I just got done watching the only real hour of news on TV. That's right: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Stephen Colbert's guest tonight was scholar Sam Harris. His book The End of Faith is something that changed my worldview. I'd felt something out of place for a long, long time, and Mr. Harris put my discomfort into words.
The End of Faith has a simple premise: Religious faith, in all it's various denominations, is destroying the world. With precise research, Mr. Harris puts together a truly frightening picture of the current global picture. His research, combined with his thorough education in science and religion, should terrify you. It should honestly terrify anyone that has picked up his book. What I don't understand is that the cover proclaims it a "New York Times Bestseller". If this is indeed true, what the fuck are the millions of people who bought it doing? If America is 83% Christian (as the book states), what are all these Christians doing with his book? Propping up one of Ann Coulter's books with it?
This book has to have changed minds; if not changed minds, at least infuriated people and rattled the base of their faiths. To my four longtime readers, please, PLEASE pick this book up and spread the word. It's a brilliantly cogent argument against a concept that the majority of earth's population embrace in one form or another. We may not be ready to admit it yet, but faith is exactly what is killing said population. The End of Faith reveals not only how religion is murderously out of control, but offers the first steps to a solution.
I have never seen Stephen Colbert set a guest up so magnificently, nor let one speak for so long uninterrupted. He was just lobbing the ball over the net for Mr. Harris to smash back. This man is not a knee-jerk liberal or a wild reactionary. He was educated at Stanford and has studied most of the world's spiritual traditions for the past twenty years. Pretty soon, he'll have his doctorate in neuroscience, specifically, the neural correlations of faith and disbelief.
The world isn't ready for the ideas in this book. It's up to us to make it ready. As George Bush's executive right wing council shoves God down the world's throat, we few need to stand up. If we are going to be the Opposition, then we must educate ourselves so we can help others learn to stand beside us.
The Opposition. That has a nice ring to it. Come on, folks; Sam Harris can't do it all by himself.
Wake up and resist.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Thursday, April 20, 2006
As-Salamu Alaykum
Someone said something stupid in the paper today and I feel like dragging all of you into it. This was in the Lexington Herald-Leader, in the Op-Ed section:
"There have been many insults to Muslims in the newspaper lately. As an American convert to Islam, I'd like to share a few points. Each religion throughout history has had its share of fanatics who do abhorrent acts.
"In modern times, there is the news regarding some Catholic priests. Should we view all Catholics as child molesters?
"Muslims blow up other Muslims and destroy mosques; do these sound like the acts of real Muslims? Those few, who use Islam for their own political goals, don't represent the millions of normal, civil Muslims. Catholics and Protestants fighting in Ireland don't make their religions bad; it's the people who are fighting.
"Many Muslims misquote the Qur'an, but this trick could be done to any holy manuscript.
"Muslims throughout history have lived in peace with Jews and Christians, as evident by the churches and synagogues still standing for centuries and the 15 million who live in Arab countries today. Muslim Web sites, scholars and organizations have condemned terrorism, but that doesn't make for spicy news for most Western media outlets.
"Discover true Islam by reading the Qur'an, reading books by Muslim scholars, or visiting our mosques. Find out why many convert to Islam; for the beauty and truth in it, not for what is on the news."
This was written by a lady in Kentucky who has converted to Islam. She's tired of all the Muslim-hatin and determined to do something about it. Unfortunately, she knows nothing at all about her faith.
As I take you through various refutations of the points above, please remember one thing: THE QUR'AN IS THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD. It is perfect. It came straight from Allah to his prophet Muhammad and was written down to be forever inviolate and immutable. It will never change or modernize in any way because it is the precise expression of God's will. Progress will never touch it and moderation will never dull its edge. However, the Qur'an is arranged loosely around the order in which prophecies were revealed to Muhammad. Mandates that come later in the book, that seem to directly contravene earlier guidelines given by Allah, are the ones that are to be followed. Even modern scholars of Islam agree that Allah modified several key points later on in the Qur'an, and these later teachings are allowed to vitiate the earlier ones.
First, and foremost, Islam regards women as property. There is no way to mitigate this viewpoint; it is absolutely set in stone. For a Western woman, a woman with infinite opportunities and choices to decide to become a Muslim is akin to Jesus becoming a Satanist. Rarely are two things more opposed than women and Islam. Please allow me to elucidate with examples from the Qur'an (and not some local, white boy version; my translation was done by a devout Muslim, a born and bred Middle Easterner):
"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them first, next refuse to share their beds, and last beat them lightly; but if they return to obedience, do not seek against them means of annoyance." (Qur'an 4:34)
The woman is inferior, and is to be ruled by her man. The man makes the money and pays the rent, therefore, his wives will kowtow to him or else. That's right; wiveS.
"Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one, or a captive that your right hands possess that will be more suitable." (Qur'an 4:3)
That's right. You may have four wives. If that don't do it for you, then you can always bang a slave girl, whom your "right hands possess".
"Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like." (Qur'an 2:223)
Your women are just fields. And, as the owner, you can damn well plow a field when you feel like it.
"Allah thus directs you as regards your children's inheritence: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females." (Qur'an 4:11)
Sons will inherit twice as much as daughters. That's fair, cuz, after all, they're the ones that'll have to pay their wives' families later to get the chicks outta their fathers' houses.
Now, people are gonna cite cultural differences on this next one, but bring it on. Little girls are still married off in Islamic countries to this day. Iranian girls can marry at nine with their parents permission, and at thirteen without it. The Ayatollah Khomeini told fathers to "Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house." Get em out 'fore they menstruate, dude. After that, they're someone else's problem.
Muhammad married his favorite wife, Aisha when she was six. And, ever the gentleman, he waited until she was nine before he consummated the relationship. No wonder there are unflattering cartoons about this bastard.
When he already had 9 wives and innumerable concubines, Allah told Muhammad that he could have whomever he pleased, woman-wise:
"O Prophet! We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowers; and those whom your right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to you; and daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated from Makkah with you; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her; this only for you, and not for the Believers at large." (Qur'an 33:50)
Well, if I was a prophet, and God ONLY talked to me, and I made all the rules and told folks they'd be punished with death for disobedience, I'd assign me a shit-ton of women, too. Realize that Muhammad was the only one of the faithful who could sleep with any woman he chose. The rest of the men had to make do with their four wives and eight or nine slave girls.
As if all this weren't enough, women's testimony is nearly useless in court. I say nearly, but it took almost two thousand years for it to be "nearly". Before that, it was totally without worth. Currently, in rape cases, women's testimony is often inadmissable. In most Islamic countries it requires four male witnesses to prove an allegation of rape. If a woman accuses a man of this crime, unless it was directly witnessed by four other guys, all of them willing to testify, it's thrown out. And the woman will be lucky if it IS thrown out. If it's not, she many very well find herself in jail or killed for admitting to adultery. So in this case, not only does "no" mean "yes", it also means there a good chance your rape victim will be stoned to death by her brothers and uncles for disgracing her family.
This article also mentions the Catholic priest situation. And by "situation", I mean lock up your sons unless you want some pervert in a robe to bugger em. She asks if we should view all Catholics as child molesters. Certainly not, but I don't see how this has any bearing. The Catholic Church, misguided as it is, has a firm stance AGAINST sexual abuse. The blame lies with the abusers, not the organization.
Islam advises its adherents to make war on unbelievers. It tells Muslims to convert folks by force, or, failing that, to enforce an enormous tax on them. It clearly places men in charge of women and invalidates female existence, except as property. The problem here is with the organization, not with a few, aberrent disciples.
This lady also states that "Those few who use Islam for their own political goals don't represent the millions of normal, civil Muslims."
Actually, she's right here. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The problem is that people like her (e.g. moderate Muslims) don't represent Islam. The people we call "fanatical", those who strictly adhere to the letter of the law, provide the most realistic expression of Islam as it's described in the Qur'an. We call them "fanatical" because we can't imagine that a mainstream religion is so unapologetically bellicose and intolerant. It makes us feel better to assign such people to the fringes of Islam and pretend that they don't represent its central message. However, since Muslim countries are governed by Sharia, or Islamic law, they are spiritually in line with the Qur'an when they attack non-believers. The prophet mandated the spread of Islam until only Allah was worshipped:
"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home; an evil fate." (Qur'an 9:73)
"Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan." (Qur'an 4:76)
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and beseige them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Qur'an 9:5)
Allah is forgiving and merciful as long as all those that he sees worhip him and him alone.
The article-writer also states that "Many Muslims misquote the Qur'an..."
No, they don't. Those who blow shit up, including each other, quote the Qur'an perfectly. The book does not JUSTIFY their acts; it DEMANDS them. Most rational people consider Jerry Falwell a fanatic. Yet, do we doubt his ability to quote the Bible? Do we think he makes up verses to suit his hare-brained ideas, or is he just uncannily capable of instantly pointing to the ones that make his case? Serious Muslims know the Qur'an front to back. I would venture that a lot of them have large portions of it memorized. The PC apologists who defend the putative tolerance and love of Islam are the ones selectively interpreting the Qur'an. The faux-regretful scholars who say the Crusades were unprovoked acts of Christian aggression are the worst kind of revisionist historians. They heap opprobrium on Western culture which, due to its self-centeredness, is already miserable. And now, because the invulnerable mantle of Political Correctness rests on Islam's shoulders, we're expected to feel guilty for sins our European fathers didn't commit. The Crusades weren't offensive, folks. They were a direct result of years of Muslim warfare, occupation, and oppression in Europe. When Christians could no longer bear living as indentured half-citizens in their own Muslim-controlled lands, they organized a retaliation. This retaliation, while ultimately unsuccessful, did have an extremely beneficial result: it prevented Europe from being totally overrun and assimilated into the Muslim Empire. Our world today would be a very different place if the Crusades hadn't partially halted the fervent sword of Islam.
Our Op-Ed lady's next statement pertains to communal living. She says that, throughout history, Muslims and Jews and Christians have all lived together in beautiful, blissful peace. She also states that15 million non-Muslims live in Arab countries today, despite the fact that the term "Arab" denotes an ethnicity that most of the world's Muslims do not belong to. In honor of her ignorance, I ended my last sentence with a preposition.
Jews and Christians were "dhimmis" in the kingdom of Islam. It's an Arabic word that means both "protected" and "guilty". They're "protected" because the Qur'an calls them "People of the Book", that is, followers of Abraham with revealed texts (the Bible, the Qur'an). Yet they're guilty of rejecting Muhammad as a prophet. Implicitly, and perhaps more importantly, they have been exposed to Islam and have refused to accept it as God's Truth. When confronted with the one true way, they have chosen another path. Allah does NOT stand for this:
"It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even thought the Pagans may detest it." (Qur'an 9:33)
Stupid pagans! ("Pagan," by the way, is an ancient word with its roots in Latin that simply means "peasant," or "country dweller.")
"Fight those who do not belive in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." (Qur'an 9:29)
None of that sounds like a call to tolerance. If people won't recognize the superiority of Islam by converting, the Sharia declares that they may live in Muslim lands, but never be equal to Muslims. An absurd list of ever-changing restrictions governed the behavior of Christians living in THEIR OWN Muslim-occupied homes. Not only were they expected to know the minutiae of these restrictions, they were forced to sign a contract promising fealty. Were they to break any rules, the contract stated that they could be dealt with as "people of defiance and rebellion."
They also had to pay the "Jizya", or non-Muslim tax imposed upon them. You had to pay to play, and if you decided not to convert to the murderous religion that had conquered your homeland, a crushing fee was levied. In addition to this fee, Christians couldn't display the cross, ring their bells too loud, have weapons, display pork or liquor, live in an abode as tall as Muslim buildings, recite prayers out loud, have public funerals, celebrate religious holidays, or build new churches. They had to give up any public seat if a Muslim wanted it, show dog-like respect at all times, and wear clothing that specifically identified them as Christians.
