Why Islam?

Much of the Middle East is now Islamic. Muslim warriors conquered it centuries ago, and Sharia law has been slowly eliminating the last remnants of non-Muslims ever since. Now some orthodox Muslims are working to conquer Europe.

But why is Islam so different from other empires that have come and gone through history?

The Mongols conquered the largest landmass ever controlled under one government, and if Genghis Khan hadn't died when he did, his warriors may well have conquered Europe.

But nobody is worried about the Mongols now. Why?

Because they didn't write a book and they didn't start a religion. There are no faithful followers of Genghis Khan still working to fulfill his vision of world conquest.

We cannot say the same about Muhammad.

Read more...

"Are You a Hatemonger? I Don't Believe in Promoting Hatred"

THIS IS another installation in our series, Answers to Objections. When you criticize Islam, you may very well be accused of being a "hater," as if telling people about basic Islamic doctrines means you advocate hatred toward Muslims as the solution. And nobody likes a hater, or wants to be one.

This objection is fairly easy to answer. Here are three possible ways to respond:

1. Hatred is not the answer. If anything, I am anti-hatred. That's why I am trying to expose Islamic teachings: Shari'a law includes a system of legally-mandated hatred. Mohammad is their model, and he expressed hatred toward non-Muslims. He maligned them, robbed them, tortured them, killed them, raped them, and took them as slaves. Muslims are supposed to follow his example. It says so in the Qur'an 91 times.

2. I'm talking about the teachings, not the people. Some Muslims follow the teachings, and some are Muslim in name only. But non-Muslims need to know about the teachings, because many of the most fundamental Islamic teachings are about how to deal with non-Muslims. According to the teachings, we must be subjugated under Islamic law. All of us. Voluntarily or by force. And the tens of millions or hundreds of millions who follow Islamic doctrine to the letter are actively working toward that end. They have gained control over how Islam is taught in American schoolbooks. Devoted followers have set up organizations in the United States and other Western democracies with the express purpose of undermining those democracies from within. We need to know about this stuff. It is affecting us already.

3. If I say the teachings of communism advocate ending economic inequalities, does that make me a hatemonger? If I say Republicans advocate smaller government, does that make me a hater? If I say Buddhists believe in reincarnation, does that make me a hater? But if I say the teachings of Islam advocate striving to institute worldwide Shari'a law, that makes me a hatemonger? That doesn't make any sense. Where did you come up with that?

When you answer these questions, think of the question itself as an earnest request for knowledge, even if the question comes out as an accusation. People don't really know how to understand what you're doing, so they use the only model they can think of to interpret your actions: They think you must be like a racist or a religious bigot or something along those lines.

So a helpful response is to give them a better model to interpret with. What you're doing is much closer to education than hatemongering. Urge them to read the Qur'an for themselves to find out more about it.

Read more...

The Key Point of the Whole Argument

IN OUR discussions with others about the third jihad, what is the one barrier that seems insurmountable? Here's what I'll bet it is: You say it is a fundamental and essential part of Islam that Muslims must wage jihad against non-Muslims until the whole world submits to Islamic law. And they say, "It can't be."

It can't be because all religions are the same. It can't be because everyone is basically good. It can't be because most Muslims aren't violent. It can't be because if it is, the consequences would be too much to bear. It can't be because only a racist would say such a thing. It can't be because everybody knows Islam is a religion of peace. It can't be because I have this Muslim friend and he is really nice.

In other words, all the things people say to you to argue this point are a desperate attempt to not allow that fact to be true.

This should be the key point of any public education we engage in: That it's an essential part of Islam to wage jihad until the whole world submits to Islamic law. Once that point is accepted, all things that need to be understood can be understood easily.

But how can you get someone to accept that fact as a fact?

Last night I was reading a rather long article called A New Koran? and I think I've found something we could use to help people accept the key point.

The article is a discussion between several well-known people. Among them are Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, Khalim Massoud (president of Muslims Against Sharia).

The topic of discussion is the re-writing of the Qur'an. Massoud is working on a project that removes all exhortations to intolerance and violence from the Qur'an. The argument goes on to discuss how the Muslim world has responded to this and other attempts to make the Qur'an less dangerous for non-Muslims.

As I was reading, something struck me: THIS would be persuasive evidence for the unenlightened.

These Islamic scholars, some of them Muslims, are almost universal in their agreement that the Muslim world will never accept at altered version of the Qur'an. In other words, intolerance and violence toward non-Muslims is such an inherent, fundamental part of the Qur'an, taking it out would make Islamic teachings almost unrecognizable to the Muslim world!

This is the kind of article that would only be interesting to those who are in the field — those who write and speak about it, or who are working on projects to stop Islam's relentless encroachment. But I thought this might be good evidence to make our point in a way the uninitiated would listen to.

I suggest we print out the article and have it handy. I suggest we bookmark it where we can find it easily. And then let's use this article when someone says, "It can't be."

Read more...

Growing Numbers Denounce Islam

The inimitable Ramachandra B. Abhyankar got another of his letters published in the Tribune Star. Below is his newest letter (originally published here):

Many Muslims are renouncing Islam because they respect the human rights of non-Muslims and women and disagree with the Islamic doctrines of Jihad (Islamic holy war against non-Muslims) and Sharia (Islamic law) which calls for the subjugation, oppression and exploitation of non-Muslims and women.

