Monday, April 5, 2010

Do Moslems Have A "Golden Rule" (Do onto others . . . )?

The Pseudo-Golden Rule or Do Unto Which Others?

April 5, 2010

Muslims are very sensitive about the lack of a Golden Rule in Islam. So, when you bring this up they always rush to assert that Muslims love everybody, in particular, Christians and Jews. And, of course, Islam has a Golden Rule.

In a past newsletter, I argued that Islam had no Golden Rule. Marcelle Sagan replied to my post on the website of the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center, a site sponsored by the royal house of Jordan. Given this source of funding, so you expect the highest quality of scholarship on Islam.
So let's take a look at some of Mr. Sagan's arguments, one at a time.

He makes the usual claims of Islam being the victim of ignorant Islamophobes and advances that anything a critic about Islam has to say never, ever, has any truth in it at all. This attitude comes directly from the Sunna of Mohammed. Mohammed was never wrong, Islam is perfect and anyone who does not believe this is a bigot. Mohammed was always the victim. When he attacked unarmed caravans in the sacred months, Islam was the true victim, not the murdered kafir (non-Muslim) Meccans.

Mr. Sagan argues that Islam is filled with statements about the Golden Rule. His first claim for the Golden Rule is this Koran verse:

83:1 Woe betide the unjust who, when others measure for them, exact in full, but when they measure or weigh for others, defraud them!

Giving Islam the benefit of the doubt, doing business in an honest manner could be construed as a very narrow, weak version of the Golden Rule. However, let's examine this verse in its context and with a frame of reference. When Mohammed moved to Medina, he found that the Medinans routinely cheated when measuring out goods in a sale. When the Meccan Muslims complained that they gave good weight and were being cheated by their Medinan Muslim brothers, Allah gave Mohammed this verse. The actual case involves Muslims selling to Muslims.

Here is a quote from the Hadith with some ethical advice along the same lines:

Bukhari 9, 86, 109: […] the Prophet said, 'In dealing with Muslims one should not sell them sick (animals) or bad things or stolen things."
Does this sound like the Golden Rule? Where are the kafirs (unbelievers) in this morality?
Then Mr. Sagan quotes Mohammed:

None of you believe until you desire for your brother, what you desire for yourself.
But who is a Muslim's brother? Humanity? Mohammed gives us his answer:

Bukhari 1, 2, 12: The Prophet said, "None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself."

Bukhari 3, 43, 622: Allah's Apostle said, "A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, so he should not oppress him, nor should he hand him over to an oppressor. Whoever fulfilled the needs of his brother, Allah will fulfill his needs; whoever brought his (Muslim) brother out of a discomfort, Allah will bring him out of the discomforts of the Day of Resurrection, and whoever screened a Muslim, Allah will screen him on the Day of Resurrection. "
What we see here is that there is a Golden Rule but only in an Islamic way. Muslims are to practice the Golden Rule, but only with other Muslims. This is ethical dualism.

Perhaps, Mr. Sagan missed the universal brotherhood hidden somewhere in the 6,800 hadiths of Bukhari. Do the math. There are 209 hadiths that mention the word "brother". Of those 209 hadiths, 96 concern blood kinsman ship and the other 103, each and every one, are about spiritual brotherhood where a Muslim is a brother to other Muslims.

Then Mr. Sagan uses an outright deception. He states that in Mohammed's farewell sermon, he said: "That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind." These words sound good until you read Mohammed's farewell sermon and find he says no such thing. In this sermon, Mohammed did say to treat your slaves well, that Muslims are brothers to each other, that your wives are your prisoners and to beat them if they disobey you. Oh yes! That is universal brotherhood, compassion and Golden Rule. The only times Mohammed ever said anything about humanity or mankind, it was that mankind had to submit to Islam.

Why did Mr. Sagan manufacture this quote? Because, Mohammed repeatedly advised Muslims to deceive the kafir if it would advance Islam:

Bukhari 5, 59, 369: Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes." Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). The Prophet said, "You may say it." […]

And finally, let us examine the Golden rule in Mohammed's life. Since he is the perfect moral example, his actions define morality. If we look in the Sira, Mohammed's biography, we do find incidences where he treated the kafirs well, but the treatment was always part of seduction and persuasion to get them to submit to Islam. If that did not work, then he attacked them. In the end, Mohammed violently attacked each and every neighbor he had. He was the ultimate bad neighbor. The Golden Rule makes you a good neighbor. Islam's dualistic ethics make Muslims the same kind of neighbor as Mohammed was.

