Jerusalem and Islamism

 

Sometimes one comes across an article that provides such insight that one is startled into understanding. This article at Crisis magazine, “Jerusalem in the Islamic Imagination” by Derya Little, is just such an article. It provides an understanding of why Jerusalem has any importance in the greater Islamic world.

First, a short bio on Derya. She was born in Turkey and raised Muslim, fell into atheism, and had a conversion experience that took her into Christianity, ultimately settling on Catholicism. She has a Ph.D. in politics, so is quite learned and scholarly, and I’ve come across a number of her articles in the past year. Her insight and knowledge of the Islamic world and mindset are invaluable. She has a book out on her religious journey, From Islam to Christ: One Woman’s Path through the Riddles of God, which I have bought and intend to read shortly.

Here are a couple of key paragraphs on which I will build some observations:

In the Muslim mind, the history of nations is similar to the salvation of man. When a Muslim reads the Old Testament, or learns about Judaism, all he sees is a nation that failed time and again to obey the commands of Allah. There is no excuse for this failure. It is sinful, shameful, and disgraceful. It is not an occasion to acknowledge that without grace all will fail.

And…

Living in a city of commerce and trade, Muhammad was exposed to Judaism and Christianity, and the pivotal role Jerusalem played as the center for Jewish worship and as the location of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. Since the central claim of Islam is that Jews and Christians corrupted Allah’s message, Muhammad’s followers would have to fulfill the mission that was entrusted to earlier prophets whose words went unheeded…. The Holy Land should be passed on to those who lived in accordance with Allah’s will, something the Jews and the Christians have failed to do. This mission to reconquer Jerusalem became even more important because the Israelites failed to protect the land after Kings David and Solomon, who, Muslims claim, ruled with Sharia Law. The Jews had declined to fight to defend Jerusalem, and because of their cowardice they lost the Holy Land.

To think that Kings David and Solomon ruled with Sharia law is delusional. It is absurd. And then Derya outlines the two distinct incidents involving Jerusalem in Islam: the mystical journey Mohammed took on a flying horse to Jerusalem and from there ultimately to heaven before Allah. This provides the mythic significance of Jerusalem in Islamic theology. But Derya’s conclusion should be read carefully:

The Muslim obsession with Jerusalem is indicative of the way Islam sees the entire world: a chessboard to be conquered. While Christ emphasized many time that his kingdom was not of this world, Muhammad’s desire to become the temporal sultan required the conquest of certain cities, namely Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. While before the end times, Muhammad promised that Constantinople, then Rome, would be conquered, Miraj sealed the fate of Jerusalem as an immediate target of Islamic Jihad, not a hope to be fulfilled in time.

While the realist political scientist in me wants to read world affairs in light of national interests and balance of power, there is no denying that the Muslim claim on Jerusalem is not merely a territorial ambition. To the Muslim mind, Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem is an abomination that cannot be tolerated. Any attempt to prevent the Muslim domination of Jerusalem is seen as a religious affront, not a political maneuver. Because of the nature of this particular beast, Jerusalem will remain a source of regional conflict for years to come.

Islam sees the world as “a chessboard to be conquered.” Do not think that Islamism is not inherent to Islam. It is at the core of Islam. If most Muslims aren’t acting in accordance, it is because of their failure to live up to Koranic values, of which they in time will be prodded into contrition. That the whole Muslim world doesn’t attempt Islamism is a practical calculation. If given a realistic opportunity for global implementation of Sharia, they will all take it.

The whole Islamic myth is a product of Mohammed’s delusions, or if not delusions, outright lies. It seems to me that those lies are amazingly expedient to the political landscape of his day. Whichever, they are absurd.

The answer to their objections to the issues around the world, but more specifically on the question of Jerusalem, is to put up resistance. Perhaps if they saw real resistance they would respect the opposition rather than consider us on the level of pigs and monkeys. It’s time to stop the appeasement, tell them if they don’t like Jerusalem under Jewish control to shove it, and ride off on the horse Mohammed rode on.

There are 39 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. PHenry Member
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    Manny: shove it, and ride off on the horse Mohammed rode on.

    Great post, Manny. Love that ending!

    • #1
  2. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    As I understand it (I could be wrong here), Islam started in the 7th century? Islam never had interest in Jerusalem as a holy site – it’s not mentioned in the Koran. It became a holy site after. There was a black rock that fell from the sky and landed on the spot that the Dome is on – they took that as a sign to mark the place of the spot she describes where Mohammed gallops off and built the Dome.

    I read that as a boy, Mohammed was cared for by Christians and heard Bible stories which he later incorporated into his teachings – that is why Jesus and Abraham are mentioned. I had a great book on world religions that covered the above, I wish I had kept it. It’s a complicated faith that advocates violence against non-believers, which coincides with the conquering mentality that we still see today. It’s not talked about openly. Some Imams preach violence and are radicalizing their followers – why would that be tolerated? If it is a peaceful faith, why all the turmoil, intolerance against other faiths? I want to understand it.

    • #2
  3. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    I read the Koran. Not studiously, but I did read through it. I had heard all the hyperbole, both pro and con. I figured I’d see for myself. Going in, I assumed that, like the Bible, there’d be a coupl’a cringe-worthy verses, but that they’d represent a vanishingly small fraction of an otherwise peaceful, loving, spiritual book. I was really unprepared for what turned out to be a recurring rant against Unbelievers in general and Jews and Christians in particular who, as ‘people of the Book’ were singled out for approbation. Every few pages the rant reappears in one form or another. Over and over and over. Even in the daily prayer, Jews and Christians get dissed…

    ”Guide us along the Straight Path,
    The path of those whom You have favored,
    Not the path of those who earned Your anger, nor of those who went astray. Amen.”

    There is 1300 years of Islamic scholarship that agrees that “those who earned Your anger” and “those who went astray.” are Jews and Christians. It is ubiquitous.

    I came away from my reading feeling that I had a better understanding of where the radical elements of Islam were coming from. It seemed to me that, for good or ill, they were following the letter of the law as it is written. What I was left wondering about was how ‘moderate’ Muslims could reconcile their moderation in the face of the book’s repeated calls for for immoderation? It seems to me the moderates would have to ignore fully 10%-15% of the book.

    I was reminded of a story ( perhaps apocryphal ) about Bernard Lewis – the doyen of Middle Eastern studies in America. The story goes that the Clinton White House reached out to Lewis. They wanted a quote from the Koran that Bill could use in a speech … something feel-good about peace and tranquility and love-thy-neighbor and all-men-are-brothers. Lewis gave them one. A few months later they came back to Lewis asking for another, similar quote. Lewis gave them the same quote as before. They said ‘No, we need a different one. We used this one already.’ Lewis told them there wasn’t another one. That one was it on the topic of peace and love and all-men-are-brothers.

    • #3
  4. Manny Member
    Manny
    @Manny

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):
    As I understand it (I could be wrong here), Islam started in the 7th century? Islam never had interest in Jerusalem as a holy site – it’s not mentioned in the Koran. It became a holy site after. There was a black rock that fell from the sky and landed on the spot that the Dome is on – they took that as a sign to mark the place of the spot she describes where Mohammed gallops off and built the Dome.

    I read that as a boy, Mohammed was cared for by Christians and heard Bible stories which he later incorporated into his teachings – that is why Jesus and Abraham are mentioned. I had a great book on world religions that covered the above, I wish I had kept it. It’s a complicated faith that advocates violence against non-believers, which coincides with the conquering mentality that we still see today. It’s not talked about openly. Some Imams preach violence and are radicalizing their followers – why would that be tolerated? If it is a peaceful faith, why all the turmoil, intolerance against other faiths? I want to understand it.

    You clarified something I miss interpreted. While Mohammed’s fantastical journey, the Miraj, is understood to be through Jerusalem, the city is not actually named in the Koran. that is why there was an Egyptian Imam who disputed the centrality of Jerusalem. And he was pilloried by his fellow Muslims. You can find out about it here.

