Another point made by some is that Islam as a religion advocates violence against non-believers whom it calls “infidels.” That’s also true. The Quran does urge violence against infidels. But so does the Old Testament, which urges violence by Hebrews against non-Hebrews.
The Old Testament is descriptive. The violence of the ancient Hebrews against non-Hebrews is not a guide for Jews today. It’s understood as history. Jews are not meeting secretly in synagogues and plotting against others, or listening to sermons about killing non-Jews; Jews are not engaging in thousands of terrorist attacks because of some passages in the Old Testament. The Qur’an is valid for all time, and is prescriptive, not descriptive. An uncreated and immutable document, the Qur’an tells Muslims today how to behave — this is what you must do — just as it did 1,400 years ago.
Implicitly acknowledging that there’s been violence in Judaism and Christianity, some of those commenters observed that they have largely put their violence behind them while Islam seems not to have.
Well, yes and no. The fact that well over 99.9% of Muslims are peaceful people suggests that Islam, too, has largely put its violence behind it.
Where does Seaton arrive at the “fact” that “well over 99.9% of Muslims are peaceful people”? It’s not a “fact,” but a figure he plucked from the air. He simply calls this figure of 99.9% a “fact” and expects you to take it as a “fact,” too. He offers not a shred of supporting evidence. How is his “fact” more justified than my “fact” — which I merely suspect to be true — that “well over two-thirds of Muslims support the idea of violent Jihad”? Is it a “fact” or an “opinion” that “it is reasonable to assume all those Muslims who take the Qur’an seriously support the idea of making war against the Unbelievers?” Isn’t the burden of proof on those who want us to believe that Muslims reject those many violent verses in the Qur’an, given that they’ve been carrying out what those verses command for 1,400 years? Beaton seems not to consider the possibility that some Muslims are “peaceful” only because they believe the time is not yet right to engage in open warfare with the Infidels, or think they can accomplish their Jihadist aims through other means than qitaal (combat), or are intent on increasing their numbers, and solidifying their positions, in the Western world, before taking on the Unbelievers? Aren’t these all plausible?
Furthermore, violence and even terrorism are not exactly extinct in Christianity — witness the violent terrorism against civilians in Northern Ireland within my lifetime between two sects of Christianity.
Here Beaton engages, as an advocate for Islam, in tu quoque: Christians too engage in violent terrorism. But he offers the only example, unique in every respect, of Christians engaged amongst themselves in “violence and even terrorism.” He ignores the huge differences between this Christian violence and that of Muslims. First, the Troubles in Northern Ireland were limited in time, to the 30 years between 1968 and 1998, when a settlement was reached, and in space, to Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The Jihad against Unbelievers is unlimited in both time — it’s been going on for 1,400 years and will continue as long as Islam itself perdures — and in space, for the Jihad is not limited to any one place, but must go on until the whole world is dominated by Islam, and Muslims rule, everywhere. Furthermore, those Protestants and Catholics engaged in violence in Northern Ireland did not find any justification for their violence in the Bible. By contrast, those engaged in Jihad find their violence not merely justified, but commanded, by the Qur’an.
And in India, it’s Muslims who are typically the victims of religious violence, perpetrated mainly by the majority Hindus.
If Beaton knew something about the history of India, he might first have conceded that there is a grim background to what religious violence there now is against Muslims by Hindus (which, in any case, is not more frequent or deadly than are Muslim attacks on Hindus). First, there is historical memory: the Hindus are well aware that tens of millions of Hindus were murdered by Muslims during several hundred years of Mughal rule. They also know that tens of thousands of Hindu temples and temple complexes were destroyed by Muslims all over India. Second, ever since Partition in 1947, Hindus have been mistreated in both Pakistan (formerly West Pakistan) and Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan); their percentages of the population decreased in both states, while the Muslim share of the population in India has steadily increased. Third, in recent years, Muslims, both Indian citizens and from Pakistan, have engaged in a series of terrorist attacks against Hindus, in Mumbai, in Hyderabad, in Delhi, in New Delhi, in Varanasi (several times), in Kolkata (Calcutta). Fourth, there were the massacres in 1971 of three million people in the newly-declared Bangladesh, by the army of Pakistan; the majority of those killed were Hindus, that is, at least 1.5 million. Fifth, there have been mass killings of the Kashmiri pandits by local Muslims, which caused 300,000 Hindu pandits (Brahmins) to flee Kashmir for India.
