Islam, Virgins and Grapes

by Nicholas D. Kristof

In Afghanistan, 300 brave women marched to demand a measure of equal rights, defying a furious mob of about 1,000 people who spat, threw stones and called the women “whores.” The marchers asserted that a woman should not need her husband’s consent to go to school or work outside the home.

In Pakistan, the Taliban flogged a teenage girl in front of a crowd, as two men held her face down in the dirt. A video shows the girl, whose “crime” may have been to go out of her house alone, crying piteously that she will never break the rules again.

Muslim fundamentalists damage Islam far more than any number of Danish cartoonists ever could, for it’s inevitably the extremists who capture the world’s attention. But there is the beginning of an intellectual reform movement in the Islamic world, and one window into this awakening was an international conference this week at the University of Notre Dame on the latest scholarship about the Koran.

read more: http://speedymedia.blogspot.com/2011/06/islam-virgins-and-grapes.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SpeedysMedia+%28Speedy%27s+Media%29

Battle of Tours 732 AD

Nagorno-Karabakh War: Muslims Ethnically Cleansing Christians

Posted by Walter L. Brown Jr.

Nagorno-Karabakh War: One More Case of Muslims Ethnically Cleansing Christians

It's the same old conflict, just dressed-up with different names.  The Armenians are Christians (same people that the Turkish Muslims slaughtered during WWI), the Azerbijanis are Shia Muslims and the Kurds are Sunni Muslims.  Roughly 35% of the population of Iran is Azeri and Iran is the real Islamo-militant force in the region..

 On February 22, 1988, the first direct confrontation of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict occurred as a large group of Muslims marched from Agdam against the Christian populated town of Askeran, "wreaking destruction en route." The confrontation between the Muslims and the police near Askeran degenerated into the Askeran clash, which left two Muslims dead, one of them reportedly killed by an Muslim police officer, as well as 50 Christian villagers, and an unknown number of Muslims and police, injured.


Large numbers of Christian and Muslim refugees left as violence began against the minority populations of the respective countries.

read more: http://patriotword.blogspot.com/2011/06/nagorno-karabakh-war-one-more-case-of.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ThePatriotWord+%28The+Patriot+Word%29

Islamic concepts misunderstood by Westerners.

jonmc

Freedom

The Western viewpoint.

In the West “freedom” is used to describe a whole range of things encompassed in civil, political and individual rights.

Perhaps the most succinct definition of “freedom” is that of Thomas Jefferson: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”

He went on to say: “I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often [nothing] but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

Quite explicit in Jefferson’s definition is that all people have equal rights and that all (non-tyrannical) laws must apply equally to all people without exception. (This idea was put in British law as the law acting indifferently -as in ”without difference” – towards all people.)

read more: http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/op-ed/islamic-concepts-misunderstood-by-westerners/

Some notes on Rashid ad-Din bin Imad ud Dawla Abu’l Khair and his times

There are many ironies that are iconic of the Mohammedan world. One such is a monument in the modern Islamic state that occupies Iran with a gigantic statue depicting a Jewish intellectual from the 1200-1300s: Rashid ad-Din. The tale of Rashid ad-Din is well known to connoisseurs of Mongol history for he was the author of the famous Jami at’ Tawarikh. We record some notes on him in the context of Mongol history and its intersections with Indic history. The remarkable vicissitudes of history come to fore in the restoration of heathen tradition in Mesopotamia by the Mongols followed by its subversion and destruction by Mohammedanism. The Mongol irruptions had tremendous, even if transient, impact on the religious landscape of Asia. The Mongols were rather tolerant and allowed the practice of all religions without obstruction in their realms though they themselves were originally followers of the Altaic system of Tengri. Indeed, they were one of the first people in history to establish a truly secular state (unlike the pseudo-secular state that adorns modern India or the secularized Abrahamistic states that are common in the Western nations with elevated economies). We had earlier spoken of how the model of the Tantric state had been successfully exported from India and adopted by several Central Asian potentates like the Tibetans and Uighurs and also to a degree in China and Japan. Through their Uighur and Tibetan interlocutors the Mongol elite became acquainted with the mantrayAna and the Yuan, Chagadai and Il Khanates were transiently influenced by the Tantric state model to differing degrees. However, the religious latitude offered by the Mongol state did not result in a top-down imposition of the Tantric state model onto the masses. With the result the masses generally retained their old religion or simply followed the dominant proselytizing forces around them. Consequently, in China the undercurrent resentment against mantrayAna, which was always in play since the reactionary emperor of the Tang, Wu-zong, came back with a vengeance against the foreign Mongol rulers of the Yuan Khanate who practiced the path of mantrayAna. In the Chagadai ulus and the Il Khanate the proselytizing force of Islam eventually destroyed the practice of mantrayAna by the Mongol elite. To better understand these historical events, we shall use the life and times of Rashid ad-Din.
We have the following testimony regarding the secularism of the Mongol from a contemporaneous Isaistic theologian of the Syriac church, Bar-Hebraeus: “With the Mongols there is neither slave nor freeman, neither believer nor heathen, neither Christian nor Jew; but they regard all men as belong to one and the same stock.” The religious tolerance of the Mongol empire was welcomed by the followers of the traditions of dharma, the heathen Turko-Mongol systems and Judaists. Isaists approached it with mixed feelings, whereas the Mohammedans saw it with utmost loathing. A document from the German monastery of Marbach, from shortly after the conquests of Chingiz Kha’Khan, states that the Jews were delighted with the coming of the Mongols and felt that their time of liberation had come. They even called Chingiz Kha’Khan as the son of Dawid. Similarly, the Kashmirian practitioner of mantrayAna, kamalashrI and the brAhmaNa jaya paNDita felt that the Mongols would finally restore the dharma that had been destroyed by the dreaded turuShka-s. On the other hand the European Isaistic preachers upon hearing of the smashing of the German, Czech and Polish knights by the Mongol troops in the battle of Liegnitz felt that the coming of the Mongols was the arrival of the Anti-Christ. However, the crusader states in the Middle East saw the defeat of the Mohammedan powers by the Mongols as a fulfillment of the myth of Prester John and a welcome relief for Isaism. Indeed, the records present several advantages to the followers of dharma, other heathens, the Judaists and Isaists. Suddenly, with the coming of the Mongol rule in place of the Kalif of Baghdad, who had been killed by Huelegue Khan, the Dhimmi Isasists and Judaists found that they need not pay any Jizya or wear an yellow badge or restrictions on trade and movement that were common under the Mohammedans. Now the followers of dharma, relieved of their Kaffir status in the Middle East were also free to be employed there and transmit their religion freely.

