The Western Path

The Western Path

Friday, August 26, 2016

Islam: A Grim History

The last thirteen centuries have been largely a struggle of the West against Islam. Significant events include the Muslim takeover of much of southern Europe in the early Middle Ages, the fall of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire in 1453, the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, and the long centuries of turmoil in the Balkans. Since the days of Charles Martel and his grandson Charlemagne, some great victories have been won by the West, but the war is never over. All these historical events can easily be overlooked because of the wording of the standard history books, which blur when they should clarify. These Western books offer scattered anecdotes about "Saracens," "Moors," and "Barbary pirates," but almost never a coherent picture. That is because everywhere in the modern world we see the problem of "political correctness," but especially in academic situations. Every piece of paper that appears in public must emphasize "multiculturalism" at all costs, in spite of the fact that the expansion of one culture must lead to the shrinking of another.

Yet various Muslim groups, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, have detailed working plans for integrating Muslims into positions of power everywhere in the West. The non-Muslim world has no corresponding plans to put forward in opposition. People who have plans win; people who do not have plans lose.

Islam affects Europe in many ways. Saudi Arabia pours money into the West for the purpose of "education," i.e. propaganda. Many Western academic institutions receive grants from Saudi Arabia, or programs are set up with Saudi funding. Even Harvard University has a big Islamic-studies program. At the same time, the numerous mosques in the West serve as training grounds for young Muslims who live in those countries.

Another Muslim influence in the West is drugs. Opium from Afghanistan and Pakistan is turned into heroin and sold to the West, but of course not to Muslims. The heroin serves two purposes: it provides more money for the propagation of Islam, and it undermines the Western economy and Western ways of life.

Large-scale immigration of Muslims needs to be examined in terms of the growth of the European Union. The EU is quite undemocratic: the EU government is not an elected one, its constitution is unreadable, and the people of Europe have little input to EU decisions. The EU is a dictatorship that crept over Europe by disguising itself as a series of councils, agreements, co-operative movements, and so on, never referring to itself as a political power that was destroying self-government and democracy.

It was Charles de Gaulle, in the 1960s, who first opened the doors of Europe to massive Muslim immigration, although as a consequence France is now in turmoil. But pro-Islamic statements can be found throughout EU documentation, and the ultimate goal is to create a European-Arab state, in competition with the US.

One task that the EU set for itself was to halt the depopulation of European countries. Depopulation is bad for business, so politicians expanded the immigration of Muslims, who would provide cheap labor, support "labor" political parties, and breed quickly in order to reverse the depopulation. At the same time, friendly ties to richer Muslim countries would provide energy security to Europe, which except for Norway is largely without its own fossil fuels.

The danger with the spread of Islam, however, is that there is no such thing as "moderate Islam" versus "radical Islam," contrary to popular opinion. Christianity comes in various designs, but Islam comes in only one form, the morally anachronistic one that was invented in the seventh century and has remained unchanged since then.

The history of Islam is largely a history of slavery, even if the 1,065 pages of the Macmillan Encyclopedia of World Slavery have only about a dozen pages on its Islamic forms. But Muslim slavery was geographically widespread: the Arabs themselves were slave owners and dealers, but so were many other Muslims of North and East Africa, and of a great deal of western and central Asia; these were people speaking not only Arabic but also a number of Turkic, Iranian, and other languages. And the Turks later formed the Ottoman Empire, quite famous for its cruelty and for its large proportion of slaves.

Slavery under Islam lasted for fourteen long centuries, beginning in the time of Mohammed, and it has not ended yet. Certainly with the ending of slavery in the US in the 1860s, the slave trade of the world was almost completely dominated by Muslims.

As George MacMunn explains in Slavery Through the Ages, slavery in the Americas was mostly for "production" in the cotton fields and elsewhere, whereas slavery under Islam was mostly for "consumption" -- sexual consumption. Sex slaves included both male and female, with the males generally castrated. By law a Muslim man could have four wives, but he could have any number of concubines, and so a wealthy man might father hundreds of children. Having large numbers of female sex slaves was therefore instrumental in the rapid growth of the world Muslim population. It is sometimes said that Muslim slavery was kinder than that of the US, since the Muslims often freed their slaves. But when Muslim slaves became too old to retain their sexual charms and were "freed," they then had little means of acquiring food or shelter and lived a precarious existence.

Muslims are even cruel to one another, and especially to their women. Female genital mutilation is customary. "Honor killing" is common: every year, according to Robert Fisk and others, over twenty thousand women worldwide die at the hands of their own families, and the majority of these women are Muslim. Yet the term "honor killing" is horrendously inaccurate. Most people in the modern West do not regard it as "honorable" for a man to torture and murder a female member of his family on the basis of some slight act of disobedience, often imaginary. Such "disobedience" even includes being raped: a raped woman is a shame to her family, and the way to remove the shame is to remove the woman.

Of the world's major religions, it is especially Islam that allows such brutality to happen with little more than token denunciation by the religious authorities or recognition by the Western press. Yet very few Muslims are willing to protest against these terrible killings. It is nonsense to excuse such behavior by saying it is "un-Islamic"; statistically, it is very much "Islamic."

The misunderstanding of the vast difference in perspective between Muslims and Westerners might be due to the fact that the debate is assumed merely to involve the respective merits of two religions, Islam and Christianity. Yet this assumption is wrong on two counts.

In the first place, Muslims regard it as self-evident that Allah spoke first to Moses, then to Jesus, and finally and most clearly to Mohammed. For Muslims, there is no possibility of a "dialog" among various religions.

The second and more important reason why it is not entirely logical to compare Islam and Christianity is that the former is, in some ways, more like a political movement than a religion. Every major religion has at times done some proselytizing "at the point of a sword," but that has always been more true of Islam. Quite clearly, Muslims think they are the "chosen people," even if the Western news-media do their best to obscure the pronouncement.

Muslim culture was created in the early seventh century out of a tribal society that was harsh and primitive, suited to a cruel and arid land, one that could barely support human life. To the basic pre-Muslim culture was added an imitation of the European life of that same century, although even Europe was in its own Dark Ages, a priest-ridden world of famine and tyranny. For example, Muslims copied European clothing of that time, and still do: Arabic women's clothing of the present day is almost identical to that of European women in the early Middle Ages. Even the Arabic language was frozen in that era: Arabic still bears strong marks of similarity to ancient European languages, not only of the seventh century but also of a far more distant time. Even the scripture is an imitation of earlier forms: the Koran is basically a bad translation of the Bible, although abbreviated and disorganized.

Yet the Koran, in spite of its occasional references to the Christian era, is in many ways ideologically closer to the world of the early city-states, such as that of the Assyrians, in which warfare would include the impalement of all male prisoners, and with either death or slavery as the fate of the females. Mass destruction of defeated enemies was characteristic of the ancient Near East, but Western civilization has gone through many changes since then, and most of the world has advanced both morally and spiritually since those early times.

As Fjordman (Peder Jensen) says in "Why the EU Needs to Be Destroyed, and Soon," it might even be best to let the Muslims keep pouring into Europe. A massive influx of Muslims would eventually destroy the EU, so at least those high rates of immigration would accomplish something useful. Since the Muslim population grows more quickly than that of the other inhabitants of each European country, the likelihood of a general collapse of the EU would therefore increase noticeably with each passing year.

But Muslims are spreading even further than Europe. According to the "Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life," the global Muslim population is expected to rise from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030, twice the rate of the non-Muslim population. In recent years there has been a huge but mostly silent emigration from Muslim lands into many countries, but especially into Ireland, Canada, Finland, Norway, New Zealand, the US, Sweden, Niger, Italy, Paraguay, Laos, Guatemala, Timor-Leste, and the UK.

Why is this movement of population occurring? It may be that Muslims are thinking they should leave their homelands as quickly as possible. That's particularly the case for those Muslims who live in countries around the Persian Gulf -- Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. When they were no longer supposed to be making their living by running the slave trade, the Gulf Arabs switched to collecting money from the oil industry, as the Americans and British were busy drilling wells. Now the oil is starting to dry up, and the chances of making a living at anything else are rather slim, because the Gulf countries are really just sand. As a further result, there is also almost no agriculture. But, for now, many Muslims are wealthy enough to make investments in other countries.

Then there's the question of where Muslims can go. They're not always welcome in Europe, although that doesn't stop them from trying. Far better to find a land such as Canada, where people won't notice what's happening, where the locals have been brainwashed into thinking that theirs should be "a nation of immigrants," and where people have been convinced that it's better to be "multicultural" than to take pride in having a culture of their own.



No comments:

Post a Comment