l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 by The Political Palaver
When I was young, I devoted quite a bit of study to Adolf Hitler and Nazi
Germany. The reason for my fascination is now certainly clear, if it was
even the slightest bit murky then. My efforts were to answer that one
question that haunts us all in our attempts to deconstruct such depravity
and horror: "How could this have happened?" How had one man created such an
ideology of militant proselytism, and how could that one man mold a legion
of followers ready to sacrifice themselves to meet its dark ends?
In the Western World today, Nazi Germany stands as the textbook example of
fanaticism. For us, there is no more recognizable instance where the human
tendency to follow has been more exploited to commit such crimes against
humanity. But as I have argued before, it is not the only example.
On September 11, 2001, America was shaken when nineteen men hijacked four
planes, and then used those planes as weapons, robbing thousands of our
innocent brethren of their lives. Men, women, children; Jew, Christian,
Muslim; black, white, brown- the hate exceeded all such boundaries we've
come to know as potential dividers among men. The perpetrators' barrel
billowed smoke, and the motive could not be any clearer. These attackers
were devout Muslims, soldiers of Allah, and followers of his prophet
Muhammad. And the America that I had grown up to love was worthy of the
bitterest hate by such men- worthy of indiscriminate and large-scale murder.
And I had to know: "How could this have happened?" How had one man created
such an ideology of militant proselytism, and how could that one man mold a
legion of followers ready to sacrifice themselves to meet its dark ends?
However, I found the research to be quite a different process in this
endeavor. Where every Tom, Dick, and Harry gladly offered their two cents
to the fray to deconstruct the mind of Adolf Hitler, Muhammad's critics
seemed far fewer. As I found, two distinct reasons exist for this. First,
historical records are difficult to find regarding Muhammad's life, so the
Quran and the Hadith (Islamic traditions) serve as the most reliable sources
for the events of the prophet's life. Second, and most importantly, is the
well-noted observation that Islam has a peculiar means of dealing with its
critics, which tends to make otherwise outspoken naysayers quickly adhere to
Mother's old adage: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at
all."
Luckily, Muhammad and his successors were not of the mind that there was any
wrong in the actions of Allah's prophet and his new seventh century army of
Muslims that ravaged Arabia, so they apparently didn't feel the need to
airbrush the content we are left with. Complete among the texts of modern
Islamic jurisprudence are tales of polygamy and pedophilia, pillage and
plunder, torture and terror, misogyny and mendacity, and widescale murder
and mayhem. Much of this has been highlighted in the works of certain bold
critics such as Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel, Andrew Bostom, and Pamela
Geller to name just a few. (Particularly, Spencer's The Truth About
Muhammad provides an extremely detailed description of Islam's ideal man.)
Yet despite these efforts, many Americans still don't know a thing about it.
To be honest, few of us felt the need to care about such things before
that clear September morning of 2001, despite the fact that violent, armed
jihad had for years been a viable tactic for extremist Muslims worldwide.
But now, knowing full-well the magnitude of damage a small number of
extremists can cause, it is imperative that the roots of Islam be examined,
as it is these very roots that sprout the toxic fruit of Islamic
fundamentalism that we call "jihad."
And in examining those roots, some things are undeniable. Among these is
the fact that Muhammad's primary source of income was earned by piracy and
theft, plundering the caravans of tradesmen as if it were his divine right.
He had many wives and countless lovers, and consummated the marriage with
the child Aisha at the age of nine. He had his critics (often poets of
Arabic tribes) murdered by his followers in the dead of night. And apart
from ordering the stoning of adulterers, he ordered the beheading of
hundreds of males in the Jewish Qurayza tribe upon their defeat at Muslim
hands, which is but one instance of these mass executions.
Pertinent to note is that none of these claims are commonly refuted by
scholars on either side of the argument. As such, Muhammad's defense
primarily consists of condemnation for opposing critics- for having the
audacity to look at these seventh century events through a modern Western
lens. And, of course, this condemnation is laced with ample accusations of
"Islamophobia."
But it must be asked, as Muhammad is the ideal man in Islam- the template
for emulation by all good, righteous Muslims- should it be a wonder when an
Islamic Iranian regime lowers the legal marrying age for women to nine? Or
when Islamic villages religiously sanctify the stoning of adulterers? Or
when men like Theo van Gogh are murdered for their criticism of Islam? Or
when vast numbers of men and women are beheaded in the name of Allah and his
prophet?
Submitted for the consideration of the readers of Political Palaver is the
slideshow below, which details the information I discuss above, complete
with sourcing identical to that I have found elsewhere in my study. Please
note, if you choose to read these presented slides- know that there are
extremely graphic images, and that the content is politically charged with a
harsh tenor against Islam. Unmistakable is the Christian slant of the
presentation, which in some cases goes beyond the necessary criticism in
this author's opinion, as there are allegations that Muhammad was given to
homoeroticism, incest, cross-dressing, and that he had suicidal tendencies.
However, what cannot be denied is the heavily sourced nature of the content,
cited directly from the holy texts of Islam and various critiques. In this
regard, I will leave the merit of the slideshow to be assessed by each who
may view it, who may then take from it what he may.
And please know that I do not mean to offer this as an indictment upon all
Muslims, as I am fully aware that most contemporary Muslims practice their
faith in a manner conducive to peaceful existence in Western culture. Most
Muslims live their lives adhering to the Five Pillars of Islam and
practicing in peace while rejecting the more misogynistic and violent
aspects of the seventh-century iteration of the faith. And some of these
Muslims are my friends. But as I have friends who are staunchly critical of
my Christian faith (and considering Christian history is certainly not above
scrutiny and condemnation), this is merely meant to be a critical analysis,
albeit an extremely harsh one, of Islam's foundation, its model, and an
explanation for the "why" of what we call Islamic "radicalism." There is
merit in such efforts, and though such things may be unpleasant to think
about, it does not mean that such considerations should be absent from
constructive discussion. And to understand the enemy we face in Islamic
fundamentalism, we must understand why some followers of the faith feel
their murderous jihad to be divinely ordained.
And to try and understand that, one must try to understand Muhammad.
Perhaps this slideshow will give added context to some, and for other
Americans it may just be a start. And whether that start is an attempt to
prove or disprove the assertions of the presentation, it will hopefully be
of value.
William Sullivan |
|
