My
hungry toddler woke me up this morning. After making his breakfast, I
turned on my computer and found that London had just been struck by
terrorists. As I watched news clips for the next few hours, I noticed
that, for many in the West, the terror attacks brought back painful
memories of September 11th, 2001. For me it was a little different. My
thoughts weren’t drawn to the attacks against the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon, but to an attack on a local mosque that took place
shortly thereafter.
Following the 9-11 attacks, a few enraged
vandals smashed the windows of the Islamic Center near Old Dominion
University in Norfolk, Virginia. When the pastor of a nearby church saw
the students vandalizing the mosque, he called the police. Later in the
day, police and school officials held a meeting to help ease some of
the tension. After the meeting, an angry attendee caused a brief panic
when he claimed that Islam is a religion of violence and bloodshed, and
that the terrorists were only doing what they were commanded to do in
the Qur’an. Several people (including myself) argued against him,
confidently assuring the man that Islam is actually a religion of
peace.
My
beliefs about Islam have changed since then (mostly because I’ve
studied Islam). Nevertheless, I recently realized why I had been so
quick to defend the Muslim religion. Over the years, I’ve known several
Muslims, and they have all been kind, peaceful individuals. Indeed,
despite the popular portrait of Muslims burning flags and desecrating
images of George Bush, the majority of Muslims are normal, faithful,
peaceful people, going about their daily lives with no intention of
blowing up buildings or of burning anyone’s flag. Many in the West deny
this, but they typically do so because they have never so much as
talked to a Muslim.
The
benevolent nature of these Muslims has a profound psychological effect
on Westerners. It causes us to say, "Wait a minute. Islam can’t be bad,
because Muslims are such nice people. Thus, the terrorists who blow up
buildings and subways must be extremists." Once we have convinced
ourselves of this, we may even find ourselves defending Islam, as I
once did. We know that people are angry at terrorists, and we know that
some of these angry people may want to take out their anger on Muslims.
So we end up defending Islam in order to protect our Muslim friends.
While protecting people is certainly a noble goal, defending Islam is
an entirely different story.
If
someone were to ask me, "David, do you believe that Islam is a religion
of peace?" my answer would not be "Yes" or "No." Rather, my response
would be, "First tell me what you mean when you say ‘Islam,’ for it is
a term that is used in different ways." If by "Islam" we mean the
religion that is practiced by more than a billion people around the
world, I could reasonably answer with a qualified "Yes," because it is
a religion of peace for many people (though not for all). But if by
"Islam" we mean the religion taught by Muhammad, I would have to
respond with a resounding "No."
At
this point my Muslim readers will be saying to themselves, "What does
this infidel mean? There is only one Islam, perfectly preserved in the
Holy Qur’an from the time it was given to Prophet Muhammad by the angel
Gabriel." However, much like the idea that the Qur’an has been
perfectly preserved, the idea that Islam has only one face is
completely false. There has always been a psychological crisis in
Islam, and if I were to diagnose it as having a particular mental
illness, I would probably argue that it suffers from Multiple
Personality Disorder. Islam has never been able to decide whether it
wants to live in peace with unbelievers, or to pile their severed,
unbelieving heads into a giant pyramid. I’m sure many would disagree
here, but they would be disagreeing with one of the most empirically
verifiable facts in the universe. Think about it. One Muslim beheads an
innocent woman to protest the war in Iraq, while another Muslim curses
him for slaying the innocent. One group of Muslims flies an aircraft
into a building, while another group condemns the attack. One Muslim
detonates a bomb on a bus filled with passengers, while another Muslim
says on the evening news, "Islam is a religion of peace." Each side
quotes the Qur’an to support its actions. However, it may be even more
important to note that each of them is following the example set by
Muhammad.
The
reason that Islam suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder is that
its founder also suffered from this disorder. I don’t mean this to be
taken literally, of course. It is only meant to describe a peculiar
phenomenon that went on in Muhammad’s head. When Muhammad first began
receiving his "revelations," many of his neighbors in the city of Mecca
took it upon themselves to mock and persecute him. Muhammad was a
threat both to their immoral lifestyles and to their source of wealth
(the pagan idols of the city brought plenty of revenue), and so he had
to be stopped, or at least discredited. During this period, Muhammad
was humble, devout in many ways, obedient to the message handed down to
him, faithful in giving to the poor, and, in general, a fine moral
example. In essence, he was like the many fine examples of dedicated
Muslims we see in the world today. He preached a religion of peace, and
the hadiths we have from this period reflect his peaceful temperament.
Then
something happened. Muhammad fled Mecca and moved to Medina, where his
political power rapidly increased. Soon he and his followers began
raiding caravans to support the fledgling religion,[1] and, while
Muhammad’s enemies multiplied, so did his followers. What followed can
only be described as a reign of terror for those who refused to submit
to Islam. Both men and women were slaughtered for writing satirical
poems against Muhammad, and those who left the Islamic faith were
exterminated. One woman was murdered in the dark for writing a poem
against Muhammad; after she was slain, Muhammad declared that "Two
goats won’t butt their heads about her."[2] Hundreds of Jews were
beheaded (after surrendering) for standing against Muhammad, and their
wives and children were sold into slavery.[3] A blind man who was
reportedly more than a hundred years old had his head split open for
saying that, if he could only see, he would throw a handful of dust at
Muhammad.[4] When a man named Uqba was about to be killed by Muslims
and showed concern for his family by asking, "But who will look after
my children, O Muhammad?" Muhammad answered by telling the doomed man
that Hell would take care of them.[5] (For more on Muhammad’s violent
acts, see "Murdered By Muhammad.")
There
are, of course, far more examples of violence than the ones listed
here, but these should be sufficient to provide a picture of Muhammad’s
idea of how Muslims should treat those who refuse to submit to Islam.
Was Islam a religion of peace for the 600-900 Jewish men and boys whose
heads were piled into trenches after they had surrendered? Was Islam a
religion of peace for the woman who was stabbed to death in the midst
of her five children? Was it a religion of peace for anyone who dared
to speak out against Muhammad? No, it wasn’t. When Muhammad finally had
a band of dedicated followers who would obey his violent commands
without question, Islam was not a religion of peace.
Notice
that we have approached this question regarding the nature of Islam
using a basic historical analysis. Discussions about Islam typically
revolve around certain verses in the Qur’an, but such discussions are
often fruitless. The reason for this is that the Qur’an is very
inconsistent in its approach towards unbelievers, due in large part to
Muhammad’s own inconsistency. In conversations about Islam, a Muslim
may argue that, according to the Qur’an, "There is no compulsion in
religion" (2:256). A critic may reply with a very different passage:
Fight
those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they
prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the
religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until
they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a
state of subjection (9:29).
To
this the Muslim replies, "Yes, it says to fight those who do not
believe, but it is referring to unbelievers who attack Islam." Thus,
according to many Muslims, Islam fights, but only in self-defense. So
who’s right? The solution to the debate can be found in a historical
examination of Islam. It is true that Muslims are only permitted to
attack when threatened, but history shows what the early Muslims
considered a threat. Anything other than complete submission to Islam
was regarded as a threat to Islam, and so anything other than complete
submission was met with extreme hostility. Even poetry and song lyrics,
when used against Muhammad, were enough to warrant a sentence of
death.[6]
Hence,
the verses in the Qur’an that teach Muslims to live in peace should be
examined within the historical context of Muhammad’s life, for it is
this life that sheds light on an apparently ambiguous message. This
historical context also sheds light on modern aspects of Islam, which
ultimately derive from the life of its founder.
For
instance, more than thirteen centuries ago, the relatively peaceful
Muhammad fled Mecca because of intense persecution. As he fled the
city, he left the path of peace farther and farther behind him. He
eventually returned at the head of an army, and few were brave enough
to oppose him. Islamic law was suddenly supreme, with a host of bloody
tales to warn its enemies. A similar phenomenon occurs in the world
today. When Muslims are in the minority (as they are in America) the
message is always "Let us live in peace with one another, for Islam is
a religion of tolerance and understanding." Then, once Islam has spread
throughout the country, the message suddenly changes to "Anyone who
stands against the Prophet is worthy of death!"
Oddly
enough, this tactic has been remarkably successful for Islam. Despite
more than a thousand years of bloodshed, many people are convinced that
Muhammad was a gentle, humble man who never harmed anyone, and that
Islam teaches its followers to be at peace with everyone who hasn’t
declared war on them. Then, when someone like Osama bin Laden organizes
a group of Muslims in an attack against thousands of innocent people,
everyone says that he must be insane, and people around the world rush
to defend Islam.
The
result is simply amazing. Muslims commit acts of terror in Russia,
Spain, America, England, Israel, and countless other countries around
the world, and it actually causes certain people to support Islam even
more! Think about it. A Muslim blows up a bus, but people don’t want
other Muslims to be persecuted for it, so they start defending Islam.
Legislators are among the most active in this regard. Laws threatening
free speech about Islam are popping up everywhere (even in the United
States and Great Britain[7]), declaring that statements against Islam
will not be tolerated. Indeed, Australia is on the verge of sending
pastors to prison for quoting passages of the Qur’an![8]
Today’s
terrorist attacks in London, strangely enough, will help Islam grow
even stronger. There will be a brief period of outrage against Islam,
but once the smoke has cleared (both literally and figuratively), the
world will once again rush to defend Islam, and more bills will be
passed, "protecting" Muslims from those who would speak out against
Muhammad’s "religion of peace." No matter how violent Islam becomes, as
long as people fail to recognize that its two faces are part of the
same head (and that both faces are calmly smiling as new laws make
Islam untouchable), Muhammad’s empire of faith will thrive in a world
of false tolerance.
Perhaps
Osama bin Laden isn’t as crazy as everyone thinks, for his plan seems
to be working perfectly. His attacks are strengthening Islam’s position
in the world. In a curious way, bin Laden is more dedicated to true
Islam than most Muslims are. If Muhammad told Muslims to fight in the
name of God and demonstrated his meaning by killing men, women, and
children for even minor resistance, what should a dedicated Muslim do?
Should devout Muslims live in peace with the infidels around them, or
should they follow Muhammad’s example by murdering the infidels in
their beds?[9]
I’m
very happy that most Muslims are willing to live in peace with their
neighbors. Yet we have to be honest here. Benevolent Muslims aren’t
peaceful because they are following the example set by Muhammad. They
are peaceful because they’ve chosen to do what’s right, and because
they are willing to live far better lives than Muhammad himself lived.
In fact, many Muslims are such kind, peaceful, and gentle people that
they seem to be following the example set by another great religious
leader—one who died on the cross for the sins of the world and rose
from the dead to prove his message. This man gave his listeners a sober
warning: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s
clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you
will recognize them" (Matthew 7:15). And, may I add, we should also
watch out for false religions, which come to us crying "Peace! Peace!"
when they are built on a foundation of murder and bloodshed.
Posted by LionHeart
Historically correct except for the last bit about (presumably) Jesus dying for the sins of mankind and his resurrection.
Jesus did not die for the sins of mankind. That's a furphy. He was executed by the Romans because he was a threat to them.
And the resurrection is a load of rubbish: myth, superstition, nonsense.
When the Romans executed them they didn't muck about !
This post was credible until Lion Heart started waffling about Jesus and then his/her credibility was shattered.
Get a life, Lion Heart !
Reply to this
In today's Telegraph.."Lord" Ahmed says that businesses were trying to organise a nationwide shutdown in protest over the knighthood. In case they are willing to put their money where there mouths are check out the bus timetables and chip shop opening times...sorted.
Reply to this
Addie Nuff, I was hoping that they would boycott their welfare cheques...
Humdinger it was quite a good article, but it is wrong in that qualified yes in that Islam is a religion of peace.
My point of view is that all the main centres of Islamic jurisprudence follow the Mo cult worship part to the letter, it is individuals who have brushed certain parts under the table, I happen to think that some of these people could accept Christianity and to be blunt many do.
But Islam is not a religion of peace, because even at ist Quranic base ignoring the hadiths it is aggressive and warlike.
This guy is still hampered by his favourable impression of individuals, I have met a number of polite and nice Muslims too, but it does not stop me from recognising that Islam is inherently evil and I do not say that as a religious person.
In some of my earlier posts I tried to explain just who wide that defence of Islam bit is, in fact it can result in them declaring Jihad on just about anything.
Reply to this
There are some very articulate, eloquent posters on this site, can someone re-write a shortened version of that article, post it on the site with an email link? We can then email the article to all and sundry, MPs journalists etc, in fact everyone in our address books.
The main problem we all face is that most decent people cannot come to terms with the fact that islam is evil. Most people seem to think that all religions contain good and bad and islam is no exception. If we do not shake that false belief, we are doomed, its as simple as that. We have to take the battle to the next stage, rather than preaching to the converted. Our very futures are at stake.
Reply to this
Best line from the article ...
"No matter how violent Islam becomes, as long as people fail to recognize that its two faces are part of the same head (and that both faces are calmly smiling as new laws make Islam untouchable), Muhammad’s empire of faith will thrive in a world of false tolerance. "
......HOWEVER, much as it helps our cause to comcentrate on Muslim terrorism, it is ultimately NOT Muslim bombs which will destroy our society, it is large numbers of Muslim children being born among us - THAT is the rather unpaletable truth. Ruth Dudley Edwards touched upon this in her recent Daily Mail article, all credit to her.
