The propaganda is so drearily predictable. Would Yahoo News ever run a piece explaining how Sharia taught warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers? Of course not. But there is a steady stream of nonsense like this ridiculous presentation from Mark Fathi Massoud, Professor of Politics and Legal Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Even before reading Massoud’s piece, look at the accompanying map. It’s a bit confusing because the color for Spanish colonies is very similar to the color used for countries that were never colonized at all, and the latter are not marked as such. But it shows that Iran was never colonized. What, then, explains the Islamic Republic, which finances jihad terror groups such as Hizballah and Hamas? Saudi Arabia was never colonized; what explains the fact that 15 of the 19 9/11 jihad attackers were Saudis? What explains jihad activity that went on for centuries before colonialism, as shown in The History of Jihad?
Also, is colonialism responsible for the tenets of Sharia mandating warfare against non-Muslims? Here is what the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib) say about that warfare:
Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
Of course, there is no caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that the Islamic State (ISIS) and other jihad groups are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).
Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”
However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)
Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:
The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.
But Yahoo News will never tell you any of that.
“Don’t blame Sharia for Islamic extremism — blame colonialism,” by Mark Fathi Massoud, Yahoo News, October 17, 2021:
Warning that Islamic extremists want to impose fundamentalist religious rule in American communities, right-wing lawmakers in dozens of U.S. states have tried banning Sharia, an Arabic term often understood to mean Islamic law.
These political debates – which cite terrorism and political violence in the Middle East to argue that Islam is incompatible with modern society – reinforce stereotypes that the Muslim world is uncivilized.
They also reflect ignorance of Sharia, which is not a strict legal code. Sharia means “path” or “way”: It is a broad set of values and ethical principles drawn from the Quran – Islam’s holy book – and the life of the Prophet Muhammad. As such, different people and governments may interpret Sharia differently.
Still, this is not the first time that the world has tried to figure out where Sharia fits into the global order.
In the 1950s and 1960s, when Great Britain, France and other European powers relinquished their colonies in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, leaders of newly sovereign Muslim-majority countries faced a decision of enormous consequence: Should they build their governments on Islamic religious values or embrace the European laws inherited from colonial rule?
The big debate
Invariably, my historical research shows, political leaders of these young countries chose to keep their colonial justice systems rather than impose religious law.
Newly independent Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Somalia, among other places, all confined the application of Sharia to marital and inheritance disputes within Muslim families, just as their colonial administrators had done. The remainder of their legal systems would continue to be based on European law.
To understand why they chose this course, I researched the decision-making process in Sudan, the first sub-Saharan African country to gain independence from the British, in 1956.
In the national archives and libraries of the Sudanese capital Khartoum, and in interviews with Sudanese lawyers and officials, I discovered that leading judges, politicians and intellectuals actually pushed for Sudan to become a democratic Islamic state.…
somehistory says
All one must note is the “name” of this one who “professes” to know things.
From his words: “broad set of values and ethical principles drawn from the Quran – Islam’s holy book –”
First, islam has absolutely no **value.** It has no “set of values.”
Second: islam, by its very evil substance, has no “ethical principles.” It is the very opposite of **ethics.**
Third: islam has no “holy book.” islam’s book is a book of evil, demonic filth, written by and about a psychopath who was intent on ruling other’s lives, and living his own with no bounds, making it his commands that he could engage in : murder on a massive scale; raping little children and pretending it was the same as being married to an adult female who was *consenting* to be with his sliminess; kidnapping, raping and selling females for sex, threatening those who would not conform to his evil, demonic commands and making up rules as he went along, lying and pretending that these new rules came from a god….which he had to know was really his demon snake father, satan the devil, whom he worshipped, but wrote so that he too would be worshipped by those he forced or enticed to follow him.
Everything that islam has, teaches, demands, etc. is demonic and directly opposite to Law, the Law of Creation, or as most call it, Law of Nature; and the Rulings, Commands, Principles, Orders and Judgments from our Creator, Whom the fake ‘prophet,’ slandered and libeled and pretended to worship.
Mike says
those who can do do and those who can’t do teach
somehistory says
Absolutely true, esp in this case.
Wellington says
Though not religious myself, somehistory, I find little to nothing to disagree with in your comment.
My take on all this is rooted in probabilities, as I have expounded upon before, to wit, that mankind would produce a religion or two which would work wonderfully well with the democratic tenets invented by the ancient Greeks (mankind did; it produced Judaism and Christianity) because of these religions’ emphasis on the dignity and worthwhile of the individual human being. That mankind would probably produce sophisticated religions which are worthy of admiration but somewhat failing in the emphasis on individual worth but still fine overall (mankind did with Hinduism and Buddhism). That mankind would produce a major faith that was rotten to the core (mankind did with Islam).
You see design (and you could be correct, I must admit, in the interest of as much objectivity as I can summon up) where I see probabilities. I like to think we’re pretty close here rather than far apart—it’s what remains of the optimist in me.
Besides, you’re a devout Christian and I am a devout agnostic though I think we would have no disagreement that if every Muslim in the world woke up tomorrow a devout Christian it would arguably be the single greatest positive in all of mankind’s history.
Best to you and yours, pal. Take care.
somehistory says
Thank you, Wellington.
In my world of belief, there is much “logic.” There are many who believe in Christ, but also, they believe things with which I disagree. Each one must figure out some things for themselves (with help from Divine Wisdom on the part of Christians) and come to the conclusions that they see as right.
So, I agree that there is much upon which you and I agree, and one of those is how much better it would be if every mozlum suddenly woke and believed in Christianity as Jesus taught it. Maybe they could even become a devout Christian before bedtime.
Thank you for the best and same to you. Care too.
Wellington says
Hatred of the greatest civilization ever on display again. This includes excuses for the worst religion of all time. A reason why huge numbers of youth who remain sensible and who have sensible parents should no longer think that college is an option because so-called higher education in America (and many other Western nations) has been utterly distorted by Leftists idiots (aided of course by Muslims aplenty “champing at the bit”)—even now extending into the sciences let alone areas like the liberal arts, human development and education.
It’s a new dark age for the West, led by what passes for academia these days. One know this or should know this. The monumentally idiotic suicide of the West continues, courtesy of the moronic elites in academia as well as in the media (think CNN) and in the political realm (think Democrats in the American Congress).
Really, nothing quite like this in the past. No sooner does Western Civilization achieve more than any other civilization in history, it has begun destroying itself for a multitude of bad reasons—hypocrisy and overall ignorance being two of such reasons (there are many others, for instance a mindless self-hatred).
Outta’ here for now. Time for a beer or maybe three. What the Hell?
GreekEmpress says
Enjoy!
I gotta tell you, though, the stories I read here lately—I’m beginning to feel like there’s not enough ouzo in the world—
somehistory says
I was killing time last night waiting for my daughter to get off work, walking in the greeting card aisle.
One card I read: “Some people have begun making ice cubes out of leftover wine. I didn’t know that was possible.”
On the inside: (can’t recall exactly, so I’ll try to get close) “No, no, not the making of ice cubes; I didn’t know that leftover wine was possible.”
GreekEmpress says
?
James Lincoln says
somehistory,
I’m not sure about wine, but I’m certain that you would not want to try to make ice cubes out of hard liquor.
80 proof alcohol works like anti-freeze and it would be supercooled (-17 F) – and dangerous to drink. I know of an enlisted sailor who had suffered a frozen esophagus by rapidly consuming large amounts of Jack Daniels that had been lying out in the snow overnight.
https://www.thespruceeats.com/will-liquor-freeze-760302
somehistory says
James,
I don’t drink alcohol. Don’t really care for the tastes or the “burning” going down. Found out that red wine can help one who has herpes on the face or in the mouth, and a relative used it when these would crop up.
I have tasted several …wine, beer, and the only one close to drinkable was Sangria, esp if added to Sprite. I have not had that in many years. I drink a lot of tea…white, green, black and Earl Grey (black with Bergamot oil) and some herbals mixed in.
It was just a card I read in the store. Wouldn’t dream of making ice cubes from alcohol., which I don’t even have on hand. I have made them from tea and lemonade.
