Monday, January 25, 2010

Reflections on Islamic Culture

Paul Eidelberg

Bat Ye’or, an outstanding scholar of Islam, calls Islam a “culture of hate.” If this is racism it is also the truth. Another scholar, Dore Gold, describes Saudi Arabia as “Hatred’s Kingdom.” If this is racism, it is also the truth. Saudi Arabia has established thousands of mosques—engines of hatred, hatred of the West, of America, of Jews, of Israel.

As a culture of hate, Islam may be more accurately described as culture of murderous hatred. Who does not know that Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran are the world’s leading patrons of Jihad?

Since the Quran exalts the Muslim who “slays and is slain” for Allah (Sura 9:111), we may also say that Islam is a culture that fosters a love of death, a culture in which the love death surpasses the love of life. Perhaps because martyrdom, for Muslims, is the gateway to eternal life or paradise.

It follows that the purpose of bringing Muslim children into the world is to teach them that their highest goal in life is to slay and be slain for Allah, hence to become suicidal murderers of infidels!

This Muslim imperative cannot be overcome by logical reasoning, which means that devout Muslims are incorrigible. Thus, if an infidel refuses to convert to Islam, the Muslim imperative to slaughter him is inexorable—impervious to moral suasion.

You can no more talk a Muslim out of his murderous faith than you can talk a paranoid schizophrenic out of his fear of others. Some say Islam is a form of psychosis. One may then conclude that just as an individual can become a psychotic, so a nation can become psychotic if its people are educated, from infancy on, to believe in the Manichean world of Islam.

To enable Muslims to cope with their evil enemies, it is necessary to educate them in taqiyya—dissimulation and deceit—an art in which Muslims have no equals. Taqiyya is a military tactic Muslims employ to deceive and eventually conquer their enemies.

The late Professor Y. Harkabi, once head of Israel Military Intelligence, quotes Arab sociologist Sonia Hamady: "Lying is a widespread habit among the Arabs, and they have a low idea of truth"

Indeed, whereas truthfulness (in principle) is a Western virtue, mendacity is an Islamic virtue. This is why treaties Muslims have with infidels as well as with other Muslims are worthless. But this means that Israeli prime ministers who engage in negotiations with Muslims are fools.

Because truthfulness is not an Islamic virtue, Muslims have a tendency to believe in their own lies. Hence Muslims can lie with sincerity, which makes them the most effective liars. Unsurprisingly, Muslims have been called pathological liars in contradistinction to Western leaders, many of whom may be deemed “conventional” liars.

Is there a psychological nexus between the mendacity of Muslims and their love of death? Yes. A lie negates the connection between speech and reality.

Since the essence of speech is a sharing of one’s thoughts and feelings with others, false speech, like death, severs any bond with others. It is a denial of the “other,” of the other’s humanity. This is spiritual murder, which conduces to physical murder. In other words, lying is a denial of the “other” as a human being, and this makes his murder of no moral consequence.

People in the West are incapable of dealing with Muslims on a moral level. Western elites live under the illusion that all peoples are equal, meaning, equally amenable to Socratic dialogue and equally receptive to notions of right and wrong. This is not true.

For example, to reward good deeds with evil is abhorrent to people in the West. We have learned this is not the case of Muslims who sought to destroy Israeli hospitals that have healed them. (For an example of Muslim ingratitude, see Brigitte Gabriel, Because They Hate.)

It is futile to counter by citing exceptions. We are speaking of a culture, not of individuals who have not lost, or who have recovered, their humanity.

If these reflections on Islamic culture appear like racism, so be it. Islam’s love of death strikes me as a mental disorder, which places in question the sanity of any democracy that prohibits ethnic profiling?

Friday, January 15, 2010

Is a Nice Muslim a Good Muslim?


After a murderous jihad at Fort Hood or the Christmas day airplane bombing attempt, did you hear: "Of course, not all Muslims are bad?" That brings up the question of how do you even tell if a Muslim is bad? Or good?

First off, what is a Muslim? A Muslim is a person who follows the doctrine of Islam. When that same person, does something that does not follow the doctrine of Islam, they are not a Muslim.

