Is Islam Evil? Essay II

Essay II

Islam and the West: A Brief History

“In this final phase, the world of the infidels was divided between two superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United Sates. We have now dealt successfully with the more deadly, the more dangerous of the two infidel powers. Dealing with the soft, pampered, and degenerate Americans will be easy.”

---Osama bin Laden

What does bin Laden mean by “this final phase”? He refers to history, the final phase of history before Islam rules the globe on behalf of Allah. He uses “we” to address not only his immediate followers but the entirety of the Islamic world. Further, he assumes they have an appreciation for Islamic history since Muslim raiders first erupted from the Arabian Peninsula to declare jihad on the rest of humanity. By 750 A.D. Islam ravaged much of the known world. Bin Laden’s followers know their history, its victories, its recent defeats and its desire for a final victory. They know their history.

Do you?

Contents

1. Palestine 70 A.D.
2. Rome Falls, Christian Europe is Born
3. Palestine and the Coming of Islam
4. Jihad and Sexual Tension


Note to new readers:

Comments have been made that this blog is "bigoted" because it observed that Islam is intrinsically evil--that is, that Islam teaches evil in the Qur'an and the Hadiths (See glossary) .

To make such a statement is not bigoted if it can be shown from Islam's own teachings--political and religious-- that its premises give rise to evil.

An important distinction: I have not said that Muslims are all evil. That is quite false. What is asserted here is that Islamic teaching is gravely flawed and is a breeding ground for all manner of evil. In some quarters there are Islamic teachers of moderation. But these are "modern" and according to some Islamic leaders such moderation is opposed to Mohamed's teaching.

These essays demonstrate that Islam is first a political and military system, and as such dominates its origin as a religion.

Please find resources including glossary, Qur'an , bibliography and maps Down in the Hollow (see also link at right) To better understand this second essay, please see Essay I on Islam

Palestine 70 A.D.

The water was gone. Vespasian’ engineers diverted the wells and inside the Temple Mount every throat was seared from thirst. Roman soldiers swarmed through breeches in the walls. The few who had escaped to the Temple during the siege of Jerusalem now faced a brutal slaughter.

Some years earlier violence erupted in Caesarea, Nero looking on from Rome, when Greeks invaded the seaside city. By 66 A.D faithful Jews managed to seize the traitor Herod’s fortress, Massada, overwhelming the Roman garrison. The Jewish band inspired other “rebels” to move on Jerusalem, to the Temple; there they forced the heretical priests to cease their blasphemous sacrifices to Emperor Nero. Rome answered their rebellion.

Now the horrors recounted in Josephus’ history, Jewish Wars, gripped the emaciated Jewish survivors of the three-year Roman siege as they huddled within the walls of the Temple. So few Jews were left in Jerusalem that cats outnumbered people.

A generation earlier, in 33 A.D., after Christ was crucified, resurrected and ascended to heaven, His followers were instructed to “Go ye into all the world….” The first Christians –mostly Jews—no longer considered the Temple in Jerusalem to be the center of their faith or identity, though it was revered. Their faith included Jewish history, the prophets and the books of the Old Testament, but was newly centered in God made Man in the Person of Jesus. Jesus, now understood as God, the Second Person of the Trinity, promised to be with them bodily, though supernaturally, in the Mass. Hence, worship did not depend on a location or a building.

Palestine—literally land of the Philistines, a Greek people who settled in Canaan about 12^th cent, B.C.—was the Holy Land, but He who made it holy was with Christians wherever the Mass was celebrated.

These disciples established Christian communities all over the Hellenized world (Greek and Latin speaking cultures of the Mediterranean and the Middle East) as well as North Africa and parts of India. In Antioch, they were first called “Christians.” Some Christians remained in Jerusalem where Herod the Great persecuted them-- beheading the apostle James, first bishop of Jerusalem. Yet, the early Christian efforts at evangelization had moved far beyond the borders of hereditary Israel. Those who remained in Israel after the Christian expansion were Jews who lived in an uneasy division—those faithful to Jewish law, and those who, like Herod and the apostate priests of the Temple, maintained their power via collusion with detested Rome.

Now Jerusalem was on fire. Battering rams hurled boulders against the temple walls…when the city was finally subdued, the temple lay utterly destroyed.

The few survivors were taken slaves and Jews were forbidden to reenter the city. Jewish faith, deprived of its Temple, was forced to abandon its daily sacrifices as commanded in the Old Testament; the Jewish priesthood was obliterated along with the Temple and all that remained was the rabbinic authority.

The “Diaspora” or dispersed Jews formed communities in Rome, Carthage, and Iberia (Spain). Many traveled to what is today Eastern Europe and Russia. Some joined the ancient Jewish settlements in the Arabian Peninsula(See Essay I).

Jerusalem was then colonized by those Rome permitted to scavenge among the ruins of the once magnificent city. Pagan practices flourished. Sporadic rebellions by small Jewish armies flare up against the Romans until 135 A.D. However, the Romans resettle “Syria- Palestine” with Gentiles. Small Jewish settlements remain on the borders of Palestine.

Islam lay 500 years in the future.

Rome Falls, Christian Europe Is Born

Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in 312. His predecessors, particularly Diocletian, persecuted Christians, burning their homes, churches and books. Christians were imprisoned and enslaved and even children were beheaded.

After his conversion, the Emperor issued the Edict of Milan, which made Christian worship lawful. Under Constantine a renewed interest in the Holy Land spurred rebuilding in the historic cities of Palestine. Under his patronage and that of his mother, Helena, hundreds of Catholic Churches were built—most notably the Church of the Nativity and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Thousands of Christians moved to Palestine (Israel) to be in the land where their Savior lived. More came on pilgrimage. At this time the Jewish population was a small minority. (picture?)

The Emperor also built an imperial city in Byzantium (Turkey), the famed Constantinople, modern day Istanbul. Byzantium is the Eastern Roman Empire—the Greek speaking half of the Empire. Greek culture predominated. Historians often date the birth of “Christendom” from the conversion of Constantine and the Edict of Milan. When the legal structure of the empire favored Christianity, it permitted Christians to assume office, seek education, build cities and establish a Christian culture. (Pagans however were not persecuted, nor prevented from continuing their “outmoded practices” in the emperor’s words.)

Meanwhile, in the heart of Persia (Modern day Iraq and Iran), Christians were tolerated. The Chaldean Church (Iraq) is one of the oldest in Christian history. After Constantine converted, some Persian rulers persecuted Christians because they were now allies of the detested Roman Emperor.

The key point to consider is that Christianity was well established both geographically as well as culturally throughout Roman Empire by 350A.D. including Palestine and much of the Middle East, and even as far as India and the British Isles. (The apostle Thomas established a Catholic community in India by 70 A.D., Bartholomew in Arabia, St. James to Spain.) Christians assimilated both Greek learning and the Roman Rule of Law. Missionaries were sent to Britain, France and beyond. Both England and France had a strong Christian culture by 400 A.D. In a few short centuries the peaceful spread of Christianity covered large areas of three continents. Christians needed no swords, no pillage, and no promises of eternal orgies in exchange for the massacre of unbelievers.

In contrast, three hundred years later, as Islamic jihad gouged out a new map of the Middle East, the method of "evangelization" was by the sword. While both Christianity and Islam would make claims for their faith as the final revelation from God, the method of spreading their respective messages stand in stark contradiction.

When Julian the Pagan became emperor (361-63) Christians again fled persecution, reminiscent of the early persecutions. Drawings and inscriptions on the walls of Roman catacombs detail the plight of the persecuted. (picture). Julian also turned his hatred on the Persians, fomenting a simmering war that continued for 200 years, depleting and weakening the entire region of east of Palestine.

(at left: Christ as Good Shepherd on wall of the Catacombs in Rome)

St. Augustine (4^th cent.) thought that Providence had ordered history so that Christianity would take root very quickly throughout the known world. That famous Pax Romana --the general lawfulness and order and the efficient Roman governance, provisions (roads), insured that missionary travels could be readily achieved—to carry out the Savior’s command to “go ye into all the world”. Most citizens spoke Latin and Greek—a common language also makes evangelization easier.

The wealth and education of the Empire meant populated cities—in short, within a 150 years the Christian gospel had reached the outer bands of the Roman Empire, which ruled 60 million inhabitants.

The Roman Empire to the West fell in 475 to the barbarian hordes. The Huns, expelled a half-century earlier from China, gradually made heir way westward. They, drove out Goths, Franks, Vandals, Sueves, Lombards, Saxons—all of these found a bloated soft “empire” whose borders were ill governed, ill protected. (hmmm? Sound familiar?)

All of the area we call the “West” was suddenly comprised of new nations: Lombards in Italy, a Goths and Visigoths migrated to Spain, the Frankish kingdom in Gaul, and the Angles and Saxons in the British Isles. The Dark Ages began—essentially a brutish chaos, fighting between the barbarians and the citizens of the former Roman Empire. Much of the learning and culture of the Roman era were lost to the average citizen.

The lightening spread of Christendom had followed the implosion of an empire under a series of debauched and lazy emperors. Christians suffered persecution and tortuous deaths. This suffering witness needed no armies to “convert” others. It is reasonable to assume that at this hinge moment—wit the empire crumbling around them—people were open to hearing the Christian message.

When barbarians confronted the early Popes, they met a message, not an army. Attila the Hun turned back from Rome when the elderly Pope Leo met him at the outskirts of the city, asking Attila as “conqueror of peoples” to conquer his own wrath and in mercy to turn back his raiders for the city of Rome was unable to defend itself. (Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 35).

Christians set about preserving the wealth of Greek, Jewish and Roman learning –great monasteries with scriptoriums salvaged enormously important human achievements in the arts, agriculture, history, math and science as well as languages and of course, the scriptures. And they evangelized the invading tribes, most of them converted. Missionaries were sent throughout Europe and into Russia. (St. Patrick converted Ireland around the year 432, St. Columba evangelized Northern Scotland 590s.) These were the forebears –in genetics and in faith of most of the European population today.

Though the Roman Empire fell, Christianity grew. Christian principles taught that every person has an equal and inherent dignity before God, the Father of all. One’s eternal worth did not depend on one’s financial or social worth. [Cato saw the slave is chattel, an economic instrument with no right to human dignity. In contrast, St. Paul sends the runaway slave Onesimus back to his master to be “received not now as a slave, but instead of a slave, a most dear brother, especially to me. But how much more to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord”] One may be the squire, the other a groomsman, but both were brothers in Christ. Each has an obligation to the other as Christians first, as squire and groom second. This creed is the foundation of European law, a Europe that is the birthplace of “human rights’ ”law. Christianity saved Western Europe from both pagan barbarism and Eastern nihilism, in the form of esoteric and Gnostic—essentially anti-humanistic—values.

Most of what we value in our civilization — hospitals, museums, universities, and the idea of human rights — is by origin Christian. These civilizing institutions and ideals did not arrive with the Vikings or Germanic tribes, or from the Eastern Gnostics.

Despite intra familial fighting, Europe was forged as a people with the same worldview. That worldview was fused to the Greek and Roman traditions and learning that the monks preserved during the darkest reign of barbarians or despots. It is said that the Christian faith created Europe and Europe created the Modern World.

Palestine and the Coming of Islam

Meanwhile, back at the oasis— The Persians (Sassanid dynasty) continued their advances against the Byzantines (eastern Empire) They took Damascus and Jerusalem, yanked the True Cross from the Church in Jerusalem and off loaded it in Ctesiphon, a massive city on the banks of the Tigris River in what is now Iraq. It was the ultimate insult.

Naturally, Emperor Heraclius takes a posse-- bearing the Mandylion (Later known as the Shroud of Turin) as their banner-- to retrieve the hunk of the True Cross (629 A.D.)

But this two hundred year seesaw war exhausts both the Byzantine and the Persian empires—providing a crucial opportunity for the Arab Muslims who have the urge to flex their new powers against something beyond the Arabia Peninsula. (Besides, there was great enmity between the Persians and the Arabs).

The Persians—thus depleted and lying around panting—had nothing left to fight off the Desert Terror—that is, the Muslin warriors took Ctesiphon in 637, when Umar was Caliph.

Over on the Mediterranean, in Palestine, Egypt, Turkey, Christians had their own internal wars—a lot of energy spent on disputes over heresies. (Palestine harbored partisans of the Monophysite heresy.) This made them ripe for a takeover by the Persians with the aid of the Jews who hoped the Persians would restore what the Romans took from them –Damascus fell in 613, Palestine in 614. Byzantines recovered the Holy Land for the Christians by 630. Soon thereafter Mohamed orders invasion of Palestine …a skirmish only since the he is dying.

By 632 --the year of Mohamed's death, the Muslims rule the Arabian peninsula. Next Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, and Persia --all belonging to the Persians or the Byzantines--succumb to jihad. After mourning, the Muslims renew their assault on the Holy Land and 634 Gaza goes Muslim and Christians flee ahead of the scimitars.

By 638, Jerusalem was controlled by Muslims. For 1300 years the Jews and Christians of Palestine have lived in dhimmitude.

[Mohammed once insisted that his followers must face Jerusalem when praying—thought to be a ploy to gain the support of the Jews of Mecca and Medina. The Koran does not mention Jerusalem. Yet it is supposed to be the site from which the prophet “ascended to Heaven” on his famous a night journey dream. Later caliphs decided this event took place in Jerusalem. They built the Dome of the Rock had been built in 687, and today the Al-Aqsa Mosque stands on the same site.]

After the Muslims conquered Syria (north of Palestine) they marched straight for Constantinople –first raid is in 675 or so…but it was repulsed. Not easily put off, the Muslims swarm over the island nations of Cyprus, Rhodes and Crete. Here brutality went unchecked—as though some demonic rage fueled its energy. With vast plunder to enrich its war coffers, Islamic warriors invaded, with no provocation, the first European “nation” —Cyprus, a Byzantine protectorate. The majority population was Greek. Two Muslim armies converged, 1700 warships strong (649). Those who escaped massacre were invited to pay vast sums in tribute to the governor of Muslim Syria.

The battles for Crete and Rhodes followed the first jihad raid on Cyprus. At Rhodes the famous Colossus of Rhodes (built in 290 BC) —one of the seven wonders of the ancient world—was disassembled and shipped back to Syria in 73 boats—there the Saracens (Muslims) sold it for scrap metal. Next jihad turned on Sicily and Sardinia, “sacking cities, carrying off booty and beautiful maidens.” (688 A.D.)

Islamic armies in the Mediterranean were led by an enormous personality, Muawiya, son of Abu Sufyan, who had once tried to kill Mohamed in battle. Abu was a businessman first, when Mohammed conquered Mecca, Abu converted. His son went on to become one of history’s greatest warriors.

Jihad and Sexual Tension

After the jihad on the islands of the Mediterranean, Islam swarmed over North Africa decimating Christian towns, burning and looting from churches and homes--then over the straights of Gibraltar into Spain (711) where they begin an eight-hundred year reign of wars, rape, slavery, pillage, and every manner of domination. Conquered populations were offered three “peaceful” choices: Convert to Islam, the sword, or pay yearly tributes and live as second-class citizens. Plunder and slaughter always preceded the persuasive offer.

How shall we assess the unparalleled military victories of the Muslims? In a scant hundred years after Mohamed’s death vast stretches of the former Byzantine and Roman Empires had fallen to the Saracen sword. Military scholars remain amazed at the ferocity of the Muslim warriors—an intensity never reached and sustained by other armies.

Two primary answers:

1. Muslim warriors were taught that it was their religious duty to kill infidels—and by such duty save their own souls from damnation—either kill or suffer hell. As an added incentive the warrior who fell in battle against infidels received his multiple “houris” (maidens of pleasure) and orgasms that lasted “years”. Thus stimulated before battle, Muslim jihadists devoutly sought this eternity of sexual pleasure, not unlike the kamikaze pilots of WWII. This sexualized eternity stood in sharp contrast to the spiritual beneficence that Christianity promised. For the man who survived in battle the rewards were only slightly less appealing: plunder and spoils to fill his camel bags and the sex-slaves made of conquered women.

From the Hadiths of AL-Tirmidhi (892): “A houri is the most beautiful young woman, transparent in body. Her marrow is visible like the interior lines of pearls and rubies. She is as red wine in a white glass. Her body is of white color, and she is free from the physical weaknesses of an ordinary woman such as menstruation, menopause, urinal and offal discharge, and bodily pollution, she does not bear a child. A houri is a young girl showing large round breasts, firm and that do not dangle. Houris dwell in splendid palaces.”

Note that the Qur’an itself does not promise the number of houris a martyr enjoys…that number is found in the hadiths. It is in the Islamic Traditions that we find the 72 virgins in heaven specified: Al-Tirmidhi in the Book of Sunan (volume IV).

As detailed Al-Suyuti (died 1505), an Our’anic scholar: "Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [i.e. Muslim] will marry seventy [sic] houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetizing vaginas.”

Where on earth, literally, could a common man find such pleasures? A poor desert warrior is beguiled with promises that he is to become like Mohamed, a pitiless slayer of infidels, who surely took his fill of pleasure and yet was “holy”

At the risk of titillating readers of this blog, no more examples need be given –but imagine for a moment hordes of confined men at some forsaken desert garrison with too few earthly houris to go around…. how easily the man becomes a willing and ferocious martyr to his urgent imaginings of eternal sexual bliss—a type of bliss not found by any man on earth. Imagine too, death by scimitar from behind should you fail to fight the infidel in front of you.

2. The second critical factor to the astonishing success of Islamic jihad in the early years of Islam is that their targets were weakened by years of war and lacked cohesive leadership. Worse, perhaps, was the religious disunity due to the rise in of heretical sects.

Part II

The Crusades: Liberation of Christians in the Holy Land

…. Coming next…

Euro Leader: " Islam is Totalitarian", "Barbarian"

Europeans, weary of the civil strife that un-assimilated Muslims immigrants provoke, have slowly begun to speak up about the factual history of Islam. The politically correct gloss on cultural clashes has not brought the stability that Eurocrats had hoped their faked rhetoric would build.



In Austria politician Susanne Winter said that Islam is "a totalitarian system of domination that should be thrown back to its birthplace..." and noted that the prophet Mohamed was "a child molester"--reference to his "marriage" to six year old Alisha, a union that was consummated when the child was nine years old.

The increase in the incidence of barbarian practices--notably female genital mutilation--alarms Europe. This horrifying practice is emblematic of the Islamic attitude toward women.

