Home What Drives Islam to be the Religion of War
Home What Drives Islam to be the Religion of War

What Drives Islam to be the Religion of War

"He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." Koran 61:9

Hezbollah (Party of Allah) in Lebanon
Why is Islam constantly a source of war, violence and discord? The problem simply enough is theological, because to its followers the validity of Islam is directly connected to its physical supremacy. As followers of the purported "final revelation" to mankind, Muslims not only have the obligation to conquer and subjugate the rest of the world, their religion is only meaningful to the extent that they can carry on the work begun by Mohammed.

Since Islam derives meaning primarily from physical supremacy, war becomes an act of faith. To believe in Islam, is to have faith that it must and will conquer and subjugate the entire world. And to be a true Muslim, one must feel called to aid in that global conquest, whether it is by providing money and resources to the Jihadists or to be a Jihadist yourself. Because Islam is expressed in physical supremacy, violence against non-Muslims become the essence of religion. And anything that suggests Islam is not absolutely superior touches on Islamic insecurities as blasphemy.

When Muslims explode into outbursts of violent rage over seemingly petty things like a cartoon or a teddy bear named Mohammed, it is because to them, any loss of face for Islam is the worst kind of blasphemy. Because Islam is a religion of physical supremacy, and anything that challenges that supremacy is a direct attack on their beliefs. What the Ten Commandments are for the Jew, or the resurrection of Jesus for the Christian-- is the physical dominance of Islam to the Muslim. It is the basis and fulfillment of his faith.

Therefore by waging war on the infidels, by planting a minaret in one of their cities, by forcing non-Muslims into a submissive position-- to the Muslim this is an act that affirms the truth and power of Islam. By causing infidels to "lose face", the Muslim fulfills the Koranic verse which promises that Allah had sent Mohammed to make Islam supreme over all religions. By contrast when Islam "loses face", an act of blasphemy has been committed, which can only be righted religiously by killing the non-Muslims, thereby forcing them to lose face and once again affirming the physical superiority of Islam.

This creates the cycle of violence that the media loves to harp on so much, but it is not the result of Western oppression, it is the result of Muslims feeling oppressed if they are not on top. When your belief system explicitly proclaims its wille zur macht, its Will to Power, the idea of multiculturalism and co-existence becomes a joke. To co-exist with non-Muslims is itself blasphemous for a Muslim, which proclaims "Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends" (Koran 5:51) and whose final command was to ethnically cleanse the Jews and Christians of the Arabian Peninsula. Islam does not co-exist, for its followers its truth can only be found in conquering non-Muslims.

Whereas most religions can accept being in the inferior position, because their fundamental faith in spiritual, rather than material-- Islam has little to it but the material. Even its paradise exists in the form of the sort of physical pleasures that its followers crave, fancy robes, exquisite banquets, golden couches, and of course that famed appeal to the dedicated Jihadist, "curvaceous virgins... and an overflowing cup" (Koran 78:33-34). Islamic Heaven is essentially a grossly exaggerated version of the kind of loot that Mohammed's followers expected to find by following him in the first place, gold, jewels, silk, spices and young girls.

The gang of throat slitters who accompanied Mohammed on his massacres across the region were given a religious incentive that would transcend death. Even if they died in battle and would not live to enjoy all the jewels, overflowing cups and girls-- the Koran promised it to them in heaven anyway. One can imagine the gang or robbers, escaped slaves and ambitious desert rats trailing after Mohammed across desert dunes, their minds filled with the feverish promises of rich loot from the caravans they were raiding. And in the feverish heat, the idea that they would receive even better loot if they were to die in battle, making death preferable to life, would have actually seemed plausible.

Out of such such petty greed and lust did Islam initially expand. Its code was that of the tribesman, to lose face or engage in vendetta. Except Islam's face and vendetta did not involve a single man or a clan, it came to involve over a billion people, who found meaning in working toward the final conquest of Islam. The global triumph of a desert raider's clumsily hammered together mass of Jewish and Christian beliefs and tribal customs and legends, and his own biography, used as a tool of conquest, forging temporary unities out of quarreling tribes and clans.

And now Islam's vendetta is worldwide. Every insecurity translates into a provocation. Every jealous impulse never satisfied explodes into violent rage. Every conflict for thousands of years breeds a new vendetta. Did Muslims once live somewhere? They must reclaim it, for to fail to do so is blasphemous and a betrayal of Allah and Mohammed's mission. Did Muslims never live somewhere? Then they must go there now, and raise up minarets and proclaim the superiority of Islam, for to do otherwise is a failure to expand the borders of the Ummah, which is a betrayal of Allah and Mohammed's mission.

