6 comments

1. 
   

   I have some old reference works upstairs, written before the P.C. (or “Critical Theory”) cult got an iron grip upon academia, that would cast doubt upon the claim that the West and Islam can live together in peace.

   They are not actually works on Islam (although I have such works also), they are just chronicles of events (year books). And down the centuries, for more than a thousand years, Islamic attacks have been normal. Not just pirate attacks – but full scale attacks. Even in the 19th and 20th centuries, when Islam was at its weakest, there were many such attacks – for example the slaughter of so many Christians in the Balkans in the 19th century, and the slaughter of Christian civilians (not just Armenians – other Christians also) in the Middle East during the First World War.

   The story of Islamic tolerance of Jews is also PARTLY mythical – as the grim records of Jewish persecution in the Middle East and North Africa show. As for the claims that Islam invented X,Y,Z, bits of kit (that have been found in Roman and Byzantine ship wreaks long before there were such people as Muslims), or that Islamic Spain was a model of tolerance (forgetting the formal declaration of war that occurred every year, much like the annual declaration against the Helots by the Spartans, to justify Islamic raiding), it is only a short step from such claims (BBC types standing by Roman ruins and pointing to them as proof of the glories of Islamic civilisation), to modern claims by the President of Turkey and the religious authorities in Saudi Arabia, that the Americas were once Islamic and the evil Christians went to North and South America to murder the Muslim inhabitants (it should be obvious why these particular lies are being created, they are justification for future land claims).

   Soon the claim will be that Islam invented the helicopter – and the proof will be presented that there is an Arabic word for helicopter (after all this is the argument that is presented in relation to the astrolabe). But one must not go on too long about such things.

   It is actually true that there are wonders, real ones, in relation to Islamic civilisation – both buildings and art, and philosophy (before the defeat of those who tried to combine respect for reason, and human agency [free will], with Islam – about a thousand years ago), nor is it true that Muslims have always and everywhere attacked non Muslims. Even the tales of tolerance in Islamic Spain are PARTLY true – there were some rulers, at some times, who were tolerant of both Christians and Jews, at least those who lived in the cities (and “felt themselves subdued”) not untamed Christians living in remote hill county in Spain.

   What matters, in the end, is the attitude to Mohammed.

   Is Mohammed, his life, a model to be followed or not?

   If the life of Mohammed is an example to be followed then no peace with the forces of Islam is possible – as both the Sunni radicals (ISIS and so) and the Shia radicals (the Iranian “Hastener” regime and such movements as the “Party
   of God” in Lebanon – who believe that the world must be covered with fire-and-blood so that the “Hidden One” may return on his white horse) are correct in their horrible slaughters and endless lies.

   However, in Islam (both Sunni and Shia) Mohammed is NOT God – nor is Mohammed infallible, he could misinterpret what was communicated to him. Indeed, famously (the “Satanic Verses” – denounced as Satanic by Mohammed himself), even mistake the Devil for an angel – although, to be fair, the Devil had disguised himself as an angel (we could all could make exactly the mistake that Mohammed made – after all which of us is more intelligent than Satan?).

   Who is to say how much of what Mohammed acted upon was the advice of the Devil rather than that of God? If it is accepted, and it is, that SOME of his actions were based on infernal advice, then might not other of his actions be based upon it? Or be simply his own idea (not infernal advice) – not that of God?

   For example a favourite military tactic of Mohammed was to promise peace and then launch a surprise attack. It is a well studied and admired tactic (a whole section of Islamic theology is based on the study of how to lie to infidels in order to lull them into a false sense of security), but is this what GOD wanted? There is no proof (none) that it was – Mohammed (a mortal man – and fallible as we all are) was a military and political genius, but he was not God and is it not possible that he sometimes misinterpreted what God wanted?

   Also the incidents that are most treasured by terrorists (both Sunni and Shia) may not have been actually ordered by God.

   Famously an old blind poet mocked Mohammed – and was murdered (by killers who pretended to be friends to get close to the old blind poet) with the approval of Mohammed. When a pregnant female poet protested against the murder of the old blind poet, this lady was simply murdered as well (again with Mohammed’s approval). But, again, this was Mohammed – NOT Allah.

   The warriors of Islam (who slay filmmakers and so forth on the streets of Western cities) may be making a theological error – the error of mistaking Mohammed (a mortal and fallible man – as both Sunni and Shia Islam correctly state) with God – with Allah.

   If Muslims can be sincerely convinced that the example (the life) of Mohammed is to be rejected, not followed, then indeed peace is quite possible.

   After all, about a thousand years ago, there was a powerful faction in mainstream Islam that endorsed the idea that reason (and a moral sense) could be used to find what was right and wrong – that moral right and wrong were NOT just the arbitrary commands of Mohammed, that God (Allah) had given us reason (which was NOT a “whore” or a “slave”) and a moral sense to work out basic moral right and wrong.

   This faction of Muslims also accepted that human beings could CHOOSE between doing good and evil (that all actions were NOT predetermined by God) – and thus accepted the concept of MORAL RESPONSIBILTY (that, for example, promising peace and then slaughtering people was wrong – and that it is not justified either by saying “right and wrong are defined solely by what is for the good of the cause” or “my actions were not my fault because I could not choose to do otherwise – as all actions are predetermined by God”).

   Christians are in no position to sneer at all Muslims – after all did not Cyril of Alexandra (a past master of treachery – whose opponents in debates were apt to find their tongue cut out, oh sorry “eaten by divine worms”) and Augustine bring force and fear into religious matters? Creating complex theological arguments to justify using force and fear against their opponents?

   A hard look at Christian history shows many horrors – at least as horrible as anything Muslims have done. Yet theology that justified these crimes has now been rejected – the same could happen with Islam (if the “Mohammed problem” is addressed). The basic theology of Martin Luther is at least as bad as that of Mohammed (Luther horrified Erasmus by both rejecting the concept
   of moral right and wrong independent of scripture, and rejecting the concept of agency – i.e. our free will to reject moral evil and choose moral good), does this mean that peaceful coexistence is impossible with modern Lutherans? Of course not – as the theology of Martin Luther has been “interpreted” to bits.

   Nor should Jews sneer – after all what of JOSHUA?

   Jews are proud of pointing out that Jewish law forbad life long slavery or people being born into slavery. “We alone of all the ancient peoples rejected slavery – at least those of us who KEPT THE LAW” (goes the old Jewish boast, which rather leaves out other peoples such as the Slavs whom the Emperor Maurice pointed out did not practice life-long slavery either).

   But Joshua wiped out whole towns – down to, and including, the babies. The Jewish scriptures state this plainly.

   And those whom Joshua did not murder? Why he took them as SLAVES of course – and there is no mention of JOSHUA respecting the six to seven year time limit of Jewish law.

   Does Jewish Talmudic theology uphold the actions of Joshua today?

   Of course it does not.

   And it is possible that in the future Islamic theology will break with MOHAMMED. Or at least (as with the Lutherans and Martin Luther) “interpret” his life and teachings to bits.

   Loading...

   Reply
2. 
   

   Chapter 10 in Henry Grady Weaver’s The Mainspring of Human Progress is a brief overview of the Islamic liberation movement around the Mediterranean sea. Minaret of Freedom Foundation is doing a good job of teaching Muslims their libertarian non-compulsion principle: http://www.minaret. org

   Loading...

   Reply
3. 
   

   I’d like to see Paul Marks join the panel. A gentle breath of reason and tolerance would be welcome amid the vicious and hate-filled polemics that will doubtless be issuing from those presently listed.

   Dr Sean Gaab

   Ah, the mask slips.

   https://www.houseofnames.com/Gaab-history

   Loading...

   Reply
   • 
     

     Thanks for telling me about the typo. I have e-mailed the organisers.

     Loading...

     Reply
     • 
       

       Read “The Sword of the Prophet” by Serge Trifcovic. £5 on amazon.Then read it again. Then read it a third time. Then buy ten copies and give them to your friends and tell them to buy ten more and give them to their friend.

       Loading...

       Reply
4. 
   

   Enoch’s Eyebrow – I am bit confused by the reference to Sean Gabb’s family name.

   It does not surprise me that it is of Germanic origin – the people of Kent (like eastern England in general) are overwhelmingly Germanic in origin. And Sean Gabb is from Kent – he still lives there, although he has moved further away from London to a house in a coastal town (which makes good sense).

   Actually I admire Kent – it is has certainly kept its identity better than my own county, Northamptonshire, has.

   As for me on the panel.

   Well I know what would be said against me in advance – from previous experience.

   “You can neither read or speak Classical Arabic – you are getting all you say from translations and translated sources are worthless in Islamic law”.

   Loading...

   Reply