The list of such former Muslims includes names such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of the book “Infidel”; Wafa Sultan, author of the book “A God who Hates”; Nonie Darwish, author of the book “Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law”; M.A. Khan, author of the book “Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery”; Ali Sina, author of the book “Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography”; and Ibn Warraq, author of the book “Why I am Not a Muslim.”

These respected individuals have concluded that Islam cannot be reformed. At a time when it is well known that Muslims enjoy equal rights with non-Muslims in non-Islamic countries, Islamic countries continue to discriminate against non-Muslims to various degrees because of Islam. Discrimination against non-Muslims and women is at the heart of Islam. By renouncing Islam, former Muslims announce their resolve to peacefully co-exist with the rest of humanity.

Former Muslims are heroes because they have listened to the voice of their conscience in spite of the ever-present threat of the command to Muslims contained in the Islamic edict pronounced by the Prophet of Islam and recorded in the Sahih Bukhari Hadith Collection: “If any Muslim gives up his Islamic religion, then kill him.” This edict of the Prophet of Islam is codified under Sharia as the death penalty for apostasy from Islam.

Ibn Warraq has suggested that former Muslims be given asylum by Americans, just as Soviet dissidents were granted asylum by Americans during the Cold War. Former Muslims can give valuable advice to Americans, as they have firsthand knowledge of Jihad and Sharia.

Americans can use this advice in combating the threat of homegrown Jihad, a topic dealt with in depth in the following book by Erick Stakelbeck: “The Terrorist Next Door: How the Government is Deceiving You About the Islamist Threat.” The book describes the “chip away strategy” of homegrown Jihad: mounting small-scale attacks like the Fort Hood attack or the attempted Times Square bombing, as opposed to a spectacular attack, such as the Sept. 11, 2001, attack.

Following the killing of Osama bin Laden, the FBI has warned that such small-scale, homegrown Jihad attacks are more likely.

— Ramachandra B. Abhyankar

Read more...

What "Religion of Peace" Really Means

Malise Ruthven's book, A Fury for God: The Islamist Attack on America, seeks to understand the forces behind Islam's relentless encroachment. It is a difficult book to read, and yet parts of it clarified and illuminated Islam's prime directive better than anything I've ever read. And A Fury for God: The Islamist Attack on America is one of the very few books I've read that has no obvious ax to grind. Below are some selected quotes from the book:

As almost every account of Islam will explain, the word Islam (self-surrender) derives from the same root as salam (peace). In its self-definition Islam is primarily a "religion of peace." The problem consists not in the idea of peace as a good, but in the means deployed to achieve it. In the Quranic discourse, as in the legal formulations derived from the Quran and the Prophet's traditions, the very notion of peace is conditional on the acknowledgment of the Islamic idea of God.

The Quran implies that the world will be at peace when every person on Earth submits to the will of Allah (by force if necessary). In that sense, Islam is a religion of peace. Another quote from the book:

The jihad was integral to Islamic expansion. Understood as a political-military struggle, it provided the rationale for the Islamic imperium.

...Jihad, as is now widely known, means "struggle:" it has the same root as ijtihad, the interpretative "effort" needed to fathom the law as revealed by God and his Prophet. According to a well-known hadith, jihad is the "monasticism" of faith. "Every nation has its monasticism and the monasticism of this nation is the jihad." Muhammad disapproved of asceticism: there was to be "no monkery" in his community. Jihad held the place occupied by asceticism in early Christianity.

Ever since I read that, I've thought differently of jihad. If you are a devout person, if you want to please Allah and show him how much you worship Him, but you do not have the avenue of expression called asceticism, how can you demonstrate your devotion? Muhammad gave the answer: Jihad. Express it in action. Express it by striving mightily in the name of Allah, not just in your mind, but in the world. Advance Allah's cause by defending Islam, and by trying to make every country on earth follow the law of Allah. Work at it. Put your money where your faith is.

And one final quote from A Fury for God:

Modernity is seductive: Satan is a tempter, not a tyrant. Since Muslim cultures tend to draw boundaries around social behavior, emphasizing external rather than internal moral constraints, governments — or more pervasively "the West" — are blamed for the availability of temptations. Imported American dramas such as Dallas, Knott's Landing and Falcon Crest, showing human behavior in situations dominated by lust, greed, and selfishness, are seen as undermining the Muslim family by introducing aspirations towards materialism and sexual immorality.

I thought that was interesting. In the West, because we hold liberty as a fundamental value, we think of morality as something we exercise personally, from within.

Islam is more oriented toward controlling the environment — essentially to limit temptations — in order to impose morality (or strengthen it) from outside. In that sense, then, a free society is incompatible with the strict application of Islam. An Islamic-style moral life would require an Islamic state, or at the very least, the kind of isolated or enclosed community the Amish have. (This may explain, at least in part, why the mosque Nonie Darwish attended encouraged American Muslims to stay isolated from the infidel American culture.)

Islamic fundamentalists see the establishment of Islamic law as a moral duty. It creates an environment where everyone can be moral, and where infidels cannot infect the Muslims with their immoral example. The Islamic vision is very much like the Pleasantville fantasy-perfect world, but the achievement of the vision requires the removal of so many liberties it becomes a repressive totalitarian state.

Anyway, I recommend Malise Ruthven's book, A Fury for God. It is a valuable contribution to the greater conversation about how to reverse the trend toward global jihad.

Read more...