Thank you for the caution. I’m pretty sure it will be beneficial for others who do consume to not try what you said the other guy did.
I appreciate your concern very much. 🙂
Wellington says
Thanks for that piece of information, James. I rarely drink liquor since I’m a beer guy but that is still valuable information to know.
gregbeetham says
The West got beaten into submission long ago, that’s what produced European economic collapse and the dark ages and that in turn was brought about by the relentless attacks on Europe and slave taking by Muslims from all directions, the Mediterranean was full of Muslim pirates which stifled trade, North African Roman/Christian farm lands became deserts because the invading Muslims were goat and sheep herders who didn’t care for the irrigation of the land so there was massive erosion.
The same thing is happening in the south of the Sahara right now, the Christian farmers are being massacred by the Muslim herders and nobody does anything about it.
Dr Bill Warner outlined the process at the end of his excellent treatise ‘The Impact of Islam on Christianity’ where he proposes that the West behaves like a prisoner who has been beaten into submission and although full of self loathing obeys the master without question and with adulation.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=796367037191563
I think he is correct and that’s why there is little opposition to the Muslim invasion of the West today, we have learned to be cowards and be submissive to Islam even though the present generation has no direct experience of being attacked, invaded and ruled by Muslims the way it was done long ago.
And that’s why almost none of our leaders have a spine when dealing with the invasion of Islam today and almost none of them call it like it is, neither does the education system or the media describe what is really going on because they are all subservient to their Muslim masters.
CogitoErgoSum says
I just blame Muhammad and the people who believe everything he said.
Walter Sieruk says
That outlandish statement by that Muslim professor of the Santa Cruz University strongly proves the saying to be true which is that “Evil is always looking for an excuse.”
Attempting to shift the blame is an old lame excuse ,at that.
gravenimage says
Mark Fathi Massoud is not Muslim. He is an Infidel apologist for Islam, even though his family had to flee Sudan when he was a child. Some few in this position feel they have to spend their lives sucking up to the creed that persecuted them. *Ugh*.
gravenimage says
University of California Santa Cruz prof: ‘Don’t blame Sharia for Islamic extremism — blame colonialism’
……………….
What utter tripe. Note that former colonial powers do not impose Sharia, nor wage violent Jihad.
Then, Jihadists never say they are acting in the name of colonial powers–instead, they say they are acting in the name of Islam.
If anything, retention of some colonial laws has slightly blunted the imposition of Sharia in some cases–note places like Pakistan and Nigeria, which likely would be even more far gone if not for vestiges of British law.
This from Mark Fathi Massoud is nothing but whitewash. He has written a book, “Shari‘a, Inshallah: Finding God in Somali Legal Politics”
“Somalia’s fight for God-given rights”
Politics professor’s new book challenges Western notions of Islam
https://news.ucsc.edu/2021/05/sharia-human-rights.html
To offer *Somalia* as a model is insanity–it is one of the very worst Islamic hell holes.
He even sneers at the Western view of human rights–even though he is supposed to be a human rights lawyer.
Mark Fathi Massoud is a dhimmi in the true sense of the word. His Catholic family had to flee Sudan when he was a child. Most who had to flee Islam are particularly clear-eyed about its threat–but there are a few who desperately try to appease Islam. Massoud is one of the latter.
Wellington says
Excellent comment, gravenimage.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Wellington.
livingengine says
CAIR Interviews Mark Fathi Massoud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP19OUm9rfw
gravenimage says
Thanks for that link, Livingengine. The CAIR interviewer, Huzaifa Shahbaz, has sneered at the idea of Jihad terrorism and has claimed that the trauma of 9/11 is about Muslims being suspected of sympathizing with terrorism. Apparently there was nothing traumatic about Jihad terror itself. He has said that 9/11 is about “bullying Muslims”. Just disgusting.
Terry Gain says
The British willingly gave up its colonial empire. Islam has retained its colonial empire. Islamic doctrine holds that one a state becomes Islamic it must remain Islamic. Muslims should be the last people in the world to talk about the evils of colonialism.
