Skip to content

The Perversion That Is Islam

12 July 2010 @ 16:40

This week is not starting off well for your humble Dispatcher.

First: as you can see in the immediate previous posting, I rent my garments and disowned Senator Scott Brown, a man I thought would be a Henry V, but turned out to be second-coming of Hamlet.

Second: the weatherman said there would be no showers today and it’s very humid up here in the Nor-East, so I cracked open the windows on my car, which is parked in an uncovered parking lot, and we got thunder, lightening, and quite a downpour.

Third: I’m going to disagree with Stacy McCain.

He quotes from this AP report by Lolita Baldor:

The Obama administration’s recent move to drop rhetorical references to Islamic radicalism is drawing fire in a new report warning the decision ignores the role religion can play in motivating terrorists.

Several prominent counterterror experts are challenging the administration’s shift in its recently unveiled National Security Strategy, saying the terror threat should be defined in order to fight it.

In the report, scheduled to be released this week, counterterrorism experts from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argue that the U.S. could clearly articulate the threat from radical Islamic extremists “without denigrating the Islamic religion in any way.”

In the report, which was obtained by The Associated Press, the analysts warn that U.S. diplomacy must sharpen the distinction between the Muslim faith and violent Islamist extremism, identify radicalizers within Islamic communities and empower voices that can contest the radical teachings.

The report acknowledges that the Obama administration has beefed up efforts to work with the Muslim community in the U.S. and abroad and has also expanded counterterrorism operations and tried to erode and divide al-Qaida and its affiliated groups.

But the administration’s two-pronged approach of stepping up counterterror operations while tamping down its rhetoric, the critics argue, needs to also include an ideological counteratteck with policies and programs that empower moderate Islamic voices and contest extremist narratives.

“There is an ideology that is driving al-Qaida and its affiliates,” said Matt Levitt, one of the authors of the study on countering violent extremism.

The administration, Levitt said, has to separate discussion of Islam as a religion from the radical Islamic ideology that is producing and fueling global insurgencies. The study is due out next week, but the authors, Levitt, a former FBI and Treasury official, and co-author J. Scott Carpenter, were to preview it Monday.

Stacy comments:

We already knew that this “Don’t Call It Islamic Terrorism” policy was stupid, but it’s nice to have experts agreeing with common sense.

There’s no Common Sense involved in any report that restates the tired old bromide that Islamic terrorism can be separated from the religion of Islam itself:

…counterterrorism experts from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argue that the U.S. could clearly articulate the threat from radical Islamic extremists “without denigrating the Islamic religion in any way.”

No, the U.S. cannot because the two are married to each other in a bond that cannot be torn asunder.  Islamic terrorism is part of the obligation of every Muslim to wage Jihad; Jihad, the enslavement and or killing of all non-believers, is one of the basic core beliefs of Islam.  All this report does is to widen the blinders a bit, but it still denies the full, complete reality that there can be no reform of Islam without the rejection of The Koran.  That causes a bit of a problem, however: if The Koran is rejected, there is no Islam — the ‘religion’ cannot exist without it’s dogma.

It is about time many of us wake up to the fact that, since the time the obviously mad Mohammed created this idolatry of himself, Islam has been a curse on the world.  It, in and of itself, has contributed nothing positive and only brought about the deaths and enslavement of millions under a false god.  Allah is a perversion of the God of Abraham.  Islam is evil incarnate.  And anyone who compromises with evil will pay a great price.

  1. Adobe Walls permalink
    12 July 2010 @ 19:25 19:25

    Know it or not, like it or not, Islam is at war with us.

    • bobbelvedere permalink*
      12 July 2010 @ 20:05 20:05

      Have we become so soft in The West that we don’t realize this? A = A.

  2. Mrs. Kissell permalink
    12 July 2010 @ 20:24 20:24

    Your point is valid and needs making. Thanks for making it! Stacy’s point is airy, naive, but I know what he means to say, but without saying it and, worse, obfuscating.

    This is one of those situations where customary terminology will not carry the discussion because identical words or phrases are freighted with opposite meanings. It is a goal of totalitarians to use just such double-freighted words and phrases, causing confusion, in which, for evil minds and unclean hearts, there is profit.

    The “religion” you rightly call an idolatry from its start is properly called Mohammedanism, being an idolatry of a man, Mohammed of Mecca, and a Book, the Koran. It is not a religion, it is an idolatry. The difference, as you know, is vast and decisive.

    The start of the idolatry of Mohammedanism is the latter years of the life of Mohammed. He himself helped make it. But succeeding scholars (priests in other religions) made it effective.

    It appears today and for long since, therefore, that Mohammedanism IS Islam. This appearance is hyper-reinforced by the fact that every so-called follower of Islam (which supposedly would be every Muslim) whom one can see either is or, on the basis of experience, should be assumed to be a Mohammedan, an idolater, not a religious person. but an anti-religious person.

    Everywhere one looks at the topology of Islam, one sees Mohammedans. One sees idolaters, not religious people. One sees haters, anti-religious people. Experience, therefore, demands identification of Islam as idolatry from inception and therefore very dangerous, as experience confirms.

    This phenomenon justifies your analysis and prognosis. Experiences teaches that everyone who identifies as a Muslim is an imperialist aiming to kill, enslave or convert everyone who is not. Frankly, we do not see any self-identified Muslim who does not express that profile of what is customarily taken to be a Muslim and Islam. In other words, they are idolaters of Mohammed and Koran: Mohammedans.