Large-scale Hindu attacks on Muslims in India occur every few years; there have been six major incidents of Hindu violence against Muslims since 1964; the last significant one was in 2002, in Gujarat; after Muslims set fire to a train carrying Hindu pilgrims, Hindus went on a rampage of murderous retaliation. But the total loss of life in these episodes of communal violence in India do not exceed 20,000, from 1954 until today. Keep in mind the more than 1.5 million Hindus killed in Bangladesh — and the millions of Hindus who, to stay alive, fled to West Bengal. Those numbers offer some perspective on Beaton’s claim that “Muslims…are typically the victims of religious violence.” The violence is on both sides, and many more Hindus than Muslims have been victims. Muslim terrorists from Pakistan have repeatedly struck inside India; no Hindu terrorists from India have ever struck in either Pakistan or Bangladesh.
Ecosse1314 says
The violence in Northern Ireland as Mr Fitzgerald correctly points out is not enntirely about religion.
Neither side wished to convert the other. Also should be pointed out that many of the senior fighters for Irish freedom were in fact protestant. Notably Wolfe Tone and Charles Stuart Parnell. Admittedly they were anglo-irish as opposed to the Scottish presbyterians of the north.
mortimer says
Glenn K. Beaton has raised a number of false equivalencies. Terrorism in Northern Ireland is political in nature and not founded in any sacred text. Contrariwise, Islamic terrorism is ‘decreed’ by Allah in the Koran and commanded by the founder of Islam in the hadiths.
Glenn K. Beaton’s argument is thus fallacious.
Islam cannot be supported by a moral argument, because Allah is opportunistic and whimsical. There is no moral argument to support genocide.
The moral argument against Islam raised above is that since the Koran is ‘perfect’ and ‘eternal’, that rules out reform in Islam. The decrees to slaughter disbelievers are ‘eternal’ and still as operative today as in the time of Mohammed.
A terrorist is someone who doesn’t trust voters to choose their own future.
jayell says
Surely the interminable ‘Irish problem’ eventually boils down to the ancient political rivalry between the scottish tribes who settled in the north and the tribes in the south. The Catholic/Protestant angle is merely a manifestation of tribal identity and a deplorable abuse of Christianity. You get something vaguely similar between the two rival Glasgow football clubs and (in a somewhat different context) the ‘Church’ and ‘Chapel’ brigades in Yorkshire, but in neither case has this has this resulted in civil warfare!
Ecosse1314 says
Not yet. Though the Scottish independence debate has opened a divide in Scotland that is developing into a chasm.
mortimer says
The chasm in Islam between the believers (Muslims) and the disbelievers (kafirs) is much worse.
Muslims are commissioned by Allah in the Koran to make eternal warfare against the dirty kufaar. Allah will then torture the kufaar sadistically for eternity.
CRUSADER says
Is this a chasm within Scot society which Muslims can somehow take advantage of?
James Hilborn says
The Northern Ireland war had its roots in Cromwell’s settlement of English Protestants in Northern Ireland. While the conflict was about English v. Irish; it was also Catholic against Protestant. Whatever the driving force, churches and worshippers were harmed.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
The so-called Troubles were primarily caused by discrimination against Catholics in the north perpetrated by Protestants, who were brought in from Scotland long ago by the English to supervise the place. In addition to very real discrimination, there was (and to some extent still is) the desire to reunite Ulster with the other provinces.
Westman says
The original “troubles” of Ireland were largely about independence from England while the coincidental alignment of religious factions was mainly geographical. Northern Ireland remains in today’s UK while the Republic of Ireland is independent of the UK and will remain in the EU.
As an interesting aside, while visiting both countries in the 1990s, I found that the ROI was very open to accepting NI money while shopkeepers in NI were downright nasty about or refused to accept Irish money.