Increasingly the average European's daily life requires engagement with tense Islamic elements.

A new chapter in the history of the West and Islam is being written. The ancient strife has never been resolved, merely gone dormant. The West will once again learn what their forebears won when Islam was repelled at the gates of Vienna and when Queen Isabel of Spain thrust the last of the Moors from Granada.

Terror from the Heart of Islam : One Turkish Man's View

Of interest to our discussion is this December 2007 report by Turkish National, Zafer Senocak, 46, who has lived in Berlin since the 1970s. The article (in German) appeared in a popular German paper.

[ note: text in RED is Aunty Belle's own emphasis]

Terror Comes from the Heart of Islam

You will not find the true face of Islam at the German Conference on Islam. You find it in countries like Pakistan. This Islam turns against all who don't live by the rules of the Koran - against democrats, against atheists and above all, against women. And the world watches in paralysis.

Koran and violence: Do they belong together?

Even if most Muslims do not admit it, terror belongs to the core dogma of Islam, it comes directly from the Koran. It turns against all who do not live and act according to the rules of the Koran, that is democrats, western inspired thinkers and scientists, against agnostics and atheists. And above all, it is directed directly against women. Islam is a tool in the hands of male traditionalists who strive with all might to prevent women from attaining equal rights and to free themselves from the yoke of the centuries.

[The true Islam, like you find it in countries like Pakistan], has started a world war. But the world behaves as if it knows nothing about it. Modern people are aware some conflict exists far away in the "back yards of Turkey". Unfortunately, in our modern networked world there is no "far away backyards" any more. There is only our "front door", and that's the place where things happen. The totalitarian intent of the Taliban and the terror cells is probably worse than that of fascism, it is not the result of a civilizing process. It exists in an environment where even the memory of civilized progress has ceased to exist.

This should be the call of those Muslims who see more in their religion than a blueprint for barbarism: To oppose the ghouls in their own rank and file, determined and with the necessary harshness. But alas, when they do it, if ever, it is only half spirited. Islam has nothing to do with terror, maintains the Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Other politicians scramble over each other to compose the most convincing condolence messages after each act of terror. Outright grotesque is the situation in Saudi Arabia. The kingdom trembles before the terrorists who it itself has created.

Muslims all over the world find themselves on the test bench. They pay for the neglect of previous generations. The spiritual decline and the inability to communicate with the modern world has led to the deplorable present situation. The times call for a coordinated effort from all people of reason. Islamic terror has spread to the whole world. The opposition is only half hearted, slow, and reluctant to a concentrated effort. To reach results, the common sense of the common people would have to go against the blind hatred of the fanatics. The opposite happens, the hatred is more and more being adopted by the masses. Still worse, many illegitimate despots ally themselves with the hatred to secure their throne. To make the situation worse, Muslims engage more and more in theological rhetorics. The vital question, how their religion can be made to sustain the development of a modern civilization, is largely avoided.

The free world is paralyzed

This behavior of the Muslims has certainly psychological reasons. People feel inferior compared to the west, humiliated and betrayed. But the political consequences of this psychosis are terrible. It plays into the hands of those who fan the flames of terrorism in order to create chaos in the Muslim world. It plays into the hand of those who see an interest in terrorism, and it prevents the establishment of democratic systems and judicial processes. Poverty and corruption find optimal conditions to grow in the Islamic world, an evil circle. This evil circle must be broken with the help of the free world and with military power, because nothing else has any effect! Those who fight in Afghanistan cannot pretend that nothing is wrong in Pakistan. The murder of Benazir Bhutto was preprogrammed. The fall of the Gaza strip to the Hamas terrorists was also foreseeable.

But the free world watches paralyzed. There was a lot of scorn in Europe over the American policy in Iraq. When it comes to criticism, nobody can beat the Europeans. Own ideas and political concepts are however scarce. The European policies towards the Muslim terror lacks power and resolve. Some countries want to negotiate, with Hamas, with the Taliban. Nuclear reactors for Gaddafi, roll out the red carpet for the Saudi king! In the end, the petrodollar rules. The west does not understand how deeply it hurts itself and betrays its own values. The Islamic terrorists go from one victory to the next. Benazir Bhutto will not be the last victim of the failed appeasement policy towards radical Islam.

Translated and edited by Wiking

Second Essay on Islam

* * UPDATE:

Ya'll will see a cowardly comment below by an "ANON" in the combox. The commenter's idea is that America is tainted by slavery and cannot point fingers at jihadists fer all the killin' they done-- check the responses fer the fun of it.

But any whose interested mebbe will want to check out the book at the left--a scholarly look at how many millions of Europeans have been enslaved by Muslims.

From a Review of Professor Davis' book:



(European) Slave numbers declined through four causes: death, escape, redemption (i.e. by ransom), and conversion to Islam. Davis gets annual rates from these causes of 17 percent, 1 percent, 2-3 percent, and 4 percent, respectively. This implies a total number of slaves, from the early 1500s to the late 1700s, of one to one and a quarter million. This is an astonishing number, implying that well into the 17th century, the Mediterranean slave trade was out-producing the Atlantic one. Numbers fell off thereafter, while the transatlantic trade increased; but in its time, the enslavement of European Christians by Muslim North Africans was the main kind of enslavement going on in the world.

Christians were captured by two methods. First, there was the seizing of ships by straightforward piracy. The ship itself became a prize along with its crew and passengers. Second, there were raids on the coasts of European countries. Spain, France, and Italy were worst affected, but the pirates sometimes ventured further afield. In 1627 they kidnapped 400 men and women from Iceland.

The victims in either case would be taken back to one of the Barbary ports — the main ones were Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli — and sold in a slave market, by auction. They ended up either as the domestic slaves of private persons, or as slaves owned by the state, to be put to work rowing galleys, or constructing public works. The first of these two fates was usually preferable, as there was some chance of humanity from a private owner. Prof. Davis’s account of the lives of galley slaves is hard to read, and state slaves employed on public works were not much better off. There was no large-scale private-enterprise slavery as in the plantations of the Old South. The North African states had little commercial culture.

The effect on the European coastal populations was dramatic. Entire areas were depopulated. The author even sketches out an argument that the culture of baroque Italy was determined in part by a turning inward from the terrors of coastal life — from the “fear of the horizon” that afflicted all the regions subject to slave raiding. He tells us (he is professor of Italian Social History at Ohio State University, by the way) that to this day there is an idiom in Sicilian dialect to express the general idea of being caught by surprise: pigliato dai turchi — “taken by the Turks.” The distress of those left behind, deprived of a husband of father, is painful to read about.

* *
Ya'll Aunty's point here is to disabuse anybody of the idea that because the USA has slavery in her history, that she cain't complain about the jihadist horrors. Islam teaches and promotes an evil ideology against the entire world unless and until they submit to Islam. This monstrous teaching is the fertile field of the Islamic terror that Anon tries to excuse by pretending that Western abuses is no worse'n Islam-- utterly laughable.

The abuses of ISLAM is systemic and taught as a good thang--not an occasional aberration, and NEVER lamented, but still in existence.





Hey all ya'll whose regulars and to any visitors--Aunty invites ya'll to read the first essay and references, scroll backwards to see how we got into this yak-fest on Islam.
I meant to git up the essay on a Brief History of Islam and the West--an' I will...but not before Christmas (sorry!! I know, I promised...really sorry).

Meanwhile, I'se gonna post various clips from other folks...startin' with this one:

from http://www.humanevents.com/ )



A passenger revolt occurred on a Malaga-Manchester flight. Vacationing Brits refused to fly with two Arabic-speaking men. This came in the wake of arrests of 21 British-born Muslims who were plotting to blow up as many as 11 trans-Atlantic flights.

A spokesman for Britainâ™s opposition Tory party said the passengers panicked into “behaving irrationally.” Fancy that, not wanting to fly with members of a faith whose adherents keep trying to blow things up.

Within days of this incident, a Lebanese student was arrested for trying to plant bombs on German trains. In India, meanwhile, a group with alleged ties to al-Qaeda threatened to blow up the 17th century Taj Mahal.

If Muslims make travelers nervous, its not without cause.

Would you be more likely to have an anxiety attack at 20,000 feet if the passenger seated next to you was: A) An Irish nun saying the Rosary? B) A Mormon missionary in regulation white shirt and narrow, black tie? C) A Hari Krishna in a standard-issue saffron robe? or D) A bearded bloke of Middle Eastern complexion holding a well-thumbed Koran?

Guessing the religion of those who plant bombs, highjack planes, fire into crowds of civilians, take hostages and murder hostages is the world's ultimate no-brainer.

And yet our leaders, the media and many of us pretend there’s absolutely no connection between psychopathic, ideological killers and the religion which exalts the slaughter of unbelievers.

To counter confusion here, a la Letterman, I humbly offer The Top 10 Reasons Why It's Quite Possible That Islam Isn't Exactly A Religion of Peace....

Where Have All The Moderate Muslims Gone

If suicide bombers are radical Muslims, apologists for suicide bombers must be moderate Muslims. (In a letter to Tony Blair following the unraveling of the latest plot, 40 Muslim community leaders — including six members of Parliament — claimed Britain's foreign policy gave ammunition to extremists)

If someone slaughtered hundreds of innocents in the name of Christianity, everyone from the Pope and Billy Graham to your parish priest or local pastor would denounce the crime as an obscenity — without reference to the fall of Constantinople.