    • #4
  5. Manny Member
    Manny
    @Manny

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    I read the Koran. Not studiously, but I did read through it. I had heard all the hyperbole, both pro and con. I figured I’d see for myself. Going in, I assumed that, like the Bible, there’d be a coupl’a cringe-worthy verses, but that they’d represent a vanishingly small fraction of an otherwise peaceful, loving, spiritual book. I was really unprepared for what turned out to be a recurring rant against Unbelievers in general and Jews and Christians in particular who, as ‘people of the Book’ were singled out for approbation. Every few pages the rant reappears in one form or another. Over and over and over. Even in the daily prayer, Jews and Christians get dissed…

    ”Guide us along the Straight Path,
    The path of those whom You have favored,
    Not the path of those who earned Your anger, nor of those who went astray. Amen.”

    There is 1300 years of Islamic scholarship that agrees that “those who earned Your anger” and “those who went astray.” are Jews and Christians. It is ubiquitous.

    I came away from my reading feeling that I had a better understanding of where the radical elements of Islam were coming from. It seemed to me that, for good or ill, they were following the letter of the law as it is written. What I was left wondering about was how ‘moderate’ Muslims could reconcile their moderation in the face of the book’s repeated calls for for immoderation? It seems to me the moderates would have to ignore fully 10%-15% of the book.

    I was reminded of a story ( perhaps apocryphal ) about Bernard Lewis – the doyen of Middle Eastern studies in America. The story goes that the Clinton White House reached out to Lewis. They wanted a quote from the Koran that Bill could use in a speech … something feel-good about peace and tranquility and love-thy-neighbor and all-men-are-brothers. Lewis gave them one. A few months later they came back to Lewis asking for another, similar quote. Lewis gave them the same quote as before. They said ‘No, we need a different one. We used this one already.’ Lewis told them there wasn’t another one. That one was it on the topic of peace and love and all-men-are-brothers.

    Great comment and it adds a lot to my post. It goes without saying that Isalm is not the religion of peace.

    • #5
  6. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Manny: The whole Islamic myth is a product of Mohammed’s delusions, or if not delusions outright lies

    And we are expected to accommodate the delusions and lies. Or else.

    • #6
  7. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    A very fine post, Manny. I’d never heard of the Islam abhorrence of Jews and Christians for their not “protecting” Jerusalem. Their demands for having Jerusalem are outrageous and bizarre. Thanks.

    • #7
  8. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    Part of the issue is that Islam changed during Mohammed’s life. After Mecca drove him out, he got much more interested in conversion by the sword. Muslims differ on which phase takes precedence.

    I’m not interested in lecturing Muslims on how they should want to join ISIS.

    I believe Daniel Pipes wrote a book on how little Jerusalem figures into Islam except as a target of conquest

    • #8
  9. Mike-K Member
    Mike-K
    @

    I have read part of Tom Holland’s book, “In the Shadow of the Sword.” I’ve decided to listen to the rest of it on audible.

    • #9
  10. Manny Member
    Manny
    @Manny

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    Part of the issue is that Islam changed during Mohammed’s life. After Mecca drove him out, he got much more interested in conversion by the sword. Muslims differ on which phase takes precedence.

    I’m not interested in lecturing Muslims on how they should want to join ISIS.

    I believe Daniel Pipes wrote a book on how little Jerusalem figures into Islam except as a target of conquest

    Well, by Islamic rule, the latter parts of the Koran supercede the earlier parts. The latter parts are when he turned to the sword to enforce conversion. So technically they do not differ on which phase takes precedence. they just don’t understand their own religion doctrines, which is not surprising. Most average persons do not understand the nuances of their relgion.

    • #10
  11. Manny Member
    Manny
    @Manny

    Mike-K (View Comment):
    “In the Shadow of the Sword

    I had not heard of the book. I researched it and it sounds interesting. That the appeasers of Islam are critical must mean it’s probably on target.

    • #11
  12. Mike-K Member
    Mike-K
    @

    I began listening today and will report in a week when I have listened to the whole thing. I find it easy to listen to rather heavy nonfiction while driving. I listened to the entire Robert Caro Lyndon Johnson biography (80 hours) My wife heard some of it and wanted me to begin again, so I have listened twice. Highly recommended.

    I drive to California from Tucson each month and commute from Tucson to Phoenix each week so I have lots of time to listen.

    • #12
  13. Manny Member
    Manny
    @Manny

    Mike-K (View Comment):
    I began listening today and will report in a week when I have listened to the whole thing. I find it easy to listen to rather heavy nonfiction while driving. I listened to the entire Robert Caro Lyndon Johnson biography (80 hours) My wife heard some of it and wanted me to begin again, so I have listened twice. Highly recommended.

    I drive to California from Tucson each month and commute from Tucson to Phoenix each week so I have lots of time to listen.

    Thanks Mike.

    • #13
  14. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    Manny (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    Part of the issue is that Islam changed during Mohammed’s life. After Mecca drove him out, he got much more interested in conversion by the sword. Muslims differ on which phase takes precedence.

    I’m not interested in lecturing Muslims on how they should want to join ISIS.

    I believe Daniel Pipes wrote a book on how little Jerusalem figures into Islam except as a target of conquest

    Well, by Islamic rule, the latter parts of the Koran supercede the earlier parts. The latter parts are when he turned to the sword to enforce conversion. So technically they do not differ on which phase takes precedence. they just don’t understand their own religion doctrines, which is not surprising. Most average persons do not understand the nuances of their relgion.

    So, you want me to tell my Muslim co-workers to get their jihad on? Tell Zafar he’s not a real Muslim unless he decapitates me? Or are we supposed to kill them all before they turn on us? Are you out of your damn mind?

    I don’t give a damn about Islamic rules of interpretation. I’m not a Muslim, and neither are you. Why the hell should I care about what is supposedly true and authentic Islam? No form of Islam is true as I see it. If a Muslim interprets Islam in a way that does not involve murdering infidels, that’s great. I’m not going to tell him he is wrong.

    • #14
  15. Israel P. Inactive
    Israel P.
    @IsraelP

    Manny: To the Muslim mind, Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem is an abomination that cannot be tolerated. Any attempt to prevent the Muslim domination of Jerusalem is seen as a religious affront, not a political maneuver. Because of the nature of this particular beast, Jerusalem will remain a source of regional conflict for years to come.

    Was this not a dogma of Catholicism as well, at least until John XXIII?

    • #15
  16. Aaron Miller Member
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    If a Muslim interprets Islam in a way that does not involve murdering infidels, that’s great. I’m not going to tell him he is wrong.

    “What is truth?” — Pontius Pilate

    Caring about someone necessarily means wanting to share truth with them. Love insists on truth. One must tolerate mistaken beliefs among all people one knows. But friends discuss their differences and don’t callously disregard harmful illusions, leaving others in darkness.

    You are trying to separate religion from ideology. But if there is a difference then religion is more significant because it speaks even more to a person’s values and priorities. I doubt you would argue “If a communist interprets Marx in a way that does not involve murdering capitalists, that’s great. I’m not going to tell him he’s wrong.”

    Islam is a poisonous ideology with a definite history, like communism and fascism. Like those non-spiritual ideologies that people focus their lives around, it is commonly practiced without violence or hatred. Yet we fiercely argue against those beliefs because they are false and harmful. Though such beliefs can be idly sworn and ignored by a believer’s associates, they at least foment destructive voting habits. If they are permitted to represent a significant portion of society, consequent political expression is always harmful.

    As Steyn says, one can draw conclusions just by considering countries with even 20% Islamic populations. Despite geographic, historical, and cultural diversity, disturbing patterns emerge.

    • #16
  17. Aaron Miller Member
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    Israel P. (View Comment):
    Was this not a dogma of Catholicism as well, at least until John XXIII?

    No, it was not.

    • #17
  18. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    Part of the issue is that Islam changed during Mohammed’s life. After Mecca drove him out, he got much more interested in conversion by the sword. Muslims differ on which phase takes precedence.

    I’m not interested in lecturing Muslims on how they should want to join ISIS.

    I believe Daniel Pipes wrote a book on how little Jerusalem figures into Islam except as a target of conquest

    Well, by Islamic rule, the latter parts of the Koran supercede the earlier parts. The latter parts are when he turned to the sword to enforce conversion. So technically they do not differ on which phase takes precedence. they just don’t understand their own religion doctrines, which is not surprising. Most average persons do not understand the nuances of their relgion.

    So, you want me to tell my Muslim co-workers to get their jihad on? Tell Zafar he’s not a real Muslim unless he decapitates me? Or are we supposed to kill them all before they turn on us? Are you out of your damn mind?

    I don’t give a damn about Islamic rules of interpretation. I’m not a Muslim, and neither are you. Why the hell should I care about what is supposedly true and authentic Islam? No form of Islam is true as I see it. If a Muslim interprets Islam in a way that does not involve murdering infidels, that’s great. I’m not going to tell him he is wrong.

    I took Manny’s comment to be a criticism of non-Muslims who try to tell us Islamists aren’t “real” Muslims — that they’re “misrepresenting” the faith. Their sacred texts would seem to suggest otherwise, and I think the non-Muslim apologists are full of hokey.

    I seem to recall reading somewhere that the whole story of Mohammed’s flying horse adventure to the Rock was fabricated sometime after the Koran was written as a direct result of some sultan’s expansionist ambitions in the Holy Land. Does anyone know the history well enough to explain? Someone set sights on Jerusalem and came up with the story?

    • #18
  19. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    Why the hell should I care about what is supposedly true and authentic Islam? No form of Islam is true as I see it. If a Muslim interprets Islam in a way that does not involve murdering infidels, that’s great. I’m not going to tell him he is wrong.

    To paraphrase Trotsky, you may not be interested in jihad but jihad is interested in you.

    When churchians, nominal Christians, and new converts to Christianity decide to go deeper into their faith traditions you usually don’t read about their being intercepted on the way to take back Constantinople, or about surgeons trying to pick their body parts out of people standing near them when they blew themselves up.

    Unfortunately, you do read about churchians and Christians colluding with the Left to infringe on your right to free speech if that speech is critical of Muslims or Islam, and you do read about dawa making its way into public schools. In my mother’s day, Jewish kids like her were expected to sing Christmas carols and learn the Lord’s Prayer in schools.

    Today, it’s the Shahada and worse.

    Daniel Greenfield put it like this:

    An estimated 29 ‘lone wolves’ were arrested last year in Christmas terror plots in the UK, France, Brussels and Australia. A number of these plots targeted Christmas markets, carnivals and cathedrals.

    The year before, a Pakistani married couple had opened fire at a Christmas party at the Department of Public Health in San Bernardino. The worst half of the couple had groused about the Christmas decorations. Previous attack plots had included the Christmas Day bomber (the Nigerian terrorist also known as the underwear bomber) and Portland’s Somali Christmas tree lighting bomb plot.

    This is what a religious war looks like.

    Muslim violence spikes around Ramadan, and around Christian and Jewish holidays, because Islamic violence is inherently religious in nature. Islamic Supremacist terrorists like Ullah are lashing out at non-Islamic religions in order to clear the way for the imposition of Islamic rule.

    Mayor Bill de Blasio, the lefty pol who dismantled the NYPD’s counterterrorism programs at the behest of Islamist pressure groups, insisted at the post-attack press conference that, “We actually show that society of many faiths and many backgrounds can work.”

    A society of many faiths can work. As long as all of them practice mutual tolerance.

    When a society includes Akayed Ullah, Sayfullo Saipov, the Uzbeki Muslim who ran over tourists on a Manhattan bike path in October, Ahmad Khan Rahimi, the Afghan who set off bombs in New York and New Jersey last year, Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani who tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square, Talha Haroon, another Pakistani who wanted to massacre New Yorkers in Times Square, Quazi Mohammad, another Bangladeshi who wanted to bomb the Federal Reserve and Raees Qazi, another Pakistani who scouted Times Square for an attack, that society can’t and won’t work.

    • #19
  20. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Israel P. (View Comment):
    Was this not a dogma of Catholicism as well, at least until John XXIII?

    No, it was not.

    Thanks for the link. That’s a pretty good summary, though naturally enough shaded towards the Church.

    Also, Professor Madden’s discussion really gets going in the 3rd century; before that, especially in the early days, Jewish-Christian conflict was basically a family fight, and the heat and vituperation reflect that. Later, Christians either not of Jewish origin or several generations removed from it picked up on the polemic and made it their own.

    In an interesting sidenote, one small town synagogue uncovered in the Galilee apparently showed signs of being used, probably simultaneously, by proto-rabbinic Jews and Jewish followers of Jesus. I couldn’t find a link in my brief search for the story. It’s a pity the minutes of the board meetings are forever lost to us.

    • #20
  21. Kay of MT Member
    Kay of MT
    @KayofMT

    I do not remember where I recently read it, but apparently his wife related the story of his flight on a horse through Jerusalem as a dream. The story showed up in another “scripture” about 300 years after his death.

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):
    There was a black rock that fell from the sky and landed on the spot that the Dome is on

    Unless there were 2 black rocks that fell, the major one is in Mecca where the muslims are required to visit at least once in their lives.

    And Manny, I have no intention of reading this author’s misunderstanding of history. The Jews were destroyed trying to get rid of the Romans in their land and were dispersed.

    • #21
  22. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Kay of MT (View Comment):
    The Jews were destroyed trying to get rid of the Romans in their land and were dispersed.

    The Zealots massacred the Roman garrison in Jerusalem. The Romans then besieged the city, which housed between 600,000 (Tacitus) and 1,000,000 (Josephus) people. During the siege, there was what amounted to a civil war in the besieged city between the Zealots (a splinter group of whom were called “Sicarii” after the sicae (small daggers) they carried and used in Jerusalem’s crowds to assassinate opponents) and less fanatical Jerusalemites; the Zealots and their allies won. In the fighting, they set the food stores on fire to forestall surrender negotiations and force a desperation fight with the Romans. They got it.

    Things did not end well; the Temple was destroyed. Two generations later, Bar Kochba rose against the Romans; whether he considered himself the Messiah or was willing to use the fact that some of his followers (including the great Rabbi Akiva) thought so for his own purposes is still unclear. As a community the Samaritans tried to stay out of it but apparently numerous young Samaritan men joined the rebellion. There were reprisal killings of Jewish Christians who tried to sit the war out. Bar Kochba inflicted heavy casualties on the Romans – some say that he gutted the XXII Legion – but once again, tugging on Superman’s cape proved to be a bad idea.

    Many hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed during both uprisings and the subsequent reprisals, and hundreds of thousands more sold into slavery, which, in addition to any surviving non-enslaved refugees, is what “dispersed” looked like.

    • #22
  23. Kay of MT Member
    Kay of MT
    @KayofMT

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    Many hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed during both uprisings and the subsequent reprisals, and hundreds of thousands more sold into slavery, which is a fuller picture of “dispersed.”

    Thank you for telling the whole story. I’m not fully awake yet and my typing is poor. Just wanted to respond to that “remark” the Jews did nothing. I have the full works of Josephus.

    • #23
  24. Manny Member
    Manny
    @Manny

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    Part of the issue is that Islam changed during Mohammed’s life. After Mecca drove him out, he got much more interested in conversion by the sword. Muslims differ on which phase takes precedence.

    I’m not interested in lecturing Muslims on how they should want to join ISIS.

    I believe Daniel Pipes wrote a book on how little Jerusalem figures into Islam except as a target of conquest

    Well, by Islamic rule, the latter parts of the Koran supercede the earlier parts. The latter parts are when he turned to the sword to enforce conversion. So technically they do not differ on which phase takes precedence. they just don’t understand their own religion doctrines, which is not surprising. Most average persons do not understand the nuances of their relgion.

    So, you want me to tell my Muslim co-workers to get their jihad on? Tell Zafar he’s not a real Muslim unless he decapitates me? Or are we supposed to kill them all before they turn on us? Are you out of your damn mind?

    I don’t give a damn about Islamic rules of interpretation. I’m not a Muslim, and neither are you. Why the hell should I care about what is supposedly true and authentic Islam? No form of Islam is true as I see it. If a Muslim interprets Islam in a way that does not involve murdering infidels, that’s great. I’m not going to tell him he is wrong.

    Well that’s great if they don’t. How do you know when and where they will have a religious “enlightening” and get radicalized? The point of this post is to (a) gain insight into the nature of Islam so that we can formulate appropriate policies and (b) stop the appeasement crap and call it out for what it is. There will be no Islamic reform if that is even possible without honesty and the truth. And maybe, just maybe, when Muslims realize the true nature of their religion, maybe they may find the loving God of Christianity (or Judaism) to be more in line with truth and convert.

    • #24
  25. Manny Member
    Manny
    @Manny

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    If a Muslim interprets Islam in a way that does not involve murdering infidels, that’s great. I’m not going to tell him he is wrong.

    You are trying to separate religion from ideology. But if there is a difference then religion is more significant because it speaks even more to a person’s values and priorities. I doubt you would argue “If a communist interprets Marx in a way that does not involve murdering capitalists, that’s great. I’m not going to tell him he’s wrong.”Islam is a poisonous ideology with a definite history, like communism and fascism. Like those non-spiritual ideologies that people focus their lives around, it is commonly practiced without violence or hatred. Yet we fiercely argue against those beliefs because they are false and harmful. Though such beliefs can be idly sworn and ignored by a believer’s associates, they at least foment destructive voting habits. If they are permitted to represent a significant portion of society, consequent political expression is always harmful.

    Spot on. With an attitude like Omega we would never have beaten communism.

    • #25
  26. Manny Member
    Manny
    @Manny

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    Why the hell should I care about what is supposedly true and authentic Islam? No form of Islam is true as I see it. If a Muslim interprets Islam in a way that does not involve murdering infidels, that’s great. I’m not going to tell him he is wrong.

    To paraphrase Trotsky, you may not be interested in jihad but jihad is interested in you.

    Thank you for that. I was away from Ricochet yesterday and did not realize my post made the Main Feed. I find it amazing that even right here on the right people are oblivious to the dangers Islam poses to the west and to free countries. What the heck have we been fighting against the last sixteen years? As I said in the OP, just because many Muslims have made the calculation it is not wise to fight the Jihad, it does not mean that if the calculation was promising they would not do so.

    • #26
  27. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Manny (View Comment):
    Spot on. With an attitude like Omega we would never have beaten communism.

    When you look at K-12 and higher education, popular entertainment, the news media, and the Democrat Party, I’m not sure we did beat communism, or at any rate Marxism.

    • #27
  28. Manny Member
    Manny
    @Manny

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    Part of the issue is that Islam changed during Mohammed’s life. After Mecca drove him out, he got much more interested in conversion by the sword. Muslims differ on which phase takes precedence.

    I’m not interested in lecturing Muslims on how they should want to join ISIS.

    I believe Daniel Pipes wrote a book on how little Jerusalem figures into Islam except as a target of conquest

    Well, by Islamic rule, the latter parts of the Koran supercede the earlier parts. The latter parts are when he turned to the sword to enforce conversion. So technically they do not differ on which phase takes precedence. they just don’t understand their own religion doctrines, which is not surprising. Most average persons do not understand the nuances of their relgion.

    So, you want me to tell my Muslim co-workers to get their jihad on? Tell Zafar he’s not a real Muslim unless he decapitates me? Or are we supposed to kill them all before they turn on us? Are you out of your damn mind?

    I don’t give a damn about Islamic rules of interpretation. I’m not a Muslim, and neither are you. Why the hell should I care about what is supposedly true and authentic Islam? No form of Islam is true as I see it. If a Muslim interprets Islam in a way that does not involve murdering infidels, that’s great. I’m not going to tell him he is wrong.

    I took Manny’s comment to be a criticism of non-Muslims who try to tell us Islamists aren’t “real” Muslims — that they’re “misrepresenting” the faith. Their sacred texts would seem to suggest otherwise, and I think the non-Muslim apologists are full of hokey.

    Derya Little has an article elsewhere where she explains that most Muslims do not really know what is actually written in the Koran. Most Mulsims speak some other language or dialect than that of the Koran and the Koran is not to be translated. Derya herself, who spoke and read Turkish, did not know what it actually said until much later.

    • #28
  29. Manny Member
    Manny
    @Manny

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    Spot on. With an attitude like Omega we would never have beaten communism.

    When you look at K-12 and higher education, popular entertainment, the news media, and the Democrat Party, I’m not sure we did beat communism, or at any rate Marxism.

    Yes, but the Soviet Union is no longer.

    • #29
  30. Aaron Miller Member
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    After the historic flooding around Houston this year severely damaged a local Catholic church, I’m told the first group to offer an alternate venue for worship was a Muslim mosque. To say Islam is a poisonous ideology is little different than to say Democrat politics is poisonous ideology. Just as Democrats can be good neighbors and friends, so can Muslims. That doesn’t mean the belief system is benign.

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.