War of Ideas against Islam Chapter # 1 The Battlefield of Ideas
What is really needed in order to tell the story of the Muslim criminality is a detailed study at least 500 pages long. That is far more than can be accomplished here. But just as important is dealing with the fact, and it is a fact, that many people would disbelieve everything in such an account because of their ideological commitments. Call it the "ad hominem effect," what you get are attacks on sources as if anyone with the temerity to tell you facts you don't want to hear and do not want to admit are true must be lying or falsifying the record. This is the case, Right and Left, of the political spectrum. The topic is important to me, personally, because one of my objectives is to write the story of the Hindu Holocaust, a thousand year period in the history of India in which Muslims killed innumerable Hindus, and not just Hindus, in a sustained carnage that dwarfs anything else in history including the Holocaust of World War II, as unspeakable as that was. The trouble comes in the form of a question: Who would believe me? For if my account, despite the best available sources, is disbelieved on principle, what good is it? The focus of the story I want to tell is a millennium of terror perpetrated by Muslims primarily against Hindus, who, by some accounts, suffered as many as 100 million dead and a similar number who were enslaved. This total probably is excessive but no-one says it was smaller than about 70 million, of which maybe 20% were Buddhists who generally were counted among the Hindus. The Sikhs possibly suffered the greatest percentage of deaths but, of course, while there was a significant Sikh state at one time, this is to discuss a much smaller overall population. The same was true for the Jains who total even fewer people than the other religions. The history of India is complex; It involves multiple ethnic groups, multiple events in different areas of a subcontinent, and multiple religions. However, one theme stands out with total clarity, the ruthlessness of Muslim invaders as they sought to destroy the civilization of India and replace it with Islam. To be sure, any honest accounting of the history of the country needs to acknowledge that during some periods of time there could be exceptions to the rule. Moreover, Hindus sometimes were guilty of major mistakes which made matters worse, and there were a good number of alliances that defy the imagination, which sometimes pitted Hindus against Hindus and Muslims against Muslims, later joined by Christians from Europe who complicated things even further. And we should not forget the roles of Sikhs, Buddhists, and occasionally the Jains, in the saga of India; each also played a part in the drama. There is nothing comparable in all of western history. The incredibly high figures for deaths at the hands of Muslims may sound beyond the pale for some readers. However, the numbers, to the extent that scholars have been able to provide reliable estimates, are painfully realistic. The evidence is overwhelming, in fact. Much of it was provided in detailed "after action reports" written by Muslim scribes for purposes of official record keeping. But what about claims that Islam is a peaceful religion and that criticisms of Muhammad's religion are nothing but "Islamophobia"? This objection needs to be disposed of before going further. The objective is not to convince people who already are convinced, but to make a case that is so strong that people who now habitually defend Islam, who accept official stories about how Muslim terrorists are somehow not true to Islam, cannot deny the facts for what they are. What can be done to good effect is to provide an overview of the story that can be made use of in the future to discuss this incredible story and learn as many lessons from it -especially about the real nature of Islam- as possible. What can be done is to write a detailed overview to the subject which can give people important information that is generally unknown in America and the West and which is not all that well known even in India, primarily because of the policies on the Congress Party during the long years it ruled the country. But the story is altogether real and cannot be ignored once you do know the facts. Unless, that is, one's ideology simply will not hear of it, will not hear it, and demands psychological denial. The Religious Right in the United States doesn't need convincing. Most members of the BJP Party in India, currently led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, don't need much convincing, either. This is addressed to: * People who get nearly all of their news from the mainstream media, from TV network news, or from a major newspaper. * Academics who live in a political Leftwing-in-outlook cocoon which most universities are these days; that is, whose views are conditioned by the fact that the only people who they ordinarily communicate with are other academics who share most of their political views. * People in government who share a common "establishment" perspective which is little different than the narrative promoted by the mainstream media. * College and university students who think that their ideology of choice, some version of multi-culturalism whatever else may be involved, "obviously" is the only way to think about issues since everything else clearly is obsolete, immoral, or demented. * Elites of one kind or another, whether in terms of net wealth, social prestige, public influence, or anything else. These people pride themselves on being au courant, on knowing what "the right answers" to cultural questions are because they get all of their ideas from "influentials" who are well known to others in elite circles. Although there are differences, my sources tell me that these factors are remarkably similar for India and the United States. Therefore, what about the claims that Islam is essentially peaceful whatever bad things are done by terrorists? The claims are real enough.. A representative collection of quotes can be found in a Joshua Muravchik article from the February 1, 2015 issue of Commentary. entitled "Muslims and Terror: The Real Story." These quotations are arranged somewhat differently here than in the magazine in order to make a somewhat different point. At the time the article was written the comments were made in response to the murders of Charlie Hebdo staff in Paris a few weeks before. What is being illustrated now is the general character or Islam whatever time of history is under consideration. * French President François Hollande: “these terrorists, these fanatics have nothing to do with the Islamic religion.” * German Chancellor Angela Merkel: the Muslim killers “have nothing to do with Islam.” * Secretary of State John Kerry: “the biggest mistake we could make would be to blame Muslims for crimes...their religion utterly rejects." * Josh Earnest, at the time a spokesman for Barack Obama, oblivious to news reports that the gunmen had shouted “Allahu Akbar” and said that they were doing this to avenge Muhammad, said that as far as Obama and his people were concerned, they were " still trying to figure out exactly…what their motivations were.” * George W. Bush had said approximately the same thing in the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11: Islam’s “teachings are good and peaceful,” ... “The terrorists are traitors to their own faith.” Approximately the same interpretation appeared in print in the leading newspapers of 2015. Hence the New York Times "editorials reverted to this subject again and again. “This is…no time for peddlers of xenophobia to try to smear all Muslims with a terrorist brush..." In Britain the Guardian and the Financial Times said just about exactly the same thing, as did scores of other papers. Then, incongruously, the theme became "Islamophobia." It took about a week to progress from the problem of Islam to the problem of opposition to Islam, with the critics being damned for their criticisms, all of which were deemed to be without merit. Which may strike you as odd since the gros legumes of the press and the political sphere have no idea what they are talking about, have never read the Koran, and certainly have never studied any scholarship about Islam that is worth the name. You could see this in Hollande's attacks against Islamophobia, which were among the first, but Barack Obama was even more forceful -and deceitful. Hollande was content to speak in generalities. Obama made false empirical claims. He got away with it because the American news media (1) is just as uninformed about Islam as Obama or other Leftists, and (2) it reflexively defends an ideological position that claims that Islam is good, peaceful, and misunderstood. This position is not evidence-based, it is driven by political and geopolitical considerations. What Obama said, as cited in the Commentary article, was that "99.9 percent of Muslims…are looking for the same things we are looking for —order, peace, prosperity” and “don’t even recognize radical [interpretations] as being Islam.” Which is what he wants to believe, which the news media wants to believe, which 'liberal' churchmen want to believe, and which many politicians want to believe, but it happens to be demonstrably false. Joshua Muravchik did some research on the subject and discovered that far from 0.01% of Muslims favorably disposed to terrorism, that is, who justify it in some circumstances or even 'across the board,' the actual number is nearly half, roughly 500 million out of a population of about 1. 3 billion globally. Exact figures are impossibly to come by but this seems to be the actual range as indicated by Pew and Gallup reports, substantiated by still other surveys of opinion in Muslim countries. Even if we decide to cut that figure in half, to "err on the side of caution," this is to discuss a vast population who are supportive of Muslim terrorism -unless you think that 250 million people is an insignificant number. That is the figure I often use, or maybe 350 million, but acknowledging that either number may be a low total. This includes some studies carried out in European nations with substantial Muslim populations; essentially Muslim attitudes are the same as they are in predominantly Islamic nations, with some exceptions. And if questions are added about Israel even these astounding numbers increase dramatically. Large majorities of Muslims almost everywhere regard attacks against Israel, any kinds of attacks, as justified. To be sure, there are degrees of support for terrorism, but even the softest support, only justifying such actions on "rare" occasions, should be sobering -as if someone was to say that murder is OK in unusual circumstances but not too often! This, by Western standards, by the standards of India or Japan or still other civilized countries, is completely unacceptable. Yet, when it is Muslims who are involved, the news media and political leaders ignore the facts or even try and shift the blame to critics of Islam who are regularly smeared as "Islamophobes." Teresa May, in Britain, has just done the same, in June of 2017. Here are the available statistics for several selected Muslim countries on the issue of terrorism; percentages indicate numbers who condemn terror attacks. Sometimes the tallies cover different events, 9/11 or Charlie Hebdo or Israel, etc. The balance is divided between approval, limited approval, and "rarely": Kuwait...........26 % Bangladesh.....33 % Egypt.............38 % Turkiye..........58 % Morocco.......25 % to 50 % depending on the question Only one country, Tunisia, which is considerably Western in outlook, has a figure that is equivalent to those in Europe or America. The only comfort that can be taken from these grim statistics is that "only" 20% or so of Muslims say that terror attacks either are "often" or "sometimes" justified, is a 'mere' 300 million people in Dar Al-Islam. The real world effects of this are ubiquitous. At the time the article was published, Joshua Muravchik looked at information found at the website, "Religion of Peace." There were more than 25,000 killings at the hands of Muslims worldwide since 9/11; today the total is in excess of 30,000. Muravchik noted that he checked out the figures provided by the site and in every case he investigated, Religion of Peace had erred on the conservative side. That is, other sources well known for accuracy, usually reported even more killings perpetrated by Muslims. A few words about "Religion of Peace" for Hindu readers: The title is American sarcasm. It is based on the reference that George Bush once made to Islam as a "religion of peace." This outraged various political conservatives (and some others) who decided that hard facts about Islam and the behavior of Muslims should be made available to the public so that no-one who is informed could possibly say what George Bush said. The title, as Americans would understand it, should be taken as shorthand for something like "anyone who says Islam is a religion of peace should have his head examined." It is important to point this out because many Hindus simply do not understand nuances of American English, which has a number of different qualities than British English. Also, for the reader's information, despite Muravchik's disclaimer about the site, Religion of Peace, which he regards as generally outside the norm because of its critical attitude toward Islam, my own view is that, maybe with occasional minor mistakes, it is altogether reputable when reporting facts and figures. Possibly its "tone" is sometimes overly negative, but for anyone who takes the view that discussion of Islam should be honest, and as critical as facts warrant, there are few sites that are as informative. At any rate, the multitudes identified in research surveys who do not see anything wrong with acts of terror, do not represent Muslims willing and able to pick up Kalashnikovs or explosives, a number that is much smaller, probably in the hundreds-of-thousands of young men. However, terrorists do not operate in a vacuum. The hundreds-of-millions represent support for terrorists in the form of communications, money, shelter, and a recruitment pool. Which, you would think should be taken seriously rather than denied with platitudes about how peaceful Islam supposedly is. This raises a question about motivation. Exactly why do so many Muslims regard extreme violence as acceptable behavior? This has nothing to do with military operations; just about all societies allow for national defense. Moreover, in an ideal war, whether as taught by Sun Tzu approximately 2500 years ago or as sought by modern Western armed forces, should result in as few casualties as possible, with zero civilian losses. This was even the case at the start of WWII although things did not stay that way. In any eventuality wars end, soldiers go home, rebuilding commences, and life returns to normal as soon as an economy starts to recover. Terror is very different. The objective is to cause deep fear among civilian populations; indeed, civilians may be the preferred targets for violence. And whereas in war such actions as torture may be a side effect, that is anything but the primary objective because the real goal is to win as quickly as possible and not one minute longer. Terrorists, in contrast, use torture, indiscriminate killing, and acts of cruelty as standard operating procedure. And there is no end to things, certainly not if we are discussing Islam. Granted there are other forms of terror, for example the kinds perpetrated in Northern Ireland during the 1970s and 1980s, or the kinds carried out by the Naxals (Communists) in India, by drug gangs in Mexico or Columbia, but the focus here is Islam. Besides, Muslim terrorists, globally, outnumber other kinds of terrorists by approximately 4:1 or 5: 1. In an Islamic context terror is permanent policy almost regardless of circumstances. Terror only ends with the total victory of Islam, nothing less. Hence in the medieval era peace prevailed in the center of Dar al-Islam, within the core territories of the Caliphate, but the periphery was regarded as being in a perpetual state of war, Dar al-Harb, where terror was permanent policy as a means to try and defeat or subjugate "infidels," viz., non-Muslims or, as the case might be, Muslims who belonged to some dissenting sect. But why is valorization of terror associated with Islam? To be sure, terror can be provoked in other ways besides religion, in fact, in terms of nearly all other religions, anything like terror is regarded as morally diseased and totally wrong. Its prime source is psychological malfunction, as is the case of psycho-sadistic disorder, aka, sadistic personality disorder, in which people have no empathy for others, are incapable of developing anything like a conscience, and associate pain with pleasure. Which says that organizations in which torture is allowed may attract sadists, viz, as did the Nazis of the World War II era, and as have various criminal gangs. It seems to be the case that Muhammad had a condition very much like psycho-sadistic disorder even if, at this remove in history, it would be impossible to render a valid diagnosis. However, it is no problem at all to provide evidence that Muhammad -the exemplar for all Muslims- took part in torturing people, and in either ordering the murders of people of killing them himself on different occasions. The evidence is supplied in the Koran, there is no disguising the fact even if Muslims insist that Muhammad never murdered anyone. By their logic, he could not have. Instead he was ordered by Allah to kill specific people -a large number when it is added up- and therefore he was guiltless of any crime. There are also many Hadiths that expand on the theme of Muhammad killing people and sometimes torturing them. Hadiths -legends of Muhammad- should be used with caution, however, inasmuch as none are regarded by professional historians as evidentiary. They were written in a culture and time when basic historical methods were not understood, as if saying that I heard it from X who heard it from Y who heard it from Z establishes anything at all. It doesn't, the Hadiths are all hearsay. But they are believed by many Muslims and have the value of telling us details of Muslim beliefs in addition to those described in the Koran. Plus we also know that no Hadith is regarded as valid if it disagrees in any way with statements in the Koran. This is the evidence we can work with; all of it, Muslims agree, is "true." There are a number of sources that distill this evidence but just a few will be cited here because they present the main themes concisely and clearly. Besides, the project I have in mind is not a study of Muhammad, it is primarily about the history of Islam in India. But some background is essential in order to be able to understand that history. To emphasize the point again, however, none of my scholarship on the subject, not anyone else's, can possibly be useful if it is not accepted as scholarship and, instead is dismissed as ipso facto false because it does not agree with the narrative told by CBS or other TV networks, or told by the New York Times or the Washington Post. The task must be to not only provide documented evidence but to demolish the credibility of arguments that defend Islam uncritically -as nearly everyone on the political Left does and as does nearly all of the George W. Bush wing of the Republican Party. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
