Tuesday, 1 October 2013

Why you can’t take the "slam" out of "Islam"

tvr's pictureIn recent weeks, followers of the so-called Religion of Peace have slaughtered hundreds of innocents in Pakistan, in Kenya, and in Nigeria. And that’s just in recent weeks--the litany of Islamist slaughter just in the last half-century alone is a long one.  Islam was born with a sword, and has a history soaked in blood. This guest post by Terry Verhoeven (right) explains why this is inevitable.

Islam isn’t alone in its barbarism. Christendom has its own history of barbarous totalitarianism, from which it has since largely recovered—so why can't Islam have its own Enlightenment and become tempered, depoliticised and made compatible with civilisation just the same?

There are a number of reasons why I believe Islam cannot repeat the historic moment of the Christian West's Enlightenment, including these:

  • There is no hegemonic and centralised institution in Islam like the Roman Catholic Church, such an institution being conducive to a schismatic event like the Reformation, a schismatic event like the Reformation being conducive to an eventual Enlightenment;
  • There is no potential in Islam for a corruption scandal such as the one that ultimately triggered the Reformation, namely, the Church's then widespread practice of selling indulgences and issuing of papal dispensations for mortal sins, a practice made possible only because the Church's concept of atonement entails formal, ecclesiastical confession to a religious leader (by contrast, repenting to anyone besides Allah is forbidden in Islam, and Muslims deny the authority of men to listen to another person's confessions and then pronounce him forgiven of his sin);
  • There is no disagreement between the main Islamic sects on the essential details of Quranic Scripture, nor the performance that is required of Muslims to obtain (the opportunity to achieve) their own salvation;
  • Islam is not prone to schisms like Christendom has been. In fact, there has been no major schism in Islam for 1300+ years. Further, Islam's Sunni/Shia division, with its roots in the 700s, was not religious in origin but political, a division based solely on an argument over succession. Compare that record to Christendom's, where religious differences have divided the main body of Christendom every 500 years or so:

  • There is no new wave of Aristotelian (i.e., pro-reason) thinking being adopted and propagated by influential Muslim scholars as was the case in Christendom prior to the Enlightenment, the primary reason for their being an intellectual enlightenment at all.
        The 16th Century Christian egg, which had come to contain the double yolk of reason and faith (thanks to Thomas Aquinas' introduction of Aristotelianism to Christian thinking two centuries earlier) had to be broken in order for the secular omelette to be made, so to speak. If there is any new wave of thinking in Islam today, it almost certainly will be the same neo-Kantian one that the rest of the world has been riding for the last century and a half -- a wave than cannot lead to objectivity and reason, but only to (more) irrationality and rationalism;
  • Aristotelianism has already been introduced to Islam once before (during the 9th Century at the beginning of the Islamic Golden Age; indeed, it was the primary reason for Islam enjoying this golden age) but was after some period for the most part soundly rejected by Muslim scholars;
  • Unlike Christianity which has a this-worldly and anthropomorphic form of deity (Jesus) to worship, Islam, with its completely unknowable God, can, I submit, only ever be compatible with Platonic philosophies, which by their nature can never enjoy a this-worldly focus.

The real kicker though, and the primary reason why I believe that Islam can never experience an Enlightenment and be de-fanged as Christendom was, is because of the racially based totalitarian tribal mindset inherent to all Muslims qua Muslims1. Whereas Jews believe that their 'flock' (the Israelites) are only those who have descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Christians do not care at all from whom their 'flock' is descended (anyone may be "reborn" a Christian – a Christian is never born as such), Muslims believe that their 'flock' comprises anyone who is descended from Adam and Eve2 and that every human being in existence is, was, and will be born a Muslim and so must worship and abide by their Islamic God's laws. That's right, according to Muslims you and I were born Muslim.

In essence, Islam is racial tribalism taken to its utmost extreme.

So, whereas Judaism is an exclusive by-invitation-only keep-it-in-the family ideology, and Christianity is an invite-yourself-in-whenever-you-are-ready ideology, Islam is a you-are-already-part-of-our-family-whether-you-like-it-or-not ideology. And the head of the family is a stern disciplinarian.

Again, whereas Judaism applies its ideology only to a small tribe (Jews) based on race and belief, and Christianity is not tribal or racial at all (it is essentially individualistic3 and open to everyone who chooses to join through faith), Islam considers the whole of humanity its racial tribe and subject to its rule and rules. Whereas Judaism claims no territory of its own other than its little patch (Israel), and Christianity claims no territory of its own per se (not in this life, anyway), Muslims claim every square inch of the planet Earth as exclusively belonging to Islam and the Ummah.

Islam thus takes the racial and tribal mindset of Judaism, strips out its racial and territorial exclusivity, adds the all-inclusive mindset of Christianity (but without its individualism and free-choice) and fuses those elements together to create an incendiary mixture of what is in effect an all-inclusive tribal mindset based on race.

It is a fusion of all the bad, with none of the good.

There is thus neither "opt-in" or "opt-out" in Islam. You are in whether you want to be or not.