Today, trouble is brewing again due to possible Brexit and a New IRA developing as the pro-independence faction of Northern Ireland has been reproducing faster than the pro-UK populaton. The Republic Of Ireland is in the EU, so a real Brexit will create another “hard border” between the two countries and perhaps fuel new attempts to unify the two Irelands within the EU. A new set of “troubles” may be startiing.
jayell says
Islamic apologists will always drag up the violent passages in the Old Testament to justify their defence of islam in the West in the face of so-called ‘islamophobia’, An Al Jazeera interviewer tried that on in a TV interview with Tommy Robinson, and I believe that’s what a UK (probably muslim) Home Office official did when refusing asylum to a middle-eastern Christian refugee on the laughably contrived grounds that ‘Christianity is a violent religion’. The facts that (a) gratuitous violence does not permeate the Old Testament to anything like the same extent as it does the Qu’ran and (b) Christianity is in any case based on the demonstrably non-violent teachings of Jesus Christ as reported in the New Testament, apparently does not seem to occur to those of an islamic persuasion (who, of course, have a strangely distorted view of the concepts of ‘honesty’ and ‘intellectual inegrity’ – hardly surprising when their idea of ‘the perfect man’ was a perverted illiterate criminal).
CRUSADER says
Mohamhead was the most obvious false prophet in history and a monstrous misguider of how to live life. He created a culture for every radicalizer’s dream.
David Wood lists the reasons why Muslims take Mohamhead’s commands seriously.
Religion of Islam has something to do with it.
“Sri Lanka Suicide Bomber Was Radicalized in Great Britain and Australia”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OomIp8kzNSw
Dan says
Crusader,
I owe you a big time apology.
I thought you were being sarcastic in response to my comment in part one of this piece, siding with Muslims.
I should have read other posts of yours, before opening my big fat mouth.
Michael Copeland says
The world population of muslims is said to be 1.6 billion, that is sixteen hundred million.
Beaton sweepingly declares (as a “fact” with no citations), “that well over 99.9% of Muslims are peaceful people”
That leaves 0.1 per cent who are not peaceful people – 1.6 million.
Nothing to worry about there, evidently.
mortimer says
Responding to the fact that most Muslims are ‘peaceful’ … that is a fact, since since the number of actual jihadists is small. However, 15% of Muslims support the jihadists, while 85% do not.
This argument though based on fact is false, since it assumes that Muslims are the arbiters of Islamic teaching. They are not. Islam has a class of elite scholars who decide all decisions in Islam like a combination of supreme court and cabinet which pass decrees.
Ordinary Muslims have no right to say what is valid or not in Islam, thought they in fact, ignore over 60% of what is in Sharia law. Muslims who do not practice ALL of Sharia law are called ‘hypocrites’.
Most Muslims are NOT following Islam strictly. They cannot be said to represent ‘real Islam’.
Less than 1% of Muslims are actual MILITANT jihadists. However, the rest of Muslims are VERBAL jihadists when they LIE, DISSEMBLE and CLOAK the truth about the mission, motive and methods of Islamic supremacism.
All Muslims support jihad against the disbelievers in some way.
James Lincoln says
mortimer, you stated correctly:
“Most Muslims are NOT following Islam strictly.” And that’s great.
The issue is, Muslims are not static in their devotion to Islam. Some get the idea that they need to be a “better” Muslim, which to them means taking a more literal approach to the Koran, i.e., bad for the infidels.
Of course, some leave Islam and become apostates. And unless they are “closet” apostates, their life could be in danger depending upon how sharia compliant their host country is.
CRUSADER says
Islam appears to be in flux as it tries to handle modernity and the influence of Western culture. Many Muslims are looking for ways to remain culturally and familial “Muslim” but be part of the “multicultural pluralism” taking shape….
However, the traditionalists have strong sway, and there is help in all of this from the Left and the globalist cabal.
We live in interesting times.
Dan says
About ten years ago, I lived in Wilmington, North Carolina for about half a year.
One of the local news stations gave the results of a poll, conducted only among Muslims living in America, and 1 out of 4 had the gall to say, if they knew of terrorist plot, they wouldn’t report it.
Taking taqiyya into account, how many of the other 75% were lying when they said they would report a terrorist plot.
This “Only 0.1% are dangerous” argument is ludicrous.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Dan.
Michael Copeland says
Beaton exposes his own lack of knowledge.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
And in India, it’s Muslims who are typically the victims of religious violence, perpetrated mainly by the majority Hindus.
Fake history in all its awesome scope, like a glorious landscape painted by Albert Bierstadt, with towering mountains and sweeping clouds. Towering falsehoods and unaccounted for facts, cloudy reasoning.
This Beaton guy paints quite a picture.
CRUSADER says
Aw! What a way to ruin a nice Bierstadt image !
