Islam – the case for the defence

Some of you will recall a series of posts on “Religion of Peace?” and the part which one reader, Daniel, took particular umbrage over was Part 3.

It appeared, to him, to incite hatred and he says we shouldn’t buy into that because that anger is stage-managed by other forces, what I’ve often referred to as Them.

Further, he believes the fine detail is missing in many people’s minds and they only see the outrages without analysing who exactly perpetrated them. The text he sent me was meant as a comment only on the third part but I reasoned that, as he’d gone to this trouble and as it’s only fair, it should have its own post.

So here it is.


Well, I started to write down a few pages with counterarguments in relation to your articles regarding Islam “A Religion of Peace?” until I realized that there is little to gain in my effort to prove otherwise as one enters in a dimension which has little to do with the world out there. There are although, some points I need to clear out to you. You decide if you want to include them.

Humans experience a religion in a certain societal context during a given time and thus indispensably, doctrines vary through time and space. Religion is a human activity, undergoing all kinds of influences irrespective of the permanent status of their Holy Book.

Islam, as other religions, had their excesses but what we are confronted with, recently, is the result of the growing influence of the Sunni Wahabist cult that started to move forward since the 70s. They are gradually and patiently cultivating religious memes in mainstream Sunni Islam through their international fundings.

Ironically Wahabism is harming Islam by corrupting its faith, even literally by destroying artifacts and symbols of (ancient) Islam. It is not limited to Buddhist statues. Their doctrine is based on purity (intolerance and conflict) and they do control the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

The countries following this doctrine are our allies and we are witnessing unconsciously, partially through them, the slow ongoing damage of a once grand culture – which we didn’t understand in the first place because the Christian Church created our perception during centuries.

We are thus, through our alliance, participating and encouraging a Green peril, now the Red one has gone.

Following quote, “Indeed, in the Arab nations, the rise of extremism in the form of the Wahhabi movement during the twentieth century could not have taken place without the huge investments made by the Al-Saud family in conjunction with the American in the name of democracy, freedom and human rights to destroy Arab nationalism, socialism, secularism, and of course Islam”, demonstrates in a few words a certain political agenda behind the cult.

Wahabist dogma still represents a minority of Muslims, although we are motivated to believe that this is mainstream Islam (which doesn’t exist by the way). Apparently It is working as more people of the West are perceiving Muslims negatively.

This is one of the reasons why I don’t want to go along the path of hatred which is motivated in the articles of ‘Religion of peace’?. These articles are an extension of an emotional state already living in many Western minds, in regard to Muslims. I’m sure it is not difficult to convince readers of the message you want us to see. The quotes, examples and remarks are mirroring your (our) perception through the choices you made of statements and through the wording. Some of the information is false or distorted.

Dividing by design groups of people is a strong social weapon used by an elite taking advantage via the divide and rule tactic. I quote an example used in Ireland by the British elite: “ To rule in the face of these revolts the British chose to divide.

Religion was the chosen instrument of division. Religious intolerance, the fostering of mutual suspicion, hatred and violence between Catholic and Protestant – this became the shield of the ruling administration against the overthrow by the people. With these methods an entire social system was dissolved.”

It is part of a dehumanization technique, through a calculated, media-based, polarization process.

Once a group is degraded to Untermenschen, one will not mourn their dead. Hate and anger are feeding on both ends within this mindset matrix. Perception becomes reality after controlled cultivation: A self-fulfilling prophecy.

What we need is unity and a clear sight above the evil deeds that are looking like managed scenario’s to spread fear and hate. Eliminating fear is a major step to be conscious. Luckily there are still initiatives that are based on common sense, like the one of Who’s afraid of Muslim Rage?


On the issue of manipulation, I quite agree – we are manipulated, stage-mannered in what to think and feel on issues and people and there are quislings doing this. There have been posts galore on groupthink and the causing of outrages in order to take advantage of the reaction. People have written on neo-Hegelianism. Even the way academia researches is manipulated. Common Purpose is one organization heavily into this. Here’s another sort.

So Daniel is preaching to the converted here – yes, we are manipulated into hatred and WW1 is a case in point – the only German is a dead German and so on. White feather women egged it on. This blog has gone on about Them for many years now – the ones who manipulate, fly kites and see what happens and so on.

One view of 911 is that indeed there were Muslim fanatics who would do that but they lacked the wherewithal to accomplish that in U.S. airspace and in that particular way. I don’t write on 911 because it is not cut and dried, unlike WTC7, which is quite cut and dried but there’s a massive campaign of disinformation colouring people’s perception.