Non-believers who wish to live amongst Muslims are (strictly speaking) required to either enter into a contract and submit to Islam's dictates as a serf called a "dhimmi" or be purged. "Dhimmi" in Arabic literally means "of the contract"; dhimmi are politically disenfranchised and subjugated to extortionate taxes that are used to pay for mosques and the expansion and defence of Islam (but, hey ... Islam is a "tolerant" religion Muslims tell us because their dhimmi are "free" to practice their own religion in private).

The Qur'an is crystal clear in its message to all Muslims: expand Adam's tribe and purge all infidels from that tribe, where an infidel is any person who does not submit to being Muslim or dhimmi. And that is precisely how Islam has been practiced all throughout history. The Qur'an instructs unequivocally that all Muslims have a duty to Allah to wage jihad (Holy War) against any oppressive force that does not permit Islam to be practiced by Muslims. As Muslims move to new lands, any attempt by infidels to prevent them from practicing and proselytising Islam becomes the grounds for waging "defensive" war. This is how jihad is seen and justified by Muslims.

I submit that any ideology that explicitly, unmistakably and unabashedly proclaims that the rights of individuals should be sacrificed for some higher good, that prophesises and proselytises world domination, whether by violent or political means, is totally and completely incompatible with moderation or reason, or individualism, or freedom—in other words, incompatible with every single ingredient of the Enlightenment.

The only saving grace of the whole race-based tribalistic totalitarian shaboodle is that Islamic rulers are meant to allow non-Muslims to leave a Muslim conquered or controlled territory, if they choose (respectfully) not to submit to Islam's dictates, as Suleiman The Magnificent did with the Knights of Malta after he conquered Malta in 1522.

That right there is certainly a definite plus over the ideologies of the likes of the Nazis and Communists, who do not even let you emigrate if you don't want to submit. But not all Islamic rulers are so kind. (And it is at odds with the practice of the barbarians at Nairobi’s Westgate Mall.) The Muslim's implicit mindset is and always will be that you can run but you can't hide.

As for those "progressive" "moderate" Muslim reformers preaching modernisation4, and their movement supposedly countering the Caliphists5 (who, in order to attain Muslim unification preach traditionalism and jihad by violent means), what must be noted here is that their movement is not an attempt at a schism, rather, it is about going about jihad in a more pragmatic way (that, right there, is the mark of neo-Kantianism). The Oxford Islamic Studies Online states that the (moderate) reform movement uses monotheism (tawhid) "as an organizing principle for human society and the basis of religious knowledge, history, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics, as well as social, economic and world order."

In other words, far from aiming at westernisation or advancing the cause of liberty within Islam, "moderate" Muslims want to streamline Islam's progress towards world domination by employing a strategy of increasing tolerance between Muslims and Muslims and their prospective dhimmi. "Progressive" Muslims have no qualms about adopting the material fruits of western culture but adopting western culture itself -- the cause of those fruits -- is anathema to them. Ummah population growth, infiltration of western nations and obtaining political power through the democratic process is seen by "moderate" "progressive" Muslims as being the most practical way to achieve an Islamic world given the challenges and obstacles and opportunities that are facing Islam today.

The difference between the traditional Muslim and the progressive Muslim is the difference between two mantras: "Creed is fixed, law is fixed" and "Creed is fixed, law is relative."  The "progressive", "liberal" or "moderate" Muslim takes the stance in other words that there is no negotiation on the idea that everyone is born Muslim and the whole human race has been commanded for the last time by Allah to submit to Him in accordance with what has been revealed to Muhammad and recorded in the Qur'an, but there may and should be negotiation on how to go about getting the world to ultimately submit to Islam. The traditionalist Caliphists are the Bolsheviks of our age, lusting for violent revolution in order to achieve global Sharia, while the moderate Muslims are the Fabian Socialists of our age, happy to bide their time and gain a political hegemony democratically (which, as it happens, is perfectly consistent with Qur'anic scripture), thanks to its large, growing and migrating population. In the past, global domination by democratic vote was never an option for Muslims because the Muslim population was never big enough to even contemplate it, nor were there opportunities in the past to infiltrate countries other than by conquest. With roughly half of the world's population growth between now and 2020 projected to be Muslim (according to Pew Research), and with the anti-discriminatory and more or less open door immigration policies of western welfare states inviting Muslim immigrants to enter and be paid as guests to practice and proselytise their creed, why should Muslims engage in traditional violent jihad when their ends can now , it seems, be achieved non-violently, sponsored and sanctioned by their very own prospective 'dhimmi' themselves?! This is the unspoken line of thinking of the typical moderate Muslim.

They are employing "reason" rather well, don't you think?

In summary, it needs to be understood that progressive Muslims differ to traditional Caliphists only as to their means, not to their ends: both ultimately desire Muslim unity and an Islamic planet. Make no mistake.

Turkey is a great example of what to expect of the "moderate" Muslim reformer's Fabianist route to Islamisation. After 90 years of secular military rule there, Turkey has gone from 13 million people in 1914, 81% of whom were Muslim under Ottoman rule, to 74 million today, 98% of whom are Muslim. There is not only no separation between religion and state in today's "secular" Turkey, there is tutelage of religion by the state. (When harvesting tax, all Turkish citizens are equal because the tax rate is not based on religion, but through the "Presidency of Religious Affairs" which has a budget over U.S. $2.5 billion in 2012, Turkish citizens are not all equal in the use of revenue because only Sunni Muslim worship is financed.

Turkish Muslims are still murdering people for apostasy. Are still beheading people in the name of Islam. And to protect their "honour".  There are even reports that the Turkish still selectively enforce the jizya tax.

After almost a century, the "slam" has demonstrably not been taken out of "Islam", even in the most "moderated" Islamic country on the planet.

In conclusion, the solution to the growing Islamic threat being faced by the West is not to continue with a policy of invitation and (attempted) integration as the UN would have western governments continue6. It is isolation. Western societies have absolutely nothing to gain from those who lust after imposing their medieval mysticism on others, even if it is by political machination and not violent revolution. A strategy of isolation will however be of no consequence without there first being a re-enlightenment by and re-liberation of the West itself.

Enter the ideas of Ayn Rand...


1. This article employs the maxim attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "Just because you call a dog's tail a leg, that doesn't make the dog 5-legged". "Islam" in Arabic means "submit," "Muslim" is the past particle meaning "submitted," thus only a person who has submitted to the tenets of Islam and strives to practice the teachings of Mohammed can properly be said to be a Muslim. Approximately two thirds of the 1.6 billion self-proclaimed Muslims in the world qualify as actual Muslims according to that standard going by Pew Research surveys. It is to that two thirds that I refer when using the term "Muslim."

2. Little known to non-Muslims, the reason that Muslims are required to travel to Hajj in Mecca Saudi Arabia once during their life is in deference to Adam—who is held to be the first prophet, first Muslim, and the father of humanity. The Hajj pilgrimage is a show of solidarity between all Muslims whereby attendees perform a series of ritual acts symbolic of the the lives os Abraham and his wife, including their show of deference to Adam and Eve as the patriarch and matriarch of Islam. The Black Stone of the Kabba, an ancient meteorite, is believed by Muslims to have been sent down to Adam and Eve by God to show them where to build an altar after they repented for their sin of eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. The Kabba is thus believed by Muslims to be the site of the first temple on Earth. Praying to and kissing or touching the Black Stone is the climax of the pilgrimage for Hajj-goers, because doing so is believed to be an expiation of one's sins. The black stone is claimed to have originally been white, but turned black from absorbing the effects of humanity's sins, Muslim tradition says.

3. Ayn Rand wrote "There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others. This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul)." [in a letter to Sylvia Austin dated July 9, 1946]

4. The Islamic world has the potential to be modernised, no doubt. It has been modernised once before, in the 9th-13th centuries during the period known as the Islamic Golden Age. But there has never been a Westernisation of Islam. Westernisation involves much more than coming up to speed with the latest industry, technology, science, healthcare and education. Western law, politics, economics, lifestyle, philosophy, values and language are all qualities that a society must adopt to be "westernised". To be westernised and enlightened are one and the same.

5. nowadays called "Islamists" by those who don't know better and are helping to excuse the meaning of Islam by using a term not meaning to signify typical Muslims for people who are merely practicing Islam as it has always been practiced. Learn about the history of the term here. "Caliphist" is my term for those traditional Muslims who seeks to unite the Ummah under one Caliphate, by violent means if necessary, as opposed to moderate or progressive Muslims who seek the mandate of the dhimmi first and so advocate for being voted into power democratically.

6. The egalitarian and multiculturalist policies being pushed upon its member states by the UN , like all UN policies, tacitly aims to denationalise nations. Denationalisation of nations is consistent with the UN's stated purpose of preventing wars between nations and removing economic and other inequalities from amongst the world's population (in other words, implementing international communism). The primary beneficiaries of this progressive denationalisation agenda is neither nations nor individuals, but the UN itself and the “one nation” that cannot be de-nationalised: Islam.

tvr's pictureTerry Verhoeven is an Auckland businessman, and the founder of Inspirationz motivational art.
This post originally appeared at Lindsay Perigo’s SoloPassion.Com.


  1. Terry, I agree with your main points, but Turkey is in some respects an outlier, and I don't think you've fairly described the situation there.

    First of all, it was one of the last major countries to be conquered by Islam, so unlike other conquests the Islamic influence was laid over an already mature Byzantine culture, which had its own (albeit small) Aristotelian elements.

    Second, its modernisation in the early twentieth century by Kemal Ataturk and his Young Turks really was a secular revolt against Islam. Unfortunately, socialism being the "modern" ideology at the time, this was what the Young Turks adopted as their programme. As did others like Nasser who followed their lead. But the Young Turks did realise, as many Middle Eastern dictators realise today, that democracy could not work in a country with so many followers of Islam, which is one reason they, and other Middle Eastern leaders, favoured military rule instead. And enforced secularisation, then, but still a secularisation.

    Third, while not a majority by any means, the number of Turks opposed to Islamic rule is probably a higher proportion than in any other largely Islamic country. And they got out onto the streets in recent months to oppose Erdogan's increasing Islamisation of politics--to what you call his "tutelage of religion by the state." (Read What’s eating Turkey by Norman Stone in the SPECTATOR,
    Erdoğan Over the Edge by Claire Berlinski in the CITY JOURNAL, and Perspective on the protests in Turkey by Jordan McGillis in VOICES FOR REASON for some on this.)

