The Truth About Islam
An excerpt from a comment on JihadWatch that disputes, so well, what the multi-cultis are desperate to believe, from Hugh Fitzgerald of DhimmiWatch:
Islam inculcates a view of a world that is divided in two (leaving out the nearly-insignificant, hardly-existing, lands of transient"truce" or Dar al-Sulh), between Dar al-Islam, the lands where Islam dominates and Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, the Land, or Domain, or House, of War, where Islam does not yet dominate, and Muslims do not yet rule. Between the two Houses, between Infidels and Believers, a permanent state of war exists and must exist, until the whole world belongs to Allah and to his people.This is not a fabrication, made up by those who for some unaccountable reason have it in for Islam. This is Islamic doctrine. It is not the less Islamic doctrine if your smiling Muslim co-worker earnestly, with a great show of sincerity, attempts to deny this doctrine or at least professes amazement and puzzlement when you attempt to ask him about it, as if he simply had no idea.
Every single apostate has testified to what Muslims discuss freely, and of which they are certainly well aware, when they think no Infidels are around to overhear. Again and again they stress the well-practiced mendacity of Muslims. Should we disbelieve Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and all the other "defectors" from the Army of Islam? Can't we tell that they are sturdily and bravely telling the truth, in what they speak, and what they write, and can't we see the obvious meretriciousness, not only of the CAIR people, but of those Muslims, in groups or individuals, who attempt to deny that what is in the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira, either exists, or if it exists, that it can possibly mean what of course they know perfectly well that it means -- and some, admittedly, may fail to admit this not out of deep and sinister malevolence, but only out of embarrassment.
But even if it is only out of embarrassment, one has to ask: why do you still call yourself a Muslim, why do you remain loyal to a Total Belief-System that indeed does inculcate such things, even if you, personally, are at leasst indifferent to, and possibly opposed to, the most dangerous and disturbing and worst of what Islam teaches? What is the hold of this on you, why do you insist on not openly telling the truth about it? Why are you yourself not a defector from the Army of Islam? Why do you not even recognize -- this to Pakistanis and Iranians and other non-Arabs -- that at some point in the past, your Hindu or Jain or Buddhist or Zoroastrian ancestors were forcibly, not willingly, converted to Islam because they hoped to avoid the status, to which as non-Muslims was the very best they could hope for, of dhimmi, which meant permanent humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity.
The texts of Islam are immutable. What Islam inculcates remains, to be found, always and forever, in those texts. No matter what selective or bowdlerized version the British or the French or other governments, in government-funded mosques, think they can present and so mold the minds of Muslims to accept a sanitized Islam, the real texts will always be there, always available to the Believers. Large-scale integration of those whose creed is not only alien but also permanently and deeply hostile, to all non-Muslims, simply is not possible for any Infidel nation-state. Those who put their faith in such policies of integration are foolish, building on sand, evading reality. That reality will have to be confronted, and confronted soon, while there is still time, and the steady degradation, and greatly-rising expense, for Infidels, has not yet reached, as it soon will, nightmarish proportions.
Also from Fitzgerald, on his own site, an excerpt from a piece with the information above that also includes the cost of monitoring Muslims in the U.K.:
The cost of monitoring Muslims in the U.K. must now be staggering. The cost includes putting non-Muslim agents -- or paying Muslims who may not always be, and who very often may not be, reliable -- to monitor nearly two million people. The thousands (by now) of mosques, the madrasas, the coffee shops, the curry-shops, the convenience stores, the very monica-ali streets, reeking of Rawalpindi in the midst of John of Gaunt's once-sceptered isle (the scepter being quite different from the decapitatory knives of today), have to be patrolled, not only for the usual crime, but for the Islam-promoted schemes and plots, of which are so many.There are, at the moment, about 2,000 groups or individuals that are apparently being watched. What does that take, in round-the-clock manpower? How many policemen or security agents are left for the task of protecting British citizens from ordinary crimes, when so much time and money must go into the monitoring of Muslims?
...And think what those huge Muslim families -- huger by far than those of the indigenous Infidels, or even of the other, non-Muslim immigrants -- and the burden they place on Infidel taxpayers. Think, for example, of the expense those huge families have caused the National Health Service in Great Britain -- think of the obstetricians, the gynecologists, and of course the translators who so often must be paid. And think of the much higher incidence of serious congenital illnesses among Muslims, because of their insistence on marrying, so often, relatives, illnesses that must be expensively treated. And that rampant and even fanatical endogamy reflects the general mistrust of others that is observable among Muslims, who growing up in a faith full of acts of aggression and deception, helps mold men of similar inclinations or worries.
