T. Belman. I will be posting each of the Parts at the rate of one a day. These articles written by VIPs and renowned scholars devastate Islam more comprehensively than anything in print. It is intended that this series come to the attention of Trump’s committee to Study Islamic Terrorism, when formed.
By Prof. Paul Eidelberg, President, Israel-America Renaissance Institute, Jerusalem and Philadelphia
CONTENTS
Part I. Introduction
Part II. Identifying the Enemy
Part III. A Former Muslim Shows How to Combat the Enemy
Part IV. An Insider’s View of ‘Moderate’ Muslims
Part V. Beyond Multicultural Relativism
Part VI. The Theological Basis of Today’s Crisis
Part VII. Islamophobia: Facts and Fictions
Part VIII. Islamic Bellicosity and Blood Lust
Part IX. Blood Lust (cont’d)
Part X. Iran and Necrophelia
Part XI. Islamic Imperialism
Part XII. Islam: A Cult of Hatred, Especially of Jews
Part I. Introduction
That Muslims have exceeded the depravity of Nazis by using their own children as human bombs tends to hinder objective and comprehensive analysis of Islam. This essay will provide a thoroughly documented, interdisciplinary, transnational, and multiracial study of Islam. Any reader whose intellect has not succumbed to prejudice or political correctness, and is capable of thinking for himself, will see what eminent scholars throughout the ages and across the globe have seen, namely, that Islam is a form of paganism that sanctifies evil—and this is does in the name of a monotheistic theology that claims to be the “final revelation.”[i]
We all see that Islam is a cauldron of murderous hatred. We are no longer shocked by the fact that Muslims hate not only non-Muslims but other Muslims. It is common knowledge that Sunnis and Shiites hate each other, that both abhor Sufi Muslims as well as other Islamic sects. True, something comparable to this may also be said of certain Christian sects especially before the Reformation—and we dare not forget that Christians slaughtered Jews down through the centuries. But as Dr. Michael Ledeen has documented, and as will presently be seen, Islam is unique in that its love of death or necrophilia remains an ineluctable aspect of its theology.
Moreover, despite the murderous hatred Muslim sectarians display toward each other, we need to understand the character of their supreme role-model and prophet, Mohammad, who purportedly taught his followers the Quran, Islam’s Holy Scripture. We need to transcend vacuous tolerance, and we dare not yield to the timidity that poses as “moderation” in discussing Islam. Moderation in defense of freedom is not a virtue. Accordingly:
- We deplore the fact that Islam’s cult of hatred and love of death is downplayed by scholars who are reluctant or incapable of revealing the theological underpinning of this hatred magnified by necrophilia. Indeed, scholars in the West are understandably reluctant to say anything pejorative of a creed that poses as a worldwide monotheistic religion. We can no longer afford this reticence. We are confronted by an enemy with global ambitions. Weapons of mass destruction are now available to this enemy, and Muslim leaders have expressed with zeal a readiness to use these instruments of death and destruction. Our survival requires us to expose and confront the ugly truths about this enemy.
- We need to understand why Muslims, whether they are Arabs in Saudi Arabia or Persians in Iran, hate Americans and Jews as well as each other. This hatred is horrifying. It animates an uncertain but strategically significant percentage of the estimated 1.5 billion Muslims on planet earth!
- Although Islam may also be called an “ideology,” we should not succumb to the timidity of scholars who obscure the crucial fact that this so-called ideology is driven by a theologically magnified hatred, especially of Judeo-Christian civilization. We deem it awesome and not a little stupefying that so vast number people who worship Allah can harbor so much murderous hatred, a number more than ten times the population of Nazi Germany—surely enough to commit genocide? This horrendous phenomenon is a terrible reflection on what civilized people naively call a monotheistic religion. To clarify this theological mystery in a forthright and compelling manner, we must not be deterred by the unpleasant consequences that may arise from a candid and critical study of Islam.
- Despite the murderous hatred Muslim sects display toward each other, we need to understand the character of their supreme role-model and prophet, Mohammad, the author of their holy scripture, the Quran. We need to transcend vacuous tolerance of the liberal democratic mind, and we dare not yield to the timidity that poses as “moderation” in discussing Islam.
Is it any wonder that serious people in the West see in Islam an irremediable threat? On the other hand, is it any wonder that few Western scholars and statesmen display the candor and courage to discuss the religious or theological nature of this threat? What irony! The threat is from an enemy that defines us as the enemy, while we sincerely profess to be truly benevolent and peace loving! Our benevolence is obvious. We are even reluctant to call our enemy an “enemy,” let alone our sworn and implacable enemy, lest we insinuate that this enemy is evil. is Islam is We hesitate to use any pejorative language to describe our enemy—not only because we fear it will antagonize him and prompt him to more violence, but also because we live in a morally neutral or non-judgmental age that avoids calling an openly declared enemy “evil”—even one who gleefully screams “Death to America” and vows to “wipe Israel off the map.”! Some observers say that the liberal and social democracies of the West are suffering from a mental disorder.[ii] Let me try to explain.
Whether conscious of it or not, people in the West have been subtly and profoundly influenced by the moral and cultural relativism that permeates all levels of education in the free world. For more than a hundred years we have been indoctrinated by the ethical neutrality of the social sciences and humanities. Our institutions of higher education have taught countless opinion makers and policy makers that there are no rational or objective standards regarding right and wrong, good and bad. This cynicism inhibits us from calling any moral or religious doctrine pernicious. Cynics would have us believe that describing any doctrine as evil is equivalent to calling someone’s preference for a particular flavor of ice cream evil. It’s all a matter of personal taste—nothing to get upset about, let alone resort to violence.
And so it is with religion. Your religious preference has no more validity than your preference for vanilla or chocolate ice cream. The conflicts people wage over this or that religion or ideology is irrational. If everyone understood that there are no objective moral or religious truths, hence, that no way of life is intrinsically superior to any other, war would be a thing of the past. Tolerance and peace would rein on earth.
This naive relativism ignores a crucial fact: some men like to lord it over others, regardless of whether they are believers, agnostics, or atheists. But what is more: given two antagonists—one a moral relativist, the other a moral absolutist, then, all other things being equal, the absolutist is more likely to persevere and win in any protracted conflict. It is doubtful that the Allied Powers in the Second World War would have conquered Nazi Germany had they not believed that Nazism is evil, and that freedom or liberal democracy is worth fighting and dying for.
This is precisely the psychological state of affairs affecting the conflict between Islam and the United States, Islam and Israel, Islam and the West, as well as Islam and the rest all that is not—and this conflict began ages before 9/11. Muslims believe in the absolute righteousness of their cause, and conversely that Liberal Democracy is unadulterated evil. This moral disparity or asymmetry between Islam and the West is precisely why the more powerful United States, whose decision makers have been influenced and emasculated by multicultural relativism, is retreating from the Middle East, just as it retreated from Communist-led North Vietnam, a tenth-rate military power. But mark this well: as in the 1960s, American colleges and universities are not only steeped in multicultural relativism, as I have shown in an essay published in the Congressional Record,[iii] but we now behold academics professing outright anti-Americanism!
What does this portend? The bellicosity of the enemy is transparent. He harbors a 1,400 year-old military heritage. His mentality is permeated and disciplined by this heritage. His Arab-Islamic mind abhors infidels, and he is not reluctant to use weapons of mass murder. It should be obvious that the growing power of Iran in the oil-rich Persian Gulf and the expansion of the Muslim Brotherhood on the one hand, and America’s retreat from the Middle East and European pacifism on the other, indicate that our enemy is winning what can only be called a World War. What is most remarkable, however, is that America has yet to define the enemy!
It would be easy to do this if Islam was an atheistic and geographically-defined regime like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. But our enemy poses as a worldwide monotheistic religion, and here is where Islam departs from other cultures that exalt war. Islam, which should be credited for having eliminated idolatry in Asia and Africa, is a religion whose prophet forms an integral part of the faith. As I have elsewhere written, it is not sufficient to believe in the Scriptures of such prophets or Messengers but in the Messengers themselves.
This is another reason why Muslims have wielded the sword to spread the faith and to send “infidels” to eternal rest. Compare the militant religion of the Hindus, another numerous people. The Hindus worship Shiva, the god of destruction. Their sacred text, the Bhagavid Gita, exalts war. Rulers, who necessarily come from the warrior caste, are obliged to discipline their subjects to wage aggressive wars against neighboring states whenever feasible. As one writer says, “Peace emerges from India’s literature and history either as stagnation, or as a time for plotting military action, or as a ruse of war meant to induce somnolence and moral disarmament in enemy ranks.”[iv] Add Buddhism. Although Buddhism arose in protest against the Hindu caste system, it did not alter the prevailing exaltation of war and peace. In Japan, Zen Buddhism combined with Shintoism to establish the martial tradition (innocuously portrayed in the theatrical West). Throughout Southeast Asia warfare has been accepted as the natural expression of the religious or political order. Much the same may be said of all of the regions of sub-Saharan Africa.[v] But it is in China that the science of war achieved perfection. The martial classics of China exhort rulers to make their people “delight in war” and to expand the frontiers of the state. “It is a misfortune for a prosperous country not to be at war; for in peacetime it will breed … the cultivation of goodness, filial piety and respect for elders, detraction of war and shame at taking part in it.”[vi]
But we were talking of Islam, which, unlike those just mentioned, is deemed a monotheistic religion. And even though many of us are not religious, we tend to believe that, notwithstanding the wars Christian monotheists engaged in the past, the participants in these wars were actually violating their sacred creeds or scriptures. In other words, we want to believe that religion—at least monotheism—is basically benevolent and peace-loving; and that even though history manifests bloody examples to the contrary, we incline to the idea that these wars may be attributed—stated simply—to other (1) intellectual causes, (2) moral causes, or (3) systemic causes, meaning, the international system of sovereign states. The first may involve the miscalculations of statesmen regarding the interests of their respective countries. The second may involve the lust for power and dominion. The third may involve, as indicated, the nation-state system itself, which tends to intensify and magnify international conflict. Unfortunately, these considerations are only tangential to the core issues of this essay. We need to understand the irremediable nature of Islam and why the bellicosity of this 1,400-year ideology constitutes a lethal threat to the moral and theological foundations of the Judeo-Christian heritage, the heart of Western Civilization.
[i] See Kenneth Hart Green, “Leo Strauss’ Challenge to Emil Fackenheim: Heidegger, Radical Historicism, and Diabolical Evil,” in S. Portnoff, J. A. Diamond, and M.D. Yaffe, Emil L. Fackenheim: Philosopher, Theologian, Jew, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2008). For a refutation of Islamic supremacism—understood as the “final revelation”— see Paul Eidelberg, Toward a Renaissance of Israel and America: The Political Theology of Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh (Springdale, AR: Lightcatcher Books, 2009), Preface.
[ii] See Paul Eidelberg, A Political Scientist in Israel: From Athens to Jerusalem (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2010), ch. 6, a landmark essay on “demophrenia,” which offers a logical and psychological analysis of the most serious mental disorder of our times, virtually unrecognized because it is rooted in university-bred doctrine moral relativism, which permeates and emasculates the mentality of democracy’s opinion makes and decision makers.
[iii] “The Crisis of Our Times,” Congressional Record, Senate, July 31, 1968, E.7150-E.7157
[iv] See Adda B. Boseman, “The Nuclear Freeze Movement: Conflicting More and Political Perspectives on War and Its Relation to Peace,” Conflict 5:4 (1985), 274.
[v] Ibid., 274-275, 280.
[vi] Ibid., 277.
Please send a link to Condoleezza Rice, a great admirer of the religion of peace, tolerance and love.