Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Jaundiced perspective

This was a comment on a blog that I found interesting.

"Jimmy: Your jaundiced perspective on Islam illustrates the dangers of relying on inflammatory negative sources like Craig Winn for information about something as difficult as religion."

I had never heard of Craig Winn. I looked him up and found that he researched Islam and has self-published a number of books on-line. From the little that I have seen, he is as anti Islam as I have seen anywhere else. This does not concern me as much as this comment assumption that Islam is a religion, as we know them in the United States.

A great deal of confusion seems to exist here. We in the United States tend to assume that religion is not able to enforce it’s own rules and laws. This is because all of the religions that we know have long since gotten out of the government business. Islam and Islamic law is an extreme exception. Maybe some people just don’t want to change their views. (An easy enough habit to fall into) Maybe some are afraid. (As they should be) A certain amount of people will notice that it is to their political advantage. And we all know that religions are peaceful and submissive to government control. I accepted President Bush’s comment as true when he said that Islam is a peaceful religion. A really good thing that I went ahead and studied Islam anyway. I did find that a certain part of Islam is peaceful.

I don’t have a problem with the religious side of Islam. If they need to fast every day for a month, that is their problem. If Muslims need to pray 5 times a day, that is their lookout. If they need to eat certain types of food, go ahead. (As long as it is not cruel to animals) This is religion, as we know it. My problem is with Islamic law.

Islamic law has been and is being enforced in many parts of the world today. This law is hostile to just about everything that I stand for as an American. Another way of looking at it: The Pope can’t enforce the Catholic Church’s prohibition on abortion. Islamic law has people stoned to death. And this is only the beginning.

Want to start a war? Give priests the authority to field and lead militias. This was how armies were fielded back before the rise of the modern nation-state. Islam is still doing it. The authority for this originates in the Koran. Islam was designed as a government, complete with a legal system, a foreign policy and an economic policy. It fields it’s own armies and defends it’s ‘occupied’ land and wages war to protect it’s ‘waters’.

I use the example of a Catholic Church in Chicago. If armed people take it over; the responsibility for handing this is the United States government. (Or some branch, like the city or state. This can take the form of police or National Guard) Catholics do not build an armed organization to throw them out. Catholics do not negotiate with a foreign government to obtain armed help in throwing out the ‘occupiers’ of their ‘land’. Islam is actually able to mobilize its own forces. These armed Islamic organizations are able to negotiate with foreign governments and obtain armed support. This qualifies as acts of war against the parent government. The idea that the "Nation of Islam" can act as a government does not have any similarity with religion as we in the United States think of religion.

The idea of Muslim ‘waters’ is alive and well. One sample of proof is that statement in 2008 by the imams in Istanbul that spoke of the Israeli blockade as being illegal because it is operating in Muslim ‘waters’. They spoke of the "Nation of Islam" as a government.

Remember the Barbary pirates? The Mediterranean was considered to be "Muslim waters". Our ships were passing through and we owed them money. This was an extension of the concept of Islamic Tribute.

Tribute is payment of a ‘poll tax’ by non-Muslims to Muslim authorities in order to live in Islamic controlled land. This payment exempts them from military service. Taxation and conscription are two functions of a modern government.These are only some of the issues that I have found that will cause open warfare. The U.S. Civil War was fought to eliminate slavery. (And to defend slavery) All it takes is one good issue to cause a war like the U.S. Civil War. I have identified 7 issues of this type concerning Islamic governance. No wonder wars are all over the world where Islam is attempting to establish its legal system. Islam is in direct conflict with the concept, responsibilities and authority of the modern government.

This is not religion, as I understand religion. This is not a "Jaundiced" point of view. It is human nature.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Can pig remains become a weapon?

A number of religions prohibit eating pork. Even today, pig products are less healthy to consume compared to other meats. Long before modern technology devised safer and healthier preservation methods, pigs were actually dangerous to preserve and/or consume. What makes this subject a possible weapon against political Islam is that all other religions have surrendered authority to the modern nation-state.

Islamic law is involved in a violent confrontation with modern governments. Many Islamic laws are actually incorporated into government legal systems, complete with Islamic restrictions upon how food is prepared. Exceptions to Islamic law are plentiful. For example, arguments arise about how medicine can contain alcohol and can or cannot then be consumed by Muslims. However, religions in general have gotten out of the enforcement business.

Once again, Islam has not. Islamic law is alive and well in many places throughout the world. In any case, it is apparent that many Muslims worldwide have a sensitivity to the subject of pig remains and products. Many will not allow themselves to come into contact and will actually go out of their way to avoid. This may be useful in the war against Islamic governance.

I have heard that if pig remains were buried on a plot of land, that ground would not be suitable to build a mosque. If true, this would be an obvious way to prevent the building of the so-call ground zero mosque. In addition, this could be useful in a number of other ways.

I have read that Israel has made public that pig lard has been placed in public busses. I remember how popular it was to blow up Israeli busses years ago, and have since noted that this has dropped off severely. Maybe the pig lard is just BS, but if the Muslim world is so sensitive to pigs and pig remains, I am certain that many imaginative ways of using it for defense can be implemented. Any major target could have a token amount placed in key places. This may seem ridiculous, but if the war becomes anything like the siege that has and is taking place in Israel, the ridiculous idea just may become an important tactic in the war.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Excellent discussion of the threat we face today

This is one of the best descriptions that I have found that discuss the threats that we in the United States (indeed, the entire world) face from Islamic legal doctrine.

Please go to the following web site

Search for the article:
This is a summary and contains a link to the actual report.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

The war is comming to us

I pulled this from the web site "Jihad watch" (9/17/10)

A U.S. cartoonist who proposed an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" last spring went into a hiding after receiving threats from Islamic extremists, U.S. media reported. Molly Norris, from Seattle, went into hiding and changed her name and her identity with the help of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).Ms Norris was "moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity," the Seattle Weekly reported. "She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program," it said. The New York Times reported that Mark D. Fefer, Seattle Weekly’s editor, declined an interview request to report on Norris’ current status citing "the sensitivity of the situation."

The Seattle Weekly, which ran Norris’ comics, said yesterday that "on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, "going ghost": moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity." Norris is not responding to emails and has her personal web site taken off line.

End quotes.

The only thing worse than winning a war is losing one. Defensive warfare sucks! We are losing the war. It is only a matter of time before we begin to see a significant increase in violence within our own country.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Islam is able to enforce its beliefs

In comparing religious beliefs, I have found that Christianity and Islam prohibit Alcohol, pork, the payment of interest on loans, and idol worship. Both religions prohibit other ideas as well. I am using these as some of the more visible ones. The comparison of Islam and Christianity is much too large for one post, but I will hit upon what I consider to be a few of the more important contrasts.

The main problem with Islam is that the authority of the modern government (Nation-state) overrides these prohibitions. With Christianity, if the government allows its population to drink booze, or to take out loans that pay interest, or eat pork, the church has no say. This is not the case with Islam. Just look at the organized resistance to these concepts within countries that allow these practices with a Muslim minority.

The point I am attempting to make here is that Islam the ‘religion’ is still able to enforce these religious rules. With Christianity, the enforcement mechanism has long been discarded. Take the Catholic Church’s prohibition on abortion. Some crazies may bomb an abortion clinic. But no governments enforce abortion upon others that are under the jurisdiction of another government. Any type of move like this would trigger open warfare. Because Islam is seen as being a ‘religion’, it is being treated differently by many of the governments of the world.

Christianity got out of the government business centuries ago. Many governments are based upon many of its ideas. However, a key difference is that Islam was set up as a government. Islam has a complete legal system with many of the functions of a modern government. Example: All non-Muslims must pay a ‘poll tax’. This payment exempts the payer from military service. Taxation and conscription are functions of a modern government.

Fine, your government passes a law that allows for this. How about the penalty for leaving Islam is death? Lots of death penalties in Islamic law. OK, many Islamic governments refuse to enforce all of the rules; yet riots will occur from time to time when important Islamic laws are ignored. This is a common occurrence throughout the world where Islam is a majority, or Islam is a significant minority. How many riots do we see in the world because of Christian law being ignored? Once again, I will use the example of abortion. A few crazies take action, but open riots? And look at how important an issue abortion is. Compare this with the riots that are occurring with regularity within the Islamic community. Over supposed ‘insults’. Anger is openly and commonly expressed in the Islamic world. Then we have the ‘eye for an eye’ concept.

Just last week, an Egyptian court was looking for a doctor to sever a man’s spine. This is because in a fight, he had paralyzed another man. Islamic law allows for a person to seek justice in this way. It is literally, a spine for a spine. In Iran last year, a woman asked the court to blind a man with acid because he had blinded her by throwing acid in her face. Christianity has never taught ‘an eye for an eye’. In contrast, Islam has this principle imbedded into its legal system.

Islam was set up as a government. Its autocratic system can enforce the many personal restrictions that the ideology embraces. Likewise, Christianity was set up as a set of rules for personal behavior. However, the enforcement mechanism in Islam is not present in Christianity. Many times in the past, enforcement of the Christian rules was common, but the enforcement mechanism was inferred, not spelled out. As a result, Christianity was able to drop enforcement of its rules centuries ago. (This required warfare to accomplish)

This is because Christianity evolved to the point where Christian rules do NOT override the government. This is a problem with Islam because Islam was designed to be a government by itself. Islamic ‘laws’ are VERY strict. The system of governance is VERY autocratic, as it must be to enforce such draconian measures. In addition, these strict rules that Islam places upon its followers must be a source of frustration for its members. Hence, the touchiness to any attack (imagined or real) and the sensitivity to insult. These emotions along with anger are natural, human byproducts of frustration. Then we have other issues.
One of them is stoning people to death. Christianity has always been against this practice. (Let he who is without sin cast the first stone) Riots have occurred because this Islamic penalty was not enforced. This practice is also embedded into Islamic law. Stoning people to death is barbaric. It must be eliminated. Eliminating stoning within Islam has been shown to result in violence. People fought open warfare to prevent the elimination of slavery. Stoning is an issue that appears to be similar in this way. The very culture was at stake with slavery. I am guessing that elimination of stoning is being violently resisted for similar reasons.

Speaking of violence, when was the last time the Pope led an army? When did Christianity last field an army? (One that was outside of a nation state’s control?) The Crusades were the last time that I know of and that was more than ½ a millennia ago. These Islamic terrorist groups are literally the army of Islam. Imams are frequently the leaders of their own ‘militias’. They have their own armies! They obtain the authority to do so from the concept of Islam as a government. Want to start a war? This will do it EVERY time. A ‘fundamental’ difference between Christianity and Islam indeed.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Koran burning

This is a comment I had made on the blog " It captures my feelings on this subject well.

I agree in that these guys should not burn the Koran. However, we all seem to agree that they have the right to. Kind of like building the Mosque at ground zero.

What I find interesting is the potential reaction to a burning of the Koran. Have a burn the Bible day in some Muslim country. Would we see the same reaction, as we will if these guys go ahead with burning the Koran? Vocal protest only? I think not for at least one important reason.

Maybe this is just me, but I believe that each Koran is actually considered something to be physically defended, like land. ‘Occupied’ Muslim land has historically been physically defended and is constantly being brought up. Defending each Mosque appears to be similar. Note the sensitivity to violation of a Mosque? I wonder what would happen if the ground zero mosque was built and subsequently ‘occupied’ by our police or military because of some major crisis.

Remember how simply the idea of flushing a Koran down the toilet ‘insulted’ so many Muslims? Islam is seen as a form of governance. It was designed with the power and authority of a modern nation-state. This concept is alive and well today. The burning of a Koran is even more delicate than burning the Constitution, because the Koran combines the Bible and the US Constitution in ideology. This is another root cause of the violence and warfare that is so common throughout the Islamic world.

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Islam is a one-way street

1) The penalty for leaving Islam is death. No conversion to any other religion is allowed. Once you are Muslim, you can’t leave. Death is a one-way street.

2) "For Islamists, democracy, expressing the will of the people, is the road to power, but it is a one-way road, on which there is no return, no rejection of the sovereignty of God, as exercised through His chosen representatives. Their electoral policy has been classically summarized as "One man (Men only) One vote, once."" (B. Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, P111, C2003.)
This is why I am keeping a close eye on what is going on in Gaza. Hamas was elected, but it remains to be seen if they ever give up power. Islam does not share power well. Islamic governments have constant problems keeping Islamic ‘nationalism’ under control.

3) Land that was at any time Muslim controlled is always considered to be Muslim. If any other entity subsequently controls it, the land is considered to be ‘occupied’ land. In other words, in the eyes of Islam, all of Israel is ‘occupied’ land. This explains why we see so much resistance to acceptance of Israel in general.

4) Islamic law is a very autocratic system of governance. Discrimination goes hand in hand with any autocratic system. Discrimination is by definition a one sided view. Islamic law excels at this.
Generally, intolerance of just about anything that is not Islamic is the order of the day.

5) If your father was Muslim, in the eyes of Islam, that automatically makes you Muslim. If you chose another path, you are an Apostate. The penalty is death.

Intolerance is similar to discrimination, so I am not listing this separately. I would like to point out how the Muslim world is so sensitive to insult. It makes sense that on a cultural level, sensitivity to insult would result. Anger, frustration from all of the restrictions placed upon each member. Brutality, even when not enforced is always hanging over everyone. Extremely autocratic systems tend to be irritable and touchy. (Example: North Korea). Islam is no exception. The difference here is that Islam controls no government completely. When Islam is the basic law of the land, it is openly hostile to just about everything. (Example: Afghanistan under the Taliban. Iran is smarter about it. Iran uses other organizations to launch their attacks.)

With any general rule, you can find exceptions. One of the biggest arguments against fighting Islam openly is that it is not monolithic. Naturally, where Islam is a distinct minority, tolerance is forced upon them. Many will adapt to the environment, but many will not. As a rule, Islam tends to be VERY resistant to assimilation. Generally, extreme ideology would find everything else to be unacceptable, and in many ways, repulsive. Naturally, it would lash out from time to time.

True, Islam has various levels of implementation within the governments that have majority Muslim populations. These governments tend to be autocratic. One reason may be simply because it takes an autocratic system to keep Islamic ideology under control. Modern life has passed by many of the concepts within Islam, particularly its legal system, its foreign policy and its economic system. This helps explain why so few governments embrace Islam more completely. Being so hostile like the Tailban would encourage other government to eliminate the offender. I would hope that evolution would eliminate most of the objectionable parts of Islam, but this is far from being the case. Islam is still fielding an army, something that all other religions have dropped centuries ago. One way mentality does not change quickly, if at all. Islam is no exception.