The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 PodcastsKevin Barrett Archive
The European New Right: Symptom of the West’s Decline?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Tasnim News Agency

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

An essay incorporating ideas explored in The European New Right: A Shi’a Response by Arash Najaf-Zadeh; Dugin Against Dugin by Charles Upton; Thinkers Against Modernity by Keith Preston; and Du Brexit aux Gilets Jaunes by Youssef Hindi

During the past few decades an intellectual movement has arisen out of the ruins of what once passed for Western civilization. As the great narrative of secular humanism, materialism, and progress collapsed—its obituary was published by Lyotard as The Postmodern Condition—an odd constellation of nationalist and traditionalist thinking began shaking the foundations of Western intellectual and political life. The Trump regime in America, Brexit in the UK, the Yellow Vests in France, and the loosely associated right-wing parties across Europe espousing what The Saker calls “National Zionism” are all symptoms.

The healthy side of these movements, most visible in the Yellow Vest protests, opposes the Zionist-dominated Western central banking cartel that some call the New World Order. Many of the new nationalists do not want to be subsumed into a Rothschild-dominated one-world corporate oligarchy (much less a Zionist dystopia ruled by Antichrist from a blood sacrifice temple built on the ruins of the al-Aqsa Mosque). Instead, they seek a world of autonomous, fully-sovereign nation-states. In their various visions of the post-NWO paradise they seek, each tends to privilege his own nation, even though most give lip service to the ideal of multipolar pluralism.

But the easiest way to unite a nation, as Carl Schmitt taught, is to unite its people in hatred of a common enemy. So the new nationalists need a scapegoat. Jews, globalists, and especially Islam and Muslims fit the bill. Since Jews and globalists are extremely powerful in the West, while Muslims are powerless—and permanently demonized by the 9/11 mind-control operation—only a minority of New Right thinkers and activists has the courage and intellect to avoid falling into the Islamophobic trap set by the Zionists.

One of those rare courageous and brilliant individuals, and the most important thinker of the European New Right, is Russian political philosopher Alexander Dugin, founder of Eurasianism. Though one can argue, as Arash Najaf-Zadeh and Charles Upton do, that Dugin’s anti-metaphysics is a confused mishmash, Muslims ought to appreciate and support much of the Eurasianist project nonetheless. Dugin’s movement, whatever its metaphysical shortcomings, is currently the most viable international effort to defend a space for God—and for sovereign individuals and communities—in a world of decaying but still hegemonic neoliberal secularism.

I met Alexander Dugin at the May 2018 New Horizon Conference in Mashhad, Iran. My presentation mentioned René Guenon (1886-1951), the founder of Traditionalism. Guenon, who dabbled in freemasonry as a young man, discovered that esotericism is essentially satanic, that real gnosis can only be found in traditional religion—and that the best-preserved religious tradition is Islam. Guenon’s insight that the West’s salvation lay in Islam was more than a century ahead of its time.

After my talk, Alexander Dugin approached me and said he, too, had been heavily influenced by Guenon’s work. We discussed the intersection of Traditionalism and Eurasianism, and parted vowing to continue the conversation.

ORDER IT NOW

Recently Dugin has been critiqued by two important Muslim thinkers. Arash Najef-Zadeh, a Tehran-based American-Iranian Shia Muslim, and Charles Upton, an American Sufi Muslim, have published book-length studies focusing on Dugin’s errors. Both argue, in slightly different ways, that Dugin’s post-Heideggerian demolition of metaphysics in favor of some vague new all-embracing ontology of chaos is profoundly wrongheaded.

I agree with Najef-Zadeh and Upton that Dugin’s anti-metaphysics seems either wrong, self-contradictory, impossible to understand…or at least impossible for me to understand. And it obviously is not Islamic. It strikes me more as a kind of intoxicated political poetry than a rigorous philosophy. But it is stirring political poetry nonetheless. And it aims at arousing opposition to the hegemonic neoliberal Antichrist: the Atlanticist powers governed by the Empire of Usury. That would-be unipolar empire is unapologetic about its desire for total world domination. And it is equally upfront about its plan to eliminate religion except as a private lifestyle choice, and to usurp the sovereignty of individuals and communities. So just as the Prophet Muhammad, peace upon him, entered into various kinds of alliances with people who were not nominal Muslims, indeed whose understanding of metaphysical issues would have been very different from his own, so today those of us striving for God in a world with a growing God-shaped hole ought to make alliances with forces that can help us maintain and expand the space where God can be worshipped, and where God-centered societies can be founded and expanded. Dugin’s Eurasianism would seem to fit the bill.

ORDER IT NOW

One problem noted by Charles Upton is Dugin’s apparent openness to various currents that seem hostile to God in general and Islam in particular. In Upton’s understanding, Dugin seems to be saying that he would make common cause with the Devil himself if that’s what it took to defeat Antichrist—a stance that brings to mind Nietzsche’s aphorism “He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

Dugin’s perhaps overly-pluralistic coalition may include forces that most Muslims would not want as permanent allies. The Islamophobic new right in Europe, led by such National Zionist flunkies and phonies as Tommy Robinson, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orban, the AfD party in Germany, and so on, might or might not claim Dugin as one of their spiritual and intellectual godfathers. And then there are the neopagan and even satanic groups that boast some sort of inspiration or affiliation with Eurasianism.

ORDER IT NOW

These groups emerge from a misunderstanding of, or deviation from, Guenon’s original Islamic Traditionalism. Rather than following Guenon along the straight path of Islam, the only well-preserved and viable authentic religious tradition, many anti-modernist thinkers wandered off into astounding varieties of idolatrous confusion. The notable anarchist writer Keith Preston has provided us with a useful synopsis of the intellectual careers of many of these folks, who together constitute the key influences on the European New Right. They include Ernst Junger, Carl Schmitt, Friedrich Nietzsche, Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, Julius Evola, Aleister Crowley, Corneliu Codreanu, and Alain De Benoist. Junger and Codreanu worshipped the idol of war; Schmitt the idol of politics; Nietzsche the superman; and worst of all, Evola and Crowley the pagan deities (jinn) if not Satan himself. Only the Catholics Belloc and Chesterton, and the critic of empire De Benoist, are people most God-focused thinkers would feel comfortable with.

Another and more positive manifestation of the European New Right (or is it the new left?) is the gilets jaunes or Yellow Vest movement that is laying the groundwork for another French Revolution. Like the Occupy Movement in the USA, the Yellow Vests at least have the decency to demonize real demons—namely, the international bankers, whose Empire of Usury is the enemy of decent and God-fearing people everywhere. But also like Occupy, the Yellow Vests have a better understanding of what they are fighting against than what they are fighting for.

ORDER IT NOW

Youssef Hindi, a brilliant young Muslim intellectual from a French-Moroccan background, has published a notable new meditation on the Yellow Vest movement: Du Brexit aux Gilets Jaunes: La Révolution en marche (From Brexit to the Yellow Vests: The Revolution Underway). Unlike most observers, Hindi saw it coming. His book is one of the best analyses of the accelerating French crisis, which is not just about economics and wealth distribution, but stems from a collapse of legitimacy and sovereignty. According to Hindi, the underlying cause of the crisis is France’s lack of a unifying religion or ideology. Under such inherently unstable conditions, the rapacious and unprincipled oligarchy’s attempt to foist a pseudo-religion of sham democracy on the people has failed. In an effort to cover its failure and prop up the whole collapsing edifice, the oligarchy has resorted to ever-more-brutal police state repression (whose pretext is false flag terror)—a vicious cycle that only accelerates the delegitimation process. Hindi argues that the best outcome, the complete overthrow of the current neoliberal elite, would also overturn the global geopolitical order by taking France out of US/Israel-dominated NATO and its lapdog EU and turning the new Europe of genuinely sovereign nations towards Eurasia.

Such a development would represent a victory for Alexander Dugin’s project. But are nations, with their man-made laws and idolized leaders, viable entities in the long term? Doesn’t ultimate sovereignty belong to God? Isn’t the only law worthy of the name God’s law? Those of us who think so should already be planning for a future crisis that will undermine the multipolar world of resurgent nationalisms that Dugin seeks to establish. Those peoples who can overcome their egotistical tendencies toward idolatrous nationalisms, and instead work to establish multi-national polities under the ultimate sovereignty of God alone, will provide the solution to that crisis, and enable the creation of more just, viable, and sustainable social and political systems that harmonize with God-given human nature.

 
Hide 390 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Bucolic Newburgh NY…..now one of the most dangerous cities in America…..now occupied by M-13…..and Barret….the Newburgh’s historian…..was….and still is an enthusiast for importing M-13 and Muslims into Newburgh….. Newburgh NY starting with Henry Hudson became a safe…bucolic….Euro-American Town in NY State…..until the cockroach Ronald Reagan’s amnesties……..If you voted for Ronald Reagan….you voted for the death of small town-small city HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICA……..Barret’s books document the history of this….and Barret thinks it was a good idea…..

    • Replies: @Alden
  2. What happened in Newburgh NY was a deliberate and open policy of Foreign Interference in US ELECTIONS…..And that’s Democratic Party Policy:the nullification of the NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS VOTE in Newburgh NY….and throughout NY State…..

    TREASON IS THE REASON!!!!

  3. Muslims are powerless—and permanently demonized by the 9/11 mind-control operation

    In England, Muslims have brought demonization on themselves through terrorism and the gang-rape of white girls. As for ‘powerless’, while Muslims are not yet in a position to form a government, the Establishment bends over backwards to protect them, and punish their critics.

    Guenon’s insight that the West’s salvation lay in Islam

    Haha. The report, UK Muslim Demographics, found that Muslims are, for example, the least likely to be in work, the least likely to be looking for work, the most likely to be sick and the most likely to be disabled.

    • Agree: Hail, Alden, Fran Taubman
    • Replies: @Tusk
    , @anonymous
    , @Fran Taubman
  4. What vile Islamic propaganda.

    today those of us striving for God in a world with a growing God-shaped hole ought to make alliances with forces that can help us maintain and expand the space where God can be worshipped

    Sounds a lot like an Islamic version of Communist Popular Front tactics. In the end Eurasianists and other useful idiots will of course be discarded, since the end goal is obviously a fully Islamic polity, with all other groups subservient at best.
    No thanks. There should never be the slightest thought for European nationalists of even purely tactical alliances with snakes like Kevin Barrett. He and his ilk need to be removed.

  5. anonymous[124] • Disclaimer says:

    I agree with the main thrust of your article but it doesn’t address whether respect for spaces for Islam and other traditional religions to exists will be reciprocated by those religions by permitting spaces for atheism and secularism. Secularism and atheism can be completely devoid of usurious character and can even be more traditional and family oriented than degenerated religious traditions.

    I ask about whether peace and respect will be reciprocated because, aren’t Abrahamic religions fundamentally seeking world domination? Even on a fundamental level all the Abrahamic religions have eschatologies that predict the end will come through war and conflict. How can such religions provide a basis for a lasting global peaceful coexistence between the Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic metaphysics?

    • Agree: animalogic
  6. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:

    “Guenon, who dabbled in freemasonry as a young man, discovered that esotericism is essentially satanic, that real gnosis can only be found in traditional religion—and that the best-preserved religious tradition is Islam. ”

    How stupid do you think we are? Guenon promoted Sufism, which orthodox Islam abhors as heresy. In their own terms, they’re right: Sufism, in fact, IS Greco-Persian gnosticism disguised “under the cloak of Islam” in order to avoid being exterminated like all “shirkers” (those who dare to “associate” Allah with another god).

    No wonder the West was unprepared to resist Islam, since its finest “scholars of religion” like Huston Smith, Joseph Campbell etc. had their heads filled with Guenon/Schuon’s phony version of “mystical Islam” that preaches tolerance and wouldn’t hurt a fly.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
    , @Moi
    , @Alden
  7. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:

    Just happened to find this online:

    I’ve been reading “The Sacred Chain: a History of the Jews” by Jewish historian Norman Cantor.

    In it, he confirms several of the claims I have previously made on this blog.

    It was Jews who put Muhammad up to it.
    Islam is a variant of Judaism.
    Jews betrayed Christians to the Muslims and facilitated Islamic expansion.
    The myth of the tolerant Islamic Golden Age was one cultivated largely by Jews.
    The university discipline of “Islamic Studies” was created almost entirely by Jews.

    https://diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com/2019/04/28/the-angel-who-dictated-the-koran-spoke-with-a-jewish-accent/

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
    , @Hoot
  8. @Anon

    Wrong on all counts. Sufism is at the heart of orthodox Islam; the only anti-Sufi school of Islam, Wahhabism, is so marginal and minoritarian that it probably wouldn’t even exist today if it hadn’t been weaponized by the British and later Americans to wage war on the 99% Muslim majority, which the Wahhabis revile as heretics. Unfortunately, with mountains of petrodollars at their disposal, the Wahhabis have managed to spread their anti-Sufi orientation to many Saudi-funded mosques around the world.

    The single most central and orthodox scholar and sage in Islamic history is al-Ghazali, who was a fervent Sufi. The orthodox Islam he taught is essentially same Sufi-friendly Islam of Guenon and his followers. Or to put it another way, Guenon was an impeccably orthodox, utterly mainstream Muslim, and recognized as such by his Egyptian neighbors.

    Sufis, by the way, are not pacifists; they are no more nor less militant than anyone else. The resistance movements against colonialism were often spearheaded by Sufi brotherhoods.

    • Agree: Talha, Iris
  9. @Anon

    Actually the Qur’an is harshly critical of majoritarian Judaism and the majority of Jews, who are portrayed as incorrigibly pharisaical, greedy for things of this world, and in the habit of rejecting or killing prophets. By contrast, it is generally friendly to Christianity, as are the Prophet’s Covenants: https://covenantsoftheprophet.org/the-covenants-of-the-prophet/

    “Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, ‘We are Christians’: because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.” (5:82)

  10. I was raised a Lutheran, before the internal split in the 1950s. While other denominations and religions were referenced, the focus of the catechism could be summarized as following the Golden Rule and being true to oneself. For any society to function properly treating others as you would like to be treated is necessary. That includes, of course, honesty, ethics, and polite interaction without subjugation. That can be done with or without religion. That is what the “West” was based on, long before Christianity came our way, and before it became corrupted.

    I find it difficult to believe that a woman would see her husband taking a “temporary wife” as being treated in the way she would like to be treated, particularly where if she were to take a “temporary husband” she would be sentenced to death. Islam is not a religion. It is an intolerant political system.

    I don’t care what you practice Mr. Barrett, but stop pretending the expansionist wars of Islam were a benefit to mankind. The only thing for which we can be thankful to the Mongols is that their invasion stopped Islam, temporarily, in its tracks.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Alden
  11. @German_reader

    It’s really weird that a white guy from Wisconsin converted to the religious faith of an enemy civilization.

  12. Heredot says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    Kevin barrett
    grasp the truth, thank you.

  13. RJJCDA says:

    I have read that the Koran seven times directs the “faithful” to commit jihad. Ah, the religion of peace.

    I have a book by Duggin, and I could not understand his point(s) beyond a vague dream of an Eurasian landmass system and culture.

    • Replies: @Moi
  14. RJJCDA says:

    Islam is not now in sync with modernity in its various manifestations of culture. And even in its hegemony in the 10th-12th centuries, it never created much. What philosophy it had was originated by and derivative of its discovery of the classical Greeks, In much of what it purportedly “created,” it was merely replicating what had come before.

    • Agree: Tsigantes
  15. Tusk says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough

    In Australia 52% of the muslim population is unemployed.

  16. ” is profoundly wrongheaded”

    What sort of ignoramus uses a nonsense word like ‘wrongheaded’?

    Find me a proper textbook on critical thinking or logic that uses this term. One. A single one.

    The idea that western civilization can be saved by embracing Islam is absolute nonsense. I haven’t read Dugin, but all one has to do is read the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights, or simply look at the track record of Islam concerning freedom, scientific inquiry, or a host of other issues.

    Islam is a great religion if you are a low IQ, 7th century hill bandit who wants to go around invading territory and seizing women. That’s about it.

    • Agree: Franklin Ryckaert
  17. The photo aligns with the anti-modernity theme. He resembles a figure in a Medieval illuminated manuscript.

    Whereas Jerome Powell who is not Jewish, and doesn’t scream Zionist, would look like a 1920s banker with the addition of a bow tie, albeit 1929 is not a vintage look that he probably cares to emulate unless we’re in the controlled crash that some predict.

    I am still not sure that the bottom 80% can blame everything on the bankers. Bankers didn’t make manufacturers offshore all of those jobs to countries with low-cost labor. Bankers didn’t hire illegal aliens, undercutting the wages of citizens for decades.

    Bankers financialized the economy, rigging the markets for big businesses with access to printed money and low-interest loans, but the underlying issue of low-quality jobs and a multitude of cheapskate employers—large and small—can’t be blamed on bankers, regardless of their religion.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  18. Jason Liu says:

    What are you on about? A concerted effort to take down the liberal world order cannot be done under your definition of godly sovereignty because most people don’t believe in it, including many religious people. For all its flaws Eurasianism at least offers room for people to be different while being united against the West. Your criticism is extremely narrow minded and your vision even less plausible than Dugin’s.

    The biggest danger to the world’s resurgent nationalism is infighting between nationalists who seek to impose themselves on other nationalists instead of breaking liberalism at home. This is like the dumb white conservative who thinks his biggest enemy is a brown conservative from some other country while liberal democracy fucks him up the ass. Replacing the liberal hegemony with some kind of 21st century ummah would just replicate the problem, and give the Atlanticists a free hand while nationalists fight each other.

    • Agree: Parfois1
  19. Iris says:
    @Curmudgeon

    I find it difficult to believe that a woman would see her husband taking a “temporary wife” as being treated in the way she would like to be treated, particularly where if she were to take a “temporary husband” she would be sentenced to death.

    In practice, polygamy is practised by nobody in the Islamic world, with the exception of the usual backward, terrorist-supporters, British empire lackeys Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia.

    Wide consensus is that it was made permissible by verses of the Quran, with extremely strong caveats, as a means to protect war widows in an ancient society were women had no economic power.

    Cases of polygamy are so rare that it makes it insignificant as social reality. There may be things to criticise Islam for, but polygamy is not one of them. With regards.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  20. Iris says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    It’s really weird that a white guy from Wisconsin converted to the religious faith of an enemy civilization.

    The enemy “civilisation” of all of humankind is racist supremacist Talmudism.

    Why do you observe the splinter in your brother’s eye and never notice the great log in your own?”

  21. Hail says: • Website
    @Tusk

    Islam’s strategy in the West:

    Full-throttle parasitism + low-level but sustained crime against locals + harassment of locals/Christians + occasional terror attacks + demanding special privileges from the state + being the willing pets of the regime, adored and promoted by the media despite their parasitism and general harmfulness to the society at, pretty much, all levels.

    I see no redeeming value in keeping Islam around in the West. Anyone?

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Leon Haller
  22. bollverk says:

    He who has not understood Evola or Heidegger is in no position to critique them.

    Saying Evola worshipped Jinn is idiotic and ignorant.

    I am very familiar with Evola, Dugin, Guenon and Upton. Have just ordered Upton’s book.

    The problem with adherents to abrahamic faiths is that they seem to be unable to understand the metaphysical connection that true Islam has with other “Pagan” forms of worship. In all of Upton’s works I have not found a shred of well-founded critique of Evola and also Guenon has remained unable to consistently respond to Evola.
    This is a problem the whole perennialist school seems to have. Mistaking Exoteric doctrine for esoteric truth, even though Schuon illuminated this problem so thoroughly. This mistake is also what Crowley so scathingly critiqued.

    Are you familiar with the Guenonian and subsequently Uptonian model of the counter-tradition? Explain how Dugin fits into that model, then we can talk.

    Mr. Barrett, it is no point wildly criticising your allies when you have no idea what you are talking about.

  23. @Tusk

    Tusk—Islam does seem to have a stultifying effect on its faithful. On p154 of Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, Christopher Caldwell writes: ‘The Islamic world is an economic and intellectual basket case…Outside of fossil fuels, the entire Arab world exports less than Finland does.’

  24. Hristo says: • Website

    Only well preserved tradition is islam? What about God revelation for salvation that is in his fullness in Orthodox Christianity?The most idiotic article that i read on unz.

    • Replies: @Tsigantes
  25. Very interesting. generally agree with KB’s conclusion. Nationalism is a waystation from globalism but can never be a solution.
    I would recommend to a serious guy like KB that read Swedenborg’s “Heaven and Hell” which describes how God has arranged the eternal realms.
    These offer an excellent model for we inhabitants of the lower universe.
    Let ALL persons be free to live amongst their like-minded fellows. Let them take responsibility for their lives and rule their own communities. Let no remote authority, nor remote ownership of goods or property be tolerated. Our problem is the natural rise of mafia criminals that will occur within any hierarchical system.
    No matter how wicked individuals are they are fundamentally free and affirmed by God. Let us make committed cannibals, who we will not tolerate to be near us, form their own communities wherein they can (if it so pleases them) sit around discussing who is next for dinner. Thus is evil limited in that realm we call ‘hell’.

  26. @Iris

    I’m not referring to polygamy as in the Mormon type of polygamy, rather a male traveling engaging in sexual relations with a “temporary wife”. It does happen, and Muslims have admitted to me that it happens. There is even a “ceremony”, and the permanent wife is told about it. It would be like me going to a convention in Las Vegas, meeting a woman in the bar sleeping with that woman, then telling my wife that it was a temporary marriage and meant nothing. I can’t see too many Christian wives accepting that.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Alden
    , @Zen
  27. @Endgame Napoleon

    Bankers didn’t make manufacturers offshore all of those jobs to countries with low-cost labor.

    No, they just raised interest rates through the roof to make it profitable to move off shore. The high interest rates of the 70s and 80s were the controlled demolition of Western economies.

    • Replies: @Lockean Proviso
  28. KenH says:

    The new European right isn’t a symptom of the West’s decline, that’s the sentiment of someone who looks at everything through the lens of Abrahamic religion, but allowing Muslims to settle in Western nations en masse definitely is. It’s suicide to allow an aggressive, militant religious group with a long history of conflict with and intolerance of other religions into our nations.

    While some individual Muslims may be nice, kind and inoffensive, collectively they’ve revealed themselves to be a hostile outgroup which will only become more manifest as their numbers swell.

    Kevin Barrett acts as if Islam and the Occident are two peas in a pod but it’s an understatement to say the differences between the two are fundamental and irreconcilable.

    Barrett, like a typical pious Muslim, acts like Islam has all the answers and is a superior religion to any others. While it’s his right to believe that it certainly isn’t borne about by the state of most Muslim majority nations especially since Muslims choose to live in the West despite our decline.

    So either they’re here for a better life which Muslim nations, with their “superior” religion, can’t provide or they have ulterior motives which is to expand the Muslim footprint in nations that heretofore had none or expelled or defeated them when they tried to settle centuries ago. Or both.

    • Agree: Wally
    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Alden
  29. @Thorfinnsson

    I was brought up as a lapsed Unitarian, occasionally visiting the famous Frank Lloyd Wright Unitarian church in Madison. So I did not have to change theologies to embrace Islam. Islam is just “Unitarianism with camels.” Islam/Unitarianism is basically just rational Christianity, i.e., Christianity without its core irrational elements: 3 gods in 1, a human confused with God, and “God could only redeem the horribly fallen world by torturing His son to death.” Throw out those nonsensical mystifications, and Christianity and Islam are in essence almost identical.

    The founders of Unitarianism saw this and became crypto-Muslims: https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/enlightenment-unitarianism

  30. PPB says:

    “Guenon, who dabbled in freemasonry as a young man, discovered that esotericism is essentially satanic”

    Well, I guess that depends on how you define “esotericism”, some forms of which (if very broadly defined) definitely do veer toward the dark side.

    ” …that real gnosis can only be found in traditional religion”.

    This appears to be a common conceit of the so-called “tradidionalists”, an article of faith upon which their edifice rests. And if this principle has ever been asserted in any form other than that of a dogmatic, conclusory statement devoid of additional substantiation, I have yet to encounter it.

    ” —and that the best-preserved religious tradition is Islam.”.

    Certainly so. It’s also the most recently founded major religious tradition, which may be a related factor. Or, it could also be that Islam is generally the most straitjacketed of all current religious traditions, due to its authoritarian and often punitive approach toward any deviation from its internally established and enforced consensus— whereas institutional Christianity lost that level of hegemony over its adherents a long time ago. Whether one sees this weakening of constraints as a positive or negative development may vary. I see it as a mixed bag. I’d say that the more developed an individual or a population is, the less they require the support of rigid structures. The corollary being that either an immature or terminally decadent culture lacking such supports isn’t long for this world (not that “immature” and “terminally decadent” are mutually exclusive, as we can see all too plainly today).

    “Guenon’s insight that the West’s salvation lay in Islam was more than a century ahead of its time.”

    Call me a convinced skeptic of any approach that would impose a one-size-fits-all agenda on humans of diverse innate temperaments, leanings and cultural affinities.

    By the way, none of my comments above diminish my overriding appreciation and respect for Dr. Barrett’s work in general. Nor do they imply a predominantly negative view of Islam. Regarding the latter, I have great admiration for the pure kernel of Islam and the fundamental truth that it represents, but find these to be embedded within a largely indigestible shell. Of course this is only an expression of my own experience, and is in no way intended to limit or qualify anyone else’s. But it does echo my earlier comment about one-size-fits-all approaches. Certain expressions of diversity can be a good thing.

  31. bullyworm says:

    I like kevin barrett but this essay is nonsense. first of all the very idea that islam is what will save the west is absurd; it being a religion spread by the sword and responsible for sexually enslaving over a million western women, (a great unsung reason for the crusades; and if he denies it he doesn’t know his history). where does he get this crap? is he vaguely serious? e. Michael jones has a great deal to say about the saving and renewing of power of the “divine logos” which undergirds the christian tradition and so we certainly have no NEED of islam, a religion of obedience and violence to individualist thinking. what does obedience have to do with freedom?

    the second piece of nonsense is the people he has chosen as the those most influettial in the new right like – aleister cowley? what? that is some weird NOTION and certainly doesn’t influence my thinking as a new righter. there is nothing “left” to say about THAT he disqualifies himself by hoisting this canard and trying to wrap around our necks. rene guenon? uh…what? an any rate esoterica as essentially satanic? that’s insane! what doesn’t that mean and why should we value the opinion of anyone fundamamentlist and stupid enough to buy into that idea? it’s plain stupid and he whole essay is style over substance. he says a lot about nothing and tries to manage to sound intelligent doing it.

    ok. he involved evola, and dungin but what about lars holger holm, kerry bolton, george shaw, joakim anderson, tito perdue and brian anse patrick and so many other voices. c”mon kevin….

  32. @Kevin Barrett

    Unitarianism is pretty bad to begin with, though at least indigenous.

    The fact that Christianity and Islam have many similarities isn’t relevant to my point.

    You embraced the religious faith of an outgroup, which any way you slice it is strange behavior and alienates you from your community.

    The normal thing in Wisconsin would be papism, a mainline protestant denomination, or some non-denominational prole church.

  33. Tsigantes says:
    @Hristo

    Agree. But with only a vague exposure to Unitarianism and actual pride in its connection to the misnamed Enlightenment (rejected by Orthodoxy) – what else can you expect?

    Btw, in case you missed this KB comment above:

    “I was brought up as a lapsed Unitarian, occasionally visiting the famous Frank Lloyd Wright Unitarian church in Madison. So I did not have to change theologies to embrace Islam. Islam is just “Unitarianism with camels.” Islam/Unitarianism is basically just rational Christianity, i.e., Christianity without its core irrational elements: 3 gods in 1, a human confused with God, and “God could only redeem the horribly fallen world by torturing His son to death.” Throw out those nonsensical mystifications, and Christianity and Islam are in essence almost identical.

    Oh indeed, almost identical!

  34. @Hail

    Pithy and excellent. Islam is the true eternal enemy of the West (about which a lot of fools here and elsewhere are confused; suffice it to say, the West must rise again to its rightful place of world preeminence if not outright global hegemony). Islam has been waging a bloody ethnonational war (which is all Muslim expansionism is: Arab ethnic aggression against Whites) against White and Christian civilization since its inception.

    Islam has nothing to offer the West. It is a totally false doctrine with very little in common with Christianity (but a lot in common with Judaism). It is utterly incompatible with pre- and post-Enlightenment Western societies. It is alien to the Western mind (non-Christian as well as Christian), and to both liberals and conservatives. Muslims have contributed nothing but problems to the modern West – racial, cultural, fiscal, criminological, geostrategic. They are parasites at best, murderers at worst.

    The proper course wrt Islam for the West is total disengagement. ALL Muslims must be expelled from Europe (along with all other nonwhites). The traitors who invited these savages into Europe should be tried for racial and national treason, and, if convicted, hung. This may take a racist-fascist revolution; never would one be so morally justified.

    America is more complex. We never should have allowed Muslim (or other nonwhite) immigrants into our country, and we should stop admitting any more (as well as deport all illegal aliens). But I see no way we could juridically expel legal Muslim immigrants already lawfully here. What we can do is massively surveil their mosques, and subject all their activities as a community to withering scrutiny. We can deport legal Muslims involved in any type of subversive activity – and we can dramatically (and accurately) expand the definition of what constitutes such activity. We can send FBI infiltrators into CAIR, exactly as they were sent to defame and destroy the perfectly legal KKK under spurious legal doctrines. We can all personally attack Muslims verbally and institutionally every chance we get, telling them we do not consider them to be Americans, and never will. And that we want them GONE from OUR land. We can ourselves stand in front of “American” mosques and photograph whoever enters. We can do what I did a few years ago, which is to inform my alma mater that as long as they grant formal recognition to Islamic holidays (something not done in the 80s, and this at one of the Ivies), I will never give them a dime in alumni donations (I wouldn’t do so anyway, given my hatred of the PC university regime, but they don;t know that …).

    The goal is the recreation of Islam-free zones across the West, until one day the whole West is Islam-free.

  35. @German_reader

    How sad that the pale faced people of the earth, has succumbed to such lowliness of things. A very small group of people, Zionists and their lackeys control so completely the conversation, the thinking and the behavior of most of the world. In order for humans to free themselves, few things are needed. Leave churchianity, and any other ‘religion’, since religions only serve to slave people’s mind, to a group- think. I was deployed to Africa, and saw what ‘Islam’ is like. Marrying four wives? really? and other slaving cult like doctrines. I was in Arabia also. What a disgrace of country, only the ‘upper prices’ are wealthy. The rest are Bedouin like people roaming with their camels on the back of their little pick up trucks.
    Any way, Churchianity is a distracti0n, yet full of useful idiots who ‘worship’ Israel. I was fed up when the pastor of the last place where I attended ‘church’ was always enthusiastic preaching that we needed love ‘israel’ and send money, and more. It was like listening to satanic John Hagee, who almost caused me to vomit, listening to his ‘preaching’ and worshiping Judean and Israel. I went to his ‘church’ once. Was sick of hearing that bastard talmudist creep.
    So for you out there, if you are still stuck in churchianity, and hearing about ‘the people of god’ from your leaders, please, please! And listen to the last call!

    Then I heard another voice from heaven say: “Come out of her, My people, so that you will not share in her sins or contract any of her plagues.

    We don’t need alliances with any body; If you are a believer in Iosous Christos, and sick of the infiltrated “church”, then ‘Come out he her…”

    “Our race is the Master Race. We Jews are divine gods on this planet. We are as different
    from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races
    are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement.
    Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our
    leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”
    — Menachem Begin (1977 – 1983), Knesset speech, Jerusalem.

    So whites, grow some, and stand up to these people! Others don’t know at all, who the Master race is, according to Menachem satan!

    You may also read:
    How The Jews Betrayed Mankind
    V o l u m e O n e o f T h r e e V o l u m e s
    by G_d
    The Sumerian
    Swindle

    available PDF on line

  36. AaronB says:

    Guenon thought that only traditional Cathocism was appropriate to Europeans and it alone could revitalize Europe. He was quite explicit about this.

    He himself became a Muslim, but he did not at all recommend Europeans to become Muslim – quite the opposite.