His grand painting of “Mount Corcoran” will now never quite be viewed with the same majesty.
Oh! The joy of painting!
Particularly good was Mohamhead himself, as a focal point of art:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7PpE15yh58
gravenimage says
True, APF.
CRUSADER says
He must be smoking that legalized pot up high in the Rockies. The distortion has gone from his head to his keyboard.
Seaton/Beaton really lacks fundamental knowledge about Jihad. Somebody please send him Spencer’s newest book, please!
(That’s a good idea, you know…. Will someone do that?)
Why does Beaton matter much anyway, though?
Aside from the fact that he has left a trail from Marxism to becoming a conservative…
He’s hardly a Christopher Hitchens, as an influencer or as a mighty student of history/philosophy.
He comes to poorly thought-through conclusions.
Nor does he seem to be very good with his words, anyway.
Aside from his residing in the same state (Colorado) that had a big influence on Sayyid Qutb — what is Beaton’s relevance to the rest of the USA in terms of thought-forming?
If he is a free-thinker, I’m a monkey’s uncle….
——————————————————————————————————-
Meanwhile, there is this from FPM on Jihadi Johnny and his release to Ireland….
(LOVE the part about “NO APOLOGY”….)
”
According to his father Frank Lindh, a wealthy corporate lawyer, “John loves America.”
With no apology to Frank, those who love America do not join Islamic jihadist movements and fight against America.
“He was a soldier in the Taliban,” the jihadist’s attorney James Brosnahan helpfully clarified. “He did it for religious reasons. He did it as a Muslim, and history overcame him,” with deadly consequences.
In the uprising during which Lindh was captured, CIA man Johnny Spann was killed. His widow, Gail Spann, told reporters “I do not want him [Lindh] out.” Many relatives of jihad victims feel likewise, but Lindh is still slated for release on May 23. The still-militant “American Taliban,” now 38, plans to head for Ireland, but says he knows “virtually nothing” about the Irish government. For their part, the Irish may wonder what their newly minted citizen is all about.
Just so they know, he’s the guy who left America, became a jihadist, and fought against America. Before that, he was the online critic, influenced by the Nation of Islam…
”
(What plans does Jihad Watch and its contributors have for more fully informing Ireland on this guy?)
Buraq says
Where does Seaton arrive at the “fact” that “well over 99.9% of Muslims are peaceful people”?
The clown Seaton makes the same unsupported assumption that so-o-o-o many of the fascist-left make: that a peaceful Muslim today will remain a peaceful Muslim for the rest of his/her life. Weren’t the Sri Lanka murderers peaceful Muslims until the moment they set off their backpacks loaded with explosives?
And how many 1,000s of exceptions to the rule will there be until types like Seaton start to question the veracity of the so-called rule?
Clown!
CRUSADER says
Some say Seaton
Others say Beaton
Let’s call the whole thing off….
James Lincoln says
Another great feature article by Hugh Fitzgerald.
Articles like this belong in the mainstream media. Since that is unlikely to happen, Jihad Watch should start an advertising campaign in order to encourage the average person to check out their website.
Any clear thinking person using evidence-based logic – who takes the time to read all feature articles published on the website within the last 12 months – will get up to speed quickly. A greater depth of knowledge can follow.
An interested person does not need to know every last fine detail about Islam in order to come to the conclusion that it is VERY bad and a DIRECT threat to the free world, to say the least.
CRUSADER says
“Daddy’s back!”
Rumors of his death have been far exaggerated….
Forget Beaton.
Al-Baghdadi raised his grizzled head ….
https://www.foxnews.com/world/isis-leader-al-baghdadi-pictured-for-first-time-since-2014
Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been pictured in a new video for the first time since July 2014.
In the video — released by ISIS’s propaganda arm al-Furqan and obtained by SITE Intelligence Group – Baghdadi reportedly claims that his followers died fighting to the end in territories and cities that have been routed by U.S.-backed coalition forces.
He also claims that the Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka were retaliation for ISIS being defeated in their Baghouz, their last stronghold in Syria, and refers to the recent oustings of leaders in Algeria and Sudan, meaning that the video must have been shot within the last week.
Rumors of Baghdadi’s death have persisted in recent months as ISIS militants who have surrendered to the forces believed their ideological leader abandoned their cause. Prior to Monday’s developments, Baghdadi’s most recent call to arms was in a series of audio clips released in August 2018.