It was under these circumstances that Sa’d ad-Dawla bin Moses a Jewish physician from Baghdad got appointed as physician to Arghun Khan, grandson of Huelegue. Impressed by his intelligence Arghun Khan appointed him as his Vazir. In turn Sa’d had Arghun appoint several Jews to the administration. Due to the Mohammedan persecution of various groups favored by Arghun he came up with a plan to conquer Mecca and restore heathen worship there with construction of temples of buddhakapAla and heruka, but due to other preoccupations he failed to do so. Indeed, during the Ilkhanid regime multiple temples to buddhakapAla, kAlachakra and hevajra had been built in Baghdad, Tabriz and in some places in the province of Khurasan. We may also interpret Rashid ad-din’s account of the atash-kada and kaffirkot to suggest that there was at at least one Astika temple in Baghdad. The Mohammedans, smarting under their loss of power, sent assassins to kill Sa’d, but they were promptly arrested by the Mongols. When Arghun fell terminally ill the Mohammedans got their chance to attach Sa’d ad-Dawla and kill him along with several of his coethnics. However, when the Arabs attacked the Jewish quarter of Baghdad a great battle broke out till the Mongols arrived and smashed the Arabs. In any case even after Sa’d assasination, the actions of Sa’d left several Judaists in the Mongol administration and from the lower ranks of these arose Rashid ad-Din, the son of a medicine seller. Rashid was already a physician for the Mongol court during Arghun’s reign and soon rose the ranks as a civil official.

The death of Arghun was followed by a period of great unrest triggered by the Mohammedans. Ibn al Fuwati writing from a madrasa in Irak stated that the ulema in Baghdad had prepared a statement, which stated that a ruler who raised the Kaffirs and Jews would be laid low by Allah. This was used to whip up Mohammedan frenzy leading to assassination squads directed against the non-Mohammedan officials. Gaikhatu succeeded Arghun was a profligate rule given to alcohol and sex. In his reign paper money similar to that used in the core of the Mongol empire was introduced in Mesopotamia. Around this time a powerful Mongol Bek of the Oirat clan converted to Mohammedanism under the name Nauruz and initiated a scam to produce fake paper money and bring the finances of the empire to ruin [Footnote 1]. This was followed by the assassination of successive Mongol rulers in intercine conflict with the Moslem faction growing in size and power under Nauruz. Order was restored finally under the next ruler Ghazan who made Rashid his Vazir. Rashid’s fiscal policies, some time based on loans from his own fortunes, considerably helped to shore up the empire. He also introduced tax reforms that considerably helped stabilize the lives of people and reduced the propensity for riots. However, the Mohammedans were far from content and under Nauruz placed considerable pressure on Ghazan to convert to Islam. Ghazan finally gave in and was declared Amir ul-Momin and was called upon like a true Ghazi to demolish non-Mohammedan religious places. Rashid records the imposition of Shari’a and the forcible destruction of the temples of dharma in Baghdad, Tabriz and the like. Bar-hebraeus records Mohammedan mobs rioting in all the major cities demolishing temples, churches and synagogues and trashing non-Mohammedans on the streets. Rashid himself though a favorite of the Khan was pressurized to convert to Islam. He overtly claimed conversion but remained true to Judaism in private. Ghazan himself it appears was rather lax on his Islamic observances as many Mongol Beks were not very happy – for example, Qutlugh Shah a Mongol commander felt that the Mongols were making a great mistake by replacing the robust Yasa of Chingiz Kha’Khan with the hundred confusing ways of the Shari’a. The Mongol princes Oljeitu and Timur also resented the attempts at breaking the mantrayAna shrines they had built and the harassment of mantra practitioners.

Nevertheless, the long reign of Rashid as Vazir through the days of Ghazan and Oljeitu brought much stability to the land and also saw a period of intellectual efflorescence – he arranged for the safe passage and residence of several scholars from various nations and religions to reside in the Mongol court at Baghdad. In fact Rashid kept comparing himself to Aristole while Ghazan was his Alexander. Throughout this period, the Islamist faction kept the pressure on Rashid pointing to the fact that he had not really given up his original religion. They kept pointing to his letters in Hebrew to his coethnics and the like. But his closeness to the Khans prevented him and his coethnics from facing any harassment. Finally, matters came to head when Oljeitu died and the Islamist faction was firmly in control. The Shari’a court accused Rashid of having poisoned Oljeitu and forced him to confess his Judaistic affiliations. He then made to watch to beheading of his son and then he was beheaded. His severed head was then stuck on a pole and paraded through Tabriz with cries of how Allah had brought down the Jews. During this a violent Mohammedan mob fell upon the Judaist quarter of Tabriz where Rashid’s clan lived and burnt it down along with a significant portion of his intellectual works and his printing press established with technology imported from the Yuan Khanate. The loathing for Rashid seems to have greatly lingered in the Mohammedan world as some subsequent Perso-Arab writers like al Kashani hurl abuse at him. Later in the early 1400 Miran Shah the son of Timur-i-lang even had the headless corpse of Rashid dug up and thrown into the cemetery of the Jews in Tabriz.

From our view point the there are two chief issues pertaining to the above history:

1) The unique intellectual activity of the late Il-Khanid court. Ghazan directed the extraordinary linguistic and intellectual abilities of Rashid to compose a history of the Mongols. Chingiz Kha’Khan had entrusted the composition of the Mongol history to his adopted son Shi’hi Kutuqu, who wrote it down in metrical form in the Uighur script adopted for the Mongolian language. This became famous as the Altan Daftar which was kept under lock and key in the treasuries of the Khans. Only the senior members of the Borjigin clan and some senior Mongol historians had access to the Altan Daftar, hence lending it the name the secret history. One such historian was Bolad Sechen who was the representative of Kublai Kha’Khan in the Il-Khanid court. While this text was still secret Ghazan hoped that the history of his illustrious ancestors would be more widely distributed and it was this task that Rashid took up, to produce a work in Persian. For this he was directly assisted by Ghazan who had held both the Altan Daftar and supplemented by oral tradition. He was also assisted by Bolad whose knowledge of history was supposed to be best among the Mongols. He supplemented these accounts by texts he had collected from the Qipchak Turks, Hindus, Chinese and Uighurs. He also used the history of the Mongols composed by Ata Malik al-Juvayni the son-in-law of the queen of Georgia. This work continued through the life of Ghazan and was only completed during the reign of his brother Oljeitu.

At this point Oljeitu came up with an unique plan, i.e. to compose an encyclopedic history of the world that would supplement that of the Mongols and entrusted it to Rashid for a handsome stipend. Rashid was more than pleased to take it up and declared that no other king had shown bestowed so much to his Vazir as Oljeitu had done. It was to encompass the histories of early Turks, Mongols of the Qara Khitai empire, Hindus, Chinese, Mohammedans, Isaists and Judaists along with geographical accounts of the world. This venture is particular noteworthy for number of points. Firstly, it was perhaps one of the earliest attempts at systematic universal history along with an attempt to document the knowledge systems of the world. As Rashid states: “The author has, as far as was in his power, multiplied and verified his researches from all that was previously known on the subject in this country, whether described in books or drawn in charts. To this he has added all that, during this fortunate epoch, the philosophers and wise men of India, Qara Khitai, China, France, and other countries have written, and has entered it all in this third volume, after having fully ascertained its authority.” Secondly, it was noteworthy that despite the pressure from the Dar-ul-Islam, Rashid managed to assemble a panel of heathen scholars from different parts of the world to reside in Baghdad and help him with the composition. Of note these include the yogin kamalashrI from Kashmir (who had given mantra dIkSha to Oljeitu and also composed a maNDala-vidhi) and the bauddha-s from the chIna desha, Li-ta-chi and Mak-sun. Thirdly, he imported a new printing press from the core of the Mongol empire to make several copies of the history and distribute it in both Arabic and Persian. Though the original was written in Persian, it appears that the surviving Persian version is a re-translation of the Arabic form under the directives of the Mogol tyrant Akbar, who was keen to have an account of his ancestors (Fazal uses the same genealogy).

Some implications of Rashid’s account of India might be considered here. A eulogy of India is given thus: “India, according to the concurrent opinion of all writers, is the most agreeable abode on the earth, and the most pleasant quarter of the world. Its dust is purer than air, and its air purer than purity itself; its delightful plains resemble the garden of Paradise, and the particles of its earth are like rubies and corals.” This sentence is also found in the account of the eulogizer of the Jihad, Abdullah Wassaf, a junior contemporary of Rashid, suggesting that it might have been borrowed from an earlier work. No doubt the turuShka-s felt a deep urge to invade India and appropriate it. Rashid also mentions several Hindu merchants plying their wares in Tabriz and Baghdad. The destruction of the Kilafat, the lifting of Jaziya and the safe passage for Kaffrs and Dhimmi’s due to the Mongol Kha’Khanate appears to have considerably invigorated trade across Eurasia. But the movement of people brought disease with it and it culminated in the great plague pandemic transmitted by Chinese fleas borne along the trade routes opened up by the Mongols. Of Rashid’s Indic sources kamalashrI is the only one who is well-know. We suspect that kamalashrI was mainly responsible only for the bauddha material, which appears to have included an account based on ashvaghoSha’s narrative of the tathAgata’s life as also some bauddha mantra-s. It also appears that kamalashrI composed a history of the nAstika mata in India similar in some ways to what the Tibetan lAmA tAranAtha later composed. Likewise, the chIna-s who informed him were also clearly bauddha-s who were using Indic terminology (even for example chIna and mahAchIna).

It is however clear that Rashid had another source on purely Astika matters . It is conceivable that his understanding of yoga might have been a commentary on pata~Njali that could have been transmitted by the Mohammedan indologist al Biruni, who produced some works on Hindu topics not unlike that produced by the white Indologists [Footnote 2]. Also notable his account of an Indian animal called the sharu (=sharabha), which could have again filtered down from al Biruni: It is supposed to live in the forests of the Konkan. It was bigger than a rhino with two horns and a beak and a crest with four protuberances. It was supposed to kill elephants and no animal can kill it. Other than natural death it is supposed to die only if it runs off a cliff upon hearing a thunderbolt thinking something is attacking it. Thus its bones and horns are said to be found by people on mountain slopes (One wonders if this is actually points to the fossil inspiration for sharabha).

However, Rashid clearly had another brAhmaNa source for his account based on the harivaMsha, the Hindu genealogies and material resembling the nIlamata purANa. Who could have been this source? For this, ironically, we have to turn the evidence provided by the Kubraviya Shaikh named Ala ad-Dawla Samnani: Arghun Khan had invited a brAhmaNa physician from Hindustan to set up a practice in Baghdad and consulted him for specialist issues. It is quite likely that Sa’d and Rashid keep us in dark about this brAhmaNa because he was a competitor to them as a physician, especially given the high respect he held with the Khans. However, the Shaikh had himself had benefited from the physician’s advise to him on number of matters and refers to him with considerable respect. It is clear that though a firm Sunni, the Shaikh has borrowed extensively from Hindu yoga in his writings while trying to pass them under a Mohammedan garb. Both Rashid and the Shaikh are terrified by the possibility of reincarnation and spend considerable effort to negate it. It is likely that this brAhmaNa was responsible for the remainder of the Indic material used by Rashid in his history.

2) Secularism versus Mohammedanism and failure of counter Jihad alliances. There are several important lessons from the history of these times that have a direct bearing on contemporary issues. One of these is how secularism fares when confronted with Mohammedanism. As we mentioned above the Mongol state was a secular one. Its elite had a rather eclectic approach to religion. Even after his apparent conversion to Islam Ghazan retained the several heathen intellectuals and traders from India, China and Mongolia in his Khanate (though perhaps under pressure from his brother Oljeitu). In fact even his conversion to Islam seems a rather superficial one that was primarily emphasized by his Mohammedan subjects. Evidence for this comes from the fact that even after his apparent conversion we note that his coins are inscribed by the Mongolian Tengri-yin Küchündür which means “by the strength of Tengri”, the original heathen deity of the Mongols.

Even after his “conversion” we see him building hospitals for animals following his Indic advisers and practiced high culture such as painting of human figures which was frowned upon by the Ulema. He is also seen sending letters to the crusaders that he wanted Jerusalem to be returned to the Isaists. His ability to speak Latin appears to have considerably charmed the Italians who saw that Khan as one of their own – indeed names of Mongol Khans such as Alaone (for Huelegue), Abago (for Abaqa), Argone (for Arghun) and Cassano (for Ghazan) became rather prevalent among Italian traders. It should be understood that the Il-Khans has conquered Mesopotamia after annihilating the Shi’a power of the Hashishins and the Sunni Kilafat. So the Mohammedans were no longer a political force in Mesopotamia. Yet they were able to destroy the external influences and re-establish the Shari’a. An important lesson from this is that even if Mohammedans are not politically in the driver’s seat, if they are demographically the majority, then they would replace a secular state with high culture with the dreadful Shari’a state.

When the Hindus drove out the English, the chAchA and his followers chose to establish a secular state. The main reason for this was the fear in the Hindu mind of what might happen if the Mohammedans were told that they had a live in a Hindu state. The chAchA and his men thought that by going secular they could appease the Mohammedans and also seem “modern” in the Western (Isaistic) eyes. However, the lesson offered by the conversion of the Il-Khanate into an Islamic state that was bloody within is a grim one. It suggests that history might repeat itself and the secular state of India could be eventually splintered by the Mohammedans in the regions where they gain a demographic upper hand. More generally, a secular state can never be stable with a significant Mohammedan population within its boundaries. That is why even a real secular state in place of the current pseudo-secular cannot save India – only a state that returns to its Hindu cultural moorings can.

Finally it should be noted that the Mongols sent numerous letters to Western European capitals calling on them to form alliances to contain and reduce Mohammedanism. However, the West even in its pre-modern state of fragmented identity never took up these calls for alliances for it feared “Asiatic” dominance. A lesson from this is that hopes from Indo-Western alliances against Mohammedanism are similarly doomed. We will have to fight against the Army of Islam by our own strength, even as our kingdoms had done in the past.

……………
Footnote 1: The parallels in this incident to the subversion of Indian rupees by fake notes printed by Mohammedan subversionists in modern India is striking.

Footnote 2: The fascination of several white indologists and their Japanese imitators have towards al Biruni is not small part because of the similarity the two share with respect to Hindu knowledge: The wish to appropriate Hindu knowledge even while rubbishing it and the Hindus is a common trait they share.

Will Islam Destroy Itself?

In his address to congress, Netanyahu said that militant Islam threatens Islam. As if there were any such thing as a non-militant form of Islam. An ideology that was militantly expansionistic from birth. And yet that expansionism does threaten it.

It's not mere militancy that threatens Islam, but its own lack of proportion. Had the Nazis satisfied themselves with a round of domestic purges and only a little territorial expansionism, today they might still be running a bankrupt decaying state. And news stories from the 1970's and 1980's might carry reports of popular protests against the disastrous economics of National Socialism. But Hitler and his cronies lacked a sense of proportion. When they capped off an invasion of Russia, war in Africa and an air campaign against England, with a declaration of war on America-- they were done. And their ideology went down with them.

If an ideology fighting a simultaneous war on nearly every continent sounds familiar, it should. The new Islamic crusade is just as arrogantly overextended. Just as certain that it can win every battle because it's destined to. That its inherent superiority makes it unbeatable. And that its enemies are cowards who are easily tricked and even more easily beaten.

Petrodollars and Jihadis are being rushed to conflicts around the globe. And Muslim countries are racing to acquire nuclear weapons, even though it puts their own populations in the firing line of a nuclear war. Muslim terrorism is turning immigration into a national security issue. And Sharia is raising hackles even among many liberals. The arrogance and hubris of the Islamic crusade for a new caliphate has made too many enemies, too fast. And it relies on Western complicity and money. That remains its weak point.

Had Muslims focused on domestic revolutions, most of the world would have let it go. Western countries have lost their enthusiasm for armed interventions on behalf of tyrants. And if foreign businessmen can learn to live with Dubai and Saudi Arabia, they would have accepted similar transformations in Egypt and Syria. Muslims could have assembled a Caliphate with hardly an objection from abroad. But instead they spent more time focused on conquest, than on revolution.

Like an amateur gambler flush with his winnings, the Imams and Mullahs swelled with pride and decided they couldn't lose. They wouldn't just bring down their own countries, instead they would tie everything together and pull it all down. Use terrorism to blackmail and intimidate the West. And then use that as a lever for regime change. It's working quite well so far. But then again most battle plans work, when the enemy is hardly fighting back.

The Islamists are assembling too many enemies too fast, to consider what would happen if those enemies united against them. They have spent too much time gloating over the Western dependency on their oil and their immigrants to think about what will happen the day the oil pipeline and the immigration pipeline are cut off.  Like the Nazis, they are spending too much time moving pins on a map to note all the places where they are advancing, all the wars they are fighting and all the mosques they are building, to take the time to realize how vulnerable that makes them.

Fortune rewards the aggressor who takes the initiative. But that's only until he overreaches. And then the other side takes the initiative. 

Hitler thought himself quite clever for taking the Rhineland, seizing Austria and carving up the industrial riches of Czechoslovakia with the consent of his old enemies. Then with bombers flying over London and tanks deep in Russia, the Third Reich and its allies seemed unstoppable. But then a few years later, enemy troops were closing in on Berlin. That's the problem with believing you'll win because you're destined to. By the time you realize how badly you screwed up, it's too late.

By the end of 1941, Hitler was actually taking the initiative against America, which last time around had decisively turned the tide. There's hardly a more clear cut case of completely forgetting the lessons of a war that you had actually fought in. But the Nazi drive to power had been built on denying the real political, military and economic lessons of WW1. The assertion that Germany lost because it was betrayed, doomed it to lose a second time.

The Islamists suffer from the same problem. Their denial of history dooms them to repeat it all over again. Their assertion that Islamic states are immune from the social and economic problems of secular states means that their aspirations for a Caliphate will fall apart into bickering and civil war.  And their belief that Islamic warriors are any better than ordinary tribals armed with machine guns and RPG's has been disproven on countless battlefields. The myth of the suicide bomber is the last resort of a delusional ideology trying to deny its own human vulnerabilities.

Racial and religious doctrinal purity does not equal omnipotence. And Islamic expansionism is due to relearn the same lesson that World War II meted out to the aggressors. The Caliphate and Third Reich are the vision of maniacs and demagogues trying to turn back the clock to a mythical past. Building castles in the sand by a bloody shore.

The obsessive petrodollar construction projects of Dubai have something of Albert Speer about them. Huge tasteless buildings constructed to show the grandeur of a regime, even while revealing its lack of taste and creativity. And its underlying insecurity. The Nazi, Communists and now Muslims obsession with constructing gargantuan inhuman structures reveal some of the insecurity behind the violence. Giant concrete and steel security blankets by vicious men terrified of their own mortality.

Insecurities lead to grandiosity. The tilting shots of Leni Riefenstahl depicting the Aryan man as more than human, or the Muslim martyr who willingly kills himself for the Jihad, share a common contempt for humanity. And beneath that contempt a craven fear of being merely human.

The ambition of the Caliphate conceals its own rot. The graffiti portraits of martyrs on walls turn them into museums of fear. The grandiosity of a worldwide Jihad is not the work of strongminded men, but of weak ones.  The Jihad is not on the march because it is strong, but because it is unable to offer any real solutions to domestic problems. All that Islamic groups do is offer subsidized services and bribes in exchange for popular support. The same cheap trick that every Muslim and even non-Muslim government does.

Like Nazism and Communism, the Islamic utopia is unsustainable. A fool's dream overseen by greedy thieves and guarded by vicious butchers. And like them it gains credibility only from extending the conflict. From positioning itself as the force of light standing against the darkness. And like them, Islam destroys the societies it takes over in order to continue a war that has no purpose except to disguise the foolishness of its doctrines and the incompetence of its visionaries.

The inherent social instability of Islam necessitates its expansionism. Just as the economic instability of National Socialism made Kristalnacht and the invasion of Poland necessary for the Nazi elite. Or the economic failures of Soviet Communism made its own expansionism inevitable. A strong warlike country's ideology doesn't fail internally, until it also fails externally.

The Islamic Jihad is a social instability disguised as brute force expansionism. Weakness trying to pretend it's strength. Events in Iran have shown that Islamic regimes are no more stable than secular ones. Eventually the greed of the ruling oligarchy and the fanaticism of its clerics runs into the barrier of public frustration and rage. Exporting the same instability and fanatical violence to Western countries through immigration may topple the free world. But it's more likely to lead a backlash. And that is exactly what's starting to take place now.

Western socialists need immigrants, but even they have their limits. And that limit will be reached when they realize that Islamic immigration and violence makes their dream of a new Europe and a world united under international law null and void. Even without that, their welfare state utopias have a limited lifespan. And when those utopias collapse, they won't have much use for immigrants. Or for the violence they bring with them.

Islam is overreaching badly. Its political successes have inflamed its sense of destiny. But politics turns. And unlike a high tech society or a competent military-- the political advantage and wealth that comes from an addiction to oil are both vulnerable to sudden change. The wheel of history is turning. And while Muslims are confident that it is turning in their direction, they would do well to remember that the glorious days of mastery they are trying to recapture came to an end for a reason. That the ruler of history raps hardest the knuckles of those who refuse to learn its lessons. And that they have now become its worst pupils.

 

 

 

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/05/will-islam-destroy-itself.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindTheNews+%28from+NY+to+Israel+Sultan+Reveals+The+Stories+Behind+the+News%29

 

How the Left Went Wrong on Islam

What makes the creeping political correctness on Islam so startling is its very newness. It wasn't so long ago that the right and the left both agreed that as a religion and a political movement, it was dangerously backward and violent.

From Winston Churchill, "Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance" to Karl Marx, "Islamism proscribes the nation of the Infidels, constituting a state of permanent hostility between the Mussulman and the unbeliever", leading figures on the right and the left held a realistic understanding of Islam. They dismissed it as violent, barbaric, ignorant and dangerous. The right saw Islam as a threat to the Western Christian hegemony. The left viewed it as a reactionary movement of superstitious fanatics. They might praise Arab generals or scientists, but not the creed itself.

Where then did that lost consensus on Islam go? One answer can be found in the Soviet Union.

Unlike Western Europe, the Russian Empire had a large Muslim population. While Western socialists focused on a mostly Christian population, taking over the Russian Empire was nearly impossible without winning the allegiance of its Eastern Muslims. That difference would shape the socialist approach to Islam.

While the Communists disdained Christianity and Judaism as backward superstitions, they took a different approach to Islam. Lenin promised Muslims that their mosques would be protected under the revolution and emphasized an approach of cultural sensitivity that respected Muslim traditions. Female Communist activists donned veils or covered their hair to work with the locals. Most shockingly, while the Communists were dismantling the Orthodox Church and Jewish synagogues-- Sharia courts of Islamic law were being administered under a Soviet Commissariat of Justice.

One of the more notable effects of the alliance was the Communist attempt to find common ground by phrasing their doctrine in Islamic terms. The Communists campaigned against religion as superstition, but this was translated as Khurafat, a campaign to cleanse heretical forms of magic. The difference was substantial and fundamental. While Communists in the rest of the Soviet Union were outlawing religion, Muslim Communists were rooting out heresies under the authority of the revolution. The USSR had become the enforcer of Islam.

The translation of socialist ideas into the Islamic, created the illusion of common ground. Both sides heard what they want to hear. But the Communist and Muslim ideas of revolution were dramatically different. While Moscow was talking about women's equality, the Muslim Communists were filling their unwashed yurts with child wives. By the time Soviet leaders in Moscow realized what was going on, they had a civil war on their hands. The Communists won in the short term, but only at the cost of accepting Muslim practices such as polygamy. And the Muslims may have won the long war.

The awkward fusion of Islam and Communism did not last long, but it had an enduring impact on the left's view of Islam. It transformed Islam in the eyes of many Western socialists into a progressive movement. The temporary legitimacy granted to the Pan-Islamic Jadids and the bulletins trumpeting the progressive nature of the Koran and the brilliance of Mohammed coming out of the motherland of socialism, altered the view of many socialists and taught them to view Muslims as allies. It may have even given some of them the idea that introducing large Muslim populations into Europe would be the key to a successful revolution.

Slogans like, "Long live Soviet power, long live the sharia" echo today among the left. The Soviet approach of viewing Islam as an immature form of socialism colors most reporting on the Muslim Brotherhood. As it did on the Ayatollah Khomeini during the Iranian revolution.

The Fourth Congress of the Communist International's Theses on the Eastern Question treated Islam as part of the "great diversity of national revolutionary movements against imperialism". But diversity didn't mean equality. Diversity in the theses meant backwardness. Islam was Communism for savages. The Koran was Das Kapital for primitive people. "As the national liberation movements grow and mature", the theses said, "the religious-political slogans of pan-Islamism will be replaced by political demands."

Islam was an intermediate stage on the road to Communism. Eventually its religious baggage will fall away and it will become a fully political anti-imperialist movement. These same ideas are widely held on the left today. It is how they can justify allying with the Muslim Brotherhood. Like the Jadids, the Brotherhood is on the left, but doesn't know it yet. Muslims think that Moses and Jesus were Muslims but didn't know it. The left believes that Mohammed was a progressive, but didn't know it.

The Theses distinguished between Muslim ruling classes and all others. "Only among peoples like the nomads and semi-nomads, where the feudal-patriarchal system has not yet disintegrated to the point where the native aristocracy is completely split off from the masses, can representatives of the elite come forward as active leaders in the struggle against imperialist oppression (Mesopotamia, Morocco, Mongolia)". Two of the three listed examples were Muslim. This convoluted justification allowed them to include Muslim leaders and maintain tribal and Islamic rule as integrated with the masses. An unalloyed justification for maintaining the mini-caliphates that the Pan-Islamists wanted.

While the Communists of the twenties still distinguished between their creed as the higher and Islam as the lower, these distinctions have been eroded among the postmodern left to the point of non-existence. All revolutionary movements are treated as equal so long as they are aimed at Western imperialism. The Islamists are just part of that "great diversity". Their approach to social justice is an aspect of their culture. This perversity underpins the red-green alliance.

In 1920, the People's Congress of the Baku called for a "holy war", a "ghazavat" against Britain. "The Peoples of the East, united with the revolutionary proletariat of the West under the banner of the Communist International... summon our peoples to a holy war."

Invoking both "the green banner of the Prophet" and "the red banner of the Communist International", this "first real holy war" with the sanction of the Ulemas, Islamic clerics, the red-green alliance was built on a fault line. It was a fault line that Marx could have told them about, had they been willing to listen.

Karl Marx had observed that, "The Koran and the Mussulman (Muslim) legislation emanating from it reduce the geography and ethnography of the various peoples to the simple and convenient distinction of two nations and of two countries; those of the Faithful and of the Infidels" And added, "The Infidel is  the enemy."

The Communists, like their modern counterparts, had not understood this simple and convenient distinction. They thought that they could blend the red and green banners together. That Muslim armies would fight holy wars for them and that Soviet secularism would eventually replace Islamism. Their failure to understand what Islam is, to think that they could ally and stand on the same side as the armies of the Faithful, that they could call for a Holy War against "against imperialist Britain" and have it "burn with unquenchable fire" and yet not get burned themselves, has been repeated not only by the left, but by America and Europe.

The Soviet Union had tried to turn Muslim identity into a Communist identity. And that effort failed badly. The Communists remained infidels. Now we are trying to turn Muslim identity into a Democratic identity, and failing just as miserably. Muslim identity will not broaden to include us. Just as it did not broaden to include the Communists. Our efforts to secularize Muslim identity into anything broader will never reach beyond a small number of people who agree with us.

Islam is not a developing identity, but a divisive identity. An identity that defines itself in its contrast with the infidel. And it needs the infidel to provide that contrast.  "The corsair ships of the Berber States", Marx wrote, "were the holy fleet of Islam". Not because of any specific religious function the corsairs were performing, but through the mere fact that they were fighting infidels alone. That contrast is the essence of Islam. Only by maintaining distinctions between himself and the infidel-- can the Muslim know who he is.

Bertrand Russell identified political fanaticism as the common identity of both Muslims and Communists, writing that, "Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world." The obsession with winning "the empire of the world" has led the left into an alliance with the Islamists. The mutual irrationality of both sides, movements both marked by the inability to take stock of their own failures, has pushed them forward with brazen dreams of empire. The only thing they agree on is their opposition to the current system. But their new Ghazadat will not end in a better world, but in misery and failure for all.

Fact: the USS Constitution was Constructed to Fight Islam.

Constructed to fight Islam, and fight them well, she did... The Constitution was one of six frigates that Congress requested be built in 1794 to help protect American merchant fleets from attacks by Barbary pirates of the Ottoman Empire (Islam) and harassment by British and French forces. It was constructed in Boston, and the bolts fastening its timbers and copper sheathing were provided by the industrialist and patriot Paul Revere. Launched on October 21, 1797, the Constitution was 204 feet long, displaced 2,200 tons, and was rated as a 44-gun frigate (although it often carried as many as 50 guns). In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson ordered the American warship to the Mediterranean to fight Barbary pirates off the coast of Tripoli. The vessel performed commendably during the conflict, and in 1805 a peace treaty with Tripoli (Islam) was signed on the Constitution's deck. Since the 1600's Muslims pirates had cruised the Mediterranean Sea, capturing ships and taking prisoners, forcing Christian nations to pay tribute for freedom of passage. To avoid such confrontations, some Christian nations were willing to appease the Islamic enemy by signing treaties requiring them to pay a certain amount of tribute each year. It was a form of extortion that Muslims could impose on frightened Christians. The pirates also raided coastline villages and took prisoners. The reason why so many Christian Greek coastal villages were built up in the hills was to provide protection against the depredations of the Muslims.  Millions of Africans and thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans were enslaved by these raiders, who killed many non-Muslim older men and women and kidnapped young women and children to be sold as concubines. The boys were often mutilated to create eunuchs for use in harems and as servants. Jefferson understood that the Barbary Pirates were acting under religious and hence patriotic duty when they attacked non-Muslims, a point that Americans hundreds of years later still fail to grasp.  Long before the Congress authorized construction of the USS Constitution and five other frigates Jefferson had the following  well documented encounter. In 1786, the American ambassadors to France (Thomas Jefferson) and Britain (John Adams) met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. Tripoli was a sultanate of the Ottoman Empire at the time and consequently part of the Islamic Caliphate. American merchant ships had been captured by the Barbary corsairs and their crews and passengers imprisoned. They could only by freed by the payment of large ransoms. The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty to spare their ships these piratical attacks. Congress was willing to appease the Barbary pirates if only they could gain peace at a reasonable price. During the meeting, Jefferson and Adams asked the ambassador why Muslims held such hostility toward America, a nation with which they had had no previous contacts. Jefferson later reported to John Jay what the ambassador had told them: the reason for the Muslims’ enmity was that “It was written in their Koran that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman (Muslim) who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to [P]aradise.” America defeats Islam twice in ten years.. After its victory in the First Barbary War (1801–1805), the U.S. found its attention diverted to its worsening relationship with theUnited Kingdom over trade with France, which culminated in the War of 1812. The Barbary pirate states took this opportunity to return to their practice of attacking American, as well as European merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea and holding their crews and officers for ransom. At the conclusion of the War of 1812, however, America could once again turn its sights on North Africa. On March 3, 1815, the U.S. Congress authorized deployment of naval power against Algiers, and a force of ten ships was dispatched under the command of Commodores Stephen Decatur, Jr. and William Bainbridge, both veterans of the First Barbary War. Decatur's squadron departed for the Mediterranean on May 20. Bainbridge's command was still assembling, and did not depart until July 1, thereby missing the military and diplomatic initiatives which Decatur swiftly and decisively handled Shortly after departing Gibraltar en route to Algiers, Decatur's squadron encountered the Algerian flagship Meshuda, and, in a battle off Cape Gata, captured it. Not long afterward, the American squadron likewise off Cape Palos captured the Algerian brig Estedio. By the final week of June, the squadron had reached Algiers and had initiated negotiations with the Dey. After persistent demands for recompensation mingled with threats of destruction, the Dey capitulated. By terms of the treaty signed aboard the Guerriere in the Bay of Algiers, 3 July 1815, Decatur agreed to return the captured Meshuda and Estedio while the Algerians returned all American captives, estimated to be about 10, and a significant group of European captives were exchanged for about 500 subjects of the Dey along with $10,000 in payment for seized shipping. The treaty guaranteed no further tributes and granted the United States full shipping rights. Shortly after Decatur set off for Tunis to negotiate a similar agreement with the Bey of Tunis and enforce prior agreements with the Pasha of Tripoli, the Dey of Algiers repudiated the treaty. On 27 August 1816, following a round of failed negotiations, the fleet delivered a punishing nine-hour bombardment of Algiers. The attack immobilized many of the Dey's corsairs and shore batteries, forcing him to accept a peace offer of the same terms as he had rejected the day before. Exmouth warned that if they were not accepted he would continue the action. The Dey accepted the terms, not realising that they were a bluff as the fleet had already fired off all of its ammunition. A treaty was signed on September 24, 1816. 1,083 Christian slaves and the British Consul were freed and the U.S. ransom money repaid. After the second Barbary war of 1812, Old Ironsides served as the flagship of the navy's Mediterranean squadron and in 1828 was laid up in Boston. Two years later, the navy considered scrapping the Constitution, which had become unseaworthy, leading to an outcry of public support for preserving the famous warship. The navy refurbished the Constitution, and it went on to serve as the flagship of the Mediterranean, Pacific, and Home squadrons. In 1844, the frigate left New York City on a global journey that included visits to numerous international ports as a goodwill agent of the United States. In the early 1850s, it served as flagship of the African Squadron and patrolled the West African coast looking for slave traders (also predominantly Muslim). In 1855, the Constitution retired from active military service, but the famous vessel continued to serve the United States, first as a training ship and later as a touring national landmark. Since 1934, it has been based at the Charlestown Navy Yard in Boston. Over the years, Old Ironsides has enjoyed a number of restorations, the most recent of which was completed in 1997, allowing it to sail for the first time in 116 years. Today, the Constitution is the world's oldest commissioned warship afloat.

Five Interesting Historical Facts About Islam

1. The creation of the U.S. Marine Corps was initiated in response to Islamic warriors. The Barbary Coast pirates were following in Mohammad's footsteps, raiding caravans (in this case, oceangoing ships), taking slaves, capturing people to hold for ransom, and demanding "protection money" from any kafirs who didn't want to be raided. This had been going on for centuries along the North African Mediterranean coastline.
Any ships that wanted to do business in the Mediterranean were at risk. Many European countries did the easy thing and paid the protection money to the Muslims to avoid being raided, which, of course, helped fund their operations against anyone who wasn't paying. The U.S. did not have enough military resources to protect its ships, so it paid the protection money too. This bothered Thomas Jefferson. Before he was president, when he was an ambassador to France, Jefferson had a chance to meet with an ambassador from Tripoli, and he asked why Tripoli did this. The Muslim explained it was written in the Koran.
So Thomas Jefferson did something every leader of the free world should do: He bought himself a Koran and read it. Then when he became president, he knew what he needed to do: He formed the United States Navy, created the Marine Corps, and sent them to the shores of Tripoli, where they soundly defeated the Muslim warriors.
This was the first foreign war fought by the United States. America's victory was the beginning of the end of the "Barbary Coast Pirates." The military aggressiveness of Islamic countries remained contained and weakened for over a century.
Read more about that here: Why Did President Jefferson Read the Quran?
2. The New World was discovered because of Islam. Christopher Columbus was looking for a new trade route to the East. But why was he looking for a trade route?
During the Second Jihad, Islam invaded Central Asia and defeated Constantinople in 1453, cutting off the overland route for Europeans. Islamic armies continued their jihad northward, and conquered much of what is now Eastern Europe, until they were finally stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Read more: The Second Major Wave of Jihad: the Turks, 1071-1683.
Europe had been trading with the Far East for centuries, and their old overland route now went through territory that was hostile and dangerous to anybody but Muslims. The economy of Europe was threatened.
So, in 1492, the year Islam was finally defeated in Spain, ending Islam's 780-year occupation, Columbus set off to find a passage to the Far East by boldly sailing West into the unknown. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
3. The .45 caliber 1911 semiautomatic pistol was created to stop Islamic warriors. From 1902 until 1913, the United States fought a war with the "Moro Warriors" in the Philippines. These Islamic warriors were named "Moros" by the Spanish. Their unstoppability was legendary. "In one instance," writes Robert Boatman, "a Moro warrior received 14 bullet wounds in five minutes, three of which penetrated his brain, and yet he fought on."
At the time the army was using .38 caliber guns, which were unable to stop the Moros, so in 1906, they began testing different guns to find something better. In 1911, they chose the .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol. It had enough stopping power to kill even a Moro warrior with one shot. Read more about this interesting piece of history here, here and here.
4. The Great Pyramid of Giza looks unfinished because of Muslims. The pyramid was once covered by a smooth, beautifully polished layer of white stone. This outer layer was removed by Muslims, who used the white stone for mosques and palaces, leaving the ancient pyramids with their somewhat unfinished appearance.
The physicist, John Zajac, wrote: "This protective covering was made up of...hard, white limestone, similar to marble but superior in hardness and in durability against the elements...The casing stones, 144,000 in all, were so brilliant that they could literally be seen from the mountains of Israel hundreds of miles away...The people of the area had viewed the pyramid and its polished stones with awe for centuries. But when a 13th century earthquake loosened some of these casing stones, the Arabs recognized a great quarry of precut stones that could be used to finish off palaces and mosques. For instance, the casing stones were used to rebuild the new city of El Kaherah plus Cairo mosques and palaces, including the Mosque of Sultan Hasan."
Historically, this is Islamic standard operating procedure. Wherever Islam established itself throughout the world, it destroyed or defaced monuments that represented the previous (conquered) culture and replaced it with Islamic structures and mosques. Afghanistan used to be Buddhist. Turkey used to be Christian. Pakistan used to be Hindu. The former cultures and any symbols of them were annihilated and replaced by Islam.
5. The Crusades were a limp, late, defensive response to four hundred years of Islamic war against what was then largely Christian lands (the Middle East, Northern Africa, and Europe). Four of the five main centers of Christianity, including the Byzantium and Constantiople, were eventually conquered by the Islamic warriors' relentless conquests, and the countries were forcibly converted into Islamic states. But before the Crusades, Byzantium was still fighting to defend itself, and repeatedly appealed to Rome for help.
The different nations of Europe were largely competitors with each other. They were not a united force — far from it — but the Pope thought he could unify Europeans if he made it a matter of "defending Christians," so that's how he made his appeal. It helped unite Europeans against a common threat, and it may have saved Europe from the forcible Islamization suffered by the nations of the Middle East, part of India, and North Africa. Read more: What About the Crusades?
Here's another interesting historical tidbit about Islam's influence: The defense of Europe during the Crusades was devastatingly expensive, and the Church of Rome tried many ways to raise funds. Some of these fundraising efforts were deeply offensive to Martin Luther, so he intitiated the Protestant Reformation.
Islam has had a profound impact on important historical events throughout its history, and it is still being felt today.