The very existence of people living free and happy, free from Islamic dominion, is blasphemy. Blasphemy that must be remedied by bringing them into Islam, or under the rule of Islamic law. Either one enforces the supremacy of Islam, because it is not absolutely necessary that everyone believe in Islam. As a matter of fact it would be rather inconvenient as there is little point on being on top, if there isn't anyone on the bottom. A world filled with nothing but Muslims, would deny the Believers the chance to lord it over the infidels. What matters though is that everyone be subservient to Islam, whether as Muslims or Dhimmis.

Meanwhile people who were once under Islamic dominion living free of Islam, is worse than blasphemy, it is an insult and an attack on Islam. That is what is behind the Muslim homicidal obsession with Israel, which had until recently been in Muslim hands under the Ottoman Empire. However even nations such as Spain, which had been lost to the Ummah long ago, still inspire rage. The liberation of the Jews from Islamic dominion is a particularly sore point, but not the only one. For all that the Koran rants about Jews and Christians, its ultimate aim is worldwide.

The intersection of Islam and Terrorism is not coincidental or the result of specific political moves made by non-Muslim nations, as the conventional narrative claims. It is the inevitable result of Islamic theology which is supremacist and materialist, which when combined with the honor-shame code of a tribal culture, drives it compulsively toward war and conquest. The actions of non-Muslim nations serve only as variables to create a context within which the supremacism of Islam expresses itself. These contexts may vary as often as the justifications used in a Bin Laden video. But the context itself is irrelevant in the larger history and theology of Islam. Because in the end, the problem of Islamic violence is the problem of Islam.


  1. Mikec15/4/10

    Islam is physicalist, as is secular humanism, so the two find curious accomodations.

    In essense Islam 'deifies' a man whilst insisting that he is not a god.

    The quaran is a religious ikon in itself, a quran touched by an unbeliever is corrupt.....

    one can parallel this with the atheist's blind faith in 'naturalistic science' and his seeking to defend his weak position by ad hominem attacks on critics.

    Islam has no valid cultural philosophy upon which to build, in the 'house of peace' where sharia law is practised, the justace is arbitary dependant upon the relative influence of the parties, in the 'house of war' the end justifies the means.

    Only Islam puts little value on life.

    If the Israeli defense force (the only real bulwark against the Islamic hordes)fails then a second holocaust will happen, but it will not stop at Israel, Europe next, America soon....

    Westerners get sick of killing, but the muslim hordes do not. It is blasphemy to let an infidel live, for baal requires a continuing human sacrifice.

  2. I would like to see you post on Russia's encouragement of islamic Terrorism .
    Russia is a big time backer of Islamic terror.
    Just look at the propaganda they spread about Georgia as an excuse to invade it.

    I think Americans are largely ignorant of the Russian factor in pushing terrorism to gain their own ends.

  3. Yes it's a good topic, though how do people not notice Putin's backing of Iran which runs half the terrorists in the middle east, including those murdering US troops in Iraq

    and that's without even getting into FARC

  4. American's don't notice.
    If it's not effecting them directly, right in their back yard at the moment they tend to over look it. But the Russian backing of terrorism HAS and will effect America.
    Russia is on the move again and using Islam as a tool in the west and in places like Georgia.

    America has forgotten how Russia infiltrates nations, societies, organizations and clubs to use them for their purposes, none of which are ever righteous or good.

  5. Well Russia created the baseline for much of modern terrorism. Some KGB defectors have argued that it would hardly exist without the KGB.

    There's a former officer living in the US, not a defector, who claims to have trained some of the Jihadis.

  6. Lou DePalma15/4/10

    Anything Russia says: consider it a lie and take the opposite tac.
    Russia is out to take Georgia anyway it can and being in bed with terrorists is just their cup of tea

  7. Anonymous15/4/10

    I find it amusing when Muslims protest a cartoon depicting Islams brutal, rampaging, intolerant character by going on a rampage and threatening to kill the cartoonist ..

    "How dare you call me a murderer, I'LL KILL YOU!!!"

  8. Paul Freeman15/4/10


    I think you have hit on something very important here and I want to thank you for it. To Muslims sensitive to this aspect of their faith, not to dominate is to experience an existential threat to themselves as Muslims because, as you explain, the entire validity of Islam is predicated on supremacy over infidels. Hence the violence.

    This parallels the case of the early Christian Fathers who turned against the Jews as described by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin in Why the Jews? Since Jesus was a Jew; since his message was for the Jews; and since the authority for his messiahship came from the Hebrew Bible, his rejection by the Jews as the Messiah was experienced as a threat to the validity of Christianity. Hence Jews had to convert or else be demonized and destroyed.

    Thus was a teaching of love by a Jewish rabbi turned into a doctrine of hatred against Jews.

  9. I have said by many occasions, the only way to fight islam is not getting into their realm. The only way to end the threat of islam is by exposing it for what it is, and by starting a battle of intelligence, not muscles but brains!

    The islam is a cult of death and terror, it is a bunch of nigger-hating jew-hating and women-hating imbeciles. I would not like to live in a world where there are no blacks, no jews and no women. But obviously they see the world with other eyes.

    The only way to fight islam is by exposing the silly weaknesses of the islam to the muslims, then they have to think for themselves, and as soon as they start thinking for themselves they can no longer be fooled by that bunch of weasels called imams, muftis and ayatollah's.

  10. Mikec15/4/10

    The second Afghan war, where the British force at Kabul was annahilated was all about Tsarist Russian influence, the Brits were there not primarily to subdue Afghans but to prevent territorial creep of the Tsar.

    I suspect the 1st Afghan war was the same, 6 people from the British Garrison survived the long march back from Kabul over the Khyber Pass, the women and children were taken as slaves, the men were mutilated and murdered.

    Russia was still training muslim terrorists in the 1990's when they were supposed to be a friendly power.

    I suspect the Russians, with their atheist upbringing, do not associate the rape and murder of their young children at Beslan with the usefulness of religious fanatics as tools to extend foreign policy, either that, or they accept that such strategy has a lethal cost.

    So we have gone from 'useful idiots' to 'insane weapons'

  11. Anonymous15/4/10

    The question is this

    How do we defeat Islam?

    DG wrote: Since Islam derives meaning primarily from physical supremacy, war becomes an act of faith.

    This prime directive is also a weakness, if we can exploit it consistently.

    It is noticeable that not only Israel's presence irks all Muslims but the West's military domination of Islam. When that manifests itself in interventions in Afghanistan or Iraq, their is huge rage, but along with it, a feeling of humiliation and impotence. It is this that we have to continue to do. The more we intervene with impunity, the more it unleashes rage, as well as impotence and humiliation.

    Therefore, far from withdrawing from Afghanistan our Iraq, we should increase our interventions in Islamic countries. If we withdraw, Muslims will genuinely feel that they have defeated the West, just as they defeated the USSR. This will increase their confidence and militarism, particularly of Muslims in the West.

  12. I was just wondering what is your view point on the article:

    The "NEW" War
    That Could Rocket Oil
    Past $220 Before 2011
    by Byron King,

    its the whole debatre of oil and the possible coming war between Sunni and Shia muslim nations where they want to exterminante. I am not to intrested in the investment in oil stocks part but rather wonder if he has a point here about this possible conflict?

  13. Anonymous15/4/10

    The existence of Israel proves Mohammed was a false prophet. Only true prophets predicted Israel would be in their land again and also predicted the destruction of Muslim nations before Israel builds their 3rd temple. Ezekiel 38-40.

    But Muslims are blinded by Mohammed's endtime prophecy that every Jew will be killed, in their minds Israel has to be exterminated.

  14. MikeC,

    Beslan was about Islamic separatists within the Russian sphere of influence. The Russians see no real contradiction in fighting Islamic separatists at "home", while using Muslim terrorists to break down the US sphere of influence abroad.

    It's not about Islam to them, it's the Putin regime's sphere of influence that they're concerned with. The Russian people are not happy with the rising Muslim presence, but they get no say in it. The FSB/KGB may have even been behind the murder of a priest who spent too much time fighting against Islam.

  15. DP111,

    indeed. Confrontation is the only way. It causes Muslims to overreach and wakes up even the blind in our own borders to the threat.

    Retreating only empowers the enemy and makes Islam seem strong and undefeatable. Afghanistan did a great deal to make Islamic terror the major threat of the next century.

  16. Sparky,

    you didn't link to an article, but any middle eastern war is likely to send the price of oil higher. The bigger the war, and the more it involves oil producing nations, the bigger the spike.

    That said, if one side manages to consolidate control, they'll be able to set the price of oil.

  17. Lemon wrote:

    "America has forgotten how Russia infiltrates nations, societies, organizations and clubs to use them for their purposes, none of which are ever righteous or good."

    I think this could also be said of Communism in general.

    OT but I was listening to NPR this morning and the topic was on understanding the "new" China and Communism. I don't know if this is true in Russia (formerly Communist, of course) but the trend in China is towards creating harmonic societies. This is a major switch from the idea of class warfare that Communism pushed.

    In fact "harmonic societies" is a catchphrase used by Communists in China.

    Now why does that make me even MORE worried about Obama and where he's leading us?

  18. Sammish15/4/10

    I almost lost it when I read somewhere that Russia backs islamic terrorism. Russia backs islamic terrorism??? Well the lastest Moscow's subways suicide bombings attest that this idea of a Russian support of islamic Chechen separatist is a bunch of hog wash.

    I agree that Russians may support some islamic groups in Afghanistan or Kurgistan just to stick it up to the US armed forces and to make life miserable for the only contending military super power left. It can also support fringe groups to exort vengeance for their dismal defeat in Afghanistan in 1980's. However I beleive that any support is a mean to an end not an end in itself. Russians have no pity in using force toward any group who threaten the internal security of the state. Chechnya is a good example.

    Coming back to the real issue of why islam is a purely militaristic religion, it is because Islam emerged, grew and came into prominence only and only through military victories. It is not through preaching, or advocacy or "evengilizing" or more appropriately "Islamizing" the masses of conquered people. It is military victories, yes... Islam (as a whole) never tasted defeat... I know that the Ottoman got their asses kicked very bad at the gates of Vienna. And from then on, things were never the same. Also the idea of defeat started to become a problem with the wave of European colonization movements... but even after most countries became independent, the problem still lingered. The bitter sweet victories that their bloody ancestors generals attained for them was still haunting them. Now this defeat is even more pronounced in the minds of all these fanatics and islamists... now this defeat is not associated with lost lands or relinquished territories but ideological and technological defeat. That's a double wammy. It is only through a complete defeat of the Western powers can the soul of an islamist rest at peace. It is only through complete dominance of anything non-muslim can this BIG PEACE of mind be attained.

    I still to this day wonder why are people in the West are so gullible to beleive that islam is a religion of peace. It is a religion of peace only when you submit to it. Now what sort of peace is this? I call it extortion and slavery.

  19. No Russia has absolutely no qualms about fighting Islam at home while using them to do their dirty work elsewhere.
    Russia supported Egypt Iran, Iraq, Syria helping them with weapons and with attacks on Israel from the times of Nasser.
    To believe that Russia has "changed" is to be a total moron.

  20. Sammish,

    Of course Russia backs Islamic terrorism. Putin invited Hamas leaders to Moscow. It supplies Iran, which in turn runs a lot of the terrorist groups in the Middle East, from Hezbollah to the Mahdi Army, which has murdered Americans.

    Then there's Russia's ties to Marxist terrorist groups in Latin America such as FARC.

    As I've already said, Russia fights Islamic separatists in its own sphere, but it supports Islamic terrorism around the world, outside its sphere. Some KGB defectors have even linked them to Al Queda.

  21. By contrast when Islam "loses face", an act of blasphemy has been committed, which can only be righted religiously by killing the non-Muslims, thereby forcing them to lose face and once again affirming the physical superiority of Islam.

    Hence their intense dedication to honor killings even amongst their own ranks.

    Oh and Paul, don't forget history has been replete with self-loathing Jews that have embraced a "doctrine of hatred" and used it against fellow Jews. The persecution of Jews is not confined to the actions of just Christians, or should I be clear and say, "people claiming to be Christians" and those that ARE Muslims.

  22. Sideshow Bob15/4/10

    The is a psychological terminology for the grandiosity, ruthless oversensitivity to criticism, and violent rage that comes part and parcel with Islam: Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

    The customary violence, large families that don't allow kids of feel valued as individuals, the dehumanization of women all cause intense psychology wounding and narcissism.

    Muhammad was a narcissist and his angry God complex became "Allah"

    If you want to understand Islam, I recommend the psychology book "The Wizard of Oz and other Narcissists"

  23. The Sultan Knish Post Is Powerful Truth...that requires the widest immediate circulation on the North
    American Continent. Time Is short.

    The Key Is The PC BlogOsphere where
    there can be access to millions of aware citizens who will join your courageous efforts to inform & alert people that need this accurate, substantive information about the 'religion of peace'. - reb

    - Time is of the the essence -

  24. Hi Daniel sorry for not leaving a link this is the one I have on this article: http://darkbird18.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/the-new-war-that-could-rocket-oil-past-220-before-2011/

  25. Morry Rotenberg16/4/10

    The war of Islam against Christendom and anyone non Muslim aka the Crusades has just morphed into this global terrorist tactic. The only reason why this crusade is still ongoing is because of money supplied by oil. The only way to defeat Islam is to drive the price of oil down as much as possible. All of the nefarious actors (including Russia) involved in trying to screw America and destroy Israel rely on oil as the major source of their economic power. There is little hope, however that any energy policies that would drive the price of oil down to a sufficiently low price to cause the collapse of these governments would be pursued by the useful idiots who currently run our government.

  26. Mikec16/4/10

    Zion oil is drilling in Israel, there is a huge oil/gas field in the levant basin possibly covering the whole of Israel


    there seems to be the potential for a large strike.....

    This would rather change the geopolitical realities...

    As would a major oilfind off the Falklands (which O is also screwing up)

    And of course there is Alaska

    Does anyone get the idea that someone does not want competition?

  27. The nations have drank the wine of the ME and gone insane. We're so addicted to oil there's no way the price can be reduced. If we don't buy it, China and others will, so prices will remain high no matter what we try. The only way to defeat them is to defeat them militarily in an overwhelming fashion. It's sad to say, but the hard truth.

  28. I've been following Zion for several years now. It's interesting how they're searching for the oil.

    It's been obvious for years that the democrats don't want competition and BHO is just making sure it never happens at this point!

  29. Anonymous16/4/10


    It is for this reason that you may have noted that I have supported our intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, for public purposes of acceptability, such interventions have to be disguised for humanitarian reasons or some such

    1. To remove WMDs

    If that does not do

    2. To remove a violent thug of a dictator and bring freedom to the people.

    3. To bring the light of freedom and liberal democracy to Islamic nations.

    We refuse to accept that Muslim men and women are not like the rest of humanity (GW Bush). They too crave for Jeffersonian freedoms(am I over doing it?), just as the rest of the world.

    4. To bring enlightenment and freedom for women and girls, allowing them to have an education.

    5. We see nothing in the Koran that is against liberal democracy.

    6. We do this not for our good but for the good of all Muslims.

    Essentially, this is the Bush -Blair doctrine.

    Remember, our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, are the only dogs we have in the fight. Withdrawal is really not a serious option.

    The above simply takes the fight to the enemy, and puts him on the backfoot. There are another couple of more vital reasons, why we should be in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then go on to say Syria or Yemen. It would be simply too nice to surround Saudi Arabia with states that we have brought freedom and democracy to.

  30. Anonymous16/4/10


    Muslims seethe as we intervene in Muslim countries at will. We do so without the slightest consideration that we may face defeat, for we know that no combination of Muslim nations is able to to withstand the West for more then a few days.

    Our military arrogance must hurt and humiliate Muslims. But what can they do except individuals to blow themselves up. It is a futile gesture when compared to the fact that Muslim governments are at our feet.

    So we continue the humiliation and hope that they overreach or over react. If they do, then it is the end of Islam. if they don't, then they continue to suffer public humiliation at the hands of our military. Oh what humiliation, as our military inflicts defeat on them with one hand tied behind its back. What humiliation as our military thinks that even our female soldiers are quite capable to stand against Allah's mujahideen and defeat them. It must hurt.

  31. The comment about Israel is totally wrong, period.

    Maybe half of the Jews living in Israel are either descendants of Jews who came from Europe, North America, South Africa, Australia or they themselves came from there. These Jews and their ancestors never lived under Muslim rule.

    The reason that the Muslims want to destroy Israel has absolutely nothing to do with it being primarily Jewish. The Muslims have basically banished almost all the Christians from Bethlehem which was primarily Christian.

    The reason that Muslims want to destroy Israel is simply because it is a country of Infidels smack in the middle, well on the end of the Muslim hegemony in the Middle East. If the land of Israel were all Buddhists from China the Muslims would want do the same.

    Another non-Israeli non-Zionist who it appears doesn't know squat about Israel.

  32. Many of the original Jews in North and South America were Sefardim whose ancestors actually did live under Muslim rule.

    The world of Islam would still want to destroy and drive out a country of Buddhists. But it is Israel that focuses the rage of Muslims so much, precisely because it is Jews, a people whom Mohammed considered his original enemies.

  33. Anonymous18/4/10

    DG wrote: The world of Islam would still want to destroy and drive out a country of Buddhists. But it is Israel that focuses the rage of Muslims so much, precisely because it is Jews, a people whom Mohammed considered his original enemies.

    Exactly so. They were the first identifiable monotheistic group that refused the message of 'peace' that Mohammed was offering them. That, as we know, is the ultimate insult to Islam.

    The Jews, in the eyes of Islam, committed not only the worst sin, but they did so to Mohammed himself.

    Despite this quite unforgivable sin that Jews committed (sarc, jic), I think that Buddhists are in greater danger, for they do not believe in God- any god. That places the Buddhists, and Hindu 'idolators', beyond the pale, as far as Islam is concerned. No dhimmi status is available for them.

  34. I can only assume that Daniel Greenfield is part of some pro-settler agenda group that has the time to create such - well we can call it garbage. The usual excuses of historical events and more recent ones such as discribing Bin Laden's videos as proof fails miserably. He admits to being part of Front Page Magazine and Family Matters that both have a singularly bad reputation as being a front for particular far-right Israeli propoganda.

    Now knowing some aspects of this topic, I am immediately suspicious so I started looking up what was written. We can start by simple examples, the quote from the Koran given (61:9)AS-SAFF. First of all, the translation given by Greenfield aparently is his own. Since the word "infedel" is not there but it says Pagans - talking about the Pagans of Mecca and other cities around not accepting Islam and in fact fighting them. So we have it right from the beginning a false and quesitonable quote of the Koran - to make things suite the argument.

    The second element is the statement immediately made that Islam constantly the source or war. That is historically incorrect. Technically speaking Islam has been just as much involved or used as an excuse of conflict as much as Christianity and in fact Judaism. References to be a Muslim automatically means the supporting of the subjegation of the world is equally suspicious. We can assume that Greenfield quotes radicals and gives them credit as being the representatives of all of the Muslim World. This is just another example of one radical feeding off the words of another as proof for their own radical ideologies.

    His style is very similar to those that I have read that often goes into the style of implying that nothing has come from the Muslim world except conflict and has made no benefit or progress to the world as a whole. A rediculous assumption in every way. Apart from mathematics, medicine and even the existence of Aristotle and Plato would have been lost to the world. I am reading a book at the moment about another ofthen forgotten philospher called Ziryab "Ali Ibn Nafi" whom amongst many things was the source of modern eating - promoting a formal "soup-salad-main-desert" style. The Greenfields' stomachs of this world would churn at such a notion and simply ignore that part of history.

    Of all the most obvious agendas of Greenfield's assertions is that it is impossible to live free and happy in the Muslim world - something that is very much just "crap". Greenfield's attempt (the con-job) is to imply that the entire Muslim world is like the 7 hard-line nations and the other 5 theocratically dominated states. That somehow all 56 nations live like those 13 is not only ludicrous but simply a milignant attempt at rumour mongering. Having visited and even lived in a number of them, I have seen the worst and the best and simply put the reality of the ascertion given by Greenfield is very far from the truth indeed.

    One unpaletable reality that Greenfield is attempting to hide in his agenda-driven garbage above is the "liberation" of the Jews from the Muslims in history. Attempting to imply that the Chrsitian world cared for the Jews and under Muslim rule suffered. The sad reality is that the Jews suffered from both and historically did better under Muslim rule than Christian. The very short reference to Muslim rule in what is now Spain is a critical example of what Greenfield ignored and obviously on purpose. The reality of Al Andalous, the Muslim Caliphate and Kingdoms of southern Iberia had at least twice a Jewish Grand Vizier (Prime Minister) and the exodus of from the Catholic onslaught was not Muslims but Jews and Muslims and their descendants still live in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia to this very day. The Ottomans had a much better relationship with Jews than Christian Europe and Istanbul still has a very large and successful Jewish community - Greenfield would never dare say that.

  35. Nice try "Donny"

    The quote given is a more accurate translation than the one usually used. The specific word in the Koran is "almushrikuna", this can apply literally to pagans, but the Koran also uses it to refer to Jews (Quran 7:148) and to heretical Muslims as well. Infidel therefore is a more translation because of its broadness in the Muslim understanding.

    Since 61:5 refers to Jews and 61:6 refers to Christians, the obvious application of this is much more universal than you would like to pretend.

    But this isn't just about the historical brutality of Mohammed and his Koran. It's about the fact that huge numbers of Muslims, unlike Christians or Jews, continue to remain "true" to those teachings.

    Do tell me though, which Muslim nation is full of people living happy and free? And does such a way of life represent the normative reality in the Muslim world or not? Or are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (combined pop nearly 200 mil) far closer to the norm.

    Istanbul has a Jewish community that was bombed by Muslim terrorists and which is being persecuted by the Islamist regime of Erdogan, which has raised synagogues and whose followers spread hate toward Jews.

    This is the result of of the de-secularization and Islamization of Turkey, which naturally brings bigotry and persecution with it.

  36. Anonymous19/4/10

    DonnyApart from mathematics, medicine and even the existence of Aristotle and Plato would have been lost to the world.

    What twaddle. All the above were preserved in the ME by Christians and Jews in Byzantine and elsewhere in the ME, and not by Muslims/Arabs. Some Muslims did extend some of that knowledge, but not to the extent that they could have.

    Works in mathematics, medicine, and the ideas of Aristotle and Plato, were present in the ME not because the Arabs or Muslims took them there, but that these ideas were present in the ME, as that region was part and parcel of the Greek world. With the complete destruction of Byzantine by the invading forces of Islam, this body of Greek work travelled West with the refugees.

    How else could it be? If the Arabs/Muslims were so instrumental in preserving Greek knowledge, they would have surpassed the West at the time, and they would still be superior to the West in all measures. They did not, and that is proof enough, that though they had access to the scientific and mathematical knowledge of the Greeks, they made no use of it.

    Of all the most obvious agendas of Greenfield's assertions is that it is impossible to live free and happy in the Muslim world

    So non-Muslims can live free and happy lives in Muslim countries without being harassed by one and all? In the UK/West, there are plenty of Christians from Muslim countries, who think very differently. These people fled not because of imagined persecution, but real persecution from the people as well as the state, or both. Most Jews have already fled their ‘happy’ lives in Muslim countries. Christians are in the process of doing so.

  37. Anonymous19/4/10

    Fitzgerald: The persistent myth of Andalusia

    Moses Maimonides [1135 -1204], Jewish rabbi, physician, and philosopher, was fleeing the Muslims, the intolerant Almohads who conquered Cordoba in 1148. The Almohads persecuted the Jews, and offered them the choice of conversion to Islam, death, or exile.

    Maimonides points to one of the reasons for Muslim hatred of Jews:

    Inasmuch as the Muslims could not find a single proof in the entire Bible nor a reference or possible allusion to their prophet which they could utilize, they were compelled to accuse us saying, “You have altered the text of the Torah, and expunged every trace of the name of Mohammed therefrom.” They could find nothing stronger than this ignominious argument.

    He notes the depth of Muslim hatred for the Jews, but he also remarks on the Jewish tendency to denial, a feature that he insists will hasten their destruction.

  38. Anonymous19/4/10

    And oh yes, those Jewish viziers

    Islamic Spain was far from being a paradise. Cordoba was no "ornament of the world." Maimonides had to flee the city because of the persecution of the Almohads, but as Andrew Bostom points out in his "The Corrosive Hagiography of Muslim Spain," even before the Alhomads the treatment of non-Muslims was dismal. When the Jewish viziers Samuel ibn Naghrela and his son Joseph were both murdered, and then the entire Jewish community of Grenada was massacred as well – yes, in Grenada, home of the "Alhambra" of which Washington Irving sung -- it was not something without deep Islamic roots.


    If this type of re-writing of history continues, when will it be when some enterprising author writes of the golden history of Jews in the Nazi period?

  39. Anonymous19/4/10

    Muslims have continuously perpetrated massacres and genocide throughout their conquests of the lands of the Infidels. One could though pass it of as history, and that bad things did happen then.

    Unfortunately, the present day world of Islam is no better. It could be argued that it is far worse, as the genocidal tendency of Islam has now access to modern weapons of the West. Now what did happen in south Sudan?

    What is that persuades Muslims to behead an innocent journalist or Christian, and show it proudly on video to the shouts of "allah akhbar"? What gives here? Gruesome murders do take place, but what is unusual and very abnormal, is that Muslims take pride in the actual act of beheading a fully conscious human, and then showing it to the world. What gives? This is something so barbaric, nay insane, that it defies understanding.

  40. The issue is you and I trying to assume that we are Islamic scholars to interpret Koranic teachings and the point that your obviously attempting to a) interpret to suit your argument (and not the other way around) b) listen to radicals and hard-liners and thus c) ignorning the rest whom are not and most of all d) capitalizing by targetting those radicals and reporting only those events to justify your (il)logic.

    What is also clever but does not wash is assuming that the hard life and political realities of people in developing countries is because they are Muslim and thus assuming there is no good-life amongsts Muslim nations. It does not stick because of that purposeful selectivity and have ignored the same and often worse life in non-Muslim developing countries.

    I travel between my home in Rotterdam, Rabat, Tunis and Istanbul regularly and now for many years. All of these countries are to many degrees very good countries to live in of which I spread my life around.

    The Jews of Morocco are happy and there is now a net-increase of return Israelis of Moroccan descent because it is safer over there. Your propoganda bout the Jews of Istanbul does not stick, my associate company there is run by a Jew and has mix of Jewish and Muslim staff that I have befriended and we discuss this all the time.

    Your agenda is clear, your website gives that away, the lack of context ni your postings equally so.

  41. Predictably enough Donny, you have no fact based rebuttal, so the rest of your comment is a waste of time.

    "The worst insult that a Moroccan could possibly offer was to treat someone as a Jew....My childhood friends have remained anti-Jewish. They hide their virulent anti-Semitism by contending that the State of Israel was the creature of Western imperialism....A whole Hitlerite myth is being cultivated among the populace. The massacres of the Jews by Hitler are exalted ecstatically. It is even believed that Hitler is not dead, but alive and well, and his arrival is awaited to deliver the Arabs from Israel.

    Said Ghallab, "Les Juifs sont en enfer," in Les Temps Modernes, (April 1965), pp. 2247-2251)

    The facts regarding Istanbul come from Turkish newspapers.

    Your agenda is clear. And it has failed yet again.

  42. Anonymous19/4/10

    Donny wrote: I travel between my home in Rotterdam, Rabat, Tunis and Istanbul regularly and now for many years.

    Hello. Have we met before?

  43. Greenfield, quoting individuals does not and never has made a whole. As I have clearly said, Jews have been badly treated everywhere but in sharp contrast to a major part of history, have done better is Muslim lands. As for modern day Turkey and Morocco, they are happy, part of the community and in many aspects in comparison of their numbers doing better than many locals. The Mellahs are often specifically looked after historic destinations, the cities of Fez, Essouirra, Meknes and Beni Mallal are also pilgrimage sights of Jewish saints and Marrakech is a destination site for Jews from both France and Israel on a regular basis (I was on a flight with them last year from Istanbul to Marrakech direct).

    The entire point I am making is your lack of context, but then you mistakenly claim that Spencer, Gellar and others citing you is a good thing.....

    This is your blog, like others you will simply at a point refuse to post when facts are presented.

  44. It's much better than a Muslim whitewashing persecution and discrimination against Jews based on anecdotal evidence.

    Jews have done historically, about as well in Muslim lands, as in Christian lands. Which is to say they were persecuted second class minorities in both.

    Today however Muslim lands are virtually uninhabitable by Jews. Most Jews have left Muslim countries. And they are even leaving Christian countries with large Muslim populations such as France.

    I already shot down your claims. Unfortunately you don't understand the difference between facts and claims.

  45. Good grief, the Solker troll!

    Dunny now, is it?

    When is yor mama's stolen money running out, Dunny?

    Greetings Sultan:

    Blog troll Solker has been through just about every jihad blog and will waste your time on end with 'teachable moments" without ever offering any substance.

    He claims to be anything from a Muselmanic James Bond to a food critic and lives on money his mama stole from centrelink in Australia.
    For that reason she is still in the can. Solkar is a petty criminal and a `'revert' to Islam.
    He also works as a snitch for the Moroccan government and dobs in Christians who look after orphans etc.

    A cretin and a loon, a time wasting pain in the ass. The sooner you get rid of him the better, nothing comes of it.

    The Solkhar aka Dom “Hussein” Huntman Expose’


  46. He's gone. I gave him a shot and he had no serious arguments to make. He also doesn't understand the difference between facts and claims, which is a sure sign of a troll.

    Thanks for letting me know.


Post a Comment

You May Also Like