    Study confirms experience on this point. The deep documentary evidence of “Islam” as a more than usually persistent, aggressive and violent idolatry (= ideology) is overwhelmingly vast and indisputably unambiguous.

    But it ain’t the truth. It’s a deliberately created subversion of the truth.

    And this is where the terminological imprecision has a field day while precision becomes so vitally necessary.

    Somewhere, buried now virtually beyond view, having no living representatives to which one can point with assurance, there has to be a legitimate religion (a redundant phrase) bearing the name Islam.

    Why must this be so? Why posit the presence of something which one cannot describe by pointing to a living example? All the evidence, from both study and experience, points to Islam being hyper-dangerous, supremely ugly idolatrous crap.

    It must be so because nothing this large lasts so long without a core of truth and in this case religious truth.

    We can say that it has been distorted beyond recognition and beyond having identifiable representatives. And one is entirely justified making that assertion. Idolatry is not religion. It is not even a poor version of a religion. Idolatry is anti-religion, it is violent opposition to God, to Truth, Proper Conduct, Peace, Love and Non-Violence and their three-aspect dialectical participation in history.

    And idolatry is all we see claiming to represent Islam. Therefore, one is forcefully prone, virtually compelled to claim that Islam is idolatry and very, very dangerous.

    Today and for long since, the idolatry of Mohammedanism is all we see to call the religion named Islam. We are told the idolatry is the religion and that we will be killed if we demur the point, which of course proves that what we are told is Islam IS idolatrous (i.e., violently anti-religious).

    So, let’s call Mohammedanism the idolatry that is all about us, and let’s call Islam the religion that we cannot see, see no representatives of, but know through inductive logic driven by the weight of historical necessity must be present somehow, somewhere.

    If there was a Shirdi Sai Baba — and there was — there was and is an Islam that is not idolatrous.

    The terms Islam, Islamic Extremism and Islamic Terrorism or Islamofascism cause obfuscation. They are meant to. President Bush personally didn’t not mean to obfuscate by using such terms — “terrorism” is another (the IRA, the Black Panthers and the New Black Panthers are terrorists, so the term is meaningless by its imprecision) — but he did that because those were the terms he was given and felt he had at hand only.

    Blood-Poision and his acolytes today mean to obfuscate. They are Trojan Horses for The Mohammedan Brotherhood, and coming more and more out of the statuary to be seen in plain view by the day.

    Using the terms Mohammedanism for the idolatrous deformation of Islam practiced by Mohammedans and Islam for the virtually invisible but logically necessary religion of Islam practiced by Muslims clears up the confusion.

    The one who is truly suspect is the one who says, using that terminological clarity, that so-and-so or such-and-such is a Muslim, not a Mohammedan, a religious person, not an idolater. Any such assertion should be treated with the gravest possible Missouri attitude: “Show me!”

    I have not found a living Muslim either in personal experience or by coup de-oeil. Everyone I see who uses the name is an idolater, a Mohammedan, a dangerous person conjuring the devil. On principle I have to remain open to the possibility that someone I see or meet is a Muslim practicing Islam. In practice, I will not accept that they are without a lengthy — as in years — experience of non-idolatrous behavior and, especially, articulation.

    The test for a Mohammedan or a Muslims is simple: do they believe there are valid religions of equal standing alongside Islam and always will and should be? Religions such as Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.? If they can answer yes to that without mental reservation and behave as if it is true, they are a Muslim. If they cannot, they are a Mohammedan.

    The same simple test holds for the confessors of every religion, by the way. It is the way to know whether they represent a the religion they espouse or an idolatrous deformation of it.

    The same basic type of test, by the way, differentiates between a racist and a human.

    • bobbelvedere permalink*
      12 July 2010 @ 20:42 20:42

      Well put. But I have never seen any evidence that there are two different entities called Mohammedanism and Muslim. There is evidence that, in fact, Allah is actually the mutation of a pagan god [I forget the original name off the top of my head (perhaps Baal?)]. To be a Muslim is to believe that The Koran is the actual word of Allah as passed through Mohammed. This madman was clever enough to throw elements of Judaism and Christianity into the mix, much as L. Ron Hubbard did with his scam ‘religion’. What this fact points to is that Islam is the product of the Devil – the force of evil in the world – for this kind of behavior is The Great Deceiver’s M.O. It has been wisely said that Sathan’s greatest triumph was to convince people he did not exist, and I agree. But, I think his second greatest, was to make billions believe he was the God Of Abraham under the name of Allah.

      • Erich Madden permalink
        14 July 2010 @ 00:54 00:54

        The pagan moon-god upon which Allah is based went by many different names, but interestingly one of the more commonly used was “Sin”. Coincidence?

        • bobbelvedere permalink*
          14 July 2010 @ 08:11 08:11

          That would explain why they like sodomy?

  3. 13 July 2010 @ 13:26 13:26

    I think the pieces haven’t fallen into place. We had quite a stretch of religious kookiness in the West before the Enlightenment got traction.

    On the other hand, Rome failed to answer Constantinople’s plea.

    Islam is counting on the latter. You and I are relying on Rationality, as enforced by such great warriors as Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: