This article on the politically correct Orwellian decision by the US State Department to not use the word ‘jihad’ to refer to jihad is one of the best floating around the web. (hat tip to American Thinker.com)
The US State Department has had hundreds of laptop computers stolen,
many belonging to the Department’s Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program. Was it criminal jihad? No, it can’t be as the J-word has been banned.. (hat tip to JihadWatch.org)
Spengler at the Asia Times has an interesting article on the strategy of the Roman Catholic Church and the Islamic Shiites of Persia (aka Iran).
Islam must take back Israel and Spain, conquer Rome and take over the whole world says a Hamas scholar.
He has a lot more to say especially about the downfall of America. Did he read this Newsweak article by taqiyya specialist, Fareed Zakaria?
This newsletter is one of a series on the subject:
An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam Newsletter #5
The Tears of Jihad
After failing as a preacher/prophet Mohammed turned from religion to politics and jihad. His political plan worked and he conquered all of Arabia. Islam has been at war ever sense. These figures are a rough estimate of the death of kafirs through the political use of jihad.
Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa. Roughly, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have the death of about 120 million people.
120 million Africans killed
The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million, while another 50 million died in wars by jihad.
60 million Christians killed
The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad.
80 million Hindus killed
Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly 10 million.
10 million Buddhists killed
Total 270,000,000 killed.
This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.
The civilizational war of Islam against the ethics of unity has been very successful. Ethics of unity have been eliminated from North Africa, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangla Desh, Afghanistan and Central Asia. Jihad works and works well.
Islamization of a Culture
The Sira gives a dynamic picture of how Islam enters a culture. When Mohammed started preaching in Mecca, he did not encounter animosity. Islam was portrayed as a logical continuation of the native Arabic religions. Then Islam claimed to be a “brother religion” to Judaism. Next it became not just a better religion but the best, and all of the other religions were wrong. Islam was publicly confrontational, attacking every aspect of the host culture. Hostility developed between Islam and the Meccan culture of religious tolerance. The Meccans tried to placate the Muslims, but there could be no compromise. Islam turned increasingly to violence that culminated in a treaty of war with new allies in Medina.
When the Muslims immigrated to Medina, the Immigrants were peaceful. But when the Jews said that Mohammed was not a prophet in the Jewish tradition, Islam became hostile. Up to this point, the process of Islam in Medina was the same as in Mecca.
The Immigrants were very poor and there was little growth of the religion. In Medina Mohammed found a way to obtain money and settle old scores with the Meccans who had never submitted to Islam. The solution was political-jihad against the Meccans, the Jews, and their neighbors. By jihad, political Islam conquered all of Arabia in nine years.
The Reform of Islam
When people first learn about the actual doctrine contained in the Trilogy, a frequent response is that Islam needs a reformation like Christianity had.
First, what does it matter if the religion reforms or not? It is the politics that produce fear.
The doctrine of Islam is proclaimed to be eternal, universal and perfect. Eternal means unchanging and final. Mohammed is the final and last prophet of Allah. Universal means that is applies to all of the world and perfect means that the doctrine needs no change.
A huge problem with proposing Islamic reformation is its amount of political doctrine. About two thirds of the Koran of Mecca deals with condemning kafirs to Hell for merely disagreeing with Mohammed. Over 50% of the Koran of Medina deals with hypocrites and jihad against kafirs. Nearly 75% of the Sira deals with jihad. About 20% of the Hadith by Bukhari is about jihad. Politics is the majority of the doctrine and it is all violent. Removing this doctrine would destroy political Islam. There is no Islam without politics.
Kafirs propose an Islamic reform based upon the idea that the horrible acts of Islam are medieval, tribal customs and in modern times we don’t do that kind of thing. They are a thing of the past.
But for a Muslim, the Koran is perfect and eternal. And the Koran relentlessly advances the idea that the Sunna (the words and deeds of Mohammed) is the ideal mode of Islamic behavior. Both the Koran and the Hadith are very clear that the medieval tribal actions are the ideal for humanity and rather than being put in the dust bin of history, they are the perfect guidance for today.
The dilemma of removing medieval tribalism is that much of the Trilogy is medieval tribalism. So if you reform political Islam by taking out the old tribal doctrine, where do you stop? What is the guidance for which old, tribal acts of Mohammed are not applicable for today? You can’t take it all out. Without medieval tribalism there is basically no Islam.
And what body of Islam has the authority to reform it? There is no such authority. Some group of Muslims might decide to drop all of the violent and oppressive political doctrine, but what authority would they have to tell any other Muslim to follow them?
Why would any Muslim want reform? Demographic jihad (immigration and high birth rates) will cause Europe to be Islamic in less than a century. Islam is winning. Why reform a winner?
Islam is detailed down to the smallest action of life and living. And there is a vast quantity of detail that allows very little room for interpretation or change, let alone reformation.
There is the matter of Islamic dualistic ethics. How do you reform the ethical system that is at the core of Islam?
And lastly, Islam discourages criticism of another Muslim or the doctrine. Self criticism of Islam is simple not done. All fault always lies with the kafirs. How can there be reform without self-criticism?
The doctrine of Islam can not be reformed any more than a triangle can be reformed by changing the number of sides. It is logically impossible. Islamic doctrine is defined as unchanging and beyond reform. The Koran is perfect and eternal. Mohammed is the final prophet and the ideal model for all humanity for all times. The reformation of Islam is logically impossible due to the way the doctrine is defined.
The Real Islam
What is the real Islam? Radical Islam? Fundamentalist Islam? Moderate Islam? Meccan Islam? Medinan Islam? There is only Islam. Islam is like a rainbow, a full spectrum political system. Those who argue that the real Islam is moderate or that the real Islam is fundamentalist are like those who would say that a rainbow is red or green. A rainbow is not red, not green. No, a rainbow is all the colors. Islam is peaceful and violent. You can no more remove the aggression than you can remove the red from the rainbow. The Islamic political doctrine always has two choices because political Islam is profoundly dualistic.
This dualism cannot be removed. Dualism is at the core of the Islam. The Trilogy is perfect, permanent and universal. It cannot be changed. A Muslim may reform but Islam cannot.
The real Islam is the doctrine found in the Trilogy of Koran, Sira, and Hadith.
Large parts of the Koran are legal code and form Islamic constitutional law. Since Muslims believe that these laws come from Allah and Mohammed they are of a higher order truth than any man-made laws. Therefore, Sharia law must replace all other forms of government.
Under Sharia law, all kafirs are second class citizens. Women can be beaten and slavery is allowed. And just as in political Islam, Sharia law cannot be reformed.
It is the long term goal of Islam to replace the US Constitution with the Sharia, since it contradicts Islam. For that matter, democracy violates Sharia law. Democracy assumes equality of all peoples. Islam teaches that a Muslim is a better person than kafirs and that the kafirs should submit to Islam. But in voting, a Muslim’s vote is equal to a kafir’s vote. This violates Islamic law, since a Muslim and a kafir are never equal.
Signup for our weekly newletter.
Copyright © 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba politicalislam.com
Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit.
Bill, a recent entry at my blog comments on Islam as a duality: I copied it below:
Last night I overheard a conversation that probably every expat living in this part of the world has heard or been involved in. It’s the idea that Arabs are “hypocritical” because of two perceived standards of behavior. Examples usually given are women who take off their abayas as soon as their airplane takes off for the West, men who drink alcohol in Bahrain or the UAE while never partaking of it at home, young people frequenting night clubs in London who don’t even talk to members of the opposite sex back home, or political and religious leaders who say one thing in English when speaking to Westerners and something quite different to their own people on Al-Jazeera.
I also read an interesting sentence about young Saudi women yesterday in the Gulf Marketing Review. In an article entitled “Saudi Arabia’s Eve-olution” author Sarah Abdullah wrote, “In addition there is a dichotomy between the personal and social life, espcially among women. The social dynamic in Saudi Arabia is such that women have to have two faces: a personal face, completely reserved for only their closest companions and the public face, far removed from her true self.
Without getting too philosophical or analytical, I think the “two faces” noted by Sarah has a much wider application than merely to young Saudi women. It’s a duality that is at the heart of Arab thinking and that stretches back to the very roots of Islam. There is the Quran and the hadith, the Meccan suras and the Medinan suras (the two parts of the Quran with quite different emphases given when Muhammad lived in those two cities), the believer and the unbeliever, the House of Islam and the House of War, public behavior and private behavior, and Islam as a religion and as a social system.
I don’t think we understand this very well in the West, but I think we need to put more effort into trying to. It’s not that Arabs are hypocritical, but it is a different way of thinking.