The Key to Your Listener’s Inability to Confront the Disturbing Nature of Islamic Doctrine
Wednesday
"I am at a complete loss as to why CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MPAC or this NMLA is even allowed to exist in America?? Are some Americans so dumbed down that they don't see the enemy right in front of them? Is this or any political party in government so stupid that they just turn a blind eye to what's happening?"
Can you feel the commenter's exasperation? Have you had this feeling before? We are in a strange situation: We try to simply share new information we've learned, and we find ourselves unable to share it — not because we are incapable of articulating it, but because our listeners do backflips trying to invalidate the information. They contort themselves into impossible cognitive pretzels in order to reject simple, factual information. It has been baffling to many of us. I know. I have heard from hundreds of our fellow counterjihadists about this.
And I know how it feels. I sometimes want to write off my fellow non-Muslims as idiots, but I know many of them are not stupid, so what is going on? What could be the cause of their seemingly stubborn stupidity on this subject?
Last night, I was reading Victor Davis Hanson's book, The Father of Us All, and he said something I've never thought about before. Namely, that people in the West are acutely aware of the inequalities of the world — we in the West enjoy a material quality of life far better than billions of other people — and for a lot of Westerners, this presents a serious ethical problem.
They feel guilty about it. They need to assuage their guilt in some way. But here is the key insight I've never thought about before: They need to assuage their guilt in some way other than giving up the goodies, because even though they don't like the inequality, they don't want to give up the high quality of life.
In other words, many people need to have a way to keep enjoying the material riches, but still rectify or expiate the guilt they feel about others being so poor.
The solution many have chosen is to go out of their way to see what's wrong with their own culture, and to give other cultures an undeserved reverence.
A FAMILIAR SOLUTION
This solution is something we are familiar with in our personal relationships. If you are more successful than a friend of yours, for example, one way you can help him feel better and prevent him from resenting you is to point out your own faults. Those who are exceptionally successful often habitually display humility, making it a point to underline their own personal imperfections.
The successful person can do this with integrity because everyone has faults, even very competent people, and because every success is partly a result of pure luck — the luck of being born in a free country, the luck of being born with ambition, a high energy, basic intelligence, good health, etc. Many people use this stratagem, knowingly or unknowingly, because it helps. The self-deprecation helps a successful person continue to enjoy the material goodies without feeling too guilty about it around other people, and without making other people feel bad about themselves or resentful of the successful person.
It shows no class to put down the "less fortunate" as lazy, stupid, ignorant, etc. It is the height of vulgarity to criticize or humiliate or ridicule or rebuke or denounce the less fortunate.
And I think the people who will not listen to you, or who argue in defense of Islam even when they know nothing about Islam, are doing the same thing on a cultural scale. In other words, when you, a fellow member of the fortunate class (a Westerner) start bad-mouthing another culture — when you start criticizing Islamic doctrine — you have violated an important code of etiquette. And for them to listen to you and accept what you say is for them to violate it too.
What we're dealing with is a "cultural humility" about Western culture and achievements. People are going out of their way to point out what is wrong with their own Western culture or their country in particular. They're not casual about this — there is an underlying intensity. They seem hell-bent on criticizing their own country or culture.
Now it makes sense that it seems so deeply felt, that your listeners seem so committed to stopping you from criticizing Islam and committed to criticizing their own culture. Many people rely on this criticism to allow them to enjoy their iPads and nice cars and cell phones without too much guilt.
They feel less guilty because they express a sufficient degree of contempt for their own highly successful culture, and they feel (or at least profess) sufficient admiration for all other cultures.
The simple, factual information about Islam you want to share threatens to undermine this whole unformulated creed, which endangers the linchpin of their emotional harmony and ethical congruence. They can't let it in.
To let it in would require them to rearrange an important feature of their worldview and their self-image. This is not a minor matter. This is not a small, inconsequential barrier we can easily sweep aside. It is a major psychological problem that stands in the way of our goal of educating people about Islam. Understanding what it is and what we're up against is the first step.
SURVIVOR GUILT
We are talking about a psychological problem similar to survivor guilt. People who have survived plane crashes or concentration camps or some other event where others have died sometimes suffer a painful, unrelenting guilt because they survived while others perished. It wasn't fair, and they have a problem dealing with the unfairness.
Westerners are in a similar position on a global scale. Think about it. We've seen close-up, full-color pictures of our fellow human beings starving in Africa, imprisoned in China, tortured in Iran, executed in Saudi Arabia, while we drive to and from our pleasant activities in clean, comfortable cars, go to grocery stores overflowing with food, come home to a comfortable shelter with cable television, microwave ovens, high-speed internet, and enjoy an immense degree of personal freedom. It isn't fair. Yes, we may have worked to earn the money, but had we been born in Iran or China, our lives would be tragically different, regardless of how hard we worked.
We got lucky and it definitely isn't fair. At some level, I think most of us feel some kind of guilt about this. I think we should have a name for it. Born in a Western Country Guilt? I don't know what to call it, but clearly some of us handle the guilt better than others.
How do you live with the inequality of the world? Some people think those of us in Western countries have created a superior culture, so we deserve our wealth. Some think the European or "white" race is genetically superior. Some good evidence indicates the inequalities are a result of geography. And some just consider themselves lucky and try to help others when they can.
We've all found a way to live with it, but the people we're having a hard time communicating with about Islam have found a less-than-optimal way of dealing with it. It's better than the path self-righteous racists use, but it is not ideal (or even adequate) — it's preventing them from confronting and accepting important facts about the real world.
Multiculturalism is one way this guilt manifests itself. Multiculturalism says all cultures are equal. None is better than others. Moral equivalence is another. Moral equivalence says, "Yes, that other culture does terrible things, but look, we've done terrible things too," so again, we are not better than others. White Guilt is another. Each of these different manifestations all stem from the same fundamental need to relieve guilt while still enjoying the safety and wealth and comfort of their Western society.
We have a need, wrote Hanson, for "cultural neutrality" — for seeing ourselves as no better than anybody else. This doesn't sound so bad, but the need for cultural neutrality can be so well-ingrained that it causes a kind of willful blindness that overrides common sense and the basic instinct of self-preservation. It has gone off the deep end. Hanson wrote: "...so strong is the tug of cultural neutrality that it trumps even the revulsion of Western progressives at the ... jihadist agenda, with its homophobia, sexism, religious intolerance, and racism."
It is important to clearly understand this perplexing, confusing, exasperating phenomenon we are all running into: The compulsive, undiscriminating reflex to defend Islam and criticize Western countries. The source of the resistance we're coming up against is this: People feel guilty for having so much more than others, and this prevents them from accepting your legitimate criticisms of Islamic doctrine.
With this understanding, we can begin to find more effective ways of educating our fellow non-Muslims on the basic facts about Islam.
Citizen Warrior is the author of the book, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam and also writes for Inquiry Into Islam, History is Fascinating, and Foundation for Coexistence.
35 comments:
The simple, factual information about Islam you want to share threatens to undermine this whole unformulated creed, which endangers the linchpin of their emotional harmony and ethical congruence. They can't let it in
This is now I realised that though so plain simple fact and still so why hard to digest.
Because I though not from western country still I am priveleged and lucky to understand this truth of islam
and still what i miss is etiquette to present.
Nice!
im just contemplating... so no more comments..
also cannot name myself..sorry
its too heavy of topic i have read. I cannot even contemplate. I guess you break down this issue in coming post with more analogies or more ease.
Please let this most important message of this post be conveyed
please accept this sincere request
This article from "Musulman Times", “What is the other reason of Muslim population growth in the West? , viewable at:
http://www.musalmantimes.com/?p=1362
serves as warning of the impending demographic jihad.
The article gloats, really gloats … in anticipation of the Islamization of the West through the joint effect of emigration and Islamic population explosion.
I am NOT responsible for the place of my birth,the color of my skin nor the mismanagement of any foreign nation,who would keep freedom and prosperity from their populace. The last I can re-call,there were some 100+ nations around the globe recieving Foreign Aid and Humanitarian Relief from the USA.NEARLY ALL of those nations bad mouth us at the UN. and Most of those are ISLAMIC or SOCIALISTSympathsizers. Its NOT our fault the leaders of those countries would rather keep an army, than provide jobs and an education for their citizens.To Be INDEPENDANT on their own,with the eventual abilitiy to Help Other Nations too. Its too bad America BORROWS $.40/USD for every dollar it Prints Out Of Thin Air. If the US falls,who will actually offer Freedom and Prosperity to the World at all?
If you are more successful than a friend of yours wouldn't you offer your friend some advice and tips on success? Since Islamic countries are less successful I offer some advice:
1. Get rid of your koran - it is a recipe for perpetual war, and war stops infrastructure and investment, which are what is needed to increase living standards.
2. Get rid of Sharia. Apart from the obvious reasons, Rebecca Bynum's book Allah is Dead makes many great points about individual conscience versus externally imposed laws.
3. Call Muhammad a "war criminal" not a "prophet role model". Then people will stop emulating a criminal and there will be more stability in your countries.
As Bynum says: "a man's belief ... his view of reality, determines his attitude toward and reaction to the world of reality and to other human beings. Thus, belief systems must be of utmost concern if one cares about the destiny of humanity."
Someone emailed this comment:
I think your analysis is brilliant and really underscores the fundamental problem most Westerners have in recognizing a key threat. The burden of self-imposed guilt is heavy and also misaligned.
I'd like to suggest another way to approach the problem of "engagement" with our friends and others. It is non-threatening and really helps to open a conversation. The "Socratic" approach is a simple leading to learning through questions. No position is taken, only asked about, just as Socrates did with his students thousands of years ago. For example, as an opener, I could ask: "What is the purpose of religion?" "What are the great religions, and what do they have in common?" "How does politics change the value of religion, whether coming from inside the religion or outside?" "What are some examples of that?" "If God is good and people, his creation are good, what role would evil have in religion?" "What is Evil?" "Based on what we've discussed so far, how can a 'religion' promote evil and still be identified as a religion?" And so on...There are infinite variations and when approached as a learning opportunity for both, it can yield exciting results.
These are all open-ended questions--meaning, they require the person responding to think about the question. These are not "yes" or "no" questions. The approach is completely non-confrontational because it is a path to learning. No one side or position is offered, but the questions are designed to lead to a Truth that the other person arrives at (and rightfully believes is of his or her own volition). That's the best kind of education.
Someone emailed this comment:
This idea seems VERY reasonable. The paradox is that people work so hard to self-criticize SO THEY CAN KEEP THEIR CURRENT LIFESTYLE. So the way to short circuit that type of thinking is to emphasize that that strategy will actually be the cause of LOSING THEIR CURRENT LIFESTYLE. Of course most people are not even aware of why they are self critical, so increasing their awareness of that, and CONTINUALLY POINTING OUT HOW THAT STRATEGY WILL CAUSE THEM TO LOSE THEIR CURRENT LIFESTYLE, has got to be the best way for us to attack that self-critical mindset.
Someone left this comment:
I read your article and do not agree about the 'guilt process.' In my view people want to feel good about others and consequently feel those who are Islamic fundamentalists are in the minority and that the majority of Muslims are good law abiding citizens. Unfortunately the minority appears to control the majority, just look at Iran.
That's a good point. And I agree, most of the people who don't like what I tell them about Islam seem to be the kind of people who just want to feel good, and just want to feel good about others. I think that's a major barrier for them: They just simply want to feel good, they want to feel positive, and this stuff about Islam is so "negative." It feels bad. It doesn't FEEL like a way to attain peace and harmony in the world.
A good example are people who like "The Secret" which tells them that their thoughts create reality, and if they just think positively enough, the world will change. Then you come along and tell them that there is an ideology shared by 1.2 billion people in the world that seeks to subjugate the whole world and is willing to use violence to do it, and that is such a negative thing, they can't even listen to you!
nice!
In an article by Ronald Shirk, he wrote:
Western liberals feel that as part of the upper-middle class of prosperous, First-World countries, they stand in a position of safety and strength. It seems to them — at least, they convince themselves — that members of Muslim minorities in such countries are comparatively weak.