And I’ve written on perception too – take your pick. So no arguments there, Daniel. Also, to blend in Cherie’s comments at my place, there is a good case for not allowing ourselves to fall into the hatred trap – the politics of forgiveness is something also to be considered as efficacious. As a Christian, how could I say anything else?

Yet Daniel makes some grievous errors.

1. The first is the allegation of “less than scholarliness”. Sorry but I read: “The quotes, examples and remarks are mirroring your (our) perception through the choices you made of statements and through the wording. Some of the information is false or distorted,” and waited eagerly for examples where the facts were wrong or the quotes false. No such exposition followed. Just the rash assertion that it was wrong, with no basis.

That says something about Daniel’s own approach to scholarship. I have a permanent request in all posts of mine that if you can find anything factually incorrect, please inform me and it shall be changed. Occasionally it happens but in the main, as regulars know, I do my homework beforehand and errors are minimal to non-existent by the time it gets to the final edit. So it should be – it was my bread and butter for a long time to be factually correct – I can’t help if it gets up people’s noses.

2. “Humans experience a religion in a certain societal context during a given time.” There are so many blogs pointing out that Islam is not just a religion or indeed, not a religion at all but a means of social control and coercion. This is clear from the method of spreading it around the world, accompanied by bloodshed and mayhem. Compare that to Christian missionaries who were often zealously intolerant, e.g. in forcing native children to dress more modestly and so on – Somerset Maugham’s Rain addresses this type of mind – but what he described was very much what was associated with the Christian missionary.

There is no way this can be conflated with Islamic slaughter. Some readers have brought up the golden age of Islam and the cultural advances – this was addressed in Part 4 of the series – but even granted the C11th Muslim culture, none of that negates what was said in the posts on all the other matters, which brings me to point 3:

3. Just because a person is correct about Wahabism, this does not alter the big picture about the bloodthirsty paedophile [peace be upon him] and his “religion of peace”. He may well have been kind to his family, to his main followers, he may well have attained some wisdom with age. None of this negates the rest of it, as set out in those four articles and Daniel has not negated those, only introduced a new element, which I welcome.

4. Daniel takes issue with “the choices you made of statements and through the wording”. This is true – the wording is often colourful and on this point, he may have a point that it only exacerbates the problem, rather than leads to understanding. Similarly: “These articles are an extension of an emotional state already living in many Western minds, in regard to Muslims.

No, sorry, on that last point. I’ve put the caveat many times that it’s not all Muslims, just the fanatics and my line is not that all Muslims are evil but that the so-called religion is, in that it preaches hatred and takes physical action on people who disagree with it, not unlike Ron Hubbard Jnr’s allegations about Scientology. The difference between Jim Jones and Islam is that Islam has almost a billion adherents and has achieved respectability within Muslim nations.

Throughout Daniel’s piece is this sense of things being Ok if we’d only be kind to the Muslims and all get on together, if only we didn’t let ourselves be manipulated into “hatred”. The suggestion is that all those articles are and all other scholarly articles are no more than a hate-fest.

Sorry but that is clearly not so. There is very great danger in our society, as in the days of the Moors in Spain but more subtly when an alien culture meant to dominate, consume and subsume is allowed to do so. It’s not unlike Chamberlain and Churchill. Sure Churchill was a warmonger and that war had been planned and ordered but at the eleventh hour, it wasn’t Chamberlain’s peace in our time which was needed but the means and preparedness to deal with the Nazi threat.

The time for Chamberlain was in Hitler’s early days.

One who addresses our current state in measured tones is Sultan Knish:

The left’s post-national identity is based on a secular political multiculturalism. Islam’s post-national identity is based on a religious theocratic multiculturalism. The left has heresies that it prosecutes as hate crimes and Islam has heresies that it prosecutes as blasphemy.

The consequences of their progressivism in undermining the current, more advanced, phase of human society is the restoration of reactionary social and political systems.

The left destroyed Western national identity and brought back the holy war, but due to Christian and Jewish secularism and Muslim immigration, instead of Catholics and Protestants fighting each other in Paris and London, it’s Muslims rioting in the streets and demanding an Islamic theocracy to rule them.

Labour admitted it flooded the country with immigrants to change the ethnic mix and to water down the country’s identity. This is also the EU’s desire and the EU’s desire is Germany’s desire and Germany has always wanted to control this country. That’s just a bit of history.

Muslims do not have a strong national identity. Their nations are a hodgepodge of military dictators, colonial leftovers and tribal alliances. Their societies are “multicultural” in the sense that they are composed of numerous hostile ethnic groups, tribes and families who are united only by a common religion. This unity is fragile, but it is the most common form of unity that they have and they value it far more than national identity.

To the Muslim, his nation is a fleeting thing, a historical accident by a colonial mapmaker digging up ancient names and drawing lines that cut across the lines of ethnic and tribal migrations, but his religion, though he understands very little of it, is a fine and great thing that has long preceded the nation and means far more to him than the nation does.

Even Muslims in moderate countries poll as identifying more with Islam than with a political faction or national identity. That is why what happened when Muslim democracy was unleashed on the Muslim World was completely inevitable. Muslims chose the one form of identity that they could agree on.

Muslims bridge multiculturalism through religion and they do not accept any form of national identity that is not based on religious unity. That is what the Arab Spring really meant.

Syria, the big sticking point in the Arab Spring, is the place where Islamic unity was impossible because of a split between Sunnis and Shiites, leading to a religious civil war. A similar civil war has been burning in Iraq for ages, occasionally suppressed, before flaring to life again. The successes of the Arab Spring were in countries like Egypt, where Sunni Islamists could count on the support of a majority of the population.

Now when those Muslims are shipped to Europe, America, Canada or Australia, they are expected to become Englishmen, Americans or Australians. But they can’t become any of those things because they were never really Pakistanis, Moroccans or Egyptians.

The Pakistani immigrant is a Muslim speaking one of Pakistan’s 80 languages and belonging to one of its major ethnic groups (unless he’s a descendant of the country’s African slaves). The facade of his national identity [is] just that.

Look at this one again:

The consequences of their progressivism in undermining the current, more advanced, phase of human society is the restoration of reactionary social and political systems.

Restoration of reactionary social and political systems.

Restoration of reactionary social and political systems – y-e-e-s-s.

Did you see the Catholic Church in Germany is demanding a tax be paid, on threat of excommunication? This is more manipulation, as Daniel points out. The net result is that those who hate Christianity will conflate it with Catholicism and those who hate Catholicism will see the spectre of mediaeval excommunication and theocracy again.

Whoever made this “fatwah” was no Christian because the only result can be to drive people from the church, which is precisely what the Bertelsmann elements and similar in Germany want. After all, Germany is the hotbed of the other side, whence most of the C20th troubles arose or were a result of, that mantle now taken on by Islam.

We are certainly being played one against the other – no argument there – but that doesn’t alter the fact that it is the 11th hour and it is no longer time for a Chamberlain. Nor is it time for a Churchill or the uninformed blogger. It is time for the informed bloggers, thousands of them, warning people to be alert, to have the candle burning ready.

Not to take any overt action at this time but just to keep things in mind and observe as things unfold. Time too to keep things in perspective, which is why Daniel’s reply needed to be posted.

10 comments for “Islam – the case for the defence

  1. Edward.
    September 26, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    Firstly OoL, I must say that was a fine post.

    Daniel? More likely Aziz or Sayeed – Biblical connotations and a little chiding irony is not beyond the minions of the “ideology of misanthropy”.
    Islam is not a religion, it does not preach peace, harmony and redemption through dedication to the care, protection and guidance towards charity, understanding, empathy and philanthropic good works.

    Islam, is a collective noun for hate, division, conquest and evil.

  2. mona
    September 26, 2012 at 9:45 pm

    Yes I keep a log on the saintly activities of Muslims,firstly Blair and the new Labour, yes they are Common Purpose, used Islam to divide Britain into the multi-ethno-cultural hell-holes, I can put up with Poles but there is something in me when I hear about Muslims want to scream I’ve had up to my eyeballs reading about their exploits.listening to the BBC World Service on the night of 27 Oct 2008 a report went like this,,,, A young girl aged 13 years old sent on a errand by her father was raped by several men, the girl Aisha Dhulow was buried up to her neck and stoned to death for adultery, that was in Kismayo Somalia. None of the afflictions of humanity are worse than its moral principles emanating from religius doctrines which are pure invention.

  3. Greg Tingey
    September 27, 2012 at 8:13 am

    This is all cods.

    Isalm is a big religion.
    All religions kill, enslave, torture, lie & blackmail.
    Yes, there will be many, possibly even a majority who follow A “religion of peace” ( Sufi & Quakers are classic examples) but hey will almost always be, if not out-voted, & certainly out-controlled by the manipulators and bullies who control religions, all religions.
    Think of the contemporary bastards of pope PiusV & Jean Calvin – both urging or actually ensuring their “enemies” were murdered.

    The “recital” almost makes a horrible sort of sense, if one reads it, whilst imagining that it is being ranted out by Ian Paisley at the height of his powers.

    And, of course, it is a (deliberate?) mis-translation.

    “islam” means SUBMISSION.
    Supposedly to the “will of god”, i.e. their version of the BSF called allah, but big deal.
    Actually, it means following the murderous, lying orders of whichever bastard is actually in control – like the two I mentioned above.

    • September 27, 2012 at 2:51 pm

      Again you are judging chalk and cheese, what Christianity did 400+ years ago has no relation to what Islam does today. The two religions are not really comparable.

      • Greg Tingey
        September 27, 2012 at 5:05 pm

        Oh dear
        How often do I have to remind you that islam is 622 years behind christianity, so what christianity did (& would love to do agaim if they thought they could get away with it) then and islam now are very relevant.

        Comparison, well, one is a collection of barbaric (especially in the OT) Bronze-Age goatherders’ myths, & the other is a cloolection of barbaric Dark-Ages camelherders’ myths.
        Equally sods, equally lying, equally unpleasant.

        • September 27, 2012 at 7:35 pm

          The fact that Islam is 622 years behind Christianity is neither here nor there, just a fallacious argument without facts to try and bolster a weak argument. There will be no islamic reformation, because there cannot be an islamic reformation. Muslims are not allowed to interpret the quran in the same way that Christians are as written for a time and a place.
          You have no evidence at all that Islam can or will change in the way that Christianity has and does.

          • Greg Tingey
            September 28, 2012 at 8:02 am

            “Muslims are not allowed to interpret the koran”

            Errr… what about the Hadith, then?
            Different sects of islam use different selections from or of the hadith …
            Islam has changed many times in the past … the variants are called: Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Ahmahdi (now deemed to be vile heretics & non-muslims by others), Ismaili, Alawi, etc ….
            All different are they not?
            Which shows, as usual, that a believer knows less than an atheist about comparitive religion.
            Please go back to the beginning, and start reading?

            Also, your obvious “MY RELIGION IS BETTER!” prejudices are showing – and you are just as wrong as the muslims, because there is no BSF – got it yet?

            • September 28, 2012 at 3:19 pm

              And just what is my religion? Have a guess, bet you can’t tell me.
              The hadiths were written after the Death of Muhammed, they have not been added too in 1200 years. So again your arguments are utterly fallacious. Islam cannot change because the intepretation of its book is limited by a series of texts written by 7th century barbarians. There will be no Luther for islam, if one were to appear he’d be dead within days for daring to change their truth.

  4. Furor Teutonicus
    September 27, 2012 at 10:37 am

    XX Apparently It is working as more people of the West are perceiving Muslims negatively.XX

    The fact that 80% of the Berlin prison population are muslim, is NOT a “perception”.

    XX Did you see the Catholic Church in Germany is demanding a tax be paid, on threat of excommunication? XX

    NOT quite. What they are saying is, if you withdraw from “Kirchensteuer” *, a right every German has not to have his pay packet robbed to fund the “religion” hobby, then they can no longer be considered a member of the church.

    What is “unfair” about that?

    * Kirchensteuer. Automatically taken from your pay, to finance whichever “Church” you are registered as a “member” of. This registration WAS automatic at birth. Now parents are given the choice of saying “non” when asked “religion”.

    It is also possible to go to the local administration court, and have your name removed from the “register”.

  5. Penseivat
    September 29, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    A very interesting blog but if I may refer to the comments by Greg and Quiet Man. To argue over religion is like shouting “My pretend, mythical and unseen higher authority is better than your pretend, mythical and unseen higher authority!” A sort of celestial “My Dad’s bigger than your Dad.”
    As long as you have organised religion, and I include cults such as Scientology, The Moonies and Islam, then you are going to have arguments.
    Islam, at roughly 600 years behind the formation of Christianity is at the stage that Christianity was 600 years ago. To suggest that that is irrelevent is not really looking at the bigger picture. My oldest grandson is 12 years older than my youngest, who is just starting to learn to walk, i.e. he is at the stage my oldest grandson was 11 years ago. However, he will grow and learn to walk and then run. Christianity learnt to walk and then run, metaphorically. Hopefully, Islam will do the same. However, the various leaders of the Christian churches changed the rules so many times over the years that the current Christian religions bear little resemblance to the older ones – not necessarily a bad thing. Islam scholars, though, loudly proclaim that the Koran contains the words of God and therefore cannot be changed – interpreted differently by leaders of various offshoots, but not changed. That is the danger that may prevent Islam from learning to walk and then run.

Comments are closed.