Doc's Talk: Islam 2.0: Coexistence

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Islam 2.0: Coexistence

William A. Levinson

"Islamophobia" suggests a paranoid and irrational fear of Muslims and Islam. The last ideology that proclaimed openly its right and destiny to rule the world, however, caused the deaths of more than 40 million people (including 7 million of its own) before it was finally stopped in 1945. Statements like "Today Germany, tomorrow the world" and "Islam will rule the world by the grace of Allah" must therefore be taken seriously.

Who is the Enemy: Militant Islam or Islam as a Whole?

Ann Barnhardt's "A Peaceful Neo-Nazi" contends that "[t]here is no more 'moderate Islam' than there is 'moderate Nazism.'" The article quotes Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as follows: "There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's it." Turkey is among the world's most advanced Muslim-majority nations, so this reinforces the position that there is no such thing as moderate Islam.

Paul Myron Anthony Linebarger's Psychological Warfare warns, however, that it is generally bad policy to define the enemy too widely. If we extend this definition to the opposing rank and file, we reinforce its determination to fight instead of surrendering, mutinying, or deserting as we would like it to do. he most effective psychological warfare directs hatred and contempt only at the enemy leaders while it portrays their followers as pawns of the leaders' personal agendas and ambitions. The instant the followers conclude that their organization, whether it be a religion, political party, or government, is serving itself at their expense, the end of that organization is in sight. That is exactly the manner in which the anti-Second Amendment Million Mom March was destroyed as an organization in 2000; columnist J.R. Labbe exposed its misuse of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt donations to support candidates for political office. We personally brought the MMM Web pages in question to Labbe's attention.

PsyWar that breaks the bond of trust and commitment between leaders and followers is therefore totally devastating, but its success requires that the practitioner identify and relate to the Propaganda Man.

Who is the Propaganda Man?

Linebarger defines the Propaganda Man as the hypothetical audience we wish to persuade. It is vital to identify and relate to him, as shown by the difference between injunctions to "surrender" and "cease resistance." The difference to Japanese soldiers was literally one of life or death; those who were offered "surrender passes" treated them as insults and fought to the death, but they were often willing to "cease honorable resistance" instead.

A public relations war against Islamic aggression must consider (1) the rank-and-file Muslim whom we wish to lead away from jihad and (2) fellow infidels whom we want to fight Islamic aggression. If we define all Muslims as enemies, we leave Muslims with no way to walk away from the enemy camp without becoming apostates, atheists, kafirs, or infidels -- a status to which many might prefer death. We must instead provide a palatable means for Muslims to "cease honorable resistance."

Islam 2.0: Ceasing Honorable Resistance

Jesus resolved the conflict between state and religion by saying to render to Caesar that which was Caesar's and to God that which was God's. The kingdom of Jesus (or Jehovah, or Brahma depending on one's faith) is not of this world; England's Henry V and Prussia's Frederick William I elaborated that every subject owed his duty to the State but eternal salvation was between the subject and God.

We will define Islam that conforms to this arrangement as Islam 2.0 in contrast to Islam 1.0, the unevolved and violent ideology that Mohammad invented to unite his followers. We explain to the rank-and-file Muslim that, no matter how badly ancient Hebrews and medieval Christians behaved as described by the Old Testament and historical records, respectively, modern Jews and Christians do not act that way. The ancient Hebrews may have had to "smite" their neighbors to flourish or even survive, and Mohammad's followers might have had to do so as well. Nobody has to behave this way in the 21st century, though, and behavior that worked for the ummah or Muslim community in the Dark Ages works against its interests today.

To this we can add that Islam 2.0 is genuine submission to the will of God as reflected by Natural Law (John Locke) or the Constitution of the Universe (Henry Ford). Islam 2.0 therefore gives the Muslim Propaganda Man a place to go, and a place to stay if he has already assimilated into a civilized society. Those whom the Islam 1.0 shoe fits know who they are, and we must denounce them as hostis humani generis: enemies of all Humanity.

Islam's Declaration of War on Civilization

Islam 1.0's division of the world into the Dar al-Islam (House of Submission or House of Peace) and the Dar al-Harb (House of War, the non-Islamic world, including the wrong kinds of Muslims such as Sunnis or Shiites, depending on who defines Islam) is a declaration of war on our society by definition. To this we add specific examples of Islamic aggression:

Anjem Choudary has declared war on the United States by calling upon Muslims to overthrow the Constitution and replace it with Sharia law.
Ukrainian teenager Katya Koren was recently stoned to death, allegedly by three Muslim youths who did not like the idea that she had competed in a beauty pageant.
Immigrant youths have used Islamm as an excuse to commit gang-rape, which they call tournantes or "taking turns" in France.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference sanctions criminal domestic violence.
"Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah, considered one of the Islamic Republic's most radical clerics, issued a religious edict on his website whereby suicide attacks are not only legitimate but are a must for every Muslim." He is in no hurry to complete this religious obligation himself, though, which leaves what he calls Islam wide open to the most devastating PsyWar methods.
Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, the United Kingdom's most senior Muslim cleric, said it is acceptable to rape women who do not cover their heads with sacks. He compared such women to "uncovered meat" that cats were free to eat, and added that women who wore hijabs (veils) and stayed at home did not have to worry about rape.
Many European countries have passed so-called hate crime laws to punish those who speak out about these outrages. Geert Wilders is currently being prosecuted under laws of this nature. Denmark recently convicted Lars Hedegaard of "racist statements" for his criticism of incestuous rape in Islamic society.

Those who enact and enforce these speech codes must be regarded as Quislings who collaborate with their countries' domestic and possibly foreign enemies. They are also enablers of criminal violence such as rape because suppression of a crime's discussion protects and encourages the criminals. If Europe has not learned anything from the last time its residents were punished for speaking out about a rising tide of evil and tyranny, Americans must speak for them -- and we will do so with willful and intentional contempt for the European speech codes in question.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/06/islam_20_coexistence.html at June 15, 2011 - 11:13:22 PM CDT

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk