« One Theory.... | Main | Infomercial... »

September 24, 2006

Islam Vs The Rest Of Us

I recently ran across this three year old article by Moshe Sharon, who is an Islamic History professor living and teaching in Israel.

Mr. Sharon defines, without the muting effect of political correctness, the reasons why Islam is not coexistentially compatible with the rest of the planet's population -- no, liberals, by "population", I do not mean people, dolphins, spotted owls and all G-d's other critters, I just mean people. You know, humans.

While he cites Judaism and Christianity as Islam's antithesis', the Muslims break the world down to two basic entities, these being Dar al Islam, the House of Islam, and Dar al Haab, the House of War. The former, which translates into the House of Submission (to Islam/Allah) includes all Muslims. The latter pretty much speaks for itself: If you're not Muslim, then Islam is at war with you.

Of course, out of Allah's supreme fairness, the ideal is that Islam offers infidels options. They offer three premium packages to choose from:

a) you may convert to Islam and live under the thumb of opressive Sharia law,

b) you may assume a role of dhimmitude, where-in you have the opportunity to live as a zillionth class citizen without legal rights of any kind, be subservient to all Muslims and pay a poll tax for the great opportunity to live in perpetual humiliation and shame {Dhimmitude is the preferred option of liberals, as their media sound bytes and their political obstruction of our country's self-defense measures would seem to indicate}.

c) you may be put to death.

So many choices, so little time!

There is a fourth choice, of course, but it's not in any of the brochures: Unite behind the President in the Global War On Terror and let our senators and representatives know in no uncertain terms that this is what we expect of them, as well. Demand that the media be held more responsible and let they themselves know, through increased or decreased patronage, that they need to be a damn sight more truthful in their coverage of the war, and put aside their political agendas until the enemy has been vanquished.

Seth, to quote the great Ronald Reagan, "There you go again!"

Ooops, sorry, back on topic. The linked article is sort of lengthy but worth the read. I particularly enjoyed the way the author phrased the second paragraph:

All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.

At any rate, Moshe Sharon lays out the entire thing, the irreconcileable differences between Islam and JudeoChristianity that demand that Muslims eliminate non-Muslims.

So go read the article and then come back....

Here's that link again.

We see on a regular basis these days that Islam's claim to being the "Religion of Peace" is a crock of recycled provender. Most recently, when the Pope recapped a centuries old observation, not his own, to the effect that Islam is a religion of violence, Muslims disputed this claim by being violent and calling for the murder of the Pontiff!

"We're not violent, but if you accuse us of being violent, we will kill you!"

Didn't Kirk, Spock and McCoy once blow out the logic circuits of a whole army of robots using that kind of reasoning?

One of those kindly, godly, real men of the Religion of Peace even shot a nun in the back.

And despite all these goings on, a lot of obtuse politicians, obtuse news editors and obtuse members of the voting public still seem to swallow the "Religion of Peace" mallarkey, and will cheerfully continue to do so right up until a suitcase nuke goes off in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Wilkes-Barre or Kalamazoo and hundreds of thousands to millions of Americans die. 50% of the blame will belong to the terrorists and 50% will go to the stupid, self seeking or politically motivated pieces of treasonous crotch-rot that either obstructed or publicized our intelligence gathering operations and capabilities or emboldened the enemy by leading them to believe that most of America sympathized with them. At that point, the John McCains, Bill Kellers and John Murthas of our society will be just as guilty of the mass murder of Americans as the terrorists will be.

A harsh sentiment, perhaps, but these are people who are knowingly endangering American lives in order to pursue their own ambitions and/or political objectives. In the politicians' cases, we are talking grossly irresponsible behavior for elected leaders. In Keller's case, no matter his and the left's politically convenient interpretation of the law, it is treason, period.

Okay, okay, I know I'm ranting, but what can I say? I'm ranting the truth, so....

In the Some Other Good Reading Department, I refer you to an on-point Islam-related post by Mustang, at Social Sense.

Posted by Seth at September 24, 2006 01:35 AM


The essay you cited in this article is excellent. I read it a few years ago. It still holds up!

The term "radical Islam" is a Western invention--a very dangerous one because it distracts so many people from seeing the truth. There is no reconciliation or compromise with Islam. Muslims don't compromise--they subjugate and kill any who are not Muslims.

Posted by: Always On Watch at September 24, 2006 05:40 AM

Islam divides all the world into two groups--Muslims and the rest. Talk about a my-way-or-the-highway ideology!

Posted by: Always On Watch at September 24, 2006 05:41 AM

AOW --


I wonder how far tragedy and disaster will have to go before everybody in the west realizes the extent of the danger posed by Islam.

Before our media, politicians and most of the public understand that our lives and freedom are threatened in a way that nobody in America in this century has had to concern themselves with, other than certain immigrants who arrived here with memories of true, profound horror and numbers tattooed on their arms, I truly believe we will have to experience more Islam in action...