“Hopefully we will reach him very soon, especially now that ISIS has been defeated in its final place in Baghouz, Syria and they have lost all their land in Iraq,” Sabah al Namaan, a spokesperson for Iraq’s counterterrorism agency, told Fox News earlier this month. “Now, we have a real opportunity to catch or kill him.
WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE (preferably the latter, so he can be EXECUTED!)
CRUSADER says
“Big-Daddy” sure looks sharp sporting that new Columbia fishing jacket….
Brand model is called “The Caliph”.
Purchase your very own at Hell Is For Martyrs.
On sale soon, more widely at outlets near you.
gravenimage says
Thanks for that ugly link, CRUSADER.
Since he had not been proclaimed a “Martyr”, I assumed he was probably still lurking around.
FYI says
“But so does the Old Testament”
Here’s one for the islamic apologists..
The koran does NOT conform to God’s official laws revealed in the Torah
{neither to the 2 chief laws nor the Exodus 20 laws which condemn murder,adultery etc:the koran teaches quite the opposite in fact}
Torah preaches Obedience to God’s laws{10+2 chief laws}
Gospel preaches Obedience to God’s laws{10+2 chief} and a Doctrine of LOVE
versus
koran preaches Disobedience to God’s Exodus 20 laws and the 2 chief laws are missing{the 2nd one contradicted by k5:51}and islam has a Doctrine of HATE{Al walaa wal baraa}
Law#1The Ist Chief{the Great}Commandment
“Israel remember this!..Love the Lord your God with all your heart,with all your soul and with all your strength.
Never forget these commands that I am giving you today.TEACH THEM TO YOUR CHILDREN.”
Deuteronomy 6 v 4-5 of OT
So Love God and teach your children to LOVE.
What do they teach muslim children in those madrassahs?HATE
what does the koran teach?Violations of God’s Exodus 20 laws..which is disobedience to God and also negates the whole point of Moses,the Torah and the Commandments.
No Golden Rule,no “love thy neighbor” in islam or the koran!
But that is a LAW of God revealed in the Torah and confirmed in the Gospel yet Al Ilah,the muslim god doesn’t subscribe to it.
{The koran teaches it is OK to murder infidels k2:191,use women as sex slaves[even if married..Adultery!}k 4:24,k33:50,steal from infidels k48:20 etc :the koran should be titled “how to get away with breaking God’s laws and be rewarded for your evil by Al Ilah”}
allah gives PERMISSION to violate God’s laws,the ones revealed in the Bible!
Al iLah,”the BEST of deceivers”k3:54 is NOT the Biblical God but a pagan Arab god.
Law#2 The 2nd Chief Commandment
“Do not bear a grudge against anyone but settle your differences with him ,so that you will not commit a sin because of him.Do not take revenge on anyone or continue to hate him but LOVE your neighbor as you love yourself.I am the Lord” Leviticus 19:18 of OT
“Do for others what you want them to do for you:this is the MEANING of the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets”
Matthew 7 v 12
The MEANING of the Law is lost on al-Ilah…
“The WHOLE LAW of Moses and the prophets DEPEND on these 2 laws”
Matthew 22 v 40
Note that the koran COMPLETELY MISSED the supreme laws of God and preaches the OPPOSITE to the
2nd Chief commandment in k5:51
“Oh ye who believe! take not the Jews and Christians for friends.They are friends to one another” k5:51
The classification of humanity into “muslims” and “non-muslim infidels” by the koran also violates the 2nd chief law of God.
Chand says
Indian Muslims face violence of another kind. That of discrimination in jobs and housing, lack of opportunities and severe poverty in some places.
An Indian govt committee submitted a report pointing these out some years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachar_Committee
Recently they have been subject to random mob attacks on the accusations of cow slaughter and beef consumption, often times based on false rumours.
gravenimage says
Muslim apologist Chand–as always–want us to ignore the Jihad against the ‘filthy Infidels’, in India and everywhere else.
Eric Jones says
Islam is a political system masquerading as a religion.
Eric
CRUSADER says
And so we must defeat it as such.
American Pie says
Agree 100%. Islam is a malignant expression of human behavior. Subjugation is the reward for passive acceptance of their behavior while extreme violence is the rule when they meet any resistance.