If you want to follow the arguments, see the comments section for this blog post.
Meanwhile, Lawrence Auster of View From the Right supports my position in his blog post here. Larry points out an even more extreme case of denial in one Karen Armstrong. He writes:
Inspired by the reflexive anti-American fallacies of Ron Paul and his intellectual mentor Robert Pape, the blogger Stogie has coined a term that I will need to add to my catalogue of non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism: the Blowback Theory of Islamic Extremism.But why the denial in the face of overwhelming evidence that Islam is a violent, aggressive form of tyranny, that it is so by its very nature? We have 14 centuries of Islamic history and aggression to draw from, the statements and bloody example of the "prophet" himself, the ongoing wars and terrorism in the world today, the statements of the terrorists, Imams and Islamic leaders, and of course, the Islamic holy texts themselves. Amidst the mounting death toll, it would seem sheer folly to disbelieve that Islam is inherently violent, intolerant, hateful and evil. In spite of this, D. Charles and other apologists continue to insist that Islam is benign. Who are we to believe, D. Charles and Karen Armstrong, or our own lying eyes?
I see that some of Stogie's commenters [i.e. D. Charles] are still in Standard Denial Mode. Thus one argues that the Barbary pirates had nothing to do with Islam--they were merely pirates who happened to be Moslem, along with lots of non-Moslems in their ranks. Evidently the statement by Tripoli's ambassador in Britain to Adams and Jefferson in 1786, in which he justified the piracy on purely Islamic grounds of divinely mandated aggressive jihad against all non-Moslems, made no impression on this commenter.
Karen Armstrong has of course similarly argued that the vast Moslem conquests of the seventh century had nothing to do with Islam; the armies that swept across Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, and northern Africa and subjected them to Islamic rule were merely conquerors who happened to be Moslem. And then consider the fact that probably the majority of America's "intellectual" class follow Armstrong's ideas.
Such is the continuing power (I'm almost tempted to call it a supernatural power, though of the dark kind) of the modern West's suicidal denial of the truth about Islam.
I think there are some, mostly those on the left, who are unable to face the unpleasant reality of "the clash of civilizations," that our future is likely to be one of war for survival against a determined foe, or one of dhimmitude and darkness. So they go into denial. The worst of these deniers is the 9/11 "Truthers," who insist that the 9/11 attack on America was "an inside job," and not perpetrated by Muslims at all.
However, denial and wishful thinking will not alter basic reality, no matter how fervently the Islamic apologists wish it would.
8 comments:
An applicable analogy from Jaws in this famous line about denial:
"...[Y]ou are going to ignore this particular problem until it swims up and BITES YOU ON THE ASS!"
And so it goes with all political and societal issues. Mankind learns the hard way.
About Islam: I take it you have heard of Walid Shoebat, an ex-Islamic terrorist. Islam's biggest goal is to wipe out the USA, then Israel. They have crept into the UK as part of their strategy, to undermine Europe & our allies. The high gas prices fund Islamic terrorists, so that is why 0bama stopped the oil pipeline from Canada to Texas; that Kenyan Muslim Emperor "0boondoggle" wants Sharia Law to creep into the USA. By the way, if you are wondering where I heard how the terrorists get their funds, I heard it first hand from Walid Shoebat when he was at a conference I worked at in 2008; he warned us not to vote for 0bama in May 2008.
Making up and altering history to prove your point is a recipe for instant failure.
"When one uses history then one must open all the pages of history and accept what rests within it."
- Winston Churchill
Thus, the words of Ambassador Adams and others, tells their view at the time and reflects, simply that view and at that time.
Of course I am talking to what appears to be some sci-fi or fantasy gaming club talking about an alternative universe, since we have self-confessed "I have never studied it or ever been there" experts like Stogie saying what life is actually like for a quarter of humanity. Stogie, whom of course also admits that he has not only ever travelled, seen, looked around or studied any Muslim country - flatly points out that he also would never want to. Now, considering that he unabashidly supports the EDL/BNP - we have set a standard to his capacity to make judgements. Add to that his repetoir of sources are professional distorters like Robert Spencer, but somehow he considers that to be above reproach.
His solution to being exposed, of course, is to close the thread. So, since he has used this one and raised the topic, we can continue the topic.
Somehow because 9/11 and various other events are done by violent radical Islamists of the Wahhabi and Salafi persuasion and claim that they are doing so because Islam tells them - we must also assume by proxy that the rest of the Musim world supports them and have all joined the Wahhabi and Salafi sects. Think again, it simply did not happen.
Let us try another track from Stogie's arguments. That Islam is evil and that the Wahhabi/Salafi interpretation is the only real and true one - the rest of the Muslim world must be either not serious or not very sincere Muslims. Then again, since Stogie does not travel nor does he see life as a reality in the average Muslim community, his expertise in what constitutes a sincere, devout Muslim must be very interesting indeed! Obviously all those full Mosques on Fridays must be almost a billion terrorists according to Stogie and the average woman praying her five prayers each day at home is plotting to overthrow the west, the little old lady plucking rice in a field in Java is preparing for some jihad of terror.
What erks me about the likes of Stogie is the real question and motive for why he writes such crap? It comes down to three possibilities. 1. He is just plain ignorant and his parents must have kept him away from school books. 2. He is doing this for fun because he suffers a superiority complex and requires to look tough via the anonimity of the internet or 3. He is simply a nasty bigot, obviously racist and thus almost certainly a fascist. Which one I wonder?
In the end, this fantasy of a blog, is his property and he can unfortunately spout hate as much as he likes, but deep down he knows he is kidding nobody, trying to be the academic he is not (using the proven fascist method of targetting the academics first) and that he is exposed for being the low-life that he is because he exploits terror to promote his own.
