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.