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?

1 comment:

  1. Profiling has failed us; we don’t need profiling to identify Individuals like the Christmas-Day Bomber or the Fort Hood Shooter! There is a better solution!

    Virtually all media outlets are discussing whether we should be profiling all Arab Muslims; I will in the one-page explain why we don’t need profiling. Over 15 years ago, we at the Center for Aggression Management developed an easily-applied, measurable and culturally-neutral body language and behavior indicators exhibited by people who intend to perpetrate a terrorist act. This unique methodology utilizes proven research from the fields of psychology, medicine and law enforcement which, when joined together, identify clear, easily-used physiologically-based characteristics of individuals who are about to engage in terrorist activities in time to prevent their Moment of Commitment.

    The Problem
    Since the foiled terrorist attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian national on Northwest Flight 253 to Detroit, the President has repeatedly stated that there has been a systemic failure as he reiterates his commitment to fill this gap in our security. This incident, like the Fort Hood shooting, exemplifies why our government must apply every valid preventative approach to identify a potential terrorist.

    The myriad methods to identify a terrorist, whether “no-fly list,” “explosive and weapons detection,” mental illness based approaches, “profiling” or “deception detection” - all continue to fail us. Furthermore, the development of deception detection training at Boston Logan Airport demonstrated that the Israeli methods of interrogation will not work in the United States.

    All media outlets are discussing the need for profiling of Muslim Arabs, but profiling does not work for the following three reasons:

    1. In practice, ethnic profiling tells us that within a certain group of people there is a higher probability for a terrorist; it does not tell us who the next terrorist is!

    2. Ethnic profiling is contrary to the value our society places on diversity and freedom from discrimination based on racial, ethnic, religious, age and/or gender based criteria. If we use profiling it will diminish our position among the majority of affected citizens who support us as a beacon of freedom and liberty.

    3. By narrowing our field of vision, profiling can lead to the consequence of letting terrorists go undetected, because the terrorist may not be part of any known “profile worthy” group – e.g., the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh

    The Solution
    Our unique methodology for screening passengers can easily discern (independently of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, age, and gender) the defining characteristics of human beings who are about to engage in terrorist acts.

    The question is when will our government use true “hostile intent” through the “continuum of aggressive behavior” to identify potential terrorists? Only when observers focus specifically on “aggressive behavior” do the objective and culturally neutral signs of “aggression” clearly stand out, providing the opportunity to prevent these violent encounters. This method will not only make all citizens safer, but will also pass the inevitable test of legal defensibility given probable action by the ACLU.

    As our Government analyzes what went wrong regarding Abdulmatallab’s entrance into the United States, you can be assured that Al Qaeda is also analyzing how their plans went wrong. Who do you think will figure it out first . . . ?

    Visit our blog at where we discuss the shooting at Fort Hood and the attempted terrorist act on Flight 253.