DC, you have "exposed" nothing, offered no facts whatsoever to refute the reality of Islamic violence and intolerance. Your whole argument is to insist that Islam is not, by its own nature, intolerant, violent and oppressive, but you offer no facts to back it up. We are just supposed to believe you, and somehow be blind to the enormous crimes against humanity that are perpetrated by Muslims on a daily basis.
I am not uninformed nor ignorant. I have read the Koran and the haddith and 18 books on the subject of Islam. I am not a bigot, since Islam is an ideology, not a race.
You are a delusional coward who must result to personal insults because you have nothing to back up your ridiculous positions.
I am unimpressed by your self-labeling as "an academic," since academia has been under the control of the left for several decades, and not particularly friendly to facts that do not support their anti-western prejudices.
I repeat: you are an ignorant fool who knows very little about Islam, its history, teachings and practices. I would guess that the only books you have read on the subject are those by other leftists/apologists and other deniers of reality.
Why does DC Charles deny overwhelming facts and examples of the nature of Islam? It is either because (1) he is a coward who is afraid he might be called to oppose such evil, (2) he believes that by appeasing evil he might be spared from its violence, (3) he is a vain and arrogant fool who instinctively always sides with evil, as leftists generally do.
DC, in this debate I have kicked your ignorant, leftist ass like a soccer ball and we both know it.
Meanwhile, the Muslim jihad against Christians in Nigeria rages on:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/21/world/africa/nigeria-explosions/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
TakeMag had this today:
"As Pat Buchanan has been screaming since Death of the West: THEY ARE NOT LIKE US. They have different brains. Where we see death as the ultimate defeat, they see it as the ultimate victory. Where we see the separation of church and state as the beginning of civilization, they see it as the end. How can you fight someone like that?"
http://takimag.com/article/more_urinating_on_the_taliban_please/print#axzz1k6hPPUPf
I couldn't agree more!
Quoting Spencer and cut & paste has no value, that is obvious - you want to dispute that - then your disputing basic fact and it looks stupid.
The biggest test to such claims as yours is the most simple of reality tests.
The basic premis is that Islam is evil and thus the evil deeds of Muslims must be because of Islam. We go on further, as I certain since Spencer argues it you will - that all the backwardness in Muslim countries is also because of Islam.
Thus comes the test - the simple question. What about all the other nations and communities in the world whom are not Muslim? Are their backwardness, wars, conflicts and crimes due to their being Muslim or Islam's fault? Simply put the logic does not work and this is just on a basic general level, not even with looking into the subject.
Was the Holocaust Islam's fault? No. Was the purges and many, many millions of deaths in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia the fault of Islam? Was Rwanda an Islamic plot? No, of course not.
Is the poverty in say Egypt because they are Muslim? If you think so, then why is Peru and all of Central America poor? Is the poverty in The Phillipines, Zimbabwe and Laos because of Islam, no?
You asked me to discuss the violence in the Koran and Haddiths. Sure. Every academic scholar takes the Koran to be divided into three areas mixed within the text. A historical archive of events, historical examples to learn by and the Message that Muslims believe is divine within it. Your quotes as most quotes by Spencer are the historical events around the formation and creation of Islam. When war was declared on them by the Qureshi and other tribes. Thus, there are examples of orders by Mohammed, as a war-leader, ordering the destruction of villages and yes he says 'kill them all'. In any context, that is simply an order of war, and typical of war in the 7th century. The question should be asked, why put it into any other context? In fact the famous "kill them all" was followed in the next verse with an instruction to not harm any of the families or property of that tribe - conveniently ignored by some.
The other verse mostly quoted is the statement about Jews being turned into pigs, etc, and hunted down and killed. That verse refers to the afterlife, the Day of Judgement. If read in full, it clearly states that Jews on the Day of Judgement will once more be asked to deny God's Messengers and if they deny for the third time (ie the first time was Jesus and the second Mohammed and the third, acknowledgement of the two - that God will give them the gravest of punishments). Christian clergy, particularly from my own Catholic Faith - if pressed to discuss the role of Jews in denial of Christ Lord can also get pretty damning.
..... continued.
DC, I don't believe that I have quoted Spencer once during this discussion with you, but I could: he knows infinitely more about Islam than you do.
I have never said that all poverty, wars and backwardness is the fault of Islam, so your argument seems to have no point.
Islam began a war against mankind in the 7th century because they were commanded to do so by their megalomaniac of a prophet, who craved power, riches and women. His fraud of declaring himself a prophet was to give some semblance or propriety to his piracy.
You are aware, of course, that Muhammad murdered all of the men and older boys of the Jewish tribe, the Banu Quarayza, beheaded by twos over several hours until over 600 of them were murdered. Then Muhammad and his thugs enjoyed a mass rape of the widows and daughters, after which the survivors were sold into slavery.
You seem quite vague on the details of Islamic atrocities in the time of Muhammad, which tells me you really don't know what's in the Koran or the Haddith.
No,the texts that deal with the murder of Jews is not referring ot the afterlife -- killing Jews in the afterlife? That makes no sense at all. Muhammad, totally annoyed at the Jews for their failure to endorse his false prophethood, ordered his followers to "kill Jews wherever you find them." In one case, three Muslims murdered an old Jew in his bed (for no other reason than he was a Jew) then presented their swords to Muhammad for him to determine which had slain the man. Muhammad detected food on one sword, and declared its owner to be the good Muslim who had committed murder.
The Koran and the Haddith are filled with such blood and gore by the followers of this evil ideology.
Oh, one thing more, the Muslims did not commit the holocaust, but they aided it, agreed with it and applauded it. You are aware, I suppose, of the Waffen SS Muslim troops who served in Hitler's army. Even today, "Mein Kampf" is a best seller in the Islamic world.
Post a Comment