The Neville Awards
Home | The Liberals' Corner | Hypocrisy Watch | Recommended Media | The Butcher's Bill |
Obama's Daily March To Socialism & Surrender | The Obama Gallery | Videos

What Are Islam's Weak Points?

From the desk of Fjordman
December 20, 2005

How do we defeat Islam? What are Islam's weak points, and what are ours? Ali Sina from Faith Freedom International wants to confront Islam by education. I support and applaud his efforts, but I don't think they will solve all the problems. Quite a few hardcore Islamists have more than average education, for instance. Educating non-Muslims about Islam the way FFI and Jihad Watch are doing is thus probably more important than educating Muslims. Islam has rational components. It is an excellent warrior creed (or at least used to be) and is great as an excuse for plundering the wealth of others. But first and foremost, it is an irrational cult based on fear.

Muhammed was a brilliant intuitive leader/general, and he and his companions devised a near perfect closed system of war aginst the rest of humanity. Only by showing that Allah is not infallible can we be victorious in keeping our freedom, our life, our liberty and pursuit of our happiness. Muslims are extremely childish in their view of themselves and the world - they are superstitious and thus afraid of dogs, of the Koran getting dirty etc. They continually tell us the truth about their paranoia, and their intentions. Therefore, one of the best tactics for us to take in the War on Terror is to mock them and exploit their childishness, so that they will expose themselves to everyone.

The Judeo-Christian, Western culture is based on guilt, and Muslims exploit this by playing on our guilt complex. The Arab-Islamic culture is based on shame. It's time we learn to play on their shame, just as they do on our guilt. They feel humiliated and paranoid about everything. In defense of their egos and by extention their religion they do stupid things, such as the London bombings and sharing the beheading videos with the rest of the world. While these tactics are successful in terrorizing people, they also alert Western people and other infidels that Islam may not be the "religion of peace and tolerance" that it claims to be.

There are a few issues central and vital to Islam and on which it is really vulnerable on, such as women's emancipation. If Islam really does go for it, Islam is dead. If it doesnt then its dead in the long run. The most important and valuable soldiers of Islam are not male Jihadis, but women. Muslim women are the frontline soldiers of Islam in the West, as they were in Bosnia. However, women are also the Achilles heel of Islam. Give young Muslim girls in the West, the legal power that they do not have to follow the dictats of the imams or the mullahs, or give them the notion that they can report mullahs for religious harassment, then one starts a chain reaction that continues into the home and community. The French ban on hijabs in schools is the right first step.

The Jihadis have a clear moral purpose, and we have to need to define an even more powerful moral argument as to why our cause is more just, more moral and better - not just to our public, whose unwavering support we need, but to many Muslims around the world. Once we have such a clear moral purpose, then indeed we can go to full scale war, if that is needed. What is the magic formula that will mobilise us, give us a clear moral superiority that will sustain us through thick and thin?

It should be done by giving Islam its proper name: Slavery and apartheid. Women are the slaves in the cult of Islam (submission = slavery). One peculiar thing about male supremacy or any form of slavery, is that it enslaves both parties. Muslim men should realise, that the emancipation of women also emancipates and frees men. This has been the lesson in the West. And so it has continued. Thus Muslim men should not be frightened in letting go - they will also be freeing themselves from the chains of islam. This inevitably leads us to ask, can we somehow re-define Islam, in particular for a Western audience, not as a religion but as a political ideology, and one whose tenets are sufficiently evil, so that it merits destruction, much as Nazism. This construct has to take place so that the Western populace sees it as justifiable to actually give the physical and moral support that is required for such a large undertaking. In passing it is worth noting the political difficulty that Bush and Blair are having in Iraq in sustaining political support for the war, once they had proclaimed that Islam is a RoP - they had conceded the moral ground.

Islam is institutionalised slavery, and the Jihad's main purpose is to garner slaves, both men and women, from the lands of the Free. Muslims, both men and women, then become the first slaves of Islam. Two points come to mind immediately. 1. The institution of slavery crushes the spirit of slaves. They were unable to think for themselves as a consequence. A striking feature of Islamic societies. 2. Runaway slaves used to be beaten, and oft executed, as a lesson to other would be runaway slaves. The same punishment is Islamically sanctioned for the Muslim apostate.

Many practices of the rituals of Islam are completely out of variance with what is tolerable in the West. I hope that in Europe, we adopt fairly stringent rules on where one can wear the hijab. Certainly in these days of video surveillance, the wearing of the hijab or burqa, can be seen as trying to circumvent a public safety requirement. Schools, universities, airports and government offices must be declared places where one is not allowed to smoke (on grounds of personal safety) or wear the burqa (on grounds of public safety). All these make the West an inhospitable environment for Islam, which is all to the good.

Islam is a way of life for a tribal and nomadic culture. Each tribe guarded its patch and at the same time engaged in raids against other tribes for booty and women (same thing). Mohammed's significant contribution was to codify a disparate code extending over several tribes into a single one. A similar thing was achieved by Genghis Khan, and in much the same way, was eminently successful in expanding the domain of his empire of booty. Through history there has been conflict between settled or agricultural communities who invented agriculture, and the nomadic one. Settled communities eventually had surplus and were able to devote more time to other pursuits that led to civilisation. The nomadic culture OTH depended on raids and the ensuing booty. Islam would have died away had it not been so succesful in mixing the divine and the nomadic culture, which led to conquest of settled and prosperous communities, and then living off the proceeds of empire. Civilisation of the settled communities though marched on and the empire of the nomad came to an end when the Ottoman empire was dissolved. Islam was in the process of withering away as a consequence but for a couple "miracles" that saved Islam's bacon.

First was the oil bonanza, and the second, the far more important one - the open door policy of the West as regards immigration. Immigration of muslims is really an invasion, an invasion that had been stopped for good but for the cupidity of Western politicians in allowing millions of Muslims into the West. Now we have to live with the horrendous consequences of those decisions. We are being dragged back to the Middle ages where religion was the decisive factor in political discourse. Muslims live by the islamic code ie the nomadic code. One sees this in the way that islamic areas in the West become ghettos in quick time- it is part and parcel of the nomad way of life, as he simply ups tent when the resources have run out and moves to greener pastures - in this context, where the benefits are more generuous. Through history one has seen that the nomadic life style and the settled life are diametrically opposed. When both are forced to live side by side, as we are now doing in the West, a severe clash is inevitable.

Some claim that Islam will die as a global force during this century, simply because its core ideas aren't flexible enough to adapt to a modern world. This pre-supposes that Islam will have to rely on its own tenets. Islam is basically parasitical, and will continue to survive on the back of the rest of humanity as long as we allow it to do so. The roots of Jihad have been invigorated primarily due to immigration to the West and Saudi money. The only way that islam will die out, is if it is contained within dar-ul-Islam. No immigration and all contact reduced to the necessary. This will buy time. Solutions like making them fight among each other, pushing Muslims all out of Europe etc. is buying time - future generations still have to solve the problem. There is nothing wrong with buying time - the advent of the modern age and technologies like TV/cable/Internet MIGHT slowly eat away at Islam and slowly solve the problem. The problem is still whether the time taken by the modern world to penetrate inside Islam will be too long for the world to survive.

Ending the problem for good would require large parts of the opinion makers of the world recognizing that Islam is not a "religion" but an "ideology". Once that is done then the ideology would have to be tackled on all levels just like Communism. However, attaining the "moral high ground" is good and necessary, but will not by itself be enough. Who ever won a war while trying not to hurt the enemy’s feelings? The playing field will NEVER be level. Islam fights from Heaven. You cannot change that fact, for devout Muslims. There is no higher place than heaven. Muslims have no need for a level field. They, according to their Koran is the word of God. There is no "high ground" that we can occupy, in regards to Islam, in the eyes of Muslims, only in our own. The Buddhists of Central Asia undoubtedly held the "moral high ground" in relations to Muslims. They are all dead now. In the end, it is possible that we will win or lose by the sword. At the very least, we must be prepared to back up our ideological war with force on certain occasions. Holding a higher moral standard isn't going to defeat an Iranian President with nukes, threatening another Holocaust.

Further reading:

World War IV by Ohmyrus

Islam also teaches Muslims to see themselves as part of a nation of Muslims who happen to live in different countries – even in non-Muslim ones. Their loyalty to the nation state is subordinated to the loyalty to the Ummah. This is so even if they are second or third generation British or American or whatever. Each new generation will be taught by Islam to maintain its primary loyalty to the Ummah. Even new converts switch loyalty. In World War IV, the US has handicapped itself by making false declarations such as “Islam is peace”. All world wars have at least three components – the military, ideological and the economic. In World War III, the ideological component was more important than the military one. In World War I and II, it was the military component that was more important. Yet by praising Islam, Bush and Blair have already given up the ideological warfare without firing a shot.

You cannot defeat Islamism without defeating Islam. It is like trying to fight Communism while praising Marxist economic theories! In the Cold War, the US and its allies did not hesitate to argue that Marxism is a false ideology. Marx's ideas are wrong and cannot lead mankind to a better future. The democratic world must make the same case against Islam. Otherwise, we cannot win without relying heavily on the military component, which means more bloodshed. Perhaps we cannot win at all. Remember what Sun Wu said in his classic, “The Art of War”. The side with the higher moral standing is more likely to win. To do this, a leader must convince his people that their cause is just. You cannot persuade your people to make exertions if they do not understand what they are up against. Thus the burden of ideological warfare falls on groups like FFI.

Once were warriors: Why Islam failed Muslims by Ohmyrus

Islam is a warrior’s creed that served its early followers well. From impoverished desert tribes, they rose to forge an empire in a short time that stretched from Spain to India. The ethos it engendered – brotherhood for believers, contempt and hatred for non-believers, belief in heavenly rewards for fallen warriors, a high fertility rate (which requires the subordination of women), blind obedience – created formidable warriors. But these same qualities are handicaps for Muslims in the age of the microchip. Today they lead to poverty, belligerency, war and defeat. Many Muslims look back with fondness to their days of glory and try to recover their former days by using the old methods. That is why there is today a rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism across the Muslim world. They are bewildered at their weakness and look for conspiracy theories. Muslims think their failure is due to some Jewish or American plot not realizing that failure comes from within themselves. They are out of touch with reality. Once were warriors, Muslims are now like Don Quixote tilting at windmills in a world they no longer understand.
Reading List