Sunday, 27 October 2013

Liberal Hans

Nazi-inspired fear and loathing of Jews
You probably don't need me to tell you that the mainstream media and mainstream society are very reluctant to view Muslims critically. There is a general distrust of anyone wanting to look objectively at Islamic doctrine or the roots of Muslim atrocities within the canonical texts of Islam - where, of course, they can be found in abundance. Even reports of Female Genital Mutilation and Child Marriage in the Muslim world, or even in the West, are politely ignored.

This seems to be connected to a general reluctance to view a designated minority in a critical light. The liberal consensus, informed by cultural Marxism, has identified Muslims as members of a designated minority which confers upon them certain rights: protection from criticism; protection of their beliefs (however abhorrent); exemption from critical scrutiny; deference to Muslim views of themselves and their perception of the world; a willingness to excuse any violence or intolerance on the part of Muslims as "understandable" in terms of the oppression they live under (including oppression and "discrimination" from non-Muslims in the West).

Absurd as these are they are well-defended homilies in the mainstream media and among mainstream politicians (e.g. David Cameron and Senator John McCain). Perhaps their very absurdity is the key to what drives them.

They seem to be connected to a fear of unleashing hatred and persecution of outsiders or minorities. They do not want to be part of that in any way…and rightly so. For many, this reaction is informed by the Nazi persecution of the Jews; probably felt particularly strongly in Germany and other countries where Jews were shipped off to death camps. It is the paradigmatic case in recent times of systematic and widespread persecution/genocide. It has become a liberal truism that hatred and discrimination are always wrong and always lead to undesirable consequences. Hatred and prejudice are always seen as things we must guard against in ourselves. However, they are not so often seen as things we must guard ourselves against.

Laudable as this reaction is in some respects it creates a reluctance to acknowledge the malicious behaviour of Muslims or to allow a natural response of revulsion to atrocities committed by them.  It is a well-spring of the many exculpatory pronouncements which aim to distance the majority of Muslims from the acts of “extremists”. Also it feeds a reluctance to examine too closely the vast body of evidence linking Islam and Muslims to violence and oppression towards non-Muslims. Rather it fosters an appetite for the many forms of deceit practised by Muslims and non-Muslim apologists. It may help to explain why liberals are so easily satisfied with illogical moral equivalence and similar fallacies.

This behaviour reminds me of a story from the collection of the Brothers Grimm called Clever Hans. Here is the story:

Hans's mother asks, "Where are you going, Hans?"
Hans answers, "To Gretel's."
"Behave yourself, Hans."
"Behave myself. Good-bye, mother."
"Good-bye, Hans."
Hans comes to Gretel's. "Good day, Gretel."
"Good day, Hans. Are you bringing something good?"
"Bringing nothing. Want something."
Gretel gives Hans a needle.
Hans says, "Good-bye, Gretel."
"Good-bye, Hans."
Hans takes the needle, sticks it into a hay wagon, and walks home behind the wagon.
"Good evening, mother."
"Good evening, Hans. Where have you been?"
"At Gretel's."
"What did you take her?"
"Took nothing. Got something."
"What did Gretel give you?"
"Gave me a needle."
"Where is the needle, Hans?"
"Stuck in the hay wagon."
"That was stupid, Hans. You should have stuck the needle in your sleeve."
"Doesn't matter. Do better."
"Where are you going, Hans?"
"To Gretel's, mother."
"Behave yourself, Hans."
"Behave myself. Good-bye, mother."
"Good-bye, Hans."
Hans comes to Gretel's. "Good day, Gretel."
"Good day, Hans. Are you bringing something good?"
"Bringing nothing. Want something."
Gretel gives Hans a knife.
"Good-bye, Gretel."
"Good-bye Hans."
Hans takes the knife, sticks it in his sleeve, and goes home.
"Good evening, mother."
"Good evening, Hans. Where have you been?"
"At Gretel's."
"What did you take her?"
"Took nothing. Got something."
"What did Gretel give you?"
"Gave me a knife."
"Where is the knife, Hans?"
"Stuck in my sleeve."
"That was stupid, Hans. You should have put the knife in your pocket."
"Doesn't matter. Do better."
"Where are you going, Hans?"
"To Gretel's, mother."
"Behave yourself, Hans."
"Behave myself. Good-bye, mother."
"Good-bye, Hans."
Hans comes to Gretel's. "Good day, Gretel."
"Good day, Hans. Are you bringing something good?"
"Bringing nothing. Want something."
Gretel gives Hans a young goat.
"Good-bye, Gretel."
"Good-bye, Hans."
Hans takes the goat, ties its legs, and puts it in his pocket. When he arrives home it has suffocated.
"Good evening, mother."
"Good evening, Hans. Where have you been?"
"At Gretel's."
"What did you take her?"
"Took nothing. Got something."
"What did Gretel give you?"
She gave me a goat.
"Where is the goat, Hans?"
"Put it in my pocket."
"That was stupid, Hans. You should have tied a rope around the goat's neck."
"Doesn't matter. Do better."
"Where are you going, Hans?"
"To Gretel's, mother."
"Behave yourself, Hans."
"Behave myself. Good-bye, mother."
"Good-bye, Hans."
Hans comes to Gretel's.
"Good day, Gretel."
"Good day, Hans. Are you bringing something good?"
"Bringing nothing. Want something."
Gretel gives Hans a piece of bacon.
"Good-bye, Gretel."
"Good-bye, Hans."
Hans takes the bacon, ties a rope around it, and drags it along behind him. The dogs come and eat the bacon. When he arrives home he has the rope in his hand, but there is no longer anything tied to it.
"Good evening, mother."
"Good evening, Hans. Where have you been?"
"At Gretel's."
"What did you take her?"
"Took nothing. Got something."
"What did Gretel give you?"
"Gave me a piece of bacon."
"Where is the bacon, Hans?"
"Tied it to a rope. Brought it home. Dogs got it."
"That was stupid, Hans. You should have carried the bacon on your head."
"Doesn't matter. Do better."
"Where are you going, Hans?"
"To Gretel's, mother."
"Behave yourself, Hans."
"Behave myself. Good-bye, mother."
"Good-bye, Hans."
Hans comes to Gretel's. "Good day, Gretel."
"Good day, Hans. Are you bringing something good?"
"Bringing nothing. Want something."
Gretel gives Hans a calf.
"Good-bye, Gretel."
"Good-bye, Hans."
Hans takes the calf, puts it on his head, and the calf kicks his face.
"Good evening, mother."
"Good evening, Hans. Where have you been?"
"At Gretel's."
"What did you take her?"
"Took nothing. Got something."
"What did Gretel give you?"
"Gave me a calf."
"Where is the calf, Hans?"
"Put it on my head. Kicked my face."
"That was stupid, Hans. You should have led the calf, and taken it to the hayrack."
"Doesn't matter. Do better."
"Where are you going, Hans?"
"To Gretel's, mother."
"Behave yourself, Hans."
"Behave myself. Good-bye, mother."
"Good-bye, mother."
"Good-bye, Hans."
Hans comes to Gretel's. "Good day, Gretel."
"Good day, Hans. Are you bringing something good?"
"Bringing nothing. Want something."
Gretel says to Hans, "I will go with you."
Hans takes Gretel, ties her to a rope, leads her to the hayrack and binds her fast. Then Hans goes to his mother.
"Good evening, mother."
"Good evening, Hans. Where have you been?"
"At Gretel's."
"What did you take her?"
"Took nothing. Got something."
"What did Gretel give you?"
"Gave me nothing. Came with me."
"Where did you leave Gretel?"
"Led her on a rope. Tied her to the hayrack. Threw her some grass."
"That was stupid, Hans. You should have cast friendly eyes at her."
"Doesn't matter. Do better."
Hans goes into the stable, cuts out the eyes of all the calves and sheep, and throws them in Gretel's face. Then Gretel becomes angry, tears herself loose and runs away. She is no longer Hans's bride.

 The pattern in this story is of Hans doing something wrong and being told what he should have done in the circumstances. But he simply applies the lesson unthinkingly and mechanically to the next situation. He fails to recognise that the lesson from the previous incident does not apply to the new situation.

I think liberals are making a very similar mistake when they apply all their well-meaning attitudes to Islam. They fail to recognise that the position of Muslim minorities in the West today is not comparable to the situation of Jews in Nazi Germany. They fail to see that there is actually a huge campaign, fought on many different fronts, aimed at putting Muslims and Sharia law in control of their countries. A statement like this is proof-positive to the average liberal that minority-hating paranoia is at work.

However, the average liberal will also studiously avoid looking too deeply into the new situation to see what drives Islamic culture; what it did in the past; what it presently does with regard to its own minorities; what senior Muslim spokesmen and strategists say that Muslims should be aiming to do in non-Muslim countries.

Hence instead of real thinking we get this facile nonsense:


I wonder if the Christians of Nigeria, Pakistan or Egypt find this amusing?

Monday, 21 October 2013

Twinning Churches

A good friend of mine has suggested to his church that they twin with a church in a part of the world where churches are suffering persecution (e.g. the Islamic world by and large). By forming this relationship they will be connected with the people likely to suffer persecution and will therefore be made directly aware of it. If the twinned church does come under attack it will not be some distant statistic that the mainstream media doesn't even bother to report but a personally relevant event. This will provide a strong learning experience.

This kind of action will appeal (in fact will be difficult to turn down) to many liberally-minded people who would generally avoid saying "boo" to a goose in case it was a "hate crime".

It sounds as if the church (in this case a very liberal/left group of people) is willing to consider the idea and pursue it. This could be a very good thing for all kinds of churches, meetings and congregations to do. It is low risk, low cost, and builds direct connections between those needing to be better informed and those whose very lives may provide the learning experiences.

For ample evidence of the ongoing persecution of Christians in the Muslim world see Raymond Ibrahim's excellent new book "Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians" or visit his excellent blog: www.RaymondIbrahim.com

 

Sunday, 20 October 2013

Islam: A Warning from History

I created the leaflet below and went to a local convenience store where I stood outside and asked people if they would like to have one of my leaflets. I only asked males in the 30 - 60 age range. Not one person wanted to take one or ask me what it said. The numbers involved were quite small so I don't want to generalise too much. Even so, the level of blanking did surprise me. I had expected to be hectored and argued with and possibly shoved around but I did not expect people to refuse to engage with the subject so completely. My impression was that people don't know about Islam, they don't want to know about it; they just want to ignore that whole subject for as long as they can. I came away thinking that getting the substance of Islamic doctrine across to people is going to require a more indirect approach. Most people cannot stomach it undiluted and straight. I reproduce the leaflet in its entirety below:

ISLAM: A Warning from History



Those sounding the alarm about the spread of Islam today are often accused of “Islamophobia”, engaging in “hate speech”, or even of trying to stir up persecution against Muslims.

But is concern about the growing strength of Islam in our country really unreasonable and without foundation? Just look at the picture above…

In the 1930s people failed to stand up for the Jews in the face of Nazi persecution. Today we fail to stand up for the victims of jihad – including those likely to become victims in the future.


All around the world today, yesterday and the day before people are being killed for no other reason than the fact that they are not Muslims. Do you think perhaps it’s time that you took a look?

Understanding Islam

Muhammad is the key to Islam. Islamic belief and law is based on the example of Muhammad. He declared himself to be a prophet and then began persuading others to accept  his declaration. The Koran contains words that he claimed to be revelations. His words and behaviour are the basis of Islamic doctrine.

Muhammad divided the world into Muslims and kafir (any non-Muslim). Muslims are required to struggle against the kafir in order to establish Islam’s dominance. Muhammad said, “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." Koran 9:5

Jihad is the process of achieving this goal. It can be waged through warfare, subversion, immigration, economic warfare, creeping Sharia, etc.

For his first 13 years Muhammad preached a tolerant message which borrows heavily from Judaism and Christianity. He gained only 150 followers. He was weak. This is known as his Meccan period. Koranic verses from this time reflect this weakness and tolerance: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” Koran 2:256

After this he became a warlord in Medina and turned to violence, plainly contradicting the earlier message.  He averaged a jihad attack every 6 weeks until the end of his life.

His following grew at the rate of 10,000 a year during this period as he offered both worldly success through conquest and the prospect of rewards in the afterlife – especially for dying in the process of spreading Islam (the Muslim concept of martyrdom). He also threatened people with death for not becoming Muslims which proved very “persuasive”.

The Koran is divided between these two periods: Meccan and Medinan: The former tolerant, the latter violent. Islam contains messages of both tolerance and  intolerance.

Dip into the Koran and you will quickly discover it is peppered with hatred for kafir.

Islamic doctrine in action

One episode in Muhammad’s career is the massacre of the Banu Qurayzah.

In March 627 AD, the tribe known as the Banu Qurayzah were besieged and isolated by their Muslim attackers led by Muhammad. They twice offered to leave their stronghold but Muhammad refused their request. He insisted they surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgement. Compelled to surrender, the Qurayzah were led to Medina. A third (and final) appeal for leniency was made to Muhammad by their tribal allies, the Aus. Again Muhammad refused. Muhammad ordered the men to be beheaded.