    As historian Scott Powell says, "the on-going struggle between secular Kemalism and Islamism in the twentieth century leaves the fate of Turkey--the most Westernised of all Middle-Eastern countries, save Israel--profoundly uncertain."

    This secular opposition is a good thing, and at least some of it comes from Muslims themselves (as it does in Egypt, albeit in a much smaller proportion). Which, if some who are explicitly Muslim can indeed oppose Muslim hegemony, should at least give some pause when weighing up your overall thesis.

  2. An interesting article, but what do you mean by "isolation" as a solution? just Muslim countries, or all Muslims?

    The reason I ask is I am not sure how to 'isolate' 30,000 people in New Zealand without telling them they have a week to pack their bags and head home to Allahland; not to mention the much larger Muslim populations of other Western nations.

  3. A very well written article Terry. It does pose a question thou, Is the present Libertarianz immigration policy capable of dealing with this potential threat?, if yes, how do you judge a person to be peaceful or not?, if no, how do you modify the policy without affecting their rights as an individual?

    B. Whitehead

  4. Terry - I agree with most of what you say, but question your overall thesis.

    You're correct that Christianity had the benefit of a pro-Enlightenment philosophy that shaped it's development from about 1500 onward - and Islam doesn't currently have that, at least in abstract philosophical terms.

    However what we do have in our favour is globalisation and modern communication - allowing bad ideas to be easily exposed and good ideas to be promoted. The benefits of Western civilisation are obvious to anyone who opens their eyes today. In 1500 they were nowhere near as obvious. Whilst it's clear that good philosophy was necessary for technology and modernisation, modernisation also helps to promote good philosophy and exposes very quickly the consequences of bad philosophy. It's the effect of the latter I think you may be under-estimating.

    A lot has to change in Islam, that's for sure. But there's an inherent conflict between the Islam and the requirements of everyday life in a modern society. I think globalisation has set up forces that are going to bring that conflict to a head relatively quickly (in historical terms). If Islam is to become acceptably moderate, then it won't happen in the same way as Christianity (so in that sense I agree with you), but I still believe it can happen via a different mechanism.

  5. Peter,

    Thanks for your comment and links. Re Turkey, I refer you to my footnote #1. To the extent that Muslims in Turkey are not Muslims *qua* Muslims, the country may be enlightened. Roughly one third of the 1.6 billion Muslims would fit that description. I used Turkey as an example to illustrate that whilst fully modernized, it is still far from being westernized, even after 90 years of "secular" rule.

  6. Mr Lineberry,

    I what I mean by "isolate" is the geographic and economic isolation of Muslim majority countries from the West. That means immigration controls. Let them do their thing. Do not engage with them. No "war". Just peace. Using some sort of objective test, those Muslims that would put the Ummah nation before the New Zealand nation when it comes to defense, deport them. Let them do their thing, but elsewhere. Peace. All non-practicing Muslims who agree with taking this approach would be welcomed to stay as New Zealanders. They could apply for immediate family to immigrate even, *if* they meet the above criteria. That is my proposed solution. No one's rights are being infringed. People only have the right to immigrate to practice a peaceful creed. To the degree that non-peaceful creeds are tolerated by a society, that is their right whether they tolerate them or not. I can't stress enough though the need for the West to be re-enlightened and re-liberated for this approach to work.

    This is a peaceful solution.

  7. Mark,

    You wrote:

    >>"The benefits of Western civilisation are obvious to anyone who opens their eyes today".

    What if you are dealing with an ideology that forbids its practitioner to open their eyes, using hypnosis keep them shut?

    >>"I still believe it can happen via a different mechanism"

    Such as?

    And why is it your and my responsibility to make that happen?

  8. Sounds fairly sensible to me Terry.

    Reading various overseas newspapers I get the feeling this shocking business in Kenya last week has struck a chord with a lot of people along the lines you suggest, perhaps it may be seen a decade from now as the straw which broke the camels back (no pun intended) -

    Cameron in the UK now wants to deport troublemakers; Tony Abbott is leaking backgrounders to reporters to soften everyone up for a major speech on this sort of thing - so interesting times ahead.

    Oh just one thing Terry - following on from what Peter was saying - I was recently housesitting for some friends in Papamoa, in Tauranga, when they were on holiday in Turkey.
    My friends said it was very 'free' and secular and they had no probs; there were certainly no restrictions on where females could go or what they could do; you could almost get the impression Turks are saying "oh yes we are Muslims, but we aren't that into it"

  9. "In recent weeks, followers of the so-called Religion of Peace have slaughtered hundreds of innocents in Pakistan, in Kenya, and in Nigeria."

    No surprise to see you amongst the slanderers and hypocrites, Cresswell.

    But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
    Acts 23:6

    But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
    Matthew 23:13

  10. Ugly - what on earth are you on about?!?! (what is a Sadducee?) maybe you should have a nice cup of tea and calm down; sounds like you are about to burst a gasket.

  11. Terry - I suppose the observations offered by Peter and Mr Lineberry of Turkey offer one example of a different mechanism. In a modern society Muslims are confronted with a choice between following their scriptures literally, or moderating them and living a decent life. They are forced to make a choice whether to open their eyes or not, and it sounds like many in Turkey have chosen they will - even if that process is incomplete, and the outcome for the nation as a whole is still in the balance.

    I'm not saying it's our responsibility to make this happen, I'm just saying there's a good chance it will happen.

  12. Mark, Mr Lineberry,

    What is being overlooked is that Turkey has purged almost all other faiths from its population (why? how?) and is sliding backwards very quickly at present into zealousness. That is the nature of the beast. Introduce Muslims to Western society and they do not integrate. One can only expunge the nature of Islam from its adherents through force, as the Soviets did. But that is not compatible to a free and rights-respecting society.

    And inducing your concept of Turkish society from a second hand experience of a tourist is an error of induction. To arrive at an objective account one must either live there oneself as a resident for a few years, or else do a widescale survey of Christians and atheists who are living there as citizens and induce from that how they are faring. I think not so well. Hence an increasing Muslim population percentage and a declining non-Muslim one.

    There is only one solution: isolate.

  13. Turkey has an ugly history, when it comes to tolerance of other cultures,
    e.g. the Armenian Genocide in 1915-1918, in which 1.8 million Armenian Christians were killed because of their beliefs.
    Turkey may have come a long way since then, but the past shouldn't be forgotten.

    B. Whitehead

  14. Yes isolating does seem the solution - that business last week really shook me to the core (so easy to imagine it happening at Johnsonville Mall).

    In some ways it is a shame because there are a few things about Islam I happen to think are quite a good idea - male dominance, no women drivers, circumcision, teetotalism, no ghastly pop music on the radio, no political correctness, no catholic church, the machine gunning of communists - to name a few.

    It is difficult to see how New Zealand would be worse off if all that were adopted.... but then there is all the weirdo stuff.

  15. Sometimes on this blog there are posts extolling the classic core libertarian ideal of open borders and the free movement of all people. Then at other times there are posts detailing for us the kind of people we might expect to live with under such a policy. Would you agree that there is an inherent conflict between these two topics Peter? Is there some solution or reconciliation between those two seemingly contradictory types of posts?

  16. "Using some sort of objective test, those Muslims that would put the Ummah nation before the New Zealand nation when it comes to defense, deport them."

    This is all very rational, freedummies. However, can you please remind me of some other people throughout history who have advocated and then implemented policies of discrimination, expulsion, imprisonment and then a final solution in respect of certain individuals based on their religion....

  17. Christianity is an invite-yourself-in-whenever-you-are-ready ideology.

    Bollocks. If you are going to define it at least go and read what the Bible says about who's in and who's out.


  18. Judge Holden, this is not about religion, it is about loyalty to one's *nation* in battle. The West is at war, if you didn't know. The war began 12 years ago and is far from over. If one's loyalty in battle is to one's religion because one's religion is considered to be one's nation, rather than one's loyalty being to one's territorial nation and there an irreconcilable difference exists in values between the two nations you belong to, then to remain in the territorial nation is to be guilty of being a fifth pillar in times of peace, and a traitor when in battle. That's the logic to follow. If you can't follow it, or don't think the West is at war at present, then you need to check your premises. Talking about imprisonments and final solutions is tasteless emotionalism on your part, and no judge-like, especially when I went to lengths to describe a peaceful solution. If a Muslim's first loyalty in battle is to New Zealand, then they are a New Zealander and one of us. If in battle their first loyalty is to the Muslim Brotherhood (literal or figurative it matter not), then they are not welcome. The Islamofascists have their sites set on a final solution for you, of that you an be sure.

  19. "If a Muslim's first loyalty in battle is to New Zealand, then they are a New Zealander and one of us."

    Jawohl. Sounds a bit nationalistic though. Care to answer my question?

  20. Anon,

    I know the Bible well enough.

    John 3:16 : "For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

    The "perish" in this passage when read in context is unmistakably existential and not physical, meaning that it pertains only to one's life after physical death. That is what all Christians hope for. You must corrupt the spirit of everything else that is written in the New Testament to arrive at the notion that this is somehow a command from God to kill anyone who would not convert to Christianity (which, when it was at its worst, was precisely what the corrupted Church did). The difference with Islam is that one must corrupt what is written in the Qur'an in order to arrive at the notion one should not kill those who won't convert, or, if they are of Abrahamic faith already (meaning Christian or Jewish), become dhimmi.

  21. Judge, I did answer your question. Any action would be based on loyalty to nation, not religion. Perhaps you did not read my article thoroughly. Islam is a nation according to its committed adherents, a nation to which their first loyalty lies. The only nation that considers the whole world its state. You need to rejig your thinking and educate yourself on this topic because you are still at 101 trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. The Muslim world divides the world's territory into two "houses": the House of Peace and the House of War. The House of Peace is a Muslim controlled territory.

  22. Sorry, I wanted you to provide me with other nationalists in history who singled out specific religious adherents for discriminatory treatment such as expulsion (and then imprisonment and so on). Has this been tried before?