And the monitoring of Muslims, the agents, the tapping of phones, the huge payments to informants (who may themselves be merely getting on the Infidel payroll, and not really offering anything of value), the enormous costs of securing airports, train and bus stations, planes and railroads and busses, schools, government offices, symbols of authority, churches and synagogues and Hindu temples, the residential dwelling-places of important officials who may have earned a special hostility, and all the rest -- it adds up.
I have heard different calculations for the cost of each Muslim in a non-Muslim land. One person has suggested a figure of $100,000 annually; another has suggested a figure of $250,000 annually. Take your own pencils and paper. Find out what your government spends, in monitoring Muslims and in guarding non-Muslim sites, in giving Muslims health care (used disproportionately) and education (used sparingly, but often the education of fellow non-Muslim students is disrupted by the atmosphere created), and housing, and all the rest.
Go ahead. Figure it out.
Now ask yourself a few questions. Here's one to start with: how many non-Muslims in Great Britain are now routinely being denied procedures that might save their lives -- new but expensive cancer treatments, or open-heart surgery -- because the NHS "doesn't have the money"? And ask why it "doesn't have the money" and how long you think you, or others, should be expected to quietly endure, as you have endured, this situation?
You know a used car salesman is out to make every dime off you that he can, so you are on your guard when dealing with one. You verify everything he says, because you expect to be lied to.
The difference here is that used car salesmen don't want to enslave you. There are a lot of trusting souls around who would rather be thought well of than to give offense, even if it would save their lives.
I am not and will never be one of them.
MarkD at October 22, 2008 10:28 AM
Wait a second ... Islam is not a religion of peace??? Racist! ;)
I used to be friends with a few Muslims until I found out what they really thought of me and how they believed society should be run. Islam, at its very core, is not compatible with either democracy, liberty, or capitalism. I guess we either need to have more kids or find our immigrants elsewhere!
Charles at October 22, 2008 11:25 AM
I used to be friends with a few Muslims until I found out what they really thought of me and how they believed society should be run.
That's very interesting. Can you tell us more?
Amy Alkon at October 22, 2008 11:31 AM
Islam, at its very core, is not compatible with either democracy, liberty, or capitalism.
Neither is Christianity.
A journalist I happen to have met once (mauinews.com/page/blogs.listAll/display/30.html)put it very starkly: the only good Muslim is a bad Muslim.
By that he meant that the only way a Muslim could be a decent member of a Western civilization is to actively ignore (or be wholly ignorant of) great expanses of Islam.
In the same sense, the only good Christian is a bad Christian. The difference is that the major result of the Reformation was to make all Christians bad Christians.
Fortunately for Christianity, and the West, the nature of the Bible made the transition from Biblical literalism possible without destroying the entire edifice.
Hard to see how that is going to happen with Islam.
Hey Skipper at October 22, 2008 11:48 AM
Amy, you clearly didn't get the official memo. Your new Messiah ... I mean "O'President" is going to sing Kumbaya to the fanatical leaders of Islam and will mesmerize them with his transformational brilliance, just like he has so many in the West.
And on the domestic front he's going to take the wealth from those who have it and spread it around to those who don't. Those who've never worked and have no intention to will now receive more every month so they no longer feel quite as jealous toward those who do contribute to society.
You see, within a very short time we will all be one happy world, one happy people.
Robert W. at October 22, 2008 12:37 PM
By the way, I know you're not a big Dennis Prager fan, Amy, but you might appreciate watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPmrUCdIRws
The one consistent type of commenter one gets on YouTube posting something that criticizes radical Islamic behavior is usually from secular atheists (redundant, I know). In their minds, modern day Christianity is "just as bad" as Islam and perhaps even worse. They never have any facts to back this claim up but that never stops them.
I often wonder if such people were raised by Christian parents or perhaps went to Catholic schools and are now railing against their childhoods more than anything else?
A good case in point is the recent murder of Gayle Williams: http://pelalusa.blogspot.com/2008/10/murdered-for-being-christian.html On a BBC World Service blog, more people criticized Christians for speaking out about their faith than criticized the murderous thugs who slaughtered Williams. Such moral equivalency is one of the biggest cancers in our society today.
Robert W. at October 22, 2008 1:31 PM
Hi Amy, I couldn't resist:
This isn't related necessarily to the topic above, but it will shed light on how Muslim scholars dissect through issues and the acceptance of "non-muslims". Sherman Jackson is a PHd in Islamic law, teaches at U of M Ann Arbor...basically, he knows his stuff and I'm sure he is A LOT more knowledgeable than you and the folks at Jihadwatch :)so before dismissing this is he doesn't know "the true Islam," just remember that he has made it his life's career to know the "true Islam." You've gotta understand every aspect of Islam before bashing it.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sherman_jackson/2007/03/on_morality_and_politics.html
This is a difficult question, not because of its substance but because
the moral and political framework within which Islam is forced to
express itself – especially in the modern West – tends to distort its
voice and force it into apology and misrepresentation.
