Skip to comments.The Sword of the Prophet
Posted on 10/31/2002 9:53:19 AM PST by A. Pole
The Sword of the Prophet
Since the attacks of September 11, dozens of books have been rushed to market purporting to "explain" the religion in whose name the terrorists acted. Most of them strike a common theme: "true" Islam -- as opposed to the "fundamentalist" variety of the hijackers -- is a "religion of peace" that promotes charity, tolerance, freedom, and culture no less than "true" Christianity.
Such an viewpoint, argues Serge Trifkovic, foreign affairs editor of Chronicles magazine, is not only false but dangerous, since it blinds to the true nature of the enemy that threatens us. Moreover, it betrays a hidden agenda: to discredit Christianity and the West by comparison to an sanitized, idealized Islam that bears no resemblance to its actual teachings or history.
To correct this, Trifkovic gives us the unvarnished, "politically incorrect" truth about Islam -- including the shocking facts about its founder, Mohammed; its rise through bloody conquest; its sanctioning of theft, deceit, lust and murder; its persecutions of Christians, Jews, Hindus and other "infidels"; its cruel mistreatment of women; the colossal myth of its cultural "golden age"; its irreformable commitment to global conquest by any means necessary; the broad sweep of the military, political, moral, and spiritual struggle that faces us; and what we must do if we wish to survive.
Get the details and documentation for hundreds of "politically incorrect" facts about Islam -- such as:
"The arbiters of official Islam will not tell us what Islam is, only what they want it to be. For the truth, we must turn Dr. Serge Trifkovic, a European historian of broad learning, sound philosophy and keen political insight." -- Brian Mitchell, Washington Bureau Chief, Investor's Business Daily
Post this on DUh (where it will be yanked faster than x42 can make up a lie).
What is "DuH"? I would like to have a look at them.
The history of the 21st Century will be written in American Standard English.
It's Islam stupid
Do you have something against reality in general? Or do you avoid reality for practical reasons?
Why is anyone being coy about it?
Do you talk to people, read newspapers or watch the news?
Let's hear the practical recommendations that follow, please.
(2) Please explain how it helps us strategically or makes our task more doable.
Truth is truth. Let the chips fall where they may.
The practical recommendation is that you have three options:
1. Search for the spiritual truth and embrace it. (You can do it in this country even if it is hard to find).
2. Try to modify or find some more reasonable and just versions of what you have.
3. Try to struggle on you own without relying on any tradition.
The first is the best, second is maybe OK, maybe not, the third is rather a defeat. If you want me to help, you can send me e-mail.
Yes, I talk to people, read newspapers, and occasionally watch some news. I even study all sorts of things, and post here, rather a lot really. I still consider the original poster in this thread, those who agree, and yourself to be rather coy about what they conclude from the items offered. You could easily disabuse me of this notion, if it is way off base, by simply telling me what you do conclude from it (as to policy recommendation, actions you think we should take, etc), practically speaking. Why is that hard?
I'm all in favor of that.
"The truth about islam would be the end of islam in the Western world."
That might be nice if true, but I rather doubt it. Maybe you have something additional in mind, though, that I am not getting yet.
See, I've got this silly idea that people haven't been terribly deferential to Islam in the west until quite recently, and I've sort of noticed that there aren't great masses of voluntary converts all around me. I quite agree that there is little in Islam to attract modern westerners, or for that matter non-barbarians with a conscience, voluntarily, anywhere at any time. But people also tend to follow the faith they were brought up in, even if it is certifiable. I somehow doubt that all existing Muslims in the west are going to say "Oh! Sorry, I didn't know Islam was so nasty", slap their foreheads, and find Jesus.
"The "religion of peace" has never been such a thing."
I quite agree with that, too. It is obviously lying spin. Not being a pacifist myself, and being rather glad my country isn't pacifist either, I do not in general think ill of anything simply on the basis that it is not peace. I think plenty ill of Islamic fanatics and terrorists, but not because I think they'd have to be pacifists to be moral. I've got this crazy idea that it matters whether those one fights are guilty or innocent, whether one fights for the interests of a state defending itself or as a self appointed band of messianic nutjobs, and lots of other ridiculous distinctions slightly less elevated than whether each person involved is St. Francis.
I have argued at length on this board that the real issue is religious tolerance, not "peace", and that the civilizational problem is that Islam has not accepted religious tolerance, in the real meaning of that term. (Which is not letting "peoples of the book" remain breathing, it is the right to be wrong about matters of conscience). That is my take on that aspect of the question.
"It's koran is violent and barbaric."
I agree with that too. The maxims of successful 7th century brigands are not the place I for one would go looking for principles of justice.
"Islam's history is worse."
I'd call that one a toss up. Mostly it follows the maxims of successful 7th century brigands. In some times and places, it got somewhat better. In others, considerably worse. It is not a high bar to clear.
"The present isn't looking so good, either."
Agreed. They have a serious problem, and we have a serious problem with them. Especially some of them, but all of them are involved, in terms of how they react to us on the one hand, and the more fanatical among themselves on the other.
"It seems there was a fanatical, barbaric religion in Japan a few years back."
Oh, I think that was largely a matter of state power, actually, and ambition for empire, and miscalculation about the chances of the Germans.
"Perhaps we could use the same technique we used on those treacherous animals."
Do you mean that we should ask for the unconditional surrender of all Muslim-majority states on earth, and nuke those that do not comply? Or do you only mean that states we know have attacked us, we should fight back against conventionally, until we defeat them? I would like a little clarity of detail, please. Too elliptical. Spell it out.
"Of course that would be intolerant and politically incorrect"
If it is necessary for our survival, who cares? Political correctness is pretty meaningless anyway. I should think, however, that a little strategic analysis would be in order around this point. As in, which enemies to take on when, over what, with whom, by what means, etc. Thus the need for a little detail, spelling out practical recommendations you think follow.
"we mustered the strength to tell the truth about Germany and Japan once."
Oh, I hardly think it required any great strength to tell the truth about them after their acts of and declarations of war. We didn't seem to manage to earlier, in the isolationist period, after Japan went into Manchuria, etc. A few did, to be sure. What did take some strength was beating them, particularly the Germans. It also took a little intelligence to plan beating them. We got some help along the way, from enemies they had already picked up. We did not simply jump from "this is a false ideology" (they nearly are all false, of course) to "let's wage war to the death with it".
"If islam is what the koran says it is"
An interesting turn of phrase. Does this leave open the possibility of a non-literalist Islam? One not slavishly tied to every barbarism of the 7th century between the covers? Or is it just a sort of rhetorical flourish, a way of saying "of course, it is, and that is all it is, or ever will be"?
"we should eliminate it."
Which makes the previous a rhetorical flourish, I take it. That is, you do not really mean this as a conditional, inside of an "if" that to you is really an "if" - is that fair? What you really mean is that Islam should be eliminated. It is a view.
"Nobody misses fanatical kamikazee Shintoists, either."
Oh, somebody probably does, but I sure don't. For that matter, there probably still are some, but they are individual wackos knocking off individual politicians with short swords, or killing themselves artistically after writing pretentious short stories about it all. Which are loads better than them having control of an industrial nation with a large navy.
I thank you for at least having the honesty to spell out what you think it means. But I'd like you to go just a little further and examine the practical aspects and strategy of it. Should we simply pick countries the CIA world fact book lists as having majority Muslim populations, and nuke each of them? Issue any ultimatums beforehand about renouncing Islam or else, or not? Should we pay any attention to the stated positions of the governments of each of those countries, or ignore those as potential lies, or what?
Map it out for us. The whole idea, as a practical program. See, I suspect there are some who may get off the train sometime after it pulls out of the station. Maybe not, maybe your recommendations will appear so airtight certain to everyone that they will all go the whole way. But if you don't explain the actions envisioned directly, and let us consider them, turn them over and look at them, then people will be judging in ignorance. I am sure I am not the only one interested in the practical program, in all its this world messy detail.
Telling the truth would be a nice start.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.