  23. This qualifies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey

  24. Judge Holden is just using a glib one liner. How silly.

    Terry is not suggesting Nazi style cleansing of NZ, Holden, but rather a plan which ends up guaranteeing the safety of New Zealanders by asking muslims straight out whether they are a bad lot.

    After that business last week in Kenya (bet they now regret booting out the British!) means I have moved into the column of saying enough is enough - and I think some of these folk need weeding out.

  25. Islam is a religion of war, and it takes fire to fight fire. Only an all-out war by a united non-Muslim world to exterminate Islam and disintegrate the Muslim World will end this scourge. All half-measures are doomed to failure. Read my Winslow Plan for Defeating Islam to see how it might be done:


  26. @Terry: The forced partition of India also qualifies. Around 7 million Muslims moved to the new Dominion of Pakistan from India, and around 7 million Sikhs and Hindus moved to the Union of India from the territories of Pakistan. "Estimates of the number of deaths range around roughly 500,000, with low estimates at 200,000 and high estimates at 1,000,000."

  27. @Terry: The forced partition of India also qualifies. Around 7 million Muslims were moved to the new Dominion of Pakistan from India, and around 7 million Sikhs and Hindus were moved to the Union of India from the territories of Pakistan. "Estimates of the number of deaths range around roughly 500,000, with low estimates at 200,000 and high estimates at 1,000,000."

  28. Mr Winslow,

    The aim is to prevent all out war. Isolation is definitely preferable to all out war.

  29. Why can't people be more loyal to their moral philosophy, albeit a belief in sky fairies, than to a territory, The local monopoly in coercion might have successfully marketed some poor bastards in another territory, say Turkey, as enemies, in which case even delusional sock muppets are right to resist.
    J Cuttance

  30. J Cuttance,

    It is not about loyalty to a territory. It is about loyalty to a shared value: enlightened freedom. Note that my post said that the isolation strategy will come to nothing is the nation is not enlightened and liberated.

  31. @Richard Wiig:Why on earth do you say "The aim is to prevent all out war. Isolation is definitely preferable to all out war."? We are ALREADY in a state of all out war.... its just that you won't acknowledge it.

    Dave Mann

  32. Oh btw, I have read your plan, Winslow. Thanks fir the link.
    The USA will never implement your plan, but, hopefully the Chinese might. Europe and the USA are in irredeemable decline, so the only hope is that China might act.

    Dave Mann

  33. the drunken watchman6 Oct 2013, 20:14:00

    I read this post with interest, and it made me realise how little I know about Islam. I appreciate the scholarly nature of the post (and many of the comments), and I acknowledge that this all goes way deeper than my shallow knowledge of anything Islam....

    ... but, can anyone please disabuse me of my distinct memory that ridding the Saudi peninsula of the "infidel" was stated by Osama Bin Laden as his primary objective? (vis a vis the establishment of a global Islamic hegemony, as the majority of commenters here seem to think (or at least give me the impression of thinkiing - maybe I got this wrong)). This global Islamic hegemonic objective may be something that can be "read into" Islamic philosophy, but I do not remember Osam Bin Laden stating it as an objective in any of his "press statements". Please link me to anything which may correct me on this.

    Could there be an element of hypocrisy in the (West's) determination that the Taliban needs to be exterminated while meantime Saudi monarchs hold hands with American presidents (GW Bush, for example) and cut deals? Maybe I don't read enough, but I don't see much criticism of Saudi Arabia in the Western media, while the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia appears not dissimilar to that by the Taliban in Afganistan (of which I see constant criticism).

    The scholars here may care to comment on the extraordinary prevalence of Saudi nationals among the 9/11 suiciders, and whether they think any connection might be established between this statistic and the befriending of tehe Taliban-like Saudi Arabia by the West. To my knowledge, it is not even possible to visit Saudi Arabia as a tourist (unless "special" circumstances are proven.) Normally, such a circumstance would provoke outrage in libertarian circles.. so I am listening...)

    Please, no personal attacks - sick of that. Judge Holden, Dolf, Mark Hubbard, Lineberry, don't bother to reply if you are hoping to get into a pissing contest with me - I will not respond to any of you.

    I am trying to figure out what is going on here - not to have fun-fights on the internet.

    For example, I would be interested in links to illustrate wide-spread condemnation of the Saudi Arabian monarchy by the mainstream, or for that matter, any Western media, and of any connections made by that media between the corruption of that Saudi regime (supported by the West), and Al Queda.


  34. That's kind of off topic, Drunken. This, however, nicely sums up the views of the Objectivist establishment:


  35. the drunken watchman7 Oct 2013, 21:50:00


    what the hell?

    i dont know about that arcane philosophical stuff - I asked for links to show me that Osama Bin Laden had stated as his objective global implementation of Sharia law. Your link doesnt, at least at a cursory glance, appear to do that.

    As I said, not going to get into a pissing contest with you, or Mark Hubbard, Lineberrry or Dolf or whoever else comes here just to hurl personal insults over whatever it is that they have a beef with.

    So thanks anyway.

    Apart from your link, I am a little disappointed that noone has responded to my request - shouldnt be that hard, i would have thought.

    Starting to wonder why people post here

  36. the drunken watchman8 Oct 2013, 21:06:00


  37. the drunken watchman8 Oct 2013, 21:17:00

    I havent scoured this link for tiny details, nor have I authenticated the source.

    But at a glance, I cannot see anything in Osama Bin Ladan's "policy statements" which correlate with the erudite observations made on this thread about the "true objectives" of the Isalmic jihadists (i.e of Islam).

    ... or has everyone here just lost interest now that they have expressed their credo?

  38. the drunken watchman8 Oct 2013, 21:20:00

    "Overall, Bin Laden's statements from the mid-1990s through the present indicate that he continues to see himself and his followers as the vanguard of an international Islamic movement primarily committed to ending U.S. "interference" in the affairs of Islamic countries and supportive of efforts to overturn and recast Islamic societies according to narrow Salafist interpretations of Islam and Islamic law. His public statements, and those of his deputies, will likely continue to play an important, calculated role in reaching these goals. "

  39. Look, clearly Osama didn't get the memo. It's global dominance the muzzies want now. The Objectivists have spoken and they hold reason as the highest standard. Now can we all just agree with Yaron and Lennie and get on with nuking children already?

  40. the drunken watchman8 Oct 2013, 21:56:00

    well, notwithstanding your anti-objectivist rantings, at least there is one reader here who agrees that OBL wasnt trying to take over the entire world, only to kick the camp-following Americans (GW Bush, for example), off their silly sacred peninsula.

    I get worried when I ask a simple little honest queston here, about Islamic motives, and the only response I get is a sarcastic one from an "objectivist-hater".

    I reckon , given some time and the inclination, I could dig enough stuff out of the Christian Bible to mount a similar attack on "Christian" motives.

    But if the only person who will discuss this with me is someone who appears to be looking only for a vehicle to attack "objectivists", then I guess I am wasting my time.

  41. Hi DW: It's true that Bin Liner stated that his mission was to remove Americans from Saudi Arabia--both American military and American businessmen. But it's important to realise that everything Bin Liner said was for calculated effect more than accuracy, and that Bin Liner himself was only one among many--global jihad bing not Bin Liner-centred, but Quran centred. And it is worldwide.

    Bin Liner's mentor Sayyid Qutb for example wanted to remove ALL western culture from all lands historically Islamic. As a beginning. Because, since Allah gave the world to Islamists, Islamists should have all the world.

    And I think recent events in Pakistan, Nigeria and Kenya make clear enough that global jihad encompasses more than just a Bin Liner-centred opposition to American influence in Saudi Arabia, but part of a global ideological opposition to anything non-Islamic.

  42. the drunken watchman9 Oct 2013, 14:17:00

    PC - well at least a reply. It probably doesnt warrant anything more on this thread, other than to say that
    I find it a bit odd that noone appears to share my surprise that Bin Laden the face of al Queda himself had missed the "memo", as Holden puts it, about what he was really supposed to be doing, rather than trying to eject the West (as, at least, a supporter of a corrupt monarchy) from the Saudi peninsula.

    Not a very clear memo, it would seem, but one which, although missed by OBL himself, seems to be readily spotted by you and the others here :) You would seem to be paying a lot more attention to the fine print in the Quran, and to Obama's 'mentor' Qutb, than was OBL himself. ("Bin Liner's mentor Sayyid Qutb for example wanted to remove ALL western culture from all lands historically Islamic. As a beginning. Because, since Allah gave the world to Islamists, Islamists should have all the world ".

    Meantime, Wikipedia gets yet another angle going on Qutb, saying he believed "A truly Islamic polity would have no rulers—not even have theocratic ones—since Muslims would need neither judges nor police to obey divine law."

  43. the drunken watchman9 Oct 2013, 14:56:00

    Oh, btw, perhaps my comments a bit oblique ("off topic", as Holden calls it) I should have pointed out why I inserted Osama Bin Laden into this -

    Terry said above "The West is at war, if you didn't know. The war began 12 years ago and is far from over. "

    I thought perhaps Terry was using 9/11 and Al Queda etc to exemplify the Islamic philosophy of world domination. and so therefore, I figured that it might be appropriate to look at exactly what Al Queda says it is trying to achieve.


  44. the drunken watchman9 Oct 2013, 15:00:00

    oh, and likewise, correct me if I am wrong, but Kenya? I see this also used in the narrative on Islamic global dominaiton

    I thought those murderers were protesting Kenya's military invovlement in Somalia , not trying to conquer Kenya in the name of Islam?

  45. @AD: Ah, I see, yes. I did find your comment a little opaque. But I would widen Terry's statement a little to agree that Islam is at war with the West, even if the West itself doesn't realise it, and has been for not just the 12 yearssince 9/11 but but for at least the 22 years before that, and maybe more.
    Bin Liner was only one theatre in that war.

  46. @DW: "I thought those murderers were protesting Kenya's military involvement in Somalia , not trying to conquer Kenya in the name of Islam?"
    Strang sort of protest when they were quizzing their captives on the name of Mohammad's mother to see if they were Muslim, and executing them if they weren't.

  47. "Bin Liner's mentor Sayyid Qutb for example wanted to remove ALL western culture from all lands historically Islamic. As a beginning. Because, since Allah gave the world to Islamists, Islamists should have all the world."

    This sort of rhetoric is similar to that of Western governments, and in particular that of USA, seeking to impose upon all countries, nationalities, races and cultures "democracy" according to some Western model or other.

    "Islam is at war with the West"
    Just like how the West is at war with terrorism.


  48. the drunken watchman9 Oct 2013, 18:53:00

    @ PC

    ... and I thought I was oblique!

    Since when has the strangeness of a protest been a reliable indicator of the motive?

  49. @DW: Relying on the testimony of barbarians, you mean? I think both our arguments share that problem.

  50. drunken watchman wrote: "I cannot see anything in Osama Bin Ladan's "policy statements" which correlate with the erudite observations made on this thread about the "true objectives" of the Isalmic jihadists (i.e of Islam)."

    Perhaps you have not read Bin Laden's letter to America which is a declaration of war by "The Islamic Nation", not merely Al Qaeda: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

    Here are some other post-9/11 quotes by bin Laden which clearly shows that is it Islam, lead by Al Qaeda, against the West, and not only America:

    "I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life." [2001]

    "Every Muslim must rise to defend his religion. The wind of faith is blowing." [2001]

    "Just like you kill us, we will kill you." [2002]

    "Our fight now is against the Americans" [2003] In other words, other infidels will be fought later, once American has fallen. If America falls, the rest of the Western world will follow shortly thereafter as a brief postscript.

    "President Bush and his ilk, the media giants, and the U.N. . . all are a fatal danger to the world, and the Zionist lobby is their most dangerous member. God willing, we will persist in fighting them." [2004]

    "Every Muslim, from the moment they realize the distinction in their hearts, hates Americans, hates Jews and hates Christians" [2005]

    And how can one dispute the 1998 Fatwa issued by bin Laden where he said "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

    All quotes sourced from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

    Also, in his latter years, bin Laden made explicit calls to fight against "Crusaders" meaning Christians in general, as evidenced here http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/23/binladen.tape/index.html

  51. @ drunken watchman, note that:

    in 2006 49.9% of Muslims polled support Osama bin Laden according to an al Jazeera poll (http://terrorism.about.com/b/2006/09/11/al-jazeeras-readers-on-911-499-support-bin-laden.htm)

    59% of Indonesians, the world's most populous nation and 56% of Jordanians supported Osama bin Laden in 2003 according a PEW research poll (http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/15/iran-terrorism-al-qaida-islam-opinions-columnists-ilan-berman.html)

    World Public Opinion: Muslim majorities agree with the al-Qaeda goal of Islamic law.
    Muslim majorities agree with al-Qaeda goal of keeping Western values out of Islamic countries;
    (Egypt: 88%; Indonesia 76%; Pakistan 60%; Morocco 64%)

    With 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, that is a lot of Muslim support for al Qaeda and/or its goals.


  52. wow, lots to read here. some interesting comments, as well as a lot of understandable concerns from those who study Islam through reading articles such as this one, or from the news casts at night. :(. Im a convert. I stayed away from the community when I started studying, as the attitudes and behaviour from the community at large did not seem to match what I was reading in quran and scholarly texts. I think the problem is multi layered 1) people are being handed down an ' incomplete version' of the faith, without taking the time to challenge cultural corruptions or indeed fully understanding the metaphysical and spiritual 'goals' of practising Islam. 'There is no compulsion in religion' - this teaching has clearly been lost somewhere along the lines! 2) this 'war' hasn't been going on for the last 13 years as someone stated (presumably you think 9/11 was a 'beginning' of something between the west and Islam). My friend, the west has been dominating all gentle, spiritual and honourable cultures for centuries - whether that be Asian, native American or Bedouin - as the tribal philosophies have their believers empowered. No dominating world power wants to empower their people. They want them fearful and then use us/them, divide and conquer tactics to do so. Beautiful cultures and spiritual philosophies such as these only have a place in the profane sphere were west can exploit them for economic gain - See Native Americans as a great example. 3) years of being terrorised by dominating world powers has created a community or generations of Muslims who have a victim complex. Study psychology to understand what post traumatic stress disorder, living in constant fear and being subjugated and humiliated does to a human. Suddenly we have a whole 'community' of people in certain regions whose humanity and integrity has been compromised, now only seemingly acting out against inherited injustices. A well-played tactic to discredit what IS intended to be a peaceful existence. 4). Since poor Muslim behaviour is just about the only thing we see in media, people are understandably linking 'Islamists', with Islam. This is the biggest mistake one could make when trying to understand what the frick is going on. The 'Islamists' I see on TV and in the paper... are not practicing Islam. Imagine that! I wish they would call themselves something else, coz they are clearly and successfully giving Islam a bad name!

    Peace be on you all, surely we will all be told abut the things in which we differ one day. I hope then we laugh at how ridiculous we all were and that perpetrators of lies and hatred between us are kept out of the party.

  53. Don't be fooled into thinking the powers that be (West and Arab included) are not beyond killing their own for their own sick war-mongering objectives. This is not a new game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
    .....The target has just changed. Sad state of the world I'm afraid, not an Islamic problem at its root.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.