Featured Post

In Defense of the West

When I first began this site, it was with the intention of arguing politics, evolution, and Christian apologetics, topics I found myself add...

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Dante didn't go far enough

The following article (notes in the original) discusses Dante and his perspective on Islam as expressed in his most famous work Inferno, from The Divine Comedy.

Dante Alighieri was a conservative, devout Christian, as well as a strong representative of the attitude of his time Such a perspective is displayed in his book, the Inferno, in which he responds to one of the influences of his time period. the Arabic worlds The influence of Islam was not found in all aspects of medieval society yet its impact, found especially on Christianity and medieval intellectual life, was strongly felt [sic]
All human beings are by nature sinful, so one does not need an outside influence to blame for one's own evil actions. However, considering that nowhere in the doctrines of Christ can one find even the hint of commands for torture and murder, I do not doubt that much of the Church's violence toward heretics and non-Christians was learned at the knee of Medieval Europe's harsh tutor, the false prophet Mohammed.

In canto VIII of the Inferno, where Dante describes the existence of mosques in the city of Dis, and in canto XXVIII, where one encounters Mohammed and Eli in Hell, Dante conveys his attitude towards Islam His placement of these aspects of Arabic culture amongst the sinners of Hell corroborates the notion that Dante held a contemptuous and negative view towards the Muslim world [sic]
Was Dante's "contemptuous and negative view" directed toward Arabic culture? No, it was directed toward Islam. Why? Because Dante was a backward, unenlightened, prejudiced, ethnocentric white, Christian, male Islamophobe? (How chronocentric to argue thus!) No, Dante was well-acquainted with the doctrines of Mahomet and the practices that follow logically from them. Consider, for example, what Allah requires of his people toward non-Muslims who refuse to submit:
"...fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" (Qur’an 9:5).
And if an "unbeliever" decides to exercise their (true) God-given right to self-defense, what next? Islam's history overflows with the tolerance and peace preached by Mohammed here in Sura 5:
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter..." (Qur'an 5:33).
The article continues:
His antipathy for such a culture is based not simply on a prejudiced view that he heldn [sic] but rather on his disgust towards its effects on the Christian Church as well as on medieval intellectual lifeW [sic] Based on his inclusion of Muslim mosques and leaders in Hell, one can see that the impact on medieval life obviously perturbed Dante, for he would have preferred to have his culture completely devoid of any Islamic influences.
Why is that? Could it be that Dante viewed Islam's false doctrine as leading to the eternal condemnation of people's souls? Could it be that he viewed as distasteful Mahomet's blasphemies? Could it be that Dante knew well that Allah's commands to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims were continuously and zealously being carried out upon innocent men, women, and children?

What Infidel wouldn't want their own culture devoid of such influences?
The medieval view of Islam was a hostile one primarily based on fear and prejudice.
Fear of an ideology founded upon and spread by violence and death is called "good judgment."

And as for prejudice? By definition, prejudice means reaching a conclusion before examining the evidence. What proof does this article's author have that Dante was unfamiliar with Islam? Isn't this author's mischaracterization of what led Dante to oppose the Religion of Peace an example of his or her own prejudice (and ignorance of Islam)?
The basis for this fear evolved from the belief that the Muslim religion posed a serious threat to Christianity's existences for it gave Christianity some unwelcomed competition.
When one enterprise oppresses, enslaves, and kills the competition, such a belief would seem justified. Such behavior should be unwelcomed.
In other parts of the world, namely in the East, Islam had a strong foothold, and such a foothold proved to be menacing to Christianity since it showed the world that Christianity was not the absolutes most powerful religion.
And how did Islam obtain that "strong foothold"? Was it through the sheer persuasive power of Mohammed's message of Allah's love sinful mankind? Perhaps it was the false prophet's example of love in action as he healed the sick, comforted the brokenhearted and raised the dead that changed people's hearts? Did Mahomet change people's hearts by sacrificing his life for all Humanity? The Religion from Hell must have gained so many adherents because its founder led such a holy life, setting an example to be emulated for all men!

No. Mohammed lied, stole, waged offensive warfare, raped, enslaved, tortured, mutiliated and murdered those who opposed him and his false doctrine. All of these evils (including consummating his marriage to his favorite wife Aisha when she was nine years old) were excused or commanded by his false god Allah!

Islam spread by the sword as soon as it was strong enough to do so, and it continues to war around the world to this very day.
While the Muslims jeopardized the reputation and stability of the religion of the West, other Christian lands were falling under Arabic ruled One of these countries included Spain, where Muslim occupation, which began in 711 A D , resulted in the religious conversion of the Spanish people and culture. This conquering of Christian soil proved to be another reason why the West felt threatened by the Arabic presence in the world [sic]
Whether through ignorance or dishonesty, the author doesn't acknowledge here that those Christian lands fell under the sword of Islam. This Spanish religious "conversion" was achieved through the natural desire to avoid one's own oppression, enslavement and murder.
In addition, disdainful views of Mohammed were held by Westerners, for he was regarded as being a false prophet, as a result, Islam was regarded as a heresy, for it appeared to be so radically different from Christianity...
"Appeared? Nay, it is: I know not appeared:
'Tis not alone my Inky Cloake (good Author);
Nor Customary suites of solemne Blacke,
Nor windy suspiration of forc'd breath,
No, nor the fruitfull Riuer in the Eye,
Nor the deiected hauiour of the Visage,
Together with all Formes, Moods, shewes of Griefe,
That can denote me truly.
These indeed Seeme, For they are actions that a man might play:
But I haue that Within, which passeth show;
These, but the Trappings, and the Suites of woe." (courtesy W. Shakespeare)

No, the differences between Christianity and Islam are not superficial, they are fundamental.

As indicated above, on the one hand is the Son of God Who committed no sin, performed many great and miraculous works, and rose from the dead. He commanded His people to love even their enemies. On the other hand is the founder of Islam whose legacy is torment, blood, and suffering. If Jesus said He was God's own Son, and Mohammed said that those who say Allah has a son is an unbeliever, then it should be obvious to even a simple child that the two religions are forever opposed to each other.
...and did not involve the worship of the Christian god. In addition, Mohammed was also thought of as being the Devil's tool to end Christianity's spread and success to being instead:

a sexual, self indulgent murderer whose book...Koran was a collection of pretended revelations and whose religion spread by deceit, violence and the lure of lascivious practices.

To the modern, Western, politically-correct, "Can't We All Get Along, You Intolerant Racist!" ear, such a description of Mahomet and his "sacred" text seem outrageous. According to Islam's authoritative texts, Qur'an and Hadith, Mohammed is guilty of all those crimes and more.

The troubling part (for non-Muslims) is that this life is held up as one to be imitated by the faithful.
Most people in the West during the Middle Ages harbored these antipathetic feelings for IslamS in which the religion and its progenitor were looked upon with such disdain.
Rightly so.

In the Inferno, Dante proves that he was not exempt from this scornful attitude towards the Arabic culture.

Again, it was scorn for the evil brought upon the heads of mankind by Islam, not scorn for "Arabic culture."

The first time one encounters any aspects of Muslim culture throughout the Inferno is in canto VIII, when Dante and Virgil are coming upon the city of Dis. As Dante explains to Virgil, "I can already see distinctly a- / master -- the mosques that gleam within the valley, / as crimson as if they had just been drawn out of the fire." In these lines, Dante's contempt for Islam is made quite evident, for he places mosques, the sanctuaries of Muslim worship, in the city of Dis.

Hell is an appropriate environ for the factories that turn out people who believe it is their duty to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims solely for their unwillingness to convert to an obviously perverse and false religion.

Perhaps this author is confusing "contempt" with "accurate and reasonable representation."

Had Dante respected the Arabic culture, he would have placed these mosques either in Purgatory or in Heaven, not in Hell amongst all of the other infidels and sinners.

Respect for any culture should include truth-telling, but this author is either unable or unwilling to admit the evil of Mahomet's doctrine and practice.

How can one respect a religion that commands the enslavement, rape, mutilation, and murder of innocent men, women and children in the name of its god?

Furthermore, he states that the mosques are "as crimson as if they had just been drawn X out of the fire"; thus, Dante suggests that the mosques are ablaze. By indicating that they are in flames, Dante is punishing the followers of Islam, for the fire will bring about the destruction of their mosques. Such a description of these mosques reveals Dante's contempt for Arabic culture.

What is the proper response to the monster who declared, "...I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle..." (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24) if not contempt?

In canto XXVIII, where one encounters Mohammed and Eli, Dante's lack of respect for Muslim culture is again Portrayed. In this canto, one of the sinners tells the two travelers of Hell: "See how maimed Mohammed is! And he / who walks and weeps before me is Ali, / whose face is opened wide from chin to forelock" (canto XXVIII, 31-33). Since they caused schism in life, Dante has eternally punished them in a gruesome manner by having their wounds sealed and then reopened by a devil. Had he not felt so contemptuous of Islam, he would have not placed Mohammed and Ali, the religion's two most influential men, in Hell.
Had this author been less ignorant of Islam's brutal history, he would not have criticized Dante's decision-making.

Furthermore, Dante would not have depicted them as being maimed in such a graphic manner if he was not so perturbed by the culture. One can imagine that such a punishment would bring an extremely excruciating amount of pain upon the individual who is being punished; thus, by giving these two progenitors of the Muslim religion an extremely tormenting, agonizing punishment for eternity, Dante shows how strong his aversion to the Arabic world is. Had he not been so contemptuous of Islam, then he would have given Mohammed and Ali a milder punishment.