The common idea is that anyone who says that they are a Muslim has their every action and word dictated by Islam. Put another way, every Muslim is seen as perfect follower of Islam at all times and circumstances. However, the truth is that a "Muslim" is not always a Muslim. When they do not follow Islamic doctrine, they are no longer a Muslim, but are a kafir (non-Muslim).

Now, how do we know if a Muslim is good or bad? If they are following the Koran and the Sunna (the perfect example of Mohammed), they are a good Muslim. If they don't follow the doctrine, then they are not a Muslim. That means that from the stand point of Islam there is no such thing as a good or bad Muslim. You either are a Muslim or you are not. When anyone follows the Koran and the Sunna, they are Muslim. When anyone does not follow the doctrine of Islam then they are a kafir.

This means that a person called a Muslim has two modes of being-Muslim and kafir, or kafir-Muslim. The same person can be a Muslim in one moment and a kafir in the next.

What do kafirs mean by a good Muslim? Simple, the same way we judge all other people as good and bad-the Golden Rule. Do they follow the Golden Rule when they are with us? If so, then they are a good person.

Since the Koran and the Sunna do not have the Golden Rule, how are Muslims to treat us? Islamic doctrine lays out an alternative to the Golden Rule. Those who do not believe Mohammed are kafirs, and kafirs are treated differently from Muslims.

Islamic doctrine says a great deal about the kafir. Most of the Koran is about kafirs, 61%, only 39% is about Muslims. About 20% of the Hadith is about kafirs and 98% of the Sira is about kafirs. Mohammed was fixated on kafirs and annihilated every kafir by violence, exile or conversion. When Mohammed died, there was not a person alive in Arabia who would argue with him.

Mohammed's actions are pure Islam; therefore, annihilating kafirs and kafir culture is pure Islam. A Muslim has to be, in some way, in some form of action, eliminating kafirs and their world. The action against kafirs is jihad. There are four flavors of jihad and murder is only one. Deception, conversation, articles and TV appearances can be jihad of speech and writing. There is always the option of giving to an Islamic charity, since one of the Koranic uses of charity is jihad.

Every Muslim believes that all nonbelievers are kafirs. The Koran says that kafirs may be hated, plotted against, deceived, murdered, raped, enslaved, mocked and tortured. All of those actions are Islam and perfect doctrine. When a person is being a good Muslim, they are following Islam and that means that you are a kafir. Hate, deception, murder, mockery and torture are bad for kafirs, but good for Muslims.

Kafirs are pure other. Muslims treat other Muslims as brothers and sisters, but they can treat a kafir well or they can treat them as less than an animal. Islam has dualistic ethics, one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for kafirs. Dualism is bad. When a Muslim practices dualism, they are bad. There is no good in Islam for a kafir and therefore, there is no good in a Muslim for a kafir.

Does this mean that the Muslim at work is bad? Yes, when they are following the doctrine of Islam. Whenever they are not following Islam, that person can be as good as any other. It is not about people, but about doctrine. It is the doctrine of Islam to be bad to kafirs. When anyone is practicing Islam around a kafir they must be bad, since Mohammed was never good to kafirs.

Wait! What about the nice, pious Muslim at work? He is good, isn't he?

Is he nice because of the Golden Rule or is he practicing the Sunna of the charming Mohammed we find in the early Meccan days? Mohammed could be very polite with kafirs, however, if charm did not work, then other methods were used. Islam is a process of increasing force that can start out pleasantly.

We are left with an ethical confusion around any Muslim. They can seem pleasant, but nothing changes the fact that they see Mohammed as the perfect person to imitate. Nothing changes the fact that we are kafirs. Kafir is the worst word in the human language.

Who are we to believe-the Muslim at work or Mohammed? Every Muslim wants to imitate Mohammed; every Muslim is a Mohammedan. The problem is that Mohammed annihilated every kafir he ever met. It was a process. The process started out nice and when nice did not work, it ended in annihilation of the kafir. In Islam, nice is the beginning of bad for the kafir.

So how do you tell if a nice Muslim is good or bad? From the kafir point-of-view, there is only the fact that a Muslim is following Mohammed's example. And that is bad, very bad.

Bill Warner

[January 7, 2010]

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