Islam – the case for the defence

Some of you will recall a series of posts on “Religion of Peace?” and the part which one reader, Daniel, took particular umbrage over was Part 3.

It appeared, to him, to incite hatred and he says we shouldn’t buy into that because that anger is stage-managed by other forces, what I’ve often referred to as Them.

Further, he believes the fine detail is missing in many people’s minds and they only see the outrages without analysing who exactly perpetrated them.    The text he sent me was meant as a comment only on the third part but I reasoned that, as he’d gone to this trouble and as it’s only fair, it should have its own post.

So here it is.


Well, I started to write down a few pages with counterarguments in relation to your articles regarding Islam “A Religion of Peace?” until I realized that there is little to gain in my effort to prove otherwise as one enters in a dimension which has little to do with the world out there. There are although, some points I need to clear out to you.    You decide if you want to include them.

Humans experience a religion in a certain societal context during a given time and thus indispensably, doctrines vary through time and space. Religion is a human activity, undergoing all kinds of influences irrespective of the permanent status of their Holy Book.

Islam, as other religions, had their excesses but what we are confronted with, recently, is the result of the growing influence of the Sunni Wahabist cult that started to move forward since the 70s. They are gradually and patiently cultivating religious memes in mainstream Sunni Islam through their international fundings.

Ironically Wahabism is harming Islam by corrupting its faith, even literally by destroying artifacts and symbols of (ancient) Islam. It is not limited to Buddhist statues. Their doctrine is based on purity (intolerance and conflict) and they do control the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

The countries following this doctrine are our allies and we are witnessing unconsciously, partially through them, the slow ongoing damage of a once grand culture – which we didn’t understand in the first place because the Christian Church created our perception during centuries.

We are thus, through our alliance, participating and encouraging a Green peril, now the Red one has gone.

Following quote, “Indeed, in the Arab nations, the rise of extremism in the form of the Wahhabi movement during the twentieth century could not have taken place without the huge investments made by the Al-Saud family in conjunction with the American in the name of democracy, freedom and human rights to destroy Arab nationalism, socialism, secularism, and of course Islam”, demonstrates in a few words a certain political agenda behind the cult.

Wahabist dogma still represents a minority of Muslims, although we are motivated to believe that this is mainstream Islam (which doesn’t exist by the way). Apparently It is working as more people of the West are perceiving Muslims negatively.

This is one of the reasons why I don’t want to go along the path of hatred which is motivated in the articles of ‘Religion of peace’?. These articles are an extension of an emotional state already living in many Western minds, in regard to Muslims. I’m sure it is not difficult to convince readers of the message you want us to see. The quotes, examples and remarks are mirroring your (our) perception through the choices you made of statements and through the wording. Some of the information is false or distorted.

Dividing by design groups of people is a strong social weapon used by an elite taking advantage via the divide and rule tactic.   I quote an example used in Ireland by the British elite: “ To rule in the face of these revolts the British chose to divide.

Religion was the chosen instrument of division. Religious intolerance, the fostering of mutual suspicion, hatred and violence between Catholic and Protestant – this became the shield of the ruling administration against the overthrow by the people. With these methods an entire social system was dissolved.”

It is part of a dehumanization technique, through a calculated, media-based, polarization process.

Once a group is degraded to Untermenschen, one will not mourn their dead. Hate and anger are feeding on both ends within this mindset matrix. Perception becomes reality after controlled cultivation: A self-fulfilling prophecy.

What we need is unity and a clear sight above the evil deeds that are looking like managed scenario’s to spread fear and hate. Eliminating fear is a major step to be conscious. Luckily there are still initiatives that are based on common sense, like the one of Who’s afraid of Muslim Rage?


On the issue of manipulation, I quite agree – we are manipulated, stage-mannered in what to think and feel on issues and people and there are quislings doing this.   There have been posts galore on groupthink and the causing of outrages in order to take advantage of the reaction.   People have written on neo-Hegelianism.   Even the way academia researches is manipulated.   Common Purpose is one organization heavily into this.   Here’s another sort.

So Daniel is preaching to the converted here – yes, we are manipulated into hatred and WW1 is a case in point – the only German is a dead German and so on.   White feather women egged it on.   This blog has gone on about Them for many years now – the ones who manipulate, fly kites and see what happens and so on.

One view of 911 is that indeed there were Muslim fanatics who would do that but they lacked the wherewithal to accomplish that in U.S. airspace and in that particular way.   I don’t write on 911 because it is not cut and dried, unlike WTC7, which is quite cut and dried but there’s a massive campaign of disinformation colouring people’s perception.

And I’ve written on perception too – take your pick.   So no arguments there, Daniel.    Also, to blend in Cherie’s comments at my place, there is a good case for not allowing ourselves to fall into the hatred trap – the politics of forgiveness is something also to be considered as efficacious.   As a Christian, how could I say anything else?

Yet Daniel makes some grievous errors.

1.   The first is the allegation of “less than scholarliness”.    Sorry but I read: “The quotes, examples and remarks are mirroring your (our) perception through the choices you made of statements and through the wording. Some of the information is false or distorted,” and waited eagerly for examples where the facts were wrong or the quotes false.   No such exposition followed.   Just the rash assertion that it was wrong, with no basis.

That says something about Daniel’s own approach to scholarship.   I have a permanent request in all posts of mine that if you can find anything factually incorrect, please inform me and it shall be changed.   Occasionally it happens but in the main, as regulars know, I do my homework beforehand and errors are minimal to non-existent by the time it gets to the final edit.   So it should be – it was my bread and butter for a long time to be factually correct – I can’t help if it gets up people’s noses.

2.   “Humans experience a religion in a certain societal context during a given time.”    There are so many blogs pointing out that Islam is not just a religion or indeed, not a religion at all but a means of social control and coercion.     This is clear from the method of spreading it around the world, accompanied by bloodshed and mayhem.   Compare that to Christian missionaries who were often zealously intolerant, e.g. in forcing native children to dress more modestly and so on – Somerset Maugham’s Rain addresses this type of mind – but what he described was very much what was associated with the Christian missionary.

There is no way this can be conflated with Islamic slaughter.   Some readers have brought up the golden age of Islam and the cultural advances – this was addressed in Part 4 of the series – but even granted the C11th Muslim culture, none of that negates what was said in the posts on all the other matters, which brings me to point 3:

3.  Just because a person is correct about Wahabism, this does not alter the big picture about the bloodthirsty paedophile [peace be upon him] and his “religion of peace”.    He may well have been kind to his family, to his main followers, he may well have attained some wisdom with age.   None of this negates the rest of it, as set out in those four articles and Daniel has not negated those, only introduced a new element, which I welcome.

4.  Daniel takes issue with “the choices you made of statements and through the wording”. This is true – the wording is often colourful and on this point, he may have a point that it only exacerbates the problem, rather than leads to understanding.   Similarly: “These articles are an extension of an emotional state already living in many Western minds, in regard to Muslims.

No, sorry, on that last point.     I’ve put the caveat many times that it’s not all Muslims, just the fanatics and my line is not that all Muslims are evil but that the so-called religion is, in that it preaches hatred and takes physical action on people who disagree with it, not unlike Ron Hubbard Jnr’s allegations about Scientology.    The difference between Jim Jones and Islam is that Islam has almost a billion adherents and has achieved respectability within Muslim nations.

Throughout Daniel’s piece is this sense of things being Ok if we’d only be kind to the Muslims and all get on together, if only we didn’t let ourselves be manipulated into “hatred”.    The suggestion is that all those articles are and all other scholarly articles are no more than a hate-fest.

Sorry but that is clearly not so.    There is very great danger in our society, as in the days of the Moors in Spain but more subtly when an alien culture meant to dominate, consume and subsume is allowed to do so.   It’s not unlike Chamberlain and Churchill.   Sure Churchill was a warmonger and that war had been planned and ordered but at the eleventh hour, it wasn’t Chamberlain’s peace in our time which was needed but the means and preparedness to deal with the Nazi threat.

The time for Chamberlain was in Hitler’s early days.

One who addresses our current state in measured tones is Sultan Knish:

The left’s post-national identity is based on a secular political multiculturalism. Islam’s post-national identity is based on a religious theocratic multiculturalism. The left has heresies that it prosecutes as hate crimes and Islam has heresies that it prosecutes as blasphemy.

The consequences of their progressivism in undermining the current, more advanced, phase of human society is the restoration of reactionary social and political systems.

The left destroyed Western national identity and brought back the holy war, but due to Christian and Jewish secularism and Muslim immigration, instead of Catholics and Protestants fighting each other in Paris and London, it’s Muslims rioting in the streets and demanding an Islamic theocracy to rule them.

Labour admitted it flooded the country with immigrants to change the ethnic mix and to water down the country’s identity. This is also the EU’s desire and the EU’s desire is Germany’s desire and Germany has always wanted to control this country. That’s just a bit of history.

Muslims do not have a strong national identity. Their nations are a hodgepodge of military dictators, colonial leftovers and tribal alliances. Their societies are “multicultural” in the sense that they are composed of numerous hostile ethnic groups, tribes and families who are united only by a common religion. This unity is fragile, but it is the most common form of unity that they have and they value it far more than national identity.

To the Muslim, his nation is a fleeting thing, a historical accident by a colonial mapmaker digging up ancient names and drawing lines that cut across the lines of ethnic and tribal migrations, but his religion, though he understands very little of it, is a fine and great thing that has long preceded the nation and means far more to him than the nation does.

Even Muslims in moderate countries poll as identifying more with Islam than with a political faction or national identity. That is why what happened when Muslim democracy was unleashed on the Muslim World was completely inevitable. Muslims chose the one form of identity that they could agree on.

Muslims bridge multiculturalism through religion and they do not accept any form of national identity that is not based on religious unity. That is what the Arab Spring really meant.

Syria, the big sticking point in the Arab Spring, is the place where Islamic unity was impossible because of a split between Sunnis and Shiites, leading to a religious civil war. A similar civil war has been burning in Iraq for ages, occasionally suppressed, before flaring to life again. The successes of the Arab Spring were in countries like Egypt, where Sunni Islamists could count on the support of a majority of the population.

Now when those Muslims are shipped to Europe, America, Canada or Australia, they are expected to become Englishmen, Americans or Australians. But they can’t become any of those things because they were never really Pakistanis, Moroccans or Egyptians.

The Pakistani immigrant is a Muslim speaking one of Pakistan’s 80 languages and belonging to one of its major ethnic groups (unless he’s a descendant of the country’s African slaves). The facade of his national identity [is] just that.

Look at this one again:

The consequences of their progressivism in undermining the current, more advanced, phase of human society is the restoration of reactionary social and political systems.

Restoration of reactionary social and political systems.

Restoration of reactionary social and political systems – y-e-e-s-s.

Did you see the Catholic Church in Germany is demanding a tax be paid, on threat of excommunication?    This is more manipulation, as Daniel points out.   The net result is that those who hate Christianity will conflate it with Catholicism and those who hate Catholicism will see the spectre of mediaeval excommunication and theocracy again.

Whoever made this “fatwah” was no Christian because the only result can be to drive people from the church, which is precisely what the Bertelsmann elements and similar in Germany want.   After all, Germany is the hotbed of the other side, whence most of the C20th troubles arose or were a result of, that mantle now taken on by Islam.

We are certainly being played one against the other – no argument there – but that doesn’t alter the fact that it is the 11th hour and it is no longer time for a Chamberlain.   Nor is it time for a Churchill or the uninformed blogger.   It is time for the informed bloggers, thousands of them, warning people to be alert, to have the candle burning ready.

Not to take any overt action at this time but just to keep things in mind and observe as things unfold.   Time too to keep things in perspective, which is why Daniel’s reply needed to be posted.

39 comments for “Islam – the case for the defence

  1. September 26, 2012 at 12:12

    I don’t really give a rat’s tu-tu about religion of any colour, size or taste.

    It seems to me that “religion” is and always has been just an excuse for those who want war, to riot, plunder, destroy property and kill or maim people for the last two thousand years or so or longer.

    Apparently to every religion there is only one God-theirs, if this is true then when the ‘day of judgement’ finally comes there are going to be an awful lot of disappointed followers.

  2. Amfortas
    September 26, 2012 at 15:50

    An excellent post JH.

  3. dearieme
    September 26, 2012 at 18:27

    “Dividing by design groups of people is a strong social weapon used by an elite taking advantage via the divide and rule tactic.” Usually this is drivel. There’s no need to divide and rule: the division is there anyway – all you have to do is avoid being so clumsy as to unite natural enemies into a common cause against you.

    Why not read up on Strongbow’s invasion of Ireland? He didn’t divide the Irish. They were already divided, fighting a tribal war: he was invited in as an ally of one side. Such events are common in history. It’s how the Arab invaders were first invited into Spain. And the Anglo-Saxons into England.

  4. September 26, 2012 at 20:46

    Thanks for those, each in its own way.

  5. Revolution Harry
    September 26, 2012 at 22:16

    I too was waiting for some concrete examples of how ‘some of the information is false or distorted’.

    An excellent resource for all things Islam is the website ‘Faith Freedom’ run by apostate muslims. They invite debate to any of the points they make and restrict that debate to Islamic scholars. Perhaps one of the most interesting debates revolves around the ‘golden rule’. Ali Sina of Faith Freedom argues that the only religion that does not adhere to this rule is Islam. As you may know, the golden rule in its simplest form, is ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.

    Regarding Wahabism I think the following quote by Syed Kamran Mirza in his article ‘An Exegesis of Islamic Peace’ is relevant to the debate (English doesn’t appear to be his first language).

    “Conniving Islamists and also some westerners find some lame excuse by saying that it is not the real Islam, actually it is the influence of Wahabism making the peaceful Islam a religion of terrorism throughout the world. [They] want to blame Wahabism for the inherent intolerance of real Islam. That is, they want to portray Wahabism as the separate entity of Islam which is being misunderstood (by westerners) as the real peaceful Islam. Most western non-Muslims are also misguided by the so called Wahabite type of Islam, which according to some is not real/true peaceful Islam.

    Now what is actually Wahabism? Wahabism is not a separate religion, nor it is a separate brand of Islam. Trully, this Wahabism is the new force to unite Islam into its true color existed in the early Islamic period of 7th century. In the early 18th century Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahab a famous Saudi religious extremist leader called for a renewal of Islamic spirit, moral cleansing and the stripping away of all innovations to Islam since the 7th century. His followers are called Wahabis or wahbite Islamists. Wahabism is not a new brand of Islam or any offshoot of Islam; Wahabism does not have any separate scriptural book, rather it is the real Islam. It has no special practices, nor special rites, and no special interpretation of the religion Islam that differs from the main body of Sunni Islam. Wahabite followers consider every Muslims should follow the practice of Islam like Wahabite Muslims and regard all those who do not follow them as the heathens and enemies of Islam.”

    Daniel is entirely right that Islam, or indeed muslims, are being used for ‘divide and rule’ tactics. They are also being used as a catalyst for the need to ‘change’ us, our culture and way of life. Their presence in this country is very much down to Them, through willing servants of Them such as Tony Blair. That said, we shouldn’t blind ourselves to the true nature of Islam. We should, of course, be very cautious in how we approach this issue, because it’s a far greater problem than the likes of Daniel understands.

    One other thing, Daniel, if you read this, you could earn yourself some money.

  6. Daniel
    September 26, 2012 at 23:19

    Referring to Part 3: Top Nazis during WWII were not devoted Christians. Germans in general were. Christians did commit the holocaust, although an ideology killed the millions. Same with Turkey. The grand butchering of Armenians was not specifically a Muslim act, even if religion played a role. Paranoia and revenge was the driving force behind the killings, followed by an ideology. More on those facts & others soon. I appreciate your responses to my comments . It keeps the mind sharp and that is an attitude what we should aim for. Daily. Thanks.

  7. Daniel
    September 27, 2012 at 01:37

    dearieme: It is true that division is already present most of the time, but aren’t they in general relative minor in relation to the true forces knowing how to victimise both parties in the end? Being smart and third has always been a winner.
    Anglo-Saxons? Weren’t they already a Roman elite in Britain before inviting or welcoming their cousins? Well, the Belgae were already in southern Britain before the Romans or Romanized Anglo-Saxons arrived. They maybe have collaborated with the Germanic Roman forces… Who knows? Probably the territorial take-over happened gradually through time, without planning. Just a cultural thing.

  8. Moggsy
    September 27, 2012 at 09:23

    Whabism Just happened to be the religion of the tribes who lived in an area that was strategically important in the “Great Game”. It was an Islamic version of some infra extremist authoritarian Christian sect.

    More unfortunately there were huge deposits of oil there easily had, and the world wanted them.

    I read that the Nazis poured lots of stolen Jewish gold into the region to try to weaken the allies hold on the area before and during WWII by supporting and funding the most crazy mullahs and aspects of Whabbism. Maybe some of their world view also?

    After massive oil revenue flooded the region and the ruling families pushed out as much of the really uncontrollable elements as they could into the wider world. Like sweeping flooded sewage out of smelling distance of their own property. But because of the duty of charitable giving and Islamic Charities being mostly religious vast amounts of cash came into the fanatics hands.

    Whatever anyone might say about Islam, it is a fact that many of its clerics and followers persecute and kill Christians and implement religious cleansing against them where they can. They attack churches killing congregations and bring malicious accusations against them to force judicial killing. It is built at a low level into the laws of many Islamic states, it was in years gone by. Rules about taxation and the height of religious buildings, about physical personal defence. All slanted against other religions, especially Christians.

    It is also a fact that Islam took over the Eastern branch of the Roman Empire and drove out, or marginalised Christianity there, not because it was somehow better and adopted by everyone because of that, but because it was aggressive and played the long game making it more comfortable to move away or convert than not.

    It Started in on Europe also doing the same to Spain, but was driven back. The Ottoman and then the Turks have, even in living memory done appalling things to Christian Greeks.

    I know that some fanatics of any religion can justify terrible deeds, but Islam does seem to me more prone.

    Mohammed seems, in so many ways, the opposite of Jesus in the example he gave. When the spirit of Satan came to Jesus in the desert and took him to a high place and tempted him offering him the world (All these things I will give you) Jesus spurned that offer.

    Islam isn’t especially tolerant of any other religion, unless and while forced to be for one reason or another. It mandates death to Christians who evangelise Moslems and death to those who convert away from Islam.

    Unless it somehow becomes less.. virulent, I really do worry the only peace Islam, or the world, will ever know is when it is gone, or a single Islamic sect dominates the world.

  9. September 27, 2012 at 09:31

    Thanks for the thought-out comments on both sides and in particular to Daniel for being brave in entering the lion’s den and putting the other side.

    Part of me admires anyone who goes against the stream and puts the other point of view and the day that stops is going to be a bad one for us all. You’re always welcome here, Daniel, with supported arguments.

    The one about how we’re manipulated into dissent from one another is a salutary warning to us all and I support that fully.

    My own last word is in the post today at 16:00 both at OoL and here.

  10. Amfortas
    September 27, 2012 at 09:57

    Moggsy, it is nice to see agreement between us. Now what you need to do is let go of the Gender-Whabie within and we could be much better friends. 🙂

  11. Daniel
    September 27, 2012 at 15:36

    I should not use words like ‘false’ or ‘distorted’ without at least give some examples. Now, I will not argue all what is said, just for the sake to avoid overkill (+time) and also because some of the statements are agreeable. But people, please… Here’s a statement (quote) which I underwrite completely:

    It would be quite possible to assemble passages from the Bible — particularly the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament) which describe genocide, rape, execution of non-virgin brides, murder of homosexuals, torture of prisoners, the rape of female prisoners of war, murder of a family because of the act of the father, the regulation and condoning of human slavery, and many other acts, cultural traditions, and laws which are profoundly immoral by today’s religious and secular standards. If all one read of the Bible was a collection of such passages, one might conclude that the Bible is an evil document that promotes violence, unethical behavior. One might even conclude that it should be banned as hate literature.

    Similarly, it is possible to scan the Bible for passages relating to humans’ love of God; love of humans by God; striving for justice; supporting widows, orphans, the sick, the imprisoned; love and concern for fellow humans; spirituality; and may other acts, cultural traditions, and laws which promote a loving, moral and ethical life. If all one read of the Bible was a collection of such passages, one might conclude that the Bible is a precious document indeed — one worthy of emulating.

    Depending of the picture, argument or truth one seeks to profile, one is able to find them all and back them up. This is the reason why I didn’t want to get into it. It’s a discussion (right versus wrong) as old as humanity and it always feeds our inner vitriolic self, leading to violent excesses when the timing is right and conditions appropriate. This is also the reason why I stated that there is spreading of hatred in the articles, through the wording in this case (Religion of Peace?)… even if this is not fully intensional. It’s in the details and the choices. In fact, it tells more about our own fears, our notion of identity, our conflict with the fact that we are feeling submerged by cultures that are not ours, our basic need for stability to feel safe at home or what we consider home. It demonstrates our psychological institution, required for a territorial defensive stand: A tribal, basic and instinctive growl, signaling our own people to keep tied and committed in order to prevent the others for coming too close and if so, to adapt the rules of this tribe.