Should be. But they are not. Because lying is Islam’s 3rd sacrament after murder and rape.
gravenimage says
+1
Wellington says
+2
Raja says
Yes Terry Gain,
The cult of islam should not be talking about colonialism. To the Islamic mind colonialism is nation-building whereas it is a no no if it is done by infidels. I hate the islamic privilege and crass discrimination.
somehistory says
One last point. This fool says that there is “value” in islam.
I have spent the better part of the past hour thinking about “value.”
If one, such as I, needed to carry inside a heavy load, and had no one to hold open the screen door, which snaps closed when not being held, I would need something to use. could I use islam to do that?
Of course not.
If a neighbor had thrown away a broken rake, I could make use of this to hold open the door long enough to get the heavy load inside. The broken rake would be of “value” to me.
Now, broken rakes might not have value in every circumstance, but in some, yes.
However, there is no circumstance, no situation, no time, that islam has a value…not even for helping carry a heavy load. In fact, islam is a heavy load. A very heavy and very evil load.
b.a. freeman says
+1
jewdog says
It’s patent drivel like this that I hope will lead people to seek alternatives to the traditional four-year brainwashing boondoggle. The question is: How widespread is the skepticism? If it’s just confined to a few of us jihad watcher types, I’m pessimistic.
gregbeetham says
Israel is the one bright spot on the horizon; they do seem to understand the implications and repercussions of submitting to the demonic cult of Islam.
gravenimage says
jewdog, I take your point–but I hate seeing intelligent people cede the universities to the hard left.
Wellington says
But, maybe, just maybe, gravenimage, giving up on so-called higher education would lead to its collapse from within. A beautiful sentiment I would contend.
This I do know: A college education is, by the year, more and more of a joke. People with a bachelor’s degree in one bogus major after another, who can’t even write at an 8th grade level based on a standard from a hundred years ago, are a living farce and even a doctorate anymore doesn’t mean diddly crap in most subject areas. And, as Dennis Prager has opined, the two most destructive phenomena over the past sixty years or so have been television and college.
In short, college has become a net negative. A damn shame but the reality—not so much with respect to income potential (though being a master plumber is far more lucrative than having a degree in something ridiculous like Women’s Studies) but first and foremost respecting the welfare of society as a whole.
gravenimage says
I sadly agree with everything you say, Wellington. I’d rather see us take back the university and reinstitute its high standards rather than abandon it, though. Not an easy task, I realize…
James Lincoln says
Wellington says,
“In short, college has become a net negative.”
In most cases, in 2021, that is a true statement.
The only exceptions would be STEM / business / finance majors – who still have to put up with those pesky sociology, etc. degree requirements.
somehistory says
I was reading an article about what Tucker said regarding jill biden’s “doctor” thingy.
One of the comments was from a guy who said he met his wife’s aunt who had a doctorate in something, while he had just completed his Masters.
He said something when introduced to her, and called her by name. Her response was, “you can call me doctor.”
He replied, “Ok ;and you can call me Master.”
I don’t know if his comment was true, but it’s funny, whether or not.
gravenimage says
Very funny, Somehistory! 🙂
Infidel says
Ah, Santa Cruz! Here is a city that proudly competes w/ Berekely on the Wokeameter, and I doubt that UCSC is leading from behind. I recall the days in the 90s when I’d occasionally drive there, and once, while exploring, I was driving down a surface street in Capitola near the boundary and entering Santa Cruz city limits. It had a welcome sign: ‘Welcome to Santa Cruz – a nuclear free zone’. It was like I was leaving the Yucca Mountains
Back to this story: according to ‘Prof’ Massoud, what colonialism was there in the 7th century, when the Sassanids were running Persia, and although a part of the Byzantine empire, Egypt and Syria were pretty autonomous. I’m assuming that by colonialism, he means just European colonialism, or does he mean that the Persians and Indians were colonizing their own countries?
gravenimage says
+1
PRCS says
“These political debates – which cite terrorism and political violence in the Middle East to argue that Islam is incompatible with modern society – reinforce stereotypes that the Muslim world is uncivilized.
They also reflect ignorance of Sharia, which is not a strict legal code. Sharia means “path” or “way”: It is a broad set of values and ethical principles drawn from the Quran – Islam’s holy book – and the life of the Prophet Muhammad. As such, different people and governments may interpret Sharia differently.”
Therein lies THE issue.
The strictest “interpretation” of that totalitarian theocracy’s various texts–by so-called extremists–is as valid as the least.
Even more so, IMO.
And there is no reliable way to know when one of Allah’s slaves will go all jihad.
mortimer says
Mark Fathi Massoud, Professor of Politics and Legal Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz is shovelling hot, steaming, farm-fresh piles of TAQIYYA.
Is Mark Fathi Massoud unable to count Islam’s primary source texts for topical frequency? If not, how did he get his job?
The mandate for JIHADIC TERRORISM and ISLAMIC IMPERIALISM Is found in the 164 JIHAD VERSES in the Koran and in 31% of the primary source Islamic Trilogy is devoted to armed warfare against disbelievers.
-9% of the Koranic text is devoted to jihad;
-21% of the hadiths of Bukhari is devoted to jihad;
-67% of the Sira is devoted to jihad;
-31% of all text in the Islamic Trilogy is devoted to jihad which is a total of 327,547 words devoted to jihad.
The total text in the Islamic Trilogy devoted to jihad is 31%
-328,000 words in the Islamic trilogy are devoted to jihad-political violence against non-Muslims and apostates
A Grand Total of 31% of the text in the Islamic Trilogy devoted to jihad.
gregbeetham says
Gasp! Mortimer anyone would think you might be casting aspersions on the professor’s ability to be impartial.
(and I’m loving every minute of it)
Deirdre Cripps says
According to the Shafi’i manual, “Reliance of the Traveller” (section o25.0, on “The Caliphate”), caliphate is a communal obligation. There are several qualifying criteria for a valid caliph and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi fulfilled them. Also, there are three ways in which a caliph can legitimately be invested with office: 1) through an oath of fealty by (a council of) those “with power to enact or dissolve a pact”, who appoint/select the caliph; 2) by being appointed successor to a caliph; 3) “through seizure of power by an individual possessing the qualifications of a caliph…The caliphate of someone who seizes power is considered valid, even though his act of usurpation is disobedience, in view of the danger from the anarchy and strife that would otherwise ensue” (i.e ensue without a caliphate). ABaB came to power by one/two of these legitimate means, namely 1) through an oath of fealty by a shura council who chose him as caliph, and 3) on the ‘world stage’ effectively “through seizure of power by an individual possessing the qualifications of a caliph”. This latter legitimate means has several interesting points, so I reproduce the text in full: “the third means is through seizure of power by an individual possessing the qualifications of a caliph (H: meaning by force, since the interests of the whole might be realized through such a takeover, this being if the caliph has died, or has himself obtained office through seizure of power, i.e. when he lacks some of the necessary qualifications.) (S: As for when the office is wrested from a living caliph, then if he himself became caliph through seizure of power, the caliphate of his deposer is legally valid. But if he became caliph through an oath of fealty (def: 025.4(1)) or having been appointed as the previous caliph’s successor (def: 025.4(2», then the deposer’s caliphate is not legally valid). A takeover is also legally valid, according to the soundest position, by someone lacking moral rectitude (dis: o25.3(i» or knowledge of Sacred Law (025.3(f» (K: meaning the caliphate of a person lacking either condition is legally valid when the other conditions exist) (H: as is the takeover of someone lacking other qualifications, even if he does not possess any of them (S: besides Islam, for if a non-Muslim seizes the caliphate, it is not legally binding, and so too, according to most scholars, with someone who makes reprehensible innovations, as previously mentioned (dis: 025.3(a))). The caliphate of someone who seizes power is considered valid, even though his act of usurpation is disobedience, in view of the danger from the anarchy and strife that would otherwise ensue).” Though ISIS’ shura council swore fealty to ABaB, clearly not all Muslims thought this group spoke for them, so they might see ABaB as having come to power by the third legitimate means, from which perspective he could have been legally deposed by a rival or objector, for “when the office is wrested from a living caliph, then if he himself became caliph through seizure of power, the caliphate of his deposer is legally valid”: the caliph becomes ‘right’ by winning, or at least better than no caliph. Disgruntlement and disapproval of ABaB in the Islamic world does not delegitimise his ‘caliphate’; only someone throwing him from his horse (so to speak), or being appointed his successor would prevail. I suspect that this idea of becoming rightful caliph by seizure of power would seem so bizarre and alarming to people used to orderly western democratic process that few non-Muslims would have imagined such a thing possible. As triumphal caliph, of course ABaB could legitimately wage offensive jihad.
Jim says
Islam is the worst imperialist colonial movement in history. They conquered over 50 countries and subjected them to relentless Islamization. Now they are trying to expand and colonize Europe and America, and South America. The professor is one of those true believers who can only see the speck in someone else’s eye but not the log in their own.
PMK says
Jim, Islamists will have help from none other than Pope Francis, who has made such statements as: “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”
A far cry from the Crusades, which were waged to defend Christendom.
I wouldn’t dismiss the Islamists’ chances of neutralizing the rest of the West. They’ve had help from within, with the atheists and Communists’ efforts to discredit and destroy the Christian faith and most organized religion everywhere. The Judeo=Christian world has its back to the wall and I am not convinced we have the will to fight, after decades of anti-Western propaganda. If 9/11 didn’t mobilize the world what will?
How do we guard against the urge to surrender thinking: that’s the way God planned it.
Kenneth J Johnson says
Catholic Refugee from Somaia?? Sounds like a (pea brained) Muslem to mel.
Ken,
gravenimage says
His family fled Sudan, not Somalia. He just wrote his bowdlerized book about Somalia.
SAFI says
Well if I understood his piece correctly the gist of what he’s trying to argue is that the horrors of Sharia are basically the fault of foreign imposed secularism and secular-based legal systems which stunted sharia’s natural growth. If only it wasn’t for these evil colonial inspired infidel legal systems Sharia would have followed its supposed natural inclinations towards democracy, equality, human rights etc and evolved into something entirely benevolent like Allah had always intended it to be… ?? Abject self-delusion or simple base taqiyya? I’ll let you decide…
David Foot says
This is is all wrong, DECOLONIZATION is to blame for Moslems coming to the West and the Anglosphere in large numbers.
Sadly after WW II which HAD to be fought and remembering that USA the only charge they made was on our loans got very rich at our expense, and then Democrat Administration of Truman/ Roosevelt surrounded by Communists attacked the British Empire and all European Empires BUT Truman left the Marxist Empires intact, the Russian Empire was just behind the British Empire but they never decolonized one inch!
The other thing Truman did was throw Nationalist China under a bus leaving open the field for Marxist Mao backed by Stalin.
In the reign of Truman/ Roosevelt you find all the causes which may be the demise of the split Anglosphere and the West.
With the Western Empires the Moslems lived in successful colonies, so did the blacks, the saddest of all is Rhodesia “the Breadbasket of Africa” today it only exports refugees and it imports foreign aid! THAT is decolonization.
The only thing worse than “decolonization” was Truman’s “nation building”, for instance for a Moslem, Islam is the law of god and they don’t need legislators, and it is all clear there, Islam is deeply indoctrinated and USA wouldn’t understand that and USA would go and spend a ton trying to give democracy to people who don’t want democracy or human rights etc etc.!
An Empire only requires to keep a few well defended bases and let the locals live as they like but behaving themselves, that is the wisdom of centuries and that is what the big Islamic Empires did in their time and it worked.
David Foot says
One more thought:
There are few doctrines more colonialist and imperialist than Islam which state their need to take over ALL mankind, and they justify this need.
The Moslem Empire got in to Europe reaching the gates of Viena and through Spain in to Southern France and at that stage it was stopped and Europe was slowly liberated.
It is preposterous for a Moslem to blame colonization or slavery because they are masters at both and would like to do both today and actually STILL practice slavery today!
So if you are BLM go and complain to the Moslems/ Africans if you don’t like slavery, the British Empire was the first to fight slavery and it had to fight black kings and Moslem kings THEY were our original slave suppliers!