Hardly a day goes by that evil isn't perpetrated in the name of Islam somewhere in the world. When it comes to denouncing same, moderate Muslims are mostly AWOL.

................

Essays on Islam: Rules of Engagement

UPDATE:: Hang tight--the translator is almost through wif' ironin' out the cracker-speak. Meanwhile check out some of the sources an' articles down in the hollow: http://porkrindhollow.blogspot.com/





Howdy to all ya'll.


"Islam is systemically evil."


When Aunty said that a few weeks ago it brought a firestorm of responses. (see Belgium: Police Violently Beat Politicians ) I'se been challenged to lay out why I say that violence is intrinsic to Islam. What I did not say is that all Muslims is evil/violent. The comments were to the system of Islam, not individual Muslims.

(wee note: The coming essays will not be in cracker-speak. I done found me a translator)



My point was that the West cannot afford
to miscalculate about what Islam is, and
what its adherents intend in regard to jihad
toward the West. Citizens need to know what Islam is,
what it teaches, what it's own vision of itself holds.


A regular blogger in this community who took exception to the statement that Islam is inherently flawed and asked fer some background on Islam---The first of three installments on Islam will be posted on Monday,22nd.

Seems clear around here that a fair discussion is hard to achieve due to us'uns needing some history and context on this tough topic. So Aunty went off ter consult and git some info that mayhap enhance our effort to understand what Islam is an' isn't.

This is added to my own experience with Islamic folks I'se encountered in international fora since 1997 (yes, before 9/11).

Essentially, some of us'uns is quick to label others with "bigot" whenever Islam is weighed on its merits or demerits. Aunty tried to make the point that the term "bigot" requires a prejudice that is unwarranted or based on lack of knowledge http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Prejudice



Not all prejudices are unwarranted. But to call a person a bigot is to be a bigot unless you can disprove the content of the message and show the messenger is in ignorance on the topic.

If a criticized facet of Islam can be shown to be accurate, then to dismiss the messenger of that accurate statement as a bigot is small minded and does not speak to the content of the message.


I'se trustin' that all who wanna engage here on the topic of Islam are at root good folks who do wanna have an exchange based on content, not on personalities. To that end, here are some guidelines:




1. Assume good will on the part of other posters --a difference of opinion is not evidence of ill
will.

2. Respond to the content of the comments, not to the personality of the poster.

3. Refrain from foul language, but feel free to make strong points to support your comment.
(To describe a groups such as Hamas as "murderous" is to use a strong descriptor, and is
legitimate, while to describe Hamas as " !------ murderers" is uncouth. We's cracker folks
around here, but we ain't uncouth.)

4. Resources and Sources are provided at Aunty's Pork Rind Hollow. Some of yore intended
comments might be answered there. Check before you react.

5. Each essay will stay up at least a week; ya'll is invited to take yore time, read the
supplemental material, research other sources --the goal is a higher level exchange based
on facts, data, history--a few well thought out comments is more productive than a flurry of
reactions and reactions to the first reactions.

6. Each essay session will be more fruitful if we'uns confine comments to the outline of the
specific essay. The three essay topics are:

Islam: What is It? How Did it Develop? What Does It Teach?
Islam and the West: Some History 700-2007 A.D.
Islam and Christianity: Distinctive Differences

Try to retain the focus; doan bring up Crusades in the first essay, save it for the second essay
whar' history wif' the West is the topic.

7. Ever'body is welcome. Aunty likes all stripes of folks, an' ya doan have ter be a
conservative to yak on the Back Porch. The goal is to learn, not emote. Emotions are
natural to a discussion of important topics, but in this limited space we can accomplish more
if we stick to research and save emotions for another forum. We can have a disagreement,
but let's keep it to "my research is better'n yore research", and avoid "my emotion is more
passionate than yore emotion."


Ya'll will find an online Qur'an and a glossary and other resources here: http://porkrindhollow.blogspot.com/

Please take a moment and read the prior post, "Prelude: The Social Contract." It locates the Western source of freedom and is crucial to grasping the enormous difference between the Islamic perception of Man and his rights and the Western understanding of Man and his rights.

I'se aware this ain't simple bloggin', an' mayhap dern few will invest the effort. Thas' fine too. But if some of ya'll is reading but not commenting, please leave a "I'm lurking" note.

Thanky to all.

Prelude: The Social Contract

Most of ya'll knows a series of essays on Islam is comin' to these pages any day now.

Meanwhile, Aunty wonders iffin' we might revisit our ideas on The Social Contract.

Whas' that? Ya know....stuff we learnt in school about how we give over some rights for the sake of the big picture of gettin' along in a society. The political science term is "social contract".

It jes' means that I ain't akshully free to do ANYthing I want, cause I *freely* gave over some of my personal preferences to ya'll--that is to my fellow citizens--so that we can form an orderly society. I gave up my ideas on how fast I can drive my buggy in order to cooperate with whas' best for the most. Some of ya'll gave up playing music at mach 5 at 4 am , for the sake of the good of the whole. We calls it the "consent of the governed." We freely live by self control because we believe we profit MORE from living in harmony and order.

Now they's only two thangs that can keep a society glued together: fear or freedom.

Whar' tyrants rule, it is reprisals, gulags and beheading that maintain the order, wif' the aid a lots of goons to spy and bully even assassinate. In this model of social order, fear keeps folks in line. The reason that the tyrant has to rule wif' an iron fist in this manner is that the citizens under his rule would *not*t choose to behave/ live as he demands them to, so the tyrant enforces his personal law with force & fear. Tyrants do not trust the freedom of the people.

Whar' people share a common idea of whas' good for the society, they choose to live by that idea and no major force is necessary. The choice that holds this free society together can be administered by a constitutional monarch or a president in conjunction with parliament (or congress). But the significant feature is that the citizens *voluntarily* conduct their lives in an orderly fashion according to the concept of order that they have chosen. In this model all citizens in good standing are free to participate, regardless of differences. Whar' I choose to be ruled by a set of laws that more or less reflect my understanding of what's good, then ya doan need to beat me into keepin' the law.

Of course thar's exceptions, (slip-ups happen) but we doan need to mention them as it drags us off topic. The major indicator of the global preference for societies ordered on free cooperation is the direction of immigration. The mass numbers of immigration is out of tyranny and into freedom.

Membership in any given society is by largely by kinship, language group, race, territory or religion.

"The West" is an idea (since non geographically West nations have become "western" such as Japan) . That idea is that people with differing views on the significance of religion or kinship or race can form a high functioning society together.

Why?
The underlying glue for the West is the idea that a multifaceted peoples can be self-ruled by a political process in which they participate. The people freely bind themselves to that process and live accordingly.

All the rest of the people of the earth is ruled by raw power.

The underlying genius of The West is that religion and state are separate spheres, though each is a support for the other. In religion, we freely submit ourselves to the teachings we find persuasive. Thus to our religion (if any) we are subjects (we submit voluntarily to precepts) , but in the sphere of the state we are citizens, not subjects.

Why are we citizens in this sphere? Because the participatory political process is dynamic--it changes according to the needs and developments of the citizens. Where the citizens are dissatisfied, they have the duty and the privilege to change the rules to which they have given their consent.

By contrast, religious belief addresses the "permanent things" and is thus static. Those who agree with what any given religion teaches, subject themselves to that view of the "permanent things."

This separation of religion from the governing task of the state provides an elastic "space" whar' folks work and live in harmony and social order. The In the Social contract, freedom and obedience are the same--we freely agreed to obey the precepts we've chosen. Western legal tradition is sustained by this social contact. (Rousseau, Kant). States founded on Social Contract endure because they must respect the rights of the citizens who can deny consent to be governed by its laws. Hence "WE the people..." Minus that "WE" a state would have to dissolve or resort to force (tyranny).

The legitimacy of the law, then is based on the consent of the people to process of enacting that law. Even whar' I disagree wif' certain laws, the process permits me to work to change the law.

This dynamic process makes possible a nation whar' folks from many different languages, cultures and faiths can still cooperate freely to achieve the secure, harmonious society necessary for the "pursuit of happiness." A people freely pursuing their idea of happiness is productive, innovative and typically have healthy economies.

This is what The West has that inspires others to seek citizenship in "western" nations. This model of a free society is a threat to tyrants (religious or political) everywhar'. Some threaten to overthrow " The West" precisely because it offers people another view of how man can live.

It is also why the case is made that the Western model of social organization is the better model. While post-modern theories insist that no society or culture is better than any other model, that premise is purely abstract.

In actual practice, the Western model works best, is the most productive
(far outproduces slave labor), insure the greatest freedom and is the least insecure. This doan mean non-western folks gotta act like the west--again, Japan makes a good example, along wif' South Korea, of Eastern folks who have adopted the Social Contract of Western legal tradition as a political model of organization, but who kept their own cultures.

One of the unstated attitudes in any discussion of Islamic nations vs. Western Civilization is that too many folks fear to admit that the West is better--functions better, is worth defending, worth preserving. Some folks hate the Islamic confrontation because it forces them to reevaluate the entire post-modern premise that all cultures are equal. Some cultures are clearly superior, and that truth is uncomfortable for some.