Posted by: Seth at September 24, 2006 05:50 AM

Regarding the antithapy between Hebrew/Muslim,
I thought I read somewhere that when Mohammad started out, he admired the local Jewish religion and even went to Jerusalem (thought the Muslims should pray towards that venerable old city five times a day) but that there was a falling out. He was apparently aware of Christian thought also and picked up some ideas there? From my perspective, many religions evolve as "early fathers" add and interpet, and
I would suppose the same true of Islam. There is no doubt of Mohammad's militancy early on, however: elsewhere I read that the Koran is the least changed of any 'holy book' through the years and that it has to be read in Arabic for
'proper' understanding. I agree with your point that most of us, including 'experts', fail to fully understand the religion and people who follow it. Our culture has taught us to respect
the religion of others, which may lead to the confusion of our response.

Posted by: BB-Idaho at September 24, 2006 06:39 AM

BB --

Islam began in the Old Testament, then branched off.

It would be nice to be able to respect Islam as I respect Christianity, Buddhism or Hindi -- unfortunately, Islam wants to deprive us of our freedom or our lives, our choice.

It is an enemy of every other element of civilization, like a rabid dog in the neighborhood.

Posted by: Seth at September 24, 2006 07:41 AM

Exceptional Post! Thank you for the mention.

Posted by: Mustang at September 24, 2006 08:21 AM

I started reading Fallaci's The Force of Reason and in the first chapter she gives a brief history of Islam's attempt to conquer the West beginning in the 7th century. Now I've read about the atrocities committed by Nazis during the Holocaust, the Japanese in Nanking, Stalin's gulags... but all those horrors pale in comparison to what the Muslims did in Europe.

Beheadings, flayings, impalings, rapes, paedophila, massacres, throat slittings...

In 1571,when the Ottomans, under General Mustafa, conquered Cyprus and the Venetian Senator Marcantonio Bragadino went forth to discuss peace terms after signing a surrender, Mustafa had him unhorsed, cut off his nose and ears, was made to walk around town several times dragging bags of rubbish and licking the ground every time he passed Mustafa, then finally flayed alive. After he died he was stuffed with straw and made into a puppet, where his corpse was placed astride a cow and displayed everywhere in town. Lastly he was hoisted atop a mainmast of the Turkish general's flagship.

Such is the viciousness of the enemy we face.

Posted by: atheling2 at September 24, 2006 12:22 PM

'Such is the viciousness of the enemy we face.'
or mayhaps the hobbies of that era..some few years later we learn:
In 1599 in Bavaria, Germany, a convicted witch by the name of Anna Pappenheimer, after already being mercilessly tortured in prison, was taken into the public square where her flesh was peeled off with red-hot pincers, after which her breasts sawed off. But her tormentors were not through. The bloody severed breasts were forced into the mouths of her two sons, in a perverse parody by her Christian torturers of breast feeding the boys, who were later burned alive along with their mother. In the crowd, Anna’s ten year old son was made to watch all this horror. The next day, he too was burned alive beneath the cross of the Lord Jesus.
-humanity, what have we learned?

Posted by: BB-Idaho at September 24, 2006 12:50 PM

Mustang --

Thank you!

Atheling2 --

That has always been the way of Islam. It is a religion whose enforcers seem to exult in gratuitous violence and cruelty for the sake of gratuitous violence and cruelty.

The fact that they do as they do and then become enraged to the point of accellerating the violence when anyone points it out indicates what could only be described as serious collective psychological issues.

BB --

Most notable is the century involved. Most of the world has evolved (matured?) since then and long since left the mindless barbarism behind.

Islam, however, has not and steadfastly refuses to thusly evolve -- it has never left the 7th Century. Note the beheadings and torture-for-amusement in which they still indulge, the signs they carry in their demonstrations and the white hot rage they express at the most minute perceived "insult" to their religion.

One would not expect to see a modern repetition of the Pappenheimer incident at the hands of modern day Germans, but the same could not be said for modern day Muslims.

If Islam had its way, and I say this as a Jew whose family, only one generation removed, lost and suffered much in 1930s Europe, even the atrocities of the Nazis would pale to insignificance in the face of what Muslims would do to the rest of civilization in the name of the satanic death cult they inaccurately refer to as a religion.

Posted by: Seth at September 24, 2006 02:09 PM

What do you think about american president?

its interesting.
tell me please.

Posted by: MsKatuha at September 24, 2006 03:04 PM


I guess Mustang told you.

Posted by: atheling2 at September 24, 2006 03:13 PM

OOOps, sorry, I meant Seth!

Yes, the barbarism if Islam has not changed since the 7th century. Western man, however, has changed, with a few notable periods, which I indicated.

Posted by: atheling2 at September 24, 2006 03:14 PM

Hmmmm, looks like troll droppings from Ms. Katuha.

Posted by: atheling2 at September 24, 2006 03:16 PM

Atheling2 --

Ms. Katuha's nic leads to MSN's homepage, but there's an email addy for her in the comment notification in my blogmail.

So in the event that she's serious about an answer:

Ms. Katuha --

While I'm not overjoyed about his stance on immigration, his deference to terrorist factories like Saudi Arabia, his role in the recent Lebanon "ceasefire" nor his insistence that Iran can be reasoned with, I believe he is the right President for this time frame, certainly exponentially better than Jacques Kerry or Algore would have been, to say nothing of more "real", and he is easily the second best U.S. President in my 51 years on this planet, the first having been Ronald Reagan.

