Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Islam - see them for what they are
#1
Islam—Facts or Dreams?
Imprimus • February 2016 • Volume 45, Number 2 • Andrew C. McCarthy

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 24, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

Quote:In 1993 I was a seasoned federal prosecutor, but I only knew as much about Islam as the average American with a reasonably good education—which is to say, not much. Consequently, when I was assigned to lead the prosecution of a terrorist cell that had bombed the World Trade Center and was plotting an even more devastating strike—simultaneous attacks on the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the United Nations complex on the East River, and the FBI’s lower Manhattan headquarters—I had no trouble believing what our government was saying: that we should read nothing into the fact that all the men in this terrorist cell were Muslims; that their actions were not representative of any religion or belief system; and that to the extent they were explaining their atrocities by citing Islamic scripture, they were twisting and perverting one of the world’s great religions, a religion that encourages peace.

Unlike commentators and government press secretaries, I had to examine these claims. Prosecutors don’t get to base their cases on assertions. They have to prove things to commonsense Americans who must be satisfied about not only what happened but why it happened before they will convict people of serious crimes. And in examining the claims, I found them false.

One of the first things I learned concerned the leader of the terror cell, Omar Abdel Rahman, infamously known as the Blind Sheikh. Our government was portraying him as a wanton killer who was lying about Islam by preaching that it summoned Muslims to jihad or holy war. Far from a lunatic, however, he turned out to be a globally renowned scholar—a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence who graduated from al-Azhar University in Cairo, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning for over a millennium. His area of academic expertise was sharia—Islamic law.

I immediately began to wonder why American officials from President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno on down, officials who had no background in Muslim doctrine and culture, believed they knew more about Islam than the Blind Sheikh. Then something else dawned on me: the Blind Sheikh was not only blind; he was beset by several other medical handicaps. That seemed relevant. After all, terrorism is hard work. Here was a man incapable of doing anything that would be useful to a terrorist organization—he couldn’t build a bomb, hijack a plane, or carry out an assassination. Yet he was the unquestioned leader of the terror cell. Was this because there was more to his interpretation of Islamic doctrine than our government was conceding?

Defendants do not have to testify at criminal trials, but they have a right to testify if they choose to—so I had to prepare for the possibility. Raised an Irish Catholic in the Bronx, I was not foolish enough to believe I could win an argument over Muslim theology with a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence. But I did think that if what we were saying as a government was true—that he was perverting Islam—then there must be two or three places where I could nail him by saying, “You told your followers X, but the doctrine clearly says Y.” So my colleagues and I pored over the Blind Sheikh’s many writings. And what we found was alarming: whenever he quoted the Koran or other sources of Islamic scripture, he quoted them accurately.

Now, you might be able to argue that he took scripture out of context or gave an incomplete account of it. In my subsequent years of studying Islam, I’ve learned that this is not a particularly persuasive argument. But even if one concedes for the purposes of discussion that it’s a colorable claim, the inconvenient fact remains: Abdel Rahman was not lying about Islam.

When he said Allah enjoined all Muslims to wage jihad until Islamic law was established throughout the world, the scriptures backed him up.

When he said Islam directed Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as their friends, the scriptures backed him up.

You could counter that there are other ways of construing the scriptures. You could contend that these exhortations to violence and hatred should be “contextualized”—i.e., that they were only meant for their time and place in the seventh century. Again, I would caution that there are compelling arguments against this manner of interpreting Islamic scripture. The point, however, is that what you’d be arguing is an interpretation.

The fact that there are multiple ways of construing Islam hardly makes the Blind Sheikh’s literal construction wrong. The blunt fact of the matter is that, in this contest of competing interpretations, it is the jihadists who seem to be making sense because they have the words of scripture on their side—it is the others who seem to be dancing on the head of a pin. For our present purposes, however, the fact is that the Blind Sheikh’s summons to jihad was rooted in a coherent interpretation of Islamic doctrine. He was not perverting Islam—he was, if anything, shining a light on the need to reform it.

Another point, obvious but inconvenient, is that Islam is not a religion of peace. There are ways of interpreting Islam that could make it something other than a call to war. But even these benign constructions do not make it a call to peace. Verses such as “Fight those who believe not in Allah,” and “Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war,” are not peaceful injunctions, no matter how one contextualizes.

Another disturbing aspect of the trial against the Blind Sheikh and his fellow jihadists was the character witnesses who testified for the defense. Most of these people were moderate, peaceful Muslim Americans who would no more commit terrorist acts than the rest of us. But when questions about Islamic doctrine would come up—“What does jihad mean?” “What is sharia?” “How might sharia apply to a certain situation?”—these moderate, peaceful Muslims explained that they were not competent to say. In other words, for the answers, you’d have to turn to Islamic scholars like the Blind Sheikh.

Now, understand: there was no doubt what the Blind Sheikh was on trial for. And there was no doubt that he was a terrorist—after all, he bragged about it. But that did not disqualify him, in the minds of these moderate, peaceful Muslims, from rendering authoritative opinions on the meaning of the core tenets of their religion. No one was saying that they would follow the Blind Sheikh into terrorism—but no one was discrediting his status either.

Although this came as a revelation to me, it should not have. After all, it is not as if Western civilization had no experience dealing with Islamic supremacism—what today we call “Islamist” ideology, the belief that sharia must govern society. Winston Churchill, for one, had encountered it as a young man serving in the British army, both in the border region between modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan and in the Sudan—places that are still cauldrons of Islamist terror. Ever the perceptive observer, Churchill wrote:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. . . . Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Habitually, I distinguish between Islam and Muslims. It is objectively important to do so, but I also have a personal reason: when I began working on national security cases, the Muslims I first encountered were not terrorists. To the contrary, they were pro-American patriots who helped us infiltrate terror cells, disrupt mass-murder plots, and gather the evidence needed to convict jihadists. We have an obligation to our national security to understand our enemies; but we also have an obligation to our principles not to convict by association—not to confound our Islamist enemies with our Muslim allies and fellow citizens. Churchill appreciated this distinction. “Individual Moslems,” he stressed, “may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen.” The problem was not the people, he concluded. It was the doctrine.

What about Islamic law? On this topic, it is useful to turn to Robert Jackson, a giant figure in American law and politics—FDR’s attorney general, justice of the Supreme Court, and chief prosecutor of the war crimes trials at Nuremberg. In 1955, Justice Jackson penned the foreword to a book called Law in the Middle East. Unlike today’s government officials, Justice Jackson thought sharia was a subject worthy of close study. And here is what he concluded:

"In any broad sense, Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge—all that most of us at bench or bar will be able to acquire—reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western law."

Contrast this with the constitution that the U.S. government helped write for post-Taliban Afghanistan, which showed no awareness of the opposition of Islamic and Western law. That constitution contains soaring tropes about human rights, yet it makes Islam the state religion and sharia a principal source of law—and under it, Muslim converts to Christianity have been subjected to capital trials for apostasy.

Sharia rejects freedom of speech as much as freedom of religion. It rejects the idea of equal rights between men and women as much as between Muslim and non-Muslim. It brooks no separation between spiritual life and civil society. It is a comprehensive framework for human life, dictating matters of government, economy, and combat, along with personal behavior such as contact between the sexes and personal hygiene. Sharia aims to rule both believers and non-believers, and it affirmatively sanctions jihad in order to do so.

Even if this is not the only construction of Islam, it is absurd to claim—as President Obama did during his recent visit to a mosque in Baltimore—that it is not a mainstream interpretation. In fact, it is the mainstream interpretation in many parts of the world. Last year, Americans were horrified by the beheadings of three Western journalists by ISIS. American and European politicians could not get to microphones fast enough to insist that these decapitations had nothing to do with Islam. Yet within the same time frame, the government of Saudi Arabia beheaded eight people for various violations of sharia—the law that governs Saudi Arabia.

Three weeks before Christmas, a jihadist couple—an American citizen, the son of Pakistani immigrants, and his Pakistani wife who had been welcomed into our country on a fiancée visa—carried out a jihadist attack in San Bernardino, California, killing 14 people. Our government, as with the case in Fort Hood—where a jihadist who had infiltrated the Army killed 13 innocents, mostly fellow soldiers—resisted calling the atrocity a “terrorist attack.” Why? Our investigators are good at what they do, and our top officials may be ideological, but they are not stupid. Why is it that they can’t say two plus two equals four when Islam is involved?

The reason is simple: stubbornly unwilling to deal with the reality of Islam, our leaders have constructed an Islam of their very own. This triumph of willful blindness and political correctness over common sense was best illustrated by former British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith when she described terrorism as “anti-Islamic activity.” In other words, the savagery is not merely unrelated to Islam; it becomes, by dint of its being inconsistent with a “religion of peace,” contrary to Islam. This explains our government’s handwringing over “radicalization”: we are supposed to wonder why young Muslims spontaneously become violent radicals—as if there is no belief system involved.

This is political correctness on steroids, and it has dangerous policy implications. Consider the inability of government officials to call a mass-murder attack by Muslims a terrorist attack unless and until the police uncover evidence proving that the mass murderers have some tie to a designated terrorist group, such as ISIS or al Qaeda. It is rare for such evidence to be uncovered early in an investigation—and as a matter of fact, such evidence often does not exist. Terrorist recruits already share the same ideology as these groups: the goal of imposing sharia. All they need in order to execute terrorist attacks is paramilitary training, which is readily available in more places than just Syria.

The dangerous flipside to our government’s insistence on making up its own version of Islam is that anyone who is publicly associated with Islam must be deemed peaceful. This is how we fall into the trap of allowing the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamic supremacist organization, to infiltrate policy-making organs of the U.S. government, not to mention our schools, our prisons, and other institutions. The federal government, particularly under the Obama administration, acknowledges the Brotherhood as an Islamic organization—notwithstanding the ham-handed attempt by the intelligence community a few years back to rebrand it as “largely secular”—thereby giving it a clean bill of health. This despite the fact that Hamas is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, that the Brotherhood has a long history of terrorist violence, and that major Brotherhood figures have gone on to play leading roles in terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda.

To quote Churchill again: “Facts are better than dreams.” In the real world, we must deal with the facts of Islamic supremacism, because its jihadist legions have every intention of dealing with us. But we can only defeat them if we resolve to see them for what they are.
Reply
#2
There's a lot to discuss here. One thing that the article is accurate on is this, non Muslims that lead our states have constructed their own version of Islam, starting with the pinhead, George Walker Bush.

Having said that, this article treats the sheik as if he's the regular Abdul and he is not.
Reply
#3
After he quotes Justice Robert Jackson, Mr. McCarthy gets to the main truth that Islam and the West are not compatible.

Quote:Contrast this with the constitution that the U.S. government helped write for post-Taliban Afghanistan, which showed no awareness of the opposition of Islamic and Western law. That constitution contains soaring tropes about human rights, yet it makes Islam the state religion and sharia a principal source of law—and under it, Muslim converts to Christianity have been subjected to capital trials for apostasy.

Sharia rejects freedom of speech as much as freedom of religion. It rejects the idea of equal rights between men and women as much as between Muslim and non-Muslim. It brooks no separation between spiritual life and civil society. It is a comprehensive framework for human life, dictating matters of government, economy, and combat, along with personal behavior such as contact between the sexes and personal hygiene. Sharia aims to rule both believers and non-believers, and it affirmatively sanctions jihad in order to do so.

Even if this is not the only construction of Islam, it is absurd to claim—as President Obama did during his recent visit to a mosque in Baltimore—that it is not a mainstream interpretation. In fact, it is the mainstream interpretation in many parts of the world. Last year, Americans were horrified by the beheadings of three Western journalists by ISIS. American and European politicians could not get to microphones fast enough to insist that these decapitations had nothing to do with Islam. Yet within the same time frame, the government of Saudi Arabia beheaded eight people for various violations of sharia—the law that governs Saudi Arabia.

There is simply no way Western civilization can survive the onslaught of Islam, unless it uses Christianity as its armor and shield. It is past time for the West to again pick up the cross and show Muslims that they are beholding to an aberration of authoritarianism and hate.

Christianity, applied rightly will Always defeat Islam. But using war to combat their wanton aggression, will not do the job properly. Muslims must view Christians acting at their best, just as their messiah taught them.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#4
Long term, Islam will collapse, but, that's looking out many centuries.

100 years from now, I suspect the world will look different. No way right now to know where or who will provide the best places to live.
Reply
#5
(03-15-2016, 09:14 PM)John L Wrote: ...Christianity, applied rightly will Always defeat Islam. But using war to combat their wanton aggression, will not do the job properly. Muslims must view Christians acting at their best, just as their messiah taught them.

One thing we know about Islamists is that they only respect strength. Turning the other cheek is a Christian idea that they laugh over.
Reply
#6
(03-16-2016, 08:34 PM)WmLambert Wrote:
(03-15-2016, 09:14 PM)John L Wrote: ...Christianity, applied rightly will Always defeat Islam. But using war to combat their wanton aggression, will not do the job properly. Muslims must view Christians acting at their best, just as their messiah taught them.

One thing we know about Islamists is that they only respect strength. Turning the other cheek is a Christian idea that they laugh over.

So? They're stupid as hell as well. So were the Romans. Don't tell me you haven't a clue either?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#7
There's an example in Afghanistan.

There was a small Christian group from Nashville that went to Afghanistan about 10 years back to serve the women of a small village. That's what Christ wants from His people. That's what He is about.

Anyway, the small group were massacred by some Taliban. How should believers respond? I prayed that God would not allow their Christ like work to have been done in vain. I prayed for the conversion of the people, including the Taliban.

I can't know the answer there, but, my joining the Army and maybe killing some Taliban and probably accidentally some civilians would not cause a moral conversion, but, there's a chance it already has happened among some of those who knew the wonderful servants of the only intrinsically good God.

That's how God works, He appeals to the deepest and best hopes of the human heart. That's how His folks should think, too.

Violence doesn't convert folks and should be used only in extremist situations and for an American Christian, we have to access the reality of what our nation is about, which is to maintain hegemony over the region and that means assisting Sunni jihadists against Shiite jihadists.

So, no thinking Christian should support killing people when we should know we have no desire to shut down Sunni resistance to Shiite hegemony.
Reply
#8
WB (and others) did you know this website?
thereligionofpeace.com

[Image: got-quran.jpg]

List of Islamic Terror:
Last 30 Days

thereligionofpeace.com Wrote:Date | Country | City | Killed | Injured |Description
(already too long to be copy-pasted here...)
Reply
#9
Guess who are in the worse positions for press freedom...
Reply
#10
I would counter the trend here and say it's according to the type of Islam whether or not it is compatible with western culture. We're not exactly saints ourselves guys.

Was Europe in 1500 "the west" yet? If so, I would probably have been tracked down and murdered and I could have lived more safely and reasonably within the Ottoman empire's confines.

Today, we have seen 15 years since 9 11 here and the number of US citizens who have sided with the jihad is less than the number who would have killed w/o Islamic animation. Our Muslims are not like those raised in Arabia obviously or we would have had many thousand of jihadists operating actively here. Many of those caught here were not US citizens.

Saudi Arabia is why the virulent form thrives and the British and then the USA is why Saudi Arabia thrives.

That crowd is who should have been kept out of power in 1920, we would not be holding this discussion, no one here would know what Islam was. Right after 9-11 when we started discussing invading Iraq, my thought was this, "make a deal with Saddam and let him handle those wild eyed neanderthals".

Face reality, the Brits and the USA is why Islam has become this stinking piece of shit version even the Ottomans did not have, they made war on these wahhabi creeps.
Reply
#11
Is there really all that many different kinds of Islam? I've read the Koran, all four major translations, and they all say the same thing.

It is not a religion so much as a political and cultural construct, with severe penalties for violations. How can there be "moderate"
versions when the basic foundational principles are all settled - with disagreement punishable with death?
Reply
#12
Yes of course there is, just like I am 180 degrees opposed to the Christian fundy mentality. Same bible.

What we've seen the last 25 years is nothing but our gas money funding the evangelism of a bunch of neanderthals.
The terror thing has exploded because Britain seated a mindless type of Islam and we've protected it's rule and funded their evangelism.

The Ottomans made war on the wahhabis and so should the UN right now. That is the fuel that has caused 90% of this nonsense.

I will agree with this, IF a Muslim has a violent heart, he can find backing for his desires in the hadiths and Koran. The wahhabi evangelism convinces them they need to be violent men to be true Muslims.
Reply
#13
(04-29-2016, 08:55 PM)Palladin Wrote: Yes of course there is, just like I am 180 degrees opposed to the Christian fundy mentality.   Same bible.

What we've seen the last 25 years is nothing but our gas money funding the evangelism of a bunch of neanderthals.
The terror thing has exploded because Britain seated a mindless type of Islam and we've protected it's rule and funded their evangelism.

The Ottomans made war on the wahhabis and so should the UN right now. That is the fuel that has caused 90% of this nonsense.

I will agree with this, IF a Muslim has a violent heart, he can find backing for his desires in the hadiths and Koran. The wahhabi evangelism convinces them they need to be violent men to be true Muslims.

I will agree that the Wahhabi strain is the crème de la crème of the of barbarism in that autocracy called Islam, the ayatollahs in Iran are not far behind. Its like comparing the major league to Triple A. Both still play some fine ball.

Personally, I want them all gone, and the sooner the better. As you have pointed out before, we already have enough trouble from our side of the isle, without having to deal with them as well.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#14
John,

There is no comparison between Iran's shiite interpetation and Wahhabi Islam. You have to stop seeing everything through the geo political lenses.

Think strictly about their view of Islam.

You as a Jew who worships Christ can legally live in Iran as I can. Of course not as freely as here because it's an entirely eastern culture, but, Jews chose to remain in Iran since Nebuchadnezzar invaded Israel and are still there and so are Christian Iranians, willfully.

We would be executed in Saudi Arabia if we were citizens there. It is unlawful to possess a bible in SA.

They do have commonalities, but, you and I have commonalities with fundy Christians.

Geo politics skews our view, Saudi Arabia is our great ally! Iran our sworn enemy!

SA should not even exist as an independent state, if we had a thimble full of decency the entire world including all other Muslim states unified together in purpose would have divided that land up between various Arab/Iranian states and the wahhabi strain would be the same as it was in 1890, a weirdo nothing beyond a bunch of desert goofs.

I agree, I want the entire religion gone, but, it is not going to happen hating on them anymore than Rome was converted by the Christians hating on pagans.

Gotta love them and pray for them and it is happening.
Reply
#15
Palladin Wrote:Right after 9-11 when we started discussing invading Iraq, my thought was this, "make a deal with Saddam
Right after Saddam made an international TV speach to praise al-Qaida for the justice rendered against Imperialist America?
Sure, that sounds brilliant.

Palladin Wrote:the Brits and the USA is why Islam has become this stinking piece of shit version even the Ottomans did not have
Because in the 1530s, over 80% of the population in Ottoman Europe was not Muslim. link and up to 50% elswhere.
As we said, it's easier for muslim to be moderate when they aren't the majority. But the Ottoman Khalifate was based on the Sharia Law and was there to defend the Muslim Faith. Enough said.

Want to try a 16th C muslim province where christians and jews are less than 20%?

The Ottomans never fought Wahhabi Islam. It's you who says that. The reality is that they were fighting arab and, among them saudi arabs who rebeled against the Sultan.
Their goal was to keep the power, not to fight radical Islam.

hurriyetdailynews.com Wrote:Capital punishment for homicide, arson, stealing a horse, a prisoner of war or a slave and repeated thefts was carried out by hanging, even though the word salb means crucifying, strangling, impalement, decapitation, etc. In some instances blood-money and a fine might be substituted instead. Heyd adds to the list subject to capital punishment “offenses against public order and security, the possession of fire-arms by civilians [in Egypt], serious violations of market regulations, counterfeiting, acts of disobedience against the Sultan and the spreading of calumnies about him, the illegal sale of grain and export of arms to foreign [Christian] countries, etc.” in addition to heresy and apostasy.
link
[Image: n_68371_1.jpg]
Reply
#16
Incidentally Fred, did you see the article from that site that discusses the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire?

Its right here: THE ARAB REVOLT OF WORLD WAR ONE

It will be interesting to see just how impartial Firas Alkhateeb is with his site. Anyway, thanks for the link. S22
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#17
Fred,

These wahabbi creeps were attempting to force their views on the region a long time ago and the Ottoman Army fought them for years. Too bad UK and US power made it reality. Kamil taught me this years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2...ahhabi_War
Reply
#18
JL Wrote:Incidentally Fred, did you see the article from that site that discusses the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire?
I just saw it quickely but didn't take the time to read it.

The problem is that Palladin is convinced that the Ottoman Empire was in a sort of crusade against the excessively radical sect of wahhabism, that their goal was to defend the principles of tolerance and moderate Islam.

Gimme a break: The Ottoman Empire was a Islamic Khalifate, just like the one ISIS wants to resurect, and now Erdogan personaly.

The only difference is that the proportion of non-muslim populations was much larger then, so they had to be more careful with forced convertions and things like that. But the basis of the Ottoman dominated Islamic Khalifate was still Islam, the Sharia Law, the Cult of Mohamad and the Coran.
Reply
#19
Fred,

Not really an accurate view there. I don't believe in moderate Islam, I think there is Islam and you have some types(wahabbis) who major on the harsher things that are in Koran and Hadiths, the vast majority are like the Ottoman's who used violence, but, not as a first option every time and a minority are Progressives(Sufis, Ahmadis).

Go talk to some Spaniards. They do not have hostility to the Ottomans, they respect their era. If they were like the wahabbi nuts, that would not be true. They were way better for Jews than the Christians were in Spain, go ask a Jew. Go talk to some Spaniards first. Talk to some Jews and see who they have most hostility to, Christians or Muslims.

I can save you some time, it is Christians. Go figure Fred.
Reply
#20
Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all just a twist on the same religion. You'd think they would be more upset with Buddhism, Hindi. or Jemima’s Witnesses.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)