, all we need to do is tell the truth, and often.
Posted by: DeadRecknoning at March 30, 2006 10:51 PM
"Muslims know that Islam is not in fact a religion of peace and tolerance, but a religion of constant war and intolerance to anything that strays from a rigid dogma... and -- they like that."
Television, you're right. I've long been thinking that interviewers should get some of the most outspoken radical muslim leaders on air/TV and give them friendly, encouraging interviews, not hinting at any negative judgement, and dropping the nasty facts into the conversation quite casually, as if we too accept them.
Get someone who can pretend to be a gushing twit but is really steel hard underneath to do it. With a charming smile...
For instance: "Tell us about Aisha, she sounds like an interesting person. When she started living with Muhammad she was 9 years old, and she must have really looked up to Muhammad."
"The respected example of Aisha is, of course, a good reason for 9 years to be the marriagable age for girls in Iran. Tell us why even young girls like that can make wonderful wives."
"Islam is an important and respected political force in many countries, so that leaving the religion could quite fairly be seen as a form of treason I suppose?"
Etc.
at March 30, 2006 11:15 PM
And "realistically, Europe will be islamic within a few decades. A lot of people look forward to that time, when we can all be part of the grand caliphate and live under sharia law. What are you doing to prepare Europe for that time?"
Aaahh, I can't stop, I'd love to do this interview....
Posted by: Lili at March 30, 2006 11:19 PM
Lili: "I've long been thinking that interviewers should get some of the most outspoken radical muslim leaders on air/TV and give them friendly, encouraging interviews, not hinting at any negative judgement, and dropping the nasty facts into the conversation quite casually, as if we too accept them. Get someone who can pretend to be a gushing twit but is really steel hard underneath to do it. With a charming smile...For instance: "Tell us about Aisha, she sounds like an interesting person."
Oh yeah. I like the way you think Lili. "Counter-taqiyya-psy-ops" or something like that..:-)
Posted by: Caroline at March 30, 2006 11:44 PM
While the comment that Islam is a "dinosaur in the age of mammals "does seem quite apt I would like to suggest another way of looking at Islam: Islam is a mass psychosis transmitted by the Koran!!
While this may seem quite a glib and shallow statement, I wish to see if it can be justified at all.
What is a psychosis? In simple terms: state of mind marked by a refusal or inability to determine reality from nonreality. So we see delusions, hallucinations, paranoia, easily provoked violence, intolerance, obsessive behaviour marked by compulsion and absolutely no morality as the normal person knows it, and only a dynamic ethical system whereby whatever is done can be justified only by its control of possible threats to the belief system.
I have often “boggled’ over the way Muslims become violent over trivia as even the most rabid and fanatical Christians seem to have quite a high threshold before succumbing to violence. I see their view of the cartoon as paranoid and hypersensitive, I see their belief system as often totally irrational and I see paranoia stalking most of their comments about nonMuslims. In short I cannot understand Muslims who continue to not only hold such ridiculous beliefs, but who constantly obey their demands.
I have struggled with the “moderate” Muslim concept and have now reached the conclusion that the only real “moderate” Muslim is the crypto-apostate and that there are NO others.
What is the point of this? Well once you see it as a mass psychosis you see just how pointless is discussion and diplomacy and just how the only effective control is enforced direct physical control. You cannot treat them as normal human beings with similar standards to the rest of humanity as they are NOT. Working from this direction it is pointless to discuss the Koran or the crimes/foibles of Muhammad. He is only the primary infectious agent and the Koran the vector. You have to treat the condition. I won’t suggest ways and means of doing this here but it is not hard to imagine ways and means.
at March 30, 2006 11:45 PM
Regarding Television's point:
This is a small part of the mental gymnastics. Jihadists, and Muslims in general, have this victim complex that excuses their actions. They have created a wall of plausible deniability regarding the source of their violence. Really it is only plausible to the ignorant, but it convinces plenty of infidels as well as almost all Muslims. This is why so many Muslims will condemn terrorism everywhere but Israel. The victim complex and the wellspring of justification is so strong on this issue that whatever morality they have acquired by dint of their humanity, and perhaps some Meccan Suras, it is unable to constrain their baser impulses.
No doubt there are Muslims who feel like Television has described. I do believe this is the "tiny minority of extremists". Of course, people are complex, and Muslims' motivations for their views and actions differ, but there are greater or lesser amounts of the various motivations in each person. The best way to handle this problem of certain Muslims reveling in the evil of their prophet is to throw it in the faces of everyone else. Plenty of them are sick of it anyway, but they are in a state of denial.
This IS going to be a difficult fight, to undo the damage of Muhammad. There are many fronts, most of them in the realm of ideas. Hot wars only serve the enemy's interest and should be avoided where possible.
Quijybo
Posted by: Quijybo at March 31, 2006 12:14 AM
Yes Lili, that would be a good tactic. Another trick the interviewer could slip in would be comments like: "We all know that the early Americans committed atrocities against the Native Americans [or fill in the blank of any other number of Western crimes], so how can we judge what Mohammed had to do, eh?" Such tricks could help loosen their guard and get them to drop their mask.
Caroline wrote: "if Muhammad were to chop off the heads of hundreds of people (which he did), this act would still be defined as a moral act, since Muhammad did it, and anything Muhammad does is, by definition, moral."
I agree that this circular logic is a strong factor in Islam, but I think focusing on it too much can distract us from the other important factor I mentioned; namely, that (good) Muslims like violence -- both as a way to vent their frustrations and hatred, and as a way to triumphalistically lord it over inferiors who, by being abused, makes the Muslims' superiority more concrete and redbloodedly real. I.e., what's ultimately important for the Muslim is not that Mohammed was good, but that he was good at being bad.
Posted by: Television at March 31, 2006 12:20 AM
Brilliant, as always, Mr Bruno!
Like most evils, Jihad, daw'wa and dihimmitude must be fought with the truth, in a way that the average man can understand. The truth about Mohammed as the perfect man and model for the world in the 21st century, is a hoax cloaked by smoke and mirrors, shielded from the light of reason.
To defeat this enemy we must simply tell the truth, persistently and doggedly with facts and ridicule, with books and cartoons.
The only thing stopping us is courage and the sprite to face down the thugs and apologists. I think the internet is the best tool for this.
But what we need most is solidarity!
The one thing that impressed me most about Bat Yeor's seminal book "The Decline of Eastern Christianity" was how Islam played on the divisions of the many different Christian and Jewish communities, growing in strength from infighting and insularity. If at any moment they could have seen themselves as equal victims and doomed peoples, solidarity and unity could have saved their futures,
Today the whole world is doomed us less they resist and stand together in solidarity.
Jihadwatch and the many ant-Jihad websites, especially in Europe will save the day by exposing the voices of the victims as well as their common will to resist.
If you live in France, things maybe troubled, dark times are ahead, but bother you are not alone, this American has your back.
If you live In Australia and feel you struggle alone, let me tell you the truth about your fight to stop sharia from expanding, are know among many around the world,
During the riots I felt your fight was mine.
For the Danes who were the first to stand up to this monster, flash a mirror to it's face and strike a blow with wit, mere cartoons and brave sophistication. You have won the admiration of the world. We should all be Danes.
To Christians, Jews, Buddhists, agnostics and gays, when any of you suffer assaults from Islamic bullies, I suffer with you and urge you all to unite!
To the Muslims of the world the day you accept equal rights for the world's other faiths and turn out those who hate the infidel and cleanse your holy books, this will be the day we will have true peace. We do not have the power to free you from religious bigotry, but we do have the power to resist and win, In your defeat may come freedom.
Knowing the truth about Islam will set us all free.
at March 31, 2006 12:23 AM
"If you live in France, things maybe troubled, dark times are ahead, but bother you are not alone, this American has your back."
If only they faced the facts. Just today a friend who lives in a Paris banlieu full of immigrants assured me everything is fine, and the mainly African immigrants at her local university are not interested in islam. I want to believe her, of course, and she is right there after all - but could it be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees?
Posted by: Lili at March 31, 2006 12:31 AM
Lili wrote:
"Get someone who can pretend to be a gushing twit but is really steel hard underneath to do it. With a charming smile...
For instance: "Tell us about Aisha, she sounds like an interesting person. When she started living with Muhammad she was 9 years old, and she must have really looked up to Muhammad."
Ha!
Sounds like something right up Ali G's alley, if he has the guts for it. It's too bad his stint at HBO has none of the bite of his UK TV shows.
Posted by: Vincent Wong at March 31, 2006 1:11 AM
Will the Internet Slay Islam?
