“We owe almost all our knowledge not to those who have agreed, but to those who have differed.” — Charles Caleb Colton, 1825
Nothing brings the unpleasant truths of a thing to light as much as the apologetics constructed to conceal them. If it is true that “a crooked tree casts a crooked shadow,” it is therefore also true that it takes a mountain of apologetics to camouflage that same crooked shadow from the inculpation of exposure. If it is true that Islam is today the fastest growing religion, it is therefore also true that “The human being as a commodity is the disease of our age.”*
The British writer V. S. Naipaul has written, “Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands.” It is these “imperial demands” that have caused and are causing so much political and religious upheaval in the Western world, and especially for those countries that have opened wide their doors to Muslim migrants. As Naipaul writes, “The disturbance for societies is immense, and even after a thousand years can remain unresolved…in the Islam of the converted countries there is an element of neurosis and nihilism. These countries can be easily set on the boil.” Any democracy that opens its doors too wide for Muslim migrants must be aware of the fact that patriotic national aspirations and notions are contrary to Islam’s vision of a universal caliphate and as such are anathema to this imperialistic religion that does not suffer alternative horizons gladly.
The Christians have a proverb: “You shall know them by their fruits.” This is a perspicacious proverb,with a far-reaching insight when applied as a perspective for evaluating the salubriousness of religions and religious. Needless to say, the oft-heard boast that Islam is “a religion of peace” is shown to be ridiculously false when subjected to the scrutiny of this maxim. Those who have been diligent in demanding of Islam and its adherents a minimal level of conduct congruous with the behavioral norms of Western societies in general have been unfairly cast as “Islamophobes” and racists for exposing the anti-Jewish and anti-Western rhetoric of certain imams who enjoy the freedoms of democracy while doing so. Islam is a religion primarily based on the excoriation of all other faiths, but especially of Jews and Judaism and Christians and Christianity. But when similar criticisms are directed against Islam and the umma, violence and slander are their predictable responses. Dissent is a very dangerous path to follow in the Islamic world. Just ask Salman Rushdie.
Andrew Wheatcroft writes in Infidels: “There is the third alternative: the Texas Mule Tamer, who ends up killing the mule to get its attention. The policy maker’s fundamental error stems from misunderstanding the nature and capacity of their opponents.” Islam’s approach to gaining converts – or forbidding apostasy – with the threat of death is not the most attractive stratagem for a so-called “religion of peace.” To quote the Quran (9:11-12) and Muhammad in a saying ascribed to him in the Hadith: “Any person, i.e. Muslim, who has changed his religion, kill him” (Al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, p. 45). Which is to say, anyone who converts to Islam and later has second thoughts about his or her decision is immediately thereafter sentenced to an untimely death.
Islam does not countenance dialogue or dissent. I am not talking here about what might be agreeable and circumspect discussion between one imam and another; I am referring here, for example, to any discussion that would challenge the veracity of Islam’s many anti-Jewish claims, the most obvious being the assertion that Islam’s advent has rendered obsolete the divine mission of the Jewish people as being “a light unto the nations”and the redemptive qualities of the Zionism inherent within the nationalistic ideology of Judaism. Discussions about Islam’s imperialistic tendencies are also troublesome for all adherents of a religion whose most famous personalities are prone to blame the so-called “imperialism” and “colonialism” of Western nations for the ever-present internecine, sectarian violence of so many Muslim-majority countries whose citizens, because of Islam’s many cultural pathologies, are deprived of the good life found today only in Western democracies.
The “mission creep” of this religion within the Western hemisphere begins with “anti-Islamophobia” bills and ends with anti-blasphemy laws. The “long-term commitment” of Islam’s apologists and advocates to the religious and political domination of Western democracies is anything but an unplanned and happenstance objective. Those of us who are truly awake in the West know without a doubt (and with much consternation!) that what Muslim politicians promise us from their lectern has never squared with what Muslim imams portend from their pews. Apologists such as Tarek Fatah, the greatest sophist since Paul of Tarsus, have only one intention, and that is to exculpate Islam from the terrorism and antisemitism and antisocial behaviour it has spawned in all corners of the civilized and uncivilized world. They refuse to acknowledge the arguments of those who have always maintained – with ironclad logic – that Islamist terrorism is a problem, yes, but that this same Islamic terrorism could not exist without the malefic passions provoked by Islam’s intolerant and illiberal tenets.
Francis Bacon wrote, “A just fear of imminent danger, though there be no blow given, is a lawful cause of war.” That same “just fear” is much maligned today by almost all Western journalists as “Islamophobia”; they invented the term as a means of silencing all who disagree with the foolhardy notion that Islam as a faith and religious culture is compatible with Western democracy. And blows have been given. 9/11 is a stark proof of this and should have been the clarion call for all of us to be warned of the existence of this propaganda war Islam is now waging against the Western world, but especially against the State of Israel and the Jewish people. But many in the West are still sleeping. We refuse to acknowledge the wisdom and prudence of those whose views and opinions have differed from the mediocrity of the masses who believe we have nothing to fear from Islam’s imperialistic tendencies.
*Max Lerner, 1959
Jen says
“You shall know them by their fruits.” indeed. Good article.
mortimer says
Bacon wrote, “A JUST FEAR of imminent danger, though there be no blow given”.
However, in today’s case many blows are given every day. The tempo of jihad has increased to the point that 4.5 deadly jihad attacks are occurring every day of the year … about 1643 deadly attacks, causing about 3,000 or more jihad deaths every year.
Since Mohammed, 270 million people have been killed by jihad. That works out to about one person killed by jihad EVERY THREE MINUTES since Mohammed.
A FEAR of JIHAD is JUSTIFIED … and we are all reminded of the justification whenever we pass through the screening line at an airport.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
I shake my head when news entertainers on Fox RINO and elsewhere measure the preponderance of terrorism by looking at the trend in the frequency of jihad mass murder attacks. The effect of terror is best measured by the presence and immediacy of potential attacks, the actual attacks are a mere set up for the terror.
And anyway it’s not terrorism. That’s a military tactic. It should be termed Islamic activism.
Darryl Kerney says
since when is islam not militant ?
oh yeah, before the hijra and the beginning of the abrogation of the early peaceful “revelations” to be replaced with jihad in the cause of allah.
hey, i’m starting to “peace” the shredded puzzle together too !
i think i see what you’re point was,
terror is offensive, and INTIMIDATING,
it preys on the imagination of the POTENTIAL victim,
Stalin’s Red Terror used exactly the same basic tools to destroy anything that got in their way.
and Mo himself said that he was successful through terror, as every tyrant before him surely believed.
bar graphs and charts really don’t convey what we’re dealing with here…..
hmm, bacon.
David Pimentel says
Alarmed Pig Farmer,
Agreed … mostly. The description of the problems using pure statistics is insufficient, because the math is cold and disconnected from the reality. Likewise, there is an inherent danger to relabeling Islamic Terrorism with Islamic Activism: those that would be terrorized more easily become inured to the actual threat. Consider the “Czech Girl Scout [who] says she’ll ‘get over it’ if she’s raped by an immigrant” (https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/05/czech-girl-scout-says-shell-get-over-it-if-shes-raped-by-an-immigrant).
I am not proposing that Westerners be filled with terror; rather, we must never become complacent. One’s choice of words is significant in the ideological battles to come, and Islam versus the West is a doozy of a battle.
Hector Archytas says
How do you count the number of people killed by jihad ?
Schrödinger says
From it’s inception, and by an intentional design, the ideology and “belief” system of islam has always been an instrument of Arab imperialism and supremacy. Perhaps the real question is who is the designer.
In additionally proclaiming itself a universalist religion, an in group association anyone may join (at least in principle, though not always in practice), it’s supremacist, exploitative and expansionist imperative, seemingly designed to benefit both the individual as well as their in group tribe at the expense of the out group other, it inescapably compromises it’s raison d’être. It risks attenuating and even foregoing at least some of it’s supposed utility.
As it conquered and spread, islam unsurprisingly developed as a kind of franchise; it functions more harmoniously where there’s minimal tribal and racial diversity within any region or given Dar al islam. This is inevitable as it feeds to such an extent upon not only misogyny, “religious” enmity, discrimination and exploitation more broadly, but upon tribal enmity in particular — despite the pretence to the contrary. Yet this still begs further explanation why.
Lofty notions of multiculturalism, welcoming immigrants, accepting refugees, freedom to travel — of a “borderless world” — this simply cannot operate wherever islam dominates. We see this everywhere in the viciously bigoted, xenophobic, duplicitous muslim world. Immense tensions between a proclaimed ideal of universalism (despite it’s doctrinal discrimination against all women, half the world’s population), and a doctrine and modus operandi that must bear eternal enmity and fear mongering towards “Shirk”, “Fitna”, non muslims and “non belief” in general, hence to in practice always exclude and exploit some “other”, this incurs inevitable and irreconcilable conflict of interest. We often speak of the unfathomable madness of islam — yet even madness has it’s reasons.
Islam rejects the Christian concept whereby an individual’s rights transcend those of the group, of socialist ideals of equality (not entirely achieved in practice), and any liberal democratic Kafir notion of being all born equal and having full equality before the law.
It has instead, quite subconsciously in many ways, been designed and further developed, despite having a certain level of in group coöperation, to be both highly patriarchal and a stratagem to more broadly benefit some at the expense of others. In particular, it serves to benefit the reproductive success of the male muslim — above all, to maximise the inclusive genetic fitness of the male Y chromosome in an arena of intense, eternal competition and conflict (unless we become transhuman, or something).
This can seem an alien and unpalatable concept for many. However in a world, a universe with a nature such that it has, some needs, some truths can override what we are easily prepared to confront. Perhaps we truly are all watched over by machines of loving grace. Made that way because they had to be.
https://vimeo.com/groups/96331/videos/80799353
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX0LQzkaZ2g
Don’t forget to watch all three episodes.
JIMJFOX says
WHAT THE—- is all that supposed to mean? I have no intention of wasting 1.5 hrs watching nonsense.
Charli Main says
Islam and Sharia are the antithesis of multiculturalism, diversity and democracy.
The fundermantal objective of Muslims is to establish one world government (the caliphate). one world religion ( Islam ) and one world judiciary ( Sharia)
As long as there is multiculturalism and diversity in the world ISLAM WILL FAIL.
Darryl Kerney says
wait, our supreme leader justin trudeau says, if you kill your enemies they win,
what the deuce ?
then i guess Mao made the most people WIN ever…….right ?
scherado says
Perhaps, Mr. Trudeau believes in an afterlife. I’m being kind here.
Without that, all corpses rot in an undifferentiated manner.
TassieR says
Yes, and El Supremo of Washington said (explaining his flip-flop on NAFTA) that he likes Trudeau very much. But El Supremo’s words to the Palestinian KGB-protégé Abbas, standing next to him, were no less eloquent: “Let’s see if we can prove them wrong, okay?” (“them” are, obviously, all those politicians of old, whose naïve hopes for the peaceful Arab intentions were shuttered by reality again and again). Even should I hear his “Let’s see if we can prove their 2×2=4 wrong, okay?” I’d probably just smile – as far as the math science excludes methods of proving by Kalashnikovs, machetes or Kassams.
Terry Gain says
You had me until you described Saint Paul as a sophist.
Terry Gain says
Michael Devolin
Your description of Paul of Tarsus (Saint Paul) as a sophist paints you as an idiot. While I agree with everything you say about Islam, your gratuitous attack on Saint Paul destroys you as an ally of Christians who are fighting the Jihad. As a Catholic I have supported the Jewish people since I met so many Jews in Law School nearly 50 years ago.
Israel’s best ally is Christians. You are a fool to attack one of our cherished leaders.