Keep in mind that these people had been invaded and conquered. They were at home, not trespassing into the Muslim world. Rather than being allowed to live in a pluralistic society with everyone equal, they existed as despised outsiders whose lives and fates were controlled by the iron-clad whims of Allah.
One of her final statements was that "Muslim Web sites, scholars and organizations have condemned terrorism..."
Yes, they have...to shore up support from the rabidly PC Western community. In our current times, nothing is more frowned upon than criticizing another's faith. Well, ONE thing is more frowned upon, and that's criticizing Islam for being the freakish, destrucive, uncompromising vehicle of would-be divine rage that it is. Terrorism may be condemned, but until views like this are no longer commonplace, the world is still a terrifying place:
"Islam needs the sword. Whoever has the sword, he will have the earth."
-Abu Hamza al-Masri, then imam of London's Finsbury Park mosque
And this, from America's leading Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
Sound like a statement from 300 years ago? It was made in 1998 by Omar Ahmad, the CAIR board chairman.
Sentiments like this go on and on. While Muslim groups in the US may publicly condemn terrorism, they, and the United States still provide aid to Kosovo, Algeria, Somalia, Sudan, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians, Pakistan, and Indonesia, all of whom support Muslim warfare. Some support is financial, some is material, educational or religious. This must end.
No matter where you go, no matter what you do, all bottom lines in Islam remain unchanged. If you are a non-believer you have three options; conversion, the jizya tax, or war. There is no moderation whatsoever in Islam, you either believe or you don't. If you blaspheme against Islam, or leave it for another religion, the penalty, in ALL modern Muslim countries is still usually death.
I have two friends who are Muslim. One is a very good friend; I would trust him with my life. But they are not good Muslims. One is married to a white, Western girl. The other is dating a white, Western girl. They both smoke. They both drink, though infrequently. I can say for a fact that at least one of them has had sex before marriage. They gamble every Sunday night at our poker game and GODDAM if they don't love a good McRib sandwich. They would never beat their women,who are independent free-thinders. Abdul and Azim are my brothers. Abdul attended my wedding, the marriage of a Zen Buddhist to a girl who is far removed from her Catholic upbringing. According to the Qur'an, they cannot befriend non-Muslims unless their goal is to cozen, with the ultimate corollary of conversion, destruction, or the collection of the jizya. This is a strong statement for the truth of Ibn Warraq's assertion that "There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate."
The long, pugnacious campaign of Islam must come to an end. The collusion between the Muslim world and Western Political Correctness has engendered a dangerous belief that is totally false. This is the idea that Muslim terrorism comes from political disputes or socioeconomic problems. In fact, political disputes and socioeconomic problems arise from simple identification with the Nation of Islam.
Islam is intolerant. It is unaccepting and iron-fisted. If one has convinced oneself that it is not, one has strayed from the actual tenets of the faith. I am a non-violent man. This is not to be confused with pacifism. I will defend if attacked. I will protect my home and my loved ones. Violence is a last-ditch resort, but that doesn't mean I don't know where my Glock is. I am not a pro-gun, Republican arms freak, but I will still exercise my carefully considered, reactive right to blast the shit out of something that obviously wants to do me harm. I am a mental, intellectual Crusader, but I wouldn't hesitate to take up arms if this country suddenly needed defense against the perpetual sword that Islam presents to the world.
Wake up and resist.
"There have been many insults to Muslims in the newspaper lately. As an American convert to Islam, I'd like to share a few points. Each religion throughout history has had its share of fanatics who do abhorrent acts.
"In modern times, there is the news regarding some Catholic priests. Should we view all Catholics as child molesters?
"Muslims blow up other Muslims and destroy mosques; do these sound like the acts of real Muslims? Those few, who use Islam for their own political goals, don't represent the millions of normal, civil Muslims. Catholics and Protestants fighting in Ireland don't make their religions bad; it's the people who are fighting.
"Many Muslims misquote the Qur'an, but this trick could be done to any holy manuscript.
"Muslims throughout history have lived in peace with Jews and Christians, as evident by the churches and synagogues still standing for centuries and the 15 million who live in Arab countries today. Muslim Web sites, scholars and organizations have condemned terrorism, but that doesn't make for spicy news for most Western media outlets.
"Discover true Islam by reading the Qur'an, reading books by Muslim scholars, or visiting our mosques. Find out why many convert to Islam; for the beauty and truth in it, not for what is on the news."
This was written by a lady in Kentucky who has converted to Islam. She's tired of all the Muslim-hatin and determined to do something about it. Unfortunately, she knows nothing at all about her faith.
As I take you through various refutations of the points above, please remember one thing: THE QUR'AN IS THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD. It is perfect. It came straight from Allah to his prophet Muhammad and was written down to be forever inviolate and immutable. It will never change or modernize in any way because it is the precise expression of God's will. Progress will never touch it and moderation will never dull its edge. However, the Qur'an is arranged loosely around the order in which prophecies were revealed to Muhammad. Mandates that come later in the book, that seem to directly contravene earlier guidelines given by Allah, are the ones that are to be followed. Even modern scholars of Islam agree that Allah modified several key points later on in the Qur'an, and these later teachings are allowed to vitiate the earlier ones.
First, and foremost, Islam regards women as property. There is no way to mitigate this viewpoint; it is absolutely set in stone. For a Western woman, a woman with infinite opportunities and choices to decide to become a Muslim is akin to Jesus becoming a Satanist. Rarely are two things more opposed than women and Islam. Please allow me to elucidate with examples from the Qur'an (and not some local, white boy version; my translation was done by a devout Muslim, a born and bred Middle Easterner):
"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them first, next refuse to share their beds, and last beat them lightly; but if they return to obedience, do not seek against them means of annoyance." (Qur'an 4:34)
The woman is inferior, and is to be ruled by her man. The man makes the money and pays the rent, therefore, his wives will kowtow to him or else. That's right; wiveS.
"Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one, or a captive that your right hands possess that will be more suitable." (Qur'an 4:3)
That's right. You may have four wives. If that don't do it for you, then you can always bang a slave girl, whom your "right hands possess".
"Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like." (Qur'an 2:223)
Your women are just fields. And, as the owner, you can damn well plow a field when you feel like it.
"Allah thus directs you as regards your children's inheritence: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females." (Qur'an 4:11)
Sons will inherit twice as much as daughters. That's fair, cuz, after all, they're the ones that'll have to pay their wives' families later to get the chicks outta their fathers' houses.
Now, people are gonna cite cultural differences on this next one, but bring it on. Little girls are still married off in Islamic countries to this day. Iranian girls can marry at nine with their parents permission, and at thirteen without it. The Ayatollah Khomeini told fathers to "Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house." Get em out 'fore they menstruate, dude. After that, they're someone else's problem.
Muhammad married his favorite wife, Aisha when she was six. And, ever the gentleman, he waited until she was nine before he consummated the relationship. No wonder there are unflattering cartoons about this bastard.
When he already had 9 wives and innumerable concubines, Allah told Muhammad that he could have whomever he pleased, woman-wise:
"O Prophet! We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowers; and those whom your right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to you; and daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated from Makkah with you; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her; this only for you, and not for the Believers at large." (Qur'an 33:50)
Well, if I was a prophet, and God ONLY talked to me, and I made all the rules and told folks they'd be punished with death for disobedience, I'd assign me a shit-ton of women, too. Realize that Muhammad was the only one of the faithful who could sleep with any woman he chose. The rest of the men had to make do with their four wives and eight or nine slave girls.
As if all this weren't enough, women's testimony is nearly useless in court. I say nearly, but it took almost two thousand years for it to be "nearly". Before that, it was totally without worth. Currently, in rape cases, women's testimony is often inadmissable. In most Islamic countries it requires four male witnesses to prove an allegation of rape. If a woman accuses a man of this crime, unless it was directly witnessed by four other guys, all of them willing to testify, it's thrown out. And the woman will be lucky if it IS thrown out. If it's not, she many very well find herself in jail or killed for admitting to adultery. So in this case, not only does "no" mean "yes", it also means there a good chance your rape victim will be stoned to death by her brothers and uncles for disgracing her family.
This article also mentions the Catholic priest situation. And by "situation", I mean lock up your sons unless you want some pervert in a robe to bugger em. She asks if we should view all Catholics as child molesters. Certainly not, but I don't see how this has any bearing. The Catholic Church, misguided as it is, has a firm stance AGAINST sexual abuse. The blame lies with the abusers, not the organization.
Islam advises its adherents to make war on unbelievers. It tells Muslims to convert folks by force, or, failing that, to enforce an enormous tax on them. It clearly places men in charge of women and invalidates female existence, except as property. The problem here is with the organization, not with a few, aberrent disciples.
This lady also states that "Those few who use Islam for their own political goals don't represent the millions of normal, civil Muslims."
Actually, she's right here. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The problem is that people like her (e.g. moderate Muslims) don't represent Islam. The people we call "fanatical", those who strictly adhere to the letter of the law, provide the most realistic expression of Islam as it's described in the Qur'an. We call them "fanatical" because we can't imagine that a mainstream religion is so unapologetically bellicose and intolerant. It makes us feel better to assign such people to the fringes of Islam and pretend that they don't represent its central message. However, since Muslim countries are governed by Sharia, or Islamic law, they are spiritually in line with the Qur'an when they attack non-believers. The prophet mandated the spread of Islam until only Allah was worshipped:
"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home; an evil fate." (Qur'an 9:73)
"Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan." (Qur'an 4:76)
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and beseige them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Qur'an 9:5)
Allah is forgiving and merciful as long as all those that he sees worhip him and him alone.
The article-writer also states that "Many Muslims misquote the Qur'an..."
No, they don't. Those who blow shit up, including each other, quote the Qur'an perfectly. The book does not JUSTIFY their acts; it DEMANDS them. Most rational people consider Jerry Falwell a fanatic. Yet, do we doubt his ability to quote the Bible? Do we think he makes up verses to suit his hare-brained ideas, or is he just uncannily capable of instantly pointing to the ones that make his case? Serious Muslims know the Qur'an front to back. I would venture that a lot of them have large portions of it memorized. The PC apologists who defend the putative tolerance and love of Islam are the ones selectively interpreting the Qur'an. The faux-regretful scholars who say the Crusades were unprovoked acts of Christian aggression are the worst kind of revisionist historians. They heap opprobrium on Western culture which, due to its self-centeredness, is already miserable. And now, because the invulnerable mantle of Political Correctness rests on Islam's shoulders, we're expected to feel guilty for sins our European fathers didn't commit. The Crusades weren't offensive, folks. They were a direct result of years of Muslim warfare, occupation, and oppression in Europe. When Christians could no longer bear living as indentured half-citizens in their own Muslim-controlled lands, they organized a retaliation. This retaliation, while ultimately unsuccessful, did have an extremely beneficial result: it prevented Europe from being totally overrun and assimilated into the Muslim Empire. Our world today would be a very different place if the Crusades hadn't partially halted the fervent sword of Islam.
Our Op-Ed lady's next statement pertains to communal living. She says that, throughout history, Muslims and Jews and Christians have all lived together in beautiful, blissful peace. She also states that15 million non-Muslims live in Arab countries today, despite the fact that the term "Arab" denotes an ethnicity that most of the world's Muslims do not belong to. In honor of her ignorance, I ended my last sentence with a preposition.