About 800 men were led to trenches dug in the market of Medina and there they were beheaded; their decapitated bodies buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched. Male youths who had not reached puberty were spared. Women and children were sold into slavery, some being distributed as gifts among Muhammad’s companions. Muhammad chose one of the Qurayzah women (Rayhana) for himself. The property of the Qurayzah was divided up among the Muslims as booty. (1)

Rather than renouncing this behaviour, Islam bases law and religious rulings known as fatwas  upon it. In  2012 a Muslim cleric (Sheikh Yasir al-‘Ajlawni) ruled that captured women could be used a sex slaves for jihadist fighters in Syria. This fatwa is in accordance with Muhammad’s example above. (2)

In April 2013 this ruling went into action when a 15 yr old Christian girl was captured in Syria by jihadists.  According to Agenzia Fides, "The commander of the battalion 'Jabhat al-Nusra' in Qusair took Mariam, married and raped her. Then he repudiated her. The next day the young woman was forced to marry another Islamic militant. He also raped her and then repudiated her. The same trend was repeated for 15 days, and Mariam was raped by 15 different men. This psychologically destabilized her and made her insane. Mariam became mentally unstable and was eventually killed." (3)

In Syria and elsewhere, jihadists are also continuing Muhammad’s tradition of beheading captives. These acts are extremely shocking but are all in accord with Islamic doctrine. (4)

Kafir as protected people under Islam

You may have heard that Jews and Christians have a protected status in Islamic societies. The meaning of this can be traced back to Koran 9:29 and the Conditions of Omar which were based upon it.

The Conditions were devised in order to establish rules about the treatment of Jews and Christians under conquest.  They actually put in place a temporary and conditional cessation of violence. Those living under the Conditions were known as dhimmis, which means those living in humiliation.

In order to feel themselves humiliated, dhimmis had to pay a poll tax called jizya; they were not allowed to defend themselves against a Muslim; they could not build or repair places of worship; they had to dress recognisably as dhimmis; they could not occupy positions of authority over any Muslim. If any dhimmi caused offence to a Muslim through, for example, mocking Muhammad, the whole dhimmi community was fair game for attack. Just history? No…

In Pakistan there exists a small Christian minority. Charges of blasphemy against them are common and a rumour is sufficient to trigger an attack against a whole community.

In March 2013, because one Christian was accused of blasphemy, some 3,000 Muslims attacked the Christian Joseph Colony of Lahore, burning two churches and 160 Christian homes.  In 2009 in Gojra, eight Christians were burned alive, 100 houses looted and 50 homes set ablaze after another blasphemy accusation. (5)(6)(7)

Thousands of miles away in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq the same pattern occurs – as it does everywhere a kafir minority exists. 

In September 2013 reports emerged that the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters were forcing the roughly 15,000 Christian Copts of Dalga village in south Minya province to pay jizya .

All Copts in the village, “without exception,” were forced to pay the “protection” money, just as their forefathers did nearly 1400 years ago when the sword of Islam originally invaded Christian Egypt. Some who refused were killed. (8)

In some cases, those not able to pay were attacked, their wives and children beaten and/or kidnapped. It’s the same in Syria and Iraq.  Failure to meet The Conditions of Omar in any way makes the whole community a justified target for attack.

Next time you hear a Muslim spokesmen talking about the “protected” status of non-Muslims, remember what it really means.

Kafir not yet under full Muslim subjugation can also show dhimmi behaviour, as when President Obama said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” (9)

Islam’s Rule of Numbers

Where Muslims are a minority they reflect the peaceful Meccan face of Islam. Where they are a majority the aggressive Medinan face surfaces.

When Muslims are in a minority, and relatively weak, as was Muhammad in Mecca, they talk of tolerance. This is the situation in many European countries. As their numbers grow, the threats and incidents of violence increase, as do demands for concessions to Islam.

When Muslims reach 50% of the population violence reaches its maximum. (e.g. Nigeria) As the proportion of Muslims grows above 50% the violence gradually reduces because the kafir are subdued and the number of targets for attack reduces too (e.g. Pakistan).  When Muslims are 100% there are no more targets and the violence returns to zero. This is “peace” as Islam understands it (e.g. Saudi Arabia)

Sources

(4)      Google “Syrian soldiers beheaded”
(9)      26 Sep 2012 - At the U.N. General Assembly

Further Reading

An Inquiry into Islam


Political Islam


Bulletin of Muslim Persecution


The Religion of Peace


Jihad Watch

JihadWatch.org


The evidence in this leaflet is only the tip of the iceberg. The examples given can be multiplied hundreds of times over. Did you know there have been over 21,000 jihad attacks since September 2011? (10)