Haha, this is the kind of question a believer in secular humanity might ask.
No, the internet alone will not slay Islam IMO.
If the world was serious about defeating Islam, it could be accomplished fairly easily...with a combination of massed firepower, deportation of all Muslims, total isolation of Islam, demolition of all mosques in the west and the truth about Islam in all forms of media.
After all, Islam has absolutely no industrial base to support any kind of war.
Islam is actually totally dependant on secular western sympathy and secular western traitors selling out to not only all those petrodollars but to an ideology that is even more anti-Christian than themselves.
Secular westerners can identify with Islam.
The world is getting what it wants, the logical extension to secularism and anti-Christian values.
Islam is the ultimate form of secular nihilism...
This brain eating monster is coming to a country near you ;)
Anyone else ever noticed how all those Islamic anti-cartoon marches photographs resembled the lineup of the cast from "Evil Dead".
No, the Islamic monster will be slain when God has used it to chastise the world, IMO.
It WILL be slain and it will be slain completely(sorry Hugh, IMO you are wrong about that one).
at March 31, 2006 3:12 AM
Quijybo:
The best way to handle this problem of certain Muslims reveling in the evil of their prophet is to throw it in the faces of everyone else. Plenty of them are sick of it anyway, but they are in a state of denial.
While I agree about the necessity for educative efforts on the internet and elsewhere, I can't help but be more sceptical than you. And I'm also inclined to think that Caroline is spot on in highlighting which audience they will be most effective for: “Yes, the Internet is important in this struggle, but it is at least as important for informing non-Muslims about the true nature of Islam".
Rational analysis has its place, but many of Socrates' interlocutors simply go away angry.
It's interesting that your statement, uses the language of psychoanalysis. How effective a treatment has that been? Not very - which is why psychiatrists have been moving towards other methods, drugs, cognitive-behavioural therapy, etc. People can spend years looking to gain rational insight into their problems by means of rational discourse - which putting the rather dubious theorizing on one side is what "the talking cure" basically is - without its having much success in changing their behaviour. It's another reminder that talk only goes so far.
I thought it was telling that Wafa Sultan, when interviewed, said that the real turning point for her had been a traumatic experience - when a much-loved professor had been gunned down in front of her eyes. And even after that it took many experiences before some of the attitudes she'd had inculcated in her from an early age began to break down. She told of running from a shoe shop in bare feet when the assistant mentioned in conversation that he was Jewish.
I say this not to disparage educative efforts, which are noble and worthwhile, but to suggest that there are limits to their effectiveness.
at March 31, 2006 4:17 AM
Islam demands and gets the respect it does from the leaders of non-Muslim nations because it is classed as a religion. But it is not a religion. True religion embodies spiritual and moral concerns. Islam's focus is wholly temporal: conquest, territorial acquisitio and domination. The nonsense about paradise and virgin lovelies is the stuff of adolescent fantasy.
The cry needs to go up among Infidels everywhere that Islam is not a religion. Keep repeating it till the message hits home.
Islam is not a religion.
Posted by: Effractor at March 31, 2006 7:14 AM
All this easy to access info on Islam, plus the testimonies of many former Muslims, may not roll back Islam, but it is a great source of innoculation for preventing its spread. And it must be maddening for Islamic preachers to be countered by non-Muslims who can quote the unholy scriptures. I guess that's my favorite part.
Posted by: justsayno2islam at March 31, 2006 12:17 PM
"Secular westerners can identify with Islam."
Not this secular westerner! Let's not alienate any potential ally: that includes any person who believes in human rights.
Posted by: Lili at March 31, 2006 5:04 PM
Hey Folks:
I just did a google count, "islam" got 160 million hits, while "christ" got 163 million hits.
In addition, I've noticed an almost obsessive focus on Islam and its texts by some commenters on this site.
You might wish to take note of the Yogic principle of SAMRAMBHA, which observes that one becomes what one constantly contemplates, even if that focus is charged with hate.
Diversity of thought is important, and you can also find ways to apply alternate teachings to the problems you wish to address. If you feel this is the case for you, please remember to preserve and propogate the ideas of your own religious and cultural texts. You may also wish to sample philosophies propounded by Aristotle, Lao Tzu, or perhaps part of the Vedas.
Posted by: jehana at April 1, 2006 11:52 AM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)