A major feature of this framework is the tendency to assume that
religion, and therefore Islam, invariably aims to translate its every
moral sensibility into laws and policies. On this understanding, if we
know a religion's moral judgments, we can assume that we know its
legal/political ones.
This understanding, however, is not consistent with the perspective of
Traditional – to be distinguished in many ways from Modern – Islam.
Simply put, before its encounter with the vision of the modern nation
state, Islam was pluralistic: neither law nor politics, i.e., the
applied legal order, was a zero-sum game.
One Islamic school held a substance to be unlawful; another held it to
be harmless; neither, however, could bind the other to its view.
Muslims unanimously condemned pork and wine consumption as immoral;
but they did not deny this to Christians or others whose religious
values allowed it.
In short, Islam did not seek to translate its every moral value or
sensibility into a political order consisting of rules to be imposed
on the entire society.
As for the specific issue of homosexuality – and I limit myself here
to homosexual acts not tendencies (adultery, e.g., is only a crime if
it is acted upon, not if it is simply desired) – Islam unanimously
condemned it as a moral abomination, imposing stiff sanctions against
it. Generally speaking, however, these applied only to Muslims.
As for non-Muslims whose religious traditions sanctioned
homosexuality, many jurists, perhaps a majority, would place them
under the general provision that left religious minorities to their
own discretion, at least in the private realm (marriage, divorce,
inheritance, etc.). This is the general position to which I subscribe.
As for gay unions, Islamic law would no more sanction them than it
would homosexual acts. Again, however, this applies to Muslims.
As for non-Muslims, there is, as mentioned, a tradition within Islamic
orthodoxy that leaves them to their own moral order, at least in the
private realm.
In this light, I have serious misgivings about a constitutional
amendment that would ban gay unions across the board, not because I
support or even condone homosexuality but because I believe that
marriage is essentially a religious institution whose definition
should be left to religious communities.
The state should be limited to the role of executor, just as it does
in the case of the bylaws of professional organizations or the terms
of multinational contracts.
In other words, if a religious community (e.g., the Episcopalians)
deems gay unions to be consistent with Christianity, the state should
only act to curtail their religious freedom for a compelling state or
public interest. Otherwise, the political value of religious freedom
should trump the moral perspective of the state. The matter, in other
words, is not one of morality but one of religious freedom in a
pluralistic society.
To be sure, many gays (and others) will deem even this to fall short
of full recognition of homosexuality. They are right, of course.
I would only add that, as a Muslim, I should be no more compelled to
accept their moral vision than they are to accept mine. They do not
accept the prophethood of Muhammad. I should not have to accept the
morality of homosexuality. Nor should it be assumed, on the other
hand, that because I reject homosexuality on moral grounds I reduce a
person's entire worth as a human being to his or her sexual
orientation.
And God knows best.
Jenny at October 25, 2008 7:31 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/22/the_truth_about_3.html#comment-1600084">comment from JennySherman Jackson is a PHd in Islamic law, teaches at U of M Ann Arbor...basically, he knows his stuff and I'm sure he is A LOT more knowledgeable than you and the folks at Jihadwatch :)
I never assume that somebody who has a Ph.D. is more knowledgeable -- in fact, I find that kind of assumption by people reason to suspect that their thinking may, in general be irrational and not rigorous.
Don't have time to read the rest of this now. At a college now, accompanying my boyfriend to an event (but working on my column deadline), and I just heard somebody use the word "discourse." Oh, hurl.
Likewise, I read the studies of Ph.D.'s in anthropology and related fields all the time -- and see full-of-shit conclusions and shoddy methodology. My philosophy: Don't be impressed by titles -- look at the work, the underpinnings of the work, and investigate the person's biases. For example, an elderly friend is going to a doctor who uses guafenesin (Robitussin) in high doses to combat fibromyalgia. First of all, does she have this? Does it, as a disease, really even exist? And is the guy really likely to diagnose her with anything else -- or not diagnose her with fibromyalgia, since this is what he does? He may be right in his use of this drug, and entirely on the level, but these are issues and questions I posed to her and her husband, who happens to be a pediatrician (now retired from private practice, but still volunteering, as he has for 30 years, at the Venice Free Clinic).
Amy Alkon
at October 25, 2008 7:36 AM
Jenny:
What does Islam say Muslims should do to apostates?
Hey Skipper at October 26, 2008 1:41 PM
Leave a comment