    This does not mean that one should not be critical – the opposite is true – but by offending the other unnecessarily, one has the intention to remain uninformed, facilitating the possibility to be guided by third voices.

    Here are some examples I find offensive by being false or distorted (out of context):

    PART 1
    QUOTE: However, the Qur’an also teaches Muslims to enter into exile in lands where Islam is not the dominant force, to pursue the adoption of Islam and to view any indigenous reaction to that as oppression and persecution against Islam, thereby requiring Jihad against these infidels.

    This is a distortion by simplification as the word Jihad is used wrongly in this context:

    1. Wikipedia: The beginnings of Jihad are traced back to the words and actions of Muhammad and the Quran. This encourages the use of Jihad against non-Muslims. The Quran, however, never uses the term Jihad for fighting and combat in the name of Allah; qital is used to mean “fighting.” Jihad in the Quran was originally intended for the nearby neighbors of the Muslims, but as time passed and more enemies arose, the Quranic statements supporting Jihad were updated for the new adversaries. The first documentation of the law of Jihad was written by ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Awza’i and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani. The document grew out of debates that had surfaced ever since Muhammad’s death.

    2. What is the Islamic law of war and peace? This crucial question underlies all discussion of jihad, perhaps the most misrepresented of ideas in the West’s understanding of Islam. “Holy war”,1 “a faith spread by the sword”,2 “Islamo- fascism”,3 “infidel”,4 and many of the other catch phrases so popular in the uninformed debate on this topic only serve to muddle the issue. It is therefore useful, and even imperative, to explain what jihad is, what it means to Muslims, and how it relates to the concrete issues of war and peace.

    QUOTE: Assassins – This group believed that killing was a religious duty, and would often assassinate leaders they felt to be too weak or too compromising to continue the spread of Islam.
    Religious duty of killing others in order to spread Islam is just not true.
    That is truly false for the following reasons:

    1. They formed an order of Ismailis – a Shia branch – highly trained to kill opposing figures, no matter what cult, religion or origin. Most targeted were Muslim Sunni’s: Isma’ilism presented an unexampled spiritual and political challenge to the dominance of Sunni orthodoxy and to the authority of contemporary Sunni rulers and dynasties, such as the Saljuq Sultans and Abbasid Caliphs.
    2. During the Crusades, they killed Crusaders and Saracens, depending of the situation. The Assassins were mercenaries and killed whoever paid them.
    3. Even Saladin, the one who kicked out the Christians in Jerusalem, was on their list and almost killed (twice) by them for probably the following reason: “Saladin had also embarked on a systematic campaign to suppress Isma’ilism in Egypt, destroying the rich Fatimid libraries,- exterminating the Isma’ili system, and introducing Sunni institutions.” – source see nr. 1
    However, they became allies of Saladin against the Frankish orders during the Jerusalem siege, due to the Templars’ hostile attitude towards them.
    4. At a certain moment (1173) they were negotiating with King Amalric of Jerusalem for conversion to Christianity! Believe it or not but other religions where paying high taxes in Jerusalem for being not Christian.
    5. Both Muslim (Sunni) and Frankish forces were hostile to them, but not necessarily in all conditions: “the Isma’ilis believe that God has been sending, since the beginning of the human world, a succession of prophets. for the guidance of human beings who are always in need for such guidance. According to them, religions evolve from one another and each represents a certain stage in the chronic evolution.”

    A person I admire, Sir Francis Richard Burton, was said to be a member of the Ismaili sect for Gnostic reasons and not to spread Islam.

    QUOTE: However, the best estimates say that more than one and a half million Armenians were killed by this Muslim act.
    A Muslim act? This was the ultimate act of racial, religious and cultural intolerance during a Turkish ultra-nationalistic era which still has its traces today – see Article 301 (Turkish Penal Code) and the Grey Wolves.
    A Muslim act is a dangerous (false) definition to use as sole reasons for the slaughter and displacement of Armenians, Assyrians, Greek, Syrian Arabs (Muslim), Alevis (Muslim), Zazas (Muslim) by the Turks (and Kurds and Circassians). It was part of the bloody end of the Ottoman Empire and its aim for cultural homogeneity during a paranoid stage of collapse and war. All this happened in the heat of the Great Game, shaping the conditions for the mass-slaughter of the first world-war. Don’t forget to mention that the Armenians were Russian-sympathizing and thus appearing as enemies to the Turks who lost a big part of their empire to the fiery Russians.
    There was a religious dimension in the slaughter of Armenians but it was not the official ideology (Young Turks movement was secular).
    Apparently lots of the Muslim refugees from the Russian empire took revenge on their new Christian, second-class, Russian-sympathizing neighbours. They experienced a similar treat before from the Christian Slavs: ”Toward the end of the conflict, the Russian General Yevdokimov was tasked with driving the remaining Circassian inhabitants out of the region, primarily into the Ottoman Empire. This policy was enforced by mobile columns of Russian riflemen and Cossack cavalry. In a series of sweeping military campaigns lasting from 1860 to 1864 . . . the northwest Caucasus and the Black Sea coast were virtually emptied of Muslim villagers. Columns of the displaced were marched either to the Kuban [River] plains or toward the coast for transport to the Ottoman Empire . . . . One after another, entire Circassian tribal groups were dispersed, resettled, or killed en masse”, and: “This expulsion, along with the actions of the Russian military in acquiring Circassian land, has given rise to a movement among descendants of the expelled ethnicities for international recognition that genocide was perpetrated. In 1840, Karl Friedrich Neumann estimated the Circassian casualties to be around one and a half million. Some sources state that hundreds of thousands of others died during the exodus. Several historians use the term ‘Circassian massacres’for the consequences of Russian actions in the region.” – “Some sources state that three million Circassians (Muslims) were evicted from Circassia in a period lasting until 1911”
    Well, it seems like it was a fashionable pass-time for a century, between 1850 and 1950, for the great powers to annihilate, purge and displace humans in an organized manner. It was not a Muslim act, it was human behaviour on its worst. By the way, Muslim Persia welcomed the Armenian refugees as their cultural brothers, free to be Christians. They still do. Without extra tax.

    PART 3

    The only democratically-elected Muslim government, with freedoms protected by law currently, is Turkey. Libya, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait, are the norm for the Muslim world.

    You forgot to mention Indonesia as a Democratic Republic. Besides Turkey & Indonesia, the other countries you mentioned are (were) quite distinctive and are profoundly different in their political/ideological approach. There is as such no general norm except that they are not democracies.
    The Libyan political structure would be a viable alternative for democracy in the Middle-East. The UN report regarding Libya written prior to its downfall, demonstrates figures rarely observed in Africa and the Middle-East (except for Iran strangely, regarding womans rights). Muslim fundamentalism was not allowed in Libya, nor is it in until soon in Syria.

    The Copts of Egypt have undergone similar treatment as the Kurds in Iraq.