Jews and Christians were "dhimmis" in the kingdom of Islam. It's an Arabic word that means both "protected" and "guilty". They're "protected" because the Qur'an calls them "People of the Book", that is, followers of Abraham with revealed texts (the Bible, the Qur'an). Yet they're guilty of rejecting Muhammad as a prophet. Implicitly, and perhaps more importantly, they have been exposed to Islam and have refused to accept it as God's Truth. When confronted with the one true way, they have chosen another path. Allah does NOT stand for this:
"It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even thought the Pagans may detest it." (Qur'an 9:33)
Stupid pagans! ("Pagan," by the way, is an ancient word with its roots in Latin that simply means "peasant," or "country dweller.")
"Fight those who do not belive in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." (Qur'an 9:29)
None of that sounds like a call to tolerance. If people won't recognize the superiority of Islam by converting, the Sharia declares that they may live in Muslim lands, but never be equal to Muslims. An absurd list of ever-changing restrictions governed the behavior of Christians living in THEIR OWN Muslim-occupied homes. Not only were they expected to know the minutiae of these restrictions, they were forced to sign a contract promising fealty. Were they to break any rules, the contract stated that they could be dealt with as "people of defiance and rebellion."
They also had to pay the "Jizya", or non-Muslim tax imposed upon them. You had to pay to play, and if you decided not to convert to the murderous religion that had conquered your homeland, a crushing fee was levied. In addition to this fee, Christians couldn't display the cross, ring their bells too loud, have weapons, display pork or liquor, live in an abode as tall as Muslim buildings, recite prayers out loud, have public funerals, celebrate religious holidays, or build new churches. They had to give up any public seat if a Muslim wanted it, show dog-like respect at all times, and wear clothing that specifically identified them as Christians.
Keep in mind that these people had been invaded and conquered. They were at home, not trespassing into the Muslim world. Rather than being allowed to live in a pluralistic society with everyone equal, they existed as despised outsiders whose lives and fates were controlled by the iron-clad whims of Allah.
One of her final statements was that "Muslim Web sites, scholars and organizations have condemned terrorism..."
Yes, they have...to shore up support from the rabidly PC Western community. In our current times, nothing is more frowned upon than criticizing another's faith. Well, ONE thing is more frowned upon, and that's criticizing Islam for being the freakish, destrucive, uncompromising vehicle of would-be divine rage that it is. Terrorism may be condemned, but until views like this are no longer commonplace, the world is still a terrifying place:
"Islam needs the sword. Whoever has the sword, he will have the earth."
-Abu Hamza al-Masri, then imam of London's Finsbury Park mosque
And this, from America's leading Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
Sound like a statement from 300 years ago? It was made in 1998 by Omar Ahmad, the CAIR board chairman.
Sentiments like this go on and on. While Muslim groups in the US may publicly condemn terrorism, they, and the United States still provide aid to Kosovo, Algeria, Somalia, Sudan, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians, Pakistan, and Indonesia, all of whom support Muslim warfare. Some support is financial, some is material, educational or religious. This must end.
No matter where you go, no matter what you do, all bottom lines in Islam remain unchanged. If you are a non-believer you have three options; conversion, the jizya tax, or war. There is no moderation whatsoever in Islam, you either believe or you don't. If you blaspheme against Islam, or leave it for another religion, the penalty, in ALL modern Muslim countries is still usually death.
I have two friends who are Muslim. One is a very good friend; I would trust him with my life. But they are not good Muslims. One is married to a white, Western girl. The other is dating a white, Western girl. They both smoke. They both drink, though infrequently. I can say for a fact that at least one of them has had sex before marriage. They gamble every Sunday night at our poker game and GODDAM if they don't love a good McRib sandwich. They would never beat their women,who are independent free-thinders. Abdul and Azim are my brothers. Abdul attended my wedding, the marriage of a Zen Buddhist to a girl who is far removed from her Catholic upbringing. According to the Qur'an, they cannot befriend non-Muslims unless their goal is to cozen, with the ultimate corollary of conversion, destruction, or the collection of the jizya. This is a strong statement for the truth of Ibn Warraq's assertion that "There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate."
The long, pugnacious campaign of Islam must come to an end. The collusion between the Muslim world and Western Political Correctness has engendered a dangerous belief that is totally false. This is the idea that Muslim terrorism comes from political disputes or socioeconomic problems. In fact, political disputes and socioeconomic problems arise from simple identification with the Nation of Islam.
Islam is intolerant. It is unaccepting and iron-fisted. If one has convinced oneself that it is not, one has strayed from the actual tenets of the faith. I am a non-violent man. This is not to be confused with pacifism. I will defend if attacked. I will protect my home and my loved ones. Violence is a last-ditch resort, but that doesn't mean I don't know where my Glock is. I am not a pro-gun, Republican arms freak, but I will still exercise my carefully considered, reactive right to blast the shit out of something that obviously wants to do me harm. I am a mental, intellectual Crusader, but I wouldn't hesitate to take up arms if this country suddenly needed defense against the perpetual sword that Islam presents to the world.
Wake up and resist.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Happy Easter (And by Easter, I Mean Zombie Day)!!
Just a little something to think about as you go about your business this fine Zombie Day, Year of Our Lord, 2006.
If we are created in God's image, as the Bible says, are we more like God, or is he more like us? The reason I ask this is simple; If one praises God for all the good in one's life, yet doesn't assign blame for all the bad, or even beseech him to let up a little, where is the accountability? If one takes all the fabulous with a big grin and a "Boy thankya!", yet just humbles down and eats the shit, too, why shouldn't the rest of life be like that?
When God smiles, you smile back. When he pisses all over you, you just take it with a "that's life" kind of attitude. What a bizarre way to run a universe. What if we all did that, you fools? Let's say you work for a big-ass company, and let's say that company's name is...oh, I don't know...Enron. When you're the executive VP and all the numbers are great, you get slaps on the back (as well as ludicrous bonuses). When you fuck up and cover up the bad numbers, thus screwing a whole fuckton of employees out of a lot of cash, you have to go to court. Well, some of you have to go to court. All right...TWO of you have to go to court. The point is, why couldn't those guys, whom I bet were all good Christians, just shrug and go, "Hey, that's life." If we were made like God, and God is praised for the world's goodness, but totally exculpated for the suffering, why aren't we?
Best case scenario for us humans; we are allowed to tell our subordinates (of which I have none) that all the world's pain corresponds to our mysterious plan, and they must have blind faith in this plan, because they are not advanced enough to view the tiniest bit of it. Ever.
Try explaining that to your kids.
Happy Zombie Day! Watch out for Jesus; all he wants is brains!
If we are created in God's image, as the Bible says, are we more like God, or is he more like us? The reason I ask this is simple; If one praises God for all the good in one's life, yet doesn't assign blame for all the bad, or even beseech him to let up a little, where is the accountability? If one takes all the fabulous with a big grin and a "Boy thankya!", yet just humbles down and eats the shit, too, why shouldn't the rest of life be like that?
When God smiles, you smile back. When he pisses all over you, you just take it with a "that's life" kind of attitude. What a bizarre way to run a universe. What if we all did that, you fools? Let's say you work for a big-ass company, and let's say that company's name is...oh, I don't know...Enron. When you're the executive VP and all the numbers are great, you get slaps on the back (as well as ludicrous bonuses). When you fuck up and cover up the bad numbers, thus screwing a whole fuckton of employees out of a lot of cash, you have to go to court. Well, some of you have to go to court. All right...TWO of you have to go to court. The point is, why couldn't those guys, whom I bet were all good Christians, just shrug and go, "Hey, that's life." If we were made like God, and God is praised for the world's goodness, but totally exculpated for the suffering, why aren't we?
Best case scenario for us humans; we are allowed to tell our subordinates (of which I have none) that all the world's pain corresponds to our mysterious plan, and they must have blind faith in this plan, because they are not advanced enough to view the tiniest bit of it. Ever.
Try explaining that to your kids.
Happy Zombie Day! Watch out for Jesus; all he wants is brains!
Thursday, April 13, 2006
It's All Zen
Hello, all. It's one-fifteen in the morning and I'm on my third glass of wine. My head is pleasantly thrumming, and, as I download songs onto my iPod, I thought I'd give you a quick post.
The title of this blog is "Zensense", and the first few posts pertained pretty directly to Buddhism. After those, the Buddhist references and topics became staggered, until, recently, everything is current events or politics. Most of you out there are probably more interested in current events and politics than you are in Buddhism. However, I'm not pandering to your needs and wants.
Perhaps you're thinking that, as I look towards school, and my Major/Minor combo of Journalism and PolySci, I'm trending towards that. This is also not the case.
In fact, no matter what I write about on this poor, misguided blog, it's all Zen. Zen isn't a religion, or a spirituality. It's a method of looking at the world based on the Buddha's instructions for waking up. Well, actually that's a bit erroneous. Saying it's a "method" of looking at the world implies that it's subjective; one of many, equally valid "methods". In fact, there are no other, equally valid methods compared to Buddhism because Buddhism studies what IS, not what COULD BE.
Buddhism is not based on beliefs. It is not structured around the conjecture surrounding life and death. It's astronomy compared to astrology. If we use telescopes to observe the actual life of stars, then we use Buddhism to observe the actual truth of life. Religions use the astrology approach, the mystic unfolding of layers of omen and purported meaning and symbolism to try to point to the inherent holiness of man. Well, man is no more holy than dogshit drying in the sun. What this means is, that instead of rejecting man's holiness, it's time to accept the holiness of dogshit.
Zen is not everything in the way that Jesus is everywhere. Zen is not present in all things, nor does it have gods watching over all of you. It will not grant you wishes or show you the higher purpose of suffering. It will not throw you a lifeline from the heavens that you may grasp in times of peril. What it will do is equip you to see this life for what it is. It will remove your blinders and, rather than prepare you for this world, it will strip you down and send you out.
Saying that Zen is beauty as well as ugliness, or ecstasy as well as pain accords it a duality that it doesn't possess. Zen is not above duality, nor is it beyond duality. There is neither above nor beyond, and there is no duality. Would you seperate breathing from biology? Can you remove the sun from sunshine, or the cold from death?
I say this to you in all seriousness, with no hint of hippie philosophy or metaphorical jousting: ALL IS ONE. This is not a slogan. It's not something designed to make you feel better. I don't give a fuck if you makes you feel WORSE. This is how shit works, and you can spend your life fighting against it, or you can observe it at an everyday level. Don't worry about some god, or some metaphysical argument for the existence of a soul. Live like you are your neighbor. Live like the refrigerator handle is the most sacred object in your house. Touch your car tire and know it's made of the same stuff as your wife. Have an orgasm and think of death, just next door.
Nothing is apart from Zen; there is nothing without Zen; Zen is our eyes and ears and tongues and brains. Every day, every subject here is Zen. Tom Delay and George Bush and Jesus and yo Mama; they're all Zen.
Enjoy.
The title of this blog is "Zensense", and the first few posts pertained pretty directly to Buddhism. After those, the Buddhist references and topics became staggered, until, recently, everything is current events or politics. Most of you out there are probably more interested in current events and politics than you are in Buddhism. However, I'm not pandering to your needs and wants.
Perhaps you're thinking that, as I look towards school, and my Major/Minor combo of Journalism and PolySci, I'm trending towards that. This is also not the case.
In fact, no matter what I write about on this poor, misguided blog, it's all Zen. Zen isn't a religion, or a spirituality. It's a method of looking at the world based on the Buddha's instructions for waking up. Well, actually that's a bit erroneous. Saying it's a "method" of looking at the world implies that it's subjective; one of many, equally valid "methods". In fact, there are no other, equally valid methods compared to Buddhism because Buddhism studies what IS, not what COULD BE.
Buddhism is not based on beliefs. It is not structured around the conjecture surrounding life and death. It's astronomy compared to astrology. If we use telescopes to observe the actual life of stars, then we use Buddhism to observe the actual truth of life. Religions use the astrology approach, the mystic unfolding of layers of omen and purported meaning and symbolism to try to point to the inherent holiness of man. Well, man is no more holy than dogshit drying in the sun. What this means is, that instead of rejecting man's holiness, it's time to accept the holiness of dogshit.
Zen is not everything in the way that Jesus is everywhere. Zen is not present in all things, nor does it have gods watching over all of you. It will not grant you wishes or show you the higher purpose of suffering. It will not throw you a lifeline from the heavens that you may grasp in times of peril. What it will do is equip you to see this life for what it is. It will remove your blinders and, rather than prepare you for this world, it will strip you down and send you out.
Saying that Zen is beauty as well as ugliness, or ecstasy as well as pain accords it a duality that it doesn't possess. Zen is not above duality, nor is it beyond duality. There is neither above nor beyond, and there is no duality. Would you seperate breathing from biology? Can you remove the sun from sunshine, or the cold from death?
I say this to you in all seriousness, with no hint of hippie philosophy or metaphorical jousting: ALL IS ONE. This is not a slogan. It's not something designed to make you feel better. I don't give a fuck if you makes you feel WORSE. This is how shit works, and you can spend your life fighting against it, or you can observe it at an everyday level. Don't worry about some god, or some metaphysical argument for the existence of a soul. Live like you are your neighbor. Live like the refrigerator handle is the most sacred object in your house. Touch your car tire and know it's made of the same stuff as your wife. Have an orgasm and think of death, just next door.
Nothing is apart from Zen; there is nothing without Zen; Zen is our eyes and ears and tongues and brains. Every day, every subject here is Zen. Tom Delay and George Bush and Jesus and yo Mama; they're all Zen.
Enjoy.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Who Cares?
I read in the paper today that the world is in grave danger. Apparently, we are on the cusp of having "BC" and "AD" totally replaced with "BCE" and "CE". I would imagine that most of you know that "BC" is "Before Christ" and "AD" is "Anno Domini", or "year of our lord". Whoops. I mean Lord. Sorry. "BCE" stands for "Before Common Era," and, naturally, "CE" is "Common Era."
These terms have been in use by virtually every portion of the global intellectual community for years. Pick up any modern book pertaining to history, philosophy, sociology, archaeology, etc, and you'd be hard pressed to find "BC" or "AD" in them, unless there's a "BCE" or "CE" directly after them. These terms are anachronisms, and it's time everyone faced that.
The article I read was in the Lexington paper, and, predictably, Kentucky Christians are in an uproar. They cite the long and venerable history these terms have enjoyed (2000 years, or less than half of recorded history), how everyone in the world is used to it (except for 67% of the world's population, who don't worship Jesus), and how these terms are part of our heritage (along with owning black people, growing weed, and not letting women vote).
Keeping "BC" and "AD" in the common vernacular is as goofy as goofy gets. The measurement of time is not another excuse for folks to advertise their religion. For fuck's sake, Jesus is everywhere. You can't swing a dead cat around here without knocking out four born-again assholes that want to talk to you about their savior. Give it a rest. You love Jesus. Everyone KNOWS you love Jesus. Stop bugging the rest of the world when they won't pay attention to your small-minded, paltry, selfish excuse for spirituality. How many perfectly viable calendars have you people ruined in an effort to align most of your major holidays with pagan rituals that you worked so hard to get rid of? Jesus was NOT born on December 25th. The rest of the planet is NOT totally kosher with you guys marking the "before" and "after" of your self-important history with the spurious birth and death dates of Jesus. I might add that Jesus lived in one of the most diligently recorded periods of human existence. Why is it, then, that his life is only recorded in one book?
Please don't bother me with your fear of change masquerading as religious righteousness. The Rebublicans are in power right now, and they're writing their own ticket. When they lose power, they're going to have to face certain realities. Number motherfucking one is that the wall between church and state is going to remain just where Thomas Jefferson and all the other framers put it right before they went to bring in their crop of dope, refuse to pay taxes to Big Government, and have sex with their slave girls. We're GONNA call the shit "BCE" and "CE". Bitch about stem cells.
These terms have been in use by virtually every portion of the global intellectual community for years. Pick up any modern book pertaining to history, philosophy, sociology, archaeology, etc, and you'd be hard pressed to find "BC" or "AD" in them, unless there's a "BCE" or "CE" directly after them. These terms are anachronisms, and it's time everyone faced that.
The article I read was in the Lexington paper, and, predictably, Kentucky Christians are in an uproar. They cite the long and venerable history these terms have enjoyed (2000 years, or less than half of recorded history), how everyone in the world is used to it (except for 67% of the world's population, who don't worship Jesus), and how these terms are part of our heritage (along with owning black people, growing weed, and not letting women vote).
Keeping "BC" and "AD" in the common vernacular is as goofy as goofy gets. The measurement of time is not another excuse for folks to advertise their religion. For fuck's sake, Jesus is everywhere. You can't swing a dead cat around here without knocking out four born-again assholes that want to talk to you about their savior. Give it a rest. You love Jesus. Everyone KNOWS you love Jesus. Stop bugging the rest of the world when they won't pay attention to your small-minded, paltry, selfish excuse for spirituality. How many perfectly viable calendars have you people ruined in an effort to align most of your major holidays with pagan rituals that you worked so hard to get rid of? Jesus was NOT born on December 25th. The rest of the planet is NOT totally kosher with you guys marking the "before" and "after" of your self-important history with the spurious birth and death dates of Jesus. I might add that Jesus lived in one of the most diligently recorded periods of human existence. Why is it, then, that his life is only recorded in one book?
Please don't bother me with your fear of change masquerading as religious righteousness. The Rebublicans are in power right now, and they're writing their own ticket. When they lose power, they're going to have to face certain realities. Number motherfucking one is that the wall between church and state is going to remain just where Thomas Jefferson and all the other framers put it right before they went to bring in their crop of dope, refuse to pay taxes to Big Government, and have sex with their slave girls. We're GONNA call the shit "BCE" and "CE". Bitch about stem cells.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Get Down On It
It has recently been brought to my attention that I might, in fact, blog like old people fuck. Ziggy, I know you don't have a dog in this race, except it gives you an excuse to look something up at the office before you have to actually get down to work. Considering Jes has much better taste than you do, I can't imagine she'd bother herself with this paltry little masturbation exercise before she starts making some headway in the day's bidness. And, speaking of bidness, what exactly are you accomplishing at home? Your woman's lip seems to be running independently of your control. She spoke to me several times about her "ideas" about raising YOUR son. Dig in, Trench. The masculine movement needs you. If I have to put on my red pimp suit and come up there, everyone's gonna be sorry.
Since we're talking about masculinity, Tom Delay naturally comes to mind. The once and future king of the GOP has told us all that he'll be stepping down over the next few months. I can only imagine that he'll step further down as the DA gets closer and closer to the financial and political missteps that ol' Tommy took to get to where he is. Chief of Staff: busted. Top aides: busted. Steps taken to crush Texas' Democrats into a gerrymandered, confused minority twaddle: duly fuckin noted. And the nerve, the absolute, in-your-face, audacity of this man is unbelievable. To state that he's stepping down so that the Democratic party will not be ablt to attack and fill his position with a lesser candidate is as ludicrous as insisting that the Bush administration didn't pay to have over 100,000 Florida voters disenfranchised. Tom Delay, of Texas, is resigning his post because, much like Enron, he has hidden the details of his insolvency to the degree that his ass is now grass. He has helped structure the Republican party to its newest exteme; an extension of the right-wing religious organization that is working at its peak to kill science in your child's classroom, and your own rights at home. God is on Tom Delay's side, and he will not hesitate to tell you the same. Since the Bush regime illegally seized control of this nation, the religious right has been striving to remove dollars from your pocket and place them in the coffers of "faith based initiatives". Tom Delay is one of the people that has been assuring this regime that the right people are in the right places at the right times.
One would think that to have this walking, lying, enemy of the state out of office is a step in the right direction. One could, however, be wrong. Keep in mind that this administration has railroaded every opponent out of DC, and raised to iconic stature people of color that share their elitist, white agenda. Witness the exit of Colin Powell and the rise of Condoleeza Rice. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear Tiger Woods nominated for a Supreme Court appointment.
To the four people that read this blog, I am certain you know that you no longer have any power. As the gap between the hugely rich and everyone else widens, what are we going to do now? Bush's latest tax cuts in 2003, which pertained to investement capital, are finally showing pollable results. Of the 63oo Americans that make over ten million bucks a year, they saved an average of 525,000 dollars. The 62,000,000 Americans that make under 5o,ooo dollars a year; yeah, they saved 425 dollars. If there's anyone out there that is still willing to defend Bush against the allegations of being the worst big-money, big-business, pro-corporate tycoon that the US has ever seen, I welcome your arguments.
Please forward all of your comments to the Halliburton Corporation, which has recently won a no-contest bid to host a site pertaining to criticisms of the president. The fee is bearable and all proceeds go directly to disenfranchising your future votes.
Since we're talking about masculinity, Tom Delay naturally comes to mind. The once and future king of the GOP has told us all that he'll be stepping down over the next few months. I can only imagine that he'll step further down as the DA gets closer and closer to the financial and political missteps that ol' Tommy took to get to where he is. Chief of Staff: busted. Top aides: busted. Steps taken to crush Texas' Democrats into a gerrymandered, confused minority twaddle: duly fuckin noted. And the nerve, the absolute, in-your-face, audacity of this man is unbelievable. To state that he's stepping down so that the Democratic party will not be ablt to attack and fill his position with a lesser candidate is as ludicrous as insisting that the Bush administration didn't pay to have over 100,000 Florida voters disenfranchised. Tom Delay, of Texas, is resigning his post because, much like Enron, he has hidden the details of his insolvency to the degree that his ass is now grass. He has helped structure the Republican party to its newest exteme; an extension of the right-wing religious organization that is working at its peak to kill science in your child's classroom, and your own rights at home. God is on Tom Delay's side, and he will not hesitate to tell you the same. Since the Bush regime illegally seized control of this nation, the religious right has been striving to remove dollars from your pocket and place them in the coffers of "faith based initiatives". Tom Delay is one of the people that has been assuring this regime that the right people are in the right places at the right times.
One would think that to have this walking, lying, enemy of the state out of office is a step in the right direction. One could, however, be wrong. Keep in mind that this administration has railroaded every opponent out of DC, and raised to iconic stature people of color that share their elitist, white agenda. Witness the exit of Colin Powell and the rise of Condoleeza Rice. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear Tiger Woods nominated for a Supreme Court appointment.
To the four people that read this blog, I am certain you know that you no longer have any power. As the gap between the hugely rich and everyone else widens, what are we going to do now? Bush's latest tax cuts in 2003, which pertained to investement capital, are finally showing pollable results. Of the 63oo Americans that make over ten million bucks a year, they saved an average of 525,000 dollars. The 62,000,000 Americans that make under 5o,ooo dollars a year; yeah, they saved 425 dollars. If there's anyone out there that is still willing to defend Bush against the allegations of being the worst big-money, big-business, pro-corporate tycoon that the US has ever seen, I welcome your arguments.
Please forward all of your comments to the Halliburton Corporation, which has recently won a no-contest bid to host a site pertaining to criticisms of the president. The fee is bearable and all proceeds go directly to disenfranchising your future votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
