Here on the fifteenth anniversary of the attacks on the United States by Islamic terrorists and the start of the latest iteration of the Islamic jihad upon the West after a lull of about 200 years, we at Bloody Nib Manor find ourselves wondering why, in view of the on-going attacks and terrorist acts in the West committed by "radicalized" Muslims the faith has been given a pass by liberal politicians and the media.
The usual explanation is that the "radicals" do not represent Mohammedanism (nota bene: this writer does not refer to the religion as Islam; he refers it to Mohammedanism because Muslims consider Mohammed the perfect man and attempt to worship him, though they deny it, by living and thinking as did he) as a whole and that Mohammedanism is a religion of peace and that only about ten percent of the total of the Mohammedan world is "radicalized." If one takes a low figure of the number of Muslims in the world of 1.6 billion adherents or the high figure of 2 billion of the benighted that means, on the low end, there are, according to the media, about 160 million to 200 million Mohammedans who wish very ill on the West and on non-Mohammedans. That is more people who fought under arms during World War Two; a war that was fought on at least three continents with probes onto another three.
The liberal and middle of the road politicians, the liberal press, and the liberal portions of Christianity seem to think, because they have no idea of history, the value of reading history and source documents, or even listening to or reading the statements of Mohammedanism. The, for the want of another and better term, liberal cohort of the West insists that a statement by a a Mohammedan civil rights group which cares more for it's prosperity and religious influence reflect true Mohammedanism. In other words, despite the evidence that at least ten percent, if not more, of the followers of Mohammad want nothing more than all nations to be governed by Sharia Law and will kill and terrorize to meet that goal, the liberal cohort believes, or pretends to believe that Mohammedanism is nothing much more than a Middle Eastern version of Unitarian Universalism with some odd thoughts about how women can dress. After all Amish and Hasidic women dress a bit odd in the modern world. Why not Mohammedan women walking around in duffel bags under the threat that if they show a naked arm they will be whipped? The world is just a wacky place.
Years ago (1996) the Catholic writer Peter Kreeft (a convert from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism), wrote a book entitled Ecumenical Jihad. It is a book that this writer is sure that he'd much rather forget. The rough premise of the book was that all religions should get together in a loose way and fight against secularism in the world. He actually made statements that Hindus could see Christ in Hinduism and that Buddhists can see Christ in Buddhism and that Mohammedanism can see Christ in the Koran. In toehr words, the book was a big Kumbaya fest against secular humanism and religion, any religion is much better than cultural atheism. But Mr. Kreeft, who up until the attacks against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, spent more time attacking Protestantism than he did Mohammedanism, did not do his reading of history and talking to those who are not Mohammedans who have lived under the rule of Mohammedans. He based his thoughts on an Egypt, a Turkey an Iran of the 1960s and 1970s when the leaders of those nations, as bastards as they may have been, were trying to direct their nations from out of the the cover of the Koran.
If Mr. Kreeft had done his due diligence in research instead of carrying a grudge against Calvin and Luther and Stephan Waldo he would have spoken to Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Baha'is and Christians who lived under Mohammedan rule. And he would have found that Mohammedanism is intolerant to anything outside the teachings of an Arab epileptic pedophile who claimed to channel the words of God. But Mr. Kreeft wrote the book twenty years ago, so may be excused for being so damn naive. After all, and it pains this writer to write this, there is a portion of the Catholic Church that is more than willing to overthrow some of the basic tenants of their faith to get more people in the pews.
And all the above is just to state that if a Catholic theologian teaching at a Catholic college who is "supposed" to know better, it's no wonder that the media (a pretty lazy bunch for the past 60 years) fall into the same trap.
The intelligent and interested person would, in deciding what to make of Mohammedanism, would look at history and talk to non-Mohammedans who had lived under Mohammedans. Let's cut down the potential interviewees further. Let's look at monotheists who were not Mohammedans,
Did the Christians and Jews thrive, or even maintain, under Mohammedan rule in Spain and southern France or in North Africa? No, they did not. Those Jews and Christians who were willing to deny their faith in action, in not in fact, may have escaped the burdens of Mohammedanism and may have thrived, but those person were few and far between. The average farmer or tradesman was at the beck and call of the most low-born Mohammedan and had to basically hide his worship of the One True God.
The Sikhs in suffered mightily under Mohammedanism and the Mughal dynasty. The Sikhs were constantly attacked by the Mughals and only when they had had enough of that nonsense did they take up arms to protect themselves and become a warrior class in India. Mohammedanism is one of the reasons that the Sikhs supported and fought for the the English Raj in India. It was not a matter of conquest of the Mohammdeans as much as it was a matter of protection against them.
The Baha'i religion was founded in Persia in the early 19th century. Some people consider them a form of reformed Mohammedanism. Others, including their spokesmen, don't. But the fact of the matter is that the Baha'is have been terribly persecuted in Iran and any other Mohammedan nation. An Indian friend of this writer states that the Baha'is are "soft" and thus easily subjected to bullying by the followers of the Arabian trader. It turns out that the safest places for a Baha'i adherent are the U.S and Canada, Europe and Australia and Israel. They are not safe in their own home.
This writer proposes that there be established an organization of non-Mohammedan monotheistic religions. It could be called something like the Association of Non-Mohammedan Monotheistic Faiths. The purpose of this organization would be to promote the liberty of those faiths and argue against the spirit of easy ecumenicalism that put forth by the media and much of the established church. All of these faiths, while being monothiestic (as is supposed to be Mohammedanism), have suffered under the rule of the adherents of Mohammed.
There has to be a push-back against Mohammedanism. And a strong push back. If there isn't Mohammedansim will use lawfare and warfare to change the nature of the nation and and the values that true peaceful monothiests hold dear.
To be short, we will be under their thumb.
No comments:
Post a Comment