  37. @Kevin Barrett

    Nonetheless, the point that you are willfully misconstruing Guenon as a proponent of Islam is completely accurate.
    Guenon’s entire mission was to try to show the West authentic metaphysics, which he believed the best example was from India.
    That Guenon became a Muslim in Egypt is a mere circumstance of his life, since he never wrote about it, and considered all traditions as from the same source.

  38. Orban isn’t “Islamophobic”, which is such a stupid term.
    That Orban wishes Hungary to maintain its Christian essence is hardly something to criticize.
    Oh, and by the way, Hungary has a very vibrant Traditionalist group led by Andras Laszlo, very Guenonian in nature, but not Islamic at all, which, is, of course, a perfectly Guenonian possibility, since he didn’t advocate for Islam.

  39. Seraphim says:
    @Leon Haller

    Should we remind the oblivious lectors that the first war of the new born USA was against the ‘jihad’ of the ‘Barbary pirates’ against America (1801-1805, under the presidency of Thomas Jefferson)? Followed by another one in 1815-1816.

  40. One of those rare courageous and brilliant individuals, and the most important thinker of the European New Right, is Russian political philosopher Alexander Dugin, founder of Eurasianism.

    The most hilarious thing here is that Dugin is now far better known in the US than in Russia itself.

    In Russia, he’s old news. Some name recognition, mainly from his National Bolshevik days, but has near zero visibility or relevance to its current discourse.

    But in the West? The MSM from The Guardian to the Wall Street Journal, Timothy Snyder, the Alt Right from Laura Southern to Richard Spencer, Western Russophiles, and now, apparently, Islamist globalists… how they all fawn over him. LOL.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  41. JimDandy says:

    Skimmed it. Gordian knot time: Hypothesis:

    Zionists promote the infusion of Muslims into Western countries so whites in said countries will ultimately find kinship with Israelis who seek to oppress Palestinians.

    Discuss.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  42. Not sure why you would want to do any metaphysics at all, pro or anti. Any thought of it is placing a-priori before a-posteriori – can’t get facts from truth inferred at the limit. Old religions are best because all the paths have been trodden, and the range for abstract thought has been laid down. For most, that means either fall to annihilationism or reificationism of self and experience.

  43. anon[399] • Disclaimer says:
    @Curmudgeon

    I can’t see too many Christian wives accepting that.

    Certainly not those in the 50% of marriages that remain intact.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  44. Whitewolf says:

    Guenon’s insight that the West’s salvation lay in Islam

    No. The West doesn’t need any more Abrahamism. It needs more Europeanism not some version of Abrahamism that is even more against our nature than Christianity is.

  45. idealog says: • Website

    “”Islam/Unitarianism is basically just rational Christianity, i.e., Christianity without its core irrational elements: 3 gods in 1, a human confused with God, and “God could only redeem the horribly fallen world by torturing His son to death.””

    O MY GOD, mister Kevin Barrett. If you really want rationality be an atheist. I am a religious man and i am aware that world is partially rational and partially an irrational place.
    For me exactly this irrational elements make GOD alive and beliveble. Without this GOD looks like a ancient greek god : no more than a human (a little bigger physically but flawed, limited, pretty stupid, many times feral, not worth worshiping etc.) + imortality.
    A real god must be so much more, much bigger and much higher than our limited intellect can comprehend that he certainlly must seemed irrational to us.
    For me you look like a intellectual narcissist (so many these days) who think that nothing must be beyond his intellectual capacity and when he face the infinite god with his finite mind he goes atheist or pick a smaller god which does not force him to intellectual humiliation and soul repentance.
    Sorry for my observations, I am probably wrong because I do not know you personally.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  46. vinteuil says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    I was brought up as a lapsed Unitarian

    It figures. Not just a Unitarian, but a lapsed Unitarian – i.e., one who is no longer quite sure that there is at most one God.

    3 gods in 1, a human confused with God, and “God could only redeem the horribly fallen world by torturing His son to death.” Throw out those nonsensical mystifications, and Christianity and Islam are in essence almost identical.

    I.e., once you throw out the doctrines of the trinity, the incarnation, and the sacrificial death of Jesus, what’s left of Christianity is not interestingly different from Islam.

    Islam, on the other hand, is well known for its lack of crazy stuff like Muhammad’s night journey to Jerusalem, his ascension into heaven, and…oh, wait…

    But seriously, my friend, if you want theism without irrational superstition, there are far superior alternatives. Have you read your Plato? Have you read your Aristotle?

    Anyway, best wishes on your ongoing spiritual journey.

  47. Parfois1 says:

    Those peoples who can overcome their egotistical tendencies toward idolatrous nationalisms, and instead work to establish multi-national polities under the ultimate sovereignty of God alone, will provide the solution to that crisis, and enable the creation of more just, viable, and sustainable social and political systems that harmonize with God-given human nature.

    …et Vive la Difference!
    Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
    Just replace the name of the deity with another and… Voila! all our troubles disappear!

    Islam has had a troublesome history – still ongoing. Its first task on the international scene was expansion by conquest; first North Africa from Egypt to Morocco, and from there to Christian Visigothic Hispania – perhaps the seminal event for the European expansion sequel. It was from that Islamic invasion that sprang the crusading spirit that unified medieval Europe against Islam, the formation of the Christian kingdoms of Iberia, the Reconquest, taking the sword to North Africa (Ceuta 1415), the discoveries and conquests all the way to the Middle East, India an beyond.

    If human history took place by dint of that “God-given human nature” what difference does it make whether the presiding God bears Islamic or Christian flags, or none at all? What’s the point of repeating the same mistakes and expect different results? About time to try to build a better world without the gods of Jews, Moslems, Christians or Pagans, especially the whimsical and tyrannical god the Old Testament.

    By the way, I was raised a Christian and follow its teachings because they coincide with my secular morality, not to obey the Ten Commandments and ancillary prescriptions. The ethics of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics are good enough to make a good human being, or even just being a plain good neighbour to everyone else.

  48. Hoot says:
    @Anon

    Great comment. I had read that Mohammed was illiterate and that he had to use jewish Rabbi’s to transcribe the words of Allah. This book, unfortunately I can’t find a clean copy online, appears to take it a step further and confirms the swath of destruction and genocide of cultures and peoples that history tells us about the jew.

    Even if Islam wasn’t a direct product of a talmudic conspiracy, even if Islam was completely independent of malignant jewish influence, this does not detract from the fact that today jews are cramming moslems and blacks down the throats of western countries.

    Hungary: The EU has provided 2 million migrants with unlawful cash cards worth 1.55 billion euros in an effort to legalise illegal migration

    The only way we will be able to determine the true nature of Islam will be to pry the fingers of Jewish influence from their throats and then have a rollback of the moslem invasion to provide time for both peoples to pause and reflect. Jews use Moslems as bullets against whites. Once the cultures are separated and at peace and have had time to mature, then perhaps we could talk about “alliances”. It is important to also note that jews are using white Christians as bullets against moslems across Syria and the Middle East, so this would be to their culture’s benefit as well.

    It is like a school yard brawl. The two boys have to be pried apart, scolded, forced to apologize to each other, and then given time to allow their bruised egos to heal.

  49. Voltaire says:

    Lets make this simple.
    Muslims are coming to the west therefoe the West must be better or westerners would be heading to Arabia.

    Here is the solution…Muslims coming to Christian countries convert to Christianity.
    Christians moving to Muslim countries convert to Islam.
    Problem solved we all live in harmony.

    Funnyly enough this is actualy happening to an extent …because Islam without apostasy laws to hold it together cannot survive in the West.
    The fadish conversion to Islam pendulem is already swinging back….more muslims are converting to christianity than the other way round…they are just keeping rather quite about it.

    I predict a Catholic revivel in the West simmilar to the Eastern Orthodox’s revival in Russia.
    Funny how you dont hear much about this revival in the Jmedia.

  50. West did eat all its porridge, and now is looking for spiritual satisfaction.
    Spiritual satisfaction is in pastorale. Admiration of Gods creation.

  51. onebornfree says: • Website

    Regards, onebornfree

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [via central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”,”improved”, nor “limited” in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature.” onebornfree

    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/

  52. @Leon Haller

    “…suffice it to say, the West must rise again to its rightful place of world preeminence if not outright global hegemony)…”

    That would be white supremacism in stead of white nationalism. With the coming rise of China impossible, but undesirable anyway. We only need our own territory for our own people with our own culture. For the rest I agree with your opinion on Islam.

  53. vinteuil says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    In all of human history, there is no more potent symbol than the crucified God: the ultimate victim as the ultimate hero: the incarnation of suffering humanity.

    Muhammad, on the other hand…let’s just say that nobody ever mistook him for anybody’s victim.

    • Replies: @Moi
    , @Talha
  54. Jake says:

    “René Guenon (1886-1951), the founder of Traditionalism. Guenon, who dabbled in freemasonry as a young man, discovered that esotericism is essentially satanic, that real gnosis can only be found in traditional religion—and that the best-preserved religious tradition is Islam. Guenon’s insight that the West’s salvation lay in Islam was more than a century ahead of its time.”

    Asserting that the Modern West’s salvation lies in Mohammedanism is like asserting that the salvation of ancient Hellas lay in importing more trash from the Levant, such as the cult of Dionysius and hordes of Aramaic speakers and their Semitic culture awash in fertility cult filth. Such a call for salvation is actually a call for cultural pollution preceding murder. Guenon, who looked like he had a nice dollop of Semitic blood, spent a life promoting the West doing just that (but, as far as I know, with more emphasis on Hinduism and its attendant dope usages than on Mohammedanism).

    The ‘problem’ we face is not merely Jewish banking and its Medusan hold over the world. The problem is Semitic culture in any form, Arabic/Mohammedan as well as Jewish. Jews and Mohammedans are the two halves of the one anti-Christ/anti-Christendom/anti-peoples of historic Christendom coin.

    The West will return to historic Christianity (that precludes any form of the general heresy of Protestantism and not just its most obviously Judaizing ones such as Anglo-Saxon Puritanism), or the West will die a suicide.

    Guenon, of course, was a proud Gnostic. Gnostism was subdued within the Church only when all Judaizing elements were battled into submission, and gnostic notions returned as Judaizing elements were reborn. With that in mind, here is a link to an article on the Gnostic origins (by way of Jews and Christian heretics who were Gnostic) of Mohammedanism: http://www.culturewars.com/2018/Gardinerreview.htm

  55. Moi says:
    @Anon

    Yo, moron, what is called Sufism is no “ism”–it is the very heart of Islam. Al-Ghazali, ibn Arabi (called the sheikh al akbar–meaning greatest teacher) were “sufis.”

    The sufis focus on “ahsan,” which is the highest aim for Muslims. Ahsan is loosely translated as “excellence”–excellence of character, thought, speech, and everything that is pleasing to God/Allah. BTW, the word Jesus used for God is Alaha. Which is Aramaic for Allah.

    But I know I’m wasting my time responding to a bigot. Ciao!

  56. Moi says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    Kevin, I’m surprised you’re wasting your time responding to bigots, fools and the ignorant. Peace, brother!

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  57. Moi says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    From the Islamic point of view, ALL the prophets of the OT and Jesus delivered the same messsage–self-surrender to God, which is what Islam means. Indeed, the Qu’ran says that God has sent his messengers to all peoples, so Confucius, Buddha, shaman may have been God’s messengers. However, we cannot be sure since they are not mentioned in the Qu’ran. In short, respect all peoples and all religions.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  58. Moi says:
    @RJJCDA

    Don’t BS us. Jihad does not mean war, it means struggle, exertion, effort to be good in spirit and deed.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  59. AaronB says:
    @Jake

    Gnosticism is profoundly alien to Judaism. Judaism believes this world was created by God and is good.

    Guenon also believed that Catholicism was the only possible Tradition for Europe.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  60. Only those who are ignorant about Islam can propose it as the “solution” of the problems of the West. Not only has Islam been the aggressive enemy of the West for 14 centuries, its adoption would mean a regression to a far more inferior cultural stage, which we have outgrown since the Middle Ages. Collective “submission” (the true meaning of the term Islam) to a set of rigid draconian rules decreed by a Despotic Deity, may seem a “superior” way of life to the IQ 85 masses of the Islamic world, to us modern Westerners it would be an insult to our intelligence and sense of personal freedom.

    For a good introduction to the curse of Islam, see :

    The Religion of Peace : https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Especially the subjects : Islam, Muhammad and Quran.

    And : Wikiislam : https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page

    Especially :

    Science and Miracles : Scientific Errors in the Quran, Flat Earth and the Quran.
    Prophet Muhammad : List of killings ordered or supported by Muhammad.
    Jihad and Terrorism : Lesser and Greater Jihad.
    Women : Rape in Islam.

    The “prophet” Muhammad was a criminal warlord who engaged in robbery, murder and rape, all under the direct inspiration of a Dark Spirit whom he called “Allah” and who became the supreme deity of his followers, who felt justified to engage in same.
    The “revelations” by that Dark Spirit which constitute the Quran, are a jumbled collection of fanatical exhortations, scientific and theological errors, and permissions to justify Muhammads personal immoral conduct. Muhammads criminal sect became highly successful by conquest of the sword and by appealing to the lower nature of man (aggression, robbery and rape). Thus it became a world religion which we are supposed to “respect”. Not respecting this abomination enough is typically met by threats of violence, like the Mafia the only way this “religion” can induce it.
    And this Islam should “save” us ?

  61. Both Judaism and Islam are vile contraptions. Imagine people going around and believing in an invisible God in the Sky !!!! I say lets euthanize the stupid, we are to many here on earth anyway.
    A form of organized socialism is what works…

  62. Jake says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    Unitarianism is a Judaizing heresy because it denies the Trinity. And Mohammedanism is but another form of Semitic denial of Christ, of the Incarnation.

    You are what you always have been: a Judaizing, or if you prefer a Semitizing, product of the Anglophone Reformation, which has proven the biggest boon for Talmudism in history as well as the greatest gift to Mohammedanism.

  63. Moi says:
    @vinteuil

    the music put me to sleep. ha, ha

    Also, did not know God could be crucified by puny humans He created.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    , @Ilyana_Rozumova
  64. Talha says:
    @vinteuil

    the ultimate victim as the ultimate hero

    Interesting, never thought of this…this would seem to provide insights to the unique incubation of victimology culture in the modern West.

    Peace.

  65. @Moi

    Ignorant “prophet” Muhammad thought that all those former prophets got a “book from Allah” which they revealed to their followers. Thus ignorant Muhammad thought that Jesus got Injil (the New Testament) directly from Allah. In reality the New Testament is a collection of books by various writers, written and collected after the death of Jesus. But this is only one of the many blunders in the Qur’an. See : Historical & Scientific Blunders in Qur’an / Facebook

    • Replies: @Moi
  66. @Moi

    Jihad Means
    ‘Inner Struggle’

    The Myth:
    Jihad simply means ‘struggle’ and really just refers to a peaceful striving against sin rather than a holy war to spread Islam.

    The Truth:
    In Arabic “jihad” means struggle. In Islam it means holy war.

    The Quran specifically exempts the disabled and ‘weak’ from Jihad (4:95, 9:91), which would make no sense if the word is being used within the context of spiritual struggle. It is also unclear why Muhammad and his Quran would use graphic language, such as smiting fingers and heads from the hands and necks of unbelievers if he were speaking of character development.

    With this in mind, Muslim apologists generally admit that there are two meanings to the word, but sometimes claim that “inner struggle” is the “greater Jihad,” whereas “holy war” is the “lesser.” In fact, this misconception is based on a weak single hadith that Islamic scholars generally agree was fabricated.

    By contrast, the most reliable of all Hadith collections is that of Bukhari. Jihad is mentioned over 50 times in reference to the words of Muhammad (in sahih verses). Each carries a clear connotation to holy war, with only a handful of possible exceptions (dealing with a woman’s supporting role during a time of holy war, and a non-combatant’s obligation to supply funding).

    Neither the Shiite tradition nor any of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence have much to say about Jihad in a context other than physical warfare against unbelievers and its funding. According to Reliance of the Traveler, “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion

    The association of ‘Jihad’ with spiritual struggle in the modern discourse is a rhetorical strategy to downplay the association of Islam with violence.

    [Additional Note: Apologists try to minimize fear of Jihad and devalue its association with terrorism by claiming that Jihad can only be declared by a caliphate. There are two problems with this. The first is that a caliphate isn’t mythical, but can be self-proclaimed at any time (as all caliphates are). This is the case with ISIS. The second problem is that this rule of declaring Jihad is found in the Sharia, and is thus as legitimate as anything else found there – including the execution of apostates, gays and adulterers. ]

    Source : The Religion of Peace – Islam – Myths of Islam – Jihad means ‘Inner Struggle’.

    “Peaceful” Muhammad with his companions were constantly engaged in warfare, robbery and rape, and so were his caliphs who conquered a huge empire with the sword. In practice Islam meant war. Not only the Christian peoples of the world experienced that, but also Zoroastrians, Hindus and Buddhists.

  67. Talha says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    Yours is a quite a precise note on the subject. A couple of fairly good academic resources on the topic – for those interested – are:
    http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/print/opr/t236/e0759

    http://islam.uga.edu/sufismdef.html

    Nicholson actually has translated (fairly reliably) a couple of primers or core treatises from early shaykhs of the path. His translation of the classic Kashf al-Mahjub of Shaykh Ali Hujweri (ra) is good enough that I’ve seen actual Muslim scholars use it to teach their classes on spirituality for English speaking audiences:

    As you said, if there was any question about the place of Tasawwuf within the Islamic framework, it was laid to rest by Imam Ghazali (ra). Tasawwuf being yet another systematic codification of a branch of Islamic knowledge at the hands of, of course, the Persians – who else?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  68. @Moi

    Actually most think the same about muslims. The best thing is to separate, not engage, each to his own – that is the true respect. I don’t see Christian missionaries going to Saudi to spread their religion, open churches, and promote the Bible so why can’t you have the same respect when you go to Christian countries?

    • Replies: @Moi
  69. vinteuil says:

    …the music put me to sleep…

    I think, probably, it didn’t.

  70. @Franklin Ryckaert

    For a history of Islamic Jihad, see : [pdf] Islamic Jihad, by M.A. Khan, a former Muslim from India.

  71. @JimDandy

    Not going to discuss this in detail, but I would have thought that Zionists already had plenty of support in the west before they started importing muslims in great numbers. However …..

    The more muslims they import, the more of these newcomers will involve themselves in politics, and influence of the politics of their newfound countries which will turn more pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. Also, as a reaction to both the muslims and the Jews importing them, neo-Nazi anti-semitic groups will grow and these too will tend to be anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli. Of course some hard-core Zionists perhaps want this so as to get all Jews driven out of the West to Israel to help them build a greater Israel as per the Oded-Yinon Plan, and driving ever more Arabs as refugees from their Middle Eastern wars to the West helps to depopulate these areas they’ve earmarked for their future living space.

    So it all revolves around the following three plots:

    1. The Coudenhove-Kalergi plan to mongrelise and weaken the European nations.
    2. The Oded – Yinon Plan for a greater Israel between the two rivers, the Nile and the Euphrates.
    3. The Samson Option that keeps Israel covered and helps them to extort and blackmail the West by
    threatening to nuke European capitals should they step out of line, and they can keep doing that
    even if all Jews are expelled from the West to Israel, regardless of who is left to run these
    countries.

    • Replies: @Wally
  72. vinteuil says:
    @Moi

    …did not know God could be crucified by puny humans He created…

    Really? Seriously? You haven’t the first effing clue what Christianity is all about?

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    , @Moi
  73. vinteuil says:
    @Talha

    Ah, Talha. I was wondering when you would show up.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  74. Moi says:
    @Commentator Mike

    The better way is to see all humans as one by respecting all. Forget the KSA, that place is nuts. That said, Christians missionaries have gone all over the place trying to convert people to their ManGod.

    But nice try. Don’t bother hiding your ignorance/bigotry.

    BTW, I went to a Jesuit boarding school from grade 5 thru 12.

  75. vinteuil says:
    @Talha

    …never thought of this…

    So I guess you’ve never read any Nietzsche? or even any Sailer?

    This is pretty basic stuff.

    • Replies: @Talha
  76. vinteuil says:
    @Moi

    I went to a Jesuit boarding school from grade 5 thru 12.

    Say no more. My deepest sympathies. Best wishes for your eventual recovery.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  77. @Talha

    Interesting, never thought of this…this would seem to provide insights to the unique incubation of victimology culture in the modern West.

    Jesus Christ is lauded as “both priest and victim” because he offered himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. Nobody took His life from Him; He laid it down willingly. Here the the word “victim” refers to the creature, formerly an animal, that was sacrificed on an altar for the expiation of sin. Jesus, as the Son of God, being the High Priest par excellence, had both the right and the ability to offer the highest sacrifice possible, namely Himself, the unblemished Lamb of God. Obviously this has nothing to do with the colloquial use of the term “victim” and its cognate victimology, which now refers to grievance mongering and the manufacture of entitlements to gibs. That is trashy modern socialism and it is as far away from Christian holiness as it is possible to be.

    The formula “Christ as priest and victim” is foundational to the entire Christian credo and if you haven’t thought about this, then frankly, you haven’t thought about much.

    • Replies: @Talha
  78. @Jake

    Edifying, as usual.

    This reinforces your established credibility as historically in distant times and places such as Spain and Constantinople the Jews opened the gates to Islamic Jihad conquest as they are now doing in Europe and USA for the very reason you state, to slaughter Jesus’s sheep:

    The ‘problem’ we face is not merely Jewish banking and its Medusan hold over the world. The problem is Semitic culture in any form, Arabic/Mohammedan as well as Jewish. Jews and Mohammedans are the two halves of the one anti-Christ/anti-Christendom/anti-peoples of historic Christendom coin.

    So yes, the church founded by Jesus, The Roman Catholic Church, is the only hope for earthly survival of the ethnic group most faithful to Jesus, the people of Euro descent, just as that Church is the only hope for any human’s eternal salvation:

    The West will return to historic Christianity (that precludes any form of the general heresy of Protestantism and not just its most obviously Judaizing ones such as Anglo-Saxon Puritanism), or the West will die a suicide.

  79. @Moi

    There is no repetitive action in Gods creation. There is only total destruction of the attempt. And there is totally new creation. (Past mistakes are taken care of.)

  80. PeterMX says:

    The West’s decline started with WW I, then WW II may have been it’s deathblow. Most of Europe was destroyed or bankrupted and it lost it’s leadership in science and industry to the USA and the USSR. Up until 1945 Europe dominated science and engineering, with Germany leading all countries in Nobel Prizes, but Great Britain, France and Italy, as well as others were very advanced. That all changed in 1945 and the US became the leader in science and competed with the USSR. After 2,000 years Europe no longer lead the world because they destroyed themselves.

    But you could not have predicted the downward spiral would continue so that Europe would then fall behind Asia too. Before 1945 they led in all fields, now they don’t lead in any that I am aware of. Making nice cars is good, but that not good enough. Japan, Korea, Singapore and now China, a dirt poor backwards country when I was a child are in position to surpass the USA. They have already surpassed Europe. And Europe’s cities, which were the most beautiful in the world up until maybe 20 years ago, have been surpassed by Asian cities I believe.

  81. @Jake

    Robert Spencer (jihadwatch.org), world elite intellect and heroic canary in the coal mine courageously warning the West of the anti-Jesus murder/enslavement/rape cult that is Islam, in his 2014 book Did Muhammad Exist? shows the Koran to be a translation into Arabic of a heretical Christian lectionary originally written in the Syriac language. The translation is so literal in major part that the Syriac word for “Lectionary” is “Koran”, so the Arabs forgot to translate the title into Arabic.

    Robert Spencer himself is a subtle case in point of Jews using Islam – he’s “controlled opposition” in the Orwellian sense because the Jew David Horowitz finances his truth telling about Islam to obscure the reality that the Jews are foisting Islam on the West via open borders immigration thereby facilitating what Muslims call “Hijra” – migrating to spread Islamic conquest.

    Spencer’s function for the Jews is to make Israel and the Jews appear to be at greatest risk as the main target of Islamic Jihad when in reality Muslims are golem serving the Jews by attacking old Christendom The West as a major thrust of the #JEW$4WHITE.GENOCIDE intiative.

  82. Talha says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    First time I’ve heard of that exactly phrased formula as being foundational to Christianity, thanks.

    Peace.

  83. Charles Upton is like the American Dugin. I heard in an interview that he converted to Islam as a mature adult after being converted by his wife who had previously converted to Islam as a mature adult when that was the flavor of the month in their Marin County neighborhood back in the 1970’s. This is a pretty bizarre origin story only if you have never spent any time in Marin County.

    https://charles-upton.com/2018/12/13/a-challenge-to-aleksandr-dugin/

  84. Talha says:
    @vinteuil

    I’ve read up on some Nietzche, sure. Don’t particularly care for Sailer.

    Now that you mention it, it definitely seems like a criticism Nietzche would offer; and perhaps he did in those exact words in some writings I am unfamiliar with.

    That exact phrase you used was novel to me at least.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  85. PPB says:

    I have no problem with Islam becoming one presence among others in western nations, one that allows the minority of those nations’ inhabitants who are naturally so inclined to adopt Islam as their preferred spiritual template. The question, however, is what type of Islam will any western culture with a healthy backbone and immune system allow to gain a foothold in its territory?

    Do we want an Islam that subordinates the legal rights of women, carries out death sentences against apostates, disparages dogs and imposes a prohibition against representative art, as though God was somehow restricted from creating through the medium of human beings? (I won’t include the prohibition against graphic depictions of the Prophet here, which has its own legitimate reasons). Does the letter of a law (as opposed to its inner spirit) that may have been appropriate for the tribal environment of the Arabian Peninsula a millennium and and a half ago, still apply as intelligently in all respects today? To what extent is the most crude, literalistic and superficial reading of the Koran consonant with its inner essence?

    Just as with Christianity, in its broader historical expanse, we have everything ranging from Pseudo-Dionysius and Eckhart to Falwell and Hagee, not to mention Torquemada, we also see a similar spectrum of wisdom, insight and nobility within the world of Islam, and even within the world of western secularism. Let all of us see as clearly and choose as wisely as possible, and by doing so defuse the belligerent tribalism that occupies the lowest extremes of our respectively preferred traditions.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  86. Wally says:
    @KenH

    Indeed, we don’t see millions of people flooding into Muslim countries, but we do see millions of people flooding into the west from Muslim countries.

    Muslims are therefore admitting that what they have created is a failure. Everywhere they go we observe the same results.

    Why is this even a discussion?

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Theodore
  87. vinteuil says:
    @Talha

    Don’t particularly care for Sailer.

    What a surprise.

  88. @anon

    Except that in the USA at least, Christian couples who attend church regularly together do NOT divorce at a rate near fifty percent.

    I can readily think of 8-10 divorced couples of my acquaintance over the years, who were not religiously observant and/or were mixed religiously. Can think of only one divorced couple who regularly attended church together.

    Not the only factor, by any means, but it’s apparently a strong factor.

    So any implication that observant Christianity leaves couples as prone to divorce as other couples, doesn’t seem well founded.

  89. Wally says:
    @Commentator Mike

    said:
    “Also, as a reaction to both the muslims and the Jews importing them, neo-Nazi anti-semitic groups will grow and these too will tend to be anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli.”

    Bait taken by the naive Commentator Mike.

    Use of Zionist propaganda terms like “Neo-Nazi” & “anti-semitic” is just what Zionists / Jews want.

    Bend over.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  90. Talha says:
    @Wally

    Muslims are therefore admitting that what they have created is a failure.

    Barring a few exceptions, pretty much…some tough-love/no-nonsense advice from Dr Shadee:

    Gotta own it – that’s the first step. Playing the victim card will never let someone deal with reality of their own failures nor attempt striving to improve.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  91. I agree with Najef-Zadeh and Upton that Dugin’s anti-metaphysics seems either wrong, self-contradictory, impossible to understand…or at least impossible for me to understand

    LOL. I may go back to famous Ivan Andreevich Krulov and his fable A Casket: “The Casket could be simply opened.” The fable meaning not to look for something which is not there and is simple to understand. No normally educated and experienced person can “understand” Dugin’s “concepts” and “anti-metaphysics” because it is full of shit verbose demagoguery hidden under the fig leaf of pretentious “intellectualism”, lost in the world where a broad and serious knowledge of technological realities is required–and that one is hard, sometimes really hard. It is all reminiscent of a good level jazz improvisation–one has to have a background to sometimes understand where jazz musician exhibits a superb technique and musical sense or, as is the case with Dugin, the jazz-man is simply an amateur who hides behind the wall of random notes, which make no music at all.

  92. @vinteuil

    It’s pretty clear that he views the notion of a God incarnate being murdered by mortal men, as absurd. Right or wrong, that’s mockery od Christian doctrine, not ignorance of it.

    Separately, how the Trinity concept can seem obvious, intuitive, or logical to people is beyond me. And why is such a concept at all necessary or useful to understanding God’s creation, living a morally good life, loving and being loved, fighting evil within and without ourselves, improving one’s character and soul, becoming more enlightened, seeking and trying to respect natural law / God’s will? Other than habit and tradition, why possibly insist that God has a triune nature? Why not a twenty-part nature?

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    , @AnonFromTN
  93. vinteuil says:
    @PPB

    To what extent is the most crude, literalistic and superficial reading of the Koran consonant with its inner essence?

    Let me guess: it’s not consonant at all!

    Do I get a prize for guessing right?

    • Replies: @PPB
  94. @German_reader

    I think you just hit the nail on the head. As Russell Kirk once noted, it is impossible to separate Christianity and Western civilization. Those who do so, whether Muslim, Jew, Nazi, Fascist, Communist, or Socialist, are out to eradicate Western civilization and either subjugate or eliminate all descendants of the European peoples who created it.

  95. @Kevin Barrett

    As far as a positive attitude toward Christian recorded in the Qur’an and opposed to Jews and Pagans: Wouldn’t you say this is partially due to open direct conflict with Jews and Pagans during the lifetime of Muhammad. In the Arabian peninsula there were a minority of Christians, many of them Nestorians or some other “non-Orthodox” variety. They were not a military threat to Islam, whereas for instance, there were organized Arabized Jewish tribes who directly battled with Muhammad. Islamic/Christian conflict came after Muhammad’s death -with the Byzantines.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Kevin Barrett
  96. When the author refers to God (with a capital G), one wonders which one. There are hundreds of religions with thousands of gods (an infinite number, if you include Buddhism). Some are even female, like Amaterasu Omikami of Shinto. If the author means Allah of the Muslims, that version of god is exactly as Jewish-inspired as the Christ of Christians. Allah is just Yahweh of Arab nomads, no more, no less.

    BTW, “rigorous philosophy” is a contradiction in terms.

  97. vinteuil says:
    @RadicalCenter

    So let me get this straight – you’re on board with the doctrine of the incarnation, but you’re troubled by the doctrine of the trinity?

    You swallow the camel, but strain at the gnat?

    • Replies: @Grace Poole
  98. @Jus' Sayin'...

    Christianity is about half of Western civilization. The other (older) half is Greco-Roman paganism. When Europe became Christian it didn’t discard its Greco-Roman cultural legacy, it incorporated it but without faith in its religion. Similarly, Westerners who have discarded the Christian religion, still have incorporated its cultural legacy. Those are the so-called “cultural Christians”. I don’t think a revival of Christianity is possible anymore . All Christian churches are in favor of mass non-White immigration. A pro-White Christianity cannot be created, due to its universal character. Within a few decades Christianity will become a majority non-White religion anyway.

    • Replies: @Republic
  99. PPB says:
    @vinteuil

    OK, vinteul, here’s a kewpie doll for you 🙂

    Sure, mine was a rhetorical question, but points to why I find any and all Abrahamic religions difficult to swallow, digest and assimilate in their entirety. How can any religious orthodoxy or designated “holy book” that asserts a purely divine origin, contain mixed messages that appeal to both the best and the worst in us? Why not instead eat a fine bouillabaisse that’s full of rocks? The only genuine option I see is either to sift out the jewels from the rubble or to seek inspiration elsewhere, whether in a commonly practiced “relgion” or not.

    Grand prize available for correctly answering any of the additional questions above.

  100. @Kevin Barrett

    Sufism is at the heart of orthodox Islam;
    Sufis, by the way, are not pacifists; they are no more nor less militant than anyone else.

