Wednesday, 19 November 2014

It's official: Muhammad committed war crimes

Today the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria published its findings on the atrocities committed by Islamic State. They have published a paper called "Rule of Terror:Living Under ISIS in Syria" which documents the ISIS tactics of killing, rape, enslavement, and sexual slavery. It defines these as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of Muhammad's life will know the following account: 

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. Instead he orchestrated a sentence of death to be placed on the Banu Qurayzah by appointing a man with a grudge against them to pass judgement.

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 himself took the most beautiful as his sex slave. [1] [2] [3]

A Chechen jihadist, Abu Muhammad Ar-Rusi, has recently justified the behaviour of IS with reference to this exact same event. 

The logic is therefore perfectly clear:
  1. The UN body defines these acts [mass executions, sexual slavery, rape, and enslavement] as war crimes and crimes against humanity;
  2. Muhammad committed exactly these acts;
  3. Therefore Muhammad committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[1] The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, A. Guillaume, translator, (Oxford University Press, 1955) pp. 468-469

[2] For an overview of the literature:

[3] The Quran refers obliquely to the massacre: "And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners" (Quran 33:26). And Muhammad again delivered revelations ascribing victory to Allah alone (Quran 33:9-11)

See Robert Spencer: The Truth about Muhammad pp.130-131

Saturday, 15 November 2014

While Israel creates...

While Israel creates the first e-story books with sign-language,
Nigerian Muslim leader accuses Israel of school bombings;

As Israel creates the first global social network for doctors,
ISIS urges Muslims to bring about global volcanoes of jihad;

While Israel becomes a world leader in satellite technology,
Ansar Jerusalem beheads four Egyptians accused of being Israeli spies;

As Israel revolutionises the monitoring of premature babies,
Norwegians ban Jews from attending commemoration of Kristallnacht;

While Israel invents a t-shirt that can monitor your heart,
Palestinians celebrate rocket attacks on Jerusalem;

As Israel reinvents the wheel to make wheelchairs shockproof,
Iranian ayatollah tweets for the annihilation of Israel;

While Israel creates an anti-viral fabric that can protect against Ebola,
Polio vaccination teams are under attack in Pakistan;

As Israel invents eleven new treatments for wounds,
Anti-Israel protestors vandalise Istanbul synagogue;

While Israel develops gentler techniques to combat cancer,
Another Israeli woman falls victim to jihad knife attack;

As Israeli zoo saves rhino's sight with unique mask,
Jihadists in Kenya gouge the eyes of captives in mall attack;

While Israeli city competes to become cyber capital of the world,
Israeli Imam says Jerusalem will be capital of world Caliphate;

While Israel creates, much of the world hates...

With deeply felt gratitude to Pamela Geller for being an indomitable champion of freedom and sanity.

Thursday, 13 November 2014

The Fossilised Paradigm of the International Elite

Thomas Kuhn in his classic work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions showed that changes in the dominant framework of scientific thinking did not occur gradually in step with the experimental evidence. It was not a purely rational process in which theoretical models are abandoned in favour of more comprehensive theories with greater explanatory power. Evidence that runs counter to the dominant theory or paradigm is often discounted or treated with scepticism. The paradigm proves very resistant to change in many cases. Only when the contrary evidence becomes overwhelming is the paradigm eventually discarded or modified to fit the new data or take of account of new insights.

One of the best known cases is the Aristotelian model of the universe which dominated astronomical thinking for 1500 years. Its dominance was based in large measure on the philosophical authority of Plato and Aristotle; it was heretical to challenge it for many centuries and Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for arguing that the universe was infinite and thus had no celestial body at its centre, an idea that ran counter to the fixed universe of the Aristotelians and the Church which placed the Earth at the centre of everything. It is the few that pioneer the change in thinking. The mass of people resist to the end. See Refusing Galileo's Telescope.

This dominance was finally broken when observable discrepancies to the model became too great to ignore and there was a theory in place that could explain the motion of the planets far better, that of Johannes Kepler. Once the revolution in thinking began, the momentum was unstoppable and a new paradigm took its place, the Newtonian model.

A similar situation prevails today in the fossilised thinking of the international elite with regard to Islam. Anyone with the necessary courage and clarity of mind can study the system of ideas at the heart of Islam and recognise that the subjugation of non-believers is central to the religion; that a religion based on the character and deeds of Muhammad must inevitably be a predatory one.

But analysts who are highly paid to study and understand the causes of international conflict are stuck in an outmoded paradigm which does not account for the predatory dynamism of Islam and the lethal effects that this has. Apparently incapable of the leap of imagination necessary to move from the old paradigm to one that offers a better understanding of the facts, they reiterate the same stale explanations and offer the same failed "solutions".

Ignoring evidence that contradicts the model and more than happy to rely on received assumptions instead of research, they defend their position with intellectually lazy attacks on those pointing out the failings. They often substitute what they want to see for the reality that is actually there. For example, when Tony Blair said of the Koran, "What's so remarkable about the Koran is how progressive it is.", he was injecting his own world view into a book that is totally regressive, not progressive.

In the article below, Robert Spencer dissects the moribund thinking of the Brookings Institute. It appears that even the theologically based savagery of IS has been unable to break up the fossilised paradigm of the august body.

Brookings Institute presents the failed analysis of the past yet again.

Wednesday, 12 November 2014

The tenacity of personal worldviews

One really has to marvel at the tenacity of personal world views.

Daniel Greenfield looks at the story of Theo Padnos at FrontPageMag in which the naive Mr Padnos falls captive to various jihadist outfits in Syria and is introduced to attitudes very different to his own. In spite of this he finds it very difficult to alter his world view.

Without the understanding that Islam is a completely different world view that has a completely different philosophical centre to the liberal/Western world view, it's very hard to make sense of the way Muslims behave; Islam's very divergence from Western/liberal norms makes it hugely difficult for committed liberals to see it for what it is; to do this would require them to recognise that the values they hold dear (like equality; non-discrimination; respect for difference) are not shared by Islam (I'll state it this way because one does not know how committed or conversant with Islam individual Muslims are), in fact they are haram (forbidden).

 Muslims will of course try to portray Islam as the religion that championed equality, tolerance and diversity centuries before anyone else but this is pure sales pitch for Western liberals. Muslims were certainly not interested in presenting Islam in this way until they came to infiltrate Western liberal societies. This very divergence from Western liberal world views actually protects Islam because people tend not to believe any religion could be so antithetical to what they expect of a religion,

Lacking the understanding of Islam's prime imperative liberals look for explanations of Muslim behaviour in terms of alienation, poverty, inequality, and oppression, all of which are categories that are important in the liberal world view but not to Islam. Islam has to be understood in its own terms. Muhammad is the centre of the whole system, the reference point for everything else. The system is an elaborated code of life based on what Muhammad said and did. The prime imperative of the system, which is in many respects an extension through time and space of Muhammad's character, is self-expansion. A system always expands at the expense of its environment. Islam is no different. It's raison d'etre is to keep expanding. That which is not Islam is despicable, disposable, and only fit to be devoured by the system. Islam exists to take the place of all that is not Islam. The means of achieving this is through jihad in its many forms.

Once this insight is gained, Islam is properly understood as an organismic entity driven towards self-expansion. The enmity to outsiders; the deception; the creed of pseudo-martyrdom; the rewards offered for sacrificing one's life to the system; the slavish obedience to anti-human codes of conduct, etc,, all these make sense once one abandons liberal preconceptions and respects the differences. This attitude is a true embodiment of respect for diversity (not thoughtless acceptance of it).

Surely liberals should be far less closed in their thinking; taking a more scientific view in which the current truth is only provisional; something to be displaced by a more comprehensive understanding which accounts better for the observable facts and which in turn helps to interpret those facts.

Monday, 10 November 2014

Do not be cowed

Take a look at the first video which features an interview between Jamie Glazov and Mark Durie. During the course of the interview Jamie asks Mark about his views on the effects that Islamic encroachment, intimidation, and bullying are having on non-Muslims. Mark points out that some of us are unable to face the threat because we can't see a solution. He looks at the physiological effects of this stress situation on our bodies and our psychological condition. Whilst listening to the video take particular note of what he says about this and the visceral level at which it affects us. From the basic hormonal level of each one of us to the craven submission of entire nations towards their Muslim minorities, the toxic relationship between Islam and non-Muslims is being played out.

Here is the first video:

When you have had a chance to reflect on the messages in the first video, have a look at the second.

Amy Cuddy is a professor of psychology at Harvard. She has studied the effects of body language on our mental state. Our bodies affect how we feel. If we look up rather than down we configure a more positive biochemical environment in our bodies. (Yes, it really is that simple) This makes us feel better. It makes us feel more assertive, more hopeful, and less cowed.

Here is the second video:

What Amy Cuddy says here has far-reaching implications. Mental habits and visceral responses are notoriously difficult to counteract. But through the use of body language that is non-submissive and empowering we have a very significant counter-measure to Islamic bullying and domination. By adopting one posture rather than another we can alter the balance of testosterone and cortisol in our bodies. The psychological environment that this creates helps us to win instead of lose; to be assertive instead of fearful; to be straight instead of cowed.

As she points out in the presentation, small tweaks lead to BIG CHANGES. We can use this to our advantage to help us overcome the difficulties so well articulated by the wonderful Mark Durie.

As a footnote, have you ever noticed how Islamic clothing gives Muslims a greater physical presence? Because their clothing is typically loose and gown-like they tend to cut larger physical figures. The amount of social space they take up is generally greater than a person dressed in more Western style clothing. This may affect the way we perceive them as in some sense larger and more dominant than ourselves.

Sunday, 9 November 2014

Progressives are victims of their own fallacies

Progressives are the victims of their own fallacies. They think criticism of Islam is an attack on Muslims.

[this shows a failure to discriminate between ideas and people; Muslims might benefit from abandoning Islam]

This hostility is explained as racism.

[this is category confusion - they appear unable to distinguish a belief system from a race]

They don't want to be racist.

[racism is now a loosely defined term for any hostility towards another group. Might the persecuted Yazidis and Christians of Iraq feel hostility towards Islam and Muslims? Are they therefore being racist?]

Progressives don't want to be racist so they avoid criticism of Islam and attack those who do as racists. It's a self--perpetuating cycle of confusion and ignorance. Progressives like to think of themselves as more socially enlightened. They are not. They are victims of the fallacies they perpetuate.

I'm ever on the lookout for antidotes to progressive woolly-mindedness and I think I've found a particularly good one.

Canan Arin is a Turkish lawyer and women's rights activist. As a lifelong campaigner for women's rights, a woman, and a Turk it is difficult for progressives to dismiss what she says as either racism or bigotry, which is what they like to do as soon as they hear criticism of Islam. This is another of the fallacies they fall victim to: the idea that a person they disapprove of can say nothing that is true.

The author of the article (Uzay Bulut) also points out that those unwilling to criticize Islam are simultaneously surrendering millions of women to a misogynistic culture, a culture rooted in Islam, a culture dominated by Islam for wherever Islam holds sway it dominates totally.

I think as many progressives as possible should be exposed to what she says. She is extremely articulate and makes superb points, taking on some of the cliched responses that progressives typically give during discussions about Islam and Muslims.

Here it is:

The West's Dangerous Enchantment with Islam