Friday, January 20, 2006

Islam Beheaded: Pure Distilled Anti-Dhimmitude

Occassionally one comes across an article that states a vital fact articulately, concisely and mercilessly, and provides much needed clarity on a difficult topic. "Islam Beheaded" by David Wood in FrontPage magazine is one such article. This is an article to bookmark, frame, and send to all incredulous friends still in the shackles of dhimmitude. One key contribution of the article is a clear presentation of the moral doublethink present in the Muslim mindset. This dissonance is a result of Islam defining Mohammad to be the human moral standard. Another key issue highlighted concerns Mohammed's good deeds, and how they are to be correctly judged in light of his more nefarious mass slaughter, rape, plunder and insanity.

Muhammad's empire of faith has managed to thrive in the modern world for one simple reason: Muslims have kept Muhammad's dark past a secret. Indeed, they have gone beyond keeping it a secret; they have somehow convinced themselves (and many others) that Muhammad was an outstanding moral example, perhaps even the greatest moral example of all time. Perpetuating this fraud has been, in my opinion, the most stupendous deception in world history.
True, there are plenty of instances in Muhammad's life that one could view as the deeds of a moral individual, and Muslims are quick to point out his acts of charity and his dedication to prayer. However, in assessing the overall character of a man, we must take into account all of his actions, not just the ones that support our feelings about him. For instance, suppose I become convinced that the greatest person in history was a man named John Gacy. I could point to his charity work at local hospitals, to his activities in the Boy Scouts and the Jaycees[2], to his patient endurance of numerous physical ailments, to his community activities such as neighborhood barbecues and other social gatherings, to his generosity to others, to his dedication to his family, and to his outstanding work ethic, which made him one
of the pillars of his local business community. Yet, if I am to make a case for the moral superiority of Mr. Gacy, I must not leave out the fact that he raped, tortured, and murdered more than thirty boys and buried them under his house.

Muhammad was guilty of countless murders and of torturing his victims. He robbed caravans and participated in the slave-trade. His persecution of the Jews bordered on genocide. His polygamy went beyond that which even his own revelations permitted (though he did receive a revelation saying that this was okay for him). One of his wives was a nine-year-old girl, whose earliest duties in Muhammad's house included the constant task of washing the semen stains off his clothes. At times he believed he was demon-possessed or under the effect of magic. He was known to be suicidal. He admittedly received a message from Satan and delivered it to the people as if it were from God. He declared that women have half the intellectual ability that men have, that it is okay for men to beat their wives, that most of the inhabitants of hell are women, and that, even if a woman somehow makes it to heaven, her eternity will consist of standing in a corner, waiting for men to sexually enjoy her.

These details about Muhammad raise a very important question: What does a prophet have to do before Muslims will be willing to question whether he is truly the greatest moral example in history? Normally, when we say that someone is a moral person, we mean that he doesn't commit acts such as robbery and murder. Yet Muhammad did all these things and much more. It appears, then, that Muslims are using the term "moral" in a very unique way. In this uniquely Muslim sense of the term, the word "moral" is defined as "whatever Muhammad does." Thus, if Muhammad were to chop off the heads of hundreds of people (which he did), this act would still be defined as a moral act, since Muhammad did it, and anything Muhammad does is, by definition, moral.But this raises another important question. If God's greatest prophet is free to take part in murder, robbery, genocide, and slave-trading, can we really point a finger at people like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and say that they are evil? They killed many innocents, but so did Muhammad. Saddam tortured countless people, but so did Muhammad. In fact, one could make a case that Osama bin Laden is morally superior to Muhammad, for, while bin Laden killed thousands of people, he didn't sell their wives and children into slavery, or have sex with a little girl, or marry more than a dozen women.

The truth about Muhammad has been one of the world's best-kept secrets. For centuries, it has been virtually impossible to raise objections about the character of Muhammad in Muslim countries, for anyone who raised such objections would (following the example set by Muhammad himself) immediately be killed. Outside the Muslim world, there has been little interest in Islam, and those who have been interested have typically relied on modern Muslim reports about Muhammad, such as the above passage from Mawdudi. But things have changed. Now many people are interested in Islam, and Muslims aren't able to silence everyone. Moreover, with the advent of the Internet, it is now impossible to keep Muhammad's life a secret. The facts about the founder of Islam are spreading very rapidly, and Muslims are frantically scurrying to defend their faith. But the information superhighway is paving over the ignorance that has for centuries been the stronghold of Islamic dogma. In the end, Islam will fall, for the entire structure is built upon the belief that Muhammad was the greatest moral example in history, and this belief is demonstrably false.

Read It All.

Read it, send it, memorise the arguments and investigate all linked articles (there are many).

Here are all the anti-dhimmi arguments you need to enrage Islamists, confuse lefties, convert the general public and get the attention of the Thought Police, particularly if you live in freedom-deficient places like Victoria or the UK.


Mohammad was not a nice man. Islam is not a nice religion. Muslims, well meaning or not, are associating themselves with some inexcusably nasty teachings that are absolutely NOT comparable with any other major religion.

And don't give me any of that crap about the Crusades either.

1. Find me a case of Jesus acting on the same moral level as Muhammad, or suggesting that murder, rape, plunder are good things to do. Crusaders were NOT following Jesus' teachings. The Vatican may not have been either. This does not make Jesus like Mohammad, or Christianity anything like Islam.

2. Islam conquered the Levant, Middle East, along with North Africa and a good chunk of Central Asia 300 years before the crusades. The Crusades were a failed small scale reconquista of Christian territory. The Holy Land is NOT Dar al Islam !!! What, the Christians had no right to it either ? That means that the rightful inhabitants are... What, right of conquest and settlement over generations is final ? That still means that the rightful inhabitants are...

3. We do not need to deal with Richard the Lionheart or a horde of bloodthirsty knights. We need to deal with Bin Laden and up to 1.2 billion accomplices and cheerleaders, an Oil Weapon, and a growing number of nuclear missles of increasing range, in a growing number of ROP countries.

4. The real problem with so many Christians is not their propensity to take off on Crusades. The problem is how like their peaceful, beatific, moral Jesus and unlike the Crusaders they have become. Great guys to have as your neighbours but lousy in a global conflict, turning cheeks when other religions prescribe the extraction of eyes and teeth. But some of them do get it.
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by