    I guess I’m missing something. Are you saying the Ottomans weren’t really trying to spread Islam into Europe? That those annual marches toward Vienna were strictly commercial in purpose?

    If Islam were not spread by the sword, Persia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan wouldn’t be Islamic countries, and would Turkey wouldn’t have spawned the Ottomans. Spain would never have been subjected to 700 years of occupation and Tours wouldn’t have happened. Ask a Hindu or Sikh about the benevolence of Islam. Let’s face it. If the Mongols hadn’t invaded from the East, slaughtered millions, and pushed Islam’s advance back about 20 years, we’d all be Muslims.

    Sure, some European kings spread Christianity by the sword, but that was almost always confined to their own realm. Buddhists may be violent at times, but they didn’t spread the faith through violence, nor did Jains. Last time I checked, Christians didn’t burn down synagogues or attack Jews when Larry David pissed on a picture of Jesus.

    It’s not Hindus and Sikhs grooming young women for rape and prostitution in Britain and other countries, It’s Muslims.

    I’m not suggesting all Muslims are violent, but to make a general statement they are no more or less militant than anyone else is either dishonest or delusional.

    • Replies: @Talha
  101. @RadicalCenter

    You sound either like a rational person, or like a Buddhist. Certainly not like a true believer Christian. The answer to your question is “Credo quia absurdum” (“I believe because it is absurd”).

  102. @Jus' Sayin'...

    Accurate scholarship would reveal that neither “Nazism” — German National Socialism, nor Fascism, as defined by Gentile – Mussolini sought to “separate Christianity and Western civilization.”

    Time to start understanding NS and Fascism from robustly researched, argued, and counter-argued historical scholarship rather than Hollywood, History Channel, or ADL etc. propaganda.


    With tremendous respect & deference to Cloak And Dagger and to renfro, an incident in my neighborhood just yesterday re-affirmed my conviction that it is at least equally important to get the history of the world wars right, as it is to get the straight scoop on 9/11: in both cases the wrong parties have been vilified while the real evil-doers remain at-large and continue to inflict damage.

    That incident — a seemingly healthy 20″ caliper, 70′ tall tree toppled from its base onto cars in the street: its roots had girdled the tree at its very foundation. With no outside force, it simply sheared off at the soil line.

    If its foundation is rotten, distorted — i.e. not plumb, square and level, or based on a lie, nothing built / growing atop a thing, whether a tree, a house, a mind, or a culture, can possibly be true therefore cannot survive and thrive.

    • Replies: @Grace Poole
  103. Moi says:
    @vinteuil

    I kno0w what Xianity is about–belief in the crucifixion and resurrection. But where does Christ say he is God, worship me or pray to me?

    Hindus say Krishna and Rama were gods incarnate. So Xianity has some competition in that space of Man God.

  104. Talha says:
    @Brooklyn Dave

    Islamic/Christian conflict came after Muhammad’s death -with the Byzantines.

    This is not correct. There was one engagement with the Byzantines (Battle of Mu’tah – supposed to be a retaliatory raid for a Byzantine vassal killing a Muslim emissary) in which the commanders of the expedition were all killed, including the cousin of the Prophet (pbuh); one account states he was cleaved in half by a (apparently very strong) Byzantine soldier. Khalid ibn Walid (ra) was able to regroup, keep the army from becoming surrounded and overwhelmed, and pull off a tactical retreat.

    The Prophet (pbuh) also led a fairly large expedition personally against the Byzantines called the Expedition of Tabuk as some intelligence reports had mentioned Byzantines were encroaching upon Northern Arabia. By the time they arrived, either the Byzantines had left or the report was faulty; nothing really came out of it except that some alliances of various tribes were made in the area and the cowardice of the hypocrites was exposed.

    He also dispatched an expedition under Usama bin Zayd (ra) – whose father was the lead commander killed at Mu’tah – against the Byzantines as a follow up to Tabuk. The army turned back around when they heard reports that the Prophet (pbuh) had passed away. The same army was then (almost immediately) redeployed at the same target as one of the first fully-committed expeditionary forces into Byzantine territory.

    The Rashidun simply finished what was already started.

    The respect in the Qur’an to Christians specifically mentions certain spiritual traits as being laudable. If you read some of the writings of early Sufis, you find they were impressed by some of the spiritual practices and asceticism they found being pursued by some Christian monks.

    Peace.

  105. Alden says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    I always thought Newburgh went down in the 1960’s when the NYC projects were filled up and the welfare blacks moved to Newburgh to take advantage of cheap housing as the factories closed. Upstate NY is absolutely beautiful with all the gorges and waterfalls. And so much of the housing, from mansions to the smallest working class cottages and flats is pre mid 20th century abomination.

  106. @Grace Poole

    PS Joseph, Jesus’s designated father, was a carpenter.

  107. Alden says:
    @Anon

    I’ve read that those Sufi dancers wear the big white skirts to better show off the blood of Christians when and if the muslims finally succeed in getting rid of us infidels. There are a lot of pre Islamic groups that survived by being Islam on the outside and keeping vestiges of their pre Islamic religion quietly at home. The Alawites, Druzes and others are among these groups.

  108. @vinteuil

    I grew up and spent the majority of my life in as intensely Roman Catholic an environment as can be imagined.
    I never did and still do not understand or find necessary to living a good life belief in the Trinity.

    The Word was made Flesh.
    Jesus was not a philosophical proposition but a real, living human being. His life was in accord with Logos — the Creator-ordained rationality of the natural universe. That’s all I need to know.

    Mary: Our savior from an abstract Christ.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @vinteuil
  109. Alden says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    In that passage, the Prophet was not speaking of Christians in general. He was speaking specifically of the local monks who had libraries and productive farms and had no weapons and were ripe for conquest.

  110. @Franklin Ryckaert

    RE: Shiites.
    As I understand it, Shiites are prepared for Karbala every day. Perhaps that is why Jews feel safe in Iran.

    https://www.al-islam.org/articles/karbala-the-chain-of-events-ramzan-sabir

  111. @Talha

    Be it in advance, ‘eid mubarak to both you and Dr. Barrett.

    • Replies: @Talha
  112. Alden says:
    @Curmudgeon

    One thing I’ve always detested about the Golden Age of Islam propaganda is that it wasn’t a Golden Age of Islam. It was the last of 3,000 years of the great ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian Sumerian, Black Sea, Mediterranean, Greek, Roman, Spanish, Anatolian etc civilizations. Within 400 years, 650 to 1050 Islam destroyed those civilizations and peoples and a thousand years later they haven’t recovered.

    I remember being 14 years old and reading the chapters on Islam in the World Civilizations required history course. The book went on and on about the glories of Islam and the backwardness of Europe. As I read the book, I realized the authors compared the glories of a Sultan’s palace with the most backward parts of Europe. The destruction of the Iraq irrigation system by the mongols was a disaster. But in 700 years the Iraqi’s couldn’t have rebuilt it? That’s Islam.

    Look at Pakistan and India since the split. Pakistan’s a disaster in every way, especially for the few Christians in the country. Secular majority Hindu religion India thrives. Then there’s the total corruption in muslim majority towns with muslim county and city council critters and governmetn workers.

  113. Republic says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    This what Dr William L Pierce said about Christian churches in 1992:

    the major Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant, liberal and fundamentalist, have openly aligned themselves with the enemies of the White race. The Catholics and the liberal Protestants are vigorously supporting racial mixing, while the fundamentalist Protestants are strong boosters of Zionism. These alignments will become increasingly important factors in our struggle in the years ahead, as the churches become more and more involved in social and political issues. The Jews have already announced their intention to mobilize fundamentalist Christians in their effort to maintain control of the U.S. government.

  114. Alden says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Those temporary marriage ceremonies are all legal religious marriages preformed by Imans. The Imans and their wives are the pimps and procurers of the islamic world. The temporary wives are nothing more than professional prostitutes. Yet it’s considered a sin for a male store clerk to touch a woman customer’s hand or a woman to reveal feet, hands or face in public. Then there’s the preference for anal sex with boys and teens who are “on the circuit” traveling around with their pimps as prostitutes do.

    Is lam is like liberalism. It’s a mass of contradictions and hypocrisy.

  115. sally says:
    @German_reader

    world of autonomous, fully-sovereign nation-states are containers, which allow to apply the law of cancellation.. Religion, guns, abortion, race, color, IQ, basically difference of any kind can be used to divide and conquer. Do not forget the law of cancellation.. =>

    [MORE]

    9 people stranded on planet Z, elect one of their members, the hill, to be the government. The hill assessed everyone taxes to fill the chest available to the hill, and considerable research the hill decides half of the remaining 8 want guns, and half do not, The hill discovers that 1/2 of the remaining 8 are for abortion, the other half are not.. Turns out among the 8, 4 are for both abortion and against guns; while 4 are against abortion and for guns. So he appoints the first 4 to group R and the second to group D.. Turns on his propaganda broadcast station and blast away at the pros and cons of abortion and guns.. In time the Rs hate the Ds and the Ds hate the Rs. so each vote looks like one of the two following tallies:
    for the Rs = 4 yes or for the Rs = 4 no
    for the Ds = 4 no or for the Ds = 4 yes
    for the hill=
    either 1 yes or 1 no <= thus far the hill has one gotten everything it wanted.

    Those peoples who can overcome their egotistical tendencies toward idolatrous nationalism, and instead work to establish multi-national polities under the ultimate sovereignty of God alone, will provide the solution to that crisis, and enable the creation of more just, viable, and sustainable social and political systems that harmonize with God-given human nature.

    Humanity is a product of God. Nation, is the name for a man made container that man uses to divide and conquer Gods products. The sort is necessary in order to pit one container against the other container and to pit the mass of human power in each container against all of the others others. This is done to reduce the massive power vested in the masses to no power at all. Power reduction is an essential requirement if a few are to control each container and if fewer still are to control the containers. The method of control is the law of cancellation.

    Education is a bureaucracy, learning is a biological response to experience. The motivation of a conscious person is dependant on capacity to access and use retained experience. It is the experience that sorts humanity into containers, the Law of cancellation that allows a few to control the power of the masses in each container.. and the relationships of the containers to each other.

    Keven’s experience is different from German_Reader.. but his point is that the quality of human life allowed to humanity on this earth is up to the masses not to the few. The power of the few is extracted from the masses by the law of cancellation. Keep the LAC in mind….the will of the masses is independent of the demands of the few.

  116. Laughable. I’ve read more than 20 books authored by these guys, perennialists (Guenon, Burckhardt, Marco Pallis, Schuon, some Evola, Lings, Hossein Nasr,…). With some exceptions, most are converts to Islamic Sufism. Also, they are polyglot, highly cultured & artistically oriented, as well as anti-scientific intellectual reactionaries. Here they are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_School

    With regard to politics, history, technology, culture in the broader sense … they’re clueless, simplistic & not worth the trouble.

  117. Alden says:
    @KenH

    Great post. Why did so many Europeans swarm to the USA for 3oo years? Because from 1600 to 1900 life was so much better in America for the middle and working class. Why did Europeans stop migrating to the USA after WW2? Because the W. European governments feared communist revolution and made life much better for the average person. Why have Mexican and Central American working class Indians swarmed to the USA in the last 50 years? Because life is so much better for the average S. American here in the USA. Why do the upward mobile Asian swarm to the USA? Because job opportunities, wages and conditions are so much better in the USA than in their native countries.

    And why have muslims invaded Europe, even risking their lives on rickety boats in storm season?

    Because life on welfare in Europe is so much better than being middle class in muslim countries other than the oil producers. The English muslims who defected to Iraq to fight Jihad for Islam constantly complained about the lack of sanitation, bad food, intestinal problems due to bad sanitation. The complained about everything from having to fight to get on city buses to lack of toilets.

  118. @Alden

    The destruction of the Iraq irrigation system by the mongols was a disaster. But in 700 years the Iraqi’s couldn’t have rebuilt it? That’s Islam.

    I agree, of course. But, just wanted to add: Genghis Khan- whatta man!

    • Replies: @Alden
  119. Alden says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    Whatever version of non Christian puritans the original Unitarians of 1800 were, the non Christian cult became a communist front by the 1930’s. Crypto old testament wanna be Jews, crypto communist front, Unitarians have always been ripe for any ideology that comes along because they are not and never were Christians but arrogant busy body buttinski liberals that can be taken over by any activist group.

    In the 19th and early 20 century Unitarians were very much into spiritualism, table turning, ouija boards, speaking to dead relatives and all the rest of the mystical nonsense.

  120. Talha says:
    @Curmudgeon

    spread by the sword

    If one means Islam’s political power was spread militarily, then yes – guilty as charged. Early Muslims basically rolled over every empire and kingdom they came across:

    And then got kind of lazy and complacent.

    If you mean forced conversions, then no – other than certain exceptions where Muslims did indeed force people to convert, Muslims offered the vast majority of subjects the dhimmah agreement (pay taxes, don’t revolt, don’t blaspheme, stay away from our women).

    Sure, some European kings spread Christianity by the sword, but that was almost always confined to their own realm.

    This is not the case, as in the Northern/Baltic Crusades. In this Christians did often forcibly convert pagans with full ecclesiastic backing:
    “This issue, more than any other we’ve published, raises the awkward matter of forced conversions—’Be Christian or die.’ There’s no sense in pretending this was an exceptional missionary tactic; for many centuries, it was the method of choice among Christian rulers and missionaries. The conversion of much of Europe and of Latin America is unimaginable without the sword.”
    https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/interview-converting-by-the-sword

    but to make a general statement they are no more or less militant than anyone else

    I believe he was talking about Sufis with respect to other Muslims. For instance, here are a couple of examples:
    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Shamil
    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Abdelkader

    It is well known that the Ottomans were Sufis and that the “coronation” (or turban tying) ceremony would be done by one or another Sufi shaykh. Usually took place at the mausoleum of the Companion, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (ra) who was part of the first unsuccessful expedition against Constantinople and was buried outside its walls. I would say – at least currently – Muslims are indeed the most militant of adherents to a religion – likely because; 1) war is outlined and governed in the sacred law so there is no real shame about it as long as it follows the rules, 2) Islam has a very robust tradition of the warrior-saint and 3) (as Prof. Majid Khadduri mentions in his book “War and Peace in Islam”) the religion explicitly prohibited and condemned the prosecution of war for any worldly purpose and allowed it only to remove obstacles in the spreading of the faith (ie. Byzantine and Persian garrisons).

    Peace.

  121. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    Likewise. May God bless you and your family with abundant health and blessings.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  122. Talha says:
    @Talha

    Correction, the book is “War and Peace in the Law of Islam” – though I would also highly recommend this book (which generally translates fairly accurately certain medieval tracts on the rules of war – as well as some more modern writings):
    https://www.amazon.com/Jihad-Classical-Modern-Islam-PRINCETON/dp/1558763597/

    As well as this one:
    https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8280.html

  123. @Talha

    /to remove obstacles in the spreading of the faith/

    I would revise this to the more succinct and accurate phrase “to establish religious liberty as ordained in The Qur’an (2: 256),” which was the objective underlying early campaigns in regions where new Muslim communities, as well as disfranchised non-Muslims, remained threatened minorities.

    If the campaign was to “remove obstacles in the spreading of the faith,” this gives credence to the claim that the religion itself is inherently missionary, spread by coercion.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @Talha
  124. @AnonStarter

    Correction: The phrase isn’t more succinct, but nevertheless, more accurate.

  125. Mendelbot says:

    “Youssef Hindi, a brilliant young Muslim intellectual… (From Brexit to the Yellow Vests: The Revolution Underway). Unlike most observers, Hindi saw it coming…. According to Hindi, the underlying cause of the crisis is France’s lack of a unifying religion or ideology.”

    That doesn’t take a brilliant Muslim intellectual. Any muslim street punk understands that a nation of weak morale can be subjugated by a unifying, militant religion such as Islam. The muslims engaging in hijra to western countries all know this. Their mullahs know this. Their prophet knew this.
    The only question is, why are the “intellectuals” so impressed at this revelation.

    “Unitarian”
    Ah, hence the surprise.

  126. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    which was the objective underlying early campaigns in regions where new Muslim communities, as well as disfranchised non-Muslims

    I can see your point here. Plenty of non-Muslims (especially non-Chalcedonian Christians) were quite pleased to have Byzantium removed from over their necks (along with heavy taxes). However, I believe this was a side-effect and not the intended purpose.

    We have to be honest and let the people who carried out those wars speak for themselves (like the Rashidun leadership). The Rashidun were quite deliberate in wanting to roll up the old decrepit and corrupt Byzantine and Sassanian empires and break the backs of their militaries to facilitate the spread of Islam on terms that Muslims got to define.

    remained threatened minorities.

    This is exactly why they took the road of a-good-offense-is-the-best-defense. Muslim garrison towns were sprouting up along the frontiers and there is no way the Rashidun were simply going to leave it to the mood of the old empires to define the security arrangements. It is interesting, but there are reports that Umar (ra) was initially satisfied once Persia had been rolled up half-way, but the Persian crown kept on fomenting revolts and executing raids from the unconquered areas. He held a council about it and it was decided to simply go after the head of the snake and be done – the rest is history.

    We can come up with post-hoc justifications to suit (post)modern sensibilities, but then we have a very difficult time explaining away why the nascent Rashidun went to (a very exhaustive and draining) war with multiple Arab tribes when they made subsequent claims to prophethood (during the Ridda Wars) – that was certainly not about religious freedom, it was about crush-these-false-prophet-upstarts.

    this gives credence to the claim that the religion itself is inherently missionary, spread by coercion.

    A religion can be inherently missionary (which Islam is unapologetic about) while also not advocating spreading it by coercion (granted, there was an exception to this general rule for pagan Arabs in the peninsula). The history of the long-standing dhimmah agreements pay credence to this; there were literally churches and monasteries around in Muslim lands since prior to Islam (like Dair Mar Elia) that survived all the preceding caliphates until the pipe-dream caliphate (aka Daesh) came around:
    “Satellite images confirm that the oldest Christian monastery in Iraq has been destroyed by the jihadist group Islamic State (IS). St Elijah’s stood on a hill near the northern city of Mosul for 1,400 years. But analysts said the images, obtained by the Associated Press, suggested it had been demolished in late 2014, soon after IS seized the city.”
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35360415

    There simply is no reason for Muslims to apologize for strategic and military competency during the age of empires (especially the Rashidun conquests); early Muslims simply played the game far better than everyone else – pretty amazing given they had been a hodge-podge of tribes with very little military knowledge of large scale battles going up against empires that had centuries of collective experience and evolution. Here is one of the best military-history books on the subject:

    Peace.

  127. @Alden

    ‘Secular India thrives’

    1) India is governed by Hindu extremist-fascists (literally) and even when they don’t form government they’re very powerful in local affairs, have also carried out numerous incidents of organized mass-genocide of minorities in India (real incidents with names and times) which find no rival in ‘Muslim Pakistan’

    2) India has high economic growth which hasn’t done squat to help generate jobs faster than India’s massive population expands

    3) India is the dirtiest country on earth, this is a huge humanitarian disaster in the making

    • Replies: @Alden
  128. @Kevin Barrett

    Nothing irrational about 72 virgins for the martyrs, is there? The “core irrationality” you can’t handle is more indicative of mental weakness and childish emotional disturbance on your part than any problem of Christianity.

    Of course the ideal of noble selfless sacrifice had no place in Islam, Mohammed and his pals were far too busy engaging in extortion of the local non-believers and raiding and robbing merchant caravans to entertain such feeble notions!

    Never trust the gutless Unitarians, they’re far too concerned with this world.

    • Replies: @Hercule Poirot
  129. @Talha

    There simply is no reason for Muslims to apologize for strategic and military competency during the age of empires (especially the Rashidun conquests); early Muslims simply played the game far better than everyone else

    Try packaging this sentiment with any other ethnic or national group in place of “Muslims” and see if it sells. Good luck with that.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Moi
  130. Moi says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    The Qu’ran calls Jesus a Word from God. Obviously, what Jesus said and his example were later put into book form (NT).

    Please, just go away and take your ignorance and bigotry with you.

  131. Mulegino1 says:

    Despite what those who look to Europe’s supposedly idyllic pagan past, Traditional Christianity was, is and remains the chief constitutive element in the European identity. Europe was Christendom, and its demise is, to a large extent, due to the vitiation and suppression of the Christian Tradition and the secularization and monetizing of European and American (which is an extension of European) culture, which are fast becoming the counter-culture of the Antichrist.

    Guenon was a brilliant man and I think he realized this. He was an outlier and an exception, and he realized that once the Christian Tradition, whether esoteric or exoteric, was lost, then Europe would cease as a flourishing cultural matrix.

    Islam is not a fit replacement for Christianity in Europe any more than the adoption of the Vedic system or the paganism of runes casters, or Wiccans. The soul of the Europe of nations always was and always will be Christian.

    Who knows? There may yet be a European Silver Age or restoration under some heretofore unknown Augustus, and perhaps what Guenon described as the “inversion of the castes” may be corrected, but it
    will not come under the rule of Eurocrats, technocrats, or Trump like blowhards. And it will certainly never occur while Europe remains under the yoke of international Jewry and commits itself to mollycoddling the tribe and its endless list of litigious complaints and demands.

  132. It’s verry simple.
    If you don’t kick out the MSM Propagandists, nothing will change.
    The money that they use with the MSM to “Anti-Semite” things is laughable.
    Troughout history the most important warfare objective was : “Learn the people the “Truth” ”
    Nowdays we can pinpoint the global idiocy that is being rammed trough our minds.
    “Time is on the side of THE Reality, not THE Fantasy” , Dr. E. Black.

  133. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    Great response.

    I was going to reply to anon starter that I was disappointed to see Muslims apologizing and fitting their narrative to liberal sensibilities.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @AnonStarter
  134. Talha says:
    @Oleaginous Outrager

    Good luck with that.

    That’s one of the beauties of Islam – it is far more impervious to “muh feelz” victimology oppressor-baiting. While statues of conquerors are going down or being defaced in the West, people go to visit and pray for men like Khalid ibn Walid (ra) at his grave in Homs.

    There are likely a couple of reasons for this; 1) it is a stubborn religion (which has both advantages and disadvantages) – again with a due regard for warrior ethos as being part of what the Divine expects of healthy, normal males* – and 2) the early Muslims were the underdog – under-equipped and under-manned (sometimes by a factor of three in certain engagements) and far less experienced – in their conquests against empires that were materially superior and had more resources. This is something one can have some dignity in, whereas going up, say, against almost-paleolithic peoples while wielding muskets and cannons is a bit like some adult kicking over a 12 year-old in a playground – sure the 12 year-old might get in a few good kicks to the shin, but…

    If the Byzantines and Sassanids wanted to keep their empire, they should have been more competent about it.

    Of course the ideal of noble selfless sacrifice had no place in Islam

    It did – in Makkah.

    engaging in extortion of the local non-believers and raiding and robbing merchant caravans

    The Quraysh and their allies shouldn’t have picked a fight with God’s emissary, those don’t tend to go in one’s favor. Raiding (razzias) merchant caravans (especially of the Qurayshi elites) was the normative form of siege warfare in the Arabian peninsula. Why were the Qurraysh under any delusions that the Muslims were going to use a different tactic? If they went cheap and didn’t equip the caravans with sufficient guards, that’s just ineptitude on their part…free camels.

    In the end, it turned out well for the Quraysh and their allies. Their capital city was conquered by the Prophet (obuh) in a near-bloodless surprise attack, they were forgiven and then they went on to rule over the entire peninsula and conquer Byzantium and Persia. The very record of the events that are used to try to score points against Islam was preserved by the Quraysh themselves. The story of Islam is a historic self-disclosure narrative of the people of the Hijaz and the civil war they fought among themselves.

    Peace.

    * “Truly Allah loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.” (61:4)

    • Replies: @Hercule Poirot
  135. @Moi

    My “ignorance” is knowledge about your rogue religion and its bandit “prophet” and my “bigotry” is moral rejection of its monstrosities, like this :

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSjIjdS_p_vT9fOhIvWAb3KIgS6z5mz-s-ej4EhNTlEZC5w9LZz3A

  136. @Wally

    OK I should have written “those groups they define as neo-Nazi and anti-semitic” to please your sensibility. Apologies. But if there could possibly be any genuine and self declared neo-Nazis and anti-semites (non-ironic ones) among them how would I know?!

  137. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    Apologies are only due when one is the actual offending party – and when there is something to apologize about.

    Neither was I born at that time, nor do I think; “sorry that the Byzantines and Sassanids were too inept to hold their own against lesser numbers of semi-nomadic and barely-literate people” will help. Old empires get bloated, lazy and knocked off their feet – happened to Muslims plenty of times.

    #TheRashidunDidNothingWrong

    Muslims took that land fair and square after a bunch of other people conquered that land from other people that conquered that land…what, we’re simply supposed to accept Alexander was “Great” because he marched all the way into India, but can’t have any sense of honor in Khalid ibn Walid (ra) or Saad ibn Abi Waqqas (ra)?

    If some people want it back, they can get rid of the international non-aggression protocols and come get some under the banner of Crusade #10 (or whatever it’s on). Or we can let bygones be bygones and try to make this (relatively-new) system work.

    Now if Muslim nations try to start aggressive or offensive wars in our day and age, they should be soundly condemned because; 1) they are signatories to these international agreements and it would be blatant treachery and 2) modern warfare is extremely destructive (and a far cry from slugging it out honorably and handing a crushing defeat to an enemy on some battle plain) and thus quite immoral due to the disproportional loss of innocent life that will happen without any doubt and very counterproductive to any efforts at facilitating spreading the religion (which is the only valid initial premise in the first place).

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  138. @Moi

    I chose KSA as an example because they’re the ones who mostly fund the mosques and madrassas sprouting up across Europe and USA. So I’m ignorant and a bigot for hating on you but you’re not ignorant and a bigot for hating on me. Some logic that!

  139. @Talha

    While statues of conquerors are going down or being defaced in the West, people go to visit and pray for men like Khalid ibn Walid (ra) at his grave in Homs.

    Khalid ibn Walid was a rapist who committed fornication.

    * “Truly Allah loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.” (61:4)

    Wrong quote. The conquest wars after the death of the Prophet were not in Allah’s cause. They were against the Prophet’s will. They put a knife in the back of Christians for mammon.

    • Replies: @Talha
  140. @Moi

    The Qu’ran calls Jesus a Word from God. Obviously, what Jesus said and his example were later put into book form (NT).

    No, the Quran doesn’t call Jesus a Word from God, in the sense how it is believed by Christians. The word is, Be!

    And, the answer is, and it is!

    The worlds meaning seven heavens (universes) and the earth a similar number were created when Allah Commanded, Be! And, it is!

  141. Theodore says:
    @Wally

    “Muslims are therefore admitting that what they have created is a failure.”

    That, or they admit they want to invade the west and turn it Islamic

    Mass Immigration as a Form of Warfare

    64 examples of mass immigration used as a weapon: https://archive.is/iUDxO

  142. @Oleaginous Outrager

    Of course the ideal of noble selfless sacrifice had no place in Islam, Mohammed and his pals were far too busy engaging in extortion of the local non-believers and raiding and robbing merchant caravans to entertain such feeble notions!

    The above is bullshit about the Prophet which was cooked, recooked and cooked again and written down 250 years later after the death of the Prophet. Just like the bullshit that Prophet married a child of six years.

  143. Talha says:
    @Hercule Poirot

    Thanks Tammy or Jeffery Cohen or Akbar Ali – I told you multiple times, I’m totally not interested in a Sunni-Shiah debate.

    Feel free to post whatever you like, I won’t challenge you.

    • Troll: Hercule Poirot
  144. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    Muslims took that land fair and square after a bunch of other people conquered that land from other people that conquered that land

    This is of course correct reasoning.

    Incidentally, this is part of the argument Israelis use with regard to Palestine 🙂

    (Combined with other important supporting arguments, as is well known.)

    I also agree that while war in principle is not wrong, one must morally assess all the surrounding factors, such as potential casualties and suffering vs your purpose, etc. As you do.

    And we must bear in mind that the ultimate aim of all religion is God’s peace on earth.

    My personal standard is that I cannot morally justify extending the political dominion of Islam for the purpose of creating favourable conditions for the spread of the religion – i.e initiating wars – but see no problem in extending the dominion of Islam and thus facilitating its spread as part of a response to local aggression and pressure.

    In other words, if some country is constantly harassing a Muslim country – go ahead and conquer it, and be happy and extra motivated that you will be spreading Islam.

    But if a neighboring country dwells at peace with you – initiating a war seems wrong.

    Just my two cents. Not a Muslim, so no reason for you to care 🙂

    However, it’s absurd to judge 8th century Islam by today’s standards. By the standards of the time it was quite normal.

    On the other hand, if you encounter a seriously ungodly country like the Aztecs with their human sacrifice, it may be quite justifiable to conquer it and eradicate the evil.

    So it depends.

    I believe some Christian saints are depicted as warlike? St James in armor fighting the Dragon?

  145. @AaronB

    And we must bear in mind that the ultimate aim of all religion is God’s peace on earth

    As Douglas Adams said, “every religion will tell you that murder is sin, and will kill you to prove the point”.

    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @AaronB
  146. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    this is part of the argument Israelis use with regard to Palestine

    Yup – this is what happens when you help the British and French kick out the guys that have been the main military power of those lands and the most experienced and capable for centuries in defending it and then get promptly back-stabbed. This is called an “own goal”; well, I guess better to lose under Arab commanders to the Israelis than to win under Turkish ones (face palm).

    ultimate aim of all religion is God’s peace on earth.

    Agreed.

    I cannot morally justify extending the political dominion of Islam

    Agree here too, if we are talking militarily, since it goes against the very international obligations that Muslim nations have signed up to. I see no problem morally in us returning to Ottoman and Safavid empires if others start return to British and French empires; which is why I’d rather everyone try to live up to their treaty obligations.

    But if a neighboring country dwells at peace with you – initiating a war seems wrong.

    Here as well. Context is important. If you read up on history of Medieval or Late Antiquity you would come to the following conclusion…

    By the standards of the time it was quite normal.

    In the Age of Empires, unless you had a treaty or non-aggression agreement, it was assumed you were at war or could go to war at any time. So the intelligent path to take (if one was capable) was to eliminate the threat before it became even more of a problem. And it wasn’t just with Muslims; a Norman king could float in on your island at a moment’s notice, a Spanish armada could appear to start pounding your city walls, those coalitions of tribes on your periphery could be set off by a random event beyond your borders and come to sack your capital, etc. Watch the colors change and go back and forth:

    Our age has actually flipped that entire paradigm around; we have embassies in each others’ capitals and have internationally binding agreements. We should try our best to make this, admittedly imperfect framework, work.

    I believe some Christian saints are depicted as warlike?

    Yup. Which is why I mentioned in my earlier post; “I would say – at least currently – Muslims are indeed the most militant of adherents to a religion…”. As that article, I cited from the Christian History site, stated; they really had no problems with marrying up militancy with religion way back in the day. Once they lost that religious impetus, they started killing and dying for “the glory of so-and-so empire”, “to establish preferable trade balances”, “opium”, “manifest destiny”, etc. From an Islamic perspective, it is a completely debased and iniquitous things to start up a war and offer up your life and take the life of someone else for such worldly things (not that certain Muslims didn’t have this kind of motivation historically), even fame, which is worthy of opprobrium on the Day of Judgment:
    “Verily, the first people to be judged on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who was martyred. He will be brought, the blessings of Allah will be made known and he will acknowledge them. Allah will say: ‘What did you do about them?’ The man will say: ‘I fought in your cause until I was martyred.’ Allah will say: ‘You have lied, for you fought only that it would be said you were brave, and thus it was said.’ Then, Allah will order him to be dragged upon his face until he is cast into Hellfire….” -reported in Muslim

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @J. Ipsten
  147. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    By the way, this is the way I have been taught to view Muslim defeats and losses by people I consider my spiritual teachers; not to view them from the lens of a victim, but to own up to one’s own failings, dust oneself off and derive a lesson from it for improvement:

    • Replies: @AaronB
  148. anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough

    Haha. The report, …

    You godless degenerates take reports very seriously, don’t you?

    You see, the pagan mangods-worshipping west has also based its entire spiritual existence on “reports” millennia old. Lol! You pathetic fools!!