    Plain False! The Copts are victimized occasionally by extreme religious forces, although some of those attacks are best seen in a broader picture where other purposes (even foreign) could be behind the incitement of violence between Copts and Muslims. Kurds in Iraq, during the oppression, would never attain statuses (then) as Butros Butros Ghali did, nor could they attain the wealth of some Coptic families in Egypt. During Coptic feasts in honor of Maria you will notice Muslim women in churches doing exactly the same thing as their Coptic counterparts. There is undoubtedly discrimination against the Copts but it is (was) not comparable to the Iraqi bloody behaviour towards Kurds, which was by the way not related to religion as they were simultaneously, mainly Sunni Muslim. Other reasons applied for this treatment of Iraqi Kurds.
    Note: Tariq Aziz, Foreign Affairs during Sadam’s reign is a Christian!

    Islam has an endemic problem with violence, which stems in large part from intolerance of competition.
    Of all present Muslim countries the Jews and Armenian Christians are probably best protected in a country, one describes as evil. Iran has a long history of tolerance towards the followers of Abraham. There is no religious persecution in Iran of Jews; Iranian government tries even to avoid emigration of Jews.
    Many Jews lived peacefully for millennia in Muslim countries, as did Christians for 1800 years. If violence would be continually endemic during Muslim period of the last 1400 years, there would be no other religion left than Islam.

    Muslim Arabs provided a market for African tribes to sell captured prisoners of war as slaves centuries before Europeans became involved in the trade.
    The Romans before the Muslims, although the Romans made abstraction of race. The Arabs & Turks were involved in slave trade but not because they were Muslim. Arab slave trade included all races and religions, even other Arabs and Berbers in the beginning. Slavery is of all times and peoples and it is a-religious.

    I will conclude with the fact that I think that the 4 parts of the articles ‘Religion of piece’ is one-sided and that it is possible to prove it. If I want to counter all what is one-dimensional in the articles I need to spent too much time on it. It is better for those interested in the topic(s) to read some good historical books about the subject(s) and I mean the ones analyzing ‘objectively’ the historical context and not the popular ones.

    If James states that ‘There is very great danger in our society, as in the days of the Moors in Spain’ than I think that both situations are not comparable, nor compatible. Moorish invasion in Spain led to a replacement of a Visigoth elite that was culturally, scientifically, military, structurally less-advanced, intolerant towards Jews and quite hostile to its native inhabitants. Visigoth’ structure of Kingship was poorly organised and quite ‘tribalesque’. We like to forget the fact that lot’s of knowledge came into Europe through the Muslims in Iberia. This is an undeniable fact. Also the fact that Muslim perception of Christians and Jews as People of the Book (those who believe in the God ofAbraham), numerous Jewish and Christian communities survived through the centuries (700+ years!) of Muslim rule in al-Andalus (and in the whole of the Muslim world). This is something the commentators here sometimes refuse to notice. The oldest Christians are still there after 1800 years (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, …), are they not? No wiping out – alive and kicking by more than a millennium of relative tolerance. It is becoming harder now for them but we should not be ashamed to take an example of that past, unimaginable in Christian Europe. After the Reconquista in Iberia they expelled or killed the Muslims, after that the Jews and after that they went for the protestants across the border. Speaking about tolerance.
    You know that Pagan Vikings had a far better relationship with the Muslims than with their Christian neighbours and that the present historical review, based on a more just image of the vikings, comes from Arab chroniclers. Also when Christianized Normans invaded Muslim land like Sicily, the mutual sympathy remained: “Islamic authors would marvel at the tolerance of the Norman kings of Sicily. Ibn al-Athir wrote: “They [the Muslims] were treated kindly, and they were protected, even against the Franks. Because of that, they had great love for king Roger.”
    Anyway, the amount of Muslims today in Europe surpasses by far their former presence in Iberia (%). We are taking about maybe 3% in Islamic Spain. I live near Brussels and we are talking about around 25-30% Muslims in the European Capital. Deal with that. Most of the problems are related to social conditions within a cultural context not favorable for adaptation. This is not only a Muslim issue, but it mainly is as they form the largest group. There is a problem going on but even than it still is not correct to generalize because it hurts the truth and it is certainly not appropriate to polarize Muslim by degrading their rich history.
    We should look at the reasons why the gates of Europe remained wide-open for so long. That’s a whole other story, I suppose, but an interesting one. Maybe an idea for your blog, as apparently it moves the spirits.

    Thanks James for letting me express my thoughts and opinions.

  12. September 27, 2012 at 16:24

    The Quran, however, never uses the term Jihad for fighting and combat in the name of Allah:

    Mohammed [peace be upon him] did though, in the hadiths. And jihad is an interpretation – we’ve all seen the reestablished interpretation.

    Plus those verses cannot be argued with, can they? They were named and numbered. Whichever other elements are brought in to ameliorate them, they still stand.

    What I think most people are down on is not some ancient texts but that this “taking offence” thing today results in killings and maimings, which the west, for all its faults [and there are many, otherwise there’d be no need for this blog] does not take to kindly.

    The very fact of my four part series and the one at 16:00 today is enough to have a fatwah on my head. Now, in contrast, go to OoL where the atheistic rationalists lurk and see how they insult the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Do I declare a fatwah on these guys? Does Rowan Williams? Does the Pope for that matter [the Pope used to though].

    What we have here is the impossibility of discussing Islam as we have done, as you have done, Daniel and the only reason we can is because both you and I are in a country with Christian traditions and heritage which allows free speech. We most certainly wouldn’t be having this discussion in Syria or Iran.

    That really is the issue.

    You mention many instances of “Christians” doing this or that. Christians simply can’t do those things. If they do, they’re no longer Christian. The gospels are quite clear on this:

    1] And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
    [2] And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
    [3] Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    [4] Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
    [5] Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
    [6] Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
    [7] Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
    [8] Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
    [9] Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
    [10] Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    [11] Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
    [12] Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
    [13] Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
    [14] Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

    That is what Christianity is about and those who deviate from the Sermon on the Mount:

    1. Are not Christian but CINOs and
    2. Will answer one day to their Maker. It’s not for humans to take the law into their hands on this. Nowhere in the NT is that permission given.

    Now compare the two. That’s why I object so strongly to people who conflate the two religions. They’re chalk and cheese.

    In particular, note Beatitudes 7 and 11. N7 is what it is all about = turn the other cheek, forgive, love thine enemy. N11 is what I get and Churchmouse gets the whole time. And the more we get of this, the more we supposedly store up treasure in heaven – food for thought, that.


    On a personal note, I like to have my say, I like to be free to speak and associate. So let’s look at three societies – one which is vaguely Christian, such as we had before the 60s, one which is under the pitiless caustic control of Them and the atheistic rationalist State [e.g. the USSR, China and North Korea] and one under Shariah Law.

    Which of those three would you choose in order to stay alive and unincarcerated?

  13. Revolution Harry
    September 27, 2012 at 23:33

    “Christians did commit the holocaust…”

    No they didn’t.

    The relevant point regarding Islam’s role in any ongoing tactics of ‘divide and rule’ is the extent and manner to which Islam can be manipulated. This is why Islam poses a specific problem where Buddhists, for example, do not.

    The Bible doesn’t condone either rape, or slavery as we understand it today. Whilst there are undoubtedly some difficult passages in the Old Testament these were specific only to the Israelites and for that time. This is in contrast to Islamic exhortations to violence, for example, which is anywhere and for all time. The Mosaic law was done away with on Christ’s return. We now have the New Covenant.

    For example:

    “… in the Gospel of John, the Pharisees, in an attempt to discredit Jesus, brought a woman charged with adultery before him. Then they reminded Jesus that adultery was punishable by stoning under Mosaic law and challenged him to judge the woman so that they might then accuse him of disobeying the law. Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” The people crowded around him were so touched by their own consciences that they departed. When Jesus found himself alone with the woman, he asked her who were her accusers. She replied, “No man, lord.” Jesus then said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.”

    Understanding why God felt it necessary to separate the Israelites and deal with them how He did is one of the more interesting aspects of Bible study. More importantly the emphasis for Christians is Jesus and the New Testament. A comparison between the life of Jesus and that of Muhammed is all too revealing.

    I’m not sure that quoting Wikipedia in a discussion about Islam and Jihad is going to be too helpful. There are, of course, many attempts to soften the perception of what Jihad is. The article below gives the correct interpretation of ‘Jiahdu’ and ‘Qatilu’.

    Daniel, whether by violence or not believers in Islam are hardwired to try and assert its dominance in whatever country they are in. A glance at history shows the truth of this. Non of this would be of such importance if we hadn’t had incredible levels of Muslim immigration into this country. To not understand the problems this is going engender seems naive in the extreme.

  14. Daniel
    September 28, 2012 at 07:28

    Revolution Harry: I’m not denying the problem and you clearly can read it at the end of my reply (25/09 – 15:36), nor did I say Christians committed the holocaust. In relation to the holocaust I was just following the same reasoning one makes by describing the Armenian genocide as a Muslim act. I’m just saying that the arguments used in the articles, as they are in other websites mentioned by some commentators are not going to help. Websites like Jihadwatch & are spreading hate and are laughable untruthful. I’ve read about Beslan on Jihadwatch and it is behind imagination what they spread as information. Pure evil. If this spreading of hate is going to increase towards Muslims than one is making a case for comprehension of Muslim anger. I just want to state that many views are distorted due to wrong input or other reasons. I will write a final piece this WE regarding this topic because things are moving fast on world-scale and tensions will surely increase. We should not take the path that is laid down for us to follow comfortably as sheep. Be aware.

  15. Revolution Harry
    September 30, 2012 at 19:55

    Daniel, it’s not just a matter of whether or not you think the articles are going to help or not. What matters is the truth. As has been pointed out, Islam is undoubtedly being manipulated in order to create conflict. Understanding this is very important. It does us no good, however, to not acknowledge why it is Islam that is being used in this way. It’s because its very belief system allows it to be. Those who insist that Islam is ‘misunderstood’ and ‘peaceful’ are acting every bit as ‘sheep like’ as those who fail to see that a dialectical conflict has been created.

  16. Moggsy
    October 1, 2012 at 08:05

    What revolution Harry said… absolutely.

  17. Daniel
    October 1, 2012 at 11:35

    Revolution Harry: Jihadwatch & faitfreedom are no beacons of truth. As I have said; I’ve read about the school slaughter of Beslan on Jihadwatch and it is absolutely nonsense. They don’t go for the truth. They not even care about the truth. Their mission is to discredit Muslims in all possible ways. All means are suitable to pursue this objective, which is an approach where truth is the first victim.
    ‘Jihad Watch’ is an agenda-based propaganda machine sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Robert Spencer, the brain behind this website is acting with other personalities (Geller, etc.), known for their Zionist and hawkish ‘attitude’.

    Personally, I always long for information disproving my way of thinking. The worst I can do for my own sanity is to look for information that only confirms what I think. It would only create a closed-circuit of reality within a bubble of comfort.
    Once one takes a step towards other sources of information – not accustomed to – one enters in a ‘World of Grey’:

    I’m not here to defend Muslims, nor the Quran, nor Islam faith. I’m here because one does not polarize to fight Muslim extremism! Many Muslims, I personally know, are moderate thinking individuals taking care of their families, struggling through their daily lives and contributing to society. Some of them are married to native ‘Christian’ woman. The woman still eat pork, drink wine and do things as if they would have been married to a local guy.
    I don’t ignore the fact that a sub-group is thinking differently and I also don’t ignore the fact that most of the individuals within this sub-group are a threat to our way of thinking and living. I don’t ignore the fact that violence committed by individuals of the Muslim community are the stupids and the frustrated, who are mostly not involved in religion. They are criminals doing drugs, burglary, etc., all non-Muslim acts. Once in prison they are prey to the religious fanatics. Figures of crime are higher within this group because social conditions, racism, cultural background, lack of eduction, liberty, identity, parental control and job-opportunities are often triggers.
    Nor do I ignore the fact that importing women and men as spouse, from their country of origin is destroying the once established, integrated life-style, especially for Muslim woman born here. This has to stop, but we are allowing it! Who’s to blame?
    Nor do I ignore the fact that Muslims criticizing their own community openly is a rare phenomenon. They are not used to it. The ones screaming very loudly are often patsies shouting for reasons other than only for the sake of criticism.
    Nor do I ignore the fact that the figures of Muslim in Europe are alarming high and growing. We opened the gates once and continued to keep it wide open for the illiterate, the poor, the criminals,… almost on purpose to import the least educated and the lowest IQ’s!
    Equally, the fact that Muslims are as diverse as Christians with an equal trait of compulsory behaviour for being right is a truth.
    Lots of Muslims are as Muslim as Christians were in the 60’s. Believers, though moderately and with a pinch of salt, doing some of their religious rites within a community. Not more, not less.
    Many immigrated Muslims are also directors, artists, musicians, business-people, bus drivers, nurses, doctors in medicine, and so on, living a life we try to accomplish in the most normal conditions. Without Muslim woman our health-care system would collapse. They are doing the dirty work of changing diapers and feeding the elderly and based of what I ‘ve seen personally is that racism and prejudices melt away once confronted with an open communication.

    Again, if one is throwing these good people with the rest of the pack, one refuses to act constructively. We should motivate them for being examples. We should also create more opportunities for the talented ones and the ones willing to do something. At the same time we should also recognize that a multicultural society without tensions is utopian and act upon it by limiting the numbers and by other and positive means…all but polarizing.

  18. Daniel
    October 1, 2012 at 12:05

    sorry for my spelling in previous (…, WOMEN)

  19. Moggsy
    October 1, 2012 at 12:19

    Daniel, I don’t think anyone here is arguing all Moslems are rabid jihadists and been trained in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Most, Practically all, I am sure just want to get on with their lives. Maybe they came to the west to get a way from Islamic states.

    I do think that some of them do not want to think badly of fellow Moslems they may be wary of. And enough of them are willing to believe atrocities committed by Islamicists were really committed by the CIA, or MI5, or the Women’s Institute. Enough non moslems are willing to, so why should we wonder at that?

    I do think many younger Moslem guys in the west are far more intolerant and much more fundamentalist than their parents, maybe they will grow out of it maybe not. In a few that can lead to going abroad to fight in others abuse of sisters and cousins and in some cases enforced de-westernisation of Moslem women.

    It is that sub group you say you don’t ignore can cause a disproportionate impact. The rest of the population are the sea they swim in.

  20. Daniel
    October 1, 2012 at 13:10

    Revolution Harry
    For a direct answer on your last post.
    1. As has been pointed out, Islam is undoubtedly being manipulated in order to create conflict.
    2. It’s because its very belief system allows it to be.

    I agree with your first point, which has never been denied, although we also go through an equal dimension ‘vis a vis’ Islam, by being focused on the excesses, creating from this an all-encompassing picture of Islam . That’s a conflict-model being manipulated at both ends.

    The second mentioned reason is a bit fast-turning as it applies to all dogmatic religions. In the end, it is religion that manipulates a mind into a devotional act. Different stated; one needs a strong vehicle in order to harvest the planted seeds.

    It only works within a mind-model that does not tolerate competition: All monotheistic religions, political ideologies and some cults. I already mentioned some examples throughout history.
    I firmly belief that religion brings out the best and the worst of humanity. Aleister Crowley was raised a Brethren and quoted following: “One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”

    I don’t want to disrespect religion, although I find this quote of Einstein one of the best definitions of man’s relation to God: If God has created the world, his primary worry was certainly not to make its understanding easy for us.

  21. Daniel
    October 1, 2012 at 13:29

    Moggsy: “I do think many younger Moslem guys in the west are far more intolerant and much more fundamentalist than their parents.”
    Yep. This is often the case all over Europe. But it is a counterculture. They fall in between cultures and (was in lesser extent visible in Britain I think, but not anymore) are alienated and looking for an identification model… handed over by fanatics. Most of them are (were) not practicing their belief, except for the Ramadan due to social pressure but became religious after prison stay: A common phenomenon. Is it motivated by other forces to keep things goin’?

  22. October 2, 2012 at 08:55

    Daniel, I don’t think it has anything especially to do with prison at all, I am talking about guys who have never been in trouble with the law, anymore than anyone else. And not especially rebellion, more like a generational sea change I fear. They see things more black and white with no greys and thier parents as lax.

  23. October 2, 2012 at 09:14

    [Nice to see someone else engaging Moggsy this time, giving me a breather. 😉 However there’s a post tomorrow that Moggsy’s going to just love.]

  24. October 2, 2012 at 11:00

    James, I am suspecting that means you think I will disagree big time. If you intend/think it will rile me maybe I should avoid it.

  25. Daniel
    October 2, 2012 at 11:17

    I cannot answer that. It is changing, but has it not always been like that? I’m not talking about Muslims specifically, but generally about people and generations.
    Although, I sometimes have the impression that there is a simplification going on, in the way we think. Simultaneously, there is also a rebellion sphere wading through the air based on knowledge of things previously ignored. So, it is difficult to see clearly in these confusing and conflicting times. There is for sure an awareness gaining territory but it is still a minority. I think that more people start to realize that satisfaction is not found anymore in things found previously.
    If confusion rules, virtual safety ogles. Behind the curtains of assuredness, dependency is lurking.

  26. Daniel
    October 2, 2012 at 11:28

    previous was directed at Moggsy

  27. Revolution Harry
    October 3, 2012 at 00:49


    I hold no truck with Jihadwatch. I am aware of the role it’s playing. The difference with Faith Freedom is that the articles and discussions there can be easily confirmed. Perhaps you’re making the mistake that just because Jihadwatch has a role in highlighting problems with Islam and some elements of the Islamic community you’ve dismissed all that they are saying. I’ve no idea what their take on the Beslan school slaughter is. That’s not what I’m primarily discussing. It’s the essential tenets and beliefs of Islam itself. Those very things that allows itself to be manipulated in a way that Buddhism couldn’t.

    It’s not a matter of polarising (are you an American?). It’s a matter of fully understanding what it is we are up against. We can attempt to avoid getting into direct conflict with Islam whilst at the same time being completely aware of what it is we are dealing with.

    Your pork eating, wine drinking, Christian marrying ‘Muslim’ friends are not the main problem. We’re dealing with a sliding scale here. The ‘Muslims’ (if they still truly qualify as Muslims) you describe are one end of the spectrum. At the other end is the section we have to be most worried about as well as many in-between. This is not a small number. It is these that adhere most closely to the true teachings of Islam.

    As for multiculturalism, if you wish you can read my thoughts on that here.

  28. Moggsy
    October 3, 2012 at 08:36

    Danial, RH makes really good points in his last comment. I am sure some of your Muslim friends would not even be considered proper Muslims by some stricter Muslims.

  29. Daniel
    October 3, 2012 at 09:59

    Revolution Harry,

    I’m not American ;-), I’m a Portuguese-Flemish Belgian, although I consider myself a European product. My spell-checker on this OpenOffice is US English as the UK version doesn’t seem to work. So, ignore the American spelling.
    I was not talking about pork-eating Muslims, I was talking about their pork-eating Christian wifes, demonstrating that Muslims keeping their faith can be tolerant or indifferent at the same time. Most of them though, are ‘educated’ people. I think that level of eduction or above average intelligence in combination with a certain level of wisdom or ethics, has more to do with one’s approach towards the worldly environment (within a moderated religious context) than any other reason.

    I just read your article and ‘wow!’; too much to discus. I recognise most of the names you mention and I would be careful to quote some of them, like Makow. Also worth to mention (and inevitable when communism is targeted) is the occult and pagan roots of Nazi symbolism and ideology.
    About the genetic traces – “In spite of all these later contributions, the genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the Neolithic period and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period” – I’ve read other studies mentioning that the more west one goes the more there is a genetic resemblance. This counts for Europe, but also for Britain. The Western part of Britain (Wales, …), including Ireland is mainly demonstrating a Neolithic subgroup (via certain genes), common with North-West Iberia (Galicia, Asturias, Basques) and West France. There was almost for certain a Neolithic Culture in the Atlantic Basin stretching from Britain to Iberia (they sailed). Probably it originates mainly (not exclusive) from the Iberian/French Mesolithic folks who went back north after the melting of the ice (at the end of the Ice age 10.000 years ago)… although I understood the Celtic tribes came from the East… Like all migration waves of the past – it mostly comes from the huge plains of Eurasia.
    There always is a make-up in genes; there are no pure people or pure races. The less stretched a gene pool is, the more vulnerable it is to diseases and other ailments – check the confrontation with native isolated cultures.

    Anyway too much to mention right now. If you want to, I’m willing to discus step by step your article. This, though, should be done on a forum or by mail instead of using all the space of James’ blog. Regarding immigration policy, I was surprised not to find any statements of Kevin B. MacDonald, the American Professor.

  30. Revolution Harry
    October 4, 2012 at 23:22


    We’re obviously not going to agree on this subject, which is fne. I’m not focussing on Islam’s excesses (of which there are plenty of examples) but I am looking keenly at it’s core beliefs. That these were promulgated by someone whose god gave him special dispensation to have multiple wives (in double figures) one of which was six, whom he married in his early fifties, really tells you all you need to know. He then consummated this marriage when she was nine and during the interim period performed ‘mufakhathat’ on her. I mention this only because it speaks volumes as to the spirit behind Islam.

    What you seem to be saying is that we should refrain from any criticism of Islam because it’s being manipulated into conflict with the ‘West’. What I’m saying is we should be under no illusions as to what Islam is but at the same time be cautious in how we treat it in the full knowledge that manipulated conflict is being sought.

    Attempts to equate Islam with Christianity won’t wash I’m afraid and quoting Crowley scarcely bolsters your case.

    I wrote the ‘Tower of Babel’ article a while ago now and it really needs a lot of updating. That said the general thrust is correct and of course, there’s much more I could have added. The Nazi’s were clearly the flip side of the totalitarian coin to Communism. I did mention them though not in great detail. As you say the Nazi’s were occult to the core and their swastika was really just another sun symbol amongst many. What’s perhaps most intriguing regarding the Nazi’s is the Vatican’s involvement in their rise to power. Worth researching.

    A debate on genetics or ‘purity’ would seem pointless. The point I was making (and I could have provided many more quotes) is that the British were/are essentially what they’ve been for thousands of years. That we are now in the process of becoming ethnic minorities in our ancestral home is, in my opinion, a tremendous sadness and a great evil. It was the realisation that this was happening that shook me out of my comfortable left/liberal/anti-racist world view. Not that I’m a racist now, in the sense I hate other races (or to be exact, other ethnic groupings), but I am aware of how this issue is manipulated.

    In my research I inevitably came across the likes of Kevin MacDonald. I don’t know much about him but he may well play a similar ‘gatekeeper role’ to Nick Griffin. Even if he’s genuine he’s stuck with a very limited view of what is happening.

    The jury is out regarding Makow. If you look elsewhere on my blog you’ll see I’ve written ‘exposés’ of several high profile ‘researchers’ who claim to be fighting the New World Order. Many of these characters provide a great deal of very good information. It’s the disinformation liberally sprinkled throughout you have to be wary of. I have a few reasons to suspect Makow but no firm evidence. I quote him guardedly.

    If there is anything you’d like to discuss I suppose the best place would be the comments section of the article itself.



  31. October 5, 2012 at 02:52

    Makow has an expose of feminism and the CIA which is coming up and it quotes dates and events. I have no reason to question that.

    Even Minette Marrin who wrote on feminism also wrote for the CFR but her post on feminism still stands up. Her motives might be in question but the things she wrote in the post are not.

    Your policy of quoting Makow guardedly is the wise one, Harry.

  32. Daniel
    October 5, 2012 at 20:42

    Revolution Harry,

    Quote: “What you seem to be saying is that we should refrain from any criticism of Islam because it’s being manipulated into conflict with the ‘West’. What I’m saying is we should be under no illusions as to what Islam is but at the same time be cautious in how we treat it in the full knowledge that manipulated conflict is being sought.”

    In previous posts I’m not withholding criticism nor did I mention that one should refrain criticism due to the fact Islam (some) faith is manipulated.
    As you pointed out, we should be cautious. So, if criticism is given, at least it should be reliable, correct and justified. It wasn’t the case.

    In regard to the Quran itself, I can be very clear: We are not specialised in the matter. I will not agree, nor disagree, unless I’ve read the Quran.

    What is core belief? You mentioned cultural examples (customs?) within an historical context.
    Quote: “”Child marriages such as this were relatively common in Bedouin societies at the time, and British scholar Colin Turner suggests that such marriages were not seen as improper in that historical context”
    Was it that different in the regions where the judo-Christian beliefs originated…or even later in some practices in medieval Europe (jus primae noctis, Feudal elites and European Ashkenazi Jews)? Child Marriages are not uncommon today (Asia, Africa, …) and in the past it happened everywhere.
    How old was Mary? In the Jewish tradition young girls were betrothed between the age of 12 to 12 ½… It is not mentioned, which does not mean it wasn’t.
    …and than again, is it that important to demonize the faith in its entirety? Shia Muslims have other views about Aisha…:
    Come on…Crowley!? 😉
    The rest of the comments shall be placed on your blog.


  33. Revolution Harry
    October 5, 2012 at 23:41

    Daniel, there are plenty of very good articles regarding the core beliefs of Islam compete with references to Koranic verses that can be verified. It’s not hard to understand.

    The issue surrounding Muhammed’s special dispensation by Allah to have more than the permitted four wives is not a cultural one. Particularly as Muhammed is held up as the ideal role model for all muslims for all time. He was in his 50’s and Aisha was six. There’s no scriptural evidence for the age of Mary but even at your lowest estimate she was twice the age of Aisha who was a pre-pubescent child.

    The Bible clearly states that a man shall have one wife and they shall become ‘one flesh’.

  34. Daniel
    October 6, 2012 at 15:44

    Regarding Makow. His attacks are really dirty to someone who helped him boost:

  35. Daniel
    October 6, 2012 at 23:33

    Just got back from dinner with a Syrian Alawi Muslim (1st generation) who’s a Fysician. He confirmed that there is no such thing as ‘an Islam’. His children speak only French for different reasons. He wanted them to learn the Arabic language through Saturday school but didn’t find one because most of them are in fact Sunni Quran schools. He sees himself as a religious person and opposes fully the culture of backwardness that is promoted today by the influential allied Islamic centers of power, which he perceives as unjust to Muslim faith and culture. Half of his professional time is spent deliberately to the lower classes of society. I have rarely seen a person acting more ‘Christian’ as he does. He’s fully Muslim and not what you like to call a fake or unpure Muslim or whatever that does not fit the image one wants to sell.
    He just confirmed what I have stated: Polarisation is destructive, blind and harmful to individuals that deserve better.

  36. October 6, 2012 at 23:57

    Just looked at the Makow link and he seems to have a point – at least readers seem to agree. I too have issues with Icke but Rense I don’t know. Whatever happens in a personal way with Makow and others, what he writes about on political things seems to make common sense.

    For example, the story on Steinem and the CIA link checks out.

  37. Daniel
    October 7, 2012 at 00:29

    I’ll check it out James. I only had the perception – since I read his articles – that he’s pushing too hard to the extreme end of things. There is rarely a ‘World of Grey’ in his words and that is often a ‘killer’ for me, based on my own experiences with the human psyche. It is often more complex and blurry.

  38. Revolution Harry
    October 7, 2012 at 23:37

    Daniel, it’s already been acknowledged that ‘moderate muslims’ exist. The issue is the Quran itself. Your friend has clearly discovered a way to ignore the worst elements of the Quran and feels comfortable in following (some of) the teachings of such a character as Muhammed. It’s the considerable number that do follow the exhortations contained in the Quran that is the problem. To ignore this and refuse to discuss it seems far more harmful to me. Christianity has always been discussed openly. Why not Islam?

    Whilst Makow seemed justified in his original fallout with Rense he did take it a bit too far for my liking.

Comments are closed.