If this author knew anything of the cruelty inflicted upon non-Muslims by Mahomet and his followers over the past fourteen centuries, he would appreciate the high degree of irony here.
The placement of the two most influential men in Islam among the schismatics introduces one of the main factors that fuels Dante's contempt for Arabic culture. In addition to a prejudice against the culture, Dante's dislike is also derived from its effects on Christianity In contrast to the view of his time, Dante does not punish Mohammed and Ali for heresy, but rather for schism, indicating that they brought about schism in the Christian Church. Mohammed and Eli are not only responsible for heresy, as Dante believed, because in addition to forming a religion that went against the ideals and established views of Christianity, they also caused dissent and schism within the Christian community. During the Middle Ages, there was a prevalent belief that Mohammed was an apostate Christian, possibly even a cardinal. Furthermore, Mohammed possessed a deep reverence for Christ, for he regarded him as being the greatest of prophets, and considered his birth to be a wonderful event.
It is true that Islam has traditionally (falsely) asserted that Mohammed's revelation replaced/corrected corrupted Christianity, but apostate cardinal? Claiming that Mohammed was some kind of Christian is almost as preposterous as claiming Christ and Allah are the same deity. Raping, enslaving and slaughtering Christ's people for their unwillingness to convert to the false prophet's religion and calling Christ Himself a liar can not be characterized as "respect."

Here is Mohammed's blasphemy in his own words:
"In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things" (Qur'an 5:17).

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them" (Qur'an 5:73).

"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth" (Qur'an 9:30)!
Here's more misinformation:
Even though Mohammed might have been an apostate, he was still a member of the Christian community, thus, when he decided to break sway from Christianity to form Islam, he took with him many followers of the Christian god. Since the Muslim religion began to attract many individuals, eventually consuming almost all of the East...
Yes, if being subdued and humiliated can be considered attractive.
...Dante must have felt that these individuals were "stolen" from Christianity, and would have been part of his religious community if it were not for Mohammed. For this reason, Dante feels that Mohammed caused dissent, or schism, in the Christian community, and was not responsible simply for heresy...Dante most likely believed that Mohammed was responsible for heresy as well, however, his main problem with Mohammed is predicated on the turmoil that he caused in the Christian community by founding Islam. Dante punishes Mohammed not just for establishing the Muslim religion...he also thinks that the Christian clergy was also at fault. If there had been no problem with the Christian Church, then there would have been no need to break away from it...the problems that existed within the Christian Church were a primary cause for the establishment of the Muslim religion; therefore, the way to ameliorate such a problem of schism would be to reform Christianity.
The primary cause for the establishment of Islam was Mohammed's desire to justify his lusts for violence and pleasure. That he claimed to represent YHWH (going so far as to fabricate narratives for several Biblical characters) to lend an air legitimacy to his evil is just one more reason Dante didn't go far enough.
...Simony is one of the problems with the clergy that Dante tries to redress, for he felt that it was one of the many faults of Christianity that helped to bring about the establishment of the Muslim religion.
Slaughtering those who refused to submit had a greater impact on Islam's "success" than did Christian failings, though undoubtedly corruption aided Jihad.

While the effects of Arabic culture on Christianity formed the basis for Dante's hatred of Islam, its effects on mediswal society were also responsible for fueling his anger. One of the areas in which medieval society was affected by the Arabic world was in the tradition of courtly love poetry (Provencal poetry sung by the troubadours) that praised women. The theory suggesting that courtly love poetry was influenced by Islamy called the "Arabist theory," was initially pursued by a marl named Giammaria Barbieri in his book Dell'origine delta Poesie rimata, published in 1790. Some of this influence could have also come from a type of Arabic poetry called Mozarabic, which not only preceded the poetry of the troubadours, but also resembled it in "some fundamental structural features and thematic characteristics." In this form of Arabic poetry, as in the poetry sung by troubadours, the existence of themes that praise women is evident. In addition to poetry, other forms of Arabic literature could have impacted the Provencal poetry, such as the Muslim tales that followed the format of the following one by Ahmed ibn Abu-l-Hawari, who lived during the ninth century:

In a dream I saw a maiden of the most perfect beauty, whose countenance shone with celestial splendour. To my asking, "Whence comes the brilliance on thy faces" she replied... "I took those tears of thine and with them anointed my face, since when it has shone in brilliance."

Obviously, it was poetry that Dante detested. Of course, Islam's "exaltation" of women has no effect on how this author views that faith. If he had done his own research on Mohammed's faith and its bloody history (not difficult to do for an Infidel with a modem), he would have found the following in Islam's "sacred" texts:
  • Allah gave a nine year-old girl to his false prophet for his sexual gratification
  • When a wife doesn't obey his husband, he is to beat her
  • A woman's testimony is not of equal value to a man's
  • For those who die fighting against non-Muslims for Allah, one of their rewards are dozens of perpetual virgins whose sole purpose is their gratification
Continuing with the article:

This tale shows how Arabic literature placed women, based on their physical attributes, on a high pedestal, for the woman ill the following tale is "of the most perfect beauty" and "shone with celestial splendour." In comparison, one can look at an example of an Italian troubadour poem from the thirteenth century and notice that there is a similar emphasis on the physical beauty of women:

In her face I have see [sic] the moon,
smiling with her radiant look. Did she
appear to me, I ask my eyes, while I was
awake or in a dream?

That look is a true mystery! It makes my
body sick, but it also cures it.[16]
The praise of women in this excerpt is quite clear, for the beauty of the girl is so tremendous that the author puts forth the possibility that she appeared to him while he was in the midst of a dream. Furthermore, since she smiles "with her radiant look," there is the suggestion that her appearance is not only radiant, but also intriguing. By comparing the troubadour poem with the Arabic tale, one can clearly see the possible influence of the Arabic world on medieval literature.
Is it possible to see in medieval literature the influence of Islam's beheadings, crucifixions, dismemberments, kidnappings of Christian children to suit its purposes, flaying of fathers in front of their wives and children and violating women in front of their husbands?

Arabic influence on courtly love poetry would have greatly perturbed Dante due to the fact that he was so anti-Arabic and would not have favored having his culture tied to the culture of which he was so contemptuous. Rather, he would have most likely preferred to have his culture completely devoid of any Islamic aspects, and instead consisting purely of Christian characteristics.
It is common today to claim that a healthy revulsion toward Islam is instead a racist or ethnic bias. Too bad it is false and therefore misleading.
Ironically, this courtly love poetry was also exercised by Dante himself. His treatment of courtly love in the Inferno is shown when he writes about a lady for whom he used to have an attraction, Beatrice. In courtly love language, Virgil describes her as being "so blessed, so lovely... Her eyes surpassed the splendor of the star's" (canto II, 53-55). In these lines, Dante praises Beatrice by describing her as being "blessed," and "lovely," with eyes full of "splendor." Such an emphasis is placed by Dante on the physical characteristics of Beatrice that one can notice parallels between his poetry and the two excerpts from above of the Arabic tale and the troubadour poem. Dante, like the authors of the two works cited above, centers his description of Beatrice on her beauty and physical attraction. Therefore, one can assume that Dante was subject to the same Islamic influence to which the author of the troubadour poem above was susceptible.
Ironic only if you are believing the lie of Islam as the Religion of Peace. And of course, no one but Arabs have ever admired a woman's physical beauty in poetic form.

While the Arabic world had a severe impact on medieval literature, it had an even greater impact on medieval intellectual life. At the time, Europe was craving for more information on science and philosophy, for the people of Europe were depleting their supplies of "intellectual capital." Furthermore, the demand for more scientific and philosophical information was going stronger by the day, and European sources were not offering any new material to satisfy the desires of people. Thus, Western scholars were prepared to search out Arabic texts and translate them because they strongly desired to have new knowledge. From the works and texts of Arabic peoples Europeans expanded their knowledge on diseases arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, and incorporated astronomical tables from the Arabs that became the standard ones of the Middle Ages.

Which is nothing to Islam's credit, since it crushes intellectual inquiry and critical thinking. Most advances that came under Islam were due to non-Muslims under its oppressive yoke. One needs to look no further than the "progress" of the lands under Allah's rule over the centuries to see that if not for a fantastically unfortunate accident of history and geology (and the West's need for it), the ummah would have nothing but rocks and sticks to wage jihad.
Before this decision to translate works from Arabic into either Latin or the vernacular, Europeans had little knowledge of Greek philosophy and science, for most of the Greek works concerning these fields had been translated into Arabic.
Because Islam was so inquisitive and tolerant, or because they conquered Greeks also?

Thus, when Europeans were able to translate Arabic texts, they gained the knowledge, for the first time, of Aristotlea Euclid« Ptcjismyy [sic] and Archimedes, amongst others. Such knowledge was readily accessible to Western Europe due to Muslim Spain, for Spain became:

...for the greater portion of the Middle Ages a part of the Mohammedan East, heir to its learning and its sciences, to its magic and astrology, and the principal means of their introduction into Western Furope [sic].
Islam and its apologists love euphemisms (what better way to deceive gullible and unwary Infidels while still being able to claim you're telling the truth?)! Apparently for this author, "principal means of their introduction into Western Europe" is code for "staging grounds for Islam's violent expansion into Western Europe."

As a result of this impact on medieval Europe, the intellectual life was significantly expanded...Thus, in light of his character, one can assume that Dante did not want his own Christian culture to be tainted by the Arabic world.

Good for Dante! For who would want their culture to consider the Ideal Man a murderous, thieving, warring, deceitful, pedophilic serial rapist?

Dante himself shows that he may have been influenced by Islam in writing the Divine ComedyN Miguel Asin Palacios put forth the controversial idea in 1919 that Dante got the idea for writing about a journey through Hell, then eventually up to Heaven, from two famous Islamic works of literature: the Isra and the Mirage The former is about Mohammed's journey through Hell, while the latter is about his Ascension from Jerusalem to the Throne of Gods These two Arabic works of literature struck Palacios as prototypes for Dante's Divine Comedy, in which Dante goes on a very similar journey
Which just goes to show Islam's lie that "Similar = Same" will likely work on more than just Western political elites.
In addition, Palacios found that the links between the Muslim legend and Dante's poem also included picturesque, descriptive, and even episodic similarities. For example, Palacios drew a comparison between the city of Dis and the city in the Moslem Hell, for both were described by the authors as being a city of fire. Furthermore, the tombs of the heretics are described by Dante as being a bed of fire, each harboring coffins of red hot iron; similarly, Mohammed saw an ocean of fire, on whose shore were cities in flames with thousands of red hot coffins.
Mohammed knows what that hellfire looks like now, I'll warrant.
Thus, Palacios concluded that Dante used the Isra and the Mirai as outlines in critics his journey through Hell, and eventually up to Heavenly While this assumption may be true, one can argue that Dante used these Arabic works as references in order to write a better, more complete Christian story. Thus, he possibly wanted there to exist a similar story to the Muslim legend, only one which was written by a Christian and that was superior to the Muslim story. If this intention was Dante's plan, then his attitude towards Islam is only corroborated, for he attempted to prove how any piece of Christian literature could emulate and surpass any Arabic literature, even if the works involved were coveted Muslim legends.

Of course, everything wonderful and praiseworthy comes from Islam, and Christians should be grateful to bask in its glow.

Or perhaps these similarities are due to the fact that Mohammed plagiarized, then perverted, numerous Biblical accounts and concepts!

Although Dante looked upon the Arabic world with nothing but contempt and disdain, one must keep in mind that he was reflective of the general attitude of his time, in which his culture was skeptical towards Islam as a whole. However, it is ironic that such antipathy for Muslim culture did not stop any Westerners from absorbing the extensive knowledge that the Arabic world offered the West. It is also ironic that such hatred was not mutual; rather, the West simply did not exist to those of the East, for the Muslims believed that "Their own religion was far superior their language, the language of the angels, was matchless and their way of life left nothing to be desired." Thus, the Muslims basically chose not to involve themselves with the affairs of the West since they considered themselves to be culturally superior. At the same time, the Arabic world "went its own way unmindful of the West," suggesting that the Muslims did not regard the Europeans in a hostile manner. Such are assertion makes the harsh treatment of Islam by Dante, and other Westerners, seem more unjustified.

Only to the ignorant, since Islam's "sacred" texts command the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims.

The only things made clear by this author are his contempt for Western Civilization and his ignorance of Islam. He does Dante--and his readers--a great disservice.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Passive acceptance of this double-standard risks American Liberty

This article notes the irony of Liberal's acceptance of Jihadists and enmity toward Americans with the following:
Patriotic Americans don't have to become dangerous psychotics like liberals, but they could at least act like men.

Why hasn't the former spokesman for the Taliban matriculating at Yale been beaten even more senseless than he already is? According to Hollywood, this nation is a cauldron of ethnic hatreds positively brimming with violent skinheads. Where are the skinheads when you need them? What does a girl have to do to get an angry, club- and torch-wielding mob on its feet?

There is not the remotest possibility that a man who was recently defending shooting women in the head for wearing nail polish will so much as be snubbed on the Yale campus.

The only violence on college campuses these days occurs when people like David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin and me show up to give a speech in defense of America. Then we need bomb-sniffing dogs and a lecture hall lined with armed police. But a Talibanist goes about his day at Yale unmolested.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

What, if any progress is being made against the global Jihad?

Are we winning the War on Terror? And if we are, how is it that the global Jihad grows in strength?

Contrary to the hysterical protestations of rabid Bush-haters, the President was not wrong for attacking Muslims who had a hand in harming the United States. Though some Muslims who now have joined Jihad may not have done so in the absence of our American military's recent action, what else could the President have done? To do nothing would make us appear weak, self-doubting, and fearful, which would only encourage the followers of Mahomet.

The President's failure in waging this war is in not recognizing the Enemy. Our foe is not a tactic, it is an ideology, a belief system that kills men's souls by giving "divine" approval to the devilish indulgence of his greatest vices and most destructive lusts.

Unless and until the President (and the rest of the world) recognize this fact, all efforts at winning this war will be terribly wasteful of blood and treasure, and ultimately, unsuccessful.

Painting a bleak landscape at The Pioneer:
With Al Qaeda far from being vanquished, and Pakistan and Bangladesh inevitably turning into jihadi outposts in the emerging pan-Islamist network in Asia, India is more than likely to be caught in the vicious tail-wind of the next wave of terrorism, gathering momentum since 9/11.

This wave of terrorism, as mounting evidences reveal, is likely to emerge from the military-governed Pakistan which has been flirting with jihadis for more than two decades - first using them to quell domestic ethnic and sectarian protests, then playing CIA's quarter-master general in Afghanistan unleashing a band of mujahideen on the entrapped Soviet troops. After the Soviet collapse, it was launched against India in Jammu & Kashmir.

No other country has spawned as many terrorist groups as Pakistan. The key protagonists in this wave of terrorism have been the Pakistan Army and the ISI directorate. Irrespective of numerous international sanctions, these agencies continue to assist different hues of terrorist groups that have deep and organic links with Al Qaeda and other jihadi outfits.

Many of these groups, spawned during the Afghan jihad, are now increasingly adopting the world-view of Al Qaeda - creating a pan-Islamic front against those who are opposed to Islam, especially the Judeo-Christian Western nations, to establish the Caliphate. It is, therefore, imperative to understand the changes taking place in the world of terrorism, the impact of such changes on the groups operating in Pakistan, Bangladesh and elsewhere, and how India is likely to be caught in this jihadi maelstrom.

Two significant changes that have taken place since September 11 are the US invasion of Iraq and the expanding base of terrorist recruitment. It is now well established that Iraq has become a battle ground of terrorist networks led by Al Qaeda. It has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next one or two generation of professional jihadis. Analysts believe that Iraq would prove to a deadlier training campus for jihadis than Afghanistan.

A similar situation is brewing in Pakistan's tribal areas, especially Waziristan, where Al Qaeda and its allied groups have been pitted against the Pakistan Army since the spring of 2004. It is estimated that about 80,000 troops have been deployed in the region against a few thousand terrorists who are not only well entrenched but also well equipped and trained to fight the Army. Besides, Waziristan has become a meeting point for the Taliban and terrorists from different parts of the world.

The second factor is the expanding base of recruitment for terrorist groups. Although a large number of recruits come from the Persian Gulf, mainly Saudi Arabia and Yemen, many others are from North African countries, including Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan and Jordan. A significantly large number of recruits are now coming from European countries, mainly France and Britain; and many of them have already fought in Iraq.

The impact of these changes on Pakistan-based jihadi groups is already visible. No longer are these groups solely dependent on madarsas for recruitment and ideological support. In fact, various studies have shown that a significant number of the cadre today comes not from religious seminaries but normal "English medium public schools". The cadre is well versed in communication technology, can effectively use sophisticated equipment like satellite phone, hi-fi wireless radio besides internet and email.

Another change which has been noticed in Pakistani groups is their willingness to transcend strictly ideological beliefs for a common objective. Although there is no love lost between Deobandi and Barelvi groups, or Sunnis and Shias, there is strong evidence that groups like Lashkar-e-Tayyeba (LeT) are quite willing to network with Deobandi groups like Harkat-ul Jihad al Islami (HuJI), Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM). This coalition of convenience has ominous signs of expansion in India with several minor religious and criminal organisations willing to cooperate for petty gains.

The most significant development, however, has been these groups' willingness to acquire political muscle through developmental and educational activities. One such group is Jamaat-ud Dawa, the parent organisation of LeT, which has been openly courting the political leadership in the recent past.

Notwithstanding the war on terrorism, it is becoming increasingly evident that jihadi outfits in Pakistan, though outlawed, have been able to consolidate their cadre, training and financial networks in the past three years. This is posing a threat not only to India but also Pakistan, as recent attempts to assassinate General Pervez Musharraf revealed.

More alarming is the possibility that these groups, already using transnational criminal syndicates for collecting funds and weapons, could, in the near future, forge deeper links with terrorist groups in South-East Asia and extend their scope of operations from Karachi to the Straits of Malacca.

Loyal to Liberty, or divinely-sanctioned deceivers?

As unpleasant a thought as this might be, it is necessary to contemplate how one might discern between Muslims who are Americans first and those Muslims whose hearts belong to the Ummah alone.

Citing Islam's "divine" texts (Qur'an and Hadith) usually brings heaps of scorn and abuse, which is ironic, since the author(s) of those texts are the ones actually preaching hatred; somehow my pointing that out makes me a bigot.

And since Allah and his false prophet allow for lying in the name of god, how can vulnerable Infidels (Americans with Muslims in their midst) know whom to trust?

If left untreated (by the truth) the willful blindness brought on by political correctness and fear will allow Islam to destroy the West.

Our loyal Muslim soldiers:

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald considers Dean Esmay's invocation of loyal Muslim soldiers in the U.S. Military:

Dean Esmay has recently made much of "Muslim soldiers" in the American army.

Let's talk about those soldiers. Let's start with the one who threw the grenades at sleeping officers, killing two of them, because they were fighting Muslims and he was loyal to the Ummah. There is that Marine who deserted, and then was found, and had that press conference pledging his undying loyalty (ending "Semper Fi"), and then escaped again, and is now somewhere in Lebanon, a deserter and, possibly, a traitor. There are reports, not confirmed, of a sailor whose communications with others on land, purporting to volunteer to relay information about the movements of his ship and his shipmates, about which more remains to be known. One wonders if there are other such cases that have not yet come to light -- whether in the American or European militaries, or in the American and European police and security forces. And one wonders how much thought is being given to this in NATO -- especially if demographic trends continue without any effective attempt to halt and reverse them. police of Infidel countries, or in the security services.

Then there are the handful -- does Esmay know how many there are? -- of Muslims who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan as soldiers, and who fought perfectly acceptably. Well, how many, exactly? Leave aside the Iraqis who lived in America and had their own reasons -- having nothing to do with the protection of Infidels -- for removing Saddam Hussein. For that matter, the same is true for Afghanis living in America who wanted to overthrow the Taliban. Tell us how many Muslim-Americans have served honorably in proportion to that population (here it would be best for Muslims if the inflated figures they use for "Muslims in America" were not used -- it would put things in an even starker light).

Now, ordinarily when immigrants fight for the United States, the whole immigrant community celebrates them. Their pictures are put in store windows, or on the glass-fronts of barber shops, and so on. Think of World War I and World War II. The Greek, Hungarian, Jewish, Italian, Irish, German names, and the pictures of the soldiers, and the local pride, the stories about them in immigrant newspapers (published in Hungarian, German, Italian, and so on), as a demonstration of loyalty, and no doubt, as well, in the clear hope that this would demonstrate that they were "real" Americans who had earned their citizenship.

Perhaps the most astonishing example of this is the 442nd Regiment -- consisting entirely of Japanese-Americans. While some of them were put into camps in California, Japanese-American soldiers were determined to prove themselves. Did they? Indeed they did. Everyone knows that that regiment fought all the way up Italy. In fact, the last time I was at Fort Jackson, I visited the museum there and saw bound copies of Stars and Stripes from the Second World War. I opened one at random and found an article about the medals awarded in that most decorated of all regiments during World War II, and the feats of derring-do of those who served in that regiment. Think of what that must have meant, and still means.
Now look at the handful of those Muslim soldiers. Celebrated? Do you have CAIR or any Muslim group celebrating any of these soldiers? Suggesting that they should be emulated? Is anyone suggesting that Muslims should be in the forefront of those in the American military fighting what are regarded as threats to the United States, in the Middle East or Pakistan or Afghanistan? Any hint that those soldiers would find themselves heroes in Muslim communities, they and their fmailies made much of by fellow Muslims, just the way those in the 442nd Regiment were? Are their pictures in shop windows? Do Arabic or Urdu-language newspapers have articles celebrating them in their American uniforms, in the American military? Any hope that they will come home, those few, richly bemedalled, with feats similar to those perhaps of the members of the 442nd, in order to put paid to all kinds of worries and doubts?

No. There has been none of that.

Why not? Dean Esmay should spend the summer reading, and not merely reading but digesting, the Qur'an and the Hadith (a few hundred, in al-Bukhari and Muslim, will do). He should also take care to comprehend how Muslims interpret, or fail to interpret, the Qur'an. Without studying abrogation, without understanding the real meaning of a phrase (including something as seemingly innocuous as "strive in the path of Allah," which is not innocuous at all), and without studying how, over 1350 years, Muslims took those phrases, and what they made of them, one cannot fully understand Islam. See Bostom's Legacy of Jihad for a sampling of what Western scholars of Islam from a dozen countries, who had spent their entire lives immersed in the study of Islam and Jihad-conquest, made of the doctrine of Jihad and its undeniable sources. Undeniable, that is, except to those who have "really nice Muslim friends" who are "as loyal as they come" (or other missing-the-point credulity for which the rest of us should not be expected to pay, or to risk our lives, so that Mr. Esmay can feel good about himself, and his own self-congratulatory sense of fair play and the American way that overlooks so much of consequence.

The invocation by some of their “really nice Muslim friends” in what should be sober discussions of Islam is just one more example of that blend of ignorance, mental laziness (which in part explains the failure to correct such ignorance), and a deep desire not to discover anything disturbing that might tend to trouble a serene world-view (which is the other part that explains). Non-Muslim apologists for Islam, relying heavily on anecdotal evidence about a colleague or a neighbor who is perfectly affable and friendly and exhibits none of those features which some ascribe to those who take their Islam seriously, are as silly as those Harvard graduates who listened to Fritzi Hanfstaengl, their fellow classmate, explain away Hitler and Nazism, or who might have taken Oskar Schindler for a typical member of the Nazi Party. Or those who, in reaching conclusions about Stalin, the Red Army, and the antisemitism of the "Doctors's Plot" (delo vrachej), might have been relieved by the assurances of Ilya Ehrenburg, or two decades later, might have thought that that nice Andrey Sakharov was a typical Soviet weapons scientist. And so that nice rommmate of your son, the one whose father is a zamindar in Pakistan, or a rich Kuwaiti, and with a flat in London he has invited you to stay in for a few weeks as his guest -- well, isn't it on that basis that too many form their opinions about Islam, confusing personal charm and favors of a very few, with this belief-system as it has been received, and is being received, by nearly a billion people? Of course, many in Washington, whose duty it is both to instruct and protect us, have been receivers of just such largesse, for many decades, and that is certainly one of the reasons why Islam has not been understood, why Saudi Arabia is routinely depicted as our "staunch ally," and why no intelligent energy policy was ever constructed to replace the faith in the kindness of those Saudi strangers.

It is maddening to see people again and again refusing to read the texts or the scholars of Islam (those who wrote before 1960 or so, when the inhibitions and self-censorship began, and the oil money began to have an effect on academic centers, departments, and individual professors, everywhere), but relying on those Muslims in the West, highly educated, often adept at knowing exactly how to present a case (taqiyya-and-tu-quoque) to those who collaborate in their own fooling.

Those who managed to unlock those mind-forged manacles and who tell us -- Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Anwar Shaikh, Ali Sina, Azam Kamguian, and tens of thousands of others (and who knows how many hundreds of thousands long to be able to openly declare their apostasy) -- would no doubt agree with the lapidary formulation of Ibn Warraq that "there are moderate Muslims. Islam itself is not moderate." Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who by all accounts (which have just reached me), did not give an inch at Harvard yesterday when Muslim questioners offered the usual tu-quoque-and-taqiyya blend at question time, is herself perfectly sympathetic to the nostalgia of "cultural" Muslims (indeed, shares some of it herself) but she has no time -- she made that clear -- for those people who always seem slightly off, the ones who are Westerners but became Muslims and who seem determined to hold on to their own private Islam rather than admit that just perhaps, Rumi and mystical love poetry, and the Five Pillars, are not the half of it. Nor does she have much inward patience (outwardly she was, I am told, the soul of courtesy) with those Muslims who, either out of ignorance, or out of a deliberate mental choice to ignore much of what Islam teaches, or who simply don't want such matters discussed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others in front of Infidels (it would hurt, you see, the "image" of Islam), claim in public, whther they believe it or not, that Islam is entirely inoffensive, and who make their unwary Infidel listeners forget, for a minute, a week, or a decade, what really is preached and repeated in the sermons (khutbas), in the press, on the airwaves, in those conversations filled with allusions to Allah and to the life of Muhammad, for Islamic societies are suffused with such references and allusions. It is silly to judge Islam on the basis of a colleague in a computer company, who may indeed be unobservant, or lax in his own belief (or may not -- you don't know), but who may insist that "his" Islam is the real one, and not what the hundreds of millions who listen to Al-Qaradawi, to Sheik Tantawi or whoever is presently the Sheik al-Azhar, to the late Sheikh Bin Baz and his successors and followers in Saudi Arabia, to those who still remember fondly, and miss terribly, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, and whose Islam, one can be sure, is a lot more representative than what someone living in an Infidel society, dependent on Infidel good will for everything, is likely to reveal. Why should he? Were you a Muslim, would you?

Those who bydint of great effort unlocked those mind-forged manacles, have to say. They know perfectly well they are not representative of a vast movement, but perhaps someday they will be. They have no reason to mislead about what those texts tell Believers to believe, and what ordinary Muslims have, over many centuries, taken those texts, believed to be immutable, to mean. Furthermore, there is more than just the texts. There are, arising from them, a host of attitudes, toward Infidels and women, that do not bode well. Even those who seldom or never attend a mosque will be affected by such attitudes, and by what pervades or suffuses Muslim societies -- what might be called that set of Islamic allusions and references that form what might be called the "atmospherics" of Islamic societies, whether in Dar al-Islam or in Dar al-Harb. Some may not need to become apostates. No doubt there are "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims who, for all kinds of reasons -filial piety or fear being two -- choose not to declare themselves as have Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, and many others.

We know what real Believers think of them, even if the fierceness of their hatred has to be muted among Infidels. Instead of demanding physical punishment, they behave, whenever confronted with Ibn Warraq or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as if these people know nothing about Islam.

Yes, they insist -- what does Ayaan Hirsi Ali know about Islam? What does Ibn Warraq know? What does Ali Sina know? What do tens of thousands of intelligent apostates know about Islam? The minute they leave Islam, every single Qur'anic verse they learned in madrasas (which both Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali attended), every single Hadith they grew up with, magically disappears from their heads. One minute before they declare their apostasy, they know all about Islam. The minute they declare that apostasy, they cease to know a thing about Islam.

Magic.

Tuesday, May 9, 2006

Lying about the Lesser Jihad only helps Allah and his false prophet

In a disgustingly perverse argument of moral equivalence, Robert Eisen gives aid to those who have historically brutalized, humiliated, enslaved, and slaughtered non-Muslims. Under Islam, there is only one Common Ground, and that is the ground on which the Infidel grovels in vile submission. Muslims and Jews: Common Ground:

It's been often noted that a key reason for the intractability of the conflict between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East is that both sides operate with a mutually exclusive set of assumptions about the history of the dispute.

Their views of the conflict are mutually-exclusive, but that's because one is true and the other aids Islam's Lesser Jihad against Israel.

Jews view the state of Israel as the triumph of a dispossessed people who waited 2,000 years for a return to their homeland. If violence has accompanied that return, it is solely because of Arab intransigence; Jews were willing to settle peacefully among their Arab neighbors, but the latter were hostile to a sovereign Jewish entity in the Middle East and declared war against it from its inception.

This is a pretty accurate summary of the situation, because that's what happened. Here comes the moral equivalence (read lies).
Muslims view the state of Israel as the most egregious example of Western colonialism and imperialism, a foreign body inserted into the Middle East for the purpose of furthering Western domination. Any violence is solely the fault of the Jews and their Western allies. The Jews were able to take possession of the land by violently displacing its inhabitants, and they have succeeded in holding on to it with the help of Western military support.
Under traditional Islam, once a land is part of Dar al-Islam (Land of Islam), it is always Muslim. To have Western (in the Muslim mind, Christian) powers take the land and give it to Jews (according to Allah and his false apostle, apes and pigs) is a great and unforgivable slap in the face of Islam.

In reality, it was Islam that declared war against Israel. The displacement of Arab Muslims was due to Muslim promises that after Israel was defeated the "refugees" would be able to return and share the spoils.
What has been lost is the fact that both Jews and Muslims have a great deal in common in the way they perceive their respective histories. Each community has an understanding of its history that is much broader than that defined by this conflict, and we gain much insight into the nature of the dispute by comprehending those larger frameworks.

But that does not make their claims to the land equally valid. Nor does it mean that both Islam and Israel are equally responsible for the bloodshed there.

Apart from a sound knowledge of traditional, mainstream Islam's beliefs and history, there can be no real "insight into the nature of the dispute."
First the Jewish side. To understand modern Jews and their attachment to Israel, one has to remember that the Jewish people have been around for 3,000 years and that for the majority of that time they have been ruled by foreign powers that have often persecuted them. In biblical times Jews were dominated by a series of empires, and their kingdom was destroyed twice. In the Middle Ages they lived in Christian lands and were frequently subjected to violence.

In Muslim countries, Jews were treated much better -- as a protected minority. But they were never equal to Muslims, and medieval Jewish literature often expresses feelings of humiliation because of Jews' lack of power in Muslim lands. And even there, Jews sometimes experienced violence.

"Even there"? "Sometimes"? This is more of the "If Not for the Christian Extremists, Noble Muslims and Everyone Else Would Just Get Along" line.

Eisen reveals his ignorance of Islam's actual history by repeating the Muslim lie that Jews fared well under Islam. They did "farewell" under Islam--due to its persecuting, enslaving, and murdering them. That "protected minority" status to which the author appeals is that of the dhimmi.

The reason Jews felt humiliation was not because of their perceived "lack of power" (a common leftist/Muslim justification for the "oppressed's" immoral behavior); it was because, as Allah commands, Jews were subdued and humiliated, often violently, and when they violated the "protection" of Islam, they were punished severely.
The ultimate violence, of course, came in 20th-century Europe with the Holocaust. Jews created the state of Israel in the belief that they would finally be able to live in security and dignity. It is a project that has succeeded only in part. Certainly, Jews now have sovereignty in their ancient homeland, as well as a powerful army. But Israel is surrounded by tens of millions of Muslims, many of whom oppose its existence. One must keep in mind that there are only 14 million Jews in the world, and almost half of them live in Israel.
And why do those millions of adherents of the Religion of Peace "oppose its existence"? Because Allah requires it: "Fight...the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

One might argue, then, that the creation of Israel has actually made the Jews less secure.

The Jew is never secure in proximity to Islam. Neither is the Christian, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Zoroastrian, the animist, nor any other non-Muslim.
The fear now is not just violence but annihilation. Much of this helps explain why Israelis deal so harshly with their Palestinian adversaries.
"Harsh"? A nation that possesses nuclear weapons is constantly attacked by barbarians who murder their young and old, women and children (and have tried since its inception to destroy it), and they respond with restraint. That's harsh?
Jews are sensitive to every provocation that threatens Israel because of their history of vulnerability. They will perceive Palestinians as a threat as long as they commit acts of violence against Israelis and refuse to recognize Israel's legitimacy -- even if Palestinians don't have an army.
The Arab Muslims who work to kill Jews are an army, even if they do not possess the usual trappings of one.
Every Palestinian teenager lifting a stone to throw at an Israeli soldier will be viewed by Jews, in light of their bloody history, as a threat. I should emphasize that what matters here is Jewish perceptions of reality, not necessarily the reality itself, because it is perceptions that cause people to act regardless of what the reality is.
The Jewish perception here is the reality. What cowardice to equivocate on this point!

Turning to the Muslim side, we see a strikingly similar pattern. Muslim identity in the modern period has also been shaped by the bitter experience of foreign domination and humiliation. For the past 200 years, the Muslim world has been victimized by Western colonialism and imperialism. Many Muslim countries eventually have won their independence, but the power of oil has kept the West deeply involved in the Middle East. The advent of the state of Israel has been understood by the Muslim world as a symptom of the continuing Western attempt to dominate it.

But this is the Muslim perception; it has nothing to do with reality!

Just as with the Jews, Muslims have turned to violence because they see it as the only way to defend themselves. In the absence of military power, some Muslims have resorted to terrorism as the only avenue to independence. Here, too, perceptions have made it difficult to differentiate between different types of threats. American peacemakers who travel to Iraq are being killed alongside American soldiers. Again, it is the perceptions that count, not necessarily the reality.

Here is a great moral offense: Jews have used violence (in a very restrained fashion) in self-defense. Islam has used it to advance Jihad against innocent non-Muslims.

The reality is that Islam's founder declared, "I have been made victorious with terror" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220). He was a lying, thieving, murderous pedophile. One should not be surprised when the adherents of his religion imitate his example.

Getting each side to acknowledge the perceptions of the other, let alone sympathize with them, is no easy task. Some Muslims I have spoken to balk at the notion that Jews or Israelis feel vulnerable and argue that any suggestion to this effect is manipulative and designed to evoke sympathy: After all, Israel has a powerful army and Jews are highly influential everywhere in the world. Some of my Jewish friends are equally discomfited by my analysis. They object to any equation of Jewish suffering with Muslim suffering, because the Muslim world has never experienced the kind of persecution the Jews have.

And both fail to admit the role of Qur'an and Sunna in inspiring and sustaining the violence against the Infidel.

If this is what passes for "analysis," perhaps George Washington University should close its doors.
What both sides miss here is the critical point that, again, what count are perceptions.
Or, in Eisen's case, misperceptions.
Each side genuinely feels its vulnerability and humiliation and sees the other side as more powerful, and that is all that matters.
This perception is far from reality, but to Eisen, that's all that matters!

Here comes the great lie again:
After all, it is those perceptions that motivate each side to kill.
Body parts of innocent men, women, and children having gone shopping, or dining out, or worshipping is not a perception, but the tragic result of faith in Allah.
Yet there may be hope for dialogue on the basis of these perceptions. I have shared the arguments outlined here between Jews and Muslims, and some have been intrigued by the parallel between their histories -- particularly Shiite Muslims, whose sense of humiliation at the hands of West has been compounded by the humiliation they have experienced from the Sunni Muslim majority throughout their history. In this regard they share a great deal with Jews.
There can never be an equivalence between what Jews have suffered at the hands of Islam and what some Muslims have endured from other Muslims.

(A wise Infidel in command of the most powerful military in the history of Man would allow the historic, bloody divide between these warring branches of Islam to run its natural course.)

Another point: The ones who respond most positively to my thinking are Muslim clerics.

Just as the fox responds positively to the hen who advises other chickens to try to understand the poor, misunderstood fox instead of securing the henhouse.

And why is it that imams like Eisen's perception of reality? Could it be because they recognize Eisen's lies aid their Jihad against Israel and the West?

...it's time the clergy be given a more central role in the peace process between Jews and Muslims.

Islamic clergy know the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet. How will giving them a "more central role in the peace process" mean anything other but death and despair for Jews?

For decades politicians on both sides have argued over where to draw borders but have brought us no closer to peace.

That's because one side doesn't want peace, it wants Israel in pieces.

The clergy have been excluded from such negotiations because of the perception that religion is the problem, not the solution.

One religion is the problem. Any guess on which one? Perhaps it is the one that commands its faithful to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah (Qur'an 9).

Yet so much of the conflict between Jews and Muslims has been tied to religion that it's hard to imagine a settlement without the clerics. Perhaps with their help, Jews and Muslims can address the real issues between them so that a new relationship can emerge.

And that relationship will be familiar to Jews under historic Islam: dhimmitude.

The writer is a professor of religion and Jewish studies at George Washington University and for the past several years has been extensively involved in interreligious dialogue between Muslims and Jews.

Apparently, "interreligious dialogue" is a euphemism for removing by repeated mendacity the only advantage the non-Muslim has against the tyranny of Allah--the truth.

Facilitating the deception of the West

Power Line comments on one "mainstream" news outlet's mischaracterization of Iran's most recent attempt at international propaganda. Following are some thoughts regarding AP's aiding Iran's jihad against Israel and America.

The AP's account of the Iranian president's letter to President Bush virtually defies belief: "Letter shows Iran president seeking bond." The AP reports:

With his 18-page letter, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered President Bush a history lesson, philosophy lecture and religious sermon laced with references to Jesus Christ.

The document gives rare insight into a man who has largely been a mystery to the West, showing him as fixated on a long list of grievances
against the United States and seeking to build on a shared faith in God.

Ahmadinejad, whose government is suspected by the West of pursuing nuclear weapons, questions whether Christ and other religious prophets would have approved of U.S. policies and actions in the Middle East.

"I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (Peace be upon him) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth," Ahmadinejad wrote Bush, who has said that Christ is his favorite philosopher.

"If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishamel, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior?" he wrote....

The AP takes the letter at face value, reporting that Ahmadinejad is "seeking to build on a shared faith in God." Are there any grounds for applying some skepticism to the rhetoric used for the benefit of useful idiots working for the AP? Here is one passage that demonstrates why the letter must be read ironically and that particularly ill suits a former kidnapper who has risen to the presidency of an Orwellian terror state...
Of course, the God of the Bible and the god of Islam are not the same deity, so their faith cannot be shared. This is a false assertion made by two groups: Muslims attempting to deceive the ignorant (thereby making them more accepting of Islam and more open to converting to it) and the Already-Deceived Ignorant.
...Here is another passage of special interest that goes completely unmentioned by the AP:
Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?

Mr President, I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:

- Many thousands were killed in the process.
- Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
- Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now. A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported? Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?

There is much more that that goes unmentioned in the AP article while the AP article focuses on the letter's formulaic religious tripe and promotes a story of "seeking to build on a shared faith in God." Why?
Why? Hatred of America. Hatred of Christ and His religion. Hatred of President Bush (who, despite several serious errors in judgment and gaps in knowledge, is still an American and a Christian ). Hatred of Jews. The Iranian "president's" description of the history of modern Israel is typical Muslim deception, but AP can't bother themselves with facts.

Those media, academic, and political elites in the West who long for its demise will realize too late that those "Others" in whom they think they have a comrade in arms against the Source of All Evil (white, conservative, Christian males--and Jews) are not noble savages. Too late they will discover them to be unfeeling and unkind masters, just as they always have been, just as Allah and his false prophet require.

But the AP and its ideological brethren would know that if they would take the time to look into the tenets and history of the Religion of Death, rather than eagerly lending validity to its propaganda.

Saturday, May 6, 2006

The Founding Fathers on Islam (again)

First me, then Bostom, then Fitzgerald. Obviously, great minds think alike. Jefferson, the Adamses, and making sense:
In a recent article prompted by his reading of Joshua London’s Victory in Tripoli, Andrew Bostom, who compiled The Legacy of Jihad, adduces from London’s text a number of telling descriptions of Islam and of Muslims by some of the most important figures in American history. Two of them were Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, in 1786 ambassadors (Jefferson in Paris, Adams in London) from the newly-established American Republic still under the Articles of Confederation (the Treaty of Paris had been signed in 1783, the Constitution was ratified only in 1787). They had a meeting with the representative of Tripolitania (present-day Libya) then in Great Britain, Sidi Haji Rahmand Adja. Like other Christian maritime powers, the American state had suffered from the state-piracy of Muslim corsairs. The word “piracy” implies mere seeking at random for booty, and is inadequate to describe the formal system by which Muslim corsairs had for centuries been making war on Christian shipping, with the foreknowledge (indeed, often registering in advance either the places their ships would be going, or what Infidel shipping they intended to attack) and support of the Muslim rulers of the North African states -- which, in turn, were ostensibly under the control of the Ottoman rulers in Istanbul.
Both Jefferson and Adams were learned men. Take a tour in Quincy or at Monticello and look at their libraries, and then imagine the reading material that sustains the current, or the last few, American presidents. But they had no reason to know about Islam. They were interested in the civilization of the West, to which they belonged. Islam was merely a disturbing and violent intruder, to south and east, of that West. The notion that someday Muslims in the Western world would be insisting that the Western world owed so much to Islam, that the Renaissance was practically a Muslim invention, that without Islam the great civilization of the Western world was unthinkable, would have been regarded by them as what it is: absurdity, from first to last, a travesty of history.
But did they know much about what prompted Muslim behavior? No. So they asked why the Barbary states (present-day Morocco, Algerian, Tunisia, and Libya) would continually attack American and all other Infidel shipping, seize the cargoes and the sailors, taking both back to Islamic lands and enslaving those Christian seamen who sometimes could be ransomed, sometimes not. So they asked the ambassador, Mr. Adja, why the Muslims of the Maghrib, the “Barbary pirates” as they were known in the West, did as they did. He had no trouble answering them, as the report written by Jefferson and Adams to the Continental Congress shows:
“…that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Nothing surprising here to any contemporary Muslim, though many will wish that Americans will never read that paragraph above, especially since it was written by two of the Founders, two of the Framers of that Constitution which is so flatly contradicted by the principles and Holy Law of Islam. It is easy to denounce this or that truth-teller about Islam today, but not quite so easy for Muslims to denounce or attempt to belittle a report written by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
Bostom also quotes London quoting William Eaton, a veteran of the Revolutionary War, who later became the U.S. consul in Tunis, and who in 1799 reported on his meeting with the Dey of Algiers, Bobba Mustafa:
“…we took off our shoes and entering the cave (for so it seemed), with small apertures of light with iron gates, we were shown to a huge shaggy beast, sitting on his rump upon a low bench covered with a cushion of embroidered velvet, with his hind legs gathered up like a tailor, or a bear. On our approach to him, he reached out his forepaw as if to receive something to eat. Our guide exclaimed, “Kiss the Dey’s hand!” The consul general bowed very elegantly, and kissed it, and we followed his example in succession. The animal seemed at that moment to be in a harmless mode; he grinned several times, but made very little noise. Having performed this ceremony, and standing a few moments in silent agony, we had leave to take our shoes and other property, and leave the den without any other injury than the humility of being obliged in this involuntary manner, to violate the second commandment of God and offend common decency. Can any man believe that this elevated brute has seven kings of Europe, two republics, and a continent tributary to him when his whole naval force is not equal to two line-of-battle ships? It is so.”
Not exactly one of those Western ambassadors – a John C. West or James Akins or an Andrew Kilgore or a Eugene Bird – full of salaam-aleikum lecca-leccas for their Arab counterparts. No, it was a no-nonsense early American, sure of himself, and equally sure that he could recognize a comical primitive when he saw one – and saw no need to pull any rhetorical punches. One wonders how many today would report back in a similar fashion on the absurdities, say, of Arafat and company, or the pretensions of the ludicrous Arab regimes and Arab-League officials who have been allowed to believe in their own significance and importance, when their only significance and importance is that supplied by an accident of geology and the complete failure of even these recipients of the largest unearned wealth in history to create modern polities and modern economies. The fact that these regimes remain morally and intellectually paralyzed should show those who, in the Western world, ought to know a little something about what makes the West the West, just a little something about what the civilizational fruits of Islam are – or rather, about the absence of those civilizational fruits.
In his review-article Bostom also spatchcocked on, from a period later than that of the Barbary Pirates episode in American geopolitical life, a piercing, no-nonsense quote from John Quincy Adams, writing in about 1829 after his retirement from public life:
“….he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God…the faithful follower of the prophet may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.”
The “command” to Believers to engage in “perpetual war” -- performed “alike by fraud or by force” – against the Infidels, the Unbelievers, was no secret to the well-traveled (St. Petersburg, among other places he was stationed) and well-read John Quincy Adams. In a previous article Bostom had quoted John Quincy Adams comparing the essence of Christian doctrine with the essence of Islam.
This was John Quincy Adams on Christianity:
“And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man…On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE [Capitals in original].”
And this was John Quincy Adams on Islam:
“Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST; TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Capitals in original)...Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant...While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”
And Adams concluded:
“As the essential principle of his [Muhammad’s] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.”
As one reads and ponders these remarks by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, and John Quincy Adams, one is struck by the self-assurance that they represent civilization, and that Islam and its representatives did not, and it would have been ludicrous to pretend otherwise. Islam did not change between 1786 or 1805 or 1830 and today. The doctrine of Jihad did not change. The Qur’an was not a different Qur’an; the Hadith were not differently ranked from the way muhaddithin had ranked them, according to various levels of authenticity, nearly a thousand years before. If anything, the forces of Islam were far weaker then, and far less able, therefore, to conduct Jihad. The only instrument available was military, and in military matters the Muslims were hopelessly surpassed by the technology of a much more advanced civilization – more advanced in every possible way. So what happened? How is it that today no Western leader can bring himself to write about Islam as Jefferson, Adams, John Quincy Adams, or even in modern times, as Churchill did in The River War?
What happened are any number of things, beginning with an entirely different class of rulers. What a falling-off, intellectually, there has been since the days of the Founders and the Framers. The self-assurance and leisure necessary to learn about things, the absence of breathless, round-the-clock news, the fantastic piling-up of duties so that no leader can conceivably read, and take in, once he has risen to the top, the very things he most needs to know -- all this has contributed to that falling off. And right now, of course, the thing that leaders and elites all over the Western world most need to know is all about Islam, its tenets, its history of Jihad-conquest, its subjugation of all conquered non-Muslims, and its recommended instruments of Jihad that go far beyond either “terror” or even military means. This conquest is promoted now in Western Europe mainly by demographics -- the numbers of Muslims multiplying at a rate far faster than that of the indigenous Infidels -- and Da’wa. That Da’wa is targeted at prisoners, and at others who are economically and psychically marginal, and inclined to embrace a belief-system that can be viewed as a vehicle of protest against “the System,” and also supplies, for those who need it, a Complete Regulation of Life and Total Explanation of the Universe. There are plenty of weak-minded people around, their numbers increased by the sometimes intolerable stress and stupidity of frantic getting and spending, or not getting, and not spending.
What happened? Why could Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, and John Quincy Adams and so many others in American history have understood Islam, and also understood that there was no possibility of, and no need to even attempt, to “win hearts and minds” of Muslims, but rather to obtain their cooperation, to force changes in their behavior? The latter is a very different thing from winning hearts and minds, and is grounded in the reality of what Islam teaches its adherents to believe. When Theodore Roosevelt demanded from a Moroccan bandit chief the return of Ion Perdicaris (who at the time was not even an American citizen, though few paid attention to that -- he did have a long American connection) with that famous phrase about “Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead,” he too understood that dealing with such people required that kind of attitude.
Jefferson and Adams and Quincy Adams read. They thought. They studied. They learned things directly. They did not have staffs that attempted to supply their every mental need by supplying little 1- or 3- or 5-page summaries of information, offered up in bite-size bullets that were not even sentences. They were well-traveled. They all had the habit of study and of thought, and would not have wasted the kind of time that our leaders, in and out of office, waste on meetings, and meet-and-greet sessions, and smiles, and wiles, and all the intolerable nonsense that modern political life requires of those who can endure it, and that often drives away the best people because, in the end, they cannot.
Just imagine that in the previous administration, one of the “experts” called on for his “expertise” on Islam was that supreme and sinister apologist, John Esposito. Jefferson, Adams, and Quincy Adams would have seen through him in a moment’s time. When they were writing, they were not worried about “offending” Muslims. They could afford to speak the truth. But so could Western leaders today, if only they would begin to do it. The Muslims have very little hold over us. Yes, they have oil. And they desperately need to sell that oil. And they are terrified that the West could begin to find other sources of energy, or that the West could begin to tax oil use themselves in ways that would dampen demand. And the Arabs and other Muslims do not “have the Gatling-gun” and militarily could be laid waste overnight. They have money with which to buy influence, but if all over the Western world those on the take were relentlessly exposed, ridiculed, held up for inspection (and that would include a good many ex-diplomats, journalists, academics and others), then that army of apologists could lose its effectiveness. There is no “oil weapon” and never was. There is a financial weapon, but it is in Western and chiefly American hands. What would the rich Arabs do if the Western world decided to seize their property in the West as the assets of enemy aliens, just as was done to the property owned not only by the German government, but by individual Germans, during World War II? And what would they do if they were to be permanently deprived of easy access to Western medical care? (How would you feel if someone threatened to deprive you of the possibility of seeing your Western doctors or being treated in a Western hospital? That might get your attention.) What would they do if they were deprived of access to Western education (for their children, especially), or if they lost any chance of moving to the West? What would they do if they began to see a relentless campaign to remove, as a security threat, Muslims from within Dar al-Harb, where they have been allowed to settle, through negligence, by the tens of millions?
What has happened is not merely a kind of cretinising of our political class, but also a laziness. This can be seen from those who are not in the executive branch, and who could, if they chose, study the contents of Islam, learn about Jihad and about the dhimmi, and never be fooled again. But do you know of any Senators and Congressmen who, over the past few years, have decided to study such matters? Do you have the feeling that John Kerry, with no money worries whatsoever and a good deal of time, has been burning the midnight oil reading Robert Spencer, or Bat Ye’or, or Ibn Warraq’s Why I Am Not a Muslim, so that he won’t and can’t be fooled? Do you think any of the Democrats, so critical -- for all the wrong reasons -- of the war in Iraq, will ever be able to criticize the war for the right reasons, as has been done here for more than two years?
Sometimes it is fun to imagine a figure from the past suddenly coming to life. I have always imagined John Keats suddenly appearing, and my taking him to Macdonald’s, and trying to explain it to him. Imagine Jefferson and Adams coming to life. Imagine what they would make of all kinds of things, but imagine in particular what they would make of people all over the Western world who had now allowed, within their midst, millions of people who, as a matter of belief, were taught to hate those people among whom they lived, and to work to destroy those Infidel institutions, laws, customs, manners, until Islam dominated and some form of the Holy Law of Islam could be established? What would they make of this? What would they make of the $400 billion in sunk costs spent or committed in the near-term to the war in Iraq, as we try to create out of three separate groups of Muslims a nation-state that supposedly will serve as a “model” for other Arab Muslims, a kind of Light Unto the Muslim Nations? They would rub their eyes in disbelief. They would wonder – how did this happen to the country they helped to found and nurture? Where did things go wrong? And then they would have questions. “What’s a speechwriter?” “You mean, you actually have someone else write words you present as your own, fashion your thoughts, express what should be your views?” “And what are ‘bullets’ used in these pages of Daily Briefings?” “And what is a ‘Daily Briefing’”?
They would be quite capable today, as they were in their own day, of reading and finding out about Islam – through books and through the evidence of their senses. They didn’t have CNN, Fox, spy satellites, and an army of CIA agents. But they knew what Islam was all about. It is we, with all that paraphernalia, seeking complexity when things are perhaps too obvious, too worrisomely simple for many to wish to grasp the matter, who are the innocent ones. It is Jefferson and Adams and Quincy Adams and many others, right up to Churchill, who had an unobnubilated grasp of Islam and of Muslims. They were not distracted. They were not charmed by a Saudi oil minister, or by someone at the “Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.” They had the leisure to read, to think, and even to ponder, slowly, what it was they read, and make it their own. The hectic vacancy of official Washington is scandalous -- especially when one rises to the very top and learns only from those briefest of briefings, and even that only when it is too late, or treated as if it is too late, or perhaps beneath the dignity of the highest officials (“As for study, we’ll let our valets do that for us”).
And this is how it has become nearly impossible to get their attention, to get them to start making sense.

Wednesday, May 3, 2006

For whom does God intend Baptism?

One of the great tragedies of modern Christendom is the historically-recent (and erroneous) idea that infants and small children are not to receive Baptism as Christ commanded.

Some mistakenly believe that children are without sin and therefore not in need of forgiveness. Others misunderstand the nature of faith, thinking it depends upon human intellectual ability. And still others regard Baptism as a human work or only symbolic.

The essential question is: "What does God say?"
Some things are hidden. They belong to the LORD our God. But the things that have been revealed in these teachings belong to us and to our children forever. We must obey every word of these teachings (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Use the truth to make them holy. Your words are truth (John 17:17).

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy in this book: If anyone adds anything to this, God will strike him with the plagues that are written in this book. If anyone takes away any words from this book of prophecy, God will take away his portion of the tree of life and the holy city that are described in this book (Revelation 22:18, 19).
Regarding baptism, Jesus commanded:
...make disciples of all nations: Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).

Christ also promised: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved... (Mark 16:16).

...No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5).
Jesus opened the Kingdom of God to little children:
Some people brought infants to Jesus to have him hold them. When the disciples saw this, they told the people not to do that. But Jesus called the infants to him and said, "Don't stop the children from coming to me! Children like these are part of the kingdom of God. I can guarantee this truth: Whoever doesn't receive the kingdom of God as a little child receives it will never enter it (Luke 18:15-17).
Where does God limit the promises and blessings of baptism to only those of a certain age or intellectual ability?

Those who would deny Baptism to babies must show from Scripture that Christ denies it to them. Without this, it must be concluded that anyone who would limit Baptism in such a way are adding to the Word of God and contradicting Christ Himself.

Notes

Since the founding of the Church at Pentecost, Infant Baptism has been practiced. It is only in recent centuries that some Christians have denied to children what Christ does not deny.

As sinners, babies need His forgiveness:
Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me (Psalms 51:5).

The LORD...said to himself, "I will never again curse the ground because of humans, even though from birth their hearts are set on nothing but evil...” (Genesis 8:21).

...because of our nature, we deserved God's anger just like everyone else (Ephesians 2:3).
Babies are able to have saving faith in Christ (faith is the gift of God; it does not depend on man's intellect):
These little ones believe in me. It would be best for the person who causes one of them to lose faith to be drowned in the sea with a large stone hung around his neck (Matthew 18:6).

Indeed, you are the one who brought me out of the womb, the one who made me feel safe at my mother's breasts. I was placed in your care from birth. From my mother's womb you have been my God (Psalms 22:9, 10).

Soon afterward, Mary hurried to a city in the mountain region of Judah. She entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard the greeting, she felt the baby kick.

Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. She said in a loud voice, "You are the most blessed of all women, and blessed is the child that you will have. I feel blessed that the mother of my Lord is visiting me. As soon as I heard your greeting, I felt the baby jump for joy (Luke 1:39-44).

As far as the Lord is concerned, he [John the baptizer] will be a great man. He will never drink wine or any other liquor. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born (Luke 1:15).
Through Baptism God forgives our sins:
Peter answered them, "All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift. This promise belongs to you and to your children and to everyone who is far away. It belongs to everyone who worships the Lord our God" (Acts 2:38, 39).

“What are you waiting for now? Get up! Be baptized, and have your sins washed away as you call on his name” (Acts 22:16).
Through Baptism God rescues us from death and the devil:
Don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? When we were baptized into his death, we were placed into the tomb with him. As Christ was brought back from death to life by the glorious power of the Father, so we, too, should live a new kind of life. If we've become united with him in a death like his, certainly we will also be united with him when we come back to life as he did (Romans 6:3-5).

...all of you who were baptized in Christ's name have clothed yourselves with Christ (Galatians 3:27).
Through Baptism God gives us eternal salvation:
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved... (Mark 16:16).

Baptism, which is like that water [of Noah's flood], now saves you...It saves you through Jesus Christ, who came back from death to life (1 Peter 3:21).

...[God] saved us through the washing in which the Holy Spirit gives us new birth and renewal. God poured a generous amount of the Spirit on us through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:5-6).
Through Baptism God unites us with Christ and cleanses us:
...Christ loved the church and gave his life for it. He did this to make the church holy by cleansing it, washing it using water along with spoken words (Ephesians 5:25, 26).

By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether we are Jewish or Greek, slave or free, God gave all of us one Spirit to drink (1 Corinthians 12:13).
Baptism is not Man's work, but the work of God, the Gospel of Christ Himself applied to sinners along with water.

Monday, May 1, 2006

History repeats itself...whether you learn from it or not

Which is what makes our current circumstance so alarming. Rather than learn from the past that when a violent madman says he's going to harm you, he will, the leaders of Western nations prefer to ignore and extenuate the threat of Islam.

What lessons should be learned from the past? Belief leads to action, and those who believe it is their duty to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims will do so (receiving various forms of support from their co-religionists along the way).

Iran '79, Beirut, WTC '93, our embassies in Africa, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, 9/11--Islam's war with America began long before any of these events.

More evidence that there is nothing new under the sun: Barbary Piracy & the War on Terror:

At the dawn of a new century, a newly elected United States president was forced to confront a grave threat to the nation — an escalating series of unprovoked attacks on Americans by Muslim terrorists. Worse still, these Islamic partisans operated under the protection and sponsorship of rogue Arab states ruled by ruthless and cunning dictators.

Sluggish in recognizing the full nature of the threat, America entered the war well after the enemy’s call to arms. Poorly planned and feebly executed, the American effort proceeded badly and at great expense — resulting in a hastily negotiated peace and an equally hasty declaration of victory.

As timely and familiar as these events may seem, they occurred more than two centuries ago. The president was Thomas Jefferson, and the terrorists were the Barbary pirates. Unfortunately, many of the easy lessons to be plucked from this experience have yet to be fully learned.

The Barbary states, modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, are collectively known to the Arab world as the Maghrib (“Land of Sunset”), denoting Islam’s territorial holdings west of Egypt. With the advance of Mohammed’s armies into the Christian Levant in the seventh century, the Mediterranean was slowly transformed into the backwater frontier of the battles between crescent and cross. Battles raged on both land and sea, and religious piracy flourished.

The Maghrib served as a staging ground for Muslim piracy throughout the Mediterranean, and even parts of the Atlantic. America’s struggle with the terror of Muslim piracy from the Barbary states began soon after the 13 colonies declared their independence from Britain in 1776, and continued for roughly four decades, finally ending in 1815.

Although there is much in the history of America’s wars with the Barbary pirates that is of direct relevance to the current “war on terror,” one aspect seems particularly instructive to informing our understanding of contemporary Islamic terrorists. Very simply put, the Barbary pirates were committed, militant Muslims who meant to do exactly what they said.

Take, for example, the 1786 meeting in London of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. As American ambassadors to France and Britain respectively, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.

These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Sound familiar?

The candor of that Tripolitan ambassador is admirable in its way, but it certainly foreshadows the equally forthright declarations of, say, the Shiite Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the 1980s and the Sunni Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, not to mention the many pronouncements of their various minions, admirers, and followers. Note that America’s Barbary experience took place well before colonialism entered the lands of Islam, before there were any oil interests dragging the U.S. into the fray, and long before the founding of the state of Israel.

America became entangled in the Islamic world and was dragged into a war with the Barbary states simply because of the religious obligation within Islam to bring belief to those who do not share it. This is not something limited to “radical” or “fundamentalist” Muslims.

Which is not to say that such obligations lead inevitably to physical conflict, at least not in principle. After all peaceful proselytizing among various religious groups continues apace throughout the world, but within the teachings of Islam, and the history of Muslims, this is a well-established militant thread.

The Islamic basis for piracy in the Mediterranean was an old doctrine relating to the physical or armed jihad, or struggle.

To Muslims in the heyday of Barbary piracy, there were, at least in principle, only two forces at play in the world: the Dar al-Islam, or House of Islam, and the Dar al-Harb, or House of War. The House of Islam meant Muslim governance and the unrivaled authority of the sharia, Islam’s complex system of holy law. The House of War was simply everything that fell outside of the House of Islam — that area of the globe not under Muslim authority, where the infidel ruled. For Muslims, these two houses were perpetually at war — at least until mankind should finally embrace Allah and his teachings as revealed through his prophet, Mohammed.

The point of jihad is not to convert by force, but to remove the obstacles to the infidels’ conversion so that they shall either convert or become a dhimmi (a non-Muslim who accepts Islamic dominion) and pay the jizya, or poll tax. The goal is to bring all of the Dar al-Harb into the peace of the Dar al-Islam, and to eradicate unbelief. The Koran also promises rewards to those who fight in the jihad, plunder and glory in this world and the delights of paradise in the next.

Although the piratical activities of Barbary genuinely degenerated over the centuries from pure considerations of the glory of jihad to less grandiose visions of booty and state revenues, it is important to remember that the religious foundations of the institution of piracy remained central.

Even after it became commonplace for the pirate captains or their crew to be renegade Europeans, it was essential that these former Christians “turn Turk” and convert to Islam before they could be accorded the honor of engagement in al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea.

In fact, the peoples of Barbary continued to consider the pirates as holy warriors even after the Barbary rulers began to allow non-religious commitments to command their strategic use of piracy. The changes that the religious institution of piracy underwent were natural, if pathological. Just as the concept of jihad is invoked by Muslim terrorists today to legitimize suicide bombings of noncombatants for political gain, so too al-jihad fil-bahr, the holy war at sea, served as the cornerstone of the Barbary states’ interaction with Christendom.

In times of conflict, America tends to focus on personalities over ideas or movements, trying to play the man, not the board — as if capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, for example, would instantly end the present conflict. But such thinking loses sight of the fact that ideas have consequences. If one believes that God commands something, this belief is not likely to dissipate just because the person who elucidated it has been silenced. Islam, as a faith, is as essential a feature of the terrorist threat today as it was of the Barbary piracy over two centuries ago.

The Barbary pirates were not a “radical” or “fundamentalist” sect that had twisted religious doctrine for power and politics, or that came to recast aspects of their faith out of some form of insanity. They were simply a North African warrior caste involved in an armed jihad — a mainstream Muslim doctrine. This is how the Muslims understood Barbary piracy and armed jihad at the time, and, indeed, how the physical jihad has been understood since Mohammed revealed it as the prophecy of Allah.

Obviously, and thankfully, not every Muslim is obligated, or even really inclined, to take up this jihad. Indeed, many Muslims are loath to personally embrace this physical struggle. But that does not mean they are all opposed to such a struggle any more than the choice of many Westerners not to join the police force or the armed services means they do not support those institutions.

Whether “insurgents” are fighting in Iraq or “rebels” and “militants” are skirmishing in Chechnya or Hamas “activists” are detonating themselves in Israel, Westerners seem unwilling to bring attention to the most salient feature of all these groups: They claim to be acting in the name of Islam.

It is very easy to chalk it all up to regional squabbles, economic depression, racism, or post-colonial nationalistic self-determinism. Such explanations undoubtedly enter into part of the equation — they are already part of the propaganda that clouds contemporary analysis. But as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams came to learn back in 1786, the situation becomes a lot clearer when you listen to the stated intentions and motivations of the terrorists and take them at face value.

Thomas Jefferson's wisdom

If you want to understand the nature of American government, Thomas Jefferson is an essential resource. The primary author of the Declaration of Independence and one of America's Founding Fathers, he is uniquely qualified as an expert on the nature of human governments in general, and ours in particular.

Sadly, Jefferson's theology was not quite as sound [if the charges of Deism are true; I've read of one explanation that ameliorates his abridged Bible]. It seems reasonable Jefferson may have fallen victim to Man's natural infatuation with his own Reason, and that is a factor in his rejection of the supernatural.

It seems much more likely that Jefferson's hostility to the God of the Bible was due to his exposure to Calvin's very distorted view of Christ and His religion. By this I do not mean that Calvin's doctrines were misrepresented; rather, his teachings are sinister perversions of the Gospel of Christ. Jefferson is credited with the following in a letter to John Adams:
I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.
The concepts of Double Predestination and Limited Atonement are contrary to Scripture and the nature of its Author. To teach as Truth the idea that God capriciously predestines some to Eternal Life and some to eternal destruction (Double Predestination) is completely antithetical to what the God of the Bible has revealed of Himself. To limit the Sacrifice of the Son of God to only some people when He clearly stated that He loves, lived, died, and rose from the dead for all is blasphemy.

If these are of what Jefferson was thinking, he was correct in characterizing such beliefs as doctrines from hell.
ANNO DOMINI 2003-2026

the Amillennialist Contra Mundum