Had Gore been elected in 2000 or Kerry in 2004, either one of them would have gone the way England is going, bending over backwards to the point of sacrificing national pride and identity in order to appease Islamofascism. Muslims see this as a sign of weakness and it emboldens them to demand further acquiescence rather than show the gratitude civilized people would have demonstrated.

Kerry would have pulled our troops out of Iraq, leaving the same kind of misery behind that we left in South Vietnam (when liberals learned that it is possible to sabotage a war effort from here at home) by abandoning the people there before our job was finished, and also enabling another Taliban type government to enslave the Iraqi people. As we will undoubtedly see, this appeasement will bring great tragedy to the Brits.

Posted by: Seth at September 24, 2006 04:22 PM

Apologies for the sanguine atrocity post; that period of history, unfortunately, is rife with them. My point was simply that the major religions of the period were extremely intolerant and indeed Christianity today teaches
peace and charity. Regarding Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, it must be noted that on occasion, they release hostages, most recently two Fox journalists and the CS Monitor
reporter. (and as you noted previously, the Iran group of the Carter era) we guess that either some terrorists lack fervor and exhibit
human traits, or more cynically, the benefits of release outweigh those of murder? As far as the
Nazi atrocities paling, let's hope not. The Nazis were modern nonreligious zealots of hate, which makes their crimes the more heinous. Some
terror groups may aspire, but they pale in comparison to the organized efficiency of the Himmlers, Heydrichs, Eichmanns and their fellow butchers.

Posted by: BB-Idaho at September 24, 2006 05:52 PM

BB, regarding your last comment, regarding the Fox reporters, in order to gain release they were forcibly converted to Islam, then of course the terrorists released their fellow Muslims, in the process highlighting to us all in the infidel west the "3 choices" outlined early in the post (conversion, death, or possibly dhimmitude). This action aggravates, not mitigates their behavior in my view.

Also, as I commented in another post, Islam regards such forced conversions as legitimate, which means if the reporters repudiate their conversions, they are adjudged apostates and subject to fatwa and death. In this case, the release was part of cynical cost/benefit analysis. (BTW - I think you meant "sanguinary" not "sanguine" -- similar origins, very different meanings.)

As far as your earlier comment, Muhammed did at first befriend the Jews, but I understand that when the Jews rejected his prohetic claims, he turned against them. There may have been other more political reasons for his change of attitude, but I'm not familiar enough with history to address those. Muhammed's interactions with Christianity are complicated too, but my limited understanding is that the "Christians" he encountered in his backwater domain were rather ill-informed of/seriously misunderstood Christian teachings.

Your comments about the Koran being "least changed" are rather vague, but certainly looking at changes from Muhammed's era forward, the Jewish and Christian Scriptures are at least comparably unchanged compared with the Koran.

Also, you somewhat misunderstand the Muslim position on the Koran: the statement that the Koran must be read in Arabic for "proper" understanding is not the usual argument that translations always sacrifice some element of "accuracy" -- rather, Islam argues the Arabic is the language of heaven itself and that therefore only those who know Arabic can properly understand and interpret the Koran. This historically has led to conflict between Arabic-speaking and non-Arabic speaking believers, as the latter tend to be relegated to second-class status as they cannot authoritatively expound on the meaning of the Koran

This also places another obstacle in the path of dialog between Muslims and non-Arabic speaking unbelievers as the latter would not allowed standing to discuss the Koran and its teaching. Here's one recent statement expressive of that attitude which CNN reported from a rally in Palestine protesting the Pope's speech regarding Islam.

"Of course as we know the meaning of jihad can only be understood by Muslims," Budianto told the crowd. "Only Muslims can understand what jihad is. It is impossible that jihad can be linked with violence, we Muslims have no violent character."

Posted by: civil truth at September 24, 2006 07:35 PM

BB --

That last quote in Civil Truth's comment alone should be enough to alarm anybody.

Muslims think on a different plane than we do -- some things you and I condemn as truly evil and barbaric are perfectly acceptable to them, "Allah said do this, so I'm doing divine work".

Civil Truth --

That was very well said.

I was having problems with my wireless network earlier, had written a response to BB's last comment -- then lost it and had to reboot the system.

Your thought about the two reporters was identical to my own. I had said I wondered if they realized they'd be in danger if they reneged on the "conversion", adding also that Islam isn't about love of G-d, it's about submission to Him, as its name suggests.

Posted by: Seth at September 24, 2006 09:51 PM

I also want to add that the atrocities committed by the Muslim conquerers during the Middle Ages were to those who refused to convert. I have an inkling that the European of the 16th century was more fervent in his Christian belief than they are now. Those who did convert (and not many did) were spared.

Nothing has changed with Islam:

1. Convert

2. Be killed

3. Live in Dhimmitude.

Posted by: atheling2 at September 24, 2006 10:10 PM

Atheling2 --

I cannot see how this concept does not register on even the most "liberal" minded.

Despite all that's happening today, liberals seem to think that the Islamofascists are only playing.

Posted by: Seth at September 24, 2006 10:21 PM