To my mind, the message needs to be " Islam is NEVER a religion of peace, when Muslims are in a minority it is a religion of DECEPTION, and when Muslims are in a majority it is a religion of violence and oppression."
Excellent article nonetheless.
Reply to this
Piggy infidel, absolutely right, what is interesting is the way that the Muslims are acting in the UK, which is before they have reached critical mass, that is because they feel that the UK government is so weak that they can do what they want, and they are right.
There have been many sites that have detailed the Muslim scale as a percentage of population, which works out the way that Muslims behave, I tend to think it should be weighted on the number of fighting age, which then perhaps gives us more of an idea why the Muslims in the UK are more aggresive then we would normally expect from past Muslim growth rates. What we are definately seeing in the UK is the millet system which the Turks used in the Balkans.
Urban11, I think that the article called Why Terrorists Own Islam at http://sioe.wordpress.com/ is quite good too.
The issue in the article above is that the person is trying to write an article that does not come over as extreme, so he undermines himself in parts, such as that qualified yes comment.
I found that when talking or writing on this subject, people assumed that I was extreme just because it is an extreme subject. People brought up in the PC way tend to hang on any manifestation of extremism as a defence not to open their minds, even if you are just talking about extremism.
Its a good idea, I have taken other people articles and pruned them in the past, but this article is difficult to do so as it works quite well on addressing why some people fall over themselves to defend the undefensible.
Reply to this
I thought the article needed a bit of pruning (attention span)and a no reference to Christianity. The problem affects all of mankind especially those unfortunate enough to have been born a muslim.
Reply to this
The article is actually aimed at Christians to educate them about Islam and yes we could prune it to remove that part. Your objective is to explain why people defend Islam or to explain what Islam is, there are two potential uses for that article which can be pruned to do that IMO abased on the way he worded it.
Reply to this
8.30 pm tonight LIVE on 18doughtystreet.com - Douglas Murray with others discuusing the Sir Salman Rushdie knighthood and muslim threats - well worth watching
Reply to this
Humdinger
Thank you for the history lesson.
At a time when the West is under attack from without and within, all we need is an attack on the one home faith of the West, and on which is founded most of its civilisation.
Reply to this
Humdinger
History.
Jesus was no threat to the Romans. Pilate could see no good reason why he should be executed and didn't want to do it.
Jesus was a threat to the Sanhedrin. They were the ones who wanted him dead, and as the Romans, once their rule was established, preferred to rule through the dominant groups in their provinces, Pilate wanted to keep the Sanhedrin sweet (the Jews were known for being particularly rebellious and caused the Romans a lot of difficulty), he ordered the execution. That's why he washed his hands of the affair - he was saying that it wasn't his doing.
DP
I agree with you up to a point, but Greek and Roman influences have been every bit as powerful in shaping the West. Who is known as "The father of science"?
Reply to this
SHM
Roman and Greek interest was in mathematics, and that as an intellectual curiosity. Science as an investigation of nature, was never considered intellectually of the same calibre as mathematics. The result was that the Greeks tried to fit explanations of nature to mathematical norms, to the detriment of both mathematics and science. They also lost interest in science when it failed to provide them with intellectual sophistry.
Investigation of nature i.e., natural science or natural philosophy, comes about as a consequence of scientists in Christendom investigating the wonder of the work of God. It is these investigations, done with perverence and determination, and in a spirit of humility, that led to modern science i.e., the modern scienctific method, becoming essentially a Christian discipline.
And not just science - look at art, music, literature and philosophy. What would they be without Christianity?
I would hazard that 90% of modern science comes about from the work of scientists in Christendom.
Then again, Europe would most certainly have been overrun by Muslim invasions, as the Islamic faith gave its warriors enormous spiritual strength in battle, as well as booty, not just on earth but in paradise. Against such warriors, it was the rallying and fortifying Christian faith, that atlast turned the tide of Muslim conquest, not just in Spain but in France and at Vienna. There would be no Western civilisation or modern science if Islam had conquered Europe.
In retrospect, modern science and Western civilisation as it exists now, is rooted in the Christian faith. Attacking Christianity is attacking the very roots of our civilisation - and then we are surprised at the disarray in Western societies, as well as Islam's growth in the West.
Reply to this