Saturday, August 25, 2007

Demolishing the Foundations of Islam

Civilized people are raised from birth with the injunction to never attack another person’s religious faith, but recent abuses by militant “Muslims” have risen to the point where doing this becomes a reasonable and necessary act of self-defense. The problem is not that militant “Muslims” want to pray to Mecca, follow Islamic dietary rules, and so on, but that they want to impose their beliefs and way of life on others. At that point, civilized society has to stop them, even at the price of attacking the foundation of their religion.
« Fold this article up
Before proceeding, however, we will make a clear distinction between militant “Islam,” or Islam Release 1.0, and moderate or peaceful Islam, or Islam Release 2.0. Islam Release 1.0 was created by a violent and self-serving bandit to get his followers to kill and die for him, but it also included concepts like the umma (”community”) that called upon Muslims to treat each other with kindness, respect, and charity. It also opened the door to ethnic and racial tolerance with the concept of the Dar-el-Islam (House of Submission) in which all Muslims are brothers, regardless of ethnicity, race, or tribe. This basic principle is benevolent even if Mohammed’s motive–getting quarrelsome tribes to cooperate so he could conquer his neighbors–was totally selfish and malevolent.
Some Muslims later evolved their religion into a civilized one by separating Mohammed’s good ideas (community, brotherhood) from his self-serving agenda. The result was Islam Release 2.0, or moderate/peaceful Islam. These Muslims are not the problem, and they are in fact often murdered or abused by the followers of Islam Release 1.0. Many of them came to the United States to get away from Islam 1.0, just as many Jews and Christians came here to get away from what passed for Christianity in parts of Europe through the 19th century.
We will say clearly up front that Muslims, like everyone else who has immigrated to our country, are more than welcome to live and let live. That is what America is about: doing what you want, as long as you don’t infringe on the rights of others. Most Muslim-Americans, as followers of Islam 2.0, behave in this manner. On the other hand, anyone who comes to this country to attack its freedoms or impose his way of life on others is our country’s enemy, and he will be treated as an enemy to the extent that our laws allow. These are the enemies about whom we are talking:
(1) In Scotland, militant “Muslims” have gotten a medical organization to ban staff members from eating at their desks during the fast of Ramadan, because this “offends” the Muslims. In contrast, observant Jews do not object to other people eating on Yom Kippur, nor do they force Gentiles to eat matzohs during Passover. Workplaces often offer matzohs during Passover, but they don’t take the leavened bread away for fear of “offending” Jews. Catholics do not demand that non-Catholics desist from eating meat on Fridays, nor do they object to non-Catholics who don’t give up something for Lent. Only militant “Muslims” seem to think they can impose their beliefs and customs on others, and this is what has to come to a screeching halt.
(2) In the United States, “Muslim” taxi drivers have refused to transport blind passengers with seeing-eye dogs. Their excuse is that they consider dogs “unclean,” although a service animal has far more value to a civilized nation than anyone who refuses service to a disabled person. These drivers have also refused to transport passengers who have alcoholic beverages, even though Islam simply prohibits the driver from drinking those beverages. Come to think of it, so do laws against drunk driving.
(3) Muslim Student Associations have made trouble at at least two universities (Penn State and Tufts), where they got complicit college administrators to interfere with the First Amendment rights of other students. At Bucknell University, college administrators stepped in to condemn a conservative student group for using the phrase “hunting terrorists,” and Republicans at another college were called on the carpet for desecrating an Al Qaida flag (because it has Allah’s name on it in Arabic). This also has to come to a screeching halt, with these Muslim Student Associations being denounced forcefully. If their members don’t like it, the United States has no Berlin or other wall to keep people in who don’t want to be here.
(4), to be headed by Keith Ellison–the same individual who compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire, while making a McCarthyite remark to the effect that he wasn’t going to say that the United States perpetrated the atrocity itself. See also New York Islamist Day Parade, By Joe Kaufman and Beila Rabinowitz.
(5) The “flying imams” who frightened a planeload of innocent people by chanting to Allah, behaving as if they might hijack the airplane, and then trying to sue passengers who did exactly what those repetitious announcements at airports tell them to do: report suspicious behavior to authorities.
(6) In Europe, public demonstrations have included slogans like “Europe, you will pay, your 9/11 is on its way” and “Behead those who insult Islam.”
(7) In Europe and Australia, militant “Islamic” rape gangs have called unveiled women “uncovered meat” whom they are free to “take.”
(8) Some American schools are making children role-play Muslims in direct contravention of church-state separation. Schools that would not dare for an instant to make children sing Christmas or Hannukah songs are compelling children to take Islamic names and, according to some reports, even pray toward Mecca.
It stops here, and it stops now. Militant “Islamic” groups have marched through our streets, which they have a First Amendment right to do, while proclaiming that Islam will dominate the United States. We have a First Amendment right, which we will now exercise, to denounce the foundations of their religion as a self-serving scam by a desert bandit whose primary motivation was to enrich himself with money and power. This can be done with a simple statement that can be printed on stickers (we would not recommend a bumper sticker) that can easily be put up in public places:
Jesus died for Christians
Muslims died for Mohammed
Note that this statement passes no judgment on whether Jesus was actually the son of God. Christians can say that Jesus died as a sacrifice for their sins, while Jews can say that Jesus was motivated by a desire to serve his followers instead of himself. Never did Jesus use his teachings to enrich himself at the expense of others, or to lead aggressive wars of conquest. Furthermore, according to John Keegan’s A History of Warfare (and contrary to Tufts University’s Committee on Student Life, which proclaimed that “labeling Islam violent is unacceptable in any way, shape, or form”),
Muhammad, unlike Christ, was a man of violence; he bore arms, was wounded in battle and preached holy war, jihad, against those who defied the will of God, as revealed to him. His successors perceived the world as divided into Dar-al-Islam–the House of Submission, submission to the teachings of Mohammed, as collected in the Koran–and Dar al-Harb, the House of War, which were those parts yet to be conquered.
This is an excellent summary:
(1) Mohammed was a violent man who preached holy wars against those who defied the will of God, as revealed to Mohammed.
(2) His successors divided the world into the House of Submission and the House of War, i.e. the part yet to be conquered. Adolf Hitler was just as explicit when he said, “Germany today, tomorrow the world.”
(3) While Jesus never sought riches for himself, Mohammed was a merchant who knew the value of money. This was yet another motive to create a religion that would help him enrich himself.
Christianity’s Superiority over Islam
It is easy to judge a culture, or even a religion, by its stories, legends, and role models. Which characters appear as heroes, and who is denounced as a villain? The concept of servant leadership permeates Christianity. Jesus is said to have washed his disciples’ feet, thus underscoring the principle that the leader must serve his or her followers. Numerous Christian stories reinforce this idea.
(1) Wanda (pronounced “Vanda”), a legendary Polish queen, drowned herself to save her people from an ambitious German prince who wanted to take over her kingdom by marrying her. Had she fought him, her smaller army would have been destroyed. The story does not explain why he did not invade her kingdom anyway, but perhaps without a female monarch upon whom he could force a marriage, other kings and dukes would not have recognized the legitimacy of his actions.
(2) Henryk Sienkiewicz’s With Fire and Sword describes how Jarema Wisniowiecki, a voyevode or provincial governor, shared the hardships of his soldiers whenever he was at war. When bad weather destroyed a harvest, he suspended the rents of his peasants and even gave them food from his own stores.
(3) Frederick the Great proclaimed that the prince is the first servant of his country.
(4) The following speech was delivered by Queen Elizabeth I when England was in danger of invasion by the Spanish Armada:
We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit our selves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear. I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust.
This principle is not unique to Christianity, because the Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote more than 2500 years ago that the general must not take comforts that are not available to his followers. In China, the Mandate of Heaven refers to the authority a king gains by serving his subjects. A king who serves himself at his subjects’ expense loses the Mandate quickly, along with his people’s loyalty. India’s Kshatriya Dharma (the Right Way of the Warrior) says that a king cannot abandon even a dog, if the dog is his follower.
While Japanese speak of the Way of Lord and Retainer (with a code of mutual obligations), the history of Islam 1.0 is the Way of Master and Slave. Even the Sultan, as the son of a female slave, regards himself as Allah’s slave. It’s possible that some sultans and caliphs took this seriously enough to act as though they held their kingdoms in trust for Allah, but most understood that, for all practical purposes, they were answerable to no one. Janissaries and Mamelukes were military slaves. Keegan’s A History of Warfare reports that, once they completed their military training, Mamelukes were technically free, although not free to choose another occupation or any master but the Sultan!
The Way of Master and Slave is obvious in the recruitment of suicide bombers. The gray-bearded mullahs who tell teenage boys and young men that they will get seventy-two dark-eyed virgins by blowing themselves up did not become gray-bearded mullahs by following their own advice. This practice dates back to the Assassins, or hashish-users. Their leader, the Old Man of the Mountains, got them high on hashish, and then led them to a beautiful garden full of compliant and beautiful women. He told them they were in the Islamic Paradise, and would go there forever if they died while serving him. Today, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad creates phony miracles (his followers say that a green aura surrounds him when he speaks) while claiming to be in contact with the Twelfth Imam. He has made no secret of his plans to start a nuclear war with Israel or even the United States, even if millions of his followers die from the inevitable retaliation.
In summary, then, the concept that leaders exist to serve their followers permeates not only Christianity, but also Hinduism and Asian belief structures. The concept that slaves and followers exist to serve their masters permeates both contemporary and historical Islam 1.0. The latter is so antithetical to the basic principles of organizational behavior that Islam cannot stand for long on such a flimsy foundation. We can, by expanding upon and circulating this information, demolish the foundation of Islam 1.0 to bring it crashing down in any country in which its dictators do not exercise control over what people can read or hear. The recent activities of militant “Muslims” make this a reasonable and necessary act of self-defense on behalf of our countries and freedoms, and we must carry it out aggressively and decisively.

No comments: