Jihad Denial and the tragedy of moderate fascism

Posted by Guest Blogger on Thursday, 10 February 2005 23:49.

Before one can solve a problem one has to know the true facts of the matter. It is striking how such torrents of people write ‘authoritatively’ about Islam when they have not bothered to study the facts about it – such as what, in unvarnished form, the Koran and Hadiths actually say rather than what they are said to say.

Is Holocaust Denial really a crime? If it is, then how much greater a crime is the consistent pretending-away of thirteen centuries of unprovoked, bloody Islamic Jihad? A Jihad which is still continuing around the world, particularly in Indonesia and Sudan but extending to Holland, the US and of course, Madrid.

Islam and Nazism

There are some striking parallels between Islam and Nazism.:

1. Both their founders inspired and personally directed a programme of aggressive, expansionist, military campaigning.
2. Both their founders were preoccupied with making a sharp distinction between (supposedly) worthy and unworthy people, with the lives of the latter considered of no value.
3. Their founders (or Allah Himself) were significantly preoccupied with being nasty to those unworthy people.
4. There was a preoccupation with praising the founder, and avoidance of disrespect to the founder, on pain of death – the “Heil Hitler” salute, the constant appending of (pbuh) (praise be upon him) after Mohammed’s name.
5. The use of symbols to distinguish between the worthy and the unworthy – Jewish stars, Islamic dress and greetings (“assalum aleikam”, as if for some strange reason peacefulness cannot be taken for granted in Islamic circles and has to be constantly reaffirmed - not at all strange really when you consider the violent past and present).
6. Both entailed robust intolerance of criticism, with dissenters killed and their ideas and evidence censored.
7. Both featured quasi-religious aspects (Islam is actually a heresy of Christianity rather than a new religion [1]; Hitler tried to capture the Pope so as to replace Christianity with a new Hitler-religion [2].)

How much more evidence can we really need that Islam is, in its origin at least, no less a form of fascism that Nazism? A number of whopping myths have been propounded about Islam, and stand in the way of a clear analysis. I shall address some of those myths (and suppressed facts) before moving on to the question of solutions. But before that it might be best to deal with the issue of scriptural interpretation.

Koranic interpretation

Whereas most political commentators have never so much as held a copy of the Koran or the Gospels in their hands, there are those who take the trouble to quickly inform themselves by doing a web-search of, say, “gospel sword” or “koran peace”. The conclusions they draw are not even half-baked.

By contrast, those who actually read through those documents will see that whereas the Gospels have a very clear message of non-violence, even of communistic idealism, the (un-modernised) Koran is heavily preoccupied with warfare and with telling people the exact financial and sexual details of how they must live their lives. Those may seem strange preoccupations for a metaphysical creator of the universe but then I can’t pretend to understand everything. Whether being transmitted via a polygamist, military commander and merchant has anything to do with it I will leave you to judge.

But actually, the Koran isn’t quite that simple. The progressive, moderate Muslims tell us that, no actually … Allah’s message can only be understood by those who can read Arabic and who have become qualified experts in Koranic interpretation. Quite why Allah’s book has such difficulty in conveying his message, when all manner of other complex books by mere humans are readily translated across continents and millennia, I also leave to you to judge.

Meanwhile, the moderates tell us that in order to understand the Koran - that is, Allah’s Last Testament - that Last Testament must first be brought up to date, reinterpreted in the light of historical change. And in the process all that nasty intolerant warmongering is air-brushed into a nice, tolerant pacifism. Peculiarly, that “updated” interpretation is not dissimilar to Christ’s message of 600 years before Islam. (It is as though Islam is being unconsciously converted from within into the more powerful religion of Christianity.)

On the internet you can find two moderated English interpretations of the Koran, along with six or more non-updated literal translations. Even to a non-Arabic-reader it is categorically clear which is the more literal – the moderates miss out all the bits, for example, about rights to women captured with one’s sword-arm, or instructing the beating of women who are non-subservient.

I leave the issue of interpretation with two questions. Why does the Koran need ‘updating’ … how, indeed, can it be ‘updated’, given that it is the Last Testament of Allah? And how is anyone to know who is the valid, authorised executor of that updating? (The Christian Gospels need not the slightest updating to accord with a modern understanding of human rights.)

Some myths about Islam

Islam has only become nice and peaceful since it was put on the military defensive. From the outset it had been aggressively militaristic. By leading two campaigns into Syria, Mohammed (pbuh) himself pioneered the concept of ‘pre-emptive defence’ fourteen centuries before George Bush.

Here’s what Allah’s Last Testament has to say on the matter:-

Koran 2:216: “Fighting is prescribed for you”
Koran 48:29: “Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are
merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers.”
Koran 9:5: “Slay the pagans wherever ye find them …”
Koran 9:29: “Fight the unbelievers till they pay the Jizya” (heavy tax on non-Muslims) and are subdued.
“If they accept Islam, desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya … If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them” (Sahih Muslim, book 19, no. 4294).
Koran 4:34: “Men are in charge of women ... good women are obedient
... from those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and scourge them.”
”Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.”

The Koran also decrees it is lawful to have relations with women you capture in warfare:-

Koran 33:50: “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives … and those whom thy right (sword) hand possesses of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.”
Koran 4:24: “Married women are forbidden to you except the captives your sword hand possesses.”

The Koran also decrees it is lawful to have relations with women you capture in warfare:-

Koran 33:50: “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives … and those whom thy right (sword) hand possesses of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.”
Koran 4:24: “Married women are forbidden to you except the captives your sword hand possesses.”

Indeed, Mohammed (pbuh) himself acquainted himself with women on the same day that he killed their husbands and fathers. The Glory of Islamic compassion! And the Koran goes on at glorious length about fighting enemies and victory, indeed chapter (sura) 8 is called “Spoils of War” and chapter 48 is called “Victory”.

The moderates would have us know that jihad does not mean sword-wielding but really only means intellectual, psychological and moral struggle. Or that the jihad can only be of a defensive, non-aggressive nature. But one would hardly be capturing women with one’s sword-hand unless one were engaged in aggressive warfare. Similarly, proof of what Jihad really means is seen in Mohammed’s actual military record, and the subsequent behaviour of so many of his disciples - or contended disciples given that a violent fight for succession broke out on the Prophet’s death (in utter contrast to the pacifistic Christian apostles). For the Prophet (pbuh) was no mere man of words, but a man of actions too:-

“The number of campaigns which he led in person during the last ten years of his life is twenty-seven, in nine of which there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned and sent out under other leaders is thirty-eight.”
(M.M. Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an).

Having converted the whole of Arabia, the Prophet led pre-emptive defences into Syria. After his death the glorious Jihad was continued by his successors and reached Tours in France only a century later in 732, victoriously liberating
Constantinople/Istanbul from its residents in 1453, and nearly liberating Vienna two centuries later.

An estimated 80 millions died when the Jihad reached the Indus valley – the region now called Pakistan. The Urdu (Arabised Hindi) language takes its name from the army camps in which it developed. Hindu Kush means Hindu Slaughter, and the Hindu Kush mountains stand as a truer testament to Islam’s ‘tolerance’ than any line we are being carefully fed today.

Eventually, the glorious jihad was temporarily reversed by the advance of European technology (because fascism stifles intellectual advancement) but now oil riches, the invention of suicide bombers and the West’s naivety about immigration have changed the situation again. We would do well to heed the words of
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda’s man in Iraq. He has declared “fierce war on this evil principle of democracy’ and branded as ‘infidel’ any Iraqi trying to cast a ballot.”

Another myth is that Islam, being six centuries younger than Western civilisation, is only just emerging from its “medieval” period, into a more enlightened stage. This is totally misconceived. Western civilisation only began to form after the Islamic Jihad invasion was repulsed at Tours in France in 732 (probably as a response to that shock). Islam had already passed through a “golden age” long before Europe did. And it has now passed through a process of degeneration, as have other civilisations.

An exceptionally important myth is that the principal issue with Islam is indiscriminate terrorist bombings such as in Madrid. Far more important is the intimidation of free speech exemplified in such murders as that of Theo van Gogh last year, and the pressures to modify our civilisational standards via, for instance, the introduction of Sharia in Canada.

Can Moderate Islam be a solution?

Many hope that by promoting moderate, progressive Islam, the fundamentalist version can be quietly reformed into harmlessness. They hope that if one repeats enough times that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance it will become true through force of repetition. They hope that a deceitful historical revisionism and barefaced Jihad Denial can form the basis of a harmonious future.

Sorry, but lies are lies are lies. That cannot be a basis for a decent future for society. It will not, cannot work .

The fundamental problem is that the position of “moderate Islam” is a stupendous exercise in making pigs fly. The moderates are asking all Muslims, including Al-Qaeda, to accept:-

1. Allah’s LAST Testament needs to be updated.
2. We – that is messers Sardar, Sacranie, Alibhi-Brown et al - know what the correct updating is, and you – messers Bin Laden, Zarqawi, Ayatollah Khatami et al - do not.
3. Allah has a communication problem, so only Arabic readers with special expertise are competent to know what his Last Testament really says.
4. The updating of the Qur’an drastically changes the warmongering, intolerant, perfectly clear original message into one of love, tolerance and women’s rights.
5. All that warmongering started by Mohammed (pbuh) himself and continued down the centuries was just a terrible misunderstanding. Ditto all that hideous stoning to death of women (merely for not being Islamic enough) in 20th century Sharia states.

Thus the position of the moderates is decidedly more intellectually precarious than the position of the fundamentalists. And it is inevitable that many of those brought up in or converted to moderate Islam will discover this for themselves and seek out the authentic Islam instead. Hence, for all its good intentions, moderate Islam thus recruits for the militants.

Every person who calls himself a Muslim, every person who praises Mohammed (pbuh), or prays towards Mecca, or goes on that same Hajj as Al-Qaeda et al, or in any way promotes Islam or the Koran, every such person is at the end of the day INESCAPABLY engaged in the following:-

1. They are praising the memory of a warmonger.
2. They are praising, indeed declaring to be the word of Allah, a book which is no less disturbing than Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
3. They are actively promoting the incitement of religious hatred.

‘Moderate Muslims’ and their apologists are engaged in Jihad Denial. For all its good intentions, ‘Moderate Islam’ is the enemy of peace, tolerance, liberty, democracy and human rights. It is the enemy of [the West and ]the Western tradition of independent-mindedness. It makes life dependent on praising the unpraiseworthy, respecting the unrespectable and believing the patently unbelievable.

On that latter point, besides many points of absurdity already noted above, you should note that the word of Allah as revealed in the Koran is riddled with numerous and spectacularly clear self-contradictions. For instance it tells us that the earth was created before the heavens (2:29) and yet also the heavens were created before the earth (79:27-30). And according to the maths of Koranic inheritance rules 2/3 + 1/3 + 1/8 = 1, and 1/3 + 2/3 + 1/4 = 1 (well, he was a successful businessman) (4:11, 4:12, 4:176). Given that this is his definitive revelation, Allah must indeed move in mysterious ways.

And given that this is the sort of nonsense which people are ‘guided’ into believing, it is no surprise that Islamic culture has remained so severely backward. It has still not produced written music or a single mosque bell - a thousand years after the early Europeans did. It still follows a calendar year that is not a year long - such as that introduced 600 years before Mohammed (pbuh) by Julius Caesar.

Despite this intellectual weakness Islam has survived to this day by force of arms, military borders, internal intimidation and ignorance. Now, with the information age its ultra-fascism could easily be consigned to the history books by the power of the broadcast word. That is why its adherents resort to such desperate, legalistic and/or violent suppression of criticism.

What we must do

We must simply tell the truth about Islam, and challenge those who promote Jihad Denial and the other untruths. The common decency and good sense of the majority of people of all nations or none will then do the rest.

References and notes

Various points briefly documented in this article are much more fully documented in the books by Robert Spencer, who has been studying Islam for more than 20 years, and others by various people who have left Islam.

1. Hilaire Belloc (1936): The great and enduring heresy of Mohammed (multiple websites).
2. CNN report (2005): Hitler ordered Pope kidnapped.

Robin Clark

Tags: Islam & Islamification

Comments:

Posted by Effra on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:30 | #

“Western civilisation only began to form after the Islamic Jihad invasion was repulsed at Tours in France in 732 (probably as a response to that shock).”

So much for the Greeks and Romans, then.

This is by some way the silliest, most unimaginative, most historically ignorant and most hysterical post I have yet read on this site. “Jihad Denial”, forsooth. And they accuse Holocaust revisionists of conspiracy- theorising! Shabbos goyim can have chutzpah too.

I look forward to a quick trot round the chronicle of Europe’s colonisation of other continents, proving that slaughter and exploitation were all the fault of New Testament-inspired missionary zeal.

If there is one thing Majority Rights can do, it is to shoot these tendentious, syncretistic tours d’horizon down relentlessly with the firepower of conservative pragmatism, scepticism and relativism.

Posted by wintermute on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:05 | #

Every person who calls himself a Muslim, every person who praises Mohammed (pbuh), or prays towards Mecca, or goes on that same Hajj as Al-Qaeda et al, or in any way promotes Islam or the Koran, every such person is at the end of the day INESCAPABLY engaged in the following:-

1. They are praising the memory of a warmonger.
2. They are praising, indeed declaring to be the word of Allah, a book which is no less disturbing than Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
3. They are actively promoting the incitement of religious hatred.

In which of these particulars does a person who calls himself a Jew, says “next year in Jerusalem”, keeps a Kosher kitchen, praises Moses (of blessed memory), prays the same Shema as the Stern Gang, looks to the resoration of the Third Temple or a Messianic Age, or in any way promotes Judaism or the Tanakh, differ?

Does he or she not also praise the memory of a warmonger - Moses?

Does he or she not declare the word of G-d a book which promotes similar ideas to Mein Kampf?

Does he or she not actively promote incitement of religious hatred?

I don’t disagree with you - much - regarding Islam, but I want to note for the record that the rotten apple of Mohammadeanism didn’t fall far from the evil Mosaic tree.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:34 | #

Robin: Welcome, but I don’t buy what your selling.

Is there a stratum in Islamic thought that wants the west converted and or colonized? Sure. But these are a people that can’t even make a refrigerator. A people wholly dependent on the West & E. Asia for technology and engineering.

Have you said anything different than what FrontPageMag might broadcast?

This Islamic thing is so simple: 1) Stop immigration, 2) Don’t sell them weapons, 3) Quarantine ourselves from them. Good grief they can’t eat their oil, no matter what faction controls what fields they’ve got to sell it. They can’t even grow enough food to feed themselves.

Islamic history is fratricidal. It is only when they unify against a common enemy, like the Byzantines, is when they are a problem. Otherwise they are as harmless as the Congo to us, but they then kill themselves. Just look at the Shia vs. Sunni violence in Pakistan.

Oh, Al Queda. All those creeps that blew-up the WTC could have been stopped by our immigration system: they used falsified information, and overstayed their visas. But nobody cared.

Also, the War on Terror is nothing more than a fascist power grab (yes I said that word) by the neocons.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:49 | #

I don’t buy the parallels between fascism and Islam. They’re both totalitarian, but I think the relevant similarity ends there. The “Islamofascism” bit is just a boring, hackneyed attempt to buzz-word westerners into hating Islam (a worthy goal).

I think our problems with the Arab world (“Islam” is usually just a proxy for the Arab world in the present context) are summed up in two words: Israel, and oil (in that order).

I don’t know enough about Islam to argue the many points, but I do know that I smell enough B.S. in this post to not care enough to try.

Posted by R Clark on Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:45 | #

-1- Dear Effra, You’re a right one to talk about historical ignorance, especially with that uk address. The most outstanding thing about uk/european archaeology is that after the collapse of the Romans, the archaeological record went completely blank for several centuries apart from the very occasional ditch. That is because of what is known as the Dark Ages, in which anarchic war-bands roamed in the interval between one civilisation and the next.

I suggest you (and others) fill the yawning gaps of your historical ignorance by reading the abridged version of “A Study of History” by Arnold Toynbee.

What relevance does European imperialism have to the moderate Islam problem I described? In what way did it take its inpiration from Christianity? “Peter put away your sword, for those who live by the sword shall die by the sword”? “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”?

-2- Jews. Likewise, what relevance have Jews to the moderate Islam problem? Sure Jews can be cliquey but surely there are at least three *crucial* differences. Firstly the Jews have not shown any significant empire-building tendencies in the past 4000+ years. Secondly, whatever else their very long history book may contain, its injunctions are dominated by the Ten Commandments which say “Thou
shalt not kill” (and not “thou shalt not kill Jews”). Thirdly they do not aspire to impose a universal Caliphate and Judic equivalent of Sharia law.

-3- Geoff—We appear to agree to some extent about the techno-intellectual weakness. But you overlook that while the Islamists lack creativity they make up for it in plagiarising ability. In particular they unashamedly take on board the military tech of the non-Islamics to use against them.

And no less importantly they are currently winning the propaganda-deceit war. Sure there’s been a sharp jerk to reality in Holland following that murder, and lefties Polly Toynbee and Kenan Malik have raised heavily muted semi-protests. But the uk/european media in general are proving totally incapable of telling those truths I have presented above.

Rather than smokescreening the issue with irrrelevant diversions from my thesis, you should face the crucial crunch. Are you part of the speak-no-evil problem or are you part of the tell-it-as-it-is solution? If people tell the truth then Islam is doomed. If people don’t then everything else is. It’s as simple as that.

Roger Clark

Posted by R Clark on Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:59 | #

Svigor—“I don’t know enough about Islam to argue the many points,”.

Sure. You don’t know enough to justify an opinion but you are still happy to propound one. There’s all too much of this proud parading of ignorance in the political/social comment-world.

A little unsolicited advice to you and others who might be inspired by your sloppy example. If you can’t be bothered to research or justify your opinion, don’t waste everyone’s time by parading it in a public forum.

Instead, try rearranging the letters pu tuhs in reverse order!

Roger Clark

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 12 Feb 2005 04:40 | #

its injunctions are dominated by the Ten Commandments which say “Thou
shalt not kill” (and not “thou shalt not kill Jews”)

Actually, you’re a bit off the mark there in your particulars and wholly off the mark on your generality; Judaism is the template for ingroup morality, and in fact the commandment IS “thou shalt not kill Jews” NOT thou shalt not kill.

The Tanakh had no punctuation; there’s quite the case to be made for the “ten” commandments as a single run-on commandment (four really), with the one in question consisting of something like, thou shalt not kill, nor steal from, nor covet the wife of, thy neighbor.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 12 Feb 2005 04:58 | #

Sure. You don’t know enough to justify an opinion but you are still happy to propound one. There’s all too much of this proud parading of ignorance in the political/social comment-world.

Sure, lets get personal: you’re a jackass.

My point was that you peppered your commentary with enough that I know to be spurious to cast doubt on the rest, which I don’t know much about.

Posted by ume on Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:03 | #

Funny how it all comes down to the Jews for the jerks on this board. Their puny, hate-filled minds can’t conceive of any problem outside that supposedly basic one. I’m afraid we are dealing with pathological minds here.

Posted by Effra on Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:06 | #

Roger Clark: “I suggest you (and others) fill the yawning gaps of your historical ignorance by reading the abridged version of “A Study of History” by Arnold Toynbee.”

Long ago I read the complete edition of the old globalist’s syncretistic fantasies, and later I read the many revisionist works which pour cold water on the very idea of the “Dark Ages” in Europe.

As a conservative I see history as being about continuities, not revolutions. The Britons did not revert to woads and skins when the Romans left; by then we were Romanised, well able to integrate an increasing commitment to Christianity into our familiarity with more ancient traditions of western civilisation. There was no sharp break.

“Islam! You’re either with it or against it.”

No, I’m not. Not my game. Not my way of dividing the world. Not my brand of mischievous hysteria.

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:40 | #

Guessedworker:

The comments by Ume and R. Clark reminded me of the melee with ‘Arcane’. Didn’t the Arcane fellow promise a comprehensive rebuttal to Kevin MacDonald’s CofC? If so, have you heard from him?

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:36 | #

It doesn’t all just come down to Jews. What’s funny (and pathological) is how some can single out Islam and the Arab World for opprobrium, but are literally incapable of critiquing or criticizing Jewry in any realistic way.

I think you’ll find that 95% of the Judeo-skeptics here are just as Islamo-skeptic; the funny part is that the reverse isn’t true. It’s okay to drag Islam and Arabs through the mud for the average non-leftist American, but Jews are either off-limits or just off the radar.

I’m interested in questions that everyone is afraid or in denial of (the Jewish question) far more than I am in questions everyone feels free to discuss (Islam as enemy of the west, the sky is blue, water’s wet, etc.).

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:39 | #

Hear-hear! The Dark Ages, as far as my knowledge of current scholarship goes, is something of a misnomer which has fallen out of favor.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:51 | #

The comments by Ume and R. Clark reminded me of the melee with ‘Arcane’. Didn’t the Arcane fellow promise a comprehensive rebuttal to Kevin MacDonald’s CofC? If so, have you heard from him?

Arcane is okay, he just has Jew-blinders on. He’s comfy with a lot of neocon swill and if he comes around, it’ll take him a while.

As for critiquing KMac, give him the benefit of the doubt; it isn’t a simple task after all, and it’s being done for fun not work.

Posted by Roger Clark on Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:20 | #

“The Tanakh had no punctuation; there’s quite the case to be made for the “ten” commandments as a single run-on commandment (four really), with the one in question consisting of something like, thou shalt not kill, nor steal from, nor covet the wife of, thy neighbor.”

Svigor, even if you can read Hebrew, that looks to be probably far-fetched and certainly nit-pickingish compared to the other points I made that Jewry differs markedly from Islam, namely the extremely different record of imperialising etc.

Ditto your claim that you can rubbish the bits of my thesis that you don’t know about by a process of inference from those you (allegedly) do know about. For instance this cheap stuff about the Dark Ages:

“Hear-hear! The Dark Ages, as far as my knowledge of current scholarship goes, is something of a misnomer which has fallen out of favor.”

For all the theories or revisionisms about non-existent Dark Ages, the facts are stark. Check out the ACTUAL DATA (more to the point, NON-data) of archeology and it is BLEEDING OBVIOUS that the Dark Ages happened. Sure if you prefer to confine yourself to opinion/theory books you’ll remain comfortably ignorant of it. But that doesnt’ make the opinions of you Svigor et al superior to mine. There’s not the slightest basis there for dismissing the bits of my thesis which you don’t know about but would prefer to deny anyway. Jeez, now we have Dark Ages Denial too! What a madhouse!

Ume - indeed.

“Islam! You’re either with it or against it.”

.... I did not write that so why does Effra make out that I did? A liar or hallucinator or what?

One of the notable things about political discussion is that so many participants have blinkers of one sort or another. In the present case, Svigor seems to feel justified in resolutely alleging a bias pro-Jew /anti-Muslim, even in defiance of the clear evidence I have presented why
Judaism is far less problematic than Islam. (Though I would add that I also see a considerable problem of some Jews taking too much control of the economic system and making things a lot worse in consequence.)

Roger Clark

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:46 | #

You haven’t presented evidence that Jewry is far less a problem for the west than Islam at all. The two are quite distinct of course, then again I never said otherwise. I find that Jewry is a bigger problem (in America) because unlike Islam it is on the inside, the west is totally in denial/ignorant of the situation, and much of the problems we have with Islam have Jewry at the heart of the matter.

I gather that you’re European; Islam isn’t the problem here that it is there.

I find that threats that go unidentified are far more dangerous than those that don’t.

Posted by Roger Clark on Mon, 14 Feb 2005 01:09 | #

You haven’t presented evidence that Jewry is far less a problem for the west than Islam at all.

But I think others can see that I have. And you are just blinkering over this. In any case what I was writing about was Islam, not some overview of all the threats there are in the world.

I find that Jewry is a bigger problem (in America) because unlike Islam it is on the inside, the west is totally in denial/ignorant of the situation, and much of the problems we have with Islam have Jewry at the heart of the matter.

Inclined to agree about that.

I gather that you’re European; Islam isn’t the problem here that it is there.