If that is true, then criticism of Islam or Muslim behavior appears in their eyes as bullying, the abuse of the weak by the strong. Their own self-images as broad-minded and magnanimous, cosmopolitan people are bolstered by acts of apparent generosity toward the weak. Indeed, their very status as members of Western elites depends on displaying such behavior — as the prestige of Renaissance Florentine bankers rested on their generosity toward the arts; that's how they bought higher status than that city's old nobility.
To show a narrowness toward ethnic or religious minorities in the West is now a clear cultural marker that one is not in fact of the elite, but one of the lumpenproleteriat or lower-middle class philistines — whose anxiety and hostility toward the “Other” is merely a symptom of their fragile, fading standing in society.
To put things more concretely, a native Upper East-Sider in New York City enrolled at Columbia University cements his psychological sense that he belongs in the top 2% of American (and hence of world) society by attending lectures by visiting Palestinian terrorists. If on the way out he sees a “Bridge and Tunnel” construction worker waving a flag and holding a sign, that undergrad sneers disdainfully at the “Islamophobe” in exactly the same way he might at a painting by Thomas Kincaid, or a gathering of (white!) Pentecostalists singing hymns. Should that same undergrad — perhaps in search of really good hummus in the Arab section of Park Slope, Brooklyn — stumble into a mosque, he would never, never admit to having similar feelings of scorn for the open religiosity he'd witness there. For one thing, he'd get a frisson from how “exotic” the whole thing was.
More importantly, if he permitted himself to admit to a feeling of cultural superiority, by that very act he would be lowering his own social status. He might as well toss out that jacket he bought at Barney's and put on a Walmart vest, then go home and crack a Coors lite while watching Glenn Beck.
Here's more from the same article by Ronald Shirk:
There's another, darker side to the equation — the envy elite liberals feel of the very minorities they claim to succour.
George Gilder had the cojones to point this out in his classic Men and Marriage. He wrote at length of the many ways in which feminism had truncated, quashed, and make disgraceful many of the traditional attributes of masculinity among men: Aggression, stoicism, physical courage, pride in one's name, patriotism, adherence to inherited tradition — all of these became stigmatized as toxic secretions of the “patriarchy,” and elite men who wished to mate with elite women learned to shed them.
It's as if on some secluded island all the peahens “decided” they despised their cock's flashy tails, and in order to reproduce, those peacocks had to pull out all their own feathers.
However, when upper-crust liberals (I include here elite nonwhites such as Barack Obama, who had to take lessons, as he admits, in how to “walk black”) look at minority groups, they find that masculinity remains respectable there.
All the attributes that would get you shunned on Morningside Heights are on proud display in the ghetto ten blocks north, and the SAT athletes who feel deprived of them can get a “fix” by blasting gansta rap in their iPods, or indulging in revolutionary politics.
Likewise, I'd argue, liberals can live vicariously through Muslims — their “pride,” their group cohesiveness, their dogmatic certitudes and their truculent aggression.
Thus pro-Muslim liberals can at once retain their attributes of upper-class status by showing their generosity to the weak and distinguishing themselves from low-status “xenophobes,” while indulging at one remove the game-cock self-assurance, macho pride, and truculence of Muslims.
It's really quite an impressive psychological adaptation our elites have made to the almost impossible mating conditions set for Western males, and I'm tempted to admire it. But I can't help looking at the bloody stubs where their tails used to be and feeling a twinge of sadness. No, make that contempt.
There — I've given the game away, and climbed down several notches in the social hierarchy. I shall turn in my collegiate tie for a Lynyrd Skynyrd t-shirt. No peahen nookie for me.
Nice post.
What you and VDH describe is Cognitive Dissonance, or the desire to avoid it.
I had a girlfriend that made a statement that more black American soldiers died in Vietnam than white. And of course "everybody" knew this fact. I had to challenge her belief since black Americans only represented about 18 to 20% of the population and I found this nearly impossible.
We fired up our dueling internet connections and each sought support for our respective positions. Within a few minutes she conceded her position.
What was striking to me, and what led to her being my ex, was her response to a fact that was contradictory to her worldview. I watched her face and body go through contortions for a brief moment before she exclaimed, "YOUR'E AN A$$HOLE".
As for the Socratic method, I could give you a dozen examples of how I employed it with what seemed like success as the process unfolded, but ultimately proved the avoidance of “cognitive dissonance”. I even had her look up the phrase. I have come to believe that even though my mind works in a logical manner, I can’t expect other folks to be logical.
This is the challenge we face.
When logic fails to win the debate, what is the purpose of debate?
Modern day liberal/progressive, multi-cultural, politically correct, moral relativism is a mental disorder.
So, the issue as I see it, is either the attempt to engage them on an emotional level, which I would use music and video, or ignore and ridicule them by treating them like children. I think that if enough people would simply take a higher road and attitude when dealing with mental midgets, we would sow the seeds of uncertainty that will drive them nuts.
Certainly cognitive dissonance plays an important role in all this. But I wonder if your ex ever again asserted that more African Americans were killed in Vietnam than European Americans?
I doubt it.
Of course, at the time someone is "busted" having asserted something wrong, they may have a negative reaction, but that doesn't mean they didn't change their minds. And that's all we need. We don't need to "win" or make anyone feel bad. We only need to change their opinion from "Islam is a religion of peace and the terrorists are a fringe group of nutcases taking the passages from the Koran out of context" to "It's possible that the doctrines of Islam are intolerant and violent at their core."
Once someone makes that shift, they will see subsequent events in an entirely different way. And they will vote differently.
The Ronald Shirk article is magnificent!
The sexual dimension cannot be ignored and if "elite [Western] men" seek to mate with "elite [Western] women" they may often need to show Politically Correct behaviour.
For example, what chance would a Western Male have with Susan Sarandon if he did not behave politically correct - not that Susan Sarandon is necessarily an inspiring sexual target.
The irony is that Western Females may be influencing Western Males to adopt irrational political perspectives for the sake of successful mating, whereas Islamic Females (wives) have no choice but to ensure the happiness of their Islamic Males (husbands) by allowing them their "full rights" afforded to them by Islam.
This includes what Westerners (and Susan Sarandons ironically) would see as marital rape.
But it also includes the raping of infidel women to subjugate their infidel men.
Something like the male rape that happens in prisons to subjugate the new inmates.
Desmond Morris has linked this primal (actually primate) behaviour in his many books.
I think you're right, but it's also due to the last few decades of Marxist grooming of the West as a "bad" culture that deserves to die and should not defend itself against encroachment or attack.
Lots of Communist front groups pushed this view in the guise of "progessivism" and it needs to be looked and deconstructed.
cheers
I have some literature to post here about Australian Politics and other essays I would like to submit for perusal. I hope you can (have) time to peruse them if I have permission to post them.
Is the water getting muddy?
Let's hear it, Regalf.
An interesting theory, but you need to explain why this guilt consciousness has become so prevalent in recent decades. It is clear that as recently as one hundred years ago, westerners did not feel any comparable sense of guilt about their superior standards of living compared to the non-western world.
Indeed, they felt the exact opposite: that their greater wealth and freedom proved their innate superiority and therefore entitled them to interfere in and take control of non-western countries, partly in order to civilise them and help them.
Cheradenine, the prevailing guilt is a reaction, I think, to the blatant arrogance European and American cultures felt in comparison with other cultures. Looking back, the arrogance is embarrassing. As I said in another article:
MULTICULTURALISM says we should have no arrogance about our own culture and we should be open to the teachings and practices of other cultures. We should at least look at cultures to see if they have something to teach us.
But given the way the human mind tends to streamline and simplify, multiculturalism has been streamlined in many minds into "my own culture is evil."
The original purpose of multiculturalism was to prevent the self-righteous arrogance of European and American Judeo-Christian cultures. There was a time when they encountered people from other cultures and they judged them to be barbaric, savage, or simplistic. In many cases Europeans and Americans used force to impose their own "superior" culture on the native cultures they came across.
Over time, the other side of the story hasn't been told, and what we are left with is a kind of racial guilt.
Bull's eye! At least it makes sense and is probably true for too dam' many of us. As a historian, I know well all cultures have sinned, but the West has, at least in the last two centuries or so, actually has sinned less and regenerated itself more often than other cultures. And it 'makes room' for people from other cultures to choose, to a humane extent, how much they choose to assimilate and which traditions to retain and contribute to the mainstream.
This is one of the consequences of our country giving up Christianity. Under the Christian paradigm we knew we deserved God's blessings because we served him and kept his commandments.
Other consequences that have come as a result of jettisoning our religion are gangs, drugs, teen pregnancies, and broken families, along with its attendant consequences of juvenile delinquency, dysfunctional children, poor grades in school, and the list goes on and on.
Is it a coincidence that as the secularization of America and Europe increases that the jihadist threat increases? One of the primary lessons of the Old Testament is that when Israel followed God, they were protected from their enemies, but when they did not, they were scattered and taken into bondage.
You mention the guilt the West has about being so much more "fortunate" than a good part of the rest of the world. I discovered something very recently which I thought was definitely worth sharing. I came across a video on youtube which all of you should watch because it explains a lot about the guilt. This GUILT was foisted upon us by a left-leaning education system and it started in early childhood. PLEASE check out Charlotte Iserbyt: The Deliberate Dumbing Down of the World. It is absolutely worth it.
Hello..I do think there is a a lot to do with guilt yet it reminds me of the movie (Iranium)..because we don't commit certain acts of violence..we can't imagine others doing it?
"Then you come along and tell them that there is an ideology shared by 1.2 billion people in the world that seeks to subjugate the whole world and is willing to use violence to do it, and that is such a negative thing, they can't even listen to you" (lol)..so true! I've found myself having to defend myself as well..I'm positively negative!
In my experience, the West is reeling, less from survivor guilt, than from acknowledgement of past wrongs (racism sexism, homophobia,anti-Semitism, etc) - and many are confused, fearful, feeling guilty. Into this stage of confusion comes Islam - the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing - hitting all the right buttons: I'm a victim, poor me, you have no right to judge, how dare you judge or criticize, etc.
I agree, Elsa, that the other major thing that makes the West vulnerable to Islamic encroachment is guilt about past wrongs. But that is the subject for another article:
The Achilles' Heel of the West
From Eddie,
I've just discovered this site and have been concerned about this whole issue for a long time now. Thanks so much for all these great insights! We have to work diligently and intelligently if we are going to survive this onslaught.
I'm reading "They must be stopped". I'm sure there are many other good reads, some mentioned here.
I was raised in freethought, descended from American Revolutionaries, taught from infancy to find my own spiritual way and look to no one else for that. My few best teachers were humanists and Stoics who trained me in the classical liberal arts and science, math, and technology.
Thus I grew up and matured reading every holy book I could ever lay hands on, trying to understand the human "spirit" across space and time, trying to learn where I could best apply my tiny energies to improve humanity.
For me the only path that ever made sense was the Enlightenment, and our republic's constitution of it into a system of self-governance.
I always considered myself liberal because I always had a very open mind. I'm willing to be proven wrong about anything and everything. It's like science: you have to have the courage to disprove your convictions, to get to any truths.
But Islam has become the issue on which I have parted from many friends, organizations, and movements these past ten years. I have lost so many friends. They are literally unable to hear ANY criticism or questioning of Islam, even the freethinkers and nontheists who easily bash every other religion. The slightest movement in the direction of doing anything but bowing down to Muslim tantrums...it's been, for me, my most profound form of being considered an apostate...by people of "my own culture"!!!!
The issue of displaced guilt in this article and "The Achilles Heel of the West" got me in the solar plexus. This is what I've been observing and experiencing. An element of something uglier than guilt. Something that bumps up on masochism.
It has an almost erotic quality to it--the profound, too-emotional, too-ready self-debasement when educated, privileged Americans and Europeans bash the very system (and those past and present who created that system) that gave them everything they have.
This, I think, is related to the fact that "Islam" means "submission." There is something in the Islamic/Muslim mindset that well understands the sexual/erotic current in masochism and self-debasement. (Many have observed how terribly sexually repressed and controlling so many fundamentalist Muslims are.)
This mindset cannot yield a culture that will do anything other than wallow in violence and complaints. It requires a Hero's Journey for a man or woman to make a real lasting commitment to society and to others. People obsessed with submission and debasement at best can copy others' cultural achievements--as Islam has, its very holy book being plagiarized, its origins derivative, and its "cultural apex" simply the copying of classical Western genius.
Till now my marriage has been my only haven for these thoughts, and my spouse's as well. We sat here tonight reading this blog aloud to each other. I can't thank you enough.
That was a great acknowledgment. Thank you. You are definitely not alone with this. One of the reasons we started our comment page and the forum was to help people like us talk to each other about this very difficult, upsetting, difficult task we're all trying to do, which seems like it should be very simple and easy but is surprisingly difficult.
We just came out with a handbook on the topic that has this article in it and other things that might help you: Getting Through.
Thank you. Very good article.
Ibn Warraq, a former muslim and great intellectual, don't share this western guilt complex. He wrote the book "Why the West is Best". And Ibn Warraq knows a lot about Islam.
Also, Robert R Reilly wrote "The Closing of the Muslim Mind."
As you know, it's all about philosophy, religion and ideology.
The majority of westerners who don't want to criticize Islam prefer to live in the West. Why? Because the West is better ... for many reasons (economy, rule of law, human rights, golden rule, critical thinking, freedom, ...)
And ... the West is not responsible for all the misery in the world !
As Wafa Sultan (former muslim) said : "Islam itself is responsible for the majority of the problem Muslim countries have."
Ideas are running the world, and some ideas are better than others.
Talking about 'the western world', as it saw itself as recently as a hundred years ago ,one of the comments said :-
'Indeed, they felt the exact opposite: that their greater wealth and freedom proved their innate superiority and therefore entitled them to interfere in and take control of non-western countries, partly in order to civilise them and help them.
Interestingly if you juxtapose this, take oil wealth into account, and consider the 'superiority' mindset of Muslims (it is of the order 'master, slave' relationship, with western values distinctly satanic), this quote is surprisingly accurate of Islam.
Great, GREAT article.
I know I'll share it with many others.
BTW, one of the old, overwarmed (over and over again) chestnuts is the "Crusaders" theme.
You know: the people who bring up the Crusaders' (many of them very real) crimes any time Islam's faults are mentioned.
Leaving aside the fact that such people don't see the shortsightedness of their relativising everything towards an "all religion is evil" orthodoxy (which only plays into the hands of those who want to impose their culture by imposing their "religion" on others) - OR the fact that they know nothing about religion (in Islam violence is justified by its own Holy book and the deeds of its founder, while Christianity expressly forbids any sort of violence, so those who commit it - be it the Crusaders of yore or anyone today - simply have no valid excuse and are, in fact, apostates) - here is one simple truth to consider:
were it not for the Crusaders, Europe would be living under Islamic rule today. Period.
That's historical FACT.
Whether that would be a good thing or a bad one, nobody can tell, and it is certainly open for discussion.
But let it be a genuine one, based on facts and historical knowledge, not regurgitated stereotypes and cliches.
sorry guys but it is the religious republicans who profit from the low wage immigrant and they get the taxpayers to bring them in. the fact that no one mentions the main motivation shows that republicans are hellbent on blaming liberals for each and every thing - http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/religious-charities-profit-from-open-borders/
A great article and some very good comments. This is what I've been thinking without being able to articulate it.
Another key to understanding people's inability to understand the threat of Islam is pride an inability to understand that people are not perfect and to laugh at ourselves, without bitterness. I so often get lectured by the do-gooder crowd about 'turn the other cheek' and 'welcome other religions' and 'Islamic people are so prayerful...we would do well to take a leaf out of their book" and: "look at Australians aren't they terrible with their beer and their adultery and their lack of religion" etc etc.
This is basically an inability to understand that people are not defined by their past, and that grace can work wonders....the simple person too has their story, their truth. Criticism of Islam should be allowed in a civil democratic society. We should be allowed to criticise Islam, and often. And we should realise that praying on a prayer mat on a street corner or anywhere is not holier-than-thou. Hypocrites do this to show how holy they are. So while we say respect all religions, we can point out to people that criticism is allowed too!
Post a Comment