Conflicted We Stand About Islam -- But We Don't Have To

When discussing Islam it seems as if the perspectives we're stuck with are those of the mink-wearer -- vs. the mink. Certainly these two perspectives cannot be reconciled. So it seems with the nature of Islam. Even when we boot irrational arguments from the room, many legitimate but diametrically opposed arguments remain standing. The cognitive dissonance of this reality can be enjoyed by viewing any of the dozens of YouTube video debates between articulate, polished, accomplished and prominent cleric apologists for Islam, and articulate, polished, accomplished and prominent apologists for anti-Islamic theses. Following my prior article, "Why I'm an IslamoVERYphobe," I discovered reader Commentary -- on both sides of the Islam issue -- that was illuminating (and a little humbling). There were the straightforward calls to more precise language (Ex. "...phobe" being inaccurate because fear of Islam is not unreasonable; Dark Ages as imprecise (true -- but I liked the visual appeal of "Dark..."). Also too, there were the calls for sources and the need to anchor allegations to estimable Islamic Commentary.

What is Islam -- Really?

It struck me that the entire "What is Islam -- Really?" Enterprise revolves in orbit around the light of Epistemology, the study of how we know what we know and how likely it is (or is not) that what we think we know is accurate. Further, still, what evidence can we use to decide the issue and how can we be sure the evidence is genuine, true, and that our perception of the evidence is accurate. Finally, looking about and accepting we live in a political universe, how do we effectively ignore all those forces seeking to co-opt and obfuscate the process? And, again, all this flailing about with ideas and conjecture would consume merely one or two class periods of Rhetoric at Exeter Academy other than for the fact people are dying, and will keep dying, unless and until we figure this out. And, to whatever extent we are already in the grip of a Cold War, or, rather a "Pre-War" seeking to limit our Constitutional Rights and the rights to public discourse, we must figure all this out all the faster. The Dialogue about "What Is Islam and What Does It Mean for Us?" is of palpable importance, if we care to survive. Many nations before us, much older nations, the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Byzantines, Persians, Indians, Indonesians, failed at this task, and were conquered -- by Islam -- and they remain conquered to this very day. There is clearly something very special about Islam, even if not estimable. It has been, and can be again, an irresistible conquering world power, and it has and can be again, a dominating, trans-national, trans-continental, persistent, indelible and pre-eminent cultural power, capable of laying waste any competing culture or religion. Islam is peerless in this. Of course, this is great if you're a Muslim. It sucks pretty badly if you are not. What are the main protagonists in the Debate about Islam? Many:

THE ESTABLISHMENT/MEDIA:

• The allegation/presumption Islam is a religion of Peace.
• The allegation/presumption Islam is "not related" to acts of terror committed by Muslims who exclaim -- over and over -- their acts of terror are based upon Islam
• The allegation/presumption Islam harbors no designs upon Western civilization

MOST COMMON MUSLIM NEWS COMMENTATORS, CAIR REPRESENTATIVES, ETC.:

The three above plus the allegations/presumptions Islam:

• Respects all other religions, all people, national sovereignty, the rights of women, the free expression of ideas, gay rights and lifestyles, and cuddly teddy bears (sorry, couldn't resist)
• Is defined by ABROGATED Qur'anic verses
• Is NOT defined by the most recent Qur'anic verses that ABROGATED the older ones
• And what's ABROGATION got to do with it anyway?; I have my ABROGATION and you have yours; there is no compulsion in ABROGATION
• Ignore those suffocating tendrils of TAQIYA slipping into the room. Well, yes, there are five different kinds of Sacred Deception ordered by the Qur'an -- yes -- we admit it -- five kinds -- pretty much a lie for every hour of the day every day of the year, or more
• And yes, you can trust us. Why would we lie?
• How dare you accuse us of lying? Even though our religion tells us to -- especially to rubes like you.
• No, the doctrine of TAQIYA does not mean dialogue with us is essentially a waste of time and oxygen.
• Wait! That verse you're quoting from the Qur'an is....drumroll.....and closed captioned for the hearing impaired OUT OF CONTEXT! Audience applause.
• OUT OF CONTEXT OUT OF CONTEXT OUT OF CONTEXT
• Well, no, I guess it's not out of context for some of that stuff below, but we'll say it is anyway because the home audience isn't paying much attention.

OK, but even if you've eaten our lunch over the sure-thing OUT OF CONTEXT, you still can't rest because we're going to say you can't possibly understand the verse(es) you're quoting because:

• It can only be understood by a Muslim
• by a Muslim scholar
• by a Muslim cleric
• because we cannot read Arabic
• because we cannot read classical Arabic
• because we're reading from an inferior translation
• because we're not considering the other foundational texts of Islam, such as the Hadith or the Commentaries.

NOW, we turn to the allegations/presumptions of the alarmed citizenry about the nature of Islam:

• Most Muslims are nice and safe human beings and intend us Westerners no harm (even John Travolta)
• Most Muslims eschew terrorism, terrorists, or stepping on ants.
• Most Western Muslims are contributing members of Society and part of what makes our country, in particular, great (and they are)
• There is NO WAY WHATSOEVER to determine* (who is a nice/safe Muslim and who is not, who is planning physical Jihad or participating in the Muslim Brotherhood's "Project" of Civilizational Jihad (see Taqiya above). *On acquaintance, friendship, or speech.
• Sorry, if Taqiya is taken seriously, THERE IS JUST NO WAY. This is not fair but it's just the way it is.
• The Qur'an's VIOLENCE VERSES are PRESCRIPTIVE in nature, i.e. exhort the believer in the here and now to GO OUT THERE AND DO IT!
• Old Testament VIOLENCE VERSES, equally disgusting, are DESCRIPTIVE, i.e. describing what God told Man to do (kill everyone in Jericho, etc.) and what Man did, but do NOT direct followers today to go out and do such things.
• Consequently there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between Qur'anic and Old Testament Violence Verses.

EASY ONE: Here we have a series of logical steps; perhaps boring; buckle in:

• Given the Qur'an contains about 109 VIOLENCE VERSES compelling believers to commit physical jihad when possible, and civilization jihad otherwise, and
• Given disagreement exists about WHICH verses these are, HOW POTENT they are (abrogated or not or whatever), HOW CREDIBLE they are (which cleric, or commentator, or school of thoughts believes this or that about such verses), and how VALID and/or countervailing other PEACEFUL verses are, and whether there exists a dual nature to the Qur'an, Meccan earlier and Medinan later, peaceful earlier and warlike later, and
• Given that TV pundit clerics repeat ad nauseum the same tired counterpoints (see above) to any argument sneaking through the commentator,

WHAT CAN BE THE UTILITY OF CONTINUING TO DANCE THIS KIND OF DANCE?

To continue: Given that everyone does admit there are many VIOLENCE VERSES in the Qur'an and almost as many admit they are PRESCRIPTIVE, and Given that the Qur'an is the basic text for the 1.4 billion Muslims in the world (or 1.2 or 1.6, etc.), and Given the Qur'an is believed by Muslims to be the EXACT word of God, no ifs, ands, or buts, and Given there are Muslims who can be counted upon (as has been the case since the year 623 AD) to interpret these verses to mean to be good Muslims they should:

1. Find the unbeliever
2. Strike him on the neck (decapitate him)
3. Cut off his arm and foot on the other side,
4. Subdue him until he pays the "protection tax" (Jizzia) and feels himself subdued
5. Should treat equally only with Muslims "the best of peoples," and abuse/hold in contempt non-believers, who Allah has defined as "the vilest of creatures," and unworthy of any moral equivalency or rights compared to the Muslim
6. Enslave he and his family
7. Force his wives and daughters into sex slavery
8. Steal all his stuff

AND if they are fortunate enough to die in battle, while doing all these things, they are promised the only sure path to Heaven for any Muslim, AND, given the integral doctrine of Taqiya it is impossible to determine whether the nudge in the back is the hand of a smiling Muslim friend or the dagger of a smiling Muslim friend (to make the case), and Given we know with certainty such Muslims exist (they tell us they do), and Given that with just as much certainty we know there are Muslims who serve as the support network for these as well, (money, intelligence, direct and indirect support, i.e. aid and comfort to the enemy, as well as Informational and civilization jihad (a la the Muslim Brotherhood Project) and Given all this conditional knowledge we understand there is a probability from zero to 1.0, but a probability likely far greater than zero, that if we do not address the above findings effectively, many more people will die, and much of Western Civilization will cease to exist. And, again:

• We know the Islamic literature prescribes violence to unbelievers.
• We know a significant number of Muslims ascribe to this violence (see Gallup and Pew polling), validate and support it, and many actually carry it out, and
• We know these Muslims are CLEAR in their claims they are wreaking violence upon unbelievers BECAUSE of their interpretation of prescriptions for violence found in Islamic texts, and
• We also know the numbers of such Muslims will always be unknown and unknowable, including clerics, believers, community leaders, etc., and
• We know because of Taqiya, i.e. Sacred Deception, we will never know with certainty who these Muslims are, and
• We know the percentage of the 1.5 billion Muslims who believe like those above pose a clear and present danger to the U.S. and Western countries (consider, 1% would mean 15 million terrorists, for all intents and purposes, worldwide -- and it only takes a few to kill more people than at Pearl Harbor), and

THEREFORE, it is incumbent upon all of us, especially our leaders, to articulate these items, with regularity, so no longer can we lose sight of at least those things we know, and THEREFORE it is incumbent upon all of us, especially our leaders, to fashion plans, contingencies and policies consistent with what we already know (the above) in spite of what we do not know (for example -- oh my God -- screening passengers according to increased likelihood of terror/supporter profile -- oh my God). Another example: Permitting our federal agents to receive training in the definitive nature of the Islamic threat against the U.S. -- by proven trainers, rather than the treasonous elimination of such trainers in preference for those of Hamas-affiliated and Muslim Brotherhood founded CAIR (or perhaps this merely requires termination of the "secret" Muslim Convert head of the CIA, i.e. John Brennan). Example: Official public policy of the U.S. declaring Islamic terror when it occurs -- to be Islamic -- at least insofar as the terrorist claim they are. We need not be stuck in the weeds any longer. We need not ever again trifle with claims of "wrong CONTEXT," or "wrong TRANSLATION" or "not the Arabic edition" or the "Verses don't really say that or don't mean what they say." No longer must we go round the mulberry bush endlessly interviewing Islam's apologists since we already know about the Allah-commanded doctrine of "Sacred Lying," and the consequent impossibility of telling whether a Muslim is telling the truth or not about the matters at hand. No longer do we have to trifle with any of this sort of poppycock that plays out on our TV screens night after night. No longer must we refrain throwing rotten tomatoes, or eggs or ten day old milk at any public official who EVER EVER EVER EVER again utters the phrase, "Islam is a religion of peace." But, of course, ever shall we declare the majority of Muslims are wonderful, upstanding, safe individuals contributing to society every day. But....this certainly does not justify our failing to keep our wits about us, or failing to hold our Neville Chamberlain look-alike public officials accountable. The big question now, is, given we know all these things (and HAD BETTER KEEP ON KNOWING THEM), what are we to do? Are we to lock up all Muslims because of the few invisible bad apples? Of course not. Are we to preclude all Muslims from flights? Of course not. Should we reinstate the sanity of profiling? Likely. But what else should we do, now that we're willing to leave the land of wishful thinking, unicorns and puppies? From this point forward, I believe public discourse can bring us the realistic and prudent solutions we need. But this is only possible, however, IF we start from this point and NEVER AGAIN put up with the caterwauling about CONTEXT or theological debates, or THE 'REAL' MEANING, or failing to call Islamic terrorists ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, or any of the other nonsense outlined above. Our fallen heroes, our country, and our civilization deserve no less, no less than our best efforts and no less than our best sense.