Agreed. Not least that (t)here in Europe Islam is VERY much the greater problem, not least for exactly the reason indicated in your next sentence!

I find that threats that go unidentified are far more dangerous than those that don’t

Quite! Jihad Denial!

Roger Clark

Posted by wintermute on Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:48 | #

Quite! Jihad Denial!

I myself give some credence to Mr. Clark’s claims of Jihad, since the State does not coerce opinion on this matter via imprisonment, as it does in other areas of historical investigation.

If imprisonment awaited Jihad’s “deniers”, we would know for a fact that it was a false claim, or at least so wildly exaggerated that one might safely discount it as a significant historical occurance.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:47 | #

But I think others can see that I have. And you are just blinkering over this. In any case what I was writing about was Islam, not some overview of all the threats there are in the world.

I was simply responding to your assertion that you have done so, which clearly you haven’t. I’m not blinkered at all about Islam or the Arab world; I see them as alien and threatening - what more do you want?

My solution is that such peoples should be barred entry to the west. Thus, they won’t be harrassed and “unfairly” profiled in their travels here, since they won’t have any travels here in the first place. As for those already here, they should be made to feel unwelcome (I can imagine quite a few methods - heavy punitive “Islamic taxes” for example, to cover the cost their religion incurs in terms of terrorism).

I find that threats that go unidentified are far more dangerous than those that don’t

Quite! Jihad Denial!

I’m not sure I follow. If you mean to say that Islam isn’t (widely enough) recognized as a threat in Europe, well, what can I say - Europe should get a clue?

Posted by Andrew Luttrell on Wed, 16 Feb 2005 05:49 | #

Well , it is time to put Islam into perspective, Yes to all, If you read some Historical fact, you would learn that Zorocrastionism was invented in 450 BC, and Slovac Enoc. The Quran is a mere plagorisation of Christianity and Judaoism, and Zorocrastianism, If you read Muhammads encounter With Salman Farsi, THe real Qurans Creator, was a zorocrastion preist, converted to the new Islamic Cult, and yes, the supposid original was written in , Guess, Aryian, as a Arab sybols were only used, not any literiture, all sounds so cosie, and yes , the Hadiths are more of a Monty Python comedy sketch than a Godley encounter. Islam is The Arab Socialist Doctrine, If Marx was born then, he to would be the Messanger, as would Hitler, and so on. Sorry it has to be said, and you have to find out, It is not a religion, and it Certainly is not peace. I Guess that a lot of followers have not a clue what it is they are following, for if they did, they would be enlightened.

Posted by Andrew Luttrell on Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:28 | #

Ps , I should mention, our western Governments do also pay a Dhimmi, (Social Security) for the New Occupiers, see we are fair in contributing to our extinction.

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:53 | #

I would guess that Svigor is referring to this passage from Dr. John Hartung, a medical doctor/evolutionary psychologist/Hebrew scholar:

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/ltn01.html

As for Jewry’s record of imperialising, it is in the process of such a project now.

Posted by Roger Clark on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:24 | #

I would guess that Svigor is referring to this passage from Dr. John Hartung, a medical doctor/evolutionary psychologist/Hebrew scholar:

Ben, Dr Hartung’s claim that the prohibition of murder is only an ingroup thing is clearly nonsense in the case of Christianity—see the Acts of the Apostles, the most central of texts after the Gospels, in which it is made conspicuously clear that Christianity is not to be confined to Jews, because it is not for mankind to reject any creature created by God.

As for Jewry’s record of imperialising, it is in the process of such a project now.

Perhaps so, but this is a rather weak response to the glaring difference of historical records. The imperialising record of Islam over 14 centuries is second to none, whereas that of Judaism has barely existed.

Anyway, Thanks all for your interest and especially to JR and MR for preserving my words (which cease to exist on the Madrid.opendemocracy.net site because it was the most ‘popular’ thread and so they closed the whole site down!).

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 13:11 | #

The imperialising record of Islam over 14 centuries is second to none, whereas that of Judaism has barely existed.

The imperialist expansion into the Americas, the British empire, the Soviet Empire, and now the U.S. empire—all involved territorial expansion and Jewish instigation.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments