Islam Is Not Part of Our Civilization

By Bill Warner

Obama said at the latest White House Iftar dinner:
    Like so many faiths, Islam has always been part of our American family, and Muslim Americans have long contributed to the strength and character of our country, in all walks of life.
These words have no basis in fact. Islam is not part of our civilization because its foundational principles are opposite to ours. Our civilization is built on the foundation of critical thought (how we think) and the Golden Rule (ethics). Islam is built on submission (authoritative thought) and ethical dualism.

Let’s compare the principles, of these different thought systems, starting with authoritative thought and critical thought. Critical thought (also: analytic thought, scientific thought) is the necessary reasoning or intellectual basis for our culture of democracy. Critical thought is objective–no matter who does the work, they get the same results. It is fact-based, uses cause and effect, and is intellectual, not emotional. Critical thought’s tie into morals is that you don’t lie or cheat about data.

Let’s look at some authoritative reasoning. Authoritative reasoning is based on expert opinion and asserts it truth by power. It is so, because the Establishment says it is so.

The Meccan Koran, the early Koran, has one new idea—Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. (The ideas found in the Koran are derivative.) The proof of Mohammed’s prophecy is repetition of “Mohammed is the prophet” and what happens if you don’t accept that. The reasoning is circular—Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, because Allah says so. (Actually, the archangel of Allah says so.) How do we know what Allah says? Mohammed tells us what Allah says.

The Koran of Medina (the later Koran) contains one new idea—if you don’t believe that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, then you can be murdered in jihad. If you are not persuaded, then you can be eliminated. Now that is authoritative reasoning.

More on authoritative reasoning can be found in the Sharia. The Sharia says that apostasy (leaving Islam) is a capital offense. And what entails apostasy?

• To be sarcastic about Allah or any verse in the Koran
• To deny the consensus of the Islamic scholars
• To deny that Islam is to be the world’s only religion
• To be sarcastic about Sharia

And people say that Islam just needs to be reformed. Good luck on dealing the authoritative rules of thought and reform. It is not that you are wrong, you are dead wrong. Want more examples of authoritative thought? Try Salman Rushdie, the author of the Satanic Verses, a novel. Islam’s reaction to the novel was a death fatwa. When the Mohammed cartoons were published, people died in riots.

So far in America what happens if you differ with Establishment thought about Islam, you are called names, such as bigot or hater, and insulted as a punishment. However, the Establishment keeps flirting with the expanded versions of hate speech being criminalized. Hate speech is speech that the Establishment doesn’t like.

Critical thought does not deal with punishment, just cause and effect along with Aristotelian logic. If you lose an argument under the rules of critical thought, you have had a learning experience, not a life threatening experience. Nor do insults and threats play a part in critical thought.

Now to ethics, the Golden Rule is that we should treat ALL others as we would be treated. This is a unitary ethic, one rule for all peoples. Islam does not see it that way. Islam has one set of ethics for the Muslim and another set for the Kafir. The Hadith and the Koran are very clear that a Muslim is a brother to all other Muslims. A Muslim is a brother to any Muslim before he is the brother to any member of his Kafir blood family.

Look at Mohammed’s ethics. Mohammed is the divine human prototype, the perfect man, as it says in 91 Koranic verses. How did Mohammed treat his neighbor? In Medina he gave neighboring tribes the chance to become to submit to Islam. If they did not, he attacked them. Submit or die–no Golden Rule.

Mohammed repeatedly said that Muslims should lie to Kafirs if it would advance Islam—pure ethical dualism. Here we have the hadith:
    Bukhari 5,59,369 Mohammed asked, “Who will kill Ka’b, the enemy of Allah and Mohammed?”

    Bin Maslama rose and responded, “O Mohammed! Would it please you if I killed him?”

    Mohammed answered, “Yes.”

    Bin Maslama then said, “Give me permission to deceive him with lies so that my plot will succeed.”

    Mohammed replied, “You may speak falsely to him.”…

Our Constitution’s Bill of Rights is an expansion on the Golden Rule. We eliminated slavery based on the Golden Rule. Do we live up to the Golden Rule on every occasion? No, but that does not diminish its guidance, because we can use the Golden Rule to criticize those that fail to meet it.

To sum it all up: our civilization is based on the principles of the Golden Rule and critical thought. Islam is based on dualistic ethics and authoritative thought. There is no compromise between the opposites of the Golden Rule and dualistic ethics. There is no half-way between authoritative thought and critical thought. Islam’s principle of submission means that only active resistance can let us survive.

We have a 1400 year history of the interaction between Islam and Kafir nations. The data matches the theory. Centuries after Islam enters the culture the host culture is annihilated–see Turkey. There is no compatibility between Islam and us. Islam is not now, nor can it ever be, a part of our civilization. It is the final goal of Islam to annihilate all Kafir civilizations. Its first stage of–we are just like you, only different—should be seen for what it is. No amount of preaching by apologists can change Islam’s political doctrine and history.
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/islam-is-not-part-of-our-civilization/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
August 28, 2011 | 13 Comments »
Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

13 Comments / 13 Comments

  1. “What advice did the Torah give as to how to deal with idolaters, blasphemers, adulterers, and sodomites?”

    I ans. directly to the question!!

    Yes, but the question was purportedly a followup to Michael’s earlier one of “Does not Judaism also teach submission to God?”

    So I asked him – “Where does the Torah mention the word, ‘Judaism’?” (Any translation of the specific word will be acceptable, Michael, et al.)

    Never did get an answer to that…

    You are clearly reaching for straws

    You would dearly LOVE to believe I’m reaching…

    You restated Christian theology not Tanach.

    Poppycock.

    The truth is, you make a false dichotomy.

    the whole direction of governance in civilized countries is to a bifurcation of sacred & civil administration.

    But if they say, ‘Zusha, why were you not Zusha?’ for that, I’ll have no answer.”

    Oh, please, Yamit, it is precisely because I am myself,

    precisely because I am an original,

    because I DO think outside the box

    that I drive you — and assorted other “paint-by-the-numbers” Jews we could both name — meshuggeh.

  2. “You restated Christian theology…”

    Only as you define it. As I said, very neat…

    “The difference is obvious: Man’s interaction with man and individual and their collective responsibilities, and an individuals relationship with Hashem.”

    Quite so. That’s why I asked Michael above,

    “And who is it that is thus charged today ‘under the Sinai covenant’?”

    “If he has not allowed his Torah knowledge to refine his character and restructure his personality, he is an am haaretz (boorish ignoramus) who happens to know how to learn.”

    That’s good counsel, Yahnkele. Present company, take note…

  3. @ dweller:
    The question was:
    dweller Said:

    ““What advice did the Torah give as to how to deal with idolaters, blasphemers, adulterers, and sodomites?”

    I ans. directly to the question!! You restated Christian theology not Tanach. The rest of your questions are thus superfluous and not relevant.

    Yamit prefers to deal with his personal prejudices by presuming to define “Christian concepts” as suits him, thus creating a straw man that he can dispose of as he sees fit.

    Neat as a pin.

    If only it were as kosher (ken ayin hara) as it is neat…

    (Reminds me of AE in that respect.)

    😉 🙂 😉 🙂 😉 🙂 😉 🙂 😉 🙂 😉 🙂

    Yamit, however — quite manifestly — IS.

    Does that, then, make him ‘not Jewish’?

    I was referring to Judaism not myself or any individual. That said I am not Maximilist but have defined borders and red lines and an ideologically Jewish end game or Jewish vision which unlike like you and your christian vision, is clear, openly stated and unequivocal.

    You are clearly reaching for straws and it does not become you.

    Ah, but if Yamit truly believed this, he could not so blithely condemn Israel’s leadership, America’s leadership, American Jews [actually this could easily turn out to be be a very long list, so I’ll just say “all-and-sundry”], as he so regularly — and, often, quite rightly — does.

    The difference is obvious: Man’s interaction with man and individual and their collective responsibilities, and an individuals relationship with Hashem.

    “The entire purpose of our existence is to overcome our negative habits.”

    – Vilna Goan, Commentary to Mishlei 4:13

    Rabbi Yisrael Salanter said: “One can possess broad Talmudic knowledge and be a fountain of deep penetrating analysis and yet he does not deserve to be considered a true talmid chacham (Torah scholar). If he has not allowed his Torah knowledge to refine his character and restructure his personality, he is an am haaretz (boorish ignoramus) who happens to know how to learn.”
    – The Pirkei Avos / Ehthics of the Fathers Treasury pg 51

    For You dweller::..Rabbi Zusha used to say: “When I die and come before the heavenly court, if they ask me, ‘Zusha, why were you not Abraham?’ I’ll say that I didn’t have Abraham’s intellectual abilities. If they say, ‘Why were you not Moses?’ I’ll say I didn’t have Moses’ leadership abilities. For every such question, I’ll have an answer. But if they say, ‘Zusha, why were you not Zusha?’ for that, I’ll have no answer.”

  4. ““What advice did the Torah give as to how to deal with idolaters, blasphemers, adulterers, and sodomites?”

    “As to how WHO (or WHAT) should deal w/ those violators? — be specific.”

    “… those charged with administering justice under the Sinai covenant, of course.”

    And who is it that is thus charged today “under the Sinai covenant”?

    Dweller prefers Christian over Jewish concepts of heavenly punishment vs temporal.

    Yamit prefers to deal with his personal prejudices by presuming to define “Christian concepts” as suits him, thus creating a straw man that he can dispose of as he sees fit.

    Neat as a pin.

    If only it were as kosher (ken ayin hara) as it is neat…

    (Reminds me of AE in that respect.)

    “Unlike sectarian radicalism, Judaism is not maximalist.”

    Yamit, however — quite manifestly — IS.

    Does that, then, make him ‘not Jewish’?

    …”it is enough for men to be one-thousandth good and enter the heavenly realm…”

    Ah, but if Yamit truly believed this, he could not so blithely condemn Israel’s leadership, America’s leadership, American Jews [actually this could easily turn out to be be a very long list, so I’ll just say “all-and-sundry”], as he so regularly — and, often, quite rightly — does.

  5. @ Michael Ejercito:

    dweller Said:

    Yes, but the difference is that if you fail to “submit” to His law,

    we leave it to HIM to visit you with the consequences…

    What advice did the Torah give as to how to deal with idolaters, blasphemers, adulterers, and sodomites?

    Dweller prefers Christian over Jewish concepts of heavenly punishmet vs temporal.

    A Handbook of Bible Law – Capital laws & offenses

    Copyright 1991 by Charles A. Weisman. 2nd Edition: Aug., 1992; 3rd Edition: Dec., 1994

    Synopsis of Subjects of Tractate Sanhedrin

    “Does not Judaism also teach submission to God?”

    “Jews are chosen to observe the law, and remain chosen insofar as they are expected to observe it. Unlike sectarian radicalism, Judaism is not maximalist. The world is not divided between good and evil. According to Talmudic tradition, it is enough for men to be one-thousandth good and enter the heavenly realm. The commandments do not require absolute obedience in the sense that transgression does not preclude righteousness. The more a man keeps, the better, the easier is the Way. Transgression is cause for repentance, aimed at not repeating the mistake.”

  7. “What advice did the Torah give as to how to deal with idolaters, blasphemers, adulterers, and sodomites?”

    As to how WHO (or WHAT) should deal w/ those violators? — be specific.

    But, of course, you’ve changed the subject, Michael — under color of following-up on your earlier question.

    — Where does the Torah mention the word, “Judaism”?

    Still, though — since it’s apparent where you’re going, let’s explore this, shall we:

    THOMAS: “‘Arrest’ him? — for WHAT?

    I can’t arrest him

    — not simply for being a bad man.

    There’s no law against ‘being… a… bad… man.’

    Well, of course, there’s God’s law — true enough.

    The Good Lord indeed forbids being a bad man.

    But you’ll permit me to remind you: I’m not God’s Chancellor

    — only the King’s.

    And if Master Richard Rich has broken God’s law,

    then God can arrest him.

    Otherwise, whatever you — or I — may think of Master Rich, he goes free.

    And go he should if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law.

    [Oh, shocked into silence, are we? — Uh, close y’ mouth, you’ll swallow something…]

    YES, I give the Devil benefit of law! — What would YOU do, cut a great road thru the law, to get after the Devil?

    — Ah, but yuh would, wouldn’t yuh?

    YOU’D cut down every law in England to do that!

    And when the last law was down — and the Devil turned ’round on you

    — where would yuh hide, Roper (the laws all being flat)?!!

    This country’s planted THICK with laws, from coast to coast!

    — MAN’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down (and you’re just the man to do it!),

    do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that’d blow then…?

    Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law

    — for my own safety’s sake.”

    Thomas More in Robert Bolt’s 1960 play, A Man for All Seasons.

  8. dweller Said:

    Yes, but the difference is that if you fail to “submit” to His law,

    we leave it to HIM to visit you with the consequences…

    What advice did the Torah give as to how to deal with idolaters, blasphemers, adulterers, and sodomites?

  9. “Does not Judaism also teach submission to God?”

    Yes, but the difference is that if you fail to “submit” to His law,

    we leave it to HIM to visit you with the consequences…

  11. Thanks for the Ernest Volkman quote Bill. One also should keep in mind that while some deny it, most scholars (Google it) agree, that Mohammed’s successor, abu Bakr ordered the burning of the library in Alexandria saying in effect, that if the books had material not in the Koran it should not remain and if it was there, then it was not needed.

  12. I grow up in Egypt and when I hear obma speaks about islam I wonder where did he gets his information. He is either lying or he is a complete idiot or both.