    True salvation, as promised in the true monotheism of Islam, is meant for later. Perhaps the whiteys were never meant to be so blessed, for they delude themselves as demigods on earth.

    Implacable enemies of the Almighty One, the likes of you, will not realise it now, until the moment your rotten soul gets sucked out… and there will be no going back.

    [If you could only see the wrongdoers in the throes of death when the angels are stretching out their hands, saying, “Disgorge your own selves! Today you will be repaid with the punishment of humiliation for saying something other than the truth about Allah, and being arrogant about His Signs.”] (Al-An`am 6:93)

    https://archive.islamonline.net/?p=5701

    • Replies: @Talha
  149. @Thorfinnsson

    Especially since Mohammad lead so many violent attacks.

    But the “elites” of the West have, like always, been the main culprits in the open borders and the thousands of years they have perpetrated crimes on their own people. Solzhenitsyn’s book, Two Centuries Together is a great example how the “nobility” and elites consistently screwed over the masses…using Jews as the tax farmers & usurers.

    They are always the ones who should be tagged as the enemy.

  150. Talha says:
    @anonymous

    Perhaps the whiteys were never meant to be so blessed

    Please knock off the anti-White statements. Islam is not an ethnicity. There are plenty of Muslims that need to own up to being basically financial parasites in the societies they come to; being upset at others for pointing this out does not help things.

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  151. @Mulegino1

    Islam is inadequate for the Euro descended intellect.

    Only a matter of time before the Persians, closest intellectually to Euros among Muslims, for good break free of their ensnarement in the cult of Islam which terrorizes free thought by threat of death for apostacy.

    The soul of the Europe of nations always was and always will be Christian.

    The tradition of the Europe of nations always was and always will be Christian.

    The soul of every human craves allegiance to the Creator Triune God through Divine Savior Jesus.

    • Agree: Mulegino1
  152. @Talha

    /However, I believe this was a side-effect and not the intended purpose./

    Talha akhi …

    Were I to accept that the purpose was as you had previously stated, one may easily rationalize that, upon the establishment of an Islamic polity, anything offensive to the faithful’s sensibilities may constitute an “obstacle” to the proliferation of Islam, and must be eliminated with coercion. Be careful what you wish for.

    Obstacles to the spread of Islam have always been with us, the first one being that fair-seeming fellow we face daily in the mirror.

    /The Rashidun were quite deliberate in wanting to roll up the old decrepit and corrupt Byzantine and Sassanian empires and break the backs of their militaries to facilitate the spread of Islam on terms that Muslims got to define./

    We likely agree with each other, but it remains necessary to be precise.

    However differently succeeding generations have manifested the practice thereof, Islam prohibits religious coercion. The imperative to “make the religion all for Allah” (8:38) incorporates this prohibition. “Removing obstacles to the spread of Islam” surely means this to you, but it’s also open to other interpretations, some of which you’re likely to consider objectionable.

    The example of ‘Umar which you cite is informative. It essentially supports what I originally wrote.

    /We can come up with post-hoc justifications to suit (post)modern sensibilities, but then we have a very difficult time explaining away why the nascent Rashidun went to (a very exhaustive and draining) war with multiple Arab tribes when they made subsequent claims to prophethood (during the Ridda Wars) – that was certainly not about religious freedom, it was about crush-these-false-prophet-upstarts./

    My water is drawn straight from the ‘ain, and it passes the throat with ease.

    The distinction between imperatives concerning (false flag) renegades and those regarding non-Muslim belligerents is well-defined in The Qur’an. The former demanded the swift and decisive response of Abu Bakr as the very representation of Islam was at stake. “Crush-these-false-prophet-upstarts” certainly was about religious liberty, since we have no idea what would become of this bedrock principle of Islam had the renegades prevailed.

    Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders provides a unique glimpse into the deliberations of the American republic’s earliest statesmen over the question of religious liberty. It is interesting to note that the prospects of Muslim citizenry and a Muslim presidency served as litmus tests that once divided the Founders until Jefferson’s vision ultimately won the day.

    Just as we can’t imagine the early American republic without its victory over the enemies of liberty, so too, we cannot imagine Islam without the triumph of its champions over those who threatened its very existence — without which its model of federalism would not have inspired future generations.

    /A religion can be inherently missionary (which Islam is unapologetic about)/

    Not so.

    Inviting to the way of our Lord with wisdom and good counsel isn’t a command for missionary endeavor. I’m fully aware of how many Muslims interpret the ayat to imply this, also citing the Prophet’s introduction of Islam to regional tribal leaders, but this should not be construed as “missionary” given the contemporary connotations of the term. The distinction between proselytizing — which is what missionaries do — and invitation is typically lost on most people, so it’s easy to understand why the two are conflated, but we’re not commanded to the former, and the latter is usually accomplished more by being a good Muslim than formal exposition, which most ‘ulama regard as a fard kifayah reserved for well-trained individuals.

    /There simply is no reason for Muslims to apologize for strategic and military competency during the age of empires (especially the Rashidun conquests)/

    Agreed.

    was-salaam.

    • Replies: @Talha
  153. AaronB says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Oh ye of little faith…

    Abandon your proud science, anon from TN, and cast down your vain laboratories…

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  154. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    Good and nuanced comment.

    However, I think you’re being unfair to the Europeans a bit.

    The European expansion across the globe always had a religious dimension to it – the British for instance really did think they were bringing higher morality and a higher culture to the natives, greater justice and improved living conditions. And missionaries were always a huge part of it.

    So even in ages of declining faith and even though commerce and loot were clearly huge factors, the religious impetus was never whole absent. And it was often quite strong. When the religious impulse completely died, after WWI, the desire and will for empire disappeared with it.

    I really think all military expansions have some sort of religious and moral dimension – few people are willing to suffer and sacrifice so much just for money, I believe.

    • Replies: @Talha
  155. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    That’s definitely the best way to ultimately succeed.

    Requires good emotional discipline though.

    • Replies: @Talha
  156. utu says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    German_reader hates Christianity.

  157. @AaronB

    /Muslims apologizing and fitting their narrative to liberal sensibilities./

    Please provide evidence that I’ve “apologized” or “fit” the account of Islamic history to “liberal sensibilities.”

    You made an accusation. Now own up to it.

  158. Seraphim says:
    @Grace Poole

    I wonder what ‘intensely Roman-Catholic environment’ could lead to the denial of the Trinity. And deny that the Christ IS the Logos. You are sorely deluded.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  159. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    Requires good emotional discipline though.

    This is simply downhill from rigorous spiritual discipline which is highly needed in this day and age.

    Peace.

    • Agree: AaronB
  160. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    The European expansion across the globe always had a religious dimension to it…I really think all military expansions have some sort of religious and moral dimension

    Good point, it’s only very recently gone completely out the window. Well, I guess there is still some kind of a religious/moral dimension, but it is at the altar of bringing “muh freedomz and democracy”.

    Peace.

  161. SOL says:

    Should really be:

    The toleration of Islamophile apologists for Islamic domination: Symptom of the West’s Decline?

  162. @AaronB

    Abandon your proud science, anon from TN, and cast down your vain laboratories…

    And exchange it for what? Immaculate conception? 72 virgins? Resurrected son of Parvati and Shiva for whom Brahma brought an elephant head? Buddha Gautama and his enlightenment? Zeus fornicating with Io? Jupiter fighting his father Saturn? Thor wielding his Mjöllnir? I can continue in this vain for hours, humans created enough religions to do that.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  163. AaronB says:
    @AnonFromTN

    For the awesome mercy of the one living God, the ground of your being and the source of all things, and the salvation of your eternal soul….

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  164. @AaronB

    Which “the one living God”? There are thousands of them. Even if you mean religions with officially (but not really) one god, there are at least three: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  165. AaronB says:
    @AnonFromTN

    There is but one living God.

    How you choose to serve Him, to worship and glorify Him, comes after you accept Him.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @Bliss
  166. For those who think rationally rather than emotionally, the main danger to the West comes from East Asia. East Asians have the economic power and long-term vision to take over from the West. Muslims don’t.

    Also, much of Europe has already woken up the danger of Islam and is cutting Islamic immigration. The PC rhetoric may still be there but the door is longer open. Due to EU-related distractions, France and Britain are lagging in cutting immigration, but it is only a matter of time before they too start joining Italy, Hungary and Scandinavia.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44660699

    Also, this intense focus on Jews is dated. Jews are now heavily interbreed with gentiles, and are getting lazier, softer and less ambitious. Meanwhile East Asians are much hungrier and are rapidly taking over from Jews as the main market dominant in the West.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  167. @Johnny Rottenborough

    SCAPE GOAT, SCAPE GOAT, SCAPE GOAT,

    THE JEWS,

    When all else fails, and the muslims cannot succeed on their own, must be the Jews and western civilizations downfall.
    Right?

  168. @AaronB

    There is but one living God.

    Every Abrahamic religion would subscribe to this statement. But each would mean its own version of god.

    How you choose to serve Him, to worship and glorify Him, comes after you accept Him.

    If you believe that eternal all-powerful omniscient god needs you to worship and glorify him, you have a very low opinion of him. That’s blasphemy, so you must repent.

    • Agree: Sergey Krieger
    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @AaronB
  169. Seraphim says:
    @AaronB

    The ultimate goal of Christianity is salvation from the world.
    ‘God’s peace on earth’ is the ultimate goal of the Anti-Christ’ and his false prophets (no peace be upon them).
    Christ’s peace is of a different kind: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you”.
    “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD. 21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”.
    “And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus”
    “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, for to this you were called as members of one body. And be thankful”.
    “But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them. 2 In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure is taken for misery, 3 And their going from us to be utter destruction: but they are in peace” (Wisdom 3:3).

    • Replies: @AaronB
  170. @Iris

    The only thing you all got going for you and their Barrett, is hatred for the Jews, that is all you got.
    Hatred is never proof of facts or figures only demagogy.
    Philosophical, morally, religiously hatred of the Jews will never work to solve your problems.
    You are sick, to condemn an entire people, it is called racism.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  171. @AnonFromTN

    /If you believe that eternal all-powerful omniscient god needs you to worship and glorify him, you have a very low opinion of him./

    Quite true.

    In fact, if you believe God needs anything, you probably have a very low opinion of Him. Clearly, the faithful don’t believe this.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  172. Seraphim says:
    @AnonStarter

    God doesn’t ‘need’ men worshiping Him. Men do.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  173. @Seraphim

    Well, at least we agree on something.

    How are you?

  174. @Franklin Ryckaert

    /In fact, this misconception is based on a weak single hadith that Islamic scholars generally agree was fabricated./

    Exceedingly poor scholarship.

    In fact, it isn’t a fabricated haddith. It’s a statement attributed to ‘Ali, whom the Prophet himself regarded as “the gate to the city of knowledge.”

    Furthermore, The Qur’an reads “Whoever strives (jahada), strives (yujahidu) only for himself.” (29:6); and “As for those who strive (jahada) in Us, We surely guide them to Our paths, and certainly, Allah is with those who do good.” (29:69) Both of these verses were first sent down in Mecca, and as such, cannot refer to martial endeavor.

    As for Sahih Bukhari, upon which you so heavily lean, we also read the following:

    ‘Aisha asked: “Messenger of Allah, we see jihad as the best of deeds, so shouldn’t we join it?’ He replied, ‘But the best jihad is a perfect Hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah).’” (Sahih Al-Bukhari #2784)

    On another occasion, a man asked: “Should I join the jihad?” The Prophet asked, upon him peace, “Do you have parents?” The man said yes. The Prophet said: “Then do jihad by serving them!” (Sahih Al-Bukhari #5972)

    From one of the six canonical books of haddith we also read this:

    A man asked: “What kind of jihad is better?” The Prophet replied, upon him peace: “A word of truth spoken in front of an oppressive ruler.” (Sunan Al-Nasa’i #4209)

    From ibn Hibban, al-Hakim, ‘Iraqi, Tirmidhi, Ahmad, and Tabarani, all trusted scholars of haddith, we learn of the following authentic statement:

    “The mujahid is he who makes jihad against his nafs (ego) for the sake of obeying Allah.”

    These are but a small sample of the evidence that proves that the preponderant meaning of jihad in Islam is not, contrary to the amateur hour musings of the pedestrian commentariat in this thread, “holy war.”

    You’re welcome.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  175. Seraphim says:
    @vinteuil

    Whenever he sees the opportunity to do his duty of good Muslim to show the kafirs the ‘right path’, “working peacefully with others and establish harmony with whoever they meet or talk to”. He is one of ‘The Ten With Glad Tidings Of Paradise’, a companion of the prophet, no less.

  176. Parfois1 says:

    You are sick, to condemn an entire people, it is called racism

    The “sickness” you are alleging is a lot more than that. In fact, it is more like a permanent epidemic affecting many billions since the Roman Empire – a constant thread in the European mind from the Atlantic to the Urals. Do you know why?

    Partly because Christianity so ordained as the Jews (not a singular Jew) took the dominant part in the crucifixion and Judaism and the faith of the Jews (not a singular Jew) was an anathema to Christianity. Since then, Jews (not a singular Jew) turned up on their countries where they settled as a different race, customs, religion, language and kept to themselves as a separate people as Jews (not a singular Jew) and separate Ghettos. Then, usury being forbidden to Christian, they engaged in the money lending business in which the Jews (not a singular Jew) prospered, even lending money to royalty to acquire influence and power. Almost everywhere, from the Atlantic to the Urals, the common people hated the Jews (not a singular Jew) and expelled them from their countries, but some remained pretending to convert to Christianity and that caused even greater hatred to the Jews (not a singular Jew) leading to autos-da-fe incinerations. In many languages “Jew” is a particularly derogatory adjective.

    And the historical process repeated itself many times and is still unfolding in our days when the Jews (not a singular Jew) have reached the apex of power and wealth in many traditional Christian countries. Hence the hatred, a very common human trait, for Jews (not a singular Jew).

    Understood?

  177. Seraphim says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    The passage of the Koran is always falsified. It does not speak about Christians in general, but about the Judaic sect of the Nazarenes/Ebionites, which specifically rejected Jesus as Son of God. They were indeed ‘nearest in love to the believers’, if not a direct source of Mahomed’s ‘revelations’.

  178. @Jus' Sayin'...

    it is impossible to separate Christianity and Western civilization.

    I disagree. European civilization long precedes Christianity. Separation of powers is from the Roman Republic. The discovery of Nature is mostly from ancient Greece. Art for art’s sake goes back to the Greeks, Romans, n Etruscans. History n secular poetry is also from ancient Europe. Even the universality of the Catholic Church was inherited from the idea of Rome as universal civilization.

    Given the dissolution of modern Christianity back into the Semitic Judaism from whence it originally came, it’s time to reconstitute European Civilization on its more fundamental pre-Christian roots.

  179. idealogus says: • Website

    God doesn’t ‘need’ men worshiping Him.

    Agree.
    God does need men loving him. After all he is our father and all fathers want the love of their children.

    Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. (Matthew 22:37–38).

    LOVE not worshiping.
    2000 years of Christianity and we are still struggling with truth.

    I am “god died for our sin” – irrational christian type.
    Other are “72 virgin” – rational type.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  180. Moi says:
    @Oleaginous Outrager

    Suggest you read “Heirs of the Prophet” by Barnaby Rogerson:

  181. Parfois1 says:
    @Fran Taubman

    My reply to your post “moved” to #181 above.

  182. AaronB says:
    @AnonFromTN

    God is in large part mysterious and only partially knowable, so different religions will sometimes use different symbols in approaching him.

    There is striking unanimity in those who have had direct experience of him.

    Did you know that Buddhism, the world’s premier atheist religion that was supposed to be only about psychology, gradually developed into a monotheism – and that this monotheistic Buddhism became the most widely adhered to Buddhist sect in the Far East?

    I must admit I was very struck by this fact – startled even.

    If you believe that eternal all-powerful omniscient god needs you to worship and glorify him, you have a very low opinion of him.

    Of course, God does not need anything from me. It is I who am completely dependent on him. And once I understand him, I can’t help but worship and glorify him. And then God does rejoice in my worship and love.

    so you must repent

    I am, indeed, in constant need of repentance.

    • Replies: @Talha
  183. AaronB says:
    @Seraphim

    Yes, I agree that the kind of peace achieved by human politics and strategies is not what religions mean. In fact, schemes for this kind of human universal peace generally backfire and make matters worse, unfortunately.

    It is a supernatural peace, brought about through a transformation of humanity and God, at the end of days.

    The very Hebrew Bible that outlines this vision towards its end starts with telling the Hebrews to conquer the Holy Land.

    But in the meantime, we must keep this ultimate vision in mind and be cautious about braking the peace recklessly.

  184. @AnonStarter

    Don’t try to play a word game. A word can have more than one meaning according to the context, but that doesn’t mean that one meaning therefore always cancels the other meaning. Jihad meams literally “striving” or “struggle”, and it can mean striving for personal moral improvement, for social improvement, or… military struggle to establish Islamic rule. In the latter sense it is in principle a general obligation (fard kifaya) of the Muslim community. Muslim theologians have divided the world in two parts Dar al-Islam (the “house of Islam”) and Dar al-Harb (the “house of war”). Harb means “war” with no possibility of verbal subterfuge. The purpose of Islam to conquer the whole world. Muhammad himself, the caliphs and most Islamic dynasties have all engaged in such aggressive imperialistic wars, in which not only killing and robbery, but also the taking of slaves is allowed. In case of female slaves, they can be used for sex, which we would call rape. This is Islam in its authorative texts, its institutions and its history and no verbal juggle can hide that. Islam is a criminal movement and as such should be forbidden.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  185. Talha says:

    FYI, for anyone paying attention to details…

    It does not speak about Christians in general, but about the Judaic sect of the Nazarenes/Ebionites, which specifically rejected Jesus as Son of God.

    This is not correct. The Qur’an specifically condemns the Christians (using the word Nasaara), in very harsh terms, for this very act:
    “…and the Christians (naṣārā) say, ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah.’ That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved…” 9:30

    Which is basically talking about the idea of god-man being nothing new; plenty of other prior cultures, civilizations and religious movements having claimed one man or another – could be an emperor or wise/pious person or mythological figure (or even an object – like a volcano) – is god-incarnate.

    Quite interestingly, plenty of Hindus have no problem accepting this into their framework – he is simply seen as an avatar (def.:a manifestation of a deity or released soul in bodily form on earth; an incarnate divine teacher) from the western lands, one in a line of previous and ongoing saintly avatars:
    “Jesus was one of those people who appealed from heart to heart, and that’s what makes him such a good Hindu Saint. In my particular tradition, and among other Hindus, He is seen as much more, as an Avatar, specifically a Shaktavesha Avatar or an empowered incarnation.”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/beliefs/jesus_1.shtml

    Peace.

  186. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    this monotheistic Buddhism became the most widely adhered to Buddhist sect in the Far East?
    I must admit I was very struck by this fact – startled even.

    Whoa – did not know this…so is escaping the cycle of worldly life and ultimate annihilation into nothingness off the books for these particular folks? What is the ultimate/apex goal for them?

    Since Sufism has been mentioned, a particular quote that is a quite popular teaching statement from the female saint of the 8th century, Rabia al-Basri (or al-Adawiyyah):
    “O Lord, if I worship You because of Fear of Hell,
    then burn me in Hell;
    If I worship You because I desire Paradise,
    then exclude me from Paradise;
    But if I worship You for Yourself alone,
    then deny me not Your Eternal Beauty.”

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  187. anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @Talha

    Sir, you may wish to earn the muslim-of-the-year award in such forums, which is understandable because you live amongst them, but I don’t, and I am numbed by the Islamophobia in the west, and the kind of hate which is causing death and suffering to hundreds of thousands, millions in fact, of muslims.

    Each time a muslim tries to feebly retaliate against the numerous murderous provocations, these same cursed godless scumbags take that opportunity to gleefully murder a few 10’s of thousands more muslims, and spin the deceitful narrative that we are to blame anyway.

    It is millions of the kind of Islamophobes you find here and the west (the Bushs, the Blairs, the Boltons, the Kristols, the Spencers, the Coulters, the Rottenboroughs, the Newmans, the KenHs, the redneck Joe white trashes, and so many more) who are directly or indirectly responsible for all of that human suffering. Yes, I do think that as long the demon religion of white supremacy exists, they will not be blessed with salvation.

    Anyway, you follow what seems right to you, and I, whatever I wish. I have nothing more to say to you.

    Peace to you too.

  188. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    Yeah it’s called Pure Land Buddhism.

    It’s the last stage of development in Buddhism, and has the most adherents. It developed in the 10th century I believe.

    Basically pray to and have faith in Amida Buddha, and recite his name, and you will be reborn in his Pure Land. Out of his great compassion he will save you, if you put your trust in Him.

    And the last refinement of this is – simply put all your faith and trust in Amida, do not ask to be reborn anywhere. Even if he takes you to hell, trust in Him – the faith of Job.

    And the faith of that Sufi you just quoted 🙂

    I was quite shocked by this – in the end, God is indispensable, and the notion that east Asia was traditionally atheistic is simply false.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  189. @Franklin Ryckaert

    /Jihad meams literally “striving” or “struggle”, and it can mean striving for personal moral improvement, for social improvement, or… military struggle to establish Islamic rule./

    As I said in my previous response, the preponderant meaning is not “holy war.” See page 142 of the Wehr-Cowan dictionary for proof. Is martial endeavor among the possible meanings? Indeed, it is, and I never suggested otherwise. However, such fighting is not necessarily undertaken to “establish Islamic rule,” as you suggest, and to claim otherwise would be … how did you put it? … “playing a word game.”

    /In the latter sense it is in principle a general obligation (fard kifaya) of the Muslim community./

    First of all, fard kifaya doesn’t translate as “general obligation.” An action that is fard kifaya is obligatory, but only required of select individuals, typically those more qualified to undertake it.

    Second, and more importantly, military endeavor isn’t unconditionally fard kifaya, and just about any fundamentalist orthodox shaykh worth his weight in salt will tell you this. Oh, I’m certain that the Genghis Khan wannabe al Baghdadi and his acolytes — among others of the extreme neo-Salafi persuasion — would disagree. The fact that they qualify as renegades doesn’t appear to bother the anti-Islam brigades very much.

    /Muslim theologians have divided the world in two parts Dar al-Islam (the “house of Islam”) and Dar al-Harb (the “house of war”)./

    “Muslim theologians” who advance this false dichotomy probably aren’t aware that Imam Shafi’i, from whom these terms originate, also delineated a dar al-‘ahd (realm of treaty) and a dar al sulh (realm of reconciliation), which belies your assertion that “the purpose of Islam is to conquer the whole world.”

    The basis for the acceptance of these latter realms is predicated upon the The Prophet’s arrangement of a treaty with his enemies at Hudaibiyah, one that even his closest followers found difficult to accept. Only the enemies’ violation of it led to the conquest of Mecca, which, of itself, was virtually bloodless.

    In America, the government isn’t preventing Muslims from praying, fasting, being charitable, making Hajj or keeping faith with Allah. The First Amendment constitutes an agreement/treaty between acting authorities and Muslims that precludes Muslims from waging an offensive in order to restore their rights unless those rights are violated, in which case, jihad occurs in a courtroom, not on a battlefield. In short, Muslims don’t have any cause to complain about their arrangement with America, and if they want to prevent it from killing their brothers and sisters overseas, it would be more effective to take a page from the Lobby’s playbook, organize and exercise the rights they enjoy under American law.

    /Muhammad himself, the caliphs and most Islamic dynasties have all engaged in such aggressive imperialistic wars/

    Had you bothered to actually study Islamic history, you would know that the Byzantines shed first blood, which initiated protracted conflict between them and the nascent Muslim polity. In the east, Muslims engaged the Sassanians in armed conflict only as a consequence of Persian aggression. Once these fronts were embroiled in war, conflict itself became a zero-sum game, which was the order of the day in the 7th century of the Near East.

    Following the Rashidun reign, and subsequent to the Abbasid assumption of power, corruption befell the nominally Muslim polity, just as The Prophet said it would. I won’t claim that all wars after this period were necessarily fought with suspect motives, but it’s safe to say that what the Arabs presented as Islam was not what God gave the Prophet.

    /in which not only killing and robbery, but also the taking of slaves is allowed/

    Killing is part of war? Color me shocked.

    “To the victor go the spoils” is an ancient aphorism, not exclusive to Muslims, and few soldiers — save those embittered by defeat — would refer to it as “robbery.” Furthermore, when Muslims assumed power in a region, it wasn’t their habit to assume ownership of the conquered subjects’ property without deliberation over the matter. This is well established in the historical record.

    Prisoners of war are de facto slaves, even in today’s world, and Islam is the only religion that incorporated comprehensive principles for the humane treatment of them over fourteen centuries ago. As absurd as it would be to blame American law for America’s pederasts and wife-beaters, it’s equally absurd to blame Islam for the abuses of its purported followers, many of whom were nominally Muslim by virtue of birth, not choice.

    /Islam is a criminal movement and as such should be forbidden./

    I say the following with absolute confidence: You will never succeed in your objective.

    Islam is as inextricable to the fabric of humanity as the veins by which lifeblood flows through you. In its essence, it is what all of us instinctively recognize as good: compassion, mercy, forbearance, contentment, generosity, humility, dignity and confidence in the eyes of God. No sooner can you criminalize these characteristics than you can criminalize breathing.

    Thrust your mind against the anvil as you will, Franklin Ryckaert … you will only break your skull.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Franklin Ryckaert
  190. Talha says:
    @anonymous

    because you live amongst them, but I don’t

    I get this, bro. I would respectfully ask that you let us handle this because these are our fellow citizens, neighbors, friends, etc.

    the kind of hate which is causing death and suffering to hundreds of thousands, millions in fact, of muslims

    We are trying to remedy this. You have to be nuanced about how you approach people; we ask others to make distinctions with us, we have to accord others the same courtesy – this is called living up to principle. The reason I say this is that many people may hate Islam around here (which is fine, they can take that up with Allah swt) and may love to kick out Muslims from the West (as of yesterday), but they are also vociferously against the invasions and bombings that their governments have committed in their names – so you have to be able to make that distinction.

    Each time a muslim tries to feebly retaliate against the numerous murderous provocations

    There crimes do not justify ours – the scholars (like Mufti Rafi Usmani – former grand mufti of Pakistan and one of the top Hanafi scholars in the world) have made it clear:
    “Islam does not allow killing of innocent civilians and non-combatants under any circumstances…Islam is absolutely clear on this issue. Two wrongs do not make a right…If they feel that the US or the UK are killing innocent civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan, it does not give them the right to kill innocent citizens in London or New York. [another scholar stated] If an Iraqi living in London is outraged over Britain’s role in what is happening in Iraq, then he should go to Iraq and fight the coalition forces there. Nothing gives him the right to hit back at innocent civilians living in the UK.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4711003.stm

    We have a sacred law that regulates these things for a reason. Lashing out in anger and crossing the bounds of that law earns nothing but Divine anger and wrath. I don’t know if Muslims have gotten the message yet, but the only results of acting outside of the bounds of the Shariah in this regard have been nothing but more invasions, more destroyed cities and more dead Muslims. And this will keep happening until we get our act in gear. Remember, no matter what the circumstances; it is always better to be oppressed than and oppressor. The oppressed can at least earn reward by bearing things with patience, making prayers, forgiving – but being the oppressor has absolutely no angle to earn reward other than to desist and repent:

    and spin the deceitful narrative that we are to blame anyway.

    All the more reason not to give them any fodder to make that case against us.

    I do think that as long the demon religion of white supremacy exists, they will not be blessed with salvation.

    The pagan Arabs were some of the most prideful and supremacist people on the planet – that had to be rooted out of them such that they saw men like Bilal (ra) and Salman (ra) as their brothers. ethnic supremacy is simply a subset of the sin of pride, which everyone has in them. Some have it over their race, some over their wealth, some over their looks or positions of power, etc. The core disease is the same – it simply presents itself in diverse symptoms. Also, not everyone here is a White supremacist. They may not like Islam or its doctrines completely independent of their ethnic identity; there are Blacks and Asians who don’t like Islam. Our goal is not to get people to like Islam – that is between them and Allah swt; we simply present the facts as best and accurately as we can and let the chips fall where they may.

    you follow what seems right to you

    I’m sharing the advice I was taught by my teachers. I would advise that you also work with some reliable, trustworthy scholars in your locale that could advise you in these matters. Just nasiha, one brother to another.

    Wa salaam and may Allah swt bless you and your family on Eid.

    • Replies: @freedom-cat
  191. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    would refer to it as “robbery.”

    For the record, spoils of war is fine (what’s a dead man going to do with his helmet anyway)…but it should be noted there are orderly rules for how it is obtained, distributed, and in which portions (a cavalryman vs a foot soldier, etc.). Pillaging, plunder, ransacking (the term in Arabic is nuhbah – نهبة) are expressly forbidden:
    “We came across some sheep of the enemy, so we plundered them and set up our cooking pots. The Prophet (pbuh) passed by and ordered that they be overturned. The Prophet said, ‘Verily, plunder is not lawful.’” – reported in Ibn Majah

    “The Prophet (pbuh) prohibited plundering and mutilation.” – reported in Bukhari

    By the way, have you read about the military concept of privateering – it’s actually quite an old one. In essence, in a time of war – it is legalized seizure of merchant enemy vessels (very much like the caravan raids against the Makkan elite):
    https://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/privateers.html
    http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html

    Not sure why it’s not is use much anymore…maybe inconvenience? The US sank millions of tons of shipping off the coasts of Japan in WW2 – I wonder why they didn’t attempt to seize them? Obviously it is nearly impossible in a submarine, but perhaps allowing the ship to get further out where it could be pursued…? Again, seems to be a logistics issue.

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  192. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    Salaam Bro,

    anything offensive to the faithful’s sensibilities may constitute an “obstacle” to the proliferation of Islam, and must be eliminated with coercion

    I get that, but there are definitions for what constitutes an obstacle especially when we are talking about a war with an external force. As far as internal, Imam Abu Hanifah (ra) was having public debates with atheists in his day and age.

    Islam prohibits religious coercion

    Agreed, to force a non-Muslim to become Muslim is not permitted.

    but it’s also open to other interpretations, some of which you’re likely to consider objectionable.

    I can see your point here, but that’s why clarifications are sought and given. And this imperative has to be viewed in full light of all the other rules and regulations – which is why I (personally) feel safe using the statement.

    since we have no idea what would become of this bedrock principle of Islam had the renegades prevailed.

    Hmm…I personally can’t see that angle to be honest. It seems to me to be what you described; “swift and decisive response of Abu Bakr as the very representation of Islam was at stake.” Still don’t see how it was about religious liberty; I mean, it could be argued that the religious liberty of the rebels to have their own Mickey-Mouse prophet was stamped out – so then Abu Bakr (ra) fought religious liberty in order to preserve religious liberty as per Islam. I don’t know if that works.

    until Jefferson’s vision ultimately won the day.

    Yup – I believe the examples used in the debates were Hindoos and Mahometans…

    latter is usually accomplished more by being a good Muslim than formal exposition, which most ‘ulama regard as a fard kifayah reserved for well-trained individuals.

    OK – this seems like another semantics issue. What you are talking about is regarding approach, wisdom and effectiveness; “missionary work” (it not being a native term to Islam as you point out) in the past was usually the purview of the Sufis and the brotherhoods they established.

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  193. @AnonStarter

    Dar al-‘Ahd and Dar al-Sulh are only meant to be temporal, as long as the opponent is stronger. If he becomes weaker, further jihad is allowed. The end game is total conquest of the earth.

    Don’t try to sell the lie that Islam “only fought out of self-defense”, or “to protect Muslims from persecution”. Islam is an aggressive imperialistic movement. There were no “persecuted Muslims” in Spain or France or Persia or Central Asia or India or the Balkans, but Muslims attacked all those regions.

    In today’s world prisoners of war are not “de facto slaves”, it is by international law forbidden to force them to work for no salary. Muhammad himself and his companions engaged in slave trade and Muslims organized numerous slave raids on Africa and Europe for centuries. Black slaves were castrated by the noble Muslims. About one million Europeans have been abducted by your pious Muslim bandits. Most were women, to satisfy their primitive sexual urges which they possessed to the same degree as their so-called “prophet” who bragged that the archangel Gabriel had endowed him with the potence of 40 men (Gosh, what a “spiritual” man!) Muhammed allowed his companions to rape female captives and he received a special “revelation from Allah” to that effect. It is in the “holy” Qur’an : 4:24.

    “Islam is as inextricable to the fabric of humanity as the veins by which lifeblood flows through you.”

    For the intellectually, morally and spiritually primitive part of humanity (which runs in the hundreds of millions if not billions in the Third World), I am afraid that is indeed the case.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @AnonStarter
  194. Hoot says:

    Here is a “good Muslim”. I could be his buddy if he would just keep his family where they belong.

  195. @Seraphim

    Any environment can eventually lead a rational person to disbelieve arbitrary fabricated nonsense like a three-part God. Why not twenty parts? Or a hundred? And how would we know which is correct?

    He’s not deluded for refusing to accept your arbitrary assertions. No matter how many people believe them, repeat them, or attack others for not buying them, they’re arbitrary and deserve no credence.

    Sensible people admire, follow, and try to propagate the abundance of sound moral and practical advice and rules in the Bible, certainly including the Ten Commandments. Being sensible, they don’t pretend to make sense of or follow the rest.

    (Nor do sensible self-respecting non-Jewish people waste time reading or discussing the self-absorbed, self-worshipping ancient Jewish genealogy lists and vindictive legends that wastes so much space in the OT.)

    Nor do sensible, intellectually honest people try to explain away the celebration of atrocities by Jews in the OT, or to explain away Jesus’s absurd, offensive injunctions in the NT with “context”, which sometimes can’t be plausibly done.

    The “trinity” is just the beginning of the made-up arbitrary assertions in that book, despite the enormous wisdom and decency and deep spirituality to be found elsewhere amidst the Dreck of that book.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Seraphim
  196. @Talha

    Talha, just curious, do you wish such blessings equally on nonMuslims? Seriously asking. I hope so.

    • Replies: @Talha
  197. @Talha

    That’s just disingenuous. Muslim armies raped and pillaged routinely, like self-proclaimed Christian and other nonMuslim armies. (And the women of the losing tribes had no choice about having sexual with those men or anything else.).

    The soldiers taking conquered women as unwilling “wives” and bringing home loot, had nothing to do with that noble-sounding “spreading the faith.”

    Unless treating nonMuslims that way is an inherent and condoned part of the Faith.

    • Replies: @Talha
  198. @anonymous

    I don’t think those politicians and their backers (or controllers) conducting wars on certain Arab nations are driven by Islamophobia. They did the same, if not worse, to Vietnam and the Viets were not muslims. They are conducting wars in the Middle East for a) control or plunder of resources and b) to spread chaos and weaken the enemies of Israel. Now many ordinary people in the west and some of their populist leaders may be Islamophobic because of the response of Islamists seeking revenge for those conducting the wars or because they don’t want to see the spread of Islam in their own countries. But many of these Western Islamophobes actually have no wish to make wars on Arabs in the Middle East. Of course Israel and Jews may be promoting both this Islamophobia on the ground level as well as encouraging the warmongering of the elites, of which they make up a significant part themselves. Whether or not I am an Islamophobe should be of no concern to you as long as you don’t try to spread Islam on my continent, and of course as long as it doesn’t induce me to go and kill you on your own continent. Now stirring up these old hatreds between Christians and Muslims (and the Jews or by the Jews) is quite convenient for those doing it, but in the case of Vietnam they couldn’t use religious hatreds as there was no history of animosity between Christians and Buddhists. In the case of Vietnam they used hatred based on ideology as of capitalist democrats against communist totalitarians, but even that was not the true reason for war, that too was for control of resources in the South China Sea and geo-strategic domination.

  199. Talha says:
    @RadicalCenter

    equally

    Equally? As in ask for them as often as I ask for Muslims? No, I mention Muslims more often in my prayers because they are my brothers and they have greater right upon me due to our mutual bonds of brotherhood.

    But if you are asking if I wish non-Muslims are granted health and safety and abundant blessings, absolutely. I try to make it a daily thing to pray at least once for my neighbors, co-workers, etc. and the general welfare of the society I live in. I was even praying for all the people I interact with even on this and other forums over the course of Ramadan.

    It is not a zero sum game; the fact that non-Muslims are granted blessings detracts not one bit from the Muslims any more than the rain that falls showers one person more or less than another in its path.

    Peace.

  200. @alt right moderate

    This is false and gives false hope about Europe.

    Sweden continues to admit new Muslim immigrants while failing to have their own children.

    Ditto France.
    Ditto Germany.
    Ditto the Benelux countries.
    Ditto England / formerly-great formerly-Britain.

    Name a single country in northwestern, western or central Europe that hasn’t increased its Muslim population AND decreased its native white European nonMuslim population every year in the past decade — with a source. You can’t.

    I love Salvini and what’s he doing and proposing, but Italy may thereby merely delay its transformation into sharia-“governed” and/or filthy, unsafe place beset by African violence, intimidation, tape, theft, and massive parasitism (long-term welfare). No matter what laws they toughen or how many illegal immigrants they deport, there remain “legal” nonEuro Muslims and Africans in Italy in large numbers who actually raise families. Italians are still on track to being a hated, persecuted, terrified minority on their own land, soon enough.

  201. @idealogus

    Why is it an either/or choice? There’s a third possibility: both of these religions and their holy books are full of nonsense.

    The Koran seems even more irrational and arbitrary, especially its arrangement by length of books and the convenient “abrogation” doctrine (Muhammad gets to make up a new rule that irreconcilably contradicts the current rule, e.g. allowing him to take someone else’s wife or commanding aggressive violence against nonMuslims instead of “respect for the people of the Book”, because God sent another vision to the pedophile bastard after the old vision became inconvenient for him.)

    There’s much to learn and be guided by in the Bible, both OT and NT, but I won’t pretend the rest of isn’t at turns absurd, vicious (OT), offensive (come with me now and don’t bury your father, and many others supposedly just for dramatic effect), and just perverse and disgusting (eg a man getting drunk and having sexual with his own daughters, without condemnation, the sick Jews).

    What meaningful and wholesome moral or logical principle about how to live, behave, treat others, reform one’s character, fight sin within oneself, etc. do we get from the Koran that we don’t get from the Bible (or from millennia of experience and reasoning)?

    Growing a beard, being offended by dogs, prohibiting images of people, torturing homosexuals to death, don’t count.

  202. Bliss says:
    @AaronB

    Who is this God you worship and glorify? Are you allowed to spell his name?

  203. The article is a bit too long for me but I did learn a new term today, “national zionism”. I was wondering if we have a word to describe the phony and (I suppose purposely blind) “dissident” right wing movement in Europe that just looks at, what they think as the symptoms (let’s say refugees or non white immigrants) while completely avoiding the disease (the zionist presence that is working hard towards obliterating the European race).

    By the way has any credible populist movement arisen in Europe which isn’t farcical?

  204. Talha says:
    @RadicalCenter

    Muslim armies raped and pillaged routinely

    Yup, the ones who did will be asked about this on the Day of Judgment. But, we have rules of conduct in war in the sacred law – the fact that they were broken by some does not change the fact that they are there any more than Muslims who consume alcohol negates its prohibition. You mentioned Christian armies did so as well (often against other Christians) – it is fair to say many adherents of a faith throw rules out the window when it comes to war.

    But what I stated is not controversial; forced conversion was rare in Muslim conquests precisely because there were rules of dhimmah.

    As far as spoils of war (as slaves or valuables – which was a fairly universal pre-modern practice for which it seems silly to single out Muslims) – that is not permitted to be the purpose of any of those battles. They are simply the aftermath as per pre-modern warfare norms. Removing political/military obstacles to spreading the faith was the only reason to go to war permitted by Islam – all other material purposes were forbidden.

    I’m really only concerned about the expansionary wars of the Rashidun as they set the standard of conduct – they did not pillage and burn down cities. Their record is fairly clear; almost every single one of their engagements was out in the plains and away from towns or cities. Being generally not well-versed in siege warfare, they were sometimes able to coax out the garrisons by feigning retreats and crushing them by a well-timed cavalry thrust. The battles/sieges of Nihavand and Emesa are classic examples. Having routed the garrisons, the surrounding cities came to terms very quickly. Again, I encourage anyone to read that book I referenced by Prof. David Nicolle – it is a great read from a military history perspective regarding timeline, tactics, strategy, etc.

    Being a universal religion and applicable to all times, Islam is flexible enough to have rules for that age when it was the norm to take slaves and spoils and well as being able to conform to our current age in which such conduct (taking slaves and spoils) is interdicted by international treaties. So we can all do our best to adhere to such treaties. And Muslim nations have been thus far apart from garage-band caliphates like Daesh (who also like to blow up people in mosques that they don’t like); and the proper way to deal with parties that unilaterally break with these conventions is to simply enslave them and take their stuff to give them a taste of what it feels like.

    Peace.

  205. Talha says:
    @RadicalCenter

    Dude, you know you would have been like drawn and quartered in medieval Europe for these statements in a Christian land, don’t you?

    Or one of these bits…

    Just saying…

    Peace.

  206. Seraphim says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Unfortunately, diseases are ‘inextricable to the fabric of humanity’ which all too often became epidemics/pandemics. Men have to live with them, but that doesn’t mean that they must ‘tolerate’ them. On the contrary, they have the duty to fight against, taking preventative measures, stop their spread, ideally eradicating them. Unfortunately, viruses are mutant. The most poisonous fungi look beautiful on the exterior.
    Islam is a disease which affects the brain.

  207. @anonymous

    /It is millions of the kind of Islamophobes you find here and the west (the Bushs, the Blairs, the Boltons, the Kristols, the Spencers, the Coulters, the Rottenboroughs, the Newmans, the KenHs, the redneck Joe white trashes, and so many more) who are directly or indirectly responsible for all of that human suffering./

    Well, ‘Umar himself was quite the Islamophobe — threatening to kill the Prophet — before he became one of his closest companions. I wouldn’t rank the plebes of unz.com among the Skull and Bones crowd, since they don’t really have a handle on Islam, and whether they will or not remains to be seen.

    In Genesis 9: 27, we read that God “opens (Arabic: fatH) to Japheth,” who represents those of European extraction, among others. Japheth shall dwell in the “tents of Shem,” the domiciles of faith that were the heritage of Abraham, a direct descendant of Shem. After Genesis, the heirs of Japheth fade into Europe and Asia, never to be seen again in The Bible except as targets of Temple Israel’s mission advanced by Saul of Tarsus.

    That mission was intended to deceive the Children of Japheth — particularly their western component — into acknowledging that salvation lies in Israel rather than in Ishmael, the heir apparent to the divine promise concerning Shiloh, also known as Messenger of the Covenant. This deception is known among the learned of Temple Israel as “The Lie,” (see Jeremiah 8:8) and its result is apparent in the tacit subordination of western nations to the contemporary polity known as Israel. It is the foundation underlying said fealty and all of its consequent ethnic patriotism, a projection of Temple Israel’s own worldview.

    This is what was foisted upon white folk nearly two millennia ago, and very few, if any, care to comprehend the depth of mendacity within which they founder. The best you can do is pray that they’ll save themselves and their families from a fire of men and stones before it’s too late.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Seraphim
  208. Seraphim says:
    @RadicalCenter

    Ah, you fancy being the only ‘rational person, sensible, intellectually honest’ around. How do you know it?

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  209. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    The population of Europe is in decline and it seems like a miracle is needed to turn it around, but there is a very interesting hadith regarding this:

    A man said to Amr Ibn al-As, he heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say, “The Hour will be established while the Rum are the majority of people.” Amr said, “Be careful what you say.” He said, “I have said what I heard from the Messenger of Allah.” Amr said, “If the Prophet said that, indeed, there are four good qualities in them: they are the most forbearing of people in tribulation, they are the quickest to recover after a calamity, they are the most eager to return after a retreat, and they are good to the poor, the orphan, and the vulnerable. Their fifth quality is good and beautiful: they are the best at stopping the oppression of their kings.” – reported in Muslim

    You likely know that the Arabs sometimes referred to Europeans in general as Rum (and not just the Romans/Byzantines). Amr Ibn al-As (ra) was well acquainted with the Romans, having had to deal with fighting and expelling the Roman garrisons in the conquest of Egypt. So his assessment of their good qualities was from a place of experience. Some of the scholars have offered different explanations of this, one of which is that it may be a sign the Europeans (meaning native Europeans) will take on Islam and will be quite prolific in the twilight on mankind – Allah swt knows best.

    Interesting too that a man like Amr (ra) could face them on the battlefield in mortal combat and be magnanimous enough to give a positive assessment of his enemies. Definitely not a “woke” take.

    Peace.

  210. @Franklin Ryckaert

    /Dar al-‘Ahd and Dar al-Sulh are only meant to be temporal, as long as the opponent is stronger./

    No basis in The Qur’an, haddith or seerah for this. Nor are you capable of supporting your claims with evidence from these sources. Same goes for your world domination nonsense.

    /“only fought out of self-defense”, or “to protect Muslims from persecution”./

    “Only” would be incorrect, though it certainly occurred, and it wasn’t just Muslims that mujahideen fought to protect from tyranny. Islam arrived with a mandate for liberty that was unprecedented among world religions and polities, which is why many parties not living under its auspices welcomed the Muslims and even assisted in their assumption of power when they arrived. Its rapid spread would not have occurred otherwise.

    Being of European extraction, you view the world from an ethos colored by a historical legacy of imperialist endeavor, de facto or otherwise. (European nations remain a significant arm of American military coalitions occupying Muslim lands.) You then project this perspective upon Muslims, perceiving that they launched campaigns with motives and manners necessarily identical to those of your ancestors. Your flaw, quite simply, is stubborn ethnocentricity, from which you appear unable to extricate yourself.

    /In today’s world prisoners of war are not “de facto slaves”, it is by international law forbidden to force them to work for no salary./

    It’s also forbidden to rape them, torture them or humiliate them in any cruel and unusual fashion, yet this is precisely what occurred at the hands of American coalition soldiers in Iraq. Prisoners of war may not be slaves in the sense of a household servant, yet the fact remains that Islam ordained humane treatment of them many centuries before the Geneva Conventions were even conceived and even today’s allegedly “enlightened” secular armies appear to have lost entirely the concept of chivalry.

    /Muhammad himself and his companions engaged in slave trade/

    Chattel slavery, as I’ve already stated, was the order of the day, and the order for many centuries to come, not only among Muslims, but myriad non-Muslim polities as well. It was as ubiquitous then as wage slavery is today.

    The early Muslims were renowned for freeing many slaves, as The Qur’an was the first religious text to codify manumission of them as expiation for sin. In later generations, once absorbed into dar al-Islam, the condition of many slaves improved due to the practice of Islamic imperatives concerning equitable treatment and manumission. This, in turn, resulted in greater assimilation into the freemen’s milieu. Ironically, due to the resulting dearth of slaves, those who rationalized the necessity of its institution were then compelled to look beyond the Muslim world for new slaves, which led to the raids you mention. And yet an entire empire — the Mamluk, which literally translates as “the owned” — arose out of slaves, which would have been impossible in contemporaneous Europe, let alone 19th century America.

    /their so-called “prophet” who bragged that the archangel Gabriel had endowed him with the potence of 40 men/

    Once again, your poor scholarship rears its ugly head.

    It wasn’t The Prophet who “bragged” of this, it was Anas bin Malik, a companion who made that statement; the hadith doesn’t mention Gabriel and the number is 30, not 40.

    /Muhammed allowed his companions to rape female captives and he received a special “revelation from Allah” to that effect. It is in the “holy” Qur’an : 4:24./

    Nothing in 4: 24 can be construed as a license to rape female captives. The preceding verse sets forth a list of women who are unlawful for matrimony. 4: 24 then continues by including already married women, thereafter citing female servants as lawful prospects for marriage. In fact, it encourages marriage to them, which is yet another means of manumission, a divinely ordained good deed.

    /primitive/

    Thus far, what you imagine about Islam is, in fact, nothing more than manifest psychological projection, particularly given the contemporary abuses of your political and military representatives throughout the Muslim world. If that’s what you consider to be “civilized,” I prefer primitive, thank you very much.

  211. @Talha

    Talha,

    Everyone was brutal and imaginative in their tortures in the past and not just Christians and Muslims but especially the Chinese Buddhists, and not just to each other, but to their own too. The sad thing is it’s still going on today, this atrocious kind of brutality. I could mention ISIS, you could pull out Abu Ghraib.

    • Agree: Talha
  212. @Talha

    /“The Prophet (pbuh) prohibited plundering and mutilation.” – reported in Bukhari/

    A beautiful reminder, shukran.

    And a nice analogy drawn between American privateers and the early Muslim caravan raiders!

    /Not sure why it’s not is use much anymore…maybe inconvenience?/

    Lack of necessity. Why bother when you’re spending more on shoot-’em-up hardware than the next seven biggest spenders combined times seven?

    /The US sank millions of tons of shipping off the coasts of Japan in WW2 – I wonder why they didn’t attempt to seize them?/

    I’m reminded of Shaheed Hajj Malik Shabazz (Malcom X) and his famous “Ballot or Bullet?” address. Compare it to guerilla warfare and you might have an answer.

    (I’ll get to the other response some time later, insha’Allah. Your du’a would be greatly appreciated, akhi.)

    was-salaam.

    • Replies: @Talha
  213. @Talha

    That’s right. And I wouldn’t fare well if I criticized Islam as irrational on a street corner in many Muslim countries, either, right now today rather than centuries ago.

    • Replies: @Talha
  214. @Talha

    The population of Europe is in decline and it seems like a miracle is needed to turn it around

    With declining economies, and increasing automation and outsourcing of industry to China and elsewhere, this is indeed how it should be in the West and I don’t see why it is a problem as the population will just eventually stabilise at a lower, more sustainable level. We’d only need more people if we wanted to fight wars some more traditional hand-to-hand ways instead of pressing buttons on advanced technological weaponry. So importing people to replace us is completely unnecessary and ridiculous unless someone has a plan to spread chaos, poverty, overcrowding, violence and hate in our own countries. And the immigrants are just setting themselves up to be the scapegoats if a fightback ever comes around. I know they are less guilty than the ones responsible for all this, but they’ll be the ones enraged locals will be able to get their hands on, and probably encouraged by the same ones who earlier promoted this immigration from behind the scene.

  215. @Seraphim

    Never said or implied that. There are many other people I’d say are basically sensible, including some who reach partially different conclusions and surmises than I do, but thanks for the straw man.

  216. Seraphim says:
    @AnonStarter

    The ‘Messenger of the Covenant’ is a monumental pile of crap excreted by a mentally unstable ‘lapsed Unitarian’, pretending to be a ‘former Roman Catholic bishop of the Uniate-Chaldean sect” (an impostor, if he existed at all).
    One of the numerous hoaxes used for the ‘Advancment of Islam’ like the ‘Gospel of Barnabas’ (whose recently ‘discovered’ Aramaic ‘original’ would “now undermine the Christian Church and its authority and will revolutionize the religion in the world”, “‘collapse Christianity” – incidentally the ‘discovery’ coincided with the start of the turmoil in Syria and creation of Daesh).

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  217. Seraphim says:
    @Talha

    Ah, Constantinople was a ‘Byzantine garrison’ which was an obstacle in spreading the faith. It has to be ‘removed’. Vienna was a ‘garrison’ that had to be removed. But ‘spreading the faith doesn’t mean conversion, does it?

    • Replies: @Talha
  218. vinteuil says:
    @Grace Poole

    If you can believe that the God of Anselm & Aquinas – the necessarily existent being, the un-moved mover, absolutely metaphysically simple, pure act, no potency – could even conceivably live, suffer & die on the cross…

    Well, then, the idea that there could be three persons in one substance is as nothing in comparison.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Old Palo Altan
  219. Talha says:
    @Seraphim

    Of course they were. You think authorities in Constantinople were going to let Sufi Orders walk freely around preaching Islam to the populace? To ask the question is to answer it.

  220. Talha says:
    @RadicalCenter

    Well if you crossed the line of blasphemy, you’d definitely at least end up in jail. Looking at medieval times though – to be honest – the methods for killing blasphemers in the Muslim world has been a relatively clean kill; beheading or hanging. I’m not sure why some Europeans were so, ahem, creative with the methods they employed. You do come across things where the Mamluks would cut a guy in half and stick the top half on a slab of lime to scream out his last breaths or torture by pulling joints out of sockets, but those patterns were confined to political executions. Some of the torture devices I’ve seen from certain European museums are just astonishing.

    Peace.

  221. Talha says:
    @vinteuil

    I cannot tell you how many converts I have come across from Christianity (whether in real life or heard them tell their story) that specifically wanted to keep their love for Jesus (pbuh) and ditch the god-incarnate/trinity doctrine. Not only that, but how many people call themselves Christians without actually believing that core doctrine; some “Christian” guy on Twitter was arguing with me about Islam just yesterday and when asked about his views on the trinity, denied it.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  222. Seraphim says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    His ‘neo-Eurasianism’ is rather a Western construct to start with. His take on ‘Russian’ Orthodoxy is redolent with the Westernizers take on Orthodoxy (Soloviov, Bulgakov, Berdiayev), mixed with Sufism, Shiism, Heideggerism, reflecting the deleterious influence of Guenon, Evola and all ‘perennialist integral traditionalists’, that has little to do (if at all) with ‘mainstream’ Orthodoxy of the Church, as with the ‘realpolitik’ of Putin. Is Dugin ‘Putin’s Rasputin’? You won’t blame me if I LOL.

  223. Seraphim says:
    @Talha

    But you think they should have.

    • Replies: @Talha
  224. @Talha

    When did the “prophet” Muhammad walk around as a Sufi peacefully preaching his religion ? To ask the question is to answer it.

    (hint: too busy robbing caravans or having sex in his harem)

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @AnonStarter
  225. Talha says:
    @Seraphim

    Who should have done what? Your statement is too vague.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  226. Zen says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Complete rubbish. Expand your network.

  227. @Seraphim

    A recently discovered Aramaic original? Haven’t heard of this. Got a link?

    Look, Seraphim … I understand why you might not want to extend me the simple courtesy of a perfunctory “I’m fine, thanks. And you?” After all, you’re probably still licking your wounds after I demolished your shoddy analysis of Thomas Glick’s Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages. After that sad performance of yours, you can’t really expect us to take your ad hominem attacks seriously, can you?

    For what it’s worth, I don’t believe that the Gospel of Barnabas is authentic, though the purported discovery of an alleged original piques my curiosity just enough to want more information.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  228. Talha says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    In Makkah. Muslims were prohibited from fighting until they were in Madinah. This is basic level Muslim history.

  229. @Franklin Ryckaert

    /When did the “prophet” Muhammad walk around as a Sufi peacefully preaching his religion ?/

    Throughout the entirety of his prophethood, he invited — not “preached” — peacefully. Wars that were necessary for the very survival of his people didn’t consume every waking hour of his life.

    Since you’re such an exacting scholar, you’re surely aware that the Quraysh pursued Muslims as far as Abyssinia for their extradition and that The Prophet narrowly escaped an assassination attempt upon leaving Mecca. His enemies considered his actions treasonous, deserving of death, and they certainly didn’t intend to allow him and his followers free reign anywhere, particularly in the Hijaz, where tribal codes of honor demanded retaliation for such a terrible affront to their “dignity.”

    This was well understood by The Prophet, who took appropriate counter measures to ensure the security and safety of Medina. I suppose it can’t be helped that you imagine every prophet must walk on air, fart perfume and disabuse himself entirely of practical living. We prefer something more down to earth, and no, that’s not unholy at all. If God is responsible for all that is, surely He doesn’t demand of us a burden greater than we can bear.

    That’s just plain ol’, garden variety common sense.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @Talha
  230. @AnonStarter

    Perhaps this too is “plain old common sense ” :

    List of killings ordered or supported by Muhammad, Wikiislam

    https://wikiislam.net/…/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported-b&#8230;

    Many of these people were murdered merely for mocking Muhammad, which is what Muslims today still do (Muhammad cartoons).

    Muhammad also personally surveyed the beheading of 800 Jewish men. There are some people on this earth, perhaps inconceivable for Muslims, who feel revulsion at watching their fellow human beings be beheaded. Not so Muhammad ! He watched it closely all day long. What an exemplary man !

    Shoulden’t we be grateful that his terror sect grew into a world religion ?

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @Bliss
  231. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    And a nice analogy drawn between American privateers and the early Muslim caravan raiders!

    Criticisms of the campaigns of early Muslims used to bother me until I started reading the works of military historians (especially of Ancient as well as Late Antiquity and Medieval). These guys have seen and read of everything and are very frank and honest and don’t have a butt-hurt axe to grind. They simply lay it out as it is. You come to realize how enlightened the Muslim approach to warfare was for its era.

    Think about the Persian-Greek wars or the Punic wars – burning down or otherwise utterly laying waste to one’s enemy’s capital city was basically par for the course. The Makkans should have been completely wiped out (and Abu Sufyan [ra] actually thought that’s exactly what was going to happen), but instead he forgave them. When he asked them what they thought he was going to do with them as h came upon them at the Kabah with his forces having completely enveloped the city (as reported by Imam Bayhaqi in his Sunan al-Kubra):
    They said three times, “We say you are the son of our brother.”

    The Prophet (pbuh) said: “I say to you as Joseph said to his brothers: ‘No blame upon you today. Allah will forgive you, for he is the Most Merciful of the merciful.’” (12:92)

    …and they entered the religion in droves. We know what the Arabs were like prior to Islam because the Lakhmid king, Mundhir the Third, made an extensive campaign into Syria a century before (on behalf of the Persians). He decimated entire towns and came back with 400 nuns which he burnt in offering to al-Uzza.

    This is what makes the style of the campaigns of the Rashidun all that more incredible. The Arabs had every potential to cause Mongol-level destruction upon that entire area if they had come out as tribes-united under pagan rules of conduct in warfare.

    Most people who criticize the tactics of the Prophet (pbuh) – assuming they are even looking at authentic reports in the first place – have very little experience having read military history or tactics of that era (or in general) and shouldn’t ever be put near the command of any army that actually hopes to win. The Prophet (pbuh) – having had little prior experience – was supremely successful on the tactical and strategic level (as one would expect from a Divine emissary on the battlefield since ineptitude or failure in this field of endeavor would obviously point to someone who didn’t have Divine backing). Coming back from a low point as one of two fugitives being chased by the Makkans on his escape to Madinah, to defeating the capital city of his rivals in a civil war and uniting the entire peninsula and having positioned his Companions (ra) to decisively take on (in tandem) the two rival regional empires.

    Wa salaam.

  232. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    and they certainly didn’t intend to allow him and his followers free reign anywhere

    Yup – and, not to be outdone in their initial stupidity of trying to kill a Divinely-sent messenger, they upped the ante by not simply leaving things be and being satisfied he was out of their hair:
    “The infidels of the Quraysh wrote (a letter) to Ibn Ubayy and to those who worshipped idols from al-Aws and al-Khazraj, while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was at that time at Medina before the battle of Badr. (They wrote): ‘You gave protection to our companion. We swear by Allah, you should fight him or expel him, or we shall come to you in full force, until we kill your fighters and appropriate your women.’” – reported in Abu Dawud

    They were curb-stomped at the Battle of Badr. Strategically, that was the end of the Quraysh – on that day they lost (even with a 3 to 1 advantage) practically their entire core leadership; men like Abu Jahal, Walid ibn Mughirah, Utbah ibn Rabiah, etc. Abu Sufyan (ra) ended up in charge of the Quraysh by default. When one reads about the history, one feels a bit sorry for him; neither was he experienced enough or even prepared to replace an entire generation of tribal leaders by himself nor was he even as enthusiastic about fighting the Muslims as the prior leadership. He was a victim of circumstance to a degree – rider a tiger he couldn’t get down from. Tribal rules of honor and revenge necessitated that he had to avenge the deaths of all those main leaders or die trying.

    Badr was the crucible, everything else simply followed naturally from there.

    Your du’a would be greatly appreciated, akhi.

    Done. Do not deprive me of your prayers as well.

    Question; without giving names, have you studied under scholars or has it been self-study?

    Just a little background on me; I’ve been blessed to be able to study classic texts (part time) under traditional scholars of the Hanafi school (who are both generous with their time and forgiving of my many mistakes and poor etiquette) for about 10 years now. My study of Islamic history has simply been a passion on the side.

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  233. @Talha

    As-salaamu ‘alaikum wa ‘eid mubarak!

    Thank you for those explanations, all of which speak very well for themselves, ma sha Allah.

    As per religious liberty ordained by Islam and its application …

    Consider that any polity acting in its own best interests would never permit misrepresentation that undermines its very foundation, threatening the ruin thereof. This is why treason remains a potentially capital offense even in contemporary America and assassination threats against a president aren’t protected speech.

    After the worldly passing of our Prophet, those who refused to pay zakat still purported to represent Islam, thereby throwing down the gauntlet before the legitimate authority in Medina. The Qur’an draws a clear distinction between such renegades “at war with Allah and His Messenger” and People of the Book. That distinction is further corroborated in the haddith that reads “[w]hoever changes the religion, kill him,” which was a directive specifically targeting those renegades. Had the mandate for liberty extended to them, Islam may have been vanquished in its infancy.

    During the Abbasid period, the aforementioned haddith suffered a slight — albeit crucial — distortion, in which the definite article was substituted with the possessive adjective “his,” rendering simple apostasy a capital crime. Unfortunately, that distortion has remained among us to this day. What’s more …

    Not only are we prohibited from compelling non-Muslims to become Muslims, legal authorities cannot extend their hand into compelling the practice of Islam by Muslims (as opposed to false-flag renegades, such as da’esh). Unquestionably, civil and criminal offenses are punishable, and some may construe this as tacit “compulsion,” but, to be exact, such punishment is responsive, a consequence of violating the Law to which one has freely — and we must emphasize freely — bound himself.

    Saudi Arabia’s shuttering of businesses to compel prayer is, in fact, not consonant with the shari’ah, nor is issuing a citation for untimely fast breaking — which doesn’t occur anywhere on earth, to my knowledge. Truth stands out clear from error, and hypocrites often stand out in stark relief from the faithful. If they’d rather leave Islam, they must be allowed to do so without retribution. Such is the application of Islam’s mandate for religious liberty.

    was-salaam.

  234. @Franklin Ryckaert

    /Many of these people were murdered merely for mocking Muhammad/

    Assuming these reports are even authentic — one is likely to find a Jewish link in many of them — they were categorized by Ibn Hisham under the title “Maghazi,” which translates as “campaigns.” The reason they were considered as such is that they occurred in the context of war with the Jewish tribes to whom the targeted individuals belonged. The poets of 7th century Arabia were highly influential, particularly in inspiring soldiers engaged in conflict, and reaching one in a theater of war proved to be an effective tactic in demoralizing the enemy.

    So no, they weren’t “murdered merely for mocking Muhammad,” and hotheads who predicate murder threats against cartoonists upon them merely betray their ignorance of the historical context in which they occurred.

    /the beheading of 800 Jewish men/

    Another questionable account:

    New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina

    Even if the account is true, you should at least have the courage to explain, according to our source material, why those men were executed. Since you don’t, I’ll be more than happy to help you …

    The Banu Qurayza had entered into a covenant with the Muslim polity, agreeing to fight alongside Muslims should Medina be countenanced with attack. They subsequently betrayed their oath by confederating with enemy forces and leaving vulnerable to breach that flank they were charged with defending during the Battle of the Trench, an act of treason that constituted a capital offense. They knew full well what the consequences of their action were and, following the Muslims’ victory, withdrew to their stronghold with the intent to fight them to the end. Only when they realized they could not prevail did they surrender. In deliberating upon their fate, The Prophet held counsel with one of their own tribesmen who had become Muslim. That tribesman asserted that the men of the Banu Qurayza should be punished according to the dictates of The Torah, not The Qur’an. Read the punishment detailed in Deuteronomy 20 for further details.

    And there is nothing — not a word — in all of the seerah that proves The Prophet “enjoyed” bloodshed. Where capital punishment had to be carried out, it was done so because it was necessary, not because he derived pleasure from it.

    “Fighting is ordained for you, though it is hateful to you.” (2: 216)

    Thanks again for the opportunity to lay waste to your lies. Keep ’em coming.

  235. @AnonStarter

    “…Muhammad aggressively attacked several groups of people around him. One of these groups were the Jews of Khaibar. Muhammad believed God led him to attack Khaibar. After Khaibar was conquered, the Jews were either enslaved, executed, or allowed to live there provided they gave the Muslims one half of all they produced. One of Muhammad’s most brutal acts involved a prisoner named Kinana. Kinana was one of the leaders of Khaibar. Muhammad wanted him to reveal where some buried treasure was hidden. Kinana refused. Muhammad had him tortured to the point of death, then had him beheaded…”

    The oldest extant biography of Muhammad is called the “Sirat Rasulallah” — “Life of the Prophet of Allah”. This book was written by Ibn Ishaq, a devout Muslim scholar, and later revised by Ibn Hisham. It was written before any of the major works of Hadith. It is considered the most authentic biography of Muhammad. It was translated into English by A. Guillaume as “The Life of Muhammad”.

    page 515 reads: “…Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says “was brought”), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, “Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?” He said “Yes”. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has.” So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud…”

    That is your insaan kamil. Follow his example !

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  236. @AnonStarter

    They betrayed Christians many times too during Islamic expansion into Christian territories and this is taken by some as evidence of Judeo-Islamic collusion throughout history, even to this day. Although current evidence would suggest that the conflict between Judaism and Islam is more intense than ever, at least since the setting up of the state of Israel.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  237. Bliss says:
    @AaronB

    Gnosticism is profoundly alien to Judaism. Judaism believes this world was created by God and is good

    Gnosticism may be “profoundly alien” to Judaism but it is profoundly akin to the true Gospel of Jesus. And to Buddhism, Advaita, Neo-Platonism, Sufism:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

    Scholars debate Gnosticism’s origins as having roots in Neoplatonism and Buddhism, due to similarities in beliefs…….The Gnostic belief was widespread within Christianity until the proto-orthodox Christian communities expelled the group in the second and third centuries (C.E.). Gnosticism became the first group to be declared heretical.

    Within early Christianity, the teachings of Paul and John may have been a starting point for Gnostic ideas, with a growing emphasis on the opposition between flesh and spirit, the value of charisma, and the disqualification of the Jewish law. The mortal body belonged to the world of inferior, worldly powers (the archons), and only the spirit or soul could be saved……Alexandria [Egypt] was of central importance for the birth of Gnosticism.

    Jesus is identified by some Gnostics as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnōsis to the earth, while others adamantly denied that the supreme being came in the flesh, claiming Jesus to be merely a human who attained divinity through gnosis and taught his disciples to do the same.

  238. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    Treachery from within one’s polity (especially at a crucial time of war) must be dealt with harshly to send out a clear message. Charlemagne (eventually crowned Holy Roman Emperor) put nearly 4500 Saxon (pagan) captive rebels to the sword at Verden for their recalcitrance and fighting after having first pledged fealty to him:
    “In contemporary values, the beheadings were doubly justified, punishing the crime of oath-breaking and avenging very special deaths….Meanwhile, in his book ‘Charlemagne: Father of a Continent’, Alessandro Barbero adds that:
    the most likely inspiration for the mass execution of Verden was the Bible. Exasperated by the continual rebellions, Charlemagne wanted to act like a true king of Israel…After defeating the Moabites, David, with whom Charles liked to compare himself, had the prisoners stretch out on the ground, and two out of three were killed. This, too, was part of the Old Testament from which the king drew inspiration…”
    http://www.medievalists.net/2014/02/was-charlemagne-a-mass-murderer/

    Harsh punishment? Absolutely – that was the point.

    Immoral? Not even close.

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  239. Bliss says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Muhammad also personally surveyed the beheading of 800 Jewish men.

    And he took for himself the very young and very beautiful Jewish slave Rayhana, wife of one of the 800 jews he beheaded that day.

    Both of Mohammad’s Jewish wives (or concubines) were young captive widows of Jewish men he had killed.

  240. @vinteuil

    Well, Vinteuil, since both Anselm and Aquinas certainly did believe both propositions, I think you’ve got some explaining to do.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  241. @Moi

    “I went to a Jesuit boarding school from grade 5 thru 12.”

    How did you do that? The prep schools and the secondary schools were usually separate (even if, as at Beaumont, they were nearly contiguous).

  242. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Curious that you provide no reference to your blockquote.

    Hiding something?

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  243. @vinteuil

    Come come Vinteuil. It depends on when he went to a Jesuit boarding school.

    The Jesuits were superlative educators up till Vatican II, and in some places even quite a bit later.

    The Leftist indoctrination was beginning in my day (during the Council) but those of us with robust self-confidence and a smattering of common sense were not fooled.

    Moi seems to have been fooled, so the fault is very possibly his, and not the Jesuits’.

  244. @AnonStarter

    Not hiding something, I simply forgot. Here is the source :

    https://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/kinana.htm

    Read also the discussion and the conclusion. You may disagree with the judgment, you cannot dispute the facts from authentic Muslim sources.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  245. @Talha

    Criminals need comparison with other criminals to “justify” their crimes. Nice try.

    • Agree: Bliss
    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @Talha
  246. @Commentator Mike

    Hey, Mike. Hope you’re doing well.

    /They betrayed Christians many times too during Islamic expansion into Christian territories and this is taken by some as evidence of Judeo-Islamic collusion throughout history, even to this day./

    Could you elaborate on this alleged betrayal?

    From what I’ve read, Jews had been banished from Jerusalem by the Byzantines before the arrival of ‘Umar. They also experienced significant persecution at the hands of the Visigoths before Muslims arrived in the Iberian Peninsula.

    /Although current evidence would suggest that the conflict between Judaism and Islam is more intense than ever, at least since the setting up of the state of Israel./

    The root of conflict between Jews and Muslims extends much further back in time. The learned of Temple Israel were aware of prophecies concerning both Jesus and Muhammad many centuries before either was born, and they invented a lie that the Messiah (Jesus) and “that Prophet” (as referenced in John 1: 21 and 24) were one and the same, intending to deceive the goyim — particularly the Children of Japheth — into believing that salvation lie in Israel rather than in Ishmael, the patriarch from whom “that Prophet” descended. Jesus knew what they had done and condemned them accordingly, deftly eluding their snares and subterfuge in spite of The Lie with which they continue to slander him.

    They knew well where Muhammad would arrive, which is why they were in Yathrib long before he came on the scene. Almost since they received prophecy of him, they’ve been doing everything in their power to ensure that he isn’t known for who he was — a disposition entirely contrary to what God originally chose for them. All of this because they could not tolerate that Shiloh, the Messenger of the Covenant sent for the salvation of all humankind, was not of their kin.

    It’s just that simple.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  247. @Talha

    God, I love you, akhi.

    May Allah continue to bless you with knowledge of Him. I would love nothing more than to divulge the history of those friends of God at whose feet I have sat, and this may occur some time hence, though I appeal to your reason in declining to elaborate upon it in this forum fashioned of fire and sand.

    Jazakumullahu khayr.

    • Replies: @Talha
  248. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Okay, I’m familiar with Silas. I actually tussled with him briefly back in the day. As I recall, he was much like you: ignoring scholarship where it didn’t dovetail with his convictions.

    /You may disagree with the judgment, you cannot dispute the facts from authentic Muslim sources./

    Well, any “facts” can be disputed, particularly if there’s reason to believe they’re not authentic.

    Some accept Ibn Hisham’s record of Ibn Ishaq as wholly factual. If you do this, you can’t cherry-pick. You have to accept the entirety of the record as authentic, which includes that conduct of the Jews who violated terms of treaty that resulted in their expulsion or killing.

    Some compare the Sira against either ayat or authenticated haddith that appear to contradict it, disregarding a historical account where such contradiction occurs, since the latter sources possess primacy over the former. Others examine the isnad, or chain of narration, by which particular accounts were passed down from the time of The Prophet to a biographer, categorizing the chains in terms of their continuity or lack thereof, and then analyzing them accordingly.

    So yes … “Facts” can be disputed. We do it all the time.

    Thus far, I’ve addressed virtually every “fact” you’ve presented, accepting it at face value and providing historical context that you don’t appear to deny. Your habit has been simply to ignore what I write and continue apace, spamming the thread with yet more slander and misrepresentation. Much like Silas, you’re quite the monotonous drone.

    And I have much more important matters to attend to, such as eating, a favorite pastime of mine.

    Bon apetit.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  249. Seraphim says:
    @Talha

    The authorities in Constantinople or wherever. You think that they should have let the Sufi preach Islam freely in Christian (Christians were not allowed to preach in Muslim countries) and be removed if they didn’t.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Commentator Mike
  250. @Talha

    /“The Hour will be established while the Rum are the majority of people.”/

    Do you have a link to the Arabic original? I’d like to know if the phrase rendered as “majority” carries another meaning.

    • Replies: @Talha
  251. Bliss says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Criminals need comparison with other criminals to “justify” their crimes.

    That proven liar Talha has been doing just that, over and over again. Which proves he is not interested in truth.

    Islam teaches that Mohammad is the last prophet, the holiest man, the ultimate role model for mankind till the end of time. But when Mohammad’s well recorded unholy behaviors are pointed out, Talha and his shameless ilk always make this comparison “that was the norm in those days” as if that justifies the bad behavior of a prophet who they preach was the best man who ever lived. The hypocrites refuse to see the contradiction.

    Actually, even by the moral standards of that time and place Mohammad fell short. And when fingers were pointed at him, more timely Quranic verses from Allah would be “revealed” to excuse his misbehavior. One such case was when the “prophet” lusted after his daughter-in-law and got his own adopted son to divorce his wife so he could marry her.

  252. Talha says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Hey, I’m fine with you guys calling Charlemagne (or any of your other ancestors) a war criminal. I’ll believe it once Europeans have:
    1) removed his name from any of their buildings, landmarks, etc.
    2) taken down any monuments of his (putting up monuments to the pagan Saxons that were killed in place of his monuments gets extra virtue-signaling points)
    3) clearly edited all history books to refer to him as a war criminal

    Once this is done, please come back to us and we can reconsider things once you guys have dropped the hypocrisy.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  253. Talha says:
    @Seraphim

    You think that they should have let the Sufi preach Islam freely in Christian

    Yes.

    Christians were not allowed to preach in Muslim countries

    Correct. The privilege to preach one’s own doctrine and disallow a false doctrine is earned in one of two ways:
    1) Pre-modern era; blood and steel on the battlefield. Winners get to define terms – which is why Europeans got to bring missionaries and prop up churches in Muslim lands once they walloped Muslim armies on the battlefield during the colonial era – we still have churches in Pakistan that look like they were transported from London. Fair is fair.
    2) Current era; numbers at the voting booth. Winners get to define terms – most Muslim countries interdict the preaching of false religion and the populations are down with that. Western countries could change this as of tomorrow if enough of their populations feel this way, they simply have to adjust their constitutions to push back secular norms and make preaching Islam illegal*. Muslim countries don’t have this problem when they specifically make it clear that their nations are founded on Islam and in accord with it as the state religion – they don’t make claims of being secular. Fair is fair.

    *When they weren’t so secular, they punished preaching – heavily:
    To induce anyone to apostatize was an offence punishable with death [Theodosian Code, XVI, title 7, De apostatis; title 8, De Judæis; “Corpus juris romani ante-Justinianæi” (Bonn, 1840)”
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01624b.htm

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @AnonStarter
  254. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    Here you go – the word is “akthar” (أَكْثَرُ النَّاسِ) – now that’s a difficult one to mistake for something else – also given the context of the conversation:
    https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2013/06/12/romans-five-good-traits/

    Wa salaam.

  255. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    God, I love you, akhi.

    May the One for Whom you love me, love you.

    and this may occur some time hence

    I’d love to hear about it honestly. Whenever you feel comfortable. And of course, avoid accidentally doxxing yourself.

    By the way, you’ll like this one:
    http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/i-dont-hate-muslims-im-prudent-about-them-theres-a-difference/#comment-2067215

    Yeah, homeboy actually showed up here, but when I told him that Zionism isn’t well-received around here, he booked.

    Wa iyyakum, wa salaam.

  256. Seraphim says:
    @Talha

    The only point is that Islam is a false doctrine that has to be imposed through blood and steel on the battlefield against the Truth of Christ who is “the Way, the Truth and the Life”, not the camel driver.

    • Replies: @Talha
  257. Bliss says:
    @Talha

    Whadda moron. Europeans do not preach that Charlemagne was a prophet who revealed God’s final message to mankind. They don’t believe he is the ultimate role model for mankind till the end of time. The fact that you are equating him to Mohammad shows what a low opinion you have of the “last prophet”.

    Btw, where is your evidence that there will be not 72 but “hundreds of thousands” of virgins in Paradise for you to fuck for all eternity, as you claimed? Show us the Hadith or admit you lied.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @Talha
  258. @Talha

    I’m not convinced that the Pact of ‘Umar is authentic. Too much about the matn countervails the well-known history of his administration over Jerusalem, premised upon the ‘Umari Treaty. As such, it appears retrofitted by latter-day Muslims who legislated restrictions that were never specifically set forth by God.

    If Christian preaching doesn’t rise to the level of fitnah, I see no reason why it should not be allowed. Muslims should never feel so threatened by others’ conviction or lack thereof that they must legislate prohibitions which God Himself has not done.

    • Replies: @Talha
  259. @Bliss

    What it be, blister?

    /Europeans do not preach that Charlemagne was a prophet who revealed God’s final message to mankind./

    Of course not. They preach love, peace, equality and freedom, then fail to restrain the monsters they empower. You know, those who undermine everything to which they give lip-service.

    Such an effective religion they have. Or is it religion at all?

  260. AaronB says:

    Talha, I understand your desire to defend your fine religion using logic and facts, but I do wonder if any religion should be defended using too much logic.

    Logic convinces no one, and I doubt anyone here has objections that are based on anything other than complex emotions, not reachable by logic.

    They have desires and needs they dimly understand that they need to satisfy.

    There is a part of me that feels defending with logic is almost an admission of weakness – as when Leftists attack, and their poor victim tries to defend himself by demonstrating logically he isn’t a “racist”. The leftist always seems to take thus as weakness.

    What I appreciate most about your writings is that you demonstrate the beauties of your Faith – all those noble quotes you provide. And your own decency.

    I wonder if refusing to argue, and pitying those without any kind of Faith, might not be a more impressive and effective posture.

    Of course, it is not for me to tell you how to defend your Faith, and I myself rely on logic and facts to some extent.

    But I wonder for myself as much as for you, or anyone, how much one should argue rather than just be ones Faith…

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @AnonStarter
  261. Seraphim says:
    @AnonStarter

    It is surprising that a ‘demolisher’ of ‘shoddy analyses’ (of shoddy scholarship like Glick’s) is so poorly informed about the ‘sources’ of Islamic shoddy criticism of Christianity. But I let you do your own research.
    Rest assured that my reluctance to answer you was motivated by your ‘ad hominem’ attacks against me (and Raymond Ibrahim).

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  262. Talha says:
    @Seraphim

    Thanks for your opinion. In fact according to Pew’s projections, we’re doing better than any other organized religion via people switching in and out:

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  263. Talha says:
    @Bliss

    I didn’t say he Charlemagne was, I was simply asking people to be consistent in their virtue signaling, not much to ask.

    proven liar Talha

    Last time you brought up the Zayd-Zaynab issue, I asked you to take the mubahala challenge, but you unceremoniously backed out.

    Let’s try it again, this time I’ll give you a slam dunk, no way you can lose.

    So remember, this is a challenge in which I make a claim and you counter the claim and we both call the wrath and curse of God down upon the one of us that is lying. Simple.

    So here, I’m pretty sure you are confident that the Prophet (pbuh) made up at least one verse of the Qur’an, right?

    So here goes; I’ll make a clear claim, you respond to the claim and then we both call down the curse of God upon whichever one is lying, ready?

    So I will respond to you with the following statement:
    “I swear that Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, the man claiming to be the prophet to the Arabs in the 7th century (common era) and the final messenger to mankind was truthful in his claim that every single verse of the Qur’an was revealed to him by the Creator and God of the Universe.

    You claim that he was a liar and that at least one verse of the Qur’an was made up by him.

    May God curse, destroy and utterly humiliate whichever one of us is lying. ”

    Then you simply respond with:
    “May God curse, destroy and utterly humiliate whichever one of us is lying.”

    It’s so super-simple. This will prove to everyone how much conviction you have in your position – just one verse! Plus, according to you, I’m a liar defending another liar – so it is literally impossible for you to lose. You will look like a hero and I will face a horrible future.

    Ready to go?

    • LOL: Alden
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Bliss
  264. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    Very good points.

    Peace.

  265. @Seraphim

    /Rest assured that my reluctance to answer you was motivated by your ‘ad hominem’ attacks against me (and Raymond Ibrahim)./

    Just for your clarification, an ad hominem attack occurs when you substitute analysis of a work with an unsubstantiated attack upon the author thereof. Because I addressed the actual substance of your falsehoods, I proved my description of you, which, by definition, would not make that description an ad hominem attack.

    You, on the other hand, could not — and still cannot — justify your “analysis” of Glick’s work, nor of Keldani’s, for that matter.

    Big difference.

  266. @AaronB

    Your earlier accusation against me notwithstanding, I greatly appreciate your post.

    You’re entirely correct, of course. Faith needs no defense but practice.

    That being said, a fellow traveler in this caravanserai might stand to learn a thing or two, as I have from both you and Talha. It often occurs incidentally, sometimes while engaging our detractors, and I have even learned from them as well.

    Still, your admonition is sound. Thank you.

  267. Seraphim says:
    @Talha

    Plagues spread very quickly.

  268. AaronB says:

    Thanks, I appreciate it.

    And I apologize for my earlier accusation 🙂 I should have retracted sooner.

    I was characterizing your attitude, but your subsequent comments make clear I was doing so wrongly.

    And you are quite correct that out of the heat of these skirmishes useful sparks sometimes fly.

  269. Seraphim says:
    @Talha

    There are at least two verses of the Quran made up by Mahomed:

    Sura 19:27: “O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste.”
    Sura 66:12: “Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel, and she believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient”.
    Could have God ‘reveal’ an untruth? That Mary was the sister of Moses and Aaron?

    • Replies: @Talha
  270. Bliss says:
    @Talha

    I swear that Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, the man claiming to be the prophet to the Arabs in the 7th century (common era) and the final messenger to mankind was truthful in his claim that every single verse of the Qur’an was revealed to him by the Creator and God of the Universe.

    So you swear that the Sun sets in a pool of water? Lol.

    As a sufi grave worshipper you will be tortured forever in hell, according to the Quran you are swearing by. No 70 virgins for you when you croak, you brainwashed retard.

    • Replies: @Talha
  271. @AnonStarter

    In short, you have no answer and thus you quit.
    You lost. Muhammad lost. Islam lost.
    I will now appeal to the United Nations to declare Islam a terrorist movement and thus a religio non grata on this planet. Preaching Islam will be a punishable act and all Qur’ans will be confiscated. Muslims (all 1,8 billion of them) will be herded into reeducation camps for thorough deprogramming, like the Uyghurs in China, where it is working. World peace is around the corner!

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  272. @AnonStarter

    I’m fine AnonStarter.

    I can’t dig out the references off hand but I have come across the following: Jews secretly opening gates and helping Muslims during their siege of Constantinople, Rhodos, etc., Jews cooperating with Muslims against the Christians during the wars on the Iberian peninsula, Jews helping Musilm slavers on their raids in Crimea and being involved in the white slave trade serving the Ottomans. Stuff like that does get mentioned on the Internet but how well it’s all documented and backed up I don’t know.

    I’ve read reviews of these two books but haven’t read the actual books themselves, although they seem very interesting and well researched:

    https://diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/the-jew-as-ally-of-the-muslim/

    https://diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com/2019/04/28/the-angel-who-dictated-the-koran-spoke-with-a-jewish-accent/

    Actually it would be good if someone would review them here for UR, I’m sure it would generate a lot of debate.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @Alden
  273. @Seraphim

    Christians were not allowed to preach in Muslim countries

    I don’t think this is quite correct. Where there were Christians already, they were allowed to preach under Islam. Bibles were printed in Arabic and services conducted in Arabic language throughout much of the Arab world. How do you think the Coptic, Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian and Iraqi Christians and their churches survived to this day? It’s become worse for Christians in the Arab world since the US wars for Israel and the rise of the Islamic terrorists (and many claim that USA and Israel are directly involved in creation of these terror groups and not that they are just a natural revenge driven response to US/Israeli aggression). I mean Christians were allowed to preach to their own but not to convert Muslims, or maybe they were but why bother as any new muslim convert would just get the death sentence and not be joining the congregation.

    • Replies: @Talha
  274. @Curmudgeon

    Offshoring also happened because politicians were bribed due to loosened “campaign finance” laws, because East Asian countries recovered from WW2 and became significant competitors, Nixon and Kissinger opened China, and computers and better communications technology enabled easier management of offshore production.

  275. Talha says:
    @Seraphim

    No Muslim scholar has ever interpreted those verses literally. They have always interpreted it as in the following:
    “Sisters of Christ”
    https://www.sisters-of-christ.org.uk/rubriques/haut/who-are-we

    There is no confusion of the narrative where Jesus (pbuh) is conversing with Pharoah or being called to the mount, etc.

    Hey, the mubahala challenge is open to you if your’d like to take it. I’m totally game if you are.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  276. Talha says:
    @Bliss

    Tut, tut – my friend AaronB gave me some sound advice and I’d like to just wrap this up and move on. Now you have pointed out another verse you believe is a lie.

    Let’s get this over with. I have literally given you the equivalent of the ice hockey version of a break away opportunity on an empty net; you cannot miss.

    Here, again, I will make it super-easy – I’ll type your entire response out for you; it will literally take you 5 seconds to copy and paste and click ‘publish’ in response to me once we have started the process.

    I will send my quoted statement first, then you respond with:
    “I swear that Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, the man claiming to be the prophet to the Arabs in the 7th century (common era) and the final messenger to mankind, was a liar and fraudulent in his claim that every single verse of the Qur’an was revealed to him by the Creator and God of the Universe.

    You claim that he was truthful and that every single verse of the Qur’an was revealed to him by the one true God, Creator of the Universe.

    May God curse, destroy and utterly humiliate whichever one of us is lying.”

    Now – are you ready to go? Let’s do this and not waste everybody’s time, people are observing.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  277. Talha says:
    @Commentator Mike

    I mean Christians were allowed to preach to their own but not to convert Muslims

    I think by preaching here, people mean proselytizing.

    The classic prohibition (when it was dutifully applied) has been proselytizing Muslims. Christians were generally free to preach to Hindus, Zoroastrians, etc. as they were allowed to preach to Christians.

    Interestingly, proselytizing is technically prohibited in certain Western countries. For instance Greece in its constitution:
    “Constitution of Greece, Article 13: Freedom of Religion
    2. All known religions shall be free and their rites of worship shall be performed unhindered and under the protection of the law. The practice of rites of worship is not allowed to offend public order or the good usages. Proselytism is prohibited.”
    https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/quotes/constitution-of-greece-article-13-freedom-of-religion

    Their exception is the Greek Orthodox Church which is the official religion of state. Though I’ve heard, they are pretty lax about enforcing these legalities since people don’t care all that much about religion anymore. Recently, Russia also shut down the Jehovah’s Witnesses from proselytizing. Interesting stuff.

    Shutting down proselytizing is now at its end game. Unless one is willing to massively block and monitor internet usage, the cat is out of the bag – even in Muslim countries. I come across more and more converts that practically learned everything online without talking to Muslims in the flesh.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  278. Seraphim says:
    @Talha

    Of course that there is no other way for Muslim ‘scholars’ to avoid the embarrassment of catching the ‘prophet’ talking non-sense than to pretend that he meant it metaphorically. But he, or whoever wrote the Koran, meant them literally as I understand you do, which is a proof of stupidity.

    • Replies: @Talha
  279. vinteuil says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    Hey, OPA – greetings from Budapest.

    What’s to explain?

    The doctrine of the incarnation is, quite obviously, the hard part – the part that at least seems to involve a direct contradiction.

    I’ve never understood why so many people get so hung up on the doctrine of the trinity – which doesn’t.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  280. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    I agree, the “Pact” does have some historical problems. Nevertheless, the majority of schools and scholars generally prohibited proselytizing and considered it a violation of the dhimmah agreement. Now there may be some technical details and I know the Hanafi school is fairly flexible in the terms of the dhimmah agreement, but I can see a legitimate case being made to prohibit. Again, a lot of it has to do with how the people feel in that particular country drafting the rules.

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  281. Talha says:
    @Seraphim

    There are tons of metaphors in the Qur’an (as well as the Bible) – Divine speech (or human for that matter) is rarely ever literal in all senses. If one was to take every verse of the Qur’an literally, it would lead to disbelief as it would necessitate an understanding of a physical, anthropomorphic deity.

    But he, or whoever wrote the Koran, meant them literally as I understand you do, which is a proof of stupidity.

    Nope, bad assumption – nobody takes these things literally. So let’s proceed with the mubahala since you are so sure of your position. Takes about all of 10 seconds. If you are on the side of the truth – if even one verse of the Qur’an is falsely attributed to God (and you believe the whole enchilada is) – you have nothing to lose.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @Seraphim
  282. @Talha

    OK, thanks for clarifying. Street proselytisers who follow you around and won’t give up are the most annoying. Met some Muslim ones like that too, but they tend to be recent converts, kind of like born again Christians. But original Muslims tend not to be so bothersome, regarding this proselytising at least.

  283. @Franklin Ryckaert

    /In short, you have no answer/

    Actually, I’ve answered everything you presented. And thoroughly, I might add.

    You, on the other hand … haven’t been able to challenge a single explanation, which I accept as a tacit concession of their truth.

    Thanks.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  284. @vinteuil

    Never heard of the hypostatic union? I don’t say accept the argument, but do at least admit that the problem has been addressed.

    And remind me what excellent conducting you are in Budapest to hear?

    If you like neo-classical architecture, go up stream and take a look at the cathedral in Esztergom.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  285. @AnonStarter

    O.K. report at the nearest UN Muslim Deprogramming Center for an answer to all your questions (LOL). In case you are unable to attend, you can always consult following websites for self-study : answering-islam.org, thereligionofpeace.com, and wikiislam.net. The beauty of these websites is that they don’t offer only opinions (which you always can reject as “bigotry”, “hate” or “ignorance”), but they offer a wide variety of quotes from authentic Muslim sources i.e. the Qur’an, Hadith and the Sira. The only way out of your dilemma to be forced to accept negative facts about Islam is to reject those very authentic sources (which u you already tried in your comment nr. 253). If you do that consistently, technically you will no more be a Muslim, and we will have succeeded in our endeavor to create one more Muslim apostate. Peace.

  286. @Brooklyn Dave

    Talha is right. The Qur’anic citation lauds Christian spirituality and humility, implicitly contrasting it to the materialism and arrogance of Jews and pagans. It is about eternal issues of spirituality, not temporary and shifting political alliances.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  287. @Commentator Mike

    /Jews secretly opening gates and helping Muslims during their siege of Constantinople, Rhodos, etc., Jews cooperating with Muslims against the Christians during the wars on the Iberian peninsula/

    Okay, but both of these appear to be motivated by the oppression they endured by or under under those regimes, a history which is largely uncontested.

    /Jews helping Musilm slavers on their raids in Crimea and being involved in the white slave trade serving the Ottomans/

    They’ve quite the track record of “let’s you and him fight,” haven’t they? Not only did they assist in this trade, they later played a crucial role in the African slave trade, which included the capture and sale of Muslim slaves.

    Allegations that Islam is no more than plagiarized Judaism aren’t new, they’ve been with us from the beginning. If we want to be precise, we have to understand the term “Islam” in order to perceive it as a prophetic path that began with the first man — Adam — and has remained among us in some way, shape or form ever since.

    An analogy: When a student first enters school, he’s provided with material that will facilitate his academic and social progress, material appropriate for his current intellectual and social maturity. And so it is with each succeeding grade, wherein he’s given new material and new instructors as he advances in knowledge and wisdom until he eventually attains enough proficiency to graduate. The entire curriculum for such attainment is well established by those who have mastered their fields of study long before he reaches this milestone.

    Should we consider humankind to be the macrocosm of this student, and the history of humankind to be that of its intellectual and spiritual evolution in the eyes of God, we may perceive the prophets and messengers of God to be our teachers, each sent to us at an appropriate and timely period in our progression from one age to the next, until we eventually arrive at a point where we may attain mastery of ourselves.

    In the “curriculum” of God, The Torah, Psalms and Gospel — among other works and revelation — are primary, secondary and post-secondary texts. The Qur’an, however, is the doctorate capstone underlain by all others.

    As absurd as it would be to level the accusation of plagiarism against authors of university texts that reiterate and reinforce learning at the primary and secondary levels, so too is it ridiculous to claim that the Prophet “plagiarized” preceding revelation simply because The Qur’an reiterates and reinforces the transcendent truth of “No god but God.”

    So, of course, it will bear resemblance to what preceded it. That’s no mystery.

    But Judaism, for all of its goodness — and yes, it certainly has this — remains mired in a past from which its adherents will not advance until they acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. Muslims are already there.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  288. Bliss says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    The Qur’anic citation lauds Christian spirituality and humility, implicitly contrasting it to the materialism and arrogance of Jews and pagans. It is about eternal issues of spirituality, not temporary and shifting political alliances.

    Hogwash. If the Quran was about “eternal issues of spirituality” why does it change it’s tune when the politics changed? For example, why does it command the Muslims to change the direction in which they prostrated and prayed from the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem to the pagan Temple in Mecca, after their political alliance with the Jews in Medina fell apart and they became enemies?

    Why do you think the earliest peaceful and tolerant “revelations” in pagan Mecca were overruled by the later violent and intolerant revelations in jewish Medina?

    And explain this Quranic verse: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

  289. Bliss says:
    @Talha

    May God curse, destroy and utterly humiliate whichever one of us is lying.

    Your god and your prophet sure loved to curse. Which is a sure sign of weakness. The Quran and Hadith are chock full of angry curses, and threats of eternal torture. Unfortunately, you will be one of the accursed. For you worship at the graves of men, when it is only your angry and jealous Lord who resides in the Kaaba in Mecca that should be worshipped. No virgins for you, kaffir. Your eternal abode is in Hell.

    You are a proven liar. A shameless brazen liar. A couple examples: your claim that the virgins allocated to each Muslim man in paradise number in the 100s of thousands not 70 or 72 that Mohammad promised. That’s another reason why you are going to Hell. How dare you overrule your last prophet? And the time you lied that the sufis do not pray to their dead saints, in violation of Allah’s command. Who the hell did you think you were fooling?

    • Replies: @Talha
  290. @AnonStarter

    Yes, many also claim that Christianity is a Jewish invention to make the goyim docile and meek, and that Jesus is a Jew (even if born to be King of the Jews he rejected Judaism), and this is especially popular among the neo-pagans. There are bound to be some similarities between the three religions “of the book”.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  291. Bliss says:
    @Talha

    There are tons of metaphors in the Qur’an (as well as the Bible) – Divine speech (or human for that matter) is rarely ever literal in all senses. If one was to take every verse of the Qur’an literally, it would lead to disbelief as it would necessitate an understanding of a physical, anthropomorphic deity.

    Lol at the stupidity here. So the final message of Allah to mankind is not a clear, unambiguous message? That actually makes sense to you brainwashed bumpkins?

    So, when your God says he has revealed a “perfected” message in the Quran he lied?

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @Talha
  292. @Bliss

    I like the last message of God to his creation in Douglas Adams’ “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”: We apologize for the inconvenience.

  293. Talha says:
    @Bliss

    your claim that the virgins allocated to each Muslim man in paradise number in the 100s of thousands

    Nope. These were my words:
    “Some hadith mention 72, some 2, some 73, some 100…Imam Ghazali (ra) references two that mention 500 and a few hundred thousand.”

    that the sufis do not pray to their dead saints

    Some do, some people who call themselves Sufis aren’t even Muslim. My tariqah certainly doesn’t – it is considered shirk to pray to anyone but Allah swt.

    That’s another reason why you are going to Hell.

    Since you are so sure about this, why don’t you help facilitate it by taking up the mubahala challenge? What are you so afraid of? After all, I am the proven liar, you have nothing to be afraid of and you already consider me condemned to hell anyway. Why do you keep delaying? Aren’t you on the side of truth here?

    Let’s do this; everyone is watching.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @Alden
  294. Talha says:
    @Bliss

    Some parts are clear and some are not. No one reads it literally. Since you believe it is not from God, let’s do the challenge. Just one verse has to be false for you to make a clean win. I’m a liar and a retard and brainwashed; you’ve got this in the bag. Why are you delaying? People might think you don’t have strength in your convictions; you don’t want people to think that do you?

    Come, let’s settle this very simply – you clearly have nothing to lose, right?

    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @AnonStarter
  295. Bliss says:
    @Talha

    Some parts are clear and some are not. No one reads it literally.

    If you can’t even take the “final message” of Allah to mankind literally then what the hell was the point? Why did Allah lie that his message was final and “perfected”?

    Why was Allah incapable of making the entire Quran clear? And who decides where Allah was clear and where he was confused? By what authority?

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  296. Alden says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    The mongols did kill all the old water workers. They enslaved and took back to central asia all the boys and younger men to build irrigation systems in darkest mongolia. They also destroyed all the diagrams of the irrigation system. so the muslims would have had to start again from scratch. But irrigation is just digging a ditch from the water source to the crops. It’s really not that hard. Irrigation can be very complicated and eloborate, but it’s very basic, just dig a series of ditches. The primitive people of the world managed to do it. But Islam was so destructive to initiative, work, and just plain common sense that the system was never rebuilt.

  297. Bliss says:
    @Talha

    My tariqah certainly doesn’t – it is considered shirk to pray to anyone but Allah swt.

    You are such a liar. Those pictures are of members of your Tariqah (Naqshbandi).

    Some hadith mention 72, some 2, some 73, some 100…Imam Ghazali (ra) references two that mention 500 and a few hundred thousand.”

    I challenged you to show us the sahih hadith which mentions the hundreds of thousands of houris for each muslim in that whorehouse in the sky. Where is it?

    • Replies: @Talha
  298. Alden says:
    @AghaHussain

    Pakistan is as dirty as India. You tried to refute my statements that Pakistan is an economic disaster by changing the discussion to the Hindu activities against muslims, christians and others. The 2 things are not the same. However Hindu chauvinist the government of India is, its economy flourishes. The economy of Pakistan is a disaster. As far as corruption and government disfunction goes, Pakistan and India are about the same. But The economy of India thrives while the economy of Pakistan gets worse every year. Both are about equal as far as unpunished culturally accepted rape and crimes against lower classes goes. Pakistan doesn’t have a recognized caste system, but the sharecroppers have no chance in a landlord tenant or other commercial dispute.

    If you want to have a discussion, discuss the topic. My topic was the contrasting economies of Pakistan and India. You totally ignored that topic and segued off into Hindu nationalism and racism. There is no difference between Pakistan’s Muslim chauvinism and India’s Hindu chauvinism.

  299. Alden says:
    @Talha

    What’s wrong with praying to a dead saint? It’s pretty common in many religions and doesn’t hurt anyone unless the dead saint tells someone to go out and kill the infidels apostates heretics.

    • Replies: @Talha
  300. Alden says:
    @Commentator Mike

    The conquest of Constantinople happened because of superior Turkish cannons. Those enormous bronze cannons were made by a Hungarian Christian armanents master who had a beef with the Greeks of Constantinople. That Hungarian Christian was the traitor who went to the Turks several years before 1452 and offered his factories and expertise to help the Turks. Sorry, I don’t know what his quarrel with the Greeks was. Whatever the Jews did to help the Turks was nothing to what the Hungarian Christian did.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  301. Seraphim says:
    @Alden

    The sad truth is that there were not only the ‘Christian’ Hungarians who helped the Ottomans, but the Genovese too. The small postern gate, the Kerkoporta (today called Sultan Mehmet Fatih) through which the Ottomans sneaked into Constantinople was left ajar by the commander of a band of Genovese and Greek mercenaries fighting at the gate, Giovanni Giustiniani Longo. The Venetian Nicolò Barbaro reported that Longo, overwhelmed by fear, simulated a wound and abandoned the battlefield, retreating in the city, leaving the door open. The charges of cowardice and treason were so widespread that the Republic of Genoa had to deny them by sending diplomatic letters to the Chancelleries of England, France, the Duchy of Burgundy and others.
    The problem of Byzantine-Jewish relations is a complicated one. But one thing is certain. After the massacres and enslavement of the population Constantinople was left empty. Within months most of the Empires Romaniote Jews, from the Balkans and Anatolia, were concentrated in Constantinople, where they made up 10% of the city’s population. Romaniotes would be the most influential community in the Empire for a few decades to come, until that position would be lost to a wave of new Jewish arrivals, the Sephardis expelled from Spain, who became quickly the financiers and tax collectors of the Sultans (the story of Joseph Nasi Benveniste is illuminating – I evoked it with other occasion).

  302. @Talha

    Talha,

    Like Frankie, Blister is here for one reason only. Let him stew in his own chitlins.

    In the meantime, what’s this that you and AaronB were saying about monotheism among Buddhists? Any more info on that?

    was-salaam.

    • Replies: @Talha
  303. @Commentator Mike

    /he rejected Judaism/

    Well, even if we take The Bible at face value, this is not so.

    In Matthew 23: 3, he enjoins adherence to the Law (Torah), and Matthew 22: 40 references “two commandments upon which hang all the Law and prophets.” Had he rejected that which “hangs upon” those two commandments, the phraseology would be entirely different.

    Then there’s Matthew 5: 17. Yes, Christians interpret “fulfill” figuratively, suggesting that Jesus did so by the alleged crucifixion, but given the other references, such interpretation remains an exercise in confirmation bias. The plain translation is very straightforward and corroborates the fact that Jesus didn’t seek to abrogate The Torah.

    What he did reject was The Lie that salvation comes in Israel rather than in Ishmael. He also rejected every deviation from The Book that the trustees thereof had invented. And, for all of this, he was roundly despised, but — by the power of God — never slain, however much they wished to kill him.

    Neo-pagans who detest Jewish influence have some valid points, but the vast majority of them are just as reliant upon their own variety of faith as any person of The Book. At the end of the day, their “proof” is but a matter of belief.

  304. Talha says:
    @Alden

    If you aren’t a Muslim, pray to whoever or whatever you want. Not our business.

    Peace.

  305. Seraphim says:
    @Talha

    Would you care to explain what do you hope to achieve with your mubahalah other than offering you the illusion of a ‘victory’ when Christians would refuse to take an oath of this kind:
    “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil”.
    Not to mention that the ‘event of Mubahalah’ was something else than the theatrical ‘challenge’. The only thing that stands is that the only line of ‘argumentation’ of Mahomed when he was contradicted, was to curse the Christians and threaten them (which is what Muslims do today when they are presented with historical, archaeological evidence which contradict their mythology, not rarely accompanied with the ‘peaceful’ array of death threats, arson, beheadings).

    • Replies: @Talha
  306. Talha says:
    @Bliss

    You’ve already established that I’m a retarded, brainwashed, hell-bound liar and I have zero inclination to disabuse you of that view.

    Let’s just do the mubahala challenge and get it over with, please; we’re wasting Mr. Unz’s valuable storage space.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  307. Talha says:
    @Seraphim

    That’s fine if you don’t want to do it. Your choice really.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  308. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    I would ask AaronB, he is far more knowledgeable about that subject than I am.

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  309. @AnonStarter

    “…What he did reject was The Lie that salvation comes in Israel rather than in Ishmael…”

    Jesus to the Samaritan woman : “Salvation is from the Jews…” John 4 : 22.
    There is no mention about salvation from the goat herders of Arabia anywhere in Jesus’ words.

  310. Seraphim says:
    @Talha

    I let you make a fool of yourself. Do it somewhare else, you indeed are wasting Mr. Unz’s valuable storage space. Take AnonStarter with you.

    • Replies: @Talha
  311. @Talha

    All right, akhi. Shukran.

    You see? No sooner do I mention Frankie the Flemish Flamebait than he throws one of his classic temper tantrums.

    Hey, I’m just as vulnerable to their snares, but when we’ve got a good sohbah going, we’re chill as Abraham, coolness in the fire. Who needs ’em?

    I’m off to bed, bro.

    was-salaam.

  312. @AnonStarter

    By saying there are similarities, obviously implies that there is some overlap and there cannot be complete “rejection”. If I take a lot of inspiration from what is written in the Old Testament doesn’t make me a Jew, or a Muslim because I may agree with something, a little, or a lot, written in the Koran.

    “If a person never says anything carelessly, he is to be congratulated., he doesn’t need to feel guilty. If a person has a clear conscience and never gives up hope, he is certainly to be congratulated!” Sirach 14 (O.T.)

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  313. @Talha

    Yuck! I’m so thankful i never grew up around this Mohammedan brainwashing.

  314. vinteuil says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    Never heard of the hypostatic union? I don’t say accept the argument, but do at least admit that the problem has been addressed.

    I don’t say the problem hasn’t been addressed – just that’s it’s a really hard problem. As hard, maybe, as the problem of consciousness, and much harder than the supposed problem of the Trinity.

    Anyway, I’m here in Budapest for two big festivals. (1) Puccini, complete, at the State Opera/Erkel Theatre, concluding tonight with Turandot on Margit Island; (2) Wagner’s Ring cycle, at Müpa, next week, with Ádám Fischer on the podium.

    And then it’s off for five weeks in Москва & Санкт-Петербург, to get my latest instructions from the Kremlin.

    Many thanks for suggesting the Esztergom Basilica – I’ve been looking for things to explore during my six-day interim, and this looks doable.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  315. vinteuil says:
    @Talha

    I cannot tell you how many converts I have come across from Christianity (whether in real life or heard them tell their story) that specifically wanted to keep their love for Jesus (pbuh) and ditch the god-incarnate/trinity doctrine.

    So you took advantage of their naiveté, and steered them toward faith in the desert warlord Mohammed, and away from the rational monotheism of Plato & Aristotle.

    • Replies: @Talha
  316. Talha says:
    @Seraphim

    Meh. Again, fine if you’re not up for it.

    If Mr. Unz asks me to leave, I will – without fuss.

    • Replies: @Talha
  317. Talha says:
    @Talha

    By the way, if one is reticent at using the formula as an oath, it’s no problem; we can both simply adjust it so that it starts with “I claim…” instead of “I swear…”. That way they are free from violating any specific religious regulations. I can proceed in this manner as well.

    This is not cursing the other person at all; rather it is both parties leaving the entire matter to God to decide who is deserving due to making a false claim.

    It’s very cheap to call someone a liar again and again, since one has very little skin in the game or liability.

    But saying; “This man is a liar and may God curse and destroy me if I’m wrong.”

    That’s a total other ball game.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  318. Talha says:
    @vinteuil

    Plato and Aristotle had a chance to make their argument – their writings are readily accessible. Some people like an indifferent Creator that doesn’t mind being put into the friend-zone and some want to fall madly in love with the One that inspired the poetry of men like Jami (ra), Saadi (ra), Attar (ra) and Rumi (ra). To each their own.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @vinteuil
  319. The ENR is that which was established in 1968 by Alain De Benoist/GRECE…Along with the likes of Venner , Faye, Krebs, Steukers are it’s most well known figures…if it claims to have an enemy then it is Liberalism…. personally I don’t see Muslim immigrants any differently than from African Christians… they don’t belong in Europe. Americanisation is also to be resisted….but the no.1 enemy is the current liberal elite(Globalists).

  320. @Talha

    Seraphim’s using his favored translation of Matthew 5: 33-37. Other translations read “do not break your oath,” which implies an oath already taken.

    He just imagines he’s found a “holy” cause for copping out.

    Matthew 5 also includes imperatives that demand full adherence to The Torah, such as 17-20. Poor Franklin doesn’t understand that “salvation is from the Jews” means adherence contemporaneous with Jesus, a time that would surely pass, as Jesus also gave the “good news” (literal translation of “gospel”) of a prophet to come in John 16: 12-14, one whose Law would supersede that of The Torah.

    However, Franklin’s take on that verse does support what I said earlier about the intent of Temple Israel in advancing Paul’s mission, which was to deceive the goyim into believing that salvation lies in Israel, rather than in Ishmael. That he’s enlisted among their shock troops is unquestionable.

    Interestingly, Matthew 5: 28 and 30 mirror the shari’ah:

    But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. …

    And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

    Finally, compare the conduct of any self-professed “Christian” against the beatitudes set forth in Matthew 5: 3-16, not to mention 38-41 and you’ll have nothing but pity for them, standing out in stark relief against those sacred commands.

    In any event, I myself have fallen short when I witness the treatment you most certainly do not deserve, and I pray for our own reconciliation. As far as I’m concerned, your would-be detractors ran away with their tail tucked between their legs.

    was-salaam.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Franklin Ryckaert
  321. @Commentator Mike

    /By saying there are similarities, obviously implies that there is some overlap and there cannot be complete “rejection”./

    All right. I merely wanted to clarify that comment as I understand it.

    In fact, if we look at the statement “Jesus rejected Judaism” more carefully, it is accurate insofar as Jesus served as the herald of a path to God that would no longer be restricted among Jews. We have to examine his role as that herald meticulously, since, in some passages he enjoins Torah adherence, while, in others, he prepares his people for the Law to come.

    /If I take a lot of inspiration from what is written in the Old Testament doesn’t make me a Jew, or a Muslim because I may agree with something, a little, or a lot, written in the Koran./

    Certainly.

    I see The Qur’an as akin to a matryoshka doll, nesting the Gospel, Psalms, and Torah therein.

    /“If a person never says anything carelessly, he is to be congratulated., he doesn’t need to feel guilty. If a person has a clear conscience and never gives up hope, he is certainly to be congratulated!” Sirach 14 (O.T.)/

    And you are the second non-Muslim in this thread to provide me with sound and beautiful adominition, for which I ask that God bless you infinitely.

    Thank you.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  322. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    a “holy” cause for copping out.

    Possibly, either way, I presented a perfectly viable way to participate without violating any rules on swearing.

    I’m fine if people want to back out, I think it’s reasonable actually. This is not for the faint-hearted, you have to have full conviction in your position with every fiber of your being.

    For instance, I would never do it, say, that the Hanafi position of saying ameen silently behind the imam in prayer is the correct position.

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @AnonStarter
  323. @Talha

    /the faint-hearted/

    There it is: Contrast their conduct here with what they themselves believe Jesus said and you’ll never find any takers.

    /saying ameen silently behind the imam in prayer/

    Differences among the madhahib are entirely permissible, provided there’s a sound basis for them. I vaguely recall the admonition from Imam Abu Hanifah that no one should claim adherence to his ijtihad unless he has familiarity with the reasoning underlying it. I’m certain that all four of the “canonical” imams established a similar criterion.

    Alhamdulillah that Islam is a sweetwater ocean, the draught of which may be drawn from many shores.

    was-salaam.

  324. @AnonStarter

    “…Poor Franklin doesn’t understand that “salvation is from the Jews” means adherence contemporaneous with Jesus, a time that would surely pass, as Jesus also gave the “good news” (literal translation of “gospel”) of a prophet to come in John 16: 12-14, one whose Law would supersede that of The Torah…”

    “Poor” Franklin understands that with John 16 about the coming “comforter” is meant the Holy Spirit whose coming indeed happened on the 50th day (hence the Greek name “Pentecost”) after Jesus’ death as described in Acts 2 : 1-13 and definitely not the coming (six centuries later!) of an Arab robber bandit who cobbled together his own “religion” from ill understood Jewish and Christian elements and his own inventions, presented as “divine revelations” to his primitive and credulous audience.

    For a definitive debunking of this Muslim claim, see :

    [PDF] Does the Bible Predict the Coming of Muhammad? Tony Costa.

    A false religion can only rely on false claims.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  325. @Talha

    I hope you don’t mind if I continue our conversation in addressing others’ claims here. Your company is far more pleasant and agreeable, devoid of foul manners, and you’re simply a more comfortable person with which to discuss them than they are. In any event, I’m sure they’ll get the message.

    So Franklin, unable to turn the other cheek, provided the usual spin on John 16, claiming that the individual mentioned therein must be someone other than a flesh-and-blood person. I would ask him if he thinks “that Prophet” to whom the Levites allude in John 1 is also the Holy Spirit, but I’m sure he’s got some ready-made priestly legerdemain — in addition to copious amounts of bile — for that as well.

    I always liked this:

    was-salaam.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @Talha
  326. @AnonStarter

    Anon,

    If it was a choice between the world going Up Your Alley (zombietime.com), but I admonish you to not visit that site unless you’ve got a strong stomach as it’s in your face, in public, worse than Sodom and Gommorah, then sure I’d go with the Muslims, without a shadow of a doubt, but I don’t think these are the only choices that we should be presented with and that there is. or could be, another way.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  327. @Commentator Mike

    /but I admonish you to not visit that site/

    My stomach is fairly strong, but I greatly appreciate your counsel once again. I think your admonition speaks for itself.

    May you find the way that is best in the eyes of your Lord.

  328. @German_reader

    No, not removed, just avoided. No one wants to be forced to convert to a religion like Islam. Barret talks about Dugin’s metaphysical confusion but Islam has no real metaphysics but is based on a “channeled” book and, like conservative Christians, he believes spirituality ought to be severely limited to traditions. Well, Islam and Christianity failed to lead humanity and, frankly, fell by the wayside in the face of science and reason. Certainly the West can be critiqued for abandoning spiritual values and thus created an utterly corrupt ruling elite but we should be very careful in abandoning the advantages we have gained through the use of reason. A new kind of spirituality is emerging in the USA but it will take some time to come together. Conservative religions simply do not make sense in a world that almost ridiculously different from the simple cultures of the Middle East. We can learn a lot from these religions but we should not abandon what we’ve accomplished using reason.

  329. RobinG says:
    @Talha

    Hey Uncle T, I’ve been waiting to ask you….. about this exchange with “Hercule Poirot” who wrote (in comment #983 under “Israel’s War Criminals In Their Own Words”),

    ….Allah in Quran is in awe of Bibi Maryam. There is no chapter of the Quran where she is not mentioned.

    So I asked, “What are you talking about??? There are many, starting with Al-Fatihah.”
    H.P replied, #1005,

    Islam was hijacked by the Jews, while Mohammad body was still hot and not buried yet. The Quran is arbitrarily put together, where the largest chapters are in the front and small chapters are at the back. Thus, the chapters are not in chronological order. Verses are arbitrarily assigned too, and within a chapter they are again not in chronological order too.

    Surat Al-Fatihah is put in front of the Quran as Muslims pray this Surat in the daily Salat. There is a debate in Sahih Sitta, the Authenticated Six Books of Sunni, that this Surat is not part of the Quran, even though the Quran mentions the 7 often repeated Verses.

    Ali the first cousin and son-in-law of Mohammad used to sit with him and write for hours, while Mohammad was dictating to him. He submitted this Quran to Muslims on Mohammad’s death but was rejected by the Muslims. This Quran was:

    1. In chronological order.
    2. Contained the Tafsir (meaning) of the verses.
    3. Was in Classical Quranic Arabic.
    4. And, had dots for the letters so to differentiate between different letters.

    The Quran put together by the third Caliph was:

    1. Was not in chronological order.
    2. Didn’t contain the Tafsir (meaning) of the verses, as all Sunnah, Traditions and Sharia of Mohammad was burned on his death.
    3. The Quran was in Old Arabic, without vowels and proper grammar.
    4. Didn’t contain dots for letters, so there was no way to differentiate different letter, such as B, N, Y, T and so forth.

    The rest remaining copies of the Quran were burnt too, along with Traditions and Sharia of Mohammad. Muslims minimally have 6 different Sharia. Here is an image of the first Quran put together by the third Caliph. Notice how massive and heavy it is.

    Well. whatever. Not wanting to get in the catfight between H.P. and Fran T., I let it go, but the order of the chapters has no bearing on whether or not Maryam is mentioned in each one. (That was the question!) And after saying that the Quran was burnt, H.P. claims to know what the real order of verses was. Plus, since reading Muhammad Asad’s remarks on translating the sense of Classical Arabic, this 3rd Caliph business (dots, vowels, etc.) made me scratch my head, you can imagine. So, what’s your take on H.P.’s assertions? Thanks.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Talha
    , @J. Ipsten
  330. Seraphim says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    The demolition of the Koran’s, Sira’s, Hadiths’, Tabari’s lies and of Muslim apologists’ and ‘debaters’ pseudo-science and flawed methodology by the work of numerous real scholars (historians, archaeologists, art historians, linguists, philologists, theologians) is in fact nearly complete, coming close to the conclusion that Mahomed actually didn’t exist!
    But is generally poorly known outside the circle of specialists, their works being submerged by the ‘offended’ Muslims regurgitating the same for long discredited baseless ‘arguments’ and howling curses (even if mealy mouthed) upon the infidels who dare not to believe them (Muslims are the blasphemers), abetted by the cohorts of politically correct professors who occupy the chairs of ‘Islamic Studies’ at various Western Universities.
    A good introduction for the general public would be the ‘polemical’ videos of Jay Smith, who makes the point of the last developments in the criticism of the Koran.

  331. Seraphim says:
    @RobinG

    Muhammad Asad? That Muhammad Asad?
    “Muhammad Asad, born Leopold Weiss; 12 July 1900 – 20 February 1992) was an Austro-Hungarian-born Muslim journalist, traveler, writer, linguist, political theorist, diplomat and Islamic scholar. Asad was one of the most influential European Muslims of the 20th century”.
    In turn Zionist, Bolshevik agent, confidant of Abdulaziz ibn Abdul Rahman ibn Faisal ibn Turki ibn Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al Saud (founder of Saudi Arabia), co-founder of Pakistan, theoretician of ‘Political Islam’.

  332. Talha says:
    @RobinG

    So, what’s your take on H.P.’s assertions?

    It’s a complete waste of time. If someone makes huge assertions without any citations and claims to have secret-sauce knowledge that no one else has, well…I came across a great piece of advice recently from someone; if someone has wasted 10 minutes of your time, 8 of those minutes are your fault.

    See my post#146, HP seems to be the resurrected Tammy/Akbar Ali/Jeffery Cohen.

    The person uses the same phrases about:
    -Islam being high jacked while the Prophet’s body (pbuh) was hot/warm and not yet buried
    -Lady Aisha (ra) singing her own songs
    -Living in Oman

    The Caliph Ali (ra) was in political charge of (at least half of) the Ummah, if the Quran was tampered with, that would have been his first priority to fix as that was the most crucial to preserving the religion of Islam.

    Peace.

  333. Bliss says:
    @Talha

    You’ve already established that I’m a retarded, brainwashed, hell-bound liar

    That is correct except for the hellbound part. That part was hoisting you with your own petard. You believe in the Quranic hell so I showed why you are condemned to that hell by your own religion for belonging to a Sufi tariqah. Only a morally bankrupt or thoroughly brainwashed fool could believe that a just God would torture his own creation in Hell for all eternity.

    Let’s just do the mubahala challenge and get it over with

    Too funny. You were proven a liar right here in this very page, how can a primitive superstitious idiocy from pre-islamic Arabia undo your humiliation and defeat?

    Show us where in Shariah the pagan custom of Mubahala is used to determine guilt or innocence. Cursing is as primitive and retarded a means of determining the truth as trial by fire or combat was in Christendom. If cursing really worked there would be no need for courts of law, you blathering brainwashed bumpkin.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Seraphim
  334. Talha says:
    @Bliss

    Uh huh. Words followed by words and…I guess you’re not going to take the challenge. It’s OK, there’s no shame in backing out if you aren’t confident in your position.

    I’m ready whenever you change your mind.

    • LOL: Bliss
  335. @vinteuil

    Puccini and Wagner? I can only shake my head in wonderment. Well at least it isn’t both together (shades of the prologue of Ariadne auf Naxos).

    As for Holy Russia, please let me know what they want done, and I’ll join in as well.

    I don’t remember you speaking much about Haydn, but, if you’ve even a few more free hours (actually, for this you would need a day), you might risk a trip to Eszterhaza, the palace where the Master spent his best years. Built from scratch by the Eszterhazy prince who liked both music and hunting, it was abandoned by his successors, who didn’t see the point of either.
    When I visited around 1990, it had been “restored’ in a slap-dash manner by the Reds, but now it probably looks better than it did in Haydn’s day.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  336. Backtracking a bit on the Dhu’l Qarnayn ayat …

    “Until when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water.” (18: 86)

    ‘Ain translates as both “eye” and “spring,” and the “sun” (literally shams) was once perceived as an “eye of the heavens.” Thus, when the “eye” of the sun settles in the “eye” of the spring (which is likely a distant body of water seen through intense heat), night falls, one “eye” closed upon the other, the world at rest.

    The subtlety is lost entirely in English, of course, though its beauty is retained in Arabic.

    Something else occurs to me …

    Don’t the self-professed Christians who impugn The Prophet’s character have any clue of what’s written about past prophets in the very book they profess to be the inviolable Word of God? I mean, if we apply their criteria (and, of course, we don’t), every accusation they level at The Prophet can be leveled at one or more of those men much more easily. So were those men less worthy to be called prophets? And, if so, then why do they keep faith in their words and prophecies which they believe to herald the coming of Jesus?

    I’d be glad to discuss this with them directly, but they’d have to put aside the insults. No good talking about this with them if they can’t be at least as civil as Mike or AaronB.

    • Replies: @Talha
  337. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    The subtlety is lost entirely in English

    To be honest, even in the 21st century people use that kind of phrase because, frankly, it sounds much more poetic than describing the technical phenomenon.

    Punch in the exact phrase (with quotes) “watch the sun set into the sea” or “ocean” into google and see how many hits you get.

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @AnonStarter
  338. RobinG says:
    @Talha

    Seems like many interesting notes in this thread. On Alexander (the not-so-great), I saw a clip from a Pakistani rural festival, a brief interview of the landowner/sponsor. He said (proudly, I think) that he descended from the conquerors. Is that a thing there, pride in ancient Greek heritage? Or an overclass with Greek lineage?

    • Replies: @Talha
  339. @Talha

    That people in the 21st century C.E. use that kind of phrase is unquestionable, but the meanings of ‘ain which I presented, whether literal or figurative, are not comprehensively present in any given translation.

    was-salaam.

    • Agree: Talha
  340. Talha says:
    @RobinG

    Not sure, Robin. There may well be this sentiment in the northern and tribal areas, but I never came across this in my experience (which is mostly with Sindhis, Punjabis and Muhajirs).

    Peace.

  341. Seraphim says:
    @Bliss

    The mealy mouthed wouldn’t like to tell exactly what the full implications of ‘refusing’ the oath challenge are.
    [The Christians said] “We have decided that we should not enter into imprecation against you; and that we leave you on your religion and we remain on our religion.’
    [Mahomed] said: ‘Well, if you refuse imprecation, then accept Islam – you will have (the rights) which (other) Muslims have, and on you shall be (the duties) which are on them.’ But they refused. So (the Prophet) said: ‘Then I shall fight you.’ They said: ‘We do not have strength to fight against the Arabs. But we shall make peace with you that you will not fight against us or frighten us; nor will you turn us away from our religion, on the condition that we shall pay to you every year two thousand robes – one thousand in Safar and one thousand in Rajab and thirty coats of mail, (of) common (quality), made of iron.’
    So, if you refuse you must accept Islam, because they will fight you (until you submit). He announces you that he will fight you.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  342. Seraphim says:
    @Seraphim

    Actually the whole comedy of the mubalahaha boils down to the ‘prophethood’ of Mahomed. He could not ‘prove’ it otherwise than by force.
    He did not fulfill the criteria of real prophethood, like Moses and Jesus:
    Moses spoke directly with God: “And to Moses Allah spoke directly” (Surah 4:164), Mahomed didn’t: “Whoever claimed that (the Prophet) Muhammad saw his Lord, is committing a great fault, for he only saw Gabriel in his genuine shape in which he was created covering the whole horizon.” Whoever tells you that Muhammad saw his Lord, is a liar.” (said Aisha). Jibril was a Jinn.
    God persuaded Moses that he was a prophet by miraculous signs of a burning bush that was not consumed (Exodus 3:2) and other miraculous signs (Exodus 4), Mahomed was persuaded by his wife Khadija taking off her clothes and having sex with him (suggestive of Tantric practices, irrespective of the fact that Khadija was a Jewess, but the story of Esther comes inevitable to mind).
    Moses performed miraculous signs, Mahomed didn’t: “Why are not (signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?” (Surah 28:48).
    No need to talk about the applicability of these criteria to the prophethood of Jesus. No need to tell that Jesus was announced by precedent prophets, whereas Mahomed was not (no matter how much Islam’s apologists torture the texts in their desperation to ‘prove’ that he was).
    Jesus does not speak of any prophet coming after him except the false prophets (the only prophecy of Jesus about Mahomed!).
    The Koran itself states that prophethood and revelation is transmitted through the line of Isaac and Jacob: “And We gave to Him (=Abraham) Isaac and Jacob and placed in his descendants prophethood and scripture. And We gave him his reward in this world, and indeed, he is in the Hereafter among the righteous” (Sura 29:27).

  343. vinteuil says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    Oh, now you’ve done it – for some reason, Esterházy-kastély never even occurred to me, though I love Haydn just this side of idolatry. Must research…maybe I could get an affordable bed for the night in Győr…

    Funny you should mention Ariadne auf Naxos – that’s on the menu for 29 June, New Stage of the Bolshoi. Here’s hoping it will wipe away the memory of the last production I saw – here in Budapest, as it happens.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  344. vinteuil says:
    @Talha

    Some people like an indifferent Creator…

    That is the wrong way to see The Form of the Good/The Unmoved Mover – though I guess it’s the way that a theistic personalist can’t help seeing things.

    Just as the God of Plato & Aristotle & Aquinas is not less than a person (he is more than a person) – he doesn’t (merely) love you – he is, precisely, L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

    • Replies: @Talha
  345. Talha says:
    @vinteuil

    Ok, does He still love you if you murder your mother and serve her entrails to your cat? Are there any ramifications or consequences of one’s actions in this life or does this conceptual Mover not care either way?

    Speaking of warlords, Aristotle apparently forgot to teach Alexander not to invade North Africa and all the way through India.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  346. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    To be honest bro, I’m not much into trying to find signs of the Prophet (pbuh) in the Bible because it leads to an epistemological problem. If we assert that the Bible is not reliable in the first place (if you have taken an intro class in hadith sciences then you know none of it would qualify to be included under the category of hadith da’eef), it seems a bit strange to me to comb it for clues to the coming of the Prophet (pbuh). Sure we can assert that this or that particular word really carry this specific meaning – fine – but how do we even know that was the right word in the first place.

    My personal feeling is to rely on the Islamic narrative. For instance, you mentioned there were a group of Jews awaiting a prophet in Yathrib/Madinah, but they thought it was going to be from them. Some of them converted and attested to this. Now I were they a specific messianic group of Jews or indicative of a wider expectation? I don’t know.

    There was also the testimony of Salman al-Farsi (ra) that he studied under some Christian monks that were mentioning a coming prophet from Arabia.

    I mean, if we apply their criteria (and, of course, we don’t), every accusation they level at The Prophet can be leveled at one or more of those men much more easily.

    Yup, no doubt about this.

    So were those men less worthy to be called prophets? And, if so, then why do they keep faith in their words and prophecies which they believe to herald the coming of Jesus?

    This is a major epistemological bind.

    Again, from a Muslim perspective, we reject some of the assertions made about the earlier prophets in the Bible, thus it is difficult to believe that what they stated has been dutifully preserved. The only things that we can positively confirm is what the Islamic tradition itself confirms – which again goes back to relying on Islam at the root – see under the MORE tag.

    Wa salaam.

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  347. /if you have taken an intro class in hadith sciences then you know none of it would qualify to be included under the category of hadith da’eef/

    Two ayat:

    “And to you We have sent down The Book with the truth, a confirmation of what came before it and a Guardian over it.” (5: 48)

    “And if you are in doubt concerning that which We sent down to you, then ask those who read The Book before thee.” (10: 94)

    If all of it were da’eef (weak), this would countervail 5: 48. Mufti Menk is largely correct, though he omits mention of 10: 94, which carves out a unique position for those People of The Book sufficiently familiar with its content to determine the probity thereof. ‘Abdullah ibn Sallam, the most knowledgeable Jew of Medina, would be among them. Benjamin Keldani, a former Bishop of the Uniate Chaldean Church, would qualify as another.

    Sure, we may not need such knowledge as they provide, though it should be noted that the conditional phrase of 10: 94 is “if you are in doubt,” which, given such a circumstance, qualifies that information as necessary.

    We should also consider the fact that, in Medina, The Prophet did not adjudicate cases and controversies among Jews in accordance with The Qur’an, but rather, in accordance with The Torah. This accounts for some haddith that detail the stoning of adulterers, a strictly Torah-based punishment.

    Then, we have these ayat:

    “But how do they come to you for judgment when they have The Torah, wherein God has delivered judgment?” (5: 43)

    “Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which God has sent down therein.” (5: 47)

    /For instance, you mentioned there were a group of Jews awaiting a prophet in Yathrib/Madinah, but they thought it was going to be from them./

    I didn’t mention that they thought The Prophet would be from among their people. They were aware of his signs, among which was his arrival in Yathrib. From our own seerah literature, we know they expected him there. It’s also clear that they knew he would not be of the Banu Israel. Were it otherwise, there would be no need to have forged The Lie that salvation comes in Israel rather than in Ishmael, which they did long before Jesus came on the scene. (See Jeremiah 8: 8.) Furthermore, ‘Abdullah ibn Sallam harbored no such expectation.

    /Now I were they a specific messianic group of Jews or indicative of a wider expectation?/

    An often ignored — albeit highly significant — fact about the ancient Jewish community is that nobody outside of the rabbinate — not even Jews themselves — could even touch scrolls upon which Scripture was recorded. Jewish lay folk were dependent entirely upon what their rabbis said at Temple in order to gain an understanding of Scripture and their religion. As such, there was an expectation of The Prophet’s coming, though it would have been circumscribed to those who received knowledge of it, directly or otherwise, via Scripture itself or through the Good News that Jesus brought with him. For this reason, Jewish lay folk would have remain largely oblivious to the prophecy.

    /There was also the testimony of Salman al-Farsi (ra) that he studied under some Christian monks that were mentioning a coming prophet from Arabia./

    Yes, alhamdulillah!

    Jazakumullahu khayr.

    was-salaam.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @Talha
  348. @AnonStarter

    Errata:

    1. “And if you are in doubt concerning that which We sent down to you, then ask those who read The Book before thee.” (10: 94) “Thee” should read “you.”

    2. “‘Abdullah ibn Sallam” should read “‘Abdullah ibn Salaam.”

    3. In the passage which reads “… Jewish lay folk would have remain largely oblivious …”, “remain” should be written in the simple past tense.

  349. @Talha

    One other clarification:

    10: 94 refers to erstwhile People of The Book who become Muslim and are sufficiently familiar with the content of Scripture to determine the probity thereof.

    Hope that helps, insha’Allah.

    was-salaam.

  350. vinteuil says:
    @Talha

    …does He still love you if you murder your mother…

    I take it you’re not familiar with the Oresteia?

    Or, for that matter, the Theban plays of Sophocles?

    I mean, heck – Orestes murders his mother in her blood – & Oedipus goes him one better – he murders his father and marries his mother.

    And yet, Orestes & Oedipus are tragic heroes.

    Go figure.

    • Replies: @Talha
  351. Talha says:
    @vinteuil

    Haven’t read some of that stuff since high school to be honest. So, what goes around comes around?

    It seems to me, plenty of people escape justice in this world and are even lauded. Just yesterday I was within ice cream throwing distance from Sen. Chuck Schumer by the NY city library, but thought better of it.

    Like I said though, to each his own…

    Peace.

  352. @vinteuil

    Györ was magically old-fashioned when I spent a night there on my way to Budapest in the early ’90s. It was like Vienna in 1969 – run-down imperial magificence jostled with Biedermeier charm and plain old-fashioned decay. I loved them both. No doubt Györ is now spruced up and boring, as I found Breslau to be when I went back there after a similar span of years last summer.

    I hope you find a room somewhere. I stayed in a former monastery – cheap then, no doubt less so now. The bed was hard, but the breakfast superb.

  353. J. Ipsten says:
    @RobinG

    And after saying that the Quran was burnt, H.P. claims to know what the real order of verses was.

    Jews were very powerful and rich in Medina but Mohammad brought war to them and took them as hostages. To avoid persecution, the third Jewish tribe of bani Nadir gifted Mohammad the city of Fadak, which had thriving farms. Due to nepotism, Mohammad gifted the Fadak to his daughter Fatima. The first caliph rightly took it from her and added it to state treasury.

    However, I don’t see that HP sauce has claimed that he knows the real order verses
    were? Can you please direct me to this?

    Plus, since reading Muhammad Asad’s remarks on translating the sense of Classical Arabic, this 3rd Caliph business (dots, vowels, etc.)

    I see that HP sauce has posted the image of the Quran complied by the 3rd Caliph. Do you see dots, vowels, etc in this image? Or do you think the image is fake?

    Maybe, Kevin Barrett who is a Muslim, should temporally leave his hatred of Jews aside for a while and chime on this. We will find out about his honesty?

    Wont we!

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @Seraphim
  354. @J. Ipsten

    /Jews were very powerful and rich in Medina but Mohammad brought war to them and took them as hostages./

    Those very powerful and rich Jews agreed to abide by The Constitution of Medina, which granted them full religious liberty and equity in the eyes of the Law. Had they not violated its terms, they wouldn’t have suffered the consequences they did.

    Such is life.

    /To avoid persecution/

    Should read: “To save their necks after their assassination attempt had been exposed, …” and it was not so much a “gift” as a necessary forfeiture.

    You can keep the rest of your hasbara, thank you.

    • Replies: @J. Ipsten
    , @J. Ipsten
  355. J. Ipsten says:
    @AnonStarter

    Should read: “To save their necks after their assassination attempt had been exposed, …” and it was not so much a “gift” as a necessary forfeiture.

    If it was a necessary forfeiture, then Mohammad shouldn’t have shown nepotism and gifted to his daughter Fatima, but should have added to the State Treasury. Abu Bakr the first caliph righted the wrong done by Mohammad, as he took away the Fadak from Fatima and rightly added it to the State Treasury.

    BTW, you didn’t comment on the Quran, which was issued without vowels and no dots for the letters. And, then the rest of the Quran were burned on the order of 3rd Caliph.

    • Replies: @Talha
  356. Seraphim says:
    @J. Ipsten

    All Muslims should leave their hatred of the Jews in view of the fact that Islam is a by-product of the messianic sect of the ‘Nasara’/Nazarenes, properly the Judeo-Christians, about whom St. Augustin wrote:
    “To-day there still exists among the Jews in all the synagogues of the East a heresy which is called that of the Minæans, and which is still condemned by the Pharisees; [its followers] are ordinarily called ‘Nasarenes’; they believe that Christ, the son of God, was born of the Virgin Mary, and they hold him to be the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended to heaven, and in whom we also believe. But while they pretend to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither”.

  357. Talha says:
    @J. Ipsten

    and gifted to his daughter Fatima

    Where did he explicitly do this (according to authentic Sunni sources)? That was the why there was a debate about it in the first place according to the Sunnis.

    If you are talking Shiah sources, that’s another matter altogether; you should take up the matter with them.

    BTW, you didn’t comment on the Quran, which was issued without vowels and no dots for the letters. And, then the rest of the Quran were burned on the order of 3rd Caliph.

    Yeah, what of it? The primary method of transmission of the Quran has been oral, the written form is a crutch.

    Peace.

  358. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    Bro, I get what you are saying, but if you look at every example you give, it is an Islamic source confirming the validity of something external (which puts us back at square one – having to rely on the Islamic source to confirm). It’s a bit like how a hadith could be da’eef but can be strengthened in maa’na or even matn due to other strong hadith.

    nobody outside of the rabbinate — not even Jews themselves — could even touch scrolls upon which Scripture was recorded. Jewish lay folk were dependent entirely upon what their rabbis said at Temple

    100% agree here. However, it then takes a leap of speculation that there was a worldwide conspiracy to hide the idea of the advent of the Prophet (pbuh) in Medina across all their scattered and disparate Rabbinical authorities to fall in line without some governmental authority to enforce such a thing. Is it possible? Sure, but do we have evidence of this? I mean some Jewish communities were settled in Yathrib/Madinah after all. Was this a local initiative or some kind of “expeditionary” group sanctioned by some central Sanhedrin-type authority…?

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  359. @Talha

    /However, it then takes a leap of speculation that there was a worldwide conspiracy to hide the idea of the advent of the Prophet (pbuh) in Medina across all their scattered and disparate Rabbinical authorities to fall in line without some governmental authority to enforce such a thing./

    Indeed, it does take a leap of speculation to believe such a conspiracy. And it would be a shame had I suggested the conspiracy need be as you describe. (smiling)

    “Worldwide” it couldn’t have been, since — as I explained earlier — even Jewish lay folk would have remained largely oblivious to it. If this were so, then how much more oblivious would the rest of the world have been?

    More importantly, God states that it happened: they concealed a portion of the record and designed to distort it. All it took is a timely consensus of what would have been a small number of the learned of Israel capable of affecting the record to which only they had access, and even then, they weren’t wholly successful, since allusions to The Prophet remain, thereby confirming that God remains a Protector over It. Most people don’t have a clue that the phenomenon of The Book’s diffusion beyond the orally transmitted confines of Temple Israel is, of itself, a miracle.

    They certainly had the motive: they wanted the Kingdom of God all to themselves, and the only way they could have it was by denying it to others. This is why they invented The Lie and successfully deceived most of the Children of Japheth in advancing it. Most of them would have been on board with it, the price of dissent being death, and God confirms in both The Qur’an and what was sent before It that they killed prophets.

    Of course, the Kingdom of God isn’t theirs to deny to others.

    And God is The Best of Planners.

  360. @Talha

    Perfect response, akhi.

    Even after I told him he could keep the rest of his hasbara, he wonders why I don’t give it a second thought.

    Oh, well.

    And may ALLAH forgive me for neglecting this in my previous replies:

    was-salaam!

  361. J. Ipsten says:
    @Talha

    Where did he explicitly do this (according to authentic Sunni sources)? That was the why there was a debate about it in the first place according to the Sunnis.

    Bro, I fully agree with you and action taken by abu Bakr was right.

    Mohammad was into too much nepotism:
    1. Fatima is the leader of all women in Heaven.
    2. Hassan and Hussain are the leaders of all youth in Heaven.
    3. Ali will be handing the glass of water to Mohammad at the lake in Heaven when Mohammad welcomes the Muslims there.

    Imagine, how corrupt one can get. The leader of all women in Heaven should have be the upmost examples to follow. But she lied and told abu Bakr the Fadak Farms belong to her for earthly riches, even though during Mohammad life, she had full possessions of Fadak Farms. Imagine, she taught the possession is 9/10 of the law. Abu Bakr did the right thing, so she cursed abu Bakr and never spoke to him again.

    If you are talking Shiah sources, that’s another matter altogether; you should take up the matter with them.

    No, I don’t want to get into with you about Sunni/Shia sectarianism as it is not my business. I keep up with all religions, because of people like HP Sauce and you.

    In Sahih Muslim, Mohammad shows his nepotism again by his tradition that he is leaving behind two equally weighty things, the Quran and his Itrat (family). And, by that he meant Fatima, Hassan, Hussain and Ali. People confuse themselves when they say that these two equally weighty things are Quran and his Sunnah.

    Yeah, what of it? The primary method of transmission of the Quran has been oral, the written form is a crutch.

    I fully agree with you, that the primary method of transmission of the Jewish Scriptures had been oral. Our oral transmission is 4000 years, and the Muslim is only recent. And, then the Muslims consider this oral method of transmission of the Jewish Scriptures is corrupt. And, the HP sauce kept on harping about Classical Arabic.

    Moses was with God for forty days and nights and in this time God taught him a lot, not just the 10 Commandments. When Moses came down he passed this knowledge to his Rabbis. The knowledge till the Judgment Day, and our Talmuds are part of this knowledge.

    • Troll: AnonStarter
    • Replies: @Talha
  362. Talha says:
    @J. Ipsten

    was into too much nepotism

    Nope. Not according to Sunni sources. In fact, he forbade his family from consuming from charity. To this day, the Hanafi school states that descendants of Bani Hashim are disqualified from receiving zakat. As far as the stations in Paradise, the Ahl Ul-Bayt have a very high rank – this has little to do with worldly issues.

    People confuse themselves when they say that these two equally weighty things are Quran and his Sunnah.

    And why should we simply accept the Shiah interpretation as the correct one? Again, that’s what the entire debate is about.

    And, then the Muslims consider this oral method of transmission of the Jewish Scriptures is corrupt.

    Correct, because our Book makes it clear that there was. Where are your chains of transmission?

    The knowledge till the Judgment Day

    Ours takes far less leaps of faith to believe; 1) the Muslims had full political control at the start and didn’t have to worry about being scattered, sent into exile, or having our scholars and libraries destroyed and 2) we are more recent and everyone, not just clerics memorize the Quran and 3) does anyone from your tradition actually memorize the entire Torah?

    If you just take ten solid huffaz of the Quran from the Chicagoland and lock them in a room, they will produce a Quran without a single mistake. I would stake my life on it. Bump the number up to fifteen and I’d wager the lives of my wife and kids. I know of a memorization school in the suburbs where you have to read the entire Quran from memory in one sitting and get less than five mistakes to get certified.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @J. Ipsten
  363. J. Ipsten says:
    @Talha

    In the Age of Empires, unless you had a treaty or non-aggression agreement, it was assumed you were at war or could go to war at any time. So the intelligent path to take (if one was capable) was to eliminate the threat before it became even more of a problem. And it wasn’t just with Muslims; a Norman king could float in on your island at a moment’s notice, a Spanish armada could appear to start pounding your city walls, those coalitions of tribes on your periphery could be set off by a random event beyond your borders and come to sack your capital, etc. Watch the colors change and go back and forth:

    Yup! These are called preventative wars and/or preventative strikes. Just the six days war of 1967, and the Muslims are still crying till today and want the land back. The ragtag Muslim Military were sick and against these wars, so they murdered the 3rd. Caliph Usman and didn’t allow his body to be buried for several days.

    Though these wars had many side benefits, more converts, thus more fighting force and too much money. Usman was into nepotism like Mohammad, so build bunch of places for himself and his own kinfolks. Unlimited riches…..

    LOL, the most amazing thing is that Mohammad in Quran is called, “Mercy to Mankind” and to bring out the Arabs from ignorance. Funny, though!

    • Replies: @Talha
  364. @Talha

    A Zionist Jew complaining of nepotism. That’s about as rich as it gets.

    At a site presenting content in which I would not usually be inclined to place confidence, there’s an interesting page on Genesis 16: 12, the commonplace translation of which reveals a deliberate effort to defame Ishmael ‘alaihis-salaam. The author of the page, quite knowledgeable in Hebrew, examines the original language to expose the actual meaning of the verse — one which is consonant with what we know.

    Here’s the link.

    This is an exceptional case in which a non-Muslim offers a precise analysis of a Torah verse that not only betrays the rabbinical corruption underlying its popular understanding, but provides proof of its original veracity.

    • Replies: @Talha
  365. J. Ipsten says:
    @AnonStarter

    Those very powerful and rich Jews agreed to abide by The Constitution of Medina, which granted them full religious liberty and equity in the eyes of the Law. Had they not violated its terms, they wouldn’t have suffered the consequences they did.

    The Constitution of Medina is the figment of imagination. Mohammad was a warlord and a terrorists who used to raid the caravans and was always looking to annihilate the Jews of the Medina. Mohammad killed 700 to 900 Jews of Medina.

    As Talha has mentioned that Mohammad and the Caliph were using preventative wars and strikes to conquer and spreed Islam, so to fortify themselves.

    Members of the second tribe, the Banu Nadir, were accused by Muhammad of plotting to kill him. What is intriguing about this episode is that it occurred after Muslims had killed several prominent Jews on Muhammad’s order, including a leader of the Banu Nadir (named Ka’b al-Ashraf).

    The prophet of Islam claimed that an angel appeared to him in a dream and told him that he would be targeted in retaliation. Based on this, he laid siege to the Banu Nadir community. After forcing them to surrender, these original inhabitants of Medina were then banished from their homes and land by their former guests. To the disappointment of everyone else, Muhammad also produced a revelation from Allah that allowed him to confiscate the entire portion of Qaynuqa good for himself – Ibn Ishaq 653).

    J. Ipsten’s note: The above is the story of Fadak Farms, Mohammad gifted it to his daughter Fatima instead of putting these farms into the State Treasury. Abu Bakr rightly corrected the wrong done by Mohammad because of nepotism. Abu Bakr didn’t believe in nepotism.

    In a critical example of how deception is sanctioned under Islam, a surviving contingent of the Banu Nadir (under Usayr ibn Zarim) was later tricked into leaving their fortress by promise of peace talks. The contingent of Muslims sent by Muhammad to “escort” them easily slaughtered the victims once they became vulnerable by way of misplaced trust (Ibn Ishaq 981).

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  366. J. Ipsten says:
    @Talha

    In Sahih Muslim, Mohammad shows his nepotism again by his tradition that he is leaving behind two equally weighty things, the Quran and his Itrat (family). And, by that he meant Fatima, Hassan, Hussain and Ali. People confuse themselves when they say that these two equally weighty things are Quran and his Sunnah.

    I taught that Sahih Muslim is a very authenticated Sunni source, second only to Sahih Bukhari. Did I get this wrong?

    Do you have the Sahih Hadith of “The two equally weighty things are Quran and his Sunnah”? If so, then can you please quote me. Thanks in advance.

  367. Talha says:
    @J. Ipsten

    Just the six days war of 1967, and the Muslims are still crying till today and want the land back.

    Post WW2 UN period is a completely different ball game. However, if you claim you won it in battle – fair enough – don’t cry foul when you eventually lose it in battle.

    Usman was into nepotism

    This has truth to it and he was criticized for this from other Companions (ra). This was the reason he was killed – the khawarij were not tired of fighting. In fact, they loved to fight – they simply prioritized killing Muslims that disagreed with them…like our latter day neo-khawarij.

    “Mercy to Mankind” and to bring out the Arabs from ignorance.

    Correct.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  368. Anonymous[343] • Disclaimer says:

    One of Dugin’s most important essays on Geunon and Traditionalism has finally been translated:

    https://eurasianist-archive.com/2019/06/11/dugin-counter-initiation-1998/

  369. @J. Ipsten

    /The Constitution of Medina is the figment of imagination./

    Actually, it’s one of the few Islamic documents that most non-Muslim scholars of Islamic Studies accept as authentic — including, among others, Michael Cook and Bernard Lewis.

    So, once again … a swing and a miss.

    /Mohammad killed 700 to 900 Jews of Medina./

    Already addressed.

    Strike two.

    And your recollection of the seerah literature is not only sloppy, it’s terribly piecemeal:

    If you’re leaning solely on Ibn Ishaq, you have to accept that Ka’b ibn Ashraf, being of the Banu Nadir, broke his agreement not to ally with the Quraysh against the faithful of Medina. Ibn Ishaq also provides evidence of his flagrant insults leveled at Muslim women in Medina. All of this prefaced his assassination and the subsequent attempt of his tribesmen to murder The Prophet, which led to their exile.

    However, there’s no consensus that Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat al Rasul presents the most reliable version of events. There are other accounts, one of which alludes to a Qurayshi threat to wage war against the Banu Nadir if they refused to fight The Prophet. Some highly reputable biographers present this as the motive underlying the Banu Nadir’s assassination attempt on The Prophet, one that was averted not by Gabriel, but rather, through information obtained by a sister of a Banu Nadir convert to Islam. This account is corroborated by the work of Abu Dawud, Ibn Hajar and ‘Abd al Razzaq, the first two of whose work is regarded among the six canonical texts of haddith. This account has a stronger chain of narration that that of Ibn Ishaq, in spite of the latter’s proliferation in other seerah literature.

    Then there’s scholarship — by none other than one of your fellow tribesmen — which presents evidence for entirely different accounts, all of which demonstrate that Ka’b played an active role in assassination attempts upon The Prophet which led to his fallout with the Banu Nadir. I don’t suspect you’re interested, but it’s readily available at the following link:

    The Assassination of Kaʿb b. al-Ashraf

    So that’s it. Strike three. A swing and a miss so hard, you’ve clocked your own noggin and soiled your knickers.

    As for Usayr ibn Zarim, you deliberately omitted the detail where The Prophet sent a delegation to Khaybar after learning of Usayr’s preparation for war against Medina. Ibn Ishaq’s account clarifies that, in spite of The Prophet’s attempt to prevent war and establish terms of peace with Usayr, the latter “changed his mind” and drew his sword against members of the delegation, whereupon he was, quite justifiably, slain.

    Curious question: Are you the same J. Ipsten from the hit T.V. series Welcome Back, Kotter? ‘Cause That would explain quite a bit.

  370. @Talha

    /This has truth to it/

    Na’oodhu billah.

    Should this appear so, it is merely because ‘Uthman radiALLAHU ‘anh, through no fault of his own, appointed individuals with whose character he was more familiar, those more likely to hear and obey him. Such people just happened to be his kinsmen. The exigencies of his life’s circumstances didn’t permit him to do otherwise.

    Ipsten’s entire worldview is incestuous. It can’t be helped, which is why he wants to drag you and me down to that particular gutter.

    We’ve already given him far more than he deserves.

    • Replies: @Talha
  371. RobinG says:
    @Talha

    OMG!!!! Is this J. Ipsten just quoting Hercule Poirot, (the exact 3rd Caliph verbiage) or is this H.C.’s latest incarnation? After being outed by you, H.C. has disappeared, simultaneous with the Ipsten appearance.

    Now just for fun: Pakistani potatoes in Vladivostok:
    @ArtyomLukin “Potatoes from Pakistan dominate vegetable sections in Vladivostok supermarkets. Another sign of the growing relationship b/w Moscow and Islamabad. On the Russian side of the trade balance, there is weapons sales to Pakistan.”
    https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/t-90-mig-35-pantsir-and-more-for-pakistan-as-islamabad-considers-massive-russian-arms-package

    • Replies: @Talha
  372. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    Na’oodhu billah.

    Bro, I was not trying to besmirch the good name of the third caliph. I’m not even the dust on his sandals. However, we have to acknowledge that some Companions (ra) did indeed take issue with some of his appointments. None of the Companions (ra) is infallible and some make a mistake in ijtihad – that’s it, I’m certainly not looking for any underhanded motives from his side like some do.

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  373. Talha says:
    @RobinG

    or is this H.C.’s latest incarnation?

    Possibly. Good point, I mean this person did use a Jewish label before on “Jeffery Cohen”.

    I think I should disengage; it does seem weird for a Jewish guy to have an opinion on a well known Sunni-Shiah debating point.

    Did not know about the Russia-Pakistan trade relationship – thanks!

    Peace.

  374. @Talha

    Wa ‘alaikumus-salaam.

    All right, akhi. I feel you.

    You know how hot things can get in a forum fueled by smokeless fire. “J. Ipsten,” if that’s who he actually is, just likes turning up the heat while we’re trying to keep it cool.

    Fi amanillah.

  375. RobinG says:

    ….a Jewish guy….

    Very odd name (Ipsten). Was it misspelled on purpose?

  376. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    This angle of attack really only works in the West where the narrative is that Jews have always been the aggrieved party. Doesn’t matter if the broke a treaty in a time of war, doesn’t matter if they sided with pagans against a man preaching monotheism…nope – the only thing is; a bunch of Jewish tribes got beaten in battle, how can we spin this to make the winner look bad.

    The funny thing is, they were indeed writing that they were quite pleased that the Muslims kicked everyone’s butt in the area because, frankly, for centuries they were treated better in Muslim lands than anywhere else:
    “..but despite the inauspicious beginning, the conquest of Jerusalem by Caliph Omar in 637 was welcomed by some Jews as a release from Christian oppression. In the following Jewish apocalyptic tract composed soon afterward, Esau stands for Rome/Byzantium.Christendom and Ishmael for the Muslims:
    …The angel Metatron at once answered him. ‘Fear not, O son of man! The Holy One, blessed be He, brings the kingdom of Ishmael only to save you from this wicked one (Rome) He will send a prophet to them and conquer the Land [of Israel]…And the second king who arises from Ishmael will love [the people of] Israel and conquer all the kingdoms.’”
    Historical Dictionary of Judaism

    the commonplace translation of which reveals a deliberate effort to defame Ishmael

    Thank you for the link, it was quite enlightening. I’ve also found the Genesis 22:2 to be quite interesting in its declaration of Ishaac (as) as the ONLY son. But the one really suspicious narrative that hit home to me was actually how the Bible claims (in Genesis 27) that Yaqoub (as) deceived his father to steal away the blessing of the Abrahamic line that was supposed to go to his older brother. Which leaves us with the dilemma; 1) we either accept that the prophet Yaqoub (as) was deceptive when it came to religious claims (in which case, how do we trust anything coming from him) and this entire blessing to that line is based on a lie or 2) the story is falsely depicting him and his motivations (in which case, how do we trust anything coming from the narrative). Either way, you have a serious epistemic problem.

    When I brought the above point up to another Zionist guy that was on this forum, he didn’t think it was a big deal in tricking/cheating an oafish brother out of a Divine blessing. So if the sacrifice of Ibrahim (as) was really Ismael (as) – as most Muslim scholars claim – what would be the big deal in swapping it out to make it seem like it was Ishaac (as) to, you know, deny another “oafish” brother a legitimate claim to the blessing? I mean who’s going to know right, it’s not like the descendants of Ismael have a revelation to counter the claim…oops.

    Now for us, a minority of scholars do say it may well have been Ishaac (as), because as far as we’re concerned, the point of the whole story is not which son (since both of them were upright prophets) but rather the willingness of Ibrahim (as) to give up everything/anything out of his absolute love and obedience for his Creator. However, for the other side, which son it was is absolutely everything because their entire narrative rests upon it being Ishaac (as).

    Which does indeed back up what you are saying; the respect accorded to Bani Ishaac from Bani Ismael has only been one way. We respect and love their prophets as our own. We consider them free from sin as we do with our own.

    The Qur’an furthermore breaks with another huge part of the narrative; namely that only Bani Ishaac has received revelation from the Divine. The Qur’an specifically makes a counter claim that there were Divinely-sent emissaries to all nations (what constitutes a nation is not specified). It then further drives home the point by mentioning prophets that were completely outside of the Biblical narrative like the example of Hud (as) who was sent to the people southern Arabia/Yemen. Sure maybe Bani Israel were sent a boatload more prophets than the rest, but why would the Chinese, Persians, Greeks (have you read up on Xenophanes?), etc. be excluded from this institution? Which is why Muslims have no problem in theory with men like Zoroaster, Buddha, Lao Tzu, etc. to potentially be men who were indeed prophets, but whose messages may have been corrupted/altered. After all, weren’t the Hijazi Arabs originally monotheists descended from Ismael (as) who themselves corrupted toward paganism?

    Which is why one has to pick which narrative is the reliable one – they cannot be mutually resolved.

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @AnonStarter
  377. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    Judaism believes that any monotheistic religion, or any religion that does not explicitly contradict monotheism, like Buddhism, can be a legitimate path to God for non-Jews.

    So Jews certainly don’t believe Islam is “false”, only insofar as it claims to apply to Jews as well, who are seen as having been commanded to serve God in a special way.

    So even though Jews believe God’s original revelation was given to the Jews, other nations may well have great holy men who receive inspiration and guidance from the Divine, insofar as it does not contradict the Oneness of God and genuine morality. And that is the test of whether a nation is genuinely serving God.

    Christianity has been problematic for Jews because of its ambiguity regarding the Oneness of God – and it should be noted that it is merely ambiguity, and not explicit polytheism, and Jews haven’t been entirely sure how to deal with it.

    Nevertheless, some Jewish scholars have been impressed with the high level of religiosity obtained by Christians, and have ruled that people whose entire lives are ruled by religion cannot be considered “heathen”.

    Jesus’s specific claim that he is the son of God, as well as his claim that he was specifically the Jewish Messiah, and his claim to abrogate the Jewish religion and people – has been the main source of real tension with him.

    Its really sibling rivalry of a sort 🙂 I think the main tension Judaism experiences with its sister religions is simply their claim to apply to Jews as well (i.e abrogate the Jewish religion). Eastern religions, which do not claim to abrogate Judaism, have generally been less problematic for that reason.

    Anyways, I’m still learning much and there is much I don’t know 🙂

    • Replies: @Talha
  378. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    Judaism believes that any monotheistic religion, or any religion that does not explicitly contradict monotheism, like Buddhism, can be a legitimate path to God for non-Jews.

    I remember having a conversation along these lines with a rabbi. He said the same thing; non-Jews only need to be monotheistic and abide by the Noahide laws (basically ten commandments).

    impressed with the high level of religiosity obtained by Christians

    No doubt – very impressive.

    Its really sibling rivalry of a sort

    Definitely there is this angle there – especially when there are certain contradictory and unresolvable claims. Obviously no problems in the claims that compliment each other.

    I think the main tension Judaism experiences with its sister religions is simply their claim to apply to Jews as well (i.e abrogate the Jewish religion).

    I can definitely understand that as Islam claims to have abrogated all previous dispensations.

    Anyways, I’m still learning much and there is much I don’t know

    Same here, bro.

    Peace.

  379. @Talha

    /This angle of attack really only works in the West where the narrative is that Jews have always been the aggrieved party./

    A symptom of The Lie, no doubt.

    If one is conditioned to affirm that Jesus is both Jewish and God’s “only begotten son,” those characteristics cannot be so casually disassociated. Now add to this a passion play narrative in which he endures immense suffering and death for the salvation of humankind and the impression of Jewish victimhood remains deeply embedded in the collective consciousness of those who believe it, the opprobrium of Jesus for the Scribes and Pharisees notwithstanding.

    /Doesn’t matter if the broke a treaty in a time of war, doesn’t matter if they sided with pagans against a man preaching monotheism…nope – the only thing is; a bunch of Jewish tribes got beaten in battle, how can we spin this to make the winner look bad./

    Beautifully articulated, ma sha Allah.

    /for centuries they were treated better in Muslim lands than anywhere else/

    Unquestionably, alhamdulillah. David Wasserstein, professor of Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt, has claimed that without Islam, Judaism would not have survived — an assertion buoyed upon an ocean of evidence.

    And I thank you both for that link and the delightful read. Always a pleasure to share the deen with you, praise God.

    was-salaam.

    • Replies: @Talha
  380. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    That article was very good, balanced as well.

    JazakAllahu khair.

  381. @AaronB

    Toshihiko Izutsu suggests that Islam (and Sufi metaphysics in particular) is the seal of not just the Western prophetic tradition, but of Eastern philosophy as well. https://books.google.com.my/books/about/Creation_and_the_Timeless_Order_of_Thing.html

    • Replies: @Talha
  382. Talha says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    That link doesn’t seem to work, at least for me. I think you meant:
    https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Timeless-Order-Things-Philosophy/dp/1883991048

    I hadn’t heard of that professor before, but I do like Prof. Kojiro Nakamura’s stuff; he’s written on and translated from Imam Ghazali (ra).

    A lot of Sufism was developed and refined at the cross-roads of the East and West; in the Persianate lands and Transoxiana. That’s not to take away from the contribution of the North African (and even Andalusian) Sufis, but even most of their initiatic chains first come through the Persian lands.

    Wa salaam.

  383. @Talha

    In your country, will you support legal punishment of people for criticizing or mocking Muhammad or Islamic doctrine?

    • Replies: @Talha
  384. Talha says:
    @RadicalCenter

    Criticizing? No – academic criticism should be fully allowed.

    Mocking or blaspheming God or the prophets (pbut)? Absolutely should be punished – the parameters of punishment are negotiable in the school I follow.

    I would start with a fine, move on to some light jail time, public flogging, more severe jail time, exile, etc.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?