The reason Muslims use deception about the Golden Rule is that they know not having it makes Islam look bad. Why do politicians, preachers, rabbis, educators and media commentators repeat the propaganda about how wonderful Islam is? Their duplicity or silence stems from fear and ignorance.

So, Muslims, preachers, politicians, rabbis, educators and media pundits are deceivers, but for different reasons. Muslims are following the example of Mohammed and our leaders are ignorant cowards. When seen in this light, even though they have been given no Golden Rule to follow, perhaps the argument can be made that Muslims are more admirable than these others.

Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political Islam

Permalink copyright (c) CBSX, LLC Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Hero Worship and the Monoculture of the Anthill

by Kenneth Roberts March 12, 2010

"Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom."So said Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher. Think of North Korea, Stalinist Russia, the Red Guards of China, Hitler's Germany, etc.Now consider this: Wherever Mohammed is most admired, there is the lowest regard for human rights, civil liberties and political freedoms, such as Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, and Tunisia.The reason for this lack of human rights is something that Muslims deny and block out of consciousness. Plainly, Mohammed was a dictator and an abuser of human rights. But Mohammed is said by Muslims to be perfect. It isn't abuse if Mohammed did it.

Mohammed took away the human rights of peaceful, pluralistic, cultured people. He insulted, robbed, assassinated, enslaved, and then expelled the rest of them from their properties and ancestral homeland in Arabia. Since the hero Mohammed committed these crimes, they are justifiable and good. Today, we call Mohammed's political program ethnic cleansing or 'genocide.' Aggressive ethnic cleansing is occurring today in Iran and Sudan. It is 'good', because the hero Mohammed did it.

Muslims imitate Mohammed, so Islam naturally creates a despotic form of government that represses women and minorities. It's Islam's DNA.

Islam, in theory, is a single imperial state. The constitution of Islam is the biography of Mohammed. The Koran calls Mohammed's life 'a beautiful example'. Muslims know this is true because Mohammed wrote it in the Koran.

Mohammed struggled (jihad) to create a monocultural society based on the model of the anthill. The queen ant rules; the soldier ants all think the same way, do their dance and attack the same external enemies. Alien animals (such as aphids) are either parasitized by ants or killed or expelled. Ants go out regularly to destroy other anthills.

In the ideology of Mohammed, this is the perfect model for Islamic society. There is even a chapter in the Koran called 'The Ants' and another called 'The Bee'. It is easy to see why Mohammed felt these animals ran ideal societies.

Mohammed didn't rule by popular vote. Mohammed's god told Muslims repeatedly to obey him. Whatever Mohammed decided, Gabriel always confirmed it shortly thereafter with a message from Allah himself. Thus Mohammed was never wrong. He ruled by divine decree. Allah constantly confirmed Mohammed's hero status in the Koran that was written by Mohammed!

Mohammed further claimed he was the owner of the earth and that Allah Almighty had created the universe for the benefit of Mohammed alone! This is a universal political claim. Mohammed said so. Mohammed is a hero, so it must be true. A true hero would not call himself a hero.
Muslims are lost in hero-worship.

Hero-worship of Mohammed is defended by law in all Islamic countries. Only hero-worship of Mohammed is ever expressed in the public domain. Dissent about Mohammed's hero status is never heard in Islamic countries, because ordinary Muslims, like the ants in their hill, immediately and instinctively rush to neutralize aliens, sting and eliminate them. Think of the cartoon riots! Think of the Teddy Bear crisis. Think of the pursuit of critics and apostates from Islam, how they are murdered by their own families or hunted by ordinary Muslims acting as vigilantes. The greatest crime in the world is to express scepticism about the hero status of Mohammed.

If an alien animal enters the anthill, perfect harmony and unity is quickly restored. The alien is surrounded by ordinary ants and cut to pieces. In Islamic countries, there is no real pluralism or the chaotic differences of opinion found in full democracies. Alien animals (such as aphids) are only allowed into an anthill so they may be parasitized for the benefit of the ants. In Islamic countries, the anthill or the beehive is the model for the organization of society. In Islamic countries, kafirs may work for Muslims, but not lead or rule over them. That is Mohammed's method and thus it is the Islamic ideal.

Hero-worship of Mohammed is everywhere in the Islamic state. So, for decisions to be perfectly acceptable, leaders must constantly appeal to his heroic example. If Mohammed did it, it must be 'good'. Logic has nothing to do with it.

Mohammed never defended the human rights of kafirs. In Mohammed's Medina, jihad occurred on the average of every six weeks. Medieval Islamic jurisprudence demanded a minimum of attacks. Unprovoked jihad expeditions against kafirs should be made a minimum of once yearly . The human rights of kafirs are unimportant, since jihad against them must take place so frequently and the very purpose of jihad is to remove the human rights of kafirs. This cannot take place in a democracy.

Ordinary Muslims assume Islam is benign, so they never concern themselves with the human rights of kafirs. Besides, kafirs have misfortunes coming to them, because they did not submit to Islam. Either way, no empathy is ever wasted on kafirs. Supremacists never apologize.

Only the politics of Islam are of concern to the kafirs. The only that kafirs care about are the things that affect our rights and our pluralistic free societies. Mohammed's method invades and destroys kafirs and their culture, just as anthills expand to annihilate neighboring anthills. This is the traditional jihad method: Invade, colonize, and then annihilate.

Mohammed is a hero, the perfect man, and so 'good' Muslims use Mohammed's monocultural model. This is why Muslims always strive (jihad) to create a monoculture of hero-worshipping wherever they go.

Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.

Permalink copyright (c)
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

"your arguments are utterly wrong and stuppid. just mind this --Islam, in theory, is a single imperial state. The constitution of Islam is the biography of Mohammed. The Koran calls Mohammed's life 'a beautiful example'. Muslims know this is true because Mohammed wrote it in the Koran.--muhammed was an illiterate. he did not studied read and write.kuran is not the book of muhammed. kuran is the book of allah."
muhammed — March 15, 2010 @ 12:32 AM

"Hello muhammed,

You make a common mistake:

Muslim scholars derived the illiteracy concept for Muhammad from verses 7:157-158 of the Quran. In today’s standard Arabic, 'ummi' means 'illiterate', only one of the meaning of this word, but this is not a compelling evidence, since 'unscriptured' or 'gentile' (non-Jew) is also another meaning of it. If you study the Quran carefully, where this word is found, its usage has always been in the context of "the people of the scripture" vs. "the gentiles" or "the unscriptured". (See for example 3:20, 3:75, 62:2, 2:78). It is even possible to surmise that the "illiterate" meaning is secondary. It came to be used after the Quran was revealed, since it is reasonable to deduct "illiterate" as the opposite of "those who can read." This in turn may well be coming from "those who read the book," or "those who received the book," or "the people of the book" (ahl al-Kitab), which is precisely the opposite of "the gentiles."

Several hadiths reveal that Mohammed could read and also write when he chose to do so. If there was a Mohammed."
Democracyistheanswer — March 19, 2010 @ 12:24 AM

Monday, March 1, 2010

Islam: the Short of It

by Fjordman

. . . I have come to realize that Islam is a secondary infection. Are Islamic teachings inherently violent? Yes. Can Islam be reformed? No. Can Islam be reconciled with our way of life? No. Is there such as thing as a moderate Islam? No. Can we continue to allow Muslims to settle in our countries? No. These few sentences contain all the information about Islam that you will ever need to know. It is still useful to know more about the way your enemy thinks and how to exploit his weak points, yet there is no point in spending too much time on studying the failed Islamic culture.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

The View of the Future from Europe

From The Green Arrow a British National Party (BNP) site

Note: This has an either/or pointof view, it's either what you see or an alternative that has a "fascist" flavor. There must be a third solution as "Fascism" or "national socialism" that we have seen are not what is needed to replace what we have. Then, neither is Liberal-Leftist Communism.

Strict immigration policies are needed. One can dream can't one? lw

Rate Kewldude


The Northeast intelligence Network has a U.S. perspective--with emphasis on Islamic infiltration and takeover--on the similar--and growing--problem here in the U.S.A. here's a sample:

The depth of the infiltration is significant and the consequences ominously prescient. Most recent statistics available show that one out of three African-American inmates in U.S. prisons convert to Islam while incarcerated. The type of Islam to which they convert teaches the same ideology as the 9/11 hijackers, which is the “Wahhabi” or “Salafi” form of Islam that originated in and is continually being exported from Saudi Arabia. Scholarly debate of the interchangeability of the terms or the terms themselves aside, it is important to understand that the ideology behind this “fundamentalist” form of Islam is completely incompatible with the culture, politics, and social fabric of the West. Nonetheless, it is being embraced by numerous groups, agencies and individuals inside the United States.

Read the whole thing . . .

[link in foregoing quote from Northeast Intelligence Network mine, lw]

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

The "Arab World" and its Inhabitants

By Forkinsocket

In America . . . we had all been sufficiently subject to ARAMCO propaganda (performed as a "public service" by the big oil companies, as part of their propaganda payoff to the Saudis for allowing them to find, produce, and then pay exorbitantly for the oil that happens to lie under the malevolent sands of "Saudi" Arabia), to believe that there is something called "the Arab world" and in this "Arab world" there are no Copts, no Armenians, no Assyrians, no Chaldeans, no Turkmen, no Mandeans, no Maronites, and of course no Berbers, no Jews (no, there never were any Jews in North Africa or the Middle East — they all came to Israel, you see, from Europe), for everyone in the Arab world was an "Arab."


The more the non-Arab Muslims of the world, and 80% of the world’s Muslims are not Arab, come to realize — and it would not be hard to help them to realize, for they will not be able to deny the facts, having experienced so much of it themselves — that Islam is a vehicle for that Arab supremacism, the more likely it is that at least some of them will fall away. And others, who may stick with a kind of "non-Arab" Islam (as if such were possible) will, in so doing, at least help to divide, and therefore to weaken, the Camp of Islam.

--Berbers, Islam & Christianity Click to read entire article

Thursday, February 11, 2010



photo from Jihad Watch

IN MEMORIAM à propos because he was here and he was brave

Obituary by Robert Spencer:

With great sorrow I must inform you that Tashbih Sayyed, a courageous foe of the global jihad, has passed away.
--Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch

Click here to read Articles By Tashbih Sayyed See why this was one brave man

Remembering Tashbih Sayyed
by Robert Spencer
Posted on May 24, 2007

My friend Tashbih Sayyed, a Jihad Watch Board member, died last week. When I got the news, I did not have words, and posted only this. Now, on Memorial Day, I wanted to try to make up for that.

Tashbih Sayyed was that most rare of human beings: a man absolutely fearless in his commitment to the truth. After 9/11, American Muslim advocacy groups began, with the willing complicity of the mainstream media, to flood the airwaves with a huge mass of disinformation and misinformation about jihad activity in the United States and around the world, and above all about its provenance within Islamic theology and tradition. Instead of acknowledging that there was a mandate to wage war against unbelievers that was rooted in the Qur'an and Islamic tradition, Islamic spokesmen routinely denied this, and castigated those who contended otherwise as "bigots" and "Islamophobes."Amid all this Tashbih stood virtually alone as an honest man. He stood out sharply among contemporary Muslim spokesmen and activists by admitting that there was a problem within Islam that needed to be solved. As he once told me:

"My whole life is devoted to one end: to make the Muslims understand that their theology needs to be reformed and reinterpreted. Anybody who thinks that there's nothing wrong with their theology is either a blind person or an apologist. There are many things in Muslim Scripture that need to be reshaped and reframed and reinterpreted, so that they cannot be used by terrorists to justify homicide bombings and honor killings."This stance, of course, earned him ostracism and threats, but Tashbih was undaunted. I will never forget his reaction when I asked him whether he thought I should go ahead and write a sira -- a biography of Muhammad -- as I had been considering doing. He said "Of course you should" so quickly that it took me aback: usually when I broached the idea with people their reaction had been to tell me that if I did write such a book I would be threatened and possibly even killed. But Tashbih never flinched. He went on to explain to me that it needed to be done, that the truth needed to come out about these issues -- and clearly that was all that mattered, as far as he was concerned. He knew that if the world was going to prevail against the global jihadist threat, we would all have to take certain risks. And he himself never hesitated to put his life on the line for the truth.Would that now we had hundreds, and hundreds of thousands, and millions like him, with his quiet strength, his good humor, and his indomitable and unshakeable love for the truth. If we did, the outcome of this present conflict would not be in the slightest doubt.Tashbih, I am honored that you called me your friend, and I will miss you tremendously. And the forces of civilization have lost a warrior who cannot be replaced.

Posted by Robert on May 28, 2007 2:05 PM 21 Comments Print this entry Email this entry Digg this Buzz up!

With great sorrow I must inform you that Tashbih Sayyed, a courageous foe of the global jihad, has passed away.

After a long career at Pakistan Television, Tashbih's differences with the Zia ul-Haq regime in Pakistan (which gave the Islamization of Pakistan its first great boost) led him to come to the United States, where he founded two newspapers, Pakistan Today and Muslim World Today, and wrote eight books, including Mohammad – A Secularist's View. He appeared in documentaries including Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West. He was the President and founder of The Council for Democracy and Tolerance, an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute, and a member of the Jihad Watch Board.

Tashbih was insightful, humorous, and above all, fearless in his opposition to the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism. Despite numerous threats and a relentless barrage of insults and personal attacks, he kept on trying to awaken the world to the magnitude of the threat we face, never trimming his truth-telling to fit current fashion.

He was a dear friend, and he will be greatly missed.

May his memory be eternal.

Posted by Robert on May 24, 2007 5:02 AM

Posted by Robert on May 24, 2007 5:02 AM 26 Comments Print this entry Email this entry Digg this ARTICLEURL Buzz up!

[NOTE: For several years I lived down the street from where Tashbih Sayyed has been laid to rest. I regret is that I had not known him in life. Leslie White.]

By Debbie Schlussel
As I’ve oft remarked on this site, the term “moderate Muslim” is generally an oxymoron and a term that rarely fits anyone from the “Religion of Peace.”Occasionally, though, there are exceptions. There are those rare, truly moderate Muslims who courageously speak out–at serious risk of life and limb–against the mass violence, hate, intolerance, and terrorism their religion has uniquely wrought. (And then they have to obtain personal bodyguards, asylum in the U.S., Conceal and Carry permits. and live in fear and danger thereafter.)One of these brave, admirable Muslim exceptions was Tashbih Sayyed, who, very sadly, passed away unexpectedly on Wednesday in Los Angeles at the age of 66. He first came to my attention in the early ’90s, when he bravely appeared in the PBS documentary, “Jihad in America.”

ByIslam Watch, Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims
Tashbih was insightful, humorous, and above all, fearless in his opposition to the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism. Despite numerous threats and a relentless barrage of insults and personal attacks, he kept on trying to awaken the world to the magnitude of the threat we face, never trimming his truth-telling to fit current fashion.

Tashbih Sayyed ― A Fearless Muslim Zionist - Rachel Neuwirth
Tashbih Sayyed's Writings
Submitted by admin on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 10:39
Printer-friendly version
Collection of Essays
Rantisi Will Bring More Terror 2004/03/30
Al-Qa'ida Uses Qura'an To Justify Killings Of Innocents 2004/03/22
Incitement To Hatred Oct , 28, 2003
Islamist Hydra Aug , 26, 2003


How Many Times Do the Islamic Terrorists Have to Hit Us . . . Click on it

Muslim World Today click on it . . . one of Tashbih Sayyed's magazines--Still being published TODAY!

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Leftist Teamed with Moslems Intend to Destroy Our Civilization

Fjordman says:

Next to the EU, the most dangerous people are the Leftists all over the Western world who are waging a Jihad to destroy their own civilization and have teamed up with Muslims to achieve this goal. Unlike neo-Nazis, these people are not only far more numerous but socially accepted and disproportionately represented in the media and the education system, where they systematically silence "racist" dissenters by destroying their livelihoods and reputations. They use an imaginary "far-Right" threat to crush people they don’t like.

--Fjordman, in "Why We Need Germany," at The Brussels Journal
From The Most Dangerous People in the World at Islamic Danger to Americans